Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules ... - Nyidanmark.dk

1 downloads 270 Views 3MB Size Report
Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Canada. The study must ..... The Asylum department of Danish Red Cross operates mos
Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries

www.newtodenmark.dk Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries

Drafted and translated with input and support from the IGC

Drafted and translated with input and support from the IGC

June 2009

Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries

Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries

June 2009

Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries Published by: Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs Holbergsgade 6 DK-1057 Copenhagen K Tel.: +45 33 92 33 80 Fax: +45 33 11 12 39 E-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 978-87-92522-15-3 Electronic ISBN: 978-87-92522-16-0 Price: DKK 100, including VAT Issue: 500 Front page photo: Colourbox Other photos: Polfoto Printing and layout: PrinfoHolbæk-Hedehusene-Køge a/s The publication is available from: Schultz Distribution Herstedvang 4 DK-2620 Albertslund Tel.: +45 33 22 73 00 www.schultzboghandel.dk The electronic publication can be downloaded from www.nyidanmark.dk

Page 2

Contents 1.

Introduction...................................................................................................... 5 1.1.

Background to appointment of the committee....................................................... 5

1.2.

Committee of Experts’ terms of reference ........................................................... 5

1.3.

Composition of the Committee of Experts ............................................................ 6

2.

Summary.......................................................................................................... 8

3.

Reports on the countries studied ......................................................................... 10

4.

5.

6.

3.1

Preparation of country reports ........................................................................ 10

3.2

Denmark ................................................................................................... 12

3.3

Canada ..................................................................................................... 29

3.4

Finland ..................................................................................................... 36

3.5

The Netherlands .......................................................................................... 44

3.6

Norway ..................................................................................................... 53

3.7

United Kingdom .......................................................................................... 64

3.8

Sweden .................................................................................................... 73

3.9

Germany ................................................................................................... 81

EU legal instruments in the area of asylum ............................................................. 92 4.1

Introduction ............................................................................................... 92

4.2

Adopted legal instruments in the area of asylum ................................................... 92

4.3

Made or expected proposals in the asylum area .................................................. 100

Possibility of setting up accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin ................ 102 5.1.

Introduction ............................................................................................. 102

5.2.

Historical outline of the development of the region of origin concept ....................... 102

5.3.

Denmark’s region-of-origin initiative ............................................................... 108

5.4.

EU and UNHCR activities .............................................................................. 113

5.5.

Possibility of setting up centres in the regions of origin ......................................... 116

5.6.

Quota refugees ......................................................................................... 121

Deliberations and proposals from the Committee of Experts ...................................... 126 6.1.

Page 3

Adjusting/clarifying the Danish asylum practice .................................................. 126

6.2.

Deliberations on the concept of protection in the Aliens Act................................... 126

6.3.

Legal counsel for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers ........................................ 127

6.4.

Processing applications from unaccompanied minor asylum seekers .......................... 128

6.5.

Conditions for asylum seekers during and after application processing ....................... 128

6.5.1. Special accommodation for asylum seekers rejected in the first instance ..................... 129 6.5.2. Participation in youth education programmes ...................................................... 130 6.5.3. Possibilities for asylum seekers to work .............................................................. 130 6.5.4. Changes to the benefit system ........................................................................ 130 6.6.

Possibility of setting up centres in the regions of origin ......................................... 132

6.7.

Quota refugees ......................................................................................... 134

Page 4

1. Introduction 1.1.

Background to appointment of the committee

The government platform, Liberal-Conservative Government III, “A society of possibilities” (November 2007), states that the government will appoint a committee of experts to study the asylum rules of other countries, including an analysis of the differences under which asylum seekers are received and the possibilities of establishing accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin. In December 2007, the government appointed the Committee of Experts as a committee of civil servants with representatives of the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs (including the Danish Immigration Service), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Ministry of Justice and the secretariat of the Refugee Appeals Board. The committee was charged with studying the asylum rules and practice in other countries and on this basis preparing recommendations for adjusting the conditions for asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers. Moreover, the committee was to examine the possibilities of establishing accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin. 1.2.

Committee of Experts’ terms of reference

The terms of reference were as follows: “1. The government platform, Liberal-Conservative Government III, “A society of possibilities” (November 2007), states that the government will appoint a committee of experts to study the asylum rules of other countries, including an analysis of the differences under which asylum seekers are received and the possibilities of establishing accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin. 2. Against this background, the government has decided to appoint a Committee of Experts. The committee will be in the form of a committee of civil servants. As the study addresses conditions in other countries, the committee can obtain assistance from the authorities in individual countries and from international organisations like the IGC (Inter-governmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees) and the IOM (International Organization for Migration). The committee can also have a private consulting firm undertake parts of the study, if deemed necessary. 3. In compliance with the government platform, the Committee of Experts is to study the asylum rules and practice in other countries. The material Danish asylum and protection rules fully meet Denmark’s international obligations under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, Denmark is in line with the joint EU rules in this area, which are not binding on Denmark due to its opt-outs. There may be a reason to examine whether the asylum rules of other countries warrant adjusting and clarifying Danish asylum practice. How other countries implement their international obligations should be examined, particularly in the area of protection and in terms of the non-refoulement Page 5

principle (the principle not to expel or return an alien to a country where he or she risks persecution). In this connection, the Committee of Experts must consider any adjustment of the Danish rules to which such examination might give rise. Moreover, the Committee of Experts must take a particular look at whether the procedures and conditions applicable to asylum seekers during and after case processing need to be amended. For the purpose of this evaluation, it will be relevant to study the conditions of asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers in other countries. On the basis of this study, the Committee of Experts is to prepare recommendations for adjusting asylum seekers’ and rejected asylum seekers’ conditions in Denmark. The conditions in the following countries should be studied first: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Canada. The study must distinguish between the conditions during processing of the asylum case (including any processing of an appeal) and when the application for asylum has been rejected (rejected asylum seekers). The study must include the following: -

Housing at accommodation centres Possibility of private accommodation Access to employment Access to education for adults Access to education for children outside the accommodation centre Access to other activities Obligations of asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers Financial support Conditions for children at accommodation centres, including the possibility of leisure activities for children Assistance with returning to country of origin

The committee is to study both rules and practice. 4. Moreover, the committee is to examine the possibilities of establishing accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin. Experience gained by other countries can be included in this work. 5. The Committee of Experts is to complete its work in the summer of 2008. The committee will be appointed by representatives of the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs (chairmanship), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Ministry of Justice and the Refugee Appeals Board. The Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs acts as secretariat to the Committee of Experts.” 1.3.

Composition of the Committee of Experts

The composition of the committee was as follows:

Page 6

Kim Lunding, Head of Department, Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs (chairman) Jonas Bering Liisberg, Head of Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (alternate: Lars Bo Larsen, Head of Section) Ole Hasselgaard, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice (alternates: Mette UndallBehrend, Head of Section (until 1 December 2008) and Lene Steen, Head of Section (from 1 December 2008)) Stig Torp Henriksen, Head of Secretariat, Secretariat of the Refugee Appeals Board In addition, the Danish Immigration Service was represented in the committee by: Anni Fode, Centre Director Kristina Rosado, Head of Section Committee secretaries were: Thomas vom Braucke, Deputy Head of Division, Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs Jan van Deurs, Senior Legal Adviser, Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs The Committee of Experts held six meetings.

Page 7

2. Summary Under the terms of reference, the Committee of Experts was had the task of studying the asylum rules and practice of other countries and examining asylum seekers’ and rejected asylum seekers’ conditions in other countries. On the basis of this study, the committee was to consider relevant adjustments, if any, to the Danish rules and prepare recommendations for adjusting asylum seekers’ and rejected asylum seekers’ conditions in Denmark. Moreover, the committee was to examine the possibilities of establishing accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin. Chapter 3 of the report contains comparable country reports on the seven countries studied, and Denmark. Chapter 4 of the report outlines the EU rules relevant to the study in this report. Several of the countries studied are thus bound by EU rules in the area. Chapter 5 of the report discusses the concept of regions of origin, including the possibility of establishing accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin and the relationship between protection in the regions of origin and refugee resettlement in Denmark. Chapter 6 of the report contains the Committee of Experts’ considerations and recommendations. The committee recommendations can be summarised as follows: -

The Committee of Experts recommends that unaccompanied minor asylum seekers be given the possibility of legal assistance, also after the conclusion of the asylum case.

-

The Committee of Experts recommends that the procedures for cases relating to unaccompanied minors be scrutinised with a view to assessing whether the procedures can be strengthened.

-

The Committee of Experts recommends that more focus be put on providing asylum seekers rejected in the first instance with information and advisory services about the consequences of a possible final rejection by the Refugee Appeals Board and about the possibility of assistance returning as well as about discussing the future prospects of an eventual return.

-

Today, rejected asylum seekers are, as far as possible, given the opportunity to start on a youth education programme and continue it once they have full legal capacity. The legal situation in the area is unclear, however, for which reason the Committee of Experts recommends that clear authority be established for this practice.

-

The Committee of Experts recommends that the allowance system be simplified to make cash allowances for children’s livelihood independent of the asylum case status in future.

-

The Committee of Experts recommends that the amount of supplementary allowance on the transition from the registration stage to the departure stage not be reduced. The committee also recommends that rejected asylum seekers who do not cooperate on

Page 8

their departure remain comprised by the food allowance programme and thus be deprived of the possibility of earning supplementary allowances. -

The Committee of Experts recommends that the current practice of accommodating all newly arrived asylum seekers at an accommodation centre where they are comprised by the free meal scheme be maintained.

-

The Committee of Experts recommends that Denmark be actively involved in ongoing EU efforts in the area to establish accommodation centres in regions of origin and help apply experience gained from the Danish region-of-origin activities undertaken since 2002 in any joint solutions at EU level.

Page 9

3. Reports on the countries studied 3.1

Preparation of country reports

The country reports have been prepared by a staff member from the Danish Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs and approved by the Committee of Experts. In connection with the preparation of the country reports, the staff member has been stationed in the secretariat of the organisation Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (IGC) in Geneva, Switzerland. Financed by the participating states (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany and the USA), the secretariat acts as a think tank in the field of migration and is tasked with facilitating the exchange of migration-related information between participating states. An English questionnaire based on terms of reference has been made and forwarded to the immigration authorities in the countries whose asylum system has been described in the country reports. As part of this work, the staff member from the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs participated in the 10th Conference on the Reception of Asylum Seekers, held in Malta in March 2008 and which included representatives from states as well as international and private organisations. The agenda included knowledge sharing pertaining to the reception conditions of asylum seekers, including conditions for particularly vulnerable groups. After receiving the questionnaire, all the countries studied returned their responses. Answering the questionnaire was complicated by the fact that it was made for the purpose of comparing the Danish asylum system and that of the countries studied even though the countries may differ significantly in terms of legislative and administrative traditions as well as conditions in the area. In this respect, Canada and Germany both stand out in the sense that they divide responsibility for receiving asylum seekers between the federal authorities and the individual provinces or states. The study also required a visit to the German state of Bavaria, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to obtain a true and fair response to the Danish questions. Draft country reports were prepared after responses from the individual countries were received, follow-up visits were conducted and supplementary data was collected. The country reports take the above comparison complications in to account, being designed and structured to allow easy comparison of the individual countries’ asylum systems and the Danish system even though the above-mentioned differences made comparison in some areas difficult. For example, the Danish division into various stages impacting services and activities does not necessarily apply to the same extent in the countries studied. The draft country reports were sent to the countries studied so that they could approve their content and make any comments or give supplementary answers. In December 2008,

Page 10

the drafts were also sent to the Danish embassies in the countries studied for perusal and comments. As concerns the statistics information in the country reports, all figures have been retrieved from IGC’s database, regularly updated by IGC’s secretariat. The figures are based on reports from the IGC countries. To ensure the highest degree of comparability of the countries’ statistical data, IGC’s secretariat has had to apply some uniform, overall categories, such as for all types of residence permit resulting from an asylum case that does not lead to the asylum seeker’s recognition as a refugee under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. As it will appear from the country reports below, a wide variety of such subsidiary, complementary or humanitarian statuses are applied. The Danish Immigration Service prepared the section on resettlement programmes on the basis of information retrieved from its contacts among the resettlement authorities of the countries studied. The reports were completed in January 2009. As indicated above, the process of validating the information in the country reports of the countries studied has been relatively time consuming and of varying duration depending on the country. Revalidating the information will thus not guarantee uniform topicality in terms of all the country information. However, the information in the section on Denmark was updated at the end of May 2009. The statistical data in the report was updated with the latest figures from IGC’s database from mid-May 2009. 3.1.1. Framework of the country reports Attempts have been made to structure the country reports to render the information about country-specific conditions comparable. With Danish rules and practical conditions as the basis, the information from the other countries was then adapted to that model. The country reports distinguish between the various stages of an asylum case. A distinction is thus made between three main stages of an asylum case: -

The initial stage, where the asylum seeker is registered as an asylum seeker Processing of the asylum case The phase where rejected asylum seekerscase is closed and the applicant is not granted asylum

The last stage for rejected asylum seekers may be further divided into rejected asylum seekers that assist in their return and those that do not.

Page 11

3.2

Denmark

3.2.1. Introduction Denmark has an area of 43,098 square kilometres and a population of about 5.5 million. Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government system without federal structure. 3.2.2. Organisation and asylum procedure The Danish Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs holds overall responsibility for immigration affairs in Denmark. However, in the asylum area, competencies are divided between the Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Appeals Board. The Immigration Service, which is a government agency under the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, processes first instance asylum cases. When an alien travels to Denmark and applies for asylum, the asylum seeker will first be registered with the Danish National Police Commissioner’s Office, which is tasked with establishing the identity of the asylum seeker and how he or she travelled to Denmark. Against this background, the Immigration Service will decide whether the application should be processed by Denmark or another country. This part of the asylum case is designated the initial stage until the decision to consider the case in Denmark is made. If the Immigration Service decides that the case should be processed in Denmark, it enters stage two. Asylum cases can be processed according to three different procedures: 1) Normal procedure with automatic access to appeal to the Refugee Appeals Board; 2) manifestly unfounded procedure without access to appeal to the Refugee Appeals Board in case of rejection and 3) expedited version of the manifestly unfounded procedure without access to appeal to the Refugee Appeals Board in case of rejection. A special procedure exists for processing cases regarding unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. For instance, this procedure entails that all unaccompanied minor asylum seekers are given a personal representative, who assists the child and participates in, e.g., asylum interviews at the Immigration Service and when the case is processed in the Refugee Appeals Board. Until a personal representative has been appointed, the child will be assisted by a staff member from the Danish Red Cross – i.e. an observer. The child will be granted legal counsel in cases processed under the manifestly unfounded procedure. The legal counsel will assist the child in the processing of his or her case in the Danish Refugee Council. The asylum seeker completes an application form stating, for instance, his or her basis for applying for asylum in Denmark. The Immigration Service will then hold an interview with the asylum seeker, where the applicant can specify his or her motives for seeking asylum. However, this does not apply to cases processed under the expedited version of the manifestly unfounded procedure. Cases are processed under this procedure solely based on the applicant’s nationality where this in itself gives cause to suppose that the applicant

Page 12

does not meet the criteria for asylum or protection in Denmark. These cases are immediately transferred for processing, and applicants do not fill out application forms but are referred for interviews with the Immigration Service. After the interview, the Immigration Service will consider whether further information is required before the case can be settled. This may include obtaining further background information about the country from which the asylum seeker comes from or an investigation into whether the asylum seeker has been tortured. Only then will the Immigration Service make a decision. In this connection, the Immigration Service will decide whether the case should be settled as part of the normal procedure or the (ordinary) manifestly unfounded procedure. If the case is processed according to the normal procedure, any rejection of asylum will mean that the case is automatically brought before the Refugee Appeals Board. If the case is processed under the manifestly unfounded procedure, the case will be sent to the Danish Refugee Council for further assessment. The Danish Refugee Council is an independent, private organisation. If the Danish Refugee Council – after having interviewed the asylum seeker – agrees with the Immigration Service that the case is manifestly unfounded, the application will be rejected without the possibility of bringing the case before the Refugee Appeals Board. However, if the Danish Refugee Council disagrees with the Immigration Service, and the Immigration Service maintains that no basis for granting asylum exists, then the case transfers to the normal procedure and a rejection will be brought before the Refugee Appeals Board, which will make a final decision. The Refugee Appeals Board is the supreme complaints body for decisions in asylum application cases. The Refugee Appeals Board is an independent body with judicial powers. For the processing of cases the board is composed of a chairman, who must be a judge, and two other members – an attorney and a staff member from the department of the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, who may not as part of his or her work for the board take instructions from the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs. The Refugee Appeals Board usually processes the cases orally. The asylum seeker is granted legal counsel to safeguard his or her interests during processing before the Refugee Appeals Board. The asylum seeker is entitled to stay in Denmark until the Refugee Appeals Board makes a decision or until the case is settled under the manifestly unfounded procedure. If the Refugee Appeals Board agrees with the Immigration Service’s rejection, the decision is upheld and the asylum seeker is usually required to leave the country immediately. If the Refugee Appeals Board disagrees with the Immigration Service’s rejection, the asylum seeker will be granted a residence permit either as a refugee with convention status or protection status.

Page 13

3.2.3. Statistics1 Number of asylum claims submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 10,077

2001 12,512

2002 6,068

2003 4,593

2004 3,222

2005 2,260

2006 1,918

2007 2,226

2008 2,380*

* Provisional figure

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection Rejections

2000 1,207 2,254 3,573

2001 1,847 2,711 4,133

2002 1,133 1,389 6,423

2003 492 279 2,668

2004 105 106 1,946

2005 93 136 1,098

2006 108 62 754

2007 70 403 376

2008* 200 315 527

* Provisional figures

3.2.4. Protection of refugees 3.2.4.1. Convention status Denmark has acceded to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is incorporated into the Danish Aliens Act by reference. Thus, section 7(1) of the Danish Aliens Act specifies that, on application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien falls within the provisions of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951). Furthermore, section 31(2) of the act specifies that an alien falling within section 7(1) may not be returned to a country where he or she risks persecution on the grounds set out in Article 1 A of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951), or where the alien will not be protected against being sent on to such country. 3.2.4.2. Other grounds for protection Because of The Danish reservation in the area of justice and home affairs, Denmark is not bound by EU asylum rules. Denmark has acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In Denmark, ECHR is incorporated by reference; see Act on the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates that the Convention and a number of protocols and additional protocols apply in Denmark. Moreover, section 7(2) of the Aliens Act stipulates that, on application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien risks the death penalty or subjection to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he or she is returned to his or her country of origin. This provision is made in accordance with Article 3 and Protocol no. 6 of the ECHR, which stipulates an absolute ban on deportation with the risk of the death penalty or torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1

As mentioned in section 3.1., statistical data in this report are based on statistical data from IGC’s secretariat. The

figures for Denmark are the so-called “gross applicant figures”, i.e. all applications, including those not processed because the applicant’s case is being processed in another EU country under the Dublin Regulation.

Page 14

Finally, section 31(1) of the Aliens Act stipulates that an alien may not be returned to a country where he or she will be at risk of the death penalty or of subjection to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where the alien will not be protected against being sent on to such country. This prohibition against returning the alien is phrased to correspond with the prohibition stipulated in Article 3 and Protocol no. 6 of ECHR. The Danish rules offer protection to the extent warranted by Denmark’s international obligations. Denmark has no protection rules exceeding its international obligations. 3.2.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds Under section 9b(1) of the Aliens Act, residence permit may be granted on humanitarian grounds to an alien registered as an asylum seeker in Denmark if major humanitarian considerations speak decisively in favour of this. The applicant must be in such a position that major humanitarian considerations conclusively substantiate the granting of a residence permit. When a case is assessed, emphasis is mainly placed on the applicant’s personal circumstances, including whether the applicant suffers from a serious physical or mental disease or is from a family with small children coming from a country at war. If the applicant suffers from a very serious disease, which may warrant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, the assessment will include whether the person concerned can get the necessary treatment for the disease in his or her own country. The Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs decides whether a residence permit can be granted on humanitarian grounds. The cases cannot be appealed to other administrative authorities. Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers may be granted residence permit if there is reason to assume that they will be put in an emergency situation upon return to their countries of origin; see section 9c(3) (ii) of the Aliens Act. The Immigration Service makes decisions in these cases, which may be appealed to the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs. 3.2.5. Resettlement Denmark has a quota scheme of 1,500 people over three years. Denmark thus resettles approx. 500 quota refugees annually. Of these, 75 places are generally allocated to urgent cases, including people at imminent risk of assault in their countries of residence or of being returned to their countries of origin, and 30 places are allocated to people with special needs for treatment (so-called twenty-or-more cases). The Immigration Service offers quota refugees resettlement on the basis of an interview made during a quota trip to the countries of the refugees’ residence or on the basis of a written presentation by the UNHCR. The majority are offered resettlement in connection with quota trips. Only urgent cases and cases relating to persons with special treatment needs may be processed following a written submission from the UNHCR.

Page 15

Convention, protection or subsidiary status may be granted, corresponding to the possibilities of being granted residence permit, if the quota refugee has entered Denmark as a spontaneous asylum seeker. Quota refugees – disregarding urgent cases and persons with special treatment needs – must also meet the supplementary selection criteria on the quota refugee’s possibility of settling in Denmark and benefitting from the residence permit. In this respect, emphasis is placed on the quota refugee’s language skills, educational background, work experience, family situation, network, age and motivation. An overall assessment of the supplementary criteria is made, and families are assessed together. Moreover, the quota refugees must sign the Declaration regarding the conditions for resettlement in Denmark and undergo a medical examination. Quota refugees selected during a quota trip attend a pre-departure course about Denmark. The course lasts for five days and takes 20 hours, ten of which are earmarked for a Danish language course held by a teacher in Danish from a language centre and the other ten for training in social and cultural matters by a teacher from the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs/Immigration Service. After arriving in Denmark, quota refugees will take part in a three-year integration scheme together with other refugees. The Danish quota scheme was amended by Act no. 403 of 1 June 2005 on amendment of the Aliens Act. The amendments, which entered into force on 1 July 2005, concerned both rules and procedures. The following briefly describes the Immigration Service’s experience with certain changes in the quota area. It should be noted that the impact of these amendments has not been evaluated. 3.2.5.1 Broader selection criteria The amendment of the act made it possible to offer resettlement to a broader group of quota refugees. Section 8 of the Aliens Act on quota refugees was extended to offer resettlement not only under section 8(1) and (2), corresponding to section 7(1) and (2) on spontaneous asylum seekers for convention status and protection status, but also under section 8(3), corresponding to the other provisions of the Aliens Act, according to which a person would obtain a residence permit if this person travelled to Denmark as an asylum seeker, i.e. a residence permit on humanitarian grounds; see section 9b, obstacles to return, see section 9c(2), unaccompanied minors; see section 9c(3), green card scheme; see section 9a(1), family reunification; see section 9(1), see subsection 18 second sentence, and exceptional reasons; see section 9c(1), see section 4 second sentence. 3.2.5.2 Supplementary selection criteria Together with the expansion of persons eligible for resettlement, a provision on supplementary selection criteria was introduced in section 8(4). On selecting persons assessed for residence permit under section 8(1)-(3), the alien’s possibility of establishing roots in Denmark and benefitting from the residence permit must carry weight, including his or her language qualifications, education and training, work experience, family situation, network, age and motivation.

Page 16

People comprised by the categories for urgent cases, i.e. people in risk of immediate return to their countries of residence or imminent risk of assault in the country of residence and people comprised by the twenty-or-more cases, i.e. people suffering from diseases requiring special treatment that cannot be treated in the country of residence, are excepted from the supplementary selection criteria. In all cases comprised by the supplementary selection criteria, the Immigration Service makes a specific and overall assessment of the supplementary criteria. Families are assessed as a whole. 3.2.5.3 Introduction of medical examinations Furthermore, section 8 of the Aliens Act was extended with the provision in section 8(5) stating that people whose eligibility for resettlement is under consideration must undergo a medical examination in the country of residence before the Immigration Service makes a final decision. The purpose of these examinations is to find evidence of whether the person concerned is a carrier of particularly communicable diseases, see the Act on Measures against Communicable diseases (Act no. 114 of 21 March 1979 as amended), and should therefore not be offered resettlement in Denmark. In addition, the examinations are meant to ensure a better information basis for the Immigration Service to screen the individual quota refugee for housing in a local authority and for the local authority to prepare the relevant refugee’s settlement in the local authority. The Immigration Service thinks that the medical examinations contribute information important in assessing whether a person should be comprised by the twenty-or-more category and in screening quota refugees for housing in a local authority. Local authorities’ use of medical exam results from the country of residence has not been studied. On the basis of feedback from information meetings for local authorities that receive quota refugees, the Immigration Service assesses that local authorities use these medical exam results only to a limited extent. 3.2.5.4 Pre-departure courses The amendment of the act also introduced pre-departure courses for quota refugees. The pre-departure courses are intended for quota refugees selected during quota trips. The sole exceptions are urgent cases where health or safety considerations demand that the person concerned should travel to Denmark immediately after a residence permit has been granted and thus before the course. The courses are conducted in the refugees’ countries of residence after they have been granted residence permits and before they travel to Denmark. Through basic information about Danish society and life in Denmark, the courses must help ease the quota refugees’ transition from living in the country of residence to living in Denmark as best as possible. Moreover, the participants are to be motivated to be proactive and independent in their own integration process. Pre-departure courses include 20 hours of tuition, ten of which involve learning Danish and ten learning about Danish social and cultural matters. Page 17

The courses include the following 10 lessons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Introduction to course and curriculum Reception in Denmark and the first period as a new citizen in Denmark Introduction process Information about the Aliens Act School and education Work and the labour market Everyday life Cultural understanding, norms and values Denmark – a democratic society Geography

The participants will receive teaching materials, including the book Citizen in Denmark, which to the extent possible has been translated into a language the refugees understand. The materials are used as part of the course, but the participants are also encouraged to study them on their own or in groups until they travel to Denmark. During 2006, the Immigration Service and the Ministry of Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs made an internal evaluation of the first two pre-departure courses. As a result of this evaluation, class divisions were changed so that teaching now aims at three age groups: 6-11, 12-17 and 18+. Activities are arranged for small children while their parents participate in the course. All pre-departure courses have been evaluated by the participants and teachers. These evaluations have prompted minor changes in the teaching material, etc. The Immigration Service’s experience shows that pre-departure courses help prepare quota refugees for their future life in Denmark. The participants are highly motivated and make a great and active effort to gain knowledge about Denmark and learn Danish. Although the course covers a wide range of topics, refugees clearly obtain a basic knowledge about Danish society and learn simple dialogues in Danish and get an impression of how teaching is done in Denmark. On the basis of feedback from local authorities, the Immigration Service assesses that predeparture courses have a positive impact. The local authorities report on what quota refugees have learned in a number of focus areas in the courses and the teaching material, and on refugees’ success using simple Danish expressions and dialogues right after their arrival in Denmark. 3.2.5.5 Cooperation between Immigration Service and the local authorities Since the act was amended, the Immigration Service has heightened its efforts to start a dialogue with local authorities on selecting and receiving quota refugees. After a group of quota refugees has come to Denmark, the Immigration Service contacts a number of local authorities to hear how the refugees’ reception went and how their integration into the local authority is going. The Immigration Service includes information about refugees’ ability to integrate into various local authorities in Denmark when making proposals to the minister on how to allocate quota placements in coming years.

Page 18

After each quota selection trip and pre-departure course, the Immigration Service invites the receiving local authorities and any voluntary organisations in these local authorities to participate in an information meeting. At the meetings, general information is given about the group of quota refugees and the pre-departure course. In the Immigration Service’s opinion and on the basis of positive feedback from the local authorities, the meetings not only give participants a good impression of the refugee groups and the knowledge about Denmark they have obtained from the pre-departure course, but also let integration staff in the local authorities establish contacts across local-authority borders. 3.2.6. Terms and conditions for spontaneous asylum seekers 3.2.6.1. Accommodation Generally, asylum seekers must live at an accommodation centre while their asylum case is being processed. However, in special cases and for certain groups of asylum seekers, permission for private accommodation, funded or unfunded, annex accommodation and accommodation in a special house outside the accommodation centre may be applied for and granted, subject to application. If an asylum seeker is granted unfunded accommodation, the host bears all costs of maintaining the asylum seeker. However, the asylum seeker can still use the healthcare services offered at the accommodation centre to which he or she is connected. Asylum seekers who are married to or the civil partner of a person living in Denmark must generally live with such spouse/partner, who is also obliged to maintain the asylum seeker. The Asylum department of Danish Red Cross operates most accommodation centres. Jammerbugt Local Authority also runs a centre. 3.2.6.1.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers at the initial stage generally stay at the Sandholm centre, which serves as an accommodation centre for all new asylum seekers. Asylum seekers may come and go as they wish. During the initial stage, the police may decide that the asylum seeker must report to the police if deemed necessary to ensure the presence of the asylum seeker. 3.2.6.1.2. Asylum case processing While the asylum authorities process the cases, asylum seekers move to a second-stage accommodation centre. The Immigration Service has made an agreement with the Asylum Department of the Danish Red Cross and Jammerbugt Local Authority on operating a number of second-stage accommodation centres and special centres for single women, unaccompanied minors and residents in need of intensive care located throughout Denmark. The asylum seekers may come and go as they wish. During the processing of the case, the police may decide that the asylum seeker must report regularly, e.g. if the asylum seeker does not cooperate in the processing by stating his or her identity or how he or she travelled to Denmark. 3.2.6.1.3. Rejected asylum seekers If asylum is rejected and an alien does not assist in his or her departure, the National Police Commissioner’s Office requests that the Immigration Service move the asylum seeker to the accommodation centres in Sandholm or Avnstrup, both of which are departure centres. The

Page 19

police may decide that the rejected asylum seeker must report regularly to the police, if he or she is uncooperative regarding departure. This transfer takes place for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers under the age of 18. 3.2.6.2. Healthcare services Asylum seekers are not generally covered by the Danish healthcare system and do not have access to the same services as Danish citizens. However, the regions are obligated to provide emergency healthcare to all – including asylum seekers. If an asylum seeker is married to or the civil partner of a person with a residence permit, the spouse/partner residing in Denmark must maintain the asylum seeker and pay all costs related to his or her healthcare. Minor asylum seekers are offered the same healthcare services as Danish citizens. The Immigration Service covers necessary healthcare expenses of adult asylum seekers. 3.2.6.2.1. Initial stage Access to healthcare services is not different for asylum seekers during the initial stage. 3.2.6.2.2. Asylum case processing Access to healthcare services is not different for asylum seekers during the asylum case processing. 3.2.6.2.3. Rejected asylum seekers Access to healthcare services is not different for asylum seekers once they have been rejected. 3.2.6.3. Education 3.2.6.3.1. Initial stage Education is compulsory for minor asylum seekers, who will follow a training programme that corresponds in content and scope to the education offered to bilingual pupils in Danish primary and secondary education. Education takes place at the accommodation centres or local primary and lower secondary schools. During the initial stage, adult asylum seekers must participate in an introductory course covering information about the Danish asylum system and instruction in Danish language and culture. An adult asylum seeker who does not participate in the planned education programme is considered to have breached the contract that all asylum seekers over the age of 18 must enter into with the accommodation centre, for which reason his or her supplementary allowance will be reduced. 3.2.6.3.2. Asylum case processing Education is compulsory for minor asylum seekers, who will follow a training programme that corresponds in content and scope to the education offered to bilingual pupils in Danish Page 20

primary and secondary education. Education takes place at the accommodation centres or local primary and lower secondary schools. Adult asylum seekers must participate in training programmes that can help the asylum seekers granted a residence permit in Denmark to integrate successfully and ease the return for those whose application for a residence permit is rejected. Adult asylum seekers may also take classes in Danish if required for them to complete job training programmes, etc., outside the accommodation centre. Adult asylum seekers may also take other subjects, including foreign languages, technical subjects, etc. An adult asylum seeker who does not participate in the planned education programme is considered to have breached the contract that all asylum seekers over the age of 18 must enter into with the accommodation centre, for which reason his or her supplementary allowance will be reduced. 3.2.6.3.3. Rejected asylum seekers Education is compulsory for minor asylum seekers, who will follow a training programme that corresponds in content and scope to the education offered to bilingual pupils in Danish primary and secondary education. Education takes place at the accommodation centres or local primary and lower secondary schools. For adult asylum seekers, a distinction is made between rejected asylum seekers who assist in their departure and rejected asylum seekers not assisting in their departure. Rejected asylum seekers must participate in education programmes that can prepare them for life in their countries of origin, including foreign language, technical subjects, etc. Rejected asylum seekers cooperating in their departure may also take classes in Danish if this fundamentally impacts on the asylum seeker’s possibility of acquiring skills that can help him or her finding a job or start his or her own enterprise in the country of origin. Rejected asylum seekers not assisting in their departure cannot take classes in Danish. An adult asylum seeker who does not participate in the planned education programme is considered to have breached the contract that all asylum seekers over the age of 18 must enter into with the accommodation centre, for which reason his or her supplementary allowance will be reduced. 3.2.6.4. Activation Like other citizens, asylum seekers may participate in leisure time activities in, e.g. at sports clubs. Expenses for leisure time activities outside the centre will to some extent be covered for children staying at accommodation centres. For further information on the contract the asylum seeker must make with the accommodation centre, see section 3.2.6.5 below. 3.2.6.4.1. Initial stage During the initial stage, the asylum seeker must assist with necessary tasks at the accommodation centre (cooking, cleaning, etc.). Moreover, the asylum seeker may Page 21

participate in internal activation at the centre (tasks related to operating the accommodation centre and teaching other asylum seekers). An adult asylum seeker who does not participate in the planned activation is considered to have breached the contract that all asylum seekers over the age of 18 must enter into with the accommodation centre, for which reason his or her supplementary allowance will be reduced. 3.2.6.4.2. Asylum case processing During the asylum case processing, the asylum seeker must also assist with necessary tasks at the accommodation centre (cooking, cleaning, etc.). Moreover, the asylum seeker may participate in internal activation at the centre (tasks related to operating the accommodation centre and teaching other asylum seekers). Finally, registered asylum seekers may also participate in other activation, including participation in internal production activities, unpaid job training outside the accommodation centre and unpaid humanitarian work. An adult asylum seeker who does not participate in the planned activation is considered to have breached the contract that all asylum seekers over the age of 18 must enter into with the accommodation centre, for which reason his or her supplementary allowance will be reduced. 3.2.6.4.3. Rejected asylum seekers During this stage, the asylum seeker must also assist with necessary tasks at the accommodation centre (cooking, cleaning, etc.). Moreover, the asylum seeker may participate in internal activation at the centre (tasks related to operating the accommodation centre and teaching other asylum seekers), internal production activities, unpaid job training outside the accommodation centre and unpaid humanitarian work. Rejected asylum seekers who do not assisting in their departure may not participate in internal production activities, job training outside the centre and unpaid humanitarian work. An adult asylum seeker who does not participate in the planned activation is considered to have breached the contract that all asylum seekers over the age of 18 must enter into with the accommodation centre, for which reason his or her supplementary allowance will be reduced. 3.2.6.5. Financial and other support The Immigration Service usually covers the expenses of maintaining an asylum seeker staying in Denmark. However, this does not apply if he or she is married to or the civil partner of a person with a residence permit in Denmark. In this case, the spouse/partner must provide for the asylum seeker. The Immigration Service’s maintenance of asylum seekers and aliens staying illegally in Denmark covers: Page 22

• • • • • •

Cash allowances (or free meals, if the applicant is covered by the free cafeteria service) housing at an accommodation centre necessary healthcare and any social assistance school for children school and activation of adult asylum seekers transport to and from interviews with authorities, hospitals, etc.

All asylum seekers over the age of 18 must enter into a contract with the accommodation centres to which they are attached. The contract specifies which courses an asylum seeker is to attend and for which tasks he or she is to be responsible for at the centre. If an asylum seeker refuses to comply with the terms of the contract with the centre, the Immigration Service can decide to reduce the supplementary allowance. Cash allowances are divided into the following: • • •

A basic allowance covering expenses for meals, personal hygiene items, etc. A supplementary allowance for asylum seekers who live up to the terms of their contract with the accommodation centre. A caregiver allowance or possibly a reduced caregiver allowance for asylum seekers responsible for maintaining minor children.

Families comprised by the food allowance programme with children under the age of 18 also receive a child package per child every two weeks. The child package includes fruit, soft drinks and some candy. 3.2.6.5.1. Initial stage The basic allowance is DKK 47.35 per day per adult. If the asylum seeker lives together with his or her spouse, registered partner or partner, the basic allowance is DKK 37.49 per day per adult. If the application is still at the initial stage where it remains to be decided whether the case should be processed in Denmark, the supplementary allowance is DKK 7.90 per day. The supplementary allowance requires that the person concerned comply with the terms of the contract with the centre. During the initial stage, caregiver allowance for the first and second child is DKK 55.25 per child per day. If the asylum seeker lives at an accommodation centre with a free meal scheme, the caregiver allowance is DKK 7.90 per child per day. The reduced caregiver allowance for the third and fourth child is DKK 39.46 per day per child. If the asylum seeker is comprised by a free meal scheme, no caregiver allowance will be paid for the third or fourth child. An asylum seeker comprised by the food allowance programme may not receive supplementary allowance but only a basic allowance, a reduced caregiver allowance for the first and second child and possibly a lowered caregiver allowance for the third and fourth child. An asylum seeker may come under the food allowance programme if he or she fails to

Page 23

show up for interrogation at the Immigration Service or with the police or has exhibited violent or threatening behaviour to persons at the accommodation centre. If the asylum seeker is comprised by a free meal scheme and the food allowance programme at the same time, he or she will receive no caregiver allowance. All amounts stated are for 2009. 3.2.6.5.2. Asylum case processing Once it has been determined that the asylum case must be processed in Denmark, the supplementary allowance is increased to DKK 27.62 per day and the caregiver allowance to DKK 74.97 per child per day. The reduced caregiver allowance for the third and fourth child is DKK 39.46 per day per child. The supplementary allowance requires that the person concerned comply with the terms of the contract with the centre. If the asylum seeker is comprised by a free meal scheme, the caregiver allowance is DKK 27.62 per child per day and no caregiver allowance is payable for the third and fourth child. An asylum seeker comprised by the food allowance programme may not receive supplementary allowance but only a basic allowance, a reduced caregiver allowance for the first and second child and possibly a lowered caregiver allowance for the third and fourth child. If the asylum seeker is comprised by a free meal scheme and the food allowance programme at the same time, he or she will receive no caregiver allowance. All amounts stated are for 2009. 3.2.6.5.3. Rejected asylum seekers If the asylum seeker receives a final rejection for asylum and therefore must leave Denmark, the supplementary allowance is reduced to DKK 7.90 per day. The supplementary allowance requires that the person concerned comply with the terms of the contract with the centre. At this stage, the caregiver allowance is DKK 55.25 per child per day. If the asylum seeker lives at an accommodation centre with a meal scheme, the caregiver allowance is DKK 7.90 per child per day. The reduced caregiver allowance for the third and fourth child is DKK 39.46 per day per child. If the asylum seeker is comprised by a free meal scheme, no caregiver allowance will be paid for the third or fourth child. All amounts stated are for 2009. If an asylum seeker does not comply with the obligations stipulated by the Aliens Act, the Immigration Service may decide that the asylum seeker must be covered by the food allowance programme. In practice, this programme is primarily used in cases where an asylum seeker has received final rejection for residence permit in Denmark and fails to cooperate in leaving the country.

Page 24

This programme entails that the asylum seeker can no longer receive supplementary allowance earned through participating in, e.g., activation. The caregiver allowance of asylum seekers with children will also be reduced. This means that the asylum seeker will only receive cash allowances to cover expenses for meals and other necessities, i.e. the basic allowance, a reduced caregiver allowance for the first and second child and possibly a lowered caregiver allowance for the third and fourth child. If the asylum seeker is comprised by a free meal scheme and the food allowance programme at the same time, he or she will receive no caregiver allowance. The Immigration Service may in very special cases consider not using the food allowance programme in respect of an alien refusing to assist in his or her departure. This will be the case if the asylum seeker is an unaccompanied minor or if the person suffers from certain types of life-threatening illnesses. The Immigration Service may repeal the decision on the food allowance programme if an asylum seeker chooses to cooperate with the police in connection with his or her departure, the date of departure is moved or the asylum case is reconsidered. If the programme is repealed, the asylum seeker will receive supplementary allowance again as well as ordinary and, possibly, reduced caregiver allowance. 3.2.6.6. Labour market access Generally, asylum seekers do not have access to the Danish labour market. 3.2.6.6.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers may not access the labour market during the initial stage. 3.2.6.6.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers do not have access to the labour market during the processing of their asylum cases. 3.2.6.6.3. Rejected asylum seekers Rejected asylum seekers may not access the labour market. 3.2.6.6.4. Access to the labour market in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration Submission of an asylum application has no bearing on the possibility of applying for a residence and work permit pursuant to the general rules on labour immigration. Asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers may thus apply for a residence and work permit according to the general rules of the Aliens Act, e.g. under the positive list or the green card scheme. Under section 9a(4) of the Aliens Act, an application for a residence permit due to work cannot normally be submitted or processed in Denmark if the asylum seeker is not lawfully residing in Denmark, unless there are exceptional grounds. Exceptional grounds include if a rejected asylum seeker wants a residence permit under the green card scheme and it is clear that he or she meets the criteria for such permit, including the point-scoring and selfsupport requirements.

Page 25

3.2.6.6.5. Illegal work Under section 59(2) of the Aliens Act, an alien working illegally is liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to one year. An alien, including an asylum seeker, who has been working illegally may be expelled pursuant to the provision of section 25a(2) (i) of the Aliens Act. The Immigration Service is authorised to make a decision on expulsion under this provision. As part of the expulsion decision, a one-year entry ban into Denmark will be issued. Asylum seekers can be expelled under the same conditions as other aliens. No deportation date is set in this decision, and it is acknowledged that deportation will not apply if the asylum seeker is granted asylum. Under section 59(4) of the Aliens Act, any person employing an alien without a work permit is liable to pay a fine or imprisonment for up to two years. 3.2.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work During the introduction course held by the Asylum Department of the Danish Red Cross and the Immigration Service, asylum seekers are is informed that they cannot take work in Denmark. The Immigration service furnishes asylum seekers with guidelines and a brochure containing a broad range of important information. The guidelines and the brochure explain that asylum seekers may not work. Actions that systematically target illegal work among asylum seekers are taken regularly. Asylum seekers are normally encountered in connection with control actions targeting certain industries and having multiple control purposes (tax, daily cash benefits, etc.) since these actions are the result of cooperation between several authorities, e.g. tax and food authorities. Police may start investigating into illegal work, which is punishable under section 59 of the Aliens Act, following specific reports from citizens or unions that have observed irregularities at a building site, etc. However, most reports about illegal work come from the Immigration Service. In connection with the nationwide control actions in 2008, a decision was made to register asylum seekers caught doing illegal work separately in order to determine the number of cases that involved illegal work and therefore had to be brought before the Immigration Service for the purpose of assessing whether the asylum seeker should be deported. As part of the control actions in 2008, 14 cases regarding illegally working aliens were registered with the Immigration Service – three of which were asylum seekers. No specific information is available about which asylum seekers work illegally in Denmark. According to information from the Asylum Department of the Danish Red Cross, which operates most accommodation centres in Denmark, an important factor is how far in the process the asylum seeker is. The department is of the opinion that those taking illegal work are mainly asylum seekers, who have been rejected and been in Denmark for a long time, e.g. because they do not want to leave voluntarily and cannot be forced to leave. 3.2.7. Assistance with repatriation Section 43a(1) of the Aliens Act stipulates that asylum seekers whose case is being processed in Denmark may be granted assistance to travel to a third country in which he or she has been granted a residence permit if the asylum seeker withdraws his or her Page 26

application or asylum has been rejected. The assistance comprises expenses for airfare, train fare, etc., necessary expenses for transporting personal belongings, max. DKK 7,083 (2009 level) per family for transporting of items necessary for the business of the person concerned or family in the third country and other travel-related expenses. Under section 43a(2) of the Aliens Act, an asylum seeker whose application has been rejected may receive assistance for returning to his or her country of origin or a previous country of residence if the alien assists in the departure without undue delay. Such assistance totals DKK 3,000 per person over the age of 18 and DKK 1,500 per person under the age of 18 (2003 level). An alien can only receive this assistance once. Finally, section 43b of the Aliens Act stipulates that the Minister for Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs may decide that financial support for voluntary return to the country of origin be granted to groups of aliens staying in the country as asylum seekers or rejected asylum seekers. In autumn 2007, Denmark introduced a scheme to assist voluntary return to Iraq. Rejected asylum seekers willing to return to Iraq could join a competence enhancement programme in Denmark and in their country of origin adapted to individuals’ situations and targeted at their finding employment or starting their own enterprises in their country of origin. These persons would also receive financial support on arrival in Iraq and assistance finding work or starting their own enterprises. The scheme was realised jointly with the International Organization for Migration, Care 4 You Association and the Asylum Department of the Danish Red Cross. Under the act, the contract scheme requires that voluntary departure is an option, but that forcible deportation is not. On 28 November 2008, the scheme was terminated for asylum seekers from the three northern Iraqi provinces Erbil, Sulemaniya and Dohuk, for which reason asylum seekers from these three provinces could no longer make a contract for voluntary departure with financial support and competence enhancement after this date. The scheme was finally terminated for all rejected Iraqi asylum seekers on 14 May 2009. The scheme was terminated in respect of both the three provinces and the rest of Iraq – i.e. central and southern Iraq, because forced deportation became possible. 3.2.7.1. Hindrances to deportation Rejected asylum seekers must leave Denmark. If they do not leave voluntarily, the National Police Commissioner’s Office will handle the return, using force if necessary. Under section 9c(2) of the Aliens Act, the Immigration Service may grant a residence permit to a rejected asylum seeker if it has been impossible to deport the alien for at least 18 months, the alien has assisted in the return efforts for 18 consecutive months and that return must be considered futile based on the information available at the time.

Page 27

If a country of origin can be returned to voluntarily, a residence permit cannot be granted on grounds of hindrance to deportation. 3.2.8. Detention 3.2.8.1. Initial stage During the initial stage, asylum seekers may be detained while the matter of whether the case should be processed in Denmark is assessed, the purpose being to ensure the possibility of rejection, transfer or return to another country. An asylum seeker may also be detained if he or she without reasonable cause fails to appear for an interrogation by the police or the Immigration Service at the premises to which he or she has been summoned. 3.2.8.2. Asylum case processing During stage two, and following a specific, individual assessment, if the case is considered manifestly unfounded, asylum seekers may be detained for the purpose of ensuring the alien’s presence during the processing of the asylum case. Detention is also an option at stage two used to ensure a deportation is enforced effectively if the asylum seeker is rejected due to a criminal offence. Finally, detention may be used at stage two if the asylum seeker prevents the proper processing of the asylum case, e.g., by repeatedly failing to show up for interrogation or by refusing to state his or her identity. 3.2.8.3. Rejected asylum seekers A rejected asylum seeker may be detained at stage three to ensure the return. Detention is also an option at stage three if the asylum seeker fails to assist in the return, e.g. by providing the travel documents necessary for the departure. In all detention cases, the matter of whether detention is necessary must be assessed, including whether less radical measures can be applied (e.g. depositing of passport, duty to report, etc.). 3.2.9. Disappeared asylum seekers The immigration authorities use the term “assumed departed” about aliens whose whereabouts are unknown to the authorities (disappeared). ”Assumed departed” is one of four possible departure forms used by the Danish immigration authorities. The immigration authorities thus also apply the concept of “accompanied departure”, comprising cases where police escort an alien out of Denmark, either to the country of origin or a transit country; “verified departure”, comprising cases where the police ensures that the alien leaves Denmark, e.g., by checking that the alien boards a plane; and, finally, "own departure”, comprising cases where the alien has definitely left the country. These departure forms are used for all aliens regardless of the reason for their stay. It is assessed that most asylum seekers “assumed departed” in Denmark have actually left the country. This is supported by the fact that only a limited number of the asylum seekers, who have disappeared, later reappear or return from other EU countries under the Dublin procedure if they have applied for asylum in one of these countries.

Page 28

3.3

Canada

3.3.1. Introduction Canada has an area of 9,093,507 square kilometres and a population of about 33.3 million people. Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government system without federal structure. Since certain aspects regarding, in particular, the reception of asylum seekers fall within the individual provinces’ responsibility, the Canadian asylum system is described on the basis of the conditions in Ontario, the largest province in terms of population. 3.3.2. Organisation and asylum procedure Overall responsibility for immigration lies with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is charged with processing first instance asylum and immigration cases. After a refugee protection claim has been submitted, a refugee protection hearing is held to decide whether the claim should be denied or approved. If after the hearing the assessment is to approve the claim, it is forwarded to the Refugee Protection Division of Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. However, the claim will be denied if the claimant has already been granted protection in another country of first asylum or has arrived in Canada from a third country designated as safe (only the USA and Canada include an agreement on a safe third country). If no decision to deny or approve the claim has been made within three days, the claim will automatically be sent to the Refugee Board of Canada. After the Refugee Protection Division has received a refugee protection claim, it assesses under which of four procedures the claim must be processed. Canada applies four procedures: 1) expedited, 2) simple, 3) straightforward and 4) complex. The expedited procedure is for claims that appear well-reasoned and without outstanding issues that require a hearing. The simple procedure is for claims where only one or two issues important to the decision are in doubt, for which reason the claim will be subject to brief rather than a full hearing. The straightforward procedure is for claims where one or two issues important to the decision are in doubt, and these relate to the identity of the claimant, background information or whether the claimant falls within the refugee definition in the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. Finally a claim may be processed as a complex claim. Such claims generally concern safety matters or other complex issues such as grounds for inadmissibility. If the Refugee Protection Division denies a refugee protection claim, the claimant may request the Federal Court for a judicial review. If the request is allowed, the case will be returned to the Refugee Protection Division, which will reconsider the case.

Page 29

During the procedure, the claimant is eligible for support for accommodation and social benefits and for work permission. The individual provinces are responsible for matters relating to accommodation and claimants’ other needs. 3.3.3. Statistics Number of asylum claims submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 36,143

2001 44,137

2002 33,452

2003 31,857

2004 25,499

2005 19,735

2006 22,907

2007 28,342

2008 36,895

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection/ humanitarian residence permit* Rejections

2000 13,990

2001 13,336

2002 15,161

2003 17,682

2004 16,005

2005 12,061

2006 9,252

2007 5,885

2008 7,575

10,134

9,551

11,053

17,993

19,180

11,846

8,117

5,423

6,797

*In statistics, Canada does not distinguish between different types of protection

3.3.4. Protection of refugees 3.3.4.1. Convention status Canada is bound by the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, including the 1967 New York protocol, which is incorporated by paraphrasing into national legislation. Recognised refugees therefore comprise aliens who meet the general conditions for refugee recognition under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. 3.3.4.2. Other grounds for protection Canada is bound by the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which has been incorporated into national legislation by reference, particularly the definition of torture. Persons in danger of being submitted to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and persons whose lives are threatened are also recognised as requiring protection. 3.3.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds In Canada, residence permit on humanitarian grounds is granted to aliens who do not meet the conditions for a residence permit on other grounds. A decision to grant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds rests on an assessment of all relevant issues, including the claimants’ degree of integration in Canada, family ties to Canada, children’s best interests and the risk associated with return.

Page 30

An application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds can be submitted at any time, but an application does not have a delaying effect in respect of imminent deportation. In most cases, an application will be processed before deportation. 3.3.5. Resettlement The Canadian resettlement programme traditionally comprises displaced and persecuted persons. Each year, Canada resettles between 10,600 and 12,000 quota refugees. Of these, between 7,300 and 7,500 refugees are resettled under the Government Assisted Refugee programme (GAR), while the remaining refugees are resettled under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees programme (PSR), where private individuals and religious groups sponsor the resettlement of quota refugees. Citizenship and Immigration Canada manages the GAR programme. Refugees screened for resettlement under this programme are chosen on the basis of an interview with a staff member of the Canadian embassy in the country of residence. Cases falling under the Canadian Urgent Protection Program (UPP) will be processed more quickly and possibly without an interview if the claim is considered sufficiently substantiated and the claimant appears credible. Canada’s resettlement programme comprises persons eligible for convention status or persons eligible for one of two types of humanitarian status: a) country of asylum class for persons in refugee-like situations and persons who are affected by civil war or armed conflict, or have suffered gross violations of their human rights; b) source country class for internally displaced people who are still staying in their countries of origin. The government-assisted programme comprises all convention refugees and source country class and people with special needs regardless of category. The private sponsorship programme comprises convention refugees, those in the source country class and those in the country of asylum class. All refugees must prove that they will be able to establish themselves in Canada, but Canada prioritises the need for protection over the ability to establish oneself. In addition this criterion is not applied for vulnerable persons or in urgent cases. When assessing a person’s ability to establish him or herself, attention is given to the refugee’s and his or her potential to become self-sufficient within 3-5 years after arrival based on their resources, any family in Canada and their ability to learn a language. All refugees must undergo a medical examination before a decision on resettlement is made. In urgent cases, the medical examination may be performed on arrival to Canada. 3.3.6. Terms and conditions for asylum seekers 3.3.6.1. Accommodation The individual provinces are responsible for finding accommodation for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers, including finally rejected asylum seekers, have access to services offered by the provinces during the processing of their claims. Asylum seekers are not obligated to accept any accommodation offers from the provinces.

Page 31

Canada does not impose any duty to report on the asylum seekers, but they are obligated to report any change of address within 48 hours. Depending on the circumstances, asylum seekers will be able to meet the conditions for a government-assisted housing offer in Ontario from the initial stage. Depending on the circumstances, asylum seekers will also be able to meet the conditions for a housing offer from private organisations, which can offer short-term emergency housing. Various factors are considered in these situations, including family size. 3.3.6.2. Healthcare services Asylum seekers and their families are covered by a federal programme concerning emergency healthcare treatment if they are not entitled to provincial or private healthcare and have insufficient funds. The programme covers emergency medical care, dental care and medicine. 3.2.6.2.1 Initial stage The programme on emergency healthcare covers initial stage asylum seekers. 3.3.6.2.2 Asylum case processing The programme on emergency healthcare covers asylum seekers during the asylum case processing. They are covered until they become entitled to provincial health coverage or leave the country. 3.3.6.2.3 Rejected asylum seekers The programme on emergency healthcare also covers finally rejected asylum seekers until they leave the country. 3.3.6.3. Education All asylum seekers under the age of 18 are automatically entitled to attend ordinary Canadian primary and secondary education from the time they arrive in Canada. The individual provinces organise language courses for asylum seekers. These courses are not mandatory. Ontario requires that all children be allowed to enter schools irrespective of their immigration status. Minor asylum seekers are entitled to education at primary and secondary level. Adult asylum seekers must apply for education permission at Citizenship and Immigration Canada before starting an education. Asylum seekers at all stages of the asylum process are entitled to the language teaching financed by Ontario. 3.3.6.3.1 Initial stage Access to education applies to asylum seekers at the initial stage. 3.3.6.3.2 Asylum case processing Page 32

Access to education applies to asylum seekers during asylum case processing. Ontario includes asylum seekers in the province in most of its training programmes aimed at improving the chances of their qualifications and training being approved and in its labour market initiatives for newly arrived refugees seeking work in the fields in which they have been trained. In addition, asylum seekers have access to offers aimed at newly arrived persons in Ontario. This comprises public funded local voluntary organisations working to ensure that newcomers receive the information they need to live, work and enhance their skills in Ontario. 3.3.6.3.3 Rejected asylum seekers Access to education also applies to finally rejected asylum seekers under the age of 18. 3.3.6.4. Activation It has not been possible to retrieve information about activation. 3.3.6.5. Financial and other support There are various possibilities of receiving financial and other support at provincial level. Asylum seekers are entitled to settlement assistance under the Newcomer Settlement Programme (NSP). NSP provides financing for private relief organisations in Ontario that ensure that newcomers receive information about and assistance with living, working and studying in Ontario. In Ontario, asylum seekers may also be entitled to receive social support. 3.3.6.6. Labour market access 3.3.6.6.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers at the initial stage do not have access to the labour market in Canada. 3.3.6.6.2. Asylum case processing When it has been decided to process a refugee protection claim in Canada, the asylum seeker may apply for a work permit provided that he or she has passed the medical examination. Asylum seekers rejected in the first instance may also apply for a work permit. 3.3.6.6.3 Rejected asylum seekers Once a deportation order is effective, finally rejected asylum seekers are generally not allowed access to the labour market. However, if it is decided that deportation cannot be enforced, finally rejected asylum seekers may be granted a temporary work permit. 3.3.6.6.4 Access to apply for work permit on ordinary terms Any application for a work and residence permit under the general rules on labour immigration usually requires that such application be submitted from outside Canada.

Page 33

Asylum seekers and finally rejected asylum seekers will therefore have to leave Canada before they can submit such an application. 3.3.6.6.5. Illegal work Under Canadian legislation, aliens, including asylum seekers, can be punished for working illegally pursuant to a generally phrased provision on punishment for violating provisions of the Canadian legislation on aliens. Under this provision, illegal work is liable to a fine of up to CAD 50,000 (approx. DKK 230,000) or imprisonment for up to two years or both. However, the authorities rarely institute criminal proceedings against an asylum seeker for illegal work, as the outcome is usually a punishment much lower than the maximum penalty and because the alternative is often payment of social support from the public authorities. Canadian aliens legislation includes a specific provision about punishment for the use of illegal alien labour. The maximum penalty is a fine of CAD 50,000 (approx. DKK 230,000) or imprisonment for up to two years or both. Criminal proceedings are usually only initiated in severe cases. 3.3.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work No statistics are done on the scope of illegal work. Canada’s effort should be seen in relation to the fact that asylum seekers, rejected asylum seekers and certain groups of finally rejected asylum seekers have access to the labour market. 3.3.7. Assistance with repatriation Canada has no programmes or initiatives in place supporting voluntary repatriation. It is in the finally rejected asylum seeker’s own interest to leave Canada with in the specified deadline, as the person may otherwise be permanently banned from entry. 3.3.7.1. Hindrances to deportation Canada may temporarily halt deportations to specific countries or areas if conditions in the area constitute a threat to the general civilian population due to 1) armed conflict, 2) environmental disasters (resulting in considerable, temporary deterioration of living standards) or 3) any other relevant temporary situation entailing general risks. Certain categories of aliens, including criminals, are not comprised by a decision to temporarily stop deportations. 3.3.8. Detention Canadian alien legislation sanctions detention of aliens, including asylum seekers, in cases of suspicion that (1) the person constitutes a danger to the public, (2) it is unlikely that the person will show up for meetings during the processing if his or her claim, including any interviews with the authorities or forcible deportation, or the person cannot or will not cooperate in establishing his or her identity. Detaining an alien requires that authorities consider all the circumstances of each case. It should be noted that a person is only detained due to a lack of cooperation establishing identity following a careful assessment of all circumstances in the case. The decision is

Page 34

made by persons who are well informed about conditions in the countries of origin and will take the difficulties asylum seekers may experience furnishing documents into account. Detention decisions can be appealed to an independent tribunal with judicial powers. Canadian legislation sanctions the detention of minor asylum seekers. However, minors will only be detained if no other recourse is available considering all aspects of the case, including the best interests of the child. Detained minors are placed in the immigration authorities’ special accommodation centres or referred to the social authorities. In cases where no safety or social considerations need to be taken, the authorities try to avoid detaining both unaccompanied and other minors. 3.3.9. Disappeared asylum seekers A large number of finally rejected asylum seekers do not report to the authorities in connection with departure. A deportation order is issued for these people. Currently, 44,000 deportation orders have been issued, primarily for finally rejected asylum seekers who have not confirmed their departure. In many of these cases, the persons have either returned to the country of origin or travelled to the USA. Note that Canada conducts no exit controls, which can make it difficult to determine whether a given alien has left the country.

Page 35

3.4

Finland

3.4.1. Introduction Finland has an area of 338,000 square kilometres and a population of about 5.3 million people. Finland is a republic with no federal structure. 3.4.2. Organisation and asylum procedure The Finnish Ministry of the Interior is responsible for immigration in Finland. The Finnish Immigration Service is subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior and processes all applications for residence permits regarding protection in the first instance. Generally, the Finnish Immigration Service’s decisions may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Helsinki. Decisions made by the Administrative Court of Helsinki may in certain cases be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. The police and border authorities are responsible for matters relating to the asylum seekers’ identity and travel route. After the submission of an asylum application, the police or border authorities will seek to establish the asylum seeker’s identity, travel route and how he or she has entered Finland. The application can be rejected if the asylum seeker has come from a safe third country or if another state is responsible for processing the application under the Dublin cooperation. The Immigration Service will then interview the asylum seeker. Asylum applications are either processed as urgent cases or under the ordinary asylum procedure. Urgent cases comprise asylum applications submitted by persons coming from safe countries of origin, manifestly unfounded cases and applications submitted by persons already rejected in one case, but who submit a new application without producing information that may impact the outcome of the case. In connection with the interview, the Immigration Service considers whether an asylum seeker can be granted a residence permit for reasons other than the need for international protection. Such other reasons may include family reunification or matters relating to the asylum seeker’s health. The decisions of the Immigration Service in asylum cases can be appealed to the Administrative Court of Helsinki. Decisions made by the Administrative Court of Helsinki may in certain cases be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. During the asylum procedure, the asylum seeker will initially be placed in a transit centre until after the asylum interview, when he or she will be transferred to an ordinary accommodation centre. 3.4.3. Statistics Number of asylum claims submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 3,170

Page 36

2001 1,650

2002 3,443

2003 3,221

2004 3,861

2005 3,574

2006 2,288

2007 1,505

2008 2,809

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection/ humanitarian residence permit Rejections

2000* 9 458

2001* 4 809

2002* 14 581

2003* 7 487

2004* 29 771

2005* 12 585

2006 28 460

2007 68 792

2008 89 696

2,121

1,045

2,315

2,443

3,418

2,472

1,434

961

1,011

* The figures from 2000-2005 are aggregates of decisions made in the first and second instance.

3.4.4. Protection of refugees 3.4.4.1. Convention status Finland is bound by the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, including the 1967 New York protocol, which is incorporated into Finnish legislation by referral in the Aliens Act. Finland is bound by the EU asylum rules. Asylum seekers meeting the general conditions of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the EU Asylum Qualification Directive are granted a residence permit in Finland. 3.4.4.2. Other grounds for protection Finland is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into Finnish legislation by referral. Residence permit is granted on the basis of protection for aliens who risk the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment in their countries of origin. Residence permit is also granted to aliens who cannot return due to an armed conflict or environmental disaster. The interpretation of the armed conflict and environmental disaster grounds for protection extends further than Finland’s obligations under international and EU-law. The Finnish parliament is expected to amend the criteria for granting asylum and protection and asylum procedures on the basis of the Asylum Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) and the Asylum Procedure Directive (2005/85/EC). 3.4.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds According to Finnish immigration legislation, aliens staying in Finland are granted a residence permit if the rejection of a residence permit would be apparently unfair considering the person’s health, ties to Finland or other humanitarian considerations, including, in particular, considering conditions in the country of origin or the vulnerability of the asylum seeker. 3.4.5. Resettlement Finland has a quota scheme offering 750 places annually. Of these, approx. 100 have been earmarked for urgent cases. These are usually granted to persons with special treatment Page 37

needs but can also be granted to persons with an imminent risk of assault in their countries of residence or of being returned to their countries of origin. The Finnish Immigration Service selects quota refugees on the basis of an interview made during a selection trip to the refugees’ countries of residence or of a written presentation by the UNHCR. During the screening process, primary emphasis is placed on the refugee’s need for international protection, and then the need to resettle from the country of residence is considered. Subsequently, the possibilities of reception and integration in Finland are assessed and, finally, it is assessed whether permission will affect the public order, health or the country’s international relations. Quota refugees are granted convention status. Quota refugees chosen during quota trips will follow a pre-departure course about Finland and learn a little Finnish. The course lasts for three days and is held by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) 3.4.6. Terms and conditions for asylum seekers 3.4.6.1. Accommodation Aliens applying for asylum in Finland are placed in open accommodation centres. In principle, accommodation conditions are the same for single asylum seekers, couples and families with children. However, families with children will normally be offered more space than single asylum seekers. Unaccompanied minors are placed in centres adapted to their needs. Asylum seekers are not obligated to accept the offer of staying in an accommodation centre, but asylum seekers not wanting to accept such offer are not eligible for public funding to cover any housing costs. The Finnish authorities do not impose a systematic duty to report on asylum seekers. However, asylum seekers not accepting accommodation must specify their address. Otherwise, they will not receive any financial support. The authorities may impose a duty to report on asylum seekers if deemed be necessary to prepare or ensure that a decision to return the alien is enforced or ensure in general that the alien leaves the country. Due to the considerable increase in the number of asylum seekers, the accommodation model described below is not applied consistently; asylum seekers today are given accommodation where places are available. 3.4.6.1.1. Initial stage Initially, asylum seekers are placed in a transit centre until the police have investigated their travel routes and identities. 3.4.6.1.2. Asylum case processing Once the police have investigated the travel route and established identity, the asylum seeker will be transferred to an ordinary accommodation centre. Page 38

3.4.6.1.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers can stay in the accommodation centres until they leave the country. 3.4.6.2. Healthcare services Asylum seekers and finally rejected asylum seekers are entitled to emergency medical assistance and treatment. However, pregnant asylum seekers have extended access to medical assistance and healthcare services depending on their condition. In addition, asylum seekers can be checked or treated by a nurse, with almost all accommodation centres having a nurse. Minor asylum seekers are given virtually the same access to the Finnish health sector as Finnish citizens. This applies to both unaccompanied minor asylum seekers and asylum seekers with family in Finland. The special needs of particularly vulnerable asylum seekers are taken into account. 3.4.6.2.1. Initial stage The fact that an asylum seeker is at the initial stage has no bearing on the asylum seeker’s possibility of receiving medical assistance and treatment. 3.4.6.2.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers are offered a free medical examination when they arrive at an ordinary accommodation centre. The fact that an asylum seeker is at the asylum case processing stage has no bearing on the asylum seeker’s possibility of receiving medical assistance and treatment. 3.4.6.2.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers are entitled to the same medical assistance and treatment as other asylum seekers. 3.4.6.3. Education 3.4.6.3.1. Initial stage During the initial stage, minor asylum seekers have access to a kind of pre-school education. Adult asylum seekers at the initial stage are taught Finnish. 3.4.6.3.2. Asylum case processing All minors under the age of 17 are entitled to attend an ordinary school. Minor asylum seekers start education in Finland in special classes for immigrants. This special education programme includes 500 hours of teaching and mainly consists of classes in Finnish. However, students will be able to participate in ordinary classes at the relevant level in music, creative and sports classes. The students can also attend two hours of mother-tongue instruction per week if a special class with at least four students can be established. Provided that asylum seekers meet the acceptance requirements, they may also attend upper secondary school. Asylum seekers aged 17 or older, can also attend special schools for adults, continuing vocational training or training arranged by the accommodation centres.

Page 39

Adult asylum seekers are taught Finnish and given basic information about Finnish society. Failure to attend mandatory language instruction will result in a 20% reduction of the monthly allowance. In addition, adult asylum seekers can receive support to enrol in programmes outside the accommodation centres. This support will cover items such as books and transport expenses. 3.4.6.3.3. Rejected asylum seekers Minor asylum seekers under the age of 17 may continue their education after receiving final rejection. Finally rejected adult asylum seekers are not offered any education. 3.4.6.4. Activation 3.4.6.4.1. Initial stage No organised activities are in place while asylum seekers stay at transit centres during the initial stage, due to the briefness of their stay. All asylum seekers make their own meals. However, this does not apply to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. 3.4.6.4.2. Asylum case processing When an asylum seeker moves from a transit centre to an ordinary accommodation centre, he or she must sign a mandatory, individually planned activity programme. The programme can include training, cleaning or maintenance work. If the asylum seeker fails to observe the programme, the monthly allowance may be reduced. The ordinary accommodation centres organise various activities both inside and outside the centres. Private organisations also organise activities for asylum seekers. Under Finnish legislation, asylum seekers are obligated to participate in cleaning, housekeeping activities, child-minding and other activities organised by the ordinary accommodation centres. If an asylum seeker refuses to participate, his or her monthly allowance may be reduced temporarily by 20%. All asylum seekers make their own meals. However, this does not apply to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. 3.4.6.4.3. Rejected asylum seekers As with asylum seekers at the asylum case processing stage, finally rejected asylum seekers must sign and observe a mandatory, individually planned activity programme. All asylum seekers make their own meals. However, this does not apply to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. 3.4.6.5 Financial and other support Adult asylum seekers are entitled to a monthly financial allowance corresponding to 90% of the basic amount laid down by the Finnish act on income support. This means that single asylum seekers will receive EUR 359.19 (approx. DKK 2,700) per month, while those in Page 40

couples each receive EUR 305.32 (approx. DKK 2,300) per month. The rates for minors range from EUR 179.79 to 237.46 (DKK 1,300-1,800) per month. 3.4.6.5.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers receive the same financial support during the initial stage as at the other stages. 3.4.6.5.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers receive the same financial support during asylum case processing as at the other stages. 3.4.6.5.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers receive the same financial support as other asylum seekers. 3.4.6.6. Labour market access 3.4.6.6.1. Initial stage Generally, asylum seekers do not have access to the labour market during the initial stage; access will not be relevant until after a minimum of three months’ stay. 3.4.6.6.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers are entitled to take paid work three months after they have applied for asylum. Use of this right does not require a special application. The asylum seeker can request documentation specifying that he or she is entitled to work. Access to the labour market stops when the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland has made a final decision or denied an appeal of a decision made by the Administrative Court of Helsinki. Information about access to and limitations relating to the labour market is given at the information meetings held immediately after arrival at the ordinary accommodation centres. 3.4.6.6.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers are not entitled to work in Finland. 3.4.6.6.4 Access to the labour market in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration Application for asylum does not affect an asylum seeker’s possibility of subsequently applying for and attaining a work and residence permit on a different basis, including e.g. according to the general rules on labour immigration. 3.4.6.6.5. Illegal work The Finnish immigration legislation sanctions fining aliens, including asylum seekers, working illegally in Finland. In respect of using illegal foreign labour, the Finnish immigration legislation specifies that persons who either intentionally or unintentionally employ alien labour will be fined.

Page 41

Moreover, the Finnish penal code stipulates that hiring an alien without the necessary work permit is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year. 3.4.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work The Finnish authorities assess that illegal alien labour does not constitute a major problem. The primary focus is on matters relating to employment terms and conditions. No regular control actions aimed directly at asylum seekers are made. However, the authorities do encounter asylum seekers working illegally when inspecting specific industries or violations, including tax evasion. Finland prepares no systematic statistics on the number of asylum seekers or rejected asylum seekers working illegally in Finland, meaning that no documents exist showing the trend in the area. 3.4.7. Assistance with repatriation Asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers wanting to return voluntarily have the expenses of their return covered for the cheapest type of transport. Except for these costs, asylum seekers wanting to return receive no other form of support. Finland has no special schemes or mechanisms regarding supervision or monitoring of people departed or repatriated with support from Finland. 3.4.7.1. Hindrances to deportation Finland grants a temporary residence permit to aliens who cannot be returned due to temporary health problems or because return cannot be effected. The same applies to situations where deportation is hindered because the alien refuses to cooperate in furnishing travel documents or in cases where the country of origin does not accept forcible deportation of its own citizens, but allows them to return voluntarily. Temporary residence permits granted on this basis cannot be used as a basis for reunification with family members staying abroad. The Finnish government has proposed a bill under which it would become possible to grant a temporary residence permit with a possibility of permanent residence to aliens who cannot be returned due to circumstances beyond their control. 3.4.8. Detention Aliens can be detained if, considering their personal circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the alien will prevent or considerably obstruct the enforcement of a decision. Detention of minors requires a hearing of the social authorities. 3.4.8.1. Initial stage Detention can also be used if needed to determine an alien’s identity or if, considering the person’s personal circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that he or she will commit a crime during his or her stay in Finland. In addition, aliens can be detained if their identities are in doubt when they arrive or if the police suspect that they will try to evade any decision on rejection at the border.

Page 42

Application of detention in cases concerning determination of identity requires that the alien has given false information or refused to give the information required, or that it must be assumed that the identity has not been established. Moreover, aliens can be detained if, considering their personal circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the alien will prevent or considerably obstruct the enforcement of a decision.

3.4.8.2. Asylum case processing Aliens can be detained if, considering their personal circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the alien will prevent or considerably obstruct the enforcement of a decision. 3.4.8.3. Rejected asylum seekers Aliens can be detained if it is assumed that they will hide in order to obstruct the enforcement of a decision to return them. Moreover, aliens can be detained if, considering their personal circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the alien will prevent or considerably obstruct the enforcement of a decision. 3.4.9. Disappeared asylum seekers Finland categorises disappeared asylum seekers and disappeared rejected asylum seekers as departed. Statistics on how many asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers disappear are compiled. Accordingly, in 2007, 204 asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers disappeared, 636 disappeared in 2006, 1,319 in 2005, 1,246 in 2004 and 883 in 2003.

Page 43

3.5

The Netherlands

3.5.1. Introduction The Netherlands has an area of 41,500 square kilometres and a population of about 16.3 million people. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government system without federal structure. 3.5.2. Organisation and asylum procedure The Dutch Ministry of Justice is responsible for immigration. The Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) is the first instance authority under the Ministry of Justice. Decisions made by the IND can be appealed to the ordinary courts of law. A special board is in charge of matters relating to receiving asylum seekers, including operation of accommodation centres. In addition, a special authority is charged with matters relating to the return of asylum seekers. Registration is the first part of the asylum procedure and entails establishing identity and travel route. This is followed by the initial interview between the asylum seeker and an IND employee. After the initial interview, it is assessed whether a decision can be made within 48 working hours. Initially, and in cases processed within 48 working hours, the asylum seeker will be placed in either a special application centre or in temporary accommodation centres. If a decision cannot be made within 48 hours, the asylum seeker will be moved to an ordinary accommodation centre, which will focus on information and integration. If a rejection is given under the 48-hour procedure, the asylum seeker will not be transferred to an ordinary accommodation centre. Asylum seekers rejected in the first instance are transferred to an accommodation centre that focuses on repatriation. In general, IND is expected to have made a decision at least six months after the detailed interview. A report is prepared if the interview shows that the asylum seeker fails to meet the conditions for being granted a residence permit. Together with his or her legal counsel, the asylum seeker may object to this report. If the authorities do not change their assessment of the case, the request for asylum will be rejected. The decision can be appealed to the ordinary courts of law. Any appeal of asylum cases processed within 48 hours does not usually have a delaying effect. However, in practice, a rejected asylum seeker may await the outcome of his or her appeal in the Netherlands, as he or she may ask the courts for a delay, which will usually be decided when the appeal case is decided. Finally rejected asylum seekers are generally given a 28-day deadline for departure. After the deadline, the asylum seekers must leave the Netherlands. If a rejected asylum seeker has not left the country voluntarily within 28 days, he or she will be referred to the partially closed centres for up to 12 weeks to prepare the deportation.

Page 44

3.5.3. Statistics Number of asylum claims submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 43,895

2001 32,579

2002 18,667

2003 13,402

2004 9,782

2005 12,347

2006 14,465

2007 7,102

2008 15,275

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection/ humanitarian residence permit Rejections

2000 896 5,968

2001 244 5,161

2002 198 3,359

2003 393 4,228

2004 480 4,057

2005 964 7,854

2006 358 3,986

2007 487 3,963

2008 515 5,161

42,304

26,037

26,478

14,560

8,178

8,084

7,519

3,979

5,247

3.5.4. Protection of refugees 3.5.4.1. Convention status The Netherlands is bound by the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, including the 1967 New York protocol, which is incorporated into Dutch legislation by referral. The Netherlands is bound by the EU asylum rules. Aliens observing the general conditions for recognition as refugees under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees are granted asylum and a residence permit. 3.5.4.2. Other grounds for protection The Netherlands is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into Dutch legislation by referral. Residence permit is granted to aliens imminently at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This protection corresponds to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, the Netherlands offers national types of protection exceeding its international and EU-law obligations. However, the Netherlands has a protection scheme that allows a decision to be made to the effect that all asylum seekers belonging to a specific group (usually a specific nationality or ethnic group) are granted a temporary residence permit. This is a ministerial decision that the conditions in a given country would constitute an exceptional burden. Residence permit granted on this basis is only relevant if a residence permit has been rejected under the provisions of the Dutch Aliens Act that concern protection based on the Netherlands’ international obligations or the asylum seeker’s own circumstances, and if the asylum seeker is covered by such ministerial decision. Current examples of such groups include

Page 45

persons in certain groups from Somalia. Temporary protection status lapses if the circumstances improve sufficiently within a period of five years. 3.5.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds The Netherlands grants a residence permit on humanitarian grounds to aliens who have left their countries of origin for unavoidable humanitarian grounds and cannot reasonably be expected to return there. Humanitarian grounds for a residence permit include (mental) trauma related to events in the country of origin or other individual humanitarian considerations. Aliens are also granted a residence permit if the general situation in such countries is considered particularly stressful. 3.5.5. Resettlement The Netherlands has a quota scheme with 2,000 places within a four-year period, i.e. approx. 500 annually. Up to 100 of these places can be used for urgent cases, and of these 30 places are earmarked for people with special treatment needs. Quota refugees are selected by the Immigration and Naturalisation Service following consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the basis of an interview conducted during a quota trip to the refugees’ country of residence or of a written presentation by the UNHCR. During selection, the refugees’ need for international protection is assessed as well as their possibility of integrating into Dutch society. The possibility of integration is assessed on the basis of the refugees’ activities in the refugee camp, willingness to adapt to another country, general knowledge, knowledge of a Western European language, family relations with Dutch citizens or aliens holding a residence permit in the Netherlands, and openmindedness to Western/Dutch values, etc. Refugees can be granted convention status or subsidiary status, which includes cases regarding non-refoulement, humanitarian grounds (particularly victims of violence and torture, women at risk and persons with special treatment needs) and family reunification of closely related family members at the same time or within three months after the first member of the family entered the Netherlands. Quota refugees will undergo medical examination shortly after arriving in the Netherlands. Refugees are also offered a short introduction programme comprising Dutch classes and classes on Dutch society, which will continue when the refugees move to a local authority. 3.5.6. Terms and conditions for asylum seekers 3.5.6.1. Accommodation Aliens applying for asylum in the Netherlands receive an offer of accommodation in open centres. This is only an offer and not an obligation. Single asylum seekers and families are placed in the same centres during the asylum procedure, but families’ space requirements are taken into account. Unaccompanied minors are offered special accommodation.

Page 46

Asylum seekers are imposed a systematic duty to report from the time they submit an asylum application. They are obligated to report weekly by means of a fingerprintrecognition system. If an asylum seeker fails to report for two consecutive weeks, his or her asylum application is considered withdrawn, and he or she loses the right to all public benefits. 3.5.6.1.1. Initial stage Initially, asylum seekers are placed in an application centre or in temporary accommodation. 3.5.6.1.2. Asylum case processing If the application for asylum is not rejected within the first 48 working hours, the asylum seeker will be transferred to an ordinary accommodation centre. Asylum seekers who are rejected under the 48-hour procedure will not be transferred to ordinary accommodation centres. Asylum seekers who are rejected in the first instance are generally not entitled to a place in the ordinary accommodation centres, but will be transferred to similar open centres that will focus on their return. 3.5.6.1.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers are generally given a 28-day deadline for departure. After the deadline, the asylum seekers must leave the Netherlands. If a rejected asylum seeker has not left the country voluntarily within 28 days, he or she will be referred to the partially closed centres for up to 12 weeks in preparation for the deportation. After the 12 weeks, the asylum seeker is no longer entitled to accommodation. However, finally rejected asylum seekers who the authorities expect to return will be referred to a closed centre until they are returned. 3.5.6.2. Healthcare services Depending on their circumstances, asylum seekers have access to the same standard services of the Dutch healthcare service as other persons staying in the Netherlands. However, this does not apply to publicly funded sex-change operations. In addition, the expenses for regular dental care are covered for minor asylum seekers. 3.5.6.2.1 Initial stage Asylum seekers staying at application centres or temporary accommodation centres have access to emergency medical care and treatment. 3.5.6.2.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers have access to the standard services of the Dutch healthcare system during asylum case processing. 3.5.6.2.3. Rejected asylum seekers

Page 47

Finally rejected asylum seekers enjoy the same access to the standard services of the Dutch healthcare system as other asylum seekers as long as they stay in the accommodation centres. Finally rejected asylum seekers staying outside the departure centres are entitled to emergency medical care and treatment. 3.5.6.3. Education Asylum seekers under the age of 18 are comprised by the Dutch act on mandatory education and are therefore obligated to attend school. Depending on the circumstances, the students attend the ordinary school system or schools at the accommodation centres. The asylum seekers’ educational background is taken into consideration in connection with the education. In addition to general education, minor asylum seekers can attend special language classes. Adult asylum seekers can attend education programmes outside the centres, provided that they pay for them themselves. 3.5.6.3.1. Initial stage The obligation to attend school applies to asylum seekers under the age of 18 at the initial stage. 3.5.6.3.2. Asylum case processing The obligation to attend school applies to asylum seekers under the age of 18 at the asylum case processing stage. Adult asylum seekers take classes in Dutch and social studies voluntarily while they are awaiting the outcome of their applications in the first instance. Adult asylum seekers rejected in the first instance may follow training programmes that will give them relevant skills for their return to their countries of origin. Participation in these programmes is not mandatory, but entitles participants to certain supplementary benefits. 3.5.6.3.3. Rejected asylum seekers The obligation to attend school also applies to finally rejected asylum seekers under the age of 18. 3.5.6.4. Activation Asylum seekers can make meals in all centres except for temporary accommodation centres, which have meal schemes. 3.5.6.4.1. Initial stage No specific activities are in place at the application centres or the temporary accommodation centres. Asylum seekers placed in application centres can make their own meals. This is not possible for asylum seekers placed in temporary accommodation centres, which have meal schemes.

Page 48

3.5.6.4.2. Asylum case processing During asylum case processing, various activities are organised for asylum seekers placed in ordinary accommodation centres or departure centres, including disco, self-defence courses and special activities for women. In addition, asylum seekers are obligated to clean their own rooms and communal areas. Asylum seekers may take part in repair and maintenance work at the centres. Failure to perform mandatory duties may lead to a reduction in financial allowances. Asylum seekers placed in departure centres after their first rejection receive an offer to participate in departure interviews. Failure to participate in these interviews may mean that the asylum seeker loses his or her right to equipment (e.g. tools) to be used in the country of origin. Asylum seekers can always make their own meals during asylum case processing. 3.5.6.4.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers in accommodation centres are offered the same activities as asylum seekers who have been rejected in the first instance. 3.7.6.5 Financial and other support 3.5.6.5.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers at the initial stage receive pocket money. 3.5.6.5.2. Asylum case processing The weekly allowance varies depending on the circumstances. Consequently, asylum seekers in centres with free meals receive a lower weekly allowance. The size of the household is also taken into consideration. An adult asylum seeker staying at a centre with no meal scheme receives a weekly allowance of EUR 53.89 (approx. DKK 400). In addition, all asylum seekers receive a lump sum of EUR 36.30 (approx. DKK 270) for clothes. 3.5.6.5.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers staying in accommodation centres receive a weekly cash allowance of EUR 36.23 EUR (approx. DKK 270). This allowance is supplemented with EUR 16.38 (approx. DKK 120) in weekly pocket money. 3.5.6.6. Labour market access 3.5.6.6.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers may not access the labour market at the initial stage. 3.5.6.6.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers are entitled to work six months after they have submitted their application. The six months should be seen in relation to the fact that asylum cases must usually have been decided no later than six months after submission of the application. The right to work is limited to 24 weeks per year. For certain types of workers, e.g. artists and musicians, the right to work is limited to 14 weeks per year. These time limits are in place because people Page 49

working more than a specified number of weeks per year enjoy extended rights to social benefits. Access to the labour market also applies if an asylum seeker is rejected in the first instance. Asylum seekers rejected under the 48-hour procedure do not have access to the labour market. Information about rights and limitations is provided in connection with the general information about rights and duties given when an asylum seeker arrives at an ordinary accommodation centre. 3.5.6.6.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers may not access the labour market. 3.5.6.6.4. Access to the labour market in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration Asylum seekers cannot submit an application for work and residence permit under the general rules on labour immigration while staying in the Netherlands, as a residence permit under these rules can solely be granted before the applicant enters the Netherlands. Submission of an application for asylum has no bearing on the possibility of attaining a work and residence permit pursuant to the general rules on labour immigration. 3.5.6.6.5. Illegal work The Netherlands does not punish asylum seekers working illegally. However, legislation allows people using illegal labour to be fined up to EUR 8,000 (approx. DKK 60,000). 3.5.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work The Dutch health and safety authorities regularly targets illegal work. No statistics on the scope of illegal work among asylum seekers in the Netherlands are compiled. Consequently, no studies or information is available about trends in the area. 3.5.7. Assistance with repatriation The Netherlands has entered an agreement with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to conduct a programme on voluntary repatriation. To become part of this programme, the alien must have come to the Netherlands for permanent residence, but now wants to return permanently. Furthermore, the alien must not have returned from the Netherlands forcibly or with assistance within the five preceding years. The basic allowance is EUR 500 (approx. DKK 3,700) for adults and unaccompanied minors and EUR 100 (approx. DKK 750) per child. However, for some aliens, the amount is EUR 200 (approx. DKK 1,500) per adult and EUR 40 (DKK 300) per child. Since November 2004, the Netherlands has also had an agreement with IOM on a programme regarding voluntary repatriation. The programme was renewed in October 2008. The Page 50

intention of this programme is to encourage and facilitate voluntary repatriation for finally rejected asylum seekers of specific nationalities and to strengthen the reintegration of these persons in their countries of origin or in connection with resettlement in a third country. In order to be covered by this programme, aliens must meet the requirements applying to the ordinary programme for voluntary repatriation. The programme makes it possible to support voluntary repatriation with EUR 1,750 (approx. DKK 13,000) to adults or unaccompanied minors. In addition, special programmes are in place for unaccompanied minors, aliens with health problems and victims of human trafficking. All the programmes apply only to persons wanting to return voluntarily. The Netherlands has no special schemes or mechanisms regarding supervision or monitoring of people departed or repatriated with support from the Netherlands. 3.5.7.1. Hindrances to deportation Aliens about to be returned must leave the country. A residence permit can be granted to aliens if hindrances to deportation beyond their control occur. A residence permit can thus be granted in cases of objective hindrances to deportation. 3.5.8. Detention 3.5.8.1. Initial stage As a rule, aliens rejected at the border and who apply for asylum will be detained. In these cases, an assessment will be made of whether the application is likely to be rejected. If this is the case, detention may be upheld. In terms of families with children, detention will only be upheld if the case is processed as an urgent case, and the family cannot be detained for more than four weeks after the asylum case has been decided. No upper limit exists on the duration of detention in other cases. However, in all cases, detention may not be upheld if the person concerned is no longer assessed as able to leave the country. 3.5.8.2. Asylum case processing It is possible to detain asylum seekers during asylum case processing even though they have not been rejected at the border. This chiefly occurs in cases where the asylum seeker was already detained at the time of application. In addition, an asylum seeker can be detained if it is assumed that he or she will disappear if deportation is to be enforced. Circumstances giving rise to detention include previous crime, illegal entry where the person concerned has been in the country without reporting to the authorities, disposal of travel documents without reasonable cause, use of false documents and the provision of incorrect or contradictory information about identity or travel route in connection with the application. However, in these cases, the use of detention requires a specific assessment of the circumstances, and asylum seekers are rarely detained during the actual asylum procedure.

Page 51

Depending on the procedure, detention of people residing lawfully in the Netherlands (i.e. during the asylum procedure) is limited to four or six weeks. 3.5.8.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers can also be detained. This is typical in cases where the asylum seeker has not left the country voluntarily within the deadline set for departure and if there is a risk that he or she will disappear while preparations to enforce the deportation are under way. Families with children cannot be detained for more than two weeks, while no such upper limit exists for other asylum seekers. Detention cannot be upheld if return is no longer considered possible. Finally, aliens expected to leave the country are generally detained while their return is being prepared. 3.5.9. Disappeared asylum seekers Disappeared asylum seekers are categorised as not having left the Netherlands. Between 2004 and 2007, the number of registered aliens not proven to have left the Netherlands during or after the asylum procedure reached 8,000-12,000.

Page 52

3.6

Norway

3.6.1. Introduction Norway has an area of 385,200 square kilometres and a population of about 4.6 million people. Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government system without federal structure. 3.6.2. Organisation and asylum procedure The Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion holds overall responsibility for refugee, immigration and integration policy. The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration is an authority under the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion and performs tasks related to refugees, including processing applications for asylum, while the police immigration unit is responsible for matters such as registering asylum seekers and conducting investigations to determine travel routes and identity. The Norwegian asylum procedure starts with registering the asylum seeker. The police are in charge of registration. Next, the applicant is accommodated at a transit centre where he or she must fill in a declaration that forms part of the basis for processing the application for asylum. During his or her stay at the transit centre, the asylum seeker will be summoned to an asylum interview with the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. For all types of asylum application, a decision is to be made as soon as possible after the required information is obtained. Norway divides applications for asylum into five different types of procedure: 1) The 48-hour procedure (for manifestly unfounded cases), 2) the Dublin procedure, 3) the procedure for unaccompanied minors, 4) the 3-week procedure (for applicants from countries of low recognition rates, currently Albanians and Bosnians, etc.) and 5) ordinary cases. The authorities examine on their own initiatives whether to grant refugee status/protection status (status based on grounds corresponding to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or Norway’s other convention obligations) or a humanitarian residence permit. All applications for asylum are processed in the first instance by the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. If an application is rejected, the applicant can apply for resumption with a view to reversing the decision. If the decision is not reversed, the appeal is forwarded to the Immigration Appeals Board, which considers appeals against decisions made by the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration in the first instance. The appellant will be assigned legal counsel in this case. Generally, the appeal acts as a stay of proceedings so the asylum seeker is entitled to remain in Norway while the appeal is considered unless the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration decides that the application is manifestly unfounded. 3.6.3. Statistics Number of applications for asylum submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 10,839

Page 53

2001 14,771

2002 17,456

2003 15,439

2004 7,906

2005 5,376

2006 5,282

2007 6,508

2008 14,407

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection/ humanitarian residence permit Rejections

2000 97

2001 292

2002 332

2003 585

2004 457

2005 579

2006 461

2007 1,014

2008 1,077

2,856

4,036

2,958

2,972

3,023

1,935

1,225

1,860

1,975

4,899

8,976

12,829

11,834

8,289

4,289

2,025

3,001

5,963

3.6.4. Protection of refugees 3.6.4.1. Convention status Norway is bound by the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, including the 1967 New York protocol, which is incorporated into Norwegian legislation by referral in the Aliens Act. Norway is not an EU Member State and is therefore not bound by EU asylum rules. However, Norway is bound by the Dublin cooperation, which is applicable in pursuance of an international agreement between Norway and the EU. 3.6.4.2. Other grounds for protection Norway is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into Norwegian legislation by referral in an act on strengthening human rights in Norwegian legislation. For instance, this act contains a provision to the effect that all provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights prevail over any act conflicting with it. The Norwegian Aliens Act also directly states that it is applicable in accordance with Norway’s international obligations in so far as these aim at strengthening the position of aliens. Aliens who may not be returned in contravention of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights are granted a residence permit. In the event of a mass influx situation, the government can decide that people involved in such a situation – upon application – are granted a temporary residence permit based on a group assessment (collective protection). The permit can be renewed or extended for a period of up to three years from the time the applicant was first granted a permit. A subsequent permit may be granted with a view to permanent residency. A permanent residence permit is granted provided that the conditions are still met one year after such permit has been granted. 3.6.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds In cases where an application for asylum has been rejected, the authorities must, on their own initiative, determine whether a residence permit can be granted on strong humanitarian grounds or because the case involves an alien with a special tie to Norway. For Page 54

instance, a residence permit can be granted in cases where the risk of persecution is not large enough to entitle the applicant to international protection, but where an uncertainty in all circumstances indicates that a residence permit should be granted. The health of aliens is taken into account, but without other relevant circumstances in the case, the applicant’s health must be quite serious for a residence permit to be granted. Moreover, a residence permit may be granted if an alien has not yet received a decision in his or her asylum case within a period of 15 months from the date of its submission. To obtain the permit, the alien must produce the relevant travelling documents. Other requirements include that the alien has not presented false documents in connection with application processing, has not stayed in an unknown location for more than three days and has not left Norway without permission, and that circumstances warranting deportation do not exist at the time of the decision. Furthermore, the alien may not have submitted incorrect information about previous stays in countries participating in the Dublin cooperation, and, finally, the alien may not otherwise be culpable for the delay of a decision in the case. 3.6.5. Resettlement Norway has a quota scheme of some 1,200 places a year (2008). The Norwegian parliament fixes the number once a year. In 2008, 80 places were allocated to urgent cases, including people at imminent risk of assault in the country of residence or of being returned to their countries of origin, and 20 places were allocated to people with special needs for treatment. Moreover, in recent years, Norway has converted 36-65 places into means for initiatives supporting the development of quota schemes in more countries. Quota refugees are selected by the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration on the basis of an interview made during a quota trip to the refugees’ countries of residence or of a written presentation by the UNHCR. Most often, a quota refugee is granted convention status, but may also be granted subsidiary status or another work permit. The individual refugee’s need for protection is the fundamental criterion for resettlement in Norway. Moreover, until 2008, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration assessed the individual refugee’s possibility of becoming self-sufficient and integrated in Norwegian society. This supplementary criterion was not specified in detail, but included an assessment of the refugee’s occupational experience, education, language skills, other skills and family relations in Norway. Focus was on resettling families/groups, for which reason not all persons necessarily had to fulfil the supplementary criterion. The supplementary criterion lapsed with effect from 2008 to be replaced by an assessment of what integration initiatives local authorities could offer the individual groups of refugees. In addition to the consideration involving local authority facilities, there are specified, actual considerations requiring that women’s needs be given special consideration in the selection. Hence, at least 55% of the total number of people resettled must be women, and at least 15% must be in the category “women at risk”. The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration may ask refugees to undergo a medical examination prior to or after the resettlement decision has been made. Quota refugees Page 55

selected during a quota trip must attend a pre-departure course about Norway. The course lasts four days and is held by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) on behalf of the Directorate of Integration and Diversity. 3.6.6. Terms and conditions for asylum seekers 3.6.6.1. Accommodation All asylum seekers applying for asylum in Norway receive an offer of accommodation in open centres. In general, there is no difference between the offer for single asylum seekers and for families, including families with children. However, with respect to families, the need for room will be considered. No specific guidelines apply to the size and/or number of rooms offered to asylum seekers, and accommodation centres can be ordinary flats (decentralised accommodation centres) or actual accommodation centres (centralised accommodation centres). Single asylum seekers may have to share a room with other single asylum seekers of the same sex. In certain cases, including cases involving sick people, special arrangements can be made that allow them to stay with family members or stay temporarily in a local authority area while the asylum case is being processed. Asylum seekers are not obliged to accept an offer of accommodation, but it is a condition for receiving financial allowances. However, this does not apply to asylum seekers who for health reasons are accommodated outside the normal asylum system. Unaccompanied minors below the age of 15 are accommodated in special institutions where the material conditions differ from those in normal accommodation centres. Unaccompanied minors below the age of 15 receive an offer of accommodation in special wards in the normal accommodation centres. Asylum seekers are not obliged to report, but if an asylum seeker leaves an accommodation centre for more than three days without informing the centre, he or she will be registered as having moved to an unknown location, which may impact on a rejected asylum seeker’s being granted a residence permit; see above. 3.6.6.1.1. Initial stage First, asylum seekers stay at a transit centre, where they undergo the mandatory screening for tuberculosis and have the asylum interview. 3.6.6.1.2. Asylum case processing After their stays at a transit centre, asylum seekers are referred to a normal accommodation centre where they will remain until their asylum cases, including an appeal, if relevant, have been decided. However, this does not apply to asylum seekers whose applications are processed pursuant to the special expedited procedure or when the authorities have requested a transfer in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. These people are only offered a stay at an open transit centre unless they are minors or families with minor children as these are moved to a normal accommodation centre where the minor children can receive schooling in the

Page 56

standard school system if they are deemed likely to stay in Norway for more than three months.

3.6.6.1.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers are not offered accommodation at a normal accommodation centre, but at an open departure centre. Unaccompanied minors, families with minor children, sick people and aliens cooperating on their voluntary return will, however, maintain their rights to stay at a normal accommodation centre until they leave the country. 3.6.6.2. Healthcare services In Norway, asylum seekers have access to the general healthcare system and thus enjoy the same access to treatment and healthcare services as other people residing in Norway. 3.6.6.2.1 Initial stage Access to the general healthcare system also applies to asylum seekers at the initial stage. 3.6.6.2.2. Asylum case processing Access to the general healthcare system applies to asylum seekers at the asylum case processing stage. 3.6.6.2.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers are exclusively entitled to emergency medical treatment. The departure centres have, however, their own healthcare staff so in practice finally rejected asylum seekers have further access to healthcare services. Minors, however, always have access to the Norwegian healthcare system on the same terms as other minors in Norway. 3.6.6.3. Education Asylum seekers aged 6 to 16 are generally entitled to and under a duty to receive education. 3.6.6.3.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers aged 6 to 16 are entitled and under an obligation to receive education while at the initial stage if they are deemed likely to stay in Norway for more than three months. 3.6.6.3.2. Asylum case processing The right and duty of asylum seekers aged 6 to 16 to receive education also applies at the asylum case processing stage. Asylum seekers aged 16 to 18 are not entitled to education. However, this does not preclude the possibility of receiving an offer of education in some instances. Asylum seekers above the age of 16 receive lessons in Norwegian when a decision has been made to process their applications for asylum in Norway and they are staying at a normal accommodation centre. The number of lessons is 250.

Page 57

Apart from language lessons, there are no general offers of teaching or education. All residents at the normal accommodation centres must, however, take part in a mandatory information programme on Norwegian society, and if they fail to do so, their financial allowances may be reduced. The individual accommodation centres can organise various courses (upgrading initiatives and activities) as part of their activity programmes.

3.6.6.3.3. Rejected asylum seekers The right and duty of asylum seekers aged 6 to 16 years to receive education also applies to finally rejected asylum seekers. Finally rejected asylum seekers cannot receive language lessons. 3.6.6.4. Activation 3.6.6.4.1. Initial stage The Norwegian asylum system is organised so that asylum seekers staying at a transit centre are obliged to take part in cleaning and similar activities. During their stays at a transit centre, asylum seekers can prepare their own meals unless the centre has a cafeteria. The centre can apply to the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration for support for activities aimed at children and young people (funds earmarked for activities for children living at the centres). This also applies to activities outside the accommodation centres. In practice, this option is rarely used due to the short duration of the stay. 3.6.6.4.2. Asylum case processing stage When an asylum seeker is transferred to a normal accommodation centre, he or she is encouraged to take part in running the centre. Moreover, the centre is obliged to set up a residents’ council with resident as well as staff representatives. The councils often have funds for various initiatives and activities at the centres. Thanks to the councils, the residents can influence how the centres are operated. Asylum seekers can participate in sports or similar cultural activities on a par with other people residing in Norway. Children can receive support for the costs of participating in activities outside the accommodation centres. The centres can also apply to the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration for support for activities aimed at children and young people (funds earmarked for activities for children living at the centres). This also applies to activities outside the accommodation centres. When asylum seekers move to a normal accommodation centre, they prepare their own meals. 3.6.6.4.3. Rejected asylum seekers

Page 58

Finally rejected asylum seekers are transferred to departure centres, where they enjoy the same rights as at the transit centres. Failure to perform mandatory tasks may lead to a reduction in financial allowances. All departure centres have a cafeteria so residents cannot prepare their own meals. It is pointed out that families with children and unaccompanied minors, among others, are not transferred to a departure centre. This means, for instance, that children can still make use of the offers available at their places of accommodation.

3.6.6.5 Financial and other support The amount of financial support to asylum seekers depends on the stage of the asylum procedure and whether the centre where they are staying has a cafeteria. In addition to financial allowances, asylum seekers also receive benefits in kind. Children starting in kindergarten or school receive a lump sum payment of NOK 750 (about DKK 620). 3.6.6.5.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers above the age of 18 staying at a transit centre with a cafeteria receive NOK 470 (about DKK 400) a month, while children below the age of 18 receive NOK 380 (about DKK 300) a month. In contrast, asylum seekers receive NOK 2,195 (about DKK 1,800) and NOK 1,145 (about DKK 950) a month, respectively, if the centre does not have a cafeteria. Couples living at a centre without a cafeteria receive a total of NOK 3,550 (about DKK 3,000) a month. Asylum seekers staying at a transit centre are often given clothes, bed linen and kitchen utensils. This does not apply to asylum seekers whose applications are processed according to the expedited procedure, however. 3.6.6.5.2. Asylum case processing Single asylum seekers above the age of 18 and living at a normal accommodation centre receive NOK 3,100 (about DKK 2,600) a month, while couples receive a total of NOK 5,160 (about DKK 4,300) a month. Children receive between NOK 1,340 (about DKK 1,100) and NOK 1,600 (about DKK 1,300) a month, depending on their ages. 3.6.6.5.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers at departure centres receive NOK 400 (about DKK 330) a month if they are 18 or older. The amount is the same for singles and couples. Children are never placed at departure centres. Finally rejected asylum seekers at departure centres are given the necessary equipment for personal hygiene. 3.6.6.6. Labour market access

Page 59

Asylum seekers can apply for a temporary work permit, which will be valid until their asylum cases have been decided. During the asylum interview, an asylum seeker is typically informed that he or she can apply for a work permit. A temporary work permit is only granted if an asylum interview has been held, the identity of the asylum seeker is beyond doubt and he or she is not about to be transferred or returned to another country. Decisions on temporary work permits for asylum seekers are not governed by the Norwegian public administration act’s general provisions on the right of appeal, etc.

3.6.6.6.1. Initial stage Generally, asylum seekers will not have access to the labour market at the initial stage. 3.6.6.6.2. Asylum case processing Depending on the circumstances, asylum seekers will be able to meet the conditions for obtaining a temporary work permit when they are at the asylum case processing stage. 3.6.6.6.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers are generally not entitled to a work permit. Subject to application, however, asylum seekers who cannot be forcibly deported can obtain a temporary work permit. The practice in this field is that, in general, temporary work permits are not granted to finally rejected asylum seekers able to travel home voluntarily. 3.6.6.6.4. Access to the labour market in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration Submission of an application for asylum in Norway means that the applicant will be unable to avail him or herself of the exemption allowing qualified labour and seasonal labour to apply for work and residence permits while staying in Norway. Aliens who have submitted an application for asylum in Norway will thus under all circumstances have to apply for work and residence permits under the general rules on labour immigration outside Norway. 3.6.6.6.5. Illegal work The Norwegian Aliens Act does not contain any specific provisions on sanctions or punishment as far as illegal work is concerned. However, aliens who violate one or more provisions in the Aliens Act can generally be deported. In addition, a general provision exists on fines or imprisonment for violating provisions in the Norwegian Aliens Act or related regulations, etc. The term of imprisonment may not exceed six months. Both these general provisions may, depending on the circumstances, apply to people in violation of the Norwegian Aliens Act. 3.6.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work Norway does not undertake regular actions systematically targeting illegal work among asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are normally encountered in connection with control actions targeting certain industries and having several purposes. By undertaking joint actions targeting the restaurant trade and the building industry, the authorities have apprehended asylum seekers doing illegal work. Page 60

At present, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration is in contact with employer organisations to provide employers better access to checking whether a given employee holds the required work permit. Furthermore, deliberations to limit asylum seekers’ temporary work permits to six months are currently underway as this would make it easier for authorities or employers to check whether an asylum seeker holds the required work permit. This measure can also strengthen the possibilities of taking legal action against employers who take on asylum seekers without work permits. Norway has not prepared profiles or compiled statistics on asylum seekers doing illegal work. However, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration has launched a development project aimed at developing methods for estimating the number of people living illegally in Norway. This would have to be based on existing administrative registrations of aliens. The project would also have to comprise former asylum seekers. It still remains to be seen whether a basis for estimating the extent of illegal work exists. 3.6.7. Assistance with repatriation Rejected asylum seekers wishing to return home voluntarily can have their travel costs covered and receive USD 30 (about DKK 175) in cash. This possibility of financial support for the trip home applies to all rejected asylum seekers regardless of nationality. Moreover, Norway has two special programmes for voluntary return to Afghanistan and northern Iraq. Both programmes are implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The programme targeted at Afghans means that Afghan asylum seekers are offered NOK 15,000 (about DKK 12,500), which the IOM pays out on the asylum seeker’s arrival in Kabul. The programme is also intended for Afghans holding a Norwegian residence permit, who are also offered NOK 15,000 (about DKK 12,500), but the amount is paid out in Norway by the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. The people comprised by the programme are also offered a reintegration package. The first reintegration package contains an offer of paid work. The IOM will, as required, be able to offer jobs on the basis of its own job database. The other possibility is an offer of education and training. The IOM is responsible for the training, which takes place in Afghanistan. Finally, there is an offer of support in establishing one’s own business as a self-employed businessman. Based on the private individual’s experience, a plan is prepared in cooperation with the IOM. The majority choose to open a shop. The other programme concerns support for voluntary return to northern Iraq. Iraqi asylum seekers accepting the offer of voluntary return receive NOK 10,000 (about DKK 8,300), which the IOM pays out on the asylum seeker’s arrival in Iraq. People from northern Iraq holding a residence permit in Norway receive NOK 15,000 (about DKK 12,500) if they choose to return. There is also an offer of reintegration assistance at a value of NOK 25,000 (about DKK 20,800) for the purpose of establishing one’s own business as a self-employed businessman, developing competence through education and on-the-job training, providing education and assistance with employment (the reintegration assistance can, for instance, Page 61

be used for support to employers, costs involved in on-the-job training and competence centres). Norway has no special schemes or mechanisms for supervising or monitoring people who have departed or been repatriated with support from Norway. 3.6.7.1. Hindrances to deportation Aliens whose applications for asylum have been finally rejected must leave Norway immediately. In general, this also applies in cases where the authorities have been unable to deport an asylum seeker forcibly. Voluntary return is normally possible in such situations. If not, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration can issue a humanitarian residence permit. A humanitarian residence permit can only be issued in such a situation if a period of at least three years has passed since the person submitted his or her application for asylum, and if forcible deportation is deemed unlikely to be effected. Moreover, the identity of the asylum seeker must not be in doubt, and he or she must generally have assisted in establishing his or her identity during the asylum procedure. The rejected asylum seeker must also have aided in making his or her return possible, also in connection with procuring travel documents. If a basis for deportation exists, a humanitarian residence permit may not be issued under this procedure. Unless extenuating circumstances exist, a humanitarian residence permit will not be issued in such cases until one year after the final rejection and the process of establishing the identity and procuring travel documents is completed. The Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that only a diminutive number of residence permits are granted to people who cannot leave the country due to the requirement of cooperation on return. 3.6.8. Detention Aliens, including asylum seekers, who refuse to state their identities or are suspected of stating a false identity can be subjected to an obligation to report or ordered to stay in a certain place. If the order is not followed or it is considered manifestly insufficient, the person concerned may be detained. The total period of detention may not exceed 12 weeks unless special grounds exist. 3.6.8.1. Initial stage The possibility of detaining a person does not depend on his or her being a person at the initial stage. 3.6.8.2. Asylum case processing The possibility of detaining a person does not depend on his or her being a person at the asylum case processing stage. 3.6.8.3. Rejected asylum seekers The Norwegian Aliens Act allows an alien to be detained if confinement is deemed necessary with a view to implementing an order to leave the country. Detention is also a possibility when deemed necessary to present the alien to his or her own diplomatic representation to obtain travel documents. The period of detention may not exceed two weeks. If the alien does not leave the country voluntarily, and the alien will in all likelihood otherwise avoid the implementation of the order to leave the country, the detention may be extended by Page 62

another two weeks. The period of confinement may only be extended once. Confinement will not occur if the nature of the case and the circumstances in general render it a disproportionate restraint or if less radical measures such as an obligation to report can be taken. 3.6.9. Disappeared asylum seekers Regular statistics are compiled on the number of disappeared asylum seekers who accept the offer of accommodation and subsequently leave the accommodation centre without notifying it. Many of these asylum seekers return to the accommodation centre after a short or long period, including because they are returning to Norway under the Dublin cooperation. For this reason, statistics are also compiled on the number of asylum seekers who disappear for a reference period to be determined in more detail and about whom no further information is available at a specific date. In addition, statistics are compiled on the probability of asylum seekers’ being in Norway at a given date. These statistics are prepared on the basis of information about whereabouts (address) and when and in what connection the last contact with the Norwegian authorities was. The Norwegian police are of the opinion that a special risk exists that disappeared asylum seekers will undertake illegal work, but there are no statistics or studies to support this opinion.

Page 63

3.7

United Kingdom

3.7.1. Introduction The United Kingdom has an area of 243,305 square kilometres and a population of about 61 million people. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. The United Kingdom has no federal structure. 3.7.2. Organisation and asylum procedure In the United Kingdom, the UK Border Agency is in charge of tasks concerning aliens. The agency is an authority under the Home Office. Decisions on asylum made by the UK Border Agency can in general be appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The first step in the asylum procedure is the screening conducted immediately after an application for asylum has been submitted. In this part of the procedure, the asylum seeker must answer a number of basic questions about the application and hand over passport and travel documents so that nationality and identity can be established and the application substantiated. The asylum seeker’s fingerprints and photograph are also taken. Shortly after the screening, the asylum seeker will be allocated a case owner who is responsible for dealing with all aspects of the application, including decisions on applications for financial support and publicly paid housing. The case owner also represents the state in connection with any appeal. Moreover, the case owner is charged with taking measures regarding integration and return to country of origin depending on the outcome of the asylum case. The application is considered under the expedited procedure or the normal procedure. If the application is considered under the expedited procedure, the asylum seeker will generally be detained pending consideration of the application. If the asylum application is rejected, the applicant can generally appeal against the decision to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The appeal acts as a stay of proceedings so the asylum seeker is entitled to remain in the country pending the appeal. If a decision has been made that the application is manifestly unfounded, the applicant must lodge the appeal from abroad. 3.7.3. Statistics Number of applications for asylum submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 98,866

Page 64

2001 91,553

2002 103,080

2003 60,047

2004 40,623

2005 30,841

2006 28,321

2007 28,299

2008 22,533

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection/ humanitarian residence permit Rejections

2000 10,186

2001 11,449

2002 8,272

2003 4,785

2004 2,081

2005 2,471

2006 2,632

2007 4,481

2008 3,725

21,697

20,192

20,136

7,422

4,187

2,969

2,411

2,323

2,180

78,181

89,306

55,132

62,750

48,774

27,655

20,431

19,485

13,510

3.7.4. Protection of refugees 3.7.4.1. Convention status The United Kingdom is bound by the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, including the 1967 New York protocol, which is incorporated into national legislation by referral. The UK has an opt-out in the area regarding legal and internal affairs, but has chosen to take the opportunity to participate in the EU’s rules in the asylum area (opt-in arrangement). Hence, asylum seekers meeting the general provisions of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the EU Asylum Qualification Directive are granted a residence permit. 3.7.4.2. Other grounds for protection The United Kingdom is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into national legislation by referral. Residence permits are granted to aliens who are entitled to stay in the country pursuant to provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and its additional protocols. The UK Aliens Act does not contain any provisions on protection exceeding the UK’s international and EU law obligations in the area. 3.7.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds The UK Aliens Act does not contain any general provision on issuing residence permits on humanitarian grounds. On extremely rare occasions, a residence permit can be issued in specific cases. Factors that may bear on such cases are illness, disability, contribution to British society, duration of stay so far, casework time and past experiences in the country of origin. 3.7.5. Resettlement

Page 65

The United Kingdom has an annual resettlement quota of 750 refugees under the Gateway Protection Programme. In addition, the UK has a scheme known as the Mandate Scheme, according to which refugees referred by the UNHCR and having a close tie to the UK (often as a result of close family relations) are resettled. The scheme has no annual quota, but the number of people is typically 50-150. The Ten or More Plan, which was a scheme for resettling people with medical needs, was discontinued in 2007 and will not be reintroduced in that form. However, the UK will continue to resettle people with medical needs under the Gateway Protection Programme. The UK Border Agency selects refugees referred by the UNHCR under the Gateway Protection Programme on the basis of interviews from quota trips to countries that host refugees. The UK Border Agency unit for resettlement programmes makes the trips. To qualify for resettlement under the Gateway Protection Programme, the person must fall within the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The person’s need for resettlement (as opposed to other durable solutions) is also assessed. In addition, he or she must cooperate with the UK authorities and other parties involved in the programme. The asylum seeker may not be living in a polygamous marriage and may not have an application pending under the Mandate Scheme. The UK also examines whether the Gateway Protection Programme can meet the resettlement needs of the asylum seeker and his or her dependants and whether the resettlement is conducive to the public good. The consideration of a case also involves an assessment of whether resettlement in the UK would conflict with the interests of the asylum seeker or his or her family. Refugees who resettle in the UK are granted convention status and an open-ended residence permit on arrival in the UK. Refugees must undergo a medical examination before their cases can be decided. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) arranges the examination. Before departing for the United Kingdom, refugees must attend a cultural orientation course lasting two to three weeks. The IOM organises these courses. The courses aim at preparing refugees for everyday life in the UK and cover subjects such as British society and culture, history and social and political standards and values, including democracy, constitutional state, women’s equality and equality for minorities, freedom of religion and tolerance. The courses also deal with practical matters such as work, finances and the social system as well as allowances. On arrival in the UK, refugees are divided into groups of typically 60-100 people in local authority areas throughout the UK. The local authorities participate voluntarily in the resettlement programme. The UK Border Agency covers all the costs of receiving refugees for the first year. Sponsor contributions cover the costs of receiving people arriving in the UK under the Mandate Scheme. 3.7.6. Terms and conditions for asylum seekers 3.7.6.1. Accommodation Asylum seekers are generally expected to find their own accommodation and provide for themselves. Asylum seekers who cannot provide for themselves can submit an application

Page 66

for support. The support is primarily in the form of publicly paid housing and money via weekly cash allowances. The support is also conditional on the asylum seeker’s having submitted an application for asylum as soon as feasible after his or her arrival in the UK. This usually means that the asylum seeker is required to have submitted the application for asylum not later than two days before arriving in the UK. However, this requirement does not apply to families with children or – depending on the circumstances – asylum seekers who base their applications on events in the country of origin occurring after arrival in the UK. Support is also given to the extent required by obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights regardless of when the application for asylum was submitted. To receive public support, the asylum seeker needs to sign an agreement on the terms for receiving public support. For instance, the agreement states that the asylum seeker may only live in the accommodation allocated, must answer inquiries by the immigration authorities as soon as possible and must comply with the rules applicable to the accommodation. Failure to fulfil the agreement may mean support is temporarily or permanently revoked. Pending the application for accommodation, the asylum seeker is offered preliminary accommodation in hotel-like housing with free meals, former residence halls or ordinary properties depending on where in the UK he or she has submitted the application. In all circumstances, the accommodation will be open. If the application is met, the asylum seeker will receive an offer to stay in an area with vacant housing at a reasonable price. Such housing may be publicly or privately owned. Single asylum seekers receive different offers from families with children as single asylum seekers will often have to share housing with other residents, while families with children will often get their own housing. Occasionally, asylum seekers may have to share a bedroom with other people of the same sex. According to the information at hand, no official figures indicate the precise percentage of asylum seekers who qualify for support. However, the percentage is assumed to be high. The immigration authorities are not responsible for supporting unaccompanied minor asylum seekers below the age of 18. This responsibility rests with the local authorities. Minors below the age of 16 will typically stay with foster families, while older children will typically stay in housing with partial adult supervision. The obligation to report is primarily used for asylum seekers to ensure efficient contact between the asylum seeker and his or her case owner and to prevent him or her from disappearing. There are no systematic rules specifying the extent of the obligation to report. Instead, it is up to the individual case owner to assess the extent to which an obligation to report should be imposed. In special situations, electronic supervision may be used as an alternative to detention. 3.7.6.1.1. Initial stage While the authorities are considering an application for accommodation and perhaps other support, asylum seekers will be placed in initial accommodation. Page 67

Asylum seekers to be transferred to a third country will be placed in initial accommodation or detained. Asylum seekers whose cases are handled under the expedited procedure will generally be detained in closed centres. 3.7.6.1.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers who are offered accommodation will be placed in publicly owned or private housing at a fair price if they receive asylum support and are in need of accommodation. 3.7.6.1.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers will be offered accommodation provided they fulfil certain conditions. These conditions include that they would be destitute without the support and that they take all the necessary steps to prepare their own returns or that hindrances to deportation exist. The majority of families with children are offered accommodation until they leave the UK. 3.7.6.2. Healthcare services Access to free healthcare services under the national health service requires normal residence in the UK. General practitioners have the authority to receive and register asylum seekers as patients. The UK Border Agency cooperates with the national health authorities to ensure that asylum seekers accommodated in publicly paid housing are registered with a general practitioner as soon as possible. Asylum seekers who have submitted applications for asylum have access to the British health service, while their applications, including any appeal, are being processed. The majority of asylum seekers can also get free prescription medicine on account of low income. 3.7.6.2.1. Initial stage Access to the healthcare system does not depend on at which stage of the asylum procedure the asylum seeker is. 3.7.6.2.2. Asylum case processing Access to the healthcare system does not depend on at which stage of the asylum procedure the asylum seeker is. 3.7.6.2.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers may receive free treatment at emergency rooms. They can also receive free treatment for contagious diseases like tuberculosis and for other lifethreatening diseases. This also applies to treatment to avoid or prevent a condition from developing into a life-threatening disease. Finally rejected asylum seekers are also entitled to continue treatments initiated before their final rejections until they leave the country. It should be noted that the courts have made a decision under which finally rejected asylum seekers in some cases must be regarded as having “normal residence” in the UK within the framework of the rules on access to the healthcare services even though they are not entitled to stay in the UK. However, the decision was appealed against as the authorities were of the opinion that finally rejected asylum seekers should not be considered to have “normal residence” in the UK with respect to access to healthcare services. Page 68

3.7.6.3. Education Asylum seekers of school age (i.e. between the ages of four and 16) are entitled and under an obligation to receive education. The education is given in the normal school system. Adult asylum seekers can generally also apply for admission to general educational institutions and course centres, etc. However, they will have to meet general admission requirements and cover admission costs, if any. 3.7.6.3.1. Initial stage Children of school age are entitled and under an obligation to receive education. The education will usually take place in the normal educational system. Depending on the circumstances, adult asylum seekers may attend English or IT classes. Such offers are typically organised by voluntary organisations. 3.7.6.3.2. Asylum case processing Children of school age are entitled and under an obligation to receive education. The education will usually take place in the normal educational system. Depending on the circumstances, adult asylum seekers may attend English or IT classes. Such offers are typically organised by voluntary organisations. 3.7.6.3.3. Rejected asylum seekers The right and obligation of asylum seekers of school age to education in the normal school system also apply to finally rejected asylum seekers. Depending on the circumstances, adult finally rejected asylum seekers may in practice attend lessons in English, etc. Such offers are typically organised by voluntary organisations. 3.7.6.4. Activation No general offers of activation target asylum seekers directly, apart from those referred to above in 3.7.6.3. 3.7.6.4.1. Initial stage While asylum seekers await a decision on publicly paid housing they are placed in so-called initial accommodation where voluntary organisations and the housing provider organise various leisure activities on a voluntary basis. Asylum seekers are not expected to take part in running, etc., the venues of initial accommodation. 3.7.6.4.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers who are offered publicly paid housing can make use of the general offers in the community where they are placed. Those who are offered publicly paid housing must observe the rules, including cleaning rules, that apply to the accommodation allocated to them. Failure to observe the rules may deprive them of their right to support. Page 69

3.7.6.4.3. Rejected asylum seekers Depending on the circumstances, finally rejected asylum seekers can make use of the offers of activation organised by the voluntary organisations. 3.7.6.5 Financial and other support In general, asylum seekers do not receive financial support from the state. Asylum seekers found to be in need of such support may, however, receive weekly cash allowances. 3.7.6.5.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers at the initial accommodation stage will receive a small cash amount if meals are not included. They will also be given hygiene articles. They receive clothes on an ad hoc basis from voluntary organisations linked to the centres. 3.7.6.5.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers entitled to support receive a weekly cash allowance that covers their basic needs and is based on the fact that they do not have current expenses such as heating or electricity costs or community charges. 3.7.6.5.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers meeting certain conditions receive coupons that can be cashed in selected shops. 3.7.6.6. Labour market access 3.7.6.6.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers may not access the labour market at the initial stage. 3.7.6.6.2. Asylum case processing In general, asylum seekers are not entitled to work while their cases are being considered. If a case has not been decided in the first instance within 12 months after submission of the application, and if the time for consideration of the case cannot be held against the asylum seeker, he or she may apply for a work permit. If a work permit is granted to the asylum seeker, his or her application registration card will be amended to state that he or she is entitled to work. These temporary work permits run until a final decision has been made in the asylum case. 3.7.6.6.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers may not access the labour market. 3.7.6.6.4. Access to the labour market in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration In general, submission of an application for asylum is not of significance to the possibility of applying for a residence permit pursuant to the general rules on labour immigration. Hence, asylum seekers with a basis for residence at the time of applying for asylum can apply for a residence permit to be extended or granted on a different basis. Asylum seekers who had no basis for residence at the time of applying for asylum are subject to the same rules as others without a basis for residence in the UK, i.e. they cannot apply for a residence permit while still staying in the UK. However, asylum seekers can apply for a work permit while still Page 70

staying in the UK as the application for work and residence permits falls into two phases, and in the first phase you only apply for the work permit.

3.7.6.6.5. Illegal work Aliens, including asylum seekers, working illegally in the United Kingdom, may be prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment and, depending on the circumstances, deported. Employers using illegal labour may be fined or imprisoned. The amount of the fine depends, among other things, on the number of times the employer is guilty of having used illegal labour and may run into GBP 10,000 (about DKK 85,000). In severe cases where illegal labour has been used deliberately, the punishment is imprisonment for a term of up to two years. 3.7.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work Statistics on or estimates of the number of aliens working illegally in the UK are not compiled. 3.7.7. Assistance with repatriation The United Kingdom has two reintegration programmes, both of which are completed by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The main programme – the Voluntary Assisted Return Programme – is targeted at asylum seekers, rejected asylum seekers and aliens on “tolerated stay” (persons with limited leave to remain in the UK) who wish to return voluntarily to their countries of origin. The programme provides assistance with obtaining the necessary travel documents, assistance with departure at the airport, plane tickets, reception measures on arrival in the country of origin, transportation in the country of origin to the final destination and reintegration assistance. All aliens comprised by the programme receive a reintegration package tailored to their individual and specific needs in the country of origin. The package contents are agreed at a meeting with the IOM while the person is still in the UK. The individual package typically contains one of the following elements: 1) assistance with start of one’s own business, 2) education, 3) job provision or 4) training. Assistance included in the tailored package varies and is paid out to each individual. Thus, a person from Iraq receives an integration package with a higher economic value than a person from Mali because the costs of living differ in the two countries. People receiving support for voluntary return are expected to leave the country within three months after having been approved for the support. Furthermore, the UK has agreed with the IOM to implement a reintegration programme for illegal immigrants. The programme aims at aliens whose visas have expired and aliens who have come to the UK in connection with human smuggling or trafficking. The assistance covers travelling expenses and, if needed, assistance in connection with arrival at the airport in the country of origin. On the basis of an assessment, an amount of GBP 1,000 (about DKK 8,300) may be paid out to victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors and aliens with health and/or mobility problems. Page 71

The UK has no special schemes or mechanisms for supervising or monitoring people who have departed or been repatriated with support from the UK. 3.7.7.1. Hindrances to deportation No ordinary access exists to grant a residence permit to a person who cannot leave. However, the UK does not return aliens if this conflicts with its international obligations, and a residence permit will be granted if, in specific cases, not granting such permit would conflict with these obligations. 3.7.8. Detention The UK Aliens Act provides wide access to detaining aliens. This applies to aliens who have come into the UK illegally as well as those about to be returned. 3.7.8.1. Initial stage A systematic assessment is made to establish whether asylum seekers whose cases are being processed under the expedited procedure can be detained. Minors, some pregnant women and people with health problems are not considered suitable for detention. Furthermore, aliens are particularly detained in cases where initial identity has to be established. There is no upper limit on the extent of detention, but detention may only be continued if considered reasonable in the light of all the circumstances of the case. 3.7.8.2. Asylum case processing Aliens may be detained in cases where there is a risk of their disappearing. 3.7.8.3. Rejected asylum seekers Detention is used in cases where returning an asylum seeker is required. There is no upper limit on the extent of detention, but detention may only be continued if considered reasonable in the light of all the circumstances of the case. 3.7.9. Disappeared asylum seekers The UK does not compile any exact statistics on the number of asylum seekers who have disappeared.

Page 72

3.8

Sweden

3.8.1. Introduction Sweden has an area of 450,000 square kilometres and a population of about 9.2 million people. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government system without federal structure. 3.8.2. Organisation and asylum procedure The Ministry of Justice holds overall responsibility for the area of asylum and immigration in Sweden. The Swedish Migration Board belongs to this ministry and is responsible for deciding cases in the area of aliens. Appeals against decisions made by the Swedish Migration Board can be lodged to one of three administrative courts that decide appeals in the area of aliens. These decisions may also in some cases be appealed against in a third instance to the Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal, which acts as the supreme administrative court in the area of aliens. An application for asylum submitted in Sweden is considered by the Swedish Migration Board, which first examines whether the application is to be considered by Sweden or by another state in pursuance of the Dublin cooperation. If a decision is made to consider the application in Sweden, the Swedish Migration Board considers the application and decides whether to grant asylum. This also involves that a decision, if need be, is made on whether to grant subsidiary protection or a residence permit on special humanitarian grounds. If the Swedish Migration Board rejects the residence permit application, the decision may be brought before the Migration Court, which considers alien cases. If the case is found to be of general public importance, it may be brought in the third instance before the Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal. It is up to the individual asylum seeker to determine where to stay pending the application for asylum. If he or she cannot find his or her own housing, the Swedish Migration Board will find room for him or her at an accommodation centre. In Sweden, accommodation centres are typically normal housing.

3.8.3. Statistics Number of applications for asylum submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 16,283

Page 73

2001 23,499

2002 32,995

2003 31,355

2004 23,161

2005 17,530

2006 24,322

2007 36,207

2008 24,353

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection/ humanitarian residence permit Rejections

2000 321 6,717

2001 160 4,495

2002 261 5,239

2003 430 3,889

2004 372 3,024

2005 337 5,021

2006 682 22,073

2007 856 14,784

2008 1.696 6,580

8,970

10,638

18,479

22,650

27,870

15,923

12,675

12,184

21,742

3.8.4. Protection of refugees 3.8.4.1. Convention status Sweden has incorporated the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, including the 1967 New York protocol, into Swedish legislation by referral. Sweden is bound by the EU asylum rules. Aliens applying for asylum are entitled to a residence permit in Sweden if they fulfil the conditions of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees or the EU Asylum Qualification Directive. 3.8.4.2. Other grounds for protection Sweden is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into Swedish legislation by referral. Aliens in need of protection are granted a residence permit. This concerns aliens with a well-founded fear of subjection to capital or physical punishment, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The wording is interpreted in keeping with Sweden’s international and European obligations pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Protection is also offered to aliens who are in danger of subjection to severe abuse arising from international or internal armed conflicts or other forms of serious internal conflict in the country of origin. The latter part regarding serious internal conflict probably exceeds Sweden’s international obligations, including those following from EU law. Finally, a residence permit is issued to aliens who cannot return to their countries of origin due to environmental disaster. This provision exceeds Sweden’s obligations under international and EU law. 3.8.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds If a residence permit cannot be granted on other grounds, the Swedish authorities assess, on the basis of an overall evaluation of the alien’s situation, whether special humanitarian grounds exist for issuing a residence permit to the person concerned. The assessment must make special allowance for the health of the person, the degree to which he or she has adjusted to conditions in Sweden and his or her situation in the country of origin. The situations of children are assessed more liberally than those of adults, so children are granted a residence permit in cases where adult aliens would not have been. This also applies to children who have arrived in Sweden with their parents. In such cases, parents

Page 74

may obtain a humanitarian residence permit even though they do not qualify for it as long as their children are granted one. 3.8.5. Resettlement Sweden has a quota scheme of some 1,800 refugees a year (1,900 in 2008). Of this number, about 300 places were allocated to urgent cases, including people at imminent risk of assault in their countries of residence or of being returned to their countries of origin and people with special needs for treatment. The Swedish Migration Board selects quota refugees on the basis of an interview made during a quota trip to refugees’ countries of residence or of a written presentation by the UNHCR. Family members of resettled quota refugees arriving in Sweden at the same time or shortly thereafter can be included in the quota scheme. Moreover, Sweden has resettled people staying in their countries of origin in special cases. Quota refugees may be granted convention status, protection status or other subsidiary status. The Swedish Migration Board can request quota refugees to undergo a medical examination. Pre-departure courses have not been held since 2006, but the programme is being reviewed. 3.8.6. Terms and conditions for asylum seekers 3.8.6.1. Accommodation Asylum seekers can arrange for their own accommodation while their applications are being processed. However, asylum seekers are required to inform the Swedish Migration Board of their addresses so they can be asked to attend an asylum interview and receive financial allowances. If an asylum seeker is unable to find accommodation on his or her own, he or she will be assisted by the Swedish Migration Board, which typically offers a normal council or private flat. The Swedish accommodation model can thus be said to make use of open centres. Families are typically offered their own rooms in a flat, but single people will have to share a room with other asylum seekers of the same sex. At present, no specific guidelines or standards apply to the accommodation of asylum seekers. Children as well as adults may be imposed an obligation to report. 3.8.6.1.1. Initial stage Initial stage asylum seekers have the same options for receiving accommodation support as other asylum seekers. 3.8.6.1.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers at the asylum case processing stage have the same options for receiving accommodation support as other asylum seekers.

Page 75

3.8.6.1.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers receive the same financial support as asylum seekers as long as they remain in Sweden. The support may be spent on rent. However, the support is conditional on the recipient’s not evading return. 3.8.6.2. Healthcare services Adult asylum seekers are entitled to emergency treatment and urgent treatment, i.e. treatment for diseases and injuries believed capable of having serious consequences for the patient if untreated. Minor asylum seekers have the same access to healthcare services and dental care as other children in Sweden. 3.8.6.2.1. Initial stage All asylum seekers receive an offer of a free medical examination. Access to healthcare services is not different for asylum seekers at the initial stage. 3.8.6.2.2. Asylum case processing Access to healthcare services is not different for asylum seekers at the asylum case processing stage. 3.8.6.2.3. Rejected asylum seekers Access to healthcare services is not different for asylum seekers once they have been finally rejected. Access is conditional on the asylum seeker’s not evading return. 3.8.6.3. Education Minor asylum seekers have access to the Swedish school system. This access applies to preschool, school-based leisure-time facilities and education in general basic and uppersecondary school. The local authorities should offer a place within a month of arrival in Sweden. The education of minor asylum seekers must be based on the individual pupil’s needs and qualifications. This means that many local authorities have established special preparatory classes for children who have recently arrived in Sweden. The intention is for the children to continue their education in ordinary classes when they are ready. 3.8.6.3.1. Initial stage The fact that an asylum seeker is at the initial stage has no bearing on his or her access to the ordinary school system. 3.8.6.3.2. Asylum case processing The fact that an asylum seeker is at the asylum case processing stage has no bearing on his or her access to the ordinary school system. Page 76

3.8.6.3.3. Rejected asylum seekers The fact that an asylum seeker’s application has been finally rejected has no bearing on his or her access to the ordinary school system. Access is conditional on the asylum seeker’s not evading return. 3.8.6.4. Activation Adult asylum seekers aged 18 to 64 are offered organised activation. The activation is tailored to the individual asylum seeker, but mainly means lessons in Swedish. However, traineeship, etc., is also a possibility. Participation in organised activation is voluntary, but if an asylum seeker rejects the offer, his or her financial allowances may be reduced. Asylum seekers are free to take part in activities undertaken outside the framework of the Swedish Migration Board. 3.8.6.4.1. Initial stage Organised activation must be offered within one month after the asylum seeker’s registration in the reception system of the Swedish Migration Board. Asylum seekers who are rejected or transferred to another state before the one-month deadline expires will thus not necessarily take part in organised activation. If an asylum seeker’s case will presumably not be considered in Sweden, the activation contents will be adjusted accordingly. Examples of activities are IT courses and English lessons. 3.8.6.4.2. Asylum case processing Organised activation is offered to all asylum seekers at the asylum case processing stage. 3.8.6.4.3. Rejected asylum seekers Organised activation is offered to all finally rejected asylum seekers, but the contents are adjusted to the fact that the participants are finally rejected asylum seekers who, in theory, will be returning to their countries of origin. Examples of activities are IT courses and English lessons. 3.8.6.5 Financial and other support Single asylum seekers receive SEK 71 (about DKK 45) a day, while couples each receive SEK 61 (about DKK 39) a day in financial support. Children aged 0-17 receive SEK 37-50 (about DKK 24-32) a day. The support is to be spent on food, clothes and other necessities, including expenses for medicine and dental care. If an asylum seeker lives in a place with free meals, his or her daily allowance will be lower. In some cases, the Swedish Migration Board can offer special subsidies and contribute to rent payments. Asylum seekers with funds of their own must pay for room and board themselves. 3.8.6.5.1. Initial stage The fact that an asylum seeker is at the initial stage has no bearing on the amount of financial allowances.

Page 77

3.8.6.5.2. Asylum case processing The fact that an asylum seeker is at the asylum case processing stage has no bearing on the amount of financial allowances. 3.8.6.5.3. Rejected asylum seekers In general, finally rejected asylum seekers are entitled to the same financial allowances as other asylum seekers. However, the allowances paid to finally rejected asylum seekers can be reduced if they refuse to cooperate on their departures. 3.8.6.6. Labour market access In general, Sweden does not allow asylum seekers to work while their cases are being considered. If the Swedish Migration Board finds that the processing of a case will take or already has taken more than four months, the asylum seeker will, however, be exempted from the work permit requirement and may take on ordinary paid work. 3.8.6.6.1. Initial stage Since the question of whether case processing time will exceed four months is assessed as soon as the application for asylum is submitted, some asylum seekers may gain access to the the labour market at the initial stage. 3.8.6.6.2. Asylum case processing If the authorities find that an application will take or has already taken more than four months to process, asylum seekers at the asylum case processing stage will be able to gain labour market access. 3.8.6.6.3. Rejected asylum seekers In general, finally rejected asylum seekers may not access the labour market. If, however, the authorities find that a decision on return cannot be implemented, the finally rejected asylum seeker will gain labour market access. 3.8.6.6.4. Access to the labour market in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration The submission of an application for asylum has no bearing on one’s possibility of applying for a residence and work permit in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration. But aliens, including asylum seekers, wishing to stay in Sweden as workers are usually unable to apply for this option while they are staying in Sweden. However, in special circumstances, they can apply for a residence permit pursuant to labour immigration rules while still in Sweden. 3.8.6.6.5. Illegal work Under the Swedish Aliens Act, aliens working illegally will be fined. People who unintentionally or intentionally employ aliens without the required work permit will, in addition to being fined, be imprisoned for a period of up to one year in severe cases. Regardless of whether a person, including a legal person, is prosecuted in pursuance of the

Page 78

general provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act on the use of illegal foreign labour, that person must pay a special charge for each alien having been employed. No direct steps are taken to counter illegal work among asylum seekers. The government pursues a strategy of fighting illegal work by offering meaningful occupation (language lessons, etc.) while the asylum case is being considered and by preparing the asylum seekers for a “legal” labour market. The new rules on labour immigration that came into force on 15 December 2008 are found to succeed in getting some asylum seekers to switch from illegal to legal work. For instance, the rules mean that an alien may be employed without an assessment of the need for labour in that particular area. This aspect is found to be considered when an employer offers employment on general terms. 3.8.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work Sweden does not implement initiatives targeted at fighting illegal work. Sweden does not compile statistics on the scope of illegal work among asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers. This being the case, Sweden has not been able to prepare profiles or outlines of trends in the area. 3.8.7. Assistance with repatriation If an asylum seeker receives a final rejection of his or her application for asylum, his or her travel expenses from Sweden to the country of origin will be covered. In some cases, a small amount may be paid out to cover expenses for items such as bus trips in the country of origin. Rejected asylum seekers wanting to return voluntarily to their countries of origin can also apply for reintegration support. The support is intended for aliens wanting to return voluntarily to countries where the situation is found to make settling difficult. The Swedish Migration Board makes the assessment. At present, you can apply for support for voluntary return to Iraq and Afghanistan. The support is SEK 20,000 (about DKK 12,800) per adult above the age of 18 and SEK 10,000 (about DKK 6,400) per child. In total, a family cannot receive more than SEK 50,000 (about DKK 32,000). Sweden has no special schemes or mechanisms for supervising or monitoring people who have departed or been repatriated with support from Sweden. 3.8.7.1. Hindrances to deportation The Swedish Aliens Act allows the issue of temporary residence permits to aliens if the completion of deportation is hindered. If the hindrance is not found to be permanent, a temporary residence permit will be granted, but a permanent residence permit will be granted if the hindrance is found to be permanent in nature. The possibility of granting a residence permit to people facing hindrances to deportation primarily applies in cases where the alien cannot return voluntarily. In some cases, a residence permit may be issued on humanitarian grounds to people whose deportation is hindered if they have sufficiently adjusted to conditions in Sweden. Page 79

3.8.8. Detention 3.8.8.1. Initial stage If the identity of an adult alien is not clear and the person’s right to enter Sweden cannot be established, he or she may be detained. Moreover, adult aliens may be detained if necessary to establish whether they are entitled to stay in Sweden, or if a person is likely to be rejected or returned and his or her personal or other circumstances indicate that the person will attempt to hide or commit crime in Sweden. 3.8.8.2. Asylum case processing Adult aliens may be detained if they are likely to be deported or returned. In this context, the alien’s personal situation or circumstances in general must also give cause to assume that he or she will commit crime in Sweden or disappear. 3.8.8.3 Rejected asylum seekers Adult aliens may be detained if they are likely to be deported or if the case concerns implementing a decision on deportation. In this context, the alien’s personal situation or circumstances in general must also give cause to assume that he or she will commit crime in Sweden or disappear. Minors may be detained if a decision on rejection or return is likely to be implemented immediately, or if the matter concerns the imminent implementation of a decision on rejection or return when there is an obvious risk of the child’s disappearing. A condition for detaining a child is that it is advisable to leave the child unattended. 3.8.9. Disappeared asylum seekers In 2007, 3,261 people were registered as disappearing after having received a decision on rejection or deportation. These people are categorised as disappeared. A large number of them are categorised as departed from Sweden, but some are believed still to be in the country. Information about the exact number still in Sweden is unavailable. It is assumed that some remaining in Sweden work illegally, there being no other means of making a living.

Page 80

3.9

Germany

3.9.1. Introduction Germany has an area of 357,107 square kilometres and a population of about 82.3 million people. Germany is a republic with a federal government structure, the states of which differ in the areas described here. The Federal Ministry of the Interior has indicated Bavaria as a possible state for description of state-specific conditions. Bavaria, the geographically biggest state in Germany, has a population of about 12.4 million people. 3.9.2. Organisation and asylum procedure The Federal Ministry of the Interior holds overall responsibility for immigration. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees under the Federal Ministry of the Interior considers immigration cases in the first instance. The German administrative courts decide asylum claims in the second instance. Reception conditions and some aspects regarding completing the return of aliens imminently fall within the competences of the individual state. When an asylum seeker claims asylum in Germany, he or she must first be registered, including by means of finger printing. Next, the asylum seeker is accommodated at a reception centre in the vicinity of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees’ local offices. An asylum interview is conducted during the applicant’s stay at the reception centre. Moreover, the authorities examine whether the asylum applicant can be transferred to another state under the Dublin cooperation. If the claim has not already been decided in favour of the asylum applicant within a period of three months after he or she obtained accommodation at a reception centre, the applicant is transferred to a local accommodation centre. If a negative decision is made in the first instance, the applicant can appeal it before one of the administrative courts. The appeal does not normally act as a stay of proceedings. In all circumstances, however, an asylum seeker can apply for a stay to the courts. 3.9.3. Statistics Number of asylum claims submitted during the period 2000-2008 2000 78,563

Page 81

2001 88,287

2002 71,127

2003 50,563

2004 35,607

2005 28,914

2006 21,029

2007 19,164

2008 21,364

Decisions in the first instance during the period 2000-2008 Decisions Convention status Subsidiary protection/ humanitarian residence permit Rejections

2000 11,446

2001 22,719

2002 6,509

2003 3,136

2004 2,067

2005 2,464

2006 1,348

2007 7,197

2008 7,291

1,597

3,383

1,598

1,567

964

657

603

673

562

61,840

55,402

78,845

63,002

38,599

27,452

17,781

12,749

6,761

3.9.4. Protection of refugees 3.9.4.1. Convention status Germany is bound by the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, including the 1967 New York protocol, which is incorporated into national aliens legislation by referral. Germany is also bound by EU asylum rules, including the EU Asylum Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive. Recognised refugees therefore comprise aliens who meet the general conditions for being recognised as refugees under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the EU Asylum Qualification Directive. 3.9.4.2. Other grounds for protection Germany is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. The ban on return contained in article 3 of the convention has been incorporated into national legislation by referral. Aliens who may not be returned on account of Germany’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, article 3, or the EU rules on subsidiary protection will be granted a residence permit. Germany does not grant residence permits based on protection to an extent beyond its international obligations. 3.9.4.3. Residence permit on humanitarian grounds A residence permit will be granted to aliens in cases where deportation can be banned because the alien risks subjection to torture or death penalty, where considerations based on the European Convention on Human Rights exist or where there is a material specific risk concerning the alien’s life, body or freedom. However, this does not apply if the alien can possibly and reasonably be returned to another state, the alien repeatedly or grossly violates the obligation to cooperate or if there are material grounds to assume that the alien has violated the human rights or committed a serious crime.

Page 82

Aliens will be granted a residence permit if there are compelling humanitarian or personal grounds or it is in the considerable public interest and if an alien is not about to be returned. This will be the case, for instance, if an alien is about to undergo surgery, complete his or her education or testify in a criminal case. At state level, a special scheme exists under which so-called humanitarian commissions (“Härtefallkommissionen”) can grant residence permits to people who are about to be returned and cannot obtain a residence permit pursuant to the general rules on residence permits and their renewal. The individual states determine the composition of the commissions, procedures and conditions for granting residence permits. Finally, Germany has a scheme for granting a residence permit to aliens from select states or groups of aliens. The supreme state authorities make the decision to grant a residence permit in consultation with the Federal Ministry of the Interior on the basis of interests concerning international law, humanitarian considerations or German foreign policy. The scheme applies to aliens already staying in Germany as well as aliens staying outside German borders. 3.9.5. Resettlement Germany does not have a permanent, current quota scheme, but has in special cases resettled groups of refugees from crisis situations. 3.9.6. Terms and conditions for asylum seekers 3.9.6.1. Accommodation The distribution of asylum seekers between the individual German states follows an overall nationally determined distribution key. For instance, according to this key, Bavaria normally receives about 15% of all asylum seekers coming to Germany. All first-time asylum seekers are obliged to stay at an accommodation centre. The individual state is responsible for accommodation. Consequently, conditions at the individual centres may differ depending on the state. The centres are open. No centrally prepared guidelines or rules exist regarding the size or standard of rooms. The social state authorities decide what is necessary under the specific circumstances, including the size and age of the family. Asylum seekers are normally housed in centres resembling residence halls. Single asylum seekers normally live in gender-segregated rooms shared with four or five people. Rooms in women’s sections are specially segregated from men’s sections. Families and couples are accommodated in single rooms of a size suitable to the size of the family. Asylum seekers may not stay at an accommodation centre for longer than three months. They are subsequently under an obligation to stay at a local accommodation centre, also run by the state authorities. A transfer to a local accommodation centre does not necessarily follow the stages of the asylum procedure. Unaccompanied minors are housed in special places until they reach at least the age of 16. Page 83

Asylum seekers are not obliged to report during the asylum procedure. However, they are obliged to ensure that the authorities always can get hold of them. Asylum seekers in particular must immediately inform the authorities of a change of address. Asylum seekers can be under an obligation not to move outside a limited geographical area such as Munich and its environs. They may be privately accommodated – especially if warranted by humanitarian grounds such as disease. In exceptional cases, private accommodation may be allowed if the asylum seeker earns an income or has personal funds that enable him or her to provide for him or herself and his or her family, if any. 3.9.6.1.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers are housed in accommodation centres for the first three months after having submitted an application for asylum. 3.9.6.1.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers stay in accommodation centres for the first three months. After a maximum of three months, they are referred to a local accommodation centre. 3.9.6.1.3. Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers are obliged to stay at a centre assigned by the authorities. This will normally be the same local accommodation centre at which they stayed during the actual asylum procedure. 3.9.6.2. Healthcare services Asylum seekers are entitled to the necessary medical and dental treatment in case of acute illness or pains. Pregnant asylum seekers may receive further allowances and treatment. In addition, in specific cases, an asylum seeker may receive additional healthcare services if essential to ensure the health of the person. Asylum seekers may access the same healthcare services as German citizens when they have lived in Germany for a period of four years, provided that the duration of their stays does not result from their own unlawful actions. Children may access the same healthcare services as adults. However, children’s needs may be taken into special consideration when the need for additional healthcare services is assessed in specific cases. 3.9.6.2.1 Initial stage Access to healthcare services is not differentiated on the basis of whether the asylum seeker is at the initial stage, is at the asylum case processing stage or has been finally rejected. 3.9.6.2.2 Asylum case processing

Page 84

Access to healthcare services is not differentiated on the basis of whether the asylum seeker is at the initial stage, is at the asylum case processing stage or has been finally rejected. 3.9.6.2.3 Rejected asylum seekers Access to healthcare services is not differentiated on the basis of whether the asylum seeker is at the initial stage, is at the asylum case processing stage or has been finally rejected.

3.9.6.3. Education Education and lessons, including language lessons, fall within the domain of the individual German state. So the individual state determines the extent to which asylum seekers should have access to such education and, for instance, German lessons. 3.9.6.3.1 Initial stage In Bavaria, school-aged children below the age of 18 (10 years’ compulsory school attendance) are not offered schooling until they are transferred to a local accommodation centre after a period of three months. Adult asylum seekers may be offered language lessons from the initial stage. These lessons aim at enabling asylum seekers to manage everyday situations in German. 3.9.6.3.2 Asylum case processing In Bavaria, school-aged children below the age of 18 (10 years’ compulsory school attendance) are entitled and obliged to attend lessons in the ordinary school system. Special classes are offered to children who, due to language difficulties, cannot attend ordinary classes at their age levels. In Bavaria, adult asylum seekers are offered language lessons to enable them to manage everyday situations. At the same time, adult asylum seekers are offered integration as well as reintegration courses. The integration courses are meant to prepare asylum seekers for a life in Germany, while the reintegration courses aim at preparing them to return to their countries of origin. The courses are not timed to parallel the asylum procedure. 3.9.6.3.3 Rejected asylum seekers The offers outlined above lapse if the asylum seekers are about to be returned. If the return proves to be so difficult that an asylum seeker is granted “Duldung” (further information in 3.9.7.1 below), the education described will be offered. 3.9.6.4. Activation Germany has no federal rules on leisure activities and other asylum seeker activation. This should be seen in the light of the fact that the individual states are responsible for housing asylum seekers. Bavaria organises various activation initiatives in the form of coaching, sports activities, games and play with children, etc., at the accommodation centres and the local Page 85

accommodation centres. Private relief organisations (such as Caritas) are responsible for these activities. Bavaria supports the activities by paying about half the costs. This is the case at all three stages. In Bavaria, asylum seekers staying at the local centres can make their own meals in kitchens equipped for that purpose. Twice a week, the asylum seekers pick foods from a list. This allows religious and dietary considerations to be included in the food selection. 3.9.6.4.1. Initial stage Private relief organisations organise various activation initiatives for asylum seekers staying at the accommodation centres. They can prepare their own meals while at the initial stage. 3.9.6.4.2 Asylum case processing Private relief organisations organise various activation initiatives for asylum seekers staying at the accommodation centres as well as the local centres. German legislation regarding asylum seekers’ conditions stipulates that the individual states must offer asylum seekers the possibility of employment at the places of accommodation. This might involve cleaning common rooms or gardening. The offers must allow for the physical and mental state of the individual asylum seeker. The work should be organised in keeping with the requirement that a working week must not exceed 20 hours. Asylum seekers receive EUR 1.05 an hour for this work. The amount is not regarded as income and is thus not to be offset against other social benefits. Asylum seekers who are able to work may be ordered to accept employment offers. This does not, however, apply to asylum seekers of school age. An asylum seeker who rejects an employment offer loses the right to allowances under the act on conditions for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers can prepare their own meals while at the asylum case processing stage. 3.9.6.4.3. Rejected asylum seekers Private relief organisations organise various activation initiatives for asylum seekers staying at the local accommodation centres. Finally rejected asylum seekers can prepare their own meals. 3.9.6.5 Financial and other support In pursuance of the German Aliens Act, asylum seekers and other people comprised by the act on allowances for asylum seekers can generally have their needs for clothing, personal care, housing, etc., covered in kind. Moreover, they receive a monthly amount to cover personal needs. Hence, asylum seekers below the age of 15 receive EUR 20.45 (about DKK 150) a month, while asylum seekers above the age of 15 receive EUR 40.90 (about DKK 305) a month. Asylum seekers who have lived in Germany for more than four years and are not responsible for the duration of the stay have access to certain allowances pursuant to general social legislation.

Page 86

3.9.6.5.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers below the age of 15 receive EUR 20.45 (about DKK 150) a month, while asylum seekers above the age of 15 receive EUR 40.90 (about DKK 305) a month at the initial stage. 3.9.6.5.2. Asylum case processing stage Access to financial support is not different for asylum seekers during asylum case processing. 3.9.6.5.3. Finally rejected asylum seekers Access to financial support is not different for finally rejected asylum seekers.

3.9.6.6. Labour market access 3.9.6.6.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers may not access the labour market at the initial stage. 3.9.6.6.2. Asylum case processing Asylum seekers have access to the German labour market once they have been living in the country for one year. However, each case must include a labour market test as German citizens, EU citizens and third-country citizens with unlimited access to the labour market have prior access. Another requirement is that the work is carried out on the general terms applicable in Germany. 3.9.6.6.3 Rejected asylum seekers Finally rejected asylum seekers may not access the labour market. Aliens on “tolerated stay” have labour market access. However, each case must include a labour market test as German citizens, EU citizens and third-country citizens with unlimited access to the labour market have prior access. Another requirement is that the work is carried out on the general terms applicable in Germany. Aliens who have been on “tolerated stay” for four years enjoy general labour market access. 3.9.6.6.4 Access to apply for work permit on ordinary terms To qualify for a residence permit in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration, an alien must have been granted the permit before arriving in Germany. Therefore, asylum seekers or finally rejected asylum seekers cannot apply for work and residence permits in pursuance of the general rules while still in Germany. Submission of an application for asylum has no bearing on the possibility of subsequently applying for a residence and work permit in pursuance of the general rules on labour immigration. However, Germany reports finally rejected asylum seekers who are forcibly deported to the Schengen Information System (SIS), which means that those reported generally cannot enter Germany or other Schengen countries as long as they are registered in the system. 3.9.6.6.5. Illegal work Page 87

3.9.6.6.5.1. Measures against illegal work The measures against illegal work are regulated in the so-called “Schwarzarbeitsbekämpfungsgesetz” (act to combat illegal work) of 23 July 2004. The act lays down the cooperation, measures and powers of the competent authorities as a means of fighting moonlighting, including illegal work performed by aliens. The act also contains provisions concerning employers’ and employees’ participation in explaining the cases. This also applies to foreign employees, who are thus required on demand to present documentation establishing their rights to live and work in Germany. Finally, the act contains penal provisions. The act should be considered in the context of the so-called “Sozialgesetzbuch” (act on social security) of 24 March 1997, of which sections 404-405, book III, contain penal provisions for illegal employment of aliens. Actions aimed at illegal work performed by asylum seekers take place at state level, and Bavaria carries out such actions as raids in line with Denmark’s fair play actions. Bavaria does not have actions specially aimed at the illegal work performed by asylum seekers, which is not considered to represent a special problem. Germany has reorganised and enhanced the investigations performed by the authorities into illegal work and moonlighting in general, the purpose being to increase the detection ratio and achieve preventive effects. As from 2004, the efforts were therefore gathered at the customs authorities, which are also responsible for checking aliens in the German labour market. Germany has also launched a host of initiatives aimed at reducing the incentive to work illegally (tax subsidies, etc., for different kinds of services, especially domestic) and at increasing control with sanctions on illegal work. Most recently, the federal government has adopted an action plan to present a number of other measures. Furthermore, employees at workplaces where moonlighting is especially common are under an obligation to prove their identities. Those who fail to do so are fined. Those subsequently unable to prove their identities are turned over to the police. Employers are obliged to register all employees with the authorities. At 1 January 2009, a computer program was introduced for preliminary registration of employees at the workplace from the first working day prior to final registration with the authorities. The program will transmit information about the employee directly to the social security authorities. The German customs authorities checking illegal work are permanently represented on large construction sites. The German government has also through its tax policy, in which tax rates have been considerably reduced in recent years, attempted to limit the financial incentives to moonlighting. In its labour market policy, the so-called mini-job scheme is made more attractive in the hope to turn moonlighting into legal work. Moreover, German equal-representation wage costs, i.e. costs of social insurance, will be kept below 40%. Page 88

The authorities also try to limit illegal work through information initiatives and moral appeals. Employees and employers are made aware that not only are the state and the social security schemes deceived, but that they too face disadvantages and risks. One disadvantage to employees is that they do not earn pension rights, which should be seen in the light that Germany does not have tax-funded old-age pension. Nor are they entitled to unemployment benefits, and moonlighters may have to repay any unlawfully received public support. Employers may encounter quality defects, cannot claim damages, will be liable for injuries to third parties and for taxes and public contributions and risk fines and imprisonment. Employer organisations and trade unions also conduct campaigns like the “Gemeinsam gegen Schwarzarbeit. Illegal ist unsozial” campaign. In terms of how aliens performing illegal work are distributed geographically, the biggest number is seen in the German border regions. The number of aliens discovered performing illegal work is highest in Brandenburg, Saxony and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, followed by Hesse, Schleswig-Holstein and Bavaria. The number of illegal workers is biggest in the cities. The number of aliens performing illegal work is also big where large numbers of illegal workers can provide help through networks. Other than in the agricultural sector, illegal work is rarer in rural areas. 3.9.7. Assistance with repatriation Germany has two programmes for voluntary return, viz. the programme for reintegration and immigration of asylum seekers in Germany and the programme for support for return. The programme for reintegration and immigration targets asylum seekers, rejected asylum seekers and refugees wanting to return to their countries of origin voluntarily or a third country that wants to accept them. The programme is completed in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and means that the people whom it comprises receive support for the expenses of travelling to their countries of origin and a cash amount of about EUR 100 (about DKK 750) for adults and EUR 50 (about DKK 375) for children. The programme for return support contains an option to pay out supplementary allowances to aliens wanting to return voluntarily. The programme is intended for aliens from select countries of origin selected on the basis of migration policy. At present, the list has about 30 countries, but is updated once a year. Depending on the country of origin, the support is EUR 200-500 (about DKK 1,500-3,700) to adults and EUR 100-250 (about DKK 750-1,900) to minors. It is also a condition that the alien receiving the support has no means of his or her own. If an alien having received support under the programme re-enters Germany, he or she will have to repay the support received. Germany has no special schemes or mechanisms for supervising or monitoring people departed or repatriated with support from Germany. 3.9.7.1. Hindrances to deportation Aliens, including rejected asylum seekers who cannot be returned to their countries of origin are granted a “tolerated stay” (“Duldung”). This status does not mean that he or she Page 89

is in Germany legally. This type of stay is usually granted for short periods of typically three months. However, some aliens in Germany are on “tolerated stay” for several years. A special scheme for people on “tolerated stay” was introduced in 2007. The scheme means that the people whom it comprises are granted a temporary residence permit running until 31 December 2009. The scheme comprises aliens who – at 1 July 2007 – had been staying in Germany for a period of at least eight years, or six years as regards people living with minor children. Moreover, the aliens in question were required to have shown a minimum of integration willingness and not to have misguided the immigration authorities intentionally. After that date, a residence permit will only be renewed if the alien in question has been in active employment for most of the two and a half years and if he or she can be assumed to be self-sufficient in the future. People who do not meet the requirements will be granted a “tolerated stay” if they still cannot be returned. Furthermore, the German Aliens Act also allows a residence permit to be granted to aliens about to be returned, including aliens on “tolerated stay” if they cannot return for legal or factual reasons, e.g. because traffic routes to the country of destination have been cut off or do not function. However, the granting of residence permits in such cases is subject to the requirement that the alien cannot return voluntarily or is not responsible for the hindrance to deportation. 3.9.8. Detention At all stages, asylum seekers, including finally rejected asylum seekers, who do not observe any limits on their freedom of movement (see section 3.9.6.1) can be detained. 3.9.8.1. Initial stage Asylum seekers rejected at the border can be detained if the decision to reject them cannot be implemented directly upon its being made. 3.9.8.2. Asylum case processing Apart from the possibility of detaining asylum seekers who do not observe any limits on their freedom of movement, no special rules for detaining asylum seekers at the asylum case processing stage exist. 3.9.8.3 Rejected asylum seekers The German Aliens Act contains a number of options for detaining people for the purpose of returning them. As part of preparations for deportation, if any, an alien may be detained if the question of deportation cannot be addressed immediately, and if the opportunity to effect such deportation is materially hampered or lost without detention. Detention can also be used in cases where an alien must be returned, particularly if the alien is about to be returned, has entered the country illegally and attempted to avoid return, or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the alien will avoid being returned. 3.9.9. Disappeared asylum seekers

Page 90

Germany does not compile statistics on the number of disappeared asylum seekers.

Page 91

4. EU legal instruments in the area of asylum 4.1 Introduction Under the authority of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which took effect on 1 May 1999, the EU has adopted a number of legal instruments in the field of asylum – primarily in the form of minimum standards – which are relevant to this report. Hence, several of the countries described in this report are bound by EU rules. However, Denmark is not bound by these rules as a result of its opt-out in justice affairs. By virtue of a parallel agreement, however, Denmark is bound by the Dublin and Eurodac regulations mentioned in the following. For information on how countries implement EU rules in national law, please refer to the reports on the countries studied. Although Denmark is not bound by the EU asylum rules, the Committee of Experts has noted that the Danish asylum rules generally meet the EU minimum standards for asylum. In this connection, reference is made to chapter 3 in the section on conditions in Denmark. It should be mentioned that the European Commission has presented the first proposals for revising the common rules in the area of asylum. More proposals are in the pipeline – also in new areas. The proposals are made on the basis of the European Commission’s Green Paper on Asylum of June 2007, about which the government issued its consultative comments on 30 August 2007. The Green Paper implements the so-called Hague Programme of the EU heads of state and government, which lays down the overall guidelines on the cooperation on justice and home affairs in the period 2004-2009. On 17 June 2008, the European Commission presented an asylum policy plan on an integrated approach to protection in the EU. The policy plan is intended to serve as an overview of future European Commission proposals and measures connected with implementing the second phase of the Common European Asylum System. European Commission proposals and measures address all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including reception conditions, asylum procedures, solidarity mechanisms and the external dimension. The European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted by the European heads of state and government in October 2008, also contains reference points for developing the Common European Asylum System. These points were partly laid down in the Hague Programme. Below follows a description of adopted EU legal instruments and submitted and expected proposals in the area of asylum. 4.2 Adopted legal instruments in the area of asylum 4.2.1. Dublin Regulation (EC/343/2003) The Dublin Regulation was adopted on 18 February 2008 and aims at providing a clear and useful method for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application. Hence, the objective is to ensure that all asylum seekers have their cases processed by only one EU Member State. Page 92

The general principle of the regulation is that the responsibility for processing an asylum application rests with the Member State most closely linked to the asylum seeker’s entry or stay in a Member State area, including illegal entry. The regulation thus sets out a number of prioritised criteria for determining which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application: Family unity with a Member State, residence permits for a Member State, visa for a Member State, illegal entry in a Member State within the past 12 months and stay in a Member State for a period of five consecutive months. If the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application cannot be determined on the basis of regulation criteria, the responsible Member State will be the one in which the application was first submitted. Regardless of this distribution mechanism, however, any Member State can examine an application for asylum even if the examination does not rest with that Member State under the regulation criteria. Under their national legislation, the Member States maintain the possibility of transferring an asylum seeker to a third country in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention. On 3 December 2008, the European Commission presented its proposal for amending the Dublin Regulation. The overall objective of the proposal was to ensure that asylum seekers’ needs for international protection were addressed under the responsibility determination procedure, thus enhancing the system’s efficiency and the handling of situations that particularly pressure Member State asylum systems. Denmark and the Community have entered into a parallel agreement under which Denmark participates in the Dublin and Eurodac regulations on an intergovernmental basis. The parallel agreement took effect on 1 April 2006. Within 30 days after any amendments to the regulation are adopted, Denmark must inform the European Commission whether Denmark wishes to implement the contents of the amendments. 4.2.2. Eurodac Regulation (EC/2725/2000) The Eurodac Regulation was adopted on 11 December 2000 and aims to help determine the EU Member State responsible under the Dublin Regulation for examining an asylum application. The regulation contains provisions on establishing and operating a central unit for storing and comparing fingerprints. Under the regulation, the Member States are obliged to fingerprint all asylum seekers aged 14 year or older. The same applies to aliens apprehended while unlawfully crossing an external frontier of a Member State. The data are to be forwarded to the central unit immediately. Fingerprints are stored in the central unit for the purpose of comparing them with those of other aliens. The regulation contains rules on when to delete the fingerprints in the central unit.

Page 93

Other data protection rules of the regulation are that Member States may only search data that result from of a comparison of fingerprints passed on according to regulation provisions. The regulation also regulates matters relating to duty of disclosure and access to correction of incorrect or unlawfully recorded data. On 3 December 2008, the European Commission presented its proposal for amending the Eurodac Regulation. The objective of the amendment was to ensure more efficient use of the Eurodac database and introduce more data protection provisions. Denmark has entered into a parallel agreement under which Denmark is bound by the rules of the Dublin and Eurodac regulations on an intergovernmental basis. The parallel agreement took effect on 1 April 2006. Within 30 days after any amendments to the regulation are adopted, Denmark must inform the European Commission whether Denmark wishes to implement the contents of the amendments. 4.2.3 Reception Conditions Directive (2003/9/EC) The directive was adopted on 27 January 2003 for the purpose of ensuring common minimum standards for a dignified standard of living and comparable living condition for asylum seekers in the Member States. The harmonisation of asylum seekers’ reception conditions should also be seen against the aim to limit secondary movements between the Member States. The directive lays down minimum standards for asylum seekers’ reception conditions at all stages of the asylum procedure. The directive applies to aliens submitting an application for asylum under the Geneva Convention, but the individual Member States can also decide to apply the directive to aliens submitting an application for other types of protection. The directive minimum standards address the right of asylum seekers to move freely within the territory of the host Member State, schooling and education, employment and room and board (material reception conditions). As regards the provisions on schooling and education, it should be noted that minors are to have access to the education system under similar conditions as nationals of the host Member State as long as an expulsion measure against them or their parents is not actually enforced. As regards employment, the directive stipulates that Member States determine the conditions on which the asylum seeker gains access to the labour market if a decision has not been made in the first instance one year after the asylum application was submitted and this delay cannot be attributed to the asylum seeker. The access to the labour market may not be withdrawn during the appeals procedures if the appeal has suspensive effect. Under the directive, EU Member States must ensure reception conditions that enable a standard of living guaranteeing asylum seeker’s health and means of subsistence. However, this does not apply to asylum seekers with sufficient means of their own to cover these needs. As regard healthcare services, asylum seekers are entitled to the necessary medical care, including, as a minimum, emergency medical care and absolutely necessary treatment for diseases. The Member States are also obliged to offer the medical care or other form of

Page 94

treatment necessary for people with special needs. Victims of torture, rape or other forms of serious violence are to receive the necessary treatment for injuries caused by these acts. The directive contains provisions on reducing or withdrawing these rights and services. For instance, rights and services may be reduced or withdrawn if an asylum seeker abandons his or her place of residence without notifying the competent authorities or – if required – without permission. The EU Member States may also refuse reception conditions if an asylum seeker has failed to demonstrate that the application for asylum was made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in that Member State. Moreover, the directive allows sanctions to be introduced if rules of the accommodation centres are seriously breached and if behaviour is extremely violent. Special provisions apply to the conditions of vulnerable persons. Hence, EU Member States are under an obligation to consider the situation of, for instance, minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence. With respect to unaccompanied minors, it should be noted that EU Member States are obliged to take prompt measures to ensure the necessary representation of unaccompanied minors, including by legal guardianship, and accommodation that is suitable for minors. The host Member State is also under an obligation to trace the parents of unaccompanied minors as soon as possible while also protecting the best interests of the minor. Finally, the directive contains provisions on the right of appeal, as the Member States are obligated to ensure that negative decisions relating to benefits and residence may be appealed. On 3 December 2008, the European Commission presented its proposal for amending the Reception Conditions Directive. The objective of amending the Reception Conditions Directive is to ensure higher standards for receiving asylum seekers and to achieve a higher degree of harmonisation. The directive is governed by the Danish opt-out in justice and home affairs, and this also applies to directive amendments. 4.2.4 Asylum Procedures Directive (2005/85/EC) The directive was adopted on 1 December 2005 with a short-term view to having a common European asylum system that includes common standards for a fair and efficient asylum procedure, while a common asylum procedure would be introduced in the EU in the longer term. The adoption of the directive should also be seen against the wish to limit asylum seekers’ secondary movements between the Member States. The directive applies to all asylum applications made on Member State territory, including borders or transit zones, and to the withdrawal of refugee status. For instance, the directive regulates matters relating to access to the procedure, the right to remain in the Member State pending the examination of the application, the requirements for examining the application and authorities’ decisions, asylum seekers’

Page 95

obligations during the procedure, the right to and scope of legal assistance and representation as well as detention. In general, the directive entitles asylum seekers to remain in the Member State during the entire procedure. Moreover, it states that the Member States are obliged to provide access to the services of an interpreter at least for personal interviews. In addition, asylum seekers are to be entitled to contact the UNHCR or an organisation working on its behalf. In certain circumstances, the Member States are also under an obligation to grant free legal assistance to asylum seekers if a negative decision has been made in their cases. As far as detention is concerned, a person may not be detained on the sole ground that he or she has applied for asylum. Furthermore, the directive more specifically regulates a number of matters relating to procedures in the first instance. In this context, the directive regulates, for instance, matters relating to rejection of applications, urgent procedures, the use of schemes concerning the first country of asylum and a safe third country, unfounded applications and border procedures. The directive lays down minimum standards on procedures for withdrawing refugee status. Member States must examine whether to withdraw the refugee status of a particular person when new elements or findings give cause to reconsider the validity of his or her refugee status come to light. The directive’s guarantees in such cases include that Member States must give the asylum seeker the possibility of submitting reasons for not withdrawing his or her refugee status. The directive also regulates the asylum seekers’ right to appeal. The directive stipulates that Member States must ensure that asylum seekers have the right to effective remedies before a court or tribunal. The right to effective remedies entails the possibility of appealing decisions. This mainly concerns rejection decisions, decisions made at the border or transit area of a Member State and decisions not to investigate an application under the rules on European safe third countries. Under the directive, EU Member States decide whether the appeal should have a delaying effect so that the asylum seeker can stay in the Member State until the case has been decided. The directive is governed by the Danish opt-out in justice and home affairs. 4.2.5. Asylum Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) The Asylum Qualification Directive was adopted on 29 April 2004. The objective of this directive is for the EU to apply common criteria for identifying people with a real need for international protection and ensuring that a minimum of benefits are granted to these persons in all EU Member States. The adopted directive is based on the Geneva Convention ensuring that the principle of nonrefoulement is observed and that no one is returned if they risk persecution. The directive stipulates that the EU Member States are obligated to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection status to asylum seekers who observe the conditions of the directive.

Page 96

The directive lays down the conditions for recognition as a refugee or entitlement to subsidiary protection. As concerns the conditions for being granted refugee status, the directive includes provisions on defining persecution, reasons for persecution, grounds for withdrawing status and exclusion. The directive also includes provisions on certain matters relating to the right to subsidiary protection. As mentioned, the directive is based on the Geneva Convention in terms of the provisions on refugee status. The provisions on right to subsidiary protection have been drafted on the basis of the EU Member States’ international obligations in respect of non-refoulement, particularly according to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Moreover, the directive includes a number of common provisions on conditions for awarding refugee status and the right to subsidiary protection. This mainly relates to provisions on conditions and standards for assessing facts and circumstances. In this connection, it is stipulated that the EU Member States may require asylum seekers to submit all elements needed to substantiate the application for international protection as soon as possible. In addition, the directive specifies that the need for international protection may be based on events that have taken place since the asylum seeker left the country of origin. At the same time, the directive allows EU Member States, without prejudice to the provisions of the Geneva Convention, to decide that an asylum seeker submitting a subsequent application, generally cannot be granted refugee status if the risk of persecution is due to circumstances caused by the asylum seeker after having left the country of origin. In respect of possible actors of persecution or serious harm, it should be noted that the directive stipulates that such actors can be non-State actors under certain circumstances. The directive also includes further criteria for assessing whether an internal protection alternative exists. In this connection, the directive stipulates that EU Member States must consider the asylum seeker’s personal circumstances at the time when a decision is made. The directive includes a number of provisions regarding the content of international protection for refugees and persons entitled to subsidiary protection. Certain rights are differentiated so that EU Member States can to some degree grant persons with refugee status better conditions than persons with subsidiary protection. The provisions do not concern the rights stipulated in the Geneva Convention. Among the rights stipulated in the directive concerning the content of international protection is a Member State obligation to ensure that the family unity is maintained. In addition, the directive stipulates that EU Member States must grant beneficiaries of refugee status a residence permit that must be valid for at least three years. Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are entitled to a residence permit valid for at least one year. The directive stipulates that beneficiaries of refugee status are entitled to engage in employed or self-employed activities. However, in terms of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, EU Member States may consider the labour market, e.g., by prioritising access to employment for a limited period of time. As concerns access to education, the directive provides beneficiaries with refugee or subsidiary protection status with the same access to the general education system under the same conditions as third country nationals legally resident. However, minor beneficiaries must have access to education under the same conditions as nationals. Page 97

The directive is governed by the Danish opt-out in justice and home affairs. It should be mentioned that on 17 February 2009, the European Court of Justice made a decision in case C-465/07, Elgafaji vs. the Netherlands. The case concerns the interpretation of Article 15 point c) of the Asylum Qualification Directive, which defines the concept serious harm (a condition for issuing subsidiary protection) in situations where there is an individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. One aspect of particular interest in the European Court of Justice decision on the Elgafaji case is the fact that the Court in ground 44 finds the decision to be ”fully compatible with” the European Convention on Human Rights, including case-law from the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 3. This decision is supplemented with the reference in ground 44 to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case N.A. vs. the United Kingdom, grounds 115-117, which decision confirms and clarifies a practice founded on the decision in case Vilvarajah vs. United Kingdom and is in line with the arguments of the Elgafaji decision. Against this backdrop, the European Court of Justice’s interpretation is deemed to be compatible with recent case-law from the European Court of Human Rights, and Danish immigration authorities comply with this case-law; see the explanatory notes to section 7(2) of the Aliens Act. 4.2.6. Mass Influx Directive (2001/55/EC) This directive was adopted on 20 July 2001 and should be seen in relation to the mass influx to the EU countries of displaced persons in previous years, particularly following the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The Mass Influx Directive has never been applied, as the Council, which makes decisions by a qualified majority of its members on the basis of proposals from the EU Commission – but also on request from a Member State, has not found a situation of mass influx to the EU since the directive was adopted. The directive includes provisions on minimum standards for temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons. In addition the directive includes provisions on solidarity between the EU Member States regarding receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving displaced persons. The provisions of the directive on temporary protection do not affect the right to apply for asylum under the Geneva Convention. Nor does the directive affect the Member States’ possibilities of adopting or retaining more favourable conditions for persons covered by temporary protection under national law. The directive stipulates that the EU Member States must adopt the necessary measures to provide persons having temporary protection with residence permits for the entire duration of the protection and that, under certain circumstances, the EU Member States must reunite family members who have been separated due to circumstances related to the mass influx. The directive also allows displaced persons to engage in employed or self-employed activities.

Page 98

The Member States may exclude a person from temporary protection if there is serious cause to believe that he or she has committed international crimes or grave non-political crimes. Exclusion may also be relevant if there are reasonable grounds to regard a person as a threat to the security of the host Member State or if he or she, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the community of the host Member State. Persons who have been excluded from the benefit of temporary protection or family reunification by a Member State are entitled to mount a legal challenge in the Member State concerned. Under the directive, Member States are charged with ensuring suitable accommodation, necessary assistance in terms of social welfare, etc., and medical care. Children under the age of 18 with temporary protection must have access to the education system under the same conditions as nationals of the host Member State. The directive also includes special provisions on necessary representation of unaccompanied minors with temporary protection through legal guardianship. When the temporary protection ends, the general laws on protection and on aliens apply. The directive also stipulates that Member States must make it easier for persons previously having temporary protection to return with respect for human dignity. Moreover, the Member States must investigate whether compelling humanitarian reasons exist that may make return impossible or unreasonable in specific cases. The Member States must also take the necessary measures concerning the residence conditions of persons who had temporary protection and who cannot, in view of their state of health, reasonably be expected to travel. The directive specifies that the measures provided for in the directive benefit from the European Refugee Fund. The Member States must exhibit Community solidarity in terms of receiving persons eligible for temporary protection. The directive is governed by the Danish opt-out in justice and home affairs. 4.2.7. European Refugee Fund (574/2007) Adopted legal instruments include Council Decision no. 574/2007 on the establishment of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013. This decision replaces the Council Decision on Establishment of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013. The objective of the fund is to support and promote the EU Member States’ initiatives in respect of receiving refugees and displaced persons and the consequences thereof through co-financing of the measures specified in the decision to establish the fund. Measures eligible for support include measures concerning reception conditions, asylum procedures and matters relating to resettlement. Denmark does not participate in the European Refugee Fund as a consequence of its opt-out in justice and home affairs.

Page 99

4.3 Made or expected proposals in the asylum area In addition to the above-mentioned proposals to amend the Dublin Regulation, the Eurodac Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive, the Commission has made another proposal relevant to the asylum area, and more are on the way. 4.3.1. Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection (COM (2007)298) On 6 June 2007, the European Commission made a proposal for a directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection. Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents includes provisions on the conditions for third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State to achieve status as long-term resident, the rights related to this status, conditions for losing this status and protection against deportation. However, the directive does not apply to other third-country nationals with a residence permit in a Member State under subsidiary forms of protection pursuant to the Member States’ international obligations or to refugees or persons who have applied for recognition as refugees. The Commission’s intention with the new proposal is therefore to ensure that the same rules are established for this group. The directive to be amended is governed by the Danish opt-out in justice and home affairs, which also applies to the proposal. 4.3.2. Proposal for the establishment of a European asylum support office (COM (2009) 66) On 18 February, the Commission made a proposal to the European Parliament’s and the Council’s Regulation on establishing a European asylum support office. The office must contribute to strengthening practical cooperation between Member States on asylum and helping to improve implementation of the common asylum system, including providing operational support to Member States subject to strong pressures on their asylum systems. The proposal is covered by the Danish opt-out in justice and home affairs but the proposal opens up for Denmark’s participation in office’s activities within the framework of the Danish opt-out.

Page 100

4.3.3. Coming proposal to amend the Asylum Procedures Directive (2005/85/EC) The Commission is planning to make a proposal amending existing Directive 2005/85/EC on asylum procedures in 2009. The overall objective of this amendment is to introduce a common asylum procedure. The Commission’s proposal is expected to lead to the establishment of mandatory procedural protection guarantees and common concepts and schemes that will consolidate the asylum process and ensure equal access to the procedures throughout the EU. The Commission is also proposing that special needs in mixed groups of refugees arriving in the EU be considered. The same applies to persons applying for international protection at the external frontiers of the EU. 4.3.4 Coming proposal to amend the Asylum Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) The Commission is also expected to make a proposal to amend Directive 2004/83/EC on qualification for asylum and subsidiary protection during 2009. The intention is to ensure common interpretation of the directive and reach the target of introducing common types of refugee status. The Commission therefore proposes an amendment of the criteria for recognition as a person in need of international protection under the directive. In this respect, the Commission finds that it might be relevant to clarify the conditions for subsidiary protection eligibility. Moreover, a more precise definition of when non-State actors can be viewed as able to play a role in protection and more clear conditions for applying the concept of internal possibility of escape in the country of origin will need to be adopted. Finally, the Commission proposes reconsidering the scope of rights and benefits granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. In connection with the amendment of Directive 2004/83/EC on the definition of asylum and subsidiary protection, the Commission is expected to propose investigating the possibility of introducing an efficient mechanism for transferring protection, i.e. transferring protection responsibility, from one Member State to another. Such a mechanism would be introduced either as part of the amendment or as a separate instrument.

Page 101

5. Possibility of setting up accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin 5.1.

Introduction

The government platform of 22 November 2008 states that the government-appointed committee of experts is to “chart […] the possibilities of creating accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin”. Taking this term of reference as its point of departure, this part of the report describes the considerations and efforts Denmark and its key partners in the area (EU and UNHCR) have undertaken to enhance accommodation capacity and protection in the regions of origin, i.e. areas adjacent to conflict-affected locations that produce refugees and displaced people. This measure is meant to give those it supports less incentive to seek asylum in, for instance, the EU, as they will be able to remain and achieve efficient protection in their regions of origin. In other words, the measure is meant to prevent secondary movements, which are generally seen as problematic in terms of both international and national asylum systems and the desire to manage migration. The framework of the current Danish Regions of Origin Initiative was set up in the new Ministry of Foreign Affair strategic framework described below (hereinafter called the “Strategic Framework”) from July 20082 and governing the regions-of-origin initiatives in the period 2008-2012. The 2007 government platform provided extra funding to the initiatives, and the Danish Regions of Origin Initiative is now expected to exceed DKK 2 billion in the period 2003-12. This part of the report will also discuss the possibility of converting a part of the Danish resettlement quota for resettlement work in third countries. Section 5.2 outlines previous region-of-origin measures, implemented through three subdivisions (Denmark, the EU and the UNHCR). On this basis, section 5.3 describes the current strategy, set-up and activities of the Danish Regions of Origin Initiative. Section 5.4 briefly explains the status of regions-of-origin initiatives under the auspices of the EU and the UNHCR. Section 5.5 contains deliberations on the possibilities of setting up centres in regions of origin. Finally, section 5.6 discusses the possibilities for resettlement in third countries. The chapter on the committee of experts’ deliberations and proposals contains an overall conclusion. 5.2.

Historical outline of the development of the region of origin concept

5.2.1. Development in three parallel and closely interrelated tracks In actual fact, the concept of regions of origin only gained a foothold in the current decade. Presented by Denmark and others at the 1986 UN General Assembly, previous ideas were not realised because much of the international community viewed them as unrealistic.

2

“The Danish Regions of Origin Initiative”: Available at the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website on http://amg.um.dk/nr/rdonlyres/0fb76c2f-5686-4463-b7d4-388ae6b2c341/0/theregionoforigininitiatives.pdf

Page 102

In 2000, the UNHCR presented its plan for launching the Global Consultation Process. The objective was to ensure that the international asylum system would function optimally in the light of current challenges in the asylum area which had changed significantly since the UN Refugee Convention was drafted in the years following World War II. One challenge identified in this context was the fact that regions of origin needed assistance to handle the burdens they shouldered as a result of the major influx of refugees and displaced people – with a view both to ensure a certain standard of living for new arrivals and for the settled local population and to build the capacity of immigration authorities in the regions of origin. Further, the world experienced an increase in mixed migration flows, some migrants being refugees and other illegal aliens not applying for asylum. Meanwhile, the pressure arising from mixed migration flows triggered a widespread belief that asylum systems were abused. Politically, people wanted to limit this abuse but without failing to fulfil international obligations. The 2002 government proposals for the alien area, “A new aliens policy”, stipulated that “(…) through its assistance activities, Denmark must strengthen its regions-of-origin efforts while also promoting the concept through the EU track.” When presented, the ideas met with great scepticism among, for instance, NGOs. They saw region-of-origin initiatives as “shifting burdens” to the regions of origin rather than “sharing burdens” with them. However, the scepticism has since widely been replaced by an acceptance of its utility value – also in the perspectives of protection and development. An external consultants report prepared as an aspect of setting up the Strategic Framework discussed the Danish activities with the UNHCR, the IOM, the Danish Refugee Council, Danish Red Cross and Danchurchaid, and, interestingly, concluded that “(…) the rationale and relevance of the Initiative were clear and largely uncontested, and that the programmes had to a great extent met their objectives”. Generally, the regions of origin initiatives have developed in three parallel tracks, each impacting the others: 1. bilaterally, in which context Denmark and Great Britain have been particularly active in developing the concept 2. at EU level, where the ideas have – with Denmark, Great Britain, the Netherlands and the Commission providing impetus – been embedded in the regional protection programmes 3. in the UNHCR, where the mentioned Global Consultation process in 2003 generated a comprehensive action plan for the coming years’ work – the UNHCR Agenda for Protection. The UNHCR Agenda for Protection should also be seen in relation to the Convention Plus concept, launched in 2002 by the then UNHCR High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, in an attempt to address complex asylum and refugee problems.3 Several Convention Plus elements are relevant in a region-of-origin 3

The Convention Plus concept was launched in connection with the informal council of ministers (justice and home affairs) on 13 September 2002 in Copenhagen. The concept was developed in close cooperation with Denmark, Great Britain and the Netherlands. In particular, three main objectives of the Convention Plus should be mentioned. They focus on developing new protective instruments to supplement the Refugee Convention and highlight development assistance as a means to mediate protracted refugee situations through, for instance, support to local integration,

Page 103

context and were further developed in a 2006 10-point plan for refugee protection and mixed migration flows. 5.2.2. History leading to the idea of creating accommodation centres in the regions of origin The idea of setting up accommodation centres in the regions of origin was advocated particularly in the early development phases of the region-of-origin initiatives. In a November 2002 communication, the Commission stated that processing of applications for protection in the regions of origin and more lenient entry regulations for refugees by way of resettlement schemes might provide refugees with quick access to protection without leaving them at the mercy of facilitators of illegal immigration and human trafficking and without requiring them to wait for years to acquire refugee status.4 In March 2003, on the basis of discussions with Denmark, the Netherlands, the UNHCR and the Commission, Great Britain presented its proposal for asylum case processing and set-up of accommodation centres in refugees’ regions of origin5. The proposal comprised measures that would, in the long run, improve management of migration flows, primarily by providing protection in the region of origin supplemented by measures that would in the short run reduce the influx of asylum seekers to the EU. This amounted to the establishment of asylum processing centres placed outside the EU. In this connection, the British pointed out four factors identified as undermining the credibility, integrity and efficiency of and public support for the asylum system: 1. The people fleeing persecution are often forced to enter the EU illegally assisted by human traffickers, while the vast majority of the world’s refugees must remain in poorer conditions in, e.g., refugee camps in third countries. 2. Of EU asylum seekers, 50-75% fail to meet the criteria for achieving refugee status or subsidiary protection status. 3. The rejected asylum seekers cannot be returned in sufficient numbers. 4. Estimates show that about USD 10,000 per asylum seeker in Europe is spent, while the UNHCR around the world spends an average of USD 50 per refugee. The proposal took into account that asylum processing in the region of origin instead of in the EU would ensure that the financial resources frequently spent on unfounded applications would be put to far better use.

repatriation and resettlement. The aim was to develop special regional burden-sharing agreements/responsibilitysharing agreements based on section 2(b) of UN Resolution 428(V) and article 8b of the UNHCR Statutes, particularly focused on strengthening the protection of refugees in the region of origin and reducing the volume of secondary movements. 4 Commission communication “Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum” (COM (2000) 755 - C5-0101/2001). 5 The British proposal “New International Approaches to Asylum Processing and Protection” was presented in a letter dated 10 March 2003 from the British Prime Minister to his Greek colleague at that time holding the EU presidency. This was because in 2002 Great Britain received about 110,000 asylum seekers, the culmination of several years’ increasing numbers of asylum seekers. The proposal had found inspiration in the Australian government’s ’Pacific Solution’, which allowed asylum seekers to be transferred to a third country in the Pacific area where their applications were then processed.

Page 104

The British proposal contained the following elements: • Establishing regional protected zones so that migration flows could be better managed in the long run. The UNHCR should be responsible for providing protection and humanitarian assistance to refugees and ensuring that relevant international standards are met, including the non-refoulement principle while also ensuring that asylum seekers are not exposed to torture or other types of abuse within the protected zones. • The possibility of transferring people who arrive in EU Member States and seek asylum to the above protected zones for the duration of their asylum application processing. This procedure would prevent financial migrants from preoccupying the national asylum systems. The centres should be enclosed and provide efficient and fast case processing of asylum applications in established conditions. The proposal did not contain specific deliberations on any relevant country. • The proposal was founded on the assumption that the primary transit routes for asylum seekers to the EU would pass through a protected zone in which the migrants could find protection and have their asylum application processed. Those granted refugee status would be resettled within the EU on a burden-sharing basis. Generally, the individual EU Member States would probably only be responsible for the people they had transferred to the centre for asylum application processing. • Rejected asylum seekers would be returned to their countries of origin under readmission agreements or be integrated into local communities. The centres at the EU periphery would be intended to lower the number of unfounded asylum applications by sending a clear signal to the surrounding world that illegal entry into the EU via the asylum system would not pay off. The necessary asylum case processing could thus be effected as close to the asylum seeker’s country of origin as possible. Following concrete evaluation and in close cooperation with the transit countries, this would make it easier to return asylum seekers without need for protection to their countries of origin. An asylum seeker in need of protection could be granted a residence permit in the EU. The proposal did not contain a specific burden-sharing scheme for the individual EU Member States. In general, the UNHCR looked favourable on the British proposal for closed accommodation centres in the regions of origin, but recommended that such centres be located within the EU or at its periphery, e.g. in Hungary or Romania, and that the centres should only process manifestly unfounded cases. In response to the British proposal and in close cooperation with Denmark, Great Britain, the Netherlands and the Commission, the UNHCR presented a new model on the same issue.6 The model comprised sustainable solutions in the regions of origin, better asylum procedures and the set-up of EU-managed accommodation centres located within EU borders and charged with processing manifestly unfounded applications. The model built on the British proposal but with a few specifications and modifications required by the UNHCR for its acceptance in joining the initiative. The UNHCR proposed that all asylum applications submitted in the participating countries be pre-screened, and that the individual asylum seeker would on that basis be transferred to either closed processing centres (Transit

6

UNHCR Three Prong working paper (March 2003).

Page 105

Processing Centre, TPC) in or outside the EU, to a protected zone in the region of origin (Regional Protection Area, RPA) or remain in the participating country for case processing. On 26 March 2003, the Commission presented – on the basis of the above British proposals, among others – a Communication on common asylum policy and the UNHCR Agenda for Protection7. The Commission proposed that thorough considerations be made on the options that became available by processing asylum applications outside the EU and using resettlement as supplementary instruments compared to an efficient and just territorial asylum system that meets international obligations and takes into account dialogue and partnership with third countries. The Communication stated that the EU needs to develop an asylum system capable of providing people needing protection with the fastest possible access to such protection and as close to their regions of origin as possible, which would lower the need to seek protection elsewhere. Further, the Communication stated that decisions on asylum and readmission should be safe and durable. This objective would allow use of TCPs at EU borders, just as the Communication mentions rejection and transfer to an RPA. The Communication concluded that three complementary objectives should be pursued to improve the management of asylum in the context of an enlarged Europe: 1) improve the quality of decision in the EU, 2) consolidate protection capacities in the region of origin and process protection requests as close as possible to needs and 3) regulate protected entry schemes to the EU for some of the refugees needing international protection. The Commission participated in preparing the UNHCR Agenda for Protection and believed that the EU harmonisation process and the Agenda for Protection underpinned each other. At the informal council meeting (justice and home affairs) on 27-28 March 2003, the majority of the Member States immediately supported the British proposal to place accommodation centres in the regions of origin. However, some Member States mentioned that not only would it be practically difficult to set up centres in third countries, it would also be extremely difficult to establish the legal framework, including the legal responsibility, covering the individual asylum seeker and the general problems of returning. Questions were also raised about establishing an asylum seeker’s country of origin plus existing difficulties related to transfer/return, financing, etc. Another cause for concern was the uncertainties related to finding a third country willing to take on such a task, not to mention the risk of the EU achieving the opposite effect, i.e. increased immigration. On 3 June 2003, the Commission adopted a new Communication that addressed the British proposal for asylum processing centres and regional protected zones8. As to the matters of asylum processing centres and regional protected zones, the Communication underlined that a substantial number of legal, practical and financial questions remained unanswered. One such question was whether people who had not transited through or in any other way stayed 7

The Commission communication of 26 March 2003 on the common asylum policy and the Agenda for Protection (COM (2003) 152) was the second Commission report on the implementation of Communication of 22 November 2000 on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status (COM (2000) 755 final), in which the Commission presented its views on the long-term objective of a common European asylum policy by identifying goals and possibilities, underlining the need for common analyses and proposing the use of an open method of coordination. 8 Commission Communication of 3 June 2003 Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems (COM (2003) 315 final).

Page 106

in the zones/countries could under the Refugee Convention, EU legislation or national legislation be transferred to the envisaged zones/countries and/or protected zones. The Commission emphasised two key questions that needed answering: 1.

2.

It should be determined whether it would be in accordance with the Refugee Convention to reject and transfer asylum seekers to RPA countries or transfer them to TPC countries which they did not transit through or stay in prior to filing their asylum application. The concept "effective protection" must be defined. The Commission stated that everyone generally agrees that the concept should meet the following minimum conditions: • possibility of seeking asylum and – the person meets the convention criteria for asylum – of receiving protection, • observation of the non-refoulement principle, • physical safety (no risk of persecution or torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), and • a certain level of social security (access to primary education, access to primary health care, accommodation and basic financial support as needed).

Subsequently and because the proposal lacked support from the Member States, the debate on assistance in the regions of origin changed character in spring 2003, and the issue of setting up actual regional accommodation centres therefore lost its impetus. Thus, Thessaloniki 19-20 June 2003 the EU Heads of State or Government (the European Council) invited in the Commission to “(…) explore all parameters in order to ensure more orderly and managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection, and to examine ways and means to enhance the protection capacity of regions of origin with a view to presenting to the Council, before June 2004 a comprehensive report suggesting measures to be taken, including legal implications”. This statement was a follow-up to the British proposal of setting up regional protected zones and protected asylum processing centres in the EU or at the periphery of the EU. Even though the Member States generally supported the objective of the proposal from Great Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UNHCR – to perform asylum processing as close to the country of origin as possible – the Council did not see it as a viable option to set up EU-managed nor national centres in the regions of origin. Instead, the Council believed that it would be in keeping with the proposal to channel region-of-origin assistance to the countries neighbouring the conflict areas and thus ensure proper treatment of refugees and prepare them for readmission when it becomes feasible. Support given to the region of origin is intended to ensure refugees an adequate standard of living until they can return. This was how the EU moved away from the idea of placing centres in the regions of origin, which seemed difficult to put into practice, towards a strategy resembling the Danish region-of-origin initiatives. In its Communication of 14 June 2004 on managed entry into the EU for persons in need of international protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of regions of

Page 107

origin9 , the Commission proposed a new approach to the asylum and refugee areas, including the set-up of regional protection programmes. According to the proposal, regional protection programmes aimed at increasing protection capacities of the involved regions and ensuring better refugee protection in the regions, and thus at finding sustainable solutions. This Communication outlined the framework of the current EU approach to region-of-origin initiatives described in section 5.4. 5.3.

Denmark’s region-of-origin initiative

Up until the government change in 2001, Denmark primarily conducted its activities for aiding the world’s refugees and internally displaced people through appropriations donated to the UN system and Danish NGOs. A great deal of humanitarian assistance directly or indirectly favoured international refugee activities. Denmark assisted – not least through the UNHCR – developing countries in their attempts to ensure adequate conditions for the refugees they received. The Danish region-of-origin initiatives were launched to implement the government’s proposal for the alien area “A new aliens policy” of 17 January 2002. The proposal emphasised that the new government was setting as priority to “(…) strive to strengthen assistance in the regions of origin neighbouring countries with conflicts or civil wars”. The proposal also mentioned that, as an aspect of the ongoing shift in Danish aid policy, the government would prepare an outline describing how Denmark would help countries that shoulder very large burdens by hosting many refugees and internally displaced people. An underlying idea of the initiative was to interlink development policy and Denmark’s national refugee activities. At the same time, Danish activities should dynamically interconnect with EU activities, in which context active EU efforts would become a pivotal part of strengthened activities. The government prepared the strategic groundwork for the regionof-origin initiatives and submitted it to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Danish Parliament on 12 November 2002. In spring 2003, the parliamentary Finance Committee endorsed the first appropriations document on the region-of-origin initiatives, no. 157, with a framework of DKK 208 million. The appropriation was granted for a three-year programme of activities in Somalia, Tanzania and Zambia, the programme being based on the experience reaped in the Somalia programme launched in 1998 to support the reintegration of returnee Somalis. It also drew on experience from the bilateral aid experience from the two countries of cooperation. As mentioned above in the introduction, the 2007 government platform provided supplementary funding for the activities, and the Danish regions-of-origin initiative is now expected to exceed DKK 2 billion in the period 2003-12.

9

Commission Communication of 14 June 2004 on “Improving access to durable solutions” (COM (2004) 410) was a follow up to the conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council, 19-20 June 2003.

Page 108

5.3.1. Overall objectives and characteristics of the region-of-origin initiatives As laid down in the Strategy Framework and largely corresponding to the objectives of the EU and UNHCR activities, the region-of-origin initiatives generally aim to help refugees and internally displaced people as close to their countries of origin as possible. To this end, enhancing host country capacity for protecting refuges either serves to give people who are fleeing better opportunities for returning and reestablishing themselves in their areas of origin or supports them in settling permanently in the region of origin and thus creating a life for themselves. In practice, the region-of-origin initiatives target the following mutually reinforcing objectives: •

• • •

Improved access to protection and better living conditions for refugees, internally displaced people, rejected asylum seekers and local populations, including the opportunity of local integration in the country offering protection. Support for the safe, dignified return and reintegration of the above groups to their places of origin. Strengthening of host country immigration authorities’ capacity to handle, for instance, mixed migration flows, including biometric registration. Promotion of international cooperation in the areas of migration and development, particularly through the EU and by means of innovative pilot projects.

Improved conditions in the regions neighbouring conflict-affected regions should enable potential asylum seekers to apply for and find effective protection in the region of origin or be transferred to such regions from their countries of origin if they do not meet the criteria for achieving asylum status, as opposed to their transiting the region of origin on their way to, say, Denmark. The rationale behind the initiatives is widely rooted in finances, as the costs of protecting one person in Denmark will cover far more people in the regions of origin.10 As previously mentioned, the region-of-origin initiatives need to be interconnected with the Danish national refugee activities and with the various efforts expended in the refugee region of origin such as emergency relief and development assistance. The region-of-origin initiatives are being interconnected to the Danish national refugee activities by ensuring that help to refugees in the regions of origin contributes to preventing illegal immigration to more affluent and stable countries further away and also helps improve conditions for returning, rejected asylum seekers.11 The region-of-origin initiatives are a mixture of emergency relief and development assistance and thus achieve more than conventional humanitarian efforts, which provide immediate help to the regions of origin but cannot set up structures, create stabilising development and ensure lasting protection of conflict-affected population groups’ rights. Multiannual frameworks enable Denmark to perform activities that require long-term 10

A comparison shows that the costs related to supporting one asylum seeker in Denmark for one year corresponds to helping 100 refugees in, e.g., Kenya for one year.

11

Page 6 of the Strategic Framework states “(…) irregular onward movement towards richer and more stabile countries further afar, just as it helps creating favourable conditions for the return of rejected asylum seekers”.

Page 109

planning. They have strengthened, for instance, education and employment activities, key elements in refugees’ decision to return home. Region-of-origin initiatives further differ from other bilateral development activities in their consciously applied regional approach across borders. This method allows more coherent activities to be developed in host countries as well as in refugees’ countries of origin, a factor that may promote voluntary return. 5.3.2. Organisation Since the first three-year programme was adopted in 2003, region-of-origin initiatives have remained a key element of the government’s development policy. Region-of-origin initiatives are designed, financed and realised within the framework of Denmark’s development cooperation and are thus a fully integrated aspect of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs policy area. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs work closely together to develop and implement the initiatives. Drawing from previous experience and taking into account the special characteristics of the region-of-origin initiatives, the government endeavoured through the 2008 Strategic Framework to improve the planning, design, implementation and control/evaluation of the initiatives. The initiatives must, for instance, observe the Ministry of Foreign Affairs guidelines for preparing and providing development assistance. 5.3.3. Priority fields of action Currently, region-of-origin initiatives support activities in nine countries12: Kenya (DKK 20 million), Tanzania (DKK 5.9 million), Uganda (DKK 10.8 million) and Zambia (DKK 12.7 million) – which are also programme countries13 – as well as Afghanistan (DKK 21 million)14, Burundi (DKK 12 million)15, Iraq (DKK 70.2 million)16, Somalia (DKK 32.5 million)17 and the Sudan (DKK 59.9 million). Initiatives realised in Burundi and Tanzania run hand in hand with the EU’s regional protection programmes.

12

The following text focuses on appropriations distributed in 2008. To avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that the Danish programme countries do not generally produce refugees. 14 An addition appropriation of DKK 12 million is expected to be granted to the national solidarity programme under the Afghan government. In early 2009, work will commence to develop a new framework for region-of-origin initiatives in Afghanistan for the next four years. The initiatives are expected to have a budget of DKK 300 million. 15 This amount is expected to be supplemented with a donation of DKK 11 million to the UNHCR. Further appropriations are expected for 2009-2010. 16 Three organisations have not received the total amount appropriated for 2008. Thus, only DKK 5 million was paid to the three organisations out of a total appropriation of DKK 15 million. 17 Initiatives are focused in Somaliland and Puntland in the north-western and north-eastern parts of the country. 13

Page 110

Overview of current Danish region-of-origin initiatives Afghanistan

Reintegration activities to support returnees (in the form of access to accommodation, education and training, enterprise allowance, access to legal aid and a type of job centre for trained refugees). Support to authorities’ capacity for establishing identity of people being returned under the readmission agreement between Denmark and Afghanistan. Support of social schemes targeting support to the most disadvantaged returnees to Afghanistan under the readmission agreement.

Burundi

Reintegration of refugees returning – primarily from Tanzania – including facilitation of access to housing, schools, clinics, credit facilities and teacher training.

Iraq

Support to returned refugees and rejected asylum seekers, including improved access to information on job openings, labour-market integration, enterprise allowances and various types of social infrastructures. Support to UNHCR protective work in Iraq and neighbouring countries.

Kenya

Improvement of conditions for refugees and host population by set-up of small firms and upgrading of the local primary school system, particularly girls’ possibilities for attending schools and access to technical educations. Capacity enhancement of Kenyan refugee authority.

Somalia

Development support for production sector, including animal farming, and support to authorities issuing title documents for agricultural lands, also to returnees and internally displaced people. Focus on training activities such as a programme for particularly disadvantaged groups (children in nomadic cultures, especially girls) and technical cooperation with local educational authorities with a view to developing the future primary school education.

The Sudan

Reintegration of internally displaced people and refugees, primarily in relation to food security, employment, education and training. Specific activities include construction and renovation of health and educational facilities, teacher training, water supply, agricultural development and information on and training in conflict settlement.

Tanzania

Support to natural resource management and conflict settlement in local communities. Upgrading of local craftsman training for both refugees and the local population and improvement of water and sanitation in camps and local communities. Enhancement of protective capacity in Tanzania, including legal aid and information campaigns.

Uganda

Focus on improved self-reliance and opportunities for local integration as well as health activities and legal aid. Refugees’ and internally displaced people’s possibilities of returning. Capacity enhancement of asylum authorities.

Zambia

Support to refugee repatriation. Support to renovation of worn-down infrastructure in the areas accommodating large groups of refugees. Support to Zambian authorities’ future refugee work, partly in relation to the challenges arising in relation to the refugees not returning to Angola and in relation to authority work with other refugee groups. Support to refugees returning to Angola.

Other projects Under the EU umbrella, the region-of-origin appropriation has also co-financed a project managed by the UNHCR and aiming at enhancing access to protection for the large Iraqi refugee groups staying in the Lebanon, Syria and Jordan as well as internally displaced people in Iraq. The activities also target the refugees who are in the large migration flows moving out of northern Africa without access to legal protection. Denmark co-finances a project with France in Niger focusing on enhancing authorities’ capacities in the areas of refugee flow handling, etc. Denmark supports a similar project in Ghana through the IOM.

Page 111

5.3.4. Interrelation between region-of-origin initiatives and initiatives for voluntary return and transfer The above text described the overall objectives and characteristics for the region-of-origin initiatives and how they also support safe and dignified return and reintegration. Thus, the region-of-origin initiatives should be seen in the context of the government policy for promoting voluntary return of rejected asylum seekers, but can also be considered vis-àvis government policy for deportation of rejected asylum seekers. To ensure maximum interlinking of the region-of-origin initiatives and Danish national refugee activities, the terms of reference for a work group set up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs state that the work group should also incorporate elements related to deportation in the overall initiative framework, including identification of countries that are relevant recipients of region-oforigin initiatives. This might include countries of origin for rejected asylum seekers ready for deportation in cases where there are many of them. The focus for short-term activities connected with deportation might be, e.g., to ensure reception facilities or to enhance the capacity of authorities in relevant countries of origin so that they can handle aspects relevant to the deportation. In this way, efforts financed by region-of-origin appropriations can enable and generally pave the way for allowing rejected asylum seekers to return or be transferred to their countries of origin faster than they otherwise would. To preserve the credibility of the asylum system, Denmark must, in relation to rejected asylum seekers, help create possibilities for deporting the rejected asylum seekers that fail to leave voluntarily. Thus, region-of origin initiatives can be used as elements in negotiations on readmission agreements or to obtain acceptance from the country of origin related to the return of aliens not lawfully residing in Denmark, for instance rejected asylum seekers. This can be achieved by heightening the country of origin’s possibilities of receiving returnees and also increasing the individual person’s possibilities of successful reintegration, e.g. through projects opening up individuals’ opportunities for entering the labour market in the country of origin. This model has been used for rejected Iraqi asylum seekers, where the German NGO AGEF acted as a jobcentre in northern Iraq, while the IOM provided general reintegration counselling and enterprise allowance in Iraq, as detailed in 5.3.3. Another example is Kosovo, where the Neighbourhood Programme granted funding to the Danish Refugee Council and UNMIK/UNDP for reintegration and reconciliation activities for refugees and internally displaced people and to the Danish Refugee Council to support local psycho-social treatment capacity for returnees. No doubt, such efforts factor in the marked drop seen in the number of rejected asylum seekers eligible for deportation from Denmark in recent years. In cases where a country in a region of origin meets – possibly because of previous capacity enhancement work in the asylum area – the criteria for serving as a safe third country, i.e. one that has endorsed the refugee convention and in practice follows the Refugee Convention provisions of non-refoulement, Danish authorities can transfer asylum seekers to the country provided that the asylum seeker has stayed in the country prior to arriving in Denmark and direct them to seek protection there. Page 112

Finally, it should be emphasised that Denmark and the EU strive to embed in all readmission agreements the option of being transferred to safe third-countries, including the first safe asylum country. 5.4.

EU and UNHCR activities

5.4.1. EU As mentioned in section 5.2., the EU developed ideas for protection in the regions of origin at the start of the current decade. Today, these ideas are realised as an element of the Hague programme, adopted by the European Council in November 2004. The programme lays down the overall framework for the EU policy on justice and home affairs. Thus, when the programme was adopted, the European Council recognised that the EU should contribute to a more accessible, equitable and effective international protection system in partnership with third countries and provide access to protection and durable solutions at the earliest possible stage. Countries in regions of origin and transit will be encouraged in their efforts to strengthen their capacity for protecting refugees. The European Council invited the Commission to develop EU Regional Protection Programmes in partnership with the third countries concerned and in close consultation and cooperation with the UNHCR. The European Council stated that a regional pilot protection programme should be adjusted to the specific situation and focus on protection. It should be based on a number of measures, such as assistance to third countries, so that they meet international obligations under the Refugee Convention and other relevant international instruments, enhance protection capacity, provide better access to registration and local integration and aid in improving local infrastructure and migration management. These programmes should be developed and implemented in close cooperation with the UNHCR and, where relevant, other international organisations.18 In its Communication of 1 September 2003 on regional protection programmes,19 the Commission proposed EU Regional Protection Programmes aimed at a common handling of protracted refugee situations as an aspect of a general, coordinated strategy. Regional protection programmes should enhance region of origin capacity for protecting refugees and thus pave the way for implementing one of three durable solutions, i.e. repatriation, local integration or resettlement. Regional protection programmes should interconnect with already existing financing instruments, thus requiring no new financing framework. On 12 October 2005, the Council (justice and home affairs) approved the conclusions on launching two regional pilot protection programmes in the western NIS countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus) and in sub-Saharan Africa (the Great Lake region/Tanzania). The programmes aim to improve access to durable solutions for the refuges staying in the regions of origin, an aim that includes capacity enhancement of the national asylum systems.

18

The proposal of setting up safe areas close to conflict areas, from which refugees can apply for asylum in the EU was not directly mentioned in the Hague programme. Nor did the programme discuss establishment of camps in the regions of origin. However, the Commission was urged to look into the feasibility of “(…) processing of asylum applications outside EU territory”. 19 Communication on regional protection programmes (Com (2005) 388) of 1 September 2005.

Page 113

The European Council conclusions of 15-16 December 2005 recognised the need to establish and implement a regional pilot protection programme in Tanzania as early in 2006 as possible. At the same meeting, the EU Heads of State or Government adopted a global approach to migration with a view to combating illegal immigration to the EU via the Mediterranean. Focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean, the migration strategy centred on three main areas: Operational cooperation between Member States, dialogue and cooperation with Africa and work with neighbouring countries. Since then, the matter of region-of-origin protection has been debated within the framework of the global approach to migration. The approach has since been expanded from only covering the southern EU neighbours to also comprising the eastern and south-eastern neighbouring regions. The regional protection programmes are financed through the Thematic programme for the cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum and have a budget for 2007-13 of EUR 384 million20, i.e. DKK 2.88 billion. The main priorities are asylum and international protection. On 17 June 2008, the Commission adopted a policy plan for future work in the asylum area.21 The plan states that the Commission will introduce proposals for further developing the external dimension of a common asylum policy. In that context, the Commission advocates reinforcement of the regional protection programmes, both by expanding existing programmes, which the Commission will evaluate later this year, and developing new programmes in other regions such as North Africa, the horn of Africa, Afghanistan and the Middle East. This will allow the programmes to make significantly greater impact on refugee protection and asylum-system improvement in selected regions. Capacity must be enhanced as an aspect of the EU development cooperation with third countries. The Commission sees reinforcement of regional protection programmes as one of three measures in the external dimension of EU asylum policy. The other two measures are resettlement and improved handling of mixed migration flows. When it comes to the latter, the Commission will look into the possibilities of differentiating between people from mixed migration flows in need of protection and other migrants. In 2009, the Commission will – in close consultation with the UNHCR – launch a study on the feasibility of joint processing of asylum applications outside EU territory. The concept of ‘joint processing of asylum applications outside EU territory’ was not precisely defined. Based on the context of the proposal, focus will probably be on processing asylum applications submitted to embassies or joint application centres in third countries (i.e. in a country different from the one, the refugee fled) on par with the provision previously existing in section 7(4) of the Danish Aliens Act, which provision was repealed by Act no. 365 of 6 June 2002. However, the Commission’s study is expected to generate a debate on the possibilities of the EU’s setting up accommodation centres in third countries. According to the Commission, the study conclusions will be used in future EU-level discussions and strategic measures on improved access to the EU as a supplement to the common European asylum system and in keeping with relevant international standards. 20

Commission Communication of 17 June 2008, “Policy plan on asylum. An integrated approach to protection across the EU” (Com (2008) 260). 21 Commission Communication of 17 June 2008, “Policy plan on asylum. An integrated approach to protection across the EU” (Com (2008) 260).

Page 114

The Commission’s policy plan will figure in the preparation of the coming general work programme set to replace the Hague programme and expected to be adopted under Sweden’s presidency in the second half of 2009. This is also true for the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum finally adopted by the European Council in October 2008. The Pact also touches on the issue of region-of-origin initiatives. It states that in consultation with the UNHCR the Commission must present proposals for cooperation with third countries on capacity enhancement, the aim being to improve protection of people outside EU territory. 5.4.2. The UNHCR The above UNHCR Agenda for Protection is divided into six main goals, four of which are relevant in a region-of-origin perspective: 1. Strengthen global implementation of the Refugee Convention, by improving asylum procedures, particularly in the regions of origin, and refugee registration and documentation procedures. 2. Provide access to protection as an element of migration management, e.g. by developing national policies ensuring the necessary balance between immigration management and refugee protection, intensifying the fight against human trafficking and trade. 3. Share the burden, responsibility and set-up of accommodation and protection capacity, e.g. by developing responsibility-sharing models for use in connection with massive refugee influx or protracted refugee situations, improving reception capacity and protection level in the region of origin, interconnecting refugee and development policies. 4. Redouble the search for durable solutions, e.g. by increasing cooperation with countries of origin to promote access to repatriation, of working for local integration, enhancing resettlement options and using these factors to set up broader solution models. These four main goals shows that the UNHCR increasingly sees refugee protection in a broader context, including migration flows in general, deportation of rejected asylum seekers, a heightened focus on reception and protection capacities in the region of origin and development policies. In 2006, the UNHCR presented a plan for mixed migration flows. The UNHCR has since stated several times that it is not a “migration management agency”, but that it has, by means of its protection mandate, a responsibility to people in need of protection, including refugees in mixed migration flows. The UNHCR will use the plan to assist states in enhancing their capacity for handling mixed migration flows, including protecting people eligible for asylum. The UNHCR approach to mixed migration flows primarily focuses on enhancing capacity of transit countries with a view to finding durable solutions. According to the UNHCR, activities in countries of origin should primarily focus on the underlying reasons for migration. This means that efforts should be targeted at poverty combating and development assistance, which lie outside the mandate of the UNHCR. The Agenda advocates more systematic use of the methodology used in the Strengthening Protection Capacity Project, a pilot project launched in 2004 with

Page 115

support from Denmark from the region-of-origin funding and completed in April 2006. This approach contains proposals for, e.g., improving livelihoods and self-reliance. As mentioned above in section 5.4.1, the EU also mentions the need for cooperation with the UNHCR in the region-of-origin initiatives. The UNHCR will be able to contribute expertise on refugee issues and on handling large groups of refugees and displaced people. The Iraqis in Syria and Jordan are a current example. However, UNHCR activities will depend on donor funding from both states and organisations such as the Commission. In the matter of capacity enhancing immigration authorities, cooperation between countries will probably always be more advantageous than merely having the UNHCR enhancing capacity. Precisely because experts from other national authorities are also administrators, they will often be met with greater confidence from the host country’s authorities. Further, a country will be able to supply a wider selection of experts than the UNHCR can, as countries execute tasks related not only to asylum processing but also other areas associated with aliens, including visas, border control, voluntary return and deportation. NGOs are also seen as valuable players in capacity enhancement activities, because civil society typically plays a significant role in counselling asylum seekers, training and counselling government officials, attorneys, local human-rights organisations and, not least, monitoring practices in the area of protection. 5.5.

Possibility of setting up centres in the regions of origin

As previously mentioned, the setting up of EU centres in the regions of origin was a subject of particular interest in the first half of this decade. So far, initiatives have not resulted in establishment of accommodation centres in the regions of interest. The above Australian solution, which called for asylum cases to be processed in islands not in the region of origin but in the Pacific, is the closest anyone has come to this idea. However, the solution was abandoned in the first quarter of 2008. Similarly, the USA is processing elements of asylum cases in Cuba. This report focuses solely on the idea of camps in the regions of origin and as such not on the Australian example, which did not set up camps in regions of origin. This choice is rooted in the fact that previous ideas for camps in the regions of origin were primarily based on a wish to keep refugees and displaced people as close to their own countries as possible and not on a wish to find a country in the world willing to make its territory available to EU asylum seekers and refugees. The region-of-origin idea has only spurred the establishment of centres in such regions to a limited extent and not on the initiative of Denmark or the EU. This is generally because the idea is loaded with a number of practical, legal, financial and political problems, including the fact that neither Denmark nor the EU can establish or finance a refugee camp or an accommodation centre in another country without the consent of that country. Even though current region-of-origin initiatives are not aimed at establishing accommodation centres in the regions, establishing such centres could be an element of general development activities, particularly when it comes to setting up asylum systems and Page 116

structures in the regions that would better equip the relevant countries to handle an influx of asylum seekers. Such development would help reduce secondary movements. Were Denmark or the EU to create and use such centres that might partly have been set up for the host country’s own purposes, it would still necessitate an agreement with the host country, since it does not, on the face of it, have a legal obligation to receive asylum seekers from other countries. Another problem for Denmark and the other EU Member States lies in their legal obligation not to perform refoulement of asylum seekers who are within EU territory. This obligation also means that they cannot return asylum seekers to a country in the region of origin, if there is a risk that this country would perform refoulement, thus causing indirect refoulement. Several of these and other challenges in establishing camps in the region of origin will be detailed and categorised in 5.5.1.-5.5.7. 5.5.1. Need for host country acceptance, donor assistance, etc. Setting up an accommodation centre in the regions of origin presupposes host country acceptance. The main initial countries of reception or transit countries, e.g. in Africa, are highly sceptical about ideas that shift larger burdens to them as hosts of large refugee groups and are typically reluctant to receive or allow transit for third-country nationals having stayed in their territories, irrespective of the duration. On this basis, these countries must be expected to be reluctant to receive third-country nationals that have never stayed in their countries but are transferred to it from EU territory. Accommodation centres can only be established in cooperation with the host country and with appropriate consideration of the relevant country’s own authority structure and legislation, as the host country will not be legally obliged – and will presumably be reluctant – to set up an asylum processing body solely adjusted to EU structures and legislation. Almost certainly, a key element in persuading host countries to accept the idea of such centres must be for the host country to be able to return refugees to their countries of origin, always contingent upon their not needing protection. Thus, a need exists to ensure – and possibly help the countries in the region of origin to conclude – readmission agreements with the countries of origin, so that voluntary return or, if necessary, deportation can be effected, albeit always taking into account the security and dignity of the asylum seekers whose applications are rejected after processing in the region of origin. If return proves impossible, local integration is another option. The initial country of reception in the regions of origin typically objects strongly to local integration of refugees, a fact reflected in the placement of refugees in camps (non-integration in communities) and repatriation even after long stays. The procedure could be seen as reflecting a view of refugees as an unsustainable load on an already fragile national economy and all that implies. A country may also object strongly to accommodation centres for major groups of asylum seekers, not least because the standard of living in the communities surrounding such accommodation centres will often be lower than inside the centres.

Page 117

It should be noted that current region-of-origin initiatives typically also comprise direct assistance to host countries’ capacity for (and attitude to) housing refugees, via, for instance, assistance to local populations housing refugees and that activities are typically planned within the framework of local authorities’ general planning and priorities, as laid down in reconstruction plans, etc., and often in direct consultation with authorities. As to the matter of setting up accommodation centres in the regions of origin, the issue of whether closed or open centres are preferable should be considered, including whether asylum seekers should be detained. Any detention must be evaluated under article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to liberty and security of person, which article limits the option of detention, including detention outside Europe. It should be noted that detention may be used for shorter periods of time, as we do in Denmark in relation to the “expedited version of the manifestly unfounded procedure”, which allows detention of people for up to seven days. However, the matter of detention gives rise to questions of jurisdiction as mentioned below in 5.5.6. To gain a host country’s acceptance of such a centre, a type of trade-off or similar assistance to the host country may become necessary. The EU should therefore clearly decide what it would be willing to offer the host country and the limits of such offer. The states financing the setup of accommodation centres would also have to be prepared to grant – in the necessary volume and for the necessary period of time – the assistance needed to ensure safe conditions in refugee camps, and thus dissuade refugees in the camp from travelling on and seeking asylum in another country or motivate them to stay in the host country. The host country cannot be expected to want to assume responsibility for asylum seekers whose cases have been or are being processed in an EU-operated centre in the region of origin but who do not want to stay there. However, much seems to indicate that the conditions in refugee camps as such do not determine whether refugees decide stay. They are much more interested in the chance to live normal lives in safety and dignity and, in this context, the possibility of attaining quality in the form of employment, self-employment, schooling, etc. An example is the Dadaab camps in north-east Kenya, which have housed more than 150,000 Somali refugees since 1992. The camps are relatively self-sufficient in food, drinking water, health, access to primary schools, etc., especially in comparison with the surrounding communities. However, the refugees have no right to operate income-generating enterprises of any kind, just as they may not travel further into Kenya without special permission. This situation generates widespread feelings of frustration among refugees in the camp, driving them to move on or – as reported about young men – go back to Somalia, where they join extremist militias. Any asylum processing by the EU or Denmark in the region of origin would require the participating parties to infuse significant financial resources, which would become available through the savings inherent in receiving and processing far fewer asylum seekers. Were the EU to set up accommodation centres in regions of origin, it would also be natural to assist the host country in capacity enhancing its asylum system to make it better able to handle migration into its country on its own, always provided that the country in question was interested. Thus, the savings mentioned above could be spent on enhancing capacity in the form of registration, asylum processing, and reception conditions, including education and training. A need would also arise to launch projects not directly relevant to asylum Page 118

processing, but more development-oriented and benefiting the local populations housing the refugees. The latter projects are seen as a particular precondition for a host country to accept the set-up of EU-operated centres in the regions of origin.

5.5.2. Need for UNHCR acceptance In relation to the British 2003 proposal, the UNHCR dissociated itself from the idea of transferring asylum seekers that have entered an EU Member State directly, to a region of origin they have not previously stayed in. If the UNHCR did not accept the establishment of accommodation centres in regions of origin, it would be denying its help and focusing on criticising the activities. This would make operationalisation difficult and presumably create mistrust among the region-of-origin countries. 5.5.3. Option of re-submitting asylum applications in Denmark or the other EU Member States An asylum seeker with an application rejected in a regional accommodation centre would be entitled to resubmit an asylum application on subsequent entry into EU territory. Just as today, some asylum seekers will probably keep trying to enter EU territory illegally, either until they succeed or their financial resources are exhausted. 5.5.4. Need for access to effective protection in the region of origin. If accommodation centres or protected zones are to be established in regions of origin, asylum seekers at centres must benefit from “effective protection” while their applications are processed. The level of effective protection should be established with an eye on other conditions in the region, as the protected zones should not develop into pull factors. In many instances, safety conditions in the refugee camps in regions of origin are unsatisfactory. This concern is underlined by the fact that accommodation centres would typically be located in third-world countries close to conflict areas. Accommodation centres would be in the third country’s jurisdiction. Thus, the centres would depend on the host countries’ accepting the design and international obligations fundamental to the Danish asylum system and EU asylum regulations. Several of the regionof-origin countries today housing many refugees and internally displaced people have not ratified the relevant international legal instruments, including the Refugee Convention. If the host country is not a party to the Refugee Convention, an international law agreement would have to be made with the host country stipulating that it would not return asylum seekers to their countries of origin before their asylum applications had been finally processed in accordance with the above international obligations and/or national rules. In other words – no risk of indirect refoulement must exist. Note that the current region-of-origin initiatives allow for capacity enhancement of authorities and civil society organisations as well as other players in the asylum field, such as attorneys and judges. 5.5.5. Need for unity among states on receiving recognised refugees for resettlement If accommodation centres are combined with a type of resettlement for people with a recognised need for protection, agreements need to be concluded with both the country in Page 119

the region of origin and any resettlement countries on how resettlements should be effected and combined with other aspects of resettlement activities on which Denmark and other resettlement countries cooperate with the UNHCR. It should be borne in mind that the UNHCR already finds it difficult to cover the need for quota refugee places, so the resettlement solution should be considered in connection with local integration and return to the country of origin for the people able to use these options. In the matter of local integration, however, it should be noted that previous global experience reveals the substantial difficulties related to using local integration to achieve durable solutions. In recent decades, host governments have rarely accepted this solution. Host governments have responded fairly negatively to proposals pointing to such solutions and presented in connection with, for instance, discussions on executive committee conclusions in the UNHCR. Precise criteria (length of stay, family relations, drawing lots) must simultaneously be established to supplement the need for protection, a key element in selecting the people to be resettled. Of course, a precise burden-sharing scheme must be set up for the number of recognised refugees or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection that the individual EU Member State must receive. One burden-sharing scheme could provide that the EU Member State transferring asylum seekers to the centre for asylum processing at that location would be obliged to resettle the people recognised as needing protection. Another scheme could be based on the number of refugees that the individual Member States already receive, the population figures, GNP and/or other factors. Inspiration could be found in the European Refugee Fund which provides that the Member States’ net contributions, whether positive or negative, will be established in proportion to the scope of their exposure to asylum seekers. Finally, it would be natural to some extent to take into account the refugee’s own choice, not least where this choice ties in with close family relations to one particular country. In preparing the scheme, the EU could find inspiration in the Dublin Regulation, which allocates responsibility for processing asylum applications among EU Member States. 5.5.6. The issue of jurisdiction The Danish Aliens Act and EU legal instruments do not apply outside Denmark and the EU Member States, so the possibility of, for instance, a Danish government official processing asylum applications in a foreign country’s territory must be addressed. However, legislation could be adopted that would allow asylum applications submitted outside Denmark or another EU Member State to be processed. Until 2002 Denmark had a scheme under the provisions of section 7 (4) of the then Aliens Act, according to which an alien could apply for asylum at a Danish diplomatic representation, provided that he or she stayed outside the territory of his or her country of origin. However, the actual case processing was performed in Denmark on the basis of written material. In quota cases, the Immigration Service in Denmark processes cases mainly on the basis of interviews made by the Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council outside Denmark on the recommendations of the UNHCR. If Page 120

the asylum seeker meets the criteria for asylum, etc., under section 8 of the Aliens Act, he or she will be offered resettlement in Denmark. In connection with the initial discussions on EU centres in the EU, demands have been voiced for centre staff to be independent of national interests. Such staff might be employees of the Commission or a future European asylum support office. That would require Member States to surrender sovereignty in deciding specific asylum cases and would mean that cases would be decided in accordance with EU legal provisions on asylum. However, for more detailed design of the system, inspiration could be gained from the representation agreements for visa issuance, so that a Member State could agree with another Schengen country that it could under certain conditions and within a limited framework make decisions. Such framework could stipulate that a Member State is only authorised to decide on rejection in manifestly unfounded cases, while decisions on asylum would be referred to a case worker from the country responsible for resettling the refugee. More detailed decisions on this matter would depend on how the scheme is designed in relation to resettlement, whether it is known in advance who will be resettled in the individual countries, e.g. because they were transferred to the camp by that country, or whether they will be distributed according to a burden-sharing scheme as mentioned in 5.5. Before any EU centres are set up, the EU should determine the administrative regulations that apply to the centres, including in relation to parties’ access to documents, consultation of parties, grounds for decision, etc. Thus, the provisions of the EU Asylum Procedures Directive will be the minimum standards needed to be embedded in other administrative regulations on asylum processing in the individual Member States. Another question of jurisdiction arises if a decision is made to close an accommodation centre, i.e. the asylum seekers will be detained, as the host country will in such cases need to accept such detention and perhaps also enforce it. Thus, the EU will not be able to detain asylum seekers without the acceptance of the host country. 5.5.7. Denmark’s EU opt-outs in the area of justice Denmark has an additional problem in that any legal instrument for establishment of EU centres would probably fall under the Danish opt-outs in the area of justice. Decisions on any EU centres would also have to be made on the basis of EU legislative provisions on asylum, which do not cover Denmark. However, the Danish asylum provisions on protection are in their current form on par with the EU asylum provisions. In negotiations on any legislative provisions concerning EU centres, work would also have to focus on finding a solution that would enable Denmark to participate on an intergovernmental basis. 5.6.

Quota refugees

On several occasions, the correlation has been noted between protection in the regions of origin and the assistance Denmark grants by offering resettlement of refugees in Denmark.

Page 121

In an UNHCR context, resettlement is seen as one of three durable solutions to a refugee situation. The other two options are local integration and voluntary return. The 2009 agreement on the Danish Finance Act stipulates that “the immigration policy realised by the government and the Danish People's Party since 2002 rests on the principle of helping many refugees in the regions of origin instead of a few in Denmark” and that “the parties agree to discuss Denmark’s activities in relation to quota refugees, once the committee work [the Committee of Experts set up in December 2007] concludes”. The negotiations for the 2009 Finance Act also touched on the possibility of converting Denmark’s resettlement quota into resettlement activities performed in third countries, i.e. in future a number of quota refugees should be resettled in their regions of origin instead of in Denmark. The following text reviews experience from converting the Danish resettlement quota into resettlement work in third countries. The objective of converting is that the costs of protecting quota refugees in Denmark could probably protect a greater number of refugees in the regions of origin.22 Furthermore, resettlement in the region of origin – where language and culture are often similar to the refugees’ country of origin – will, all things being equal, probably make quota refugees’ integration into the host country much easier than into a distant country like Denmark. Within the current legislative frameworks, the resettlement quota cannot be converted into resettlement work in third countries. However, Act no. 403 of 1 June 2005 on changed selection of and improved efforts related to quota refugees introduced the possibility of – in exceptional cases – converting unused places, including the associated funding for integration, to assistance funding earmarked for resettlement activities in third countries. This option can only be exercised when the threeyear resettlement quota has not been exhausted23. The primary objective of resettlement is to ensure that people needing protection gain entry into a country able to offer the necessary protection and ensure durable solutions based on complete integration. Resettlement also helps alleviate pressure on the country of first asylum, thus helping to create political leeway for ensuring better conditions and more sympathy for the many refugees remaining in those countries. Finally, resettlement serves to show that a country assumes its part of the international responsibility for solving refugee 22

It is difficult to calculate the precise number of additional refugees that could be protected in the regions of origin for the amounts expended on protection in Denmark. A statement from the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs of 9 December 2008 showed that the costs of protecting quota refugees in Denmark amounts to DKK 450,000 per refugee with most of this sum being spent on the three-year introduction programme. 23 Act no. 403 of 1 June 2005 introduced three-year resettlement quotas. The quotas meant that in a three-year period the immigration authorities would have fewer or more places at their disposal, depending on specific needs. The explanatory notes to the bill clearly state that the three-year resettlement quota must basically be utilised in full. Reference is made to the explanatory notes to the bill (B 79 of 23 February 2005). This condition was further underlined in the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs memorandum of 19 November 2004 in response to the submitted consultation replies on the bill and during the parliamentary negotiations on the bill.

Page 122

crises. Thus, resettlement quotas can also be used as a political lever to ensure cooperation with the regions of origin, e.g. on capacity enhancement. Since the mid-1990s, Denmark has persistently worked to expand the circle of countries receiving quota refugees and has also supported all measures that could help centre attention on the resettlement issue. Denmark has primarily worked in the EU, its most recent work at the Council Meeting (justice and home affairs) on 27-28 November 2008 resulting in the adoption of Council conclusions by which the EU Member States undertook, under specific conditions, to resettle about 10,000 Iraqi refugees staying in Jordan and Syria. 5.6.1. Previous experience The idea of resettling quota refugees in the regions of origin instead of somewhere like Denmark is not new. For example, on Nordic initiative a three-year pilot project (1997-1991) coordinated by the UNHCR was realised for the general purpose of strengthening resettlement activities, including setting up a Trust Fund to finance the activities. The project had three goals: 1. make resettlement options as diverse as possible 2. identify durable solutions for individual or groups of refugees 3. improve implementation of existing resettlement activities The Nordic countries focused particular attention on making resettlement options as diverse as possible, since for the same means this would ensure protection for many more refugees than resettlement solely in the traditional resettlement countries would. The Nordic countries granted a total of USD 2,350,000 to the project, corresponding to the costs for 150-200 Nordic resettlement places24. The pilot project yielded mixed results. It succeeded in making resettlement options more diverse, and the number of resettlements also increased to a limited extent. More new resettlement countries emerged, e.g. Benin, Burkina Faso and Chile, and the project made more countries consider establishing resettlement programmes. However, the project also showed that the number of countries expected to agree to become resettlement countries if they received financial means and resources to do so, was unrealistic25. The number of potential new resettlement countries outside Europe appeared to be very limited. During the project, agreements were concluded on a total of 482 new resettlement places in third countries. As of 30 June 2000, the UNHCR had, however, only obtained acceptance

24

The figures appear in the project evaluation report.

25

The UNHCR underlined this fact at the resettlement working committee meeting on 7 December 1998. Reversely, in a joint letter to the UNHCR written six month after project launch, the Nordic countries expressed their concern of the fact that the organisation had not yet succeeded in finding new resettlement countries.

Page 123

for 206 places, and only 145 refugees had arrived at one of the new resettlement countries26. A number of circumstances appeared to make the project difficult to realise. The 2001 evaluation report prepared as part of the project identified the need to reinforce and target UNHCR activities and showed that successful integration was hampered by the new resettlement countries’ insufficient knowledge of and experience in establishing and realising integration programmes (including the necessary infrastructure). Another problem in that context was that it generally proved difficult to find jobs in many of the new resettlement countries, as exemplified in Benin and Burkina Faso. The UNHCR pointed out that many traditional resettlement countries had failed to support the new countries adequately. Financing was insufficient. It also proved necessary to make technical and programming expertise and resources available. 5.6.2. Experience from the Nordic countries None of the Nordic countries continued operating similar projects on resettlement in third countries. However, Sweden and Norway have recently run projects with a number of aspects similar to the above Trust Fund. Norway has started cooperating with Brazil, Argentina and Chile – which have started accepting quota refugees from the South American continent – on capacity enhancing the authorities of relevant countries in relation to the interview and selection processes related to quota refugees as well as to integration of quota refugees. Concurrently, Norway is financing a two-year project on resettling 16 Columbian WAR families (Women At Risk). The project comprises 68 people in Chile and Argentina. The project covers rent expenses, costs of living and support for local integration. In 2008, Norway granted funding corresponding to 5 quota places and similar funding is budgeted for 2009. Norway’s annual resettlement quota is 1,200 refugees. Sweden has also experimented with converting a number of quota places into alternative protection forms. Specifically, Sweden has tested three initiatives: • • •

Contribution to the UNHCR Trust Fund to expand resettlement options Support to medical programmes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo (Swedish Medical Project) Support to intraregional protection of Colombians (Swedish Colombia Project)

The project focusing on protecting Colombians is an offshoot of the Nordic project described above, a number of South-American countries having been urged to focus on resettlement. 26

As an example of the problems of translating agreed resettlement places into real ones, a country had in August 1998 agreed to resettle 15 families from ex-Yugoslavia and in November 1998 another 12 people from Equatorial Guinea, failing in both cases to issue residence permits to the refugees.

Page 124

The project approach was that, instead of resettling 20 people in Sweden, protection could be offered to about 40 in the region. This would not require the selected quota refugees to adapt to a different language and culture, and it would also be easier for the refugees to return to their countries of origin, were conditions to improve there. Sweden’s annual resettlement quota for 2008 was 1,900 refugees. The quota is expected to remain at the same level in the coming years.

Page 125

6. Deliberations and proposals from the Committee of Experts After reviewing the reports from the countries studied, the Committee finds that, in relation to asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers, Denmark’s provisions and practices differ only slightly from those of the other countries. Drawing inspiration from the reports, the Committee has discussed a number of measures that can be characterised as minor adjustments to the Danish asylum system. Further, the Committee finds that since 2001 significant attention has generally been centred on the asylum and immigrant issues in Denmark. As a result, the Danish provisions are largely aimed at granting asylum in Denmark only to people in need of protection, while people who are not entitled to stay in Denmark, for instance because their asylum applications have been rejected, must leave the country. The Committee believes that these two criteria also serve as general guidelines for the policies implemented in the other countries studied, but that the criteria have not been embedded to the same extent as in Denmark in all aspects related to asylum seekers. 6.1.

Adjusting/clarifying the Danish asylum practice

The Committee of Expert terms of reference charge the Committee with studying whether other countries’ asylum provisions and the way they implement international obligations in the protection area give rise to adjust and clarify Denmark’s asylum practice. In this connection, the Committee has considered whether the experience gleaned from the studied countries might give Denmark grounds to adjust how it implements its international obligations in the area. As the above review of the countries’ provisions shows, all countries studied – except Canada – have embedded the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights as references in their national legislations. Canada has embedded the Refugee Convention by rewriting it and incorporating it into national law. As revealed in the reports from the studied countries, some of the countries take the provisions on subsidiary protection a step further than their international obligations require. The Committee has not discussed the matter of enhanced protection in detail, as the terms of reference call for any recommendations in this area to be based on how other countries have implemented their international obligations and not on the extent to which they have exceeded the obligations. 6.2.

Deliberations on the concept of protection in the Aliens Act

Section 7(2) of the Aliens Act stipulates that on application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien risks the death penalty or subjection to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he or she is returned to his or her country of origin. The objective is to grant residence permits only to aliens entitled to protection under international conventions, including the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Denmark has acceded. The concept of protection inherent in section 7 of the Aliens Act was worded to comply with Denmark’s international obligations in the area. Likewise, Denmark has assumed that the Page 126

Danish concept of protection lies within the framework of EU legislation for the areas, even though Denmark is, due to its opt-outs in justice and home affairs, not bound by such provisions. The Committee has noted that the European Court of Justice on 17 February 2009 ruled in the case C-465/07 (M. Elgafaji, N. Elgafaji vs. Statssecretaris van Justitie), which related to the interpretation of article 15, paragraph c of the EU Asylum Qualification Directive (2004/83/EEC) compared to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case, two matters were referred to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, i.e. whether article 15, paragraph c of the Asylum Qualification Directive provides more extensive protection than that provided in article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 15 of the Asylum Qualification Directive: “Serious harm consists of: (a) death penalty or execution; or (b) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin; or c) serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict”. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: ”No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

In the European Court of Justice decision on the Elgafaji case, the fact that the Court in § 44 of the decision finds the decision to be ”fully compatible with” the European Convention on Human Rights, including case-law from the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 3 is worthy of note in this context. Moreover, the reference in § 44 to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case N.A. vs. the United Kingdom, § 115-117, confirms and clarifies a practice founded on the case Vilvarajah vs. United Kingdom and is in line with the arguments of the Elgafaji decision. Against this backdrop, the European Court of Justice interpretation is deemed to be compatible with recent case-law from the European Court of Human Rights, and Danish immigration authorities comply with this caselaw; see the explanatory notes to section 7(2) of the Aliens Act. 6.3.

Legal counsel for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers

Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers are asylum seekers under the age of 18 who enter Denmark without accompanying parents or another adult person deemed to have assumed parental responsibility. As with other asylum seekers, legal counsel is not assigned for unaccompanied minors when the Immigration Service processes the case in the normal procedure. When a case is being processed in the Refugee Appeals Board, legal counsel will always be assigned for asylum seekers, and thus also for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Once the Refugee Appeals Board has decided the case, the assigned counsel’s task is completed. If a case is processed as a manifestly unfounded application, legal counsel will be assigned for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers when the case is referred to the Refugee Appeals Board. The job of an assigned counsel ends, if the Refugee Appeals Board agrees that the Page 127

application should be seen as manifestly unfounded and when the Immigration Service subsequently decides that the application is manifestly unfounded. The Committee has discussed whether unaccompanied minor asylum seekers should have greater access to publicly-paid legal counsel. The Committee finds that consideration could be given to assigning legal counsel to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers even during Immigration Service processing of normalprocedure cases. Such considerations should include whether the minor already has a personal representative and that any rejection from the Immigration Service will automatically be appealed to the Refugee Appeals Board, at which stage the minor will, like other asylum seekers, have legal counsel assigned. Likewise, the Committee has discussed whether unaccompanied minors should have legal counsel assigned after rejection in the manifestly unfounded case procedure or in the Refugee Appeals Board to aid in processing cases on residence permits under section 9c (3)(2) of the Aliens Act on residence permits to unaccompanied minors where there is reason to assume that the minor will in fact be placed in an emergency situation upon return to his or her country of origin or aid in applying for a humanitarian residence permit or residence permit granted on other grounds. Further, the Committee has discussed whether legal counsel should be assigned after final rejection in the Refugee Appeals Board for the purpose of executing any prepared return, including launching a search for the unaccompanied minor’s parents. In the Committee’s view, legal counsel would be most relevant for unaccompanied minors after the asylum processing concludes, as a minor may in such situations find it difficult to grasp his or her situation and options. On this basis, the Committee recommends that legal counsel be made available for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers even after the asylum procession has terminated, but sees no need for legal counsel during the Immigration Service normal procedure processing, as the minor will, in such cases, have a personal representative appointed to help, and as legal counsel will always be assigned to the minor either when the Refugee Appeals Board is processing an application or the Danish Refugee Council is considering whether the application is manifestly unfounded. 6.4.

Processing applications from unaccompanied minor asylum seekers

In connection with processing applications from unaccompanied minors, the Committee further recommends that procedures applying to such cases be studied in detail to determine whether the procedures can be improved. Thus, the Committee finds it important to focus particularly on case processing in applications from unaccompanied minors. 6.5.

Conditions for asylum seekers during and after application processing

The terms of reference require the Committee to prepare recommendations for adjusting

Page 128

conditions for asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers in Denmark. The Committee has therefore discussed the proposals below. 6.5.1. Special accommodation for asylum seekers rejected in the first instance The Committee has discussed whether asylum seekers having been rejected by the Immigration Service (first instance) should relocate to special accommodation centres until their applications have been finally decided in the Refugee Appeals Board (second instance). In the Netherlands, asylum seekers rejected in the first instance are not entitled to accommodation in conventional accommodation centres. Instead, they are relocated to special accommodation centres geared towards return. Reference is made to 3.5. on the Netherlands. As a requirement to fit out special accommodation centres for asylum seekers rejected in the first instance may have significant financial consequences, the idea of relocating such asylum seekers to Center Sandholm or Center Avnstrup together with asylum seekers that have been finally rejected and are staying at the centres because they fail to assist in their departure could be an option. Finally, asylum seekers rejected in the first instance could be allowed to remain at an accommodation centre, while focus could shift to giving them information and advisory services on the eventuality that the Refugee Appeals Board will issue a final rejection followed by return. Information and advisory services might be channelled through independent private organisations that could discuss the possibilities of a return to the country of origin, including the possibilities of resolving any related practical problems. The Committee finds that a number of circumstances speak against relocating asylum seekers rejected by the Immigration Service to special accommodation centres until their cases have been finally decided. Thus, the Committee sees a fundamental problem in requiring people whose applications are not yet finally decided to relocate to special accommodation centres. It appears to counter general basic principles of administrative law that decisions in the first instance can have legal repercussions for the person before he or she has had recourse to try the case in the second instance. In 2008, the Refugee Appeals Board reversed about 30% of decisions. This is, however, a preliminary figure. Had the outlined procedure been implemented, this would mean that a relatively large number of people would have been required to relocate to a special accommodation centre focusing on returns even though they were later granted permits of residence in the Refugee Appeals Board. According to information given to the Committee, it will, for capacity reasons, be impossible to introduce a procedure under which asylum seekers must relocate to Center Sandholm or Center Avnstrup right after having been rejected in the first instance. The Committee also finds it unlikely that asylum seekers can or want to consider a future in their countries of origin before they have been finally rejected.

Page 129

Thus, the Committee recommends that no changes be made to the place of accommodation for asylum seekers as a consequence of a first-instance rejection. The Committee finds that greater focus should be put on information and advisory services about the consequences of a final rejection by the Refugee Appeals Board and information about the possibility of assisted returning coupled with discussions about the prospects of returning. 6.5.2. Participation in youth education programmes Some of the studied countries allow asylum seekers to continue in education programmes after final rejection of asylum and after the asylum seeker has attained full legal capacity. Today, rejected asylum seekers are, as far as possible, given the opportunity to start on a youth education programme in which they can continue once they have attained full legal capacity. The state of law in the area is not clear, however, so the Committee of Experts recommends that clear authority be established for this practice. Thus, in the eyes of the Committee, young people should have the opportunity to finish a youth education, even though they attain full legal capacity during the education. The Committee attaches importance to the fact that a completed youth education would give individuals significant qualifications whether they have to return to their countries of origin or are granted asylum and can stay in Denmark. The Committee underlines that in making the recommendation it has not considered the situation where a person has to interrupt an educational programme because he or she is to leave Denmark. 6.5.3. Possibilities for asylum seekers to work The Committee has noted that several of the countries studied have allowed asylum seekers to work when they have stayed in the country for a certain amount of time and their applications are still undecided. This applies in the EU Member States, because the EU Reception Conditions Directive stipulates that Member States determine the conditions on which the asylum seeker gains access to the labour market if a decision has not been made in the first instance one year after the asylum application is lodged and the delay cannot be attributed to the asylum seeker. Due to its opt-outs, Denmark is not bound by the directive, but the Committee considered the possibility of allowing asylum seekers to work when they have stayed for one year in Denmark and their cases remain undecided by the Immigration Service. As Immigration Service application processing time in 2008 averaged a little over five months and in the Refugee Appeals Board a little over four months, such a scheme would not have much impact in practice. Since the possibility of working in Denmark as an asylum seeker is a political decision not directly touching on asylum legislation and accommodation conditions for asylum seekers, the Committee has not discussed recommendations for this issue in detail. 6.5.4. Changes to the benefit system Compared to the countries studied, the Danish benefit system is highly complicated.

Page 130

Payment of cash allowances to asylum seekers supported by the Immigration Service is calculated on the basis of a differentiated benefit system, in which the level of cash allowances is determined by, for instance, at which stage of the asylum processing the individual asylum seeker is (appendix 1 contains a table of the current benefits). Benefits consist of a basic allowance covering meals and other necessities. The basic allowance level depends on the stage at which the asylum application is. However, asylum seekers covered by a free meal scheme are not eligible for a basic allowance. Asylum seekers liable for maintenance of one or more minor children are also eligible for caregiver allowance for the first and second child and perhaps a lowered allowance for the third and fourth child. The level of the caregiver allowance depends on the status of the asylum case. Registered asylum seekers liable for maintenance of one or more minor children are eligible for full caregiver allowance for the first and second child, while asylum seekers in the initial stage and rejected asylum seekers are eligible for a reduced caregiver allowance for the first and second child. The level of lowered caregiver allowance for the third and fourth child is similar for all three stages. Rejected asylum seekers in the motivation incentive schemes (food allowance programme) are eligible for additionally reduced caregiver allowance for the first two children, but not for the third or fourth child, as this allowance is already low. Asylum seekers in the initial stage and rejected asylum seekers covered by a free meal scheme are only eligible for a minor caregiver allowance for the first and second child. Rejected asylum seekers both in a free meal scheme and in the food allowance programme are not eligible for any caregiver allowance. Further, adult asylum seekers can become eligible for supplementary allowance if they comply with their educational and activation agreements. The level of the supplementary allowance depends on the status of the asylum case. Rejected asylum seekers in the food allowance programme cannot become eligible for supplementary allowance. The Committee has discussed whether the differentiated benefit system should be changed. The current differentiated benefit system means that families with children experience a relatively larger drop in cash allowances than asylum seekers without children as they shift from the registration to the return stages. The caregiver allowance is also further reduced for rejected asylum seekers who become covered by the food allowance programme. The Committee finds that the differentiated benefit system contains an inherent risk of hitting families with children disproportionately hard. To ensure a better framework for children in asylum-seeking families during their stays in Denmark, the Committee recommends that the benefit system be simplified so that in future cash allowances for child welfare will become independent of asylum application status. The Committee also recommends that the level of supplementary allowance in the transition from the registration to the departure stages not be reduced. The Committee further recommends that rejected asylum seekers who fail to assist in their departure

Page 131

remain under the food allowance programme and thus be deprived of the possibility of becoming eligible for supplementary allowances. Since the supplementary allowance will, if the recommendation is followed, become significantly higher for rejected asylum seekers, the Committee expects that rejected asylum seekers may have more incentive to observe concluded agreements on education and activation, just as the incentive element may become stronger at the prospect of noneligibility for supplementary allowance as a consequence of refusal to cooperate on return. To counter abuse of the benefit system by asylum seekers in the initial stage who are only in the asylum system for a very short period of time before they depart or disappear, the Committee recommends that the current practice of accommodating all newly arrived asylum seekers at an accommodation centre where they are comprised by the free meal scheme be maintained. 6.6.

Possibility of setting up centres in the regions of origin

The Committee has discussed the possibility of Denmark’s setting up – either alone, in a common EU solution or in bilateral cooperation with other interested countries – accommodation centres in the regions of origin for the purpose of processing asylum applications. The issue has previously been discussed internationally, but has not yet gained general acceptance. Most recently, the Commission stated in its policy plan for the future work in the area of asylum of 17 June 2008 that it will in 2009 in close consultation with the UNHCR launch a study on the feasibility of joint processing of asylum applications outside EU territory. The Committee notes that, basically, it appears to be a good idea to set up accommodation centres in the regions of origin. All things being equal, such centres could, for instance, improve migration flow management as asylum processing in region-of-origin centres would clearly signal that illegal entry into the EU via the asylum system does not pay off. Furthermore, the necessary asylum processing would be effected as close as possible to the asylum seeker’s country of origin, which would make it easier to return asylum seekers with no protection needs to their countries of origin. Additionally, such centres could also make better use of financial resources to a wide extent currently expended inside the EU on deciding asylum applications resulting in rejections. As explained in 5.5, the idea of creating centres in the regions of origin carries a number of major challenges. Thus, the idea involves various practical, legal and economic problems, including the fact that neither Denmark nor the EU can set up or finance a refugee camp or an accommodation centre in another country without obtaining the country’s acceptance, and it would be necessary to ensure that the country would not deport asylum seekers from its territory and return them to their countries of origin (non-refoulement principle). The Committee notes in this context that if Denmark is – possibly in bilateral cooperation with other stakeholder countries – to continue work on realising the idea of centres in the regions of origin, it would be tantamount to developing and realising a largely untested concept. Considerable political support and significant resources would be required for a number of years to study the many unresolved problems and later to realise the concept in

Page 132

cooperation with relevant third countries and organisations. This applies to the preparation, establishment and operational phases. Thus, significant financial resources should be appropriated for establishing and operating such centres, for instance to ensure that they meet the necessary international standards. The successful realisation of the idea also depends on finding one or more third countries interested in becoming host countries. Several third countries must be expected to show reluctance towards receiving third-country nationals that have never stayed in their countries but are transferred there from EU territory. Host countries must also remain committed and involved for several years, even though specific results in the form of improved control of migration flows may only become evident after many years. Further, the issue of creating accommodation centres in the regions of origin should be compared to the current Danish region-of-origin initiatives focused on helping refugees and internally displaced people close to their countries of origin and, not least, on helping to create durable solutions for them. Improved conditions in the regions neighbouring conflictaffected regions should enable potential asylum seekers to apply for and find efficient protection in the region of origin or be transferred to such regions from their countries of origin if they do not meet the criteria for achieving asylum status, rather than transiting the region of origin on their way to, for instance, Denmark. Region-of-origin initiatives may also encompass protection of accommodation facilities or capacity enhancement of relevant authorities in countries of origin with regard to aspects relevant to the return of rejected asylum seekers from other countries. Activities financed with region-of-origin funding can – in the same way as setting up accommodation centres in the regions of origin – help prevent secondary movements and prepare the ground for enabling rejected asylum seekers to return or be deported to their countries of origin sooner. The Committee notes that the idea of asylum processing outside EU territory still exists in the EU, as most recently seen in the Commission asylum policy plan of 17 June 2008 and in the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum adopted under France’s presidency in October 2008. In 2009, the Commission will – in close consultation with the UNHCR – launch a study on the feasibility of joint processing of asylum applications outside EU territory. The Committee finds that Denmark would best benefit from continuing its work on the idea in cooperation with other countries – preferably as a common EU initiative. It appears to be too difficult and resource-intensive for Denmark to realise the idea as, in actual fact, the only country in the world. A common EU solution would probably have greater impact and mobilise more resources, factors that would increase the probability of making the idea a reality. Keeping in mind the inherent challenges and in observance of Danish opt-outs in justice and home affairs, the Committee recommends that Denmark participate actively in the continued EU work and ensure that experience from the Danish region-of-origin initiatives gained since 2002 is used in any common EU solutions. Concurrently, Denmark should continue its region-of-origin initiatives, because the initiatives contribute durable solutions to refugee issues in the regions benefiting from the assistance.

Page 133

6.7.

Quota refugees

The Committee has reviewed experience from converting the Danish resettlement quota into resettlement work in third countries. The Committee believes that the idea of resettlement in refugees’ regions of origin – instead of in distant countries – could be realised, bearing in mind, of course, that such a scheme would need thorough preparation in relation to aspects such as nationality and resettlement country and that close cooperation between Denmark and the UNHCR would have to be ensured. Thus, Denmark must realise that implementing such a scheme would entail a number of difficulties. Experience shows that Denmark will have a hard time persuading countries in the regions of origin to take on even greater responsibility unless it also shows stronger solidarity by also sharing the burden of the world’s refugee problem. Typically, these countries are already under pressure from refugees. A number of the problems arising in the Nordic-initiated pilot project under the auspices of the UNHCR on resettlement in the regions of origin, mentioned in 5.6, could to some extent be solved by coordinating expectations vis-à-vis refugee groups and resettlement country alike. Furthermore, experience from the previous common Nordic Trust Fund project and not least the Nordic countries should be embedded; see chapter 5, sections 5.6.1. and 5.6.2. The risk of Denmark’s sending out mixed signals is another relevant aspect to keep in mind when it comes to deliberations on converting the Danish resettlement quota to resettlement activities in third countries, as Denmark has, since the mid-1990s in the EU and the UNHCR, called for more countries to start receiving quota refugees by setting up concrete resettlement programmes like Denmark’s, Sweden’s or the Netherlands’, as one possible instrument among many others to alleviate refugee situations. The EU Member States are intensifying their focus on the issue of resettling refugees, most recently expressed in November 2008 when a number of Council conclusions were adopted, by which they undertook, under specific conditions, to resettle about 10,000 Iraqi refugees staying in Jordan and Syria. At the Council meeting (justice and home affairs) 26-27 February 2009, the Commission stated that in following up the conclusions, the Member States had until then resettled or declared their intentions of resettling about 8,000 Iraqi and Palestinian refugees from Syria and Jordan in 2008 or 2009. Member Countries not previously working in resettlement schemes are also participating in the activities. Continued discussions on this issue are expected to be held after the Committee concludes its work in accordance with the 2009 Finance Act agreement.

Page 134

Appendix 1 – list of allowances in Denmark for asylum seekers, etc., in pursuance of sections 42 a and 42 b of the Danish Aliens Act.

Allowances for asylum seekers, etc., in pursuance of sections 42 a and 24 b of the Danish Aliens Act All amounts are denominated in Danish kroner per day (2009) Centres with free meal schemes

Not registered or final rejection

Registered

Manifestly unfounded/ expedited procedure

Ordinary centres

Basic allowance

Caregiver allowance

Reduced caregiver allowance

Supplementary allowance

Basic allowance

Caregiver allowance

Reduced caregiver allowance

Supplementary allowance

Married/partner

-

7.90

-

7.90*

37.49

55.25

39.46

7.90*

Over 18 years

-

7.90

-

7.90*

47.35

55.25

39.46

7.90*

Unaccompanied

-

7.90

-

7.9

47.35

55.25

39.46

7.90

Under 18 years, not part of parent family

-

7.90

-

7.9

47.35

55.25

39.46

7.90

Married/partner

-

27.62

-

27.62*

37.49

74.97

39.46

27.62*

Over 18 years

-

27.62

-

27.62*

47.35

74.97

39.46

27.62*

Unaccompanied

-

27.62

-

27.62

47.35

74.97

39.46

27.62

Under 18 years, not part of parent family

-

27.62

-

27.62

47.35

74.97

39.46

27.62

Married/partner

-

-

-

-

37.49

47.35

39.46

-

Over 18 years

-

-

-

-

47.35

47.35

39.46

-

Unaccompanied

-

-

-

-

47.35

47.35

39.46

-

Food allowance

Under 18 years, not part of parent family

-

-

-

-

47.35

47.35

39.46

-

Married/partner

-

-

-

-

37.49

47.35

39.46

-

Over 18 years

-

-

-

-

47.35

47.35

39.46

-

Unaccompanied

-

-

-

-

47.35

47.35

39.46

-

Under 18 years, not part of parent family

-

-

-

-

47.35

47.35

39.46

-

*Payable on the condition of contract compliance Basic allowance: Payable in advance, cf. section 42 b(1) of the Danish Aliens Act. Caregiver allowance and reduced caregiver allowance: Payable in advance, cf. section 42 b(7) of the Danish Aliens Act. Supplementary allowance: Payable in arrears, cf. section 42 b(8) of the Danish Aliens Act.

Page 136

Appendix 2 Table of individual country report information (The figures in each field relate to the section in the report where the information comes from) Denmark

Canada

Finland

Netherlands

Norway

United Kingdom

Sweden

Germany

Do asylum seekers live at

Accommodation

Accommodation

Accommodation

Accommodation

Stay at

Asylum seekers are

Must arrange own

In the state of

accommodation centres or

centre

offer

centre as offer,

centre as offer

accommodation

generally to find

accommodation.

Bavaria:

in private accommodation

Private

Perhaps offer of

no support

3.5.6.1.2

centre in the form

their own

Offer of ordinary

Obligation to stay

during the factual

accommodation

private

granted for

of ordinary flats or

accommodation, but

local or private flat

at accommodation

processing of their asylum

on certain

accommodation or

alternatives

actual

may apply for it.

3.8.6.1

centre, but local

cases?

conditions

housing from

3.4.6.1.2

accommodation

Publicly and

accommodation

3.2.6.1

private relief

centres, condition

privately owned

centre after three

organisations in

for payment of

housing is available

months. Private

emergency

allowances

3.7.6.1

accommodation in

situations

3.6.6.1.

special cases

3.3.6.1

Perhaps open transit

3.9.6.1

centre 3.6.6.1.2 Do finally rejected asylum

Departure

Accommodation

Accommodation

Accommodation

Open departure

Accommodation

Same financial

Authorities

seekers stay at

centre

offer

centre 3.4.6.1.3

centre until

centre

offered if certain

support as asylum

indicate a centre,

accommodation centres or

3.2.6.1.3

Perhaps offer of

expiry of 28-day

3.6.6.1.3

conditions are met

seekers. Support

which is generally

private

departure

3.7.6.1.3

may be spent on

the same local

accommodation or

deadline. Next,

rent

accommodation

housing from

partly closed

3.8.6.1.3

centre

private relief

centre for up to

organisations in

12 weeks and

emergency

longer if return

situations

is considered

3.3.6.1

possible

in private accommodation?

3.9.6.1.3

3.5.6.1.3 Do asylum seekers whose

No access, but

Possibility of

May take on

May work for six

Possibility of

Generally no right

Generally no access

Access to labour

cases are subject to factual

application is

applying for work

paid work after

months, but

applying for

to work, but access

unless asylum case

market on certain

processing have access to

possible

permit

three months

only 14 or 24

temporary work

to labour market on

processing is found

conditions after

the labour market?

according to the

3.4.6.6.2

weeks a year

permit

certain conditions

to take more than

one year in

3.5.6.6.2

3.6.6.6.2

after 12 months

four months

Germany

3.7.6.6.2

3.8.6.6.2

3.9.6.6.2

general rules on residence and work permits 3.2.6.6.2 and

3.3.6.6.2

3.2.6.6.4

Do finally rejected asylum

No access, but

No access, but if

No access

No access

No right to work

No access

Generally no access,

No access

seekers have access to the

application is

departure cannot

3.4.6.6.3

3.5.6.6.3

permit, but permit

3.7.6.6.3

unless

3.9.6.6.3

labour market?

possible

be effected, a

may be granted if

implementation of

Aliens on

according to the

temporary work

rejected asylum

decision on return is

”tolerated stay”

general rules on

permit is possible

seeker cannot be

considered

have access on

forcibly deported

impossible

certain conditions

3.6.6.6.3

3.8.6.6.3

3.9.6.6.3

residence and

3.3.6.6.3

work permits 3.2.6.6.3 and 3.2.6.6.4 Do special terms apply to

Caregiver

Not stated as part

More room at

Family space

Space requirements

More often

Own room typically

Accommodation

families with children whose

allowance

of survey

accommodation

requirements

are taken into

accommodation in

offered in flat

takes family size

cases are being processed?

Education of

centre is looked

are taken into

consideration

own housing

3.8.6.1

into consideration

children

for 3.4.6.1

consideration

3.6.6.1

3.2.6.5

3.9.6.1

3.7.6.1

3.5.6.1

Do special terms apply to

Reduced

Not stated as part

More room at

Not stated as

Accommodation at

Accommodation

Own room typically

Accommodation

finally rejected families

caregiver

of survey

accommodation

part of survey

ordinary

offered to majority

offered in flat

takes family size

with children?

allowance

centre is looked

accommodation

of families with

3.8.6.1 and 3.8.6.3

into consideration

3.2.6.5.3

for 3.4.6.1

centre

children

3.9.6.1 and

3.6.6.1.3

3.7.6.1.3

3.9.6.3

Do special terms apply to

Special

Not stated as part

Accommodation

Special

Accommodation at

Support depends on

Not stated as part

Accommodation in

unaccompanied minor

procedure, e.g.

of survey

at centres

accommodation

special

local authorities.

of survey

special places at

asylum seekers whose cases

in the form of

tailored to their

3.5.6.1

institutions/special

Typically,

least until they

are being processed?

personal

needs

departments at

accommodation

reach the age of

accommodation

with foster families

16

3.2.2

centres

or housing under

3.9.6.1.

Accommodation

3.6.6.1

partial adult

representative

3.4.6.1

supervision

at special

3.7.6.1

centre Do special terms apply to

Accommodation

Not stated as part

Accommodation

Not stated as

Accommodation at

Support depends on

Not stated as part

Accommodation in

finally rejected

at special

of survey

at centres

part of survey

ordinary

local authorities.

of survey

special places at

unaccompanied asylum

centre

tailored to their

accommodation

Typically

least until they

seekers?

3.2.6.1.2

needs

centre

accommodation

reach the age of

3.6.6.1.3

with foster families

16

3.4.6.1

or housing under

3.9.6.1 and

partial adult

3.9.6.3

supervision 3.7.6.1.

Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries

www.newtodenmark.dk Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries

Drafted and translated with input and support from the IGC

Drafted and translated with input and support from the IGC

June 2009

Report by the Committee of Experts on asylum rules of other countries