PRO ASYL Presseerklärung | Press Release

30 September 2003

Negotiations on European Asylum Procedures on hold

Germany blocks passage of directive on qualification for refugee status
Blair initiative on asylum through back door – Germany provides model

On the occasion of the meeting of EU Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs on October 2/3 and negotiations on German Immigration Laws, PRO ASYL warns against a further massive dismantling of refugee protection in Europe. A current threat is that the British attack on individual asylum rights might be carried out through the backdoor. As is often the case in EU-negotiations, Germany’s role within this context is not very praiseworthy.

European asylum rights are at a crossroads. Two main directives on asylum procedures are to be passed on EU-level within the next months. Germany has a major responsibility regarding the question inhowfar the establishment of a Common European Asylum System will be at all successful, or whether Europe will withdraw from its responsibility to take in refugees.

Initially, the government coalition had set out to initiate the reform project Immigration Laws on the national level, and at the same time speak up in EU-negotiations for common European asylum rights with a high level of protection. In the meantime, these initial goals have been reversed:

For months, and contrary to all other EU-member states, the German government has been blocking the passing of the Directive on Asylum Procedures, stating that their priority is German immigration law and that Europe will have to wait. PRO ASYL once again urgently demands that the German government withdraw their eight reservations, so that the foundations for European asylum rights can finally be laid.

Currently, PRO ASYL has documents (Asile 44 and 48) from Council negotiations on asylum procedures at hand, proposing an application of the concept of „safe third country“ that goes far beyond German „safe third country“ regulations:

An asylum seeker can be turned back to any third country regardless of whether he or she has ever entered it before. This allows even states not ratified by the Geneva Refugee Convention to be qualified as „safe“.

With a lot of pressure from Germany, the German practice, already the most restrictive in Europe, shall be remodeled as discretionary provision. Arbitrary criteria, alongside the German proposal to turn back refugees without individual case examination, with the help of border authorities, make it possible to carry through main goals of the Blair initiative on the EU-level after all:

„Refugee protection“ is largely transferred to transit regions and regions of origin. The result of various discretionary provisions and the worst practices of member states opens a new round of tightening laws in 25 member states and beyond.

„The Council’s draft proposal falls short of even the lowest common denominator. It does not harmonize anything, but conflicts with the standards of international law, and in the end makes evident a shared unwillingness to absorb refugees in the European Union,“ says Karl Kopp, consultant for European affairs at PRO ASYL.

German position must be fundamentally revised.

Within this context, PRO ASYL demands of the German government coaltion ro revise its position. „Those who push through, come hell or high water, a concept on the EU-level that conflicts with international law, do nothing but harmonize asylum rights in Europe to the point of their destruction,“ says Kopp.

As a reminder: With the accession of the ten new states in May 2004, the current German concept of „safe third countries“ becomes obsolete. With the exception of Switzerland, all „safe third countries“ will participate in EU-competence regulations (Dublin I or Dublin II), and in the foreseeable future, Switzerland will also be participating.

Because the EU-directive will only be effected once the new member states have joined, there is only one rational explanation for the position of the German government on the EU-level: Germany wishes to impose its restrictive standard, i.e. the impossibility to disprove the safety of a third country in the individual case, throughout Europe, and to thus expand the existing German list of „safe third countries.“

In conclusion, Kopp says: „Those, who do not want to follow the government coalition in this, and still want European asylum rights that deserve their name, now has to make sure that the German position is fundamentally revised, and that this EU-draft proposal is fed to the shredder.“