New national report on asylum in Malta

aditus foundation and JRS Malta are happy to launch the 2017 AIDA report.

The Asylum Information Database (AIDA) is a project of the European Council on Refugees & Exiles (ECRE), producing national reports on the situation of asylum in a number of EU Member States and covering key areas such as asylum procedures, reception conditions and detention.

It aims to provide up-to-date information on asylum practice in 23 European countries, which is accessible to researchers, advocates, legal practitioners and the general public. The database also seeks to promote the implementation and transposition of EU asylum legislation reflecting the highest possible standards of protection in line with international refugee and human rights law and based on best practice.

The 2017 AIDA report on Malta was jointly researched and prepared by aditus foundation and JRS Malta, and it was edited by ECRE. Together with the comprehensive overview of the asylum procedures and updated figures, the 2017 AIDA report highlights the changes in the way the Dublin procedure is now carried out in Malta, the use of accelerated procedures for applicants coming from safe countries of origin, the reception conditions at the Initial Reception Centre and the concerns remaining regarding the detention of applicants for international protection.

The full report can be downloaded here.

New national report on asylum in Malta

Today the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) published the country report covering all aspects of asylum in Malta. Published within the Asylum Information Database project (AIDA), the country report provides valuable information on legal and policy issues, as well as an insight into realities on the ground.

AIDA is a database containing information on asylum procedures, reception conditions, detention and content of international protection across 20 countries.

As with all country reports, the Malta report is the most comprehensive document on asylum in Malta, an extremely useful reference tool for law- and policy-makers, judiciary, NGOs, academics, etc.

The Malta report was prepared by aditus foundation and JRS Malta.

We hope you’ll find this report useful in your work, and thank all entities that provided information for our research.

Admissibility, responsibility and safety in European asylum procedures

In the implementation of their international obligations, European and EU states have devised sophisticated asylum systems based on complex procedural tools. In some cases, tools are designed and used for the purpose of avoiding responsibility for refugees, because they allow claims to be dismissed as inadmissible before looking at the substance of the claim.

The recent EU-Turkey deal and the European Commission’s proposal for harmonised asylum procedures under an Asylum Procedures Regulation, for instance, revolve around concepts such as “safe third country” and “first country of asylum”.

A report launched today by the Asylum Information Database (AIDA), managed by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), documents the limited and fragmented application of admissibility and safe country concepts in 20 European countries.

“The latest reform of the Common European Asylum System brings the concepts of admissibility, responsibility and safety to the forefront of European asylum procedures, by introducing an obligation on Member States to deem applications inadmissible on the basis of ‘first country of asylum’ and ‘safe third country’ grounds”, says Minos Mouzourakis, AIDA Coordinator.

“Yet such a move seems ill-fitted in the absence of evidence-based knowledge on the use and interpretation of these concepts throughout the continent.”

The recent introduction of broad lists of “safe third countries” in countries such as Hungary, as well as the pressure placed on Greece to apply the concept following the EU-Turkey deal, run counter to practice in countries with longer-entrenched safe country concepts in asylum procedures. Countries with longer experience, and often judicial guidance, in the application of the “safe third country” concept have clarified that an asylum seeker cannot be considered to have a “sufficient connection” with a third country merely on the basis of transit or short stay.

The report also discusses the implementation of the Dublin Regulation and the emergency relocation scheme, two instruments regulating the allocation of asylum responsibility within the EU. As far as relocation is concerned, despite extremely slow rates of implementation in Europe, countries such as France and Portugal have designed processes for the swift processing of claims by persons relocated to their territory and their allocation to the different regions where applicants will be accommodated.

Drawing on the AIDA report, ECRE calls on European countries and EU institutions to:

Proactively publish detailed statistics on key elements of their asylum procedures, such as inadmissibility decisions and the application of the Dublin Regulation, to promote evidence-based debates on the functioning of and challenges facing their asylum systems;
Retain the 1951 Refugee Convention as the standard of international protection and apply the “first country of asylum” and “safe third country” concepts only to an asylum seeker who has already been recognised as a refugee or may be recognised as a refugee in line with the Convention, and may effectively benefit from such protection;
Rigorously interpret the “sufficient connection” criterion for the purpose of the “safe third country” concept, so as to refrain from declaring asylum applications inadmissible on the sole reason that an asylum seeker has transited through a country considered safe;
Firmly suspend the use of the Dublin procedure in respect of countries demonstrating human rights risks, in line with national and European jurisprudence. Clear suspension of Dublin procedures will ensure legal certainty to asylum seekers, but also more efficient administration and allocation of national authorities’ administrative and financial resources;
Step up their efforts to honour the commitments set out in the Relocation Decisions, building on experience and good practices developed by the Member States implementing relocation to date. States should also refrain from initiating Dublin procedures regarding the countries benefitting from the relocation scheme, Italy and Greece, as the application of the Dublin Regulation is counter-intuitive to the aim of alleviating pressure on those countries’ asylum systems.

Notes to Editors:

The Asylum Information Database (AIDA) is a database managed by ECRE, containing information on asylum procedures, reception conditions and detention across 20 countries. This includes 17 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom) and 3 non-EU countries (Switzerland, Serbia, Turkey).

The overall goal of the database is to contribute to the improvement of asylum policies and practices in Europe and the situation of asylum seekers by providing all relevant actors with appropriate tools and information to support their advocacy and litigation efforts, both at the national and European level.

In Malta, the AIDA partners and researchers are aditus foundation and JRS Malta.

THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE.

NGO press release on the occasion of the ‪Valletta Summit‬

#HumanRightsFirst

Time to act

Now is the time to act. We, the undersigned NGOs, urge states participating in the Valletta Summit on Migration to act decisively and urgently so that people will no longer die in their desperate search for protection in Europe.

Since October 2013, at least 6,892 men, women and children have perished in the Mediterranean attempting to reach Europe.

The summit, convened by the European Council in response to the rising numbers of refugees and migrants arriving in Europe irregularly, is an opportunity to go beyond words to concrete action.

The vast majority of the migrants entering Europe through the sea routes across the Mediterranean are Syrians, Eritreans, Afghans and Somalis – people with a strong prima facie claim to protection. Others are seeking the opportunity to live with dignity, which they absolutely cannot do in their home country. All resort to travelling irregularly because it is impossible for them to gain legal admission into Europe, whether to seek protection, find employment or access education.

Faced with this unprecedented challenge, so far EU Member States’ response has been more of the same: the emphasis remains largely focused on strengthening border control, improving existing mechanisms for returning migrants who do not qualify for protection, and increasing support for countries hosting large numbers of refugees outside Europe.

So far no real steps have been taken to increase the avenues for legal migration or to create safe and legal ways for people to reach a place where they can obtain protection – so refugees are forced to entrust themselves into the hands of smugglers and risk their lives. Resettlement pledges remain, at best, a token compared to the number of refugees being hosted in countries outside the EU.

Possibly most worrying, the needs of refugees and migrants are hardly taken into account and their voices are completely unheard. Refugees are looking for protection, which is about more than mere survival – it is about the possibility to belong to a community once more and to build life anew. Unless and until we take this into account, people will effectively be denied the protection to which they are entitled and, worse, they will continue to lose their lives in their attempt to find life.

So we urge participating states to put people first and to use the Summit to put in place concrete steps to:

→ Allow asylum seekers to access protection safely and legally, through measures such as: broadening existing rules so they can be reunited with their families; granting humanitarian visas and introducing mandatory and realistic quotas of resettlement.

→ Ensure that asylum seekers are received in conditions of dignity and that refugees are able to truly enjoy their rights.

→ Guarantee that those who do not qualify for asylum are treated with respect and that any returns are carried out in full respect for the principle of non-refoulement, in conditions of safety and dignity.

Statement issued by:

aditus foundation, Foundation for Shelter and Support of Migrants, Integra Foundation, Jesuit Refugee Service (Malta), KOPIN, Malta Emigrants’ Commission, Migrant’s Network for Equality, Organisation for Friendship in Diversity, Peace Lab, People for Change Foundation, SOS Malta

aditus at the 1st EU Migration Forum

On 26th and 27th January our Director attended the first EU Migration Forum, jointly organised in Brussels by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

“The Forum gathered inputs from national and international experts and top EU officials, but also testimonials from refugees and rescuers, who shared their real-life experiences and gave a face to migration flows, often wrongly portrayed in the media. Underlining the need for greater protection of asylum seekers and refugees coming to the European Union, the event, which brought together more than 200 participants, also discussed possible approaches to address people smuggling and human trafficking.”

This first Forum was dedicated to the Mediterranean region, entitled ‘Safe routes, safe futures. How to manage the mixed flows of migrants across the Mediterranean?’ and in view of this regional focus our Director was invited to deliver a presentation as a panelists in one of the workshops (‘Access to the asylum procedure at the borders’). Together with Neil the panel consisted of representatives of the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Asylum Support Office, UNHCR, JRS Europe and Prodein.

After introducing aditus foundation and our work, Neil dedicated his presentation to highlighting specific human rights concerns regarding access to EU territory and asylum procedure, and to criticizing the institutional approach to the question: what role for NGOs? He stressed the fact that migrants have been dying around Malta for several years, insisting that the momentum to address these tragedies be maintained. He also stressed the following:

asylum-seekers are increasingly refusing to be finger-printed, leaving them in an unprotected state. In our experience, this is probably due to sub-standard reception conditions in the region (notably Italy, Greece and Malta) as well as limited or no long-term prospects;
persons dying at sea are not only refugees but also migrants traveling for non-protection reasons. Discussions on safe and legal access to the EU for refugees should be held in parallel with talks on safe and legal access to the EU for migrants traveling for other reasons, such as employment, family reunification, etc.;
a shift from policy/politics back to a rights-based approach is urgently needed, in order to reframe discourse and standards within legal obligations emerging not only from the Common European Asylum System but also from other instruments such as the 1951 Refugee Convention, the ICCPR, the CRC, the ECHR, the EU Fundamental Rights Charter, etc.

Neil reminded participants that refugees, almost by definition, will always tends to take unsafe and illegal routes to access protection, as also acknowledged in the 1951 Convention. With this in mind, 3 questions need to be tackled, particularly within the Mediterranean context:

How do we avoid criminalizing irregular arrivals? Examples of bad practices given include detention, negative public discourse, judicial proceedings and sanctions;
How do we treat persons traumatized by the unsafe journey? What protective and preventative systems do we need to establish?
How do we treat the corpses? He referred to the 2013 Lampedusa tragedy, remembering the post-incident chaos due to the lack of procedures, guidelines or standards to deal with personal belongings, data collection, notification to family members, burials, etc.

Finally, Neil very strongly criticized the assumption that NGOs would fill those service gaps Member States could or would not provide themselves: legal aid, psycho-social support, interpretation, medical interventions, provision of information, family tracing, etc. He stressed that whilst NGOs are committed to providing such services as needed, we are primarily asking to be spoken to when discussing policies and laws.

“Everyone’s talking about the Mediterranean, everyone. But who is talking to us, us on the ground at the heart of the Mediterranean? Nobody!”

Neil’s final message was an appeal to all institutions: Talk to us!

We were happy to participate in this Forum, as we made new friends and reaffirmed our commitment to advocating for the highest possible human rights standards for migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees.