THE GOVERNMENT has rejected claims that conditions are so bad for asylum seekers in Greece that their claims for international protection should be heard in Ireland.
It has also accused five asylum seekers, who are appealing a decision by the State to transfer them to Greece on the grounds it would breach their fundamental rights, of “forum shopping” in a test case before Europe’s highest court.
At a hearing yesterday at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the State said claims made by the asylum seekers, who come from Afghanistan, Algeria and Iran, about very poor conditions in Greece were “debatable”.
Each of the applicants passed through Greece without making asylum claims on their way to Ireland between June 2009 and December 2010. All five made asylum applications in Ireland.
They urged the court to rule that there was no obligation under EU law on the Government to examine their claims for asylum, alleging the applicants were “forum shopping”– choosing the most favourable EU state to apply for asylum in rather than applying in the first state they arrive in.
The hearing before the grand chamber of the European Court of Justice was part of a joined procedure based on questions submitted by the High Court and the Court of Appeals of England and Wales.
It is expected to lead to a ruling this year by the European court that could have far-reaching implications for the EU’s asylum policy and the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Under the EU’s Dublin II regulation, an asylum seeker’s claim for protection should be heard in the first EU state they arrive in. It is designed to avoid people making multiple claims for asylum in different states and is the cornerstone of the EU’s asylum policy.
The United Nations refugee agency and human rights groups have expressed grave concerns about the poor conditions facing people attempting to make asylum claims in Greece. Since 2008, the UN has asked EU states to suspend all transfers to Greece, citing very low protection rates, severely overcrowded detention facilities and acute destitution for those released from detention.
In its submissions to the European court, the UN argues it is the responsibility of other EU states to examine asylum claims when another state cannot deliver on the fundamental rights guaranteed under EU and international law.
One of the driving forces behind the Dublin II regulation is responsibility-sharing, says the UN agency, which recommends states invoke a “sovereignty clause” in the regulation. This clause permits an EU state to examine an asylum application even when a person arrives in another state first for humanitarian or practical reasons.
Ireland is one of several EU states that has suspended transfers of asylum seekers to Greece following a damning ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in February.
In this case, the Strasbourg court found Belgium had violated an Afghan asylum seeker’s human rights by transferring him to Greece, where he faced degrading conditions in detention and subsequently destitution. Up to 40 Dublin II transfer cases to Greece in Ireland are awaiting the outcome of this European court case.
In a written submission to the Luxembourg court, lawyers representing the five asylum seekers in Ireland appealing their proposed transfer to Greece, say EU states must apply the “sovereignty clause” when there is a suspicion that asylum seekers are not being granted their fundamental right to a fair asylum procedure.
They say article 18 of the EU charter of fundamental rights guarantees a right to asylum and is binding on all member states.
The British case, which is joined to the legal action at the European court, also asks key questions on the scope of EU’s Charter on Fundamental Rights.
Q&A
What is the Dublin II regulation?It is the cornerstone of the EU's asylum system, which says an asylum seeker's application for protection should normally be determined by the EU state where he/she first arrives.
It is designed to avoid people making multiple claims for asylum in different states.
What are the main points of the Irish case?
Five asylum seekers are appealing a decision by the State to transfer them to Greece under the Dublin II regulation to have their asylum claims heard.
They claim conditions for asylum seekers are so bad in Greece, Ireland should hear their claims.
Does the Dublin II regulation allow other states to hear asylum claims?
Yes. A “sovereignty clause” in the regulation permits an EU state to examine an asylum application even when a person arrives in another member state first.
The UN has asked EU states to invoke this clause because of very poor conditions in Greece.
There is a British case joined in the hearing – is it important?
Yes, very. It will decide whether EU states have a duty to research whether asylum seekers could face breaches of human rights before they transfer people to other EU states.
It will also test the scope of the EU’s Charter on Fundamental Rights, which was enshrined into EU law through the Lisbon Treaty.
How bad are conditions for asylum seekers in Greece?
In February the European Court of Human Rights ruled Belgium had violated an Afghan asylum seeker’s human rights by transferring him to Greece. The man faced degrading conditions in detention and was later released with no means of subsistence and left to sleep rough on the streets.
Why is this case important?
The EU is meant to be moving towards a common asylum policy with the Dublin II regulation at its core by 2012.
But bitter political divisions are emerging between border states facing high levels of immigration, who want more burden sharing of immigrants and asylum seekers, and countries in northern Europe, who don’t.