Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

35
A Critical Overview of the Immigration Detention Practice in 5 EU Member States – A Comparative Perspective Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB Project “Steps to Freedom” Project co-funded by the European Refugee Fund

description

A Critical Overview of the Immigration Detention Practice in 5 EU Member States – A Comparative Perspective. Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB Project “Steps to Freedom” Project co-funded by the European Refugee Fund. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Page 1: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

A Critical Overview of the Immigration Detention Practice in 5 EU Member States – A Comparative Perspective

Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne

International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Project “Steps to Freedom”Project co-funded by the European Refugee Fund

Page 2: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

The sole responsibility for the content of this presentation lies with the author.

The Commission is not be responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

2

Page 3: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

OVERALL PRESENTATION

1. Presentation of the objectives and methodology of the synthesis report

2. Presentation of the key findings with regards to the legal framework and procedural safeguards in the selected EU Member States

3. Presentation of the final recommendations – the 7 steps to freedom

3

Page 4: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

I. Overall presentation of the research

1.Scope – Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia;

2. Critical analysis of immigration detention legislation and practice vis-à-vis asylum seekers, incl. failed asylum seekers in light of EU acquis and international legal standards;

3. State of play with regards to development and implementation of alternative measures to detention.

4

Page 5: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Policy recommendations

• UNHCR- OCHR Global Round Table on Alternatives to Detention of Asylum Seekers, Migrants and Stateless Persons, 11-12 May 2011;

• EU Fundamental Rights Agency November 2010 Report ;

• JRS Report Becoming Vulnerable in Detention,• IDC, There Are Alternatives – A Handbook for

Preventing Unnecessary Immigration Detention, 2011.

5

Page 6: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Methodological issues

• Desk research and interviews conducted from July 2010 till October 2011;

• Monitoring of reception and detention places accross the selected countries, including border crossing points and airport facilities;

• Complexity of the domestic legal landscape and the recent changes with transposition of relevant EC directives; constant evolution of the EU acquis.

6

Page 7: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

II. Presentation of the key findings

1. Pre-entry detention2. Pre-removal detention3. Detention of vulnerable groups4. Procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention5. Access to an effective remedy6. Length of detention7. Alternative measures to detention

7

Page 8: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

1. Issues with regards to pre-entry detention

Article 31.1 Geneva Convention 1999 UNHCR Revised Guidelines → Non-penalization clause→ Legal presumption against the detention of

asylum seekers → Detention shall only be a measure of last

resort

8

Page 9: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

1999 UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Detention

i) Cases in which identity is undetermined or in dispute; ii) Preliminary interview; iii) Cases where there is an intention to mislead the

authorities; iv) Cases where there is evidence to show that the asylum-

seeker has criminal antecedents and/or affiliations likely to pose a risk to public order/national security

9

Page 10: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

EC standards Presumption against detention of asylum seekers reflected in the EC acquis:

→Art. 5 and 13 of the Schengen Borders Code;

→ Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

.

10

Page 11: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Comparative overview in the selected States

→ Detention of asylum seekers authorized by legislation in Czech Republic and Latvia – potential breach of the non-penalisation clause

→ Inadequate practice in Slovakia, Estonia and Lithunia with regards to limited cases (Dublin II, manifestly unfounded cases, breach of regulations of the reception centres, courts’ practice)

11

Page 12: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

2. Issues with regards to pre-removal detention

→ Abundant ECtHR caselaw: Saadi vs UK, applic. n° 13229/03 29 January 2008 Auad vs Bulgaria, applic. n° 46390/10 11 October 2011 → Directive 2008/115/EC on common

standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third country nationals

12

Page 13: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Comparative overview in the selected States

→ State of play of the transposition of EC Directive 2008/115/EC – complexity of the legal landscape

→ Principle of voluntary returns – poorly reflected

→ Lack of indicators to establish the necessity and proportionality of detention measures

13

Page 14: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Bechmarks for developing detention indicators

UKBA Enforcement Instructions and Guidance:→ Likelihood of the removal ; Evidence of previous absconding

or previous failure to comply with conditions of temporary release or bail;

→ History of breach/compliance of the immigration regulations;→ Personal ties with the UK and expectations with regards to the

outcome of the case;→ Personal history; age, gender and vulnerability

14

Page 15: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

3. Issues with regards to detention of vulnerable groups

Prohibition of child detention : - Guideline 5 of the 1999 UNHCR Revised

Guidelines ; - Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution on the

detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe, Committee on Migration, Returns and Population, 11 January 2010, document 12105

15

Page 16: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

ECtHR standards

No explicit prohibition but strict safeguards to be applied:

- ECtHR, Mubilanzila Mayeke and Kaniki Mitunga vs Belgium, application n° 13178/03, 12 October 2006;

- ECtHR, Muskhadzhiyeva and others vs Belgium, application n° 41442/07 19 January 2010

16

Page 17: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

EC standards – towards a presumption against child detention?

- Articles 3.9, 16 and 17 Directive 2008/115/EC - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European parliament, Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors, COM (2010) 213 final, 6 May 2010

- Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of asylum seekers, COM (2011) 320 final, 2008/0244 (COD)

 

17

Page 18: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Comparative overview in the selected States

→ Lack of adequate legislation in Estonia

→ Lack of adequate practice in the Czech Republic, Latvia

→ Good practice in Lithuania

18

Page 19: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Benchmarks for improving current practice with regards to age assessment - Committee on the Rights of the Child, General

Comment No. 6 (2005), U.N. Doc. CRC/GC/2005/6, para.7.

- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum, February 1997, para. 5.11.

19

Page 20: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Benchmarks for developing vulnerability indicators

→ UNODC and UN. GIFT, Anti-Human Trafficking Manual for Criminal Justice Practitioners, 2009 available at :www.unodc.org

→ Development of referral mechanisms VoT

→ Training tools

20

Page 21: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

4. Procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention

→ Recent improvements to be noted with introduction of new pieces of legislation and reports of international monitoring bodies

→ Yet, improvements are required with regards to access to adequate information, access to asylum procedure in detention, the sustainability and availability of legal assistance.

21

Page 22: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Access to information related to detention

According to the Article 5.2 ECHR and 9 ICCPR, there is a right of detainee to be ‘promptly’ informed of the reasons for detentionReflected in EC law Articles 12-13 of the Directive 2008/115/EC and Article 5 of the Directive 2003/9/EC

22

Page 23: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Comparative overview in the selected States

→ Good practice in Estonia and in the Czech Republic (regular procedure)

→ Lack of legal provisions in Lithuania→ Inadequate implementaton in Latvia→ Lack of adequate interpretation and

translation services in particular for rare languages in most countries

23

Page 24: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Access to information related to the asylum procedure

→ Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

→ Good practice in Estonia, in the Czech Republic (regular procedure) and in Slovakia;

→ Ad hoc practice in Latvia; Lithuania MOU June 2010

24

Page 25: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Access to Legal assistance

→ EC standards more advanced than ECtHR case law

→ Access to legal assistance both with regards to pre-entry detention Articles 15 and 16 of the Directive 2005/85/EC

→ Pre-removal detention – Article 13.4 of the Directive 2008/115/EC

25

Page 26: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Comparative overview in the selected States’

→ Good practice in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia

→ Lack of adequate practice in 3 countries:Restrictive interpretation of EC standards in Lithuania; recent access in Estonia; issues with regards to sustainability of the legal assistance in Latvia

26

Page 27: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Benchmarks for improving current practice

→ Improve access to legal assistance a dialogue with civil society organizations as well as bar associations

→ Improve quality of legal assistance needs to be improved through adequate trainings

→ Seek technical assistance from EU institutions and agencies to pull out common resources with regards to interpretation and translation

27

Page 28: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

5. Issues with regards to Access to an effective remedy

Access to judicial review is granted in all the countries of concern. However,

→ Lack of adequate periodic review in Latvia and in the Czech Republic

→ Lack of speedy and prompt judicial review in Slovakia

→Lack of adequate proprtionality and necessity test

28

Page 29: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

6. Maximum length of detention

→ Except for Lithuania, all the countries have introduced a maximum length of detention in line with Article 15.5 of the Directive 2008/115/EC

→ Maximum ceiling is 6 months with exceptional 12 months prologation if there is a lack of cooperation on behalf of the individual or delays in obtaining documentation

29

Page 30: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

ECtHR, Auad vs Bulgaria, applic. n°31465/08

“Compliance with the [6 month time-limit], (…), cannot automatically be regarded as bringing the applicant’s detention into line with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. As noted above, the relevant test under that provision is rather whether the deportation proceedings have been prosecuted with due diligence, which can only be established on the basis of the particular facts of the case.”

 

30

Page 31: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

7. Alternatives to Detention

The synthesis report includes provisional conclusions as there has been so far a very limited use of A2Ds in the selected countries:

→ PB of A2Ds granted for humanitarian reasons in Latvia→PB of income + adequate accomodation requirements in

Lithuania→ Ill-defined notion of « serious risk of absconding » in Czech

Republic and in Slovakia

31

Page 32: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Recommendations for further developing A2Ds

• Step-by-step approach • Study visits and assessment of existing A2Ds in other EU

Member States• Development of a pilote-program for a special category such

as families with children• Individual case management• Transparent and independent assessment of the pilot• Adequate statistical tool to colect both qualitatve and

quantitative information

32

Page 33: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

III. Final 7 Recommendations

1. Strengthen the legal presumption against detention ;2. Adopt a list of indicators assessing the necessity and

proportionality of detention measures ;3. Detention of vulnerable persons shall be avoided;4. Further strengthen procedural safeguards against

arbitrary detention:

33

Page 34: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

(bis)

5. Strengthen access to an effective remedy

6. Strictly limit the duration of detention

7. Strengthen the implementation of alternatives to detention through pilot-projects

 

34

Page 35: Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, Ph D. La Sorbonne International Expert, Odysseus Network ULB

Thank you!

35