Secondly, the Commission also constructed EU asylum action into the international prevailing norms on refugee protection - the Geneva Convention - which gave it more legitimacy as an actor. Norms only develop gradually, and therefore the Commission would have to act pragmatically in the meantime. The following section will demonstrate both of these aspects. The document proposed the abolition of all internal border controls, but also provided a link between the former and economic growth, as well as a whole range of compensatory measures — such as immigration, asylum, external border controls, and policies on visas and drugs, and crime.
Yet, none of the asylum proposals made succeeded due to the gradual nature in which norms often develop Geddes 71; Yet, member states accepted the link between the internal market and the EU asylum policy — and in time the success of the single market would drag along the EU asylum policy - as long as the European Commission kept pushing. In , the Commission took the next steps in its persuasion strategy - constructing the link to both the single market and international refugee norms.
The communication from the Commission SEC 91 final acknowledged the fact that the political and social importance of the right of asylum had increased in Western Europe see Commission of the EC It was claimed that, as a consequence, individual states were less able to deal with the problem caused by the increased influx of asylum seekers. However, the Commission insisted that humanitarian standards would need to be maintained, and took the Geneva Convention as a starting point.
The communication also underlined the humanitarian objectives of the Convention. The communication in even includes its outcomes in - the directives on asylum qualification, asylum procedures and reception conditions.
The suggestions by the Commission had no clear legal basis in the Treaty of Maastricht in and certainly not before Maastricht in , and were extremely ambitious. While not being pursued in policy terms, they clearly did affect the norm environment of decision- makers. The issues never slipped off the agenda from the day of this communication — which the Commission ensured with future communications. The communication in COM 94 23 final represented another important step in the persuasion strategy see Commission of the EC With a view to stimulate discussion and debate, it followed on from the earlier document of also referred to in COM 94 23 final: It built on the suggestions made in Indeed, all of the aforementioned communications display the determination of the Commission to drive forward the process of EU integration in EU asylum matters.
Yet, an efficient EU asylum policy would only be possible with a major treaty change Gradin Therefore, it was implicit in the strategy of the Commission that it could compromise as long as the goal of full communitarisation was reached. Acceptance of this fact led to increasing dynamics in the area.
Yet, it was equally important for the Commission to link asylum policy to the Geneva Convention. Firstly, when the Commission started to construct a role for the EU into national asylum policy, it had decided to link it to both the single market - to push the project - and the internationally prevailing refugee protection norms - to gain legitimacy. The latter is particularly important as the Commission has been frequently attacked for not being democratic since the s. The literature has established that the Commission often aims to use NGOs to improve its own legitimacy Greenwood Both Hix and Geddes have pointed out their importance for the Commission, particularly in the areas of asylum and migration.
Yet, European integration always remains the most important objective above all for the Commission. Geddes suggests the success of this strategy. This was 3 Nonetheless, it needs to be acknowledged that there has been a tension between refugee rights and terrorism since the beginning of JHA intergovernmental cooperation in the s and s.
It could even be argued to have been a key driver of cooperation which preceded even the single market and was edging the European Community into a policy sphere designed to track 'others' - primarily refugees and asylum seekers under the Dublin programme see Lodge , As described by Geddes, the mood of NGOs was one of frustration because of the lack of what they perceived to be progress in the asylum policy.
At the same time, they did not attribute the blame on the European Commission, which was perceived as an ally. The blame was usually attributed to the Council of Ministers and member states.
Some NGOs were under no illusion of their own ability to influence the Commission, asserting that they were mostly utilised by the Commission when it was useful to do so 5 — to gain information and legitimacy. It is important to note at this point that the Commission partially created this useful ally Geddes A significant number of NGOs indicated that the Commission was actively involved in the creation of their EU structures or their organisation in general, and continues to finance the majority of them.
Secondly, the anchoring of the EU asylum policy within the international prevailing refugee rights norms became vital after 11 September At this point, norms could have easily shifted towards a securitisation of asylum - the construction of asylum as a security threat.
In her view, this was particularly remarkable as the Geneva Convention did provide grounds for exclusion from refugee status for terrorists. Yet, the Commission decided not to link the issues of asylum and terrorism. The conclusion of the 20 September meeting reflected mainly judicial and criminal co-operation, but also asylum matters Van Selm The conclusions, amongst others, invited the Commission to examine the relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection obligations and instruments.
This is of particular importance. It appears as an attempt by member states to put internal security above international protection norms, and thus effectively to securitize asylum. Consequently, in the working document entitled, The relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection obligations Commission of the EC , the Commission did not advocate any change in international refugee protection, and bases the Geneva Convention at the heart of any response.
This was written in response to the Council conclusion mentioned above. There are two main premises of the Commission working document: 1 bona fide refugees and asylum seekers should not become victims of the recent events, and 2 no avenues should exist for the supporting of terrorist acts.
The document made it clear that a scrupulous application of the exceptions to refugee protection available under the current laws is the appropriate response. It was therefore an outright rejection of placing security in contradiction to existing refugee protection instruments. This was confirmed in an interview with the author of this document. Yet, contrary to the initial demand which seemed to indicate an attempt to present asylum as a security threat in the war on terror, the working document did not deviate from accepted international norms.
In fact, it demonstrated the legal value of the Geneva Convention, and thereby strengthened it. It resisted the temptation to move an issue into the security area when it was perceived as a human rights issue. In fact, the Commission rescued this political perception by trying to reconcile the demands for greater security with the international refugee protection norms.
It would have been difficult for the Commission to do otherwise, as it had consistently anchored the EU asylum policy in international refugee norms. Consequently, it could have been perceived as inconsistent and thus less credible. It would have lost legitimacy in the eyes of the NGOs, who have been supporting the Commission in its efforts to create an EU asylum policy.
Any deviation from this established position would have damaged the Commission politically. Yet, the demands by member states seemed to go into that direction - attempting to place security above refugee protection. Conclusion: Which way should the EU go?
Initially, EU co-operation on asylum before the Tampere programme had been mainly in quadrant II of the matrix. It was characterised by an anchoring in the internationally prevailing norm on national sovereignty and the refugee protection norm - the Geneva Convention. At this point, there were three different possibilities for norms to develop if there was any change at all. This change would imply that national sovereignty would remain the bedrock of asylum polices in Europe, and thus there would be no movement on the axis of whether the EU should be legislating in the area of asylum.
In fact, this would imply that no EU legislation would be possible, or indeed the legislation efforts would be meaningless. The second alternative would have been a development from Q 0 to Q 2. This change would imply that a Supranational Policy Entrepreneur had managed to persuade the European member states to pool national sovereignty in the area. However, the implications of 11 September would have been used in such a way as to construct asylum as a security threat in order to achieve this goal.
In some sense, this is the most likely scenario, as it is similar to the area of counter-terrorism where European integration was pushed forward in the wake of the terrorist attacks on New York Kaunert Nonetheless, it is the third alternative that the Commission managed to achieve, which involved movement from Q 0 to Q 1. This implies that the Commission managed to persuade member states of the pooling of national sovereignty at the EU level.
Norms changed very significantly during the Tampere programme - and the Commission was clearly significant, as the aforementioned evidence suggests. It played the role of a strategic first mover in order to shape the debate in a way that placed the EU at the centre of the policy. Yet, in the area of asylum, these norms developed incrementally. In fact, the Commission had started to push in the s, and managed to construct the area normatively to the single market. At the same time, the Commission had anchored it in the internationally prevailing norm of refugee protection - the Geneva Convention.
Yet, the norm of national sovereignty still remained very sticky and difficult to change. In fact, this had changed by the end of the Tampere programme, and the first phase of the EU asylum policy has been established. It was a significant success and the main goal of the Commission - the full communitarisation - had been achieved.
Nonetheless, contrary to expectations, this had not been achieved by going from Q 0 to Q 2 , but rather to Q 1. In fact, the Commission had never attempted to construct an EU asylum policy based on the perception that it was a security threat.
Even after 11 September , it pushed for the fulfilment of international obligations under the Geneva Convention. Even under difficult circumstances, such as September 11, it pushed to include refugee rights under the Geneva Convention, and opposed the perception of asylum seekers as a security threat.
In the end, this strategy paid political dividends. In fact, all four asylum directives actually increased the legal value of the Geneva Convention. This also implied the fact that the EU asylum policy had been cemented in this norm more strongly than it had before. This makes its success all the more remarkable. This does not mean that it is not restrictive in some dimensions; yet, it is progressive in other dimensions, notably in its increase in legal value of the Geneva Convention.
If national policy-makers are perfectly able to circumvent national pressures in order to restrict immigration and asylum at the EU level, why should they securitize the issues in order to achieve what they are already achieving? The answer is such that they are not taking part in this process; in fact the European Commission has done its utmost in the first phase of the CEAS to prevent such developments.
Yet, without a doubt, this does not mean that member states may not try again in the future, especially in times of recession and depression. Balzacq, T. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies. A Challenge for Europe's Future. Aldershot: Ashgate. Batjes, H. BBC News Beach, D. Cede eds , Negotiating European Union. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bigo, D. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. Le Gloannec ed. Rea ed. Bruxelles: Complexe.
Kelstrup and M. London: Routledge. Guiraudon and C. Joppke eds , Controlling a New Migration World. Boswell, C. European Migration Policies in Flux. Changing Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. People, States and Fear. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Buzan, B. A New Framework for Analysis. Cohen, S. Humphries, B. From Immigration Controls to Welfare Controls.
New York: Routledge. Commission of the European Communities Brussels Commission of the European Communities Commission Working Document: the relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection obligations and instruments, 5 December , COM final. Costello, C. Ellermann, A. European Commission European Commission a. European Commission b. European Council December Brussels: press release 28 April Finnemore, M.
National Interest in International Society. Freeman, G. Joppke ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fullerton, M. Geddes, A. Immigration and European Integration. Towards Fortress Europe? Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Gradin, A. Hailbronner and P. Koeln: Bundesanzeiger. Greenwood, J. Interest Representation in the European Union. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Guild, E. Nicholson and P. Twomey eds , Refugee Rights and Realities. Evolving International Concepts and Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. Walkers eds , 11 September War, Terror and Judgement.
London: Frank Cass. Craig and R. Guiraudon, V. Controlling a New Migration World. Hailbronner, K. Walker ed. Hoffmann, S. Huysmans, J. Joppke, C. Kaczorowska, A. Public International Law. London: Old Bailey Press. New York: Columbia University Press. Kingdon, J. Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies.
Boston: Little Brown. Lambert, H. Tridimas and P. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Lavenex, S. Peters eds , The Union and the World. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Safe Third Countries. The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies. Between Human Rights and Internal Security.
Lodge, J. The EU and Biometric Borders. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. Loescher, G. Cohen ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Price and M. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mitsilegas, V. London: Macmillan. Givens, G. Freeman and D. Leal eds , Immigration Policy and Security: U. Monar, J. Henderson ed. Moravcsik, A. Noll, G.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Occhipinti, J. Peers, S. Bogusz, R Chholewinski and A. Cygan eds , Irregular Migration and Human Rights. Theoretical, European and International Perspectives. Clarendon: Oxford University Press. Rogers eds Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Pollack, M. The Engines of European Integration.
Shaw, J. Law of the European Union, 3rd ed. A well-founded fear of being persecuted or a real risk of suffering serious harm may be based on events which have taken place since the applicant left the country of origin. A well-founded fear of being persecuted or a real risk of suffering serious harm may be based on activities which have been engaged in by the applicant since he left the country of origin, in particular where it is established that the activities relied upon constitute the expression and continuation of convictions or orientations held in the country of origin.
Without prejudice to the Geneva Convention, Member States may determine that an applicant who files a subsequent application shall normally not be granted refugee status, if the risk of persecution is based on circumstances which the applicant has created by his own decision since leaving the country of origin.
Protection is generally provided when the actors mentioned in paragraph 1 take reasonable steps to prevent the persecution or suffering of serious harm, inter alia , by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm, and the applicant has access to such protection.
When assessing whether an international organisation controls a State or a substantial part of its territory and provides protection as described in paragraph 2, Member States shall take into account any guidance which may be provided in relevant Council acts.
As part of the assessment of the application for international protection, Member States may determine that an applicant is not in need of international protection if in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country.
In examining whether a part of the country of origin is in accordance with paragraph 1, Member States shall at the time of taking the decision on the application have regard to the general circumstances prevailing in that part of the country and to the personal circumstances of the applicant.
Paragraph 1 may apply notwithstanding technical obstacles to return to the country of origin. In accordance with Article 2 c , there must be a connection between the reasons mentioned in Article 10 and the acts of persecution as qualified in paragraph 1.
Member States shall take the following elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution:. Sexual orientation cannot be understood to include acts considered to be criminal in accordance with national law of the Member States: Gender related aspects might be considered, without by themselves alone creating a presumption for the applicability of this Article;.
When assessing if an applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted it is immaterial whether the applicant actually possesses the racial, religious, national, social or political characteristic which attracts the persecution, provided that such a characteristic is attributed to the applicant by the actor of persecution. In considering points e and f of paragraph 1, Member States shall have regard to whether the change of circumstances is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the refugee's fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded.
When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitely settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Directive;.
A third country national or a stateless person is excluded from being a refugee where there are serious reasons for considering that:.
Paragraph 2 applies to persons who instigate or otherwise participate in the commission of the crimes or acts mentioned therein. Member States shall grant refugee status to a third country national or a stateless person, who qualifies as a refugee in accordance with Chapters II and III. Concerning applications for international protection filed after the entry into force of this Directive, Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee status of a third country national or a stateless person granted by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body, if he or she has ceased to be a refugee in accordance with Article Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee status of a third country national or a stateless person, if, after he or she has been granted refugee status, it is established by the Member State concerned that:.
Member States may revoke, end or refuse to renew the status granted to a refugee by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body, when:. In situations described in paragraph 4, Member States may decide not to grant status to a refugee, where such a decision has not yet been taken. Persons to whom paragraphs 4 or 5 apply are entitled to rights set out in or similar to those set out in Articles 3, 4, 16, 22, 31 and 32 and 33 of the Geneva Convention in so far as they are present in the Member State.
A third country national or a stateless person shall cease to be eligible for subsidiary protection when the circumstances which led to the granting of subsidiary protection status have ceased to exist or have changed to such a degree that protection is no longer required. In applying paragraph 1, Member States shall have regard to whether the change of circumstances is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the person eligible for subsidiary protection no longer faces a real risk of serious harm.
A third country national or a stateless person is excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection where there are serious reasons for considering that:. Paragraph 1 applies to persons who instigate or otherwise participate in the commission of the crimes or acts mentioned therein. Member States may exclude a third country national or a stateless person from being eligible for subsidiary protection, if he or she prior to his or her admission to the Member State has committed one or more crimes, outside the scope of paragraph 1, which would be punishable by imprisonment, had they been committed in the Member State concerned, and if he or she left his or her country of origin solely in order to avoid sanctions resulting from these crimes.
Member States shall grant subsidiary protection status to a third country national or a stateless person eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Chapters II and V. Concerning applications for international protection filed after the entry into force of this Directive, Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the subsidiary protection status of a third country national or a stateless person granted by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body, if he or she has ceased to be eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Article Member States may revoke, end or refuse to renew the subsidiary protection status of a third country national or a stateless person granted by a governmental, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial body, if after having been granted subsidiary protection status, he or she should have been excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection in accordance with Article 17 3.
Member States shall revoke, end or refuse to renew the subsidiary protection status of a third country national or a stateless person, if:. This Chapter shall apply both to refugees and persons eligible for subsidiary protection unless otherwise indicated. When implementing this Chapter, Member States shall take into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons such as minors, unaccompanied 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.
Paragraph 3 shall apply only to persons found to have special needs after an individual evaluation of their situation. The best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration for Member States when implementing the provisions of this Chapter that involve minors. Within the limits set out by the Geneva Convention, Member States may reduce the benefits of this Chapter, granted to a refugee whose refugee status has been obtained on the basis of activities engaged in for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for being recognised as a refugee.
Within the limits set out by international obligations of Member States, Member States may reduce the benefits of this Chapter, granted to a person eligible for subsidiary protection, whose subsidiary protection status has been obtained on the basis of activities engaged in for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for being recognised as a person eligible for subsidiary protection.
Member States shall respect the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with their international obligations.
Where not prohibited by the international obligations mentioned in paragraph 1, Member States may refoule a refugee, whether formally recognised or not, when:. Member States may revoke, end or refuse to renew or to grant the residence permit of or to a refugee to whom paragraph 2 applies.
Member States shall provide persons recognised as being in need of international protection, as soon as possible after the respective protection status has been granted, with access to information, in a language likely to be understood by them, on the rights and obligations relating to that status.
Member States shall ensure that family members of the beneficiary of refugee or subsidiary protection status, who do not individually qualify for such status, are entitled to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 34, in accordance with national procedures and as far as it is compatible with the personal legal status of the family member. In so far as the family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are concerned, Member States may define the conditions applicable to such benefits.
In these cases, Member States shall ensure that any benefits provided guarantee an adequate standard of living. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable where the family member is or would be excluded from refugee or subsidiary protection status pursuant to Chapters III and V. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may refuse, reduce or withdraw the benefits referred therein for reasons of national security or public order.
Member States may decide that this Article also applies to other close relatives who lived together as part of the family at the time of leaving the country of origin, and who were wholly or mainly dependent on the beneficiary of refugee or subsidiary protection status at that time.
As soon as possible after their status has been granted, Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of refugee status a residence permit which must be valid for at least three years and renewable unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require, and without prejudice to Article 21 3.
Without prejudice to Article 23 1 , the residence permit to be issued to the family members of the beneficiaries of refugee status may be valid for less than three years and renewable.
As soon as possible after the status has been granted, Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status a residence permit which must be valid for at least one year and renewable, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.
Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of refugee status travel documents in the form set out in the Schedule to the Geneva Convention, for the purpose of travel outside their territory unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.
Member States shall issue to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status who are unable to obtain a national passport, documents which enable them to travel, at least when serious humanitarian reasons arise that require their presence in another State, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.
Member States shall authorise beneficiaries of refugee status to engage in employed or self-employed activities subject to rules generally applicable to the profession and to the public service, immediately after the refugee status has been granted.
Member States shall ensure that activities such as employment-related education opportunities for adults, vocational training and practical workplace experience are offered to beneficiaries of refugee status, under equivalent conditions as nationals. Member States shall authorise beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status to engage in employed or self-employed activities subject to rules generally applicable to the profession and to the public service immediately after the subsidiary protection status has been granted.
The situation of the labour market in the Member States may be taken into account, including for possible prioritisation of access to employment for a limited period of time to be determined in accordance with national law. Member States shall ensure that the beneficiary of subsidiary protection status has access to a post for which the beneficiary has received an offer in accordance with national rules on prioritisation in the labour market.
Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status have access to activities such as employment-related education opportunities for adults, vocational training and practical workplace experience, under conditions to be decided by the Member States.
The law in force in the Member States applicable to remuneration, access to social security systems relating to employed or self-employed activities and other conditions of employment shall apply.
Member States shall grant full access to the education system to all minors granted refugee or subsidiary protection status, under the same conditions as nationals. Member States shall allow adults granted refugee or subsidiary protection status access to the general education system, further training or retraining, under the same conditions as third country nationals legally resident.
Member States shall ensure equal treatment between beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status and nationals in the context of the existing recognition procedures for foreign diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications. Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status receive, in the Member State that has granted such statuses, the necessary social assistance, as provided to nationals of that Member State.
By exception to the general rule laid down in paragraph 1, Member States may limit social assistance granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status to core benefits which will then be provided at the same levels and under the same eligibility conditions as nationals. Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status have access to health care under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted such statuses.
By exception to the general rule laid down in paragraph 1, Member States may limit health care granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to core benefits which will then be provided at the same levels and under the same eligibility conditions as nationals. Member States shall provide, under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted the status, adequate health care to beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status who have special needs, such as pregnant women, disabled people, persons who have undergone torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence or minors who have been victims of any form of abuse, neglect, exploitation, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or who have suffered from armed conflict.
As soon as possible after the granting of refugee or subsidiary protection status Member States shall take the necessary measures, to ensure the representation of unaccompanied minors by legal guardianship or, where necessary, by an organisation responsible for the care and well-being of minors, or by any other appropriate representation including that based on legislation or Court order.
Member States shall ensure that the minor's needs are duly met in the implementation of this Directive by the appointed guardian or representative. The appropriate authorities shall make regular assessments. In In this context, the views of the child shall be taken into account in accordance with his or her age and degree of maturity. As far as possible, siblings shall be kept together, taking into account the best interests of the minor concerned and, in particular, his or her age and degree of maturity.
Changes of residence of unaccompanied minors shall be limited to a minimum. Member States, protecting the unaccompanied minor's best interests, shall endeavour to trace the members of the minor's family as soon as possible. In cases where there may be a threat to the life or integrity of the minor or his or her close relatives, particularly if they have remained in the country of origin, care must be taken to ensure that the collection, processing and circulation of information concerning those persons is undertaken on a confidential basis.
Those working with unaccompanied minors shall have had or receive appropriate training concerning their needs. The Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status have access to accommodation under equivalent conditions as other third country nationals legally resident in their territories.
Member States shall allow freedom of movement within their territory to beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status, under the same conditions and restrictions as those provided for other third country nationals legally resident in their territories.
In order to facilitate the integration of refugees into society, Member States shall make provision for integration programmes which they consider to be appropriate or create pre-conditions which guarantee access to such programmes. Where it is considered appropriate by Member States, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status shall be granted access to integration programmes.
Member States may provide assistance to beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status who wish to repatriate. Member States shall each appoint a national contact point, whose address they shall communicate to the Commission, which shall communicate it to the other Member States. Member States shall, in liaison with the Commission, take all appropriate measures to establish direct cooperation and an exchange of information between the competent authorities.
Member States shall ensure that authorities and other organisations implementing this Directive have received the necessary training and shall be bound by the confidentiality principle, as defined in the national law, in relation to any information they obtain in the course of their work.
By 10 April , the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive and shall propose any amendments that are necessary.
These proposals for amendments shall be made by way of priority in relation to Articles 15, 26 and Member States shall send the Commission all the information that is appropriate for drawing up that report by 10 October After presenting the report, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive at least every five years.
The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 10 October They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When the Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.
The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Skip to main content.
Back to top 2 The European Council at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October agreed to work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July Geneva Convention , as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January Protocol , thus affirming the principle of non-refoulement and ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution.
Back to top 4 The Tampere conclusions provide that a Common European Asylum System should include, in the short term, the approximation of rules on the recognition of refugees and the content of refugee status.
Back to top 5 The Tampere conclusions also provide that rules regarding refugee status should be complemented by measures on subsidiary forms of protection, offering an appropriate status to any person in need of such protection.
0コメント