Controversial video showing migrants at reception centre in Lampedusa having to stripnaked to undergo operation of disinfection for scabies

January 2014

International outrage over video showing migrants at reception centre inLampedusa taking off their clothes to be disinfected for scabies - EuropeanCommission threatens to withhold 30 million EUR of EU funds for Italy

Video images of the way an operation to disinfect irregular migrants at the recep-tion centre in Lampedusa was carried out, televised by the Italian Rai 2 channel on16 December 2013, have provoked national and international outrage, includingvery strong condemnation by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, CeciliaMALMSTRÖM, who threatened to withhold 30 million EUR of earmarked EU fundsfor Italy, which were announced 12 days earlier.

The footage showed at least two men at the reception centre standing with noclothes on, while others are undressing as they wait their turn.

Ms MALMSTRÖM said the treatment was "appalling and unacceptable", the UNHigh Commissioner for Human Rights denounced it as "degrading", Laura BOLDRINI,the speaker of the Lower House of Parliament, qualified it as "unworthy of a civi-lised country", the Mayor of Lampedusa, said the images reminded her of a "con-centration camp", and the Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior,Angelino ALFANO, vowed to "find out who is responsible and we will make them pay".

The left-wing Italian daily "Il Manifesto" even affirmed that the images "showed thathumans were less well treated than animals", under the title "Ethnic Cleansing" (sic!)

A few days later, Mr ALFANO announced the Government's decision to terminate thecontract with the firm running the reception centre, Lampedusa Accoglienza, whichbelongs to the Gruppo Sisifo Group that also controls various Lega Coop companies.

Lampedusa Accoglienza was reportedly paid 21,000 EUR per day to run the centreand provide care and facilities for the more than 700 irregular migrants (asylum-seekers) held there.

Whilst the televised images are indeed shocking and criticisms are justified, theEuropean Commissioner's reaction gives the impression that the treatment seen isunprecedented when, in fact, irregular migrants and asylum-seekers have, foryears, been subjected to far worse detention conditions lasting many monthswithout one word of protest uttered publicly on the part of Ms MALMSTRÖM or anyof her predecessors with the portfolio for Home Affairs.

One need only recall the period when Colonel GADDAFI was in power in Tripoli andthe European Commission was offering funds to Libya to prevent the departure forEurope of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers, knowing full well that thosecaught were held in a Libyan detention centre had to endure conditions that wouldmake those of the Lampedusa centre seem like being in a two or three-star hotel.

There is an EU Directive that requires EU Member States to ensure minimumstandards of reception conditions for asylum-seekers, namely Council Directive2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, replaced by Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June2013, but this legislative instrument, the compliance of which is supposedlymonitored by the European Commission, has, for years, not been put into practiceby some Member States.

Perhaps the most flagrant example concerns Greece where conditions of detentionhave been strongly criticised, if not condemned as outrageous, by various humanrights bodies, including the UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, the Council of Europe'sCommissioner for Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)which has unanimously ruled, in a large number of cases, that such conditionsamount to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of Article 3.

In mid-December 2013, the ECHR reached the same conclusion in three morecases against Greece concerning a total of 14 asylum-seekers. (Cont. on page. 2)

Top Story on Migration Policies/LawRefusal to issue a Schengen Visa: EU Court rules thatcompetent authorities are not required to be "certain"that applicant will overstay - reasonable doubt followingindividual examination is sufficient ..............................5

Top Story on Irregular Migration

Spanish Minister of Interior assures that razor-sharpblades will be removed from frontier fence of Melilla ifproven to be contrary to EU law ...........................12

Top Story on Asylum/Refugees

European Court of Human Rights: three more unanimousrulings against Greece for violating Article 3 on account ofinhuman and degrading treatment of asylum-seekers .....14

Top Story on Racism/Discrimination

Germany to review some 750 unsolved murders orattempted murders to determine whether there was far-right involvement .................................................25

Top Story on Integration/Diversity

Increasing number of Swedes of immigrant origin joinanti-immigration Sweden Democrats ........................27

European Union

EU Commissioner REDINGdismisses UK's proposal tohave the right to limit entryof workers from other EUMember States

At a Justice and Home Affairs Councilmeeting held in Brussels on 5-6December 2013, the British HomeSecretary, Theresa MAY, put forwardseveral proposals to limit the right of freemovement for citizens of future new EUMember States. Ms MAY said that UK hasthe support of Germany, the Netherlandsand Austria on this matter.

(On 3rd December 2013, during a debatein the Dutch Parliament on the budget ofthe Ministry of Social Affairs, MPs of theruling Liberal Party (VVD) and of theopposition Christian Democrats (CDA)urged the Government to support the UK'scall for a revision of the right of freemovement. The VVD's coalition partner,the Labour Party (PvdA) was morecautious, reminding that there is notmajority support within the EU forrestricting the right of free movement forcitizens of new EU Member States.)

These proposals were roundly rejected bythe EU Commissioner for Justice, Funda-mental Rights and Citizenship, VivianeREDING, who remarked that it "seemsthat some national systems are toogenerous. Don't blame the Commission orEU rules for national choices and nationalregulatory systems".

"If Member States want to restrict theavailability of social benefits to EU citizensthey can do two things. First, change theirnational systems to make them lessgenerous", suggested Ms REDING.

"Second, apply the existing EU ruleswhich provide safeguards to counterabuse, fraud and error: for examplepossible expulsion orders and re-entrybans in case of abuses."

"Our EU rules are good and they are hereto stay. Member States need to applythem to tackle abuse", insisted the EUCommissioner.

Regarding Ms MAY's proposals, she saidthat in "future accession treaties, wemust be able to slow full access to eachother's labour markets until we can besure it will not lead to mass migration".

"This could, for example, be achieved byrequiring new Member States to reach acertain level of income or economicoutput per head before full freemovement is allowed.

"Second, looking ahead, we must seizethe opportunity presented by the (British)Prime Minister's plan to reform the EUand address the problems caused by freemovement.

"For example, why shouldn't nationalgovernments be allowed to impose a capon numbers if European immigrationreaches certain thresholds?"

It is almost inconceivable that a distinc-tion be allowed to be made between therights of citizens of "old Member States"and those of future new ones.

The most recent new Member States havealready made known their strong oppo-sition to such proposals. On 29 November2013, those belonging to the so-calledVisegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hun-gary, Poland and Slovakia) issued a jointstatement to strongly denounce London'sproposals (see MNS, Dec. 2013).

Switzerland, which enjoys a special andprivileged relationship with the EU, isprobably following the debates on freemovement with considerable interest, ifnot also satisfaction.

Swiss voters are to decide in February 2014whether to introduce an annual quota forall foreigner workers, including those

from EU Member States.

If the referendum is accepted, theimplementation of the proposal would bein conflict with Switzerland's bilateraltreaty with the EU on free movement.Bern could rightly argue that a number ofEU Member States are themselvesclamouring for similar restrictions.

Leaked UK Governmentreport indicates thatLondon wants to end freemovement for EU citizens

A weekend newspaper, the "SundayTimes" (15.12.2013), claimed to haveseen a confidential report drawn up bythe British Ministry of Interior or HomeOffice, whose proposals amount toputting an end to the free movement ofcitizens of the EU.

Although there can be no obstacles to theentry of workers from other EU MemberStates, the report proposes that theannual number allowed to enter belimited to 75,000.

Highly skilled workers from other EUMember States would be granted entryonly if they are able to provide evidence ofa job offer.

As for those with low skills, their entrywould be subject to having anemployment offer which is on anapproved national shortage job list.

When queried about this leaked report,

January 2014 Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.2

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

M ig ra t i on Po l i c i e s

(Cont. from page 1)It has, in fact, not been the European Commission, but rather the anti-torturewatchdog of the Council of Europe, the CPT, that has repeatedly called Greece toorder, and took the rare and exceptional step of issuing a public statementconcerning Greece on 15 March 2011. Since the CPT was sent up in 1989, it hadhad recourse to this procedure only in five other occasions.

The CPT felt the need to do so because since 1993 it had already carried out 10visits to Greece and stressed that the "persistent lack of action to improve thesituation in the light of the Committee's recommendations, as regards the detentionof irregular migrants and the state of the prison system (…)."

In reaction, the Greek authorities "have continuously asserted that action was beingtaken to improve the situation", but in the face of flagrant absence of improvement,the CPT felt compelled to affirm that the Greek authorities had repeatedly failed "tohonour numerous pledges to ameliorate the conditions of detention of asylum-seekers, irregular migrants, criminal suspects and convicted persons".

The CPT cited the example of the Piraeus aliens detention facility which the Greekauthorities had promised in 1997 to demolish and have a new one built. When theCPT visited this place again in January 2011, this detention facility "was holdingirregular migrants in far worse conditions than those first described in the report onthe 1997 visit".

Also very serious is the fact that the CPT considered that "information provided bythe (Greek) authorities (concerning improvements) was not reliable".

"Police and border guard stations continued to hold ever greater numbers ofirregular migrants in even worse conditions", wrote the CPT in the report on its visitcarried out in January 2011.” (Cont. on page 3)

UK Government delays national parliamentary debate on liftingof labour market restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians

On 5 December 2013, the UK Parliament was informed that the debate on theGovernment's Immigration Bill had been postponed until the New Year.

This was strongly condemned by all those opposed to the lifting of labour marketrestrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians since holding the debate after 31stDecember 2013 would not serve their purpose.

Some 63 Conservative rebel MPs signed an amendment to the Immigration Bill,demanding the continuation of existing labour market restrictions imposed onBulgarians and Romanians after 31st December 2013.

This is not possible in view of the relevant clauses of the accession treaties whichstipulate that any existing restrictions must be lifted by 1st January 2014, andwhich were signed and ratified by the UK.

Had such an amendment been passed in parliament, the Government would nothave been able to implement it, and this is probably why the Government had thedebate postponed. After 31st December 2013, the amendment would serve nopurpose, other than to show, perhaps, that many MPs, if not a majority, are againstthe lifting of the labour market restrictions for citizens of the two afore-mentionedEU Member States.

When asked by the BBC for a comment, aspokesman for the European CouncilPresident, Herman VAN ROMPUY, quiterightly pointed out that whereas most EUcitizens going to the UK did so foremployment, many Britons moving toother EU Member States did so to retireand arguably could be a "bigger burden".

UK wants foreign workers,including those from theEU, to be tested on theirEnglish skills

The UK has gone one step further to-wards a collision course with theEuropean Commission by proposing on13 December 2013 that foreigners,including EU nationals, be tested onknowledge of English before being able toclaim income-related benefits under anew scheme.

If all other EU Member States were toretaliate and introduce a similarcondition, it would be disastrous for thesome 2 million British nationals living andworking abroad, within the European Union.

Even a spokesman for the anti-EU UK In-dependence Party (UKIP) has recognisedthat this latest measure to restrict EUnationals' access to benefits is illegalunder EU law.

"For the first time, migrant will be quizzedabout what efforts they have made to findwork before coming to the UK andwhether their English skills will be abarrier to them finding employment", saidthe Department (Ministry) for Work andPensions (DWP) in a statement issued on13 December 2013.

It may be recalled that the UKGovernment is already in litigation withthe European Commission on the so-called right to reside test which EUnationals must pass in order to be eligiblefor specific social security benefits suchas child benefit and income-basedjobseekers' allowance.

The European Commission considers theright to reside test discriminates againstcitizens from other EU States. WhereasBritish nationals have a "right to reside"in the UK solely on the basis of their UKcitizenship, citizens of other EU MemberStates have to meet additional conditionsin order to pass this "right to reside" test.

After waiting, since September 2011, forthe UK to end this form of discrimination,the European Commission finallyannounced, on 30 May 2013, that it hadreferred the matter to the Court of Justiceof the EU (CJEU).

The DWP also informed that citizens of

the Home Secretary, Theresa MAY, wasrather evasive, saying that she was "notproposing to introduce such a cap now",but that there was a "possibility of reformin the future, continuing to insist that theright of free movement for EU citizenswas being "abused".

Nick CLEGG, leader of the junior coalitionpartner, the Liberal Democrats, was moreforthright and critical of the report. "Myadvice to the Home Office is to spend lesstime leaking policies that are illegal andundeliverable and spend more timedelivering on policies that we have

agreed as a coalition government, notablythe reinstatement of exit checks", he saidin his monthly press conference on 16December 2013.

"If we pulled up the drawbridge now andsaid to German lawyers, or Finnishengineers or Dutch accountants that theycan't come to work, it would be a disasterfor our economy.

"We are an open economy. The City ofLondon would grind to a halt overnight. Itwould be very, very bad for Britishbusiness and the health of the economy".

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 3

"Bulgarians in Britain are no beggars", says Bulgarian ForeignMinister

In a televised interview on Bulgarian television on 19 December 2013, theBulgarian Foreign Minister, Kristian VIGENIN affirmed that his compatriots in the UK"are no beggars".

"They do not exploit the social system - they contribute to the system much morethan they are receiving from it".

"The greater problem for Bulgaria is that those people are not here to contributeto Bulgaria's economy", he added.

One of the worst hit sectors is that of health care. Thanks to its Socialist past, thetraining of doctors and others in the medical profession is paid for by the State.

Dr Marin MARINOV, the head of the department of medicine at the MedicalUniversity of Sofia has pointed to opinion surveys whose results suggest thatabout two-thirds of the medical school's graduates planned to leave the country.

With all the fuss that the UK Government is making about alleged "benefittourism", the country is, in fact, benefiting from skilled and highly skilled foreignmanpower which was formed at the expense of much poorer nations.

Indeed, Bulgaria is being deprived of its skilled workforce and one of the country'sgreatest challenges is to reverse the trend of a falling population that hascontinued for the past 23 years. From a level of around 9 million, the Bulgarianpopulation has fallen to just under 7 million and if this trend continues, it will fallto 4 million by 2050.

(Cont. from page 2)"For example, at Soufli police and border guard station, in the Evros region, membersof the Committee's delegation had to walk over persons lying on the floor to accessthe detention facility. There were 146 irregular migrants crammed into a room of 110m², with no access to outdoor exercise or any other possibility to move around andwith only one functioning toilet and shower at their disposal; 65 of them had beenheld in these deplorable conditions for longer than four weeks and a number forlonger than four months. They were not even permitted to change their clothes.

"At times, women were placed in the detention facility together with the men. Similarconditions existed at almost all the police premises visited by the CPT's delegation.

"In the purpose-built Filakio special holding facility for foreigners in the Evrosregion, irregular migrants, including juveniles and families with young children,were kept locked up for weeks and months in filthy, overcrowded, unhygienic cage-like conditions, with no daily access to outdoor exercise".

Comparing such conditions with the video images of the reception centre in Lampedusainevitably raises the question as to why the European Commission has not reactedwith such strong indignation and issued a similar threat in the face of very consi-derable evidence that Greece has been, for years, flouting the very basic require-ments outlined in the said Directive on minimum standards of reception conditions.

Even Jean-Charles GARDETTO (Monaco/EPP) of the Parliamentary Assembly of theCouncil of Europe, Rapporteur on the CPT called on the Greek Government tocomply with this EU Directive, the day after the CPT issued its statementreprimanding Greece.

Cono GALIPO, who ran the Lampedusa centre before he was dismissed, denouncedthe video, saying that those who made the footage had "clearly staged the images seen".

Images merely reflect the reality of a given moment and without knowing thecontext and all other pertinent elements, perceptions can be distorted.

The operation of disinfection was preceded by the arrival of three vessels and therewas suspicion of cases of rabies among some of the passengers.

According to staff at the centre, the treatment of disinfection normally takes placein the infirmary. However, they were confronted with the sudden arrival of 104persons who were suspected of having contagious infections.

The migrants in the video were allegedly impatient and had themselves decided toremove their clothes for the operation when the images were recorded.

Even assuming that the migrants were ordered to remove their clothes, the imagesseen in the footage can be described as degrading, but the ECHR judges would probablynot, as they have already done so in many cases of complaints against Greece, reachthe conclusion that the threshold of an Article 3 violation had been breached.(Cont. on page 4)

other EU Member States could be questionedabout what measures they have taken to"establish" themselves in the UK andwhat ties they still have abroad.

"They will also have to provide moreevi-dence that they are doing everythingthey can to find a job", said the DWP inits statement.

Moreover, EU nationals who are foundbegging or are unable to be self-sufficientafter arrival in the UK may be bannedfrom returning to the UK for 12 months.

In a subsequent declaration to Sky Newson 18 December 2013, the head of theDWP, Iain DUNCAN SMITH, said that theGovernment intended to do much more tomake sure that citizens of other EUMember States remained the respon-sibility of their home country until theystarted paying work-related taxes andbecame residents in the UK.

What he was basically saying was thatcitizens of other EU Member Statesshould first demonstrate that they arecontributing to social security fundsbefore being eligible to benefit from them.

11 EU Member States areopposed to Madrid'sproposal to exemptColumbians and Peruviansfrom the visa obligationfor short-stay visits

Hopes by Columbians and Peruvians thatthey would soon be exempt from applyingfor a Schengen visa for short stays of lessthan 90 days now appear to be ruled out,at least for another year. Germany,supported by 10 other Member States,feels that making such a decision wouldbe premature.

The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs,Cecilia MALMSTRÖM, apparently sharesthe reluctance of these EU MemberStates and has argued for more time toevaluate the possible risks in terms ofsecurity and irregular migration which thesuppression of the visa requirement couldbring about.

Moreover, the European Commissionbelieves that making such a decisionprematurely could have an adverse effecton relations with countries like Russiaand other republics of the former USSRwhich have, already for a number of

years, demonstrated that they arefulfilling a serious of obligations requiredfrom them in order to finally achieve visa-free travel status.

Spain has been pushing for a decision onthe lifting of visa requirements forColumbians and Peruvians in the currentrevision of the list, which has resulted inthe exemption of 16 Caribbean andPacific countries at the meeting in earlyDecember of the Committee of Perma-nent Representatives to the EU, known asthe COREPER in the EU jargon.

It may be recalled that on 21st October2013, the European Parliament'sCommittee on Civil Liberties had voted infavour of exempting Columbians andPeruvians from the so-called negative list.

The other 10 Member States which sharethe concerns of Germany and theEuropean Commission are Austria,Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,Croatia, Denmark, Finland, theNetherlands, Slovakia and Sweden.

Spain has argued that both Columbia andPeru have fulfilled the required conditionsand are the only two Latin Americancountries with commercial ties with theEU and yet their nationals are required toapply for Schengen visas while EUcitizens are allowed to enter theirrespective territories visa-free.

Spain stressed that maintaining these twocountries on the negative list would be pre-judicial to tourism and to businessmen.

Madrid has the support of Cyprus,France, Greece, Italy, Hungary,Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal,Romania and Slovenia.

EU Ministers agree to reviserules concerning posting ofworkers in other EUMember States to prevent"wage dumping"

At their Council meeting on 10 December2013, EU ministers responsible for SocialAffairs and Employment agreed to takesome measures to combat wage or socialdumping and exploitation of posted workers.

The EU Directive regulating the conditionsof employment of posted workers, datingback to 1996, was intended to ensurethat posted workers benefit from thesame conditions of employment in thehost countries.

However, it appears that the contrary hashappened: employers of posted workerspay much less for labour costs and theworkers concerned are often victims ofwage exploitations.

"Today we are seeing increasingcircumvention of the rules, a failure todeclare, bogus companies, letter-boxcompanies, unfair pay levels in thecountry of employment, all this distortingthe fair competition that otherwise wouldexist", said Michel SAPIN, the FrenchMinister of Employment.

Member States would be allowed to sub-mit amendments to the 1996 Directiveand there will subsequently be negotia-tions with the European Parliament on therevised draft.

The European Commission has proposedthat the so-called "joint and severalliability" scheme be applied in the EU butonly for the construction sector, but thishas been met with strong resistance onthe part of some Member States.

January 2014 Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.4

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

British Prime Minister wants citizens of futureEU Member States to wait longer for free movement

On 20 December 2013, British Prime Minister David CAMERON, told his EUcounterparts that never again would the UK agree to making the same mistakesof granting complete free movement to citizens of new EU Member States withoutcertain conditions being met first.

Albania, Serbia, Ukraine and Turkey are possible future members of the EU andamong the British Government's demands concerning the free movement ofworkers is that such a right be postponed until a new Member reaches a certainlevel of prosperity in order to avoid what London has called "poverty migration".

Right to move freely within the Schengen Areafor a real estate investment of between 70,000to 140,000 EUR in Latvia

The number of Chinese citizens taking advantage of a 2010 law that provides afive-year residence permit to any third-country national who is prepared to investbetween 70,000 and 140,000 EUR in real estate, depending on the region, hasattracted the attention of the Latvian Parliament (see MNS, Oct. 2013).

In the first eight months of this year, 235 Chinese nationals purchased real estatein Latvia and received a five-year residence permit, eight times more than in 2012.

Only one out of every four Chinese nationals who purchase real estate in Latviaactually resides there. The others rent out their property and move elsewhere,assisted by agencies such as the Baltic Cotton Road.

On its website, this agency tries to entice clients with the offer: "Buy a property inLatvia, receive a five-year residence permit and travel freely throughout Europe".

(Cont. from page 3)Contrary to some of the reports or interpretations of the video, women were notalso having to strip naked in front of male migrants, and whereas it is indeed winter,Lampedusa is located in the Mediterranean and therefore to say that migrants werehaving to stand naked in the "freezing cold weather" was perhaps an exaggeration.

Equally exaggerated was to compare the treatment of the migrants to those in a"concentration camp". Officials or guards at the centre were not armed with gunsor even truncheons, nor were there any dogs barking away at the migrants tointimidate them into stripping naked. On the contrary, the video does not indicatethat force was being used.

Perhaps the most sensible reaction came out of the Italian Bishops' Conference(CEI) which on 20 December 2013 called on the European Union to "involve itselfin the situation and not just judge from the outside".

Indeed, Ms MALMSTRÖM, who has held the Home Affairs portfolio since November2009, behaved as if it had only just been brought to her attention that asylum-seekers were not being treated in a dignified way and reception conditions wereclearly well below the minimum standards set by the said EU Directive.

This scheme implies that contractors must ensure that how their sub-contractorsoperate is legitimate and that they must pay the minimum wage of the host country andobserve the rules on work time.

It is already operational in a number of Member States, such as Austria, Germany,Spain, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Given the opposition of some Member States, including the UK and Ireland, the obliga-tory nature of the scheme has been replaced by allowing it to be voluntary or optional.

The Irish Minister for Employment, Richard BRUTON, opposed having a compulsory schemein the construction sector, pointing out that it "will be an additional burden at a cri-tical time where the sector is beginning to show some very tentative signs of recovery".

For her part, the British Employment Minister, Esther McVEY, claimed that compulsoryrequirements risked distorting the internal markets, which is just the contrary of whatmost Member States have argued.

According to Ms McVEY, inspections and other preventive measures are good enoughto stop abuse of posted workers.

Court of Justice of the EU

Refusal to issue a Schengen Visa: no requirement forcompetent authorities to be "certain" that applicant willoverstay - reasonable doubt following individualexamination is sufficient

A Grand Chamber ruling as to whether a Schengen Member State is obliged to issue avisa to a third-country national who has satisfied all the material requirementsstipulated in the Schengen Borders Code (Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as amended byRegulation (EU) No 265/2010) confirms that the competent authorities do have somedegree of discretion and are not obliged to issue a visa when they have a reasonabledoubt about the applicant's intention of stay.

This reasonable doubt must be the result of an individual examination of the visaapplication which takes into account the general situation of the applicant's country ofresidence and the applicant's individual characteristics, inter alia, his family, social andeconomic situation, whether he may have previously stayed legally or illegally in one ofthe Member States and his ties in his country of residence and in the Member States.

Particular consideration must be given to the risk of illegal immigration which, whereidentified, must lead the competent authorities to refuse the visa on the basis of theexistence of a reasonable doubt as regards the applicant's intention to leave theterritory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa.

This ruling, handed down on 19 December 2013, does not appear to grant anunsuccessful Schengen visa applicant much of a chance of success when appealingagainst the negative decision, unless it can be demonstrated that the competentauthorities had acted in a wholly unreasonable way, without any valid grounds fordoubting the applicant's stated intentions. (C-84/12).

There was considerable interest in this case and observations were presented but quitea number of governments of Schengen States, in additional to the German one, namelyBelgian, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, Dutch, Polish and Swiss governments.

The case concerns an Iranian national, Rahmanian KOUSHKAKI who, on 2nd November2010, applied for a Schengen visa at the German Embassy in Tehran, but was turneddown on the grounds that he had not provided proof of sufficient means of subsistence,either for the duration of his envisaged stay or to return to his country of origin.

Following his appeal, the German Embassy in Tehran again refused to grant him aSchengen visa, but provided a different reason, pointing to the significant doubt that hehad the intention of returning to his native Iran before the expiry of the requesteddocument.

Moreover, the second negative decisionpointed out that Mr KOUSHKAKI had notshown that he had any economic ties tohis country of origin.

On 8 February 2011, Mr KOUSHKAKIbrought proceedings before the referringcourt, the Administrative Court (VG)Berlin, seeking an order that Germany berequired to rule again on his applicationand to issue him a uniform visa.

For the VG Berlin, the only point at issueis whether Mr KOUSHKAKI constitutes athreat to public policy within the meaningof the relevant clause of the SchengenBorders Code, namely Article 5(1)(e), dueto a possible risk of over-staying.

The VG Berlin therefore asked the CJEUthat if it satisfied that Mr KOUSHKAKIdoes not pose a public policy risk, must itbe convinced that he would not try to

Migration News Sheet

January 2014. Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 5

Ankara's acceptance to sign readmissionagreement with the EU before a decision onvisa-free travel for Turkish citizens is largelycriticised in Turkey

Turkish academics and experts on migration issues have criticised theGovernment's decision to sign the readmission agreement with the EU without afirm guarantee on a date for the lifting of entry visa requirements for Turkish citizens.

Ankara initialled the agreement in 2011, but had previously made signing andratification subject to a decision empowering the European Commission to beginnegotiations on implementing visa facilitation for Turkish citizens with theeventual aim of lifting entry visa requirements.

In what has been interpreted as a climb-down, the Turkish Government signed thereadmission agreement on 16 December 2013.

Critics have denounced the absence of an official link between the readmissionagreement and visa-free travel for Turkish nationals and warned that Turkey couldturn into a dumping ground for foreigners not wanted by the EU.

They have warned of the financial implications of this agreement, and the fact thatTurkey has not signed readmission agreements with all the countries from whichirregular migrants denied entry into Europe originate.

The Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet DAVUTOGLU, has tried to allay concerns,indicating that the financial burden on repatriation of third-country nationalswould be shared by both Turkey and the EU.

"In the worst case scenario, Turkey may have to take back several thousands ofillegal immigrants, but 76 million Turkish citizens will be able to go anywhere inEurope", insisted Mr DAVUTOGLU.

Mr DAVUTOGLU also pointed that all safeguard measures had been taken into consi-deration and that under the terms of the readmission agreement, there will be athree-year transition period during which Turkey will be allowed to deny readmissionto any third-country national after failing to enter the EU from Turkish territory.

Moreover, should the EU continue to deny visa-free travel to Turkish nationals,even when the readmission agreement is being applied, Ankara may choose tohave it suspended.

It should be noted that at a press conference held in Brussels on 4 December2013, Mr DAVUTOGLU said that the visa liberalisation negotiation with theEuropean Commission should not last longer than three years, after which hiscompatriots would enjoy visa-free travel status.

Standing beside the Turkish Foreign Minister was Cecilia MALMSTRÖM, theEuropean Commissioner for Home Affairs, who declined to confirm the timeframementioned by Mr DAVUTOGLU.

"It's a bit too early to set a date when Turkish citizens will travel freely. Nobody hasany reason to delay it, but there is a process that has to go through first", she said.

overstay if he were granted a visa or is itsufficient that there is no reasonabledoubt as regards his intention to leaveGermany in good time.

The VG Berlin also wanted to knowwhether an applicant has the right toreceive a Schengen visa if s/he is able tosatisfy the entry conditions, in particularthose of Article 21(1) of the Visa Code, andthere are no grounds for refusing the visapursuant to Article 32(1) of the Visa Code.

Article 21 (1) of the Visa Code coversverification of entry conditions and riskassessment and the conditions mentionedinclude possession of a valid passport,proof of sufficient means of subsistenceof stay and means of return to country oforigin, not being included in the list ofpeople to be denied entry, and not being athreat to public policy, international secu-rity, public health or international relations.

Article 32(1) of the Visa Code provides alist of reasons to refuse a Schengen visa,such as the presentation of a false,counterfeit or forged travel document,failure to provide justification for thepurpose and conditions of the intendedstay, failure to provide proof of sufficientfinancial means to cover the period ofintended stay and journey back to homecountry or a third country where admis-sion is guaranteed, having stayed alreadyin the Schengen Area for three monthsduring the current six-month period,being included on the list of people to bedenied entry, being without medicalinsurance, etc.

In its ruling, the Grand Chamber affirmedthat any refusal to grant a Schengen visamust be based on the said Article 32 ofthe Visa Code.

The Grand Chamber also stressed that inorder to prevent so-called visa shopping,the conditions for the issue of Schengenvisas must be harmonised, pointing outthat the aim of facilitation of legitimatetravel would be jeopardised if a MemberState could decide, at its discretion, torefuse a visa to an applicant who meetsall the conditions for issue set by the VisaCode by adding a ground for refusal tothose listed in the Code.

On the other hand, as if to allay theconcerns of Member States, the GrandChamber ruled that in the examination ofa visa application, the national authoritieshave a wide discretion so far as concernsthe conditions for the application of thosegrounds and assessing the relevant facts,

with a view to ascertaining whether oneof those grounds for refusal can beapplied to the applicant.

Such an assessment entails complexevaluations based, inter alia, on thepersonality of that applicant, his inte-gration in the country where he resides,the political, social and economic situa-tion of that country and the potential threatposed by the entry of that applicant topublic policy, internal security, publichealth, or the international relations of anyof the Member States. Such complexevaluations involve, inter alia, predictingthe foreseeable conduct of that applicant.

In the view of the Grand Chamber, theauthorities of a Schengen Member Stateneed only have a reasonable doubt thatthe applicant could turn out to be an over-stayer. They need not be certain.

Furthermore, it is not contrary to theSchengen Visa Code that under the rele-vant German legislation the authoritiesmay decide to issue a visa to an applicantonce s/he satisfies the conditions but theyare not obliged to do so, provided that thiscan be interpreted as meaning that thecompetent authorities cannot refuse toissue a Schengen visa to an applicantunless one of the grounds for refusal of avisa provided for in the Visa Code can beapplied to that applicant.

Court asked forinterpretation of severalprovisions of freemovement Directive toascertain right of third-country family members

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) hasbeen requested by the Netherlands'supreme administrative court, the Raadvan State, for its interpretation of severalprovisions of EU Directive 2004/38/EC onthe right of citizens of the Union and theirfamily members to move and reside freelywithin the territory of the Member States,to ascertain, in four cases where the Unionfamily member concerned has exercisedthe right of free movement, whether thethird-country family member is entitled toa Dutch residence permit. (C-456/12)

The four third country nationals, referredto as O, B, S and G, each have family tiesto a different Dutch national, referred toas sponsor O, sponsor B, sponsor S andsponsor G.

As to the essential facts of the cases, O isa Nigerian national who married sponsor

O in France in October 2006. They thenwent to Spain where they have beenofficially registered as residing theresince August 2009 and their residencepermits are valid until September 2014. Oreceived his residence permit as thespouse of an EU citizen.

However, as sponsor O could not findwork in Spain, she left after only twomonths and returned to the Netherlands.From 2007 to April 2010, she returned, forshort periods to Spain, mostly weekends,to be with her husband.

Officially, sponsor O has always beenresiding in the Netherlands, even thoughshe also held a residence permit forSpain. She did not, in fact, cancel herresidence registration in the Netherlands.

O left Spain and arrived sometime in lateJune 2010 to join his Dutch wife.

His application for a residence permit wasturned down on the basis of Dutch lawsince the Dutch authorities did notconsider that this couple was entitled toclaim rights under EU law, which wouldhave enabled O to receive a residencepermit as the spouse of an EU national.

In the second case, B. is a Moroccannational who was in a non-maritalrelationship with sponsor B as fromDecember 2002.

B. was then an asylum-seeker whoseprotection claims were eventually deniedand he was sentenced to two months'imprisonment for use of a false passport,coupled with the classification as beingan undesirable alien on 15 October 2005.

In January 2006, he moved to the Belgiantown of Retie and lived in an apartmentrented by sponsor B who was officiallyregistered as living there alone, with aresidence permit valid until 18 May 2011.

However, as she was unable to find workthere, she was only present during theweekends and during weekdays she wasin the Netherlands where she kept herhome and had a job.

In April 2007, B. had to leave Belgium forMorocco after the Belgian authoritiesdiscovered that he was subject to adeclaration of undesirability in theNetherlands.

He was later joined by sponsor B and thecouple got officially married there.

At B's request, the declaration ofundesirability was lifted in theNetherlands in March 2009 and in June2009, he returned to the Netherlands toreside with his Dutch spouse.

Again the Dutch authorities applied Dutchlaw to this couple and denied B aresidence permit, to which he would havebeen entitled had EU law been applied.

The third case concerns a Ukrainianwoman, S, whose son-in-law, sponsor S,has worked since 2002 for an employerestablished in the Netherlands, who hasdeclared that sponsor S spends 30% ofhis time on preparing and makingbusiness trips to Belgium.

Sponsor S goes there at least one day aweek and also visits clients and attendsconferences in other Member States.Sponsor S depends on his mother-in-lawto take care of his son.

S. applied for a residence permit as afamily member of an EU national, but wasturned down, one reason being that theDutch authorities did not consider thatshe could rely on EU law.

The fourth person, G, is a Peruvianwoman married to her Dutch husband inPeru in 2009. Sponsor G lives in theNetherlands but has been employed by aBelgian firm since 2003.

He travels daily to and from Belgium forhis work. The couple have a child, who isalso a Dutch national, and another childwhom G already had before her marriageto sponsor G.

Her application to obtain a residencepermit for herself and her non-Dutch childwas turned down.

In her Opinion delivered on 12 December2013, Advocate General EleanorSHARPSTON, considered that the saidDirective 2004/38/EC does not applydirectly to EU citizens returning to theirMember State of nationality.

However, the Member State of nationalitymay not give such EU citizens lessfavourable treatment that that owed tothem as a matter of EU law in theMember State from which they moved totheir Member State of nationality.

As a result, Directive 2004/38 indirectlysets out the minimum standard oftreatment that a returning EU citizen andhis family members must enjoy in the EU

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.6

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Denmark, including Carlsberg, NovoNordisk, Lego and Mærsk, has called onthe Government to amend thoseimmigration rules that make it difficultand bureaucratic to hire and retain high-skilled third-country workers.

"We want something concrete and long-sighted with a global perspective fromthe politicians, but we are not seeing it",said the CGT's CEO, Tine HORWITZ to thedaily "Jyllands-Posten" (9.12.2013).

Ms HORWITZ claimed that in spite of theGovernment's stated ambition to attractmore highly skilled workers from thirdcountries, little has been done to simplifyimmigration rules.

France

Opposition centre-rightputs forward "credible"proposals on immigration

On the occasion of a party conference onimmigration organised at its head-quarters in Paris on 12 December 2013,the opposition centre-right UMPprepared a policy document to provide a"credible" response to this issue.

The UMP does indeed adopt someinteresting and realistic positions onsome matters but the document'scredibility is jeopardised by other quiteunrealistic ones.

For the first time, the UMP has affirmedthat the total suppression of the right offamily reunion is both "unrealistic" and"unacceptable".

The UMP also rejects the demand of thefar-right Front national (FN) that Franceleaves the Schengen Area, warning thatsuch a move would result in Francebecome a "fragile and illusionary islet inthe heart of Europe".

Moreover, the UMP rejects the view thatforeigners are a "systematic threat", af-firming that "mobility can be a source ofenrichment", stressing, however, that thisis a subject "too serious" to be left in thehands of "sorcerer's apprentices of theleft and demagogues of the far-right".

On the other hand, the UMP's documentdoes contain proposals which are quitesimilar to those of the FN.

For example, it calls for a revision of theprovisions relating to the right to familylife of the European Convention onHuman Rights, namely Article 8.

It should be noted that this right is notamong the absolute ones among theConvention and the European judgeshave repeatedly affirmed that whilstpeople are entitled to the right to privateand family life, Article 8 does notguarantee the right to choose the countrywhere it can be exercised.

citizen's Member State of nationality.

It would therefore appear that AdvocateGeneral is in favour of O receiving aresidence permit in the Netherlands, butnot B since it appears that he was notgranted a residence permit by the Belgianauthorities.

Moreover, Advocate General SHARPSTONexpressed the view that EU law does notrequire an EU citizen to have resided forany minimum period of time in anotherMember State in order for his thirdcountry national family members to claima derived right of residence in theMember State of nationality to which theEU citizen then returns.

Furthermore, an EU citizen exercises hisright of residence in another MemberState if he makes that Member State theplace where the habitual centre of hisinterest lies.

Provided that, when all relevant facts aretaken into account, that test is satisfied, itis irrelevant in this context whether thatEU citizen keeps another form or resi-dence elsewhere or whether his physicalpresence in the Member State of resi-dence is regularly or irregularly interrupted.

Where time elapses between the returnof the EU citizen to the Member State ofwhich he is a national and the arrival ofthe third country national family memberin that Member State, the family mem-ber's entitlement to a derived right ofresidence in that Member State does not

lapse provided that the decision to jointhe EU citizen is taken in the exercise oftheir right to a family life.

Referring to the case of S, the AdvocateGeneral pointed out that where an EUcitizen residing in his Member State ofnationality exercises rights of freemovement in connexion with his employ-ment, the right of his third country na-tional family members to reside in that Statedepends on the closeness of their familyconnexion with the EU citizen and on thecausal connexion between the family'splace of residence and the EU citizen'sexercise of rights of free movement.

In particular, the family member mustenjoy a right of residence if denying thatright would cause the EU citizen to seekalternative employment that would notinvolve the exercise of rights of freemovement or would cause him to moveto another Member State.

It is irrelevant in that regard whether theEU citizen is a frontier worker or exerciseshis right of free movement in order to fulfilhis contract of employment concludedwith an employer based in his MemberState of nationality and residence.

Denmark

Still too difficult to hire skilledworkers from third countries

The Consortium for Global Talent (CGT), ajoint initiative involving 18 of the largestmultinational companies based in

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 7

Expulsion of Moroccan criminals results in “considerable”savings for the Belgian State

On 15 December 2013, six Moroccan detainees were sent back to their countryof origin. The six men were in addition to nine other Moroccan criminals who wererepatriated earlier and, according to the Minister of Justice, AnnemieTURTELBOOM, these operations have already enabled the Belgian State to makemillions of Euros of saving.

Ms TURTELBOOM explained that each detainee costs 130 EUR per day and sincethe Moroccan criminals expelled were sentenced to a total of more than 50 years,their repatriation enabled savings of some 6 million EUR.

Such news items are rather good election campaign publicity for MsTURTELBOOM and the junior minister for Immigration, Maggie DE BLOCK, both ofwhom belong to the Dutch-speaking Liberal Party (VLD).

Given the high number of foreign detainees in Belgian prisons, many of whom arefrom North Africa, in particular Morocco, it would require the expulsion of severaltimes the present number to have any real significant budgetary impact.

In the beginning of 2013, the judicial authorities had, in fact, selected some 50Moroccan detainees to be sent back to their home country to serve their prisonsentences.

Number of permanent residence permits issued in Denmark hasbeen multiplied by seven since 2011

Since the end to linking the so-called points system to the issuing of permanent resi-dence permits, the number of foreigners receiving one has risen very considerably.

Since the beginning of this year up until 15 November 2013, a total of 4,343foreigners had already received a permanent residence permit, compared to only578 for the whole of 2011.

Previously, under the points system which was scrapped in June 2012, applicantsfor a permanent residence permit had to meet strict conditions on factors suchas language and employment skills.

Since the system was abandoned, there has been a surge in the number ofapplications. In this year alone, the immigration authorities have alreadyprocessed some 9,300 applications, more than twice as many as in 2012.

One party that is most unhappy about the new situation is the Danish People'sParty (DFP), whose spokesperson on immigration, Martin HENRIKSEN, haspredicted that there will now be more integration problems.

Mr HENRIKSEN pointed out that many of the foreigners receiving a permanentresidence permit today are from those ethnic groups that have traditionally haddifficulties in integrating themselves into Danish society.

He indicated that the DFP would strive to have the points system re-instated.

Criteria and guidelines have been esta-blished in the European Court's case law,which amount to minimum standards orrequirements and it is highly unlikely thata downward revision is possible.

The UMP has also called for an end to freemedical care (AME) for unlawfully resi-ding foreigners,except in cases of emergency.

Foreigners allowed to remain in Francebecause of illness should no longer beallowed to work or joined by family members.

Furthermore, the UMP has called for thetotal end to issuing residence permits tounlawfully residing foreigners.

This has already proven to be impossibleand even during the period whenNicholas SARKOZY was the country'spresident, and in spite of his declaredintention to not allow for any more"amnesties", around 30,000 unlawfullyresiding foreigners received a residencepermit every year.

Another impossible measure demandedby the UMP is the expulsion of all personsdenied protection in France.

All so-called host countries are faced withthis problem: unless a rejected asylum-seeker decides to leave voluntarily, theonly alternative is deportation, with theuse of force to a greater or lesser extentand with the risk that the country of origincould refuse readmission.

Like a host of many other documents onimmigration policy, this one also calls forthe introduction of a "points system", likewhat is done in Canada, with the selectionof candidates in accordance with theirlinguistic or educational qualifications andthe real manpower needs of the country.

Netherlands

Overwhelming majority inparliament vote in favourof lifting free movementrestrictions for Bulgariansand Romanians in spite ofvery strong public opposition

On 5 December 2013, the Second Chambervoted by an overwhelming majority toopen up the country's labour market toBulgarians and Romanians, as all theother EU Member States are required todo under the accession treaties withthese two new EU Member States.

The overwhelming majority was the result

of an agreement between the twocoalition partners, the Liberals (VVD) andthe Labour Party (PvdA), at the end ofOctober 2012.Under this agreement, condi-tions of residence for foreigners, as wellas for naturalisation will be tightened up.

The residency requirement to be eligibleto vote will be increased from five toseven years.

Access to social welfare will only bepossible after seven years of residence,but this cannot, in principle, be imposedon EU nationals on account of theprinciple of non-discrimination, unlessDutch citizens are themselves treated inthe same way. Moreover, foreignerswanting to apply for Dutch citizenship willhave to complete seven years ofresidence instead of five.

Public opinion in the Netherlands is verymuch against granting complete freemovement to citizens of Bulgaria andRomania.

In a Maurice de Hond opinion survey of1,800 Dutch citizens, carried out for theSocialist Party (SP, more left-wing thanthe PvdA), eight out of 10 respondents saidthat the restrictions should not be liftednext year for Bulgarians and Romanians.

91% of supporters of the VVD and 82% ofSP voters want the restrictions to remain.In the case of voters of the anti-immigration Freedom Party (PVV), allrespondents who support this party wereagainst the lifting of restrictions.

Even among voters of the pro-EU LiberalDemocrats (D66), 53% of respondentswho claimed to be supporters of this partywant the continuation of restrictions forBulgarians and Romanians.

In a related news item, Rotterdam andThe Hague, two of the four largest Dutchcities, announced on 9 December 2013that Bulgarians and Romanians who failto pass housing and employment checkswill not be eligible to receive tax or socialsecurity numbers. This could beperceived as discrimination if applied onlyto Bulgarians and Romanians.

Switzerland

Geneva decides to opposereferendum "againstmassive immigration"

On 11 December 2013, all sevenmembers of the cantonal government of

Geneva decided unanimously to opposethe referendum 'against massive immi-gration", to take place on 9 February 2013.

What is surprising is the fact that amongthe seven is Mauro POGGIA, a formerChristian Democrat and now a member ofthe Movement of Citizens of Geneva(MCG) which supports the referendum.

The referendum, organised by the SwissPeople's Party (SVP/UDC), wants theestablishment of annual quotas, whichwould be in violation of Switzerland's bi-lateral agreement with the EU on freemovement.

The Geneva Government has argued thatthe free movement agreement has stimu-lated the canton's economy, resulting in60,000 more jobs than the number ofworkers on Geneva's labour market.

Industrial and agriculturalsectors unite againstreferendum against"massive immigration"

On 10 December 2013, the association ofindustry of machines, electrical equip-ment and metals, and the Swiss Union ofAgricultural Workers held a joint pressconference to denounce the dangers ofvoting in favour of the referendum against"massive immigration", organised by theSwiss People's Party (SVP/UDC).

They warned that acceptance of the pro-posal would lead to a shortage of manpower.

Some 20,000 foreign workers areengaged in agriculture, the majority ofwho are generally active for less than fourmonths. EU workers employed inagriculture for more than 12 monthsnumber only around 2,100.

In the industry of machines, 75% of firmshave difficulties recruiting specialists and28% do not manage to hire the skilled

professionals whom they need.

This industry in Switzerland is essentiallyexport orientated and requires a highdegree of innovation in order to maintainits international competitiveness.

The agricultural sector is also worried thata halt to free movement for EU workerswould automatically signal the end to allthe other bi-lateral agreements signedwith the EU.

This was, in fact, confirmed by RichardJONES, the EU Ambassador to Bern, on 7December 2013.

Speaking on a news programme of theGerman-language TV station SRF, MrJONES warned that if the SVP/UDC wonits referendum, and the Swiss Govern-ment did nothing, both the EU Commis-sion and the Council would not lie idle.

One of the risks could be the loss of freeaccess of Swiss cheese to EU markets.Half of the country's cheese production isfor export.

EU citizens contribute billionsto Swiss social security

In an interview with a Sunday paper, "LeMatin Dimanche" (16.12.2013), theFederal Minister for Justice and Police,Simonetta SOMMARUGA, informed thatEU citizens working in Switzerlandcontribute significantly more to thecountry's social security system (the AVS)than what they get back in return. Thedifference amounts to billions of Swissfrancs, assured Ms SOMMARUGA.

Where unemployment benefits are con-cerned, it is the contrary in the sense thatEU nationals receive more than what theycontribute, but the negative balance isonly a few millions.

The long-term effect of free movement on

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.8

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Norway is beginning to benefit from skilledmigrant labour from southern EU Member Statesseverely affected by sovereign debt crisis

Although the numbers of migrant workers from Greece, Spain and Portugal are stillrelatively small when compared with those arriving from Sweden, Poland,Lithuania and Latvia, the sharp rise is quite significant.

In the 12 month period up to November 2013, the number of migrant workers fromGreece increased by 49%, the highest among all countries. In second place isSpain with an increase of 39% and Portugal, with 32% is in fourth place.

Many of these new arrivals are young and well educated, with labour skills whichNorway is very much in need of, such as engineers.

migration figure showed an increase of15,000, instead of a further reduction(see MNS, Dec. 2013).

Mr CAMERON put the blame on the lackof support by his junior coalition partner,the Liberal Democrats, for harsher measuresand the fact that the Government has nopower to curb the entry of peopleentering the UK from other EU MemberStates (excluding Bulgaria, Romania andCroatia, for the time being).

The Prime Minister pointed out that dueto the severe economic crisis affectingsouthern EU Member States, there hasbeen a recent surge in the number ofpeople from such countries.

Report claims that at least385,000 Bulgarians andRomanians will move to theUK over the next five years

On 4 December 2013, the "DailyTelegraph" publicised a report by theConservative right-leaning "DemocracyInstitute", based in London andWashington, which warns that at least385,000 Bulgarians and Romanians willflood into the UK over the next five years.

The Institute has estimated that a total ofsome 77,000 citizens of these two newEU Member States will enter the UK ineach of the five years, with the majority ofaround 44,000 arriving from Bulgaria.

The report has been welcomed by all whohave put forward apocalyptic scenarios oflarge numbers of Bulgarians andRomanians entering the UK after 1stJanuary 2014.

Junior coalition partnerexpresses frustration overtheir Conservative partners'measures on immigration

In an opinion column in the "SundayTimes" (22.12.2013), the leader of the

Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) and deputyprime minister, Nick CLEGG, warned thathis party would not accept any morerestrictive measures on immigration.

"Sticking a big no-entry sign on the cliffsof Dover may be politically popular, but ata huge economic cost."

Of the three traditional parties in the UK,the Lib Dems are the most pro-EU oneand they have experienced considerableunease over recent EU-bashing by theircoalition partner, the Conservatives (Cons),as well as their anti-immigration measures.

One leading Lib Dem., Vincent CABLE,Minister for Business, accused PrimeMinister David CAMERON and his fellowConservatives of adopting a very toughline on immigration because they were"in a bit of a panic because of UKIP (theanti-immigration party that is riding highin opinion polls).

"It's not going to help them, I think,politically", said Mr CABLE who has beena thorn in the side of the Conservativeson account of his public criticismsagainst the Government's tough line onimmigration.

"But it's doing a great deal of damage",added Mr CABLE, who indicated thatthere is "quite a lot of tension" betweenthe two coalition partners.

Mr CABLE recalled that the UK"periodically" gets "these immigrationpanics", the last one being when the con-troversial ex-Conservative politician, EnochPOWELL, predicted that immigrationwould provoke "rivers of blood".

Mr CABLE said that before EnochPOWELL, "there were panics over Jewishimmigrants".

"Politicians have a responsibility whenpeople panic, to try to reassure them andgive them facts, and not panic and resort

Migration News Sheet

January 2014. Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 9

social security depends on the degree ofskills of EU workers: the higher it is, themore positive is the balance.

Regarding the proportion of nationals ofthe European Economic Area dependenton social welfare, it is 2.9% or just slightlyhigher than for Swiss nationals (2.1%). Itis therefore false to claim that they are aburden on the country's social securitysystem, affirmed Ms SOMMARUGA.

Kosovar mother expelledfrom Switzerland andseparated from five yeardaughter

On 11 December 2013, the mediareported on the case of a 24-year oldKosovar woman, Ardita M., who was sentback to her home country on board aspecial flight on 22nd October 2013,leaving behind a five-year old daughter.

Her expulsion was ordered as a result ofthe end of her relationship with the fatherof her daughter, Vito A., who has claimedthat the ties between mother anddaughter were rather weak.

Ardita M. applied to remain in Switzerlandto be with her daughter, citing Article 8 ofthe European Convention on HumanRights, but was turned down. She thenfiled an appeal, but this did not havesuspensory effect.

Whereas the associations in support ofArdita M. have argued that the mother

and daughter have developed a strongaffective relationship, the father, who haslegal custody over the child since 2011,claims quite the opposite, pointing outthat the girl has been living for years withher grandparents and since her mother'sexpulsion, she has only received twoshort phone calls from her.

The Federal Office for Migration (ODM) isthe institution that is competent to decidewhether or not to allow the mother to joinher daughter in Switzerland.

It is waiting for the outcome of the appealbefore making a decision.

The ODM has pointed out that the motherstill has the right to visit her daughter andcan submit an application to enterSwitzerland for this purpose.

However, such an authorisation will onlybe granted if she is able to prove that she"enjoys close ties with her child", whichis very difficult since she is now in Kosovo.

United Kingdom

Prime Minister acknowledgesthat net migration targetwill not be met

On 2nd December 2013, while on his visitto China, Prime Minister David CAMERONacknowledged that he could be "power-less" to deliver on an election campaignpromise to reduce net migration to "tensof thousands", given that the latest net

British Government shelves a report believed to be pro-EU

A government report examining the effects of free movement of EU nationalswhich was supposed to be made public on 9 December 2013 was apparentlyshelved because its conclusions contradict Government's claims about the extentof so-called benefit tourism.

The report was drawn up by civil servants of various government departmentsand was intended to provide Prime Minster David CAMERON with evidence of theneed to revise the rules on free movement.

Since the report apparently provides arguments to the contrary, the Governmentis now anxious to put it aside for the time being.

Boris the mayor of London wants more curbs on Boris theBulgarian

On 3rd December 2013, Boris JOHNSON, Mayor London, said that workers fromother EU Member States should be made to wait a year before being entitled toclaim social benefits, that is nine more months than what the Government wants.

In the preceding week, Prime Minister David CAMERON announced somemeasures to curb so-called benefit tourism on the part citizens of other EUMember States, in particular Bulgarians and Romanians. New arrivals will not beentitled to unemployment benefits during their first three months in the UK andafter six months, payment of benefits will be stopped unless they can prove a"genuine" chance of getting a job.

Mr JOHNSON wants to go further and have the waiting period extended to oneyear. "I don't see why not", said the Mayor, "don't forget there are veryconsiderable pressures on the system (and) you have big competition for jobs, youhave got many Londoners who feel that they are not getting a fair suck of thesauce bottle and why not?"

Mr JOHNSON wants labour market restrictions to remain in place for Bulgariansand Romanians and only those accepting to do seasonal jobs, such as fruitpicking, or are self-employed should be allowed in. This way, there is no risk ofBulgarians and Romanians taking away the "sauce bottle" from Londoners, in thewords of Mr JOHNSON.

to populist measures that do harm", hewarned.

Time and time again experience hasshown that when faced with the copy andthe original, voters often favour the latter.

The Conservative Party's attempt to winback their former supporters who havegone over to the UKIP by trying to positionitself as more credible in restrictingimmigration has undoubtedly convincevoters that the issues championed by theUKIP are real problems that deserveimmediate attention.

Issues like "benefit tourism" and massiveimmigration from new EU MemberStates, in particular from the two latestones, Bulgaria and Romania, whosecitizens will be entitled to complete freemovement as from 1st January 2014,have turned into real and urgent problemsin the minds of the British public, not onlybecause the UKIP have brought them tothe forefront of public debate but becausethe Conservatives have largely validatedthe need to tackle them, with the implicit

acquiescence of the opposition LabourParty which appears to have come underthe influence of opinion polls and prefersto chase after their own ex-supportershaving gone over to the far-right BritishNational Party (BNP).

Attempts by Labour Party leader EdMILIBAND to show that his party can alsobe tough on immigration has provokeddissatisfaction within the party.

It is widely believed that a leading Labourpolitician, Diane ABBOTT, was dismissedas shadow minister for public health on 8October 2013 because she had publiclyopposed Mr MILIBAND's tough stand onimmigration.

Bulgarian President calls onBritish Prime Minister to avoidplaying on people's fear

Speaking to the Sunday newspaper, "TheObserver" (22.12.2013), Bulgarian Presi-dent Rosen PLEVNELIEV called on BritishPrime Minister David CAMERON not toplay on people's fears in a period when

far-right parties in Europe are riding highin opinion polls.

"Isolating Britain and damaging Britain'sreputation is not the right history towrite", said the Bulgarian President.

"Bulgarian people are raising a lot ofquestions today about the democratic,tolerant and humane British society", headded, asking whether the UK was"writing a history of a switch to isolation,nationalism and short-term politicalapproaches".

Mr PLEVNELIEV also had some advice togive to Mr CAMERON. Although he"should address the daily agenda ofBritish politics (…), he should neverforget that a politician is remembered inhistory not for the everyday business.

"A politician is written in history with amaximum of one or two sentences. Thejudgment comes years later and probablyfrom the next generation. Prime ministersand presidents should make everydaydecisions but never forget long-termpriorities and values."

Head of pizza chaincomplain of difficulties ofrecruiting British workers

Lance BATCHELOR, head of Domino'sPizza, the biggest chain in this field in theUK, has claimed that he has difficulties infilling some 1,000 vacancies since Britishworkers refuse to apply for positions suchas cooks and drivers.

"Since the immigration laws weretightened up two or three years ago, weare finding it harder and harder to hirestaff, especially in London and the south-east", said Mr BATCHERLOR to the freedaily "Metro" (9.12.2013).

Some 25,000 people are employed byDomino's Pizza throughout the UK.

Polish leaders criticise London'santi-immigration stand

On 24 December 2013, Polish Radioreported that several Polish leaders hadexpressed indignation at and criticisms ofLondon's anti-immigration stand, takingoffence at Prime Minister's DavidCAMERON's remark that allowing for freemovement for Poles as from theircountry's date of entry into the EU, on 1stMay 2004, was a "huge mistake".

"Britain has earned billions of pounds due

to the fact that Poles have been workingthere for the last 10 years", said MEPRyszard CZARNECKI of the Law andJustice (PiS) party.

Former prime minister JaroslowKACZYNSKI (PiS) has written an open letterto Mr CAMERON, saying that his anti-immigration remarks were "unacceptable".

"Poles finish Communism (in 1989) andGreat Britain profited significant",according to the former trade unionleader Lech WALESA, who accused MrCAMERON of behaving "irrationally andshort-sightedly".

Romanian Ambassador toLondon hits back at negativeanti-immigration claims

Writing in the Huffington Post UK(19.12.2013), the Romanian Ambassadorto the UK, Ion JINGA, reminded that mostof his compatriots who went to the UK"did so for work, not benefits.

“We plead in favour of honest, hard-working people, who pay taxes andcontribute to the society".

"No one in the EU migrates more thanBritons do", according to Mr JINGA whocited a 2011 World Bank report which indi-cated that 4.7 million British people liveoutside their own country, and almost halfof them have settled elsewhere in the EU."

Among those working abroad are"thousands of Britons who work in Romania".

"If you demand the right to seek work insomeone else's country, they should beable to do the same in yours. That is onlyfair", wrote Mr JINGA.

European Union

Major operation involvingpolice forces of France andPortugal, assisted by EUROPOLand EUROJUST, dismantlesimmigrant smuggling ring

On 14 December 2013, after investiga-tions of almost one year, police raids werecarried out simultaneously in France andPortugal, resulting in the arrest of sevenpersons in Portugal and the same numberin France, all accused of being members

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.10

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Leading Labour MP to be present at a LondonAirport on New Year's Day to witness arrival ofBulgarians and Romanians

The lengths at which some Labour politicians will go to demonstrate to the publicthat they too can handle the immigration issue seriously appears to have gonebeyond the realm of populism to that of comedy of the pathetic kind.

During a debate on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania on 20 December2013, Keith VAZ, the Labour Chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee,announced that he and a Conservative MP, Mark RECKLESS, would be at London'sLuton Airport from 7.40 am on 1st January 2014 to check how many Bulgariansand Romanians make use of the right of free movement and arrive in the UK.

Criticising the Government for failing to provide an estimate on the number ofBulgarians and Romanians who will make use of the right of free movement after31st December 2013, Mr VAZ affirmed: "If the only way to do it is to do it with ourown eyes (…) then I am afraid we are going to have to do this".

Mr VAZ apparently believes that most Bulgarians and Romanians will be arrivingin the UK by air on 1st January 2014 and will chose, among London's sixinternational airports, Luton.

Mr VAZ accused the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister of not havingtaken the initiatives to work with the governments in Bucharest and Sofia toaddress some of the likely problems.

This presupposes that the arrival of Bulgarians and Romanians after 31stDecember 2013 would give rise to problems that are sufficiently serious as towarrant co-operation with their respective governments.

The fact of the matter is that no one can provide a fairly accurate prediction of thenumber of Bulgarians and Romanians who would go to the UK after 31stDecember 2013, in addition to those already present since they will be able toseek employment in the other 24 EU Member States, and the UK is not thefavourite destination for most of them.

IRREGULARMIGRATION

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 11

of an international gang involved insmuggling irregular migrants to Portugalso that they could have their statuslegalised with the help of false orfraudulently obtained documents and insmuggling irregular migrants to variousEuropean countries from Lisbon.

The fees for a trip from Lisbon variedconsiderably, from 300 EUR to Paris, 350EUR to Belgium and 800 EUR to Italy to asmuch as 1,500 EUR to the UK.

Investigators believe that the gang hadenabled the clandestine journeys withinEurope of around 1,000 irregular migrants.

The French and Portuguese police bene-fited from the assistance of EUROPOL andEUROJUST, as well as their Spanishcounterparts.

Irregular migration to becomepart of the EU's commonsecurity and defence policy

On 19 December 2013,EU leaders meetingat their summit in Brussels decided toinclude illegal immigration, organisedcrime and terrorism within the remit ofthe Union's common security anddefence policy.

Irregular migrants have thus become amatter of the Union's security and adefence strategy is apparently required.

The summit thus decided to developsupport for third countries and regions tohelp them improve border managementso as to prevent the departure from theirterritory to the EU of irregular migrants aswell as asylum-seekers, and thedevelopment of an EU maritime securitystrategy by June 2014, also aimed atpreventing the arrival of migrants(including asylum-seekers) by sea.

Ireland

NGOs accuses Governmentof hypocrisy for failing toregularise unlawfullyresiding migrants althoughit lobbies Washington to dothis for Irish nationals inthe USA

On 10 December 2013, the MigrantsRight Centre of Ireland (MCRI) madepublic the result of its search onunlawfully residing foreigners in thecountry, indicating its estimate that theynumber up to 30,000.

As the Minister of Justice, Alan SHATTER,has not responded positively to calls bythe MCRI to issue residence permits,under certain conditions, to these "illegalimmigrants", the NGO has accused theGovernment of hypocrisy: on the one hand,Dublin has been lobbying Washington tooffer solutions to Irish nationals living inthe USA without authorisations and, onthe other, it has excluded any idea ofoffering an "amnesty" to "illegalimmigrants" on Irish territory.

According to the results of the research,the unlawfully residing foreignersoriginate from no less than 87 countries,the largest group being made up ofFilipinos (16.3%), Chinese (13.5%),Mauritians (8.5%), Pakistanis (7.7%),Ukrainians (5.9%) and Brazilians (5.4%).

Since they are obviously not entitled toany social welfare assistance, many havejobs and even contribute to social securityand pay taxes even though they are notallowed to work.

This has been possible because theywere previously entitled to work, forexample, as foreign students, andcontinued doing so after theirauthorisation of stay expired.

Italy

10 North Africans awaitingrepatriation sew up theirlips to protest againstlengthy detention

On 21st December 2013, four Tunisiansheld in detention at the heavily guardedPonte Galeria immigrant detention centre,located near Rome's Fiumicino airport,sewed up their mouths to protest againsttheir lengthy detention, making a singlestitch to join their lips in the middle.

They were subsequently joined by sixMoroccan detainees who imitated theirgesture and also demanded to set free.

The protesters were still able to drink andtake in food and were examined by adoctor.

Their action led to calls by left-wingpoliticians, including the Mayor of Rome,as well as the country's biggest tradeunion, to close down detention centreswhose living conditions were denouncedas "shameful".

Taking place less than a week after atelevised controversial video showed

migrants at the reception centre inLampedusa taking off their clothes fordisinfectant treatment against scabies,this incident received much mediaattention both in Italy and abroad.

The Ponte Galeria centre is used to detainforeigners awaiting expulsion from Italy.

One of the four Tunisians was due to berepatriated on 23rd December 2013.

Italy received more than 33,000 irregularmigrants/asylum-seekers arriving by seaalone in 2013, a figure that is three timeshigher than that of 2012.

The large majority of them do not want toremain in Italy and the Italian authoritiesare not at all enthusiastic about holdingthem back.

It is believed that the Italian authoritiesoften do not take these peoplefingerprints and if they are apprehendedin another EU Member State up north,there would be no proof that they werepreviously in Italy.

On 27 December 2013, commenting onthe demands made by the protestingdetainees, Angelino ALFANO, Minister ofInterior, showed little sympathy for theiraction and warned that the country'simmigration law could not be swept asideby their protests.

By then, all of the protesters hadunstitched their mouths, but around half

the number of the some 40 detainees atthe centre were on a hunger strikestarted a few days earlier, making anexception on Christmas Day.

Call on China to deal withillegal immigration

On 4 December 2013, the Minister forIntegration, Cécile KYENGE, announcedthat the Government would seek China'sassistance to combat illegal immigrationto Italy. This was prompted by a fire at aChinese-owned garment factory in Pratowhich killed seven Chinese workers inthe preceding weekend.

"It's not easy to work with a communitythat has its own traditions and culture",said Ms KYENGE, stressing the need fordialogue with China.

Spain

Special police units whodefend the rights ofundocumented migrants

Spain is not only the EU Member Statewhere undocumented migrants areentitled to register at their municipality ofresidence.

It is also the only one that has specialpolice units to defend the rights ofundocumented migrants who, because oftheir precarious situation, dare not file acomplaint when they are victims of acrime or labour exploitation.

Mayor of Lampedusa calls for "Operation Truth"to expose lies about irregular migration

In an interview with the Italian news agency ANSA on 20 December 2013, theMayor of Lampedusa, Giusi NICOLINI, called for an "Operation Truth" to expose thelies about irregular migration.

Referring to the controversy over the video showing some migrants at the island'sreception centre having to strip naked to be disinfected for scabies, the mayordenounced the attempt to shift the blame squarely on the Italian authorities.

"This is an attempt to blame it all on the last link in the chain, but the responsibilityfor what happened goes further than that", she said.

In a speech to students on the same day, Ms NICOLINI denounced the country'sAliens Act and structures to deal with immigration, which have been set up "asthough to deal with a non-existent invasion".

"But the truth is, the refugees are healthy when they get here. We are the onesmaking them sick, by forcing them to live in overcrowded facilities, in disastrousconditions of sanitation and hygiene".

The Mayor indicated that just under 14,000 asylum-seekers or irregular migrantswere rescued in 2013. "Those coming in boats are really very few, but they getused as the iconography of an invasion. We need an 'Operation Truth'", she said.

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.12

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

These special units take up thecomplaints on their behalf.

These special units are known by theiracronym EDATI, and have been operatingalong the country's Mediterranean coastsince 2000, from Barcelona in the north-east to Huelva in the south-west.

There are a total of 13 EDATI units, usuallycomposed of four persons, and each onemust have at least one female member.

Although they are members of thecountry's Guardia Civil, their tasks is notto arrest foreigners for unlawful stay.

On the contrary, they advised undocu-mented migrants on their rights, helpthem in official procedures, such as fillingout forms, applying to legalise theirimmigration status and taking actionagainst those who try to cheat, mistreator exploit them.

Undocumented migrants who dare notlodge a complaint can turn to an EDATIunit without fear if they are victims ofexploitative labour conditions, abusiveemployment contracts, physical abuse orrape.

They may also turn to an EDATI unit if theyhave lost their personal documents, suchas a passport.

In 2012, the EDATI units assisted some10,700 undocumented migrants, most ofwhom were from North Africa, EasternEurope or South America.

European Union

Commission dishes ourproposals with the aim ofavoiding more drowningtragedies at sea, butMember States are veryreluctant to committhemselves

The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs,Cecilia MALMSTRÖM, has put forward anumber of proposals to try to avoid moredrowning tragedies like the one off theItalian island of Lampedusa which costthe lives of more than 360 Africanasylum-seekers.

The only proposals which have not beenmet with strong objections by MemberStates are those which concern thespending of EU funds.

One of them, announced on 4 December2013, is to offer EU Member States 6,000

EUR for each refugee recognised as suchby the UNHCR and is waiting in a refugeecamp in the third country for aresettlement place.

Offering resettlement places to fleeingSyrians could, in the view of the EuropeanCommission, take away some of the pushfactors that force them into the arms oftraffickers to make often dangerousjourneys to Europe.

According to Ms MALMSTRÖM, herproposal of 6,000 EUR per refugee "is thesingle most efficient short-term measurethat Member States can do to help and toavoid for these very vulnerable people totake the dangerous route over theMediterranean".

Given that the number of Syrians inrefugee camps number well over twomillion and that EU Member States willcertainly not offer several tens ofthousands of resettlement places, theoverall effect of the proposal will be ratherlimited and will certainly not discouragethose still in refugee camps from tryingtheir luck with traffickers.

Besides, whereas it is certainly true that6,000 EUR is better than nothing, thisamount will not go very far in covering thecosts of reception, especially in the morewealthy Member States.

Other financial measures announced onthe same day include an extra 400,000EUR a year to EUROPOL to combat humansmugglers, 30 million EU to Italy and 20million to other Member States to improvereception conditions of asylum-seekers.

On the other hand, when it comes toactual reception of asylum-seekersrescued at sea, Member States remain asfar apart as ever, giving reasons whichcan be quite valid, depending on how thesituation is viewed.

Thus those with Mediterranean borderscomplain that they are in the frontline ofreceiving Syrians and other asylum-seekers whereas others like Germany,France and Sweden point out they are, infact, the EU Member States receiving thegreatest number of people claimingprotection.

Then there is the position of the UK whichclaims that it prefers to continue providingfinancial assistance to people in theregion. London has pointed out that it hasso far pledged £500 million in suchassistance, which is far more than what

all the other EU Member States combinedhave contributed.

It is therefore not surprising that there isstill no agreement on a set of rulesdetermining responsibility for asylum-seekers rescued at sea.

In April 2013, the Commission proposedthat whichever EU Member State ishosting a FRONTEX operation is the onethat should take in rescued asylum-seekers.

Malta retorted that this makes no senseas far as it is concerned.

If a Maltese vessel operating under theauspices of FRONTEX has rescued agroup of people off the Italian island ofLampedusa, should it return to Malta, atwo-day sea journey, to disembark thesepeople instead of having them land atLampedusa?

The Commission's proposal of havinghumanitarian visas to enable people inneed of protection to travel to and enterthe EU safely has also received the coldshoulder, with the argument that it wouldcreate a "pull factor".

If there is one thing that all EU MemberStates would agree is that the majordrowning tragedy off Lampedusa lastOctober would probably happen again.

On 12 December 2013, Amnesty Interna-tional strongly criticised EU MemberStates' attitude towards the majorrefugee crisis as a result of the Syrian civilwar, saying that the EU had "miserablyfailed" to provide a safe haven to Syrians.

So far, only some 55,000 have been ableto lodge a claim for protection in the EU.10 countries have together agreed tooffer resettlement places to 12,000Syrian refugees.

80% of these places have been offered byGermany alone, whereas France hasoffered 500 places and Spain 30. Italy andthe UK have offered none.

In the meantime, the practice of pushingback asylum-seekers who try to enter theEU via Greece is continuing, and theEuropean Commission is providing morefunds to ensure that external bordersremain as water-tight as possible.According to Amnesty, the EuropeanCommission has provided 228 millionEUR for this purpose.

Spanish Minister of Interior assures that razor-sharp blades willbe removed from frontier fence of Melilla if proven to be contraryto EU law

On 5 December 2013, the Minister of Interior, Jorge FERNÁNDEZ, announced thathe would consider having the razor-sharp blades removed from the frontier fenceof Melilla if it could be proven to be in violation of EU law. He underlined, however,that there had so far been no indication that this was the case and that otherMember States also use them to protect their external borders.

A day earlier he met with the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, CeciliaMALMSTRÖM and held "wide and cordial" discussions with her.

Mr FERNÁNDEZ acknowledged that the Commissioner had expressed her doubtsabout the use of razor-sharp blades at Melilla's border fence, but pointed out thatshe had not said that the use of them was in violation of EU law, nor did shepropose alternatives.

"She had the idea, and conveyed it thus to me, that the blades were not adissuasive element and caused serious injuries".

His response was that the Spanish Government considered that it was a "passive,non-aggressive and dissuasive" method to curb "avalanches" of immigrants".

Mr FERNÁNDEZ claimed, quite rightly, that similar things were used by the Belgianpolice and in other EU Member States.

The Spanish Minister also said that his Government was willing to consideralternative systems which were equally effective.

A S Y L U M /REFUGEES

Regulation No 343/2003.

Ms ABDULLAHI had, in fact, informed theAustrian authorities that she had enteredHungary clandestinely from Serbia.

By letter of 29 September 2011, Hungaryagreed to accept responsibility forprocessing her asylum claim.

The following day, the Austrian FederalAsylum Office (Bundesamt) declared herasylum application inadmissible andordered her removal to Hungary.

She lodged an appeal, arguing that ifsent back to Hungary she would beexposed to treatment contrary to Article 3of the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) on account of reception condi-tions there, pointing out that the Bundes-amt had assessed the situation in Hungaryon the basis of obsolete sources.

Her appeal was upheld by the AsylumCourt (AGH) in December 2011 and hercase was sent back to the Bundesamt forre-examination.

On 26 January 2012, the Bundesamtreached the same decision of inadmissi-bility and ordered her deportation to Hun-gary, pointing out that it had relied on up-dated information on the situation inHungary and concluded that there wasno risk that she would be exposed totreatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

She then lodged another appeal to theAGH, claiming for the first time that theEU Member State responsible for herasylum application was Greece and notHungary, since Greece was the first EUMember State of entry.

Since it has been established by, amongstothers, the European Court of HumanRights and the CJEU, that asylum-seekers could face treatment contrary tothe said Article 3 of the ECHR in Greecebecause of poor reception conditions anda non-functioning refugee-status-determination procedure, Ms ABDULLAHIclaimed that it was up to Austria toexamine her asylum application.

The Austrian authorities did not make aformal request to Greece to take chargeof her asylum procedure and by judg-ment dated 14 February 2012 the AGHrejected her appeal as unfounded,considering that Hungary was theMember State responsible.

She then took her case to the Austrian

Constitutional Court (VerfGH), which setaside the judgment of the AGH of 14February 2012, expressing doubts aboutwhether the argument used by the AGHto confirm Hungary as the responsibleMember State was well-founded.

This argument was that Greece could nolonger be considered as the responsibleMember State since she had travelled tothird countries, namely FYROM andSerbia, before entering Hungary.

The VerfGH took into consideration acounter-argument put forward byAustrian legal scholars that Greece'sobligation would only have cancelled outif Ms ABDULLAHI had left the territory ofthe EU Member States for at least threemonths, which was not the case.

Eventually, the CJEU did not consider itnecessary to address the question as towhether Greece's obligation had beencancelled out.

The CJEU recalled, inter alia, that one ofthe principle objectives of the so-calledDublin II Regulation is the establishmentof a clear and workable method fordetermining rapidly the Member Stateresponsible for the processing of anasylum application so as to guaranteeeffective access to the refugee-status-determination procedure and not tocompromise the objective of the rapidprocessing of asylum applications.

The CJEU also reminded that RegulationNo 343/2003 provides for a singleappeal, stipulated under its Article 19(2)that enables an asylum-seeker to bringan appeal against a decision not toexamine an application and to transferthe asylum-seeker to the Member Stateresponsible, or to apply for such a deci-sion to be reviewed.

Hungary was identified as the MemberState responsible and it has acceptedthis responsibility.

Furthermore, it is the CJEU's view, that"the rules applicable to asylumapplicants have been to a large extent,harmonised at EU level, most recently byDirectives 200/95 and 2013/32.

"It follows that the rules in accordancewith which an asylum-seeker'sapplication will be examined will bebroadly the same, irrespective of whichMember State is responsible underRegulation No 343/2003 for examiningthat application".

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 13

Court of Justice of the EU

Asylum-seeker who was previously in two other EUMember State is to be sent back to the one that hasaccepted responsibility unless there is a risk ofinhuman or degrading treatment there

In a ruling handed down on 10 December 2013 concerning an asylum-seeker who waspreviously in two other EU Member States, and in third-countries in between the two,the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has ruled that one of the relevant provisionsgoverning the determination of the Member State responsible of the EU's Dublin IIRegulation, namely its Article 19(2) "must be interpreted as meaning that, incircumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant forasylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in Article 10(1) of that regulation - namely,as the Member State of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the EuropeanUnion - the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choiceof that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in theconditions of the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, whichprovide substantial grounds for being that the applicant for asylum would face a realrisk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union".

The case concerns a 22-year old Somali asylum-seeker, Shamso ABDULLAHI, whotravelled through quite a number of countries before reaching Austria, where she firstsubmitted an asylum application.

She first arrived in Syria by air in April 2011 and then travelled through Turkey in Julyof the same year before entering Greece clandestinely by boat.

While she was in Greece, she did not submit an asylum application. It is not clear fromher dossier but she was apparently not apprehended by the Greek authorities and herfingerprints were not registered in the EURODAC system.

With the assistance of people smugglers, she and a group of other asylum-seekerstravelled to Austria, passing through first Macedonia (FYROM), Serbia and Hungary,apparently without being apprehended by the authorities there.

She applied for asylum in Austria on 29 August 2011. On the basis of the informationwhich she gave to the Austrian authorities and accounts by other asylum-seekershaving crossed into Austria, it was decided to request Hungary to assume responsibilityfor her in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EU Dublin II Regulation or

Italian Foreign Minister warns that "terrorists" could be amongthe Syrian asylum-seekers fleeing to Europe

On 9 December 2013, Italy's Foreign Minister, Emma BONINO, warned that amongthose Syrians fleeing to Western Europe for protection, there could very well be"potential terrorists".

"Like all major humanitarian crises", the Syria conflict "has political aspects andconsequences that can have devastating effects", said Ms BONINO.

"If you consider displaced people, refugees and immigrants, we have millions ofpeople moving around the southern Mediterranean.

"We have many reasons to believe that among the women and children, there arealso less friendly immigrants - ex-jihadists or members of Al-Qaeda.

"It is clear that uncontrolled landings on our shores have implications for thesecurity of the European Union".

Ms BONINO also warned of the absence of central government control in manyareas in Libya where lawlessness prevails to such an extent that the country "hastoday become a sort of freeway where anything gets through - weapons, drugs".

Many advocates of the rights of asylum-seekers would undoubtedly disagree with thisassumption.

European Court of Human Rights

Greece is again found to have violated Article 3 becauseof detention conditions

In a unanimous Chamber decision handed down on 12 December 2013, the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Greece had violated Article 3 of the Convention(prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) as a result of the detention of theapplicant, Besik KHOUROSHVILI, a Georgian national, in the centre for combatingclandestine immigration in Aspropyrgos. (Application no. 58165/10).

The applicant has been in Greece since 12 February 1997, having been in an irregularsituation for most of the time, held in detention on several occasions as an illegalimmigrant and finally tried to remain in Greece as an asylum-seeker but his protectionclaims were turned down.

Regarding his grievances of an Article 3 violation, the ECHR considered that they wereadmissible in so far as they concerned the detention centre of Aspropyrgos.

His claims of inhuman and degrading conditions concerned, inter alia, overcrowding,filth, lack of sanitary facilities, etc., as well as undernourishment for receiving merely5.87 EUR per day to purchase two sandwiches.

The Greek Government provided a totally different description of the centre ofAspropyrgos, claiming that this place has a large number of toilets, available hot waterand showers.

The ventilation and lighting of the rooms or cells, both natural and artificial, aresufficient, and both central heating and air conditioning have been available.

One private firm carries out the cleaning on a daily basis and another has the task ofdisinfection and elimination of insects two times per month. Moreover, anothercompany regularly repaints the walls.

As for sheets and blankets, they are washed and disinfected.

The Greek Government also rejected the applicant's claim that he received only 5.87EUR per day to purchase two sandwiches. (It should be noted that there are quite anumber of complaints of Article 3 violations against Greece lodged with the ECHR, inwhich the applicants have claimed that either the food provided was hardly edible orthat they were given exactly the same amount of 5.87 EUR per day to feed themselves- see, for example, Tabesh v. Greece, application no. 8256/07, ruling of 26.11.2009 andShyti v. Greece, application no. 65911/09, ruling of 17.10.2013).

The Greek Government claimed that all detainees, including the applicant, have beenprovided with three meals per day, and at each floor of the centre there is a recreationalroom with a radio as well as newspapers and magazines.

Such a description of conditions at the centre of Asproprygos is clearly in contradictionwith the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumanor Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) based on its visit to Greece carried outfrom 19 to 27 January 2011. The CPT noted that the situation at the centre inAspropyrgos "had not improved since previous visits in 2007 and 2008".

Not wanting to side with either the applicant or the Greek Government on the exact

conditions prevailing at the time when he was held at the centre of Aspropyrgos, from7 July to 23 October 2010, the ECHR noted that by its own admission, the GreekGovernment had confirmed that during the period in question there were 136 detaineesheld in place with a total living space of 240 m² or 1.76m² per person.

"Whatever could have been the exact surface area of the cell where the applicant spentmost of his days, the space attributed to him, was, according to the Government, lessthan that which, according to the jurisprudence confirmed in the ruling Ananyev andothers (…..) (applications nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08; ruling of 10.01.2012; para.138 and 162) was sufficient to reach the conclusion of an Article 3 violation, on thatbasis alone", affirmed the ECHR.

The ECHR also found, for reasons already cited in previous similar cases, that Greecehad violated Article 5(4) of the Convention, which guarantees the right of every detaineeto challenge, within a brief delay, the lawfulness of his/her detention.

The ECHR pointed out that it had already noted that a foreigner held in detention maylodge an appeal which does not expressly grant the power to examine the legality of hisexpulsion order which constitutes, under Greek law, the legal basis for holding him indetention.

A judge to whom such an appeal is lodged may only examine the decision to detain theperson by considering the risk of going into hiding or of posing a risk to public policy.

Unanimous finding of Article 3 violation in cases of 12asylum-seekers who complained of conditions of detentionin Greece

In a unanimous Chamber ruling handed down on 19 December 2013 concerning threejoined cases submitted by a total of 12 asylum-seekers, the European Court of HumanRights (ECHR) ruled that the detention conditions of the applicants concerned amountedto a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman and/or degradingtreatment).

Moreover, as in quite a number of other cases of asylum-seekers who complained thatthey did not have an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention[Article 5(4) of the Convention), the ECHR ruled that once again that Greece had violatedthis provision. (Applications nos. 33441/10, 33468/10 and 33476/10).

The applicants had left their countries at unknown dates, mainly on account of thepolitical situations there.

Most were Iraqis, two Pakistanis, one Turkish national and one Afghan.

Their complaints concerns essentially the conditions of their detention pending theirremoval from Greece to their countries of origin.

After fleeing their respective countries, they arrived in Greece in 2009 and applied forprotection.

On different dates, they were transferred to the Venna detention centre for severalmonths while awaiting deportation.

During that period, they lodged objections about the conditions of their detention,submitting that those conditions were unacceptable, in particular because of a lack ofhygiene in their cells and the confined space in which they were held, without anypossibility of outdoor exercise.

They also complained of the insufficient means of nourishment, having been providedwith the mere sum of 5.87 EUR per day to purchase sandwiches.

When meals were provided, they sometimes contained pork meat and Muslim inmateswere thus faced with choice of either fasting or transgressing the rules of their religion.

Except for one of the 12, who obtained political refugee status in December 2009, the

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.14

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Iranian asylum-seeker commits suicide in Athens

On 21st December 2013, a 28-year old Iranian asylum-seeker died after settingfire to himself in the early hours of the morning in central Athens.

He was taken immediately to a hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 15

2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Dec. Total month end.

Austria 1 210 1 185 1 199 1 405 1 445 1 799 1 802 1 352 1 346 1 695 14 438 (10/13)

Belgium°+ 1 644 1 392 1 447 1 346 1 202 1 214 1 311 1 294 1 485 1 336 1 103 14 774 (11/13)

Bulgaria° 243 213 412 249 275 412 434 693 2 931 (08/13)

Cyprus 98 138 81 74 94 70 71 94 720 (08/13)

Czech Rep. ° 47 30 52 36 42 34 39 66 32 44 36 458 (11/13)

Denmark 762 589 599 569 499 504 620 679 670 719 46 210 (10/13)

Finland 268 234 249 251 237 241 268 327 342 281 2 698 (10/13)

France* 5 039 5 529 5 820 5 965 5 082 5 546 6 063 4 873 4 777 6 131 54 825 (10/13)

Germany** 7 332 5 806 5 579 7 541 7 477 8 508 9 516 9 502 11 461 12 940 85 562 (10/13)

Greece 754 707 608 744 594 536 776 4 719 (07/13)

Hungary° 300 672 1 350 1 966 3 337 4 116 2 189 13 930 (07/13)

Ireland 79 83 65 92 80 73 70 65 80 687 (09/13)

Luxemburg 73 69 71 90 65 89 109 74 111 121 84 956 (11/13)

Netherlands 1 305 975 956 1 043 903 1 038 1 189 1 077 1 494 1 558 11 538 (10/13)

Norway 991 683 837 814 761 912 1 269 1 625 1 377 1 075 10 344 (10/13)

Poland°°° 617 702 1 279 1 915 2 857 2 296 1 597 975 712 537 377 13 864 (11/13)

Romania° 121 94 125 131 137 103 184 95 183 135 1 308 (10/13)

Slovakia° 15 12 14 24 33 35 21 34 7 31 226 (10/13)

Slovenia° 49 14 31 21 30 22 13 16 14 19 229 (10/13)

Spain 284 447 436 406 444 452 433 300 352 354 3 908 (10/13)

Sweden 3 800 2 969 2 963 3 058 3 080 2 977 4 080 4 798 7 767 7 915 43 407 (10/13)

Switzerland 2 141 1 749 1 824 2 067 1 654 1 545 1 819 1 554 1 488 1 839 17 725 (10/13)

UK*** 2 406 2 265 2 305 2 450 2 363 2 376 2 691 2 323 2 547 21 726 (09/13)

Australia 4 513 2 392 2 624 2 869 3 671 2 260 1 083 1 178 1 080 21 670 (09/13)

Canada 788 661 691 830 777 730 829 911 1 110 1 133 8 460 (10/13)

USA** 3 849 3 309 3 603 3 546 4 462 3 954 4 137 3 922 3 578 4 248 38 608 (10/13)

Source: Secretariat of the Inter-governmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (IGC); UNHCR. The figures given in this table take into account monthly corrections. They may there-fore be different from other comparative tables published elsewhere, which apparently do not amend their records on a monthly basis.

* Data do not include accompanied minor dependants.** Dependants are only counted if an application is filed separately. ° New applicants*** Data include dependants °+ Figures exclude dependants+++ Figures include second and third applications as well as babies°°° Figures include repeat applications

Migration News Sheet

applicants were either deported to their countries of origin or to Turkey, or released in 2010.

The Greek Government rejected the claims of inhuman and degrading treatment at theVenna detention Centre, affirming that during the entire duration of their detention, theywere held in cells that offered adequate conditions.

They were able to benefit from good conditions of hygiene and could take recreationalwalks in the courtyard adjacent to the centre.

As for the quality of food, the Greek Go-vernment claimed that it was satisfactory andthat detainees were served three meals per day. Breakfast included croissants withcoffee, milk or fruit juice.

Noting that the parties were in disagreement as to detention conditions, the ECHRconsidered that the version given by the applicants, detained in the Venna centrebetween the end of 2009 and early 2010, have been corroborated by several concurringreports of international bodies.

Among such reports is that of the Council of Europe's anti-torture watchdog, the CPT,which visited Venna in 2009 and noted the inadequate conditions of detention whichwere already criticised in 2007, in particular those concerning the living space and thestate of the detention cells, hygiene, the possibility of physical exer-cise and the qualityof medical services.

For their part, the Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations on torture and other cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred NOWAK, and his successor,François CRÉPEAU, have confirmed the observations made by the CPT in its report.

Besides, Mr NOWAK pointed out that the director of the Venna Centre had himselfcomplained of the living conditions of the said place for being inadequate, not only forthe detainees but also for the staff members.

Moreover, he considered that the centre of Venna could not satisfy the more essentialneeds of detainees even though it was intended for detention of long duration.

These observations were also confirmed by Mr NOVAK's successor, Prof CRÉPEAU, whovisited Greece from 25 November to 3rd December 2012.

He also noted that the centre of Venna closed down after his visit.

For the ECHR, all these elements are enough to conclude that Greece had violatedArticle 3 of the Convention in the detention conditions of the 12 asylum-seekers whowere subjected to degrading treatment.

Regarding the violation of Article 5 (4) of the Convention, the ECHR reiterated thecriticisms which it has already made in a number of rulings on Greece's appealsprocedure in so far as it concerns foreigners who challenge the lawfulness of theirdetention.

The ECHR had noted in previous rulings that this procedure was tinged with ambiguityin so far as the way the relevant legal provision was drafted, with the result that thepresiding judge was not competent to judge the lawfulness of an expulsion order, whichformed the legal basis of the detention.

The presiding judge could only evaluate whether the foreigner could be held indetention by considering the risk of this person absconding or posing a threat to publicpolicy.

Whilst it is true that the said legal provi-sion has since been amended and a presidingjudge is now competent to examine the lawfulness of detention or its extension, thenew version only came into force on 1st January 2011, whereas the grievances of the12 asylum-seekers concerned the period of the end of 2009 and during 2010.

Each of the 12 asylum-seekers was awarded non-pecuniary damage, ranging from5,000 EUR to 10,000 EUR.

Conditions of detention of Iranian asylum-seeker inGreece amounted to an Article 3 violation

In what seems to be a continuing series of finding of Article 3 violations by Greece, theEuropean Court of Human Rights handed down, on 19 December 2013, anotherunanimous decision, condemning the inhuman and degrading conditions in whichasylum-seekers and other irregular migrants are held in Greece.

As in all similar cases, the Greek Government refuted the claims of such conditions andprovided its own version of the facts, which are fully in contradiction with descriptionsgiven by various human rights bodies and association, including the Council of Europe'santi-torture watchdog, the CPT and the UNCHR.

The present case concerns an Iranian national, B.M., born in 1985, who is apparentlyno longer in Greece, but has managed to started a new life in some unknown place inthe UK. (Application no. 53608/11)

His complaints concerned essentially the conditions of his detention pending hisremoval from Greece to Turkey.

As a militant journalist, the applicant fled Iran in 2010 after being arrested and thentortured on account of his protests against the regime in power.

After passing through Turkey, he arrived in Greek to seek political asylum.

Shortly after his arrival there, the decision was taken to deport him to Turkey. Pendinghis deportation, he was taken into custody, being held first at a police station and laterin three other detention centres, that of Feres, Venna and Soufli, for a total period ofaround five months.

In October 2010, he lodged an application for asylum, but it was dismissed.

Complaining mainly about the overcrowding and unhygienic conditions of the placeswhere he was held, he lodged objections against his detention, but they were alsorejected.

After appealing against the dismissal of his asylum application in December 2010, hewas released in 2011 as his detention could no longer legally be extended.

As he failed to appear before the competent authority examining his appeal against thedenial of asylum, that authority concluded that he was no longer interested in pursuingthe matter.

The applicant had apparently spent the greater part of his period of detention in theSoufli centre.

Responding to the Greek Government's rather positive description of this place, theECHR pointed out that visits carried out by governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies have enabled them to affirm quite the contrary.

Among such bodies have been the UNHCR, the CPT, the National Committee for HumanRights, the Ombudsman, and the German NGO, Pro Asyl.

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.16

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Yet another warning of squalor and inhumanconditions at a Greek detention centre

On 17 December 2013, the medical charity Doctors of the World raised the alarmin Evros by presenting a new report on the living conditions of migrants/asylum-seekers held inside detention centres in Evros during the period of January to April 2013.

The conditions in such centres are rather gloomy, with people living under unac-ceptable condition, such as lack of sanitation, heating, lighting and ventilation.

A number of the people held there are in poor physical health with some sufferingmental disorders due to the unlawful and prolonged detention.

infections and gastric problems and thefact that detainees were not providedwith a medical examination.

All the centre's doctor did was todistribute painkillers through the bars ofthe door.

If detainees needed other kinds ofmedical treatment, they had to pay for it.Detainees were also required to pay foridentity photos taken by the authorities toplace on various documents.

More than a year later, following its visitto the Soufli centre in January 2011, theCPT provided a similar, horrifyingdescription of the place, noting that onthe day of the visit there were 146 mendetained there and their total space ofdetention was no more than 110m², orless than 1m² per person.

The applicant's attempts to complain ofhis conditions of detention were in vain.The same legal provision governing suchappeals did not authorise the presidingjudge to verify the lawfulness ofdetention (see above) or the conditions.

This legal provision was amended, butthe new version did not come into forceuntil 1st January 2011.

Therefore, in addition to a violation ofArticle 3, the ECHR found that Greece hadalso violated Article 13 (right to an effec-tive remedy) in combination with Article 3.

The ECHR also awarded the application8,000 EUR in terms of non-pecuniarydamage.

France may not expel aPakistani who risk persecutionon account of his conversionto the Ahmadiyya faith

In a unanimous Chamber decisionhanded down on 19 December 2013, theEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECHR)ruled that if France carried out theexpulsion order issued to a rejectedPakistani asylum-seeker, N.K., it wouldbe in violation of Article 3 of theConvention (prohibition of inhuman anddegrading treatment or torture).(Application no. 7974/11)

What is quite significant in this ruling,although not yet final, is that for the thirdtime in just over six months the ECHR hasimplicitly, it not explicitly, criticised theway the French Refugee Board (OFPRA)and its instance of appeal, the CNDA,

have rejected an asylum application onthe grounds of, inter alia, lack ofcredibility, providing a rather superficialprocedure and concluding that theelements in the applicant's dossier didnot provide sufficient guarantees ofauthenticity. (See M.E. v. France;application no. 50094/10 in MNS July2013 and K.K. v. France; application no.18913/11 in MNS, Nov. 2013).

N.K.is a Pakistani national who was bornin 1989 in a family of Sunnite Muslimsand lives in Créteil, France.

The case concerned his potential removalfrom France to Pakistan, where he saidthat he would sustain inhuman ordegrading treatment.

Following his conversion to the Ahmadiy-ya religion, according to whose rites hewas married in 2009, Mr N.K.'s cousinfiled a complaint against him forproselytising.

Shortly afterwards he was allegedlyabducted, confined then tortured forseveral days before managing to escapefrom his kidnappers.

After learning that an arrest warrant hadbeen issued against him for preachingthe Ahmadiyya religion, Mr N.K. leftPakistan.

He arrived in France in August 2009 andapplied for asylum. Finding that hisstatements were not sufficiently sub-stantiated, the OFPRA rejected hisapplication in October 2009.

For identical reasons, his appeal beforethe CNDA (second instance) was turneddown in July 2009.

Further to a decision refusing him leaveto remain and ordering his departurefrom France, Mr N.K. was arrested andplaced in a detention centre.

His request for the re-examination of hisasylum application was rejected by theOFPRA on 4 February 2011, at whichpoint he requested the ECHR to indicatean interim measure under Rule 39 of itsRules of Court.

The ECHR accepted his request andindicated to the Government not toproceed with N.K.'s removal.

On 13 July 2011 the CNDA dismissed theapplicant's appeal against the OFPRA'sdecision of 4 February 2011.

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 17

According to the reports of these bodies,nothing has changed in the conditions atthe Soufli centre which the ECHR hadalready criticised in previous rulings thatdealt with, inter alia, this same place.

The National Committee for HumanRights and the Ombudsman did point tosome improvements, but their visit to theSoufli centre was carried out after theapplicant's period of detention.

On the other hand, the UNHCR visited theSoufli centre from 29 September to 1stOctober 2010, when the applicant waspresent or had just left or had beentransferred elsewhere and took note ofserious lack of facilities to ensure basichuman dignity.

The centre then consisted of twodormitories with beds of cement.

The atmosphere was suffocatingbecause of the lack of ventilation.

Windows were far too high to provideenough air and lighting. Mattresses andblankets were filthy.

The only two toilets and two showerswere located in the same detention spaceand were both filthy and full of waste andlitter.

Women were held under similar condi-tions, without separation from the maledetainees.

Whatever sanitary facilities that wereavailable were filthy and there was aserious lack of toiletries, such as soap,toilet paper, towels, etc.

Several detainees complained of skin

Make life "intolerable" for asylum-seekers so as to discourageothers from coming, says head of Greek police

During the time when he was the minister of interior, from 1988 to 1994 theBelgian Socialist politician Louis TOBBACK once said that it was necessary toensure that the "living room" was "not too comfortable" as otherwise moreasylum-seekers would arrive in Belgium.

This idea has apparently long been adopted in Greece. In its edition of 19December 2013, the magazine "Hot Doc" claimed to have evidence that the headof the Greek police, Nikos PAPAGIANNOPOULOS had ordered his subordinates to"make life intolerable" for migrants (including asylum-seekers) to make themleave the country and deter new asylum-seekers from crossing the Greek border.

The order was issued at a discussion among high ranking police officers.

Amnesty International reacted by calling on the Greek authorities on 20 December2013 to launch an immediate investigation into the allegations made in "HotDoc", and determine whether these "deeply shocking statements" were made. Ifso, appropriate action must be taken to ensure that Greek law enforcementofficials do their duty and protect migrants' rights.

The magazine also reported on testimonies by Syrian and Afghan asylum-seekerswho claimed to have been victims of violence and the practice of push-back bythe Greek police and coastguard.

They claimed to have had their valuables and money stolen and have had toendure beatings, insults and even rape.

Among those testifying was a 27-year old man by the name of Samir who hadworked for the UNHCR in Damascus.

In another report of similar practices or rather malpractices, the daily Efimeridaton Syntakton (17.12.2013) informed that 14 irregular migrants or asylum-seekers were abandoned by the Greek authorities on a small dinghy off the islandof Lesvos, after having been beaten.

There was, apparently an arrangement with the Turkish authorities to take themback to Turkish territory.

One of the asylum-seekers who testified, an 18-year old youth, claimed that hehad already been pushed back three times by the Greek authorities.

In its observations presented, the French Government argued that the general situationfor the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan was not of the kind that results in anindiscriminate risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and reminded that the OFPRAand the CNDA had examined the applicant's dossier twice.

The French Government also reminded that the CNDA had, on numerous occasions,granted refugee status to Pakistan nationals who were members of the Ahmadiyyacommunity since they had proven that they were victims of violence and harassmenton the part of the Sunnite community and that the Pakistani authorities, instead ofprotecting them, had,on the contrary, tried to prosecute them on the basis of the law againstblasphemy.

The French Government considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that hisclaims to protection were well-founded. This view is not shared by the ECHR.

The ECHR first referred to several sources confirming maltreatment and torture ofmembers of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan, in particular people born asSunnites and converted to this faith, and the reluctance, if not the refusal, of thePakistani authorities to protect the victim, and, on the contrary, the authorities'willingness to participate in their persecution.

Such sources include the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the coun-tryreports of the US State Department, and the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of theBritish Upper Tribunal.

Whilst affirming that membership of the Ahmadiyya community does not, in itself,trigger the protection offered by Article 3, the ECHR pointed out that the applicant mustdemonstrate that s/he openly prac-tices this faith and is a convert, or is at least perceiveas such by the Pakistani authorities.

Contrary to the view of the French Government, the ECHR considered that the accountsprovided by the applicant were substantiated by numerous documents, such as his actof conversion, his marriage certificate proving that it took place in accordance with theAhmadiyya faith, an arrest warrant issued against him and dated 27 July 2009 andcopies of complaints submitted against him to the Pakistani authorities.

The ECHR noted that these documents, which corroborated his accounts, weredismissed by both the OFPRA and the CNDA with succinct reasons.

As a matter of fact, the applicant's request for protection was rejected in the firstinstance without even having the chance of an oral hearing, solely on the grounds thathis written statements were summary, hardly credible and devoid of any personalisedand well-argued facts.

On appeal, the CNDA limited itself to affirming that the supporting documents did nothave sufficient guarantees of authenticity and that they were not conclusive in provingthe alleged facts.

Whilst it is true that both the OFPRA and the CNDA examined the applicant's dossier fora second time, they did, in fact, do no more than dismiss the second application for notcontaining anything new.

Besides, in the French Government's own observations, nothing was said to clearly castdoubts on the authenticity of the documents submitted in support of the applicant'sasylum claims.

Given the afore-mentioned considerations, the ECHR concluded that the FrenchGovernment had not provided any pertinent information given rising to doubt theveracity of the applicant's claim as to the events which led to the departure from hishome country and there is thus no reason to doubt his credibility.

Regarding the question as to whether the applicant runs the risk of maltreatment uponhis return, he has submitted reports of preliminary inquiries initiated after complaintswere lodged against him.

The French Government has not questioned the authenticity of these reports whichcertifies, at the very least, that the applicant's adherence to the Ahmadiyya faith isknown to the Pakistani authorities and that this has given rise to charges laid againsthim, notably for blasphemy.

The ECHR therefore concluded that the applicant is considered by the Pakistaniauthorities not merely as someone of the Ahmadiyya faith, but rather as a convert andhe therefore has the distinguishable profile of someone likely to attract the un-favourable attention of the Pakistani authorities upon return to his home country.

Given that the French Government had failed to seriously cast doubt on the reality of theapplicant's fears, that he has the profile of a convert, and bearing in mind the situationof the followers of the Ahmadiyya faith in Pakistan, the French Government would be inviolation of Article 3 if it carried out his forced repatriation.

No risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in three cases ofthree rejected asylum-seekers challenging expulsion fromSweden

In three separate chamber judgments handed down on 19 December 2013, each oneconcerning a rejected Iraqi asylum-seeker, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)has ruled, by a majority, that their expulsion from Sweden would not amount to anArticle 2 and or 3 violation.

All three are to continue to benefit from interim measures and may not be expelled untiltheir respective judgment becomes final or until further order.

However, given the latest case law developments concerning the situation in Iraq andthe internal flight option there (see MNS, Aug. 2013), it is most unlikely that any of thesethree cases will even succeed in going before the Grand Chamber of 17 judges.

One concerns B.K.A., a Sunni Muslim born in 1984 from Baghdad, who has allegedthat his forced repatriation to Iraq would expose him to the risk of persecution and ill-

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.18

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Rulings upholding right of Sweden to expel Christian Iraqis are nowfinal - requests to be referred to Grand Chamber have been denied

On 9 December 2013, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to denyreferral to Grand Chamber of 17 judges three cases concerning Christian Iraqisdenied protection in Sweden. The Swedish authorities may now proceed with theirexpulsion, unless they decide to leave voluntarily.

The three cases are: A.G.AM. v. Sweden (application no. 71680/10), N.K.N. v.Sweden (application no. 72413/10) and M.Y.H. v. Sweden (application no. 50859/10).

These three cases were among five others, all rejected asylum-seekers facingdeportation from Sweden. In all eight judgments, handed down on 27 June 2013,the applicants were turned down by a five to two majority, with the two dissentingjudges, Ann POWER-FORDE (Irish), supported by Bostjan ZUPANCIC (Slovenian),voicing their very strong disagreement with the majority. (See MNS, Aug. 2013).

Judge POWER-FORDE raised a few quite relevant points which, it was hoped,would have been examined by the Grand Chamber, in particular the availability ofan internal flight option for the applicants concerned.

She reminded that in Salah Sheekh versus the Netherlands (application no.1948/04; 11.01.2007), the ECHR ruled that certain guarantees had to be in placebefore an internal flight opinion could be acceptable as not incurring the risk of anArticle 3 violation.

This condition was reaffirmed in Sufi and Elmi versus the UK (applications nos.8319/07 and 11449/07; ruling of 28.06.2011).

Judge POWER-FORDE noted that the prerequisites outlined by the ECHR in theafore-mentioned rulings were not observed by the majority.

treatment because he had worked as aprofessional soldier, in a paramilitarygroup, the Fedayeen, from January 2002to March 2003 during the regime ofSaddam HUSSEIN, he had been amember of the Ba'ath Party, and, he hadbeen involved in a blood feud in Iraq afteraccidentally shooting and killing arelative. (Application no. 11161/11)

In its assessment, the majority (six to one)expressed the view that "it appears thatthe overall situation has been slowly im-proving since the peak in violence in2007".

The majority recalled the ECHR ruling of20 January 2009 in the case of F.H. v.Sweden (application no. 32621/06) inwhich it concluded that the generalsituation in Iraq was not so serious as tocause, by itself, a violation of Article 3 ofthe Convention in the event of a person'sreturn to that country.

"Taking into account the international andnational reports available today, the Courtsees no reason to alter the position takenin this respect four years ago", affirmedthe majority.

Regarding the applicant's membership ofthe Ba'ath Party and Fedayeen, the ECHRnoted that this was more than 10 yearsago and although those active in thesetwo groups "may still be at risk today,(…) it appears that this is so only incertain parts of Iraq and only if someother factors are at hand, such as theindividual having held a prominentposition in either organisation", which isnot the applicant's case.

As for the applicant' claim that he istargeted in a relatives' blood feud, nomaterial has been presented to sub-stantiate this fear. Even assuming that thefear is real, the majority consider that therisk is essentially limited to the regions ofBaghdad and Diyala, and that theapplicant has an internal fight option,such as in Anbar governorate where "hemay reasonably settle".

As she had already stated when she wasamong the two dissenting judges in anumber of cases of Iraqis threatened withexpulsion from Sweden (see MNS, Aug.2013), Judge Ann POWER-FORDE, theonly dissenting judge here, recalled theconditions to be met for an internal flightoption to be considered as acceptable:the person concerned must be able totravel safely to the area concerned, s/hemust be able to gain admittance there,

and s/he must be able to settle there.

Judge POWER-FORDE considered thevery first condition has not been met,since "there is no mention anywhere inthe judgment as to how the (Swedish)Government proposes to have theapplicant travel to the area concerned.

Moreover, she disagrees with the majorityon the current situation in Iraq where, inher view, there has been an escalation ofviolence, which has added to the impor-tance of the transit risks to be considered.

She recalled her strong objections to theavailability of an internal flight obligationin M.Y.H. and Others v. Sweden(application no. 50859/10; ruling of 27June 2013), and felt that "this case raisesa serious question concerning theapplication of the Convention and, inparticular, the quality of the guaranteesthat must exist as a precondition for aState's reliance upon internal flightrelocation as a means of circumventingthe absolute nature of the prohibitioncontained in Article 3 of the Convention.

The second case concerns T.A., a SunniMuslim born in 1979 and from Baghdad,who arrived in Sweden on 11 November2007 and first submitted, the followingday, a residence permit. When this failed,he applied for asylum on 28 May 2008,claiming that because of his previouswork in Baghdad in 2007 for securitycompanies which had co-operated withthe US military, he would be at risk oftreatment contrary to Article 3 and Article2 (right to life) if returned to Iraq.

He fears being apprehended and torturedby the militia and possibly even killed.

The majority of five to two also referred tothe ECHR ruling in the case of F.H. v.Sweden (application no. 32621/06)recalling that in 2008, the generalsituation in Iraq was not so serious as tocause, by itself, an Article 3 violation forpeople returning there.

Referring to national and internationalreports on Iraq, the majority did notconsider it necessary to come to adifferent evaluation in the present case.

The majority gave quite some weight toan apparent contradiction between theapplicant's account of what had hap-pened to his home and what his brotherand neighbours had told the police aboutthis same house.

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 19

The applicant claimed that his home was completely destroyed in November 2007whereas in one of the documents which he had submitted, his brother and neighbourstold the police that four unidentified men had gone to this same house in October 2008,almost a year after it had allegedly been completely destroyed.

In the majority's view, this inconsistency "seriously weakens the applicant's credibility,not only in regard to this particular incident, but also with respect to the other parts ofhis story".

The majority then pointed to the fact that the applicant had left Iraq in November 2007and during the following six years he has not worked for any security company orother employer with a US affiliation during this period.

In the view of the majority, "the interest that certain groups or individuals may havehad in the applicant personally must have waned considerably".

Moreover, the majority considered that the applicant's claim of the risk ofmaltreatment at the hands of his clan in Iraq and from the US military lacks supportingevidence.

In their Dissenting Opinion, Judge Ann POWER-FORDE, joined by Judge Bostjan M.ZUPANCIC, recalled the risk of being targeted by non-State agents faced by all thosewho worked or collaborated with the foreign forces who invaded Iraq.

They pointed to the position of the UNHCR that "such individuals associated with orperceived to have been associated with supporting the US forces in Iraq are,depending on the circumstances, likely to be in need of international refugeeprotection on account of their (imputed) political opinion".

The two judges also disagreed with the majority's view on the current situation in Iraq,pointing to reports that "2013 has, thus far, been the deadliest year in Iraq since 2008,with the civilian death toll put at 1,121 for November alone, and an additional 1,349people injured, according to the Ministry of Interior.

Even if it can be accepted that the current situation in Iraq is not, in itself, sufficient fora person faced with repatriation to lay claim to the protection afforded under Article 3,"the significant escalation of violence this year is, nevertheless, of sufficientseriousness as to weigh heavily in the balance when assessing, cumulatively, any riskof exposure of treatment that would violate Article 3 of the Convention".

Moreover, the two judges considered it "questionable" the arguments put forward bythe Swedish authorities to cast doubt on the applicant's credibility.

Two judgments criticising Malta's policy ofdetaining asylum-seekers are now final

Two Chamber judgments, both handed down on 23rd July 2013, stronglycriticising Malta's policy of detaining asylum-seekers, are now final after thedecision made by a panel of five judges to turn down the Maltese Government'srequest to have the two cases referred to the Grand Chamber.

One concerns a Somali woman, Aslya Aden AHMED, who was pregnant at the timeof her detention (application no. 55352/12), and the other concerns the detentionof an asylum-seeker from Sierra Leone, Ibrahim SUSO MUSA (see MNS,Aug. 2013).

Both rulings were unanimous and the ECHR was particularly critical of Malta'streatment of Ms AHMED, who was held for 14 ½ months in an immigrantdetention context and subsequently miscarried.

She was awarded the sum of 30,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

As for Mr SUSO MUSA, he remained in detention almost a year after his asylumapplication was definitely rejected, during which time the Maltese authoritiesfailed to demonstrate diligence in having him deported or deciding whether toallow him to stay.

The Swedish Migration Board thus found it "peculiar" that the applicant claimed that hebegan receiving threats only in 2007, four years after he had started working withsecurity companies, even though it was not until 2007 that his employer started only inthat year to collaborate with the US authorities.

Another reason to doubt the applicant's credibility was the fact that he was unable toidentify the attackers or the persons who "visited" his house in October 2007.

"How, precisely, are victims of targeted violence supposed to 'identify' those whoterrorise them in arbitrary and unpredictable attacks?" asked the two dissenting judges.

As for the inconsistency between the date given by the applicant when his home wascompletely destroyed and the claim by his brother and neighbours that his home hadbeen visited by four unidentified men more than one year later, the two dissenting judgesaccused the majority of giving "too much weight to this alleged discrepancy and toolittle weight to the overall credibility of the applicant".

In the third case against Sweden, that of T.K.H., a Sunni Muslim born in 1985 fromMosul, the applicant claims that he would be at risk of ill-treatment and his life wouldbe put in danger because, following the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, he hadserved from 2003 to 2006 in the new Iraqi army who worked together with US troops.

He claimed, in particular, that he had been seriously injured in March 2006 in a suicidebomb explosion, which left 30 soldiers dead, 25 Iraqis and five Ameri-cans, as well asin June 2007 when a car went past his front yard and opened fire, hitting him once.

After this latter incident, he began to receive death threats and this prompted him to gointo hiding and to subsequently flee the country.

As in the two afore-mentioned cases, the majority (six to one) saw no need to revise theECHR view, affirmed in a ruling on 20 January 2009, that the general situation in Iraqwas not so serious as to expose returned asylum-seekers to treatment contrary toArticle 3.

Whilst recognising that the applicant belonged to a group, namely the Iraqi securityforces, who are subjected to frequent targeted attacks by various armed militia, themajority stressed that he had left the Iraqi army in March 2006, more than seven yearsago, and "it would seem unlikely therefore that he would be at risk of personal attackstoday".

Regarding the attacks which inflicted serious injuries on him at the end of 2004 and inMarch 2006, they "must be seen as events that affected him solely because he was onduty at places in question and not as attacks directed at him personally.

There was an attack made against him in June 2007, more than one year after he hadleft the army and although the majority did not exclude that the motive could have beenrelated to his involvement in the Iraqi army, they stressed that "it occurred more thansix years ago, at a time when violence in Iraq reached its highest level".

The majority did not consider relevant his claims that unknown persons have beensearching for him on several occasions since he had presented nothing to substantiatethis.

Regarding his leg injuries and severe pain as a result of attacks while in the army, theonly surgical treatment available is amputation, but since he has refused this option, allthat remained was treatment for his pain and discomfort.

The majority considered that he could continue receiving treatment in Iraq, "althoughthe care given may well not meet the standards of the care available in Sweden".

The dissenting judge was again Judge Ann POWER-FORDE who provided, but moreforcefully, similar reasons for disagreeing with the majority in the afore-mentioned caseof T.A. v. Sweden.

She stressed that in this case, neither the domestic authorities nor the majority had

questioned the applicant's general credibility.

Yet their conclusion is that the attacks which he suffered were not directed against him"personally" and therefore he had no grounds to fear reprisals upon his return to Iraq.

Judge POWER-FORDE recalled the attacks in 2004 and 2006, which left the applicantwith very serious injuries, but the majority accepted the domestic authorities' argumentthat the authors targeted the applicant's military service and not him "personally".

"When suicide bombers attacked a military base precisely because it was a militarybase and the applicant was a member of the military injured in that attack, it is difficultto see how the attack was not directed at him 'personally' precisely because he was amember of the army", she wrote.

She also criticised the conclusion that since the applicant did not know the identity ofthose who attacked him later while he was living in Mosul, the aggression was notconnected to him "personally" but rather connected to the "difficult security situation".

As in her Dissenting Opinion in the case of T.A., Judge POWER-FORDE asked why"precisely, are victims of targeted violence supposed to 'know' the identity of those whoterrorise them in arbitrary and unpredictable attacks and how or why such 'knowledge'can strengthen an asylum claim".

"To be required to meet such an onerous test of knowledge of the identity of an attackeris to impose upon a person seeking asylum an unreasonable and disproportionateburden", noted Judge POWER-FORDE.

She stressed once again her strong disagreement with the majority who affirmedthat "the overall situation (in Iraq) has been slowly improving since the peak inviolence in 2007.

According to her, the contrary has happened, thus rendering less relevant the fact that

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.20

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Opinion poll results suggest that almost two-thirds of Bulgariansdo not want any more Syrian refugees

According to the results of an opinion poll published on 6 December 2013, 62.2%of respondents said that they did not want any more refugees in their country.

Only 15% agreed that Bulgaria should continue to accept refugees and 22.7%said that they had no opinion.

Opinion poll experts have pointed out that the rather negative attitude towardsrefugees may, in part, be due to one of the questions asked, namely: "Do you thinkthe Government is able to deal with Syrian refugees in the country and take careof them?"

65.2% of respondents said "no" while only 10.9% considered that theGovernment was in control of the situation.

The poll was carried out by the Sova Harris agency among 1,000 respondents invarious parts of the country.

In a related development the following day, the UNHCR expressed its concern tothe Bulgarian authorities about the increasing intolerance towards asylum-seekers, which has sometimes degenerated into gratuitous physical aggressionagainst them.

The UNHCR also cautioned the Bulgarian authorities against putting asylum-seekers in "closed-type centres", reminding that seeking protection "is not acrime and detention must be a measure of last resort".

Moreover, the UN agency was critical about reception conditions, pointing to thepoor infrastructure, largely inadequate sanitary facilities and lack of food to theextent that it has had to start handing out food supplies to those asylum-seekersaccommodated at the centre in Harmanli.

six years have passed since theapplicant's departure from Iraq.

As for the applicant's physicaldisabilities, Judge POWER-FORDEaccepts that this alone does not entitlehim to remain in Sweden.

However, "in the overall circumstances ofthis case, the applicant's seriousdisability is an important factor to whichregard should be had when consideringhis deportation to a country whererandom violence and terrorist attacks arewidespread", she argued.

Germany

Pupils in Hamburg "go onstrike" in favour of Africanasylum-seekers

On 12 December 2013, more than 3,500pupils of schools in Hamburg wereabsent from classes to gather at thecity's main train station and then marchtowards the offices of the SocialDemocratic Party (SPD).

They were protesting in support of agroup of around 300 African asylum-seekers who had previously been on theItalian island of Lampedusa.

Strictly speaking, these asylum-seekersshould be sent back to Italy by virtue ofthe EU's Dublin II Regulation on the deter-mination of responsibility for examining aprotection claim lodged within the EU.

In order to send them back, Germanymust have concrete proof that they werepreviously in Italy, such as the finger-prints of these people in the centraliseddata system, known as EURODAC.However, it is an open secret that theItalian authorities often neglect their dutyof taking fingerprints of people enteringthe country unlawfully or irregularly.

In any case, the regional government ofHamburg is not in favour of allowingthese asylum-seekers to remain.

Agreement to take in 5,000more Syrian refugees,bringing the total to 10,000

On 5 December 2013, the DeutschePresse Agentur (DPA) reported that theConfe-rence of Ministers of Interior(regional ones plus the Federal Minister)(IMK) had agreed to grant "specialprotection" to an additional 5,000 Syrianrefugees.

The previous Federal Government had al-ready decided in March 2013 to accept5,000 Syrians and this latest decisionbrings the total to 10,000.

According to Die Welt (5.12.2013), theSocial Democrats (SPD) had beenpushing for the acceptance of a total of20,000 Syrians or an additional 15,000.The IMK's decision was therefore acompromise between the SPD and theChristian Democrats (CDU/CSU).

Syrians granted entry under thisagreement are issued initially with a two-year residence permit.

Greece

UNHCR expresses concernover fate of some 150Syrian asylum-seekersallegedly pushed back toTurkey by Greek officials

Human rights activists have expressedconcern over the fate of some 150 Syrianasylum-seekers who were pushed backto Turkey by Greek officials from thenorthern frontier village of Praggi in mid-November 2013 (see MNS, Dec. 2013).

"The number and scale of these allegedincidents raises serious concerns," saidKetty KEHAYIOYLOU, senior officer at theAthens office of the UNHCR.

"We still don't know what happened tothe two groups in Praggi," she added.

"It is outrageous that people in need ofinternational protection should be obstructedfrom getting it in this way", commentedAphrodite STAMBOULI, MP of the radicalleft main opposition SYRIZA party.

Demonstrators have protested outside thepolice headquarters in Orestiada in a dis-play of outrage over the incident in Praggi.

Italy

Return of wife and daughterof leading Kazakh dissident

On 27 December 2013,Alma SHALABAYEVA,the wife of Kazakh oligarch and politicaldissident Mukhtar ABLYAZOV, returned toRome with her daughter, Alua, after theirexpulsion on board a private jet toKazakhstan in May 2013.

Their expulsion by their Italian policecreated considerable embarrassment forItaly since they have the legal right to

Migration News Sheet

January 2014. Migration News Sheet. All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 21

reside there.There were accusations thatcertain very high-ranking officials in theItalian Government had collaborated withthe Kazakh authorities to enable theexpulsion of Mr ABLYAZOV's wife.

Mr ABLYAZOV is himself quite anenigmatic figure and stands accused ofhaving embezzled the Kazakh State-ownbank BTA of several billion EUR, a chargewhich he vehemently denies and claimsthat this is all part of a smear campaignagainst him by his home country.

It has been reported that he and hisfamily were granted refugee status in theUK in 2009. Whether this is or was truecannot be confirmed.

He has been in police custody in southernFrance since his arrest near Cannes inJuly 2013. On 13 December 2013, it wasreported that public prosecutors handlinghis case had decided to recommend hisextradition to Russia. (Kazakhstan doesnot have an extradition treaty withFrance.) A decision on this matter isexpected on or after 16 January 2014.

On 9 December 2013,Muratbek KETEBAYEV,another Kazakh opposition activist and aclose associate of Mr ABLYAZOV, wasgranted refugee status in Poland.

Asylum-seekers at thecentre in Lampedusa havebeen evacuated

On 23rd December 2013, the deputyMinister of Interior, Filippo BUBBICOannounced that all the people held at the

so-called First Hosting Centre (CPA) inLampedusa would be evacuated by thenext day and taken to other centres onthe Peninsular.

The CPA came under considerable na-tional and international attention after anItalian TV channel showed footage of avideo of detainees having to undress to besprayed with disinfectant against scabies.

A centre-left MP (PD), Khalid CHAOUKI,who arrived at the CPA in Lampedusa on22nd December 2013, was shocked tosee that among the detainees were atleast seven survivors of the majordrowning tragedy that occurred off theisland of 3rd October 2013, resulting inthe deaths of 366 people.

In principle, asylum-seekers/irregularmigrants who land on the island ofLampedusa cannot be held at the CPA formore than four days or 96 hours.

Mr CHAOUKI therefore decided to remainwith the detainees until they wereevacuated from the island. He was joinedthe following day by the island's mayor,Giusi NICOLINI, an outspoken critic ofItaly's immigration laws.

Mr CHOUKI spent the night in a room withseven other Syrians. In spite of theconditions, he acknowledged that staff atthe centre "did what they could to help".

"I saw people ready to provide assis-tance. But what can they do when, in asingle day, 1,000 migrants disembark atthe same time?" he asked.

Approval rate for protection in Greece has reached 12.8%

On the occasion of the visit to Greece by the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs,Cecilia MALMSTRÖM on 3rd December 2013, the new Asylum Services under theresponsibility of the Ministry of Public Order announced that it had received 4,189applications for international protection since 7 June 2013.

1,670 of them had already been processed and 213 applicants were granted protec-tion. The Asylum Services did not specify whether they received full refugee statusor subsidiary protection status. In any case, the overall approval rate of 12.8% is avery significant improvement, considering that it used to be around 1% or even less.

On the other hand, asylum-seekers can still only apply at three places, Athens,Evros and Lesvos. They therefore face long hours of queue and/or having to travelconsiderable distances to submit their claims for protection, often in fear of beingarrested as an illegal immigrant while on route.

It has been reported by those detained by the police that they are usuallydiscouraged from seeking asylum.

Moreover, according to NGOs working in the field, the overwhelming majority ofasylum-seekers are still being systematically and unjustifiably detained forprolonged periods.

Malta

"Charitable granting ofcitizenship"

On 9 December 2013, as a debate oncitizenship was taking place, Mgr PhilipCALLEJA, Director of the Emigrants' Com-mission, proposed that Maltese nationalitybe given out of charity to children whowould otherwise be Stateless.

He had in mind babies and children ofasylum-seekers rescued at sea by theArmed Forces of Malta or allowed to landin Malta.

He stressed that his proposal was onlyintended for those who did not have anyknown nationality. It would be grantingcitizenship out of charity, he added.

Sweden

Rejected Iranian asylum-seekerwants to sue Sweden forhaving deported him to Iraq

After suffering for three years in a Bagh-dad prison, a rejected Iranian asylum-seeker is back in Sweden and intends tosue the Swedish State for havingdeported him to Iraq, instead of Iran.

The fault was partially his because whenhe first arrived in Sweden 11 years agohe had claimed to be from Iraq becausehe thought that this would increase hischances of obtaining protection.

His asylum application was eventually re-jected and the lie that he told was quicklyuncovered by the Migration Board.

In Sweden, it is the police who deal withthe execution of deportation orders andwhen they consulted his dossier and sawthat Iraq was mentioned as his homecountry, he was deported there.

Upon his arrival in Baghdad, he wasarrested for being in possession of falsedocuments and sent to prison. He claimsthat while imprisoned he lost severalteeth, developed diabetes and suffersfrom depression as a consequence.

Switzerland

New accelerated asylumprocedures on 1st February 2014

On 11 December 2013, the FederalGovernment decided that the new

accelerated procedures of asylum willcome into force on 1st February 2013.

The initial phase will be the preparatoryone and will last for a maximum of 21days or 10 days if the person is a so-called "Dublin case". During this period,the Federal Migration Office (ODM) willgather the applicant's personal data,verify his/her documentation andelements submitted to substantiatehis/her protection claims.

The second phase will last between eightand 10 working days, during which ahearing will take place and a decision willbe made on the basis of the oral andwritten submissions.

If, during the course of the hearing, it isdecided that a first instance decisioncannot be made under the acceleratedprocedure, the case is transferred to thenormal procedure and the applicant isassigned to a canton.

If the first instance decision is negative,the applicant will have 10 working days tofile an appeal and will have the right tolegal representation paid for by theFederal Government.

Those providing this legal service will be paidon the basis of a lump or forfeited sum.

The Federal Government will also financefully or partially the construction ofdetention centres in cantons to be used tohold asylum-seekers.

United Kingdom

Second expulsion by privateplane of rejected hunger-striking Nigerian asylum-seeker

On 17 December 2013, Isa MUAZU, arejected Nigerian asylum-seeker, wasflown back to his country for the secondtime, after a first attempt to repatriate himfailed, apparently because the Nigerianauthorities refused to grant the private jetpermission to land.

Mr MUAZU's repatriation has probably gonedown as one of the most expensive everfor British taxpayers, but the Home Se-cretary,Theresa MAY,was quite determinedto remove him from the UK, in spite of thesome 100 days that he had been on a hungerstrike, demanding that he be releasedfrom detention (see MNS, Dec. 2013).

The first attempt to expel Mr MUAZU tookplace on 29 November 2013. The private

jet had to hover over Nigerian territory fora few hours because its request forpermission to land was denied. The planethen returned to London, after a stopoverin Malta.

Mr MUAZU entered the UK on a six-monthvisitor's visa in July 2007 and overstayedby more than five years after it expired.He then applied for political asylum,claiming that he risked being killed byIslamist militants in his home country.

His application was processed under theaccelerated procedure and turned down.Apart from asking to be freed fromdetention, his hunger strike was also inprotest against the way his protectionclaims were handled.

"Inappropriateinvolvement" of the UK inrendition and ill-treatment

On 19 December 2013, after reviewing20,000 top secret documents followingallegations of wrongdoing by officials ofthe intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6 inthe wake of suicidal attacks in New Yorkand Washington on 11 September 2001,retired judge Peter GIBSON said that hehad found no evidence of any officialsbeing directly involved in the torture orrendition of suspects.

However, Mr GIBSON added that it "doesappear from the documents that theUnited Kingdom may have beeninappropriately involved in somerenditions. That is a very serious matter.And no doubt any future inquiry wouldwant to look at that".

Jack STRAW, who was foreign secretaryduring the period covered by MrGIBSON's report, once again stressed thathe never condoned the ill-treatment ofterror suspects while he was in office.

"I was never in any way complicit in theunlawful rendition or detention ofindividuals by the United States or any

other States", he said.

Although he acknowledged that he hadauthorised the transfer of British nationalsto US-run concentration camp inGuantanamo Bay, he stressed that he had"never agreed in any way to themistreatment of those detainees or to thedenial of their rights".

This would seem to be quite adisingenuous explanation on the part of aLabour politician who has a reputation forchoosing his words very carefully.

Surely J. STRAW must have known thatthe ultimate reason for transferring so-called terror suspects to theconcentration camp in Guantanamo Bayhas been to keep out of US judicial controlpractices which are wholly intolerable in aState under the rule of law and methodsof interrogation which are undoubtedlyclassified as torture in any country thatupholds respect for human rights.

According to Craig MURRAY, a formerBritish Ambassador to Uzbekistan, whenJ. STRAW was at the head of the UKForeign Office, diplomats were told to onlyrefer to the practice of torture verbally andnot put this down in writing.

J. STRAW is allegedly a kind of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil and speak-no-evilpolitician who, when questioned, couldrightly say that such and such thing wasdone without his knowledge.

It should be noted that on 17 April 2012,J. STRAW called for the revision of theFreedom of Information Act 2000 toprotect the secrecy of governmentdecision-making. Passed when TonyBLAIR was prime minister, the latter hassince claimed that he was an "idiot" forhaving introduced it.

Libyan wanting to seek political asylum inBritain but "rendered" to the Gaddafiregime may not seek justice in the UK

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.22

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Two months for Spanish authorities to decide togrant protection to a Syrian asylum-seeker withburns on 90% of her body

On 27 December 2013, the media denounced the fact that a Syrian asylum-seeker, with burns on 90% of her body, had to wait for two months in the enclavecity of Melilla before the Spanish authorities decided to grant her protection, thusenabling her transfer to the Peninsular for urgent medical treatment.

30-year old Manar ALMUSTAFA arrived in Melilla in November 2013. Instead ofbeing accommodated at the temporary reception centre (CETI), she decided to stayin an apartment where 12 members of her extended family were already living.

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 23

Abdul-Hakim BELHAJ, a Libyan nationaltrying to seek justice for having been"rendered" to the Gaddafi regime withthe collaboration of British intelligenceagents of MI6, has suffered an initialsetback after a High Court judge, MrJustice SIMON, declared on 20 December2013 that his claims were "non-justiciable" in the UK because most of theclaims related to officials in China,Malaysia, Thailand and Libya.

However, Mr Justice SIMON said thatthere appeared to be a "potentially well-founded claim that the UK authoritieswere directly implicated in theextraordinary rendition of the claimants"(Mr BELHAJ and his wife, who waspregnant at that time.)

In the course of a three-day High Courthearing held in October 2013, lawyerssubmitted copies of faxes sent in March2004 from MI6 to its counterparts inTripoli after Mr BELHAJ and his wife wereexpelled from China to Malaysia.

Mr BELHAJ was trying to get a flight tothe UK in order to seek protection there.In Kuala Lumpur, he was deceived intobelieving that he would be able to catch aflight to London from Bangkok.

Upon the couple's arrival in Bangkok,they were transferred to a secret prison

that was at least partially run by US agents.He claimed that he was tortured and hispregnant wife was chained to a wall.

The couple were then put on board aplane that took them to Libya. This planewas reportedly allowed to make a briefstopover for refuelling at the British IndianOcean territory of Diego Garcia.

Jack STRAW, the then home secretary ina Labour government has always deniedbeing aware of Mr BELHAJ's rendition orhaving given the green light for MI6'sparticipation.

Assuming that he was ignorant of theparticipation of the MI6 in this case of so-called extraordinary rendition, this wouldmean that he had little control of his minis-terial responsibilities and would raise ques-tions concerning his degree of competence.

Mr BELHAJ is among the many who donot believe J. STRAW and wants to suehim, Mark ALLEN, a former senior MI6official, the security services and theForeign Office.

Criticising the decision of Mr JusticeSIMON, Mr BELHAJ's lawyer warned thatif allowed to stand, "it will mean thatanything our security services doalongside the US Government is totallyimmune from the British legal system,

even if MI6 officers arrange the renditionof a pregnant woman into the arms ofGADDAFI".

The truth of exactly what happened to MrBELHAJ would undoubtedly be a majorembarrassment for the BritishGovernment, especially for those in theLabour Party who were then in power. Itwas the first time that British officialshave been implicated in the renditionand maltreatment of a pregnant womanto a regime whose credentials for theuse of torture were never in doubt.

Mr BELHAJ is now a member of theLibyan Government and he has made aplea to the European Parliament to helprender public the truth of what had hap-pened to him and his wife and makethose governments responsible apologisefor their role. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2F3roCUuyY

After the downfall of the Gaddafi regime,a Human Rights Watch team found insidethe abandoned offices of former Libyanintelligence chief Musa KUSA in Tripolidocuments proving that MI6 and the CIAwere involved in sending back MrBELHAJ and his wife to Libya (see theHRW report entitled "Delivery into EnemyHands" which can be downloaded from:http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/libya0912webwcover_1.pdf)

UNHCR warns that newmeasures restricting housingand other benefits to exclude"illegal immigrants" couldharm refugees and othersgranted protection

A series of measures in the ImmigrationBill, aimed at denying social welfareservices to foreigners without residencestatus and at making it more difficult forsuch people to stay in the UK, have ledthe UNHCR to express its concerns onthe effects which they have on refugeesand other people granted protection.

"The provisions of the Bill appear likely toresult in asylum-seekers, refugees andbeneficiaries of subsidiary protectionbeing stigmatised in the public mind andin their being denied access to housingor bank accounts", said the UNHCR saidin a briefing note to MPs.

"The UN High Commissioner for Refu-gees is concerned that if introduced,such measures could contribute towardsa climate of misunderstanding and eth-nic profiling that could undermine the

longer-term prospects for integration ofsuch persons and prove detrimental tosocial cohesion.

"Additionally, the UN High Commissionerfor Refugees is concerned that the typesof documentation carried by asylum-seekers,refugees, beneficiaries of subsidiaryprotection and Stateless people can bevaried and complex, and landlords andother service providers are likely tomisinterpret the legality of their status.

"It will also impose an additional admi-nistrative burden on them. Thesechallenges may have unintendedconsequences such as the denial ofhousing and other services to asylum-seekers, refugees, beneficiaries ofsubsidiary protection that result in theirmarginalisation and inhibit theirintegration in the United Kingdom."

Under the Bill, landlords, doctors andbanks will be required to check on theimmigration status of would-be clients orpatients. Concerns have been raised thatthe additional responsibility and the riskof sanction could lead to ethnic profilingand discourage the acceptance ofcertain people perceived to be in thecountry without authorisation.

European Union

Italy's Lega Nord confirmswillingness to form apolitical group with Frenchfar-right Front national

On 11 December 2013, Matteo SALVINI,the new leader of the regionalist andanti-immigration Lega Nord (LN), indi-cated his willingness to co-operate withthe president of the French far-right Frontnational (FN), Marine LE PEN, who wantsto form a political group in the EuropeanParliament after elections in May 2014.

The LN has much in common with theFN's position on the European Union andimmigration.

Bulgaria

Strong marginalisation ofRoma people

At the international conference on thesituation of Roma in the European Unionand in Bulgaria, held on 7 December

London says “yes” to funds for Syrian refugeesbut “no” to resettlement - Anti-immigrationparty leader is in favour of receiving Syrians

In spite of repeated calls from, amongst others, refugee agencies and the UNHCRto offer resettlement to a certain number of Syrian refugees, the Government isstanding firm on its position to offer funds, not entry into the UK.

The Home Office has underlined the Government's pledge to provide £500 millionof aid to Syria, the largest ever amount offered by the UK in response to ahumanitarian crisis, which is almost equal to the total amount donated by all theother 27 EU Member State.

It is, however, increasingly likely that the Government would be forced to changeits position after the leader of the anti-immigration UK Independence Party (UKIP),Nigel FARAGE, affirmed on 29 December 2013 that he was in favour of acceptingSyrian refugees, without saying how many.

Mr FARAGE, who has tried to improve the image of the UKIP by insisting thatalthough it is anti-immigration, it is not racist, stressed that "refugees are a verydifferent thing to economic migration and I think this country should honour the1951 declaration (sic!) on refugee status that was agreed (…)".

In his view, "the original ideas of defining what a refugee is were good ones and Ithink, actually, there is a responsibility on all of us in the free West to try and helpsome of those people fleeing Syria, literally in fear of their lives".

Mr FARAGE called for "a proper debate" about the "difference between a refugee -who fears for his or her life - or somebody moving simply for economic benefit".

RACISM/DISCRIMINATION

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.24

2013, it was pointed out that only around20% of Roma people have employment inBulgaria, compared to 85% in the 1980s.In the 1980s, Roma people worked inindustry and agriculture. Today, if theyhave a job, it is usually as taxi drivers,custodians and seamstresses.

Even well-educated Roma people havegreat difficulties in getting a job. Whereasonly 0.3% of the Roma populationmanage to have university studies, manyare unemployed after they graduate.

"Even Bulgarians, if they admit to living ina Roma neighbourhood, will not be able tofind work", according to the President ofthe Association "Solidarity Bulgaria",Vanya GRIGOROVA.

France

Only exhibition of Nazi flagis punishable, not thepossession of one

In its edition of 11 December 2013, themagazine "Le Point" reported on a rulingof a civil court in Caen which ordered theFrench State to pay damages of 8,000EUR to the owner of a Nazi flag which hadbeen destroyed, together with otherweaponry dating back to World War II.

The owner's problems started in October2009 after a quarrel with his partner whocalled the police after he had threatenedtheir son with a handgun. The father wasarrested and after going through hishome, the police seized a number ofGerman, American and English weapons,as well as a Nazi flag.

The father tried repeatedly to get back theconfiscated objects, arguing that theywere part of his valuable collection. Hewas eventually informed that they hadbeen destroyed, the weaponry because oftheir "dangerous nature", and the flagbecause it "recalled a racist or xeno-phobic ideology".

The court in Caen ruled that whereas thedestruction of weaponry could be justified,the same did not hold true for the flagsince only the public exhibition of it waspunishable, not its possession.

In any case, the owner should have beenallowed to lodge an appeal before itsdestruction.

The French judiciary had thereforecommitted a "grave error" and grantedthe owner an indemnity of 8,000 EUR.

Far-right deputies absentfrom ceremony of homageto Nelson MANDELA

On 13 December 2013, the absence of all20 Front national (FN) members of theregional parliament of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (PACA) was noted on theoccasion of the ceremony of one-minutesilence to pay homage to the former SouthAfrican president, Nelson MANDELA.

The founder and former leader of this far-right party, J.-M. LE PEN, denounced whathad taken place as a "set up", aimed atdiscrediting the FN.

The FN leader claimed that all membersof his party were at a group meeting andthey believed that the ceremony wouldnot take place before the call for thebeginning of the parliamentary session.According to him, the one-minute silencehad intentionally taken place before thecall "so as to be able to say that we werevoluntarily absent".

One FN deputy claimed that his groupmeeting had started late and that they hadnot heard the call for the session to begin.

In any case, J.M. LE PEN never had kindwords for M. MANDELA, and had, at leaston one occasion, implied that he was a"terrorist". Even after his death, a leadingFN member, Bruno GOLLNISCH, claimedthat the South Africa under the apartheidregime "was by far a lesser evil".

Centre-right mayorsuspended from party forinsulting remarks againstRoma people

On 5 December 2013, Luc JOUSSE (UMP),mayor of Roquebrune-sur-Argens, wassuspended from his party for makinginsulting remarks against Roma people.

On the occasion of a public meeting heldon 27 November 2013,Mr JOUSSE broughtup the subject of the presence of Romapeople in his town, located in the Var, onthe Côte-d'Azur, and the fires which hadbroken out in their encampment.

"The electrical cables which they stealfrom us, everywhere, they take them, theyburn them to warm themselves, torecuperate the copper…And they set fireto their own cables. If you want me to bemore precise, it is almost a pity that thealarm was raised so soon…."

All this was recorded, but Mr JOUSSEclaimed that the remarks were not his,but rather those of an angry localresident. The mayor affirmed that heregretted having repeated them, insistingagain that the words were not his.

"I could never have made such remarks",he insisted. "The best proof is that whenfire broke out in their encampment, ninetimes, I called for help".

Founder of Front nationaldenounces attempts tochange party's name andrepeats insulting remarkagainst Roma people

On 27 December 2013, the founder andhonorary president of the far-right Frontnational (FN), Jean-Marie LE PEN,strongly condemned any attempt tochange the party's name.

"This name has been honoured, it hascreated the conditions of existence of aFrench political party for 40 years, and ithas been supported by thousands,hundreds of thousands of sacrifices of FNactivists and members", affirmed J.-M.LE PEN, who considered it "scandalous","unthinkable", "completely crazy" and"indecent" to want to change the party'sname, an idea which has been brought upby his own daughter, Marine LE PEN, thecurrent party leader who has been tryingto clean up the FN's image and hassanctioned members who have maderacist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic remarks,except, of course, her own father.

Two vice-presidents of the FN, LouisALIOT and Florian PHILIPPOT have alsoraised the possibility of a change in theparty's name, the first having affirmed inDecember that "no issue can be excludedfrom debate" whereas the second said in

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Founder of French far-right Front national is fined5,000 EUR for suggesting that Roma people arenatural-born thieves

On 19 December 2013, a court in Paris convicted 85-year Jean-Marie LE PEN,honorary president and founder of the far-right Front national (FN) of publiclyinsulting a group of persons on account of their membership of an ethnic group.The Public Prosecutor had requested a two-month suspended prison sentence, butthe court preferred to hand down a 5,000 EUR fine.

On 22nd September 2012, at the summer party conference of the FN and in thepresence of her daughter Marine, J. M. LE PEN played with the French verb "voler",which in French can mean both to fly or to steal, and made fun of the Roma people,saying that they were "like birds" who "steal" (or fly) "naturally". The audienceburst out in laughter and applause.

J.M. LE PEN's lawyer immediately announced that an appeal would be submittedagainst this "severe conviction" in order to "preserve" his client's "freedom ofexpression". According to the lawyer, the remarks were "full of humour".

Jonathan HAYOUN, President of the Union of Jewish Students in France (UEJF)pointed out that this conviction has just demonstrated that "one of the leaders ofthe Front national continues to make racist remarks", and challenged the presentFN leader, Marine LE PEN, to take action against her father.

In her quest for respectability, Marine, the daughter, has vowed to exclude anyelection candidate who makes racist remarks and is convicted for this.

J.M. LE PEN, a member of the European Parliament, is standing for re-election inthe European elections this coming May. If Marine is to remain faithful to herpromise, she should exclude her father from being an election candidate, a stepwhich she will, of course, not take.

Referring to the argument that the controversial remarks were humorous, the courtin Paris underlined that the right to make jokes has limits and must end when itbegins to violate respect for human dignity.

Affirming that they had no intention of giving their opinion on whether the remarkswere humorous or the pun used was in good taste, the judges stressed that theynevertheless demonstrated "a willingness of stigmatisation in lowering" Romapeople to a "generalised and seriously insulting stereotype".

June 2013 that the question of a changein name "is not taboo".

J.-M. LE PEN then repeated the remarkfor which he was convicted on 19December 2013, affirming that he wasmerely repeating what a Roma personhad said to him, which was allegedly:"You know, we are like birds, we fly/stealnaturally". (The French verb to fly isexactly the same as to steal.)

Minister of Interior wantsto ban performances by acontroversial comedian whocontinues to make anti-Semitic remarks in spite ofseveral convictions

On 27 December 2013, the Minister ofInterior, Manuel VALLS, announced thathe was looking into possibilities ofbanning performances and publicmeetings by a well-known Frenchcomedian, Dieudonné M'BALA M'BALAbecause he continues to make remarkswhich are "racist and anti-Semitic" inspite of several convictions.

"Despite condemnation for defamation,insults, incitement of hatred and racialdiscrimination, Dieudonné M'BALAM'BALA does not seem to bother about(respecting) any limit", said a statementissued by the Ministry of Interior.

"In these conditions, the Minister ofInterior has decided to study seriously allthe legal channels to allow the ban ofpublic meetings which no longer belongto the creative dimension, but which, witheach new show, contribute to anincreased risk of disturbing public order.

"From one declaration to another, asdemonstrated by many televisionprogrammes, he attacks the memory ofthe victims of the Shoah in an obviousand unacceptable way".

Mr VALLS' reaction was prompted by theoutrage and condemnation expressed byanti-racist and Jewish groups after thecontroversial comedian was filmedmaking very offensive remarks about aJewish media presenter, Patrick COHEN.

"You know, if the wind changed, I'm notsure that he (Mr COHEN) would have timeto pack his suitcase", said Dieudonné.

"You know, when I hear him speak,Patrick COHEN, I say to myself: you know,the gas chambers …. too bad", heconcluded, implying implicitly that he

regretted that Mr COHEN was himself nota victim of it.

The controversial comedian is, in fact,quite popular in both France and theFrench-speaking public in Belgium.

His supporters claim that he has pouredscorn and ridiculed other groups, but it isonly when he targets Jews is he singledout for criticisms and conviction.

One major difference between thedifferent groups that he makes fun of isthat in the case of Jews, he tends to treatthe Holocaust as a kind of a joke, a trivialmatter that can be ridiculed to make hisaudience laugh.

In any case, Mr VALLS has quite aformidable legal battle ahead of him if hewants to prevent Dieudonné from makingpublic appearances.

Germany

Review of some 750 unsolvedmurders or attempted murdersto determine whether therewas far-right involvement

On 4 December 2013, as a result ofincreasing pressure to do so and on-going criticisms about failures to uncoverthe involvement of the far-right cell NSUin a series of killings, the authoritiesannounced that they would review some750 unsolved murders or unsolvedmurders dating back more than twodecades to determine whether there wasany far-right involvement in them.

Officially, since the reunification of Germanyin 1990, some 60 people have been killedby far-right groups, but associationscombating the far-right and anti-racistgroups claim that this figure is far too low.

One of them is the Amadeu AntonioFoundation, named after an Angolan whowas very severely beaten with baseballbats by a group of local youths havingdecided, on the evening of 24 November1990, to "beat up some Blacks".

The victim fell into a coma and died on 6December 1990, thus become the firstknown fatality of waves of racist violencewhich followed German reunification.

Since then there have been dozens ofothers, including the eight Turks, a Greekand a policewoman murdered in coldblood by the NSU between 2000 and2007. The Greek victim was probably

mistaken for a Turk and the policewomanwas simply at the wrong place at thewrong time.

The fact that the German police had, foryears, considered those murders assettling of accounts among rival gangsand would probably still be ignorant ofthe truth had it not been for the suicide oftwo leading NSU members on 4 Novem-ber 2011 after a botched bank robberyattempt, has raised questions as to howmany more unsolved murders or attemptedmurders were the work of the far-right.

On the same day, the Conference ofInterior Ministers (IMK) decided to makeanother attempt to have the far-rightNationaldemokratische ParteiDeutschland (NPD) banned.

Greece

More members of far-rightChrysi Avgi linked to murdersor attempted murders

In its edition of 4 December 2013, thedaily "Ekathimerini" reported thatanother 12 suspects had been added tothe list of supporters of the far-rightChrysi Avgi, accused of involvement in arange of crimes that include murdersand/or attempted murders.

Special investigating magistrates, IoannaKLAPA and Maria DIMITROPOULOU, havebeen gathering evidence to be able toprosecute the leader of Chrysi Avgi, MPsand members,suspected of running or beingmembers of a criminal organisation.

Among the crimes allegedly committed byChrysi Avgi members was the murder of a27-year old Pakistani man as he was onhis way to work in Athens on 17 January2013. He was stabbed by two men on amotorcycle. Two suspects, aged 25 and29, were subsequently arrested and asearch of their homes resulted in thefinding of fliers of this far-right party.

Another of the crimes was the attempted

murder of a 17-year old student outsidea school in Neo Faliro, southern Athens,also in January 2013. Of the twosuspects arrested, one aged 20 has sincebeen identified as having links withChrysi Avgi.

Italy

Former Ku Klux Klanleader asked to leave

On 5 December 2013, the mediareported that the northern city of Bellunohad issued an order to a former leader ofthe American white supremacistmovement, the Ku Klux Klan, DavidDUKE, to leave on the grounds that he isconsidered to be "socially dangerous".

The former so-called Grand Wizard of theKnights of the Ku Klux Klan is consideredby the authorities of Belluno to pose arisk to "set up an organisation devoted tothe extermination of the black andJewish races (sic!)".

D. DUKE, a former member of the USHouse of Representatives for theRepublican Party had been residing nearthe city of Belluno since February 2011.He entered Italy by using his second firstname, Ernest.

European Union

Recommendations to stepup the economic and socialintegration of Romacommunities

At their Council meeting held in Brusselson 9-10 December 2013, EU Ministersresponsible for Employment, Social Policy,Health and Consumer Affairs unani-mously adopted a Council Recommendationon effective Roma integration measuresin the Member States.This has come lessthan six months after the European

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 25

No more State funds for Greek far-rightpolitical party Chrysi Avgi

The decision to stop State funding to the far-right Chrysi Avgi was published inthe Government Gazette on 24 December 2013.

The motion to cut off State funding to political parties if their leaders or a tenth oftheir deputies are charged with involvement in a "criminal organisation" or "actsof terrorism" was approved by 241 of the 272 MPs. 26 voted against.

Chrysi Avgi was due to receive 873,000 EUR in State funding in 2013.

INTEGRATION /D IVERS ITY

MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

Commission submitted its proposal onthis matter.

Viviane REDING, the EU Commissioner forJustice, said that the unanimous agree-ment constituted "a strong signal that MemberStates are willing to tackle the challen-ging tasks of Roma integration head-on".Time will, of course, tell whether suchwords would be translated into deeds.

The text gives specific guidance to helpMember States strengthen andaccelerate their efforts.

It recommends that Member States taketargeted action to bridge the gaps betweenthe Roma and the rest of the population.

It reinforces the EU Framework for nationalRoma integration strategies agreed by allMember States in 2011 by setting theconditions for an effective inclusion ofRoma people in the Member States.

Based on Commission reports on the situa-tion of the Roma over recent years, the Re-commendation focuses on the four areaswhere EU leaders signed up to commongoals for Roma integration under the EUFramework for national Roma integrationstrategies: access to education, employ-ment, healthcare and housing. To put inplace the targeted actions, it asks MemberStates to allocate not only EU but alsonational and third sector funds to Romainclusion - a key factor identified by theCommission in its evaluation of MemberStates' national strategies last year.

In addition, it gives guidance to MemberStates on cross-cutting policies for Romaintegration,such as ensuring that the strate-gies go local, enforcing anti-discrimina-tion rules, following a social investmentapproach, protecting Roma children andwomen and addressing poverty.

It should, however, be emphasised thatthis text is no more than a Recom-mendation, not a directive and even lessa regulation. It is therefore not binding.The European Commission will againreport back on progress made byMember States in spring 2014.

Belgium

Very sharp fall in numberof applications fornaturalisations

According to the daily "La Libre Belgique"(17.12.2013) only 509 applications fornaturalisation were submitted between

1st January and 30 November 2013,compared to 18,731 submitted in the wholeof 2012. On 1st January 2013, a newnationality law with much stricter condi-tions of qualification came into force.

When adding the 2,039 applications in-troduced in 2012, to be processed underthe criteria of the previous law, whichwere submitted via the municipalities andwere forwarded to the ParliamentaryCommittee on Naturalisation this year, thetotal is 2,547.

Whereas 4,838 applications of natura-lisation were granted last year, thenumber this year is expected to beextremely low. According to the Presidentof the Committee on Naturalisation,Georges DALLEMAGNE, only some 30 ofthe 508 applications submitted this yearappear to satisfy the new conditions.

The very sharp fall in the number ofapplications introduced this year hasenabled the Committee to work to bringdown drastically the backlog, from around60,000 at the beginning of 2013 to some40,000 by the end of 2013.

This huge backlog can be explained bythe fact that Belgium had one of the mostliberal laws on naturalisation.

Mr DALLEMAGNE estimated that it wouldtake another two to three years toeliminate completely the backlog.

France

Highest judicial body advisesGovernment to end veil banfor parents accompanyingchildren on school trips

On 23rd December 2013, the country'shighest judicial body, the Conseil d'État,advised the Government to end the banon wearing a veil by Muslim mothers wantingto accompany pupils and teachers onschool trips.

The advice is not binding and theGovernment can choose to ignore it, but itwould be unwise to do so.

The ban in question is not explicit in thelaw passed in 2004, which prohibits thewearing or open display of religioussymbols in all French public schools andcolleges, including crucifixes, Jewishskull camps and items of clothingassociated with the Muslim faith, such asa headscarf or a burqa.

It was introduced in 2011, not as a law,but as a circular, by the then minister ofeducation, Luc CHATEL, who consideredthat parents who accompany children onschool trips "are considered to beauxiliary public servants" and, as such,are included in the ban. Critics of thisinterpretation have pointed out that theparents in question are merely offering,on a voluntary basis, additional adultsupervision when needed and whichschools can sometimes not provide.

It has been reported that some primaryschool teachers have had to cancel plansof school trips because of the necessaryadditional adult supervision required andthe parents who could provide this servicewere veil-wearing Muslim women.

Vincent PEILLON, who currently holds theministerial portfolio for Education, hasalready indicated, implicitly, that he wouldfollow the position of Mr CHATEL.

The Socialist Government is anxious toshow that it is not going soft on the issueof France's much cherished principle ofsecularism.

More than a week before this Opinionfrom the Conseil d'État was issued, theGovernment distanced itself from arecommendation made in a report onintegration, commissioned by PrimeMinister Jean-Marc AYRAULT, whichcalled for the repeal of the 2004 ban onreligious symbols in public schools.

The centre-right opposition (UMP) and thefar-right Front national accused theGovernment of wanting to allow Muslimpupils to wear a headscarf again insidepublic schools.

Obliged to hold a press conference on thisreport, Mr AYRAULT told journalists on 13December 2013 that the Government "evi-dently" had no intention to repeal the 2004law. "It is not because I receive reports thatit is necessarily the position of theGovernment", stressed the Prime Minister.

Germany

One in five people living inGermany has immigrant origins

On 18 December 2013, the FederalStatistics Office reported that there were

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet . All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned.26

Danish People's Party wants no more DanishMuslims

A few days before the biannual vote in parliament on granting citizenship, theDanish People's Party (DFP) announced that its members would cast a negativevote because the list containing around 1,600 individuals include too many peopleof the Muslim faith.

There are, in fact, 422 Iraqis and Afghans on the list and they have satisfied all thenecessary requirements.

Explaining the reasons for its position, Christian LANGBALLE of the DFP said thatthe country risked being taken over by Muslims and that instead of adopting Danishcitizenship, these people should return to their home country and help to rebuild it.

Søren ESPERSEN, deputy leader of the DFP subsequently distanced himself from MrLANGBALLE's remark, saying that he had gone too far and had "perhaps exaggerated".

However, he stood by his party's decision to vote against the list and said that heagreed that there were too many people on the list who originate from non-Western, Muslim countries.

In spite of the DFP's opposition, the list was approved on 19 December 2013.

The Liberals (Venstre) who had to lean on the DFP for support in the past when ithad only a minority government, voted for the list.

Jan JØRGENSEN (Venstre) told parliament after the vote that he wanted to makesure that spokespersons for the DFP "understand that those of us in Venstrewelcome all new citizens, regardless of what countries they came from or whatthe predominant religion is in those countries.

"I just want to be 100% sure that Dansk Folkeparti has duly noted Ventre's opinionin this matter".

16.3 million people of immigrant originliving in Germany in 2012. Compared tothe figures of 2005, there has been anincrease of 8.5% of this category of thepopulation.

The large majority of around 70% ofpeople of this category originate fromanother European country and a thirdwere from another EU Member State.

People of Asian origin accounted for15.7% of the 16.3 million people, followedby those of African origin (3.5%), 2.5%from the USA and 0.2% from Australia orOceania. A little over 7% of these peoplecannot be put in one specific category.They are essentially children of parentsfrom different continents.

The Federal Statistics Office considers aspeople of immigrant origin not onlyimmigrants and their children, but alsoany further generations who do not adoptGerman citizenship.

Also included are immigrants who havebecome naturalised German citizens andtheir children born in Germany and arethus also Germans. Only the children ofsuch children, themselves also born thereare not considered to be of immigrant origin.

Netherlands

Details of toughernaturalisation law

On 24 December 2013, the junior ministerresponsible for immigration Fred TEEVENprovided details of the Government's planto tighten naturalisation conditions.

The increase of the residence criterionfrom five to seven years was alreadyknown since it was mentioned in thecoalition agreement of the Liberals (VVD)and the Labour Party (PvdA).

In addition to the residence requirement,candidates will have to complete a formalintegration course and prove that they arenot a threat to public policy.

They will also have to sign a declarationaffirming that they will uphold Dutch valuesand participate fully in Dutch society.

"Research shows that the chance offinding paid work and following aneducational programme increases thelonger someone lives in the Netherlands",said the statement informing of the newcitizenship Bill which still has to besubmitted to parliament for approval.

"Often it appears that foreigners - evenonce they have fulfilled their integrationduties - still do not fully participate in(Dutch) society".

The increase of the residence criterionfrom five to seven years will also apply toforeign residents if they want to exercisethe right to vote in local elections.

Spain

Spanish citizenship fordescendants of Jews expelledduring the Inquisition

First announced in 2012 by the Ministerof Justice, Alberto RUIZ-GALLARDON, theGovernment has prepared a Bill aimed at

Migration News Sheet

January 2014 . Migration News Sheet All rights reserved. Partial reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is mentioned. 27

granting Spanish citizenship to descen-dants of Jews expelled from Spainduring the Inquisition. Under the terms ofthe Bill, potential beneficiaries, known asSephardic Jews, will not have torenounce their current citizenship tobecome Spanish nationals.

It is believed that the ruling PartidoPopular has felt the need to act on thismatter after the Portuguese Parliamentapproved a similar Bill in April 2013,which grants Portuguese citizenship toSephardic Jews expelled from Portugalduring the same period.

First ever conviction for anexcision carried out abroadquashed by Supreme Court

On 24 December 2013, the mediareported that the Supreme Court hadacquitted a Senegalese woman who wasthe first ever to be convicted for anexcision carried out abroad.

When the woman and her daughterarrived in Spain in 2010, it was discoveredin the course of a medical exam that thechild had undergone excision. Later, on 4April 2013, the mother was found guiltyof this practice outlawed in Spain by theHigh Court (AN) and sentenced to twoyears' imprisonment.

The Supreme Court considered thatthere was, during the trial, a high degreeof uncertainty in determining the personresponsible for the act and whether shewas conscious that the act was illegal.

The only incriminating evidence presentedwas the testimony of a male nurse andthe interpretation given to it by the ANwas "absolutely unsure and open", which,for the Supreme Court, "in no way justifiesthe conscious or negligent participationof the accused in the act being tried".

In the view of the Supreme Court, it couldnot be excluded that the excision wascarried out by the maternal grandmotheror someone else mandated by her.

Moreover, the mother could not be heldresponsible for not being informed thatexcision is illegal in Spain by herhusband who has been residing anumber of years in Spain. If he hadindeed failed to inform his wife of this, hewould be partially responsible for whathad happened and yet he was acquitted.

There was one dissenting judge whowanted to uphold the conviction.

Sweden

Increasing number of Swedesof immigrant origin joinanti-immigration SwedenDemocrats

According to data compiled by StatisticsSweden (SCB) support among foreign-born men for the anti-immigrationSweden Democrats (SD) has gone upalmost three-fold in two years.

The proportion of foreign-born men whosupport the SD now stands at 7.4%,which is higher than that of 6.8% amongSwedes with no roots abroad.

This should not come as any surprise sinceall anti-immigration parties have supporterswho are themselves of immigrant origin.What may be unusual here is theapparent high proportion of people ofimmigrant origin who support the SD.

Of these people, Gholam Ali POUR, ofIranian origin, said that no party other thanthe SD "wants to talk about immigrationand culture clashes". "I basically joined aparty that does talk about it", said MrPOUR to "The Local" (13.12.2013).

Mr POUR and his parents arrived inSweden as refugees. Had the SD been inpower at that time, he and his familywould probably have been denied entry.

He is nevertheless in favour of restrictingimmigration so that entry becomesconditional to labour market needs.

Mr POUR pointed out that highunemployment in neighbourhoods with ahigh concentration of people ofimmigration origin risks setting off moreincidents such as the riots in theStockholm suburb of Husby in May 2013.

Switzerland

Right of permanentresidence to be madesubject to degree ofintegration

On 11 December 2013, the Senateadopted an amendment to the Bill aimedat revising the Aliens Act that will makegranting the right of permanentresidence subject to acquiring a certaindegree of integration.

The amendment was adopted with 24votes in favour and seven against.

Nigerian denied Spanish citizenship for havingno knowledge of Spain

In a ruling made public on 7 December 2013, the High Court upheld the decisionof the authorities to deny Spanish citizenship to a Nigerian immigrant who hasbeen living lawfully in Spain since 1997. He had apparently shown zeroknowledge of Spain in a test to evaluate his degree of integration.

He had, for example, said that he did not know what was the Spanish Constitutionor the various Spanish regions. But he claimed to know Zaragoza and that its mainattraction was its beach.

Moreover, for him, Goya is an underground train station and Spain is a republic.

In their decision to turn down his application for naturalisation, the authorities con-cluded that this man had "hardly any or no knowledge of the elementary aspects ofSpanish geography, festivities, and thus show minimum integration into the country".

In upholding this decision, the High Court pointed to the man's "absolute ignoranceof the basic institutions" which is "incompatible with the exercise of political rightsthat accompanies the acquisition of (Spanish) citizenship", which is much morethan simply developing a professional, economic and family life in Spain.

One of the criteria of successfulintegration is to be able to communicateand be understood in a national language.

United Kingdom

UK Independence Partystands by politician whocalled for the repatriationof immigrants

On 7 December 2013, a spokesman forthe UKIP Independence Party said that itstood by one of its County Councillors inLicolnshire, Victoria AYLING, who, in areference to immigrants, had said in avideo that she just wanted to "send the lotback, but I can't say that". According tothe spokesman, the media "hampereddebate on immigration" by "failing tomake the distinction between a frankdiscussion and unpalatable views".

The video was made when Ms AYLINGwas still a member of the ConservativeParty before she switched sides at thebeginning of 2013 and the spokesmansaid that his party "cannot comment onwhy this video was made for theConservatives", but "can vouch for her asa capable and decent councillor andsupport her through this time".

Mr AYLING said that wanted to send backillegal immigrants and not lawfullyresiding foreigners.

Iraqi-born man stripped ofBritish citizenship for thesecond time

Last November, Hilal AL-JEDDA, becamethe first naturalised British national tohave been deprived of his citizenshiptwice, even though the first decision to doso was struck down by the Court ofAppeal in 2012, in a ruling upheld by theSupreme Court on 9 October 2013. (SeeMNS, December 2013).

Mr AL-JEDDA was first deprived of hisBritish citizenship towards the end of2007 by the then Labour home secretary,Jacqui SMITH, and it then took himalmost six years to win a final judicialdecision to get it back.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Ms SMITHargued that Mr AL-JEDDA could haveapplied to get back his Iraqi citizenshipafter the removal of Saddam HUSSEIN. Itwas therefore not her fault if he wasmade Stateless by the withdrawal of hisBritish citizenship. This argument wasflatly dismissed by the Supreme Court.

However, instead of handing him back hisBritish passport, the present Home

Secretary, Theresa MAY, issued a neworder to revoke his British citizenship.

"Mr AL-JEDDA was given less than anhour's notice of the deprivation order andhas not been provided with any detail ofthe allegations against him save for thevaguest of references to Islamistextremism, an allegation he flatly denies",said his solicitor Tessa GREGORY.

The Home Secretary is obviously hopingto exhaust Mr AL-JEDDA's efforts ofappeal and time is fully on her side. He isagain Stateless and he will require consi-derable efforts, determination and fundsto challenge the Home Secretary again,no doubt aware of the fact that the latterwould fully exhaust appeals procedureshould there be a ruling in his favour.

Germany

Immigration Minister ofTurkish origin

Aydan OZOGUZ, a deputy leader of theSocial Democratic Party (SPD) has beengranted the portfolio of junior minister forimmigration, refugees and integration.This is the highest ever post held by awoman of Turkish origin.

Greece

Police corruption

On 19 December 2013, four policemenand three other persons were found guiltyof enabling numerous Albanians to obtainGreek citizenship between 2000 and2003 with the use of false documen-tation. The convicted men were accusedof receiving up to 3,000 EUR for eachsuccessful naturalisation obtainedthrough their involvement.

Food for "Greeks only" banned

A free food distribution for "Greeks only",due to take place in Piraeus, on 21stDecember 2013, was banned by the localmayor, Vasilis MICHALOLIAKOS.The mayorordered the local police to stop any politicalparties, groups, associations, etc. frommaking use of public space for eventswhich aim to humiliate certain groups andto exploit the suffering of people.

Ireland

Increasing intolerance

On 8 December 2013, the ImmigrantCouncil of Ireland reported that there hadbeen 142 racist incidents since the

beginning of this year, compared to 77during the same period in 2012, whichwas an 85% increase. Most of theincidents concerned harassment, bothverbal and written, and often occurred ina person's local community or workplace.

Italy

Immigration fuelspopulation growth

On 19 December 2013, the officialstatistical agency, ISTAT, reported thatthere were 59.7 million people residing inItaly at the end of 2012, which is some291,000 more than 12 months earlier.This increase was only achieved throughimmigration.

United Kingdom

Eased entry conditions

As from 1st April 2014, people with astrong record in the IT industry will beable to apply for the "Exceptional Talent"visa, which was originally introduced toease entry conditions for outstanding indivi-duals in arts, academia and engineering.

Less immigration, less growth

A study by the Independent NationalInstitute of Economic and Social Researchclaims that reducing net migration over theperiod to 2060 could reduce GNP by 11%,increase the proportion of elderly people,and thus public expenditure as well.

Migration News Sheet online: www.migrationnewssheet.orgÉditeur responsable: António CruzPériodique Mensuel Dépôt: 1040 BruxellesJanvier 2014 N°: 370/2014-01Membership fees:Organisations: 230 Euros / £200 / US$ 352Welfare associations (NGOs, Charities): 130 Euros / £110 / US$ 196

About the Migration News SheetThe Migration News Sheet is your reliable source of news, policy and legalupdates on migrants and refugees.

Published monthly, the Migration News Sheet is delivered to our subscribers inhardcopy, and is available for online viewing, along with access to thearchives, at www.migrationnewssheet.org.

In 2010, the Migration News Sheet celebrated 25 years of independent publishing.The first ever bulletin came out in 1985 and it has continued uninterrupted,with 12 issues a year, for two and a half decades.

Published by the European think-tank, the Migration Policy Group, theMigration News Sheet is an entirely non-profit enterprise.

All subscription charges contribute to the cost of delivering reliable andverified news to our readers.

The Migration News Sheet also gratefully receives sponsorship, such as thatgenerously provided by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and theInternational Organisation for Migration.

To learn more about the Migration News Sheet, go to:www.migrationnewssheet.org or contact us at mns@migpolgroup.com

To learn more about the Migration Policy Group, go to:www.migpolgroup.com or contact us at info@migpolgroup.com

To order a free copy of the European Anti-Discrimination Law Review, go to:www.non-discrimination.net/order.htm

IN BRIEF