Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Refugees in Central and Eastern Europe
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
Reception
of Asylum Seekers
in the European
Union: How
Far Did the
Harmonisation
Get? 1
—————————————————————————————
The European Council Directive laid down
minimum standards for the reception of asylum
seekers in January 2003. They were to be transposed
into national law in all 25 European Union (EU)
member states by February 2005. In December 2003, the
research and networking project "Information and
Cooperation Forum" (ICF) was launched. Members of
13 NGOs, 2 working in the areas of legal advice and social
counselling for asylum seekers in seven EU member states
(Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland,
Slovakia, and Slovenia), got together to analyse the current
reception conditions for asylum seekers in these seven
countries. The analysis aimed to discover whether or not
reception conditions were changing during the process
of harmonisation, and if so, how they had changed.
METHODOLOGY
The ICF findings are based on practice-oriented
research. The research team visited a total of nineteen
refugee facilities 3 in seven EU member states. During the
visits, the delegation inspected the facility and spoke to the
facility operator, officers and asylum seekers. In addition,
a questionnaire was distributed amongst the asylum seekers.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The member states that undertook the decision to
fully transpose the Directive into their national law had not
fully complied with their responsibilities. Reception conditions
still vary widely in these European countries.
The Directive leaves too much scope at the level
of member states. Some provisions are especially unacceptable,
namely the possibility of establishing camp schools,
of placing unaccompanied minors as young as sixteen in
reception centres for adults, and of the withdrawal of the
reception conditions standards if the asylum claim has not
been made “as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival”.
In some points, the Directive provides for higher
standards than those currently practised by member states.
This is especially apparent when considering the protection
of people with special needs. For instance, the Directive
states that minors who have been “victims of any form of
abuse, neglect, exploitation, torture or cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment, or who have suffered from armed
conflicts" shall have “access to rehabilitation services”,
“appropriate mental health care shall be developed and
qualified counselling shall be provided when needed”.
However, several of these improvements had not
been implemented properly. Mental health treatment and
care for victims of trauma and torture is not available
in almost any of the countries participating in this project.
Another serious shortcoming is the strong tendency to
detain asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors,
early during the asylum procedure.
Therefore, even refugees who are successful
in reaching the European Union do not always receive the
protection they are entitled to under the Directive.
SELECTED ASPECTS OF RECEPTION AND ICF
RECOMMENDATIONS
•• Freedom of movement
In all selected countries, freedom of movement
and the right to private accommodation are linked to social
benefits from the state.
In the new member states, asylum seekers
are detained or placed in quarantine in closed reception
centres, at the beginning of their procedure. At a later stage
of the procedure, they are allowed, under certain conditions,
to live in private accommodation. In such cases, they have
to meet the costs for accommodation and food from their
own resources. In this respect, linking benefits to stateprovided
accommodation is part of a control mechanism.
•• Recommendation
ICF believes that asylum seekers should have the
freedom to reside in the location of their choice. Policies
that encourage asylum seekers to voluntarily settle in
certain environments where they may be able to access
services, find employment most easily, and enjoy the
support of their community, are generally preferable to
compulsory dispersal policies.
The freedom to reside in any area of the country
may be subject to certain restrictions in order to ensure,
53
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity