Enlarging ‘fortress europe’: Eu accession, asylum, and immigration in candidate countries

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 641-663

  Phuong, Catherine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30944465802     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/52.3.641     Document Type: Article

References (120)

1. On issues of institutional reform in anticipation of enlargement, see for instance J Shaw, ‘The Treaty of Nice: legal and constitutional implications’ (2001) 7 European Public Law 195.
2. See, for instance, see E Guild and C Harlow (eds), Implementing Amsterdam: Immigration and Asylum Rights in EC Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001)
3. K. Hailbronner, ‘European immigration and asylum law under the Amsterdam treaty’ (1998) 35 Common Market Law Review 1047
4. D. O'Keefe, ‘Can the leopard change its spots? Visas, immigration and asylum-following Amsterdam’, in D O'Keefe and P Twomey (eds), Legal Issues of the Treaty of Amsterdam (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1999), 271–288
5. G. Simpson, ‘Asylum and immigration in the European Union after the treaty of Amsterdam’ (1999) 5 European Public Law 91.
6. See, however, R Byrne, G Noll, and J Vested-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002).
7. O. Seiffarth, ‘The enlargement process and JHA co-operation’, in PJ van Krieken (ed), The Asylum Acquis Handbook (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2000), 61–72, at 62.
8. Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Union, COM(97) 2000, 16 July 1997.
9. S. Lavenex, ‘Asylum, immigration, and Central-Eastern Europe: challenges to EU enlargement’ (1998) 3 European Foreign Affairs Review 275, at 284.
10. H. Grabbe, ‘The sharp edges of Europe: extending Schengen eastwards’ (2000) 76 International Affairs 519, at 528.
11. See Lavenex, above n 10, at 288.
12. See D Bouteillet-Paquet, L'Europe et le droit d'asile (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2001), 279–80. One must note that some EU Member States do not always agree upon which Central European countries should be considered to be safe.
13. This list has been reproduced in van Krieken, above n 6, at 104–114.
14. EU initial position for the opening of negotiations with the first six countries, Document 6473/3/98 REV 3 JAI 7 ELARG 51, 25 May 1998, reproduced in Seiffarth, above n 6, at 67–68.
15. See House of Lords' Select Committee on European Union, Enlargement and EU External Frontier controls, 24 Oct 2000, para 14.
16. Grabbe, see above n 11, at 529.
17. See House of Lords' Select Committee on European Union, above n 18, para 25.
18. Select Committee on European Union, para 52.
19. Select Committee on European Union, para 54.
20. See J Zielonka, ‘How new enlarged borders will reshape the European Union’ (2001) 39 Journal of Common Market Studies 507, at 514
21. Grabbe, above n 11, at 531.
22. See also the case of Romanian minorities in Moldova, see Le Monde, ‘A la frontière roumano-moldave’, 9 June 2002.
23. See House of Lords' Select Committee on European Union, above n 18, para 76.
24. See Grabbe, above n 11, at 531.
25. See Zielonka, above n 26, at 520.
26. See Commission, above n 17, at 5.
27. See Grabbe, above n 11, at 527.
28. See Lavenex, above n 10, at 293.
29. See Bouteillet-Paquet, above n 14, at 263.
30. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 1950
31. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 31 Jan 1967, 606 UNTS 267.
32. See Bouteillet-Paquet, above n 14, at 333.
33. Lavenex, above n 10, at 277.
34. See Bouteillet-Paquet, above n 14, at 334.
35. See for instance Czech Republic: Act No 325 of 11 Nov 1999 on Asylum, Estonia: Law on Refugees of 18 Feb 1997
36. Hungary: Act CXXXIX of 9 Dec 1997 on Asylum
37. Poland: Aliens Law of 25 June 1997 (amended by the Act of 11 Apr 2001)
38. Slovenia: Law on Asylum of 30 July 1999.
39. This Joint Support Program on the Application of the EU Acquis on Asylum and Related Standards and Practices in the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe resulted from cooperation between the Commission, UNHCR and the German Federal Office for the Recognition of Refugees, with the assistance of six other Member States (Austria, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden). For more detail, see S Anagnost, ‘Challenges facing asylum systems and asylum policy development in Europe: preliminary lessons learned from the Central European and Baltic states (CEBS)’ (2000) 12 International Journal of Refugee Law 380.
40. See Byrne et al, above n 5, at 17.
41. M. Petersen, ‘Recent developments in Central Europe and the Baltic states in the asylum field: a view from UNHCR and the strategies of the High Commission for enhancing the asylum systems of the region’, in Byrne et al, above n 5, 351–72, at 367.
42. On accelerated procedures, see J van der Klaauw, ‘Towards a common asylum procedure’, in Guild and Harlow (eds), above n 4, 165–93, at 180–3.
43. UNHCR, Asylum Applications in Industrialised Countries: 1980–1999, Geneva, Nov 2001, table IV.3, at 91.
44. Arts 43–7 of the Hungarian Act CXXXIX of 9 Dec 1997 on Asylum
45. Art 14(2) of the Lithuanian Refugee Law of 29 June 2000, No.VII-1784, No 56–1651.
46. On the adoption of the safe third country concept by candidate countries, see S Lavenex, ‘ “Passing the buck”: European Union refugee policies towards Central and Eastern Europe’ (1998) 11 Journal of Refugee Studies 126, at 138.
47. See ECRE, Position on the Enlargement of the European Union in Relation to Asylum, Sept 1998, .
48. Council Resolution of 20 June 1995 on minimum guarantees for asylum procedures, OJ 1996 C 274/13.
49. Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities, 15 June 1990 (hereinafter the Dublin Convention) OJ 1997 C 254/1
50. Agreement on the Implementation of the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 concerning the Gradual Abolition of Checks at their Common Borders, 19 June 1990 (1991) 30 ILM 84.
51. For more detail, see K Hailbronner and C Thiery, ‘Schengen II and Dublin: responsibility for asylum applications in Europe’ (1997) 34 CMLR 957.
52. Council directive No 2001/55 of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, OJ 2001 L 212/12.
53. Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, 26 July 2001, COM (2001) 447 final (Dublin II)
54. Proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States, 3 Apr 2001, COM (2001) 181 final
55. Proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees, in accordance with the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 Protocol, or as persons who otherwise need international protection, 12 Sept 2001, COM (2001) 510 final
56. Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, 20 Sept 2000, COM (2000) 578 final.
57. M. Jerczinski, ‘Patterns of spatial mobility of citizens of the Former Soviet Union’, in K Iglicka and K Sword (eds), The Challenge of East-West Migration for Poland (London: MacMillan, 1999), 105–19, at 105.
58. Some amendments were made to the 1963 Aliens Act in 1991, but proved completely insufficient to deal with the situation, see W Czaplinski, ‘Aliens and refugee law in Poland-recent developments’ (1994) 6 International Journal of Refugee Law 636, at 637.
59. See RA Stainsby, ‘Asylum-seekers in Poland: catalyst for a new refugee and asylum policy in Europe’ (1990) 2 International Journal of Refugee Law 636, at 637.
60. See figures in B Mikolajczyk, ‘Poland’ in Byrne et al, above n 5, 48–77, at 50. A very high proportion of these applications (55 per cent in 1998) are discontinued as a result of the applicants disappearing, probably trying to enter the EU.
61. See UNHCR, 2000 Global refugee trends, Geneva, May 2001, 19, .
62. See Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 52.
63. In 1998, there were 698 asylum applications lodged at the German-Polish border, see Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 53. To this figure, one must add the number of applications lodged by asylum seekers re-admitted from Germany within the country.
64. See Grabbe, above n 11, at 529.
65. See Lavenex, above n 45, at 140.
66. Global refugee trends, 132–133.
67. See Bouteillet-Paquet, above n 14, at 292.
68. Aliens Act no 114, 25 June 1997, OGRP, no 739/1997.
69. For more detail, see J Chlebny and W Trojan, ‘The refugee status determination procedure in Poland’ (2000) 12 International Journal of Refugee Law 212.
70. See Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 55.
71. See interview with Christian Mahr, London, 29 Sept 2001.
72. See Chlebny and Trojan, above n 64, 220–1. These time limits were removed in 2001.
73. See J Monar, ‘Justice and home affairs’, in H Wallace and A Mayhew (eds), Poland: A Partnership Profile, OEOS Policy Paper, Apr 2001.
74. See G Noll, ‘Protection in a spirit of solidarity?’, in Byrne et al, above n 5, 305–24, at 322. Other candidate countries such as Hungary and the Czech Republic also have very low recognition rates, which place them amongst the most restrictive countries in Europe.
75. See 2001 Regular Report on Poland's Progress Towards Accession, SEC (2001) 1752, 13 Nov 2001, 87. I would like to thank Katarzyna Cuadrat-Grzybowska for providing me with an English translation of the amended 1997 Aliens Act.
76. See Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 73–74.
77. See interview with Irena Rzeplinska, Warsaw, 11 June 2002.
78. See Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 70.
79. See Lavenex, above n 45.
80. See telephone interview with Marek Szonert, Warsaw, 26 June 2002. In 2000, 308 persons (members of the Roma community) from Bulgaria and 864 from Romania sought asylum in Poland
81. see Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 52.
82. Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union, annexed to the EC Treaty (1998).
83. See Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 70.
84. E-mail exchange with Michal Kowalski, 15 July 2002.
85. See D Stola, ‘Poland’, in C Wallace and D Stola (eds), Patterns of Migration in Central Europe (London: Longman, 2001), 175–202, at 176.
86. See Monar, above n 68, at 43.
87. Patterns of Migration in Central Europe, 44.
88. For more detail, see P Latawski, ‘Straz Graniczna: the mission, structure and operations of Poland's border guard’, in Iglicka and Sword, above n 53, 90–103.
89. See House of Lords' Select Committee on European Union, above n 18, para 63.
90. Select Committee on European Union, para 61.
91. Select Committee on European Union, para 60.
92. See 2001 Regular Report, above n 70, at 85.
93. M. Anderson, ‘Border regimes and security in an enlarged European Community: implication of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty’, RSC paper 2000/8, 21.
94. See K Iglicka, ‘Migration movements from and into Poland in the light of East-West European migration’ (2001) 39 International Migration 3, at 8.
95. See IOM/ICPMD, Migration in Central and Eastern Europe-1999 review (Geneva: IOM, 1999), 112.
96. See Stola, above n 80, at 197.
97. See Grabbe, above n 11, at 530.
98. See Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 60.
99. Interview with Isabelle Rivière, Warsaw, 12 June 2002.
100. See Iglicka, above n 89, at 13.
101. Interview with Isabelle Rivière, Warsaw, 12 June 2002.
102. See IOM/ICPMD, above n 90, at 115.
103. See Communication from the Commission to the Council, The EU and Kaliningrad, COM (2001) 26 final, 17 Jan 2001, 5.
104. Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 58.
105. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 Dec 1984, 23 ILM 1027
106. See H Lambert, ‘Protection against refoulement from Europe: human rights law comes to the rescue’ (1999) 48 ICLQ 515.
107. See Lavenex, above n 45, at 133.
108. See M Klaczynski, ‘Readmission agreements concluded by Poland’ (1997), . The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers from these two countries do not obtain refugee status in Poland.
109. See the readmission agreements concluded between Poland and the Czech Republic, Slovakia, or Ukraine, see Bouteillet-Paquet, above n 14, at 362.
110. See list of the main countries of origin for 1999–2000 in Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 52.
111. See the number of asylum applications lodged in Lithuania upon readmission from Poland, in Sesickas et al, ‘Lithuania’, in Byrne et al, above n 5, 226–66, at 238.
112. Background Information on the Situation in Poland in the Context of the Return of Asylum Seekers, UNHCR Geneva, Nov 1998, quoted in Mikolajczyk, above n 56, at 62.
113. See Byrne et al, ‘Western European asylum policies for export: the transfer of protection and deflection formulas to Central Europe and the Baltics’, in Byrne et al, above n 5, 5–28, at 25.
114. See for instance the list of readmission agreements concluded by Hungary in B Nagy, ‘Hungary’, in Byrne et al, above n 5, 138–99, at 168.
115. See list of agreements in Lavenex, above n 45, at 133.
116. Interview with Christian Mahr, London, 29 Sept 2001.
117. See ECRE, above n 46, para 5.
118. Lavenex, above n 10, at 290.
119. Commission Strategy Paper, above n 17, at 7.
120. Zielonka, above n 26, at 524.