Refugees Crisis in European Union

...

b) Application of the law to the facts presented in Statement of facts

The article 78 provide asylum which granted to people from third-country fleeing persecution or serious harm in their own country and therefore in need of international protection. This article supported by Geneva Convention 1951 and Protocol relating to the status of refuges 1967. First paragraph includes: a) the status of person seeking asylum; additional protection in case of denial of asylum; temporary protection for displaced persons in the case of a massive inflow; established the way for canceling asylum and protection status; criteria for which European country is responsible for asylum application.

c) Answer to the research question based on the law

Refugees actually have legitimate reasons for wanting to flee from their homelands; they are eligible for the protection generally afforded to refugees under several international conventions and protocols. A refugee is recognized as a person fleeing conflict or persecution on the basis on race, religion, and national, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Under the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention, a country is legally obliged to shelter a refugee and is not allowed to expel or return a refugee to somewhere where their life or freedom would be threatened. Many people arrive in the EU after perilous land or sea journeys and require basic humanitarian assistance, such as provision of clean water, health care, emergency shelter and legal aid. Under these circumstances The Commission's humanitarian and civil protection department supports refugees and their host communities.

The law applicable for the issue:

The Union has developed a general policy on granting asylum, additional protection and temporary protection with the aim of granting an appropriate status to any citizen of a third country in need of international protection. [7]If Article 78 and Common European Asylum System of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (28 July 1951, Geneva Convention) Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 31 January 1967, entered into force 4 October 1967) is applied, then the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favorable treatment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form.

The legal case dealing with a similar issue:

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sharifi and others v. Italy and Greece, October 2009, Application No. 16643/09, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4afd25c32.html [accessed 24 April 2017]

1) Facts

In a letter of 3 September 2009, the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court") requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("UNHCR") to submit a written statement as a third party in the case of Sharifi and Others, Italy and Greece (application No. 16643/09). The case concerned 32 Afghan nationals, two Sudanese nationals and one Eritrean national, who at different times between 2007 and 2008 had reached Greece and later travelled by boat to Italy. Upon arriving at various Italian ports the boats were intercepted by border guards and immediately refueled to Greece. In both countries the applicants faced the risk of death, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, were subjected to violence meted out by the police and crew on the vessels and were not granted the opportunity to lodge asylum applications. The Court found that only four applicants had maintained regular contact with their legal representatives, demonstrating an intention to pursue the application. The lawyer must keep in contact with the applicant; this is not only in order to acquire a thorough understanding of the case but to also confirm that the applicant still wishes to continue litigating. The Court subsequently considers the case with regards solely to these four individuals.

2) Issue

During the time spent in Greece the applicants advanced that no possibility to contact a lawyer or translator was provided, that they had no access to the asylum procedure or a first instance procedure which had competence to hear their complaints.

3) Decision

The Court held, by a majority, concerning four of the applicants, Reza Karimi, Yasir Zaidi, Mozamil Azimi and Najeeb Heideri who had maintained regular contact with their lawyer in the proceedings before this Court, that there had been a violation of European Convention on Human Rights. Сourt sentenced that the actions of the Italy and Greece were unlawful in relation to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the affected party, namely the refugees, won this case.

4) Reason

A violation by Greece of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) combined with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or regarding treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the lack of access to the asylum procedure for the above-named applicants and the risk of deportation to Afghanistan, where they were likely to be subjected to ill-treatment; a violation by Italy of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens); a violation by Italy of Article 3, as the Italian authorities, by returning these applicants to Greece, had exposed them to the risks arising from the shortcomings in that country’s asylum procedure; and, a violation by Italy of Article 13 combined with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 on account of the lack of access to the asylum procedure or to any other remedy in the port of Ancona.

5) Summary

Refusal by Italy of entry at the border may mean that access to an asylum procedure in Italy is denied to persons seeking or in need of international protection. Once returned to Greece, asylum seekers face obstacles in gaining access to the Greek procedure. Even in cases where they do gain access, the Greek asylum system as it operates at present does not contain sufficient safeguards to ensure that persons in need of international protection will be recognized as such. Consequently, the risk of expulsion to a territory where they may be at risk of persecution or serious harm cannot be excluded.

6) Relation to the statements