Ad-Hoc Query on Return Policy to Eritrea. Requested by BE EMN NCP on 24 th June Compilation produced on 16 th August 2010

Transcription

1 Ad-Hoc Query on Return Policy to Eritrea Requested by BE EMN NCP on 24 th June 2010 Compilation produced on 16 th August 2010 Responses from Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom (17 in Total) Disclaimer: The following responses have been provided primarily for the purpose of information exchange among EMN NCPs in the framework of the EMN. The contributing EMN NCPs have provided, to the best of their knowledge, information that is up-to-date, objective and reliable. Note, however, that the information provided does 1. Background Information According to UNHCR and some other NGO s a person who has left Eritrea illegally can be at real risk on return. Eritreans who are forcibly returned may face arrest without charge, detention, ill-treatment and torture (UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum-seekers from Eritrea, p. 33, 34 [online] In this context return (forced and voluntary) might be a delicate matter. Belgium has some questions concerning the treatment of asylum applications of Eritrean applicants and concerning the return policy towards Eritreans. If so, what kind of protection is granted (refugee status, subsidiary protection art. 15 (a) or (b) council directive 2004/83/EG, humanitarian status, nonrefoulement)? 1. Are Removals to Eritrea actually taking place? 1 of 5

2 a)if so, is there monitoring after the return? b)if not, is this due technical reasons or other reasons? c)is there voluntary return to the country in question? 2. Do asylum applicants from Eritrea receive some form of protection on the mere fact that they have left their country illegally? If so, what kind of protection is granted (refugee status, subsidiary protection art. 15 (a) or (b) council directive 2004/83/EG, humanitarian status, non-refoulement)? 2. Responses Wider Dissemination? Austria No This EMN NCP has provided a response to the requesting EMN NCP. However, they have requested that it is not disseminated further. Belgium No This EMN NCP has provided a response to the requesting EMN NCP. However, they have requested that it is not disseminated further. Cyprus Yes 1. Cyprus does not remove Eritreans back to their country. This is due to the real risk they will face upon return and there were no voluntary returns so far. We have so far came across with cases in which Eritreans left their country illegally in order to escape their national service. 2. All Eritreans citizens are entitled to serve to the national service after the completion of their military service. Although there is a fix time for the national service to be served, the period proved indefinite which in turn creates serious survival problems to Eritreans who are paid with very low wages and forced to live the rest of their lives under poverty. This violates the fundamental right of freedom. Escaping from national service is punishable and upon return Eritreans are subject to prison, ill-treatment and there were cases that they have been executed. Having in mind the consequences which an Eritrean is going to face upon return which amounts to real risk of persecution, a refugee status is granted. Czech Republic Yes 1. No. There are no Eritrean nationals to be returned. 2. No Eritrean nationals claimed protection for this reason yet. Estonia Yes We don t have asylum seekers from Eritrea and does not have practice in this area. Finland No This EMN NCP has provided a response to the requesting EMN NCP. However, they have requested that it is not disseminated further.

3 Germany Yes 1. There have been no expulsions to Eritrea in Two individuals left for Eritrea in 2009 under the REAG/GARP programme, and another individual in 2010 (as per: May 2010). 2. No, refugee status or subsidiary protection is not granted solely because of leaving Eritrea illegally. It is always necessary to examine cases on an individual basis. It is very rare in practice for an applicant to exclusively invoke illegal residence abroad. The focus is almost always on flight from national service and/or opposition activities. Italy Yes On the basis of the analysis of available data, it s possible to say that the most part of claims for international protection applied by Eritrean citizens are accepted. In Italy, the mere fact of coming from Eritrea does not automatically give rise to international protection, although cases of denial are de facto very few. In most part of the cases the competent Committees have granted international protection status or subsidiary protection. For other cases, the competent Committees have recommended to the competent police offices (the Questure ) to grant a stay permit on humanitarian grounds. Latvia Yes During the time period from until there were no asylum seekers from Eritrea in Latvia therefore we are not in position to give any comments on this topic. Lithuania Yes We ve only had one family (3 persons) from Eritrea applying for asylum in Lithuania, who were granted refugee status as deserters. Due to scarce number of applications we have no practice of removals to Eritrea or examination of other grounds for granting asylum to Eritrean applicants. Netherlands Yes Forced return to Eritrea is possible. The Repatriation and Departure Service does not have experience with forced return to Eritrea. The Eritrean authorities will not supply travel documents for forced return. Foreign nationals can return voluntarily to their country of origin. In case of voluntary return the authorities will supply a travel document. Poland Yes 1. The Polish Border Guard did not organize any voluntary or forced returns of Eritrea citizens form the territory of Poland. 2. In the time period there were only 7 asylum applicants from Eritrea. Last application for asylum has been submitted in 2007 Portugal Yes 1. a) No, there isn t a practice of expulsion of rejected asylum seekers to Eritrea. b) In a general way, it has been granted a protection status (refugee or subsidiary protection) to asylum seekers nationals from Eritrea.

4 c) No, in Portugal the majority of asylum seekers from Eritrea are undocumented and they left out of Eritrea, as they say, illegally, therefore the voluntary return is not possible. 2. No. All the asylum applicants are analyzed individually and the simple fact of having illegally left out from Eritrea does not justify an immediate protection status. Nevertheless, in practice, all the asylum applicants requested by nationals of Eritrea, which claim left the country illegally (and whose fear of persecution is well founded or not credible) has been benefiting from subsidiary protection status, because of the risk they may suffer inhuman or degrading treatment, torture, or detention. Slovak Republic No This EMN NCP has provided a response to the requesting EMN NCP. However, they have requested that it is not disseminated further. Slovenia Yes 1. No. b) According (telephone information on , 11:50) to the deputy director of the Centre for Foreigners Postojna (part of Slovenian police), authority responsible for deportations (not only rejected seekers for international protection, but for all foreigners without the right to stay on the Slovenian terithory), there has never been accomodated any person for possible removal to Eritrea. c) Voluntary return to Eritrea has not been known. 2. Policy or adopted possition on this matter does not exist. There has been just one international protection (IP) seeker (claiming to be) from Eritrea so far. After lodging an application in April 2009 he absconded, so the procedure was later discontinued. In the end of June 2010 he lodged IP application again (after Dublin return) and the case has not been decided yet. Sweden Yes 1. Yes. a) No b) The Swedish authorities handling return are not delegated this task/responsibility. c) Yes. In general, yes. Whether refugee status or subsidiary protection would be granted would have to be assessed on a case-by-case-basis. However, in many cases the reasons for the persecution (i.e. the illegal exit) might at least be a political characteristic attributed to the applicant by the actor of persecution. In such a case it would result in a refugee status. United Kingdom Yes 1. There is no policy to not remove to Eritrea, and each case is treated on its individual merits. Where an Eritrean national has no right to remain in the UK, the UK may seek to enforce removal. a) The UK does not pro-actively monitor the treatment of individual failed asylum seekers who return to their home country unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant doing so.

5 b) We consider that the asylum determination system ensures that we only remove an individual where we (and the courts) have found that the individual is not at real risk of ill-treatment. It would generally be inappropriate and impractical for the UK to actively monitor individual citizens of another country once they return there. c) The UK encourages people who are in the UK illegally to leave voluntarily and, in co-operation with the International Organization for Migration, it operates the Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) schemes to help them to do so. This applies to all nationalities, including Eritrea. 2. Where Eritrean nationals are able to demonstrate that they have left Eritrea illegally, they will qualify for asylum in most cases, unless there are particular reasons for their exclusion. ************************