Doc. 8761

8 June 2000

Arrival of asylum seekers at European airports

Report

Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography

Rapporteur: Mr Gross, Switzerland, Socialist Group

Summary

The considerable increase in numbers of asylum seekers arriving at European airports raises the important problem of the conditions in which they are received. The handling of requests for asylum at this stage remains an important element of the determination procedure as a whole, and the particular position of asylum seekers at airports may entail specific difficulties, resulting in violation of their human rights. Moreover, difficult material and humanitarian conditions may cause undue hardship to asylum seekers.

The Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that in general terms airport reception conditions have considerably improved since the first report on the subject debated by the Assembly in 1991. However, there are still serious shortcomings in some countries, and they cannot be justified by the poor economic situation, or the large number of applications. The Rapporteur makes recommendations in this respect to the countries concerned.

I.       Draft recommendation

1. Since the mid-1980s the member states of the Council of Europe have been increasingly confronted with growing numbers of asylum seekers, many of whom arrive at airports. Besides the problem of ensuring that all asylum seekers are treated in accordance with international refugee law, this increase in numbers has created a specific problem with regard to airport reception facilities. Officials need to be clear that their role is to uphold asylum and not to be the agents of deterrence. The challenge is particularly serious for the airports receiving the greatest numbers of applicants (such as Frankfurt, Paris or London), and those which have been confronted with this problem for a relatively short time (to be found mainly in central, eastern and southern European countries).

2. The handling of requests for asylum at this stage is an important part of the refugee status determination procedure as a whole. Access to a country's procedure for the granting of refugee status is essential to the concept of international protection. Yet asylum seekers arriving at airports may be denied access to this procedure, resulting in the risk of refoulement and violation of their human rights.

3.       Moreover, incoherent and unjustifiably lengthy procedures, in particular combined with difficult conditions at the airport (eg unsatisfactory reception centres) may cause undue hardship to asylum seekers.

4. The harmonisation of national asylum policies at European level is more than ever necessary. In this context, the Assembly recalls and reaffirms its past recommendations designed to improve the protection and treatment afforded to asylum seekers, in particular its Recommendation 1163 (1991) on the arrival of asylum seekers at European airports; Recommendation 1236 (1994) on the right of asylum; Recommendation 1309 (1996) on the training of officials receiving asylum seekers at border points; Recommendation 1327 (1997) on the protection and reinforcement of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe; Recommendation 1374 (1998) on the situation of refugee women in Europe; and Recommendation 1440 (2000) on the restrictions on asylum in the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Assembly stresses the need for sustained co-ordination of asylum and immigration policies between the European Union and the Council of Europe.

5.       The Assembly notes with satisfaction that in general reception conditions at the visited airports have considerably improved since it adopted Recommendation 1163 (1991) on the subject. It also welcomes the adoption of Recommendation No. R (94) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on guidelines to inspire practices of the member states of the Council of Europe concerning the arrival of asylum seekers at European airports.

6. Nevertheless, the Assembly notes with concern that basic problems subsist at several airports receiving asylum seekers, including shortage of accommodation and inadequate material conditions and equipment. Further improvement may in some cases require a review of the nature and characteristics of the authority in charge of managing the airport.

7. The Assembly notes with particular concern that the material and humanitarian conditions in which asylum seekers are received at certain airports are well below acceptable standards. Even if in some cases these can be partly explained by poor economic conditions in the country, or by the large number of applicants, the relevant national authorities should be urged to improve the situation as quickly as possible.

8. The Assembly welcomes the initiative of the Netherlands in setting up an ad hoc parliamentary committee to investigate the conditions in which asylum seekers are received at Schiphol airport. This example should be followed by all Council of Europe member states in the framework of a wider investigation into the treatment received by asylum seekers in general, throughout the whole refugee status determination procedure.

9.       The Parliamentary Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i. step up the monitoring of member states' compliance with international refugee law with reference to the reception of asylum seekers, and with the relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers;

ii. instruct the appropriate Committee to ensure that the situation at those airports where particular shortcomings have been noted are improved by the member states concerned;

iii. further intensify Europe-wide co-operation in the field of asylum with a view to undertaking a general overview of the situation of asylum seekers in the light of international refugee instruments;

10.       The Assembly also recommends that the Committee of Ministers urge the member states to:

i.       review their national legislation and practices with reference to the reception of asylum seekers, and in particular:

       e. to improve the conditions of detention of asylum seekers, and in particular to make sure that they are not detained together with common criminals;

ii.       review, and, where necessary improve the material and humanitarian conditions of reception at the airports, and in particular:

iii.       ensure that the above requirements are also met in reception or detention centres located outside the airport, to which applicants are transferred for the time of the determination procedure;

iv.       strengthen relations with non-governmental organisations concerned with human rights, and promote the networking of their activities;

11.       Finally, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers invite the Commission of the European Communities to give greater priority within its Odysseus programme to training border officials from countries in central and eastern Europe through visits and exchanges, with a particular view to learning about the most humane airport reception procedures and conditions in the European countries with most experience in this field (eg. Denmark and the Netherlands).

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Gross

1.       Introduction

1. Since the mid-1980s, the member states of the Council of Europe, as a whole, have been increasingly confronted with a growing number of asylum seekers. The liberalisation of migration policies which took place in central and eastern Europe at the beginning of the 1990s has created the phenomenon of transit migration. Following the establishment of bilateral readmission agreements between the countries of this region and the western European countries, the former have increasingly become countries of destination by default. Moreover, military conflicts within Europe have resulted in major migratory movements.

2. The restrictive measures introduced by the majority of the western European countries in 1992, and subsequently by central and eastern European states, raised the question of compliance with international obligations in the field of asylum seekers' protection. It is important to ensure that in all Council of Europe member States every stage of the status determination procedure meets minimum standards, established by international law.

3. Access to a country's procedures for the granting of refugee status is essential to the concept of international protection. For many asylum seekers airports are a crucial point of access to determination procedure. The particular position of asylum seekers at airports may entail specific difficulties and violations of human rights, including the risk of refoulement.

4.        On the other hand, incoherent and unjustifiably lengthy procedures, in particular combined with difficult conditions at the airport (eg unsatisfactory reception centres) may cause undue hardship to asylum seekers. Detention and deportation conditions may also result in the violation of human rights. The quality of reception itself as well as the handling of requests for asylum at this stage remain important elements of the determination procedure as a whole.

5. The Parliamentary Assembly has long been concerned by this subject. In Order No. 442 (1988) on the right to asylum, it instructed the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography to study the treatment received by asylum seekers arriving at European airports. In 1991 the Assembly adopted Recommendation 1163 (1991) on the arrival of asylum seekers at European airports along with Order No. 467 (1991) in which the Committee was instructed to continue its investigation of the problems encountered by asylum seekers arriving by air.

6. In response to the Assembly's Recommendation, the Committee of Ministers in 1994 adopted Recommendation No. R (94) 5 on the guidelines to inspire practices of the member states of the Council of Europe concerning the arrival of asylum seekers at European airports.

7. In the framework of the preparation of the present report the Rapporteur carried out a number of visits to European airports falling into four categories:

–       those in which particular shortcomings were noted in the first report on the subject 1 (Roissy Charles de Gaulle – Paris, Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino, Rome);

–       those in key arrival points in the «new immigration » countries of southern Europe (Lisbon, Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino-Rome);

–       those in the "transit migration" countries of central and eastern Europe (Bucharest, Budapest, Warsaw);

–       certain major western European airports identified as major arrival or transit points (Frankfurt, Zurich, Amsterdam, Dublin, Oslo, Helsinki, Stockholm, Brussels, Copenhagen).

To some extent, the choice of airports was determined by the Rapporteur's availability, and attempts to reconcile the fact-finding missions with other commitments.

8. In the preparation of his report, the Rapporteur has taken account of the information collected by his predecessor, Mr Franck, who, in 1994 visited the airports in Warsaw, Zurich and Bucharest before he left the Assembly.

9. Other sources of information used by the Rapporteur include published reports on recent visits to certain airport detention facilities by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), reports published by the European Commission/Court of Human Rights and by international governmental and non-governmental organisations, information provided by the relevant authorities in response to concrete questions, as well as documentation collected for other reports, eg. on the training of officials receiving asylum seekers at border points2 or on the protection and reinforcement of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe 3.

10. The subject of the present report cannot be considered without reference to the asylum procedures in the member states. This question was thoroughly examined in the report on the protection and reinforcement of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe presented by Mrs Brasseur on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography in June 1997. In order to avoid repetition the Rapporteur frequently makes reference to this report, restricting himself to completing and updating the information available there. Despite these efforts certain repetitions are inevitable as the quality of reception of asylum seekers at the airports is closely related to the question of determination procedures and asylum law.

11. Finally, the Rapporteur would like to express his gratitude to the immigration and police authorities of the airports which he has visited. Their assistance has largely contributed to the drafting of the present report.

2.       Legal framework applying to the arrival of asylum seekers at airports

12. The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol remains the principal international legal instrument applicable to the protection of asylum seekers. They provide the definition of "refugee" and establish a number of principles with a view to protecting persons in danger of persecution. The following Council of Europe member States are not signatories to this Convention and Protocol: Andorra, Moldova, San Marino and Ukraine. One country, namely Turkey, continues to apply geographical limitation to the scope of these instruments, despite many recommendations addressed to it by the Council of Europe and other international organisations.

13. A number of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights may be applied to asylum seekers. In particular, certain articles have given rise to a body of case-law on the subject examined in the present report. This is particularly true of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 5 (deprivation of liberty), 8 (respect for private and family life), and 13 (effective remedy).

14. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is responsible for ensuring compliance with international refugee law. In the conclusions of the Executive Committee (EXCOM) it has developed clear procedures and criteria which should be referred to during the status determination procedure. It has also published a practical reference work, the Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status.

15. National migration laws and asylum procedures vary from one country to another but some harmonisation has been undertaken in recent years, in particular within the European Union. The Amsterdam Treaty, signed in June 1997 and which entered into force in May 1999, obliges the European Union to adopt measures introducing minimum standards in different areas of asylum procedure within a five year period. They will replace existing agreements and resolutions adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (the so-called Third Pillar).

16. The bilateral readmission agreements concluded by the main European countries of asylum with nearly all countries of central and eastern Europe play an important role in the distribution of asylum seekers within Europe.

17. At the pan-European level harmonisation has been promoted in the framework of the Council of Europe. The 6th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Migration Affairs (1996) came to the conclusion that the Council of Europe should serve as permanent forum for co-operation between the member states and other international organisations in regard to policies on migration and refugees.

18. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has adopted a number of resolutions and recommendations in the field of asylum. The most relevant in the context of the present report is the aforementioned Recommendation No. R (94) 5 on guidelines to inspire practices of the member states of the Council of Europe concerning the arrival of asylum seekers at European airports.

19. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has adopted numerous texts concerning asylum seekers which are of relevance to this report. An extensive list can be found in the Report on restrictions on asylum in the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Union (Rapporteur: Mr Cilevičs) presented to the Assembly in January 2000 (Doc. 8598, para. 7). The Assembly has repeatedly called for a binding agreement between the member states of the Council of Europe setting minimum harmonised standards for asylum procedures.

3.       Elements to be taken into account when assessing the situation at airports

A.       Access to asylum procedure

20. Access to asylum procedure is a conditio sine qua non of effective international protection. Visa requirements and carrier sanctions, incorporated into the European treaties (the Schengen and Dublin Conventions) to a great extent jeopardise this right, and the Parliamentary Assembly has expressed its concern about this situation on many occasions4. Access to status determination procedures at the airport constitutes a crucial issue examined in the present report.

21. The decision on admission or rejection of an application should be taken by a specialised central authority. It is not appropriate for border officials to decide on the admissibility of an application, especially since in some countries they have not received proper training in this field and they are not provided with sufficient information.

22. Even in so-called "manifestly unfounded cases", including asylum seekers coming from safe countries of origin or safe third countries, a proper interview should be given. In case of rejection on the basis of inadmissibility, the applicant must be assured the opportunity to make a request in a country where he or she is readmitted. Moreover, it should be stressed that the criteria used for designating certain countries as "safe countries of origin" are not clear or satisfactory.

23. In every case, a rejected asylum seeker should have a right to appeal, and such an appeal should have a suspensive effect.

B.       Duration of determination procedure and its compliance with minimum standards

24. The importance of access to the determination procedure has already been stressed. In this section the Rapporteur will concentrate on those elements of the procedure which are relevant to the subject of the report.

25. The first interview usually takes place at the airport. Before it starts the applicant should be provided with exhaustive information on his or her legal situation and rights. He or she should have access to legal assistance, prior to, during and after the interview. At each stage an appropriately qualified interpreter must be available. Social services, human rights and humanitarian NGOs as well as a representative of the UNHCR should have free access to asylum seekers at all stages of the determination procedure. The applicant should be given a complete personal and confidential interview. All subsequent decisions must be communicated immediately to the individual concerned through the same procedure.

26. The applicant must be provided with an opportunity for a judicial appeal, with suspensive effect, to an independent body against the decision to send him or her to another country.

27. Before any deportation to a safe third country, the applicant must be guaranteed access to asylum procedures there.

28. The duration of stay at the airport should be defined by law, as well as the duration of stay at any reception centre pending the outcome of the determination procedure.

C.       Conditions of reception

29. This section includes a number of conditions of a material and humanitarian nature which should be met in order to eliminate undue suffering caused to asylum seekers at the airports.

30. At all airports visited by the Rapporteur applicants hold their first interview on the spot, and in most of them they await the decision on admissibility of their application there. The duration of waiting varies and in some countries it is not legally defined by law, which creates a risk of unjustified prolongation. In case of a negative decision on admissibility the applicants usually spend even more time on these premises pending deportation or possibly the outcome of an appeal. At certain airports they stay on these premises until the end of the so-called accelerated determination procedure. This is all the more dangerous, since these premises, foreseen for a short stay, are usually not at all suitable for a lengthy one.

31. Conditions of reception at the airport differ considerably from one country to another, which is understandable given the great differences in numbers of arrivals and in the average duration of stay at the airport. However there are certain minimum standards to be met and the Rapporteur indicates in the present report all deficiencies, which he considers unacceptable.

32. Even for a short stay women and men should be accommodated separately except for families, which preferably should stay together. Rooms should be properly heated, ventilated and have natural lighting, which unfortunately is not always the case. In the case of long stays, access to fresh air outdoors should be available for at least one hour each day. Proper meals should be provided. Applicants should have access to medical care. Interpreters, whose presence during the procedure is a requirement, should also be available in case of a prolonged stay. The applicants should have the right to inform next-of-kin and to telephone and receive visits from them.

33. Particular attention should be given to unaccompanied minors. They should be interviewed in the presence of an independent and appropriately qualified adult (a social lawyer or similar person), and be given absolute priority.

34. Also women asylum seekers should be treated with special attention. This question was examined in a separate report presented by Mrs Johansson on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography5.

35. In the case of a positive decision on admissibility the applicants are usually transferred to a reception area located outside the airport. The duration and conditions of their stay in these centres result from the national determination procedure defined by law. Observance of minimum humanitarian and material standards is even more important here, as the average duration of the stay is longer. The Rapporteur visited these centres during his visits to the airports, and he has formulated reservations where necessary.

36. A number of questions have to be taken into account when assessing the conditions in the reception centres. The first set of questions relates to material conditions. It includes equipment of rooms, number of occupants, quality of food, medical care, and facilities for children.

37. Separate rooms and facilities for women and men constitute an important element of essential security, a question examined more closely in the above-mentioned report on refugee women.

38. The second set of conditions to be met is of a humanitarian nature. Depending on the procedure, applicants sometimes spend a long time in the centres. In such cases they should be free to go out and have contacts with their relatives or friends living outside. Although most countries do not allow for employment during the determination procedure, an applicant should be given the opportunity to do something useful, like training. Applicants should be kept informed of the procedure they are undergoing. Interpreters should be available.

D.       Conditions of detention

39. Asylum seekers are detained most often on grounds of the lack of valid documents upon their entry to the country, or in case of suspicion that they are not refugees but economic migrants. The criteria for detention are not clearly specified in the legislation of all Council of Europe member States. Moreover they differ from one country to another. Very often the decision on detention is taken by a border official.

40. Another important element is the length of detention, which in some countries is not defined. It lasts as long as the determination procedure, and in extreme cases may be very long. Some recent judgements by the European Court of Human Rights provide guidelines on length of detention which, according to the Court is justified only for as long as determination or deportation procedures are in progress, which in turn should be prosecuted with due diligence.6

41. Certain material and humanitarian conditions described above should also apply to places of detention. Asylum seekers should not be detained with common criminals. They should have access to medical care and stay in properly equipped rooms with access to daylight and fresh air. Appropriate meals should be provided. Detainees should have access to their luggage and the possibility to contact their relatives. They should be informed of the state of proceedings.

E.       Training of officials receiving asylum seekers at airports

42. Decisions taken by border police or immigration officers can have crucial consequences for asylum seekers. This is particularly true in the decision whether or not to refer asylum seekers to the authorities responsible for determining refugee status. In extreme cases such decisions may result in the asylum seekers' unjustified return, in breach of international and domestic law.

43. However these decisions may in certain cases be difficult, especially in the case of asylum seekers who are not in a position to state their claim formally or intelligibly or to enter the state territory legally, since they may have been persecuted by the very authorities to whom they must apply for travel documents in their country of origin. It is therefore essential that those officials who first come into contact with asylum seekers should be fully aware of international and domestic legal instruments, and properly trained in order to possess adequate knowledge of all the elements, which should be taken into account.

44. Some Council of Europe member states provide special training for the officials who first come into contact with asylum seekers, others do not, despite Recommendation No. R (94) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states which recommends them to do so.

45. The Rapporteur recalls that, in accordance with Recommendation No. R (81) 16 on the harmonisation of national procedures relating to asylum of the Committee of Ministers to member states, the role of border officials must be strictly confined to understanding and recording the request for asylum and should on no account include responsibility for deciding on the merits of such a request, this being the function of the central authority competent to recognise refugee status. They should, moreover, have precise instructions on the procedures to be followed.

46. A more detailed examination of this question may be found in the report on the training of officials receiving asylum seekers at border points. In response to Recommendation 1309 (1996) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on the basis of this report, on 15 December 1998 the Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation No. R (98) 15 on the training of officials who first come into contact with asylum seekers, in particular at border points. The aim of this recommendation is to prevent refoulement and the turning away of the asylum seekers at the border as well as to ensure unimpeded access to the asylum procedure in member States by those seeking asylum, by means of appropriate and adequate initial and in-service training of officials who first come into contact with asylum seekers, in particular at border points.

F.       Conditions of deportation

47. Conditions of deportation are sometimes degrading and humiliating. They include binding of hands, feet and mouth and the administration of sedative drugs.

48. This question will be more closely examined in a forthcoming report on rendering more humane the procedures for expelling illegal immigrants and rejected asylum seekers.

4.       Situation at representative airports

General remarks

49. Visits to the airports revealed that a harmonious and coherent policy of receiving asylum seekers are still an aim to be pursued, although some progress in this field is visible. The situation varies greatly at different airports. This is also linked with the numbers of asylum seekers received. Although the information gathered during the visits may not be exhaustive, your Rapporteur is confident that the following descriptions give a general overview of the situation. Rather than making a detailed account of the legal proceedings, which was the subject of another report presented by the Committee7, your Rapporteur wishes to look at the practical and humanitarian aspects of arrival at the airport.

A.       Airports where shortcomings were noted in the report presented by Lord Mackie of Benshie

Roissy Charles de Gaulle, Paris (8 January 1998)

50. The airport is one of the most important European destinations of asylum seekers arriving by air. In 1997 8, 1011 applications for asylum were registered. 72 % were considered admissible.This figure was doubled in 1998 when 2484 applications were submitted. 79% were considered admissible.

51. The status determination procedure is based on a law of 6 July 1992 completed by a law on waiting zones adopted on 27 December 1994.

52. The visit by Mr de Hoop Scheffer, referred to in Lord Mackie of Benshie's report, was carried out on 20 November 1989. It revealed a number of serious deficiencies in the treatment received by asylum seekers on their arrival at the airport. For example neither interpreters nor legal assistance were available immediately after presenting the asylum request. Asylum seekers were detained in a so-called international zone at the airport, and were not considered by the authorities to be on French territory. As a practical consequence the authorities did not consider themselves legally obliged to examine the request as they would be if it were made on French territory. It is necessary to stress that the international zone had no legal basis9 and must be considered as a device to avoid obligations. During detention no access to social workers and in fact no communication with the outside world existed. Asylum seekers did not always have access to telephones. No recreational or educational facilities were put at the asylum seekers' disposal. No legal basis for detention existed, and a maximum period of detention was not prescribed by law. Some asylum seekers have claimed to have spent six weeks waiting for the Ministry of the Interior to decide whether their application was to be passed on to the authority responsible for determining refugee status, the "Office Français pour la Protection des Réfugiés et des Apatrides" (OFPRA), or whether they were to be sent back. Asylum seekers in the international zone slept on the floor and on plastic chairs, and sanitary infrastructure was very inadequate.

53. During his visit to the airport on 8 January 1998 the Rapporteur noted a considerable improvement in the situation. Asylum applications are forwarded to the Minister of the Interior who delivers the decision on admissibility within one or two days in the majority of cases, the maximum period being 20 days.

54. If it is decided that an application is inadmissible, an asylum seeker stays for a maximum of 20 more days (the aim is to handle cases within 48 hours). The asylum seeker can appeal to the tribunal. After 4 days a judge can decide on a possible prolongation for 8 days, which in exceptional cases may be prolonged for further 8 days.

55. During that time asylum seekers stay in the hotel. 70 rooms for 2-3 people are earmarked for asylum seekers waiting for a decision on admissibility. The hotel is part of the waiting zone. In use since 1989, it has been under renovation since 1990. Asylum seekers are not allowed to leave this area. This is not detention, but they are not allowed to leave. They have access to a telephone and legal advice and they can contact human rights organisations and a representative of UNHCR.

56. In case of a positive decision on admissibility, the length of the refugee status determination procedure varies. In 1998 it lasted on average 8 months. During that time asylum seekers can move freely, but they have to renew their authorisation to stay in the country every three months.

57. In 1997 nearly 100 unaccompanied children applied for asylum at the airport. This figure is on the rise, and amounted to 332 in 1998. Only some of them were immediately let in and transferred to a special children's home, where they awaited the outcome of the status determination procedure, whereas the others went through the ordinary procedure.

58. Border officials receive special training on treatment of asylum applications as part of their routine training, but they do not consider it to be sufficient. The situation varies for different grades, but in general it needs closer examination.

Fiumicino (Leonardo da Vinci), Rome (12 January 1998)

59. In 1997 as many as 80 applications for asylum were presented at the airport. This figure was higher by 50% compared to 1996.

60. Asylum procedures are stipulated in the Aliens Act No.39 of 28 January 1990, and in the Aliens Decree No. 376 of 16 July 1996.

61. This airport was visited by Lord Mackie of Benshie on 25 March 1991. At that time no accommodation or reception centre existed to lodge the asylum seekers waiting for an answer, and no information was provided to them on their rights or on the procedure. Asylum seekers waiting in a transit zone to be interviewed had no facilities or services at their disposal. The procedure was not clear even to the officials and no clear rules were applied. Officials were not trained and were lacking basic knowledge on the obligations deriving from the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

62. At present decisions on rejection and admission of asylum seekers to the territory are taken by a Border Police officer, and not by an immigration authority. In particularly difficult cases, the police officer may refer the case to the Border Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior. Police officers have no specialised training in asylum matters. Awaiting the decision on admissibility, which can take up to 8 days, asylum seekers remain on the airport's premises in unsatisfactory conditions. There are no special rooms for them and no facilities at their disposal. The meals are provided by the airline company.

63. According to the Aliens Act, rejections made by the Border Police may be appealed with suspensive effect. However the law does not specify the appeal authority or the time limit within which to apply. Very few appeals have been lodged, mainly due to the absence of legal counselling.

64. Asylum seekers admitted into the territory submit a formal asylum application to the Provincial Police Headquarters ("Questura"). They receive a temporary residence permit renewable every 2 months pending notification of a decision by the Central Commission on the Recognition of Refugee Status. Although a Decree of 1990 stipulates a time limit of 15 days for the decision, the average time is 2-3 months.

65. There is no compulsory accommodation for asylum seekers admitted to the territory, and those who wish can be accommodated in reception centres run either directly by the municipalities or by NGOs or charitable organisations. Meals are provided for the first 60 days. Afterwards asylum seekers may use other charitable canteens. They may apply for financial assistance. They are not entitled to national health care except for emergency cases and serious illness.

66. Negative decisions may be appealed within 30 days of notification to the Regional Administrative Court. The appeal has suspensive effect if it is lodged within 15 days. There is no time limit for the decision, and the average time is between 5 and 8 years.

67. In practice deportations are carried out very rarely. As there are no restrictions on asylum seekers' freedom of movement, many rejected asylum seekers stay in Italy illegally.

68. Interpretation and legal assistance are provided by the Italian Refugee Council.

69. Applicants are not informed about the asylum procedure.

70. UNHCR is involved in the status determination procedure.

B.       Key arrival points in the "new immigration" countries of southern and south-eastern Europe

Lisbon (30 0ctober 1996)

71. In 1996, 59 people applied for asylum at the airport. The Rapporteur's attention was drawn to the fact that many more asylum seekers arrive at seaports.

72. General provisions concerning the asylum procedure are laid down in the asylum law, adopted in 1993.

73. After arrival at the airport, asylum seekers wait in the waiting room for a decision by the Ministry of the Interior on the type of procedure to be applied. The decision is delivered within 24 hours. Then if an accelerated procedure is applied it may last up to 5 days maximum. During that time asylum seekers stay in the waiting room. In case of a negative decision they are not authorised to enter the territory and stay up to 48 hours waiting for deportation. In certain cases (if, for example there is no flight), court authorisation for a prolongation is required.

74. Until October 1996 asylum seekers had at their disposal at the airport only seats in the waiting area. Now asylum seekers have two rooms available during their stay at the airport, in a rather poor state, with artificial light only and no fresh air. They are not locked in and they are allowed to walk to the upper floor of the arrival building where they can use a telephone. Officers of the Border and Alien Services working in this area complain of bad conditions of work, and lack of security, in particular for women. The airport is managed by the Ministry of Transport, and the reception centre is not run by the Border and Alien Services. A new reception centre is under construction in a new part of the airport.

75. In case of a positive decision on admissibility, an asylum seeker is authorised to enter Portuguese territory for as long as his or her request for asylum is under examination. During this time he or she is provided with accommodation and social assistance.

76. Throughout the procedure – whether accelerated or not – an applicant has a right to legal assistance and interpreters and may contact the UNHCR and non-governmental organisations of his or her choice.

77. Border officials receive special training on treatment of asylum applications as part of their routine general training.

78. According to the information gathered by the Rapporteur, a certain number of applicants consider Portugal as a relatively easy point of access to the European Union (Portugal has been a party to the Schengen Agreement since 1994). Once on Portuguese territory, they disappear and fail to complete the determination procedure. Although in absolute numbers the problem is not yet very serious, nevertheless it is a matter of some concern.

C.       Transit migration countries of central and eastern Europe

Ferihegy Airport, Budapest (6 January 1998)

79. As many as 152 applications for asylum were submitted at the airport in 1999 (compared to 124 in 1998). In these years the total number of applications submitted in Hungary was, respectively, 11 499 and 7 118.

80. Hungarian law on asylum entered into force on 1 March 1998.The asylum procedure is contained in Cabinet Council Decree 101/1989, and in Government Decree 24/1998.

81. The refugee authority decides on the type of procedure immediately after the presentation of the application. In case of an accelerated procedure, the applicant is interviewed straight away and a decision is taken within 7 days. During that time he or she stays at the airport. In all other cases applicants are interviewed within 5 days and the decision is rendered within 60 days. During the status determination procedure applicants stay at reception centres, under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior.

82. Since 1 September 1999, appeal has suspensive effect.

83. During the whole procedure applicants have access to legal assistance, may contact UNHCR and other human rights organisations, and have access to interpreters.

84. Border officials receive training on the treatment of asylum seekers on a regular basis both from civil service colleges and UNHCR.

Otopeni International Airport, Bucharest (24 February 1998, 12 October 1999 and 12 April 2000)

85. In 1997 only 45 applications for asylum were submitted at the airport. None of the applicants arrived by plane: they were caught during illegal crossing of the border, and they applied for asylum at the airport just before their deportation. Before 1997 no statistics on applications at the airport were held. Throughout Romania 1500 asylum seekers were registered in 1997. The majority cross the land borders, considering Romania as a transit country. In 1998 there were 20 asylum application submitted at the airport, and in 1999 – 11 (until 12 October).

86. The Law on Asylum dates from 1996.

87. An asylum seeker waits at the airport for a decision on admissibility, which is taken by the Refugee Office within the Ministry of the Interior. The maximum waiting period is seven days, but decisions usually take more than that.

88. The conditions in which asylum seekers wait for the decision on admissibility at the airport are very poor. There are two small rooms in the transit area with no adequate equipment. The toilets had been cleaned and a proper meal provided to applicants just before the visit of the Rapporteur. Asylum seekers have access to the whole transit area and the hall. This creates another problem: the staff of the embassies have free access to this area too, and it has already happened that an Iraqi asylum seeker met a staff member of the Iraqi Embassy. UNHCR is in permanent contact with applicants.

89. In case of a negative decision on admissibility, an asylum-seeker may submit an appeal, which has suspensive effect. Pending the result of the appeal 80% of asylum seekers are permitted to enter the country. 20% are not permitted to stay during that time and are deported before the end of the appeal procedure. It takes two years for the court to consider appeals! The only explanation for this fact is that the system has not been adapted to a new phenomenon. The Minister of the Interior has expressed his concern, and the Minister of Justice has already made a proposal to change the law. While it is true that some applicants are allowed to enter the country, they have no status and consequently no rights, social assistance etc.

90. Although border officials receive some training on the treatment of asylum applications, the information gathered by the Rapporteur during his visit suggests that it would be useful to foresee co-operation with other countries, more experienced in this field, with a view to improving the organisation and conditions of reception.

91.        During his second visit, the Rapporteur did not note any improvement in the situation at the airport. On the contrary, the reception conditions had not changed since his first visit, and the Rapporteur found the situation really worrying and unacceptable. The rooms where asylum seekers wait for the decision on admissibility are so inadequate, that two Sudanese students, male and female, applying for asylum, met by the Rapporteur during his visit, had been staying in the transit zone for 46 days, sleeping on the benches for passengers. One of the reasons was that there was no separate room for men and women, and the young woman did not want to stay with other men.

92. The couple received no money, and the airport authorities did not provide them with food. Only occasionally were they given some food by the airline. The border officials felt sorry for them, but they claimed not to be in a position to offer them any kind of support. It was the Rapporteur who gave the asylum seekers some money and a British paper to read.

93. The procedures are unacceptably long. Among the asylum seekers waiting for a decision, the Rapporteur met 3 Iraqi officers, persecuted in their country, who had been waiting at the airport for respectively 2 and 4 months for the decision of the Romanian authorities. Just before the Rapporteur's visit, for the first time during the whole waiting period, they had been provided with clean blankets and sheets. They also got some food, after a two-day break. They were totally cut off from any outside information, they received no newspapers, they had no radio. They were totally desperate, and they really had good reason to be.

94. The Bucharest airport has been reconstructed recently and it has a new building, but facilities for asylum seekers have not been foreseen in the new project. The airport is run partly by the Transport Ministry, and partly by a private firm. Neither feels responsible for asylum seekers. The airport authorities claimed they had no financial resources to make any improvements. The chief border officer promised the Rapporteur to rearrange the reception area within his limited resources, but obviously more funds are necessary.

95.       During discussion in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography on 4 April 2000, the member of the Romanian delegation informed the members that the problems mentioned in the report had been solved following the construction of a new airport building. The Rapporteur immediately decided to verify the exactitude of this information and visited the Bucharest airport for the third time on 12 April 2000.

96.       The new commander in charge, Mr Florian Georgescu, who succeeded Mr Hristea Pandela, informed the Rapporteur that the two Sudanese students and three Iraqi officers whom he had met during his previous visit had been allowed to enter the country on 17 December 1999. Since then only four persons have asked for asylum at the Bucharest Airport (1 Iraqi citizen and 3 Palestinians, all of them wishing to go to Western Europe). All of them were transferred within not much more than one month to the refugee centre in Bucharest. This shows that the number of asylum seekers at the Bucharest Airport is decreasing substantially. At the moment of the Rapporteur's visit no asylum seeker was at the airport.

97.       As the Romanian colleague pointed out, the former sleeping rooms in the old building of the airport had been demolished since the Rapporteur's last visit. However, new sleeping and waiting rooms had not been established in the new building. Asylum seekers still have to wait in the transit hall during their wait for the outcome of the procedure. The authorities do not provide them with food which is offered to them by the airline companies which brought them to Bucharest. If they fail to do so, the police informs the UNHCR who takes care of the asylum seeker. When an application for asylum is submitted at the airport, the border police immediately informs the Office for Refugees which is responsible for interviews. The rooms where these interviews are held are new and more comfortable indeed. In the cellar of the new building there are two very poorly appointed brick rooms, which recall rather detention rooms, where people waiting for deportation are kept. The Rapporteur was told that asylum seekers might also sleep in these rooms if they prefer them to the transit zone during the admission procedure.

98.       It is clearly obvious that even in the new airport building the infrastructure for asylum seekers is far from satisfactory. The Rapporteur was told that a former military building situated in the area of the airport was to become the place where asylum seekers would wait during the admission procedure. The Romanian member of the Committee, Vice-President of the Romanian parliament, promised the Rapporteur that he would do his best to promote this solution as quickly as possible.

Warsaw Airport – Okecie (23 March 1998)

99.       In 1997 only 27 asylum seekers applied for asylum at the airport (54 in 1996). 5 applications were considered inadmissible. It is worth comparing this figure to the total number of asylum seekers in Poland which in 1997 amounted to 3533. In 1998 the respective figures were 31 (3398), and in 1999, 311 (2961). Like in other central and eastern European countries, Poland is facing the new phenomenon of so-called transit migration.

100.       The legal basis for the procedure is prescribed in the Aliens Act of 25 June 1997 and the Regulation of the Ministry of the Interior of 23 December 1997.

101.       A decision on admissibility is taken by the Minister of the Interior and must be rendered within 7 days. If it is positive an alien is placed in the reception centre where he is provided with food, medical care, etc. According to the Aliens Act, the decision on the granting of status is supposed to be taken by the Minister of the Interior within 3 months. However, in reality, the average waiting time is over one year.

102.       The right to appeal in case of a first negative decision on the refugee application by the Minister of the Interior has suspensive effect.

103.        In practice a decision on admissibility is rendered within 1-2 days, in more difficult cases in 3-4 days. During that time women with children are transferred immediately to a nearby hotel where they stay in good conditions. Other women and men stay in the transit area room with no daylight. They are not separated. They cannot walk in the transit area. They can contact representatives of UNHCR and NGOs. For the night there are no fixed beds, so they sleep in sleeping bags. They can stay up to 7 days after a negative decision, waiting for their flight, which makes altogether 14 days in bad conditions.

104.       A new centre within the airport is foreseen for the near future.

105.       The Border Guards are trained to receive asylum seekers.

Moscow, Sheremetevo 2 (18 October 1999)

106.       The airport is one of Moscow's four international airports, accounting for 90% of international air traffic. However, it is the only airport which has facilities for the reception of asylum seekers, and therefore applicants arriving at another airport are immediately sent to Sheremetevo 2. These facilities were put in place in 1997 and since then a total of 144 persons have applied for asylum. The Rapporteur's impression was that the rooms, although small, nevertheless were perfectly clean and orderly.

107.       The Rapporteur's attention was drawn to the fact that practically all applicants are people who have been deported or re-admitted from other countries which were their countries of destination. The number of applications for asylum submitted at Sheremetevo 2 accounts for 5 % of all applications in the Moscow region, which in turn accounts for 40% of the national total. On the average, there are up to 2000-2100 applications a year, and the acceptance rate is 8-10%.

108.       The initial decision on admissibility is taken by the Federal Migration Service within a 5-day period following the application. During that time asylum seekers are free to move within the transit zone. Two hotels are at their disposal, but the airline companies which had flown them are obliged to take care of them.

109.       In case of a positive decision on admissibility, an asylum seeker is transferred to a transit zone and accommodated in the airport hotel. The expenses are paid by the relevant airline. The decision on the granting of refugee status is taken by the Federal Migration Service within 3 – 6 months. If asylum is granted, refugees can obtain citizenship after 2-2,5 years.

110.       Unsuccessful applicants have the right to appeal to the Federal Migration Service or a court of law. It has suspensive effect, and during the appeal, temporary accommodation is provided in the UNHCR-run centre near Moscow.

111.       There are no detention facilities at the airport.

112.       UNHCR is involved in the status determination procedure.

113.       Border officials receive specialised training on the treatment of asylum seekers.

D.       Major arrival points in western and northern European states

London, Heathrow (4 February 1997)

114.       The applicable law is laid down in the Immigration Acts of 1971, 1988 and 1999, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act of 1993, as amended by the Asylum and Immigration Act of 1996, and in the Immigration Rules, comprising various subsidiary legislation.

115.       All requests for asylum submitted to immigration officers at the airport are immediately transmitted to the Integrated Casework Directorate, responsible for all decisions relating to claims for asylum. A decision on temporary admission is usually taken within 24 hours of arrival. During this time applicants are detained at the airport in good conditions. They have nice air-conditioned rooms with facilities, including newspapers and toys for children.

116.       The 1971 Act introduced a right of appeal, with suspensive effect, in case of a negative decision on admissibility. However, the 1996 Act set a number of restrictions to the appeal right of asylum seekers rejected on safe third country grounds (for example the appeal no longer has suspensive effect in case of designated countries). Some appeals are heard under a fast-track procedure.

117.       All applications considered to be “admissible” are dealt with under a procedure introduced in 1995 called “the short procedure”. It is applied to all applications except a number of designated nationalities (including Iraqis, Iranians, Libyans, Somalis, Liberians, Palestinians, citizens of Gulf States except Kuwait, Bosnians, Croats and citizens of the former Yugoslavia, Rwandans and Afghans). The asylum seeker is given his main interview at the airport within 24 hours of arrival. He has two days to submit further evidence in support of his application if he is detained, and seven days if he has been granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom. Decisions on applications from detained asylum seekers usually take 4-6 weeks. Other decisions take longer.

118.       Under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 immigration officers have powers to detain asylum seekers pending an interview with an immigration officer or pending a decision by the Home Office on the asylum application. An asylum seeker may be released and temporarily admitted to the country, subject to the Immigration Service being satisfied that he will not abscond. Detained asylum seekers may apply for bail.

119.       The detention centre situated next to the airport is one of the oldest ones in Britain and makes a very bad impression. Conditions do not seem to be satisfactory. However, detainees rarely stay there for longer than two months.

120.       Asylum seekers may contact a solicitor or legal representative of their choice at any stage in the asylum procedure. Free legal advice is available. All applicants are offered the services of an interpreter whilst being interviewed during the determination procedure. They may contact UNHCR, which is moreover often consulted in particularly difficult cases.

121.       The number of unaccompanied minors arriving at Heathrow is relatively small. There are special measures in place for such cases including priority consideration for applications and an independent panel of advisers, which offers each child individual advice. Where an application for refugee status is rejected, the child is usually granted exceptional leave to remain.

122.       After being admitted to British territory, asylum seekers have no specific housing rights except a right to emergency provision of accommodation under the homeless legislation, and they are only eligible if they have children or are “vulnerable” on the grounds of age or health. This right does not extend to the period of appeal against a negative decision. The Refugee Council has opened an emergency night-shelter for asylum seekers with no entitlement to benefit, but they can stay there for only two weeks. After that period they have to seek the assistance of local authorities, NGOs, charitable organisations and churches.

123.       Asylum seekers awaiting the outcome of the status determination procedure are entitled to financial assistance provided by the social security system. They get income support to cover living expenses (provided mostly in the form of vouchers rather than cash, under the new regime introduced in April 2000), and housing benefit for housing costs. No financial assistance is provided during the appeal period.

124.       Asylum seekers have access to the National Health Service.

125.       Permission to work can be granted to asylum seekers after they have waited 6 months for a decision on their asylum application.

Frankfurt/Main (16 January 1997)

126.       Frankfurt/Main is one of the biggest airports in Europe. In 1996, 5 737 asylum seekers submitted applications at the airport, the majority arriving from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Somalia. Approximately 80% were considered admissible. The recognition rate amounted to 7%. In 1995 as many as 8 100 deportations were carried out from the airport (including 1 700 escorted cases). Only about 30% constituted rejected asylum seekers. There is the problem of unaccompanied minor applicants, who numbered 359 in 1995.

127.       All asylum procedures are stipulated in the Law on Asylum Procedures of 1 July 1993.

128.       The decision on admissibility is taken within a maximum of 19 days. During this time applicants stay in a special building within the airport area. The conditions are very bad. The building is run by a private company. It is very poorly equipped, with toilets and showers in very bad condition. An average stay lasts 8 days, although it can be as long as 30 days. There were 51 applicants during the Rapporteur's visit, but it happens that there are as many as 180 people. As there are only 10 rooms for 6 people each and 1 room for 10 people, if the total number of applicants exceeds 70 people, they have to sleep on the floor. There are usually many children (during the Rapporteur's visit alone a group of 30 children arrived), and there are no facilities for them. Twice a week a social worker specialised in contacts with children comes to the place, but this is too little by far.

129.       In the Rapporteur's opinion this building is inadequate for the purpose it serves. Asylum seekers should be received in better conditions, in a bigger building, which should be run by the authority responsible for refugees, and not by a private company seeking profit.

130.       Throughout the procedure applicants are provided with legal assistance and interpretation and are authorised to contact NGOs and UNHCR.

131.       Border officials receive adequate training.

Zurich (20 January 1997)

132.       In 1996 as many as 487 applicants submitted their applications at the airport. Of this figure, 263 were considered admissible, and 224 inadmissible.

133.       Applicants wait for the decision on admissibility in the transit area of the airport. The decision is taken by the central authority on the basis of the interview conducted at the airport. In 1996 the average time of stay was 8 days, but in some cases it was much longer (one applicant waited 36 days and 38 others waited between 14 and 30 days). If the rejected applicants submit an appeal it takes an additional 9-10 days before they get a final decision. In the Rapporteur's opinion this time should be shortened. The conditions in which applicants wait are different for women and children on the one hand, and for men on the other. There is no special room during the day for men, and they mingle with passengers. During the night they can stay in 10 rooms run by the airport company. Women and children have access to 25 beds even during the day. In the Rapporteur's opinion, confirmed by the border police, the rooms should be managed by the social department of the cantonal police. The present system, in particular the lack of separate rooms for men during the day, seems to be highly unsatisfactory.

134.       Asylum seekers whose applications are considered admissible are transferred to the Refugee Centre, about 30 km from the airport.

135.       The number of unaccompanied children does not exceed 1 – 2 cases a year: they are let in without an interview, in accordance with a special procedure which is satisfactory.

Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam (27 February 1997)

136.       In 1999 as many as 4 541 asylum seekers applied for asylum at the airport. They originated mainly in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. 1056 applications were considered under urgent procedure. In 1999 there were 6 655 deportations carried out at the airport (only a small percentage constituted rejected asylum seekers). Another problem concerns persons who try to get into the country on false documents, and once discovered, apply for asylum. Out of 2500 such cases in 1999, 80% submitted applications for asylum. There are grounds to suspect that the majority of them are not true asylum seekers.

137.       The law on asylum dates from 1994.

138.       On their arrival, asylum seekers are registered by the Border Control Police.Then they are transferred to the registration centre Schiphol, where they are interviewed by the staff of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service. The interview is held in satisfactory conditions, in the presence of a lawyer (there is a list of about 100 lawyers available for consultation by asylum seekers), interpreter, staff member of “Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland” (service for assistance to refugees), and a representative of UNHCR. A decision on admissibility is taken within 48 working hours. In case of so-called "fast track procedure" the maximum time spent at the airport is 5 days. Approximately 5 % of applicants undergo this type of procedure. They have access to a room in the transit area of the airport and there is a courtyard to take fresh air. At night dormitories are available with a capacity of 80 beds, separate for men and women.

139.       In 1999, 729 applications underwent fast track procedure. Other 115 persons withdrew their applications. This number amounts to approximately 18% of the total number of applications for asylum submitted at the Schiphol Airport.

140.       The majority of applicants (around 95%) are transferred within a maximum of 6 hours to the refugee centre close to the airport. Their applications are considered within 1 month; they can make an appeal to the Ministry of Justice in case of a negative decision. The appeal has a suspensive effect. The final decision is taken within 6 months.

141.       The refugee centre, operational since 1996, offers very good conditions. It can receive 120 asylum seekers; there are 56 employees. The rooms are well equipped, spacious and light. Families can stay together. In the Rapporteur's opinion this reception centre is a model example to be followed.

142.       In 1993 the Parliament set up a committee to investigate the question of arrival of asylum seekers at Schiphol airport. In the Rapporteur's opinion this is an excellent way to proceed in order to ensure appropriate reception conditions.

Shannon (3 November 1996), and Dublin (4 November 1996)

143.       There were 106 asylum seekers in Shannon in 1996 (800 in Ireland).

144.       Asylum procedures are stipulated in the Aliens Act of 1935, as subsequently amended, in the Refugee Act of 1996, and in the Department of Justice letter to UNHCR dated 1985 outlining the commitment of the Irish Government to the principles of the Geneva Convention as endorsed by caselaw.

145.       A decision on admissibility is taken by the Immigration Unit of the Ministry of Justice within 4-5 days. During this time applicants stay in the hotels run by the Red Cross situated 20 km from the Airport in the case of Shannon, and closer to the Airport in Dublin.

146.       Legal assistance is provided by the Irish Refugee Council. UNHCR is involved in the procedure.

147.       Asylum seekers admitted to the territory submit a formal asylum application. The decision is rendered within 1-2 years. During this time applicants can move freely. There is no compulsory accommodation with the exception of unaccompanied minors. However, all are entitled to emergency accommodation if necessary, provided in Red Cross or youth hostels, temporary flats or sometimes hostels for homeless people, where they can stay until they find accommodation of their own. The costs of such emergency accommodation are met by the Social Services.

148.       Once they have found private rented accommodation, asylum seekers may also be granted a rent deposit and an allowance towards their rent. In Dublin, the Irish Refugee Council refers asylum seekers to Focus Point, an organisation designed to assist homeless people. Both in Dublin and Shannon asylum seekers are assisted by the Red Cross.

149.       Asylum seekers awaiting the outcome of the determination procedure are entitled to basic social benefits and some financial assistance. They are not permitted to work.

150.       The Refugee Act of 1996 explicitly stipulates 6 grounds on which asylum seekers may be detained. However, so far these provisions have been applied only in exceptional circumstances.

Fornebu Oslo Airport (28 August 1996)

151.       Out of 1460 asylum applications lodged in Norway in 1995, 397 were submitted at the Oslo Airport. 36 of these were considered inadmissible and the applicants were returned to a safe third country.

152.       Norway applies the Immigration Act of 1988, as well as directives issued by the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate of Immigration.

153.       The decision on admissibility is taken by the Directorate of Immigration, a central immigration authority placed within the Ministry of the Interior. An appeal may be submitted to the Ministry of Justice, but it is the Directorate which decides for every individual case whether it should have a suspensive effect.

154.       An applicant has the right to consult a lawyer, representatives of UNHCR and relevant NGOs. Interpretation is available.

155.       Asylum seekers rejected on entry are placed in detention in the temporary police detention centre also used for asylum seekers who have no proof of identity. According to the law the police are not authorised to keep them in custody for more than 24 hours. A longer period in custody requires a ruling from the court. A foreign national during his stay at the detention centre is free to receive prearranged visits. A medical officer will be called on request if needed. The centre is supposed to house non-criminal persons. The premises used are not escape-proof. In exceptional cases children may be placed in the detention centre along with their parents.

156.       If no accelerated procedure is applied, an applicant is transferred to the reception centre.

157.       Border officials receive training on the treatment of asylum seekers, which apart from routine training include seminars, exchange of expertise and co-operation with other countries.

Vantaa Airport, Helsinki (27 April 1997)

158.       In 1996 there were 159 applications for asylum submitted at the airport.

159.       The applicable law is the Aliens Act which came into effect on 1 March 1991. It has been amended 3 times since then: in 1993, 1995 and 1996. Specific regulations are prescribed in the Aliens Decree, effective from 1 March 1994 and amended in 1995 and 1996. It is worth noting that the Finnish law makes provision for an Ombudsman for Aliens Affairs whose task consists in safeguarding the status of foreigners, and co-operation between foreigners, the authorities and organisations. The Ombudsman is placed under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and can give individual foreigners advice and assistance if necessary.

160.       Asylum seekers have their first interview at the airport. If there are grounds for inadmissibility, a so-called accelerated procedure is applied. During that time, applicants are detained at the airport. They are not placed with common criminals and the premises are adequately equipped. Applicants can receive visitors, and legal advice and interpretation are provided. Families are located in separate rooms with facilities for children.

161.       The decision on admissibility is taken by the Directorate of Immigration placed within the Ministry of the Interior. A specific Asylum Appeals Board under the Ministry of Justice deals with appeals concerning asylum. An asylum seeker may appeal against a negative asylum decision within 30 days of having been informed of the decision.

162.       Decisions of the Asylum Appeals Board may be appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court.

163.       Asylum seekers whose application is admitted are accommodated at a reception centre until the decision has been reached. In 1996 there were 11 reception centres, maintained by the municipalities, 3 by the state and 2 by the Finnish Red Cross. Conditions at all of them were satisfactory.

164.       Asylum seekers have legal assistance and interpretation. UNHCR and relevant NGOs may be involved in the determination procedure.

165.       Border officials receive adequate training. However, at the time of the Rapporteur's visit the list of "safe countries" had not been revised for the last 4 years, which he found unacceptable.

Vienna (19 January 1997)

166.       The number of asylum seekers who submitted applications at the airport in 1996 amounted to 1164. Of this figure, 43 were declared inadmissible.

167.       The applicable laws are the Asylum Law of 7 January 1992 with subsequent amendments, the Residence Law of 31 July 1992 with subsequent amendments, and the Aliens Law of 29 December 1995 with subsequent amendments.

168.       The first interview with asylum seekers is carried out by the police at the airport. The report is transferred to the Federal Immigration Authority. All applicants stay in the transit area, awaiting the first interview. It may take up to two days before it is accorded to them. This procedure is unsatisfactory. The interview takes place in a special room. Access to interpretation, legal advice and a UNHCR representative is provided. The decision on admissibility is taken by the Federal Immigration Authority within 1-2 days. Appeals, which have a suspensive effect, may be submitted to the Ministry of the Interior: it takes another week before the final decision is issued. During this time applicants stay in one of 12 rooms, in a special building at the outskirts of the airport, well equipped, clean and welcoming. They have a place to walk outside, which is desirable, but rather exceptional compared to other airports. The average number of people staying in these rooms is 6.

Arlanda Airport, Stockholm (13 May 1997)

169.       In 1997, 1417 applications for asylum were submitted at the airport. 898 were considered inadmissible.

170.       The applicable law is the Aliens Act No. 529 of 1989, as amended in 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.

171.       All asylum seekers are received by the Swedish Immigration Board upon their arrival at the airport. The maximum waiting time for the decision on admissibility is 6 hours. A special room is provided for this purpose. If a case is declared inadmissible (asylum seekers arriving from a safe third country or from a safe country of origin), there is immediate deportation. This decision may be appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board without automatic suspensive effect. Applicants may submit a separate application for suspension, which is, however, rarely granted.

172.       All asylum seekers whose applications are considered admissible may be accommodated in the residence centres. Since 1994 this has no longer been compulsory, and about 50% of applicants stay outside the centres. Residence centres are in the form of furnished self-catering flats. Families live together, while single persons are accommodated in shared flats, normally at least 2 persons per room.

173.       Asylum seekers are entitled to an allowance, emergency medical and dental treatment, language tuition, and, in certain cases (if the determination procedure is likely to last more than 4 months) to a work permit.

174.       All negative decisions may be appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board within 3 weeks of notification.

175.       Unaccompanied minors receive special treatment including accommodation in special reception homes under the supervision of the National Immigration Board.

176.       An applicant has the right to consult a lawyer, representatives of UNHCR and relevant NGOs and interpreters throughout the procedure.

177.       Border officials receive on-going training on the treatment of asylum seekers.

Brussels (11 January 1999)

178.       1222 applications for asylum were submitted at the airport in 1997 (1204 in 1996), mainly from Zaire (216), Sierra Leone (174), Rwanda (166) and other African countries.

179.       Asylum procedures are stipulated in the law of 15 December 1980 on the access of aliens to the territory, their residence, establishment and removal, as modified in 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 1996, as well as in the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981, as subsequently modified.

180.       When an asylum seeker submits an application he is transferred within 1-2 hours to Centre 127 which is not considered as Belgian territory. Only at the centre is a proper interview conducted. Within 1 day a central refugee authority (Office des Etrangers) takes a decision on admissibility. An appeal can be made to the Commission Générale pour les Réfugiés. It is followed by a second interview within a few days, usually 3 to 5, and has suspensive effect.

181.       More than 50 % of applicants are admitted to the procedure. In that case they are transferred to one of Belgium's Open Centres run by the Red Cross or to the public centre of social assistance. If they are not granted asylum they can appeal to the Conseil d'Etat.

182.       According to the Aliens Act, asylum seekers may be detained (if, for example they have no valid documents, but most often because they refuse to leave the country after the negative decision), but for no more than five months.

183.       All asylum seekers are provided with interpretation and legal assistance.

184.       Centre 127 was built in 1988. At that time a lot of escapes were noted which was dangerous because of the proximity of the runway. Now a high wall has been erected. The Rapporteur noted that there were very friendly contacts between the staff and asylum seekers. The staff is good and well trained. The asylum seekers can telephone freely. They get exhaustive information at the information desk. There are 100 places but usually there are up to 50 people plus 24 staff. It is not very spacious but in 1999 a new centre for 200 people including families with children will be opened.

Copenhagen (30 January 1998 and 22 May 2000)

185.       In 1996 as many as 911 asylum seekers submitted their applications at the airport. 117 were considered inadmissible.

186.       All asylum procedures are stipulated in the Aliens Act of 8 June 1983, with subsequent amendments.

187.       The decision on admissibility of the application is taken by the Immigration Service within a maximum of 3 months. However, asylum seekers spend a maximum 12 hours at the airport and then they are transferred to the nearby Refugee Centre. There are no special facilities for asylum seekers at the airport, and even 12 hours seem too long to spend in unsatisfactory conditions.

188.       The conditions in the Refugee Centre are also unsatisfactory. There are four rooms with no natural light. It looks rather like a detention centre.

189.       Since 1995, the Danish Refugee Council has been granted access for counselling purposes (where requested by the asylum seekers themselves) to all asylum seekers arriving at Copenhagen airport who are not admitted to the status determination procedure and who risk rejection at the border on "safe third country" grounds. The police are required to inform them of their right to seek advice from the Danish Refugee Council, which is permanently on call.

190.       Throughout the whole procedure applicants are entitled to legal assistance and interpretation. The presence of UNHCR's representative and/or the Danish Refugee Council is possible.

191.       Border officials receive special training.

192.       Approximately 3-4 unaccompanied minors arrive at the airport every year. They are immediately sent to the refugee centre.

193.       The Rapporteur's informants underlined that the problem of asylum seekers was more serious at the harbours.

194. Following discussion with the member of the Danish parliamentary delegation, the Rapporteur visited Copenhagen airport for the second time on 22 May 2000. Although the conditions foreseen for asylum seekers on the premises at the airport have not changed, and are not satisfactory (no natural light), the Rapporteur noted with satisfaction that the asylum procedure had been considerably improved.

195. The Rapporteur was assured that asylum seekers spend a maximum 4-6 hours at the airport (and not up to 12 hours as previously), and are then transferred to the Refugee Centre «Sandholm» 30 km away from the airport, where they await the decision on admissibility of their application.

196. During his or her stay at the airport, the asylum seeker is taken care of by the police, who is also responsible for the delivery of food and drink.

197. The number of asylum seekers at Copenhagen airport has increased in the last years: in 1999 as many as 1141 persons submitted their applications, in 1998 the number was 1004, and in 1997: 649, the majority arriving from Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia and Afghanistan.

5.       Conclusions

198.       The Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that in general, airport reception conditions have considerably improved as compared to the previous report on the subject.

199.       The harmonisation of national policies in this respect is still an objective to be pursued, although much has been achieved, in particular within the European Union.

200.       Co-operation between the states at the pan-European level is strongly recommended, and the Council of Europe is best placed to co-ordinate all efforts in this direction. A general overview of the situation of asylum seekers should be undertaken in the light of the principles defended by this Organisation.

201.       Certain countries of Central and Eastern Europe show readiness to accept unconditionally the migration policies of the European Union in order to satisfy requirements for accession, ignoring their national and historical context. A more balanced approach, in particular concerning visa policy, should be recommended.

202.       At all airports visited, access to asylum procedure is guaranteed in practice, although in certain cases, the so-called "fast" or "accelerated" procedure makes it to a large extent illusory. This is particularly dangerous when appeal has no suspensive effect like at the airport in Stockholm. In such cases the competent authorities should ensure that persons returned to a safe third country have access to the determination procedure.

203.       At all airports visited, border officials who first come into contact with asylum seekers have proper training, although in a some cases they stressed the need for further training. In Bucharest for example the border staff considered that it would be useful to have study visits to more experienced countries.

204.       A large majority of the basic problems observed during the visits are, in fact, common to all the airports receiving asylum seekers: shortage of accommodation, inadequate material conditions, dark rooms, lack of proper equipment. In some cases the question of the authority in charge of the management of the reception facility should be reconsidered. This is particularly true for Germany and Switzerland.

205.       Considerable differences exist in the material and humanitarian situation of asylum seekers at the airports. While some countries accommodate applicants in equipped centres and offer them a variety of services and facilities, others are only able to place these persons in overcrowded transit areas. This is sometimes partly justified by economic conditions in the country, or by the large number of applicants.

206.       The Dutch example of setting up an ad hoc parliamentary committee to investigate the conditions in which asylum seekers are received at Schiphol airport should be recommended. Perhaps such an investigation could take place in the framework of a wider investigation on the treatment received by asylum seekers in general, throughout the whole determination procedure.

207.       The Rapporteur considers it useful to examine, along the lines of this report, the reception of asylum seekers arriving at seaports. In some countries they are more numerous than those arriving by air. The Rapporteur will table a Motion for a Recommendation in this respect.

208.       The Rapporteur hopes that his concrete recommendations will contribute to the further improvement of the reception of asylum seekers.

Reporting Committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.

Reference to committee: Order No. 467 (1991).

Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 26 May 2000.

Members of the committee: Mr Díaz de Mera (Chairman), Mr Iwiński (1st Vice-Chairman), Mrs Vermot-Mangold (2nd Vice-Chairman) (alternate: Zapfl-Helbling), Mr Christodoulides (3rd Vice-Chairman), Mrs Aguiar, MM. Aliev, Amoruso (alternate: Polenta), Mrs Arnold, Mrs Björnemalm, MM. Brancati, Branger, Mrs Bušić, MM. Chiliman, Chyzh, Cilevičs, Connor, Debarge, Mrs Dumont, Mr Einarsson, Mrs Err, Mrs Fehr (alternate: Mr Gross), Mrs Frimannsdóttir, MM. Ghiletchi, Hrebenciuc, Ivanov, Jakic, Lord Judd, MM. Koulouris, Kozlowski, Laakso, Lauricella (alternate: Brunetti), Liapis, Lippelt, Luís, Mrs Markovska, MM. Mateju, Melo, Minkov, Moreels, Mularoni, Mutman, Mrs Ninoshvili, MM. Norvoll, Ouzky, Pullicino Orlando, Rakhansky, Rogozin, von Schmude, Schweitzer, Slutsky, Mrs Stoisits, MM. Szinyei, Tabajdi, Tahir, Telek, Thönnes (alternate: Mrs Lörcher), Tkác, Vanoost, Verhagen, Wilkinson, Wray (alternate: Lord Ponsonby), Mrs Zwerver, N… (Lithuania) (alternate: Mrs Sadeikiené).

N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries of the committee: Mr Newman, Mrs Nachilo, Mr Adelsbach.

1 The report was presented to the Assembly by Lord Mackie of Benshie on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography on 23 September 1991 (see Doc. 6490).

2 Presented by Mr Akselsen to the Assembly on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography on 7 November 1996 (see Doc. 7683).

3 Presented by Mrs Brasseur to the Assembly on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography on 24 April 1997 (see Doc.7783).

4 This problem was also raised in the Brasseur Report (Doc. 7783) and the Cilevičs Report (Doc. 8598).

5 Report on the situation of refugee women in Europe presented in April 1998 by Mrs Inga-Britt Johansson on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography (see Doc. 8066).

6 Such a position was taken by the Court in the following judgements: Amuur v. France of 25 June 1996, Quinn v. France of 22 March 1995 and Kolompar v.Belgium of 24 September 1992.

7 Report on the protection and reinforcement of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe (see Doc. 7783).

8 Whenever possible, the Rapporteur has tried to update all statistics in order to make the situation in different countries more comparable.

9 This was confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in his judgement concerning Amuur v. France on 25 June 1996.