Agenda for the National Training in BULGARIA Fostering Access to Immigrant Children’s Rights (FAIR) Project (Project Reference: JUST/2014/RCHI/AG/PROF/7034)
Agenda for the National Training in BULGARIA
Fostering Access to Immigrant Children’s Rights (FAIR) Project
(Project Reference: JUST/2014/RCHI/AG/PROF/7034)
Sofia, NBU, 21-22 January 2017
09.00 – 09.20 Welcome (registration and gathering of supporting documents)
09.20 – 09.45 Introductions by trainers and participants
Brief overview of the FAIR Project (and training follow-up activities)
Participants’ expectations (pre-event questionnaire)
09.45 – 10.00 Highlights of the agenda and objectives
10.00 – 11.00 SESSION 1: Guiding principles and definitions
Questions and answers
Practical exercises, discussions
11.00 – 11.30 Coffee break
11.30 – 13.00 SESSION 2: The Right to be heard and participate effectively in proceedings
– explanation of the right to be heard (CRC) and related procedural rights
13.00 – 14.30 Lunch break
14.30 – 17.00 SESSION 3: The Right to be heard and participate effectively in proceedings:
– Child development
– practical tips on communication with migrant children
17.00 – 17.30 Wrap-up of the day
18.00 onwards Dinner
9.00 – 9.15 Review of previous day
Overview of the day
9.15 – 10.30 SESSION 4: Access to international mechanisms
Including ECtHR, CRC, ESCR, HRC
10.30 – 10.45 Coffee break
10.45 – 13.00 SESSION 4 (continued)
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch break
14.00 – 15.30 SESSION 5: Moot court exercise
15.30 – 16.00 Wrap-up of workshop
In 2016-2017 the Legal Clinic for Immigrants and Refugees is partner to the project of the DG Justice to the EC FAIR (Fostering Access for Immigrant children’s Rights)
7igrant children are amongst the most vulnerable groups in terms of fundamental rights protection in the EU. They are subject to a dual vulnerability both as children and migrants, and may be subject to additional vulnerabilities: unaccompanied; separated; undocumented; asylum seekers; subject to detention; and/or having undocumented parents or legal guardians. They may be also part of other vulnerable or marginalized groups, such as girls, children with disabilities, members of ethnic or religious minorities, or have a chronic illness.
The overall goal of the FAIR project is to contribute to ensure access to justice to migrant children.
The project is fulfilled by the International Commission of Jurists – European Institutions ICJ-EI. The national partners are Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) (EL), aditus foundation (MT), Fundacion Raices (ES), Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge e.V. (B-UMF) (DE), Legal Clinic for Immigrant and Refugees (LCIR) (BG), Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI) (IR), Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (SSSA) and Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI) (IT).
Assistance will be provided by Child Rights Connect, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the AIRE Centre as associate partners. ICJ-EI will manage the activities and ensure the overall project coordination. A Project Management Group (PMG) will include one representative of each national partner and one representative of Child Rights Connect.
Little to celebrate on Dublin’s 10th anniversary – New research shows that the system continues to violate the rights of refugees
18 February 2013. Today the Dublin Regulation, that identifies which European State is responsible for deciding on an asylum application, turns 10. On this occasion, Forum Réfugiés-Cosi, ECRE, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and their national partners (LCRI in Bulgaria) are publishing a comparative study on how this Regulation is applied by States entitled The Dublin II Regulation: Lives on Hold that shows that the Dublin system continues to fail both refugees and Member States.
The report reveals the harsh consequences of the Dublin system for asylum seekers whereby families are separated, people are left destitute or detained and despite the objective of the Regulation, access to an asylum procedure is not always guaranteed.
One example of the suffering to families caused by the Dublin system is the case of a Chechen father separated from his new-born child by the Austrian authorities. While the baby had refugee status in Austria, his father was sent to Poland under the Dublin system. The father’s request to apply for family reunification once he was in Poland was refused by the Austrian authorities and so the father remained separated from his wife and child by the mechanical application of this system. The majority of people sent back to another country under Dublin are actually returned to the first State of irregular entry into the EU.
Asylum seekers in the Dublin procedure are frequently treated as a secondary category of persons granted fewer entitlements in terms of reception conditions. Whenever there are shortages in the capacity of housing available for asylum seekers, those in the Dublin procedure are often the first affected by this. Access to accommodation in some Member States is not always ensured with some asylum seekers having to resort to Courts to access housing or even forced to building makeshift settlements themselves in order to find some shelter.
Fewer than half of the agreed Dublin transfers are actually carried out, suggesting a vast amount of wasted bureaucracy. However, no comprehensive data on the financial cost of applying the Dublin Regulation has ever been published.
The soon to be adopted Dublin III Regulation contains some significant areas of improvement, such as the right to a personal interview, but maintains the underlying principles of the Dublin system and will not address all these deficiencies. The application of the Regulation will require close monitoring from the European Commission in order to ensure its correct implementation by all Member States.
Ultimately, the underlying principles of the Dublin Regulation need to be fundamentally revised to design a more humane and equitable system that considers the individual case of asylum seekers and their connections with particular Member States, and therefore favours refugees’ integration prospects in Europe.
The research deals with the practice surrounding the Dublin II Regulation with respect to fundamental rights in 11 states: Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
The comparative report and national reports are available at: www.dublin-project.eu
For further information
– On the human cost of the Dublin system read the personal accounts of:
– An Iraqi family of asylum seekers whose imminent removal from Bulgaria to Greece under the readmission agreement between these two countries was only prevented through national court challenges and the involvement of the European Court of Human Rights to temporarily stop the removal.
– Kazim, from Afghanistan. Kazim had traveled from Germany to Sweden, where the authorities requested that Germany take him back. Germany accepted to take over responsibility for examining his asylum claim, but his application was rejected by the German authorities as being manifestly unfounded as he missed his asylum interview and was deemed not to have offered a reasonable explanation for his absence. Actually, he was still in Sweden as the Swedish authorities only sent him back two weeks after the scheduled interview.
All the statements have been anonymised to protect identities.
Ana López Fontal, Senior Press & Public Information Officer, http://www.ecre.org
email@example.com Tel. +32 (0)2 212 08 12 – Mob. +32 (0)4 74 34 05 25
The International Detention Coalition (IDC), in collaboration with the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), brought together over 20 organisations from 15 EU Member States for the first-‐ever European Union workshop on immigration detention in Athens, Greece on the 22th and 23rd of November 2012. The aim was to develop a regional civil society strategy and action plan on detention, as well as share concerns and priorities on the issue.
Participants discussed the different detention practices in the EU, as well as the EU legal framework. Common concerns are the lack of a specific ban on children detention (see Global Campaign to End Immigration Detention of Children)
and the fact that only a few countries in the EU – Belgium, Denmark and Sweden- are currently starting to implement alternatives to detention.
The organisations participating in the workshop decided to constitute a working group to advocate for the end of immigration detention and for the use of alternatives to detention.
You are welcome to the movie projection, organized by the Legal Clinic for Refugees and Immigrants and the French Cultural Institute in Sofia! The event will take place on 20 June 2012, at 7 pm. Entrance is free!
The Legal Clinic for Refugees and Immigrant publishes the Information Note prepared by Dr.Valeria Ilareva on case-law in Bulgaria in 2011 that documented some typical unlawful administrative practices in hindering access to the asylum system. Download the Information Note
Themba Lewis, who is currently in Egypt and member of the editorial team of the Fahamu Refugee Legal Aid Newsletter invited Valeria Ilareva to comment on the recently published UNHCR report “No Place to Stay: A Review of the Implementation of UNHCR’s Urban Refugee Policy in Bulgaria“. Below we reproduce the article from the June 2011 issue of the Fahamu Refugee Legal Aid Newsletter:
Bulgaria and UNHCR’s urban refugee policy
Valeria Ilareva reviews UNHCR’s newly published report on its urban refugee policy as implemented in Sofia, Bulgaria. Dr. Ilareva is the coordinator of the Legal Clinic for Refugees and Immigrants, where she is also a practicing lawyer. For more on detention in Bulgaria, see the Global Detention Project’s Bulgaria profile.
In May 2011 the UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service published ‘No Place to Stay: A Review of the Implementation of UNHCR’s Urban Refugee Policy in Bulgaria’, evaluating the implementation of UNHCR’s urban refugee policy in Sofia. The Bulgarian capital was selected along with Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Nairobi (Kenya) and San Jose (Costa Rica) for the evaluation. Bulgaria was chosen in order to assess the extent to which the policy is relevant to a European Union Member State (albeit one of the poorest) where there is a UNHCR Branch Office and Representation, but where the national government has major engagement with the issue of urban refugees. The review was done by an independent consultant and a member of UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service.
The report outlines the situation facing urban refugees in Bulgaria. Of particular note are the chapters on ‘Access to shelter and services’ and ‘Livelihoods and self reliance’, as they highlight the camp-style conditions currently in place in urban Sofia. According to legal regulation in Bulgaria, every asylum seeker who chooses to live outside the camp-like premises of the State Agency for Refugees is deprived of the right to receive the monthly financial assistance of US$45. At the same time, access to the labour market is not allowed until one year has passed since the registration of the asylum application. Under these circumstances asylum seekers are knowingly exposed to the risk of exploitation and abuse in the informal economy.
The report mentions the planned inauguration of a 300-capacity transit centre for asylum seekers in Pastrogor, the main entry point for asylum seekers on the Turkish-Bulgarian border. This is currently scheduled to take place on 30th May, 2011. This news is met with concern by human rights practitioners in Bulgaria. Unlike the ‘reception centre’ in Sofia, the ‘transit centre’ is closed, disallowing freedom of movement. It is designed to house people undergoing the Dublin procedure on determining the responsible Member State and for fast-track processing of manifestly unfounded applications of ‘illegally staying foreigners’ (Article 47, Paragraph 2.1. of the Law on Asylum and Refugees). The ‘transit centre’ is where asylum seekers who have crossed the Turkish-Bulgarian border irregularly will be detained. Until the opening of the ‘transit centre’ in Pastrogor, the head of the State Agency for Refugees had designated the Busmantsi immigration detention centre in Sofia as a ‘transit centre’.
Over the last few years access to the asylum procedure in Bulgaria has been hindered by the discretional registration of asylum seekers who have crossed the border irregularly (Ilareva 2007). In a recent case of an Iraqi family who had undergone persecution and ill-treatment, the European Court of Human Rights intervened under Rule 39 in order to stop the family’s removal, which amounted to refoulement. The State Agency for Refugees had refused to register the asylum applications of the single mother and her two children and — after keeping them detained in the Busmantsi centre for nearly five months — the migration authorities attempted to deport the family as illegal immigrants. On 10th May, 2011, the family was boarded for deportation and was stopped just before leaving Bulgarian territory following the urgent action of the Legal Clinic for Refugees and Immigrants (LCRI), the Strasbourg court, and the UNHCR representation in Sofia. Rarely is it possible, however, to achieve such a successful outcome, which in this particular case was due to the fact that LCRI had worked on the case for several months and had sufficient evidence to prove that the family belonged to a vulnerable group and had insistently applied for asylum. In Pastrogor, access to legal aid will hardly be possible in view of the distance from the capital, where NGOs providing legal aid are based, without resources for the journey.
The lack of lawyers in the Pastrogor centre is coupled with another issue of concern. As the UNHCR report highlights, legal assistance in Bulgaria is usually sought only after an asylum seeker is served a decision rejecting protection, while access to the asylum and interviewing procedures receive less attention.
Against this background, the report’s recommendation that ‘UNHCR should undertake a risk assessment with respect to the notion of resettling refugees in Bulgaria’ (para.141) is well-founded at present.