The European Union is growing and the EU borders are shifting. For over six years, the EU countries have been struggling with the establishment of common asylum standards. The results thus far have dashed all hope of better protection for refugees in Europe. The sad truth is that in Europe, the focus remains on deterrence and defense.

The first ICF Project (ICF I), coordinated by Pro Asyl, evaluated the reception conditions in 2004 and presented the European Commission with a critical review of these conditions. ICF I was also co-financed by the European Refugee Fund. Thirteen human rights organisations from Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia participated in ICF I. The country reports confirm the two basic assumptions of the ICF project:

1. Social reception conditions vary significantly from country to country. The old as well as the new EU Member States are a long way from adopting uniform standards.
2. The situation with respect to social reception conditions ranges from worrisome to horrific. There is a great need to improve the reception of asylum seekers within the countries.

[more: ICF Country Reports]

New Perspectives

"Strong bonds are our answer to the EU member states` attempt to shift their responsibility for refugees further east or to regions of origin. Cross-border cooperation is our way to take responsibility for people in need of protection."

Information and Cooperation Forum, March 2004.

As of 1 December 2005, the Information and Cooperation Forum (ICF II, also: Cross-border Asylum Network) has started work, continuing the successful cooperative efforts between eastern and central European refugee organisations. On board are the following non-governmental organisations: asylum coordination Austria in Vienna, Bavarian Refugee Council in Munich, Foundation Gea 2000 in Ljubljana, Halina Niec Human Rights Association in Krakow, Hungarian Helsinki Committee in Budapest, Organization for Aid to Refugees (OPU) in Prague and PRO DONUM in Bratislava.

A Great Call to Action

The EU Reception Directive should have been transposed into the national law of all 25 Member States by 6 February 2005. Through the network, we have been witness to serious failings in the transposition of the Directive.

The reception conditions are inhumane in many of the most critical areas. This is the case for old as well as new EU Member States. The implementation of the Directive by the old EU member states and the resulting practice should not be a model for the new EU countries.

During EU Council negotiations, the German and the English governments undercut the reception directive in key places. For example, the German government rejected a common rule on access to the labor market. The rule on the legal capacity of minors can also be attributed to Germany. Moreover, the British government secured the rule that refugee children can attend isolated schools in the refugee camps. In addition, social benefits can be completely withdrawn if the asylum application is not filed immediately upon arrival.

As is evident, the Directive gives the Member States enormous leeway in some fundamental areas and some states transpose the Directive very restrictively. In particular, we see great deficiencies in reception conditions in the following areas:

• Medical Care and Therapy
• Accommodation
• Access to Labour Market and Education
• Freedom of Movement

For all the serious deficiencies, the Directive also ensures higher standards in some areas, as have been implemented by Germany and some other member states. This is particularly true of the treatment of particularly vulnerable groups. Minors and unaccompanied refugee children, victims of torture and traumatisation are entitled to rehabilitative measures. If necessary, appropriate psychological care and qualified counselling must also be provided. These and other standards of protection have not yet been implemented in the seven new EU countries. The situation of particularly vulnerable refugees is ubiquitously alarming, from a lack of sufficient therapy spots to a lack of adequate accommodations.

New Challenges

The European expansion and the harmonisation of EU asylum legislation add a new perspective as well as new challenges to cross-border cooperation. The expansion and harmonisation process has meaningful consequences for the new member states in the ICF region such as Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia:

• Prior to the "fall of the wall", these countries were not classic target countries, but rather transit countries for asylum seekers. For that reason among others, premises for harmonisation in the eastern EU Member States are different from those in western Europe.

• These countries are situated on the outermost borders of the EU. Due to their geography, their membership in the EU and the harmonisation of EU asylum legislation, many refugees making their way to Europe must now file their asylum applications in these countries.

• National transposition of the Reception Directive, in a way that satisfies humanitarian concerns, is expensive and utilizes professional resources.

In 2004, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees warned the EU Interior Ministers that EU expansion would overwhelm the asylum systems of the new Member States. ICF shares this concern and fears a sharp decline in refugee protection in Europe if particular problem areas are not systematically addressed.

We also fear that several Member States are taking advantage of the elbowroom inherent in the Directive and implementing standards that are lower than those that had been adopted previously. It is ICF's opinion that without intensive cross-border lobbying, in some countries, the Reception Directive will only be transposed in part or not transposed at all. In addition, local actors, including human rights organisations, governmental authorities and administrators, are often not informed as to how the Directive could be implemented humanely. Europe`s new challenges require cross-border cooperation.

------------------------------------------------------------
The ICF Project is solely responsible for the here contained information.
The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
ICF is co-financed by