Reference: The third report (Art. 1-15) of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/1994/104/Add.14)




Social Human Rights
in the Federal Republic of Germany
Parallel Information
to the third report of the Federal Republic of Germany
concerning the Rights
enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights






Submitted at the occasion of the 19th session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (16 November - 4 December, 1998) by FIAN International, an NGO in consultative status with ECOSOC, working for the Human Right to Feed Oneself.

Parallel Information

to the third report of the Federal Republic of Germany

concerning the Rights

enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

by FIAN International, NGO in consultative status (roster)


The information submitted by FIAN in this report concentrates on one of the most vulnerable sectors in Germany concerning economic, social and cultural rights: The asylumseekers and refugees without status. The information in Germany's state report needs to be supplemented with information that manages to address their situation properly.

This parallel information should be seen as a testimony of the situation of this vulnerable group in one area in Southwest Germany. There is no indication that the situation is better in other German regions.

According to articles 2, and 11 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the Federal Republic is duty-bound to take steps to the maximum of available resources to secure an adequate standard of living for everybody under its jurisdiction without discrimination according to national origin or other status.

The cases submitted in this parallel information describe not only the malfunctioning of some parts of the social administration. They reveal a policy of discrimination embodied in institutions, rules and regulations that are in fact designed to use discriminate treatment of asylumseekers as a deterrent measure. The lack of respect for people's dignity is used as a diffuse means of collective and preventive "punishment” for the possible misuse of social services. This approach is far from the rule of law in the field of social rights.It tries to solve problems emerging in the field of refugee law by summary discrimination of asylumseekers' social rights. On February 5, 1998, the UN High Commissioner on Refugees expressed his concern about such practice in his note to the federal government.

FIAN is very concerned about the deliberate introduction of discriminatory social standards harshly below the social standards for Germans in comparable situations. The rational behind this policy will certainly not act as a countervailing force against tendencies of xenophobia in parts of the German public.

According to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights only developing countries may be exempted from guaranteeing the rights enshrined in the Covenant also to foreigners without discrimination. Germany is normally not counted among the resource-poor countries that may invoke this provision.

FIAN recognizes the fact that Germany had to deal with large numbers of asylumseekers and that there has been misuse of social rights by some of them. Social rights can be misused as most other rights can. Under the rule of law this is to be addressed by abolishing the misuse, but not by abolishing the rights - in particular if these rights are human rights enshrined in an International Covenant to which the country is a state party.

FIAN would like to call upon the new German government to stop the discriminatory practices of state authorities indicated in this parallel information. FIAN invites the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to express its concern about such practices and policies and to provide the Federal Republic of Germany with recommendations how to address this situation.

FIAN would like to express its gratitude to everybody who contributed to this compilation of situations and cases - and in particular to the Südbadische Aktionsbündnis gegen Abschiebung in Freiburg, Breisgau.

FIAN International Secretariat

Heidelberg, October 1998

Parallel Information

to the third report of the Federal Republic of Germany

concerning the Rights

enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights



Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This parallel report discusses the living conditions of refugees in Germany, in particular of

asylum seekers who have asked for asylum in Germany and are waiting for a decision by the authorities;

rejected asylum seekers tolerated on the basis of Art 55 Aliens Act;

refugees requested to leave the country but unable to do so for subjective or objective reasons.

With regard to the rights defined in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights these groups suffer discrimination in terms of

the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he or she freely chooses or accepts;

the protection of families, mothers, children and young persons;

the right of everyone to sufficient food, clothing and housing according to his or her cultural needs;

the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health;

the right to education, particularly of children and young persons;

the right of all to take part in cultural life.

The legal basis for cases of discrimination against the group defined above is primarily the 1993 ABAS (ABAS), which exlcudes them from the Federal Social Assistance Act as well as other laws and administrative regulations (see II for details).

Acts of discrimination have repeatedly been upheld by German court rulings (see III for details). These acts are an inherent part of the everyday life of refugees in Germany and pose a threat to the health of children in particular. (see IV for details).

The report of the Federal Republic of Germany mentions the ABAS in section 293 as follows:

The Federal Social Assistance Act is no longer applicable to asylum seekers and other foreigners without a consolidated residence status in the Federal Republic of Germany. They now receive benefits under the ABAS (in effect since June 30, 1993), which are graded as high as or slightly lower than the benefits of the social assistance scheme. The reduction is due to the fact that social integration assistance is not granted to persons who typically stay in the country only for a short period of time. Moreover, the provision of benefits in kind now has priority over cash benefits in such cases particularly since cash benefits were often used inappropriately to pay for "traffickers" (293).

In contrast to this statement the then Federal Government, in agreement with the then opposition party SPD, explained in its defence of the ABAS (Bundestagsdrucksache/Bulletin of the German parliament 12/4451) that for the group defined above there should be "a substantial reduction in the benefits so far granted" under the Federal Social Assistance Act. The way in which the Federal Report describes the Act not only fails to mention several existing provisions but also obscures the harsh fact that the ABAS establishes that the existing minimum standard for life consistent with human dignity does not have to be the same for refugees as for German citizens. This observation derives from the way in which the Federal Government explains the Act:

"An ABAS adapts the basic subsistence requirements of asylum seekers to the "special needs" of this group of people"

(Bundestagsdrucksache/Bulletin of the German parliament 12/4451).

In reality, the "special needs" of refugees are by no means taken account of. Instead, the Act prescribes lower needs for them. In doing so, the government applies two different concepts of human dignity. The group of nationals dependent on assistance through public welfare is also threatened by the lowering of minimum standards since the reductions might also be extended to this group in the future. To the refugees living in Germany it is of vital importance that the Social Council gives its opinion on these developments; but also all those people who maintain that all human beings are equal an who insist on the fact that this equality can only be guaranteed if civil rights apply equally to all human beings have the great hope that the objective examination by the Social Council of the United Nations will help to reverse the developments described in this parallel report.

Refugees and natives have contributed to the writing of the this report; although not all of them are mentioned by name, we have their names and addresses. The examples given in this report all occurred in southern Baden (southwestern Germany), but similar examples could be cited for any other part of Germany. A large number of similar cases have been recorded over the last few years by different organisations (welfare organisations, Pro Asyl etc.).

2. Discriminatory legal provisions

This report only takes into account the second version of the ABAS that went into effect in 1997, and does not consider this year's version which would (even) provide for the reduction in benefits for parts of the refugees to only "an absolutely indispensable assistance in case they are held responsible for the impossibility to deport them to their home country". It is left to the authorities of the local government to arbitrarily determine the means of assistance to be given to them.

Groups affected by the ABAS

The following groups of people are excluded from the Federal Social Assistance Act and therefore affected by the ABAS:

Asylum seekers during the time of the asylum procedure;

civil war refugees;

rejected asylum seekers tolerated on the basis of Article 55 Aliens Act;

rejected refugees who cannot be deported.

Tolerated refugees receive benefits under the Federal Social Assistance Act provided that the period of toleration extends to more than six months. (A refugee who has been tolerated several times for a period of three months does not qualify for benefits under the Federal Social Assistance Act)

Lower benefits for at least three years

After having received benefits under the ABAS for three years refugees receive benefits under the Federal Social Assistance Act. If at this point the refugee is still living in collective accomodation, the local authority will determine "the type of benefits on the basis of the local conditions." This means that a refugee might still receive benefits in kind and that only the allowance will be raised.

A 20 per cent­plus cut in the minimum subsistence level

The ABAS reduces the amount of money necessary to cover a refugee's costs of living by 20 per cent compared to the minimum subsistence benefit granted under the Federal Social Assistance Act. (Example: under the Federal Social Assistance Act the head of household will receive 545 deutschmarks a month ($ 330) compared to 440 deutschmarks a month ($ 266) under the ABAS). This difference is even bigger if we take into account that social assistance recipients get certain additional benefits to which refugees are not entitled: the costs of clothing for refugees, for example, have to be covered by this amount of money whereas social assistance recipients receive additional funds for clothes.

Benefits in kind instead of money that can be spent according to one's own discretion

The necessary demand for food, accomodation, heating, clothing, personal hygiene and health care as well as consumption goods and durables covered by benefits in kind, usually in the form of packages of food and toileteries delivered by a private company that is commissioned by the local administration. If necessary, the administration can also grant benefits in the form of coupons, other cashless payments or cash benefits although preference is to be given to the granting of benefits in kind.

In contrast, the Federal Social Assistance Act stipulates the granting of benefits in cash and it is only special cases that these may also be granted in kind. 2 According to the German government the additional administrative cost involved in implementing benefits in kind is estimated to be at DM 500,000,000 for the 600,000 people affected (Drucksache/Circular of the German Parliament 12/4451, p. 6), the equivalent of DM 70 per person and month. In the justification to the Act's first revision in 1997 another DM 250,000,000 are added to this estimate. "In contrast to the original sum of DM 500,000,000 per year needed to cover the extra cost involved in the granting of benefits in kind will be raised by DM 250,000,000." This issue was also commented upon by the UNHCR in December 1995.

Allowances

Additionally, refugees are granted an allowance of 40 deutschmarks ($ 24) per month to satisfy the personal needs of everyday life.

"This money is to be used to cover the necessary expenses, e.g. public transport, phone, postage, stationery, books or periodicals, tea, coffee, liquor, cigarettes etc. The Act thus concedes a certain freedom to recipients to individually spend the money according to one's wishes, while at the same time it prevents the risk of misuse (using this money for other purposes), such as payments to organisations of refugee smugglers (Bundestags-drucksache/Bulletin of the German parliament 12/4451, p. 8).

A bus or tram ticket in the city of Freiburg (southwestern Germany) currently costs DM 3.30 ($ 2), a pack of cigarettes DM 5 ($ 3), a foreign newspaper at least DM 3 ($ 1.80), foreign magazines DM 5 or more ($ 3), a five­minute phone call to Turkey DM 5 ($ 3), ice cream at least DM 1 ($ 0.60), a movie ticket DM 10 ($ 6), a bar of chocolate DM 1 ($ 0.60).

If an asylum seeker has to seek legal help from a lawyer in case his application has been rejected by the "Federal Office for the recognition of foreign refugees" ­ this is usually the authority in charge of processing asylum applications ­ he will be charged with fees of several hundred deutschmarks at the beginning and later with monthly instalments of between 50 and 100 deutschmarks. The total cost of taking legal action against a rejection by the authorities amounts to about DM 1,500 for individuals and is even higher for families.



Further restrictions on the state level (shown in the case of Baden­Württemberg)

In the southern state of Baden­Württemberg, the Act on the Admission of Refugees puts an even greater emphasis on granting benefits in kind, as opposed to cash than the federal law (the ABAS) does. Regulations governing the implementation of granting benefits, which aim at precluding every thinkable type of "misuse" of public benefits, automatically rule out other forms.

The use of coupons, for example, is severely hampered as they are subject to various conditions, e.g. they can only be cashed in for particular products goods. Shopping is only permitted at particular times so the administration has control over what is bought and in order to prevent "moonlighters" from buying. Every time refugees buy something they have to identity themselves. (These facts are documented in a letter by the local board of councillors of the city of Freiburg to the administrative district office of Lörrach dated April 20, 1998.)

Only acute illnesses and states of painful distress are treated

The Act on the Admission of Refugees only permits the treatment of refugees suffering from acute diseases or when they are in great pain. Denture is only permitted if absolutely necessary for medical reasons. Nursing and medical care to expectant mothers and women who have just given birth, including medical check­ups, are covered. Medical and dental care are supposed to be provided by the relevant authority, i.e. the right to choose one's doctor will be restricted (12/4451, p. 9). Such restrictions do not exist for any other group in Germany.

Employment ban and the obligation to work for DM 2 ($ 1.20) per hour

Asylum seekers who entered the Federal Republic of Germany after May 1997 are not allowed to take up employment. All other asylum seekers and tolerated refugees are only entitled to take up employment if the potential employer has unsuccessfully tried to find a preferential employee (either a German citizen or a foreigner from within the EU) for six weeks.

According to the ABAS, refugees have to accept so­called work opportunities, especially those that serve the purpose of maintaining and running the hostel they live in, but also others with state, municipal or non­profit institutions. In return they receive a compensation of DM 2 ($ 1.20) per hour. If they refuse to take on a job, the benefits might be ­ according to the latest revision of Article 5 ABAS­ cancelled altogether.

A comparison with the Federal Social Assistance Act shows that recipients of social assistance are not subject to an employment ban. For their charity work they get DM 3.50 ($ 2.10). If they refuse to accept the type of work offered to them, social assistance can be cancelled.

Income and assets of refugees have to be used up entirely

In order to qualify for benefits according to the ABAS, all of a refugee's savings and assets must be used up. If a refugee has money or other assets of his or her own, he or she has to pay for the benefits until all of his financial resources have been spent (Article 7 ABAS). In contrast, the Federal Social Assistance Act permits to keep assets of up to DM 2,500 ($ 1515).

Refugees who possess savings or assets have to pay a usage charge for their accomodation which can exceed the maximum legally admissible rent (Federal Act on the Regulation of Charges). The charges for a room in a hostel (including heating) average DM 300 ($ 180) per head of household and DM 150 ($ 90) per family member.

4.5 square metres of floor space per person

Throughout the asylum procedure asylum seekers are required to live in "collective accomodation". During this period the state of Baden­Württemberg provides for 4.5 square metres of floor space per person (Act on the Admission of Refugees).

By contrast, under the Federal Social Assistance Act the adequacy of living area is measured in terms of a family's needs and the influence of the living situation on the process of socialisation of children. Thus a single­person household is entitled to a total living area of 40 sqm, and a family with two children has a right to a total living area of 80 sqm. This, of course, includes separate bedrooms for parents and children.

No respect for cultural needs

The Federal Government of Germany completely disagrees with any kind of integration of refugees into our culture. The refugees are denied their eating and living habits. In her justification of the ABAS, the former German Minister of Family Affairs Claudia Nolte opposed any cultural or social participation of refugees:

"Trying to integrate people (motivate people to become part of our culture) who come from totally different cultures and backgrounds and who (will) in general return to their countries of origin soon after would only be of disadvantage to them since the reintegration into their cultural and social environment would surely be much more difficult for them. I do not think we would do them a favour." (Transcript of plenary meeting of the German Bundestag 12/160, p. 1359ff).

In addition, refugees are not allowed to maintain their own cultural habits:

a diet based on their personal needs and the right of self­determination;

providing parental care for their children;

performing the roles of husband and wife.

Yet even hospitality and social contacts in the form of invitations are made impossible.

The federal government judges its measures as "social integration assistance is not granted". Yet the facts illustrate that social and cultural participation is not possible.

No compulsory school attendance

The children of asylum seekers are not required to attend school. It is left to the goodwill of the Länder to decide if they have to attend school. Furthermore, t is extremely difficult for young refugees to enter vocational training because they are also subject to the regulation that German nationals have to be given priority and because the rejection of their petition for asylum cannot be suspended for the period of vocational training. Thus an employer does not know if his apprentice will be able to finish his apprenticeship.

Court decisions on the minimum living standards for refugees

The granting of social assistance in Germany is based on the following two principles:

1. The right to receive social assistance as a manifestation of human dignity. Its aim is the realisation of a self­determined life.

Ever since the Basic Law went into effect, German courts have recognised that the right to social assistance is a direct expression of the human dignity of everyone. In addition, the purpose of this right is to guarantee that every person can live a self­determined life and that he does not have to depend on charity for his survival. Social assistance should not degrade the individual to a mere object of authoritative power. (Federal Administrative Court. It is the highest instance in Germany competent in matters regarding the control of actions taken by the administration. All of the verdicts cited in this report are included at the end).

2. Cash benefits as a prerequisite for self­determination ­ the type of assistance must not be abused to deter others from applying for it.

Based on this principle, the Federal Administrative Court ruled in a 1986 decision in the case of a (German) homeless alcoholic who had taken legal action against the granting of benefits in kind:

"The recipient of social assistance should be enabled to live a life of human dignity. This includes that an adult must be able to freely decide for himself on the use of the means he is entitled to for the satisfaction of his needs."

In the opinion of the court the administration meets this principle by granting social assistance in the form of cash benefits.

"It is therefore not admissible to deter a whole group of applicants from the enjoyment of their right to assistance (by granting benefits in kind, note by the author)."

No application of these principles to asylum seekers and refugees

The ABAS violates both these principles and the right of a person to self­determination. The examples cited below show that the courts reach different decisions when it comes to asylum seekers:

Justification of different levels of subsistence for refugees and Germans

Different standards are applied to refugees and Germans in terms of the level of subsistence. The courts defend 20 per cent cuts of the subsistence level of refugees as follows:

"The aims pursued by the legislator through Art 16, Section 2, Subsection 2 of not only protecting recognised asylum seekers and persons seeking asylum alike from being turned back but also of offering them a place of refuge ­ the country an asylum seeker chooses as his refuge must not let him starve ­ are met by the provision". (Federal Administrative Court; note by the author.)

We would like to note at this point that the Federal Administrative Court had already regularly used the term "absolutely indispensable for living" in its decisions before the ABAS went into effect.

Federal Administrative Court justifies the use benefits in kind as early as 1983

In a court decision dated February 1994 the Administrative Court of Freiburg falls back upon a 1983 decision by the Federal Administrative Court in which the preference of granting asylum seekers benefits in kind over cash benefits is justified on the grounds that asylum seekers are not integrated into the culture of the Federal Republic of Germany since they do not have a residency permit:

"The claim to cash benefits according to the standard rates is therefore not constitutionally guaranteed. The Federal Administrative Court already ruled in 1983 that an asylum seeker may be required to accept the benefits in kind granted for asylum seekers living in collective accomodation. These benefits in kind have a priority over social assistance (cf. Federal Administrative Court 67, 349)

(...)

Above all, the granting of benefits in kind does not violate the principle of equal treatment of Art 3 Section 1. German citizens and recognised refugees are integrated into the culture of the Federal Republic of Germany. In the case of recognised refugee a procedure has already examined and legally approved their petition to stay in the Federal Republic of Germany. The right of an asylum seeker to stay in Germany, however, depends on the approval or rejection of their petition by the authorities. This difference justifies the predominantly exclusive granting of benefits in kind to the petitioner. The difference between a recognised refugee and an asylum seeker also derives from Art 16 Section 1. The aim of this provision is to protect people truely suffering form political persecution. This aim can only be achieved if persons trying to stay in Germany for economic reasons only can be deterred from applying for asylum. The Act on Benefits for Asylum Seekers was designed for this purpose."

Standard of living in the countries of origin as a standard for establishing the minimum subsistence figure of refugees in Germany

Whereas the definition of the subsistence level under the Federal Social Assistance Act allows its recipients to a certain degree to take part in social and cultural life, this right is denied to refugees on the grounds that they will only stay "temporarily" in Germany. In connection with this, the Federal Administrative Court decided in a 1991 ruling that the father of a family of six from Sri Lanka was only entitled to two movie tickets per year on the grounds that this was the equivalent to the statistical average of his home country. Compare: in 1991 a German national was entitled to twelve movie tickets per year.

When do living conditions violate human dignity?

The subsistence level of a refugee's country of origin often determines also the degree of assistance granted in other spheres. A 1996 decision by the Administrational Court of Freiburg is a good example for this practise: in the town of Kehl near Strasbourg, an asylum seeker took legal action against the state of Baden­Württtemberg on the grounds that the hygienic conditions of the collective accomodation centre he was living in were in extremely bad hygienic conditions: mouldy showers and toilets and a high degree of infestation with cockroaches.

The court stated amongst other things:

"In addition, the implementation of an asylum seeker's right to the respect for and the protection of his human dignity ­ a right to which in principle he is entitled to just like any other foreigner or German national ­ does not only have to take into account the (...) living conditions of the country in which he applies for asylum, a criterion generally used in this country in order to establish the requirements of accomodation consistent with human dignity. More importantly, they might also consider international standards and especially those of the asylum seeker's country of origin. For these reasons the minimum requirements for the accomodation of homeless people in Germany do not automatically have to be used as a standard for the accomodation of asylum seekers."(italics used by the author)

On the day of the trial the court describes the results of the inspection of the accomodation centre, which took place five months after the start of the proceedings, as follows:

"Whereas on the day of the inspection the general state of the collective accomodation centre of Kehl was in (surprisingly) good in terms of its structure and cleanness, this cannot be said with regard to the infestation of the building with vermin (household pests): in all of the rooms of the asylum's hostel (living­rooms, kitchens, showers, toilets, washing­rooms, corridors) there were specimen of Blatella Germanica, also known as German cockroach. Even in the living­rooms, which the management of the hostel presented as exemplary and especially clean, court officials found dead cockroaches. In one of the living­rooms, which had recently been abandoned by the inhabitants due to the high degree of infestation, they found a nest of between 50 and 60 cockroaches. In the housings of a number of ceiling lamps, particularly in the kitchen, they saw hundreds of dead cockroaches. The fact that the cockroaches were so numerous is especially remarkable since they have a natural tendency to shun daylight and to leave their hide­outs (floors, skirting­boards and especially cable troughs) only at night, according to the statements of experts and a specialist for matters of disinfection and pest control the management of the hostel had consulted. According to the experts, the actual degree of infestation of the two buildings in Kehl has to be classified as extremely high and it can be assumed that the number of cockroaches that move freely in the rooms and even in the beds of the inhabitants is much higher than it appeared to be on the day of the inspection..."

The court knew that the administration of the asylum hostel had done extensive renovation works in the months preceding the day of the trial and that the day before they had even ordered a considerable number of janitors of public institutions to Kehl for large­scale cleaning. Never-theless, the court reached the conclusion that it is legal to assign human beings such a hostel:

"Although these measures indicate that it was only due to the current proceedings that the management of the asylum hostel took action to remedy the situation (...) and that and that the living conditions in the asylum hostel will soon deteriorate again. Nonetheless, the living conditions at the time of the hearing are of importance in this trial because they can be considered as evidence for what the management can achieve if necessary... For these reasons we cannot confirm that the assignment of the collective accomodation centre to the asylum seeker violates any basic or other rights of the plaintiff. Above all it does not violate his right to human dignity..."

The court also held a room of 80 sqm was not overcrowded if eight people lived in it.

The 34 toilets and several urinals for 372 single males and the twelve toilets for 130 woman and family members was also regarded sufficient. The standard for this opinion was a regulation for military quarters.

4. Examples of the impact of the legal provisions with emphasis on the right to adequate food

Refugees living in Bessierstraße in Freiburg wrote in a leaflet:

"We are not asked what we want and what we need. Others decide even on what we are allowed to eat, what we wear, and how we have to live. We are deprived of the right to our own culture. This conduct is humiliating to us; it is inhuman. We live as if we are in prison, in a detention camp. We want to live like human beings, though. This is why we want to make our own decisions on what we need, eat, and wear. "

Malnutrition

While checking the data on the official records on the food given out, a nutritionist observed that the children's diet fell short of the minimum nutritional standards.

The nutritionist's report has not arrived yet and will be submitted later.

An African woman, an asylum­seeker living in Bissierstrasse in Freiburg, reported that her child aged 2 ½ years was suffering from a severe skin rash, which was associated with heavy itching. Her child scratched her skin until it bled. O.T., the physician treating the child, attributed the irritation to the child's diet. He recommended the mother to alter her daughter's dietary habits. She needed to eat more fresh vegetables. The allowance (40 deutschmarks = $24) earmarked for the child does not buy this type of food.

Pregnant and breast­feeding women from the same hostel for asylum­seekers reported:

"There are special food packages for pregnant and breast­feeding women. They contain food that is supposed to be good for us. But these packages are no better than the regular ones."

"The cabbage I have to eat causes in my baby strong flatulence. He cries for hours and keeps both of us from getting any sleep. "

As regards the diet of young male refugees, there are reports from the county of Black Forest­Baar to the effect that food supplies are insufficient to cover a day or two of the week.

Control, deprivation, and disrespectful treatment

Refugees reported: "We are forced to collect the food packages three times a week within one hour. The packages have to be picked up in person; sometimes we have to produce our staying permit. Things used to be different. Our friends or room mates were allowed to get the packages for us."

Mr. B reported: "I have relatives in F. I know that I must not stay at their place actually, but the hostel in Bissierstrasse is driving me crazy. So I've often been with my relatives since July. They support me. When I was with them in summer, the administrators of the hostel sent the local police a message to the effect that I had left the hostel and simultaneously let me know that I had to pay DM 300 ( $180) to cover the fees."

At a press conference initiated by the refugees of the hostel in Bissierstrasse city councillors and representatives of welfare organisations were invited to discuss a highly controversial matter: food for small children. The Freiburg municipal administration agreed that mothers of children under the age of 2 be permitted to go buying food in a cheap supermarket (e.g. Norma) provided they were accompanied by social workers. DM 7.60 ($ 4.60) was allocated per day per child. When the chief executives of the administrative district learned about this agreement, they informed the municipal officials that this policy clashed with their opinion on that matter. They did not appeal to the way the matter was solved or to the fact that the refugees were controlled when shopping (oral report by a city employee).

A group of young women and mothers told us: "The janitors are often very uncivil to us. [...] They turn up in the bathroom uncalled­for when we're washing ourselves. They enter our rooms without waiting for permission to come in. They don't have any respect for us. For us women, this is a very inconvenient situation."

"In the mornings the administrators of the hostel stand at their doors or look out of their windows, observing us. They keep track of who leaves the building regularly. In doing so, they want to know whether or not we go to work."

"The food packages, the clothing, and the intolerable supervision in this hostel induced us to organise a press conference in the summer in order to inform the welfare organisations and the city councillors about our predicament and to ask for remedial action. Up until this day no member of the city administration has visited us or talked with us. The local mayor has promised twice to pay us a visit, but then postponed his visit."

The food does neither meets the needs nor corresponds to the varied eating habits

As to the distribution of food special cultural needs are met in that different sorts of meat are given out. Yet many refugees have discovered that they are in no position to maintain their culture­bound dietary habits.

The refugees primarily complain about the composition and quality of the food. The menu is short on vegetables and long on flour and table water (at least 1 kg of flour per package and 2 litres of table water in paper packs). Hence for example 90 kg of flour have accumulated in three families (see picture).

The margarine that is delivered is of poor quality and not available in any supermarket, not even in discount stores such as Sonja. For over four months now no butter has been distributed.

The variety of canned food is also very monotonous and thus unpopular with the refugees. 30 to 40 cans of peas have piled up. The same applies to canned herring and sardines in oil.

Meat is delivered deep­frozen. On its way from the producer to the hostel, it is not always kept refrigerated, though. The refugees reported that lamb, for example, already had an unpleasant odour when it was given to them. Some of those who drafted this paper also saw defrosted meat products on several occasions when watching the food distribution process. As a result, these foodstuffs do not last two or three days as they are meant to, but have to be consumed immediately provided they are still edible.

Mr T from the hostel in Bissierstrasse said: "It doesn't matter how the packages can be improved. This is a violation of the basic right of "free choice of one's diet." Even if the quality was enhanced, they would not let us eat what we like. The package proves that we're deprived of basic rights. I don't want to haggle about ways that would make the food distribution better like on a bazaar. What we want is keep our dignity as human beings." Mr T also told the press at the conference that one of his daughters had said that she would like to get one of those packages that are given to German children.

Organisational failures and mismanagement cause hunger

The following incident happened in the county of Black Forest­Baar, a large rural area, in which small groups of refugees are scattered in small municipalities. The incident is verified by internal correspondence between the municipal offices and the county administration. We have received those documents. In the above county, the packages are shipped by road to where the refugee families live. Family A.U. from N. (authors have knowledge of their names and address) had to contact the municipal administration a number of times before their petition was passed on to the county administration. They had not received any food packages for three weeks. What is in the package is supposed to last two days. The pocket money did not permit the family to make ends meet. While the parents tried to satisfy their children's needs first, they could not prevent hunger among them. Although the county chief administrator himself was called in after two weeks, the authorities responded quite hesitantly.

In another instance a physician succeeded in making sure that a pregnant woman was exempted from getting food packages in order to avoid a deterioration of her physical condition. Yet the exemption led to her entire family being excluded from the provision of food. The other members did not receive different food or money in compensation. This grievance was also not redressed until after several weeks.

Delivery of rotten food

In the county of Black Forest­Baar and in other places, food delivered had long passed the use­by date, e.g. bread whose printed use­by date indicated that it was over 20 days old. Often times defrosted chicken was delivered, which was emitting a distinctive odour of rottenness when it was given out. Fruit and vegetables were and still are partly or completely decayed. Pressured by honorary helpers, the county administration demanded that the private delivery service be more considerate of the quality of the food to be delivered. Shortly afterward, however, rotten food was once again transported to a group of refugees. It was not fir to eat anymore. Infuriated by this incident, some refugees threw the spoiled foodstuffs out of the window (proof, newspaper report).

Physicians are convinced that the low quality of the foodstuffs has led to at least one case of illness in the county. The person affected felt so sick that hospitalisation was necessary.

Physicians say: package­based diet causes health deterioration

Doctors who are members of the IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) addressed the representatives of the county parliament of Black Forest­Baar in a written statement. The following passage is an excerpt: "We fear that, in the long run, signs of deficiencies and malnutrition may occur. Adolescents are particularly in danger of a deficient protein supply. Fruit and vegetables are stale and barely fit to eat. Foodstuffs lose their vitamins and minerals when stored for too long. Vitamin C deficiency is very likely to occur in the long term. It is only a matter of time until people may become sick because of salmonella poisoning. Since it takes increasingly longer for the food to be delivered, repeatedly chicken arrives at the hostel partly defrosted. [...] Many refugees, traumatised refugees in particular, suffer from problems with their stomachs and, consequently, have eating disorders. Food they are unfamiliar with contribute to their aversion to eating. In some cases there is a strong likelihood of the refugees getting serious eating disorders, which can only be cured be means of long and intensive therapies. [...] We have noticed that since the humiliating food allocation was introduced, the number of mental and psychosomatic diseases has risen considerably. Those people are hit hardest who have not yet overcome the traumas caused by torture, camps, humiliation, war, expulsion, and escape. For some of them, this way of distributing food is a reminder of their traumatic experiences in camps, on their flight, in prison, or in wars. In a few cases, this results in classic flashbacks (see enclosure)."

A young woman describes such an event in her own words: " We witnessed bad things in Turkey. We fled the country out of political reasons. Many of us were tortured. The living conditions in this hostel make us sick. Many of us are suffering from mental problems. Many have nightmares, are scared, or become aggressive. And when you have to live so close together, and everybody has different eating habits, you're bound to freak out here. "

Half of the money goes to the delivery company

The delivery company is paid DM 8.60 ($ 5.20) for one daily ration for an adult, adding up to some DM 245 ($ 148.50) per month. A comparison with current prices in a discount store (Penny) has shown that the foodstuffs allocated to an adult refugee in the course of a month could be bought for around DM 120,­ ($ 72.70) (see enclosure for details).

In the county of Black Forest­Baar too we could prove that the contents of the food packages was only worth DM 80 ($ 48.50) per month, based on prices in discount stores. Further, aid workers were told by an unofficial but reliable source that the hostel administration paid the delivery company DM 100 ($ 60.60) per month and refugee. As yet the county administration has refused to give any information even to county officials who are legally entitled to it.

5. Other examples of the impact of the legal provision

Uniform clothing distributed on trucks

For the provision of clothing, a pilot project was conducted in Freiburg. A selection of clothes was transported to the hostel for refugees by truck. All clothes were ticketed with prices. The refugees were allowed to choose summer clothing worth DM 180 ($109).

Female refugees reported: "We didn't have any options. A lot of clothes were of poor quality. We had no choice but to accept what was they offered us, because DM 80 ($ 48.50) won't buy any other kind of clothing."

"After the distribution of clothes is completed, all women more or less look the same. Many of us wear the same skirts and blouses. " A young mother told us laughing: "How am I supposed to recognise my daughter, when all the girls have the same dress on. I'm laughing, but actually this is no laughing matter. That's what is called prison uniform. We certainly do not want to witness such an incident again."

The supply of toileteries is insufficient

Toileteries are also allocated in packages. An honorary aid worker, doctor by occupation, told the administrators of the hostel: "Even as far as the packages containing hygiene products are concerned, individual needs were evidently not catered to. [...] Toothbrushes only come in one size. Those meant for children that are older than nine are not delivered. Sanitary pads for adult women come in the size that teenagers use during the first years of menstruation. For older women, this type of sanitary pads is totally inadequate, as they are too thin and absorb the liquid very badly. Changing pads very often is impossible because the amount each women gets is limited." The administrators did not respond.

Five mothers of new­born infants reported: "We have to beg the administrators for every pacifier. This is so degrading. The hygiene packages for small children contain nothing but bad stuff. (*At the press conference, refugees produced the contents of these packages. None of the brands can be found in stores, and none of them was familiar to the people in the audience.) No oil tissues; no good wound­salve; a limited number of diapers. We have to fight for each additional diaper. This is so humiliating. Also, we weren't given cribs for our babies. And since our rooms are so small and our other kids are with our babies around the clock, we're afraid that they will fall out of their beds. And when we were pregnant some of us chose to sleep on the floor, because the mattresses are so soft and worn­out. When you're pregnant, sometimes you can't stand things any longer."

Living in one room for several years

A social worker from a hostel in Freiburg points out that many refugees continue staying at their hostels even after the asylum determination procedure is completed. "The majority of refugees whose asylum determination process is finished, are granted a tolerance status, which allows them to look for housing. Since the social security office bears only a little amount of the rent and cheap housing is hard to come by in Freiburg, many refugees find it impossible to rent an apartment of their own. At the hostel, each inmate is entitled to 4.5 sqm of floor space. Actual spacing often falls short of this value, though. That is why family K. made up of two adults and six children has to share two rooms that are 34 sqm large altogether. Family I, which consists of seven people and has been living at the hostel for seven years now, shares two rooms the same size. Both families are unlikely to leave the hostel in the near future."

The Freiburg municipal administration said in November 1997 that 356 people had been living in the hostels under the conditions described above for at least five years; 408 people and 479 people for at least four and 3 years respectively. The following two sections are taken from a report drafted by a social worker: "Given the inappropriate living conditions these people are exposed to strong mental and physical stress. All family members share one or at best two rooms. Family life takes place in those rooms 24 hours a day. Hence, there is a lack of privacy for the individual. Children do not have room to play, no freedom to move around and no peace to study. This entails problems in school. If conflicts occur, none of the family members has the possibility of creating a less tense atmosphere by closing a door behind himself or herself. It is impossible for the parents to have an undisturbed exchange of intimacies."

Usage fees exceed legally admissible rents

Reported by a Freiburg social worker: "What aggravates the problem is the fact that dwellers that have their own income must pay high fees for the rooms they use. Up until recently the monthly rent for the head of a household stood at DM 300 ($ 181) and that for each one of the other family members was DM 150 ($ 91). Hence a four­person family that lived in a 17­sqm room had to pay a total of DM 750 ($ 455)."

Necessary medical treatment is declined

Example #1:

In the county of Black Forest­Baar a girl's ankle was injured. An orthopaedist as well as the chief of the orthopaedic clinic at the Villingen hospital, an affiliate of the university clinic of Freiburg, confirmed that surgery was imperative in order to prevent permanent impairment of the foot or other consequential damages. The county administration disagreed, arguing: "In your letter of [...] you did not mention the acute necessity for treatment, but emphasised permanent impairment and other consequential damages, which prompted us to once again call in the local public health office. Given that the public health officer has not changed her mind, there is no need for the contination of the medical treatment or surgery at this point. The instability of the patient's ankle joint can be countered by the applied splint. By way of exception, we were therefore willing to bear the cost of the aircast splint prescribed by Dr. [...]. The current state of the matter and the law admit of no further help."

The physicians treating the injured girl informed Dr. Montgomery, the human rights official with the Federal Medical Council, about the issue, seeking an investigation and his support. Dr. Montgomery then contacted the county administration: "After taking a close look at the material, I've reached the conclusion that rejecting to bear the cost for an operation is simply wrong and based on a far­fetched interpretation of the Act on Benefits for Asylum Seekers. The orthopaedic opinions indisputably prove that an operation would help repair the instability of the patient's ankle joint. Hence there is a strong case for surgical treatment. Treating the injury with a splint may turn out to be counterproductive in the long run and is therefore the wrong therapy. Considering the girl's young age, the impact of this orthopaedic problem on her body is all the more serious. This is why I firmly believe that surgery is absolutely imperative and should be carried out immediately. If the patient was a German national, no one would oppose an operation."

Example #2:

A 29­year­old Kosovar, who was suffering from chronic colic due to a kidney stone, was referred to the urologic ward of the Freiburg university clinic by his family doctor. In compliance with an internal order, asylum­seekers may only be treated in an emergency, as stipulated by German law. After the patient was administered painkillers, which led to increasing loss of appetite but did not relieve the pain, an inpatient removal of the stone would have been the appropriate therapy at that point. Since the patient's discomfort continued to deteriorate, the clinic filed an application for reimbursement of inpatient treatment with the Freiburg social security office. Yet in one phrase of this application the physicians disclaimed the patient's right to surgical treatment. The sentence ran: "A causal treatment of the kidney stone is not of paramount importance." (filed on April 7, 1994).

The social security office approached the public health office. The public health officer again concurred with the opinion that the removal of the kidney stone was the appropriate therapy, but once again the patient's claim was forfeited by the following remark: "[...] at this point no indication of en emergency operation could be found" (reply to the social security office from May 10, 1994). In accordance with the law, the social security office rejected the application, citing the opinions by the doctors. In addition, they argued that "the range of benefits for this group of people is restricted to vital operations." (reply to the university clinic on May 31, 1994). As his patient was still suffering from chronic pain, the family doctor inquired at the clinic. All the clinic administrators did was reprimand the doctor, making clear that the case had been concluded. It took the publishing of the case in the Badische Zeitung (July 15, 1994­edition) for the patient to receive the treatment he was legally entitled to.

6. Conclusion

The German federal government's report of the Act on Social Benefits for Asylum Seekers is inadequate. The Act represents a sweeping change in Germany's refugee policy in that, for the first time, the subsistence level, which is binding for all human beings, and the unwritten rule of dignity concerning a person's way of life have been violated. Moreover, substandards have been implemented.

The German government fails to respect the right to an adequate standard of living of the asylum seekers and particularly their right to adequate food to which the government is duty-bound under International law. The report shows that the refugees´ access to adequate food both in terms of quantity and of quality is not satisfactory.

Furthermore, the discriminatory policy especially affects the children of refugees. They are forced to spend the sensitive and formative years of their lives under extreme conditions that take heavy tolls on them. Yet the policy­makers and other government officials do not even deem their predicament worth discussing properly. Another sign of the discrimination of refugees lies in the court decisions shown in this paper; even in those made by supreme courts where every minimum standard of living for refugees is met with a flat rejection.

7. Possible questions to the Government of Germany

    What does the Government of Germany intend to do to put the asylum seekers on the same footing with the other parts of the population receiving social benefits?

    How does it want to make sure that asylum seekers can feed themselves according to healthy nutritional standards?

    How can the distribution of already rotten food and/or the lack of food distribution for a while be avoided?

    How can groups with special needs like pregnant women, children and breast feeding women get an alimentation rich enough in terms of minerals and vitamins?

    What does the Government of Germany intend to do to ensure the cultural adequacy of food provided to the asylum seekers?

    What does the Government of Germany intend to do to provide the asylum seekers with healthy housing?

    How can the Government of Germany ensure that the living environment of asylum seekers allow a life in human dignity in terms of food, housing, clothing and health care?


homepage