I hear it's almost unheard of for an EU member state to grant asylum to a citizen of another EU member state. Is this as it should be? If yes, are there any particular types of cases where you would feel different?
Printable View
I hear it's almost unheard of for an EU member state to grant asylum to a citizen of another EU member state. Is this as it should be? If yes, are there any particular types of cases where you would feel different?
If someone is persecuted in one EU state, why wouldn't they take the case to the European Court of Human Rights?
If a member state thinks it should give asylum to a person of another member state what it really says is that this second member state is not suitable as a member of the EU. One would think that long before it gets to that point the persecuting state should be get a dressing down. Or alternatively you should seriously consider that the individual is abusing the asylum system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So, no, I don't see any reason for change.
Given that an EU citizen* has the automatic right to live and work in any other EU state, what would be the point of claiming asylum? It would be totally redundant. They can just get their passport, move nations and live normally elsewhere, they have no requirement to go through the rigmarole to claim asylum or any other status.
* Except the newest 12 states have this right getting phased in, in most of the old 15 nations.
I should perhaps clarify that I wasn't speaking of political asylum. The question was prompted by a short article about a trafficking case. Among the victims there is one 14-y-o Romanian girl who's been used as a sex-slave since she was 11. Among the perpetrators/pimps we find her enterprising family. There seems to be a consensus among those involved in the case that, if she's deported from Sweden, she's likely to be sold again. Tbh, even if she's allowed to stay, there's a chance she'll be kidnapped and taken right back to Romania, but it's safer here. Everyone's in agreement that she's severely traumatised and in need of care. However, the Swedish Migration Board seems dead set on deporting her. The official position seems to be that, legally, it's not Sweden's responsibility to take care of this girl because it's theoretically possible that she'll be safe in Romania. They also explained that it's more or less unheard of to grant asylum to citizens from other EU states.
D'you reckon this sort of thing would be a case for the ECHR? I'm trying to figure out what means we have for tackling [what I perceive as] legal limits on basic human decency. Cross-national witness-protection programmes?
This falls under my asterix. Romania being one of the new 12 is having its rights phased in, so she can be deported. If you swapped Romania for Germany the Swedish wouldn't deport her as she has the right of abode in Sweden already - you don't deport someone from where they have every right to be. She should be taken into care.
The other issue is that she is a child, so the question is whose responsibility she is, rather than what rights she has. That makes it more murky, but I don't think asylum is the right word.
Sounds more like a child care case to me than anything else. I think it would be a case for the ECHR as the claim of the Swedish government that she has no right to its protection is questionable. Sounds like a case of article 5 of the convention.
I don't see that she has a right to reside in Sweden as it would not be to execute her rights under EU directives (basically to work employed or self-employed) or the derivative right to effective use of the rights by a third person (her caretakers/parents). I don't see an article 8 of the convention violation either as it seems that what this girl needs for her own protection is not a family life, but protection from her family.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Come to think of it, Sweden may have a case if they contend that the article 5 obligations fall upon the Romanian state. Still, it would not be impossible that the ECHR would rule in her favour.
An "ever-closer union" does not strike me as an organization which is, would be, or should be interested in acting against each other. And asylum IS an act against another state, it nulls sovereignty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This seems to be the official line, and it's been a popular one recently. The case is on appeal to the Swedish migration court, but it's uncertain how they'll rule (they won't be hearing the girl). I'm hoping it does go to the ECHR if it has to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Thanks for the clarification guys :)
But again, that falls under child services and criminal law, asylum is the wrong word. This would not be an asylum case, even if she were to stay in Sweden it would not be due to asylum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Sounds like another example of the enlightened European governments that exist for the good of humanity and all that shit being a step behind the uncivilized Americans. T-Visa. We savages don't say "thanks for being a sex slave in our country, but now that you're free, get the fuck out," which would seem to be the enlightened Swedish custom. :p
Well, a 4:1 ratio isn't too bad I suppose.
We have got a similar system in Holland.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain