PROTOKOL NO 24: AB ROMANLARI İÇİN GERÇEK VEYA KURGU?

Abstract

Avrupa Birliği’nin ve ABD’nin hukuk sistemleri, birbirine çok benzeyen içtihatlar oluşturan, ortak normlar üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Bu ortak hukuk ilkeleri nedeniyle, AB ve ABD’nin sığınma taleplerinin karar verilmesinde benzer standartların uygulanması beklenilebilir. Çoğunlukla, bu beklenti doğru çıkmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, başvuranın menşe ülkesi AB üyesi bir devlet olduğunda göz kamaştırıcı bir fark var olmaktadır. ABD’deki sığınma hakimleri, başvuranın menşe devletini dikkate almadan, bir talebin bireysel olarak esasına bakmaktadır. Diğer taraftan, AB vatandaşları tarafından oluşturulan sığınma taleplerinin gerçekliği olmadığının AB hakimleri tarafından karine olarak kabul edilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu karine esasen bu makalenin de başlıca konusunu oluşturan, AB Üyesi Devlet Vatandaşları İçin Sığınma Hakkında Protokol (Protokol No.24)’den kaynaklanmaktadır. Protokol No.24 AB’de zulme uğramış Romanları sığınma taleplerinden mahrum bırakmaktadır. AB üye devletlerinin “menşe ülke olarak güvenli” ve AB menşeli sığınma taleplerinin de “açıkça temelsiz” olduğunu belirten bu Protokol, AB sığınma başvurucularına karşı adeta reddedilemez bir karine oluşturmaktadır. 24 numaralı Protokol ayrımcı niteliktedir ve birçok AB-Romanları’na yönelen gerçeklikle bağdaşmamaktadır. ABD sığınma rejiminin çok boyutlu yaklaşımı Roman sığınma taleplerinin daha titiz ve anlamlı şekilde değerlendirilmesini sağlamaktadır. Davalar, başvurana karşı (eğer varsa) cüzi hukuki karinelerle, bireysel esaslara göre değerlendirilir. AB benzer bir sığınma rejimi benimsemeli ve 24 nolu Protokolün dışlayıcı yetkisini reddetmelidir.

Keywords

• Roma
• AB
• İltica
• Protokol
• AİHM

PROTOCOL NO. 24: FACT OR FICTION FOR EU ROMA?

Abstract

The legal systems of the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) are premised upon common norms, resulting in very similar bodies of jurisprudence. Due to these shared legal principles, one would expect the EU and the U.S. to use similar standards in the adjudication of asylum claims. For the most part, this expectation holds true. However, a glaring difference exists when an applicant’s country of origin is an EU member state. Asylum adjudicators in the U.S. examine the individual merits of a claim, regardless of the applicant’s country of origin. On the other hand, EU adjudicators are required to presume that asylum claims filed by EU nationals are without merit. This presumption comes primarily from the Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union (Protocol No. 24), the main subject of this paper. Protocol No. 24 eviscerates the asylum claims of Roma who are persecuted in the EU. It creates an almost irrebuttable presumption against EU asylum applicants, stating that EU member states are “safe countries of origin” and EUorigin asylum claims are deemed “manifestly unfounded.” Protocol No. 24 is discriminatory and conflicts with the reality faced by many EU Roma. The multi-faceted approach of the U.S. asylum regime provides a more thorough and meaningful review of Roma asylum claims. Cases are assessed on an individual basis, with little (if any) legal presumptions against the applicant. The EU should adopt a similar asylum regime and reject the exclusionary mandate of Protocol No. 24.

Keywords

• Roma
• EU
• Asylum
• Protocol
• ECHR

References

1. Amnesty International, “The Amsterdam Treaty and the Protection of Refugees,” Statewatch, http://www.statewatch.org/subscriber/protected/sw7n6.pdf, Accessed: Nov. 7, 1997.
2. Annual Flow Report, (2012), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Washington DC, Tables 17 & 19.
3. Butler, Don. “Most Roma Asylum-Seekers Being Denied Legal Aid, Refugee Lawyer Says”, (16 Jan. 2012), The Ottawa Citizen.
4. Carrera, S., Guild, E. & Merlino, M., (2011), “The Canada-Czech Republic Visa Dispute Two Years On: Implications for the EU’s Migration and Asylum Policies,” CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security, pp. 1-9.
5. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000/C 364/01 (Dec. 7, 2000).
6. Cohen, Tobi. “Hungarian Asylum Seekers Flood Canadian Shores in 2011”, (12 Feb. 2012), Postmedia News.
7. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, Annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984).
8. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR) arts. 1, 13-14.

9. Country Report on Human Rights Practices-Bulgaria, (2011), U.S. Department of State, Washington DC, pp. 1-2.
10. Country Report on Human Rights Practices-Hungary, (2011), U.S. Department of State, Washington DC, pp. 1, 34.
11. Country Report on Human Rights Practices-Romania, (2011), U.S. Department of State, Washington DC, pp. 1, 24-25.
12. David, R. and Brierley, J., (1985), Major Legal Systems in the World Today: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Law, Stevens & Sons, London, pp. 24-25.
13. Debates of the European Parliament, Official Journal of the European Communities, No. 4- 505/76 (16 Sept. 1997).
14. Declaration by Belgium on the Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union, (annexed to Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union, OJ C 340/103, 10 Nov. 1997).
15. European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), “Analysis of the Treaty of Amsterdam in so far as it Relates to Asylum Policy,” (10 Nov. 1997), www.ecre.org, Accessed: Jan. 1, 2007.
16. European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), “ECRE Information Note on the Asylum Procedures Directive (2005/85/EC),” IN1/10/2006/EXT/JJ, p. 6.
17. European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, (2010), Setting up a Common European Asylum System-2010 Study, Dept. of Justice and Home Affairs, p. 443.
18. European Union Council Directive 2004/83/EC (on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals…as refugees…and the content of the protection granted), Official Journal of the European Communities, OJ L 304/12 (29 Apr. 2004).
19. European Union Council Directive 2005/85/EC (on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status), Official Journal of the European Communities, OJ L 326/13 (1 Dec. 2005).
20. European Union Council Resolution (on Minimum Guarantees for Asylum Procedures), Official Journal of the European Communities, OJ C 274/13 (20 June 1995).
21. Eurostat. (19 June 2012), News Release 96/2012.
22. Gezer, Ö., (2012), “Out of Bulgaria and Romania: Wave of Immigrants Overwhelms German System,” Spiegel Online, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bulgarian-andromanian-immigrants-overwhelm-german- system-a-832027.html, Accessed: May 9, 2012.
23. Human Rights Watch. (12 June 1997), Human Rights Watch Press Release.
24. Jebb, C., (2003), “The Fight for Legitimacy: Liberal Democracy v. Terrorism,” The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. XXIII, pp. 1-2.
25. Landgren, K., (1999), “Deflecting International Protection by Treaty: Bilateral and Multilateral Accords on Extradition, Readmission and the Inadmissibility of Asylum Requests,” New Issues in Refugee Research, pp. 12-14.
26. McAdam, J. (2007), “Regionalising International Refugee Law in the European Union: Democratic Revision or Revisionist Democracy?,” 38 VUWLR 255-280.
27. Memorandum From Spain on the Inadmissibility of Asylum for Citizens of the Union, CONF 3826/97 (ANNEX), Brussels (24 Feb. 1997).
28. Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe Resolution 1740 (22 June 2010).
29. Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union (Protocol No. 24), Appended to Treaty of Amsterdam (Amending the Treaty on European Union), OJ C 340/103 (10 Nov. 1997).
30. Shawcross, William. “A Disgraceful EU Asylum Proposal,” (14 June 1997), International Herald Tribune. Sheppard, Mary. “Refugee System a Disgrace, Advocate Says”, (12 Mar. 2012), CBC News.
31. Smith, J.C. (1968), “The Unique Nature of the Concepts of Western Law,” The Canadian Bar Review, Vol. 46:2, pp. 191-225.
32. Szasz, P., (1997), Memorandum from Director & Deputy, UN Office of Legal Counsel, New York.
33. Tetley, W. (2000), “Mixed Jurisdictions: common law vs civil law (codified and uncodified),” 60 La.L.Rev. 677-738.
34. Twomey, P. (1999), “Constructing a Secure Space,” Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty, Hart Pub., p. 368.
35. UNHCR, (2004), Annotated Comments on the EC Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, OJ L 304/12, Preamble & Sec. 20.
36. UNHCR, (1997), Position on the Proposal of the European Council Concerning the Treatment of Asylum Applications from Citizens of European Union Member States (appended to letter of 3 Feb. 1997 from Director, UNHCR Division of International Protection to Michiel Patijn, Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands).
37. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 208.
38. U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, (2011), FY 2010
39. Statistical Yearbook, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology, Washington DC, pp. 1-8.
40. U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (2012), FY 2011 Statistical Yearbook, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology, Washington DC, p. 22.
41. U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), United States Code, Title 8.
42. Wasem, R.E., (2011), Asylum and ‘Credible Fear’ Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service, Washington DC, Appendix, Tables A-1 and A-2.
43. 2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: Refugees and Asylees, (2012), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Washington DC, Tables 17 & 19.