CO-OPERA TION BETWEEN HUNGARY AND THE EU IN THE FIELD OF REFUGEE AFFAIRS

of Accession to the European Union

CO-OPERA TION BETWEEN HUNGARY AND THE EU IN THE FIELD OF REFUGEE AFFAIRS

The involvement of the associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CCEE) in the co-operation with EU member countries in the area of domestic and judicial affairs arose from the structured dialogue and resolution set forth at the European Council con-ference in Corfu.

The co-operation ofCCEE was necessitated by recognition of the fact that both the EU and CCEE now face new types of challenges to the economic and social stability of their respective countries, such as illegal mass migration and the spread of organised crime.

Combating these challenges is only possible through pan-European co-operation.

For the first time on September 8, 1994 an ali-European con ference of ministers of domestic and judicial affairs was convened in Berlin. This event was also attended by ministers of the CCEE. The conference adopted astrategy call ed the Berlin Declaration in order to intensify co-operation in the battle against drugs and organised crime.

The third joint conference of domestic and judicial affairs ministers ofboth the EU and CCEE was held in Brussels (September 25, 1995) and focused on the varying forms of co-operation on the question of organised crime, with special attention to automobile trafficking, police training, asylum and migration.

The conference also adopted a judicial strategy of co-operation in the field to comb at organised crime.

The strengthening of co-operation is demonstrated by the fact that what was initially ministerial level co-operation has, since January 1996, extended to a more general co-operation among experts of both organisations. Today there are working contacts between experts of the CCEE and the K-4 Committee of the European Council.

The Amsterdam Treaty of June 1997, in its new chapter entitled "The Creation of the Zone of Freedom, Security and Justice" deals with various issues regarding the free movement of persons, such as administration of refugee affairs, immigration and visa policies as weil as with certain elements of civil legal co-operation. The new Treaty out-lines a five-year period for the formulation of a common policy. Furthermore, within three years following the enactment of the Treaty, the Council makes decisions unanimously, and only this preliminary period will there be a vote on the introduction of qualified ma-jority voting.

This means that despite the fact that these issues are tackled at the Community level, it was not designed to promote the introduction of qualified majority vote. Naturally, a fun-damental reform in the field of the Third Pillar must be inc\uded which, in tum, will raise

issues currently under debate to the European Community forum bythe date of Hungary's access ion. The possibility of this kind of rapid progress is,however, very slim in the light of the divergent positions ofmember states.

Because of increased defense of external borders of the European Union, and the regulation of co-operation among the so-called Schengen States in the field of refugec affairs, many citizens of third countries are turned back, and those who were originally transit passengers now appear in Hungary as asylum seekers. No wonder the Hungarian budget is experiencing more and more difficulty identifying adequate financial resources for the implementation of refugee assistance especially when the support of UNHCR and other international organisations has been gradually reduced.

Since the end of the 1980s, Hungary has to an ever increasing extent, become a trans it and destination country of illegal migration. Following the access ion of Austria to EUand the enactment of the Schengen Agreement, the Austro-Hungarian border has become an external border of the European Union, and as aresult, there is increasing pressure placed on Hungary in the field of illegal migration to meet the expectations of the European Un-ion. However, it isworthy to note that an international forum called Budapest Group is already undertaking activities to combat illegal migration, and that the stricter border control now be ing implemented with support of the PHARE programme. With this in mind, the utilisation of the INTERREG programme of the European Union can also be examined.

The Schengen Agreement is both nominaIly and institutionally integrated into the framework of the European Union. For this reason, the so-call ed Schengen acquis must be entirely accepted by those seeking accession tothe European Union in the near future.

In the field of refugee policy, special attention is also paid by the European Union to the issue of burden-sharing, first and foremost, with regard to its member states. Recent efforts, however, increase the prospect of obtaining EU support for burden-sharing in as-sociate countries as weil. Within the framework of mutually beneficial co-operation, the financing of joint technical or development projects, as weil as the training of and ex-change of information among experts are important goals.

The 1951 Geneva Convention and the New York Protocol of 1967 provide the inter-national legal basis for the application of refugee policies among EU member states, the provisions ofwhich are administered without any geographical reservation.

Notwithstanding the above, itwas found in the EU as weil that not ali actual refugee matters can be hand led bythe provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention alone and that there is an increasing number of individuals whose protection isjustified on humanitarian grounds who, nonetheless, do not qualify asrefugees.

To put it in a somewhat simplified manner we can state that the EU is currently trying to implement the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention and international agreements on refugee protection together with their own refugee policies which are of a decidedly defensive character. Under the accepted practice, an asylum seeker is not entitled to de-cide inwhich EU member state he will reside during the applicat ion procedure. He is al-lowed todo so only in the country he first enters EU territory and submits his application for asylum. On the other hand EU policies also try to ensure that ali applications submit-ted be examined by one of the member states. This goal was established by the Dublin Convention, signed in 1990 but ratified only recently, which delegates responsibility for

the examination of asylum claims in one state to at least one other member state. It is dif-ficult to enforce this practice throughout the EU because France, for example, reserves the right to provide asylum on humanitarian grounds even if the asylum seeker has been re-jected by another member state. Spain, on the other hand, albeit lacking Community sup-port at this time has propo sed that the EU member states should under no circumstances provide asylum for citizens of other member states.

The refugee policy, legal, administrative and security issues relating to asylum can not be separated from other problems of irregular migrat ion, since a substantial number of asylum seekers arrive illegally. The danger of illegal migration is that it has close ties with international organised crime. It is well-known that the same organised criminal groups who handie trafficking of illegal migrants, drugs and weapons on major border crossings do so between countries and continents alike. A co-ordinated international strategy in combating illegal migration requires even closer co-operation between governments and international organisations.

The increase of social and economic disparities among countries, the number of con-tlicts originating from ethnic, religious or poIiticaI differences and even increased travel opportunities, has made mass migration one of the most important challenges to national and economic security.

Within the framework of migratory movements, the reception of foreigners arriving in destination and trans it countries, as weil as the attitude of the host society are influenced by several factors: from cultural and historicaI traditions to the number and ethnic com-position of the new arrivals, and enduring capacity of the host country to receive foreign nationals.

The execution of the defensive and restrictive EU refugee policy is facilitated by prin-ciples adopted in more and more countries on the basis ofwhich applicant's claim may be rejected without actual consideration. at which point he may be shuffled off to an other country. The use of a "safe third country" effects mostly the transit countries, such as Hungary, through which the claimant has already travelled or has stayed in for some time prior to submitting his claim to the EU member state.

Answers given to the so-call ed Third Pillar Questionnaire on co-operation in the field of dom esti c and judicial affairs by the Hungarian Government were accepted by the European Commission. No request for additional information was made at either the meetings of the Association Council or any other forums. Both in our answers to the Questionnaire and at expert negotiations we have enumerated our progress on the legal regulation of refugee affairs, taking into consideration the poiiticaI and social develop-ment of recent years. At the same time, we also provided for the lifting of geographic res-ervation by the time of our EU membership. Special attention is given to this particular range of subjects by the Dutch Presidency of the EU which, in the first half of 1997, em-phasised the importance refugee affairs. It can also be mentioned that the 5th European Conference on the Reception of Asylum seekers was held at the Hague in June 1997, at which time Hungary was invited to organise and host the forthcoming 6th Conference in Budapest, in 1999.

In order to aceelerate our preparations for negotiations concerning access ion to the EU, the Hungarian Government has introduced several measures. From among them, the most notable is the continuous activity of working groups established by the

Inter-Oepartmental Committee on European Integration whose purpose is to fonnulate direc-tives and strategy of the negotiations. The Working Group (No. 22) of domestic and ju-dicial affairs will have to prepare relevant documents by September 30, 1997. Naturally, this can only be done on the basis of the Treaty of the Union, and following a survey of hannonisation requirements of legal institution of the Third Pillar. From this point of view, it is significant, that on July 16, 1996, the European Commission issued a positive reply to the application of Hungary for accession to the European Union.

ABRIEF HISTORY OF REFUGEE POL!CY IN HUNGARY

The country's acceding to the 1951 Geneva Convention in 1989, first among countries of the region, was directly motivated by the swarms ofrefugees arriving from Romania.

The regulations pertaining to refugee affairs was established by Government Oecree (No. 101 on September 28,1989). The local organs of the Office for Refugee and Migra-tion Affairs (ORMA) handie applications for asylum. The initial decision may be pealed. There is judicial review over the second instance decision. Since 1989 5,941 ap-plications for asylum have been submitted; favourable decisions were passed in the case of 4,293 persons. Of those, currently 2,672 persons have recognised refugee status. This srnaller number is due to the fact that recognised refugees are entitled to request naturali-sati on. Refugee status ceases to exist if citizenship is acquired. The tennination of the refugee status was effected for the above reason in about 90 percent of the cases.

The Budapest Office of UNHCR deals with applications lodged by non-European asylum seekers. Between 1989 and 1996 2,698 applications were submitted to the Buda-pest Office. Of those 262 applications were considered well-founded. The legal status of

"mandatory refugees" has been unsettled. The Alien Police issues them residence pennit and they may take jobs or other entrepreneurial activity within generally established guide lines.1 The co st of accommodation, care and subsistence for mandatory refugees are partly provided by the UNHCR. Since early 1997, the accommodation of non-European applicants has been provided by the Reception Centre in the town of Bicske, which is maintained by the ORMA. The costs incurred during the process are also covered by the UNHCR.

Oue to the emergence of military conflict in the territory of the forrner Yugoslavia, the institution of refugee affairs in Hungary has been confronted by the greatest cha llen ge ever since the summer of 1991. Between 1991-1995 more than 70,000 persons arrived in Hungary in successive waves from the Baranya triangle, Eastern Slavonia, Bosnia and, mainly to escape conscription, from Vojvodina. The overwhelming majority of those in-dividuals sought only temporary protection from the Government for humanitarian rea-sons. Besides assistance provided by international organisations, the accommodation and maintenance of a large number of refugees were managed by municipalities and non-governmental organisations (such as the Hungarian Red Cross, Hungarian Inter Church

I Aceording to general rules on employment of aliens they need a previously issued labour visa by the Hungarian Embassy in order to obtain a labour perrnit valid for one year. The regional labour authority can re-new the perrnit if the alien's residence is lawfuI. (T.J.)

Aid, the Hungarian Maltese Charity Service, Refugee Mission of the Reformed Church as weil as other charity organisations). Under the current practice, temporarily protected per-sons are given an IDentitling them to receiving support. The cards are validated every four months, on the basis ofwhich the Alien Police may issue them a short-term residence permit. The validity of the IDs was last extended in May 1997 when 4,083 persons were registered (1,223 Bosnians, 1,872 Croats and 988 Yugoslav citizens).

Based on the experiences to date it can be stat ed that about 1/4-1/3 of the temporary protected persons lived or are still living in reception centres, camps or shelters, whereas others found private accommodation. Within the given parameters, the ORMA istrying to provide education for refugee children in their mother tongue. Care and maintenance at the camps is complete and free of charge, whereas those living in private facilities arc provided with week ly aid and health care from the municipalities. Temporary protected persons living in the camps may perform jobs within the camps premises without labour perrnit.

Following the signing of the Dayton Accords the Hungarian Government, similar to governments of other host countries, decided? that after January 15, 1996 it would no longer provide temporary protection for new arrivals from the territory of ex- Yugoslavia.

However, the Government continues to ensure the protection of such persons until the conditions of their safe return to their homeland can be arranged. Furthermore, in consid-eration of the principle of family unity, the entry of spouses and minor children of tempo-rarily protected persons is allowed.

After the peace accords, it has become a primary goal to encourage the voluntary and safe repatriation oftemporarily protected persons. The Dayton Accords set December 31, 1997 as deadline for the repatriation of those driven from their homes. Regrettably, the repatriation of Bosnian citizens proceeds very sluggishly. Their return to the territory of the Bosnian Serb Republic, the homeland ofmost Bosnian temporary protected persons is almost impossible. Whereas return to the territory of the Bosnian Federation is possible only on condition that they have relatives there to accept them and prior perrnission of the local authorities. The situation is better in the areas of Croatia under UNT AES control, where local elections were held recently without disturbances, so there is sound hope that the return ofCroatian citizens may be accelerated very soon.

It is also a favourable development that an amnesty law prohibiting the criminal charge of persons avoiding conscription was passed in June 1996 by the Parliament of the Yugoslav Federation. Thus the return of Yugoslav citizens, in the majority of cases, eth-nic Hungarians, has become possible. Assisting this process is consistent with the de-clared mission of the Hungarian government, which supports the recognition of Hungari-ans across borders as citizens with equal rights living in their respective homelands.

In order to assist voluntary repatriation, ORMA has provided financial assistance from early 1996 for those wishing to retum home permanently. From state budget, and through the participation of the Maltese Charity Service, each person is given travel provisions worth 1,000 HUF and a survival kit worth 7,000 HUF to help them at home. They also receive one-time financial assistance in the amount of 7,000 HUF/adult and 3,500 HUF/minor. These sums are supplemented by equivalent sums from the UNHCR. Those

2It waspublished inapress-release, rather than inaformai cabinet decision. Cr.J.)

intending to retum home between May 1 and August 31, 1997 are given increased amounts of 14,000 HUF/adult and 7,000 HUF/minor by the ORMA.

There are a considerable number of people intending to settle in third countries be-cause they consider repatriation to their country of origin a hopeless situation. The USA, Canada and Australia offered these immigrants organised resettlement programs between 1995-96. These programs were mainly designed for people either living in mixed mar-riages or for those who now found themselves as an ethnic minority in their original homeland. In 1996 346 Bosnian citizens were allowed to travel to the countries men-tioned above. In the first half of 1997, another 110 persons were received.

PREPARATORY TASKS FOR THE ORMA

It follows from the preparatory work relating to new asylum law and refugee policy that the following factors need to be considered:

Lifting of the Geographical Reservation to 1951 Geneva Convention

The number of asylum seekers in Hungary is certain to increase considerably upon lifting the limitation. At the same time, the legal status of the non-European mandatory refugees will be settled, and management of their affairs will be assumed by the Hungar-ian refugee authority alone.

The experiences of past years have made it obvious that in addition to recognised refu-gees on the basis of 1951 Geneva Convention, there is a considerably higher number of people who seek protection on humanitarian grounds, mainly under the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. These persons can be divided in two categories.

aj Temporary protected persons. These persons are forced to leave their country of ori gin due to armed confliets, civil war, or ethnic strife and they se ek temporary protec-tion in large numbers. Once there is a massive inflow of persons described above, the conditions of temporary protection, designation, their assistance as weil as the duration of their protection must be determined by the Govemment.

b) Accepted persons. These are not refugees or temporarily protected persons, but ali-ens who may not be expelled or retumed to their country of origin or some other country - even if the individual has a criminal background - because of subsequent persecution, torture, inhumane or degrading treatment. Proper legal instruments must be devised for this steadily increasing group of people. With regard to practical administration, they are similar to refugees, so relevant legal regulation and support should be extended within the

In document Europeana felhasználói szabályzatát. (Pldal 93-104)