EUROPEAN UNION ASYLUM APPROVALS AND PROCEDURES -

C O N F I D E N T I A L USEU BRUSSELS 000192

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

BERLIN - PLEASE PASS TO URBANCIC
PARIS - PLEASE PASS TO URBANCIC
CA FOR CA/P
EUR FOR EUR/ERA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/06/2018
TAGS: PTER PREF PREL CVIS EUN
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN UNION ASYLUM APPROVALS AND PROCEDURES -
ADEQUATE FOR TERRORISM CONCERNS?

REF: A. 2007 BRUSSELS 3080

B. 2007 BRUSSELS 3527

C. 2007 BRUSSELS 3526

Classified By: USEU POLMINCOUNS Larry Wohlers for reasons
1.4(b) and 1.4(d)


1. (C) Summary: In advance of the February 9 visit to
Brussels of S/CT Deputy Frank Urbancic to call on the
European Union's Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism Issues,
Giles de Kerchove, USEU has begun an examination of the
current nexus between the European Union's 27 member states'
policies and procedures for the granting of asylum and
subsequent oversight of asylees, and the degree to which
appropriate terrorist screening and concerns are applied to
these programs. Several recent cases have raised concerns,
including the travel within the Schengen area of suspected
PKK terrorists who have been granted asylum by an E.U. member
state. An initial examination of the policies and procedures
reveals a possible lack of coordination of both background
checking and various national policies. The EU, however,
recognizing the need for a more unified and efficient asylum
policy, is moving toward adoption of a "common asylum
policy." This message details below the initial areas of
concern and the EU's existing policies. End Summary.



2. (C) The Current Context

With the planned February 9 visit of S/CT Deputy Frank
Urbancic to Brussels and the EU, USEU has begun an
examination of the current nexus between the European Union's
member states' policies around asylum and the degree to which
terrorism concerns are taken into account. The three reftels
noted were instructions to post to raise with the EU concerns
regarding the travel within the Schengen area and activities
of suspected PKK terrorists. In the third case USEU
officials raised the issue with Mr. de Kerchove directly.
USEU officials also briefly raised our initial concerns on
these issues with the EU Commission Director General of
Justice, Freedom and Security on January 30. Recent press
reports also noted that the EU's Strategic Committee on
Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA),meeting in
Ljubljana January 17 and 18, discussed ways to strike the
proper balance between counter-terrorism measures and the
protection of human rights, especially the right to
protection and asylum. Reports said SCIFA "noted recent
improvement in cooperation between different institutions,
agencies and organizations active in this area" and heard
from a UNHCR representative who said that countries "had an
obligation to provide refugees with protection but stressed
that refugees were not in a privileged position before the
law."



3. (SBU) The Granting of Asylum - Standards between 27 EU
States

European Union Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
sets out the minimum EU standards for third country nationals
or stateless persons to qualify as refugees. According to
the Director of the Asylum, Visas, and Immigration Section of
the EU Council, to receive asylum under EU law is to be
accepted as a refugee; thus it appears that the EU uses the
terms asylee and refugee interchangeably. The Directive
requires member states (excluding Denmark) to assess the
applications for international protection on an individual
basis, and sets out basic factors to be used in this process.
The Directive specifies the type of persecution necessary
for an individual to qualify as a refugee. The requirements
are closely tied to the Geneva Convention.

The Directive also sets out the reasons for cessation or
exclusion from refugee status. The reasons for excluding a
third country national from refugee status are the commission

of a crime against peace or humanity, a serious non-political
crime outside the country of refuge prior to admission as a
refugee, or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of
the UN as set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the
UN Charter.

Revocation of refugee status is allowed when the person
ceases to be a refugee in accordance with Article 11 of the

Directive, or if the person should have been initially
excluded from refugee status under Article 12, or if the
person presented false documents, or omitted facts, or
misrepresented facts to obtain refugee status. The member
state may also revoke refugee status when there are
reasonable grounds to regard the refugee as a danger to the
security of the member state, or has been convicted in a
final judgment of a particularlyserious crime. Although, to
revoke refugee satus on the basis of security concerns, or
criminal conviction, the refugee is entitled to the rights
set out in Articles 3, 4, 16, 22, 31,32, and 33 of the
Geneva Convention.


4. (SBU) Asylee Rights to Travel with the EU/Schengen

The current rules allow for limited travel of asylees in the
EU. They are not granted full freedom of travel like an EU
citizen. They can travel outside the asylum granting nation
for 90 days, similar to a tourist in the Schengen Zone. They
are not allowed to establish a residence in another EU state.
There is a current proposal that would grant freedom of
movement to an asylee after s/he has resided in the granting
state for 5 years.


5. (SBU) Reciprocity for Asylum Granted in another Member
State

Currently there are no rules governing reciprocity. The
asylee cannot move to another EU member state once asylum is
granted. There is current discussion about requiring other
member states to recognize asylum claims granted in other
member states, and limiting the ability of member states from
deporting the asylees to a nation other than the granting
nation.

The current rules only allow for one member state to make the
determination of the refugee's status. These rules are set
out in Council Regulation 343/2003 of February 18, 2003. Any
member state where a family member of the asylum seeker
resides is the first choice for examining the application.
The next in line is any member state where the asylum seeker
is in possession of a valid residence document, or visa.
Otherwise, the member state where the asylum seeker entered
the EU should be responsible, unless it can be shown that the
seeker has spent five months residing in another member
state. A member state can, for humanitarian reasons, examine
the application for asylum even if it is not the state
responsible provided that the responsible state and the
asylum applicant agree to the change of venue.

According to an Immigration Policy Officer at DG JLS, there
is currently no EU directive covering the apprehension of an
asylee in another member state. In this situation the Geneva
Convention would be the only international law governing the
actions of the member state. However, the European
Convention on Human Rights would prevent the member state
from deporting the refugee to a nation where s/he would face
torture, or inhumane treatment.


6. (SBU) Rules for Revocation of Refugee Status

The rules for revocation of refugee status are spelled out in
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of April 29, 2004 in Article 14.
These rules do not mention asylees, but the Director of the
EU Council,s Section on Asylum, Visas, and Immigration
explained that asylum is simply the recognition of refugee
status; thus it appears that the EU uses the terms asylee and
refugee interchangeably. These rules mirror the rules set
out for excluding refugee status, and include a
misrepresentation or omission of facts during the original
application process, reasonable grounds for determining that
the refugee is a danger to the security of the member state,
or that the refugee has been convicted of a particularly
serious crime. Article 38 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of
December 1, 2005 sets out the procedures that must be
followed before a refugee can have his/her status revoked.



7. (SBU) Checks on Asylum Claims

The EU maintains the EURODAC database with information on
persons requesting asylum in one or more Member States.
Authorities may use such information to verify whether a

person has requested asylum. Nonetheless, because of strict
data privacy rules, authorities may not use such information
for law enforcement purposes or to check the validity of
asylum claims (i.e., whether an applicant has provided
consistent or conflicting information to different member
states.) Some Interior Ministers have proposed expanding the
original use of the EURODAC data base to meet law enforcement
and counter-terrorism purposes, but they have encountered
opposition among colleagues who assert that such uses would
improperly expand the original scope of purpose for creating
the database rules.


8. (SBU) Future Plans for an EU Common Asylum Policy

A Green paper was presented on June 6, 2007 to set up a
common EU asylum system. The Commission is hoping to
harmonize eligibility criteria, clarify the grounds for
protection, converge the rights and benefits offered the
asylees, and establish a system for the mutual recognition of
national decisions relating to asylum. We were also informed
that part of this plan would allow refugees who have been
granted asylum status to have more freedom of movement within
the EU after residing for five years in the state that
granted the asylum claim.


9. (C) Comment. Except for general guidelines given to
member states on the need for criminal and security checks,
it appears that each member state determines the scope of
their checks. Issues around limits on travel and possible
lose of asylum for security concerns are also vague. Mr.
Urbancic's visit provides an excellent opportunity to inquire
further with de Kerchove regarding harmonization efforts,
especially given the opening that the development of the
Common Asylum Policy may provide. End Comment.

Wohlers
.