An effective protection” “

A total of 465,000 applications for asylum, 381,000 of them in member countries of the Eu, were presented in Europe in 2002. The European country that received most requests was the Uk with 110,000 applications, followed by Germany (71,000) and France (51,000). 7281asylum applications were presented in Italy, the only European country in which an organic law on right of asylum is lacking. Yet it is Italy – through its six months’ presidency of the Eu – that is destined to play a key role in the process of harmonizing the European legislation on refugees. The issue was discussed in Rome in recent days, at a conference held by the Un High Commission for Refugees (Acnur). Two “fundamental” directives. From the Geneva Convention of 1951, to the Schengen accords and Dublin convention of 1990, to the extraordinary European Concil of Tampere in 1999 (“Towards a Union of freedom, security and justice”), and most recently the European Council of Salonica in June 2003: such are the successive stages in the process of achieving the objective of a common European regime on asylum. They were traced by Johannes van der Klaauw, senior Acnur official in Brussels, on addressing the meeting “Asylum policy of the European Union and the six months’ Italian Presidency”. “The Italian Presidency – he said – opens in a crucial moment in this process. The aim is to adopt two fundamental directives by December 2003, one on the definition of the refugee and subsidiary protection, and the other on common criteria in asylum procedures”. “Agreement has already been reached on the first directive – continued van der Klaauw – with the only reservation being made by Germany which is currently reviewing its policies on right to asylum. It’s a very important document, because for the first the concept of ‘persecution’ of the individual is codified, and the concept of ‘subsidiary persecution’ is also defined; this is granted when the danger for life arises due to the situation, e.g. civil war, created in a particular country”. Migrants and asylum seekers. According to van der Klaauw, “at this time, the main concern of European countries seems to be the campaign against clandestine immigration, but we need to distinguish between the economic migrant and the asylum seeker who is in need of protection because he cannot return to his own country”. To ensure that this protection be given in an effective manner, “procedures need to be defined to ensure than asylum applications are processed rapidly; we in ACNUR propose that the examination takes place within three months and the definition of the case within 6 months at the most; we also propose that the various levels of appeal against the decision be limited: in Italy the examination of applications prior to August 2002 lasted over a year, and in the UK seven possible degrees of appeal are provided. To speed up procedures, it’s also necessary to train specialized personnel able to carry out an immediate interview of the asylum seeker”. The questions under discussion – he concluded – also include the possibility of “creating regional zones of protection in areas close to the countries of origin of refugees, with the aim of discouraging them from making long and dangerous journeys to European countries; efforts would also be made to involve third countries in their reception through accords of cooperation. If it is ascertained that for some of them there is no chance of a future in their own country, policies of re-settlement, also in European countries, would have to be put in place; policies that would facilitate their regular and protected entry (including access to the labour market and education, and the right to be reunited with members of their family)”.