European Economic and Social Committee
REX/476
The role of Turkey in the refugee crisis
OPINION
Section for External Relations
The role of Turkey in the refugee crisis
Own-initiative opinion
|
Administrator
|
David HOIC
|
|
Document date
|
15/11/2017
|
Rapporteur: Dimitris DIMITRIADIS
|
Plenary Assembly decision
|
22/09/2016
|
|
Legal basis
|
Rule 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure
|
|
|
Own-initiative opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Section responsible
|
Section for External Relations
|
|
Adopted in section
|
07/11/2017
|
|
Adopted at plenary
|
DD/MM/YYYY
|
|
Plenary session No
|
…
|
|
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)
|
…/…/…
|
1.Conclusions and recommendations
1.1The EESC recognises that Turkey is playing a crucial and decisive role in addressing the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Mediterranean region and has endeavoured to tackle the problem using its own means, though with additional assistance from the EU and the international community.
1.2In the view of the EESC, despite the explosive situation of the refugee crisis, to this day the EU has failed to put in place a credible and effective common European immigration policy or a common European asylum system, owing to the unjustifiable refusal by some Member States to comply with their legal obligations set out in the Treaties and agreed to in decisions adopted unanimously at summits or meetings of the Councils of Ministers. It therefore urges the Council and the Commission to work more resolutely on this issue, and to oblige those Member States which fail to comply with their European commitments to take the required measures immediately.
1.3The EESC strongly condemns the xenophobic attitude of some Member States to the refugee crisis and considers this stance to be contrary to the fundamental values of the EU.
1.4The EESC reaffirms its readiness to contribute in any way it can to addressing the refugee crisis, working with the European institutions and with civil society organisations (employers, workers and NGOs), as borne out by the significant work it has already carried both in the form of numerous opinions and in missions to the countries affected by the refugee crisis.
1.5Since the signing of the EU-Turkey statement, there has been a significant and steady reduction in the number of people unlawfully crossing European borders or losing their lives in the Aegean. At the same time, however, a rapid increase is under way in flows to other southern countries, such as Italy, a source of particular concern to the EESC. The subsequent performance of the EU Member States in terms of both resettlement and relocation has continued to be disappointing. While the necessary foundations for implementing these programmes have been laid, the current pace is still slower than is required to meet the objectives set with a view to ensuring the resettlement and relocation of all eligible persons.
1.6The EESC would propose that Turkey draw up a uniform system for granting international protection to asylum seekers, in accordance with international and European standards
. Among other things, it suggests removing the geographical limitation for non-European asylum seekers and the distinction between Syrian and non-Syrian asylum seekers
.
1.7The EESC considers it necessary to improve accommodation conditions in Turkey, as well as the policies on the social and economic integration of recognised refugees, in particular with regard to access to employment, healthcare, education and housing. Special attention should be paid to the protection of unaccompanied minors and children, particularly as regards access to education and protection from forced labour and forced marriage
.
1.8The EESC calls for a serious, independent monitoring and surveillance mechanism to be set up in respect of the EU-Turkey Statement on refugees in order to monitor – in cooperation with the Turkish authorities, international NGOs and specialised humanitarian organisations – to check both sides’ implementation of and compliance with the terms agreed, pursuant to international and European law
.
1.9The EESC considers it essential to strengthen the role of the European Border Guard Agency in order to dismantle trafficking networks and combat people smuggling, in line with international law
.
1.10The EESC calls for full compliance on the part of the EU Member States that have not so far participated in the relocation and resettlement procedures, and for the relevant programmes to be speeded up. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2017 in Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-47/15 represents a positive step: it rejected the appeals by Slovakia and Hungary against the mechanism for relocating asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other EU Member States. With this decision, the CJEU directly condemns the behaviour of certain States that do not accept refugees on their territory which, as the Court points out, is contrary to the obligation of solidarity and fair burden-sharing incumbent upon the Member States of the Union in the area of asylum policy.
1.11The EESC is deeply concerned that civil society organisations cannot function unhindered in Turkey, particularly in the wake of the declaration of a state of emergency, and considers that they play a key role in the refugee crisis in both the planning and implementation of programmes to integrate refugees into local communities.
1.12The EESC is of the view that the social partners can and must play a prominent role in Turkey in order to address the refugee crisis.
1.13The EESC is concerned at the tension that has recently marked EU-Turkey relations and the possible impact of any further heightening of tension both on the implementation of the agreement between Europe and Turkey and on European-Turkish relations in general. The EESC is still of the view that European-Turkish relations should be geared to maintaining Turkey's accession prospects, in full compliance with the European acquis.
2.Introductory comments: from the European Agenda on Migration to the Agreement of 18 March 2016
2.1Following the outbreak of the war in Syria, which triggered a massive humanitarian crisis, and the explosive situation that has arisen in Iraq as a result of ongoing political instability, thousands of refugees began to cross the Turkish border, under inhuman conditions, with the ultimate aim of reaching the countries of the EU, those in Central Europe in particular.
Turkey found itself "hosting" some three million people who, at the risk of their lives, had passed through war zones and – again at the risk of their lives – attempted and continue to attempt to cross Europe's border irregularly into Greece.
2.2As the first country of reception, Turkey has played and continues to play a particularly crucial role in the refugee crisis, which has become one of the EU's main "unresolved" problems.
2.3The European Agenda on Migration, which emerged following difficult and protracted negotiations among the Member States in May 2015, represented the EU's first attempt to tackle the plight of the thousands of refugees who risk their lives transiting war zones and attempting to cross the Mediterranean. For the first time, concepts such as internal relocation and resettlement were introduced. The Agenda sets out both immediate and longer-term measures to deal with the substantial migration flows faced by the EU – and in particular the Mediterranean countries – and the problems thrown up when handling crises of this kind. They include tripling financial resources for Frontex, relocating refugees and migrants in EU countries according to specific criteria and quotas, activating – for the first time – the emergency response mechanism provided for in Article 78(3) TFEU to assist Member States confronted with a sudden influx of refugees, and launching an operation in the Mediterranean under the Common Security and Defence Policy to dismantle trafficking networks and combat people smuggling, in keeping with international law.
2.4The picture also includes the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016, intended to limit the refugee crisis and which, for procedural reasons was labelled as an informal agreement on irregular migration from Turkey to the EU, to replace irregular migration with legal channels for resettling refugees within the European Union. Its provisions include:
I)All "irregular migrants" arriving in Greece from Turkey will, as from 20 March 2016, be returned to Turkey on the basis of a bilateral agreement between the two countries.
II)All those who do not apply for asylum or whose requests are considered unfounded or inadmissible will be returned to Turkey.
III)Greece and Turkey, assisted by EU institutions and agencies, will enter into any necessary bilateral agreements, including one on the permanent presence of Turkish officials on Greek islands and Greek officials in Turkey from 20 March onwards, in order to implement these agreements.
IV)For every Syrian returned to Turkey from the Greek islands, another Syrian will be settled in the EU.
V)A mechanism will be set up to implement the "one for one" principle – in cooperation with the Commission, EU agencies, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Member States – as from the first day that returns start.
VI)Priority for resettlement in the EU will be given to Syrians in Turkey rather than in Greece, and of these, priority will be given to migrants who have not previously entered or tried to enter the EU.
2.5In its additional fact sheet on the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016, the Commission stresses the possibility of classifying Turkey as a "safe third country". The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the State of Play of Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration leads to the same conclusion, arguing that in its view the concept of safe third country – as defined in the Asylum Procedures Directive – requires not that there should be no reservations or geographical limitations when implementing the Geneva Convention, but that in principle protection can be obtained under the terms of the Convention. For its part, EESC has expressed the view that the concept of safe country of origin should under no circumstances be applied in cases of infringement of press freedoms, undermining of political pluralism, or in countries where persecution takes place on the grounds of gender and/or sexual orientation, or of belonging to a national, ethnic, cultural or religious minority. In any case, the following (among other things) must be assessed regarding a country's inclusion on the list of safe countries of origin: up-to-date information from sources such as the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the Council of Europe (CoE) and other human rights organisations.
2.6Since the signing of the EU-Turkey statement, there has been a significant and steady reduction in the number of people unlawfully crossing European borders or losing their lives in the Aegean. At the same time, however, a rapid increase is under way in flows to other southern countries, such as Italy, a source of particular concern to the EESC. The subsequent performance of the EU Member States in terms of both resettlement and relocation has continued to be disappointing. While the necessary foundations for implementing these programmes have been laid, the current pace is still slower than is required to meet the objectives set with a view to ensuring the resettlement and relocation of all eligible persons.
3.The safe country mechanism: safe third country and first country of asylum
3.1The concepts of "safe country of origin", "safe third country" and "first country of asylum" are set out in Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, which lays down common procedural standards and guarantees for those seeking international protection in the EU Member States. More specifically, the Directive provides for four categories of safe country. These are first country of asylum (Article 35), safe third country (Article 38), safe country of origin (Article 37) and European safe third country (Article 39).
3.2A joint reading of Directive 2013/32/EU's Article 39 on European safe third countries and Article 35 on the first country of asylum reveals a greater and a lesser status of international protection, with the safe third country regime under Article 38 lying in between. Article 39 provides the highest level of protection, referring to countries that have ratified the Geneva Convention without geographical limitations, offer the maximum protection provided by the Convention, implement Article 36 of the Convention in full in the country and are subject to the Convention's control mechanisms. Article 35 of the Directive, in stark contrast, is limited to providing protection to refugees or other sufficient protection, focusing on application of the principle of non-refoulement.
3.3According to Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, a country is considered to be a safe third country for a particular applicant if it complies overall with the following criteria: (a) life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; (b) the country in question respects the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention; (c) there is no risk of serious harm to the applicant; (d) the country prohibits the removal of a person to a country where they would be at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as laid down in international law; (e) the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if recognised as a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention; and (f) the applicant has a connection with the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country. Consequently, in the event that the competent authorities judge that a country, such as Turkey, constitutes a first country of asylum or a safe third country for an applicant, they issue a decision rejecting the application for international protection as inadmissible, without examining the substance.
3.4The principle of non-refoulement is the cornerstone of the system of international refugee protection and is enshrined in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Geneva Convention. UNHCR has observed that this article introduces a central principle into the Convention, one that has now entered into customary international law and is thus binding on all States of the international community irrespective of whether or not they have ratified the Geneva Convention.
3.5Thus anyone who is a refugee under the 1951 Convention, or who meets the criteria of the definition of refugee set out in Article 1(a)(2) of the 1951 Convention, even though their status as a refugee may not have not been officially recognised, is covered by the protection afforded under Article 33(1). This is of particular importance for asylum seekers, as it is possible that they may be refugees and should therefore not be removed or expelled from the country of asylum until a final decision on their status has been taken.
4.Turkey as a "safe third country"
4.1Since 2011, Turkey has been hosting the highest number of refugees from Syria (more than three million - 3 222 000). At the same time, Lebanon, a country with a population of around 4.8 million, is hosting more than 1 million registered refugees. Jordan has the third largest number of refugees from Syria (654 582), whilst according to the latest official figures, Iraq and Egypt are hosting 244 235and 124 534 registered refugees respectively.
4.2Turkey has ratified the Geneva Convention on Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, but retains a geographical reservation regarding non-European asylum seekers. In practice, it only recognises refugees from Europe, meaning countries that are members of the Council of Europe. In April 2014, Turkey passed a new Law on Foreigners and International Protection. The law provides for four types of protected status in the country: a) "refugee status" for recognised refugees under the Geneva Convention who are citizens of one of the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe; b) "conditional refugee status" for recognised non-European refugees; c) "subsidiary protection", which can be granted to European and non-European citizens who do not meet the criteria of the Geneva Convention in order to be recognised as refugees but, if returned to their country of origin, would be at risk of the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, or of suffering harm as a result of armed conflict in their country; and d) "temporary protection" granted in the event of mass influxes.
4.3The Syrians who arrived en masse were originally granted "visitor" (misâfir) status, and then temporary protection, though without the right to submit a claim for refugee status. The aim of this provision is for them to stay in Turkey only while the war lasts in Syria, and subsequently return there when conditions improve.
4.3.1Nationals of other countries (non Syrians) may apply for asylum on an individual basis and are then processed in a parallel procedure under the new Law on Foreigners and International Protection which entered into force in April 2014. Under this procedure, applicants are sent to both the Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM), which conducts the status determination procedure, and to UNHCR, which carries out a parallel status determination procedure and makes recommendations regarding relocation. Its decisions do not have legal force, however, but they are taken into account in the DGMM's assessment. It is thus clear that Turkish legislation in this field provides for different standards of protection and procedural rules for Syrians and nationals of other third countries, thereby introducing disparities in both access to, and the terms of, protection.
4.4There are also serious obstacles, shortcomings and problems as regards access to work and basic services, such as health and welfare, education and, more generally, integration into society
. Although Turkey recognised the right of Syrians to work as of January 2016, in practice very few of them have received work permits, with most of them consequently engaging in undeclared work
. It should be added to the foregoing that beneficiaries of international protection are explicitly and categorically excluded from the possibility of long-term integration in Turkey (Article 25 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection), and the free movement of refugees is restricted under Article 26 of the same law. Clearly, therefore, protection granted to people applying for international protection in Turkey falls below the legal guarantees and rights enjoyed by those recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention, such as the right to move within the territory of the contracting State (Article 26 of the 1951 Convention), the right to naturalisation (Article 34 of the 1951 Convention) and the right to work (Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the 1951 Convention).
4.5Furthermore, questions arise as to the classification of Turkey as a "safe third country" regarding respect for the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in Article 33(1) of the Geneva Convention, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 3(2) of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
. Aside from the fact that Turkey has a history of pushing back non-European asylum seekers, recent reports by international human rights organisations refer to instances of entry being denied and of collective push-backs into Syrian territory
. Significantly, only one day after the agreement had been signed, Amnesty International reported yet another occurrence of mass repatriation of Afghan refugees to Kabul
. Similarly, a resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 20 April 2016 stated, amongst other things, that returns of both Syrians and nationals of other countries to Turkey are contrary to EU and international law
. It is therefore evident that there are insufficient guarantees to ensure compliance with the principle of non-refoulement in practice
.
Brussels, 7 November 2017
Dilyana SLAVOVA
The president of the Section for External Relations
_____________