UNHCR Intervention during the hearing of actors in the Standing Committee on Public Administration, Public Order and Justice of the Hellenic Parliament on the draft law of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum “Reform of deportation and return procedures of third country nationals, attracting investors and digital nomads, issues of residence permits and procedures for granting international protection and other provisions within the competence of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum and the Ministry of Citizen Protection”
© UNHCR
Honorable Mr. President, Honorable Members of the Parliament, Honorable Ms. Deputy Minister,
Thank you for your invitation to UNHCR to stand before the Committee during today’s hearing and present its views on the Draft Law.
UNHCR has already shared with the Ministry its comments on the Draft Law, as submitted for public consultation in June, and we are satisfied to see that some of our comments were taken into account and are reflected in the Draft Law that was submitted before the Committee.
In parallel, in the Draft Law as submitted to the Committee, there are some changes in comparison to the text that was submitted for public consultation in June.
More specifically, we would like to comment the following:
The Draft Law includes some provisions that we consider as positive, including:
In parallel, there are several provisions which, in UNHCR’s view, raise concerns. More specifically:
1. Regarding return procedures (Article 1-7): It derives from the proposed provisions that the competent authorities may, in case of rejection of an application for international protection, issue a return decision based on the provisions of L. 3386/2005 on deportation and not based on those of L. 3907/11 which transposes EU Return Directive 2008/115/EC.
This, in our view, leads to the reduction of safeguards for persons who may be in need of international protection, including asylum seekers whose asylum applications have been rejected on admissibility grounds but not assessed on the merits.
The above is not in line with Directive 2008/115, as Article 2 para. 2(a) of the Directive allows to exclude from its scope only of those persons who have irregularly crossed the border and only in case they have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay.
In UNHCR’s view, it is evident that this provision does not concern applicants for international protection, that is persons who, after having irregularly crossed the border, have submitted an application for international protection, as these persons, by submitting their claim, have a right to stay according to the national and European legal framework.
Consequently, UNHCR recommends to clarify in the Draft Law that, in any case, L. 3907/11 and the Return Directive and not L. 3386/2005 is applied for the return of persons whose asylum application are rejected.
2. Regarding Article 40 which is a provision that has not been included in the draft law submitted for public consultation:
UNHCR would like to highlight that there should be adequate safeguards to avoid criminalisation of those who provide humanitarian assistance to refugees and migrants, including people in distress at sea, according also to the Commission’s Recommendation (EU) 2020/1365 of 23 September 2020 on cooperation among Member States concerning operations carried out by vessels owned or operated by private entities for the purpose of search and rescue activities C/2020/6468).
In our view, it is important to state explicitly in the Draft Law that the provision concerns only maritime space and not coastal or other areas and that a non-affection clause on the duty deriving from international law (Article 98 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)) on provision of assistance to persons in distress at sea is added.
3. UNHCR would like to express its concern on the proposed abolition, by Article 20 of the Draft Law, of the possibility for the competent authorities assessing asylum claims, to provide an attestation of non-removal (“for humanitarian reasons”), following a rejection decision, in cases where return would breach the international obligations, in particular the principle of non-refoulement, as this principle derives from international human rights instruments.
In UNHCR’s view this possibility should be maintained and the competency should remain with the authorities that assess asylum applications, as these authorities are best placed to assess the possible respective violations specifically because they are the authorities who have assessed the asylum claim.
4. Regarding Article 16 para. 1 of the Draft Law: This provision which was also not included in the Draft Law submitted for public consultation, defines as Deciding Authority for revocation of status of international protection, the Directorate of Returns and Revocations of the Asylum Service. This amendment combined with the amendment inserted with Article 41, according to which this Directorate may be staffed with non-civil personnel, will lead to assessment of international protection needs by staff not familiarized nor trained with the content of international protection, as required by Article 4 of the Directive 2013/32/EU.
In light of the above, UNHCR suggests that it is specifically provided in this provision that only qualified personnel of the Asylum Service will be entrusted with the assessment and decision on revocation cases.
5. Regarding Article 16 para. 2 of the Draft Law: UNHCR considers that the possibility not to grant refugee status when the applicant is considered to constitute a danger to the national security of the country or a danger to the community, introduces additional grounds for exclusion from international protection and thus this provision risks substantive distancing from the framework of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
6. Lastly, UNHCR recommends that the proposed amendment of Article 17, which introduces a fine amounting to EUR 150 in the event of unjustifiably overdue applications for the renewal of residence permits, is not maintained.
UNHCR considers that the application of this provision may create disproportionate consequences for beneficiaries of international protection and seriously compromise the enjoyment of rights attached to a valid residence permit.
Thank you for your attention,
UNHCR Representation in Greece, 31 August 2021
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
