Detection of Hyalomma rufipes in a recently arrived asylum seeker to the EU

Hungary lies in the route of the stream of refugees coming from the Balkan. It is a transit country, so the refugees do not typically intend to stay here, they rather wish to travel torwards to West- and North Europe. Particular sections of Hungary's border also mean the external borders of the European Union, the area of freedom, security and justice, which has a common asylum system. Significant part of illegal immigrants presents asylum claim only to avoid the aliens procedures. From the 1st of January 2013, the legislature terminated the aliens detention against asylum applicants. From 1st of July 2013 the Hungarian legislature reintroduced the possibility of detention of applicants. The new regulation has been placed in Act LXXX of 2007 on the Right of Asylum, Sections 31/A-31/H by Act XCIII of 2013 on the Amendment of Particular Laws Concerning Law Enforcement. The introduction of asylum-seeker detention and the practice of its application have raised dust. In my essay I am introducing the connections between the reasons of ordering asylum-seeker detention in the Act on Asylum and its backgroud in the EU Directive. I am not dealing with the question of compatibility of asylum detention and human rights and with problematic procedural issues, because I consider it more important to review the substantive conditions of asylum-seeker detention and the certain practical questions of its application therefore I am focusing on this segment of jurisdiction.

Download Full-text

The Strategic Use of Resettlement: Changing the Face of Protection?

Refuge ◽

10.25071/1920-7336.21316 ◽

2004 ◽

pp. 39-48 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Joanne Van Selm

Keyword(s):

Asylum Seeker ◽

Member States ◽

Eu Member States ◽

The Face ◽

The Eu

Discussion about resettlement is increasing worldwide. Traditional resettlement countries look to the EU to establish new programs to expand the use of this durable solution. Some EU Member States appear most interested in resettlement for the potential it might offer in resolving the problems of smuggling, high asylum-seeker arrivals, and widespread anti-immigrant tendencies. This article sets out four key arguments on: the reasons for conducting resettlement; the “see-saw” numbers hypothesis; perceptions of refugees according to their means of arrival; and the links between asylum and resettlement, while discussing the European developments and global discussion of the strategic use of resettlement.

Download Full-text

The Unaccompanied or Separated Minor In The Asylum Procedure

International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION ◽

10.1515/kbo-2017-0105 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 23 (2) ◽

pp. 156-161

Author(s):

Andra Maria Brezniceanu

Keyword(s):

Asylum Seeker ◽

The European Union ◽

Child Rights ◽

Legislative Framework ◽

The Media ◽

Innovative Work ◽

Legislative Changes ◽

And Migration ◽

Asylum Procedure ◽

The Eu

Abstract The unaccompanied or separated minor is, according to the European Union body of legislation regarding asylum and migration, one of the extremely vulnerable categories of persons, and the risk of vulnerability is amplified in the case of the unaccompanied or separated minor - asylum seeker. Ever since the EU pre-accession period Romanian legislation reconciled, according to the European model, the requirements of the rules on migration with humanism provisions in the field of child rights. The images in the media about the migratory flows in recent years have revealed a system that requires imperatively legislative changes, adapting procedures, innovative work tools, including the case of the unaccompanied minor asylum seeker. In this article I intend to analyze the existing legislative framework in Romania, highlighting the positive aspects of the law and those which I believe that should be reconsidered so that the interests of the minor in the asylum procedure to be properly protected.

Download Full-text

Asylum Proceedings in the Czech Republic During the Migration Crisis

Journal of Legal Studies ◽

10.2478/jles-2020-0003 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 25 (39) ◽

pp. 44-56

Author(s):

Petr Černý

Keyword(s):

Czech Republic ◽

Asylum Seeker ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Foreign National ◽

The Czech Republic ◽

International Courts ◽

Migration Crisis ◽

Asylum Procedure ◽

The Eu

AbstractThe article deals with the fundamental problems that emerged on the territory of the Czech Republic during the implementation of the asylum procedure throughout the migration crisis in the years 2015 to 2019. Problematic issues related primarily to the detention of migrant asylum seekers were identified by studying the key decisions of national and international courts. The first problematic point was the amendment to the Asylum Act, which required the courts to discontinue proceedings on the review of detention orders after the foreign national was released from detention. Due to the conflict with EU law and the impossibility to claim damages for unlawful detention, this amendment was finally annulled by the Constitutional Court. The second problem was that the factual conditions for asylum seekers in the EU Member State where the asylum seeker was to be transferred for the purpose of processing his/her asylum application, were not examined. In this regard, the situation had since been rectified and the administrative authorities and courts of the Czech Republic already take this aspect into account when deciding whether an asylum seeker detained on the territory of the Czech Republic is to be transferred to the country where he/she applied for asylum. The most serious problem is so far incomplete transposition of the Procedures Directive, in particular Article 46 of the Procedures Directive, which requires from the court to review the decisions on asylum in full jurisdiction and could possibly grant asylum itself. However, this requirement does not correspond to the concept and system of administrative courts in the Czech Republic and would require a significant and costly change. The last issue identified was the poor implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, involving not setting serious risk of absconding of an asylum seeker as a precondition for his/her detention directly in the law.

Download Full-text