scholarly journals Sick and Tired—Sociodemographic and Psychosocial Characteristics of Asylum Seekers Awaiting an Appointment for Psychotherapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 11850
Author(s):  
Ulrich Trohl ◽  
Karoline Wagner ◽  
Vivian Kalfa ◽  
Sarah Negash ◽  
Andreas Wienke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Suicide Attempts ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Psychosocial Characteristics ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
German Health ◽  
Client Population ◽  
The Eu

Background: An EU directive holds the EU member states responsible for implementing the provision of health care for asylum seekers. However, current literature indicates insufficient care for asylum seekers in the German health system. This article aims to characterize the situation of the client population on the waiting list of a psychosocial center (PSZ). Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study based on client files in Halle (Saale), Germany. We included 437 adults who were on the PSZ waiting list between 2016 and 2019. Questionnaires that collected information on the clientele at two different times were analyzed. Results: The average waiting time for psychotherapy was 50 weeks. In total, 85.6% of the 188 respondents reported sleep disorders (n = 161), 65.4% of clients reported pain (n = 123) and 54.8% suicide attempts/suicidal thoughts (n = 54). In the 16-week waiting period in which the clients waited for an initial appointment with a psychologist, the residence status deteriorated in 21.3% (n = 40). Conclusion: Improving asylum seekers’ access to the German health system is urgently needed in order to prevent unnecessary suffering in the future and to comply with EU law.

European Union Public Procurement Remedies Regimes

2012 ◽  
pp. 162-184
Author(s):  
Kai Krüger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Area ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

The chapter explores the Nordic statutory EU-based remedy regimes. Due to the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement, the EU commitments do not vary between EU member states, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden and (non-members) Norway and Iceland. The legislation on procurement remedies is assumed to be EU/EEA compliant. There are however material differences in the set up for handling disputes and complaints—also subsequent to the 2010-2012 Nordic adaptation of EU Directive 2007/66/EC on enhanced procurement remedies. The pending issue is whether the EU “sufficiently serious breach” principle on treaty infringements applies on liability for procurement flaws. Loss of contract damage has been awarded in all Nordic countries, whereas cases on negative interest (costs in preparing futile tender bids) seem more favorable to plaintiffs. Per mid-2012, there are no Nordic rulings on the effect of the recent somewhat ambiguous EU Court of Justice Strabag and Spijkers 2010 rulings.

Forced Migration Governance: In Search of Sovereignty

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 923-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuscheh Farahat ◽  
Nora Markard
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Third World ◽  
Forced Migration ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) Member States have experienced the recent refugee protection crisis in the EU as a de-facto loss of control over their borders. They find themselves unable to subject entry into their territory to a sovereign decision. In response, the Member States have sought to regain full sovereignty over matters of forced migration, both unilaterally and cooperatively, seeking to govern a phenomenon—forced migration—that by definition defies governance. Unilateral measures include forced migration caps and a search for ways to circumvent responsibility under the Dublin system. Cooperative efforts by EU Member States include the search for ways to more effectively govern forced migration at the EU level and beyond. Supranational EU efforts include the introduction of an internal relocation scheme and support for Italy and Greece in processing asylum claims in so-called “hotspots.” Beyond the EU, Member States are seeking to externalize protection responsibility to third world countries under international agreements, in particular, by returning asylum seekers to Turkey. This Article outlines the unilateral and cooperative governance efforts undertaken and shows that states' sovereign decisions over migration are significantly limited in the case of forced migrants, both by EU law and by international law.

Falling numbers will not ease EU migration tension

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
North African ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Eu

Subject EU immigration division. Significance Immigration to Europe has fallen substantially over the past three years, largely because of stricter rules in EU member states and enhanced cooperation with the EU's neighbours. This downward trend, however, coincides with growing tensions between member states over how to tackle immigration once migrants and refugees enter European territory. Impacts Unable to agree on an effect asylum seekers reform, the EU will continue funding African countries to stop irregular migratory flows. Disengagement of EU search and rescue assets and more reliance on under-trained North African coast guards will make sea migration deadlier. Divergent views on immigration burden-sharing could worsen foreign relations between populists in Italy and those in Hungary and Poland.

scholarly journals EU ASYLUM SYSTEM IN AND AFTER THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DISCLOSING THE WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT RULES AND ASSESSING THE PROSPECTS OF THE NEW PACT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Čučković
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses the influence that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the functioning of the European asylum system. The analysis is divided into three parts and addresses problematic issues associated with different stages of the pandemic. In the first part of the paper, the author outlines the asylum practices of EU Member States in the initial stage of the Covid-19 pandemic during which the pandemic was perceived as a state of emergency. By exploring the legal possibilities to derogate both from the EU asylum rules and international human rights standards, the author offers conclusions as regards limits of derogations and the legality of Member States’ practices, especially their failure to differentiate between rules that are susceptive of being derogated in emergency situations and those that are not. The second part of the paper analyses the current phase of the pandemic in which it is perceived as a 'new normal' and focuses on making the EU asylum system immune to Covid-19 influence to the greatest extent possible and in line with relevant EU and human rights rules. The author insists on the vulnerability as an inherent feature of persons in need of international protection and researches upon the relationship between the two competing interests involved – protection of asylum seekers and ensuring public health as a legitimate reason for restricting certain asylum seekers’ rights. The final part of the paper analyses the prospects of the future EU asylum system, as announced by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020, to adapt to the exigencies of both the current Covid-19 crisis and pandemics that are yet to come. With an exclusive focus on referral to Covid-19 and provisions relevant for the current and future pandemics, the author criticizes several solutions included in the instruments that make up the Pact. It is concluded that the Pact failed to offer solutions for problems experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic and that, under the pretext of public health, it prioritizes the interests of Member States over the interests of applicants for international protection.

scholarly journals Human Rights in the EU Return Policy: The Case of the EU-Albania Relations

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sokol Dedja
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Return Policy ◽  
The Third ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Return Process ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The examination of the approach of the EU return policy to Albania – a country to which the EU returns about one fifth of the total number of the third country nationals removed – demonstrates that the predominant focus of the EU return policy on the effectiveness and efficiency of returns has left little room for safeguarding the human rights of the returnees. The article finds that the return procedures of the readmission agreement that should guarantee the protection of human rights in the return process are not observed by the EU member states. There are insufficient guarantees that the reception and possible detention of returnees in Albania will offer a dignified treatment. Moreover, the readmission agreement opens the way for the return of asylum seekers to Albania in line with the ‘safe third country’ practice in the absence of conditions that ensure effective access to fair and efficient asylum procedures and protection in the country.

Resolution 2300 (Council of Eur. Parl. Assembly)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-494
Author(s):  
David Lewis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

This Resolution was adopted in October 2019 following a report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It has to be seen in the context of previous Council of Europe activity on this topic as well as the European Union (EU) Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The content of the EU Directive was agreed earlier in 2019 and EU Member States are obliged to transpose it into national legislation by December 2021.

Implementation of Article 41 of the 8th EU Directive in the EU member states – impact on internal governance mechanisms

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Bantleon ◽  
Alexander Bassen ◽  
Anne d'Arcy; ◽  
Anja Hucke ◽  
Annette G. Kohler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Governance Mechanisms ◽  
Member States ◽  
Internal Governance ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Internal Governance Mechanisms ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals A proposed common training framework for specialists in laboratory medicine under EU directive 2013/55/EC (The recognition of professional qualifications)

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gijsbert Wieringa ◽  
Josep Queraltó ◽  
Evgenija Homšak ◽  
Nuthar Jassam ◽  
Etienne Cavalier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Chemistry ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Laboratory Medicine ◽  
European Federation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Specialist Practice ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEuropean Union (EU) Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional qualifications) allows Member States to decide on a common set of minimum knowledge, skills and competences that are needed to pursue a given profession through a Common Training Framework. To be adopted the framework must combine the knowledge, skills and competences of at least one third of the Member States. Professionals who have gained their qualifications under a Common Training Framework will be able to have these recognised automatically within the Union. The backbone of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine’s (EFLM) proposed Common Training Framework for non-medical Specialists in Laboratory Medicine is outlined here. It is based on an Equivalence of Standards in education, training, qualifications, knowledge, skills, competences and the professional conduct associated with specialist practice. In proposing the recognition of specialist practice EFLM has identified 15 EU Member States able to meet Equivalence and in whom the profession and/or its training is regulated (an additional EU Commission requirement). The framework supports and contributes to the Directive’s enabling goals for increasing professional mobility, safeguarding consumers and ensuring a more equitable distribution of skills and expertise across the Member States. It represents EFLM’s position statement and provides a template for professional societies and/or competent authorities to engage with the EU Commission.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Langkamp ◽  
◽  
Vinicius Valente Bayma
Keyword(s):  
Air Quality ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Ambient Air ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Ambient Air Quality ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
The Eu

The EU Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe is one of the actions taken at the European Levelto reach sustainable air quality levels that do not threaten the Environment and EU citizens across EU Member States. After over 10 years, it was considered appropriate to evaluate the EU intervention with the aim to comment, on its shortcomings and to provide policy recommendations. According to the EU “better regulation guidelines”, every assessment should use the evaluation criteria framework and investigate five main aspects of the intervention, namely effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. Although this framework must guide every evaluation, the level of investigation implemented for each of the five criteria stills depends on the initiative being assessed, as well as the timing and data reliability. The analysis of the five criteria demonstrated a solid difficulty in implementing EU-wide measures to improve air quality. Although there’s no doubt about the relevance, cohesion and EU-added value aspects of the Directive, its efficiency and effectiveness can be debated.

scholarly journals The European Union Obligation: Member States must not Neglect the Consequences of Covid 19 to the Disadvantaged Asylum Seekers and Refugees

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 209
Author(s):  
Sibusisiwe Bulala Kelly
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Refugee Camps ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
Asylum Seekers And Refugees ◽  
The Eu

In early March 2020 the health crisis warnings of corona virus also known as Covid 19 emerged in the European Union (EU). It dominated political dialogues prompting a sense of urgency, fear, and disruption among people. Suddenly there was a halt to the continuous controversial discussions on migration, asylum seekers and refugee challenges across the EU Member States and beyond. The message from the health experts and governments among the EU Member States was clear. Stay home, wash your hands constantly, maintain physical distance, and keep the children away from vulnerable grandparents. However, these seemingly extreme health guidelines engendered great anxiety for the disadvantaged people living in crowded refugee camps across the EU and beyond. It became very clear that the requirement of physical distancing has become a privilege only available for the populations that have the capacity.Research shows that overcrowding and lack of sanitation in refugee camps continue to be problematic across the EU Member States. Somehow, it seemed unfair for the Member States governments to emphasise on the importance of constant wash of hands and social distance among its citizens, whilst ignoring the horrific living conditions of those displaced and stranded in the internal and external borders of the EU. Additionally, there are claims that Covid 19 has not fully manifested in the EU refugee camps, however with lack of information on corona virus testing in the camps it is difficult to legitimately evaluate the situation. This brief assesses the EU Covid 19 response in relation to the area of Asylum. Also serves as a reminder for the EU policy makers not to forget the migration discourse during coronavirus crisis. Particularly, for the asylum seekers and refugees as their presence will continue to impact major dimensions of the EU communities such as political, economy, and social, well beyond Covid 19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document