Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Refugees can only legally ask for asylum at the first country of their arrival that is considered safe if they have been displaced due to war.

I understand what you are saying, really I do. And the above is broadly correct - a migrant can legally claim asylum anywhere, but states may lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there.

The key point here is "safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there." If Turkey is saying no we will not take any more refugees on top of the 2.5-3 million we already have and we will not process any more claims for asylum, then the right for a state to return them to the " first country of their arrival" becomes void in the case of returning them to Turkey. This is exactly what happened re return of migrants claiming asylum to Greece as the 'first country' in 2011. The ECHR and the ECJ ruled that EU members (under dublin agreements) and ECHR mebers under general international law could NOT legally return an asylum seeker to Greece on the grounds that Greece was the 'first country' because such asylum seekers could NOT in the judgement of the court effectively claim asylum in Greece due to the failures of the Greek asylum system. This is why any plans to force migrants in boats crossing the Aegean back to Turkey requires the agreement of Turkey. Without it all Turkey has to do is say that it will not allow such forced returned people to claim asylum in Turkey and the very act of returning them to Turkey then becomes illegal.

The obligations of the first country of arrival are never void.

B. Safe Country of Asylum

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html

Greece is under no obligation to allow the arrival of registered refugees. If they manage to arrive in Greece then they become Greece's problem as Greece is obligated to take their asylum request and prevent their onwards departure to another EU country.

As I understand it this is not the case. Greece is obligated to 'process' those arriving via Greece. To establish who they are (fingerprints), if they are on known criminal databases, if they do not have valid grounds for asylum (and return them if they do not). Those that are processed and allowed into Greece - which means into any Schengen country effectively, at least when schengen is functioning as it should and indivdual members have not reimposed temporary individual boarder control, are then free (physically and legally) to seek asylum in any other Schengen member state (and have done so in massive numbers in 2015). What is more those states currently can NOT legally return such people to Greece for them to be granted asylum by and in Greece or not, under either the international laws on 'first country' or the much more codified and enforceable 'Dublin agreements' since the 2011 ECHR judgement. Even without this judgement many EU states have said they will take such asylum seekers ( that have been processed on arrival in Greece) directly from Greece and forgoe their right to return them to Greece, in recognition of the unprecedented scale of this current crisis.

I suggest you do some reading.

http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html

There is no mention of Schengen and Schengen can never over ride the UNHCR under any circumstances specifically over the border security rights of Greece. In fact, it is Schengen and the EU itself which has forced NATO into action because they want to hinder the influx so they themselves don't get inumdated which is exactly what has been happening up to this point.

There are obligations on Turkey to prevent the departure of refugees to Greece. So yes, intercepted boats can be refused entry into Greece and forced to return to Turkey and Turkey is obligated to take them back and process their refugee status and even provide protection visas.

Again this is not as I understand it. Turkey is obligated (under general international law, not specific treaty like the dublin agreements) to process and grant asylum to those refugees that SEEK such from Turkey -and it has done so to some 2.5-3 million as a result of the current crisis. I do not think there is any specific obligation on it to specifically prevent those in Turkey who have not sought asylum in Turkey from leaving Turkey to seek it elsewhere. As I understand Turkey can agree to take measure to physically prevent those migrants that wish to seek asylum in places other than Turkey using 'irregualr' means to leave Turkey but I do not think it is obligated to do so under international law. I suspect it it was obligated under international law Greece and other countries would have at least talked about suing Turkey at the ECHR for its failure to prevent migrants seeking asylum outside Turkey from leaving Turkey.

Once again, I suggest you read the UNHCR concerning laws of "Safe First Country".

That should clear it up for you.

Countries will process from Turkey, or Jordan. They just don't want anyone rocking up on their doorstep.

Indeed. They dont want just anyone rocking on their doorstep that has made it to Greece either I think.

They shouldn't be rocking up on Greece's doorstep to begin with.

It is Turkey's obligation to process the refugees in Turkey as the Safe First Country. Countries will then alleviate the burden by screening Asylum Seeker applications in Turkey, with a view that many will be offered temporary protection visas.

[erolz66]

B. Safe Country of Asylum

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

So yes in 'normal' circumstances someone who arrived in say Belgium in 2012 seeking asylum but had 'first arrived' in Greece to get to Belgium, could be returned to Greece by Belgium, under the terms of the above (general international law) and specifically under the Dublin agreement where this 'return to first country' procedure is more explicitly codified between signatories of that agreement.

Except Belgium can NOT (currently) legally make such a 'return'. It is (currently and since 2011) ILLEGAL for Belgium (or any other country covered by ECHR rulings) to do so in respect of a return to Greece. The reason being

Since 2011, following judgments by the ECJ and ECHR, Dublin transfers back to Greece have been suspended as the persistent deficiencies on the Greek asylum system made doing so a violation of an individual's fundamental rights

The actual ECHR ruling is long and complex and can be seen in full here in pdf format but the relvant section is quite brief. http://www.google.com.cy/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5076,d.bGs

on page 89 - 10th judgement of the ECHR reads

Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been a violation by Belgium of Article 3 of the Convention because, by sending him back to Greece, the Belgian authorities exposed the applicant to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State;

Basically Belgium could not send this asylum seeker back to Greece under 'first country' rules because doing so is a breach of that persons fundamental human rights. Which is why all such transfers in regards of return of such people to Greece under the principle of 'first country' have been suspended within the EU since 2011.

So if the return of such asylum seekers has been ruled illegal in cases of return to Greece , do you really doubt that they would similarly be judged as so in terms of return to Turkey, if Turkey either stated or showed that it would not or could process such asylum seekers 'fairly' ? This is why I say such returns effectively require agreement from Turkey. Even then, if Turkey does agree (as Greece did in 2011 btw) the court may still judge Turkey so deficiencies in the asylum procedure that such returns would be an infringement of the asylum seekers basic human rights and any country effecting such return would be breaking the law. So how much more so if Turkey also says explicitly we can not or will not process this person asylum claim effectively ?

None of the above negates Greece's duty with regard to asylum seekers.

I suggest you do some reading.

There is no mention of Schengen and Schengen can never over ride the UNHCR under any circumstances specifically over the border security rights of Greece. In fact, it is Schengen and the EU itself which has forced NATO into action because they want to hinder the influx so they themselves don't get inumdated which is exactly what has been happening up to this point.

No one is saying Schengen overrides UNCHR ? Nor do the dublin agreements that just strengthen what is in the UNHCR amongst its signatories with regards to the right of states to exercise 'first return' when meeting their obligation to asylum seekers. What I am saying is that given that EVEN Greece was judged by the ECHR as being so deficient in its asylum procedures in 2011 that countries could therefore no longer legally meet their duties to seekers by using 'first return' rights in regards to returns to Greece, then so too would it be the case in regards of returns to Turkey, should Turkey say or show that it can not or will not process such seekers fairly.

Once again, I suggest you read the UNHCR concerning laws of "Safe First Country".

I have. Greece was ruled by ECHR in 2011 to have not been a 'Safe Country of Asylum' (and currently still has that status within the EU) and thus any return to it is not a legal exercise of the rights of states to return asylum seekers to it. If Greece was ruled as such in 2011 do you seriously doubt Turkey would be similarly deemed as so if it explicitly said it could no longer process such people fairly ?

The 'laws' about 'first country' or 'safe country' are NOT obligations on asylum seekers. They are rights allowed to states who can use such return as a valid means of meeting the rights of such asylum seekers - but only if the country they are returning the seeker too is a 'Safe' one - and a Turkey that says 'we can not / will not process such seekers fairly' would not be a 'safe' one. That is why such returns require Turkey to agree AND to actually show it is treating such people fairly.

That should clear it up for you.

It is Turkey's obligation to process the refugees in Turkey as the Safe First Country.

Yes just as it was Greece's since 2011, yet return of asylum seekers to Greece under 'first country' principals were judged by the ECHR (which is fully in accord with the UNHCR btw) to be illegal. That countries who attempted to make such returns under 'first country' rules would be infringing that returned persons basic human rights by doing so. This is why I am saying such returns can not legally be done 'by forcing boats back to Turkey' without Turkeys co operation and agreement.

[Paphitis]

B. Safe Country of Asylum

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

So yes in 'normal' circumstances someone who arrived in say Belgium in 2012 seeking asylum but had 'first arrived' in Greece to get to Belgium, could be returned to Greece by Belgium, under the terms of the above (general international law) and specifically under the Dublin agreement where this 'return to first country' procedure is more explicitly codified between signatories of that agreement.

Except Belgium can NOT (currently) legally make such a 'return'. It is (currently and since 2011) ILLEGAL for Belgium (or any other country covered by ECHR rulings) to do so in respect of a return to Greece. The reason being

No Beligium cannot return the refugee back to Greece under first arrival. Once they set foot on sovereign territory, then the game is up for that country.

Hence why the onus is on early detection and interception. In such cases, the refugees will be turned back.

Belgium however does have the right to return the refugee back to Greece after assessing their asylum status which it is obligated to do, and as such Greece has a right to return the person back to Turkey after exhausting some kind of processes under the First Safe Arrival" rules.

Since 2011, following judgments by the ECJ and ECHR, Dublin transfers back to Greece have been suspended as the persistent deficiencies on the Greek asylum system made doing so a violation of an individual's fundamental rights

The actual ECHR ruling is long and complex and can be seen in full here in pdf format but the relvant section is quite brief. http://www.google.com.cy/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5076,d.bGs

on page 89 - 10th judgement of the ECHR reads

Yes I know. The Safe Country section is a mere paragraph and I quoted to you the most relevant part. But whatever floats your boat I guess.

Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been a violation by Belgium of Article 3 of the Convention because, by sending him back to Greece, the Belgian authorities exposed the applicant to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State;

Basically Belgium could not send this asylum seeker back to Greece under 'first country' rules because doing so is a breach of that persons fundamental human rights. Which is why all such transfers in regards of return of such people to Greece under the principle of 'first country' have been suspended within the EU since 2011.

So if the return of such asylum seekers has been ruled illegal in cases of return to Greece , do you really doubt that they would similarly be judged as so in terms of return to Turkey, if Turkey either stated or showed that it would not or could process such asylum seekers 'fairly' ? This is why I say such returns effectively require agreement from Turkey. Even then, if Turkey does agree (as Greece did in 2011 btw) the court may still judge Turkey so deficiencies in the asylum procedure that such returns would be an infringement of the asylum seekers basic human rights and any country effecting such return would be breaking the law. So how much more so if Turkey also says explicitly we can not or will not process this person asylum claim effectively ?

None of the above negates Greece's duty with regard to asylum seekers.

No I do not. I believe Belgium has a right to return the person back to Greece and likewise Greece can do the same. The ECHR can not mandate the Asylum Procedure of each State, but it can come with findings which some States can ignore. For instance, Australia has mandatory detention so if you want to talk about deficiencies, then look at that. In comparison, I am sure Greece is superior in its treatment of Asulum Seekers and they have proven this to be true through their humanity, whereas Australia incarcerates entire families in mandatory detention, including children.

I suggest you do some reading.

There is no mention of Schengen and Schengen can never over ride the UNHCR under any circumstances specifically over the border security rights of Greece. In fact, it is Schengen and the EU itself which has forced NATO into action because they want to hinder the influx so they themselves don't get inumdated which is exactly what has been happening up to this point.

No one is saying Schengen overrides UNCHR ? Nor do the dublin agreements that just strengthen what is in the UNHCR amongst its signatories with regards to the right of states to exercise 'first return' when meeting their obligation to asylum seekers. What I am saying is that given that EVEN Greece was judged by the ECHR as being so deficient in its asylum procedures in 2011 that countries could therefore no longer legally meet their duties to seekers by using 'first return' rights in regards to returns to Greece, then so too would it be the case in regards of returns to Turkey, should Turkey say or show that it can not or will not process such seekers fairly.

Yes but just because Greece doesn't fingerprint or whatever the case is, is no reason for Belgium to be punished for another countries alleged "deficiencies" which in Greece's case are nothing more than technical issues. There are no violations of HR, only an over-stretched resources and law enforcement finding it difficult to cope. It is to be expected with over 10% of your population entering the country as Asylum Seekers. Schengen and NATO understand this now, which is why they are sending Greece assistance.

Once again, I suggest you read the UNHCR concerning laws of "Safe First Country".

I have. Greece was ruled by ECHR in 2011 to have not been a 'Safe Country of Asylum' (and currently still has that status within the EU) and thus any return to it is not a legal exercise of the rights of states to return asylum seekers to it. If Greece was ruled as such in 2011 do you seriously doubt Turkey would be similarly deemed as so if it explicitly said it could no longer process such people fairly ?

The 'laws' about 'first country' or 'safe country' are NOT obligations on asylum seekers. They are rights allowed to states who can use such return as a valid means of meeting the rights of such asylum seekers - but only if the country they are returning the seeker too is a 'Safe' one - and a Turkey that says 'we can not / will not process such seekers fairly' would not be a 'safe' one. That is why such returns require Turkey to agree AND to actually show it is treating such people fairly.

That should clear it up for you.

Is it still the case?

There is actually no list of countries deemed to not be "Safe countries of Asylum" other than the application of the UNKCR definition of a "Safe Country". The definition is broad and stipulates that a Safe Country is a country that is safe for an Asylum seeker to seek refuge from the dangers they face at home due to war or Natural Disaster and so forth.

Greece is a Safe Country as is Turkey.

Australia considers Indonesia a "Safe Country" and turns back boats regularly. So the question I put to you, do you believe Indonesia is in a better state than Greece and Turkey?

It is Turkey's obligation to process the refugees in Turkey as the Safe First Country.

Yes just as it was Greece's since 2011, yet return of asylum seekers to Greece under 'first country' principals were judged by the ECHR (which is fully in accord with the UNHCR btw) to be illegal. That countries who attempted to make such returns under 'first country' rules would be infringing that returned persons basic human rights by doing so. This is why I am saying such returns can not legally be done 'by forcing boats back to Turkey' without Turkeys co operation and agreement.

I reject that completely.

2011 does not apply in 2016. These things can be ruled on a case by case basis and I do not have the background to argue with you about this specific case, but Greece is considered a "Safe Country" and I challenge you to PROVE to me that it isn't! I also challenge you to prove that Turkey isn't.

[erolz66]

No Beligium cannot return the refugee back to Greece under first arrival. Once they set foot on sovereign territory, then the game is up for that country.

I understand the distinction you are making, but remain unconvinced that it is actually relevant to be frank.

Belgium however does have the right to return the refugee back to Greece after assessing their asylum status which it is obligated to do, and as such Greece has a right to return the person back to Turkey after exhausting some kind of processes under the First Safe Arrival" rules.

Not since the 2011 ECHR ruling judged that such a return by Belgium would be an infringement of the seekers human rights. As I understand it.

The ECHR can not mandate the Asylum Procedure of each State, but it can come with findings which some States can ignore.

The ECHR does not mandate asylum policies of individual states. It can and does have jurisdiction to make legally binding judgements about the infringement of human rights by states that are members of the Council of Europe against individuals. Of course states can and at times do ignore such legal rulings but in this case Belgium and all other EU states have not ignore this legal ruling. They have responded to it by not sending back this individual concerned and by suspending all such returns to Greece across the EU since the ruling. The EU has been working very hard with Greece to get it's asylum practices and procedures to a sufficient level that they are 'safe'. Nor is only the ECHR that has made such judgements. The ECJ has also judged the same. Nor is it only returns to Greece that have been subject to such judgements. There has also been a more recent case with regards to a return from Switzerland to Italy. Whilst in this case the court ruled that there was no systemic failures in the Italian asylum system that would prohibit all such returns (like they found with Greece) it did say that in the case of certain vulnerable categories such as children or families there were enough concerns about the asylum conditions in Italy that such a return that did not involve Switzerland first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together, then such a return would be a breach of the applicants human rights.

Details of this case can be found here and I do suggest you have a read / skim of this document. I was going to try and 'spice' the incentive for you to do so by saying the story partly involves Australia, but actually is Austria Still worth a skim / read I think.

For instance, Australia has mandatory detention so if you want to talk about deficiencies, then look at that. In comparison, I am sure Greece is superior in its treatment of Asulum Seekers and they have proven this to be true through their humanity, whereas Australia incarcerates entire families in mandatory detention, including children.

I am well aware of Australia's appalling record in regards to those seeking asylum there. I have little doubt that if there ever was a case of an EU / Council of Europe country ever trying to return an asylum seeker from their country to Australia based on Australia being a 'first country' if this was challenged by the asylum seekers in the ECHR or ECJ courts, they would also find that such a return would be in breach of that persons human rights for the reason you have highlighted yourself.

Yes but just because Greece doesn't fingerprint or whatever the case is,...

Nothing to do with fingerprinting or any of the deficiencies identified in the recent Schengen evaluation report on Greece. It is an entirely different matter.

So the question I put to you, do you believe Indonesia is in a better state than Greece and Turkey?

I know little about Indonesia but will answer you question anyway, which is probably not. However that really is not relevant. The ECHR and the ECJ have both judged in 2011 Greece's asylum system to be so deficient such that returns by countries of asylum seekers to Greece are a violation of that seekers human rights, leading to the EU suspending all such transfers since the ruling.

So the question I am putting to you is do you think in a scenario where Turkey openly states that it is unable or unwilling to process asylum seekers (or returned ones) the ECHR would consider Turkey a better state than Greece ?

2011 does not apply in 2016. These things can be ruled on a case by case basis and I do not have the background to argue with you about this specific case, but Greece is considered a "Safe Country" and I challenge you to PROVE to me that it isn't! I also challenge you to prove that Turkey isn't.

I can prove to you that since the 2011 ruling and still today, the EU has accepted the ECHR and ECJ rulings and as a result has suspended (forbidden) all such transfers from any EU country to Greece as a result. Since then they have been working monumentally hard to help Greece improve its asylum systems such that it is not longer the case and they can lift the suspension of such transfers, without risk of such rulings from these courts in the future and they hope to reach that status soon (within the coming months).

I can not prove Turkey is not a "Safe Country". Everyone is doing their utmost to avoid a court like the ECHR or the ECJ ruling that they are not (as those courts did with regards to Greece in 2011) - for such a ruling would be a monumental disaster for the EU given the current situation. What I am suggesting is that this is the reason why 'forced return' requires Turkish agreement, for without it the likely hood that such a case will be brought and Turkey will be judged as not 'safe' goes from entirely possible to almost certainty imo.

[Paphitis]

No Beligium cannot return the refugee back to Greece under first arrival. Once they set foot on sovereign territory, then the game is up for that country.

I understand the distinction you are making, but remain unconvinced that it is actually relevant to be frank.

Well you would need to read the UNKCR completely, plus have a law degree probably.

But Asylum Seekers are turned back often after exhausting some legal conditions. Greece has a right to do it as does Belgium.

Belgium however does have the right to return the refugee back to Greece after assessing their asylum status which it is obligated to do, and as such Greece has a right to return the person back to Turkey after exhausting some kind of processes under the First Safe Arrival" rules.

Not since the 2011 ECHR ruling judged that such a return by Belgium would be an infringement of the seekers human rights. As I understand it.

That was referring to that particular case as I understand it. There is no mention that Greece is not a "Safe Country"

The ECHR can not mandate the Asylum Procedure of each State, but it can come with findings which some States can ignore.

The ECHR does not mandate asylum policies of individual states. It can and does have jurisdiction to make legally binding judgements about the infringement of human rights by states that are members of the Council of Europe against individuals. Of course states can and at times do ignore such legal rulings but in this case Belgium and all other EU states have not ignore this legal ruling. They have responded to it by not sending back this individual concerned and by suspending all such returns to Greece across the EU since the ruling. The EU has been working very hard with Greece to get it's asylum practices and procedures to a sufficient level that they are 'safe'. Nor is only the ECHR that has made such judgements. The ECJ has also judged the same. Nor is it only returns to Greece that have been subject to such judgements. There has also been a more recent case with regards to a return from Switzerland to Italy. Whilst in this case the court ruled that there was no systemic failures in the Italian asylum system that would prohibit all such returns (like they found with Greece) it did say that in the case of certain vulnerable categories such as children or families there were enough concerns about the asylum conditions in Italy that such a return that did not involve Switzerland first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together, then such a return would be a breach of the applicants human rights.

That is absolutely correct, and Greece is recognised as having done very well under the circumstances.

The EU is a completely different thing to the UNHCR. The EU does not have the right to declare Greece as not meeting its UNHCR obligations. That is completely false.

One country that is a chronic violator of the UNHCR is Australia and another is Canada. And yet they are considered "safe" countries for Asylum Seekers.

Details of this case can be found here and I do suggest you have a read / skim of this document. I was going to try and 'spice' the incentive for you to do so by saying the story partly involves Australia, but actually is Austria Still worth a skim / read I think.

That involves a transfer from Switzerland to Dublin.

The issue here is, if Switzerland were to proceed, then what exactly can the EUCHR do about it when the judgement is ignored. The UNHCR does not have such pre-conditions against Italy. And I am still waiting for you to prove that Greece and Turkey are NOT considered "safe" according to the obligations and definitions of the UNHCR.

For instance, Australia has mandatory detention so if you want to talk about deficiencies, then look at that. In comparison, I am sure Greece is superior in its treatment of Asulum Seekers and they have proven this to be true through their humanity, whereas Australia incarcerates entire families in mandatory detention, including children.

I am well aware of Australia's appalling record in regards to those seeking asylum there. I have little doubt that if there ever was a case of an EU / Council of Europe country ever trying to return an asylum seeker from their country to Australia based on Australia being a 'first country' if this was challenged by the asylum seekers in the ECHR or ECJ courts, they would also find that such a return would be in breach of that persons human rights for the reason you have highlighted yourself.

Yes but maybe not so appaling after all. You can have the situation that exists in Australia or the shamozzle that exists in the EU.

There were 800 deaths at sea, and now there are none. Your human rights mean nothing when your dead. And Australia's Border Security has provided for a big dissinsentive Asylum Seekers to seek Australia. We would like to screen our refugees.

Yes but just because Greece doesn't fingerprint or whatever the case is,...

Nothing to do with fingerprinting or any of the deficiencies identified in the recent Schengen evaluation report on Greece. It is an entirely different matter.

And what matter would that be? Did they actually say what the deficiency was and are you so adamant that it is a violation of HR?

So the question I put to you, do you believe Indonesia is in a better state than Greece and Turkey?

I know little about Indonesia but will answer you question anyway, which is probably not. However that really is not relevant. The ECHR and the ECJ have both judged in 2011 Greece's asylum system to be so deficient such that returns by countries of asylum seekers to Greece are a violation of that seekers human rights, leading to the EU suspending all such transfers since the ruling.

As I told you I completely reject that. Prove to me that this applies now in the year 2016!

So the question I am putting to you is do you think in a scenario where Turkey openly states that it is unable or unwilling to process asylum seekers (or returned ones) the ECHR would consider Turkey a better state than Greece ?

Yes absolutely I believe Turkey is a Safe Country as defined by the UNHCR.

2011 does not apply in 2016. These things can be ruled on a case by case basis and I do not have the background to argue with you about this specific case, but Greece is considered a "Safe Country" and I challenge you to PROVE to me that it isn't! I also challenge you to prove that Turkey isn't.

I can prove to you that since the 2011 ruling and still today, the EU has accepted the ECHR and ECJ rulings and as a result has suspended (forbidden) all such transfers from any EU country to Greece as a result. Since then they have been working monumentally hard to help Greece improve its asylum systems such that it is not longer the case and they can lift the suspension of such transfers, without risk of such rulings from these courts in the future and they hope to reach that status soon (within the coming months).

No it hasn't! Prove it!

I can not prove Turkey is not a "Safe Country". Everyone is doing their utmost to avoid a court like the ECHR or the ECJ ruling that they are not (as those courts did with regards to Greece in 2011) - for such a ruling would be a monumental disaster for the EU given the current situation. What I am suggesting is that this is the reason why 'forced return' requires Turkish agreement, for without it the likely hood that such a case will be brought and Turkey will be judged as not 'safe' goes from entirely possible to almost certainty imo.

Exactly! You can't prove that Turkey is not "safe" because such a judgement does not exist.

You also can't prove that Greece isn't either.

But since you are adamant that Greece is unsafe, albeit by the EUCHR (which I dispute), Greece does have a legal right to return to the original "First safe Country" which in this case would be Turkey.

[erolz66]

That involves a transfer from Switzerland to Dublin.

Er a transfer from Switzerland to Italy actually - under terms of what is know as the Dublin agreement. You do have a tendency (as well all do at times) to not really read the links given and I have to say in passing I respect your honesty where you said as much yourself.

The issue here is, if Switzerland were to proceed, then what exactly can the EUCHR do about it when the judgement is ignored.

In reality not much. The 'ultimate' sanction the ECHR has against a state that just ignores it's rulings would be expulsion of that state from the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the EU Council). This never happens in practice. However the systematic wide scale ignoring of ECHR rulings does undermine the credibility of the ECHR itself and is not something any state does lightly. Rulings by the ECJ are another matter entirely and breach of these rulings by an EU member state can lead to very real penalties for that state - at least that is my understanding.

And what matter would that be? Did they actually say what the deficiency was and are you so adamant that it is a violation of HR?

Yes both the ECJ ruling and the ECHR ruling clearly lay out what the reasons were that led them to rule Greece's asylum system was deficient such that return would represent a breach of returnees human rights.

The (pdf) link to the official ECHR grand chamber final judgement from primary source (ie from ECHR own website) was provided before and Ill give it again here. Its a 119 page document but the list of evidence of deficiencies from which the ECHR came to the judgement it did starts around page 32 and is in the following categories.

Conditions of Detention.
Living conditions
The asylum procedure

Some extracts of specifics (and at the risk of being labelled 'anti Greek') starting around page 46 are - and stressing these were from 2011 - today things are significantly different

the systematic placement of asylum-seekers in detention without informing them of the reasons for their detention is a widespread practice of the Greekauthorities.

It is important to note that the applicant’s allegations concerning living conditions in the holding centre are supported by similar findings by the CPT, the UNHCR, Amnesty International and Médecins sans Frontières– Greece (see paragraphs 163, 213, 165 and 166 respectively) and are not explicitly disputed by the Government.

The Court notes that, according to the findings made by organisations that visited the holding centre next to the airport, the sector for asylum-seekers was rarely unlocked and the detainees had no access to the water fountain outside and were obliged to drink water from the toilets. In the sector for arrested persons, there were 145 detainees in a 110 sq. m space. In a number of cells there was only 1 bed for 14 to 17 people. There were not enough mattresses and a number of detainees were sleeping on the bare floor. There was insufficient room for all the detainees to lie down and sleep at the same time. Because of the overcrowding, there was a lack of sufficient ventilation and the cells were unbearably hot. Detainees’ access to the toilets was severely restricted and they complained that the police would not let them out into the corridors. The police admitted that the detainees had to urinate in plastic bottles which they emptied when they were allowed to use the toilets. It was observed in all sectors that there was no soap or toilet paper, that sanitary and other facilities were dirty, that the sanitary facilities had no doors and that the detainees were deprived of outdoor

there is more but these were the kinds of specific failings that lead to the ECHR ruling as it did.

As I told you I completely reject that. Prove to me that this applies now in the year 2016!

Knowing exactly what would constitutes proof for you is hard for me to establish and it may well be we are still talking about different things but here goes.

What I can prove is that the EU suspended such transfers for all EU member states and has yet to lift that suspension (though we are right on the cusp of the phased removal of that suspension). Such a suspension adopted by the competent federal body of the EU (EU Council) are legally binding on all member states - at least that is my understanding. So as proof I will use (somewhat ironically if you do 'get around' the forum much) the EU Commission's "Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area 1 May - 10 December 2015" which can be viewed (pdf format) here

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e- ... rea_en.pdf

This quoted section is a 'footnote' from that report but I think it does 'prove' that the such transfers to Greece by other members states were suspended in 2011 and as of the ending period this report covers (10 dec 2015) this was still the case ?

Since 2011, following judgments by the ECJ and ECHR, Dublin transfers back to Greece have been suspended as the persistent deficiencies on the Greek asylum system made doing so a violation of an individual's fundamental rights. The Commission has dedicated substantial resources to assist Greece in overcoming these deficiencies. If all conditions are met, it will recommend to the European Council to
confirm the reinstatement of Dublin transfers

Just to say 'Dublin transfers' does not mean transfers to Dublin, but means return of a seeker to 'first' EU country. If you want proof this is so please just ask and Ill do my best to provide it. If you do not think that the suspension of such transfers was by the EU (not explicitly stated in the extract above) then again ask and Ill do my best. Same as to if you think such suspensions as adopted by the EU are not binding on EU member states - again just ask.

No it hasn't! Prove it!

I am trying.

Exactly! You can't prove that Turkey is not "safe" because such a judgement does not exist.

No there is not currently such a ruling that I am aware of in regards to transfers from EU countries to Turkey, nor am I saying there is or trying to make there is.

You also can't prove that Greece isn't either.

I think I can prove that the EU (centrally at the federal level) suspended all such transfers from all EU member states in 2011 as a direct results of the ECHR and ECJ rulings in 2011 and that such a suspension was 'binding' on those states and remains so until the EU removes that suspension , which is just on the cusp of being removed as of the start of 2016 , that is the suspension lasted for aprox 5 years. To be honest I think I have shown that to be true with the above but am more than willing to provide more evidence on specific aspects should you want to invite me to do so.

But since you are adamant that Greece is unsafe, albeit by the EUCHR (which I dispute), Greece does have a legal right to return to the original "First safe Country" which in this case would be Turkey.

I am adamant that the EU suspended such transfer to Greece by all EU member states in 2011 as a result of these rulings bu ECHR and ECJ - yes. I totally agree Greece still has a right to return such people to Turkey and that to date no such similar ruling has been made by either ECHR or ECJ with regards to such. The point I am making is that the chances of such a case being brought with regards to Turkey, made in the face of Turkey itself saying it can not or will not treat such returnees fairly would I think almost certainly result in such a ruling, which in turn would force the EU to have to suspend such transfer from all EU member states at least for a period of time until there was some credible basis for thinking that returning such would not be a violation of that persons rights. This part is not 'provable' I just think it becomes evidently highly probable if you accept the situation re returns to Greece since 2011 as I have explained it (not saying that I am right re returns to Greece - I think I am - but am saying that my 'supposition' about returns to Turkey follows on from that).

[Paphitis]

That involves a transfer from Switzerland to Dublin.

Er a transfer from Switzerland to Italy actually - under terms of what is know as the Dublin agreement. You do have a tendency (as well all do at times) to not really read the links given and I have to say in passing I respect your honesty where you said as much yourself.

The issue here is, if Switzerland were to proceed, then what exactly can the EUCHR do about it when the judgement is ignored.

In reality not much. The 'ultimate' sanction the ECHR has against a state that just ignores it's rulings would be expulsion of that state from the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the EU Council). This never happens in practice. However the systematic wide scale ignoring of ECHR rulings does undermine the credibility of the ECHR itself and is not something any state does lightly. Rulings by the ECJ are another matter entirely and breach of these rulings by an EU member state can lead to very real penalties for that state - at least that is my understanding.

And what matter would that be? Did they actually say what the deficiency was and are you so adamant that it is a violation of HR?

Yes both the ECJ ruling and the ECHR ruling clearly lay out what the reasons were that led them to rule Greece's asylum system was deficient such that return would represent a breach of returnees human rights.

The (pdf) link to the official ECHR grand chamber final judgement from primary source (ie from ECHR own website) was provided before and Ill give it again here. Its a 119 page document but the list of evidence of deficiencies from which the ECHR came to the judgement it did starts around page 32 and is in the following categories.

Conditions of Detention.
Living conditions
The asylum procedure

Some extracts of specifics (and at the risk of being labelled 'anti Greek') starting around page 46 are - and stressing these were from 2011 - today things are significantly different

the systematic placement of asylum-seekers in detention without informing them of the reasons for their detention is a widespread practice of the Greekauthorities.

It is important to note that the applicant’s allegations concerning living conditions in the holding centre are supported by similar findings by the CPT, the UNHCR, Amnesty International and Médecins sans Frontières– Greece (see paragraphs 163, 213, 165 and 166 respectively) and are not explicitly disputed by the Government.

The Court notes that, according to the findings made by organisations that visited the holding centre next to the airport, the sector for asylum-seekers was rarely unlocked and the detainees had no access to the water fountain outside and were obliged to drink water from the toilets. In the sector for arrested persons, there were 145 detainees in a 110 sq. m space. In a number of cells there was only 1 bed for 14 to 17 people. There were not enough mattresses and a number of detainees were sleeping on the bare floor. There was insufficient room for all the detainees to lie down and sleep at the same time. Because of the overcrowding, there was a lack of sufficient ventilation and the cells were unbearably hot. Detainees’ access to the toilets was severely restricted and they complained that the police would not let them out into the corridors. The police admitted that the detainees had to urinate in plastic bottles which they emptied when they were allowed to use the toilets. It was observed in all sectors that there was no soap or toilet paper, that sanitary and other facilities were dirty, that the sanitary facilities had no doors and that the detainees were deprived of outdoor

there is more but these were the kinds of specific failings that lead to the ECHR ruling as it did.

As I told you I completely reject that. Prove to me that this applies now in the year 2016!

Knowing exactly what would constitutes proof for you is hard for me to establish and it may well be we are still talking about different things but here goes.

What I can prove is that the EU suspended such transfers for all EU member states and has yet to lift that suspension (though we are right on the cusp of the phased removal of that suspension). Such a suspension adopted by the competent federal body of the EU (EU Council) are legally binding on all member states - at least that is my understanding. So as proof I will use (somewhat ironically if you do 'get around' the forum much) the EU Commission's "Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area 1 May - 10 December 2015" which can be viewed (pdf format) here

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e- ... rea_en.pdf

This quoted section is a 'footnote' from that report but I think it does 'prove' that the such transfers to Greece by other members states were suspended in 2011 and as of the ending period this report covers (10 dec 2015) this was still the case ?

Since 2011, following judgments by the ECJ and ECHR, Dublin transfers back to Greece have been suspended as the persistent deficiencies on the Greek asylum system made doing so a violation of an individual's fundamental rights. The Commission has dedicated substantial resources to assist Greece in overcoming these deficiencies. If all conditions are met, it will recommend to the European Council to
confirm the reinstatement of Dublin transfers

Just to say 'Dublin transfers' does not mean transfers to Dublin, but means return of a seeker to 'first' EU country. If you want proof this is so please just ask and Ill do my best to provide it. If you do not think that the suspension of such transfers was by the EU (not explicitly stated in the extract above) then again ask and Ill do my best. Same as to if you think such suspensions as adopted by the EU are not binding on EU member states - again just ask.

No it hasn't! Prove it!

I am trying.

Exactly! You can't prove that Turkey is not "safe" because such a judgement does not exist.

No there is not currently such a ruling that I am aware of in regards to transfers from EU countries to Turkey, nor am I saying there is or trying to make there is.

You also can't prove that Greece isn't either.

I think I can prove that the EU (centrally at the federal level) suspended all such transfers from all EU member states in 2011 as a direct results of the ECHR and ECJ rulings in 2011 and that such a suspension was 'binding' on those states and remains so until the EU removes that suspension , which is just on the cusp of being removed as of the start of 2016 , that is the suspension lasted for aprox 5 years. To be honest I think I have shown that to be true with the above but am more than willing to provide more evidence on specific aspects should you want to invite me to do so.

But since you are adamant that Greece is unsafe, albeit by the EUCHR (which I dispute), Greece does have a legal right to return to the original "First safe Country" which in this case would be Turkey.

I am adamant that the EU suspended such transfer to Greece by all EU member states in 2011 as a result of these rulings bu ECHR and ECJ - yes. I totally agree Greece still has a right to return such people to Turkey and that to date no such similar ruling has been made by either ECHR or ECJ with regards to such. The point I am making is that the chances of such a case being brought with regards to Turkey, made in the face of Turkey itself saying it can not or will not treat such returnees fairly would I think almost certainly result in such a ruling, which in turn would force the EU to have to suspend such transfer from all EU member states at least for a period of time until there was some credible basis for thinking that returning such would not be a violation of that persons rights. This part is not 'provable' I just think it becomes evidently highly probable if you accept the situation re returns to Greece since 2011 as I have explained it (not saying that I am right re returns to Greece - I think I am - but am saying that my 'supposition' about returns to Turkey follows on from that).

That's great. Greece is considered a "Unsafe Country" and that is because of the Austerity Programs which have crippled the country since 2010.

You can blame the EU for that. If they want Greece to meet some standards, then they can pay up otherwise pffft!

But in the interests of Human Rights, Greece has every right to return Asylum Seekers to the first original safe country and they certainly have the right to turn back the boats from Turkey.

You should be glad, because in Turkey, their Human Rights are guaranteed and you wouldn't want them in "unsafe" Greece now would you.?

[erolz66]

That's great. Greece is considered a "Unsafe Country" and that is because of the Austerity Programs which have crippled the country since 2010.

The ECHR and ECJ judged in 2011 that Greece was 'unsafe' with regards to return of asylum seekers under 'first country' principal leading to suspension of such transfer by the EU as awhole - yes that is my understanding.

You can blame the EU for that. If they want Greece to meet some standards, then they can pay up otherwise pffft!

Not really trying to blame anyone actually ? The EU has provided substantial help to Greece address these issues , direct financial help and indirect help as well, I listed some of the aid given to date earlier here. Of course you can argue that such was not and is not sufficient but it is not a case of none having been provided.

But in the interests of Human Rights, Greece has every right to return Asylum Seekers to the first original safe country and they certainly have the right to turn back the boats from Turkey.

All I am suggesting is that given the 2011 judgements made by the ECHR and ECJ re return to Greece that led to an EU wide suspension of such transfers, the chances of similar judgements being made in regards to a Turkey that says and or is unwilling or unable to treat such returned fairly is considerable and that if such a judgement is made it would inevitably lead to a suspension of all such transfers from all EU countries to Turkey. That is my opinion and what I am 'arguing' and is the basis for why I say the EU needs Turkey to co operate.

You should be glad, because in Turkey, their Human Rights are guaranteed and you wouldn't want them in "unsafe" Greece now would you.?

I would want any refugee anywhere to get fair treatment that respects their basic human rights but I have not really been talking about what I want here.

[Paphitis]

That's great. Greece is considered a "Unsafe Country" and that is because of the Austerity Programs which have crippled the country since 2010.

The ECHR and ECJ judged in 2011 that Greece was 'unsafe' with regards to return of asylum seekers under 'first country' principal leading to suspension of such transfer by the EU as awhole - yes that is my understanding.

You can blame the EU for that. If they want Greece to meet some standards, then they can pay up otherwise pffft!

Not really trying to blame anyone actually ? The EU has provided substantial help to Greece address these issues , direct financial help and indirect help as well, I listed some of the aid given to date earlier here. Of course you can argue that such was not and is not sufficient but it is not a case of none having been provided.

But in the interests of Human Rights, Greece has every right to return Asylum Seekers to the first original safe country and they certainly have the right to turn back the boats from Turkey.

All I am suggesting is that given the 2011 judgements made by the ECHR and ECJ re return to Greece that led to an EU wide suspension of such transfers, the chances of similar judgements being made in regards to a Turkey that says and or is unwilling or unable to treat such returned fairly is considerable and that if such a judgement is made it would inevitably lead to a suspension of all such transfers from all EU countries to Turkey. That is my opinion and what I am 'arguing' and is the basis for why I say the EU needs Turkey to co operate.

You should be glad, because in Turkey, their Human Rights are guaranteed and you wouldn't want them in "unsafe" Greece now would you.?

I would want any refugee anywhere to get fair treatment that respects their basic human rights but I have not really been talking about what I want here.

Not a problem Erolz!

Greece is an "unsafe country". I agree with you despite you not providing any tangible proof that there are any judgments against Greece, apart from 2011, from a court making an arbitrary judgement in what appears to be more of a civil case and not the EUCHR. But nevertheless, you and STUD have not provided sufficient evidence that Schengen has threatened Greece. All the reports indicate a close collaboration to address issues which they believe exist and which any reasonable person would expect under the current condition Greece finds itself in and also be inundated by more than 10% of its population in a short space of time.

But OK, I will give you the benefit of doubt and accept that Greece is violating everyone's Human Rights. As a result, Greece should turn back the boats to Turkey, the place of their origin so that the poor refugees can be dealt with by the Turkish Authorities and guarantee their Human Rights.

There are no judgments against Turkey, so it's in everyone's interest.

[Maximus]

Good.

All refugees should wait in the first safe country they arrive in to have their assylem application processed. Unless they are coming from north africa to greece or italy or spain for example, most should be contained or sent back to Turkey.

Turkey is being run by a shameless, evil man but its time for turks to pay for all the inhumane treatment and injustices turkey has created for the people in the region. She cant afford it, her end is nigh. Goodnight.