UK: Dublin Convention
01 November 1997
The Dublin Convention came into force on 1 September 1997, seven years after it was signed in order to prevent multiple asylum applications in the member States of the European Community and to regulate which country was responsible for determining any claim. The Convention provides that if an asylum-seeker has a spouse or minor children who are recognised as refugees in a member State (or, if the asylum-seeker is a child, has parents there), the member state which accorded recognition to the family member should deal with the claim. Otherwise, the state which granted the asylum-seeker a residence permit or visa, or allowed him or her to stay on the territory, or the state through which he or she gained illegal entry to the Community, or where a previous asylum claim has been made, is responsible for determining the claim, although another state may process it at its discretion. The asylum-seeker's wishes, the presence of other family members or of a large refugee community from the same country or region, or language or cultural links are not taken into account.
Apart from determining the state responsible for deciding the claim, the Convention's other main provisions are to do with information exchange. States are expected regularly to exchange general information on refugee numbers, flows and routes of entry as well as on conditions and the human rights situation in countries of origin. The Convention allows them to exchange information personal to applicants, and details of any claim made in another member state, with the consent of the subject.
For the past five years, despite the fact that the Convention was not in force, member states of the Community, of the European Economic Area (EEA) and beyond have bounced asylum-seekers back to countries of embarkation under "safe transit country" policies and increasingly under bilateral or multilateral readmission agreements. These arrangements will continue pending the coming into force of the parallel Dublin Convention, which will bring the "buffer states" surrounding the Community, and other friendly states such as Canada and Australia, into the global asylum-seeker swapping network. Ironically, the coming into force of the Convention has made it more difficult for Britain to get rid of its unwanted asylum-seekers, as it has seen an end to the "gentleman's agreement" between France and Britain whereby France took back asylum-seekers who had come through Calais to claim at Dover. So, when groups of Czech Roma travelled overland through Europe to claim asylum in Dover, the French government disclaimed responsibility and in some cases the Roma were removed by air to Hungary, while others are having their claims dealt with here.
The procedures under the Convention for requesting the return of an asylum-seeker to the "responsible" state, for acceding to the request and for the person's removal to the responsible state, are subject to strict time limits which may be difficult to comply with, particularly if the government fulfils its election pledge to restore the in-country right of appeal to asylum-seekers rejected on "safe third country" grounds. It remains to be seen how it will work out in practice. But the exchange of information provisions are already causing concern, as personal information is exchanged but the Home Office is refusing to tell asylum-seekers exactly what is being exchanged. It is saying that the only information on which the asylum-seeker has a right of veto (and therefore a right to be informed of the proposed exchange) is the basis of the asylum claim. This is likely to result in litigation before long.