1

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1344

EU : EU hosts conference on good practices of ritual slaughter

EU hosts conference on good practices of ritual slaughter

By M. Apelblat

 

The Brussels Times (25.10.2022) – https://bit.ly/3zdQj8H – The European Commission organised last Thursday a conference with religious communities in the EU with focus on ritual slaughter, a sensitive issue which involves principles of religious freedom and animal welfare concerns.

 

The conference was held in partnership with the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the UN. It brought together 100 representatives of EU Member States and other national authorities, special envoys and coordinators on combating antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, representatives of national Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities, international organisations and independent experts.

 

Among the participants were ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the American Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and UN Under-Secretary-General Miguel Moratinos, holding the post of High Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC).

 

The conference was held under Chatham House rules, according to which information can be disclosed but statements cannot be attributed to the speakers, and no journalists were invited to it. However, a speech given by Vice-President Margaritis Schinas, Commissioner for Promoting our European Way of Life, was made available for journalists.

 

According to the Commission, the idea behind the event was to foster an open, frank and constructive discussion between the religious communities and the national authorities. A Commission source told The Brussels Times that it wanted to give space to the participants to talk freely, with the Commission acting as facilitator of the discussions.

Controversial court ruling

Vice-President Schinas reminded the audience that freedom of religion is a fundamental right which includes “freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”.

 

“This Commission is determined to promote our European way of life – a model of society, where all citizens feel included irrespective of their belief, their ethnic origin, their cultural or religious background,” he underlined.

 

“Jewish and Muslim communities are part of a diverse and vibrant Europe. It is our mission, our duty, to ensure that religious minorities feel at home in Europe and are able to live, practice and celebrate their faith like every other member of society.”

 

On the issue at stake, slaughter based on religious traditions, he said that it is millennia old. “Finding balanced solutions that promote animal welfare while respecting religious traditions has been the subject of many public debates over the past few years.  We know workable solutions are possible within the framework of existing EU legislation.”

 

Referring to current EU legislation (Regulation No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing), he said that the regulation strikes a fair balance. “It gives each Member State a broad discretion regarding the need to reconcile the protection of the welfare of animals and respect for the freedom of religion.”

 

He also referred to the interpretation of the regulation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its ruling of 17 December 2020. As previously reported, the court ruled in favour of a Flemish ban of ritual slaughter. Slaughter without stunning is incompatible with Jewish and Muslim religious law and amounts to a ban in practice.

 

Member states might adopt stricter rules to protect animal welfare but not ban ritual slaughter completely. The court interpreted for the first time the EU legislation and concluded that interference by member states, requiring stunning also in ritual slaughter, meets “an objective of general interest recognised by the EU, namely the promotion of animal welfare.”

 

Focus on good practices

 

The Muslim and Jewish communities in Belgium largely disagree with the ECJ ruling and have joined forces to overrule the ban in the courts – until now without success. They did not respond to questions from The Brussels Times about the conference and its outcome.

 

Furthermore, the conference did not discuss the possibility of amending the EU regulation although some revision of the regulation is planned by the Commission, according to the source. The focus of the conference was on exchanging good practices of ritual slaughter in the EU member states and other countries.

 

According to the ‘readout’ after the event, the participants held an informative discussion, raising the importance of dialogue, education and exchange of best practice. They agreed that animal welfare is important, as well as freedom of religion or belief, recalling that freedom of religion constitutes one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental rights.

 

They also discussed, that existing EU rules on the matter, which allow slaughter to the extent required for the needs of the concerned religious communities, strike the right balance between animal welfare and religious freedom. Stricter rules by the Member States need to be properly justified.

 

Asked about good practices, the Commission source highlighted France and The Netherlands, where ritual slaughter without stunning is allowed. According to the EU regulation, member states have freedom of discretion to allow ritual slaughter without stunning if it takes place in approved slaughterhouses.

 

The conference was foreseen in the Commission’s EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish life (October 2021), when it committed to facilitate the exchange of good practices. In this regard, the conference dispelled prejudices about ritual slaughter and might have laid the groundwork for educating the public that is not more painful to animals than other slaughter methods.

 

Photo: The Grand Synagogue in Brussels. Quotation from the Book of Malachi: Do we not all have the same father? Didn’t the same God create us? Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Further reading about FORB in EU on HRWF website





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1344

VIETNAM: EU must demand end to repression of civil society

EU must demand end to repression of civil society, respect of human rights pledges

FIDH & VCHR (05.04.2022) – https://bit.ly/3ubJAtz – The European Union (EU) must use the upcoming human rights dialogue to demand the Vietnamese government end repression of civil society and fulfill its pledges stemming from the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), FIDH and its member organization Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) urged today. The two organizations made the call ahead of the upcoming EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue, which will be held on 6 April 2022 in Brussels.

“The Vietnamese government’s pledges to uphold democratic freedoms and human rights as an essential element of the free trade agreement with the EU are contradicted by its ongoing repression of civil society. The EU should no longer tolerate Hanoi’s empty promises and use the human rights dialogue and other tools to seek tangible improvements in the human rights situation,” said FIDH Secretary-General Adilur Rahman Khan.

In a new briefing paper released today, FIDH and VCHR detail the government’s relentless crackdown on civil society. Since the last EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue, which was held in February 2020, an alarming escalation of arrests, unfair trials, harsh prison sentences, and physical violence against human rights defenders, bloggers, environmental rights leaders, and members of civil society has continued unabated.

Between 1 January and 31 December 2021, at least 30 people – including three women, activists, government critics, and human rights defenders – were arrested. During the same period, 32 (including seven women) were sentenced to prison terms of up to 15 years.

Nearly all of those who were arbitrarily detained or imprisoned in 2021 were charged under “national security” provisions of the Criminal Code, such as Article 117 (“making, storing or disseminating information, documents, materials and items against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam”) and Article 331 (“abusing democratic freedoms to harm the interests of the state”). Prison sentences imposed were particularly long, with women often receiving some of the harshest jail terms.

 

FIDH and VCHR are particularly concerned over the arrests and convictions of several prominent environmental rights defenders based on their involvement in promoting awareness of EVFTA and the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in advancing sustainable development in Vietnam. Since June 2021, at least four leading environmentalists have been arrested on charges of alleged “tax evasion” (Article 200 of the Criminal Code). These arrests indicate an emerging and disturbing pattern in the use of Vietnam’s tax laws to criminalize environmental leaders, and follows the broader targeting of civil society leaders, as well as shrinking civil society space.

“Civil society input is a crucial component for the implementation of the EVFTA and the Vietnamese government’s targeting of environmental rights defenders flies in the face of Hanoi’s commitments under the agreement. The EU must demand that the Vietnamese government give civil society an unfettered right to monitor and document the implementation of the EVFTA without being subjected to reprisals,” said VCHR President Vo Van Ai.

FIDH and VCHR urge the EU to seriously reconsider the merits of the human rights dialogue, which is portrayed by the Vietnamese government as a demonstration that it fully complies with the country’s human rights obligations. In its current form, the process, which is held behind closed doors and lacks benchmarks, monitoring mechanisms, and follow-up procedures, does not contribute to strengthening human rights in Vietnam.

Press contacts:

 

FIDH: Ms. Eva Canan (French, English) – Tel: +33648059157 (Paris)

VCHR: Ms. Penelope Faulkner (Vietnamese, English, French) – Tel: +33611898681 (Paris)

 

Photo credits: Reuteurs





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1344

BELGIUM: Jehovah’s Witnesses win in Strasbourg in a discrimination case

Jehovah’s Witnesses win in Strasbourg in a discriminatory taxation case

Failure to grant congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses exemption from property tax in the Brussels-Capital Region since 2018 was discriminatory (Assemblée Chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah d’Anderlecht and Others v. Belgium – Application 20165/20). See the unofficial English translation HERE

Registrar of the European Court (05.04.2022) – https://bit.ly/3ua7CFj – In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Assemblée Chrétienne Des Témoins de Jéhovah d’Anderlecht and Others v. Belgium (application no. 20165/20) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

The case concerned congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses which complained of being denied exemption from payment of a property tax (précompte immobilier) in respect of properties in the Brussels-Capital Region used by them for religious worship. According to an order of 23 November 2017 enacted by the legislature of the Brussels-Capital Region, as of the 2018 fiscal year the exemption applied only to “recognised religions”, a category that did not include the applicant congregations.

The Court held that since the tax exemption in question was contingent on prior recognition, governed by rules that did not afford sufficient safeguards against discrimination, the difference in treatment to which the applicant congregations had been subjected had no reasonable and objective justification. It noted, among other points, that recognition was only possible on the initiative of the Minister of Justice and depended thereafter on the purely discretionary decision of the legislature. A system of this kind entailed an inherent risk of arbitrariness, and religious communities could not reasonably be expected, in order to claim entitlement to the tax exemption in issue, to submit to a process that was not based on minimum guarantees of fairness and did not guarantee an objective assessment of their claims.

Principal facts

The applicants are nine associations established under Belgian law which have properties in the Brussels-Capital Region used for public worship.

On 23 November 2017 the legislature of the Brussels-Capital Region amended the Income Tax Code and restricted the exemption from property tax in respect of properties in the region used for public worship to “recognised religions”. The amendment took effect from the 2018 fiscal year onwards. As the applicant associations, nine congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses, did not belong to a “recognised religion”, they were no longer able to claim the exemption to which they had previously been entitled in the Brussels-Capital Region. They applied to the Constitutional Court seeking the setting-aside of the provision in question, and their application was rejected in November 2019. The Constitutional Court found that the financial impact on the applicant associations was not such as to jeopardise their internal organisation, functioning or religious activities. It also found that the requirement for the religious denomination to be recognised was not disproportionate since faiths that were not recognised could apply for recognition.

In Belgium, religious denominations have the possibility of lodging an application for recognition, which is optional rather than compulsory. The recognition of religions is a federal matter. The procedure for recognition is not enshrined in legislation but is derived from administrative practice. According to the replies given by the Minister of Justice to MPs’ questions, a faith must satisfy five criteria to qualify for recognition. The application has to be made to the Minister of Justice, who decides whether the criteria are satisfied. In the event of a favourable decision, the Minister may table draft legislation on recognition in the House of Representatives, as recognition is a prerogative of the legislature. There are currently six recognised religious denominations in Belgium: Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Anglicanism, Islam and the Orthodox faith. Applications for recognition of Buddhism and Hinduism were lodged in 2006 and 2013 respectively, but the authorities have not given a decision on them to date.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicant associations alleged that they had been the victims of discrimination on account of the fact that the new legislation in the Brussels region made exemption from property tax (précompte immobilier) contingent on belonging to a “recognised religion”. They relied, in particular, on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 May 2020. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Georges Ravarani (Luxembourg), President,

Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),

María Elósegui (Spain),

Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany),

Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),

Frédéric Krenc (Belgium),

Mikhail Lobov (Russia),

and also Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicant associations alleged that the tax in question was equivalent to 23% of the donations they received, which constituted their sole source of funding. It also transpired from the accounting documents produced by the applicantnassociations that the amount payable by way of this tax accounted for a substantial proportion of the annual running costs connected with their buildings. Overall, their property tax they were required to pay represented betwwen21.4% (41,984.23 euros for all the applicant associations) and 32% (42,830.25 for all the associations) of those costs, depending on the year.

In the Court’s view, these amounts were not insignificant and had a considerable impact on the operation of the applicant associations as religious communities. The facts of the case therefore came within the ambit of Article 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention.

As to whether there had been a difference in treatment, the Court noted that in enacting the measure in question, the legislature of the Brussels-Capital Region had sought to prevent abuse arising out of the exemption from property tax of premises that were in fact designated for us by “fictitious” religious denominations. It observed that there was nothing in the case submitted to the Court to suggest that the applicant associations had committed, or been suspected of committing, any fraud in benefiting in the past from the exemption of property tax in respect of their places of worship. Nevertheless, the prevention of tax fraud was an aim whose legitimacy per se could not be called into question by the Court.

As to whether the means used had been proportionate to the aim pursued, the Court considered that in using the recognition of a religious faith as the basis for distinguishing between claims for exemption from property tax, the authorities had opted for an objective criterion that was potentially relevant with regard to the aim pursued. In itself, the choice of such a criterion fell within the margin of appreciation left to the national authorities in the sphere under consideration.

The government argued that it was open to the applicant association to apply for recognition of their faith at federal level in order to continue to claim exception in the Brussels-Capital Region. The applicant associations countered that it would be pointless to apply, given the serious shortcomings in the procedure for claiming recognition.

 

The Court noted in that connection that neither the criteria for recognition nor the procedure leading to recognition of a faith by the federal authority were laid down in an instrument satisfying the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability, which were inherent in the notion of the rule of law governing all the provisions of the Conventions.

 

It observed, firstly, that recognition of a faith was based on criteria that had been identified by the Minister of Justice only in reply to questions put by members of parliament. Moreover, as they were couched in particularly vague terms they could not, in the Court’s view, be said to provide a sufficient degree of legal certainty.

 

Secondly, the Court noted that the procedure for the recognition of faiths was likewise not laid down in any legislative or even regulatory instrument. This meant, in particular, that the examination of applications for recognition was not attended by any safeguards, with regard either to the actual adoption of the decision on such applications or to the process leading to the decision and the possibility of appealing against it subsequently. In particular, no time-limits were laid down for the recognition procedure procedure, and no decision had yet been taken on the applications for recognition lodged by the Belgian Buddhist Union and the Belgian Hindu Forum in 2006 and 2013 respectively.

 

Lastly, recognition was only possible on the initiative of the Minister of Justice and depended thereafter on the purely discretionary decision of the legislature. A system of this kind entailed an inherent risk of arbitrariness, and religious communities could not reasonably be expected, in order to claim entitlement to the tax exemption in issue, to submit to a process that was not based on minimum guarantees of fairness and did not guarantee an objective assessment of their claims.

 

In sum, since the tax exemption in question was contingent on prior recognition, governed by rules that did not afford sufficient safeguards against discrimination, the difference in treatment to which the applicant associations were subjected had no objective and reasonable justification. There had therefore been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention and with Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention.

 

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

 

The Court held, by a majority (6 votes to 1), that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecunary damage sustained by the applicant associations. It also held, unanimously, that Belgium was to pay the applicant association 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses.

 

Separate opinion

 

Judge Serghides expressed a partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.

 

Photo: European Court of Strasbourg

Further reading about FORB in Belgium on HRWF website

Further reading about FORB in the Europe on HRWF website





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1344

EU: International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation

International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM

EU Delegation to the UN in Geneva (04.02.2022) – https://bit.ly/3sgkszY – Ahead of the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation, 6 February 2022, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President for Values and Transparency, Věra Jourová, Vice-President for Democracy and Demography, Dubravka Šuica, Commissioner for Equality, Helena Dalli, and Commissioner for International Partnerships, Jutta Urpilainen, joined together to reaffirm the EU’s strong commitment to eradicate female genital mutilation worldwide and made the following statement:

 

“Ahead of the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation, 6 February 2022, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President for Values and Transparency, Věra Jourová, Vice-President for Democracy and Demography, Dubravka Šuica, Commissioner for Equality, Helena Dalli, and Commissioner for International Partnerships, Jutta Urpilainen, joined together to reaffirm the EU’s strong commitment to eradicate female genital mutilation worldwide and made the following statement:

 

“Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a crime and a violation of women’s human rights. We must stop it. 

 

There is no justification for such a horrific practice. There are, however, very serious negative consequences that affect the physical and mental health of women and girls, including infections, infertility and chronic pain. This practice puts the lives and wellbeing of thousands of women and girls at risk and in some cases it can even lead to their death.

 

While many communities have abandoned FGM and cultural norms are changing, leading to a decrease in FGM, the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed progress towards its eradication. In times of confinement, maintaining access to prevention, protection and care services remain more important than ever. 

 

Ending all forms of gender-based violence, including FGM, is at the heart of EU equality policies. Since the start of this Commission’s mandate, we stepped up our actions in Europe and globally with the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024, the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 and the EU Gender Action Plan III. We presented a comprehensive Strategy on the Rights of the Child, which also sought to put an end to violence against children, including FGM. This year, we will present a legislative proposal to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence, as well as a recommendation on the prevention of harmful practices. 

We cannot tolerate violence against women and girls.”

 

Background

 

Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons, as defined by the World Health Organization. FGM is a worldwide issue, which exists in Europe too.  It is estimated that 180,000 girls in 13 European countries alone are at risk of being mutilated while 600,000 women are living with the consequences of FGM(link is external) in Europe. FGM is carried out erroneously for a variety of cultural, religious or social reasons on young girls between infancy and 15 years of age. FGM constitutes a form of child abuse and violence against women; it has severe short- and long-term physical and psychological consequences.

 

Criminalisation of FGM is required under the Council of Europe Convention(link is external) on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. The Convention is signed by all EU Member States and has been ratified by 21 Member States so far. The Commission has been working together with the Council towards the EU’s accession to the Convention. The Commission will put forward a proposal to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence, as well as a specific Recommendation on the prevention of harmful practices.

 

In addition, through the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV), funding will continue to be provided to Member States’ and civil society-led projects tackling gender-based violence, including FGM. Under the 2021 DAPHNE call for proposals, 40 projects were awarded to be funded with a budget of €17.7 million. The Commission published a new call for proposals with a budget of €30.5 million, open until 12 April 2022, which specifically includes a priority dedicated to combating and preventing violence linked to harmful practices. Currently, with EU funding the CHAIN project is strengthening the prevention, protection and support for victims of FGM and early and forced marriage through, through training, capacity building and awareness raising activities in Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Belgium.

 

The 1989 UN Convention on the rights of the child(link is external), to which all EU Member States are party, also condemns FGM as a form of violence against girls. In 2021, the Commission presented a comprehensive EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, which contains concrete actions and recommendations on how to effectively prevent and put an end to violence against children, including FGM.

 

In the context of external action and development cooperation, ending FGM continues to be a key action under the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024 and the EU Gender Action Plan 2021-2025. This is reflected in political dialogues as well as concrete actions, for example, through the support to thUNFPA/UNICEF Global Joint Programme on the Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation(link is external) through the Spotlight Africa Regional Programme(link is external), which dedicated €7.5 million to tackling the practice in 17 partner countries. Despite the restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, around 650,000 women and girls were provided with gender-based violence services, including support to the prevention of harmful practices. The EU also supports projects addressing FGM at country level through its European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). For example, in Somalia, the EU supports the empowerment of CSOs to lobby and advocate for FGM policy adoption; in Sudan, the EU supports the legislative reform for the abandonment of FGM in rural communities.

 

The New Pact on Migration and Asylum put forward by the Commission in September 2020 aims to reinforce the protection safeguards available to persons with specific needs, in particular, female applicants who have experienced gender-based harm. This includes ensuring access to medical care, legal support, appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care at different stages of the asylum procedure.

 

For More Information

 

To find out more about female genital mutilation and what the European Union is doing to eliminate this practice, see website.

 

Myth-Busting Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

Research from the European Institute for Gender Equality estimating the number of girls at risk of female genital mutilation in Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg and Austria: FGM study: More girls at risk but community opposition growing (2021)

 

Watch this video (link is external) from Commissioner Dalli and MEPs Evelyn Regner and Assita Kanko on Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilations.”

 

Photo credits:  BBC News





Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1342

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1343

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1344

EU: Asylum applications in EU approaching highest level since 2016

Asylum applications in EU approaching highest level since 2016

 

EU Agency for Asylum (28.01.2022) – https://bit.ly/3HkdOik – Asylum applications in November 2021 were the second highest in five years, narrowly below the level recorded in September. While Afghans remained the largest group and Syrians applied the most since 2016, the increase in November was also linked to several other nationalities.

Analysis released by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) shows that about 71 400 applications for international protection were lodged in the EU+ in November 2021, up 9 % from October.[1] This was nearly as many as at the peak in September 2021, when EU+ countries received the most applications since the so-called ’migration crisis’ of 2016. While the September peak included many applications linked to the evacuations from Kabul following the withdrawal of Allied Forces and the subsequent Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the almost equally high level in November not only reflected an increase in Afghans, but also for several other main nationalities.
 
Afghans lodged the second most applications since 2016 (about 13 000), significantly more than in October but fewer than in September. They remained the largest group of applicants, followed by Syrians (11 500) who lodged the most applications since 2016. Some 4 300 Iraqis applied in November (+ 30 % from October), representing the third largest group of applicants. Substantial increases also occurred for Venezuelans (3 300), Pakistanis (2 800) and Colombians (2 500).

 

Applications by unaccompanied minors remain high

In recent months, an unusual number of asylum applicants in the EU+ claimed to be unaccompanied minors. They lodged some 3 300 applications in October (the most since 2015) and 3 200 in November. Afghans accounted for around half of all unaccompanied minors, followed at a distance by Syrians, Somalis, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis. Unaccompanied minors represented 5 % of all applicants in the EU+ in November.

 

Persistent gap between applications and decisions at first instance

Asylum authorities in EU+ countries issued about 45 500 first instance decisions in November 2021, in line with October. For the fifth consecutive month, applications substantially exceeded first instance decisions and there was no discernible tendency for this gap to close. As a result, the number of cases pending at first instance has increased in recent months, to about 431 000 at the end of November. Slightly more than half of these cases had been pending for less than six months.

The EU+ recognition rate[2] was 40 % in November, the second highest in 19 months, exceeded only in September 2021 (41 %). Almost three in four positive decisions in November – an unusually high share – granted refugee status, while the rest were granted subsidiary protection. This was driven by Afghans, who had a recognition rate of 92 % and overwhelmingly received refugee status. Recognition rates were also comparatively high for Syrians (91 %), Eritreans (87 %) and Palestinians (72 %).

For more information, please visit the EUAA Latest Asylum Trends page or contact the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA):

 
[1] EUAA EPS data are preliminary and might differ from validated official statistics submitted to Eurostat at a later stage. Eurostat data are used in the annual EUAA Asylum Report. The total EPS numbers include approximations for two EU+ countries and may change after data updates.

[2] This refers to the recognition rate for EU-regulated forms of protection (refugee status and subsidiary protection) at first instance.

 


Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1392

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1392

Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1393

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1393

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1394