Suchergebnisse

The goal of this research was to identify factors that account for procedural and substantive inequality in implementing asylum law. The decisions of ninety-eight caseworkers of the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service on an asylum application were related to their answers on a questionnaire. Caseworkers differ in the extent of available information on an asylum application they take for granted and in their final decisions on it. These differences result from work pressure, the caseworkers' reputation, their role definition, political opinion, and professional background, and policy. Intensifying feedback and decreasing work pressure can achieve more consistent and careful decisions. ; Le but de cette étude était d'identifi er les facteurs responsables pour les inégalités de fond ainsi que des inégalités relatives à la procédure dans l'application de la loi sur le droit d'asile. Les décisions de quatre-vingt dix-huit agents chargés du cas du Service néerlandais pour l'immigration et la naturalisation concernant une demande d'asile furent reliées à leurs réponses à un questionnaire. Les agents chargés du cas diffèrent sur la somme d'information dont ils disposent concernant une demande d'asile qu'ils tiennent pour acquis et aussi dans leurs décisions fi nales concernant la même demande. Ces différences sont causées par la tension au travail, la réputation de l'agent chargé du cas, leur définition de leur rôle, leurs opinions politiques, leurs antécédents professionnels et les politiques en place. Accroître la rétroaction et faire baisser la tension au travail aideront à atteindre des décisions plus cohérentes et consciencieuses.

Abstract Th e goal of this research was to identify factors that account for procedural and substantive inequality in implementing asylum law. Th e decisions of ninety-eight caseworkers of the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service on an asylum application were related to their answers on a questionnaire. Caseworkers diff er in the extent of available information on an asylum application they take for granted and in their fi nal decisions on it. Th ese diff erences result from work pressure, the caseworkers' reputation, their role defi nition, political opinion, and professional background, and policy. Intensifying feedback and decreasing work pressure can achieve more consistent and careful decisions.

The purpose of this chapter is survey EU migration and asylum law from a labour law perspective. A labour law perspective is concerned with the work relationship, and focuses not only on the worker, but also the employing organisation and any intermediary involved in labour supply. Examining EU migration and asylum law using this multifaceted prism of labour law reveals that EU migration and asylum law has a profound impact on labour law. That impact may be understood has having three different dimensions. (1) It affects the supply and demand for migrant workers. In this sense, migration law can be a form of labour market regulation. (2) migration and asylum law create different migration statuses that in turn determine, at least in part, labour rights. The move to re-introduce status over contract as a determinant of workers' rights divides the subjects of labour law. (3) Migration status and the fact of migration may be risk factors for labour exploitation. In order to examine these three facets, the particular role of the EU in this field must be explained. Part 1 provides a sketch of the role of states and markets in the regulation of migration. It sets the scene to understand the profound but limited role of the EU in this context. Part 2 examines the status of EU Citizenship, and the forms of liberalised free movement in the EU's internal market, that principally benefit those who hold the nationality of an EU Member State. I also consider two important derivative statuses for so-called third country nationals (TCNs), who gain EU rights as family members of EU Citizens and so-called 'posted workers'. Part 3 concerns those TCNs who require permission to live and work in the EU, and provides an overview of some of the different statuses created by EU law, and their labour rights content. Part 4 explores the notion of 'irregular status', and the EU Employer Sanctions Directive and the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Tümer contrasted. In the final part, Part 6, I briefly ...

This report addresses the then recent developments in Asylum Law and Female Genital Mutilation.

Abstract
The rapid spread of COVID-19 in Europe has led to the further deterioration of the crisis concerning the application of the provisions of European Union (EU) asylum law in most Member States. Accordingly, this article aims to shed light on the impact that the health emergency is having on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This requires a twofold legal analysis. First, the article discusses whether health emergencies, like that caused by COVID-19, should affect the scope of States' obligations stemming from the CEAS, such as the principle of non-refoulement and access to asylum procedures. In this connection, it reviews, in light of international law obligations and the EU border control regime, the policy responses and legislative measures adopted by EU Member States during the first few weeks of the pandemic that resulted in the closure of borders to asylum seekers. Secondly, the article investigates whether the CEAS legal toolbox contains adequate provisions that can be applied in emergency situations. Thus it analyses the impact of the health emergency on reception conditions for asylum seekers. Based on the findings of this twofold analysis, it is concluded that certain rights, such as the right to seek asylum, cannot be suspended – not even during a situation of health emergency – and that it is all the more urgent to redesign a CEAS that takes account of the challenges posed by future situations of health emergency.