Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The inclusion of asylum seekers within the scope of European Union (EU) readmission agreements signed with third countries remains contentious, especially considering that these agreements are instruments for removing irregular migrants to countries of origin or transit and do not regulate the responsibility for assessing asylum claims. Yet, the expulsion of asylum seekers from the EU to third countries is realized through a procedure whereby Member States are allowed the possibility of labelling third countries 'safe' according to criteria set out in EU law. The applications of asylum seekers arriving from safe third countries to the jurisdiction of the EU are deemed 'inadmissible', thus absolving Member States from assessing the applications on merit and enabling States to include asylum seekers within the scope of readmission agreements as irregular migrants. This article contends that the unique features of the EU–Turkey Readmission Agreement do not allow this practice in light of the main principles of international law, even assuming that Turkey can be labelled a 'safe third country'. These features include treaty provisions obligating the sending State to make every effort to remove persons to their countries of origin, as well as Turkey's explicitly declared position during the signing of the Agreement, which interprets the scope of the Agreement as not including asylum seekers. However, readmission of asylum seekers has taken place between the EU and Turkey through the EU–Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 on the legal basis of the bilateral Greece–Turkey Readmission Agreement. It is argued that the EU's attempts to institute the EU–Turkey Readmission Agreement as the legal basis for readmission of asylum seekers are destined to fail, due to the legal impossibility stemming from the said unique treaty provisions, as well as the absence of any indication from Turkey that it intends to change its initial official position in this regard.