Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 9 July 2013
429. Deputy Derek Nolan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when and why the decision was taken for Ireland not to participate in the recast asylum procedures directive, which was successfully negotiated under his chairmanship; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33321/13]
View answerThe decision not to participate in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive was taken in September 2011. That decision was informed by the fact that, had we decided to opt in to the measure, we could have faced the very real possibility of being bound by an outcome which would have been contrary to our fundamental interests in relation to the national asylum system. Several elements of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive were identified as being particularly problematic aspects for the national asylum system at the time.
Article 20 of the 2005 Asylum Procedures Directive, which Ireland participates in, provides for the procedure in the case of implicit withdrawal or abandonment of the application. At present, the Article provides that such an application be subject to a decision to discontinue the examination or to reject the application on the basis that the applicant has not established an entitlement to protection. It is the latter option which is applied under the Irish system, with a recommendation that the Minister refuse to give the applicant a declaration that he or she is a refugee and with no appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. In the proposal to recast the Procedures Directive, the Commission proposed that the option to refuse the application could only be taken on the basis of an adequate examination of its substance and further to a personal interview. The amended proposal did provide for the possibility of a time limit of at least one year after which the case can no longer be reopened or a new application may be treated as a subsequent application. However, the opinion at the time was that this amended Article would be unacceptable from an asylum policy perspective as it could result in a carousel of applications.
Additionally, Article 23 of the 2005 Asylum Procedures Directive obliges Member States to ensure that the examination procedure is concluded as soon as possible. In its proposed recast, the Commission proposed that Member States would ensure that the examination procedure was concluded within 6 months after the date the application is lodged, with a possible extension of a further 6 months in certain circumstances. The opinion at the time was that these time limits could impose additional burdens on the national asylum system if there was a large increase in the number of applications to be examined in the State, especially considering previous increases in the period 2001 to 2003.
It should be noted that the provisions of the Protocol on the position of Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU apply. In accordance with Article 1, 2 and Article 4a(1) of the Protocol, Ireland did not participate in the adoption of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and is not subject to its application. However, this is without prejudice to Article 4 of the Protocol under which Ireland may at any time after the adoption of a measure by the Council notify its intention to the Council and the Commission that it wishes to opt-in to the measure.
As the instruments comprising the second phase of the Common European Asylum System have recently been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, the question of opting-in to the recast Procedures Directive and the other measures that comprise the CEAS can be kept under ongoing review having regard to the possibilities I refer to under the Protocol on the position of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I might add that any decision in this regard would have to take into consideration the operation of the Common Travel Area which we share with the United Kingdom.
