[ad_1]
Parallel to government discussions In Sweden, many people are worried about the desire to find their family, what happens after the end of the law on temporary migration this summer?
We urge the legislator read a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Migration before any proposal to extend the law.
Three years agoOn 24 November 2015, the government announced that the possibility of issuing residence permits in Sweden would be severely limited. The "temporary law" which was subsequently confined considerably restricted the right to family reunification.
Too many people As with the war and the persecution, the law means that they must try to build their lives here, while their close family lives in what they themselves have been forced to to run away.
A large group of them who have come to Sweden in recent years come from Syria. Anyone leaving Syria is deemed to have a need for protection today. In Sweden, they largely obtain a residence permit as "alternative protectionists" and, as a general rule, they are not allowed to return to their families under the Temporary Act.
There is a small space in law to obtain residence permits anyway, but it's a very tight valve. According to the Government, the exemption would only be applicable in a particular case during the three years of the application of the law.
The exception is a Hard-to-implement tools that place high demands on the Swedish Migration Board and Migration Courts, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Children.
In our work as legal In the family reunification process, we have unfortunately found that the Migration Board and the Migration Courts do not often carry out these assessments. This is due, among other things, to the fact that the preparation of the law is very deficient and provides no indication to the prosecutor.
We on the Advisory Board For asylum seekers and refugees, a report was presented in September on the legal risks of extending the Temporary Law, where we found, among other things, poor decisions by the authorities and courts.
The decision to The recently arrived Supreme Migration Court (MIG 2018: 20) is another example (Today & # 39; s Juridics 2018-11-15).
The goal is to an eight-year-old boy who had been assessed as an alternative who needed protection in Sweden and was denied the right to return to his parents still in a war-torn Syria. The boy felt very badly to be separated from his family.
The Office of Migration and the Migration Court denied the family a residence permit referring to the temporary act and the main rule that family reunion should not be granted.
We on the Advisory Board ideally, has joined the Supreme Court of Migration to ensure that the family receives legal assistance. As a general rule, no public counselor has the right to defend himself in this type of case.
Migration yard gave the family the right to meet and found the following:
"Overall, the Immigration Court of First Instance finds that the restriction of the right to respect for family life, which means that denying the residence permit to the plaintiffs is not proportional to the amount of money spent. stated objective of the government to limit the number of asylum seekers to term. "
The court also posed great the focus on the Children's Convention in its decision and referring to the general comments of the General Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Judgment is important. In this the Supreme Court of Migration reports in particular a case from the Court of Justice of the European Communities in which a two-year family separation would have been considered too long for young children to be separated from their parents.
This is not the case If only one presumed case when the law has begun to apply, without young children, in general, they can not be separated from their parents for more than two years without violation of the European Convention and the Convention. l & # 39; child. The temporary law is applicable for three years.
How many cases like once adopted while it was in force, which meant a violation of the European Convention and the Children's Convention is hard to say but these issues are obvious – and this will be as the law is extended. The longer the law applies, the more denied family reunions will be contrary to Sweden's international commitments.
This is the legislator as must ensure that our laws meet our international obligations – they can not and should not belong to individual directors.
About the temporary law Extended in its current form, individual decision makers are left to the authority and the courts to continue to search where these boundaries go. This creates an unpredictable and arbitrary migration system, which all parties say they want to thwart.
In this case, the family now receives opportunity to live together. At the same time, there remains so much uncertainty in the temporary law that it is impossible for the Supreme Court of Migration to clog them with practices of clarification. This is especially true because the validity of the law is not clear.
With so little time until The temporary law ends next summer, it is already clear that it is too late for the legislator to prepare the preparatory work for a possible extension of the law that would adequately protect the rights-protected people of the Convention.
The legislator must take his place The responsibility of ensuring a predictable team as on real – not just on paper – ensures that Sweden meets its international commitments. The decision of the Supreme Court of Migration and the inadequacy of the decisions of the subcommittees in this case illustrate the fact that, in its current form, the temporary duty has not been able to do it.
Free Juridics Newsletter on Legal Affairs and Law – click here
[ad_2]
Source link
