Proposition 52K1422

Projet de loi relatif à l'assistance au transit dans le cadre des mesures d'éloignement par voie aérienne.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

Sept. 3, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive foreign national illegal migration air transport removal

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Maya Detiège (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Dalila Douifi (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 20, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that there was no report because we had agreed in a committee to specify certain things, given the legal complexity of the case. All this is in the written report, but I think it would have been important to repeat it here.

There are several problems in this project. In terms of immigration, when we talk about expulsion, we move forward, we work, we realize, we travel. But when we talk about asylum, we work much less. When it comes to improving the reception of people in need of help, Minister Turtelboom is much less active. And when it comes to regularization, there is no one anymore.

For us, there is clearly an imbalance in the immigration policy carried out by this government.

What was the small legal problem we stumbled upon in the commission? The difficulty was that in one article, it was provided that if the minister does not respond to the transit request within the specified time, the transit is carried out peacefully. In the following article, it is said that if the minister does not follow up, the transit cannot be carried out because there is a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. Two very close expressions are used to say in one case that one accepts the transit and in another one refuses the transit. This is problematic at the legal level. Not many colleagues have told me, in the travees, but unfortunately not publicly, that they find this strange and disputable from a legal standpoint.

As a committee, we ended the discussion by saying that we would act in the report that “do not follow” does not mean the same thing as “do not answer”. I find this a bit light.

Another question that has not really been answered in the committee is the question of who constitutes the fact that there is a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.

It is said that if there is a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, the transfer cannot be carried out. In this regard too, I find that the answers were neither very clear nor very convincing. They do not say how it works concretely and who gives up to the findings. It is very good that the project says in all the letters that in case of risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, the transfer cannot be made but if one ignores who is supposed to find this risk, it is a beautiful formula that will unfortunately never find to execute.

Mr. Speaker, Article 4 actually reflects time limits within which the federal government is authorized to decide, more specifically 48 hours. I suggest adding another 48 hours. Article 5 provides that a refusal must be notified without delay.

There is no contradiction between the two articles. One is about the time limit within which it must be done, the other is about reporting immediately if one does not. I would like to explain this again in response to Mrs. Genot’s comment.