Proposition 53K3445

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses concernant la procédure devant le Conseil du contentieux des étrangers et devant le Conseil d'Etat.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

March 13, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative court right of asylum action brought before an administrative court migration policy judicial proceedings residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

VB

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 ¶

March 26, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Julie Fernandez Fernandez, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, our group can ⁇ find itself in the present draft law, because as in the government agreement, we must really increase the efficiency of the asylum procedure. We have done this through various measures.

We are also convinced that it is beneficial for everyone to have rapid clarity about their asylum application and that this should also provide the greatest possible legal certainty, but the quality of the procedures should remain central.

The above-mentioned amendments, with this bill, including the point on the extremely urgent necessity, can only bring more clarity. There are now also clear deadlines, which did not exist before, which are both good for the asylum seeker so that he knows what he deserves, and for the asylum authorities.

A second aspect that is regulated in this draft law concerns the unit of jurisprudence within the Council for Foreign Disputes, in case of appeal, and as a consequence therefore possibly also the unit of jurisprudence when the file reaches the Council of State. We have already expressed our concerns in the committee regarding the unity of jurisdiction in the asylum authorities. This draft law will ⁇ meet this. The evolution to single-seated judges has also made judgment in similar cases sometimes different. Therefore, it is good that this signal, given both in Parliament, by us and by other groups, as well as on the ground, was taken to heart. This bill provides a solution to this issue.

We hope that the measures now being taken, such as the possibility of having United Chambers and submitting a number of files to them, will work to ⁇ greater unity in the jurisprudence for similar files. However, we request that these measures be evaluated over time to see whether they are effectively sufficient and whether they provide a response and there is indeed more unity of jurisprudence. If this is not the case, we can of course still adjust these measures.

Finally, the Constitutional Court ruled against the cancellation appeal for applications from safe countries and destroyed it. It should not be just an annulment appeal but must be a decision in full jurisdiction. This bill addresses this. From now on, all applications from asylum seekers from the so-called safe countries – Kosovo, Macedonia, India and so on – will be applied in full jurisdiction.

We have, of course, strict, short deadlines to ensure that there is no abuse. The same procedure now also provides for appeal against a decision on multiple applications. This is also supported by our group.

This bill has our full support.

Mrs. De Block, I am glad that you are present in the Room today. I find it remarkable. Normally you would come to the committee this afternoon, but yesterday or yesterday I saw suddenly appear on the website of the Chamber that the committee meeting was postponed by a week at the request of the Secretary of State. I informed the President. Apparently you intended to attend a speech by the President of the United States. The committee’s work had to be delayed for that, but I now see that you are here. That is remarkable. You must be here because it is a bill of your government, of your hand, that is being discussed here.

Mr Francken, your President can testify that I am one of the members of the Government who will be present in the committee whenever they have to be there. This was stated yesterday in the Senate by Mr. Moureaux, of an unquestionable point of view, and earlier by your President.

The Conference of Presidents has decided to hold a two to four-hour plenary session now, as a large number of people who are expected to be in the House are also invited to attend Obama’s speech. It seems logical to me that I am here and that I can be there. I couldn’t come to the committee an entire afternoon, that’s true.

The whole thing is not to be present but to be there at the same time! Finally we never cross each other.

Mr. Francken, you almost missed the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that Mrs. De Block is one of the most regular persons present in the committee. What Mr Francken noted, of course, is also true of the meeting which normally should have taken place this afternoon. Both one and the other is true.

Like a true Pontius Pilate.

Mr Bracke would be a good chairman.

Mrs. De Block, you had to be able to answer 14 you 15 questions perfectly. If you had to leave at 6 p.m., this could have been posted on the website. This happens more often. Mrs. Milquet is doing that too.

You will answer the following questions, but if I have additional questions, I can’t ask them anymore because it’s the last working week.

Mr Francken, please do not go back on the procedure.

The Conference of Presidents decided that plenary meetings should be held between 14:00 and 16:00. You started talking at 14:28 p.m. Now ask your questions about the project and not about the procedure.

This is not a neutral discussion. Ms. De Block knows very well that if she gives bad or incomplete answers next week, I will not be able to submit any more questions afterwards, because the term has ended. If that meeting could have taken place today, I would still have the opportunity to ask further questions. That is the essence. There are quite a few sensitive points on the agenda of that committee, including questions about the escape of two illegal Guineans, which De Block did not get removed last weekend.

Ladies and gentlemen, now I come to the bottom of the matter. We have already exchanged views on this. I will now limit myself to two points, which I have already cited in the committee.

I deeply regret this bill, because in the case of appeals regarding the granting of asylum or the removal of a person, we are, in my view, as much as European champions. We have incredibly many appeals against a decision on removal, a rejected application for asylum or regularisation. I have listed them all in the committee. Therefore, I think it would have been better for you to have come to the Chamber with a simplification of all those procedures and with a reduction in the number of appeals against a removal decision. This really needs to be addressed thoroughly.

Creating a new immigration code or rewriting the almost unreadable Foreign Law will be even more difficult with the current draft, as the law becomes even more complicated, which means even more food for foreign lawyers, who make a lot of money with it. The migration industry will be very pleased with this and will be running on full swing, as you will only make it more complex, by introducing even more career opportunities. A cat will no longer be able to find her son in the Aliens Act.

In the government agreement, you said that the State Council would be commissioned to write a new migration code, with simple, transparent, clear and clear procedures. The Migration Act has not been adopted. Your party member, Mr. Somers, says that’s something for the next legislature. I will be very pleased to work with you on this, you can start from now on. You promised a new immigration law, but you do not accept that promise.

So you come up with a bill to make it even more complex and complicated. It reminds me of the sixth state reform. I don’t have my table with me, but I might have to make a table of all possible appeal procedures, applications and everything related to the Foreigners Act. It will become quite a table, similar to the table of the sixth state reform. No one understands it yet, except maybe here and there an attorney or a specialist in foreign law, who, of course, gets a lot out there.

The next big comment of our group is that one should be careful with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. I understand that this is about an adjustment based on a judgment destroying the Constitutional Court. The existing procedure relating to safe countries was, by the way, first proposed by the N-VA. This procedure, for example, gives asylum seekers from the Balkan countries only 15 days – very quickly in and out – and in fact the crisis was resolved.

Collega Smeyers is not present today, but she launched that proposal in the period of ongoing affairs. We were the first party to do that. Mr. Wathelet, your predecessor, was then competent and he said that such a thing was impossible, inhuman and incorrect. That would never succeed and that arrangement would be destroyed. We implemented this procedure then. This has made it possible to make a breakthrough in the asylum story. For example, we saw that the influx from the Balkan countries has decreased sharply because the asylum seekers from there received a response very quickly.

The Constitutional Court itself has no problem with the principle. It has only said that one must also make a substantial story possible, including in the 15-day safe land procedure. With what is presented here now, we have no problem. The solution you propose is a good solution. Amendments have been submitted to the committee. Everything had to go very quickly. We are already in the plenary session, but of course there is not much time anymore.

I read the design again in the evening. As it is now proposed by you and your services, it goes well together. The most important, the core of the case, is that the proposal of the N-VA on the procedure with the safe countries remains unshorted. It remains standing like a house. It reminds me of the statements of our colleague Eva Brems, Professor of Human Rights, that the Constitutional Court would hack our law on family reunification, which she called unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Constitutional Court made two very small comments on the entire legislative amendment. I think it is the best law that we have passed here in four years and I will continue to do so. It is also the best migration law that has been passed in the last 30 years.

Mrs. Pas, I know it is not good for you. I read your program, you are in favour of an immigration stop. I wonder how you can put such a thing into practice. I asked Joris Van Hauthem last week during a debate in Leuven. I have still not received a response. Can the American business leader still enter, but the Afghan asylum seeker no longer? How do I interpret a migration stop? Apparently, the stop will cost up to 5 billion euros. This is how you think you are rich.

Professor Peersman gave CD&V with his 3D plan a second seat. If he looked at the program and the calculations of Vlaams Belang and then especially that figure of five billion from the migration stop, then he will give you less than a second sits. You may be able to complete your year right away.

It is very important that the procedure “safe countries” initiated and legalized by the N-VA continues to exist. The Constitutional Court has no problems. There is only a small adjustment. You have done well, Mrs. De Block. Congratulations to. We have worked together on this process during the ongoing events. We will continue to support them.

As I said in the committee, we must be careful with judgments and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Professor Bossuyt, a former president of the Constitutional Court, a very leading voice when it comes to foreign law and all possible constitutional issues, writes that the European Court assigns itself too many powers. It makes statements that you can no longer answer in the long run. It interprets everything with a very colored glasses.

In the next legislature we will have to look closely at what we do with those statements and how we should address them. These legal issues must be considered together with other European countries.

I am not speaking in the idle. I will give an example. The Zambrano judgment was fantastic for the Greens and the leftist parties in Parliament. That judgment would ensure that the stricter treatment of our own nationals in the field of family reunification would no longer be possible. It was discrimination. When Mrs. Brems or Mrs. Genot starts on migration, I always keep my counter at hand. The word discrimination always falls within thirty seconds. The judgment-Zambrano would ensure that we could not land with our stricter law on family reunification. Well, we have classified the judgment-Zambrano quite vertically. We didn’t have to attract much from this because the Constitutional Court follows us fully in our interpretation of strict family reunification.

I continue to insist that we must be very careful with interpretations of all possible judgments of Europe. We are not served with an ever-maximum interpretation as Europe means from a very permissive look and a story of open borders. I am for open borders, but for closed social security. If there is an open social security system like the one we have, I am not for open borders. It is one or the other. Either we have open borders but closed social security, or we ensure that our borders remain closed at least partly and social security can remain open. It is one or the other.

The people of Ecolo are for open borders and open social security, as included in their electoral program, page 111, if I am not mistaken. I think we know where that will end, especially in the total bankruptcy of our State.

Until then, my two comments. I would like to hear your answer.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lanjri, you are talking about an evaluation. Parliament will be able to make an evaluation at any time. You know why we propose the current adjustments to the procedure, namely to create greater legal certainty and to realize shorter procedures and clearer appeal deadlines. All this was done in consultation with the Council for Foreign Disputes and the Council of State.

You say that everything will need to be evaluated. It is, of course, after an evaluation of the course of affairs that the current design has arrived. I think your question is quite right.

Mr. Francken, I am glad that you have only two comments. There was much more in the committee. So some of my answers have already penetrated. You regret the bill, because it makes things more complicated according to you. However, it does not make things more complicated. The draft is more clear as regards the time limits for appeal, in the sense that they are defined, namely 10 days in the case of a first removal decision. From a second decision, it is in 5 days. Furthermore, there is a very short procedure in the case of a very late appeal institution. In this regard, things are thus made clearer and easier to apply.

In addition, you suggest that I should be careful with the judgments of the European Court of Justice. I have already said in the committee that this is indeed so. I am also familiar with the former President of the Constitutional Court. In this case, however, it is a specific judgment, the M.S.S. judgment, which is already applied by the Council for Foreign Disputes. It is now generally found in the judiciary. We now implement it in the legal rules. You mention another attestation and give another example. It is also so. There will be examples along the windshields. In this case, however, it is the M.S.S. arrest. Our legislation had to be adjusted.

You also say that the list of safe countries had to be adjusted after the Constitutional Court’s judgment. The Constitutional Court accepts a short appeal procedure, but it must take place in full jurisprudence. We have changed that.

Why did we change this in a draft for the multiple applications? Because we were based on the legislation related to the list of safe countries. Since Vermeer was challenged and a judgment intervened, we also wanted to address the procedure for multiple applications in this way, so that there is an equal appeal in full jurisdiction in both proceedings. Thus, in ongoing cases, we are not again confronted with a judgment for the appeal procedure for multiple applications and that no longer needs to be adjusted. We have been anticipating in this. In my opinion, it is also easier that it can happen for both under the same conditions.

In the committee, you also had comments on the United Chambers. You thought this would complicate everything. Now that you have been able to read it better, you will have seen that the United Chambers will meet only under certain legal conditions. There will also be a more uniform judiciary.

You also had serious concerns about the fact that we now give ten days to appeal. You said you want to extend it. You may have already realized that there is no deadline here. Where a deadline is stated, the number of working days that the council has to process the appeal. That is another article. That was an important part of your speech.

I think we had a good discussion in the committee. There was a lot of interest. I am pleased that this will be my last bill here. This ensures that the list of safe countries can continue to exist. I will not say that this has solved the crisis, but it has resulted in 29% fewer applications from safe countries in the first year. This has ⁇ had a disruptive effect. We are there to communicate everywhere. That disruptive effect still exists in a way. It would have been a much worse signal to destroy the list of safe countries. It is reviewable annually and may be supplemented.

You have said that you will discuss whether or not you will support the proposal. I assume that you will now like to support it, but I leave it to you to answer it. Maybe tomorrow, you can sleep for another night.

You are for open borders, but for a closed social system. I assume that this is your point of view and not that of your party, as far as I know. I would like to point out that this can involve some hazards for people who have long resided on our territory. To me, access to our social system, even for those who enjoy the right to long-term residence here, is a whole social message that we convey. Not that we should allow everyone to enjoy it at all times, but about the dangers that a closed social system entails, we must still have it again. That can still happen.

Mr. Secretary of State, thank you for your response. In fact, you are coming to Parliament with the last project.

I will sleep for another night about our voting posture. I will discuss this with colleague Smeyers.

When it comes to my intellectual practice on Ecolo’s open border story – it was literally in its electoral program and I’m wondering if it will re-establish it – it’s about my personal point of view. I just pointed out that one must be careful when advocating for open borders. We cannot advocate for open borders and for an open social security system. I think that is neither affordable nor sensible. That is my criticism.

In my intellectual practice, I point out that my party defends an open social system, because it is one of the core values of our society. Many countries are jealous of our system. However, I am in favour of closely monitoring our borders with a view to controlled migration. I also advocate for a legible foreign law, but that will be something for the next minister or secretary of state.

With my intellectual practice, I would like to point out that it is simply priceless and unrealistic to advocate for open borders. You make people wise when you screen with world citizenship and multiculturalism in conjunction with an open social system. I think that is completely unsustainable. I remain with that position and I will not take a word back from it.

Our party stands for a story of an open, good and healthy social system with rights but also duties. It also means that we must strive for a controlled, fair migration, with the back doors closed as much as possible and with clear appeal procedures. I think there are now too many appeal procedures, especially when it comes to removal and asylum. I think this should be clarified and made clearer by the legislator. This is a big task for the next government. By making the legislation clear and unambiguous and reducing the number of appeal procedures, the foreigner will have more rights. At the same time, the lawyer and the “foreign industry” will get fewer rights.