BRITISH COURT: SWEDEN NO "SAFE COUNTRY" FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS
A London immigration court has found that Swedish refugee policies with regard to Kosovo-Albanians might not comply with the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees and has therefore decided to demand the British Minister of Home Affairs to further inquire whether Sweden can be considered as a "safe third country", to which rejected asylum seekers can be returned.
The sensational court decision concerns two young men from Kosovo (a part of Serbia) who stayed in Sweden for about a year, after evading military service in the Serb-dominated army of the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
When the two understood that they had almost no chance to obtain protection in Sweden (Kosovo-Albanians refugees: see FECL No.19, p.3; FECL No.20, p.8), they decided to flee to Britain.
They arrived at Heathrow airport in August 1993. When immigration officers discovered that they carried false passports, they applied for asylum in the UK on the grouns that they had been denied a fair procedure in Sweden.
After a summary inquiry on Swedish immigration law the British Home secretary stated that their was no reason to believe that the two men were denied an examination of their application according two Convention standards in Sweden. The Home Secretary's decision was based on the fact that Sweden is a signatory of the 1951 Geneva Convention. Accordingly, the British immigration authorities decided that the two men be returned to Sweden and awaite a final decision on their applications there.
After that, the two appealed against the decision at an immigration court.
The ruling judge rejected the handling of the case by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the grounds for the decision the judge finds that the defence has presented evidence that Swedish authorities are deporting up to 1600 Kosovo-Albanians per month back to their home country and that applications of asylum seekers are handled with great speed and within a very summary routine procedure.
Thus the judge found that he was not convinced that the Home secretary was "completely right" when claiming that Sweden was a safe third country.
The judge was of the opinion that the Home Secretary had lacked the opportunity to study the methods and principles Sweden applies in examinating asylum applications.
In the meantime, the two men have been freed pending a final decision in Britain on whether they may apply for asylum in the UK or shall be returned to Sweden.
The British immigration court's decision has caused some irritation in Sweden, where the Minister of Immigration, Ms. Birgit Friggebo was in a hurry to point out that Sweden had nothing to fear from a British examination of its asylum practice.
Sources: Dagens Nyheter, 14.1.94; Michael Williams/FARR (National co-ordination of refugee groups and asylum committees).Comment
The British verdict on Swedish asylum policies is not without irony. No matter how well founded the court decision may be - and well founded it is, it is a well-known fact that little Sweden has received more than 100'000 asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia (many of whom however are likely not to obtain refugee status and to be returned sooner or later), while Great Britain has granted entry to less than 10'000.
N.B.