Sunday 20 April 2014

Currently browsing 'EU Citizens and Media'

A section examining the question of media freedom, EU media coverage and citizens in the EU.


Are all EU citizens equal?

Posted by on 16/04/14
By Chris Whitehouse For many years the European Commission has operated a voluntary register in which political consultants, political lobbyists, campaign groups and public affairs advisors are able to register their staff, their clients and, by order of magnitude, their fees for engaging with the institutions of the EU. But there should be one rule for all the citizens of Europe, regardless of whether or not they are “registered”; passes for lobbyists should be withdrawn.

Democratising the EU from below? Citizenship, civil society and public sphere

Posted by on 13/04/14
For the European Union of the 21st century, the search for sustainable prosperity and stability includes the challenge of reconciling democratic ideals and practices with the construction of a European constitutional order. From the 2001 Laeken Summit to the 2009 Lisbon Treaty and beyond EU leaders have repeatedly set out to bring citizens closer to EU governance by making it more democratic and effective yet several national ratification referendums have shown that publics are divided about whether and why to endorse or veto complex EU reform packages imposed from the top down. Despite these limitations people do effectively engage in the making of a European polity. By initiating national court proceedings active citizens are promoting fundamental European rights in Member States' practices. As party members they contribute to shaping mass media communication about, and national publics' understanding of, European political alternatives. As civil society activists citizens help build social networks for contesting certain EU reforms or advocating others. Last but not least, as voters in national and European elections they choose between competing party visions, and national parliamentary stances regarding the role of democratic citizenship. This original contribution to the debate about democratic citizenship vis-à-vis the challenges of economic globalization and European political integration presents critical explorations of different fields of direct, representative, participatory and deliberative democratic citizenship practices that affect the transformation of Europe.

The hypocrite leaders of the European Parliament

Posted by on 13/04/14

The leaders of the 3 main political groups in the European Parliament (EPP, S&D, ALDE) made a commitment that the next elected President of the European Commission has to be the result of a transparent process, not the product of back-room deals.  For outsiders of the Brussels bubble this statement looks like a declaration of political good will, showing a great respect for the “expectations of the European citizens” as they call it themselves. If this declaration wasn’t an unprecedented proof of deception of the public, it would be worth laughing out loud.

In the first place, if only half of the Europeans with voting rights to elect Parliament use this right in May, it would be surprising. As we know from surveys, the majority of citizens using their right to vote are not interested at all in the next President of the Commission, let alone knowing names of candidates. They use the opportunity to express their opinion about national politics. The 3 leaders know that of course; feigning that the “expectations of the European citizens” are their concern is pure hypocrisy.

Secondly, each of the 3 groups has its candidate for the Commission Presidency; one of these three leaders is even a candidate himself, ALDE’s Guy Verhofstadt.  Pretending to have a common interest for after the election is another demonstration of hypocrisy. Look at the EPP, supported by ALDE, who tried recently to ‘kill’ the S&D candidate for the Commission Presidency and current President of the EP, Martin Schulz, by accusing him of “obstruction of the work of the budgetary control committee, trying to cover his tracks by misusing the parliament’s rules…”. It makes you think of a Shakespeare drama.

Last but not least: what’s really missing in the joint declaration of these 3 leaders is a pledge that the next President of their own Parliament will be elected “in a transparent process and not be the product of back-room deals’. Traditionally, with some exceptions, the EPP and S&D agree that each of them hold the EP Presidency for half of the five year term; ALDE support this often and it is easy to imagine that the Liberals are compensated for it. And this all happens in back-rooms…

May be we have reasons to be glad that the European citizens don’t know much about what’s going on in European politics.

The youth’s voice in Europe

Posted by on 10/04/14

The European Pupils Association (EUPAS) was established in Brussels on Monday, April 1, 2014. The founders of the organization include representatives from six national student organizations from Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Croatia, Greece and Cyprus. Norway’s organization is an observer.

Even though the EU does not have the competence to initiate education policies, it still plays a supporting role in contributing and developing education-related regulations by cooperating with member states. EUPAS’ aim is to represent and promote the interests of pupils and students at the European level. It also seeks to fulfill its mission on promoting, among other ideas, political education that’s focused more on European affairs in schools.

Below is a short interview with EUPAS secretary-general Thomas Gaar of Austria’s Schülerunion (considerably translated, edited and rephrased).


What made you start EUPAS along with the other pupil organizations? Who inspired you?

TG: “First there was an idea in Austria about a functioning students’ organization that goes beyond borders, and on the scale of things, we encountered a students’ organization in Germany similar to Austria. Then the notion loomed, with the emergence of topics regarding Europe and the EU elections, of looking beyond the borders of Germany and Austria. There we’ve seen that there are other engaged students’ organizations in other countries. Then the thought then came in that we want to network together at the European level, in a mutual effort to learn how our different educational systems work and perhaps to conduct new advancements in improving them.”

In your Facebook page, your organization’s missions and visions are penned. How do you plan on promoting those?

TG: “First, at the moment, we are composed of six countries who together founded the organization. On the one side, our plan is to encourage other European countries to be a part of EUPAS because the more members there are, the stronger your voice is at the European level. On the other side, there is the plan of starting an event in autumn in Vienna surrounding the topic of education, sort of like a congress among the member states putting the issue of education in focus.”

Do you plan to lobby before EU institutions as to influence a European “education policy” in a way?

TG: “Yes, of course lobbying is naturally a topic of interest and we aim to talk with these people who are responsible for education at the European level.”

According to your Facebook page, Norway, despite it not being part of the EU, is a member of the organization. What made them join?

TG: “First it must be said that Norway is not a founding member, but they were there during the establishment as an observer. And I must say that that’s a nice step because Norway is not in the EU as you said, but they still, as a matter of principle, have an interest in this common European idea. And we like that.”

But when you met with the representatives of the Norwegian group, were they enthusiastic about the EU? Were they for their country joining the EU?

TG: “Basically yes; the young representatives of that group did have enthusiasm, though I wouldn’t say it was vast. But I can signify that they want to be part of the EU, due to the advantages the EU can offer to the youth such as the Erasmus+ Program. Also, the youth has a different approach than adults; because if we consider the 1994 Norwegian EU membership referendum, it came off that Norway wouldn’t join the EU, and I think that if you would only ask the youth, then a positive, but not over-enthusiastic, predilection would result.”

What’s your message to the youth and why should they care about what happens in the EU?

TG: “First to the question of ‘why is Europe important.’ Europe, especially the EU, has everyday influence on our lives. For example, when you go on holiday to another country, you get the text of paying ‘x’ for a call, for internet access, etc. Just recently the EU Parliament voted to abolish roaming fees in the EU; of course not immediately as it takes time. Considering this, you notice that the EU indeed does have an influence on our daily lives; and likewise in the course of the upcoming EU elections, we can also influence the Union, where we vote for a political direction that a party carries, which is of course a good thing. That is why it is important for the youth to become aware of becoming responsible on what happens in the next five years with the EU leading.”

Would you like to say anything else that I haven’t asked for the readers to know?

TG: “Well, we willingly invite others to be a part of EUPAS, to like our Facebook page, to be in contact with us, to give us feedbacks and be part of our events. Generally, a united Europe is not only a thought, but a feeling. Maybe we haven’t reached the point where, for example, an American gets asked by an Asian where he’s from, and he doesn’t answer ‘I’m from Colorado’ but he answers ‘I am from America.’ I’d find it nice when the same applies to Europeans. Sooner or later, it will happen. I just think people aren’t aware what advantages they have through the EU and through a united Europe. We (EUPAS) are now pursuing to raise awareness regarding this issue and I can expect and hope that a lot of people go to the polls in May for the EU elections and exercise their right to vote.”


(Thomas Gaar, aside from being the secretary-general of EUPAS, is also the federal chairman of the Österreichische Schülerunion. He is from Graz where he attended a gymnasium and a commercial high school. He successfully graduated with honors and currently studies business economics at the Vienna University of Economics and Business.)

Courtesy of EUPAS


‘You have the right to immigrate’?

Posted by on 10/04/14

“Why, then, do most citizens of Western democratic countries oppose the opening of their borders? I believe the best explanation is that most of us suffer from a bias that makes it easy for us to forget about the rights and interests of foreigners. Racial bias once caused white persons to view members of their race as more important than those of other races, and to ignore the rights of members of other races. Sexist bias caused men to view themselves as more important than women and to ignore the rights of women. In modern times, great progress has been made in overcoming these biases. But some prejudices remain socially acceptable today, not even recognized by most as prejudices. Among these privileged prejudices is nationalist bias, the prejudice that causes us to view our countrymen as more important than citizens of other countries, and to ignore the rights of the foreign-born”.

Here is why:

Sceptic UK can bring new ideas on bottom up democracy in Europe

Posted by on 09/04/14

The prospect of an in-out referendum in the UK in 2017 (if the Conservatives are back in power) is a fantastic incentive for politicians (and academics) to come up with new ideas on ways of governing Europe. The Brits are showing the way on how national parliaments can become more involved in holding the EU executive to account.

By Deirdre Curtin

The British input into this wider debate on the future of Europe is often ‘negative’ and defensive.  An example is the proposal by a group of UK parliamentarians to get a new power to  ‘veto’ planned EU legislation. Yet not all is negative or destructive in the UK thinking on Europe. The House of Commons is engaged in forward-looking reflection and recommendations, in particular on its own scrutiny role. In a recent report looks to consolidate a wider role for national parliaments in democratic self-government in Europe. National parliaments are after all the key actors to hold their governments (ministers and civil servants) to account for what they agree in European Council and Council meetings. This is a task that cannot be taken over by the European Parliament, but that needs to be exercised pro-actively on the ground by the parliaments in the various national capitals.

The House of Commons report zooms in on one of the key obstacles that currently hampers national parliaments right across Europe. This is the fact that they very often do not get the information they need concerning decisions that are in the pipeline at EU level early enough to scrutinise the input of their own national government. But it is not just that their own government does not give them all the information they require on time. It is often also the case that their own government says that they cannot give them information because it is ‘sensitive’. Such sensitive EU information refers to what is loosely known as the EU institutions’ professional secrets. These are not classified secrets but rather documents that the institutions prefer to deliberate on in private as decision-making is on-going and publicity could make negotiations more difficult.

Some national parliaments, including the Dutch Tweede Kamer, get direct access to the EU database with all such EU ‘limited’ documents’. But they do so provided they, too, keep them secret. Such rules are adopted by the EU governments in conclave in the EU Council as internal rules of procedure.

One way of challenging this structural inequality of arms is parliamentary disobedience. In the UK an MP who had obtained a limited document considered very important in the context of the economic bailouts raised it as an urgent question with the Speaker of the House of Commons. She gave authority for the matter to be exposed in the House of Commons and to be debated fully and publicly. This happened and the roof did not fall in.

The fact that one national parliament stands up to its own government (and the EU rules) makes it easier for another national parliament to do the same. Parliaments are increasingly looking to one another and learning from one another. It is up to both the national parliaments and the European Parliament to roll up their shirtsleeves. They must ensure that they are the visible vectors for a genuinely public and on-going debate on the accountability of executive power in Europe. This is the next stage of democratic self-government in Europe and one on which the UK is now showing the way.

Deirdre Curtin is Professor of European Law at the University of Amsterdam and Director of the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (ACELG).

Ronald Duong: the silent majority wants to hear the true story about Brussels

Posted by on 08/04/14

“The country benefits when key aspects of economic and financial affairs and the single market are dealt with properly in Brussels. But our politicians look at such joint (EU; rg) agreements as infected, europhile dossiers that they’d rather not be seen with in public. As soon as yet another European agreement has been reached, they dash to the national tv cameras and proudly detail everything they’ve managed to block in Brussels.
Former Italian prime minister (Mario; rg) Monti, astounded over this dynamic, once suggested introducing a code of conduct requiring government leaders to tell their domestic audiences about the agreements reached in Brussels instead. It wasn’t to be. Many government leaders are too fond of lashing out at Brussels in order to divert public attention from domestic issues. The low point in this respect is our own prime minister (Mark Rutte; rg) who is fond of saying he always takes a loaded pistol with him when leaving for Brussels. This is defeatism in the face of the cheap populism of a boisterous minority. Luckily, most people in this country understand very well that we owe the buttter on our bread to a trade and business climate shaped in part by our politicians and civil servants who managed to get our national policy objectives enshrined into EU internal market directives.
Surveys again and again arrive at the same conclusion: in this country, EU supporters continue to outnumber its opponents by a large margin. The outspoken minority may have hijacked the debate about Europe, but the silent majority understands that Europe is vitally imporant to this country’s prosperity.
But as major centrist parties have also started catering to that vocal minority, the voters risk being wrongfooted. Politicians are pretending we could do without Brussels. (…) The achievements of our EU membership are being smothered in political rethoric which is out of wack with the facts. (…) The silent majority wants to hear the true story about Brussels, rather than cheap scepticism in front of the cameras.”
– Roland Duong, tv journalist, who made a series of documentaries for VPRO television in the Netherlands entitled The Battle for Europe (De Slag om Europa), in a comment published in the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad, 7/8 December 2013.

(Source: Roland Duong, ‘EU-voorstanders zijn zwijgende meerderheid’, NRC Handelsblad, 7/8 December 2013, O&D2)



Acting against Euroscepticism

Posted by on 02/04/14

The European Union has unified the continent like never before. It has been instrumental in shaping the progress of its countries and people by promoting fundamental freedoms. But given these upsides, why isn’t the Union more popular amongst its citizens? Numerous reasons exists in giving substance to the criticisms, but three points stand notoriously firm:

  • The structural complexities surrounding the EU
  • The misinformation and the lack of information within the EU
  • The recent recession and its handling by the EU

The first point entails the complex structure of the Union’s political structure; its system is indeed confusing, considering the vast amounts of agencies operating around it that are likely to be unknown to the public. Since it is more than a confederation of states but not a federal entity, the EU’s unique structure is something unprecedented and requires time for the people to comprehend the complexities.

The second point hints to the lack of knowledge EU citizens have regarding the EU, which leads to misconceptions surrounding the institution. It has been suggested to citizens that the Union is a bureaucratic nightmare filled with unelected seniors who enact policies that affect them. Of course, such notions lead to people thinking that they do not have a voice in influencing EU policies. As such misconceptions grow, EU critics in the media take advantage of the citizens’ ignorance to fuel their agenda.

The third point signifies the citizens’ dissatisfaction regarding the recent economic crisis. This has led to the rise of populist anti-EU parties who resort to propagandizing acts, which include national politicians pinning the cause of their country’s crises to Brussels. The increasing support for Eurosceptic parties in the recent months has been alarming; when Eurosceptic politicians gain fame, the development of the Union becomes threatened because their extreme advocacies against EU policies reach the point where they spread nationalist views that lead to xenophobia and intolerance. Such policies of course lead to undesirable and regressive political ramifications that are contrary to the principles of the EU.

In the midst of an economic crisis where the Union is doing everything it can to fix it, citizens cannot afford to have their national politicians to resort to petty pinpointing and sensationalizing that merely hardens the EU’s work and progress and depraves the EU’s name.

The dangerous nationalism that caused World War I may be getting a comeback with the rise of right-winged anti-EU parties. What’s alarming is that these insurgent parties are likely to succeed in the upcoming European Parliament polls, which needs to change. Citizens must realize that their platforms are misleading and regressively delusional, and they must give their fellow citizens the incentive to take action, because the truth is they really don’t want to live in the delusions of Eurosceptics.

Thus, the fate of EU development falls under their hands. The low voter turnout in the previous European polls must not be repeated because if EU citizens really don’t want to adhere to policies that will threaten basic fundamental freedoms, they need to vote, and vote for the right party.

Even if one isn’t too enthusiastic on the EU, voting still helps for it is the first step. The next step is to then regain the enthusiasm and advocate reform. The Lisbon Treaty was the first step in enhancing the Union by simplifying its structure; but the EU needs more than that, the EU needs to take further steps in integration, namely the commitment to a collective ideology of citizens in bettering EU development. This is done by setting aside their differences and starting to cooperate with one another and by promoting a union of citizens instead of a union of member states.

Courtesy of the European Commission


What about Abstention Rates in the Polls for #EP2014 Elections?

Posted by on 01/04/14
By Dimitris Rapidis It comes to our great surprise that while the projection of seats and the relevant rates for the European parties resemble, there are no concrete statistics for the part of the electorate that has either decided -for the moment- to abstain in the forthcoming elections or has not decided yet what party to vote for. Still, the final outcome of the elections on May will be as much about turnout as it will be about who gets most seats.

Géolocalisation France: la loi est promulguée!

Posted by on 01/04/14

Où en est-on ? Suite à l’article publiée dans le N° 142 de NEAsay le moment est venu de s’interroger. Comme annoncé par NEAsay, rien ne s’opposant à sa promulgation, le président de la République « a signé » malgré les zones d’ombre qui susbsistaient. 

La loi a été promulguée le 28 mars 2014. Elle a été publiée au Journal officiel!

Saisi le 27 février 2014 d’un recours déposé par au moins 60 députés, le Conseil constitutionnel avait, dans sa décision 25 mars 2014, jugé les dispositions relatives à la mise en œuvre de la géolocalisation conformes à la Constitution (il a partiellement censuré les dispositions relatives au dossier de procédure).Le texte définitif du projet de loi avait été adopté le 24 février 2014, l’Assemblée nationale et le Sénat ayant adopté dans des termes identiques le texte mis au point par la Commission mixte paritaire. Présenté en Conseil des ministres du 23 décembre 2013 par Mme Christiane Taubira, garde des Sceaux, ministre de la justice, le projet de loi avait été adopté en première lecture, avec modifications, par le Sénat le 20 janvier 2014, après engagement de la procédure accélérée et le 11 février 2014 par l’Assemblée nationale.

Ce texte vise à mettre le droit français en conformité avec les exigences posées par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme dans son arrêt Uzun c/ Allemagne du 2 septembre 2010, ainsi que la Cour de cassation dans ses arrêts du 22 octobre 2013.

La géolocalisation englobe toutes les techniques permettant de localiser en continu un téléphone portable ou un objet comme un véhicule, sur lequel une balise a préalablement été posée. Il s’agit de donner un fondement législatif à des pratiques qui, jusqu’à présent, reposaient sur des dispositions très générales du code de procédure pénale.

Le texte prévoit que la géolocalisation ne sera désormais possible qu’en cas d’investigations concernant un crime ou un délit puni d’au moins trois ans d’emprisonnement. Au cours de l’enquête, elle devra être autorisée par une décision écrite du procureur de la République, pour une durée initiale de 15 jours, qui pourra être prolongée, par le juge des libertés et de la détention, pour une durée d’un mois renouvelable. Au cours de l’instruction, elle devra être autorisée par une décision écrite du juge d’instruction, pour une durée de 4 mois renouvelable.

Dans toutes les hypothèses, seul le juge des libertés ou de la détention ou le juge d’instruction pourra, sous réserve que l’infraction ou comportement interdit par la loi et passibles de sanctions pénales. On distingue trois catégories d’infraction selon la gravité et les peines encourues : les contraventions, les délits et les crimes. soit passible d’une peine d’au moins 5 ans d’emprisonnement, autoriser l’introduction dans un domicile pour la pose d’un dispositif de géolocalisation.

En cas d’urgence, notamment de risque d’atteinte grave aux personnes ou aux biens, un officier de police judiciaire pourra décider d’une géolocalisation, sous réserve d’une autorisation a posteriori du procureur de la République. Le Sénat a prévu que l’autorisation devait intervenir dans les douze heures. Ce délai a été porté à 24 heures par l’Assemblée nationale.

L’intervention d’un magistrat ne sera en revanche pas nécessaire pour permettre la géolocalisation d’une victime. On estime que la mesure est prise dans le propre intérêt de cette dernière.

Un amendement déposé par le Gouvernement. permet le recours à la géolocalisation dans le cas de crimes et délits contre les personnes punis d’une peine d’emprisonnement égale ou supérieure à trois ans. Un amendement adopté par le Sénat réduit de 15 à 8 jours le délai maximal dans lequel le Procureur de la République doit saisir le juge des libertés et des détentions lorsqu’il a ordonné des mesures de géolocalisation. L’Assemblée nationale a rétabli le délai initial de 15 jours en première lecture.


 Pour en savoir plus :

-  Communiqué de presse du gouvernement. Conseil du 23 décembre: (FR)

- Dossier législatif sur le projet de loi relatif à la géolocalisation Sénat:  (FR)

- Texte de la loi. Décision n° 2014-693 DC du 25 mars 2014 – Loi relative à la géolocalisation: (FR)

- Conseil constitutionnel: (FR)

Classé dans:Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX

Ein ja zur EU-Freizügigkeit

Posted by on 28/03/14

Deutschland verfolgt eine falsche Strategie. Die Koalition in Berlin tut nicht gut daran, wenn sie sich den Ländern anschließt, die die Freizügigkeit in Europa einschränken. Das Vorhaben gehört zum gefährlichen politischen Arsenal des Populismus. Es wirft die Frage auf, ob Deutschland seine Grenzen abriegeln und in der Europapolitik den Rückwärtsgang einlegen will. Deutschland will nicht die qualifizierten Zuwanderern fernhalten, sondern die armen. Zuerst wurde Europa zur Festung ausgebaut, um die Immigration von anderen Kontinenten einzuschränken. Jetzt erliegt man der Versuchung, auch innerhalb Europas die Grenzen wieder zu verschließen. Der Vorwand, den Missbrauch von Sozialleistungen zu bekämpfen, öffnet einen breiten Boulevard für populistische Maßnahmen, die das Recht auf Freizügigkeit in der EU verletzen.

L’asile dans l’UE: forte hausse du nombre de demandeurs d’asile en 2013

Posted by on 26/03/14

En 2013, 435 000 demandeurs d’asile ont été enregistrés dans l’UE28. Selon les estimations, environ 90% d’entre eux étaient de nouveaux demandeurs, tandis qu’environ 10% réitéraient leur demande. En 2012, 335 000 demandeurs d’asile avaient été comptabilisés. Ces données sur les demandeurs d’asile au sein de l’UE28 sont communiquées dans un rapport publié par Eurostat, l’office statistique de l’Union européenne.

Allemagne, France, Suède, Royaume-Uni et Italie concentrent 70% des demandeurs d’asile.

En 2013, le plus grand nombre de demandeurs d’asile a été enregistré en Allemagne (127 000 demandeurs, soit 29% de l’ensemble des demandeurs), suivie de la France (65 000, soit 15%), de la Suède (54 000, soit 13%), du Royaume-Uni (30 000, soit 7%) et de l’Italie (28 000, soit 6%). Ces cinq États membres concentraient 70% de tous les demandeurs d’asile enregistrés dans l’UE28 en 2013.

En comparaison avec la population de chaque État membre, les taux les plus élevés de demandeurs d’asile ont été observés en Suède (5 700 demandeurs par million d’habitants), à Malte (5 300), en Autriche (2 100), au Luxembourg (2 000) ainsi qu’en Hongrie et en Belgique (1 900 chacun). Des taux inférieurs à 100 demandeurs par million d’habitants ont été observés dans sept États membres: au Portugal (50), en République tchèque (65), en Estonie (70), en Roumanie (75), en Slovaquie (80), en Lettonie et en Espagne (95 chacun).

En 2013, on dénombrait 860 demandeurs d’asile par million d’habitants dans l’UE28.

Syriens et Russes représentent près d’un quart des demandeurs d’asile Les citoyens de Syrie (50 000 demandeurs d’asile, soit 12% de l’ensemble des demandeurs) sont devenus les plus représentés parmi les demandeurs d’asile en 2013, devant ceux de Russie (41 000, soit 10%), d’Afghanistan (26 000, soit 6%), de Serbie (22 000, soit 5%), du Pakistan (21 000, soit 5%) et du Kosovo (20 000, soit 5%). Principales nationalités des demandeurs d’asile dans l’UE en 2013 (comparaison avec 2008) * Kosovo, en vertu de la Résolution 1244 du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies. Données de 2009 au lieu de 2008.

Dans certains États membres, une grande proportion des demandeurs d’asile provenait d’un seul pays. Les États membres présentant les plus fortes concentrations étaient la Pologne (84% des demandeurs provenaient de Russie), la Lettonie (76% de Géorgie), la Roumanie (68% de Syrie) et la Bulgarie (63% de Syrie).

Plus d’un tiers des décisions de première instance ont été positives En 2013 dans l’UE28, 65% des décisions de première instance5 prises à l’égard des demandeurs d’asile ont fait l’objet d’un rejet, tandis que 15% des demandeurs se sont vu octroyer le statut de réfugié, 14% la protection subsidiaire et 5% une autorisation de séjour pour des raisons humanitaires. Il convient de noter que les décisions de première instance prises en 2013 peuvent se référer à des demandes enregistrées les années précédentes.

Si la proportion de décisions positives varie fortement entre États membres, il faut rappeler que le pays d’origine des demandeurs diffère aussi grandement d’un État membre à l’autre.

On entend par «statut de réfugié» la signification attribuée à cette expression par l’article 2(d), de la directive 2004/83/CE, au sens de l’article premier de la Convention de Genève du 28 juillet 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés, modifiée par le Protocole de New York du 31 janvier 1967. (cf. infra "pour en savoir plus")

 Pour en savoir plus :

-   Tableaux statistiques et graphiques de Eurostat : (FR)

-   Dernier rapport à la date du 30 janvier 2014 : (FR)

-   Rapport du UNHCR (Commissariat des Nations Unies aux  réfugiés)

    en date du 21 mars 2014 et concerne 44 pays industrialisés : (FR)

-   Synthèse législative sur la directive 2004/83/CE : (FR)

-   Texte de la Directive 2004/83/CE : (FR) / (EN

Classé dans:conditions d'accueil des réfugié_s, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Eurodroits

Privacy can be protected without protectionism

Posted by on 25/03/14
By John Higgins and Dean C Garfield. The transatlantic relationship represents the most important trade partnership in the world. Efforts to strengthen this relationship through an ambitious trade and investment agreement are more important than ever. We urge leaders meeting in Brussels this week to address the key challenges that stand in the way of an agreement. Most notably, the issue of international data flows. As Neelie Kroes, the EU digital commissioner, recently said: “ ‘No’ to data protectionism; ‘Yes’ to data protection.”

Tax inequality at the heart of European public discontent

Posted by on 20/03/14
By Natalia Alonso, Oxfam Europe is running the risk of a lost generation. Hit by growing economic inequality and poverty, governments are failing to provide good quality public services and to close the gap between the rich and the poor. As public outcry increases, it should become clear to European Union leaders meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow that unfair tax policies are at the centre of this discontent.

EU Personal Data Protection Reform: Was This Necessary?

Posted by on 17/03/14
By Dimitris Rapidis The data protection reform comes to address a string of obsolete rules dated back to the 1995, Finally... and still there are at least three major concerns that have not been elaborated during the Plenary session of the European Parliament: How an EU citizen could erase personal data; what has been done with the personal data already acquired; and why the EC has proposed a lower fine given the gravity of the issue?