Pabėgėlio statuso ir papildomos apsaugos (kvalifikavimo) direktyvos perkėlimo į Lietuvos teisę ir įgyvendinimo problemos Lietuvoje

Abstract

10 October 2006 marks the deadline of transposition of the EU Council Directive No. 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (Qualification Directive) into national legislation. This Article is the first to start a series of articles on transposition of the European Union Asylum Directives in Lithuania and remaining concerns. The objective behind preparing a series of articles on this topic was to analyse the level of transposition of „first generation“ of EU asylum legislation, assess the impact of EU norms on the situation of asylum seekers and refugees in Lithuania, as well as identify remaining or potential problems. This Article analyses the level of transposition of the Qualification Directive in Lithuania, the impact of the directive on the development of asylum legislation in Lithuania, while attention is drawn on the provisions of the directive that have not yet been transposed or have been transposed improperly. The authors illustrate remaining concerns with practical and live examples/stories from Lithuania.
By the time of writing this article, most of the norms of the Qualification Directive have been already transposed in Lithuanian legislation. However, the work is not yet finished as it is necessary to amend a few legal acts in the social field, as well as adopt a few new legal norms transposing missing provisions of the directive. Overall, the Qualification Directive has had a significant impact on Lithuanian legislation, both in positive and negative terms. As a positive result, subsidiary protection status was introduced, social guarantees for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection established, certain concepts clarified (e.g. internal flight alternative, agents of persecution, agents of protection, etc.). Less positive developments have occurred with regard to introduction of extensive protection status cessation and exclusion provisions, a wide list of grounds for withdrawing the benefits, etc.
Among the remaining concerns is that some provisions are still not transposed (e.g. Art. 4(1) – duty to cooperate with the applicant; Art. 5(2) – sur place refugees; Art. 8 – conditions of applying internal flight alternative; Art. 20(4) – individual assessment of vulnerability; while a few norms (e.g. Art. 4(4), 5(1) are transposed only to a certain extent. There are wide possibilities to refuse refugee status because of improper interpretation of Art. 14(4) and (5) of the directive, as well as missing transposition of Art. 14(6); varying treatment of beneficiaries of refugee status and subsidiary protection in enjoyment of social rights, as well as a wide list of opportunities to withdraw the benefits under protection status are among the most pressing concerns.
The article may be useful for migration institutions and courts, which are implementing and interpreting the provisions of the directive in asylum cases, as well as for the legislator with a view of ensuring full and proper transposition of the directive into national legislation and while improving the current legislation on aliens in Lithuania.