En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
Transcript of En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
1/39
ASYLUMINTHE
REPUBLICOFCYPRUS
EXAMINATION OFPROCEDURAL STANDARDS,
LEGAL FOUNDATIONSAND LIVING CONDITIONS
A STUDY BY THE
REGISTERED
ASSOCIATION
CONTACT AND
CONSULTATION
CENTER FOR
REFUGEES
AND MIGRANTS
2013
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
2/39
2
!"#$"%&'
)*+,-./%0*1*+0#&
SPONSORED BY
IMPRINT
EDITOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTENT
WITH REGARD TO MEDIA LAW
Contact and Consultation Center for
Refugees and Migrants (registered association)
Oranienstrae 159 | 10969 Berlin
www.kub-berlin.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Jonas Feldmann, Stella Lutz,
Franziska Schmidt, Nina Violetta Schwarz
RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION
Francesca Bertin, Nora Brezger,
Rebekka Dreher, Jonas Feldmann,
Nora Freitag, Peter Johannsen,
Stella Lutz, Mostafa Mokhtari,
Bashir Saeed, Franziska Schmidt,
Nina Violetta Schwarz, Poclaire Wamba
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Katharina Kohlhaas
LAYOUT
Christian Jakob
CIRCULATION
750
COVER PHOTO
Collective accommodation in Kofinou, 2012
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Theo Pontikos
SPENDENKONTO
KUB e.V.Kontonummer 313 380 1
BLZ 100 205 00
Bank fr Sozialwirtschaft
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
3/39
INTRODUCTION
THE COURSE OF THE ASYLUM PROCEDURE
LIVING CONDITIONS
AFTER A LEGALLY BINDING DECISION
SPECIAL GROUPS
FINAL REMARK
4
9
20
37
43
51
NO ONE RESEARCHES ALONE
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who helped us pre-
pare and conduct this study with their expertise and active support. We would like
to thank all interviewees who shared their knowledge and experiences with us in
the Republic of Cyprus as well as in Germany. In addition, we would like to thank
all those who supported us in Germany, in particular Caroline Eickhoff, Helene Jo-
sephides, Saced Khakpour, Lisa Kleinschroth, Bahar Koch, Karin Schellenberg,
Christoph Tometten and Florian Werkhausen.
A great thanks goes to those whose financial support made this study possible.
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
4/39
Chapter 0
INTRODUCTION
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
5/39
5
Since joining the European Union in
2004 the Republic of Cyprus has been
processing between 1, 170 and 9,675
demands for refugee status1 a year. Asy-
lum seekers enter the Republic of Cyprus
with the legitimate expectation that wit-
hin the E.U they will be granted a fair
asylum procedure and offered protection
in their situation of utmost vulnerability.
Current reports and statements by non-
governmental organizations (NGOs),
lawyers and asylum seekers have shown
that the Cypriot asylum system is not li-
ving up to these expectations. Quite the
opposite: the deficient state of national
legislation on the one hand and the ex-
tremely restrictive practices of the Cypriot
authorities when detaining asylum seekers
on the other have led to widespread hu-
man rights infringements.
The countrys asylum admission pro-
cedure can generally be described as
structurally deficient and in many cases
unlawful. The Republic of Cyprus does
not guarantee either a comprehensive
asylum procedure or humane living con-
ditions. Formally binding minimumstandards within the EU are not obser-
ved, despite them having being declared
essential principles of the EU (Council
Directive 2003/9/EC amongst others)
constituting the foundation of a com-
mon asylum policy, including a coherent
European asylum system.
The EU is still far from having cohe-
rent legal standards in asylum and ad-
mission procedures due to many EU
member states not complying with the
existing minimum standards or because
of the differences in the ways these are
interpreted. Different practices and stan-
dards lead to major discrepancies bet-
ween the respective asylum systems of
each country, thus undermining the
principles stated in Council Regulation
(EC) No. 343/20032 the so-called Dub-
lin II Regulation. The Dublin II Regula-
tion was adopted on February 18th,
2003 by the European Council and de-
fines the criteria and modes of operation
to be used by the member states respon-
sible for the examination of asylum ap-
plications. The verdicts pronounced at
the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) in Strasburg in January 20113
and at the European Court of Justice
(ECJ) in December 20114 gave rise to a
justified doubt about the compliance
with these standards. According to these
verdicts, asylum seekers may not be
transferred to other EU member states if
the observance of their basic rights is not
guaranteed there. These decisions com-
promise the practice of a common asy-
lum policy and hence the foundations of
the Dublin II Regulation. Of all member
states, those situated on the periphery of
the EU have an especially great respon-
sibility when it comes to receiving asy-
lum seekers. Their inefficiency in doing
so is illustrated in Greece, Italy, Malta,Hungary and Cyprus. The European
Union must seek to create new regulati-
ons in view of introducing a functional
distribution of responsibility, which
takes the needs of asylum seekers into
account. The practice of returning asy-
lum seekers to the Republic of Cyprus
should be met with categorical refusal
due to serious deficiencies in the Cypriot
asylum system and the infringement of
basic rights according to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The current European asylum policy
should be declared restrictive and re-
active. The protection it provides is
wholly insufficient. Although indicati-
ons as to the deficits of the Cypriot asy-
lum system are abundant, documenta-
tion is sparse. The present report sheds
light extensively on the actions of the re-
levant institutions in the asylum system
and examines the living conditions of
asylum seekers, of those without valid
residence permits and of officially recog-
nized refugees in the Republic of Cy-
prus.
> THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS
The Republic of Cyprus is the third
smallest EU country, with an area of
5384 km and 750,000 inhabitants. Si-
tuated in the Eastern Mediterranean,
just 68 km from Turkey, 95 km off the
West coast of Syria and 325 km from
the North coast of Egypt, the Republic
is one of the outer borders of the EU.
Only the Republic of Cyprus in the
South is part of the EU. Greek Cypriot
and Turkish military as well as a UN
peacekeeping unit monitor the border
strip.
> ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The following report was put togetherby a Cyprus research group from the
registered non-profit association Contact
and Consultation Center for Refugees
and Migrants (KuB). Since 1983 KuB
has been the main contact point for re-
fugees and immigrants situated in Ber-
lin-Kreuzberg and has provided support
in matters concerning social issues and
immigration as well as psychosocial and
other existential issues.
In the fall of 2012, our group of ex-
perts conducted a series of interviews
and surveys during a research trip ai-
ming to examine the situation of asylum
seekers in the Republic of Cyprus. The
group was formed in late 2011 and is
composed of 12 people with diverse
1 SEE EUROSTAT 20132 THE LIBE-COMMITTEE OF THE EU PARLIAMENT DRAFTED A NEW VERSION OF THE DUBLIN REGULATION. COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2008/0243 (COD)
3 ECTHR VERDICT FROM 21.01.2011- 30696/09, M.S.S AGAINST BELGIUM AND GREECE
4 ECJ VERDICT FROM 21.12.2011- C.411/10; C-493/10, N.S AND M.E
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
6/39
areas of expertise. It includes social wor-
kers, legal experts, sociologists, geogra-
phers, anthropologists, freelance
journalists and students. The majority of
this group has been actively involved in
the field of refugee and immigration
work on a local, national and interna-
tional scale for several years. Among
them are native speakers of various fo-
reign languages.
> FOCUS OF THE SURVEY
The present study was prepared between
November 2011 and September 2012.
It included specific content research, fin-
ding local contacts and developing a
methodical approach. Interviews con-
ducted with people currently residing in
Germany who had applied for asylum
in the Republic of Cyprus in the past
helped put together a questionnaire and
obtain relevant information about the
asylum system.
The field research phase lasted from
September 26th to October 14th, 2012.
The group worked with different cate-
gories of interviewees in order to encom-pass the Cypriot asylum system as a
whole as well as the social situation of
asylum seekers. Among those who took
part in interviews were asylum seekers
as well as civil servants from the institu-
tions involved, lawyers and members of
NGOs and advice bureaus. The majo-
rity of all 85 interviews were conducted
with either current or former asylum
seekers with different countries of origin
and immigration statuses. This included
asylum seekers, individuals whose appli-
cations had been rejected, individuals
with official refugee status and others
who were returned to Cyprus according
to the Dublin II Regulation. While sear-
ching for interviewees the authors visi-
ted asylum seeker accommodations in
Kofinou, Paphos and Larnaca and po-
lice stations in Larnaca, Lakatamia and
Nisou, where individuals awaited de-
portation. Additionally, asylum seeker
networks were used to get in touch with
more potential interviewees.
The qualitative questions were based
on a model questionnaire designed in
such a way as to follow the chronologi-
cal order of the asylum procedure. Inter-
views were conducted in English,
French, Farsi and Arabic. They were re-
corded and transcribed verbatim. In ad-
dition, 88 sets of quantitative data were
collected using standardized question-
naires. These contained questions per-taining to the length of residence, status
of the asylum seekers applications and
their socio-demographic characteristics.
Questions directed at institutions,
NGOs and lawyers each followed an in-
dividual template. The interviews pro-
vide insights into the authorities
practices and the way institutions per-
ceive their work. Furthermore, they
offer different evaluations of the state of
the Cypriot asylum system and the si-
tuation of asylum applicants in the Re-
public of Cyprus. The interviews were
all conducted in English and likewise
transcribed. The transcripts of all inter-
views were assessed using content ana-
lysis tools and provide a factual basis for
the present study, the structure of which
has been adapted to the course of the
asylum procedure in the Republic of Cy-
prus. Chapter one describes the different
institutions with which an asylum seeker
will come into contact over the course
of his or her processing time. This is fol-
lowed, in chapter two, by a description
of the average living conditions of asy-
lum seekers. Chapter three discusses the
post-asylum procedure prospects for
both successful and unsuccessful appli-
cants. Chapter four is devoted to the
particular condition of detained asylum
seekers. The situation of particularly
vulnerable individuals and that of asy-
lum applicants who have been transfer-red back to the Republic of Cyprus
pursuant to the Dublin II Regulation is
discussed in chapter five. In conclusion,
chapter six contains a final remark on
the outcome of this documentation.
INTERVIEWEES FROM VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS
> CORINA DROUSIOTOU Senior Legal Advisor, Future Worlds Center 02. 10. 2012
> DANAE PSILLA Public Information Officer, Future Worlds Center 02. 10. 2012
> KAKIA DEMETRIOU Administrative Officer, Ministry of Interior/ Asylum Service 08. 10. 2012
> NASR ISHAK Representative, UNHCR Cyprus 04. 10. 2012
> OLGA KOMITI Legal Advisor, UNHCR Cyprus 04. 10. 2012
> MICHALIS PARASKEVAS Lawyer, Cyprus 07. 10. 2012
> NICOLETTA CHARALAMBIDOU Lawyer, Legal Advisor of the Commis.for Children's Rights 03. 10. 2012
>DOROS POLYKARPOU Exec.Officer, KISA Action for Equality, Support, Antiracism 30. 09.2012
> ZINAIDA ONOUFRIOU Office of the Commissioner of Administration and Protection
of Human Rights (Ombudsman) 05. 10. 2012
RAFAELA CAMASSA Consultant, Hope for Children 09. 10. 2012
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
7/39
Chapter I
THE COURSEOF THE ASYLUMPROCEDURE
THE IDENTITY-PAPER FOR
ASYLM SEEKERS
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
8/39
8
8
> ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY
AND LEGAL STAGES OF THE
PROCEDURE
The authority in charge of processing
asylum applications is the Immigration
Police. Its representatives have offices
in Nicosia, Larnaca, Limassol and Paphos
and at all major ports and airports. Asy-
lum claims can also be made remotely
from a detention center. The Asylum
Service is in charge of the asylum process
in the first instance (its sector of activity
can be compared to that of the Home
Office), it is accountable to the Ministry
of Interior and makes decisions on
asylum applications based on the Refugee
Law5 from 28.01.2000. If the Asylum
Service rejects an application the applicant
can appeal via the Reviewing Authority
(an examination authority also called
the Refugee Reviewing Authority) within
ten to twenty days of rejection. It should
take the Reviewing Authority fifteen to
twenty days6 to come to a decision. If
its verdict is likewise unfavorable the
plaintiffs third option and last resort
on a national level is to file a complaintwith the Supreme Court within a period
of 75 days. Following a legally binding
rejection of the asylum application or
after an appeal has been overruled the
case is handed over to the Migration
Department (essentially a registration
authority for foreign nationals) which
assumes responsibility for all further
proceedings in the field of alien law.
The following section describes the
individual stages of the process, com-
plete with the information obtained on
location.
> MAKING AN APPLICATION
Applications should be made without
delay at the nearest Immigration Police
office in written or spoken form. If ap-
plicants are not able to present valid
identification when depositing a claim
for asylum, they will be at risk of being
arrested. Upon enquiry, both the Asylum
Service and the NGO Future Worlds
Center confirmed that applicants where
indeed in danger of being detained if
they lacked the necessary means of iden-
tification. Article 7 (4) (b) (i) Refugee
Law gives permission to detain indivi-
duals with a court ruling for a period of
8 to 32 days in order to ascertain their
identity or nationality. Future Worlds
Center has confirmed the use of this
method during the registration of asylum
claims. Statements by asylum applicants
also indicated that this was a common
practice. There were reports of police
staff refusing asylum applications made
without a valid ID and threatening to
detain the applicants until their identity
could be determined. Others stated that
they had been detained when depositing
their applications and released shortly
afterwards without further information
as to the status of their claim. Many in-
terviewees described how the ImmigrationPolice staff had simply dismissed them.
They said that the likelihood of an ap-
plication even being accepted varied
greatly between offices. Indeed, it was
said to be particularly difficult to make
an asylum claim in Nicosia and Limassol.
The way the process was conducted also
meant that long waits ensued between
arrival at the office and the application
actually being accepted. This was said
to increase the risk of arrest due to mis-
sing registration documents or for failing
to apply earlier.
Application forms are provided in
different languages and applicants are
required to state their identity and their
reasons for fleeing their country. If ne-
cessary, interpreters are called in to ob-
tain information that is then transcribed
and kept on record by the police staff.
Applicants also have to give a valid ad-
dress in order to receive further applica-
tion-related information. However,
since the majority of applicants are re-
cent arrivals in the Republic of Cyprus,
very few of them actually have a fixed
address. Cases of applicants being given
access to official joint accommodation
are rare. According to the Asylum Ser-
vice, space is limited, which makes it dif-
ficult to provide everyone with
accommodation. Most asylum seekers
will therefore rely on addresses provided
by friends or acquaintances. They criti-
cized the fact that application-related
mail arrived late, if at all, which was li-
kely to cause problems in the applica-
tion procedure. This would mean that,
through no fault of their own, appli-
cants would fail to do what was deman-
ded of them and thus run the risk of
their application being rejected. The
Asylum Service did indeed stress the fact
that reprocessing the application would
be possible if it were proven that the ap-plicant did not actually refuse to coope-
rate, however, proof of this would have
to be provided by applicants themselves.
>TRANSMITTING IMPORTANT
INFORMATION
An additional shortcoming is the fre-
quent inability of relevant authorities to
ensure a steady flow of information
about the asylum process as well as the
rights and obligations of applicants.
Only one in eight interviewees stated
that they were informed of their rights
and obligations when applying. At pre-
sent, the Asylum Service provides an
outdated information booklet in Eng-
lish, which says is being revised and
should soon be available in other
5 AMENDMENTS: 53(I)/2003, 63(I)/2003, 0(I)/2004, 154(I)/2005, 112(I)/2007, 122(I)/2009
6 APPLICANTS FROM STABLE EUROPEAN OR NON-EUROPEAN THIRD COUNTRIES OR THOSE WHOSE APPLICATIONS WERE DISREGARDED HAVE 10 DAYS TO APPEAL
(ARTICLE 28F (1) REFUGEE LAW). IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE TIME LIMIT FOR APPEAL IS 20 DAYS (ARTICLE 28F (2) REFUGEE LAW).
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
9/39
9
languages. A specific release date was not
mentioned.
The fact that officials in charge of
processing applications do not do enough
to provide information about the rights
and obligations increases the chances of
mistakes from the outset. These errors
can then lead to claims of uncooperative
behavior on the part of the applicant. Inf-
ringement against the duty of cooperation
can in turn result in applications being al-
together dismissed.A further problem is the apparent
inadequacy of regulation in information
about organizations and people who can
provide legal support, as over three quarters
of the interviewees stated that they did
not know of a legal advisor in the Republic
of Cyprus.
1. The procedure at first
instance (Asylum Service> HEARINGS
The Asylum Service staff conducts the
first hearing in the asylum process. Two
thirds of the interviewees stated that the
time span between depositing the claim
and the first hearing can last up to more
than six months, some even waiting for
more than a year. Officials directly write
down the applicants reasons for fleeing,
in English or Greek, which are then
translated back to the applicant by an
interpreter. The officials are members of
the ministries core staff body. According
to the Asylum Service there are specially
trained members of staff for dealing
with unaccompanied minors and parti-
cularly vulnerable refugees7. However,
according to concurring reports by
UNHCR Cyprus, Future Worlds Center
and the Asylum Service, this staff is cur-
rently inactive since hearings with minorshave been altogether halted (SEE CHAPTER
5, PART 2). It is likewise doubtable that
specially trained hearers are dispatched
to deal with particularly vulnerable re-
fugees. Future Worlds Center states that
although these refugees are entitled to
claim support, there is no functioning
procedure to determine whether or not
they belong to this group during the
hearing.
> LANGUAGE MEDIATION
A further problem that occurs during
hearings has to do with the interpreters.
UNHCR says the majority has not re-
ceived special training and Future Worlds
Center also mentions the interpreters
insufficient qualifications as a central
problem in the quality of the hearings
(SEE FUTURE WORLDS CENTER 2012: 4). The
unprofessional language mediation in
the first hearing has a negative impact
on the following proceedings conducted
by the Reviewing Authority and the Su-
preme Court (EBD: 4). The Asylum Ser-
vice has confirmed that mediators are
not required to have special qualifications,
especially if native speakers of their
language are hard to come by in the Re-
public of Cyprus.
Future Worlds Center says the generalquality of the hearing strongly depends
on the individual hearers. Corina Drou-
siotou from Future Worlds Center con-
siders this an important reason for the
low number of applicants actually being
granted asylum. She criticizes the Asylum
Services decisions as inconsistent and
dependent on the qualifications of indi-
vidual hearers. The outcome of the asy-
lum procedure is in many cases deter-
mined by the hearers work ethic rather
than the actual credibility of the perse-
cution threatening the applicant. A num-
ber of interviewees gave accounts of
hearings being ended a few minutes in
on the grounds of false statements. Many
applicants spoke of problems during the
hearings. Some were not provided with
a mediator, in which case the hearing
ALIENS & IMMIGRATION OFFICE
7 PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE REFUGEES INCLUDE MINORS, UNACCOMPANIED MINORS, PREGNANT WOMEN, ELDERLY PEOPLE, SINGLE PARENTS, VICTIMS OF TORTURE, RAPE OR OTHER FORMS
OF PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE.
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
10/39
>DELAYED DECISION
Asylum seekers from Syria are confronted with a parti-
cular problem. According to Future Worlds Center,
asylum claims by Syrian nationals are currently not
being processed. Those who had given their asylum ap-plications to the Asylum Service were granted hearings
but all further decisions were halted. This was confirmed
by various organizations amongst which are the Om-
budsman Office and other individuals.
>SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS
The situation is particularly difficult for applicants who
have already filed a subsequent claim following a
rejection by the second administrative instance, the Re-
viewing Authority. Cypriot refugee law lacks the legal
implementation of Article 32 from Directive 2005/85/EC
about the approach to subsequent asylum claims. Despite
the current situation in their country of origin, these
people are in imminent danger of being arrested or are
currently being detained despite the Ministry of Interiors
measures to stop expulsions towards Syria. Likewise,
Syrians whose asylum claims have been dismissed in the
past are also faced with this problem when reentering
Cyprus. In this case, the likelihood of imprisonment on
the grounds of unauthorized entry according to the
Aliens and Immigration Law is very high..
>REFUSAL TO MAKE AN APPLICATION
The NGO KISA described a case in which Immigration
Office and Asylum Service staff deterred Syrians from
making applications under the threat of immediate arrest.
Furthermore, KISA reported that a Syrian womans
refusal to make an application at the airport caused her
to be deported back to Lebanon. In October 2012, a
boat transporting 13 Syrians arrived in the Republic of
Cyprus. According to a statement made by Michalis Pa-raskevas all of the 13 individuals were imprisoned. They
were forbidden access to the asylum process for a month
and once their applications had been made only 11 of
them were released.
> RESPONSIBILITY
According to KISA the cause for the difficult situation
of Syrian asylum seekers is a disagreement between the
Asylum Service and the Reviewing Authority about
who should assume responsibility for new and consecutive
applications. KISAs attempt to obtain an immediate
answer was unsuccessful.
>PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF A SYRIAN
ASYLUM SEEKER IN THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS
I am a national of Syria [] where can I go for
safety?
The dramatic situation of Syrian asylum seekers has
since come to the worlds attention. The German go-
vernment confirmed in its official publication 17/10624
that [in the Republic of Cyprus] asylum seekers, espe-
cially those from Syria, are taken into police custody
and detained in very poor living conditions ((GERMAN
PARLIAMENT/BUNDESTAG 2012: P. 5)
THE CONDITION OF SYRIAN ASYLUM SEEKERS
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
11/39
11
8 ETWA JEDE NEUNTE DER BEFRAGTENPERSONENWARTETE MEHR ALS DREIJAHRE AUF EINENANHRUNGSTERMIN. EINEPERSONERWHNTE EINEWARTEZEIT VON SIEBEN, EINE ANDERE
VON NEUNJAHREN.
9 DIEART DER UNANGEBRACHTENFRAGEN WURDE NICHT WEITER DURCHUNHCR ZYPERN KONKRETISIERT.
10 DIEWIDERSPRUCHSFRIST VON ZEHNTAGEN BEZIEHT SICH AUFANTRGE,DIE ALS UNBEACHTLICH ODER UNZULSSIG ABGELEHNT WURDEN. BEIABLEHNUNGEN OHNE DIESENVERMERK
GILTEINEWIDERSPRUCHSFRIST VON ZWANZIGTAGEN.
was either conducted in English or
postponed and a new appointment
made. For fear of further waiting
two thirds of the interviewees had to
wait more than six months for their
hearing- several of them opted for a
hearing in a language they found dif-
ficult to understand (generally English)8.
Furthermore, there was widespread
criticism of the mediators. The inter-
viewees spoke of inadequate language
skills, mediators being drafted from
the respective country of origins em-
bassy personnel and information not
being translated back to the hearers
in its entirety.
Contrasting statements were made
about the hearers behavior towards
asylum applicants. Some applicants
said to have been treated with courtesy
and respect. Others were confronted
with accusations, insults as well as
inappropriate questions and comments.
In one case, a homosexual applicant
was told in a barely disguised manner
that there are none of these types of
people here and they arent welcome.In other cases, applicants were told
that their coming to the Republic of
Cyprus was purely motivated by eco-
nomic considerations. Furthermore,
applicants described how relevant do-
cuments were not used for their asylum
file. UNHCR Cyprus confirmed several
instances of inappropriate questioning
and showed their documentation to
the Asylum Service9.
> LENGTH OF PROCESSING
The Asylum Service says it usually
takes six to eight months for a decision
to be made on an application. At the
same time, it also admitted that pro-
cessing was sometimes known to have
taken much longer in the past. These
statements are only partly corroborated
by the interviewees personal experi-
ences. There were many complaints
by applicants who had to wait several
years for their first hearing and several
years more for a decision, especially
in the case of substantiated applications
(SEE FUTURE WORLDS CENTER 2012: 5). Con-
trary to the Asylum Services claims,
however, the problem of the length of
processing has been neglected. Many
interviewees had been waiting years
for a first decision when we met them
on our research trip. More than half
of them mentioned that they had been
waiting for up to twelve months for a
first decision via the Asylum Service.
> THE DECISION
The Asylum Services decision is given
in writing. When an asylum claim is
rejected, the reason is given in a short
paragraph in Greek with a standardized
appendix in English informing of the
nature of the decision and the possibilityof appealing against it. The detailed
justification of rejection is usually se-
veral pages long and can only be
viewed personally by the applicant in
question or his legal advisor at an
Asylum Service office. The written mi-
nutes of the hearing and proof handed
in by the asylum applicant that played
a role in the decision cannot be viewed.
Applicants rejected in the first in-
stance can make a founded appeal be-
fore the Reviewing Authority against
the Asylum Services decision10. Future
Worlds Center criticizes the restricted
access to asylum files when appealing,
only the rejection may be disputed.
Without access to the complete asylum
file legal advisors cannot dispute indi-
vidual points in the Reviewing Aut-
horitys refusal to grant asylum (SEE/REF.
FUTURE WORLDS CENTER 2012: 5). The mi-
nutes of the hearing and other relevant
documents provided by applicants to
justify the threat of persecution in
their country of origin can only be
viewed in the third instance before
the Supreme Court. This practice vio-
lates the terms of Article 14 and 16
(1) from Directive 2005/85/EC per-
mitting access to asylum applicants
files.
2. Appealing at second
instance (ReviewingAuthority)The Reviewing Authority is the second
administrative instance after the Asylum
Service and is composed of the president
and two further members who are no-
minated by the ministerial council of
the Republic of Cyprus. According to
Article 28 (1) Refugee Law, this aut-
hority is independent and not answe-
rable to any ministry. It has the right
to conduct a second hearing in order
to assess new circumstances in the ap-
plicants situation and can call on ex-
perts and civil servants from other go-
vernment bodies. Future Worlds Center
and KISA criticized the fact that the
Reviewing Authority rarely makes use
of its right to conduct its own investi-
gations and resorts to giving its assenton most decisions. It is therefore safe
to assume that a great part of the Re-
viewing Authoritys decisions are merely
confirmations of the Asylum Services
judgments. Exceptions were made in
the case of subsidiary vulnerability
due to general lack of safety in the
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
12/39
12
country of origin (SEE CHAPTER III, 2).
The Reviewing Authority has for in-
stance granted many Palestinian refu-
gees from the West Bank and Iraqis
residence permits in the past.
A number of interviewed applicants
spoke of yearlong processing, as was
the case for the Asylum Service. The
length of the wait gives applicants and
their families a sense of permanent in-
security.
3. Depositing a complaintat third instance(Supreme Court)Asylum applicants who are dismissed
by the Reviewing Authority can either
deposit a complaint with the Supreme
Court within 75 days of the decision
or leave the country. According to the
Asylum Service, applicants still legally
reside in the country during this time.
The Migration Department, however,
does not consider the time preceding
the appeal deadline as a period of aut-
horized residence. It conducts aimed
or random sweeps during this period,
arresting applicants to prepare their
deportation. According to the Asylum
Service this practice is a violation of
Refugee Law by the Migration De-
partment. Article 2 (1) (b) (i) states
that asylum applicants are allowed to
reside in the Republic of Cyprus until
their expulsion takes legal effect. Illegal
residence begins after expiry of the
75-day appeal deadline and only if a
complaint has not yet been filed with
the Supreme Court
On the 31st of October 2009 the Reviewing Authority
dismissed an appeal by Cameroonian asylum applicant
Mrs. N against an unfavorable decision by the Asylum
Service over her asylum application. Since the authorityhad not informed her of this decision, she only found
this out while visiting the District Welfare Office in order
to enquire about outstanding social benefit payments,
which she was entitled to. Upon examining her file, the
District Welfare Office became aware that her asylum
claim and subsequent appeal had been rejected and in-
formed the Immigration Police who placed her under
arrest. Later that day, in custody, she was officially
informed that the Reviewing Authority had dismissed
her appeal. Simultaneously, a warrant for her arrest and
a deportation order on grounds of illegal residence
(Article 6 (1) (k) Aliens and Immigration Law) and
danger to public safety (Article 6 (1) (c) Aliens and Im-
migration Law) were issued. Mrs. N is HIV positive. She
was lucky that the NGO KISA dispatched lawyer Nicoletta
Charalambidou in order to dispute her arrest before the
Supreme Court. This procedure aimed to obtain a court
ruling at least temporarily cancelling the Immigration
Polices unlawful arrest warrant and deportation order
until the Supreme Courts verdict over the Reviewing
Authoritys rejection of her appeal.
Since the appeal against the Reviewing Authoritys re-
jection had been made before the deadline, Supreme
Court judge Mr. Constantinides subscribed to the clai-
mants view. He ruled that the deportation order was in
breach of the plaintiffs right to effective legal aid accor-ding to article 39 of the EU Council Directive 2005/85/EC
as long the Supreme Courts final verdict was still pen-
ding. The court decided that due to the direct effect of
Article 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC the arrest and depor-
tation warrants were unlawful.
In addition, the court criticized the erroneous imple-
mentation of regulation in Article 39 (3) from Directive
2005/85/EC in the Republic of Cypruss national legisla-
tion, with reference to the postponing effect of depositing
a complaint.Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that
an Aids or HIV infection did not justify removal for the
benefit of public safety and that such treatment of asylum
applicants for health protection reasons was discrimina-
tory.
This case illustrates the flawed implementation of Ar-
ticle 39 from Directive 2005/85/EC in Cypriot legislation
and how it can lead to expulsion by the Cypriot authori-
ties. Without a court ruling on the postponing effect of
an appeal and its implementation by a legal representa-
tive, the authorities actions based on the Alien and Im-
migration Law are in breach of Article 39 from Directive
2005/85/EC.
REFOULEMENT THE CASE OF MRS. N.
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
13/39
13
> DEPOSITING A COMPLAINT
> BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court does not examine
the nature of the asylum claim in detail
but whether or not the process was
conducted in accordance with legal
conditions. New or previously unexa-
mined circumstances in relation to the
claimants reasons for fleeing are notreassessed. Hence, a trial before the
Supreme Court does not count as ef-
fective legal aid, as prescribed by Di-
rective 2005/85/EC (SEE FUTURE WORLDS
CENTER 2012: 6). Claimants can apply
for financial support in order to fund
their trial. Without this funding such
a trial would not be viable for most
asylum seekers. In this context,
UNHCR Cyprus has expressed criti-
cism over access to the trial, since
most applications for special funding
are unsuccessful. With neither a legal
representative, nor unrestricted per-
mission to view their file, most dis-
missed asylum seekers are not able to
deal with potential errors in the pre-
vious process in a competent manner.
If no errors can be verified in the pro-
cessing of the asylum claim according
to Article 146 from the Constitution
of the Republic of Cyprus then the
demand for special funding of the trial
is rejected and access to the complaint
trial barred. However, a refusal to
fund objection trials seems to be the
rule rather than the exception. UNHCR
Cyprus mentioned in an interview that
since 2009 it had only recorded three
cases of claimants being granted fi-
nancial support from a total of over
200 applications.
>RESTRICTED ACCESS
TO EFFECTIVE LEGAL AIDDepositing a complaint does not au-
tomatically have a postponing effect
on the authorities further course of
action. The Migration Department of-
ten goes through with arrests and de-
portations despite court rulings to
delay these until after the appeal trial
(SEE CHAPTER IV). The applicants right
to effective legal aid alongside the afo-
rementioned postponement following
a rejection by the Reviewing Authority,
as stated in Article 39 from Directive
2005/85/EC, is purely theoretical. A
flawed implementation of Directive
2005/85/EC means Cypriot legislation
(Aliens and Immigration Law) allows
the Migration Department to conduct
arrests and deportations before the
trial has started. Lawyer Michalis Pa-
raskevas confirmed that these arrests
were a common occurrence. In additi-
on, he reported that the Migration
Department staff had pressed for the
deportation of several of his clients
shortly before the trial starting date,despite a postponement ruling by the
Supreme Court. He was forced to in-
tervene personally in order to prevent
this.
ASYLUM STATISTICS IN THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS
2010 2011 2012 2012 2012
TOTAL TOTAL 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER
DECISIONS (FIRST INSTANCE) 2.240 2.630 425 275 370
RECOGNITION OF REFUGEES (FIRST INSTANCE) 30 70** 35 15 30
SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION (FIRST INSTANCE) 370 5** * * *
REJECTED APPLICATIONS 2.015 *** 380 260 340
OTHER 25 60 10 *** ***
OURCE: EUROSTAT, 2013. * TWO OR LESS DECISIONS IN FIRST INSTANCE DURING THE REFERENCE PERIOD, ** PROCEDURES AT FIRST AND SECOND INSTANCE *** UNKNOWN
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
14/39
Chapter II
LIVING CONDITIONSDURING THE ASYLUMAPPLICATION PROCESS
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
15/39
15
In 2005 minimum standards concerning
the reception of asylum seekers, as stated
in Directive 2003/9/EC were introduced
into Cypriot legislation via the Refugee
Regulation of 2005 Reception Condi-
tions. They include material living con-
ditions such as accommodation, medical
care and fulfillment of basic needs, which
can be granted as a financial or material
donation. Particularly vulnerable refugees
are entitled to special care (SEE CHAPTER
IV FROM DIRECTIVE 2003/9/EC). The Ministry
of Labor and Social Insurance is in
charge of the implementation of these
standards.
1. Access to the job market
>LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
AND NATIONAL REGULATIONS
Asylum seekers are not permitted to en-
gage in paid labor until six months after
they have made their application. After
this period they can apply for work in a
legally defined area at the District Labor
Office. Until 02.10.2008 asylum seekers
were only allowed to work in the agri-
cultural sector. Access to other areas ofwork was made possible by appeals
from the Ombudsman Office and va-
rious NGOs (SEE HUMA 2010:43)11. The
Ministry of Labor and Social Insurance
defines permitted sectors and gives per-
mission to take up a professional acti-
vity.12 At present, asylum seekers are
restricted to the following areas: live
stock breeding, agriculture and fishery,
production of animal fodder, rubbish
collection, trade and manufacture,
cleaning (indoors and outdoors), food
delivery and distribution of publicity.
The District Labor Office can provide
and allocate jobs. Asylum seekers are
dependent on this allocation; if an indi-
vidual finds a job independently in a
permitted sector, the person responsible
for his file can prohibit this without for-
mal justification (SEE HUMA 2010: 43).
Asylum applicants are not listed in the
official job seekers database. Therefore,
they only have access to tailored job of-
fers and not to the general employment
service provided by the Department of
Labor. Other jobs are only given to asy-
lum seekers once an examination by the
Ministry of Labor and Social Insurance
has shown that they are not given pre-
cedence over Cypriot or EU citizens for
the job. One of the problems facing asy-
lum seekers is the competition from con-
tract employees from other EU member
states who incur lower social security
costs (SEE ENAR 2012:12).
The European financial crisis has
led to the highest unemployment rate
the Republic of Cyprus has ever known.13
Asylum seekers are hit especially hard.
Many reported that searching for jobs
had been difficult at the beginning of
the 2012 crisis, but still manageable.
Rising pressure on the job market hasrendered searching for jobs and obtaining
official permission even more difficult.
Future Worlds Center confirmed the in-
terviewees statements, describing the
employment situation faced by asylum
seekers during the current economic
crisis as very problematic. Restricted ac-
cess to the job market and the express
permission needed from the District La-
bor Office play a big part in the problem.
Due to increased pressure on the job
market and the scarcity of offers, condi-
tions have also worsened for the District
Labor Office staff. As a result, exami-
nation procedures take longer to com-
plete.
> DIFFICULTIES IN PROCESSING
Currently, asylum applicants are reques-
ted to visit the District Labor Office
every two months for job opportunities
or in order to obtain written justification
for the Social Welfare Service, stating
that there are no jobs available. Proces-
sing is slow due to structural deficiencies
in the employment service and the pro-
fessional insertion of asylum seekers.
Many interviewees criticized the negligent
treatment of applications for work li-
censes and denounced the behavior of
case officers at the District Labor Office
as discriminating and racist. There were
also complaints about poor communi-
cation between applicants, potential em-
ployers and the authorities involved.
This can cause existential problems for
asylum applicants since their social status
during this period is legally ambiguous
and neither the District Labor Office
nor the Social Welfare Service feel re-
sponsible for them (SEE CHAPTER II, 2).
> ALLEGATIONS OF VOLUNTARY
UNEMPLOYMENTMany interviewees stated that they
were refused social security benefits
under the pretext that their unemploy-
ment was self-inflicted. Claims of insuf-
ficient cooperation meant they were
categorized as voluntarily unem-
ployed and lead to their exclusion from
social benefit. This can occur for several
reasons. It mainly concerns individuals
who were not willing to accept very
poor working conditions and those ac-
cused of causing the assisted job search
to fail. Furthermore, many interviewees
spoke of job vacancies, which turned
out had already been filled long ago and
suggested offers, which required additio-
11 DESPITE THE OFFICIAL ACCESSIBILITY OF OTHER SECTORS AS OF THE END OF 2008, JOB OFFERS ARE STILL PREDOMINANTLY IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR. THESE STATEMENTS ARE
CONFIRMED IN THE HUMA REPORT (2010: 43).
12 MANY INTERVIEWEES SAID THEY HAD FOUND EMPLOYMENT IN PERMITTED SECTORS BUT THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE HAD NOT GIVEN ITS CONSENT. THIS METHOD MASSIVELY REDUCES
THE ASYLUM SEEKERS CHANCES OF FINDING EMPLOYMENT
13 AROUND 14% IN DECEMBER 2012. (HTTP://WWW.AUSWAERTIGES-
AMT.DE/SID_CA6F31E9FADBF8DA0BD50E8D084F0615/DE/AUSSENPOLITIK/LAENDER/LAENDERINFOS/ZYPERN/WIRTSCHAFT_NODE.HTML )
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
16/39
16
HOUSING FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN
KOFINOU: BATHROOMS..
nal qualifications. In these cases, em-
ployers were often not willing to docu-
ment refusals in writing, which lead to
claims of self-inflicted employment by
the District Labor Office and exclusion
from social benefit. There were also re-
ports of the District Labor Office adver-
tising jobs in businesses that had closeddown long ago, which led to applicants
being classified as voluntarily unem-
ployed despite making their cases
known to the relevant authorities.
> WORKING CONDITIONS
A further problem is caused by poor
working conditions in the agricultural
sector. Interviewees stated in detail that
working times ranging from 10 to 16hours daily, six days a week, with a
monthly salary of 300 to 500 Euros
without health insurance were by no
means an exception. In addition, the
state of accommodation provided by
employers, who are often responsible
for their employees living quarters, was
said to be insufficient. Some employees
had to live in containers and stables.
Furthermore, a large number of inter-viewees denounced irregular and missing
payments. There were isolated cases of
AND THE KITCHEN
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
17/39
17
sexual harassment by employers. Com-
plaints about working conditions are
often outweighed by the fear of losing
ones job and entitlement to social benefit.
A further complaint made by the
interviewees concerned the lack of con-
sideration of individual living situations
when providing jobs. People with health
problems, disabilities or those caring
for disabled individuals were allocated
unsuitable jobs without further consi-
deration (SEE HUMA 2010: 43). The situation
is especially difficult for single parents
since they do not receive any childcare
assistance during working hours. Some
reported having being allocated jobs
with obligatory night shifts.
The economic crisis helps to spread
the belief that asylum seekers are taking
jobs and receiving social benefit that
would otherwise be reserved for Cypriots.14As a result, migrants are denied access
to certain jobs, especially those with
direct customer contact.
A further consequence of the eco-
nomic crisis is the fact that asylum
seekers struggle to find jobs in the in-formal economy, which used to be their
only source of income in the first six
months following their arrival.
> MOBILITY
Work places in the agricultural sector
are usually located outside agglomerati-
ons. They are considered disadvantageous
for asylum seekers whose mobility is
restricted due to the lack of public trans-
portation in these regions. Very few
have their own motor vehicle and as a
result a large number of asylum seekers
living in rural regions have little or no
access to schools or places where they
can acquire products of first necessity.
2. Entitlement tosocial benefit
>LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
AND NATIONAL REGULATION
After depositing their asylum claim ap-
plicants are entitled to state funded aid
if they do not have the means to covertheir basic material needs. Social benefit
can be applied for at the Social Welfare
Service following deposition of the ap-
plication and an obligatory medical
check (SEE ASYLUM SERVICE 2001: 16). Access
to the job market is prohibited during
the first six months after an application
has been made. If applicants do not
have sufficient means to cover immediate
needs, they are entitled to advance cash
payments after applying for social benefit.
According to national legislation, asylum
seekers are entitled to the same amount
of social benefit as Cypriots, with one
difference being that asylum seekers are
not entitled to bonus Christmas and
Easter payments (SEE KISA 2011: 18).
>
PROBLEMS INRECEIVING SOCIAL BENEFIT
In practice, cash payments are rarely
advanced after a social benefit application
has been made. Financial support for
rent can only be applied for with a valid
lease contract and proof of an initial
rent payment. This leads to severe com-
plications, since the majority of asylum
seekers do not have the means to make
this payment (SEE KISA 2011: 19).
More than 20% (N=18) of intervie-
wees received social benefit for the first
time after more than six months, around
18% (N=16) within three to six months
and just about 15% (N=13) in the first
three months following their benefit
claim. Just below 33% (N=29) had never
received social benefit either because
they had been financially independent
from the beginning via informal profes-
sional activity or because their applica-
tions were unsuccessful. This survey
sheds light on the social security systems
great structural deficiencies.
>DELAYS AND LACK OF PRIMARY CARE
Lengthy delays in the processing of ap-
plications create existentially threatening
situations that only support from friends
and acquaintances or informal work
can compensate for. Many interviewees
expressed their desperation after depo-
siting their applications, asking themselves
how they would survive the coming
weeks and months without official sup-
port. In this context, the survey shows
that just below 33 % (N=29) of inter-
viewees earned a living through informal
work after their arrival and that about
16% (N=14) received support from
friends and acquaintances. A further
7% (N=6) explained that their income
consisted of a combination of work and
support from friends and acquaintances,
and 28% (N=25) indicated that they
had other sources of income. During in-terviews, many emphasized that they
had gotten into debt by borrowing
money from acquaintances in order to
make up for the lack of primary social
care. Communities from applicants re-
spective countries of origin are for many
the only reliable safety net during the
time in which they can neither work
nor receive benefit. Out of 27 interviewees
currently awaiting the Asylum Services
decision in the first instance, 13 of them
received social benefit and 14 were not
given any form of support. Members of
this group made several reports of the
Social Welfare Services payments being
irregular, incomplete and sometimes hal-
ted without notice.
A further problem is the low amount
of social benefit received. Interviews on
14 DIESES NEGATIVE KLIMA WIRD DURCH RECHTE UND NATIONALISTISCHE GRUPPEN SOWIE DURCH DIE MEDIEN GEFRDERT. BESONDERS IM ZUGE DER WIRTSCHAFTSKRISE, DER HOHEN
ARBEITSLOSIGKEIT UND VOR DEN AUFKOMMENDEN WAHLEN NAHMEN VORURTEILE GEGENBER NICHT-ZYPRERINNEN ZU. ASYLSUCHENDE WERDEN AUCH AUS REIHEN DER
PARLAMENTARISCHEN MITTE FR ARBEITSLOSIGKEIT, SINKENDEN LEBENSSTANDARD UND KRIMINALITT VERANTWORTLICH GEMACHT (VGL. KISA, FUTURE WORLDS CENTER, ENAR).
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
18/39
18
this subject showed that many people
had to make ends meet with less than
100 Euros a month. This especially
affects those living in a collective ac-
commodation in which the head of the
household has to manage with 85 Euros
and every other member with 17 Euros
a month, and have to deal with poor li-
ving conditions and a limited supply of
food.
Six months after their arrival in Cy-
prus, the District Labor Office has to
make a ruling for asylum seekers not to
be voluntarily unemployed. If this certi-
ficate is not given, which frequently oc-
curs as a result of the previously stated
practices of the District Labor Office,
social benefit is cut (SEE ENAR 2012: 18).
Many interviewees said their social
benefit payments were halted on these
grounds (SEE CHAPTER II, 1). This circums-
tance is especially tricky in the case of
mothers and families whose children
could be taken away by force. A renewed
benefit claim usually entails a several
month-long wait.
Salary levels of allocated jobs arealso problematic as the monthly pay
usually brings in less than social benefit
and cannot be compounded with extra
financial support from the Social Welfare
Service. Even asylum seekers in full-time
employment do not receive additional
payments. Not even when their income
is only 30% of the legally defined mini-
mum wage, which should guarantee an
existential minimum (SEE KISA 2011:18).
In the case of rejection by the Asylum
Service in first instance and a unfavorable
decision by the Reviewing Authority,
asylum seekers are still entitled to social
benefit but not, however, during the ap-
peal case at the Supreme Court following
a negative outcome in the second instance
(SEE EBD: 5). In the case of a legally
binding rejection by the Asylum Servicebefore reception of the first payment,
unsuccessful applicants are not entitled
to reimbursement for the time during
which they had asylum seeker status.
>COMMUNICATION AND
INTERACTION WITH AUTHORITIES
Many interviewees described contact
with the Social Welfare Service as extre-
mely difficult since information and for-
malities were usually dealt with in Greek
without translators present. Furthermore,
there were several reports -much like
those made about the District Labor
Office- of staff making racist and discri-
minating remarks. Many interviewees
explained that they practically had to
pry the payments out of them. The fol-
lowing accounts of three women with
children are particularly unsettling. The
staff threatened to take their children
away by force if they did not voluntarily
leave the Republic of Cyprus. Two of
the women had already made asylum
applications and the third had repeatedly
attempted to make an asylum claim, to
no avail.
Asylum seekers awaiting a verdict
from the appeal trial usually steer clearof the Social Welfare Service since it be-
came known that its staff had worked
in close contact with the Immigration
Police on several occasions and had
people arrested in their offices (SEE ENAR
2012: 22).
>PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE
ASYLUM SEEKERS
It is deeply unsettling that the needs of
particularly vulnerable applicants are
not taken into account in the decision
to grant access to social benefit. Accor-
ding to the Asylum Service and Future
Worlds Center, this is a legal requirement.
The problem lies in the fact that the
identification of particularly vulnerable
individuals does not operate according
to a system in the Republic of Cyprus.Many women said they had refused to
do hard labor in the agricultural sector
because they were pregnant, which lead
to them either receiving a reduced amount
of social benefit or it being altogether
withdrawn. These accounts give grounds
to suspect that staff might be dealing
inadequately with special needs even
when these are explicitly mentioned. Al-
location of a place in Kofinous collective
housing, which was introduced in view
of helping particularly vulnerable indi-
viduals does little to improve this situa-
tion. The accommodation is in dire need
of refurbishment (SEE CHAPTER II, 4). Fur-
thermore, the housing project is located
in a very isolated area, which complicates
access to adequate medical care. Since
asylum seekers are aware of the living
conditions in Kofinou, many choose to
get by without official support and seek
other sources of income.
3. Medical andpsychosocial care
>LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ASYLUM
SEEKERS IN THE REPUBLIC OF
CYPRUSNAsylum seekers and Cypriot citizens
alike are entitled to free health care as
long as they can prove that they do not
have sufficient financial means to bear
the costs themselves. Residing in a col-
lective accommodation, being on social
benefit or being classified as a particularly
vulnerable individual are all circumstances
that can serve as proof of this. In this
case, asylum seekers are given the so-
called medical card A. It gives access to
free emergency health care and the ne-
cessary medical treatment. This includes
outpatient and hospital treatment, pres-
cribed medication and the treatment of
serious infectious diseases such as HIV.
Particularly vulnerable refugees are also
given access to psychological support.
A medical examination is con-ducted as part of the asylum application
process after the asylum claim has been
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
19/39
19
handed in. This requirement must be
fulfilled prior to a benefit claim. Appli-
cants can then bring their examination
results to the Ministry of Health where
they can make a direct request for the
medical card A. It is generally issued six
months after application and must be
renewed regularly. Some described how
their carrying the HIV virus had lead to
the asylum process being halted, social
benefit payments discontinued and them
being threatened with deportation, which
the authorities had sometimes already
begun preparing (SEE HUMA 2011: 62). This
approach was justified by the fact that
those affected were deemed a danger to
public safety according to Article 6 (1)
(c) Aliens and Immigration Law and
therefore classified as prohibited im-
migrants.
Unaccompanied minors only receive
the medical card A once they have made
an asylum claim, as they are classified
as particularly vulnerable individuals.
Children who have not made an asylum
claim can use the services provided by
the medical card A only if their parentscan prove they do not have sufficient fi-
nancial means to cover the costs them-
selves.
>CARE DURING THE ASYLUM PROCESS
Many asylum seekers have trouble
providing proof of insufficient financial
means. As described in Chapter II, the
social support system often leaves indi-
viduals unaccounted for. Asylum seekers
who do not receive social benefit are
usually unable to provide an officially
recognized document certifying their
low income, which would entitle them
to the medical card A.
If asylum seekers are in possession
of the medical card A, the necessary
treatment should be provided in public
hospitals and in doctors surgeries. Ho-wever, there have been many complaints
about both insufficient and complete
lack of treatment, which mainly consists
of giving out painkillers. Furthermore,
the wait between the medical appoint-
ments and the actual medical treatment
of conditions can be very long, sometimes
even months after the diagnosis. Another
problem is the lack of transparency and
the fact that authorities and the ministries
in charge of immigration issues give asy-
lum seekers little to no information
about their rights. As a result, they are
often unaware of their fundamental right
to medical treatment. The insufficient
understanding displayed by doctors and
helpers is unfortunate. Asylum seekers
are often denied treatment or made to
bear medical costs even though they
have the medical card A. In this context,
language barriers are a great handicap
since they lead to misunderstandings re-
garding procedures and their legal fra-
mework. Asylum seekers are not entitled
to request for an interpreter to be present
during medical appointments.
Many interviewees also spoke of
racist comments and bullying in hospitals
and doctors surgeries. These remarksmainly suggested that those seeking
treatment had fraudulently obtained so-
cial benefit and others were advised to
return to their country. This type of be-
havior in the health sector causes wide-
spread apprehension and a sense of hel-
plessness, to the extent that some only
consider seeking medical treatment in
extreme emergencies.
Medical care for particularly vulne-
rable individuals as prescribed by Article
15 (2) from Directive 2003/9/EC is
barely implemented in practice. Basic
care for pregnant women, trauma suffe-
rers and victims of torture is insufficient.
There is no specific state funded aid for
particularly vulnerable individuals. This
is a fundamental problem, which becomes
clear as soon as an application is made.Due to the inadequate qualifications of
case officers the ascertainment of vulne-
rable status is often still incomplete until
shortly before the hearing, which takes
place six months after an application is
made (SEE FUTURE WORLDS CENTER, 2012:
3). Future Worlds Center stressed the
fact that trauma sufferers and victims
of torture as well as any kind of physical,
psychological and sexual violence are
most often not given any form of help.
>CARE FOR RECOGNIZED ASYLUM
SEEKERS
After being officially recognized as re-
fugees according to the Agreement on
the Legal Status of Refugees (Geneva
Refugee Convention 1951) asylum see-
kers are subject to the same laws as Cy-
priot citizens. If there is proof of insuf-
ficient financial means, they have a free
claim to the medical card A. In the case
of professional work, costs are covered
either by the employer or the person
themselves. Victims reported consistent
discrimination in medical care although
they were recognized refugees. These
reports indicate that the aforementioned
racism persists regardless of a personsstatus.
>CARE FOR UNSUCCESSFUL ASYLUM
APPLICANTS/ INDIVIDUALS
WITHOUT A VALID RESIDENCE
PERMIT
After a second unfavorable verdict
issued by the Reviewing Authority, the
people in question no longer have a
claim to medical care. If the denied ap-
plicants file an appeal with the Supreme
Court, they remain without access to
the public health system until the definite
rejection or acceptance of their appeal.
According to the Ministry of Health
first aid and emergency treatment for
those carrying the HIV virus or other
infectious diseases is available to everyone
regardless of their status (seeHUMA, 2010:
16). However, the greatest problem con-
sists of the fact that this guaranteed
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
20/39
20
... HOUSING CONTAINERS
emergency health care is often denied
or the costs of treatment not covered.
Furthermore, there is no legal framework
that would enable medical treatment of
denied asylum seekers and people without
the right of residence, as well as their
children. There is widespread fear that
receiving treatment in the hospital could
lead to personal information being di-
vulged to the Immigration Office or the
police. Out of fear of being deported,
many people choose to go without me-
dical treatment even in extreme emer-
gencies. This circumstance exposes preg-
nant women to great risk. In regular
daily care, comprehensive prenatal and
postnatal treatments as well as assistance
while giving birth are not guaranteed.
This can lead to long-term health pro-
blems for a mother and child, especially
since children without the right of resi-
dence are not granted free vaccines.
>MEDICAL CARE IN DETENTION
Detainees are entitled to receive free
medical treatment in public hospitals or
from doctors who are visiting detention
centers. In reality, many detainees are
denied this right. Interviewees spoke of
inexistent or inadequate medical treat-
ment in the detention center as well as a
very long waiting time until they are
transferred to a hospital or a doctors
surgery. Medical treatment is thereforesubject to arbitrary decisions by civil
servants in the judiciary sector.
4. Accommodationfor asylum seekers
There are three official locations in the
Republic of Cyprus where collective ac-
commodation is provided for asylum
seekers: Kofinou (80 people), Paphos
(70 people) and Larnaca (300 people).
The latter is a temporary residence in
hotels. Places in Kofinou are supposed
to be reserved mainly for women travel-
ling alone, families and particularly vul-
nerable asylum seekers. Providing ac-
commodation for asylum seekers is part
of the Social Welfare Services responsi-
bilities. However, this survey has shown
that due to the lack of space only a very
small number of asylum seekers are al-
located a place in a collective accom-
modation. If no allocation is made, asy-
lum seekers have to endeavor to find an
accommodation on their own. The Social
Welfare Service is then obligated to cover
the costs after they see the lease contract.
The allocation of spaces in collective
housing does not follow a set of principles
and barely takes the needs of the parti-
cularly vulnerable into account. Several
interviewees stated that at no time during
their entire stay in the Republic of
Cyprus were they allocated a place in
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
21/39
21
an official collective accommodation.
This also affected particularly vulnerable
individuals and families with small chil-
dren. If asylum seekers do not accept an
allocated place in collective accommo-
dation, the Social Welfare Service im-
mediately withdraws its financial support.
In such cases, the cost of renting a
private apartment is not covered.
>EFFECT ON THE ASYLUM
APPLICATION PROCESSA fixed abode is not only important
with regards to personal welfare and
safety but also for the successful com-
pletion of the asylum application process.
When making an application, asylum
seekers have to state a current address
in order to receive mail regarding ap-
pointments, refusals or admissions. Since
many asylum seekers have neither a
place in collective housing nor a private
apartment at the beginning of their stay
in Cyprus, they usually do not have a
personal address. These individuals usu-
ally reside temporarily with acquaintances
and change their address frequently. For
this reason, information relevant to the
asylum process often reaches applicants
too late, if at all. This very often leads
to problems in the completion of theasylum process since the authorities ac-
cuse applicants of a lack of cooperation.
The Asylum Service does indeed stress
that the process can be reengaged if
there is proof showing that the lack of
cooperation was not voluntary. However,
it is up to applicants themselves to
provide sufficient proof of this.
>MATERIAL SUPPLIES AND FOOD
Single residents of collective accommo-
dation receive 85 Euros a month in
cash. The head of the household in a fa-
mily receives 85 Euros and every furtherperson 17 Euros each. These costs do
not, however, include daily needs in
terms of clothing, toiletries, travel ex-
penses and school stationery. This budget
does not suffice for participation in
sports or cultural activities, such as
going to the cinema.
The supply of food consists of
sealed ready-made meals delivered on a
daily basis. Many of those affected des-
cribed the quality of the food as extremely
poor and unbalanced. However, if resi-
dents decide to prepare their own meals,
they are to bear the costs themselves. In
September 2012, communal breakfast
was indefinitely suspended in collective
accommodation in Kofinou, meaning
no lunch packs for school children and
no powdered milk for infants. Accordingto statements made by personnel, the
reason for this suspension is the Republic
of Cyprus poor financial situation. This
also goes for collective accommodation
in Paphos and Larnaca; during our re-
search stay the supply of milk and
nappies for infants was stopped. By ta-
king these measures the Republic of Cy-
prus knowingly neglects its duty as stated
in Article 13 (2) Directive 2003/9/EC:
to guarantee a standard of living that
ensures the well-being of asylum seekers.
An individual living in Kofinou reported
that the local staff had pronounced aban on using the washing machines over
a period of two weeks following protests
about the suspension of food supplies.
This type of arbitrary decision-making
was also mentioned with reference to
the covering of travel and transport ex-
penses. These are supposed to be covered
according to the Guide of Asylum (SEE
ASYLUM SERVICE 2011:9). In many cases,
those affected said demands were rejected
and they had to plan their transport in-
dividually.
>COLLECTIVE ACCOMMODATION IN
KOFINOU
Official collective accommodation
in Kofinou is mainly characterized by
its isolated geographical location. Cut
off from the small village of Kofinouthe containers are fenced off in the
middle of olive groves. They can only
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
22/39
22
be reached via a dirt track. Public trans-
port is only accessible after a four-kilo-
meter walk to Kofinou. Asylum seekers
registered in a collective accommodation
may only receive visitors at fixed hours
and only if they have been previously
declared. Residents said that Kofinou
was not suitable for permanent accom-
modation since the personnel occasionally
shut the gates, thus blocking emergency
exits.
Kofinou is home to many fa-
milies with children, but women and
men travelling alone are also allocated
places there. Although it is reserved for
particularly vulnerable individuals, this
principle is not consistently applied. This
is proven by the fact that neither ade-quately qualified therapists nor socio-
pedagogical personnel are present and
that childcare is not provided. Going to
school is a great problem for the children
living in the complex due to their isolated
location and the lack of transport con-
nections. Furthermore, many residents
complain about bad hygiene at the
shelter. There were reports of snakes
and cockroaches on the premises. There
is mold and rust in the washrooms, the
toilets and the kitchen. The containers
are minimally furnished with bunk beds,
a table, chairs and cupboards. Movement
is restricted and hygiene poor when
whole families of up to four people are
forced to live in a 15m2 room. This
persistent lack of privacy over several
years is especially burdening for childrenand youths. When weather conditions
are bad, residents are forced to go about
their daily lives collectively in very close
quarters since there are barely any other
common rooms.
>TEMPORARY COLLECTIVE
ACCOMMODATION IN LARNACA
AND PAPHOS
Temporary collective accommodation in
Larnaca and Paphos is made up of hotels
that still offer their regular hotel service
alongside their function as a shelter for
asylum seekers. Both complexes are si-
tuated at a short distance from the town
centers. In order to ensure that they are
separated from the tourists, asylum see-
kers have their living quarters on a dif-
ferent floor. The Paphos accommodationhas a backyard pool that can be used by
A Cameroonian woman died of pneumonia here in prison.
She was an asylum seeker and therefore received very poor
medical treatment. She had fallen ill after petitioning for
asylum. She went to the hospital and was given an appoint-
ment six months later. This also happened to me. Shortly
after my arrival here, I had stomach problems and had to
wait six months to see a doctor.
It was tragic that the woman was given an ap-
pointment so late. She went to private doctors beforehand
she had to get x-rays. It was far too expensive. Around
800 Euros, I believe. Afterwards, she went to the public
hospital with her medical card and asked for treatment
there. It was proven that she was in need of treatment but
she was still only given an appointment six months later.
She was sent home with a little bit of medication, which she
took, but her state did not improve. So she went back to
hospital, but she knew if you do not have an appointment,
they send you home anyway. That is why she went straight
to the A&E ward. They noticed there that the disease was
already very advanced. But no one told us that. I was there.
It was bad; they did not want to tell us anything. We asked
but they said she had a headache. We told doctors she had
pains in her chest area, how could it be a headache? The
doctors tried to get themselves out of it by saying that they
did not know what was wrong with her. She had to travel
to Paphos for the examination since they did not have the
necessary equipment in Limassol. She underwent a further
examination there. We were not told anything. But after the
examination in Paphos it became clear that it was already
too late. She had already lost too much blood. She was
given blood transfusions while we were there. She told us,
she had strong pains in her chest, and thereupon we asked
doctors to give her painkillers. They refused to do so and
said that the examination results did not justify that.
They said it was too late and that she had spent
too much time at home. She should have come earlier. We
were baffled by these statements and told them that there
were documents proving that she had been to hospital and
asked for treatment. At the time, she was given an appoint-
ment six months later. This was only five months ago. So
how can you say that she came to the hospital too late?!
The hospital staff did not give us any further explanations.
Two days later, she was dead.
ASYLUM SEEKER FROM CAMEROON
ASYLUM SEEKER DECEASED AFTER BEING DENIED MEDICAL TREATMENT
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
23/39
23
tourists. Asylum seekers are denied access
to this area. Their visitors must stay in
the hotel lobby, they are neither allowed
to visit the people in their rooms nor
use other areas. As was the case in Kofi-
nou, lack of organization and commu-
nication between the Social Welfare Ser-
vice and personnel leads to precarious
living conditions for asylum seekers.
The collective accommodations in Lar-
naca and Paphos are likewise clearly
overpopulated, with up to three people
living in one room at the same time.
Age, origin or religious orientations are
not taken into consideration, which leads
to problems in everyday life. Those af-
fected spoke of an everyday fear that
their religious orientation could be found
out by their roommates. Furthermore,
they spoke of racist remarks and dis-
missive behavior on the grounds of skin
color or appearance. Due to big age dif-
ferences, the already difficult daily plan-
ning is continually hampered by nego-
tiations over the pursuit of personal in-
terests. Families also share a single room.
Rooms are often in a very poor condition;mold and holes in the ceiling are not
uncommon. Physical separation from
other visitors and tourists and the res-
triction of outdoor activities is an espe-
cially painful experience for the children
of asylum seekers.
>ACCOMMODATION IN
PRIVATE APARTMENTS
All asylum seekers who are not al-
located a place in collective housing are
left to their own devices to find accom-
modation. They do not receive any kind
of support from the Social Welfare Ser-
vice. Asylum seekers run the risk of be-
coming homeless if they do not have a
strong social network. The majority of
asylum seekers are not granted a place
in a collective accommodation, thus ac-cording to HUMA Report 90% of asy-
lum seekers live in privately rented apart-
ments and houses. This poses a problem
for many asylum seekers shortly after
their arrival in the Republic of Cyprus.
Connections to communities, friends or
acquaintances are the only way for new
arrivals to find a place to sleep (SEE
HUMA 2011:40).
If asylum seekers find an apart-
ment or a room, they have to show the
Social Welfare Service a lease contract
in order to apply for cost-coverage. This
creates a great obstacle since the indivi-
duals in question, assuming that they
have access to private rental space, are
rarely provided with official contracts.
This is due to landlords being in a posi-
tion of authority and asylum seekers
not being seen as reliable tenants on
account of their status. This situation is
often a great strain on the individuals in
question. Even when a contract is pre-
sented to the Social Welfare Service, ap-
plicants only receive their first social
benefit payments three to six months
after the claim has been made (SEE KISA
2011: 17 F). During this time, asylum see-
kers have to come up with the rentthemselves. This regulation leads them
to either borrowing money and possibly
getting in debt or seeking informal work.
Further criticism was directed at the
Social Welfare Services irregular social
benefit payments for private apartments.
Many of those interviewed said they
only received the financial support they
were entitled to every two or three
months. When asked why financial aid
was only paid out in part, civil servants
answered that the Social Welfare Service
was trying to make savings. Those who
rebelled against this treatment were often
confronted with further restrictions. Un-
der these circumstances, many asylum
seekers are incapable of finding a per-
manent accommodation and are forced
into homelessness. Renting a private ac-commodation is rendered impossible by
irregular payments. It is apparent that
the Republic of Cyprus is not fulfilling
its duty when it comes to providing an
existential minimum for asylum seekers,
neither with regards to collective ac-
commodation nor to the necessary sup-
port during the search for private ac-
commodation. The authorities behavior
reveals that they knowingly jeopardizethe well being of asylum seekers via res-
trictive measures and failure to pay
social benefit in full.
HUNGERSTREIK GEGEN
DIE WOHNSITUATION
IN PAPHOS
Mrs. G, a young Iranian mo-
ther living in collective ac-
commodation in Paphos,
refused to eat as she did not
know what to give her one
year old baby to eat and
drink. In so doing, she also
wanted to complain about
the local living conditions.
Her questions and
pleas for the social workers
to give her child a little milk
were dismissed. When she
started her hunger strike in
order to protest against the
inhuman conditions endured
by asylum seekers in the Re-
public of Cyprus, the Immi-
gration Office threatened to
call a doctor who would de-
clare her mentally ill and
have her child taken away.
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
24/39
CHAPTER III
AFTER A LEGALLYBINDING DECISION
-
7/25/2019 En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus
25/39
25
1. After a (legally binding)rejection of the asylumapplication
By the time their application has been
rejected in the second instance, applicants
start to encounter severe difficulties.
This group theoretically has the possibility
of leaving the country voluntarily pro-
viding they have the necessary travel
documents and financial means- or of
filing a complaint to the Supreme Court.
Others opt for illegal residence in the
Republic of Cyprus by not obeying
orders to leave the country.
> VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE
The Republic of Cyprus has no set re-
gulation for unsuccessful asylum appli-
cants leaving the country voluntarily
and does not offer any kind of institu-
tionalized support. Since 2008, the Re-
public of Cyprus has been receiving sub-
sidies from the European Return Fund.
These subsidies are designated for de-
portations and support of voluntary de-
partures, according to Decision No.
575/2007/EC. In 2012, the Republic of
Cyprus was allocated at least 2.2 Million
Euros from this public fund but these
are not being used to support voluntary
departures. When detainees awaiting ex-
pulsion give written permission of vo-
luntary relocation to their country of
origin, this does not result in an imme-
diate transfer. This is caused by a lack
of organization of bureaucratic processes.According to a statement by immigration
officers, the Migration Department de-
votes a minimal amount of time to or-
ganizing deportations. Weeks, months
and even years go by until those awaiting
deportation are transferred back to their
country of origin.
The Ombudsman Office and the
NGO KISA know of several cases where
signatures for voluntary departure do-
cuments were obtained through physical
and psychological violence. One indivi-
dual reported that authorities had made
false statements with regards to the con-
tent of voluntary departure documents
written in Greek, in order to obtain a
signature. The person was told that the
document was a medical certificate. Ot-
hers said their voluntary departure had
not been enabled despite them agreeing
to sign the necessary documents. Case
officers told them they would have to
bear their own transfer costs despite
being detained against their own will.
Many of those interviewed would like
to return to their country of origin but
are scared of being detained by the Mi-
gration Department for several months
or years prior to their departure. The
existence of this hindrance to departu-
re, for which the Cypriot administration