Conference tomorrow in Leiden: The right to respect for private life and the regularisation of irregular migrants

(For English scroll down) Aanstaande vrijdag organiseert het Instituut voor Immigratierecht van de Universiteit te Leiden, in samenwerking met de SVMA, de conferentie: "Gekommen um zu bleiben: The right to respect for private life and the regularisation of irregular migrants". De Engelstalige conferentie zal in Leiden worden gehouden in een van de universiteitsgebouwen met een keur van internationale experts. De thema’s vanuit Nederlands perspectief worden onder andere belicht door Eva Hilbrink, Martijn Stronks en Agnes Stijn. De bijeenkomst begint om 10.00 uur en zal afgesloten worden met een afternoon (high) tea omstreeks 15.30 uur.

We verwachten een zonnige en inspirerende dag op een sfeervolle locatie. En na afloop is er voldoende tijd om uit te blazen in de nabijgelegen mooiste tuin<https://www.hortusleiden.nl/> van Nederland en het prachtige Leiden verder te verkennen.

U kunt zich hier http://www.leidenlawconference.nl/thuis/57-gekommen-um-zu-bleiben-the-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-the-regularisation-of-irregular-migrants inschrijven. (voor svma-leden: vermeld bij “remarks” (onderaan) dat u svma-lid bent, en u ontvangt dan geen rekening)

Meer info:

Irregular migrants who do not enjoy a status of lawful residence in a host state are in a particularly vulnerable position. They are often denied basic social and economic rights and are under the constant threat of being caught by the immigration authorities who seek the termination of their unlawful residence. The Member States of the EU are confronted with a significant number of irregular migrants. In this symposium, the prospect of irregular migrants who have lived in the host state for a long time to obtain lawful residence through regularisation is discussed from the perspective of the human right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even though the European Court of Human Rights consistently emphasises that the competence to decide on the entry and residence of foreign nationals, there have been a number of cases in which the Court has held that the state is obliged to provide for lawful residence. At the same time, some Member States have provisions in domestic immigration law providing for the regularisation of irregular migrants. To what extent is there a positive obligation to provide lawful residence? Under what circumstances could such an obligation exist? Could the EU Returns Directive provide for a legal basis for regularisation of these migrants? The objective of the symposium is to investigate the potential of the right to private life under Article 8 ECHR for the regularisation of irregular migrants.


Confirmed speakers:

• Ciara Smyth (NUI Galway)
  
•       Eva Hilbrink (Stichting Migratierecht Nederland)
• Kevin Fredy Hinterberger (Universität Wien)
  
• Martijn Stronks (VU University Amsterdam)
  
• Mark Klaassen and Gerrie Lodder (Leiden University)
  
• Agnes van Steijn (European Court of Human Rights)
  
• Julien Hardy (Cabinet d’avocats Casabel)
  

 

09.30h - 10.00h	Registration
10.00h - 10.15h	Opening
10.15h - 10.45h	Agnes van Steijn (European Court of Human Rights), Litigating the right to respect for private life at the European Court of Human Rights
10.45h - 11.15h	Ciara Smyth (NUI Galway), The use of the best interests of the child in the Article 8 ECHR jurisprudence
11.15h - 11.45h	Mark Klaassen (Leiden University), Rethinking exceptionality: Testing compliance with the right to respect for private and family life
11.45h -12.15h	Kevin Fredy Hinterberger (Universität Wien), A proposal for an EU Regularisation Directive
12.15h -13.00h	Lunch
13.00h - 13.30h	Julien Hardy (Casabel Cabinet d'avocats), Regulatisation of irregular migrants in Belgium
13.30h - 14.00h	Eva Hilbrink (Stichting Migratierecht), The CJEU and the Decline of Immigration Control as a Carte Blanche Legitimate State Interest
14.00h - 15.00h	Case discussion and panel discussion
15.00h - 15.30h	Reflections from the course 'The Immigrant Child'
15.30h - 16.30h	High tea

 Kamerlingh Onnes Building, Steenschuur 25, Leiden

 Fee for Lawyers: €195,00
Common fee: €75,00
Student fee: €25,00
Participation for members 'Specialisten Vereniging Migratierecht Advocaten' is free of charge

 http://www.leidenlawconference.nl/thuis/57-gekommen-um-zu-bleiben-the-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-the-regularisation-of-irregular-migrants#registration-prices



Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context. Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email

Can children and parents apply to remain after seven years residence? Het Britse verhaal over recht op priveleven gewortelde kinderen

Voor hen die bezig zijn met zaken rond langdurig verblijvende kinderen wat inspiratie uit Engeland. Bedenk echter wel dat in Engeland 8 EVRM is vertaald naar Brits nationaal recht en dat minder ruimte lijkt te geven voor een weging van het belang van de staat zoals het EVRM wel kent.

Can children and parents apply to remain after seven years residence?

From a child’s perspective, seven years of residence in the UK can be literally a lifetime. It may be the sum of all the child’s experience and the UK may be the only home they know in any meaningful sense. On top of that, children do not make their own informed choices about moving homes and countries. To put it another way, whilst adults make informed choices about where to live, children have to cope with the consequences of other people’s choices.

Lees hier verder: 

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/can-children-and-parents-apply-to-remain-after-seven-years-residence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-children-and-parents-apply-to-remain-after-seven-years-residence&utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=a3d6e1de94-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_WEEKLY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-a3d6e1de94-116334469&mc_cid=a3d6e1de94&mc_eid=b72b4a153a 

Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context. Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email

Buitenlandse artikelen over migratierecht (Dublin, 8 EVRM, Schengen)

‘New’ Article 8 Authorities Are Not Legislation (artikel 8 priveleven lijkt een heel ander leven te lijden dan in NL)

Posted on February 10, 2015 by mkp

R (Esther Ebun Oludoyi & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Article 8 – MM (Lebanon) and Nagre) IJR [2014] UKUT 539 (IAC) (29 October 2014 )
This decision clarifies that judgments such as Nagre [2013] EWHC 720, Gulshan [2013] UKUT 640 (see here) and Shahzad [2014] UKUT 85 must not be construed as qualifying or fettering the evaluation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Equally, according to the Upper Tribunal, the guidance provided in these authorities must be read in context and must not be construed as if the judgments are pieces of legislation. This decision also tries to correct the axiomatic misunderstanding that under Nagre if a person does not satisfy the requirements for the grant of leave under Appendix FM or paragraph 276ADE of the immigration rules, then a “threshold” of a “good arguable case” needs to be shown before the duty arises to consider article 8 beyond any immigration rules which set out criteria for the consideration of family or private life.

 continue: https://asadakhan.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/new-article-8-authorities-are-not-legislation-2/

Dublinzaak: Refoulement gevaar Frankrijk? 

Zie uitspraak:  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/244.html

The UK joins the Schengen Information System 

I t took ages for the EU to get SIS II up and running, and it finally accomplished this task by April 2013 (see Decision here). The UK had planned to join SIS II shortly after it became operational, but this was complicated by the process of opting out of EU criminal law and policing measures adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and simultaneously opting back in to some of them again, on December 1^st 2014 (see discussion of that process here). This included an opt back in to the SIS rules.

Once that particular piece of political theatre concluded its final act, the EU and the UK returned to the business of sorting out the UK’s opt in to SIS II in practice. This week’s decision completed that process, giving the UK access to SIS II data starting from March 1^st. The UK can actually use that data, and enter its own data into the SIS, from April 13^th.

 

More: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/bringing-panopticon-home-uk-joins.html

Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.

Posted with permission from autor. Original article: http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2012/06/10/can-article-8-be-overridden/  The Free Movement blog is written mainly by barristers in the immigration team at Renaissance Chambers

 

Can Article 8 be ‘overridden’?

By Free Movement On 10 June 2012 · Leave a Comment · In Human rights, News

The BBC is today reporting that Theresa May intends on Monday to introduce new guidelines telling judges what to think about Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 is the right to a private and family life and is worth quoting in full:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

May is quoted as stating that Article 8 is not absolute and can be overridden to prevent crime, protect national security and safeguard the rights of others:

“In the interests of the economy, or controlling migration or public order, those sort of issues, the state has a right to qualify the right to a family life.”

As anyone can see, she is largely right. Article 8 is not absolute, unlike some other human rights such as Article 3, the right to freedom from torture. The right to a private and family life must be balanced against other factors. Where she is wrong is in suggesting that the State has a right to qualify Article 8. This is fundamentally and misleading because Article 8 is already a qualified right. It is part of its nature that it is qualified. The State does not need to do anything to qualify it, and to suggest otherwise is to misrepresent the nature of human rights for political purposes and pretend that something can be done when in truth it cannot.
Striking a difficult balance between the right to a private and family life and the very important competing considerations is exactly what immigration judges do, day in, day out. In the vast majority of cases (between 2 and 8% according to JCWI) the judge comes down against the foreign criminal. Only in pretty small minority of cases does whatever private or family life has been established in the UK take precedence over other considerations.
Assuming that all this is not mere political gumph to please the anti-human rights lobby, what May is really suggesting is simply removing Article 8 or, to put it another way, making the competing factors absolute and binding. When the courts reach a decision on Article 8 (and this supposedly applies to the UK Border Agency as well) they have to undertake a five step legal assessment:

(i) Will there be an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for his private or family life?

(ii) If so, will such interference have consequences of such gravity as potentially to engage the operation of article 8?

(iii) If so, is such interference in accordance with the law?

(iv) If so, is such interference necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others?

(v) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?

This assessment is mandated by the House of Lords decision in Razgar [2004] 2 AC 368 and by innumerable Strasbourg judgments. There is no legal way round the assessment. May wants judges always to answer ‘yes’ to question (v) in every case, but in law they cannot. Our judges remain independent and must carry out an independent assessment. The only ways to achieve what May wants are:

1. Modify the Human Rights Act

2. Withdraw from the Council of Europe

3. Remove access to the courts, or

4. Do away with an independent judiciary.

From the language she uses, it is disturbing to think a major politician, the Home Secretary no less, is actually advocating the last of these options. Unfortunately, there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think: the appalling  section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 was a similar attempt in another context. In any other area of law than immigration this would have caused a huge outcry for not just undermining but explicitly abrogating the independence of the judiciary, but there are few in or outside Parliament who are willing to stand up for asylum seekers or immigrants. Still less for foreign criminals or for their spouses or children.
There may be short term political benefits but in the longer term this sort of politics is very dangerous.

 




Law blog Klik op +1 als u dit een interessant artikel vindt en Google zal het dan beter zichtbaar maken in de zoekresultaten.