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


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

[email protected]

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


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.


4/39

Chapter 0

INTRODUCTION


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


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


7/39

Chapter I

THE COURSEOF THE ASYLUMPROCEDURE

THE IDENTITY-PAPER FOR

ASYLM SEEKERS


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).


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.


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


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


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.


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


14/39

Chapter II

LIVING CONDITIONSDURING THE ASYLUMAPPLICATION PROCESS


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 )


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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.


24/39

CHAPTER III

AFTER A LEGALLYBINDING DECISION


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

Documents

En - Asylum in Republic of Cyprus