Policies regarding VGs. Since 2015, Spain is not implementing a national integration programme for third-country nationals. In Spain, policies lack of coordination among public administrations and lack of specificity. In the following pages we describe current policies on the national territory and point out some Autonomous Communities policies towards vulnerable groups. Note on European Policies: From a European point of view, vulnerable groups are identified according to the Qualification Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU). The transposition of European Policies (common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection) in Spain is seen as weak by the different stakeholders, although their evaluation criteria for this consideration varies. This is a common diagnosis in most of European countries and considered as such by the own European Commission. Asylum European Policies description and a state of development and transposition is available at the different European Parliament facts sheets and informative mechanisms. Sokolska (2019) summed them up along these lines (with modifications): “With the adoption of the Tampere Programme in October 1999, the European Council decided that the common European system should be implemented in two phases: the adoption of common minimum standards in the short term should lead to a common procedure and a uniform status for those who are granted asylum valid throughout the Union in the longer term.” (paragraph 5) First phase of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) from 1999-2004 (which will not be examine here due to it outdatedness1).
Policies regarding VGs. In Finland, two laws are regulating the reception, services, rights and responsibilities of asylum seekers. ‘Aliens act’ regulates migration flows, protection and residential rights of foreign persons in Finland. Further and particularly concerning asylum seekers, the ‘Act on the Reception of Persons Applying for International Protection and on the Identification of and Assistance to Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings’ (often cited as ‘Reception act’) set the ground for organising reception services, accommodation of asylum seekers, their benefits and recognition of vulnerabilities. In the Finnish public policies and services, integration services are separated from the reception system. Therefore, at the formal level, the attention and inclusion practices for asylum seekers are regulated in the two acts mentioned (and not in the Integration Act). The legal definition of vulnerability in the European Court of Human Rights is quite comprehensive: practically all asylum seekers can be defined as vulnerable and thus in need of special attention and inclusion practices (EIHCR). In article 21 of EU’s Reception Conditions Directive, several groups are defined as vulnerable: minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation. However, the Finnish Aliens act includes only one quite obscure statement of vulnerability. It was added to the legislation when harmonizing the Finnish Aliens act with the EU’s Reception Conditions Directive. The statement prescribes that asylum seekers with special needs - either arisen from a vulnerable position or otherwise noticed during the asylum procedure - are given support to ensure them to benefit the rights and follow the obligations involved in the asylum procedure (Aliens act §96a). Vulnerability is not defined but the statement refers to the Reception act´s notion of vulnerability. The Reception act includes a section concerning the application of the law to those in a vulnerable position. Age and physical and mental state are giving as examples. According to the statement, reception centres have an obligation to identify vulnerability and special needs related to that in a reasonable time and special nee...
Policies regarding VGs. Hungary has been a part of the 1951. UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967. Protocol. It was the first country in the then communist bloc to sign and ratify it in June 1989. Until 1998, the Convention was applied with the geographical restriction, recognizing refugees coming from European countries. The UNHCR opened its office in Hungary in 1989 and has been continuously present since. Currently it functions as a regional representation, covering eight counties in Central-Europe and the Western-Balkans. IOM also has a representation in Hungary since 1992. Its Budapest office worked as a regional representative for the first decade of the 2000s. As an EU member state, Hungary has transposed all migration and asylum-related standard rules, and it is also involved in the work of the relevant EU agencies such as FRONTEX or the EASO. However, for the past ten years, politics and political communication in Hungary has become increasingly ethnocentric and nationalistic, framing immigration as one of the major threats to the integrity of the Hungarian (and European alike) people. As a result, the country has become increasingly hostile toward immigrants, especially asylum seekers. There has been a series of legal and political measures endorsed with a thorough political and public communication campaign that resulted in the dismantling of the refugee reception and integration systems. The increased volume of immigration in 2015-2016 affected Hungary significantly. Being located on the external borders of the European Union and the Schengen zone, Hungary has been a primary destination for both regular and irregular migration. During this crisis, the Hungarian government decided to build a physical fence on the Hungarian- Serbian (and later on the Hungarian-Croatian) border to prevent unauthorized border crossings. Besides the building of the wall, the government passed several legal amendments to reduce illegal migration to Hungary. For example, Hungary designated Serbia as a safe country, therefore, apprehended migrants could be sent back there. Furthermore, Hungary made expedited asylum determination possible while guaranteed only limited procedural safeguards for applicants. Also, illegal border crossing (including climbing through the fence) was declared a criminal offense, therefore, refugees apprehended while climbing could be imprisoned. Restrictive Hungarian legislation continued to have a substantial impact on the country's migratio...
Policies regarding VGs. 1.2 Implementation of the strategies and policies.
