Seán Power (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)

I will follow up the matter on the basis of what the Deputy has said. However, I am replying on behalf of the Minister.

Belgium accepted responsibility for the case on 2 December 2005, and a transfer order was signed on 11 January 2006 requiring the person concerned to return to Belgium. The order issued to her on 16 January 2006, requiring her to present herself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, on Monday, 23 January 2006. She presented, as required, and was requested to present again on 26 January 2006, to make final arrangements for her flight to Belgium which had been booked for the following day, Friday, 27 January. However, she failed to present as required and is now classified as having evaded her transfer. The Belgian authorities have been notified and an extension of time of up to 18 months to effect the transfer has been sought in accordance with Article 19.4 of the regulation.

In the meantime, her legal representative, the Refugee Legal Service, RLS, has been in correspondence with the Dublin II transfer unit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform stating its client is in hospital and has submitted medical reports setting out the nature of her illness and the care she is receiving. The Minister is not disputing the medical reports presented by the RLS, but medical reasons alone are not criteria under the regulation for processing her asylum claim in Ireland.

The Minister wishes me to repeat again that this person's transfer will be dealt with in a sympathetic and humane way and her medical needs will be made known, in advance, to the Belgian authorities. If necessary, medical escorts to accompany her on her transfer flight will be provided. The Minister is satisfied the Belgian health and social services are well capable of dealing with her medical needs.

Belgium, and not Ireland, is responsible for examining the asylum application of the person concerned. Indeed, it is for the Belgian authorities to assess the protection needs, if any, of the person concerned. The Minister wishes to point out again that the applicant is not being removed to her home country, the Democratic Republic of Congo, but to Belgium, to have her claim considered there. Belgium, like Ireland, is a party to and thus bound by the same international obligations and human rights instruments prohibiting refoulement. The current development of a common EU asylum policy is predicated on the full and inclusive application by member states of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 New York Protocol, thus maintaining the principle of non-refoulement. Council Regulation (EC) No. 432/2003 is based on this common policy and all regulation states are considered safe for returning third country nationals. The Minister is, therefore, satisfied that any protection needs arising in this case can be suitably dealt with by the Belgian authorities.

Having regarded these considerations and the fact that Belgium is responsible under the Council regulation for the examination of her asylum application, the transfer cannot be deemed to give rise to refoulement. Any unnecessary delay in effecting her transfer to Belgium will only deny her the opportunity of an early examination of her asylum claim and the affording of international protection to her, if required.

In summary, the person concerned made an earlier asylum application in Belgium on 4 April 2005. The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner has determined, and the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal has upheld an appeal, that Belgium is the country responsible for processing the application and Belgium has accepted its responsibilities for the case.

See this speech in context