European instruments for the deportation of foreigners and their uses by France and Switzerland: the application of the Dublin III Regulation and Eurodac

ABSTRACT

The European Union put in place instruments for the deportation of foreigners that gained much importance. This article describes the multiplicity and diversity of these instruments. To analyse them more clearly, it distinguishes three types: legal, organisational and technological. The article equally points to the increasing relevance of technological tools, especially the use of biometrics. It also looks at how a founding member of the EU, France, and an associated country, Switzerland, utilise these European instruments to deport foreigners by focusing on the Dublin III Regulation as well as the Eurodac database, jointly referred to as the Dublin System. Grounding on a comparative study combining documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews and participant observation, this article describes the similarities and differences in the use of the Dublin System in these two countries. Moreover, it also reveals these countries’ specificities with regard to the roles played by local and national administrative bodies, and associative actors. The paper ends by concluding that to fully understand the deportation process in the European context as well as in certain countries, a multifaceted approach is required to make sense of the various interactions taking place between local, national and supranational frameworks, actors and practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Deportation
• Dublin Regulation
• Eurodac
• biometrics
• European Union
• France
• Switzerland

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See for example European Commission (2015).

2 The Amsterdam Agreement in 1997 incorporated this agreement into European community acquis.

3 The European Commission published a proposal for a more restrictive recasting of this Directive on 12 September 2018.

4 This Regulation uses the term ‘transfer’ as it is based on the assumption of a European common asylum system. We prefer the term deportation as it corresponds better to the current reality of States’ practices and our definition the deportation of foreigners.

5 In some regions, such as Île-de-France, courts do not respect this limitation because of heavy workload. Asylum applications must wait sometimes several weeks to know the outcome of their appeal.

6 Despite its translation into English, the limitation of freedom of movement by assignation à residence of the French Law can be much larger, as big as a neighbourhood, a municipality or a department.

7 As Swiss authorities, French prefectures can introduce Dublin requests to several countries, for a same person, if Eurodac or VlS data show they irregularly entered, overstayed and/or asked for asylum in these countries.

8 See, https://www.lacimade.org/dublin-etat-des-lieux-et-conseils-pratiques-en-ile-de-france/ last retrieved on 5 February 2018.

9 The translation of its title is: Instruction on the application of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, known as Dublin III – Use of house arrest and administrative detention in the context of transfer decisions.

10 It is, however, necessary to point out that the situation regarding the use of the Dublin procedure was not similar in all regions before this directive. Some local governorships, such as the Rhône Department, were already systematically applying Dublin procedures, according to a lawyer (interview of 17 April 2017).

11 For example, according to the decree for the Hauts-de-France of 20 December 2017, the Dublin procedures are henceforth handled by the Département du Nord.

12 According to the accelerated procedure of asylum applications entered into force in March 2019, Dublin deportation orders are henceforth made in one of eight federal asylum centres which are managed by the SSM. Cantons where these centres are situated are responsible for handling the execution of deportation orders made by this federal authority.

13 https://solidaritetattes.ch last retrieved on 14 June 2017.

14 Even though some of this court’s decisions limit States’ restrictive application of the Dublin III Regulation, this does not invalid Dembour’s (2015) argument according to which the EHRC put forward State rights to deport people instead of migrants’ rights.

15 28 EU members excluding Czechia

16 Which was more than 51% in 2018 according to deportation statistics of the Frontex (Frontex 2019).