Netherland, De Nationale Ombudsman
<base href="http://t3urednik.sigov.si/varuh-rs/typo3/" />
De Nationale Ombudsman
NETHERLAND
THE WORK
Special investigation: Delays in processing asylum applications from suspected human rights violators
The Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) is failing to meet the statutory deadlines for processing asylum applications which have to be screened on serious crimes or human rights violations by the applicants (article 1F of the Convention compel member states to do so). It is lacking in care to inform applicants on their cases and about recording the full details of each case. These were the findings of the National Ombudsman Roel Fernhout, who conducted an investigation into the processing of these so called “1F cases”. Fernhout reported his findings to the State Secretary for Justice, recommending that the backlog be cleared within a year. The quick process of applications is not only important for the applicants, but is also in the country’s best interest.
Article 1F of the Convention relating to the status of refugees denies the right to protection under the Convention to any person who has committed a serious crime or human rights violation in his country of origin. 1) Anyone to whom this applies may therefore be refused admission to the Netherlands. And although the authorities must conduct a thorough investigation before making such a decision, they are also bound by a statutory time limit. Applicants must be informed about their position as soon as possible.
The Ombudsman noted that it is also in the public interest to process these cases quickly. The longer it takes, the smaller the chance of bringing offenders to justice.
Moreover, delays pose a threat to public order and safety. Refugees who have already been admitted to the Netherlands should not be exposed to former compatriots whom they had reason to fear in their country of origin.
Processing times
The number of applications that need 1F screening has increased steadily from 25 in October 1999 (with a backlog of 866 at the end of that year) to 1,800 in August 2001. The 1F team responsible for processing them has been wholly unable to meet the statutory six-month deadline for a decision on asylum applications. By mid-2001 the team was taking an average of 30 months to process applications, thus overrunning the deadline by two years. The processing of objections of the applicants against decisions taken by the IND took more than 22 months in 2001 2), whereas the statutory time limit is 14 weeks.
One of the main reasons for these delays is that the regional departments of the IND transfer all 1F cases to a special 1F team, often long after the deadline has passed. The Ombudsman saw this as a major flaw in the way the IND organises its work. Moreover, the IND had underestimated the number of applications and objections it would be expected to process, which has been consistently very much higher than anticipated. The Ombudsman also felt that the 1F team was too small to handle the present volume of work.
Another reason for the delays is the planning of follow-up interviews with applicants. In most 1F cases the authorities need to question applicants more than once in order to reach a balanced decision. The investigation showed that it often takes two to three months before follow-up interviews are held. In view of the six-month time limit, the Ombudsman considers this delay too long.
Regular updates
The IND notifies applicants when their case is transferred to the 1F team. The Ombudsman feels that applicants should receive regular updates on the progress made in their case, and welcomes the State Secretary’s decision to provide such information in all 1F cases.
Records
The Ombudsman also found that relevant information ( e.g. how long cases had been pending) was not included in the IND’s database. Nor did the database show how long it takes to process cases after they have been transferred to the 1F team. Registering these times would allow rapid access to important information about the processing of cases.
Conclusion
While the investigation was under way, the State Secretary announced measures to speed up and improve the processing of 1F cases. An extra team would be set up and applicants would receive regular updates. The Ombudsman feels that still more could be done. He advised the State Secretary to devise a plan of action to process 1F cases more efficiently and clear the backlog within a year. Areas that need special attention are the planning of follow-up interviews with applicants and the recording of data showing how long it takes to deal with each case. In spite of these critical remarks, the Ombudsman observed that a great deal of progress had been made in the application of article 1F within a relatively short time.
The Ombudsman took the initiative to conduct this investigation, as no solution could be found to the many individual complaints he received relating to 1F applications. The aim was to gain a more structured view of the problems involved.
In the meantime, elections have taken place in the Netherlands and the function of State Secretary has been replaced by that of a Minister of Immigration and Integration.
On 31 July the Minister stated he would follow the recommendation. He informed the National Ombudsman that a plan is being developed which will be ready in October 2002. Furthermore concrete measures have been taken. Finally the Minister wants to have cleared the backlog in April next year and by that time handle applications within the statutory deadlines.
MISCELLANEOUS
Conference internal complaint handling on 7 November 2002
As you may have read in a previous issue of the European Ombudsman Newsletter, internal complaint handling is one of the main points of policy of the Dutch National Ombudsman Roel Fernhout. It is therefore no surprise that internal complaint handling is also the subject of a conference the Ombudsman will hold in November of this year to mark the 20th anniversary of the institute in the Netherlands.
The event will take place in The Hague and all national administrative authorities that are by law required to have an internal complaints procedure are invited. Also the liaison officers of the authorities are asked to come. As a consequence about 500 people are expected to attend the conference. The event will take place in the afternoon and will be concluded with a drink.
The idea was not to have a conference with just presentations but to offer people practical suggestions on how to handle complaints. We plan to do this by discussing complaint recognition, communication and complaint management. Also not all speakers will be lawyers or connected with the government. For instance the presentation on complaints management will be given by the director of a market research bureau.
We also want people to actively participate during the conference. Therefore we will give statements before and after each presentation about the subject under discussion. The participants can give their opinion via an electronic voting system. Next time we will inform you on the results of the conference.
News
The National Ombudsman of the Netherlands has a column in one of the biggest national newspapers every Saturday. In it he discusses one of his reports in an informal way. These columns, as might be expected, are in Dutch and have always been posted on the web site of the Ombudsman. They were never before translated. Recently, however, many columns were translated in English and posted on the web site. In this way more people can get to know the work of the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands better. The address of the site is: http://www.nationaleombudsman.nl/news/index.html.
INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS
On 17 June the Flemish Ombudsman Mr. Bernard Hubeau and delegation visited the office of the National Ombudsman in order to discuss the internal right of complaint.
1) “The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity [...], a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge [...or] acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
2) Before the new Aliens Act came into force in 2000, applicants could object to a decision. The new Act abolished this procedure. Applicants can now ask a court in The Hague to review their case.
Newsletter No. 28
De Nationale Ombudsman
NETHERLAND
THE WORK
Special investigation: Delays in processing asylum applications from suspected human rights violators
The Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) is failing to meet the statutory deadlines for processing asylum applications which have to be screened on serious crimes or human rights violations by the applicants (article 1F of the Convention compel member states to do so). It is lacking in care to inform applicants on their cases and about recording the full details of each case. These were the findings of the National Ombudsman Roel Fernhout, who conducted an investigation into the processing of these so called “1F cases”. Fernhout reported his findings to the State Secretary for Justice, recommending that the backlog be cleared within a year. The quick process of applications is not only important for the applicants, but is also in the country’s best interest.
Article 1F of the Convention relating to the status of refugees denies the right to protection under the Convention to any person who has committed a serious crime or human rights violation in his country of origin. 1) Anyone to whom this applies may therefore be refused admission to the Netherlands. And although the authorities must conduct a thorough investigation before making such a decision, they are also bound by a statutory time limit. Applicants must be informed about their position as soon as possible.
The Ombudsman noted that it is also in the public interest to process these cases quickly. The longer it takes, the smaller the chance of bringing offenders to justice.
Moreover, delays pose a threat to public order and safety. Refugees who have already been admitted to the Netherlands should not be exposed to former compatriots whom they had reason to fear in their country of origin.
Processing times
The number of applications that need 1F screening has increased steadily from 25 in October 1999 (with a backlog of 866 at the end of that year) to 1,800 in August 2001. The 1F team responsible for processing them has been wholly unable to meet the statutory six-month deadline for a decision on asylum applications. By mid-2001 the team was taking an average of 30 months to process applications, thus overrunning the deadline by two years. The processing of objections of the applicants against decisions taken by the IND took more than 22 months in 2001 2), whereas the statutory time limit is 14 weeks.
One of the main reasons for these delays is that the regional departments of the IND transfer all 1F cases to a special 1F team, often long after the deadline has passed. The Ombudsman saw this as a major flaw in the way the IND organises its work. Moreover, the IND had underestimated the number of applications and objections it would be expected to process, which has been consistently very much higher than anticipated. The Ombudsman also felt that the 1F team was too small to handle the present volume of work.
Another reason for the delays is the planning of follow-up interviews with applicants. In most 1F cases the authorities need to question applicants more than once in order to reach a balanced decision. The investigation showed that it often takes two to three months before follow-up interviews are held. In view of the six-month time limit, the Ombudsman considers this delay too long.
Regular updates
The IND notifies applicants when their case is transferred to the 1F team. The Ombudsman feels that applicants should receive regular updates on the progress made in their case, and welcomes the State Secretary’s decision to provide such information in all 1F cases.
Records
The Ombudsman also found that relevant information ( e.g. how long cases had been pending) was not included in the IND’s database. Nor did the database show how long it takes to process cases after they have been transferred to the 1F team. Registering these times would allow rapid access to important information about the processing of cases.
Conclusion
While the investigation was under way, the State Secretary announced measures to speed up and improve the processing of 1F cases. An extra team would be set up and applicants would receive regular updates. The Ombudsman feels that still more could be done. He advised the State Secretary to devise a plan of action to process 1F cases more efficiently and clear the backlog within a year. Areas that need special attention are the planning of follow-up interviews with applicants and the recording of data showing how long it takes to deal with each case. In spite of these critical remarks, the Ombudsman observed that a great deal of progress had been made in the application of article 1F within a relatively short time.
The Ombudsman took the initiative to conduct this investigation, as no solution could be found to the many individual complaints he received relating to 1F applications. The aim was to gain a more structured view of the problems involved.
In the meantime, elections have taken place in the Netherlands and the function of State Secretary has been replaced by that of a Minister of Immigration and Integration.
On 31 July the Minister stated he would follow the recommendation. He informed the National Ombudsman that a plan is being developed which will be ready in October 2002. Furthermore concrete measures have been taken. Finally the Minister wants to have cleared the backlog in April next year and by that time handle applications within the statutory deadlines.
MISCELLANEOUS
Conference internal complaint handling on 7 November 2002
As you may have read in a previous issue of the European Ombudsman Newsletter, internal complaint handling is one of the main points of policy of the Dutch National Ombudsman Roel Fernhout. It is therefore no surprise that internal complaint handling is also the subject of a conference the Ombudsman will hold in November of this year to mark the 20th anniversary of the institute in the Netherlands.
The event will take place in The Hague and all national administrative authorities that are by law required to have an internal complaints procedure are invited. Also the liaison officers of the authorities are asked to come. As a consequence about 500 people are expected to attend the conference. The event will take place in the afternoon and will be concluded with a drink.
The idea was not to have a conference with just presentations but to offer people practical suggestions on how to handle complaints. We plan to do this by discussing complaint recognition, communication and complaint management. Also not all speakers will be lawyers or connected with the government. For instance the presentation on complaints management will be given by the director of a market research bureau.
We also want people to actively participate during the conference. Therefore we will give statements before and after each presentation about the subject under discussion. The participants can give their opinion via an electronic voting system. Next time we will inform you on the results of the conference.
News
The National Ombudsman of the Netherlands has a column in one of the biggest national newspapers every Saturday. In it he discusses one of his reports in an informal way. These columns, as might be expected, are in Dutch and have always been posted on the web site of the Ombudsman. They were never before translated. Recently, however, many columns were translated in English and posted on the web site. In this way more people can get to know the work of the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands better. The address of the site is: http://www.nationaleombudsman.nl/news/index.html.
INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS
On 17 June the Flemish Ombudsman Mr. Bernard Hubeau and delegation visited the office of the National Ombudsman in order to discuss the internal right of complaint.
1) “The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity [...], a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge [...or] acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
2) Before the new Aliens Act came into force in 2000, applicants could object to a decision. The new Act abolished this procedure. Applicants can now ask a court in The Hague to review their case.
