Začasna zaščita in nadaljevanje dela na daljavo za državo izvora
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37886/ip.2024.009Ključne besede:
azilno pravo EU, množični prihodi razseljenih oseb, začasna zaščita, begunci, delo za javne organePovzetek
Raziskovalno vprašanje (RV): Ali lahko razseljene osebe v skladu z zakonodajo EU (Direktiva 2001/55/ES) še naprej delajo za javne organe svoje izvorne države ali bi bilo treba njihovo mednarodno zaščito preklicati z ozko razlago po analogiji Konvencije ZN o beguncih iz leta 1951 ali bi bilo treba to pogodbo ZN razlagati v skladu z formalno zavezujoče smernice UNHCR?
Namen: Ta raziskava se osredotoča na analizo razlik med Konvencijo ZN o beguncih iz leta 1951 in Direktivo 2001/55/ES glede opredelitev oseb, ki lahko koristijo te norme. Naključni stiki z državo izvora morda ne upravičujejo preklica statusa begunca. Ni jasno, ali enako razmišljanje velja za daljše stike. Nadaljevanje zaposlitve za državo izvora je taka oblika stika, zato so diplomati zavrnili status begunca. Položaj oseb, ki delajo na daljavo za javne organe države izvora, se razlikuje od položaja diplomatov. Direktiva se ne nanaša na potrebo po prekinitvi stikov s to državo. Ta članek odgovarja na vprašanje, ali je treba v skladu z mednarodnimi nezavezujočimi zakoni osebam, ki delajo na daljavo za javno upravo svoje matične države, zavrniti začasno zaščito.
Metoda: Značilno za pravno znanost v tem prispevku prevladuje uporaba dogmatsko-pravne in analogne metode. Opravljena je bila kritična primerjalna analiza prava ZN (Konvencija ZN o beguncih iz leta 1951) in prava EU (Direktiva 2001/55/ES). Zgodovinska metoda je pomagala razbrati namere pripravljavcev pogodbe iz leta 1951 iz Travaux préparatoires, da pokažejo razlike med temi zakoni.
Rezultati: Konvencija o beguncih iz leta 1951 se uporablja za osebe, ki nočejo ali ne morejo biti zaščitene v svoji državi izvora. Vendar Direktiva 2001/55/ES ne navaja izrecno potrebe po prekinitvi vseh stikov z državo izvora. Tako bi morali imeti upravičenci do začasne zaščite možnost nadaljevati delo na daljavo za javne organe države izvora. Kljub temu bi moral biti azilni delavec sposoben preveriti, ali te dejavnosti ne kršijo begunskega prava. V nasprotnem primeru naj se začasno varstvo odvzame v posameznem postopku.
Organizacija: Odgovor na raziskovalno vprašanje bi pomagal ugotoviti, ali je zagotavljanje dela za organe izvorne države vedno ovira za pridobitev začasne zaščite. S tem se lahko poveča usklajenost odločitev sodnih delavcev in sodnikov o dodelitvi in odvzemu začasnega varstva. Posledično lahko poveča predvidljivost razlage prava in vpliva na pravni položaj upravičencev do začasne zaščite.
Originalnost: 28 % razseljenih oseb na Poljskem dela v Ukrajini na daljavo. Ta dejavnik v drugih vojaških spopadih ni bil opažen, vendar se lahko to spremeni s popularizacijo dela na daljavo tudi v javni upravi, torej med osebami, ki ne prekinejo svojih stikov z državo izvora. Konvencija o beguncih iz leta 1951 in Direktiva 2001/55/ES ne omenjata takih situacij. Kljub temu konvencija izrecno zahteva prekinitev nekaterih stikov. Direktiva 2001/55/ES nima tako izrecne zahteve. Prejšnje raziskave so se osredotočale na situacijo, ko je država izvora vir preganjanja ali ko oseba nadaljuje z delom v diplomaciji. Vpliv razlik med neposrednim izvajanjem suverenih pooblastil izvorne države v tej državi in v državi bivanja na odločitve o odvzemu zaščite torej še ni raziskan z vidika mehkega prava.
Omejitve/nadaljnje raziskovanje: Ta teoretična raziskava se osredotoča na mednarodno pravo. Nacionalna zakonodaja držav članic EU in njihova praksa nista bili preverjeni. Zato bi bilo treba nadalje raziskati, ali so države spoštovale prohumano razlago mednarodnega prava.
Literatura
Bal, Y., Bulgur, N.E., Remote Work: A Paradigm Shift in the Modern Workplace and Its Impact on the Workforce. A.M. Even, B. Christiansen (Eds.), Advances in Human Resources Management and Organizational Development, IGI Global, 374-391, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9172-0.ch019
Boccardi, I. (2002). Europe and refugees: towards an EU asylum policy. The Hague & New York: Kluwer Law International. ISBN: 978-90-411-1709-0.
Buffer. (2023). State Of Remote Work 2023. https://buffer.com/state-of-remote-work/2023 (Retrieved 23 April 2024).
Carrera, S., & Ineli-Ciger, M. (Eds.). (2023). EU responses to the large-scale refugee displacement from Ukraine: An analysis on the temporary protection directive and its implications for the future EU asylum policy. European University Institute.
CJEU. (2024). WS v Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet. ECLI:EU:C:2023:314.
Costello, C., Foster, M. & McAdam, J. (2021). The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law. Oxford: Auflage Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198848639.001.0001
ECtHR. (1979). Airey v Ireland. Application No. 6289/73 (ECtHR October 9, 1979).
ECtHR. (1989). Soering v. the United Kingdom. Application No. 14038/88 (ECtHR July 7, 1989).
European Union. (2001). Directive 2001/55/EC of the Council of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof.
European Union. (2007). Treaty of Lisbon.
European Union. (2011). Directive 2011/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast).
European Union. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast).
European Union. (2022). Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022 establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of introducing temporary protection.
European Union Agency for Asylum, International Organization for Migration, & Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2022). Forced displacement from and within Ukraine: profiles, experiences, and aspirations of affected populations. Luxembourg: Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2847/739455
Eurostat (2024a). Number of people under temporary protection at 4.3 million. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240308-3 (Retrieved 23 April 2024).
Eurostat (2024b). Asylum applications - annual statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_applications_-_annual_statistics (Retrieved 23 April 2024).
EXCOMM. (1981). Conclusion No. 22. Protection of Asylum-Seekers in Situations of Large-Scale Influx.
Gersdorf, M. (2019). Nowe trendy gospodarcze a reguła domniemania zawarcia umowy o pracę. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica, 88, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.88.04
Hurwitz, A. G. (2009). The collective responsibility of states to protect refugees. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Ineli-Ciger, M. (2016a). A Temporary Protection Regime in Line with International Law: Utopia or Real Possibility? International Community Law Review, 18(3–4), 278–316. https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341332
Ineli-Ciger, M. (2016b). Time to Activate the Temporary Protection Directive. European Journal of Migration and Law, 18(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12342088
Karska, E., and Dąbrowski, Ł.D. (2024). Qualifying for international and national protection under the Polish legal order: Some remarks in the context of the war in Ukraine [version 1; awaiting peer review]. Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations, https://doi.org/10.12688/stomiedintrelat.17794.1
Kerber, K. (2002). The Temporary Protection Directive. European Journal of Migration and Law, 4(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181602400287350
Kőhalmi, B., and Nagy-Nádasdi, A. (2020). Asylum-seekers as Potential Terrorists (?). In J. C. Simeon (Ed.), Terrorism and Asylum (pp. 275–310). Brill/Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004295995_011
Koo, J. (2018). Mass Influxes and Protection in Europe: A Reflection on a Temporary Episode of an Enduring Problem. European Journal of Migration and Law, 20(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340027
Kosiel-Pająk, M., & Sadowski, P. (2023). British and Polish Temporary Protection Schemes Addressing Displaced Persons from Ukraine. Journal of Jurisprudence and Legal Practice, 31(4), 887–912. https://doi.org/10.5817/cpvp2023-4-5
Küçük, E. (2023). Temporary Protection Directive: Testing New Frontiers? European Journal of Migration and Law, 25(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340142
Leboeuf, L. (2022). The Quest for Equilibrium Between Security and Humanitarian Considerations in a Fast-Evolving Legal Environment: The Case of Belgium. M.-C. Foblets & J.-Y. Carlier (Eds.), Law and migration in a changing world (pp. 181–207). Cham: Springer.
Łysienia, M. (2023). Following the EU Response to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine? The Implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive in Poland. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 12(1), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.54667/ceemr.2023.14
Przybysławska, K. (2009). Niepożądani uchodźcy: Granice ochrony i zasady wykluczenia w świetle prawa międzynarodowego. [Unwanted refugees: Limits of protection and principles of exclusion under international law.]. Warszawa: UNHCR.
Sadowski, P. (2021). The EU’s approach to the extraterritorial processing of asylum claims and its compliance with international law. Revista General De Derecho Europeo, 53, 28–78.
Sadowski, P. (2022). Czy zakres podmiotowy prawa polskiego jest zgodny z Decyzją wykonawczą Rady (UE) 2022/382 w sprawie masowego napływu wysiedleńców z Ukrainy? [Is the subjective scope of Polish law consistent with Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 on the mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine?]. Studia Iuridica, 94, 338–477. https://doi.org/10.31338/2544-3135.si.2022-94.20
Sadowski, P. (2023). Sytuacja prawna na granicy polsko-białoruskiej po wybuchu wojny rosyjsko-ukraińskiej – wyzwanie dla procedur udzielania ochrony międzynarodowej [Legal situation on the Polish-Belarusian border after the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war - A challenge for procedures on granting international protection]. Studia Politologiczne, 68, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.33896/SPolit.2023.68.6
Sadowski, P. (2024). Limiting Social Assistance under the EU Temporary Protection Directive to Displaced Persons Working Remotely for the Public Administration of Their Country of Origin, Review of European and Comparative Law, 56(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.16982
Strzępek, K. (2020). Zakres ochrony Artykułu 8 Europejskiej Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności – uwagi ogólne na tle orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka. [The Scope of Protection of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – General Remarks in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Right]. Prawo i Więź, 33, 278-294, https://doi.org/10.36128/priw.vi32.68
United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties.
United Nations. (1950). United Nations General Assembly resolution 429(V) of 14 December 1950.
United Nations. (1967). United Nations General Assembly resolution 2198(XXI) of 16 December 1967.
UNHCR. (1979). Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Widerski, P. (2024). The Legal Framework for Assisting Displaced Persons from Ukraine in Meeting Their Housing Needs in Poland Introduced by the Act of March 12, 2022 on Assistance to Citizens of Ukraine in Connection with the Armed Conflict in the Territory of That State. Juridical Tribune - Review of Comparative and International Law, 14(1), 60-82. https://doi.org/10.62768/TBJ/2024/14/1/04
Dodatne datoteke
Objavljeno
Številka
Rubrike
Licenca
Avtorske pravice (c) 2024 Piotr Sadowski
To delo je licencirano pod Creative Commons Priznanje avtorstva-Deljenje pod enakimi 4.0 mednarodno licenco.
