[ad_1]
The former supreme judge will head a commission on the rights of the child in asylum decisions. He continues to reject the post of Interior Minister Nehammer.
The Popular Party and the Greens disagree on the issue of asylum and deportations. And not just recently. Even during the coalition negotiations, it turned out to be a hot topic. If it faded into the background in the course of attempts to contain the coronavirus, it is now boiling again. The occasion: three girls who were deported to Georgia and Armenia the week before. While the ÖVP justifies the move and argues that higher court rulings should be accepted, the Greens believe there would have been more room for maneuver in the case.
The conflict would have had the potential to break the coalition, but that did not happen (for now). Instead, Vice Chancellor Werner Kogler (Greens) presented a compromise yesterday, Thursday, at the special session of the National Council: a commission will be created to deal with the importance of children’s rights and the best interests of the child in decisions on asylum. and residence rights. At the helm: former Chief Justice Irmgard Griss. Together with experts, Griss will develop recommendations on how the best interests of the child and the rights of the child can be given greater consideration. A first report should be available in the middle of the year.
The subject is not new to Griss. The former high judge, former presidential candidate and former member of the Neos, recently took a position in the “Kleine Zeitung” against the actions of Interior Minister Karl Nehammer (ÖVP) in the matter, the rule of law forces inhumane actions ” On Friday he specified in the Ö1 “Morgenjournal”: “There is an application at the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA, note), in which the children have requested to be granted the humanitarian right of stay. The interior minister could have decided that, not directly, but the BFA would have decided, that’s the responsibility of the interior minister, “Griss said.
If the examination of the rights of the child had been positive, that would have meant that the parents could also remain in the country. Because, according to the Federal Constitutional Law on the Rights of the Child, every child has the right to regular and direct contact with both parents. Of course, Griss admitted: in the specific case, the parents would probably have delayed the asylum procedure through repeated applications, “but it’s about the children and the question is whether the parents’ misconduct can always be fully attributed to children”. “said the former high judge.” The question is: do children have to answer for it? “
It should also be noted that the children in the specific case were born and raised in Austria.
Are the recommendations implemented?
By the way, it is not yet clear whether the Commission will ultimately implement the recommendations. One will evaluate past asylum decisions and draw conclusions from them, Griss explained the commission’s planned working method: “What will be implemented is a different matter. But i assume […]that this also has a public effect. I can’t imagine you shrugging your shoulders and saying we won’t care. “
(hell)
