“The minors will not have a written return from the British authorities notifying the refusal communicated last week; They refuse to formalize their decisions within the framework of the ad hoc procedure set up at the time of the dismantlement “: that is the message which the French authorities communicated to the CAOMI Orientation for Minors – see here, here, here, here and there), created on the occasion of the expulsion of the inhabitants of the shantytown of Calais.
No notification of the decision means no possibility of appeal, in violation of the rights of the minors concerned. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides in Article 47 for the right to an effective remedy. The admission of minors onto British soil was not the merely related to the goodwill of the Home Office but corresponded either to the criteria of the Dublin III European regulation in its article 19 for the family reunification of Minors, or to the criteria related to the Dubs amendment voted by the British Parliament. A refusal should therefore be open to challenge if it does not meet these criteria.
Minors with access to independent legal support may of course dispute the lack of notification and the possibility of an effective remedy before the courts and if they win obtain a refusal notice that they can then challenge in court . Knowing that justice is not necessarily fast, that a large part of these people are between 16 and 18 years old, and that minority finally passes quickly.
The other solution is to apply for asylum in France and ask to be reunited with their family in the United Kingdom. At least in the case of refusal there is a possibility of appeal. Knowing that this also requires support for the preparation of the case, a prefecture which knows this kind of approach – which is far from being the case everywhere – and a minimum of good will of the Home Office so as not to drag out as much as possible the procedures.
For a minor who was 17 and a half years old at the time of the destruction of the slum, one can say that the lost time is eliminatory. As much as they do not have access to child protection or family reunification.
When we know that minors that had filed an application for asylum in France to apply for family reunification under the Dublin III regulation before the destruction of the shantytown were sent to CAOMI. That their request was therefore not dealt with under Dublin III but according to the discretionary procedure put in place by the British authorities. And that some have been refused without notice and any possibility of dispute: one can only measure the cynical irony implemented by the authorities both French and British in this case.
One can also measure the confidence that these minors must have in those authorities which have deceived them.
And the minors who were evicted from the shantytown of Calais have not finished on the road of violations of their rights
Giovanni Battista Piranesi : the prisons, planche 12.