CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND SOLIDARITY WITH REFUGEES … refugee status. 69 The change was not welcome by some member states and is still subject to debates. 70 The subsidiary protection was seen previously as temporary, but the shift towards permanency can be also identified there. 71 Secondly, the permanency discourse gives rise to expectations on both sides: on the side of refugees and others who come to seek protection, and on the side of the states and their societies. If a refugee lives in a host country without the possibility to work, to send children to school, or to move freely, then a promise – even an implicit one – of a permanent solution for their situation creates high expectations from the EU and its member states. The expectations of the EU states differ. In reality, the EU states try to lower the number of forced migrants coming to their territories by using the procedural concepts of third countries, by non-entrée strategies, newly by the EU-Turkey statement, or by bilateral treaties. The openly clarified expectations would help to prevent disillusions on both sides and avoid misunderstandings. I do not wish to argue against the possibility for refugees and others who need protection to find a permanent solution for their situation. My idea is different. I see the reality in which the EU states proclaim A (“we guarantee protection”), but perform B (in my view also due the paradigm of permanency and widened personal scope of those who are eligible for protection) and accept for instance the EU – Turkey statement. The standard of protection given to forced migrants in the EU is unique, but is available only to a few of those who were lucky enough to win the lottery game of entry. There are other states in other parts of the world facing similar situations and their legal response is different. They combine other legal responses such as prima facie recognition of the refugee status or a temporary protection status. Conclusion The temporary refuge described above was unique in one aspect. It responded to the situation which was more or less clear: there were conflicts in one particular region, people fled from a well-known situation and with presumable reasons. The EU countries are not challenged with such a clear situation today. The mixed character of migration into the EU makes it harder to use the legal response described above, although the case of forced migrants from Syria might have been an example to which it would fit. The Czech temporary refuge programme for people in need from the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s may nowadays be used as the basis for thoughts about the future of temporary protection. If there is another mass influx of refugees or other people in need, the current individual process for granting protection fails again. The numbers would be too high to apply the standard procedure. The temporary protection would allow states to re-think their approach and to avoid shifting the burden onto third states outside of Europe. The arguments that the Temporary Protection Directive was never used and might need to be changed are 69 See Art. 26(1)(b) in connection with Art. 15 of the Proposal COM(2016) 466 final for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 and amending Council Directive 2003/109/ EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. 70 See Council of the European Union. A note from Presidency to Council, 9520/18. Online at - http://data. consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9520-2018-INIT/cs/pdf [accessed 30 May 2018]. 71 See the wording of Procedural Directive of 2004 and the recast from 2011. 5.

253