Uteslutande från subsidiärt skydd på grund av förövandet av ett allvarligt brott : En komparativ studie av Sverige och Frankrike

Sweden and France have, since the alleged migration crisis, received many asylum seekers. These two countries, although publicly defenders of the right to asylum, have in recent years erected more strict rules concerning immigration. Sweden has passed law 2016:752 on restrictions on the possibilities of obtaining residence permit, the main purpose of which is to adapt the legal system in this matter to a minimum level in accordance with European law and international conventions, in order to persuade more asylum seekers to lodge their claims in countries other than Sweden. France for its part, has in the past few years erected stricter barriers regarding immigration. As an example, tougher rules have been introduced on family reunification legislation and the procedures for expulsion have been simplified. Among asylum seekers, there are individuals who fulfil the conditions necessary for being entitled to protection, but who are denied such a right because of criminal offenses committed in the country of asylum or elsewhere. The so-called exclusion clauses mean that certain criminal acts deprive the claimant of the right to asylum. According to the article 17.1 b of the Qualification Directive, a third-country national or a stateless person is excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection where there are serious reasons for considering that he or she has committed a serious crime. Starting from the Qualification Directive, this presentation aims to analyse the content of the law in force in Sweden and in France concerning exclusion from the right to subsidiary protection. The cause of exclusion to be dealt with concerns the committing of a serious crime. The essay aims to analyse the Swedish and French legal systems, and to evaluate through a critical study how Sweden and France, respectively, relate to the Qualification Directive when it comes to the implementation of the above-mentioned article into the domestic legal system and the application of the article by legal professionals. In this presentation, both a legal-dogmatic method and a comparative method are adopted to achieve the above-mentioned purpose. Due to the paramount importance of the Qualification Directive on the deprivation of the right to subsidiary protection, it is important to also take foreign law into account. Exclusion from subsidiary protection due to the commission of a serious crime is therefore dealt with based on the law in force in Sweden and in France and through the interpretation of the content of the sources of law having authority in the two countries. In other words, it is a study of migration law based on the comparative method. The essay establishes that Sweden and France implemented the Qualification Directive in different manners and that the time needed for the implementation varied between the two countries. Moreover, Sweden implemented other articles than article 17.1 b differently from France. Furthermore, the essay determines that France, generally, is more severe than Sweden when it comes to expulsion on account of criminal offences. All things considered, handling cases regarding exclusion from subsidiary protection due to the commission of a serious crime does not differ particularly much between Sweden and France. The main reason to that must be that the two countries must rely on common rules based on European Union law. Nevertheless, the essay finally finds that in situations where asylum seekers cannot be deported, Sweden and France handle the matter in different ways