Saturday , August 17 2019
Home / austria / Expert justifies discriminatory asylum seeker "

Expert justifies discriminatory asylum seeker "

Experts are still concerned about whether the new rules are constitutionally water resistant, if only slightly, given the decision on the new minimum income. Now it's important to wait for the exact wording of the legal text, said former Constitutional Judge Rudolf Müller. EU lawyer Walter Obwexer believes that the new rules are compatible with EU law.

After reviewing the text for the first time, Obvexer said that the government has kept critical points of EU law with their punctuation on Wednesday. Thus, the plan to delete asylum seekers, if 35% of minimum income is in Germany and use a professional qualification of EUR 300 (German language courses), is in principle compatible with EU law. Due to the fact that people who have suffered a course will soon be able to meet the requirements and, according to Obwexer, will be entitled to 100 per cent of social benefits. In this respect, they do not lose 35 percent.

If the remaining 65 percent (EUR 561) is sufficient to ensure a decent life, it is subject to EU law. Here it will also apply to the way laws are formulated in relation to difficult cases.

A five-year standby period

The issue of examining the knowledge of the German language of EU citizens could be critical. The project envisages that applicants who prove that they have completed compulsory Austrian education certificates are entitled to a full reference. In accordance with European Union law, it should be checked that another EU country's compulsory education certificate (with an appropriate German order) would not be equivalent to Austria.

The concerns of other lawyers about the "indirect discrimination" of asylum seekers, due to the requirement for knowledge of German, do not belong to Obvekser. "In Austria, I need a German to succeed in the labor market." It is true that indirect discrimination in principle is prohibited under current EU law. However, such discrimination can be justified for "important reasons" if the "measure is proportionate". This "important reason" is the ability to work in the Austrian labor market, which justifies discrimination. According to Obvexer, he has no doubt that this regulation is in accordance with EU law.

Obwexers no longer see a five-year waiting period for EU citizens and EEA citizens in order to secure minimum income protection as critical. Because now it applies only in principle, but excluding workers or
Self-employed earning too little and therefore entitled to "increase". Most of the minimum income is the so-called "Aufstocker". In addition, each case is checked for troubled things.

Reduction as a sanction "biased"

Constitutional lawyer Theo Öhlinger made himself more skeptical. He said that the automatic reduction of the minimum income protection for persons who do not have sufficient knowledge of the German language was critical. This provision is "incompatible" with the basic idea of ​​minimum income, that is to ensure a decent life. "If the state is ready to guarantee the minimum financial resources for every person living in this country, it has nothing to do with the question of how well or badly a German speaks."

Although he could imagine sanctions against those who did not want to learn German, this would not mean reducing the minimum income. He considers this requirement to be "biased". Ohlinger believes that the five-year waiting period for third-country nationals and EU-EEA citizens is not a constitutional aspect.

The Austrian language certificate is a question mark

Professor of Salzburg University and former Constitutional Judge Rudolf Müller, who is affiliated with the SPÖ, will wait for the final evaluation – the submission of a legal text that is scheduled to end at the end of the week. Unproblematic he believes that the minimum income reduction for children. Although the amount of cash benefits is set to be very low, but: "Cover is not one (…) because the government has to be on the safe side."

However, even if families suffer great financial losses, contrary to the previous rules, Müller believes that there is no constitutional problem, because here the rules of difficulty situations can be reduced: "If, by definition, it is ruled out that difficulties arise, I can accept any anti-constitutional. To expel a fang , "he also wants to wait for the text of the law.

Müller's only "big question mark" is the Austrian language certificate, which should also be envisaged in the institution (in addition to the presentation of the Austrian compulsory education certificate). This is a question of how this hearing should be planned: "Who is officially checked and how?" In this wording punctuation gives too much freedom: "It could be a constitutional problem, because it does not sufficiently determine performance." But this is also a legal issue.

(APA / red).

Source link