STOCKHOLM, Sweden, April 9, 2002 (PRIMEZONE) -- SAS has been provided the possibility to submit its views on the ministerial memorandum "Carrier responsibility under the Aliens' Act" (Ds2001:74) and rejects the proposal of extended carrier responsibility for airlines in its entirety.
SAS cannot accept extended carrier responsibility and believes that it is the task of public authorities to ensure that the migration policy established by countries is implemented. This is not an assignment for individual airlines. SAS cannot and will not conduct measures in the style of a public authority.
The proposal can also lead to refugees having greater difficulty in traveling to Sweden and their possibilities for applying for asylum can decline.
In brief, SAS motivates its rejection as follows:
1. The government is transferring the basic tasks of authorities to
individual carriers
SAS believes that it is in the governments' interest and their
responsibility to ensure that the immigration policy approved by
the Swedish parliament and government is implemented. In the
proposal, it appears that there is an issue of the Schengen
states, which have decided on common rules of entry, not having
the possibility to ensure that these are implemented in their
entirety. It also says that a country's authorities cannot conduct
adequate checks and must therefore rely on someone else to make
them.
Since SAS and other airlines would have the right to refuse embarkation due to incorrect immigration documentation (not the actual air ticket), it can be said that the passengers would have a kind of dependency on the carrier. Accordingly, the checks made by the carrier would correspond to the action of an authority and thereby contravene the form of government.
2. Unclear scope of obligation to conduct checks
In the proposal, it is stated that the carriers must be able to
uncover the absence of documentation or apparently false
documentation. These requirements are rather extensive and, in
addition to passport, visas and other travel documentation, also
include the foreigner not being included in the Schengen
countries' register of persons to be stopped or that the foreigner
does not constitute a risk to general order or national security.
The way in which SAS and other carriers are to decide whether a
foreigner is included in the Schengen countries' list of persons
to be stopped, or if there is reason to suspect that the passenger
could interfere with general order or national security, is
unclear to SAS and is not covered at all by the proposal.
In all of these cases, there is a risk that SAS, if a foreigner is refused entry, will be obliged to pay for the homeward journey and also pay a penalty. SAS believes that this system is completely unreasonable in relation to SAS's actual duties.
3. More difficult to seek asylum in Sweden
SAS does not believe that an airline can assess which passengers
can have a valid reason for seeking asylum in Sweden. Such an
assessment requires considerable time for the authorities in
question and results in a detailed investigation. The airline, on
the other hand, has a maximum of one minute at check-in to make an
assessment of this kind in each case.
Since the airlines cannot risk having to pay large sums in the form of penalties, the new system could mean that the airlines are forced to become stricter in their control of passengers. SAS can be forced to issue guidelines to the personnel at airports to stop certain categories of passenger who may be "suspected" for reasons that are unclear. Guidelines such as these involve a risk that the airline's selection process could appear discriminatory in certain circumstances.
The extended carrier responsibility can lead to greater difficulties for refugees in coming to Sweden and their opportunity to seek asylum can thereby diminish. SAS and other companies could be given the right to stop them before their journey to Sweden has begun.
It should also be noted that the "legitimate" border control authorities, in the form of customs and police, are not subject to sanctions if they make a wrong assessment about the authenticity of travel documentation.
This information was brought to you by Waymaker http://www.waymaker.net