CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

VĚRA HONUSKOVÁ CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ The beneficiaries were accommodated either in humanitarian centres provided by the Ministry of the Interior or they could have left the centres for a private accommodation where they had to cover the costs themselves. Pilát Whalen mentions that at one moment there were 25 humanitarian centres. 38 The status of the beneficiaries of the temporary refuge was assimilated to the status of asylum seekers. The beneficiaries were eligible to apply for work permits, later even to work without them. Children attended public schools as a basic education is compulsory in the Czech Republic. Family reunification was possible for family members (nuclear family). There were financial benefits available in certain situations; and health care was covered by the state to the same extent as for the Czech citizens. 39 The temporary refuge programme was halted in 1996 and subsequently a programme for voluntary repatriation was launched. 40 Beneficiaries from Bosnia and Herzegovina were able to hold the status until 30 September 1997, all the others until 31 December 1996. 41 The former beneficiaries of the temporary refuge either returned back to their home countries, or were able to stay in the Czech Republic upon meeting certain conditions. If they still needed protection, there was a possibility to ask for refugee status. The Czech state introduced a special programme (basically a permanent residency permit for humanitarian and health purposes) which was meant to be an alternative to the former beneficiaries with origins in Bosnia and Herzegovina who could not return back mainly due to health reasons. 42 Some of the beneficiaries were resettled to other countries, often for family reunification. 43 There was a possibility to switch the legal basis of a stay to a standard residency permit according to the Stay of Foreigners Act. 44 Around 500 people returned back on the basis of voluntary repatriation; some left as a part of an organized programme, others left individually. The number of returnees formed almost 40% of those who were registered as beneficiaries of temporary refuge at the time when the programme was halted (in 1996); 45 however the figures must be read carefully, as for example the number of those who were registered as beneficiaries of protection when the voluntary repatriation started was much lower than the overall number of those who were beneficiaries of the whole programme from 1991 to 1996. Approximately 350 asked for a refugee status and this number forms less than 6% of those who were granted protection under the temporary refuge scheme altogether. 46 The special residency permit was granted to approximately 120 people. 47 The number of those who switched to regular residency permits according to the law on foreigners cannot be identified in the statistics, but it might be 38 See PILÁT WHALEN…, op. cit., p. 10. 39 See almost all the Government Resolutions, see PILÁT WHALEN’s report. 40 See Government Resolution No. 318, 5 June 1996. 43 See PILÁT WHALEN…, op. cit., p. 8. Pilát Whalen mentions that the number of those who were resettled is not known, but that it was certainly higher than the number of those who returned to their home country. 44 See Sec. 8 of the Act No. 123/1992 Coll., on the Stay of Foreigners (version applicable in 1996), which allowed foreigners to ask for a residency permit also on the territory of the Czech Republic. The current law does not contain such a possibility. 45 See PILÁT WHALEN…, op. cit., p. 2 (Resumé). 46 See PILÁT WHALEN…, op. cit., p. 7 47 See PILÁTWHALEN…, op. cit., p. 18. In addition to the permanent residency permit they were provided with help of either paying for a (regular) rent of a flat (the same programme as for recognized refugees) or a possibility to stay in a community-style accommodation. 41 See Government Resolution No. 579, 13 November 1996. 42 See Government Resolution No. 580, 13 November 1996.

248