Procedure : 2007/2262(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0287/2008

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 01/09/2008 - 19
CRE 01/09/2008 - 19

Votes :

PV 02/09/2008 - 5.17
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :


PDF 193kWORD 98k
2 July 2008
PE 404.629v02-00 A6-0287/2008

on the evaluation of the Dublin system


Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Rapporteur: Jean Lambert



on the evaluation of the Dublin system


The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national ('the Dublin Regulation')(1),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention(2),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted(3),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers(4) ('the Reception Directive'),

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers(5),

–   having regard to the Council Conclusions on access to Eurodac by Member States’ police and law enforcement authorities as well as Europol(6),

–   having regard to Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC(7),

–   having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2006 on the situation with refugee camps in Malta(8),

–   having regard to its reports on the visits by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to detention centres in several Member States,

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 June 2007 on asylum: practical cooperation, quality of decision-making in the common European asylum system(9),

–   having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2008: Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child(10),

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2008 on the case of the Iranian citizen Seyed Mehdi Kazemi(11),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0287/2008),

A. whereas every asylum seeker is entitled to a full, individual examination of his or her claim,

B.  whereas asylum legislation and practice still vary widely from country to country and that, as a result, asylum-seekers receive different treatment from one Dublin State to another,

C. whereas the Dublin system is rooted in such premises as mutual trust and reliability and that if these prerequisites are not fulfilled, i.e. if there are serious gaps in data collection or inconsistencies in the decision-making process in certain Member States, the whole system suffers,

D. whereas there is evidence that some Member States do not guarantee effective access to a procedure for determining refugee status,

E.  whereas some Member States do not apply the Reception Directive effectively, either to asylum applicants awaiting transfer to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation, or at the point of return to the Member State responsible,

F.  whereas some Member States systematically place persons subject to the Dublin system in detention,

G. whereas the high level of multiple requests and the low level of effected transfers are indicators of the deficiencies of the Dublin system and of the need to establish a common European asylum system,

H. whereas a correct implementation of the Dublin Regulation may well result in the unequal distribution of responsibility for persons seeking protection, to the detriment of some Member States particularly exposed to migration flows simply on the grounds of their geographical location,

I.   whereas the Commission's evaluation reveals that, in 2005, the thirteen Member States at the borders of the Union had to deal with increasing challenges raised by the Dublin system,

J.   whereas southern Member States are having to accept asylum applications from irregular immigrants who are rescued when in distress whilst they are on their way to Europe,

K. whereas southern Member States are having to accept asylum applications from irregular immigrants who are not assisted by third countries which are obliged to provide such assistance under international law,

L.  whereas Member States may have no interest in complying with the obligation of registering illegal entrants in the Eurodac database, as this may result in increasing the number of applications for asylum which they will have to deal with,

M. whereas the Dublin Regulation establishes a system which is designed to determine the Member State responsible for dealing with a claim, but it was not originally put in place for, and therefore fails to serve as, a burden-sharing mechanism,

N. whereas it is essential that any evaluation of the Dublin system is accompanied by a concrete, permanent, fair and functional burden-sharing mechanism,

O. whereas the Dublin system's first-country-of-entry criteria put a lot of pressure on the border Member States,

P.  whereas recognition rates of candidates for refugee status vary for certain third-country nationals from approximately 0% to 90% within Member States,

Q. whereas it is essential that individuals lodging claims are fully apprised of the Dublin process, in a language which they understand, and its possible consequences,

R.  whereas Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration,

S.  whereas although family unity is mentioned first in the hierarchy of criteria applied in the Dublin Regulation, that provision is not often applied,

T.  whereas there is an obvious lack of accuracy in statistical data on transfers, as they do not indicate, for instance, the rate of requests for taking charge of an asylum applicant based on an irregular crossing of the border, or the proportion of 'taking charge' versus 'taking back' requests,

U. whereas in 2005 nine of the new Member States stated that they were registering more ‘incoming’ transfers under the Dublin Regulation and Member States with no external land border of the Union stated that they were registering more ‘outgoing’ transfers,

V. whereas the Commission has been unable to evaluate the cost of the system and whereas that information is important to be able to assess its effectiveness,

W. whereas the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg on 12 and 13 June 2007 invited the Commission to present as soon as possible an amendment to the Eurodac Regulation with the aim of enabling Member States' police and law-enforcement authorities, as well as Europol, to have access under certain conditions to Eurodac, a database which was conceived originally as a tool for implementing the Dublin Regulation,

Efficiency of the system and responsibility sharing

1.  Strongly believes that unless a satisfactory and consistent level of protection is achieved across the European Union, the Dublin System will always produce unsatisfactory results from both the technical and the human viewpoints, and asylum seekers will continue to have valid reasons for wishing to lodge their application in a specific Member State to take advantage of the most favourable national decision-making;

2.  Strongly believes that in the absence of a genuine common European asylum system and a single procedure the Dublin system will continue to be unfair both to asylum seekers and to certain Member States;

3.  Reaffirms the urgent need for the improvement of both the quality and the consistency of the decision-making process; is convinced that a European Asylum Support Office could play a valuable role in this respect, for example in providing training to high common standards and through the provision of expert support teams;

4.  Asks the Commission to consider ways of providing UNHCR with direct financing to complement project-based funding in order to enable it to enhance its monitoring and advisory work in the EU and continue developing methods intended to support national authorities in their efforts to improve the quality of their decision-making;

5.  Asks the Commission to bring forward proposals for burden-sharing mechanisms which could be put in place in order to help alleviate the disproportionate load which could fall on certain Member States, in particular the border Member States, but do not fit into the Dublin system;

6.  Calls on the Commission, pending the introduction of European burden-sharing mechanisms, to consider providing for mechanisms other than financial within the Dublin Regulation to correct the adverse effects of its implementation for the smaller Member States at the Union’s external borders;

7.  Asks the Commission to provide for a binding mechanism to stop transfers of asylum applicants to Member States that do not guarantee full and fair treatment of their claims and to take systematic measures against those States;

8.  Calls upon the Commission to establish meaningful bilateral working relations with third countries such as Libya, in order to facilitate cooperation and ensure that such third countries meet their international legal obligations;

Rights of the claimants

9.  Asks the Commission to introduce into the new Regulation clearer and more stringent provisions concerning the means by which the persons seeking protection are informed of the implications of the Dublin Regulation, and to consider drafting a standard leaflet which could be translated into a certain number of languages and be distributed to all Member States; it should also take into account the individual levels of literacy;

10. Asks the Commission to amend Articles 19 and 20 of the Dublin Regulation on 'taking charge and taking back', so as to provide applicants with an automatic suspensory right of appeal against a decision to transfer responsibility to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation;

11. Reaffirms that the principle of non-refoulement should remain one of the cornerstones of any common asylum system at European Union level, and insists that the implementation of the Dublin Regulation should never lead to a claim being closed for procedural reasons and not reopened for a full and fair examination of the original claim after a transfer via the Dublin process; considers that this should be made clear in the Regulation;

12. Considers that information-sharing on transfers between Member States should be improved, especially with respect to special medical care needed for the transferees;

13. Calls on the Commission to assess the possibility for individuals concerned by a transfer to another Member State under the Dublin system to be able to be transferred to their country of origin, solely at their express request and on the basis of full compliance with procedural rights;

Family reunification and the principle of the best interest of the child

14. Recommends that a set of common guidelines on age-assessment be adopted at European Union level and that in the event of uncertainty, the benefit of the doubt be given to the child;

15. Recalls that in all decisions relating to children, the best interests of the child must be paramount; insists that unaccompanied minors should never be detained or transferred to another Member State, except for the sake of family reunification, and that if such a transfer proves necessary, the child must be duly represented and accompanied throughout the procedure; welcomes, therefore, the Commission's intention to further clarify the applicability of Dublin rules to unaccompanied minors;

16. Regrets that the definition of a family member under the current Regulation is too restrictive and asks the Commission to extend the present definition to include all close relatives and long-term partners, particularly those who have no other family support, and adult children unable to care for themselves;

17. Welcomes the Commission's intention to extend the scope of the Dublin Regulation to include subsidiary protection, as this should enable applicants for subsidiary protection to be reunited with family members who were granted this type of protection or are asking for it in another Member State;


18. Asks the Commission to add a provision restricting the detention of Dublin claimants to a measure of last resort, thereby specifying the grounds on which detention may be employed and the procedural safeguards which should be provided for;

19. Asks the Commission to state explicitly in the Dublin Regulation that Dublin claimants are entitled to the same reception conditions as other asylum seekers, in accordance with the Reception Directive, Article 3(1) of which lays down general rules notably on material reception conditions, health care, freedom of movement and the schooling of minors;

Humanitarian and Sovereignty Clauses

20. Considers that the humanitarian clause contained in Article 15 of the Dublin Regulation gives considerable flexibility to the Dublin system, but that it should be applied more widely, so as to avoid undue hardship to families as a result of separation;

21. Considers that where an asylum seeker is in a particularly vulnerable state owing to a serious illness, a severe disability, old age or pregnancy, and he or she is therefore dependent on the assistance of a relative present in the territory of an Member State other than the one in charge of the examination of the application, he or she should, as far as possible, be reunited with that relative; asks the Commission to consider making compulsory the relevant provisions of the humanitarian clause in Article 15(2);

22. Considers that a proactive duty to trace family members should be introduced for organisations such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent;

23. Welcomes the Commission's intention to better specify the circumstances and procedures for applying the Sovereignty clause, notably in order to introduce the condition of the asylum-seeker's consent;

Data-collection and Eurodac

24. Expresses its concern at the discrepancies and deficiencies in the collection of data revealed by the Commission's evaluation of the Dublin system, especially in relation to the registering of fingerprints of illegal entrants at the borders of the Union, which casts serious doubts on the validity of the system; trusts that the new Regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection will give the stakeholders a more accurate picture of the functioning of the Dublin system and other Community instruments on international protection;

25. Expresses its concern that no cost-assessment of the Dublin system is currently available; calls on the Commission to remedy this as it is an important aspect of the evaluation of the system;

26. Notes with interest the concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the collection and the quality of data sent to the Eurodac Central Unit, as well as regarding non-compliance with the obligation to delete certain data and with the rules relating to the protection of personal data; considers that these failings, which call into question the reliability of Eurodac, should be addressed properly before any other use of this database be envisaged;

27. Considers that each Member State should clarify, on a closed list, the agencies and authorities that have access to the Eurodac database, and for what purpose, in order to prevent any illegal use of data;

28. Stresses that extending access to the Eurodac database to Member States' police and law-enforcement authorities as well as Europol entails the risk that information may pass to third countries, which could have negative repercussions for asylum seekers and their families; is convinced that this would also increase the risk of asylum seekers being stigmatised;


o o

29. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.


OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1.


OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1.


OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.


OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.


OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23.


2807th Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, 12 and 13 June 2007.


OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 1.


OJ C 293 E, 2.12.2006, p. 301.


Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0286.


Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0012.


Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0107.


Reminder of the main provisions laid down in the Dublin II Regulation

On 18 February 2003 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, which – together with its implementing regulation(1) and the Eurodac regulation(2) – constitutes the 'Dublin system'. This system currently applies to the 27 Member States and to Norway and Iceland, and it is soon to be extended to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

The system (which is supposed to ensure that there is always one Member State – and one only – responsible for considering any given application) is designed in particular to curb the phenomenon of 'refugees in orbit', secondary migration and multiple applications (what is commonly known as 'asylum-shopping'). It is based upon the following hierarchy of criteria (Chapter III):

1. Criteria relating to the principle of family reunification

2. Criteria relating to the issue of residence permits or visas

3. Criteria relating to illegal entry on to, or illegal residence within, the territory of a Member State

4. Criteria relating to legal entry on to the territory of a Member State.

The Dublin Regulation also includes two discretionary provisions which ensure that the system has the requisite degree of flexibility. These are the 'sovereignty clause' - which enables a Member State to examine an application for asylum even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in the Regulation (Article 3(2)) - and the humanitarian clause, which enables a Member State (even if it is not responsible for dealing with an application pursuant to the criteria set out in the Regulation) to examine that application at the request of another Member State on the basis of family or cultural considerations (Article 15).

The Dublin Regulation establishes mechanisms for the taking charge and the taking back of asylum-seekers (Chapter V) and it includes provisions relating to administrative cooperation (Chapter VI).

Pursuant to Article 28 of the Regulation, the Commission shall report - at the latest three years after the entry into force of the Regulation - to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Regulation and, where appropriate, shall propose any necessary amendments. This own-initiative report is in response to the Commission's evaluation.

Methodology problems

In reading the Commission's evaluation, your rapporteur came up against a variety of problems which made her task an arduous one. Not even an assiduous reading of the evaluation report and of the annex thereto enabled her at all times to follow the line of argument pursued by the Commission in its conclusions (which are in any case fairly insubstantial, since they comprise merely ten or so lines from the report which have been extracted from the Commission's evaluation. In this connection it is interesting to note that the annex - which comprises over 50 pages - contains an introduction (in which the four criteria taken as a basis by the Commission for 'measur[ing]' the performance' of the Dublin system(3) are set out) but no systematic analysis of those criteria and in particular no conclusion. In these circumstances your rapporteur has herself had to try to evaluate the Commission's criteria in order to gauge the effectiveness of the system.

The first criterion involved considering 'whether the application of the Dublin system has fulfilled its objectives, which are clearly indicated in the preamble of the Dublin Regulation.' In its report the Commission announces in its conclusions that 'overall, the objectives of the Dublin system, notably to establish a clear and workable mechanism for determining responsibility for asylum applications, have, to a large extent, been achieved(4).' Given the number of shortcomings which the Commission very judiciously highlights in its evaluation and the number of clarifications which it rightly intends to incorporate into the provisions of the Regulation, such a statement (which, incidentally, is too vague to be easily challenged) is nonetheless surprising. With regard to action to combat the phenomena of 'refugees in orbit' and 'asylum-shopping' (which are regarded in another part of the annex as one of the main objectives of the Dublin system), this does not appear in all cases to have been successful, since the percentage of multiple applications increased from 7% in 2003 to 16% in 2005, which leads the Commission itself to conclude that the Dublin system has not had the expected deterrent effect(5). Therefore there is a need for further consideration as to why the system is not working.

The second criterion adopted by the Commission was concerned with establishing ‘whether the Dublin Regulation has addressed some of the particular problems noted in the application of the Dublin Convention ... namely, time limits for request-processing, family unification and the system’s overall efficiency, in particular the implementation of transfers.’ In its report the Commission points out that the problem of transfers (of which only about one-third actually take place) constitutes one of the main obstacles to the effective implementation of the system(6). As regards family reunification (which is listed as the first criterion in the Regulation), this would appear to be more theoretical than real, since the Commission states in the Annex that the relevant provisions of the Regulation are only ‘very rarely applied(7)’. Where these two points are concerned it would thus appear that the second criterion has not been entirely met.

The third criterion was specifically concerned with the number of effective transfers, the surprisingly low rate of which is indicative of the shortcomings in the system and should be explained more clearly.

The fourth criterion was concerned with ‘the influence of the Dublin system on the individual asylum systems of Member States’, the purpose of the analysis being to determine whether the Dublin system benefited certain Member States or put them at a disadvantage.

In the rapporteur’s view the Commission’s analysis of the ‘Dublin flows’ (which relates to this fourth criterion) is to be questioned on various grounds. Firstly (as the Commission itself states in the Annex), there are disparities in the statistical data provided by the Member States(8): for example, certain Member States count an entire family as a single case, whereas others count each individual member of the family. Secondly, the Commission bases its evaluation of Dublin flows on actual transfers and not on transfers accepted but not carried out - yet as the Commission itself admits, proper operation of the transfer mechanism would lead to a significant increase in the number of applicants in certain border countries. Lastly, as the Commission makes clear in its evaluation, it would appear - in view of the ‘surprisingly low’ number of illegal entrants registered in the Eurodac database(9) - that the obligation to fingerprint all illegal entrants at the EU’s external borders is not complied with by all the Member States. However, the data registered on Eurodac are essential not only to the application of one of the Dublin criteria but also to any critical, objective evaluation of the functioning and the repercussions of the system.

In these circumstances the rapporteur takes the view that the statement made by the Commission in its evaluation to the effect that ‘contrary to a widely shared supposition that the majority of transfers are directed towards the Member States located at an external border, it appears that the overall allocation between border and non-border Member States is actually rather balanced’ is based on somewhat shaky foundations, especially since the distinction made by the Commission between the ‘States located on an external border’ and the others is based (as your rapporteur has ascertained) on criteria which contradict basic geography, since Finland in particular (whose border with Russia is nearly 1300 kilometres long) is included amongst the countries with no external border(10).

To summarise, it would appear that the optimistic conclusion drawn by the Commission from its evaluation (namely, that ‘the objectives of the Dublin system ... have, to a large extent, been achieved’) is based more on a favourable bias towards the system (which one may or may not share) than on a rigorous analysis (which would in any case be difficult to carry out on account of the gaps and the disparities in the data available).

Proposed amendments to the Regulation

On the basis in particular of the problems unearthed by the Commission, your rapporteur suggests that the following aspects of the system should be clarified or modified:

1. Observance of the basic principle of non-refoulement: all requests must be examined in detail and no file may be closed for 'procedural' reasons unless such an examination has been carried out.

2. Applicants must receive all relevant information concerning the Dublin system in a language which they understand and they must have access to legal aid throughout the procedure; they must also have the right to a suspensory appeal against any transfer decision.

3. The criteria for determining the age of minors should be harmonised and minors should not be transferred other than in exceptional cases, if doing so is in their interest; they should be duly accompanied and represented during transfer, in order to ensure that they do not go missing.

4. The definition of the family should be broadened, so that greater account can be taken of applicants' legitimate interests; the provisions relating to family reunification should be extended to the applicants for (or the beneficiaries of) subsidiary protection.

5. Consideration should be given to making certain provisions of the humanitarian clause mandatory, particularly in the case of especially vulnerable people.

6. The sovereignty clause should not be activated without the applicant's consent.

7. Detention should not be applied other than in cases of duly justified absolute necessity and applicants awaiting transfer should be accommodated under the same conditions as any other applicant.

8. Mechanisms should be devised for blocking transfers to countries which plainly do not uphold applicants' rights or to ones which are required to cope with strong migratory pressures at certain periods.

9. Before any consideration is given to extending access to the Eurodac database to the forces of order and to Europol, existing problems should be resolved and the necessary safeguards concerning the protection of personal data should be put in place.


Your Rapporteur considers that we must bring into question whether the Dublin system is really 'fit for purpose'. It would appear that the system is assigning a disproportionate amount of responsibility towards Member States at the borders of the EU, and whilst this clarifies which Member State is responsible for examining the asylum claim, there are no real mechanisms for providing these States' support. Furthermore, considering the importance of integration, more account should be taken of existing links between asylum seekers and specific Member States where a relevant community has already settled, or with which the asylum seeker has a language or culture in common.

However, one fundamental problem still remains, which is that until all the Member States offer all applicants a level and a quality of protection which are, if not identical, then at least equivalent and of high quality, applicants will continue to have a legitimate interest in submitting their application in one Member State rather than another, or they will be tempted to submit multiple applications and thus to circumvent the provisions of the Dublin system. This is a trend which restrictive application of the family-reunification criterion would only accentuate. The problem cannot be solved through revision of the Dublin Regulation but it should be tackled when the forthcoming instruments of the common European asylum system are revised. As regards the Dublin Regulation, one of the main aims of the revision should be to take the greatest possible account of applicants' legitimate wishes, to provide them with information and to ensure that their application is dealt with under optimum conditions and in full accordance with the Geneva Convention.


Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003, OJ L 222, 5.9.2003.


Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention.


SEC (2007) 742, p.7.


COM (2007) 299 final, p.13.


SEC (2007) 742, p.47.


Although 40,180 applications were accepted, only 16,842 transfers took place between September 2003 and December 2005.


SEC (2007) 742, p.23.


SEC (2007) 742, p. 6.


COM (2007) 299 final, p. 9.


Countries which have land borders with non-EU countries and ones which have maritime borders exposed to migratory pressures are regarded as countries with external borders: Estonia, la Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Malta, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus. The following countries are deemed to have no external borders: Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Austria, the Czech Republic and Finland.


Date adopted





Result of final vote







Members present for the final vote

Alexander Alvaro, Mario Borghezio, Emine Bozkurt, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Claudio Fava, Armando França, Urszula Gacek, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Roland Gewalt, Lilli Gruber, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Stavros Lambrinidis, Roselyne Lefrançois, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Csaba Sógor, Vladimir Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Anne Ferreira, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Metin Kazak, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Bill Newton Dunn, Nicolae Vlad Popa, Rainer Wieland

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Iles Braghetto, Michl Ebner, Syed Kamall

Last updated: 21 August 2008Legal notice