Parliament for more protection: Victims of domestic violence no longer lose their residence status

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

People affected by domestic violence should no longer have to stay in an abusive relationship just because they fear losing their right to reside.

After the National Council, the Council of States also approved a corresponding amendment to the law on Wednesday. The small chamber made its decision by 32 votes to 8. The National Council had already approved the proposal during the winter session. Due to two disagreements, he now has to hear the case again.

Cantons have an obligation

According to the current legal situation, victims of violence with a (short) residence permit or temporarily admitted persons are threatened with loss of their residence documents if the marriage is dissolved. Parliament wants to change this with a series of changes to the Aliens and Integration Act (AIG). The goal is to ensure hardship.

The template was developed by the State Political Committee of the National Council (SPK-N). This makes the concept of domestic violence more concrete. Examples of criteria for determining domestic violence are included in the law.

The above indications of domestic violence include that someone has been recognized as a victim under the Victim Support Act, has had to seek medical help or that the police have had to intervene in a case.

The new rules must be implemented by the cantons. As in cases of personal hardship, they may only apply the rules with permission from the federal government.

SVP fears abuse

Marianne Binder-Keller (Center/AG) explained on behalf of the provisional advisory committee that the victim status does not automatically lead to the application of the hardship scheme. It remains a case-by-case assessment.

The new rules should not only apply to married people, as is currently the case, but also to their children, to people in a registered partnership and – under certain conditions – to cohabiting partners.

A motion by St. Gallen SVP State Councilor Esther Friedli not to respond to the proposal did not find a majority. Friedli argued that there is already abuse in the current hardship settlement. The proposal lowers the threshold for proving domestic violence too much; in fact, a visit to a victim support center is sufficient.

Friedli’s fellow party member Jakob Stark (TG) unsuccessfully requested that the submission be rejected by the committee. Because the cantons must enforce the law, they must also be involved, Stark said. Like Friedli, he believed that the new rules created a greater risk of abuse: “Not enough has been clarified here.”

No integration criteria

It is primarily about clarifying the hardship rules that already exist today, and not about a fundamental change in migration legislation, contradicting the chairman of the SPK-S, Daniel Fässler (Center/AI). He rejected the accusation that the Commission had rushed through the proposal.

The request by a minority of the Commission and the Federal Council to delete a paragraph providing for an exception to the integration criteria in cases where the right of residence of a victim of domestic violence is extended was accepted.

The National Council must now decide on this again. When the deal was first discussed in December, he voted against removing the provision.

Furthermore, at the request of Beat Rieder (Center/US), the Council of States has deleted a paragraph in which seeking advice from a specialized center must be seen as an indication of domestic violence.

The provision leaves it to private organizations to prove domestic violence, Rieder said. This is going too far.

Domestic violence is often not reflected in verdicts, police reports or medical documents, says Mathilde Crevoisier Crelier (SP/JU). Removing the paragraph would mean omitting a key part.

Women’s shelters were also among the specialized departments, according to Minister of Justice Beat Jans. They are very close to those affected – and are often the only ones who hear about acts of violence. (SDA)

Source:Blick