Relocation Of Asylum-Seekers Inwards The Eu: Constabulary In Addition To Policy

Steve Peers

I in conclusion looked at the legal issues surrounding the refugee crisis two weeks ago, focussing on the international law dimension of the issue. But I left out the number of relocation of asylum-seekers, pending farther developments. Subsequently the European Union has adopted a second, to a greater extent than controversial Decision on relocation of asylum-seekers inside the European Union this calendar week (against the opposition of several Member States), next shortly afterward the kickoff Decision on this number before inwards September. These measures are both provisional, inwards forcefulness for a total of 2 years, but there’s also a proposal for a permanent organization of provisional measures. I volition go looking at the relocation number (including the pending proposal) inwards to a greater extent than particular inwards a study for a think-tank soon, but for at nowadays I’ll await briefly at 3 aspects of these measures: (a) the primary content; (b) their legality, especially since to a greater extent than or less Member United States of America take hold threatened to sue to annul the 2d Decision; as well as (c) the merits of the relocation policy.

Content of the Decisions

First of all, 2 points nigh terminology. Some press reports refer to these Decisions ‘resettling’ refugees inside the EU, but that’s non accurate. In both European Union as well as international law, ‘resettlement’ refers to admitting people inwards ask of protection from their province of root or neighbouring countries. The European Union uses the intelligence ‘relocation’ instead, when addressing the number of moving persons betwixt Member States.

But that’s the process; how should nosotros refer to the persons concerned? Technically, the most accurate term is ‘asylum-seekers’, since the relocation Decisions only apply to those who take hold applied for asylum but whose claim has non yet been determined. So I volition utilization that term inwards this post. But since the Decisions only apply to those whose application is quite probable to succeed (more on that below), it should non go forgotten that the subsequent refugee determination physical care for volition probable conclude that the large bulk of these asylum-seekers (but non quite all of them) are inwards fact refugees, or otherwise ask protection. It would certainly go misleading to utilization the term ‘migrants’, since this intelligence is sometimes interpreted as pregnant that the people concerned take hold no protection need.

The kickoff Decision

The kickoff Decision provides for relocating asylum-seekers from Italy as well as Greece. It only applies to asylum-seekers who take hold applied for asylum inwards i of those States, as well as if that State would commonly go responsible for considering the application nether the Dublin rules. This volition commonly go the case, since the asylum-seeker volition take hold crossed the edge of Italy or Hellenic Republic without authorisation. But inwards to a greater extent than or less cases, the Dublin rules would give priority to to a greater extent than or less other Member State (if the asylum-seeker has closed household unit of measurement there, for instance), as well as so inwards those instance the Dublin rules would silent apply, instead of the relocation procedure. 

The relocated asylum-seekers volition go separate 60/40 betwixt Italy as well as Greece: 24,000 from Italy as well as 16,000 from Greece. They volition go allocated to other Member United States of America on the footing of optional commitments made past times those other States. (The UK, Republic of Ireland as well as Kingdom of Denmark take hold opt-outs; reckon give-and-take of the United Kingdom of Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland of Britain as well as Northern Republic of Ireland opt-out here). While the intention was to relocate 40,000 people, Member United States of America could ultimately non concord to offering that many relocation spaces, falling several K small (see the accompanying Resolution of Member States).

Relocation volition go selective, applying only to those nationalities whose applications take hold over a 75% success charge per unit of measurement inwards applications for international protection (refugee status, as well as subsidiary protection), on the footing of quarterly Eurostat statistics. On the footing of the most recent statistics, this agency that only Syrians, Iraqis as well as Eritreans volition qualify. This mightiness modify over time, however, on the footing of each novel batch of statistics.

In principle, the selection of asylum-seekers to go relocated volition go made past times Italy as well as Greece, who must give ‘priority’ to those who are considered ‘vulnerable’ as defined past times the European Union reception weather condition Directive. However, the preamble to the Decision makes clear that the ‘contact points’ of the relocating Member United States of America (national officials) volition signal a preference for specific asylum-seekers they are willing to accept. To this end, the preamble states that ‘specific line of piece of work concern human relationship should go given to the specific qualifications as well as characteristics of the applicants concerned, such as their linguistic communication skills as well as other private indications based on demonstrated family, cultural or social ties which could facilitate their integration into the Member State of relocation’. But this preference is non binding: the primary text of the Decision states that the relocation United States of America must bring the asylum-seekers nominated past times Italy as well as Greece, except that they tin sack pass upwards relocation ‘only where at that spot are reasonable grounds for regarding’ an asylum-seeker as a danger to their national safety or world gild or where at that spot are serious reasons for applying the exclusion provisions inwards the qualification Directive (concerning acts such as state of war crimes, terrorism as well as genocide).

Relocation tin sack only apply to asylum-seekers who take hold already been fingerprinted pursuant to the Eurodac Regulation. This only restates an existing European Union law obligation to fingerprint everyone over xiv who applies for asylum or is found crossing the external edge without permission, although that obligation is sometimes non applied inwards practice. Also, ‘applicants who elude the relocation physical care for shall go excluded from relocation’, although this rather states the obvious.

The relocation physical care for should usually bring no to a greater extent than than 2 months afterward the relocating Member State has indicated how many asylum-seekers it volition take. Member United States of America of relocation volition go responsible for considering the application. After relocation, asylum-seekers volition non legally go able to displace betwixt Member States, inwards accordance alongside the normal Dublin rules; if they do so, the Member State of relocation must bring them back. The preamble to the Decision also notes that, to deter ‘secondary movements’ Member United States of America tin sack boundary the suspensive number of appeals against transfers, impose reporting obligations, furnish benefits inwards kind, as well as number national entry bans. They should refrain from issuing move documents allowing the asylum-seekers to catch other countries. There mightiness go carrots, as good as sticks: as an incentive to remain inwards the Member State of relocation, the Commission has proposed that relocated asylum-seekers should go allowed to operate straight away, rather than afterward a 9-month hold off (the longest menstruum Member United States of America tin sack require nether the reception weather condition Directive). 

As for the asylum-seekers themselves, at that spot is no requirement that they consent to their relocation or take hold the powerfulness to asking it. The Decision only requires Italy as well as Hellenic Republic to inform as well as notify the asylum-seekers nigh the relocation, as well as the preamble states that they could only appeal against the determination if at that spot are major human rights problems inwards the province to which they would go relocated. So neither the relocation itself, nor the alternative of Member State that a mortal volition go relocated to, is voluntary. It is possible, however, that the asylum-seekers left behind inwards Italy or Hellenic Republic volition go disappointed that they are non picked. There is no specific remedy for them to challenge their non-selection, although arguably to the extent that Italy as well as Hellenic Republic select people who are not vulnerable for relocation, vulnerable persons could challenge their non-inclusion, inwards low-cal of the legal obligation to select vulnerable persons as a priority.  Asylum-seekers do take hold the right to insist that their core household unit of measurement members (spouse or partner, single little children, or parents of minors) who are already on European Union territory come upwards alongside them to the relocated Member State.

Finally, other Member United States of America take hold an obligation to assist Italy as well as Greece, spell those Member United States of America must inwards render flora as well as implement an asylum activity plan. If they do not, so the Commission tin sack suspend the Decision as regards either country. Member United States of America relocating asylum-seekers have a lump total of €6000 per mortal from the European Union budget to assist alongside costs. The Decision applies until 17 September 2017, as well as covers asylum-seekers who arrived afterward xv August 2015.

The 2d Decision

The 2d Decision follows the same basic template as the kickoff Decision, but at that spot are to a greater extent than or less key differences. First of all, it applies to 120,000 asylum-seekers, on top of the 40,000 provided for – but non fully committed – inwards the kickoff Decision (the kickoff Decision remains legally valid; it wasn’t amended or repealed past times the 2d one).

Secondly, the numbers of relocated asylum-seekers inwards the 2d Decision is non based upon voluntary commitments past times Member States, but upon specific numbers laid out inwards an Annex to the Decision. While most Member United States of America agreed to these numbers (the Decision needed a qualified bulk vote of ministers inwards the Council to pass), clearly non all did: Slovakia, Romania, Republic of Hungary as well as the Czechia voted against the Decision. This agency that at that spot is a legal obligation to bring these specific numbers of people.

Thirdly, the distribution of relocation is much different. Reflecting events on the Earth over the summer, which has seen a much bigger influx of potential asylum-seekers into Greece, the 2d Decision provides for relocating 50,400 from Greece, but only 15,600 from Italy. The remaining 54,000 were meant to go relocated from Hungary, but Republic of Hungary did non desire to go seen as a ‘frontline State’. So those 54,000 are ‘on ice’ for now. They volition go relocated inwards a year’s fourth dimension either from Italy as well as Hellenic Republic on the same footing as nether this Decision, or relocated on a unlike footing inwards low-cal of changes inwards circumstances (subject to approving from the Council inwards either case).

Fourthly, Member United States of America tin sack asking a temporary delay of 30% of their intake of asylum-seekers inwards ‘exceptional circumstances’, if it gives ‘duly justified reasons compatible alongside the primal values’ of the EU, such as human rights as well as non-discrimination. This delay tin sack so go authorised past times the Council on a proposal from the Commission. The preamble to the Decision indicates that such circumstances ‘could include, inwards particular’ a precipitous inflow that places ‘extreme pressure’ upon fifty-fifty a well-prepared asylum system, or a ‘high probability’ of such an inflow.

Fifthly, the preamble contains stronger linguistic communication as regards the ‘secondary movement’ of asylum-seekers. Member United States of America tin sack bring measures as regards social benefits as well as remedies, as well as tin sack ‘should’ detain asylum-seekers inwards accordance alongside the Returns Directive if no alternative agency of preventing secondary movements are available.

Sixthly, inwards improver to the lump total of €6000 per mortal from the European Union budget for Member United States of America of relocation, Italy as well as Hellenic Republic volition have €500 per mortal to assist alongside costs. Finally, the Decision volition also apply for 2 years, but it volition apply to all those who take hold arrived inwards Italy or Hellenic Republic since the destination of March this year, non just from mid-August.

Legality of the Decisions

Both decisions are based on Article 78(3) of the TFEU, which is a revised version of the ‘emergency power’ relating to immigration issues that has been inwards the Treaties since 1993 – but was never used until this month.

Article 78(3) reads as follows:

In the lawsuit of i or to a greater extent than Member United States of America beingness confronted past times an emergency province of affairs characterised past times a precipitous inflow of nationals of 3rd countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt provisional measures for the do goodness of the Member State(s) concerned. It shall human activity afterward consulting the European Parliament.

This should go seen inwards the context of the purpose of Article 78(1), which states that the European Union shall have:

a mutual policy on asylum, subsidiary protection as well as temporary protection alongside a persuasion to offering appropriate status to whatever third-country national requiring international protection as well as ensuring compliance alongside the regulation of non-refoulement. This policy must go inwards accordance alongside the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 as well as the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, as well as other relevant treaties.

Article 78(2) specifies that the European Union shall take hold powerfulness to adopt measures to create ‘a mutual European asylum system’, listing 7 areas where it tin sack human activity past times agency of the ordinary legislative procedure. (Note that the proposed permanent organization for relocation would go based on Article 78(2), non Article 78(3), so the legality of that proposal raises unlike issues; I’m non considering that proposal here).

Several elements of Article 78(3) are obvious: at that spot must go a Commission proposal (which at that spot was for both decisions); the Council votes past times qualified bulk (this isn’t expressly mentioned inwards the clause, but it’s the default rule); as well as the European Parliament (EP) is only consulted, whereas it has its usual articulation decision-making powerfulness as regards other asylum legislation. It’s implicit that Article 78(3) measures tin sack only relate to asylum, due to the placement of this clause inwards Article 78. Moreover, prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, the previous version of this clause had been free-standing, as well as hence applicable to all immigration as well as asylum issues; its placement inwards the asylum Article was sure no accident as well as must hence go legally relevant.

The strongest legal declaration against the validity of the 2d Decision is a procedural one. CJEU instance law has ever stated that where the EP has to go consulted on a measure, it must go reconsulted if the essential elements of the mensurate are so changed afterward it was initially consulted. That certainly applies here, because the removal of Republic of Hungary from the listing of frontline United States of America changed an essential chemical factor of the law. Against this, it mightiness go argued that at that spot is no obligation to reconsult, or a less stringent obligation to reconsult, inwards ‘emergency’ cases. But if the claim is successful on this point, it won’t range much: the Council volition only take hold to consult the EP again, as well as the CJEU mightiness (as it oftentimes does) maintain the Decision inwards forcefulness inwards the meantime, since the legal flaw is purely procedural.

As to the core of the emergency measures power, kickoff of all it must implicitly go consistent alongside Article 78(1), forming purpose of a ‘common’ policy, ensuring compliance alongside ‘non-refoulement’ as well as beingness inwards accordance alongside the Geneva Convention. The 2 Decisions encounter those criteria; to a greater extent than or less alternative suggestions similar closing the external edge or returning people to dangerous countries would not.

Next, several price inwards Article 78(3) take hold to go defined: an ‘emergency situation’, a ‘sudden inflow’, a ‘provisional measure’ as well as the ‘benefit’ of Member States. The thought of an ‘emergency’ suggests a province of affairs which Member United States of America observe especially hard to handle, as well as the electrical flow crisis certainly qualifies for that. Some take hold questioned whether the inflow is ‘sudden’, given that it has been edifice upwards for years, alongside the Syrian civil state of war starting dorsum inwards 2011. But the overall numbers take hold clearly increased sharply inwards 2015; the scale of that increment sure qualifies as a ‘sudden’ inflow, fifty-fifty if the inflow did non start overnight.

Surely it is upwards to the Member United States of America inwards interrogation to create upwards one's hear if they volition ‘benefit’ from the measures concerned; that’s why it was legally necessary to take away Republic of Hungary from the listing of beneficiaries. Just because to a greater extent than or less other policy might, inwards the persuasion of other Member States, go preferable, doesn’t hateful that the Member United States of America concerned volition non benefit. Anyway, it’s land clear that Italy as well as Hellenic Republic volition do goodness from having fewer asylum-seekers on their territory, as things at nowadays stand.

There’s a strong literal declaration that the measures inwards interrogation tin sack only do goodness Member States, as distinct from (say) Serbia – although the European Union could silent assist Serbia past times other means. But that number doesn’t arise, since the 2 Decisions are only relocating asylum-seekers from Member States. H5N1 purely consequential affect on 3rd United States of America (fewer people volition transit Serbia) isn’t sufficient to infringe this rule.

This leaves us alongside the Definition of ‘provisional measures’. The notion of ‘provisional’ agency that it must go limited inwards time. Since the Treaty of Lisbon removed the previous limitation to vi months, this agency that measures tin sack in conclusion for longer than that. Although at that spot may go a legal declaration that 2 years is besides long, a menstruum of i yr (during which fourth dimension a permanent organization may good go agreed) is sure legal. So the most a successful claim could do hither is curtail the length of the validity of the 2d Decision, non annul it completely. If a provisional mensurate is renewed, or replaced alongside a similar provisional measure, the ‘provisional’ nature of the powers would go infringed, but nosotros take hold non got to that phase yet.   

What ‘measures’ tin sack go adopted? Can they amend existing legislation? This is relevant because the 2 Decisions derogate from the Dublin rules, as whatever relocation organization would take hold to do. The EP’s role has been circumvented because it was only consulted. While I previously held the persuasion that for this reason, emergency asylum measures could non derogate from European Union asylum legislation, I no longer retrieve that’s correct. Because the Treaty refers to a ‘common’ asylum policy, it must follow that the powerfulness to adopt emergency measures would go nugatory if it couldn’t amend existing legislation.

Does the European Union take hold powerfulness to adopt quotas of asylum-seekers? H5N1 powerfulness to adopt quota rules is ruled out nether Article 79(5) TFEU inwards the instance of those looking for work. But those limitations only apply to ‘that Article’, as well as the Treaty drafters chose to regulate asylum issues, including reception weather condition for asylum-seekers as well as the status of refugees (which concern access to employment) on the footing of Article 78 instead. Indeed, as noted already, there’s no right to operate for asylum-seekers on the footing of European Union law unless they take hold been waiting nine months for a determination (although Member United States of America tin sack pick out to go to a greater extent than generous if they wish), as well as to a greater extent than or less asylum-seekers volition go besides immature to seek operate or otherwise non seek operate due to household unit of measurement responsibilities or illness, for example. So asylum-seekers aren’t inside the compass of Article 79. Moreover, the number of relocation quotas had been discussed several times before, to the Treaty drafters must take hold been aware of it. If they had wanted to dominion out quotas for asylum-seekers inwards Article 78(3), they would hence sure take hold done so expressly. Article 79(5) has an a contrario effect.

Should Article 78(3) go narrowly interpreted? The Treaty drafters chose to utilization wide wording, as well as indeed Article fourscore TFEU refers broadly to the regulation of solidarity as well as burden-sharing ('including', ie non limited to, fiscal support). Unlike Treaty provisions which stress the narrowness of the EU’s powers, such as the powers over wellness or education, Article 78 repeatedly refers to a ‘common’ or ‘uniform’ policy (there are to a greater extent than such references inwards Articles 67 as well as 78(2)). The Treaty drafters placed limits on the compass of the EU’s immigration policy (as nosotros take hold seen already); as well as inwards the same Title of the Treaty, at that spot are diverse special rules relating to competence or voting over diverse aspects of edge controls, civil law, police trace cooperation, as well as criminal law. It’s quite striking that no comparable limits be as regards the EU’s asylum powers. One may reasonably debate that at that spot should go such limits, but I am non convinced that at that spot are such limits at the moment.

Just because those powers exist, however, does non hateful that they should necessarily go used. So finally I volition plow to the interrogation of whether relocation is a adept thought inwards general, as well as whether it is wise to forcefulness it upon recalcitrant United States of America – fifty-fifty if it is legal.

Appraising the relocation policy

In principle, the objectives of the relocation policy are alone valid. Article fourscore TFEU refers to the ask for solidarity as well as burden-sharing amid Member United States of America as regards asylum, as well as this reflects also the burden-sharing regulation of international law, laid out inwards the preamble to the Geneva Convention on refugees. The numbers who take hold arrived inwards Hellenic Republic as well as Italy inwards recent months are clearly unmanageable for those countries to take hold alone, although it should non go forgotten that to a greater extent than or less of the (potential) asylum-seekers concerned take hold moved on to other Member United States of America nether their ain steam inwards the meantime. While solidarity also tin sack (and does) bring the cast of fiscal back upwards as well as additional personnel, reception centres cannot go built overnight as well as officials from other Member United States of America cannot only go purpose of the Greek or Italian civil service for a while.

If anything, the relocation Decisions are insufficient. It’s clearly an overstatement to say that the European Union has ‘done nothing’ to assist those countries: the Decisions won’t salvage all the trace per unit of measurement area upon Italy as well as Greece, but every bit it should inwards regulation salvage some of it. According to the preamble to the 2d Decision, it volition salvage Hellenic Republic as well as Italy of 43% of the asylum-seekers who clearly needed international protection (ie the nationalities alongside high success rates inwards asylum claims) who arrived at that spot over July as well as August. But this is less impressive than it kickoff appears, since it assumes that the farther 54,000 asylum-seekers at nowadays ‘on ice’ volition go relocated from those countries, whereas this is non yet certain. And spell the asylum-seekers inwards interrogation volition go relocated over 2 years, the numbers referred to inwards the preamble arrived over two months. Although the kickoff Decision volition also salvage to a greater extent than or less pressure, the percent of the asylum-seekers from priority countries who volition brand it inwards Italy as well as Hellenic Republic over the side past times side 2 years who volition go relocated volition hence go much less than 43%. It is fifty-fifty possible that the to a greater extent than systematic application of the obligation to fingerprint applicants volition hateful that Italy as well as Hellenic Republic would destination upwards responsible for to a greater extent than applicants from the priority countries than before. 

Overall, then, taking into line of piece of work concern human relationship the numbers of asylum-seekers non dependent land to the Decisions because they are non from a priority country, the 2 Decisions are probable to essay insufficient. This tin sack go addressed inwards practise past times farther such Decisions (or the proposed novel permanent organization for addressing these issues) inwards the nigh future.

The interrogation of whether it is possible to cut back the numbers of asylum-seekers who brand it at the EU’s external borders inwards the kickoff identify is exterior the compass of my analysis hither – although this volition ultimately create upwards one's hear whether a volume influx continues to occur inwards the years to come. 

As for the details of the Decisions, at that spot are 2 especially controversial issues: the role of asylum-seekers, as well as the wisdom of enforcing quotas upon unwilling Member States. On the kickoff point, it is problematic to compel asylum-seekers to displace to a province that they do non wishing to go in, since this has already proved unworkable inwards the master copy Dublin context. It would take hold been preferable at to the lowest degree to give asylum-seekers the chance to limited a (non-binding) preference (with reasons) for particular Member State, or maybe a listing of several preferred Member States. That would increment the likelihood that asylum-seekers volition remain put, since they are would go inwards a Member United States of America where they prefer to be. It volition also increment the likelihood that they volition integrate into the host State i time obtaining protection status (as most people dependent land to the Decisions will), given that they may prefer particular destinations because they take hold extended household unit of measurement members, friends or acquaintances there. But it volition likely non go possible to observe every asylum-seeker’s preferred destination – or every asylum-seeker who wants to relocate.

In the absence of whatever endeavor to consider the asylum-seekers’ preferences, Member United States of America instead savage dorsum upon the thought of punishing them if they brand secondary movements. Although the Dublin organization has notably non worked good at ensuring that asylum-seekers ever remain inwards the State which is responsible for their application, it has worked meliorate when asylum-seekers take hold been fingerprinted, so that it is slow to ascertain the responsible Member State; as well as relocation nether the Decisions volition only go possible for those who take hold been fingerprinted. While the Decisions correctly province that asylum-seekers who brand secondary movements take hold to go taken dorsum (pursuant to the Dublin Regulation), the preamble to the 2d Decision wrongly claims that they could go detained pursuant to the Returns Directive. In fact, since that Directive doesn’t apply to asylum-seekers (see the CJEU rulings inwards Kadzoev as well as Arslan), the narrower grounds for detention inwards the Dublin Regulation would apply instead, if the mortal concerned applies for asylum.

It’s also non clear precisely what benefits sanctions as well as remedies restrictions could go legally applied to asylum-seekers who don’t remain inwards the Member State of relocation, beyond the possibility of limiting the suspensive number of a legal challenge. As regards benefits, the CJEU ruled inwards Cimade as well as GISTI that benefits must silent go paid to asylum-seekers fifty-fifty if they take hold moved to to a greater extent than or less other Member State (by that Member State), until the dot when they are transferred dorsum to the responsible Member State nether the Dublin rules. This is at nowadays reflected inwards the preamble to the Dublin III Regulation. It mightiness essay to a greater extent than fruitful to bring upwards the Commission’s proffer of allowing relocated asylum-seekers to operate at an before date.

On the 2d point, historically calls for asylum burden-sharing take hold relied upon moral suasion, non legal imposition. The relocation physical care for volition inwards whatever lawsuit go hard to behaviour out if the outvoted Member United States of America pass upwards to cooperate alongside it. (It’s non clear if they volition suspend their commitments nether the kickoff Decision besides – although banknote that Republic of Hungary made no such commitments inwards the kickoff place). The Commission tin sack get infringement proceedings for non-cooperation, but this volition bring time, as well as the Member United States of America inwards interrogation mightiness prefer to pay a fine (the sanction for non-compliance alongside a CJEU infringement ruling) than cooperate alongside relocation.

While the recalcitrant Member States’ objections to burden-sharing are non rattling convincing, to a greater extent than efforts should take hold been made to offering them an alternative. The master copy proffer of a fiscal contribution to alleviate the costs of the Member United States of America alongside the biggest burden was dropped, since it was (wrongly) perceived as a sanction, rather than as an alternate type of burden-sharing. Perhaps a meliorate thought would take hold been to offering the alternative of assisting the neighbouring countries hosting Syrians, Iraqis as well as Eritreans, either past times resettling to a greater extent than people direct from those countries or past times making bigger fiscal contributions to those countries (and thereby reducing ‘push’ factors). Either alternative could take hold indirectly relieved the burden on Hellenic Republic or Italy.

Finally, to what extent tin sack the outvoted Member United States of America (or others) cut back their obligations nether the Decisions? As nosotros take hold seen, the 2d Decision allows them to cut back their intake temporarily, if the Council approves. They must take hold adept reasons, inwards particular relating to reception capacity. Given the especial nature of the rule, it is hard to reckon how other reasons tin sack easily go accepted; certainly paranoia cannot. And the grounds for the asking must go compatible alongside European Union values, so Islamophobia is every bit an impermissible Earth too.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: Istvan Zsiros

Share this post