Professor Steve Peers, Law School, University of Essex*
The EU Commission recently released a new set of proposals regarding asylum and non-EU migration. These proposals include draft legislation, non-binding agreements, renewed discussions on unresolved proposals, and plans for future measures. This article provides a summary of these new proposals and offers initial impressions. While the package could result in an agreement on updated asylum laws, this might come at the expense of weaker human rights protections.
Background
The EU has been working toward a “Common European Asylum System” since 1999. The first set of laws was passed between 2003 and 2005, with a second phase following between 2010 and 2013. These laws define refugee and subsidiary protection status, allocate responsibility for asylum seekers among member states, and establish procedures and standards for asylum applications and reception conditions.
The EU also has legislation covering other aspects of migration, such as visas, border control, unauthorized migration, and legal migration. Many of these laws are interconnected with asylum legislation and are addressed in the recent package. For instance, there are regulations determining visa requirements for citizens of non-EU countries and outlining the criteria for obtaining short-term Schengen visas.
Border control legislation centers around the Schengen Borders Code, which sets rules for crossing external borders, and the Frontex Regulation, establishing an EU border agency. Laws addressing unauthorized migration primarily consist of the Return Directive, which outlines procedures for returning individuals residing illegally within the EU. Legal migration is governed by various directives, covering the admission of non-EU workers, highly skilled migrants, seasonal workers, intra-company transfers, students, researchers, trainees, family reunification, and long-term residents.
It’s important to note that the UK, Ireland, and Denmark have opted out of most of these laws, with some exceptions. Additionally, several non-EU countries associated with Schengen and Dublin are also subject to these regulations.
The Refugee ‘Crisis’
In 2015, the EU responded to the perceived refugee ‘crisis’ with both short-term and long-term measures. Short-term solutions involved temporary laws to relocate asylum seekers from overwhelmed countries like Italy and Greece to other member states. However, these measures saw limited success due to resistance from some member states. Long-term solutions, proposed in 2016, involved overhauling existing legislation on refugee status, asylum procedures, reception conditions, and the resettlement of refugees directly from non-EU countries. These proposals aimed to create a more unified and manageable system for handling asylum seekers within the EU.
However, these proposals faced significant obstacles and ultimately failed to gain the necessary support, leading to the current attempt to revive the process. Disagreements arose among member states on various issues, including the criteria for refugee status, the distribution of asylum seekers, and increased powers for the EU asylum agency. The failure to reach a consensus on these crucial matters resulted in a legislative stalemate, leaving the EU with an outdated and ineffective system for managing migration and asylum.
The attempted relaunch
Instead of completely restarting the process, the Commission’s new Pact on asylum and immigration proposes a mix of resuming negotiations on previously agreed-upon points and introducing new legislation focusing on border procedures and the relocation of asylum seekers.
The proposed changes aim to expedite the processing of asylum applications, facilitate the return of individuals whose applications are rejected, and establish a more balanced distribution of responsibility among member states. One key aspect is the introduction of a pre-entry screening procedure, conducted at the border, to quickly assess asylum claims and identify individuals who do not qualify for protection. Another crucial element is a revised system for determining which member state is responsible for processing an asylum application. The goal is to prevent situations where a small number of countries are disproportionately burdened with a large influx of asylum seekers.
However, these proposals have sparked concerns about potential human rights violations. Critics argue that the expedited procedures and limited access to legal remedies could deprive asylum seekers of a fair hearing and expose them to the risk of being returned to countries where they face persecution.
Comments
The Commission’s new proposals represent an attempt to break the political deadlock surrounding EU asylum and migration policy. Whether this attempt will be successful remains to be seen. The proposals address some of the concerns raised by member states, particularly by emphasizing border control and the swift return of rejected asylum seekers.
However, it is unclear whether these concessions will be enough to overcome the resistance of those member states who oppose any system involving the mandatory relocation of asylum seekers. The success of the proposals also hinges on their compatibility with fundamental rights. Striking a balance between effective migration management and safeguarding the rights of asylum seekers is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration and a commitment to upholding EU values.
Ultimately, addressing the root causes of migration, such as conflict, poverty, and climate change, is essential for creating a sustainable solution. This requires the EU to strengthen its cooperation with third countries and invest in development assistance to improve living conditions in migrants’ countries of origin.
Barnard & Peers: chapter 26
JHA4: chapter I:3, chapter I:4, chapter I:5, chapter I:6, chapter I:7
Photo credit: DW
*I have worked as an independent consultant for the impact assessment regarding the background of some of this week’s proposals. My views are, however, independent of any EU institution or Member State.