The new EU asylum laws, part 8: the ‘crisis’ Regulation – and conclusions

 

Professor Steve Peers, Royal Holloway, University of London

Photo credit: Sam Zidovetski, via Wikimedia Commons

(Last amended June 18 2024: amendments marked by asterisks)

Just before Christmas, the European Parliament and the Council (the EU body consisting of Member States’ ministers) reached a deal on five key pieces of EU asylum legislation, concerning asylum procedures, the ‘Dublin’ system on responsibility for asylum applications (also known as the 'Asylum and Migration Management Regulation', or AMMR), the ‘Eurodac’ database supporting the Dublin system, screening of migrants/asylum seekers, and derogations in the event of crises. These five laws joined the previously agreed revised laws on qualification of refugees and people with subsidiary protection, reception conditions for asylum-seekers, and resettlement of refugees from outside the EU. Taken together, all these laws comprise a ‘package’ of new or revised EU asylum laws, which was formally adopted on 14 May 2024, and published in the EU Official Journal on 22 May 2024.*

I have looked at all the new legislation on this blog in a series of blog posts, which are a preview of a forthcoming article.* This is the eighth and final post in the series, on the Regulation on derogations in the event of a crisis, which derogates from the asylum procedures Regulation and the revised Dublin Regulation. It also includes discussion of the ‘crisis’ rules in the Regulation on a borders return procedure, and conclusions on the asylum package as a whole. 

The previous blog posts in the series concerned the new qualification Regulation (part 1), the revised reception conditions Directive (part 2), the new Regulation on resettlement of refugees (part 3), the revised Regulation on Eurodac (part 4), the Regulation on screening of migrants (part 5), the revised Dublin Regulation/AMMR (part 6), and the procedures Regulation (part 7).*

The new package joins the previous Regulation revising the powers of the EU asylum agency, which was separated from the package and adopted already in 2021.* (On EU asylum law generally, see my asylum law chapter in the latest edition of EU Justice and Home Affairs Law).

The crisis Regulation

The existence of a free-standing Regulation on exceptions in the event of a crisis situation is new, although there is also a Directive on temporary protection in the event of a mass influx (invoked after the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and some derogations to address large numbers of asylum applications in other EU asylum laws. There were also emergency laws on relocation of asylum seekers, to deal with the perceived refugee crisis in 2015, but they expired in 2017.

Ireland has opted out of the crisis Regulation, and the Regulation does not apply to Denmark, although Denmark (and non-EU Schengen associates) will be covered by the crisis rules in the border returns procedure Regulation.

The legislative process leading to the 2024 Regulation began with a proposal in 2020, as part of the relaunch of the proposed EU Immigration and Asylum Pact.

Like most of the rest of the new package, the Regulation will not apply for two years - on 1 July 2026.* The rationale of the Regulation is that ‘[t]he EU and its Member States may be confronted with migratory challenges that can vary greatly, in particular with regard to the scale and the composition of the arrivals. It is therefore essential that the Union be equipped with a variety of tools to respond to all types of situations’, which are ‘complementary’ to the provisions in the 2024 Dublin Regulation and the temporary protection Directive, ‘which may be used at the same time’. (The original proposal would have repealed the temporary protection Directive)

General Provisions and Scope

Among other things, as noted already, the crisis Regulation provides for derogations from the Dublin Regulation and the Procedures Regulation. However, it ‘shall not affect the fundamental principles and guarantees’ in those Regulations, and the ‘[t]emporary measures’ it provides for are subject to necessity and proportionality, must ‘be appropriate to achieving their stated objectives’, ensure the rights of asylum-seekers and those with international protection, ‘and be consistent with the obligations of the Member States under the Charter, international law and the Union asylum acquis.’ It ‘shall be applied only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, in a temporary and limited manner and only in exceptional circumstances’

The preamble emphasises that besides the derogations, other EU asylum law applies fully. Furthermore, the exceptions in the Regulation cannot be invoked by Member States unilaterally: Member States can apply the provisions of the Regulation ‘only upon request and to the extent provided for in’ the Council Decision triggering it.  

As for its scope, the Regulation applies to two types of ‘crisis’ and to ‘force majeure’, as further defined. The first type of crisis is a ‘mass arrival’:

an exceptional situation of mass arrivals of third-country nationals or stateless persons in a Member State by land, air or sea, including of persons that have been disembarked following search and rescue operations, of such a scale and nature, taking into account, inter alia, the population, GDP and geographical specificities of the Member State, including the size of the territory, that it renders the Member State’s well-prepared asylum, reception, including child protection services, or return system non-functional, including as a result of a situation at local or regional level, such that there could be serious consequences for the functioning the Common European Asylum System

The second type of crisis is an ‘instrumentalisation’ crisis, ie Belarus shoving people across the border:

where a third country or hostile non-state actor encourages or facilitates the movement of third-country nationals or stateless persons to the external borders or to a Member State, with the aim of destabilising the Union or a Member State, and where such actions are liable to put at risk essential functions of a Member State, including the maintenance of law and order or the safeguard of its national security.

The preamble qualifies this definition: non-state actors ‘involved in organised crime, in particular smuggling, should not be considered as instrumentalisation of migrants when there is no aim to destabilise the Union or a Member State’; and ‘[h]umanitarian assistance should not be considered as instrumentalisation of migrants when there is no aim to destabilise the Union or a Member State’.

In this context, Member States can ask to trigger the Regulation ‘in particular where there is an unexpected significant increase in the caseload of applications for international protection at the external borders’. And they can ‘only’ use the derogations in any Council decision triggering the Regulation to people ‘who are subject to instrumentalisation and who are either apprehended or found in the proximity of the external border’ – as distinct from internal borders – ‘in connection with an unauthorised crossing by land, sea or air, or who are disembarked following search and rescue operations or who have presented themselves at border crossing points’. But the preamble to the Regulation also states that in this context, ‘effective and genuine access to the international protection procedure must be ensured in accordance with Article 18 of the Charter and the [Refugee] Convention.’

Finally, ‘force majeure’ means ‘abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances outside a Member State’s control, the consequences of which could not have been avoided notwithstanding the exercise of all due care, which prevent that Member State from complying with obligations under’ the procedures and Dublin Regulations. The preamble gives the examples of pandemics and natural disasters.

Process

The process of triggering the Regulation starts with a request from a Member State, which believes it is in a crisis or force majeure situation and so sends a request to the Commission. Following this request, the Commission has two weeks to assess it and adopt a decision determining whether that Member State is indeed in a crisis or force majeure situation. Next, at the same time as adopting that decision, the Commission must, ‘where appropriate’, propose a further Council implementing decision to benefit that Member State; the Council must also act within two weeks.

The Council decision must set out some combination of derogations from EU asylum law, a ‘solidarity response plan’, or an identification of which non-EU citizens are being ‘instrumentalised’.  Also, the Commission can adopt a recommendation urging that Member State to apply an expedited procedure for applications likely to be well-founded, in which case the Member State must decide on those applications within four weeks, derogating from the usual time limits in the procedures Regulation (see part 7).

The Council decision will not apply indefinitely. It can apply only for a year in total: initially three months, with a three month extension confirmed by the Commission; then another Council decision amending it or prolonging it for three months, again with a possible three month extension if the Commission agrees. It is not clear how soon afterwards the Member State could ‘go back to the well’ to ask for another Council decision. The Commission and Council must monitor whether the situation of crisis or force majeure continues to exist, and the Commission ‘shall pay particular attention to the compliance with fundamental rights and humanitarian standards’. The EU Solidarity Coordinator, whose post was set up by the 2024 Dublin Regulation, also plays a role.

Solidarity Measures and Derogations

A Member State facing a crisis situation can request any of the various solidarity measures defined in the 2024 Dublin Regulation (see part 6): relocation (including of recent beneficiaries of international protection), financial contributions (including to non-EU states), and alternative measures. If the relocation pledges fall short, there are a number of rules on offsets (ie other Member States taking responsibility for applicants that they would otherwise have transferred to the Member State in crisis).

As for derogations from other EU asylum laws, the first potential derogation is from the procedures Regulation (see part 7), in any crisis or force majeure situation: Member States can have up to four weeks to register asylum applications, instead of five days. Next, there are a series of possible derogations from the borders procedure in the procedures Regulation: an extra six weeks to apply the procedure (on top of the usual 12 week maximum); an exemption from the obligation to apply the procedure to applicants from countries with low recognition rates; a change to the threshold of the ‘low recognition rate’ rule (either a reduction or an increase to the threshold); or deciding on the merits of all ‘instrumentalisation’ cases in the border procedure, subject to detailed safeguards for minors and families and those with special procedural or reception needs, and protection of ‘the basic principles of the right to asylum and the respect of the principle of non-refoulement as well as the guarantees’ in Chapters I and II of the procedures Regulation.

Third, in the event of force majeure or ‘mass arrival’ crises, the beneficiary Member State can extend a number of deadlines in the Dublin rules, accompanied by a delay in Dublin transfers to that Member State. Finally, in the case of ‘mass arrival’ crises, a Member State may be relieved from certain obligations to take back asylum applicants under the Dublin rules.

Border Return Procedure Regulation

The Regulation on a border return procedure provides that in the event of a crisis, as defined in the crisis Regulation, those who are subject to the border return procedure in that Regulation, because their applications were rejected in the border procedure in the procedures Regulation, and they have no right to remain, can be kept in the border return procedure for an additional six weeks – on top of the ordinary 12 weeks allowed for in the border return procedure Regulation. But as with the ordinary application of that Regulation, if they are not expelled before this extra time runs out, any detention during this period counts toward the detention time limits in the Returns Directive (see further part 7).

The procedural rules in the main crisis Regulation apply – ie a Member State cannot extend the border returns procedure unilaterally, but needs a Council decision authorising it. In that event, though, the extension of the border returns procedure can apply even to those whose asylum application was rejected before that extension was authorised.

Assessment of the crisis Regulation

To what extent, as some seem to believe, can Member States simply end the right to asylum in the event of a crisis or force majeure? In principle, not at all. The derogations in the exceptions and border return procedures Regulations are for a limited time, and only permit delays in registering applications, extensions of the Dublin deadlines, and longer periods to apply the border procedure or border return procedure – neither of which terminate the right to asylum as such. This is reinforced by the provisions of the Regulation that emphasise that other provisions of EU law, along with human rights obligations, still apply when the derogations are used. This is, of course, consistent with the Charter rights and Treaty obligations relating to human rights and asylum, including non-refoulement.

Moreover, the wording of the Regulation suggests that Member States can only derogate from EU asylum law to the extent provided for in this or other EU measures, confirming the prior case law of the CJEU (Case C-72/22 PPU; the Court has also ruled in that and many other cases that the ‘law and order’ clause in Article 72 TFEU does not give Member States carte blanche to derogate from EU asylum law). In particular, the Court ruled that, in situations of instrumentalization, Member States could not simply detain asylum-seekers on the grounds of illegal entry (as it is not a ground for detention under the reception conditions Directive, which remains the case: see part 2) or refuse to consider their asylum applications. The crisis Regulation does not provide for either of those measures as such; but Member States may attempt similar measures indirectly – by detaining people on border procedure grounds, and by closing border posts pursuant to the amendments to the Schengen Borders Code – although that and other measures regarding ‘instrumentalisation’ in the recent Borders Code amendments are subject to human rights safeguards.

Overall assessment of the asylum package

Taken as a whole, the 2024 EU asylum laws are obviously not a shift towards a more liberal legal framework for asylum and migration control. Still less are they a shift toward a radical abolition of border control, as some on the populist right are likely to claim. But nor can they plausibly be characterised, as some on the opposite side of the political spectrum claim, as a de facto abolition of the right to asylum in the EU – at least on paper. Yet it is possible that having been given an inch, Member States will take a mile; and given the record of its approach to the EU/Turkey and Italy/Albania agreements, the EU Commission may do more to help Member States in this goal than to hinder them. In that context, the role of national courts, including their requests for preliminary rulings from the CJEU, may continue to be crucial as regards the interpretation and application of EU asylum law.

Analysing the letter of the new laws (as distinct from how Member States might try to apply them), the moves towards sanctions for secondary movements and greater harmonisation of the law – rationalised as an indirect method of dissuading secondary movements – are consistent across the package. This is a reversal of the usual EU paradigm, which justifies harmonisation of law as a measure to facilitate movement across borders, not deter it.

The sanctions for secondary movement (alongside applying the Dublin rules for longer, and simply locking more people up to prevent any movement at all) entail the (conditional) loss of benefits and access to employment, the reset of the clock on obtaining EU long-term residence status, and (crucially) the deemed withdrawal of asylum applications. There is a deep inconsistency between encouraging greater negative mutual recognition of asylum refusals, while doing very little to promote positive mutual recognition (transfer of protection, mobility of international protection beneficiaries), despite the Treaty commitment to a uniform asylum status ‘valid throughout the Union’. As for harmonisation, it is not complete, but it has gone a long way, with the bonfire of most options for Member States and a lot of additional detail added to ensure that decision-making diverges less.

From the human rights perspective, it is the harmonisation of procedural standards that raises the biggest concerns. As we have seen, the restriction of appeals against Dublin transfers, a number of the deadlines to apply for appeals, and the curtailment of automatic suspensive effect of appeals are all problematic – depending on how the CJEU might approach them in light of its case law on effective remedies. On the merits, there are various default protections against non-refoulement, but it is uncertain how they will work in practice. And while the multiple fast track procedures are all subject to the observance of basic standards on paper, there are doubts about whether that is true in practice – leaving the possibility that the protections of EU asylum law will for many be a form of Potemkin village.

There is nonetheless the risk that, since NGOs have asserted that the new package destroys the right to asylum, some governments may interpret it as a licence to do just that. In this area, the problem with ‘crying wolf’ may not be so much that people stop believing your warnings – but rather that people use your cries as an inspiration to develop a wolf-based asylum policy.

The new EU law on refugees takes shape: More Harmonisation but Less Protection?

Professor Steve Peers

At the heart of the contested issue of asylum in the EU – including the current perceived ‘refugee/migrant crisis’ – is the definition of who is a ‘refugee’, or is at least entitled instead to a form of ‘subsidiary protection’ for those fleeing threats of ‘serious harm’. Refugees and people with subsidiary protection receive more legal protection and status than many other non-EU citizens, in particular irregular migrants.

Unsurprisingly then, the proposed revision of the EU legislation on this issue forms part of the broader overhaul of all EU asylum laws proposed in 2016, as a response to the perceived crisis. Recently the EU governments agreed their position on the proposal, which must now be negotiated with the European Parliament (its negotiating position is set out here).

Most of the other 2016 proposals are still under negotiation (I’ll discuss them as part of an update of recent EU immigration and asylum developments, coming soon). But since the ‘qualification’ rules are a cornerstone of EU asylum law, the latest development calls for a more in-depth analysis. In particular, will the new law meet the Commission’s objectives for dealing with the ‘crisis’: more harmonisation, an overall reduction in protection standards, and deterrents for ‘secondary’ movements between Member States?

The proposal aims to implement the UN Refugee Convention (which the EU refers to as the ‘Geneva Convention’) in more detail, as regards both the definition of ‘refugee’ and the rights which refugees receive. It also defines ‘subsidiary protection’ and sets out the rights which subsidiary protection beneficiaries are entitled to.

It will replace the existing EU law on the subject. As part of the ‘first phase’ of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), an initial Qualification Directive was adopted in 2004. A ‘second phase’ Qualification Directive replaced it in 2011. (I analysed the negotiation of the latter Directive here; there’s also a lengthy analysis of it by Madeline Garlick and Violeta Moreno Lax in EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and Commentary). The UK and Ireland opted in to (and are still bound by) the first phase Directive, but not the second phase Directive or the 2016 proposal; Denmark is not bound by any of them. After Brexit, UK citizens will be able to apply for asylum in the EU.

Basic legal framework

To give effect to the objective of further harmonisation, the 2016 proposal will replace the 2011 Directive with a Regulation, with the consequence that EU law on this subject will be directly applicable, rather than applying through the medium of national legislation giving effect to a Directive. To the same end, the Regulation will also eliminate Member States’ power in the current law to set more favourable standards as long as they are compatible with the Directive – although this power has already been curtailed by the ECJ’s judgments in B and D and M’Bodj (the latter ruling is discussed here). The new Regulation will reflect that case law, by noting that Member States are free to retain or establish a separate status of humanitarian protection, as long as there is no confusion with the (EU harmonised) notions of refugee or subsidiary protection status.

This shift toward harmonisation is also manifested by a removal of most options under the Directive, with the effect of lowering standards overall, since most of the options are possibilities for Member States to offer less protection than under the standard rules. On the other hand, the Commission’s desire to have the new law play a role in immediate ‘crisis management’ would be thwarted by Member States, who want the law to apply in two years’ time – rather than the six months desired by the Commission. (Note that the EP wants it to apply even more quickly than the Commission, though).

Turning to the details of the proposal, there are four main elements to the law: common rules (applying to both refugee and subsidiary protection status); the definition of ‘refugee’; the definition of subsidiary protection; and the content of status (ie the benefits people with status receive).

Common rules

Family members of refugees and people with subsidiary protection will be given extra rights in the new law (see below), and they will be defined slightly more broadly. A ‘family member’ will now include relationships formed outside the country of refuge, not just those formed inside the country or origin. This means, for instance, that the spouse of a Syrian refugee who married him while in Turkey or Lebanon, and the children of that couple born in such countries, would now be defined as ‘family members’.

The rules on assessment of asylum applications will be extended to include refugees resettled directly from non-EU countries, assuming that a separate proposal on resettlement is agreed. It will now be mandatory, not optional, for the main burden of proof to rest upon the applicant to show why the claim for refugee or subsidiary protection status is justified; and a new clause in the preamble will reflect the ECJ’s 2014 case law (discussed here) which limits the intrusiveness of Member States’ questioning of the credibility of LGBTI asylum-seekers.  

Next, the new law will harmonise the use of an exception to the rules – and lower the standards of protection. While the Regulation will retain the notion of an application for refugee or subsidiary protection status ‘sur place’ – meaning the asylum seeker left the allegedly unsafe country of origin before it became unsafe – the exception to this rule will become mandatory. At present, this exception gives Member States an option to ‘normally’ refuse refugee status to an asylum seeker who has made a repeat application for asylum and created her own risk of persecution due to her activities after leaving the country of origin. The Commission proposal would extend this to subsidiary protection applications, and Member States want to go further – extending the (now mandatory) exception to initial applications as well, subject to a new threshold (the asylum-seeker’s activities were for the ‘sole or main purpose’ of making a claim for protection). For its part, the EP would keep the exception optional and limited to repeat applications, while also adding a safeguard for those asylum-seekers who (for example) ‘come out’ after arriving in the EU, having been previously afraid to express their sexuality.

Similarly, the option to refuse claims because the asylum seeker had an ‘internal flight alternative’ – ie he could have fled to a safe part of the country of origin, like a supposed ‘safe zone’ in Syria – would become mandatory. (The possibility of rejecting a claim because an asylum seeker would arguably have been safe in a different country is the subject of other proposals). The proposal makes this subject to safeguards: more elaborate explanation of the substance of the idea; applying the main rules on qualification first; shifting the burden of proof to the authorities; and not requiring the asylum seeker to show that he exhausted all possibilities to move within the country of origin. However, the Member States’ position would drop the latter two safeguards. For its part, the EP would keep this clause optional, drop the ‘sequencing’ rule, but add further safeguards.

Definition of ‘refugee’

The EU is bound by the Treaties to follow the UN Refugee Convention, so the proposed law retains the basic idea from that Convention that a ‘refugee’ is someone persecuted because of their race, religion, political opinion, nationality or particular social group, elaborating upon each of these concepts. The Commission proposal would clarify in the preamble that LGBT people can form part of a ‘particular social group’ (confirming ECJ case law), while the main text would confirm case law that asylum seekers can’t be expected to hide (for instance) their sexuality or religion in their countries of origin. The proposal would also tighten the definition of ‘particular social group’ in that asylum-seekers would have to show in all Member States that they both perceived themselves as part of a distinct group and were perceived as different by the rest of society. This would quash the discretion that Member States now have to set higher standards, so that only one of those elements is necessary to prove refugee status. Member States agree with this latter change, but the EP is resisting it.

As for exclusion from refugee status, where the current Directive elaborates a little on the relevant provisions of the Refugee Convention, the new Regulation would enshrine the basic elements of ECJ case law on the special status of some Palestinians (Bolbol and El Kott), and on the exclusion of persons strongly linked to terrorism (B and D; the preamble Member States’ version also takes account of the recent ECJ judgment in Lounani on the exclusion of foreign fighters, discussed here).

In contrast, the proposals on withdrawal of refugee status would tighten the existing law, making withdrawal mandatory in more cases and clarifying the link with similar provisions in the rest of the law (on that point, see the ECJ’s T judgment, discussed here). There would be a grace period to apply for another legal status and a mandatory review of status at least the first time a refugee’s residence permit came up for renewal. However, Member States reject the latter ideas (and the EP also rejects the review clause).

Definition of subsidiary protection

The core definition of subsidiary protection (a threat of serious harm deriving from the death penalty, torture or similar treatment, or facing a specified threat from armed conflict) would not be affected by the 2016 proposal – although the preamble would entrench the relevant ECJ case law (Elgafaji and Diakité). However, the rules on exclusion from and withdrawal of subsidiary protection status would be amended to (for the most part) match the parallel changes related to refugee status; and the Council and EP take a comparable view of these proposals. On one distinct point – withdrawing subsidiary protection status due to less serious crimes – the Member States reject the Commission’s proposal to make this ground mandatory, preferring to leave it optional for Member States.

Content of status

The 2016 proposal would make a number of interesting changes in this area. First of all, the Commission’s ambitious attempt to overturn the ECJ judgment in T, and make all benefits for refugees and persons with subsidiary protection contingent upon getting a residence permit, has been rejected by Member States and the EP.

Secondly, an amendment in the opposite direction: the family members of refugees or persons with subsidiary protection who don’t qualify themselves for international protection would be entitled to a residence permit. This would replace an ambiguous reference in the current law to preserving ‘family unity’. However, there are already special rules concerning the admission of family members of refugees set out in the EU’s family reunion Directive. So do two new sets of rules conflict? No, because a clause in the preamble to the agreed Qualification Regulation says that the family reunion Directive applies in the event of overlap (ie if the family member is ‘within the scope’ of the Directive).

Usually, the two laws will not overlap, for several reasons. A) the family reunion Directive does not apply to family reunion with sponsors with subsidiary protection, at least if that protection was granted on the basis of national or international law (sponsors with subsidiary protection on the basis of EU law are not expressly excluded, however). B) that Directive in principle only applies to family members who are outside the territory, whereas the Regulation conversely will only apply to family members who are present on the territory. However, Member States have an option to apply the Directive where family members are already present; only in that case would there be an overlap, decided in favour of the Directive where the family members are within the scope of it.

Thirdly, the Commission aimed for more harmonisation of the rules on renewal of residence permits, although the Member States prefer to leave themselves with more flexibility. It will be expressly mandatory to use the EU’s standard residence permit format for refugees and others covered by the Regulation though.

Fourthly, there will also be more harmonisation of the rules related to travel documents, which are issued by Member States to beneficiaries of international protection in place of passports, given that it would probably be unsafe for them to contact officials from their country of origin. They will be valid for at least one year and will be expressly subject to the EU’s passport security rules.

Fifthly, the provisions on movement within the territory and benefits would be redrafted, to take account of the ECJ case law in Alo and Osso (discussed here), which permits a link between limiting movements and the grant of benefits in some cases.

Sixthly, the rules on access to employment are strengthened by an obligation to ensure equal treatment as regards work-related matters, including taking account of experience in an occupation obtained outside the country of refuge.

Finally, there are further changes designed to entrench control over beneficiaries of international protection: Member States may make integration measures compulsory, and any unauthorised movement between Member States can be punished by ‘resetting the clock’ on acquisition of long-term residence status under the relevant EU law. Both Member States and the EP aim to soften these proposals by ensuring that integration courses are accessible and by allowing Member States to make exceptions from the changes to the long-term residence rule.

Assessment

What impact will the agreed proposal (still subject to further negotiation) have on the perceived ‘refugee crisis’? Will it meet the objectives of deterring protection-related migration as well as secondary movements, while harmonising national law further?

Certainly there are significant steps towards harmonisation: the use of a Regulation; the removal of the right to set more favourable standards; the disappearance of many options; and the integration of relevant ECJ case law into the legislative text (making it more visible for national authorities, courts, and legal advisers). However, the European Parliament is still battling to keep some key rules optional, rather than mandatory.

This goes to the second point: will the new Regulation reduce standards as much as the Commission had hoped? Here, the result is a mixed bag: some of the changes in the definition of refugee will have that effect – unless the European Parliament successfully resists them. However, the idea of mandatory reviews of status has been dropped.

As for sanctioning secondary movements, the reset of the clock as regards obtaining long-term residence status might have some impact, although the main thrust of the planned sanctions against secondary movement are found in separate proposals for amendment of other asylum laws.

The deferral (at least by Member States) of the impact of the new law for two years means that the new law would (if this delay is accepted) have no immediate impact on the current perceived crisis. However, the changes it would make to the definition of refugee status may lead to fewer refugees being recognised – although again this is subject to the success or failure of the EP’s attempts to resist such changes. In any event, since many of the plans to deter both the initial and secondary movement of people arguably needing international protection appear in other 2016 proposals (on reception conditions, the Dublin system and procedural rules), the overall assessment of whether the EU is moving in a dramatically more restrictive direction as regards asylum law depends more upon what happens with those proposals over the months to come.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Pinterest

*Disclaimer: I was an independent adviser for a consultancy advising the European Commission on the implementation of and possible amendment of the current Directive.

‘Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile’: Towards a third phase of the Common European Asylum System?

Steve Peers*

How to fix the EU’s troubled Common European Asylum Policy? The Commission has given its views today in the form of a discussion paper, with plans for further legislation. Will this fix the problems?

The first phase of the EU’s Common European Asylum Policy was set in place in the form of legislation adopted over 2003-05. The second phase is based on legislation adopted between 2011-13. (For more details, see volume 3 of the Commentary on EU Immigration and Asylum Law, which I co-authored). Today’s communication effectively outlines the plans for a third phase – without actually using that phrase. It examines many facets of EU asylum policy, and also mentions immigration policy. I’ll look at the announced plans in turn.

It’s worth making two general points at the outset. First, the UK is bound by the first-phase asylum laws, but not by the second-phase laws, other than the Dublin rules, Eurodac, and the law setting up the European Asylum Support Agency. It can opt out of any of the third-phase laws, but if it opts out of new laws amending those laws which it’s already bound by, the EU Council could decide to end the UK’s participation in those laws, on condition that operating a different system for the UK is effectively impossible. (Ireland is in broadly the same position).

While it’s sometimes asserted that ‘the EU court controls UK asylum laws’, the UK chose to opt into those first-phase laws, and used its veto to ensure that they were consistent with existing UK law. The only British cases on asylum which have ever reached the EU court have been about the Dublin system. And eventual access to citizenship of a Member State by asylum-seekers is far harder to obtain than some imagine it to be.

Secondly, any proposals the Commission makes will have to be approved by a qualified majority of participating Member States (in the EU Council) and by the European Parliament. Obviously there’s no guarantee of obtaining either in this controversial area.

The Dublin system

The discussion paper devotes the most space to the plans to reform the EU’s Dublin system, currently set out in the Dublin III Regulation. The principal problem with this Regulation is its allocation of responsibility in most cases to the first EU state which the asylum-seeker entered. With its declining economy and a sharp increase in the number of asylum-seekers, Greece cannot handle this burden. Although the EU has already tried to address this problem, in the form of two Decisions relocating some asylum-seekers away from Italy and Greece (discussed here), this has not worked well in the absence of Member State willingness to apply the system: barely 1,000 of the promised 160,000 have been relocated. In addition, the second Decision has been challenged by two cases in the EU Court (see discussion here of one of these cases).

How to address this? The Commission suggests two options: a sort of compensation system that would kick in once a Member State had particular burdens, or a quota system reallocating all asylum-seekers across the EU. The former option is based on the current relocation decisions; it should be noted that the Commission already proposed amendments to the Dublin rules along these lines last September, but there seems to be little interest in this proposal. There could be adjustments to the current Dublin rules (so that responsibility would no longer cease due to lapse of time), and the relocation rules (so that more categories of asylum-seekers were covered, not just those with a 75%+ acceptance rate).

The second option would allocate all asylum-seekers in principle between Member States based on standard rules, with exceptions where there are family links for instance. Where the EU has designated a ‘safe’ country, though, the first Member State of entry would remain responsible, for the sake of efficiency. Obviously the intention here is to keep in place the new rules which aim to return people from Greece to Turkey quickly.

Either way, the Commission suggests possibly repealing the EU’s temporary protection Directive, a law designed to deal with mass influxes that has never actually been invoked to deal with any of them. (On its possible use to deal with the current crisis, see discussion here).

Eurodac

The Commission plans changes to the Eurodac Regulation, which currently requires taking and storing fingerprints of all asylum-seekers and irregular border crossers, mainly for the purpose of checking at a later stage if they have already applied for asylum or where they originally entered (for the purpose of applying the Dublin rules). Currently the database allows police access as well as checking of irregular migrants (separately from the asylum procedure). The Commission plans to make proposals for changes to match the changes to the Dublin rules as well as to make much more use of the system for migration control. This will parallel the smart borders proposals for an entry-exit system (also made today).

Procedures Directive

The intention is to replace the current Directive with a Regulation, setting out ‘comprehensive harmonisation’ and a genuinely ‘common procedure’, which would ‘reduce incentives to move to and within the EU’. There would be new rules on ‘key aspects of the asylum procedure’ which are currently optional, as regards admissibility (ie whether the asylum-seeker had, or should have sought, protection in a non-EU country), ‘the use of border and accelerated procedures’, the treatment of repeat applications, ‘and the right to remain in the territory’ during applications and appeals. This would harmonise the length of the initial application process and the appeals (the second-phase Directive already has common rules on the former issue, although not for the fast-track version of it).

On this point the Commission is particularly keen to harmonise ‘safe country’ rules, both as regards ‘safe country of origin’ (ie is the asylum-seeker safe in her own country?) and ‘safe third country’ rules (should he have applied for asylum elsewhere?). On the first aspect, the Commission wants the EP and Council to agree the proposal it made back in September 2015 for a partly common list (designating the Western Balkans and Turkey as ‘safe’: discussed here). But neither institution has rushed to adopt the Commission proposal. The intention is for more harmonisation relating to countries where many applicants come from. But as I pointed out in my previous analysis this proposal wrongly includes Turkey – despite its dubious human rights record – for cynical political reasons, and does not provide enough safeguards for those who claim may be genuine.

The Commission also wants to harmonise the use of the ‘safe third’ country concept, and set up a process of defining a common list in future. This would avoid awkward problems where differences between Member States divert flows of asylum-seekers or cause a ‘protection lottery’ with divergent decisions for similar cases. But it remains to be seen how these standards are applied. Given that (as discussed here) the Commission and Member States support the absurd designation of  Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ – despite its non-application of the Geneva Convention to most asylum-seekers and evidence of refoulement, unsafe treatment, and low standards – the prospect of further moves in this direction are unappealing.

Qualification Directive

The Commission has been carrying out an evaluation of the qualification Directive (which defines the concept of ‘refugee’ and ‘subsidiary protection’ status, and the rights which each group receive, but there is no mention of that here. The main concerns of the paper are twofold: further harmonisation of the rights received, including ‘differentiation’ of the two types of status, as subsidiary protection is ‘inherently more temporary’. This contradicts the second-phase Directive, which accepted that subsidiary protection was often not temporary and harmonised the two forms of status in most respects: see discussion of the first EU court judgment here. Secondly, protection will be granted ‘only for so long as they need it’.

This means that the Directive will be replaced by a Regulation, and the intention seems to be harmonisation downwards: ‘to reduce both undue pull factors and secondary movements’. There will be a ‘regular check’ to see if protection can justifiably be taken away, although this is consistent with the Geneva Convention, which refers to ‘cessation’ of refugee status when circumstances change in the country of origin. There will be standard rules on identity documents (although note that the Geneva Convention has already provided for a standard travel document for refugees). In the long term, there could be mutual recognition of decisions and a transfer of protection (on the latter issue, see my earlier paper). This reflects the Treaty obligation to create a status ‘valid through the Union’ – although the Commission cannot bring itself to refer to this concept.

Reception conditions

The Commission plans ‘targeted’ amendments to the reception conditions Directive, which governs the day-to-day life of asylum-seekers outside the procedural aspects of their asylum claim.  There’s no detail of these plans but the intention is to ‘reduce incentives to move to Europe’ and within the EU, while still ensuring ‘humane’ treatment.

Reducing ‘secondary movements’

As evident already, a main purpose of the paper is to stop asylum-seekers moving within the EU – a reversal of the usual logic of EU legislation. The paper elaborates further on this, referring to ‘proportionate sanctions’ for those who leave the responsible Member State. This will entail an obligation to send back the asylum-seeker to the responsible State (does that mean the options to consider the application in the Dublin Reg will be dropped?), a fast-track examination procedure without an automatic right to remain during the appeal, detention or restriction of movement, removal of benefits (overturning the judgment in CIMADE and GISTI on this point), and reduced credibility of the claim, on the basis of ‘existing provisions in the acquis’ dealing with last-minute applications. There will also be punishments for those who move without authorisation after obtaining refugee or subsidiary protection status, including a ‘status review’, and the five-year waiting period to obtain long-term residence status will be restarted every time they do so. There will be a common document issued to asylum-seekers, making clear that they cannot leave the responsible Member State except for ‘serious humanitarian reasons’.

The European Asylum Support Office

Currently this EU agency has a modest role supporting national asylum decision-makers. The Commission wants to enlarge its role, allowing it to evaluate Member States’ compliance with asylum standards, and suggesting changes they should make in national practice. If there were no compliance, the Agency could provide ‘enhanced support’, and there would be ‘measures’ to prevent ‘any incentive for Member States or asylum seekers not to respect the rules’. In particular, the Commission would have the power to decide on ‘operational measures’ to be taken by a Member State where the Agency found a breach of asylum standards, as regards case-handling and reception support, linked to the parallel actions by the EU Border Guard. (Obviously the drafters of the paper are thinking of Greece here).

The Agency would also have the power to offer detailed guidance (as it does occasionally already) on the substance of asylum law, with a reporting mechanism and case-auditing. The Agency would also have a key role assessing whether third countries are ‘safe’, giving its opinions to the Commission on this point.  It will also operate the revised Dublin system, on the basis of criteria not leaving it any discretion (it’s not possible to give EU agencies discretionary policy-making powers, according to the EU court).

Finally, the agency would have a reserve of national experts it could call on, and extra financial resources, linked to the new money for humanitarian assistance within the EU. In the longer term, the Agency could be given the role of making first-instance decisions in place of national authorities, although the Commission realistically acknowledges that this prospect is on the far horizon. Indeed, that horizon is darkened by flocks of low-flying pigs.

Safe routes for entry

While much of the paper is focussed on getting the Dublin system to work, this is balanced somewhat by discussion of safe routes for entry. First of all, this refers to existing ‘soft law’: a general recommendation on resettlement (which means the movement of people from non-EU countries to the EU), and the controversial 1:1 deal between Turkey and the EU, in effect ‘trading’ resettlement places for readmission of non-Turkish refugees from the EU (discussed here).

The Commission will build on this to propose (as promised before) EU legislation on resettlement, which will set out a ‘common approach to safe and legal arrival in the EU’ for people who need protection. There will be general rules, addressing admission and distribution, the status of resettled persons, financial support, and punishment for secondary movements between Member States.  These general rules will then be applied in individual cases as regards specific countries or groups of people. For specific countries, resettlement might only be offered on a quid pro quo basis, related to readmission: this echoes the controversial 1:1 deal with Turkey. It should be noted that readmission treaty negotiations are about to start between the EU and Jordan, which is another major host country for Syrian refugees.

The paper also talks about other safe legal routes for entry. Existing laws on admission of workers, students and researchers should be made accessible to refugees, although the Commission makes no commitment as regards EU legislation dealing with that issue. Private sponsorship should be encouraged by developing EU ‘best practice’. The Commission also promises to look at the issue of humanitarian permits. The most obvious way to do this in the near future is by including provisions in the EU visa code, which is currently being amended – as I have previously advocated and as supported by the European Parliament.

Legal migration

The Commission argues in general that the EU needs more legal migration for economic and demographic reasons. It suggests several means to this end. First of all, it plans to amend the EU’s Blue Card Directive on highly skilled workers, to encourage admission and make this law (which has had limited success) more attractive. (On the Directive in practice, and possible reforms, see my discussion here).

Secondly, the Commission might make a proposal for an EU law on admission of entrepreneurs. Next, it will consider a proposal on admission of service providers from non-EU countries. It will also review the effectiveness of other existing EU legislation on labour migration, in particular in order to prevent exploitation of workers. Finally, the paper includes some general words about cooperation with third countries.

Comments

Today’s paper seems entirely focussed on the feasibility of the Dublin system, with all other aspects of asylum law subsumed to supporting that objective. Never in the course of human history has such a small tail wagged such a big dog. The implication (only hinted at once) is that Dublin must be saved so that Schengen can be saved. At no point does the Commission ask itself whether Dublin can be saved – or whether Schengen should be.

The problem is that it is hard to see how Dublin could be made to work, especially now that large increases in migration flows have made its malfunctioning a huge political issue. Allowing asylum-seekers to leave Greece and Italy in large numbers for other Member States is politically unacceptable for those other Member States, and has led to internal border checks being reimposed and the construction of new walls across the continent. Insisting that Greece – its economy impoverished by a combination of poor domestic and Eurozone governance – should bear the burden alone is untenable, and both the EU court and European Human Rights court ruled that Greek asylum standards were insufficient even before the twin economic and migration crises took full effect. The reasonable attempt to reduce the Greek burden a little by means of the relocation Decisions has been ineffective.

It’s hard to see how a slightly different version of the relocation system can be made to work either. And why would the Member States collaborate in a fully-fledged quota system, which they are likely to find even less attractive than the relocation rules?

All this explains the recent EU turn towards a ‘Plan B’: simply returning most or all those who reach Greece straight back to Turkey. Time will tell soon enough how workable this alternative is: it may also prove unfeasible if people switch to different routes, are not deterred from arriving, or successfully challenge the legality of the deal. Certainly, the Commission’s assumption is that enough people will still arrive to cause a political problem. So the most important elements of today’s paper are the twofold intention to punish secondary movements and to deter people from coming at all. (I won’t comment on the legal migration part, which simply reiterates existing plans).

It’s clearer how the Commission would like to punish secondary movements. The plans here resemble nothing more closely than a liberal parent who has finally lost his patience with his misbehaving children, resulting in a disproportionate authoritarian overreaction. Some of the plans are legally questionable: for instance, the CIMADE and GISTI judgment (ruling that asylum-seekers should retain benefits even if they are the responsibility of another Member State under the Dublin system) was based partly on the EU Charter. A legislative amendment overturning it might therefore be challenged as a breach of the Charter. So might new rules on detention (cf the recent CJEU judgment on challenges to existing detention rules).

Sensible parents use carrots as well as sticks. Why not offer asylum-seekers a modest cash bonus in kind if they accept allocation to a Member State under the relocation rules? Or let them have earlier access to work if they stick to the rules? Or simplified and quicker long-term residence status? 

Returning to the analogy of the angry parent, the Commission has clearly found, like King Lear: 

How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is

To have a thankless child

Yet its response is, in its own way, as irrational as his.

As for new rules to deter people from coming to the EU in the first place, the Commission threatens much, but is silent on most of the details. One is reminded of Lear again:

I will do such things,—
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth

But Lear did not have to contemplate convincing the European Parliament, EU Member States or the courts of his unformed plans. So there are political, legal and practical limits to what the Commission can successfully propose. Member States will be reluctant, as ever, to curtail much of their significant remaining discretion over asylum procedures. The European Parliament will probably not rush to roll back the improved standards which it spent five years fighting for. Anyway, the underlying logic of the Commission’s argument is doubtful. If high asylum standards in the EU are such a pull factor, why are there so many more refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and East Africa? Won’t a sharper difference between refugee and subsidiary protection status encourage more appeals and secondary movements too?

The only semblance of balance in the Commission’s paper is its focus on safe passage. But it’s spent two years resisting safe passage in the context of the reform of the EU visa code, using the weak argument that humanitarian visas are not meant for short-term entry. But they fall within the scope of the rules on visas with ‘limited territorial validity’, where the normal rules on visas (such as the time limit) are expressly disapplied. The mention of humanitarian permits in this paper now looks like an excuse to defer dealing with the issue. Similarly, the EU could and should have developed a proper resettlement policy years ago. There’s still no mention of any numbers in this context: compare to the recent suggestions from the UNHCR. And expecting a quid pro quo for the humanitarian gesture of resettlement doesn’t get any less cynical with repetition.

Overall, this is a very disappointing paper from the Commission. There are certainly abuses of the asylum system, but EU legislation already has many possibilities to address them, as regards fast-tracking decisions and appeals, reduced benefits and detention. There’s little evidence here of a balanced, rational and coherent response to the crisis. In fact, this looks rather more like panic.

Of course EU asylum law does not develop in a political vacuum. Member States had a key role agreeing these laws, and the main role implementing them and driving the reaction to the crisis. No criticism of the ‘EU response to the crisis’ should ignore what is ultimately driving that response: the neo-nationalist political parties which are in government in several Member States and form the main opposition in several more. But is endless concessions to these parties really the right strategy? They will always be able to outflank the political mainstream when it comes to anger, fear and ignorance. It’s always better to stand and fight for what you really believe in than to pretend to agree with your opponents’ fundamentally different views.

*Disclaimer: I have been an independent consultant on the impact assessment relating to the reform of the Dublin system and the Blue Card Directive, and the evaluation of the qualification Directive. This does not restrict me from giving my own views on the Commission’s plans. 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: www.ekathimerini.com

The Refugee Crisis: What should the EU do next?

Steve Peers

Last week’s pictures of the tragic death of a refugee toddler brought into focus the ongoing crisis facing Syria and other conflict zones, which have given rise to increased numbers fleeing persecution worldwide, and in the European Union. The events of recent weeks (increasing numbers landing in Greece, the journey of many via the Western Balkans, Hungary and Austria to Germany) demonstrate that the Schengen and Dublin systems are coming under strain as a result.

How should the EU address this issue next? Should it abolish or reform the Schengen and/or Dublin rules? Are Member States complying with EU and international law in their response?

To answer these questions, I will examine in turn (a) the international law framework; (b) the EU law framework; (c) whether Schengen is at ‘fault’; (d) whether Dublin is at ‘fault’; and (e) what the EU should do next.  My main purposes are to explain the legal background, to point out some legal errors, and to suggest the best way forward in light of the international refugee law framework.

International law framework 

While it is often strongly asserted that 'international law requires refugees to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter', in fact the position is rather vaguer than that. The United Nations (Geneva) Convention on the status of refugees does not contain any express rule to that effect in the rules on the definition of refugee, or on the cessation (loss) or exclusion from being a refugee, as set out in Articles 1.A to 1.F of that Convention.

However, there are some indirect suggestions in the Convention that the number of countries which a refugee has crossed through might be relevant. Article 31 of the Convention bans States from imposing penalties upon refugees for entering a country illegally - a rule which contradicts some of the rhetoric about refugees being 'illegal immigrants'. The drafters of the Convention clearly recognised that it might be necessary and legitimate in practice for a refugee to breach another country's immigration laws to escape threats to his or her life or freedom. So it is not necessary to be on the territory legally in order to qualify as a refugee.

This rule is, however, subject to several conditions - including the requirement that the refugees were 'coming directly' from the country which they had to flee. If that rule is interpreted narrowly, then refugees can only benefit from the exemption from penalties for breaching immigration law in neighbouring states, not states further afield. But refugees’ failure to satisfy this condition only permits States to prosecute them for breach of immigration law; it does not allow those States to exclude the refugees from protection. As I pointed out already, the rules on definition and exclusion of refugees in the Convention are quite separate from the rule on non-prosecution for breach of immigration law. And it is also possible to interpret this condition more generously - in the sense that the 'coming directly' requirement does not exclude all refugees who have merely transited through other countries, but only those who have stopped and obtained protection in another State already. 

Another relevant provision is the 'non-refoulement' rule in Article 33 of the Convention, which prevents States removing refugees to an unsafe State. But it does not prevent refugees from being removed to a safe State. Furthermore, the restrictions in the Convention on expelling refugees to any State, and many of the substantive benefits which the Convention gives to refugees (such as welfare and access to employment) are reserved for those who are lawfully resident or present in the territory; and the Convention does not require States to give refugees a lawful status under national immigration law.

So overall, the Geneva Convention gives States a degree of flexibility to insist upon a 'safe third country' requirement, but there is no absolute rule that refugees must always apply in a safe third country. If the Convention had intended to impose a firm rule in that regard, it would surely have said so expressly and provided for obligations for the first safe country to readmit the refugee. Moreover, the preamble to the Convention refers to the heavy burden which the grant of asylum may place upon some countries, and the need for international cooperation to avoid refugees becoming a source of tension between States. Taken as a whole, then, the drafters of the Convention recognized that a strict safe third country rule could impose undue burdens on countries neighbouring a conflict in some cases, but left it to States to work out the details of how to address such burdens when they occur. 

EU law framework 

The EU law framework consists first and foremost of the Schengen rules - which set out conditions for crossing external borders, in conjunction with no controls on internal borders. While some appear to assume that the Schengen rules require EU States to refuse entry to refugees at the external borders, that is clearly not the case. The Schengen Borders Code contains general exceptions relating to refugees and human rights, as well as specific asylum exceptions from the normal rules on the grounds for admission, and from the requirement to penalizing those who cross the external border without authorization. The latter exception obviously reflects Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, discussed above.

While Member States are generally obliged to ensure control of the external borders (just like non-Schengen States aim to control their borders), there is no specific requirement to build fences, as several Member States have done. Building fences is not ruled out by the Schengen rules, but it is Member States which decide to build the fences as a means of controlling the border, not the EU. And anyone who makes it to those fences and applies for asylum is entitled to be admitted to have their asylum application considered.

This is confirmed by the EU’s asylum legislation, which says that it applies to all those who apply at the border or on the territory.  There are some optional special rules for asylum applications made at the border, but there is no rule saying that an application must be refused because it was made at the border, or because the applicant entered the territory without authorization. Reflecting the interpretation of the Geneva Convention discussed above, the EU’s asylum procedures Directive states that an application might be inadmissible if the asylum-seeker gained protection in a ‘first country of asylum’, or has links with a ‘safe third country’.  The application of these rules doesn’t mean that the asylum-seeker is not a refugee; rather it means that another State is deemed responsible for resuming protection, or for assessing the asylum application.

The problem for refugees is reaching the territory in the first place. EU law imposes carrier sanctions on transport companies if they transport persons without visas, which explains why refugees do not buy relatively cheap tickets to travel instead of paying smugglers for unsafe journeys. Arguably the EU’s visa rules require Member States to issue special visas for those in need of humanitarian protection (see discussion here), but they rarely do so. Taken as a whole, then, the Schengen borders rules have a rather uneasy co-existence with asylum law: but they clearly allow for the admission of asylum-seekers who do reach the external borders of the EU.

There’s another uneasy relationship between the Schengen rules and the Dublin rules, ie the rules which require an asylum-seeker to apply usually in the first EU country which he or she reaches. That’s because it’s obviously harder in practice to enforce those rules without border controls between countries.

Is Schengen at fault?

As noted already, the Schengen system does not ban people from seeking asylum at EU borders, although it makes it harder for them to reach the territory and more likely to risk their lives trying. But there is nothing in EU law to prevent Member States from resettling large numbers of refugees directly from conflict zones if they wish to. The decision of most Member States to resettle few Syrians or others in need of protection is up to them alone.

While the Schengen rules logically make the Dublin system harder to enforce, this difficulty is relative: after all, if an asylum-seeker moves on from Greece, he or she will have to cross further borders anyway before reaching the rest of the Schengen area (Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia are not in Schengen yet; and most asylum-seekers prefer instead to travel via the non-EU countries in the Western Balkans anyway).

And it is naïve in the extreme to assume that reimposing border controls would stop all movement of asylum-seekers between Member States. As discussed in Agnes Hurwitz’ book, the Dublin rules have their origin in Council of Europe discussions in the 1980s, and were not initially connected to the Schengen project. There was already a ‘refugees in orbit’ problem of refusal to take responsibility at that point – when border controls were still fully in place. Otherwise States would not have opened discussions on the issue. So clearly borders are permeable even when border controls exist, particularly the long land borders on the continent. Indeed, Germany last received huge numbers of asylum-seekers during the Bosnian war of 1992, again when the border controls were fully in place, which was years before countries like Hungary joined the EU (Austria was not yet a member either).

Does Schengen encourage asylum flows, as some claim? Looking at the statistics, it clearly does not. The flows of asylum-seekers last reached 2014 levels back in 1992 and then dropped off. There have been increases and decreases over the years, which can clearly be linked back to events in countries of origin (Bosnia, Kosovo, Syria, et al). If Schengen caused asylum flows, one would expect the numbers to increase after the borders were abolished in 1995, and again when the system was extended to Central Europe in 2008. But they did not. Nor did the numbers of irregular migrants.

Think about it. The asylum-seekers who reach the EU have often crossed many Asian or African borders already, and those arriving in Greece plan to cross some European borders anyway after they arrive, unless (improbably) Greece is their intended destination. They have fled poverty or persecution, paid smugglers a small fortune, often been ill-treated on the way to the EU, and endured an appalling and dangerous sea crossing. The EU’s assumption that withdrawing rescue vessels in the Mediterranean would deter them from coming proved to be tragically wrong. Compared to all that, why would the reimposition of Schengen border controls deter anyone who would otherwise come?

Conversely, is Schengen at fault for the treatment of asylum-seekers by Hungary? In principle, if third-country nationals do not (yet) apply for asylum, they are irregular migrants, and so Hungary had an obligation to remove them under the EU’s Returns Directive. But that Directive does allow Member States to apply higher standards, and it would have been foolish not to do so (as Hungary eventually did) in circumstances where Germany had already signalled its willingness to consider their planned asylum applications.

Is Dublin at fault?

The Dublin system has undoubtedly shifted a significantly higher burden to certain Member States (Greece, Italy and Hungary at present), which is increasingly difficult to manage as migration flows have increased and the Greek economy in particular has suffered from austerity. It should be noted, however, that in principle the courts have ruled since 2011 that Greece is not responsible for all the asylum-seekers who come there. The normal assumption that each EU country is safe has had to be suspended, since the ECHR and the EU courts have ruled (in the cases of MSS and NS) that Greece is not safe, due to the collapse of the asylum system there.

So it’s clearly legally incorrect to claim that ‘Greece is safe’. Moreover, since the Dublin rules are effectively disapplied to Greece, asylum-seekers can’t be criticised for evading the Dublin system if they move on from that country. However, Greece still has the initial burden of dealing with the large number of asylum-seekers which reach its territory first; and it may be difficult in practice for those asylum-seekers to move on quickly to other Member States. It’s not clear if the first other Member State they reach after Greece then becomes responsible under the rules or not.

The large number of asylum-seekers moving in recent days has probably been partly affected by the German decision that it would not apply the Dublin rules to Syrians. Germany is legally entitled to do this: the Dublin Regulation has a sovereignty clause (allowing States to consider asylum claims that are not their responsibility) and the CJEU has ruled that there are no limits on how Member States may use that clause. This will undoubtedly exacerbate the burden on Germany in turn.

While it makes more sense from a burden-sharing perspective to allocate asylum-seekers between Member States more evenly, there are a number of political problems with that idea. Since Member States are not keen to have more asylum-seekers, the would-be net recipients always resist the suggestion. Various proposals for burden-sharing have repeatedly failed since the 1990s. The EU is on the brink of sharing burdens for the first time, by adopting a Decision on relocating some asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy to other Member States. But the number involved is modest (less than 40,000) and the offers to take asylum-seekers are voluntary. The Commission’s proposal was for 40,000 people distributed by a mandatory scheme, but Member States would not accept this.

This brings me to my next point: did ‘the EU stop the refugees coming’? Yes, to the extent that it did not give sufficient relief (in the form of relocation of refugees) to Greece and Italy; but the EU’s response on this was only insufficient because Member States, voting in the Council (made up of national ministers), blocked the EU from adopting even a modestly more ambitious relocation decision. As for refugees coming from outside the EU, as noted above the EU does make it hard for them to get here (because Member States want it to do so), but Member States are free to resettle people as much as they like. If the EU did not exist, would Member States really suddenly be willing to admit many more refugees?

The central issue then is the role of national politicians. While the European Parliament has a joint decision-making role on most asylum legislation (not a purely advisory role as some have claimed), it does not have that usual role when it comes to the relocation decision, since it is an emergency measure. And in turn, national politicians are not on an anti-refugee frolic of their own, but responding to the significant proportion of public opinion that still does not want to see significant numbers coming to stay in the EU (see this recent UK opinion poll, for instance). Those who want a more liberal approach to refugees and migration need to focus on convincing their fellow citizens, not blaming the EU.

What should the EU do next?

With all this in mind, what should the EU do next? As I upload this blog post, Commission President Juncker is about to make his ‘State of the European Union’ speech with new proposals. It seems likely that they will include some of the ideas already previewed in May, as part of the EU Migration Agenda (discussed here): a common list of ‘safe countries of origin’; the greater use of Frontex in returns procedure; and new rules on emergency exceptions from the Dublin rules. The latter will be much more ambitious than the first decision to this end (aiming for 120,000 more asylum-seekers relocated, according to reports), although whether Member States will accept this remains to be seen.

I will blog about the details of the new proposals when they emerge, but for now here’s an overview of what I think the priorities should be. (For other suggestions, which partly cross-over with mine, see the position of the UNHCR and Human Rights Watch. I agree with their suggestions to step up rescues and to ensure safe passage for more refugees, but I will elaborate here on some other ideas).

First of all, looking at the situation within the EU, it’s obvious that there needs to be some form of relief (far more than provided for in the relocation Decision about to be adopted) for the Member States bearing a very large share of the burden. As I pointed out at the outset, the concept of burden-sharing is intrinsic to international refugee law (see also the comments on this by my colleague Geoff Gilbert, and by Michael Ignatieff). It’s also recognized in EU law by Article 80 of the TFEU, which refers to the principle of solidarity between Member States.

On that point, it’s reported that a group of newer Member States is resisting not only the idea of relocating asylum-seekers, but even the compromise suggestion of making an extra financial contribution in lieu of this. This is a flagrant breach of the burden-sharing principles of international and EU asylum law. Moreover, since these countries have benefited enormously from their citizens’ refuge-seeking in and economic migration to other countries (both into and outside the EU) as well as a substantial inflow of EU funding, their position is morally untenable.

Secondly, it’s apparent that there needs to be more coordination of national policies within an overall EU framework. The overall impression given is shambolic, although this has not stopped some commentators from ascribing responsibility for every decision of the Hungarian government or even a non-EU state’s police (in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) to the EU. Some new forum – perhaps a framework for ministers, civil servants and the heads of EU agencies to meet to discuss rapid reactions – needs to be established. Clearly the overall amount of humanitarian assistance for those reaching Member States’ shores also needs to be increased.

Thirdly, on a similar theme, the consistent interpretation of EU rules needs to be enhanced. There are too many examples of divergent approaches to EU law which should in principle be ‘uniform’ (although Member States have scope to apply higher standards). These sort of issues can partly be addressed through the coordination framework discussed above, but further measures are clearly necessary.

Let’s look at several examples. The Hungarian government has just passed a law to impose custodial criminal penalties upon those who cross its external borders fence. As we have seen already, refugees must be exempt from penalties for irregular border crossing, at least in some cases. Moreover, the CJEU has ruled that irregular migrants should not be subject to custodial penalties for unauthorised entry, since that delays their removal (for a summary of the case law to date, see the opinion in the pending case of Celaj).

Several Member States also have stated that they do not wish to take Islamic refugees. This is again a clear breach of international and EU law: the Geneva Convention specifically states that it applies without discrimination on ground of religion, while the EU Charter of Rights bans discrimination on grounds of religion when applying EU law (and the asylum process in all its aspects amounts to applying EU law). As for the bizarre argument that ‘our country doesn’t have a mosque’, it is in fact possible for Muslims to pray elsewhere. Refusing refuge to Muslims is not necessary to keep Europe Christian; rather It’s a Christian duty to offer refuge, as Pope Francis and the Archbishop of Canterbury have pointed out.

Also, there have been examples of individual mistreatment of groups of refugees and irregular migrants, in the form of police action or border guard pushbacks, or inadequate living conditions. While Member States’ border guards and military forces have surely rescued many more people than they have mistreated, there needs to be a commitment to ensure redress for the latter cases. Although the Schengen Borders Code generally requires border guards to behave courteously and fairly, it would be useful to agree common standards on prohibited behaviour.

On the living standards point, note that it is not accurate to say (on one journalist’s blog) that someone who applies for asylum in one Member State even though another Member State is responsible for their claim under the Dublin is a ‘migrant’. The CJEU expressly ruled in its judgment in CIMADE and Gisti that such a person is an asylum-seeker and is entitled to the relevant benefits until they are transferred to the responsible Member State under the Dublin rules, The same rule is now expressly set out in the preamble to the Dublin III Regulation.

More generally, the EU should reflect on whether more far-reaching moves to achieve more harmonisation in practice should be attempted: for instance, transforming the European Asylum Support Office into a body able to make decisions on asylum applications in ‘overflow’ cases (if need be, by seconding national officials for the duration), and/or creating a common European asylum appeal court. There are still wide differences in recognition rates of refugees between Member States, despite a common legal acquis: the low recognition rate of Eritreans in France as compared to other Member States may have contributed to the ‘Calais crisis’, for instance. In the meantime, the Commission needs to step up infringement actions for breaches of EU immigration and asylum law.

Fourthly, more generally, should Schengen survive? It follows from the analysis above that ending the Schengen system and reimposing internal border controls would likely have little impact on the overall flows of migrants and refugees coming to the EU. It might have a modest impact on restricting their movement between Member States, but the desirability of that outcome is tied up with the merits of the Dublin rules, to which I turn below.

But if Member States are serious about ensuring that irregular migrants and asylum-seekers do not cross borders to flout the Dublin rules, they would have to bring back internal border controls with a vengeance, building fences and installing border guards across many thousands of kilometres of common borders.  Except for Malta, the Schengen states do not have the built-in border control that the UK, Ireland and Cyprus (also not in Schengen) have, for obvious geographic reasons. The likely outcome would be dozens of ‘Calais’ situations at the various internal borders of the Union.

Furthermore, the basic obligation to drop internal border controls is set out in the Treaties, and so a permanent suspension of Schengen would require a Treaty amendment. A reasonable compromise might be to amend the Schengen rules to allow for more temporary internal border checks whenever intelligence shared between Member States suggests that a large number of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers is likely to cross an internal border.

Fifthly, should Dublin survive? I will forego answering this question until we see whether Member States are willing to back a much more ambitious relocation system. If they are, then a significant chunk of the excess burden being borne by some Member States would be redistributed. Asylum-seekers would also benefit from better conditions and a fairer chance of getting protection as a result – although it would be best to take account of their preference in any relocation system as far as possible, so as to reduce ‘secondary movements’.

Sixth, the individual enthusiasm of refugee advocates should be harnessed as far as possible. Why not try to find money from the EU budget to pay those who are willing and able to give humanitarian or other support to refugees and asylum-seekers in an over-burdened Member State, or even a third State? (This would supplement the EU’s existing programmes for volunteers). Why not address a recommendation to Member States, encouraging private sponsorship of refugees to reduce the burden on taxpayers? As well as family and friends, corporations and NGOs should also be allowed to sponsor, and (for instance) universities could ask if students, staff and alumni wanted to sponsor refugees who would meet the criteria to enrol in courses.

Critics of refugee advocates often argue that those advocates should put refugees up in their homes – but many thousands of those advocates have in fact offered to do so. (For my part, let me reassure those panicking about the admission of refugees that I was not beheaded by my Middle Eastern refugee roommate at university).  But let’s turn this argument around: why don’t critics of refugees spend a year in Syria, or in the refugee camps which many Syrians have fled to, before they criticise the refugees for leaving or others for wanting to welcome them?

This brings me neatly to the international framework. To repeat, burden-sharing in refugee matters is not just an EU principle, it’s a requirement of international law too. As regards Syrians, the neighbouring States (Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon) have borne a far heavier burden than the EU or any other countries have done. So it is entirely right for the EU to assist them more with this burden than it is doing already (the EU and Member States already give significant financial assistance).

While refugees in those countries may be safe from immediate persecution, they face difficult living conditions: see the further analyses here of the position in Turkey and the nearby Arab States. Moreover, food support from UN agencies has just been halved. The EU’s further support for these States does not have to be solely in the form of admission of refugees: it could make a further financial contribution to increase the refugees’ living standards. Nor does the EU alone have to offer this assistance: the international law rules apply across the globe, and the nearby Gulf states and other wealthy or middle-income countries could do more by way of taking refugees and offering financial assistance.

In the medium term, some more imaginative solutions are possible. One problem facing Syrian refugees in Turkey is that they are technically not refugees there, since Turkey applies the optional geographical limitation to the Geneva Convention, applying it to European refugees only. This means that many Syrians are not allowed to work. The EU could offer to waive visa requirements for Turkey in return for it lifting the geographical limitation (along with other conditions).

Another idea is the creation of a UN agency with the remit of the Syrian refugee crisis. This would mean that a special regime in the Geneva Convention and EU law would apply: if the agency could not take adequate care of Syrian refugees for any reason, they would be fully entitled to refugee status. Otherwise, their applications could be refused (see further the CJEU judgment in El-Kott, on the application of these rules to Palestinians). At the very least, the EU needs to take the initiative to hold a major international conference on the Syrian refugee situation, in order to encourage and coordinate many other countries’ efforts to take efforts to take a greater share of the burden of relieving this unfolding human tragedy.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26