Can the Asylum Package, the legislative package of 7 texts presented in 2016 aimed at reforming the Common European Asylum System, still move ahead before the European elections?
While meeting on Thursday 7 March in Brussels for a formal meeting, some EU ministers and representatives of EU interior ministers did not in any case yet want to definitively bury this package, which has been bogged down for months because of the deadlock on the revision of the Dublin Regulation, which governs the responsibilities of Member States in processing asylum applications. European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos even said he was cautiously "optimistic" and assured that the discussions would continue, at the end of the meeting.
Invited to take note of a progress report from the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU, the German and French Ministers and the Luxembourg Ambassador asked their colleagues to take a final step and adopt the most advanced texts of the Package, namely the texts on the European Asylum Agency, the Eurodac Regulation (the database of fingerprints of asylum seekers) and the Regulation on the European Resettlement Framework.
It was German Minister Horst Seehofer who made this appeal to the ministers, relaying a request to that effect from Dimitris Avramopoulos, who had earlier urged Member States to show that Europe had "met the challenges".
The German Minister acknowledged, in a public debate, that Germany had so far always defended the "package" approach (no adoption until there is agreement on all the texts), but, if this approach is maintained, "we know that nothing will emerge under this legislature and the debate will be frozen until the end of 2019". There will be "no solution in sight when this migration issue will concern us. That is why I can say that we are of the opinion that we must adopt the instruments ready for adoption," he added, citing at least the European Agency, Eurodac "and, perhaps, even resettlement".
He was joined in this by France and the Secretary of State for the Interior, Laurent Nunez, who also called for the adoption "as soon as possible of the texts that seem to have been finalised". He also called on Ministers to continue work on the Dublin Regulation. The Ambassador of Luxembourg also supported this call, as the adoption of these texts could already greatly help Member States, for example, to combat secondary movements of asylum seekers or to assist national asylum agencies in their work. The Netherlands and Belgium, as well as some other Member States such as Denmark, have also expressed some support for this approach to adopting some advanced texts, with the Netherlands considering that too much time has been wasted in recent years, particularly in combating secondary movements from country to country.
The front of those "against" remains solid
However, not surprisingly, the front of countries opposed to this 'piecemeal' approach remained strong. Italy, Greece, but also the four ‘Visegrád’ countries have thus reiterated their refusal. Greece and Italy are concerned that this fragmentation could affect the Dublin Regulation, which could be considered if adopted in several stages. However, for Greece, the Dublin Regulation is the key element of European asylum reform.
"We are totally against reopening the package," explained the Italian representative, in the absence of the minister, Matteo Salvini. "We want a common vision where the Dublin amendment remains a sine qua non condition.”
The Visegrád countries, on the other hand, fear that fragmentation will undermine the objectives of the reform, which are, for Hungary, to "fight illegal immigration".
Officially, the Asylum Package is no longer on the agenda of the European leaders meeting on 21 March and the next meeting of Interior Ministers will take place in June, after the European elections. A timetable that therefore seems to turn the call of this handful of countries into an empty promise, even if it is still possible to make progress at the level of Permanent Representatives and in trilogues with the European Parliament. But on Thursday evening, no one knew yet how and at what level this discussion on this ‘fragmentation’ could continue. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)