While the Pact on Migration and Asylum is long overdue, on 23 June the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties will focus on one of its most sensitive aspects, the Dublin Regulation, which governs the responsibilities of Member States in the area of asylum, through an evaluation report by French MEP Fabienne Keller (Renew Europe).
The Commission had already sought to reform Dublin III in 2016. This time it could decide to replace it in its Pact with a ‘Migration Management Regulation’. A welcome name change, as the name ‘Dublin’ is often negatively connoted, it is explained in the MEP’s entourage.
Pending this reform, for which Ms Keller will also be rapporteur, the own-initiative report (https://bit.ly/3e2AtRA ) is intended to identify the shortcomings of the current system, which is often perceived as unfair, as it places a great deal of responsibility on the front-line countries, but is also costly when Member States have to send back asylum seekers already in a procedure in the first country where they arrived.
Weaknesses
First, it recalls the imbalances, increased by the crises, as in 2015. Between 2008 and 2017, just 1/3 of the Member States received 90% of the asylum seekers in the EU. In 2018, Germany, France, Greece, Italy and Spain received the bulk of the requests.
Countries of first entry also receive a lot of requests in proportion to their population, such as Greece, Malta and Cyprus. And during the 2015 crisis, “some states stopped applying the regulation. Many migrants arriving via Greece, Italy or Spain were not registered on Eurodac due to lack of resources or as a reaction to the lack of solidarity among States”.
Then there is the “biased application of the hierarchy of criteria” that determine which country should “take charge” of an asylum seeker. Priority is given to the family unit, followed by possession of residence documents and visas, illegal entry or residence or entry under visa exemption, and then the first country in which the application was lodged.
But reality does not reflect this hierarchy. In 2018, the family unity criterion is invoked in 5% of cases in France and 3.7% in Germany. An even lower figure in Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland or Austria, unlike Greece: 79.3%. Applications for family reunification are less successful, the report notes.
There is also “the administrative burden of Dublin procedures and their uneven application”. The number of Dublin procedures, i.e., transfers of asylum seekers from country to country, has increased from around 90,000 in 2014 to 160,000 in 2016-2017. “Between 2016 and 2019, Germany and France are by far the two main countries issuing requests: 68% between the two of them”. The Dublin system generates an administrative, human and financial burden, but only 11% of transfers are actually carried out.
The report still points to “overly complex and lengthy procedures”. The administrative path of the asylum seeker upon arrival is complex, with numerous geographically dispersed actors.
Nor does the current system take sufficient account of the migrants’ journey, which is the source of the notorious secondary movements that so annoy the Member States.
Germany and France are the first countries of destination for these secondary movements with multiple motivations: “existence of family ties, presence of a diaspora, knowledge of the language, reception conditions, labour market opportunities...”
Recommendations
The report first of all advocates “a solidarity mechanism ensuring a fair sharing of solidarity and responsibility between Member States, including through the relocation of asylum seekers who are demonstrably eligible for asylum based on objective criteria”.
This relocation should already be applied as a matter of urgency to Greece and its overcrowded camps. The hierarchy of criteria must then be reviewed and the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion must be clarified. It is also a question of simplifying procedures, reducing delays and clarifying transfer procedures. Finally, there is a need to strengthen governance and convergence between States with stronger cooperation between national asylum authorities. EASO could lead this strengthened governance.
And given that two-thirds of asylum applications concern nationals from safe countries arriving with a visa or visa waiver, these unfounded applications must stop contributing to the overload of asylum systems, the report says. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)