This summer, national delegations provided the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union with their comments on the state of play of the draft Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management (AMMR), which is intended to replace the 2016 revision of the Dublin Regulation (see EUROPE 12727/5).
According to a Slovenian Council Presidency document dated Tuesday 7 September, many Member States maintain a general reservation. Some reject the new ‘Dublin’ criteria, such as having a degree from the EU. Others fear that the first entry criterion, combined with the new border procedures, will increase the burden at the EU’s external borders, as noted by Bulgaria.
Presented in September 2020 as part of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, along with four other pieces of legislation (see EUROPE 12566/1), this regulation revises the so-called ‘Dublin criteria’, which organise the competence of Member States in processing asylum cases. In the event of strong migratory pressure, it also organises solidarity between relocations and returns sponsorships of irregular migrants.
But not all Member States agree with the Commission’s choices to broaden the definition of family unity and to open up a right to apply for asylum for people who have a degree or qualification from the EU.
According to the Slovenian document, France, like Austria, also expresses doubts about the principle of an extension to families formed during the exile process. This approach, according to the French authorities, “may generate risks of fraud on the reality of family links which it will often be difficult to establish”. However, these extended criteria could be the counterpart of the extension of the period of responsibility, especially for first entry countries, Paris says.
“Similarly, the proposal to add siblings is worth considering. First and foremost, the consequences for countries where strong communities are already established and the real interest in grouping adults together should be assessed”, adds Paris, which will not block these points.
France also insists on the fight against intra-EU secondary movements of asylum seekers and, in particular, the possibility of refusing the granting of material conditions when they have been granted in another country already responsible for the application.
The Netherlands expresses the same misgivings about the definition of the family unit and the addition of siblings, both of which could open the door to fraud.
Several remarks expressed by the countries that replied still concern the definition of the risk of absconding, which some still find too vague, or the duration of a Member State’s responsibility for processing an asylum case, which has been extended to 3 years for countries of first entry through which asylum seekers have entered illegally. Bulgaria rejects this extension.
Greece also maintains its reservations about the new criteria, which it believes do not allow a fair balance between the Member States. The extension of responsibility for irregular border crossings also considers that the proposal interferes with the balance between state responsibility and solidarity between states. Athens, therefore, supports maintaining the current liability limit of 12 months.
Hungary also opposes the extension of the family unit and the addition of the criterion based on degrees. Budapest also rejects all new formulations on solidarity and the mechanism introduced to realise it.
Link to the Slovenian report: https://bit.ly/3zU9RwV
Link to the Slovenian proposals: https://bit.ly/3l6rAep (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)