ECRE has recently issued a policy paper addressing the reform of EU asylum laws and offering recommendations for the ongoing negotiation process. The paper thoroughly examines the stances of the two key legislative bodies involved, namely the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, regarding several legislative proposals currently under discussion. These proposals encompass various regulations, such as the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR), the Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management (RAMM), the Screening Regulation, the Eurodac Regulation, the Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation, and the Instrumentalisation Regulation.
The policy paper meticulously compares the amendments proposed by both the Council and the Parliament on an article-by-article basis, highlighting areas of contention. The paper also provides guidance on which amendments are preferable from the standpoint of upholding fundamental rights.
It’s important to note that ECRE maintains its critical stance towards the reform proposals that were initiated in 2016, 2020, and 2021. These proposals have largely been viewed as restricting access to asylum in Europe and eroding the rights of refugees. Regrettably, in some instances, the amendments, especially those put forward by the Council, seem to further diminish protection standards and add complexity to the legislation, potentially making certain aspects unworkable.
Nevertheless, there are numerous points of divergence where there’s room to choose between better and worse options. ECRE argues that the legislative bodies should prioritize amendments that support a fair and effective asylum system in Europe. Specifically, ECRE urges the European Parliament to stand firm on its positions and ensure that, if concessions are made on one article, it should receive equivalent and substantial concessions from the Council on related articles.
Key recommendations put forth by ECRE include safeguarding the right to free legal assistance and the right to a personal interview during asylum procedures, limiting the obligatory use of expedited and border procedures, ensuring comprehensive assessments of human rights and protection risks, as well as applicable statuses in all procedures, introducing a meaningful link with a country as a basis for allocating responsibility, focusing solidarity efforts on relocation, restricting the use of safe country concepts, particularly if they would undermine international and EU law, and rejecting the concept of instrumentalisation and the expanded use of derogations in EU law.