Asylum Report 2023

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

judicial protection of an unaccompanied minor applicant cannot vary according to whether this

applicant is the subject of a transfer decision by the requesting Member State or a decision by

which the requested Member State rejects the request to take charge of the applicant. With

regard to the relative of the minor, the CJEU held that the regulation does not confer rights

which could be claimed in court against a decision not to take charge, and the relative cannot

derive a right of appeal against such a decision solely based on Article 47 of the EU Charter.

Interpretation of the concept of a subsequent application

In SI, TL, ND, VH, YT, HN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-497/21), the CJEU

clarified that, within the meaning of Article 2(q) of the recast QD, an application

for international protection cannot be regarded as a subsequent application by

another Member State after a first application is rejected by Denmark, a country

which applies certain provisions of the Dublin III Regulation but does not

implement the recast QD and the recast APD. The court referred to its previous judgment in

LR v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-8/20) which concluded that, after a rejection by

Denmark, an application made by the same individual in another Member State cannot be

considered as a subsequent application and thus be rejected as inadmissible.

Family reunification involving minors

In 2022, the CJEU examined three cases concerning the conditions in which

minors, whether beneficiaries of international protection or children of

sponsors, may benefit from family reunification.

In X v Belgium (C-230/21), the CJEU interpreted Articles 2(f) and 10(3a) of the

Family Reunification Directive and ruled that unaccompanied minors do not have to be

unmarried in order to be sponsors for their parents in a family reunification procedure. In

agreement with the opinion of the Advocate General, the court noted that the vulnerability of

minors is not mitigated because of marriage and may, on the contrary, point to an exposure to

a child marriage or a forced marriage.

In SW, BL, BC v Stadt Darmstadt, Stadt Chemnitz (Joined Cases C-273/20 and C-355/20), the

CJEU ruled that the minority of the sponsoring unaccompanied child is not a condition for

family reunification with parents. In addition, Article 13(2) of the Family Reunification Directive

precludes national legislation under which the right of residence of the parents is terminated

as soon as the child reaches the age of majority.

In Bundesrepublik Deutschland v XC, joined by Landkreis Cloppenburg (C-279/20), the CJEU

analysed the date to which national authorities must refer when determining whether the child

of a sponsoring beneficiary of refugee status is a minor for the purpose of family reunification.

When a child has attained majority before the sponsoring parent was granted refugee status

and before the application for family reunification was submitted, the court observed that the

date used to determine if the child is a minor is the date on which the sponsoring parent

submitted an asylum application, provided that an application for family reunification was

submitted within 3 months of the recognition of the parent’s refugee status. In addition, the

legal parent/child relationship is not sufficient on its own to constitute a real family relationship

for family reunification. Nonetheless, it is not necessary for the parent and the child to cohabit

in a single household, to live under the same roof or to support each other financially. The

court noted that occasional visits and regular contact of any kind may be sufficient to establish

the existence of a real family relationship.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Admissibility of asylum applications lodged by minors whose family members are

beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State

In RO v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-720/20), the CJEU interpreted

Article 20(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, which provides for the indissociable

situation of a minor who qualifies as a family member of an applicant for

international protection. In agreement with the opinion of the Advocate General,

the court noted that there is a distinction in EU law between the situation of a

minor whose family members are already beneficiaries of international protection in a Member

State (Dublin III Regulation, Article 9) and a minor whose family members are applicants for

international protection (Dublin III Regulation, Articles 10 and 20(3)).

The court held that Article 20(3) was not applicable in the situation that a minor and the

parents lodge applications for international protection in the Member State in which the minor

was born, when the parents were already provided international protection in another

Member State. In the absence of an agreement expressed in writing by the minor, a request

for international protection by a minor cannot be rejected as inadmissible on the basis of

Article 33(2) of the recast APD, even if the parents received protection in another Member

State but the minor applicant is not a beneficiary of protection in another Member State.

However, the parents’ application may be dismissed as inadmissible on the ground that they

are already beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State.

Maintaining family unity after secondary movements by beneficiaries of international

protection

In a Grand Chamber formation, the CJEU ruled in XXXX v Commissaire général

aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (C-483/20) in a case concerning a parent and his

minor child who had different migration paths, with the minor being a

beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Belgium and the father a beneficiary of

international protection in Austria. The CJEU held that, when an applicant is

already a beneficiary of international protection in another Member State, the recast APD,

read in conjunction with the EU Charter, Articles 7 and 24(2), does not oblige Member States

to verify whether the person fulfils the conditions to claim international protection under the

recast QD and may reject the request for international protection as inadmissible.

However, Member States must refrain from declaring an application as inadmissible when

there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the other Member State and the living

conditions would amount to a risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to

Article 4 of the EU Charter. In addition, the CJEU highlighted that Member States have an

obligation under the recast QD to maintain family unity by establishing benefits in favour of

family members of beneficiaries of international protection. The court noted that these

benefits are provided in Articles 24-35 of the recast QD, including a right of residence, which

requires three conditions to be met: i) the person must be a family member within the meaning

of Article 2(j) of the recast QD; ii) the family member does not individually qualify for

international protection; and iii) granting the benefit is compatible with the personal legal

status of the family member.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Determining protection provided by the UNRWA

In NB, AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department (UK) (C-349/20), the

CJEU ruled on the assessment of the cessation or end of protection provided

by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the

Near East (UNRWA). The court noted that the individual assessment should not

consider only the relevant circumstances prevailing at the time when the

person left UNRWA’s territory, but also those prevailing when the competent

authorities examine an application for refugee status or when the competent judicial

authorities decide on an appeal against a refusal of such a status. It would also be sufficient to

establish that UNRWA’s protection or assistance effectively ceased.

In addition, where the person proves that she left the area of UNRWA for reasons beyond her

control, the Member State must prove that the person can return to that area and benefit from

UNRWA’s protection or assistance. Assistance provided to that person by civil society

organisations is also to be taken into consideration, provided that UNRWA has a formal and

stable cooperation with the organisations.

Access to an administrative file and communication ‘in writing’ of the decision on

international protection

In BU v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-564/21), the CJEU ruled on an

applicant’s right to access a copy of the administrative file and the meaning of

communication ‘in writing’ of the administrative decision. The court held that

Articles 23(1), 46(1) and 46(3) of the recast APD, read in conjunction with

Article 47 of the EU Charter, do not contain specific rules on the format and

structure in which the file is communicated to an applicant’s representative. Therefore, they do

not preclude the decision-making authority to provide access to the electronic file in the

format of a series of separate files in PDF format, without consecutive page numbering and for

which the structure can be viewed using a free software.

In addition, in accordance with Article 11(1) of the recast APD, the CJEU held that a

communication of the decision ‘in writing’ does not have to be signed by a case officer. It

simply means that communication should not be implied or made orally.

Withdrawal of material reception conditions

As a follow-up to its ruling in Haqbin (C-238/18) from 2019, the CJEU ruled in

2022 in Ministero dell’Interno v TO (C-422/21) on the withdrawal of material

reception conditions from an applicant for international protection for verbally

and physically assaulting police officers outside an accommodation centre. The

CJEU confirmed that Article 20(4) and (5) of the recast RCD prevents material

reception conditions relating to housing, food and clothing to be withdrawn if this would

deprive the applicant of the most basic needs.

Scope of detention and judicial review of the lawfulness of detention

In a case referred by the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court, IA v Federal

Office for Immigration and Asylum (C-231/21), the CJEU clarified that committing

non-voluntarily an asylum applicant who is a danger to a psychiatric hospital,

authorised by a judicial decision, does not constitute imprisonment under

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation. The court further recalled that there are two specific

exceptions for which the 6-month time limit may be extended to implement a Dublin transfer,

included in the second sentence of Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, namely

imprisonment and absconding.

In K v Landkreis Gifhorn (C-519/20), the CJEU clarified the conditions in which Member States

may temporarily detain third-country nationals in a prison for the purpose of a removal, the

conditions required for a detention establishment to be considered a ‘specialised detention

centre’ within the meaning of the recast Return Directive, Article 16(1), and the extent of a

judicial review by a national court. The CJEU observed that the detention of a third-country

national for the purpose of a removal is intended to ensure the effectiveness of the return

procedure and does not pursue any punitive purpose, which must be reflected in the person’s

conditions of detention. The court noted that national courts must consider the layout of the

premises dedicated to the detention of third-country nationals, the rules specifying their

conditions of detention, and the qualifications and powers of the staff responsible for

supervising their detention. The court further clarified the situations which justify a derogation

under Article 18(1) of the recast Return Directive, the prohibition of detention due to the

vulnerability of a person and the obligation of national courts to effectively verify the

compliance of detention with the conditions imposed by Article 18 of the recast Return

Directive.

In I.L. v Police and Border Guard Board (Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet) (C-241/2), the CJEU held

that Article 15(1) of the recast Return Directive prohibits Member States from detaining an

illegally-staying, third-country national solely on the basis of the general criterion of a risk that

the effective execution of the removal will be jeopardised. The court further noted that such a

measure is contrary to the requirements of clarity, predictability and protection against

arbitrariness.

In B, C and X v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Joined Cases C-704/20 and C-39/21),

the CJEU recalled that the detention of a third-country national constitutes an interference

with the right to liberty enshrined in Article 6 of the EU Charter and the person must be

immediately released when the conditions of the lawfulness of detention are no longer met,

irrespective of whether detention is used in the context of return proceedings due to an illegal

stay, in the processing of an application for international protection or in the context of a

Dublin transfer. The CJEU ruled that the competent judicial authorities have the obligation to

review ex officio the lawfulness of detention decisions by taking into consideration all

elements of the case, even if the failure to comply with the lawfulness of detention has not

been raised by the person concerned before a competent judicial authority.

Withdrawal of international protection on grounds of national security

In the case of GM (C-159/21), referred by the Budapest High Court, the CJEU

ruled on the use of non-reasoned opinions of national security bodies in

procedures to withdraw international protection due to a danger to national

security. The CJEU held that Member States must provide access to confidential

national security information to the courts that rule on the lawfulness of the

decision and establish procedures guaranteeing the rights of defence of the person. The

CJEU noted that Article 23(1) of the recast APD does not allow competent authorities to

exclude the person and their representative from knowing the decisive elements which are

contained in the file. The CJEU specified that the possibility of obtaining authorisation to

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

access the information, coupled with the prohibition to use the information in the

administrative procedure, does not sufficiently guarantee the right to defence.

The court ruled that a determining authority cannot rely on a non-reasoned opinion given by

national security bodies when the factual basis and assessment by these bodies was not

disclosed to the determining authority. It noted that the determining authority that assesses a

withdrawal cannot endorse a decision adopted by another authority, because it must include

its own assessment of the facts, circumstances and reasons in its decision, and the scope and

relevance of the information provided by national security bodies must be assessed by the

determining authority. Although the right to defence may be limited, the CJEU recalled that

Article 23(1) of the recast APD does not allow competent authorities to exclude a person and

their representative from gaining effective knowledge of the substance of the decisive

elements contained in the file.

Return of rejected applicants for international protection who suffer from a serious illness

In X v State Secretary for Justice and Security [NL] (C-69/21), the CJEU ruled that

a third-country national suffering from a serious illness may not be removed if, in

the absence of appropriate medical treatment in the receiving country, the

person would be subjected to a real risk of rapid, significant and permanent

increase in pain. The CJEU stated that it must be established that the only

effective analgesic treatment cannot be lawfully administered in the receiving country and that

the person would be exposed to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the absence

of the treatment, for example extreme pain that could cause irreversible psychological

consequences or lead to suicide.

Voluntary departures and forced removal

In UN v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Pontevedra (C-409/20), the CJEU

interpreted Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the recast Return Directive, ruling on the

possibility for an illegally-staying, third-country national to regularise his/her stay.

The CJEU held that national legislation may initially sanction an illegally-staying,

third-country national with a fine and an obligation to leave the territory within a

prescribed period, unless the person’s stay is regularised, and subsequently, if the stay is not

regularised, by a compulsory removal, in accordance with the recast Return Directive.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Section 3.

EUAA support

“This Regulation establishes a European

Union Agency for Asylum (the ‘Agency’).

The Agency…shall be a centre of

in 2022

expertise by virtue of its independence,

the scientific and technical quality of the

Section 3 details the Agency’s work

assistance it provides and the

programme, work with third countries,

information it collects and disseminates,

and operational and technical assistance

the transparency of its operating

which was provided over the course of

procedures and methods, its diligence in

the year. It also presents an evaluation of

performing the tasks assigned to it, and

these activities, when applicable.

the information technology support

needed to fulfil its mandate.”

While the scope of the Agency’s activities

is multifaceted, highlights in this section

are provided for six key areas:

3.1. Production of asylum knowledge

and technical expertise

3.2. Training

3.3. Operational and technical

assistance

3.4. Third country support

3.5. Cooperation with civil society

organisations

3.6. Protection of fundamental rights

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

The EUAA’s extended mandate, as foreseen in Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 on the

Establishment of a European Union Agency for Asylum, entered into force on 19 January

2022.^{225, 226}In line with its enhanced role, throughout the year the EUAA:

offered greater operational and technical support to foster efficiency in asylum

systems;

worked toward improving and accelerating the provision of assistance at the request

of Member States;

further developed operational standards, indicators and practical guidelines to inform

uniform, high-quality decision-making in asylum cases;

supported the practical implementation of CEAS by training asylum and reception

professionals;

contributed to increased situational awareness among EU policymakers to inform

decisions and preparedness;

contributed to capacity-building in non-EU countries; and

supported EU+ countries with resettlement schemes.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine generated large-scale protection needs, and the Agency

responded quickly to offer assistance to countries receiving large numbers of displaced

persons from Ukraine. The Agency proved its role as a centre of expertise in asylum by

expanding its operational and technical support to address evolving needs. As an integral

actor in the collective EU response in addressing the needs of millions of displaced persons,

the EUAA effectively contributed to the implementation of protection solutions across Europe.

To assist Member States in applying CEAS, ensure fair and efficient asylum procedures,

provide high-quality reception standards and harmonise their practices, the EUAA provides

support structured around three pillars:

Technical support includes information collection and analysis; the development of

guidance and practical tools; the exchange of expertise and good practices; and

advice on legal obligations. As of 2023, the EUAA will also be mandated to monitor

the application of EU asylum and reception obligations by Member States;

Training and professional development of national asylum and reception officials to

ensure a common, high-quality application of CEAS standards; and

Operational support to Member States, especially those experiencing

disproportionate pressure on their asylum and reception systems.

For more detailed information on the EUAA’s activities, work programme and

budget, please refer to the EUAA Consolidated Annual Activity Report (CAAR)

2022. For EUAA’s governance documents, please refer to the EUAA website.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

3.1. Asylum knowledge

To provide evidence-based information to a range of audiences,

including policymakers, the EUAA collects, processes, synthesises

and analyses information on specific themes, latest developments,

emerging topics and forecasting in the field of asylum.

Country of origin information and country guidance

Based on the well-established Country of Origin (COI) Report Methodology, the

Agency produced 15 COI reports in 2022 in close collaboration with Member

States. COI was produced consistently and timely, in particular to monitor the

situation in Afghanistan and Ukraine. A guide was also developed on

interviewing sources in the context of COI research.

The Agency continued to support national COI networks, facilitated information-exchange,

built capacity and further generated knowledge in the area of COI, while more than

1,000 responses were provided to individual requests for Medical COI (MedCOI).

Country guidance involves a joint assessment by Member States of the situation in the main

countries of origin. To enhance convergence in EU+ decision-making practices, new country

guidance was produced on Somalia and Iraq, two updates were published on Afghanistan and

additional update processes were completed for Afghanistan and Syria.

Information and analysis of asylum developments

The EUAA continued to manage and update several databases which capture

national developments in asylum and reception systems in EU+ countries, in

addition to court cases related to asylum. Information was included daily into the

Information and Documentation System (IDS) on CEAS, which serves as a

central source of information for policymakers in EU+ countries. Its

jurisprudential counterpart, the publicly-available EUAA Case Law Database, covers case law

related to the implementation of CEAS issued by national courts, the CJEU and the European

Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In 2022, there were more than 3,000 registered cases. The

database is used to address internal and external requests for jurisprudential information, and

four quarterly publications on case law were published to highlight how courts have shaped

policies and practices related to all aspects of asylum.

The Agency continued to produce situational overviews and analyses on key areas of CEAS,

in particular to address emerging information needs arising, for example, from the arrival of

large waves of displaced persons from Ukraine.

In 2022, the EUAA launched the public platform, Who is Who in International Protection in

the EU+, which presents key stakeholders and their roles in a range of areas in asylum and

reception systems across EU+ countries. The platform contains interactive visualisations to

view the mappings and PDF reports by theme.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Data analysis and research

Through the Early Warning and Preparedness System (EPS), the EUAA

continued in 2022 to foster an effective exchange of a standardised set of

indicators which quantify the asylum and reception situation in EU+ countries.

Following the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive, the Agency

swiftly developed and implemented a regular exchange of statistics on

registrations of temporary protection across EU+ countries.

Work continued on early warning and forecasting to better understand the root causes of

migration and support the planning of suitable policy and operational responses. A key

product was the joint report with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) and the IOM on profiles, experiences and aspirations of displaced

persons from and within Ukraine.

The Agency's strategic analysis products cover a number of asylum-related aspects, including

latest trends, to provide national authorities and relevant EU institutions a situational overview

of asylum across Europe.

Support in enhancing quality standards

To maximise the multiplying effect of expertise-sharing, the EUAA continued to

facilitate practical cooperation and the sharing best practices among Member

States on asylum processes and quality management. It supported the practical

implementation of CEAS through the development of common practical guides

and tools, guidelines and operational standards.

The Agency organised dedicated meetings for national authorities to discuss the

implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive and its implications for the asylum

procedure. In addition, material was developed quickly to provide information to displaced

persons from Ukraine. A Quality Matrix Synthesis Report offers an overview of practices of

national asylum administrations related to the personal interview, evidence assessments and

qualifications for international protection. To assist with the daily work of case officers, new

practical tools were developed for examining claims based on religion, political opinion and

the detection and examination of exclusion cases.

The Agency continued to promote the convergence of practices across the EU. For example,

the EUAA created a tool on family unity, which ensures consistency in the provision of

information to applicants in the Dublin procedure on the possibility of reuniting with family

members. The tool includes an online planner that supports Member States in effectively

implementing Dublin transfers by providing information on procedures, opening hours and

closure dates for border crossing points.

Practical guidance was developed on a range of topics concerning vulnerable persons,

including age assessments, special needs and vulnerability assessments, screening of special

needs and vulnerabilities, country information on support frameworks for people fleeing

Ukraine, critical incident management, support to guardians on temporary protection, mental

health of applicants, and issues related to sexual orientation, gender identity or expression

and sex characteristics (SOGIESC).

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In the area of reception, in 2022 the EUAA developed tools on emergency placement in

private accommodation; rights and obligations in the context of temporary protection; self-

identification of vulnerabilities for beneficiaries of temporary protection in reception; design

and management of modular reception centres; and information provision material for

applicants in reception. The creation of new standards and indicators on reception and related

to vulnerable applicants was initiated, foreseen to be completed in 2023.

As part of the effort to promote common standards and further convergence in the

implementation of the asylum acquis, the EUAA, through a dedicated network, cooperates

with members of courts and tribunals in EU+ countries. In 2022, the Agency produced judicial

analyses, as well as guidance for judicial training, which took stock of the latest developments

in the implementation of CEAS and the most recent jurisprudence from European and national

courts and tribunals. Through a series of workshops and regional conferences, the Agency

helped members of courts and tribunals advance their knowledge in all procedural and

substantial aspects of international protection.

3.2. Training and professional development

The EUAA supports the practical implementation of CEAS by training asylum

and reception officials to have the necessary knowledge, skills and autonomy

to implement efficient and fair procedures, in line with EU standards. The

European Asylum Curriculum, used by the Agency in its training, includes a

wide range of modules which cover the entire spectrum of international

protection.

To further address existing and emerging training needs, in 2022, seven training modules

were developed or restructured, including: i) communication for asylum and reception

practitioners; ii) introduction to vulnerability; iii) introduction to ethical and professional

standards; iv) working with an interpreter; v) introduction to coaching; vi) applicants with

diverse SOGIESC; and vii) orientation course for learners. In addition, a training package was

developed on the Temporary Protection Directive, and training sessions were provided to

thousands of officials to help national authorities, as well as neighbouring countries, to rapidly

build up capacity and manage the humanitarian consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Based on the premise that professional development is a continuous endeavour and in line

with a life-long learning pedagogical approach, the Agency’s training centre developed

training material for trainers. As part of the continuing professional development series, in

2022 six modules were developed focusing on: i) Afghanistan inclusion; ii) Afghanistan

exclusion; iii) Temporary Protection Directive in the context of the war in Ukraine; iv) rumours

management; v) information and communication needs assessment; and vi) communication in

emergencies.

In total, more than 3,000 participations of asylum and reception officials in training sessions

were recorded in 2022, while approximately 600 participations were recorded for the train-

the-trainer sessions on European Asylum Curriculum modules. In the context of operational

assistance provided to Member States (see Section 3.3), the Agency delivered a number of

training sessions to Asylum Support Teams and national asylum and reception officials, with

more than 4,600 participants. Similarly, in the context of its cooperation with third countries,

the EUAA organised a number of training sessions for third-country authorities at national and

regional levels to assist in capacity-building.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

3.3. Operational and technical assistance

A key area of work for the EUAA is to provide operational and technical

assistance to Member States in the implementation of its obligations under

CEAS, at the request of a Member State -or on its own initiative with the

agreement of the Member State- where its asylum or reception system is

subject to disproportionate pressure. Following a request by a Member State,

the EUAA in consultation with authorities of the Member State and other

relevant stakeholders undertakes a needs assessment, which informs the joint definition of

assistance measures to be implemented. These measures and the means to implement them

are detailed in an operational plan, which is binding on the Agency, the Member State

requesting the assistance and all participating Member States. Assistance typically comprises

the provision of equipment and support personnel and the implementation of activities to

enhance asylum and reception capacity.

Over the past years, the number of countries seeking the Agency’s operational support has

increased significantly. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the mass inflow of persons

seeking protection in Europe created new needs for the Agency’s support, especially in the

implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive. In such a volatile and unpredictable

landscape, the ability to quickly mobilise resources and expertise was of utmost importance.

To this end, in 2022, the Agency created a unit to coordinate first response and preparedness

plans for the provision of predictable, effective, efficient and streamlined support. The Agency

also produced an EUAA Asylum and Reception Operational Response Catalogue, which

presents the different types of operational support provided by the EUAA. The catalogue

serves, together with needs assessments, as a foundation for the design of operational plans.

Additionally, actions were taken to improve the coordination and deployment of experts

supporting operational plans, as well as toward the implementation of the asylum reserve

pool, as foreseen in the EUAA Regulation. This enables the Agency to have a reserve of

experts ready for deployment in emergency situations.

In 2022, the EUAA provided operational support to a record number of 14 EU Member States

(see Table 3.1), with new operating plans signed with Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, the

Netherlands and Slovenia. Following the implementation of these plans in 2022, amendments

for the continuation and expansion of activities in 2023 were signed with Belgium, Bulgaria

and the Netherlands. An extension of the existing operational plan was signed with Czechia,

while a new operational plan for Romania was agreed for 2023. In addition, following requests

by the European Commission, support has been provided in Moldova with information

provision in the context of the Voluntary Transfer Programme, which aims to facilitate the

transfer of persons displaced from Ukraine from Moldova to pledging Member States.

Upon signing an operational plan, Asylum Support Teams - comprised of EUAA personnel,

Member State experts and other experts not employed by the Agency - are deployed on the

ground to provide direct support. Throughout 2022, the Agency assisted Member States in a

range of areas, depending on the specific measures included in each plan. This may include

the provision of hardware/equipment to national asylum and reception authorities; increasing

the capacity and quality of processing applications for international protection; increasing the

capacity and quality of services in national reception systems; supporting the functioning of

the Dublin procedure; supporting the processing of applications at second instance; improving

information management; supporting vulnerability assessments and enhancing protection for

unaccompanied minors; providing information to applicants in the context of asylum and

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

reception; and assisting with voluntary relocations. On this last point, following the solidarity

declaration in June 2022, the EUAA started supporting the Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism by

facilitating relocation activities.

Across most countries receiving operational support, a key pillar of assistance has focused on

capacity-building through EUAA training modules on topics covering the existing needs in

each country.

The EUAA continued to manage the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admissions Network by

organising steering group and thematic meetings and meetings of the Expert Platform on Safe

Pathways to Afghans. The Resettlement Support Facility in Istanbul continued to support

resettlement operations by EU countries and served as a platform to exchange knowledge

and expertise. The Agency also delivered training and released operational tools on

resettlement.

Table 3.1. List of operating plans between the EUAA and Members States, 2022

Austria

Operational Plan 2022-2023 agreed by the EUAA and Austria

Belgium

Operating Plan 2022, agreed by EUAA and Belgium

Bulgaria

Operational Plan 2022 agreed by the EUAA and Bulgaria

Cyprus

Operational Plan 2022-2024 agreed by the EUAA and Cyprus

Czechia

Operational Plan 2022 agreed by the EUAA and Czechia

Greece

Operating Plan 2022-2024 agreed by the EUAA and Greece

Italy

Operating Plan 2022-2024 agreed by EASO and Italy

Latvia

Operating Plan 2022, agreed by EASO and Latvia

Lithuania

Operating Plan 2022 agreed by EASO and Lithuania

Malta

Operational Plan 2022-2024 agreed by the EUAA and Malta

The

Operational Plan 2022-2023 agreed by the EUAA and the Netherlands

Netherlands

Romania

Operational Plan 2023 agreed by the EUAA and Romania

Slovenia

Operational Plan 2022 agreed by the EUAA and the Republic of Slovenia

Spain

Operational Plan 2022-2023 agreed by the EUAA and Spain

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

3.3.1. Assessment of EUAA operational support in 2022

The Agency undertakes regular evaluations of its operations to enhance the

overall relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and added-value of

assistance. This reflective approach contributes to institutional learning,

evidence-based change management, accountability and transparency.

In 2022, the Agency conducted four internal evaluations^v covering operational

support in Lithuania, Latvia and Romania. Ongoing operational plans agreed with Austria,

Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Spain and the

Netherlands that extend beyond the end of 2022 were not due for evaluation.

Lithuania

Under the operational plan with Lithuania, which ran from July 2021 to June 2022, the

Agency provided support in the areas of asylum and reception following a sharp

increase in arrivals in 2021. The evaluation concluded that the Agency provided a rapid and

flexible response and contributed to an EU-wide solidarity approach. In the area of asylum, the

Agency delivered train-the-trainer sessions, COI support and interpretation. It also provided

limited support to first instance asylum processing.

The Agency supported the reception system with information provision, vulnerability

assessments, training and interpretation. Taking into account the geopolitical context, the

operational support was considered relevant and of added-value, in particular in the field of

reception. The evaluation made recommendations to optimise the planning of new

operational plans and interpretation support.

Latvia

The Agency supported Latvia with two operational plans following an increase in

asylum seekers from Belarus in mid-2021. Under the first operational plan (running

from September 2021 to March 2022), the Agency focused on the provision of interpretation

during the asylum procedure and in reception. The support was considered relevant, coherent

and effective in view of its limited scope and was considered ‘fair’ with regard to efficiency

and added-value.

Support under the second operational plan, which covered the remaining of 2022, took place

during stabilised migration pressure. The measures foresaw additional support for training and

contingency planning. The support was considered effective, with 80 participations of more

than 50 Latvian officials in training sessions on information provision, reception and vulnerable

applicants. The smooth cooperation with the authorities underlined the relevance and the

coherence of the action. Despite a number of efficiency gains, the mobilisation of support was

also limited in terms of cost-efficiency because of the short timeline and the volume of the

operation. In view of the reduced added-value of the Agency’s support, the evaluation

supported the closure of the operational plan and recommended the continuation of support

under the Agency’s permanent support framework.

^v The evaluations covered the 2021-2022 and 2022 operational plans for Latvia, the 2021-2022 operational plan

for Lithuania, and the 2022 operational plan for Romania.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Romania

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, more than 2.5 million people crossed the

border into Romania in 2022. The operational plan with Romania ran from March to

December 2022. It was the Agency’s first operational plan to focus on support in the

implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive.^vi

Following rapid mobilisation, the Agency facilitated over 62,000 registrations, information

sessions for over 65,000 individuals and 42 training activities by the end of 2022. The Agency

provided comprehensive and flexible training and information provision involving national

authorities, international organisations and NGOs. In view of the geopolitical context, the

support was deemed relevant and of high added-value. Recommendations involved the need

for better working conditions and the optimisation of mechanisms for the deployment of

experts.

3.4. Cooperation with third countries

As the European centre of expertise on asylum, the EUAA plays an important

role in strengthening CEAS by working with third countries. The overarching

rationale of this work is that a stable and functioning CEAS is contingent not

only on improving legislation and procedures within Europe, but also on

enhancing capacity in asylum and reception systems of third countries.

In view of the Agency’s new mandate and geopolitical developments in the

field of asylum, in March 2023, the Management Board of the EUAA adopted a revised

external cooperation strategy. The strategy sets the overall direction for the Agency’s future

work in the external dimension of CEAS, recalibrating the vision, principles and strategic

objectives of its external actions and outlining a renewed approach to third-country support,

as well as to resettlement and humanitarian admissions. In developing and implementing

activities with third countries, the EUAA cooperates with a range of stakeholders, including

EU+ countries, the European Commission, the EEAS and JHA agencies.

The EUAA’s support to third countries takes place through bilateral roadmaps for cooperation

and EU-funded regional programmes, such as the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance.

Roadmaps for bilateral cooperation in 2022 were implemented with Albania, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Egypt, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye.

In 2022, the Agency further developed practical cooperation among EU+ countries on

external dimension activities, including by organising meetings of the Third Country

Cooperation Network and working group meetings on cooperation with the Western Balkans,

Türkiye and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The EUAA continued to develop

specific knowledge management tools, such as the third-country support platform, which is a

virtual space that facilitates cooperation and information-exchange among members of the

Third Country Cooperation Network.

^vi Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022 establishing the existence of a mass influx of

displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of

introducing temporary protection (OJ L 71, 4.3.2022, p. 1).

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

With the adoption of the 2022-2023 roadmap for cooperation, the EUAA entered into its

fourth consecutive partnership with the Presidency for Migration Management (PMM), the

Turkish competent authority on asylum and reception. Throughout 2022, in the framework of

the roadmap, a number of participating EU+ countries worked closely with the EUAA to build

the PMM’s institutional capacity, and by extension, to promote positive outcomes for refugees

in Türkiye. The focus was on persons with special needs and on interventions to ensure that

the PMM is better placed to manage fluctuating migration movements.

Partnerships with MENA countries were further calibrated to increase knowledge and enhance

capacities in the areas of asylum and reception. The Agency also continued the

implementation of the EUAA-Egypt Roadmap.

At the regional level, the EUAA successfully delivered activities involving all North African

countries and Niger, thereby laying the basis for the creation of a practitioners’ network,

including relevant stakeholders, such as UNHCR and the IOM. Activities focused on issues

involving vulnerable groups and offered the opportunity to participating countries to share

knowledge on the functioning of their respective asylum systems and to identify needs and

interests for the joint design of future regional activities.

The Agency worked closer with authorities in the Western Balkans to improve knowledge and

capacities to manage fluctuating migration movements and to develop their asylum and

reception systems in a protection-sensitive manner, including for persons with special needs.

Regional training on interviewing techniques and interviewing vulnerable persons were

coupled with on-the-job coaching on core asylum procedures in Albania, Kosovo,^vii

North Macedonia and Montenegro.

The EUAA provided train-the-trainer modules, supported the revision of asylum legislation in

Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and assisted with reinforcing the COI unit in Serbia. The

Agency responded to the needs generated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine through structured

information exchanges on temporary protection and supported contingency plans in

Montenegro.

3.4.1. Assessment of EUAA support to third countries in 2022

At the end of 2022, the Agency concluded the implementation of the 24-month-

long roadmaps for cooperation with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia

and North Macedonia. Albania and Serbia agreed to extend their roadmaps to

December 2023, while Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia agreed to

develop new ones.

To assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and added-value of its support

to third countries, the EUAA managed five external evaluations of its cooperation with

Western Balkan partner countries.^viii The evaluations found that roadmaps, as a framework for

cooperation with third countries, were highly relevant to meet the needs of national

authorities. They also served to outline long-term strategic priorities for cooperation. While

^vii This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with the United Nation’s Security Council

Resolution 1244 on the situation relating to Kosovo and the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on

Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

^viii These covered the roadmaps for cooperation with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and

North Macedonia, as well as a cross-cutting evaluation of the roadmap approach as an instrument for cooperation

with these partner countries.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

resource capacity constraints and COVID-19-related travel restrictions posed challenges

during the implementation, the roadmaps effectively brought about a number of common

deliverables. These included an increased capacity of national counterparts to manage asylum

processes and further alignment of national legislation with CEAS.

The four roadmaps were found to be coherent and complementary towards parallel activities,

such as the EUAA’s activities at the regional level and ongoing efforts by international

organisations. The Agency’s unique position as a centre of expertise on CEAS was considered

the key added-value.

Highlights of EUAA support to third

countries in 2022

The Western Balkan roadmaps contributed to bringing partner

countries closer to CEAS standards, through legislative support and

the sharing of good practices from EU Member States.

3.5. Consultative forum and civil society organisations

Civil society organisations bring unique expertise and knowledge to asylum

and reception-related discussions. The Agency’s Consultative Forum, initially

established in 2011 as part of EASO, is the main channel for dialogue and

cooperation with civil society organisations working in asylum at the local,

European and international levels.

The cooperation takes place through meetings, electronic consultations on key EUAA

documents, and participation in EUAA activities, including training, workshops, activities

related to vulnerable groups and more.

2022 was a transitional year, as a main priority was to establish and operationalise the revised

Consultative Forum, as foreseen in the EUAA Regulation. Being a part of the Agency’s

administrative and management structure, the reinforced Consultative Forum exercises its

tasks independently and advises the Executive Director and the Management Board on

asylum-related matters, in accordance with the Agency’s specific needs in priority areas.

For its composition, the regulation provides that FRA, Frontex, UNHCR, relevant civil society

organisations and competent bodies active in the field of asylum policy are invited to become

members of the Consultative Forum. Apart from the usual modalities of engagement, such as

meetings and consultations, the regulation foresees the creation of thematic or

geographically-focused consultation groups within the forum.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

As part of its work, the Consultative Forum should be consulted on the development of the

European Asylum Curriculum; the preparation, adoption and implementation of the Agency’s

Fundamental Rights Strategy and Code of Conduct; and the setting up of a complaints

mechanism in the event of violations of fundamental rights by the Agency’s Asylum Support

Teams. Thus, there is an increasing focus of the forum’s work on fundamental rights related to

asylum and, to this end, it works closely with the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Officer (see

Section 3.6).

To effect these changes, in June 2022, the Consultative Forum was reconstituted and a call

for expressions of interest in becoming a member was launched, with more than

100 organisations becoming members in the first few months after the call. Since November

2022, the forum has been chaired by one of the member organisations, directly elected by

other forum members. Additionally, two thematic consultation groups were established: one

on country of origin information and one dedicated to vulnerable groups in the context of

asylum.

3.6. Protection of fundamental rights

The EUAA Regulation introduced provisions to ensure that the Agency fully

adheres to fundamental rights when delivering its tasks, including the

appointment of a Fundamental Rights Officer who reports to the Agency’s

Management Board and is responsible for the development of the Agency’s

Fundamental Rights Strategy in close collaboration with the Consultative

Forum. The regulation also provides for the establishment of a complaints

mechanism to respond to claims of breaches of fundamental rights in the context of the

Agency’s operations.

In 2022, the EUAA carried out preparatory activities for the appointment of a Fundamental

Rights Officer, and in February 2023, the Agency’s Management Board selected a candidate

for the position. Steps were also taken to establish the complaints mechanism, whereby any

person who is directly affected by the actions of an expert in an Asylum Support Team, and

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

who considers that their fundamental rights have been violated due to those actions, or any

party representing such a person, may submit a complaint in writing to the EUAA. The

complaints mechanism is to be implemented by the Fundamental Rights Officer, who is

independent.

In June 2022, the EUAA also updated its Code of Conduct, which all experts who are

deployed as part of Asylum Support Teams (including experts from the Agency’s own staff,

experts from Member States, experts seconded by Member States to the Agency or other

experts not employed by the Agency) are bound to respect. The Code of Conduct will be

further updated in consultation with the Fundamental Rights Officer.

The Agency has been developing an escalation process, according to which the Executive

Director, after informing the host Member State, can suspend or terminate, in whole or in part,

the deployment of Asylum Support Teams. This would take place when, after consulting the

Fundamental Rights Officer, it is considered that there are violations of fundamental rights or

international protection obligations by the host Member State that are of a serious nature or

are likely to persist.

3.7. EUAA Presidency of the JHA Agencies Network

2023

In carrying out its mandate, the EUAA works in regular cooperation with the

other eight Agencies operating in the area of justice and home affairs and

managing security, justice, fundamental rights and gender equality. The JHA

Network was established in 2010 to increase inter-agency cooperation and

explore synergies in areas of common interest.

The Presidency rotates among the participating Agencies on a yearly basis. As of 2022, the

network operates on the basis of a Trio Presidency coordination concept, whereby three

consecutive presiding Agencies work together to identify the overarching topics of discussion

for 3 consecutive years. The first Trio comprises the Presidencies of CEPOL (2022), the EUAA

(2023) and eu-LISA (2024). During the 2023 EUAA Presidency, priorities for the network

include:

Digitalisation, covering issues related to the use of artificial intelligence, biometrics and

interoperability;

Implementation of the EU Green Deal in JHA Agencies;

Information provision in mixed migration situations, acknowledging that swift and

adequate provision of accurate and tailor-made information is important for migrants

and persons in need of international protection so that they do not fall victim to

exploitation or abuse;

Cybersecurity, also in the context of the Russian aggression against Ukraine which has

led to increased risks of cyberattacks on Member States and other strategic targets;

and

Internal and external communication on the network’s activities and functioning in

order to provide better understanding, within EU institutions and to European citizens,

and increase trust.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.1 Access to the asylum

procedure presents

developments surrounding

access to territory and the first

steps of the asylum procedure,

including making, registering

Section 4

and lodging an application.

4.2 The Dublin procedure

takes an in-depth look into the

system which sets out the

Functioning of

criteria and mechanisms to

determine the Member State

the Common

responsible for examining an

application for international

European Asylum

protection.

System

4.3 Special procedures to

assess protection needs

presents new practices around

border procedures, the safe

country of origin concept,

This section provides an overview of

accelerated procedures,

developments in legislation, policy,

admissibility procedures and

practice and case law in

subsequent applications.

EU+ countries throughout 2022.

Concerns about aspects of national

4.4 Processing asylum

asylum and reception systems are

applications at first instance

included from authorities, civil society

addresses new approaches,

organisations, UNHCR and other

measures, working methods

international organisations.

and policies, such as

prioritisation policies. It presents

The sub-sections are organised by

legislative amendments,

theme, following the steps of the

technological developments

asylum procedure.

and improvements to the quality

of the procedure.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

4.5 Processing asylum

4.10 Legal assistance and

applications at second or

representation outlines

higher instances presents

changes in the provision of free

initiatives to make the

legal counselling and advice to

procedures at second instance

applicants.

more efficient and details

changes on the right to an

4.11 Interpretation services

effective remedy and the

presents amendments and

processing of cases lodged by

concerns around the provision

specific nationalities.

of interpretation, including

institutional changes and policy

4.6 Pending cases discusses

updates. Interpretation in the

the number of applications still

health system is highlighted.

under examination, which is a

key indicator reflecting the

4.12 Country of origin

workload experienced by

information briefly describes

national authorities and the

developments in country of

pressure on national asylum

origin (COI) research and

systems, including reception

production.

systems.

4.13 Statelessness in the

4.7 Reception of applicants for

context of asylum explores the

international protection shows

relationship between

how Member States reacted to

statelessness and asylum,

trends in international

highlighting associated

protection in terms of reception

challenges.

capacities and policies.

4.14 Content of protection

4.8 Detention provides an

presents initiatives taken for the

overview of changes in

integration of recognised

detention capacity, conditions,

beneficiaries of international

duration and alternatives to

protection based on the recast

detention.

Qualification Directive.

4.9 Access to information

4.15 Resettlement and

details new initiatives in

humanitarian admission

information provision

programmes presents

throughout the different stages

resettlement efforts taken by

of the asylum process, including

EU+ countries and

information on the procedure

developments in the framework

and information on everyday life

of humanitarian admission

and rights.

programmes.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Section 4.1.

Access to

procedures

The recast APD guides Member States on

Effective access to the asylum

common procedures to undertake when an

procedure means that people seeking

asylum application is submitted in the

international protection can reach the

territory of a Member State, including at the

authorities and are afforded a fair and

borders, in transit zones or in territorial

efficient process. Obstructing access

waters.

to territory and access to the

procedure may, in certain

The directive outlines access to the

circumstances, result in a person

procedure as a three-step process:

being returned to a country where

their life or freedom may be

Making an application: A person expresses

threatened, breaching the

a wish to any national authority to apply for

international principle of non-

international protection.

refoulement.

Registering an application: The competent

authority officially records the application

for international protection.

Lodging an application: The application

is formally lodged when all

administrative formalities have been

completed.

The time limit for the examination of a claim

for international protection starts elapsing

when the application is lodged and all

formalities have been completed. The

provisions of the recast APD apply to all

applications for international protection

made in the territory, including at the border,

in the territorial waters or in the transit zones

of Member States.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In 2022, EU+ countries received a significantly higher number of applications for international

protection than in previous years, in addition to all-time highs for nationals outside of the

10 main applicant groups. National authorities adjusted their laws, policies and practices to the

increasing number of applicants, for example by modifying the places of registration.

The activation of the Temporary Protection Directive also triggered changes in the process

and impacted the capacity to register applications for international protection in different

ways. EU+ countries allocated resources to swiftly provide effective access to protection for

displaced persons from Ukraine, which at times resulted in delays to access the procedure for

asylum applicants. For people from Ukraine who did not qualify for temporary protection,

EU+ countries took different approaches to ensure they had access to different forms of

protection, as necessary.²²⁷

In view of the mass arrivals and in an effort to provide access while managing their borders,

several countries introduced rules which are applicable in a state of emergency and could be

triggered by mass arrivals. UNHCR, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights

and civil society organisations warned how these changes could potentially inhibit effective

access to the territory and impede the right to apply for international protection. Throughout

the year, FRA documented the impact of some legislation in practice and summarised the

concerning results in its annual report.²²⁸

Following a synthesis of relevant international and national sources, FRA warned that, at times

violent, obstructions to effective access to protection were increasing at the borders of

the EU.²²⁹ During 2022, four EU operations patrolled the Mediterranean Sea to rescue

migrants at risk, while securing the EU’s borders and targeting migrant smugglers. At the same

time, critical voices argued that there was a shift towards prioritising border control,

enforcement and cooperation with third countries to intercept and return smugglers and

migrants (see Section 2.4).

At the end of 2022, the European Commission presented two action plans with a series of

operational measures to address immediate and ongoing challenges along the Central

Mediterranean and the Western Balkan routes (see Section 2.4). UNHCR welcomed the

adoption of the action plans²³⁰ and published a note on legal considerations related to

government roles and responsibilities for rescues at sea, non-refoulement and access to the

asylum procedure.²³¹

The ECtHR issued several interim measures and judgments which found violations related to

collective expulsions, search and rescues, and the principle of non-refoulement. National

courts were also often called upon to decide on the legality of legislative amendments and

national practices. The Protecting Rights at the Borders initiative from the Danish Refugee

Council underlined that strategic litigation was often the last resort to uphold rights and

ensure accountability at the EU’s borders.²³²

The trend to opt for online appointment systems continued, with the aim of facilitating and

accelerating access to the asylum procedure. Nonetheless, civil society organisations

observed that delays persisted when appointments could only be obtained after several

weeks. These arrangements were also particularly difficult for illiterate applicants and

applicants without digital skills.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.1.1. Access to territory

With the mass arrival of displaced persons following the Russian invasion of

Ukraine, in addition to the overall increase of asylum seekers through new

routes into Europe, EU+ countries continued their efforts to provide access to

protection, while effectively managing their borders. Nevertheless, on a

number of occasions it was reported that safe access to territory was not

always effectively provided.

As FRA underlined in its annual report, “serious fundamental rights violations against migrants

and refugees at the EU’s external land and sea borders persisted” and fatalities at borders

continued to increase.²³³ The agency provided an overview of the deaths and disappearances

in different border regions based on IOM reports.²³⁴

The European Parliamentary Research Service published an update of its briefing on search

and rescues in the Mediterranean Sea, noting that the region had witnessed the largest

number of casualties and missing persons compared to other migratory routes.²³⁵ The Council

of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights noted that “pushbacks and the serious violations

of human rights that they entail now risk becoming a permanent and systemic feature of the

way that refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are treated across Europe” and put forward

recommendations to stop all forms of this practice and prevent recurrence.²³⁶ The Left Group

in the European Parliament published the second edition of the Black Book of Pushbacks with

testimonies of people on the move having experienced violence at the EU’s borders.²³⁷

For the situation on the Eastern Mediterranean route, the ECtHR in Safi and Others v Greece

concluded that the Greek authorities had not done all that could be reasonably expected to

protect the life of people on a sinking fishing boat, which resulted in the death of 11 people. In

a third-party intervention submitted in the ECtHR case of S.A.A. and Others v Greece, UNHCR

restated that national authorities must protect the right to life and the principle of non-

refoulement in search and rescue operations.²³⁸ The organisation also published a statement

on the issue in February 2022.²³⁹ Refugee Support Aegean provided an overview of interim

measures granted by the ECtHR against Greece between 1 January and 24 June 2022,

including alleged cases of pushbacks.²⁴⁰ The organisation also assessed that the EU-Turkey

Statement resulted in preventing people in need of international protection to enter the

territory of the EU and kept those arriving to the Greek islands in a legal limbo (see

Section 4.3).²⁴¹

On the Central Mediterranean route, search and rescue operations carried out by civil society

organisations were at the centre of the debate. Following an incident involving the rescue ship

Sea Watch in Italy in 2020, the CJEU ruled on the state’s powers to investigate rescue ships

and noted that rescue ships may be detained only when there is a clear risk to safety, health

or the environment.²⁴²

In January 2023, new legislation entered into force in Italy establishing a code of conduct for

NGOs carrying out rescues at sea.²⁴³ The Association for Juridical Studies on

Immigration (ASGI) noted that the legislation does not introduce changes in terms of the

requirements for these vessels, but certain formulations of the text in the law could potentially

lead to misinterpretation, which could result in the prohibition of disembarkation.²⁴⁴

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Civil society organisations in Malta reported on cases when the Maltese authorities had

ignored distress signals from drifting vessels.²⁴⁵ UNHCR and the IOM continued to appeal for

the urgent disembarkation of all stranded refugees and migrants in the region.²⁴⁶ The Maltese

government made a statement to rebut the allegations.^ix

Long-persisting concerns on accessing international protection at the Spanish-Moroccan

border in Ceuta and Melilla continued in 2022.²⁴⁷ UNHCR,²⁴⁸ the UN Human Rights

Office (OHCHR)²⁴⁹ the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights,²⁵⁰ the Spanish

Ombudsperson²⁵¹ and several civil society organisations²⁵² expressed their deep disturbance

about an incident in June 2022, when 23 migrants died and 76 others were injured when

trying to cross the fence in Melilla.²⁵³ They urged the Spanish authorities to investigate and

consider measures to avoid such tragedies in the future. Based on findings from a mission to

Spain, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that there was no

genuine and effective access to asylum at the border between Nador, Morocco and Melilla,

Spain.²⁵⁴

UNHCR called for urgent support to prevent deaths and protect asylum seekers trying to

reach the EU through the Central and Western Mediterranean routes.²⁵⁵ The organisation also

published its updated risk mitigation strategy for saving lives and offered sustainable solutions

to manage situations with perilous journeys in this region.²⁵⁶

At the eastern borders of the EU, the war in Ukraine led to legal changes to facilitate access

to persons in need of temporary protection,²⁵⁷ while at the same time developments in

Belarus led to legal changes that raised concerns about effective access to the territory and to

the asylum procedure (see Section 4.1.2.1 and Box 2).

Along the Western Balkan route, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights

expressed concern in 2022 that the Bulgarian national border monitoring mechanism

documented an increasing number of pushbacks in 2021.²⁵⁸ The Bulgarian government

underlined that border guards were under constant surveillance and the Frontex Fundamental

Rights Office did not identify violations.²⁵⁹ However, the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer

noted in its annual report for 2021 that officers’ access to operations remained limited in

general and listed issues detected at the Turkish-Bulgarian border based on serious incident

reports submitted by Frontex staff and complaints by individuals, as well as reports and

information by international organisations, NGOs and public national human rights bodies.²⁶⁰

In Croatia, the first report of the Independent Mechanism for Monitoring the Conduct of Police

Officers covering June 2021 to June 2022 was published. The report concludes that “based

on observations, irregularities regarding the right to seek asylum and access to the asylum

procedure were not established in border police stations” but noted that police officers in

isolated cases conducted illicit deterrence in mine-suspected areas. The report made a

number of recommendations to improve the identification of applicants for international

protection at the border and enhance training for border guards.²⁶¹ The Ministry of the Interior

listed a series of actions for improvements, including distributing the FRA manual translated in

Croatian, including the manual in the training for border police, training for police officers on

the protection of fundamental rights when performing duties related to the protection of the

^ix The Maltese government stated: “Malta strongly rebuts any allegations on ignored distress calls. Malta abides

with international obligations and responds to distress calls in its Search and Rescue Region. All notifications

received are investigated, assessed, prioritised and actions are taken accordingly. Malta seeks to continue to

respect all its international obligations regarding the rescue of persons in distress at sea inside its area of

responsibility.”

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

state border, and developing a plan and programme for additional training on fundamental

rights for the intervention police. The standard operating procedures for border control at

border crossings and for state border protection were updated, including guidelines for the

identification of applicants for international protection and guidelines and rules of conduct for

border police officers dealing with persons who express their intention to seek international

protection at border crossings.

Nonetheless, the situation at the Croatian border was at the focus of many appeals in several

EU+ countries in the context of the Dublin procedure, and courts in various countries ordered

the suspension of transfers due to concerns over a possible risk of refoulement (see

Section 4.2). The Croatian Ministry of the Interior underlined that it had not received official

information on general suspensions of transfers from certain Member States to Croatia. The

ministry also underlined that Croatian authorities provide individual guarantees related to

acceptance, access to the asylum procedure and prohibition of a return upon request by a

Member State.

Civil society organisations also published reports documenting cases of alleged pushbacks

from neighbouring countries to Serbia.²⁶² The ECtHR found that the Hungarian authorities

failed to protect the life of a person who tried to cross the Tisza river from Serbia to Hungary,

and they did not fulfil their duty to properly investigate the incident.

As arrivals have steadily increased along the Western Balkan route, AsyLex noted that the

focus of concern has shifted from the Italian-Swiss border to the Swiss borders with Austria

and Germany.²⁶³

The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court reviewed the judgments of the Regional

Administrative Court of Styria for a Moroccan and a Somali applicant. In both cases, the court

concluded that the regional court’s assessment was not unreasonable when it came to the

conclusion that the applicants made a request for international protection in an audible

manner and the border guards denied the request and returned them to Slovenia. However,

the court did not comment on the content of the conclusion itself. Thus, the judgments of the

Regional Administrative Court finding pushbacks to Slovenia to be unlawful became final.²⁶⁴

Box 2. Non-refoulement

The principle of non-refoulement secures the right of an applicant to remain in the host country

when applying for international protection, including during a Dublin procedure and while

awaiting a decision by the determining authority, in accordance with the procedures at the

administrative level.

It ensures that Member States must allow applicants to remain in the territory to exercise the

remedy of a right to appeal and, when such a right has been exercised, pending the outcome

of the appeal. It must be observed by courts and tribunals when ruling whether an applicant

may remain in the territory of the Member State.

It also protects against a return or an extradition decision which may result in direct or indirect

refoulement, in violation of international and EU obligations of that Member State. In

accordance with the Geneva Convention, the respect for the non-refoulement principle must

be assessed in the application of safe country concepts.

The respect of the non-refoulement principle during the international protection procedure is

one of the most common elements that undergo judicial review. Civil society organisations and

academia offered their views on the cases throughout 2022.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Indicative list of recent case law beyond CJEU rulings

European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], S.H. v Malta: The ECtHR found violations of Articles

3 and 13 of the European Convention due to the lack of an adequate assessment of the asylum

application lodged by a Bangladeshi national in Malta, the lack of legal assistance and the lack

of an effective remedy. The Maltese authorities made a referral to the Grand Chamber and

stated that they strongly disagreed with the conclusions of the court. The referral request was

rejected, and the judgement became final in May 2023.²⁶⁵

European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], T.Z. and Others v Poland: The ECtHR found a

violation of Article 3 of the European Convention and Protocol No 4, Article 4 to the Convention

for the collective expulsion of six Russian nationals who were turned away at the Polish border

with Belarus without having their applications for asylum examined by the Polish authorities.

European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], O.M. and D.S. v Ukraine: The ECtHR found a

violation of Article 3 of the European Convention due to the expulsion of applicant from Ukraine

to Kyrgyzstan without assessing the risk of ill treatment and refoulement.

European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], A.B. and Others v Poland: The ECtHR found

violations of the European Convention and Protocol No 4 due to the refusal of Polish border

guards to receive asylum applications, summary removals to Belarus and non-compliance with

interim measures.

European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], A.I. and Others v Poland: The ECtHR ruled on the

refusal of border guards to receive asylum applications and summary removal to a third country,

exposing the applicants to a risk of chain refoulement to their countries of origin and inhuman

and degrading treatment and torture.

Poland, Voivodeship Administrative Court [Wojewodzki Sąd Administracyjny], A.D. v Border

Guard: The Administrative Court of Białystok found a violation of the right to access the asylum

procedure and the right to an effective remedy in the case of Iraqi applicants transferred to the

border area with Belarus.

Germany, Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgerichte], Applicants v BAMF: The

Administrative Court annulled a Dublin transfer to Croatia due to systemic deficiencies of the

asylum system and risk of indirect refoulement.

Germany, Higher Administrative Court [Oberverwaltungsgerichte], Applicant: The Higher

Administrative Court of Lower Saxony underlined that the existence of chain refoulement must

be substantiated specifically for Dublin returnees to rebut the presumption of the principle of

mutual trust.

Netherlands, Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State],

Applicants v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en

Veiligheid): The Council of State found “obvious and fundamental differences” in asylum policies

between Denmark and the Netherlands related to Syrian applicants. The Council of State held

that the applicants met the burden of proof by providing evidence that the policy of the

determining authority in Denmark was to return Syrian applicants, and this was endorsed by the

Danish Refugees Appeals Board. The Council of State noted that the State Secretary did not

conduct a further investigation to eliminate any doubts about a possible real risk of refoulement.

Read more in the EUAA Case Law Database.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

After travelling through the EU, perilous journeys continued on the channel between the

continent and the UK, with many persons in need of protection staying in make-shift camps

while waiting for an attempt to cross.²⁶⁶ UNHCR expressed its concerns towards new policy in

the UK in managing applications from people arriving irregularly by the channel, noting that

the proposal to first detain and then either return applicants or transfer them to a third country

would amount to a denial of accessing the UK asylum system for this group of applicants.²⁶⁷

4.1.2. Access to the asylum procedure

4.1.2.1. Access to the asylum procedure in a state of emergency

Following trends from recent years, several Member States along the EU’s

borders introduced special rules to manage mass arrivals and to declare a state

of emergency in specific situations. While the goal of such measures was to

assist the authorities in monitoring and managing inflows and detecting cases of

smuggling, UNHCR, the Council of Europe and civil society organisations

commented on the impact in practice. They warned of the risks for the right to asylum and the

principle of non-refoulement. Through strategic litigation, civil society organisations

challenged these amendments.

The Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens in Estonia was amended, allowing

border guards to return persons entering in an unauthorised manner without an individual

decision and restricting the places where an application for international protection can be

submitted in the case of an emergency due to mass migration.²⁶⁸ Border guards can refuse

applications made at certain locations. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human

Rights expressed her concerns about the legislation, suggesting that the authorities should

ensure that access to the asylum procedure is facilitated even in these cases, for example, by

ensuring the transfer of applicants from the border to the designated areas.²⁶⁹ The

government replied that the legislation was prepared in compliance with the latest ECtHR

case law, and the possibility of immediate returns was closely linked with a person’s behaviour

and the possibility to enter the country through legal entry points.²⁷⁰ UNHCR regretted that the

legislation significantly restricts the possibility to seek asylum for persons who have entered

irregularly.²⁷¹

An amendment was passed in Finland to allow the authorities to centralise the reception of

applicants at the border during an exceptionally high number of arrivals.²⁷² The Council of

Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns as they had for

Estonia,²⁷³ and the Finnish government assured the body that the new law would be applied in

accordance with international and EU laws.²⁷⁴ The Finnish Refugee Advice Centre assessed

that the legislation was not sufficiently precise to define the situation in which the restrictions

could apply.²⁷⁵

Lithuania passed amendments to the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens in 2021, which entered

into force in January 2022. According to this law, during a state of emergency or an extreme

situation due to a mass influx, foreigners may lodge an application for international protection

from abroad within consular posts designated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.²⁷⁶ Throughout

the year, additional amendments were passed to clarify when an application is considered to

be lodged under this procedure, when the Border Guard should still accept applications for

international protection from persons who have crossed the border in an irregular manner,

and circumstances when the application is not accepted.²⁷⁷

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Under an urgent preliminary ruling procedure, the CJEU ruled on legislation introduced in the

summer of 2021 in Lithuania. The court stated that any third-country national or stateless

person has the right to make an application for international protection on the territory of the

state, even if the person stays illegally on the territory. In addition, the court highlighted that

the national legislation is in breach of EU law when it allows to detain an applicant on the sole

ground that the person was staying illegally (see Section 4.6). Despite the ruling, the

Lithuanian Red Cross Society observed that border guards continued to return applicants at

the border, and persons wishing to apply for international protection at the consulate in Minsk,

Belarus could only do so if they already had a valid travel document and a valid document

confirming their legal stay in Belarus. The organisation underlined that according to the border

guard’s daily press releases, 11,211 persons were not allowed to enter the country’s territory

between 1 January and 31 December 2022.²⁷⁸

The state of emergency was extended in Latvia as well, meaning that applicants could not

submit an application for international protection in the administrative territories near the

border, except for official border crossing points or immigration detention facilities. In the case

of a Chechen family who tried to enter Latvia in 2017, the ECtHR ruled in 2022 that they did

not provide sufficient evidence that they had tried to apply for asylum with the Latvian

authorities. The same family had repeatedly tried to apply for international protection in

Lithuania and Poland, and in those cases, the court found violations of the European Charter

of Human Rights (ECHR).

The special conditions to submit an asylum application, which were introduced by the

Hungarian government in May 2020, were extended until 31 December 2023.²⁷⁹ According to

these rules, applicants must submit a declaration of intent to apply for international protection

at a Hungarian embassy in a non-EU country (currently only in Belgrade or Kyiv), which is then

considered by the asylum authority. Infringement procedures launched by the European

Commission in 2020 were still ongoing and a referral to the CJEU was made in July 2021.²⁸⁰

The Council of Europe expressed its concern that 3 years after the Ilias and Ahmed judgment,

the authorities still did not reassess the legal presumption of Serbia being a safe third

country,²⁸¹ which has led to the rejection of declarations of intent to apply for international

protection on the territory of Hungary. UNHCR assessed that these rules “effectively deny

asylum seekers the right to access a fair and efficient asylum procedure”.²⁸² The Hungarian

Helsinki Committee published an information note which analyses national case law related to

the legislation, noting changes in the practice of the National Directorate-General for Aliens

Policing (NDGAP) as well. The organisation observed that the authority had reverted to the

practice of refusing to even accept an application for international protection.²⁸³ In a recent

case, the Budapest Regional Court noted that the rules should only apply on epidemiological

grounds and a visa to submit an asylum application could only be rejected if the persons

wishing to apply for asylum were COVID-19 positive.

Poland passed amendments to its legislation allowing for the immediate rejection of an

application for international protection from persons crossing the border in an irregular

manner.²⁸⁴ Through strategic litigation, the Association for Legal Intervention filed several

court cases, while national courts found that the legislation had no legal basis and was

incompatible with the Polish constitution.²⁸⁵ Three cases were communicated by the ECtHR.²⁸⁶

In one of the cases, R.A. and Others v Poland,²⁸⁷ UNHCR intervened as a third party, recalling

that national authorities have a clear legal obligation to ensure asylum seekers’ access to

territory and to the asylum procedure.²⁸⁸ The Association for Legal Intervention also reported

on increasing violence toward migrants by border guards at the Polish-Belarusian border.²⁸⁹

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.1.2.2. Impact of increasing number of applications for international protection

The majority of EU+ countries were faced with an increasing number of

applications for international protection. In addition, they also had to find

solutions to register persons in need of temporary protection. These events led

to several adjustments in registration and lodging procedures, aiming to

facilitate and accelerate the process. Nonetheless, delays persisted in many

countries, often delaying access to material reception conditions (see Section 4.7).

Due to the extraordinary and disproportionately high number of asylum applications at the

border between Austria and Hungary, the police in Austria changed the registration system.

Unaccompanied minors, families and other vulnerable persons continued to be handled in the

regular scheme. Other applicants were registered and finger-printed at the border. In case of

a Eurodac hit, these applicants were transferred to the first reception centres. For others, the

Regional Police Directorates in the provinces were responsible for conducting the first

interviews. Applicants were provided with temporary accommodation during this period.²⁹⁰

An important improvement evolved in access to the procedure in Bulgaria for ‘self-reporting

asylum seekers’ who entered Bulgaria undetected by the police. As of 2022, these third-

country nationals can appear on their own directly at a reception centre of the State Agency

for Refugees and apply for protection, while in the past they would be directed to the police

where they would be subject to detention.²⁹¹

In October 2022, France established a new branch office of the Office for the Protection of

Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) in Mayotte to lodge applications for international

protection.²⁹²

In November 2022, the French Council of State dismissed a request for urgent interim

measures concerning 234 persons disembarked from the ship Ocean Viking in Toulon. The

council judged that the disembarkation process happened according to the law, civil society

organisations had access to a designated temporary waiting zone after a few hours,

OFPRA swiftly conducted interviews and 66 asylum applicants were allowed to enter the

French territory, and the judiciary annulled detention for the majority of people. Forum

Refugiés-Cosi provided their overview of the events and noted some elements in the process

which, in their view, would require more clarity in the future, especially in the relocation of

applicants to other Member States.²⁹³

In the Netherlands, authorities introduced measures to continue processing cases despite

significant challenges in reception capacity. This resulted in the timely registration of

applications, even though applicants had to remain in emergency or crisis reception

facilities.²⁹⁴ Afghans arriving in the Netherlands through evacuation processes were quickly

registered and given access to the asylum procedure.²⁹⁵ Family members joining relatives

who were recognised as beneficiaries of international protection and did not require

accommodation were registered (by appointment) in Zevenaar since December 2021, thus

alleviating pressure on registration capacity in Ter Apel.²⁹⁶

In order to streamline the procedure, Slovenia adopted amendments to the rules on the

procedure for foreigners who wish to apply for international protection and on the procedure

for accepting applications for international protection, which came into force in October 2022.

The amended rules include the obligation to inform a foreigner about the possibility of

applying for international protection when there is an indication of such a need, and the

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

written statement on the reasons for applying for international protection is no longer required

in the preliminary procedure.²⁹⁷

On 19 January 2022, the Brussels first instance tribunal ordered the Belgian state to end the

impossibility for applicants to register their application for international protection and stated

that Fedasil should have foreseen appropriate structures to accommodate an increasing

number of applicants (see Section 4.7). Minors, families with children and particularly

vulnerable applicants were given priority and allowed to enter in order to apply for asylum and

receive a reception place. Many of the single men were refused access to the asylum

procedure and requested to return on an unspecified date.²⁹⁸ At the end of 2022, civil society

organisations estimated that there were 3,000 persons who had not been offered

reception.²⁹⁹

The ECtHR indicated interim measures in five cases throughout 2022, concerning

approximately 600 persons, and ordered Belgium to provide material reception conditions to

these applicants. As the particular issue of delays in accessing registration was not raised, the

court did not address these delays.³⁰⁰ By 31 January 2023, the court had taken 1,132 interim

measures concerning 1,133 asylum seekers.³⁰¹ In order to alleviate the pressure on the arrival

centre, the registration process was reorganised and applicants were required to report again

directly to the Immigration Office in the Pacheco building instead of the arrival centre.³⁰²

Efforts to recruit staff continued in general, including registration staff. While ensuring

adequate reception for applicants remained a salient issue throughout 2022 and the

beginning of 2023, by the end of 2022, the Immigration Office managed to register all

applicants on the day of requesting international protection.

The Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland (MASI) expressed alarm at the delays in

accessing the asylum procedure after people declared that they are seeking international

protection.³⁰³ This situation persisted for a number of months, and the Irish Refugee Council

called for clarity and action on the registration of applications for international protection.³⁰⁴ In

an effort to speed up procedures, Irish authorities, with assistance from UNHCR, took steps to

shorten the initial questionnaire and simplified the language to make the process more

accessible in 2021. The initial questionnaire could also be submitted electronically, and further

action was being taken to translate the document into additional languages. At the end of

2022, a new procedure was introduced to accelerate the application process. Applicants in

reception complete a preliminary interview, an application for international protection and a

new questionnaire with the help of interpreters and cultural mediators.³⁰⁵

Several Italian civil society organisations reported on persisting barriers in accessing the

asylum procedure in various territories of the country.³⁰⁶ In some cases, it was observed that

applicants had to wait several weeks before they could register their application.³⁰⁷ The

Tribunal of Rome ordered the Questura to register the application of an applicant who was

refused access to the premises and was told for several days to return the following day as

the daily capacity for registrations had been reached.

4.1.2.3. Online appointment systems for the registration of applications for

international protection

Circular 5049/2022 introduced a new registration procedure for first-time

applicants in Greece. The Skype service was discontinued, and instead

applicants could make an appointment through an online platform either in

Thessaloniki or Attica. Applicants undergo a reception and identification

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

procedure in a Reception and Identification Centre (RIC) or a Closed Controlled Access Centre

(CCAC), and they are required to stay in the facility throughout this process, for a maximum of

25 days.³⁰⁸ Civil society organisations observed that this period was often longer in practice

as a 5-day quarantine period applied (see Section 4.7) and noted that this practice was de

facto detention (see Section 4.8).³⁰⁹ Civil society organisations also observed several barriers

in accessing the asylum procedure for subsequent applicants or for applicants coming from a

safe third country (see Sections 2 and 4.3).^{310, 311}

The Spanish Jesuit Refugee Service,³¹² Convive-Fundación Cepaim³¹³ and CEAR³¹⁴ in Spain

observed issues in accessing the asylum procedure since the establishment of an online

appointment system for the registration of applications. Appointments were often available

only after several weeks, and many applicants had difficulties in navigating the website, which

was available only in Spanish.³¹⁵ SOS Racism reported on a technical failure which resulted in

appointment requests getting lost.³¹⁶ UNHCR reiterated its concern about accessing the

asylum procedure.³¹⁷ The Spanish Ombudsperson underlined the impact these delays had on

associated rights for applicants, such as access to housing, medical care, psychosocial

support and other social benefits.³¹⁸

4.1.3. Data on applications for international protection

Nearly a million applications lodged across EU+ countries

About 996,000 applications for international protection were lodged in

EU+ countries in 2022, up by about one-half from 2021 and two-fifths higher

than the pre-COVID level of 2019. More applications were lodged in nearly all

EU+ countries, except in Malta, Lithuania and Liechtenstein (where they

decreased), as well as Latvia (where they remained stable).

While the EU+ total remained well below the high of 2015, the number of

applications exceeded 2015 values in several countries. In fact, as illustrated in Figure 1,

France, Spain, Austria and, at lower levels, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Ireland, Croatia, Romania,

Slovenia, Iceland, Estonia, Portugal and Latvia (in descending order) received the most

applications on record.^{x, xi} In many others, notably the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and,

at lower levels, Poland, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Slovakia (in descending order), the

most applications since at least 2016 were recorded. The rise in applications came in addition

to about 3.9 million beneficiaries of temporary protection, as reported by Eurostat.^xii

As in previous years, 7 in 10 applicants (71%) were male in 2022, with their share remaining

stable compared to 2021. Applicants aged 18-34 years, predominantly men, accounted for

^x Since at least 2008 (except for Croatia, for which data are available since 2013). According to Eurostat data,

Bulgaria had the same number of applications in 2022 and 2015. However, national statistics indicate that the

number in 2022 was marginally higher. Source: State Agency for Refugees at the Council of Ministers |

Държавната агенция за бежанците при Министерския съвет. (2023). Информация за броя лица, подали

молба за международна закрила и броя на взетите решения в периода 1993 - 2022 г [Information on the

number of persons applying for international protection and the number of decisions taken between 1993 and

2022]. https://aref.government.bg/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/2023-01/Applications-Decisions-1993-2022 -

bulg_12.xlsx

^xi Annual data were missing for Iceland. The annual total was estimated using the sum of monthly data

(Eurostat: migr_asyappctzm as of 13 April 2023).

^xii Based on beneficiaries of temporary protection at the end of December 2022 (Eurostat: migr_asytpsm as of

13 April 2023).

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

more than one-half of all applicants in 2022, while one-quarter were younger than 18. Only

one-fifth of all applicants were older than 35. The distribution of applicants by age group was

similar to previous years, with men accounting for the majority in each age group except

among applicants aged over 65.

Across EU+ countries, 7 out of every 10 applications were lodged in the Top 5 receiving

countries - namely Germany, France, Spain, Austria and Italy (in descending order).

Germany (244,000) continued to be the main receiving country, with applications increasing

by more than one-quarter from 2021, to the highest level since 2016. It was followed at a

distance by France (156,000), where applications rose by 30% from 2021 and reached the

most since at least 2008. Applications lodged in Spain (118,000) increased by about four-fifths,

following a decline in the 2 previous years.

Applications in Austria (109,000) rose the most in absolute terms, nearly tripling from 2021.

This was partially driven by stronger secondary movements, increased flows along the Balkan

route and visa-free policies of some Western Balkan countries. Linked to this, applications in

Bulgaria (20,000) returned to the peak of 2015 and were the highest on record in Romania

(12,000).

All-time highest number of applications in 13 EU+ countries

Figure 1. Applications for international protection by EU+ country, 2022

250,000

The most applications since at least:

200,000

▲ 2008

 2016

150,000

100,000

50,000

Note: Annual data were missing for Iceland. The annual total was calculated as the sum of monthly applications.

Source: Eurostat [migr_asyappctza, migr_asyappctzm for Iceland] as of 13 April 2023.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Nationals of Syria, Afghanistan, Türkiye, Venezuela and Colombia lodged the most

applications in 2022. While the record levels of 2015 and 2016 were primarily driven by

applications for international protection by persons coming from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq,

the current increase stems from a much wider range of nationalities (see Figure 2).

In 2015 and 2016, applicants from Syria accounted for more than one-quarter of all

applications, whereas in 2022 they represented one-seventh. In fact, in 2022, the number of

applications by nationals of Syria and Afghanistan were the highest since 2016, while for

several other groups - including nationals of Türkiye, Venezuela and Colombia - they were

the highest on record. The number of applicants from Türkiye more than doubled from 2021,

while applicants from Venezuela and Colombia increased by about three times each.

At lower levels, the number of applicants from India increased by more than six times to the

highest level since at least 2008, with three-quarters of them applying in Austria. At the same

time, citizens of Bangladesh, Georgia, Ukraine, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Peru, Moldova, Burundi, Palestine, Belarus, Yemen and Cuba

(in descending order) also applied in unprecedented numbers.^xiii

Syrians and Afghans lodged the most applications since 2016

Figure 2. Applications for international protection by top countries of origin, 2022

Syria

Afghanistan

Türkiye

Venezuela

Colombia

Other

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Note: Data were missing for Iceland. The annual total was calculated as the sum of monthly applications which is

included as part of the ‘other’ citizenships.

Source: Eurostat [migr_asyappctza, migr_asyappctzm for Iceland] as of 13 April 2023.

^xiii Only citizenships with at least 3,000 applications were considered.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In 2022, the largest corridors of applicants and receiving countries consisted of nationals of

Syria and Afghanistan applying for international protection in Germany, as well as applicants

from Venezuela and Colombia lodging applications in Spain. For the latter two citizenships,

Spain received the overwhelming majority of applications, while Germany and Austria

received the highest number of applications from citizens of both Syria and Afghanistan.

Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, asylum applications by citizens of

Ukraine temporarily peaked in March 2022, then stabilised at lower levels as most of those

fleeing the country began to register for temporary protection.

4.1.3.1. Applications for asylum and detected illegal border-crossings

In 2022, around 331,000 illegal border-crossings (IBCs) were detected at the EU’s external

borders, according to Frontex.^xiv This is the highest number since 2016 and an increase of

two-thirds from the previous year. There were about three times as many asylum applications

lodged in EU+ countries than detections of IBCs on entry. The ratio was similar to 2021,

although at much higher levels.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the two indicators have followed broadly similar fluctuations: after

the pandemic-induced lows of 2020, both have been on the rise for 2 consecutive years.

Nonetheless, applications have been rising at a slightly faster pace than detections, leading to

a growing gap. In the last months of 2022, the gap widened significantly, due to a marked

increase in applications.

Far more asylum applications were lodged than detected

illegal border-crossings

Figure 3. Monthly asylum applications and detections of IBCs in EU+ countries, 2018-2022

Asylum applications

Illegal border-crossing detections (IBCs)

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Source: Eurostat [migr_asyappctza] as of 13 April 2023 and Frontex [Detections of illegal border-crossings] as of

3 April 2023.

^xiv Separately, almost 13 million Ukrainian refugees were counted on entry at the EU's external land borders from

Ukraine and Moldova between 24 February 2022 until the end of 2022, which are not included in these figures.

In the same period, 10 million Ukrainian nationals were reported on exit at the same border sections.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

The overall picture hides some important differences. In some countries located along specific

routes, detections outnumbered applications. This was the case along the two main routes for

2022, namely the Western Balkan route and the Central Mediterranean route. There can be

multiple explanations for such differences. For example, Hungarian legislation has continued

to limit access to the asylum procedure.^xv Furthermore, certain countries along these routes,

such as Croatia, Greece and Italy, were important transit countries for secondary movements.

It is thus possible that many of those detected at these borders have subsequently engaged

in onward journeys. Finally, detections at the border may comprise repeated attempts, and

therefore, the same person may be counted more than once.

Situation along the Western Balkan route

In 2022, there were 144,000 IBC detections reported on the Western Balkan route, 134% more

than in 2021. Overall, in the countries located along the Western Balkan route, more than

three times as many IBCs were detected than asylum applications lodged in 2022. As

illustrated in Figure 4, detected IBCs followed an upward trend between March (7,300) and

October (19,300).

Detections of illegal border-crossings outpaced asylum

applications in countries along the Western Balkan route

Figure 4. Monthly asylum applications and detections of IBCs along the Western Balkan

route, 2022

Bulgaria

Croatia

Hungary

Romania

IBCs - Western Balkan Route

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Source: Eurostat [migr_asyappctza] as of 13 April 2023 and Frontex [Detections of illegal border-crossings] as of

3 April 2023.

^xv Article 268 of the decree promulgated by the Hungarian government (Act LVIII of 2020) stipulates that individuals

must express their intent to seek asylum at a Hungarian embassy located in neighbouring, non-EU states and

prescribes the immediate removal from the territory of any person who crosses the border unlawfully, including

individuals who express an intent to seek asylum.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Applications for international protection spiked in Romania in March 2022, as many Ukrainian

nationals applied for asylum prior to the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive.

Otherwise, applications lagged behind IBCs and began to increase more notably around July

2022, peaking at 5,400 in October 2022.

More than one-half of IBCs detected along this route involved citizens of Syria (80,000), while

citizens of Afghanistan (23,000) accounted for another one-sixth. These two citizenships were

the main nationalities driving the increase in 2022. In terms of applications for international

protection, the top two nationalities were also Syrians and Afghans, who accounted for just

over two-fifths of applications lodged in the countries along this route.

At lower levels, detections of persons from Türkiye (8,800), India (7,000), Tunisia (6,800),

Morocco (3,100) and Burundi (2,300) reached unprecedented levels, while Pakistanis (6,400)

and Iraqis (1,900) were detected the most since 2015 and 2016, respectively.^xvi The sudden

rises for Turks, Indians, Tunisians and Burundians along this route were linked to the visa

policy in Serbia, which allows these citizenships visa-free entry, in contrast with the visa

regime of EU+ countries. Citizens of Iraq (3,300), Türkiye (2,100), Burundi (2,000),

Morocco (1,900), India (1,600) and Pakistan (1,100) were also among the main nationalities

applying for international protection in the countries along the Western Balkan route.

Under pressure from the EU, Western Balkan countries withdrew visa exemptions for a range

of nationalities towards the end of 2022. As a result, IBCs detected along the Western Balkan

route declined (see Figure 4) and asylum applications, which typically respond with a lag, also

reversed their upward trend.^xvii

Situation along the Mediterranean routes

The number of detections in the Central Mediterranean route rose by more

than one-half to about 106,000 in 2022, making it the second-most important

route after the Western Balkan one. For the third consecutive year, detections

of IBCs along the Central Mediterranean route outnumbered asylum

applications in Italy and Malta, the two countries along this route. While asylum

applications lodged in Malta were lower than in the previous year, applications in Italy

increased by over one-half in 2022. Illegal arrivals surged in May 2022 and increased further

in July and August 2022 (see left side of Figure 5), and then asylum applications began to rise

in August 2022, albeit at a slower pace. The overall gap was largely due to many more

Afghans, Egyptians, Ivorians, Tunisians and Syrians detected at the border than lodging

asylum applications.

In 2022, about 44,000 IBCs were detected on the Eastern Mediterranean route. Figures

more than doubled compared with 2021, yet remained below the level of 2019 by one-half.

Nationals of Syria (8,600), Afghanistan (5,100), Nigeria (3,900) and the Democratic Republic of

Congo (3,800) were the top groups, all detected in far higher numbers than in 2021. As in

previous years and as illustrated on the right side of Figure 5, more asylum applications were

lodged in countries along this route than IBCs detected. Compared to 2021, the gap narrowed

as IBCs more than doubled, while applications increased by about one-half. The increase in

applications was driven by more applications in all three countries, however due to its

^xvi Only citizenships with more than 1,000 detections of IBCs along the Western Balkan route in 2022 were

considered. Unprecedented levels imply that the number recorded in 2022 was the highest in publicly-available

data from Frontex, i.e. since 2009.

^xvii Schengenvisa, Serbia Reintroduces Visas for Tunisia & Burundi Nationals Due to EU Pressure, 24 October 2022.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

geographic location, asylum applications in Bulgaria are likely to have been influenced by

developments along the Western Balkan route too.

Rise in illegal border-crossings along the Central

Mediterranean route triggered increase in asylum applications

Figure 5. Monthly asylum applications and detections of IBCs along the Central

Mediterranean route (left) and the Eastern Mediterranean route (right), 2022

Bulgaria

Malta

Cyprus

Italy

Greece

IBCs - Central Mediterranean Route

IBCs - Eastern Mediterranean Route

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Source: Eurostat [migr_asyappctza] as of 17 March 2023 and Frontex [Detections of illegal border-crossings] as of

3 April 2023.

Contrasting with the other two Mediterranean routes, there was a decrease in migratory

pressure on the Western Mediterranean route. There were 15,000 IBC detections in 2022

along this route, representing around one-fifth fewer detections than in the previous year.

Western African route

Similarly, on the Western African route, there were 15,000 arrivals in 2022,

which was 31% less than in 2021. As in previous years, most detections along

the Western Mediterranean and Western African routes related to persons from

Africa, although along the Western Mediterranean route they were detected in

fewer numbers in 2022.

The lower number of arrivals from Africa was also reflected in fewer asylum applications in

Spain lodged by nationals of African countries. This decrease in applications, however, was

outweighed by increases in applications from other nationalities, mainly Venezuelans and

Colombians. In fact, total asylum applications in Spain increased significantly in 2022 and

were the highest on record.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.1.3.2. Data on socioeconomic indicators to analyse trends in asylum in Europe

The impact of the inflows of asylum seekers to EU+ countries depends not only

on the magnitude of asylum applications but also on various factors, such as the

country’s GDP, population size or territory size. To gauge the pressure on

national asylum and reception systems, Figure 6 ranks EU+ countries according

to the number of applications they received relative to these three indicators.

Countries shaded in blue received fewer applications than the EU+ baseline, while those

shaded in red received more.

For 2022, the strain on individual EU+ countries must be taken in a wider context given the

high number of persons registered for temporary protection. Countries such as Poland and

Czechia rank low in terms of the indicators presented in Figure 6, yet had the second- and

third-highest number of beneficiaries of temporary protection in EU+ countries by the end of

2022, respectively, implying that their reception systems may be under a different form of

strain.^xviii

In Figure 6, countries are listed in decreasing order based on applications relative to

population size (middle circle), with Cyprus topping the list with about 2,500 applications per

100,000 inhabitants in 2022. Austria and Iceland followed closely behind, with

1,200 applications lodged per 100,000 inhabitants each, while Luxembourg received

379 applications per 100,000 inhabitants.^xix Other countries still received relatively high

numbers of applications, ranging from Greece, Croatia, Slovenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany,

Switzerland, Ireland, Malta and Spain (in descending order).

On average, about 216 applications per 100,000 inhabitants were lodged across

EU+ countries in 2022, with 15 of the 31 EU+ countries receiving fewer applications per

100,000 inhabitants. The countries which received the least asylum applications per capita

were Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia (less than 1, 10 and 16 applications per 100,000 citizens,

respectively).

Relative to the territorial size of countries, most applications continued to be lodged in Malta (4

per square km). At quite some distance, other countries with relatively high ratios of

applications per territorial area included Cyprus, Austria and Belgium (inner circle in Figure 6).

Looking at the EU+ as a whole, 0.2 applications were lodged per square km.

GDP is a measure of a nation's economic output and it provides insight into the size and

strength of its economy. As in previous years, Cyprus (82) received the most applications

relative to GDP. It was followed by Austria and Bulgaria, with about 24 applications each, a

consequence of the surge in applications in both countries from the previous year. Hungary,

Slovakia and Czechia were at the other end of the spectrum (in ascending order, outer circle

in Figure 6).

xviii

Based on the number of beneficiaries of temporary protection at the end of December 2022

(Eurostat: migr_asytpsm).

^xix Annual data were missing for Iceland. The annual total was estimated using the sum of monthly data

(Eurostat: migr_asyappctzm as of 13 April 2023).

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In relative terms, most applications were received in Cyprus

Figure 6. Applications for international protection relative to GDP, population and country

size, 2022

by GDP (per million euro)

by population size (per capita)

by country size (per km²)

EU+

Low

High

baseline

Notes: Countries are sorted by the number of applications received relative to population size (clockwise from

highest to lowest). The shades indicate the relative number of applications received compared to the EU+ baseline

(midpoint) for each of the three indicators. Data on GDP for Liechtenstein refer to 2020.

Source: Eurostat for asylum applications [migr_asyappctza and migr_asyappctzm for Iceland] as of 13 April 2023,

population [demo_pjan] as of 4 April 2023 and GDP [nama_10_gdp] as of 19 April 2023, and the World Bank

[AG.SRF.TOTL.K2] as of 1 March 2023.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Section 4.2.

The Dublin

procedure

To achieve these objectives, the Dublin III

Regulation establishes a set of hierarchical

The Dublin III Regulation is the

criteria under Chapter III to determine the

cornerstone of CEAS which

aims to define a clear and

Member State which is responsible for the

examination of an asylum application. These

workable method to determine

which Member State is

include:

responsible for the examination

Criteria to protect family unity and

of an application for

unaccompanied minors (Articles 8-11 and

international protection. Its

16);

objective is to guarantee that

Criteria on the responsibility of the

each person has effective

Member State which played the greatest

access to the asylum procedure

part in the applicant’s entry into or

and that each application will be

residence in the country (Articles 12-15);

examined by one Member State

and

only.

If the first two do not apply, the

responsible Member State is the one

where an application for international

protection was first lodged.

Member States may also assume

responsibility based on the discretionary

clauses of the regulation.

The Dublin III Regulation is applied by all

EU Member States and four associated

countries (Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and

Switzerland). Throughout this section, the

term Member States covers the associated

countries as well.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Developments towards a new solidarity mechanism to complement the Dublin system

continued at the EU level in 2022. The Solidarity Declaration was signed by 18 Member States

and 3 associated countries under the French Presidency of the Council of the EU in

June 2022, establishing a one-year Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism coordinated by the

European Commission. The agreement would ensure adequate support to Member States of

first entry along the Mediterranean and Atlantic routes and take into account the pressure on

all Member States due to increased arrivals as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.³¹⁹

This temporary mechanism is also seen as an opportunity to pave the way for discussions for

a more permanent solution under the proposed Asylum and Migration Management

Regulation.³²⁰ Member States underlined their commitment to tackle the secondary movement

of persons seeking protection by increasing the implementation of Dublin transfers.³²¹

In addition, the Council adopted the negotiating mandate on the proposed Eurodac and

Screening Regulations, which helps to better follow the paths of applicants for international

protection and persons in irregular situations (see Section 2).

Under the current EU legal framework, Member States, the European Commission and the

EUAA developed a roadmap in 2022 to improve the implementation of transfers under the

Dublin III Regulation, and Member States started to apply the practical solutions defined in the

roadmap to overcome the main obstacles in executing transfers in 2023.³²²

At the national level, Member States continued with their efforts to carry out Dublin transfers

more efficiently. One of the main issues for Dublin units in 2022 was the lack of staff and high

turnover rates, making it more challenging to address the increasing workload. While

COVID-19 restrictions were gradually lifted in 2022 (with Member States no longer requiring a

negative PCR test or proof of vaccination prior to a Dublin transfer), the impact of the

pandemic lingered on. Organising transfers continued to be challenging with fewer flights and

frequent last-minute cancellations of flights.

The war in Ukraine impacted national Dublin units in various manners. For example, Dublin

case officers were re-assigned to support the arrival of persons in need of temporary

protection. The lack of resources in terms of staff or reception places led to situations where

certain countries did not temporarily accept incoming Dublin transfers. The interlinkage

between the Dublin III Regulation and the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive

needed to be clarified, and it was established that persons with temporary protection should

not be considered as applicants for international protection in this context and their data

should not be registered in Eurodac.

Courts continued to assess the possibility of implementing Dublin transfers in individual cases

and were faced with questions on the scope and limits of mutual trust between EU+ countries,

the impact of differences in asylum policies, concerns around accessing the asylum procedure

for applicants transferred under the Dublin III Regulation to the responsible Member State and

their reception conditions, as well as the use of detention in the context of the asylum

procedure.

The CJEU delivered several preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the Dublin III

Regulation, requiring Member States to adapt their legislation and policies accordingly. This

was seen, for example, in case C-19/21 in which the court clarified that unaccompanied minors

have the right to appeal a rejected take charge request.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.2.1. Institutional and staff changes to manage the

Dublin procedure

The workload for Dublin units typically increased throughout 2022, as the

number of applications for international protection significantly grew in

general (see Section 4.1.3). Several national authorities, for example in Austria,

Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Norway, Romania and Switzerland, noted

that a shortage of staff was one of the main challenges in 2022 to manage

the increasing workload related to Dublin cases. The recruitment of new staff

continued (for example in Belgium, Germany, Norway and Sweden), while staff turnover was

highlighted as a significant challenge in Czechia, Finland, France and Malta.

Staff from Dublin units were often temporarily re-assigned to help with the registration of

persons requesting temporary protection in spring 2022, for example in Bulgaria,

Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland. In Member States next to Ukraine,

Dublin transfers were temporarily halted due to the general situation in asylum and reception,

and Dublin staff were re-assigned to other tasks for longer periods. In Bulgaria, the re-

assignment of staff created a temporary backlog in ongoing Dublin cases. In Switzerland,

there were general delays in the asylum procedure (including the Dublin procedure) caused

by both the increase in applications in general and the workload related to temporary

protection. The daily tasks of Dublin units seemed to have been less impacted by the

activation of the Temporary Protection Directive in the last quarter of 2022.

In Ireland, a specific division within the Dublin unit was established in March 2022 in order to

examine applications pursuant to Article 17.

4.2.2. Policy changes for a more efficient

implementation of the Dublin procedure

Members States continued to face several challenges in the implementation

of Dublin transfers in 2022. In addition to the EU-level initiative of a

roadmap,³²³ some countries undertook actions at the national level to

improve the implementation of Dublin transfers. In March 2023, seven

countries - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands

and Switzerland - called for strengthened cooperation on the Dublin

procedure and reaffirmed their commitment to reform the Dublin system through the Asylum

and Migration Management Regulation and the Asylum Procedure Regulation.³²⁴ Policy

changes on the Dublin procedure were triggered by the increase in applications for

international protection and the arrival of Ukrainians in need of protection.

Belgium, for example, applied comprehensive measures to shorten the time of the Dublin

procedure and increase transfer rates. The accelerated procedure for specific, predefined

potential Dublin cases was revised. A new reception facility opened in August 2022 to

accommodate a group of applicants in the Dublin procedure, in parallel to the regular

reception system. Case officers from Dublin units are on site at the reception centre to carry

out Dublin interviews and follow-up on cases after a transfer decision has been issued. The

centre is operated by the Immigration Office, in collaboration with Fedasil, with a capacity of

220 places, but not all places could be used in 2022 due to staff shortages.

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In the Netherlands, the Minister for Migration announced that the Track 1 procedure, which

was established for applicants in the Dublin procedure, would be standardised and made

more efficient as part of general mitigation measures to alleviate pressure on the asylum

system. In addition, the government planned changes so that applicants in the Dublin

procedure would be offered more moderate material reception conditions, in line with shorter

processing times which are foreseen, thus limiting the time and purpose of a stay in

reception.³²⁵

The Dutch asylum chain partners conducted a successful one-time joint action. While usually

one detention order per day is handed down, the cooperation between the different

stakeholders made it possible to implement detention orders for nine applicants at the same

time. The applicants had registered again in the application centre, after having been in the

Dublin procedure in the Netherlands and absconding before the implementation of the

transfer.³²⁶ While authorities have focused on improving the implementation of transfers, the

Regional Court of The Hague underlined that a transfer cannot be initiated and scheduled

while the case is pending an appeal or a review.

Some countries issued or revised various types of guidance and instructions related to the

Dublin procedure. In Bulgaria, in June 2022 the government adopted amendments to the

ordinance regulating coordination between the asylum and police (border and immigration)

administrations when implementing the Dublin III Regulation.³²⁷ The amendments updated and

clarified the division of responsibilities among these authorities.

In Italy, the Ministry of the Interior published a new circular in January 2022 which clarified the

connection between an application for a special protection permit (a national form of

protection established in 2020)³²⁸ and the Dublin procedure. Based on the opinion of the

Dublin unit, the commission underlined that the application for special protection should be

considered inadmissible if the person has also applied for international protection and has

been waiting for the Dublin unit’s decision on the Member State which is responsible or the

court’s decision in an appeal against a transfer decision.³²⁹ On 20 October 2022, the Civil

Court of Venice ruled that the practice, based on a note distributed by the Dublin unit, to

prevent applicants for international protection in the Dublin procedure from applying for the

special protection permit (a national form of protection, see Section 4.14) contradicts the law.

The Norwegian Immigration Regulations were amended to define which categories of

applicants can be given ‘collective protection’ (which is similar to temporary protection in the

EU legal framework). The Ministry of Justice and Public Security followed up with guidelines to

clarify that the Dublin III Regulation did not apply to people under collective protection.

Slovakia adopted a provision in its national legislation on the suspension of a transfer decision

when a third-country national under the Dublin procedure absconds.³³⁰

In France, the Council of State analysed the right to material reception conditions for

applicants who refused to appear for their Dublin transfer to the Member State responsible. It

ruled that this act can be considered as a serious breach of house rules, entailing the

withdrawal of the reception place and the applicant’s expulsion from the facility (see

Section 4.7 Reception of applicants for international protection).

In contrast, the Belgian Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) ruled that a similar failure to

appear for an interview for a voluntary transfer does not necessarily imply that the applicant

tried to evade the authorities. The case concerned an applicant who could not be contacted

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

by police on two consecutive days at his place of residence. CALL cited its case law that

accepting a voluntary transfer would mean that the applicant no longer wants to appeal the

transfer decision, so his behaviour does not necessarily mean that he deliberately tried to

evade the authorities. As a result, the council concluded that this cannot be considered as

absconding and cancelled the extension of the transfer time limit.³³¹

The CJEU ruled that a Dublin transfer cannot be implemented during the reflection period

provided to victims of human trafficking by Directive 2004/81/EC. However, a transfer decision

may be adopted and preparatory measures can be undertaken during this period, provided

that these do not render the reflection period ineffective (see Section 2.6).

Courts examined the legality of measures used by national authorities to use detention to

ensure the implementation of a Dublin transfer when there is a risk of absconding (see

Section 4.8). For example, the Slovenian Supreme Court found that there was a genuine and

immediate risk of absconding by an applicant who was supposed to be transferred back to

Romania but expressed several times that his intended final destination was Austria.

In another case, the same court confirmed that the authorities may first order the detention of

an applicant and then start the administrative procedure to request a response from the

Member State responsible for the applicant’s readmission. The Swiss Federal Court concluded

that the requirements and timelines laid down in the Dublin III Regulation, Article 28, as

interpreted by the CJEU, take precedence over national legislation when it is not compatible

with the regulation. Thus, the applicant could be detained for only 6 weeks, and the extension

of the detention for 3 months was illegal.

For the purposes of extending the transfer time limit under the Dublin III Regulation,

Article 29(2), the CJEU confirmed that the non-voluntary committal of an applicant to a hospital

psychiatric department is not considered to be imprisonment (see Sections 2.6 and 4.8).

Regarding the responsibility of a state for a family member, the Supreme Administrative Court

in Austria clarified in December 2022 that a Member State is responsible for examining an

application for international protection when applying Article 9 of the Dublin III Regulation if

the request for reunification is expressed in writing. The article refers to family members of an

applicant - regardless of whether the family already existed in the country of origin - who is a

beneficiary of international protection and has the right to reside in a Member State. This

regulation not only allows the persons (the applicant and the beneficiary of international

protection) to have a say but gives them the power to decide whether they want to be

reunited, ruling out the possibility that people are brought together against their will. Within

the framework of the right to information, the applicant must be informed of the requirement

of this declaration (Dublin III Regulation, Article 4(1b-c)), and in the event of such a request by

the applicant, it must be verified that the beneficiary of international protection agrees to a

reunification. (VwGH Decision, 15.12.2022, Ra 2022/18/0182).

4.2.3. Practical implementation of Dublin transfers

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic

While the direct impact of the COVID-19 pandemic became less significant, there were still

less flights available in general, making it more difficult to organise transfers. At times, the

delays resulted in the courts stepping in to assess practices and their alignment with

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

legislation. In 2022, the CJEU settled that the suspension of a Dublin transfer decision due to

the COVID-19 pandemic does not interrupt the 6-month time limit to transfer an applicant to

the responsible Member State (see Section 2.6).

COVID-19 testing requirements for Dublin transfers remained in some countries at the

beginning of 2022, but were typically lifted afterwards. As in 2020 and 2021, EU+ countries

faced situations when applicants waiting to be transferred refused to undergo the required

COVID-19 testing. In line with Swiss and Danish legislative changes in 2021, the Dutch

government proposed a bill creating the legal basis for enforced COVID-19 testing at the

beginning of 2022.³³² The Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) noted that lifting

COVID-19 restrictions over the late spring and summer of 2022 made the implementation of

transfers easier, but unrestricted access also meant that applicants could abscond more easily

to avoid a transfer.³³³

Overall length of the Dublin procedure

The overall length of Dublin procedures in 2022 remained of concern, for example in Italy

where ASGI reported that a procedure may take up to 1 year,³³⁴ or in the Netherlands, where

the Dutch Refugee Council observed that the processing time under the Dublin procedure

doubled since 2019.³³⁵

In Bulgaria, the AIDA report noted that when another Member State accepts responsibility, the

outgoing transfer was usually implemented within 5 months on average in practice, and

in 2022, the State Agency for Refugees reported to have reduced the period to 1 month. If an

incoming transfer was being organised, however, the duration of the actual implementation

varied, reaching in the past up to 15 months. In 2022, some reorganisations which were

undertaken by the State Agency for Refugees decreased the implementation of incoming

transfers to 4 months on average.³³⁶

Delays in processing and their impact

The arrival of persons in need of temporary protection from Ukraine had a major impact on the

Dublin system. Next to staff re-allocations affecting the capacity of Dublin units (see

Section 4.2.1), several EU+ countries temporarily suspended receiving incoming transfers,

either all of them or of certain profiles (for example families). In some cases, this led to the

expiration of transfer time limits and, thus, to a shift in the Member State responsible for the

asylum application.

The Dublin unit in Bulgaria faced significant IT challenges in spring 2022. In addition to other

Bulgarian public institutions, the State Agency for Refugees experienced a major cyberattack

and the agency’s information systems - including DubliNet - were suspended for several

days. While the systems’ security was not affected and no data were leaked, communication

was not possible through DubliNet, resulting in a provisional backlog. The work processes

were soon recovered, and the backlog was swiftly cleared.

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court (FAC) looked into the consequences of a canton not

executing a transfer decision by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) in two appeal cases.

It confirmed that SEM can remove the lump sum subsidy given to a canton for an applicant in

the Dublin procedure when the canton does not implement the transfer without giving any

objective reasons. The court underlined that the cantons do not have the power to re-discuss

a decision or a judgment in force outside of the procedural framework.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

On 2 September 2022, the Civil Court of Rome accepted the urgent appeal submitted by an

asylum seeker whose appeal against a Dublin transfer to Austria had been accepted in 2021

and who, after 1.5 years, was still waiting for Italy’s declaration of having competence to

examine his asylum request. The appeal brought before the Court of Cassation did not have a

suspensive effect and the law does not expressly provide for the possibility of requesting such

a suspension. The Civil Court rejected the arguments presented by the Dublin unit, according

to which the submission of an appeal before the Court of Cassation in the Dublin procedure

would entail the automatic suspension of the procedure itself.

Time limits

The CJEU delivered preliminary rulings in cases of applicants applying for international

protection in more than two Member States. It ruled on the calculation of the transfer time limit

and in which Member State the applicant has access to an effective remedy (see Section 2.6).

The ruling concerned the application of the ‘chain rule’, which is an informal, practical solution

agreed by most (but not all) Member States to facilitate the determination of responsibility in

such cases. In Germany, the Regional Administrative Court of Düsseldorf clarified the time limit

for sending a take back request and confirmed that it is not possible to send the request more

than 3 months after the lodging of the application for international protection, even though this

is done within the 2-month deadline for a Eurodac hit.

The Irish High Court examined the Member State responsible for an applicant who arrived to

Ireland through Belgium, Sweden and the UK. Noting the time limits for take back requests

and for implementing a transfer, the court underlined that at the latest by the end of 2016,

Sweden was responsible for the asylum application and not Belgium, as stated by the

applicant.

Effect of an inadmissibility decision when the transfer time limit has expired

The Supreme Administrative Court in Austria ruled in 2021 (published and commented on in

2022³³⁷) on the expiration of the transfer time limit. It addressed the transfer of responsibility

for an asylum application to Austria and its impact on the inadmissibility decision that was

taken earlier in the case, when the authorities concluded that another Member State should

be responsible for the application. The court confirmed that the applicant did not have to

submit a new application. The inadmissibility decision automatically ceases its effect as soon

as the transfer period expires.

CJEU rulings related to children in the Dublin system

The CJEU delivered two preliminary rulings related to children in the Dublin procedure.

C-720/20 concerned a child born in Germany, whose parents received international protection

in another Member State before the birth of the child. The ruling specified that Article 20(3) of

the Dublin III Regulation cannot be applied to the child since the parents were granted

international protection by another Member State. This situation is governed by Article 9 of

the Dublin III Regulation, which requires the submission of a take charge request and the

explicit written consent of both parties involved. Since written consent had not been

submitted, Article 9 could not be applied, therefore, the responsible Member State must be

determined according to Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation (first country where the person

lodged the request for international protection) (see Sections 2.6 and 4.3.3).

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In C-19/21, the court concluded that an unaccompanied minor should be granted the right to

appeal if the requested Member State refused to take charge of examining the application

when the request was sent on the grounds of Article 8(2) (reuniting an unaccompanied minor

with a relative residing in another Member State) (see Section 2.6). However, the relative of

the child did not have this right to appeal.

As a result, many Member States noted that their, policies or practices needed to be adjusted

following the ruling. For example, amendments are needed in several countries to ensure that

the refusal of a take charge request is considered an administrative decision. The practical

modalities of lodging an appeal when the person is not present in the country where the

appeal is lodged needed to be formalised as well. To this end, several countries foresee

changes so that information on the right to appeal is included in the refusal decision. The role

of a legal guardian or representative in lodging an appeal against a refusal to take charge also

needed to be clarified.

Age determination

The Dutch Council of State reviewed the determination of an applicant’s age for the Dublin

procedure in the case of a person who was registered as minor in the Netherlands. As doubts

remained about the applicant’s age after the age inspections (leeftijdsschouw, undertaken by

three officers from the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), the Royal Military

Police (KMar) and the Aliens Police, Identification and Human Trafficking Department (AVIM)

who spoke separately with the applicant), the council confirmed that the Dublin unit may rely

on the principle of mutual trust and assume that the registration of the age took place with

due care in other Member States. Thus, the applicant can be considered as an adult when the

person has been registered in several Member States with different ages. In addition, the

authorities should consult the source documents in the original registration to conclude the

age when possible.

Assessment of sufficient protection for victims of domestic violence

When assessing the availability of sufficient protection in the country responsible for the

asylum application for a victim of domestic violence, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court

found that it is not relevant whether that country has ratified the Istanbul Convention. The

court examined whether in practice the authorities can and are willing to offer sufficient

protection against the threats of the former husband.

Procedural safeguards

The issue of effective remedy in the Dublin procedure has been the subject of several

CJEU rulings in recent years, and national courts continued to approach the EU court for more

guidance. For example, the Tribunal of Bologna sent two requests to the CJEU for a

preliminary ruling, inquiring about the right to information and a Member State’s duty to hold a

personal interview in light of the right to an effective remedy.

In C-217/22, the court inquired if the applicant can invoke before the courts of the requesting

state the infringement of the duty to provide information and arrange a personal interview in

the Dublin procedure by the requested state.

In C-80/22, the court sought clarity on the consequences of failing to provide the required

information leaflet (according to Article 4(2) of the Dublin III Regulation) or conducting a

personal interview (according to Article 4(2) of the Dublin III Regulation). It questioned if this

Asylum Report 2023 - page 2