“We took a historic step today,” Stengard said. The Swede spoke of “great approval” for the two bills. EU Interior Commissioner Ylva Johansson was pleased with the “spirit of solidarity and cooperation” between member states. German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) also called the deal “historic”. Austrian Interior Minister Gerhard Karner (ÖVP) described the result in a public session as a “good step forward”.
The negotiations involved, on the one hand, preliminary checks on the asylum applications of people with little chance of being admitted at the external borders of the EU and, on the other hand, the distribution of asylum seekers. The Swedish Council Presidency’s proposal for border procedures stipulated, for example, that migrants from countries with an average EU recognition rate of less than 20 percent must undergo a preliminary examination of their application.
debate
What does a sensible refugee policy look like?
Fast Track: No exceptions for children
In the future, people arriving from countries deemed safe will be expected to arrive at strictly controlled reception facilities under conditions similar to detention after crossing the border. There must normally be verification within six months whether the applicant has a chance of asylum. Otherwise, it must be returned immediately.
Most refugees – from Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan, for example – should continue to be entitled to normal procedures. Germany has failed to prevail with its demand for humanitarian exceptions to controversial border procedures for families with children.
Possibility of buying free shelter for refugees
On the long-disputed issue of the redistribution of asylum seekers, the motto “mandatory solidarity” rather than “mandatory distribution” should apply in the future. This means that member states that are overwhelmed by the race for their borders must be given help in the form of soldiers. At the same time, it should be possible for states that don’t want to get people to “buy themselves for free”. €20,000 must be paid for each asylum seeker who is not accepted.
In the debate, Karner referred to the high number of asylum applications. The interior minister also stressed several times on Thursday that Austria had already shown solidarity and now increasingly expects solidarity from others. There will have to be more steps, the minister anticipated. Austria, Italy and Greece defended the possibility of working with safe countries outside the EU. Karner didn’t say what that means in concrete terms.
Green light for negotiations with the European Parliament
Reform was not supported at the meeting by the countries of Poland, Hungary, Malta, Slovakia and Bulgaria. After the agreement, the Czech Republic made it clear that it does not want to participate in the solidarity mechanism. Poland and Hungary have made similar statements in the past. However, a sufficiently large majority was achieved.
With the agreement in the Council of 27 EU interior ministers, negotiations with the EU Parliament are expected to start shortly. A compromise for the entire asylum and migration pact, which provides for various regulations, must be reached before the June 2024 European elections.
EU: tough fight over asylum rules
More than 13,000 asylum claims from unaccompanied children have been registered in Austria. How to deal with these young refugees is a topic for the EU’s Council of Interior Ministers. Overall, it is about the question of how asylum seekers in Europe should be divided and whether asylum claims at the external borders can already be pre-examined.
Big fight for agreement
It was not clear during the day whether there would be a vote: the compromise was preceded by tough negotiations. Positions on the two core issues – namely the distribution of asylum seekers and the preliminary examination of asylum applications from people with little chance of being admitted to the EU’s external borders – were at times divergent.
In view of the high number of asylum applications and the upcoming European elections, EU countries have recently seen an urgent need for action. For months, many tried to reach the EU from North Africa via the Mediterranean. According to information from Rome, more than 50,000 people have arrived in Italy by boat since January. Italy and Spain, but also Greece, continue to sound the alarm.
Austria with a particularly high number of asylum applications
In the previous year, Austria was one of the countries most overwhelmed with asylum claims in the EU – the numbers have been decreasing ever since. 112,000 asylum claims were made in Germany in 2022, but many people have moved on and are not included in basic care. Instead, large numbers of Ukrainians who fled the war and have temporary residency (ie, do not need to apply for asylum) were in basic care.
At least since the refugee crisis of 2015 and 2016, it has become clear that the applicable EU asylum rules need to be revised. Countless people arrived in countries such as Greece, which could not handle the influx at the time. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have managed to move to other EU countries without being registered. According to the Dublin Regulation, asylum seekers must be registered in the countries where they first entered the EU. This country is usually also responsible for the asylum application.
Council for Migration with harsh criticism
The EU would stick to its restrictive course on asylum, migration researchers criticized in advance: The Migration Council, to which nearly 200 experts belong, feared the situation would get worse. Research on EU asylum reform measures that have already been implemented in pilot projects shows “that they cannot be implemented in a manner compatible with human rights”, the Council said.
It is to be hoped that the proposals will create more incentives for states at the external borders to carry out even more illegal refusals and detain people seeking protection at the borders. The basic problem with Dublin’s system would also remain, he said.
Border procedures “generally at the expense of the asylum seeker”
Border procedures would be decided “generally at the expense of the asylum seeker”, criticized migration researcher Judith Kohlenberger on Twitter. “Border procedures have a recognition rate five times lower than regular asylum procedures,” continued Kohlenberger.
Migration researcher Florian Trauner agrees with ORF.at. There is a risk of fast-track procedures that “are less thorough in quality and lead to more negative decisions”: “So it can be seen as a step towards a more restrictive EU asylum system”, Trauner said.
The expert also believes that such a rule would be challenged in different courts. In 2013, the European Court of Human Rights declared detention in Maltese transit camps legal for several months, but in other judgments it spoke of “inhumane treatment” of migrants detained awaiting deportation at the EU’s external border, notes Trauner. “So it will depend on what exactly is negotiated, whether such regulation is legally compliant.”
NGOs care about children
Several NGOs were alarmed. Amnesty International Germany and the German Children’s Fund criticize that if children and young people who have fled are also affected by detention or accommodation similar to detention during border procedures, this violates the right to protection from torture and imprisonment enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
“If we are willing to house refugee children in detention camps, we are essentially giving up our European values. Children’s rights, freedom and humanity must not be exchanged for political negotiations,” said Marvin McNeil of Save the Children Germany.
Criticism of requests for asylum procedures in third countries
There were also criticisms of asylum centers and asylum procedures in safe third countries that Austria has repeatedly called for: the transfer of asylum procedures to third countries based on the British model is not compatible with human rights, the human rights commissioner recently warned. of the UN, Volker Türk.
Over the past 20 years, EU politicians have repeatedly called for EU asylum procedures to be outsourced, notes migration researcher Trauner. In view of the resistance of third countries, this is politically unfeasible. In addition, there are “difficult administrative and human rights issues that have yet to be resolved,” Trauner said.