EU Asylum Procedures and the Right to an Effective Remedy

Abstract

The harmonisation of rules governing asylum procedures is one of the central tenets of the Common European Asylum System, which commenced in 1999. The initial stage, which included a raft of secondary legislation on asylum procedures, reception conditions, and qualification for refugee status, was characterised by minimum standards across member states. The project was completed in 2012 with a new emphasis on common standards. Directive 2013/32/EU aims to secure common standards in asylum procedures, whereby similar cases are treated alike and result in the same outcome (the UK, Ireland and Denmark have opted out of the recast Directive). This objective is particularly important as it supports the operation of the Dublin Regulation, which dictates that asylum applications should be made and determined in the first EU country of arrival. It is difficult to find fault with the objective of uniform procedures but the scale of the task should not be underestimated. The recognition rate for refugees varies enormously across Europe. According to UNHCR statistics published in 2010, an applicant from Somalia has a 35 per cent chance of being recognised as a refugee in Sweden compared to an 87 per cent chance in Austria.1 The overall refugee recognition rate in 2011 was 66.7 per cent in Finland compared to a mere 4.2 per cent in Ireland.2 Most strikingly, the recognition rate for asylum applicants in Greece was consistently less than 1 per cent.3 Many applicants found themselves at risk of refoulement in expedited procedures without access to adequate legal advice and assistance. Judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in MSS v Belgium and Greece and the Court of Justice in NS v SSHD revealed significant, systemic deficiencies in the Greek asylum system but also raised concern over the operation of a common system predicated on uniform standards.