Abstract
AbstractThe Common European Asylum System (CEAS) seeks to harmonize national asylum procedures. The initial implementation design of the CEAS, reflective of the theory of executive federalism, foresaw that national authorities were to conduct asylum processing and implement the harmonized norms. The implementation design of the EU asylum policy has, nevertheless, started to shift. An integrated European administration is emerging. One area this is pronounced in is asylum decision-making, where patterns of joint implementation have surfaced. This term broadly refers to staff and experts deployed by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), an EU agency, working alongside national administrators, including on the processing of asylum claims. This Article scrutinizes the emergence of joint implementation patterns in EU asylum policy and the resulting accountability challenge, drawing both from legal analysis and political science theories. I also refer to administrative practice as documented in secondary sources. EASO is currently subject to a mosaic of accountability processes. Two main pitfalls emerge: the intricate balance between accountability and independence; and accessibility for the individual. Against this backdrop, I focus on extra-judicial accountability through the European Ombudsman which, combined with the envisaged internal “individual complaints mechanism” within EASO, could go some way in ensuring applicants’ procedural rights.
Highlights
The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) seeks to harmonize national asylum procedures
An integrated European administration is emerging. One area this is pronounced in is asylum decision-making, where patterns of joint implementation have surfaced. This term broadly refers to staff and experts deployed by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), an EU agency, working alongside national administrators, including on the processing of asylum claims
This Article scrutinizes the emergence of joint implementation patterns in EU asylum policy and the resulting accountability challenge, drawing both from legal analysis and political science theories
Summary
The initial implementation design of the EU asylum policy foresaw that Member States would realize the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) largely through deploying their own resources. As part of its mandate of “support towards EU states under particular pressure,” EASO can undertake three types of action according to its regulation: actions to facilitate an initial analysis of asylum applications under examination by the competent national authorities; actions designed to ensure that appropriate reception facilities, including emergency reception can be made available; and the deployment of Asylum Support Teams (ASTs).. I understand assisted processing to refer to the examination of asylum applications by officials of the competent Member State with the support of officials of one or several other Member States, possibly coordinated through EASO This would mean in practice either that national officials are active at every procedural stage and are merely assisted by the EU (coordinated) level, or that deployed experts are not independently undertaking actions or adopting decisions that involve executive discretion. This third scenario would require an amendment of the TFEU, which envisages that “a Member State” is responsible for the examination of an application. The second scenario is beyond the limits of the current mandate of EASO, which excludes the exercise of direct or indirect powers in relation to the taking of decisions by Member States’ asylum authorities on individual applications for international protection. Only the first scenario, assisted processing, is within EASO’s mandate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
