faq
The compromise supported by Germany for stricter EU asylum rules paves the way for asylum procedures at Europe’s external borders. He is also counting on more solidarity within the EU. The agreement at a glance.
What does the agreement mean?
For the first time, it enables asylum procedures at Europe’s external borders so that people from countries that are considered safe and who have little prospect of staying in the EU do not come to the EU in the first place. There should be so-called asylum centers near the border – i.e. strictly secured areas or facilities. Ideally, within twelve weeks it would be checked whether the applicant has a chance of asylum – if not, he should be sent back immediately. The total duration of the asylum and deportation procedure at the border should not exceed six months Council of the EU.
In the procedure, the prospect of a regular asylum procedure being successful is addressed by considering the statistical recognition or protection rate of applicants from the countries concerned. For the time being, procedures should only apply to migrants from countries that have an EU average recognition rate of less than 20 percent. This applies, for example, to people from Turkey, India, Tunisia, Serbia or Albania. Depending on the outcome of the border procedure, applicants can then either be sent back or, if the chances are assessed accordingly, they can be allowed into the country to carry out a regular asylum procedure.
In addition, the monitoring and deportation of rejected asylum seekers should be made easier, for example by collecting more data about them and storing them centrally.
Who does the fast track procedure not apply to?
The majority of refugees – for example from Syria, Afghanistan or Sudan – should continue to have the right to a normal procedure, which is usually carried out in the member states at the EU’s external borders. However, when countries are confronted with a very large influx of people, they should be able to apply for support from other member states via a solidarity mechanism. A certain number of people seeking protection would then come to other countries via a distribution key. States that do not want to participate would have to make a compensation payment for each person not admitted.
Italy, for example, would benefit from this arrangement. According to the UN refugee agency, more than 50,000 migrants who crossed the Mediterranean have been registered in Italy this year.
Where can it be deported to?
Italy, Greece and Austria prevailed with the demand to be able to deport rejected migrants to so-called safe third countries. These countries include Tunisia and Albania. Germany wanted to prevent this if the deportees have no close connection to the third country, for example through their family. According to the EU Commission and the Swedish Council Presidency, however, it is sufficient if the migrants have only traveled through.
How many people seek protection in Europe?
Last year, 881,200 initial applications were made in the 27 member states. Compared to the previous year, this means an increase of 64 percent. On average in the EU, not even every second application is approved. According to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), 125,556 people in Germany applied for asylum for the first time in the first five months of this year. That was almost 77 percent more than in the same period last year.
How did she behave federal government in the negotiations?
Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser called the agreement in Luxembourg “historic” and spoke of a “new, solidarity-based migration policy”. However, Faeser was not able to assert himself with the demand that families with children and young people under the age of 18 be exempted from border procedures. Not even a handful of countries supported the federal government. The German demand was recorded in a so-called protocol note, a written additional declaration. Portugal, Ireland and Luxembourg joined the note. However, it has been possible that unaccompanied minors do not have to go through the border procedure, said the minister.
What do critics say?
Pro Asyl spoke of a “frontal attack on the right to asylum” and a “historic mistake” by the traffic light government. The federal government accepts that human rights and the rule of law would be sold out. Migration researcher Bernd Kasparek said everyone should have the right to submit an application for asylum and have it checked. What should now happen at the borders is no longer an asylum procedure. People could no longer put forward their reasons for fleeing and have their content checked. It is only checked on the basis of a rough categorization whether people should be given access to the asylum procedure.
Of the traffic light parties, the Greens in particular, but also the SPD, see themselves exposed to sharp criticism from supporters. Green MEP Erik Marquardt said: “With German approval, there was a march through of populist positions in the Council.” But the EU Parliament will work to ensure “that the Council’s major attack on the right to asylum is not successful.” The Green Party leader Ricarda Lang also said that Germany should not have agreed to the reform plans. The SPD member of the Bundestag Hakan Demir said he hoped that the EU Parliament could still make corrections.
Is there no more dispute in the EU?
But. Poland and Hungary categorically reject the EU asylum reform. In the future, they are to pay a fine of 20,000 euros for every migrant they do not accept. The money is to flow into a fund from which migration projects are financed. Whether Warsaw or Budapest will ever pay is uncertain.
How does it go from here?
Hungary and Poland want to bring the issue back to the table at the EU summit on June 29th and 30th in Brussels. In addition, the EU countries still have to come to an agreement with the European Parliament. This is considered very difficult, since the positions are “miles” apart, according to diplomats. The federal government is pushing for the asylum reform to be completed by the European elections in June 2024. If this does not succeed, the changed political balance of power could make renegotiations necessary.
With material from AFP and dpa