Asylum Report 2023

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Applicants of most nationalities largely withdrew their applications implicitly. The main

exceptions - with more explicit withdrawals - included nationals of Western Balkan countries,

such as Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia, as well as Vietnamese.^xlvii

4.4.9. Quality assessment of first instance decisions

Providing adequate reasoning in first instance decisions is a guarantee of legal

certainty and a safeguard for the rights of asylum applicants throughout the first

instance procedure. In 2022, determining authorities followed up on lessons

learned from past quality assessment initiatives and started new quality review

processes.

A NANSEN report was published in Belgium, which assessed CGRS decisions on the need for

protection of people fleeing Afghanistan and the risks in the event of a return. The first part of

the note focused on the investigation of Afghan cases and argued that the CGRS did not fully

respect the right to be heard. In part II of the note, NANSEN discusses the risk profiles

identified by UNHCR and the EUAA and argues that a broad benefit of the doubt should be

granted to these risk groups.⁴⁷²

In Bulgaria, the State Agency for Refugees adapted the EUAA quality assessment tool of

November 2022 to review first instance decisions and personal interviews. In Malta, the

International Protection Agency - together with the EUAA - sampled cases for quality

assurance.

The ECtHR examined the effectiveness of asylum applications in Malta in the case of S.H. v

Malta, which was decided in December 2022. The ECtHR found a violation of Articles 3 and 13

of the European Convention due to the lack of access to legal counsel, delays in the

procedure and a failure to examine the merits of the case. The court noted that the

International Protection Tribunal confirmed the first instance decision within 24 hours, which

made it impossible for the applicant to prepare a defence and submissions while in detention.

The court thus considered that the judicial review in the applicant’s case was superficial and

devoid of any useful effect, as the tribunal tended to automatically confirm the agency’s

decision within 3 days. Furthermore, the communication of the decision took place several

months after the pronouncement, although a removal order had been issued a few days after

the decision.

For a second application lodged by the applicant, the court noted again the inadequate

assessment of the application due to the ‘incongruent conclusions’ reached by the

International Protection Agency, which were confirmed by the tribunal without any reasoning.

The court observed that a third application was treated in a similar way and confirmed again

by the tribunal. The ECtHR thus confirmed that the applicant was deprived of a rigorous

individual assessment of his asylum claim, without a risk assessment of his personal situation

being conducted as a journalist to be returned to Bangladesh although he had possibly

suffered at least one aggression related to his work. The Maltese government made a referral

to the Grand Chamber and stated that it strongly disagreed with the conclusions of the court.

The referral request was rejected, and the judgement became final in May 2023.⁴⁷³

xlvii

Analysis was restricted to citizenships with at least 300 reported withdrawals in 2022.

150

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In the Netherlands, a report published in May 2022 by the Inspectorate of Justice and Security

highlighted the time pressure on IND employees working on asylum cases, which may lead to

limited information being collected to support a first instance decision of quality.⁴⁷⁴

In Poland, the Association for Legal Intervention raised several concerns affecting the quality

of first instance decisions and advocated for a more rigorous scrutiny, for example, on the use

of the evidence presented or expert reports.⁴⁷⁵

In Slovakia, the Ministry of the Interior established a new control mechanism for the asylum

procedure, with two staff having the task of carrying out quality assurance at 6-month intervals

or on an ad hoc basis.

4.4.10. Length of the asylum procedure before the

determining authorities

In several EU+ countries, asylum procedures exceeded the 6-month time limit,

as prescribed in the recast APD.

In Luxembourg, the Minister for Immigration and Asylum provided information

on the average length of the asylum procedure, which increased from 7

months in 2018 to 10 months in 2022. The minister also stated that factors

which influenced the length of the procedure included the number and profile of arriving

applicants, the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertain situations in specific countries of origin, and the

war in Ukraine. The minister noted that the main reason for exceeding the 6-month time limit

was the need to ensure an appropriate and thorough examination, in particular through more

in-depth research or verification of the authenticity of documents.

In addition, secondary movements and Dublin transfers had a considerable impact on

delaying processing times. In many cases Luxembourg became responsible for the

examination of an application when the country responsible refused to take charge or take

back the applicant, or when a Dublin transfer was not carried out. In order to reduce the length

of the procedure, since 2018 the authorities have used email communication instead of post

for communicating with external stakeholders such as lawyers, published internal guidelines

and provided training to case officers.⁴⁷⁶

In examining a complaint by an applicant, the Lithuanian Ombudsperson decided that the

requests in the Migration Department were processed in violation of the deadlines stipulated

in legal acts and that the persons who submitted these requests was not properly informed

about the relevant decisions made.⁴⁷⁷ In order to implement the recommendations of the

Ombudsperson, the Migration Department started to inform all applicants whose applications

have not been processed by the deadlines stipulated in legal acts about the relevant

decisions made, including the reasons for the delay.

Several civil society organisations from Spain signalled deficiencies in the quality of the

asylum procedure which led to a limitation of the applicant’s rights. Comisión Española de

Ayuda al Refugiado, Fundación Cepaim and Progestion highlighted that the length of the

procedure at first instance was excessive and the authorities do not pronounce a decision

within the 6-month deadline, partially due to insufficient staff. The Spanish Ombudsperson

151

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

also highlighted the need to take measures to improve the efficiency of the asylum

procedure.⁴⁷⁸

Fundación Cepaim further noted that the legal time limit was respected most often for

nationals of Colombia, Mali and Venezuela, for whom the decisions were not detailed.⁴⁷⁹

Similarly, the Red Cross Society in Lithuania and the Association for Legal Intervention in

Poland criticised that the length of the asylum procedure sometimes reached 15 months.⁴⁸⁰

The Office for Foreigners added that in these cases the delay had not led to a breach of Polish

or EU law, as it could be justified with the applicant’s lack of cooperation with the competent

authority.

4.4.11. Penalty payments for exceeding the time limit in

first instance decision-making

In the Netherlands, on 6 July 2022, the Council of State declared as non-

binding a temporary law which suspended incremental penalty payments for

delays in pronouncing an asylum decision between 11 July 2020 to 11 July

2021. The Council of State found that the legislative amendment made it

extremely difficult for applicants to have access to an effective guarantee of a

timely decision, and as such, the law did not offer an effective legal remedy.

The council thus considered that administrative courts were still competent to hear appeals

against the failure to make a timely decision on an asylum application between 11 July 2020 to

11 July 2021. In February 2023, the IND noted that it had paid EUR 3.4 million in penalty

payments in 2022, which was lower than in 2021.⁴⁸¹

Furthermore, on 30 November 2022, the Dutch Council of State ruled that a judicial penalty

was an effective means of ensuring through a court decision that the State Secretary fulfils its

obligation to decide timely on an asylum application. It declared the temporary suspension of

the penalty payments as non-binding and contrary to the principle of effective legal protection

insofar as the legislative amendment excluded the possibility of imposing a judicial penalty in

asylum cases. It was further noted that without a judicial penalty, a foreign national has no

effective means of persuading the State Secretary to take a timely decision. However, the

Council of State also distinguished judicial penalties from administrative penalties and held

that the exclusion of the latter from the asylum procedure is not contrary to EU law and the

principle of effective legal protection. The council explained that administrative penalties were

owed automatically by the government, without a need for the applicant to request them

before the court, so the council considered that this is not a means for a person to persuade

the government to take a timely decision.

4.4.12. Digitalisation

EU+ countries continued to improve the efficiency of the asylum procedure at

first instance through the digitalisation of particular steps. Calls for further

digitalisation and improvement of first instance processes were also made in

some EU+ countries.

In Belgium, a legal amendment was published on 9 September 2022 which

explicitly allowed the CGRS to organise interviews through videoconference for applicants for

152

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

international protection. Based on this, video interviews resumed in closed centres with the

use of Microsoft Teams, which did not allow a third party to be included remotely, so lawyers

needed to go in person to the closed centre. The project for video interviews with applicants

in open centres was put on hold.⁴⁸²

Concerned about the secure use of specific software, the Belgian CALL ruled that more

information was needed on the reliability of Microsoft Teams and its compliance with data

protection. This judgment was based on a case in which the personal interview took place by

videoconference during the first instance procedure

The digitalisation strategy for the Belgian asylum system was translated into a comprehensive

Enterprise Architecture, which includes the Belgian Immigration Office, the CGRS and CALL.

The aim is to deliver a new environment by the end of 2024.

In Croatia, the independent mechanism for the supervision of police officers in the field of

irregular migration and international protection adopted the first annual report covering

June 2021-June 2022. For asylum, the recommendations of the report include the

improvement of the system of tracking cases by consolidating information in one place.⁴⁸³

Estonia launched an updated version of the register of granting international protection

(RAKS2) in February 2022, including new features that allow the inclusion of data on court

procedures and an automated process for receiving country of origin information.

In May 2022, France extended to its entire territory the electronic communication of the

various documents related to the processing of asylum applications between OFPRA and

asylum applicants, which was already applied in Brittany and Nouvelle-Aquitaine. It thus

provided asylum applicants with a digital space to access letters from OFPRA, particularly the

invitation to the personal interview and the notification of the asylum decision. This electronic

communication system does not apply to applicants under the Dublin procedure,

unaccompanied minors and applicants claiming to be vulnerable.

BAMF in Germany developed a new digital tool, “Assistance System for Hearings” (ASA),

which can provide support during interviews and contribute to the quality assurance of the

interview. The tool provides information on the most important countries of origin in a digital

format for case officers, allowing them to have easier access to country-specific

information. The tool also includes a date and currency converter, records open tasks and

deadlines, checks the interview data for completeness, supports a comparison of the facts

presented with the guidelines on the country of origin, and enables the writing of the interview

report through speech recognition.⁴⁸⁴

The Netherlands launched a portal for asylum lawyers in June 2022, developed in close

cooperation with lawyers. The systems allow them to rapidly check the status of a case, easily

upload documents and safely exchange data.⁴⁸⁵

In Sweden, Asylum Seeker (LMA)-cards were digitalised to include a QR code for the validity

period, and a case-handling system was further developed for increased usability.⁴⁸⁶

In January 2022, ECRE published a comparative report which provides an overview of the use

of digital tools and remote working modalities in 23 European countries. It presents the risks

and benefits of the use of digital tools in asylum processes and highlights several fundamental

guarantees and procedural safeguards which must continue to apply to ensure that they do

not infringe on existing EU asylum acquis.⁴⁸⁷

153

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.4.13. Staff training and well-being

Several EU+ countries carried out extensive training for case officers and

other employees involved in the first instance procedure, while others

analysed their internal culture or planned measures to retain experienced

case officers and reduce staff turnover.

In Belgium, training for new staff was adapted to achieve efficiency gains.

Generic training was abandoned and new staff were specifically trained from the start to

manage applications from Afghans. A specific training package with online tools was

developed for this purpose.

In Bulgaria, training objectives for 2022 were postponed due to the influx of displaced

persons from Ukraine. A training session on applicants with special needs was provided for

case officers through Norwegian funds.

In Estonia, the Social Insurance Board launched an e-course on psychological first aid for

helpers in crisis, modelled on the WHO Guidelines for Psychological First Aid and available on

the website of the board.⁴⁸⁸

In Ireland, IPO staff attended training sessions on statelessness, sexual and gender-based

violence (SGBV), human trafficking and the Dublin procedure. The training was provided by

IPO’s training unit in cooperation with UNHCR.

In Luxembourg, staff followed training provided by the EUAA on interviewing vulnerable

applicants, interviewing children, temporary protection and inclusion.

Related to well-being at the workplace, the IND in the Netherlands investigated its internal

culture and concluded that employees needed a more long-term perspective, increased

involvement, clarity and open communication within the organisation. The results suggested

that the work of the IND can be hampered by short-term vision, bureaucracy, rigid hierarchy

and compartmentalisation. Employees appreciated performance orientation, social

responsibility and a balance between private and professional life.⁴⁸⁹

Measures to reduce the high turnover of employees in determining authorities were

considered in Lithuania by the Migration Department, which had experienced a record

29% turnover in 2022. To tackle the issue, the Migration Department increased its budget in

order to increase wages and retain experienced employees.⁴⁹⁰

154

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Section 4.5.

Processing

asylum applications

at second or

higher instances

The EU-level legislative framework to appeal

Under the rule of law, anyone alleging a

a decision in an asylum procedure is

violation of their rights is entitled to fair

outlined in the recast APD, Chapter V.

procedures in line with international

Article 46 obliges Member States to ensure

human rights law and an effective

that applicants have the right to an effective

remedy, which includes the right to

remedy before a court or tribunal to contest

appeal before the national authorities.

a decision issued on a first instance

application. The right to an effective remedy

includes a full and ex nunc (i.e. which is valid

for the future) examination of both facts and

points of law, including an examination of

the need for international protection as

defined by the recast QD, in an appeals

procedure before a court or tribunal of first

instance to guarantee adequate substantive

and procedural safeguards.

EU law does not prescribe a specific

organisation or structure of courts and

tribunals adjudicating asylum cases. Each

EU+ country follows its own national system,

so appeals in asylum cases may be lodged

before general courts which adjudicate

other matters in addition to asylum or

specialised asylum courts which adjudicate

only appeals in asylum cases. In addition,

some EU+ countries have a system of non-

judicial complaints that must be exhausted

before lodging an appeal with the courts

155

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In 2022, developments focused on the right to access the appeal procedure and the

competent bodies which should examine an appeal. The scope of appeals in international

protection cases was the subject of further improvements to align domestic practices and

legislative provisions with the relevant provisions of the recast APD.

The effectiveness of remedies was assessed through judicial review. The length of appeal

procedures continued to be an aspect of particular concern, leading to legislative changes

being proposed, adopted or already implemented to speed up the procedure. Lastly,

procedural aspects were clarified mostly through judicial reviews by national courts.

In May 2022, ECRE and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee published a Legal Note which aims

to provide guidance, based on standards under EU and international laws, on the examination

of national security-related asylum cases with a view to guarantee the right to an effective

remedy, tying in examples from state practices.⁴⁹¹

4.5.1. Access to the appeals procedure

The right to access the appeals procedure in asylum cases was changed or

interpreted in various EU+ countries to determine who can lodge an appeal

and the requirements with which an applicant must comply to access the

appeals procedure. Courts also reviewed which competent body should be

responsible for an asylum appeal.

In Finland, the Turku Administrative Court ruled in March 2022 that a spouse

does not have the right to appeal against the rejection of a subsequent application and the

expulsion order of the applicant. The issue was raised in the context of whether a family

member living in Finland had a right to appeal considering the right to family life. Taking

ECtHR case law into consideration, the Administrative Court held that the expulsion and

refusal of entry in connection with the subsequent application did not have a direct effect on

the spouse’s right, obligation or interest to appeal.

In Iceland, in April 2022, the Ministry of Justice submitted a bill to the parliament to amend the

Act on Foreigners and the Act on the Employment Rights of Foreigners, which was voted and

entered into force in March 2023.⁴⁹² The amendment provides that certain decisions of the

Directorate of Immigration are automatically subject to an appeal to the Immigration Appeals

Board.⁴⁹³

In Ireland, the Supreme Court held that a person who is no longer considered to be an

applicant for international protection may request an extension of the time limit to appeal a

negative decision issued under Section 39 of the International Protection Act of 2015, even if

such a right is not provided in the 2015 Act. In the particular case, the Supreme Court held that

IPAT infringed the right to a fair procedure, as it cannot interpret and apply provisions of the

International Protection Act which would make it impossible to make an application to extend

the time limit to submit an appeal.

In Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation examined several cases concerning the right to

access the appeals procedure in asylum cases. In October 2022, the Supreme Court of

Cassation confirmed the inadmissibility of an appeal which was lodged through a

representative for whom the power of attorney did not have a certified date of issuance

subsequent to the communication of the contested measure. In another case decided in

156

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

July 2022, the Supreme Court of Cassation provided several principles on access to the

appeals procedure and an appeal in cassation.

In Lithuania, the right to submit an appeal directly to the Vilnius regional administrative courts

and subsequently to the Supreme Administrative Court was restored on 1 January 2022. The

preliminary step of contesting a decision of the Migration Department before the Migration

Department Commission was eliminated.

In Malta, amendments were introduced in December 2022 to the International Protection Act

for the possibility to appeal a case when the International Protection Agency ended refugee

and subsidiary protection. This was previously missing from legislation, as Articles 10(6)

and 22(6) of the International Protection Act provided only for an appeal against a decision of

the agency to revoke or refuse to renew refugee and subsidiary protection.⁴⁹⁴

The Swiss Refugee Council noted that one important obstacle to accessing the second

instance procedure was the advance payment of a fee, approximately EUR 750, for the cost of

appeal proceedings. Non-payment could lead to the appeal being declared inadmissible.⁴⁹⁵

This obstacle to the right to an effective remedy was examined in December 2022 by the

UNCAT, which held that for an applicant in a precarious financial situation, the fee deprived

them of the possibility of turning to the judiciary to have the complaint examined before the

Federal Administrative Court.

4.5.1.1. Right to a hearing

The importance of the right to a hearing in an appeal procedure in international

protection cases was highlighted by national courts in several judgments

pronounced in 2022.

In Cyprus, the Administrative Court for International Protection (IPAC) amended

its rules of procedure in September 2022. The amendments call for the mandatory presence

of an applicant before the court, whether in person or represented by a lawyer, under sanction

of having the appeal rejected, except in situations of force majeure. In addition, the applicant

or the lawyer have a maximum of 10 minutes to present supporting arguments before the

court, a duration which can be extended by the court when necessary.⁴⁹⁶ According to civil

society reporting, the amended regulations still leave a number of remaining issues

unresolved, including the procedure to be followed when an applicant wishes to add evidence

in support of their claim.⁴⁹⁷

In Germany, the High Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg allowed an appeal in

July 2022 for an infringement of the right to be heard in a case where the lower court did not

reschedule a hearing when the applicants were infected with COVID-19 and in compulsory

quarantine. The court highlighted that the right to a fair hearing guarantees that an applicant

can have a say before a court decision affects their rights and can influence the proceedings.

In addition, the court noted that the judicial decision may only be based on facts and evidence

on which the parties involved had the opportunity to comment. Although there was no

entitlement to an oral hearing in the particular case, the legal impossibility to attend the

hearing was proven by documentary evidence. With the Act on the Acceleration of Asylum

Court Proceedings and the Asylum Procedure, which entered into force on 1 January 2023, a

personal hearing can be omitted if the applicant is represented by an attorney and it does not

concern a ‘simple’ rejection application or a withdrawal/revocation, for example when a case

157

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

is rejected as manifestly unfounded or inadmissible. However, a hearing must take place if the

applicant requests it.⁴⁹⁸

In Ireland, the High Court ruled in May 2022 that IPAT must address whether its task could be

fairly achieved without an oral hearing, especially when an asylum applicant’s credibility is a

key aspect. The High Court noted that, while IPAT has discretion to refuse a request for an

oral hearing, “this discretion falls to be exercised in accordance with the requirements of

constitutional justice” and IPAT “should demonstrate that it has had regard to the applicant’s

right to a fair decision-making process through its consideration of identified credibility issues

and its conclusion on whether they are capable of being justly resolved without an oral

hearing and, if so, why”.

Furthermore, in February 2022 IPAT issued a new Guideline on Taking Evidence during Oral

Hearings before the Tribunal involving Appellants and Other Witnesses, which was informed

by the International Protection Act 2015 and the recast QD. It also considered the

EUAA Judicial Analyses on Evidence and Credibility Assessment in the Context of the

Common European Asylum System (CEAS) (IARMJ/EASO, 2018) and on Vulnerability in the

Context of Applications for International Protection (IARMJ/EASO, 2021), with due

consideration to relevant case law and academic commentary.⁴⁹⁹

4.5.2. Data on decisions issued on asylum applications

at second or higher instances

In 2022, EU+ countries issued about 221,000 decisions on appealed asylum

applications, comparable to 2021. The number of decisions issued at second

or higher instances was the second-lowest since 2015 (see Figure 18). To

some extent, the number of decisions issued in appeal or review is

determined by the volume of negative decisions issued by first instance

authorities. After falling in 2018 and remaining stable for 3 consecutive years,

the number of negative decisions at first instance increased by 11% in 2022, reaching the

highest level since 2017.

As in previous years, Germany (75,000) and France (66,000) continued to issue the most

decisions at second or higher instances, accounting for 34% and 30% of the total, respectively

(see Figure 19). This is only natural given that these two countries also issued the most

decisions on first instance applications. A large volume of decisions in appeal or review were

also taken in Italy, Greece, Sweden and Austria (in descending order).

While issuing the most decisions overall, Germany continued to issue fewer decisions at

second or higher instances for the fifth consecutive year, down to the lowest level since 2014.

This is a trend across several EU+ countries, with similar patterns appearing in Finland,

Sweden and Switzerland. It is worth noting that Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland

issued the least decisions at second or higher instances since at least 2008^xlviii (see Figure 19).

xlviii

This refers to the start of the harmonised data collection by Eurostat.

158

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In relative terms, the most notable decrease in decisions issued at second or higher instances

compared to 2021 took place in Lithuania (885), where the number of decisions peaked in the

previous year (3,200). Lithuania was the only country where there were more decisions taken

at second or higher instances than at first instance, which suggests that a substantial number

of first instance decisions in Lithuania were appealed in 2022 or earlier.

In contrast, there were notable increases in Cyprus (4,300, the most since at least 2008),

Ireland (2,300, the most since 2010) and Spain (3,900, the most since at least 2008) (see

Figure 19). These record highs were likely associated with high levels of decision-making at

first instance as well: while Ireland issued the most decisions at first instance since at least

2008, Cyprus and Spain took the second-most decisions in at last 14 years.

France issued more decisions at second or higher instances compared to the previous

2 years, almost back to the peak of 2019. Greece took more decisions on appeals than

in 2021, but the level nonetheless remained lower than in 2020 (see Figure 19).

As in previous years, around 7 in every 10 decisions at the appeal stage were issued to male

applicants, mainly adults. Less than one-fifth (17%) of all decisions at second or higher

instances were issued to minors, with only a slight prevalence of boys over girls. The share of

minors was the lowest since 2009.

In 2022, most decisions on appeals continued to be issued to Afghan applicants (23,000 or

10% of the total), followed by Nigerians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Syrians and Turks.

For several consecutive years in a row, the number of decisions issued to Afghans and Iraqis

continued to drop. Meanwhile, the number of decisions on appeal remained stable for

Nigerians and Syrians compared to the previous year (see Figure 20).

Decisions on appeal rose for Bangladeshis, Georgians,

Pakistanis and Turks

Figure 20. Number of decisions on appeal by top nationalities, 2014-2022

50,000

Afghanistan

45,000

Nigeria

40,000

Iraq

35,000

Pakistan

30,000

Bangladesh

25,000

Syria

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Source: Eurostat [migr_asydcfsta] as of 13 April 2023.

160

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In contrast, authorities in EU+ countries issued more decisions on appeal than in 2021 to

citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Türkiye and Georgia (in descending order). Some

nationalities received the most decisions since at least 2008, namely Bangladeshis, Turks and,

on a smaller scale, Colombians, Chadians and Comorians.^xlix

4.5.3. Scope of an appeal in international protection

cases

The scope of an appeal in international protection cases was the subject of

legislative changes and judicial review in EU+ countries, including the

requirement to provide an ex nunc examination of both facts and points of

law (as provided in Article 46 of the recast APD) and the suspensive effect of

appeals.

Following diverging interpretations by lower courts, the Constitutional Court

in Czechia decided in March 2022 that individuals may appeal against a decision which grants

them subsidiary protection and request refugee protection without the risk of losing the

already-gained subsidiary protection status and being placed again in the position of being an

applicant for international protection while a new assessment takes place.⁵⁰⁰

In Germany, as of 1 January 2023, with the entry into force of the Act on the Acceleration of

Asylum Court Proceedings and the Asylum Procedure, the Federal Administrative Court can

also decide on the general asylum situation as it pertains to the situation in the country of

origin or destination. This only applies if the Higher Administrative Court grants a leave for

revision and if the Higher Administrative Court’s appreciation of the situation in the respective

country differs from that of other High Administrative Courts or the Federal Administrative

Court. The reform was introduced in an effort to unify jurisprudence on the situation in

countries of origin or destination.⁵⁰¹

Malta amended the International Protection Act in December 2022, widening the scope of the

appeal in international protection cases. In line with Article 46(3) of the recast APD, the

competence of IPAT now covers an ex nunc examination of appeals, so that IPAT may

consider evidence and elements of fact and law, which are available at the moment of the

pronouncement of its decision, including evidence of which IPAT was not aware during the

first instance procedure. However, such a right of appeal was not available in an IPAT decision

to withdraw international protection on the basis that the beneficiary of international

protection had unequivocally renounced protection or had become a Maltese national. Aditus

presented comments on the proposed legislative amendments in June 2022 and welcomed

several provisions, notably the clarification on the nature of the appeal procedure, in line with

EU law and jurisprudence.⁵⁰²

In addition, the Maltese First Hall Civil Court (constitutional jurisdiction) held in March 2022

that the automatic review procedure in the case of manifestly-unfounded applications was not

compatible with the right to a fair hearing. The case was further appealed at the Constitutional

Court, which delivered its judgment in January 2023. The court concluded that there was no

violation of the constitution as it found that rights in asylum were not part of civil rights and

obligations (see Section 4.3.3).

^xlix Only citizenships with over 1,000 decisions at second or higher instances in 2022 were considered.

161

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In Norway, the Supreme Court provided guidelines on assessing religious persecution claims

and future-oriented analyses of the risk of religious persecution upon a return to the country

of origin, dismissing the claim of the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) that courts should limit

the judicial review. The Supreme Court highlighted that courts can fully review the decision of

the UNE, including the future-oriented risk assessment of persecution due to religion.

In Poland, the Supreme Administrative Court held in June 2022 and July 2022 that the

recast APD must be applied directly by administrative courts reviewing first instance decisions,

as under Article 46 of the recast APD and Article 47 of the EU Charter courts must examine

cases in such a way as to ensure that they are dealt with ex nunc, both with regard to the facts

and legal issues. The Supreme Administrative Court considered that in the Polish system the

administrative courts wrongly reviewed contested decisions on the basis of the facts

established in the course of administrative proceedings. In the two particular cases, the war in

Ukraine had not been taken into account in the assessment of asylum requests, as the war

had started while the cases were pending on appeal.

In addition, in a judgment pronounced in September 2022, the Administrative Court of

Warsaw ordered the Office for Foreigners to consider all evidence in the case of an Iraqi

applicant. This included evidence presented before the first appeal level of the Refugee

Board, which had been ignored even though the Administrative Court of Warsaw had already

indicated to the Refugee Board in another final decision that an ex nunc examination must

take place in the case.⁵⁰³

In Spain, the Supreme Court ruled on the suspensive effect of an appeal, noting that the

rejected applicant had the right to remain in Spain pending a final decision. This also applied

to reception rights while appeal procedures are pending (see Section 4.7).

In France, the CNDA clarified in May 2022 that submissions presented on behalf of a child

born or arrived after the introduction of a parent’s asylum application were inadmissible in the

context of the appeal brought by the parent. In this case, the asylum applicant submitted

before the CNDA that her daughter, a minor born after the pronouncement of the OFPRA

decision, also had her own fear of persecution due to the danger of being submitted to FGM/C

in Guinea. The conclusions presented on behalf of the child were considered inadmissible in

support of the appeal brought by the mother against OFPRA’s decision. The CNDA concluded

that separate submissions related to child-specific fears of persecution could only be validly

examined in the context of a child-specific asylum application.

4.5.4. Effectiveness of specific remedies

In S.H., the ECtHR found that the judicial review of the applicant’s case

undertaken by the International Protection Tribunal in Malta was superficial

and devoid of any useful effect. The tribunal tended to automatically confirm

the International Protection Agency’s decision within a maximum of 3 days.

Furthermore, the communication of the decision took place several months

after the pronouncement, although a removal order was issued a few days

after the decision.

For the second application lodged by the applicant, the court noted that the decision of the

International Protection Agency was confirmed by the tribunal without any reasoning. The

court observed that a third application was treated in a similar way. The ECtHR observed that

162

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

it was not necessary to examine the procedure before the Refugee Appeals Board since the

government had already accepted that the board had no power to alter an assessment made

by the International Protection Agency. The ECtHR also observed that, in Malta, constitutional

redress proceedings do not have an automatic suspensive effect and therefore they are not

an appropriate remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention.

Similar doubts about the effectiveness of remedies in the appeal procedure were raised by

the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland for appeals examined by the Refugee

Board. The Helsinki Foundation noted that the review was merely symbolic and largely

uncritically confirms the findings of the Head of the Office for Foreigners.⁵⁰⁴

To improve the efficiency of international protection procedures and provide legal certainty to

complainants at the appeal stage, a new Migration Code was being drafted in Belgium,

including amendments to provide a more coherent appeals system.

In Germany, the Federal Administrative Court clarified the procedure for a service of a

judgment when an applicant has more than one legal representative. The court ruled that if

there are several authorised persons, service to one of them is sufficient and the first service

is decisive for the start of procedural time limits which are applicable for any further appeal.

In Sweden, the Migration Court of Appeal in Stockholm ruled in May 2022 on the role of the

courts in assessing credibility when a person with hearing impairments has communication

difficulties. The Migration Court of Appeal noted that courts have a greater investigative

responsibility in asylum cases than in other matters. The Migration Court of Appeal highlighted

that the lower court should have considered whether the incoherent and contradictory

information provided by the applicant before the first instance determining authority may have

been due to communication difficulties, considering that the person had difficulties

understanding the questions that were asked or that he was imitating the interpreters.

4.5.5. Suspensive effect of an appeal

The Supreme Administrative Court in Poland confirmed in February 2022

that an appeal against an inadmissibility decision does not entail the right to

have the contested decision suspended while pending the outcome of

judicial proceedings. The court noted that Article 46(5) and (6) of the recast

APD states that Member States must ensure that applicants for international

protection have the right to remain on the territory until the end of the

proceedings before a court of first instance. In this case, Article 46(5) of the recast APD did not

apply since it does not refer to a decision on admissibility (based on Article 46(6). It was also

observed that the applicant had a lawyer appointed ex officio, and therefore his rights to

represent his interests before the court would be taken into account and protected by the

attorney representing him, his personal presence not being necessary.

Therefore, it was considered that the obligation to ensure that the party has the right to a

court, including the right to participate personally in the proceedings, does not support the

stay of execution of the contested decision. The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that

the absence of the applicant from Poland during the proceedings would not result in the risk

of significant harm or effects which would be difficult to reverse.

163

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In Cyprus, if the Asylum Service considers a subsequent application to be inadmissible, an

appeal can be submitted before IPAC. Such an appeal, however, does not have an automatic

suspensive effect and a separate application must be submitted to IPAC, requesting the right

to remain pending the examination of the appeal. The procedure to submit this application

was not provided for in the procedural rules, until their amendment in 2022. The amended

regulations provide that the application for the right to remain must be submitted at the same

time as the appeal, and in any case within the deadline for the submission of the appeal,

which is 15 days.⁵⁰⁵

In Hungary, since June 2022, Government Decree 570/2020. (XII. 9.) is no longer in force,

where Section 5 removed the possibility to ask for interim measures to prevent an expulsion

in the case of a violation of epidemic rules or when expulsion was ordered based on a risk to

national security or public order. The provision had serious consequences for people who had

been expelled prior to submitting an asylum application or if an asylum application was

rejected in an accelerated procedure or admissibility procedure and the appeal did not have a

suspensive effect. In those cases, even if a suspensive effect was requested, it did not

suspend the expulsion that was ordered prior to the asylum procedure.⁵⁰⁶

4.5.6. Reorganisation of appeal panels

Changes to appeal panels were introduced in several EU+ countries, often

with the objective of speeding up the appeals procedure. Further clarifications

on these aspects were also provided by courts through judicial reviews.

In Finland, the Supreme Administrative Court clarified that in cases related to

international protection involving an assessment of converting to Christianity, a

panel of three judges is required to rule in appeals before administrative courts. In another

case, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court annulled a lower court decision that did not

respect the voting rules set up for the members of the panel, namely the fact that if there are

several questions which affect the outcome of the decision, each of those questions must, in

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, be put to a vote and the members of the

court must rule on each question to be resolved.

In Italy, the implementation of the EU NEXT Generation Project, D.L. 80 of June 2021 - as

amended by conversion Law No 113 of August 2021 - provided for the reinforcement of the

Courts Office personnel, with the introduction of the Judicial Office (Ufficio del Processo), a

support office for judges and court administrations to which law clerks will be deployed for

3 years starting from February 2022. Clerks were also deployed to support judges assigned to

the specialised sections on migration, with the objective of reducing the backlog at second

instance.⁵⁰⁷

In October 2022, the Administrative Court of Thessaloniki in Greece (Decision ΑΔ534/2022)

sent a preliminary reference to the Council of State (προδικαστικό ερώτημα). It addressed the

compatibility of provisions enabling members of Appeals Committees to process appeals in

single-judge panels (used in fast-track procedures for instance) with Article 89 (2) and (3) of

the Greek Constitution on the constitutional prohibition of parallel employment of magistrates

(συλλογικά όργανα).⁵⁰⁸

164

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

4.5.7. Length of the procedure

In Germany, the government approved in July 2022 the first migration package

presented by the Federal Minister of the Interior, including a bill to accelerate

the appeals procedure. The draft law was subsequently adopted by the

German parliament on 2 December 2022.⁵⁰⁹

In Cyprus, IPAC amended its rules of procedure on 16 September 2022,

including the time limit for IPAC to issue a decision on an appeal which should be 7 days from

the registration of the appeal with the court. In addition, any appeal against the decision of

IPAC must be lodged within 10 days from the notification of the decision. When a detention

order is challenged, the decision must be issued within 2 days.⁵¹⁰

In 2022, IPAC also initiated accelerated procedures for negative first instance decisions

issued based on an inadmissible subsequent application or safe country of origin. Upon the

submission of an appeal in such cases, the Asylum Service must, within 10 days, file a

memorandum at the IPAC Registry with the administrative file of the claim. The case is then

scheduled directly for a hearing, during which the presence of the Legal Service is not

required, unless this is otherwise ordered by IPAC. No written submissions by either the

applicant or the Legal Service are foreseen in the accelerated procedure.⁵¹¹

In Greece, the Asylum Code, which entered into force in the second half of 2022, provides

that decisions must be issued as soon as possible and in any case:

a) Within 30 days of the hearing of the case in a regular procedure case;

b) Within 20 days of the hearing in an accelerated procedure case;

c) Within 10 days of the hearing when the appellant is under administrative detention;

and

d) Within 20 days of the hearing when the application is rejected as inadmissible in

accordance with Article 89.

An exception was introduced for cases heard in priority, as the decision must be issued within

15 days of the hearing.⁵¹²

The length of asylum appeals was an area of concern for national authorities and criticised by

some civil society organisations and national evaluations of appeal procedures. For example,

Progestion and Convive-Fundación Cepaim highlighted that the duration of the appeals

procedure was excessively lengthy in Spain.⁵¹³

In Sweden, the National Audit Office published a report on the processing times of asylum

cases in migration courts and found that they were long and had increased since 2016.

Notable regional differences were also found, with a lack of resources being the main reason

for delays. The report noted that about one-half of the processing time did not include any

active processing of cases.⁵¹⁴ In a letter of 26 July 2022, the Ministry of Justice welcomed the

report and highlighted that a series of measures were taken to shorten the processing time,

including constitutional amendments to transfer cases between courts.⁵¹⁵

165

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.5.8. Appeals by specific profiles of applicants

Ukrainian applicants

Appeals lodged by Ukrainian nationals whose applications were rejected in first instance

procedures were suspended by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board on 24 February 2022 at

the start of the war in Ukraine.⁵¹⁶

Afghan applicants

On 31 March 2022, CALL in Belgium noted that the situation in Afghanistan did not seem to

establish the need to grant subsidiary protection within the meaning of the recast QD,

Article 15(c). However, it underlined that the situation remained unstable and changes in the

dynamics of the conflict were recent. It assessed that the situation in Afghanistan did not allow

to make a correct and forward-looking assessment.

On 12 and 13 October 2022, in a chamber of three judges, CALL issued five rulings: two

granting refugee status, two denying it and one annulling the CGRS’s decision. CALL noted

that the level of indiscriminate violence in the country had generally fallen significantly since

the Taliban takeover, concluding that there was no automatic need for subsidiary protection

from indiscriminate violence. It further ruled that the return of Afghans from Europe

(considered ‘westernised’) did not automatically give rise to a well-founded fear of

persecution. CALL also found that the socio-economic situation in the country did not

automatically fall within the scope of subsidiary protection. CALL noted, however, that the

current precarious socio-economic situation may still give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the

ECHR, which needs to be further examined when issuing any order to leave the territory.

In February 2022, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board resumed the assessment of cases

lodged by Afghan nationals. In January 2023, the Danish Coordination Committee of the

Refugee Appeals Board decided to change its practice toward Afghan women and girls, thus

as a main rule granting asylum solely because of their gender, based on Section 7(1) of the

Aliens Act.⁵¹⁷ In December 2022, the Coordination Committee declared that a lower threshold

of persecution should be applied in cases involving Afghan women and girls and their risk of

persecution because of the arbitrary exercise of power by the Taliban.⁵¹⁸

Applicants from Ethiopia

After suspending the processing of cases by Ethiopian nationals on 16 December 2021,⁵¹⁹ the

Coordination Committee of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board lifted the suspension on

24 February 2022. The Appeals Board later stated that the general situation in Addis Ababa

was not of such a nature that any person of Tigrayan ethnicity would be at risk of being

arrested, mistreated or abused. Thus a concrete assessment of an applicant's circumstances

would determine if the conditions for issuing a residence permit according to Section 7 are

met.⁵²⁰

Applicants from Mali

In Belgium, CALL ruled in May 2022 on appeals lodged by applicants from northern and

central Mali on 18 May 2022 and in October 2022 on appeals by applicants from southern

Mali.⁵²¹

166

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Applicants from Myanmar

In 2023, the Refugee Appeals Board referred two cases back to the Danish Immigration

Service for a new assessment based on new country of origin information for Myanmar

following the military coup in February 2021. The Danish Refugee Council reported that in one

of these cases the first instance authority provided international protection.⁵²²

4.5.9. Digitalisation of procedures

Digitalisation initiatives for the appeal of an international protection case

continued throughout 2022 on the anonymisation of court decisions,

electronic submission of documents and file management.

In Austria, a project by the Federal Ministry of Justice, together with the

Federal Computing Centre, received an eAward in October 2022. The

project, “Use of artificial intelligence in the anonymisation of court decisions”, aims to facilitate

access to a higher number of court decisions, including asylum decisions pronounced on

appeal. It uses artificial intelligence to anonymise the decisions, a process usually done

manually and requiring extensive human resources.⁵²³

In Belgium, CALL launched a digital tool on 1 March 2022, entitled J-BOX, to exchange

procedural documents electronically instead of using registered mail. The use of the tool

became mandatory in appeals for accelerated and urgent measures. The possibility to

exchange documents electronically had been provided by law in 2021.⁵²⁴ In addition,

in February 2022, CALL reminded appellants that it was not necessary to add copies of

publicly-available online sources as evidence, mentioning that a link to the source was

sufficient.⁵²⁵

In France, in 2022, the CNDA organised for the first-time teleconferenced hearings with the

Administrative Court of Lyon. This practice continued with the Administrative Court of Nancy

and with overseas territories.⁵²⁶

In Germany, the Federal Administrative Court announced that from 1 January 2026, in

accordance with Section 55b(1a)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Code (VwGO), all court

files must be kept electronically. The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig aims to meet this

legal requirement earlier, by 1 January 2024. From 1 September 2022, the Federal

Administrative Court managed all files electronically for incoming and continued proceedings

of the 1^st and 5^th Revision Senate, providing also for the possibility that the senate could

suspend the electronic file management in individual procedures if it caused an unreasonable

additional effort or for other compelling reasons.⁵²⁷

The Swedish Migration Court of Appeal introduced an e-service to facilitate the submission of

documents to the court by state administrative authorities. The e-service is an alternative to

submissions by email, secure e-mail and paper mail, making it possible to submit larger files

and in more formats to the courts.⁵²⁸

Some countries, such as Lithuania, have continued to hold court hearings remotely, despite

the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions.⁵²⁹

167

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Section 4.6.

Pending cases

Once an application for international

The examination of a case can also be

protection has been lodged with a

closed for other reasons, including an

national authority, the processing phase

explicit withdrawal initiated by the applicant,

begins. The final outcome of this process

an implicit withdrawal, for example in the

is a decision at first instance, which can

case of absconding, and an acceptance of

be appealed and followed by another

responsibility by a partner country in the

decision.

context of a Dublin procedure.

While an application is under examination, it

is part of the stock of pending cases.

Pending cases are a key indicator reflecting

the workload experienced by national

authorities and the pressure on national

asylum systems, including reception

systems.

168

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

At the end of 2022, nearly 899,000 asylum applications were awaiting a decision in

EU+ countries, increasing by almost one-fifth compared to a year earlier. This represented the

most cases awaiting a decision since April 2020, when the processing of applications was

suspended or strictly limited during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the number of pending cases remained relatively stable until July 2022, it started rising

continuously afterwards, in line with the growing number of asylum applications (see

Section 4.4). Meanwhile, decisions at first instance started to considerably lag behind

applications in the last two quarters of 2022 than in the first two. Hence, the stock of pending

cases was far higher than in the pre-crisis level in late 2014 (see Figure 21), adding pressure on

national reception systems.

When combining Eurostat data with the EUAA’s Early Warning and Preparedness System (EPS)

data,^l the number of cases pending at first instance and at second or higher instances can be

disaggregated. EUAA EPS data allow to further analyse pending cases by a duration of

6 months or longer at first instance.

The results indicate that the overall stock of pending cases increased at first instance,

whereas it continued to decrease at higher instances. The annual total of pending cases was

influenced by different trends: while cases pending at first instance rose throughout the year

and more strongly in the second half of 2022, cases at higher instances decreased at the

beginning of the year and then remained relatively stable.

Considerably more cases were pending at first instance than

at higher instances

Figure 21. Pending cases in EU+ countries at the end of each year, 2014-2022

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

Dec

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

First instance: pending up to 6 months

First instance: pending over 6 months

First instance: pending duration unknown

Higher instances

Source: Eurostat [migr_asypenctzm] as of 13 April 2023 and EUAA EPS.

^l EUAA data cover first instance cases. They are provisional and not validated, but they provide information on

overall trends at the EU+ level. EUAA EPS data do not include information on Iceland and Liechtenstein.

169

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

At the end of 2022, some 636,000 cases were pending at first instance, accounting for 71% of

the total. This was a notably higher share than a year earlier. Among the cases awaiting a

decision at first instance, the majority were pending for up to 6 months, a direct result of the

rising number of applications lodged in the second half of 2022. Based on the evolution of the

caseload distribution in previous years, the recent increase in cases awaiting a decision at first

instance is likely to result in a forthcoming shift of pressure from first instance determining

authorities to second or higher instances.

Close to one-third (30%) of all pending cases continued to be awaiting a decision in Germany,

with a total of 269,000 open files (see Figure 22). While the overall stock in Germany

increased only marginally, its share of the EU+ total declined (down from 35% at the end

of 2021). Other EU+ countries with a large number of pending cases included

France (143,000), Spain (135,000), Italy (80,000) and Austria (54,000).

Compared to the end of 2021, the caseload approximately doubled in Austria and Italy and, on

a smaller scale, more than doubled in Croatia, Estonia, Ireland, Norway, Portugal and

Switzerland. In absolute terms, the largest increases were in Italy, Spain, Austria,

the Netherlands and Belgium (in descending order). In all of these countries, the number of

cases under determination accumulated in the second half of 2022. At the end of 2022,

Belgium (42,000), Ireland (15,000), the Netherlands (38,000) and Iceland (1,200) had the most

pending cases on record, since at least 2008 when harmonised data collection began.^li

While most cases awaiting a decision were still in Germany and

France, notable increases took place in Italy, Spain and Austria

Figure 22. Pending cases in EU+ countries at the end of 2022 compared to the end of

2021

Germany

+2%

France

-2%

Spain

+30%

Italy

+101%

Austria

+94%

Belgium

+44%

Netherlands

+63%

Cyprus

+15%

Greece

-40%

Switzerland

+110%

End of 2021

Sweden

+5%

Ireland

+126%

End of 2022

Rest of EU+ countries

+31%

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Source: Eurostat [migr_asypenctzm] as of 13 April 2023.

^li At the end of 2022, Croatia (1,300) also had the most pending cases on record since 2013.

170

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Greece was the only country with a considerable decrease in pending cases, both in

absolute (-15,000) and in relative (-40%) terms, and the decrease took place particularly in the

first half of 2022. On a much smaller scale, there were declines also in Malta and Poland,

among others.

Syrian applicants (116,000) had the most pending cases in EU+ countries at the end of 2022,

overtaking Afghans (98,000) due to an increase by one-fifth compared to the end of 2021 (see

Figure 23). While the caseload for Syrians decreased gradually in the first half of the year, in

August the trend was reversed and by the end of the year it reached the most since

October 2017. Although pending cases for Afghan applicants also started to increase towards

the end of 2022, the stock in late December was marginally lower than a year earlier.

Following a surge in asylum applications to unprecedented levels (see Section 4.4), nationals

of Türkiye had 58,000 open cases at the end of 2022, the most on record since at least 2008.

Pending cases reached record values also for citizens of Colombia (47,000),

Bangladesh (29,000), Georgia (23,000), Morocco (16,000), the Democratic Republic of the

Congo (15,000), Egypt (13,000) and Algeria (8,200). In October 2022, caseloads rose to an all-

time high also for Indians (12,000) and Tunisians (8,500) but then started to decrease.

Most applications for many of the top nationalities were pending in Germany, where a

decrease in the caseload for Afghan and Nigerian applicants was offset by an increase in

cases for Turkish and Georgian applicants. Colombians and Venezuelans held the most

pending cases in Spain, while it was Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in Italy.

Rising number of pending cases for applicants from Syria,

Türkiye and Colombia

Figure 23. Pending cases in EU+ countries at the end of 2022 compared to the end of

2021 by Top 10 countries of origin of applicants for international protection

Syria

+21%

End of 2021

Afghanistan

-3%

End of 2022

Türkiye

+78%

Colombia

+105%

Iraq

-5%

Venezuela

+84%

Pakistan

+23%

Bangladesh

+46%

Nigeria

-15%

Georgia

+66%

Other

+11%

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Source: Eurostat [migr_asypenctzm] as of 13 April 2023.

171

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

While pending cases for Syrian applicants remained stable in Germany, there were

considerable increases in Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus and the Netherlands. Although the

caseload for applicants from Afghanistan decreased in Germany, it rose in Austria, Belgium,

Cyprus, France and Switzerland. In addition to Germany, but on a smaller scale in absolute

terms, the stock of pending cases for Turks grew also in Austria, France and Switzerland.

The stocks of cases for applicants from Bangladesh and Pakistan in Italy (13,300 and 14,300,

respectively) reached all-time highs, as did those of Colombians and Peruvians in

Spain (40,300 and 10,200, respectively). A record high was also reported for cases pending

for Georgians in Germany (8,600).

Seven in 10 pending cases at the end of 2022 pertained to male applicants. For almost all

nationalities, more males were awaiting a decision than females. The only exception was for

applicants from Côte d’Ivoire, with 53% of cases pending for women and girls. There was a

gender balance for pending cases for many Latin Americans (Colombians, Peruvians,

Salvadorans and Venezuelans) and for Ukrainians.^lii

While 57% of all pending cases belonged to adult males, children accounted for over one-

fifth (22%) of all applicants awaiting a decision. Boys were still the majority (58%) in the group

of children. Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis and Turks jointly accounted for about two-fifths of all

minors. In total, 72% of all minors who had yet to learn the outcome of their application for

international protection were below 14 years of age.

^lii Only nationalities with at least 5,000 pending cases at the end of 2022 were considered.

172

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Section 4.7.

Reception

of applicants

for international

protection

The recast RCD sets the standards for

The recast RCD describes the conditions

the conditions which must be met for the

and processes under which applicants need

reception of an asylum applicant and

to be informed about reception benefits and

aims to ensure that applicants’ rights and

duties (see Section 4.9). The directive also

obligations are harmonised across all

outlines the circumstances when Member

Member States.

States may reduce or exceptionally

withdraw material reception conditions.

The reception of applicants for

international protection encompasses

Member States must have appropriate

rules on material reception conditions

guidance, monitoring and controls to ensure

(such as housing, food and clothing

that the EU standards are upheld. They also

which are provided in kind, through

need to provide suitable staff training and

financial allowances or in vouchers - or

allocate sufficient resources. Member States

a combination of these three - and a

are required as well to take into account the

daily expense allowance), freedom of

specific situation of vulnerable applicants

movement, access to health care,

(see Section 5). Furthermore, the directive

education for children, access to the

lists the criteria, guarantees and conditions

labour market, language instruction for

for the detention of applicants (see

children and socio-cultural orientation.

Section 4.8). The standards in the directive,

The directive applies to all applicants

however, can be imposed differently in

throughout the whole asylum procedure

national laws, and thus, variations exist in

from the moment an application is made

reception conditions across countries.

and for all types of procedures until they

are allowed to remain on the territory.

173

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

2022 was an extremely challenging year for reception authorities in EU+ countries, which

experienced a rise in the number of applicants for international protection and received

millions of persons in need of temporary protection - and thus, of shelter and accommodation.

The main issue remained the lack of sufficient places, even though Member States continued

to significantly invest in increasing reception capacity. Some countries surpassed all previous

capacity records, but this still was not enough to offer adequate accommodation for all

applicants. The challenges were multifaceted and included, for example, inadequate funding

and issues with collaborating with municipalities. Only Nordic countries and a few transit

countries (from where applicants often move towards another EU+ country) did not report

issues with capacity.

Member States explored different ways to address the issue. Some reached out to new

stakeholders to strengthen the reception system, for example, through the closer involvement

of civil society organisations, municipal actors, disaster management or private actors. Among

13 operating plans in 2022, the EUAA assisted to enhance the reception system for 10

countries, increase the integrity of the asylum procedure (see Section 4.2) or its efficiency (see

Sections 4.3 and 4.4). Some measures which were implemented by national authorities, for

example limitations on family reunification, are currently being scrutinised by the courts.

Reception conditions deteriorated in overcrowded centres and led to sub-standard conditions

in many EU+ countries, as widely documented by civil society organisations. Courts stepped in

to reiterate the obligations of Member States. The European Commission sent letters of formal

notice to several countries for failing to properly transpose the recast RCD.

As the focus remained on immediate needs, such as finding enough reception places and

ensuring adequate living conditions, less initiatives seemed to have been implemented to

facilitate applicants’ entry into employment, orientation in the new society or accessing

education and health care. National authorities tried, but sometimes struggled, to ensure at

least the basic services.

In these circumstances, the European Parliament’s rapporteur of the revised RCD noted that

the agreement reached in December 2022 between the European Parliament and the Council

on the legislative proposal was a breakthrough that can ensure high and consistent reception

standards.⁵³⁰

4.7.1. Entitlement to material reception conditions

The lack of reception places gave rise to several judgments which obliged

national authorities to immediately ensure access to material reception

conditions for applicants (see Section 4.7.2.1). Other court cases looked into

the scope of persons who are covered by national legislation in reception and

provided guidance on when an applicant’s material reception conditions can

and cannot be withdrawn.

Among legislative changes, new regulations entered into force in Norway, which determined

benefits for residents in asylum reception centres.⁵³¹ In Poland, the Helsinki Foundation for

Human Rights underlined that cash benefits for applicants staying outside of reception

facilities remained very low and not sufficient to cover daily costs.⁵³²

174

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Amendments to the Slovak Asylum Act codified the already-existing practice that applicants

could stay outside of the reception facility for 3 months, with the possibility to extend this

period without losing their right to material reception conditions.⁵³³

In December 2022, the Secretary of State for Migration in Spain adopted an instruction

detailing the requirements to access and stay in the reception system. Among other issues,

the instruction foresees that the phase of the initial assessment and referral, despite being a

part of the reception system, does not count while calculating the 18-month (or 24-month)

period of stay, and only the other two phases are taken into consideration for the calculation

of the duration.⁵³⁴

In 2022, a new Ministerial Decision was issued in Cyprus which determines the criteria and

level of material reception conditions. It also introduced a new application form.^liii

In the context of the reception crisis, Fedasil in Belgium issued a new instruction in

November 2022 on the forced and voluntary withdrawal of reception conditions for working

applicants. The aim of the instruction was to free up spaces in the reception network, and thus

it ordered the forced withdrawal of reception conditions for applicants with a stable work

contract (of a minimum of 6 months) and an income higher than the minimum living wage.

Applicants who meet these conditions receive a motivated decision indicating that they must

leave the reception centre within 1 month.⁵³⁵

The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court concluded that persons were not covered by the

Law on Reception of Asylum Seekers and Others if they already had a residence permit (for

example, for studies) and then applied for international protection.

The Slovenian High Court confirmed the lower courts’ decisions that an applicant was not

guaranteed accommodation and access to health care while awaiting his transfer to Croatia

under the Dublin III Regulation (see Section 4.2). In the meantime, legislation in Slovenia

related to the entitlement to material reception conditions changed,⁵³⁶ and the situation of

applicants in the Dublin procedure was clarified.

The French Council of State concluded that an applicant’s refusal to appear for summons to

organise a Dublin transfer could be considered a serious breach of house rules, entailing the

withdrawal of the reception place and the applicant’s expulsion from the facility (see

Section 4.2). The Labour Court in Brussels found that Fedasil’s decision to revoke material

reception conditions for 14 days from an 18-year Afghan applicant was contrary to the

recast RCD and the CJEU’s Haqbin judgment. In this judgment, which the CJEU reaffirmed in

another case, the court underlined that the withdrawal of material reception conditions cannot

deprive the applicant from the possibility of meeting the most basic needs. Sanctions should

always be proportional and respect human dignity.

Related to the amount of cash benefits to which applicants are entitled, the Federal

Constitutional Court in Germany concluded that the reduction of benefits for single people

and single parents living in collective reception facilities was unconstitutional. The court found

that the assumption that the residents would form a financial community (phrased as

^liii According to the new Ministerial Decision, the person must be an applicant for international protection, for whom

material reception conditions cannot be covered in Reception and/or Accommodation Centres, who lives in the

areas controlled by the Republic of Cyprus and both the applicant and their family members are not employed. In

the event that the applicant or any member of their family is employed, the family may continue to receive

assistance as long as the monthly income is less than the total amount of assistance to which the family is entitled.

175

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

“community of destiny”) cannot be considered as evidence that the impacted residents could

correspondingly reduce their needs.

In Poland since 24 February 2022, it is possible to grant a financial allowance for asylum

seekers living outside of reception centres without their prior registration in one of the first

reception centres. The Human Rights Commissioner appealed (in 2022 and February 2023) to

the Ministry of the Interior and Administration to increase the amount of the financial

allowance for asylum seekers living outside of the reception centres.⁵³⁷ In Romania, the

amounts of financial allowances were doubled as of 27 February 2022.⁵³⁸

The Organization for Aid to Refugees (OPU) in Czechia highlighted that when a decision on an

applicant’s Dublin transfer became final, the person loses the applicant status under the

Asylum Act and, consequently, the right to reception, including the right to access health care

under public health insurance. The organisation described the case of an applicant family with

a child with disabilities, who were merely issued an exit visa to travel to Italy but were not able

to organise their travel on their own due to the child’s needs.⁵³⁹

In Cyprus, organisations indicated difficulties in accessing material reception conditions

outside of collective accommodation centres as the recently-revised application to apply for

them required the submission of eight types of documentation for the applicant and each

family member, the processing times were long and, although the application for material

assistance could be submitted without a rental contract, in such cases applicants would not

receive rent allowances and the amounts for bills and daily expenses would be reduced. For

applicants in the Pournara centre, in August 2022 the Social Welfare Services - with the

assistance of UNHCR and the Cyprus Refugee Council - piloted a new procedure where

asylum seekers submit an application for material reception conditions before exiting the

centre.⁵⁴⁰

In 2022, PRO ASYL and the Refugee Council Berlin published a comprehensive study on

reception conditions in Germany, noting that the average duration of stay varied not only for

different nationalities but also due to regional differences.

4.7.2. Organisation and functioning of reception

systems

4.7.2.1. Adjusting reception capacity and impact on reception conditions

The sharply-increasing number of applicants for international protection, as

well as the need to accommodate persons with temporary protection, pushed

many reception systems beyond their limits. While caring for persons with

temporary protection has often been the responsibility of organisations other

than reception authorities, and their accommodation has often been organised

outside of traditional reception systems for asylum seekers, the situation had

an impact on the number of available sites or on the ability of municipalities to offer new sites.

In countries where persons with temporary protection were supported through the reception

system, facilities quickly became full. Among the 13 EUAA operational plans implemented in

2022, 10 included measures on enhancing reception capacity.⁵⁴¹

176

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

A number of countries needed to significantly increase the number of accommodation places,

such as Austria, Belgium, France (20,000 places for people displaced from Ukraine), Germany,

Ireland, Italy (where the hotspot of Messina was reopened), Luxembourg, the Netherlands,

Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland. New facilities were opened in other countries, such as

Estonia, Finland, Latvia,⁵⁴² Norway and Slovakia, while an existing centre of Kofinou in Cyprus

was being extended. The occupancy rate of existing structures largely increased, for example,

in Bulgaria and Croatia. The Croatian Ministry of the Interior added that it was actively working

on finding new locations with an adequate structure that would meet the needs for the

reception and accommodation of applicants for international protection according to EU

standards, due to a high number of arrivals. The refurbishment of the facility in Kutina was

completed and the centre’s capacity was increased to 140 places, increasing the total capacity

to 740 places. Further expansion of the reception capacity was planned through opening new

facilities and expending the capacity of existing ones.

Only Greece reduced the number of reception places, and the end of 2022 marked the

completion of the accommodation programme for vulnerable asylum seekers, “Emergency

Support to Integration and Accommodation (ESTIA)”. Municipalities which hosted the

programme recognised the positive impacts of the scheme on local communities.⁵⁴³

In Austria, the Minister of the Interior announced in October 2022 that the reception system

had reached its capacity. Applicants who are admitted to the asylum procedure generally

move to facilities managed by federal provinces, but those facilities also needed to

accommodate persons with temporary protection. In addition, due to the funding structure,

many federal provinces closed reception places in recent years. Asylkoordination österreich

highlighted that at the end of 2022 there were 17,000 fewer places than 5 years ago for

applicants for international protection,⁵⁴⁴ and since many applicants travelled on, there was a

high fluctuation rate which was a big challenge for the Federal Agency for Reception and

Support Services (BBU) that operates the federal centres.⁵⁴⁵

UNHCR also noted that, despite a surge in applications, the number of reception places

available for applicants for international protection in federal provinces was just slightly above

the level at the end of 2021.⁵⁴⁶ Thus, many applicants remained in federal facilities managed

by the BBU.⁵⁴⁷ The national authorities underlined that, although there were less places in

organised reception facilities in 2022, the reception system overall took care of more people

in total compared to 2017. People (especially beneficiaries of temporary protection) were

mostly in private accommodation but still cared for through the reception system. Tents were

used for a few weeks in autumn 2022 to fill the gap in accommodation places, but this

practice quickly stopped due to the winter.⁵⁴⁸ UNHCR underlined the inadequacy of these

tents to accommodate applicants during winter conditions.⁵⁴⁹

Pressure has been building up in the Belgian reception system for several years. On

19 January 2022, the Brussels first instance tribunal condemned Fedasil for not having

foreseen appropriate structures to accommodate an increasing number of applicants and

ordered the treasury to pay a daily fine until the situation was resolved. However, civil society

organisations estimated that at the end of 2022, there were 3,000 persons seeking protection

who had not been offered reception.⁵⁵⁰ NGOs indicated that since March 2022 the access to

the reception network is systematically denied to single men applying for international

protection, and in general, applicants without access to the reception network are not given

an individually-motivated decision. They are merely informed about the shortage of places

and instructed to register themselves on a waiting list.⁵⁵¹

177

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

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

approximately 600 persons, all of whom received a final domestic decision from the Brussels

Labour Court.⁵⁵² Overall, Fedasil was condemned more than 6,000 times by the Brussels

Labour Tribunal for failing to provide material reception conditions.⁵⁵³ The federal government

and Fedasil undertook several steps to address the situation. At the end of 2022, the

reception system reached 33,505 places, with 4,000 places created in 2022.⁵⁵⁴ The focus

was especially on creating new places for unaccompanied children (see Section 5).⁵⁵⁵ The

agency also recruited 800 employees in 2022,⁵⁵⁶ and 58 persons were recruited through an

inter-institutional process from other public service organisations.⁵⁵⁷ The winter plan was

signed, for example reserving a certain amount of places in the accommodation structure for

the homeless, specifically for applicants for international protection. At the same time, this

initiative, coordinated by the civil society organisation Samusocial, also faced a critical lack of

staff to manage the places.⁵⁵⁸

Fedasil launched a public procurement for the private sector to offer an

additional 3,500 places, while contracts for four centres already managed by private operators

were extended until 15 March 2023.⁵⁵⁹ Other stakeholders of the asylum procedure also made

adjustments to alleviate pressure. The registration process was re-organised and applicants

needed to report again at the Immigration Office’s Pacheco building instead of the arrival

centre in Brussels (see Section 4.1).⁵⁶⁰

The CGRS prioritised certain categories of applicants in the reception system and focused on

applications from countries with high recognition rates, where decisions could be made based

on the file (see Section 4.4). However, these efforts could still not match the challenge of

accommodating all applicants, whose numbers were rapidly increasing.⁵⁶¹ In March 2023, the

Belgium government announced measures aiming to free up spaces in reception facilities by

focusing on outflow and on returning rejected applicants. In total, additional places were

planned to be created, for example through the use of EUAA containers, but the authorities

had not been able to secure an adequate site.⁵⁶²

The situation in the Dutch reception system became critical in 2022, even though the number

of reception places continued to grow significantly (for example, cruise ships had been hired

to accommodate applicants).⁵⁶³ The deteriorating conditions were the most noticeable in the

central reception facility in Ter Apel. The death of a baby in a sport hall that served as an

emergency facility for Ter Apel in August 2022 received a lot of attention and led to the

announcement of a comprehensive set of measures to address the situation.⁵⁶⁴ On 26 August

2022, the Secretary of State announced several measures to address the reception crisis,

referred to as the ‘asylum deal’. The most important measures were prolonging the decision-

making period (WBV 2022/22), suspending family reunification, temporarily cancelling the

resettlement of refugees under the EU-Türkiye deal, and launching the ‘Dispersal Law’

(Spreidingswet). In response to the reception crisis, on 8 November 2022 a legislative

proposal was put forward aiming to distribute the number of reception places in the country.

The Dispersal Law - currently pending - will ensure that municipalities will be responsible for

providing sufficient reception places for asylum seekers (Article 6(1)).⁵⁶⁵

A common investigation was conducted by the Health and Youth Care inspectorate and the

Justice and Security Inspectorate.⁵⁶⁶ The set of measures were temporary in nature, planned

to be in place until 31 December 2023, specifically to alleviate the pressure on the reception

system. These included: limitations on family reunification, suspending resettlement under the

EU- Türkiye deal, and setting up a general Housing Construction Programme to speed up the

outflow of recognised beneficiaries of international protection.⁵⁶⁷ The Advisory Council on

178

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Migration assessed that these measure did not solve the structural issues of the reception

system, had a negative impact on the rights of applicants and beneficiaries of international

protection, and many of them were not aligned with national and EU legislation.⁵⁶⁸

Several measures were proposed to speed up the outflow of recognised beneficiaries of

international protection, accounting for approximately one-third of the residents in reception.

For example, the Hotel and Accommodation Regulation was extended until the end of 2022

to provide financial support to municipalities and support beneficiaries of international

protection in moving out of reception.⁵⁶⁹ In addition, the Dutch government observed that

efforts to set up new reception places were often undermined by the negative image

projected through a small group of residents who engaged in criminal behaviour. Thus,

measures against disruptive behaviour continued and were planned to be enhanced (see

Section 4.7.3.1). Municipalities were also hesitant to open new places due to the funding

system, and discussions were ongoing to reform this.⁵⁷⁰

On 8 November 2022, the Minister for Migration launched the consultation process on the law

proposal obliging provinces and municipalities to provide reception places for applicants for

international protection, with several sets of financial incentives for municipalities to create

more reception places, including for unaccompanied minors (see Section 5.6.5).⁵⁷¹ The

Advisory Council on Migration welcomed the proposal and underlined that it essentially

followed the council’s earlier recommendations. Additional suggestions were made to adapt

the planning cycle of the proposal and establish more stable funding for the stakeholders

involved.⁵⁷²

As underlined by the Advisory Council on Migration,⁵⁷³ the Council for Public Administration⁵⁷⁴

and the Court of Auditors,⁵⁷⁵ the situation was partially the result of the constant opening and

closing of centres and the lack of a more stable reception system with adequate funding.

According to the forecast of the Ministry of Justice and Security in November 2022,

75,000 reception places were necessary for the end of 2023.⁵⁷⁶ The Court of the Hague

condemned the Dutch State and the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum

Seekers (COA) for the crisis situation and ordered them to meet reception standards in terms

of adequate rooms, access to sanitary facilities, drinking water, sufficient and adequate food,

financial allowance, play areas and education for children, health care, medical screening, and

accommodation for unaccompanied minors and other applicants with special needs.

The measures were confirmed by the Court of Appeal of The Hague in December 2022,

setting aside the limitation that they applied to applicants ‘currently’ residing in crisis

emergency shelters. In addition, on appeal, the court ruled that the state should ensure that

applicants for international protection and persons with temporary protection receive the

same quality of reception conditions.

The German Federal Ministry of the Interior announced additional financial resources to

support municipalities in accommodating the increasing number of applicants and

beneficiaries of temporary protection. The federal government provided federal buildings to

municipalities to be used as reception facilities, accounting for 64,000 places and enabling

the creation of 4,000 additional places.⁵⁷⁷

The Irish Refugee Council published a report on the impact of the accommodation crisis on

reception capacity, noting that in September 2022 newly-arrived applicants were turned away

due to a lack of accommodation and were offered a place only a few weeks later.⁵⁷⁸

In January 2023, the provision of an emergency shelter for adult applicants for international

179

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

protection was paused in the Transit Hub at Citywest in Dublin, as it reached full capacity. The

authorities requested applicants who cannot be provided with accommodation to provide

their contact details, so that they can be reached when accommodation becomes available.⁵⁷⁹

At the same time, several protests were reported against the opening of new centres.⁵⁸⁰

A new policy took effect in November 2022 for beneficiaries of temporary protection in order

to manage the crisis. According to this policy, they were offered one suitable accommodation

and no further offers were made.⁵⁸¹ Due to the pressure on the reception system, the Head of

the Advisory Group on the Provision of Support including Accommodation to Persons in the

International Protection Process expressed concerns over the possibility to meet the

governments’ timeline to end direct provision and transition to a not-for-profit system

by 2024.⁵⁸² However, the rolling out of the new policy continued in 2022 and the Irish Minster

for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth announced that 67 projects received

EUR 1.6 million from the International Protection Integration Fund 2022 to support the

integration of applicants.⁵⁸³

Luxembourg continued to increase its capacity, both for applicants of international protection

and beneficiaries of temporary protection throughout the year 2022. For applicants for

international protection, the National Reception Office (ONA) increased the number of

temporary accommodation facilities from 54 in the beginning of 2022 to 56 at the end of

2022, and its total capacity from 4,249 beds to 5,126 beds. The additions included a new

modular structure in Frisange, a new temporary accommodation structure in the Gasperich

quarter of Luxembourg City⁵⁸⁴ and the re-opening of the renovated structure in Weilerbach.⁵⁸⁵

To cope with the mass influx of people fleeing the war in Ukraine, the ONA opened

emergency facilities, often temporary. At the end of 2022, the number of these facilities

reached 11, accommodating 1,205 people. The ONA recruited an additional 75 staff members

to operate the new sites and manage the arrival of persons in need of temporary protection.

Overall, the bed capacity increased from 4,155 beds at the end of 2021 to 7,010 beds in

December 2022.

Italy continued to increase the number of reception facilities throughout the year.

Nonetheless, in December 2022 it requested the temporary suspension of Dublin transfers to

the country due to the unavailability of places. Civil society organisations reported that several

applicants were forced to live on the streets, for example in Ancona⁵⁸⁶ and in Trento,⁵⁸⁷ due to

a lack of reception places.

Cases reached the courts as well, and for example, the Regional Administrative Tribunal of

Veneto reiterated that material reception conditions should be provided immediately when

the application for international protection is made. In that case, the applicant expressed his

wish to apply for international protection in February 2022 but was still without material

reception conditions in May 2022. A group of Italian NGOs also observed delays between

expressing the wish to apply for international protection and the enrolment in the reception

system, forcing applicants to sleep outdoors sometimes for weeks.⁵⁸⁸

The Regional Administrative Tribunal of Brescia confirmed that applicants must be provided

with material reception conditions, despite the high number of arrivals. In that case, the

authorities rejected the applicant’s request for reception based on a lack of places due to an

increase in the number of Afghan applicants arriving through humanitarian corridors and the

rise in the number of COVID-19-positive applicants.

180

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

SEM in Switzerland also reported on challenges to find sufficient accommodation for the

increasing number of asylum applicants and persons in need of temporary protection. It

highlighted the close cooperation among the Confederation, cantons, cities and municipalities

to address this issue.⁵⁸⁹ Civil protection and additional members of the civilian service were

called on to set up and help to operate emergency accommodation facilities.⁵⁹⁰ Asylex and

the Swiss Refugee Council noted that temporary accommodation structures included

underground shelters as well, which often triggered negative experiences and trauma for

applicants.⁵⁹¹

In October 2022, SEM started to assign some applicants to cantons at an earlier stage to

alleviate overcrowding in federal reception centres. This measure was in place until mid-

December 2022 for applicants whose asylum procedure had not yet been concluded, and

remained in force for former applicants who had received a return decision.⁵⁹² In addition, the

military offered temporary support in the establishment and operation of federal reception

centres, pending the arrival of newly-recruited, qualified SEM staff.⁵⁹³ In December 2022, SEM

communicated again that more military buildings were to be temporarily used as reception

centres and that the army would provide further support in logistics and transportation, but not

assistance nor security. Given the acute lack of personnel, civil servants also provided support

in assistance tasks. At its meeting of 1 February 2023, the Federal Council adopted the

corresponding report for the parliament's attention. The parliament approved this deployment

of the army in the 2023 spring session.⁵⁹⁴ SEM noted that, by the end of March 2023, as

planned, the subsidiary support of the military with army staff could be terminated.

New reception facilities were opened in Finland throughout 2022 to accommodate persons

fleeing the war in Ukraine.⁵⁹⁵ A tender was launched in September 2022 for 16 reception

centres, intended mainly for the accommodation of persons with temporary protection.⁵⁹⁶

Reception capacity was quickly scaled up in Norway as well to accommodate arrivals from

Ukraine. Ukrainians were swiftly referred to municipalities, thus reception for applicants for

international protection was not impacted.

In Portugal it was announced that AMIF funding was granted to the Jesuit Refugee Service for

the creation of a reception centre in Vendas Novas. According to the information available, it

is expected to start its operations in 2023.⁵⁹⁷

The number of reception places was significantly decreased in Greece as occupancy rates

declined.⁵⁹⁸ In its press release, the Ministry of Migration and Asylum announced that the

number of applications significantly increased, but the number of residents in reception

indeed declined, as many of the applicants were either relocated, returned or expulsed.⁵⁹⁹ For

example, after a substantial decrease in the number of places available under the ESTIA II

programme in 2021⁶⁰⁰ and at the beginning of 2022,⁶⁰¹ the Ministry of Migration and Asylum

ended the ESTIA II scheme by 31 December 2022 and moved all remaining beneficiaries of

the scheme into mainland structures.⁶⁰² The Minister of Migration and Asylum announced that

the closing of the scheme is a sign that “migration is under control”.⁶⁰³

Refugee Support Aegean observed that residents were often told only a few days in advance

about the transfer and did not know about the location of their new accommodation. The

transfer disrupted many applicants’ education, employment or health treatment. The

organisation also noted that the closing of the scheme meant that small-scale accommodation

was no longer available, for example, for vulnerable applicants. It cited UNHCR Greece’s

spokesperson, who acknowledged the need to adapt reception capacity to the changes of

181

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

migration flows but underlined that at least some small-scale structures should be maintained

for extremely vulnerable applicants.⁶⁰⁴ Other Greek NGOs expressed similar concerns.⁶⁰⁵

In Poland, the special rules on the duration of material reception conditions connected with

the COVID-19 pandemic were repealed in April 2022. Thus, the prolongation of the provision

of the material reception conditions beyond the regular timeframe lasted only until 15 May

2022. In 2022, the Association for Legal Intervention joined cases before administrative

courts on the protection of these rights. The proceedings are pending.⁶⁰⁶

4.7.2.2. Adapting reception systems

The exceptional situation in reception prompted several national

administrations to continue with the adaptation of their reception model and

the implementation of the reception pathway. Proposals were made for

adjusting multiannual strategies and objectives, as well as to make funding

available in a more flexible manner. As more people were in need of

reception, than foreseen at the beginning of 2022, funding for reception was

significantly increased through additional budgets in several countries. The arrival of persons

in need of temporary protection also prompted the need to revise and update existing asylum

and reception contingency plans, for example in Slovenia and Slovakia.⁶⁰⁷

The concept for a new reception and accommodation model (the idea of creating a new

model) was approved in Lithuania, and the Ministry of the Interior started the preparations for

the necessary legislation. Under the model, the SBGS and the Migration Department under

the Ministry of the Interior retain functions related to the identification of applicants, the

international protection procedure, detention and return. Tasks related to the accommodation

of applicants, health checks, interpretation services and psychological support would be

transferred to a new entity under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour.⁶⁰⁸

In March 2022, the Spanish government adopted Royal Decree 220/2022 of 29 March 2022,

approving the regulation governing the reception system. The new regulation entered into

force on 31 March 2022, establishing an assessment and referral step and a two-phase

reception system which adapts benefits and paths to the profile of an applicant - largely

similar to the previous system. The legislation clarified that the second phase is only

accessible to recognised beneficiaries of international protection. The financing of the

reception system was revised to provide more stability for all participating stakeholders.

Funding for three organisations (CEAR, Accem and Red Cross) was initially approved to

implement international protection programmes, and 24 organisations were authorised to

provide reception for applicants for international protection in the beginning of 2023.⁶⁰⁹ The

regulation also gathered all standards and guidelines that were previously scattered in

different legislative pieces.⁶¹⁰ In further improving the reception of applicants for international

protection, CEAR highlighted the positive experience with the management of reception for

persons in need of temporary protection and advocated for this model to be extended to all

persons seeking protection in Spain.⁶¹¹ UNHCR also underlined that the one-stop shop

approach, through the creation of CREADEs, was a positive development which should be

maintained.⁶¹²

For adjusting the reception path, Iceland opened an arrival centre in Reykjavík, where all

services are offered in the same facility, including registration by the police, reception

interviews, first health inspection and needs analysis for permanent housing. The centre

182

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

welcomes both applicants for international protection and persons in need of temporary

protection.⁶¹³

A new emergency first-reception centre was established in Luxembourg for applicants for

temporary protection, with a capacity of 600 beds. Since September 2022, due to the mass

influx of applicants for international protection and persons fleeing the war in Ukraine, the site

welcomes both applicants for international protection and people in need of temporary

protection.

In Greece, a new legal code was adopted compiling in one legislative document all rules

related to reception.⁶¹⁴

The Belgian Fedasil presented its new management plan for the period 2021-2026, defining

the organisation’s strategic and operational objectives. The agency aims to develop a

sufficiently flexible reception system, based on buffer places, instead of opening and closing

centres. The plan also foresees investing in improving the quality of reception, as well as

residents’ and employees’ security. Fedasil intends to focus on adapting its internal

organisation, for example by improving collaboration across different services, and between

the headquarters and reception centres. More emphasis should be put on preparing residents

for the life after reception, whether in Belgium or elsewhere.⁶¹⁵ Still, the implementation of this

plan met major difficulties due to the crisis that unfolded with the significant lack of reception

places.

In the Netherlands, COA updated its Multiannual Strategy 2020-2025 and noted that, due to

the current developments, it was unrealistic to assume that all goals would be achieved by

2025. Thus, the strategy was extended with an additional year. The goals were also re-

prioritised, and in 2023, the organisation will focus on establishing a stable reception system

with small-scale facilities as one of the elements in achieving this, the outflow of recognised

beneficiaries of international protection, improving COA’s agility and implementation capacity,

and public affairs and stakeholder management.⁶¹⁶

The Austrian Court of Audit published the results of the special audit of federal reception

facilities in January 2022, covering the period 2013 to 2020. The audit recommended

changes in the financing and re-negotiation of rental contracts for the opening and closing of

facilities. The report also urged the federal government to plan more strategically for an

eventual significant increase in the number of applicants in need of reception.⁶¹⁷

The arrival of persons in need of temporary protection increased reception costs in many

EU+ countries. For example, the SMA in Sweden noted that its administrative costs needed to

be increased to cover new recruitments (see Section 4.4) and it estimated that SEK 7 billion

was needed to cover increased costs for municipalities and regions during 2023 (see

Section 4.14).⁶¹⁸ The Slovak government approved an increase in the allowance for the

accommodation of beneficiaries of temporary protection under the Act on Asylum, which was

provided until February 2023.⁶¹⁹

4.7.2.3. Working together with other stakeholders

Several Member States reached out to additional and new stakeholders to

ensure accommodation for persons in need of temporary protection.⁶²⁰ For

example, a new reception model was introduced in Finland for beneficiaries of

temporary protection, where people who have fled Ukraine could receive

183

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

accommodation from a municipality without a reception centre being established there. The

Finnish Immigration Service compensates municipalities for the costs.⁶²¹ These new ways of

cooperation may provide an example of collaborative models for the reception of

beneficiaries of international protection.

To address the critical shortages in reception places, Fedasil continued its quest to strengthen

cooperation with private operators and launched a new public procurement in October 2022

(see Section 4.7.2.1).⁶²² Belgian municipalities made their structures available for persons in

need of temporary protection, but this limited the number of available structures to increase

reception capacity for beneficiaries of international protection. In Jabbeke, the mayor

prohibited the use of a site due to health concerns, but this decision was overturned by the

Council of State, noting that the State Secretary for Asylum and Migration and Fedasil had

addressed these concerns in an appropriate manner. The Tribunal of First Instance in Brussels

decided in favour of local authorities that took legal action to close the reception centre in

Molenbeek due to urban planning. Fedasil appealed the decision.⁶²³

The Austrian federal parliament approved an amendment to the agreement between the

federal state and the provinces, and as a result, financing for people in reception was

increased as of March 2022.⁶²⁴ The pressure on the reception system led to more tensions

between the federal and provincial levels, debating issues of responsibility to provide

reception for applicants for international protection, ensuring an adequate number of places

and financing the costs of the additional places.

In the Netherlands, security regions stepped in to open and manage crisis reception

facilities.⁶²⁵ This alleviated some of the immediate reception needs but did not lead to a

structural solution for the shortage in reception capacity. Municipalities were often reluctant to

open new facilities due to funding and modalities, requirements on the number of applicants

to be hosted and a lack of clarity over long-term contracts. In addition, cooperation with

municipalities was sometimes challenging due to the disruptive behaviour of a few applicants

in some localities and the negative image this created in national press (see Section 4.7.3.1.).

The Portuguese High Commission for Migration signed a new set of protocols for cooperation

in the reception and integration of beneficiaries of international protection with various

organisations, including the Child Support Association, ADOLESCERE Association, São José

Workshops, Braga Delegation of the Portuguese Red Cross and the São José Youth Centre.

The protocols focused especially on support to Afghans with special needs or

vulnerabilities.⁶²⁶

Italian NGOs developed a publicly-available database which maps reception facilities in the

country, showing their capacity, occupancy, typology and average costs.⁶²⁷

4.7.2.4. Reception conditions

The lack of reception places led to overcrowding and sub-standard reception

conditions in many countries, including in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands

(see Section 4.7.2.1). Courts expressed concern in the framework of the Dublin

procedure about reception conditions in Croatia and Lithuania. The Croatian

Ministry of the Interior signalled that the Dublin Procedure Department had not

received official information on such cases. The Italian and Romanian

administrations had to temporarily suspend Dublin transfers due to a lack of reception

capacity, in addition to other factors (see Section 4.2).

184

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

The European Commission sent letters of formal notice to Belgium, Greece, Portugal and

Spain for failing to transpose in a conform manner all provisions of the recast RCD.⁶²⁸ Fedasil

underlined that in Belgium this was because the organisation was unable to provide

accommodation to many applicants (mainly single men), and not due to the reception

conditions not meeting the standards. Several court cases concerned the situation of minors

being accommodated in adult reception centres or even detained, without safeguards for their

special needs (see Section 5).

In 2022, several renovations and infrastructural works were undertaken at reception facilities

in Hal Far in Malta, for instance, new sanitary facilities and green landscaping.⁶²⁹ The Council

of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights published a report at the beginning of 2022

following her visit to Malta in October 2021, which noted that both the Hal Far Tent Village and

the Hangar Open Centre appeared to be overcrowded and lacked air conditioning and

heating. The Commissioner observed a lack of sanitary facilities but noted the works

underway to install additional showers and toilets.⁶³⁰ The Maltese government confirmed

these in its reply and listed additional projects to ensure a more pleasant environment which

would also be suitable for children.⁶³¹

Concerning the situation in Greece, the European Commission wrote in September 2022 that

“(r)eception conditions on the islands and on the mainland in Greece (shelter, hygiene, access

to health and education for all children etc.) have been substantially improved and are in line

with the European standards”.⁶³² Civil society organisations continued to express concerns

about the new CCACs, describing them as being prison-like.⁶³³ The European Ombudsperson

opened an own-initiative inquiry to assess how the European Commission ensured respect for

fundamental rights in EU-funded facilities, such as the CCACs.⁶³⁴ Refugee Support Aegean

and HIAS submitted their observations to the Ombudsperson, drawing mainly on their

casework and research as legal assistance providers.⁶³⁵ In January 2023, the European

Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Greek authorities about concerns related to

the transposition of the recast RCD.⁶³⁶

One of the main challenges Cyprus continued to encounter was the over-crowdedness of the

First Reception Centre and particularly the lack of places in the safe zone (see Section 5).

Spain allocated additional funds to improve reception conditions. EUR 50 million were

allocated for the improvement of reception conditions on the Canary Islands, focusing on the

care of unaccompanied minors, education, health and supporting countries of origin.⁶³⁷

In addition, EUR 10 million were allocated to reinforce the asylum and reception systems in

Ceuta, financed 90% from EU funds.⁶³⁸ The arrival of displaced persons also prompted the

activation of an extraordinary budget of EUR 1.2 billion to strengthen the Spanish reception

system overall.⁶³⁹ Nonetheless, the European Commission considered that Spain failed to

transpose the recast RCD in a correct manner and sent a letter of formal notice.⁶⁴⁰

The National Asylum Network, which groups several civil society organisations working on

reception in Italy, published a report assessing the situation of reception in the country. It

advocated for phasing out Temporary Reception Centres (CAS), while strengthening the

System for Reception and Integration (SAI).⁶⁴¹

The Romanian Ombudsperson carried out visits to the reception facilities in Raduti,⁶⁴²

Galati,⁶⁴³ Marumures - Somcuta Mare⁶⁴⁴ and Giurgiu⁶⁴⁵ and made detailed recommendations

for each centre to improve reception conditions. These were followed up with detailed replies

185

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

from the General Inspectorate for Immigration on the actions implemented to address the

recommendations.⁶⁴⁶

Concerns around reception facilities in Lithuania continued. The Ombudsperson published a

report on the Kybartai centre, based on visits carried out in December 2021 and January

2022. She highlighted that the restrictions applied to applicants were equivalent to detention,

access to information and legal aid were insufficient, and the facility lacked privacy and

hygiene in general.⁶⁴⁷ The SBGS noted that it needed more time to improve the living

conditions in the facility.⁶⁴⁸ The findings of the Ombudsperson triggered visits from members

of the Lithuanian parliament to several reception centres to inspect the conditions and ensure

that the concerns were addressed.⁶⁴⁹ The findings were also used by the Supreme

Adminsitrative Court to substantiate that placing an applicant in the Kybartai centre cannot be

considered as an alternative to detention, as the restrictions there amounted to de facto

detention. In its monitoring report for 2022, the Lithuanian Red Cross recorded

inconsistencies in reception conditions with EUAA standards in several facilities.⁶⁵⁰

Asylex noted in its submission to the UN Human Rights Council that it continued to observe

excessive violence towards applicants by security guards in federal reception centres in

Switzerland and a lack of investigation of these cases by the Swiss authorities.⁶⁵¹

The maximum compensation rate was increased in 2022 in Austria for the first time since

2016. It was increased from EUR 215 to EUR 260 for food and from EUR 150 to EUR 165 for

rent (for a single person/month) for people in private accommodation. Asylum seekers, for

example in Vienna, can receive EUR 425 (food allowance and rent money) in cash.⁶⁵² In

addition, the financial compensation for providers of organised reception facilities was raised

to EUR 25 per person/day.

4.7.3. Applicants’ daily life

4.7.3.1. House rules and measures for disruptive applicants

Managing applicants with disruptive behaviour remained a priority in the

Netherlands. Efforts to set up new reception facilities were often undermined

by the negative image given by a small group of applicants,⁶⁵³ in addition to

other challenges related to cooperation with municipalities, such as funding

modalities. The government has made funds available for financing local,

small-scale measures implemented by municipalities since 2020, and in

2022, EUR 1.25 million were made available.⁶⁵⁴ A National Coordinator for Managing

Disruption was established to coordinate among different stakeholders and ensure

consistency across various measures.⁶⁵⁵

Mobile Support Teams started visiting facilities where disruptions had a significant impact on

residents’ daily lives and offered tailor-made support in managing the situations.⁶⁵⁶ Several

AMIF-funded projects focused on establishing methods to counter disruptive behaviour,

especially by unaccompanied minors (see Section 5).⁶⁵⁷ The special enforcement and

supervision centre (HTL) in Hoogeveen for applicants with disruptive behaviour continued its

operations. However, the Justice and Security Inspectorate investigated the living conditions

and safety of residents in the centre.⁶⁵⁸ COA noted the difficult circumstances in which

employees needed to manage potentially dangerous situations with these applicants and

committed to work together with the inspectorate to implement the recommendations.⁶⁵⁹

186

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

The CJEU confirmed that sanctions under the recast RCD can also be applied when an

applicant is seriously violent outside of the reception facility. However, a sanction related to

the withdrawal of material reception conditions can only be imposed if it does not have the

effect of depriving the applicant of the possibility of meeting the most basic needs (see

Section 2.6).

4.7.3.2. Freedom of movement

Courts continued to examine the line between limitations on the freedom of

movement and detention (see Section 4.8) and the grounds for limiting an

applicant’s freedom of movement.

The Maltese Court of Magistrate concluded that an applicant was not

detained but his freedom of movement was restricted when receiving medical

care for a contagious disease. The case was brought before the ECtHR and was still pending.

The Supreme Administrative Court in Lithuania confirmed that the sole fact that the applicant

entered the country in an irregular manner cannot be considered as an indication that he did

not cooperate with the authorities and cannot serve as a basis to extend the restriction on his

freedom of movement beyond 6 months. In another case, it concluded that limiting the

freedom of movement to the territory of the reception facility cannot be considered as an

alternative to detention.

Civil society organisations from Greece observed that applicants are only permitted to leave

the CCACs in Samos and Kos after 25 days, in addition to the at least 5-day quarantine

period.⁶⁶⁰

4.7.3.3. Use of pre-paid cards for material reception conditions in cash

Cash benefits have increasingly been paid to rechargeable cards in recent

years and this continued in 2022. Some delays and issues persisted due to

the high number of applications and changes in the provider of the card.

The pilot project “Cash for Food” continued in Luxembourg: the amount of

food aid is paid directly to the applicant’s bank account. The project entered

its second phase in 2022 by adding the residents of 12 reception facilities to the users. A

second evaluation was launched with this new group of users, which concluded that

applicants appreciated the increased flexibility and independence, allowing them to buy food

of their choice in the supermarket of their choice. The project is foreseen to be expanded with

the residents of five more reception facilities in 2023 and also applies to applicants living in

private households.

Due to the large number and rapid arrival of persons in need of temporary protection and the

opening of several new reception centres at the same time, the provision of cash benefits was

slightly delayed in a few instances in Finland. Reception centres helped with supermarket

vouchers or food packages when the payment of cash allowance was not immediate.⁶⁶¹ Earlier

in 2022, the Finnish Immigration Service explored ways of ensuring that all funds were

transferred to an applicant’s new prepaid card. The contract with the previous card provider

was discontinued in 2019, and after a transition period, remaining funds should have been

transferred to the new cards. However, for approximately EUR 60,000 altogether, mainly

outstanding wages, this had not happened.⁶⁶²

187

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In Romania, a new Government Decision established the legal basis for paying benefits in

cash to a card for asylum applicants.⁶⁶³ As a result of the arrival of persons in need of

temporary protection, the amount paid in cash was also increased.⁶⁶⁴

The Spanish Ministry of Culture and Sports launched a Youth Cultural Bonus voucher as a

virtual prepaid card for mobile phones for asylum applicants. It is also valid for cultural

activities and products.⁶⁶⁵

The Tribunal of Rome ordered the Italian Post to immediately activate the pre-paid card of an

applicant who received her COVID-19 financial support on the card, but the bank refused to

activate the card as it did not recognise her residence permit based on her application for

international protection as an identity document. The tribunal underlined that the purpose of

this payment was to guarantee the needs of those most affected by the pandemic.

4.7.3.4. Employment

Relatively few initiatives were reported in 2022 that aimed to facilitate

applicants’ access to the labour market. The majority of initiatives catered to

people fleeing the war in Ukraine, as showcased in the EUAA’s Who is Who:

Temporary Protection for Displaced Persons from Ukraine and the EMN

Inform on Access to services for beneficiaries of temporary protection.

The waiting period for applicants to access the labour market was shortened from 9 to

6 months in Slovakia.⁶⁶⁶

Fedasil concluded a cooperation agreement with the construction sector to orient asylum

applicants towards employment in construction, which is a sector lacking approximately

20,000 workers in Belgium. Several pilot projects were launched, including job days,

information sessions, company visits and the evaluation of potential candidates’ motivation,

language skills and work experience. The agreement includes an ethics charter, ensuring that

applicants have the same working conditions as other employees. Fedasil planned to

conclude similar framework agreements with other employment sectors.⁶⁶⁷

The Jesuit Refugee Service Malta and the Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) observed that

current policies established a framework where it is difficult for applicants to find regular legal

employment. As a result, many applicants ended up working without a work contract in unsafe

conditions.⁶⁶⁸

Amendments to the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners entered into force in Lithuania. It

grants applicants who enter Lithuania from Belarus during a state of emergency the right to

work after being registered in the Migration Information System (MIGRIS) for at least

12 months.⁶⁶⁹ The Lithuanian Red Cross released a thematic monitoring report on access to

the labour market for applicants who were living in foreigners’ centres. The report observed

that the majority of residents were informed about the right to work but lacked information on

further steps to work in practice.⁶⁷⁰

An amendment to the Asylum Act enacted in 2022 in Portugal determines that asylum

seekers are entitled to the right to work from the moment of the application for international

protection. Furthermore, asylum seekers are entitled to receive support measures and attend

programmes in the area of employment and vocational training under specific conditions

determined by the competent ministries. There are no limitations attached to the right of

asylum seekers to employment, such as labour market tests or prioritisation of nationals and

188

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

legally-residing third-country nationals. The issuance and renewal of provisional residence

permits by SEF, which clearly state the right to employment, are free of charge. The only

restriction on employment enshrined in the law consists of limiting access to certain

categories of the public sector for all third-country nationals.⁶⁷¹

4.7.3.5. Education and orientation

EU+ countries established a range of initiatives to facilitate school enrolment

and support the educational attainment of children fleeing the war in

Ukraine.⁶⁷² This included, for example, additional funding for schools,

language classes for children and facilitating access to education following

the Ukrainian curriculum in parallel through online courses.

For applicant children in the asylum procedure, issues in accessing reception

delayed their access to education, for example, in the Netherlands. The Court of The Hague

ordered the Dutch State and COA to ensure that children have access to education no later

than 3 months from the asylum application. At the beginning of 2022, the government

provided municipalities with more stable funding for applicant children’s education, and a new

Education Budget Scheme for Asylum Seekers was introduced, allowing municipalities with

emergency facilities to claim reimbursement for schooling costs.⁶⁷³

In Luxembourg, as the number of applicant children and children with temporary protection

significantly increased, a new school was opened for induction classes.⁶⁷⁴

The draft of the Second Law for the Introduction of a Right of Opportunity to Stay in Germany

proposed to make language and integration courses available for all applicants, regardless of

their prospects of staying in the country.⁶⁷⁵

Among diverse initiatives helping migrants to better orientate in the society, the Hal Far

Outreach NGO launched the Malta Migrants Befriending Programme, which pairs applicants

and beneficiaries of international protection with locals for leisure activities.⁶⁷⁶ The programme

is funded by the Maltese Voluntary Organisations Projects Scheme.

Following a pilot project, SEM continued to offer Muslim chaplaincy service in federal

reception centres. The report evaluating the pilot found that Muslim chaplains were seen as

valuable partners in intercultural mediation and their presence contributed to preventing

conflictual situations.⁶⁷⁷

Finally, COA continued collaborating with the National Council on Swimming Security. They

launched a new video for residents about the dangers of water and ways to enjoy it safely.⁶⁷⁸

4.7.3.6. Health

Following an increased focus on facilitating applicants’ access to health care

and special support for their mental wellbeing which was prompted by the

COVID-19 pandemic, only a few developments were reported in 2022. As the

number of residents increased, Member States aimed, but sometimes

struggled, to ensure that at least the minimum services were offered.

Overcrowding sometimes led to outbreaks of communicable diseases, such as scabies.⁶⁷⁹

Overall, both national authorities and civil society organisations in many EU+ countries

observed that the state of health of applicants had been deteriorating and they arrived in

189

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

reception in worrying physical and mental conditions. The UNHCR Executive Committee

highlighted the need to include mental health and psychosocial support when planning

policies to address applicants’ needs and encouraged states to include applicants and

beneficiaries of international protection in designing and delivering services.⁶⁸⁰

The majority of initiatives focused on facilitating the inclusion of beneficiaries of temporary

protection into national health care systems, in addition to providing swift mental health

support.⁶⁸¹

The Spanish Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration announced that applicants for

international protection who have not yet been given a final decision on their case would not

be withdrawn from the national social security system. In practice, this will mean that

applicants will be able to continue living, working and accessing health care in Spain, while

their asylum appeals are pending. The Spanish Ombudsperson welcomed this development

after many complaints were submitted.⁶⁸²

The decision follows a ruling from the Spanish Supreme Court. Convive-Fundación Cepaim

underlined that the legislation allows for re-entering the reception system but not for

continued stay, which in practice may mean that applicants must queue again and may

potentially be re-homed to another location. This could cause disruption for example in the

continuity of medical treatment for applicants with special needs or in the continuity of

education for children.⁶⁸³

In Croatia, projects implemented in previous years, such as the cooperation with Médecins du

Monde Belgique on health care services and psychosocial support from the Croatian Red

Cross, have continued in 2022 as well, with AMIF funding.

The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights underlined that applicants had difficulties in

accessing health care in Poland, as contracted clinics were often in remote parts of the city,

which were difficult to reach from reception facilities. Interpreters were also rarely provided for

medical consultations.⁶⁸⁴

The Court of the Hague also observed the lack of swift access to health care in its judgment

assessing reception conditions in Ter Apel and ordered the Dutch State and COA to ensure

that applicants have immediate access, at least to emergency treatment and the essential

treatment of diseases and serious mental disorders.

190

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Section 4.8.

Aspects of detention

involving asylum

applicants and

former applicants

An exhaustive list of legal grounds under

Detention is defined in the recast RCD,

which applicants can be detained during

Article 2(h) as the confinement of an

the asylum procedure, detailed procedural

applicant for international protection by a

safeguards (for example on the length of

Member State within a particular place

detention and judicial review) and

where the applicant is deprived of the

conditions of detention are defined in:

freedom of movement.

Directive 2013/33/EU of the European

Parliament and of the Council of

26 June 2013 laying down standards

for the reception of applicants for

international protection;

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 26

June 2013 on common procedures for

granting and withdrawing international

protection;

Dublin III Regulation; and

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of

16 December 2008 on common

standards and procedures in Member

States for returning illegally-staying

third-country nationals following a

negative final decision on international

protection (although applicants are not

within the scope of this directive,

persons wishing to apply while in the

return procedure and former

applicants may fall into its scope).

191

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In practice, detention may occur at different stages of the asylum procedure:

At the start of the asylum procedure when an individual lodges an application for

international protection, for example in order to determine or verify the applicant’s

identity or nationality;

Pending the examination of a claim for international protection based on grounds

set out in the EU asylum acquis, for instance to decide on the applicant’s right to

enter the territory, determine the elements of the asylum application which could

not be obtained without detention, in particular if there is a risk of the applicant

absconding, or organise a transfer to another Member State under the Dublin

procedure; or

Upon completion of the asylum procedure when a request for international

protection was rejected and the person is detained pending a return to the country

of origin.

The ECHR and international human rights conventions supplement the CEAS

framework by setting additional constraints and safeguards during detention, mainly

to protect against inhuman or degrading treatment and the freedom of movement. 

In 2022, shortcomings in practices and conditions in detention, particularly for applicants with

vulnerabilities, were scrutinised by international, European and national monitoring and

judicial organisations, such as UNCAT, Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of

Torture (CPT), national Ombudspersons, the ECtHR and national courts, in addition to UNHCR

and civil society organisations.

4.8.1. Institutional and legislative changes

4.8.1.1. Legislative reforms

Various legislative initiatives concerning detention were reported in 2022.

A royal decree was published in Belgium in September 2022, which explicitly

allows the CGRS to organise interviews with applicants through

videoconferencing. Accordingly, video interviews resumed in closed centres

with the use of Microsoft Teams. Once an end-to-end encryption is possible

for third-party participation, lawyers will be able to participate remotely rather than going to

the closed centre in person, as is currently the practice. The CGRS nonetheless emphasised

the preference for the physical presence of the lawyer.⁶⁸⁵ Legal proceedings were pending

before the Council of State on the implementation of the royal decree. Concerned about the

use of a specific software, the Belgian CALL ruled that more information was needed on the

reliability of Microsoft Teams and its compliance with data protection.

Following the Supreme Court decision No 3-22-56 of 10 May 2022, Estonia introduced in

August 2022 an amendment to the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens on the

transfer and detention of a third-country national to a responsible EU Member State.

According to the amendment, if the Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) decides to initiate

proceedings for the transfer of a third-country national under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of

the European Parliament and of the Council, then the Act on Granting International Protection

to Aliens is applied for the detention of the person.⁶⁸⁶

192

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In addition, amendments to Article 15 of the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act

(OLPEA) came into force, which stipulate the possibility of detaining a third-country national for

identification procedures and establishing whether a person is obliged to leave the country.⁶⁸⁷

In August 2022, another amendment to the act was made so that upon the detention of a

third-country national in an emergency situation, the following information is recorded in the

detention report: name or names of the person; legal and factual basis and justification for the

detention; the date, time and place; and the name of the administrative body and official who

made the report. The difference with detention under normal circumstances is that less

personal data are collected initially and a group, rather than individual, protocol is made.⁶⁸⁸

With Presidential Decree No 77/17.11.2022, CCACs in Greece were established on Samos, Kos,

Leros, Lesvos and Chios as regional services of the Reception and Identification Service.⁶⁸⁹

These replaced the previous Reception and Identification Centres (RICs) which were

abolished.

In Italy, the Department of Civil Liberties and Immigration published a circular directed to the

prefects and other relevant stakeholders to ensure the implementation of the new regulation

of the CPR which was published in May 2022.⁶⁹⁰ The circular ensures full and effective

respect of the rights of detainees, including access to information and the assessment of

health conditions and medical care. It also regulates the services to be provided within the

centre, communication, access to centres, visits and monitoring and controls.

In May 2022, Internal Regulation No 23.1-8.2/12 of the State Border Guard on the “Procedure

according to which measures are to be performed in the field of asylum under the

competence of the State Border Guard” entered into force in Latvia. It defines the actions to

take if minor children arrive with an adult asylum seeker who is detained, particularly for

accommodation in the State Border Guard premises for asylum seekers.

In Lithuania, amendments to the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, which is in force since

1 January 2022, regulates the detention of asylum applicants in the event of martial law, a

state of emergency or declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners.⁶⁹¹

According to Article 140 of the law, an asylum applicant may be detained not only in the cases

referred to in Article 113(4) but also when he enters the territory by illegally crossing the state

border. The CJEU ruled that EU law precludes legislation under which an asylum applicant is

detained on the ground that they are staying illegally, because in principle, an applicant for

international protection cannot constitute a threat to national security or public order solely for

staying illegally (see Section 2.6). In reaction to the verdict, the Ministry of the Interior

committed to analyse and evaluate what should be changed in the national law to ensure that

there is a balance between the right of individuals to asylum and national and EU-wide

security.⁶⁹²

In January 2022, Luxembourg introduced Bill 7954 to the parliament, which - among other

things - amends the amended Law of 29 August 2008 and proposes extending the possibility

of administrative detention to any illegally-staying foreigner who needs to be forcibly

removed, including EU citizens and their family members who have been issued a removal

order, for reasons set out in Articles 27, 30(1) and 30(2) of the Immigration Law.⁶⁹³ In addition,

Bill 8014 amending the amended Law of 18 December 2015 on international protection and

temporary protection (Asylum Law) provided the modification of Article 22(2d) by introducing

the non-negligible risk of absconding as a reason for detention and by specifying in which

case this risk is presumed.⁶⁹⁴

193

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

In an effort to align practices with jurisprudence, the Netherlands altered some sections of the

Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines to specify that a foreigner can be detained for a short

period to investigate the person’s identity and the lawful status in the country. Accordingly,

detention may be implemented for a maximum of 6 hours (nightly hours not included) and can

be prolonged by a maximum of 48 hours, when additional research is needed on the lawful

status. Before this change, the Implementation Guidelines allowed detention to be prolonged

for the sole reason that a large group of presumably illegal third-country national had been

arrested, and the Council of State declared the policy guidelines to not be in line with the

wording in the Aliens Act.⁶⁹⁵

In November 2022, the CJEU ruled that a national court must review ex officio the lawfulness

of a detention decision in a return procedure or the international protection procedure (see

Section 2.6). Prior to this decision, a third-country national in the Netherlands had to put

forward on their own initiative the grounds on which the detention decision was not in

compliance with applicable legal regulations and the judge could not examine the conditions

for detention on its own initiative.

The SMA in Sweden published a legal comment in February 2022 on detainees who are or

will be subject to another form of deprivation of liberty (RK/001/2022). As a general rule, a

decision on detention should not be made if the foreigner is simultaneously deprived of liberty

on other grounds. Under certain conditions, for example when it concerns a deprivation of

liberty that can end at short notice, a ‘conditional custody decision’ is made if there are

grounds for detention at the time of the decision. This includes decisions based on both the

Aliens Act and the Dublin Regulation.⁶⁹⁶

Asylex raised concern over a new national law passed by parliament in Switzerland, where

short-term detention is allowed without a judicial review.⁶⁹⁷ According to the new Article 73(1

lit. c AIG), people may be detained at the border for up to 3 days without a judicial review and

without a written order.⁶⁹⁸ The law targets people who have not applied for asylum, but as

Asylex noted, it may mean that people in need of protection would still end up in detention.

The Swiss Refugee Council commented on the draft law in 2020 and emphasised the

importance of ensuring unimpeded access to the asylum procedure, even under the new

legislation.⁶⁹⁹

Germany is working on changing legislation to exclude children and juveniles from detention

during a deportation procedure. The law is expected to become effective in 2023.

4.8.1.2. Detention capacity

Detention capacity in EU+ countries continued to be adjusted based on

operational needs in 2022.

In February 2022, the federal government in Belgium reached an agreement

on constructing three new detention centres and an additional departure

centre for irregularly-staying migrants pending their forced deportation

(focusing on migrants who disrupted public order or committed criminal offences). The new

centres will be located in Jabbeke (112 places), Zandvliet (144 places), and Jumet (200 places).

The new departure centre will be located in Steenokkerzeel (50 places).

France expanded the number of places in administrative detention facilities, from which a

removal can be undertaken within 48 hours.⁷⁰⁰ A new administrative detention centre (CRA)

194

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

was established in Mérignac (near the Bordeaux Airport), with a capacity of 140 places, to

increase detention capacity in the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region from the current 70 to 210

places. This initiative is part of the national plan for 3,000 additional CRA places by 2027 and

the Ministry of the Interior's draft bill on orientation and programming was approved in

January 2023.⁷⁰¹

Immigration detention facilities became operational at Dublin Airport as of 1 March 2022. This

allows up to four persons who were refused ‘leave to land’ to be detained within the boundary

of the airport for up to 24 hours, pending a return on an outbound flight. These facilities are

used solely for immigration detainees in Ireland.⁷⁰²

In Italy, initiatives focused on detention centres for repatriation, and the Ministry of the Interior

was authorised to expand the network of detention centres for repatriation.⁷⁰³ The estimates

of the Ministry of the Interior for the construction, acquisition, completion, adaptation and

restructuring of buildings and infrastructures intended for detention and reception was

increased by EUR 5.5 million for 2023, by EUR 14.4 million for 2024 and by EUR 16.2 million for

2025.

Due to the mass influx of migrants in the Polish-Belarusian border, a central-level strategy was

developed in Poland to make additional places in detention centres available in an emergency

situation. The strategy has been regularly updated.

In Spain, the Council of Ministers approved a declaration of general interest which included

the opening of the Temporary Attention Centre for Foreigners (Centro de Atención Temporal

para Extranjeros - CATE) in Arrecife.⁷⁰⁴ This will address challenges which were encountered

in Lanzarote as arrivals remained in police custody on ships, which were overcrowded with

minimum health conditions and in which men, women and children coexisted for over the

72 hours which are allowed by law.

Similarly, the SMA in Sweden opened a new detention centre with 114 places in Mölndal.⁷⁰⁵

Work will continue to further expand detention capacity throughout Sweden. Towards the end

of 2024, the Migration Agency plans to open a new detention centre in northern Sweden with

20 places and to further expand the capacity in Flen with 50 places by remodelling an existing

property, in order to reach a total capacity of 637 places by the end of 2024.⁷⁰⁶

In contrast, the State Border Guard Service in Lithuania planned to close Medininkai Camp

and reinforce Pabradė and Kybartai centres in an effort to provide better reception

conditions.⁷⁰⁷

4.8.2. Recourse to detention

Recourse to detention was one of the primary concerns raised by NGOs. In a

number of countries, concerns were expressed over the practice of detaining

applicants at the border⁷⁰⁸ or in general de facto detention while newly-

arriving third-country nationals were waiting to lodge an application.⁷⁰⁹

Doctors Without Borders highlighted in May 2022 the prolonged detention of

more than 2,500 asylum seekers and migrants in inhuman conditions in

Lithuania, 9 months after they crossed the border from Belarus.⁷¹⁰ The organisation called on

the government to end the prolonged detention as soon as possible and to ensure an equal

asylum system that respects the dignity of people seeking security.⁷¹¹

195

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Amnesty International also pointed to the arbitrary detention of thousands of people in

militarised centres in Lithuania and stated that they were held in inhuman conditions, tortured

and ill-treated.⁷¹² In reply, the Minster of the Interior noted that they cooperated openly in

providing information for the report yet it reflects the views and testimonies of only one side.⁷¹³

In Greece, four NGOs issued a joint statement on the prolongation of de facto detention in

CCACs following a court decision that the exit ban for an applicant, who had been detained

for 1.5 months, be immediately revoked.⁷¹⁴ Several concerns were also raised about detaining

applicants from a safe third country, despite the lack of prospects for readmissions to

Türkiye.⁷¹⁵

In Malta, aditus continued to share concern over the prolonged and illegal detention of

migrants,⁷¹⁶ while court actions were initiated for the immediate release of detainees.^{717, 718}

In view of the national elections, the organisation put forward a number of proposals in 2022

with regard to rescues at sea and disembarkation, administrative detention, reception, family

reunification, the regularisation of undocumented migrants, the statelessness determination

procedure and the decriminalisation of illegal entry for refugees and asylum seekers.⁷¹⁹

In Italy, NGOs called to discontinue the illegal use of quarantine vessels for migrants since

emergency measures were suspended on 30 April 2022 for all individuals arriving legally and

a legal basis no longer existed for the de facto detention.⁷²⁰ The use of quarantine vessels

was provisionally extended by the authorities until the end of May 2022, with two boats being

used for migrants arriving by sea or crossing the borders illegally.

The Organisation for Aid to Refugees voiced concern about immigration detention being used

as a routine tool of migration control in Czechia.

Similar issues were noted by independent monitoring bodies. The CPT published a report

following its visit to Switzerland in 2021.^{721, 722} It found that foreigners were placed in a

detention centre for several days before being relocated to administrative places for

foreigners. The CPT recommended to the Swiss authorities to speed up the procedure to

ensure an earlier transfer to administrative detention centres and enhance relevant conditions.

The placement of detained third-country nationals in isolation was also noticed by CPT in the

case of Sweden. The organisation recommended a review of the legal framework and the

practice of placing detained foreign nationals in isolation, in addition to terminating the

practice of placing persons detained under aliens’ legislation in prisons.⁷²³

The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights published report on its visit to Malta,

calling on the authorities to prevent the detention of vulnerable asylum seekers and migrants

and any arbitrary detention, to invest in alternatives to detention, immediately end the

detention of migrant children, protect migrants from ill treatment and abuse, and provide

independent monitoring bodies and NGOs unhindered access to detention places.⁷²⁴

National independent bodies contribute significantly to the monitoring of detention conditions

in the field of international protection. For example, during a visit to the detention centre in

August 2022, the Bulgarian Ombudsperson noted the detention of unaccompanied minors

who were under investigation arrest in Ruse for a long duration in very poor conditions.⁷²⁵ In

Italy, the National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Detained or Deprived of Liberty

expressed concern over what was considered de facto detention in transit zones, noting the

persisting practice at air or port borders where the effective rejection of the foreign citizen at a

border crossing does not take place immediately and people are blocked for days in the

196

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

transit area. The National Guarantor was concerned over the lack of a judicial review of

detention and the conditions of detention.⁷²⁶

In Estonia, the Chancellor of Justice (Ombudsperson) issued a position on the detention of a

foreigner who had been refused entry, noting that the current conditions of Tallinn Airport may

not be suitable for detention for more than 24 hours or overnight.⁷²⁷ The Ombudsperson

asked the PBGB to consider whether the current practice could be made more flexible and to

align the agency's activities with the standards and principles of international organisations

dealing with the detention of foreigners.

In Lithuania, the Seimas Controller concluded in a report that the conditions in the

Medininkai FRC residential container camp amounted to de facto detention and inhuman and

degrading treatment due to the nature and degree of restrictions applied to all foreigners for a

long duration without the right to freely leave the territory.⁷²⁸ The National Guarantor for the

Rights of Persons Detained or Deprived of Liberty noted in its annual report to the parliament

that Italy continued to adopt practices of closing borders, criminalisation and detention of

migrants.^{729, 730}

The lawfulness or excessive use of detention is often under a judicial review. In a number of

cases, the ECtHR questioned the unlawfulness of detention, for example in Dshijri v Hungary,

R.M. and Others v Poland in the course of a Dublin procedure, Nikoghosyan and Others v

Poland for the administrative detention of asylum seekers at the Polish border, M.B.K and

Others v Hungary for the confinement of Afghan applicants in the Röszke transit zone, and

Komissarov v Czech Republic due to serious delays in processing an asylum application and

delays in the extradition procedure leading to unlawful detention.

At the national level, courts ordered the review of detention decisions in Germany, Lithuania,

Malta, Poland, Slovenia (here and here), Switzerland, the immediate release of detainees in

Malta and granted compensation to detainees in Poland.

The courts also play an important role in interpreting relevant rules. For instance, the Court of

Cassation in Belgium ruled in one case that appeals and appeals in cassation concerning the

legality of detention could not be considered devoid of purpose in the case of a release or

withdrawal of the detention order, in conformity with previous ECHR case law. In Estonia, the

Supreme Court clarified how the time limits for detention outlined in the Dublin III Regulation

should be interpreted in conjunction with national law. The Migration Court of Appeal in

Sweden ruled that, if an applicant returns to the country after a removal and a new detention

order is issued, it cannot be considered as a review of a previous detention order.

On the prolongation of detention, the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court concluded that

an applicant’s right to free movement cannot be restricted after a period of 6 months solely

based on the fact that they entered the territory illegally and do not have a confirmed legal

status. At the same time, applicants for international protection should be held in detention for

the shortest time possible.

These rulings reaffirm the role of the courts as the supreme guarantor of the rights of asylum

seekers at the national and European levels.

197

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.8.3. Detention conditions

Access to rights and conditions in detention facilities were at the centre of

criticism by NGOs and independent monitoring mechanisms. In many

countries, deficiencies in accessing rights were brought to the forefront.

Overall, civil society organisations highlighted the importance of free legal

representation for all persons who are detained,⁷³¹ especially in light of

frequent errors in detention orders and the high number of detention cases

found to be unlawful by courts.⁷³² In addition, difficulties were reported for detained asylum

seekers to receive visits from family members or NGOs, which impeded the effective provision

of information on the asylum process.^{733, 734}

Concerns were raised about access to information or legal aid for detained asylum seekers in

Croatia (for materials distributed in reception centres under the “Legal advice in the process of

granting international protection”, see Section 4,10.4),⁷³⁵ Greece,⁷³⁶ Italy (Milan),⁷³⁷ Lithuania⁷³⁸

and Poland.⁷³⁹ The Ministry of the Interior in Croatia described the applicable legislation,

noting that according to the law, when an applicant’s freedom of movement is restricted, the

applicant is informed about the right to legal aid and presented with a list of lawyers to choose

the representative. The law also requires a court to evaluate the legality of the restriction.

Other concerns were voiced about the psychological health of detained applicants in

Lithuania⁷⁴⁰ and Italy (Milan),⁷⁴¹ access to documentation in Malta,⁷⁴² and overcrowded

conditions and practices in general in Czechia,⁷⁴³ Denmark,⁷⁴⁴ Greece,⁷⁴⁵ Lithuani,⁷⁴⁶

Poland,⁷⁴⁷ Sweden⁷⁴⁸ and Switzerland.⁷⁴⁹

In an effort to improve conditions, the Detention Services in Malta launched a large-scale

refurbishing and restructuring process of all detention facilities in Malta in 2020. This involves

the creation of new detention facilities (for example, a new detention compound in the Safi

Detention Centre was built in 2020, the construction of a new female compound started in

2023), the improvement of detention conditions (refurbishment of several sections,

recruitment of a welfare officer in 2020, the creation of a specialised medical section in 2021

operating from the Detention Service and increased accountability (setting up a new control

room and refurbished areas equipped with CCTV cameras).

In Italy, an inspection report of the Milan Centre for Stay and Repatriation (CPR) was released

by Senators together with the No CPR Network.⁷⁵⁰ It confirmed that the conditions inside the

centre worsened since the first visit in 2021. The report underlined serious violations of

resorting to detention and the inhuman and degrading sanitary conditions. Similar issues were

noted in other CPR centres, for example in Turin, for which civil society organisations reported

on protecting the rights of prisoners, with an emphasis on health, the right to defence and the

freedom of correspondence.⁷⁵¹

For conditions at the borders, ASGI noted shortcomings in the Lampedusa hotspot, including

detention, isolation, restrictions on access to information and the right to defence,

overcrowding, degrading sanitary conditions and insufficient health care.⁷⁵² These findings

were also reflected in the annual report of the Ombudsperson for the Rights of Detained

Persons to the Parliament for the situation on the quarantine vessels, the Centre for Stay and

Repatriation (CPR) and hotspots, which violate the human rights of detained persons.⁷⁵³

198

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In Poland, the profiles of applicants residing in certain detention centres have changed over

time, with the Commissioner for Human Rights expressing the opinion that conditions in

detention centres were not always adapted to the changed profiles. Nevertheless, after a visit

conducted in July 2022, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants

observed that efforts had been made by Polish Border Guards in improving the conditions of

stay for asylum seekers in closed facilities.⁷⁵⁴

Within their reviews, the courts set minimum standards for detention conditions and indicated

measures to the authorities. In this regard, the ECtHR ordered interim measures under Rule 39

of the Rules of the Court to the government of Malta, requesting the authorities "to ensure that

the applicants’ conditions are compatible with Article 3 of the Convention and with their status

as unaccompanied minors". In another case concerning Hungary, the ECtHR held that the use

of handcuffs and a leash on an asylum applicant amounted to inhuman and degrading

treatment.

The obligation of Croatian authorities to protect the life of a Moroccan applicant held at a

police station was brought before the ECtHR. The events evaluated by the court happened in

2015. The court found a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention under both

substantive and procedural aspects, due to the failure to protect the applicant when a fire had

broken out, leading to his severe injury and death of other persons, and due to the lack of an

effective investigation of the incident. The Croatian Ministry of the Interior underlined that the

case was not yet final and there was a possibility of filing a legal remedy against the judgment.

4.8.4. Alternatives to detaining applicants

According to CEAS, detention should be used only if other less coercive

alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. Thus, Member States must

ensure that the rules concerning alternatives to detention are defined in

national law. Nonetheless, practices remain limited.

In March 2022, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

concluded in two cases that Belgium had violated the European Convention due to its failure

to consider possible alternatives to detaining children in deportation cases.⁷⁵⁵ In 2022,

Individual Case Management (ICAM) regional offices of the Immigration Office’s ‘Alternatives

to Detention’ Department opened in six cities to support irregularly-staying migrants towards a

long-term solution, either a legal stay in Belgium or a return. However, due to the mass influx

of Ukrainians after the Russian invasion, most of the ICAM coaches were deployed in the

registration centre in Heysel to process requests for temporary protection.⁷⁵⁶

Latvia introduced the right to receive social rehabilitation at the expense of the state budget

for third-country nationals and stateless persons who do not have a legal ground to stay in the

country and who are detained (until the day of the removal or exit), to whom an alternative

measure of detention has been applied, and foreigners for whom the operation of the return

decision has been suspended or for whom the time period has been determined for voluntary

departure.

In Lithuania, the Supreme Administrative Court adopted the CJEU's interpretation on the

detention of asylum applicants on the sole ground that they are staying illegally in the event of

a mass influx of third-country nationals. The court asserted that, in light of Lithuanian law

interpreted according to the relevant directives as well as its own and CJEU case law, there

199

Asylum Report 2023 - page 4