EU Pact on Migration and Asylum: a

renewed opportunity to uphold human

rights in migration governance?

Contents
List of Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................2
Annotation......................................................................................................................................2
Introduction....................................................................................................................................2
Situation after 2015........................................................................................................................3
1. Challenges................................................................................................................................4
1.1. Lack of an integrated approach at the EU-level...................................................................4
1.2. Fragmented and voluntary ad hoc solidarity between Member States...............................5
1.3. Absence of dedicated mechanism to address crisis situations and situations of force
majeure 6
1.4. The lack of a fair and effective migration system hinders the access of migrants to the
asylum procedure........................................................................................................................................7
2. Addressing challenges.............................................................................................................8
2.1. A more efficient, integrated and seamless migration management system........................8
2.2. Addressing Deficiencies in the current asylum and return systems.....................................9
2.3. Creation of Better solidarity Mechanism...........................................................................10
2.4. Dedicated mechanism of dealing with crisis......................................................................11
2.5. Simplified and more efficient responsibility rules for robust migration management.......12
2.6. Alleviation of External Borders through cooperation with third countries........................12
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................13
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................14
List of Abbreviations
EU – European Union

CEAS: Common European Asylum System

EASO: European Asylum Support Office

EBCGA/Frontex: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

RR: Recognition rate

SAR: Search and rescue

Annotation

The thesis covers proposal made by the European Commission in order to manage migration
effectively. The first part covers situation of migration before and after the 2015 crisis. Main body of the
text discusses challenges that emerged after a sudden and massive influx of migrants. And the final
paragraph provides opinion of the author grounded on the statements made by respective Non-
Governmental organizations.

Introduction
In 2015 the European Union (herein “EU”) faced the massive influx of migrants, the
number of arrivals was increasing on a daily basis and it proved to be insurmountable challenge
for the EU migration policy. Due to slow reaction and sometimes lack of effective means to
address the issue of migration, majority of the migrants appeared in dangerous circumstances
for many of them this unpreparedness was fatal. According to the International Organization for
Migration (herein “IOM”), more than 3,770 migrants were reported to have died trying to cross
the Mediterranean in 2015, main reasons were non-operational vessels that smugglers used to
transfer people, overcrowding of the smuggling ships, weather conditions and calamities. 1
Moreover, the EU member states of destination, such as Italy and Greece, faced acute problem
of huge amount of entrants, soon it was revealed that EU Members States are not capable of
dealing with those issues independently. In order to tackle these problems more holistic and
harmonized migration policy was necessary. In 2016, the European Commission presented a set
of legislative proposals to complete the reform of the Common European Asylum System(herein
“CEAS”), with the aim to move towards an efficient, fair and human rights oriented asylum
policy framework that can function effectively also in times of a sudden increase in numbers of
arrivals or rapidly changing types of migration. All these proposals created new policy of dealing
with the migration, that later would be regarded as a “New Pact on Migration and

1
BBC NEWS. Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts. 04 March 2016.
 Asylum”(herein “Pact”), since its first introduction 5 years have already passed and yet Member
States are still contemplating whether to uphold this proposal or not. After series of meeting
and discussion the proposal was amended and now it is in its final stage. However questions and
doubts still remain concerning alliance with human rights, rights of migrants and interests of the
EU Member States. Below, I would discuss main challenges that the EU faced during the
migration crisis and what have commission proposed to deal with the challenges and avoid
crises in the future.

Situation after 2015

The number of irregular arrivals to the EU dropped by 92% between 2015 and 2019, The
number of third-country nationals found to be irregularly present in the EU substantially decreased by
70% from 2015 to 20192, however asylum applications have not followed the decreasing pattern in
irregular arrivals, on the contrary ratio of asylum applications to irregular arrivals is higher today than it
was in 2015.3 At first glance it is hard to understand why this happens, but after examination of the
problems within the system of asylum application the reason for such discrepancy becomes more
obvious.

First of all there is gradual increase in the share of migrants from countries of origin whose
nationals have a low chance of being granted international protection, including citizens of visa-free
countries. Generally, migration reasons for this category are economic and social reasons. While in the
past, such applications had a better chance to receive international protection in the EU (positive 56%
of all applications in 2016) by the end of 2019 recognition rate fell to 30% and continues to fell lower. 4

Another reason is several applications made in parallel within the same or another EU Member
State. Frequently, after receiving negative, migrants move to another EU Member state to seek
protection elsewhere, sometimes migrants apply in several different States to have a greater chance to
receive asylum. Thus, one migrant may apply several times. Additionally, EU struggles from lack of
capability to estimate amount of migrants due to unauthorized movements, so the migrant lodges
application not immediately at the external border, but after entering into the EU. Despite the general
increase in numbers of negative for asylum applications, amount of third- country nationals who
returned decreased by only 3% and the number of actually returned third country nationals decreased
by 18% between 2015 and 2019. This means that, in 2019, only 32% of irregular third-country nationals
actually returned, either voluntarily or forcibly. 5

Regardless the problems within the EU, external borders still constitute a route for irregular
migrants, apparently number of migrants decreased nine folds, however people still take dangerous
routes to reach shores of Europe and their amount is considerably high. In order to save lives of those
migrants, EU introduces “Search and Rescue” (herein “SAR”) operations, that aim to locate migrants in
trouble and help them to reach the nearest cost. Significant share of migrants reaching 50% of total
arrivals by sea in 2019 are disembarked following SAR operations. 6
2
European Commission. PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC)2003/109
and the proposed Regulation (EU)XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund]. 23. September 2020. P. 18
3
Ibid
4
Ibid
5
Ibid P.47
6
Ibid. P.9
 All these circumstances have a direct impact on the EU’s migration and asylum systems, as well
as on the effectiveness of integrated border management, due to the fact that Member States cannot
apply the same tools that are applied for irregular crossings by land or by air. For instance, there are no
official border checks for SAR arrivals, which not only means that points of entry are more difficult to
define, but also that third-country nationals have no points where to officially seek entry. 7

1. Challenges
1.1. Lack of an integrated approach at the EU-level.

Notwithstanding the assistance by EU agencies, notably the European Asylum Support Office
( herein “EASO”) and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency ( herein “Frontex”), as well as
support from relevant EU funds, reliable and effective structures for coordinating the policies falling
under the responsibility of different national authorities in the area of asylum and migration
management are still needed. Despite increased cooperation in the implementation of the Common
European Asylum System (herein “CEAS”), Member States’ asylum and return systems operate mostly
separately.8 Such separate approach gave rise to different loopholes such as: return and negative asylum
decisions being issued separately. This give irregular migrants extra opportunity to stay in within the
borders of EU, firstly, departure may be procrastinated after appealing the negative asylum decision and
later by appealing return decision, considering that national courts are always strained and have to deal
with lots of cases, irregular migrant may have considerable time to stay in the Member State, or elude
and apply for asylum in another.

Lack of integration exist in the readmission instruments and tools for cooperation with third
countries in fact, only 10-15% of return decisions are followed up with a readmission request or a
request for identification and re-documentation to the third country concerned. 9 What makes
readmission ineffective mean to insure return of the migrants to the countries of their origin. To ensure
efficiency of readmission agreements they should be used in their full potential. Namely, readmission
processes require a more fruitful engagement by third countries. Some Member States offer assistance
only to certain categories of irregular migrants, while others do not disseminate sufficient information
about the availability of such programmes or lack appropriate funding. Proliferation of the information
concerning readmission possibly may raise numbers of returns. Another obstacle to apply readmission
is procedural duration inefficiency, these procedures should be better tailored to match the needs of
irregular migrants. Improving the way assistance is offered to migrants may also lead to increased
voluntary return, which is more acceptable for third countries and sustainable for the migrants
themselves.

Member States currently have different approaches to arrivals at the EU’s borders and there are
no harmonized procedures for carrying out identity checks, heath checks, security checks or determining
vulnerability as regards persons requesting international protection nor for persons entering
irregularly.10 Necessity to introduce more holistic system is vital. With help of such data-base, Member
States would easily identify migrants with low recognition rate and without further examination would

7
Ibid P. 35
8
Ibid. P.5
9
Ibid. P.6
10
Ibid. P7
be able to issue return order. This swift decision-making process will ensure alleviation of the Asylum
application and quickly identify those people who are in need of urgent help.

1.2. Fragmented and voluntary ad hoc solidarity

between Member States

Until today, the relocation of asylum seekers based on the 2015 Council Decisions has been the
only time Member States were obliged to offer their solidarity in terms of relocation. 11 Since then,
Member States have engaged in voluntary exercises of relocation of migrants disembarked following
search and rescue operations, e.g. the Joint Declaration of Intent on a controlled emergency procedure
discussed among France, Germany, Malta and Italy in September 2019, and the relocation exercise of
vulnerable and unaccompanied minors from the Greek hotspots, agreed with several Member States in
March 2020.12 This points to the need for a more comprehensive, effective and sustainable relocation
system.

As mentioned above, migrants take routes towards Greece and Italy, what makes these two
States “the most affected” by the influxes, amount of migrants reaching these countries exceed
reception capacities and thus, demands multilateral assistance. For this end, the Pact introduces more
coherent approach, whereas every Member State shall contribute in migration managements. 13 Under
the 2015 European Agenda on Migration hotspots were established as an operational model to bring
integrated support to key locations at the EU’s external borders, in Member States disproportionately
impacted by large migratory flows (Greece and Italy), upon their request and with their agreement.
Operationally speaking, hotspots allow for cooperation among national authorities, European agencies
and international and non-governmental organizations, in implementing identification, registration,
fingerprinting, screening and debriefing procedures for large numbers of migrants upon their first arrival
in the EU.14 From a structural point of view, a hotspot is a designated area, usually in proximity of a
landing place, where the abovementioned procedures and very first accommodation are provided. Five
hotspots are operational in Greece and four in Italy. 15

Through the hotspots in Greece, the EU has provided extensive funding and technical support,
effectively contributing to increasing reception capacity, upgrading infrastructure, delivering cleaning
services and non-food items, reinforcing medical care and accelerating asylum procedures on the
islands. However, the partially ineffective legal framework and the significant increase in arrivals to the
Greek islands in the second half of 2019, has had an adverse impact on the Greek system, which, despite
the improvements registered over the last 4 years, was still not crisis-resilient. 16 This has led to an
overcrowding of the Greek hotspots, Furthermore, the lack of sufficient reception capacity in the
mainland and the limited number of medical staff necessary for the vulnerability assessment, the
increased arrivals in Greece resulted in the deterioration of living conditions, major delays in the asylum
procedure.

Hotspots can be helpful in ensuring the systematic identification, registration and fingerprinting
of migrants, checking data against relevant security databases, and channeling migrants to the asylum

11
COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/1523. Establishing provisional measures in the area of international
protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece 14 September 2015.
12
Ibid (see footnote 2) P.40
13
Ibid P. 74
14
Ibid P.70
15
Ibid P.39
16
Ibid P. 49
or return procedure, as relevant. However, it is also evident that the hotspot approach needs to be
complemented by appropriate and efficient follow-up procedures, i.e. national asylum application,
relocation to another Member State or return. These follow up activities will help first entry states to
swiftly allocate its efforts and direct them to help those who need support the most. Unfortunately, the
implementation of these procedures is often slow and subject to various bottlenecks, which can have
repercussions on the functioning of the hotspots. 17

Whilst resettlement may be one of the key solutions to address the issue of overcrowded
hotspots, from the prospect of the Member States it is not a best option. EU Member States are often
reluctant to receive migrants. Considering that the EU is a voluntary organization, obliging Member
States have never been a common practice, however in the given situation, Commission proposed more
coercive approach, that obliges Member States to resettle migrants in their states, when the threshold
of entries is met. It is difficult to predict whether Member States will fully accept such proposals, but
generally there is positive trend agreements.

1.3. Absence of dedicated mechanism to address crisis

situations and situations of force majeure

Crisis of 2015 proved how fragile may the migration structure be, when it comes to unexpected
circumstances. In order to address emerged issues promptly and effectively system needs to have a
framework for dealing with extreme situations or situations of force majeure, where the regular
response under an otherwise wellfunctioning legislative model is insufficient. 18

These are situations when, in one or more Member States, normal procedures and safeguards
become effectively inoperable or otherwise seriously deficient with respect to the situation at hand,
thus threatening the functioning of the Union migration and asylum management system as a whole
(Such as situation in Italy and Greece). Furthermore, if not addressed rapidly, such issue may impede
functioning of Common European Asylum System(CEAS).

Despite the improvements put in place after the 2015 crisis, the EU is still unprepared to address
crisis situations, such as an exceptional situation of mass influx of third-country nationals or stateless
persons arriving irregularly in a Member State or disembarked on its territory following search and
rescue operations.

Thus creating necessity to create dedicated mechanism that will make the current migration
management system more resilient and responsive in case of sudden events and one that enables
Member States to take immediate measures to deal with extreme situations as they arise.

The same is true for the situations such as COVID-19 pandemic, flexibility is always needed to
avoid collapse when force majeure circumstances appear.

1.4. The lack of a fair and effective migration system.

The procrastinated procedures of receiving asylum negatively effects the rights of migrants.
People seeking international protection who enter the EU need fair and quick access to asylum
procedures, such as the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. Also, the

17
Ibid P. 70
18
Ibid P. 60
fundamental rights of those who are not in need of international protection need to be fully respected,
in particular the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. 19

Based on experience, special attention needs to be given to migrants rescued in SAR operations.
A ship-by-ship approach has proven to be unsustainable and puts vulnerable migrants at risk. They face
hardships and often are subjected to ill treatment and bad living conditions while waiting for an answer.
Especially vulnerable are women and children. While Member States have the obligation to protect the
EU’s external borders, border control must respect fundamental rights, such as the principle of non-
refoulement. Ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution and used as a last resort. Experience also
point to the need to reinforce the right to family reunification and strengthen the rights of
unaccompanied minors.

2. Addressing challenges

2.1. Efficient, integrated and seamless migration management

system
The lack of integration and cohesion proved to be the main challenge when it comes to dealing
with migration. So, in order to address the lack of a unified approach to implementing European asylum
and migration policies, the proposal for a Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management sets out a
common framework based on integrated policy making. It provides a comprehensive approach to
migration management, including a new and wider approach to solidarity, in particular to address in a
meaningful way situations where Member States are faced with migratory pressure and to take into
account the specificities of SAR operations.20

The proposal sets out the different elements that comprise the comprehensive approach that
underpins migration management and puts forward a common framework for Member States to
implement such policies in a manner that ensures mutual trust. The key principles of integrated policy-
making and solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility underpin this approach and ensure that the
challenges of migration management, ranging from ensuring a balance of efforts in dealing with asylum
applications, ensuring a quick identification of those in need of international protection or effective
returns for those who are not in need of protection and managing irregular arrivals, should not have to
be dealt with by individual Member States alone, but by the EU as a whole.

Furthermore, the new Pact introduces a coordinated, effective and rapid screening of persons
apprehended in connection with unauthorized crossing of external borders, disembarked following SAR
operations or who request international protection at border crossing points without fulfilling entry
conditions. It proposes that all such third-country nationals are immediately screened, with identity and
health checks and registration in Eurodac. Member States are not expected to screen irregular migrants
who are not subject to the obligation to collect biometric data pursuant to the Eurodac rules. On the
other hand, Member States are also expected to screen persons apprehended within the territory,
subject to certain conditions. This proposal aims to ensure rapid legal certainty for those migrants
concerned on their status, including their rights and responsibilities and to help national authorities to
effectively channel individuals into the asylum or return procedure. Those apprehended at or near
external borders without the right to enter the EU could, upon screening, be to immediate return. The
screening shall be carried out in full respect of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of
19
Ibid P. 80
20
Ibid
Fundamental Rights of the EU. The monitoring mechanism should concerns also the application of the
national rules on detention during the screening as well as the compliance with the principle of non-
refoulement. The information collected during the screening procedure would be used later on in the
asylum or return process as in the outcome of the screening persons are channelled to a relevant
procedure. The collection, processing and storage of personal data, as well as data sharing among
competent authorities, would be carried out in full respect of the migrants’ right to data protection and
confidentiality, as well as taking into account any vulnerabilities and other relevant personal
circumstances.

2.2. Addressing Deficiencies in asylum and return systems

Every year, between 400,000 and 500,000 foreign nationals are ordered to leave the EU because
they have entered or have been staying irregularly. However, on average only one third of them go back
to their home country, or to another third-country through which they travelled to the EU. Ensuring the
return of irregular migrants is essential in order to enhance the credibility and sustainability of the EU
and Member States’ policies in the field of migration. For this purpose, on 12 September 2018 the
Commission tabled a proposal for a recast Return Directive, which consists of targeted amendments
aimed at maximising the effectiveness of EU return policy, whilst safeguarding the fundamental rights of
irregular migrants and ensuring the respect of the principle of non-refoulement.

Non harmonized system encourages the movement of migrants across Europe to seek the best
reception conditions and prospects for their stay, consequently overfilling asylum application institutes.
As a result, old applications aren’t resolved and new applications appear thus increasing overall number
of applications seeking for international asylum.

Furthermore, the lack of a coherent EU approach to the link between the termination of legal
stay due to a negative asylum decision, and the beginning of a consequent return procedure, including
requesting readmission to third countries, decreases the effectiveness of the entire migration
management system particularly where two different authorities are responsible for issuing negative
asylum decisions and return decisions respectively. This also allows irregular migrants to prolong their
irregular stay for long periods, even several years, before return is carried out. 21

Bringing together the different policies into a coherent whole will ensure swift procedures and
cost-effectiveness. Basically it may stem on two main pillars, first: issue negative and return decisions
together, thus avoiding appealing those decisions separately and ensure that all migrants are screened
and their relevant information is reflected in Eurodac, so any time national authorities consider the case,
they will check whether a person have already applied for International protection elsewhere.

A seamless asylum-return procedure allows for an accelerated assessment of asylum requests

that are abusive or inadmissible, or that have been lodged by applicants from low recognition rate
countries, in order to swiftly return those without a right to stay in the EU. A stronger border procedure
makes return procedures more efficient as it ensure stronger links between the procedures and
prevents the irregular entry into the territory of those not in need for international protection. An
individual assessment of each asylum application, as well as full respect of the fundamental rights, such
as principle of non-refoulement, must always be ensured.

21
Ibid (see note 2)
 To facilitate a more effective return of migrants with no right to stay, the EU has also engaged
over the last 5 years in a sustained dialogue with main third countries of origin on the readmission of
their nationals. Twenty-four readmission agreements and arrangements are now in place 22; an
additional one will come into force in 2020, formal negotiations are ongoing with three other countries
while with others the EU is engaging in broader migration dialogues.

2.3. Creation of Better solidarity Mechanism

As already cited, Common European Asylum System (CEAS) struggles from absence of a
functioning system for the fair sharing of responsibility among Member States. The current Dublin
system is not aimed at ensuring the fair sharing of responsibility, but rather at objectively allocating the
responsibility to examine an application for international protection to a specific Member State. 23

The solution proposed responds to the need of broadening solidarity beyond the relocation of
asylum seekers, and also to include the relocation of other categories of migrants and cater for a wider
range of situations.

The proposal on asylum and migration management also introduces a fairer and more
comprehensive approach to solidarity. It introduces new forms of solidarity, by widening the scope of
relocation and including return sponsorship schemes through which a Member State commits to
support returns from another one and, if the efforts are not successful, to transfer the irregular migrant.
For instance, since the beginning of 2019 Member States requested the Commission to coordinate
relocation to other Member States in 51 SAR cases, the Commission was able to coordinate the
relocation process at operational level for 39 of those requests. 24 This act considerably alleviated burden
of the member states that face mass influx and helped to deal with the issue more sustainably.

Of course necessity to relocate migrants would be triggered in particular cases. Situation would
be evaluated whether migratory pressure has occurred according to a number of criteria. In certain
cases, Member States under pressure may receive bilateral contributions in the field of capacity
building, operational support and in the external dimension from other Member States instead of
relocation or return sponsorship. Relocation and return sponsorship are therefore the main pillars of
this new approach to solidarity.

So, if states are able to contribute in migration managements with other means than relocation,
logically there is a question whether Member State may “buy out from” the responsibility to relocate
migrants on their territory.

Member States would be obliged to contribute through measures relating either to relocation or
return sponsorship or a mix of both. In addition, where there are specific needs identified, other
solidarity measures aimed at strengthening its capacity in the field of asylum, reception or return or,
operational support or measures in the area of the external dimension in order to address migratory
flows, may be contributed as long as such measures do not amount to over 30% of the required number
of persons to be relocated or subject to return sponsorship. In case of such a situation, the Commission
will ensure that the Member States that initially have indicated to provide other solidarity measures will

22
Readmission agreements: Hong Kong, Macao, Sri Lanka, Albania, Russian Federation, Ukraine, North
Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Moldova, Pakistan, Georgia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan,Turkey, Cape Verde, Belarus; arrangements: Afghanistan, Guinea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, The Gambia,
Ivory Coast.
23
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-
do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_search/relocation_en#:~:text=Relocation%20is%20an
%20intra%2DEU,and%20NO%20participate%20as%20well.
24
Ibid (see footnote 2) P 75.
have to contribute half of their share to either relocation or return sponsorship. The share of such
contributions will be calculated on the basis of to a distribution key based on 50% GDP and 50%
population. Thus, if situation is extreme, Member States may become obliged to relocate asylum
seekers, however until such extreme occurs Member States are free to choose the type of contribution.

2.4. Dedicated mechanism of dealing with crisis

In order to make migration management system truly comprehensive it needs to provide a

framework for a response in situations where one or more Member States are faced with a mass influx
or risk of such influx that renders its asylum system inoperable and thus threatens the functioning of the
Union as a whole. Flexibility in situations of force majeure also need to be introduced in light of the
lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The proposal for a Regulation establishing procedures and mechanisms addressing situations of
crisis aims to ensure that the Union has at its disposal specific rules that can be applied to ensure
effective solidarity in situations of crisis in national asylum and return management systems, as well as
to allow for possible derogations from the applicable EU acquis on asylum and return. Such specific rules
should be rapidly triggered in respect of any Member State or Member States that experience crisis
situations and of force majeure of such a magnitude as to put under significant strain even well
prepared and functioning asylum systems.

The proposed system distinguishes between crisis situations that are caused by a mass influx of
third-country nationals or stateless persons arriving irregularly being of such a scale and nature that it
would render a Member State’s asylum, reception or return system nonfunctional.

It would cover situations where there is an imminent risk of such arrivals which risk having
serious consequences for the functioning of the CEAS and the migration management system of the
Union. Finally, situations of force majeure in the field of asylum and migration management are also
addressed, including situations recently experienced by Member States due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

For this purpose, a wider scope for relocation is foreseen by including also applicants for
international protection who are in the border procedure as well as irregular migrants with shortened
timeframes for triggering the compulsory solidarity mechanism procedure foreseen for situations of
pressure in the Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management. The asylum and return procedures in
this proposal provide Member States with the tools to respond to crisis situations that render it
impossible to fulfil certain obligations under the Asylum Procedure Regulation or the Return Directive,
allowing for certain derogations such as a broader application of the border procedure to third-country
nationals and stateless persons, and a longer deadline for registering applications for international
protection. This proposal also foresees the introduction of a faster procedure to grant immediate
protection to groups of third-country nationals who are facing a high degree of risk of being subject to
indiscriminate violence, in exceptional situations of armed conflict, and who are unable to return to
their country of origin.

2.5. Simplified and more efficient responsibility rules for

migration management
 The current responsibility criterion linked to first entry remains but the proposal adds a criterion
on responsibility for examining an application registered after entry following a SAR operation to
better reflect in the asylum acquis the obligations stemming from the International Convention
on Maritime Search and Rescue. While the responsibility rules are the same for the two criteria,
they will lead to a more accurate picture of the composition of migratory flows in the EU.
Distinguishing migrants swiftly will help to provide commensurate support to those who need
international protection the most. Addressing issues of the asylum seekers rapidly would be the
top priority.

In terms of respect for fundamental rights, the changes proposed by the Commission reinforce
the right to family reunification, strengthen the rights of unaccompanied minors and makes
them a priority for relocation.

The scope of the right to an effective remedy is limited to an assessment of whether the family
criteria have been correctly applied, or whether the transfer represents a risk of inhuman or
degrading treatment as prohibited by Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Thus, the whole proposal aims to provide all necessary support to the migrants who are in a
urgent need of international protection, without procrastination.

2.6. Alleviation of External Borders through cooperation with

third countries.

Building partnerships with third countries and reinforcing the EU’s capacity to effectively protect
its external borders, manage returns and respond to disproportionate migratory pressures,
notably thanks to the establishment of the EBCG Agency and the central role played by its
Agency, have helped reduce the number of irregular migrants arriving to the EU.

Nevertheless, migratory pressure not only remains high along certain routes, but is now
significantly different with respect to the one that characterised 2015-2016. Arrivals on the
Eastern Mediterranean route are heavily influenced by the current political implications of the
EU-Turkey Statement, while the increasing number of arrivals and the increase of complex
asylum cases continues to be a challenge. The Central Mediterranean route takes in the majority
of arrivals by SAR operations, which add a level of complexity to the sharing of responsibility
among Member States. Finally, whilst cooperation with the EU’s neighboring countries has
shown concrete added value on the Western Mediterranean route, asylum applications lodged
by nationals of visa-free countries pose an increasing challenge.

Furthermore, today a large share of migrants arriving irregularly are unlikely to receive
protection in the EU. The average EU recognition rate17 in 2019 for first time applications was
just 30% in the EU-27. Member States are therefore not only faced with an increased burden to
process asylum applications, but also have to return a higher number of irregular migrants with
inadmissible or rejected asylum claims.25

Resettlement continues to be a safe and legal alternative to irregular and dangerous journeys
for refugees, and a demonstration of European solidarity with non-EU countries hosting large
numbers of persons fleeing war or persecution. Since 2015, 70,000 persons in need of
protection have been resettled in the EU in the framework of EU-sponsored resettlement
schemes. Member States have responded to the Commission’s call to continue resettling in 2020
25
Eurostat online data code: migr_asydcfsta
by pledging almost 30,000 resettlement places for 2020. This confirms Member States’
continued commitment to resettlement as a safe and legal pathway into the EU.

Readmission arrangements are not used to their full potential. On average only 10-15% of
return decisions are followed up with a readmission request or a request for identification and
re-documentation to the third-country concerned. Whereas readmission agreements with
neighbouring countries (Western Balkans and Eastern Partnership) are used by Member States
to their full potential, agreements with other third countries, including the more recently agreed
readmission arrangements, are not yet used by all Member States For the effective
implementation of readmission processes, Member States recognize the need for a very close
follow up on cases and the added value of existing tools created at EU level, such as readmission
case management systems and liaison officers.

Readmission of own nationals is an obligation under international customary law, however, in

practice many countries do not cooperate effectively on readmission. Even though the
substantial Commission efforts to engage the interest of third countries in this respect over the
past four years have brought some improvement, overall readmission cooperation remains a
challenge.

To sum up, in order to alleviate pressure on the external borders cooperation with third states is
important, as a role model could be suggested EU-Turkey Statement, by which many of migrants
temporary stay in the camps of Turkey and then go further or return to their respective
countries. Another measure is strengthening readmission agreements, to encourage third
countries to issue return demands of their nationals.

Conclusion
After 2015 the EU seriously pondered over threat of unprepared migration managements
system. Commission had to find “golden middle” between fundamental rights of migrants (such
as non-refoulment) and interests of Member States. This proved to be a big challenge,
considering that even after 5 years New Pact haven’t been widely accepted. Perhaps, one of the
warring proposals is more strict demand to solidarity amongst state, particularly concerning
relocation responsibility. Member State are reluctant to become obliged of settling migrants
within their territory. However, without such obligation at some point, migration flows would
cause crisis again. As commission stated, migration challenge should be addressed by whole EU,
not separately. In this case the EU gets similar to a Super-State, because Member States now are
bound with mutual obligations, not with just voluntary solidarity and common policy.

While New Pact on Migration frankly introduces effective policy of migration, it lacks effective
means to protect number of human rights, Civil society representatives emphasized that
agreements such as EU-Turkey Statement do not ensure protection of human rights, on the
contrary, migrants face ill-treatment and are subjected to negligence from the authorities of
third countries. Another issue concerning Human rights is general trend to issue negative and
return decisions to people from the countries of low recognitions rate(without individual
assessment). Such policy may lead to family life deprivation and even breach right of non-
refoulment. Nonetheless, at current stage all these statements are mostly mere speculations,
because New Pact is not in force yet.

On the other hand, while protection of rights of migrants with low recognition rate is
questionable, the New Pact provides solid guarantees to those people who are in need of special
 protection. If mechanism would work as it is devised, then every migrant who faces calamities,
won’t struggle from prolonged procedures and receive all necessary support as soon as
possible.

Thus New-Pact in a renewed opportunity to protect rights of those migrants who are in the need
of international protection, it also ensures save passage of those in seas to reach shores of the
EU. Moreover, policy of the New Pact will help to alleviate the burden of Member States who
face massive influx of migrants and provides effective remedy at times of crisis.

Bibliography

1) COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR

A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on asylum and
migration management and amending Council Directive (EC)2003/109and the proposed
Regulation (EU)XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund]. 23 September 2020.
2) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database - Eurostat Online
3) EU Glossary - https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-
do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_search/relocation_en#:~:text=Reloc
ation%20is%20an%20intra%2DEU,and%20NO%20participate%20as%20well
4) BBC NEWS. Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts. 04 March 2016.