The role of EU support

• Author: Mehtonen, Susanna
• Pages: 24-26

IPOL | Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies

24 PE 638.397

4. THE ROLE OF EU SUPPORT

4.1. The role of EU law, guidance and mutual learning in strategy

development and implementation

The Common Europ ean Asyl um System (CEAS) syste m has bee n transpose d in Fi nland. EU law and

experiences from other EU Member States has had an i mp act i n part icul ar when t he governm ent has

intro duced re stri cti ons to the l egis lati on. Many of the ame ndment s put t hrough have b ee n exp lained

in part by t he fact that Finl and has had a “be tter” or more “al lowing” l egislati on in the pa st and thus

making the legislation a “pull factor” for applicants to arrive in Finland. A more restrictive legislation

was sought in order to decrease the amount of arri vals. This was, for example, the motivation for

restricting family reunification and restricting access to reception services for failed asylum seekers who

cannot b e retur ned to their countr ies of ori gin. In addi tion, whil e the original purp ose of CEAS was to

provide minimum rules for the asylum procedure across EU Member States and not to lower the

standards in States wi th functioning systems, Finland has use d the CEAS system to push down the

standards of its own asylum system towards the minimum standards of CEAS. For example, the

rest ric tions i n le gal ai d were in par t bas ed on t he noti on that Fi nland prov ide d more le gal a id tha n the

minimum standard set out in the Asylum Procedures Directive. However, currently it appears that

Finla nd does not prov ide e ven the m inim um r equir ement on the right to basi c le gal advi ce about the

righ ts and dut ie s of asyl um app lic ants in t he be ginni ng of the asyl um pr ocedur e.

Regarding EU policies, there are still vast differences between EU Mem ber States in the functi oning o f

asylum proceedings, reception services, return and detention practices. I t remai ns unreasonab le to

assume that the Member States with the highest number of asylum seekers could on the ir own m anage

the i nflows i n a hum ane manne r. The curr ent Dubl in syste m has pro vided some prote ction to those

failed asylum seekers who have sought refuge in Member States with different return policies, for

example Afghani and Iraqi asylum seekers whose applications were rejected in Finland have received

protection in France. It proves that secondary movement is not only triggered by failed reception in

hotspot states, b ut also by diffe rences in recognition rates and return polici es. As long as these

differ ence s re main, secondar y move ment wil l cont inue. The development of CEAS is closely related to

the development of legal routes within the legal migration system and the EU visa system.

While CEAS was put together to provide minimum standards throughout the EU, currentl y the re seems

to be a taci t “race to the bottom” among the EU Mem ber States in international protection, with which

EU Member States are trying to minimise the numb er of asylum seekers and refugees arriving on their

territories. This focus on national inte rests and soverei gnty should be shifte d towards a focus on

solidarity among EU Member States and solidarity between the EU and those global states that

currently take on the most refugees and migrants as the routes to Europe are becoming more closed.

As such, the que sti on is not s o much a bout what spe cifi c changes s hould be m ade i n the curre nt system

but about what kind of appr oach the EU shoul d have on migratio n and humanitarian migration more

generally. This is perhaps not within the interests of Member States -n the short-term, but it is a

nece ssary discus sion i n the l ong-term.