11 Questions and Answers on the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)
Questions
1. What is the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)?
Since 1999, the European Union (EU) has defined the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as a body of laws governing the treatment of people seeking asylum. Its latest iteration , known as the “New Pact on Migration and Asylum”, was adopted in 2024 following eight years of negotiations. The CEAS now encompasses at least ten legal instruments that regulate various aspects of asylum procedures. These include standards on who qualifies as a refugee (Qualification Regulation), outlining the procedures for examining claims (Asylum Procedures Regulation), and setting out the rights of asylum seekers both while awaiting a decision (Reception Directive) and after being granted protection (Qualification Regulation). The CEAS also specifies which EU country is responsible for processing asylum claims and providing protection (Asylum and Migration Management Regulation).
2. Does the existence of a Common European Asylum System mean that all procedures (asylum, reception, integration, etc.) will be the same in every European country and that every asylum seeker will have the same opportunities?
In theory, yes—but not in practice. Even under the 2024 reform of the CEAS, many rules remain vague and leave significant discretion to EU Member States in shaping their respective asylum procedures.
Even with common legal standards, the treatment of asylum seekers still differs greatly across EU countries. The same legal framework is often applied in very different ways, which can lead to significant variations in outcomes. For instance, the likelihood of the same refugee being granted protection can vary dramatically from one country to another.
3. Does this reform restrict the right to asylum?
Yes, the fundamental right to asylum is restricted. The new CEAS rules significantly increase the risk of asylum claims being rejected without proper examination, leading to refugees being returned to countries where they may face danger. This may happen due to bureaucratic reasons unrelated to their actual need for protection.
Under the new asylum procedures, states can refuse to examine an asylum application on its merits if they consider that the refugee did not claim asylum within a short period after a previous deportation decision (“inadmissibility”) or if the refugee fails to attend their personal interview or to respond to questions (“implicit withdrawal”). In such cases, the rejection of the asylum claim automatically triggers a deportation order. These grounds restrict the fundamental right to asylum and could serve as a pretext for widespread denial of protection.
4. What are the “border procedures” as extended by the new CEAS and what are their implications?
Border procedures are fast-track processes that take place at a country’s border, focusing solely on whether an asylum application is admissible, rather than assessing its substance except for specific cases (accelerated procedure). These procedures, which EU countries were already allowed to apply at external borders, are presented in the CEAS as a filter to quickly reject inadmissible or clearly unfounded asylum claims. Under the new CEAS rules, border procedures become mandatory for certain categories of applications, such as those from countries with a recognition rate of 20% or lower, regardless of whether or not the applicants are physically at the border. For other categories, such as applications rejected under the “safe third country” concept, the use of border procedures remains optional.
These border procedures come with extremely short deadlines and reduced procedural safeguards for applicants who are often housed or detained in border facilities far from essential services. The negative impact of border procedures on the quality of asylum decision-making is well-documented. In Greece, a large portion of the refugee population will be affected, as border procedures have been applied to all arrivals on the East Aegean islands, often in violation of the previous CEAS rules.
5. What is a “safe third country” and how is the concept expanded in the new CEAS?
Under the CEAS, EU Member States can reject an asylum application as inadmissible without having to examine its substance if they determine that the applicant could seek and receive protection in a non-EU country that meets certain safety criteria and thus is considered a “safe third country.”
The new CEAS rules significantly expand the “safe third country” concept. First, safety criteria for designating a third country as “safe” are watered down. For example, a country can be deemed safe for return even if it is not safe for its own citizens. Also, it will only need to offer “effective protection” without having ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees. Additionally, any country that has a readmission agreement with the EU will automatically be presumed to meet the security criteria. This introduces derogations from international conventions that protect refugees and their rights. Further, CEAS rules provide that individuals may be returned to safe parts of countries that may not be safe in their entirety. Finally, countries not generally safe could be designated as safe for certain categories of people, based on factors like nationality or gender. These regulations are at odds with international refugee law and human rights principles, as pointed out by Refugee Support Aegean (RSA).
6. What does the “fiction of non-entry” into the EU mean and what will its impact be on asylum seekers?
CEAS introduces a key concept termed “fiction of non-entry”. This controversial legal construct allows people subject to border procedures to be considered as not having entered the territory of EU states in the eyes of the law, even though they are physically present on that territory. The “fiction of non-entry” enables mass, thereby arbitrary, deprivation of asylum seekers’ liberty during border procedures and restricts their access to fundamental rights and procedural safeguards. At the same time, the actual implications of the fiction of non-entry are not clearly defined in the texts, thus leaving room for varying interpretations and practices.
The “fiction of non-entry” can be applied not only at a state’s borders but also at “any appropriate and suitable location” selected by a country for the use of border procedures. For example, a refugee who arrives on a Greek island, is later transferred to the Greek mainland and then relocated to France could still be legally considered as not having entered Europe while their asylum claim is being examined.
7. Will the possibility of administrative detention for people seeking asylum be expanded under the new CEAS? What will this mean for the people and their rights?
Yes, the new CEAS rules expand the possibility for states to impose administrative detention on asylum seekers, particularly in so-called “border procedures,” although they theoretically reiterate that detention should only be used in exceptional circumstances. They also allow for the detention of families with children, even though deprivation of liberty for immigration purposes is never in the best interests of the child.
In practice, we have seen that these rules could lead to arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the name of administrative convenience and to confinement of people seeking protection in the EU in inhuman conditions. People are also liable to face significant obstacles in accessing crucial information, legal representation and basic services while awaiting a decision on their asylum claim.
8. What must Greece do to comply with the New Pact?
Beyond the necessary legislative changes, we will likely see a proliferation of closed camps, especially in locations on the islands and the mainland where Greece will implement border procedures and the fiction of non-entry.
At the same time, current CEAS obligations that have been in force for decades, for instance on adequate reception conditions to ensure decent living standards for asylum seekers, continue to be systematically breached in Greece. These violations are likely to intensify given the opacity of the new procedures and the increased number of people held in detention.
9. As a refugee, how will you be able to obtain travel documents and reunite with your family in Greece after the implementation of the CEAS?
The CEAS reform does not alter the rules for family reunification for refugees in Greece, which remain very strict and fully exclude beneficiaries of subsidiary protection from the right to family reunification. The rules for issuing travel documents to those granted protection status in Greece remain unchanged.
10. If the CEAS is implemented, how could the right to legal assistance for asylum seekers and their support from civil society be affected?
The CEAS introduces an obligation on states to provide asylum seekers with free “legal counselling” from the beginning of the asylum process. However, the legal texts remain vague as to what this counselling entails and who will provide it. In practice, the expansion of border procedures and the increase in arbitrary detention, as discussed earlier, will likely have serious negative impacts on asylum seekers’ ability to access legal advice and support. Given strict entry controls in detention centres, these people will in practice be isolated and stripped of essential access to the legal assistance they need to navigate complex asylum procedures.
Moreover, the work of civil society organisations that have played a crucial role in supporting asylum seekers is likely to be significantly reduced. The presence of third parties in places of detention is essential for monitoring of procedures, ensuring asylum seekers’ rights are protected, and access to reliable information.
We should add that the Closed Controlled Access Centres (CCACs) on the Eastern Aegean islands, not officially detention centres but under controlled entry / exit, already impose strict limitations on access of organisations, journalists and researchers.
11. Will the implementation of the CEAS mean that other European countries will return more refugees to Greece?
Τhe new CEAS facilitates deportation of refugees to countries of first entry like Greece, both for those who have made an asylum application in Greece (Asylum and Migration Management Regulation) and for those who have already been recognised as refugees there (Asylum Procedures Regulation).
(a) For asylum seekers who transited through Greece and then registered their application in another EU country, those countries will now only need to send a “notification” of responsibility before returning them. They will have extended deadlines to carry out these returns.
(b) For refugees already recognised in Greece who move to another EU country and reapply for asylum, states will now be able to reject these applications without reviewing the merits of the case or even interviewing refugees to hear why they left Greece.
Lastly, although the Schengen Borders Code now allows for bilateral agreements to directly deport people between Schengen countries, these cannot be applied to asylum seekers according to the law.
