102 / 150
THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
102
sibility in case of overrun of deadlines.
– Stricter requirements for asylum seekers:
they would be obliged to apply for asylum in
their country of first arrival. If they do not
meet this obligation, the responsible mem-
ber state must assess their asylum applica-
tion in an accelerated process. Asylum seek-
ers should only receive benefits in kind in the
member state responsible for their asylum
process (except for emergency medical treat-
ment). Failure to carry out these duties
would incur sanctions, which remain in the
hands of the member states.
Despite all these proposals, the Dublin
System essentially retains the principle that the
countries of first arrival in the EU must still
shoulder a particularly large burden, and are
responsible for admitting asylum seekers, and
sending them on for relocation or returning
them to safe third countries. This means that
Dublin IV is only a light “alteration which re-
mains in previous logic” (Hruschka, 2016) rath-
er than an “initiative for necessary reform to
achieve a more functional and efficient sys-
tem” (
ibid
). Until now, no consideration has
been given to differentiated proposals for
stronger involvement of asylum seekers them-
selves (“free choice”, “limited choice”, “Dublin
minus”, see Maiani, 2016). Repeated demands
have been made to include family and social
bonds, language skills, job matching and other
criteria for asylum seeker selection, to provide
positive incentives for asylum seekers to stay in
their allocated country, and to open up the
possibility of internal mobility within Europe
through the mutual recognition of asylum pro-
cesses (Wagner
et al
., 2016, Guild
et al
., 2015a:
10 on). The proposal also significantly cuts the
rights guaranteed in the Dublin III regulation
and includes new sanctions for irregular
onward migration (Maiani, 2016; Hruschka,
2016).
EASO will become a fully-fledged agency. It
can contribute to greater convergence between
the member states in the future. The relation-
ship between the agency and member states is
to be changed: exchange of information is to
become obligatory in future, rather than a form
of voluntary cooperation as previously. In future,
EASO should regularly check the member states’
list of safe countries of origin, pass on informa-
tion about countries that a member state wants
to add to the shared list, and create guidelines
on best practices for the implementation of the
CEAS. EASO should also provide tailored sup-
port for individual member states. The agency
should also use its teams to carry out operative
and technical tasks of CEAS implementation in
the member states, particularly those under a
high level of pressure from migration. EASO is
gradually expanding to become an asylum
agency that could implement harmonised ap-
plication of common rules in the member states,
even if not requested to do so, and if a member
state lacks the necessary ability or will, it could
intervene independently. This development may
offer an opening, and even the European
Commission sees it as a “long-term opportuni-
ty” (European Commission, 2016). The aim
would then be to gradually eliminate the differ-
ences in admission rates, which should not exist
according to the specification of the CEAS, and
thus end the asylum lottery that has previously
existed in Europe. However, until now, the
agency has only had competences for support-
ing process implementation, and it has not been
able to implement the processes itself. Despite
their increased importance, Frontex and EASO
still only play a support role for national border
and asylum authorities. A real EU asylum agency
is thus still not in view.
In addition to the improved competences for