On June 12, 2026, the European Union Migration and Asylum Pact will become fully applicable. The Pact is a set of 10 pieces of binding legislation, adopted in 2024, that overhauls how the EU manages its borders, processes asylum applications, and addresses responsibility-sharing among member states. This question-and-answer document examines the Pact’s implications.
- What is the anticipated impact of the EU Migration and Asylum Pact?
The new rules will undermine the right to asylum by making it easier for governments to rush the assessment of protection claims, limit safeguards in asylum processing, and boost the prevalence and duration of detention for asylum seekers.
EU countries will be able to deny people the right to apply for asylum in vaguely defined situations of “mass influx” or “instrumentalization” of migration by third countries. The changes encourage EU states to deflect their responsibility for asylum seekers onto countries outside the EU while doing little to improve responsibility-sharing within the EU.
The Pact does include some positive reforms to help ensure the best interest of children seeking asylum, including by making multidisciplinary age assessments mandatory and guaranteeing access to education for child asylum seekers within two months. The definition of family has been expanded to include families formed during the migration journey, and adult asylum seekers will have the right to work after a maximum of six months, reduced from nine.
The Pact also includes provisions that could, if prioritized and implemented properly, help identify and support migrants and asylum seekers with specific support requirements, including people with disabilities and people at heightened risk of abuse.
Alongside the Pact, the EU is currently finalizing a Return Regulation—new rules on deportation that will replace the existing Return Directive—that will further cement the bloc’s approach to migration of deterrence, detention, and externalization. Externalization is a strategy under which wealthier countries/regions outsource migration to other countries, thereby shifting their responsibilities under international human rights and refugee law to countries that in many cases have less capacity.
Uneven implementation of asylum rules by different countries is a perennial problem in the EU, which, coupled with reported lack of preparedness for the Pact to be applied in a number of member states, raises concerns that the deep disparities in conditions and treatment that have long plagued the common EU asylum system will persist.
- What will change for people who arrive at an EU external border?
The new rules effectively create a process under which people can potentially be detained for six months, for the purposes of identification, asylum processing, and possible deportation. The first step is a screening that will determine whether an asylum seeker has access to the normal asylum procedure or a new “asylum border procedure” linked directly to a deportation process in the event the application is rejected. Many asylum seekers are likely to be subjected to the border procedure, which may involve detention for up to twelve weeks during the examination of the asylum application and an additional twelve weeks pending deportation.
This screening process mimics the so-called hotspot approach used in Greece and Italy, which has given rise to persistent and serious concerns about conditions, treatment, and access to fair procedures.
The legal basis for this process is provided for in the Screening Regulation which requires everyone arriving at any EU external border without an entry visa to undergo a screening procedure that will last up to seven days. This includes people who arrive following a rescue or interception at sea. Screening of unaccompanied children would last four days, while people detained while already inside an EU country will undergo a three-day screening.
The screening will include a security check, a health check, and a “preliminary vulnerability check” to identify stateless people, victims or survivors of torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, and people with “special needs” as defined in EU law. This includes children, older people, people with disabilities including mental health conditions, pregnant women, LGBT and intersex people, single parents with children, victims of trafficking, people with serious illnesses, and victims or survivors of gender-based violence and other forms of violence based on “sexual, gender, racist, or religious motive.”
The new legislation also incorporates a problematic legal interpretation under which people going through screening, although physically on the territory of an EU country, are still not considered to have legally entered the country. This “fiction of non-entry” is currently applied by all EU countries in places like airport transit zones, raising concerns about the erosion of rights, such as the right to asylum and the right to an effective remedy, as well as opportunities for unlawful pushbacks and misuse of detention.
- Will there be different rules for people from certain countries?
Under the new rules, EU countries will have to examine asylum applications from nationals of countries with an average EU-wide refugee recognition rate of 20 percent or less via the new “asylum border procedure.”
The border procedure, including appeals, is supposed to take a maximum of 12 weeks, during which the applicant will most likely be detained. The authorities are required to ensure that asylum seekers have access to free legal counsel from the beginning of this process, an improvement from current entitlements. But the Pact does not lay out minimum standards so the quality may vary significantly across EU countries and people may be held in facilities that are difficult for nongovernmental organizations and legal counselors to reach.
The “20 percent recognition rate” is also an arbitrary threshold that creates a presumption that asylum seekers from particular countries are not likely to need protection. It undermines the principle that each asylum seeker is entitled to an individual assessment and imposes a higher burden of proof on those against whom the presumption works.
This approach risks violating the obligation of nonrefoulement, that is, not sending people back to places where their rights and lives are at serious risk, especially those who face risks unique to their personal circumstances, such as human rights defenders at risk and victims or survivors of gender-based violence.
The Pact also provides that applicants who make inconsistent or contradictory statements or whom authorities consider a national security risk will go through the border procedure.
The new rules mandate that all children under age 12 traveling with family members are exempt from the border procedure and all unaccompanied children should go through the regular asylum procedure and be placed in appropriate reception centers unless they are identified as a security risk.
But children aged 13 and older with their families can be detained and processed under the border procedure. The difference in treatment between children, and in particular whether their best interests are being met, raises serious concerns under the Convention on the Rights of a Child, which has been ratified by all EU member states.
The new rules also do not allow the authorities to apply the fast-track border procedure if they cannot provide sufficient support for people in need of “special procedural guarantees” or with specific reception requirements, or for medical reasons, including mental health reasons.
- What’s wrong with accelerated procedures?
Accelerated procedures raise concerns about whether they are complete or fair. Speedy reviews can compromise the integrity of the process if decision-makers rush to conclusions based on partial information, especially if asylum seekers do not have the opportunity to gather all the evidence they need. Often, the use of accelerated procedures means that the authorities already have negative views about the applicants’ eligibility.
The new rules require every EU country to use accelerated procedures even outside of the asylum border procedure when anyone, including an unaccompanied child, comes from a country listed as a “safe country of origin,” or a country with an average EU recognition rate of 20 percent or less; is considered a security risk; is applying a second time after having previously been found inadmissible; or is believed to have deliberately provided misleading information.
Accelerated procedures will also be mandated, except for unaccompanied children, for anyone whom authorities believe presents facts that are irrelevant; making the application only to delay or frustrate a deportation; or did not, without good justification, apply for asylum as soon as possible.
- What is a “safe country of origin”? How has the concept changed?
EU law has long allowed EU countries to apply the “safe country of origin” concept: the presumption that nationals from a country where persecution, torture, or conflict are not widespread are unlikely to be refugees in need of protection. Under the new rules, this becomes mandatory.
Nationals from these countries will face an automatic presumption that they do not need protection and will be channeled into accelerated processing of their asylum claims that could overlook their individual circumstances.
The EU has adopted an EU-wide list of countries deemed safe for the purposes of assessing an asylum application and an EU country can include more countries on their national lists. In addition, a country can now be considered a “safe country of origin” even if it is acknowledged that it is not safe throughout its territory or for all people.
By imposing a higher burden of proof on people fleeing persecution, who already often face difficulties providing evidence of the harm they are escaping, the “safe country of origin” concept risks that people will be sent back to places where they face human rights abuse. Human Rights Watch has documented serious human rights violations in every country on the EU’s “safe countries of origin” list: Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, Tunisia, and EU candidate countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Serbia, and Türkiye.
- What is a “safe third country”? How has the concept changed?
Traditionally, the “safe third country” concept is the idea that an asylum seeker could and should have sought asylum in a country they traveled through or stayed before reaching the country where they apply for asylum. It has long been possible for authorities in EU countries to consider an asylum application inadmissible on these grounds; in other words, to refuse to examine the application. The new EU rules stretch the “safe third country” concept to allow EU countries to make arrangements with countries outside the EU willing to take asylum seekers even if they have never been there and to which they have no connection or meaningful ties.
Under the Pact if authorities reject an asylum application on these grounds, they are required to issue a deportation order (a “return decision”) at the same time. Unlike under previous rules, filing an appeal does not automatically suspend deportation, meaning that rejected asylum seekers could be deported before a judge rules on the merits of their appeal.
Safe third country agreements allow the EU to shirk their responsibilities to protect refugees and ensure the right to seek and receive asylum. These types of arrangements are almost invariably made with countries that have less capacity to examine claims fully and fairly and to provide protection and durable solutions to those who need it.
For example, the EU-Türkiye deal in 2016 sent asylum seekers who travelled through Türkiye back there despite lack of access to asylum procedures and clear evidence that Türkiye violates the nonrefoulement prohibition.
This paves the way for an EU country to send people to places where they have no cultural ties, family, or community, and where support for rebuilding their lives could be in doubt. Additionally, whereas before, a safe third country had to offer the possibility of protection in accordance with the international Refugee Convention, under the new EU rules, a third country can be considered “safe” if it can provide “effective protection,” a lower standard.
- Is asylum the only way a person can stay in the EU?
The new border procedures rest on the mistaken view that the only justification for coming irregularly to the EU is to seek international protection. In reality, the limited regular and safe pathways to travel to the EU and to obtain legal residency lead many people to conclude they have no other option but to take dangerous journeys and live irregularly.
The new procedures at the border—which also can be applied also to undocumented people already living in an EU country—do not explicitly allow for consideration of other claims a person might have to enter or remain in the EU. Yet, some people who do not qualify for international protection could have other grounds, like family unity, medical needs, or humanitarian reasons. Faced with only two options—apply for asylum or go straight into a deportation procedure—most will apply for asylum. It is unclear whether or how the procedure would allow them to raise other arguments to be allowed to remain.
- Will EU countries now detain all asylum seekers?
Under the new rules, countries will be more likely to detain most asylum seekers. Legally, detention should still only be used as a measure of last resort, if necessary and proportionate. It seems likely, however, that most people subjected to the new border procedure will be detained throughout the process because people undergoing screening and, subsequently, the asylum border procedure, have not yet been legally authorized to enter the EU.
If deportation is not possible within the 12-week time frame the new rules require that the person be transferred to the normal procedure which allows detention, currently, for up to 18 months pending deportation. The proposed “Return Regulation” being finalized could increase the maximum limit.
- What is the Crisis Regulation?
The Pact includes a Crisis Regulation that allows member states to curtail rights even further in situations characterized by “mass arrival” by land, air, or sea (including following rescues at sea) that an EU country argues make it difficult to follow the usual procedures for asylum, reception, and return.
This would also be applied when a third country or hostile non-state actor “instrumentalizes” migration to destabilize a particular EU country or the European Union as a whole in way that affects essential functions of the state; and a situation of “abnormal or unforeseeable circumstances,” such as pandemics or natural disasters.
Once the European Commission and the Council officially recognize, upon request, that a particular member state is facing a crisis of this kind, that state can depart from normal border procedures and curtail important safeguards for 12 months.
There is nothing in the legislation to limit the number of times a member state can invoke this. Member states could delay registration of asylum applications for one month (compared with the normal five days), dramatically increase the number of people channeled into the asylum border procedure, and increase the length of the procedure (and likely time in detention) from 12 to 18 weeks.
The Crisis Regulation could have a positive impact in that it allows member states to expedite asylum applications from particular groups on the grounds they are likely to be well-founded, known as prima facie recognition of the need for international protection. It also foresees measures that other member states can take to alleviate the stress, including taking responsibility for asylum seekers who would otherwise have been sent back to the member state facing a declared crisis.
In practice, however, the example of Poland’s “temporary” suspension of the right to asylum in March 2025, which is still in effect over one year later and more broadly applied than originally intended, gives real cause for concern. The failure of EU institutions to address the risks of exceptional measures indicates a need for strict scrutiny.
- Who will monitor respect for people’s rights?
Under the Pact, EU member states must provide for an independent monitoring mechanism that is appropriately financed and includes or maintains close ties with relevant international and nongovernmental organizations. The mechanism is restricted to monitoring respect for human rights during the screening process and the asylum border procedure.
This is a positive step but given the existing range of human rights violations at EU borders, including pushbacks, that take place outside of official border crossings or formal procedures, the mechanisms may have too limited a scope to provide adequate protection of rights.
- Won’t the Pact improve collaboration among member states?
There is no guarantee it will, and it is unlikely to. A key reason for the current dysfunctional EU asylum system is the existing general rule that the first country of entry into the EU is responsible for processing someone’s asylum claim, and that an asylum seeker must apply for asylum in the first country they enter.
This places a disproportionate share of responsibility on countries on the EU’s external borders and serves as an incentive for these member states to engage in unlawful pushbacks, ignore boats in distress, and create hostile environments to encourage people to go elsewhere. The Pact does not change the “first entry criterion;” in fact, it reinforces it.
The European Commission has said that Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and Spain are facing “significant migratory pressure” and will benefit from the solidarity mechanism when it comes into effect.
But instead of addressing the fundamental unfairness of the system, the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation creates a mandatory “solidarity mechanism” that allows member states to choose from three ways to support an EU country experiencing significant challenges: relocations, financial contributions, or in-kind contributions.
This means that EU countries can refuse to relocate asylum seekers and refugees, and instead give the receiving countries money to support actions related to migration and asylum, including border control, or to provide operational support, capacity building, or technical equipment. This aid can be used for projects in a country outside the EU, raising concerns that money will be spent on border fences, barbed wire, and surveillance.
The new rules allow member states to participate in the solidarity mechanism by taking responsibility for asylum seekers already on their territory and who would otherwise be sent back to their country of first entry. However, this becomes mandatory if relocation pledges fall short of targets.
Relocation of asylum seekers, if done in a way that takes into due account their wishes and family and community ties, would be the most positive, rights-respecting step toward equitable distribution of responsibility. Based on past performance, it is unfortunately the least likely to be implemented at scale. Mandatory and voluntary relocation schemes since 2015 have failed to meet their targets by large margins. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have already said they will not do relocations.
- What should EU Countries do to mitigate worst consequences of the Pact?
Insofar as the asylum border procedure imposes even greater challenges for people at heightened risk of abuse, member states should use their margin of discretion to ensure that these people are always placed in the regular asylum procedure and appropriate reception facilities. Member states should ensure that detention is a measure of last resort and instead invest in alternatives to detention throughout the procedure.
EU member states should ensure that specialized personnel, including experts on gender-based violence, are involved in screening and decision-making to help ensure that people with protection and support needs are properly identified and assisted. The EU and all its member states are party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and as such should ensure that people with disabilities are not involuntarily detained on the basis of their disability.
In applying the new rules, member states should ensure full, individual assessments of a person’s circumstances including all possible grounds for a right to enter or remain in the EU.
Given the risks associated with safe third country agreements, member states should refrain from establishing these kinds of agreements and should instead take responsibility for examining claims for international protection or other grounds to remain for people on their territory.
Given the harmful and consequential nature of the derogations under the Crisis Regulation, these special regimes should only be invoked by member states, and approved by the Commission and the Council, in truly exceptional circumstances and for the most limited time necessary.
Member states can and should go beyond the minimum monitoring requirements in the Pact. To help prevent abuse and ensure accountability when it occurs, member states should set up monitoring mechanisms with a broad mandate to cover all allegations of rights violations in the context of border activities. To be meaningful, the monitoring mechanisms should have the capacity to contribute directly to accountability, for example, triggering judicial investigations of allegations of rights violations and action on recommendations to prevent further abuse.
