The European Migration Network (EMN) has published the inform ‘Access to remedies for international protection applicants’, providing a detailed examination of how EMN Member Countries organise their first instance appeals procedures. The inform delivers a comprehensive comparative analysis, reflecting on procedural safeguards, key challenges, and good practices observed across the EU. This assessment supports the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum by offering policymakers comparable data for procedural reforms. Covering the period from 2018 to 2024, it outlines the different approaches taken by 22 EMN Member Countries to manage appeals across the EU.
The right to an effective remedy is a cornerstone of both EU and international human rights law, ensuring applicants for international protection can challenge asylum decisions through fair and accessible appeals procedures. This right, recognised under EU law, and international law and frameworks, like the recast Asylum Procedures Directive,[1] the European Convention on Human Rights,[2]and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[3] includes safeguards such as state-funded legal assistance and reasonable time limits for lodging appeals. As asylum applications and, consequently, first-instance decisions have risen sharply in recent years, understanding and improving appeals procedures is vital, particularly with the upcoming implementation of the Asylum Procedure Regulation,[4] which will apply as of 12 June 2026.
Variations in appeals procedures across EMN Member Countries
Lodging an appeal, timelines and decisions
Appeals procedures for decisions issued in the regular asylum procedure vary significantly across the 22 EMN Member Countries surveyed.[5] Time limits for lodging appeals range from one week to one month, with most appeals requiring submission in writing—either on paper[6] or electronically.[7] Appeals are typically resolved through a combination of written and oral procedures. While some countries impose no specific time limit,[8] others have time limits ranging from one to over five months.[9] In general, lodging an appeal under the regular asylum procedure has automatic suspensive effect,though exceptions do apply.[10]
Appeals in accelerated and border procedures
Appeals against decisions in the accelerated asylum procedure and inadmissibility decisions are treated differently in a few EMN Member Countries. Five EMN Member Countries have established specific first-instance appeals procedures for decisions issued in the accelerated asylum procedure.[11] In most instances,[12] such appeals follow the same procedures as regular asylum cases but may involve shorter timelines or differences in the application of automatic suspensive effect. France is the only EMN Member Country with a distinct appeals process for decisions issued in a border procedure. Eleven EMN Member Countries[13] do not operate border procedures under their national legislation, but for those that do, border-related appeals tend to involve shorter times for lodging appeals and lack automatic suspensive effect.[14]
Courts and appeals hearings
Across 16 EMN Member Countries,[15] first instance appeals are heard by general administrative courts, while six countries[16] assign these cases to specialised judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. In terms of structure, 18 EMN Member Countries typically rely on single judges or members of the competent body to hear appeals,[17] while six countries entrust cases to panels of judges,[18] usually consisting of two or three members, depending on the complexity of the case.
Special considerations for vulnerable groups
All reporting EMN Member Countries offer state-funded legal assistance and representation for first instance appeals, typically on request and subject to conditions like financial need, the applicant’s presence within the territory, or the appeal’s likelihood of success.[19] Legal assistance usually includes help with preparing and filing appeals, consultations, and representation at hearings. Most EMN Member Countries assign registered lawyers under state legal aid systems to fulfil this role.[20] Additionally, 17 EMN Member Countries have specific guarantees in place for unaccompanied minors,[21] such as appointing legal guardians or providing legal representation automatically, and 12 countries ensure special procedural accommodations for other vulnerable groups with specific needs.[22]
Operational improvements and digital advancements
Between 2018 and June 2024, 12 EMN Member Countries introduced operational improvements to their first instance appeals procedures[23], leveraging digital technologies such as online hearings[24] and the electronic submission of documentation.[25] These advancements streamlined processes and modernised appeals systems, but challenges such as capacity constraints, growing caseloads, backlogs, and limited access to legal assistance persist.
Several good practices have been implemented by EMN Member Countries. Measures to prevent backlogs,[26] strengthen the capacity of competent bodies[27] and advance digitalisation[28] have proven effective. Innovations have also included standard operating procedures (SOPs) to provide clear guidance for staff,[29] the establishment of strict legal time limits for issuing appeals decisions[30] and the creation of specialised territorial chambers to reduce appeal costs for applicants.[31]
About the EMN:
The European Migration Network (EMN) is a Europe-wide network consisting of National Contact Points (NCPs) in the EMN Member (EU Member States except Denmark) and Observer Countries (NO, GE, MD, UA, ME, AM, RS, MK), the European Commission and is supported by the EMN Service Provider, providing information on migration and asylum. The EMN was set up in 2008 by the European Commission on behalf of the European Council to satisfy the need for a regular exchange of reliable information on migration and asylum related issues on a European level.
[1] Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (recast Asylum Procedures Directive), OJ L 180, p. 60, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0032, accessed 3 July 2024.
[2] European Convention on Human Rights, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG, accessed 19 June 2024.
[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights, last accessed 19 June 2024.
[4] Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU, OJ L, 2024/1348, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401348, accessed 19 June 2024.
[5] All EMN Member Countries reported having first instance appeals procedures against a decision issued in the regular asylum procedures, except Hungary. Under Hungarian asylum legislation, a claim to the court (not an appeal) can be brought against a decision issued in a regular asylum procedure (the court makes a decision in administrative litigation).
[6] BE, BG, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, LU, NL, PL, SE, SK.
[7] CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, LU, SE.
[8] AT, BE, BG, EL, FR, LT, LV, NL, PL, SI, SK.
[9] AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SI, SK.
[10] AT, DE, EE, EL, FR, NL, SE, SK (request for granting of suspensive effect should be submitted together with the appeal).
[11] BG, CY, IE, LU, PL.
[12] AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LV, NL, SE, SI, SK.
[13] BG, CY, ES, HU, IE, LT, LU, PL, SE, SI, SK.
[14] AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE , EL, FI, HR, HU, LV, NL. In EE, HR, LV, the border procedure is foreseen in the law, but not implemented in practice.
[15] AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR (border procedures only), HR, LT, LU, LV, NL, SI, SK.
[16] CY, EL, FR, IE, PL, SE.
[17] AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI (accelerated procedure), FR, HR, IE, LU (accelerated procedure), LV, NL, PL (accelerated procedure), SI, SK.
[18] ES, FI (regular procedure), LU (regular and inadmissibility procedures), LT, PL (except accelerated procedure), SE.
[19] AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU (a claim to the court (not an appeal) can be brought against a decision issued in a regular asylum procedure (court makes decisions in administrative litigation)), IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SI, SK.
[20] BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FR, HR, IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE (Migration Agency maintains a registry of vetted lawyers who are automatically assigned unless the applicant proposes their own representation, who is then vetted and, if found sufficiently experienced and skilled, receives the same compensation), SK.
[21] AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FI, HR, IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, SE, SI, SK.
[22] BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, FI, FR, IE, LT, LV, PL, SI.
[23] AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, SK.
[24] AT, BG, CZ, FR, IE, LT, LV, NL.
[25] BE, BG, ES, IE, LU, NL, SK.
[26] BE, DE, FI, FR, NL.
[27] CY, IE, NL, SK.
[28] DE, IE, LT, ES.
[29] CY.
[30] LV.
[31] FR.