Law Clinic Malta 2015
UNEQUAL INFLUX
OF MIGRANTS AND
THE ROLE OF EASO
About the unequal influx of migrants within the
European Union and the possible role of EASO
within and beyond its mandate
De Beer, Dziedzic, Goudriaan, Hopstaken,
Metselaar, Mohammed, Slaats & Trevisan
TILBURG UNIVERSITY &
THE EUROPEAN ASYLUM SUPPORT OFFICE
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Due to a growing number of conflicts in the world and the economic prosperity on the European continent,
more and more people try to reach the European soil. Among them are people in right of international
protection, such as refugee protection or subsidiary protection. Refugee protection is based on Article 1A
(2) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the so-called Geneva Convention. Subsidiary
protection is based on international human rights treaties, predominantly in Europe, the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Geneva Convention states that a refugee is someone who is in:
“…well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing
to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality
and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or,
owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”1 States are prohibited to return or expel a refugee to a place
where his life or freedom is in danger on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion (principle of non-refoulement).2 The European Court of Human
Rights has in a comprehensive body of case law interpreted article 2 and 3 of the ECHR to include the
principle of non-refoulement.3 States are thus prohibited to send persons back to a particular territory when
they are refugees or when their right to life or their right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or
degrading treatment would be violated in that territory. Article 78(1) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the
European Union reiterates that all Member States must respect the Geneva Convention and other relevant
treaties, which brings us to the problem that is at hand here.
1.1 PROBLEM
For geographical reasons, most migrants enter Europe through Spain, Italy, Greece or Malta. In the view of
EU and government officials, the Dublin Regulation is the cornerstone of the Common European Asylum
System (CEAS). Without it, asylum seekers could lodge applications open in several Member States and it
wouldn't be clear which state would be responsible for making a decision. The aim of the Regulation is to
the ensure that one Member State is responsible for the examination of an asylum application, to deter
multiple asylum claims and to determine as quickly as possible the responsible Member State to ensure
effective access to an asylum procedure. The Dublin Regulation establishes a hierarchy of criteria for
identifying the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum claim in Europe. This is
1
Refugee Convention, article 1(2)
Refugee Convention, article 33(1)
3
See for example inter alia Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439; Üner v. The Netherlands
App no 46410/99 (ECtHR 18 October 2006); Na v. United Kingdom App No 25904/07 (ECtHR)17 July
2008); Saadi v. Italy App no 37201/06 (ECtHR 28 February 2008); Chahal v United Kingdom (1996) 23
EHRR 413; Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands App no 1948/04 (ECtHR 11 January 2007); N v. United
Kingdom App no 26565/05 (ECtHR 27 May 2008); Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 248; D
v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 423
2
1
2
predominantly on the basis of family links followed by responsibility assigned on the basis of the State
through which the asylum seeker first entered, or the State responsible for their entry into the territory.
The Dublin Regulation among others determines that the Member State in which the asylum seeker first
enters, is the State responsible for the asylum procedure.4 For example: an asylum seeker who came to the
EU via Hungary and then traveled to Belgium, would likely be sent back to Hungary to have their
application examined. This, however causes an imbalance in responsibilities between Member States since
the influx is not equally spread across Europe. In fact, the migrant influxes at present heading to Europe
stress mainly the border control of its south and east Member States, posing a serious challenge to the
principle of solidarity within the European legal framework. At current, the ever growing numbers of
migrants make it hard for the above mentioned States to adequately protect those people in need. This is
especially the case since the ongoing financial crisis deteriorated the economic position of these countries
(think for example of the situation in Greece). In this sense, the migrants influxes are not only stressing
Member States differently, but also those legally responsible appear to be not able to face the present
humanitarian crisis. Not only is there a disproportionate influx of migrants, moreover, certain Member
States cannot deal with this uneven influx.
1.2 ASSIGNMENT
The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) urged the need for a study on shared reception facilities as a
possible solution for the problem of unequal influx of asylum seekers. Based on the European principle of
solidarity, which forms the basis of the European Union, sharing care services and shelter would appear to
be a logical and feasible solution to help the Member States dealing with the greatest numbers of influx of
asylum seekers. However, there are a number of practical issues at stake. First of all, should the asylum
seekers be distributed among the other Member States? And if so, should this be based on their number of
inhabitants, the gross domestic product or on the square kilometers of the Member State? Second, to what
extent the wishes of the asylum seekers themselves need to be taken into account? Should they be placed
close to their families and friends? Does language play a role in the distribution process? Third, does the
reception facility only count as shelter or should the receiving State take over the entire asylum procedure?
This paper answers these questions and examines possible ways of sharing facilities. In doing so, the paper
will outline the experiences of sharing penitentiary detention centers in the Netherlands as an example how
European Member States can make use of each other’s facilities in case of distribution problems. The first
part of this paper will present two ‘first-order’ approaches. It will firstly elaborate on the possibilities of
shared facilities and will then look at possible improvements in State harmonization related to the EASO
mandate. The second part of the paper will approach the initial assessment from a more theoretical
perspective and gives an assessment on fair sharing within the European Union.
4
Regulation (EU) 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the
Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the
Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Recast) (Dublin regulation), article 3(1) jo.
7(1) jo. 13(1).
3
2. SHARING FACILITIES
As mentioned in the introduction, the EASO urged for a study on shares facilities because this might offer a
solution for the unequal increasing number of influx of asylum seekers in Europe. In this paragraph we will
looked at the European Relocation Malta (EUREMA) pilot programme and the example of sharing of
detention facilities in the Netherlands. These two initiatives might be also useful in the problems that occur
due the unequal influx of refugees in Europe.
2.1 EUREMA
First of all, the EUREMA programme will be discussed. EUREMA is a pilot programme with regards to
relocation to assist Malta to cope with the pressures of hosting a relatively large number of recognized
beneficiaries of international protection (EASO, 2012:1). EUREMA was launched as a cooperation
between the Maltese Ministry of Home Affairs, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). EUREMA aimed at ensuring that asylum
seekers entering the EU via Malta would be relocated to participating States. Each participating State
pledged to take in a certain number of persons in their country. EUREMA provided the organizational
framework for preparing and implementing the relocation. Participating states could opt to relocate via the
EUREMA pilot project or could choose for a bilateral arrangement with Malta (EASO, 2012:1). The
majority of the countries chose for a bilateral arrangement with Malta, reasoning that a bilateral
arrangement was the fastest and most efficient way to provide solidarity in an emergency situation.5 This
method was also chosen because it shares the most similarities with the resettlement exercises (EASO,
2012). Other States opted for the EUREMA pilot.6 Citing reasons for this were: willingness to support and
participate in the pilot project, the possibility to use the European Refugee Fund (ERF) and gaining
experience with relocation (EASO, 2012:8). In the first phase of EUREMA in 2011, ten Member States
pledged 253 places, and in total 227 people were relocated. In the second phase of EUREMA in 2012, a
number of 15 States pledged 356 places, but the exact number of persons relocated is unsure as the process
is currently still ongoing (EASO, 2012).
After the programme ended, it has been reviewed by the EASO. EASO states that the possibility of
benefiting from the available expertise of UNHCR and IOM within the EUREMA pilot project encouraged
Member States to participate in this exercise. The EUREMA project was broadly seen as a tool to facilitate
the relocation process and share experience and best practice between project partners. The majority of EU
Member States and Associated Countries stated that their decision to participate in relocation activities was
a political decision of solidarity towards Malta, in line with the EU spirit of solidarity and burden sharing
enshrined in the Stockholm programme and the European Pact for Immigration and Asylum EASO,
2012:8).
5
Eight EU Member States and Associated Countries (DE, DK, ES, IE, NL, NO, CH, LI) have chosen bilateral arrangements
(EASO, 2012:8).
6
Twelve Member States preferred to relocate via the EUREMA pilot project (BG, DE, FR, HU, LU, LT, PL, PT, RO, SK,
SI, UK) (EASO, 2012:8).
3
4
However, there are also some concerns in relation to the pilot program. The first thing that can be learned
from EUREMA is that Member States fear that relocation would be a pull-factor for irregular migration.
Therefore Member States were not always willing to accept high numbers of persons in their home States.
Other concerns Member States indicate are related to the influence that relocation could have on the
resettlement quotas in the European Union, and concerned questions about the financial, legal and political
implications relocation could possibly have.
What thus can be learned from EUREMA is that Member States were not always supportive the idea of
relocation, but that nevertheless some efforts have already been made to relocate persons within the
European Union.
2.2 SHARED DETENTION FACILITIES
Sharing facilities has occurred in other areas than migration law. Think for example of the sharing of
penitentiary institutions (PI’s) in criminal law. The most recent example concerns the lease of Dutch PI’s to
Belgium and Norway.
Under- and overcrowding of prisons in Europe is a much discussed phenomenon nowadays. Countries such
as Belgium and Norway cope with this overpopulation problem while the Netherlands is faced with the
opposite. 7 In 2014, Belgium had 11.769 prisoners as a result of the overcrowding problem (Statistics
Belgium, 2015). In Norway, there is a waiting list for the execution of prison sentences and besides this
problem, they need to cope with a further shortage of detention capacity as a result of the renovation of
antiquated penitentiaries. The result is that detention capacity is (temporarily) unavailable.
In 2009 the Netherland and Belgium have entered into a unique agreement, known as the Penitentiary
Treaty8, which made it possible for the Netherlands to lease its PI in Tilburg to Belgium. The Netherlands
made the prison and the prison staff available for the placement of at least 500 Belgian detainees for a
period of three years. The same practice will become reality between Norway and the Netherlands, as at
this moment the treaty between both countries will be finalized.
What was shown in this situation of sharing detention facilities is that prisoners from Belgium could be
transferred to the Netherlands by means of a legally binding agreement. The described experience is clearly
of significant importance: two countries agreed that criminal sentences which are imposed in one country
are exported to other countries. This means that the Netherlands made prison cells and personnel available
for the enforcement of the Belgium custodial sentences but that Belgian law and regulations could be
applied within the PI. The PI in Tilburg was designated as a branch of the Belgian PI in Wortel. The Treaty
states that a Belgium governor will be appointed in Tilburg, and the site will be governed by Belgium
regulations. 9 The remainder of the staff will remain Dutch. The Belgium prisoners will serve a part of their
sentences in the Netherlands and return to Belgium to start their rehabilitation process. This means that no
leave or release takes place in the Netherlands. They will therefore not be released from prison on Dutch
7
Kamerstukken II 2008/09, 24 548, no. 310; Kamerstukken II 2008/09, 24 548, no. 256 & Kamerstukken II 2008/09, 24 548,
no. 270.
8
Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium on the use of a prison in the Netherlands
for the purpose of the execution of Belgian sentences of imprisonment (Trb. 2009, 202).
9
Article 1 of the Convention
5
territory. The Treaty itself is fully based on Dutch law. The PI in Tilburg remains Dutch territory in which
the Dutch criminal laws apply. Only the Dutch public prosecutor is authorized to make inquiry into
criminal offenses within the institution. In case of an escape, a prisoner can be held by the Dutch authorities
pending a European arrest warrant. The Treaty further stipulates that detainees are transported to Belgium
in case of hospital visits. The medical care for detainees within the PI will be based on Dutch law.10
The leasing experiment was evaluated and was considered to be very positive. In this case there was a
situation of an overcapacity in Belgium and an under capacity in the Netherlands which led to the sharing
of facilities. In so, the factual necessities which caused the sign of the Treaty resemble the one related with
the emergency of the migration influxes. This experiment showed that it is possible for two Member States
to sign a bilateral agreement on sharing a facility. An advantage for the Netherlands was that the lease to
Belgium could prevent early closing of other penitentiary institutions and it created a lot of jobs that
otherwise would vanish. However some (practical) problems arose. An example hereof is about which kind
of food (Dutch of Belgian) should be served and which culture (Dutch or Belgian) should prevail in daily
affairs. Therefore, some lessons could be learned from this experiment. The first lesson that could be
learned from the experience of sharing detention facilities is that the interaction between the prisoners (or
migrants) and staff needs to be tuned. The second lesson that can be learned is related to the essential
differences in legal systems, it became clear that these should be in line with each other. Another major
point that should be kept in mind is the distance of prisoners (or migrants) to their loved ones. A fourth
important insight was that the quality and positive experiences of approach and communication quickly
deteriorate if prisoners and staff did not speak each other’s language.
2.3 OTHER INITIATIVES
Besides EUREMA and the Dutch sharing of detention facilities, the European Network of Asylum
Reception Organizations (ENARO) and the European Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (EPRA)
are organizations that have shown how European organizations and Member States together can arrange the
reception of asylum seekers.
2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO EASO BASED ON THESE INITIATIVES
Some best practices and recommendations to EASO can be derived from the above mentioned initiatives.
Based on the mandate of EASO, it could play an important role with regards to sharing reception facilities
between Member States. EASO can for example collect best practices from Member States that have
experience with the sharing of facilities, such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway, but also with
regards to relocation in the context of EUREMA. Furthermore, EASO can use its expertise in collecting
and sharing data to collect information on available reception capacity and facilities that Member States
possess, so that other Member States can see which Member States have extra capacity they could
potentially use. In addition to this, EASO could cooperate with the European Migration Network (EMN) in
10
Article 4 of the Convention
5
6
order to receive more information about the current reception capacity so that Member States can use this
capacity and EASO can again share this information. Second, EASO can further the provision of trainings
personnel regarding the sharing of reception capacity, and as we know, EASO is already develop a training
in this area, which is strongly encouraged. Furthermore, what EASO could also do is cooperate with other
organizations such as Frontex, UNHCR, ENARO and EPRA to explore possibilities of sharing reception
facilities and in this way EASO can benefit from the expertise of these organizations and continue
supporting the UNHCR in their efforts of continuing intra-EU relocation.
With these strategies EASO can build up trust between the Member States that it is possible to relocate
asylum seekers and to share the reception capacity that they have in order to help each other. EASO could
support small-scale pilot programs in this regard too, and thereby show results to Member States as part of
this bottom-up approach. In supporting the existing efforts and adding to the sharing of information, EASO
would not directly improve solidarity between the Member States, but it would show how recent initiatives
already had positive effects and are a solution to the unequal distribution problem.
3. FIRST ORDER APPROACH : IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE PRACTICE
Important objectives of EASO are to achieve similar outcomes of similar asylum applications, equal
treatment of persons and adherence to the principles of EU and International (Human Rights) law in the
application and implementation of the CEAS. The strategic guidelines for the further development of the
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) area adopted by the European Council called for a stronger role for the
EASO in promoting a coherent, comprehensive and consistent implementation of the recast EU asylum
package to ensure that a genuine CEAS is achieved (EASO, 2014:5). By providing support, facilitating,
coordinating and strengthening practical cooperation between EU Member States, the EASO as an
independent center of expertise on asylum, aims to contribute to the implementation and development of
the CEAS (EASO, 2014:6). In this framework of expertise on asylum, the EASO also has a role in
informing the European Commission on the developments in the CEAS and in providing scientific input for
EU policy and legislation which have an impact on asylum and migration (EASO, 2014:6). In light of its
mandate and in the effort of EASO to meet these tasks the need for a bottom-up approach in order to
address undesired variations in the implementation of the CEAS in the different European Member States
and the lack of solidarity between Member States in the CEAS is identified. For such a bottom-up approach
to succeed evidence based policy input on national asylum practices needs to be gathered by actively
involving Member States and its asylum officers. This will enable the creation of the requisite added value
for Member States of proposed changes and their willingness to implement them. In addition to conducting
desk research, consulting existing research conducted by other EU agencies and institutions and evaluating
the outcomes of various pilots and initiatives, such evidence based policy input on national asylum
practices can be gathered in a multi-purpose online environment (‘CEAS wiki’). The CEAS wiki can inter
alia be used to:

reinforce existing initiatives of EASO;

identify problems in the application of the CEAS;
7

support asylum officers by offering easy-access and up to date information;

promote mutual understanding and stimulate practical cooperation between Member States;

maintain a dialogue with civil society and academia and provide up to date information:

inform the public.
The CEAS wiki will be an overarching online environment where asylum officers and other stakeholders
can be consulted and supported by communicating the results of existing and new initiatives. Connecting
the existing and new initiatives in a digitalized environment will stimulate cooperation, promote mutual
understanding, increase efficient information sharing and enable the inclusion of a broader audience.
3.1 REINFORCING AND CONNECTING EXISTING MECHANISMS
The Country of Origin (COI) portal, the Information and Documentation System (IDS), the EASO
consultative forum, and the Early Warning and Preparedness System (EPS) can all be included in the
CEAS wiki to maximize the effectiveness of these initiatives and prevent fragmentation of information.
The CEAS wiki inter alia should consists out of two fora. The current COI portal can be part of the
restricted forum and should be exclusively accessible for national asylum administrators. It is also strongly
recommended to provide access to courts and tribunals as well. This forum can function as both a helpdesk
and a means for national asylum officers to maintain a permanent dialogue with EASO and with each other.
By using questionnaires on a regular basis, EASO can retrieve real-time information on contemporary
issues relating to the CEAS. The forum can be a means to fulfil the various objectives mentioned in the
EASO work programme. The restricted forum fulfils the objective of the IDS by providing a single point of
information on the organization of the EU Member States asylum, reception systems and its practical
functioning (EASO, 2014:24). EU Member States representatives can provide data on changes in national
policy, procedure and case law related to the asylum acquis in this restricted forum. Furthermore, the
restricted forum can foster the exchange of information and best practices on reception systems and on
integration measures (EASO, 2014:23). The synergy between asylum and migration can be fostered by
exchanging information and best practices relevant to the return of failed asylum seekers (EASO, 2014:22).
In addition to the restricted forum which includes the COI portal and the IDS, a second open forum within
the CEAS wiki forum can provide for an additional online area where civil society is included in the
dialogue. Governmental organizations, NGO’s, and academia can be invited to consult this forum and
express their views. The results of the EPS can be published in this forum on a regular basis and the forum
can provide for a platform to maintain and intensify the dialogue between EASO and the civil society
instigated by the EASO consultative forum. In the light of transparency and maximizing cross-fertilization
it is recommended to allow the open forum as much information from the restricted forum as reasonably
possible. By monitoring both the restricted and open fora the EASO can more effectively identify practical
problems in the implementation of the CEAS and can therefore better support asylum officers. Moreover,
the permanent dialogue between Member States themselves, as well as between civil society, EASO and
Member States will promote mutual understanding and real solidarity between Member States.
Transparently linking the results of the European Asylum implementation in an online platform would
7
8
allow citizens from different Member States to review and compare common policies in so creating the
requisite public support towards CEAS solidarity principle.
European Commission
CEAS WIKI
Overarching online platform maintained by EASO
Restricted forum
• Access: asylum officers
• Information: COI / IDS / Joint processing
pilots (including results of practical
cooperation meetings and twinning projects)
• Communication : forum posting
• EASO: helpdesk (online chat + telephone) /
questionnaires / evaluations / monitoring
Open forum
• Access: asylum officers & civil society
• Information: EPS / EASO consultation forum
• Communication : forum posting
• EASO: questionnaires / evaluations /
monitoring
3.2 NEW INITIATIVE: TWINNING IN JOINT PROCESSING
Another important recommendation is to include the concept of ‘twinning’ in existing or new joint
processing pilots. Although the concept of twinning is not new within the EU, using it in the framework of
the joint processing pilots seems to be (see for example European Commission, 2015). The idea is to gather
Member States willing to partake in the project and add them in a pool of participants. A Member State
which is situated on the outskirts of Europe will be paired with a Member States which is situated in a more
central place in Europe. Germany could for example be paired with Greece to work together in the process
of processing asylum requests in both Germany and Greece. Such an interaction will enable asylum officers
to support each other and learn from practices in the other Member State. The close cooperation could
arguably stimulate the harmonization of practices in both countries and promote mutual understanding.
After a year the project would be evaluated and the participants will then be paired with a new Member
State to continue the process. This rotating system promotes further harmonization between the various
asylum systems and practices in the European Union. Connecting information of the various mechanisms
and initiatives is a central feature of the CEAS wiki, so including the joint processing pilots and the results
of its practical cooperation meetings in the restricted forum of the CEAS wiki is recommended.
9
4. SECOND-ORDER APPROACH : EXTENDING THE EASO MANDATE
The apparent unequal distribution of the asylum burdens among the Member States within the CEAS
system have led to a renewed increasing salience of the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of
responsibilities.
In the course of time several potential solutions to the underlying problem, have been suggested, and EASO
can be seen as a key actor in this regard (McDonough & Tsourdi, 2012). The potential involvement of
EASO that is necessary to guarantee their success would, however, outstretch EASO’s current mandate,
and that is why they are being referred to in this subchapter as ‘the second order approach’. In fact, in
contrast to the approaches presented in the previous subchapters, their complete implementation is being
dependent on prior legislative changes in EASO’s mandate.
One area necessitating such a second order approach is for example the extension of joint processing.
Currently EASO is coordinating cross-country expert visits as a first step to European joint processing of
asylum seekers. While this approach is still small in scale it has the potential to be broadened up in the
future. For instance, the deployment of Asylum Support Teams (ASTs), as already tested in Greece, can
contribute to creating more acceptance, familiarity, and a certain momentum for joint processing of asylum
claims within the CEAS (McDonough & Tsourdi, 2012; Guild et al., 2015). However, for it to contribute
really, on a larger scale, to the underlying problem European joint processing through teams deployed
under the direct mandate of EASO would be necessary, something that at the moment definitely lies wide
beyond EASO’s mandate.
Another area is the relocation and resettlement of already processed refugees. In accordance with Articles 5
and 7 of its founding Regulation, EASO can play an important role in the processes of resettlement and
relocation of refugees. Relocation and resettlement are very topical issues at the moment. In its new
European Agenda on Migration, presented on 13 May 2015, the Commission suggested the resettlement of
refugees processed by the UNHCR outside of the EU’s territory and the relocation of asylum seekers in
case of an emergency situation in certain Member States caused by a sudden inflow of protection seekers,
as envisioned by Article 78 (3) TFEU (European Commission, 2015a). EASO should in this regard try to
raise political awareness to the need of an extension of its mandate in this area, as it already has some
expertise in this area due to prior efforts such as EUREMA. Its current mandate in regard to relocation, as
Article 5 of its founding Regulation clearly shows, limits EASO to be a coordinating body of voluntary
relocation efforts by Member States. However, Article 5 falls under the general revision clause of the
EASO Regulation and so there can be some hope that a recast could provide this mechanism some more
teeth (Comte, 2010).
At the moment there is a momentum in regards to the topics of joint processing, resettlement and
relocation, due to amongst others, the EU’s new European Agenda on Migration. In addition to that the
currently pending external evaluation of EASO’s activities, in accordance to Article 46 of its founding
Regulation, can potentially add even more momentum to the issue of potentially necessary mandate
changes in regard to EASO’s involvement in the aforementioned approaches.
9
10
How EASO can even further contribute to keeping this momentum is through raising the issues of
solidarity and fair sharing in the aforementioned areas more often in the course of interactions with the
Member States, through its consultative forum. In addition to that EASO can more explicitly communicate
the difficulties faced due to its narrow mandate in regard to relocation or resettlement to relevant
stakeholders such as the European Resettlement Network (ERN), or the independent assessor conducting
the external evaluation, in order to create a sense of urgency in regard to mandate changes in this area. In
addition to that EASO could also try to be more active in doing research on an issue that is partly
responsible for the slow pace in the process of Europeanization of joint processing, resettlement and
relocation policies, namely the lack of agreement on a fixed quota determining how to fairly distribute
refugees across the territory of the European Union. EASO, with its knowhow on national asylum systems
could definitely, alone or with the help of contracted academics, add something to the scarce research in
this area and therewith further contribute solutions fostering the momentum for joint processing,
resettlement and relocation.
5. CONCLUSION
After reading the aforementioned we can conclude the following three issues.
First of all, it is possible to tackle the problem of unequal influx of migrants by sharing of facilities between
Member States. Both EUREMA and the sharing of detention centers were evaluated positively. In both
cases the cooperation between states was regulated by bilateral agreements and treaties. EASO can play an
important role in providing information about these initiatives and the actual reception capacity within the
different Member States.
Secondly, it can be concluded that it is possible, within the EASO mandate, to enhance cooperation
between Member States and include civil society in the process. Concrete ideas hereof are the CEAS-WIKI
and twinning of states in the joint processing of asylum seekers. These kinds of initiatives can easily be
implemented and will result in closer ties between the Member States and raise public support.
Thirdly, EASO should lobby and raise awareness for the extension of its mandate. This should be done so
that the EASO can contribute more to tackling the problem regarding the unequal influx of migrants in
different Member States of the European Union.
11
LITERATURE

Comte, F. (2010). A New Agency Is Born in the European Union: The European Asylum Support
Office. European Journal of Migration and Law. No 373, 397.

EASO (2012). Fact finding on intra-EU relocation activities from Malta.

EASO (2014). EASO work programme.

European
Commission
(2015).
Twinning.
Retrieved
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/tenders/twinning/index_en.htm. Dated: 3 July 2015.

European Commission (2015a). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions – A European Agenda on Migration’ COM (2015) 240 final, Brussels, 13 May 2015.

Guild, E. (2015). New Approaches, Alternative Avenues and Means of Access to Asylum
Procedures for Persons Seeking International Protection. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in
Europe. No. 77-76.

McDonough, P. & Tsourdi, E. (2012). Putting Solidarity to the Test: Assessing Europe's Response
to the Asylum Crisis in Greece. UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service.

Statistics
Belgium
(2015).
Gevangenisbevolking.
Retrieved
at:
http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/bevolking/andere/gevangenen/. Dated: 28 March 2015.
at:
LEGAL DOCUMENTS

Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium on the use of a
prison in the Netherlands for the purpose of the execution of Belgian sentences of imprisonment
(Trb. 2009, 202).

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951). (Geneva Convention).

Council Regulation (EC) No 439/2010 of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support
Office. (Founding Regulation EASO)

Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and
mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application
lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. (Dublin II Regualtion)

Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (2007)
11