Assessing the Common European Asylum System

Radu-Mihai Triculescu is a postdoctoral research fellow at LMU Munich, where he researches synchronisation and time in policymaking, with a specific focus on asylum policy. He is the author of Dublin is Dead: A study in delegitimation (2022).

List of Tables


1 Introduction

 1 Engaging with the State of the Art


 2 The ceas: A Long Journey to Ambiguous Complexity




2 Discretionary Implementation: Ambiguity and the Work of Street-Level Bureaucrats

 1 Discretionary Implementation in Multilevel EU


 2 The Breeding Ground for Ambiguity in Multilevel Governance


 3 Role Theory and Ambiguity




3 The Common European Asylum System

 1 Dublin Regulation


 2 euaa and eurodac

 2.1 The European Union Agency for Asylum (euaa)


 2.2 eurodac




 3 Receptions Conditions Directive


 4 Qualifications Directive

 4.1 The Qualification Directive at First Glance: A Literal Analysis of Discretionary Clauses




 5 Procedures Directive

 5.1 Untangling the Procedures Directive: A Literal Analysis of Provisions




4 Interpretive Ambiguities: Case Law and Guidance

 1 The Union’s Approach to National Implementation Post-2015


 2 Case Law


 3 Interpretive Ambiguities: The Work of the cjeu in Identifying and Dispelling Ambiguities

 3.1 General Provisions (Articles 1–3)


 3.2 Assessment of Applications for International Protection (Articles 4–8)


 3.3 Qualifications for Being a Refugee (Articles 9–12)


 3.4 Chapter iv – Refugee Status (Articles 13–14)


 3.5 Qualification for Subsidiary Protection (Articles 15–19)


 3.6 Chapter vi – Subsidiary Protection Status (Articles 18–19)


 3.7 Content of international Protection and Administrative Cooperation (Articles 20–37); Final Provisions




 4 Judicial and Legislative Analysis of the Procedures Directive

 4.1 Initiating the Procedures: Rules for Lodging an Application for Asylum


 4.2 Procedural Guarantees


 4.3 The Personal Interview


 4.4 Procedural Guarantees for an Individual Assessment


 4.5 Guarantees for the Examination Procedure at First Instance


 4.6 Withdrawal of International Protection and Effective Remedy




 5 Conclusions




5 National Implementation of the ceas: The Case of Romania

 1 Constitution, Human Rights, and Good Governance


 2 oug 57/2019 – The Administrative Code


 3 Managing Asylum in Romania

 3.1 The Structure and Role of The General Inspectorate for Immigration (igi)


 3.2 Law 122/2006 regarding Asylum in Romania and Its Norms of Implementation


 3.3 Scope and Definitions in the Law


 3.4 Procedural Guarantees


 3.5 Street-Level Bureaucrats in Law 122


 3.6 First Instance Decisions – Architecture, Rights, and Obligations




 4 Conclusion




6 National Implementation of the ceas: The Case of the Netherlands

 1 The Principles of Governance: The Dutch Constitution


 2 Public Service in the Netherlands

 2.1 The General Administrative Law Act




 3 Entering the Asylum Procedure

 3.1 General Procedure


 3.2 Conditions of Work: Implementing Provisions at the Street-Level


 3.3 European Framework and Safe Countries of Origin


 3.4 Institutional Capacity


 3.5 Work Guidance


 3.6 Credibility Assessment




 4 Conclusion




7 Beyond Black on White: A Nuanced View of Discretion

 1 European Ambiguity


 2 Building the Discretionary Space


 3 Final Thoughts on Discretionary Implementation




Bibliography


Index