EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy Droit et Politique de l'Immigration et de l'Asile de l'UE

Print this article

Polish law restricting the right to asylum at borders

By Barbara Mikołajczyk, University of Silesia

Since July 2021, in response to EU sanctions imposed on Belarus following the rigged 2020 presidential election, the Belarusian authorities have launched a campaign to destabilise Poland by engaging in instrumentalisation of migrants at the border with Poland. The Polish Border Guard provides evidence that Belarusian officers are organising mass border crossings by migrants at the border, and that they are encouraging or facilitating the migrants’ use of violence against Polish officers. The Polish Border Guard staff are coming under attack from improvised weapons (sharpened sticks, broken glass, stones, slingshots and sometimes knives). The Belarusian forces have also been found to have engaged in an operation to provide migrants with equipment to destroy parts of a dam that was built in 2022. In May 2024, a soldier was stabbed in the chest and killed. Due to the growing tension at the border, in  June 2024, a buffer zone was introduced on the Podlasie section of the Polish-Belarusian border to limit access to the border. Prolonged for the third time in March 2025, this zone now covers additional areas and aims to limit the presence of people in the border strip. In turn, zones up to four kilometres wide have been introduced in some sections to prevent illegal crossings. Continue reading »

Print this article

Towards Temporary Prolonged Protection?  

Dr Meltem Ineli Ciger, Associate Professor of International Law, Suleyman Demirel University 

The EU’s activation of the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) in March 2022 marked a historic response to the mass displacement caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The TPD was formally activated by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 on 4 March 2022. It first applied for an initial period of one year, until 4 March 2023, and was then automatically extended for one additional year until 4 March 2024. Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2409 extended temporary protection until 4 March 2025. Finally, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1836 extended temporary protection for a further period of 1 year, until 4 March 2026. As of March 2025, around 4.2 million people fleeing Ukraine continue to benefit from temporary protection across the EU (Eurostat 2025). Although the Directive was conceived as a short- to medium-term emergency mechanism, the temporary protection status is currently set to expire in March 2026.

In anticipation of this deadline, the European Commission adopted a package of three interlinked documents to shape the EU’s future approach on 4 June 2025. First, it proposed a Council Implementing Decision to extend temporary protection for one additional year, until 4 March 2027. Second, it issued a Proposal for a Council Recommendation outlining a coordinated strategy to phase out temporary protection, with a focus on long-term solutions such as transitions to residence status and voluntary returns. Third, a Communication titled “A Predictable and Common European Way Forward for Ukrainians in the EU” set out the strategic framework underpinning the two proposals. On 13 June 2025, Member States unanimously endorsed the Commission’s proposal to extend temporary protection until 4 March 2027.

This post analyses the European Commission’s June 2025 proposals on the future of the Temporary Protection Directive, focusing on their legal basis, policy rationale, and transition strategy. It questions the compatibility of the proposed extension with the Directive’s time limits, critiques the Commission’s reading of recent CJEU case law, and highlights the lack of a harmonised and inclusive pathway beyond temporary protection.

Continue reading »

Print this article

Une meilleure protection de groupe pour les femmes-réfugiées

Par Jean-Yves Carlier et Eleonora Frasca, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), membres de l’équipe droits et migrations (EDEM).

Ce billet est une version révisée d’un extrait de la chronique de jurisprudence annuelle « Droit
européen des migrations » publiée dans le Journal de droit européen, n° 3, mars 2025.

En 2024, par trois arrêts, dont deux de grande chambre, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a tranché diverses questions relatives à la protection des femmes en qualité de réfugiées : les craintes de persécutions résultant de violences domestiques (W.S., C-621/21) ou de l’identification aux valeurs de l’égalité des sexes dans le pays d’accueil (K.L., C-646/21) ainsi que le constat d’appartenance de l’ensemble des femmes d’Afghanistan à un groupe social craignant avec raison des persécutions (aff. jointes AH et FN, C‑608/22 et C‑609/22). En confirmant et en élargissant la protection des réfugiées risquant des persécutions en raison de leur seule appartenance au groupe social des femmes, la Cour tient compte des réalités tout en consolidant l’importance des références aux droits fondamentaux et au droit international dans l’interprétation du droit européen de l’asile. 

Continue reading »

Print this article

A Better Group Protection for Refugee Women 

By Jean-Yves Carlier and Eleonora Frasca,  

Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), members of the Equipe droits et migrations (EDEM)

This is a revised version of the commentary in “Droit européen des migrations”, the yearly case law column published in French in the Journal de droit européen, no. 3, March 2025.

In 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on various issues relating to the protection of women as refugees in three decisions, including two Grand Chamber judgments: the fear of persecution resulting from domestic violence (W.S., C-621/21), the identification with the values of gender equality in the host country (K.L., C-646/21), as well as the finding that all women in Afghanistan belong to a social group with a well-founded fear of persecution (joined cases AH C-608/22 and FN C-609/22). By confirming and extending the protection of refugee women at risk of persecution solely because they belong to the social group of women, the CJEU is taking into account women’s realities while consolidating the importance of references to fundamental rights and international law in the interpretation of EU asylum law. 

Continue reading »

Print this article

Réfugié d’un Etat membre à l’autre: vers la reconnaissance mutuelle de plein droit ?

Par Jean-Yves Carlier et Eleonora Frasca, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), membres de l’équipe droits et migrations (EDEM)

Ceci est une version révisée de la chronique de jurisprudence annuelle publiée dans le Journal de droit européen (n° 3, mars 2025)

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne apporte des précisions sur la question des effets à attribuer dans un État membre à une décision relative au statut de réfugié prise dans un autre État membre dans deux arrêts rendus en grande chambre le 18 juin 2024 (QY, C-753/22 et A., C-352/22). Dans ces deux affaires, les requérants cherchent à faire valoir l’effet obligatoire de la décision de reconnaissance du statut de réfugié, obtenue dans un État membre, à l’égard d’une procédure qui se déroule dans un autre État membre. Dans QY Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Effet d’une décision d’octroi du statut de réfugié), il s’agit d’une procédure d’asile dans laquelle une Syrienne demande que le statut de réfugiée obtenu en Grèce soit reconnu en Allemagne qui, à son tour, ne lui a accordé que la protection subsidiaire. Dans A. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm (Demande d’extradition d’un réfugié vers la Turquie), il s’agit d’une procédure d’extradition d’un Turc, d’origine kurde, reconnu réfugié en Italie, qui fait l’objet en Allemagne d’une demande d’extradition de la part de la Turquie, son pays d’origine. Ces deux affaires ont déjà fait l’objet de nombreux commentaires (Michel; Boucheron; Pahladsingh; Fratea; Simon and Rigaux; Peers). Ici, nous nous centrons sur la question des effets contraignants, dans un autre État membre de l’Union, d’une décision relative au statut de réfugié. Nous raisonnons en trois étapes : premièrement, le passé qui révèle l’aporie du droit européen en matière de (non-)reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions relatives au statut de réfugié (1) ; deuxièmement, le présent des deux jurisprudences commentées, avec la reconnaissance de quelques effets limités de décisions d’octroi du statut de réfugié (2) et, troisièmement, le futur avec, une évolution possible, notamment sous l’influence paradoxale du Pacte, vers la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions d’octroi du statut de réfugié (3).

Continue reading »

Print this article

Refugee from one Member State to Another: Towards Automatic Mutual Recognition?

By Jean-Yves Carlier and Eleonora Frasca, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), members of the Equipe droits et migrations (EDEM)

This is a revised version of the yearly case law column published in French in the Journal de droit européen (no. 3, March 2025)

In two judgments delivered by the Grand Chamber on 18 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified the question of the extraterritorial effects in one Member State of a decision granting refugee status taken in another Member State (QY, C-753/22 and A., C-352/22). In both cases, the applicants sought recognition of the binding effect of the decision taken by a Member State on proceedings in another Member State. In QY/Bundesrepublik Deutschland, a Syrian woman was granted refugee status in Greece and applied for asylum in Germany, which granted her only subsidiary protection. In A./Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, who was granted refugee status by Italy, was subject to an extradition request from Turkey, his country of origin, in Germany. The two cases have already been widely commented (Michel; Boucheron; Pahladsingh; Fratea; Simon and Rigaux; Peers). Here, we focus on the binding effects of a decision granting refugee status by an EU Member State in another Member State. We take a three-stage approach: firstly, we focus on the past, which reveals an EU law aporia on the (non-)mutual recognition of positive refugee status decisions (1); secondly, through the analysis of the two cases and the recognition of some limited effects of decisions granting refugee status we explore the present (2); and thirdly, we look at the future. Under the paradoxical influence of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, we can imagine a possible evolution towards mutual recognition of decisions granting refugee status (3).

Continue reading »