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

By Prof. Alessia di Pascale, Universita Degli Studi di Milano (UNIMI)

1. With just under two weeks to go before the full implementation of the new European Pact on Migration and Asylum, scheduled for 12 June 2026, the process of adapting national systems to the new European legal framework still appears incomplete. Despite the two-year transitional period provided for following the adoption, in spring 2024, of the ten legal acts comprising the Pact (nine regulations and one directive), to allow for the necessary adaptation of regulatory frameworks, organisational structures, administrative procedures, human resources and national infrastructure, the third report on the state of implementation of the reform published by the European Commission on 8 May 2026 highlights delays and persistent operational, regulatory and organisational challenges in most Member States, despite some ‘significant progress’.

The report forms part of the periodic monitoring system designed to accompany the various stages of the Pact’s implementation, also in light of the Joint Implementation Plan, drawn up by the Commission itself, in collaboration with the Member States and European agencies, in June 2024. This monitoring activity began with the first progress report of 11 June 2025 and continued with the second report of 11 November 2025, adopted alongside the 2025 European Annual Report on Migration and Asylum.

In particular, the Regulation on the management of asylum and migration (“AMMR”, Articles 7 and 84(e)) and the Regulation on asylum procedures (Article 75) required Member States to draw up national implementation plans by December 2024 and, by June 2025, national strategies to ensure adequate administrative and organisational capacity. On this basis, the European Commission adopted the European Strategy on Asylum and Migration in January of this year. However, in addition to delays in the submission of these documents (which Hungary stated it did not wish to submit), only a few Member States have made them public (for an up-to-date overview of the national documents made public, see EUAA, National Implementation Plans and National Strategies under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, March 2026). In February 2025, around fifty European civil society organisations had, therefore, sent a letter to the European Commission denouncing the lack of transparency and the failure to involve them in the drafting of the national implementation plans, also pointing out the possible conflict with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents of the European institutions, which recognises the right of access not only to documents drawn up by the institutions, but also to those received by them. In Italy, the documents were not published and the administrative Court, in a decision of 3 March 2026, annulled the Ministry of the Interior’s refusal to disclose the National Implementation Plan (PAN). The matter had also been the subject of a request for access to documents addressed directly to the Commission and subsequently of an action for annulment (T-621/25) of the European Commission’s implied decision rejecting the request for confirmation of access to the various documents (see also the Commission decision of 3 December 2025)

2. As regards progress, the third report highlights the start, in most Member States, of the adaptation of national legislation and the organisation of the new screening and border procedures provided for by the Pact, with particular attention to the establishment of the infrastructure necessary for the rapid identification of migrants and for the accelerated processing of asylum applications at the Union’s external borders, and to the completion of the new Eurodac system. However, it is precisely this infrastructure that currently constitutes one of the main weaknesses in the implementation process, alongside the completion of the new Eurodac system, which is set to become the hub for the collection and exchange of biometric data relating to asylum seekers and irregular migrants. Among the elements highlighted by the Commission is the progress of the new solidarity mechanism, with the establishment of the first ‘annual solidarity reserve’ for 2026, aimed at supporting the four Member States facing migratory pressure (Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus) through relocation, financial contributions or operational support. The system’s practical effectiveness will, in any case, depend on the capacity (and willingness) of Member States to ensure swift transfer procedures.

Particularly emblematic of the delays is the impasse in the legislative alignment phase, which must be regarded as a crucial step for the purposes of legal certainty and the rule of law, principles and values that underpin the legal order of the European Union (Article 2 TEU). In this regard, only five Member States (the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland and Slovakia) have already adopted most of the necessary domestic legislation; in at least eleven Member States, the relevant draft laws are still under consideration by national parliaments, whilst the remaining states, with just a few weeks to go before the reform comes becomes applicable, are in the process of drafting legislative proposals. In this context, the legislative implementation in Germany is significant: the so-called CEAS-Anpassungsgesetz, finally approved in the spring of 2026 following a complex parliamentary process slowed down by the crisis within the previous governing coalition, introduced a profound overhaul of domestic asylum and immigration law, aimed at implementing the new Pact. The legislation also appears to be markedly restrictive in nature, particularly with regard to the extension of border procedures, the strengthening of detention measures, and the expansion of administrative powers for the control and management of asylum seekers. It is precisely the complexity and scope of the German legislation that highlight how national alignment with the Pact does not amount to a mere technical transposition, but entails profound changes to national administrative and procedural frameworks, with inevitable repercussions in terms of safeguards and the actual capacity for implementation (regarding regulatory alignment in Germany, see A. Fischer-Uebler, Schlechte Aussichten für Geflüchtete, Noch einmal: Das GEAS-Anpassungsgesetz aus grund- und menschenrechtlicher Perspektive, 2026). In the Italian context, the process of adapting to the new Pact was first formalised in the draft law containing “Provisions on immigration and international protection, as well as provisions for the implementation of the European Union Pact on Migration and Asylum of 14 May 2024”, approved by the Council of Ministers on 11 February 2026 and currently under consideration by the Senate. The measure, comprising an immediately binding section and a broad legislative mandate to the Government to adopt implementing decrees, addresses numerous aspects of the national asylum and immigration system, confirming the structural scope of the changes required by the new European framework. In this context, the transposition of the Pact in Italy also presents an opportunity for a broader reform of the national legal system in a generally restrictive direction (see, for example, the commentary by T. Paolillo, Unaccompanied foreign minors in the new migration law: systemic regressions between the Constitution, the ECHR and the 2026 European Pact)

3. Significant implementation shortcomings do indeed emerge in all the main areas of the new Pact: from border screening procedures to the management of asylum procedures, right through to reception systems and the operation of the solidarity mechanism.

As regards the phase of border procedures, which is particularly significant within the overall architecture of the reform, the picture outlined by the Commission highlights only partial progress. The number of Member States already able to provide, or close to providing, adequate reception facilities and human resources for the implementation of border procedures has risen to 15, whilst the remaining 12 are still lagging behind and need to significantly strengthen their capacities. In several cases, , temporary solutions have been used pending the construction of new infrastructure, including multi-purpose facilities, and refurbishment work is underway on existing sites to bring them into line with the standards of the Pact, with particular attention to measures aimed at preventing secondary movements. The Commission stresses, however, that such solutions must comply with the standards set by the new Reception Conditions Directive and be adequately staffed.

From an organisational perspective, Member States were required to notify the locations where border procedures would take place by mid-April 2026: however, only 17 Member States had fulfilled this obligation by 4 May. From the end of May, Eurostat will publish the list of countries with a recognition rate for applications for international protection of 20% or less, which is relevant for applying the mandatory border procedure.

In several countries, measures have been launched to strengthen the capacity of the judicial and administrative systems that will have to manage the numerous border and accelerated procedures, including through the strengthening of human and technological resources, in order to avoid bottlenecks during the appeal phase and in subsequent procedural stages. The measures adopted include the digitisation of proceedings, the adoption or updating of operational guidelines, and the introduction of integrated case management systems. Italy has reported that it has proceeded both with the preparation of operational procedures and the adoption of digitisation processes, and is recruiting additional staff for the asylum commissions and courts. Belgium, Croatia, France and Cyprus have, in particular, invested in strengthening their capacities by hiring new staff and/or enhancing technical infrastructure. Despite these measures, the report highlights the need for a structural strengthening of administrative and judicial capacity, not least in view of the risk of overload resulting from the reduction in procedural time limits and the persistence of serious backlogs in at least half of the Member States.

Despite the intensive technical support provided by the Commission, the EUAA and Frontex, significant difficulties remain in the practical implementation of screening procedures (including the fact that provisions on health checks have not been finalised in all Member States) and in the coordinated operation of subsequent stages. In particular, the pilot exercises (organised with the support of Frontex, the EUAA and Europol, and carried out on the island of Lampedusa and in Sicily) highlighted the difficulties in preventing absconding and secondary movements. Commission guidelines, operational manuals and training materials on screening have been drawn up and are currently being further developed, including through the coordinated contribution of the EUAA and Frontex. These tools include harmonised training modules, an operational toolkit (Screening toolbox) developed by Frontex and updates to the Practical Handbook for Border Guards, aimed at ensuring the uniform and coordinated implementation of the new procedures. EUAA also published a new Practical Guide on the Asylum Border Procedure in March, which identifies the essential operational elements to ensure the functioning of border procedures. The Commission reiterates that screening should cover all arrivals, even where there are large numbers of people, with procedures to be carried out, as far as possible, during the initial apprehension by law enforcement authorities, so as to effectively prevent absconding without having to take individual decisions regarding detention or the restriction of freedom of movement.

What emerges, in any case, is a picture in which, alongside a gradual strengthening of operational tools and administrative capacities, significant disparities persist between Member States, such as to affect the effective functioning of the border management model outlined by the new Pact. Italy, in particular, is among the countries that have been called upon to act without delay to ensure the full operationality of border controls and procedures.

Delays and difficulties are also emerging with regard to Eurodac, the database strengthened by the new Pact and which constitutes a crucial element of the border system. By mid-April, only eleven Member States had reported being fully on track with the schedule to make the new Eurodac system operational by 23 June, whilst the other sixteen had, on the other hand, reported various implementation issues, although they believed they could complete the necessary work within the set deadlines. The main difficulties relate primarily to delays in national procurement procedures and in adapting technological infrastructure

4. More significant results appear to be emerging with regard to the implementation of return procedures at the border, reflecting the particular attention paid to this area within the new European framework, as further confirmed by the forthcoming adoption of the new Return Regulation (see in this Journal, G. Mentasti, Towards a new European regulation on returns: among the new features, the issue of return hubs, 2025). Almost all Member States have, in fact, adapted their regulatory framework or administrative procedures to ensure that return decisions are adopted simultaneously with negative asylum decisions.

With the support of Frontex, 22 Member States have already implemented IT solutions based on the European RECAMAS model (Reference Model for National Return Case Management Systems), following an analysis of their respective shortcomings. At the same time, coordinated activities between Member States, the Return Coordinator and Frontex continue for the implementation of targeted operational measures, including cooperation with priority third countries, the strengthening of voluntary returns, the deployment of liaison officers and the organisation of joint operations. Frontex’s operational support is also reflected in a growing volume of assisted returns, which in 2025 accounted for almost half of the EU total, as well as in the deployment of specialist staff and fundamental rights observers to support national procedures. Added to this is the strengthening of training and reintegration activities in countries of origin, as well as the gradual sharing of ‘best practices’ for the identification and documentation of third-country nationals.

The report notes that as part of its migration diplomacy efforts, the EU is stepping up its engagement with the third countries concerned (see the readmission agreement concluded with Nigeria in March) and calls on Member States to intensify cooperation on readmission, so that irregular migrants are effectively returned before the expiry of the deadline for the return procedure at the border.

5. As regards the transposition of the sole directive included in the package, concerning reception conditions, only four Member States (the Czech Republic, Belgium, Austria and Romania) reported to have completed national implementation. In most Member States, however, measures to adapt reception systems are underway, mainly through partial reforms, whilst only in some cases do these measures form part of broader structural review processes. At the same time, there has been a strengthening of infrastructure capacity through the construction of new facilities, the conversion of existing ones and the creation of multi-purpose centres, as well as the development of differentiated reception models tailored to the vulnerability and specific needs of applicants.

To support this process, in December 2025 the EUAA published a Practical Guide on the Management of Reception Centres, dedicated to the organisational and management aspects of the facilities, with particular attention to the initial phase of reception and the link with asylum procedures. The Guide emphasises, in particular, early access to integration measures, considered essential for the social inclusion of applicants. In March 2026, the Agency also adopted an updated version of the “Operational Standards and Indicators on Reception”, with specific regard to vulnerability profiles and the protection of minors.

However, significant critical issues remain: in several Member States, capacities are still insufficient or inadequately planned, with the risk of resorting to temporary solutions that do not fully comply with the standards of the European asylum system. Among the most problematic cases is Belgium, regarding which the report highlights persistent structural difficulties in the reception system (on this point, see F. Mauri, The structural crisis of the Belgian reception system between fundamental rights and the effectiveness of judicial protection: the case of M.V. and Others v. Belgium, 2026). Hopefully, the implementing rules communicated to the Commission following the publication of the report may have brought about improvements. Similarly, the process of digitising case management systems is proceeding in an uneven and often uncoordinated manner, with potential repercussions on the efficiency of information exchange between competent authorities. This results in a patchy implementation picture, in which progress made in terms of infrastructure and organisation is accompanied by shortcomings in planning, coordination and operational capacity.

6. With regard to the central aspect of the reform, namely the determination of responsibility for examining applications and the sharing of burdens among Member States, the picture outlined by the Commission highlights both significant progress in implementation and critical issues. On the first point, the implementing rules for Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 on the management of asylum and migration (which replaced the so-called Dublin III Regulation) were adopted in October 2025, whilst in March the EUAA revised the Operational Standards and Indicators relating to the Regulation on the management of asylum and migration. Several Member States have also begun strengthening their respective Dublin units through new recruitment, internal reorganisation and measures to digitise and harmonise procedures, including to protect families and vulnerable groups. However, the report highlights that in some Member States staff shortages persist and must be addressed. By 12 July and then by 15 October, the Commission will assess transfer practices to verify whether any critical issues or systemic shortcomings exist that could affect the functioning of the Regulation. In parallel, delegated acts relating to unaccompanied minors and dependants are being finalised, for the purposes of correctly determining responsibility.

With regard to the solidarity mechanism, the establishment of the Solidarity Fund for 2026 is based on the commitments confirmed by Member States within the European Forum, although Hungary and Slovakia have stated their intention not to participate while several states pledge zero commitments. This highlights the persistence of significant differences on one of the central aspects of the reform. More generally, there are significant issues regarding both administrative capacity and operational cooperation between Member States, as well as concerning the quality and timeliness of information flows, and the full effectiveness of solidarity commitments, the implementation of which remains conditional upon the correct application of the rules on responsibility and the removal of systemic shortcomings in the beneficiary states. In this regard, in March, EUUA published a new practical guide on the solidarity mechanism, which provides guidance specifically on transfers and liability offsets.

7. To conclude this overview of the delays and shortcomings of the system, further implementation challenges emerge regarding procedural safeguards and mechanisms for monitoring fundamental rights, which are considered essential to ensure the compatibility of the new framework with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in particular the right to asylum. On this point, the Commission insists on the need for Member States to make the independent monitoring mechanisms provided for in the Pact fully operational. Almost all Member States are close to finalising agreements to guarantee free legal advice during the administrative phase of the asylum procedure, although around a third still need to complete the necessary legislative adjustments. At the same time, most Member States have established or consolidated forms of cooperation with external bodies (including NGOs, professional associations and independent bodies, and the UNHCR) and are finalising the framework for mechanisms to monitor fundamental rights in border procedures. Italy is among the few Member States that have not yet defined the procedures for ensuring free legal advice during the administrative phase, nor the mechanism for monitoring respect for fundamental rights in border procedures, and has therefore been urged to do so as soon as possible. In parallel, European agencies and bodies, in particular the Fundamental Rights Agency and EUAA, have developed guidelines, operational tools and training activities to support the uniform implementation of the system, including specific materials on minors and age assessment. Progress has also been made in the area of vulnerability, with the strengthening of screening tools and dedicated training activities.

8. The picture emerging from the report highlights critical issues of no small significance. The disparities in Member States’ levels of preparedness risk, in fact, affecting not only the organisational efficiency of the new system, but above all the full effectiveness of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of those involved, within an implementation context that remains incomplete and is marked by increasing proceduralisation based predominantly on operational guidelines and administrative tools, in the absence, in most Member States, of the necessary national implementing legislation. In this context, it is worth noting the launch, from 2026, of the new EUAA monitoring mechanism on the functioning of the Common European Asylum System, which will cover Slovakia, Malta and Bulgaria in the first cycle. The monitoring, provided for in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 and designed as a permanent tool for preventive assessment, should make it possible to further identify structural and systemic shortcomings and operational malfunctions in national asylum and reception systems, thereby contributing to strengthening the Union’s capacity to ensure common standards and the effective protection of fundamental rights in the implementation of the Pact.

The report thus confirms that the start of the Pact’s application does not mark the end of the reform process, but rather the beginning of a long and complex phase of administrative, technological and judicial implementation. And from this perspective, the overall stability of the new framework seems set to depend not only on its still incomplete operational architecture and the Member States’ capacity for implementation, but also (and perhaps above all) on the trend in migration flows towards the Union, the gradual reduction of which now constitutes (26% fewer irregular crossings of external borders in 2025 compared to the previous year and a further 40% reduction in the first quarter of this year) one of the structural objectives of European migration policy. In this sense, the statement by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, that “the Pact is not the end of the process, but only the beginning” can perhaps also be interpreted in this light.