- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Acronyms and abbreviations
- Introduction
- Section 1. Global overview of asylum in 2020
-
Section 2. Major developments in asylum in the European Union in 2020
- 2.1 Road to a Common European Asylum System
- 2.2 Responding to the new reality of the COVID-19 pandemic
-
2.3 Key developments in policy and practices at the EU level
- 2.3.1 Presidencies of the Council of the European Union
- 2.3.2 Situation at the EU external borders and migration routes
- 2.3.3 Pressure on the Greek borders and islands
- 2.3.4 Relocation following search and rescue operations
- 2.3.5 EU resettlement schemes
- 2.3.6 UK withdrawal from the EU and its implications on asylum
- 2.4 External dimension of EU policy
-
2.5 Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU
- 2.5.1 Effective access to the asylum procedure
- 2.5.2 Personal interviews in inadmissible cases
- 2.5.3 Assessment of prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service
- 2.5.4 Safe third country concept
- 2.5.5 Use of detention
- 2.5.6 Guidance for second instance procedures
- 2.5.7 Non-discrimination of naturalised beneficiaries of international protection
- 2.5.8 Age of minors in family reunification
- 2.5.9 Applying the Return Directive
- 2.5.10 Fulfilling obligations of relocations
- 2.5.11 Restrictions on the work of NGOs
- Section 3. EASO support to countries
- Section 4. Functioning of the Common European Asylum System
- Section 4.1 Access to procedure
-
Section 4.2 The Dublin procedure
- 4.2.1 Decisions on outgoing Dublin requests
- 4.2.2 Acceptance rate for Dublin requests
- 4.2.3 Decisions on take charge and take back requests
- 4.2.4 National efforts to amend the overall process
- 4.2.5 Guidance and research on the application of the Dublin III Regulation
- 4.2.6 Concerns around the clauses related to family reunification
- 4.2.7 Use of the discretionary clause
- 4.2.8 Assessing transfers to specific countries: The cases of Bulgaria, Greece and Italy
- 4.2.9 Implementation of transfers to another Member State
- 4.2.10 Following an implemented transfer
- Section 4.3 Special procedures to assess protection needs
-
Section 4.4 Processing asylum applications at first instance
- 4.4.1 Setting up more efficient systems
- 4.4.2 Decisions issued on first instance asylum applications
- 4.4.3 Managing case loads
- 4.4.4 Withdrawn applications
- 4.4.5 Assessing applications
- 4.4.6 Managing time limits and notifications
- 4.4.7 Organising personal interviews
- 4.4.8 Training staff
- 4.4.9 Monitoring and quality assurance
- 4.4.10 Accessing case files
-
Section 4.5 Processing asylum applications at second or higher instances
- 4.5.1 Reorganising second instance bodies
- 4.5.2 Data on second and higher instances
- 4.5.3 Suspension of a return during an appeal
- 4.5.4 Adapting oral and written procedures
- 4.5.5 Managing time limits and the backlog on appeals
- 4.5.6 Digitalising processes
- 4.5.7 Revising the notification of decisions
- Section 4.6 Pending cases
-
Section 4.7 Reception of applicants for international protection
-
4.7.1 Organisation and functioning of reception systems
- 4.7.1.1 Changing institutional environments
- 4.7.1.2 Adjusting reception capacity
- 4.7.1.3 Reorganising and adapting reception systems
- 4.7.1.4 Support for the administration of reception facilities
- 4.7.1.5 Renovation and refurbishment needs
- 4.7.1.6 Providing and supporting reception out of reception centres
- 4.7.1.7 Entitlement to material reception conditions
- 4.7.2 Applicants’ daily life
-
4.7.1 Organisation and functioning of reception systems
-
Section 4.8 Detention during the asylum procedure
- 4.8.1 Recourse to detention
- 4.8.2 Temporary practical arrangements
- 4.8.3 Types of detention facilities and capacity
- 4.8.4 Conditions in detention facilities
- 4.8.5 Detention of minors and applicants with special needs
- 4.8.6 Alternatives to detaining applicants
- 4.8.7 Training detention staff
- 4.8.8 Overseeing the framework for detention
- Section 4.9 Access to information
- Section 4.10 Legal assistance and representation
- Section 4.11 Interpretation services
- Section 4.12 Country of origin information
- Section 4.13 Statelessness in the asylum context
-
Section 4.14 Content of protection
- 4.14.1 Granting international protection: Recognition rates
-
4.14.2 Building perspectives: Legal status and family reunification
- 4.14.2.1 National forms of protection and regularisation measures
- 4.14.2.2 Review, cessation and revocation of international protection status
- 4.14.2.3 Residence permits
- 4.14.2.4 Family reunification
- 4.14.2.5 Identity and travel documents
- 4.14.2.6 Beneficiaries of international protection moving to another Member State
- 4.14.3 Developing policies: Integration plans and their evaluations
- 4.14.4 Support for integration: Orientation, education, employment, health and welfare
-
Section 4.15 Return of former applicants
- 4.15.1 Regulating returns at the European level
- 4.15.2 Coordinated EU approach and increasing role of Frontex
- 4.15.3 Authorities responsible for the return procedure
- 4.15.4 Refining national legislation on the issuance of a return decision to third-country nationals
- 4.15.5 Efficiency of the return process
- 4.15.6 Programmes supporting return and reintegration assistance
- 4.15.7 Providing information on return
- 4.15.8 Return of minors
- 4.15.9 Implementing a return
- Section 4.16 Resettlement and humanitarian admissions
- Section 5. Children and applicants with special needs
- Concluding remarks: The way forward
- Bibliography
- Reader’s guide
- Statistical tables
- Infographics
Staff continued to receive training in 2020, although some countries reported an initial postponement and some delays due to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic (for example, Finland and Slovakia). In Belgium, protection officers attended a training course on sexual orientation, and CEDOCA developed a new training programme on country of origin information (COI) in an online tutorial format (see Section 4.12).
In Bulgaria, regular quarterly workshops and training were organised for case officers from the territorial units by legal advisers from the Quality of Procedure Directorate. In addition, case officers from the territorial units were presented with case law from administrative courts to improve the quality of decisions.
Through cooperation with the office of the ombudsperson and UNHCR, training in Czechia was provided on common modules on evidence assessment, examination of cases on merit and application of the recast Qualification Directive.
 |
........ |
|
 |
|
........ |  |