Beyond Harmonisation: Unpacking the Qualitative Drivers of Divergent Asylum Outcomes in the EU+

In 2022, the French Presidency of the Council of the EU issued a call for promoting a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), characterised by greater convergence of practices and decisions, stressing that the outcome of an asylum application should not depend on where it is lodged. Yet more than two decades after the Tampere Conclusions envisioned a “common asylum procedure and a uniform status” across the EU, this goal remains unmet. Several factors bear witness of this discrepancy between the objectives of the Tampere Conclusions and the practical reality of the CEAS. Negotiations between Member States have repeatedly settled for the lowest common denominator, relying mainly on directives that offer wide room for national interpretation. As a result, the legal framework has not produced effective, uniform policies or consistent protection standards. While the recognition rates in the EU+ countries have remained relatively stable in recent years, this stability hides marked differences between countries and across nationalities. Applicants with similar profiles can face dramatically different outcomes depending on the Member State examining their case. Available statistics reflect these divergences but offer no insight into the decision-making practices behind them. Existing academic work has analysed the determinants for outcomes of asylum applications (Schneider and Holzer 2002; Toshkov 2014), the determinants of the number of asylum seekers (Neumayer 2004; 2005), the distribution of the burden of handling asylum seekers (Vink and Meijerink 2003; Thielemann et al. 2010; Toshkov and de Haan 2013, Hierro, Maza & Villaverde 2021), the role of independent courts (Zaun, Leroch and Thielemann, 2024) and if the Europeanisation of asylum policies has led to convergence of procedures and outcomes. These studies offer valuable perspectives but largely focus on describing convergence trends rather than explaining why convergence fails. Research that does explore determinants relies mostly on quantitative analyses emphasizing economic factors and government attitudes toward immigration. The aim of this communication is twofold. First, relying on the UNHCR data, it provides a measure of convergence over time using the variation in recognition rates per main country of origin. Second, it examines how differences in national decision-making practices shape recognition rates in the EU+ countries. It specifically examines national jurisprudence, the interpretation of CJEU case law by national authorities and the use of concepts such as “safe third country” and “safe country of origin”. The communication focuses on Syria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Türkiye, Somalia and Nigeria, some of the top citizenships of first-time asylum applicants in the EU+.