Brussels, 08 July 2020 WK 7430/2020 INIT LIMITE JAI MIGR ASIM WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further distribution are under the sole responsibility of community members. WORKING DOCUMENT From:                 General Secretariat of the Council To:                   Strategic Committee On Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Subject:              Note by EASO on impact of COVID-19 on the Asylum Situation and the Performance of Asylum and Reception Systems Delegations will find attached a note prepared by EASO "Impact of COVID-19 on the Asylum Situation and the Performance of Asylum and Reception Systems", in view of the informal videoconference of the members of the Strategic Committee On Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) on 15-16 July 2020. WK 7430/2020 INIT LIMITE                                                                                           EN

3 July 2020 EASO Note: Impact of COVID-19 on the Asylum Situation and the Performance of Asylum and Reception Systems Introduction: The extraordinary measures to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic affected the functioning of asylum and reception systems all over the EU+. Physical distancing, the closure of public authorities and restrictions on freedom of movement had direct impacts on international protection procedures particularly regarding face to face activities. From the beginning of the pandemic to mid- April 2020, in total, 11 EU+ countries declared a state of emergency, two declared a health emergency, one a state of crisis, two a state of epidemic, one a nation-wide quarantine and 13 introduced urgent emergency measures. Since early May most countries have gradually been lifting restrictive measures. First-Instance Procedures: In many countries, the national authorities announced the general closure of their facilities to the public (e.g. AT, ES, EL, FR, LU, NL, RO, PL) or restricted public access without prior notification via phone or e-services (e.g. AT, BE, LU, LV). As from the end of April, EU+ countries are gradually resuming services, using technical tools and individual protection means (e.g. masks). Physical distancing affected the registration of applications. For instance, registration was temporarily discontinued or limited to basic information (intention to apply) (e.g. FR, DE, DK, ES, EL, NL). Therefore, while in January and February the number of lodged asylum applications exceeded 61 000, it dropped by almost half in March to some 34 600 and then even further in April to 8 700. Since May, as the pandemic began to ease and emergency measures were being gradually relaxed, asylum applications have been rising again albeit slowly. In May the number increased slightly to some 10 180 and in June it rose further to over 25 000. There were diverse patterns among EU+ countries e.g. access upon appointment by using online forms (e.g. BE), online tools for lodging and managing requests (e.g. EL) or submission of applications in emergency reception centres (e.g. CZ, DE, NL). Due to national rules on social distancing, the restrictive measures escalated regarding personal interviews. At least, 17 EU+ countries discontinued personal interviews during the emergency measures. Some of them did so only for a short time (e.g. CH for one week, SE for two weeks) until interview rooms could be adapted and video conference interviewing rolled out, respectively. During this period, the EU+ countries investigated alternative methods and modalities to carry out or resume personal interviews. Methods included videoconferencing in the asylum structure or in reception centres, the placement of safety installations, fluctuating starting hours. In more than 20 EU+ countries, asylum authorities introduced flexible working arrangements, such as teleworking or staff rotation (some of which continue to be in place). The continuation of services affected decision making in the EU+ which did not decline to the same extent as applications, propped up by a surge of issued decisions in EL, where the focus was on reducing the backlog of cases for which interviews had already taken place. In April, slightly more decisions at first instance were also issued in BE and HU but in most countries numbers either dropped or remained stable. This likely implies that teleworking arrangements have been effective in reducing backlogs in some countries (e.g. BE, EL, NL). At the same time, postal disruptions, internal reorganisation and/or lack of face to face services (interpretation, legal aid) have affected the notification of decisions. As the timely notification of decisions impacts on the right to effective remedy, some authorities restricted the delivery of rejection notices (e.g. DE, FI, FR). As different cases were being processed, the overall recognition rate in the EU+ jumped from 30 % in March to 52 % in April. It was largely boosted by the recognition of more Syrian applicants in EL. However, in line with changes in citizenships of the applicants issued most decisions, the recognition rates increased slightly also in FR, DE, NO and RO. In addition, national authorities took measures to ease the practical challenges and limitations either by extending the deadlines to make and lodge an application (e.g. ES, FR, SI), introducing electronic tools for remote lodging or submission of documents, using electronic means to allow provision of information (e.g. YouTube videos), as well as automatically extending the validity of expired documents. LIMITED                                                1

3 July 2020 Dublin Procedures: In most Member States, Dublin procedures remain uninterrupted in terms of sending and receiving requests. However, travel restrictions have resulted in de facto discontinuation of Dublin transfers (only AT, FI, FR, LI, NO and SE have reported that they are currently executing transfers). Dublin interviews have also been discontinued as reflected in available data: in 2019, EU+ countries were issuing 10-12 000 monthly Dublin decisions but in April 2020 this fell dramatically, partially in relation to a slowdown in administrative procedures but also because of far fewer applications being lodged. Dublin transfers effectively grounded to a halt due to travel restrictions, which, with no legal extension of time limits, means that many applications will likely become the responsibility of the requesting Member State. As transfers resume, Member States will have to navigate a complex and extremely challenging environment of non-standardised national measures and public health policies, plus a growing backlog of Dublin cases. Reception and Accommodation: From the beginning of the pandemic, many EU+ countries introduced preventive measures targeting residents of collective reception facilities. In this regard, information was shared through, for example, leaflets/posters (e.g. AT, BE, EL, HR, DK, HU, LU, NL, SI, SK, SE), webpages (reported for AT, DK, DE, EL, IE, IS, MT, NL, SE), regular announcements on official websites of competent authorities (e.g. BG, NL, PL), on YouTube (e.g. BE, CH), and via UNHCR (IT, MT) while medical screening was widely reported. Also, most authorities took measures to ensure good hygiene/disinfection. For newly arrived asylum seekers, targeted measures were adopted such as self- isolation and/or quarantine (e.g. AT – self isolation for 14 days, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FR – for infected people, HR, IT, IS, LV, NL, PL, RO, SI, SE – for specific cases) as well as medical screening (e.g. AT – all new arrivals are tested for temperature on a voluntary basis, IT, LU, NL, NO, SE – specific cases, SK). In addition, emergency shelters or annex in existing facilities were created to increase capacity and decrease occupancy rate (e.g. AT, BE, CH, CZ, IE, EL, NL, NO, CH, DK). General restrictions also impacted on access/visits to reception centres (limited to avoid movement of people, e.g. BE, BG, EL, HR, DK, EE, IE, LV, NL, SK). Similarly, food/cash distribution has been provided directly to residents’ rooms or at regulated queues with proper distance in common areas (e.g. AT, DK, DE). From May onwards, the revocation of general measures also led to re-adaptation of the preventative measures to the new circumstances in order to abide by the social distance and hygiene requirements: e.g. the use of protective equipment (such as masks) (e.g. BE, CY, CZ, DK, IT, SK, SI), improved sanitary conditions, disinfections and where possible reorganising the provision of service remotely. Second-Instance Procedures: Depending on the national structure of the justice systems, measures may apply automatically to all courts (upon decision of judicial councils/ministry/government) or individually (each court to specify measures). Reorganisation of working arrangements, e.g. working remotely, rotation of judges, was introduced to ensure continuity of judicial institutions during the emergency measures. Further, access to the public was limited or suspended. In this regard, many judicial authorities launched electronic tools for the submission of appeals, the delivery of documents and relevant communication. Due to general restrictions of movement, hearings with the exception of urgent cases were also suspended e.g. in AT (Federal Administrative Court), BE (CALL), BG, CY, DE (Federal Administrative Court), FR (CNDA), EL, HR, IE, IT (Court of Cassation), LV, LT (Vilnius Administrative Court), NO, NL, PL, SI (defined emergency hearings). In some cases, courts resorted to videoconference, e.g. IT (Civil Courts), MT, NL, LV, PL etc. Time limits were also extended. Since mid- April, judicial institutions have gradually resumed activities. Emphasis is given on limitation of people present in the room to the absolute minimum, use of masks and remote hearings. Outlook: Predicting asylum-related migration to the EU+ in the post-COVID-19 world is challenging due to many unknowns. However, EASO analyses suggest that conflicts triggering displacements have not universally been pacified during the pandemic. For example, there is evidence that fighting has continued in Afghanistan and Yemen, and increased in Libya and Nigeria. Furthermore, international organisations raised alarms about growing food insecurity and famine. This could in turn result in increased social tensions and potentially violent conflicts linked to access to water, land and livelihood, exacerbating existing tensions between population groups. Hence, drivers of asylum-related migration LIMITED                                                 2

3 July 2020 might even intensify but obstacles to mobility might also play a mediating role in the short to medium term. EASO initiatives: EASO issued new practical recommendations on conducting personal interviews remotely (following the guidance issued by the European Commission to EU Member States, to which EASO also contributed) and on conducting remote/online registration (lodging). Work on Additional Recommendation on conducting Dublin transfers under the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. Resumption of EASO direct operational support in four Member States required an extensive adaptation of the working environment, the introduction of new technologies and the establishment of a range of new Security, Occupational Health and Safety protocols and procedures, all in close partnership with the concerned national authorities. EASO is advancing with the full implementation of the relevant steps of the relocation exercise of 1 600 unaccompanied minors/children with serious medical conditions from EL to 11 participating Member States under the coordination of the Commission. The possibility of supporting remote processing of resettlement cases is explored in the frames of EASO’s Resettlement and Complementary Pathways activities. EASO Training and Professional Development Centre has also adapted its training program organizing online training activities. EASO Asylum Knowledge Centre has been monitoring developments related to COVID through regular bulletins on updates, reports on asylum trends (special report and special report 2) and on emergency measures in asylum and reception serving information needs of the asylum stakeholders and the general public. Key take away messages  Several of the emergency solutions addressing specific and extraordinary needs have the potential to be incorporated into the national asylum and reception systems on a more permanent basis, leading to efficiency gains also under normal circumstances as well as in case of a “second wave”. This may, in particular, concern ‘e-administration’, such as (semi-)automated systems of registration of basic data supporting the making/lodging process, remote interviewing via IT means and various systems of electronic data-sharing and processing, such as electronic case files, to limit the use of regular postal services.  Making videoconferencing facilities available in collective reception facilities has also greatly facilitated the roll-out of remote interviewing modalities. More frequent use of ‘initial reception’ (e.g. arrival centres, first reception centres, transit centres, etc) across EU + states as a hub may enable an efficient management of the initial phases of the procedure (registration and identification), before applicants are then allocated to second-line reception facilities.  As physical distancing affecting hearings and personal submissions caused similar challenges at first instance and second instance level, it would be key that technical solutions supporting, for instance, electronic files, ideally allow for synergies between first and second instance in terms of the inter- operability of technical solutions, ensuring access to necessary information and sharing notifications about procedural steps affecting the situation of an applicant (e.g. grant of suspensive effect) in a coordinated manner.  The exact long-term impact of travel limitations (most of all cross-border air travel) and feasibility of alternatives remains to be seen in the areas of resettlement and return. Focus on dossier examination rather than physical selection missions for resettlement can be expected, while temporary limitations in return may lead to a more widespread application of various form of tolerated stay related to the physical impossibility of transfers.  New initiatives in the management of information provision by various actors will continue to be crucial as emergency measures are lifted and elements of the ‘new normal’ are introduced, while a certain proliferation of information services calls for convergence in the messages shared, prevention of misinformation and fake news, as well as amending information to individual circumstances of various groups, rather than focusing on generic ones. LIMITED                                                 3