Assessing the Common European Asylum System

Radu-Mihai Triculescu is a postdoctoral research fellow at LMU Munich, where he researches synchronisation and time in policymaking, with a specific focus on asylum policy. He is the author of Dublin is Dead: A study in delegitimation (2022).

• List of Tables1 Introduction1 Engaging with the State of the Art2 The ceas: A Long Journey to Ambiguous Complexity2 Discretionary Implementation: Ambiguity and the Work of Street-Level Bureaucrats1 Discretionary Implementation in Multilevel EU2 The Breeding Ground for Ambiguity in Multilevel Governance3 Role Theory and Ambiguity3 The Common European Asylum System1 Dublin Regulation2 euaa and eurodac2.1 The European Union Agency for Asylum (euaa)2.2 eurodac3 Receptions Conditions Directive4 Qualifications Directive4.1 The Qualification Directive at First Glance: A Literal Analysis of Discretionary Clauses5 Procedures Directive5.1 Untangling the Procedures Directive: A Literal Analysis of Provisions4 Interpretive Ambiguities: Case Law and Guidance1 The Union’s Approach to National Implementation Post-20152 Case Law3 Interpretive Ambiguities: The Work of the cjeu in Identifying and Dispelling Ambiguities3.1 General Provisions (Articles 1–3)3.2 Assessment of Applications for International Protection (Articles 4–8)3.3 Qualifications for Being a Refugee (Articles 9–12)3.4 Chapter iv – Refugee Status (Articles 13–14)3.5 Qualification for Subsidiary Protection (Articles 15–19)3.6 Chapter vi – Subsidiary Protection Status (Articles 18–19)3.7 Content of international Protection and Administrative Cooperation (Articles 20–37); Final Provisions4 Judicial and Legislative Analysis of the Procedures Directive4.1 Initiating the Procedures: Rules for Lodging an Application for Asylum4.2 Procedural Guarantees4.3 The Personal Interview4.4 Procedural Guarantees for an Individual Assessment4.5 Guarantees for the Examination Procedure at First Instance4.6 Withdrawal of International Protection and Effective Remedy5 Conclusions5 National Implementation of the ceas: The Case of Romania1 Constitution, Human Rights, and Good Governance2 oug 57/2019 – The Administrative Code3 Managing Asylum in Romania3.1 The Structure and Role of The General Inspectorate for Immigration (igi)3.2 Law 122/2006 regarding Asylum in Romania and Its Norms of Implementation3.3 Scope and Definitions in the Law3.4 Procedural Guarantees3.5 Street-Level Bureaucrats in Law 1223.6 First Instance Decisions – Architecture, Rights, and Obligations4 Conclusion6 National Implementation of the ceas: The Case of the Netherlands1 The Principles of Governance: The Dutch Constitution2 Public Service in the Netherlands2.1 The General Administrative Law Act3 Entering the Asylum Procedure3.1 General Procedure3.2 Conditions of Work: Implementing Provisions at the Street-Level3.3 European Framework and Safe Countries of Origin3.4 Institutional Capacity3.5 Work Guidance3.6 Credibility Assessment4 Conclusion7 Beyond Black on White: A Nuanced View of Discretion1 European Ambiguity2 Building the Discretionary Space3 Final Thoughts on Discretionary ImplementationBibliographyIndex