While EU governments have spent years debating the asylum and migration pact itself, far less scrutiny has been given to how it will be implemented on the ground.
Marta Welander
After years of negotiations, the EU Pact on Asylum and Migration entered into force last week.
Intended to establish a “European solution” to migration challenges, it will fundamentally reshape how people arriving in Europe seek protection, how asylum claims are processed, and how responsibility is shared between EU states.
But while governments have spent years debating the legislation itself, far less scrutiny has been given to how it will be implemented on the ground.
In theory, member states have spent the past two years preparing for this moment.
National Implementation Plans were due to be submitted to the European Commission by December 2024, detailing how countries intend to put the pact into practice.
However, while 28 of the 30 EU+ countries have reportedly submitted their plans – with the exceptions of Hungary and Poland – only around half are publicly available.
That leaves organisations like the International Rescue Committee, who work daily with people seeking safety, with limited visibility into how the new rules will function in practice.
Italian information vacuum
Italy provides a striking example of what this opacity looks like. As one of the countries expected to be most affected by the reforms, it submitted its National Implementation Plan to the European Commission before the 2024 deadline.
Yet despite repeated requests from civil society organisations, promises that the document would be made public, and a court order, it has still not been published.
The Italian government did publish – late night on Friday (12 June) – a decree outlining urgent measures to be taken to ensure compliance with the pact.
While this sheds some light on the government’s approach, it does not replace the detailed implementation plan that civil society organisations and local authorities have been seeking for months.
Adopted without warning or prior parliamentary scrutiny, the decree has left many actors scrambling to understand concretely what will change.
As a result, newly arrived asylum seekers in Italy are already being subjected to procedures whose practical implications remain unclear. We’re particularly concerned about how people with vulnerabilities – including children, minorities, and survivors of torture – will be identified, and provided with the specialised care they need in just a few days.
This general lack of clarity affects both people seeking protection and the organisations supporting them – creating uncertainty and confusion at the very moment people most need to understand their rights, options, and how to navigate the complex new system.
These concerns resonate far beyond Italy’s borders.
Across EU states, civil society organisations have repeatedly warned about potential protection gaps in the pact: how will authorities process new arrivals fairly and humanely within just seven days?
Where will people be accommodated while their claims are processed, and how will their rights be upheld?
What legal assistance will be available?
Will civil society organisations be able to access people they serve?
How can people access safe routes?
Will mandatory fundamental rights monitoring mechanisms have the powers and independence needed to effectively identify, address, and prevent rights violations?
And what will new ‘solidarity’ funds actually be used for – to improve reception and integration measures for new arrivals, or to prevent people arriving in Europe at all costs?
The answers matter because the success or failure of the pact will ultimately depend not on what was agreed in Brussels, but on how it is implemented at Europe’s borders, in reception centres, in asylum offices and in local communities.
A system that operates without transparency cannot be properly scrutinised, and a system that cannot be scrutinised cannot reliably safeguard people’s rights.
The opacity surrounding implementation is particularly troubling given that some member states are already signalling that they may not fully participate in the new framework. The risk is not only that safeguards are weakened, but that the pact fragments into a patchwork of national approaches rather than the common European system it was intended to create.
As implementation begins, it is essential that EU states immediately publish their plans, provide clarity on how the new rules will function on the ground, and work in lockstep to minimise the harm done to the people who are directly impacted – many of whom have already experienced unimaginable difficulties and trauma.
In practice, this means ensuring that every asylum case is heard fully, fairly and on its own merits. Safeguards must be in place to guarantee that children, and others with vulnerabilities, do not slip through the net during fast-tracked procedures.
There must be independent monitoring mechanisms in place to make sure that people’s fundamental rights are upheld, and – if not – those who breach them are held accountable. Nobody should be deported to danger.
And, lastly, the EU must urgently expand safe routes so that people are not forced to risk their lives on dangerous journeys, including by stepping up pledges under the Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admissions Plan.
The real test of the pact will be whether it delivers a common system grounded in Europe’s stated values of human rights and solidarity. Its safeguards must be treated as a floor, not a ceiling.
That requires full transparency, with national Implementation plans, guidelines and monitoring findings made available for public information and scrutiny.
If states fall short of this, the pact may be unified on paper but divided in practice where it matters most: in the protection of people’s rights.
