This inform maps how EMN Member Countries organise first instance appeals in the international protection procedure. It aims to provide comparable information on the current organisation of appeals procedures to assist in the implementation of changes in the context of the Pact on Migration and Asylum. This inform is based on responses from 22 EMN Member Countries and outlines the differences in how they organise their first instance appeals procedures. It includes appeals within the regular procedure, the accelerated procedure, admissibility, and the border procedure. Further appeals are excluded from the scope of the inform, as are appeals under the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013). It provides a comparative overview of first instance international protection appeals structures and procedures currently in place across EMN Member Countries, including safeguards, and shares good practices and challenges encountered by EMN Member Countries when operating their first instance appeals procedures.
Key points:
- General administrative courts hear first instance appeals in 16 EMN Member Countries, while in 6 (including Ireland), appeals are assigned to specialised judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.
- All reporting EMN Member Countries provide for the possibility to access state-funded legal assistance and representation, although conditions can apply.
- Appeal procedures for decisions issued in the regular asylum procedure vary significantly across EMN Member Countries, with time limits for lodging appeals ranging from one week to one month.
- First instance appeals are heard by single judges/members of the competent body in 18 EMN Member Countries.
- 17 Countries have specific guarantees for unaccompanied minors and 12 ensure special procedural accommodations for other vulnerable groups.
- 12 Countries introduced operational improvements, mainly involving digital technologies for hearings and submission of documentation.
- Challenges reported with first instance appeals procedures include capacity constraints within competent bodies, increases in the number of appeals, backlogs, and applicants’ access to legal assistance and representation.
- Good practices identified include measures to prevent backlogs, capacity building, and increased digitalisation and modernisation of appeals procedures.
Ireland is highlighted in this inform for utilising a paperless digital approach to appeals. Benefits of this digitalisation include a more agile administrative support mechanism assigning appeals, reassigning appeals and providing submissions and documentation.