Why does the European Union hesitate to establish mutual recognition of asylum decisions?

It would be an important and significant step in building a common European asylum system

It would also ensure the implementation of a uniform status for all beneficiaries of international protection, as requested by the 2009 Stockholm Programme, in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. It is worth noting that this programme has now been replaced by new strategic guidelines adopted during the recent European Council meeting of 26 and 27 June 2014, and in effect for the next five years.

Freedom of movement within the European Union represents one of the main achievements in the building of the EU, despite the Schengen Information System’s two-step approach (Bulgaria and Romania are not yet full participants) and despite the fact that the EU member states recently reintroduced the possibility of restricting the free movement of people if there is a possibility of public disorder (by restoring the border controls, for a limited period of time). These restrictions were allowed within the system after the "Arab Spring" which prompted thousands of North and West Africans to attempt to reach the Italian coast, and then to pursue their voyage towards other European countries. This situation triggered a wave of panic in the political sphere and, to a certain extent, brought member states to ask for exemptions from the EU principle of free movement of persons. They won their case in theory, but an approval of the European Commission remains necessary before the exemptions can be implemented.

Nevertheless, this freedom of movement from which almost all European citizens benefit, including non-European legal residents, does not apply to the 1.5 million refugees living legally in the 28 EU member states, nor, actually, to the people who obtained refugee status in 2013, that is, approximately 250,000 refugees in the EU. Certainly, these people obtained, by means of their refugee status, a long-term residence permit, but nevertheless, limited to the national territory where their asylum claims were processed and accepted. However, often, this country is not a refugee’s first choice or a priority as a destination for the refugee.

So it is difficult to accept and understand why a refugee whose rights were granted, for example, in Poland, while his family lives in the Netherlands, is not able to obtain the right to live in the Netherlands where his life would undoubtedly be more serene, and where his potential for integration would be made, undoubtedly, more sustainable, for himself and for his host country. Likewise, a refugee living in Lithuania, who could find a decent job in the United Kingdom, where his skills and his expertise are sought after, should be allowed to move and settle down there, in the same way that it is possible for other citizens of the EU. These countries and these examples will help shed some light on situations which should well be taken into account.

At the moment, refugees have to wait until they are long-term (non-refugee) residents and/or ask to be naturalised in their country of asylum before they can benefit from free movement within the EU, and then, and only then, are they allowed to settle freely in a member state other than their first host country.

In order for the common European asylum system to become a reality of the 21st century, a system of common standards for granting refugee status must be considered and implemented. Certainly, member states may fear, legitimately, that this freedom, once granted, would attract many refugees to certain countries of "privileged" destination. This encourages member states to shift their share of responsibility with respect to asylum applications. These concerns must be taken seriously so that the building of a common European asylum system is based on the principle of fairness and equality for all, in particular for host countries. However, fears could be eased by gradually introducing the system of mutual recognition. For example, we could consider the possibility that, at first, only refugees having strong family links and real and concrete job opportunities be allowed to move and settle down in another EU country. The transfer of protection-related responsibilities would then be useful and fair to the person and to the member states, both upon the person’s departure and upon his/her arrival in the country of destination. Benefits would be shared: for the country of exit, because there is a dichotomy between a person presenting a sure potential for integration and a low motivation for remaining in the country, and for the country of destination, because both potential and motivation combined will add value to the new host society. It seems a win-win situation on many levels. Likewise, a system whereby the responsibilities of protection are progressively transferred could be developed between the first and second host country. On a deeper level, the objective is a reciprocal and mutual recognition among member states and especially among people, including refugees, of their right to assume their responsibility as free European citizens.