The Dublin Saga and the Need to Rethink the Criteria for the Allocation of Competence in Asylum Procedures

The so-called refugee crisis of 2015 had several effects, among which the definitive demonstration of the unsustainability of the Dublin system and the need of a radical change in the modalities of allocation of the competence for the examination of asylum claims in the EU. In that respect, the Commission has released in 2016 a proposal for amending the Dublin Regulation, followed by a sharply different position advanced by the European Parliament. While the discussions among Member States prove disappointingly inconclusive, this chapter starts from the premise that it is conceivable to elaborate new criteria which combine fairness, realism, solidarity, and cooperation: in particular, a quota approach to be combined with a ‘genuine link’ approach, thus trying to find a proper balance between the States’ interests and the point of view (and related behaviors) of asylum seekers, and also between the objections of human rights defenders and the concerns of European public opinion. Such an idea is circulating among the academics and some stakeholders at least since 2010, and has now received a formal endorsement by the European Parliament. The purpose of the paper is to underline the urgent need for a radical shift in the design of the Dublin system and to give sound arguments towards that direction