Gaps in the system that EDAL aims to address

Despite the advances achieved by the CEAS to date, wide disparities remain in the application of the CEAS legislation at the national level. Interpretations of the Directives and Regulation by policy makers, the judiciary and front-line staff can vary greatly with little, if any, conscious consistency across jurisdictions. Discrepancies and contradictory interpretations of the standards contained in the Directives and Regulation are manifold. This significantly undermines the ideal of comparable and appropriate quality in the recognition and treatment of refugees, the provision of subsidiary forms of international protection and the rights and privileges gained by beneficiaries of these protections across the EU. It undermines the CEAS aim of limiting internal movement of applicants within the EU based solely on differences in legal standards.

While access to the legislation itself is not an issue, there is often a lack of dialogue and information exchange between legal jurisdictions on the substance of the CEAS. Information and legal judgments from other jurisdictions are not always accessible or consulted by those whose work would benefit from this. Indeed, in certain Member States access to decisions from within the jurisdiction is sometimes difficult. For example, EDAL has made available cases from Hungary where it is necessary to interview decision makers in person to identify relevant case law as well as in Finland where asylum cases are not made available to the public or on internal government databases. In other jurisdictions the only method of identifying case law with jurisprudential value has been by having access to client case files. As the governing legal framework of the CEAS is finalised and improved it becomes imperative that harmonised implementation is facilitated as much as possible to ensure the ultimate efficacy of the CEAS as it applies to individual asylum seekers on the ground.