When your asylum claim gets rejected, what happens next could mean everything. The EU says you have the right to appeal, but the reality? It depends on where you are.
A new report by the European Migration Network (EMN) lifts the lid on how appeals work in 22 EU countries. The key takeaway? A fair and fast appeal system isn’t just a legal requirement—it’s a human necessity.
The right to appeal a decision is a cornerstone of human rights law. It’s enshrined in both EU regulations and international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These protections include: the right to challenge an asylum denial, free legal aid in certain cases, and enough time to prepare and submit an appeal.
But in real life, things aren’t always that clear-cut. As asylum applications across Europe continue to rise, differences between national systems have become more visible—and more problematic. That’s why the EMN’s 2018–2024 study focuses on appeal procedures and supports the implementation of the upcoming EU Asylum Procedure Regulation, due in 2026.
The timeline for filing an appeal after a rejected asylum claim varies wildly: from just one week to a full month, depending on the country.
Usually, the appeal must be submitted in writing—on paper or electronically—and is reviewed through a mix of written statements and hearings.
In most EU countries, filing an appeal puts deportation on hold until the case is reviewed. But there are critical exceptions, especially for those processed through accelerated or border procedures—where time is extremely limited and automatic protection is often not guaranteed.
That means, in some cases, people are removed from the country before their appeal is even heard.
France, for example, is the only country with a separate appeal system for border decisions. On the other hand, 11 countries don’t apply border procedures at all—showing just how different national systems can be when it comes to urgent cases.
In most cases (16 out of 22 countries), asylum appeals go to general administrative courts. Others use specialised tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies.
Appeals are usually handled by a single judge, but in six countries, they are reviewed by a panel of two or three decision-makers. While this can help ensure fairer decisions in complex cases, it can also slow things down—especially in overburdened systems.
Every country included in the EMN report offers some form of publicly funded legal aid for people appealing asylum rejections. However, access often depends on strict criteria: financial hardship, legal residence status, or chances of a successful appeal.
Legal aid may include:
Most countries use state-run systems that assign lawyers from approved lists. Additionally, 17 countries offer special protections for unaccompanied minors, such as legal guardians or guaranteed legal aid. Twelve countries also provide extra support for other vulnerable groups.
Between 2018 and 2024, half of the EU countries surveyed made changes to streamline appeals. The most common improvements include: online applications, remote hearings, and automated case processing.
Some also introduced:
But even with these upgrades, structural problems remain. Backlogs, staff shortages, and limited access to legal aid still threaten the system’s ability to deliver fair results.
Behind every asylum decision is a real person—often someone fleeing danger or persecution. That’s why the appeal process isn’t just a bureaucratic formality. It’s one of the most human aspects of migration policy.
Whether the EU can guarantee fair legal remedies to everyone who needs protection will be a key test of its values. Not just the values written in treaties—but the ones put into action by its institutions every day.
Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.
