Almost 40 organizations have warned in an appeal against a possible temporary suspension of the right to asylum in the EU. They are calling on the German federal government to advocate for the protection of refugees amid increasing calls from some political parties in Europe that asylum should be suspended.
EU leaders are under pressure to respond to irregular arrivals and allegations that third countries are using migration to destabilize Europe. But while Greece and some other governments are calling for the power to temporarily suspend asylum applications during major migration flows, EU law draws a clear line between faster procedures, temporary crisis measures, and a blanket ban on seeking protection.
Thirty-eight civil society organizations have urged the German government to oppose any suspension of the right to asylum at this week’s EU summit in Brussels. "People could be turned away at Europe’s borders before they are even allowed to say why they need protection," the organizations wrote in an appeal published on Wednesday (October 14).
The groups, including Amnesty International, Diakonie Deutschland, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World), argue that suspending asylum would endanger people fleeing persecution and damage the EU's credibility.
The debate echoes beyond Brussels too. In the United Kingdom, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has pledged to suspend the country’s asylum system for up to five years if his party wins the next general election, due in 2029.
Within the EU, however, Member States remain bound by EU asylum law, Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the prohibition on returning people to countries where they face a serious risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that national security measures remain subject to EU law and that blanket exclusions based on public order or security cannot override asylum rights unless specifically justified and proportionate.
Read AlsoGermany: Asylum court appeals take longer again
What is being proposed?
The appeal follows proposals to allow asylum rights to be temporarily suspended in exceptional circumstances, including where governments claim that third countries are instrumentalizing migration by encouraging or facilitating arrivals.
Supporters of tighter controls argue that large numbers of arrivals can overwhelm reception systems and that states need greater flexibility to protect public order and security. Similar arguments have been made in recent years by Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Finland, among others.
Civil society organizations reject that framing. Instead of suspending the right to asylum, they are calling for greater solidarity among EU member states and for joint solutions that guarantee the protection of refugees. "A suspension of the right to asylum, by contrast, would not only endanger people who are specifically persecuted; it would also weaken the EU’s credibility," the letter states.
The organizations are also critical of the fact that events in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta are being used as a justification for tightening asylum law. In the summer, tens of thousands of migrants crossed into the enclave, which overwhelmed reception facilities. As a result of those events, at least 100 people died.
Read AlsoCeuta: Additional 45.3 million euros allocated to deal with aftermath of migrant arrivals
What EU law says
The right to seek asylum is protected under Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Anyone on the territory of an EU Member State, including at its border, has the right to apply for international protection. That does not mean every applicant will be granted protection; it means authorities must individually assess whether they qualify for it.
EU law also prohibits refoulement: the removal of a person to a country where they may face torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, persecution, or other serious harm. That prohibition applies regardless of how a person entered the country.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has repeatedly held that even during an emergency, governments cannot deny people effective access to asylum procedures. In a 2022 ruling concerning Lithuania, the court found that national legislation preventing people who entered irregularly from applying for international protection was incompatible with EU law.
Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which concerns law and order and internal security, is sometimes invoked by governments seeking more discretion. But the Court of Justice has interpreted it narrowly -- it cannot be used as a general opt-out from EU asylum obligations, and any security-based restriction must comply with fundamental rights and be specifically justified.
Read AlsoEU ministers mull new ways to curb irregular migration
What the new Pact changes
Critics, including Human Rights Watch, argue that the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum, which became applicable across the bloc on June 12, 2026, has made the asylum system more restrictive and more closely tied to border control.
Under the new rules, many people arriving irregularly at the EU's external borders undergo screening, including identity, security and health checks. Some applicants are then channeled into accelerated border procedures, while people whose claims are rejected can be placed in a return border procedure.
The Pact also introduces a solidarity mechanism intended to share responsibility among member states. Countries facing high arrivals can receive support through relocations, funding, personnel, equipment or capacity-building measures.
Supporters say the system makes procedures faster and more orderly. Human rights organizations warn that accelerated procedures, detention at borders and reduced access to legal assistance could prevent people from having their claims properly examined.
But the Pact does not remove the right to apply for asylum. Nor does it allow member states to close their asylum systems altogether.
Read AlsoEU Council greenlights new rules enabling more effective returns
When exceptional measures are allowed
The Pact does contain a Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation, which allows temporary derogations from normal asylum procedures "in specific and exceptional situations of crisis."
These include a crisis involving mass arrivals, a situation of instrumentalization by a third country or hostile non-state actor, and force majeure, such as a natural disaster or pandemic.
In such cases, a Member State can ask the European Commission to assess a request for temporary measures. The Council then decides, by implementing an act, whether to authorize them. These may include longer registration deadlines, extended border procedures, or adjustments to rules determining which country is responsible for examining an application.
Any measures must be limited in duration and scope and kept under review. They initially last three months and can be renewed only if the situation persists and the measures remain necessary and proportionate.
Crucially, the regulation does not permit a state to refuse to register asylum claims, remove people without assessing their protection needs, or return them to danger.
UNHCR has warned against weakening asylum protections in response to pressure on reception systems. "The question is not whether the Refugee Convention is still relevant," said Edem Wosornu, the UN refugee agency’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection.
"The question is whether we have the collective determination and the political will to make it work for the realities of our time… The answer is not weaker international protection. The answer is more effective implementation."
What an asylum ban would mean
A blanket suspension of asylum would go beyond what current EU law allows. Changing that position would require new EU legislation -- and any such measure would still have to comply with the EU Charter, the Refugee Convention and the prohibition of refoulement.
Courts have already found comparable measures unlawful. In addition to the Lithuanian ruling, the Court of Justice found Hungary’s restrictions on access to asylum incompatible with EU law after infringement proceedings brought by the European Commission.
National courts can also challenge removals and detention decisions, while the European Court of Human Rights can issue interim measures in exceptional cases where a person risks irreparable harm.
The political consequences could be equally significant. Human rights groups argue that asylum bans weaken trust between member states, discourage the relocation and responsibility-sharing on which the EU solidarity mechanisms depend, encourage pushbacks at borders, and undermine the EU’s stated commitment to the rule of law.
For EU leaders, the question is therefore not whether they can abolish the right to asylum, but whether they will use the Pact’s exceptional mechanisms within their legal limits -- or adopt measures that courts are likely to find unlawful.
Read AlsoFive EU states target 2027 for first migrant 'return hubs' outside bloc
With AFP and epd