The following section contains characteristic incompatibilities in transposition of the CEAS in national legislation which were previously identified in IPA and are maintained in Asylum Code.
|Directive||Provision||Domestic law provision||Non-transposition or incorrect transposition|
Recast Qualification Directive
Recast Asylum Procedures Directive
|31(8)||Article 88(9)ia Asylum Code||Asylum Code maintains IPA’s provision (Article 83(9)) which exceeds the permissible grounds for applying the accelerated procedure, given that it foresees as ground for using the procedure cases where the applicant refuses to comply with the obligation to be fingerprinted under domestic legislation.
|38 (2)||Article 91(1)f Asylum Code||Article 91(1)f Asylum Code maintains article 86(1)(f) IPA, with regards the safe third country concept, and provides that transit through a third country may be considered as such a “connection” in conjunction with specific circumstances, on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country. In LH the CJEU ruled that “the transit of the applicant from a third country cannot constitute as such a valid ground in order to be considered that the applicant could reasonably return in this country”, C‑564/18 (19 March 2020), which sheds doubts on the compatibility of the provision with Article 38(2) of the Directive. Moreover, contrary to Article 38(2) of the Directive, national law does not foresee the methodology to be followed by the authorities in order to assess whether a country qualifies as a “safe third country” for an individual applicant.
Recast Reception Conditions Directive
|20(4)||Article 61(4) Asylum Code||Asylum Code maintains IPA’s provision (article (4)) which allows for the withdrawal of material reception conditions where the applicant seriously breaches the house rules of reception centres or demonstrates violent conduct. Such a measure is not permitted by the Directive, as clarified by the CJEU in Haqbin.