Asylum Recognition Rates in the EU: Wide Disparities Persist
Recognition rates for Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi, and Turkish asylum applicants vary dramatically across EU Member States. We analyse the causes, implications for Dublin transfers, and harmonisation prospects under the New Pact.
Despite decades of harmonisation efforts, asylum recognition rates in the European Union remain strikingly inconsistent. An applicant’s chance of receiving refugee status or subsidiary protection can differ by tens of percentage points depending on which Member State examines the claim. This article presents a comparative analysis of recognition rates for Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi, and Turkish nationals across seven key jurisdictions, explores the drivers of divergence, and assesses the implications for the Dublin system and the New Pact on Migration and Asylum.
Comparative Recognition Rates by Nationality
The table below presents first-instance recognition rates (refugee status plus subsidiary protection) for three major applicant groups in Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, and Greece. Figures are drawn from aggregated national statistics and EUAA reporting for 2025, the most recent complete year available.
| Member State | Syrian Recognition Rate | Afghan Recognition Rate | Iraqi Recognition Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Germany (DE) | 91% | 58% | 67% |
| France (FR) | 86% | 49% | 61% |
| Sweden (SE) | 94% | 71% | 75% |
| Netherlands (NL) | 89% | 55% | 64% |
| Austria (AT) | 82% | 44% | 59% |
| Italy (IT) | 78% | 38% | 52% |
| Greece (GR) | 74% | 35% | 48% |
The data reveal a clear pattern: Syrians enjoy high recognition rates everywhere, reflecting well-documented country-wide conflict and persecution. For Afghans and Iraqis, however, the dispersion is pronounced. A Afghan applicant in Sweden is roughly twice as likely to be recognised as one in Greece or Italy.
Drivers of Divergence
Multiple interconnected factors explain these disparities.
Country of Origin Information Quality
Member States rely on different sources of country of origin information (COI) and assign varying weight to them. Courts in Sweden and Germany have tended to accept that Taliban rule exposes broad categories of Afghans to persecution, while authorities in Italy and Greece have issued more restrictive guidance, emphasising internal flight alternatives and regional variations in risk.
Case Law and Administrative Practice
National jurisprudence shapes outcomes profoundly. German federal administrative courts have established protective precedents for certain Afghan profiles—interpreters, journalists, and human rights defenders—while Greek asylum committees have applied narrower interpretations of the refugee definition in comparable cases. Administrative culture also matters: some jurisdictions conduct extensive oral hearings, while others rely heavily on written submissions.
Political Climate and Policy Direction
Political signals influence both first-instance decision making and appellate review. Governments that publicly emphasise deterrence and returns often see recognition rates decline, even when the objective country conditions have not changed. Conversely, jurisdictions with strong pro-integration narratives and well-resourced asylum services tend to produce more protection-positive outcomes.
Implications for Dublin Transfers
The Dublin III Regulation—and its successor under the New Pact—allocates responsibility for examining asylum claims primarily to the Member State of first entry. Because recognition rates diverge so sharply, the Dublin rules effectively distribute protection outcomes as well as procedural responsibility. An Afghan applicant who lands in Lesvos and is channelled into the Greek procedure faces materially worse prospects than one who reaches Sweden.
This disparity has fuelled secondary movements, family reunification strategies, and legal challenges to transfer decisions. It also erodes trust in the fairness of the Common European Asylum System. For up-to-date Dublin statistics and transfer data, see our statistics page.
Harmonisation Under the New Pact
The New Pact on Migration and Asylum introduces several measures designed to reduce procedural divergence, including expanded EUAA support missions, common country guidance, and tighter deadlines. Yet the Pact stops short of fully harmonising recognition standards or creating a single EU asylum decision body. Member States retain discretion over the substantive assessment of protection needs.
“Procedural harmonisation without substantive convergence risks becoming an exercise in form over substance. As long as the same Afghan applicant can receive protection in Stockholm and a rejection in Athens, the Common European Asylum System will remain a patchwork of national regimes rather than a genuinely unified framework.”
— European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Policy Note on Recognition Rate Divergence, January 2026
Calls for deeper harmonisation—up to and including a European Asylum Agency with direct decision-making competence—continue to circulate in legal and policy debates, though political appetite remains limited.
Country Profiles and Further Reading
Readers interested in national procedures can consult our detailed country profiles for Germany and Sweden. For a comprehensive overview of the New Pact’s architecture, see our earlier briefing on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum.