Three main conclusions are drawn from this overview. First, the EU has broad and flexible powers in migration, which gives political actors significant room to act, especially in times of crisis, with only limited control from the courts. Second, human rights justifications play a limited role in EU migration measures. Human rights are often mentioned as general principles, but are not framed as the motives for the migration policies. Third, migration measures carried out outside the EU often avoid the usual systems of oversight and accountability. This creates a gap in the protection of rights that is not addressed by the EU’s internal legal framework.
Reform should therefore focus on three areas. One concerns the reception conditions under the Temporary Protection Directive. The Directive should be revised to include binding minimum reception standards that covers registration, healthcare, housing, and social support so that the level of protection does not depend on Member State political priorities. These standards should be clearly defined and enforceable, ensuring a consistent baseline of protection across the Union and reducing disparities in national implementation.
The second concerns the external dimension of EU migration law. Oversight of external migration arrangements must be strengthened. The European Court of Auditors should play a more active role in assessing whether EU funding used in cooperation with third countries complies with fundamental rights standards. This would help ensure that budgetary control is linked to rights protection. Also, the European Parliament should make more assertive use of its prerogatives to scrutinise and challenge informal instruments, including by demanding transparency, debating their content, and conditioning funding or cooperation on respect for rights. A key recommendation is to establish an independent monitoring mechanism for the EU’s external migration activities. Building on the model proposed in the Migration Pact for border procedures, such a mechanism should systematically assess compliance with fundamental rights, including non-refoulement and access to remedies, in cooperation with third countries.