At the core of the Dublin System lies the “first country of entry” rule, which stipulates that the EU member state where an asylum seeker first sets foot is responsible for examining their asylum application. This regulation ensures that a single country handles each asylum case, preventing individuals from submitting multiple applications across member states. However, it has placed a disproportionate burden on a handful of countries located at the EU’s external borders due to their geographic position. In particular, countries in the Mediterranean basin, such as Italy, Spain, and Greece, have been objecting to this rule for decades, as they often serve as the first point of arrival for migrants reaching Europe. These countries emphasize that they have been left to cope with a disproportionate influx of migrants in a manner that contradicts the EU’s promise of solidarity.
The Dublin System is a legal framework established by the 1990 Dublin Convention and later updated through the Dublin II Regulation in 2003 and the Dublin III Regulation in 2013. This system sets out criteria to determine which EU member state is responsible for examining an asylum application. Among these criteria, the “first country of entry” rule has become the most commonly applied in practice. Under this rule, the EU country where the asylum seeker first enters is responsible for assessing their request for protection.[i] The official justification for this approach is to prevent asylum seekers from submitting multiple applications in different countries and ensure that claims are processed swiftly and orderly.
Indeed, the rule aligns with the concept of the “first safe country,” expecting individuals to seek international protection in the first EU territory they enter. However, although the rule aims to establish legal order, it has disrupted the balance of burden-sharing within the EU. The intense wave of migration toward Europe, particularly after 2015, clearly exposed the pressure the Dublin System places on border countries. In 2015 alone, over one million refugees and migrants arrived on the European continent. Approximately 80% (around 861,000 people) landed in Greece, while around 150,000 arrived in Italy.[ii] Such an influx has far exceeded these countries’ existing capacities and brought their national asylum systems to the brink of collapse.
The European Court of Auditors later found that Greece and Italy were disproportionately burdened as Europe’s “frontline” countries.[iii] The overwhelming number of applications has led to scenes of a humanitarian crisis. Severe overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure have created inhumane conditions where even the most basic needs—such as access to clean water, hygiene, and shelter—could not be met. As a result, border states were left mainly to shoulder the burden of hosting, registering, and processing the asylum claims of tens of thousands of individuals on their own. Unfortunately, the EU’s rhetoric of solidarity has remained, for the most part, a promise on paper rather than a practice in reality.
In the face of the migration burden being disproportionately placed on a few countries, Western and Northern European states have largely remained silent—or have passively accepted the situation to their advantage. Economically strong and politically influential states such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands receive significantly fewer asylum applications than Mediterranean border countries and thus benefit indirectly from the current structure of the Dublin System. As a result of the bulk of asylum claims being handled by a few “frontline” states, some northern countries have been able to observe the process while assuming virtually no responsibility.[iv] Moreover, the rise of anti-immigration rhetoric in the domestic politics of certain member states has led these countries to distance themselves from EU-level solidarity efforts. For instance, Hungary and Poland firmly rejected participation in the refugee relocation quotas agreed upon in 2015. By refusing to accept even a single asylum seeker, they effectively undermined the collective burden-sharing initiative.[v]This stance has led to a serious rift within the European Union.
In the early stages of the migration crisis, some countries such as Germany and Sweden opened their doors and accepted many refugees. However, in the following years, they adopted stricter measures to prevent secondary movements, whereby asylum seekers leave the first EU country they entered and move to another member state. These countries began strictly enforcing the Dublin rules, focusing on returning asylum seekers to the member state where they were first registered. While countries like Germany temporarily suspended returns from Greece (following the M.S.S. judgment), they have pursued legal avenues to prevent asylum seekers arriving via Italy or Spain from remaining on their territory. This reveals a contradiction: instead of developing collective solutions, powerful EU countries have sought to shift the burden back onto the border states by making strategic use of existing legal frameworks.
The mandatory quota system, which aimed to ensure a more equitable distribution of asylum seekers among EU member states, could not be fully implemented due to resistance from the Visegrád Group countries: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Governments in countries like Poland and Hungary, responding to domestic opposition, have rejected any form of “imposed” burden-sharing mechanism and have instead insisted on the return of asylum seekers to the first country of entry. Practices such as forced deportations and penal measures against migrants who leave their initial country are also reflections of this double standard. As a result, this prevailing stance among certain European states fosters political mistrust within the Union. It undermines the credibility of the EU’s proclaimed commitment to “common values”, a foundational element of its identity.
The current functioning of the Dublin System exposes both the structural and normative deadlocks of the EU. The “first country of entry” rule, instead of fostering a collective response to the migration crisis, has created a burden-sharing arrangement that destabilizes a handful of border states. This has also undermined the credibility of European values. While asylum seekers have been reduced to mere subjects of legal procedures and political bargaining, the core principle of ensuring protection in line with human dignity has been pushed aside. In this context, the EU’s reform efforts remain limited to technical adjustments, repacking structural injustice rather than eliminating it.
While mandatory relocation plans lack political backing, the acceleration of border procedures primarily serves as a deterrent. A genuine reform can only be realized by abandoning inequality-producing rules such as the “first country of entry” principle. Unless a sincere culture of solidarity takes root in Europe’s migration policy, the system will continue prioritizing security at the expense of human dignity. These dynamic burdens border countries and undermine the European project in the long run. The EU’s founding values, solidarity, equality, and shared responsibility are being eroded, particularly by the pragmatic interests of economically and politically powerful member states. These principles are being redefined through a growing “us versus them” mentality. Such an approach structurally destabilizes frontline states and weakens the Union itself. European integration cannot be sustained in an environment where all member states do not uphold these core values equally.
[i] “EU: Dublin III Regulation fails asylum seekers”, Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/eu-dublin-iii-regulation-asylum-system-reform/, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[ii] “Over one million sea arrivals reach Europe in 2015”, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/over-one-million-sea-arrivals-reach-europe-2015 (Date Received: 18.07.2025).
[iii] “EU support for migration management in Greece and Italy – Special Report 24/2019”, European Court of Auditors, https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/migration-24-2019/en/, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[iv] “EU: Dublin III Regulation fails asylum seekers”, Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/eu-dublin-iii-regulation-asylum-system-reform/, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[v] Jennifer Rankin, “EU court rules three countries broke law over refugee quotas”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/apr/02/eu-court-rules-three-countries-czech-republic-hungary-poland-broke-law-over-refugee-quotas, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
