The actions of the European Union during migration crises have always been questioned, especially when it affected broader security and social aspects, and when strongly opposing opinions of the European Union member states and their leaders were exposed. The idea of full implementation of European legislation in all member states also proved to be unfeasible during the 2015 migration crisis, because it allowed for individual interpretation of the asylum legislation. This led to large differences in the acceptance of asylum seekers and the handling of their applications between the target countries and those that managed to avoid it. The aim of the thesis is to explain, why the selected Member States have acted in different ways in receiving asylum seekers and what has contributed to this performance. In the case of the four selected countries - Germany, Sweden, France and Hungary, the analysis shows that EU Member States do not implement Dublin III uniformly in their national legal order and do not follow the hierarchy of criteria determining the country responsible for examining an application. The analysis also shows that the performance of EU MS during the 2015 migration crisis depended on the number of asylum seekers, their geographical location and the consistency of European legislation with national law.
|
