Brussels: The Pact on Migration and Asylum has been applicable since 12 June 2026, and a new ECRE policy note published this month suggests that its safeguards are proving harder to operate than to legislate. The evidence from the Pact on Migration and Asylum points to uneven screening, contested border procedures and national monitoring bodies that exist on paper before they exist in practice.

What the Pact on Migration and Asylum changed in June

Most of the Pact on Migration and Asylum sits in regulations that apply directly, yet several provisions leave room for national rules. That mix explains much of the patchwork now visible. The Commission launched the first Annual Migration Management Cycle on 11 November 2025, and the Council adopted the implementing decision creating the Solidarity Pool on 22 December 2025.

The Commission then identified Cyprus, Spain, Greece and Italy as states under migratory pressure. In its July evaluation of Dublin shortcomings, it raised no particular concerns about Cyprus or Spain, while Greece and Italy need further monitoring, not least because Italy has refused to accept transfers. In July it also opened infringement procedures against 16 member states that had not notified national measures transposing the recast Reception Conditions Directive.

Is screening identifying vulnerable applicants?

Screening is the first test of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, and early national reports are mixed. In Ireland, about 1,100 applications had been processed under the new framework by August 2026, and civil society reports fewer applicants being identified as vulnerable than before the Pact. In Italy, field research found difficulties in spotting vulnerabilities during screening, and in the Netherlands the forms reportedly concentrate on clearly visible vulnerabilities.

The common thread is that hidden needs, such as trauma or health conditions that are not apparent at first sight, are the easiest to miss in a fast procedure. The Pact relies on screening to route people correctly, so errors made at this stage can follow an applicant through the entire process.

Where independent monitoring is still missing

The Pact on Migration and Asylum requires national mechanisms to monitor fundamental rights during screening. The Fundamental Rights Agency noted in July 2026 that most member states had embedded such monitoring in law or assigned the role to existing institutions. That did not guarantee operational monitoring when screening began.

The gaps are specific. Italy had not established its mechanism at the time of writing, and Malta’s Parliamentary Ombudsman had not been informed of its national arrangement. Sweden’s designated body has questioned its own suitability, and Poland and Portugal have not operationalised or funded their Ombudsman roles. Bulgaria’s Ombudsman is expected to monitor screening, but the legal basis and funding are reportedly missing.

Border procedures and detention in the courts

Judges are now testing the Pact on Migration and Asylum itself. Austria’s Federal Administrative Court ruled in June and August 2026 that holding border-procedure applicants in an airport transit area under a non-appealable order was incompatible with safeguards on freedom of movement. In Italy, the Civil Court of Palermo suspended or revoked residence obligations in border procedures where vulnerability assessments or information were inadequate, and litigation in Trieste asks whether an area at the Slovenian internal border can count as a transit zone.

On detention, Dutch courts have referred a case to the Court of Justice on whether automatic detention in border procedures respects the duty to consider less restrictive alternatives. Lithuania’s Supreme Administrative Court held that an entry ban does not by itself justify detention. In France, the National Assembly’s Law Committee rejected the government’s enabling bill, leaving provisions that need legislation, including border procedures, unimplemented.

What the Ceuta episode revealed about crisis tools

The August events in Ceuta offered a live test of the crisis machinery under the Pact on Migration and Asylum. The response relied mainly on national measures, and Spain did not invoke the Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation. Hundreds of people reportedly could not register asylum applications for weeks, and Spain has since presented a draft law that includes non-mandatory grounds for border procedures and longer periods of deprivation of liberty.

What happens next

A final Commission assessment on Dublin is expected this October, alongside the second Annual Asylum and Migration Report. Those documents will show whether Brussels treats the monitoring gaps as teething problems or as grounds for enforcement. For the Pact on Migration and Asylum, credibility will depend less on the text adopted in 2024 than on whether independent monitors, funded and operational, are in place before the next pressure episode.