Asylum statistics and the need for protection in Europe: Updated Factsheet

ECRE has published an updated factsheet in which it examines the reliability of asylum statistics. It is intended is to illustrate how the careless use of statistics can distort the real protection needs in Europe.

1. What’s wrong with the way that statistics about protection in Europe are presented? 

• Exclusive focus on first instance decisions

Although the overall first instance protection rate did decrease in 2025 (largely due to the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the subsequent reduction in the number of applications and protection decisions regarding Syrian nationals), it was still almost 40%*.

It is important to bear in mind that the first instance protection rate only denotes the percentage of decisions taken at first instance. In 2025, more than 25% of negative decisions were overturned on appeal and protection status was granted in the second instance.

Presenting protection rates without including second instance outcomes is incomplete and inaccurate. As with any other area of law, the legal process is not complete until all available remedies have been exhausted.

Recommendation: Second instance decisions should be included in presentations of protection rates.

* This includes decisions to grant refugee status, subsidiary protection and humanitarian status.

• Exclusive focus on international protection decisions

Discussions on protection needs are often limited to numbers of decisions granting international protection (i.e. refugee status or subsidiary protection) and numbers of rejection decisions. Decisions on granting humanitarian protection are frequently excluded. This approach is reflected in the Pact on Migration and Asylum (‘the Pact’) and the 20% threshold established to channel applicants into border- and/or accelerated procedures.

Humanitarian protection is a national form of protection which is not harmonised at the EU level and does not exist in all EU member states (MS). However, it can have a significant impact on protection rates. For example, Spain’s protection rate in 2025 was 51% but it would only have been 12% – far below the EU average – if humanitarian protection had not been included.

Recommendation: Humanitarian protection should be included in presentations of protection rates.

• Inclusion of inadmissibility decisions in rejection decisions 

Protection rates are often calculated using the total number of rejection decisions, regardless of the grounds for rejection. They can include applicants who have received inadmissibility decisions because they are beneficiaries of international protection in another EU MS or because they are deemed to have a sufficient link with a safe third country. As such, a rejection decision does not necessarily mean that an asylum applicant does not have protection needs.

The extent to which the inclusion of admissibility decisions in rejection decisions affects the protection rate varies between countries. In 2025, inadmissibility decisions accounted for 40% of total rejection decisions in Belgium, 31% in Slovakia, 26% in Austria and 24% in Greece.

Recommendation: Inadmissibility decisions should be presented separately from in-merit rejection decisions.

• Inclusion of decisions to discontinue procedures in rejection decisions 

Asylum applications that are withdrawn either at the applicant’s own request (explicit withdrawal) or because the relevant authorities consider that the applicant has abandoned their application (implicit withdrawal) are sometimes counted towards negative decisions even though they have not been assessed on the merits. In Poland, 42% of rejection decisions in 2025 were decisions to discontinue procedures.

The impact of the inclusion of discontinuation decisions in rejection decisions is likely to increase following the entry into application of the Pact in June 2026 as the grounds for implicit withdrawals have been significantly expanded, including to cover cases in which applicants did not necessarily intend to withdraw their applications. The Pact also requires authorities to reject applications that they deem to have been implicitly withdrawn, rather than to discontinue the assessment. This means that new applications will be treated as subsequent applications and more decisions to discontinue procedures will end up being presented as rejection decisions.

Recommendation: Grounds for rejecting applications because they are deemed to have been implicitly withdrawn should be applied sparingly. Rejection decisions based on explicit or implicit withdrawal should be presented separately from in-merit rejection decisions.

2. What’s wrong with relying on EU-wide asylum statistics?

• Lack of harmonisation and variable decision-making

The value of using the overall protection rate as a measurement of protection needs in Europe is also limited by variations in decision-making between countries. National protection rates have varied widely between European countries for many years. Depending on where they apply, the same asylum applicant may be granted any of the three protection types, receive a negative decision based on the merits or have their application rejected on inadmissibility grounds. For example, whilst the overall protection rate for Afghan nationals in 2025 was 73%, national protection rates varied between 0% and 100% (43% to 98% in countries in which  at least 1,000 decisions were made).

See also