4.2.1. Adapting the organisation of courts and tribunals

4.2.1. Adapting the organisation of courts and tribunals

Several EU+ countries introduced institutional changes within appeals bodies in an effort to increase efficiency. Appeals bodies were decentralised in France  and Lithuania,198 and panels were reduced to a single judge as a main rule in France199 and Germany,200 while maintaining collegiality for complex cases. In France, the changes aim to bring the appeal body closer to the applicant and to meet the objective of equal treatment for all applicants, regardless of where they live in France. The authorities noted that this may also allow for a diversification of available lawyers, beyond the Paris area. France terre d’asile provided comments on the changes, which are not implemented yet.201 

The higher number of cases pending on an appeal prompted courts to shift staff and processing capacity. As the Directorate of Immigration in Iceland cleared its backlog of applications lodged by Venezuelan nationals, a backlog was created in appeals. The Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) hired more lawyers and case officers to reduce the case load. Belgium and Ireland also recruited staff or assigned judges and legal professionals from other areas to asylum cases. The re-assignments entailed the need for swift training, and a specific training programme was developed by CALL in Belgium for this purpose, while an online induction video was being developed in Ireland.

The competence of courts in asylum cases shifted in some countries. In Belgium, the competence of CALL was extended due to the introduction of a procedure to apply for a residence permit based on statelessness. It now covers annulment appeals without a suspensive effect which were lodged against a negative decision on requests for residence due to statelessness.202  

New legislation in Italy brought changes to the competence of courts of appeals concerning border procedures and detention. A second appeal before the courts was introduced for decisions pronounced in the accelerated border procedure.203 In addition, the validation of detention measures was changed, giving courts of appeals competence for the judicial validation of detention measures.204