5.1. Implementing Pact provisions in reception systems

5.1. Implementing Pact provisions in reception systems

In 2025, EU+ countries focused on preparations to transpose the 2024 RCD into national law by the 12 June 2026 deadline, in addition to adapt to other regulations with an impact on reception, such as the AMMR and the APR. To this end, many Member States needed to adjust reception conditions and address gaps in reception capacity, including for applicants in the border procedure as envisaged in the APR. Most Member States adopted national contingency plans which included specific measures for the reception of applicants and covered different scenarios of pressure.242 The first iteration of the Annual Migration Management Cycle contributed to higher-quality data on reception systems across EU+ countries. While gaps and comparability constraints persist, efforts to further enhance reception-related data continue.243

Throughout the year, many Member States undertook organisational reforms, as defined in their national implementation plans. Most EU+ countries also began developing legislative amendments, although they had not yet reached the parliamentary stage.244 While meeting the transposition deadline remains challenging for some Member States,245 others such as Czechia246 have already enacted legislation that will come into force in June 2026.

Several EU+ countries are developing new reception strategies to reflect the new legislative framework and trends at the national level.247 Bulgaria, for example, is drafting its first reception strategy with support from the EUAA, while Czechia plans to address staffing and capacity constraints in housing, healthcare and integration services due to the relatively high number of temporary protection beneficiaries in the country. Similarly, Cyprus, Croatia,248 the Netherlands,249 Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain expanded or planned an increase in reception capacity or staff, either to manage foreseen demand or to establish buffer capacity to absorb potential surges in arrivals.

In parallel, a number of countries identified the need for centres for screening and to accommodate applicants undergoing the border procedure. Examples include the Pournara facility and the planned centre in Limnes, Cyprus;250 the Dugi Dol centre and a projected multifunctional facility in Croatia;251 and plans to repurpose or build new centres252 in France, Iceland,253 Ireland,254 Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.255

Operational needs spurred changes to case management and IT systems.256 Austria, Croatia, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain and Slovenia are adapting the IT infrastructure in their reception systems. Belgium is shifting from a place-based to a person-based system to better support applicants. In mid-2025, Estonia’s Social Services and Benefits Data Register introduced a new digital case management tool,257 and Lithuania’s reception agency was granted access to MIGRIS, an IT system managed by the Migration Department. Additionally, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are developing tools to improve data collection and to track and manage reception capacity, while Portugal is transitioning to an integrated case management approach and Slovakia is digitising its reception management system and plans on procuring new IT solutions for translation services.

EU+ countries have long been faced with the impact of secondary movements on reception.258 Thus, several Member States continued or launched new initiatives to address this occurrence, for example by making changes to reception conditions, in line with Article 21 of the 2024 RCD and Article 18 of the AMMR. These provisions stipulate that applicants who have been notified of a transfer decision to the Member State responsible are no longer entitled to reception conditions, while retaining the right to a standard of living in accordance with EU law. In this context, Germany adopted legislation allowing federal states to establish secondary migration centres for individuals awaiting a transfer and granting authorities greater discretion to impose measures to ensure compliance. Similarly, France and the Netherlands planned or piloted revised reception arrangements for applicants with a Dublin claim following a transfer decision.