Refugee policy as a test for European integration: how Ukraine and other candidate countries pass it

It is precisely this aspect that is analysed in the new report by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), ‘Asylum and Forced Displacement in the EU Enlargement Process’, which examines asylum policy in the context of EU enlargement. It examines how Ukrainians are being received in Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia and Moldova, as well as what fate awaits asylum seekers in Ukraine itself.

Socportal publishes an abridged summary of the report’s findings.

Ukrainian refugees in EU candidate countries: between protection and weak systems

Since 24 February 2022, millions of Ukrainians have found themselves in EU countries and neighbouring states in search of temporary protection. Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Romania and other countries have granted access to basic rights – education, healthcare and the labour market. At the same time, the experiences of Ukrainians in non-EU countries or EU candidate countries reveal another side to the protection system – its inconsistency and dependence on the institutional capacity of the states concerned.

• Albania

In Albania, the number of asylum applications remains relatively low, yet access to effective appeals against negative decisions is limited. Only a small proportion of applicants reach the appeal stage. This highlights the gap between the formal right to protection and actual access to legal mechanisms.

• Kosovo

The asylum system remains administratively weak, with limited resources to support applicants. The main challenges are the language barrier, a lack of legal aid, and insufficient institutional capacity to work with vulnerable groups.

• North Macedonia

Despite the existence of a legislative framework, asylum seekers are often unable to exercise their right to work due to the absence of a procedure for issuing tax identification numbers to foreign nationals. Without these, it is impossible to open a bank account or take up formal employment, which effectively blocks integration.

• Serbia

Serbia is seeing an increase in labour migration and, at the same time, risks of exploitation. The number of foreign workers is rising, but at the same time there are reports of human trafficking, debt bondage and ‘informal’ employment, where a worker’s status does not guarantee protection.

• Moldova

Moldova has taken in a significant number of Ukrainians, yet their employment rate remains low. The main barriers are the language, the slow recognition of qualifications, and limited access to integration programmes. Some children remain in the online education system of Ukrainian schools or other educational institutions, which, whilst maintaining a link with their homeland, complicates their integration into the local system.

In all these cases, a common problem is evident: the mere existence of procedures does not guarantee real access to protection, work, and education.

Ukraine as a candidate country: the asylum system under European scrutiny

The European Union regards Ukraine not only as a country of origin for refugees, but also as a candidate country that must meet EU standards in the field of asylum. The section of the report on Ukraine, prepared by the ‘Right to Protection’ (R2P) Foundation, identifies a number of systemic problems in this area.

• Limited civil society involvement

Since 2022, dialogue between the state and civil society organisations has weakened significantly. The Public Council attached to the State Migration Service effectively operates on an irregular basis, and public consultations are held only sporadically. This means a reduction in external oversight of a system that deals with the most vulnerable people.

• Access to the asylum procedure

The most serious problem remains initial access to the application process. Formally, a foreign national or stateless person has the right to apply to the State Migration Service; however, in practice, applications are often not accepted. Instead of written decisions, applicants receive verbal rejections, which cannot be appealed. In many cases, this is attributed to martial law, although Ukrainian legislation does not restrict the right to seek protection even under such conditions.

• The problem of interpreting international standards

The report specifically mentions the incorrect application of the UNHCR’s position regarding Ukraine as a ‘dangerous country of origin’. This approach was intended to protect Ukrainians abroad, not to restrict access to asylum within Ukraine itself. The key problem is that, until an application is lodged, a person is effectively not part of the legal process. This creates a situation where:

• there is no official decision;
• there are no grounds for appeal;
• the only recourse is the courts.

Although Ukrainian courts often prove to be an effective mechanism for protection, for the applicant, this is a complex, lengthy, and resource-intensive procedure. The report also highlights the broad powers of the State Migration Service, which simultaneously:

• decides on status,
• monitors,
• enforces coercive measures,
• examines asylum applications.

As the report notes, this concentration of powers creates risks of excessive administrative discretion and weak external oversight. Following legislative changes in 2023, expulsion decisions no longer require mandatory judicial approval. This has altered the balance of checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches.

In practice, this leads to a perfunctory examination of removal cases without a thorough assessment of individual risks, including the principle of non-refoulement. Despite the formal right to free legal aid, actual access remains limited.

Short time limits for appealing decisions and delays in appointing lawyers mean that, whilst the right exists, it cannot be exercised in time.

The colonial past. Why context matters

At the same time, Socportal notes that it should be borne in mind that most EU states have been shaping their migration policies over decades — often against a backdrop of an imperial or colonial past and a constant need for labour migration. This has made their systems more structured and institutionally stable.

By contrast, the Balkan countries, Moldova, and Ukraine have long remained predominantly countries of emigration rather than immigration. They have had neither extensive experience of receiving migrants nor well-developed integration institutions.

This does not mean that criticism of their systems is misplaced. But it must take into account the unequal starting points and the need for support from the European Union. The ECRE report shows that European integration is a test of a state’s administrative capacity. Both Ukraine and other candidate countries are undergoing this test alongside the EU, which expects them to meet high standards in the areas of human rights and asylum.

The key question is not only whether these systems meet the standards, but also how the EU is helping them to achieve these standards, given their unequal historical and institutional starting points.

Socportal previously reported on a new study concerning Ukrainian migrants, which reveals exactly who has left, how Ukrainians are integrating in Europe, and what might influence people’s decision to return home. It also looked at what the state can do to facilitate this and whether those who have become part of the Ukrainian diaspora abroad are helping the country.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel so you don’t miss new videos on pressing social issues. Read all about migration in the ‘Social’ section on Socportal. Join the “What’s up with social issues?” channel on Viber or Telegram. Got a specific question? Get in touch with SocGPT!