Main Debate

  • Efficient v. fair procedures

Main Points

  • Contrast between UNHCR and EU definition of ‘manifestly unfounded’ claims
  • Abridged safeguards
  • Shifts in the standard and burden proof
  • Procedural and formal grounds (as opposed to grounds related to the merits) for channelling claims into accelerated procedures

EU Documents

  1. Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), OJ L 180/60, 26 June 2013.
  2. Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, OJ 326 13, 13 December 2005, Arts. 23, 28, 34, 35, 39. (No longer in force, repealed by Directive 2013/32/EU)
  3. Council Resolution of 20 June 1995 on Minimum Guarantees for Asylum Procedures, OJ 274 13, 20 June 1995.
  4. Resolution on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum ("London Resolution"), The Council, Conclusions of the Meeting of the Ministers responsible for Immigration Doc. 10579/92 IMMIG (London 30 November – 1 December 1992).

UNHCR Documents

  1. UNHCR, ExCom, Conclusion No. 30 (XXXIV), ‘The Problem of Manifestly Unfounded or Abusive Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum’, 1983.
  2. UNHCR, ExCom, Conclusion No. 8 (XXVIII), ‘Determination of Refugee Status’, 12 October 1977.
  3. UNHCR, ‘Position on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum’, 3rd International Symposium on the Protection of Refugees in Central Europe (Geneva: UNHCR, 1997), pp. 397–399.
  4. UNHCR, ’An Overview of Protection Issues in Europe: Legislative Trends and Positions Taken by UNHCR’, vol. 1, no. 3, European Series (Geneva: UNHCR, 1995).

See also UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures, March 2010.


  1. Brahim Samba Diouf v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration, C-69/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 27 July 2011.

See also H.I.D. and B. A. in Section VI.2.4.3.



  1. S. Mullally, Manifestly Unjust: A Report on the Fairness and Sustainability of Accelerated Procedures for Asylum Determination (September 2001), pp. 59–65.
  2. S. Oakley, ‘Accelerated Procedures for Asylum in the European Union: Fairness Versus Efficiency’, Sussex Migration Working Paper no. 43, April 2007.
  3. P. Van Cleyenbreugel, ‘Case C-69/10, Brahim Samba Diouf v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’ immigration, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011’, Common Market Law Review, vol. 49, no. 1 (2012), pp. 327-347.


  1. R. Byrne, ‘Future Perspectives: Accession and Asylum in an Expanded European Union Manifestly Unfounded Claims’, in R. Byrne, G. Noll, and J. Vedsted-Hansen (eds), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union (The Netherlands: Kluwer International Law, 2002), pp. 403–408.

Editor’s Note

A discussion of accelerated and manifestly unfounded procedures should also consider their relationship to the notions of safe third country and safe country of origin. A consideration of procedural safeguards should consider issues such as, inter alia, legal representation, oral hearings, and appeals, with and without, suspensive effect.

 VI. Accelerated and Manifestly Unfounded ProceduresVI. Accelerated and Manifestly Unfounded Procedures

EU DocumentsEU Documents

UNHCR DocumentsUNHCR Documents