Sweden’s plans to implement a new EU migration and asylum pact are facing criticism from within, as the country’s Discrimination Ombudsman (DO) warns the proposed changes could compromise the rights of asylum seekers. The DO issued its assessment January 7, raising concerns about possibly discriminatory outcomes and limited access to due process under the expedited system here. the debate highlights the challenges European nations face in balancing EU policy obligations with national human rights commitments, particularly as arrivals continue across the bloc.
Sweden’s Discrimination Ombudsman (DO) has raised serious concerns that proposed changes to the country’s asylum process, designed to implement the European Union’s new migration and asylum pact, could lead to widespread discrimination and limit access to fundamental rights for those seeking protection. The warning comes as Sweden prepares to integrate the EU agreement into its national laws.
The DO’s assessment, issued January 7, centers on a government proposal (Ds 2025:30) intended to adopt the least restrictive interpretation of EU law. However, Ombudsman Lars Arrhenius argues that the combined effect of the proposed changes creates significant risks.
“The DO sees major risks that the new, expedited asylum process will be unfair and standardized,” Arrhenius said. “This will primarily affect particularly vulnerable individuals who risk being discriminated against. The proposal also means that many more asylum seekers than today will be placed in detention-like environments simply because they are seeking asylum.”
A key concern is the potential erosion of due process. The DO’s review indicates the proposed legislation significantly restricts the right to appeal decisions, in some cases eliminating it entirely or drastically shortening appeal timelines. These limitations are coupled with reduced access to legal representation, raising questions about the fairness of the proceedings.
The DO also criticized the government’s impact assessment, finding it lacking in crucial areas. Specifically, the assessment fails to adequately analyze how discrimination based on ethnicity might intersect with other forms of discrimination, hindering a comprehensive evaluation of the potential risks to individuals. Without such an analysis, the DO argues, it’s impossible to fully assess whether the proposals align with Sweden’s international human rights obligations.
“Given the short consultation period in this case, it has also not been possible for the DO, or for other relevant authorities or organizations in civil society, to contribute their knowledge in a way that compensates for the lack of impact analysis in these areas,” Arrhenius stated.
The proposals, according to the DO, pose substantial risks of discrimination, making robust oversight essential. The agency is urging the government to swiftly implement previously proposed amendments to the Discrimination Act to expand the DO’s supervisory powers to include public entities like the Swedish Migration Agency and the Police Authority. This move would allow for independent monitoring and a mechanism for individuals to report instances of discrimination.
The case underscores the challenges of implementing EU-wide migration policies at the national level while upholding human rights standards. Readers can access the full response from the Discrimination Ombudsman here.
