Sweden slashes legal aid for asylum seekers, drawing criticism

Sweden is set to implement new regulations that drastically curtail legal support for asylum seekers, a move drawing sharp criticism from human rights organizations and legal experts. Effective Sunday, asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors, will transition from comprehensive legal assistance throughout their application process to a mere two hours of general legal consultation, with a potential for three hours in specific cases.

“

A key right has been significantly weakened for the individual.

Previously, legal representatives guided asylum seekers through their entire case with the Migration Agency, helping them articulate their asylum claims and identify crucial circumstances. This support was provided free of charge. However, the new rules, which align Sweden with the European Union's minimum standards for legal aid in asylum cases, mean that legal representatives will no longer be able to delve deeply into individual cases. "You are supposed to get all this information, but you have no one to legally help you handle the questions," stated Karin Ödquist Drackner, an expert in migration law at the Swedish Red Cross. "This risks leading to asylum seekers having a harder time presenting their needs for protection."

“

You are supposed to get all this information, but you have no one to legally help you handle the questions. This risks leading to asylum seekers having a harder time presenting their needs for protection.

Legal professionals are voicing strong opposition. Experienced lawyers report that public representation typically required between 10 to 13 hours per case. The Swedish Bar Association has warned the government that the new limitations make it impossible for lawyers to take on these cases, with many already declining new assignments. "If we are not allowed to provide case- and client-specific advice, it has no real meaning, because the process will not be fair and just," said Sait Umdi, a lawyer and member of the Bar Association.

“

If we are not allowed to provide case- and client-specific advice, it has no real meaning, because the process will not be fair and just.

Conversely, proponents of the change argue it is necessary to curb potential misuse of the system. Ludvig Aspling of the Sweden Democrats, who voted in favor of the amendment, believes the extensive legal support is unnecessary, citing the Migration Agency's own investigative obligations. "All of this is completely unnecessary. What these lawyers do is guide people on how to abuse the system," Aspling asserted. The government maintains that aligning with the EU's minimum requirements prevents Sweden from becoming a disproportionately attractive destination for asylum seekers.

“

All of this is completely unnecessary. What these lawyers do is guide people on how to abuse the system.