How does Denmark compare to other EU countries in asylum approvals?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Denmark’s asylum recognition rate is higher than the EU average on headline measures, but that advantage reflects a mix of few unfounded applications, a large share of resettlement and family-reunification cases, and deliberate political choices to reduce arrivals rather than a broadly more permissive adjudication regime [1] [2] [3]. At the same time Denmark handles far fewer claims per capita than many member states and has legislated to externalise and tighten asylum pathways—factors that complicate simple “higher or lower” comparisons with EU counterparts [2] [4] [5].
1. Recognition rates: Denmark appears higher than the EU average, but context matters
Refugee advocacy data report Denmark’s total recognition (or “recognition rate in total”) at 58% for the first ten months of 2025, a figure that on the face of it exceeds recent EU-wide positive decision rates (Denmark 58% vs EU-level positive decisions around 43% in 2023 and roughly 43% of first-instance decisions in mid‑2025 quarters) [1] [6] [7]. However, Danish NGOs and analysts emphasize that the Danish rate includes resettlement refugees and “remote registrations” (people already holding a legal permit) and that the small number of applicants from “safe” countries inflates the proportion of positive outcomes compared with EU averages where more unfounded claims are registered [1] [2] [8].
2. Composition of applicants drives outcomes: nationality and pathway matter
A key reason Denmark’s recognition percent looks favorable is that many applicants there are Syrians, Eritreans or people arriving through family reunification or special evacuation schemes—groups who generally receive protection across Europe—while fewer applicants from nationalities that face low grant rates (e.g., some Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans, Somalis) arrive in Denmark [1] [8]. The Danish services themselves note that the nationality mix and the use (or non‑use) of national humanitarian protection categories influence cross‑country comparisons because Denmark makes little use of national humanitarian leave compared with some other EU states [1] [8].
3. Volume, per capita position and processing: Denmark is a low‑volume jurisdiction
Absolute and per‑capita flows are low in Denmark compared with many EU states: Denmark ranked 23rd for asylum seekers per capita in recent reporting and registered only 1,656 asylum applications in the first ten months of 2025 (including 273 remote registrations), with July 2025 monthly counts around 175 first‑time applicants—numbers that are small relative to frontline states such as Greece, Italy, Spain, France and Germany [2] [9] [10]. Eurostat’s EU data show much larger decision volumes across the bloc—hundreds of thousands annually—so Denmark’s higher recognition percentage is achieved in a very different operational scale [6] [7].
4. Policy choices: law and politics shape approvals as much as adjudication
Denmark has pursued a conscious political project to reduce asylum numbers, including the 2019 “Paradigm Shift” legislation, laws to allow transfer of asylum seekers to third countries, and rhetoric of reducing asylum to “zero,” all of which coincide with historically low approved numbers reported by the Danish government in 2024–25 [4] [3]. Independent briefings note Denmark has a below‑average rate of asylum claims among EU countries—an outcome of policy measures that affect who gets to apply and how many applications enter the Danish system, thereby shaping approval statistics [5].
5. How to read the comparison: avoid raw‑percentage myopia
A fair comparison requires disaggregating first‑instance grants, types of protection (refugee status vs subsidiary or national humanitarian protection), applicant nationality, resettlement and family‑reunification inflows, and claim volumes per capita; Denmark scores more positively on headline grant percentages largely because of those compositional factors and restrictive admission/policy choices rather than because Danish adjudicators are uniformly more generous than counterparts elsewhere [1] [8] [2]. Available sources do not allow a single definitive ranking across all possible metrics—some data gaps and methodological differences remain in Eurostat and national reporting—so conclusions should be framed around these nuances rather than a binary “more approvals” verdict [6] [7].