# EUR-Lex - 52011DC0835 - EN

*|*

# 52011DC0835

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylumAn EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust /* COM/2011/0835 final */**

			*

			*

Introduction

Solidarity is one of the fundamental values
of the European Union and has been a guiding principle of the common European
asylum policy since the start of its development in 1999. It is now enshrined
in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.[1]

Solidarity has been recognised as an
essential component of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) since
the outset. The need to translate solidarity into concrete measures flows from
practical realities since the asylum systems of all Member States are
interdependent. An overburdened or malfunctioning system in one Member State
has a clear impact on all the others, including through secondary movements.
Asylum flows are not constant, nor are they evenly distributed
across the EU. They have varied from a peak of 425 000 applications
for EU-27 States in 2001 down to under 200 000 in 2006, with a large
increase expected this year. Increased asylum flows can stretch the capacity of
some Member States to cope. It is the Union's responsibility to assist these
Member States, also in order to uphold the Union's common values and
fundamental rights by ensuring adequate reception of asylum seekers and
refugees and access to protection.

However, solidarity must be coupled with
responsibility. Member States must ensure that their systems are able to meet
the standards set in international and European law, notably the 1951 Geneva
Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the EU. The need to keep one's house in order to
avoid impacts on other Member States is a key aspect of solidarity. This aspect
also needs to be enhanced in order to create an environment of mutual trust,
contributing to further development of mutual assistance. It is fundamental
to increase trust to strengthen solidarity. Implementing the principle of
solidarity requires a real commitment by Member States. The tough economic
situation for the EU and its Member States makes this even more demanding. The
EU has already developed a series of solidarity tools that constitute a solid
basis. Each can be improved and new components can be established to provide a
flexible toolbox responding to different solidarity needs.

To this end, the Commission proposes
reinforcing intra-EU solidarity on asylum around four axes: practical
cooperation and technical assistance, financial solidarity, allocation of
responsibilities, and improving tools for governance of the asylum system. This
Communication also aims to contribute to the finalisation of the "asylum
package" given that the next few months will be crucial for reaching the
2012 objective for which the solidarity dimension must play its part.

1.
Realising the full potential of practical
cooperation and technical assistance
1.1.
Making practical cooperation a constitutive
pillar of the CEAS

Many practical cooperation measures have
been undertaken in recent years, latest through the creation of the European
Asylum Support Office (EASO), which will further strengthen practical cooperation
in the field of asylum. The support office will ensure that practical
cooperation can become a major supporting pillar to the asylum system of the
Union. Initial experience of the CEAS has shown that
practical action is a necessary complement to legislation to create confidence
that all Member States perform the same tasks in a similar way with similar
outcomes.

The EASO was inaugurated in June 2011. It
will provide a structure to add value to existing cooperation arrangements. For example, the European Asylum Curriculum has the potential to
become a common standard for caseworkers across the EU, significantly enhancing
trust that practices across Member States are much the same and that decisions
taken follow a consistent pattern. The EASO should measure the impact of these
measures through specific, Union-wide objectives.

Asylum systems will improve through an
interaction between EU legislation, an enhanced practical cooperation
and an intelligent use of EU funding mechanisms. As the Union pursues the adoption
of more harmonised and improved common standards by adopting the asylum
legislative package, Member States will have better common implementation tools
at their disposal, which are provided by the support office's activities that
will support national cost-reduction efforts. The EASO will also be able to
identify and disseminate best practice in aspects such as access to procedure,
dealing with the most vulnerable applicants, sharing techniques and managing
backlogs. Common tools and best practices, supported by EU funds, will help
Member States implement the evolving common standards. The EASO will also
usefully contribute to transparent and strategic management of the CEAS,
including by issuing its annual report on the state of asylum in the Union.

The impact of the EASO will depend on the
Member States’ willingness to use the possibilities it offers and on their
commitment to engage in such collaboration. It will be necessary to set up a
regular practice of European collaboration between national asylum authorities.

One of the common tools that the EASO needs
to investigate, as invited by the Stockholm Programme, are procedures
facilitating the secondment of officials between Member States to help Member
States that face particular pressures. To this end, the EASO should create a
pool of experts, case workers and interpreters who could be mobilised at short
notice in order to provide assistance to a Member State in need.

It will be necessary to regularly review
whether the mandate and the legal basis of the EASO are adequate to respond
to the different challenges of solidarity be it short-term or structural, and
to new forms of asylum flows.

1.2.
Filling the international protection gap in the
Union’s reaction to migration and asylum crises

The EASO’s role is also to assist Member
States that face particular pressure. When translated into specific action, the
EASO can become a key actor in managing asylum and migration emergencies. Being
able to deploy EASO Asylum Support Teams based on
operating plans in requesting Member States will be a new asset for solidarity
in the field of asylum.

Lessons should be learned from the Union’s
response to the migratory consequences of events in the Southern Mediterranean.
The Union was rapidly able to identify additional financial resources to assist
the affected Member States, and deploy operational means coordinated by Frontex
for border control operations, which also aided maritime search and rescue
operations. Frontex assisted in the screening of the new arrivals and by providing
information. However, other operational solidarity measures specifically
relating to international protection could not be deployed, notably because the
EASO was not yet sufficiently operational.

As the EASO takes steps to ensure it is
ready to fill this gap in case of future needs, one of the essential aspects it
should consider is coordination with other Agencies. The EASO, Frontex, and
potentially Europol should make specific arrangements, together with the
Commission, to ensure there is clarity on the respective roles of each and to
ensure that emergency operating procedures are rapid and effective. Such
procedures could include the deployment of coordinated teams.

The need for cross-agency cooperation
applies equally to reacting to emergencies and to proactive work, such as risk
analysis and early warning capacity. In addition, the EASO should support the
integration of international protection aspects in the work of Frontex, in
light of recently agreed amendments to the Frontex legal base that strengthen
the mechanisms protecting fundamental rights in the context of Frontex
operations. This could also be done in collaboration with the Fundamental
Rights Agency.

During the recent events in the
Mediterranean, the Commission examined the possibility of using the Union’s
Civil Protection Mechanism to assist Member States facing exceptional migration
flows that overwhelm national response capacities. At the request of Member
States, the Mechanism could be used, under very specific conditions, to coordinate
the mapping of offers and delivery of in-kind support.

Key action points

¤    Member States to contribute to EASO's activities and assets and make best use of EASO mutual tools.

¤    Member States to set in early 2012 a quantitative target for their asylum officials to be trained using the European Asylum Curriculum by 2014.

¤    EASO to provide technical support to Member States in fully implementing the asylum legislation.

¤    EASO to review in 2012 procedures that will facilitate the secondment of officials to help Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems, and to create a pool of experts, case handlers and interpreters that can be mobilised at short notice in crisis situations.

¤    EASO to improve the efficiency of deployment of experts by evaluating Operating Plan methodology and the initial experience of Asylum Support Teams in Greece.

¤    The Commission to evaluate in 2013 the EASO’s impact on practical cooperation on asylum and on the CEAS and to propose possible additional measures deemed necessary to ensure effective solidarity and sharing of responsibilities.

¤    The EASO and Frontex to agree in 2012 clear cooperation arrangements to maximise analysis, technical assistance and deployment of means and experts to improve EU's capacity to act in emergency situations.

¤    The Commission and Member States to examine the use of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism in the event of exceptional migration flows that overwhelm national response capacities when specific conditions are met.

2.
Enhancing the added value of financial
solidarity instruments supporting asylum policy
2.1.
Maximising the use of the European Refugee Fund
until 2013

The European Refugee Fund (ERF) has
demonstrated how the Union and its Member States working together can create
significant added value. Since it was created in 2000, the Fund has helped
Member States to increase the capacity of their asylum systems. For example, it
helped Italy to put in place an asylum reception system. It assisted the
EU-10+2 Member States with less established tradition of providing asylum prior
to accession to further develop their systems. It has also allowed Member
States to initiate refugee integration policies and has contributed to
innovative projects. It inspired Member States to take on new activities
including resettlement and relocation. In recent years, it has provided
much-needed emergency assistance to Belgium, Greece, Italy, and Malta.

For the remaining two years of operation of
the ERF (2008-2013), Member States must ensure that they make full use of the
opportunities available under the Fund. This should start with complying with
all formal requirements so that all the funds can be disbursed. It is
especially important that Member States use the ERF to finance investment that
brings long-term benefits to their asylum systems. The Fund is not designed to
be simply a top up of national operating budgets for asylum. To this end, the Commission has recently encouraged Member States to make more
strategic use of the ERF in 2012 and 2013.

Ultimately, effective implementation of the
legislative package on asylum, coupled with innovative practical cooperation
projects, should reduce the costs of asylum processes. Asylum is a policy area
where investment yields longer-term savings, both financial and social. That is
why the ERF should be used in particular to support the
transposition and implementation of second-phase CEAS legislation.

2.2.
A more flexible, integrated and targeted Asylum
and Migration Fund from 2014 to 2020

From 2014, Member States will have a new
Asylum and Migration Fund[2]
(AMF) at their disposal. As proposed by the Commission on 15 November 2011,
it makes a number of important evolutionary improvements that should help
achieve EU policy objectives and generate more significant EU added value.

An important innovation is an overarching
home affairs policy dialogue with each Member State on their use of the new
Fund, which should precede multiannual programming. This dialogue would set the
objectives Member States seek to achieve in the policy area and the specific
objectives to be achieved using the Fund’s resources. This will be coupled with
annual reporting by Member States on implementation of the Fund.

In parallel, the new Fund will be more
flexible. Appropriations under direct responsibility of the Commission will be
treated as a single envelope, to be spent in light of policy developments or
the situation in Member States or third countries. The new Fund will also
better ensure that money goes where it is most needed. The criteria to use the
allocations by Member States are intended to be more targeted and are
designed to ensure solidarity with Member States under particular pressure, or
those with the greatest need to still develop capacity. The new Fund would be
able to take into account significant fluctuations in the number of asylum
seekers in Member States, including Dublin transferees, and allocate additional
resources to Member States in need at the mid-term review. A streamlined
management system is foreseen to reduce the administrative burden involved.

The Fund proposes giving a financial
incentive to Member States, similar to that currently used for the resettlement
of specific categories of refugees (vulnerable groups and persons  coming from
the Regional Protection Programmes), to compensate Member States that agree to
relocate beneficiaries of international protection from another Member State.

Finally, to use more effectively the
competence and expertise of the Union's home affairs agencies, the proposal
also envisages to make use of the possibility offered by the Financial
Regulation to entrust, within the resources available under the Fund, the
implementation of specific tasks to the agencies, in the framework of their
missions and in complementarity with their work programmes. This is without
prejudice to the overall staff reductions foreseen.

2.3.
Exploiting complementarities between financial
instruments for maximum impact

Financial solidarity for asylum purposes
may also benefit, both directly and indirectly, from other EU financial
instruments. For example, the European Social Fund provides assistance for
vocational training programmes that can assist asylum seekers and beneficiaries
of international protection to gain access to the labour market or to increase
their skill sets. Other Structural Funds, notably the European Regional
Development Fund, may also be used to assist eligible regions in Member States
to, for example, help build infrastructure such as accommodation centres.
Member States should therefore consider using other EU financial instruments in
a coordinated and comprehensive manner. This requires strategic programming and
robust inter-ministerial coordination.

Key action points

¤    Member States to make best use of the ERF 2011, 2012, 2013 programmes, including the emergency measures. In 2013, programming must be more strategically used, e.g. to support transposition and implementation of legislation adopted within the framework of the 2012 asylum package.

¤    Co-legislators to agree quickly on the MFF specific instruments supporting asylum policy presented by the Commission on 15 November 2011.

¤    Member States to ensure coordination and complementarity with other EU financial instruments to enhance their capacity to manage asylum flows.

3.
Engaging with the issue of allocation of
responsibilities
3.1.
The Dublin Regulation needs reform

The objective of the Dublin Regulation, to
assign responsibility for each asylum seeker to a Member State, remains at the core
of the CEAS. A mechanism for determining responsibility for asylum applications
remains necessary  to guarantee the right to an effective
access to the procedures for determining refugee status, without compromising
the objective of rapid processing of asylum applications, and preventing abuse by
the same person submitting multiple applications in several Member States.

The Dublin Regulation’s principles, which
the Commission proposed to keep in its 2008 proposal to revise the Regulation,
are not purely to return asylum seekers back to the State of first entry.
Several clauses temper this criterion. In certain situations, Dublin transfers
could contribute to overstretching the capacity of a Member State under
pressure, to the detriment not only of that Member State, but also of the
rights of applicants.

The evolving case-law has posed fundamental
questions about how to effectively operate the Dublin system in all
circumstances and to ensure that measures taken in the application of the
Dublin Regulation fully respect fundamental rights, most notably in the 2011
M.S.S. vs. Belgium and Greece ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.[3] In a few months, the Court of
Justice of the EU will also provide further guidance that will need to be taken
into account in the development and the implementation of the CEAS.

In order to safeguard its integrity, improvements
must be made to the Dublin system’s efficiency and the level of safeguards for
applicants. Negotiations on the Commission’s 2008 proposal revealed the need to
enhance mutual trust in the Dublin system. One of the solutions could be to
step up monitoring and problem resolution measures to intervene at earlier
stages with evaluation and early warning devices. This should now be given
priority in the last phase of the negotiations with a view to meeting the 2012
deadline (see section 4.2 below).

Given that a well-functioning Dublin system
is essential for the CEAS, its principles and functioning should be regularly
reviewed as other components of the CEAS and EU solidarity tools are built up.
A comprehensive ‘fitness check’ should be made by conducting an evidence-based
review covering the legal, economic and social effects of the Dublin system, including
its effects on fundamental rights.

3.2.
Further developing relocation of beneficiaries
of international protection

Relocation consists of transferring
beneficiaries or applicants for international protection from one Member State
to another, with the receiving Member State assuming responsibility for examining
the application or for integration measures.

The idea of relocating applicants for
international protection before their protection needs are assessed is
contentious. Some stakeholders see it as a useful or even necessary measure, some
Member States even going as far as advocating relocation of irregular migrants,
whereas others contest this idea. Many questions remain as to how such action would
interface with the Dublin system, its practical usefulness and
cost-effectiveness compared to other forms of solidarity, and the impact on applicants
themselves. The Commission does not consider it useful to propose an EU
mechanism for relocating applicants for international protection for the
moment. Nevertheless, the Commission created the scope for Union co-financing
of such activities in the AMF proposal, consolidating and further developing
what is already possible under the ERF. This will facilitate trailblazing by
Member States who would be willing to engage in voluntary projects, with the
EASO taking a coordinating role. Such co-financing could also be useful in an
emergency.

By contrast, there is a consensus that
relocating beneficiaries of international protection can be both
useful and appropriate. In June 2009, the Commission proposed an EU-wide pilot,
the EUREMA (EU Relocation Malta Project), co-financed by the ERF. The project
finished in summer 2011, having resettled 227 beneficiaries of international
protection from Malta to six other Member States.

The pilot project was an important experience
for all actors involved. During the project, Member States were creative in
finding solutions to many legal and practical issues concerning, for example,
granting appropriate status or effective integration measures. These solutions
could help the EASO prepare the support activities for relocation called for by
the EASO’s legal base, such as operational preparatory measures, raising
awareness, and coordinating execution. The success of the project led to the
launching of its second phase with a pledging conference on 12 May 2011 at the
initiative of the Commission. Although more total places were pledged than for
the first phase—a total of nearly 340—the number still remains low. The
Commission urges Member States to go as far as they can in providing further
places, especially given the number of new arrivals of asylum seekers in Malta
in summer 2011.

The Commission has strongly supported
relocation by initiating and driving the pilot project. Based on the experience
of the two phases of the project, and taking into account the EASO’s future support
for relocation activities, the Commission will propose a voluntary, permanent
scheme, subject to a further impact assessment. It would allow Member
States to request assistance through relocation, including in an emergency.

A further recent development is the
adoption of the amended Directive[4]
on long-term residency rights, granting recognised beneficiaries of
international protection certain rights, equal treatment and the right to move
to another Member State after five years’ residency. This is not itself a
solidarity measure, but it may provide some help in easing the pressure on
certain Member States if a number of recognised beneficiaries choose to move to
another Member State under certain conditions.

3.3.
Investigating the feasibility of joint processing
of applications on the Union's territory

The issue of joint processing of asylum
applications on the territory of the Union was first raised in The Hague
Programme. The Stockholm Programme invited the Commission to finalise its study
on the feasibility and legal and practical implications to establish joint
processing of asylum applications.

There are many aspects of joint processing
that need to be clarified. The essential questions include an assessment of the
type of situations where joint processing could be useful. Legal and
administrative issues to be considered include compatibility with EU law, legal
basis in the Treaties, the question of effective remedy, the status of persons
subject to joint processing, who would have the competence to take decisions,
the link to transfer of protection and/or mutual recognition of asylum
decisions, and reconciliation with the Dublin system. Financial issues include
the costs compared to a purely national procedure and funding mechanisms.
Practical issues to study include among others the place where joint processing
would take place and the potential use of remote working. Joint processing
would of course need to fully respect the rights of applicants.

Joint processing on the Union’s territory
could become a useful solidarity tool. It could assist Member States under
pressure in reducing backlogs of cases, thus accompanying the Dublin system. It
could be a way of disseminating best practice and sharing techniques, again
with a view to harmonising asylum systems by increasing trust in each others’
asylum systems. Given the varying numbers of asylum arrivals, some Member
States go through periods of relatively reduced pressure and may have spare
staffing capacity with which to help other Member States. It is worth
investigating whether resources could be borrowed or shared according to
capacity between Member States, possibly in connection with procedures for
secondment of officials to be developed by the EASO.

The Commission will launch a study to
consider these questions in depth. The outcome could be available at the end of
2012.

3.4.
Ensuring adequate allocation of responsibility
in exceptional circumstances

Apart from the emergency component of a
future permanent relocation scheme, in the event of a mass influx of displaced
persons, the Commission will always consider activating the mechanism of the
Temporary Protection Directive when the conditions are met. This Directive is a
useful tool in an exceptional situation. It provides for an adequate status for
its beneficiaries, while relieving the asylum system and creating a structured,
yet voluntary, mechanism for the transfer of beneficiaries between Member
States. At the same time, the criteria for its triggering are strictly defined:
it can be done only in the event of a mass influx or imminent mass influx of
displaced persons unable to return to their country of origin in safe and
durable conditions, in particular if there is also a risk that the asylums
system will be unable to process this influx without adverse effects for its
efficient operation. A mass influx implies the arrival in the Union of a large
number of such displaced persons, who come from a specific country or
geographic area, whether their arrival in the Union was spontaneous or aided,
for example through an evacuation programme. The Union has not found itself in
a situation of mass influx of displaced persons since the Kosovo refugee crisis
of 1999. The events of 2011 in the Southern Mediterranean have not led to an
influx of persons into the EU of a comparable scale.

Large numbers of asylum seekers and
irregular migrants arriving at the EU’s southern external border often give
rise to search and rescue situations. Member States are bound by obligations
under international law to assist any person in distress at sea and to ensure
disembarkation in a place of safety as soon as possible. The principle of non-refoulement
must be fully respected. These obligations also apply to third countries of
departure. The Commission encourages Member States to ensure the closest
possible cooperation and coordination between them in meeting their
obligations. While these are absolute obligations where the life and health of
the persons are paramount, it cannot be denied that without measures taken at
EU level, large numbers of arrivals put a serious strain on Member States’
reception capacities and responsibilities, including with regard to return. The
positive impact of measures such as relocation, as outlined in the previous
section, should therefore be taken into account as a means of addressing the
strain which may result from the disembarkation of rescued persons who apply
and qualify for international protection.

Key action points

¤    Co-legislators to speed up negotiations to reform the Dublin Regulation to meet the 2012 deadline.

¤    The Commission to launch a ‘fitness check’ of the Dublin Regulation in 2014.

¤    Member States to increase their pledges in the context of extending the relocation pilot project for Malta, as underlined during the Ministerial Conference of 12 May 2011.

¤    Subject to a further impact assessment, the Commission to propose in 2012 a voluntary, permanent relocation scheme for beneficiaries of international protection.

¤    The EASO to engage in supporting and facilitating relocation, as foreseen by the EASO Regulation, on the basis of the EUREMA experience.

¤    The Commission to launch a study on the feasibility and legal and practical implications to establish joint processing of asylum applications, as foreseen in the Stockholm Programme, for results before the end of 2012.

¤    The EU to make use of the Temporary Protection Directive when criteria and situations are met.

4.
Mutual trust at the heart of a renewed
governance system
4.1.
Lessons from Greece: complementing infringement
proceedings

The Commission has repeatedly underlined
that the unclear standards of the current asylum acquis contribute to an
uneven level of implementation and difficulties in monitoring. The amended CEAS
instruments proposed by the Commission should significantly improve clarity and
precision and allow the Commission to better supervise the application of EU
law.

At the same time, in order to ensure the
good functioning and resilience of each Member State's asylum system at all
times, the traditional instruments of supervision of application of the acquis
(such as infringement proceedings and regular evaluations of legal
instruments) must be complemented with additional, preferably preventive
measures, based on an adequate level of mutual trust. While Member States
remain primarily responsible, a more comprehensive response is needed,
especially as the Union has a duty not only to its Member State, but also to
asylum applicants. The developments in Greece were an important experience in
this regard as the Union provided a comprehensive reaction to the failing Greek
asylum system which has shown some signs of improvement although much still
needs to be done.

Following
allegations that Greece had not implemented the EU asylum legislation correctly
and certain aspects of its asylum system were very poor, including inhumane
conditions at detention centres, the Commission launched an infringement
procedure against Greece in 2009. However, the Commission recognised that it
was necessary to provide various forms of assistance to Greece to improve the
situation, given the humanitarian aspect of asylum.

In parallel to
the infringement proceedings, the Commission therefore engaged in a dialogue
with the Greek authorities. It helped Greece develop a National Action Plan on
Asylum and Migration Management. It coordinated assistance by experts from
other Member States. It also provided ERF emergency funding, complemented by
other sources of EU financial support. After the request made by Greece, in
April 2011 the EASO together with the Greek authorities developed a two-year
Operating Plan to deploy Asylum Support Teams, which have started their work on
the ground.

Coupled with
changes made by the Greek government, notably through the adoption of new laws,
a number of positive developments can be identified relating to the Action
Plan. In particular, there has been an increase in asylum recognition rates
(from less than 1% to 12.35%) and the quality of decision making has improved.
Although more progress is needed and serious concerns remain in certain areas,
such as detention centres and access to certain rights, this is an example of
where the Member State remains responsible for getting its own house in order,
but is given both financial and practical assistance with which to do so.

At a given point, monitoring must go beyond
the strict question of application of the acquis, as over time, the accumulation
of capacity problems and problematic management choices could also potentially
lead to serious fundamental rights infringements and destabilisation of the
CEAS, including of the Dublin system.

4.2.
Strengthening the resilience of the Dublin
system

The Commission, the European Parliament and
the Member States have recently discussed how to ensure the proper functioning
of the asylum systems of all Member States and how to detect and address
emerging problems before they lead to crises and infringement proceedings. The
idea of an evaluation and early warning mechanism seems to present a way
forward.

Such a mechanism could have two functions:
first, ongoing monitoring of all Member States to ensure their constant
preparedness; second, a structured, sequential course of action to address
deficiencies before they grow into a fully-fledged crisis.

In practice, an evaluation and early
warning process could cover different aspects of governance of each
Member State’s asylum system, including for example the geographical and
budgetary organisation of the asylum system, the impact of Dublin transfers, the
proper use of EU solidarity tools, participation in EU solidarity initiatives
etc. The reports and recommendations resulting from the assessment would
provide early warning on potential problems. They could also be used to better
coordinate solidarity measures targeting the Member State, including better programming
of EU Funds and priorities of the EASO’s practical cooperation activities. The
right means and procedural arrangements would need to be found to ensure the
effectiveness of this process.

Specific follow-up steps need to be provided
for to ensure that the results of the assessment are adequately monitored. The
plan could include requests for coordinated solidarity measures to support the action
needed by the Member State concerned. The Commission believes that such a
process could substantially improve mutual trust between Member States and with
civil society organisations that are often critical of the Dublin system.

4.3.
Building mutual trust through other areas of
migration management

Mutual trust is fundamental to a
well-functioning asylum cooperation. Increased trust will lead to increased
solidarity, which is why it is so important to enhance trust. Although the
objectives of each migration-related policy are different, better migration
management in the form of better border management and visa policy can also
have a positive impact on improving mutual trust between Member States in
asylum matters.

The Commission proposed a number of changes
to Schengen governance on 16 September 2011, aimed at safeguarding freedom of
movement by improving mutual trust among Member States. The proposals would
improve the common management of Schengen by revising the Schengen
evaluation mechanism. By better ensuring the proper application of the Schengen
acquis, the proposals would increase confidence in the Union’s ability
to handle border control-related problems in common and in the spirit of
solidarity, which will also make it easier for Member States to engage in
asylum solidarity initiatives.

On visa policy, one of the amendments to
the Visa Regulation[5]
proposed by the Commission on 24 May 2011 may also contribute to the efficiency
of Member States’ asylum systems. The introduction of a visa safeguard clause,
as a last-resort measure, would make it possible to suspend visa-free movement
from a third country where there is evidence that it has led, inter alia,
to abuse of the asylum system.

This mechanism would in particular allow
the Union to maintain a balance between better managing the movement of third-country
nationals and ensuring that visa-free travel does not lead to irregularities or
abuse. Thus, the Union will continue, on the one hand, to accompany visa
liberalisation with protective mechanisms for Member States, drawing from
experiences such as the ‘post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism’ set up
to ensure the smooth operation of the visa-free regime with the Western Balkan
countries. On the other hand, the EU will also activate means to provide
solutions to Member States faced with a specific asylum flow from third
countries. The post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism allowed the
Commission to obtain the information it needed and to propose measures oriented
at preventing subsequent inflows of irregular immigrants abusing the visa-free
regime.

Key action points

¤    EU to meet the 2012 target for the asylum package.

¤    Member States to implement EU law and the Commission to evaluate regularly and pursue infringements.

¤    Greece to actively pursue implementation of its Action Plan, making full use of the available solidarity measures, to meet every deadline set in the Plan.

¤    Co-legislators to finalise negotiations on the Dublin Regulation with reinforced provisions to support mutual trust between Member States and early warning to detect early problems.

¤    Co-legislators to approve the Schengen package of 16 September 2011 to improve the governance of border management.

¤    Co-legislators to approve the amendment to the Visa Regulation proposed by the Commission on 24 May 2011.

Conclusion

The Union and its Member States have at
their disposal an evolving, flexible toolbox of solidarity measures. These
measures can be used either together or separately. As proposed by this
Communication, some can be improved and new measures could be developed.

Other aspects of migration management can also
help consolidate intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum. The EU must have
an efficient policy on returns to safeguard the credibility and integrity of
asylum systems. This is an issue that the Commission will address in a separate
Communication in 2013. Working towards more convergence in legal migration
policy can also support solidarity, in particular to ensure that asylum policy,
including its solidarity aspects, does not suffer the consequences of
ineffective management of legal migration.

Cooperation with third countries,
especially countries of origin and transit of refugees, if conducted
appropriately by the EU as a whole, can also help manage or prevent asylum
flows. Such cooperation should include, for example, helping to improve
protection space in other regions of the world, or offering an increased number
of resettlement places inside the EU. Such cooperation can also be a way to
express solidarity with third countries, which often are under much
higher asylum pressure than the EU, as recently demonstrated in the migration
crisis related to the events in the Southern Mediterranean, and as highlighted
in the Communication on a Global Approach to Migration and Mobility.[6]

Finally, the Commission always retains the
possibility to make proposals on the basis of Article 78(3) TFEU in emergency
situations characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, in
order to adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member States
concerned if the already available instruments do not provide the required
possibilities and legal basis.

The success of the Union’s solidarity
measures depends on the engagement and cooperation of all stakeholders. The
Union must continue to discuss solidarity in asylum, including at high
political levels, on a regular basis to improve and review the toolbox of solidarity
measures on asylum. The Commission will report on the progress achieved in the
next ‘Tracking Method’ annual reports on immigration and asylum.

ANNEX

Statistics
on asylum

Between 1998 (the earliest date for available
EU-level data) and 2010, the total number of asylum applications in the 27 EU
Member States changed as follows. In the first half of 2011, the number of
asylum applications increased by 14 % compared to the first half of 2010
(note that data from Greece and Luxembourg is not yet fully available).

Source: Eurostat.

Asylum applications in the first
half of 2011 compared to the first half of 2010

|| H1 2010 || Full year 2010 || H1 2011* || Change H1 2010-2011* || 2011M01 || 2011M02 || 2011M03 || 2011M04 || 2011M05 || 2011M06

BE || 11 445 || 26 550 || 14 790 || +29 % || 2 335 || 2 365 || 2 825 || 2 525 || 2 420 || 2 320

BG || 500 || 1 030 || 465 || -7 % || 115 || 90 || 70 || 65 || 60 || 65

CZ || 465 || 785 || 370 || -20 % || 65 || 55 || 70 || 60 || 75 || 45

DK || 2 310 || 5 105 || 1 830 || -21 % || 365 || 290 || 325 || 290 || 290 || 270

DE || 18 455 || 48 595 || 22 890 || +24 % || 4 245 || 3 735 || 4 075 || 3 365 || 3 875 || 3 595

EE || 20 || 35 || 35 || +75 % || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 10 || 5

IE || 1 025 || 1 940 || 685 || -33 % || 135 || 125 || 125 || 85 || 100 || 115

EL || 4 705 || 10 275 || 3 800* || +3 %* || 605 || 920 || 1 005 || 455 || 815 || :

ES || 1 210 || 2 745 || 1 950 || +61 % || 240 || 335 || 365 || 430 || 365 || 215

FR || 25 925 || 52 725 || 28 835 || +11 % || 4 400 || 4 640 || 5 295 || 5 125 || 5 010 || 4 365

IT || 5 370 || 10 060 || 10 865 || +102 % || 590 || 1 625 || 1 775 || 1 460 || 3 305 || 2 110

CY || 1 235 || 2 870 || 895 || -28 % || 185 || 145 || 125 || 125 || 165 || 150

LV || 25 || 60 || 110 || +340 % || 5 || 20 || 5 || 15 || 40 || 25

LT || 195 || 505 || 185 || -5 % || 35 || 35 || 35 || 20 || 30 || 30

LU || 295 || 780 || 770* || +208 %* || 115 || 145 || 230 || 145 || 135 || :

HU || 1 405 || 2 095 || 775 || -45 % || 115 || 90 || 135 || 165 || 110 || 160

MT || 60 || 170 || 1 650 || +2 650 % || 10 || 15 || 30 || 1 130 || 365 || 100

NL || 7 280 || 15 110 || 7 105 || -2 % || 1 255 || 1 090 || 1 155 || 1 095 || 1 295 || 1 215

AT || 5 065 || 11 060 || 5 830 || +15 % || 885 || 910 || 970 || 980 || 1 000 || 1 085

PL || 2 920 || 6 535 || 2 865 || -2 % || 365 || 450 || 520 || 430 || 550 || 550

PT || 80 || 160 || 95 || +19 % || 10 || 20 || 15 || 15 || 20 || 15

RO || 475 || 880 || 560 || +18 % || 50 || 85 || 125 || 95 || 95 || 110

SI || 90 || 250 || 205 || +128 % || 35 || 35 || 30 || 15 || 35 || 55

SK || 295 || 540 || 205 || -31 % || 35 || 45 || 30 || 20 || 35 || 40

FI || 2 025 || 3 665 || 1 315 || -35 % || 240 || 210 || 240 || 195 || 210 || 220

SE || 14 110 || 31 940 || 12 620 || -11 % || 1 970 || 1 965 || 2 310 || 2 040 || 2 375 || 1 960

UK || 11 875 || 23 740 || 12 690 || +7 % || 2 140 || 1 995 || 2 230 || 2 020 || 2 070 || 2 235

- Except EL and LU.
For these two Member States, the absolute values for the first half of 2011 and
the comparison are calculated for first five months. Data extracted on 3
October 2011, source: Eurostat.

Asylum applications (A) and new
beneficiaries of protection (B) for the full year 2010

Full year 2010: Applications and new beneficiaries per 1 000 000 population

Full year 2010: Applications and new beneficiaries per 1 000 km2
of surface

Full year 2010: Applications and new beneficiaries per 1 000 units of GDP

Population: as of 1
January 2010. Surface: latest data available (2010 or earlier for some Member
States). GDP: Purchasing Power Standard (an artificial unit of currency which
eliminates the effect of price level differences across Member States[7]) for the full year 2010. Data extracted on
3 October 2011, source: Eurostat.

Comparison of first half
2011/2010: applications per 1 000 000
population

Comparison of first half
2011/2010: applications per 1 000 km2
of surface

Comparison of first half
2011/2010: applications per 1 000
units of GDP

Population: as of 1
January 2010. Surface: latest data available (2010 or earlier for some Member
States). GDP: Purchasing Power Standard for the full year 2010. Data for EL and
LU was not available for June 2011 and was extrapolated based on the available
5 months. Data extracted on 3 October 2011, source: Eurostat.

Refugees resettled by Member
States from third countries between 2006 and 2010

Source: UNHCR for 2006–2007,
Eurostat (extracted 8 December 2009) for 2008 except UK: UNHCR, Eurostat
(extracted 1 August 2011) for 2009 and 2010.

[1]               This Communication does not address areas of
solidarity linked to policies to curb irregular migration, even though there is
a link between other migration management policies and a well-functioning
asylum system.

[2]               Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund, COM(2011) 751.

[3]               Application no. 30696/09, 21.1.2011.

[4]               Directive 2011/51/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC
[concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents]
to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection.

[5]           COM(2011) 290.

[6]               COM(2011) 743.

[7]               See
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/purchasing_power_parities/introduction.