EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 18.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 154 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  
 
establishing an European Asylum Support Office  
    
SUMMARY OF THE  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
  
 
{COM(2009) 66 final} 
{SEC(2009) 153} 
EN 2   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Calls to set up a European Asylum Support Office  
The Commission adopted in June 2008 a Communication1 "Policy Plan on Asylum – An 
Integrated Approach to Protection across th e EU", which set out a road map for the 
second phase of completion of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), and 
announced that it would put forward a le gislative proposal for the creation of a 
European Asylum Support office . 
At the end of September 2008, the European  Council adopted the European Pact on 
Immigration and Asylum. Under this Pact2, the European Council expressly agreed to 
"establish in 2009 a European support office  with the task of facilitating the exchange 
of information, analyses and experienc e among Member States, and developing 
practical cooperation between the administra tions in charge of examining asylum 
applications" .  
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
The Policy Plan on Asylum was drafted on the ba sis of an in-depth reflection and debate 
with stakeholders on the future architecture of  the CEAS and on the re sults of the debate 
that followed the Commission’s Gr een paper published in June 20073, the aim of which 
was to identify the options for shaping the second phase of the CEAS. Specific 
questions4 were asked as regards the possible crea tion of a support asylum structure. The 
response to the public consu ltation included 89 contributions  from a wide range of 
stakeholders5, including 20 Member States, re gional and local authorities, the 
Committee of Regions and the Economic and Social Committee, UNHCR, academic institutions, political part ies and a large number of NGOs. The replies to the Green 
Paper showed broad support for enhancing prac tical cooperation activi ties related to the 
CEAS and for the idea of crea ting a dedicated structure to support and coordinate such 
activities in the form of an asylum support structure. The preferred policy option of the 
                                                
 
1 Communication from the Commission to the EP, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of Regions: Policy Plan on asylum, An integrated approach to protection 
across the EU  - COM(2008) 360.  
2
 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/dri ver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=
639&ii_PUBLIC_DOC=%3E0&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=13440%2F08&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff
_TITRE=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATI ERE=&dd_DATE_DOCUM ENT=&dd_DATE_REU
NION=&dd_FT_DATE=&fc=ALLLANG&srm=25&md=100&ssf= 
3 Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System - COM(2007) 301. 
4 See under para.3, questions 21 and 22. 
5 The 89 contributions received are available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylum_s
ystem_en.htm. 
EN 3   EN policy plan impact assessment report included the creation of the European Support 
Office for Asylum . 
In early 2008, the Commission ordered an exte rnal feasibility study on the establishment 
of structural support for the practical coopera tion in the field of asylum, which would 
feed into the impact assessment of the fu ture European Asylum Support Office. The 
external study was based on a round of stake holder consultation, consisting of ten case 
studies and interviews w ith over fifty stakeholders6.  
2. PROBLEM  DEFINITION 
2.1. Description of the problem 
The European Council of September 2008, when adopting the European Pact on 
Immigration and Asylum, solemnly reiterated th at any persecuted foreigner is entitled to 
obtain aid and protection on the territory of the European Union in application of the 
Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by 
the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, and other relevant treaties. Though much 
progress has achieved in recent years as a result of implemen ting common minimum 
standards with a view to introducing the CEAS , considerable disparities remain between 
Member States on granting protection and on the forms that protection takes.  
Legal instruments were adopted during the first phase of the CEAS. However, the 
practical implementation of the Directives reveals significant differences in processing asylum applications both in terms of quality of assessment and in terms of diversity of 
processing across the Union. That is why th e Commission, in the Policy Plan of June 
2008 decided (1) to conduct a full -scale review of the asylum acquis  to improve its 
content and (2) stressed the need, in parall el to this review, to enhance practical 
cooperation related to the CEAS.  
Though practical cooperation rela ted to the CEAS may be c onsidered as already well 
developed, many aspects remain limited in sc ope and non-optimal and therefore need to 
be tackled.  
                                                
 
6 The following work has been undertaken by the contractor: review and analysis of Member States responses 
to the Green Paper; interview with DG JLS officials responsible for asylum and officials responsible for 
agencies within Sec Gen. The following stakeholders have been interviewed: representatives of the 
European Parliament; representatives of existing cooper ation initiatives or structures (e.g. EURASIL, IGC, 
GDISC, EMN); representatives of NGOs and inter-governmental organisations, including ECRE, UNHCR, 
and Caritas Europe and Ministerial departments and competent bodies responsible for the formulation of asylum policies in 10 Member States. Case study vis its were undertaken to: Belgium, France, Germany, 
Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sl ovenia, Spain, Sw eden, and the UK. 
EN 4   EN 2.2. Specific problems  
The main problems as regards prac tical cooperation are the following: 
• Discrepancy in practices and non-optimal exchange of best  practices at EU level; 
• Pressures on Member State asylum syst ems and over-burdening of some Member 
States, and 
• Limited cooperation and coordination as re gards external dime nsion of the CEAS. 
2.3. EU right to act 
The current legal basis for Community action in  the area of asylum policy is established 
in Article 63 (1) and (2) TEC. These provisions state that the Council is to adopt “measures on asylum, in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and 
the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to th e status of refugees  and other relevant 
treaties ” and also “ measures on refugees and displaced persons ” in areas such as 
Member State responsibility, reception condi tions, refugee qualifi cation, granting of 
protection (including temporary protection) an d balancing of Member States' efforts in 
receiving asylum-seekers.  
As regard practical cooperation (in the fiel d of asylum), the current legal basis is 
established in Article 66 TEC, which states that the Council, acting in accordance with 
the procedure referred to in Article 67, sh all take measures to ensure cooperation 
between the relevant departments of the admi nistrations of the Member States in the 
areas covered by title IV (visas, asylum, immi gration and other polic ies related to free 
movement of persons), as well as betw een those departments and the Commission.  
EN 5   EN 3. OBJECTIVES 
The objectives are set out in the table overleaf.  
General 
objectives Specific objectives Operational objectives 
(outputs and effects) 
To reduce differences in implementation of 
legislation, policies a nd operational practices, 
between Member States To improve the capacity, knowledge and 
know-how of the different actors 
involved in the asylum process   
To improve fair and 
more harmonised 
treatment of 
applications for 
international 
protection 
throughout the 
Union  To reduce differences in the quality and content 
of Country of Origin Information and harmonise 
its collection, production and assessment. To improve the collection and the 
quality of Country of Origin Information 
and make this accessible to all Member 
States with a view to improving its 
interpretation and assessment. 
To reduce overburdening of some Member States To improve 
solidarity and 
burden-sharing 
between Member 
States in the field of 
asylum To improve the capacity of Member States to 
deal with asylum requests, including situations of 
mass influx of asylum seekers  To support Member States to build 
capacity and support those facing 
particular pressures on their asylum 
system and reception capacity  
To increase the successful resettlement 
of applicants for international protection 
outside of the EU To better manage 
refugee flows to the 
EU through 
expanding the 
external dimension 
of the CEAS To enhance the implementation of aspects related 
to the external dimension of asylum, such as 
Regional Protecti on Programmes and 
resettlement To strengthen protection systems in third 
countries 
4. POLICY  OPTIONS 
Two sets of policy options  are analysed in the impact assessment report.  
The first set of policy options refers to task s and missions to be entrusted to the support 
structure. 
The second set of policy optio ns concerns the potential in stitutional organi sation of the 
support structure to allow it to  operate optimally. Eight main  institutional options for 
establishing the support structure, which woul d fulfil the missions and tasks referred to 
above, are studied in the im pact assessment report.  
4.1. Tasks and missions to be entrusted to  the future asylum support structure 
An individual analysis for tasks and missions  to be entrusted to the future asylum 
support structure was carried out assessing av ailable options. The following tasks were 
assessed as possible to be entruste d to the future support structure: 
EN 6   EN – Exchange of best practices. 
– Support to monitoring and quality control. 
– Activities to improve the collection and qua lity of Country of origin Information / 
improve assessment of Country  of origin Information. 
– Pool of asylum experts. 
– Intra-EU relocation. 
– Training and capacity building. 
– Activities linked to the exte rnal aspects of practical cooperation linked to CEAS: 
resettlement and regional  protection programmes.  
4.2. Options for the institutional form of the future asylum support structure 
An individual analysis of eight options for institutional form of the support structure 
(among them, two options quickly discarded) was carried out:  
– Status quo (discarded). 
– Strengthening the European Commission's unit. 
– Creating a new network. 
– Creation of a new regulatory ag ency (non decision-making body). 
– Incorporation of the suppor t structure into an existing regulatory agency: 
– into the Fondamental Rights agency (FRA), 
– into the European Agency for the Ma nagement of Operational Cooperation 
at the External Borders of the Memb er States of the European Union 
(FRONTEX), 
– into the future Agency for the operational management of SIS II, VIS and 
EURODAC and for the development a nd the management of other large-
scale IT systems. 
– Creation of a Common EU Support Authority  (decision-making re gulatory agency 
- option discarded in the policy plan on asylum).  
EN 7   EN 5. PREFERRED  POLICY  OPTION   
The seven tasks described are assessed in th e impact assessment report as possible to be 
entrusted to the future support structure and feasible by this futu re support structure. 
This impact assessment report carried out an individual analysis for each institutional 
available option for the future support asylum  structure. The major findings for the eight 
options are compared in the table below. It mu st be noted that the criteria “Achievement 
of objectives”, “Political feasibility” and “I mplications for EU budget” were considered 
as key for the final assessment of the options. 
 
EN 8    
ASSESSMENT  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
OPTIONS
 Achievement 
of objectives 
(functional and 
practical 
effectiveness)  
 
High (+++) 
to 
Low (- - -) 
 
 Time needed for 
implementation  
 
 
 
 
Short (+++) 
To  
Long (- - -) 
 Support needed 
from the 
Commission to 
the future 
(external) 
structure  
 
High (-- -) 
to 
Low (+++) 
 Legal feasibility  
 
 
 
 
 
 
High (+++) 
to 
Low(- - -) 
 Political 
feasibility  
 
 
 
 
 
High (+++) 
to 
Low (- - -) 
 Implication for EU budget  
(see detailed figures in financial annexes to the impact 
assessment report – Ex-ante financial analysis) 
 
 
 
 
 
 Overall 
Assessment  
 
 
 
 
Positive  
(+ to +++) 
Negative  
(- to - - - ) 
      Estimated start-
up 2010  Minimum on-
going costs 2011  Maximum 
ongoing costs 
2011 onwards  
Option 1  
Status Quo  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Option 2  
COM’s 
Unit  
+  
++  
Non-
applicable  
+++  
- - 320.000 2.959.017 5.732.809 
  
+ 
Option 3  
Network  
- -  
-  
- -   
++  
+ 345.000 3.970.395 8.067.187 
  
- 
Option 4  
EASO   
+++  
+  
- -  
+++  
+++ 6.145.016 10.318.738 17.612 984  
++(+) 
Option 5  
FRA  
-  
-  
- -   
+  
+ 600.000 6.654.449 12.104.600  
- 
Option 6  
FRONTEX   
-  
-  
- -   
+  
- 600.000 6.654.449 11.940.342 
  
- - 
Option 7  
IT Agency   
- - -  
- - -  
- -  
-  
- - 600.000 6.818.706 12.331.105 
  
- - - 
Option 8  
Authority   
+++  
+  
- -  
- - -  
- - -- Non-
available Non-
available Non-
available  
- - - 
 
EN 9   EN On the basis of the above, from an inst itutional point of view, the creation of a 
regulatory agency  as the institutional feature for the future European Asylum 
Support Office appears to be the preferred policy option .  
The European Asylum Support Office appears the best option to enhancing practical 
cooperation on CEAS as regards the full set of tasks to be entrusted to the support 
structure. Though it is the most expansive so lution in financial te rms, the creation of 
the support office under the form of a regula tory agency appears to be the preferred 
option, as it will be the best efficient as regards the achievement of objectives, and as 
it appears to have higher legal and political  feasibility than the other institutional 
options. In particular, the office will have full support from the European Parliament 
and Member States for a quick adoption of  the founding regulation. It will also have 
full support from the Commission's services for helping in a qu ick set-up of the 
office after adoption of the founding regul ation by the legislator. It will be an 
European independent centre for expertise in asylum and will help Member States 
become familiar with the sy stems and practices of others , to develop closer working 
relations between asylum services at opera tional level, build trust and confidence in 
each others’ systems and achieve greater consistency in practice.