EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2963 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the  
 
Proposal for a  
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
establishing the criteria and mechanisms fo r determining the Member State responsible 
for examining an application for internationa l protection lodged in one of the Member 
States by a third-country nati onal or a stateless person 
 
(recast)  
 
Summary of the Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 820 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2962} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION 
The Commission's Work Programme for 20081 included the adopt ion of a proposal 
establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for 
examining an application for international protec tion lodged in one of the Member States by a 
third-country national or a stateless person as one of its strategic initiatives (hereafter referred 
to as proposal amending the Dublin Regulation)2. 
With a view to preparing for the second stage of asylum legi slation, as called for by the 
Hague programme, the Commission started the evaluation process of the results achieved in 
the first phase of the establishment of th e Common European Asylum System (hereafter 
referred to as the CEAS). 
As far as the Dublin Regulation is con cerned, the Commission ha s firstly issued a 
comprehensive Evaluation Report  of the Dublin system on 6 June 20073 based on a wide 
range of contributions from different stakehol ders. Secondly, the Commission presented on 6 
June 2007 a Green Paper  on the future of the CEAS4 aiming to identify the possible options 
for shaping the second phase of the CEAS. While the Evaluation Report served as a technical 
assessment  for the Dublin system, the consultati on based on the Green Paper served as a 
policy evaluation .  
The Commission ordered an external study in or der to get support for th e preparation of this 
Impact Assessment. In addition, several experts' meetings  were organised between October 
2007 and July 2008 with Member States, NGOs and UNHCR, lawyers, judges and Members 
of the European Parliament in order to seek their opinion on the improvements needed to the 
Dublin Regulation. 
The issues raised and the suggestions put forward have provided the basis for the preparation 
of this Impact Assessment.  
2. STATE  OF PLAY  AND  PROBLEMS 
The following clusters of problems have been identified with rega rd to the application of the 
Dublin Regulation: 
• Unclear or inadequate operational pr ovisions of the Dublin Regulation are 
counterproductive for the efficien cy of the system and create hardship for asylum-seekers; 
• Disputes between Member States concerning th e application of the Dublin rules are not 
tackled in an efficient way; 
• Transfers under the Dublin procedure coul d contribute to further overburden Member 
States confronted with situa tions of particular pressure; 
• Transfers under the Dublin procedure coul d, in exceptional circumstances, result in 
asylum-seekers not benefiting from ad equate standards of protection;  
                                                 
1 COM(2007) 640. 
2 CLWP reference No: 2008/JLS/022. 
3 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the 
Dublin system - COM(2007) 299, SEC(2007) 742. The "Dublin system" aims to determine which 
Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged by a third-country national on the territory of one of the Member States. It consis ts of the Dublin and Eurodac Regulations and their 
implementing rules. 
4 COM(2007) 301. 
 
EN 3   EN • Insufficient information and legal safeguards for asylum-seekers;  
• Family unity, the interests of the child and of other vulnera ble groups are not sufficiently 
ensured by Member States.  
The Impact Assessment then looks into the possi ble evolution of the s ituation if no action at 
EU level was taken and concludes that the exis ting problems would persist and that there is a 
strong case for EU action.  
3. POLICY  OBJECTIVES 
The general objectives  of the second phase of the CEAS with regard to the proposal to 
amend the Dublin Regulation are i) to ensure th at the needs of applicants for international 
protection are comprehensively addressed under the responsibility determination mechanism, 
and to increase the system's efficiency in or der to reduce time and resources spent by Member 
States and to ii) contribute to better addressi ng situations of particular pressure on Member 
States' reception facilities and/or asylum procedural capacities. 
The general objectives are to be underpinned in part icular by the following specific 
objectives : 
I) To ensure the responsib ility determination proced ure is operating smoothly; 
II) To ensure disputes between MS are tackled in an efficient way;  
III) To prevent further overburdening of Memb er States in situations of particular 
pressure and to ensure that asylum-seekers benefit of adequate standards of protection; 
IV) To strengthen the legal safeguards for asylum-seekers and enable them to better 
defend their rights; 
V) To ensure respect for the right to fa mily unity and to improve management of 
vulnerable groups in order to address their special needs. 
A number of indicative operationa l objectives are also defined. 
4. POLICY
 OPTIONS 
Taking into consideration the different nature of  the above mentioned specific objectives, the 
Impact Assessment proposes policy sub-options for each of these objectives. The preferred 
policy option has been constructed by combining the preferred policy sub-options identified 
for each specific objective.  
Status Quo (this option addre sses all identified problems) 
Developments in Member States will continue  within the current framework. The existing 
legal framework would remain unchanged a nd ongoing activities would continue. The 
Commission will continue monitoring the im plementation of the Dublin Regulation. 
4.1. Preferred policy option 
Given the level of complexity of the proposed policy sub-options, this summary is limited to 
an enumeration of the main elements compos ing the preferred policy option. The preferred 
policy option is made both of legislative options  and of options focused on fostering 
practical cooperation between Member States. 
 
EN 4   EN With regard to: 
I) ensuring the smooth operation of the procedure, the preferred legislative policy 
sub-options foresee: 
– Introducing adequate time-limits for submitting take back requests and for replying to 
requests on humanitarian grounds and diminishing the deadline for replying to requests of 
information ;  
– Setting-up the obligation for Member States to carry out a specific Dublin interview with 
asylum-seekers subject to the Dublin procedure; 
– Setting-up rules with regard to costs entailed by the Dublin transfers and clarifying the 
consequences in case of an erroneous transf er and in case of an overruled decision on 
appeal after a person has b een already transferred; 
– Clarifying the circumstances and procedures fo r applying several clau ses of the Regulation 
(the cessation of responsibility clauses, th e sovereignty and the humanitarian clauses). 
The preferred practical cooperation options whic h complement the preferred legislative ones 
propose: 
– Identifying and disseminating vi a experts meetings, best pract ices in performing transfers 
of asylum-seekers; 
– Creating a handbook on the application of the D ublin Regulations, containing answers to 
questions raised by Member States' experts on the appli cation of the Regulations in 
concrete cases and which should be us ed as reference for similar cases. 
II) ensuring disputes between Memb er States are tackled effectively, the preferred 
legislative policy sub-option provi des for a conciliation mechanis m for all matters of dispute 
on the application of the Dublin Regulation; 
The preferred practical cooperation option whic h complements the preferred legislative one 
refer to the creation of a handbook on the application of the Dublin  Regulations (the same as 
in point I). 
III) preventing further overburdening of Memb er States in situations of particular 
pressure and ensuring that asylum-seekers benefit fr om adequate standards of protection in 
the responsible Member State, the preferred po licy sub-option provides for the possibility to 
take a decision at EU level to suspend transfer s/returns towards the Member State responsible 
in limited and well-defined circumstances; 
The creation of asylum expert te ams coordinated at EU level to  assist Member States that 
would be overburdened because of the high numb er of Dublin transfer s, is the preferred 
practical cooperation option, partia lly alternative to the preferre d legislative option (it should 
be applied when there was no decision to freeze the returns (according to the legislative measure) or in case such a decision was taken, for a temporary period until the situation is stable in the affected Member States). 
IV) strengthening the legal safeguards fo r asylum-seekers and enabling them to 
better defend their rights, the preferred legislative policy sub-options propose: 
– Inserting an obligation for Member States  to provide asylum-s eekers with extended 
information about the Dublin procedure and th eir rights within it. The need to adopt a 
standard EU-wide multilingual leaflet about the Dublin procedure under the applicable 
comitology rules is also laid down;  
 
EN 5   EN – Introducing the right to appeal against a transfer d ecision, and the obligation for the courts 
or tribunals to examine ex-officio the necessity  of temporarily suspending the enforcement 
of a transfer decision;  
– Defining limited conditions for detention of as ylum-seekers under the D ublin procedure. In 
particular, such detention should be a measure of  last resort, after the transfer decision has 
been notified to the asylum-seeker and when  all other non custodial measures are not 
expected to bring satisfactory results because  there are objective reasons to believe that 
there is a risk of the asylum-seeker absconding; 
– Clarifying that an asylum-seeker has in all ci rcumstances access to the asylum procedure, 
pursuant to the rules laid down in th e Asylum Procedures Directive;  
– Retaining the right of Member States to send an asylum-seeker to a third country, but only 
after a careful examination of the safe third country criteria set in the Asylum Procedures Directive. 
V) ensuring respect for family unity and improving the management of vulnerable 
groups, the preferred policy sub-options propose : 
– Strengthening the safeguards in  relation to unaccompanied mi nors, for example: the right 
for an unaccompanied minor to reunify with re latives who can take care of him/her will be 
made compulsory; rules on the representation of unaccompanied minors throughout the 
procedure will be inserted; the a pplicability of the principle of the best interests of the child 
in the context of determining the Member  State responsible will be clarified; 
– Introducing a new provision obligin g Member States to exchange relevant information (in 
particular medical information) between them before performing the D ublin transfers, with 
the primary aim of ensuring continuity in the protection offered to asylum-seekers ;  
– Extending the right to family reunification by including applicants and beneficiaries of 
subsidiary protection into the scope of the Regulation and clar ifying that the application of 
the sovereignty clause should not prevent an asylum-seeker to reunify with a member of 
his/her family. The right to reun ification with dependent relati ves will be made compulsory 
and the definition of 'family member' will be en larged in order to ensure better compliance 
with the principle of best interests of the child. Moreover, the application of the humanitarian clause will be extended to relativ es who are not necessari ly dependent on one 
another in a strict humanitarian sense (such as major siblings could be).  
The preferred practical cooperation options whic h complement the preferred legislative ones 
concern: 
– The need for Member States to provide sta ff involved in the procedure of determining 
responsibility with appropriate trainings, in partic ular to allow them to appropriately 
handle the cases involving vulnerable groups; 
– The setting- up of a network of Member  States experts dealing with minors. 
The main advantages  of the preferred policy option are: 
• The efficiency and coherence  of the responsibility dete rmination procedure will be 
increased through, for example, the setting up of  adequate time-limits, the clarification of 
the circumstances and procedures for the appl ication of several provisions as well as 
through practical cooperation measures, such as the creation of a handbook on the 
application of the Dublin Regulation; 
 
EN 6   EN • The level of protection  afforded to asylum-seekers falli ng under the Dublin  system will be 
substantially increased through, for example, clarifying the conditions of detention and 
strengthening the legal safeguards related to Dublin transfer decisions. 
• The needs of Member States confronted with exceptional situations of particular 
pressure  will be adequately addressed under the Dublin procedure and the rights of 
asylum-seekers in this type of situ ations would be better guaranteed. 
As far as the main impacts  are concerned: 
• It has an overall high positive impact on f undamental rights of people under the Dublin 
procedure, such as: the fact that the right to family unity would be considerably reinforced 
by enlarging the scope of family reunification;  that the best interests of unaccompanied 
minors would be better taken into account; that the right  to liberty and free movement  
would be  reinforced by the limitation of detention etc; 
• By ensuring a smother and quicker operati on of the system, and by better informing 
asylum seekers about the rules of the Dublin  mechanism and their rights within it, the 
incentive to turn to irregular secondary m ovements will be reduced, with a final positive 
impact on their social acceptance and in tegration in the receiving societies; 
As far as the financial feasibility  is concerned, financial and administrative costs would 
generally increase, but in some cases long-term  cost-reductions or savings could occur as 
well:  
• Additional costs would be requi red to comply with the new time-limits proposed, but some 
economies of scale could be reached in the medium term because of a more efficient 
procedure; 
• Some Member States would have to support further costs when they will suspend their 
outgoing transfers due to situations of particular  pressure in the responsible Member State, 
as they will have to temporarily provide an adeq uate status for those pe ople not transferred;  
• Costs would rise given that Member State woul d have to adapt their existing information to 
the requirements of this policy option. Savings  could occur if the information provided 
fosters a more collaborative and compliant behavior of applicants with the Dublin 
procedure; 
• If granted, the suspensive effect of an appeal to a transfer decision co uld bring costs for the 
Member State on whose territory the applican t will remain temporarily. However, savings 
could occur as well, due to the fact that the costs of possible tr ansfers back due to 
overruled decisions would be avoided.  
• Reducing the occasions under which Dublin cases can be detained, should in principle lead 
to savings, as no strain woul d be put anymore on Member States' detention facilities and 
the considerable costs detenti on implies would be reduced.  
• Costs would rise to deal with  unaccompanied minors (i.e. repr esentation) and to exchange 
information regarding vulnerable transferee s. Costs could incr ease for practical 
cooperation measures, such as st aff training and setting up of an expert network. However, 
many of them could be also co-financed by submitting projects under the European Refugee Fund.  
 
EN 7   EN 5. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION 
The monitoring and evaluation of the implementati on of the preferred policy option will be an 
important element to ensure the effectiveness of the revised Dublin Regulation. In this respect, the Commission will regularly evaluate and report on the application of the revised Regulation by Member States. Regular expert mee tings will continue to take place in view of 
discussing implementation problems and exchange  best practices between Member States.  
The entry into force of the Regulation on Commun ity statistics on migration and international 
protection
5, which includes specific references to Dublin related statistical data, will 
contribute to ensuring an adequate monitoring and evaluation process.  
Moreover, as announced in the Policy Plan, besi des an evaluation done at regular intervals, 
the Commission is committed to re-evaluate th e principle on which the Dublin system is 
based, once the second stage of the CEAS is in place.  
As for indicators to assess progress and eff ectiveness of the preferred policy option in 
achieving the policy objectives, the following can be taken into  consideration, among others: 
• Implementation by MS of the amendments  proposed to the Dublin Regulation 
• Resources dedicated to the implementation of  the amendments proposed to the Dublin 
Regulation 
• Number of effected transfers of asylum seek ers in comparison with the number of accepted 
requests of transfers 
• Number of disputes settled under the dispute settlement mechanism 
• Number of cases in which the sovereignt y and humanitarian clauses are applied 
• Resources used for informing and providing lega l assistance to applicants for international 
protection under the Dublin procedure 
• Number of applicants subj ect to Dublin procedure 
• Transfers suspended in situati ons of particular pressure 
• (Distribution of) Appli cations for international protectio n relative to population size (per 
1000 of inhabitants) per MS  
• Number of asylum experts teams created an d sent to Member St ates under particular 
pressure 
                                                 
5 Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007).