EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 17.6.2008 
SEC(2008) 2030 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying  the  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , 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 
  
Summary of the Impact Assessment  
 
 
{COM(2008) 360 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2029}  
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION 
The Commission presented in June 2007 a Green Paper1 aiming to identify the possible 
options for shaping the second phase of the CEAS. The response to the public consultation 
included 89 Contributions from a wide range of stakeholders2. The issues raised and the 
suggestions put forward during the consultation ha ve provided the basis for the preparation of 
this Policy Plan and its Impact Assessment. 
The Commission ordered an external study in or der to get support for the preparation of the 
Impact Assessment. The external study cons titutes the main support for this report in 
conjunction with an analysis of the contributi ons to the Green Paper and existing evaluation 
reports of EC asylum instruments3. 
Meetings were organised between December 2007 and March 2008 with academic experts, 
Member States, NGOs and UNHCR and Members of  the European Parliament in order to 
seek their opinion on the future developm ent of certain elements of the CEAS.  
The Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB ) was consulted on the draft final Impact 
Assessment report and issued its opinion on 21 April 20084. The recommendations of the IAB 
were duly taken into account. 
Most of the individual measures proposed in th e Policy Plan will be the object of specific 
impact assessments. In particular the amendments to the Reception Conditions, Qualification 
and Procedures Directives and to the Dublin a nd Eurodac Regulations will be based on impact 
assessments. 
2. STATE  OF PLAY  AND  PROBLEMS 
The following problems have been identified in the area of asylum : 
• Legitimate measures and practices against irregular immigration may in certain cases be 
hampering access to protection in the EU for asylum-seekers  
• Immigrants who are not in need of protection abuse th e asylum system to enter and stay in 
the EU 
• Secondary movements of asylum-seekers appl ying for international protection in more 
than one Member State impose an unfair strain  on national administrations and on asylum-
seekers themselves 
• The asylum systems of some Member States are overburdened 
• Increasingly, people are seeking protection for reasons not foreseen in the traditional 
refugee regime (Geneva Convention) and are receiving protection statuses with lower 
guarantees 
• Divergent national practices lead  to extreme differences in th e recognition of protection in 
the Member States and causing inequalities in  the level of protection across the EU  
                                                 
1 COM(2007) 301. 
2 The 89 contributions received are available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylu
m_system_en.htm  
3 Report on the evaluation of the Dublin system - COM(2007) 299; report on the evaluation of the 
Reception Conditions Direct ive -  COM(2007) 745. 
4 The opinion will be made available here: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2008_en.htm  
 
EN 3   EN • Persons in need of protection face particular in tegration problems and some of them are in 
situations of vulnerability 
• Worldwide, most refugees remain in regions close to their countries  of origin, with poor 
prospects and imposing a burde n on poor, developing countries. 
The Impact Assessment looks into the possible e volution of the situatio n if no action at EU 
level were taken and concludes that the existing problems woul d persist and that there is a 
strong case for EU action. 
The Impact Assessment consider s the changes brought to the legal framework  by the Treaty 
of Lisbon and concludes that the new article on asylum allows and requires a higher level of 
ambition than the current one. From a fundamental  rights point of view, the inclusion of the 
Charter in the new Treaty also  gives higher visibility to ce rtain rights related to asylum, 
including the right to  non refoulement.  
3. POLICY  OBJECTIVES 
The general objective of the second phase of th e CEAS is to offer, through a comprehensive 
approach to protection across the EU, appropriate  status, under equal co nditions, to any third-
country national requiring intern ational protection and to ensure  compliance with the principle 
of non refoulement. 
The policy shall in particular pursue the following specific objectives:  
I) To ensure that asylum procedures are accessible to the persons seeking protection 
and deal quickly and efficiently with those who do not need it; 
II) To ensure higher common  standards of protection; 
III) To enhance prompt and effective suppor t to national asylum administrations, by 
promoting practical cooperation; 
IV) To foster solidarity mechanisms for d ealing with persons in need of protection, 
between Member States and betw een the EU and third countries; 
V) To facilitate the integration of protected persons; VI) To prevent asylum shopping and secondary movements. 
4. POLICY
 OPTIONS 
4.1. Policy option A: Status quo 
Current developments in Member States would continue within the ex isting legal framework, 
which would remain unchanged. Ongoing activities  would continue. The existing legislative 
instruments should all be transposed by th e Member States and their implementation 
monitored by the Commission.  
4.2. Policy Option B1: Full scale harm onisation of EU legislation  
This option would ensure that the EU asylum system becomes coherent, comprehensive and 
offering the highest standards by aiming towards complete harmonisation and the elimination of the shortcomings caused by the adoption of the lowest common denominator in the first 
phase of CEAS. This aim would be  reached, inter alia, through: 
• The definition of adequate reception  conditions for asylum seekers; 
• The recognition of an adequate level of prot ection to persons in need of protection; 
 
EN 4   EN • The establishment of a uniform a nd efficient procedure of asylum; 
• The establishment of a highe r degree of solidarity and re sponsibility among the Member 
States, and between the EU as a whole and third countries.  
4.3. Policy Option B2: Further development of EU legislation 
This option would focus on a continuation of  efforts towards increasingly harmonised 
national asylum rules, without however reaching a complete harmonisation in all domains, and ensuring high standards of protection.  
This option would consist of the introduction of some interventions in the field of reception 
conditions: 
• the improvement of the provisions relate d to material reception conditions,  
• the establishment of easi er access to labour market for asylum-seekers, not 
hindered by additional national restrictions, 
• the establishment of rules ensuring that detention is not arbitrary, 
• effective identification of the health and material needs of vulnerable persons and 
persons with special needs, in cluding gender considerations.  
The introduction of the following main elemen ts concerning the issu e of qualification:  
• the establishment of two single uniform statuses: one for refugees and one for 
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, 
• the extension to the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection of Community’s rules 
on the right to family reunification, 
• the exploration of possibilitie s for establishing an effective transfer of protection 
mechanism. 
The introduction of a new element on procedures:  
• the definition of a single procedure th rough the harmonization of common 
attached guarantees (access to procedur es, suspensive appeal, legal assistance, 
deadline for decision on substance in firs t instance, enhanced gender equality) for 
all types of existing national procedures 
The following main interventions related to th e issues of solidarit y and responsibility:  
• the strengthening and clarification of several provisions in the Dublin and 
EURODAC Regulations in order to enhanc e the efficiency and ensure better 
compliance and uniform application by the Member States (in particular 
provisions on the humanitarian and sovereig nty clause and those relating to family 
unity) and the possibility to suspend ('freeze returns') in certain cases the 
application of the Dublin rules to relieve overburdened Member States, 
• the implementation of the principle of ex ceptional financial solidarity to be 
enacted to support Member States in  cases of particular pressure, 
• the establishment of a voluntary resettleme nt system for supporting third countries 
with large refugee populations, 
• the approximation of the different types of national Protected Entry Procedures. 
 
EN 5   EN 4.4. Policy option C: Cooperation and exchange of best practices  
This option would be focused on  fostering practical cooperation between Member States: 
making the application of existi ng legislative instruments more uniform across Member States 
(in order to avoid disparities and consequently differences in the effective level of protection 
granted). This practical cooperation would al so present some benefits for sustaining the 
external dimension of EU policy on Asylum i ssues. This aim would be reached through the 
establishment of some type of structural and permanent support, possibly under the form of a 
European Asylum Support Office, which woul d be established by an EU Regulation or 
Decision and would be in charge of some or a ll of the following areas of  activity: Country of 
Origin Information; training and capacity building; Practical assistance to Member States; external dimension; evaluation and monitoring.  
4.5. Policy Option D: Overall comprehensive  legal instrument on asylum and 
creation of a European Asylum Authority  
• An overall legislative intervention on EU legislation  on Asylum aimed to consolidate the 
different existing legislative instruments. In co ntent, the lines stated in option B1 would be 
almost entirely followed, but in form this opt ion would lead to th e adoption of a single 
instrument containing all European law on asyl um (replacing the current set of directives 
and regulations), thus at the same  time harmonising and consolidating. 
• The creation of a European Asylum Authority  in charge of managing and coordinating 
the joint EU policy on Asylum. Such an Authority  would also take the form of an agency 
but would not only coordinate th e practical cooperation activiti es listed there ('European 
Asylum Support Office'): it would also replace national administrative and judicial bodies 
adopting decisions on asylum applications. The Authority would therefore become the 
common European adjudicator centralising all asylum decisions and would have decision 
powers. This option therefore represents the most extreme way to ensure common 
application of EU asylum  law throughout the EU.  
5. COMPARISON
 OF THE  POLICY  OPTIONS 
5.1. Comparison of ratings, results of the weighing 
 
 Policy 
Option 
A: Status 
Quo Policy 
Option B1 Policy 
Option B2 Policy 
Option C Policy 
Option D Preferred 
policy 
option 
(B2+C) 
Ensure that asylum 
procedures are accessible to the persons seeking 
protection and deal 
quickly and efficiently with those who do not 
need it  0 √√√ √√√ √√ √√√√  √√√ 
Ensure higher common 
standards of protection  0 √√√√  √√√ √ √√√√√  √√√ Relevance 
To enhance prompt and 
effective support to 
national asylum 
administrations, by promoting practical 
cooperation 0 0 0 √√√√  √√√√√  √√√√  
 
EN 6   EN Foster solidarity 
mechanisms for dealing with persons in need of 
protection, between 
Member States and between the EU and third 
countries  0 √√√(√) √√√ √√ √√√√  √√√ 
Facilitate the integration 
of protected persons 0 √√√√  √√√ √√ √√√√  √√√ 
Prevent asylum 
shopping and secondary 
movements 0 √√√ √√√ √ √√√√  √√√ 
      
0 0 √√ √√√ 0 √√(√) Transposition feasibility 
 - Under existing treaty 
-Under new treaty 
0 √(√) √√√(√) √√√√  √ √√√√  Feasibility 
Financial feasibility 0 -√√√√  - √√(√) - √√ - √√√√  -√√(√) 
Social impacts at EU 
and MS level 0 √√√ √√ √ √√√ √√√ 
Economic impacts at EU 
and national level 0 √√ √√ 0( √) √√ √√ 
Impact on people in 
need of international 
protection 0 √√√ √√√ √√ √√√√√  √√√ Impacts 
Impact on third 
countries 0 √√√ √√ √√ √√√√  √√√ 
Fundamental rights 0 √√√√  √√√ √√  
√√√√√   
√√√ 
 
 
5.2. The preferred option 
The preferred option was identified mainly in a comparison with policy options B1 (also in 
combination with C) and D where, maintaining almost the same level of positive impacts as the latter, it entails lower transposition difficulties and financial and implementation costs. Option B1 presents a number of advantages and is  in many aspects similar to B2, but the latter 
imposes a slightly lower level of harmonisation in  some areas and has therefore better chances 
of being successfully transposed and implem ented. Option D has one main drawback: the 
transfer of sovereignty from the Member Stat es to the proposed European Asylum Authority 
does not have chances, at this stage, of bei ng accepted by the majority of Member States.  
The main advantages of the preferred option are: 
• It achieves relevant results in fostering an integrated and comprehensive approach  to 
asylum issues, guaranteeing this objective through higher common st andards of protection 
and the support of practi cal cooperation activities. 
• It ensures improved access to protection by starting work on the approximation of national 
Protected Entry Procedures and by amending th e Procedures directive to make it more 
'access-sensitive'.  
• It establishes higher common standards in the field of asylum  through enhanced 
measures concerning reception conditions  (i.e. easier access to labour market and 
 
EN 7   EN healthcare), procedures (common procedure with  strong guarantees), qualification  (i.e. 
common definition of two intern ational protection statuses). 
• It enhances prompt and effective support to national administrations  by improving the 
convergence in decision making processes in  Member States through the creation of a 
European Asylum Support Office  which would coordinate and monitor various 
activities. 
• It fosters real responsibility and solidarity between Member St ates and between the EU 
and third countries  through improvements to the Dublin system and a voluntary EU 
resettlement scheme  and the further development of capacity building programmes and 
Regional Protection programmes,  in third countries. 
• It promotes the integration of protected persons and specifically of persons enjoying 
subsidiary protection by increasing the level of the rights attached to their status. 
As far as impacts  are concerned: 
• It creates a more level playing field throughout the EU, allowing a more efficient 
management of refugee flows  between Member States, with a greater chance of 
integrating protected people in receiving communities. 
• By enhancing access to the labour market for asylum-seekers, it has the potential of 
slightly diminishing illegal labour supply  and filling marginal skill shortages within the 
Member States labour markets. 
• It provides greater protecti on to people in need of inte rnational protection by better 
addressing the needs of the more vulnerabl e groups, including due sensitivity to the 
particular difficulties and constraints that female asylum seekers may face when presenting their claims. 
• It has an overall high positive impact on third countries  by partially relieving them of 
possible asylum pressures through the voluntary EU resettlement scheme  and allows 
them to increase their asylum mana gement capacities through corresponding capacity 
building programmes . 
• It enhances asylum seekers’ and beneficiar ies of international pr otection’s fundamental 
rights by providing reinforced conditions through  which they can benefit from such rights. 
Concerning costs, the less binding characteristic  of the preferred policy option would entail 
lower financial and administrative costs in comparison to a full-scale harmonisation 
process .  
• There are however measures such as the extens ion of reception conditions to applicants of 
subsidiary protection and the stronger guarant ees related to procedures which inevitably 
entail higher financial and administrative costs compared to the current CEAS , 
although the easier access to the labour market  for asylum-seekers could slightly dilute 
the overall financial impacts.  
• Measures of practical cooperation will entail additional costs  due to the need to back up 
the various cooperation measures with adequa te financial support (i .e. shared financial 
support to projects and training, financi ng capacity building programmes in third 
countries).  
• Administrative costs are also inclined to grow  given the increased utilization of asylum 
personnel necessary to respond to the foreseen  cooperation measures. The creation of the 
 
EN 8   EN European Asylum Support Office  would however help national administrations to 
moderate the increase in administrative costs in the long term.  
6. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION   
The monitoring and evaluation of  the implementation of the preferred option will be an 
important element to ensure the effectivene ss of the Policy Plan. The Commission will ensure 
that the appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of this Policy Plan are in place and will have a pre-eminent role in such m onitoring process. It will also vigilant that 
standards of fundamental rights' protection of its proposals are not weakened during the 
legislative process. 
As for indicators to assess progress and effectiv eness of the preferred option in achieving the 
policy objectives, the following can be taken into consideration, among others: 
• Number of new applications for asylum 
• Number of rejections and of positive decisions granting ref ugee or subsidiary protection 
status 
• Number of asylum-seekers in compar ison with resident population and GDP 
• Number of Dublin re quests and transfers 
• Number of Regional Protecti on Programmes implemented, and resources dedicated for 
them 
• Number of resettled refug ees from third countries 
• Level of financial resources allocated for the ERF 
• Level of financial resources allocated for prac tical cooperation activities, including for the 
creation of a European Asylum Support Office