EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC (2008) 2944 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the  
 
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers 
  
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 815 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2945} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Lead DG:  Justice, Freedom and Security ........................................................................... 4 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 1.1. Background ................................................................................................................ .. 4 
1.1.1. Policy context.......................................................................................................... ..... 4 
1.1.2. Organisation and timing, c onsultation and expertise ................................................... 4 
1.2. The Impact Assessment Board..................................................................................... 5 1.3. State of play: Existing legal instruments...................................................................... 6 2. SECTION 2: PROBLEM DEFINITION ..................................................................... 6 2.1. Scope of the problem ................................................................................................... 6 2.2. What is the issue or the probl em that may require action? .......................................... 7 
2.2.1. The Reception Conditions Directive does not always guarantee adequate standards of 
treatment for asylum seekers........................................................................................ 7 
2.2.2. Different standards of treatment, between  vulnerable asylum s eekers and vulnerable 
nationals, could lead to discrimination....................................................................... 18 
2.2.3. Secondary movements of asylum seekers and refugees applying for international 
protection in more than one Member St ate impose an unfair strain on national 
administrations and on asylum seekers...................................................................... 20 
2.3. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal?........................................... 21 
2.4. Does the EU have the power to act? .......................................................................... 22 2.4.1. The EU's right to act................................................................................................... 22 
2.4.2. EU added value and the pr inciple of subsidiarity ...................................................... 23 
2.5. Consultation with Stakeholders.................................................................................. 25 3. SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 26 3.1. Global objectives........................................................................................................ 2 6 
3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 26  
3.3. Operational objectives................................................................................................ 26 4. POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 27 4.1. Option 1: Status Quo.................................................................................................. 27 4.2. Detention................................................................................................................. ... 30 
4.3. To guarantee that the needs of vulnerabl e persons and other persons with special 
needs are timely and adequately addressed................................................................ 30 
EN 3   EN 4.4. To ensure adequate standards fo r material reception conditions ............................... 31 
4.5. Facilitate access to the labour market ........................................................................ 32 4.6. Define the scope of appli cation of the Directive........................................................ 33 
5. Assessment of policy options and identif ication of preferred policy option ............. 33 
5.1. Detention................................................................................................................. ... 33 
5.2. To guarantee that the needs of vulne rable groups are timely and adequately 
addressed.................................................................................................................... 35  
5.3. To ensure adequate standards fo r material reception conditions ............................... 35 
5.4. Facilitate Access to the Labour Market ..................................................................... 37 5.5. Further clarify the scope of applicatio n of the Directive and extend it to cover 
subsidiary protection applicants................................................................................. 38 
6. Assessment of Preferred Policy Option ..................................................................... 41 6.1. Budgetary and Labour Market im pacts of envisaged measures................................. 41 
6.2. Other Impacts:............................................................................................................ 45 
6.3. Assessment and considerations of pr oportionality and EU added value ................... 49 
7. Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 50 
EN 4   ENLead DG: Justice, Freedom and Security 
1. PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF INTERESTED  
PARTIES 
1.1. Background 
1.1.1.  Policy context 
Work on the creation of a Common Eur opean Asylum System (CEAS) started 
immediately after the entry into force of  the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, as 
advocated by the Tampere European Counc il. During the first phase of the CEAS 
(1999-2005), the goal was to harmonise Member  States' legal frameworks on the basis 
of common minimum standards. The Reception  Conditions Directive was the first of 
five pieces of EU asylum legislation flow ing from the Tampere Conclusions. It aims 
to establish reception conditions that will normally suffice to provide asylum seekers 
with a 'dignified standard of living and comparable living conditions in all Member 
States'.  
Since the Directive was adopted  during the initial stages of creation of the CEAS and 
discussed under unanimity in the Council, the level of ambition of the final text was rather low and only reached the lowest common denominator . This outcome is also 
reflected in the Commission's Evaluation Re port on the application of the Reception 
Conditions Directive, which hi ghlights a number of deficien cies notably with regard 
to access to material reception conditions and health care, freedom of movement, 
treatment of vulnerable persons such as mi nors and victims of to rture, and access to 
employment.  
The Hague Programme invite d the Commission to conclude the evaluation of the 
first-phase legal instruments and to s ubmit the second-phase instruments and 
measures to the Council and the European Pa rliament with a view to their adoption 
before the end of 2010. The proposal to amend the Reception Conditions Directive 
thus seeks to address adequately the defici encies identified during the first phase of 
the asylum legislation.  
1.1.2.  Organisation and timing, consultation and expertise 
The report issued by the Commission on 26 November 2007
1 (the Evalua tion Report), 
thereby fulfilling its obligation under Ar ticle 25 of the Dir ective, provided an 
overview of the transposition and applica tion of the Directive by Member States, 
highlighting points where clarification of  the existing provisions and/or further 
harmonisation is required. The Evaluation Report was prepared on the basis of two studies conducted to gather the necessary information on the implementation of the Directive.
2  
                                                 
1 COM (2007) 745 
2 European Migration Network 'R eception Systems, their capacities and the social situation of 
asylum applicants within the reception system in the EU Member States', and Odysseus 
Academic Network Report, Comparative  Overview of the Implementation of  Directive 2003/9 
of 27 January 2003 laying down  Minimum Standards for the  Reception of Asylum Seekers  in 
EN 5   ENAdditionally, the Commission c onsidered that before propos ing any new initiative, it 
needed to engage in in-depth reflection and debate with all the relevant stakeholders 
on the future architecture of the CEAS. It therefore presented, on 6 June 2007, a 
Green Paper3 on the future of the CEAS aiming to identify possible options for 
shaping the second phase of asylum legislat ion and incorporating a number of areas 
for consideration, including reception conditions. The response to the public consultation encompassed 89 contributions  from a wide range of stakeholders
4, 
including 20 Member States, regional and local authorities, the Committee of the 
Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, UNHCR, academic institutions, political parties and a large number of NGOs.  
Furthermore, experts' meetings  were organised between December 2007 and March 
2008 with academics
5, Member States6, NGOs and UNHCR7 and Members of the 
European Parliament8 in order to seek their opin ion on further amelioration of 
reception condition standards. Member Stat es were, in addition, consulted on the 
areas the Commission envisages to  address in the second phase of asylum legislation 
in relation to reception c onditions, during the Immigra tion and Asylum Committee 
meeting held on 5 March 2008.  
Preparatory to the Impact Assessment, the Commission arranged for an external 
study9 to be conducted. The problem, objectiv es and policy options assessed were 
based on the Evaluation Report in  the light of an analysis of the contributions to the 
Green Paper and the conclusions of the expe rts' meetings as we ll as contributions 
from the contractor. Important data were collected also from literature reviews mainly 
in the form of reports by UNHCR, ECRE and Save the Children. The report also 
incorporates comments submitted during the inter-service steering group meeting 
attended by representative s of the RELEX, SANCO, EA C and ELARG Directorates-
General, which took place on 20 June 2008. Th e Directorates-General consulted will 
also have the opportunity to submit their comments on the final text of the 
Commission’s proposal to amend the Recepti on Conditions Directive during the Inter-
Service Consultation procedure.  
1.2. The Impact Assessment Board 
The Impact Assessment was revised to take into account the opinions issued by the 
Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 26 Se ptember 2008 and 13 October 2008. All the 
                                                                                                                                            
the EU Member States (this impact assessment us es the updated version of this report that will 
be made available as soon as possible on the EUROPA website).  
3 COM (2007) 301 
4 The 89 contributions received are available at: 
 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributi
ons_asym_ystem_e.htm .  
5 This meeting took place on 7 December 2007 
6 Meetings took place in the context of contact committees on 11, 12, 25 February and in the 
Immigration and Asylum Committee of 5 March 2008 
7 18 February 2008 
8 5 March 2008  
9 Impact assessments on certain instrument s of the Common European Asylum Policy, 
Ernst&Young Financial Business Advisors S.P.A. (Specific contract No JLS/2007/A1/xx). 
The external study will be published at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_en.htm
  
EN 6   ENcomments made by the IAB were taken into  consideration in the revised Impact 
Assessment: the budgetary and employment im pacts of the proposed measures are 
further quantified and some data on costs or numbers of asylum seekers affected are 
provided; the principle of subsid iarity is elaborated with a view to better justifying the 
necessity and added value of EU action, and the interacti on of this principle with 
fundamental rights is further developed; syst ematic reference is made to the number 
of Member States affected by th e various parts of the proposal.   
1.3. State of play: Existing legal instruments 
The Reception Conditions Directive is the only existing legal instrument at EU level 
dealing with the reception of as ylum seekers within EU territory .  
At international level,  the Geneva Convention relating to  the Status of Refugees of 28 
July 1951, as supplemented by the New Yo rk Protocol of 31 January 1967 (the 
Refugee Convention) provides for certain rece ption standards for those lawfully in the 
territory of the contracting part ies. It specifically provides inter alia  for the right to 
wage-earning employment, the right to se lf-employment, access to housing, access to 
the labour market and the right to edu cation. The Reception Conditions Directive 
refers to the Refugee Convention and states that, at its special meeting in Tampere on 
15 and 16 October 1999, the European Council agreed to work towards establishing a 
CEAS based on full and inclusive app lication of the Refugee Convention.  
Respect for fundamental human rights is alwa ys to be taken into consideration when 
implementing asylum policies. The right to  liberty and security, protection against 
torture and inhuman and degrading trea tment or punishment, the prohibition of 
discrimination, the right to an effective reme dy, the right to a fam ily life and the rights 
of the child, as prescribed under internat ional human rights law, apply to all human 
beings irrespective of their residence status.  
2. SECTION  2: PROBLEM  DEFINITION 
2.1. Scope of the problem  
Apart from a slight in crease between 1996 and 2002, fuelled by further armed 
conflicts in the former Yugos lavia, in the last 15 years (1992-2007) there has been a 
substantial and sharp drop in the number  of asylum applications in the EU: 
considering only EU 15, for example, th e number of applications fell from 672,385 
recorded in 1992 to 161,890 in 2007.  
Taking a closer look at the most recent trends, since 2003 the number of asylum 
seekers in the EU has almost halved: fr om a total of 337,235 asylum applications 
lodged in EU 27 in 2003 to 186,890 in 2007 (- 45%). Most EU Member States have 
recorded a drop in the number  of applications lodged, with  a particularly significant 
fall in some of them (e.g. Slovenia  (-65%), Austria (-63%), France (-44%)), while a limited number of Member States have witnessed a significant increase in asylum applications: Greece (105%), Sweden 
(37%), Hungary (62%) and Cyprus (49%).  It should be noted, however, that the 
figures for 2007 reveal an in crease in the numbers of those seeking protection in 
Europe.  
EN 7   ENAs stressed in the Commission’s Policy Plan on asylum,10 refugee flows worldwide 
are mainly driven by push factors11 (such as political instab ility, no/poor rule of law, 
lack of respect for human ri ghts, undemocratic regimes, wars and civil conflicts) and 
consequently, notwithstanding the positive im pact that the EU's and the Member 
States' external policies might have in th e long term, it cannot reasonably be expected 
that the above-mentioned push factors will di sappear soon. It is therefore necessary to 
ensure that protection can be sought and obtained by third-country nationals in the 
Member States of the EU, in compliance with international obligations to which all Member States are party, fi rst and foremost the Refug ee Convention of 28 July 1951 
and the related Protocol of 31 January 1967.  
It should be noted th at taking into consideration the f act that asylum flows are mostly 
influenced by push factors in the countries of origin, it is extremely difficult to foresee how the envisaged Commission measures will affect current asylum trends
12. 
2.2. What is the issue or the problem that may require action?  
As will be illustrated below, the fact that Member States are allowed a wide margin of 
manoeuvre when implementing the Reception Conditions Directive has first and foremost led to the establishment of low r eception standards. As  a result, reception 
conditions at national level ma y not always guarantee an ad equate level of treatment 
for asylum seekers, whereas in some cases differences in treatment between asylum seekers and nationals could amount to discrimination.  
It should be emphasised that low standard s concerning the leve l of social rights 
granted to asylum seekers raise strong con cerns about respect for fundamental rights; 
although the Directive itself does not infringe internatio nal or EU standards of 
treatment, as emphasised by the Commission's Evaluation Report as well as by reports 
from NGOs the wide margin of discretion granted to Member States in implementing its provisions could lead to policies that mi ght be perceived as not  being fully in line 
with fundamental rights esta blished by the EU Charter of  Fundamental Rights as well 
as the International Covena nt on Economic, Social a nd Cultural Rights, the UN 
Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nd the UN Convention Against Torture.  
Secondly, the diversity of national policie s has not led to a limitation of the 
phenomenon of secondary movement, which wa s one of the objectives of the current 
Reception Conditions Directive (Recital 8).  
2.2.1.  – The Reception Conditions Directive does not always guarantee adequate 
standards of treatment for asylum seekers 
As provided under Article 63 of the Treat y establishing the European Community 
(TEC),
13 the Reception Conditions Directive aims at guaranteeing minimum reception 
                                                 
10 Policy Plan on Asylum ‘An integrated approach to protection across the EU’ COM(2008) 360 
11 Pull factors may also play a role at a second stage, i.e. when the asylum seeker considers 
where to seek protection: the level of benefits granted by a country, th e chances of receiving 
protection, the existence of members of his/he r community, etc. will partially determine the 
choice of destination fo r the asylum seeker.  
12 For more information see Policy Plan 'The Pers istence of refugee flows towards the EU', page 
5  
EN 8   ENstandards for asylum seekers for as long as they legally remain in the territory of a 
Member State. 
A number of information sour ces highlight specific deficiencies in relation to the 
standard of reception facilities available to  asylum seekers. The Green Paper adopted 
by the Commission underlines the fact that the wide discretion allowed to Member 
States in interpreting the key elements of the Directive has had the result of 'negating 
the desired harmonised effect'.14 This position is also shared by the Commission's 
Evaluation Report, which points to a number of deficiencies in relation to addressing 
the needs of asylum seekers in Member States. Various stakeholders such as national and international in stitutions and organisation s, including UNHCR, NGOs and 
individuals, have also submitted to the Commission information indicating various 
shortcomings in Member States' reception systems.  
The Directive sought to bring about a le vel playing field covering the different 
national asylum policies in relation to the reception of asylum seekers. However, because it was adopted during the initial stag es of creation of the CEAS and discussed 
under unanimity in the Council, the level of ambition of the final text was rather low 
and only reached the lowest common denomi nator. In this respect the Directive 
provides for a number of results-based ob ligations allowing for a wide degree of 
discretion in the way these obligations are to be met by Member States. Additionally, 
these results-based obligations are in some  cases vaguely formulated, which renders 
their monitoring by the Commission a particularly difficult exercise.  
Consequently, the lack of st rictly and/or clearly defi ned benchmarks for Member 
States’ reception policies has led to the setting of standards of treatment below the level the Directive was intended to ensu re, notably with regard to access to 
employment, health care, the level and fo rm of material reception conditions, free 
movement rights and the needs of vulne rable persons. Additionally, the legal 
ambiguity of the text makes it difficult to clearly substantiate infringement cases 
before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 
The main deficiencies are manifested in the following areas: 1. Detention of asylum seekers
 
According to the EU legislation and internat ional standards, an asylum seeker cannot 
be detained for the sole reason that he/she is  an applicant for asylum; detention in this 
respect could only apply under limited and clearly defined circumstances. 
The Reception Conditions Directive and the As ylum Procedures Directive tackle to a 
certain extent the issue of grounds a nd procedural safeguards of detention15, whereas 
                                                                                                                                            
13 Article 63 provides for the adoption by the Coun cil of 'minimum standards on the reception of 
asylum seekers in Member States' within a period of five years af ter the entry into force of the 
Treaty of Amsterdam 
14 p 5 
15 The Reception Conditions Directiv e states in Article 7(3) that Member States may, when it 
proves necessary for example for legal reasons or reasons of public order,  confine an applicant 
to a particular place in accordance with their national law. According to Article 18 of the 
Asylum Procedures Directive, Member States sha ll not hold a person in detention for the sole 
EN 9   ENboth legislative instruments are silent on the issue of  conditions and length of 
detention. Deficiencies in the area of law are linked both to the issue of lo w standards, 
notably as far as conditions of detention are concerned, and to diverse policies, in 
particular concerning grounds of detention.  
Grounds of detention 
Member States apply numerous grounds for detention, sometimes specific to asylum 
seekers or equally valid for foreigners. Tw o extreme cases can be emphasised, where 
asylum seekers are detained only for reasons of criminal investigation or penal sanction and where detention is only app lied at the border if the conditions for 
entering the territory are not fulfilled. Asylum  seekers are also detained on grounds of 
a procedural nature such as  accelerated procedures, Dub lin determination procedure, 
in cases of late or multiple applications, or based on their behaviour. 
It should be noted in this respect that th e EU legislation on detention (namely the 
Reception Conditions Directive and the As ylum Procedures Directive) vaguely 
defines the circumstances under which dete ntion could be legitimate and provides 
room for different interpretations by Member States in this area of law. Specifically, Article 7(3) of the Reception Conditions  Directive, under which 'when it proves 
necessary' an asylum seeker may be deta ined, could be used to justify various 
detention regimes, even in cases where as  a matter of course a Member State will 
detain any asylum seeker for breach of immigration rules.
16 Such policies would seem 
disproportional taking into consideration the fact that the great majority of asylum 
seekers arrive in the EU irregularly. Although ECtHR (European Court of Human 
Rights) case-law does not lay down exhaus tive rules on the issue of grounds of 
detention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation on 
measures of detention for asylum seeker s as well as the UNHCR guidelines on the 
criteria and standards relating to the detenti on of asylum seekers should be taken into 
consideration and applied by Memb er States in this respect.  
Conditions of detention 
It has been brought to the attention of th e Commission that detained asylum seekers 
often have to contend with difficult living conditions, are extremely isolated and are at 
times deprived of essential facilities.17 Although conditions of  detention in the 
different Member States vary and some detention centres provide acceptable accommodation conditions and adequate access to basic facilities, in a large number 
of cases conditions fall below the standards intended by the Directive.  
                                                                                                                                           
 
reason that he/she is an appli cant for asylum and, if detention takes place, Member States shall 
ensure that there is a possibility of speedy judicial review. 
16 Malta practises systematic detention of all asyl um seekers entering the territory irregularly (in 
the sense that they do not have the necessary documents). Detention lasts as long as it takes 
for the asylum application to be determined. Where an application is still pending after 12 months, the asylum seeker is released.  
17 JRS report on 'Detention in the 10 New Member States - A Study of Administrative Detention 
of Asylum Seekers and Irregularly Staying Third Country Nationals in the 10 New Member States of the EU'   
EN 10   ENIn certain Member States legislative meas ures are taken to a void the detention of 
certain categories of asylum seekers with special needs,18 although this is not the case 
for the majority of Member States. Dete ntion of certain categories of vulnerable 
persons, notably minors, raises great concerns , especially in cases where they are kept 
together with adults. In a number of Me mber States minors do not have access to 
education when in detention. It is hard  to contest the fact that under some 
circumstances detention of vulnerable person s, especially minors, could cause further 
traumatisation and thus even enda nger a fair asylum procedure. 
The issue of conditions of dete ntion cannot be separated from  the issue of legality of 
detention. The ECtHR's case- law illustrates a clear lin k between conditions of 
detention and arbitrary dete ntion. Specifically, in the Ammur  case, the Court stated 
that 'quality in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty – especially in respect of a forei gn asylum seeker – it must be sufficiently 
accessible and precise in order to avoid all risks of arbitrariness.
19 In Saadi20 the Court 
paid particular attention to the conditions of detention like social support, special facilities for different groups, short period, etc., and held that under the specific 
circumstances detention was not arbitrary. 
Moreover, inadequate conditions of detent ion could amount to an infringement of 
Article 3 of the ECHR (European Conventi on on Human Rights). In this respect, in 
the case of Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga
21 the Court found that conditions 
of detention in the case of a minor were such that they amounted to inhuman and 
degrading treatment. Finally, the same conclusion was reached in the Dougoz22 case 
where it was upheld that conditions such as  overcrowding, insufficient sanitary and 
sleeping facilities in combination with dura tion of detention infringed the Convention. 
The developing case-law of the ECtHR thus i llustrates that Member States need to 
pay particular attention to conditions of detention.  
Length of detention 
Length of detention is not regulated within  the EU. The maximum period of detention 
is usually one month, but in many Member States detention could be indefinite.23 The 
Saadi case leaves room for questioning dete ntion on account of its length. Although 
the Court concluded that, in that particular case, there was no violation of Article 5 of 
                                                 
18 minors according to legislation in Austria, Finland, Hungary and Lithuania; unaccompanied 
minors according to legislation in Poland; victims of torture, rape or other serious forms of 
psychological, physical or sexual violence according to the legislation of the United Kingdom, 
Finland and Poland; the di sabled according to legislation in Poland and to practice in Sweden; 
vulnerable persons in general according to legisl ation in Finland and in Malta according to the 
policy of the Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity (those persons will be released after 
a period of detention of around 2 months maximum when their special needs will have been 
identified) 
19 Ammur v France  application no. 19776/92, 25.6.1996, para 50 
20 Saadi v. the United Kingdom application no. 13229/03, 29.01.08 
21 Mubilanzila Mayeka and Ka niki Mitunga v Belgium , application no 13178/03, 12.10.06 
22 Dougoz v Greece , application number 40907/98, 6.03.01 
23 United Kingdom, Finland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Malta, 
Netherlands, Estonia 
EN 11   ENthe ECHR, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was detained for one 
week, the decision could have been di fferent if detention was longer.  
Legal Safeguards 
Article 21(2) of the Directive obliges Member States to grant asylum seekers access to 
legal assistance when they introduce an app eal against negative decisions relating to 
free movement on a Member State’s terr itory. However, the freedom given to 
Member States as to how to implement th e Directive is problematic. At least two 
Member States do not provide statutory entitle ment to legal assistance. In other cases, 
only legal counselling is avai lable and legal representati on of the asylum seeker 
before the authority is financed on the ba sis of non-state resour ces. In other cases 
where the state provides for lawyers, the system does not work effectively due to a lack of training on how to deal with asylum claims.
24 The need to ensure access to 
legal assistance is a very important prerequisite  to the legality of detention itself. This 
has been emphasised in the Saadi  case, where the Court stressed the importance of 
ensuring access to legal assi stance while in detention.  
Additionally, access to information as stip ulated under Article 5 of the Reception 
Conditions Directive is also of relevance in  cases of detention. This provision obliges 
Member States to inform asylum seekers,  within a maximum period of fifteen days 
after they have lodged the asylum app lication, of at least any established benefits  and 
of the obligations with which they must comply relating to reception conditions. This 
obligation does not seem to cover Article 5 of the ECHR, which st ates that everyone 
who is arrested shall be informed promptly , of the reasons for his arrest and the charge 
against him'. In the light of this it could be submitted that the fifteen-day period within which detained asylum seekers must be in formed of their rights and the grounds of 
detention might be too long, aggravati ng their vulnerable position even more. 
2. Vulnerable asylum seekers
 
The Commission has identified the deficien cies in addressing special needs and 
providing medical assistance and qualified c ounselling to vulnerable persons as the 
most serious concern in the area of recep tion of asylum seekers in relation to both 
diverse and inadequate standards of treatme nt. The Directive imposes an obligation on 
Member States to take into consideration the specific situation of vulnerable persons. 
However, since it does not sp ecify how this obligation should be met, there is in 
practice a lack of established concrete mechanisms at national level designed to 
account for such needs. Additionally, the obligat ion to 'take into consideration' special 
needs is vaguely formulated, which impedes the Commission's monitoring role in this 
respect. 
Identification mechanisms 
                                                 
24 Odysseus report, p. 62 
EN 12   ENIt should be underlined that identifying special needs not only has a bearing on access 
to appropriate treatment, but could also a ffect the quality of the decision-making 
process in relation to the asylum appli cation, especially for traumatised persons.25  
At least eleven Member States, some of  which receive large numbers of asylum 
applications, do not lay down a formal proce dure for identifying special needs, either 
in legislation or in policy instructions. Si x Member States make provision for such a 
mechanism at the beginning of the asylum pr ocedure, but in at least two of those the 
identification procedures seem inadequa te. Moreover two Member States identify 
special needs only in the case of unaccompanied minors.  
In those Member States where such procedures have been established, needs are 
identified at different stages of the asylum  procedure: for example, at the time of the 
medical screening of asylum seekers (2 Member States); upon lodging the asylum 
application (6 Member states); at the time of the first hearing in  the context of the 
asylum procedure; upon arrival on the territo ry or at the border; or during an  interview 
with a social assistant in the centre. In come cases, therefor e, the identification of such 
needs does not occur at the initi al stage of the asylum proce dure, which could affect in 
a negative way the asylum determination procedure.  
Moreover, the mechanisms established in order to identify special needs are not 
usually proactive. As a consequence, the identification process starts only if an asylum seeker displays behaviour or other signs which could indica te the existence of 
special needs. The lack of pr oactive mechanisms is confirmed by the fact that in many 
countries there is no specifi c institution responsible fo r identifying special needs. 
Instead, it is left to the many different act ors in the procedure (such as border guards, 
reception centre staff, caseworkers, NGOs, the police, etc.) to detect, throughout the 
asylum process, signs or behaviour which c ould indicate special needs. This approach 
carries with it the risk th at special needs may go undetected and, if not addressed, 
eventually become aggravated.
26 
Access to health care and housing  
Deficiencies have also been detected in re lation to access to health  care and treatment 
in at least eight Member States. Although this  deficiency concerns all asylum seekers, 
it has a particularly negative impact on persons with special needs, given their 
vulnerable situation.  
The Directive provides that Member  States shall ensure access to 'necessary health 
care'  that would include at least 'emergency care and essentia l treatment of illness'. 
Additionally, it stipulates that 'necessary medical or other assistance ' must be 
                                                 
25 In Belgium, the place of registration is chos en according to the need s of the beneficiary 
depending on availability; in Spain, vulnerable asylum seekers have priority for access to 
reception centres for refugees; in Hungary, wome n on their own and single parents with minor 
children are accommodated in a protected enviro nment; in the Czech Republic, vulnerable 
asylum seekers are housed in th e protected zones of centres that  are more secure than others; 
in Sweden, there are apartmen ts which are specially equipped for disabled persons. 
26 Odysseus report p. 84 – 90, ECRE proposal for revision of the EC Directive on the Reception 
of Asylum Seekers p. 14, EURASIL workshop on traumatised persons in the asylum procedure, 20 May 2008 Brussels 
EN 13   ENavailable to applicants who have special needs, and that victims of torture and 
violence must receive ' necessary treatment' . Due to the fact that the meaning of these 
notions is difficult to determine, this obligation has, in some cases, been interpreted too narrowly, failing to guarantee adequate standards.  
In the main, although the vast majority of Member States in thei r national legislation 
do recognise the right of asylum  seekers to health care, onl y basic health services are 
granted to asylum seekers. Moreover, acc ess to psychological care and counselling 
has been particularly problematic in many Member States. Only in a limited number 
of cases have Member States established sp ecific centres for asylum seekers suffering 
from psychological disorder, added psychol ogists or psychiatrists to the medical 
teams working in reception centres or made  health services available externally.  
As regards referral of asylum seekers to  specialists who can provide care, the 
reception centre staff and medical staff play a central role in the majority of Member 
States. However, it seems that there is no clear system for such referrals since, as stated above, there is no clear system of identification of special  needs which require 
specialist care.
27  
Further obstacles with regard  to access to health care c ould arise from administrative 
procedures in Member States or document ation requirements that the asylum seeker 
might not be able to fulfil. 
In relation to housing arrangements, incide nts reported by stakeholders regarding 
gender-based violence within accomm odation centres are of great concern.28 The 
Directive obliges Member States to 'pay particular attention to the prevention of 
assault' within accommodation centres, but th is does not entail any specific obligation 
to prevent sexual assault within those pr emises. Many of the services provided in 
accommodation centres are not gender-sensiti ve, which makes it difficult to prevent 
such incidents. It is questionable in th is respect whether housing conditions provide 
for an adequate environment for the development of family life and the respect of 
private life.29 
Access to education 
Member States must provide access to the e ducation system within  three months from 
the date of lodging the applica tion. This flexibility  has been built in with a view to 
adjusting the legislation to the different  schooling systems in  the EU. However, 
according to the Directive, this period may be extended to one year where specific 
education is provided in orde r to facilitate access to the education system. Member 
States in principle provide access within th e three-month time frame and it seems that 
the possibility to extend it to one year has not been transposed into national laws.30  
                                                 
27 Information gathered during the EURASIL workshop on traumatised persons in the asylum 
procedure, 20 May 2008 Brussels 
28 Manual on 'Prevention and Monitoring of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Among Persons 
in Need of International Prot ection in Central Europe and th e Baltic States' 2004 by Menedék 
(Hungarian Association for Migrants ), funded by the PHARE programme. 
29 See n.29 JRS report  
30 Odysseus p. 92-93 
EN 14   ENThe Commission's Green Paper on "Mig ration & Mobility: Challenges and 
Opportunities for EU Education Systems"31, adopted on 3 July 2008, recognises the 
educational difficulties caused by segregated  schooling and underlines the importance 
of pre-school education. In ge neral, major difficulties are faced by minors in Member 
States where no preparatory sc hooling is made available, es pecially in the form of 
language classes with a view  to facilitating their integration into the national 
education system. Where such practices are adopted at national le vel, they assist 
minors in benefiting to the fullest possible extent from the national education system and avoid the creation of segregated schools th at could lead to their isolation from the 
hosting Member State.  
Inadequate training of staff  
The Directive's Articles 14(5), 19( 4) and 24(1) aim at ensuring  that training of persons 
working in accommodation centres takes into account the specific needs of unaccompanied minors as well as the gende r dimension. There is at present no 
specific provision ensuring that personnel ar e adequately trained with a view to 
addressing specific needs of victims of tort ure or rape in part icular. In practice, 
specific training on addressing the needs of torture victim s very rarely occurs.  
Scope of the problem 
The Reception Conditions Directive obliges Me mber States to "regularly inform the 
Commission on the data concerning the num ber of persons, broken down by sex and 
age, covered by reception conditions and provide full information on the type, name and format of the documents provided fo r by Article 6". Memb er States have, 
however, failed to collect this information at national level. Owing to the lack of 
statistical data it is difficult to get a more accurate picture of the extent of the problems that require attention regarding vulne rable persons. In ge neral, very little 
statistical information is available in the Member States on the number of asylum 
seekers with special needs or those who use specialised or specially adapted facilities. 
Where such statistical evidence is available, it refers mainly to unaccompanied minors, single-parent families or elderly persons (although there is no agreed definition of elderly persons).
32  
3. Material Reception Conditions33  
The Reception Conditions Directive obliges Me mber States to provide asylum seekers 
with material reception conditions that incl ude 'housing, food and clothing provided in 
kind or as financial allowances or in vouchers, and a daily expenses allowance'.34 In 
all cases material reception conditions should en sure 'a standard of living adequate for 
the health of applican ts and capable of ensu ring their subsistence'.35 Moreover, 
whenever housing is provided, Member States  must ensure family unity as far as 
                                                 
31 Green Paper on Migration & mobility: challenges and opportunities for EU education systems, 
3.7.2008, COM (2008) 423 
32 Ibid. For available statistical data see Annex II 
33 Statistics on material reception conditions are not available at EU level. It is not known how 
many asylum seekers are put up in accommodati on centres and in private housing or what 
costs are incurred regarding granting acce ss to material reception conditions.  
34 Article 2(j) 
35 Article 13(2) 
EN 15   ENpossible. This obligation leaves a wide marg in of discretion as to the form of the 
material reception conditions that are to be provided by Member States. The 
Evaluation Report underlined a number of concerns with regard to the level of material reception conditions granted in some  Member States that seems not to be in 
line with fundamental rights. The huge dive rsity of national pol icies on this issue 
further hampers the harmonisation process in respect of reception standards within the 
EU 
Level of material reception conditions 
Both the Evaluation Report, several cont ributions sent to the Commission by NGOs
36 
and individuals identify a number of problem s in relation to the level of financial 
allowances given to asylum seekers. In general, material reception conditions are problematic in a large number of Member St ates where they are partially or entirely 
provided in the form of mone y; at least 15 Member States seem to give very low 
financial allowances to asylum seekers;
37 the amounts involved seem to be inadequate 
to ensure the health and/or subsistence of asylum seekers and are only rarely commensurate with the minimum social suppor t granted to nationa ls. Even in cases 
where this minimum standard is applied, it might still not be sufficient, as asylum 
seekers lack family and/or other informal kinds of support. Additionally, it should be 
noted that poor reception conditions could even  lead to a distortion of the system for 
determining responsibility in  respect of an asylum cl aim (Dublin system); in 
particular, because Greece applies very low ma terial reception standards, at least four 
Member States have refused to return asyl um seekers to Greece despite the fact that 
Greece is responsible for processing their claim.  
Withdrawal/reduction of reception conditions 
The Directive allows Member States to re duce or withdraw reception conditions under 
specific circumstances such as non-complia nce with reporting duties, abandoning the 
determined place of residence, lodging a late asylum application, etc.
38 It should also 
be noted that no right of appeal agains t such decisions is provided for by the 
Directive.  
The provisions for reducing or withdrawing access to reception conditions, already 
envisaged in the current text of the Directive, are meant to ensure that the reception system is not abused. However, as the redu ction or withdrawal of reception conditions 
can affect the standard of living of app licants, the Commission considers it important 
to ensure that asylum s eekers are never left destit ute under such circumstances.  In the 
UK the policy of withholding reception condi tions from asylum seekers who fail to 
demonstrate that they applied within three da ys of arrival was stopp ed as a result of a 
House of Lords ruling which held that such practice was incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Right s. The judgment made  it clear that the 
                                                
 
36 Including ECRE, the EC directive on the Reception of Asylum Seekers: Are Asylum Seekers in 
Europe Receiving Material Support and acces s to Employment in Accordance with EU 
legislation ?' November  2005, Pro Asyl,  Information and  Cooperation Forum: Final Report , 
28 February 2006.  
37 Odysseus report, page 26 
38 All  Member States have transposed this option into their national legislation 
EN 16   ENreduction or withdrawal of basic recep tion conditions, such as food, housing and 
access to health care, is inc onsistent with human rights and fundamental rights under 
international legal instruments.39  
In this respect, further guidance and safegua rds are required with a view to ensuring 
that fundamental righ ts are respected.  
4. Access to the labour market40  
Article 11 of the Reception Conditions Direct ive recognises asylum seekers’ right to 
access the labour market. However, it allows Member States to determine the period 
during which asylum seekers cannot access employment, which in any case should not exceed one year in the event that a decisi on at first instance has not been taken and 
the delay cannot be attributed to the asylum seeker. Enjoyment of this right is subject 
to the conditions laid down in national legislation and Member States may also give 
priority to other cate gories of non-nationals.  
Two problematic issues regard ing access to the labour mark et have been identified.
41 
First and foremost the Evaluation Report has identified low standards of treatment. In 
particular, it has been noted that although asylum seekers are in principle granted 
access after a maximum period of one year, actual access to the labour market could 
be hindered to a great extent by the imposition of restrictive conditions at national level with regard to certain economic sectors and the amount of time the asylum seeker can work, and by prohibiting the ex ercise of independent or commercial 
activity. It should be noted in this respect that almost two thirds of Member States 
require asylum seekers to possess a permit or an authorisation to work. In those 
Member States, access to the labour market will be dictated by the constraints flowing 
from the work permit system of the Member State concerned. In some cases the work permit could also be subject to a number of  limitations like working hours or the type 
of work to be carried out.  
Secondly, time frames for granting access diffe r between Member States. Half of the 
Member States allow access to employmen t after 12 months upon submission of an 
application. The other ha lf, with one exception,
42 has opted for more favourable 
provisions ranging from immediate access to 6 months.43 As stated in Recital 7 of the 
current Directive, the harmonisation of legi slation is considered to be a means of 
limiting secondary movement of asylum seekers between Member States; it is 
therefore clear that disparities regarding access to work jeopardise the realisation of 
this goal. In particular, asylum seekers might  be inclined to move to a Member State 
                                                 
39 R(Q) v Secretary of State for th e Home Department [2004] QB 36 , confirmed by the opinion 
of the Lords of Appeal fo r the judgement in the case Regina v Secretary of State for the Home 
Department  [2005]  UKHL 66  
40 No statistics are available at EU level rega rding the number of asylum seekers currently 
employed in Member States.  
41 Odysseus report, p.78-81 and ECRE, ‘The EC Directive on the Reception of Asylum Seekers: 
Are Asylum Seekers in Europe Receiving Mate rial Support and Access to Employment in 
Accordance with European Le gislation?’ November 2005. 
42 Lithuania does not grant access to the labour market to asylum seekers.  
43 Immediate access to employment is allowed in  Greece, whereas the limitation period is 20 
days in Portugal, 3 months in Austria and Finland, 4 months in Sweden, 6 months in Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Cyprus and 9 months in Luxembourg. 
EN 17   ENthat allows quicker access to employment. Re taining in this resp ect the wide margin 
of manoeuvre allowed under the current provisions of th e Directive would not be 
conducive to limiting this phenomenon.  
Studies have pointed to the negative imp act that unemployment, exclusion and the 
lack of personal autonomy have on physical  and mental health. The unemployed and 
socially excluded have a lower life e xpectancy, resulting from a number of 
interconnected factors includi ng loneliness, boredom, social  isolation, loss of self-
esteem, anxiety and depression. For asylum seekers this may exacerbate their already 
vulnerable position.44  
Easier access to employment for asylum s eekers could prevent exclusion from the 
host society, and thus facil itate integration. It would al so promote self-sufficiency 
among asylum seekers. Mandatory unemploym ent on the other hand imposes costs on 
the State through unnecessary soci al welfare payments. Finally it should be noted that, 
as stated in the Commissi on Communication on the 'Links  between legal and illegal 
migration'45, labour market restrictions could encourage illegal working. This is 
particularly relevant for those Member St ates which create obstacles on access to the 
labour market and which grant very low welf are assistance to as ylum seekers at the 
same time. In these circumstances asylum  seekers will be inclined to seek 
employment even in irregular forms that coul d lead to distortion of the labour market.  
5. Applicants for subsidiary protection   
The Reception Conditions Directive applies to  individuals who lodge an asylum claim 
under the Refugee Convention and their family  members as long as they are allowed 
to remain in the territory. At present there is no obligation to extend the application of the Directive to persons applying for subsidiary protection status.
46 Only three 
Member States47 exclude, by law, the applica tion of the Reception Conditions 
Directive in the case of applicants for s ubsidiary protection. However, the recognition 
of subsidiary forms of protec tion and the institutionalisati on of the principle of single 
procedure has in practice led these Member States to grant the reception conditions 
intended for refugee candidates to all pe rsons seeking international protection.48  
                                                 
44 Conclusion of EQUAL event: 'Getting asylum  seekers into employment – challenges and 
opportunities' Chania (Crete  – Greece), 1-2 June 2006 
45 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Commi ttee of the Regions 'Study on the links 
between legal and illegal migration', COM(2004) 412 
46 The reason this category of applicants was left outside the scope of the Directive is due to the 
fact that at the time of its adoption, the concept of subsidiary protection was not covered by 
EU law. Subsidiary protection is now an inte gral part of EU law as reflected in Council 
Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status 
of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need 
international protection and the content of the protection granted. 
47 Only three Member States ex clude in law the application of the Directive in relation to 
subsidiary protection applicants. However, since the introduction of a common application form for refugee and subsidiary protection statuses , the latter category of applicants do benefit 
in practice from reception conditions.  
48 This implies the setting up of a single procedure to determine both whether the applicant is in 
need of refugee or subsidiary protection status and other protection needs 
EN 18   ENAlthough this deficiency does not significantly  affect asylum applicants, neither does 
it lead to divergence in national policies in this  respect, it should still be clarified so as 
to reflect current developments in EU le gislation and to ensure equal treatment 
amongst all asylum seekers.  
6. Asylum seekers within certain ty pes of procedures or locations  
The Evaluation Report on the application of  the Reception Conditions Directive has 
clearly demonstrated that a number of Memb er States either exclude entirely the 
application of the Directive or provide lower reception standards depending on the 
stage of the asylum procedure (for example, four Member States act in this way at the 
very beginning of the procedure,49 while three Member States do so when the asylum 
seeker falls under the scope of the Dublin II Regulation50) or the location (at the 
border).51 Of greater concern is the fact that this  restrictive approach is applied by at 
least nine Member States in detention centres.  
Although in legal terms there is no decisive evidence to show that  the Directive does 
not apply in the cases desc ribed above, it could be su bmitted that its scope of 
application (both in terms of ratione personae and ratione materiae ) is inadequately 
defined. This ambiguity leaves wide room  for interpretation of these obligations. 
These ambiguities could more effectively be  clarified by an express provision in the 
Directive. 
2.2.2.  Different standards of treatment, between vulnerable asylum seekers and 
vulnerable nationals, coul d lead to discrimination.  
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultu ral Rights states that 
parties shall 'recognise the right of everyone  to an adequate standard of living for 
himself and his family, including adequate  food, clothing and housing, and to the 
continuous improvement of living conditions'.52 Similarly, the Reception Conditions 
Directive provides that Member States need to ensure 'a standard  of living adequate 
for the health of applicants and cap able of ensuring their subsistence'.53 
Under the Directive Member States could employ various mechanisms in order to 
abide by this requirement. Even if this leads to the adoption of different measures than 
those applied for nationals, Member States ar e in compliance with their obligations as 
long as the adequacy test is met. However, in the cases referred to above, where reception standards are low, it could be ar gued that different treatment of asylum 
seekers - and in particular  vulnerable persons - could amount to discrimination.  
Close examination of the ECtHR's reasoni ng regarding non-discr imination invites a 
more careful interpretation of the obliga tions imposed on Member States under the 
Directive, with particular reference to vulnerable persons. The ECtHR stated in its 
                                                
 
49 See case: CONSEIL D'ETAT (Section du contentieux, 1ère et 6ème sous-sections) Séance du 
14 mai 2008, Lecture du 16 juin 2008 Nos 300636,300637 Association LA CIMADE 
50 Odysseus Report p. 33, 23  and 94  
51 Although this specific limitation is only applied by a small number of Member States, it is still 
considered problematic especi ally since the Dublin procedure can be very lengthy 
52 Article 11 
53 Article 13 
EN 19   ENjudgement of 15 February 2006 in the case of Niedzwiecki v Germany  that it 'does not 
discern sufficient reasons justifying the di fferent treatment with regard to child 
benefits of aliens who were in possession of a stable residence permit on one hand and 
those who were not, on the other'.54 The case involved a German law providing that a 
foreigner was only entitled to child benefits  if he was in possession of a stable 
residence permit. The Court f ound, in this respect, that th ere had been a violation of 
Article 14 (right not to be discriminated) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to family 
life) of the Convention. The same reasoni ng was employed by the Court in its 
judgment in the case of Okpisz v Germany,55 also concerning child benefits.  
Furthermore, in the Poirrez56 case, the ECtHR found that France's refusal to grant 
access to disabled adults' allowance to a non-national breached Article 14 of the 
Convention as it was an instance of discri mination on grounds of nationality. It was 
further stated in this case that the applicant's right to receive the specific social benefit was established irrespective of the fact that he was paying taxes and/or other 
contributions to the contracting party. The recent Sampanis
57 case further consolidates 
the case-law of the Court as regards the le vel of treatment for vulnerable persons. In 
this case the Court stated that 'given the Roma community’s vulnerability, which 
made it necessary to pay particular attention to their needs, and considering that Article 14 required in certain circumstances  a difference of treatment in order to 
correct inequality, th e competent authorities should ha ve recognised the particularity 
of the case and facilitated the enrolment of the Roma children, even if some of the 
requisite administrative documents were not readily available'.  
In the cases cited above, the Court's case-law reveals the intention to  strictly scrutinise 
differential treatment that is solely based on grounds of nationality, at least in relation 
to vulnerable persons. As stated in the case of Gaygusuz v Austria
58, where the Court 
examined the contracting party's decision not  to grant emergency assistance benefits 
in the event of unemployment to a third- country national, 'v ery weighty reasons 
would have to be put forward' to pass the test of Article 14 of the Convention. Also in 
this case it was found that the nationa l policy infringed the principle of non-
discrimination since it was not based on a ny objective and reasonable justification.59 
The Reception Conditions Directive allows  Member States a wide margin of 
discretion when adopting reception policies for asylum seekers in their territory. This 
discretion should be reconsidered in light of the need to ensure - at least in specific 
cases concerning vulnerable persons that the ap plication of different standards that are 
lower than those applied for nationals does not amount to discrimination. Concretely, 
let us consider the case of a pregnant woman and EU nationa l being entitled to 
specific medical monitoring during her pregnancy under the Member States' legislation: if an asylum seeker under th e same circumstances were to be excluded 
                                                
 
54 Niedzwiecki v Germany , application no. 58453/00, 15 February 2006, para. 33 
55 Okpisz v Germany , application no. 59140/00, 15 February 2006, para. 34 
56 Koua Poirrez v. France, application no. 40892/98, 30 September 2003 para 46 
57 Sampanis and Others v. Greece  application no. 32526/05, 5.6.08  
58 Gaygusuz v Austria  judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions  
1996-IV, para.23 
59 For related case law on Article 14 see Petrovic v Austria  judgement of 27 March 1998, Willis 
v UK  application number 36042/97 
EN 20   ENfrom this benefit, the said policy might not be justifiable in the eyes of the Court. 
Additionally, regarding educat ion rights for children, the Directive stipulates that 
Member States must allo w access to education under similar  conditions as nationals. 
Although under international human rights stan dards there is no obligation to provide 
access under the same  conditions, concerns regarding equal treatment will emerge if 
standards applicable to non-nati onal children are less favourable.  
It should also be noted that the technical  requirements for substa ntiating a claim for 
discriminatory treatment under the Convention have been lifted by the coming into force of Protocol 12 on 1 April 2005.
60 The Protocol prohibits discrimination based on 
sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or  other opinion, national or social 
origin, association with a national minor ity, property, birth or other status. 
2.2.3.  Secondary movements of asylum seekers and refugees applying for 
international protection in more th an one Member State impose an unfair 
strain on national administrations and on asylum seekers 
Secondary movements are understood as being the phenomenon of multiple 
applications for asylum submitted simultaneously or successively by the same person in several Member States. The main reasons  for this are differences in recognition 
rates as well as the level of reception condi tions established at national level and the 
rights granted.  
From an asylum seeker's point of view, moving from one Member State to another 
entails financial costs, as well as dist ress and uncertainty. Lo oking at the phenomenon 
from the Member States' perspective, it is clear that it is inefficient and resource-consuming. Asylum procedures will be initiated, involving human and other resources, only to be abandoned some time later if, for instance, the asylum seeker fails to appear for an interview because  he/she has moved on to another Member 
State, where a new procedure has started.  
Measuring the scale of multiple applications  by asylum seekers is a complex task, but 
the available statistical data
61 give an indication that the phenomenon of asylum 
shopping is a relevant issue that must  be tackled in the EU context.  
According to the Eurodac Regulation, Member States are obliged to fingerprint every 
third-country national applying for asylum  over the age of 14. According to the 
annual statistics on the activities of the Eu rodac Central Unit, in 2007 a total of 
197,284 asylum applications were recorded in  the system. Out of the total number of 
applications recorded, 16.17% were mu ltiple applications (17% in 2006).  Such a 
figure would suggest that in  31,910 cases, the same person had already made at least 
one asylum application before (in the sa me or in another Member State). The 
Commission has stressed the link between th is phenomenon and the application of 
                                                 
60 Under this Protocol, standing requirements for raising an infringement of Article 14 are no 
longer required to illustrate that the facts at issue fall within the remit of one or more of the 
substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. Additionally, if the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU') comes into force, Article 21 stipulating that 'any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited' would reinforce this obligation. 
These new developments would provide further legal bases upon which a discriminatory claim 
could be substantiated.  
61 For statistical data see Annex IV 
EN 21   ENreception conditions within the framework of  the Reception Conditions Directive. The 
Directive states that 'the harmonisation of conditions for the reception of asylum 
seekers should help to limit the secondary movements of asylum seekers influenced by the variety of conditions for their reception'.
62 As stressed in the previous section, 
the wide margin of discretion afforded under the Directive to Member States in 
implementing certain obligations as well as the legal ambiguity embedded in the scope of some of these obligations, has led to  large differences in the rights granted at 
national level to asylum seekers. It is ar gued that these differen ces increase secondary 
movements to a certain extent  
The phenomenon of secondary movements is driven by numerous  factors such as 
recognition rates in Member States, cultura l and linguistic links , geographic position, 
etc., and it is therefore not easy to determin e the precise impact which the differences 
in national reception policies could have on secondary movement. However, reception 
conditions should be seen as part of the as ylum system as a whole; although they are 
not the only reason reinforcing secondary move ments, they are nevertheless one of the 
driving factors that need to be addr essed during the sec ond phase of asylum 
legislation. 
In this respect it can be argue d, on the basis of existing st atistical data, that asylum 
seekers are aware of national asylum polic ies and legislative am endments and often 
reorient their choice after a restrictive change.  Indeed, countries which have 
introduced restrictive measures have often seen a decrease in the number of asylum 
applications soon after the changes were  implemented, for example Germany after 
1993, Spain in 1995, Denmark in 2001. Most emblematic is the recent example of Sweden, which restricted its asylum policie s concerning Iraqi asylum seekers and has 
witnessed a substantial decrease in the num ber of asylum applications from that 
country (from 1 555 applications between  January and June 2007 to 306 between 
January and June 2008).
 Additionally, this restrictiv e policy had an impact on its 
neighbouring countries since Iraq i asylum seekers registered applications in Germany, 
the Netherlands and Finland instead. 
2.3. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 
The identified problems are likely to continue  in the future if no legislative action is 
taken to address them. The existing EU and national m easures do not satisfactorily 
tackle the problems described above.   
Level of treatment:  The wide discretion left to Me mber States in implementing the 
Directive also contributes, as stated in the previous section of this impact assessment, 
to the establishment of low standards of treatment of asylum seekers in relation to reception conditions. For example, vagueness in the definition of the circumstances in which an asylum seeker can be detain ed has led to some Member States 
systematically detaining all asylum seek ers while others never use detention. 
Moreover, the lack of clear benchmarks re garding the level and form of material 
reception conditions that should be available to asylum seekers has led to cases where asylum seekers are left in poverty.  
                                                
 
62 Recital 8  
EN 22   ENAs a result, if no action is taken to lim it the Member States' room for manoeuvre, 
these differences will continue to result in the adoption of low sta ndards of treatment.  
Practical cooperation via related fora such  as EURASIL will, to a certain extent, 
develop a number of good practices regard ing the reception of asylum seekers. 
Moreover, EU funding possibi lities in the area of asyl um, such as the European 
Refugee Fund, would continue to  assist Member States in  ameliorating their reception 
capacities. However, as the first phase of th e asylum legislation ha s illustrated, in the 
absence of EU intervention, practical cooperation on its ow n will prove insufficient to 
adequately address all the problems identified already in the field of asylum legislation.  
Secondary movements:
 Given the very wide margin of manoeuvre permitted by the 
Reception Conditions Directive, the differe nces in reception conditions between 
Member States are so big in terms of access to housing, employment, health, 
education, social insurance, etc. that th ey are not limiting secondary movements of 
asylum seekers who look for a more ade quate level of suppor t during the asylum 
procedure. Lack of harmonised standards will perpetuate secondary movements and 
the overburdening of those Member States providing generous reception facilities; the said Member States might then be inclined to lower their standards so as to avoid a 
possible increase in asylum app lications on their territory.  
It should be noted that, taking into consid eration the wide margin of manoeuvre given 
to Member States in implementing the Direc tive and the fact that the current text of 
the Directive is in some respects ambiguous, it is extremely difficult to substantiate 
clear cases of non-compliance. Accordingly, in the absence of legislativ e intervention 
the identified problems would continue.  
2.4. Does the EU have the power to act?  
2.4.1.  The EU's right to act  
Title IV of the EC Treaty (TEC) on visa s, asylum, immigration and other policies 
related to free movement of persons conf ers certain powers in these matters on the 
European Community. These powers must be  exercised in accordance with Article 5 
TEC, i.e. if and in so far as the objectives  of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently 
achieved by the Member States and can, theref ore, by reason of the scale or effects of 
the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.  
The current legal base for Community action in the area of asylum policy is 
established in Article 63 (1) and (2) TEC. Th ese 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 relati ng to the status of refugees and other 
relevant treaties” and also “measures on ref ugees and displaced pers ons” in areas such 
as Member State responsibility, reception conditions, refugee qua lification, granting 
of protection (including temporary protec tion) and balancing of Member States' 
efforts in receiving asylum seekers. 
The reasons and need for a common interventio n at EU level are clearly expressed in 
the section below. 
EN 23   EN2.4.2.  EU added value and the principle of subsidiarity 
The principle of subsidiarity, as  stipulated in Article 5 of the TEC, states that in areas 
where the Community has no exclusive power to act, it should only act ‘if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed act ion cannot be sufficiently achieved by the 
Member States and can theref ore, by reason of the scal e or effects of the proposed 
action, be better achieved by the Community’. Furthermore, any action taken must not 
go beyond what is necessary to achieve the obj ectives set by the Treaty. It is therefore 
necessary to examine whether the actions proposed by the Commissi on in the area of 
reception conditions for asylum seekers are in line with the test of ‘comparative efficiency’:
63 is it better for the actions to be taken by the Community  or the Member 
States? At the Tampere European Counc il of 15-16 October 1999, Member States 
agreed to work towards the establishmen t of a Common European Asylum System 
(CEAS) incorporating inter alia  common minimum conditions of reception of asylum 
seekers. To that end, the Council was urged to adopt the necessary decisions 
according to the timetable set in  the Treaty of Amsterdam.  
Consequently the Council adopted, on 27 January 2003, Directive 2003/9/EC laying 
down minimum standards for the reception  of asylum seekers (the Reception 
Conditions Directive), aiming to: 
- lay down in national law minimum standards for the reception of asylum 
seekers that will normally suffice to ensure them a dignified standard of living and 
comparable living conditions (Recital 7); 
- harmonise reception conditions in order to limit the phenomenon of secondary 
movements influenced by the variety of conditions for reception (Recital 8). 
In this respect, common minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers have 
already been established at EU level during the first phase of asylum legislation. The 
Hague Programme, adopted by the European  Council on 4 November 2004 to set out 
the required actions for the second phase  of asylum legislation, reconfirmed the 
Tampere objectives and stated that the aims  of the CEAS would be the establishment 
of a common asylum procedure and a unifo rm status for those who are granted 
asylum or subsidiary protection. Th e Hague Programme therefore clearly 
demonstrated once again the Member States' continued support for the necessity of 
further Community action in relation to a CEAS that requires further harmonisation 
in the area of asylum .  
In preparation for the second phase of asyl um legislation, the Commission issued an 
evaluation report on the implementation of the Reception Conditions Directive which, along with contributions sent by stakehol ders during the Green Paper consultation 
process, forms the basis of the present proposal amending the Directive. The report 
identified a number of defici encies at national level attributable mainly to the wide 
margin of discretion afforded  to the Member States in implementing the Directive. 
These deficiencies have resu lted in two main problems: 
                                                
 
63 Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament, Bull. EC 10-1991, 
p.116 
EN 24   EN- low, and in some cases discriminatory reception standards, notably in relation 
to access to the labour market, addressing vulnerable groups, detention and material reception conditions;  
- wide divergences in national reception policies that may make asylum seekers 
more inclined to move to those Member Stat es that offer better reception standards.  
In order to rectify this, the Comm ission’s proposal aims to ensure: 
– better standards of reception with a view of ameliorating the level of treatment of 
asylum seekers in line with in ternational standards, and; 
– further harmonisation of reception standards  in order to reduce secondary 
movements in so far as these are linke d to the diversity of national reception 
standards.  
It is submitted that these obj ectives can only be attained jointly . In particular, in the 
absence of EU action: 
i) reception standards will not be raised by Member States' unilateral actions; on the 
contrary, ‘a race to the bottom’ would o ccur since those Member States currently 
providing more generous reception conditions will be inclined to lower their standards in order to avoid being seen as offering t oo generous reception conditions. As stated 
in a previous section of this report (sec ondary movements), some Member States that 
established stricter asylum policies witn essed a decrease in the number of asylum 
applications received. Such examples point  to a possible link between the level of 
treatment afforded in a Member State and asylum flows. Indeed, it could also be 
submitted that the fact that Sweden receives five times more asylum applications than 
Spain, which is a border country, may be attributed to the higher standards of 
protection it grants to asylum applicants. 
Lowering reception standards w ould raise strong concerns  from a fundamental rights 
point of view, namely in relation to the ri ght to liberty, the ri ght to be protected 
against torture and mistreatment, and the right to human dignity; This would be 
particularly problematic in the case of t hose Member States whose reception standards 
for asylum applicants are already low. It should be stressed that the EU has a moral 
and legal duty to ensure that Member St ates, when implementing EU legislation, 
respect fundamental rights and the principl es established under international human 
rights law.  
ii) further harmonisation will not be achieve d and therefore secondary movements, in 
so far as they are linked to the divergence of national reception policies, will not be 
limited.  
Consequently EU action is necessary  in order to attain higher and more harmonised 
standards, based on the existing minimu m standards on the reception of asylum 
seekers. The European Court of Justice's re asoning on the principle of subsidiarity in 
the Working Time Directive case
64 is particularly relevant. The Court stated that once 
                                                 
64 Case C-377/98, Netherlands v Council,  para 52  
EN 25   ENthe Council ‘has found it necessary to improve the existing  level of protection 
(minimum standards in the area of health and safety) and to further harmonise  the law 
in this area while maintaining improvement s already made, the achievement of this 
objective necessarily presupposes Community action'.  
Finally, it should be underlined that  the EU actions discussed in this impact 
assessment will not go beyond what is required in terms of adding value at the EU level. The proportionality of the options w ill be carefully assessed so as to clarify 
whether or not they go beyond wh at is necessary to achiev e the objectives described 
under section 3. 
2.5. Consultation with Stakeholders 
The following main findings regarding the necessary improvements to the Reception 
Conditions Directive emerged from the replie s to the Green Paper on the future CEAS 
and from the consultations the Commission ha d with various stakeh olders, as referred 
to in point 1.1.2: 
Member States  express general support  for measures to achieve further 
harmonisation in the second stage of as ylum legislation regarding reception 
conditions. They retain, however, specific reserves depending on the subject. The 
Member States' position appears to be as follows:  
• General consensus on the necessity of furthe r standardisation in the form and level 
of material reception conditions while allo wing for certain flexibility, taking into 
consideration Member States' socio-economic differences; 
• Majority supports the idea of further appr oximation of the ru les on access to the 
labour market. Some express concerns in re lation to reducing tim e restrictions to 
access employment and eliminating the requirement for a work permit; 
• Some focus on the need to established ha rmonised rules regarding access to health 
care and education; 
• Majority supports measures wi th a view to better addres sing special needs. Some 
Member States prefer to tackle defici encies in this policy area within the 
framework of practic al cooperation.  
UNHCR and NGOs strongly  support the harmonisation process. They focus 
particularly on: 
• the possibility of giving access to the la bour market to asylum seekers after six 
months of stay in the EU; 
• further harmonisation in the form and le vel of material reception conditions; 
• the need to ensure that detention should be restrict ed as much as possible by 
regulating duration and condi tions of detention coupl ed with the need for 
clarification of the gr ounds for detention;  
• the importance of providing higher standa rds regarding access to health care, 
education and addressing special needs;  
EN 26   EN• the importance of exchanging best practices especially regarding training of staff 
who deal with asylum seekers 
3. SECTION  3: OBJECTIVES 
3.1. Global objectives 
The global objectives for future developmen t of measures on reception conditions for 
asylum seekers in the second phase  of the CEAS are as follows: 
1. To ensure higher standards in terms of reception conditions for persons in need of 
international protection; 
2. To contribute to reducing the ph enomenon of secondary movements.65 
3.2. Specific objectives 
The proposal to amend the Reception C onditions Directive should pursue the 
following specific objectives:  
1. To clearly define the scope of application of th e Directive;  
2. To facilitate access to the labour market; 3. To guarantee legal safeguards for detained asylum seekers and to ensure that 
detention is not arbitrary; 
4. To ensure adequate standards fo r material reception conditions; 
5. To guarantee that the needs of vulnera ble groups are adeq uately addressed. 
3.3. Operational objectives 
The following non-exhaustive list of ope rational objectives is suggested: 
1. To extend the application of recepti on conditions to subsidiary protection; 
2. To ensure the application of recepti on conditions in detention facilities; 
3. To ensure the application of reception conditions to all types of procedures; 
4. To shorten the period of prohibiting access to the labour market and limit the 
adoption of further restrictions that in practice hinder access to employment; 
6. To establish modalities to assist the Commission as well as the Member States in 
effectively monitoring the implementati on of adequate standards of living; 
                                                
 
65 This global objective is a cross-cutting objective which concerns also the other legislative 
areas of the CEAS (i.e. procedures). In this cas e the global objective consists in contributing to 
reducing the uneven distribution of asylum seekers, secondary movements and asylum 
shopping by amending the receptio n conditions legislation: by achieving all the specific and 
operational objectives individuated, the policy intervention will contribute to tackling the phenomena mentioned. 
EN 27   EN7. To provide for legal guarantees such as the right to be informed of the grounds for 
detention and the possibility to challenge dete ntion before a national court in line with 
current EU rules; 
8. To define grounds and conditions of detention;  
9. To provide that detention for vulnerable persons such as minors would be used only 
if it is in their best interest and as a last resort; 
10. To ensure that mechanisms are establis hed at national leve l with a view to 
identifying special needs and to provide adequate treatment; 
11. To facilitate access to  education for minors. 
4. POLICY  OPTIONS 
Given the different types of problems identifie d, it is not possible to come up with one 
single all-embracing policy opti on. Accordingly, different po licy options in  relation to 
legislation and practical c ooperation measures are presen ted below with regard to 
each identified problem. Practi cal cooperation measures ar e considered separately 
from the legislative ones. The preferred policy option could comp rise both types of 
intervention (legislativ e and practical cooperation) or only one.  
4.1. Option 1: Status Quo 
Developments in Member States will cont inue within the current framework. The 
existing legal framework would remain unchanged and ongoing activities would continue. The Commission will continue  monitoring the implementation of the 
Reception Conditions Directive. Taking into  consideration the level of ambiguity 
concerning certain obligations envisaged under the current Directive, it seems unlikely that the majorities of the deficiencies identified in this report could be rectified by initiating infringement procedures against Member States. The Commission will however, where necessary , not refrain from taking further 
procedural steps with a view to bringi ng cases of non-compliance before the ECJ. 
ANNEX I - Status quo 
 
Policy Option A: No EU action 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Relevance  
EN 28   ENPolicy Option A: No EU action 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Ensure higher and more equal standards 
in terms of reception conditions for people in need of international 
protection 0 Maintaining the status quo would prevent the CEAS from 
attaining equal and higher standards in terms of reception 
conditions  for people in need of international protection, since it 
would maintain the wide margin  of discretion allowed under the 
current Directive. 
MS could autonomously decide whether to retain minimum 
standards or raise the level of treatment. This would naturally 
entail different application of reception conditions throughout the 
EU that would al least mainta in low standards of treatment: 
• access to employment: the flexible rules of the current 
Directive have led to the application of divergent policies 
between MS regarding access the labour market. These differences in national polices has often led to low standards 
of treatment, notably concerni ng the application of very 
restrictive conditions on access to employment; 
• concerning the level and form of  material reception conditions 
and access to health care, it should be stressed that too 
divergent policies are currently  applied. In particular 
concerning financial support, this appears to be too low in 
some MS to ensure the appli cants' subsistence. Access to 
health care has also proved inadequate in some cases. These 
concerns will be maintained in no action is taken.  
• free movement rights and detention: detention is currently 
applied widely by the majority of EU MS. Too divergent 
policies exist regarding grounds, length and conditions of 
detention, that have often prove d inadequate to protect asylum 
seekers from arbitrary detention policies, as often found by ECtHR case-law.  
• With regard to the needs of vulnerable persons, considerable 
deficiencies remain in particular in relation to identifying special needs. This has been th e greatest problem with regard 
to the implementation of the Dir ective during the first stage of 
the asylum legislation. These c oncerns will not be lifted if no 
action is taken.  
Reduce the phenomenon of secondary movements 0 Maintaining the status quo would imply no positive impact on the 
reduction of the phenomenon of secondary movements , since 
the level of harmonisation of the reception conditions would 
remain unchanged. This would co ntinue to influence flows of 
applicants for international prot ection between MS, in accordance 
with the level of reception c onditions available in each MS. 
However, it must be specified that reception conditions are only 
one of the main drivers of the phenomenon of secondary 
movements in the context of the EU asylum system (others are, for example, recognition rates, geographical position of MS etc.), 
which would have to be considered in revising the EU asylum 
system in general. 
Feasibility  
Transposition feasibility 0 The policy option does not provide for further measures to be 
transposed and therefor e there are no difficulties or risks in this 
sense. 
Financial feasbility 0 No additional financial and administrative costs are anticipated, 
given the preserving of the status quo. 
Expected Impacts  
Social impacts at EU and MS level 0 The extent of secondary movements  currently taking place can 
negatively influence the perception of asylum seekers  within 
countries of destination.  
EN 29   ENPolicy Option A: No EU action 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Economic impacts at EU and MS level 0  The economic impacts of maintaining the status quo would vary 
among MS depending on the level of asylum seekers employed in the informal labour market due to: excess of labour supply and 
the possibility of accessing the na tional labour market (labour 
market restrictions etc.)  
At EU level this could unbalance the distribution of the 
potential workforce  on the common labour market. 
Impact on people in need of 
international protection 0 The impact of maintaining the status quo on persons in need of 
international protection would be that of keeping  access to 
treatment throughout the EU  unequal and inadequate with 
respect notably to employment, material reception conditions and 
health care due to the great differ ences in the application of the 
Directive at national level. Issues such as that of detention would 
remain unchanged , leaving asylum seekers in diverse and in some 
cases inadequate living conditions. 
Impact on third countries 0  Preserving the status quo would have no impact on third countries.  
Fundamental rights 0 As stated in the evaluation report, Member States' policies in 
certain cases seem to fall short of fundamental rights standards, 
which is of great concern in this respect. This is mainly attributed 
to the wide margin of discretion allowed under the Directive. If the 
status quo is preserved, this margin will remain the same and 
problems will continue.  
EN 30   EN 
4.2. Detention 
Legislative 
Option 1: This option envisages specifically  addressing the issues of conditions, 
grounds and length of detention. Certain procedural guarantees will al so be provided 
such as the right to be informed of the national procedures for challenging detention 
before a court or the right to be informed of the reasons for detention. Detention of any person identified as having special needs after an individual examination of their 
situation will be prohibited.  
Option 2: As under option 1, the Directive will specifically address conditions and 
grounds of detention. In particular, conditi ons of detention will be introduced taking 
into consideration current EU rules and in ternational legal sta ndards and ECtHR case-
law (i.e. separation of asylum seekers from  other third-country nationals). Moreover, 
grounds of detention will be e xpressly specified in view of  ensuring that detention is 
applied only as an exceptional measure. The is sue of length of de tention will not be 
specifically addressed; however a number of  minimum standards will be laid down, 
such as ensuring that detention is never indefinite or unduly prolonged.  
Procedural guarantees will also be provided in  the Directive such as the right to be 
informed of the national procedures for ch allenging detention before a court and the 
right to be informed of the reasons for detentio n. Access to legal assistance will also 
be facilitated and period ic review of detention will also be foreseen. 
Concerning vulnerable persons this  option states that they co uld only be detained if it 
is considered, after an indivi dual examination of their situ ation, that their health and 
well-being will not deteriorate. Minors would not be detained unless it is in their own 
interest, whereas unaccompanied mi nors should never be detained. 
Practical cooperation 
The Member States could make use of best practices in the area of detention 
especially in exchanging best policies wi th those Member States that provide for 
alternatives to detention (financial guara ntee, provision of a gua rantor, etc.). This 
could be achieved within the EURASIL framework.  
4.3. To guarantee that the needs of vu lnerable persons and other persons 
with special needs are timely and adequately addressed 
Legislative 
Option 1: Under this option sp ecial needs would be dealt w ith in a horizontal way. 
The EU could adopt a new legislative instrume nt with a view to addressing all aspects 
of vulnerable persons. This would include modalities of reception (including access to 
the labour market, freedom of movement, acce ss to health care, education of minors 
and training of staff in contact with asylum  seekers), access to the asylum procedure, 
Dublin II cases and return when not legally on the territory.  
EN 31   ENOption 2: This option aims at ensuring highe r standards of treatment for persons with 
special needs by providing clearer guidelines  within the existing Directive on how to 
better cater for this category of applicants, especially minors.  
This would be achieved by more clearly defi ning certain key notions in the Directive 
such as 'necessary medical or other assist ance' with a view to at least covering 
psychological assistance. Additionally this option aims to ensure that vulnerable persons have access to health care under the same conditions as nationals.  
Moreover, this option envisages the estab lishment of an identification procedure 
available upon lodging an application as we ll as throughout the asylum procedure if 
necessary, providing for adequate treatmen t and follow-up of individual cases.  
To ameliorate accommodation conditions in reception centres, the Directive would 
expressly place an obligation on Member St ates to prevent gender-related crimes. 
Concerning minors, this option aims at ensuring that in all cases children will have access to education within three months and that they will benefit from preparatory 
classes and specific education in view of  their access and full integration into the 
national schooling system. Finally, under th is option the Directive will expressly 
provide for the need to ensure adequate training in relation to the specific needs of victims of torture or rape.  
Practical Cooperation 
Option 1: Member States would exchange be st practices regarding the establishment 
of mechanisms that would sufficiently a ddress special needs within the EURASIL 
framework. For example, Member States could exchange views on how to ensure a proactive approach to identifying special needs and guarantee the availability of 
adequate treatment. Furthermore, best prac tices concerning training of staff in contact 
with asylum seekers could also be exchanged. 
Option 2: The Commission would coordinate  efforts for the adoption of an EU 
handbook that could include: be st training practices, guide lines on identification of 
special needs, accommodation of vulnerable persons, etc.  
4.4. To ensure adequate standards for material reception conditions  
Legislative 
Level of material reception conditions  Option 1: Under this option the Directive would expressl y allow asylum seekers to 
fully integrate into the social welfare syst em of the hosting Member State. In relation 
to housing facilities in particular, the Dire ctive would stipulate th at authorities must 
ensure, as soon as possible but in any case not exceeding a period of three months, the removal of asylum seekers from accommodation centres and their re-allocation to individual accommodation. 
Option 2: This option entails reinforci ng the Commission's monitoring role in 
ensuring the correct implementation of the Di rective regarding the level of material 
reception conditions available to asylum s eekers in Member States. This will be 
achieved by introducing the following measures : Firstly, a quantitative approach will 
EN 32   ENentail the introduction of benchmarks regarding access to material reception 
conditions (i.e. minimum level of social assistance provided to nationals). Secondly, 
to ensure the correct implementation of this  provision a reporting requirement will be 
introduced for Member States (what criteria are taken into consideration when granting financial support, how are special needs taken on board, provide data on the 
number of asylum seekers rece iving financial support, etc.)  
Withdrawal/reduction of reception conditions 
Option 1: Under this option Member States  would be prohibited from reducing or 
withdrawing reception conditions in all circ umstances except where asylum seekers 
have sufficient resources and do not require additional financial assistance. In that 
case this option foresees that asylum seeker s would at least have access to necessary 
treatment of illness. Moreover, this option would guarantee the right to appeal against a decision to withdraw or reduce reception facilities. 
Option 2: This option envisages retaining th e conditions currently stipulated under the 
Directive concerning the reduction/withdraw al of reception conditions. In these cases 
this option foresees that asylum seeker s would at least have access to necessary 
treatment of illness. Moreover, this option would guarantee the right to appeal against a decision to withdraw or reduce reception facilities. 
Practical cooperation  
Member States could exchange best practices  in relation to the modalities adopted for 
ensuring a flexible reception conditions sy stem that guarantees high levels of 
treatment of asylum seekers. This could be achieved within the EURASIL framework. 
In particular, ideas could be shared on how to ensure the right to privacy and family 
life in accommodation centres or regarding the structure of the social welfare system 
with a view to effectively addressi ng the needs of asylum seekers.  
4.5. Facilitate access to the labour market 
Legislative 
Option 1: The Directive would be amended with a view to ensuring access to 
employment immediately upon lodging an app lication for interna tional protection. It 
would further ensure that no additional rest rictions to employment could be imposed 
(such as requirements for a work permit, sectoral or seasonal restrictions, time 
limitations, etc.) 
Option 2: This option entails shortening the period during which asylum seekers 
cannot access employment, for example fr om immediately to a maximum of six 
months. This option also ensures that no additional restrictions to employment can be imposed (such as requirements for a work pe rmit, sectoral or seasonal restrictions, 
time limitations, etc.) if in practice they would hinder the asylum seeker's right to access employment (i.e. Member States could require a work permit as long as this would not further delay acce ss to the labour market).  
Practical cooperation 
EN 33   ENOption 3: Member States could exchange best practices on re gulating access to the 
labour market in a more effective way wit hout endangering asylum seekers' rights to 
access employment. For example, a Member State's tradition of not requiring work permits and/or of allowing immediate access to employment could be presented as a 
counterpoint to those Member States which apply stricter measures in this domain. 
This exchange could occur within related fora such as EURASIL.  
4.6. Define the scope of application of the Directive 
Legislative 
Option 1: This policy option aims at making it clear that reception conditions must be 
available to all areas hosting asylum seek ers including detention centres and to all 
types of procedures including Dublin cas es. It further envisages amending the 
Directive in order to extend its scope to include subsidiary protection applicants.  
Option 2: This option will make it clear that  reception conditions must be available to 
all areas hosting asylum seekers including detention centres and to all types of 
procedures including Dublin II cases. It further envisages exte nding the scope of the 
Directive to include subsidiary protecti on applicants, but th is would not happen 
immediately as provision would be made for a transitional period. 
Option 3: This option envisages amending the Directive in order to extend its scope to 
include applications for subs idiary protection. Regarding the applicability of the 
Directive in cases of detained asylum s eekers or asylum seekers under specific 
procedures such as Dublin cases, this optio n provides for the current wording of the 
Directive to be retained and for this issue to be addressed by in itiating infringement 
procedures against those Member States that apply such exclusive practices.  
5. A
SSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED 
POLICY OPTION  
Each policy option is assessed against all th e alternatives in order to identify the 
preferred policy option for each specific objective. 
Administrative costs are presented in Annex V and Budgetary and Labour Market 
impacts in section 6.1 below. However, this impact assessment does not include detailed implementation costs as it is not possible to identify, from the data submitted by Member States in relation to the applic ation of the Reception Conditions Directive, 
all the relevant costs incurred in this policy area.  
5.1. Detention 
Legislative 
Option 1  will to a great extent ensure a mo re coherent and common approach to 
detention throughout the EU. It would also ensure higher standards of treatment for 
asylum seekers since it provides for certain pr ocedural safeguards su ch as the right to 
be informed of the grounds for detenti on and the possibilities under national law 
whereby detention may be challenged. This option also ensures hi gher standards of 
treatment of detainees by referring to conditi ons of detention. However, establishing 
EN 34   ENat EU level a maximum length of detenti on would be a difficult exercise, taking in 
particular into consideration the wide divergence of nationa l approaches on this issue.  
Option 2 provides the same level of protec tion to asylum seekers as in option 1 
regarding conditions and grounds  of detention. However option 2 foresees a more 
flexible provision concerning the issue of length of detention by introducing certain 
minimum conditions such as that dete ntion should not be unduly prolonged and 
should be as short as possible.  
Concerning vulnerable groups, opt ion 2 prohibits the detention of children based on 
the principles established under the UN C onvention on the Rights of the Child, while 
concerning other categories of vulnerable persons it ensures that they can only be 
detained if their already vulne rable situation will not be aggravated due to detention. 
In this respect the fundamental rights of  vulnerable persons are well respected. In 
addition to what is provided under option 1, opt ion 2 foresees for a periodic review of 
detention, thus enhancing the monitoring of the relevant provisions in the Directive 
both at national and at EU level. Additionally  this option further facilitates access to 
legal assistance.  
Based on the above, option 2 is  the preferred measure from  the point of view of 
ensuring that detention is not  arbitrary. It presents the most balanced approach in 
addressing detention issues while guarant eeing higher standards of treatment for 
detained asylum seekers, especially vulner able persons. Limiting the use of detention 
in certain circumstances would potentially also have a positive impact on the way 
asylum seekers are perceived by the hosting society, since in some cases society is 
inclined to assimilate detained asylum seekers with infringements of criminal law.  
This option could elicit certain concerns, in particular from  Member States applying a 
policy of indefinite detention for asylum seekers. However, Member States could 
actually achieve a saving by limiting detenti on practices (see below section 6.1). The 
establishment of a systematic review of detention should not entail high additional 
costs. Article 23 of the existing text of the Directive already imposes an obligation on Member States to ensure the 'appropriate guidance, monitoring and control of the level of reception conditions', so this ne w requirement could be accommodated within 
the framework of the existing obligation. Th is option would be welcomed by Member 
States that do not apply systematic detention and already ensure humane conditions for detainees as well as by UNHCR and NGOs. 
Practical cooperation 
Practical cooperation could br ing about the establishment of equally effective non-
detention measures at national level and assist in the restri ction of unnecessary 
detention, especially with re gard to children. Practical cooperation in combination 
with clear legal obligations , concerning in particular procedural safeguards for 
detainees, would help to ensure th at detention is not arbitrary.  
In this respect practical cooperation will fo rm part of the preferred policy option in 
combination with option 2.  
EN 35   EN5.2. To guarantee that the needs of vulnerable groups are timely and 
adequately addressed  
Legislative  
A horizontal approach, as foreseen in op tion 1, aimed at regulating all aspects 
concerning vulnerable asylum seekers, would avoid the 'piecemeal' approach currently applied and would therefore ensure more c oherency in this area  of law. Not being 
exclusively an asylum legal instrument (for  example it would cove r returns), it would 
have a wider scope of application than the Reception Conditions Directive which could create obstacles in terms of establishi ng a legal basis under th e EU Treaty or if a 
legal basis is found, with re gard to Council negotiations that could prove lengthy 
since certain parts of the pr oposal would require unanimity  vote (those in relation to 
immigration).  
Option 2 would enhance the standards of tr eatment regarding vulnerable persons in 
the areas already stipulated under the Dir ective, without referring to the issue of 
persons with special needs outside the asyl um procedure. However, amendment of the 
current Directive would ensure a more  immediate solution to deficiencies. 
Additionally, option 2 ensures higher sta ndards of treatment since it provides inter 
alia for the timely detection of vulnerabil ities, access to adequate healthcare and 
places an obligation on Member States to prevent gender-based violence in 
accommodation centres. Rights of children will also be reinforced by guaranteeing access to education within three months a nd the availability of preparatory classes 
ahead of their integration into the national educ ation system.  
This option could entail additional administ rative costs as a result of establishing a 
national mechanism to detect vulnerabilitie s and ensuring adequate  training to deal 
with victims of torture. Although this mechanism could be accommodated within an 
existing structure (such as a unit in a state hospital), specialists will have to be 
available for detecting special needs.  
Practical cooperation 
Options 1 and 2 would further ensure high er standards of treatment of vulnerable 
persons. Exchange of best practices will assist in the implementation of national policies that take on bo ard the vulnerable situation of pe rsons with special needs. In 
this respect both examples of  practical cooperation will fo rm part of the preferred 
policy option in combination with policy option 2 (legislative).  
5.3. To ensure adequate standards for material reception conditions  
Legislative 
Level of material reception conditions  Integrating asylum seekers into the nationa l welfare system, as envisaged by option 1, 
would ensure higher standards of treatment of asylum seekers since their needs would 
be accommodated under the same modalities a pplicable to nationals. However, this 
approach would meet with practical obsta cles and complicate access to material 
reception conditions for those applicants residing in reception centres. At present 
EN 36   ENasylum seekers' reception needs are channe lled through a specifically designed system 
as stipulated by the Directive; in view of the particular administrative formalities and language requirements concerning access to ma terial reception conditions for asylum 
seekers, their full integration into the national social welfare system might be 
unfeasible and costly. Similar obstacles w ill be faced by asylum seekers who are not 
fully aware of the national procedural formalities to be fulfilled before accessing material reception conditions.  
Option 2 equally ensures a highe r level of treatment of as ylum seekers since Member 
States would be obliged to grant access to  material reception conditions within the 
framework of specific benchmarks applied for nationals. Additionally a certain degree of flexibility is granted in deciding wh ether support would be channelled within the 
organised reception system or integrated in to the national social  support mechanisms. 
Option 2 will also enhance the Commission's role as guardian of the Directive by introducing a reporting requireme nt with regard to the benefits granted to asylum 
seekers. Regarding housing arrangements, Member States that mainly accommodate 
asylum seekers in reception centres will face practical and financial difficulties in 
meeting the requirement of transferring them within three months to private 
accommodation, as envisaged under option 1.  
In the light of the above, option 2 is the pr eferred measure for addr essing deficiencies 
with regard to material reception conditions, since it is feasible and it also ensures 
higher standards of treatment.  
Withdrawal/reduction of reception conditions 
Option 1 ensures to a high degree that asylum  seekers are not left destitute since it 
only permits the reduction/withdrawal of reception conditions in cases where the 
asylum seeker clearly has sufficient resources.  
Option 2 allows for the reduction or withdrawal of reception conditions as provided 
under the current Directive. However, taking into consideration the serious 
consequences that the reduction or withdr awal of material reception conditions may 
have for asylum seekers, especially persons  with special needs, this option does not 
seem to ensure an adequate standard of living.  
Both measures would entail the same ad ministrative costs regarding the right of 
appeal against decisions on withdrawal/r eduction of reception conditions, stemming 
from a likely increase in appeals in those Me mber States that do not  already grant this 
right.  
In this respect and also taking into c onsideration current jurisprudence inviting 
concerns concerning the risk to infringe  fundamental rights, option 1 is the most 
appropriate policy option since it could en sure that asylum seekers are not left 
destitute in cases of reduction or withdr awal of material reception conditions.  
Practical cooperation 
In combination with option 2, practical c ooperation would assist Member States in 
exchanging best practices regarding the im plementation at national level of policies 
that ensure adequate standards of  material reception conditions.  
EN 37   EN5.4. Facilitate Access to the Labour Market 
Legislation 
Immediate and unconditional access to em ployment for asylum seekers would 
significantly increase the possibilities for asylum seekers to become more self-sufficient and would most effectively address the phenomenon of secondary 
movements. However, this option presupposes  a certain level of EU harmonisation of 
national policies on access to the labour market . Since this has not yet been achieved, 
option 1 would be likely to cause implement ation difficulties within Member States. 
Moreover, Member States would be reluct ant to adopt such a rigid labour market 
policy, given that this could result in more favourable trea tment of asylum seekers as 
against other third-country na tionals legally present on the territory who would still 
need to comply with certain restrictive employment requirements. Member States would also argue that immedi ate access to the labour market could become a 'pull 
factor' for third-country nationals seek ing to enter the EU  solely on economic 
grounds.  
Option 2 incorporates the be neficial elements for asyl um seekers envisaged under 
option 1. In particular it protects the right to employm ent against restrictive national 
policies, ensuring in this respect a high level of treatment for asylum seekers. It also 
promotes self-sufficiency and independen ce amongst asylum seekers and assists in 
facilitating integration into  the hosting society and in avoiding unnecessary social 
welfare payments. Considering that furt her harmonisation of labour market rules 
would provide asylum seekers with less incen tive to move to another more 'generous' 
Member State, this policy option would also  assist in limiting secondary movements, 
although to a lesser extent than option 1 si nce the application of different time 
restrictions will st ill be possible.  
Option 2 however would interfer e to a lesser extent with national labour policies, for 
two main reasons: First and foremost, alth ough it shortens time restrictions for 
accessing the labour market, it retains the notion of a maximum period, from immediately to six months, during which access  must be granted; it therefore leaves 
room for Member States to adopt thei r national time frames on accessibility of 
employment. Secondly, it does not exclude  the imposition of conditions allowing 
Member States to control to a certain extent the supply and demand on the labour 
market. Access to the labour market under op tion 2 is therefore not unconditional. The 
aim of the option is merely to better clarif y the right already enshrined in the current 
Directive, that asylum seekers must be able to access employment.  
In the light of the above and also based on current policies (almost half of the Member 
States already allow access to employment either immediately or within six months) 
and on contributions received from stakeh olders to the Green Paper consultation 
process, option 2 seems the most feasible and justified way to facilitate access to the 
labour market since, as stated  above, it retains a certain leve l of flexibility for Member 
States and ensures at the same time higher st andards of treatment for asylum seekers.  
Practical cooperation 
EN 38   ENAs stated above, it is difficult to lay down common rules on access to the labour 
market within the EU. Pr actical cooperation, channell ed by the Commission, would 
be one way to promote best practices in Member States that can ensure the correct implementation of the Directive. With in this non-legislative framework, the 
experience of those Member States establis hing less restrictive labour market policies 
would be compared to those that impose the most restrictions. In this respect, this 
forum could illustrate feasible ways of reta ining a flexible labour market policy while 
facilitating access to employm ent for asylum seekers.  
Practical cooperation will be most effective in combination with option 2 since certain 
obligations need to be ensured with a view to achieving the set objective of 
facilitating access to the labour market (s uch as shortening tim e restrictions). 
Accordingly, this measure will be favour ed in combination with legislative 
intervention under option 2.  
5.5. Further clarify the scope of applicat ion of the Directive and extend it to 
cover subsidiary protection applicants 
Legislative 
At present, since in practice Member Stat es do not exclude reception conditions in the 
case of applications for subsidiary protecti on, the transposition of the extension of the 
Directive at national level with a view to covering these cases would not be 
problematic. In this respect, providing a transitional period for the implementation of this extension seems unnecessary. With regard to the issue of application of the Directive in detention centre s and during certain types of  legal procedures, although 
there is no clear evidence suggesting that these cases are not to be covered, the wording of the Directive leaves room for so me ambiguity. In view of this uncertainty, 
it might be difficult to provide a strong le gal basis with a view to initiating an 
infringement case against those Member  States practising such policies.  
In the light of the above, th e policy option that would most  effectively ensure a clear 
definition of the scope of the Directive in the above-mentioned cases is option 1. 
Under this option the Directive would ex plicitly and thoroughl y clarify both the 
rationae materiae  (detention centres, border procedur es, Dublin cases, etc.) and the 
rationae personae  (subsidiary applicants). The effectiveness of this clarification will 
be seen once the new Directive enters into force, thereby guaranteeing equal treatment 
amongst asylum seekers without unnecessary delays.  
Presentation of the Preferred Policy Option 
Operational 
Objectives PREFERRED POLICY OPTION: 
To guarantee legal 
safeguards for 
detained asylum 
seekers and to ensure 
that detention is not 
arbitrary Legislate 
Under this option the Directive wi ll specifically address conditions and grounds of detention. In 
particular, conditions of detention will be introduced taking into co nsideration current EU rules and 
international legal standards and ECtHR case-law (i.e . separation of asylum seekers from other third-
country nationals). Moreover, grounds of detention will be expressly specified in view of ensuring that 
detention is applied only as an exceptional measur e. The issue of length of detention will not be 
specifically addressed. However a num ber of minimum standards will be laid down, such as ensuring that 
EN 39   ENOperational 
Objectives PREFERRED POLICY OPTION: 
detention is never indefi nite or unduly prolonged.   
Practical cooperation 
The Member States could make use of best practices in the area of deten tion especially in exchanging best 
policies with those Member States that provide fo r alternatives to detention (financial guarantee, 
provision of a guarantor, etc). This could be  achieved within the EURASIL framework.  
 
To guarantee that the 
needs of vulnerable 
groups are timely and 
sufficiently addressed 
 
 Legislate 
This option aims at ensuring higher standards of tr eatment for persons with special needs by providing 
clearer guidelines within the existing Directive on how to  deal with this category of applicants, especially 
minors. This would be achieved by more clearly defi ning certain key notions in the Directive, such as 
'necessary medical or other assistance' with a vi ew to at least covering psychological assistance. 
Moreover, this option envisages the establishment of  an identification procedure available upon lodging 
an application as well as throughout the asylum proc edure if necessary, providing for adequate treatment 
and follow-up of individual cases. To ameliorate  accommodation conditions in reception centres, the 
Directive would expressly oblige Member States to prevent gender-related crimes. Concerning the issue of education of minors, this option aims at ensuring that in all cases children will have access to education 
within three months and that they will benefit from preparatory classes in view of their access and full 
integration into the national schoo ling system. Finally, under this op tion the Directive will expressly 
provide for the need to ensure adequate training with  a view to addressing specific needs of victims of 
torture or rape.  
Practical Cooperation 
-Member States would exchange best practices rega rding the establishment of  mechanisms that would 
sufficiently address special needs within the EURASIL framework. For example, Member States could 
exchange views on how to proactiv ely identify special needs and guara ntee the availability of adequate 
treatment. Furthermore, best practices concerning trai ning of staff in contact with asylum seekers could 
also be exchanged. 
-The Commission would coordinate efforts for the adoption of an EU  handbook that could include best 
training practices, guidelines on id entification of special needs, accommodation of vulnerable persons, 
etc.  
 
To ensure adequate 
standards for material 
reception conditions 
and access to health 
care while taking into 
account gender and 
age-specific 
considerations 
 Legislate 
Level of material reception conditions 
This option entails reinforcing the Commission's moni toring role in ensuring the correct implementation 
of the Directive regarding the level of material reception conditions available to asylum seekers in 
Member States. Specifically, this will be achieved by introducing the following measures: Primarily, a 
quantitative approach will be followe d by means of benchmarks rega rding access to material reception 
conditions (minimum amount of social support). Secondl y, to ensure the correct implementation of this 
provision a reporting requirement will be introduced for Member States (what criteria are taken into 
consideration when granting financial support, how ar e special needs taken on board, provide data on the 
number of asylum seekers receiving financial support, etc.)  
Withdrawal/ reduction Under this option Member States would be prohib ited from reducing or withdr awing reception conditions 
in all circumstances except where asylum seekers have  sufficient resources and do not require additional 
financial assistance. In that case this option foresees  that asylum seekers would at least have access to 
necessary treatment of illness. Moreover, this optio n would guarantee the right to appeal against a 
decision to withdraw or reduce reception facilities.  
Practical cooperation 
Member States could exchange best practices in re lation to the modalities adopted for ensuring a flexible 
EN 40   ENOperational 
Objectives PREFERRED POLICY OPTION: 
reception conditions system that guarantees high levels of treatment of asylum seekers. This could be 
achieved within the EURASIL framewor k. In particular, ideas could be shared on how to ensure the right 
to privacy and family life in accommodation centres or regarding the organisa tion of a social welfare 
system in view of effectively addressing the needs of asylum seekers.  
Facilitate access to 
labour market 
 Legislate 
This option entails imposing a shorter period during which asylum seekers cannot access employment, for 
example from immediately to a maximum of six mo nths upon lodging an application for asylum. This 
option also ensures that no additional restrictions to  employment can be imposed (such as requirements 
for a work permit, sectoral or seasonal restrictions, ti me limitations, etc) if in practice they could hinder 
the asylum seeker's right to access employment ( i.e. Member States could require a work permit as long 
as this would not further delay access to work).  
Practical cooperation 
Member States could exchange best practices on regulating access to the labour market in a more 
effective way without endangering asylum seekers' rights to access employment. For example, a Member 
State's tradition of not requiring work permits and/ or of allowing immediate access to employment could 
be presented as a counterpoint to ot her Member States' stricter measures in this domain. This exchange 
could occur within relate d fora such as EURASIL.   
Define the scope of 
application of the 
Directive Legislate 
This policy option aims at making it clear that recepti on conditions must be available to all areas hosting 
asylum seekers including detention centres and to al l types of procedures including Dublin II cases. It 
further envisages amending the Dir ective in order to extend its scope to cases involving subsidiary 
protection applicants. 
 
EN 41   EN 
6. ASSESSMENT OF PREFERRED POLICY OPTION  
On the basis of the assessment of the policy options presented in s ection 5 it is clear 
that none of the individual policy options completely addresses the problems or fully 
achieves the objectives sought . However, by combining di fferent policy options, a 
higher degree of effectiveness could be achieved.  
Accordingly, the preferred option has b een designed by mergi ng the policy options 
that correspond to each specific objective.  The preferred policy option combines 
legislative amendments with a view to en suring higher standards of treatment for 
asylum seekers and practical cooperation m easures that would allow more coherent 
and efficient implementation of the legislation. 
6.1. Budgetary and Labour Market im pacts of envisaged measures  
I. Access to the labour market 
Shortening time restrictions regarding acce ss to employment (from a maximum of 12 
to a maximum of 6 months) would have an insignificant employment impact  on the 
national labour market. According to available EU data, in 2006 there were 
216,525,000 economically active persons betw een 15 and 64 years old, of whom 
198,226,000 were actually employed. Asylum applications in 2007 reached 227,000. 
Thus, assuming that requests for employmen t were made by all asylum seekers and 
that they all have in practice gained acces s to the labour market, their number would 
represent an increase of just 0.11%  in the employed population and 0.10% in the 
economically active population. These percen tages are in reality even lower since 
some of the asylum seekers are not of wo rking age (elderly, minors). Consequently 
these rates are rather trivial and are not likel y to have an impact on the labour market.  
It should also be underlined that Member States may have the power to impose labour 
market restrictions, notably with a view to meeting labour market demand in those 
economic sectors that lack manpower and in order to avoid overburdening specific 
sectors.  
As far as economic impact is concerned, facilitating access to the labour market 
could even achieve savings for those Memb er States currently granting access within 
12 months from the time an asylum application is registered. This is mainly due to the 
fact that access to the labour market will as sist asylum seekers in becoming more self-
sufficient, and therefore additional welf are assistance would be avoided. Member 
States would further benefit from contribu tions made by employed asylum seekers to 
their fiscal system through labour taxation.  
At national level, this proposed measure does not seem to have stirred great concerns. 
The time frame of 6 months is considered a ppropriate, judging from  contributions sent 
to the Commission during the Green Paper c onsultation process. It should also be 
emphasised in this respect that a number of Member States ha ve already shortened 
time restrictions in regard to access to em ployment without any significant impact on 
their national labour market (immediate acce ss to employment is allowed in Greece, 
EN 42   ENwhereas the limitation period is 20 days in Po rtugal, 3 months in Austria and Finland, 
4 months in Sweden, 6 months in Italy, Sp ain, Netherlands, Cyprus, and 9 months in 
Luxembourg).  
II. Vulnerable groups 
Identification of special n eeds and access to health care   
The preferred option involves the establishment of a mechan ism at national level for 
identifying those asylum seekers with special  needs. From a lega l point of view the 
current Directive does not explicitly require a specific procedure to be put in place in 
order to detect special needs; it merely re quires that the needs of vulnerable asylum 
seekers, once identified, should be taken in to account by the authorities. In this 
respect, the proposed measure introduces a new obligation for Member States that 
affects all asylum seekers, since the identific ation of special needs would have to take 
place once an application has been lodged.  
In the current circumstances it seems that a large number of Memb er States would be 
faced with additional financial efforts in implementing this provision. At least 11 
Member States, some of which receive large numbers of asylum applications, 
currently do not provide for such a proce dure. Six Member States operate such a 
mechanism at the beginning of the asylum pr ocedure but in at l east two of those the 
identification procedures seem inadequate , and two Member States identify special 
needs only in the case of unaccompanied mi nors and only at a later stage of the 
asylum procedure.  
Based on information from National Red Cr oss Societies managing reception centres 
for asylum seekers, the costs that such an  identification procedur e entails could vary 
in Member States from €50 to a maximum of €150 per person. This procedure always 
includes a medical examination by a physic ian and screening by a doctor or nurse 
specifically trained to detect special needs;  in particularly difficult cases, specific 
psychological or psychiatric screening is  also provided. Additionally, based on 
information received from one Member St ate carrying out such a procedure for all 
newly arrived asylum seekers, the costs incurred are €195 per person including a 
medical examination, screening by qualified pe rsonnel in order to de tect special needs 
and translation services. 
It should be emphasised that all Member  States already provide for a medical 
examination upon the lodging of an asylum application. In this respect additional 
costs will be incurred only for the upgrading of this examination in order to ensure the 
involvement of qualified personnel in this procedure. The Directive leaves it to 
Member States to decide on the modalities th at need to be established in order to 
comply with this new obligation; theref ore Member States could operate within 
existing frameworks such as the medical examination.  
Moreover,  the envisaged measure aimed at ensu ring equal access to health care for 
vulnerable persons and nationals would entail costs for those Member States currently 
providing a lower level of treatment for this category of applicants. Six Member 
States already provide for e qual access to health care.  
EN 43   ENThe budgetary consequences of this proposed  measure are difficu lt to assess, taking 
into consideration the divergences in EU healthcare policies (for example, some 
Member States cover preventive health car e whereas others do no t). It should be 
noted, however, that the impact should not be extensive, taking into consideration the 
fact that asylum applicants in 2007 re presented 0.04% of the total EU population. 
Since access to health care under the same conditions as nationa ls will only affect 
vulnerable asylum seekers who require specif ic treatment, this percentage will be 
even lower. 
It should be emphasised that deficiencies identified in Member States concerning the 
treatment of vulnerable persons raise strong concerns regarding respect of 
fundamental rights. Consequently it is extremely important to rectify these 
problematic situations through legislative intervention. In this respect the political and legal implications of these deficien cies should prevail over the financial 
considerations. 
Access to education for minors 
Currently, it seems that the great majority of Member States do not delay in general 
access to education for minors for more than  three months after the application for 
asylum is lodged. In this respect the envisaged amendment (of ensuring, without any 
derogation,  access within a maximum of three months) should have no substantive 
impact on Member States. 
III. Including in the scope of the Directive applicants for subsidiary protection 
Only three Member States exclude by law a pplicants for subsidiary protection from 
the scope of the Directive. However, due  to the introduction of a common asylum 
application for both forms of internati onal protection (refugee and subsidiary 
protection status), applican ts for subsidiary protection are not, in practice, 
distinguished from applican ts for refugee status and therefore do benefit from 
reception conditions. However, for reasons of legal clarity and coherence with the EU 
body of law, it is necessary to ensure th at they are covered by the Directive.  
In this respect the envisaged measure aimi ng to cover in the Directive subsidiary 
protection applicants does not entail any economic impact for Member States. 
IV. Clarifying that Dublin applican ts should benefit from Reception 
Conditions 
Three Member States refuse to apply reception conditions to Dublin cases (for the 
period 2003-2006 the average number of affect ed applicants per year in all three 
Member States was approximately 8,600). In  this respect the envisaged amendment 
ensuring that Dublin applicants benefit from reception conditions would have no significant economic impact at EU level.  
It should also be underlined that the envisa ged provision merely clarifies an existing 
obligation under the current Directive; a ny costs these three Member States would 
face would be attributed to th e fact that their policies are not in line with the current 
Directive on this issue. 
EN 44   ENV. Detention 
The preferred option concerning detention is twofold: it conc erns i) the application of 
the Directive in detention facilities, a nd ii) the grounds and conditions under which 
detention is applied.  
Scope: At least nine Member States do not apply the Reception Conditions Directive 
to detention areas. It is not possible to estim ate the number of affected asylum seekers 
due to the fact that Member States eith er do not provide da ta on the number of 
detained asylum seekers or available data are not comparable sinc e they include other 
third-country nationals in detention. 
As stated in the problem definition of this  report, the envisaged amendment providing 
that reception conditions apply to all geogr aphic areas and facilities hosting asylum 
seekers is merely a clarificat ion of an existing obligation. In  this respect costs deriving 
from the implementation of this new provision  would be attributed  to the fact that 
these nine Member States are not in line with the current  Directive.  
This proposed provision should also be examined together with the envisaged 
measures concerning grounds and conditions of detention. 
Application of detention:  Currently, the majority of Memb er States apply detention on 
various grounds. The proposal s eeks to ensure that  detention in the area of asylum 
should be seen as unnecessary and applied only in exceptional cases. It should be 
emphasised that limiting the use of detent ion would actually achieve savings for 
Member States; owing to the high number of  staff employed in detention centres in 
order to meet security requirements, deten tion policies prove to be more costly than 
accommodating asylum seekers in open reception centres .  
If Member States decide to apply detenti on under the exceptiona l grounds set out in 
the new Directive, they would need to comp ly with certain requirements, namely that 
asylum seekers can only be detained in specialised facilities separated from other 
third-country nationals, that male and female asylum seekers must be kept apart, etc. 
These conditions of detenti on could entail costs for t hose Member States that 
currently lack the required infrastructure. Ho wever, as stated above, the fact that the 
use of detention will be limited will al ready achieve savings. Additionally, the 
example of those Member States (at least five) currently using non-detention measures (financial guarantee, provision of a guarantor, etc., especially in relation to 
vulnerable groups) could be followed by the othe rs in order to limit costs even further. 
It should also be emphasised that the envi saged provisions on detention aim to align 
the current Directive with international st andards, namely the UN Convention on the 
Rights of the Child and the EU Char ter of Fundamental Human Rights. 
Finally, concerning the introduc tion of legal safeguards such as the right to judicial 
review and the right to be informed of the grounds for detention, these are already 
provided for in EU law, in particular in th e Asylum Procedures Directive, and in other 
international instruments such as the EC HR. The implementation of these provisions 
should therefore not impose an additional fi nancial burden, as Me mber States should 
already comply with these standards.  
VI. Material reception conditions 
EN 45   ENEU Member States spend in total €1.5 billion per year fo r reception services provided 
to asylum seekers. This figure roughly in dicates the current ec onomic impact of the 
implementation of the Reception Conditions Directive in Member States. In reality, costs are lower since some Member States also include in their data services provided to other third-country nationals  (non-asylum applicants).  
Level of material reception conditions:  the envisaged measure introduces a 
benchmark to be taken into considerati on when Member States grant financial 
assistance to asylum seekers, namely the minimum amount of soci al welfare available 
to nationals. The rationale behind this is to quantify the meaning of 'adequate' 
standards of treatment under the current Directive and to further enhance the 
Commission's monitoring role in this respect.  
Currently, at least 15 Member States seem to  provide very low financial allowances to 
asylum seekers, whereas at least seven Member States provide financial assistance identical or very close to that provided to nationals. 
It should be noted that the envisaged provision does not impose any new obligations 
on Member States. Social welfare is alrea dy considered by Member States as the 
minimum amount that must be granted to a person to allow him/her to live in human 
dignity; in this respect the set benchmar k corresponds to Member States' existing 
obligation of ensuring for asylum seekers a 'sta ndard of living adequate to ensure their 
health and subsistence'. Moreover, it should be emphasised that the envisaged measure is in line w ith the principle of proportionality; Member States are free to 
provide material reception c onditions in other forms ra ther than in financial 
assistance. The level of financial assistan ce is therefore to be adapted depending on 
the level of assistance Member Stat es provide in kind, for example.  
Those Member States that do not adhere to the current  principle set out in the 
Directive would face additional costs in implementing the proposed provision. 
However, as stated above, these costs co uld be offset against savings achieved on 
social welfare payments, due to the f acilitated access to the labour market.  
Withdrawal: The preferred option aims to ensure  that withdrawal of material 
reception conditions could only be applied if the asylum seekers have sufficient 
means to survive.  
However, the proposed measure does not  impose any new obligation on Member 
States; Member States must implement th e Reception Conditions Directive in line 
with fundamental rights, namely the right to life and the right to hum an dignity. In this 
respect they must already ensure that, in cases of reduction or withdrawal, the asylum 
seeker does not become destitute.  
It should also be noted that Member States  often decide to reduce material reception 
conditions under certain circumstances but th ey very rarely deci de to withdraw all 
provided support.  
6.2. Other Impacts: 
Preferred policy option 
EN 46   ENAssessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Relevance  
Ensure higher and more equal 
standards in terms of reception conditions for people in need of 
international protection + The policy option could strongly contribute  to achieving  equal 
and higher standards  of reception conditions . The provisions 
established would be crucial to ensuring that, even while 
maintaining a certain margin of di scretion, all MS would transpose 
the Directive in su ch a way as to avoid the establishment of 
extremely different standards of treatment . This would increase 
the overall level of the reception conditions  granted by MS to 
people in need of international protection: 
• facilitating access to the labour market (prohibiting certain 
restrictions if these hinder or delay access and shortening 
time restrictions to access) would help applicants for 
international protection to be nefit from employment, which 
means the opportunity to be self -sufficient while waiting for 
a decision concerning their application. However, it must be 
specified that the provisions on the possibility of imposing a 
time restriction in terms of access to the labour market, ranging from immediately to a maximum of six months, 
would leave a certain degree of discretion to MS; 
• limiting detention by providing that it only occurs in 
exceptional cases would safeguard the right to liberty. 
Introducing legal guarantees a nd monitoring detention would 
generate more equal and fair  application of detention 
measures throughout the EU, would ensure more humane 
detention conditions and would a ssist in avoiding arbitrary 
detention decisions; 
• introducing measures to ensure adequate standards for 
material reception conditions and access to health care (i.e. 
introduction of benchmarks concerning the level of material reception conditions granted, further elaboration of the 
meaning of “adequate” or “necessary treatment of illness”, 
etc.) would lay down clearer rules in relation to the level and form of material reception conditions that should be available 
to asylum seekers and would assist the Commission in 
monitoring the implementation of the related provisions; 
• establishing measures to guarantee that the needs of 
vulnerable groups are sufficiently  and timely addressed (i.e. 
introduction of an identification procedure for persons with 
special needs) would be useful to achieve a more level 
playing field between MS and to  ensure higher standards of 
treatment; 
• exchanging best practices and adopting guidelines in all the 
fields of reception conditions could be a very useful 
instrument for diffusing and adopting effec tive solutions. 
These instruments of practical cooperation, introduced as 
accompanying measures to the le gislative intervention, would 
reinforce the positive effects of legislation. Particularly, the 
participation of UNHCR and NGOs in the meetings within 
EURASYL could represent a si gnificant input in defining 
and implementing best practices  towards establishing higher 
level of protection for asylum applicants.  
Reduce the phenomenon of secondary movements + The policy option would have an im pact in terms of reducing the 
phenomenon of secondary movements,  since it would generate a 
'standardised' rules. In this re spect differences between MS's 
reception policies would be limited to  a great extent and applicants 
for international protection would therefore be less inclined to 
move to another MS in order to be granted 'more generous' 
reception conditions. 
However, it must be specified that reception conditions are only 
one of the main drivers of this phenomenon (others are, for 
example, the recognition rates or the geographic position of the 
hosting MS). This intervention has weak relevance to this objective 
if not accompanied by parallel improvements in the other areas of 
the EU asylum system. 
EN 47   ENPreferred policy option 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Feasibility  
Transposition feasibility + In terms of transposition feas ibility, difficulties could arise 
concerning some of the provisions proposed: 
• the possibility of limiting the restrictions on access to the 
labour market might not be acceptable for some MS that 
already apply numerous labour c onditions. It should be stated 
however that the proposed policy option maintains a certain 
margin of discretion for MS concerning the imposition of labour market conditions; Moreover, almost half of the MS 
already allows access to employment either immediately or 
within a maximum period of 6 months, therefore the proposed time limitations is not expected to bring forward 
substantial oppositions from MS. 
• concerns could arise, but in relative terms, regarding the 
introduction of conditions of de tention since MS would need 
to adapt their policies to thes e new guidelines. However, it 
must be specified that this would determine minor problems 
taking into consideration the f act that these guidelines are 
mainly based on already existing international obligations in 
view of ensuring humane treatment of all persons in the 
territory of a MS, including detainees; 
• the proposed measures would require MS to ensure adequate 
levels of material reception conditions, taking into 
consideration the level of support available to nationals, 
which would require considerable commitment on the part of 
MS; However, some MS already allow asylum seekers to access the national social aid system; 
• the introduction of the reporting mechanism on the types of 
social benefits and amounts granted to asylum seekers would 
constitute an additional form of supervision which would 
ensure the correct application of legislation. MS might raise concerns regarding th e feasibility of such a reporting system; 
On the other hand MS are already obliged to provide such 
information as signatory pa rties to the International 
Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (part IV 
of the Convention); 
• the introduction of guidelines for essential notions such as 
treatment of illness and access to health care could pause 
concerns since MS may give different interpretations to these concepts; However, the proposed  legislation will not provide 
common definitions of these notions, allowing MS a certain 
degree of manoeuvre in this respect; 
• the introduction of the possib ility to appeal against the 
withdrawal or reduction of reception conditions might be 
problematic for those MS which do not at present provide for 
this possibility.  
• adopting a procedure for the id entification of vulnerable 
persons throughout the entire asylum process would raise concerns in terms of how such a mechanism could be 
established in practice. However, the proposed Directive does not require MS to set up a new institutional framework in order to ensure identification of  special needs; consequently 
MS could arrange for the iden tification procedure to take 
place at the time of the medical examination which almost all of them already carry out.  
 
EN 48   ENPreferred policy option 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Social impacts at EU and MS level + The effects the policy option would deliver from a social 
perspective can be perceived both in  a positive and negative sense.  
Some main positive aspects  must be stressed: 
• through facilitated access to the labour market, applicants for 
international protection would, in principle, become 
financially independent. This could serve as a basis for stronger social integration.  
• due to the measures with regard to access to material reception 
conditions applicants for international protection would, in 
principle, receive the necessary  resources to benefit from 
adequate living conditions. Cons equently this could prevent 
exclusion trends from the hosting MS; 
• through the guarantees determined by the new identification 
procedure, applicants for intern ational protection with special 
needs would, in principle, rece ive the necessary protection and 
resources to address their specifi c situation and to allow them 
to benefit from living conditions aligned to their needs. This 
could prevent exclusion trends from the hosting MS; 
• ensuring that vulnerable persons have access to the same 
health care as nationals would allow them to benefit from an 
important motor of social integration, creating a vital link 
between them and the hosting society. 
 
Social impacts at EU and MS level + On the other hand, two main negative aspects  could be stressed: 
• EU citizens might negatively perceive applicants for 
international protection as additional competition on the 
labour market; 
• EU citizens might negatively perceive access to 'social aid' for 
applicants for international prot ection. Citizens might consider 
unjustified the fact that applicants have access to these 
benefits.  
Impact on people in need of international protection + The present intervention would deliver an overall positive impact 
on people in need of international protection:  
• it would guarantee that persons in need of international 
protection would have fa irer opportunities to find 
employment and could become self-sufficient;  
• it would guarantee that deten tion would be applied in 
accordance with international la w. Moreover, the prohibition 
of detention of unaccompanie d minors and other vulnerable 
groups would significantly strengthen their fundamental rights. 
• additionally it would guarantee a number of very significant 
safeguards for detained asylum  seekers such as access to 
legal assistance and the right of appeal against detention; 
• the reporting mechanism with regard to access to material 
reception conditions would guarantee that asylum seekers can 
benefit from adequate level of  support, in particular when 
financial assistance is provided; 
EN 49   ENPreferred policy option 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
 + • it would assist in ensuring that  asylum seekers are not left 
destitute when reception conditio ns are reduced or withdrawn 
It would also ensure a right to appeal against decision to 
reduce/withdraw reception conditio ns, which will ensure that 
such decisions are justified and based on the circumstances of 
each individual.  
• it would ensure the proper and timely identification of special 
needs and access to adequate health care; 
• it would provide the necessary attention with regard to 
housing to gender and age-specific concerns, and to cases of 
persons with other special n eeds, and would provide the 
highest possible standards since, in cases of access to health care, persons with special needs would enjoy equal treatment 
with nationals; 
• it would guarantee a more comprehensive application of 
reception conditions through the adoption and application of 
best practices. Also, the participation of UNHCR and NGOs 
in the meetings within EURASYL could represent a 
significant input in defining be st practices aiming primarily 
at the establishment of higher level of protection. 
Impact on third countries + It is extremely difficult to assess the impact on third countries of 
the proposed provisions (i.e. in terms of whether ameliorating reception conditions would increase asylum flows). Such an 
impact could only be assessed in combination with other elements 
of the asylum procedure such as recognition rates of asylum applications, as well as several 'pus h factors' such as the level of 
political stability in neighboring third-countries.  
Fundamental rights + Respect for and protection of fundamental rights would be 
increased through this option: 
• easier access to the labour market  would allow applicants to 
be more self-sufficient and w ould facilitate their integration 
into the hosting MS.  
• the proposed measures would ensure that detention is in 
general unnecessary and s hould only be applied in 
exceptional cases. In this respect  the right to freedom would 
be reinforced.  
• ensuring adequate level of material reception conditions by 
establishing concrete benchmarks and by introducing a reporting mechanism with a view to monitor the 
implementation of these benchmarks would strengthen the protection of the right to dignity for asylum applicants; 
• the right to appeal against a d ecision to withdraw or reduce 
reception conditions would strongly contribute to the respect 
of fundamental rights of asylum seekers by ensuring that they 
are never left destitute;  
• the identification procedur e for special needs would 
contribute greatly in ensuring full respect of the fundamental rights of vulnerable applicants. Moreover, equal treatment 
with nationals in relation to access to healthcare, would guarantee higher standards of treatment in this respect; 
• the participation of UNHCR and NGOs in the meetings 
within EURASYL should represent a significant input in 
defining and individua ting best practices directed primarily 
towards the application of inte rventions with the particular 
aim of granting full respect of fundamental rights. 
 
6.3. Assessment and considerations of pr oportionality and EU added value 
The preferred option is proportional to the obje ctives set out in this impact assessment 
and represents a balanced solution between the benefits obtained (i.e. having a more 
EN 50   ENefficient and more protective system) and th e efforts Member States must make to 
implement them.  
The preferred option ensures that the Directive will be more consistently applied by 
Member States, while also providing for greater consistency with EU asylum 
legislation, in particular the Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures 
Directive.  
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
In order to monitor the Memb er States' adherence to the revised Directive, regular 
evaluation and reporting by the Commission will take place.  
Subsequent monitoring and ev aluation of the preferred policy option are important to 
assess its efficiency and effectiveness in addressing the underlying problems and 
meeting the policy objectives. The indicators li sted below could be used to assess the 
progress and effectiveness of the prefe rred option in achieving the main policy 
objectives. These indicators will be used  by the Commission in the following cases: 
1. To evaluate and assess the information received from Member States for the 
purpose of preparing the report on the application of the Di rective, as envisaged in 
Article 28 of the proposal. The report w ould be compiled once the deadline for 
implementation of the Directive at national level expires.  
2. To evaluate and assess the information submitted by Member States on a yearly 
basis concerning access to the labour ma rket, material reception conditions and 
treatment of vulnerable groups, in accordan ce with Article 26 of the Directive.  
Regular expert meetings will  continue to take place with a view to discussing 
implementation problems and exchanging be st practices between Member States. 
Indicators 
• Transposition by all Member States of the amendments proposed to the Directive 
on Reception Conditions 
• Number of asylum seekers in a Member State 
• Number of asylum seekers employed in a Member State 
• Number of asylum seekers identified as having special needs and number of 
referrals to appropriate treatment 
• Number of Dublin requ ests and transfers  
• EURODAC hits  
• Amounts of benefits granted to asylum seekers 
• Number of persons benefiting from ERF-funded activities  
EN 51   EN• Level of financial resources allocated for the ERF  
• Level of financial resources allocate d for practical coope ration activities  
• Number of training activities carried out
EN 52   EN 
ANNEX I– GLOSSARY   
Asylum  
Asylum is a form of protection given by a State on its territory based on the principle 
of ‘non-refoulement’ and internationally or nationally recognised re fugee rights. It is 
granted to persons who are unable to seek protection in their c ountry of citizenship 
and/or residence in particular for fear of being persecuted for reas ons of race, religion, 
nationality, membership of a particul ar social group or political opinion. 
Common European Asylum System 
Rules and principles at European Union le vel leading to a common asylum procedure 
and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted asylum. The major 
aims and principles were agreed to in  October 1999 at the European Council in 
Tampere (Finland) by the Heads of State or Government. The second phase in the 
establishment of the Common European Asyl um System started with the adoption of 
The Hague programme in November 2004. 
Dublin system 
The Dublin Convention and its successor, the Dublin Regulation, set the rules 
concerning which Member State is responsib le for handling an asylum application. 
The objective of the system is to avoid mu ltiple asylum applications, also known as 
‘asylum shopping’. The Dublin system comprises the Dublin and Eurodac 
Regulations and their implementing regulations. 
Geneva Convention 
The convention relating to the status of refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951. The 
convention is supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967. All 
Member States are party to the convention and the protocol, whic h are the basis on 
which the Common European Asylum System is built. 
Non-refoulement 
The key principle of interna tional refugee law, which requires that no State shall 
return a refugee in any manner to a count ry where his/her life or freedom may be 
endangered. The principle also  encompasses non-rejection at the frontier. Its provision 
is contained in Article 33 of the 1951 Conve ntion Relating to the Status of Refugees 
and constitutes the legal basis for States’ ob ligation to provide international protection 
to those in need of it. Article 33(1) reads as follows: ‘No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories 
where his life or freedom would be threatened on acco unt of his race, religion, 
nationality, membership of a particular soci al group or political opinion’. Article 3 of 
the European Convention for the Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the light  of the case-law of the European Court 
of Human Rights and Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other 
EN 53   ENCruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, are also considered as 
bases for ‘non refoulement’ obligations.  
Reception Conditions  
Reception conditions are defined in the Recep tion Conditions Directive as the full set 
of measures that Member States grant to  asylum seekers in accordance with this 
Directive. 
Refugee 
A person who fulfils the requirements of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, 
Article 1(A) 
defines a refugee as any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being 
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the count ry of his nationality and is unable or, 
owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail hims elf of the protection of that country; or 
who not having a nationality and being outsi de the country of his former habitual 
residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to 
return to it. 
Refugee status 
This is defined in the EU legislative instruments as the status granted by a Member 
State to a person who is a refugee and admitted as such to the territory of that Member 
State. In terms of the Geneva Convention, refugee status is de fined as the status 
possessed by a person who fulfils the requirem ents of the refugee definition as laid 
down in the convention. 
Subsidiary protection  
The EU Qualification Directiv e created the subsidiary protection status in order to 
give protection to certain categories of persecuted people who are not covered by the 
1951 Geneva Convention on refugees. It gran ts a lower level of rights than the 
Geneva Convention status. 
Tampere European Council  
In October 1999 the Tampere European C ouncil adopted a comprehensive approach 
to put into practice the new political framework established by the Treaty of Amsterdam in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The Council set ambitious 
objectives and deadlines for action in a ll relevant areas, including asylum and 
immigration, police and justice coop eration and fight against crime. 
Temporary protection  
People sometimes need temporary protection after being temporarily displaced from 
their homes, e.g. Kosovo in 1999. The EU  adopted a directive on temporary 
protection in July 2001, the pr ovisions of which have not been enacted so far. 
EN 54   ENThe Hague programme  
The Tampere programme, adopted by the Tampere European Council in 1999, set the 
agenda for work in the area of Justi ce and Home Affairs for the period 1999-2004. 
Likewise, the European Council adopted  in 2004 The Hague programme, which 
covers the period 2005-2010, and pr ovides, inter alia, for th e continuation of efforts 
aimed at establishing common European  asylum and immigration policies. 
Unaccompanied minors 
Unaccompanied minors are persons below the age of eighteen who arrive in the 
territory of the Member States unaccomp anied by an adult responsible for them 
whether by law or by custom, and for as long as  they are not effectively taken into the 
care of such a person; this includes minor s who are left unaccompanied after they 
have entered the territo ry of Member States. 
Vulnerable persons 
In accordance with the Reception Conditions Di rective, vulnerable persons refers to 
minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled persons, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, and persons  who have been subjected to torture, 
rape of other serious forms of psychologi cal, physical or sexual violence. Under 
national law and practices Member States c ould further categorise vulnerable persons. 
EN 55   ENANNEX II – Statistical Data fo r Persons with Special Needs  
Unaccompanied Minors 
 
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
Austria (<18)   706 358 466 
Belgium (<18) 589 599 584 449 519 
Finland 110 140 220 112 98 
Germany (<16) 977 636 331 186 180 
Hungary 190 59 41 61 73 
Latvia   3   
Lithuania 24 11 9 3 5 
Norway 916 424 322 349 403 
Slovenia 34 105 83 20 24 
Sweden 561    1264 
c) Available figures for elderly asylum seekers: 
- AT: (>50 yrs old): 492 in 2005, 291 in 2006, 325 in 2007.  
- DE: decreasing number (> 50 yrs old): from 1,173 in 2003 to 553 in 2007. - RO: 7 elderly asylum seekers in period 2003 – 2007. 
- SE: (> 65 yrs old): 316 in 2003, 519 in 2007. 
d) Available figures for other groups
: 
- BE: FGM cases: 78 in 2006, 96 in 2007; vict ims of trafficking: less than 10 cases 
where victims identified themselves as such (time period not clear).  
- LV: 1 pregnant woman in 2006, 1 single parent family in 2008. 
- RO: 4 disabled asylum seekers, 5 pregnant women, 10 single parent families, 2 
victims of torture, 7 victims of SGBV (in period 2003 – 2007). 
EN 56   ENANNEX III - The Likely Administrative  Costs of the Preferred Policy Option  
Administrative costs associated with the prefer red policy option 
The administrative costs66 have been assessed with rega rd to information obligations 
associated with: 
• the legal duty of staff to address the speci al needs of applicants for international 
protection;  
• the obligation to inform detainees on the rules of the detention facilities; 
• the obligation to submit a yearly report to  the Commission with regard to Articles 
6, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 22 of the Directive. 
• the establishments of in struments of practical cooperation (EU guidelines and 
diffusion of best practices, EU training of staff in contact with applicants with 
special needs).67 
These are the main elements of the preferred policy option which entail additional 
administrative costs and which have been as sociated with the types of obligation and 
required actions listed in the table below.68 
Classification of type of obligation and action s required in relation to each individuated policy 
measure 
Policy measure Type of obligation Type of action required 
Familiarising with the 
information obligation 
Filling forms and tables 
Submitting the information Identification procedure concerning applicants with 
special needs  Submission of recurring reports 
Filing the information 
Familiarising with the 
information obligation Obligation to inform detainees on the rules of the detention facilities Other – Creation of information 
Training members and 
                                                 
66 According to EC IA guidelines, "Administra tive costs are defined as the costs incurred by 
enterprises, the voluntary sector, public authorities and citizens in meeting legal obligations to 
provide information on their action or production, either to public authorities or to private 
parties. Information is to be construed in a broad sense, i.e. including costs of labeling, 
reporting, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the information and registration". 
67 Administrative costs have been assessed according to the EU Standard Cost Model Manual.  
68 The provided classifica tion of type of obligation and acti ons required in relation to each 
individuated policy measure entailing additional administrative costs  have been established 
according to the EU Standa rd Cost Model Manual.  
EN 57   ENemployees about the 
information obligations 
Retrieving relevant information from existing data 
Adjusting existing data 
Copying  
Submitting the information 
Familiarising with the 
information obligation 
Training members and employees about the 
information obligations 
Retrieving relevant information from existing data 
Adjusting existing data 
Copying Obligation to submit a yearly 
report to the Commission with regard to Articles 6, 11, 13, 17 
and 22 of the Directive. 
 Other – Creation of information 
Submitting the information 
Producing new data Definition of EU guidelines and 
diffusion of best practices Other – Creation of information 
Submitting the information 
EU training of staff in contact 
with applicants for international protection regarding special 
needs Submission of recurring reports Training members and 
employees about the information obligations 
 
Firstly, the legal duty of staff to re fer special needs of appl icants for international 
protection  requires MS reception personnel to r ecognise and register special needs 
through appropriate forms which would then have to be submitted and filed in order for MS administrations to be  aware of these people’s ne eds and consequently provide 
them with adequate treatment. MS administ rations will therefore have to familiarise 
themselves with this new obligation imposed by this policy option. So, this particular 
measure would be supported by EU training of staff  in contact with applicants for 
international protection in order for them to be able to recognise special needs. 
Secondly, the obligation to inform detainees on the rules of the detention facilities 
would entail the preparation of a leaflet th at would include all related information. 
EN 58   ENThis measure would only affect those Member States that at present provide either no 
information to detainees or provide  the required information orally.  
Thirdly, the reporting mechanism would requi re MS to submit yearly data to the 
Commission concerning the implementa tion of Articles 6, 11, 13, 17 and 22 
respectively. Specifically, MS would have  to collect data on how many asylum 
seekers are covered under the Reception Conditions Directive, how many are benefiting from social benefits, the types of benefits applicab le to asylum seekers etc, 
and detail information with regard to th e documentation provided to asylum seekers 
indicating their status in the MS.  
Finally, the drafting of EU guidelines, adoption of an  EU handbook and diffusion 
of best practices  would take some time. Once th is procedure is completed, the 
guidelines must be submitted to the MS. 
1. Main assumptions used to assess the co sts associated with the preferred policy 
option 
On the basis of these elements, the admini strative costs have been assessed according 
to two scenarios: 
• Scenario “t0”: first year of im plementation of the preferred PO 
• Scenario “t0+2”: third year of im plementation of the preferred PO.  
These scenarios have been developed in or der to assess the main  administrative costs 
related to the “start-up” expenses of the new measures and those related to the costs 
needed to maintain these measures. 
Main assumptions of Scenario “ t0”
69 
With reference to Table III, the following ma in assumptions have been made in order 
to provide an estimate of the administrativ e costs the preferred policy option entails: 
• Concerning implementation costs for fam iliarisation with the obligations and 
training of the personnel of MS Asylum Services70, in the absence of available and 
comparable information about the number of  staff in charge of reception conditions 
in MS, the following estimations have been made: 
(1) an average of 6 senior officials (direct or, deputy directors and heads of units) 
per MS would be deputed to familiarise themselves with the obligations for the 
                                                 
69 It must be noted that the numbering of the assumption is related to the numbering of the voices 
of cost indicated in Table IV. 
70 The need for familiarisation with obligations relates to the following measures: (i) the legal 
duty of staff to refer special needs of applicants, (ii) the ensuring of information on 
organisations or groups defending applicants’ ri ghts, (iii) the reporting requirement concerning 
the implementation of Articles 6, 13, 17 and 22 of the Directive and (iv) the requirement to inform detainees of the rules of the detention facilities. 
EN 59   ENsubmission of reports (assumption: two working days required, for an 
estimated total of 96 working hours per MS);71 
(2) an average of 395 officials per MS w ould be involved in training about the 
obligations for submitting and generating information72 (assumption: two 
working days of training course, for an estimated total of 6,320 hours per MS);  
(3) an average of 395 officials per MS w ould be involved in training about the 
identification of special needs of vulne rable people (assumption: two working 
days of training course, for an estim ated total of 158,000 hours at EU level). 
The number of officials has been estima ted on the basis of the average number 
of applications for international protection for each MS in the past five years (2003-2007). As shown in the table be low, MS have been categorised 
according to ranges of average applications and, for each category, a corresponding range of reception personnel has been estimated: 
Categorisation of Member States by 
average number of applications Number of persons working in the 
domain of reception conditions  
MS with below 150 applications Fewer than 20 persons  
MS with between 150 and 2,500 
applications Between 20 and 50 persons  
MS with between 2,500 and 5,000 
applications Between 50 and 150 persons  
MS with between 5,000 and 1,0000 
applications Between 150 and 500 persons 
MS with between 10,000 and 30,000 
applications Between 700 and 1,000 persons 
MS with more than 30,000 applications More than 1,000 persons 
 
• Concerning implementation costs for the remaining actions.73 The following 
assumptions were made in terms of work ing hours (WH) for the following actions: 
                                                 
71 The submission of reports is related to: (i) Le gal duty of referring special needs (ii) the 
reporting requirement concerning the implementation of Articles 6, 13, 17 and 22 of the 
Directive and (iii) the requirement to inform de tainees of the rules of the detention facilities. 
72 The information is related to: (i) Legal duty of referring special needs, (ii) the reporting 
requirement concerning the impl ementation of Articles 6, 13, 17 and 22 of the Directive and 
(iii) the requirement to inform detainees  of the rules of the detention facilities 
73 Filling forms and tables; Submitting the information; Filing the information; Retrieving 
relevant information from existing data; Adjusting existing data; Copying; Producing new data. 
EN 60   EN(4) 0,5 WH for filling the forms to be subm itted for each vulnerable/person with 
special needs identified. This would occur for each vulnerable applicant and the annual number of these people ente ring on average each MS is estimated 
to be 5,742;
74 
(5) 0,1 WH in each MS for submitting the information concerning vulnerable 
persons (considering that most information will be submitted electronically); 
(6) 0,5 WH in each MS to file the informa tion for the registration of vulnerable 
persons; 
(7) 40 WH for a MS to retrie ve all the necessary information that must be 
submitted to the Commission in relation to Articles 6, 11, 13, 17 and 22 of the 
Directive and to detained asylum seek ers with regard to the rules of the 
detention facility; 
(8) 0,1 WH in each MS for submitting the inform ation in relation to Articles 6, 11, 
13, 17 and 22 of the Directive, and to deta ined asylum seekers with regard to 
the rules of the detention facility; 
(9) 0,5 WH in each MS to file the informa tion submitted in relation to Articles 6, 
11, 13, 17 and 22 of the Directive, and to detained asylum seekers with regard 
to the rules of the detention facility; 
• Tariffs have been estimated on the basis of  the EU average hourly labour cost in 
Public Administration (NACE L), extracted from Eurostat data. Eurostat provides 
hourly and monthly labour co sts and gross earnings per economic sector. However, 
for government (NACE section L, Public administration and defence; compulsory 
social security) we only have informa tion on the New Member States. Additional 
data were required to exte nd our information on labour costs to the entire EU27. 
Eurostat provides a number of possible indicators, namely average personnel costs in services in the EU27 in 2003 ( NACE sections G, H, I, and K),
75 median gross 
annual earnings in industry an d services in the EU25 in 2002 (the outcome of the 
Structure of Earnings Survey 2002),76 and average hourly lab our costs in industry 
and services of full-time employees in en terprises with 10 or  more employees in 
2002.77 The relative differences between Member  States in the level of labour costs 
in the NMS according to the various sour ces compares fairly well. OECD data 
                                                 
74 This assumption is based on an estimate drawn from a study carried out by ICAR (Information 
Centre about Asylum and Refugees) concerning vulnerable groups in the asylum process in 
the UK which, receiving the high est average number of applications in the past 5 years (2003-
2007), constitutes a representative sample on wh ich to base an estimate of the proportion of 
vulnerable applicants among the total applications in the EU (Vulnerable groups in the asylum 
determination process, Thematic Briefing prepared for the Independent Asylum Commission 
Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees (ICAR), 2007). 
75 Eurostat, “Main features of th e services sector in the EU”, Statistics in Focus  – Industry, trade 
and services  19/2007. 
76 Eurostat, “Earnings disparities across European countries and regions. A glance at regional 
results of the Structure of Earnings Survey 2002”, Statistics in Focus – Population and social 
conditions  7/2006. 
77 Eurostat, Europe in Figures 2005 , p. 169. 
EN 61   ENwere used to forecast the level of annual labour costs per Member State in 2008.78 
Information on the annual hours worked per employee in the total economy per Member State in 2005 was taken from the total economy database of the Groningen Growth and Development Centre.
79 The end result is  an average hourly 
labour costs of employees in NACE secti on L (public administration and defence; 
compulsory social security) of €24.3 0 in the EU27 in 2008, and €23.30 excluding 
Denmark. 
Main assumption of Scenario “t0+2”80 
With reference to Table III, the following ma in assumptions have been made in order 
to provide an estimate of the administrativ e costs the preferred policy option entails: 
• Concerning implementation costs for fam iliarisation with the obligations and 
training of the personnel of MS Asylum Services,81 no additional cost should be 
sustained two years after starting the implementation of the preferred option; 
• Concerning implementation costs for the remaining actions82, starting from the 
main assumption of no need for drafting th e EU guidelines and best practices on 
the application of the policy option, the following assumptions were made in terms of WH for the stated actions: 
(1) 0,5 WH for filling the forms  to be submitted for each vulnerable/person with 
special needs identified. This would occur for each vulnerable applicant and the annual number of these people ente ring on average each MS is estimated 
to be 5,742;
83 
(2) 0,1 WH in each MS for submitting the information  concerning vulnerable 
persons (considering that most information will be submitted electronically); 
                                                 
78 OECD Economic Outlook 81 database. The av erage increase in labo ur costs in Poland, 
Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Rep ublic was applied to the New Member States 
that are not a member of the OECD. 
79 Groningen Growth and Development Centre and the Conference Board, Total Economy 
Database, January 2007, http://www.ggdc.net . The average annual numb er of hours worked in 
the New Member States was 1,855 hours per work er, while the Eurostat data on labour costs 
per hour and per month result in an annual number of hours worked in NACE section L of 1,800 hours, suggesting that the data match. 
80 It must be noted that the numbering of the assumption is related to the numbering of the voices 
of cost indicated in Table V. 
81 The necessity of familiarisation with obligations relates to the following measures: (i) the legal 
duty of staff to refer special needs of applicants, (ii) the ensuring of information on 
organisations or groups defending applicants’ rights. 
82 Filling forms and tables; Submitting the information; Filing the information; Retrieving 
relevant information from existing data; Adjusting existing data; Copying; Producing new 
data; Designing information material. 
83 This is based on the assumption that no relevant change would be observed in the overall 
number of applicants for international protection in the EU between t0 and t0+2 and, consequently, also in the number of vulnerable people. The use of the same number for t0 and 
t0+2 depends also on the fact  that the total number of applicants used for calculating the 
number of vulnerable people is the average of the last five years observed (2003-2007), which gives a standardised measure of the intensity of the flows.  
EN 62   EN(3) 0,5 WH in each MS to file the information  for the registration of vulnerable 
persons; 
(4) 36 WH for a MS to retrieve all the necessary information  that has to be 
submitted to the Commission in relation to Articles 6, 11, 13, 17 and 22 of the 
Directive and to detained asylum seek ers with regard to the rules of the 
detention facility; 
(5) 0,1 WH in each MS for submitting the information  in relation to Articles 6, 
11, 13, 17 and 22 of the Directive, and to detained asylum seekers with regard 
to the rules of the detention facility; 
(6) 0,5 WH in each MS to file the information  submitted in relation to Articles 6, 
11, 13, 17 and 22 of the Directive, and to detained asylum seekers with regard 
to the rules of the detention facility; 
• Tariffs: no significant changes in the tariffs (see Scenario “0”) due to the limited 
period elapsed from “Scenario 0” and the expected inflation rates at EU level. 
 
EN 63   EN EU Cost Model: Policy option obligations in scenario 't0' 
Proposal on the future development of measures on reception conditions for 
asylum seekers, based on Council Directive 2003/9/EC  
  Tariff
(€ per 
hour)  
Time  
(hour) Price 
(per action 
or equip) Freq  
(per 
year) Nbr  
of  
entities Total nbr 
of  
actions Total  
cost Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 
No. Ass. 
Art. Orig. 
Art. Type of 
obligation Description of 
required action(s) Target group i e i e           Int EU Nat Reg 
1     Submission 
of (recurring) reports Familiarising with 
the information obligation MS Asylum Services 
23   96,00   2.236,8 1,00 25 25 55.920   100%     
2     Submission 
of (recurring) reports Training members 
and employees about the information obligations MS Asylum Services 
23   
6.320,00   147.256,0 1,00 25 25 3.681.400   100%     
3     Submission 
of (recurring) reports Training members 
and employees about the information obligations EU DG JLS 
Services 
23   
158.000,00   3.681.400,0 1,00 1 1 3.681.400   100%     
4     Submission 
of (recurring) reports Filling forms and 
tables MS Asylum Services 
23   0,50   11,7 5.742,00 25 143.550 1.672.358   100%     
5     Submission 
of (recurring) reports Submitting the 
information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services 
23   0,10   2,3 5.742,00 25 143.550 334.472   100%     
6     Submission 
of (recurring) reports Filing the 
information MS Asylum Services 
23   0,50   11,7 5.742,00 25 143.550 1.672.358   100%     
7       retrieving relevant 
information from existing data MS Asylum Services 
23   40,00   932,0 1 25 25 23.300         
8       Submitting the 
information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services 23   0,1   
2,3 1 25 25 58         
9       filing the information MS Asylum Services 23   0,5   11,7 1 25 25 291         
                          Total administrative costs (€) 11. 121. 556         
 
EN 64   EN EU Cost Model: Policy option ob ligations in scenario 't0 + 2
Proposal on the future development of measures on reception conditions for 
asylum seekers, based on Council Directive 2003/9/EC  
  Tariff 
(€ per 
hour)  
Time  
(hour) Price
(per 
action 
or 
equip) Freq  
(per 
year) Nbr  
of  
entities Total nbr 
of  
actions Total  
cost Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 
No. Ass. 
Art. Orig. 
Art. Type of obligation Description of 
required action(s) Target group i e i e           Int EU Nat Reg 
1     Submission of 
(recurring) reports Filling forms and 
tables MS Asylum 
Services 
23   0,50   11,7 5.742,00 25 143. 550 1.672.358   100%     
2     Submission of 
(recurring) reports Submitting the 
information (sending it 
to the designated 
recipient) MS Asylum 
Services 
23   0,10   2,3 5.742,00 25 143.550 334.472   100%     
3     Submission of 
(recurring) reports Filing the information MS Asylum 
Services 
23   0,50   11,7 5.742,00 25 143. 550 1.672.358   100%     
4     Submission of 
(recurring) reports Retrieving relevant 
information from existing data MS Asylum 
Services 
23   36,00   838,8 1,00 25 25 20.970   100%     
5     Submission of 
(recurring) reports Submitting the 
information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum 
Services 
23   0,10   2,3 1,00 25 25 58   100%     
6     Submission of 
(recurring) reports Filing the information MS Asylum 
Services 
23   0,50   11,7 1,00 25 25 291   100%     
                          Total administrative costs (€) 3.700.506         
 
EN 65   EN ANNEX IV  
Multiple applications – EURODAC 
All multiple applications 3rd and subsequent multiple 
applications 
 EURODA
C 
registered 
asylum 
application
s Total 
n. All multiple 
applications/ 
EURODAC 
registered asylum 
applications Total 
n. 3rd and subsequent 
multiple applications/ 
EURODAC registered 
asylum applications 
2003 238,325 16,42
9 6.89% 1,860 0.78% 
2004 232,205 31,30
7 13.48% 7,873 3.39% 
2005 187,223 31,63
6 16.90% 9,307 4.97% 
2006 165,958 28,59
3 17.23% 9,236 5.57% 
Total 823,711 107,9
65 13.11% 28,276 3.43%