EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 14.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1556 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL 
on coordination and coop eration measures regarding consular protection for 
unrepresented EU citizens 
{COM(2011) 881 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1555 final}  
 
EN 2   EN Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commissi on's services involved in its preparation and 
does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
 
EN 3   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOC UMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Error! Bookmark 
not defined.  
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ ...4 
2. Context and consultation ..............................................................................................4 3. Problem definition ........................................................................................................8 4. Objectives .................................................................................................................. .21 
5. Policy options and their impact ..................................................................................22 6. Comparison of Policy Options....................................................................................34 7. EU added value and implementation ..........................................................................36 Annex I: Member State represen tations in third countries .......................................................39 
Annex II: Representation mapping ...........................................................................................49 Annex III: Magnitude of the problem – Methodology and Data ..............................................51 Annex IV: Overview on the consular prot ection delivered by Member States……………….57 
Annex V: Current procedures of th e financial reimbursement framework…………………...59 
Annex VI: Key assumptions on costs a nd benefits - policy options 2 and 3………………….61 
 
EN 4   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
This impact assessment examines the coordinati on and cooperation measures regarding consular 
protection for unrepresented EU citizens with the ai m of further facilitating consular protection in 
third countries. Special attention is given to financia l reimbursement in crisis situations. It will be 
safeguarded that unrepresented EU citizens are treated by the assi sting consular authority in the 
same way as its own nationals; and quality of servic e for unrepresented EU c itizens as well as the 
solidarity and collaboration between consul ar authorities will be further enhanced.  
An EU citizen, travelling to or living in a th ird country where his/her Member State is not 
represented by an embassy or consul ate, has the right to enjoy the protection of the diplomatic and 
consular authorities of any other Member State unde r the same conditions as the nationals of that 
State. This right is enshrined in Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of th e Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union. 
Recent major crises have affected  a considerable number of EU c itizens in third countries (for 
instance in Libya, Egypt and Bahrai n after the democratic uprisings in spring 2011 or in Japan after 
the earthquake in March 2011). Yet also in day-to-day  situations (e.g. in the event of serious illness 
or when somone is a victim of crime) assistan ce by consular authorities is often essential (for 
instance assisting with access to medical facilities or issuing emergency travel documents). The 
need for consular protection is expected to further increase in the future1. 
This impact assessment accompanies the Commi ssion’s proposal for a draft Directive on the 
coordination and cooperation measures regarding c onsular protection for unr epresented citizens of 
the Union. 
2. CONTEXT AND CONSULTATION  
2.1. Policy context 
The right to equal treatment on co nsular protection for unrepresen ted EU citizens is one of the 
specific rights granted by the concept of EU citizen ship. It is commonly regarded as an expression 
of EU solidarity and of the identity of the Union in  third countries, as well as one of the practical 
benefits of being an EU citizen. 
Consular protection for EU citizens is an integr al component of the Union's policy, fostering the 
rights of the EU citizens. The Stockholm Programme prioritises over the coming years the needs and interests of the citizens and it emphasises that  all opportunities offered by the Lisbon Treaty, in 
order to strengthen the European ar ea of freedom, security and justice for the benefit of EU citizens, 
should be used by the European institutions
2. Regarding consular protection the European Council 
invited the Commission to ‘con sider appropriate measures es tablishing coordination and 
cooperation necessary to facili tate consular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU’3. 
In its Resolution of 25 November 2009 the Europ ean Parliament emphasised the importance of 
strengthening the coordination and cooperation of consular protectio n; as it considered that the 
                                                 
1 See below under point 3.1.  
2 OJ 2010/C 115/01 - The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the 
citizens, Council document 17024/09 of 2 December 2009. 
3 Idem . 
 
EN 5   EN exercise of the rights of EU citizens must be secu red beyond national borders, and that they must be 
able to fully exercise their specif ic rights, even outside the Union4. This was a follow-up to its 
Resolution of 11 December 2007 advocating th e adoption of common concepts and binding 
guidelines for establishing common standards in the field of consular protection, and – once the 
Lisbon Treaty has been ratified – subsequent  submission of a proposal for amending Decision 
95/553/EC5. 
The EU Citizenship Report 2010, a strategic initia tive of the Commission, stemmed from President 
Barroso’s political commitment to obtain a compre hensive overview of the obstacles citizens still 
face and to propose how they can best be removed6. It stressed that there was still a gap between the 
applicable legal rules and the reality confronting c itizens in their daily lives, particularly in cross-
border situations, and underlined the importance of making EU citizenship more effective in 
practice. According to action 8 of the report, the Commission would consider increasing the 
effectiveness of the right of EU citizens to be assi sted in third countries, including in times of crisis, 
by the diplomatic and consular authorities of all Member States, by proposing legislative measures 
in 2011 and by better informing citizens via a de dicated website and targeted communication 
measures. The Commission reiterated this commitment7 in its Communicati on of 23 March 2011 on 
consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens8, which took stock of the Union's contribution to 
effective consular protection in third countries as announced in the Commission's Action Plan 2007-
20099 and presented the way forward based on the experience gained and the renewed institutional 
framework. 
The Lisbon Treaty  takes account of the increased need fo r a European dimension for consular 
protection by reinforcing and clarifying the capacity of the Union to act. 
Consular protection for EU citizen s, introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, is also enshrined in 
Article 46 of the Charter of Fundame ntal Rights of the European Un ion. This right confers a clear 
individual entitlement for the citizen of a non-re presented Member State to be treated by the 
consular and diplomatic authoritie s of another Member State as if  he/she were its own national. 
Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 form an integral part of Chapter II on non-discrimi nation and citizenship of 
the TFEU. 
Under the previous legal regime Member States had to establish the necessary rules themselves. 
Two succinct sui generis decisions were adopted  (Decision 95/553/EC on c onsular protection for 
unrepresented EU citizens10 and Decision 96/409/CFSP regarding Emergency Travel Documents11), 
as well as non-binding guidelines (on consular pr otection of EU citizens in third countries in 
general as well as on specific terms of Decision 95/553 and on crisis cooperation12). The Lisbon 
                                                 
4 European Parliament Resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – 
Stockholm programme (http://www.europarl.europa. eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=T A&reference=P7-TA-2009-
0090&format=XML&language=EN). 
5 European Parliament Resolution of 11 December 2007 on the Green Paper: Diplomatic and consular protection 
of Union citizens in third countries (http://www.europ arl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc .do?type=TA&reference=P6-
TA-2007-0592&language=EN&ring=A6-2007-0454). 
6 COM(2010) 603 final. 
7 See also the Commission Work Programme 2011(COM(2010)623 final). 
8 COM(2011) 149 final. 
9 COM(2007) 767 final. 
10 OJ L 314, 28.12.1995, p. 73. 
11 OJ L 168, 16.7.1996, p. 4. 
12 Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries (Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 
2006 revised by Council document 15613/10 of 05 November 2010 (not published)). Guidelines for further 
 
EN 6   EN Treaty conferred on the Commission the right to in itiate legislative proposals, i.e. directives 
establishing cooperation and coor dination measures necessary to facilitate the right regarding 
consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens13. Any such legislative proposal would, following 
consultation of the European Parliament, be subj ect to qualified major ity voting in the Council14. 
The Lisbon Treaty also allowed fo r the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS)15. 
Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) stipulates that the diplomatic and consular 
missions of the Member States and the Union delega tions in third countries shall contribute to the 
implementation of the right of EU citizens as re ferred to in Article 20(2)(c) TFEU and of the 
measures adopted pursuant to Article 23 TFEU. 
Right to equal treatment as regards consular protection  
Every EU citizen has, in a thir d country in which his/her Member  State of nati onality is not 
represented, the right to protection by the diploma tic or consular authorities of any EU Member 
State, under the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This means that an EU citizen who 
travels to (or lives in) a non-E U country, where his/her home Me mber State does not have an 
embassy or a consulate, can turn to another Me mber State’s embassy or consulate and ask for 
protection. The EU citizen then ha s the right to be treated in the same way as the assisting Member 
State would treat its own na tionals (non-discrimination). 
2.2. Consultation and chronology 
2.2.1.  Consultation of stakeholders 
The views of Member States and other stakehol ders were widely sought in accordance with the 
general principles and minimum sta ndards applicable to the consultati on of interested parties. In a 
comprehensive public consultation on EU citizens' rights in 2010, contributions from all citizens 
and relevant stakeholders were sought with a vi ew to identifying concre te actions. Particular 
attention was given to consular  protection for EU citizens. Th is public consultation followed a 
previous one connected with the Green Paper of 2007 on diplomatic and cons ular protection of EU 
citizens in third countries16. The ideas put forward during the public consultation informed the 
policy debate at the conference "EU citizens' ri ghts – the way forward"  of 1-2 July 2010, during 
which consular protection was discussed in depth. 
A 2010 Eurobarometer on Citizenship revealed that  consular protection for unrepresented EU 
citizens constitutes the least known EU Citizenship right17. Stakeholders involved in consular 
protection (such as Member States, travel a ssociations, non-government al organisations and 
academics) were consulted, including via two dedicated workshops which took place on 24 
September 2010 and on 23 June 2011. Consular and diplom atic authorities of a ll the Member States 
were informed in the Council Working Group Cons ular Affairs (COCON) and consulted via an 
                                                                                                                                                                  
implementing a number of provisions under Decision 95/553/EC (Council document 11113/08). Lead State 
concept (Council document 10715/07) and European Union guidelines on implementation of the consular Lead 
State concept (document 2008/C317/06, OJ C317/06, p. 6). See as well Decision of the Representatives of the 
Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures implementing the Decision 
regarding protection for citizens of the European Union by diplomatic and consular representations (Council 
document 11107/95 (not published)). 
13 Article 23(2) TFEU. 
14 Article 16(3) TEU. 
15 Article 27 TEU. 
16 OJ C 30 of 10.2.2007, p. 8.  
17 Eurobarometer(2010), Flash EB No 294, European Union Citizenship. 
 
EN 7   EN online survey and bilateral interviews and six repr esentative Member States were recently visited. 
To ensure that any measures proposed would be appropriate and proportiona l and to provide for a 
‘reality check’, field missions to four selected third countries (Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Cuba and 
Egypt) were undertaken by an external consultanc y to directly consult consular practitioners 
working on the ground. 
2.2.2.  Studies on consular protection  
This impact assessment also draws on four recent studies on consular protection for unrepresented 
EU citizens. 
– A study (2009) on Member States' legislations and practices, carried out by the Instituto 
Europeo de Derecho, examined laws and practices of Member States in the field of consular protection, including as regards th e implementation of the Decision 95/553/EC on 
unrepresented EU citizens. 
– Through the CARE (Citizens Consular Assistance  Regulation in Europe) project activities 
(2009-2011), realised with the financial suppor t of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship 
Programme of the European Commission, the legal framework of Member States on 
consular and diplomatic protection was comp rehensively analysed. Special attention was 
given to Article 23 TFEU. 
– An external study (2010) by the consu ltancy GHK supported the Commission in its 
analysis of policy options and the related costs, focusing on cr isis situations and financial 
reimbursement. 
– A second external study (2011) undertaken by the consultancy Matrix Insight provided 
further evidence, including vi a missions to third countries , evaluated Decision 95/553/EC 
and the current functioning of cooperation a nd coordination and examined how consular 
protection for unrepresented EU ci tizens could be further improved. 
2.2.3.  Internal consultation and scru tiny of the Impact Assessment 
An Interservice Impact Asse ssment Steering Group involving re presentatives from DG ECHO, 
EEAS, DG HOME as well as the Legal Servi ce and the Secretariat-General was created. 
IASG meetings were held on 17 June, 1 July and 15 July 2011. The IASG al so supported the work 
on financial reimbursement in crisis situations  through meetings on 15 July and 22 October 2010. 
Feedback received at the meetings and through further contacts has been taken into account 
throughout this report. The European Commission' s Impact Assessment Board examined this 
impact assessment in written procedure and is sued its opinion on 16 September 2011. The opinion 
is fully taken into account in the Impact Assessment . In particular, explanations about the estimated 
costs/benefits and the similarities and variations of standard consular services have been developed and the analysis of consular protection in crisis  situations and regardi ng third country family 
members have been further elaborated. Stakehol ders' views about the option elements and the 
expected benefits of awareness-raising measures have been further detailed. 
 
EN 8   EN 3. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
3.1. Magnitude 
Large numbers of EU citizens have been aff ected by recent crises. In Libya around 5.800 EU 
citizens were evacuated, in Haiti 2.700 EU citizens were affected. In Egypt  there were at least 
100.000 EU citizens (mostly tourists in the Red S ea region) and in Japan around 37.000 EU citizens 
involved18. Apart from their security, humanitarian or nuc lear safety impacts, all these events were 
also consular crises19, as they required an appropriate cons ular response: providing information on 
safety measures, coordination of evacuations , issuance of emergency travel documents. 
All 27 Member States are represented in only th ree third countries: China, Russia and the United 
States (Annexes I and II present an  overview of Member States' repr esentations in third countries). 
France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain (c ombined population of 314.815.000) are in the top 
quintile with representation in mo re than 50% of all third countri es. Malta, Estonia, Luxembourg, 
Latvia and Cyprus (combined population of 5.301.000) are in the bottom quintile with representations in less than 10% of all third countries. 
Figure 1: Number of representations in third countries per Member Stat e (as a percentage of 
total third countries) 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
FR DE UK IT ES NL RO CZ SE PL BE EL AT BG DK HU PT FI SK IE SI LT CY LV EE MT LU 
Source: General Secretariat of the Council, 17770/ 2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 RELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU  diplomatic representation in third 
countries, second half of 2010 
Currently there are no systematic data on unrepresent ed EU citizens travelling to or living in third 
countries. To obtain the number of unrepresented  EU citizens travelling or residing in third 
countries, relevant travel and em igration patterns around the world have  been analysed. Eurostat has 
information about trips to third countries in 2009 (both for holiday s and business), and the UNWTO 
World Tourism Barometer20 provides comprehensive data on international tourist arrivals in third 
countries. National statistical sources as well as information by travel associations are used for 
validation and to fill remaining gaps. Regarding the total number of EU citizens living in third 
                                                 
18 See COM(2011) 149 final.  
19 A consular crisis is any situation caused by natural or  manmade disaster that affect s a high number of persons, 
requiring the immediate and direct inte rvention of a consular authority to ensure safety and security of its 
citizens present abroad. 
20 UNWTO(2010), World Tourism Barometer, Vol 8, No 2, June 2010. 
 
EN 9   EN countries Eurostat emigration figures were used to reflect the total number of emigrants both by 
Member State and by third country21. 
Following a comparison of the numbers of repres entations and the actual number of citizens 
travelling to or residing in third countries, an estimated 6.86 million EU citizens travel to (5.12 
million) or live in (1.74 million) third countries where their Member State is not represented22. 
Figure 2: Estimate of total number of instance s when travelling EU ci tizens are unrepresented 
in third countries (2009) 
 
On the basis of the information provided by Me mber States, in 2009 c onsular protection was 
provided in total in almost 300.000 cases23. According to reported data, represented EU citizens 
appear to ask for and obta in consular protection much more ofte n than unrepresented EU citizens. If 
one assumes that represented and unrepresented EU c itizens are equally likely to get into a situation 
in which they could request consular protectio n (e.g. victim of robbery) around 7.300 unrepresented 
EU citizens have been thus affected in third countries24. In fact, only 16% of these citizens have 
actually benefited from consular protection - al though according to a recent Eurobarometer survey 
79% of EU citizens know about the existence of this right25 - a right that has however not yet been 
fully established26. 
                                                 
21 A Member State's share of total emigration to third coun tries can be used to estimate the number of citizens of 
a particular Member State residing outside the EU. Further indications about the number of EU citizens living 
in third countries were obtained from expatriate associations. 
22 Please see Annex III for further details on the methodology.  
23 295.490 cases in 2009. As not all Memb er States reported cases this figure is partially based on extrapolations 
(see Annex III). 
24 Compared to how often represented nationals requested consular protection.  
25 Eurobarometer(2010), Flash EB No 294, European Union Citizenship. 
26 For the various reasons pleas e see the following section. 
 
EN 10   EN Figure 3: Unrepresented EU Citizens Potentially in Need of Consular 
Protection 
Unrepresented 
citizens who 
received consular 
protection (16%) Unrepresented 
citizens who did 
not ask for/receive 
consular protection 
(84%) 
 
As time goes by more and more citizens will find themselves in situations where they may be 
eligible for consular protection of another Member State (see point  3.4 on the baseline scenario). 
This trend is further aggravated by the ongoing rationalisation of Member States' consular 
networks. 
EU citizens travelling to and living in third count ries are also increasingly exposed to crisis 
situations (both natural and manmade). As out lined in the Commission's recent Communication 
"Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil prot ection and humanitarian 
assistance"27, the recorded annual number of disasters ha s increased fivefold - from 78 in 1975 to 
nearly 400 currently. This is th e effect of climate change, popul ation growth combined with 
increasing urbanisatio n and other factors28. The frequency and intensity of disasters are likely to 
continue increasing. Also terrorism and civil unrests remain a significant security threat. Consular crises involving unrepresented EU citizens are even mo re likely to take place in the future due to an 
increasing number of EU citizens travelling to third countries or  residing there. In 2010, several 
consular crises had an impact on unrepresented EU citizens
29; also the consular crises in the first 
half of 2011, in Tunisia, Yemen and in particular  in Libya, involved unrep resented EU citizens.  
3.2. General problem 
In line with the case-law of  the European C ourt of Justice30, citizenship of the Union should be the 
fundamental status of EU citizens when exercising their rights under the Treaties. Citizens should 
be able to make use of their rights in the same way as they use their right s as national citizens. 
However, the implementation of EU citizenship as a concrete reality ensuring equal treatment in 
regard to consular protection  is currently not secured. There is no clear consensus on the content 
of Article 23 TFEU and about the responsibiliti es which this right entails. Cooperation and 
coordination often work on an ad-h oc basis, depending to a large ex tent on personalities involved, 
rather than on clear divisions of responsibilit ies and established proce dures. These issues are 
                                                 
27 COM(2010)600 final, 26.10.2010. 
28 Such as increased industrial activ ity and environmental degradation.  
29 Haiti earthquake, Chile earthquake, Thailand civil unrest,  Kyrgyzstan civil unrest, volcanic ash cloud, Ladakh 
floods, Yemen civil unrest, Ivory Coas t civil unrest. According to informa tion provided by the Member States 
in Haiti assistance was provided to more than 200 unrepresented EU citizens, in Kyrgyzstan to 89 unrepresented citizens. See also Annex VI.  
30 See for instance case C-184/99 Grzelczyk . 
 
EN 11   EN examined in more depth below (points 3.2.1 and 3.2.2); they are further considered through a 
number of specific parameters which are analysed subsequently (point 3.3.). 
3.2.1.  Scope and content not clear 
Article 23 TFEU  
"Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country  in which the Member State of 
which he is a national is not repr esented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular 
authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the na tionals of that State. Member 
States shall adopt the necessary provisions and start the international negotiations required to 
secure this protection. 
The Council, acting in accordance with a specia l legislative procedure and after consulting the 
European Parliament, may adopt directives est ablishing the coordination and cooperation 
measures necessary to faci litate such protection." 
Article 23 TFEU constitutes a Treaty right, even a f undamental right. To be effective as a right with 
concrete meaning, the succinct wording of Articl e 23 TFEU is not sufficient. A tangible right 
requires form and shape. 
Currently, national consular laws and practices  diverge considerably as do views about the 
underlying concepts of consular protection for unr epresented EU citizens.  Clear, distinct and 
adequate demarcation as to the applicability and c ontent of this right, incl uding 1) which entity is 
responsible 2) under what conditions  and 3) for what assistance are no t sufficiently in place. This is 
all the more important as consular cases freque ntly involve unrepresented EU citizens and their 
relatives in very difficult life situations (death, serious illness, detention, crime). Often, consular 
protection is the only way to get help (e.g. in case s of evacuation or detenti on) or at least greatly 
mitigates the process (e.g. transferral of corp se and help with burdensome administrative 
procedures). 
The current legal framework mainly consists of Decision 95/553/EC, a succinc t sui generis decision 
adopted by representatives of Member State gove rnments outside the framework of EU law as 
provided for by the Lisbon Treaty31. This decision is supplemen ted by dispersed non-binding 
guidelines32, whose implementation is left to the discretio n of the consular authorities in place in 
third countries. The current framework, despite providing a basis on which any future measures 
should be fully built, is thus liable to create ambiguities and divergences in interpretation and 
application, and leaves significant room for furthe r clarification. Citizens are accordingly unable to 
rely on a right with a clear amb it (e.g. a clear definition of when citizens are "unrepresented" or 
clarity as to which Member State they can turn to  in a specific third country) and it is difficult to 
meet their expectations. Although general awareness about this ri ght is relatively high (79%), a 
                                                 
31 OJ L 314, 28.12.1995, p. 73. Article 23(2) TFEU aban dons the previous logic of intergovernmental decision-
making (see policy context under point 2.1). 
32 Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries (Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 
2006 revised by Council document 15613/10 of 05 November 2010 (not published)). Guidelines for further 
implementing a number of provisions under Decision 95/553/EC (Council document 11113/08). Lead State concept (Council document 10715/07) and European Union guidelines on implementation of the consular Lead 
State concept (document 2008/C317/06, OJ C317/06, p. 6). See as well Decision of the Representatives of the 
Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on measures implementing the Decision 
regarding protection for citizens of the European Union by diplomatic and consular representations (Council 
document 11107/95 (not published)). 
 
EN 12   EN 2010 Eurobarometer on Citizenship revealed that c onsular protection for unr epresented EU citizens 
constitutes the least known EU citizenship right;33 but citizens' expectatio ns are high. Even though 
consular protection provided by Member States va ries, the majority of EU citizens (62%) would 
expect the same kind of help regardless of which Me mber State's embassy they turn to, while a third 
of EU citizens (28%) expect at least a minimum standard of help provided by any Member State34. 
The current divergences make it difficult for the ci tizen to establish and be aware of the clear 
content of this right and under which conditions he/she  is entitled to ask for assistance. Current lack 
of clarity also encourages dispropo rtionate expectations on  the part of citizens as to what this right 
entails35. 
The specific areas where more clarity is needed will be examined below (point 3.3). Member States generally acknowledge that the curre nt legal framework shoul d be brought into line 
with the Lisbon Treaty and that this should provide  an opportunity to achieve further clarity and 
simplication. Accordingly, the Eu ropean Council invited the Commission to consider appropriate 
measures establishing coordination and cooperation n ecessary to facilitate consular protection in 
accordance with Article 23 TFEU
36. 
3.2.2.  Cooperation and coordination procedures  not sufficien tly established 
Under Article 23 TFEU the assisting Member State ha s to treat an unrepresent ed EU citizen as if 
he/she was its own national. However, unlik e dealing with own nationals, assisting an 
unrepresented citizen requires cooperation and coordination with other Member States.  
Firstly, this concerns co operation and coordination  between the assisting Member State present on 
the ground and the Member State of origin. The citizen's Member State of origin often has 
necessary information about the citi zen/ his or her relevant contact persons, which may need to be 
provided or sought for further guida nce (for instance if the citizen is detain ed or in a coma). 
Currently, there is not always a clear framew ork on cooperation and coordination between the 
relevant authorities which would fill the gap caused by the lack of an accessible own consular representation (see be low under point 3.3 for further details). 
It is currently not easy to establish how and by whom unrepresented EU citizens would be taken 
care of, including in a crisis. This appears all the more important as unrepresented EU citizens may 
in a crisis find things even more difficult to deal  with (given the absence of national authorities and 
single contact points). Unrepresented EU citizens c onstitute a vulnerable group:  consular protection 
is often needed by citizens in difficult life situa tions, and they face an "entry barrier" to assistance 
given the absence of their own repr esentation in loco. Whereas for nationals it is evident that the 
local embassy/consulate is responsible for providing help, the situation for unrepresented citizens is 
more complex, since it involves foreign nationals  and requires coordination and cooperation with 
authorities not represented on the ground. This is the case both for local cooperation (i.e. 
cooperation between the embassies/cons ulates in a given third country ) and for cooperation in crisis 
situations (e.g. evacuation of citi zens). Despite the need for a cer tain degree of flexibility, the 
division of roles and responsibilities for unrepresented  EU citizens is often not sufficiently clear, so 
their equal treatment is not guaranteed. For exam ple regarding local coope ration on the ground in 
                                                
 
33 Eurobarometer(2010), Flash EB No 294, European Union Citizenship. 
34 Idem . 
35 E.g. that a citizen would be unrepresented and could turn to another Member State's representation if his/her 
national embassy was situated in another part of the capital city. 
36 OJ 2010/C 115/01 - The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the 
citizens, Council document 17024/09 of 2 December 2009. 
 
EN 13   EN third countries the EU's role is ambiguous, wh ich induces a suboptimal use of resources and 
capacities. In crisis situations financial burden-sh aring regarding unrepresented EU citizens is not 
established and current reimbursement proce dures are cumbersome and do not reflect the 
specificities of crisis situations. As a result assi sting Member States often bear the whole financial 
responsibility for the protection of  unrepresented EU citizens whic h may deter them from taking a 
proactive approach. These aspects will be further developed below. 
3.3. Specific parameters 
In this section the general problems are furthe r examined by reference to  the following specific 
parameters: 
1) Who is an unrepresented EU citizen? 
2) Which Member State assists an unrepresented  EU citizen and how is this assistance to be 
coordinated with the citizen' s Member State of origin? 
3) How should the consular actors in a given third country cooperate with each other and 
coordinate their action (in particular, how can the EU level provide added value in this respect)? 
4) How and by whom should unrepresented EU citi zens be assisted in crisis situations and how 
should the financial burden be shar ed between the assisting and th e unrepresented Member State? 
These parameters will be analysed in turn. They are accompanied by examples illustrating these 
parameters further. 
3.3.1.  Who is an unrepresented EU citizen? (Personal scope) 
Example 1: Andreas from Member State A was travel ling in the vast non-EU country X. In a remote 
region of X he was robbed and deprived of his pass port. He is in need of consular protection 
(advice and issuance of an emergen cy travel document) and finds ou t that his own Member State A 
has an embassy in the capital of X, which is how ever several travel hours away. It is unclear 
whether he has the right to turn to Member State B, which has a consulate in the region, or whether 
he needs to travel to the capita l. Current non-binding guidelines point  to factors such as convenient 
distance and reasonable time, depending on the indi vidual circumstances in the third country 
concerned, without clarifying what  constitutes "convenient distanc e" or "reasonable travel time". 
Andreas therefore travels to the capital. Besides considerable transport cost s he has to bear the 
cost of staying in a hotel, as he is not able to return the same day. 
Variation: Andreas is accompanied by his wife Angela, a non-EU national. Angela was also robbed 
and deprived of her belongings. It is currently not cl ear to what extent she w ould also be entitled to 
assistance (as a family member of an unrepresented EU citizen). 
Example 2: Albert has been livi ng in Member State A for 10 yea rs but has not become a national. 
Nadja is a recognised refugee in  Member State A. They were both on a bus journey in X when an 
accident happened. Albert was severl y injured, Nadja died instantly. It is currently not clear to what 
extent Albert/ Nadja's pare nts would be eligible to request assi stance like a national (e.g. assistance 
with medical care and in informing relevant pe rsons, obtaining the death certificate and assisting 
with the repatriation of the corp se) in view of Article 23 TFEU. 
An EU citizen is unrepresented not only if hi s/her home Member State has no consular and 
diplomatic representation at all in a given third country, but also – as stipulated in Article 1 of 
 
EN 14   EN Decision 95/553 - if this representation is not "accessible". Th ere is however currently no clear and 
common understanding about when a consular repr esentation is "accessible ". According to non-
binding guidelines a permanent representation is accessible if it is "safely reachable, by an EU citizen by land (road or rail), within conveni ent distance and reasonable time, depending upon 
specific circumstances in the third country concerned"
37. This leaves considerable scope for 
interpretation and means that an  EU citizen cannot possibly know in  practice whether he/she has the 
right to turn to a nearer consulate of another Member State or not. Representatives of Member 
States consulted expressed diverging views and inte rpretations (for instance distance of 400 km or 
on an island), other stak eholders stressed the need to render th e right enshrined in  Article 23 TFEU 
fully effective. Stakeholders further emphasised that  the urgency of the assist ance needs to be taken 
into account. 
Further, it is currently not suffi ciently established in practice as  to which extent non-EU family 
members of unrepresented EU citi zens are given assistance. Consular  practicioners co nsulted during 
study visits to third countries point ed out that this is a rather difficult and sensitive question. The 
decision to include non-EU family members genera lly appears to be take n on a case-by-case basis 
without clear criteria, though in times  of crisis rules on family members tend to be applied in a more 
comprehensive way38. Similarily, it is currently not cl ear whether long-term residents and 
recognised refugees residing in a Member State would be entitled to c onsular protection like 
unrepresented EU citizens in the event that their Me mber State of residence is not represented in a 
third country. 
3.3.2.  Which Member State assists an unrepresented EU citzen  and how and which type of 
assistance is coordinated w ith the citizen's Member St ate of origin? (access and 
coordination/cooperation) 
Maria from Member State M lo st her passport in non-EU c ountry Y where there is no 
representation of her home Member  State. She phoned th e consulates of Memb er States A and B but 
was not offered assistance. She then personally visi ted the consulates of Me mber States C and D but 
was still not granted assistance (as the consular officials did not s hare her view that she had a right 
to turn to them). As a consequence, Maria was st uck for one week in Y until she - also thanks to the 
intervention of her home Member State - was fina lly assisted. Besides the personal inconvenience 
and distress she also had to bear additional costs of accommodation and a loss in income. 
According to the wording of the Treaty an unrepresented EU citizen can seek protection from the 
embassy or consulate of "any" other Member St ate, thus allowing the citizen to choose which 
representation he/she prefers to tu rn to. In practice, representations  of Member States do not always 
accept that they have to assist an unrepresented EU  citizen, but sometimes request him/her to turn to 
another Member State. There ar e also agreements between some  Member States, according to 
which a specific Member State is represented by another Member State on c onsular matters (either 
generally or regarding specific third countries). Further local burden-shari ng arrangements exist, 
whereby a specific Member State should take care of citizens of  specific nationa lities. These 
arrangements may be acceptable as long as an e fficient treatment of unr epresented citizens is 
secured. They tend however not to be widely publicised and this makes it difficult for a citizen to know which representation would assist him/her. 
                                                
 
37 Guidelines for further implementing a number of provisions under Decision 95/553/EC (Council document 
11113/08 of 24 June 2008).  
38 Communication on consular protection, p. 7 as well as  CARE study and study of the Instituto Europeo de 
Derecho.  
 
EN 15   EN The unrepresented EU citizen Sandro, a citizen of Member State S, has just been arrested and is 
being held in a Latinamerican prison. He would like to ask for consular  protection from the 
embassy of Member State B. Curren tly it is not clarified which types of assistance the assisting 
Member State generally may deliver  and how it cooperates and coordi nates with the citizen's home 
Member State. For instance in the case of arrest  or detention, Sandro may be visited and his family 
members or other related persons informed at his request, minimum standards of treatment may be 
monitored and information on his rights provided. The authorities of  the assisted Member State S 
should be provided with all the relevant info rmation about Sandro and then should liaise with his 
family members or other related persons (if th e detainee so wishes). The authorities should be 
informed after any visit made to the detainee and instantly be informed about any complaint of ill-
treatment. Currently some cooperation rules exis t but they are non-binding and merely indicative, 
so local consular staff of Member State B feel obliged to ask centrally for instructions, which might 
impair an efficient and swift treatment of the case. Th ere is also currently no clear system in place 
via which the consular staff of Member State B woul d establish the relevant contact person(s) of the 
citizen's home Member State. 
Assisting an unrepresented EU ci tizen, unlike assistance to own nationals, ofte n requires efficient 
cooperation with the consular auth orities of the citizen's home Me mber State. The latter has a 
certain "duty of protection" vis-à- vis its nationals. It may be in a better position to liaise with the 
citizen's family and relatives and may wish to provide further assistance from a distance (e.g. 
regarding complaints about ill-treatment in prison) . Despite the fact that consular protection often 
concerns citizens in particularly difficult circumstances and the necessity to safeguard efficient treatment, clear rules for coopera tion and coordination between the assisting Member State and the 
citizen's Member State of origin are currently not sufficiently established. This comprises which 
types of assistance consular protection for unreprese nted EU citizens typically  entails (e.g. in case 
of death, victim of crime, etc.) and how the assi stance is to be coordina ted between the assisting 
Member State and the citizen's Member State of origin. It has emerged from consultations that 
consular officials would turn freque ntly first to their own authorities in the capital to ask for specific 
instructions on how to proceed. Cooperation and coor dination appear to be based more on personal 
relations and knowledge than on cl early established communication ch annels and rules for standard-
type situations, inducing time loss as well as possi ble discrimination because the citizen is not a 
national of the assisting Member State. 
Further, simple forms of legaliz ation of third-country documents and simple notary services for 
unrepresented EU citizens are cu rrently not included in the scope of consular protection measures 
explicitly codified in Article 3(1)  of Decision 95/553/EC. This refers  to the authentication of third- 
country documents of unrepresented EU citizens a nd the confirmation of an unrepresented citizen's 
signature at his/her request by th e consular authorities of another Member State. These activities 
may not be related to cases of immediate emergency, but having to travel to another third country to 
obtain this service is of ten rather cumbersome. 
3.3.3.  How should the consular actors present in a given third country cooperate with each and 
coordinate their action (in particular, how ca n the EU level add value and contribute to 
facilitate cooperation)? 
In a third country the representati ves of the locally present consul ar and diplomatic representations 
generally meet and exchange their views on consular  matters (e.g. prison conditions, experiences 
with third-country authorities). How should the issu e of unrepresented EU citizens be included in 
this local cooperation? What is the role of the Union delegation as regards this local cooperation 
and what other tasks can it perform? 
 
EN 16   EN Currently local cooperation meetings on consular  protection are being organised to exchange 
information on issues of interest. Acco rding to non-binding  consular guidelines39, unless otherwise 
agreed by the Ministries of the Foreign Affairs centrally, these meetings are chaired by Member 
State representatives decided locally (the so-ca lled local Chair), with the support of the Union 
delegation. 
To ensure coordination and cooperation in regard  to unrepresented EU citizens, the consular 
authorities present in a given th ird country need to liaise with each othe r and have specific 
information available (for instance contact details  of unrepresented Member  States' authorities as 
well as of translators/lawyers/doc tors speaking the language of unr epresented citi zens). Pertinent 
information for unrepresented EU citizens is curre ntly not systematically collected (which may 
bring about losses in time and efficiency when de aling with unrepresented EU citizens), but depend 
on the initiative and engagement of local staff. 
Further, pursuant to the Treaty,40 the Union delegations are obliged to ("shall") contribute to the 
implementation of the right to equal consular protection of unrepresented EU citizens. Respective spheres of competence and scope for action are not yet spelled out and accordingly depend to a 
large degree on the persons, circumstances and view s represented locally. For instance it may entail 
taking part in local cooperation mee tings or put at disposal available logistics. The current setting is 
thus not conducive to a fully coherent external action of the Union. Stakeholders underlined the 
importance of setting out clearly what Union de legations can and cannot do, in order to avoid 
duplications and allow for full use of resources. 
3.3.4.  How and by whom should unrepresented EU citiz ens be assisted in cr isis situations, and 
how should the financial burden be shared between the assisting and the unrepresented 
Member State? (assistance in crisis situations and financ ial reimbursement) 
Also in crisis situations unrepresented EU citizen s have a right to equal consular protection. In a 
crisis, preparedness and a clear di vision of responsibilities is key. 
Due to huge floods in third country Y most of its in frastructure has been de stroyed. Tourists from 
Europe in the seaside resorts have been repatria ted by their tour operators. However, about 500 
EU citizens (mostly backpack travel lers) are still stranded in remote locations, of whom about 100 
are unrepresented. It is however not specified which ac tor should coordinate assistance regarding 
the unrepresented EU citizens (both when preparing for a crisis and when the crisis hits). In the 
following days the consular authorities of non- represented Member States establish lists of 
nationals, which could be caught up in the crisis , on the basis of information from families and 
friends. These lists are being passed on (via Member  States' Foreign Ministri es) to all the Member 
States' consular representations present in countr y Y with a request to st art cooperation to provide 
assistance. The stranded unrepre sented citizens are in consid erable distress, because the 
information they receive  from different sources (their home Fo reign Ministries, c onsulates of other 
EU countries) on their situation and when th ey might be evacuated is contradictory. 
According to legally non-binding guidelines  of March 2006 (updated in November 2010)41 Member 
States should meet regularly and share consular contingency and evacuations plans. These activities 
should be coordinated by the so -called local consular Chair (see 3.3.3 above). In 2006/2007 the 
                                                 
39 Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 2006 revised by the Council document 15613/10 of 05 November 
2010 (not published). 
40 Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union.  
41 Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 2006 revised by the Council document 15613/10 of 05 November 
2010 (not published). 
 
EN 17   EN Member States endorsed the Lead State42 concept – i.e. a Member St ate can volunteer to be "Lead 
State" in a specific third country  and would consequently assume the responsibility for consular 
crisis coordination. Coordination is  being supplemented at EU leve l by practical tools managed by 
the EEAS Situation Centre (secure website to fac ilitate information exch ange between consular 
authorities and teleconferences). 
In recent years crisis coordination has improved c onsiderably but there is still scope for further 
improvement regarding unrepresented EU citizens43. The current legal framework does not give a 
concrete response on who should focus on assisting unr epresented EU citizens in crisis situations, 
including as to the role of the Lead State. As a result, protection of unr epresented EU citizens 
cannot be as efficient as in the case of repr esented nationals. The non-binding guidelines are not 
fully adhered to in practice. Contingency planni ng does not specifically cater  for unrepresented EU 
citizens; in a crisis it is difficult to establish th e number of unrepresented EU citizens. Activities are 
at times fragmented (individual actions focusi ng on own nationals rather than a coordinated 
approach). Information on needs an d available resources is not alwa ys sufficient. Particularly in 
serious crises it is difficult for local staff to cope without support from crisis  intervention specialists. 
The coordination framework and the sharing of res ponsibilities are still being further developed. 
Lead States are currently estab lished in 28 third count ries out of 146 where at least one Member 
State is represented44. There are nevertheless many countries at risk where – despite the presence of 
many EU citizens but only a few Member State re presentations – Lead St ates have not been 
established. Local consular Chairs, which are al so important as they could assume at least a 
coordinating if not an operati onal role, are established in le ss than 50 % of third countries45. 
Among the stranded EU citizens, there are also about  50 citizens of country B. Two represented 
Member States have chartered planes, which are not  sufficient to cover all the remaining tourists. 
Regarding available places priority is given to  the nationals of assisting Member States. The 
consulate of Member State B would like to charter a small plane with 60 available seats, but would 
need to receive additional funds from its capital.  It is unclear how the financial burden would be 
shared and how (and by whom) assistance will be reimbursed; consultations  on this issue would 
take time, whilst action is needed urgently. 
During a crisis consular protection usually covers also activities whic h generate considerable costs, 
like the organisation of evacuations (sometimes including medical assistance) or of temporary 
shelter and subsistence. The que stion then arises how the fina ncial burden should be shared. 
Evacuations and other types of assistance are u ndertaken by consular au thorities when no other 
'usual' solutions are available (like commercial mean s or assistance by travel operators or insurance 
companies)46. Member States have different approaches  regarding seeking pa yment of emergency 
assistance from their nationals. Some ask their citi zens for payment (e.g. via their insurance), whilst 
most appear not to charge for these costs47. 
                                                 
42 Lead State concept (Council document 10715/07) and European Union guidelines on the implementation of 
the consular Lead State concept, document 2008/C317/06, OJ C317/06, p. 6.  
43 Studies and interviews with Member States' consul ar representatives in capita ls and third countries, 
stakeholder workshops on 24 September 2010 and 23 June 2011. 
44 EEAS Situation Centre – update of 20 June 2011.  
45 EEAS document – update of 16 June 2011 and non-paper of the Council working party COCON. 
46 Council Directive 90/314/EEC on pack age travel, package holidays and pack age tours requires travel operators 
to give ‘prompt assistance’ to European consumers who fi nd themselves in difficulty, even if it is caused by 
force majeure (Article 5 (2)). It should however be noted that only 19% of the trips of EU consumers fall under this regime. Moreover, business trips are in principle ex cluded from the current fra mework of the Directive. 
47 CARE project study. 
 
EN 18   EN If payment is required and an unrepresented EU citizen does not have accessible financial means, 
according to the current legal framework the a ssisting Member State a nd the citizen's home 
Member State should arrange necessary guarant ees and reimbursement. Cu rrent legislation and 
guidelines provide generic yet quite  cumbersome procedures in this  respect (as illustrated in the 
Annex V on current procedures of the financial reimbursement framework). A few Member States 
also signed additional bilateral arrangements48. 
However, in practice the current reimbursement pr ocedures are generally not applied. Regarding the 
recent crises, only in one case was a request for reimbursement sent49. 
There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, to  receive reimbursement the assisting Member State 
would need to establish intensive contacts with the author ities of the unrepresented Member States, 
before providing the assistance  and following its delivery. A st andard practice has not been 
established. Decision 95/553/EC does not provide for a specific procedure in  crisis situations. Its 
general, time-consuming procedure does not reflect th e specificities of crisis situations (notably 
time pressure and high number of citizens requesti ng assistance) and standard formats or templates 
are not included. More recent non-binding guidelines clarify that costs could be requested on a pro-
rata basis (i.e. totals costs divided proportionally according to the number of persons assisted by an 
unrepresented Member State). The way these gui delines relate to the procedure of Decision 
95/553/EC is however not clear. 
Further, in most cases Member States are determin ed to give assistance to their own nationals and 
offer unrepresented citizens their spare places (fo r which they then do not charge). As described 
above only in a limited number of countries are there pre-established Lead States, expected to take 
action in times of crisis. One of the reasons is that  assuming this role may entail considerable costs. 
If financial burden-sharing is not cl ear and is not taking place in pract ice, there is less incentive to 
take a proactive approach which entails responsib ilities not related to own nationals. Finally, there 
may be difficulties in keepi ng track of costs incurred. Acco rding to Member States it is 
cumbersome and not always possible to esta blish the costs of particular evacuations. 
Consular protection in crises can in specific situations be supported at EU level to complement 
and support national resources. The European Civil Protection Mechanism  can support consular 
assistance to EU citizens in major emergencies in  third countries, if requested by the consular 
authorities of Member States50. The Mechanism was activated in past crises such as Libya (2010)51, 
Mumbai (2008)52 and Lebanon (2006)53. Its operational centre, th e Monitoring and Information 
                                                 
48 E.g. Agreement between Poland and Lithuania (1999), Baltic Treaty between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 
(1999). 
49 Kyrgyzstan crisis (2010). 
50 See Article 2(10) of the Council Decision 2007/ 779/EC Euratom establishing the EU Civil Protection 
Mechanism (Recast), OJ L 314, 1.12.2007, p. 9. 
51 In Libya the Mechanism was triggere d by the HU Presidency to support the pooling of resources to evacuate 
EU citizens. In particular two grants  (value of €112,000) were awarded to two Member States which evacuated 
about 150 EU citizens. 
52 In Mumbai the Mechanism was triggered by the French Presidency and activated in order to assist severely 
wounded EU citizens after the Mumbai attacks; this op eration complemented bilateral operations undertaken 
by Member States to evacuate more than 100 non-wounded EU citizens to Europe. One Member State 
(Sweden) offered a MEDEVAC aircraft and team, supported also by civil protection experts from France (the 
costs of such evacuation were co-funded at 50% by the Civil Protection Financial Instrument). 
53 The Civil Protection Mechanism was activated to provide help in addressing the difficult logistical situation 
resulting from the large influx of evacuees. Requests regarded making available additional ships and aircrafts 
from the States participating in the Mechanism, to use the aircrafts and vessels to bring the humanitarian assistance to Cyprus and to repatriate nationals to their respective countries of origin. In addition, the MIC was 
requested to dispatch experts to assist the Cypriot authorities, Commission services and the Member States in 
 
EN 19   EN Centre (MIC), gives access to a network of civil protection re sources allowing for pooling and 
mobilisation of resources (e.g. transport means,  medical assistance and evacuation, temporary 
shelter). Through the Mechanism a t eam of EU civil protection expert s from Member States can be 
deployed and the Civil Protection Financial Instrument can cover transport evacuation costs up to 
50%54. The added value of the Civil Protection Mechanism in recent crises was generally assessed 
positively. There is still scope for further improveme nt as to the level of EU transport co-funding 
and regarding interoperability betw een civil and consular protection55. A reform to be presented in 
the second half of 2011 in parallel to this impact assessment and pr oposal on consular  protection is 
currently under preparation56. The consequences of a reinfor ced Civil Protection Mechanism and 
synergies are analysed further in the baseli ne scenario (see point 3.4). On the ground, the Union 
delegations  supported Member States in crisis situati ons in specific cases upon request. Their tasks 
in times of crisis are currently not clearly spel led out. A small dedicated budget line was set up for 
assisting with logistical suppor t. It was used once during the Gaza crisis in January 2009, when 
about 100 persons were evacuated in armoured buses. 
3.4. The baseline scenario 
All things being equal, the implementation of EU c itizenship as a concrete reality for unrepresented 
EU citizens is likely to remain at current levels. C ontent and operability of th is right would continue 
to lack clarity and accordingly hamper its full eff ectiveness for citizens. Whilst there may be a trend 
towards more cooperation, such a development w ould be predominantly reactive and mainly 
concern crisis cooperation. It is unlikely that su ch cooperation would unify the understanding of the 
underlying concepts and terms and that all Member  States would be included and progress at the 
same pace. 
The underlying legal framework would continue to be mainly composed of scattered non-binding 
guidelines, whose implementation is left to the disc retion of local consular authorities. Enforcement 
of applicable rules would not be safeguarded. Cooperation on the ground would remain at current 
levels, with the specific needs of unrepresented  EU citizens not being taken sufficiently into 
account. The role of the Union dele gations would remain unclear an d initiatives would depend on 
the good will of persons involved, rather than on a clear division of responsibilities and adequate 
burden sharing. Suboptimal use of res ources and capacities would continue. 
This trend is destined to continue against a background of expected in creases in requests for 
consular protection, as well as an overall rationalization of Member  States' capacities in times of 
austerity. Estimates suggest that the number of unr epresented EU citizens will increase considerably 
in the next years. On the basis of the latest UNWTO es timate of annual growth in tourist arrivals 
(7% in 2010)57 and the average annual change in Euro stat emigration figures in the period 2002-
200858, one can predict the changes in the number of unr epresented citizens ove r a five and ten year 
period. Assuming that growth rates and the number and location of re presentations remain constant, 
the number of unrepresented travelle rs to third countries is expected to increase from 5.12 million to 
                                                                                                                                                                  
the management of the situation. In response, the Monitoring and Information Centre immediately established 
an expert team in Larnaca. 
54 See Article 4 of the Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom establishing a Civil Protection Financial 
Instrument, OJ L 71, 10.3.2007, p. 9.  
55 Stakeholder views as expressed at th e Consular Erasmus Seminar (organised by France in Brussels on 11 and 
12 April 2011) and the workshop on a concept for common trainings for civil protection and consular experts (organised by DG ECHO in Brussels on 14 February 2011).  
56 Points of discussion include estab lishing a predefined accessi ble pool of resources, EU-funded assets to cover 
the gaps and different levels of EU transport co-funding. 
57 UNWTO (2010), World Tourism Barometer, Interim Update, April 2011.  
58 This period was used due to annual changes being volatile and 2009 data not being complete.  
 
EN 20   EN 7.18 million in five years, and to 10 million in ten years. For residents the change would be from 
1.74 million to 2.4 million and 3.3 million. In addition, the recorded annual number of crises has 
increased from 78 in 1975 to nearly 400 currently59 and the frequency and intensity of disasters are 
likely to continue growing. 
Rules regarding financial reimbursement would contin ue to not being applied in crisis situations. 
The Lead State concept would not develop its full potential, with the number of designated Lead 
States stagnating or merely slightly increasing. Member States would reque st co-financing of the 
evacuations by the European Civil Protection M echanism on an ad-hoc basis or ask the Union 
delegation to provide limited assistance. 
If the European Civil Protection Mechanism is m odified as envisaged, it will be in a position to 
better support consular protection in major emergenc ies due to: 1) quicker mobilisation of transport 
and other assets given pre-defi ned resources 2) clearer activat ion procedures, including at the 
request of a Lead State, possibly in coordination with the Presiden cy, 3) improved ac cessibility due 
to the higher level of co-financing (increase from 50% to 85 %), 4) better interoperability between 
crisis experts due to a possibly extended pool of  civil protection experts (comprising consular 
officials and specific trainings). These improveme nts could in turn enhance the efficiency of 
protection for unrepresented EU citizens and encourag e Member States to act proactively in crises 
for the benefit of unrepresented EU citizens. An intensified utilisation of  the Mechanism to support 
consular protection will be possibl e within the limits of existing resources and budgetary means 
allocated to the Civil Protection Financial Instrument60. Better burden-sharing will therefore only be 
achieved to a limited extent, with  EU co-funding focusing on specific operations (i.e. partially co-
financed61 evacuation and medical evacu ation, pooling of experts). Further consular support in 
crises would still be needed, in particular to ga ther information about unrepresented citizens and 
provide subsistence and admini strative support (issuance of emergency travel documents, 
representation in relation to the host country). 
3.5. EU Power to act 
3.5.1.  The legal basis 
The EU competence to adopt legislation on consul ar protection for unrepresented EU citizens is 
conferred by Article 23(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Accordingly, 
the Council may adopt directives establishing the coordination and cooperation meas ures necessary 
to facilitate protection for unrepresented EU ci tizens. The necessity for further facilitation is 
demonstrated by the existing lack of clarity of scope and procedur es. Pursuant to Article 35 TEU 
the diplomatic and consular missions of the Memb er States and the Union delegations in third 
countries shall contribute to the implementation of the right of EU citizens to protection as referred 
to in Article 20(2)(c) TFEU and of the measures  adopted pursuant to Article 23 of that Treaty. 
3.5.2.  Subsidiarity 
The European Union is better placed than indi vidual Member States to  take action given the 
following factors: 
1. Safeguarding equal treatment of EU citizen s requires uniform standards on cooperation and 
coordination procedures. If some  Member States do not respect these procedures or show a 
                                                 
59 See the recent Commission's Communication "Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil 
protection and humanitarian assi stance" COM(2010) 600 final. 
60 Currently 8 million EUR is available annually for support outside the EU.  
61 The remaining part of financial involvement would be subject to reimbursement. 
 
EN 21   EN diverging interpretation of the ambit of this right, this could cause problems for citizens relying on 
protection by these Member States. 
2. Assistance for unrepresented EU citizens by definition entails a cross-border dimension, 
extending the rights granted by EU citizenship beyond the Union's borde rs. This right illustrates the 
concrete benefits connected with the status of EU citizenship. It epitomises the special bond which 
membership of the Union creates. This right is i nherently linked to the c oncept and competences of 
the Union. 
3. EU action should bring about economies of s cale. Streamlined coordination and cooperation 
procedures and a clearer role of local actors, including of the Union delegations, will reduce the 
need for ad hoc decisions taken on a case-by-case basis and for indi vidual instructio ns. EU action 
under the Lisbon Treaty will also allow for effective monitoring of implementation and facilitate 
ensuring compliance, as for any proposed EU lega l measures the full spectrum of enforcement 
mechanisms will apply (e.g. the duty to transpose a directive into national law, references for 
preliminary rulings). 
4. Member States have established a partial in terpretation of this right in Decision 95/553/EC, 
whose sui generis character and very succinct content cannot safeguard a sufficiently consistent 
level of compliance by Member States. In view of the new legal regime created by the Lisbon Treaty, any reform of this Decisi on can only be undertaken in the fo rm of EU legislation based on 
Article 23(2) TFEU. Member States are pr ecluded from adopting further substantial 
intergovernmental measures. 
4. O
BJECTIVES  
OBJECTIVES 
GENERAL To foster the implementation of EU citizenship as a concrete reality ensuring 
equal treatment for unrepresented EU citizens; to ensure a high level of protection of citizens' fundamental righ ts and promote EU values such as 
non-discrimination and mutual solidarity. 
SPECIFIC • To clarify content and operability of this right. 
• To simplify cooperation and coordinati on between consular authorities. 
OPERATIONAL To provide the basis for a stable fr amework on cooperati on and coordination 
by defining: 
• who is an unrepresented EU citizen; 
• which of the Member States present in  a third country has to assist an 
unrepresented EU citizen and how assistance is to be coordinated with the citizen's Member State of origin; 
• how the authorities present in a gi ven third country should cooperate 
and coordinate amongst each other and what the role of the European 
Union entails; 
• how and by whom unrepresented EU citizens should be assisted in 
 
EN 22   EN crisis situations and how financ ial reimbursement should operate. 
5. POLICY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT  
5.1. Overview 
To address the problems identified in part 3 and in accordance with the obj ectives established in 
part 4 the following policy op tions are being considered: 
• Policy option 1: Retention of the status quo. No action would be taken at EU level. 
• Policy option 2 : Directive establishing coordination a nd cooperation measures to further 
facilitate consular protection fo r unrepresented EU citizens, clar ifying the content of this right 
and fostering efficient equal treatment, reinfo rced by targeted awareness-raising measures. 
• Policy option 3 : Measures establishing further a nd tighter rules on coordination and 
cooperation, including reimbursement for financia l assistance in crisis  situations through a 
reimbursement mechanism and/ or EU fund ing, expanding the assistance rendered to 
unrepresented EU citizens. 
Whilst retaining the status quo (option 1) would not entail taking action at EU level, the other policy 
options would further reinforce, albeit to different extents, the protection of unrepresented EU 
citizens. 
5.2. Discarded policy options 
The adoption of further non-binding  guidelines has been discarded as a policy option as under the 
new legal regime established by the Lisbon Treaty it would no long er be legally feasible for 
Member States to negotiate and agree such texts62. In addition, this would be tantamount to the 
status quo (see below). 
Similarly, making provisions for local EU delegations  to directly and excl usively take care of 
unrepresented EU citizens has be en discarded, as it would not be in compliance with the legal 
framework on the European External Action Service63. 
5.3. Description and analysis of the impacts 
There are currently no overall data on the numb er of cases where inadequate assistance was 
provided; there is no reporting obligation. Accordi ngly, the options are eval uated below mostly in 
qualititative terms as to achieving th e objectives set and in view of pot ential increases in efficiency 
and cost savings. 
The analysis includes the impacts on fundam ental rights, pursuant to the Commission's 
Communication on a Strategy for the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
                                                 
62 See also COM(2010) 149 final.  
63 According to the Council Decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External 
Action Service (EEAS), Union delegations shall support Me mber States in their diplomatic relations and in 
their role of providing consular protection to EU citizens in third countries on a resource-neutral basis. By mid-
2013, the High Representative shall provide a review of the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. The review 
shall, if necessary, be accompanied by appropriate proposal s for the revision of this Decision. In that case the 
Council shall revise the Decision in the light of the review by the beginning of 2014.  
 
EN 23   EN European Union64. The options generally (excep t option 1) are likely to ha ve a beneficial impact on 
citizens' fundamental rights  though to varying degrees. 
5.3.1.  Policy Option 1: Status quo 
No action at EU level would be undertaken.  
Expected Impacts 
Effectiveness in 
attaining 
objectives This option will not contribute to further facilitating cooperation and 
coordination for the benefit of EU c itizens. The right to equal consular 
protection will continue to lack cl arity, which will hamper the full 
operability of this righ t. Cooperation and coordination will continue to 
depend to a considerable  degree on ad hoc init iatives and personalities 
involved. The current financial reimbursement rules will continue to be generally not applied in crisis situations.  The tangible benefits of 
this EU citizen right will not be fu rther enhanced and the spectrum of 
enforcement mechanisms, such as the duty to transpose a directive into 
national legislation and the possibility of infringement proceedings, will not be fully applied. 
Social impacts 
and fundamental 
rights No positive social impacts are to be expected. Delivery of assistance to 
unrepresented EU citizens as efficiently as to own nationals will not be safeguarded. The fundamental right to equal consular protection for 
unrepresented EU citizens (Article  46 Fundamental Rights Charter) 
will not gain full effectiveness, as  core concepts, responsibilities and 
procedures are not sufficiently clear  and effective implementation and 
application will not be ensured. Th is could in turn undermine the 
credibility and perception of the Fundamental Rights Charter and of a 
Union based on solidarity and non-discrimination. This appears all the more important as unrepresented EU citizens may be in a psychologically even more difficult situation (given the absence of national authorities and single contact points).  
Financial and 
economic impacts No direct new financial burdens ar e induced by this option. However, 
efficiency losses will continue to occur due to EU citizens who require assistance having disproportionate or unclear expectations. Use of 
existing resources will not be furthe r optimised and possible efficiency 
savings will not be realised, desp ite an expected increase in EU 
citizens seeking help in the coming years. Keeping the status quo will also have a negative economic impact on unrepresented citizens, who may seek support in suboptimal ways at higher cost due to insufficient clarity about their right. Maintain ing the status quo will preserve the 
current inequalities in financial engagement in consular crises. 
                                                 
64 COM(2010) 573 final. 
 
EN 24   EN 5.3.2.  Policy Option 2: Directive establishing  cooperation and coordination measures 
Description:  A Directive establishing coordination and cooperation measures regarding consular 
protection for unrepresented EU citizens, clarif ying content and operability of this right and 
facilitating cooperation and coordinati on between consular authorities. 
This option will be analysed in view of the four specific parameters described above (point 3.3) and 
the four operational objectives (point 4). 
1. Personal scope  (Who is to be regarded as an unrepresented EU citizen?) 
The Directive could clarify when an EU citizen is  to be considered as unrepresented, namely (in 
line with the wording of  Decision 95/553/EC) when a perman ent representation of his/her own 
Member State is sufficiently " accessible ". Following consultation with  stakeholders, a balanced 
approach could lead to a permanent consular and diplomatic representation not being considered as 
"accessible", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and re turn to his/her place of departure (via means of 
transport commonly used in the third country) at least the same day. Exceptions would need to be 
provided for in case the urgency of the ma tter necessitates even swifter assistance. 
The Directive could further specify to what extent also non-EU family members of EU citizens  
would be included in consular protection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for non-
discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of  Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union and established case-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits 
of EU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to ensure the full effectiveness of 
those rights. Accordingly, the Directive could sp ecify that protection s hould be given to non-EU 
family members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States give it to the non-EU family 
members of their own nationals65. 
These clarifications would in particular a ddress the issues discu ssed under point 3.3.1 above. 
2. Access to consular protection and cooperation/coordination  (Which Member State assists 
the unrepresented EU citizen and how is this assistance coordinated with the citizen' s Member State of origin?) 
The Directive could stress that EU citizens can tu rn to "any" other Member State's embassy or 
consulate; but derogations through arrangements by Member States may be tolerated as long as 
transparency (through notificati on and subsequent publication on the Commission's website) and 
effective treatment of ap plications are ensured. 
The Directive could specify which assistance Member States typically provide in the most frequent 
situations (i.e. arrest or detenti on, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness, death, relief 
and repatriation in cas e of distress, and issuance  of emergency travel documents), on the basis of 
common practices of Member States on consular protection
66, and the applicable procedures for 
cooperation and coordination betwee n the embassy/consulate of the assisting Member State and the 
authorities of the citizen's Memb er State of origin. Whilst Member States' consular laws and 
                                                 
65 It should be born in mind that not all consular services  offered to nationals/EU citizens can be applied to their 
third country family members. Notably, emergency travel documents cannot be issued (neither to third country 
family members of nationals nor to those of EU citizens); detained third country family members can be 
visited unless the consular authorities of the third co untry object. Please see Annex V for further details. 
66 As identified in the study of the Instituto Europeo de Derecho and as described in the Council framework 
under the Spanish Presidency. Pl ease see Annex V for details. 
 
EN 25   EN practises differ with some Member States provid ing further services the exisiting comparative 
studies demonstrate similarities regarding the most frequent cases of  consular protection67. The 
basis for this simplification w ould be Decision 95/553/EC and s ubsequent implementing measures. 
These measures adress the issues raised above, notably in point 3.3.2. 
3. Local coordination/ EU added value  (How should local coordina tion take into account the 
specific needs of unrepresented EU citizens a nd what should the role of the EU entail?) 
The Directive could specify that local cooperati on meetings on consular protection should include 
regular exchange of information on unrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings collects the relevant contact deta ils of relevance for assistance to  unrepresented EU citizens (e.g. 
regionally responsible representations of unrepresented Member States). 
The Directive could provide that  Union delegations can under sp ecific conditions chair - or 
otherwise support - these meetings . Union delegations could, wit hout prejudice to the Council 
Decision establishing the EEAS
68, provide logistic and operat ional support (including office 
accommodation and organisational facilities) as well as facilitate the exchange of information 
between Member States' representations. Dele gation staff could raise awareness about EU 
obligations and pinpoint unreprese nted citizens to Member States' representations. This would 
further optimise the use of resources and capacitie s in place. It would also guarantee a certain 
stability and contribute to a mo re uniform approach: given that Union delegations are present in 
most third countries, the local Chai r currently freque ntly changes and as they are perceived as a sort 
of "natural" contact point fo r unrepresented EU citizens. 
These measures would tackle the problems examined above, notably in point 3.3.3. 
4. Assistance in crisis situatio ns/financial reimbursement (How and by whom should 
unrepresented EU citizens be  assisted in cris is situations and how should financial 
reimbursement operate?) 
The Directive could provide for the followi ng points to further improve protection for 
unrepresented EU citizens in crises. Local c ontingency plans should in clude unrepresented EU 
citizens. The importance of the Lead State(s) fo r protecting unrepresented EU citizens should be 
stressed and their role clarified.  The Lead State(s) established s hould be in charge of coordinating 
and leading assistance of unrepre sented EU citizens. A Lead St ate could seek additional support 
from the Civil Protection Mechanism, the crisis ma nagement structures of the EEAS or local Union 
delegations. The role of the latter in crisis situa tions should be clarified, it should entail assisting 
Member States regarding evacuations, shelter, de ployment of expert team s and temporary housing 
of Member States' consular staff. Additional support could be provided and synergies fully 
exploited if the intervention teams, such as those under the Civil Protection Mechanism, could 
include national consular experts, notably from unr epresented Member States. Joint trainings could 
be provided for69.  
                                                 
67 The studies referred to are the ones of the Instituto Europeo de Derecho and the CARE (Citizens Consular 
Assistance Regulation in Europe) project activities (s ee above under point 2.2.2). See annex V for details. 
68 OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 30 (Council document 2010/427/EU). 
69 Impact assessment on the 2011 review of the civil protection regulatory framework under preparation by DG 
ECHO. 
 
EN 26   EN Regarding financial burden-sharing a facilitated reimbursement procedure,  adjusted to crisis 
situations, could be introduced70. This could be done by: 1) simp lifying the procedural exchange 
involving consular authorities and citizens; 2) adding standard form ats for requests;  3) introducing 
an easier system for tracking the reim bursement costs (on a pro-rata basis71, fixed rates - i.e. 
standardised costs for evacuati on, medical evacuation and she lter - in case costs cannot be 
calculated). This improved reimbursement procedur e would complement the support available from 
the Civil Protection Mechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures. 
The proposed system of fixed sums72: 
Type of assistance Fixed sum 
Evacuation - long-haul journey Cost of the last available commercial 
economy air ticket: place of evacuation – destination (OR 1.000 EUR) 
Internal journey to a safe location 150 EUR 
Medical assistance 2.500 EUR 
Subsistence (accommodation and food 
offered) 200 EUR (per day) 
These measures are further detail ed above (notably under point 3.3.4). 
5. Awareness-raising aimed at providing furt her guidance for citizens and consular 
practitioners 
Legal measures (see points 1. to 4.) could be accompanied by an EU-wide information campaign, 
similar to the one on air passenger rights. The campaign on air pass enger rights is currently still 
ongoing; so far it is estimated that over 100 milli on citizens heard about the campaign and that it 
was supported by about 800 partners (p lus 160 airports) such as travel agents and tourist offices. On 
consular protection numbers reached may be fewer given the more specialised subject matter. But 
the network developed for the air passenger right s campaign could be used as stakeholders 
frequently coincide (travel agents, airports, etc.).  
In cooperation with Member States , travel and expatriate associ ations, travel guide publishers, 
employers' associations and international companies73 citizens could be better informed. 
Awareness-raising should be targeted to the poten tial beneficiaires. Drawing from the preliminary 
experiences of the air passenger ri ghts' campaign online advertisement, inexpensive giveaways (e.g. 
                                                 
70 The reimbursement system for every-day situations would be build on the current one. Any advances incurred 
when helping an unrepresented EU c itizen by an assisting Member Stat e (e.g. providing a plane ticket and 
giving indispensable financial funds to a victim of robbery) would be reimbursed from the unrepresented 
Member State (which could then seek restitution from its  national according to national rules, if applicable). 
The additional costs (e.g. cost of information exchange between an assisting consular authority and a consular 
authority of an unrepresented Member State) would be the administrative costs, not to be reimbursed (as it is 
currently the case). See further Annex VI. 
71 Pro-rata reimbursement refers to a proportional reimbursement based on the number of persons assisted (total 
costs divided by the number  of assisted persons). 
72 The proposal for the fixed sums is based on information provided by Member States and available data on 
recent crises, see further in Annex VI. 
73 As travellers and residents in third countr ies are frequently there for business purposes. 
 
EN 27   EN luggage tags) and audiovisual material where co st-effective (e.g. for vira l promotion via social 
networks and partner websites) co uld be particularly promising.  
Thanks to the campaign citizens could be informed about the content and ambit of this right (do's 
and don'ts), also to ensu re that their expectations correspond to the legal reality. Citizens seeking 
additional information could be directed to the Commission's dedicated website on consular 
protection74. 
For consular officials tailor-made trainings coul d be further supported in the form of hands-on 
workshops, ensuring cost-efficiency by using existi ng training facilities and concepts (notably the 
training concept of “consular Erasmus” as  recently agreed in the Council framework75). 
Expected Impacts 
Effectiveness in 
attaining 
objectives A Directive could foster the implementation of EU citizenship as a 
concrete reality by clarifying th e content of this right and by 
streamlining cooperation and cooperat ion procedures. It would also 
allow for a wide panoply of enforcement mechanisms (such as the duty to transpose a Directive into  national legislation, Commission 
monitoring and if need be enfo rcement of compliance and the 
possibility of preliminary refere nces). Stakeholders consulted 
generally consider clarity of legal provisions and a good definition of the scope of assistance provided as important to further enhance 
efficiency of consular protecti on for unrepresented EU citizens. 
1. Personal scope 
Clarifying when a permanent represen tation is "accessible" will ensure 
operability of this right as ther e will be a sufficiently clear (and 
common) understanding of when an EU  citizen is to be regarded as 
unrepresented. By establishing a term  of reference (travel there and 
back on the same day) a standard is  set, which renders this concept 
operational while keeping the required  degree of flexibility. Most of 
the Member States consulted (63%)
76 indicate that a travel time of up 
to 6 hours to reach the consulate would appear reasonable (but frequently pointed out that ur gent cases may require swifter 
treatment). The possibility to reach the consulate, receive consular protection and travel back at le ast within the same day would 
accordingly be an appropriate time limit. Including third country family members of unrepresented EU citizens under the same conditions as those of own nationals  will ensure equivalent treatment 
for EU citizens and their family in  line with the case-law of the 
European Court of Justice. The inclusion of third-country family members was flagged as an important issue by civil society representatives.
77 Implementation appears feasible; as regards 
                                                 
74 http://ec.europa.eu/consularprotection/. 
75 See COM(2011) 149 final. 
76 According to the online survey, 37% of MS pointed to other travel time. 
77 As expressed inter alia at the dedicated workshop of 23 June 2011. 
 
EN 28   EN equivalent treatment the point of reference is solely the assisting 
Member State78. It should also be kept in mind that cases related to 
TCN family members of unrepresent ed EU citizens are relatively 
few79 with most reported cases c oncerning crisis situations.  
2. Access to consular protection  and cooperation/coordination 
Providing which of the Member States present in a third country has to 
assist an unrepresented EU citizen and how this assistance is to be 
coordinated with the citizen's Member State of origin will further clarify cooperation and coordinati on between Member States and 
safeguard that assistance can be de livered to unrepresented EU citizens 
as efficiently as to own nationals. The necessary flexibility is ensured by allowing derogations under certai n conditions and by restricting 
cooperation/coordination procedures to the standard situations (e.g. 
arrest or serious accident). Member States and civil society consultated generally perceive a case for greater transparency as to bilateral and 
local arrangements on burden-shari ng. Civil society representatives 
stress that citizens need guaranteed access to treatment and that they should not be passed on from one consulate to the next one. Ensuring good communication channels and clear  legal provisions are by a wide 
majority
80 considered as important or very important factors for an 
even more efficient assistance. 
3. Local coordination/EU added value 
Specifying local coordination with re gard to unrepresented EU citizens 
and spelling out the role of the Unio n delegations will safeguard that 
unrepresented EU citizens are provided with assistance and a point of contact, as efficiently as represen ted citizens, and it will optimise the 
use of resources by clarifying respec tive roles and responsibilities. It 
would also ensure that the Union delegations, often perceived as "natural" contact points by unreprese nted EU citizens, can contribute 
their share in accordance with citizen s' expectations and meet their 
Treaty obligation under Article 35 TEU . Civil society, the European 
Parliament
81 and Member States with less extensive consular networks 
advocate a more substantive supporti ng role of the Union delegations 
(all the more when being net c ontributors, "value for money"), 
whereas views of Member States with more extensive networks differ 
                                                                                                                                                                  
78 I.e. if the assisting Member State would provide help to TCN family members of own nationals it would also 
need to do so for TCN family memb ers of EU citizens. The assisted Me mber State (regardless of whether it 
generally delivers protection to TCN family members) would need to provide any information necessary to the assisting Member State in view of its  duty to sincere cooperation under the Treaties and the right to family life 
as enshrined in the Fundamental Rights Charter. 
79 Only about 1,2% of EU citizens are estimated to have third country family members (cf. Annex III). 
80 According to the online survey among Member States 68,8% of respondents considered clarity of legal 
proposals as a very important (50%) or an important (18%) factor for an even more efficient consular assistance; as regards overcoming practical challenges (e.g. ensuring clear communi cation channels) responses 
were similar (43% very important, 37% important). 
81 European Parliament resolution of 11 December 2007 on the Green Paper: Diplomatic and consular protection 
of Union citizens in third countries (see footnote 5). 
82 As expressed in the dedicated workshop of 23 June 2011 and in bilateral consultations. 
 
EN 29   EN among them.  
4. Assistance in crisis situat ions/financial reimbursement 
This policy option provides for a cl earer division of tasks regarding 
unrepresented EU citizens in crisis situations and for a simple reimbursement tool without crea ting an additional administration 
layer. Due to including unrepresented EU citizens fully in crisis preparation, responsibilities would be  clearer from the start in case a 
crisis hits. Local staff could be supported by consular experts joining 
the intervention teams, including co nsuls from unrepresented Member 
States, to ensure sufficient staff fo r every citizen. Available resources 
of Union delegations would be full y used, for instance to temporarily 
house consular teams. Timely info rmation about available transport 
capacities would be ensured. Consular officials are generally in favour 
of a better interrelation between co nsular and civil protection assets, 
within the respect of each othe rs competences and powers; the 
activation of the MIC shoul d be further clarified. 
It is reasonable to assume that due to the facilitation of reimbursement, 
and - as a consequence – the impr oved coordination, Member States 
will be in a better position to provide pro-active assistance to unrepresented EU citizens and treat them as if they were their own 
nationals. The role and the attractiveness of the Lead State concept would be considerably reinforce d. The reimbursement system would 
still provide for a considerable de gree of flexibility. Member States 
would remain free to decide whethe r or not to claim reimbursement. 
For instance Member States may refrain from requesting 
reimbursement in cases where costs are low. Member States would 
thus be offered a voluntary instrume nt based on a few basic principles 
known to all partners. Representative s from Member States strongly 
support the Lead State concept whic h should be further enhanced and 
stress the benefits of comprehensive crisis preparedness
82. 
5. Awareness-raising among citize ns and consular practitioners 
Awareness-raising would contribute to  achieving full effectiveness of 
this right for unrepresented EU citizens, as knowing about a right is a prerequisite for using it. A comprehensive information campaign requires a very good common understanding of the content and the ambit of the right, which needs to be established beforehand. Thanks 
to an awareness-raising campaign citizens' general awareness would 
increase considerably and possible "psychological barriers" to address 
other EU consulates would be dimi nished. Further citizens' knowledge 
about the content and limits of th is right would be considerably 
enhanced, which would reduce the number of unfounded cases. Member State representatives generally were in favour of awareness-raising initiatives provided they in clude clear information about the 
scope and limits of consular servic es to decrease unjustified requests 
("dos and don'ts"). Civil society re presentatives stress that citizens 
need to be fully informed about thei r rights to be able to use them.  
 
EN 30   EN Social impacts 
and fundamental 
rights This option would enhance the funda mental right to equal consular 
protection, by clarifying the content of this right, by facilitating the 
cooperation and coordination procedur es necessary for its application 
and by ensuring effective implementation and compliance. 
The measure under point 1 (inclusi on of non-EU family members) 
would strengthen the right to family life as well as the rights of the child (Articles 7 and 24 Fundament al Rights Charter). The measure 
under point 3 (added value of EU action) would protect the EU 
citizens' right to good administration by the institutions and bodies of the Union (Article 41 Fundament al Rights Charter). Clearer 
responsibilities and improved burden-sh aring in crisis situations would 
ensure non-discrimination also in times of crisis when fundamental rights are a sensitive issue. In  addition the principles of non-
discrimination, life and integrity of the person and the right of the defence and to a fair trial would be reinforced (Articles 2, 3, 21, 47 
and 48 Fundamental Rights Charter).  
Financial and 
economic impacts The financial impact (costs and savings) of the legal measures (points 
1. to 4.) was estimated on the basis of the assumption that the number 
of cases concerning unrepresented EU citizens would increase83.  
The cost for the Member States would be about 750,000 EUR per 
year. Additional cost of monitoring was estimated at 314,40084 EUR 
(first year – set-up co st). In the following y ears monitoring should not 
induce any important cost (as it w ould become a part of reporting on 
consular cases which the Member States' consular representations 
provide currently). For these reasons, monitori ng should not impose an 
important administrative burden.  
No additional resources will be needed for the Union delegations85. 
Regarding facilitation of reimburse ments the implementation costs can 
be estimated at 89,610 EUR for all the Member States86. The limited 
additional work incurred by requ esting reimbursements would not 
entail the necessity to create addi tional posts. The additional financial 
and administrative burden  for unrepresented Member States would be 
limited and still – due to economies of scale – be more beneficial than 
organising assistance separately fo r their own unrepresented citizens87. 
Comprehensive awareness-raising ( point 5) would induce costs of 
approximately 1 million EUR for an EU-wide information campaign (see Annex VI). To be cost-effectiv e awareness-raising would need to 
                                                 
83 Based on an expected 10% increase of consular pr otection cases regarding unrepresented EU citizens, 
following implementation of the several measures of the option, please see Annex VI for further details. 
84 Estimation based on assumption that the preparatory work during the first year could take one day of work of 
Member States' consular representations, see Annex VI for further details. 
85 The cost for the Union delegations was estimated at the level of 262,000 EUR per year (the figure reflects 
estimated 10 working days of work for an EU official in all delegations) . 
86 Idem.  
87 The savings of the assisting Member States are notably time savings of consular staff and are estimated at 
1,438,260 EUR. 
 
EN 31   EN be well targeted and tailored to th e needs of the beneficiaries. In the 
long term cost-effectiv eness would increase as the exchange of 
information would partly be self-sus tained (due to being taken up by 
local multipliers and in national training schedules) and savings for Member States due to less unfounded requests could result in savings of 897.360 EUR per year. 
This policy option would also have a positive economic impact for 
unrepresented citizens who might be  less inclined to seek support on 
their own from suboptimal alternative sources and save time
88 (savings 
would amount to more than 1.809.980 EUR). 
The analysis of financial costs and benefits is further specified in the 
Annex VI on key assumptions on costs and benefits. 
5.3.3.  Policy Option 3: Further and tighter coope ration and coordination measures (notably 
regarding scope and types of assi stance and financial reimburseme nt in crisis situations) 
Description:  This policy option would entail a Directive establishing further a nd tighter rules on 
coordination and cooperation, regarding scope and t ypes of assistance and financial reimbursement 
in crisis situations, accompanied by awareness-ra ising. As further elements elements would be 
added to the factors considered in option 2 only these additional elements will be examined in the following. 
1. Personal scope 
The Directive could stipulate that a permanent respresentation is to  be regarded as not accessible 
(and an EU citizen accordingly as unrepresented) in case it is a specific numb er of kilometres away 
(e.g. more than 500 km). In addi tion, refugees and long-term resi dents should be treated on the 
same footing as unrepre sented EU citizens. 
2. Coordination and cooperation 
The scope of coordination and co operation could be widened and also entail simple forms of 
legalisation of third-country documents and simple notary services for unrepresented EU citizens. This would entail the authen tication of third-c ountry documents and confirmation of an 
unrepresented citizen's signature at his/her request  by the consular authorit ies of another Member 
State. This would spare the citizen the need to c ontact and travel to another Member State to have 
his/her documents certified or signature confirmed. Such activities have a formal character but are 
very important to facilitate everyday life. 
3. Assistance in crisis situatio ns/financial reimbursement 
Financial reimbursement in crisis  situations could be further re inforced by the following tools. 
Sub-option A: Compensation mechanism/Clearing house 
                                                                                                                                                                 
 
88 The benefits to unrepresented EU c itizens in everyday situations were estimated using two elements: 1) time 
saving to previously unassisted citizens or to citizens receiving assistance quicker - this is estimated using 
average daily wages and estimated to be €60; 2) avoidi ng an ‘inconvenience’ cost associated with receiving 
sub-optimal assistance or having to seek out other forms of  assistance. Estimating this cost takes the system of 
compensation for air passengers as the point of departure, assuming the similarity of situation of a citizen 
requiring the consular assistan ce and a stranded air passenger.   
 
EN 32   EN A specific reimbursement mechanism could be set up at EU level (C ommission or EEAS). A 
Member State could seek reimbursement from th e Union, which would act as a clearing house and 
in turn ask for reimbursement from the Member State(s) whose citizens have been assisted. The 
intensive and diplomati cally sensitive procedural exchange  between Member States would be 
eliminated. The methods for trackin g the costs could be based on pro -rata or on fixed sums systems 
(like in policy option 2). The reimbursements could be carried out at the e nd of each calendar year. 
This option would require additional human and organisational resources; existing structures (European Civil Protection Mechanism; EEAS crisis  management structures) could be considered 
as "clearing house" to  exploit synergies. 
Sub-option B: EU Funding 
Consular protection for unrepresented EU c itizens could be co-funded under the EU budget. 
Member States assisting unrepresented citizens during crises could be co-funded above a certain 
threshold. EU funding specifically for unrepresented  EU citizens could be embedded in existing 
structures (Civil Protection Mechanism, enhan ced budget line of Union delegations) or a new 
financial instrument could be set up. This sub-option could also complement the first sub-option, costs requested by the assisting Member State could be co-funded and necessary funds could be 
provided at the time of crisis. 
Expected Impacts 
Effectiveness in 
attaining 
objectives 1. Personal scope 
Regulating the concept of "accessiblity" by laying down a specific 
amount of kilometres would enhance clarity and legal certainty for the 
citizen and the consular authoritie s involved, as a clear demarcation 
line would be drawn. However, according to consular practitioners effectiveness would be reduced as local circumstances would not be 
fully taken into account (as the si gnificance of a specific distance 
depends to a considerable  degree on the state of transport networks in 
a given country).  
Treating refugees and long-term re sidents on an equal footing would 
foster the implementation of EU citizenship, understood in a wide 
sense, and promote EU values such as solidarity. Civil society representatives stress that solidarity should also encompass these groups. As Member States generally  do not by law grant assistance to 
recognized refugees and long-term residents, inclusion of these 
categories of persons would for the time being appear too ambitious in view of the objectives set. 
2. Cooperation and coordination 
Including explicit cooper ation and coordination measures on simple 
forms of legalisation would fost er the implementation of EU 
citizenship as a concrete reality with tangible benefits. Important services for the citizen would need to be provided on the spot by other Member States' embassies/consulates, which would in turn also significantly improve mutual trust between consular authorities (as "notary" activities of consular au thorities of other Member States 
would be recognized like acts of na tional authorities). However, the 
 
EN 33   EN understanding of Member States' aut horities regarding legalization and 
the applicable procedures still varies considerably; regarding legalisation of documents within
 the European Union rules are 
currently expected to be proposed by the Commission in 201389. 
Member State representatives advocated a further exchange on best practises and most of them consid ered legislation on the matter as 
premature. 
3. Assistance in crisis situat ions/financial reimbursement 
Sub-option A: Compensation mechanism/Clearing house 
This policy option could facilita te reimbursement by streamlining 
procedures and by guaranteeing the reimbursement for the assisting 
Member State. Under such circum stances, Member States might be 
more inclined to provide efficien t assistance to unrepresented EU 
citizens as if they were their own nationals. When being consulted Member States were generally not fully convinced about sufficient added value of this sub-option. There is therefore a risk that the specific arrangements at EU level would not be used. 
Sub-option B: EU funding 
Financial support at EU level woul d furthermore reduce inequalities 
between Member States which assist  during crises (but do not request 
reimbursement) and those which ar e not represented. Represented 
Member States would have secure financing and it is reasonable to 
consider that they would be more encouraged to assist unrepresented 
EU citizens. The need to make fu ll use of existing capacities and avoid 
any duplication of structures was also underlined by stakeholders 
given the existing EU instrument s. Support for th is option among 
Member States differed (notably  depending on whether a Member 
State had significant own crisis ca pacities and whether it was a net 
payer to the EU budget or not). 
Social impacts 
and fundamental 
rights The positive impact on social cons iderations and fundamental rights 
would generally be high. The right to equal consular protection would 
be reinforced (e.g. by providing for legalisation services) and the status of EU citizenship  considerably enhanced. 
Facilitating reimbursement through a compensation 
mechanism/clearing house would be tter safeguard non-discriminatory 
treatment of unrepresented EU citizens. 
Efficient assistance due to stable  capacities secured by EU funding 
would reinforce EU citizens' fundament al right to consular protection 
and their right to life, non-discrimination and family life. 
Financial and Given the necessity of additional hu man and financial resources this 
                                                 
89 EU Citizenship Report 2010, COM(2010) 603 final. 
 
EN 34   EN economic impacts option would generate considerably higher costs than option 2, both at 
EU level and for Member States. Th is policy option would also induce 
further compliance costs. 
In addition to the costs of policy option 2 The additional measures of 
policy option 3 would induce the fo llowing costs: protection covering 
refugees and long term resident would bring about costs of 81.080 
EUR and benefits for those citi zens of 153.530 EUR. Introducing 
legalization/simple notary services would induce compliance costs of 810.000 EUR, whilst benefits for citizens are estimated at 192.960 
EUR. 
Cost-effectiveness of sub-option A: Compensation 
mechanism/Clearing house 
The policy option would trigger add itional costs at EU level. The 
estimated annual cost would be at least 112.000 EUR (additional costs include the establishment of electro nic files and regular maintenance). 
The savings on the side of the assisting Member States would depend 
on the individual case. The additional  financial burden on the part of 
unrepresented Member States would be limited
90 and still – due to 
economies of scale - more benefici al than organising assistance 
separately for their unrepresented citizens. 
Cost-effectiveness of su b-option B: EU funding  
Reimbursement costs would amount  to around 16-31 million EUR for 
a funding period of 6-7 years (dep ending on whether 50% or a higher 
percentage of the activities would be financed). Additional costs of 
managing the fund at EU level would be  estimated at least at the level 
of 780.000 EUR. Member States would contribute to the fund 
according to the general budgetary framework. 
The analysis of financial costs and benefits is further specified in the 
Annex VI on key assumptions on costs and benefits. 
6. COMPARISON OF POLICY OPTIONS  
In the following, the policy options (part 5) are co mpared in view of the objectives established 
above (part 4). The policy options are set against the objectives defi ned in part 4 (+++ indicates the 
highest mark). 
Objectives/Costs: Effectiveness in 
meeting 
objectives Social impacts 
and fundamental 
rights Financial and 
economic 
impacts 
                                                                                                                                                                  
90 The issue of subsequent repayment from the assisted citizen is not being analysed (as it depends on the 
legislation or practice of th e respective Member State).  
 
EN 35   EN Policy Option 1: 
Status quo 0 0 0 
Policy Option 2 : 
EU Directive on 
cooperation and 
coordination 
measures and 
awareness raising ++ 
 ++ low91 
++(+/-) ++(+/-) medium/high92 
1. Defining accessibility by a specific amount of 
kilometres and including refug ees and long-term residents:  
+93 + low 
2. Including simple forms of legalization/ notary activities: 
++94 ++ low/medium 
3. Compensation mechanism/ clearing house: 
++(+/-)95 ++(+/-) medium 
4. New financial instrument for EU funding: Policy Option 3 : 
EU measures 
setting out further 
rules and further 
strengthening the 
rights of EU 
citizens 
++(+)96 ++(+) high 
 
Following a comparison of the policy options, in terms of their costs and effectiveness in attaining 
the objectives set, policy option 2  is identified as the best placed  variant and therefore constitutes 
the preferred option . A Directive entailing th e proposed elements would provide the basis for a 
stable framework on cooperation and coordinati on. It would ensure equal protection for all 
unrepresented EU citizens in need of consular pr otection, by providing for a right with a clear and 
reliable content based on simplified coordination and cooperation procedures. This may lead to a 
                                                 
91 See Annex VI for further details. 
92 See Annex VI for further details. 
93 Regulating the concept of "accessibility" by laying down a specific amount of kilometres may even reduce 
effectiveness as local circumstances (quality of tran sport networks) would not be sufficiently taken into 
account. Including long-term residents and refugees would further enhance ef fectiveness, but depart too much 
from the current framework. 
94 Including simple forms of legalization/notary activities could further enhance effectiveness of services but 
would appear premature at current stage;  EU legislation on legalization within  the EU is foreseen for 2013. 
95 A reimbursement mechanism would not enhance effec tiveness if only rarely used by Member States. 
96 Setting up an additional EU-funding instrument could ha ve a beneficial effect as Member States would be 
more inclined to proactively assist  unrepresented EU citizens. But this  option would have significant cost 
impacts and a new EU fund would partially overlap with existing financial instruments (notably with the Civil 
Protection Mechanism). 
 
EN 36   EN limited increase in requests from unrepresented EU citizens. However, in view of the overall costs 
of assisting nationals, additional costs for assistin g unrepresented EU citizens will still be minor; for 
more costly evacuations an improved reimbursement  system will be provided for. In addition, due 
to raising awareness about the amb it and limits of this right, the number of unjustified requests will 
decrease and as a result a mere 10% increase in a pplications of unrepresented  EU citizens is to be 
expected97. To maximise effectiveness and to ensure that  all unrepresented EU citizens who wish to 
actually do profit from this rene wed framework, awareness-raising m easures should be included. In 
view of the financial impacts a fully fledged awareness-raising campa ign should accompany the 
implementation  of the Directive, as a full understanding of the content of  this right is a precondition 
for comprehensive communication measures. 
Option 3 is effective in achieving the objectives  set, whilst option 2 is only marginally less 
effective. Including refugees and lo ng-term residents as well as br oadening the type of assistance 
considered to simple legalisation of documents would however depart  considerably from the current 
framework and practices, which is deem ed to be premature at this stage98. The costs induced by 
option 3 are disproportionally higher than those likely to be incurre d by option 2. Synergies with the 
European Civil Protection Mechanism would not be  fully exploited; intr oducing a new financial 
mechanism specifically for unrepresented EU citi zens would amount to a pa rtial duplication of the 
existing framework and generate significant additional costs. 
7. EU ADDED VALUE AND IMPLEMENTATION  
7.1. EU added value and proportionality 
The preferred set of measures w ould safeguard the implementation of EU citizenship as a concrete 
reality ensuring equal treatment for unrepresented EU  citizens. Content and operability of the right 
to equal consular protection for unrepresented EU  citizens would be clar ified and cooperation and 
coordination between consular authorities facilitate d. Equal treatment is a ke y element in the sphere 
of freedom, security and justice and the need to assist unrepresented citizens in need – be it in day-
to-day or in crisis situati ons – is a vital part of it. 
The right to equal treatment on consular protection is one of the specific rights conferred on the EU 
citizen by the Treaty. It therefor e appears appropriate to include  the necessary coordination and 
cooperation measures to facilitate th is right in the legal order of the Union, rather than in sui generis 
decisions of the Representatives of Governments of  Member States. Practicab ility and coherence of 
this right will be further enhanced by embedding it in the legal orders of Member States, by the 
right of national courts to request  guidance on interpretation from the European Court of Justice and 
by the Commission's powers to ensure compliance. 
The Directive on cooperation and coordinati on measures will clarify and facilitate 
– who is to be considered as an unrepresented EU citizen; 
– which Member State assists the unrepresented EU  citizen and how this assistance is to be 
coordinated with the citizen's  Member State of origin; 
                                                 
97 See Annex VI. 
98 For further details please see above (analysis of impacts of the specific elements of option 3). 
 
EN 37   EN – how and by whom unrepresented EU citizens shoul d be assisted in crisis situations and 
how the financial burden should be shared be tween the assisting a nd the unrepresented 
Member State; 
– how the consular actors present in a given th ird country should cooperate with each other 
and coordinate their action (notably how the EU level can provide added value in this 
respect). 
By means of accompanying awareness-raising iniati ves the full effectivenes of the legal measure 
will be secured. 
The preferred policy option also complies with the principle of proportionality . None of the 
alternative options reach the objectives in an equally effective way whilst being sensitive to costs incurred. The preferred option will require Member St ates to introduce a number of changes to their 
internal legal orders but the general and spec ific policy objectives cannot be reached equally 
effectively by other means. 
The Directive also takes due account of the prin ciple of proportionality by providing for sufficient 
flexibility as regards key concepts (e.g. regarding th e definition of unrepresent ed EU citizen). It also 
restricts itself to laying  down cooperation and coordination meas ures for frequent occurrences (e.g. 
death, victim of crime) and crisis situations. It further fully builds on and integrates previous legal 
measures (notably Decision 95/553/EC) as well as r ecent developments (e.g. the Lead State) with a 
clear focus on the unrepresented EU citizen. 
7.2. Transposition, monitoring and evaluation 
The envisaged deadline for transpos ition of the Directive will be tw o years following its entry into 
force. Given that the Directive builds on previous legal measures and at least partially reflects 
existing practices, two years are deemed sufficient  to enable Member States to cater for the 
necessary modifications of national laws and practices. 
To make sure that the provisions of the Direc tive are adequately comp lied with, a functional 
monitoring and evaluation mechanism will be pr ovided for. To remedy the current lack of 
comprehensive data the Directive will call on Memb er States to inform the Commission about the 
implementation of this right, including by a yearly ove rview of statistics and relevant cases. Data 
provided by other sources (e.g. Eurostat, expatriate associations or national tourist ministries) will 
further increase the robustness of data sets for effectively monitoring th e implementation of the 
proposed measures. Additionally, effectiveness coul d to some extent be assessed through future 
Eurobarometer surveys. 
The Commission is under a Treaty obligation to re port every three years on the implementation of 
the EU citizenship rights, includi ng the right to equal treament re garding consular protection. The 
relevant report, coming after 3 to  5 years of the implementation of  the Directive, should entail a 
specific study with emphasis on data collectio n and examine how well co operation and coordination 
arrangements are working. 
The analysis should include: – cases of consular protection re ndered/not rendered to  unrepresented EU citizens, both in 
crisis and in day-to-day situations; 
– role of the Lead State, including num ber of Lead States established; 
 
EN 38   EN – requests for reimbursement of costs and fo r co-financing of assistance during crises. 
The report would help to evalua te the effectiveness of the propos ed measures and further deepen 
insight with a view to achievi ng optimal benefits for unreprese nted EU citizens in distress. 
 
EN 39   EN ANNEX I: MEMBER STATE REPRESENTATIONS IN THIRD COUNTRIES  
Third Country  DE PT SI FR CZ SE ES BE HU PL DK CY IE LT EL IT LV LU NL SK MT UK EE BG AT RO FI 
Afghanistan  9     99999999     9  9  999    9  
South Africa  9  9   9999999999   99  99 9 99  9  9  
Albania  9    99999 999    99  9  9 99  9    
Algeria  9  9   9999999     99  9  9 99  9    
Andorra    9   9  9                        
Angola  9  9   99999 9      9  9  9 9  9    
Antigua and Barbuda                                   
Saudi Arabia  9  9   99999999 9   99  9 99  9  9  9  
Argentina  9  9  999999999 9  999  99 9 99  9  9  
Armenia  9     9     9    999     9  9   9    
FYROM  9    99999 99     99  99 9 99  9    
Australia  9  9  99999999999   99999999999  9  9  
Azerbaijan  9     99  999    9999 9  9 99  9    
Bahamas                                   
 
EN 40   EN Bahrain  9     9            9     9         
Bangladesh  9     9 99   9      9  9  9         
Barbados                          9         
Belarus  9     999  99    9 99  9 999  9    
Belize                                   
Benin  9     9  99  9         9           
Bhutan                                   
Myanmar  9     9            9     9         
Bolivia  9     9 99 9  9      9  9 9 9   9    9  
Bosnia & Herzegovina  9  9  999999999    99  99 9 99  9    
Botswana  9     9                  9         
Brazil  9  9  99999999999  9999 99 9999  9  9  
Brunei Darussalam  9     9                           
Burkina Faso  9     9 9 9  9         9           
Burundi  9     9   9              9         
Cambodia  9     9 99   9            9  9       
Cameroon  9     9  99       99  9  9         
 
EN 41   EN Canada  9  9  99999999999  999999999999  9  9  
Cape Verde    9   9  9                        
Central African Republic  9  9   9  99  9         9  9     9    
Chile  9  9   99999 99    99  9  9 99  9  9  
China  9  9  99999999999  999999999999  9  9  
Colombia  9  9   99999 9      9  9  9  9  9    
Comoros       9                           
Congo       9   9        9              
Democratic Republic of the Congo  9  9   99999       99  9  9        
North Korea  9      99   9            9     9    
South Korea  9  9   99999999 9   99  99 9 99  9  9  
Costa Rica  9     99 99        9  9  9         
Côte d'Ivoire  9     9  99        9              
Croatia  9  9  999999999    99  99 9 99  9  9  
Cuba  9  9   9999999 9   99  99 9 99  9    
Djibouti       9                           
Dominican Republic  9     9  9         9  9  9         
 
EN 42   EN Dominica                                   
Egypt  9  9  99999999999  9999 9999999  9  9  
El Salvador  9     9  9         9              
UAE  9     9999999999   99  9 99 99  9  9  
Ecuador  9     9  9         9  9  9         
Eritrea  9     9            9  9  9         
United States  9  9  99999999999  999999999999  9  9  
Ethiopia  9  9   99999 99 9   99  99 9 99  9  9  
Fiji      9                  9         
Gabon  9     9  9         9              
Gambia                                   
Georgia  9     9999 99    9999 9  999  9    
Ghana  9     99 9   9      9  9  9  9       
Grenada                                   
Guatemala  9     9 99         9  9  9       9  
Guinea  9     9  9               9         
Guinea-Bissau    9   9  9                        
 
EN 43   EN Equatorial Guinea       9  9                        
Guyana                          9         
Haiti  9     99999 99     99 9  9  9      
Honduras  9     9  9         9              
India  9  9  9999999999   99 99999 99  9  9  
Indonesia  9  9   99999999    99  99 9 99  9  9  
Iraq 9     9999  99    99  99 9    9    
Iran 9  9  99999999999   99  9999 99  9  9  
Iceland  9     9 9   99            9       9  
Israel  9  9  99999999999  9999 9999999  9  9  
Jamaica  9     9  99  9            9         
Japan  9  9  999999999 9  9999999 9999  9  9  
Jordan  9     999999999   99  9  9 99  9    
Kazakhstan  9     99 9999    9999 99 9 99  9  9  
Kenya  9  9   999999999   99  99 9  9  9  9  
Kyrgyzstan  9     9                           
Kiribati                                   
 
EN 44   EN Kuwait  9     99 9999     99  99 9 99  9    
Laos  9     9                           
Lesotho  9              9          9         
Lebanon  9     99 999999   99  9  9 99  9    
Liberia  9     9 9                         
Libya  9  9   99 9999 9   99  9999 99  9    
Liechtenstein                                   
Madagascar  9     9                           
Malawi  9                 9      9         
Malaysia  9     99999 99 9    9  99 9  9  9  9  
Maldives                                   
Mali  9     9 99   9         9           
Morocco  9  9   99999999    99  9  9 99  9  9  
Marshall Islands                                   
Mauritius       9                  9         
Mauritania  9     9  9                        
Mexico  9  9  99999999999  9999999 9999  9  9  
 
EN 45   EN Micronesia                                   
Moldova  9     999  9 9    9 9     9  9 9  9    
Monaco                                   
Mongolia  9     99                 9  9       
Montenegro  9    9999  99     99    9 9  9 9  9    
Mozambique  9  9   9 99   9  9    9  9  9       9  
Namibia  9     9  9               9       9  
Nauru                                   
Nepal  9     9      9            9       9  
Nicaragua  9     9  9   9      9 99     9    9  
Niger  9     9  9                        
Nigeria  9  9   9999999  9   99  99 9 99  9  9  
Norway  9  9   9999999999  9999 9999999  9  9  
New Zealand  9     9  9  9    999  9  9         
Oman                                   
Uganda  9     9 9 9  9  9    9  9  9   9      
Uzbekistan  9     99    9      99  9 9  9   9    
 
EN 46   EN Pakistan  9  9   99999999    99  9  9 99  9  9  
Palau                                   
Panama                                   
Papua New Guinea       9                  9         
Paraguay  9     9  9         9              
Peru  9  9   99 99 9     99  9  9  9  9  9  
Philippines  9     99999    9  999  9 99  9  9  9  
Qatar  9     9  999 9 9     9  9  9  9   9    
Russia  9  9  99999999999  999999999999  9  9  
Rwanda  9     9 9 9           9  9         
St. Kitts-Nevis                                   
San Marino                    9              
Vatican City State                                   
St. Vincent and the Grenadines                                   
Saint Lucia       9                  9         
Samoa                                   
São Tomé and Príncipe    9                   9           
 
EN 47   EN Senegal  9  9   9 999        9 99  9  9  9    
Serbia  9  9  9999999999  999  99 9 99  9  9  
Seychelles       9                           
Sierra Leone  9                        9         
Singapore  9  9  99 999999 9  999 99999  9  9  9  
Solomon Islands  9     9 9                9         
Somalia                                   
Sudan  9     9 99        99  9  9     9    
Sri Lanka  9     9            9  9  9     9    
Switzerland  9  9  999999999 9  999 999 9 99  9  9  
Suriname       9               9           
Swaziland                                   
Syria  9     999999999   99  99 9 99  9  9  
Tajikistan  9     9                  9         
Tanzania  9     9 999  9 9    9  9  9      9  
Chad  9     9                           
Thailand  9  9   99999999    99 999 9 99  9  9  
 
EN 48   EN Timor-Leste    9                               
Togo  9     9                           
Tonga                                   
Trinidad Tobago  9     9  9            9  9         
Tunisia  9  9   99 9999     99  9 99 99  9  9  
Turkmenistan  9     9     9            9     9    
Turkey  9  9  999999999 9  9999 9999999  9  9  
Tuvalu                                   
Ukraine  9  9  99999999999  9999 99 9999  9  9  
Uruguay  9  9   9  9        99  9  9     9    
Vanuatu       9                           
Venezuela  9  9   99 99 9     99  9  9 99  9  9  
Vietnam  9     99999999 9   99 999 9 99  9  9  
Yemen  9     99999 9     99  9  9 99      
Zambia  9     9 9    9  9    9  9  9       9  
Zimbabwe  9  9   9999        99  9  9 99  9    
Source: General Secretariat of the Council, 17770/2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 R ELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU diplomatic representation in third count ries, second half of 2010; EC 
Consular Protection website; (order of the Council document follows the order of the rotating Presidencies as of 2007). 
 
EN 49   EN ANNEX II: REPRESENTATION MAPPING  
The table below presents the relation between  the level of representations  and the possibility to pr ovide protection to unrepre sented EU citizens in third 
countries. The numbers in the cells indicate  the total number of third co untries where the provider Member State (in rows) can potentially provide 
consular protection to a recipient from an unrepresented Member State (in columns). As an exampl e, France (read horizontally), due to having a large 
number of representations in third countri es can provide consular protection in a la rge number of third countries to many Membe r States. Conversely 
(read vertically), there are few third countries where French citi zens would be required to seek consular protection from repre sentations of other 
Member States. 
  DE PT SI FR CZ SE ES BE HU PL DK CY IE LT EL IT LV LU NL SK MT UK EE BG AT RO FI 
DE  76 99 4 56 51 33 55 71 56 65 99 91 98 61 31 103 108 37 81 104 18 106 64 62 54 72 
PT 5  31 2 10 11 2 8 17 11 18 33 28 35 10 6 38 39 4 21 36 5 38 15 10 7 16 
SI 0 3  0 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 10 7 8 0 0 11 13 1 1 12 0 11 1 0 0 4 
FR 14 83 109  67 62 39 64 81 67 75 109 102 108 72 40 113 118 46 91 114 28 116 74 72 65 82 
CZ 0 25 44 1  12 7 12 18 6 25 44 41 45 12 2 47 55 6 26 50 0 50 11 11 7 26 
SE 0 31 48 1 17  11 20 27 18 21 51 41 51 23 8 55 58 8 34 55 3 55 25 20 18 28 
ES 4 44 71 0 34 33  31 46 36 41 70 65 73 36 14 77 79 15 55 75 14 78 42 37 34 46 
BE 1 25 48 0 14 17 6  24 15 23 45 40 49 18 6 52 55 4 32 51 4 54 22 15 15 26 
HU 0 17 28 0 3 7 4 7  1 14 28 28 30 5 0 34 39 3 14 34 0 35 4 4 2 15 
PL 0 26 43 1 6 13 9 13 16  24 43 41 43 12 3 47 54 8 25 50 0 50 12 12 5 25 
DK 0 24 36 0 16 7 5 12 20 15  37 29 41 19 8 43 44 4 25 42 4 43 20 15 17 15 
CY 0 5 10 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3  9 12 1 0 12 16 0 4 11 0 12 1 1 0 5 
IE 0 8 15 1 6 1 3 3 8 6 3 17  15 6 1 18 21 1 8 17 0 18 9 4 5 2 
 
EN 50   EN LT 0 8 9 0 3 4 4 5 3 1 8 13 8  2 0 8 16 3 6 14 0 10 3 4 1 6 
EL 0 20 38 1 7 13 4 11 15 7 23 39 36 39  1 45 49 3 24 44 0 47 12 9 5 22 
IT 2 48 70 1 29 30 14 31 42 30 44 70 63 69 33  74 79 14 52 75 8 77 37 33 28 46 
LV 0 6 7 0 0 3 3 3 2 0 5 8 6 3 3 0  12 2 3 10 0 4 1 3 1 5 
LU 0 2 4 0 3 1 0 1 2 2 1 7 4 6 2 0 7  0 2 7 1 7 3 0 1 1 
NL 2 40 65 1 27 24 9 23 39 29 34 64 57 66 29 8 70 73  49 69 6 72 36 29 26 40 
SK 0 10 18 0 1 4 3 5 4 0 9 21 17 22 3 0 24 28 3  27 0 26 4 3 0 9 
MT 0 3 7 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 3 6 4 8 1 0 9 11 0 5  0 9 4 0 1 1 
UK 6 64 87 6 44 42 31 46 59 44 57 87 79 86 49 25 91 97 29 69 92  94 52 51 42 61 
EE 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 5 3 2 2 0 1 9 1 1 7 0  0 3 1 2 
BG 0 22 36 0 3 12 7 12 11 4 21 36 36 37 9 2 40 47 7 21 44 0 42  10 5 23 
AT 0 19 37 0 5 9 4 7 13 6 18 38 33 40 8 0 44 46 2 23 42 1 47 12  5 18 
RO 0 24 45 1 9 15 9 15 19 7 28 45 42 45 12 3 50 55 7 28 51 0 53 15 13  28 
FI 0 15 31 0 10 7 3 8 14 9 8 32 21 32 11 3 36 37 3 18 33 1 36 15 8 10  
Source: Matrix Insight Study on the basis of the Ge neral Secretariat of the Coun cil, 17770/2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 RELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU  diplomatic representation in third 
countries, second half of 2010; EC Consular Protection website; own calculations (order of the Council document follows the ord er of the rotating Presid encies as of 2007). 
 
EN 51   EN ANNEX III:  MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM – METHODOLOGY AND DATA 
Figures were obtained by relying on a methodol ogical approach involving the following three 
steps. 
1. Use of official data sources  (e.g. EUROSTAT, UNWTO) as starting points for the 
analysis. These data sources operate under codes of practice inter alia  ensuring the 
accuracy and reliability of the data1. Where available also existing survey work was 
used. 
2. Use of economic modelling to fill remaining gaps, steps involved are outlined in the 
following. 
3. Filling of remaining gaps and triangulating results  with information collected as 
part of this study (e.g. interview, survey) and other existing studies. 
Represented and Unrepresented EU Citizens in Third Countries  
All 27 Member States are represented in only th ree countries: China, Russia, and the United 
States2. There are several countries,  including popular tourist de stinations, where no or only 
very few EU Member States have diplomat ic and/or consular representations. A 2010 
document from the General Secretariat of the Council3 provides an overview  of the number of 
Member State representations in third coun tries. The distribution of the number of 
representations is shown in the figure below: 
Figure 1: Number of representations in third countries per Member State  (as a percentage of total third 
countries) 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
FR DE UK ES IT NL SE BE RO CZ PL EL AT BG DK PT HU FI SK IE LT SI CY LV MT EE LU 
Source: General Secretariat of the Council, 17770/2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 RELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU 
diplomatic representation in third countries, second half of 2010  
Methodology for Estimating the Number of Unrepresented Travellers  
                                                 
1 See for example the EUROSTAT Code of Practice: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/pag e/portal/quality/code_of_practice/compliance . 
2 SEC(2007) 1601, Commission Staff Working Document. 
3 General Secretariat of the Council, 17770/2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 RELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU 
diplomatic representation in third countries, second half of 2010. 
 
EN 52   EN To estimate the number of EU citizens trave lling to third countries where they are not 
represented, figures on relevant travel patterns  and figures on total trips made by 
Europeans outside of the EU  were combined with the data on Member State 
representations around the world . 
Data on total trips made by Europeans outside of the EU 
EUROSTAT provides information about trips to third countries in 2009 (both for holiday and 
business). These figures represen t individual trips and can be broken down into “travel to all 
countries of the world” and “t ravel to EU27”. Hence, the difference between these figures can 
be used as the total number of trips outside of the EU, which can then be broken down by 
Member State. Business and leisure trips have been combined and in the few instances where 
there were data gaps figures older than 2009 were used. Where relevant, national sources as 
well as information provided by travel a ssociations were used for validation 
Data on travel patterns 
In order to establish how many citizens travel to each of the third countries, one needs to 
establish the ”attractiveness” of each third country. This is done using the UNWTO World 
Tourism Barometer4, which includes 2010 figures on total international arri vals to most 
countries in the world. Dividing the number of  arrivals to each third country by the total 
number of arrivals to third count ries yields an estimate of the proportion of total travel that 
would have this country as a destination5. Finally, multiplying these proportions by the total 
number of trips to third countries for each Member  State yields an estimate of the total trips 
made by citizens of each Member State to each third country. 
Unrepresented travellers 
Combining the mapping of representations w ith the figures concerning the number of 
travellers in specific third c ountries allows to determine the total number of unrepresented 
travellers. The resulting tota l number of unrepresented travellers is 5.12 million. The 
distribution of the unrepresented tr ips is shown in the figure below: 
Figure 2: Estimate of total number of instances when  travelling EU citizens are unrepresented in third 
countries6 
                                                 
4 UNWTO (2010), World Tourism Barometer, Vol 8, No. 2, June 2010. 
5 A number of assumptions are made here: Firstly, si nce the UNWTO data concerns international arrivals 
rather than arrivals by EU citizens, it was assumed th at third countries are as a ttractive to EU citizens as 
they are to all international travellers. Secondly, wh ere information for third countries is not available, 
the proportion was assumed to be zero. Since in many cases these are small countries with a very small 
number of travellers arriving from the EU each year, th is is unlikely to have a substantial effect on the 
final estimates. Where no data was available for larger countries or ones more likely to have a 
substantial number of travellers from the EU indica tive data was obtained from other sources (Libya - 
HVS report (2008) Tripoli, Libya – A Prosperous Prospect; Nigeria – UNWTO report (2006) Nigeria Tourism Development Master Plan - Institutional Capacity Strengthening to the Tourism Sector in 
Nigeria; Belarus - National Statistics Committee of Belarus (2010)). 
6 The estimates above are based on 2009 Eurostat  figures regarding trips to third countries. 
 
EN 53   EN    
-100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 
SI DE UK  SE A T IT IE DK SK CZ L TNL BE ES HU F I LU FR BG LV EE  PL RO CY PT EL MT
Source: UNWTO World Tourism Barometer (2010), Eurostat (2010) and Matrix calculations  
Methodology for Estimating the Number of Unrepresented Residents  
Estimating the number of EU citize ns residing outside of the EU 
There are some mechanisms th rough which Member States can collect such information, for 
instance through documentati on that an individual needs to maintain in their home Member 
State, or for using voters’ registries. On the basis of the data available it is estimated that 31.02 million EU citizens are residing outside of the EU. Triangulation with other available 
data has shown that this is a sufficiently a ccurate representation of the current situation
7. In 
order to establish how this figure is distributed by Member  States, Eurostat emigration 
figures8 were used, which are broken down by Member  State and country of  next residence. 
This allows to isolate intra-EU emigration fr om emigration to third countries. In addition, 
dividing the total emigration to third countries  for each Member State by the total emigration 
to third countries for all of the EU yields a fraction representing the “propensity to reside 
outside of the EU”, which, multiplied by the esti mate of the total number of EU citizens living 
outside of the EU, allows to obtain the number of citizens from each EU Member State living 
outside of the EU. 
Establishing the number of  EU citizens residing in  specific third countries 
The final step in establishing the number of unrepresented citizens is to distribute these 
numbers across third countries. The aforementi oned Eurostat emigration data allows to do 
this, as it covers most of the third countries  (and all the ones where s ubstantial number of EU 
citizens emigrate to). These figures cannot be used  directly as numbers of residents, as they 
are “flow” rather than “stock” figures. Instea d the total EU emigration for each third country 
can be divided by the total EU emigration to thir d countries, to establis h the “attractiveness” 
of each third country. This, multiplied by the es timated number of citizens from each EU 
Member State living outside of th e EU yields an estimate of the total number of EU citizens 
living in each third country9 
                                                 
7 Individual data available was on Hungary and the United Kingdom. 
8 These were 2008 figures, as they provided the most complete picture. 
9 A number of assumptions were made in arriving at the final calculations. Firstly, since 2008 is the year 
for which the emigration data is most complete for the EU27 and third countries and this year has been used in the calculations, an implicit assumption wa s made that preferences as to residence in third 
countries in 2008 reflect the distribution of EU c itizens in third countries which has developed over 
decades. Secondly, since the proportions of total em igration for each third country were obtained using 
 
EN 54   EN Unrepresented residents 
Figure 3: Combining the representation mapping and the figures on the number of unrepresented 
residents in third countries results in a to tal of 1.74 million unrepresented residents.10 
  
-50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 
IE BE CY DE UK AT EL DK SI LT SE ES NL LV PL IT PT MT FR FI LU RO EE HU CZ BG SK 
Proportion of unrepresented EU citizens 
Finally, the proportion of unrepresented EU citiz ens (residents/travellers) varies per Member 
State of origin. These differences are illu strated by the following graph and could be 
indicative of which Member States are most affected by reimbursement provisions. 
Figure 4: Proportion of unrepresented residen ts/travellers per Member State of origin 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
LU CY MT EE LV LT IE SI SK PT FI DK HU BG BE AT EL SE CZ PL RO ES NL IT UK DE FR
% of unrepresented residents % of unrepresented travellers 
Consular cases 
It is important to understand wh at proportion of all EU travelle rs and residents could have 
requested consular protection. Based on the as sumption that the number of represented EU 
citizens who receive assistance reflects the number  of represented EU citizens that require 
assistance, it is possible to calculate the like lihood of requiring assistance. Based on the data 
                                                                                                                                                         
data for 16 EU Member States, an assumption is also made that the preferences of the citizens of these 
16 Member States reflect those of the EU27 as a whole. 
10 As mentioned earlier, the estimates above are based on 2009 Eurostat figures regarding trips to third 
countries. Since the Eurostat data reflects trips to th ird countries in a given year rather than the number 
of individuals travelling to third countries (i.e. a si ngle individual can make more than one trip), it is 
also important to keep in mind that results from this analysis should be interpreted as the number of 
instances when EU citizens travel to third countries and are not represented, rather than unique 
unrepresented individuals. 
 
EN 55   EN from previous European Commission data coll ection and the online survey, there were an 
estimated 295.490 consular cases11 (10.944 per Member State, bot h within and outside the 
EU) involving nationals across the EU27 in 2009, out of more than 300 million EU citizens 
travelling to or residing outside  their home Member State (bot h within and outside the EU)12. 
Comparing the number of consul ar cases involving represented citizens and the total number 
of travellers and residents allows for estimating the likelihood of a represented EU citizen requiring assistance. This average likelihood for the EU27 is estimated to be 0.1274%
13.  
This proportion can be multiplied to the fi gures concerning unrepresented EU citizens14. 
Accordingly, approximately 7.324 unrepresented citize ns in third countries where other 
Member States are represented could have aske d for and obtained consular assistance in 
2009. This represents 271 cases pe r Member State on average. Out the total number, 5.311 are 
estimated to be travellers and 2.013 residents. 
The total number of reported consular case s involving unrepresented EU citizens is, 
however, much lower. Extrapolating reported to 27 Member  States based on the likelihood 
of asking for and receiving assistance lead to a total of 1.189 reported cases involving 
unrepresented citizens  (862 involving travellers and 327 i nvolving residents), which equals 
to 44 cases per Member State and represents approximately 16%  of the estimated number of 
unrepresented EU citizens requiring consular assistance. This in turn means that the 
“assistance shortfall” (number of unreprese nted citizens who do not ask for or receive 
assistance) is 84%. These figures ar e summarised in the table below. 
Figure 4: Summary  of scale of the problem 
Indicator Total MS 
Average
Total number of consular cases involving represented citizens 295.490 10.944 
Total number of unrepresented citizens potentially in need of consular 
protection 7.324 271 
Total number of unrepresented citizens asking for or receiving assistance 
(estimated number of consular cases involving unrepresented citizens) 1.189 44 
Total number of unrepresented citizens not asking for or receiving assistance 6.135 227 
Divergence 84% 
  
Future trends 
Having estimated the current situat ion using the latest available da ta (for 2009), it  is important 
to also look at how the above figures are likely to develop over time. Using the latest 
UNWTO estimate of annual growth in tourist arri vals (7% in 2010)15 and the average annual 
                                                 
11 Based on information provided by Member States. 
12 330,67 million EU citizens. 
13 This average likelihood of the EU 27 is calculat ed on the basis of the mean average regarding the 
likelihood calculated for each of the 21 Member States  for which data on the number of consular cases 
was available (no sufficient data was available for BG,CY,ES,RO,SI,SK). 
14 For this calculation a total number of 5.75 million citizens was used (consisting of 4.17 million 
unrepresented EU citizens travelling and 1.58 million residing abroad). This is a conservative figure which solely takes into account third countries wher e there is a representation of at least one Member 
State. 
15 UNWTO (2010), World Tourism Barometer, Interim Update, April 2011. 
 
EN 56   EN change in Eurostat emigration figures in the period 2002-200816, one can trace the changes in 
the number of unrepresented ci tizens within a five and ten year period. The calculations 
suggest that, assuming the growth rates and the number and location of representations remain 
constant , number of unrepresented trav ellers to third countries would increase from 5.12 
million to 7.18 million in five years, and to 10 million in ten years. For residents the change would be from 1.74 million to 2.4 million and 3.3 m illion. This in turn suggests that over time 
more citizens will be finding themselves in situations where they may be eligible for 
assistance from a representation of another EU Member State. 
                                                
 
16 This was done due to annual changes being very volatile, 2009 data was incomplete. The annual change 
used is approx. 6.5% per annum. 
 
EN 57   EN ANNEX IV: OVERVIEW ON THE CONSULAR PROTECTION DELIVERED BY MEMBER STATES  
Type of protection Shared practises1  Variations2 
Arrest or detention - Assisting in informing the 
citizen's family members or other related persons at the citizen's request;  
- Visiting the citizen and 
monitoring minimum standards of treatment in prison; 
- Providing information on the 
rights of the deta ined citizen.  Financial assistance is 
generally possible as a last resort but modalities may differ (e.g. some Member States provide for a small hardship fund, one Member State foresees financial aid for nationals facing the death penalty). 
Victim of crime - Assisting in informing family 
members or other related persons, if the citizen has given his or her consent; 
- Providing the citizen with 
information and/or assistance regarding relevant legal issues and health care. Some Member States also 
bring victims of crime in contact with specialized support institutions (either a specialized national institute or a non-governmental organization). 
Serious accident/illness - Assisting in informing family 
members or other related persons; 
- Assisting with medical care, 
non-financial advice and with repatriations.  
Death - Assisting in informing family 
members;  
- Obtaining death certificates, 
medical certificates and laissez-passers for repatriation where necessary. In few Member States 
via/besides the Foreign Ministry the national police is informed, which in turn informs the relatives of the deceased. 
Regarding third country family members  In most Member States 
consular protection for third country family members of own nationals is not regulated In one Member State third 
country family members of nationals (and nationals of Member States that are 
                                                 
1 As identified in the study of the Instituto Europeo de Derecho and in the Council framework. This overview 
aims at summarising basic principles.  
2 Based on the study of the Instituto Europeo de De recho and the CARE study as well as consultation of 
stakeholders. 
 
EN 58   EN by national law. In practise 
officials appear to decide on a case-by-case basis, in times of crisis family members tend to be treated in a more comprehensive way. contracting party of a 
specific regional Treaty) are entitled to consular assistance under a new law on consular assistance in crisis situations. 
 
EN 59   EN ANNEX V: CURRENT PROCEDURES OF THE FINANCIAL REIMBURSEMENT FRAMEWORK  
Instrument Characteristics of the Procedure 
Decision 95/553/EC 
Article 6, annexes I 
and II - the procedure is the same for day- to-day assistance and for crisis 
situations 
- the reimbursement should cover all (real) costs of assistance provide d 
to an unrepresented citizen of th e other Member St ate (financial 
advances, all expenditures incurred and consular fee if applicable) 
- the assisting Member State needs to comply with the following 
requirements: 1) in principle it needs to receive an agreement from the 
Member State of the applicant's nationality to engage financially in 
assistance, 2) make an applicant sign an undertaking to pay the full value of assistance (finance advanced, all co sts, consular fee if applicable) to 
the Member State of the applicant's nationality, unless this Membe
r 
State expressly waives this requirement (the formats of theseundertakings are provided for in annexes) 
- in order to receive reimbursement the government of the assisting 
Member State makes a request to  the government of the Member State 
of the applicant's nationality 
- the burden to request the possible re imbursement from an applicant is 
on the Member State of nationality of the applicant  
Lead State guidelines 
Points 5.2, 5.4 - the Lead State submits to the Member States of the applicants'
nationality a balance sheet of expenditure incurred by the Lead State (no format or templates are provided by the guidelines) 
- the Lead State requests the reimbursement of expenses generated by its 
mission from the Members States of nationality 
- the Lead State may request the costs to be paid on a pro-rata basis 
(proportionally to the numb er of assisted persons) 
- the contributions shall be determin ed after deduction, where applicable, 
of the expenditure covered by the Community Civil Protection 
Mechanism or logistic support fr om the local Union delegation 
- if possible the Lead State collects  the undertaking of repayment from 
the applicants, to enable the Member States of the applicants' nationality 
to seek reimbursement 
Consular guidelines 
Points 12.8, 12.10  - the procedure provided for in the Decision 95/553/EC shall be 
followed 
- Member States will reimburse t hose Member States (acting on thei
r 
behalf) for expenses incurred in securi ng the safety of their nationals in a 
pragmatic way 
 
EN 60   EN - in case the EU nationals are require d to pay for evacuation costs or any 
related costs the payment arrangements should be made from Member State to Member State, on a pro-rata basis.  
- the burden to request the possible re imbursement from an applicant is 
on the Member State of nationality of the applicant 
 
EN 61   EN ANNEX VI: KEY ASSUMPTIONS ON COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE POLICY OPTION 2 AND THE 
POLICY OTION 3 
1. OVERVIEW ON METHODOLOGY  
1.1. The analysis below describes th e financial and economic impacts of core elements of the 
policy options 2 and 3. It covers  estimated financial costs and savings to Member States or 
EU bodies and EU budget as well as estimated benefits for EU citizens. In the summary 
the results are compared to illustrate the costs and benefits of both options. 
1.2. The following data and genera l assumptions are applied: 
• Cost of consular cases 
Both in everyday and in crisis situations this co st is assumed to be similar as regards assistance 
provided to represented and to  unrepresented EU citizens. 
The cost of a consular case in an everyday situation  refers to the overall administrative cost of 
consular support given to citizen s requesting consular protection. It does not include financial 
advances incurred directly on behalf of a citizen (i.e. payments for a ticket to enable repatriation, consular fee for the issuance of ETDs), which are due to be reimbursed to the assisting Member State and then repaid by a citizen. It reflects the cost  of the work of a consular official and the actual 
cost of service. The cost of a consular case in an everyday situation has been estimated on the basis 
of the interviews with consular official s and the survey at a range of €30 to 543
1. In the model 
calculations the mid, average figure of €286.50 per case  is used. 
The cost of a consular case in a crisis situation  refers to the overall co st of support given to a 
citizen in a crisis situation. It re flects the cost of specific services  which have to be organised and, 
due to the emergency situation, may need to be financed in principle by the assisting Member 
States. This cost is subject to reimbursement by the home Member State of an unrepresented citizen 
and then, depending on national rules,  repaid by the assisted citizen . The average cost of consular 
support in crises is presented in the table on fixed sums (see point  5.3.2 of the report). The fixed 
sums are based on information provided by Member States stakeholders regarding the cost of assistance during recent crises
2. 
• Length of a consular case 
                                                 
1 At the lower end of the scale, interview responde nts placed consular cases consisting only on providing 
information, eventually requiring telephone calls - a thir d of a day at the lower end of the daily cost range was 
decided to be a sufficiently accurate reflection of the co sts associated with some of the less time-intensive 
cases. At the higher end of the scale third country interview respondents placed death cases, and estimated the 
average costs of death cases would be up to €400 for expatriation of remains (figure derives from the 
maximum estimated cost of doing €4,000 and the fact th at consular authorities will bear these costs in around 
10% of the cases) and up to €143 in administrative co sts of organising certificates, yielding the estimate of 
€543. 
2 The detailed information was gathered via interviews in the framework of GHK study in 2010 and concerned 
the cost of Member State assistance in Lebanon (2006), Chad (2008), Haiti (2010) and Kyrgyzstan (2010). The 
findings were also confirmed by use of other source s (Study 'A cost effectiv e analysis of shipboard 
telemedicine' P. H. Stoloff, F.E. Garcia, J. E. Thomason and D. S. Shia. Telemedicine Journal. Winter 1998, 
vol 4(4): 293-304, January 29, 2009). 
 
EN 62   EN The interviews conducted as part of the study informed that the le ngth of consular cases can vary 
substantially, ranging from many ev eryday cases requiring often no more than a few hours of 
consular officials’ time (e.g. pr oviding EU citizens with informati on about lawyers or doctors, or 
simple ETD cases), whilst in other instances a case could last considerab ly longer (e.g. detention 
cases, death cases). 
It is important to note that the le ngth of a consular case is perceive d differently by consular officials 
and citizens. Whereas for a citizen, a case lasts fr om the incident in ques tion (e.g. arrest) to its 
resolution (e.g. release), a consular  official would only spend a frac tion of that time period engaged 
in that specific case, so the length of a case will be much shorter from the point of view of a consular official. 
• Cost of the work of a consular officer in a third country, a consular officer in a capital 
and an EU official in an EU delegation 
The daily cost of the work of a consular officer  and the daily cost of an EU Delegation staff 
member are estimated within a range of €100-300
3. The daily cost of work of officials working in 
the Member States' capitals is esti mated at €166, following Eurostat data4. 
• Financial impact of increase of consular cases regarding unrepresented EU citizens 
In the analysis it is estimated that some of th e proposed measures (i.e. active coordination between 
Member States or awareness-rising, see belo w point 2) would alone result in 10% more 
unrepresented eligible citizens receiving the assist ance, from the share of those who previously did 
not ask/receive it. Using the scal e of the problem analysis yields  an estimate of 614 additional 
cases5. The growth of unrepresented cases has propor tional impact both on cost and benefits of a 
measure. 
The 10% growth of unrepresented cases is based on estimation about the change that is expected 
due to the implementation of the proposed measure.  Bearing in mind that currently high number of 
unrepresented citizens, who are poten tially eligible to receive the assistance, do not receive it (due 
to different reasons analysed in  the problem definitions), this  assistance would normally be 
demanded and received, if the factors that impede it  are limited by proposed  measures (i.e. better 
awareness of citizens enable th em to ask for assistance when they are unrepresented, better 
awareness of consular official on how to and when issue an ETD). It is ther efore very likely that 
these measures would bring an increase of cases of unrepresented citizens . This increase is not 
expected by the Member States stakeholders to be  significantly higher as the proposed measures do 
not change the basics as regards the system of assistance6. 
The possibility of an higher in crease of unrepresented cases, fo llowing more people travelling or a 
decreasing number of consular repr esentations would result in highe r costs for the assisting Member 
States. Nevertheless, if the benefits outweigh the costs for 10% growth level of impact, they will 
                                                 
3 For consular officers the information on costs is based on the survey. For EU Delegation staff cost would be 
comparable (based on monthly salary of an AD5 grade official). In both cases, the additional potential 
elements of salary (i.e.: family allowances, travel allowances were not included). 
4 Based on the average hourly wage of legislators, senior officials and managers (Eurostat). 
5 Calculations based on the scale of the problem modelling, which yielded an average assistance shortfall of 
84%. Applying this shortfall to the total number of unre presented citizens estimated to be in situations where 
they seek assistance yields and estimate of 6,137 citizens who are not assisted. 614 is thus 10% of this figure. 
6 Replies of the Member States ' stakeholders to the survey. 
 
EN 63   EN also do proportionally so if the impact is higher (since the additional cost of assisting a single 
individual is estimated to be lo wer than the benefit the individual  derives from the assistance). 
• Inconvenience and time savings to EU citizen to indicate benefits 
The benefits to EU citizens may range widely depending on the nature of the consular case. For 
example provision of information regarding mone y transfers would potent ially represent only a 
modest time saving compared to not receiving the assistance, while facilitating the search for a 
lawyer could help avoiding a prison sentence and thus would constitute a major impact on citizens’ 
well-being and would help saving a wide range of other substantial costs, such as foregone income. 
As case study interviews and the online survey suggest, the majority  of consular cases are simple 
ones and consular assistance would mainly help to avoid inconvenien ces, as well as to save time 
and money required for seeking as sistance through other channels. 
The benefits to unrepresented EU citizens in everyday situations  were estimated using two 
elements: 1) time saving to previ ously unassisted citizens or to citizens receiving assistance quicker 
- this is estimated using average daily wages and estimated to be €607; 2) avoiding an 
‘inconvenience’ cost associated with receiving sub- optimal assistance or having to seek out other 
forms of assistance. Estimating this cost takes th e system of compensation for air passengers as the 
point of departure, assuming the similarity of situa tion of a citizen requiring the consular assistance 
and a stranded air passenger. The cost is  assumed to be between €125 and €600 per case8. 
In crisis cases the measures such as improved coordination can also result in citizens receiving 
assistance quicker and avoiding waiting time and in convenience, but it would not be appropriate to 
assume that the same timescales and levels of inconvenience would apply in crisis cases, requiring 
for example rescue or urgent medica l assistance, as in “non-crisis” case s. In addition, in some crisis 
situations, citizens could avoid s ubstantial costs (i.e. flights at  higher price due to emergency9). On 
the other hand, also in crisis situa tion - following internal rules in so me Member States - an assisted 
citizen may be requested to pay back cost of assi stance. The variety of situ ations during crisis and 
unpredictability of their occurrence makes it impossible to quantify the impact accurately. 
Therefore, estimating savings and be nefits to citizens in crisis ca ses are necessarily more complex 
and are addressed qualitatively. However, one would expect that the benefit to EU citizens from 
obtaining assistance or obtainin g it quicker and more efficient co uld be substantially higher in 
crises than in everyday cases.  
1.3. Financial framework of an EU Fund10 
The table below summaries the cost of establishi ng an EU fund dedicated to consular protection. 
Table 1 – Breakdown of cost for the establishment of a new budget line/fund 
Type of costs Euro 
The costs of exchange of best practice and trai ning for 6 -7 years (duration of the funding 1,330,00011 
                                                 
7 Average net daily wage in the EU 27, calculated as the average of 1/260 of th e annual net earnings for each 
Member State weighted by GDP. Ba sed on 2009 Eurostat figures.  
8 See Article 7 of the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance 
to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing 
Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1). 
9 Information provided by Member States regarding recent crisis in Japan. 
10 Based on methodology provided in the study of GHK. 
 
EN 64   EN stream) 
The costs of provision of assist ance to unrepresented EU citizen s for 6 -7 years (duration of 
the funding stream) 28,484,750 
The costs for technical an d administrative support  780,00012 
Total  30,594,750 
For this calculation the following assumptions have been made: 
• There may be, on average, two crisis a year, a smaller one, requiring  assistance to around 50 
unrepresented EU citizens (c risis 1) and a bigger one, requiring assistance to 2,000 
unrepresented EU citizens (crisis 2)13. 
• The costs linked to the above-men tioned crisis are as follows: 
– Subsistence costs (accommodation and f ood – 1 day) – 50% of unrepresented 
citizens 
– Long-haul flight – 100% of  unrepresented citizens 
– Assistance for people with special ne eds – 10% of unrepresented citizens 
– Medical assistance - 25% of unrepresented citizens 
– Repatriation of corpses – 2% of unrepresented citizens 
– If the fixed sums rates are applied, the tota l costs for the two crises are as follows: 
Table 2 Costs incurred for crisis 1 and 2 
Type of assistance  Crisis 1: Number of 
unrepresented 
citizens receiving 
the assistance Crisis 1 costs Crisis 2: Number of 
unrepresented 
citizens receiving 
the assistance Crisis 2 costs 
Subsistence (1 day) 25 5000 1000 200,000 
Long-haul flight 50 50,000 2000 2,000,000 
Medical assistance 12,5 31,250 500 1,250,000 
Other costs (special 
assistance needed) 5 10,000 200 400,000 
Other costs (i.e.: 
repatriation of 
corpses) 1 3,000 40 120,000 
                                                                                                                                                                  
11 Two trainings per year. 
12 Technical and administrative support is envisaged at 780,000 euro over the 6-7 year period (at least two posts - 
the model AD grade 5 level taken as the point of reference). 
13 The estimates are based on magnitude of consular cr ises which involved EU citizens in recent years in 
Lebanon (2006), Chad (2008), Haiti (2010), and Kyr gyzstan (2010). However, information on assisted 
unrepresented EU citizens is not coll ected systematically, according to th e Member States' stakeholders in 
these crises assistance was given from more than to  2,000 (Lebanon) to 89 (Kyrgyzstan) unrepresented 
citizens. 
 
EN 65   EN TOTAL  99,250  3,970,000 
Therefore, it is estimated that a total of 4,069,250 eu ro could be incurred annually for assistance 
provided to unrepresented EU citizens. The costs for 6 -7 y ears (duration of the funding stream) 
would therefore amount to 29,324,750 euro. 
2. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE POLICY OPTION 2 – DIRECTIVE ESTABLISHING 
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION MEASURES  
2.1. Information on specific measures 
Core elements of the option Financial or economic impact 
Active coordination and 
cooperation between assisting 
Member States and authorities 
of the citizen's Member State 
 Financial cost to the Member States 
It is likely that the additional cost for Member States to adapt to the revised 
coordination and cooperation measures will be relatively low. It will 
involve additional structured meetings and contacts between consular staff, but this is unlikely to require subs tantial additional human resources, 
especially given that some coordina tion and cooperation already takes 
place. Hence it is assumed here that there will be no significant cost to the Member States. 
Costs to the assisting Member State that would arise following the 
estimated growth of 10 % of unrepresented cases would be of approx. €175,910
14.  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
Improved coordination and cooperation measures are likely to mainly have 
an impact on how the assistance is provided.  
It is assumed here that for each unrepresented case, the unrepresented 
citizens will save one to three days15, resulting in an average benefit to the 
citizens of €142,68016. In addition, assuming that the improved 
coordination and cooperation would result in 10 % more unrepresented citizens being assisted this additional benefit is estimated to represent an 
average total saving for EU citizens of approx. €333,095
17. 
Savings to Member States 
Improved cooperation and coordination is also likely to result in saving to 
consular staff, since cases where c ontacts need to be made with other 
Member States (i.e. most cases involving unrepresented citizens) would be resolved quicker. It is assumed here that this efficiency saving could be equal to a total of almost 900 days
18 across all consular cases, which results 
in a total saving of €180,30019. 
                                                 
14 Total costs range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on the cost of a single case, the figure represents the 
mid-point of that range. 
15 Based on the interviews, an assumption of 1-3 days is used to represent a wide range of situations, namely a 
speeding up of a routine case (from a full day, which could be required for some contacts between Member States, to an immediate assistance), and a speeding up of a more complex lengthy case, where a 3 days saving 
could be possible.  
 
EN 66   EN Clarification of personal scope 
(when a person is 
unrepresented + protection 
covers also non-EU family)  Financial cost to the Member States 
There are two main elements of clarification of the personal scope: 
• definition of individuals which are far from their own 
representation more than a 24-hour round trip as 
“unrepresented”; and 
• Inclusion of third country family members. 
In the first case, there are likely to be no additional costs on aggregate EU 
level, since the citizens in question would be equally likely to receive assistance, except that it will be provided by a different Member State. Costs are however likely to be passed on from one Member State to 
another.  
In the latter case, the key cost is the provision of additional services to 
third country family members, which should not be significant. Assuming that 1.2% of European citizens have third country family members
20 (i.e. 
for every 1,000 EU citizens 12 will ha ve third country family members), 
one can estimate that 88 third country family members of unrepresented 
EU citizens21 would receive assistance. The average additional costs would 
be of €25,12022.  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens  
                                                                                                                                                                  
16 Obtained by multiplying the number of individuals estimate d to be currently assisted (based on current scale of 
the problem analysis) by 1 to 3 days at €60/day. This yields a range of €71,140 to €214,020the final figure 
represents the mid-point of that range.  
17 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases by both the lower (€125 plus 1 day at €60/day) and 
higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,590 to €552,600 the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
18 Assumption is that half a day is saved per consular case due to better awareness of procedures and relevant 
contacts, which, multiplied by the number of assisted citizens (based on current scale of the problem analysis and including the additional 10%), yields 901,5 days. This is based on the experiences from case studies, 
where consular staff noted that more complex cases can be quite consuming, and even for more routine cases 
(ETDs) unclear procedures can requir e time. The 4-hour saving thus re flects what an “average” time saving 
could be for both types of cases. It is lower than the time saving for citizens, since it is assumed that for 
citizens a case lasts “longer” than for consular staff, si nce citizens “experience” their case from its start to its 
resolution, while consular officials onl y work on a case for a fraction of that  time (the remainder of the time 
represents, for example, waiting for documents or  for relevant national authorities to respond). 
19 Estimated to be half of the daily cost of consular  staff (€100-€300) multiplied by the number of individuals 
estimated to be currently assisted (b ased on current scale of the problem analysis). This yields a range of 
€90,150.00 to €270,450.00; the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
20 Estimate from Impact Assessment on Effective consular assistance in third countries: the contribution of the 
European Union, Action Plan 2007-2009, COM (2007) 767 final). No accurate recent data exists, but the 2007 figure was used based on the assumption that while the number of bi-national marriages may be on the rise 
(see for example Lauth Bacas, J. (2002) , “Cross-border marriages and the fo rmation of Transnational Families: 
A case study of Greek-German couples in Athens”,  Transnational Communities Programme Working Paper 
WPTC-02-10), the overall rate of marriages is declining and the rate of divorces is on the rise (see Eurostat 
demography statistics). This suggests that it is unlikely th at the probability of a EU citizen is married to a third 
country national has changed substantially since 2007.  
21 Estimated by applying the 1.2% likelihood to the to tal number of unrepresented EU citizens estimated to 
require assistance. 
22 Estimated by applying the cost of assistance to the number of cases (88). Range of €2,630.25 - € 47,607.54, the 
final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
 
EN 67   EN In case of defining individuals within a 24-hour travel time and distance as 
“unrepresented” the key benefit to these individuals could be receiving assistance quicker, either through not having to travel to their Member 
State’s embassy or consulate or by not having to wait for a consular 
official to travel to where they ar e. Even if in some cases the actual 
procedures could potentially last longer due to time needed to exchange necessary information between the assisting and the home Member State's consular authorities, the savings are still likely to take place as in most cases the cost of travel and time needed for travel would be important. 
Moreover the time needed for standard  assistance i.e. issuance of an ETD 
or a national emergency passport is  comparable. Savings following the 
difference between the cost of longer case proceeding time and travel time 
can vary on case by case.  
In the case of unrepresented family members, the saving to the 88 family 
members eligible for assistance would be €47,560
23. 
Savings to Member States 
In the case of the 24-hour travel time and distance, the Member States 
could be able to save resources by not needing to travel to assist some of the represented citizens in distant part s of countries in question. However, 
as in the case of the benefits to citizens, some of these savings could be 
offset by cases involving unrepresented citizens being lengthier.  
It is assumed that no significant saving to Member States would result 
from providing assistance to third country family members.  
Clarity of tasks of a Lead State 
as regards unrepresented (local 
contingency planning, provide 
contact point for unrepresented 
MS) Financial costs to the Member States 
Any additional cost is likely to be lim ited, since to some extent the Lead 
State will take on some of the tasks to date carried out. It is however likely that, assuming compliance with the Directive, the Lead State will perform 
additional tasks generally not performed  earlier (i.e. contingency planning 
focusing also on unrepresented EU citizens).  
The assumption is that this would require 5-10 days of consular staff per 
Lead State, resulting in additional costs of €49,000
24. 
The cost of assisting unrepresented citi zens will not change for the citizens 
currently assisted. Although some of the initial costs might shift from one 
of the represented Member States to the Lead State these costs are subject to the reimbursement at the request of the assisting Member State  
It is possible that more centralised r esponse in crisis would also result in 
more unrepresented citizens being assisted, but in that case costs should also be reimbursed resulting in no net ch ange in costs. It is important to 
note, however, that consular official s may need to spend additional time 
assisting the unrepresented citizens even if  they do not bear the actual costs 
                                                                                                                                                                  
23 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (88) by both the lower (€125 plus 1 day at €60/day) 
and higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €16,219.88 to 
€78,907.52, the final figure representing the mid-point of that range. 
24 Estimated to be 5 to 10 days multiplied by the €100-€300 range of daily consular staff cost. This yields a range 
of €14,000.00 to €84,000.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
 
EN 68   EN of provision of assistance (i.e. transport).  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
Improved and clearer involvement of L ead States can potentially result in 
more efficient assistance in crisis cases, resulting both in potential time 
savings to citizens that would be ot herwise assisted, as well as additional 
assistance to the previously unassisted  citizens. Assuming that 10% of 
unrepresented citizens in third countries who previously did not ask for/receive consular protection with a Lead State would now receive it and given that countries with a Lead State account for only 9.7% of 
unrepresented citizens, yields appr oximately 60 additional unrepresented 
cases
25. 
The actual benefits for unrepresented citizens will vary substantially, 
depending on the situation (see abov e point 1.2.). One would however 
expect that overall, the more efficient assistance received in crisis situations would represent a sizable benefit to the unrepresented citizens 
most likely exceeding the benefit to each citizen of non-crisis assistance 
(i.e. one could expect it to be higher than avoiding the non-crisis inconvenience cost, valued at up to €600). 
Savings to Member States  
More centralised crisis response is lik ely to result in savings to Member 
States, since it can help speed up th e delivery to services to unrepresented 
citizens in crisis situations and thus benefit the citizens, but also result in 
an efficiency gain for the Memb er States. The Lead States could 
additionally benefit from the better reimbursement procedures.  
Crisis intervention teams 
supported by consular experts Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 
Taking the example of the cooperation under the EU Civil Protection 
Mechanism, the main cost of inclusion of consular experts in civil protection teams are the daily allowances, travel and hotel and internal 
transport costs, as well as other costs. Assuming an average daily 
allowance of €63 and €82 in disaster areas and average hotel costs of €142 and €184 respectively
26, as well as travel costs of €1,000 per expert27, and 
assuming a length of a mission of 10-14 days, one obtains a total cost per 
expert of €3,890. 
Assuming that two consular experts are assigned to civil protection teams 
and are in turn involved in 5 crises every year yields an estimate of total costs of €38,900 . 
Benefits to unrepresented citizens and Member States 
Consular experts can benefit EU c itizens mainly through helping Member 
States on the ground to provide more appropriate and more efficient 
assistance.  
                                                                                                                                                                  
25 Taken to be 10% of 84% of all unrepresented citizens in third countries with lead st ates that are estimated to 
require assistance, which is in turn 9.7% of all un represented citizens estimated  to require assistance.  
26 Based on data provided by DG ECHO. 
27 Conservative estimate of travel costs to third countries.  
 
EN 69   EN Cooperation system for 
reimbursement of costs  Financial cost to the Member States  
Limited administrative costs at national level would be incurred for the 
preparation of the annual financia l compensation overviews. These could 
correspond to 20 man days per Member State per year; at an estimated rate 
of €166 per day 28.The total costs would thus amount to about €89,610.   
The introduction of the compensation system could also result in more 
efficient provision of consular assistance and, as a result, in a potential increase in the number of unrepresen ted EU citizens receiving assistance 
(more proactive actions by the Memb er States). However, such costs 
would be subject to the reimbursement at the request of the assisting 
Member State, although, as mentione d earlier, consular officials may 
require more time to deliver the assist ance even if they will not bear the 
costs of the assistance itself.  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
The benefits to unrepresented citizens of improved assistance in crisis 
cases can be important, although, as explained previously, will be difficult to estimate. The benefit to additionall y assisted citizens is likely to be at 
least the same as in non-crisis situations and possibly higher. 
Savings to Member States 
The policy option would imply cost savings for those Member States, 
which historically incur higher expen ses during crises. It is reasonable to 
assume that the process of managing the reimbursement on the basis of fixed sums will be more cost-effectiv e as it is expected to speed up the 
provision of consular protection to unrepresented EU citizens. As a model 
calculation shows
29 in case of the assistance provided to 50 unrepresented 
citizens during crises a year it may be estimated that an assisting Member 
State would be reimbursed at the level of about €100,000.  
Systematic notification of 
bilateral agreements to the 
Council This measure is likely to result in limi ted costs and benefits in addition to 
those generated by the measures above. It is likely to ensure that EU 
citizens, Member States and the European Commission have better information concerning bilateral agreem ents, but this information is likely 
to reinforce and support other coor dination and coordi nation measures 
rather than generate substantial costs and benefits on its own.  
EU delegation tasks  
(logistic and operational 
support to MS 
Facilitating and monitoring 
information exchange between 
MS' representations Financial cost to the EU 
The key cost to the EU will be the co st of EU Delegation activities. It is 
important to notice that generally these activities are already performed and some synergies with tasks rela ted to the local Schengen cooperation 
could be exploited. Assuming that th e activities foreseen in this measure 
could require additional 10 days of EU  Delegation staff in each delegation, 
it would result in total cost of €262,000
30.  
                                                 
28 Based on the average hourly wage of legislators, senior officials and managers (Eurostat). 
29 See point 1.2 above.  
30 Daily costs of EU Delegation staff, assuming a monthly salary of €4,639.67 (Grade AD5), is estimated to be in 
the €240-300 range. Since this is within the range of 10 0-€300 range of daily cost of consular staff, it is 
assumed that the costs of EU Delegation officials and Memb er State consular staff are in the same range. It is 
 
EN 70   EN Raising awareness of MS 
authorities and local authorities 
on the right of unrepresented 
EU citizens 
Informing unrepresented UE 
citizens about their rights and 
pinpointing them to MS 
representations 
Assisting MS in crisis 
situations regarding 
evacuation, shelter housing of 
expert teams Financial costs to the Member States 
The main cost of Member States would be the cost of providing additional 
assistance as a result of the efforts of EU delegations. Assuming that this 
would mean the 10% growth of unrepresented cases, the total cost of this 
assistance would be of approx. €175,91031. 
It is however worth noting that in a situation where there already is a Lead 
State, the additional tasks carried  out by the EU Delegation, and 
specifically in crisis situations, is likely to be lower and this additional 
assistance is less likely to materialise.  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
The benefits to unrepresented citizens will be on one hand the benefits to 
those who previously did not ask for/receive consular protection (i.e. avoidance of inconvenience and a ti me saving). These savings would be 
proportional to the additional assistance provided and are estimated to be 
€333,095 
32.  
Furthermore, as in the case of Lead States, improved coordination and 
assistance by EU Delegations could result in more efficient assistance to EU citizens already assisted. It could result in an average benefit to the 
citizens of €142,680
33.  
Savings to Member States  
Finally, a more centralised approach is likely to result in savings to 
Member States, since the assistance an d facilitation as provided by the EU 
Delegation is likely to help Member State provide assistance quicker (i.e. by obtaining information from the EU  Delegation regarding procedures or 
                                                                                                                                                                  
however important to keep in mind that there are potential additional costs (i.e. family or travel allowances) 
that apply to both EU Delegation and consular staff. Final cost figure obtained by multiplying the €100-€300 
range of daily cost by 10 days and 131 delegations. This yields a cost between €131,000 and €393,000, the final figure representing the mid-point of that range. During the impact assessment process the involvement 
needed was estimated on average at the level of 10 working days per Union delegation.  
31 Total costs range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on the cost of a single case, the figure represents the 
mid-point of that range. 
32 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases by both the lower (€125 plus 1 day at €60/day) and 
higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,560 to €552,600, the final figure representing the mid-point of that range.  
33 Obtained by multiplying the number of individuals estimate d to be currently assisted (based on current scale of 
the problem analysis) by 1 to 3 days at €60/day. This yields a range of €71,340 to €214,020 the final figure 
represents the mid-point of that range.  
34 Assumption is that half a day is saved per consular case due EU Delegation contributing to improved 
procedures, which, multiplied by the number of assisted citizens (based on current scale of the problem analysis and including the additional 10%), yields 901.5 days. This is based on the experiences from case 
studies, where consular staff noted that more complex cas es can be quite consuming, and even for more routine 
cases (ETDs) unclear procedures can require time. The 4-hour saving thus reflects what an “average” time 
saving could be for both types of cases. It is lower than the time saving for citizens, since it is assumed that for 
citizens a case lasts “longer” than for consular staff, si nce citizens “experience” their case from its start to its 
resolution, while consular officials onl y work on a case for a fraction of that  time (the remainder of the time 
represents, for example, waiting for documents or  for relevant national authorities to respond). 
35 Estimated to be half of the €100-€300 range of daily cost of a consular official for the number of individuals 
estimated to be currently assisted (b ased on current scale of the problem analysis). This yields a range of 
€90,150.00 to €270,450.00, the final figure representing the mid-point of that range. 
 
EN 71   EN relevant contacts). It could be assumed he re that this efficiency saving will 
be equal to a total almost 900 days34 across all consular cases, which 
results in a total saving between €180,30035.  
However the more important additiona l savings to Member States could 
result from the additional logistical support provided by the EU Delegations (i.e. providing rooms, fo r meetings, means of communication, 
accommodating expert teams). 
Monitoring - MS provide 
yearly statistics on their 
assistance to unrepresented The main cost of this measure woul d be the cost to Member States of 
collating and transferring the information. Since many Member States already collect such information and generally there are only few 
'unrepresented' cases, this cost should be low.  
It is however important to note that th e costs will be dependent on the type 
of reporting already in place. If effective reporting systems exist, the main cost would be cost relating to making data comparable between Member States. Such cost could be borne by the Member States centrally, or even by the EU, rather than by individual representations.  
Assuming that collecting and transferring such information would require 
1 day of consular staff per embassy/consulate (with a total of 1,572 embassies
36) for each Member State, the total cost would be €314,40037. 
This should however be viewed as the set-up cost that is incurred only in the first year. Once the relevant mechanisms are in place, in consequent 
years, the costs of monitoring sh ould be considerably lower.  
There are no directs financial benefits to the Member States or 
unrepresented citizens, although the info rmation is of course of value in 
further policy-making process.  
Dissemination of information 
for citizens: EU-wide 
information campaign 
including advertisement in 
media (TV, radio spots) travel 
magazines, internet travel fora 
advertisements 
 
Cooperation with travel 
associations, expat 
associations, international 
employers on awareness 
raising 
 Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 
Financial cost of an EU-wide campaign is estimated to be approximately 
€1 million38. It can be assumed that the cost of additional cooperation with 
relevant stakeholders will be minimal, as awareness-raising materials 
already developed as part of the campaign can be reused. As in the case of monitoring, it is important to note that this cost is largely a one-off cost incurred in the first year, with the benefits likely to be observed yearly.  
The Commission consular website is already in place. However, it needs to 
be updated and maintained. The financial cost to the EU of maintaining the 
website is estimated at €88,000
39. 
Financial cost to the Member States 
Although the cost of awareness raising campaigns will be shared by both 
the EU and the Member States, the assumption is that most of the costs would be borne by the EU, and the cost of awareness-raising campaign to 
                                                 
36 Scale of the problem mapping. 
37 Obtained by multiplying the number of consulates/embassi es (1,572) by the €100-€300 range of daily consular 
staff cost. This yields the range of €157,200 to €471,600, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
38 European Commission estimate based on the budget de dicated to the ongoing Passenger Rights Awareness 
Campaign launched by the DG Mobility and Transport in June 2010. 
39 European Commission budget committed for maintenance in 2011. 
 
EN 72   EN Maintenance and further 
development of the dedicated 
Commission consular website the Member States (dissemination of information materials, adding links 
on the campaign to the national Ministries or Embassies portals) could be minimal. 
It is assumed here that a wide-ranging awareness raising campaign will 
increase the number of unrepresented citizens seeking assistance. The key 
cost to the Member States would be the cost resulting from additional assistance, following the assumed growth of 10% of unrepresented cases. An average total cost to Member States would be of approx. €175,910
40.  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
The assumed additional 10% unrepresented citizens who would now seek 
and receive consular protection would be the key stakeholder group that would benefit from the policy option.  the benefits would consist of 
avoiding a fixed inconvenience cost as  well as a time saving This would 
then yield an average total saving of approx. €333,095
41.  
Savings to Member States 
A well-designed awareness raising ca mpaign will not only ensure that 
more individuals would seek assistance, but can also help inform both represented and unrepresented travellers and residents which services consulates and embassies can provide an d which they cannot provide. As a 
consequence, consular staff can sav e time by not having to deal with 
requests for assistance that they are not in a position to address.  
Assuming that for every one “well-founded” request for assistance there 
are five “unfounded” ones
42 and assuming that an awareness campaign can 
reduce the number of these cases by 10% generates a reduction of 71,789 
cases43. Assuming that each such case would otherwise take 0.5 hours44 of 
consular staff time (at a cost of between €100 and €300 per day45) would 
result in a saving of €897,36046. 
                                                                                                                                                                  
40 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (614) by the cost of each consular case. Total costs 
range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on the cost of a single the case, the figure represents the mid-point 
of that range. 
41 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (614) by both the lower 125 plus 1 day at €60/day) and 
higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,590 to €552,600 
the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
42 Assumption based on case study interviews where cons ular staff noted that “unfounded” cases are very 
common. 
43 Calculated as 90% of approx. 0.64% (five times the like lihood of a citizen being in a situation where they are 
eligible for assistance, estimated at 0.1274%) of the tota l number of travellers and residents, which is in turn 
based on the scale of the problem modelling.  
44 Based on the experience from case studies, where dealing with an “unfounded” case often takes a few minutes 
(answering a phone call), but can some time require substantially more time (following up a case to establish 
that it is ultimately not substantiated). Estimate of 0.5 hours was chosen to reflect this range.  
45 Range of daily cost of consular staff based on the online survey. 
46 Obtained by multiplying the number of cases by half an hour cost of consular staff. Savings range from 
€448,681.25 to €1,346,043.75 depending on the staff costs, the figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
 
EN 73   EN Tailor made trainings for 
consular officials and 
development and maintenance 
of do's and don'ts list Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 
Financial cost to the EU of conducting a training event is estimated to be 
€95,00047. Assuming that either one or two such training sessions will be 
provided to consular officials, yields an estimate of costs to the EU 
between €95,000 and €190,000 . Additional cost of  developing “do’s and 
don’ts” lists is assumed to be minimal. 
                                                 
47 European Commission estimate based on experience with budget provided for the trainings organised in 2010 
and 2011. 
48 Total costs range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on  the cost of a single the cas e, the figure represents the 
mid-point of that range. 
49 Based on the average hourly wage of legislators, senior officials and managers (Eurostat) 
50 Based on a range of 2-5 days at the average daily rate of a civil servant. The final total costs range from 
€8,960.96 to €22,402.40, the figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
51 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases by both the lower and higher end of the compensation 
(€125 + 1 day at €60/day and €600 + 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,590 to €552,600 the 
final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
 
EN 74   EN Financial cost to the Member States 
Assuming that most costs of training would be borne by the EU, the key 
cost to the Member States will be  the cost resulting from additional 
assistance following the estimated 10% growth of number of unrepresented 
cases. A total cost to Member States would be of approx. €175,910 48.  
In addition, it is important to take  into account the opportunity cost of 
consular staff taking part in training.  This will be largely dependent on the 
scale of the training, but it is assumed that the training will be targeted to 
small groups of consular officials (as large-scale training is likely not to be 
feasible, given the number of EU consular officials working worldwide), 
potentially as a form of “training the trainers”. It is assumed here that each Member State would dedicate 2-5 man-days at €166 per day
49 for the 
training resulting in an average total opportunity cost of €15,68050. 
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
As in the case of awareness raising campaigns, the benefit to citizens will 
be the avoided inconvenience costs and fewer days lost due to receiving assistance. This additional benefit is est imated to represent an average total 
saving for EU citizens of approx. €333,095
51. 
In addition, training of consular staff will mean that consular officials will 
be more aware of the actions to take in certain situations, resulting in 
providing assistance faster. Quicker assistance will represent a benefit for unrepresented citizens.  
It is assumed here that for each ' unrepresented' case, the unrepresented 
citizens will save one to three days
52, resulting in an average benefit to the 
citizens of €142,68053.  
Savings to Member States 
The outcome of training is also likely to be an efficiency saving for the 
Member States due to in addressing unrepresented consular cases. In particular, with consular officials bei ng more aware of the actions to take 
in certain situations, they would be able to spend less time per individual 
case. It is assumed here that this effi ciency saving could be equal to a total 
                                                                                                                                                                  
52 There is no inconvenience cost saving, since assistance is provided regardless, but quicker.  
53 Obtained by multiplying the number of individuals estimate d to be currently assisted (based on current scale of 
the problem analysis) by 1 to 3 days at €60/day. This yields a range of €71,340 to €214,020; the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
54 Assumption is that half a day is saved per consular case due to better awareness of procedures and relevant 
contacts, which, multiplied by the number of assisted citizens (based on current scale of the problem analysis and including the additional 10%), yields 892.5 days. This is based on the experiences from case studies, 
where consular staff noted that more complex cases can  be quite time-consuming and even for more routine 
cases (ETDs) unclear procedures can require time. The 4-hour saving thus reflects what an “average” time 
saving could be for both types of cases. It is lower than the time saving for citizens, since it is assumed that for 
citizens a case lasts “longer” than for consular staff, si nce citizens “experience” their case from its start to its 
resolution, while consular officials onl y work on a case for a fraction of that  time (the remainder of the time 
represents, for example, waiting for documents or  for relevant national authorities to respond). 
55 Estimated to be half of the daily cost of consular staff (€100-€300) for the number of individuals estimated to 
be currently assisted (based on current scale of the pr oblem analysis). This yields a range of €90,150.00 to 
€270,450.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
 
EN 75   EN almost 900 days54 across all consular cases, which results in a total saving 
between €180,30055. 
2.2. Summary  
Looking at the individual measures of the policy option where both costs and benefits could be 
quantified , yields the followi ng result per year:  
Core elements of the option Financial cost 
to the EU 
bodies and 
budget Financial cost 
to the Member 
States Benefits to 
unrepresented 
citizens Savings to 
Member States Net benefit 
Clarifying and extending the scope 
of consular protection 0.00 € 25,120. 00 € 47,560.00 € 0.00 € 22,440.00 € 
Introducing additional coordination 
and cooperation measures 0.00 €  175,910.00 €  475,775.00 € 180,300.00 €  
480,165.00 € 
Clarifying the role of Union 
delegations 262,000.00 €  
175,910.00 €  475,775.00 € 180,300.00 €  
218,165.00 € 
Monitoring 
0.00 € 314,400.00 € 
(set-up cost) 0.00 € 0.00 € -314,400.00 € 
Raising awareness - Guidance for 
citizens 1,088,000.00 € 
(including cost 
of the campaign 
to be incurred 
in the first year)  175,910.00 €  
335,095.00 € 897,360.00 €  
-31,455.00 € 
Raising awareness – Guidance for practitioners 190,000.00 €  191,590.00 €  475,775.00 € 180,300.00 € 274,485.00 € 
Total 1,540,000.00 €  1,058,840.00 €  
1,809,980.00 € 1,438,260.00 €  
649,400.00 € 
Although the impacts of individual measures cannot be aggregated, since their individual impacts 
will interact with each other, it is nevertheless possibl e to look at the cost-effectiveness of 
individual measures. As shown in the above table, four out of six quantified measures appear to be 
cost effective and the sum of the net benefits across all measures is positive, suggesting that the policy option is in fact cost-effective. It is important to note that monitoring and awareness-
rising measures require investments in first year, however benefits will continue to be 
important also in following years.  
The cost to the Member States following implemen tation of policy measures relating to crises was 
estimated at €138,610 (preparatory task of lead states, administrative cost of exchange of 
information for reimbursement procedures), however savings to Member States should be important 
(i.e. in case a Member State provides assistance in  crisis to 50 unrepresented EU citizens it could 
receive reimbursement at €100,000. The cost of supporting civil protection teams by consular 
officers is 38,900.00 €. However benefits were not quantified, 
improved coordination of task and 
clearer financial burden-sharing would result in more e fficient assistance in crisis cases, resulting both in 
potential time savings to citizens that would be othe rwise assisted, as well as additional assistance to the 
previously unassisted citizens. The actual benefits for unrepresented c itizens will vary substantially and 
expected benefit to the unrepresented citizens will be most likely exceeding the benefit to each citizen of 
non-crisis assistance (i.e. one could expect it to be higher than avoiding the non-crisis inconvenience cost, 
valued at up to €600).  
 
EN 76   EN 3. COSTS AND BENEFITS – POLICY OPTION 3: FURTHER AND TIGHTER COOPERATION 
AND COORDINATION MEASURES  
3.1. Information on specific measures 
Core elements of the option Financial or economic impact 
Scope of protection covers 
also refugees, long term 
residents on the same footing 
as EU citizens Financial costs to the Member States 
The key additional cost of this m easure will be the cost of assisting 
refugees and long-term residents.  
Assuming that 3.9% of EU population consists of third country 
nationals with a permit to remain  in the country for over 12 months1 
and assuming that these proportions also apply to travellers (i.e. for every 1,000 travellers from a particular unrepresented Member State, 39 will be long-term residents), yields a total number of 283 long-
term residents and refugees who c ould potentially benefit from being 
assisted
2. Assuming all of them are assisted in turn yields a total cost 
of €81,0803. 
Assuming that just over 7% of long-term residents are refugees or 
residents in refugee-like situations4, just over 7% of the total cost 
(approx. €5,840) would be the extra cost of assisting refugees and 
individuals in refugee-like situations.  
Benefits to unrepresented long-term residents and refugees  
The benefit to the assisted long-term residents and refugees now 
eligible for assistance would be the avoidance of inconvenience and time saving. If we assumed that there would be 283 long-term 
residents and refugees now eligible for assistance estimated savings 
could be € 153,530
5. 
                                                 
1 Based on dividing the total number of residence permits of over 12 months issued to third country 
nationals by the population for each Member State and calculating the average. It is assumed here that 
this number covers refugees (as it concerns all pe rmits, rather than formally defined ‘long-term 
residents’). 
2 Estimated by applying the 3.9% proportion to the total number of unrepresented EU citizens estimated 
to require assistance. It is assume d here that the long-term residents and refugees can never be assisted 
by their own country of citizenship.  
3 Estimated by applying the cost of assistance to the number of cases (283). Range of €8,490.00 - € 
153,669.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
4 Based on 2009 UNHCR data on the number of refugees. Calculated by dividing the total number of 
refugees by the total number of residents (3.9% of EU 27 population). 
5 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (283) by both the lower (€125 plus 1 day at 
€60/day) and higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from 
€52,355.00 to €254,700.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
 
EN 77   EN The scope of assistance 
enlarged to further activities 
(legalisation/ simple notary 
activities) Financial costs to the Member States 
The cost to Member States will be the cost of consular staff carrying 
out the legalisation6.  
The legalisation and notary services are however the activities for 
which the applicants pay consular fees7. These services could 
generate incomes comparable to costs incurred.  
There is however an additional cost of revising the national legal framework to allow for legalisation. Assuming this cost of €10,000 to 
€50,000 per Member State
8 it would result in an average total cost of 
€810,0009. 
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
The key benefit will be the cost saving to unrepresented EU citizens. 
Assuming that legalisation of documents would entail an average 
time saving of one day10 and a low inconvenience cost (€125), yields 
a benefit to EU citizens of €192,96011. 
Financial burden sharing Sub-
option A. Compensation 
mechanism/clearing house Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 
Creation of the additional administrative layer at the EU level would 
generate some costs. Assuming that at least two posts would need to be created (level AD5) the annual cost would amount to at least €112,000
12. Additionally it w ould be necessary to keep a reserve 
budget in order to advance funds wh ich would be reconciled in the 
end of the budget year. Additional cost would be to establish electronic files and have regular maintenance. 
Financial cost to the Member States 
At national level the additional administrative costs would be 
                                                 
6 Assuming that residents rather than travellers will us e legalisation services, and that there is a total of 
818,704 unrepresented EU citizens residing in countries which are not party to the 1961 Hague 
Convention and, finally, assuming that unrepresented EU citizens residing in third countries are as 
likely to require legalisation as other forms of assistance yields a total number of unrepresented citizens 
likely to benefit of 1,043. Assuming that legalisation requires around an hour of consular officials’ time, 
generates a cost of €26.075 (obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (1,043) by 1 hour at the daily cost of consular staff (€100-€300). The costs range from €13,037.50 to € 39,112.50, the 
final figure represents the mid-point of that range). 
7 On average €10-30 (based on the in formation from the Member States). 
8 Assumption based on 5 to 25 working days for legal experts per Member State at a daily rate of €2,000, 
informed by the Impact Assessment on the right to information in criminal proceedings. 
9 Obtained by multiplying the estimated cost range by  the number of Member States. Costs range from 
€270,000 to €1,350,000, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
10 Once again, it is assumed here that the legalisa tion activities are a formality and not receiving such 
service or a delay would not result in a substantial loss of time for the citizen.  
11 Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (1,043) by an inconvenience cost of €125 and a 
loss of one day at €60/day. 
12 The average payment including basic allowances (Council Regulation 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010, 
OJ L 338 p.1, Intracom calculator). This measure would require more posts to be created if it would be 
complemented by the co-founding.  
 
EN 78   EN comparable to the costs stemming from the option 2 – at the level of 
€89,610. 
Although the measure could result in additional cases of providing 
assistance due to more efficient assist ance provided in crisis, the costs 
of such assistance would be reimbursed by the citizen’s Member State of origin, so no additional cost s are likely to be incurred by the 
Member States.  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
As in the case of the second policy option, the benefits to citizens in 
crisis situations will be difficult to estimate, but they are likely to be substantial for previously unassisted EU citizens receiving assistance or and to those receiving more efficient assistance. 
Savings to Member States 
The policy option would imply cost savings for those Member States, 
which historically incur higher e xpenses during crises. As a model 
calculation for EU funding shows (see the table below) in case of the assistance provided to 50 unrepresented citizens during crises a year it may be estimated that an assisting Member State could save about 
€100,000.  
Financial burden sharing Sub-
option B. EU funding Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 
In total a minimum of 16 million (if the activities are co-financed at 
50%) to 31 million euro if activities are co-financed at the higher percentage would be necessary for the period of 6-7 years (duration of the funding stream).  
Financial cost to the Member States 
At national level the additional administrative costs would be 
comparable to the costs stemming from the option 2 – at the level of 
€89,610. 
As above, the measures will not result in additional cost of providing 
assistance, due to reimbursement.  
Benefits to unrepresented citizens 
As is the case for the previous me asure, the benefits to EU citizens 
receiving faster and more efficient assistance are likely be substantial, but are also difficult to estimate, due to, among others, the fact that 
some of these costs may need to  be reimbursed by the citizen. 
 
Savings to Member States 
The policy option would imply cost savings for those Member States, 
which historically incur hi gher expenses during crises.  
As a model calculation for EU fundi ng shows (see below) in case of 
the assistance provided to 50 unrepresented citizens during crises a 
 
EN 79   EN year it may be estimated that an assisting Member State could save 
about €100,000.   
3.2. Summary  
The additional measures foreseen under this polic y option which are quantifiable  are 
presented below: 
Core elements of the option Financial 
cost to the 
EU bodies 
and budget Financial 
cost to the 
Member 
States Benefits to 
unrepresented 
citizens Savings to 
Member States Net benefit 
Scope protection to cover 
refugees and long term residents 
on the same footing as EU 
citizens 0.00 € 81,080.00 € 153,530.00  € 0.00 € 72,450.00 € 
The scope of assistance enlarged 
to further activities (legalisation/ 
simple notary activities) 0.00 € 810,000.00 € 
(set up costs) 192,960.00 € 0.00 € -617,040.00 € 
Total 0.00 € 891,080.00 € 346,490. 00 € 0.00 € -544,590.00 € 
Looking at the two other measures considered as part of this option, namely measures 
concerning burden-sharing, the high costs associ ated with fund-based burden sharing (almost 
€4m/year, assuming a commitment of €18.5m over 6 years), is likely to also substantially 
outweigh the savings and make th e option less cost effective. 
4. COMPARISON OF FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF POLICY OPTION 2 AND 3 
Comparing the two options, the costs across all measures of policy option 2 are estimated to 
be €1.54m for the EU and €1.1m for the Member St ates, compared to benefits to citizens of 
€1.8m and savings to Member States of €1.43m. Although these figures should not be seen as 
overall economic impact across the policy option13 and they do not include benefits for 
citizens stemming from measures re lating to crisis, they do suggest that option 2 is likely to be 
cost-effective as a whole. The policy option 3 is designed to consist of all the measures of 
policy option 2 and the additional measures pr esented above. Costs across all the policy 
measures of policy option 3 are estimated to be  €5.9m to the EU, €2.3m to the Member States, 
compared to the benefits to EU citizens of  €2.15m and savings to Member States of €1.43m. 
Although these figures do not incl ude the benefits to citizen s associated with improved 
                                                 
13 There is an important distinction in this case be tween aggregated cost-benef it calculations for all the 
policy measures and the aggregate im pact of each option. In  the former case, presented in the table, 
these are sums of costs and benefits across all pr oposed measures. In the latter case the calculation of 
the aggregate cost and benefit of each policy option would need to take  into account the fact that the 
measures can possibly interact with each other. - I. e. where it is assumed that a particular measure 
would result in additional 10% of pr eviously unassisted unrepresented c itizens receiving assistance, this 
would only be true for the first measure introduced (or first measure to generate any impact). All 
subsequent measures can, at most lead to 10% of the remaining  unassisted residents being assisted (i.e. 
9% of the initial number). The aggregated cost-benefit calculations for all policy measures would thus 
yield a higher total costs and benefits than the aggregate cost and benefit calculation for the whole 
option. However, since both costs and benefits ar e proportional to the number of additional cases, 
choosing one method of calculation will not result in changes in cost-benefit ratios and hence the 
method used in the text can be used to identify the most cost-effective policy option while avoiding the 
added complexity and additional assumptions  introduced by using the latter method. 
 
EN 80   EN assistance in crisis situations, they still suggest that due to the high cost of the fund-based 
mechanism, it is unlikely that the option will be more cost-effective than option 2.