EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/1

SPECIAL REPORT No 3/2007

concerning the management of the European Refugee Fund (2000 to 2004) together with the Commission's replies

(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)

(2007/C 178/01)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I-VIII SUMMARY

1-16 INTRODUCTION

1 Background

2-9 The European Refugee Fund

10-13 Synthesis of main changes between ERF I and ERF II

14-16 Audit scope, objectives and approach

17-25 WAS THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO MEMBER STATES SOUND?

17-19 Basis for the distribution of amounts

20-22 Statistical data used as allocation basis were incomplete and not reliable

23 Differences in interpretation among the Member States distort the basis

24-25 Revisions of previously validated data were not fully taken into account for future distributions or were not adequately documented

26-39 WAS THE MANAGEMENT BY THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES SOUND?

26 ERF implementing rules were published late

27-33 Low efficiency of the allocation procedure

34-36 Different interpretation of ERF rules by Member States

37 Positive examples of ERF management

38-39 Monitoring and remedial action by the Commission had insufficient results

40-44 WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE ERF ON NATIONAL EFFORTS IN THE AREA OF ASYLUM?

45-50 CONCLUSION

51-54 RECOMMENDATIONS

Annex I—Comparison of Community regulations for the 2000 to 2004 European Refugee Fund period (ERF I) and the 2005 to 2010 period (ERF II)

Annex II—Distribution of funds per Member State (2000 to 2004)

Annex III—ERF allocation procedure of provisional amounts to Member States

The Commission's replies

SUMMARY

I. The European Refugee Fund (ERF or the Fund) was established in September 2000 for an initial five-year period ending in 2004, with a financial reference amount of 216 million euro. The Fund's creation occurred at a time of increased EU activity in the rapidly evolving field of asylum and immigration.

II. The aim of the ERF was to support and encourage the efforts made by the Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons. The management of the Fund was shared between the Commission and the Member States. The Commission had the overall responsibility for the correct implementation of the Fund, while the Member States were in charge of carrying out the actual measures. Fundable measures were divided into three groups: conditions for the reception, integration, and repatriation of refugees and displaced persons.

III. The Court carried out an audit of the management of the first phase of the European Refugee Fund (2000 to 2004), focusing on the following: — was the distribution of funds to Member States sound? — was the management by the Commission and the Member States sound? — what was the impact of the ERF on national efforts in the area of asylum?

IV. The distribution of funds was mainly based on the number of third-country nationals and stateless persons, as defined by the ERF, that have entered the Member States. The Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) was responsible for collecting statistical data on asylum figures from the Member States. No harmonised definitions of the target groups as defined in the ERF rules existed, and Member States applied different interpretations. Thus the basis used for the ERF allocations was not consistent, comparable and reliable. Serious discrepancies in the underlying statistical data were detected. In some cases, the data were changed due to the evolution of the Member States' legislation in the direction of greater harmonisation.

V. The entire annual allocation procedure was cumbersome and its efficiency questionable.

VI. Member States had sole responsibility for the management and administration of projects, while the Commission had to ensure that Member States had smoothly functioning management and control systems. Although shortcomings were detected and some corrective measures were taken by the Commission, not all problems detected in the Member States had yet been resolved.

VII. The Court's audit has shown that some of the provisions of ERF I, in particular the eligibility rules, were open to significant differences of interpretation. The Court recommends, taking account of its findings and the changes already made in ERF II, that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that the ERF is more clearly and precisely targeted for the future.

VIII. Regarding the question of the impact of the ERF on national funding, information was limited both in the Member States and at the Commission. In the light of the projects visited, some positive changes in national efforts were noted, mainly with regard to testing innovatory projects and integrating their results into national strategies.

INTRODUCTION

Background

1. The Treaty of Amsterdam envisages the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice (1). Pursuant to this, the European Council agreed in October 1999 in Tampere (Finland) on a comprehensive programme, fixing political guidelines and operational objectives, including the establishment of a common European asylum system.

The European Refugee Fund

2. The European Refugee Fund (ERF or the Fund) was established in September 2000 for an initial five-year period ending in 2004 (2).

3. The ERF was created ‘to promote a balance in the efforts made by Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons’ (3). It was to be based on the principle of solidarity between Member States, and it should ensure fair burden-sharing between them.

4. The Fund was to support measures that aim to achieve appropriate reception conditions, as well as integrating refugees and displaced persons into the society of a Member State. In addition, the ERF was to allocate resources to assist refugees and displaced persons with repatriation, including help in taking an informed decision to return to their country of origin.

5. A financial reference amount of 216 million euro was allocated to the ERF. The final appropriations amounted to 243 million euro, including 49 million euro provided for emergency measures but not used. As of the end of December 2006 the Commission estimates that 141 million euro had been paid. The following table shows the appropriations and commitments for the years 2000 to 2004.

Appropriations and commitments 2000 to 2004

(million euro) 2000 to 2004 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Appropriations Commitments Appropriations Commitments Appropriations Commitments Appropriations Commitments Appropriations Commitments Appropriations Commitments Administrative expenditure ERF 3,64 2,19 0,66 0,12 0,73 0,65 0,73 0,53 0,81 0,21 0,72 0,67 Operational expenditure ERF 189,02 189,00 42,27 42,27 42,27 42,27 45,08 44,99 34,19 34,19 25,28 25,28 Administrative expenditure emergency measures ERF 0,96 (4) 0,16 (4) 0,18 (4) 0,18 (4) 0,20 (4) 0,23 (4) Operational expenditure emergency measures ERF 49,03 (4) 9,82 (4) 9,82 (4) 9,82 (4) 9,80 (4) 9,78 (4) Total 242,65 191,19 52,91 42,39 53,00 42,92 55,81 45,52 45,00 34,40 36,01 25,95 Source: European Commission accounting system.

6. The management of the ERF was shared (5) between the Commission (Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security — JLS DG) and the Member States. The Commission had the overall responsibility for the correct implementation of the Fund, while the Member States were in charge of managing the actual measures. Each Member State had appointed a national authority which handled all communication with the Commission and was responsible for the selection of individual projects and for their financial management and administration.

7. Persons targeted by the ERF were third-country nationals or stateless persons who had refugee status as defined by the Geneva Convention (6), as well as persons benefiting from international or temporary protection. Asylum seekers who had applied for refugee status and persons whose right to temporary protection was being examined in a Member State were also eligible.

8. According to DG JLS, the number of asylum applicants, refugees and persons under protection amounted to approximately 303 000 in 1996, which increased to 475 000 in 1999 and decreased to 374 000 in 2003.

9. Community aid was granted by the European Refugee Fund by means of co-financed actions. The co-financing was established at a maximum of 50 % of the total cost of the measure. This share was increased to a maximum of 75 % for countries covered by the Cohesion Fund. Commission payments to Member States were made in the form of pre-financing, interim and final payments.

Synthesis of main changes between ERF I and ERF II

10. A second phase of the programme (ERF II) has since been launched, covering the period 2005 to 2010 (7).

11. The following comparison highlights only the main differences between ERF I and ERF II. It is neither an analysis nor an evaluation of those changes. A detailed comparison between ERF I and ERF II is given in Annex I. Objectives and tasks: — the objectives remain the same, — the duration of ERF II will be six years (five years for ERF I), — the definition of target groups has not changed substantially, — ERF II introduces multi-annual programming periods of three years, — ERF II describes the actions (reception, integration, voluntary return) in greater detail and also allows for a combination of all three, — for ERF II the Community actions put the emphasis on transnational actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole. Implementation and management provision: — the management of the ERF remains shared. The responsibilities of the Commission and the Member States are described in greater detail for ERF II, — the selection criteria have not changed, — deadlines for the submission of relevant documentation have been extended, — the distribution of funds continues to be based mainly on statistical data on refugees and asylum seekers. Financial management and supervision: — the ERF II co-financing is still 50 % (75 % for Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund). But the 50 % contribution may be increased to 60 % for particularly innovative actions, — the deadlines and requirements for payments are more precisely indicated for ERF II, — the first pre-financing is still 50 % of the ERF co-financing, while the second pre-financing may amount to a maximum of 50 % (instead of 30 % for ERF I), — for ERF II, at least 10 % of the total eligible expenditure must be checked, for ERF I it was 20 %. Monitoring, evaluation and reports: — for ERF II the Commission is to carry out regular monitoring in cooperation with the Member States, — for ERF II, obligations regarding evaluation have been enhanced: the Fund is to be evaluated regularly by the Commission in partnership with the Member States to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions.

12. A review of the ERF II rules showed that the recommendations presented in this report have not been acted upon in ERF II.

13. The Commission has also proposed a framework programme for the period 2007 to 2013 which would include the ERF.

Audit scope, objectives and approach

14. The Court carried out an audit of the management of the first phase of the European Refugee Fund (2000 to 2004). The objectives of the audit were to conclude on the following questions: — was the distribution of funds to Member States sound? — was the management by the Commission and the Member States sound? — what was the impact of the ERF on national efforts in the area of asylum?

15. In the context of this audit and the annual Statements of Assurance for 2003 and 2004 (8), the relevant Commission services (DG JLS and Eurostat) in Brussels and Luxembourg were audited. In addition, responsible national authorities and final beneficiaries were visited in the following Member States: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

16. According to the ERF rules (9), the Commission had to submit a final report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 September 2005. The Court could not take into consideration the results of the final report, as it was finalised after the completion of the Court's audit.

WAS THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO MEMBER STATES SOUND?

Basis for the distribution of amounts

17. ERF funds were distributed annually and were composed of a small fixed amount and a larger variable amount. The fixed amount has decreased from 500 000 euro per Member State for 2000 to 100 000 euro for 2004.

18. The variable part of the annual allocation was distributed to the Member States in proportion to the number of third country nationals or stateless persons they had received (10) during the three years preceding the programme year. 65 % of this allocation was based on the number of asylum seekers, while 35 % of the allocation was based on the number of refugees (11). The distribution of funds for the years 2000 to 2004 is presented in Annex II. The description of the allocation procedure is shown in Annex III.

19. The basis for the variable part of the annual allocation had to be the most recent figures established by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) (12), which were provided by the Member States

Statistical data used as allocation basis were incomplete and not reliable

20. The Council Decision provided for a transitional period, in which data supplied by Member States could be used if Eurostat statistics were incomplete. This transitional period should have been limited to ERF 2000 and 2001, but it was extended to ERF 2002 and 2003.

21. It took the Commission until 2005, after several years of preparatory actions, to make a proposal on harmonising Community statistics on migration and international protection (13). In its proposal the Commission pointed out that ‘there are particular concerns about the large amounts of data that are missing from the data collections. There are also serious problems relating to a lack of harmonisation — both in terms of the data sources used and the definitions applied to the statistics’ (14).

22. Another point is that the reliability of the data is questionable as long as they have been verified at Member State level neither by the Commission nor the Member State.

Differences in interpretation among Member States distort the basis

23. The definition of target groups has been interpreted differently by Member States and changed inside some Member States over the years. In some cases, the data were changed due to the evolution of the Member States' legislation in the direction of greater harmonisation. — For most countries, the number of asylum applications indicated the number of individuals; in some countries, in contrast, e.g. the United Kingdom and France, it indicated the number of cases (one ‘case’ may include family members in addition to the principal applicant) (15). — Some Member States (Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Austria) did not make a distinction between first applications and repeated applications. — For Germany, the 1999 figure for asylum applications indicated the number of cases, but the August 2002 figures indicated the number of individuals (16). — In France major discrepancies were noted between the figures provided in 2002 and 2003. The 2003 ERF figures for asylum applications included persons benefiting from ‘territorial asylum’, a new category not included in 2002.

Revisions of previously validated data were not taken fully into account for future distributions or were not adequately documented

24. Over the entire ERF I period, some of the figures that had been validated one year were modified in subsequent years. As an example, a data revision occurred between 2002 and 2003 in France, for which the number of persons declared was increased by 17 606 (the total number of persons declared for France for ERF 2003; cumulative total for the years 1999 to 2001: 238 947). The revision of official statistics is a common practice and is not criticised as such. Nonetheless, when the Commission revises the statistics ex post, it should take account of the revised information not only for current distributions but also for previous years' distributions. In the case of Italy, the Commission reduced the allocation significantly for 2004 (0,7 million euro) compared with the year 2003 (2,4 million euro), mainly because it was not able to validate the previous years' statistics on the number of persons declared by Italy for the reference period 2001. In a number of cases, where the allocation of funds was based on modified statistics, there was no documentation available on the reasons why changes had been made either at DG JLS or at Eurostat.

25. The difficulties encountered could have been avoided if the ERF had been based on reliable and harmonised data from the beginning. For ERF II the definition of target groups has not changed significantly (17) and the allocation of funds continues to be based on statistics produced by Eurostat (18) and those statistics have not yet been harmonised.

WAS THE MANAGEMENT BY THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES SOUND?

ERF implementing rules were published late

26. As the ERF was a new programme, the Member States ought to have been given clear management guidelines from the start of the programme. The Commission published the rules governing eligibility of expenditure (19) in April 2001, six months after the launch of the ERF. However, the Commission published the detailed rules for management and control systems more than 18 months after ERF had been established.

Low efficiency of the allocation procedure

27. The allocation procedure was cumbersome in design and subject to delays and inefficiencies in practice. The allocation procedure for ERF I set out in EU legislation was as follows: — by 1 June the Commission was required to inform Member States of their estimated allocations for the following year, — Member States had until 1 October to submit a request for co-financing, — the Commission was required to approve requests for co-financing within three months (i.e. at the latest by the end of December), a Commission decision on co-financing had to be approved, — the Commission was required to make an initial payment (i.e. 50 % of the sum due) as soon as it had adopted a decision on co-financing (with subsequent interim and final payments).

28. In the context of the distribution of resources to each Member State, it is unclear what role the request for co-financing was intended to play. As explained in paragraph 18 above, allocations were based exclusively on asylum and refugee figures.

29. In practice the timetable for allocation and payment was subject to significant delays. In each year there were two, not one, Commission decisions on co-financing: a first decision based on the draft budget for the coming year, and a revised decision based on the budget that was finally adopted. These decisions were typically taken several weeks after the relevant steps in the budgetary procedure. For ERF 2003 the example below illustrates the timetable for all Member States in practice. — In April 2002 the 2003 preliminary draft budget had been adopted by the Commission — The 2003 draft budget was established by the Council on 22 July 2002. — On 19 September 2002 the Commission adopted the decision on the preliminary allocation of funds to the Member States. — Following the preliminary allocation of funds, the Member States had to submit their requests for co-financing. — The 2003 final budget was adopted on 19 December 2002. — On 20 December 2002 the Commission approved the decision on co-financing, which was based on the preliminary allocations communicated to the Member States in September 2002. — On 12 February 2003 the Commission adopted the decision on the final allocation of funds to the Member States. — In February and March 2003 submission and analysis of revised requests for co-financing. — On 20 March 2003 the Commission took a revised decision on co-financing, which was based on the final budget adopted, increasing the Member States' allocations by 3 million euro.

30. The Commission only made payments to Member States after approval of the second, revised, Commission decisions on co-financing.

31. These delays in Commission payments triggered delays in payments by Member States to final beneficiaries, as most Member States could only pay once they had received their share of the Fund. As a result Member States encountered difficulties in respecting the time limits on ERF-funded projects.

32. In general, projects started before the first payments from the Member States had been received. In those cases final beneficiaries had to pre-finance their expenditure: expenditure undertaken before the approval of the Member State's request for co-financing was ineligible for funding under ERF I. This constraint favoured financially stronger organisations and discouraged smaller organisations from making further applications.

33. Under ERF II there have been some modifications in these arrangements: — the deadlines in paragraph 27 above have all been extended, with a view to resolving the problem in ERF I, — sums disbursed after 1 January of the year in question may be eligible for support by the Fund regardless of when the request for co-financing is approved (cf paragraph 32 above), — besides a 50 % initial payment, there may be an interim payment of up to 50 %, compared with 30 % in ERF I.

Different interpretation of ERF rules by Member States

34. The audit revealed differences as regards the interpretation of the repatriation measure, which is indicatively described as providing ‘information and advice about voluntary return programmes and the situation in the country of origin’. It may also include ‘general or vocational training and help with resettlement’ (20). The Council recognised that ‘practical support is needed to create or improve conditions enabling refugees and displaced persons to take an informed decision to leave the territory of the Member State and return home, should they so wish’ (21). In some Member States the repatriation measure was to a large extent used to pay asylum seekers' return air fares.

35. Major interpretation differences existed in the Member States over who could apply for repatriation assistance. Germany and Sweden applied the stricter interpretation of eligible groups, and only funded recognised refugees who were permitted to reside in one of the Member States but who had decided to return to their home countries. In contrast, the United Kingdom and Italy mainly used the repatriation measure to fund failed and rejected asylum seekers, excluding those who had been granted indefinite leave to remain or refugee status. The funding of failed asylum seeke rs was co-financed by the Fund, even when the decision to return home was not a voluntary one (22). This voluntary element (20) is highlighted in the ERF rules and has been reinforced in ERF II (23).

36. Likewise, the definition of eligible persons whose return to their country of origin might be funded is inadequate, as illustrated below. In the United Kingdom, failed asylum seekers from Central European countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, who had sought asylum before EU accession, accounted for the highest numbers of persons whose return flights were funded by the ERF in 2003 (i.e. 332 Czech nationals and 125 Polish nationals). Individual Member States may apply policies on the individual merits of asylum claims, that is, not based on the country of origin.

Positive examples of ERF management

37. Despite problems in the set-up and management of the ERF, there were numerous examples of good management systems. Germany and Sweden introduced a well thought-out management system, including procedures, forms and reports, which allowed the national authority to handle a large number of projects. In addition, close monitoring of the projects ensured timely support to final beneficiaries.

Monitoring and remedial action by the Commission had insufficient results

38. The Member States are responsible for the selection, financial management and administration of projects. The Council Decision is intended to provide Member States with the necessary freedom to implement the programme according to their needs. In the first instance, Member States are required to take responsibility for the financial control of an action. In particular, they must ensure that the funds are used in accordance with the principle of sound financial management. In spite of that, the Commission itself is charged with ensuring that Member States have smoothly functioning management and control systems so as to make certain that Community funds are efficiently and correctly used.

39. Overall, the Commission carried out monitoring visits for ERF I but could not always ensure sound management practices in all Member States. According to ERF II (24), the Commission is to carry out regular monitoring in co-operation with the Member States, including evaluating the impact of actions and their complementarity with other Community instruments. In the United Kingdom the Court detected serious shortcomings (e.g. an inadequate audit trail on project selection, insufficient monitoring of projects). Prior to the Court's audit in early 2005, the Commission had carried out one monitoring visit in 2002 and one ex post audit in 2003. Nonetheless, several shortcomings observed have not yet been resolved.As already discovered by the Commission during a monitoring visit to Austria, certain core tasks of the management of the ERF actions had been delegated by the national authority to a private company. This is not in conformity with the Financial Regulation as regards delegation of tasks to third parties. The corrective action recommended by the Commission was implemented late.Italy launched one public call for proposals in four years. Furthermore it was restricted to municipalities, thus excluding other potential applicants from taking part in the ERF.

WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE ERF ON NATIONAL EFFORTS IN THE AREA OF ASYLUM?

40. The Court's aim was to analyse whether the creation of the ERF had resulted in a change in national spending in the area of asylum. However, information was limited, both in the Member States and at the Commission. This was partly due to the fact that most Member States did not have specific budget lines for expenditure on refugees or asylum seekers in their national budgets. It was thus not possible to draw a final conclusion on this point.

41. The mid-term evaluation (25) did not examine the additionality of the Fund, but focused instead on how far Member States had co-financed the individual ERF projects. The final report has not been examined as it had not been adopted at the time the audit was carried out.

42. Some indicators of the impact of actions with regard to persons concerned by the three measures were available, but they were not monitored systematically. Similarly, the Commission used Eurostat data on refugees for analysis purposes, but did not systematically compare them with data received from the Member States.

43. In the light of the projects it visited, the Court can state that the ERF produced some positive changes in national efforts, mainly with regard to testing innovatory projects and integrating their results into national strategies.

One successful United Kingdom project concerned a one-to-one refugee mentoring scheme, whereby volunteer mentors, who are nationals of the host country assist refugees to adapt and integrate into the society of the country granting them asylum. A personal integration scheme was designed which included language training, getting to know the city of residence and persons outside the refugee community, learning how to handle administrative issues and assistance with finding employment. The project is now being financed with national funds

44. In other cases the ERF had a positive effect on national asylum policy, as it triggered the creation ex novo of national programmes. The Italian National Asylum Programme was made possible thanks to ERF co-funding, and aims to receive and assist asylum seekers and refugees throughout the national territory. It was initiated by the Ministry of the Interior, UNHCR and the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI).

CONCLUSION

45. The European Refugee Fund allocated its resources according to statistical data. The Court found that these data were not complete, consistent, comparable and reliable. It took the Commission until 2005, after several years of preparatory actions, to propose a regulation on the harmonisation of statistics (see paragraphs 20 to 22).

46. Certain implementing rules were published late by the Commission, leaving the Member States without clear instructions in the start-up phase of the ERF. The cumbersome administrative process for the allocation of funds led to payment delays in the Member States (see paragraphs 26 to 33).

47. The Council Decision lacked clarity in defining the ERF key terms (e.g. eligible target groups or fundable measures, see paragraphs 34 to 36). The Commission did not always guide Member States to help them avoid ambiguities in the interpretation of the rules. Although no systematic misuse of the rules was observed, they were not applied in an equal way by the Member States.

48. The Commission could not always ensure sound management practices in the Member States (see paragraph 39).

49. There were limited data available on the impact of the ERF on national efforts in the area of asylum (see paragraphs 40 to 42).

50. The result of the final report could not be taken into consideration as it had not been adopted at the time the audit was carried out (see paragraphs 16 and 41).

RECOMMENDATIONS

51. The Commission should continue its efforts to harmonise the statistical data. Whilst harmonising the statistical data, the Commission should lay down measures to allow the verification of data.

52. The Commission has revised the statistical data. When the Commission revises the statistics ex post, it should take account of the revised information when distributing funds.

53. If the Commission cannot guarantee that the statistics are reliable and that the allocation of funds is in proportion to the number of refugees and asylum seekers received, other ways of allocating the funds, such as fixed amounts, should be considered.

54. The Court's audit has shown that some of the provisions of ERF I, in particular the eligibility rules, were open to significant differences of interpretation. The Court recommends that the Commission, the Parliament and the Council should consider, in the light of the Court's findings and the changes already made in ERF II, whether they wish the ERF to be more clearly and precisely targeted for the future.

This Report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 21 March 2007. For the Court of Auditors Hubert WEBER President

(1) Article 61 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

(2) Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000 establishing the European Refugee Fund (OJ L 252, 6.10.2000).

(3) Recital 2 of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(4) Appropriations foreseen for emergency needs and not used between 2000 and 2004.

Source: European Commission accounting system.

(5) As defined in Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002).

(6) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 189, p. 137. Adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly Resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950 entry into force 22 April 1954, in accordance with Article 43.

(7) Council Decision 2004/904/EC of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004). Denmark is not participating in the ERF.

(8) Chapter 6, pp. 200 to 202, of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2003 (OJ C 293, 30.11.2004); Chapter 6, pp. 165 to 166, 176 of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2004 (OJ C 301, 30.11.2005).

(9) Article 20 of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(10) Article 3 of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(11) Article 10(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(12) Article 10(3) of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(13) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD).

(14) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD), p. 4.

(15) CIREA (Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum) annual report for 1999 and 2000.

(16) CIREA annual report for 1999 and 2000 and Monthly statistics on asylum report — August 2002.

(17) Article 3 of Decision 2004/904/EC.

(18) Article 17(3) of Decision 2004/904/EC.

(19) Article 14(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(20) Article 4(4) of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(21) Preamble 7 of Decision 2000/596/EC.

(22) The European Council on Refugees and Exiles distinguishes between voluntary, mandatory and forced return: ‘it is important to distinguish between voluntary repatriation of persons who freely choose to exercise their right to return to their country of origin or habitual residence and those who do not have a legal basis for remaining and consent to return’. European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Statement on Justice and Home Affairs Council 12–13 October 2005, p. 4.

(23) Article 4(1) of Decision 2004/904/EC.

(24) Article 27 of Decision 2004/904/EC.

(25) Justice and Home Affairs DG, Mid-term Evaluation of the European Refugee Fund, Final Report, December 2003.

ANNEX I Comparison of Community regulations for the 2000 to 2004 European Refugee Fund period (ERF I) and the 2005 to 2010 period (ERF II) INTRODUCTION This comparison is based on the following documents: — Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000, — Commission Decision 2001/275/EC of 20 March 2001, — Commission Decision 2002/307/EC of 18 December 2001, — Council Decision 2004/904/EC of 2 December 2004, — Explanatory Memorandum and proposal for a Council Decision SEC 2004/161 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010, — Extended Impact Assessment. Commission Staff Working paper, SEC (2004) 161, 12.2.2004. The following comparison highlights only the main differences between ERF I and ERF II. It is neither an analysis nor an evaluation of those changes. I. OBJECTIVES AND TASKS The 2000 to 2004 programme The 2005 to 2010 programme Objective The European Refugee Fund is a financial instrument, the prime objective of which is to support and encourage the efforts made by the Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons. Time period 5 years, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004. 6 years, from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010. Target groups Five target groups: 1. Geneva convention 2. international protection granted by a MS 3. persons who have applied for protection cf. points 1 or 2 4. temporary protection in a MS 5. persons whose right to temporary protection is being examined in a MS. (Article 3, 2000/596/EC) Four target groups: 1. Geneva convention 2. subsidiary protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2004/83/EC 3. persons who have applied for protection cf. points 1 or 2 4. temporary protection within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC (temporary protection/mass influx). (Article 3, 2004/904/EC) Programming No multiannual programmes, annual appropriations. Multi-annual programming for two three-year periods. For each programme phase, the Member States have to present multiannual programmes to the Commission. (Article 15, 2004/904/EC) Actions There are three different types of measures by the Member States: condition of reception, integration, and repatriation. Reception — infrastructure or services for accommodation, — supply of material aid, — health care, — social assistance, — help with administrative and judicial formalities, incl. legal assistance. Integration — social assistance in the area of housing, means of subsistence and health care, — actions to enable beneficiaries to adjust to the society or to provide for themselves. Repatriation — information and advice about voluntary return programmes and the situation in the country of origin, — general or vocational training and help in resettlement. (Article 4, 2000/596/EC) A combination of the actions (reception, integration, voluntary return) is allowed. Possible actions to be funded are in parts more specific. There are eligible actions relating to reception conditions and asylum procedures (accommodation, medical and psychological care, social assistance, education, language training). There are more eligible actions relating to integration (actions to promote participation in civil and cultural life; education, vocational training, recognition of qualifications and diplomas; actions to promote the integration of these persons involving local authorities, the general public or refugee associations, voluntary groups, social partners). Eligible actions relating to voluntary return include: information and advisory services, information on the country or region of origin, general or vocational training, actions which facilitate the organisation and implementation of national voluntary return programmes. Special emphasis is put on the specific situation of vulnerable persons. (Article 4 to 7, 2004/904/EC) Community actions The eligible actions concern the following areas: studies, exchanges of experience and steps to promote cooperation, assessment of the implementation of measures and technical assistance. (Article 5, 2000/596/EC) Community actions put emphasis on transnational actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole. (Article 8, 2004/904/EC) II. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PROVISION The 2000 to 2004 programme The 2005 to 2010 programme Implementation The Member States shall be responsible for the implementation of actions supported by the Fund. A responsible authority (public administration) shall be appointed to communicate with the Commission. The Member State appoints a responsible authority. This must be a functional body of the Member State or a national public body. Some or all of the implementation tasks may be delegated to a public administration or private-law body governed by the law of the Member State and having a public-service mission. Respective responsibilities of the Commission, the Member State and the responsible authority are described in greater detail. No minimum conditions for the responsible authority. (Article 7, 2000/596/EC) Minimum conditions for the responsible authority established. (Articles 12 to 13, 2004/904/EC) Request for co-financing The Member State submits a request for co-financing each year. (Article 8, 2000/596/EC) According to the multiannual programming, the Member State shall propose a draft multiannual programme based on guidelines provided by the Commission. (Article 15, 2004/904/EC) III. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The 2000 to 2004 programme The 2005 to 2010 programme Financial provision 216 million euro. (Article 2, 2000/596/EC) 114 million euro for the period 2005 to 2006. The annual appropriations will be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial perspective. (Article 2, 2004/904/EC) Financing structure The contribution from the Fund shall not exceed 50 % of the total cost of the measure. The proportion may be increased to 75 % in Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund. (Article 13, 2000/596/EC) The contribution from the Fund shall not exceed 50 % of the total cost a specific action. But this may be increased to 60 % for particularly innovative actions and to 75 % in Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund. The contribution shall not exceed 80 % of the total cost of specific Community actions. (Article 20, 2004/904/EC) Technical and administrative assistance A sum not exceeding 5 % of a Member State's total allocation may be set aside for technical and administrative assistance. (Article 12, 2000/596/EC) In addition to 7 % of the annual amount set aside for technical and administrative assistance, a further 30 000 euro is added. (Article 18, 2004/904/EC) Annual breakdown In the ERF I the fixed amount was degressive: 500 000 euro for the year 2000 and 100 000 euro for year 2004. (Article 10, 2000/596/EC) Fixed amount of 300 000 euro, abolishing the degressive element of ERF I. Special aid of 500 000 euro for the new Member States for the first three years of phase II. (Article 17, 2004/904/EC) Payments Initial and interim payments and balance. First pre-financing payment, second pre-financing payment and balance. As soon as the Commission decision is adopted, an initial payment of 50 % of the amount shall be made. A pre-financing payment of 50 % of the amount shall be made within sixty days following the adoption of the co-financing decision. An interim payment of up to 30 % shall be made once the Member State states that it has actually spent half of the initial payment. A second pre-financing payment shall be made no more than three months after the Commission has approved a report on the implementation of the annual work programme and a declaration of expenditure accounting for at least 70 % of the amount of the initial payment. The amount shall not exceed 50 % of the total amount or the balance of the amount for selected projects minus the first pre-financing payment. Balance shall be paid within three months of approval of the accounts submitted by the Member States and the annual report on implementation of the programme. (Article 17, 2000/596/EC) Balance shall be paid no more than three months after the Commission has approved the annual programme's final implementation report and the final declaration of expenditure. (Article 23, 2004/904/EC) Resources for Community actions At the Commission's initiative, up to 5 % of the Fund's available resources may be used to finance innovatory actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole. Besides, the Fund may provide up to 100 % of the funding. (Article 5, 2000/596/EC) Up to 7 % of the Fund's available resources may be used to finance Community actions, emphasis is put on transnational actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole concerning asylum policy and measures applicable to refugees and displaced persons. The ERF may provide up to 80 % of the funding. (Article 8, 2004/904/EC) IV. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REPORTS The 2000 to 2004 programme The 2005 to 2010 programme Checks The checks shall cover at least 20 % of total eligible expenditure. (Article 5, 2002/307/EC) The checks shall cover at least 10 % of the total eligible expenditure for each annual implementing programme. (Article 25, 2004/904/EC) Monitoring and evaluation The responsible authority shall take measures to monitor and evaluate actions. (Article 20, 2000/596/EC) The Commission shall carry out monitoring and evaluation of the Fund in cooperation with the Member States. (Article 27, 2004/904/EC) Follow-up arrangements Detailed rules for eligibility of expenditures and reports on implementation. (2001/275/EC) Reports by the Member States The responsible authority 1) shall submit each year a summary report on the implementation of the action in progress; 2) will send the Commission within six months of the deadline fixed in the co-financing decision for the execution of expenditure a final report consisting of: — Financial accounts and a report on the implementation of the action. — An assessment report of the execution and of the effect of the actions implemented. No separate evaluation of impact of programme. (Article 20, 2000/596/EC) The responsible authority 1) shall include clauses in the agreements and contracts which oblige to submit progress reports on the implementation and a detailed final implementation report. 2) shall submit no more than nine months after the eligibility deadline for expenditure laid down in the co-financing decision for each annual programme a final implementation report and a final declaration of expenditure. The Member States shall submit: 1) An evaluation report on the implementation of actions co-financed no later than 31 December 2006. 2) An evaluation report on the results and impact of actions co-financed no later than 30 June 2009. 3) An evaluation report on the results and impact of actions co-financed no later than 30 June 2012. (Article 28, 2004/904/EC) The recipients of reports submitted by the Commission and type of reports The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a: 1) Mid-term report (2002). 2) Final report (2005). (Article 20, 2000/596/EC) The Commission shall submit to the Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions an: 1) Intermediate report on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of the Fund, together with any proposed amendments no later than 30 April 2007. 2) Intermediate evaluation report and a proposal on the Fund's future development no later than 31 December 2009. 3) Ex post evaluation report no later than 31 December 2012. (Article 28, 2004/904/EC)

ANNEX II DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS PER MEMBER STATE (2000 to 2004) (euro) ERF 2004 ERF 2003 ERF 2002 ERF 2001 ERF 2000 Total ERF 2000 to 2004 Austria 2 230 280 2 007 650 1 938 106 1 454 754 912 382 8 543 173 Belgium 2 131 527 2 381 192 2 729 083 1 869 725 1 233 201 10 344 727 Finland 392 633 524 730 671 256 673 606 651 387 2 913 612 France 4 041 961 5 067 825 4 133 681 3 156 228 2 255 055 18 654 750 Germany 8 113 022 9 935 792 10 324 675 8 391 364 6 218 899 42 983 751 Greece 459 296 439 481 535 611 629 043 652 057 2 715 489 Ireland 919 091 981 675 965 573 709 110 632 205 4 207 654 Italy 741 665 2 396 268 3 460 943 2 741 881 1 956 105 11 296 861 Luxembourg 171 648 299 703 411 195 481 073 528 972 1 892 591 Netherlands 2 972 103 3 239 737 4 175 006 3 642 650 2 984 949 17 014 444 Portugal 123 370 304 394 457 006 518 816 534 238 1 937 823 Spain 665 287 786 229 933 064 837 462 745 291 3 967 333 Sweden 2 691 652 2 869 672 3 326 823 2 555 672 1 808 621 13 252 440 UK 10 877 221 8 923 101 8 764 928 4 819 118 2 902 640 36 287 008 Acceding countries 3 626 695 3 626 695 Community action 2 113 550 2 113 550 2 254 050 1 709 500 1 264 000 9 454 650 Total 42 271 000 42 271 000 45 081 000 34 190 000 25 280 000 189 093 000 Source: Commission Decisions for the periods 2000 to 2004.

ANNEX III ERF allocation procedure of provisional amounts to Member States 2000 to 2001 ERF allocation procedure of provisional amounts to Member States 2002 to 2003 ERF allocation procedure of provisional amounts to Member States 2004