EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 21.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1374 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the  
 
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or 
stateless persons as benefici aries of international protec tion and the content of the 
protection granted  
  
Summary of the Impact Assessment  
 
{COM(2009) 551} 
{SEC(2009) 1373}  
 
EN 2   EN 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Following an increase between 1996 and 2002, fue lled by conflicts in fo rmer Yugoslavia, in 
the period 2003-2006 numbers of asylum seekers in the EU-27 decreased sharply: from 
344 800 asylum applications in 2003 to 197 41 0 in 2006 (-42.7%). This decreasing trend 
stopped in 2007, as numbers of applications rose  to 222 170 (+12%), mainly due to the inflow 
of Iraqi asylum seekers. In 2008 there was a fu rther increase (+8%) compared to 2007, as the 
number of applications reached 257 375. Even s o, asylum seekers represent a small fraction 
of migration flows to the EU (estimated  at 1.5 -2 m immigrants per year).  
The number of persons residing with a protecti on status in the EU at  the end of 2007 was 
close to 1.4 m, amounting to approximately 7.5%  of the population of legally residing third 
country nationals and to 0.3% of the total EU  population in 2007. This 1.4 m also represents a 
small part of the worldwide population of  refugees, estimated at 11.4 m in 2007.  
Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the  "Qualification Directive")1 seeks to limit the secondary 
movements of applicants for asylum between Member States (MS) by establishing minimum 
standards harmonising the criteria for the identif ication of persons in need of international 
protection and the rights and benefits to be granted to these persons in all MS. 
Responses to the 2007 Green Paper, several evalua tion reports, studies a nd consultations held 
with stakeholders indicate th at, due to the unanimity requ irement for their adoption, the 
minimum standards of the Directive are vague and ambiguous , containing "gaps" and 
allowing for derogation possibilities. Moreover, in some cases, compromise was reached at 
the level of the more "conserva tive" interpretation of the Gene va Convention relating to the 
status of refugees, the European Conventi on on Human Rights (ECHR) and other human 
rights instruments which are the sources of the international obligations that MS have in common. As a result, the Directive does not guarantee the full compatibility of national 
implementation measures with these instruments  and allows for wide divergences amongst 
national decision-making practices . Moreover, decision-makers have difficulties to reach 
quickly robust decisions , whereas the possibility to interpret concepts in different ways results 
in intensive recourse to appeals and in hi gh rates of successful appeals against negative 
decisions. Finally, the current standards of the Directive  are not adequate to attain the 
objectives set by the Hague programme  regarding the establishmen t of a uniform protection 
status and further progress with  regard to the integration  of third-country nationals. 
Existing data provide clear indications of the divergences both in  recognition rates and 
practices amongst MS and in terms of standard s of protection provided by MS; data also 
points to poor first-instance de cision-making. Statistical evid ence further suggests that the 
Directive has not had any effect on secondary  movements: asylum seekers find certain MS 
more "attractive" destinations than others, partly  as a result of their better chances to obtain a 
status or a higher level of rights there.  
                                                 
1 Directive of 29 April 2004 on  minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country 
nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection 
and the content of the protection granted. 
 
EN 3   EN The general problems can be broken dow n in the following specific problems : 
• The concepts “actors of protection”, “internal protection” and "membership of a particular 
social group" are defined vaguely, which creates a risk of denial of protection as well as a 
risk of diverse recognition practices; 
• Existence of unjustified differences between the content of protection for refugees and 
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection; 
• The specific integration needs of beneficiar ies of international protection are not met; 
• Existence of unjustified limitati ons to the exercise of the righ t of beneficiarie s of protection 
to respect for family life. 
2. ADDED VALUE OF EU ACTION AND RESPECT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY  
Action at the EU level can be expected to be  more effective than MS action in several 
respects. 
• The objectives set by the Hague Programme  regarding a uniform protection status and 
the integration of th ird-country nationals cannot be attained by unilateral MS action .  
• It is unlikely that the level of protection will be comprehensively raised  to meet the 
higher international standards as  they have evolved through MS' unilateral actions. On the 
contrary, ‘a race to the bo ttom’ may occur, since those MS currently providing more 
generous protection standards ma y be inclined to lower their standards in order to avoid 
"attracting" larger numbers of asylum seekers.  
• Secondary movements  and the uneven distribution of asylum seekers and 
beneficiaries of protection will not be reduced . Only enhanced harmonisation at the EU 
level can reduce asylum seekers' incentive for m ovements in so far as they are linked to the 
divergences of national legisla tions and practice and the differe nt levels of rights provided 
in different MS. 
• Ambiguities and vagueness in the existing ac quis can only be resolved at EU level . 
Action by MS cannot lead to an overall improve ment of the quality and efficiency of the 
asylum process throughout the EU. 
3. POLICY OBJECTIVES  
The global objective  is to achieve higher standards of pr otection across the EU for persons in 
need of international protection.  
The specific objectives  are the following:  
1. To ensure the full and inclusive applica tion of the Geneva Convention and full 
respect of the ECHR an d of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;  
 
EN 4   EN 2. To approximate the content of protection gr anted to refugees and beneficiaries of 
subsidiary protection;  
3. To raise the overall content of protection ta king into account the specific needs of 
beneficiaries of inte rnational protection; 
4. To improve the efficiency of the asylum process;  
5. To ensure the consistent a pplication of agreed protecti on standards across the EU. 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
The diverse nature of the problems makes it im possible to identify one single all-embracing 
policy option. The Impact Assessmen t (IA) proposes thus separate  policy options for each of 
the policy objectives and it sets  out 2-4 legislative sub-options  or 2-4 legislative and 1 non-
legislative for each of these policy options. To determine the elements that should form the 
preferred option, all sub-options are assessed against the baseline scenario in terms of 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence, but al so in terms of their proportionality and their 
social impacts and impacts on fundamental ri ghts. Given the level of complexity of the 
proposed policy options, this summary is limite d to a description of the main elements 
composing the preferred policy option. 
5. MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION  
The preferred policy option: 
• Restricts the broad interpretation of the con cepts "actors of protection" and "internal 
protection" in line with the standards of the Ge neva Convention and the ECHR , by 
specifying the criteria for assessing the accessi bility and effectiveness of protection that 
should be available to the appl icant. The preferred practical cooperation option foresees the 
joint mapping of the criteria used for this assessment.  
• Ensures a more inclusive interpre tation of the concept "particular social gr oup" in line with 
the standards of the Geneva Convention , by better defining the signi ficance to be attached 
to aspects arising from the applicants' gende r and thus enhancing access to protection in 
particular for women. The join t mapping of the interpretations  as part of the practical 
cooperation element will contribute to the approximation of decision-making. 
• Approximates the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees  by 
removing all differences currently allowed by the Directive which can no longer be 
considered as objectively justified, regarding the duration of their residence permit; access 
to employment and employment-related educat ion activities; access to social welfare, 
healthcare and to integration facilities; acce ss to benefits for their family members. 
• Enhances the integration of be neficiaries of protection taking into account their specific 
needs : It grants them enhanced access to proced ures for recognition of  their qualifications; 
vocational training and employ ment support; accommodation a nd integration programmes 
that take into account their specific needs. The practical  cooperation foreseen would help 
MS identify and share good and cost-efficient practices. 
 
EN 5   EN • Enhances respect for the right of bene ficiaries of protection to family life : it broadens the 
definition of family members so as to address the case where a beneficiary is a minor and 
the wide range of situations where a minor mi ght be considered dependent, while ensuring 
that the decisive criterion is the best in terest of the child. The practical cooperation 
foreseen can help MS better define the criter ia for determining the best interests of the 
child. 
6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
6.1. Main advantages  
– By ensuring that the standards of the Direc tive are clear and adequate with a view to 
guarantee full compliance with international hu man rights and refugee law standards, the 
preferred option would attain better respect for the right to asylum and more generally 
for fundamental rights, including th e principle of non-discrimination .  
– By reducing room for uncertainty and admi nistrative error these amendments would 
streamline and enhance the quality, fairness , effectiveness and credibility of the 
asylum process .  
– By enhancing the consistent application of  standards, these amendments would help 
reduce secondary movements .  
6.2. Potential magnitude of financial impacts 
6.2.1.  Potential costs 
Quantifying costs of changes to the CEAS is particularly difficult. The size or profile of 
influxes of refugees cannot be predicted from y ear to year and there exist no statistics on why 
certain applications have been accepted and ot hers rejected. Protecti on is granted on a case-
by-case basis, as the result of th e analysis of the credibility and the individual circumstances 
of each applicant. Moreover, there is no inform ation available on the overall costs of hosting 
beneficiaries of protection or of  the individual rights they are gr anted. It is thus impossible to 
estimate how many applicants migh t actually be affected by am endments to the grounds of 
protection or to assess the effects of amendments to the rights granted to beneficiaries. Within the limits of these constraints, the following indications  can be provided.  
The 4 MS that would be poten tially affected by the amendmen t to the notion "actors of 
protection" received in total in 2008 74 535 applications whereas the 8 MS that might be 
affected by the amendment to the notion "internal protection"  received 81 575 applications. 
The 14 MS which would be affected by the ame ndment of the notion "particular social group" 
received in 2008 a total of 30 800 applications by women; the corresponding number in the 7 
MS which would be affected by the amendmen t of the nexus requirement was 14 800. The 
introduction of exceptions to ce ssation would potentially affect  10 MS, which in 2008 applied 
cessation in 7 020 cases. 
Overall impacts of the approximation of the two st atuses will vary: some MS (such as IE, SE 
and UK) will practically not be affected at all,  whilst a majority will need to eliminate the 
various differences they maintain. The obliga tion to provide beneficiaries of subsidiary 
protection with unconditional access to the la bour market would affect CY, DE and LU, 
where the numbers of beneficiaries of subsid iary protection who would potentially benefit 
 
EN 6   EN from this amendment can be estimated at 445, 1,925 and 504 respectively, thus representing a 
percentage of 0.11%, 0.0046 %,  and 0.23% of the labour force of these MS. The 
approximation of rights regarding social welfar e would affect DE, LU, LV and PT whereas 
the approximation regarding healthcare would affect MT; beneficiar ies of subsidiary 
protection hosted in these MS for the period 2005-2008 were 3,375, 340, 5, 95 and 3,010 respectively. The approximation regarding access to integration programmes might affect at 
least 8 MS where the total popula tion of beneficiaries of subsid iary protection for the period 
2005-2008 amounted to 5 495 persons, whereas the av erage per capita cost of integration 
programmes provided by one MS amounts to EUR 682.  
The impact of enhanced acce ss to procedures for the r ecognition of qualifications, 
employment support and integration programmes granted to beneficiaries of international 
protection should be limited. Beneficiaries of protection aged 15-64 recognised in EU 
between 2005 and 2008 are estimated at 245 132 and thus represent only 0.1% of the EU 
labour force, whereas persons gran ted protection in the EU in the same period represent only 
1,07% of the EU population of third-country na tionals. The total number of dependants of 
persons having received protec tion in 2005-2008 in the 14 MS whic h might be affected by the 
broadening of the definition of family me mbers is estimated at less than 18 500.  
The likely total administrative costs of the preferred option are estimated at EUR 3 094 407. 
6.2.2.  Potential savings 
– By diminishing the impetus for asylum seek ers to move, the preferred option can reduce 
asylum flows within the EU, and the costs fo r the implementation of the Dublin system.  
– By shortening the duration of the first-in stance procedure and reducing appeals, the 
preferred option can lead to ad ministrative and financial savings : there are indications that 
appeals can double the cost of an asylum cl aim whereas an estimated 110 846 appeals were 
lodged in 2007. It would also reduce costs invo lved in reception services: on average, 1 
reception year may cost EUR 11 000 per person whereas the average length of first instance procedures is 6 months and of appeal procedures is 1 year.  
– As a result of the approximation of the rights attached to the two statuses, administrative 
procedures would be streamlined and costs associated with creating and maintaining 
different infrastructures would be eliminated.  
– In the longer term, investments into integrati on support could be offset to a certain extent 
by the positive economic and social effects of  sustainable employment and successful 
integration of beneficiaries (e xpected to occur more or less 2 years following the granting 
of protection).  
National measures to implement th e standards of th e proposal are  eligible for co-funding 
under the European Refugee Fund a level of 50% or 75%.  
6.3. Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights 
The whole CEAS is based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, the 
obligations that flow from huma n rights instruments such as th e ECHR, and the full respect of 
the rights enshrined in the Ch arter of Fundamental Rights. Th e preferred option ensures that 
persons genuinely seeking protection in the EU  are granted such protection on the basis of 
high standards and in line with these obligatio ns. In particular, it enhances the access of 
 
EN 7   EN asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection (and their family members) to protection and 
justice, to social integration and to the labour market, and ensures full respect of the principle 
of non-discrimination. 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The IA sets out a number of indicators that can be used to assess the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the preferred option in achieving the main po licy objectives and explains the 
arrangements for their collection and evaluation in  particular for the pur poses of preparing the 
regular reports on the applicati on of the Directive. Furthermor e, the Asylum Support Office 
will institutionalise a comprehensive sharing of  information on asylum processing through 
formalised procedures and will ensure the systematic evaluation of  the additional data 
collected.