EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2945 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the  
 
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers 
  
Summary of the Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 815 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2944} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The adoption of a proposal for the amendmen t of the Council Directive 2003/9/EC laying 
down minimum standards for the reception of as ylum seekers (hereafter referred to as the 
Reception Conditions Directive) was include d in the Commission's Work Programme for 
20081 as one of its strategic initiatives. 
With a view to preparing for the second stage of  the asylum legislation, as called for by The 
Hague Programme2, the Commission launched the evaluatio n process of the results achieved 
in the first phase of the establishment of th e Common European Asylum System (hereafter 
referred to as the CEAS), including inter alia  the issue of reception conditions of asylum 
seekers.  
In this respect, the Commission issued a report on 26 November 20073 (hereafter referred to 
as the Evaluation Report ) on the transposition and applica tion of the Directive by Member 
States highlighting the areas where clarificatio n of the existing provisions and/or further 
harmonisation is required. Additionally the Commission presented in June 2007 a Green 
Paper with a view to consult stakeh olders on the possible options shaping the second phase of 
the CEAS also in relation to the reception of asylum seekers. Finally, several expert meetings 
took place with Member States, UNHCR, NGOs, and academics in  view of identifying the 
main areas of concern to be addressed during the second phase of the asylum legislation.  
The issues raised and the suggestions put forward during the consultation process have 
provided the basis for the preparatio n of this Impact Assessment.  
2. STATE OF PLAY AND PROBLEMS  
The following problems have been identified in  the area of reception conditions for asylum 
seekers: 
• The Reception Conditions Directive does not always guarantee adequate standards of 
treatment for asylum seeker s, notably in relation to: 
– access to the labour market; 
– level and form of materi al reception conditions; 
– addressing the needs of vulnerable persons; 
– detention; 
– scope of application of the Directive.  
• Different standards of treatment between vu lnerable asylum seekers and vulnerable 
nationals, could lead to discrimination.  
• The lack of harmonised reception conditions  could increase secondary movements of 
asylum seekers which impose an unfair stra in on national administ rations and on asylum 
seekers themselves. 
                                                 
1 COM (2007) 640 
2 The Hague Programme: st rengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, adopted on 
5 November 2004 
3 COM (2007) 745 
 
EN 3   EN The Impact Assessment then looks into the possi ble evolution of the si tuation if no actions 
were taken at EU level and concludes that the existing problems would persist and that there 
is a strong need for EU action.  
3. POLICY OBJECTIVES  
The general objectives  of the second phase of the CEAS  with regard to the Reception 
Conditions Directive are to ensu re higher standards of treatme nt for persons in need of 
international protection and to  contribute to the reduction of  the phenomenon of secondary 
movements. 
The new Directive shall in particular ensure the following specific objectives: 
I) To facilitate access to the labour market; II) To ensure adequate standards for material reception conditions; 
III) To guarantee that the needs of vulne rable groups are adequately addressed;  
IV) To ensure that detention is applied only in exceptional cases and to strengthen legal 
guarantees for detained asylum seekers; 
V) To clearly define the scope of  application of the Directive.  
4. P
OLICY OPTIONS  
Taking into consideration the different nature of  the above mentioned specific objectives, the 
Impact Assessment proposes separate policy options for each of these objectives. The 
preferred policy option has been constructe d by combining the preferred policy options 
selected for each specific objective.  
4.1. Status Quo  
The existing legal framework would remain unchanged and ongoing activities in Member 
States would continue.  
The Commission would continue monitoring th e implementation of the Reception Conditions 
Directive.  
4.2. Preferred Policy Option 
Given the level of complexity of the proposed policy options, this summary is limited to an 
enumeration of the main elements composi ng the preferred policy option. The preferred 
policy option consists of both legislative options  and options focused on fostering practical 
cooperation amongst Member States. 
With regard to: 
• the scope of the Directive , the preferred policy option: 
– clarifies that the Directive applies during all types of asylum proce dures (including Dublin) 
and to all geographic areas and facilities hos ting asylum seekers (including detention); 
– ensures that applicants for subs idiary protection are included.  
• access to the labour market the preferred policy option: 
– shortens time limitations rega rding access to employment; 
– prohibits the imposition of conditions to the labour market at national level that could 
hinder the right to employment for asylum seekers. 
 
EN 4   EN The preferred practical cooperation option whic h complements the preferred legislative one 
foresees the exchange of best practices, with in the EURASIL framework,  in relation to labour 
restrictions with a view to furt her facilitate access; for exampl e, Member States' tradition of 
not requiring work permits and/or of allowi ng immediate access to employment could be 
presented next to that of Member States fo reseeing stricter measures in this domain.  
• detention of asylum seekers, the preferred policy option:  
– aims to ensure that detention should normally  be avoided and used only in exceptional 
cases; 
– introduces a number of procedural guarantees fo r detained asylum seekers such as the right 
to be informed on the grounds of detention and on the possibilities to challenge the 
detention decision befo re a national court; 
– provides for conditions of detention taking into consideration the vulnerable situation of 
persons with special needs notably children and victims of torture;  
– provides that minors will not be detained unle ss it is in their best interests whereas 
detention of unaccompanied minors will not be allowed; 
– introduces a system of periodic revi ew in order to monitor detention. 
The preferred practical cooperation option whic h complements the preferred legislative one 
foresees exchanging best practices, within the EURASIL framework, with those Member 
States that apply alternative measures to de tention (i.e. financial guarantee, provision of a 
guarantor etc).  
• material reception conditions , the preferred policy option:  
– follows a quantitative approach regarding the principle of 'adequate level of material 
reception conditions' by introducing a benchmar k, namely the minimum level of social 
assistance granted to nationals; 
– introduces a reporting requirement for Me mber States in view of monitoring, inter alia , the 
level of assistance granted to asylum seekers;  
– ensures that the withdrawal or  reduction of reception condi tions by national authorities is 
in line with the principle of adequate standa rd of living and guarantees a right of appeal 
against such decisions.  
The preferred practical cooperation option whic h complements the preferred legislative one 
foresees the exchange of best practices, with in the EURASIL framework, in order to ensure 
higher standards concerning material reception cond itions while also taking into consideration 
Member States' reception capaciti es; in specific, ideas could be shared on how to better 
channel asylum seekers' needs through receptio n centres or on how to ensure that housing 
facilities take into account age and gender consid erations and respect the right to privacy and 
family life.  
• persons with special needs, the preferred policy option: 
– ensures the establishment of mechanisms that could adequately identify special needs and 
provide monitoring of indivi dual cases where necessary; 
– facilitates access to education for minors; 
– introduces an obligation for Member States  to prevent gender related crimes in 
accommodation centres; 
 
EN 5   EN – clarifies the meaning of essential notions cu rrently provided in the Directive such as 
'necessary medical or other assistance' and 'essential treatment of illness'; 
– introduces the obligation for adequate training of staff in contact with victims of torture or 
rape. 
The preferred practical cooperation option whic h complements the preferred legislative one 
foresees: 
– the exchange of best practices, within th e EURASIL framework at a regular basis, 
regarding the treatment of vulne rable groups, in particular in order to ensure pro-activeness 
in identifying special needs, to guarantee ac cess to adequate treatment where necessary, 
and to ensure that staff in contact with vulnerable groups receive appropriate training; 
– practical cooperation within the EURASIL fram ework could assist in the adoption of an 
EU handbook that could assemble best practices at EU level concerning training of staff in 
contact with vulnerable groups, guidelines on the identification of special needs, 
accommodation of vulnerable persons etc.  
The main advantages of the preferred option are: 
• It ensures higher standards  of treatment for asylum seek ers (facilitated access to the 
labour market, procedural guarantees for deta inees, higher standards of treatment for 
vulnerable groups etc.) in line with interna tional law, notably the UN Convention on the 
Rights of the Child and the EU Char ter of Fundamental Human Rights;  
• It achieves further harmonization  of reception conditions thr ough legislative intervention 
as well as enhanced measures of practical c ooperation thus fostering equal standards of 
treatment throughout the EU and ensuring a comprehensive approach to reception conditions. 
As far as the main impacts are concerned:  
• Ensuring higher standards of reception will ha ve an overall positive impact for asylum 
seekers concerning respect of their fundamental rights. In particular, the right to free 
movement will be reinforced by providing that  detention should only occur in exceptional 
cases and that unaccompanied minors will not be  detained; facilitati ng access to the labour 
market will make asylum seekers more self-suffi cient and will assist in their integration to 
the hosting Member State; vulnerable groups  will be more adequately addressed by 
ensuring that their needs are duly and timely identified and that access to appropriate 
treatment is available; finally, exchanging best  practices and adopting guidelines in all the 
relevant areas of reception conditions could be a very useful instrument for ensuring that 
the highest possible standards are applied throughout the EU;  
• By ensuring more equal standards of treat ment throughout the EU, notably concerning 
detention, material reception conditions and access to the labour market, the proposed 
measures could assist in reducing the phe nomenon of secondary movements. Practical 
cooperation could also assist in establishing common practices in the area of reception of 
asylum seekers especially co ncerning the treatment of vu lnerable groups through the 
adoption of an EU Handbook consisting of best procedures and policie s to be applied by 
all Member States.  
As far as the financial feasibility is concerned: 
• financial efforts would be requir ed in order to comply with th e new Directive, with regard 
to: 
 
EN 6   EN – material reception conditions in view of aligni ng their policies with the benchmarks set out 
in the new Directive;  
– treatment of vulnerable persons, in view of establishing at national level mechanisms for 
identifying special needs;  
– ensuring access to health care for vulnerable persons under the same conditions applicable 
for nationals;  
• the envisaged intervention rega rding shortening time constrai nts for access to the labour 
market could achieve savings for Member States. This could be attributed to the fact that 
asylum seekers would be more self-sufficien t therefore additional we lfare assistance would 
be avoided. Moreover they would contribute to Member St ates' fiscal systems through 
labour taxation; 
• ensuring that detention is applied only in ex ceptional cases would also result in savings for 
Member States; due to the high number of staf f employed in detention centres in order to 
meet security requirements, detention po licies could prove more costly than 
accommodating asylum seekers in open reception centres .  
5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The monitoring and evaluation of the preferred policy option will be an important element to 
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the ne w Directive. In this respect the Commission 
will regularly evaluate and report on the impl ementation of the new Directive in Member 
States. In addition yearly reporting mechanisms  will also be put in place with a view to 
monitor those areas whose implementation proved problematic during the first-phase of the asylum legislation. Regular expert  meetings will continue to ta ke place in view of discussing 
implementation problems and exchanging best  practices between Member States.  
The table below includes a proposed list of indicators that could be used to assess the progress 
and effectiveness of the pr eferred option in achieving th e main policy objectives.  
Indicators 
• Level of implementation by Member States of  the amendments proposed to the Directive 
on Reception Conditions; 
• Number of asylum seekers in a Member State; 
• Number of asylum seekers employed in a Member State; 
• Number of asylum seekers identified to ha ve special needs and number of referrals to 
competent institutions; 
• Number of Dublin requ ests and transfers;  
• EURODAC hits; 
• Amounts of benefits granted to asylum seekers; 
• Number of persons benefiting from ERF-funded activities;  
• Level of financial resources allocated for the ERF;  
• Level of financial resources allocated for practical coopera tion activities;  
• Number of trainings carried out.