Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof"

(2001/C 357/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (COM(2000) 303 final) - 2000/0127 (CNS);

having regard to the decision of the Council on 25 July 2000, under Article 265 first paragraph and Article 137 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

having regard to the decision of its President on 19 October 2000, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the CoR, to instruct Commission 5 - Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism - to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 420/2000 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 5 on 19 April 2001. [rapporteur: Mr von Plüskow (D/PSE)],

adopted the following opinion at its 39th plenary session on 13 and 14 June 2001 (meeting of 13 June).

The Committee of the Regions

1. stresses that no time must be lost in reaching agreement between the Member States with regard to giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons. It is precisely because there is no immediate prospect of a dramatic event such as the Kosovo crisis that this is now the opportunity to draw up well considered and balanced rules;

2. takes the view that giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons is an important objective for an area of freedom, security and justice. It is an important element in a common European asylum system designed to ensure that both elements - refugee status on the basis of the Geneva Convention and subsidiary protection through the asylum systems of individual states - are effective;

3. welcomes the conclusions of the Presidency of the Tampere European Council of October 1999 which expressed the intention to work towards a common European asylum system based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention on refugees and maintaining the principle of non-refoulement;

4. highlights the considerable impetus given by the German and Finnish Presidencies and the Council conclusions of 27 May 1999 towards progress in this area;

5. points out that under Article 63(2)(a) and (b) of the EC Treaty, the Council can adopt measures relating to refugees and displaced persons in the following areas:

- minimum standards for giving temporary protection to displaced persons from third countries who cannot return to their country of origin, and

- measures to promote a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons.

The EU's handling of the crises in the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo) provides evidence that there have been welcome improvements in Member States' machinery for action and procedural structures and in cooperation between Member States. During the Kosovo crisis in particular, action by the Member States, which was coordinated from the start, was a major factor in limiting the conflict;

6. points out that, in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons, it is primarily regions and municipalities which face major practical challenges. It has been shown that the plethora of different national regulations on giving temporary protection has made it difficult to coordinate the actions of Member States to admit the persons concerned in their respective territories. There are differences in particular with regard to the rights and social benefits of those admitted;

7. therefore welcomes in principle the draft Directive, which has the potential to substantially accelerate the current trend to create an effective Community procedure, thereby helping to achieve the objectives of

- being able to provide EU assistance efficiently and on the basis of solidarity,

- guaranteeing the operability of national asylum systems in the Member States by preventing them from becoming overloaded,

- being able to provide protection for the persons concerned quickly and simply, and

- sharing the burden of reception equally between the Member States;

8. points out that the implications of the proposed Directive will affect local and regional authorities directly, whether in the form of

- social responsibilities in conjunction with the reception of displaced persons,

- practical responsibilities involved with accommodating such persons, or

- financial burdens incurred in meeting their material needs and providing benefits;

Indeed, through their actions in the social field, local and regional authorities play a considerable role in receiving displaced persons. It is important to note that the experiments they are setting up at local level can be a significant breeding ground for transferable projects;

9. regrets that the draft Directive does not contain any rules for the coordinated return of displaced persons from the Member States;

10. emphasises that the draft Directive provides an appropriate overall framework of measures;

11. but notes that modifications are needed with regard to certain aspects of the specific impact on the regions, all the more so inasmuch as the Directive is only intended to lay down minimum standards [cf. also Article 3(5)].

Recommendations

Focusing on the main elements of the draft, the Committee of the Regions therefore recommends the following modifications and additions to the Commission's proposed Directive:

12. Maximum duration of temporary protection (Article 4)

The CoR is in favour of limiting the duration of temporary protection as proposed to one year extendible to a total of two years. This provision clarifies and reinforces the temporary nature of refugee reception in the event of a mass influx.

13. Establishment of a mass influx of displaced persons (Article 5)

The CoR welcomes the proposed establishment of the mass influx of displaced persons by means of a Council decision adopted by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission. Dispensing with the need for a unanimous decision will serve the objective of providing suitably prompt humanitarian aid in crisis situations.

14. Access to the labour market (Article 10)

14.1. The CoR welcomes efforts to enable the beneficiaries of such protection to use the time of their stay in a worthwhile manner.

14.2. In addition, the CoR feels it is excessive to pre-empt the Member States' own policy considerations with regard to access to the labour market by means of the proposed minimum standard, which is very generous.

15. Access to general education and vocational training (Article 12)

15.1. The CoR would stress that access to general education and to vocational training, further training or retraining is essential if those who are receiving temporary protection are to use the time of their stay in a worthwhile manner.

15.2. The CoR welcomes access to the general education system for minors under the same conditions as for nationals of the host Member State.

16. Minimum requirements with regard to family reunification [Articles 13 and 14(3)]

16.1. The CoR highlights the need to reunite families. However, it is pleased to note that, unlike the proposed Directive on the right to family reunification of 1 December 1999, this proposal does not entail an obligation to justify the right to family reunification. This is primarily in view of the temporary nature of the protection given. These provisions are based on the humanitarian approach to providing assistance, which finds its justification in the causes of the flight. The risk of families becoming separated is particularly great in cases of mass exodus, which is the type of situation this proposal seeks to cater for. It is therefore right that family reunification should be restricted to families established in the country of origin, thereby excluding both reunification with a view to establishing a family and reunification with family members from a third country which is not the country of origin (Comments on Article 13).

16.2. The Committee also considers it unwise to grant unrestricted freedom of choice with regard to the Member State responsible for receiving families. The freedom to choose the host Member State in which the family is to be reunited - as provided for in Article 13(5) - gives cause for concern, as the proposed procedure does not rule out the possibility of subsequently upsetting the balance of burden-sharing in the admission of persons for temporary protection. Experience has shown that Member States differ in their degree of attraction for those seeking protection. Secondary migrations may therefore lead to an imbalance in burden-sharing, apart from entailing additional administrative expense which is not justified in the circumstances. In order to prevent secondary migrations, investigations should be undertaken to confirm the identity of those admitted so as to enable them to be allocated to the individual Member States.

16.3. The CoR therefore feels that family reunification should normally take place in the Member State in which the majority of family members are already staying, or, if there are the same number of family members in each place, the state where family members have been staying the longest.

17. Measures after temporary protection (Article 19)

17.1. The CoR welcomes the fact that, when the temporary protection ends, the Member States' national regulations on protection and entry and residence of foreign nationals will apply to the persons received.

17.2. The Committee also recommends coordinating Member States' measures to assist with returning displaced persons. It regrets that the proposed Directive does not provide for any such coordination of Member States' measures once the temporary protection is ended. The experience of returning refugees to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo militates for coordinated action by the Member States on returning as well. The combination of financial assistance and project-oriented reconstruction work could substantially increase the effectiveness of measures to promote and assist voluntary returns. The Committee therefore feels that the Directive should provide for agreement among the Member States on joint efforts to promote reconstruction and the reintegration of displaced persons in their country of origin as a coordinated policy for the return of displaced persons following on from the provision of temporary protection.

To this end it would highlight the comments contained in the Opinion on Migratory Flows in Europe(1), and in particular the initiatives listed in point 3.5 which aim to promote all useful efforts to create the conditions to launch a development process in emigration areas. The Committee would also refer to the conclusions contained in point 4 of the same opinion as providing the first steps towards identifying the measures needed to guarantee implementation of the policies which would ensure optimum reinsertion in the country of origin.

17.3. The CoR also considers it essential to prevent a situation whereby, within the meaning of Article 6(1)(a), Member States may make differing assessments of the possibility of a return, bringing them out of step as regards either proceeding with returns or allowing a longer stay. It would help to promote coordinated measures to assist with returns if the Council were to take a Decision on the possibility of a return for the cases covered by Article 6(1)(a) by analogy with Article 6(2). In dealing with the Kosovo crisis, it proved to be particularly valuable to receive up-to-date and reliable information on the situation in the region. The involvement of NGOs from an early stage was indispensable in this respect.

18. No return in the case of ongoing medical treatment (Article 22)

18.1. The Committee of the Regions explicitly endorses the proposed arrangements in Article 11, whereby persons enjoying temporary protection are to be granted access to social benefits and appropriate medical and psychological treatment in addition to suitable accommodation. The Committee above all recognises the need to provide those enjoying temporary protection with the medical treatment required to deal in particular with the possible consequences of their war experiences.

19. Funding from the European Refugee Fund (Article 24)

19.1. The CoR welcomes the proposal to finance the measures provided for in the draft Directive from the European Refugee Fund on a basis of solidarity. It does however recommend either setting up a Community financial reserve for the event of a mass influx, or to make provision for any decision establishing a mass influx to be accompanied by a decision to increase the resources of the European Refugee Fund.

19.2. According to the CoR's assessment, the current financial resources of the European Refugee Fund would be nowhere near adequate to cover the funding needed to provide temporary protection in the Member States. Even with co-financing, the fund would only be a realistic source of financial support if the Council Decision establishing a mass influx of displaced persons was accompanied by a proposal to effect a substantial and short-term increase in the resources of the European Refugee Fund.

20. The principle of double voluntary action (Article 25)

20.1. The CoR welcomes in principle the proposal to show solidarity in taking on the burdens resulting from the granting of temporary protection and the consequences of reception. It would nevertheless like to see provision made in the Directive for the burden to be shared among the Member States according to stipulated reception capacities. A quota system laying down an obligation to receive a specified allocation would ensure more effective provision of protection as well as clear and transparent burden-sharing.

20.2. In contrast, the CoR feels that the proposed principle of double voluntary action is less effective. The pledging procedure in use when the Kosovo refugees were received was only partially successful in providing rapid and unbureaucratic assistance. Member States' decisions whether to offer protection were determined not only by their capacity and willingness to do so, but also by general political considerations and currents of public opinion. These kind of imponderables are not conducive to effect provision of protection.

21. Joint selection of eligible persons in the event of evacuations

21.1. The CoR feels that, in order to cater for the possibility that an evacuation of persons in need of protection may become necessary, the Directive should provide for a panel to be put together jointly by the Member States for the purpose of selecting the eligible persons in the country of origin.

21.2. Past experience has shown that in cases of evacuation from crisis zones - as in the evacuation of Kosovar refugees from Macedonian refugee camps - each Member State sends its own committee to the region to select those who will be granted protection. Provision should therefore be made in such circumstances for a panel to be put together jointly by the Member States (if necessary involving NGOs) for the purpose of selecting those eligible for evacuation according to uniform criteria in a decision which will be binding on the Member States.

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert

(1) (CdR 227/1999 fin), OJ C 57, 29.2.2000, p. 67.