EN

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 17.6.2008

SEC(2008) 2029

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS POLICY PLAN ON ASYLUM AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO PROTECTION ACROSS THE EU Impact Assessment {COM(2008) 360 final} {SEC(2008) 2030}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 4

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 5

2.1. Scope of the problem 5

2.2. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 15

2.3. Does the EU have the right to act? Treaty base, 'necessity test' (subsidiarity) and fundamental rights limits. 18

2.4. Summary of main conclusions drawn from the Green Paper consultation 22

3. OBJECTIVES 25

3.1. General objective 25

3.2. Specific objectives 25

3.3. Operational objectives 26

3.4. Consistency with other EU policies and horizontal objectives as the Lisbon strategy and respect for fundamental rights 27

4. POLICY OPTIONS 28

4.1. Policy option A – status quo 28

4.2. Policy Option B1: Full scale harmonisation of EU legislation 28

4.3. Policy Option B2: Further development of EU legislation 29

4.4. Policy option C: Cooperation and exchange of best practices 30

4.5. Policy Option D: Overall comprehensive legal instrument on asylum and creation of a European Asylum Authority 31

5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 32

5.1. Identifying and assessing measurable impacts of each of the policy options 32

6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS 47

6.1. Comparison of ratings, results of the weighing 47

6.2. Preferred option 47

7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 54

Annex 1 - Summary of the contributions received to the Green Paper (COM (2007) 301) 56

Annex 2 – Statistical Data 60

Annex 3 - Existing EU asylum measures 71

Annex 4 - Assessment criteria 73

Annex 5 - Cost assessment 75

Annex 6 - Glossary 86

Lead DG: Justice, Freedom and Security

1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

The Commission's Work Programme for 2008 COM (2007) 640 included the adoption of a Policy Plan on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as one of its strategic initiatives CLWP reference No : 2008/JLS/020 . The Policy Plan should define a blueprint for the coming years and list the measures that the Commission intends to take in order to complete the second phase of the CEAS, and in particular in order to adapt the European legislation on reception conditions and assessment criteria, to achieve fuller harmonisation of national rules on eligibility criteria, and progress towards a single procedure for assessing applications for international protection. This should allow at the same time for a true expression of European values of solidarity. A road map was prepared for this strategic initiative http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/clwp2008_roadmap_strategic_initiatives.pdf . [1][2][3]

COM (2007) 640

CLWP reference No : 2008/JLS/020

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/clwp2008_roadmap_strategic_initiatives.pdf

The Commission considered that, before proposing any new initiative, an in-depth reflection and debate with all the relevant stakeholders on the future architecture of the CEAS was necessary. It therefore presented in June 2007 a Green Paper COM (2007) 301 (hereinafter "the Green Paper") aiming to identify the possible options for shaping the second phase of the CEAS. The response to the public consultation included 89 Contributions from a wide range of stakeholders The 89 contributions received are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylum_system_en.htm . An analysis of the contributions is attached in annex 1. , including 20 Member States, regional and local authorities, the Committee of Regions and the Economic and Social Committee, UNHCR, academic institutions, political parties and a large number of NGOs. The issues raised and the suggestions put forward during the consultation have provided the basis for the preparation of this Policy Plan.[4][5]

COM (2007) 301

The 89 contributions received are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylum_system_en.htm . An analysis of the contributions is attached in annex 1.

The Commission ordered an external study Impact assessments on certain instruments of the Common European Asylum Policy, Ernst&Young Financial Business Advisors S.P.A. (Specific contract No JLS/2007/A1/xx). The external study will be published at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_en.htm (hereinafter "the external study") in order to get support for the preparation of the Impact Assessment. The external study constitutes the main support for this report. The problem, objectives and policy options assessed were based on the interim report from the contractor prepared in close consultation with the Commission and on the basis of an analysis of the contributions to the Green Paper and existing evaluation reports of EC asylum instruments Report on the evaluation of the Dublin system (COM (2007) 299); report on the evaluation of the Reception Conditions Directive (COM (2007) 745) .[6][7]

Impact assessments on certain instruments of the Common European Asylum Policy, Ernst&Young Financial Business Advisors S.P.A. (Specific contract No JLS/2007/A1/xx). The external study will be published at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_en.htm

Report on the evaluation of the Dublin system (COM (2007) 299); report on the evaluation of the Reception Conditions Directive (COM (2007) 745)

The external study and this report have been drafted with input from numerous contacts between the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security and the contractor as well as one meeting of an inter-service steering group at which participated representatives of the Directorates-General for External cooperation programmes (EuropAid) and for Humanitarian aid (ECHO) This meeting took place on 10 March 2008. Apart from the two Directorates-General whose representatives attended the meeting, the following services and Directorates-General were invited to attend: SG, SJ, BEPA, EMP, EAC, RELEX, DEV, ELARG, ESTAT, BUDG. .[8]

This meeting took place on 10 March 2008. Apart from the two Directorates-General whose representatives attended the meeting, the following services and Directorates-General were invited to attend: SG, SJ, BEPA, EMP, EAC, RELEX, DEV, ELARG, ESTAT, BUDG.

The Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) was consulted on the draft final Impact Assessment report and issued its opinion on 21 April 2008 The opinion will be made available here: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2008_en.htm . The IAB acknowledged the good and innovative way in which the specific and operational objectives were explicitly linked to the various aspects of the problem. The IAB also formulated a number of recommendations which have been taken into account in this report notably as regards (i) clarifying the distinction between harmonised and higher standards; (ii) better explaining the broader impacts that the proposed common higher standards may have on the Member States; (iii) Addressing more fully the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality, in particular for the area of integration policy; and (iv) clarifying the plans for a European Asylum Support Office. [9]

The opinion will be made available here: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2008_en.htm

The Green Paper has been the main tool for consultation of the relevant stakeholders. On 7 November 2007 a Public Hearing attended by around 200 participants was organised in Brussels to debate the different avenues for the further development of the CEAS. Furthermore, meetings were organised between December 2007 and March 2008 with academic experts This meeting took place on 7 December 2007 , Member States Meetings took place in the context of contact committees on 11, 12, 25 February and in the Immigration and Asylum Committee of 5 March, 2008 , NGOs and UNHCR 18 February 2008 and Members of the European Parliament 5 March 2008 in order to seek their opinion on the future development of certain elements of the CEAS. [10][11][12][13]

This meeting took place on 7 December 2007

Meetings took place in the context of contact committees on 11, 12, 25 February and in the Immigration and Asylum Committee of 5 March, 2008

18 February 2008

5 March 2008

Most of the individual measures proposed in the Policy Plan will be the object of specific impact assessments. In particular the amendments to the Reception Conditions, Qualification and Procedures Directives and to the Dublin and Eurodac Regulations will be based on impact assessments, some of which are currently being prepared (amendments to the Dublin and Eurodac Regulations and to the Reception Conditions Directive).

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1. Scope of the problem See also annex 3 for an overview of existing EU asylum instruments[14]

See also annex 3 for an overview of existing EU asylum instruments

2.1.1. The persistence of refugee flows towards the EU

Refugee flows worldwide, including the flows towards the EU, are mainly driven by push factors Pull factors may also play a role at a second stage, i.e. when the asylum-seeker considers where to seek protection: the level of benefits granted by a country, the chances to receive protection, the existence of members of his/her community, etc. will partially determine the choice of destination for the asylum-seeker. : political instability, no/poor rule of law, lack of respect for human rights, undemocratic regimes, wars and civil conflicts, etc. Notwithstanding the positive impact that the EU's and the Member States' external policies might have in the long term on conflict prevention and on the development of stable, democratic and law-abiding regimes which can protect the lives and rights of their citizens, it can not reasonably be expected that the above mentioned push factors will disappear soon. It is therefore necessary to ensure that protection can be sought and obtained by third country nationals in the Member States of the EU, in compliance with international obligations to which all Member States have adhered, first and foremost the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees. [15]

Pull factors may also play a role at a second stage, i.e. when the asylum-seeker considers where to seek protection: the level of benefits granted by a country, the chances to receive protection, the existence of members of his/her community, etc. will partially determine the choice of destination for the asylum-seeker.

Notwithstanding the fact that refugee flows will not disappear in the foreseeable future, it’s worthwhile mentioning that, apart from an increase between 1996 and 2002, substantially fuelled by further armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, in the last 15 years (1992-2007) there has been a substantial and sharp drop in the number of applications in the EU: considering indeed only EU 15, the number of applications fell from 672,385 recorded in 1992 to 197,150 in 2007.

Taking a closer look at the most recent trends, since 2003, the number of asylum-seekers in the EU has decreased sharply: from a total of 344,800 asylum applications lodged in EU 27 in 2003 to 222,170 in 2007 (- 35%) See Table 3 in the Statistical Appendix in Annex 2. . The drop in the number of applications lodged has been recorded in most EU Member States, with particularly significant falls in some of them (e.g. Slovenia (-65%), Austria (-63%), Germany (-62%), France (-52%), while a limited number of Member States witnessed a significant increase in asylum applications: Malta (303%), Greece (207%), Sweden (15%), Hungary (42%), Cyprus (54%). It must also be noted that the general decreasing trend of the period 2002-2006 has stopped in 2007, as the number of applications in the EU27 have risen from 197,410 to 222,170 (+12%), mainly due to the inflow of Iraqi asylum-seekers. When looking at asylum flows from a historical perspective, it is clear that there are ups and downs and that any new conflict, be it in the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East or Africa, could lead to large flows of refugees fleeing towards the EU, as it happened in the past (namely with the Balkan and Chechen wars). [16]

See Table 3 in the Statistical Appendix in Annex 2.

2.1.2. The specific problems and their drivers

2.1.2.1. Legitimate measures against irregular immigration may be hampering access to protection in the EU for asylum-seekers

Recent times have seen significant year on year decreases in the number of persons seeking asylum in the EU. In 2006, however, the number of refugees worldwide rose for the first time in many years (to reach 9.9 million) while the number of asylum applications in the European Union (EU) reached a 20 year low (197,150). There are probably a number of factors influencing these trends. For example, more persons may be choosing to remain in the EU irregularly rather than enter an asylum procedure, for reasons including lack of confidence in the asylum systems or a fear of being detained or transferred under the mechanism established by the Dublin II Regulation. However, it has been noted See ECRE's study "Defending Refugee's Access to Protection in Europe", published in December 2007 and available at: http://www.ecre.org/files/Access.pdf that the reinforcement of the EU's external borders to prevent illegal immigration, though in line with international obligations, may be having in practice an impact in preventing refugees from reaching the territory of the EU and seek asylum in its Member States. This can be traced back, among other reasons, to a reinforcement of the external borders of the EU, to the deterring effects of the visa policy and to the lack of protection-sensitive training for border guards, which may lead to problems when asylum is requested at the border. The EU is constantly working to ensure that these measures are implemented in a way which ensures access to the EU for those in need of protection. [17]

See ECRE's study "Defending Refugee's Access to Protection in Europe", published in December 2007 and available at: http://www.ecre.org/files/Access.pdf

However, with relatively few legal ways to enter the EU to seek protection, most asylum-seekers are forced into resorting to irregular means of travel, thus creating mixed flows as they travel with migrants who are not in need of protection and whose motivation is mainly the search of better living conditions. In these mixed flows, people often place themselves in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers or traffickers and/or take life-threatening risks to complete the journey to Europe. Many are suffering violence and human rights abuses along the way and many are dying. It has been estimated See http://www.noborder.org/dead.php . This internet site documents incidents where immigrants have died while trying to enter Europe. The list is by no means complete as it only contains incidents that have been reported in the media. Most of the deaths at the border never make it into the papers. Also it only counts confirmed deaths while in incidents at sea (which make up the majority of the cases) there are often substantial amounts of people who are missing or unaccounted for. It is safe to assume that most of them have also died. Since the collection of data started in December 2002 the number of victims has risen to 2755 . Of these, 588 persons died in 2003, 296 in 2004, 343 in 2005, 653 in 2006, 732 in 2007. that a minimum of 2,755 persons have died between 2003 and 2007 while trying to enter the EU by sea. [18]

See http://www.noborder.org/dead.php . This internet site documents incidents where immigrants have died while trying to enter Europe. The list is by no means complete as it only contains incidents that have been reported in the media. Most of the deaths at the border never make it into the papers. Also it only counts confirmed deaths while in incidents at sea (which make up the majority of the cases) there are often substantial amounts of people who are missing or unaccounted for. It is safe to assume that most of them have also died. Since the collection of data started in December 2002 the number of victims has risen to 2755 . Of these, 588 persons died in 2003, 296 in 2004, 343 in 2005, 653 in 2006, 732 in 2007.

As an example of the mixed character of the migratory flows, it can be noted that since 2002, 48% of asylum applicants in Malta, most of whom arrive by sea in an irregular manner, were eventually recognised as in need of international protection. Meanwhile, to prevent irregular immigration, states are implementing an increasing array of legitimate border control measures that may sometimes lack the necessary mechanisms to identify potential asylum seekers and allow their access to the territory and subsequently to an asylum procedure. It has been criticised that this could lead in exceptional cases to the violation of the principle of non-refoulement as enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention at Europe’s borders. For instance, the current practice of some Member States, whose military vessels divert boats carrying immigrants in international or territorial waters of third countries in order to prevent them from arriving to their own coasts, could, under certain circumstances, be considered to infringe the non-refoulement principle if there are persons fleeing persecution aboard and no effort has been made by the Member States' authorities to identify them before diverting the boat. In addition, such practices could also in some cases infringe other fundamental rights, such as right to life or prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2.1.2.2. Immigrants who are not in need of protection abuse the asylum system to enter and stay in the EU

It is beyond doubt that the asylum system is abused by immigrants who do not need protection and who, wishing to enter the EU mainly for economic reasons, claim asylum to ensure their entry and stay. The absence of legal ways for economic migrants wishing to work in the EU is in certain cases directing persons without protection needs to the asylum system.

Asylum decisions data provide important information about the percentage of asylum-seekers who get some type of protection in the EU and about those who don't.

An estimated 237,380 decisions on asylum applications were rendered in first instance See Tables 1, 5 and 6 in the Statistical Appendix in annex 2. It is important to note than the picture provided by first instance decisions data is not complete. Many rejection decisions are overturned in appeal. Therefore, the real percentage of positive decisions is higher than the one revealed by first instance decision data. in the EU during 2006 Asylum decision data for all Member States for the year 2007 were not available at the time of preparation of this document. Therefore, 2006 asylum decision data are used. . The positive decisions were 23.05% of total decisions: 54,735 asylum-seekers were recognized as refugees or given a subsidiary/other form of protection in the course of 2006. This means, when considering recent years, a significant increase in the share of positive decisions out of their total number: from 10.08% in 2003 to 23.05% in 2006. The percentage of rejections on total decisions has decreased during the years between 2003 and 2006 from 70% in 2003 to 57.87% in 2006 In addition to positive decisions and rejections, there is a third type of decisions: 'other non-status decisions'. These three decision types sum up to 100% of decisions. . [19][20][21]

See Tables 1, 5 and 6 in the Statistical Appendix in annex 2. It is important to note than the picture provided by first instance decisions data is not complete. Many rejection decisions are overturned in appeal. Therefore, the real percentage of positive decisions is higher than the one revealed by first instance decision data.

Asylum decision data for all Member States for the year 2007 were not available at the time of preparation of this document. Therefore, 2006 asylum decision data are used.

In addition to positive decisions and rejections, there is a third type of decisions: 'other non-status decisions'. These three decision types sum up to 100% of decisions.

Notwithstanding the increase in positive decisions, rejections are still the majority of decisions taken. This is a clear sign that not all those who request asylum are actually in need of protection, and that many use the asylum system to get entry and stay in the EU. Rejected asylum-seekers can often avoid being returned and become illegally staying migrants. It has been calculated in one Member State that out of the total of negative decisions issued in first instance in 2006, only 50% led to the removal of the failed asylum-seeker.

The impact of regularisations of illegally staying third country nationals on asylum flows would seem to be rather limited. Such regularisations are usually related to the existence of a large pool of irregular 'economic' immigrants: the majority of them never applied for asylum. There have been, however, some regularisations of persons whose asylum procedures had lasted too long, or who had received a negative decision but could not be expelled. The need for such type of regularisations as a last resort shows that there are negative consequences arising from never-ending procedures and the lack of clear rules on the treatment of certain categories of persons who do not qualify for international protection but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin.

2.1.2.3. Secondary movements of asylum-seekers and refugees applying for international protection in more than one Member State impose an unfair strain on national administrations and on asylum-seekers and refugees themselves

An important issue related mainly to the differences in recognition rates between Member States See section 2.1.2.6. and to the different integration systems established at national level, is the so-called “secondary movements” phenomenon. In the area of international protection, this wide phenomenon can involve both asylum-seekers and refugees. [22]

See section 2.1.2.6.

The secondary movements by asylum-seekers signifies the phenomenon of multiple applications for asylum submitted simultaneously or successively by the same person in several Member States.

The secondary movements by refugees could take the form of either "asylum shopping", when the third country national, despite the fact that they already received international protection, apply again for asylum in the same or in another Member State Statistics on secondary movements by refugees are produced by the EURODAC Central Unit. They reveal that in the year of 2007, 204 refugees lodged a second asylum application after they have been recognized. These data are currently recorded only for statistical reasons and cannot as such be used for the time being in order to redress the secondary movements. , or of simple secondary movements when refugees move from one Member State to another one without applying again for asylum. [23]

Statistics on secondary movements by refugees are produced by the EURODAC Central Unit. They reveal that in the year of 2007, 204 refugees lodged a second asylum application after they have been recognized. These data are currently recorded only for statistical reasons and cannot as such be used for the time being in order to redress the secondary movements.

The phenomenon of secondary movements of asylum-seekers and refugees across the EU appears to be strongly related to the differences between Member States in terms of access to asylum procedures, receiving protection and obtaining a secure legal status, the lack of or inadequate knowledge about the asylum and asylum procedures, the reception conditions, the rights granted, as well as the possibility for social and economic integration.

From the point of view of the asylum-seeker, asylum shopping could in theory have the advantage of multiplying his/her chances of getting protection. From the point of view of refugees, asylum shopping could lead to a right to reside in a Member State other than the one in which they were recognized and admitted as refugees. One has to note though, that this right is currently not yet ensured at the EU level The Commission proposed in 2007 the extension of the scope of the Long Term Residence Directive (EC/2003/109) to cover refugees and persons enjoying subsidiary protection. . Nevertheless, moving from one Member State to another entails financial costs for the asylum-seeker, as well as distress and uncertainty. [24]

The Commission proposed in 2007 the extension of the scope of the Long Term Residence Directive (EC/2003/109) to cover refugees and persons enjoying subsidiary protection.

Looking at the phenomenon from the Member States' perspective, it is clear that it is inefficient and resource consuming. Asylum procedures will be initiated, incurring human and other resources, only to be abandoned some time later if, for instance, the asylum-seeker fails to appear for an interview because he/she has moved on to another Member State, where a new procedure has started. This problem can sometimes replicate itself in several Member States. Irregular secondary flows by refugees who don't apply again for asylum may pose a problem of overburdening public services.

One of the aims of the Dublin system was to address the phenomenon of asylum shopping by asylum-seekers by deterring them to lodge more than one asylum application in the same or in a different Member State. However, the actual deterring effect is largely dependent on the quality and level of information asylum-seekers are provided with. As the Evaluation report on the Dublin system has shown, in the absence of appropriate practices in this area, it is questionable whereas the expected deterrent effect has been achieved.

Measuring the scale of multiple applications by asylum-seekers See table 2 in Statistical appendix in annex 2 is a complex task, since statistics produced by the Eurodac Unit don't allow to draw definite conclusions. They provide however an indication of the scope of the problem. [25]

See table 2 in Statistical appendix in annex 2

According to the Eurodac regulation, Member States are obliged to fingerprint every third country national applying for asylum over the age of 14. According to the annual statistics on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2007 a total of 197,284 asylum applications were recorded in the system. Out of the total number of applications recorded, 16.17% were multiple applications (17% in 2006). Such a figure would suggest that in 31,910 cases, the same person had already made at least one asylum application before (in the same or in another Member State). However, discussions within the Eurodac expert group revealed that most Member States take fingerprints of asylum seekers also upon receipt of their transfer. This widespread practice This has been identified as one of the problems in the implementation of the EURODAC Regulation results in the statistics on "multiple applications" including also those asylum seekers who, falling under the provisions of the Dublin and Eurodac Regulations, are transferred from one Member State to another one, but they did not apply for asylum themselves, i.e. did not try to misuse the asylum system of Member States attempting to do "asylum shopping".[26]

This has been identified as one of the problems in the implementation of the EURODAC Regulation

Notwithstanding this technical issue, the available statistical data give an indication that the phenomenon of asylum shopping is a relevant issue that must be tackled in the EU context.

Finally, it must be borne in mind that the recent enlargement of the Schengen zone may have an impact on the secondary movements of asylum-seekers. As movements within the Schengen zone are not subject to border controls, some asylum-seekers can be tempted to apply for asylum immediately after their entry into the zone (for instance in Poland if they come from the Caucasus region via Ukraine) and then continue their travel to a western European country where they would again apply for protection. This could also have happened before Poland fully joined the Schengen area, but then the asylum-seeker would have had more difficulties entering one of the 'old' Schengen countries.

2.1.2.4. The asylum systems of some Member States are overburdened

The comparison of absolute numbers of asylum applications does not reflect other factors such as the size of public administrations or populations or the wealth of a country which vary widely between Member States and could all be said to affect a Member State's capacity for dealing with inflows of asylum seekers. Therefore, to assess whether the asylum system of a Member State is overburdened it is useful to look at indicators other than the absolute number of applications.

The "population ratio"; i.e. the number of asylum-seekers per 1000 inhabitants is widely used as a parameter giving at least some indication of the physical and administrative burden which asylum applications represent and enables comparison of the situation in different Member States

Data on asylum applications relative to the size of the resident population of the Member States show some interesting findings about the distribution of the burden of asylum seekers across EU Member States See Map 1 in the Statistical Appendix in Annex 2. : [27]

See Map 1 in the Statistical Appendix in Annex 2.

· Cyprus received by far the largest number of applications for asylum in relative terms in 2006 (5.9), followed by Malta and Sweden, with 3.1 and 2.7 applications respectively per thousand population;

· Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Slovak Republic and United Kingdom remained over the EU average of 0.4 in 2006 but showed a significant decrease in the number of applications per thousand population between 2003-2006;

· The new Member States (excluding Cyprus and Malta) were generally positioned under the EU average in 2006.

On the whole, it is worth noting that the distribution of asylum applications between EU Member States remained substantially unequal. Therefore, it cannot be denied that some Member States, due to their geographical position or other reasons, can be considered to be 'overburdened' (especially in situations of particular pressure) when the flow of asylum-seekers they receive is compared to the size of their population.

It appears that there would be two main reasons for the overburdening of certain Member States: Geography (this would apply to countries like Malta, Cyprus, Greece and Slovakia) and a "positive perception" of the asylum system (for countries like Sweden, Belgium and Austria, with relatively good reception conditions for asylum-seekers and higher recognition rates). To these factors, it is of course necessary to add the personal preferences of the asylum-seekers, the existence of family or friendship links, historical and economical factors, etc.

Although there currently exists an expression of financial solidarity in the area of asylum (the European Refugee Fund, ERF), its current level of resources is not sufficient to alleviate the overburdened Member States.

A final remark on the Dublin system is necessary here. The system, whose primary objective is to allocate responsibility for asylum applicants, has sometimes been criticized as a 'burden shifting' mechanism which penalizes certain Member States. However, the evaluation of the Dublin system prepared by the Commission COM (2007) 299 has demonstrated that the mechanism did not increase or decrease the total number of asylum seekers by more than 5% in most Member States. However, in the case of Poland, the increase was around 20% and in the case of Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary and Portugal, around 10%. As transfers seem to take place mainly towards countries which can be considered to be relatively under burdened from a demographic point of view, it can be stated that overall, the impact of the Dublin system on national asylum systems is of a redistributive nature.[28]

COM (2007) 299

2.1.2.5. Increasingly, people are seeking protection for reasons not foreseen in the traditional refugee regime, i.e. in the Geneva Convention and its Protocol, and are receiving protection statuses with lower guarantees

A development to be stressed in the trends on positive asylum decisions between 2003 and 2006 is an ever-growing percentage of them granting subsidiary protection or other forms of protection based on national laws: the share of positive decisions under the Geneva Convention did not change significantly (5.09% vs 7%) specially when considering that the percentage of positive decisions granting subsidiary or other forms of protection more than tripled in the years concerned (from 4.57% in 2003 to 15.24% in 2006) See table 1 in Statistical Appendix in annex 2 . On one hand, this trend can be partly explained by a growing mismatch between the nature of demand for protection and the criteria of the Geneva Convention: The drafters of the Convention had certain types of persecutions in mind, while today's refugees flee from newer forms of persecutions and conflicts not covered by the Convention. On the other hand, this depends on the fact that Member States have developed additional or subsidiary forms of protection so as to give asylum-seekers proper protection where they are not covered by the Geneva Convention but still need protection. [29]

See table 1 in Statistical Appendix in annex 2

The Geneva Convention has served well its purpose for more than 50 years. Flexibility in its interpretation has allowed its application to situations which were maybe not foreseen in the 1950s. However, most persons looking for protection nowadays fall outside its scope, as they flee situations of armed conflict and not personal persecutions for political or religious or other reasons. It could therefore be justified to try to modify/update it. This would be a difficult and lengthy process as it is an instrument of international law ratified by most countries of the world.

This development reflects two major problems:

· The risk of a weakening of the general levels of protection, due to the fact that recognition of refugee status according to the Geneva Convention is becoming relatively rare. The Geneva Convention status includes a large number of rights attached to it, but is only granted under strict conditions. The other protection statuses can be obtained more easily but include fewer rights and are often limited in time. More and more people are being protected with these 'residual' statuses, often of precarious nature.

· The risk of the amplification of the substantial differences across the EU in terms of practices, procedures and decision-making process for granting protection, due to the fact that the alternative forms of protection have emerged without any coordination, and are constantly evolving in all the Member States. The proliferation of such diversity in national practices may appear to be incompatible with the often stated objective of harmonizing asylum policy in the EU.

2.1.2.6. Divergent national practices lead to extreme differences in the recognition of protection in the Member States and causing inequalities in the level of protection across the EU

Substantial differences across the EU in terms of practices, procedures and decision-making processes for granting protection are reflected in the differences in recognition rates between Member States For the purpose of this analysis, the recognition rate is calculated as the number of total positive decisions as compared to the number of total decisions. See Tables 5 and 6 in Statistical Appendix in Annex 2. . These differences are also caused by diverging understandings of fundamental rights and of some asylum definitions, which were left deliberately vague in certain EU asylum instruments in order to reach a compromise. [30]

For the purpose of this analysis, the recognition rate is calculated as the number of total positive decisions as compared to the number of total decisions. See Tables 5 and 6 in Statistical Appendix in Annex 2.

In 2006, the share of total positive decisions is highly variable:

· it ranges between 0% and 3% of total first instance decisions in some Member States like Slovakia (0.3%), Slovenia (1%), Greece (1.75%), and Cyprus (3%);

· it appears limited in those Member States rendering most asylum decisions across the EU: Germany (6.3%), France (7.7%), UK (18.3%);

· it is significantly higher in certain Member States: Austria (26%), Belgium (29%), Sweden (49%), Italy (56%); the data for Sweden is particularly relevant considering that it was the second most important country of asylum in the EU in 2006.

The analysis of recognition rates recorded in the Member States regarding asylum applicants of the same nationality also provides significant information. Indeed, highly different recognition rates with regard to the same nationality could point to different standards of treatment between asylum countries.

A comparison of data for the period 2005-2007 on recognition rates for asylum decisions rendered by EU Member States with respect to third-country nationals from selected third countries confirms the high variability in recognition rates across the EU See table 7 in Statistical Appendix in annex 2 . For instance, on applications regarding asylum-seekers from Russia (mostly of Chechen background), in Austria 63% of decisions were positive while in Slovakia the percentage was 0%. 98% and 55% of Somali asylum-seekers got a positive decision in Malta and in the UK respectively while the percentage of positive decisions for the same group was 0% in Greece and Spain. In Belgium, 38% of Iraqi asylum-seekers received a positive decision, while in the UK that percentage was 20% and in Greece less than 2%. [31]

See table 7 in Statistical Appendix in annex 2

On the whole, the analysis clearly shows that there are significant differences in recognition rates between Member States, mainly due to differences across EU in terms of practices, procedures, diverse country of origin information sources and decision-making processes for granting protection and, therefore, to a lack of harmonization of the national policies and procedures in the field of asylum and to poor cooperation and exchange of information between national asylum administrations; in this respect, the importance of country of origin information cannot be sufficiently underlined: if Member States have conflicting information about the situation in a particular third country (with one Member State being informed that the human rights situation in that country is deplorable while another one has information confirming a clear improvement in human rights protection), it is more than logical that their asylum decisions on applicants coming from that country will be different. Different practical instructions at national level, including interviewing techniques, can also lead to very different results when assessing the credibility of the claims.

2.1.2.7. Persons in need of protection face particular integration problems and some of them are in situations of vulnerability

Due to the forced nature of their migration and the traumatic experiences many of them have gone through, compared with other migrant groups, refugees will often have specific needs that have to be met in order to support their integration. They will often be one of the most vulnerable groups in society while also being the most resilient. It is therefore important that the special needs of refugees are recognised in integration policies and practices, including those of specific groups such as women and children, within an overall policy of mainstreaming.

The extent to which refugees are able to integrate is critically and inextricably linked to the additional rights they are accorded upon recognition of their need for international protection. In this context, not granting persons afforded a subsidiary protection status the same rights as those recognised as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention could be considered to hinder their integration . At present in most European countries a low proportion of refugees are recognised as such under the 1951 Refugee Convention See point 2.1.2.5. and instead they are granted inferior legal statuses, such as subsidiary protection, which often afford much more limited rights than Convention status. [32]

See point 2.1.2.5.

Granting rights similar to those enjoyed by nationals or other third country nationals to all refugees would improve their integration prospects. For instance, refugees do not have yet the right to enjoy long-term resident status As established by Directive 2003/109. The Commission proposed in June 2007 (COM (2007) 298) an amendment to the Directive so that it would also apply to beneficiaries of international protection. It is currently being negotiated in Council and EP. . Such right would improve their access to social and economic rights as well as their freedom of movement . Another area where certain categories of protected persons have diminished rights is family reunification. It is difficult for refugees to rebuild their lives without the support of their families. For children (especially separated children) but also for refugees in general who have found safety and protection in Europe, one of the most pressing issues is concern for their family members left behind. However, certain categories of protected persons do not have full rights to family reunification and suffer restrictions related to length of residence, employment status, access to housing or earning capacity for example. This is particularly the case of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, whose right to family reunification is currently not recognised at EU level. [33]

As established by Directive 2003/109. The Commission proposed in June 2007 (COM (2007) 298) an amendment to the Directive so that it would also apply to beneficiaries of international protection. It is currently being negotiated in Council and EP.

Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that certain categories of asylum-seekers and refugees are in a particular vulnerable situation: unaccompanied children, victims of torture and women having suffered sexual violence are among them. In the particular case of children, for instance, although the best interests principle is sometimes raised in special provisions of the existing legislation concerning the treatment of children, there is no detailed guidance as to what the application of the principle means and how it should be applied in relation to different actions and steps in the procedure. Similarly, there are no standard obligations to ensure proper access to the asylum system for children, for example, through the obligation to provide children with adequate information, legal representation if necessary or the creation of child-friendly procedures. Crucially, there is no clear obligation concerning the appointment and role of a guardian for separated children.

Furthermore, the proper protection of refugee women very often lacks a gender-sensitive interpretation of the refugee definition as well as a gender-sensitive asylum procedure. Due sensitivity is not always paid to the particular difficulties and constraints that female asylum seekers may face when presenting their claims, in particular where they involve acts of sexual violation. Issues not completely explored in this context include the availability of trained female interpreters and interviewers, the confidentiality of records, as well as the availability and proper assessment of specific country of origin information on the role, status and treatment of women in the countries of origin.

2.1.2.8. Worldwide, most refugees remain in regions close to their countries of origin, without durable solutions and imposing a burden on poor, developing countries

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), between the 70s and the early 90s, there was a steady growth of the global refugee population (increased from 2.4 million in 1975 to 14.9 million in 1990), with a peak in 1993 when the number of refugees reached 18.2 million UNHCR 1995; UNHCR 2000. . [34]

UNHCR 1995; UNHCR 2000.

The global refugee population decreased substantially between 2000 and 2005, although in 2006 the number of refugees increased for the first time in five years and stood at 9.9 million (+14% with respect to 2005). Refugees came mainly from countries affected by war, violence and chaos. By region, the CASWANAME region Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and Middle East is the world's most affected, with close to 4 million refugees, followed by Africa with close to 2.5 million. Europe comes third with 1.7 million refugees See table 8 in Statistical appendix in annex 2. . The countries hosting the biggest refugee populations are, in decreasing order: Pakistan, Iran, the US, Syria, Germany, Jordan, Tanzania and the UK. [35][36]

Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and Middle East

See table 8 in Statistical appendix in annex 2.

At the same time, in 2006, a total of 605,000 new or appeal applications for asylum or refugee status were submitted to Governments or UNHCR offices in 151 countries, and out of the total of 605,000 asylum applications lodged during 2006, some 504,000 (83%) requests were submitted for the first time. Most applications were registered in Europe (307,000), followed by Africa (159,000), the Americas (78,000), Asia (53,500), and Oceania (7,100).

The figures on refugees and asylum-seekers confirm that, although the EU is the main destination for asylum-seekers among industrialized countries, most refugees in the world live in poor regions close to the areas of conflict, where resources for addressing their needs are scarce and where a durable solution for them is difficult to attain.

2.2. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?

The baseline scenario ('status quo') assumes that the existing EU legislative acquis in the area of asylum is not modified; that practical cooperation is developed in an ad hoc and decentralised way, with a relatively low level of resources; and that the external aspect of the asylum policy continues to support just a few third countries with limited financial support.

The existing EU and national measures do not satisfactorily address the problems described above. Most of these problems are persisting even after the adoption of certain common EU measures. Even if the existing EU legislative measures were to be perfectly implemented by the Member States, which is far from being the case, many problems would subsist. This is mainly due to the gaps and relatively low common standards of the legislation and the low level of solidarity existing today between Member States.

The evaluations already published of some of the EU instruments (Dublin system COM (2007) 299 , Reception Conditions Directive COM (2007) 745 ) have acknowledged their positive elements while at the same time have pointed to shortcomings and problems in transposition. The fact that the legislation of the first phase of the CEAS was adopted by unanimous vote in the Council meant that in many cases the level of ambition of the final texts was rather low and equalled the lowest minimum denominator. This explains why there are still many possibilities for improvement of the existing instruments. Examples of situations which would remain problematic under the statu quo are:[37][38]

COM (2007) 299

COM (2007) 745

Integration of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection : this is the fastest growing group of beneficiaries of international protection. The level of rights they enjoy (as established in EU legislation – Qualification directive and Family reunification directive) is lower than the level of rights of Geneva Convention refugees. As an increasing number of positive decisions are granting subsidiary protection status, the result at EU level is the creation of a 'second class' of protected persons that will have less chances to integrate and contribute positively to the hosting societies.

Reception conditions for asylum-seekers : given the very wide margin of manoeuvre left by the Directive on Reception Conditions, the differences in material conditions from one Member State to another are so big in terms of access to housing, health, education, social insurance, etc. that they are creating secondary movements of asylum-seekers who look for a more adequate level of support during the procedure. Vagueness in the definition of the cases when an asylum-seeker can be detained has led to some Member States systematically detaining all asylum-seekers while others never use detention. Finally, in some Member States access to the labour market is immediate, in others the asylum-seeker needs to wait one year.

Procedures : rules for procedures at the border are less stringent and do not provide for adequate legal safeguards. Legal assistance and interpretation are not set guarantees, leading to asylum-seekers not being able to properly defend their cases. This may lead to refusal of protection at the border and refoulement, contrary to MS international obligations.

Responsibility – the Dublin system: Although clearer rules on which Member State is responsible for an asylum application are part of the Dublin mechanism, there is a need for clarification of some of its provisions, to increase its efficiency. Even after many years of implementation, the Dublin mechanism seems to have only a limited effect deterring asylum-seekers from applying in more than one Member State: in recent years, between 15% and 20% of applications are repeated applications, i.e. persons who have already applied for asylum in another Member State.

Solidarity : the only tool embodying solidarity is the ERF, which has a level of resources clearly below what is needed to effectively finance the real efforts made by Member States to implement refugee policy. As an example, the French asylum administration (OFPRA) alone costs more or less 50€ million a year and the total resources of the ERF for 2008 (for 27 MS) are around 75€ million. There have not been many additional financial possibilities in order to support overburdened countries.

Practical cooperation : the current framework only provides for the possibility to finance ad hoc projects without much continuity; resources are scarce; coordination between Member States is still poor; quality of country of origin information varies from one MS to another and information is not fully shared; Eurasil meetings (where asylum experts from national administrations meet to exchange information and best practice) have been organised for years now without them seemingly having a significant impact, for instance, on an approximation of decision-making practices, which are still very divergent. Without structural support (both from a human and financial resources point of view), it will difficult to achieve the lever of coordination necessary to reach convergence of asylum-decisions in the Member States.

External action: A number of different projects have been financed in countries hosting large numbers of refugees, but the current external activities carried out by the EU and the Member States lack coherence and critical mass to be fully effective. For instance, the first Regional Protection Programmes pilot projects in Tanzania have been funded through the AENEAS 2005 and 2006 budgets with a total of 2.4€ million. If there was a joint effort with Member States' national projects in the same region (which hosts one of the largest refugee caseloads in the world), the impact of the joint EU action would be more effective. In addition, pooling of resources and a common approach to issues like resettlement could make a positive difference. The EU as such has so far not played an important role in resettlement.

A general, horizontal problem which has been identified is the lack of an effective monitoring system of the implementation of the different instruments of the CEAS. The complexity of the legal texts adopted and the need to monitor implementation in 27 Member States makes the Commission's task of monitoring transposition and implementation a very difficult exercise.

Another worrying development could be a 'race to the bottom'. For instance, if a Member State maintains high standards of protection while its neighbours decrease their standards, there is a risk that the more 'generous' Member State starts receiving an increasing number of asylum-seekers and becomes thus overburdened. Such a Member State could choose to lower its standards of protection to align itself with its neighbours. Given its particularities, in the area of asylum it is difficult to imagine a competition 'to the top' where Member States would compete between themselves by offering higher standards to asylum-seekers and refugees. The opposite is much more likely to happen, and this is why avoiding the 'race to the bottom' is an important justification for the establishment of higher standards of protection jointly at EU level rather than by individual action of the Member States.

The identified problems are likely to continue in the future if no action is taken to address them. The minimum legislative harmonisation reached so far will not be sufficient to ensure a high standard of protection in equal terms throughout the EU. Secondary movements will continue, fuelled by the divergences in national practices. And some Member States will continue to see their asylum systems overburdened.

2.3. Does the EU have the right to act? Treaty base, 'necessity test' (subsidiarity) and fundamental rights limits.

EU right to act and subsidiarity

Title IV of the EC Treaty ('TEC') on visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons confers certain powers on these matters on the European Community. These powers must be exercised in accordance with Article 5 TEC, i.e. if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.

More specifically, the current legal base for Community action in the area of asylum policy is established in Article 63 (1) and (2) TEC . These provisions state that the Council is to adopt “measures on asylum, in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and other relevant treaties” and also “measures on refugees and displaced persons” in areas such as Member State responsibility, reception conditions, refugee qualification, granting of protection (including temporary protection) and balancing of Member States' efforts in receiving asylum-seekers.

The current legal base is however likely to be replaced on 1 January 2009 by the new article 78 In the consolidated version of the TFEU of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU'), which explicitly sets out the lay-out of the Common European Asylum System, differing from the TEC in several key ways. [39]

In the consolidated version of the TFEU

First, the TFEU gives a rank or primary law to the key components of the CEAS, which are currently addressed in political documents (the Tampere Conclusions and the Hague Programme) and secondary law (references in recitals of the asylum Directives) only. Thus, once the TFEU has come into force, uniform statuses for asylum and subsidiary protection and common asylum procedures will become objectives of primary community law. This would bring a legal obligation to the Union institutions and the Member States to consider proposals for achieving those objectives though secondary legislation. Importantly, the TFEU provides that legislative instruments in the field of asylum should be adopted for the purpose of a common European asylum system . Thus, the very term CEAS will also rank as primary community law. This would allow promoting a systematic approach to the asylum acquis considering it as integrated law where all the components should be interrelated leaving no space for gaps and inconsistencies. In this respect, the Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive should play the key role as they codify substantive and procedural asylum law of Europe, which goes to the heart of the CEAS.

Second, the lay out of the CEAS set out in the TFEU allows targeting much higher level of harmonisation of substantive and procedural asylum legislation. Indeed, common procedures and uniform statuses clearly require reconsideration of the wide discretion currently enabling Member States to derogate from the agreed minimum standards. This could be of particular relevance for the subsidiary protection regime (rights and benefits of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection) and procedural safeguards (limiting the current wide space left for Member States to apply exceptions to the key principles and guarantees). Furthermore, the TFEU allows addressing the issue of transfer of protection with regard to persons granted refugee status. This level of ambition is hardly reachable under TEC.

While the TEC allows, to some extent, addressing gaps and inconsistencies embodied in the Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive, the TFEU will enable a much higher level of harmonisation. This justifies that, if amendments to these two Directives are considered necessary,, the related proposals should be presented once the new Treaty is in force. Eventual modifications to the Dublin Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive, however, could be proposed under the current legal regime as the new Treaty does not bring relevant changes in those areas.

Generally, it can be said that while the respect for subsidiarity will have to be evaluated for each concrete proposal in the preparatory phase, from the previous argumentations and from the clear request by Member States and other relevant stakeholders, as expressed during the Green Paper consultation, emerges the clear need for an EU joint action in order to have a coordinated management of asylum policy, both within the EU and vis-à-vis third-countries.

External aspects and subsidiarity

Finally, the TFEU states in its Article 80 that “The policies of the Union […] and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States”. In stating this, it is important to note that the TFEU also lists "partnership and cooperation with third countries for the purpose of managing inflows of people applying for asylum or subsidiary or temporary protection" as an element of the CEAS. Apart from this mention of the external aspects of asylum policy in the new Treaty, from a subsidiarity point of view there are a number of reasons justifying EU action on external aspects of the asylum policy:

First, if one of the goals of the CEAS in its second phase is the establishment of an integrated and coherent space of protection in the EU and if the EU is to become a single area of protection, it would not make sense to deal with third countries on asylum issues on a national basis. It stems from the fulfilment of the CEAS at the internal EU level that common external action is necessary.

Second, from the point of view of effectiveness, it is clear that aggregated EU action instead of 27 differentiated programmes can have more positive impact. For instance on resettlement, if the EU could propose a joint EU quota to the UNHCR and jointly centralise the selection process, that would mean economies for the Member States and better chances of selecting the desired caseloads of persons to be resettled. Another example would be the Regional Protection Programmes, which do not seek to replace the existing national activities related to asylum in third countries but complement them through better coordination, so that overlaps, and gaps, are avoided.

Third, the external aspects of the EU asylum policy must be seen in the wider context of the EU's external relations. Discussions with third countries do increasingly include a number of different issues, from visas, to trade, from development aid to fostering circular migration. Asylum cannot be left aside and must be included in these discussions/negotiations.

Finally, from the point of view of protection, third countries need to meet their own obligations to safeguard international protection and the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, stemming from the international human rights instruments they are party to. The EU aims to support their capacity to meet these obligations.

Integration and subsidiarity

T he Policy Plan is not supposed to dwell in-depth into aspects related to integration policy, as this is done in other Commission documents (Communication on the Common Basic Principles, Annual reports, Handbook on Integration, etc.). As stated there, integration policy is first and foremost a national competence and EU action should not replace it.

The main actions to be proposed under the Policy Plan in the area of integration concern the level of rights , some of which are already included in EU legislation, to be granted to the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, in order to facilitate the integration of these persons in the society. Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection form an increasing percentage of the persons protected in the EU See section 2.1.2.5. , but they enjoy fewer rights than the Convention refugees. Given the fact that in practical terms the situation of the two groups is comparable, their level of rights should also be (close to) equivalent. A clear example is the lack of provisions in EU law on family reunification for subsidiary protection beneficiaries. A higher level of rights for these persons is necessary if the EU wants to avoid creating a subclass of protected persons and also to respond to the call of the Hague programme which mention the establishment of a uniform protection status in the EU.[40]

See section 2.1.2.5.

From a subsidiarity point of view, common action is justified in order to avoid a 'race to the bottom'. If one Member State were to offer unilaterally a higher level of rights to subsidiary protection beneficiaries, it could see larger flows of asylum-seekers coming to its territory. If the increase in the level of rights is done jointly at EU level, there is no risk of creating this type of secondary movement. The granting of a common set of rights at EU level does not prevent further national action aiming at a good integration of the protected persons.

Proportionality

As far as proportionality is concerned, once the need for common action at EU level has been acknowledged (subsidiarity test), it will be necessary to assess how far the EU measures should go. It clearly appears from the problem definition that a further level of harmonisation is needed, but the exact level of appropriate harmonisation will have to be defined in the individual Impact Assessments for each of the proposed measures.

It must also be reminded that there have been repeated calls from the European Council, the Council and the European Parliament for the development of a Common European Asylum System. There are of course the two programmes in the area of Justice, Freedom and Security (Tampere and The Hague) agreed at European Council level. The Hague programme in particular requests a common procedure, uniform status, and an increase in practical cooperation, leading to the creation of a European Asylum Support Office.

There are recent Council conclusions on practical cooperation (February 2006 and April 2008) and on the external aspects of asylum (October 2005). The European Parliament has also called for a comprehensive CEAS, for instance in the Lambert report (November 2004) on procedures and countries of origin and in the Pirker report (May 2007) on practical cooperation.

The reasons for a common intervention at EU level are clearly expressed in the paragraphs below, where the necessity test, based on the transnational nature of the problem, is provided.

Transnational nature of the problem

Due to the transnational nature of the problems related to asylum and refugee protection, the EU is well placed to propose solutions in the framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Starting from the minimum standards set out during the first phase of the CEAS, the differences between national legislations can still generate many indirect impacts between Member States, due to the fact that different asylum application processing, reception conditions, protection granting, integration and accompanying measures can produce distortions in the distribution and management of asylum seekers and refugees among Member States. Multiple applications and secondary movements of asylum seekers and refugees across Member States can be a consequence of significant divergences of national provisions and regulatory approaches in areas such as border procedures, appeal procedures or rights and benefits attached to the protection status granted. Asylum seekers and refugees are seemingly inclined to move, through legal or illegal channels, to those Member States which tend to grant the most appealing social, humanitarian and economic standards, highlighting the cross-border implications such movements entail (i.e. phenomena of “asylum-shopping”). Furthermore, Member States' mutual recognition of asylum status for those who have been granted such status in a different Member State is hindered by national practices. The clear need for an EU joint action in order to have a coordinated and shared management of asylum seekers and refugees in the EU territory emerges from these arguments.

As a natural consequence of such a need and in the respect of the implicit powers principle, a Community competence for the CEAS entails a corresponding external competence for the same field. Considering the above outlined necessity for an EU intervention, there is an equivalent necessity for the EU to manage the external dimension of asylum within the scope of its internal competence. The inclusion of asylum matters within the EU’s development cooperation policies is, in fact, directly linked to the management and effects of asylum seekers inflows on the CEAS. The external aspect of asylum policy has now been explicitly recognized in the article on asylum policy of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The correspondence between internal and external competence of the EU must be reminded also when it comes to solidarity and burden sharing. Given the need for a coordinated EU approach deriving from the unequal distribution and proportion of asylum seekers and refugees between Member States (which determines the bearing of unequal social and administrative costs), it is only straightforward that a corresponding approach under this aspect should be developed vis-à-vis third countries of transit and origin. In the light of this, an EU joint approach on asylum towards third countries is functional to the recognition of the EU as a single global player in this field.

For the above mentioned reasons, and others linked to the diversity of national administrative rules and procedures regulating this field, the establishment of a coherent legal framework can only be achieved at Community level.

2.4. Summary of main conclusions drawn from the Green Paper consultation See annex 1 for an analysis of the contributions received during the Green Paper consultation. A more complete summary is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylum_system_en.htm [41]

See annex 1 for an analysis of the contributions received during the Green Paper consultation. A more complete summary is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylum_system_en.htm

The Commission presented in June 2007 a Green Paper on the future of the Common European Asylum System. Its aim was to identify the possible options for shaping the second phase of the CEAS. The response to the public consultation included 89 Contributions from a wide range of stakeholders, including 20 Member States, regional and local authorities, the Committee of Regions and the Economic and Social Committee, UNHCR, academic institutions, political parties and a large number of NGOs.

This section presents the main conclusions drawn from the different contributions received, following the structure of the Green Paper.

Legislative Instruments: Processing of asylum applications

· Relevance attributed to the harmonization of asylum procedures, together with the revision of specific notions adopted (safe country of origin, safe third country, etc.)

· NGOs insist on procedural safeguards (access to asylum procedure, legal assistance and suspensive effect of right to appeal)

· Need for more training of asylum case officers requested by many contributions

· Wide agreement on the necessity of examining subsidiary protection after refugee status refusal, but no agreement on the system to manage the proposed procedure (in particular not on the creation of a single authority)

· No agreement on the joint processing of asylum application unless possibly in exceptional situations, such as for sharp increases in asylum applications

Legislative Instruments: Reception conditions for asylum applicants

· Overall consensus to further harmonization of reception conditions:

· Member States express a general consensus, with specific reserves depending on the subject (especially concerning access to labor market)

· NGOs actively support harmonization process

· Focus, mainly expressed in NGOs contributions, on the possibility to give access to the labor market to asylum seekers after 6 months of permanence in EU, differently from what established in the current Directive, where one year is the time limit for having access to the labor market

· Consensus on the necessity of further standardization in the form and level of material reception conditions through intensified practical cooperation

· Length and conditions for detention are considered as an important aspect to be more precisely regulated both by Member States and NGOs.

Legislative Instruments: Granting of protection

· Consensus on the necessity of further harmonizing the criteria for awarding refugee and subsidiary protection statuses

· Approximation of rights attached to refugee and subsidiary protection statuses supported by NGOs but not by Member States, which are generally supporting the definition of 2 different uniform statuses

· Introduction of categories of protection for non-removable persons supported by NGOs but much less by Member States

· General support in principle for the mutual recognition of national asylum decisions and the possibility of transfer of protection, but according to Member States it is too early to currently define a EU mechanism of mutual recognition

Legislative Instruments: Cross cutting issues

Appropriate response to situations of vulnerability

· Consensus on the necessity of improving the rules on vulnerable asylum seekers, regarding in particular situations related to healthcare and gender and child specific issues

· Proposed methods for intervening on these issues are:

· Exchange of best practices and definition of guidelines

· Compliance with, and amendment of, legislation

· Training of staff

Integration

· Positive attitude towards measures to enhance integration of asylum-seekers expressed by NGOs, while Member States showed a general opposition to this option (for most of them, integration is only for recognised refugees or persons enjoying subsidiary protection)

Implementation – Accompanying measures

· Methods to support practical cooperation, retained to be used by stakeholders, must be focused on:

· training of staff

· definition of EU guidelines on practical issues

· improvement of the availability of information on the country of origin

· Complete agreement on the creation of an European Asylum Support Office (but without decision-making power in the view of Member States)

Solidarity and Burden Sharing: Responsibility sharing

· MS Gov support the current Dublin system, but accept as NGOs the necessity or even request more burden sharing (through financial solidarity and asylum expert teams)

· It is necessary to improve the Dublin system on some points, in particular regarding family unity

Solidarity and Burden Sharing: Financial solidarity

· According to stakeholders the functioning of ERF must be simplified and must become more flexible

· There is a necessity of a major information sharing regarding projects and best practices

· Some financing needs are considered by stakeholders as not adequately addressed, such as situations of particular or unpredicted pressure

External Dimension: Supporting third countries to strengthen protection

· Need to evaluate Regional Protection Programmes before a further development and extension of the programmes themselves

· Capacity building considered as the main instrument for supporting third countries in dealing with asylum issues

External Dimension: Resettlement

· EU common approach to resettlement is welcomed by the stakeholders, especially for facing particularly difficult situations: (i) mass flights situations; (ii) large natural disasters; (iii) civil war

External Dimension: Addressing mixed flows at the external borders

· Training of border guards and the support of asylum experts considered as the main measures through which increasing national capacities to establish effective protection-sensitive management systems

External Dimension: The role of the EU as a global player

· It is widely acknowledged the necessity of :

· more common positions and practices at EU level

· closer cooperation with UNHCR

· NGOs insist on EU responsibility for upholding refugee protection in third countries.

3. OBJECTIVES

3.1. General objective

The general objective of the second phase of the CEAS is to offer, through a comprehensive approach to protection across the EU, appropriate status, under equal conditions, to any third-country national requiring international protection in compliance with fundamental rights, in particular with the principle of non refoulement .

3.2. Specific objectives

The policy shall in particular pursue the following specific objectives:

I) To ensure that asylum procedures are accessible to the persons seeking protection and deal quickly and efficiently with those who do not need it This specific objective addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.1. and 2.2.2.2. ;[42]

This specific objective addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.1. and 2.2.2.2.

II) To ensure higher common standards of protection This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.3., 2.2.2.4., 2.2.2.5., 2.2.2.6. and 2.2.2.7. ;[43]

This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.3., 2.2.2.4., 2.2.2.5., 2.2.2.6. and 2.2.2.7.

III) To enhance prompt and effective support to national asylum administrations, by promoting practical cooperation This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.3. and 2.2.2.6. ;[44]

This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.3. and 2.2.2.6.

IV) To foster solidarity mechanisms for dealing with persons in need of protection, between Member States and between the EU and third countries This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.4. and 2.2.2.8. ;[45]

This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.4. and 2.2.2.8.

V) To facilitate the integration of protected persons This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.5 and 2.2.2.7. ;[46]

This addresses problems identified in sections 2.2.2.5 and 2.2.2.7.

VI) To prevent asylum shopping and secondary movements This addresses problems identified in section2.2.2.3. .[47]

This addresses problems identified in section2.2.2.3.

The expression 'higher common standards' (specific objective II) deserves an explanation: Further harmonisation (i.e. common standards) is needed because the current common minimum rules, which leave wide margin of discretion to the Member States in their application, have not led to a level playing field and do not guarantee equality of protection across the EU. In a common space based on the respect of fundamental rights, it is not admissible that the national application of one of them, the right to asylum, varies so much between the Member States. Higher standards are necessary because harmonisation to the lowest common denominator, as is currently the case, does not ensure the right level of protection (access, legal safeguards, protection of children, care for special needs, etc.) for asylum-seekers and refugees in all the Member States and because setting higher standards can only be done jointly if a 'race to the bottom' is to be avoided.

Harmonisation must therefore be coupled with a high level of protection if it is to have positive effects and lead to the disappearance of the big differences in national practices.

3.3. Operational objectives

The following non exhaustive list of operational objectives is suggested:

· To adopt a common procedure for all persons requesting international protection This contributes to the achievement of specific objectives I and II ;[48]

This contributes to the achievement of specific objectives I and II

· To establish uniform statuses for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection Linked to specific objectives II and V ;[49]

Linked to specific objectives II and V

· To define a level playing field in the area of reception conditions of asylum seekers Linked to specific objectives II, V and VI ;[50]

Linked to specific objectives II, V and VI

· To develop integration measures and facilities for beneficiaries of international protection Linked to specific objective V ;[51]

Linked to specific objective V

· To better address the needs of vulnerable persons Linked to specific objectives II and V ;[52]

Linked to specific objectives II and V

· To develop a gender-sensitive interpretation of the refugee definition as well as a gender-sensitive asylum procedure Linked to specific objective I and II ; [53]

Linked to specific objective I and II

· To exchange best practice and country of origin and other relevant information, and to organize common trainings Linked to specific objective III[54]

Linked to specific objective III

· To establish an effective monitoring system of the practical implementation by the Member States of the CEAS legislation Linked to specific objectives II and III ;[55]

Linked to specific objectives II and III

· To improve the system of allocation of responsibility between Member States (Dublin system, including EURODAC) Linked to specific objectives III, IV and VI ;[56]

Linked to specific objectives III, IV and VI

· To establish tools for enhancing burden sharing between Member States Linked to specific objective IV ;[57]

Linked to specific objective IV

· To maximize the effectiveness of the European Refugee Fund Linked to specific objective IV ;[58]

Linked to specific objective IV

· To enhance solidarity with third countries, mainly through the development of resettlement Linked to specific objectives III and IV ;[59]

Linked to specific objectives III and IV

· To enhance development aid related to asylum capacity building programmes and the Regional Protection Programmes Linked to specific objective IV .[60]

Linked to specific objective IV

Consistency with other EU policies and horizontal objectives as the Lisbon strategy and respect for fundamental rights

Fundamental rights

The CEAS must be seen in the wider context of the policies belonging to the area of Justice, Freedom and Security. The closest of these policies is the common immigration policy, which is however being developed on the basis of the needs of the economy and the labour market, while the CEAS is based on humanitarian, rather than economic, considerations. International law imposes a number of obligations to Member States irrespective of their cost. The development of asylum policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.

This is confirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 18 of the Charter provides that:

t he right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community .

At present, even before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and its formal incorporation into the treaties, secondary legislation on asylum has to pass the Fundamental Rights test, thus ensuring that the right to asylum and the principle of non refoulement are respected in all EU legislation and in particular in measures related to asylum, immigration, borders and visas. Furthermore, the Charter contains a number of general rights, including protection against refoulement, right to life, prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to effective legal remedies, the right to liberty and to security or rights of the child, which also have an impact on asylum policy and have to be taken into account when assessing the possible options for developing the CEAS. All legislative proposals in this field have to be compatible with the Charter and are subject to an in depth impact assessment on fundamental rights. COM(2005) 172, 27.4.2005[61]

COM(2005) 172, 27.4.2005

Proper functioning of the internal market

As stated above, economic considerations are secondary in the development of the CEAS. It is however possible to identify a loose connection of the CEAS with the functioning of the EU internal market: the differences in reception conditions and integration measures concerning the access to the labour market of asylum-seekers might determine an inefficient allocation of human capital throughout the EU common market. Multiple applications, secondary movements and measures of reallocation and of resettlement taken under the CEAS could undermine the internal market’s capacity of distributing potential workforce wherever skill shortages require it. The same can be said about the lack of mutual recognition procedures of asylum granting decisions (based on common/harmonized standards and criteria): the current situation does not allow a refugee from moving freely to another Member State to cover skill shortages.

4. POLICY OPTIONS

4.1. Policy option A – status quo

Current developments in Member States would continue within the existing legal framework, which would remain unchanged. Ongoing activities would continue. The existing legislative instruments should all be transposed by the Member States and their implementation monitored by the Commission.

4.2. Policy Option B1: Full scale harmonisation of EU legislation

This option would ensure that the EU asylum system becomes coherent, comprehensive and offering the highest standards by aiming towards complete harmonisation and the elimination of the shortcomings caused by the adoption of the lowest common denominator (imposed by the way the legislation was adopted – adoption by unanimity in Council) in the first phase of CEAS. This aim would be reached, inter alia, through:

T he definition of adequate reception conditions for asylum seekers, via:

· introduction of a reference to national standards (social aid or minimum salary) in case of material support granted in money,

· the harmonised and unconditional access to labour market,

· the full access to healthcare, at the same level as nationals,

· the legal duty for staff in contact with asylum seekers to refer special needs when discovered,

· a harmonised approach to detention.

The recognition of an adequate level of protection to persons in need of protection, through the introduction of the following main elements concerning the issue of qualification:

· the establishment of a single uniform status with same level of rights for both refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection,

· the introduction of mutual recognition of statuses between Member States,

· the harmonization between Member States of statuses granted to other categories, like non removable persons,

The establishment of a uniform and efficient procedure of asylum, via the introduction of:

· a common single procedure through the harmonization of common attached guarantees (access to procedures, suspensive appeal, legal assistance, deadline for decision on substance in first instance, enhanced gender equality) for all types of existing national procedures,

· the establishment of a mechanism for the joint processing of asylum applications between Member States in cases of particular pressure,

The establishment of a higher degree of solidarity and responsibility among the Member States, and between the EU as a whole and third countries:

· the strengthening and clarification of several provisions in the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations in order to enhance the efficiency and ensure better compliance and uniform application by the Member States (in particular provisions on the humanitarian and sovereignty clause and those relating to family unity);

· measures to implement the principle of structural solidarity through the transformation of responsibility determination into a burden sharing mechanism allowing, among other measures, intra-EU reallocation of asylum seekers between Member States;

· the establishment of a mandatory resettlement scheme at European level for supporting third countries with large refugee populations;

· the adoption of a legally binding instrument providing for common procedural standards for Protected Entry Procedures (PEPs).

Modifications to all the existing instruments will ensure consistency and cross referencing in order to avoid the current situation where the instruments adopted at an earlier stage do not incorporate developments which were introduced by subsequent legislation.

4.3. Policy Option B2: Further development of EU legislation

This option would focus on a continuation of efforts towards increasingly harmonised national asylum rules, without however reaching a complete harmonisation, and ensuring high standards of protection.

Further sub-options within this option will be assessed in the specific impact assessments for the amendments of existing instruments (Dublin and Eurodac Regulations; Reception Conditions, Procedures and Qualification Directive).

This option would consist of the introduction of the following main interventions in the field of reception conditions:

· the improvement of the provisions related to material reception conditions,

· the establishment of easier access to labour market for asylum-seekers, not hindered by additional national restrictions,

· the establishment of rules ensuring that detention is not arbitrary;

· effective identification of the health and material needs of vulnerable persons and persons with special needs, including gender considerations.

The introduction of the following main elements concerning the issue of qualification:

· the establishment of two single uniform statuses: one for refugees and one for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection,

· the extension to the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection of Community’s rules on the right to family reunification,

· the exploration of possibilities for establishing an effective transfer of protection mechanism,

· the gradual approximation between Member States of statuses granted to other categories, like non removable persons,

The introduction of a new element on procedures:

· the definition of a single procedure through the harmonization of common attached guarantees (access to procedures, suspensive appeal, legal assistance, deadline for decision on substance in first instance, enhanced gender equality) for all types of existing national procedures

The following main interventions related to the issues of solidarity and responsibility among the Member States, and between the EU as a whole and third countries:

· the strengthening and clarification of several provisions in the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations in order to enhance the efficiency and ensure better compliance and uniform application by the Member States (in particular provisions on the humanitarian and sovereignty clause and those relating to family unity) and the possibility to suspend ('freeze returns') in certain cases the application of the Dublin rules to relieve overburdened Member States;

· the implementation of the principle of exceptional financial solidarity to be enacted to support Member States in cases of particular pressure;

· the establishment of a voluntary resettlement system for supporting third countries with large refugee populations,

· the approximation of the different types of national Protected Entry Procedures.

Modifications to all the existing instruments will ensure consistency and cross referencing in order to avoid the current situation where the instruments adopted at an earlier stage do not incorporate developments which were introduced by subsequent legislation.

4.4. Policy option C: Cooperation and exchange of best practices

This option would be focused on fostering practical cooperation between Member States: making the application of existing legislative instruments more uniform across Member States (in order to avoid disparities and consequently differences in the effective level of protection granted). This practical cooperation would also present some benefits for sustaining the external dimension of EU policy on Asylum issues.

This aim would be reached through the establishment of some type of structural and permanent support, possibly under the form of a European Asylum Support Office, which would be established by an EU Regulation or Decision and would be in charge of some or all of the following areas of activity:

Activities related to and joint assessment of Country of Origin Information (COI)

· Establishment and maintenance of a common EU portal

· Guidelines on the production of COI

· Guidelines on the assessment of specific caseloads (countries of origin, specific groups)

Activities related to training and capacity building

· EU-wide training facility on asylum

· Dissemination of best practice and other activities which contribute to the uniform interpretation and implementation of asylum legislation

Practical assistance to Member States

· Support to translation, interpretation in asylum procedures and cooperation in language analysis and document verification

· Support to Member States' efforts to address particular pressures (establishment, management and coordination of asylum expert teams)

Activities related to the external dimension

· Further capacity building programmes

· Tasks regarding the implementation of Regional Protection Programmes

· Other aspects of the external dimension of asylum (e.g. regarding resettlement at EU level)

Evaluation and monitoring

· Coordination of a Quality Review Mechanism, which could consist of an evaluation mechanism of the asylum systems of the Member States focusing, for example, on situations where there are great divergences in asylum practices. This would be similar to the existing Schengen evaluation mechanism.

4.5. Policy Option D: Overall comprehensive legal instrument on asylum and creation of a European Asylum Authority

· An overall legislative intervention on EU legislation on Asylum aimed to consolidate the different existing legislative instruments. In content, the lines stated in option B1 would be almost entirely followed, but in form this option would lead to the adoption of a single instrument containing all European law on asylum (replacing the current set of directives and regulations), thus at the same time harmonising and consolidating.

· The creation of a European Asylum Authority in charge of managing and coordinating the joint EU policy on Asylum. Such an Authority would also take the form of an agency (as in option C, created by an EU Regulation or Decision, financed by the EU budget and with its own personnel) but would not only coordinate the practical cooperation activities listed there ('European Asylum Support Office'): it would also replace national administrative and judicial bodies adopting decisions on asylum applications. The Authority would therefore become the common European adjudicator centralising all asylum decisions and would have decision powers. This option therefore represents the most extreme way to ensure common application of EU asylum law throughout the EU.

5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS See annex 4 for an explanation of the assessment criteria [62]

See annex 4 for an explanation of the assessment criteria

5.1. Identifying and assessing measurable impacts of each of the policy options

Policy Option A: Status quo|

Assessment Criteria |Rating|Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve the impact|

Relevance|

E nsure that asylum procedures are accessible to the persons seeking protection and deal quickly and efficiently with those who do not need it|0|The status quo would not enhance access to protection in the EU as the current identified obstacles (border security measures, visa policy, etc.) would not be counterbalanced by any compensatory measures aiming at making the EU territory more accessible for persons in need of protection. |

Ensure higher common standards of protection |0|Maintaining the status quo would prevent the CEAS from attaining a more integrated and comprehensive approach to asylum issues. The current system harmonises Member States' legal frameworks on the basis of common minimum standards . By preserving the CEAS in its current form, low standards and substantial differences between Member States will prevent the EU and its Member States to reach the desired higher common standards in the field of asylum.This policy option does not aim at raising standards. The competence of establishing higher standards remains with Member States, which can autonomously decide whether to stick to minimum standards or raise them. This naturally entails a different application of asylum legislation throughout the EU.A substantial level playing field in the area of reception conditions is still to be achieved, although the Reception Conditions directive has been transposed satisfactorily in the majority of Member States. The wide discretion left by the directive maintains notable differences between Member States regarding access to employment, healthcare, level and form of material reception conditions, free movement rights (detention) and needs of vulnerable persons;the late adoption and transposition deadline for the Procedure directive still makes the level of common standards and approximation of laws uncertain in this area. But it would appear that even after implementation of the common minimum standards in this field, an important degree of differentiation between Member States remains and many of them applying low standards;the creation of the subsidiary protection status and greater conformity of legal practice in some points of law (i.e. non-State actors of persecution or serious harm) are the results of the Qualifications directive up to now. There remain nevertheless divergences of interpretation on issues such as internal protection alternative , actors of protection and qualification for subsidiary protection which again limit the possibility of achieving higher common standards.|

To enhance prompt and effective support to national asylum administrations, by promoting practical cooperation|0|No further cooperation activities between Member States are foreseen to enhance the prompt and effective support to national administrations, apart from some ad hoc projects currently underway now.|

F oster solidarity mechanisms for dealing with persons in need of protection, between Member States and between the EU and third countries|0|The degree of solidarity between Member States and between the EU and third countries remains unchanged . This is even more so without the establishment of some type of burden sharing mechanism .Solidarity with third countries is left to the traditional EU development cooperation policies as well as the Regional Protection Programmes whose extension is not foreseen in the current CEAS. The establishment of resettlement programmes is left to Member States choice and implemented on a national basis, therefore having a lesser impact than a EU scheme.|

Facilitate the integration of protected persons|0|The identified problems for the integration of refugees remain the same. In particular, subsidiary protection beneficiaries face problems to be reunited with their families and mobility of protected persons is hindered by the lack of an effective transfer of protection mechanism.|

Prevent asylum shopping and secondary movements |0|The objectives of the Dublin system (i.e. establishment of a clear and workable mechanism for determining responsibility for asylum applications) have been generally achieved . Nonetheless there are concerns regarding its practical application and the effectiveness of the system which must be addressed.The persistence of very different recognition rates and reception conditions in the Member States will encourage secondary movements of asylum-seekers wishing to improve their chances of getting protection. |

Feasibility|

Transposition feasibility|||

- Under existing treaty|0|The policy option does not provide for further measures to be transposed and therefore there are no difficulties or risks in this sense.|

- Under new treaty |0|The policy option does not provide for further measures to be transposed and therefore there are no difficulties or risks in this sense.|

Implementation costs|0|No additional financial and administrative costs would be foreseen given the preserving of the status quo.|

Expected Impacts|

Social impacts at EU and Member States level|0|The extent of illegal flows , asylum shopping and secondary movements currently taking place can negatively influence the perception of asylum seekers on behalf of countries of destination societies. Moreover, these flows determine how these people and beneficiaries of international protection are utilized in the formal and informal labour market , given the differences between Member States in granting access to the national labour markets.|

Economic impacts at EU and national level|0|The economic impacts vary among MS depending on the level of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection employed in the informal labour market and on the possibility of accessing the national labour market. At EU level this can determine unbalances in the distribution of potential workforce on the common market.|

Im