Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Decision creating a European Refugee Fund'
Date: 2000-04-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation policy, fund (EU), refugee

C 168/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2000

funding for the first time for a CMO measure, it just happens
to pick on the school milk scheme which is so important for
children and adolescents. The Committee trusts that a quick

decision will be taken to ensure the continuation of the school
milk programme, in accordance with the Committee’s opinion
on the Commission proposal.

Brussels, 27 April 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision creating
a European Refugee Fund’

(2000/C 168/07)

On 6 March 2000 the Council, acting under Article 262 of the EC Treaty, asked the Economic and Social
Committee for an opinion on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was instructed to prepare the
Committee’s work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 11 April 2000. The rapporteur was
Mrs zu Eulenburg.

At its 372nd plenary session, held on 27 April 2000, the Committee adopted the opinion set out below,
with 107 votes in favour and one abstention.

General observations

1. Gist of the Commission’s proposal

Under the Proposal for a Decision, measures covering the
reception of asylum-seekers, the integration of refugees and
voluntary repatriation are brought together in an instrument
which is to be valid for a period of five years.

The proposed European Refugee Fund is based on Article
63(2)(b) of the EC Treaty. The aim of the Fund is to promote
‘a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and
bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced
persons’.

Finance is thus to be allocated between the Member States in
proportion to (a) the number of asylum-seekers whom they
take in (2/3) and (b) the number of refugees to whom they give
accommodation in their territory (1/3). Co-financing by the
European Refugee Fund (ERF) is set at 50 %. The proportion
can, however, be increased to 75 % in the case of Member
States receiving support from the Cohesion Fund in order to
help them compensate for a lack of the requisite facilities.

Two target groups are identified as beneficiaries of
the
measures to be funded by the ERF, namely: ‘refugees’ (persons
having refugee status and asylum-seekers) and ‘displaced
persons’ (persons who benefit from any form of international
protection or have applied for such protection).

Priority is to be given to supporting concrete measures,
focusing on, for instance:

— reception conditions: the development or adaptation of
infrastructures and services for providing accommodation,
material assistance (e.g. clothing or food), and social or
administrative assistance in connection with the asylum
procedure;

— integration facilities: the provision of assistance in finding
accommodation, claiming social and medical benefits and
taking part in language courses and help to enable people
to provide for themselves, in particular, help in finding
jobs;

— voluntary repatriation to the country of origin and reinte-
gration into that country: the provision of information on
available return programmes and the situation prevailing
in the countries concerned, general educational measures
and vocational training measures and actual resettlement;

16.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 168/21

— emergency measures: reception and accommodation, pro-
vision of means of subsistence and medical, psychological
or other forms of care.

Responsibility for administering the projects and programmes
is to be vested in the Member States, which are to draw
up requests for co-financing, to be agreed upon with the
Commission. It is however, proposed that the Commission
may earmark 10 % of the available funding for innovative or
cross-border projects with a view to promoting the exchange
of experience and cooperation at EU level. The level of funding
provided in the case of these projects may be up to 100 %.

2. Appraisal of the Proposal for a Decision

2.1. Basic assessment

The ESC welcomes the Proposal for a Council Decision.

As the ESC made clear in its opinion of 21 October 1999 on
the Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community
Action Programme to promote the integration of refugees (1),
‘since the issues of migration and integration will remain of
considerable importance for the EU and its Member States in
the future, the ESC ... will work for adequate funding for
European assistance instruments.’

The future European Refugee Fund will be an essential
instrument for a coherent response to the challenges facing
the EU and its Member States with regard to the reception,
integration and voluntary repatriation of refugees and dis-
placed persons.

The ESC also welcomes the Commission’s proposal that a
separate budget heading be created in the ERF for emergency
measures.

2.2. Bringing the aid on stream

The ESC calls for the Proposal for a Decision to be adopted
swiftly in order to ensure continuity vis-à-vis the current
measures financed under the budget headings for integration
and aid in respect of reception conditions and voluntary
repatriation. A lack of continuity in this important field could
nullify the positive initial steps represented by the projects
promoted by the EU and the establishment of networks and
cooperation for the benefit of refugees.

(1) See OJ C 368, 20.12.1999.

2.3. Funding

The proposed funding for the ERF does not match the actual
needs. As the Commission notes in the Financial Statement
attached to the Proposal for a Decision, the funding allocated
up until now ‘fell far short of what was needed on the ground’.

If the ERF is to live up to the claim that it will help to bring
about a balanced distribution of responsibility between the
Member States,
for
structural measures and EUR 10 m. for emergency measures is
far too little. The ESC therefore calls on the responsible parties
to press for provision of adequate funding.

the planned funding of EUR 26 m.

2.4. Target groups to benefit from measures financed by the ERF

(Article 2)

The definitions of the target groups set out in the Commission’s
proposal fall short of the definitions given in earlier proposals.
In the Committee’s view, some points require more precise
wording and appropriate adjustment.

The proposal for a Decision refers to the following target
groups to benefit from measures financed by the ERF: ‘refugees’
(persons entitled to asylum and asylum-seekers) and ‘displaced
persons’ benefiting from temporary protection arrangements)
(Article 2). In the case of both groups the persons concerned
are ‘any third-country nationals or stateless persons’.

The definition of the residential status of the respective target
groups is particularly important in the light of the various
forms of protection applicable to refugees, asylum-seekers and
displaced persons in the different EU Member States.

The ESC therefore takes the view that the Proposal for a
Decision should be based on a broad definition which also
embraces, as target groups eligible for ERF-funded measures,
persons covered by additional forms of protection, such as the
so called ‘de facto’ refugees who are not covered by the Geneva
Convention or the term ‘displaced person’.

Such a definition would be in line with the Joint Actions
adopted hitherto by the Council.

The provision whereby beneficiaries have to be third-country
nationals should be dropped so as not to exclude, as a matter
of principle, asylum-seekers from other EU Member States
from benefiting from the provisions of the ERF, despite the
fact that only a small number of individual cases would be
involved.

2.5. Tasks (Article 3)

As regards the measures for the reception of refugees the
Proposal for a Decision falls short of the provisions set out in
the Joint Action 1999/290/JHA of 26 April 1999 on the
reception and voluntary repatriation of refugees and asylum-
seekers.

C 168/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2000

The Proposal makes no explicit reference to measures as
regards advice on asylum procedures, legal advice, the facili-
tation of access to legal procedures and legal aid. No mention
is made either of support for persons in special need of
protection. More specific provisions should, in the ESC’s view,
be set out in this context.

As regards measures for integrating refugees there are discrep-
ancies between Article 3 and the Explanatory Memorandum
and the Financial Statement. In the ESC’s view, appropriate
consideration should be given to the role of employment,
education and training. Support should also be provided for
action to facilitate the reunification of families, the payment of
transport costs for impecunious refugees, family advisory and
support structures for families whose members have long been
separated from each other.

The Proposal for a Decision fails to make provision for
measures for informing and educating the public, as set out in
the Joint Action 1999/290/JHA. In view of the importance of
such action for stimulating general awareness and eliminating
prejudice, the ESC recommends that appropriate measures be
included in the Proposal.

2.6. Community actions (Article 4)

It is proposed that the Commission shall have the discretion
to use 10 % of the funding for promoting cooperation at EU
level.

The ESC welcomes the proposal that the Commission be able
to set aside funding for innovative cross-border projects.

In the ESC’s view, however, funding for trans-national cooper-
ation, and cross-border exchange of information and transfer
of expertise, should not be tied to the 10 % of funding set
aside for measures at EU level.

It would, in the Committee’s opinion, be a welcome develop-
ment if, when selecting the projects for which applications are
to be submitted and when drawing up national applications
for co-financing, Member States would include and support
trans-national measures, so that
the EU-wide and trans-
national experience of recent years is not lost as a result of the
introduction of new administrative procedures.

Trans-national cooperation, involving the transfer of experi-
ence and information on successful models, can make an
important contribution, particularly with regard to structural
assistance in Member States which have hitherto implemented
only small-scale reception-facility and integration schemes for
refugees and displaced persons.

Measures should therefore be taken to ensure that funding is
not allocated exclusively to state bodies. The best way to
achieve this is by issuing an invitation to submit proposals
which would be open to all interested bodies.

Proper attention should be paid to NGOs and the social
partners both at national level and by the European Com-
mission, through the intermediary of the proposed committee
(Article 19). NGOs, refugee organisations and the social
partners could be given observer status at the meetings of the
proposed committee. Provision should also be made for
participation by the UNHCR.

for a Council Decision
In its opinion on the Proposal
establishing a Community action programme to promote the
integration of refugees, dated 20 October 1999, the ESC
pointed out that: ‘As the integration of refugees is in many
states achieved via programmes and initiatives of non-govern-
mental organisations, these should where possible be explicitly
mentioned here’ (point 2.5.1 of the opinion); the recommen-
dation that explicit mention be made of these organisations
also applies to the draft decision under review.

2.8. Distribution of resources (Article 9)

The Commission proposes that 65 % of funds be allocated on
the basis of the number of asylum-seekers and 35 % on the
basis of the number of persons granted refugee status or
temporary protection.

It may be assumed that, under the proposed arrangements, a
substantial part of the available resources will be allocated to
states which already have complex reception and integration
facilities for refugees and displaced persons and that those
Member States which have less experience in this respect will
receive a substantially smaller allocation from the ERF.

Such arrangements would negate the Article 11 provisions in
respect of Member States receiving funding from the Cohesion
Fund; they would also run counter to the aim, set out in the
Explanatory Memorandum, ‘that [encouragement be given] to
those Member States with the least-developed infrastructure
and services for asylum and refugees to make good the
disparities in this area’.

2.7. Selection criteria (Article 8) and the establishment of the
representatives of Member States

proposed Committee of
(Article 19)

Under Article 8 of the Proposal, the eligible organisations are
to include NGOs and the social partners. Both of these
parties have been playing a key role in the development and
implementation of projects for many years.

The ESC therefore believes that the proposed distribution
arrangements should be supplemented by a procedure under
which the Commission would decide on the distribution of
resources on the basis of the needs of the Member States and
the quality of the applications submitted. It is also proposed,
in this context, that a minimum amount of funding be made
available to Member States catering for small numbers of
refugees, irrespective of the quota arrangements.

16.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 168/23

2.9. Timetable (Article 10)

It is proposed that the decision should be in force for a period
of five years.

Decisions on the amounts allocated under the budget and the
proportions of overall funding to be allocated to the individual
Member States are, however, to be taken on an annual basis,
with the result that the Member State will not be in a position
to make financial commitments in respect of multi-year
projects.

Experience in recent years has demonstrated that projects that
run for only one year are not very effective. Multi-year projects
should therefore always be supported as a matter of principle.

The ESC therefore calls for the ERF to give priority to multi-
year projects, with funding being granted on an annual basis.

2.10. Financing structure (Article 11)

The provision in the Proposal for a Decision whereby contri-
butions from the ERF shall not exceed 50 % or, in specified
cases, 75 % of the total cost of a given measure serves only to
restrict the sum allocated by the Commission to national
measures. Attention is drawn to the fact that, particularly in
the case of measures implemented by NGOs and the social
partners, overall public aid can amount to 100 % of the cost
of the measure if the requisite co-financing is provided by the
Member States.

2.11. Monitoring and evaluation (Article 18)

Under the Proposal for a Decision, the responsible authorities
in the Member States are to send annual reports to the
Commission and a mid-term report
is to be drawn up
by 31 December 2002. The new implementing procedures,
together with the funding provisions still operational with
effect from 2001 should, in the ESC’s view, be reviewed by the
Commission already in 2001, on the basis of the annual
reports and an audit of the new system. Such an evaluation
should embrace the distribution of funding, the implemen-
tation of national action plans and progress towards ‘a balance
of effort between the Member States’, which the ERF is
intended to achieve.

2.12. Distribution of resources/Financial Statement, Article 2

The ESC welcomes the provisional breakdown of funding for
the three individual action areas (reception: 36 %; integration:
36 %; voluntary repatriation: 18 %); the ESC calls upon the
Member States to gear their measures to this proposed

breakdown of allocations. In the ESC’s view, the previous level
of support should be continued, particularly in the case of
integration projects.

Specific observations

3. Proposals for amending and supplementing the pro-

posals put forward by the Commission

3.1. Article 2

For the purposes of this Decision, the target groups shall
comprise the following categories:

1)

2)

3)

4)

‘refugees’, meaning any third-country nationals or stateless
persons having the status defined by the Geneva Conven-
tion of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees and
permitted to reside as refugees in one of the Member
States;

‘displaced persons’, meaning any third-country nationals
or stateless persons benefiting in a Member State from
temporary protection arrangements, supplementary pro-
tection arrangements or another form of international
protection granted by a Member State;

‘asylum-seekers’ meaning any third-country nationals or
stateless persons who have applied to be given the status
of a refugee or displaced person, as defined under 1) and
2) above;

‘refused asylum-seekers’ meaning any third country
nationals or stateless persons whose application to be
granted the status of a refugee or displaced person, as
defined in 1) and 2) above, has been rejected but who are,
at the same time, not residing illegally in the Member State
concerned;

5)

third-country nationals or stateless persons who no longer
require international protection and are eligible for volun-
tary repatriation.

3.2. Article 3(2)

Amend to read as follows:

‘With regard to the conditions for reception of refugees
2.
and displaced persons and procedures,
the actions may
concern the following: the establishment or improvement of
infrastructure, the provision of basic care, the improvement of
administrative and legal asylum procedures (including the
provision of advisory services, which may also include legal
advice), special support for categories of persons in need
of protection (such as unaccompanied minors, victims of
violations of human rights, such as humiliating treatment,
torture or rape and persons requiring special medical treat-
ment), general education and vocational training, material aid
and social services.’

C 168/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2000

3.3. Article 3(3)

3.7. Article 8(b) (new) Trans-national measures

3.
‘As regards integration into the society of the Member
State of residence of refugees and displaced persons, who are
entitled to benefit from integration on the grounds of their
status or following a certain period of residence, and members
of their family, actions may be to provide social assistance in
areas such as housing, means of subsistence and healthcare
and measures to facilitate the reunification of families. Special
support should be provided in the case of measures in the field
of general education and vocational training and all measures
for bringing about rapid and lasting integration into the labour
market. In the interests of integration, preference should be
given to measures which enable refugees to provide for
themselves and lead a self-responsible life in the society of the
Member State concerned.’

3.4. Article 3(5) (new)

5.
‘In connection with the concrete programmes and
measures financed under the ERF, a set percentage of the aid
shall be earmarked for informing the public on obligations of
the member States towards persons seeking international
protection and on EU refugee policy.’

3.5. Article 7(1)(e) (new)

‘Planned trans-national cooperation in connection with the
measures.’

3.6. Article 8(a) (re-numbering of existing second paragraph of

Article 8)

Amend to read as follows:

‘Following a call for proposals, which shall be open to all
project sponsors concerned, actions shall be presented by
public authorities (national, regional or local, central or
devolved), education or research institutions, training establish-
ments, the social partners, government agencies, international
organisations and their national bodies, or non-governmental
organisations, operating individually or in partnerships, with a
view to obtaining funding from the Fund.’

‘Trans-national measures are of special importance, particularly
with regard to the exchange of experience and transfer of
know-how with a view to promoting structural development.
It is therefore proposed, that, where advisable, national project-
sponsors make provision for trans-national cooperation in
connection with national measures;’

3.8. Article 9

Amend to read as follows:

‘When the available resources are being distributed between
the Member States, a set basic amount shall be made available
to states having less-developed asylum systems with a view to
promoting structural development.

The remaining resources shall be distributed between the
Member States as follows:

a) 65 % in proportion to the average number of persons
international protection

having applied for a form of
registered over the previous three years; and

b) 35 % in proportion to the number of persons granted
refugee status or temporary protection over the previous
three years.

The reference figures shall be the most recent figures estab-
lished by the Statistical Office of the European Communities.

The Commission shall decide on the allocation of resources in
the light of the quality of the applications received from the
Member States, the needs of the respective Member States and
the relevance of the actions proposed to the current guidelines.

The Commission shall take into account the need to promote
effective asylum reception and integration work in Member
States where this has been less-developed in the past.’

3.9. Article 11

Add the following at the end of this article:

Final paragraph:

‘Add the following at the end of this paragraph:’

‘In cases where the requisite co-funding is provided by national
bodies, total public funding may amount to 100 % of the cost
of the measure, particularly in the case of actions carried out
by NGOs and the social partners.’

16.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 168/25

3.10. Article 18

Amend to read as follows:

implementation by the Member States are meeting the objec-
tives of the European Refugee Fund.’

‘3.
The Commission shall submit to the European Parlia-
ment and the Council the annual reports of the Member States
and, by 31 December 2002 at the latest, a mid-term report
and, by 1 June 2005 at the latest, a final report.

The Commission shall also submit an appraisal to the European
Parliament and the Council, by 31 March 2001, indicating the
extent to which the new operating procedures and their

3.11. Article 19

Add the following at the end of this article:

‘Non-governmental organisations, refugee organisations and
the social partners shall be involved in the work of this
committee, as observers. Insofar as the ESC cannot be rep-
resented on the committee for reasons of comitology, it shall
be consulted by this committee.’

Brussels, 27 April 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a recommendation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on mobility within the Community for students, persons
undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers’

(2000/C 168/08)

On 29 February 2000, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles
149 and 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 April. The rapporteur was Mrs Hornung-
Draus.

At its 372nd plenary session (meeting of 27 April 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion with 111 votes in favour and five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
European citizenship means that under Article 18 of
the EC Treaty, every national of a Member State has the right
to move and reside freely in all the Member States. Nonetheless,
this fundamental right of the individual is restricted by a series
of disadvantages and difficulties which hamper the mobility of
people seeking access to training and education beyond the
borders of their home countries.

1.2.
Freedom of movement applies to employees and self-
employed workers and therefore also to teachers and trainers.
this freedom must also apply to those people
However,
wishing to start or continue studies or training, or undertake
voluntary work — not necessarily for professional purposes

— outside their own country and within the EU. If they decide
to go to another EU country, whether this is in the context of
a Community programme or not, the Community as a whole
should make an effort to remove all administrative obstacles
which might lie in their way.

The ESC therefore wholeheartedly welcomes the objectives of
this recommendation. It sends out the right signals to the
people of Europe at a time when enlargement of the European
Union is about to take place and when the EU — as decided at
the special summit meeting in Lisbon (1) — is preparing itself
for the transition to the information and knowledge society so
as to be able to cope with the demands of the globalisation of
the economy.

(1) OJ C 117 of 26.4.2000.