Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status"
Date: 2001-04-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: admission of aliens, migration policy, refugee

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/77

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on
minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee
status’

(2001/C 193/16)

On 11 December 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 April 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Melı´cias.

At its 381st plenary session (meeting of 26 April 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 98 votes in favour with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Economic and Social Committee is required to
voice an opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive on
minimum standards on procedures in Member States for
granting and withdrawing refugee status (1).

1.2.
The Committee believes that this is a welcome and
necessary step towards achieving ‘a common policy on asylum,
including a Common European Asylum System’ and is ‘a
constituent part of the European Union’s objective of estab-
lishing progressively an area of freedom, security and justice
open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek
protection in the Community’ [preamble, recital (1)].

The Committee considers that

the draft proposal
1.3.
carries forward the Tampere Conclusions, which ‘provide that
a Common European Asylum System should include in the
short term common standards for fair and efficient asylum
procedures in the Member States’ [preamble, recital (3)].

1.4.
It also agrees that ‘the minimum standards laid down
in this [draft] Directive should (...) enable Member States to
operate a simple and quick system that swiftly and correctly
processes applications for asylum in accordance with the
international obligations and constitutions of the Member
States’ [preamble, recital (6)].

2. General comments

The following points in the draft directive require

2.1.
comment:

The specific references to the 1951 Convention
2.1.1.
relating to the status of refugees (Geneva Convention) and to
the 1967 New York Protocol, particularly concerning how to
define a refugee [Article 2(b) of the draft directive] underline
the humanistic and humanitarian importance of this inter-

(1) COM(2000) 578 final.

national legal instrument. The Committee agrees that uniform
application of a common European asylum policy requires
harmonised interpretation of the Geneva Convention.

2.1.1.1.
It should be remembered that the Geneva Conven-
tion is a human rights instrument. The references made in the
preamble to the convention to the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights strengthen the view that protection of
refugees should be seen as an integral element of human rights
protection, since it is based on safeguarding the dignity and
fundamental rights of all human beings.

2.1.2.
Alongside the references to the Geneva Convention,
the Committee believes that there must also be references
to other relevant international conventions: the European
Convention on Human Rights; the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights;
the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the
Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Elimination of all
forms of Discrimination against Women.

2.1.3.
The Committee highlights the draft directive’s refer-
ence to the involvement of the United Nations High Com-
missioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in Articles 13(b), 7(c), 15(4)
and 17(a) and (b). This underscores the UNHCR’s important
supervisory responsibilities under Article 35 of the Geneva
Convention, enabling the UNHCR’s office to make represen-
tations to any competent authorities regarding individual
applications for asylum at any stage of
the procedure
(Article 17(c) of the draft directive).

2.2. Without wishing to encroach upon the specific role of
the UNHCR or other specialist agencies in this area, the
European ESC — as an advisory body broadly representing
organised civil society and increasingly serving to ‘reflect civil
society organisations at European level’, or act as ‘a vital bridge
between the EU and civil society’ — feels that it must serve as
a catalyst for greater civil society involvement in this issue.

C 193/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

2.3.
Under the terms of Article 13(1)(b), the determining
authorities must have ‘access to precise and up-to-date infor-
mation from various sources, including information from the
UNHCR, concerning the situation prevailing in the countries
of origin of asylum applicants and in transit countries’. In the
light of this provision, the ESC considers that information
regarding the asylum applicant’s country of origin and the
transit countries he has crossed must also be able to be
provided by organisations which are recognised as representing
civil society and which are active in the Member State
examining the asylum application. By way of example, such
bodies could include Amnesty International, Assistência Mé-
dica Internacional, the Red Cross or Médecins sans Frontières,
as well as other humanitarian organisations which can provide
this kind of information in each of the Member States.

time or deadlines, or of whether or not the prior formalities
which may be attached to submission of an application have
been completed.

3.2.2.
By virtue of the nature and humanitarian purpose of
asylum, free and unrestricted access to their territory and
asylum procedures constitutes a fundamental guarantee that
the Member States must strive to provide.

As this is being enshrined as a Community right, it
3.2.3.
would be appropriate for Article 2(b) to include a reference to
Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the European Convention on
Human Rights.

3.

Specific comments

3.1.

The following sections of Article 2 require comment:

— point (i): under Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention,
refugee status is accorded, not granted by States. Cf.
paragraph 28 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria
for Determining Refugee Status, UNHCR, Geneva, 1992 on
this point (‘recognition of refugee status’).

— point (l): Article 33(2) of the Geneva Convention does
not govern ‘withdrawal of refugee status’ as claimed in this
point, but relates to an exception from the prohibition of
expulsion or return.

Provision should be made in the draft directive for the

3.2.
following aspects.

Article 4(1) is a safeguard of the greatest importance,
3.2.1.
since it provides unconditional access to the asylum procedure.
Although recital (6) of the preamble declares that ‘the mini-
mum standards laid down in this (draft) Directive should (...)
enable Member States to operate a simple and quick system’,
the procedure must also be fair — which means that all asylum
applicants have access to the system, regardless of point in

3.2.3.1.
The presumption contained in Article 2(b) in fine
should also be highlighted. This presumption is important
because, without prejudice to other, additional means of
protection, it accords priority to asylum. It has been noted that
certain Member States tend to deal with asylum requests under
procedures for additional protection.

3.2.3.2.
Article 3(3) and recital (17) are of similar tenor.
This approach means that the Member States must strive to
define the various cases covered by additional kinds of
protection.

It is essential for it to be clearly stated that ‘any
3.2.3.3.
statement signalling a person’s wish to obtain protection from
persecution, or any manifestation or expression of the person
indicating that he fears to be returned to his country, should
therefore be treated as an application for asylum’ (page 11 of
the Explanatory Memorandum, point 2 under Article 4).

3.2.4. A r t i c l e 7 ( b ) — u s e o f i n t e r p r e t e r s

3.2.4.1.
The opportunity for the competent authorities or
asylum applicants to use an interpreter must constitute an
asylum procedure guarantee, whatever type of procedure is
involved, or whatever stage in the procedure has been reached.
Interpreters must be competent, qualified and impartial. To
this end — and in spite of remarks by certain Member States
regarding the high cost involved — the Committee proposes
that the services of an interpreter should always be paid for
out of public funds when called upon by the competent
authorities or by the asylum applicant. The competent auth-
orities should not have the power to decide whether or not an
interpreter is to be used. The Committee suggests that funding
for the use of interpreters in the Member States could come
from the European Refugee Fund, which was set up with the
specific aim of supporting the reception and integration of
asylum applicants in the Member States.

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/79

This is necessary since otherwise, one of

the
3.2.4.2.
intended benefits of
(minimum procedural
the proposal
guarantees) will not be achieved. The absence of an interpreter
may affect an applicant’s ability to present his application
properly, which is an essential condition for a full airing of the
case and the corresponding asylum guarantee.

entitled to choose the sex of the interpreter only? This does
not appear to be the best way of creating the climate of trust
during the interview which is needed to break down the barrier
caused by the difficulties experienced by the applicant. In view
of this aim, the interviewee should be able to choose the sex
of both the official and the interpreter involved in the
interview.

3.2.4.3.
For the same reasons, the Committee supports
Article 10(3)(b) (unaccompanied minors), Article 19 (responsi-
bility of another Member States for examining applications for
asylum) and Article 8(7).

considers

The Committee

3.2.4.4.
text of
Article 7(c) should be more ambitious. In addition to granting
applicants the right to communicate with the UNHCR or other
organisations working on its behalf at all stages of
the
procedure, it should also entitle them to contact recognised
NGOs which defend and promote the right of asylum.

that

the

3.2.5. A r t i c l e 8 ( 2 ) — p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w

informing the interviewee of

3.2.5.1.
Concerning the final part of this article, the Com-
mittee wonders how the official is to request the applicant’s
agreement. The Committee proposes that this part be deleted
‘... the official must read out the
or reworded as follows:
transcript,
its contents, and
explain to him that he has access to this transcript, including
for the purposes of any future uses’. In addition, the proposal
should also give the applicant the opportunity to receive a
copy of
the transcript, which should be duly validated
according to the methods used in the reception country (for
example, by the applicant signing each page).

3.2.5.2.
Article 8(2) is supplemented by point (6) of the
same article, which provides that in the regular procedure,
each applicant for asylum must be given an opportunity,
within a reasonable time-limit, to consult the transcript of a
personal interview on the substance of his application for
asylum and to make comments on it.

3.2.5.5.
Here the Committee would also draw attention to
Article 10(2) of the proposal, which deals specifically with the
personal
interview of unaccompanied minors. The article
specifies that Member States are to ensure that these interviews
are conducted by an official ‘trained with regard to the special
needs’ of this vulnerable group. Such a provision is consistent
with Article 14(1)(c) of the proposal. The Committee suggests
that whenever separated children are interviewed or require
access to services, they be provided with interpreters who
speak their preferred language, in line with the statement of
good practice drawn up under the ‘separated children in
Europe’ programme (a joint initiative of the UNHCR and the
international Save the Children alliance which seeks to provide
a straightforward account of the policy and practices required
to implement and protect the rights of separated children in
Europe).

In the interests of transparency and procedural
3.2.5.6.
rigour, the Committee thinks that the applicant should also be
allowed access to the available information on which the
application decision was based, particularly regarding his
country of origin.

3.2.5.7.
Similarly, the Committee proposes that the official
mentioned in Article 8(1) should preferably also be a member
of the decision-making body.

3.2.6. A r t i c l e 9 — l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e

3.2.5.3.
The Committee believes that the possibility of
consulting the transcript and making comments under
Article 8(6) ought to be extended to the accelerated procedure:
in this case, the ‘reasonable time-limit’ must of course be
shorter.

3.2.6.1.
The Committee advocates free legal assistance
at every stage of the procedure (admissibility, regular and
accelerated procedure) and not only in the event of an
adverse decision by the determining authority as stipulated by
Article 9(4). Asylum applicants are vulnerable people who are
not familiar with legal procedures, and who therefore need a
legal representative.

3.2.5.4.
Clarification is needed regarding an ambiguity in
Article 8(7), which states that the Member States must ensure
that ‘an official and an interpreter of a sex chosen by the
interviewee’ are involved in the personal interview if there are
reasons to believe that the person concerned would otherwise
experience difficulty. Does this mean that the applicant is

3.2.6.2.
Similarly, the Committee believes that the possi-
bility for the applicant’s legal representative to be present
during the personal interview should be provided for in the
accelerated procedure, as is the case in the regular procedure
[Article 9(3)].

C 193/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

3.2.6.3. Moreover,
in the light of Article 23(3) and
Article 29(3) (allowing the authorities to make a decision
without a personal interview with the applicant in the regular
and accelerated procedures respectively), the Committee con-
siders that there must be clear guarantees that the competent
authority will always conduct a personal
interview. The
purpose is to ensure that the asylum application is examined
as fully as possible, so that a fair decision can be made.

3.2.7.4.2. Women, children and young people are particu-
larly vulnerable to violence, especially sexual violence.

3.2.7.4.3.
In the same way, UNHCR Executive Committee
(EXCOM) Conclusion No 39 on Refugee Women and Inter-
national Protection, which retains all its relevance, acknowl-
edges the need for specific provision in this area.

Article 9(2) must not be used as a way of denying
3.2.6.4.
asylum applicants legal advice. Lawyers specialising in asylum
law may not be available in all situations or at all stages of the
procedure. Asylum applicants should also be able to receive
advice from representatives of NGOs with expertise in this
field, for example.

3.2.7. A r t i c l e 1 0 — u n a c c o m p a n i e d m i n o r s

3.2.7.1.
The Committee considers that the expression ‘as
soon as possible’ should be deleted from Article 10(1)(a). On
the basis of the principle of the best interests of the child
(Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child),
Member States must ensure that a legal guardian or adviser is
appointed in order to assist and represent the minor with
respect to the examination of the application. This appoint-
ment must be made prior to the personal interview in order to
make the provisions of Article 10(1)(b) effective.

3.2.7.2.
By the same token, and in the light of the principles
underpinning the statement of good practice referred to in
point 3.2.5.5 above, the Committee proposes that unac-
companied minors should not be denied access to the asylum
procedure. Once they are admitted, they should be channelled
to the regular procedure, and application of the principle of
the benefit of the doubt should be specifically guaranteed.

3.2.7.3.
The Committee also proposes that specific pro-
vision be made for the vulnerable situation of unaccompanied
minors, with special emphasis on the personal interview.

The Committee therefore proposes that the direc-
3.2.7.4.4.
tive include an article giving broad recognition to the particu-
larly vulnerable position of asylum applicants who have been
traumatised as a result of torture, rape or other forms of
physical and/or sexual abuse, offering them special attention
and support, including specialist psychological and/or psychi-
atric help, and greater adherence to the principle of the benefit
of the doubt.

3.2.7.4.5.
It would be better not to apply the accelerated
procedure in such cases, given their special features and the
vulnerability of these applicants, where an application is
submitted for the first time in any one of the Member States.

3.2.8. A r t i c l e

1 3 ( b ) — d e t e r m i n i n g

a u t h -
o r i t i e s ’ a c c e s s
t o p r e c i s e a n d u p - t o -
d a t e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e s i t u a t i o n i n
a s y l u m
o f
t h e
a p p l i c a n t s a n d i n t r a n s i t c o u n t r i e s

c o u n t r i e s

o r i g i n

o f

As mentioned earlier, the Committee considers
3.2.8.1.
that in addition to the UNHCR, reference must be made here
to organisations such as Amnesty International, Assistência
Médica Internacional, the Red Cross or Médecins sans Fron-
tières, as well as other humanitarian organisations which are
recognised as representing civil society and are active in this
field, and which can provide this kind of information in each
of the Member States. The purpose would be to ensure that
decisions on applications for asylum are underpinned by
accurate, objective and independent information based on a
humanitarian approach.

3.2.7.4.
Here the Committee would mention the failure to
indicate other vulnerable cases, such as elderly people on their
own or, in particular, women who have been subject to abuse.

3.2.8.2.
In view of the rising numbers and particular nature
of applications based on religious persecution, the possibility
of asking advice from the relevant religious communities
should be added to Article 13(1)(c).

3.2.7.4.1.
ution on Minimum Guarantees
(Additional
safeguards
women) refers specifically to this situation.

Article 28 of section V of the June 1995 Resol-
for Asylum Procedures
and

for unaccompanied minors

3.2.9.
The Committee welcomes the emphasis laid by the
draft directive on proper and specific training for personnel
responsible for carrying out the duties laid down in the
directive (Articles 13 and 14), including border officials.

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/81

As regards the regular European-level

training
3.2.9.1.
which is planned for the medium term,
the Committee
proposes that explicit reference be made to more active
involvement of bodies such as the UNHCR, the European
Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), and NGOs whose
recognised aim is to defend and promote asylum rights.

3.2.9.2.
The Committee suggests that financing for this
regular training in the Member States could be provided by the
European Refugee Fund and the Odysseus programme.

3.2.10.
following principles are enshrined in the draft directive:

The Committee is also pleased to note that the

— Principle of ‘non-refoulement’ (Article 5). In keeping with
this principle, no refugee may be expelled or sent back to
a country where his life or freedom would be threatened.
It must be applied whenever a refugee arrives within the
territory or at the border of a country, irrespective of
whether or not they have been formally recognised as
refugees (Article 33 of the Geneva Convention, Article 3
of Protocol No 4 to the European Convention on Human
Rights, EXCOM Conclusion No 6).

— Principle of confidentiality of information regarding all

applications for asylum (Article 15).

3.2.11.
The Committee also welcomes the guarantee that
asylum applicants shall not be detained for the sole reason
that they are seeking asylum. If detention does take place — in
accordance with a procedure prescribed by national law and
only for as long as is necessary — provision is to be made for
regular reviews of the detention order (Article 11).

3.2.11.1.
sole discretion of the administrative or political authorities.

This possibility of review should not be at the

3.2.11.2.
The Committee stresses that if an asylum appli-
cant is detained, the detention conditions should reflect the
detainee’s non-criminal status. Like all other asylum applicants,
detainees should have access to free, independent, expert legal
advice. The UNHCR, specialist NGOs and legal representatives
should have access to the detention centres.

The Committee would like clarification regarding
3.2.11.3.
the purpose of Article 11(c), as the situation which it refers to
appears to be catered for by Article 11(b).

3.2.12. A r t i c l e s
c o u n t r y

2 1

a n d

2 2 — s a f e

t h i r d

These articles

3.2.12.1.
represent a balanced solution
between Annex I (basic requirements) and lists drawn up by
the Member States themselves. The Committee believes that
the procedural guarantee would be strengthened by securing
the Member States’ agreement to limit this concept to the
requirements under Annex I. The purpose of this suggestion is
to prevent the ‘safe third country’ designation being used to
restrict access to the asylum procedure, and to ensure that
applicants have safeguards against ‘refoulement’.

3.2.12.2.
The directive must also ensure that the criteria set
out in these articles are examined on a case-by-case basis,
regardless of any readmission agreements. It is not enough to
guarantee that the applicant will be admitted to a third country:
the protection offered there must be effective, meaning that
the applicant must have access to the asylum procedure as
applied in that country.

3.2.12.3.
An application for asylum cannot be dismissed
solely by invoking the concept of ‘safe third country’ defined
in Annex I. The Committee considers it essential for all the
reasons put
in support of the
application to be examined and, if the application is turned
down, the applicant must have an effective right of appeal
before an impartial and independent authority or court of law.

forward by the applicant

The Committee recommends that the term ‘gener-
3.2.12.4.
in point I of Annex I, used in connection with the
ally’
designation requirements, be reworded in a more definite and
less vague way. It proposes replacing this term with ‘in a
general and continuous manner’, to take account, in particular,
of specific exceptional,
local circumstances, together with
other possible reasons for suspending the usual observance of
the standards and principles mentioned.

The Committee considers that the time-limits laid
3.2.13.
down in Article 23 (admissibility stage), Article 24 (regular
procedure) and Article 29 (accelerated procedure), and the
time-limits for appeals, are reasonable and realistic.

3.2.13.1.
The Committee also feels that Article 24 provides
an important guarantee of the applicant’s right, under the
regular procedure, to request a decision from the reviewing
body in cases where the determining authority has not taken a
decision within the time-limit. In cases of non-compliance
with the prescribed time-limits for the admissibility stage or
the accelerated procedure, the asylum application is to be
processed under the regular procedure (Articles 23 and 29
respectively).

C 193/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

3.2.14. A r t i c l e 2 5 — i n v e s t i g a t i v e s t a n d a r d s

3.2.17. A r t i c l e s 3 0 a n d 3 1 — s a f e c o u n t r y o f

f o r e x a m i n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s

o r i g i n

3.2.14.1.
The proposed wording is designed to ensure a fair
procedure. It follows the recommendations of the Handbook
on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status published
by the UNHCR in Geneva in January 1992, enshrining the
principle of the benefit of the doubt [Article 25(4)]. The
Committee welcomes this.

3.2.14.2.
The Committee does not believe that possible
false declarations made by the applicant should by themselves
constitute grounds for rejecting the asylum application. There
may be extenuating circumstances. Similarly, use of false
documents should not count against the applicant provided
he can give a reasonable explanation for them [argumentum ex
contrario from Article 28(1)(a)].

3.2.14.3.
Article 25(2) includes travel routes among the
relevant facts which an applicant must put forward to the
competent authorities. Although travel routes are an important
element, they are not a decisive or predominant factor in
determining refugee status.

3.2.14.4.
Article 25 makes no mention of the burden of
proof. In this connection, the Committee proposes that a
reference be made to paragraph 196 of the UNHCR’s Handbook
on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status.

3.2.15. A r t i c l e 2 8 — m a n i f e s t l y u n f o u n d e d

a p p l i c a t i o n s

3.2.15.1.
The Committee proposes that the words ‘only in
accordance with the provisions of the present article’ be added
here, in order to ensure that Member States cannot arbitrarily
adopt other grounds in addition to those set out in the article.

3.2.15.2.
The Committee would also urge that it be clearly
stated in the draft directive that the principles which are
essential to a fair asylum procedure, described in Section I,
including those which
apply to all asylum applications,
are ‘manifestly unfounded’. All procedures,
including the
accelerated procedure, must comply with the minimum
guaranteed standards contained in the proposal.

These articles

3.2.17.1.
represent a balanced solution
between Annex II (basic requirements) and lists drawn up by
the Member States themselves. The Committee believes that
the procedural guarantee would be strengthened by securing
the Member States’ agreement to limit this concept to the
requirements under Annex II. The purpose of this suggestion
is to prevent the ‘safe country of origin’ designation being used
to restrict access to the asylum procedure, which could even
lead to cases of discrimination contrary to the provisions of
Article 41.

3.2.17.2.
The Committee considers that this is a difficult
concept to pin down, since a country may be ‘safe’ in general
terms but dangerous for a specific individual or group of
people. As the situation in a country may change from day to
day, close attention must be paid to the international situation
and the above-mentioned lists must be flexible and kept up-
to-date.

3.2.17.2.1.
The Committee would recall that asylum is a
fundamental right and as such, is owed by the country where
the application for asylum is lodged: it is not an option left to
the good will of, or an ad hoc appraisal by, that country. This
fact must be explicitly mentioned in the text of the directive.

requirements

Turning to the

3.2.17.3.
contained in
Annex II, the Committee stresses that in order for a country to
be considered a ‘safe country of origin’, it must fully comply
with the criteria set out in paragraphs A and C of point I of
the annex. Similarly, the remedies referred to in paragraph D
of point I must be effective.

3.2.18. A r t i c l e 3 2 — a p p e a l s p r o c e d u r e s

in the draft
The Committee welcomes the enshrinement
directive of ‘the right [for applicants] to appeal against any
decision taken on the admissibility or the substance of their
application for asylum’.

3.2.19. A r t i c l e 3 3 — a p p e a l s p r o c e d u r e s

The Committee highlights and warmly welcomes
3.2.16.
the alternative of
the provision of Article 28(2)(a)
internal flight may not be considered grounds for rejecting an
application.

that

The general rule is that appeals, under both the regular and
accelerated procedures, have a suspensive effect. In the interests
of preventing ‘refoulement’, the procedural guarantee would
be strengthened by securing Member States’ agreement to limit
the number of derogations from this rule under Article 33(2).

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/83

3.2.20. A r t i c l e 4 1 — n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n p r o -

v i s i o n

The Committee welcomes the inclusion of this provision in
the draft directive, reflecting Member States’
international
obligation to protect refugees from discrimination.

3.2.21. A r t i c l e 4 3 — C o m m i s s i o n r e p o r t

Given the role which the Economic and Social Committee
plays in actively ensuring greater involvement of civil society
in asylum issues, and in order to preserve the European
tradition of protecting human rights, of which the present
issue represents one facet, the Committee considers that the
report on the implementation of the directive in the Member
States, which the Commission is to submit to the European
Parliament and the Council, should also be submitted to the
Committee.

4. Conclusions

4.2.
The present opinion proposes a number of additions
which the Committee believes should be taken on board, in
order to:

— clarify and consolidate the rights of asylum applicants

and refugees;

— provide asylum applicants and refugees with fair and, as

far as possible, harmonised procedures;

— make asylum applicants more aware of their rights under

the draft directive;

— promote a climate of shared responsibility and commit-
ment on the part of the Member States and civil society
in upholding the right of asylum.

The Committee believes that with the proposed recommen-
dations, the directive will establish minimum standards that
will form the basis for an asylum policy. These minimum
standards must however be viewed as an initial plank for a set
of common standards which are vital
in order to achieve
harmonised provisions that will provide the necessary protec-
tion for refugees and allow them to move freely within the EU
in future.

4.1.
The Committee supports adoption of the proposal for
a directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member
States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, seeing it as
a welcome and necessary step towards achieving a common
European policy on asylum.

4.3.
To this end, the Committee calls on the Council and
European Parliament to consider the alterations suggested in
the present opinion and strive to adopt the measures proposed
therein,
the proposed
Directive at the earliest possible opportunity.

incorporating them in the text of

Brussels, 26 April 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS