Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof"
Date: 2001-06-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to refugees, cooperation policy, forced migration, refugee

C 357/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

6. Conclusions

These ‘Erika II’ proposals present an opportunity to
6.1.
take a step back, review the whole picture and endeavour to
develop a set of rules which do apply to all classes of ship thus
reducing the risk to crews, vessels and coastal environments.

6.2.
The Committee of the Regions urges new arrangements
to be implemented in such a way that EU action adds value to
the existing arrangements put in place at national and regional
level.

6.3.
It is important to ensure that the EU works proactively
to achieve consensual progress in the IMO to achieve new
measures and that a clear chain of responsibility is identified
for the operation of all shipping in European waters reducing
the final negative impacts on local and regional authorities.

6.4.
The Committee of the Regions would encourage the
European Commission to engage in further research in relation
to the technical measures proposed. In designing these research
programmes due regard should be given to the operational
practices in the shipping industry and the cost/benefit relation-
ships accruing.

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

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

(2001/C 357/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

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

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

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

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

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

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/7

The Committee of the Regions

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

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

the Presidency of

welcomes the conclusions of

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

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

major practical challenges. It has been shown that the plethora
of different national regulations on giving temporary protec-
tion has made it difficult to coordinate the actions of Member
States to admit the persons concerned in their respective
territories. There are differences in particular with regard to
the rights and social benefits of those admitted;

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

— being able to provide EU assistance efficiently and on the

basis of solidarity,

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

— being able to provide protection for the persons con-

cerned quickly and simply, and

— sharing the burden of reception equally between the

Member States;

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

— social responsibilities in conjunction with the reception

of displaced persons,

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

— practical responsibilities involved with accommodating

such persons, or

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

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

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

6.
points out that, in the event of a mass influx of displaced
persons, it is primarily regions and municipalities which face

— financial burdens incurred in meeting their material needs

and providing benefits;

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

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

emphasises that the draft Directive provides an appro-

10.
priate overall framework of measures;

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

C 357/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

Recommendations

16. Minimum requirements with regard to family reuni-

fication [Articles 13 and 14(3)]

Focusing on the main elements of the draft, the Committee of
the Regions therefore recommends the following modifi-
cations and additions to the Commission’s proposed Directive:

12. Maximum duration of

temporary protection

(Article 4)

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

13. Establishment of a mass influx of displaced persons

(Article 5)

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

14. Access to the labour market (Article 10)

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

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

15. Access to general education and vocational training

(Article 12)

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

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

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

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

17. Measures after temporary protection (Article 19)

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

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

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/9

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

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

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

18. No return in the case of ongoing medical treatment

(Article 22)

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

19.

Funding
(Article 24)

from the

European Refugee

Fund

The CoR welcomes the proposal

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

According to the CoR’s assessment,

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

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

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

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

21.

Joint selection of eligible persons in the event of
evacuations

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

21.1.
The CoR feels that, in order to cater for the possibility
that an evacuation of persons in need of protection may

C 357/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

become necessary, the Directive should provide for a panel to
be put together jointly by the Member States for the purpose
of selecting the eligible persons in the country of origin.

21.2.
Past experience has shown that in cases of evacuation
from crisis zones — as in the evacuation of Kosovar refugees
from Macedonian refugee camps — each Member State sends

its own committee to the region to select those who will be
granted protection. Provision should therefore be made in
such circumstances for a panel to be put together jointly by
the Member States (if necessary involving NGOs) for the
purpose of selecting those eligible for evacuation according to
uniform criteria in a decision which will be binding on the
Member States.

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission on
Strategies for jobs in the information society’

(2001/C 357/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on Strategies for jobs in the information
society (COM(2000) 48 final);

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 13 June 2000, under the fifth paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to direct Commission 5 for Social Policy,
Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism to undertake the preparatory work;

having regard to its Opinion on Public sector information: a key resource for Europe — A Commission
Green Paper on Public sector information in the information society (COM(98) 585 final) (CdR 190/1999
fin) (1);

having regard to its Opinion on Learning in the information society: An action plan for a European
Education Initiative (96-98) (COM(96) 471 final) (CdR 368/96 fin) (2);

having regard to its Opinion on the Green Paper on Living and working in the information society:
People first (COM(96) 389 final) (CdR 365/96 fin) (3);

having regard to its Resolution on The information society: from Corfu to Dublin — The new emerging
priorities — The implications of the information society for European Union policies — Preparing the
next steps (COM(96) 395 final) (CdR 337/96 fin) (4);

having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council on a multi-annual Community programme for purposes of stimulating the development
of a European multimedia content industry and of encouraging utilisation of this multimedia content in
the emerging information society (INFO 2000) (COM(95) 149 final) (CdR 22/96 fin) (5);

(1) OJ C 57, 29.2.2000, p. 11
(2) OJ C 116, 14.4.1997, p. 89
(3) OJ C 116, 14.4.1997, p. 81
(4) OJ C 42, 10.2.1997, p. 31
(5) OJ C 129, 2.5.1996, p. 39