Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the common asylum policy and the Agenda for protection (Second Commission Report on the implementation of Communication COM(2000)755 final of 22 November 2000)
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, aid to refugees, approximation of laws, international human rights law, right of asylum

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 26.03.2003
COM(2003)152  final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the common asylum policy and the Agenda for protection

(Second Commission report on the implementation of Communication
COM(2000)755 final of 22 November 2000)

   
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3

1.

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

The background to the adoption of the Agenda for protection and its impact on the
European Union ........................................................................................................... 4

Priorities for the European Union ................................................................................ 6

Access to protection ..................................................................................................... 6

Durable solutions ....................................................................................................... 10

Towards shared responsibilities with third countries................................................. 12

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 15

ANNEX :

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST-STAGE LEGISLATIVE

PROGRAMME AND SUPPORT MEASURES ....................................................... 17

1.

2.

3.

4.

First-stage legislation ................................................................................................. 17

Administrative cooperation and accompanying measures......................................... 19

Other developments ................................................................................................... 20

Open coordination method applied to asylum, information exchanges and common
analysis....................................................................................................................... 22

2

INTRODUCTION

The report period (December 2001 to February 2003) was an important period in getting the
common  European  asylum  system  up  and  running.  As  can  be  seen  from  the  Annex  to  this
Communication,  significant  progress  was  made  in  implementing  the  legislative  programme
for the first phase, determined by the conclusions of the Tampere European Council, and in
developing  support  measures  to  flesh  out  this  new  policy.  But  progress  still  lagged  behind,
even if it met the deadlines set by the Seville European Council. Moreover the price to be paid
for it was sometimes a reduction in the effectiveness of the harmonisation or a very low level
of agreed standards. The need for unanimous adoption of Community instruments is the main
cause, while the difficulty met by the Member States in abandoning their national agendas is
another. Beyond the progress made with the Nice Treaty, proceedings at the Convention and
the  Commission’s  contribution  particularly  highlighted  this  problem.  It  is  very  highly
desirable  that  the  Council  learn  the  lessons  of  this  stage  of  the  negotiations  so  that  the
instruments still on the table can be adopted in 2003. The Directive on asylum procedures is a
major item here.

Achievement of the commitments given at Tampere is well in hand. The bases for the second
stage  of  harmonisation,  which  is  ultimately  to  yield  a  common  asylum  procedure  and  a
uniform  status,  are  now  being  laid  by  an  important  series  of  studies,  the  reinforcement  of
forms of  administrative  cooperation  and  the  establishment  of  convergence  tools  such  as  the
Immigration  and  Asylum  Committee  and  EURASIL.  But  the  crisis  in  the  asylum  system  is
more  and  more  striking  in  certain  Member  States,  and  there  is  a  growing  malaise  in  public
opinion.  Abuse  of  asylum  procedures  is  on  the  rise,  as  are  hybrid  migratory  flows,  often
maintained  by  trafficking  practices  involving  both  people  with  a  legitimate  need  for
international  protection  and  migrants  using  asylum  procedures  to  gain  access  to  the
Member States  to  improve their economic  situation. The number of  negative decisions  after
examination of needs for international protection remain significant.

This phenomenon, which is a real threat to the institution of asylum and more  generally  for
Europe’s humanitarian  tradition, demands  a  structural response. There  is  a  priority  need  for
more  resolute  action  on  the  underlying  causes;  the  Commission  presented  its  proposals  on
3 December 2002 with its Communication on the integration of migration-related questions in
the European Union’s relations with third countries. And the Commission has made proposals
for  controlled 
its  Communication  of
22 November 2000  on  a  Community  immigration  policy.  The  Commission  will  shortly  be
offering  new  suggestions  on  the  different  forms  of  interaction  between  immigration,
integration policies and social and employment policies.

immigration  channels  on 

the  basis  of 

legal 

Regarding  asylum  policy,  there  is  now  a  manifest  need  to  explore  new  avenues  to
complement the stage-by-stage approach adopted at Tampere. The question arises whether the
Member  States  could  better  deploy  the  major  human  and  financial  resources  which,  partly
supported by the European Refugee Fund, they devote to receiving displaced persons  in  the
context  of  often  lengthy  procedures  that  regularly  culminate  in  negative  decisions  requiring
repatriation  after  a  long  wait.  Three  complementary  objectives  should  now  be  pursued  to
improve the management of asylum in the context of an enlarged Europe: improvement of the
quality  of  decisions  (“frontloading”)  in  the  European  Union;  consolidation  of  protection
capacities  in  the  region  of  origin;  treatment  of  protection  requests  as  close  as  possible  to
needs,  which  presupposes  regulating  access  to  the  Union  by  establishing  protected  entry
schemes and resettlement programmes.

3

Thinking  here  falls  in  the  context  of  the  implementation  of  the  Agenda  for  Protection,
established by the international community after two years’ worldwide consultations. It aims
to offer a response to today’s challenges in the governance of the refugee problem around the
world  faced  with  difficulties  of  applying  international  protection  rules  in  a  situation  where
there are hybrid migratory flows and ongoing persecutions, risks and dangers forcing millions
of people to go into exile where they need protection. Now that the European asylum system
has reached critical mass, and thanks to its capacities for external action and search for new
channels, the European Union now has significant tools with which to improve its responses
to the new challenges and to implement the multilateral Agenda  for  protection in which the
Commission identifies three major priorities: access to protection, durable solutions and better
responsibility-sharing  with  third  countries.  The European Union  ought to  be  a key  actor  for
the Agenda’s long-term success.

1.

THE  BACKGROUND  TO  THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE AGENDA  FOR  PROTECTION  AND  ITS
IMPACT ON THE EUROPEAN UNION

The relevance and primacy of the Geneva Convention confirmed

The worldwide consultations launched in December 2000, just before the 50th anniversary of
the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugee status, are a response to the new  challenges facing
international  protection  and  the  HCR.  There  was  a  particularly  urgent  need  for  solutions
reaffirming  the  relevance  and  universality  of  the  Convention  at  the  dawn  of  the
XXIst Century, and for clarification as regards the application of certain of its provisions and
identification  of  what  elements  were  missing  from  the  Convention  which  would  help  to
develop  better  protection  and  management  of  migratory  flows  and  durable  solutions.  The
outcome of this process was the approval by the HCR Executive Committee in autumn 2002
of an Agenda for Protection, a multilateral instrument standing on two pillars.  The first  is a
declaration by the States Parties to the Geneva Convention and its Protocol at the Ministerial
Conference in Switzerland in December 2001 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Convention.
The  Declaration  reasserts  the  central  role  played  by  the  Convention  in  the  international
protection  system.  The  second  establishes  an  action  programme  covering  six  Goals,  each
subdivided into several objectives:

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Strengthening the implementation of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol;

Protecting refugees within broader migratory movements;

Sharing burdens and responsibilities more equitably and building capacities to receive
refugees;

Addressing security-related concerns more effectively;

Redoubling the search for durable solutions;

(6)  Meeting the protection needs of refugee women and refugee children.

Beyond certain differences, the first of which is obviously the number of refugees received,
many  southern  or  medium-developed  countries  are  facing  the  same  problems  of  managing
hybrid  migratory  flows  and  matching  protection  systems  to  needs  as  exist  in  the  western
countries.  Particular  attention  has  been  drawn  to  the  interaction  between  questions  of  crisis
prevention  and  management,  respect  for  human  rights,  development,  integration  or
reintegration of refugee populations.

4

The proposals of the High Commissioner for Refugees for the Convention Plus

In  the  context  of  the  adoption  of  the  Agenda  for  Protection,  the  United  Nations  High
Commissioner  for  Refugees  rapidly  called  on  the  international  community  to  consider  his
ideas, assembled under the name “Convention Plus”. Following up the Agenda, the objective
of  this  concept  is  to  improve  the  operation  of  the  Geneva  Convention,  boost  solidarity  and
extend  the  management  of  asylum-related  migratory  flows  by  means  of  modernised
instruments or policies. It acknowledges that the asylum and international protection system
can come under serious threat if it is used for other purposes or repeatedly misused, notably
by  networks  of  traffickers  in  human  beings.  The  High  Commissioner  more  particularly
developed this topic when addressing European Ministers and the Commission at the informal
Council meeting in Copenhagen in September 2002. Among other things he proposed:

(1)

The conclusion of special agreements with a view to:

–  Plans of action to ensure more effective and predictable responses to mass influx;

–  Targeted development assistance to achieve more equitable burden–sharing and to promote
self–reliance of refugees and returnees in host countries and communities, facilitating local
integration in remote areas and countries of origin in the context of reintegration;

–  Multilateral resettlement commitments;

–  Roles  and  responsibilities  of  countries  of  origin,  transit  and  destination  in  "irregular"  or
"secondary  movement"  situations  (multilateral  readmission  arrangements;  capacity–
building; extraterritorial protection arrangements in a responsibility–sharing framework);

Cooperation from the HCR to help States expedite asylum procedures and improve the

(2)
quality of the examination of asylum requests by:

–  Identifying safe countries of origin and safe third countries;

–  Information on countries of origin;

–  Monitoring the case-law in the Member States.

The HCR accepts that the concept of special agreements is still rather vague and will have to
be  clarified,  particularly  in  the Forum set  up  for  the  purpose,  which  is  to  meet  for  the  first
time in Geneva in June 2003.

The issues involved for the European Union and the multilateral protection system

The  EU  Member  States  and  the  Commission  were  involved  in  the  work  and  supported  the
adoption of the Agenda. They welcomed the spirit of the High Commissioner’s proposals, and
in  particular  the  pro-active  approach  to  finding  solutions  to  difficulties  that  sometimes
tarnished the credibility of the institution of asylum. The European harmonisation process and
the Agenda for Protection were mutually boosting. The Tampere conclusions, the negotiations
for  Community  legislation,  and  the  Commission  proposals  in  the  communications  of
November  2000  on  the  long-term  objectives  of  asylum  policy  and  on  the  European
immigration policy all operated as input for the Agenda.

Today the critical mass attained by the Community in protection policy enable it to implement
a large number of objectives already identified by the Agenda. The European Community can

5

continue to upgrade its body of rules and practice in the near future.  For the HCR and third
countries,  useful  precedents  can  be  established  on  the  basis  of  it.  Difficulties  met  in
negotiating or applying it will also provide food for thought.

The  second  stage  of  harmonisation  in  Europe  as  developed  by  the  Commission  in
November 2000 calls for more modern means of action and an ever more important interface
between  the  internal  process  and  the  external  aspect  of  the  governance  of  refugees.  The
European  common  asylum  system  cannot  basically  be  improved  without  integrating  overall
problems  and  deepening  the  multilateral  protection  system.  By  the  same  token,  the
Commission is convinced  that the  success  of  the Agenda for  Protection  depends  heavily  on
Europe’s ambition as regards its common asylum policy and the results it generates.

In this context, the question of burden and responsibility-sharing must not be seen solely in
terms  of  spreading  financial  or physical  burdens  but  also  of  multifaceted  solutions  and  in
qualitative  terms.  The  objectives  here  should  be  to  better  manage  the  asylum  system  in
general  and to offer effective and appropriate protection  solutions  on the basis  of mastering
and regulating asylum-related flows in their European territorial dimension and in regions of
origin.  It  will  be  decisive  that  the  European  Union  develop  a  genuine  policy  of  partnership
with third  countries  and  relevant  international  organisations.  Protected  entry  schemes  in  the
European Union for persons in need of international protection could be developed in parallel.
The  concept  of protection  in  the  region  of  origin,  which  has  hitherto  been  behind  a  large
number  of  misunderstandings  and  controversies,  could  be  integrated  into  an  overall
architecture  offering  solutions  that  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  Respect  for  the  European
Union’s international obligations and those of its Member States should also underlie such
solutions.

2.

PRIORITIES FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION

The point now is to implement the Agenda so as to bring about the practical and operational
conditions  for  a  better  international  protection  system.  Each  country,  region  or  organisation
concerned must incorporate the programme’s objectives in its policy and legislative agenda.
But  priorities  for  action  need  to  be  defined.  The  various  aims,  objectives  and  measures
identified in the action programme are interdependent, but the Commission is proposing three
priority themes for the European Union. They should make it possible to deal with most of the
questions raised by the Agenda for Protection and the Convention Plus concept and to lay a
basis for the development of a better responsibility-sharing with third countries.

2.1

Access to protection

The  Agenda  for  Protection  includes  a  wide  range  of  measures  to  promote  access  to
protection in order to:

– 

– 

– 

better  apply  the  Geneva  Convention  and  offer  suitable  forms  of  international
protection to meet all protection needs;

improve asylum procedures, reception conditions and registration  and  identification
schemes,  respect  for  refugees  and  their  protection  in  the  management  of  hybrid
migratory flows;

enhance  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  knowledge  of  migratory
flows;

6

– 

– 

reinforce institutional capacities in cooperation and solidarity and responses to large-
scale influxes;

offer a better response to questions of security and the needs of women and children.

The basic components put in place by the European Community for access to protection,
directly relevant for the implementation of the Agenda for Protection, are:

(cid:1)  more  harmonised,  integrated  and  comprehensive  application  of  the  Geneva  Convention

and a reduction of differing interpretations of the concept of refugee;

(cid:1)  parallel  provision  of 
international protection;

subsidiary  protection 

to 

cover 

all 

the  needs 

for

(cid:1) 

fairer, faster and more efficient asylum procedures;

(cid:1)  basic standards for the reception of asylum-seekers;

(cid:1)  a  better  identification  system  using  EURODAC,  but  also  a  better  registration  system
applying  a  number  of  standards  included  in  legislative  instruments  (asylum  procedures,
reception conditions, temporary protection);

(cid:1)  a policy against discrimination, racism and xenophobia, through legislation and awareness

measures;

(cid:1)  clearer  sharing  of  responsibilities  between  Member  States  for  the  examination  of

asylum requests;

(cid:1)  a determined fight against trafficking in human  beings through  Community accession to
the Protocols to the UN Convention of Palermo on transnational organised crime and the
adoption of legislative and financial instruments;

(cid:1)  establishment of analysis and exchange tools on migratory flows;

(cid:1)  solidarity mechanisms and reinforcement of asylum capacities and, ultimately, capacities

for external border controls and the management of illegal migratory flows;

(cid:1)  stronger dialogue and partnership with third countries;

(cid:1)  a  common  mechanism  to  manage  large-scale  influxes  of  displaced  persons  through

temporary protection;

(cid:1)  domestic  security  requirements  and  the  situation  of  minors  and  gender  questions  to  be

taken into account in legislative instruments and in programmes.

Better  access  to  protection  in  Europe  must  go  hand  in  hand  with  a  regulated  and  more
transparent  framework  for  a  policy  on  admissions,  including  for  employment  purposes.
The  Commission  restates  the  importance  it  attaches  to  practical  progress  on  the  basis  of  its
proposals  here,  both  for  legislation  and  for  the  coordination  of  employment  and  admission
policies, in partnership with third countries.

Various  developments  are  conceivable  in  a  dynamic  perspective  for  the  months  ahead  to
promote synergies between the reinforcement of the common European asylum system as an

7

integrated  regional  system  in  context  of  enlargement  from  2004,  and  the  universal
implementation of the Agenda for Protection and the practical realisation of the ideas of the
High Commissioner for Refugees summed up as the Convention Plus concept.

Regarding  the  application  of  the  Geneva  Convention,  the  Commission  recalls  that  the
establishment of the common European asylum system is based primarily on the adoption of
Community legislative instruments. One of the objectives of the main Community instrument
is to narrow divergences of interpretation in the implementation of the convention’s rules on
recognition  of  refugee  status.  There  are  different  ways  of  doing  this:  meetings  of  contact
committees to review the application of the directive on the definition and status of refugee,
prerogatives  of  the  Commission  and  the  European  Court  of  Justice  in  ensuring  compliance
with Community law. Here the HCR could intervene in cases before the national courts and
the European Court of Justice in preliminary ruling proceedings under Article 234 of the EC
Treaty.  If  it  is  pointed  out  that  there  remain  wide  divergences  of  interpretation  of  the  rules
governing  refugee  status  under  the  directive,  that  would  be  clear  evidence  that  there  is
inadequate  harmonisation  in  terms  of  the  objective  of  a  uniform  status.  The  Commission
should  draw  the  conclusions  and  produce  a  legislative  proposal.  The  Eurasil  Network  (see
Annex, point 4) of representatives of appeal bodies in the Member States could also lay a role
under Commission guidance. The Commission will consider ways and means of involving the
HCR in this.

Regarding  asylum  procedures,  and  without  prejudice  to  the  outcome  of  the  current
negotiations on the first phase of harmonisation here, the European Community must go more
thoroughly  into  its  response  to  two  major  challenges:  the  quality  of  the  examination  of
applications,  and  the  speed  of  procedures.  The  Commission  will  intensify  its  work  on
“frontloading”, in particular through further study of the question of the one-stop-shop begun
in November 2000. It will be mindful of the results of a study launched by the Commission,
the results of which have been available since January 2003. This study describes the current
practices of Member States  and a few other countries (Switzerland, Canada) and  observes a
tendency  to  include  subsidiary  protection  among  the  procedures  for  determining  refugee
status  in  the  past  decade.  The  study  examines  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the
one-stop-shop  method.  It  emphasises  that  there  is  growing  support  for  this  concept  in  the
Member  States,  the  HCR  and  elsewhere,  despite  substantial  differences  of  detail  between
national practices.

The  use  of  the  concepts  of  safe  countries  of  origin  and  safe  third  countries  to  expedite
procedures  and  focus  on  the  persons  with  the  greatest  needs,  should  be  given  a  legislative
basis  for  the  first  time  by  the  end  of  2003  on  the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  amended
proposal.  The  Council  adopted  conclusions  on  the  two  concepts 
in  October  and
November 2002. On 13 November 2002, Austria took the initiative of proposing a Regulation
establishing the criteria for determining the States which  qualify  as  safe  third  States  for  the
purpose  of  taking  the  responsibility  for  examining  an  application  for  asylum  lodged  in  a
Member State by a third country national and drawing up a list of safe third States1 in Europe.
The Council has agreed to consider the initiative in connection with its work on the amended
Commission proposal on asylum procedures.

As it is stated in its Communication of November 2000, the Commission has an open mind on
this question as harmonisation is necessary in the context of the common asylum procedure.
The  harmonisation  method  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  the  first  phase  was  realistic  in

1

OJ C 17, 24.1.2003.

8

                                                
view of the divergent practices of the Member States. But the Commission would be glad if
discussions in the Council revealed a greater degree of political maturity in this respect and a
more ambitious vision of harmonisation. Closer cooperation between the Community and the
HCR regarding information about countries of origin and transit is essential. These concepts
have been devised hitherto from a purely procedural angle. It is necessary to consider the link
between  them  and  the  external  policy  on  protection  and  relations  with  identified  third
countries.  Thought  might  be  given  to  adding,  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  certain  forms  of
partnership with these countries.

The problem of access to protection raises the core question of access to the territory.

The implementation of the Agenda for Protection should enable the European Union to study
in closer detail the  degree of compatibility of  reinforcing  the  protection  given  to  those  who
need it  and  respect  for  the  principle  of  non-refoulement  with  the  measures  taken  to  combat
illegal  immigration  and  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  external  border  control  measures.
The Commission made its views on this known in its communication on illegal immigration
and its Green Paper and Communication on a Community return policy on illegal immigrants.
The question should be on the agenda of the Committee on Immigration and Asylum.

At  the  same  time  the  Commission  is  planning  to  raise  in  the  Council  and  the  European
Parliament  the  question  of  protected  entry  procedures,  to  complement  the  treatment  of
spontaneous  arrivals  by  asylum-seekers  in  Europe,  dealt  with  in  the  communication  of
November 2000 as possible scenarios in the context of an ambitious and integrated concept of
the common asylum procedure.

A  study  launched  for  the  Commission  on  external  processing  was  delivered  in
December 2002. The study suggests that EU Member States should consider "protected entry
procedures"  as  part  of  a  comprehensive  approach,  complementary  to  existing  territorial
asylum  systems.  According  to  the  authors,  these  procedures  would  constitute  the  most
adequate  response  to  the  challenge  of  reconciling  control  objectives  with  the  obligation  of
protecting  refugees.  It  proposes  to  enrich  existing  visa  policies  with  a  protection  dimension
and  to  jointly  create  protection  places.  It  also  suggests  offering  a  platform  for  the  regional
presence of the EU, integrating different dimensions of migration (determination procedures,
protection solutions, labour migration and return as well as assistance to the region of origin)
into  a  single  tool,  thus  allowing  the  EU  to  manage  them  in  a  coordinated  way.  The  study
suggests  disseminating  best  practices  on  an  EU  level  and  regulating  the  allocation  of
responsibility  to  process  applications  for  protection  visas  among  member  states.  The
suggestions  in  this  study  should  be  examined  and  evaluated  most  carefully,  particularly  as
regards the role of the Member States, who have not yet come to a consensus. The question of
the precise role of the HCR will also have to be high on the agenda.

Presently, one third of the fifteen EU Member States practise Protected Entry Procedures on a
formalised basis as a complementary channel. Six Member States allow access in exceptional
cases and in an informal fashion. However, the present diversity and incoherence of Member
States  practice  diminishe  their  actual  impact.  There  is  therefore  a  strong  case  for
harmonisation in this area.

In  conjunction  with  work  on  resettlement  (see  point  2.2)  and  more  adequate  external
assistance to countries that first receive refugees, in consultation with the HCR among others,
European developments in regulated management of access to international protection in the
territory of the Member States should make it possible to make better use of public finances
of which a sizeable proportion is currently devoted to meeting needs which go beyond those

9

involved  in  receiving  persons  in  need  of  international  protection.  At  the  same  time,  these
developments would be powerful weapons in the fight against trafficking in human beings as
traffickers would lose much of their competitive advantage in terms of access to the European
Union. The regional platform idea might be worth exploring further as a means of providing
effective protection and a response to genuine requests for international protection with offers
of durable solutions. The conclusion of special agreements could also be considered here. The
Commission will put the topic on the agenda for the Committee on Immigration and Asylum.

2.2

Durable solutions

The  search  for  durable  solutions  is  the  objective  that  unites  the  Agenda  for  Protection  and
the Convention Plus. There are three durable solutions that have traditionally been identified
by the international community to the problem of refugees: voluntary return, integration and
resettlement.

Return policy

The  Agenda for  Protection states very  clearly that  priority  is to  establish  the  conditions  in
countries of origin by removing the reasons for leaving and allowing those forced into exile to
return safely and durably, priority being given to voluntary returns. That demands both action
in  countries  of  origin  and  transit  and  a  consistent  approach  in  host  countries.  At  the  same
time,  returns  may  not  be  the  only  durable  solution,  particularly  in  the  event  of  a  protracted
refugee situation. The Agenda also states that the long-term credibility of the asylum system
must be based on the return of people who no longer need international protection and have
no other grounds for residing legally.

The  first  elements  of  a  common  European  approach  were  adopted  in  the  plan  of  action
against  illegal  immigration  in  February  2002  and  the  plan  on  returns  in  November  2002
following  the  Commission’s  Green  Paper  and  Communications2  and  in  the  policy  on
readmission followed by the European Community; the Green Paper and communication on
the policy  on  returns  specified  conditions  for  durability  and  laid  the  bases  for  an  integrated
approach  including  preparation  for  the  return,  training  and  assistance  with  employment,
various forms of assistance with the journey back to the country of origin and or reintegration,
and follow-up and assistance after the return.

The plan of action on returns confirms that the European Union must establish an approach of
its  own  to  integrated  returns.  These  programmes  should  cover  all  stages  of  the  return
procedure, namely the stage preceding departure, return itself, reception and integration in the
country of return. These integrated return programmes should be devised country by country,
so  as  to  reflect  specific  situations,  the  number  of  persons  concerned  and  the  needs  of  the
relevant countries. The adoption of the EU return plan for Afghans in November 2002 must
be seen as a first practical attempt to tackle a specific geographical problem. The Commission
is  particularly  attentive  to  the  sustainability  of  the  planned  returns,  to  consistency  between
Community  support  and  a  broader  international  perspective  regarding  the  reconstruction  of
Afghanistan and cooperation with the relevant third countries and international organisations,
in particular HCR. The results of applying this plan will have to be studied to see what can be
learnt in terms of efficiency and partnership with third parties, particularly in the  context of
the debate on the concept of special agreements.

2

COM(2002)175, 10.4.2002; COM(2002)564, 14.10.2002.

10

                                                
Hitherto priority has generally been given to repatriation of illegal residents, but the concept
of the return as a durable solution is obviously a broader one. The Commission considers that
the European  Union must go into further detail as to its  approach here  in the context of the
common asylum policy. This component will have to be taken into account in the discussion
on a possible Community financial instrument for returns. With an eye to a common asylum
procedure and a uniform status, it would also be worth developing common analyses on the
persistence of major obstacles to the return of certain groups of people in the Union to ensure
that  members  of  such  groups  are  not  repatriated  from  certain  Member  States  when  they
probably  would  not  have  been  from  others.  The  participation  of  the  European  Union  in
genuine international strategies and partnerships for returns could be further developed.

Integration in the host society

The  Agenda  for  Protection  provides  for  measures  to  promote  local  integration  through
socio-economic  measures,  attention  for  the  specific  needs  of  refugees  though  also  of  host
populations,  with  the  possibility  that  rights  as  to  status  and  residence  could  go  so  far  as
naturalisation in countries of asylum and support for autonomy.

A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  problems  of  integration  in  host  societies  in  the
European Union and in regions of origin. At the same time, if the European Union wishes to
remain  consistent  with  its  interest  in  reception  policies  in  regions  of  origin,  it  must  be
attentive to integration needs in host countries there (see point 2.3).

Internally, the basic elements put in place by the Union for the integration of people enjoying
protection in the Member States begin with a Community legislative framework consolidating
the  status  and  residence  rights  of  persons  given  protection,  plus  elements  of  long-term
residence and family reunification. At the present stage of the harmonisation process the need
has  not  been  felt  to  establish  wholly  comparable  norms  for  refugees  and  persons  enjoying
subsidiary  protection.  This  will  have  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  work  on  the  uniform  status.
Moreover, the objectives of the European Union set at Tampere and fleshed out in the Council
conclusions of 14 October 2002 are fair treatment for third-country nationals residing legally
and  harmonisation  of  their  legal  status  on  that  of  Member-State  nationals  in  terms  of  both
rights and obligations.

Although the fact that persons enjoying international protection have been forced into exile,
certain specific needs  generated  by  the  reasons  for  which  they  have  opted  for  exile  and  the
rights conferred by the Geneva Convention are all factors that must be taken into account, the
challenges of integration are much the same as for other migrants from third countries and for
host societies in relation to questions such as nationality, citizenship and respect for diversity,
social policy  and access to  the employment market,  education and training. In  spring  2003
the Commission will make some proposals for an integration policy, setting it in the context
of the European social and employment policy. The necessary equilibrium between horizontal
measures and specific measures for the integration of these people will have to be examined
here.

In 2003, with a view to further facilitating the movement of refugees in the European Union
and  to  feed  reflections  on  the  long-term  objective  of  a  uniform  status  valid  throughout  the
Union,  the  Commission  will  launch  the  final  study  announced  in  its  Communication  of
November 2000 on the transfer of protection status. Results should be available early in 2004.

11

Resettlement schemes

Resettlement consists of transferring refugees from a first host country to a second, generally
a  developed  country,  where  they  enjoy  guarantees  of  protection,  including  legal  residence,
and  prospects  for  integration  and  autonomy.  The  Agenda  for  Protection  calls  for  more
strategic  use  of  resettlement  schemes  to  meet  objectives  of  better  protection  for  certain
specific  individual  needs,  durable  solutions  for  groups  of  refugees,  greater  solidarity  in  the
reception of refugees and better organisation of the legal entry of refugees in host countries.

The  Commission  contemplates  the  resettlement  option  as  one  of  the  instruments  of  the
common  asylum  policy  and  procedure.  It  has  launched  a  study,  the  results  if  which  are
expected for the autumn of 2003. In the European Union, less than half the Member States
have  set  up  structural  resettlement  schemes,  whereas  others  can  be  described  as  emerging
resettlement  countries.  A  third  group  of  Member  States  agree  to  receive  refugees  for
resettlement on an ad hoc basis in very limited numbers. There are no common guidelines in
the Union for the moment.

The Commission accordingly proposes to  launch two  new  lines of activity. First, it propose
using the financial instruments for European solidarity and cooperation in asylum matters. In
the  implementation  of  Community  financial  instruments  it  will  seek  to  provide  support  and
encouragement  for  national  and  Community  projects  (priority  action  in  the  2003  call  for
proposals  for  Community  action  in  the  ERF,  special  budget  remark  in  the  2004  PDB  for
national ERF programmes, cooperation under the 2003 Argo framework programme, actions
under the 2003 call for  proposals under  line  B7-667 for cooperation with third countries  on
asylum  and  migration).  At  the  same  time  the  Commission  will  take  the  initiative  in  the
Immigration and  Asylum Committee of launching a policy debate on the  contribution  made
by resettlement to the common asylum policy, the  exchange of  good  practices and  even  the
feasibility of specific European instruments, including legislative instruments. The role of the
HCR and other partners will be considered. The question of resettlement will also have to be
taken into account in the debate on integration policy.

The Commission considers that only  a  common approach  will create the necessary  political
and  operational  basis  that  will  produce  beneficial  effects  on  terms  for  access  to  European
territory and allow resettlement to be used for strategic purposes both to assist the European
Union and to attain the objectives of the Agenda for Protection. It will enable it to enter into
such  agreements  as  may  be  needed.  The  Commission  will  announce  more  detailed
conclusions in a communication at the end of 2003.

2.3

Towards shared responsibilities with third countries

Sharing burdens and responsibilities more equitably in managing refugees is another objective
of the Agenda for Protection. Responsibility-sharing arrangements are mentioned as a means
of  relieving  the  burdens  borne  by  the  first  countries  of  asylum,  as  well  as  more  effective
cooperation  to  reinforce  the  protection  capacities  of  countries  receiving  refugees,  stronger
partnership  with  civil  society,  the  involvement  of  refugee  communities,  mainstreaming  the
question of refugees in national, regional and multilateral development agendas and effective
use of resettlement.

The instruments of the European external protection policy

Better  access  to  protection  for  persons  in  need  of  international  protection,  the  search  for
durable  solutions  and  solidarity  with  third  countries  all  call  for  the  mobilisation  of  a  vast

12

range  of  external  actions,  be  they  political,  economic  or  in  the  form  of  more  effective
financial and technical  assistance, in the  spirit  of  the  Tampere  and  Seville  conclusions.  The
European Union already has major trump cards which it can play better and better in the light
of the various objectives of the programme of action in the Agenda for Protection. They are
set  out  in  the  Commission  communication  of  3  December  2002  “Integrating  migration
questions  in  the  European  Union’s  relations  with  third  countries”,3  which  stresses  the
burden of receiving refugees borne by developing host countries, particularly in the event of
protracted situations. Special attention has been paid to this dimension in the management of
external  financial  instruments  such  as  aid  to  uprooted  persons.  Measures  to  assist  certain
vulnerable  groups  or  reinforce  protection  or  re-integration  capacities  in  host  countries  or
countries of origin have also been programmed on the basis of various other instruments. In
the framework of the pilot phase of preparatory measures on co-operation with third countries
in the areas of asylum  and  migration (budget line B7-667), a number of projects relating to
protection  and  capacity-building  are  being  supported  (such  as  assistance  to  Turkey  on  the
development of the asylum system and assistance to Afghanistan on capacity building and a
returnee monitoring data base).

The main aim of Community humanitarian aid managed by ECHO is to assist the victims
of natural and human disasters in third countries. It is unconditional, neutral and impartial and
is supplied solely on the basis of the needs of the populations concerned. One of the specific
objectives is to deal with the human consequences of movements of refugees and displaced or
repatriated  persons  in  third  countries  in  compliance  with  the  principles  set  out  above.
Community  action  focuses  on  protection  and  subsistence  needs  of  refugees  so  long  as  the
humanitarian  needs  engendered  by  the  crisis  subsist.  In  appropriate  cases  Community
assistance can also serve to support refuges’ voluntary  return to their country of origin with
safety  and  dignity.  Likewise,  schemes  for  resettling  refugees  from  a  country  of  refuge  to
another third country that agrees to take them can also be supported. Community action also
serves  to  support  the  HCR’s  protection  and  assistance  mandate.  In  October  2002,  the
Commission  took  a  major  decision  worth  €11 million  to  support  the  HCR  in  the  protection
and registration of refugees and safety of humanitarian workers, which is within objectives 1
and 4 of the programme of action of the Agenda for Protection.

The means of achieving more effective cooperation and assistance

Active support for a revamped approach to international protection depends on much heavier
involvement of third countries of first reception and transit and more serious consideration for
constraints  linked  to  returns  and  re-integration.  This  priority  will  have  to  be  taken  into
consideration  in  the  general  effort  announced  by  the  Commission  in  its  Communication  of
3 December  2002.  Following  on  from  its  analyses  and  proposals  in  the  communication,  the
Commission  will  endeavour,  when  necessary,  having  regard  to  the  guidelines  set  out  in  the
communication,  to  integrate  the  new  dimension  brought  to  the  governance  of  refugees
and  displaced  persons  by  the  Agenda  for  Protection  into  the  component  features  of  the
common European asylum system, the political dialogue with third countries, the examination
of Country and Regional Strategy Papers and the programming and targeting of Community
aid.

These different areas of activity could be refocused in a consistent and structured approach
that would improve international responsibility-sharing in the governance of refugees.

3

COM(2002)703.

13

                                                
Therefore,  it  is  the  intention  of  the  Commission  to  give  migration,  including  international
protection concerns, attention on a case by case basis in the Country and Regional Strategy
Papers  process,  with  which  Member  States  are  associated.  Incorporating  asylum  in  these
papers through the normal programming dialogue process should ensure full involvement and
commitment by  the country  or region concerned  as  well  as  differentiation  and  prioritisation
according to needs and policy situation. The Country Strategy Papers mid-term review, which
will begin in 2003, will give the opportunity to examine the extent to which greater priority
should be given to specific programmes dealing  with  asylum.  But  it must  be borne in  mind
that  that  there  is  only  limited  room  for  manoeuvre  with  the  available  resources  and  that
competing priorities will have to be offset against each other. In the follow-up to the budget
line  B7-667,  the  Commission  intends  to  propose  setting  up  and  implementing  from  2004
onwards a multi-annual programme designed both to provide a  specific,  additional  response
to  the  needs  encountered  by  third  countries  of  origin  and  transit  in  their  efforts  to  manage
more  effectively  all  aspects  of  migration  flows,  including  those  related  to  international
protection.

But the Commission will be at pains to emphasise two factors:

– 

– 

given the Community financial instruments available and the machinery for dialogue
and  programming  with  third  countries  receiving  assistance,  the  initiative  must  also
come  from  the  national  authorities  there  in  connection  with  their  commitments  for
the implementation of the Agenda;

the Community’s commitment must be accompanied by parallel mobilisation of the
EU  Member  States  in  the  bilateral  aid  context,  and  the  Commission  will  see  that
there is closer coordination and consistency between bilateral and Community action.

The  Commission  also  considers  that  it  is  for  international  financial  institutions  and
United Nations agencies (not only the HCR but also the UNDP, OCHA, OHCHR, UNRWA,
UNICEF,  the  WFP,  WHO  etc…),  under  the  supervision  of  the  Secretary-General,  to  better
define  the  functions  of  each  in  improving  the  governance  of  refugees  and  to  establish  a
strategic coordinated action plan to make practical improvements to the prospects for durable
solutions in the application of each of these functions, having regard both to the fate awaiting
refugees and to the capacities of the host countries and countries of origin concerned by flows
related to asylum, integration and durable returns.

At  any  rate  the  Commission  considers  that  the  HCR,  in  coordination  with  other  partners,
should  give  priority  to  a  clear  analysis  of  the  features  of  the  crises  linked  with  forced
displacements and identify the management issues this raises and the solutions. The European
Union could then identify a number of priorities in relation to the migratory flows that it has
to manage but above all geographical priorities for Europe’s external action. It considers that
the HCR’s examination of long-running refugee situations, in particular in Africa, should be
dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Lastly,  the  implementation  of  the  common  European  asylum  system  and  the  European
Union’s external action are thus powerful vectors for the implementation of the Agenda
for Protection and the Convention Plus. The development of internal powers in matters of
asylum should also enable the Community to develop external powers and to launch or take
part  in  negotiations  with  third  countries  or  partners  on  specific  problems  or  situations.  A
stronger  partnership  with  the  HCR  could  accompany  this  process  on  the  basis  of  existing
forms of  cooperation.  The  HCR  has  much  to  gain  from  regarding  the  European  Union  as  a
consistent entity in the medium term: this could be an incentive to make the most efficient use

14

of  the  human  and  budgetary  resources  currently  mobilised  in  the  EU  and  the  acceding
countries  and  gradually  redeploy  them  in  areas  where  there  is  a  greater  need  for  protection
and  support  for  host  countries  and  countries  of  origin.  This  factor  could  usefully  be
incorporated in  the  reflection launched  by  the  High  Commissioner  in  the  HCR  mandate  for
2004.  This  cooperation  could  be  accompanied  by  Community  participation  in  special
agreements, but the concept as presented by the HCR is at too much an embryonic stage for
defining a fully elaborated Community approach. The Forum in June 2003 will be of decisive
importance here.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2003 will be a crucial year for the consolidation of the common European asylum system on
the eve of enlargement of the Union. It will see the end of the first stage of harmonisation on
the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  proposals.  At  the  same  time  the  second  stage  called  for  at
Tampere will be sketched out, with the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a
uniform  status.  In  the  spirit  of  the  Agenda  for  Protection  and  the Convention  Plus,  the
European Union must embark resolutely on a new approach to international protection based
on better management of access for persons in need of international protection to the territory
of  the  Member  States  and  on  consolidation  of  the  possibilities  for  dealing  with  protection
needs in the region of origin. The Commission, on the basis of, among other things, the results
of a variety of studies already carried out, will embark on this, in close cooperation with the
HCR,  so  as  to  lay  operational  proposals  before  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament
before the end of the year.

The Commission accordingly requests the Council and the European Parliament to take note
of its second report on the common asylum policy and:

(cid:1)  asks  the  Council  to  adopt  all  the  first-stage  harmonisation  proposals  in  accordance  with
the  deadlines  by  the  Seville  European  Council,  in  particular  the  directive  on  asylum
procedures where the question of safe countries of origin and third countries will demand
special attention;

(cid:1)  invites the Council and Parliament to continue considering the question of an instrument
to  succeed  the  European  Refugee  Fund  on  the  basis  of  the  Commission  report  of
3 December 2002 on the effectiveness of Community financial resources;

(cid:1)  encourages the Member States to  make  the best  use of the  machinery for administrative
cooperation on asylum (Argo, statistical programme) and to contribute actively to it, and
undertakes  to  pursue  the  development  of  the  Immigration  and  Asylum  Committee  and
Eurasil  as  essential  means  of  comparing  analyses  and  practices  to  facilitate  the
identification  of  new  priorities  for  the  establishment  of  the  common  European  asylum
system;

(cid:1)  recommends that a common approach be devised to the implementation of the Agenda for
Protection and the Convention Plus and that it be defended in the governing bodies of the
Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees and its dialogue with that organisation;

(cid:1)  suggests  that  serious  thought  be  given  to  possibilities  offered  by  processing  asylum
applications outside the European Union and resettlement as instruments to complement a
fair  and  efficient  territorial  asylum  system  in  compliance  with  international  obligations
and with respect for dialogue and partnership with third countries;

15

(cid:1)  recommends that more detailed serious thought be given to the question of access to the
territories  of  Member  States  for  persons  in  need  of  international  protection  and
compatibility between stronger protection for these people and respect for the principle of
non-refoulement on the one hand and measures to combat illegal immigration, trafficking
in human beings and external border control measures on the other; the Commission will
enter this item on the agenda for the  Immigration and Asylum Committee, where it will
ensure that special attention  is paid to  the  question of protected entry  procedures  on  the
basis of the results of the study already available and the separate but related problem of
resettlement;

(cid:1)  invites  the  Council  to  look  beyond  the  existing  European  Union  action  plan  and  give
serious  thought  to  a  more  operational  definition  of  the  content  of  integrated  return
programmes  in  the  light  of  lessons  learned  from  the  implementation  of  the  return
programme for Afghanistan;

(cid:1)  wishes special attention to be paid to refugees and displaced persons in future work by the

Community institutions on integration;

(cid:1)  invites  the  Council  and  Parliament  to  have  regard  to  the  contribution  of  developing
countries in receiving refugees and applying international protection instruments and more
generally to incorporate the international protection dimension more deeply into Europe’s
external policy on the basis of the Agenda for Protection; the Commission will consider
the question in 2003 in the mid-term review  of the country  and  regional  strategy papers
and will raise the objectives of the Agenda for Protection in its dialogue on questions of
migration and cooperation with the relevant third countries.

16

ANNEX : 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST-STAGE LEGISLATIVE 
PROGRAMME AND SUPPORT MEASURES

1.

FIRST-STAGE LEGISLATION

Directive on the reception of asylum-seekers

The  negotiation  of  the  Reception  Conditions  Directive  was  given  high  priority  under  the
Spanish  Presidency.  The  Council  defined  a  general  approach  on  the  text  on  25  April  2002.
The  European  Parliament  also  gave  its  opinion  on  the  Commission’s  proposal  also  on
25 April 2002, proposing some important amendments. A political agreement on the Directive
was achieved in December 2002 and the Directive was formally adopted on 27 January 20034.

The Directive is a first step in the approximation of standards. It provides for a legally binding
Community  framework  and  it  will  substantially  improve  the  situation  of  the  reception  of
asylum  seekers.  It  will  also  contribute  to  a  broader  similarity  of  the  national  reception
systems. However, there is no harmonisation on the issue of family members nor on the issue
of  access  to  vocational  training.  In  addition  the  harmonisation  on  the  issue  of  access  to  the
labour market is quite minimal.

Dublin II Regulation

The Seville European Council asked for the regulation to be adopted by the end of 2002. On
9 April 2002  the  European  Parliament  supported  the  Commission’s  approach.  Political
agreement was reached on the text of the Regulation in December 2002. The Regulation was
formally adopted on 18 February 2003.5

The Regulation is based on the same principles as the Dublin Convention that it supersedes:
responsibility for examining an asylum request lies as a general rule with the Member State
that  played  the  greatest  role  in  the  asylum-seeker’s  entry.  But,  learning  the  lessons  from
applying  the  Convention,  the  Regulation  shortens  the  procedural  deadlines  to  help  make
asylum procedures more effective overall, lays responsibility at the door of a Member State
that allows illegal residence situations to persist and contains new provisions to improve the
possibilities for family unity.

At  the  same  time  the  Joint  Committee  set  up  by  Article  3  of  the  Agreement  of
19 January 2001  between  the  European  Community  and  the  Republic  of  Iceland  and  the
Kingdom  of  Norway  concerning  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  establishing  the  State
responsible  for  examining  a  request  for  asylum  lodged  in  a  Member  State  or  Iceland  or
Norway met twice in the second half of 2002 so that these two countries, now associated with
the  Schengen  acquis  and  the  Dublin  Convention,  could  make  their  views  known  on  the
proposal.  And  on  12  August  2002  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  negotiating
mandate  for  the  conclusion  of  a  Protocol  between  the  parties  to  the  Agreement  of
19 January 2001 enabling the Kingdom of Denmark to join the Agreement.

4

5

Council Directive 2003/9/EC, OJ L 31, 6.2.2003.
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, OJ L 50, 25.2.2003.

17

                                                
Proposal for a directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third
country  nationals  and  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who  otherwise  need
international protection

The  discussions  on  the  Commission’s  proposal6  within  the  Council  commenced  under  the
Spanish Presidency in June 2002. The Seville European Council of June 2002 set a deadline
for  adoption  of  the  Directive  by  June  2003.  Negotiations  continued  under  the  Danish
Presidency  and  culminated  at  the  November  2002  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  in  a
political  agreement  on  a  very  substantial  part  of  the  rules  in  the  Proposal,  relating  to  the
qualification  for  refugee  and  subsidiary  protection  status.  It  is  therefore  envisaged  that  the
negotiations  on  the  whole  of  the  Directive  will  be  concluded  under  the  Greek  Presidency,
including the rules relating to the rights and benefits to be attached to a refugee and subsidiary
protection status.

In  an  Opinion  of  29  May  2002,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  supported  the
Commission’s proposal, and welcomed in particular the concept of subsidiary protection. On
11  June  2002,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  welcomed  in  its  Opinion  the  Commission’s
commitment  to  the  primacy  of  the  1951  Geneva  Convention.  The  European  Parliament
adopted  on  22  October  2002  a  Resolution  which  proposes  to  amend  the  Directive  on  a
number  of  issues,  in  particular  in  relation  to  the  grounds  for  persecution,  by  adding  the
grounds  “sexual  orientation”,  “sex”  and  “membership  of  an  ethnic  group”,  and  the  grounds
for subsidiary protection, by adding a risk of capital punishment or genital mutilation. Finally,
it calls for parity of treatment of beneficiaries of refugee and subsidiary protection status, in
particular  where  it  relates  to  the  duration  of  a  residence  permit,  the  issuing  of  travel
documents, permission to work.

Proposal for a directive on asylum procedures

Following negotiations at expert level on the Commission proposal of 2000, the JHA Council
adopted Conclusions on 7 and 8 December 2001 on the approach to be taken on the Council
Directive. At the Laeken European Council, the Commission was then invited to put forward
an amended proposal before the end of April 2002. In-depth consultations with the experts of
the  Member  States  enabled  the  Commission  to  put  forward  an  amended  proposal  on
18 June 2002.7

The amended proposal sets out a different structure for procedures in the first instance, inter
alia  introducing  specific  standards  for  examining  applications  lodged  at  the  border  and  a
procedure that allows Member States not to re-examine in depth certain  repeat  applications.
Moreover, the obligation to introduce a two level appeal system is replaced with the right to
an effective remedy before a court of law. The Council welcomed the amended proposal in an
open debate on 15  October 2002. As the Seville European Council called on the Council to
adopt a text by the end of 2003, negotiations are expected to continue throughout 2003.

6

7

COM(2001) 510 final, 12.9.2001.
COM(2002)326 final/2, 18.6.2002, amending COM(2000)578 final, 20.9.2000.

18

                                                
2.

Administrative cooperation and accompanying measures

Eurodac

The legal frame for the implementation of the EURODAC information system was completed
with  the  adoption  by  the  Council  of  the  implementing  rules  in  February  2002.8  The
Commission started operational testing with the Member States in April 2002, the final set of
volume tests with all Member States running until the end of 2002. The successful completion
of  these  mandatory  tests  was  a  precondition  for  the  declaration  of  readiness  of  all
Member States, without which EURODAC would not have been able to start operations and
to apply the Regulation effectively. The operations started on 15 January 2003. From that date
to 2 March 2003, 238 “hits” were obtained and the trend steadily increases week by week.

The European Refugee Fund (ERF)

The  resources  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund  (ERF)  were  increased  by  the  Budgetary
Authority  in  2002  from  the  amount  originally  forecast.  Consequently,  new  requests  for
cofinancing were presented by Member States at the beginning of 2002, which were approved
by  the  Commission  by  Decision  of  21  March  2002.  From  the  information  available  on
Member  States’  implementation  of  their  national  programmes,  the  following  trends  can  be
identified:

– 

– 

– 

as  regards  the  calculation  of  annual  allocations  to  Member  States,  the  calculation
methods contained in Article 10 of the Council Decision9 have allowed an evolution
of the share of funds between Member States along the evolution of the number of
applications for asylum and of persons being granted refugee status or other form of
international  protection.  The  fixed  amounts  defined  in  Article  10(1)  have  had  a
positive  effect  in  balancing  the  distribution  of  funds  and  taking  into  account  the
relative burden born by each country;

in  terms  of  implementation,  after  a  few  difficulties  encountered  by  the  Member
States  at  the  beginning  of  the  programme,  which  were  due  in  particular  to  the
adoption  of  the  Council  Decision  in  September  2000,  programme  and  project
implementation have attained their full rhythm of implementation;

overall, between 2000 and 2002, 49.44% of the funds were used by Member States to
co-finance projects relating to the reception of asylum seekers, 28% to the integration
of refugees  and persons  benefiting  from  subsidiary  forms  of  protection,  and  22.2%
were  allocated  to  voluntary  return  projects.  The  share  of  this  last  measure  has
substantially increased between 2000 (15.82%) to 2002 (24.45%).

The Commission has commissioned an independent evaluation of the first three years of the
ERF, covering a full cycle of actions, which will be available during the third quarter of 2003.
Furthermore, the Commission presented to the Council and the Parliament a mid-term report
on  the  implementation  of  the  ERF,10  on  3  December  2002.  In  this  report,  the  Commission

8

9

10

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  407/2002  of  28  February  2002  laying  down  certain  rules  to  implement
Regulation  (EC)  No  2725/2000  concerning  the  establishment  of  ‘Eurodac’  for  the  comparison  of
fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (OJ L62, 5.3.2002).
OJ L 252, 6.10.2000, p.12.
This report is part of Communication COM(2002)703 on the integration of migration related issues in
external relations with third countries which includes a report on the effectiveness of financial resources

19

                                                
underlines  that  the  results  of  this  evaluation  and  the  priorities  identified  in  the  course  of
managing  other  instruments  or  preparatory  measures  will  determine  the  Commission’s
approach  in  its  proposal  on  the  activities  to  be  pursued  after  2004  at  Community  level  for
refugees  and  asylum  seekers.  The  Commission  expects  the  Council  and  the  European
Parliament to react in 2003 to this report.

EQUAL

The  Community  Initiative  EQUAL  seeks  to  combat  exclusion  and  inequality  in  the  labour
market  and  includes  provision  to  improve  the  social  and  vocational  integration  of  asylum
seekers.  EQUAL  funding  runs  from  2000-2006  (approximately  €113 million  for  asylum
seekers,  i.e.  4%  of  a  total  of  about  €2764 million  for  the  programme)  and  has  two  funding
rounds, the first of which started in 2001, and the second is expected to be launched in 2004.
There  are  over  1500  Development  Partnerships  selected  by  Member  States  in  2001,  45  of
which  relate  to  Asylum  Seekers.  Initial  funding  from  November  2001  enabled  the
partnerships to clarify their work programmes and to develop their transnational co-operation
agreements, and as of May  2002 further funds were approved for the implementation of the
work programmes. The activities being taken forward by the partnerships fall into five areas:
reception;  advice  education  and  training;  employment;  reintegration  and  repatriation;  and
capacity building. Further information about each Development Partnership is available at the
EQUAL  website.11  A  European  thematic  group  on  Asylum  Seekers  is  being  established  to
identify and disseminate the good practice developed under EQUAL. Reports and outcomes
of this EU-wide work will also be made available on the EQUAL website.

ARGO

On  13  June  2002,12  the  Council  adopted  the  ARGO  programme  aimed  at  promoting
administrative  cooperation  in  the  areas  of  external  borders,  visas,  asylum  and  immigration.
One  of  the  main  goals  is  to  harmonise  national  practices  and  is  therefore  an  accompanying
measure to  the legislative  effort  made  by  the  Community.  The  2002  and  2003  annual  work
programmes have anticipated in their asylum chapter the needs of the national agencies when
applying  the  new  Community  acquis.  The  annual  objectives  and  priorities  were  therefore
mainly inspired by the legislative proposals and studies launched by the Commission.

3.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Temporary protection in the event of a large-scale influx of displaced persons

At  the  extraordinary  JHA  Council  of  20  September  2001,  the  Council  agreed  to  examine
urgently the situation in countries and regions where there was a risk of large-scale population
movements as a result of heightened tensions following the attacks on the USA. Furthermore
it requested the Commission, in consultation with Member  States,  to examine  the  scope  for
provisional  application  of  the  Council  Directive  on  temporary  protection  in  case  special
protection arrangements would be required within the EU. This led to a specific monitoring in
particular of the trends of asylum applications from Afghan  nationals in  EU Member States

available  at  Community  level  for  repatriation  of  immigrants  and  rejected  asylum  seekers,  for  the
management  of  external  borders  and  for  asylum  and  migration  projects  in  third  countries,  which  was
requested by the European Council in Seville.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equal/index_en.html.
OJ L 161, 19.6.2002.

11

12

20

                                                                                                                                                        
until spring 2002. On the basis of the analysis of the situation, a special arrangement was felt
not  necessary.  Directive  2001/55/EC13  is  required  to  be  transposed  into  national  law  by
31 December 2002.

Other legislative initiatives

Several  proposals  relating  to  immigration  contain  provisions  that  directly  or  indirectly
concern  the  legal  situation  of  persons  under  international  protection.  On  2  May  2002  the
Commission adopted an amended proposal on the right to family reunification14 as requested
by  the  Laeken  European  Council  of  14  and  15  December  2001.  The  amended  proposal
includes  a  chapter  on  refugees,  providing  them  with  more  favourable  terms  for  family
reunification.  The  Council  reached  political  agreement  at  the  end  of  February  2003.  The
Seville European Council asked for the Directive to be adopted before the end of 2003, which
is  also  the  deadline  for  the  adoption  of  the  proposal  for  a  directive  on  the  status  of  third-
country nationals who are long-term residents.15 Under this proposal, refugees could enjoy
long-term resident status after five  years’ residence in a Member State. This status will then
allow them, on certain conditions, to settle in other Member States. On 11 February 2002 the
Commission  also  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  the  short-term  residence
permit  issued  to  victims  of  action  to  facilitate  illegal  immigration  or  trafficking  in
human beings who cooperate with the competent authorities.16 This directive states that it
applies without prejudice to the provisions governing the protection of refugees, beneficiaries
of subsidiary protection and applicants for international protection.

Commission  working  document  on  the  relationship  between  internal  security  and
international protection obligations

The main conclusion of the December 2001 document17 was that the current EC legislation
or  Commission  Proposals  for  such  legislation  in  the  field  of  asylum  and  immigration  all
contained  provisions  to  allow  for  the  exclusion  of  any  third  country  national  who  may  be
perceived  as  a  threat  to  national/public  security  from  the  right  to  international  protection,
residency  or  access  to  certain  benefits.  However,  in  the  framework  of  discussions  and
negotiations of the different proposals, the relevant provisions are revisited in the light of the
new circumstances, such as in the case of the Directive on the qualification as refugee or as a
person  in  need  of  subsidiary  protection.  During  2002,  the  Commission  organised
consultations with all Member States and Candidate Countries, other European Institutions18,
civil  society  and  UNHCR.  It  was  agreed  to  continue  cooperation  at  practitioners  level  in
Eurasil (see point 4) and with Argo co-funded activities.

13

14

15

16

17

18

Council Directive 2001/55/CE of 20 July 2001 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.  OJ  L  212,
7.8.2001, p.12.
COM(2002)225 final, 2.5.2002.
COM(2001)127 final, 17.3.2001.
COM(2002)71.
(COM(2001)743,  5.12.2001,  The  relationship  between  safeguarding  internal  security  and  complying
with international protection obligations and instruments.
Opinions  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  CoR  93/2002,  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,
CES 519/2002.

21

                                                
4.

OPEN  COORDINATION  METHOD  APPLIED  TO  ASYLUM,  INFORMATION  EXCHANGES
AND COMMON ANALYSIS

New tools for exchanges and analysis

In  December  2001  the  Laeken  European  Council  acknowledged  the  need  to  intensify  the
exchange  of  information  on  the  asylum  and  immigration  policy.  The  Economic  and  Social
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  supported  the  approach  proposed  by  the
Commission  in  its  communication  of  28  November  2001,19  in  their  Opinions,20  calling  for
cooperation with civil society and local authorities.

At  the  beginning  of  2002,  the  Commission  created  a  Commission-led  exchange  and
consultation  procedure  with  an  Immigration  and  Asylum  Committee  as  a  central
component.  The main aim  of  this  exercise  is  to  identify  and  analyse  common  challenges  in
immigration and asylum policies, spread best practices and achieve greater convergence. The
members of the committee are experts of the Member States but also representatives of civil
society. Other players are also being invited to participate on a case-by-case basis, depending
on  the  subject  matters.  In  the  field  of  asylum,  the  following  subjects  have  been  discussed
during  the  review  period :  the  relationship  between  international  protection  and  internal
security,  the  process  of  transposition  of  the  Temporary  Protection  Directive,  the  issue  of
processing asylum claims outside the EU and the single procedure.

Following the decision by the Committee of the Permanent Representatives in the Council to
cease the activities of the CIREA21 created in 1992 as a specific Council working group, the
Commission  established  EURASIL in  July  2002,  the  EU  network  for  asylum  practitioners,
chaired  by  the  Commission.  The  participants  who  primarily  attend  these  meetings  are
involved  with  EU  Member  States  authorities  responsible  for  the  adjudication  of  asylum
applications  in  EU  Member  States  (in  first  instances  and  also  from  appeal  bodies).  It  is
therefore a practitioner driven committee. UNHCR, other  International or non-governmental
organisations  and  experts  on  certain  issues  will  be  invited  when  necessary.  The  aim  of  the
network  is  to  improve  convergence  in  asylum  policies,  decisions  and  practice  through
enhanced  exchange  of  information  and  best  practices  among  EU  Member  States  asylum
adjudicators  and  the  European  Commission.  The  activities  should  also  help  practitioners  to
enhance working relationships with each other. They will focus on information with regards
to  the  situation  in  countries  of  origin  and  transit  and  treatment  of  cases  by  first  instances
decision-making authorities and review bodies and any other relevant matters of interest for
the asylum practice. Its mission and functions will evolve over time, depending in particular
on  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  EC  legislative  instruments.  The  Commission
expects EURASIL to become an essential working tool for the establishment and functioning
of the common European asylum system.

first 

steps 

towards 

concrete 

The 
a  European  Migration
Observatory/Network  by  way  of  preparatory  action,  were  taken  in  2002.  The  specific
network  will  build  up  a  systematic  information  basis  for  monitoring  and  analysing  the
multidimensional  phenomenon  of  migration  and  asylum  by  covering  a  variety  of  its
dimensions (political, legal, demographic, economic, social, cultural) as well as by identifying

creation  of 

the 

19

20

21

COM(2001)710 final.
ESC 684/2002 and CoR 93/2002.
Center for Information, Research and Exchange on Asylum.

22

                                                
its  root  causes.  A  network  of  national  contact  points  is  being  set  up,  consisting  of  existing
agencies  or  institutions  with  experience  of  working  in  the  field  of  migration  and  asylum.
Austria,  Belgium,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the
United Kingdom were participating in 2002. Spain also designated a national contact point in
December 2002. Other Member States will be able to join in the project in 2003.

Statistics

Notwithstanding  constant  efforts  by  the  Commission  to  improve  the  quality,  completeness
and  comparability  of  statistics  on  asylum  and  on  migration,  in  the  absence  of  a  legislative
framework, the limits of what can be done to improve the statistics  have been  reached. The
Commission is now aiming  to  ensure that  future  policy  development  and  implementation  is
underpinned by a legislative basis for the collection of Community statistics in this field.

The Council Conclusions on 28/29 May  2001 invited  the Commission  to  submit a  proposal
for  a  comprehensive  and  coherent  framework  for  future  action  on  improving  statistics.  In
response,  the  Commission  will  adopt  a  Communication  in  spring  2003.  Enlargement  of  the
Union  in  2004  will  bring  an  added  geographical  and  political  dimension  to  the  scale  of  the
phenomena  associated  with  asylum,  adding  impetus  to  the  demand  for  accurate,  timely  and
harmonised  statistical  information.  The  Action  Plan  is  designed  to  meet  the  current  legal
requirements  and  to  implement  the  Council  Conclusions,  bringing  a  new,  proactive  and
dynamic approach to the Commission’s activities. In the meantime, asylum data are becoming
increasingly  available  via  electronic  dissemination,  with  the  introduction  in  early  2003  of
monthly public electronic reports on asylum and with the preparation of the first public annual
report on asylum and migration in the EU  and the accession countries  to be  released  before
mid-2003.

23