Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — “A more efficient Common European Asylum System: The single procedure as the next step”’(COM(2004) 503 final — SEC(2004) 937)
Date: 2004-12-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: administrative procedure, admission of aliens, approximation of laws, refugee, right of asylum

C 157/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — “A more efficient Common European
Asylum System: The single procedure as the next step”’

(COM(2004) 503 final — SEC(2004) 937)

(2005/C 157/17)

On 15 October 2004, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communi-
cation.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 November 2004. The rapporteur was Ms Le
Nouail-Marlière.

At its 413th plenary session of 15 and 16 December 2004 (meeting of 15 December), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 133 votes, with ten abstentions:

1. Gist of the Commission Communication

1.5
The preparatory phase would begin in January 2005
and run in tandem with the implementation of the first stage
legislation of the Common European Asylum System (2).

The communication referred to the EESC recommends
1.1
improving and speeding up the procedures for granting status
as a refugee or as a beneficiary of international protection.

The Commission will present its ‘One-Stop Shop Action

1.6
Plan’ by the end of 2004.

It considers the potential advantages of a single asylum
1.2
procedure that is quicker and more efficient, and of simplified
procedures
the Commission seems
concerned to improve public perception of the way in which
requests for asylum are processed and the circumstances in
which individuals are returned to their country of origin.

asylum seekers:

for

The Commission then makes the case for the added
1.3
value of such changes,
resulting from closer cooperation
between Member States and a joint methodology, based on two
interdependent approaches to be undertaken in this order: an
initial ‘preparatory’ phase followed by Community legislation.

1.4
The preparatory phase would be a period of consulta-
tion, debate and preparation on what Member States need to
do to unify the procedures that lead to the two types of status
set out in the Qualification Directive (1).

(1) Cf: Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualifica-
tion and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as
refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection,
adopted by the Council on 29.04.2004, and the related EESC
opinion in OJ C 221 of 17.09.2002 (rapporteur: Ms Le Nouail
Marlière).

1.7

The recommended preparatory phase has four aims:

— to steer and inform the discussion on how the EU should

move towards the adoption of a single procedure;

— to identify the changes which need to take place;

(2) Cf. Decision 2000/596/EC creating a European Refugee Fund and
related opinions in OJ C 168 of 16.6.2000 (rapporteur: Ms zu
Eulenburg; Directive 2001/55/EC on giving temporary protection in
the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and the EESC
opinion in OJ C 155 of 29.5.2001 (rapporteur: Ms Cassina); Direc-
tive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for
granting and withdrawing refugee status, on which the Council
reached agreement on 19.11.2004, and the EESC opinion in OJ C
193 of 10.7.2001, (rapporteur: Ms Melicías); Directive 2003/9/EC
on minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in
Member States and the EESC opinion in OJ C 48 of 21.2.2001
(rapporteurs: Mr Mengozzi and Mr Pariza Castaños); Regulation No.
343/2003 on the criteria and mechanisms for examining an asylum
application (Dublin II) and the EESC opinion in OJ C 125 of
27.5.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Sharma); Directive 2004/83/EC on
minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country
nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who other-
wise need international protection, adopted by the Council on
29.4.2004, and the related EESC opinion in OJ C 221 of 17.9.2002
(rapporteur: Ms Le Nouail Marlière); Council Decision establishing
the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 of 8.6.2004
and the opinion of the EESC – OJ C 241 of 28.9.2004.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/97

— to initiate those changes by adopting operational practices

before or in parallel with a legislative approach;

2.2
The Committee recommends that this priority should be
explicit, whatever happens with regard to introducing a single
procedure.

— lastly, the preparatory phase would also serve as a platform

for the consultative process.

1.8
Community legislation would be the second phase of
creating a single procedure for processing applications for
refugee status in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention
and the New York Protocol of 1967, and for subsidiary protec-
tion in accordance with the Qualification Directive. (1)

The communication sets out the practical details of the
1.9
legislative approach: level of ambition, timescale of legislation,
scope, appeals procedure, safeguarding the integrity of
the
Geneva Convention, maintaining the quality of decisions,
return procedures and read-across to other instruments.

In short, the single procedure studied is a single proce-
1.10
dure for a request for asylum or international protection what-
ever the status of the applicant, whether:

— a refugee in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention

and with the 1967 New York Protocol; or

— a beneficiary of subsidiary protection in accordance with
Directive 2004/83/EC adopted by the Council on 29 April
2004 (2).

2. General comments

The Committee welcomes the Commission's ambitious
2.1
objectives and shares its concern that a single procedure should
safeguard the integrity of the 1951 Geneva Convention. To this
end and, in line with the provisions of the Qualification Direc-
tive, refugees' rights should firstly be considered on the basis of
the procedures set out in the 1951 Convention — with consid-
eration of subsidiary protection being the second course of
action if the conditions required under that Convention status
are not fulfilled.

(1) Cf: Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualifica-
tion and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as
refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection,
adopted by the Council on 29.04.2004, and the related EESC
opinion in OJ C 221 of 17.09.2002 (rapporteur: Ms Le Nouail
Marlière).

(2) Cf: the Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualifica-
tion and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as
refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection,
adopted by the Council on 29.04.2004.

2.3
The Committee recommends that reasons should be
given for any rejection of a request for international protection
and particularly for any refusal
to grant refugee status in
accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention, even where
subsidiary protection is granted. The Committee believes these
guarantees to be crucial to safeguarding the integrity of the
1951 Geneva Convention, as stated by the Commission.

As regards

the need for subsidiary protection,

2.4
the
Committee recognises that asylum seekers cannot determine
which statuses arise from the Convention and which are
subsidiary and that they face further problems in the country
where they have to resubmit an application on other grounds
after being refused the status provided for in the 1951 Geneva
Convention, leading to confusion, discouragement and intoler-
able delays.

in its communication and when it

The Committee calls on the Commission to take
2.5
account,
launches the
preparatory and legislative phases, of the non-refoulement prin-
ciple (Article 33 of the Geneva Convention) and of the need to
provide a judicial right of appeal against negative decisions. A
possible ex officio examination of subsidiary protection grounds
should be undertaken once the conditions for granting refugee
status provided for under the Geneva Convention have been
examined, and the applicant should be granted the right of
appeal against involuntary return, in accordance with interna-
tional and European human rights conventions.

2.6
To this end, NGOs and the UNHCR should not be
excluded from administrative appeals committees where these
exist and, where they do not exist, should have unrestricted
access to asylum seekers and their applications,
in order to
facilitate access to and use of this right.

C 157/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

The Committee urges the Commission,

2.7
in its amend-
ments to the Directive on Procedures adopted by the Council
on 19 November 2004 and to be re-submitted to the European
Parliament, to extend the scope to include subsidiary protec-
tion, under the terms of the Qualification Directive and to
review its classification of ‘safe’ third countries of origin or of transit
‘from safe third countries’, which denies asylum seekers the chance to
have their individual situation and rights examined.

2.8
The EESC recommends that any current errors and
problems in existing procedures for determining the status of
refugees be addressed in the preparatory phase.

phase, to create a harmonised system of solidarity between
Member States, such as resettlement schemes and burden-
sharing.

2.10
The Committee also calls on the Commission to review
the so-called ‘accelerated procedure’, which denies asylum
seekers the benefits of a thorough assessment of their individual
situation and their associated rights, in particular the suspensive
effect of legal proceedings, which puts them in danger of being
returned to their country of origin before their case is heard by
a competent court.

2.9 Where bilateral readmission agreements are concerned,
in order to allow all Member States to comply with their inter-
national obligations and with European directives (1);
the
Council should ensure that it has the means, in the preparatory

2.11 With regard to the possibilities and grounds for return
to the country of origin, the EESC calls upon the Commission
to take account of the fact that this may not be possible in
certain cases because of obstacles not related to the refugee's
status or for humanitarian reasons (e.g. illness).

Brussels, 15 December 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(1) Cf point 3.13.1 of the EESC opinion on the Commission Communi-
cation ‘Study on the links between legal and illegal migration’
(COM(2004) 412 final) adopted on 15/16 December 2004
(rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños).