Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on strengthened practical cooperation - New structures, new approaches : improving the quality of decision making in the common european asylum system {SEC(2006) 189}
Date: 2006-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU policy, admission of aliens, approximation of laws, refugee, right of asylum, rights of aliens

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.2.2006 
COM(2006) 67 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL  
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

ON STRENGTHENED PRACTICAL COOPERATION 

NEW STRUCTURES, NEW APPROACHES: 
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF DECISION MAKING IN 
THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM 

{SEC(2006) 189}. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1. 

1. 

2. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

POLICY BACKGROUND  

With the adoption on 1 December 2005 of Council Directive 2005/85 on minimum 
standards  on  procedures  in  Member  States  for  granting  and  withdrawing  refugee 
status1 (the Asylum Procedures Directive), the first phase of the Common European 
Asylum  System  was  completed.  In  the  Hague  Programme  of  4-5  November  2004, 
the  European  Council  reiterated  that  the  aims  of  the  Common  European  Asylum 
System in its second phase will be the establishment of a common asylum procedure 
and a uniform status for those who are granted asylum or subsidiary protection. The 
European  Council  also  called  for  the  establishment  of  appropriate  structures 
involving  the  national  asylum  services  of  the  Member  States  with  a  view  to 
facilitating  practical  and  collaborative  cooperation  towards  three  main  objectives: 
achieving  an  EU  wide  Single  Procedure;  the  joint  compilation,  assessment  and 
application  of  Country  of  Origin  Information  (COI);  and  how  Member  States  can 
better work together to address particular pressures on asylum systems or reception 
capacities resulting from factors such as geographic location. The Hague Programme 
says that these structures should be transformed, on the basis of an evaluation into a 
European support office for all forms of cooperation between Member States relating 
to the Common European Asylum System.  

This Communication sets out how practical cooperation between Member States can 
support  the  realisation  of  the  goals  set  at  Tampere  and  in  the  Hague  Programme. 
Annexed to the Communication are detailed work programmes for each of the three 
Hague objectives. A full policy background is included at Annex A. 

WHY IS PRACTICAL COOPERATION IMPORTANT? 

Tackling the management of asylum together as a Community is the raison d’être of 
the Common European Asylum System. Community involvement in this field has as 
its foundation the need for solidarity among Member States in addressing a challenge 
that, in an EU without internal borders, cannot be effectively dealt with by individual 
countries acting alone. The first stage of the Common European Asylum System, as 
well  as  introducing  a  common  legislative  framework,  makes  it  necessary  to  work 
towards harmonisation, not only of legislation, but of practice.  

Practical cooperation will enable Member States to become familiar with the systems 
and  practices  of  others,  and  to  develop  closer  working  relations  among  asylum 
services  at  the  operational  level.  This  will  build  a  basis  for  wider  areas  of 
collaboration, with the development of trust and a sense of mutual interest. The main 
goal  of  practical  co-operation  is  to  improve  convergence  in  decision-making  by 
Members  States  within  the  framework  of  the  rules  set  by  the  Community  asylum 
legislation. In this view, strengthened cooperation will deliver a “common tool box” 
for asylum authorities of the Member States answering to daily and operational needs 
of  practitioners  in  the  EU.  Use  of  this  tool  box  should  lead  to  an  improvement  in 
quality  across  all  aspects  of  the  management  of  asylum  in  Member  States  and 
particularly on decision making, given the focus of the Hague objectives. This should 

1  

OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, page. 13. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
contribute to a better assessment of the application of the first stage of the Common 
European Asylum System and provide a firm basis for the launching of the second 
phase instruments. 

Improving quality is in the interest of both the Members States and asylum-seekers. 
Better quality decision-making would contribute to level the EU asylum playing field 
and build a single asylum space which gives protection to those who require it and 
deal fairly and efficiently with those without protection requirements. Through using 
the same tools and applying the same safeguards, Member States will also build trust 
and confidence in each others’ systems and achieve greater consistency in practice.  

DELIVERING PRACTICAL COOPERATION OBJECTIVES 

Given  the  wide  remit  of  the  Hague  Programme  objectives,  it  is  clear  that  the 
activities  necessary  to  deliver  them,  require  comprehensive  cooperation  between 
Member States. The Commission intends to propose the establishment of a network 
with  a  clear  mandate  for  cooperation  in  each  of  the  priority  fields  identified  in  the 
Hague Programme. This asylum cooperation network, which should be managed by 
the  Commission,  will  provide  a  systematic  basis  for  exchanging  information, 
promoting  best  practice,  establishing  a  repository  of  expertise  with  a  view  to 
improving  convergence 
to  a  harmonised 
implementation  of  the  first  stage  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  and 
building  the  basis  for  the  establishment  of  a  fully  fledged  Common  European 
Asylum System. 

in  asylum  policies,  contributing 

In addition to the specific mandate of the asylum cooperation network, some of the 
activities necessary to meet the Hague objectives, which are set out in the annexes to 
this  Communication,  may  be  carried  out  by  the  Commission  making  use  of  the 
technical expertise and advice of ad hoc expert groups where specific and specialised 
expertise  is  required  to  inform  the  Commission’s  preparation  of  legislative 
amendments  or  assist  the  Commission  in  its  monitoring  and  evaluation  role.  The 
Eurasil network,2 for example, will continue to meet as an expert group in order to 
provide advice to the Commission on COI oriented activities.  

Other forms of cooperation between Member States on specific issues will continue 
to  be  supported  through  the  financial  programmes  as  they  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  Hague  Programme.  The  work  of  the  General 
Directors  of  Immigration  Services  Conference  (GDISC),  whose  activities  are 
supported by EU funding, represents a good example of such forms of cooperation. 
The Commission will continue to support the activities of GDISC and will consider 
how  to  integrate  GDISC  in  the  implementation  of  the  activities  envisaged  in  this 
Communication. 

EURASIL,  the  EU  network  for  asylum  practitioners  chaired  by  the  Commission,  was  established 
in July 2002 following the decision of by the Committee of the Permanent Representatives (Coreper II) 
on  6  March  to  cease  the  activities  of  the  CIREA  group  (Centre  for  Information,  Discussion  and 
Exchange on Asylum).  

5. 

3. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

2 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9. 

For each of the objectives set out in the Hague Programme a number of steps should 
be taken which are described in detail in Annexes B, C and D to this Communication 
and outlined below. 

3.1. 

Single Procedure 

10. 

11. 

The  Single  Procedure  Communication  3  set  out  why  the  EU  should  take  steps 
towards a Single Procedure. The Qualification Directive4 obliges Member States to 
assess facts and circumstances relating to an application for international protection 
in  exactly  the  same  way  for  both  refugee  status  and  subsidiary  protection.  The 
Communication  also  underlined  the  potential  protection  gap  for  those  applications 
for international protection which were not covered by the guarantees of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive. The Communication outlined the main advantages in terms of 
speed,  efficiency  and  improvement  in  the  quality  of  decision  making  inherent  in 
taking steps toward an EU Single Procedure. 

The  Single  Procedure  Communication  proposed  a  range  of  actions  which  could  be 
taken  to  enable  a  greater  convergence  between  Member  States  in  ensuring  that  all 
applications for protection in the EU are covered by the same procedural guarantees. 
The Communication foresaw a twin approach to achieving a single procedure for the 
assessment  of  all  applications  of  protection  covered  by  Community  law.  That 
approach should now be incorporated into the practical cooperation envisaged in the 
Hague  Programme.  A  preparatory  phase  of  consultation,  debate  and  preparation  of 
what Member States need to do to unify the procedures, which lead to the two types 
of  status  set  out  in  the  Qualification  Directive,  should  be  followed  by  a  legislative 
phase  where  proposals  are  brought  forward  to  amend  first  stage  legislation  where 
necessary. The activities launching the preparatory phase, corresponding to the ‘One 
Stop Shop Action Plan’ of the Single Procedure Communication, are set out in detail 
in Annex B and summarised below: 

3 

4 

EN 

Commission  Communication  “A  More  Efficient  Common  European  Asylum  System:  The  Single 
Procedure As The Next Step”, (COM(2004) 503 final). 
Council  Directive  2004/83/EC  of  29  April  2004  on  minimum  standards  for  the  qualification  and 
status  of  third  country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who  otherwise 
need 
granted 
(OJ L 304 of 30 September 2004, p. 12) 

international 

protection 

protection 

content 

and 

the 

the 

of 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Single Procedure activities should be aimed at: 

•  Identifying  where  changes  need  to  be  made  in  Member  States’  administrative 

practice in order to implement the 1st stage instruments. 

•  Assessing how quality and efficiency of asylum systems can be improved through 

including all possible grounds for protection in one decision. 

•  Identifying best practice in managing resources in a Single Procedure, including 

through costing comparisons and twinning exercises. 

The results of these activities will inform the preparation of legislative action, notably to 
ensure  that,  at  a  minimum,  the  guarantees  agreed  as  applicable  to  claims  for  refugee 
status  in  the  Asylum  Procedures  Directive  extend  to  applications  for  subsidiary 
protection. 

3.2. 

Country of Origin Information (COI) 

12. 

13. 

14. 

The collection, organisation, assessment and presentation of COI are all central to the 
asylum  processes  and  decision  making  of  EU  Member  States.  COI  enables  the 
asylum  authorities  of  Member  States  to  verify  statements  made  by  applicants 
concerning  their  need  for  protection  and  to  establish  whether  the  applicant  should 
benefit  from  international  protection.  An  objective,  transparent  and  accurate  COI 
system that delivers official, rapid and reliable information is therefore central to any 
assessment  of  whether  a  person  should  benefit  from  international  protection.  More 
convergence on the collection and analysis of COI by asylum authorities in Member 
States would contribute to levelling the asylum playing field.  

Cooperation on COI will be a central feature of the mandate the asylum cooperation 
network.  The  first  objective  of  such  cooperation  should  be  to  establish  an  easily 
accessible common entry point for existing information. This could be achieved via 
the creation of a ‘common portal’ through which all Member States authorities could 
access,  through  one  stop,  all  official  COI  databases,  Member  States’  legislation, 
relevant EC and national legislation and case-law as well as other official sources of 
information.  A  ‘common  portal’  would  provide  a  useful  additional  resource 
particularly for those Member States with less well developed COI resources.  

Another  objective  would  be  for  the  Commission  to  propose  guidelines  on  the 
production of COI, making full use of the advice from the Eurasil expert group. The 
application of those guidelines to Member  States’ own COI  would  be  the first  step 
towards the longer term objective of a harmonised application of COI in line with the 
Hague Programme objectives. In the longer term, the development of a fully-fledged 
EU COI database containing information based on EU common principles should be 
envisaged. Activities aimed at achieving a joint approach on COI are set out in detail 
in Annex C and summarised below: 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Cooperation on COI should have three main objectives in the short to medium term: 

•  The establishment of common guidelines on the production of COI  

•  The establishment of a ‘common portal’ to Member States COI databases as well 

as other relevant information  

•  A  pragmatic  solution  to  the  translation  difficulties  facing  Member  States  in 

dealing with COI from different sources. 

The result of these activities should lead in the longer term to the future development of 
an EU COI database  

15. 

Complementary  to  cooperation  on  COI  (although  distinct  in  substance),  the 
Commission  will  start  the  necessary  work  for  the  preparation  of  the  minimum 
common  list  of  safe  countries  of  origin  foreseen  in  Article  29  of  the  Asylum 
Procedures Directive. In the preparation of such a list, the Commission will make use 
of the  information provided  by  its own  delegations  in  third countries, as well as of 
reports  prepared  by  Member  States  diplomatic 
representations.  Enhanced 
cooperation  and  coordination  between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  this 
field  will  be  essential  and  contribute  to  the  accuracy,  consistency  and  reliability  of 
the information.  

3.3. 

Particular Pressures 

16. 

17. 

5 

How to pool resources and ensure that asylum burdens are not felt disproportionately 
by a few Member States is both technically difficult and politically sensitive. While 
the Temporary Protection Directive 5 provides for solidarity between Member States 
in  the  event  of  a  mass  influx  of  displaced  persons,  its  specific  requirements  do  not 
provide  an  adequate  response  to  the  kind  of  particular  pressure  on  asylum  services 
and  reception  capacities  more  frequently  experienced  by  Member  States.  These 
pressures  have  been  characterised  by  the  arrival  of  several  hundred  persons  of 
different nationalities at particular points on the external border, seeking entry to the 
EU  for  one  reason  or  another,  some  for  protection.  Other,  more  systemic  pressure 
points  have  occurred,  when  individual  Member  States  have  been  faced  with  rapid 
rises in asylum applications with resource implications and the threat of backlogs and 
problems in delivering adequate reception facilities. 

Individuals’  need  for  international  protection  is  only  one  part  of  the  confluence  of 
forces which cause particular pressures situations. The EU needs to find responses to 
this  challenge  through  better  management  of  migratory  flows,  improved  internal 
coordination  in  addressing  illegal  immigration  and  assistance  to  third  countries,  in 
full  partnership,  using  existing  Community  funds,  where  appropriate,  to  improve 
their  capacity  for  migration  management  and  refugee  protection.  Those  aspects  of 
Community migration policy are not dealt with in this Communication. The purpose 

Council Directive 2001/55/EC 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 
thereof 
in  receiving  such  persons  and  bearing 
(OJ L212, 7.8.2001, p. 12).  

the  consequences 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
18. 

19. 

of this Communication, and the actions detailed  in  Annex  D,  is  focused  on  how  to 
support  Member  States  in  their  efforts  to  abide  by  their  obligations  under  the  first 
stage  measures  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  in  the  face  of  the 
challenges brought by particular pressures situations.  

The application of the first stage legislation and the onset of the practical cooperation 
phase, with the increases in efficiency which it brings, should go some way to enable 
Member States to respond better to particular pressures situations. Tools to address 
clear  needs  exist  already  in  the  Community  financial  programmes  and  in  the  rich 
variety  of  expertise  and  experience  currently  active  in  Member  States  themselves. 
The  challenge  for  the  EU  is  to  how  to  turn  these  tools  into  a  quick  and  reliable 
mechanism  for  helping  Member  States  address  particular  pressures  so  that  the 
application  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  is  not  compromised.  In  this 
respect, it will necessary for Member States to cooperate in order to share resources 
and find solutions. One core activity of the asylum cooperation network could be the 
sharing of expertise to address collectively the range of challenges faced by Member 
States in relation to particular pressures situations, without putting into question the 
individual obligations of Member States in terms of delivery of protection. 

In  addition  to  the  recommendation  for  practical  actions  contained  in  Annex  D,  the 
Commission  intends  to  propose  amendments  to  the  European  Refugee  Fund6  (the 
ERF)  to  enable  Member  States  to  access  funds  quickly  and  with  a  minimum  of 
bureaucratic  process  to  deal  with  the  consequences  of  sudden  arrivals  of  large 
numbers of people who may be in need of international protection. The Commission 
also intends to streamline  the  procedure for accessing more rapidly  the  funding for 
urgent  actions  contained  in  the  ARGO  programme7.  The  first  evaluation  of  the 
Dublin  Regulation8,  which  will  take  place  in  2006,  will  also  provide  a  useful  focal 
point for consideration of how the Regulation might be adjusted in certain situations 
to  ensure  that  Member  States  were  not  unduly  disadvantaged  by  their  geographic 
location. The actions recommended by the Commission are set out in detail in Annex 
D and summarised below: 

6 

7 

8 

Council Decision (2004/904/EC)of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the 
period 2005 to 2010 (OJ L381, 28.12.2004, p. 52). 
Council  Decision  (2004/867/EC)  of  13  December  2004  amending  decision  2002/483/EC  adopting  an 
action  programme  for  administrative  cooperation  in  the  fields  of  external  borders,  visas,  asylum  and 
immigration (the ARGO programme) (OJ L 371, 18.12.2004).  
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003 of 18 February  2003  establishing  the  criteria  and  mechanisms 
for determining the Member Stat responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the 
Member States by a third country national (OJ L 50, 25.2.2003). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Actions to address particular pressures: 

•  Amendment of European Refugee Fund so that Member States can access funds 
quickly and with a minimum of bureaucratic process for emergency actions. 

•  Streamlining of the procedure for accessing more rapidly the funding for urgent 

actions contained in the ARGO programme  

•  Setting up of expert teams to address reception and processing issues for sudden 

arrivals of large numbers at the external border of the EU. 

Longer term options include a comprehensive assessment of particular pressures which 
have occurred in the past and the setting up of a network of Member State information 
officers in selected third countries. 

3.4. 

Training 

20. 

4. 

21. 

22. 

Training  of  asylum  service  personnel  remains  central  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Common  European  Asylum  System.  The  agreement  of  key  principles  of  good 
practice  for  administrative  acts  such  as  interviewing  and  decision  making  would 
provide a firm basis for the development of a European curriculum leading to even 
greater convergence in practice and administrative method. In the Annexes, training 
issues are dealt with as part of each set of activities towards the Hague objectives. 

A  EUROPEAN  SUPPORT  OFFICE  FOR  ALL  FORMS  OF  COOPERATION  BETWEEN 
MEMBER STATES RELATING TO THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM 

The  Hague  Programme  says  that  the  structures  involved  in  practical  cooperation 
should be transformed, on the basis of an evaluation, into a European support office 
for  all  forms  of  cooperation  between  Member  States  relating  to  the  Common 
European  Asylum  System.  As  practical  cooperation  expands,  coordination  of  the 
range of relevant activities will demand increased effort and participation to provide 
the  necessary  support  to  Member  States  asylum  authorities.  These  demands  may 
exceed  the  capacity  of  the  future  asylum  cooperation  network.  There  will  also  be 
maintenance activities related to the upkeep of information, the updating of sources 
and  documentary  references  and  the  revision  of  relevant  guidelines.  This  will  be 
particularly relevant to the ‘common portal’ for COI and its subsequent development 
into  an  EU  COI  database.  In  the  initial  stages,  this  function  can  be  part  of  the 
mandate of the network, but cooperation activities will soon acquire a critical mass 
requiring a more structured devolution of technical functions. 

The Commission will report on the progress achieved at the end of the first phase of 
activities  (early-2008).  The  Commission’s  progress  report  should  include  an 
assessment of funding possibilities  and of  whether the asylum cooperation network 
ought  to  be  further  developed  in  order  to  properly  maintain  the  repository  of 
expertise and information established and ensure that the predictability, consistency 
and continuation of services to Member States is sustained. On the basis of such an 
evaluation, a feasibility study will be carried out on the establishment of a European 
support office for all forms of cooperation between Member States after a common 
asylum procedure has been established as envisaged in the Hague Programme. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
23. 

5. 

24. 

At this stage it could be envisaged European support office would have a technical 
support  function  for  the  operation  of  the  COI  ‘common  portal’  and  an  EU  COI 
database.  It  could  also  incorporate  a  training  facility  on  all  aspects  related  to  the 
application  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System.  The  office  would  also 
coordinate responses to particular pressures situations. In devising future functions of 
the office, account should also be taken of the studies on joint processing in the EU 
which the Hague Programme invites the Commission to complete. The relationship 
between  the  future  European  support  office  and  any  EU  joint  processing  function 
will obviously be key to the completion of the Common European Asylum System. 
The development of the European support office could also prove useful in terms of 
work  carried  out  in  the  migration  and  integration  fields.  Political  direction  on  the 
scope and character of the support office will be set by the Commission, in the light 
of the goal of a Common European Asylum System. 

EARMARKING COMMUNITY FUNDS 

The  first  wave  of  practical  cooperation  will  encourage  Member  States  to  present 
projects in concert with other like-minded Member States or as an individual venture 
to  the  benefit  of  the  25,  which  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  Hague 
objectives. The support and sustainability of the programme of activities put forward 
in this Communication needs to be assured. However it is clear that existing financial 
opportunities,  through  the  ARGO  Programme  and  the  Community  Actions  of  the 
ERF  do  not  provide  the  flexibility  or  increased  funding  needed  to  complete  the 
ambitious mandate set in the Hague Programme. The Commission therefore intend to 
make proposals to amend the ERF and the ARGO Programme to ensure that delivery 
of  the  Hague  priorities  can  be  supported.  The  main  elements  of  the  proposals  for 
amendment, to be brought forward early in 2006, are summarised below: 

•  ERF  to  be  amended  to  set  aside  more  funds  for  practical  cooperation  through 

Community actions. 

25. 

26. 

Through ensuring that the relevant work programmes take account of the cooperation 
envisaged and that adequate funds are available through Community funding strands, 
work towards the Hague Programme will be financially underpinned.  

The objectives of the Hague Programme and the need to ensure sustainability of the 
management of a fully fledged Common European Asylum System will have to be 
taken  into  account  in  the  discussions  on  the  proposed  framework  programme, 
“Solidarity and management of migration flows,”9 which is aimed at addressing the 
different  burdens  imposed  on  Member  States  in  implementing  Community 
legislation across the asylum and migration field for the next eight years.  

9 

Commission  Communication  establishing  a  framework  programme  on  Solidarity  and  Management  of 
Migration Flows for the period 2007-2013 (COM(2005) 123 final). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

27. 

CONCLUSION 

The deadline set for the establishment of a common asylum procedure by the Hague 
Programme is 2010. Properly implementing the first stage legislative instruments is a 
necessary  precursor  to  that.  The  practical  cooperation  embarked  on  to  support  that 
aim also has the effect of a horizontal harmonisation – so that a common approach is 
developed  and  strengthened  through  administrative  consistency  and  by  sharing 
expertise,  resources  and  knowledge.  Through  practical  cooperation,  managing 
asylum together, with the improvement in quality which that brings, will become the 
daily operational reality rather than simply an aspirational, legislative goal.  

EN 

10 

   EN