Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System
Date: 2007-06-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, admission of aliens, approximation of laws, refugee, right of asylum, social policy

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.6.2007 
COM(2007) 301 final 

GREEN PAPER 

on the future Common European Asylum System  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
GREEN PAPER 

on the future Common European Asylum System  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Creating  a  Common  European  Asylum  System  (CEAS)  as  a  constituent  part  of  an 
Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  emerged  from  the  idea  of  making  the 
European Union a single protection area for refugees, based on the full and inclusive 
application  of  the  Geneva  Convention  and  on  the  common  humanitarian  values 
shared  by  all  Member  States.  The  Hague  Programme  Action  Plan  foresees  the 
adoption of the proposal for CEAS by end 2010. 

The Commission is committed to further pursuing this ambitious goal. In this spirit, 
it  hereby  launches  a  comprehensive  consultation  process  on  the  form  this  CEAS 
should take. This Green Paper aims to identify what options are possible under the 
current EU legal framework for shaping the second stage of the construction of the 
CEAS.  

The basic layout of the CEAS, as defined in the Tampere Programme and confirmed 
by  the  Hague  Programme,  consists  in  the  establishment  of  a  common  asylum 
procedure  and  a  uniform  status  valid  throughout  the  EU.  The  ultimate  objective 
pursued  at  EU  level  is  thus  to  establish  a  level  playing  field,  a  system  which 
guarantees  to  persons  genuinely  in  need  of  protection  access  to  a  high  level  of 
protection under equivalent conditions in all Member States while at the same time 
dealing fairly and efficiently with those found not to be in need of protection. 

The  goal  pursued  in  the  first  stage  was  to  harmonise  Member  States'  legal 
frameworks  on  the  basis  of  common  minimum  standards  ensuring  fairness, 
efficiency,  and  transparency.  Considerable  progress  was  accomplished  in  the  years 
1999-2006,  in  particular  through  the  adoption  of  the  four  main  legislative 
instruments which make up the current acquis and which lay the foundations for the 
CEAS1. The Commission will ensure that the legal instruments already adopted are 
transposed in a timely manner and effectively implemented by Member States. 

The process of evaluating the first stage instruments and initiatives is still underway, 
but, given the need to come forward with the proposals for the second phase in time 
for  their  adoption  in  2010,  it  is  essential  to  embark  already  now  on  an  in-depth 
reflection and debate on the future architecture of the CEAS. However, due account 
has  been  taken  in  the  preparation  of  the  Green  Paper  of  all  information  which  is 
already  available  on  the  implementation  of  the  first  stage  instruments  and  on  the 
deficits  detected  in  practice,  so  as  to  allow  for  an  informed  reflection  and  debate. 
The  results  of  this  broad  reflection  will  be  synthesized  with  the  results  of  the 

1 

All  relevant  legislative  instruments  and  policy  documents  are  listed  in  Annex  1.  An  Annex  2  is  also 
attached to this document, and contains relevant statistical data.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
evaluation, in time to form the basis for the work that will have to be carried out 
in the very near future for the construction of the CEAS by 2010.  

The  goals  in  the  second  stage  should  be  to  achieve  both  a  higher  common 
standard of protection and greater equality in protection across the EU and to 
ensure a higher degree of solidarity between EU Member States. 

In  this  second  stage,  it  is  important  to  adopt  an  integrated,  comprehensive 
approach to asylum, seeking to improve all aspects of the asylum process, starting 
from the moment individuals seek access to protection in the EU until the moment a 
durable solution is found for those in need of international protection.  

In line with this approach, it is essential (1) to enhance the conditions under which 
persons seeking protection in the EU can effectively present and pursue their claims 
and  receive  an  adequate  response  to  their  individual  needs  and  (2)  to  boost  the 
capacity  of  all  stakeholders  involved  in  the  asylum  process  to  successfully 
accomplish their tasks, thereby improving the overall quality of this process. It is also 
necessary  to  provide  national  asylum  administrations  with  adequate  tools  enabling 
them  to  efficiently  manage  asylum  flows  and  effectively  prevent  fraud  and  abuse, 
thereby preserving the integrity and credibility of the asylum system. 

Achieving  these  objectives  will  mean  filling  existing  gaps  in  the  current  asylum 
acquis  and  pursuing  legislative  harmonisation  based  on  high  standards.  Asylum 
practices  will  also  need  to  be  harmonised  through  the  implementation  of  a  set  of 
accompanying  measures  relating  to  the  practical  cooperation  between  Member 
States.  

Furthermore, there is a pressing need for increased solidarity in the area of asylum, 
so  as  to  ensure  that  responsibility  for  processing  asylum  applications  and  granting 
protection  in  the  EU  is  shared  equitably.  Ways  also  need  to  be  explored  for 
increasing  the  EU's  contribution  to  a  more  accessible,  equitable  and  effective 
international protection regime. 

2. 

LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS  

2.1. 

Processing of asylum applications 

Council  Directive  2005/85/EC  ("the  Asylum  Procedures  Directive")  provides  for  a 
number  of  procedural  standards  rather  than  for  a  "standard  procedure".  This 
Directive allows a large degree of flexibility in many areas, such as the provisions on 
accelerated  procedures,  border  procedures,  and  inadmissible  applications.  Further 
law approximation is needed if the objective of the EU wide common procedure set 
by the Hague Programme is to be met. 

In  this  context,  particular  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  enhancing  the  effective 
access  to  the  possibility  to  request  asylum  and  thus  the  access  to  international 
protection  in  the  EU.  This  could  imply  strengthening  the  legal  safeguards 
accompanying  the  crucial  initial  stage  of  border  procedures  and  in  particular  the 
registration and screening process.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
National  rules  would  also  need  to  be  further  approximated  regarding  aspects  of 
asylum  processing  which  were  not  -  or  not  sufficiently  -  covered  by  the  first-stage 
provisions,  such  as  the  quality  of  the  decision-making,  the  assessment  of  evidence 
submitted by applicants, and the appeals procedures. 

It  might  also  be  necessary  to  re-assess  the  content  and  added-value  of  certain 
procedural  devices  introduced  at  the  first  stage  of  harmonisation,  such  as  the 
concepts  of  safe  countries  of  origin,  safe  third  countries,  and  safe  European  third 
countries. 

Significant progress towards the establishment of a common asylum procedure may 
furthermore be achieved by including as a mandatory element in the CEAS a single 
procedure for assessing applications for refugee status and for subsidiary protection. 
Aspects to be considered include its scope, the sequence of examining the different 
protection grounds, the appeals procedures as well as the need to impose time limits 
or targets regarding the duration of the asylum procedure. 

By  calling  for  a  study  on  the  implications,  appropriateness  and  feasibility  for  joint 
processing of asylum applications, the Hague Programme holds up joint processing 
as  an  additional  possibility  for  further  harmonisation.  Within  the  current  legal 
framework,  the  responsibility  for  determining  asylum  claims  lies  with  individual 
Member States. The added value, the exact modalities and the practical and financial 
consequences of establishing such a joint processing mechanism, which could build 
on  the  specific  experiences  and  capacities  of  Member  States  for  processing  certain 
caseloads,  will  have  to  be  carefully  considered  in  view  of  the  conclusions  of  the 
above mentioned study. 

(1)  How  might  a  common  asylum  procedure  be  achieved?  Which  aspects 

should be considered for further law approximation? 

(2)  How might the effectiveness of access to the asylum procedure be further 
enhanced?  More  generally,  what  aspects  of  the  asylum  process  as 
currently regulated should be improved, in terms of both efficiency and 
protection guarantees? 

(3)  Which,  if  any,  existing  notions  and  procedural  devices  should  be 

reconsidered?  

(4)  How should a mandatory single procedure be designed?  

(5)  What  might  be  possible  models  for  the  joint  processing  of  asylum 
applications?  Under  what  circumstances  could  a  mechanism  for  joint 
processing be used by Member States?  

2.2. 

Reception conditions for asylum seekers  

Ensuring a high level of harmonisation with regard to reception conditions of asylum 
seekers is crucial if secondary movements are to be avoided. However, according to 
the  information  already  available  on  the  implementation  in  practice  of  Council 
Directive  2003/9/EC  (the  "Reception  Conditions  Directive"),  the  wide  margin  of 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
discretion left to Member States by several key provisions of this Directive results in 
negating the desired harmonisation effect.  

For  instance,  there  exist  wide  divergences  with  regard  to  the  access  of  asylum 
seekers  to  the  labour  market:  different  Member  States  impose  a  variety  of 
conditions  that  have  to  be  fulfilled  (e.g.  obtaining  a  work  permit),  some  Member 
States allow such access immediately while others restrict it for a year. This situation 
begs the question whether the conditions and the timeframe for access to the labour 
market should be more precisely regulated. 

Closely linked to the above mentioned issue of the ability of asylum seekers to work 
is how to effectively ensure more generally an adequate level of material reception 
conditions.  Furthermore,  wide  variations  have  been  observed  in  the  standards 
of reception conditions as well as in access to health care. 

Serious  problems  have  also  been  detected  regarding  the  applicability  of  this 
Directive  to  detention  centres  as  well  as  regarding  the  overall  application  of 
detention  measures  to  asylum  seekers,  to  the  extent  that  such  measures  result  in 
obstructing the effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Directive.  

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

In  what  areas  should  the  current  wide  margin  of  discretion  allowed  by 
the  Directive's  provisions  be  limited  in  order  to  achieve  a  meaningful 
level-playing field, at an appropriate standard of treatment?  

In  particular,  should  the  form  and  the  level  of  the  material  reception 
conditions granted to asylum seekers be further harmonised?  

Should  national  rules  on  access  to  the  labour  market  be  further 
approximated? If yes, in which aspects?  

Should the grounds for detention, in compliance with the jurisprudence 
of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  be  clarified  and  the  related 
conditions and its length be more precisely regulated? 

2.3. 

Granting of Protection  

In  response  to  the  call  of  the  Hague  Programme  for  uniformity  of  protection, 
several options could be envisaged regarding the eligibility criteria for protection and 
the content of the relevant protection status (or statuses) to be granted.  

One such option could consist in the fuller harmonisation of the eligibility criteria 
and the clarification of the concepts used to define the grounds for protection, so as 
to  minimise  the  margin  for  divergent  interpretations  and  applications  in  different 
Member  States,  which  is  currently  allowed  by  the  provisions  of  Directive 
2004/83/EC (the "Qualification Directive"). 

Further  approximation  of  the  rights  and  benefits  attached  to  the  protection 
granted  (regarding,  inter  alia,  residence  permits,  social  welfare  and  healthcare, 
education and employment) could also be considered. The existing acquis grants two 
different  sets  of  rights  and  benefits  to  refugees  and  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary 
protection,  based  on  distinctions  between  the  two  categories  stemming  from  the 
current International Law regime and reflecting important differences in grounds for 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
protection.  If  uniformity  were  to  be  understood  as  meaning  a  higher  degree  of 
harmonisation,  this  option  would  result  in  one  uniform  status  for  refugees  and 
another for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. This would mean reducing the 
flexibility allowed by the current legal framework regarding the content and duration 
of the rights to be granted as well as the possibility to limit or refuse access to certain 
rights.  

A further possible option to be considered could be to grant all persons who under 
the  current  legal  framework  would  be  eligible  either  for  refugee  status  or  for 
subsidiary protection one single uniform status, i.e. a protection status comprising a 
uniform  set  of  rights  for  both  categories.  Such  a  status,  providing  the  same  rights 
independently of the grounds for protection, would have one benefit – reduction of 
the incentives for applicants to appeal the decisions granting subsidiary protection, in 
order to seek refugee status. 

Reflection  could  also  be  useful  on  the  need  to  harmonise  the  status  granted  to 
categories  of  persons who  are  not  eligible  for  international  protection  as  currently 
defined  in  the  first  stage  legal  instruments,  but  who  nonetheless  are  protected 
against  removal  under  the  obligations  that  are  imposed  on  all  Member  States  by 
international  refugee  or  human  rights  instruments  or  on  the  basis  of  principles 
flowing from such instruments. Examples of such categories include persons who are 
not  removable  on  ill  health  grounds  and  unaccompanied  minors.  Provisions  for  a 
harmonised status for such categories of persons would have to draw on the relevant 
case-law of the European Court of Human Rights2. 

Finally, the concept of a status valid throughout the Union invites reflection on the 
establishment  at  Community  level  of  a  mechanism  for  the  mutual  recognition  of 
national  asylum  decisions  and 
the  possibility  of  transfer  of  protection 
responsibilities  once  a  beneficiary  of  protection  takes  up  residence  in  another 
Member  State.  Exact  legal  modalities  and  precise  conditions  would  need  to  be 
thoroughly  discussed.  Such  a  mechanism  could  draw  in  particular  on  the  relevant 
provisions  of  the  Geneva  Convention  and  on  the  1980  European  Agreement  on 
Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees concluded in the framework of the Council 
of Europe.  

(10) 

In what areas should further law approximation be pursued or standards 
raised regarding  

– 

– 

the criteria for granting protection 

the rights and benefits attached to protection status(es)? 

(11)  What models could be envisaged for the creation of a "uniform status"? 
Might  one  uniform  status  for  refugees  and  another  for  beneficiaries  of 
subsidiary protection be envisaged? How might they be designed? 

(12)  Might  a  single  uniform  status  for  all  persons  eligible  for  international 

protection be envisaged? How might it be designed?  

2 

See, in particular, the judgements pronounced by this Court in the cases of D. v. UK of 2 May 1997, 
and Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium of 12 October 2006. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(13)  Should  further  categories  of  non-removable  persons  be  brought  within 

the scope of Community legislation? Under what conditions?  

(14)  Should  an  EU  mechanism  be  established  for  the  mutual  recognition  of 
national asylum decisions and the possibility of transfer of responsibility 
for protection? Under what conditions might it be a viable option? How 
might it operate? 

2.4. 

Cross-cutting issues 

2.4.1.  Appropriate response to situations of vulnerability  

All  first  stage  instruments  underline  that  it  is  imperative  to  take  account  of  the 
special  needs  of  vulnerable  people.  However,  it  appears  that  serious  inadequacies 
exist with regard to the definitions and procedures applied by Member States for the 
identification of more vulnerable asylum seekers and that Member States lack the 
necessary resources, capacities and expertise to provide an appropriate response to 
such needs.  

It  appears  therefore  necessary  to  prescribe  in  more  depth  and  detail  the  ways  in 
which  the  special  needs  of  the  most  vulnerable  asylum  seekers  should  be 
identified  and  addressed  in  all  stages  of  the  asylum  process.  This  kind  of 
comprehensive approach would focus in particular on issues such as regulating more 
precisely  what  constitutes  adequate  medical  and  psychological  assistance  and 
counselling for traumatised persons, victims of torture and trafficking and a proper 
identification and response to the needs of minors, especially unaccompanied minors; 
the  development  of  appropriate  interview  techniques  for  these  categories,  based 
inter alia, on cultural, age and gender awareness and inter-cultural skills as well as 
on  the  use  of  specialised  interviewers  and  interpreters,  and  laying  down  more 
detailed rules regarding what should be relevant to the assessment of claims based 
on gender- and child-specific persecution.  

Furthermore, ways need to be found for enhancing national capacities, by reaching 
out  to  all  actors  involved  in  devising  and  implementing  measures  designed  to 
address  the  special  needs  of  more  vulnerable  categories  of  asylum  seekers  and 
refugees – such as professionals in the fields of health and education, psychologists, 
interpreters, linguistic experts, cultural anthropologists, lawyers, social workers and 
NGOs.  This  could  involve  specific  EU-wide  training  programmes  for  such 
professionals, the establishment at EU level of mechanisms (including databases and 
other  information  exchange  tools)  for  the  dissemination  of  best  practices  at 
operational  level  or  even  the  establishment  of  common  standards  regarding  the 
qualifications and skills required and, possibly, of a monitoring mechanism aimed 
at ensuring high standards of quality in services provided to more vulnerable people.  

(15)  How  could  the  provisions  obliging  Member  States  to  identify,  take  into 
account and respond to the needs of the most vulnerable asylum seekers 
be improved and become more tailored to their real needs? In what areas 
should standards be further developed?  

(16)  What  measures  should  be  implemented  with  a  view  to  increasing 

national capacities to respond effectively to situations of vulnerability? 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2.4.2. 

Integration 

As the EU’s policies focus increasingly on the integration of third-country nationals, 
it  is  timely  to  reflect  overall  on  how  to  enhance  the  integration  of  beneficiaries  of 
international protection. The extension to this category of long-term residence rights, 
as envisaged by the proposal of the Commission of 6 June 2007 for an amendment of 
Council Directive 2003/109/EC (the "Long-Term Residents Directive"), is bound to 
significantly contribute to this effect.  

In  this  context,  thought  should  be  given  in  particular  to  enhancing  the  standards 
prescribed by the Qualification Directive regarding the integration of beneficiaries 
of subsidiary protection and on developing integration programmes designed to 
take into account the specific needs (in terms for example of housing and access 
to healthcare and social services) and potential of beneficiaries of international 
protection.  

Entitlements  to  work  (and  limits  thereon)  are  important  in  this  respect  as 
employment  is  accepted  as  a  major  element  which  facilitates  integration.  In  this 
context, ways need to be found to raise the awareness of the labour market actors on 
the value and potential contribution that beneficiaries of international protection can 
bring  to  their  organisations  and  companies.  Particular  attention  should  also  be 
devoted to the identification of their working experience, skills and potential and to 
the  recognition  of  their  qualifications,  since  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection are  often unable to provide the documentary evidence, such as diplomas 
and  other  relevant  certificates,  from  their  countries  of  origin  that  Member  States' 
legislation may normally require as a precondition to lawful employment in certain 
fields. The acquisition of necessary inter-cultural skills and competences should also 
be promoted, not only regarding the beneficiaries of international protection, but also 
regarding the professionals working with them. Diversity management should also be 
supported.  With  a  view  to  taking  a  comprehensive  approach,  it  might  also  be 
necessary  to  consider  providing  asylum  seekers  access  to  specific  selected 
integration  measures  and  facilities,  inter  alia  to  facilitate  a  speedy  integration  of 
those individuals ultimately granted international protection. 

(17)  What  further  legal  measures  could  be  taken  to  further  enhance  the 
international 

integration  of  asylum  seekers  and  beneficiaries  of 
protection, including their integration into the labour market?  

2.4.3.  Ensuring second stage instruments are comprehensive 

It would also be timely to reflect on other areas which are currently not covered by 
Community  legislation  but  where  there  would  be  an  added  value  in  approximating 
national rules. 

(18) 

In what further areas would harmonization be useful or necessary with a 
view  to  achieving  a  truly  comprehensive  approach  towards  the  asylum 
process and its outcomes? 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION - ACCOMPANYING MEASURES 

The  Hague  Programme  called  for  greater  practical  cooperation  between  national 
administrations with a view to enhancing the convergence of national practices, and 
to improving the quality of decision-making and increasing the efficiency of asylum 
management.  The  wide  range  of  activities  set  out 
the  Commission's 
Communication on "Strengthened Practical Cooperation" are currently being carried 
out within the framework of Eurasil, an expert group chaired by the Commission. 

in 

However,  as  the  results  of  this  Green  Paper  will  set  for  medium  and  long-term 
objectives  it  is  important  to  go  beyond  what  was  proposed  already  and  to  consider 
further  areas  where  practical  cooperation  between  Member  States  might  be 
usefully  extended.  This  consideration  shall  encompass  also  the  ways  for 
maximising  the  impact  of  this  cooperation  in  terms  of  further  approximating 
national practices and jurisprudences, e.g. the development of common guidelines 
on the interpretation and application of different procedural and substantial facets of 
the  EU  asylum  acquis.  To  cite  a  few  examples,  based  on  the  joint  assessment  of 
situations  in  countries  of  origin,  of  certain  types  of  cases  or  of  certain  aspects  of 
asylum  applications  that  require  specific  legal  or  factual  expertise,  Member  States 
could  adopt  common  approaches  to  exclusion  or  cessation  clauses  with  regard  to 
certain  caseloads,  to  concepts  such  as  gender-  or  child-specific  persecution,  to  the 
detection and prevention of fraud or abuse, or to the translation of documents and the 
methods and procedures for interviews.  

Consideration should also be given to ways for further developing the EU wide COI 
common  portal,  notably  by  linking  it  to  other  databases  regarding  immigration  and 
integration and by enabling it to provide information on a broad range of migration-
related issues. 

Greater emphasis could also be given to enlarging the circle of stakeholders involved 
in  the  exchange  of  good  practices,  capacity-building  and  training  activities  and  the 
development  of  guidelines  and  to  engaging  the  whole  range  of  stakeholders, 
including appeal authorities at the administrative or judicial level, legal and linguistic 
experts,  health,  education  and  vocational  guidance  professionals,  cultural 
anthropologists, border guards and law enforcement officials.  

Moreover,  to  keep  pace  with  the  rapid  expansion  in  scope  of  practical  cooperation 
embracing different aspects of the asylum process, it is becoming increasingly urgent 
to  ensure  adequate  structural  support  for  all  relevant  activities  and  an  effective 
and systematic follow-up to consider the results of those activities.  

The Commission plans to launch this year a feasibility study with a view to explore 
in  a  thorough  and  comprehensive  manner  the  different  options  that  could  be 
envisaged to this effect. 

One of these options, envisaged by the Hague Programme, is the transformation of 
the structures involved in practical cooperation into a European support office. If this 
solution was chosen, such an office could take over and systematically coordinate all 
the  current  activities  of  common  practical  cooperation.  Furthermore,  it  could 
incorporate  a  training  facility  for  all  parties  involved  in  the  asylum  process  and 
provide structural support for any processing activities that Member States may 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
undertake jointly in the future. It could also support Member States' joint efforts 
to  address  particular  pressures  on  their  asylum  systems  and  reception  capacities 
resulting  from  factors  such  as  geographical  location.  It  could  set  up  and  manage 
teams  of  asylum  experts  to  be  deployed  to  Member  States  facing  particular 
pressures.  It  could  play  a  role  in  the  implementation  of  the  Regional  Protection 
Programmes and in the coordination of any new policy initiative adopted in the 
future,  for  instance  regarding  resettlement  at  the  EU  level.  It  could  further  be 
entrusted with monitoring the implementation of reception conditions granted to 
asylum seekers. 

(19) 

(20) 

In  what  other  areas  could  practical  cooperation  activities  be  usefully 
expanded  and  how  could  their  impact  be  maximised?  How  could  more 
stakeholders  be  usefully  involved?  How  could  innovation  and  good 
practice 
in  the  area  of  practical  cooperation  be  diffused  and 
mainstreamed? 

In particular, how might practical cooperation help to develop common 
approaches  to  issues  such  as  the  concepts  of  gender-  or  child-specific 
persecution,  the  application  of  exclusion  clauses  or  the  prevention  of 
fraud? 

(21)  What options could be envisaged to structurally support a wide range of 
practical  cooperation  activities  and  ensure  their  sustainability?  Would 
the creation of a European support office be a valid option? If so, what 
tasks could be assigned to it?  

(22)  What would be the most appropriate operational and institutional design 

for such an office to successfully carry out its tasks? 

4. 

SOLIDARITY AND BURDEN SHARING 

4.1. 

Responsibility sharing 

The  Dublin  system  (Dublin  and  EURODAC  Regulations)  was  not  devised  as  a 
burden  sharing  instrument.  Its  primary  objective  was  to  quickly  establish  which 
Member State is responsible for the examination of an asylum application lodged on 
EU  territory,  on  the  basis  of  fair  and  objective  criteria,  and  to  prevent  secondary 
movements between Member States. As the Evaluation Report published on 6 June 
2007 has shown, the Dublin system has to a large extent achieved these objectives, 
though  questions  remain  regarding  its  effectiveness  as  a  means  of  reducing 
secondary movements. 

This Evaluation Report also showed that transfers which take place under the Dublin 
System  are  equally  balanced  between  border  and  non-border  Member  States. 
Nevertheless,  the  Dublin  System  may  de  facto  result  in  additional  burdens  on 
Member  States  that  have  limited  reception  and  absorption  capacities  and  that  find 
themselves  under  particular  migratory  pressures  because  of  their  geographical 
location.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Further approximation of national asylum procedures, legal standards and reception 
conditions, as envisaged in creating a Common European Asylum System, is bound 
to reduce those secondary movements of asylum seekers which are mainly due to the 
diversity of applicable rules, and could thus result in a more fair overall distribution 
of asylum applications between Member States.  

However,  even  the  establishment  of  a  common  asylum  procedure  and  a  uniform 
status  will  not  completely  eradicate  all  reasons  why  asylum  seekers  may  find  one 
Member State a more attractive destination that another. Therefore, a system which 
clearly  allocates  responsibility  for  the  examination  of  an  asylum  claim  within  the 
EU will still be necessary in order to avoid the phenomena of 'asylum shopping' and 
'refugees in orbit'.  

Further  reflection  is  necessary  on  the  underlying  principles  and  objectives  of  the 
Dublin  system  and  whether  there  is  a  need  to  complement  it  with  additional 
mechanisms. Other factors could be taken into account, such as Member States' 
capacities  to  process  asylum  applications  and  to  offer  long-term  solution  to 
recognised refugees. This reflection is necessary if the application of the system is 
to result in a more balanced distribution between Member States. 

In the past, possible alternative systems for the allocation of responsibility were 
considered.  These  included  for  example  a  system  which  allocates  responsibility 
according  to  where  the  asylum  application  is  lodged,  the  applicant's  country  of 
origin, or the last known transit country.  

However,  thought  should  mainly  be  given  to  establishing  "corrective"  burden-
sharing  mechanisms  that  are  complementary  to  the  Dublin  system,  for  instance 
providing  for  the  distribution  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  between 
Member States after they have been granted protection status. Intra-EU resettlement 
is an important way to pursue. Extending the provisions of the Long-Term Residents 
Directive to beneficiaries of international protection is also expected to alleviate the 
burden  on  certain  Member  States  by  allowing  those  persons,  under  certain 
conditions, to move to another Member State. 

(23)  Should  the  Dublin  system  be  complemented  by  measures  enhancing  a 

fair burden-sharing?  

(24)  What other mechanisms could be devised to provide for a more equitable 
distribution  of  asylum  seekers  and/or  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection between Member States?  

4.2. 

Financial solidarity 

We need to consider ways of further maximising the effectiveness of the European 
Refugee  Fund  (ERF)  as  a  supporting  instrument  for  Member  States'  efforts  to 
implement  EU  asylum  policy.  More  specifically,  ways  must  be  explored  to  ensure 
ERF funding can be put to better use in order to complement, stimulate and act as a 
catalyst for the delivery of the objectives pursued, to reduce disparities and to raise 
standards.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
To maximise the Fund's impact, for example, specific consultation or information 
sharing mechanisms could be set up at national level to produce accurate analyses 
of  deficits  that  need  to  be  addressed  with  the  support  of  the  Fund.  To  avoid 
fragmentation  and  duplication  of  efforts  and  to  create  synergies  and  promote  best 
practices, an information sharing mechanism might also be set up at EU level to 
disseminate information on projects and programmes which could serve as models. 

However,  in  addition  to  optimising  the  existing  funding  possibilities,  adopting  a 
comprehensive  approach  also  raises  the  question  whether  there  are  any  specific 
financing needs which are not adequately covered by the existing funds. Such needs 
might arise for instance regarding the funding of an integrated response to situations 
of  vulnerability  throughout  the  asylum  process  or  of  the  accompanying  measures 
related  to  cooperation  between  Member  States  (ranging  from  financing  the 
secondment  of  personnel  from  national  administrations  and  judicial  bodies  or  their 
participation in joint activities to funding the future European Support Office).  

(25)  How  might  the  ERF's  effectiveness,  complementarity  with  national 
resources  and  its  multiplier  effect  be  enhanced?  Would  the  creation  of 
information-sharing  mechanisms  such  as  those  mentioned  above  be  an 
appropriate means? What other means could be envisaged? 

(26)  Are  there  any  specific  financing  needs  which  are  not  adequately 

addressed by the existing funds? 

5. 

EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF ASYLUM 

5.1. 

Supporting third countries to strengthen protection 

Given  that  6.5  million  of  the  world's  8.7  million  refugees  are  estimated  to  live  in 
developing countries3, it is important to consider ways to support third countries in 
addressing  with  asylum  and  refugee  issues.  In  an  effort  to  enhance  effective 
protection  and  the  availability  of  durable  solutions  for  refugees  in  their  region  of 
origin and transit, the Commission developed the concept of EU-Regional Protection 
Programmes, as a complement to various types of EU assistance to third countries in 
the area of asylum. It should be noted that the two pilot Programmes launched so far 
in  the  Western  Newly  Independent  States  and  in  Tanzania  are  still  at  a  very  early 
stage of their implementation and that any future reshaping of the concept will have 
to be based on the conclusions of their evaluation. Thus, if concluded as useful, the 
discussion could move towards developing further their added value and ensuring 
the sustainability of their results. 

Furthermore, acknowledging the importance for its development policy of achieving 
durable  solutions  for  refugees  and  asylum  seekers,  the  Commission  has  in  recent 
years undertaken to systematically integrate asylum in its development cooperation 
strategies,  as  demonstrated  in  several  recent  Country/Region  Strategy  Papers,  and 
has  dedicated  important  financing  from  relevant  external  assistance  instruments  to 
this issue. 

3 

Source: 2005 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  to  reflect  on  the  types  of  actions  which  are  most 
effective  in  supporting  third  countries  to  manage  refugee  situations,  including 
addressing  the  needs  of  refugees  and  returnees  and  their  potential  to  contribute  to 
the development of their host countries, and on how to improve the coherence and 
the  effectiveness  of  the  EU's  action  vis-à-vis  the  regions  and  third  countries 
concerned.  

(27) 

If evaluated necessary, how might the effectiveness and sustainability of 
Regional  Protection  Programmes  be  enhanced?  Should  the  concept  of 
Regional Protection Programmes be further developed and, if so, how? 

(28)  How might the EU best support third countries to deal with asylum and 

refugees issues more effectively?  

(29)  How  might  the  Community's  overall  strategies  vis-à-vis  third  countries 
be  made  more  consistent  in  the  fields  of  refugee  assistance  and  be 
enhanced? 

5.2. 

Resettlement 

In  its  function  as  a  tool  of  protection,  of  providing  durable  solutions  and  of 
establishing an effective mechanism for responsibility sharing, resettlement forms an 
important  part  of  the  external  dimension  of  EU  asylum  policy.  Resettlement  of 
refugees  in  EU  territory  also  reflects  the  EU's  commitment  to  show  international 
solidarity  and  share  the  burden  of  the  countries  in  the  regions  of  origin  which 
accommodate the vast majority of refugees. The achievement of the ambitious goals 
set  out  regarding  the  development  of  an  EU  Resettlement  Scheme  requires  a 
proactive approach. The Commission is currently looking to provide comprehensive 
financial support for the resettlement activities undertaken by Member States as well 
as  to  facilitate  a  significant  EU  commitment  to  resettlement  in  the  context  of  the 
Regional Protection Programmes.  

If  this  area  is  to  be  developed,  we  could  explore  different  ways  of  encouraging 
Member  States.  This  could  involve  helping  them  to  expand  and  enhance  their 
national resettlement programmes and encouraging them to significantly participate 
in the resettlement component of the Regional Protection Programmes. It could also 
be useful to consider how a common approach could be developed regarding the 
means to implement resettlement activities in the context of the Regional Protection 
Programmes  to  achieve  greater  efficiency,  coordination  and  economies  of  scale. 
Evidently, any future steps in this direction will need to build on the conclusions of 
the evaluation of the pilot Regional Protection Programmes. 

It  might  also  be  worth  looking  at  other  areas  –  beyond  Regional  Protection 
Programmes  -  where  a  collective  resettlement  effort  at  EU  level  could  help  to 
resolve  protracted  refugee  situations  or  provide  an  effective  response  to 
emergency situations. 

(30)  How might  a substantial and sustained EU commitment  to  resettlement 

be attained?  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(31)  What  avenues  could  be  explored  to  achieve  a  coordinated  approach  to 
resettlement  at  EU  level?  What  would  be  required  at  financial, 
operational and institutional level? 

(32) 

In  what  other  situations  could  a  common  EU  resettlement  commitment 
be envisaged? Under what conditions?  

5.3. 

Addressing mixed flows at the external borders 

A  further  core  element  of  the  external  dimension  of  asylum  is  the  need  to  address 
mixed  flows,  where  the  migratory  flows  arriving  at  a  Member  State's  external 
borders  include  both  illegal  immigrants  and  persons  in  need  of  protection.  The 
response to this challenge implies guaranteeing and enhancing access to protection at 
external borders. 

Measures to combat illegal migration and the smuggling of human beings should be 
implemented in a manner which does not deprive the right to asylum of its practical 
meaning.  The  Commission's  efforts  are  focusing  on  providing  operational  and 
financial assistance to help Member States to establish effective protection-sensitive 
entry  management  systems,  in  particular  when  they  are  confronted  with 
emergency situations caused by mass arrivals at their borders.  

Proposals  should  focus  in  particular  on  the  establishment  of  teams  of  asylum 
experts, which could be called to assist Member States on a temporary basis facing 
pressures  in  performing  the  initial  profiling  of  individual  cases  at  points  of  arrival, 
and  on  the  provision  of  emergency  financial  assistance  to  these  Member  States,  to 
help them to provide adequate reception conditions and to conduct fair and efficient 
asylum procedures. If the option of setting-up a European support office materializes, 
it could be envisaged to entrust it with the coordination of the deployment of these 
asylum expert teams. Existing or new voluntary schemes on national and European 
level  (notably  the  European  Voluntary  Service)  could  also  contribute  to  mobilise 
energies,  enhance  the  reception  capacities  and  strengthen  the  solidarity  among  the 
Member States.  

(33)  What  further  measures  could  be  taken  to  ensure  that  protection 
obligations  arising  out  of  the  EU  acquis  and  international  refugee  and 
human rights law form an integral part of external border management? 
In  particular,  what  further  measures  could  be  taken  to  ensure  that  the 
implementation  in  practice  of  measures  aimed  at  combating  illegal 
migration does not affect the access of asylum seekers to protection?  

(34)  How  might  national  capacities  to  establish  effective  protection-sensitive 
entry  management  systems  be  increased,  in  particular  in  cases  of  mass 
arrivals at the borders?  

5.4. 

The role of the EU as a global player in refugee issues 

Member  States'  asylum  systems  are  increasingly  seen  as  forming  a  single  regional 
protection  area.  This  is  an  effect  that  will  be  magnified  by  the  establishment  of  a 
common procedure and a uniform status. At the same time, as the external dimension 
of EU asylum policy grows in importance, greater expectations arise as to the role of 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
the  EU,  as  an  entity  encompassing  27  States,  within  the  global  refugee  protection 
system.  The  EU  is  thus  increasingly  called  upon  to  present  a  common  vision  on 
refugee  policy  issues  at  the  international  level  and  to  develop  common  positions 
vis-à-vis international organizations. 

(35)  How  could  European  asylum  policy  develop  into  a  policy  shared  by  the 
EU  Member  States  to  address  refugee  issues  at  the  international  level? 
What models could the EU use to develop into a global player in refugee 
issues?  

6. 

CONCLUSION 

In this Green Paper, the Commission has sought to outline the main issues at stake 
and invites constructive suggestions to take these issues forward.  

In  line  with  the  integrated  approach  to  asylum  described  above,  the  Commission 
aims  to  launch  a  broad  discussion  among  all  relevant  stakeholders.  All  EU 
institutions, national, regional and local authorities, candidate countries, third country 
partners, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, all state actors and 
private service providers involved in the asylum process, academia, social partners, 
civil society organisations and individuals are invited to contribute.  

The  results  of  this  comprehensive  consultation  will  inform  the  preparation  of  a 
policy plan to be issued in the first quarter of 2008 in which the Commission will set 
out all the measures that it will adopt to construct the CEAS, along with a timeframe 
for the adoption of those measures. 

In order to prepare for a public hearing on 18 October 2007, the Commission invites 
all  interested  parties  to  send  their  responses  to  this  consultation  in  writing  no  later 
than 31 August 2007 to: 

Immigration and Asylum Unit – "Green Paper on Asylum" 

Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security 

European Commission 

B-1049 Brussels 

e-mail : JLS-asile-livre-vert@ec.europa.eu 

All relevant contributions will be published on the web portal 'Your Voice in Europe' 
http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. EUROPEAN COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS  

The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, 
(OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1) 

The Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions, available 
at the European Council website: 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00200-r1.en9.htm  

II. LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS 

A. Instruments establishing minimum standards 

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in 
Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (O J L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13) 

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 international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ L 304, 
30.9.2004, p. 12)  

Council  Directive  2003/9/EC  of  27  January  2003  laying  down  minimum  standards  for  the 
reception of asylum seekers (OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18)  

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  in  receiving  such  persons  and  bearing  the 
consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p.12) 

B. Dublin System 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules 
for  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003  establishing  the  criteria  and 
mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  asylum 
application  lodged  in  one  of  the  Member  States  by  a  third-country  national  (OJ  L  222, 
5.9.2003, p. 3) 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003  of  18  February  2003  establishing  the  criteria  and 
mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  asylum 
application  lodged  in  one  of  the  Member  States  by  a  third-country  national  (OJ  L  50, 
6.2.2003, p.1) 

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 L 
62, 5.3.2002, p. 1)  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment 
of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin 
Convention (OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1) 

C. Financial Programmes 

Framework Programme on Solidarity and the Management of Migration Flows for the period 
2007-2013 [to be adopted]  

Regulation  (EC)  No  1905/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18 
December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (OJ L 378, 
27.12.2006, p. 41)  

Regulation  (EC)  No  491/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  10  March 
2004 establishing a programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the 
areas of migration and asylum (AENEAS) (OJ L 80, 18.3.2004, p. 1) 

Council  Decision  2002/463/EC  of  13  June  2002  adopting  an  action  programme  for 
administrative  cooperation  in  the  fields  of  external  borders,  visas,  asylum  and  immigration 
(ARGO programme) (OJ L 161, 19.6.2002, p. 11) 

Council Decision 2004/904/EC of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund 
for the period 2005 to 2010 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 52) 

Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000 establishing a European Refugee Fund 
(OJ L 252, 6.10.2000, p. 12) 

D. Legislative Proposals 

Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  amending  Directive  2003/109/EC  to  extend  its  scope  to 
beneficiaries of international protection (COM(2007) 298, 6.6.2007)  

E. Other 

Council  Decision  2006/688/CE  of  5  October  2006  on  the  establishment  of  a  mutual 
information  mechanism  concerning  Member  States'  measures  in  the  areas  of  asylum  and 
immigration (OJ L 283, 14.10.2006, p. 40) 

III. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTS 

Commission  Communication  on  'Reinforcing  the  management  of  the  European  Union's 
Southern Maritime Borders' - COM(2006) 733, 30.11.2006 

Commission  Communication  on  'Strengthened  practical  cooperation  -  New  structures,  new 
approaches:  improving  the  quality  of  decision  making  in  the  Common  European  Asylum 
System' - COM(2006) 67, 17.2.2006 

Commission Communication on 'A Strategy on the external dimension of Freedom, Security 
and Justice' - COM(2005) 491, 12.10.2005 

Commission  Communication  on  'Regional  Protection  Programmes'  -  COM(2005)  388, 
1.9.2005 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
Commission Communication on 'A More Efficient Common European Asylum System: The 
Single Procedure as the Next Step' - COM(2004) 503, 15.7.2004 

Commission  Communication  on  'Improving  access  to  durable  solutions'  -  COM(2004)  410, 
4.6.2004 

Commission  Communication  'Towards  more  accessible,  equitable  and  managed  asylum 
systems' - COM(2003) 315, 3.3.2003 

Commission Communication on 'The common asylum policy and the Agenda for protection' 
(Second  Commission  report  on  the  implementation  of  Communication  COM(2000)  755)  - 
COM(2003) 152, 26.3.2003 

Commission  Communication  on 
'The  common  asylum  policy,  introducing  an  open 
coordination method' - First report by the Commission on the application of Communication 
COM(2000) 755) - COM(2001) 710, 28.11.2001 

Commission  Communication  'Towards  a  common  asylum  procedure  and  a  uniform  status, 
valid throughout the Union for persons granted asylum' - COM(2000) 755, 22.11.2000 

Commission Staff Working Paper, 'Revisiting the Dublin Convention: developing Community 
legislation for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application 
for asylum submitted in one of the Member States' - SEC(2000) 522 

IV. STUDIES 

Study on 'The Transfer of protection status in the EU, against the background of the common 
European  asylum  system  and  the  goal  of  a  uniform  status,  valid  throughout  the  Union,  for 
those  granted  asylum',  Nina  M.  Lassen,  Leise  Egesberg,  Joanne  van  Selm,  Eleni  Tsolakis, 
Jeroen  Doomernik,  European  Commission,  DG  Justice  and  Home  Affairs,  Brussels  2004, 
ISBN 92-894-8276-1, available at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/docs/transfer_protection_status_r
ev_160904.pdf  

Study  on  'The  feasibility  of  setting up  resettlement  schemes  in  EU  Member  States  or  at  EU 
level,  against  the  background  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  system  and  the  goal  of  a 
common asylum procedure', Erin Patrick, Joanne van Selm, Tamara Woroby, Monica Matts, 

European Commission, DG Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels 2004, ISBN 92-894-6524-7, 
available at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/docs/resettlement-study-
full_2003_en.pdf  

Study on "the feasibility of processing asylum claims outside the EU against the background 
of the Common European Asylum System and the goal of a common asylum procedure', Noll 
Gregor, Jessica Fagerlund and Fabrice Liebaut, European Commission, DG Justice and Home 
Affairs, Brussels 2003, ISBN 92-894-5163-7, available at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/asylumstudy_dchr_2002_en.pdf 

Study  on  "the  single  asylum  procedure  "one-stop  shop"  against  the  background  of  the 
common European asylum system and the goal of a common asylum procedure', Hailbronner 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
K., European Commission, DG Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels 2003, ISBN 92-894-5256-
0, available at the following website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/docs/study_one_stop_shop_en.pd
f  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II 

ASYLUM STATISTICS 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
First asylum applications in EU 1986-2006

800000

700000

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1986-2003 = Applications in EU15 

2004-2006 = Applications in EU25 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
 
New asylum applications 

TOTAL 

2002 

2003

2004

2005

2006

EU27 

405455 

337235

268565

227425

181770

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

18800 

13585

12400

12575

8870

2890 

1320

985

700

500

Czech Republic 

8485 

11400

5300

3590

2730

Denmark 

5945 

4390

3235

2280

1795

Germany 

71125 

50565

35605

28915

21030

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

10 

15

10

10

5

11635 

7485

4265

4305

4240

5665 

8180

4470

9050

12265

6310 

5765

5365

5050

5295

51085 

52205

50545

42580

26270

n.a. 

13705

9630

9345

n.a. 

950 

4405

9675

7715

4540

EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Latvia 

25 

5

5

Lithuania 

365 

395

165

Luxembourg 

1040 

1550

1575

20

100

800

10

150

525

Hungary 

Malta* 

6410 

2400

1600

1610

2115

350 

455

845

1035

1065

Netherlands 

18665 

13400

9780

12345

14465

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

39355 

32360

24635

22460

13350

5170 

6810

7925

5240

4225

245 

1000 

115

885

115

545

115

485

650 

1050

1090

1550

130

380

500

Slovak Republic 

9745 

10300

11395

3550

2870

Finland 

Sweden 

3445 

3090

3575

3595

2275

33015 

31355

23200

17570

24320

United Kingdom 

103080 

60045

40625

30840

27850

Remarks: 

2006 - MT - Jan-Oct only 

Only first applications are recorded 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Decisions on asylum applications
TOTAL

2002

Total 
positive 
decisions Rejections
281050

63260

Other non-
status 
decisions
91165

Total 
decisions
415125

Total 
decisions
433430

2003

Total 
positive 
decisions Rejections
291185

41825

Other non-
status 
decisions
82060

Total 
decisions
343005

2004

Total 
positive 
decisions Rejections
237630

35870

Other non-
status 
decisions
69435

Total 
decisions
292225

2005

Total 
positive 
decisions Rejections
179570

46740

Other non-
status 
decisions
65910

Total 
decisions
234060

2006

Total 
positive 
decisions Rejections
136325

52555

Other non-
status 
decisions
45070

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

2235
12065

130130

6235
49960
16875

n.a.

n.a.

25
385
1050
9200

n.a.

n.a.

34255
29880
5415
230
1160
740

n.a.

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

720
115

8105

275
6240
1255

0
285
80
1580

3555
1075
255
30
130
5

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

3035
27115
103450

595
5500
33460

755
5135

n.a.

78845

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
5960 n.a.
43720 n.a.
15620

n.a.

25
45
970 n.a.
2570

n.a.

26480
4285
4670
165
950
120

n.a.

2265
18480
69990 n.a.

760
6810

43175

2050 n.a.

0
55

5045

4220
24525
490
30
80
615

175
3135

19975
1930
13400
3430
93885
15
8190
4810
6985
66345

405
10
775
1205
3930
470
21765
35610
7750
100
835
1195
7420
3320
31005
80370

1340
420
260
765
4705
0
345
40
405
6525

n.a.

n.a.

10
5
490
170
950
260
4620
2085
245
15
110
50
10
495
4320
13185

17985
985
7800
2660 n.a.
63000
15
7845 n.a.
4770
6580 n.a.
59820 n.a.
n.a.

265
5
55
995 n.a.
1545
210
14560
4950
3140
85
655
145
830
2440
22660
67185 n.a.

645
520
5340

26180
0

0

130
0
230

1435
0
2585
28575
4365
0
70
995
6580
385
4025

15435
965
7880
2155
61960
10
6890
3865
6670
68120

2350
270
185
210
3030
0
430
50
370
6360

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

5335
10
560

75
0
420

12060
335
4635
1945 n.a.
38600
10
6460 n.a.
3745 n.a.
6305 n.a.
61760 n.a.
n.a.

2735
5
50

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

1785
755
15655
25425
5895
75
555
1035
13390
4730
34945
58915

325
535
4535
5135
1130
10
90
35
15
790
3165
6355

930
225
8180
5070
2000
60
405
325
1595
3395
27765
49040

1020
360
3065

20330
0

2525
5
90

525
0
2940
15220
2765
0
65
670
11780
540
4010
3520

17585
945
4375
1325
48100
15
5240
10420
5140
51270
20055
5795
10
385
1480
1655
1085
19750
18585
8840
90
470
1785
3785
3455
23920
36650

3700
85
330
230
3120
5
455
125
345
4185
5295
160
0
345
670
190
535
8820
4530
2145
15
55
25
25
570
5355
5425

10345
380
2635
1100 n.a.
27450
10
4785 n.a.
4585
4790 n.a.
47090 n.a.
7285
3125
5
30
555
855
550 n.a.
8085
5425
2285
75
415
665
825
2515
15930
27780

3545
480
1410

17530
0

5710

7475
2510
5
10
255
610

2850
8635
4415
0
0
1095
2935
370
2635
3440

8135
695
3020
985
30760
5
4245
11170
4065
37715
12125
5585
15
445
890
2020
965
14180
15490
7280
105
365
900
2815
2520
40220
27345

2230
95
365
190
1950
0
395
195
205
2930
3030
170
10
315
350
200
440
4345
4065
2465
30
55
10
10
695
22755
5055

5905 n.a.
215
2195
790 n.a.

17780
5
3845 n.a.
9600
3860 n.a.
34785 n.a.
2685
1780
0
30
495
1215
525 n.a.
7520
5865
935
75
270
570
860
1540
12675
20305

385
460

11025
0

1380

6410
3635
5
20
25
605

2320
5560
3875
0
40
325
1945
285
4790
1985

   EU27

Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy*
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta*
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

Remarks:
2006
IT - Jan-Sep only
MT - Jan-Oct only

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
New asylum applications by citizenship (only data disaggregated by citizenship inlcuded)

Cumulated 2002-2006*
% of total 

2002*

% of total 

2003*

% of total 

2004*

% of total 

2005

% of total 

TOTAL
Russia
Iraq
Serbia and Montenegro
Turkey
Afghanistan
China
Nigeria
Somalia
Iran
India
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Congo, the Democratic Republic of the
Georgia
Bangladesh
Other (non TOP10) 

Number
1250020
96075
93895
84935
71505
52080
46480
43935
41735
41350
37835

applications Number
100,0% 258370
8615
33995
16475
17940
19125

3,3%
13,2%
6,4%
6,9%
7,4%

applications Number 
100,0% 323530
30150
21965
18875
21945
11625
15155
11775
13065
10475
10750

3,7%
3,9%
3,1%
3,1%
3,5%

9445
10200
8015
8055
9095

7,7%
7,5%
6,8%
5,7%
4,2%
3,7%
3,5%
3,3%
3,3%
3,0%

applications Number 
100,0% 258935
26390
7910
17375
13600

applications Number 
100,0% 227425
18160
10805
19485
10790
6765
7765
7545

10,2%
3,1%
6,7%
5,3%

4,4%
3,9%

applications Number 
100,0% 181760
12760
19215
12725
7225
7430
5410

8,0%
4,8%
8,6%
4,7%
3,0%
3,4%
3,3%

2006*

% of total 
applications
100,0%
7,0%
10,6%
7,0%
4,0%
4,1%
3,0%

3,4%
3,7%

3,5%
2,9%

7485

3,3%

5825
6610

3,2%
3,6%

6810

6345

3,0%

6250

3,4%

2,8%

9,3%
6,8%
5,8%
6,8%
3,6%
4,7%
3,6%
4,0%
3,2%
3,3%

11445
10030

8760
9710

8940
7580

640195

51,2% 117405

45,4% 157750

48,8% 137190

53,0% 125475

55,2%

5935
92375

3,3%
50,8%

Remarks:
2002 - no data disaggregated by citizenship available for DK, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SE, CY, CZ, EE, HU, LV, MT, PL, SK, SI, BG
2003, 2004, 2006 - no data disaggregated by citizenship available for IT
2006 - MT, Jan-Oct 2006

EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
 
RUSSIA

IRAQ

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

Number of 
asylum 
applications

% of 
positive 
decisions

% of 
rejection 
decisions

% of other 
non status 
decisions

Number of 
asylum 
applications

% of 
positive 
decisions

% of 
rejection 
decisions

% of other 
non status 
decisions

Number of 
asylum 
applications

% of 
positive 
decisions

% of 
rejection 
decisions

% of other 
non status 
decisions

year 2005

   EU27

18160

33,6%

33,8%

32,7%

10805

29,2%

55,1%

15,7%

19485

7,8%

55,9%

36,3%

Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

1010
10
235
120
1720
5
45
355
135
1980
70
355
5
70
55
35
0
285
4355
4825
5
5
10
1035
225
1010
200

65,4%
0,0%
30,1%
83,3%
14,5%
0,0%
3,5%
2,1%
33,1%
30,3%
11,8%
7,2%
0,0%
94,7%

22,1%
61,5%
38,6%
16,7%
52,6%
100,0%
96,5%
9,6%
66,9%
69,7%
50,0%
59,4%
50,0%
5,0%

12,5%
38,5%
31,3%
0,0%
33,0%
0,0%
0,0%
88,3%
0,0%
0,0%
38,2%
33,3%
50,0%
0,3%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

10,9%
-
40,5%
74,1%
25,4%
0,0%
0,0%
7,7%
0,0%
15,4%
11,5%
15,6%

41,3%
-
44,7%
7,7%
23,1%
100,0%
100,0%
15,4%
12,0%
61,2%
74,9%
76,3%

47,8%
-
14,8%
18,2%
51,5%
0,0%
0,0%
76,9%
88,0%
23,3%
13,6%
8,0%

825
45
45
265
1985
5
55
970
40
105
320
145
5
5
10
20
25
1620
220
10
0
70
15
35
285
2100
1595

13,8%
48,9%
2,6%
7,0%
3,7%
25,0%
15,7%
1,3%
57,7%
16,1%
8,4%
15,5%
0,0%
40,0%

62,9%
2,2%
7,7%
93,0%
73,5%
75,0%
84,3%
82,3%
42,3%
83,9%
40,6%
2,8%
0,0%
0,0%

23,3%
48,9%
89,7%
0,0%
22,8%
0,0%
0,0%
16,4%
0,0%
0,0%
51,0%
81,7%
100,0%
60,0%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

44,4%
50,0%
58,1%
38,0%
12,5%
-
40,3%
0,0%
2,0%
42,3%
51,1%
8,6%

25,9%
50,0%
26,5%
14,3%
31,3%
-
59,7%
20,0%
44,0%
49,5%
42,7%
88,1%

29,6%
0,0%
15,4%
47,7%
56,3%
-

0,0%
80,0%
54,0%
8,2%
6,3%
3,3%

740
5
30
385
5520
0
30
0
45
2570
775
0
0
0
215
245
5
335
4405
0
0
0
525
30
445
2980
195

1,4%
0,0%
0,0%
0,3%
1,0%

-
10,9%
0,0%
17,3%
12,4%
10,6%
-
-
-
n.a.

10,0%
12,5%
19,5%
20,0%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
2,8%
17,5%
9,0%
18,4%
7,3%

64,7%
50,0%
84,6%
99,7%
43,4%
-
89,1%
100,0%
82,7%
87,6%
49,3%
-
-
-
n.a.

39,8%
87,5%
63,6%
43,9%
0,0%
100,0%
100,0%
45,9%
42,5%
81,9%
71,0%
54,8%

33,9%
50,0%
15,4%
0,0%
55,7%
-

0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
39,7%
-
-
-
n.a.

50,2%
0,0%
16,9%
36,0%
100,0%
0,0%
0,0%
51,3%
40,0%
9,0%
10,6%
37,9%

Remarks:
Recognition rates are calculated here as the number of positive decisions in the reference year
divided by the total number of decisions in that year. 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
 
Refugee population of UNHCR regions 

UNHCR regions 

Population end-2005

East and Horn of Africa 

772,000 

Central Africa and the Great Lakes  1,193,700 

West Africa 

Southern Africa 

Total Africa 

CASWANAME 

The Americas 

Asia and Pacific 

Europe 

TOTAL 

377,200 

228,600 

2,571,500 

2,725,200 

564,300 

825,600 

1,975,500 

8,662,100 

Source: 2005 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 

EN 

27 

EN