Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The future common European asylum system
Date: 2008-04-09
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU Member State, admission of aliens, cooperation policy, refugee, right of asylum, social integration, social policy

C 172/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The future common European asylum system’

(2008/C 172/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— underlines that local and regional authorities will be the first to implement European legislation on a
common European asylum system and notes that a common asylum system which requires each
Member State to take responsibility in a spirit of mutual support will facilitate the work of local and
regional authorities;

— recommends that a consultation mechanism be set up, where necessary, at national level bringing
together central, regional and local institutions with a view to achieving integrated, multilevel govern-
ance;

— recommends that a European regulation be drawn up governing the following aspects between
Member States: mutual recognition of protection once granted; procedures for transfer and uniform
status covering refugees and beneficiaries of secondary protection;

— considers that extending the provisions of Directive 2003/109/EC to those receiving a form of inter-
national protection is an essential step in averting the risk of discrimination, and constitutes and
instrument for completing the Community process of harmonisation in the field of asylum;

— recommends providing common guidelines on how, with the broad involvement of local bodies, to
help asylum seekers and refugees to gain access to social, health and housing services, and introducing
programmes to involve them in the local community; laying down clear and specific standards for:
recognising educational qualifications; vocational retraining; and skills certification; providing funding
to support labour and/or management potentialities among refugees;

— considers that fostering successful integration of refugees requires that they feel they have a part to
play in the neighbourhoods, towns, Member State and European Union in which they live. Involve-
ment in local and regional political life, based on active and passive voting rights in local elections,
represents a powerful and real value, going beyond the purely symbolic;

— recommends provision of funding and tendering procedures to develop national and local operators'
skills. There should be a special emphasis on psychosocial wellbeing, and the identification and hand-
ling of vulnerable cases;

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/25

Rapporteur: Mr Antonio SANTARELLA (IT/UEN-AE), Mayor of Candela

Reference documents

Communication from the Commission: Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System

COM(2007) 301 final

Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of
international protection

COM(2007) 298 final

Policy recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

The role of local and regional authorities

underlines that local and regional authorities will be the
1.
first to implement European legislation on a common European
asylum system. Every day they receive mixed flows of migrants,
among whom are asylum seekers, and must often provide
medical and psychological help to people who have suffered
physical and mental abuse, including torture. These services, not
normally provided by local and regional authorities or their
agencies, require special support if suitable skills and structures
are to be implemented;

2.
notes that a common asylum system which requires each
Member State to take responsibility in a spirit of mutual
support will facilitate the work of local and regional authorities.
At the moment, local and regional authorities bear too much
responsibility in certain Member States, partly because a
common asylum system does not exist;

3.
draws attention to the fact that, in the absence of recep-
tion and integration projects and stable employment, even
recognised asylum seekers may fall victim to exploitation and
crime, creating a possible source of problems in terms of
security and social cohesion. The risk and likelihood of falling
into a situation of exploitation or crime can be lessened if it is
possible to take paid work during the asylum application
period;

4.
recommends that a system of networks of local authorities
be set up in each Member State, to integrate refugees in an
informed way, by means of local projects promoted by these
In those Member States which have tried such
authorities.
service networks, working through local commissions,
the
processing of asylum requests has been accelerated and the
living conditions of asylum seekers have been improved. This
has facilitated their integration into local host communities,
with significant benefits for security and quality of life;

that

therefore,

recommends,

various European,
5.
national, regional and local resources complement one another
and provide real support for such service networks in all the
Member States, in order to deal with the problems of integrating
asylum seekers and refugees;

the

6.
where necessary, at national

recommends that a consultation mechanism be set up,
level bringing together central,

regional and local
grated, multilevel governance;

institutions with a view to achieving inte-

recommends that participation in the network system
7.
should be voluntary, and advocates partnerships to share deci-
sion-making and responsibilities among the various institutional,
public and private actors at local level, enabling reception and
integration measures to be planned on the basis of existing local
potential. These partnerships can help build up know-how and,
consequently, increase the informed involvement of actors thus
far unconnected with the asylum sector, or reluctant to assume
responsibilities in this sector;

8.
emphasises that such a system can prompt institutions,
businesses, trade unions, third sector associations, training estab-
lishments, universities and, of course, local and regional authori-
ties to find their place within the system. This would bring the
issue to the attention of society as a whole, enabling each stake-
holder to play their own role, which would naturally help to
alleviate or remove any tensions;

Legislative instr uments

Processing of asylum applications

considers that in applying the procedure for granting inter-
the Union faces two separate demands,

9.
national protection,
which should not be managed in opposition to each other:

— effective protection for asylum seekers, and;

— control of external borders;

10.
proposes that the procedures for identification, admission
onto EU territory, and access to the asylum procedure should be
harmonised at EU level;

11.
calls for common procedures to be designed and tested
for identifying migrants, which can be applied within clear time
limits with specific and clear measures,
in compliance with
fundamental human rights and human dignity;

12.
regarding the procedures for examining applications for
international protection, holds it to be crucial that common
instruments are identified that can guarantee uniform assess-
ment in each of the Member States, enabling the provisions of
European directives (2005/85/EC in particular) to be effectively
put into practice;

C 172/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

13.
also proposes regular opportunities for training, refresher
courses and monitoring, as well as forums for bodies respon-
sible for examining applications for international protection to
meet and exchange and compare experiences;

14.
recommends that a programme of training and refresher
courses be prepared for border police forces and border guard
units;

recommends the provision of, and support for, help and
15.
guidance centres
seeking international
foreign citizens
protection at border entry points (airports, sea ports, border
posts) and arrival areas;

for

Reception conditions for asylum seekers

16.
feels that, concerning the detention of asylum seekers, it
is worth restating that they may not be held solely for the
purposes of examining their cases. Any restrictions on the
freedom of movement must not extend beyond the time
required for
identification procedures, and these should be
further harmonised;

for

calls

17.
the European Union to adopt a charter
governing the status of applicants for international protection
whose freedom of movement is curtailed;

23.
notes that, in the light of the above, the provisions of
Directive No 2004/83/EC describing and harmonising the
subsidiary protection to be granted to those who do not qualify
for refugee status under the terms of the Geneva Convention
are to be welcomed. This protection should be seen as comple-
mentary to refugee status, and not as an inferior or second-class
form of it;

24.
therefore appreciates the efforts made by the European
Commission to define the position of beneficiaries of interna-
tional protection, incorporating and expanding upon the provi-
sions of the Geneva Convention;

emphasises that this reading of Community provisions
25.
enables two forms of
international protection (refugee and
subsidiary) to be outlined, broadening the types of beneficiary
of the protection;

26.
insists that both types of international protection granted
by one Member State should be recognised in all the other EU
Member States;

27.
recommends that allowance be made for responsibility to
be transferred between Member States when a beneficiary of
international protection transfers their place of residence from
one Member State to another, in this way guaranteeing freedom
of movement (albeit directly controlled and monitored) within
EU territory;

18.
believes that secondary movements within the European
Union are chiefly determined by the economic situation of
Member States and the approach taken to applicants for asylum;

28.
considers that the European Union must adopt instru-
ments (legislative and operational) enabling it to intervene in
cases where removal from EU territory is not possible;

19.
therefore considers it necessary to carry out research
compiling experiences in all the Member States over recent
years, particularly concerning entry into employment, housing
and society;

Cross-cutting issues

intends to supplement

20.
the present opinion with an
appendix setting out best practices in these areas, that have been
introduced in cooperation with European local and regional
authorities;

21.
with regard to the services provided by local and regional
authorities, urges a shift away from the ‘material assistance’
concept towards that of ‘integrated reception’ (including personal
assistance and guidance and steps towards socio-economic inte-
gration);

Granting of protection

22.
recalls that the concept of international protection is still
closely tied to the strict definition of refugee status, as enshrined
in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention, whereas the interna-
tional scene has been transformed since the 1950s, as has the
profile of those seeking protection. Increasingly, they are not
fleeing personal persecution but
situations of widespread
violence and armed conflict, and environmental and living
conditions play an increasingly important part;

Appropriate response to situations of vulnerability

considers that individuals should be deemed to be vulner-
29.
able on the basis of their specific circumstances and experiences;
this does not apply to certain types of individual necessarily
requiring specific reception and care measures (unaccompanied
minors, women who are travelling with or following husbands
or family, or are themselves refugees, people with physical or
mental disabilities), whose particular situation has to be taken
into account accordingly in procedures and decision-making
practices (e.g. respect for the right to a private and family life or
family reunification);

draws attention to the fact

30.
that — especially where
victims of torture are concerned — support and rehabilitation
measures may be inadequate when they:

— are not bolstered by specific actions aimed at ensuring

reception, protection and socio-economic integration;

— are implemented by specific structures,

in the absence of
dialogue with national and local welfare bodies, or with
other programmes and services also aimed at asylum seekers
and refugees;

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/27

31.
therefore recommends that a broad-ranging and struc-
tured debate, designed to outline common standards for identi-
fying individual cases of vulnerability, form part of the process
of building a common asylum system;

— providing funding to support labour and/or management
potentialities among refugees, in part by fostering coopera-
tion with pre-existing local businesses;

32.
proposes that the instruments to be devised by the Euro-
pean Union to support the work of the various players involved
in the asylum system (guidelines, manuals, training programmes,
etc.) should include specific guidelines and indicators to help
detect cases of vulnerability and facilitate their handling;

considers it essential,

33.
in order to identify and provide
care for vulnerable individuals, to boost the capacities of local
welfare services. To this end, it recommends that the European
Union takes steps either by funding specific capacity-building
programmes, or by promoting training and refresher courses to
the Member States;

Integration

34.
underlines that integration is a process whose primary
objective is for refugees to attain a degree of autonomy. The
integration process takes place through a number of parallel
insertion levels (employment, housing, social) and following
different thresholds (local knowledge, access to services, partici-
pation);

considers it essential,

35.
in recording the difficulties that
may be experienced by second-generation migrants in different
parts of Europe vis-à-vis integration policies, that refugees (in
this particular case) should not always be seen as ‘foreigners’ or
‘guests’, and that, based on recognition of and respect for the
values and the law of the host country, there should be no
move to distance them from their cultures of origin;

36.
considers that fostering successful integration of refugees
requires that they feel they have a part to play in the neighbour-
hoods, towns, Member State and European Union in which they
live. Involvement in local and regional political life, based on
active and passive voting rights in local elections, represents a
powerful and real value, going beyond the purely symbolic;

37.
believes that developing this feeling of belonging starts at
school, and that reception and integration programmes for
refugee pupils and students can be developed as an integral part
of all school and university systems in the Member States;

38.

recommends:

— providing common guidelines on how, with the broad invol-
vement of local bodies, to help asylum seekers and refugees
to gain access to social, health and housing services, and
introducing programmes to involve them in the local com-
munity,

— laying down clear and specific standards for: recognising
educational qualifications; vocational retraining; and skills
certification,

Implementation — accompanying measures

39.
proposes that rules be laid down governing common
procedures for identifying third country citizens applying for
international protection;

40.
proposes that structured training/refresher courses be
designed for: border guards and police forces; NGOs; bodies
responsible for examining applications for asylum; local health
and welfare services;
local administrations and directors of
national institutions;

suggests that opportunities to meet and swap experiences
41.
be arranged,
involving a full-scale European conference on
asylum, regional conferences and a staff exchange programme
— a kind of Erasmus for asylum officials;

calls for better coordination between the Member States

42.
on certain asylum questions;

43.
recommends that a European regulation be drawn up
governing the following aspects between Member States: mutual
recognition of protection once granted; procedures for transfer
and uniform status covering refugees and beneficiaries of
secondary protection;

44.
considers it essential to broaden and develop means of
consulting the various stakeholders — ranging from national
institutions to local administrations, from the police to NGOs
— on the implementation of a common asylum system;

recommends provision of funding and tendering proce-
45.
dures to develop national and local operators' skills. There
should be a special emphasis on psychosocial wellbeing, and the
identification and handling of vulnerable cases;

Solidar ity and burden-shar ing

Financial solidarity

46.
welcomes the Framework programme on solidarity and
management of migration flows for the period 2007-2013
presented by the European Commission: this is a multiannual
programme based on four pillars and the matching funds
providing an integrated approach to the various issues arising
from migration. It expresses particular satisfaction at the new
version of the European Refugee Fund (ERF) for 2008-2013,
the
and the European Return Fund for refugees who meet
requirements laid down by local authorities for asylum seekers
and refugees;

believes that harmonisation of procedural standards for
47.
reception, integration and the involvement of local communities
are the primary deterrent to secondary movement of applicants
or beneficiaries of international protection within EU territory;

C 172/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

underlines that

48.
the main step to be made towards
achieving such harmonisation is to build of an effective Euro-
pean asylum system. This would be the main instrument for
bringing about a full sharing of responsibility and competences
between all EU Member States;

55.
considers that extending the provisions of Directive
2003/109/EC to those receiving a form of international protec-
tion is an essential step in averting the risk of discrimination,
and constitutes and instrument for completing the Community
process of harmonisation in the field of asylum;

49.
recalls that attaining this objective is costly in terms of
economic, human and time resources, but considers this to be
necessary in order to devise an intervention model which can
overcome the difficulties encountered across Europe in mana-
ging migration flows;

emphasises that it is essential,

50.
if the above-mentioned
actions are to be carried out and if they are to have an impact
in the individual Member States, the resources earmarked for
European asylum policies
to be
managed at Community level and amounts to be channelled to
the Member States;

should contain amounts

51.
therefore recommends that Member States where the
number of requests for asylum are increasing or stable, together
with Member States with external borders should receive alloca-
tions commensurate with the tasks to be performed.
Imple-
menting a common asylum system will require substantial
economic resources and, especially for the first five years, it will
be necessary to derogate from the rule that European funding
should be complementary to national funding;

in this regard, calls for careful, well-organised program-
52.
ming of European financial resources, based on funding lines
that can be put to effective use, especially for training, staff
exchanges and the involvement of local partners in the Euro-
pean consultation process;

53.
by the same token, recommends that sufficient resources
be provided to assist the more recent Member States and those
with less experience of handling migration, by means of addi-
tional funds to make up for possible structural shortcomings at
level. Against such a backdrop, there would be little
national
point in considering resettlement programmes within the Euro-
pean Union;

Extending the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries
of international protection

54.
warmly welcomes the Proposal for a Council Directive to
amend the previous Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope
to beneficiaries of international protection (refugees or benefici-
aries of secondary protection);

Brussels, 9 April 2008.

56.
believes it vital to ensure that beneficiaries of interna-
tional protection can obtain long-term resident status in the
same Member State that has granted protection, and are entitled
to reside in a second Member State;

57.
emphasises that granting a form of international protec-
tion should be seen as an essential element when assessing the
consequences of possible removal of long-term resident status;

therefore welcomes

58.
the measures contained in the
proposal for a directive upholding the principle of non-refoule-
ment (the principle whereby individuals may not be forcibly
repatriated to countries where their lives or freedom would be
in danger) and ensuring its full implementation in practice, in
keeping with Community and international
law. Where more
far-reaching limitations regarding expulsion and deportation are
envisaged, these are to be rejected;

59.
also in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement,
considers it essential that the authorities of a second Member
State must be made fully aware of the fact that a long-term resi-
dent — seeking to reside on its territory — has previously
obtained international protection in the other Member State.
This provision is a vital guarantee of continuity of protection in
the event that the need for international protection persists;

60.
considers that, when the national authorities responsible
for granting or withdrawing international protection are not the
same as those for granting or withdrawing long-term resident
status, it is crucial that the ‘protection background’ must be fully
taken into account;

expresses its satisfaction at the provisions ensuring the
61.
full application of the conditions for exercising the right of resi-
dence in a second Member State, also covering the beneficiaries
of international protection with long-term resident status;

lastly, recommends that uniform rules at last be adopted
62.
at Community level regarding the granting of authorisation to
refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to reside in a
second Member State (for employment or family reasons) and,
above all, in order to allow the responsibility for the interna-
tional protection granted to be transferred from one Member
State to another.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Luc VAN DEN BRANDE