Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions - Policy plan on asylum an integrated approach to protection across the EU - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 360 final} {SEC(2008) 2029}
Date: 2008-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: admission of aliens, approximation of laws, fundamental rights, impact study, refugee, right of asylum, social policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.6.2008 
SEC(2008) 2030 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying  the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS 

POLICY PLAN ON ASYLUM 
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO PROTECTION ACROSS THE EU 

Summary of the Impact Assessment 

{COM(2008) 360 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2029} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

1. 
The  Commission  presented  in  June  2007  a  Green  Paper1  aiming  to  identify  the  possible 
options  for  shaping  the  second  phase  of  the  CEAS.  The  response  to  the  public  consultation 
included  89  Contributions  from  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders2.  The  issues  raised  and  the 
suggestions put forward during the consultation have provided the basis for the preparation of 
this Policy Plan and its Impact Assessment. 

The Commission ordered an external study in order to get support for the preparation of the 
Impact  Assessment.  The  external  study  constitutes  the  main  support  for  this  report  in 
conjunction with an analysis of the contributions to the Green Paper and existing evaluation 
reports of EC asylum instruments3. 

Meetings  were  organised  between  December  2007  and  March  2008  with  academic  experts, 
Member  States,  NGOs  and  UNHCR  and  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  in  order  to 
seek their opinion on the future development of certain elements of the CEAS.  

The Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) was consulted on the draft final Impact 
Assessment report and issued its opinion on 21 April 20084. The recommendations of the IAB 
were duly taken into account. 

Most  of  the  individual  measures  proposed  in  the  Policy  Plan  will  be  the  object  of  specific 
impact assessments. In particular the amendments to the Reception Conditions, Qualification 
and Procedures Directives and to the Dublin and Eurodac Regulations will be based on impact 
assessments. 

2. 

STATE OF PLAY AND PROBLEMS 

The following problems have been identified in the area of asylum: 

•  Legitimate  measures  and  practices  against  irregular  immigration  may  in  certain  cases  be 

hampering access to protection in the EU for asylum-seekers  

•  Immigrants who are not in need of protection abuse the asylum system to enter and stay in 

the EU 

•  Secondary  movements  of  asylum-seekers  applying  for  international  protection  in  more 
than one Member State impose an unfair strain on national administrations and on asylum-
seekers themselves 

•  The asylum systems of some Member States are overburdened 

•  Increasingly,  people  are  seeking  protection  for  reasons  not  foreseen  in  the  traditional 
refugee  regime  (Geneva  Convention)  and  are  receiving  protection  statuses  with  lower 
guarantees 

•  Divergent national practices lead to extreme differences in the recognition of protection in 

the Member States and causing inequalities in the level of protection across the EU  

1 
2 

3 

4 

COM(2007) 301. 
The 89 contributions received are available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylu
m_system_en.htm  
Report  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Dublin  system  -  COM(2007)  299;  report  on  the  evaluation  of  the 
Reception Conditions Directive -  COM(2007) 745. 
The opinion will be made available here: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2008_en.htm  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
•  Persons in need of protection face particular integration problems and some of them are in 

situations of vulnerability 

•  Worldwide,  most  refugees  remain  in  regions  close  to  their  countries  of  origin,  with  poor 

prospects and imposing a burden on poor, developing countries. 

The Impact Assessment looks into the possible evolution of the situation if no action at EU 
level  were  taken  and  concludes  that  the  existing  problems  would  persist  and  that  there  is  a 
strong case for EU action. 

The Impact Assessment considers the changes brought to the legal framework by the Treaty 
of Lisbon and concludes that the new article on asylum allows and requires a higher level of 
ambition than the current one. From a fundamental rights point of view, the inclusion of the 
Charter  in  the  new  Treaty  also  gives  higher  visibility  to  certain  rights  related  to  asylum, 
including the right to non refoulement.  

3. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES 

The general objective of the second phase of the CEAS is to offer, through a comprehensive 
approach to protection across the EU, appropriate status, under equal conditions, to any third-
country national requiring international protection and to ensure compliance with the principle 
of non refoulement. 

The policy shall in particular pursue the following specific objectives:  

I) 

II) 

III) 

IV) 

V) 

VI) 

4. 

4.1. 

To  ensure  that  asylum  procedures  are  accessible  to  the  persons  seeking  protection 
and deal quickly and efficiently with those who do not need it; 

To ensure higher common standards of protection; 

To  enhance  prompt  and  effective  support  to  national  asylum  administrations,  by 
promoting practical cooperation; 

To  foster  solidarity  mechanisms  for  dealing  with  persons  in  need  of  protection, 
between Member States and between the EU and third countries; 

To facilitate the integration of protected persons; 

To prevent asylum shopping and secondary movements. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Policy option A: Status quo 

Current developments in Member States would continue within the existing legal framework, 
which would remain unchanged. Ongoing activities would continue. The existing legislative 
instruments  should  all  be  transposed  by  the  Member  States  and  their  implementation 
monitored by the Commission.  

4.2. 

Policy Option B1: Full scale harmonisation of EU legislation  

This option would ensure that the EU asylum system becomes coherent, comprehensive and 
offering the highest standards by aiming towards complete harmonisation and the elimination 
of  the  shortcomings  caused  by  the  adoption  of  the  lowest  common  denominator  in  the  first 
phase of CEAS. This aim would be reached, inter alia, through: 

•  The definition of adequate reception conditions for asylum seekers; 

•  The recognition of an adequate level of protection to persons in need of protection; 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
•  The establishment of a uniform and efficient procedure of asylum; 

•  The  establishment  of  a  higher  degree  of  solidarity  and  responsibility  among  the  Member 

States, and between the EU as a whole and third countries.  

4.3. 

Policy Option B2: Further development of EU legislation 

This  option  would  focus  on  a  continuation  of  efforts  towards  increasingly  harmonised 
national  asylum  rules,  without  however  reaching  a  complete  harmonisation  in  all  domains, 
and ensuring high standards of protection.  

This option would consist of the introduction of some interventions in the field of reception 
conditions: 

•  the improvement of the provisions related to material reception conditions,  

•  the  establishment  of  easier  access  to  labour  market  for  asylum-seekers,  not 

hindered by additional national restrictions, 

•  the establishment of rules ensuring that detention is not arbitrary, 

•  effective identification of the health and material needs of vulnerable persons and 

persons with special needs, including gender considerations.  

The introduction of the following main elements concerning the issue of qualification:  

•  the  establishment  of  two  single  uniform  statuses:  one  for  refugees  and  one  for 

beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, 

•  the  extension  to  the  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection  of  Community’s  rules 

on the right to family reunification, 

•  the exploration of possibilities for establishing an effective transfer of protection 

mechanism. 

The introduction of a new element on procedures:  

•  the  definition  of  a  single  procedure  through  the  harmonization  of  common 
attached  guarantees  (access  to  procedures,  suspensive  appeal,  legal  assistance, 
deadline for decision on substance in first instance, enhanced gender equality) for 
all types of existing national procedures 

The following main interventions related to the issues of solidarity and responsibility:  

•  the  strengthening  and  clarification  of  several  provisions  in  the  Dublin  and 
EURODAC  Regulations  in  order  to  enhance  the  efficiency  and  ensure  better 
compliance  and  uniform  application  by  the  Member  States  (in  particular 
provisions on the humanitarian and sovereignty clause and those relating to family 
unity)  and  the  possibility  to  suspend  ('freeze  returns')  in  certain  cases  the 
application of the Dublin rules to relieve overburdened Member States, 

•  the  implementation  of  the  principle  of  exceptional  financial  solidarity  to  be 

enacted to support Member States in cases of particular pressure, 

•  the establishment of a voluntary resettlement system for supporting third countries 

with large refugee populations, 

•  the approximation of the different types of national Protected Entry Procedures. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

Policy option C: Cooperation and exchange of best practices  

This  option  would  be  focused  on  fostering  practical  cooperation  between  Member  States: 
making the application of existing legislative instruments more uniform across Member States 
(in order to avoid disparities and consequently differences in the effective level of protection 
granted).  This  practical  cooperation  would  also  present  some  benefits  for  sustaining  the 
external dimension of EU policy on Asylum issues. This aim would be reached through the 
establishment of some type of structural and permanent support, possibly under the form of a 
European  Asylum  Support  Office,  which  would  be  established  by  an  EU  Regulation  or 
Decision and would be in charge of some or all of the following areas of activity: Country of 
Origin  Information;  training  and  capacity  building;  Practical  assistance  to  Member  States; 
external dimension; evaluation and monitoring.  

4.5. 

Policy  Option  D:  Overall  comprehensive  legal  instrument  on  asylum  and 
creation of a European Asylum Authority  

•  An overall legislative intervention on EU legislation on Asylum aimed to consolidate the 
different existing legislative instruments. In content, the lines stated in option B1 would be 
almost  entirely  followed,  but  in  form  this  option  would  lead  to  the  adoption  of  a  single 
instrument containing all European law on asylum (replacing the current set of directives 
and regulations), thus at the same time harmonising and consolidating. 

•  The creation of a European Asylum Authority in charge of managing and coordinating 
the joint EU policy on Asylum. Such an Authority would also take the form of an agency 
but  would  not  only  coordinate  the  practical  cooperation  activities  listed  there  ('European 
Asylum Support Office'): it would also replace national administrative and judicial bodies 
adopting  decisions  on  asylum  applications.  The  Authority  would  therefore  become  the 
common European adjudicator centralising all asylum decisions and would have decision 
powers.  This  option  therefore  represents  the  most  extreme  way  to  ensure  common 
application of EU asylum law throughout the EU.  

5. 

5.1. 

COMPARISON OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 

Comparison of ratings, results of the weighing 

Policy 
Option 
A: Status 
Quo 

Policy 
Option B1 

Policy 
Option B2 

Policy 
Option C 

Policy 
Option D 

Preferred 
policy 
option 
(B2+C) 

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

Ensure 
asylum 
that 
procedures  are  accessible 
the  persons  seeking 
to 
deal 
and 
protection 
quickly  and  efficiently 
with  those  who  do  not 
need it 

Ensure  higher  common 
standards of protection 

support 

To  enhance  prompt  and 
effective 
to 
asylum 
national 
administrations, 
by 
promoting 
practical 
cooperation 

0 

0 

0 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

√ 

√√√√√ 

√√√ 

0 

0 

√√√√ 

√√√√√ 

√√√√ 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Foster 
solidarity 
mechanisms  for  dealing 
with  persons  in  need  of 
between 
protection, 
Member 
and 
between  the  EU  and  third 
countries 

States 

Facilitate the integration 
of protected persons 

Prevent 
asylum 
shopping  and  secondary 
movements 

Transposition feasibility 

- Under existing treaty 

-Under new treaty 

Financial feasibility 

impacts  at  EU 

Social 
and MS level 

Economic  impacts  at  EU 
and national level 

Impact  on  people 
need  of 
protection 

in 
international 

Impact 
countries 

on 

third 

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
s
a
e
F

s
t
c
a
p
m

I

Fundamental rights 

5.2. 

The preferred option 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

√√√(√) 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

0 

√√ 

√√√ 

√(√) 

√√√(√) 

√√√√ 

0 

√ 

√√(√) 

√√√√ 

-√√√√ 

-√√(√) 

-√√ 

-√√√√ 

-√√(√) 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

0(√) 

√√ 

√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√√√√ 

√√√ 

The preferred option was identified mainly in a comparison with policy options B1 (also in 
combination with C) and D where, maintaining almost the same level of positive impacts as 
the  latter,  it  entails  lower  transposition  difficulties  and  financial  and  implementation  costs. 
Option B1 presents a number of advantages and is in many aspects similar to B2, but the latter 
imposes a slightly lower level of harmonisation in some areas and has therefore better chances 
of  being  successfully  transposed  and  implemented.  Option  D  has  one  main  drawback:  the 
transfer of sovereignty from the Member States to the proposed European Asylum Authority 
does not have chances, at this stage, of being accepted by the majority of Member States.  

The main advantages of the preferred option are: 

•  It  achieves  relevant  results  in  fostering  an  integrated  and  comprehensive  approach  to 
asylum issues, guaranteeing this objective through higher common standards of protection 
and the support of practical cooperation activities. 

•  It ensures improved access to protection by starting work on the approximation of national 
Protected  Entry  Procedures  and  by  amending  the  Procedures  directive  to  make  it  more 
'access-sensitive'.  

•  It  establishes  higher  common  standards  in  the  field  of  asylum  through  enhanced 
measures  concerning  reception  conditions  (i.e.  easier  access  to  labour  market  and 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
healthcare),  procedures  (common  procedure  with  strong  guarantees),  qualification  (i.e. 
common definition of two international protection statuses). 

•  It enhances prompt and effective support to national administrations by improving the 
convergence  in  decision  making  processes  in  Member  States  through  the  creation  of  a 
European  Asylum  Support  Office  which  would  coordinate  and  monitor  various 
activities. 

•  It fosters real responsibility and solidarity between Member States and between the EU 
and  third  countries  through  improvements  to  the  Dublin  system  and  a  voluntary  EU 
resettlement scheme and the further development of capacity building programmes and 
Regional Protection programmes, in third countries. 

•  It  promotes  the  integration  of  protected  persons  and  specifically  of  persons  enjoying 

subsidiary protection by increasing the level of the rights attached to their status. 

As far as impacts are concerned: 

•  It  creates  a  more  level  playing  field  throughout  the  EU,  allowing  a  more  efficient 
management  of  refugee  flows  between  Member  States,  with  a  greater  chance  of 
integrating protected people in receiving communities. 

•  By  enhancing  access  to  the  labour  market  for  asylum-seekers,  it  has  the  potential  of 
slightly diminishing illegal labour supply and filling marginal skill shortages within the 
Member States labour markets. 

•  It  provides  greater  protection  to  people  in  need  of  international  protection  by  better 
addressing  the  needs  of  the  more  vulnerable  groups,  including  due  sensitivity  to  the 
particular difficulties and constraints that female asylum seekers may face when presenting 
their claims. 

•  It  has  an  overall  high  positive  impact  on  third  countries  by  partially  relieving  them  of 
possible  asylum  pressures  through  the  voluntary  EU  resettlement  scheme  and  allows 
them  to  increase  their  asylum  management  capacities  through  corresponding  capacity 
building programmes. 

•  It  enhances  asylum  seekers’  and  beneficiaries  of  international  protection’s  fundamental 
rights by providing reinforced conditions through which they can benefit from such rights. 

Concerning  costs,  the  less  binding  characteristic  of  the  preferred  policy  option  would  entail 
lower  financial  and  administrative  costs  in  comparison  to  a  full-scale  harmonisation 
process.  

•  There are however measures such as the extension of reception conditions to applicants of 
subsidiary  protection  and  the  stronger  guarantees  related  to  procedures  which  inevitably 
entail  higher  financial  and  administrative  costs  compared  to  the  current  CEAS, 
although the easier access to the labour market for asylum-seekers could slightly dilute 
the overall financial impacts. 

•  Measures of practical cooperation will entail additional costs due to the need to back up 
the  various  cooperation  measures  with  adequate  financial  support  (i.e.  shared  financial 
support  to  projects  and  training,  financing  capacity  building  programmes  in  third 
countries).  

•  Administrative costs are also inclined to grow given the increased utilization of asylum 
personnel necessary to respond to the foreseen cooperation measures. The creation of the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
European  Asylum  Support  Office  would  however  help  national  administrations  to 
moderate the increase in administrative costs in the long term. 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

The  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  preferred  option  will  be  an 
important element to ensure the effectiveness of the Policy Plan. The Commission will ensure 
that  the  appropriate  mechanisms  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  this  Policy  Plan  are  in 
place  and  will  have  a  pre-eminent  role  in  such  monitoring  process.  It  will  also  vigilant  that 
standards  of  fundamental  rights'  protection  of  its  proposals  are  not  weakened  during  the 
legislative process. 

As for indicators to assess progress and effectiveness of the preferred option in achieving the 
policy objectives, the following can be taken into consideration, among others: 

•  Number of new applications for asylum 

•  Number  of  rejections  and  of  positive  decisions  granting  refugee  or  subsidiary  protection 

status 

•  Number of asylum-seekers in comparison with resident population and GDP 

•  Number of Dublin requests and transfers 

•  Number  of  Regional  Protection  Programmes  implemented,  and  resources  dedicated  for 

them 

•  Number of resettled refugees from third countries 

•  Level of financial resources allocated for the ERF 

•  Level of financial resources allocated for practical cooperation activities, including for the 

creation of a European Asylum Support Office 

EN 

8 

   EN