Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an European Asylum Support Office - Impact assessment {COM(2009) 66 final} {SEC(2009) 154}
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union Agency for Asylum, admission of aliens, fundamental rights, refugee, right of asylum, social policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 153 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

establishing an European Asylum Support Office 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2009) 66 final} 
{SEC(2009) 154} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact Assessment 

On a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an European 
Asylum Support Office 

Lead DG:   Justice, Freedom and Security 

Document reference number: COM(2008) … final 

Commission Legislative Work Programme 2009 priority initiative 

Agenda planning reference number: 2009/JLS/044 

Table of contents 

1.  PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES...... 4 

1.1.  Calls to set up a European Asylum Support Office ........................................................4 

1.2.  Consultation and expertise ................................................................................................6 

1.3.  The Impact Assessment Board..........................................................................................7 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 7 

2.1.  Description of the problem ................................................................................................7 

2.2. 

Specific problems................................................................................................................8 
2.2.1.  Discrepancy in practices and non-optimal exchange of best practices at the EU level............................... 8 
2.2.2.  Pressures on Member States asylum systems and over-burden for some Member States ........................ 10 
2.2.3.  Limited cooperation and coordination as regards external dimension of the CEAS................................. 12 

2.3.  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?...............................................14 

2.4.  EU right to act ..................................................................................................................14 

2.5. 

Subsidiarity test ................................................................................................................15 

2.6. 

Proportionality test ..........................................................................................................15 

3.  OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................... 16 

4.  POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 17 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.1.  Options for the tasks and missions of the future asylum support structure...............17 
4.1.1.  Exchange of best practices........................................................................................................................ 18 
4.1.2.  Support to monitoring and quality control ................................................................................................ 18 
4.1.3. 
Joint processing of asylum applications at the EU level ........................................................................... 19 
4.1.4.  Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) / improve 
assessment of COI................................................................................................................................................... 19 
4.1.5.  Pool of asylum experts.............................................................................................................................. 20 
4.1.6. 
Intra-EU relocation ................................................................................................................................... 21 
4.1.7.  Training and capacity building.................................................................................................................. 21 
4.1.8.  Activities linked to the external aspects of practical cooperation linked to the CEAS: resettlement and 
RPPs 

22 

4.2.  Options for the institutional format of the future asylum support structure.............23 
4.2.1.  Status quo.................................................................................................................................................. 23 
4.2.2.  Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources ......................... 24 
4.2.3.  Creating a new network ............................................................................................................................ 24 
4.2.4.  Creation of the European Asylum Support Office as a regulatory agency................................................ 25 
Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency ................................... 26 
4.2.5. 
FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) ................................................................................................ 26 
FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External 

4.2.5.1. 
4.2.5.2. 
Borders of the Member States of the European Union)...................................................................................... 27 
4.2.5.3. 
the development and the management of other large-scale IT systems). ........................................................... 28 
4.2.6.  Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision-making body)................................................... 29 

JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS II, VIS and EURODAC and for 

5. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 29 

5.1. 

Impact of options for tasks and missions of the future support structure..................29 
5.1.1.  Exchange of best practices........................................................................................................................ 29 
5.1.2.  Support to monitoring and quality control ................................................................................................ 30 
5.1.3. 
Joint processing of asylum applications at EU level................................................................................. 31 
5.1.4.  Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) / improve 
assessment of COI................................................................................................................................................... 32 
5.1.5.  Pool of asylum experts.............................................................................................................................. 33 
Intra-EU relocation ................................................................................................................................... 34 
5.1.6. 
5.1.7.  Training and capacity building.................................................................................................................. 35 
5.1.8.  Activities linked to the external aspects of practical cooperation linked to the CEAS: resettlement and 
RPPs 
5.1.9.  Contribution of different tasks to the objectives ....................................................................................... 37 

36 

5.2. 

Impact of options for the institutional form of the support asylum structure ...........37 
5.2.1.  Status quo.................................................................................................................................................. 38 
5.2.2.  Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources ......................... 38 
5.2.3.  Creating a new network ............................................................................................................................ 39 
5.2.4.  Creation of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) as a regulatory agency ................................. 41 
Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency ................................... 44 
5.2.5. 
FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) ................................................................................................ 44 
FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External 

5.2.5.1. 
5.2.5.2. 
Borders of the Member States of the European Union)...................................................................................... 46 
5.2.5.3. 
large-scale IT systems). ...................................................................................................................................... 49 
5.2.6.  Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision-making body)................................................... 51 

JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS II, VIS, EURODAC and other 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
5.3.  Respect of fundamental rights ........................................................................................52 

6.  PREFERRED POLICY OPTION ............................................................................ 52 

7.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION ....................................................................... 54 

ANNEX 1:  OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED DURING THE 
FEASIBILITY STUDY ................................................................................................... 55 

ANNEX 2: STATISTICAL DATA................................................................................... 63 

ANNEX 3:...................................................................................................................... 70 

INFORMATION ON PRACTICAL COOPERATION RELATING TO COI ..................... 70 

SHARING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION (COI)............................................ 70 

ANNEX 4: EX- ANTE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (EXCEL TABLES) .............................. 74 

ANNEX 5: FINANCIAL ADDITIONAL DATA................................................................ 86 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

1.1. 

Calls to set up a European Asylum Support Office  

Work to set up a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) started immediately after 
the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force in May 1999, on the basis of the orientations 
given by the Tampere European Council (October 1999). 

The 2004 Hague Multiannual Programme for strengthening the area of freedom, security 
and justice1 set out the framework and main objectives, one of these being ‘to provide 
protection  in  accordance  with  the  Geneva  Convention  on  Refugees  and  other 
international  treaties  to  persons  in  need’.  Among  other  things,  the  European  Council 
invited  the  Council  and  the  Commission  to  set  up  in  2005  appropriate  structures 
involving the national asylum services of the Member States, the aim being to facilitate 
practical and collaborative cooperation. After establishing a common asylum procedure, 

1  

The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, Presidency 
Conclusions: Brussels, 4/5 November 2004. 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/information_dossiers/the_hague_priorities/doc/hague_programme_e
n.pdf. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
these structures should be transformed, on the basis of an evaluation, into a European 
support  office  for  all  forms  of  cooperation  between  Member  States  relating  to  the 
CEAS.  

The  Commission  identified  in  the  Action  Plan  ten  priorities2,  the  third  of  which  was 
entitled  ‘A  common  asylum  area:  establish  an  effective  harmonised  procedure  in 
accordance with the Union’ values and humanitarian tradition’. This was to include: 

•  work  towards  the  establishment  of  a  common  asylum  area  taking  into  account  the 
humanitarian  tradition  and  respect  of  international  obligations  of  the  Union  and  the 
effectiveness of a harmonised procedure; and 

•  establishing  a  European  support  office  for  all  forms  of  cooperation  between 
Member  States  relating  to  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  (after  the 
establishment of a common asylum procedure and on the basis of an evaluation). 

In  April  2008,  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  adopted  conclusions  on  practical 
cooperation in the field of asylum and expressly invited the Commission to put forward 
suggestions  to  step  up  practical  cooperation  until  a  decision  is  taken  on  the  future 
structure for supporting practical cooperation.  

With a view to preparing the second stage of the CEAS, in June 2008 the Commission 
adopted a Communication3 entitled “Policy Plan on Asylum — An Integrated Approach 
to  Protection  across  the  EU”,  which  set  out  a  road  map  for  the  second  stage  of 
completing the CEAS, and announced that it would put forward a legislative proposal to 
set up a European Asylum Support office. 

In the meantime, the Commission Communication entitled “European Agencies — The 
Way  Forward”4,  adopted  in  March  2008,  placed  a  moratorium  on  setting  up  new 
agencies  within  the  Union.  However,  agencies  which  were  already  under  inter-
institutional discussion would go ahead as planned, including possible proposals in the 
field of justice and home affairs. This specifically concerned a possible proposal to set 
up a European Support Office for Asylum.  

At  the  end  of  September  2008,  the  European  Council  adopted  the  European  Pact  on 
Immigration  and  Asylum.  Under  this  Pact5,  the  European  Council  expressly  agreed  to 

2  

3  

4  
5 

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: 
Ten priorities for the next five years, COM (2005) 184 Final. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  EP,  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, Com(2008)360 Final. 
“European Agencies — The Way Forward”, Com(2008)135 Final. 

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ii_
PUBLIC_DOC=%3E0&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=13440%2F08&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff_TITRE
=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_DOCUMENT=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&
dd_FT_DATE=&fc=ALLLANG&srm=25&md=100&ssf=. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
“establish in 2009 a European support office with the task of facilitating the exchange 
of  information,  analyses  and  experience  among  Member  States,  and  developing 
practical  cooperation  between  the  administrations  in  charge  of  examining  asylum 
applications”.  

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise 

The Policy Plan on Asylum was drafted on the basis of an in-depth reflection and debate 
with stakeholders on the future architecture of the CEAS and on the results of the debate 
that followed the Commission’s Green paper published in June 20076, the aim of which 
was  to  identify  the  options  for  shaping  the  second  phase  of  the  CEAS.  Specific 
questions7 were asked as regards the possible creation of a support asylum structure. The 
response  to  the  public  consultation  included  89  contributions  from  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders8,  including  20  Member  States,  regional  and  local  authorities,  the 
Committee  of  Regions  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  UNHCR,  academic 
institutions,  political  parties  and  a  large  number  of  NGOs.  The  replies  to  the  Green 
Paper showed broad support for enhancing practical cooperation activities related to the 
CEAS and for the idea of creating a dedicated structure to support and coordinate such 
activities in the form of an asylum support structure. The preferred policy option of the 
policy  plan  impact  assessment  report  included  the  creation  of  the  European  Support 
Office for Asylum. 

In early 2008, the Commission ordered an external feasibility study on the establishment 
of  structural  support  for  the  practical  cooperation  in  the  field  of  asylum,  which  would 
feed  into  the  impact  assessment  of  the  future  European  Asylum  Support  Office.  The 
external study was based on a round of stakeholder consultation, consisting of ten case 
studies  and  interviews  with  over  fifty  stakeholders9.  Annex  1  to  this  report  presents  a 
detailed  overview  of  the  stakeholders  consulted  during  the  feasibility  study.  The 
contractor  then  organised  two  workshops,  held  in  April  2008  and  June  2008.  During 
these workshops, the stakeholders were invited to give their views concerning the tasks, 

6 
7  
8 

9  

Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System, COM (2007) 301Final. 
See under para.3, questions 21 and 22. 
The 89 contributions received are available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylum_s
ystem_en.htm. 
The following work has been undertaken by the contractor: review and analysis of Member States responses 
to  the  Green  Paper;  interview  with  DG  JLS  officials  responsible  for  asylum  and  officials  responsible  for 
agencies  within  Sec  Gen.  The  following  stakeholders  have  been  interviewed:  representatives  of  the 
European Parliament; representatives of existing cooperation initiatives or structures (e.g. EURASIL, IGC, 
GDISC, EMN); representatives of NGOs and inter-governmental organisations, including ECRE, UNHCR, 
and  Caritas  Europe  and  Ministerial  departments  and  competent  bodies  responsible  for  the  formulation  of 
asylum  policies  in  10  Member  States.  Case  study  visits  were  undertaken  to:  Belgium,  France,  Germany, 
Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
functions and organisational status of the support structure10. The feasibility study was 
finalised at the beginning of November 2008. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  took  place  on  10  October  2008, 
bringing  together  representatives  of  different  Commission  departments  involved  in 
preparing  the  impact  assessment11.  It  was  convened  to  discuss  the  draft  final  report  of 
the feasibility study. A second meeting took place on 7 November 2008 to discuss the 
draft  impact  assessment  report  prepared  by  JLS.  Useful  comments  were  given  by  the 
DGs represented during the meetings or sent afterwards in writing and were taken into 
account  in  the  draft  final  report  to  be  submitted  to  the  Impact  Assessment  Board.  In 
particular,  SEC  GEN  (comments  given  during  the  meeting  of  07/11/2008)  and  BUDG 
(comments given orally before the meeting) asked to reinforce the section detailing the 
preferred option, specifically  the text and comparison table of institutional options.  

1.3. 

The Impact Assessment Board 

The  Commission’s  Impact  Assessment  Board  (IAB)  was  consulted  on  the  draft  final 
Impact  Assessment  report  and  issued  its  opinion  on  8  December  2008.12  The  IAB 
considered that ‘the report identifies a range of credible options for the institutional set-
up  of  the  asylum  support  office".  The  IAB  formulated  a  number  of  recommendations, 
which have been taken into account in this report. The main recommendations were: (i) 
to  improve  the  comparability  of  options  (ii)  Clarify  the  added-value  of  each  task 
compared  to  the  status  quo,  (iii)  enhance  the  analysis  of  synergies  of  combining  tasks 
into a single organisation and iv) Clarify problem definition and objectives by the new 
institutional structure. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Description of the problem 

The  European  Council  of  September  2008,  when  adopting  the  European  Pact  on 
Immigration and Asylum, solemnly reiterated that any persecuted foreigner is entitled to 
obtain  aid  and  protection  on  the  territory  of  the  European  Union  in  application  of  the 
Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by 
the  New  York  Protocol  of  31  January  1967,  and  other  relevant  treaties.  Though  much 
progress  has  achieved  in  recent  years  as  a  result  of  implementing  common  minimum 
standards with a view to introducing the CEAS, considerable disparities remain between 
Member States on granting protection and on the forms that protection takes.  

Legal  instruments  were  adopted  during  the  first  phase  of  the  CEAS.  However,  the 
practical  implementation  of  the  Directives  reveals  significant  differences  in  processing 

10  

11  
12 

Czech  Republic,  Cyprus,  Germany,  Finland,  France,  Malta,  Slovenia  and  the  UK,  UNHCR,  GDISC  and 
ECRE. 
SG, LS, BEPA, BUDG, ADMIN, IAS, EMPL, EAC, RELEX, DEV, ELARG, AIDCO, ECHO. 
The opinion will be available here: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2008_en.htm. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
asylum applications both in terms of quality of assessment and in terms of diversity of 
processing  across  the  Union.  That  is  why  the  Commission,  in  the  Policy  Plan  of  June 
2008  decided  (1)  to  conduct  a  full-scale  review  of  the  asylum  acquis  to  improve  its 
content  and  (2)  stressed  the  need,  in  parallel  to  this  review,  to  enhance  practical 
cooperation related to the CEAS.  

Though  practical  cooperation  related  to  the  CEAS  may  be  considered  as  already  well 
developed, many aspects remain limited in scope and non-optimal and therefore need to 
be tackled.  

2.2. 

Specific problems  

The main problems as regards practical cooperation are the following: 

•  Discrepancy in practices and non-optimal exchange of best practices at EU level; 

•  Pressures  on  Member  State  asylum  systems  and  over-burdening  of  some  Member 

States, and 

•  Limited cooperation and coordination as regards the external dimension of the CEAS. 

2.2.1.  Discrepancy in practices and non-optimal exchange of best practices at the EU level  

At  present,  applications  for  international  protection  are  not  treated  equally  across  the 
EU.  A  key  indicator  of  the  unequal  processing  of  applications  is  the  substantial 
difference  in  the  recognition  rates  between  Member  States  concerning  asylum  seekers 
from the same country of origin. For instance, the recognition rate in Austria for persons 
coming from Afghanistan in 2006 was 84%, compared to 2% in Greece (see Annex 2, 
table  2.2.  for  more  complete  information  —  figures  UNHCR)13.  As  a  consequence, 
asylum seekers have very different prospects of finding protection, depending on where 
in the EU their applications are examined. It is necessary to ensure asylum seekers’ right 
to a fair and efficient asylum procedure. The substantial differences in the assessment of 
protection  needs  from  one  Member  State  to  another  undermine  the  credibility  of 
European efforts to build a common asylum system. It is often difficult to identify the 
reasons  for  these  divergences  in  outcomes  by  Member  States  which,  while  applying 
similar substantive rules regarding the legal criteria to be applied in deciding on the need 
for  protection,  have  in  many  instances  widely  differing  case-loads  and  administrative 
capacities,  as  well  as  significantly  different  administrative  practices,  traditions  and 
procedures.  Member  States  may  also  have  access  to  information  on  the  situation  in 
countries of origin which varies in terms of its comprehensiveness and reliability.  

13  

Other examples quoted in the Asylum Plan impact assessment as follows: on applications regarding asylum-
seekers from Russia (mostly of Chechen background), in Austria 63% of decisions were positive while in 
Slovakia the percentage was 0%. 98% and 55% of Somali asylum-seekers got a positive decision in Malta 
and in the UK respectively while the percentage of positive decisions for the same group was 0% in Greece 
and  Spain.  In  Belgium,  38%  of  Iraqi  asylum-seekers  received  a  positive  decision,  while  in  the  UK  that 
percentage was 20% and in Greece less than 2%. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As an example of the substantial differences across the EU in terms of decision-making 
in  granting  protection,  in  2006  the  share  of  total  positive  decisions  (i.e.  decisions 
granting international protection) varied considerably14, as follows:  

•  it  ranges  between  0%  and  3%  for  total  first  instance  decisions  in  some  Member 
States, such as Slovakia (0.3%), Slovenia (1%), Greece (1.75%), and Cyprus (3%); 

•  it  appears  relatively  limited  in  those  Member  States  rendering  the  most  asylum 

decisions across the EU: Germany (6.3%), France (7.7%), UK (18.3%);  

•  it  is  significantly  higher  in  certain  Member  States:  Austria  (26%),  Belgium  (29%), 
Sweden (49%), Italy (56%); the data for Sweden are particularly notable considering 
that it was the second most important country of asylum in the EU in 2006. 

Practical cooperation related to the CEAS is currently carried out in informal fora set up 
for  this  specific  purpose.  Some  of  these  fora  were  set  up  by  the  Commission,  such  as 
EURASIL15,  which  is  an  expert  group  dealing  with  various  aspects  of  practical 
cooperation  related  to  CEAS,  in  particular  exchanging  Country  of  Origin  Information, 
thematic  asylum  related  issues  and  best  practices  among  the  27  EU  Member  States, 
observer  states16  and  the  UNHCR.  Others  are  external  to  the  Commission,  such  as  the 
General  Directors’  Immigration  Services  Conference  (GDISC),  which  promotes 
operational  cooperation  between 
the 
implementing immigration and asylum issues in Europe.  

the  Immigration  Services  responsible  for 

The informal nature of these fora and the fact that they do not have any decision-making 
power appear, however, often to be an impediment to quick and effective results. These 
fora provide information to participants, and to a certain extent exchange good practices 
and discuss the interpretation of concepts enshrined in the asylum acquis. However, no 
decision can be taken to ensure that best practices observed or tested are mainstreamed 
and no effective follow-up is organised. This leads to discrepancies in practices within 
the  Union.  It appears  also  that some Member States have a lot of  expertise at national 
level which is not shared. This is the case particularly at judicial level. In each Member 
State,  extensive  national  case  law  is  often  available  but  the  interpretation  of  concepts 
enshrined  in  the  asylum  acquis  differ  between  countries  due  to  the  fact  that  national 
judges are unaware of the decisions taken in other Member States of the Union. This can 
contribute to wide divergences in the decisions to be taken on cases that may appear to 
be  similar  from  one  country  to  another.  Finally,  the  sustainability  of  the  activities 
undertaken  in  these  fora  (see  below,  e.g.  training  activities,  Country  of  Origin 
Information activities) is questionable due to resource problems and to a lack of a clear 
long-term budget.  

Source of information: Asylum Plan. 
EURASIL, the EU network for asylum practitioners chaired by the Commission, was established in July 

14  
15  
2002 following the decision of by the Committee of the Permanent Representatives (Coreper II) on 6 March to cease 
the activities of the CIREA group (Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum). 
16  

Canada, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and USA. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A clear illustration of the problem and need to improve practical cooperation related to 
the CEAS is the training of personnel in professions dealing in one way or another with 
access  to  the  asylum  procedure.  The  level  of  training  varies  across  the  Union.  Some 
Member  States  have  no  experience  in  asylum  as  they  have  only  recently  become 
destination  countries  for  persons  requesting  international  protection.  In  these  Member 
States,  training  is  difficult  to  organise  due  to  a  lack  of  expertise.  In  the  EURASIL 
meetings, stakeholders regularly express the need for better training at European level of 
personnel  involved  in  the  asylum  assessment  process.  The  experience  of  the  European 
Asylum  Curriculum,  which  is  a  joint  training  initiative,  has  proved  to  be  useful  for 
practitioners in the asylum field. So far, however, no other relevant initiative has been 
undertaken. The financial sustainability of the project is moreover not fully established. 
The  same  applies  to  training  as  there  are  no  mechanisms  to  ensure  that  individual 
learning  from  staff  exchange  programmes  or  projects  results  in  organisational  learning 
(e.g. integrating practices, setting up or modifying training programmes).  

The existing problems and the need to step up practical cooperation related to CEAS are 
also  illustrated  by  the  collection,  organisation,  assessment  and  presentation  of  Country 
of Origin Information (COI). These are all central to the asylum processes and decision 
making of EU Member States. COI enables the asylum authorities of Member States to 
verify  statements  made  by  applicants  concerning  their  need  for  protection  and  to 
establish  whether  the  applicant  should  benefit  from  international  protection.  It  appears 
that for the time being, the absence of consistently high quality COI across all Member 
States may partly account for different recognition rates. 

2.2.2.  Pressures on Member States asylum systems and over-burden for some Member States 

Data on asylum applications relative to the size of the resident population of the Member 
States  show  some  interesting  findings  about  the  distribution  of  the  burden  of  asylum 
seekers across EU Member States.17 

•  Cyprus received by far the largest number of applications for asylum in relative terms 
in  2006  (5.9),  followed  by  Malta  and  Sweden,  with  3.1  and  2.7  applications 
respectively per thousand population.  

•  Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Austria,  the  Slovak  Republic  and  the  United  Kingdom 
remained above the EU average of 0.4 in 2006 but showed a significant decrease in 
the number of applications per thousand population between 2003-2006. 

•  The  new  Member  States  (excluding  Cyprus  and  Malta)  were  generally  positioned 

below the EU average in 2006. 

According  to  the  feasibility  study,  some  Member  States,  being  traditional  emigration 
countries,  such  as  Spain,  Italy,  Greece,  Poland  and  Malta  have  little  experience  in  the 
area of asylum. Such countries have experienced difficulties in setting up and running an 

17 

Source: asylum plan. See also in annex 2 to this report, statistical data. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
asylum  system  in  a  relatively  short  period  of  time,  with  limited  human  and  financial 
resources to draw upon.  

Some Member States suffer capacity problems concerning the processing of applications 
(insufficient numbers of trained staff) and the reception of asylum seekers (e.g. lack of 
housing and integration). This is currently addressed by the amendment to the reception 
conditions directive to be proposed by the Commission during the second phase of the 
CEAS. However, support to these Member States through practical cooperation needs to 
be increased in parallel.  

Some  Member  States  experience  problems  linked  to  high  or  mass  influxes  of  persons 
seeking  international  protection,  including  Malta  and  Greece18.  According  to  the 
feasibility study, stakeholders, such as the UNHCR and NGOs active in the asylum field 
indicate that difficulties to react in a timely manner to a mass influx results in backlogs 
in handling cases (procedures for hiring extra staff are often very time-consuming, as is 
training of new staff) and insufficient physical capacity to accommodate asylum seekers. 
For  example,  a  recent  press  report  from  the  local  head  of  the  UN  refugee  agency 
UNHCR  said  Greece  was  facing  a  crisis  situation  as  it  struggles  to  cope  with  an 
increasing  number  of  migrants  from  the  Middle  East  and  Africa  arriving  on  its  long 
Mediterranean  coast.  This  report  states  in  particular  that  “(…)  There  is  a  backlog  of 
some 20 000 cases waiting to be processed (…). Greece needs to deploy translators and 
legal  councillors  at  reception  centres  along  its  frontier  to  ensure  asylum  requests  are 
quickly and fairly processed, but there is an undue burden on the countries which have 
external borders in Europe”.19  

It appears that the present level of practical cooperation in the area of solidarity, burden 
sharing and increasing capacity is limited. Only a few initiatives have been taken, often 
ad hoc and limited in scope, and have proved insufficient to efficiently support Member 
States confronted with mass influxes. For example, a few initiatives have been launched 
by  ENARO  (European  Network  of  Asylum  Reception  Organisations20).  The  aim  of 
cooperation is to develop best practice models for the reception of asylum seekers and 
examine  trends  and  developments  in  the  profile  and  numbers  of  asylum  seekers.  As 
such,  it  particularly  addresses  the  problem  that  some  Member  States  have  little 
experience in the area of asylum or suffer capacity problems. The approach to achieve 

See Annex 2, table 2.1. 

Fri 10 Oct 2008, 9:21 GMT, By Daniel Flynn, ATHENS (Reuters). Interview of Giorgos Tsarbopoulos, 

18  
19  
local head of the UN refugee agency UNHCR. 
20  Belgium:  Fedasil;  Czech  Republic:  Refugee  Facilities  Administration;  Denmark:  Danish  Red  Cross;  Finland: 
Ministry  of  Employment  and  the  Economy;  Ireland:  Reception  and  Integration  Agency;  Italy:  Central 
Service  of  the  Protection  System  for  asylum  seekers  and  refugees;  Malta:  Ministry  for  the  Family  and 
Social  Solidarity;  The  Netherlands:  Centraal  Orgaan  opvang  Asielzoekers;  Norway:  HERO  Mottak  og 
Kompetanse AS; Spain: Ministerio de Trabajo Y Asuntos Sociales Dirección General de Integración de Los 
Inmigrantes;  Sweden:  Swedish  Migration  Board;  Switzerland:  Bundesamt  für  Migration  Abteilung 
Empfangs-  und  Verfahrenszentren;  and,  United  Kingdom:  Kent  County  Council  Service 
for 
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
these  aims  involves  exchange  programmes  for  staff  and  experts,  evaluations  and 
activities to identify best practices. This form of cooperation should be scaled up and all 
stakeholders should be included in the process. Information for stakeholders could also 
be more efficient.  

The European Refugee Fund (ERF) was created to address these problems of solidarity, 
burden  sharing  and  capacity.  Financial  support  is  provided  through  ERF  not  only  to 
increase  the  capacity  of  asylum  systems  in  the  Member  States  in  general,  but  also  to 
improve  reception  conditions  and  access  to  asylum  procedures.  However,  the  ERF 
clearly  lacks  the  resources  needed  to  effectively  finance  the  real  efforts  made  by 
Member  States  to  implement  refugee  policy.  As  an  example,  the  French  asylum 
administration  (OFPRA)  alone  costs  approximately  €50  million  a  year,  while  the  total 
resources  of  the  ERF  for  2008,  to  be  allocated  to  the  27  Member  States  are 
approximately €75 million 21.  

A  reserve  has  recently  been  established  for  emergency  measures22.  This  reserve  can, 
from  2008,  be  used  to  address  ‘particular  pressures  situations  resulting  from  sudden 
arrivals of large numbers […] which place significant and urgent demands on Member 
States’  reception  facilities  or  asylum  systems.’23.  It  is  however  too  early  to  assess  the 
efficacy of this mechanism.  

The  project  to  establish  a  pool  of  interpreters  addresses  capacity  problems  in  Member 
States  and  sudden  pressures.  The  ARGO24  project  was  initiated  under  the  GDISC 
umbrella.  The  objective  of  the  project  was  to  set  up  a  ‘Rapid  Capacity  Team’  for 
interpreters, addressing particular pressures when needs arise. Following the success of 
two pilot operations, the Interpreters’ Pool was extended to include more countries and 
widen the pool of available languages and interpreters. Certain countries act as “donor” 
countries, sharing their interpreter capacity, and others are “beneficiary” countries. The 
scope  of  the  pool  has  however  remained  limited;  to  date  only  a  limited  number  of 
interpreting  missions  have  been  carried  out.  There  are  also  concerns  about  the 
sustainability of the project and the availability of funding. 

2.2.3.  Limited cooperation and coordination as regards external dimension of the CEAS 

The EU is the main destination for asylum-seekers among industrialised countries. Most 
refugees in the world live in poor regions close to areas of conflict, where resources for 
addressing  their  needs  are  scarce  and  where  a  durable  solution  for  them  is  difficult  to 

21  
22 

Source of information: Asylum Plan. 

Council 

Decision 

2001/55/EC 

of 

20 

July 

2001 

(10 

million 

each 

year). 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/refugee/funding_refugee_en.htm. 

23 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/refugee/funding_refugee_en.htm. 
24  

ARGO  is  an  action  programme  for  administrative  cooperation  at  European  Union  level  in  the  fields  of 
asylum,  visas,  immigration  and  external  borders,  replacing  in  part  the  Odysseus  programme.  See  under 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/argo/funding_argo_en.htm. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
attain.25 The EU does not take its fair share in the responsibility for managing refugees 
with third countries and countries of first asylum, which receive a far greater percentage 
of  the  world’s  refugees  than  Europe.  The  external  dimension  is  therefore  an  integral 
component of the CEAS and practical cooperation on the CEAS. 

To date, the external dimension of the CEAS and related practical cooperation is limited 
to  a  few  initiatives  taken  in  the  fields  of  resettlement  and  Regional  Protection 
Programmes (RPPs). 

•  Resettlement is a durable solution for those refugees for whom return to their country 
of  origin  is  not  feasible  and  who  cannot  receive  permanent  protection  in  the  third 
country either, among these particularly vulnerable persons. It implies the transfer of 
refugees from a third country in which they have sought asylum to an EU State that 
has agreed to grant them permanent protection there. Currently, resettlement is only 
available for a comparatively small number of refugees. In 2006, less than 1% of the 
almost 10 million refugees worldwide directly benefited from resettlement26. Between 
2003  and  2007,  EU  Member  States  collectively  resettled  a  mere  9%  of  the  world’s 
refugees  (see  Annex  2,  Table  2.3  “EU  share  of  refugees  resettled  worldwide”  – 
Source UNHCR). Several governmental and non-governmental bodies in the EU are 
working  to  further  expand  resettlement.  There  has  been  some  success  in  increasing 
Member  State  participation  in  resettlement,  but  so  far  the  number  of  refugees 
resettled  in  the  EU  remains  limited.  There  is  also  a  lack  of  coordination  between 
Member  States  to  identify  political  and  geographical  priorities.  This  does  not  allow 
for  a  truly  strategic  use  of  resettlement  at  the  EU  level.  Moreover,  the  lack  of 
coordinated  cooperation  on  practical  and  logistical  aspects  results  in  limited 
efficiency and extensive use of human and financial resources, and thus constitutes an 
obstacle to making a substantial and sustained EU commitment to resettlement. Lack 
of coordination also limits the scope for resettlement to develop its full potential as an 
integral component of the external policies of the EU, for instance, in the context of 
the Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs). 

25  

26 

Most refugees remain in regions close to their countries of origin, without durable solutions 
and imposing a burden on poor, developing countries. By region, the CASWANAME region 
(Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and Middle East) is the world’s most affected, 
with close to 4 million refugees, followed by Africa with close to 2.5 million. Europe comes 
third with 1.7 million refugees. The countries hosting the biggest refugee populations are, in 
decreasing order: Pakistan, Iran, the US, Syria, Germany, Jordan, Tanzania and the UK25. At 
the same time, in 2006, a total of 605 000 new or appeal applications for asylum or refugee 
status  were  submitted  to  Governments  or  UNHCR  offices  in  151  countries,  and  out  of  the 
total of 605 000 asylum applications lodged during 2006, some 504 000 (83%) requests were 
submitted for the first time. Most applications were registered in Europe (307 000), followed 
by  Africa  (159 000),  the  Americas  (78 000),  Asia  (53 500),  and  Oceania  (7 100).  See  also 
annex 2, table 2.3 “EU share of refugees resettled worldwide” – Source UNHCR. 

UNHCR 

Statistical 

Yearbook 

2006, 

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-

bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?id=478ce0712&tbl=STATISTICS. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Regional  Protection  Programmes  (RPPs)  were  developed  under  the  Programme  for 
Freedom, Security and Justice for the years 2005 to 2010. They aim to enhance the 
protection  capacity  of  the  regions  involved  and  provide  Durable  Solutions27.  The 
RPPs are currently limited to two pilot regions that were selected by Member States 
in  September  2005,  namely  Tanzania  (Great  Lakes  region),  as  mainly  a  region  of 
origin, and the Western Newly Independent States (WNIS) i.e. Ukraine, Moldova and 
Belarus,  as  mainly  a  region  of  transit.  Limited  coordination  to  assess  particular 
refugee situations, set priorities, identify protection gaps and the specific steps to be 
taken  means  that  the  current  RPPs  have  a  limited  scope,  and  a  limited  impact  in 
improving  protection  and  asylum  systems  in  specific  regions  of  the  world  which 
receive  a  far  greater  percentage  of  refugees  than  the  EU.  The  Commission 
acknowledged the need to improve the RPPs in the Asylum Plan. It will evaluate the 
RPPs, which will be the basis for developing these programmes further. 

2.3. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

The baseline scenario (‘status quo’) assumes that practical cooperation is developed in 
an ad hoc and decentralised way, with relatively few resources. 

The  current  framework  for  practical  cooperation  related  to  CEAS  only  provides  for 
financing  ad  hoc  projects  without  much  continuity.  Resources  would  continue  to  be 
scarce and coordination between Member States is still under developed. The quality of 
country of origin information would continue to vary from one Member State to another 
and  information  would  not  be  fully  shared.  EURASIL  meetings  would  continue  to  be 
organised.  However  they  have  been  held  for  years  now  without  having  a  significant 
impact,  for  instance,  on  approximating  decision-making  practices,  which  are  still  very 
divergent. Without structural support (both from a human and financial resources point 
of  view),  it  will  be  difficult  to  achieve  the  level  of  coordination  necessary  to  reach 
convergence in the outcome of asylum decisions in the Member States. As regards the 
external dimension and related practical cooperation, an ad-hoc exchange of information 
would  continue  through  Commission-chaired  expert  meetings  on  resettlement.  There 
would however be no infrastructure to ensure structural support and coordination on EU-
wide resettlement activities. This is all the more acute as the Commission is considering 
putting forward a proposal on a joint EU resettlement scheme. One important part of this 
will be improved coordination among EU Member states. 

2.4. 

EU right to act  

The current legal basis for Community action in the area of asylum policy is established 
in  Article  63(1)  and  (2)  TEC.  These  provisions  state  that  the  Council  is  to  adopt 
“measures on asylum, in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and 
the  Protocol  of  31  January  1967  relating  to  the  status  of  refugees  and  other  relevant 
treaties”  and  also  “measures  on  refugees  and  displaced  persons”  in  areas  such  as 
Member  State  responsibility,  reception  conditions,  refugee  qualification,  granting  of 

27 Communication by the European Commission COM (2005) 388 final on Regional Protection Programmes. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
protection (including temporary protection) and balancing of Member States’ efforts in 
receiving asylum-seekers.  

As  regard  practical  cooperation  (in  the  field  of  asylum),  the  current  legal  basis  is 
established in Article 66 TEC, which states that the Council, acting in accordance with 
the  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  67,  shall  take  measures  to  ensure  cooperation 
between  the  relevant  departments  of  the  administrations  of  the  Member  States  in  the 
areas covered by title IV (visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free 
movement of persons), as well as between those departments and the Commission.  

2.5. 

Subsidiarity test 

Community involvement in the asylum field is founded on the need for solidarity among 
Member States in addressing a challenge that, in an EU without internal borders, cannot 
be effectively dealt with by individual countries acting alone. This led to adoption by the 
Community  legislator  of  the  acquis  in  the  field  of  asylum,  on  the  basis  of  specific 
dedicated legal bases enshrined in the Treaty.  

The  need  to  act  has  already  been  assessed  and  established  as  regards  the  CEAS  in  recent 
impact assessment reports, and in particular in the impact assessment on the asylum policy 
plan28. 

There  have  been  repeated  calls  from  the  European  Council,  the  Council  and  the 
European  Parliament  to  develop  a  CEAS.  The  institutions  of  the  Union  committed  to 
improving implementation of the acquis in the field of asylum and clearly expressed the 
view  that  strengthening  practical  cooperation  between  Member  States  on  CEAS  is  the 
best way to improve the situation.  

Due  to  the  transnational  nature  of  the  problems  related  to  international  protection,  the 
future  support  structure  will  be  well  placed  to  propose  solutions  under  the  CEAS  to 
significantly  reduce  the  differences  and  divergences  between  the  implementation  of 
national legislation. Regarding the subsidiarity principle, joint action and better practical 
cooperation within the future support structure is justified as a means to finding a joint 
solution to the problems described in this report, which have proven to be irresolvable 
purely at national level.  

2.6. 

Proportionality test 

Regarding  the  proportionality  principle,  once  the  need  for  joint  action  at  EU  level  is 
acknowledged  (see  above,  under  subsidiarity),  it  is  necessary  to  assess  how  far  EU 
measures should go and what mandate the future support structure should be given by 
the European legislator.  

28  

See sec(2008)2029 and sec(2008)2030. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The future support structure will be fully anchored in the CEAS. It will not be given any 
decision-making  powers  and  will  not  replace  the  national  asylum  administrations.  Its 
mandate  will  be  limited  to  facilitating  and  strengthening  all  forms  of  practical 
cooperation between Member States relating to the CEAS. 

In view of the clear and limited mandate of the future support structure, setting up this 
new Community institutional structure will not prevent further national action.  

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The objectives are set out in the table overleaf.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
General 
objectives 

Specific objectives 

reduce 

differences 

To 
implementing 
legislation,  policies  and  operational  practices, 
between Member States. 

in 

Operational 
(outputs and effects) 

objectives 

To improve the capacity, knowledge and 
know-how  of 
the  different  actors 
involved in the asylum process. 

To improve fair and 
more harmonised 
processing of 
applications for 
international 
protection 
throughout the 
Union  

To improve 
solidarity and 
burden-sharing 
between Member 
States in the field of 
asylum 

To better manage 
refugee flows to the 
EU by expanding 
the external 
dimension of the 
CEAS 

To  reduce  differences  in  the  quality  and  content 
of Country of Origin Information and harmonise 
its collection, production and assessment. 

improve 

the  collection  and 

To 
the 
quality of Country of Origin Information 
and  make  this  accessible  to  all  Member 
States  with  a  view  to  improving  its 
interpretation and assessment. 

To  reduce  overburdening  of  some  Member 
States. 

To  improve  the  capacity  of  Member  States  to 
handle  asylum  requests,  including  situations  of 
mass influx of asylum seekers.  

To  support  Member  States  to  build 
facing 
capacity  and  support 
particular  pressures  on  their  asylum 
system and reception capacity.  

those 

To enhance the implementation of aspects related 
to  the  external  dimension  of  asylum,  such  as 
Regional 
and 
resettlement. 

Programmes 

Protection 

To  increase  the  successful  resettlement 
of applicants for international protection 
outside of the EU. 

To strengthen protection systems in third 
countries. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

In this chapter, two sets of policy options are analysed.  

The  first  set  of  policy  options  sets  out  potential  tasks  and  missions  that  a  support 
structure may have (eight tasks and missions are described below under 4.1.). 

The  other  set  of  policy  options  concerns  the  potential  institutional  organisation  of  the 
support  structure  to  allow  it  to  operate  optimally.  Eight  main  institutional  options  for 
establishing the support structure, which would fulfil the missions and tasks referred to 
under 4.1, are described under 4.2.  

4.1. 

Options for the tasks and missions of the future asylum support structure 

In  view  of  the  mandate  given  by  the  European  Council  to  create  the  future  support 
structure, and following the consultations of stakeholders organised during the feasibility 
study, a list of potential tasks to be entrusted to the future support structure is divided as 
follows, in the interest of clarity. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
The objective in defining all the tasks to be entrusted to the future support structure is to 
fully ensure that the standards in practical cooperation related to CEAS will be improved 
throughout the Member States. No definition of tasks could be understood as leading to 
lower standards in the asylum policy29.  

4.1.1.  Exchange of best practices 

This covers the identification and exchange of best practices, lessons learnt and activities 
which could contribute to a more uniform interpretation and implementation of asylum 
legislation and a more equal treatment of asylum seekers in the different Member States. 
The  support  structure  would  draw  on  inputs  provided  by  different  stakeholders  with 
relevant expertise (e.g. Member States, IGOs, NGOs, lawyers, case workers).  

These  tasks  are  part  of  the  core  tasks  currently  carried  out  by  existing  cooperation 
structures, such as EURASIL, GDISC30 and IGC31, and supported by the Commission in 
JLS Directorate General. 

4.1.2. 

Support to monitoring and quality control  

This  covers  mechanisms  to  support  monitoring  and  quality  control  to  ensure  a  more 
uniform  interpretation  and  implementation  of  asylum  legislation  and  a  more  equal 
treatment  of  asylum  seekers  in  the  different  Member  States.  According  to  the  Treaty 
provisions that define the role and competences of the Commission, the Commission is 
responsible for enforcement, transposition and implementation of the CEAS legislative 
instruments.  The  support  structure  would  therefore  be  limited  to  supporting  the 
Commission in its task, in particular by collecting information and reporting on the state 
of transposition and implementation of the Directives in each of the Member States, by 
developing  benchmarks  and  standards  by  which  progress  can  be  measured,  by 
coordinating peer learning activities, whereby Member States are asked to evaluate and 
learn from their peers and by coordinating corrective action undertaken by the Member 
States. 

Monitoring and quality control by the Commission of the enforcement, transposition and 
implementation  of  the  CEAS  legislative  instruments  is  today  facilitated  by  the 

See also Asylum Policy Plan in this respect.  

29  
30 During the NL Presidency of the EU in July 2004, a Conference was held in Rotterdam entitled ‘Immigration Services Together in the New 
Europe’. The Conference was aimed at General Directors of European Immigration Services. During this conference it was concluded that there 
was  added  value  in  face-to-face  contact  with  European  counterparts  and  the  General  Directors  agreed  to  meet  every  year.  A  network  was 
established in order to facilitate practical cooperation. This network was named GDISC - General Directors’ of Immigration Services Conference.  

31 The starting point for the IGC was a conference held in May 1985 under the auspices of UNHCR to consider “The Arrivals of Asylum-Seekers 
and  Refugees  in  Europe”.  There  were  follow  up  discussions  and  seven  States  decided  to  launch  an  informal  consultative  process  to  study  the 
challenges facing the asylum system and possible solutions. A coordinator for the IGC was appointed within UNHCR headquarters in 1987 as 
head of a unit responsible for the preparation of meetings of senior officials. In 1990, this unit was reorganised as the IGC Secretariat. In 1991, the 
Secretariat became an independent entity with funding provided by States. At present, there are sixteen members of IGC: 10 EU States (Australia, 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Spain,  Sweden,  and  the  United  Kingdom),  2  non-EU  countries: 
Switzerland and Norway, and 4 oversea countries: Canada, US, New Zealand and Australia. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
organisation  of  meetings  of  the  Contact  Committees32  established  under  the  different 
instruments,  but  also  via  the  discussions  which  take  place  in  the  context  of  Eurasil, 
GDISC, and the IGC. The UNHCR33 also has a role to play in this regard.  

4.1.3. 

Joint processing of asylum applications at the EU level 

This  covers  the  joint  processing  of  asylum  applications  at  EU  level  by  the  support 
structure on behalf of the Member States. This could be limited to the joint processing of 
certain  asylum  applications  at  EU  level,  for  example  those  for  Member  States  under 
particular pressure or those that Member States consider highly complicated. At present, 
no such joint processing takes place. 

4.1.4.  Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) / 

improve assessment of COI 

These  tasks  are  part  of  the  core  tasks  currently  carried  out  by  existing  cooperation 
structures,  such  as  EURASIL,  GDISC,  the  IGC,  the  UNHCR  and  the  Red  Cross 
(Accord/ecoi.net34) and are supported by the Commission in JLS Directorate General.  

In light of the considerable work already undertaken in this area by the Commission and 
other actors, and the wide range of existing COI sources, the support structure would be 
in charge of a large number of coordination tasks: 

- organising the management and maintenance of the COI portal, integrate existing COI 
in the portal and keeping it updated; 
- pooling existing information and expertise on a particular country of origin and asylum 
thematic  related  issues  available  from  actors  on  the  ground  (e.g.  Member  States, 
Commission, Commission delegations, UNHCR field offices, local NGOs); 
- coordinating fact-finding missions by bringing together States with an interest in or are 
about to gather COI in a particular asylum sending country to avoid overlaps; 
-  enhancing  the  accessibility  of  COI  and  promoting  its  use  (e.g.  translation  of 
documents); 
-  coordinating  and  developing  best  practice  exchanges,  with  a  view  to  enhancing 
consistency of COI interpretation and developing guidelines and benchmarks on how to 
interpret COI;  

32 As a basis for evaluation and to better coordinate the implementation of the asylum measures as well as the measures adopted on migration, the 
Commission organises a structured exchange of views on how Member States implement and apply the legislation recently adopted through the 
establishment of Contact Committees for each of the relevant instruments. The Commission regularly convenes the Contact Committees which 
offer  a  platform  for  the  exchange  of  views  on  the  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Directives  and  the  Regulations  to  facilitate  the  early 
identification  of  possible  problems  and  questions  and  offer  an  opportunity  to  enhance  the  value  of  the  legislation  through  an  agreed  common 
interpretation and a common methodology of implementation. 
33 Quality initiative project See under 4.1.4 
34 The Quality Initiative Project (2004-2009) is based on the supervisory role of UNHCR under the 1951 Refugee 
Convention and its aim is to assist the UK Home Office in improving further the quality of first instance 
decision-making.  On  the  basis  of  its  audit,  UNHCR  has  highlighted  a  number  of  causes  for  concern, 
focusing  in  particular  on  the  application  of  the  refugee  definition,  the  approach  to  establishing  the  facts 
(‘credibility’) and the conduct of interviews.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
-  gathering  information  on  the  various  policies  implemented  in  the  different  Member 
States  and  on  how  judges,  case  workers  and  other  decision-makers  reach  different 
interpretations of COI;  
-  creating  an  overview  of  the  current  initiatives  to  promote  joint  and/or  similar 
interpretation of COI. 

4.1.5.  Pool of asylum experts 

The support structure could provide practical assistance to Member States with overall 
capacity  and  resource  problems,  for  example,  by  creating,  managing,  coordinating  and 
deploying joint pools of interpreters, translators and other experts. The following fields 
could be covered: 

- Interpreting; 
- Humanitarian assistance; 
- Assisting in the process of information collection to support decision making; 
- Pre-screening;  
- Translating documents and  
- Sharing information on interview techniques. 

The GDISC-led project creating an Interpreters pool35 provides a good example of how 
to deal with capacity and resource-related challenges in situations of particular pressure. 
Another  entity  which  can  be  mentioned  is  ENARO,  which  is  an  ‘inter-institutional 
linkage’  between  European  organisations  active  in  the  area  of  the  reception  of  asylum 
seekers36.  It  facilitates  cooperation  in  order  to  develop  best  practice  models  for  the 
reception  of  asylum  seekers  and  examine  trends  and  developments  in  the  profile  and 
numbers of asylum seekers. As such, it particularly addresses the issue of how to deal 
with  capacity  and  sudden  pressure  situations.  The  approach  adopted  to  achieve  these 
aims  involves  exchange  programmes  for  staff  and  experts,  evaluations  and  activities 
aimed  at  identifying  best  practices.  In  addition,  activities  initiated  on  a  more  ‘ad  hoc’ 

35  Twelve  countries  (UK,  Germany,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Romania, 
Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia) indicated their interest in joining this project: UK, Germany, Norway and 
Netherlands  volunteered  to  act  as  donor  countries;  Norway,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic, 
Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia were to be the beneficiaries. Norway was to act both as donor and 
as beneficiary in the project. 

36  Belgium:  Fedasil;  Czech  Republic:  Refugee  Facilities  Administration;  Denmark:  Danish  Red  Cross;  Finland: 
Ministry  of  Employment  and  the  Economy;  Ireland:  Reception  and  Integration  Agency;  Italy:  Central 
Service  of  the  Protection  System  for  asylum  seekers  and  refugees;  Malta:  Ministry  for  the  Family  and 
Social  Solidarity;  The  Netherlands:  Centraal  Orgaan  opvang  Asielzoekers;  Norway:  HERO  Mottak  og 
Kompetanse AS; Spain: Ministerio de Trabajo Y Asuntos Sociales Dirección General de Integración de Los 
Inmigrantes;  Sweden:  Swedish  Migration  Board;  Switzerland:  Bundesamt  für  Migration  Abteilung 
Empfangs-  und  Verfahrenszentren;  and,  United  Kingdom:  Kent  County  Council  Service 
for 
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
basis are relevant for addressing problems in terms of better preparedness (e.g. exchange 
of information on a software system to manage reception capacities.)37  

4.1.6. 

Intra-EU relocation 

In the Policy Plan on Asylum (Section 5.1.2.), the Commission indicates that “the best 
way to ensure a high degree of solidarity is not to adopt a new overarching instrument 
on  intra-EU  relocation,  but  to  put  at  the  disposal  of  Member  States  a  series  of 
mechanisms,  which  will  help  them  cope  with  the  variety  of  challenges  they  are  faced 
with”.  The  Commission  indicated  during  the  discussion  on  the  adoption  of  the 
Immigration and Asylum Pact (adopted in October 2008 by the European Council) that 
an  assessment  should  be  carried  out  of  the  potential  impact  of  measures  taken  to 
facilitate  the  internal  relocation  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  The  study 
should  assess,  in  particular,  the  nature  and  characteristics  of  migratory  flows  in  the 
Member  States  concerned,  the  situation  in  the  countries  of  origin  and  the  risks  of 
creating pull effects.  

This  would  imply  that  the  support  structure  could  manage  and  coordinate  any  future 
intra-EU  relocation  scheme  which  would  ensure  that  a  proportion  of  arrivals  are 
transferred  to  other  Member  States,  based  on  their  capacity  and  willingness.  It  could 
support  the  scheme  by,  for  example,  developing  guidelines  on  selecting  people  for 
relocation  and  identifying  Member  States  interested  in  relocation.  No  such  intra-EU 
relocation instrument exists at present. 

4.1.7.  Training and capacity building 

This would include providing training and capacity building assistance to help Member 
States  develop  a  joint  asylum  curriculum  and  provide  training  and  capacity  building 
programmes for state officials and potentially a wider range of stakeholders involved in 
the asylum process. The European Asylum Curriculum (EAC), which is currently being 
developed by GDISC, constitutes a key component of these activities, as it represents a 
prime example of the benefits that can be gained from EU practical cooperation in the 
area  of  asylum.  In  addition,  general  and  specific  expertise  on,  for  example,  torture 
victims and unaccompanied minors, is required by national asylum administrations.  

Training  national  asylum  service  personnel  is  central  to  implementing  the  CEAS. 
Agreement  on  key  principles  of  good  practice  for  administrative  aspects  such  as 
interviewing  and  decision  making  provides  a  firm  basis  for  greater  convergence  in 
practice and administrative methods. 

37 According to Fedasil, which considers ENARO to be a good initiative, it is key to learn from 
aspects that work well in other countries and build on existing experiences and know-how instead 
of ‘reinventing the wheel’.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
The support structure would therefore be in charge of: 

-  managing  the  EAC  (European  Asylum  Curriculum).  The  EAC  project38  is  led  by 
Sweden under G DISC umbrella (which promotes operational cooperation between the 
Immigration  Services  responsible  for  implementing  immigration  and  asylum  issues  in 
Europe,  see  above  under  2.2.1)  and  involves  a  range  of  governmental  and  non-
governmental  bodies.  The  support  structure  would  coordinate  the  development  and 
promotion of EAC and ensure its sustainability (financing and updating);  

- identifying training needs in Member States; 

- conducting capacity assessments of Member States; 
- mapping existing (general and specific) expertise in training and capacity building in 
Member States and 
-  matching  training  and  capacity  needs  with  expertise  and  resources,  and  coordinating 
exchanges (e.g. study visits). 

It  will  organise  general  and  specific  training  sessions,  e.g.  training  targeting  a  specific 
public  (e.g.  judges  /  case-workers)  or  on  specific  issues  (e.g.  how  to  deal  with  EAC  / 
treatment  of  vulnerable  persons  or  unaccompanied  minors  /  access  and  use  of  COI 
portal)39. 

4.1.8.  Activities  linked  to  the  external  aspects  of  practical  cooperation  linked  to  the  CEAS: 

resettlement and RPPs  

The Hague Programme called for the establishment of a joint resettlement programme in 
the  framework  of  Regional  Protection  Programmes.  In  the  Policy  Plan  on  asylum,  the 
Commission  announced  that  it  would  propose  an  initiative  on  this  issue  in  2009.  The 
Commission is therefore committed to improving and developing the external aspects of 
CEAS.  

The support structure could have an advisory and/or coordination role in developing and 
implementing  Regional  Protection  Programmes  and  in  developing  and  implementing 
resettlement schemes. 

38 The EAC is a EU Member State initiative intending to enhance the capacity and quality of the European asylum 
process  as  well  as  to  strengthen  practical  cooperation  among  the  European  asylum/immigration  systems. 
The  cooperation  between  the  Odysseus  Academic  Network  and  the  Swedish,  Dutch,  Czech  and  Spanish 
Immigration  Services  aims  to  create  a  European  Asylum  Curriculum,  which  will  provide  common 
vocational  training  for  employees  of  the  Immigration  and  Asylum  Services  in  Europe.  This  project  is 
funded by the EU (ERF) and executed under the auspices of the General Directors’ Immigration Services 
Conference (GDISC). The European Commission sits on its reference group. The EAC project update has 
been presented in Eurasil meetings, both at the normal plenary and judges meetings.  

39  In  addition  to  this,  for  example,  the  Red  Cross  have  developed  several  capacity  building  initiatives  concerning 
COI,  including  the  development  of  a  training  manual,  organisation  of  seminars  and  query  services  (see 
Annex 3). EAC also contains a module to improve knowledge and initial skills concerning the role of COI 
in the context of refugee status determination 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
This would include, as regards RPPs  

- monitoring the progress of activities in RPP countries,  
-  providing  expertise  and  liaising  with  other  stakeholders  in  order  to  ensure 
complementarity of activities. 

As regards resettlement, the support structure would have the following tasks: 

- drawing upon existing input from different bodies (e.g. States’ and NGOs views on the 
process and outcomes of twinning activities or EU-funded programmes; the discussions 
held in the Commission expert group on resettlement and in the IGC workshop; research 
undertaken by UNHCR), with a view to exploring joint positions and priorities; 
- storing the information in a central location (e.g. portal);  
- making this information available to a wide audience; 
- promoting active learning (e.g. e-learning, discussion forums, seminars). 

Some  governmental  and  non-governmental  actors  in  the  EU  have  been  collaborating, 
largely in a limited or exploratory way, in the area of resettlement. There has also been 
a  launch  of  new  'twinning'  activities  between  existing  and  new  or  prospective 
resettlement countries in the EU. The primary aim of twinning projects and other forms 
of information exchange is to build the capacity of the national administrations, which 
in the near future may be responsible for the design and implementation of resettlement. 
Some  actors  are  also  actively  sharing  ideas  on  how  to  create  political  will  for 
resettlement40. In addition to this, resettlement is also discussed in the IGC. Workshops 
on  resettlement  have  been  organised  in  which  existing  resettlement  countries,  such  as 
the  USA,  share  their  experiences  with  EU  partners.  The  Commission  has  furthermore 
initiated  an  expert  group  on  resettlement,  whose  purpose  is  to  share  best  practices  on 
resettlement and to discuss the results of the different projects on resettlement, in order 
to  make  Member  States  which  are  not  currently  resettlement  countries  familiar  with 
resettlement  and  to  examine  which  aspects  EU  cooperation  on  resettlement  would  be 
most fruitful. 

4.2. 

Options for the institutional format of the future asylum support structure 

4.2.1. 

Status quo 

No changes would be made to the current situation in relation to practical cooperation in 
the  asylum  field.  Existing  delivery  mechanisms,  i.e.  very  limited  number  of  staff  in 
charge  of  practical  cooperation41  within  the  unit  dealing  with  asylum  policy  in 
Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security, would be maintained at the current 
level.  

40  E.g. Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen; Amnesty International Germany. 
41  

 At present, AD staff dedicated to practical cooperation tasks in the Commission unit dealing with asylum 
policy: 1,5. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4.2.2. 

Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources 

The Commission would be responsible for the delivery of practical cooperation linked to 
the CEAS and would undertake this internally, by setting up a dedicated unit within the 
Directorate General for Justice, Freedom and Security. The unit would be managed by a 
Head  of  Unit,  possibly  assisted  by  a  Deputy  Head  of  Unit  and  Heads  of  sectors,  each 
managing  small  teams  within  the  unit  in  charge  of  specific  aspects  of  practical 
cooperation.  

The unit could be either integrated into the present directorate of the Directorate General 
currently  dealing  with  asylum  and  immigration  policy  or  be  under  the  direct 
responsibility of the Director-General to give it prominent political visibility.  

4.2.3.  Creating a new network 

A new network would be created on the basis of a Council decision, for example under 
Article  66  TEC  (practical  cooperation).  It  would  comprise  a  secretariat  and  receive  a 
dedicated budget line for its activities. The secretariat would be responsible for the day-
to-day  management  of  the  network.  The  network  would  employ  few  staff  at  central 
level,  but  in  order  to  ensure  consistent  national  inputs,  human  resources  could  be 
allocated  to  national  ‘units’  consisting  of  Member  State  authorities  and  /  or  other 
relevant bodies.  

The network would build on the existing network structures and would not absorb any 
existing structures. It would be supported by a steering group (to be created) consisting 
of Member State representatives and other relevant bodies (e.g. UNHCR). This steering 
group  would  need  to  be  coordinated  by  the  Commission.  The  network  could  either 
merge  current  relevant  activities  in  the  field  of  practical  cooperation,  such  as  those 
carried  out  by  EURASIL  and  GDISC,  or  coordinate  such  activities,  thus  acting  as  an 
‘umbrella’ network. Additional tasks and functions could be added gradually.  

The  working  method  of  the  network  would  be  the  “Open  Method  of  Coordination” 
(OMC).  Set  up  at  the  Lisbon  European  Council  of  March  2000,  the  OMC  provides  a 
framework for political coordination without legal constraints. Member States agree to 
identify  and  promote  their  most  effective  policies  with  the  aim  of  learning  from  each 
others’  experiences.  This  is  a  flexible  and  decentralised  method,  which  involves:  (1) 
agreeing  to  common  objectives  which  set  out  high-level,  shared  goals  to  underpin  the 
entire  process;  (2)  agreeing  to  a  set  of  common  indicators  which  show  how  progress 
towards these goals can be measured; (3) preparing national strategic reports, in which 
Member  States  set  out  how  they  will  plan  policies  over  an  agreed  period  to  meet  the 
common  objectives;  (4)  Evaluating  these  strategies  jointly  with  the  European 
Commission  and  the  Member  States.  The  OMC  is  e.g.  used  in  the  fields  of  Social 
Protection and Social Inclusion. It has never to date been used in the Justice, Freedom 
and Security fields.  

The Commission would be responsible for the overall coordination and management of 
the network. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
4.2.4.  Creation of the European Asylum Support Office as a regulatory agency 

The  European  Asylum  Support  Office  could  be  a  structure  with  the  institutional  and 
operational design of a regulatory agency. A European regulatory agency is defined as 
an independent legal entity created by the legislator in order to help regulate a particular 
sector  at  the  European  level  and  help  implement  a  particular  Community  policy.  By 
performing its tasks, it helps to improve the way in which the rules are implemented and 
applied throughout the EU42.  

The  legal  basis  for  the  office,  to  be  established  through  a  regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and/or  Council,  could  be  Article  66  TEC  (practical  cooperation)  and/or 
Article 63 TEC (asylum policy). 

The  European  Asylum  Support  Office  would  have  no  decision-making  powers.  Its 
activities  would  involve  measures  of  an  incentive  nature,  such  as  co-regulation,  self-
regulation, recommendations, referral to the scientific authority, networking and pooling 
implementation  of  rules,  etc43. 
good  practice,  evaluating 
Relationships  with  external  bodies  would  be  established,  e.g.  with  UNHCR,  external 
bodies (e.g. GDISC, ENARO  …) and NGOs  (e.g. ECRE, Red Cross). UNHCR would 
have a formally defined and strong role in the regulation establishing the office.  

the  application  and 

As far as financial rules are concerned, the European Asylum Support Office would be 
created under Article 185 of the Financial Regulation44. The financial basis for the future 
agency would be a dedicated Community budget line. The decision over its seat, not to 
be  in  Brussels  or  Luxemburg,  would  be  taken  by  Heads  of  State  and  Governments.  It 
could be situated in a new Member State45. 

The office would be managed by its Management Board, composed of representatives of 
Member States and the Commission. The day-to-day management of the office would be 
entrusted  to  a  Director,  nominated  by  the  Management  Board  upon  a  proposal  by  the 
Commission. 

Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to 

See  draft  interinstitutional  agreement  on  the  operating  framework  for  the  European  regulatory  agencies 

See  draft  interinstitutional  agreement  on  the  operating  framework  for  the  European  regulatory  agencies 

42  
(Com(2005)59. 
43  
(Com(2005)59. 
44  
the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1–48. See in particular article 185.1: 
“1.  The  Commission  shall  adopt  a  framework  financial  regulation  for  the  bodies  set  up  by  the  Communities  and 
having legal personality which actually receive grants charged to the budget. The financial rules of these bodies may 
not  depart  from  the  framework  regulation  except  where  their  specific  operating  needs  so  require  and  with  the 
Commission’s prior consent.”. 
45  
and agencies of the European Union, 13/12/2003, OJ L 29/3.02.2004. 

See conclusions of the representatives of the Member States on the location of the seats of certain offices 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2.5. 

Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency 

For  reasons  of  economies  of  scale,  it  could  be  envisaged  that  the  activities  to  be 
entrusted to the asylum support structure  be merged into an existing or future regulatory 
agency.  

There are three sub-options:  

•  merge into  FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency), 

•  merge  into  FRONTEX  (European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational 
Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union),  

•  merge into the future JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS 
II, VIS and EURODAC and other large-scale IT systems in application of Title IV of 
the EC Treaty). 

These options are studied by the Commission in this impact assessment report, for the 
sake  of  completeness  of  this  report,  as  supplementary  options  to  the  ones  that  were 
envisaged  by  the  stakeholders  during  consultations  made  in  the  context  of  the 
preparation  of  the  asylum  policy  plan  and  consultations  specifically  carried  out  for 
preparation of this impact assessment report. It must be emphasized that no stakeholder, 
Member  States  or  non-governmental  organisations  consulted  during  the  consultation 
process proposed these options.  

These three agencies are or will be regulatory agencies (see above under 4.2.4.).  

4.2.5.1.  FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) 

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) was established by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 200746. The Agency’s goal is to provide 
relevant institutions and authorities of the European Community and its Member States 
with  assistance  and  expertise  on  fundamental  rights  when  implementing  Community 
law,  and  to  support  them  in  taking  measures  and  formulating  appropriate  courses  of 
action. The Agency is not empowered to examine individual complaints or to exercise 
regulatory decision-making powers. The Agency’s specific areas of work are laid down 
in a five-year Multiannual Framework (Decision (2008/203/EC), adopted by the Council 
after  consultation  with  the  European  Parliament.  The  fight  against  racism,  xenophobia 
and related intolerance is one of the main priority areas of the FRA. The Agency works 
closely with other institutions and bodies, operating at both national and European level, 
and  develops  a  fruitful  cooperation  with  the  Council  of  Europe  and  civil  society,  for 
instance through the creation of a Fundamental Rights Platform. 

46  

OJ L 53/2 22.2.2007. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Should  the  FRA  take  over  the  tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  the  future  asylum  support 
structure, it would create a dedicated department for this purpose. Since it is an existing 
agency, some of the existing horizontal departments, such as administration, finance and 
procurement could be shared.  

Currently, the FRA is fully dedicated to information tasks and does not have experience 
in dealing with practical cooperation in the field of asylum.  

Should the FRA be put in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to the future asylum support 
structure, the Management Board would need to be reconfigured. The legal basis of the 
FRA,  Article  308  TEC  (implicit  powers),  could  remain,  but  reference  could  also  be 
made  to  Article  66  TEC  (practical  cooperation)  and/or  to  Article  63  TEC  (asylum 
policy).  

FRA has its headquarters in Vienna (Austria). 

4.2.5.2.  FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation 

at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union)  

FRONTEX  was  established  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  2007/200447.  It  coordinates 
operational  cooperation  between  Member  States  on  managing  external  borders,  assists 
Member  States  in  training  national  border  guards,  including  the  establishment  of 
common  training  standards;  carries  out  risk  analyses,  follows  up  the  development  of 
research  into  control  and  surveillance  of  external  borders,  assists  Member  States  in 
circumstances  requiring  increased  technical  and  operational  assistance  at  external 
borders,  and  provides  Member  States  with  the  necessary  support  in  organising  joint 
return  operations.  It  cooperates  closely  with  other  Community  and  EU  partners 
responsible for the security of external borders, such as EUROPOL, CEPOL, OLAF, the 
customs  cooperation  and  the  cooperation  on  phyto-sanitary  and  veterinary  controls,  in 
order to promote overall coherency. FRONTEX strengthens border security by ensuring 
the  coordination  of  Member  States’  actions  to  implement  Community  measures  on 
managing external borders. 

Should  FRONTEX  take  over  the  tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  the  future  asylum  support 
structure, it would create a dedicated department for this purpose. Since it is an existing 
agency, some of the existing horizontal departments, such as administration, finance and 
procurement could be shared. 

Currently,  FRONTEX  is  fully  dedicated  to  illegal  immigration  and  does  not  have 
experience in dealing with practical cooperation in the field of asylum.  

Should  FRONTEX  be  put  in  charge  of  the  tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  the  future  asylum 
support structure, the Management Board would need to be reconfigured. It is currently 

47  

OJ L 349/25.11.2004. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
composed  of  high  level  representatives  of  national  administrations  dealing  with  illegal 
immigration. 

The legal basis of FRONTEX could need changing, by adding the legal basis of Article 
63  TEC  (asylum  policy),  should  this  be  considered  as  necessary  to  entrust  it  of  full 
activities related to practical cooperation in the field of asylum.  

FRONTEX has its headquarters in Warsaw (Poland). 

4.2.5.3.  JLS  IT  Agency  (Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  SIS  II,  VIS  and 
EURODAC and for the development and the management of other large-scale IT 
systems). 

The future Regulation being prepared by JLS aims to establish an Agency centred on the 
operational management of large JLS IT systems. It will therefore be responsible for the 
long-term  operational  management  of  the  second  generation  Schengen  Information 
System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and EURODAC. It also aims to lay 
down  the  framework  for  developing  and  managing  other  large-scale  IT  systems  in 
application of Title IV of the EC Treaty and Title VI of the EU Treaty. 

Should the IT agency take over the tasks to be entrusted to the support asylum structure, 
it  would  create  a  dedicated  department  for  this  purpose.  Some  of  the  horizontal 
departments, such as administration, finance and procurement could be shared.  

The proposal for establishing the IT agency is due to be adopted by the Commission in 
January 2009. It will then be in the hands of the legislator for adoption of the founding 
act establishing it. This IT agency, when created, will be a new regulatory agency and 
will face the difficulties inherent in setting-up and creating any new body from scratch. 
This  may  severely  delay  the  setting-up  of  the  support  asylum  structure,  whilst  the 
European Council expressly called for its rapid establishment.  

This  IT  agency  will  be  fully  dedicated  to  technical  IT  management  of  large  JLS  IT-
systems. It will have no mandate as regards gathering information in the field of asylum, 
being  a  centre  of  European  expertise  on  asylum  (except  management  of  IT  JLS 
systems),  networking  and  pooling  good  practice,  evaluating  the  application  and 
implementation of rules in the field of asylum policies. 

The legal basis for the IT-Agency would need a change. The present legal basis covers 
Articles 62(2)(a), 62(2)(b)(ii), 63(1)(a), 63(3)(b) and 66TEC. As far as asylum policy is 
concerned,  the  legal  basis  of  the  IT-Agency  would  have  to  be  enlarged,  since  it  is 
presently  restricted  to  the  aspects  covered  by  63(1)(a)  and  63(3)(b),  should  this  be 
considered as necessary to entrust it of full activities related to practical cooperation in 
the field of asylum (question of choice of legal basis for the support structure: article 63 
and/or article 66). 

The headquarters of the future IT Agency have not yet been decided.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
4.2.6.  Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision-making body) 

The  Common  EU  Asylum  Authority  would  be  a  structure  with  the  institutional  and 
operational  design  of  a  regulatory  agency,  created  by  secondary  law  (Regulation).  Its 
financial basis would be a dedicated budget line. It could in the longer term fully lead all 
practical  cooperation  in  the  field  of  asylum,  have  responsibility  for  external  action  on 
behalf  of  the  Member  States  and  become  the  single  EU  determining  authority  to 
effectively  implement  a  common  asylum  procedure  for  applications  lodged  in  the  EU, 
taking into account that the acquis would have been amended accordingly.  

5. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The  report  will  attempt  to  identify  the  direct  and  indirect,  short-term  and  long-term 
impact  of  the  options.  The  social  impact  on  asylum  seekers  are  identified  as  the 
fundamental  rights  of  asylum  seekers  which  will  be  better  protected,  and  their  social 
integration in the Union (e.g. education, training, access to work) will be improved. As 
regards  the  environmental  impact,  limited  impact  could  be  identified  if  a  new 
institutional  structure 
limited 
environmental pressure on the host town (new office building to be found / travelling of 
people from there to other places in Europe where meetings would be organised). The 
most significant impact identified will be analysed as regards the tasks entrusted to the 
support structure and in institutional terms.  

is  created  outside  Brussels.  This  would  entail 

5.1. 

Impact of options for tasks and missions of the future support structure 

5.1.1.  Exchange of best practices 

These  tasks  are  part  of  the  core  tasks  currently  carried  out  by  existing  cooperation 
structures,  such  as  EURASIL,  GDISC  and  partially  the  IGC  and  supported  by  the 
Commission’s  JLS  Directorate  General.  According  to  the  Commission,  they  therefore 
belong to the core tasks of the future support structure. There is a clear need to find ways 
in  order  to  provide  better  quality  information,  a  more  systematic  and  far-reaching 
exchange of best practice and greater synergy compared to the current activities taking 
place in multiple fora. A comprehensive approach and efficient coordination is needed. 
This  situation  could  be  improved  by  the  support  structure  taking  a  clear  lead  in  the 
exchange of information and best practices. 

Stakeholders  identified  these  tasks  as  important,  all  giving  their  strong  support,  in 
particular from existing cooperation structures which are already seeing the benefits of 
such  exchanges  as  part  of  their  own  activities.  The  transfer  of  these  tasks  appears  to 
enjoy  full  support  from  the  Member  States  and  European  Parliament,  thus  it  appears 
politically feasible. 

As these tasks are part of the core tasks of the future support structure, their costs would 
be medium to high. These costs would also cover the costs involved in providing support 
to monitoring and quality control (see under 5.1.2.). In view of the extensive character of 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
these tasks, the costs must be therefore assessed as covering most of the costs related to 
tasks  undertaken  by  the  support  structure.  Moreover,  the  national  inputs  to  practical 
cooperation  would  initially  continue  to  exist  and  gradually  be  reduced,  due  to  greater 
efficiencies (for more details see under 5.2, cost analysis of the options in institutional 
terms). 

Exchanging best practices will allow the Member States to compare different practices 
with a view to retaining the best ones, and learning from each others. This should allow 
approximation  of  diverging  practices  and  favour  a  better  and  more  uniform 
interpretation  and  implementation  of  asylum  legislation  and  fully  contribute  to  the 
general objective of improving fair and more harmonised processing of applications for 
international protection through the EU. 

The  detailed  costs  of  these  tasks  are  evaluated  in  the  financial  tables  contained  in  the 
annexes  to  this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options. 
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options 
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs 
analysis  /  direct  support  /  capacity  building  and  training  /  planning,  research  and 
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support. The costs for 
exchange  of  best  practices  appear  under  the  items  risks  and  needs  analysis  /  capacity 
building and training / planning, research and development, in view of the scope of their 
activities and the importance in these tasks of the future support office.  

Entrusting  these  tasks  to  the  support  structure  would  be  likely  to  have  a  very  positive 
impact on the evolution of the asylum acquis and its practical implementation within the 
Member States and be a good level of feasibility.  

5.1.2. 

Support to monitoring and quality control 

These tasks will allow the Member States to compare their practices, as well as the way 
of transposing and implementing the different directives belonging to the acquis. It will 
help  to  inform  the  Commission’s  preparation  of  legislative  amendments  or  assist  the 
Commission in its monitoring and evaluation role.  

This task received an overall high support level from the stakeholders consulted during 
the  feasibility  study.  There  were  however  some  concerns  over  the  definition  of 
monitoring  as  a  task.  This  task  is  closely  linked  to  other  tasks,  such  as  identifying 
continuing  differences  in  legislation,  policies  and  practices  and  exchanging  best 
practices.  

Exchanging best practices, to which  this task  is  linked,  should allow approximation of 
diverging practices, de facto and de jure, favour a better and more uniform interpretation 
and  implementation  of  asylum  legislation  and  improve  fair  and  more  harmonised 
processing of applications for international protection through the EU.  

The  detailed  costs  of  these  tasks  are  evaluated  in  the  financial  tables  contained  in  the 
annexes  to  this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options 
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs 
analysis  /  direct  support  /  capacity  building  and  training  /  planning,  research  and 
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support. The costs for 
exchange  of  best  practices  appear  under  the  items  risks  and  needs  analysis  /  capacity 
building and training / planning, research and development, in view of the scope of the 
activities and their importance in these tasks of the future support office. 

These  tasks,  fully  linked  to  costs  linked  to  exchanging  best  practices,  would  entail 
medium to high costs. In view of the extensive character of these tasks, the costs must be 
therefore  assessed  as  covering  most  of  the  costs  related  to  tasks  undertaken  by  the 
support  structure.  Moreover,  national  inputs  to  practical  cooperation  would  initially 
continue and gradually be reduced, due to greater efficiencies (for more details see under 
5.2, cost analysis of the options in institutional terms). 

Entrusting these tasks to the support structure appears therefore to have a very positive 
impact on the evolution of the asylum acquis and its implementation within the Member 
States,  and  a  good  level  of  feasibility.  The  monitoring  and  quality  control  which  is 
today to some extent carried out in the context of Contact Committees, Eurasil, the IGC 
and  the  UNHCR  is  not  sufficiently  thorough  and  systematic  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
Commission and Member states in this regard. Current oversight tends to be ad hoc in 
nature, and does not adequately or quickly identify shortcomings in the creation of the 
CEAS.  The  support  office  could  adopt  a  more  comprehensive  and  timely  approach  to 
monitoring  and  quality  control,  including  -  for  example  -  by  carrying  out  studies  or 
“peer  reviews”  aimed  at  identifying  failures  or  shortcomings  in  the  adoption  and/or 
implementation of legislation. In addition to this, adequate long-term financing of these 
tasks is also very important. 

5.1.3. 

Joint processing of asylum applications at EU level 

Legally and politically, these tasks cannot yet be deemed to be feasible. 

As the way in which the CEAS in the Member States currently differs widely as regard 
its  national  implementation,  it  would  be  impossible  to  envisage  any  joint  processing 
before further harmonisation and approximation of CEAS instruments, approximation of 
practices, common interpretation of criteria and concepts and implementation based on 
the same basis throughout the Union has been put in place. 

The European Council has made it clear that the support structure will not be a decision-
making  body.  Joint  processing  at  the  European  level  would  therefore  be  legally 
unfeasible, as it would entail at least some aspects of joint decision-making at European 
level or giving some decisional power to the support structure on national requests for 
international protection.  

Legally  speaking,  as  the  support  structure  will  be  created  under  secondary  law,  it  can 
rely  only  on  what  is  currently  provided  for  in  the  present  acquis.  The  modifications 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
planned to revise the CEAS acquis within the context of the second phase of CEAS do 
not  allow  for  decisional  powers  to  be  entrusted  to  a  support  structure  at  the  European 
level.  

This  option  received  low  support  from  stakeholders  consulted  during  the  feasibility 
study. The overall message from workshop participants was that this task is politically 
unfeasible for the time being. While some actors have expressed an interest in exploring 
or researching the issue of joint processing, they have been systematically discouraged 
by  political  considerations.  Member  States  consider  the  processing  of  applications  for 
international protection as an issue of national sovereignty.  

Notwithstanding the contribution this option could bring to the objectives defined under 
3., the Commission discards this option due to the very low feasibility given the current 
legal and political difficulties. 

The costs for this task do not appear in the financial tables contained in the annexes to 
this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options  as  this  task 
appears unfeasible.  

5.1.4.  Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) / 

improve assessment of COI 

Overall high support was given to COI tasks, both by Member States and other bodies. 
COI  activities  were  deemed  by  stakeholders  and  Member  States  to  be  of  utmost 
importance for the future development of an approximated acquis in the field on asylum 
and a more uniform decision-making process in the different Member States. 

COI tasks, and in particular the creation and management of the COI portal and related 
training  activities,  would  improve  the  collection  and  the  quality  of  Country  of  Origin 
Information and make this accessible to all Member States with a view to improving its 
interpretation  and  assessment.  This  would  therefore  help  improve  fair  and  more 
harmonised processing of applications for international protection throughout the Union.  

The  detailed  costs  of  these  tasks  are  evaluated  in  the  financial  tables  contained  in  the 
annexes  to  this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options. 
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options 
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs 
analysis  /  direct  support  /  capacity  building  and  training  /  planning,  research  and 
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support. The costs for 
activities  related  to  COI  appear  under  title  2  of  the  financial  breakdown  (building, 
equipment and infrastructure expenditure) in view of the fact that the COI portal will be 
an important IT system to be managed by the future support structure and under title 3 of 
the financial breakdown (operations), under the items risks and needs analysis / capacity 
building and training / planning, research and development, as well, in view of the scope 
of these activities and their importance in the tasks of the future support office. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
These  core  tasks  are  currently  mainly  carried  out  by  a  variety  of  existing  cooperation 
structures, networks or international organisations, including in particular EURASIL, the 
UNHCR, the IGC and the Red Cross (Accord/ecoi.net). While it is clear that efforts to 
improve the collection and quality of COI are currently being undertaken by a variety of 
actors,  it  would  be  very  desirable  to  create  a  more  common  approach  and  to  develop 
more  efficient  cooperation  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps  and  provide  cost  effectiveness, 
synergy  and  better  quality  information.  Common  training  is  needed  for  the  collection 
and production of quality COI. Member States also need better guidance and know-how 
in order to assess it, since they sometimes interpret COI very differently. This, together 
with  national  differences  in  who  legally  qualifies  for  international  protection,  may  to 
some  extent  account  for  the  diverging  recognition  rates  across  the  European  Union. 
Improving the collection and quality of COI should go some way toward reducing these 
divergences in decision making, and to that end the development by a support structure 
of  common  training,  guidelines  and  access  to  the  relevant  COI  (e.g.  via  an  EU  wide 
COI-portal) are needed. 

Entrusting these tasks to the support structure appears therefore to have a positive impact 
on the practical cooperation related to CEAS and a high level of feasibility. 

5.1.5.  Pool of asylum experts 

It appears difficult for a support structure at the European level to establish and manage 
internally a pool of asylum experts and other relevant professionals to address particular 
pressures in Member States. It would be almost impossible for a structure at European 
level to cover all different legislative / regulatory national contexts and languages in the 
field of asylum. It must be recalled that, in the asylum field, a very high number of non-
European languages have to be covered. This would entail significant numbers of staff 
in the support structure dedicated to these tasks, which is impractical, given the priorities 
to  be  defined  for  the  future  Support  structure  as  regards  deliverables.  This  also  raises 
concerns over the proportionality of this measure.  

Many  stakeholders  were  in  favour  of  this  option  but  raised  the  point  that  a  pool  of 
experts  could  not  be  familiar  with  all  different  legislative  /  regulatory  /  linguistic 
contexts. In light of the current stage of the CEAS and of the coordination nature of the 
tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  the  support  structure,  the  pool  of  asylum  experts  could  help 
alleviate or share the burden of Member States experiencing particular pressures on their 
national asylum system. 

Entrusting  these  tasks  to  the  support  structure  appears  therefore  to  entail  (1)  limited 
positive impact on the evolution of the asylum acquis and its practical implementation 
within the Member States and (2) high costs disproportionate to the goal to be attained. 

For this reason, given the proportionality of measures to be taken and the scope of the 
missions to be entrusted to the future support structure, the support structure will have a 
coordination role (1) by gathering information from Member States over their capacities 
and  facilities  and  their  availability,  with  a  view  to  helping  the  Member  States 
experiencing particular pressures on their national asylum system and allowing them to 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
ask  for  help  and  support  from  another  Member  State  when  necessary  and  (2)  by 
supporting  and  organising  the  deployment  of  expert  teams  in  the  affected  Member 
States. The Member States expressed political support for this light option. These tasks 
will, under the lightest and less costly way, help reduce overburdening of some Member 
States by helping Member States to cope with mass arrivals. 

The  detailed  costs  of  these  tasks  are  evaluated  in  the  financial  tables  contained  in  the 
annexes  to  this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options. 
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options 
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs 
analysis  /  direct  support  /  capacity  building  and  training  /  planning,  research  and 
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.  

Current  cooperation  in  this  field  is  limited  and  not  well  developed.  There  have  been 
occasional initiatives by Member States, such as, the above-mentioned interpreters pool 
project done under the auspices of GDISC. The objective of the project was to set up a 
‘Rapid  Capacity  Team’  for  interpreters,  addressing  particular  pressures  when  needs 
arise. Certain countries act as “donor” countries, sharing their interpreter capacity, and 
others are “beneficiary” countries48. However, the scope of the pool has remained quite 
limited; to date only a limited number of interpretations have been carried out. There are 
also concerns about the sustainability of the project and the availability of funding. The 
difficulties encountered by GDISC in creating and maintaining a sustainable pool of this 
kind illustrate why initiatives of this kind are better suited to be being coordinated by a 
permanent EU support structure with a stable funding base.  

5.1.6. 

Intra-EU relocation 

This task received mixed scores from stakeholders, mainly because the notion of intra-
EU relocation was considered as unclear.  

In view of the study to be launched by the Commission on developing relocation within 
the  Union,  the  support  structure  could  at  first  have  an  advisory  role  to  feed  in  the 
assessment  and  definition  of  relocation  measures  or  proposals.  It  could  in  the  longer 
term  coordinate  all  exchanges  of  information  related  to  relocation  and  possibly 
coordinate any action linked to implementation of initiatives. This would contribute to 
improving  fair  and  more  harmonised  processing  of  applications  for  international 
protection throughout the Union and reduce overburdening of some Member States. 

48  Twelve  countries  (UK,  Germany,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Romania, 
Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia) indicated their interest in joining this project: UK, Germany, Norway and 
Netherlands  volunteered  to  act  as  donor  countries;  Norway,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic, 
Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia were to be the beneficiaries. Norway was to act both as donor and 
as beneficiary in the project. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  detailed  costs  of  these  tasks  are  evaluated  in  the  financial  tables  contained  in  the 
annexes  to  this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options. 
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options 
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs 
analysis  /  direct  support  /  capacity  building  and  training  /  planning,  research  and 
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.  

Entrusting  these  tasks  to  the  support  structure  would  appear  likely  to  have  a  positive 
impact  on  the  evolution  of  the  Member  States’  action  as  regard  relocation  and 
consequently to the objectives defined in this impact assessment report. In view of the 
clearly  limited  role  of  the  support  structure  over  relocation,  to  be  fully  defined  in  the 
context  of  future  measures  to  be  adopted  about  relocation,  the  option  appears  to  be 
feasible.  Moreover,  given  that  any  such  measures  would  involve  relocating  persons 
between Member States, entrusting a support function to an EU-wide support structure 
would seem to be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. 

5.1.7.  Training and capacity building 

There is overall high support from stakeholders for these tasks. 

The stakeholders stressed that it would be important to take stock of existing approaches 
at  national  and  international  level  to  training,  curriculum  development  (e.g.  European 
Asylum Curriculum — EAC), etc, and approaches taken by NGOs. Organising general 
and specific training sessions, e.g. training targeting a specific public (e.g. judges / case-
workers  …)  or  specific  issues  (e.g.  how  to  deal  with  EAC  /  treatment  of  vulnerable 
persons or unaccompanied minors / access and use of COI portal…), will improve the 
capacity,  knowledge  and  know-how  of  the  different  actors  involved  in  the  asylum 
process and therefore contribute to an improved, fair and more harmonised processing of 
applications for international protection throughout the Union. 

The  detailed  costs  of  these  tasks  are  evaluated  in  the  financial  tables  contained  in  the 
annexes  to  this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options. 
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options 
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs 
analysis  /  direct  support  /  capacity  building  and  training  /  planning,  research  and 
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.  

Entrusting  these  important  tasks  to  the  support  structure  appears  therefore  to  fully 
enhance  practical  cooperation  on  CEAS  and  have  a  very  positive  impact  on  the 
evolution  of  the  asylum  acquis  and  its  practical  implementation  within  the  Member 
States.  

There is currently little training provided in the field of asylum .. Moreover, there is no 
comprehensive  EU-wide  approach  to  training.  Putting  in  place  such  EU-wide  training 
would provide a very important support for the needs of all Member States and for the 
creation of the CEAS. The EAC project, which is currently still in the course of being 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
developed, is a good attempt to meet these needs. The project is well on the way, but 
has yet to be implemented or even tested, and does not currently have adequate funding 
to provide the sustainability of the future EAC.  

5.1.8.  Activities  linked  to  the  external  aspects  of  practical  cooperation  linked  to  the  CEAS: 

resettlement and RPPs 

Member States and NGOs supported the idea of entrusting the task of resettlement to the 
support  structure.  Most  stakeholders  stressed  the  need  to  cooperate  with  the  UNHCR. 
The support structure could provide added value by taking a coordination and advisory 
role. It could facilitate and coordinate the identification and exchange of best practices 
and lessons learnt.  

As regards RPPs, these tasks received overall low support from the stakeholders. Many 
actors preferred to await the results of the recent evaluation on RPPs to be conducted by 
the Commission in 2009 and the Council’s proposals on the next steps, if any. 

The  Commission  is  however  committed  to  improving  and  developing  the  external 
aspects of CEAS. As part of it, the external aspects of practical cooperation on CEAS, 
and  in  particular  action  to  reinforce  and  improve  work  on  resettlement  and  RPPs,  will  
improve the successful resettlement of persons in need of protection outside of the EU 
and strengthen protection systems in third countries.  

The  detailed  costs  of  these  tasks  are  evaluated  in  the  financial  tables  contained  in  the 
annexes  to  this  report  as  part  of  the  cost-analysis  report  of  the  institutional  options. 
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options 
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs 
analysis  /  direct  support  /  capacity  building  and  training  /  planning,  research  and 
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.  

Entrusting  these  tasks  to  the  support  structure  appears  to  have  a  positive  impact  on 
developing the external aspects of practical cooperation on CEAS. 

Stakeholders  refer  to  problems  in  relation  to  the  efficiency,  costs  and  effectiveness  of 
resettlement  programmes  and  projects  due  to  lack  of  EU  coordination  in  this  area. 
Attributing such a coordination role to the EU-wide support structure would resolve this 
problem,  as  it  would  clearly  best  be  organised  at  the  Community  level,  and  would 
therefore be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. 

The number of EU countries engaged in resettlement remains low and the EU share of 
global  resettlement  efforts  very  modest.  Furthermore,  the  lack  of  EU  coordination  of 
resettlement  projects  or  programmes  most  likely  causes  higher  costs  and  lower 
efficiency.  Each  resettlement  programme  involves  a  similar  set  of  activities,  such  as 
interviewing  refugees  and  assessing  the  grounds  upon  which  resettlement  will  be 
arranged  and  making  travel  arrangements  from  the  host  country.  The  national  design 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
and implementation of resettlement programmes or projects results in a duplication of 
efforts on the part of national administrations, as well as for the UNHCR and NGOs, in 
the  country  of  resettlement  and  of  first  asylum.  Better  coordination  of  resettlement 
efforts would go some way toward minimising these inefficiencies. 

5.1.9.  Contribution of different tasks to the objectives 

All  tasks  assessed  here  above  are  assessed  as  feasible  and  contribute  to  the  three 
objectives defined under (3). The task “joint processing of asylum applications at the EU 
level” is discarded on account of its low legal and political feasibility.  

An  assessment of the impact  of  options  for the institutional form of  the future support 
structure will identify which institutional body will be in the best position to fulfil most 
efficiently these tasks.  

5.2. 

Impact of options for the institutional form of the support asylum structure 

This impact assessment report contains an ex-ante financial analysis, which is obligatory 
under the financial regulation. Detailed aspects of this ex-ante analysis are set out Annex 
4  to  this  report  with  tables  assessing  the  detailed  costs  under  the  following  headings: 
Staff costs / Building, equipment and administrative expenditure / Cost of operations.  

The  following  paragraphs  study  in  depth  the  implications  of  choosing  an  institutional 
form for the support asylum structure. This structure will be entrusted with all the tasks 
which have been assessed as being feasible (see under para. 5.1 here above). This report 
takes the view that all tasks need to be carried out by a single support structure and that 
each  institutional  policy  option  will  all  cover  the  same  range  of  tasks  .  This  will  in 
particular 

(1)  allow  an  easier  assessment  as  regard  effectiveness  of  the  support  structure  to  be 
entrusted with a whole coherent and linked tasks. 

(2)  ensure  coherence  over  a  full  mandate  covering  all  aspects  of  practical  cooperation 
related  to  CEAS,  in  ways  of  working,  inside  the  structure  and  vis-à-vis  the  outside 
world,  as  this  structure  will  be  a  single  interlocutor  for  all  the  tasks  defined  in  its 
mandate,  

(3)  allow  economies  of  scale  in  working,  as  a  single  body  in  charge  of  all  the  aspects 
will  be  in  a  better  position  to  assess  priorities  and  put  its  effort  on  the  most  important 
aspects of the different tasks in order to get quicker and better deliverables.  

(4)  and  avoid  duplication  of  work  and  tasks  between  different  bodies,  and  possible 
difficulties  of  coordination  between  different  institutional  bodies  working  in  parallel 
over the same subjects.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
5.2.1. 

Status quo 

Given  the  express  request  of  the  European  Council  to  “establish  in  2009  a  European 
support office”, this option can be discarded. 

5.2.2. 

Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources 

This  unit  would  have  mainly  (1)  a  role  of  initiation  of  new  practical  cooperation 
activities and (2) a role of coordination for these practical cooperation activities (already 
on-going ones to be enhanced and future new ones). The existing practical cooperation 
structures  already  developed  by  the  Commission  (e.g.  EURASIL,  EMN…)  would 
continue to exist and function in the same way as present and their activities would be 
developed. Relationships with external bodies would be reinforced, e.g. with UNHCR, 
external bodies (e.g. GDISC, ENARO …) and NGOs (e.g. ECRE, Red Cross…). 

The political feasibility of the option appears low given the scores by the Member States 
during the consultation organised in the context of the feasibility study.  

As  regards  the  legal  feasibility  of  the  option,  there  are  no  obstacles  to  reinforcing  a 
Commission’s unit. The decision to establish the unit would be an internal decision of 
the European Commission. The decision as well as the setting-up phase could be swift.  

As  regards  its  functional  and  practical  effectiveness,  the  Commission  would  be  in  a 
position  to  steer  the  activities  linked  to  practical  cooperation  related  to  CEAS.  An 
increase  in  staff  in  the  Commission’s  unit  would  however  be  fairly  limited  given  the 
current strict limitation of Commission staff. An increase in financial resources allocated 
to  this  unit  would  for  the  same  reason  be  limited,  given  the  blocked  financial 
perspectives for the Community budget until 2013. 

It would therefore most likely only be possible to create a new unit comprising about 12 
members, mainly using existing financial resources. In view of the diversity and volume 
of tasks to be entrusted to the support structure, the unit would quickly be overburdened 
and would not be in a position to deliver efficiently. On a positive note, the unit would 
have  a  strong  Commission  image,  which  may  contribute  to  the  active  involvement  of 
Member State representatives in the activities at expert level. 

The time needed to set up a new Commission’s unit would be very easy and quick and 
would take the form of a revised organigramme to be adopted by the Commission.  

As  regards  cost-effectiveness,  the  financial  costs  to  set  up  a  practical  cooperation  unit 
within the Commission would range between 3 and 5.7 million euro with an estimated 
set-up cost of over 0.3 million euro. In the first year, the unit is thus estimated to cost 
around  3.3  euro,  as  it  will  include  start-up  costs,  an  initial  round  of  recruitment  and  a 
relatively  limited  set  of  tasks  and  activities,  which  can  gradually  be  increased.  See 
detailed table of costs “EC Commission Unit” in Annex 4 (ex-ante financial analysis).  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
It  is  estimated  that  the  national  inputs  to  practical  cooperation,  estimated  at  around  6 
million  euro,  would  initially  continue  and  gradually  be  halved,  due  to  greater 
efficiencies. The details are given in Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s dedicated to 
transnational practical cooperation”).  

In terms of staffing numbers, the unit would require between 11 – 15 FTEs. This number 
of staff to be allocated to the Commission's unit is evaluated in view of the common size 
of  an  administrative  unit  within  the  Commission’s  administrative  organisation.  It  is 
considered it would not be possible to create a stronger unit or a whole service dedicated 
to asylum tasks within the Commission in view of the current financial perspectives till 
2013  and  current  restrictions  over  Commission's  staff.  Additional  external  resources 
could  be  procured.  The  unit  would  also  have  access  to  a  funding  stream  from  the 
European Refugee Fund.  

This  option,  though  entailing  positive  aspects  in  terms  of  delivery  and  effectiveness, 
runs  a  high  risk  of  failure  on  account  of  the  limited  staffing  numbers    and  of  the 
consequent risk of the structure getting quickly overburdened in view of the number and 
variety  of  tasks  to  be  dealt  with.  It  cannot  therefore  be  deemed  as  a  good  option  for 
establishing the support structure.  

5.2.3.  Creating a new network 

Regarding  the  political  feasibility  of  this  option,  it  received  mixed  support  by  the 
Member  States.  Overall,  a  higher  level  of  political  commitment  would  be  given  to  a 
more  stable  structure  to  further  practical  cooperation,  rather  than  to  a  structure  highly 
dependent on inputs and outputs from other structures. 

Regarding  the  legal  feasibility  of  this  option,  the  network  would  be  established  by  a 
Council  Decision,  probably  on  the  legal  basis  of  Article  66  TEC  (administrative 
cooperation). The feasibility might be reduced as a result of the different legal statuses 
(or rather the absence of statuses) of some of the existing cooperation structures and the 
extent  to  which  these  could  sign  up  to  an  umbrella  network  and  common  work 
programme.  

Regarding  its  functional  and  practical  effectiveness,  an  umbrella  network,  made  up  of 
different  existing  cooperation  structures,  could  be  significantly  hampered  by  low 
participation and complex management and organisational structures. On the other hand, 
the Open Method of Coordination, to be introduced as working method of the network, 
would ensure a bottom-up approach building on existing successful work and focusing 
on  real  needs  and  gaps.  However,  it  must  be  recalled  that  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination  is  unknown  in  the  JLS  sector.  The  use  of  the  working  method  has  been 
limited  to  specific  sectors,  such  as  the  social  sector.  Moreover,  the  OMC  excludes  de 
facto  the  participation  of  the  European  Parliament  in  the  process.  This  is  likely  to 
significantly reduce the support of the European Parliament for this option. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
However,  the  balance  may  tip  in  favour  of  participation  as  existing  structures  would 
receive  both  financial  and  technical  support  for  implementing  activities.  Such  support 
would be more continuous than current grants. 

Regarding  the  management  of  the  structure,  an  umbrella  network  of  very  different 
structures involving different types of bodies could prove to be very difficult to manage 
and  coordinate  practically  and  effectively.  While  a  common  work  programme  would 
surely increase commitment and lead to some synergies, it could prove very difficult for 
different existing cooperation structures to agree on a selection of activities and working 
methods.  Disagreement  may  result  in  (severe)  obstructions  to  the  functioning  of  the 
network.  It  would  also  require  extensive  work  to  identify  the  different  roles  and 
responsibilities of members of the network and to make sure that they are fulfilled.  

Regarding the time needed to set up the network, it is likely to entail delays. A proposal 
for an establishment decision should be made by the Commission and then adopted by 
the  legislator.  For  the  network  to  be  fully operational,  regarding  participation,  existing 
cooperation  structures  may  be  resistant  to  the  concept  of  being  grouped  into  a  larger 
structure and find it difficult to convince their network partners to stay involved, as most 
are  based  on  voluntary  participation.  In  addition,  most  existing  structures  will  already 
have defined their work programmes for the next 2-3 years. They may not wish to alter 
this,  or  stop  some  activities  altogether,  because  an  umbrella  network  is  created.  Some 
may  also  be  unable  to  make  changes  as  funding  would  already  be  in  place  for  certain 
activities.  This  would  entail  large  delays  of  up  to  a  few  years  before  the  network  is 
operational. 

Regarding  the  Commission’s  support  for  the  network,  the  Commission  would  be  most 
likely responsible for running the network. This would place a substantial burden on the 
Commission  and  require  it  to  increase  inputs  both  in  terms  of  human  and  financial 
resources in parallel to the creation of the network. The network would therefore require 
substantial  support  from  the  Commission,  to  be  estimated  between  9-15  FTEs. 
Additional external resources could be procured.  

As  regards  cost-effectiveness,  the  financial  costs  for  establishing  the  network  would 
range  between  3.9  –  8  million  euro  with  an  estimated  set-up  cost  of  over  0.3  million 
euro. In the first year, the network is thus estimated to cost around 3.3 euro, including 
start-up  costs,  an  initial  round  of  recruitment  and  a  relatively  limited  set  of  tasks  and 
activities,  which  can  gradually  be  increased.  See  detailed  table  of  costs  “Network”  in 
Annex 4 (ex-ante financial analysis).  

It  is  estimated  that  the  national  inputs  to  practical  cooperation  estimated  at  around  6 
million euro, would initially continue and gradually be halved, due to some efficiencies 
made  by  the  network.  The  details  are  given  in  Annex  5  (Table  5.6  “estimated  FTE’s 
dedicated to transnational practical cooperation”).  

In  terms  of  staff  numbers,  the  network  would  include  dedicated  staff  working  in  the 
contracted  coordination  unit,  which  could  range  from  5-15  FTEs.  Additional  external 
resources could be procured or obtained through grants. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
This option has a low degree of feasibility and practical effectiveness, on account of the 
difficulties  the  network  would  have  for  effective  delivery  (organisational  structure  and 
working method). Moreover, it entails substantial support from the Commission. It can 
therefore not be considered a good option for establishing the support structure. 

5.2.4.  Creation of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) as a regulatory agency 

The office would take over the activities on practical cooperation currently dealt with by 
the  Commission.  It  would  absorb  the  existing  Commission’s  expert  group  EURASIL, 
which  would  become  a  full  working  group  of  the  office.  As  far  as  its  mandate  is 
concerned,  it  would  have  a  role  of  coordination  and  initiation  of  practical  cooperation 
activities in the field of asylum. It would bring technical support, e.g. being responsible 
for  managing  and  developing  the  COI  portal  or  supplying  necessary  translations.  It 
would be a centre of European asylum expertise, networking and pooling good practice 
and evaluating the application and implementation of CEAS rules.  

Regarding the political feasibility of the option, all Community institutions are presently 
in  favour  of  this  option.  The  Council,  European  Council  and  European  Parliament 
reiterated many times since the Hague programme and in subsequent positions that they 
favour the option of a support office. The Commission indicated in the Communication 
“Regulatory  agencies  —  The  way  forward”  that  an  exception  to  the  moratorium  on 
creation of new regulatory agencies would be made in order to keep open the possibility 
of creating the support office for asylum, in the form of a regulatory agency. It appears 
therefore that the creation of the Office is called for by all institutions. Upon a proposal 
of  the  Commission,  the  political  commitment  of  the  Member  States  and  European 
Parliament (budgetary authority) can therefore be considered as high.  

Regarding the legal feasibility of the option, the Support Office would be established by 
a  Regulation,  which  would  make  it  an  independent  body  in  the  institutional  form  of  a 
regulatory agency.  

The functional and practical effectiveness of the office would be high, following these 
lines: 

•  The  structure  of  the  agency  would  reflect  a  participatory  approach,  as  it  would  be 
managed by its Management Board, with the Member States and the Commission as 
members.  

•  Other stakeholders would be involved in the office through participation in working 

groups and consultative fora.  

•  The  work  programme  and  budget  of  the  support  office  would  be  decided  by  the 

Management Board. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
•  The  office  would  be  submitted  to  horizontal  rules  applicable  to  regulatory  agencies 

on evaluation and controls49.  

•  As  far  as  evaluation  is  concerned,  once  the  agency  has  been  set  up,  both  it  and  the 
Commission will carry out regular evaluations of its activities and operations. On this 
basis,  the  Commission  may  propose  revising  or,  where  appropriate,  repealing  the 
basic act50.  

•  As far as controls are concerned, budgetary control, internal audits, annual reports by 
the  Court  of  Auditors,  the  annual  discharge  for  the  execution  of  the  Community 
budget and the investigations conducted by OLAF will make it possible to ensure, in 
particular,  that  the  resources  allocated  to  the  agencies  are  put  to  proper  use. 
Administrative control will ensure that a number of procedural safeguards are put in 
place so that account is taken of the interests of interested parties and the quality of 
output51.  

With regard to the organisational structure of the Support Office, it would be preferable 
to  create  a  reduced  management  board  to  ensure  efficient  management,  or,  if  this  is 
impractical, to set up an executive board in charge of the day-to-day management of the 
office,  since  a  large  management  board  could  slow  down  decision-making  and  reduce 
the effectiveness of the Office. 

Regarding  the  time  needed  to  set  up  the  support  office,  it  is  estimated  that  it  could  be 
operational  within  one  year  of  adopting  the  establishing  act.  Moreover,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  Commission  would  fully  support  the  new  agency  during  the  setting-up 
phase (see under “support of the Commission to the future structure”), it seems possible 
to reach this objective. Some precedents may be quoted, such as the European Chemical 
Agency  (ECHA  -  Helsinki),  that,  with  full  support  from  the  Commission  became 
quickly operational.  

Regarding cost-effectiveness, the financial costs to set up the support office would range 
between 10.3 – 17.6 million euro with an estimated set-up cost of over 0.6 million euro. 
This  is  an  estimated  cost  in  view  of  the  number  of  varied  tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  the 
Support Office and in view of the fact that the Support Office would from scratch take 
over  important  tasks  linked  to  practical  cooperation  initiatives  already  underway  (e.g. 
transfer of EURASIL to the support office, COI portal ). With this budget, the support 
office is expected to greatly improve and expand practical cooperation linked to CEAS, 
thus  reducing  current  duplication,  addressing  gaps  and  expanding  the  overall  scope  of 
cooperation in this area.  

See  draft  interinstitutional  agreement  on  the  operating  framework  for  the  European  regulatory  agencies, 

See  draft  interinstitutional  agreement  on  the  operating  framework  for  the  European  regulatory  agencies, 

See  draft  interinstitutional  agreement  on  the  operating  framework  for  the  European  regulatory  agencies, 

49  
com(2005)59. 
50  
com(2005)59. 
51  
com(2005)59. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the first year, the support office is estimated to cost around 6 million euro, (estimated 
start-up  costs),  an  initial  round  of  recruitment  and  a  relatively  limited  set  of  tasks  and 
activities, focused on the main priority tasks, which can gradually be increased. It is also 
possible  that  in  the  first  year  of  its  implementation,  the  office  may  cost  less  than  the 
minimum running costs, as some time would be required for recruitment, development 
of  operational  procedures  and  selection  of  activities.  However,  as  there  are  already  a 
wide range of projects which could rapidly and either be taken over by the office and /or 
developed and implemented in the short term, the office would quickly require a higher 
level  of  resources.  See  detailed  table  of  costs  “EASO”  in  Annex  4  (ex-ante  financial 
analysis). 

It  is  estimated  that  the  national  inputs  to  practical  cooperation  estimated  at  around  6 
million euro would initially continue and gradually be reduced to a quarter, due to the 
fact  that  the  support  office  will  take  over  many  tasks  as  regards  practical  cooperation. 
The  final  level  of  national  support  will  be  very  low,  as  the  support  office  would 
effectively take over or finance most activities in the area of practical cooperation linked 
to CEAS and introduce greater efficiencies. The details of these national inputs are given 
in  Annex  5  (Table  5.6  “estimated  FTE’s  dedicated  to  transnational  practical 
cooperation”).  

Regarding the Commission’s support for setting up a support office, in terms of staffing, 
it  would  require  the  support  of  the  Commission  of  between  5  –  8  FTEs.  This  number 
would  cover  all  Commission  staff  within  the  Commission  dealing  with  the  agency, 
including  horizontal  services  dealing  with  horizontal  tasks  linked  to  agencies  (such  as 
Directorate  general  responsible  for  Budget  /  Legal  Service  /  Internal  Audit  Service  / 
Administration  /  Secretariat  General)  as  well  as  sectoral  services  (Directorate  general 
justice/liberty and security, JLS staff dedicated to asylum policy). It should be noted that 
the  support  office,  when  created,  will  be  a  new  regulatory  agency  and  will  face  the 
difficulties  inherent  to  setting-up  any  new  institutional  body  from  scratch.  The 
Commission  must  therefore  be  closely  involved  in  setting  up  the  support  office,  the 
rapid creation of which is expressly asked for by the European Council with a view to 
quick delivery and operational results. . 

The support office would therefore require between 60-94 FTEs, in view of the number 
of  different  and  varied  tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  it  (see  paragraphs  4.1  and  5.1).  This 
number  appears  to  be  reasonable  in  view  of  the  current  level  of  staff  involved  in 
different tasks in different existing bodies dealing with practical cooperation related to 
CEAS. This number also involves economies of scale in view of the present duplications 
between  tasks  in  those  different  bodies  /  structures  and  therefore  staff  dealing  with 
parallel tasks and missions. Additional external resources could be procured or obtained 
through grants. 

The support office appears well placed as regards political and legal feasibility. Effective 
delivery of results can be expected. As regards cost-effectiveness, the costs of creating a 
new agency may appear medium to high but given the number of tasks to be covered by 
the  support  office  and  improvement  in  the  practical  cooperation  linked  to  asylum,  the 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
costs appear reasonable. Moreover, in view of the important cuts  in  national  resources 
for practical cooperation to be made as a result of the activity of the support office, this 
option appears as a good one for the future support structure. 

5.2.5. 

Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency 

For  reasons  of  economies  of  scale,  the  activities  to  be  entrusted  to  the  support  asylum 
structure  could  be  merged  into  an  existing  regulatory  agency.  There  are  three  sub-
options (see description under 4.2.5):  

•  merge into FRA;  

•  merge into FRONTEX ;  

•  merge into the future JLS IT Agency  

5.2.5.1.  FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) 

Regarding  the  political  feasibility  of  this  option,  the  Council  and  European  Council 
called for the creation of a specific dedicated support office, and not the incorporation of 
the  future  support  asylum  structure  into  an  existing  structure.  This  would  also  be  in 
contradiction with the objective pursued by the establishment of the Fundamental Rights 
Agency,  which  deals  with  all  fundamental  rights  issues  and  in  contrast  to  the  EUMC 
which was dedicated only to racism and xenophobia. It must also be emphasized that no 
stakeholder,  Member  States  or  non-governmental  organisations  consulted  during  the 
consultation  process  organised  with  a  view  to  preparing  this  impact  assessment  report 
proposed such an option. For these reasons, the political feasibility of this option appears 
low, even if asylum is a fundamental right.  

Regarding the legal feasibility of the option, the legal basis for FRA is Article 308 TEC. 
However, the Treaty already contains a specific legal basis for asylum policy (Article 63 
TEC)  and  practical  cooperation  (Article  66  TEC),  which  could  be  considered  as 
necessary for entrusting to the Agency specific tasks as regards asylum.  

The  functional  and  practical  effectiveness  of  the  merger  would  be  medium.  There  are 
some pros and cons to this option, as follows: 

•  Some  of  the  existing  horizontal  departments,  such  as  administration,  finance  and 
procurement could be shared, producing economies of scale, although the creation of 
a  dedicated  asylum  department  within  the  agency  may  still  entail  reinforcing  these 
horizontal  services  within  the  agency.  In  any  case,  the  creation  of  an  additional 
department would imply a new significant change in terms of staff and organisational 
structure  of  the  agency,  which  has  only  very  recently  been  modified.  FRA 
commenced operations only in March 2007. 

•  FRA is a relatively small agency with a staff of about 50 people. Should a dedicated 
asylum  structure  be  merged  into  FRA,  the  nature  and  content  of  the  core  tasks  of 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
FRA  would  be  substantially  altered  and  possibly  create  an  imbalance  within  the 
newly established agency towards asylum tasks. This could potentially be politically 
counterproductive  as  the  FRA  was  been  (recently)  created  with  the  specific  aim  of 
promoting the full range of fundamental rights, with certain priority areas referred to 
in the basic Regulation.   

•  It would therefore be difficult to envisage merging a new dedicated asylum structure 
of some 60-94 people (see above under para. 5.2.4) into the FRA without full-scale 
changes  to  its  operation  and  mission  dedicated  to  data  collection  and  related 
awareness-raising  about  fundamental  rights.  For  this  reason,  the  asylum  department 
may be staffed by no more than 20-30 people, without risking upsetting the balance 
within the agency and involve resistance within the Agency as regards the creation of 
this  new  department  and  new  part  of  the  mandate.  Such  a  limited  number  of  staff 
dedicated  to  asylum  tasks  may  however  be  a  barrier  to  the  full  effectiveness  and 
positive impact of the support asylum structure merged into the FRA.  

•  The  FRA  is  fully  dedicated  to  data  collection  and  related  awareness-raising    tasks 
and,  as  such,  was  not  meant  to  develop  experience  in  dealing  with  practical 
cooperation  on  asylum  and  related  operational  tasks.  However,  since  its  mandate 
focuses  on  Fundamental  Rights,  and  the  right  to  asylum  is  a  fundamental  right,  the 
asylum  tasks  would  be  in  line  with  the  mandate.  Politically,  the  stakeholders,  in 
particular  external  stakeholders  (IGOs  and  NGOs),  may  consider  it  to  be  a  positive 
trend.  

•  FRA does not have operational tasks and, if it were to host an asylum department, it 
would  need  to  acquire  know-how  and  expertise  on  practical  cooperation  and 
operational tasks in the field of asylum policy. This could entail delays in setting up 
the dedicated department and disrupt the current work of the FRA.  

•  Should the FRA be placed in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to a specific support 
asylum  structure,  the  Management  and  Executive  Boards  may  need  to  be 
reconfigured,  as  it  currently  does  not  include  representatives  of  asylum  national 
services. This would open another transitional phase for the Agency, which has just 
finished  its  institutional  transformation  process  from  EUMC  to  the  Fundamental 
Rights Agency.  

Regarding the time needed to implement this option, an estimation is at least 3/4 years, 
given  the  need  to  amend  the  establishing  act  of  the  FRA  and  the  time  needed  after 
adopting this amendment to implement the new mandate (hire new staff / provide for the 
new organisation within the agency / adapt to new work).  

Regarding  cost-effectiveness,  the  financial  costs  for  merging  the  support  structure  into 
the FRA would range from 6.6 – 12.1 million euro with an estimated set-up cost of over 
0.6  million  euro.  See  detailed  table  of  costs  “FRA”  in  Annex  4  (ex-ante  financial 
analysis). 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
It is estimated that national inputs to practical cooperation, estimated at around 6 million 
euro,  would  initially  continue  and  gradually  be  reduced  to  a  quarter,  due  to  greater 
efficiencies  in  the  work  of  the  FRA.  The  final  contributions  will  be  low,  as  the  FRA 
would effectively take over or finance most activities in the area of practical cooperation 
and  introduce  greater  efficiencies.  The  details  of  these  national  inputs  are  given  in 
Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s dedicated to transnational practical cooperation”).  

Regarding  the  Commission’s  support  for  this  option,  in  terms  of  staffing,  it  requires 
substantial  involvement  of  the  Commission  in  supporting  the  FRA’s  development,  in 
order to avoid any delay in achieving the asylum tasks. Merging asylum tasks into the 
FRA  would  therefore  require  the  Commission  to  dedicate  between  5  –  8  FTEs. 
Commission  staff  includes  specialised  staff  dedicated  to  asylum  tasks  and  horizontal 
tasks  linked  to  agencies  within  the  Commission,  particularly  regarding  budgetary, 
staffing and audit issues. This evaluation of the staff needed for supporting the merge of 
the  support  structure  is  comparable  to  the  one  needed  for  creation  of  the  support 
structure under the form of a regulatory agency.  

The  asylum  department  of  the  FRA  would  require  between  29-46  FTEs.  This  would 
create within FRA a substantial new department working exclusively on new tasks, with 
the risk of unbalancing the agency. 

This  option  may  have  a  certain  level  of  feasibility  in  political  terms.  However,  the 
creation  of  an  asylum  department  in  the  FRA  entails  the  risk  of  institutional  and  legal 
complications  and  would  require  a  new  adaptation  phase  for  FRA.  The  option  is 
therefore a medium one for establishing the support structure, as it can result in making 
it difficult for the agency to deliver what it has  been  expected to deliver at the time it 
was created and on the basis of its current mandate and tasks.  

5.2.5.2.  FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation 

at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union)  

Regarding  the  political  feasibility  of  the  option,  the  Council  and  European  Council 
called  for  the  creation  of  a  dedicated  support  office.  For  this  reason,  the  political 
feasibility of this option is medium low. Moreover, the main focus of FRONTEX is to 
control  legal  immigration  and  to  prevent  illegal  immigration  and  FRONTEX  is  not 
familiar  with  fundamental  rights  issues  in  general,  and  in  particular  with  the  right  to 
asylum and the protection of personal data. For that reason, the risk exists that entrusting 
FRONTEX with the tasks to be given to the support structure would not ensure that the 
objective is properly reached and it would therefore be politically problematic to merge 
an  asylum  department  into  FRONTEX.  Finally,  it  must  also  be  emphasized  that  no 
stakeholder,  Member  States  or  non-governmental  organisations  consulted  during  the 
consultation  process  organised  with  a  view  to  preparing  this  impact  assessment  report 
proposed such an option. For that reason, the political feasibility of the option appears 
low.  

Regarding the legal feasibility of the option, the legal basis of FRONTEX already covers 
administrative cooperation (Article 66 TEC) but not asylum policy (Article 63 TEC). In 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
view of the fact that the Treaty contains a specific legal basis for asylum policy, if the 
current legal basis were left unchanged, it could be legally disputed before the Court of 
Justice.  Should  the  current  legal  basis  of  FRONTEX  remain  unchanged,  the  agency 
would  not,  legally  speaking,  be  underpinned  by  the  asylum  acquis,  should  Article  63 
TEC  be  considered  necessary  to  entrust  it  with  all  activities  related  to  practical 
cooperation on CEAS.  

The  functional  and  practical  effectiveness  of  the  merger  would  be  medium.  There  are 
some pros and cons as follows: 

•  Some  of  the  existing  horizontal  departments,  such  as  administration,  finance  and 
procurement could be shared, producing economies of scale. However, the creation of 
a  dedicated  asylum  department  within  the  agency  would  entail  reinforcing  these 
horizontal services within the agency. This would also imply a further change to the 
staff  and  organisational  structure  of  the  agency,  which  is  a  relatively  new  and  just 
past the setting up phase. 

•  FRONTEX  is  a  relatively  small  agency  with  a  staff  of  about  70  people.  Should  a 
dedicated  asylum  structure  be  merged  into  FRONTEX,  the  content  of  the  work  of 
FRONTEX  would  radically  change  and  possibly  create  an  imbalance  within  the 
agency  towards  asylum  tasks.  This  may  be  politically  counterproductive  as 
FRONTEX was created with the specific purpose of managing measures relating to 
the management of external borders. 

•  It would be difficult to envisage merging a new dedicated asylum structure of some 
60-94  people  (see  above  under  para.  5.2.4)  into  FRONTEX  without  a  full-scale 
change to its functioning and mission. For this reason, the asylum department should 
be  limited  to  a  staff  of  20-30  people,  to  avoid  FRONTEX  becoming  an  asylum 
agency  and  losing  its  focus  on  the  management  of  external  borders.  Such  limited 
staffing levels dedicated to asylum tasks might be a barrier to full effectiveness and 
positive impact of the support asylum structure merged with FRONTEX. 

•  FRONTEX  is  fully  dedicated  to  operational  tasks  linked  to  the  management  of 
external borders. It does not have experience in dealing with practical cooperation in 
the  field  of  asylum.  Even  if  FRONTEX  were  in  a  position  to  identify  and  assess 
clearly and effectively the needs for protecting asylum seekers at the borders, in the 
context of mixed flows, it does not follow that it would be in a position to improve 
exchange of good practices (one of the objectives defined under 3) or achieve fair and 
more  harmonised  processing  of  applications  for  international  protection  throughout 
the Union.  

•  From  a  political  point  of  view,  the  stakeholders,    external  stakeholders  (IGOs  and 
NGOs), but also some Member States and the European Parliament may consider that 
entrusting tasks in the asylum field to FRONTEX, an agency that mainly deals with 
controlling legal immigration and preventing illegal immigration, is inappropriate and 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
potentially counterproductive. The political feasibility of this option appears therefore 
low.  

•  If  FRONTEX  were  to  host  an  asylum  department,  it  should  acquire  know-how  and 
expertise in this field, as they do not have any for the time being. This could entail 
delays  in  setting  up  the  dedicated  department  within  FRONTEX  and  disrupt  the 
current work of FRONTEX.  

•  Should  FRONTEX  be  placed  in  charge  of  the  tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  the  support 
asylum structure, the Management Board would have  to be fully reconfigured, as it 
currently  include  representatives  of  the  national  immigration  services  and  does  not 
the 
include  representatives  of  asylum  national  services.  Difficulties  within 
Management Board have to be foreseen as it may be problematic to take into account 
the different, if not diverging interests (illegal immigration / asylum) which would be 
represented within the Agency.  

•  The  Director  of  the  agency  is  nominated  by  the  Management  Board.  Should  the 
structure, members and functioning of the Management Board change in line with the 
new asylum part of the agency, the nomination of the present director could be called 
into question. The nomination of a new Director suitable for overseeing both interests 
to  be  represented  in  the  agency  could  be  envisaged  but  may  be  problematic  as  it 
should take into account the different, if not diverging interests (illegal immigration / 
asylum) represented within the Agency. This may imply a difficult transitional period 
for the agency. 

•  Regarding the time needed to implement this option, an estimation is 3/4 years, given 
the  need  to  amend  the  establishing  act  of  FRONTEX  and  the  time  needed  after 
adoption of this amendment to implement the new mandate (hire new staff, provide 
for new organisation within the agency, adapt to new tasks).  

Regarding  cost-effectiveness,  the  financial  costs  for  merging  the  support  structure  into 
FRONTEX would range from 6.6 – 11.9 million euro with an estimated set-up cost of 
over  0.6  million  euro.  See  detailed  table  of  costs  “FRONTEX”  in  Annex  4  (ex-ante 
financial analysis). 

It is estimated that national inputs to practical cooperation, estimated at around 6 million 
euro, would initially continue and gradually be reduced to a quarter, due to efficiencies 
in  the  work  of  FRONTEX.  The  final  level  of  contributions  will  be  low  as  FRONTEX 
would effectively take over or finance most activities in the area of practical cooperation 
and  introduce  greater  efficiencies.  The  details  of  these  national  inputs  are  given  in 
Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s dedicated to transnational practical cooperation”).  

Regarding  the  Commission’s  support  for  this  option,  in  terms  of  staffing  numbers, 
FRONTEX  would  require  between 5 – 8 FTEs of Commission staff. The Commission 
would have to be closely involved in supporting FRONTEX’s development in order to 
avoid  any  delay  in  fulfilling  the  asylum  tasks.  Commission  staff  includes  specialised 
staff dedicated to asylum tasks and horizontal tasks for agencies within the Commission, 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
in particular budgetary, staffing and audit issues. This evaluation of the staff needed for 
supporting  the  merger  of  the  support  structure  is  comparable  to  the  one  needed  for 
creation of the support structure under the form of a regulatory agency.  

The asylum department of FRONTEX would require between 29-46 FTEs. This would 
create a new department working exclusively on new tasks with the risk of unbalancing 
the agency. 

The  option  of  merging  the  support  asylum  structure  into  FRONTEX  scores  low  on 
political and legal feasibility, on account of the mandate of FRONTEX which focuses on 
controlling legal immigration and preventing illegal immigration. Moreover, creating an 
asylum  department  in  FRONTEX  entails  the  risk  of  ineffectiveness  given  the  lack  of 
experience of FRONTEX in operational asylum tasks. The option therefore scores low 
for establishing the support structure.  

5.2.5.3.  JLS  IT  Agency  (Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  SIS  II,  VIS, 

EURODAC and other large-scale IT systems). 

Regarding  the  political  feasibility  of  this  option,  the  Council  and  European  Council 
called for the creation of a specific support office.  It must also be emphasized that no 
stakeholder,  Member  States  or  non-governmental  organisations  consulted  during  the 
consultation  process  organised  with  a  view  to  preparing  this  impact  assessment  report 
proposed such an option. For that reason, the political feasibility of the option appears 
very low.  

Regarding  the  legal  feasibility  of  the  option,  the  legal  basis  of  the  IT  Agency,  as 
currently provided for in the Commission’s proposal, covers part of the asylum acquis 
(Article  63(1)(a)  and  63(3)(b))  and  administrative  cooperation  under  Article  66TEC). 
However, the asylum acquis is only partly covered. In view of the tasks to be entrusted 
to  the  support  asylum  structure,  the  current  legal  basis  enshrined  in  the  asylum  field 
appears insufficient to cover these tasks. Should the present legal basis of the IT Agency 
remain unchanged, the agency could, legally speaking, be disputed before the Court of 
Justice,  should  Article  63  TEC  be  considered  necessary  to  entrust  it  with  all  activities 
related to practical cooperation on CEAS.  

The  IT-Agency,  in  view  of  its  mandate,  will  not  be  familiar  with  fundamental  rights 
issues in general and in particular with the right to asylum and the protection of personal 
data. For that reason, the risk exists that entrusting this agency with the tasks to be given 
to  the  support  structure  would  not  ensure  that  the  objective  is  properly  reached  and  it 
would  therefore  be  politically  problematic  to  merge  an  asylum  department  into  it.The 
functional and practical effectiveness of the merger would be medium. There are some 
pros and cons, as follows: 

•  Some  of  the  existing  horizontal  departments,  such  as  administration,  finance  and 
procurement could be shared, creating economies of scale. However, the creation of a 
substantial, dedicated asylum department within the agency would entail reinforcing 
the agency’s horizontal services.  

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
•  The  IT  Agency  has  an  estimated  staff  of  120  people.  Should  a  dedicated  asylum 
structure be merged into it, the content of the work of the agency could change and 
possibly create an imbalance within the agency towards asylum tasks. This would be 
politically  counterproductive  as  the  IT  Agency  will  be  created  with  the  specific 
purpose  of  managing  large-scale  IT  systems  such  as  SIS  II  and  VIS,  not  only 
EURODAC. 

•  It  would  be  difficult  to  envisage  a  new  dedicated  asylum  structure  of  some  60-94 
people  (see  above  under  para.  5.2.4)  to  be  merged  into  the  IT  Agency  without  a 
wholesale  change  to  its  functioning  and  mission.  For  this  reason,  the  asylum 
department  should  be  limited  to  a  staff  of  20-30  people,  to  avoid  the  IT  Agency 
becoming  an  asylum agency  and losing its  focus  on the  operational management of 
large IT systems. 

•  The IT Agency will be fully dedicated to the operational management of large scale 
IT  systems.  It  will  have  no  experience  in  dealing  with  practical  cooperation  in  the 
field of asylum. The IT Agency will also be in charge of the operational management 
of  the  EURODAC  database.  However,  this  technical  support  to  the  EURODADC 
system will not result in any positive impact on practical cooperation, approximation 
and improving the exchange of good practices (one of the objectives defined under 3) 
as it will be limited to managing the IT system.  

•  The IT agency will have to be created from scratch. The large-scale IT systems might 
have to be moved to a new location (Strasbourg — France). This may entail delays 
during the setting-up phase. It could be difficult for the new agency to begin activities 
in two very different fields of work at the same time, which may prevent the agency 
from becoming fully operational on both aspects of its mandate.  

•  Politically, stakeholders could deem entrusting tasks in the asylum field to an agency 
dealing  mostly  with  IT-systems  in  the  field  of  border  controls  to  be  highly 
inappropriate. 

•  Should the IT Agency be in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to the support asylum 
structure, the Management Board would have to be reconfigured as it currently does 
not include representatives of asylum national services.  

•  The  Director  of  the  agency  is  nominated  by  the  Management  Board.  Should  the 
structure, members and functioning of the Management Board change in line with the 
new asylum department, the nomination of the director will have to take into account 
different, if not diverging interests (IT / Asylum) represented within the Agency. 

Regarding  cost-effectiveness,  the  financial  costs  for  merging  the  support  structure  into 
the future IT Agency would range from 6.6 – 12.3 million euro with an estimated set-up 
cost of  over 0.6 million euro.  See detailed table of  costs “IT Agency” in Annex  4 (ex-
ante financial analysis). 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
It is estimated that national inputs to practical cooperation, estimated at around 6 million 
euro, would initially continue and gradually be halved, due to potential efficiencies. The 
details of national inputs are given in Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s dedicated to 
transnational practical cooperation”).  

Regarding the time needed to implement this option, setting up a new Agency dedicated 
to the operational management of large scale IT systems is a long process. It is expected 
that  the  IT  Agency  should  be  legally  established  in  2011  and  should  become  fully 
operational in 2012. Further delays are, however, possible, given the length of decision-
making process before the legislator 

Regarding  the  Commission’s  support  for  the  option,  in  terms  of  staffing  numbers,  the 
future IT Agency would require at least 7 – 12 FTEs (see impact assessment of the IT 
Agency  assessing  the  need  for  Commission  support  staff,  5-10  just  to  support  the 
creation  of  the  IT  Agency).  The  Commission  would  have  to  be  closely  involved  in 
supporting  the  IT  Agency  development  to  take  on  asylum  work,  in  order  to  avoid  any 
delay  in  fulfilling  asylum  tasks.  The  Commission  staff  includes  specialised  staff 
dedicated to asylum tasks and the horizontal tasks for Commission agencies, particularly 
budgetary, staffing and audit issues. This  evaluation of the staff needed for supporting 
the merger of the support structure is comparable to the one needed for creation of the 
support structure under the form of a regulatory agency.  

The  asylum  department  of  the  IT  Agency would require between 29-46 FTEs, since it 
would be difficult to envisage merging a new dedicated asylum structure of some 60-94 
people (see above under para. 5.2.4) into the It-Agency without full-scale changes to its 
operation  and  mission.  This  would  create  a  substantial  new  department  within  the  IT 
Agency dedicated solely to new tasks, with the risk of unbalancing the agency. Such a 
limited number of staff dedicated to asylum tasks may however finally be a barrier to the 
full effectiveness and positive impact of the support asylum structure merged into the It-
Agency.  

This  option  of  merging  the  support  structure  into  the  future  IT  Agency  scores  low  on 
political  and  legal  feasibility  terms,  on  account  of  the  mandate  of  the  IT  Agency 
dedicated  to  operational  management  of  large  scale  IT  systems.  Moreover,  creating  an 
asylum department in the future IT Agency entails the risk of ineffectiveness given the 
fact that the staff of the IT Agency will be composed to a large extent of IT specialists 
with  no  experience  in  asylum  policies.  Above  all,  the  setting  up  of  a  new  Agency 
dedicated to the operational management of large scale IT systems is a long process. It is 
expected  that  the  IT  Agency  is  legally  established  in  2011  and  should  become  fully 
operational in 2012. This timeframe is not in line with the express request made by the 
European  Council  to  establish  in  2009  a  European  support  structure  in  the  field  of 
asylum. The option therefore scores low for establishing the support structure.  

5.2.6.  Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision-making body) 

This option can be discarded as the Asylum Plan impact assessment report assessed this 
option as politically and legally unfeasible. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
5.3. 

Respect of fundamental rights 

The provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human 
Rights, the evolving case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are a constant reference point for Community action 
on  asylum  policy.  Moreover,  to  the  extent  that  the  activities  of  the  support  asylum 
support structure may involve the processing of the personal data of asylum seekers, it 
will be necessary that these activities comply with Directive 95/46, which lays down the 
legal  framework  to  ensure  the  fundamental  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  for 
any  individual  whose  personal  data  is  processed  in  the  EU.  The  same  goes  for 
Regulation (EC) 45/2001, which concerns the processing of personal data carried out by 
the Community institutions and bodies.  

Asylum seekers and persons benefiting from international protection are not EU citizens, 
which  does  not  however  preclude  them  from  being  covered  by  the  EU  Charter  on 
Fundamental Rights, which contains the right to asylum and the protection of personal 
data.  

The support asylum structure will be in charge of ensuring better practical cooperation 
on  the  CEAS  instruments.  The  asylum  regime  may  therefore  be  applied  in  a  more 
harmonised  way  throughout  the  Union,  and  reduce  the  current  disparities  in  the 
recognition  rates  for  certain  nationalities  or  groups  of  persons  requesting  international 
protection.  The  current  disparities  between  Member  States  create  differences  of 
treatment between asylum seekers and may potentially lead in certain cases to violations 
of fundamental rights such as the right to asylum (Article 18 of Charter), equality before 
the law (Article 20 of the Charter) and non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter).  

The  support  asylum  structure,  to  be  created  by  the  legislator  with  the  purpose  of 
improving  practical  cooperation  related  to  the  CEAS,  will  be  able  to  contribute  to 
allowing  any  persecuted  foreigner  to  obtain  aid  and  protection  on  the  territory  of  the 
European  Union  in  application  of  the  Geneva  Convention.  Improving  quality  is  in  the 
interest  of  the  Member  States  and  asylum  seekers  to  implement  fundamental  rights 
within the Union. It is expected to have a positive impact as a result of exchanging best 
practices,  collecting  asylum  data  to  be  used  by  the  various  stakeholders  and  collecting 
and assessing COI, as these will all contribute to a more harmonised approach. All this 
will also be achieved by ensuring close contact and full cooperation between the future 
support asylum office and the Fundamental Rights Agency.   

6. 

PREFERRED POLICY OPTION  

This  impact  assessment  report  carried  out  an  individual  analysis  for  each  institutional 
option for the future support asylum structure (see above, paragraphs 4 and 5) assessing 
the available options. The major findings for the eight options are compared in the table 
below.  It  must  be  noted  that  the  criteria  “Achievement  of  objectives”,  “Political 
feasibility”  and  “Implications  for  EU  budget”  were  considered  as  key  for  the  final 
assessment of the options. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Time needed for 
implementation 

Achievement 
of objectives 
(functional and 
practical 
effectiveness) 

High (+++) 
to 
Low (- - -) 

Short (+++) 
To  
Long (- - -) 

0 

+ 

- - 

+++ 

- 

- 

- - - 

+++ 

0 

++ 

- 

+ 

- 

- 

- - - 

+ 

ASSESSMENT 

OPTIONS 

Option 1 
Status Quo 
Option 2 
COM’s 
Unit 
Option 3 
Network 

Option 4 
EASO 

Option 5 
FRA 

Option 6 
FRONTEX 

Option 7 
IT Agency 

Option 8 
Authority 

EN 

Legal feasibility 

Political 
feasibility 

Implication for EU budget 
(see detailed figures in financial annexes to this impact 
assessment report – Ex-ante financial analysis) 

Overall 
Assessment 

Support needed 
from the 
Commission to 
the future 
(external) 
structure 

High (-- -) 
to 
Low (+++) 

High (+++) 
to 
Low(- - -) 

High (+++) 
to 
Low (- - -) 

0 

0 

Non-
applicable 

- -  

- - 

- -  

- -  

- - 

- - 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

+ 

- 

Estimated start-
up 2010  

Minimum  on-
going costs 2011  

0 

0 

Maximum 
ongoing costs 
2011 onwards 
0 

320.000 

2.959.017 

5.732.809 

345.000 

3.970.395 

8.067.187 

0 

- - 

+ 

+++ 

6.145.016 

10.318.738 

17.612 984 

600.000 

6.654.449 

12.104.600 

+ 

- 

- - 

600.000 

6.654.449 

11.940.342 

600.000 

6.818.706 

12.331.105 

- - - 

- - -- 

Non-
available 

Non-
available 

Non-
available 

53 

Positive  
(+ to +++) 
Negative  
(- to - - - ) 

0 

+ 

- 

++(+) 

- 

- - 

- - - 

- - - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On  the  basis  of  the  above,  from  an  institutional  point  of  view,  the  creation  of  a 
regulatory agency as the institutional feature for the future European Asylum Support 
Office appears to be the preferred policy option.  

The  European  Asylum  Support  Office  appears  the  best  option  to  enhancing  practical 
cooperation  on  CEAS  as  regards  the  full  set  of  tasks  to  be  entrusted  to  the  support 
structure. Though it is the most expansive solution in financial terms, the creation of the 
support office under the form of a regulatory agency appears to be the preferred option, 
as it will be the best efficient as regards the achievement of objectives, and as it appears 
to  have  higher  legal  and  political  feasibility  than  the  other  institutional  options.  In 
particular, the office will have full support from the European Parliament and Member 
States for a quick adoption of the founding regulation. It will also have full support from 
the  Commission's  services  for  helping  in  a  quick  set-up  of  the  office  after  adoption  of 
the founding regulation by the legislator. It will be an European independent centre for 
expertise in asylum at European level and will help Member States become familiar with 
the systems and practices of others, to develop closer working relations between asylum 
services  at  operational  level,  build  trust  and  confidence  in  each  others’  systems  and 
achieve greater consistency in practice.  

Costs of preferred option 

A detailed analysis of the costs of the preferred policy option is provided in Annex 4.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The establishing act of the European Asylum Support Office will provide for all control 
mechanisms of a regulatory agency. 

-  The  establishing  act  of  the  Office  will  contain  a  clause  to  evaluate  the  Office.  The 
agency  will  be  submitted  to  an  evaluation  every  5  years.  Following  this  evaluation,  a 
review of the establishing act may be proposed by the Commission.  

-  The  Office  will  produce  an  annual  report,  detailing  the  work  carried  out  during  the 
reference period.  

-  The  Office  will  produce  an  annual  asylum  report,  which  will  cover  the  following 
aspects, used as indicators for the activities of the Office (to be laid out in detail by the 
legislator in the establishing act). 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1:  
OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED DURING THE 
FEASIBILITY STUDY 

Table 1.1 Overview of stakeholders consulted in the course of the assignment 

Name of organisation / 
Institute 

Contact person at 
org/instit. 

Position / role 

Interview 
conducted 

European Commission, DG 
JLS 

Jean 
Brouwer 

Louis 

de 

Angela Martini 

Lauri Holmen 

Gert Jan van Holk 

Stephen Davies 

Director Directorate B 

Head  of  asylum  team 
B2 

Policy  officer  asylum 
B2 

Policy  officer  asylum 
B2 

Policy  officer  asylum 
B2 

Muriel Guin 

Head of unit B4 

Doede Ackers 

Policy officer B4 

Patrick Lefevre 

Hendrik Silberstein 

Ass. 
Manager B4 

Programme 

Ass. 
Manager B4 

Programme 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes  

European Commission, 
Secretariat General 

Françoise Comte 

Legal 
Agencies, SG-E1 

officer, 

Yes 

Hubert Pirker 

MEP for EPP 

Ms. Jean Lambert 

MEP for Greens  

Yes 

Yes 

European Parliament 

Claude Moraes 

MEP 

Martine Roure 

MEP for PSE 

Difficulties 
arrange interview 

to 

Difficulties 
arrange interview 

to 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
Baroness 
Ludford 

Sarah 

MEP 

European Parliament 

Mr. Giusto Catania 

MEP for GUE 

Jeanine 
Plasschaert 

Hennis-

MEP for ALDE -  

UNHCR 

Madeline Garlick 

Blanche Tax  

Senior 
Affairs Officer  

European 

European 
Officer 

Affairs 

ECRE 

Chris Nash 

Legal officer 

Difficulties 
arrange interview 

to 

Difficulties 
arrange interview 

to 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

CCME (Churches' 
Commission for Migrants in 
Europe) 

Dorish Peschke 

General secretary 

Yes 

Jesuit Refugee Service Europe  Jan Stuyt 

Regional Director 

Yes 

Caritas 

Peter Verhaeghe 

Migration Officer 

Yes 

International Federation of 
Red Cross and Red Crescent 
Societies 

Andrea Jacober 

Coordinator  Austrian 
Red Cross 

Yes 

IGC 
Consultations 
Refugee 
Policies) 

(Inter-Governmental 
on  Asylum, 
and  Migration 

GDISC (General Directors of 
27 European Immigration 
Services) 

Mike Bisi 

Deputy Coordinator 

Yes 

Peter Veld 

Chair 

Yes 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EMN 

Stephen Davies 

Policy  officer  asylum 
B2 

Yes 

Eurasil 

Didier Mouton 

John Ryan 

Wolfgang Bartsch 

Mark Ockelton 

Petr Hlavacek 

Ziga Tomc 

Pawel Domanski 

Representative 
OFPRA,  France 
Eurasil 

of 
to 

Yes 

Judge, 
of Ireland to Eurasil 

representative 

Judge, 
of Germany to Eurasil  Yes 

representative 

Judge, 
of the UK to Eurasil 

representative 

Yes 

of 
Representative 
for 
Department 
Asylum  and  Migration 
Policy, Czech Republic   Yes 

Representative 
Asylum 
Ministry  of 
Slovenia 

of 
section, 
Interior, 

Representative 
of 
Office  for  Repatriation 
and  Aliens,  Poland  to 
Eurasil 

Yes 

Yes 

The Netherlands 

Immigratie 
Naturalisatiedienst (IND) 

en 

Peter Veld 

General Director 

Yes 

Ministry of Justice 

H.P. Schreinemachers 

Ministry of Justice 

Alexander Sorel 

Deputy 
Policy division 

Director, 

Yes 

Senior 
Directorate 
European 
International Affairs 

Advisor, 
for 
and 

Yes 

Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland 

Trees Wijn-Maatman  Head 

of 

policy  Yes 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
department 

Stefan Kok 

Senior policy officer 

Yes 

Belgium 

Commissariaat 
Vluchtelingen en Staatlozen 

voor 

Federaal  Agentschap  voor  de 
Opvang 
van  Asielzoekers 
(Fedasil) 

Dirk Van den Bulck 

Commissaris-Generaal  Yes 

Joan Ramakers 

Adjunct-directeur 
operationele diensten  Yes 

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen 

Pieter Degryse 

Director 

Yes 

Kathelijne Houben 

Stefan Henau 

Italy 

Ministry of Interior 

Renato Franceschelli 

Alessandra 
Camporotta 

Prefect,  Head  of  the 
Department  for  Civil 
Liberties 
and 
Immigration 

Yes 

Immigrazione 

(project 

in 

Dipartimento 
dell' ANCI 

UNHCR 
Lampedusa) 

CIR 

Luca Pacini 

Head of Department 

Yes 

Paolo Artini 

Regional  Head 
Protection 

of 

Christopher Hein 

Director 

Yes 

Yes 

United Kingdom  

Lin Homer 

Director 
Executive 

and  Chief 

Yes 

Home Office, Border and 
Immigration Agency 

Neal Barcoe 

Mark Ockelton 

Assistant 
Director, 
Asylum Policy, Border 
Immigration 
and 
Agency  

Judge, 
of the UK to Eurasil 

representative 

British Refugee Council 

Helen Muggeridge  

International 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Germany 

(Federal  Office 

BAMF 
Migration 
Federal Ministry of the Interior)  Albert Schmid 

for 
Refugees, 

and 

Protection 
Advisor 

Policy 

President of BAMF 

Awaiting  written 
response 

integration, 
DG  Migration, 
refugees 
European 
and 
harmonisation, Federal Ministry 
of Interior 

Gerold Lehnguth 

Head of DG 

Yes 

Wolfgang Bartsch 

Judge,  Representative 
of Germany to Eurasil  Yes 

Amnesty Deutschland 

Julia Duchrow 

Sweden 

Swedish Migration Board 

Ulrik Åshuvud  

Yes 

Yes 

Ola Henrikson 

Director-General 

Yes 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Department  for  Migration  and 
Asylum Policy. 

Caritas  Sverige  (works  with 
refugee  and  social  questions  in 
Sweden)  

France 

OFPRA 

Benoit Meslin 

Didier Mouton 

Secretary  General  of 
OFPRA 

Yes 

Service  of  European 
Affairs 
and 
International 
cooperation,  Division 
of 
and 
Judicial 
International affairs 

Yes 

Chef  du  service  de 
l’asile,  Ministère  de 
de 
l’immigration, 
de 
l’intégration, 
l’identité  nationale  et  Yes 

of 

Ministry 
Immigration, 
integration, national identity and 
co-development 

Jean-Pierre Guardiola 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
du codéveloppement 

Didier Mouton 

Representative 
OFPRA,  France 
Eurasil 

of 
to 

Terre d'asile 

Forum Refugies 

Pierre Henry 

Director-General 

France Charlet 

Project manager 

and 

Europe 

Unit 
International, 
promotion  of  asylum 
issues 

Deputy Director 

Deputy 
General for asylum 

Director- 

Yes 

Yes 

Documentation officer  Yes 

Mathieu Andre 

Spain 

Ministry of Labour, Department 
for migrant’s integration, Social 
Intervention Unit 

Roberto 
Inigo 

Amurrio 

Ministry  of  Interior,  Office  of 
Asylum and Refuge (OAR) 

Julian Prieto Hergueto 

Vidal 

Imaculada 
Torregrosa 

Luisa Diaz 

CEAR 

Poland  

Marek Szonert 

Pawel Domanski 

Director 
international 
cooperation 

Representative 
Eurasil 

of 

to 

Iwona Grudziaz 

COI Unit 

Office for Repatriation and 
Aliens 

Caritas Poland 

Katarzyna Sekula 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Slovenia 

Ministry of Interior 

Nina Gregori 

Administrative Internal 
Affairs Directorate  

Yes 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Ministry  of  Interior,  Eurasil 
representative 

Ziga Tomc 

Representative 
Asylum 
Ministry  of 
Slovenia 

of 
section, 
Interior, 

Yes 

Table 1.2 Overview of participants to the second brainstorming workshop (11 
June 2008) 

Country  Department / Organisation / 

Position 

CZ 

CY 

DE 

FI 

FI 

FR 

FR 

NL 

NL 

Unit  for  Policy  and  Analysis, 
Department  for  Asylum  and 
Migration Policy 
Ministry  of  the  Interior  of  the 
Czech Republic 

Permanent  Representation  of 
Cyprus  to  the  EU,  Attache 
JHA 

Federal Ministry of Interior 

Ministry of Interior, Migration 
Department 

Legal  service  and  country 
information 
Finnish 
immigration service, Director 

unit, 

of 

immigration, 
Ministry 
integration,  national  identity 
and  development  partnership, 
Deputy  head  of  the  asylum 
department 

OPFRA, Head of Service 

GDISC 

GDISC 

Mr 
Ms 

Ms 

/ 

First name  Last name 

Jaroslava  

Posvarova  

Ms 

Mary  

Epiphaniou 

Mr 

Ms 

Christoph 

Ehrentraut 

Jutta  

Gras 

Ms 

Jaana  

Vuorio 

Ms 

Odile  

Cluzel 

Didier  

Mouton  

Bert  

Joel  

van Hoorn 

Schoneveld 

Mr 

Mr 

Mr 

61 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 1.2 Overview of participants to the second brainstorming workshop (11 
June 2008) 

MT 

MT 

SL 

UK  

NA 

Development 

Policy 
Directorate 
Ministry for Justice and Home 
Affairs 

Ministry for Justice and Home 
Affairs 

Permanent  Representation  of 
Cyprus to the EU, Asylum and 
Migration Assistant 

Ms 

Alison  

Gatt 

Ms 

Rachelle  

Cortis  

Ms 

Natasa  

Globocnik 

UK Home Office 

Mr  

Neal  

Barcoe 

UNHCR, 
Representative 

Regional 

Ms 

Judith  

Kumin 

NA 

UNHCR, EU Policy Officer  Ms 

Blanche  

Tax 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

EN 

ECRE,  Head  of  Advocacy  & 
Development Unit 

Ms 

Patricia  

Coelho  

ECRE, Advocacy Officer 

European  Commission,  DG 
Justice, Freedom and Security 

European  Commission,  DG 
Justice, Freedom and Security 

European  Commission,  DG 
Justice, Freedom and Security 

Ms 

Mr 

Anne  

Peeters  

Gert Jan  

van Holk  

Mr 

Lauri 

Hollmen 

Ms 

Francoise 

Comte 

GHK 

GHK 

GHK 

Petra 

van Nierop 

Hanne 

Beirens 

Katarina  

Granath 

Ms 

Ms 

Ms 

62 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 2: STATISTICAL DATA  

2.1. Trends in asylum applications and decisions in EU 

Table 2.1 – Overview of numbers of asylum claims by country and year 

2006 

2005 

2004 

2003 

2002 

2001 

2000 

1999 

1998 

1997 

Countr
y 

EU 27 

EU 25 

197,41
0 (p) 

196,53
0 (p) 

EU 15)  178,64
0 (p) 

Austria  13,350 

(p) 

276,675 
(p)

275,145 
(p)

238,070 
(p)

24,635 (
p)

344,8
00

342,5
95

306,4
10

32,36
0

421,47
0

417,58
5

385,42
5

39,355

234,6
75 (p) 

233,4
90 (p) 

210,4
85 (p) 

22,46
0 

(p) 

424,1
80

419,4
70

375,4
50

30,12
5

24,50
5

406,58
5

403,46
5

379,53
0

18,285

380,4
50 

377,4
35 

352,9
65 

20,13
0 

313,6
45

311,5
75

295,8
45

13,80
5

:

:

242,8
45

6,720

42,690

35,78
0 

21,96
5

11,79
0

8,870 
(p) 

12,57
5 (p) 

12,400 (
p)

13,58
5

18,800

985 (p)

1,320

2,890

2,430

1,755

1,350 

835

370

9,675 (p)

4,405

950

1,620

650

790 

225

:

5,300 (p)

11,40
0

8,485

1,960 

2,280 

3,235

4,390

5,945

18,09
5

12,51
0

8,790

7,355  4,085

2,110

10,345

6,530  5,700

5,100

Belgiu
m 

Bulgari
a 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republi
c 

Denmar
k 

500 (p
) 

700 (p
) 

4,540 
(p) 

2,730 
(p) 

7,715 
(p) 

3,590 
(p) 

Estonia 

5 (p)  10 (p) 

10 (p)

15

10

10

5

25 

25

-

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
Finland 

2,275 
(p) 

3,595 
(p) 

France 

30,750 

(pr) 

German
y 

21,030 

(p) 

Greece 

12,265 

Hungar
y 

Ireland 

Italy 

(p) 

2,115 
(p) 

4,240 
(p) 

10,350 
(p) 

49,73
5 

(pr) 

28,91
5 

(p) 

9,050 
(p) 

1,610 
(p) 

4,305 
(p) 

9,345 
(p) 

3,575 (p)

3,090

3,445

1,650

3,170

3,105  1,270

970

58,545 (
pr)

59,77
0 (r)

51,085

35,605 (
p)

50,56
5

71,125

47,29
0

88,28
5

38,745

30,90
5 

22,37
5

21,41
5

78,565

94,77
5 

98,64
5

104,3
55

4,470 (p)

8,180

5,665

5,500

3,085

1,530  2,950

4,375

1,600 (p)

2,400

6,410

9,555

7,800

11,50
0 

7,120

:

4,265 (p)

7,485 11,635

9,630 (p)

16,015

13,70
5

10,32
5

17,40
0

15

425

10,940

7,725  4,625

3,880

15,195

18,45
0 

13,10
0

1,890

5

305

20 

145 

35

160

:

240

Latvia 

10 (p)  20 (p) 

5 (p)

5

Lithuan
ia 

145 (p
) 

100 (p
) 

165 (p)

395

25

365

Luxem
bourg 

Malta 

525 (p
) 

800 (p
) 

1,270 
(p) 

1,165 
(p) 

Netherl
ands 

14,465 

(p) 

12,34
5 

(p) 

1,575 (p)

1,550

1,040

685

625

2,930  1,710

435

995 (p)

455

350

155

160

255 

160

70

9,780 (p)

18,665

13,40
0

32,58
0

43,895

39,27
5 

45,21
5

34,44
5

Poland 

Portuga
l 

Romani
a 

Slovaki
a 

4,225 
(p) 

5,240 
(p) 

130 (p
) 

115 (p
) 

380 (p
) 

485 (p
) 

7,925 (p)

6,810

5,170

4,480

4,660

3,060  3,425

3,580

115 (p)

115

245

235

225

305 

355

250

545 (p)

885

1,000

2,280

1,365

1,665  1,235

1,425

2,850 
(p) 

3,550 
(p) 

11,395 (
p)

10,30
0

9,745

8,150

1,555

1,320 

505

645

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
Sloveni
a 

Spain 

500 (p
) 

,295 (
p) 

1,550 
(p) 

5,050 
(p) 

1,090 (p)

1,050

650

1,510

9,245

745 

335

70

5,365 (p)

5,765

6,310

9,490

7,925

8,405  4,935

4,975

Sweden  24,320 
(p) 

17,53
0 

23,160 (
p)

31,35
5

33,015

23,50
0

16,285

11,22
0 

12,84
0

9,680

(p) 

30,84
0 

40,625 (
p)

60,04
5

103,08
0

71,36
5

80,315

71,16
0 

46,01
5

32,50
0

(p) 

United 
Kingdo
m 

28,320 

(r) 

(:) Not available 
(p) Provisional value 
(r) Revised value 
Source: Eurostat 

2.2 Recognition rates in the EU  

TABLE 2.2. RECOGNITION RATES (%) IN THE EU FOR 6 COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN 
(2006) 

Afghanistan

DRC 

Eritrea 

Ethiopia 

Iraq 

Iran 

Procedure  Recognition 

rate (%) 

Recognition 
rate (%) 

Recognition 
rate (%) 

Recognition 
rate (%) 

Recognition 
rate (%) 

Recognition
rate (%) 

84 

19 

24 

14 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

FA 

FI 

AR 

FI 

AR 

FI 

FI 

FI 

AR 

FI 

RA 

EN 

29 

6 

13 

8 

100 

65 

73 

13 

20 

81 

2 

63 

23 

78 

24 

12 

8 

12 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23 

97 

2 

19 

67 

45 

38 

42 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA 

RA 

FA 

AR 

FI 

FA 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FI 

11 

86 

2 

12 

61 

8 

20 

35 

96 

85 

70 

78 

64 

54 

8 

2 

79 

5 

58 

21 

8 

82 

51 

16 

78 

2 

17 

7 

19 

33 

90 

13 

29 

17 

NA=New  Applications;  FI=First 
RA=Repeat/reopened applications; FA=Including first instance and appeal/review decisions 

instance  decisions;  AR=Administrative  Review  decisions;

The  following  countries  did  not  have  recognition  rates  for  the  selected  countries  of  origin:  Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia 

Source: UNHCR, 'Asylum applications and refugee status determination by origin and 
country/territory of asylum',  
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-
bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?id=478ce34a2&tbl=STATISTICS) 

2.3. Resettlement  

Table 2.3.1 – EU share of refugees resettled worldwide 

Table 2.3 – EU share of refugees resettled worldwide 

Year 

Total number of refugees 
resettled worldwide 

Arrivals 
(persons) to EU 
Countries 

Total EU intake 
(%) 

2003 

27,338 

2,441 

8.9 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2004 

42,008 

2005 

38,507 

2006 

29,560 

2007 

49,868 

Source: UNHCR, 31 October 2008 

3,469 

3,130 

3,697 

3,935 

8.3 

8.1 

12.5 

7.9 

Table  2.3.2  Approximate  Capacity  of  Resettlement  Countries  in  2008  (number  of 
individual places allocated for resettlement)  

UNHCR Working Group on Resettlement 

Geneva, 15 October 2008 

Approximate Capacity of Resettlement Countries in 2008  

(number of individual places allocated for resettlement) i 

Country of 

Resettlement 

UNHCR 
Submissions 

Private 
Sponsorship 

NGO 
Submissions 

In Country 
Processing ii 

Family 
Reunion iii 

0 

7,000 v 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3,300 – 4,500 

160 

0 

limited 

0 
1,200 viii 

Argentina 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

New Zealand 

Norway 

Paraguay 

Portugal 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Uruguay 

50 

6,500 iv 

150 
6,140 vii  

112 
500 ix 

750 

400 x 

25-30 

200 

500 

750 xii 

1,200 xiv 

15 

30 

1,900 

750 

15 

0 

0 

0 

400 xi 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0vi  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Up to 300 xiii 

300 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
130 xv 

0 

Total 

50 

13,500 

150 

10,600-12,000 

112 

500 

750 

800 

25-30 

200 

500 

1,050 

1,200 

15 

30 

1,900 

880 

15 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
USA 
Totalxvi 

56,750 

76,242 

0 

12,200 

0 

160 

6,550 

8,050 

6,700 

6,830 

70,000 

103,182 

Czech Republic: In 2008 the Czech Republic has taken about 38 persons and is finalising its 
programme to establish an annual quota.  

Table 2.3.3 Main features of EU resettlement programmes 

Table 2.4 – Main features of EU resettlement programmes 

Denmar
k 

Finland 

Swede
n 

UK 

Ireland  The 

Portugal  France  

Netherla
nds 

1978 

1979 

1950 

2003 

1998 

1977 

2007 

2008 

Start of 
official 
program
me 

Quota in 
2007 

1500 (3 
year) 

750 
(yearly) 

1900 
(yearly) 

500 
(yearly) 

200 
(yearly) 

1500 (3 
year) 

30 

*100* 

N/A 

Subsharia
n 
Africans, 
Eritreans, 
Ethiopian
s 

N/A 

N/A 

Largest 
groups of 
refugees 
in 2007 

Congoles
e (DRC), 
Burmese, 
Burundia
ns 

Burmese, 
Iranians 
and 
Somalis 

Colomb
ians, 
Afghan
s, 
Iranians

Resettlem
ent 
criteria 

Protectio
n needs, 
integratio
n 
potential 

Protecti
on 
needs 

Protectio
n needs, 
Cf, 
UNHCR 
criteria 
for 
resettlem
ent, 
condition
s to 
receive 

Congoles
e  (DRC), 
Ethiopian
s, 
Burmese, 
Mauritani
ans 

Protectio
n needs 

Iranian 
Kurds 

Burmese, 
Ethiopian
s 

Protectio
n needs, 
integratio
n 
potential, 
humanitar
ian 
considera
tions  

Protecti
on 
needs, 
majorit
y on 
legal 
and 
physica
l 
protecti
on 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 – Main features of EU resettlement programmes 

Denmar
k 

Finland 

Swede
n 

and 
integrate 
in FI 

UK 

Ireland  The 

Portugal  France  

Netherla
nds 

grounds 

In 
country 
selection
52 

Dossier 
selection
53 

Urgent 
and 
Emergen
cy54 

Status 
upon 
arrival 

650 

Roughly 
400 
(yearly) 

Roughl
y 850 

Yes 

Around 
160 

400 
(yearly) 

N/A 

N/A 

Roughly 
100 
(yearly) 

100 
(urgent 
and 
emergenc
y) 

No 

Remain
ing 
quota 
places 

Vulnera
ble 
cases or 
20% of 
quota 

75 

100 

300 

No 

No 

Tempora
ry 
residence 
permit 

Permanen
t 
residence 
permit 

Perman
ent 
residen
ce 
permit 

Permanen
t 
residence 
permit 

Perman
ent 
residen
ce 
permit 

100 
(yearly) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes (no 
fixed 
number 
set) 

Revocabl
e 
residence 
permit 

Source:  ICMC,  Welcome  to  Europe!  A  guide  to  resettlement:  A  comparative  review  of 
Resettlement in Europe. 

52 States travel with a delegation of government officials to the country of asylum from which they have planned to resettle refugees, to conduct 
individual interviews with refugees and their dependants, on the basis of which a decision of acceptance or refusal is made. 
53 The case of the refugee is reviewed in the same manner as during a selection mission but no individual interview with the refugee takes place. 
The decision is based solely on a paper submission by UNHCR that consist primarily of the Resettlement Registration Form. 

54 Selection of candidates is almost invariably done ‘on paper’ as time constraints and safety reasons may not allow for a selection mission. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3:  

INFORMATION ON PRACTICAL COOPERATION RELATING TO COI 

Sharing country of origin information (COI) 

Article 4 of the Qualification Directive requires that the assessment of an application for 
international  protection  should  take  into  account  all  relevant  facts  as  they  relate  to  the 
country of origin. This should include laws and regulations of the country of origin and 
how  they  are  applied.  Article  8  of  the  Asylum  Procedures  Directive  requires  Member 
States to ensure that precise and up-to-date information is made available to personnel 
responsible for examining applications and taking decisions. This includes information 
from UNHCR on the general situation in countries of origin or transit of applicants for 
asylum. 

Member States’ asylum authorities collect and analyse information on the socio-political 
situation in countries of origin through different  sources.  This information is generally 
referred to as Country of Origin Information (COI). The sources include general public 
sources, such as reports from UNHCR, the US Department of State on Human Rights, 
NGOs  such  as  Human  Rights  Watch  and  Amnesty  International,  national  and 
international media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin and embassy reports.  

Member  States’  authorities  also  organise  fact-finding  missions  when  on-the-spot  data 
collection  or  a  more  reliable  and  efficient  approach  appears  to  be  necessary.  Some 
administrations also specialise in collecting information on individual cases where this is 
necessary to decide on a specific case. 

Current cooperation 

Different  fora for cooperation  and exchange of information on  COI  have  developed to 
address  the  need  to  share  information.  Information  fora  exist  on  an  international  level 
(IGC,  A8,  UNHCR’s  Refworld)  and  also  on  an  informal  bilateral  level.  At  EU  level, 
asylum practitioners exchange  views  on  COI at Eurasil, which was established by the 
Commission  in  July  2002  as  a  network  for  asylum  practitioners.  The  participants  who 
primarily attend  these meetings represent EU Member State authorities responsible for 
the adjudication of asylum applications in EU Member States (at first instance and also 
from  appeal  bodies).  UNHCR,  other  international  or  non-governmental  organisations 
and experts on certain issues have frequently attended Eurasil. 

Eurasil  has  provided  a  forum  for  exchanging  COI  and  best  practices  among  EU 
Member  States,  asylum  adjudicators  and  the  European  Commission.  Sessions  on 
particular  Countries  of  Origin  comprise  presentations  from  Member  States  with  a 
particular  interest  in  that  country  as  well  as  field  representatives  from  Member  States 
and international organisations. The activities also help practitioners to enhance working 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
relationships  with  each  other.  Eurasil  has  done  important  preparatory  work,  but  its 
current working methods do not provide the means for a structural follow-up. The legal 
and  political  imperatives  given  by  the  adoption  of  the  Qualification  Directive  and  the 
Asylum  Procedures  Directive  make  clear  that  a  more  systematic  approach  to  COI  is 
required. 

The ARGO financial programme has produced examples of concrete joint action on COI 
between  several  Member  States.  Under  ARGO  2003,  two  projects  were  funded  which 
supported  fact  finding  missions  to  third  countries  with  significant  refugee  producing 
situations. Those projects should serve as a model for future missions and their findings 
would be shared among all 27 Member States. 

How to achieve joint compilation, assessment and application of COI 

The  practical  needs  of  Member  States  in  the  COI  field  vary  greatly.  Some  Member 
States have invested heavily in this area and run sophisticated COI systems while others 
retain more basic systems or rely on the services of NGOs or UNHCR. The need for all 
Member States to apply COI in the same way and using, if possible, the same sources is 
inherent in the logic of the Common European Asylum System. 

Ensuring  access  to  the  same  COI  sources  is  the  first  challenge.  To  this  end,  the 
establishment  and  development  of  an  EU  ‘common  portal’  for  accessing  COI  sources 
should be the key initial activity for the EU in aiming for the joint approach called for in 
the Hague Programme. Joint compilation, assessment and application of COI in support 
of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  means  that  Member  States  should  have 
access  to  a  common  repository  of  COI  that  is  assembled  in  compliance  with  common 
standards and principles.  

The creation of EU-wide Common portal for COI 

The first step in this process, which will be key to the future structure to support ongoing 
cooperation in the field of asylum (possibly EASO=European Asylum Support Office) 
to be developed under the EC Treaty, is to establish an easily accessible common entry 
point  for  existing  information.  This  is  to  be  achieved  by  creating  a  one-stop  ‘common 
portal’  through  which  all  Member  States  authorities  could  access  all  official  COI 
databases.  

Also  available  via  the  ‘common  portal’  will  be  the  legislation  of  each  Member  State 
transposing  the  Community  legal  instruments  which  are  central  to  the  Common 
European  Asylum  System  plus  Community  legislation,  relevant  national  and  EC  case 
law, information produced by the Commission’s external services on specific countries 
and other official sources of information.  

A ‘common portal’ provides a useful additional resource, particularly for those Member 
States with less well developed COI resources. Time is saved by accessing key official 
databases  through  one  stop  rather  than  searching  and  downloading  individually  from 
different  sites.  The  ‘common  portal’  will  most  likely  be,  at  the  beginning,  simply  a 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
gateway to existing information on COI, possibly without any agreed standards for such 
information.  Nevertheless,  it  will  represent  a  first  step  towards  the  common  approach 
envisaged in the Hague Programme as it can provide a platform on which a future EU 
COI database could be built. 

The Commission carried out a feasibility study into the creation of a Common EU COI 
portal in 2007. After identifying Member State needs and the official databases used by 
Eurasil States (BE - Globe, CH - Mila, DE - Milo, IE, AT in connection to Accord) and 
some  international  organisations  (UNHCR  -  Refworld,  Red  Cross  –  Accord  and  IGC) 
the  Commission  paved  the  way  to  develop  a  suitable  IT  solution  to  establishing  a 
common portal in 2009 (indicative timetable). A pilot project to find the "best" prototype 
for the portal is underway and will be finalised before the end of 2008. It is intended that 
the  "construction  phase"  will  then  begin  and  that  the  portal  can  become  operational 
within 12-18 months of that phase being initiated.  

Common Guidelines on the production of COI 

In parallel, another step would be to formally agree on guidelines on the production of 
COI.  Experience  in  the  framework  of  Eurasil  has  shown  that  standards  vary  widely  in 
the  collection  and  verification  of  COI  among  Member  States,  but  that  there  is 
nevertheless scope for agreement on at least a set of common basic principles.  

An  ARGO  project  undertaken  by  five  Eurasil  States  developed  a  set  of  "common 
guidelines for processing COI" in 2008, and the Commission can at a later stage propose 
common  basic  principles  on  the  production  of  COI.  Such  principles  would  address 
issues  such  as  transparency,  cross-checking  and  citation,  as  well  as  training  COI 
researchers and conducting fact-finding missions. The application of these principles to 
Member  States’  own  COI  is  the  first  step  towards  the  longer  term  objective  of 
harmonised application of COI in line with the Hague Programme objectives.  

Addressing translation challenges 

A  pragmatic  solution  needs  to  be  found  to  the  translation  difficulties  facing  Member 
States.  Some  Member  States’  courts  can  accept  COI  that  is  not  translated  into  the 
language of the Member State; some insist that everything admitted to the court should 
be translated into the language of the Member State. There are also practical difficulties 
for  COI  practitioners  in  reading  and  understanding  diverse  COI  sources.  It  is  not 
practical  or  feasible  to  undertake  a  comprehensive  translation  of  all  relevant  COI  into 
English and then into all 20 Community languages.  

The Eurasil COI -experts can advise on how to prioritise translation needs and on what 
needs to be translated. If this can be achieved on a small scale, using available financial 
resources, to address needs or help ease the burden in those Member States facing the 
most difficulties, then a larger and more ambitious undertaking will be examined when 
deciding  whether  to  set  up  an  EU  COI  database  (this  has  not  yet  been  agreed  to 
politically).  

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
The EU COI Database 

In order to achieve the ambitious objective of a common Asylum Procedure, it will be 
necessary  to  ensure  that  Member  States  can  not  only  access  the  same  information  but 
also that that information is produced and applied in a harmonised way. Therefore, once 
the portal is operational and guidelines for producing COI formalised, the time could be 
ripe  to  move  to  a  fully-fledged  EU  COI  database,  if  there  is  political  agreement.  This 
obviously  entails  serious  resource  implications  and  large  scale  IT  and  technical 
requirements to set up and maintain such a system. The establishment and maintenance 
of  an  EU  COI  database  would  clearly  be  the  province  of  a  future  structure  set  up  to 
support  practical  cooperation  in  the  field  of  asylum.  The  financial  and  technical 
implications of taking this step will need to be examined.  

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 4: EX- ANTE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 
(EXCEL TABLES) 

Detailed cost analysis for 

- EC Commission Unit 

Category 

Specification 

Estimated 
start-up costs  

Minimum 
ongoing costs  

Maximum 
ongoing costs  

Comments 

Not applicable 
Commission staff 
Estimated between 
7 - 9 FTEs 
Commission staff 
Estimated between 
4 - 6 FTEs 
Estimated 15% of 
total staff costs 
Estimated at 500 
per FTE 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

714.068  

918.087  

248.990  

373.486  

144.459  

193.736  

5.500  

7.500  

No director required 
Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control 
and auditing staff, etc. 
Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as administrative and 
support staff from other units within the DG. 

Title 1 - Staff 
costs 
Director 
Senior / 
technical staff 

Administrative 
and other 
support staff 
Staff benefits 

Staff training 

Title 2 – 
Building, 
equipment and 
administrative 
expenditure 
Information 
technologies / 
data-processing 

250.000  

250.000  

1.000.000  

Database 
development and 
maintenance, 
computer software 
and related 
updates, etc. 
COI portal   

Infrastructure 

Not applicable 

Equipment 

20.000  

1.000  

5.000  

This heading mainly comprises the 
development and maintenance of the COI 
portal. It covers also other computer systems 
to be developped. Some elements are already 
covered by the EC overall budget. 
COI portal 
The exact costs of the portal cannot be 
estimated without additional research. Its 
development and maintenance could be 
(partly) outsourced. 

Infrastructure is covered by the overall EC 
budget 
Start-up costs mainly relate to the purchasing 
of specific hardware to host the COI portal. 
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this 
equipment. Additional expenses for video-
conferencing. 

Overheads are covered by the overall EC 
budget 

Overheads 

Not applicable 

Title 3 – 
Operations 
Coordination 
unit 
Risk / needs 
analysis 

Direct support 

Possible core 
tasks 

Not applicable 
Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Resettlement 
Intra-EU relocation 
Resettlement 
Intra-EU relocation 

 NA  

 NA  

250.000  

500.000  

Identification of risks and needs under the 
different tasks, supported by analytical work. 
The Commission could outsource part of these 
activities to existing networks or contractors. 

-    

100.000  

Inputs to resettlement scheme. The latter 
inputs are unlikely to happen in the short term 
and would only be minimal. 
Advisory role to the intra-EU relocation 
scheme, a task which is not likely to happen in 
the short term. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                
                 
                
                 
                
                 
  
                     
                      
  
  
  
  
  
  
                
                
              
  
  
  
  
                  
                     
                      
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                
                 
                            
                 
150.000  

400.000  

Organisation and facilitation of exchanges, 
peer learning and information sharing. 
Organisation and facilitation could be 
outsourced in part to existing networks or 
contractors. 

250.000  

500.000  

Data collection, research, analysis to support 
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building 
elements of these tasks. 

Capacity 
building / 
training 

Planning, 
research and 
development 

External 
relations 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Joint production of 
COI 
Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Joint production of 
COI 
Intra-EU relocation 
Liaison and 
cooperation with 
external actors 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

100.000  

250.000  

Information, 
communication 
and 
dissemination 

Events, 
meetings and 
missions 

Total 

Financing 

Development of 
information, 
communication and 
dissemination 
strategies, tools 
and products. 
Meetings Eurasil 
(8-12 for 50 
persons) 
Organisation of 
events (5-10 for 50 
persons) 
Missions (15-25 
missions of 1 
person) 

Financing stream 
Financing stream 
providing grants to 
practical 
cooperation, as 
part of the ERF 
Community Actions 

50.000  

100.000  

200.000  

 NA  

745.000  

1.285.000  

320.000  
 NA  

2.959.017  

5.732.809  

2.000.000  

5.000.000  

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third 
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures 
and EU bodies (e.g. participation / 
organisation of meetings, preparation of 
briefing materials, etc). Under these Policy 
options the costs remain high as the 
cooperation structures all continue to exist. 
Development and implementation of a strategy 
and methodological tools, website, brochures 
and other documents. 
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and 
tools. 

The Commission would fund the meetings of 
EURASIL. In addition, it would organise events 
to promote peer learning, good practice and 
information exchanges, etc. and to convene 
specific working / expert groups. Finally, it 
could finance missions of experts or staff. 

This heading relates to additional activities that 
could be financed, for example in case of 
particular pressures or burden in certain 
Member States. The unit could be involved in 
decision making of the financial unit as to the 
allocation of funding. 

Specification 

Estimated 
start-up costs 

Minimum 
ongoing costs 

Maximum 
ongoing costs 

Comments 

Not applicable 
Commission staff 
Estimated between 
5 - 7 FTEs 
Commission staff 
Estimated between 
4 - 6 FTEs 
Estimated 15% of 
total staff costs 
Estimated at 500 
per FTE 

 NA  
 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

         510.049  

         714.068  

         248.990  

         373.486  

         113.856  

         163.133  

            4.500  

            6.500  

No director required 
Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control 
and auditing staff, etc. 
Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as administrative and 
support staff from other units within the DG. 

- Network 

Category 
Title 1 - Staff 
costs 
Director 
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 
Staff benefits 

other 

Staff training 

– 

Title 
2 
Building, 
equipment and 
administrative 
expenditure 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
                
                 
                
                 
                
                 
                  
                
                 
                
              
  
                
             
              
  
             
              
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Information 
/ 
technologies 
data-processing 

Database 
development and 
maintenance, 
computer software 
and related 
updates, etc. 
COI portal   

Infrastructure 

Costs for renting 
office space to host 
the coordination 
unit 

Equipment 

Purchasing of 
equipment, 
furniture and 
specific computer 
hardware 

         250.000  

         250.000  

      1.000.000  

          15.000  

          20.000  

          50.000  

          30.000  

            3.000  

          10.000  

Overheads 

 NA  

          35.000  

         105.000  

– 

3 

Title 
Operations 
Coordination 
unit 

Risk / needs 
analysis 

Direct support 

Capacity 
building / 
training 

Planning, 
research and 
development 

External 
relations 

Costs for 
contracting a 
coordination unit 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Resettlement 
Resettlement 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring, quality 
control and 
enforcement 
Joint production of 
COI 
Training and 
capacity building 
Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Joint production of 
COI 
Training and 
capacity building 
Liaison and 
cooperation with 
external actors 

Information, 
communication 
and 
dissemination 

Development of 
information, 
communication and 
dissemination 
strategies, tools 
and products. 

NA 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

         500.000  
         200.000  

      1.500.000  
         400.000  

                 -    

          50.000  

         300.000  

         750.000  

 NA  

         350.000  

         600.000  

 NA  

         100.000  

         250.000  

          50.000  

         100.000  

         200.000  

This heading mainly comprises the 
development and maintenance of the COI 
portal. It covers also other computer systems 
to be developped. Some elements are already 
covered by the EC overall budget. 
COI portal 
The exact costs of the portal cannot be 
estimated without additional research. Its 
development and maintenance could be 
(partly) outsourced. 
It is assumed that the coordination unit would 
rent a specific office space in the vicinity of the 
Commission. Costs increase depending on the 
requirements for this space (e.g. availability of 
meeting rooms). 
Start-up costs relate to renovation / 
preparation of the space. 
Start up costs relate to setting up the office 
and to purchasing of hardware for the portals / 
databases, video-conferencing, etc. Ongoing 
costs relate to regular updating of this 
equipment and furniture, etc. 
Overheads are not calculated on the FTEs 
above, as they would be incurred by the 
coordination unit. They are therefore set as 
7% of the contracted value of this unit (see 
below). 

Contracting of a coordination unit to provide 
technical assistance to the Commission. The 
costs variations relate to differences in the 
work programme of the network and the task 
package of the unit. 
Identification of risks and needs under the 
different tasks, supported by analytical work. 
Part of these activities could initially be 
outsourced to / taken forward by existing 
cooperation structures and gradually being 
integrated in the network. 
Inputs to resettlement scheme. The latter 
inputs are unlikely to happen in the short term 
and would only be minimal. 
Organisation and facilitation of exchanges, 
peer learning and information sharing. 
Preparation of guidelines and needs 
assessments.  
Delivery of training and capacity building 
exercises 
Organisation, facilitation and delivery could be 
outsourced in part to existing networks or 
contractors. 

Data collection, research, analysis to support 
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building 
elements of these tasks. Development of 
training methods and courses (including e-
learning). 
Part of these activities could initially be 
outsourced to / taken forward by existing 
cooperation structures and gradually being 
integrated in the network. 
Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third 
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures 
and EU bodies (e.g. participation / 
organisation of meetings, preparation of 
briefing materials, etc). Under this Policy 
option the costs remain high as most 
cooperation structures continue to exist. 

Development of a strategy and methodological 
tools, website, brochures and other 
documents. 
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and 
tools. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 NA  

      1.235.000  

      1.895.000  

The Commission would fund the meetings of 
EURASIL. It would finance the meetings of the 
Steering Group and of the Consultative 
Committee. In addition, it would organise 
events to promote peer learning, good practice 
and information exchanges, etc. and to 
convene specific working / expert groups. 
Finally, it could finance missions of experts or 
staff. 

Events, 
meetings and 
missions 

Meetings EURASIL 
(8-12 for 50 
persons) 
Meetings with 
Steering Group (8-
12 for 30 persons) 
Meetings with 
Consultative 
Committee (4-8 for 
20 persons) 
Organisation of 
events (10-15 for 
50 persons) 
Missions (15-25 
missions of 1 
person) 

Total 

         345.000  

      3.970.395  

      8.067.187  

- Merge of Support Asylum Structure into FRA 

Category 

Specification 

Estimated 
start-up costs 

Minimum 
ongoing costs 

Maximum 
ongoing costs 

Comments 

Title  1  -  Staff 
costs 

Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Commission staff 
Estimated  between 
2 - 4 FTEs 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 

other 

Commission staff 
Estimated  between 
3 - 6 FTEs 

Director 

Coordination 
unit staff 
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Agency staff 
Estimated  between 
2-4 FTEs 

Coordination 
unit staff 
Administrative 
staff 

Agency staff 
Estimated  between 
2 - 4 FTEs 

Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Agency staff 
Estimated  between 
20 - 30 FTEs 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 

other 

Agency staff 
Estimated  between 
5 - 8 FTEs 

 NA  

          204.019  

              408.039  

 NA  

          186.743  

              373.486  

Staff  comprises  both  human  resources  within 
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control 
and auditing staff, etc. 

Staff  comprises  both  human  resources  within 
the  unit  itself  as  well  as  administrative  and 
support staff from other units within the DG. 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

Director of FRA already in place 

          204.019  

              408.039  

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit 

 NA  

          124.495  

              248.990  

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit 

 NA  

        2.040.194  

           3.060.292  

Staff to man the asylum department of FRA 

 NA  

          311.238  

              497.981  

Staff to man the asylum department of FRA 

Staff benefits 

Estimated  15%  of 
total staff costs 

 NA  

          352.715  

              533.741  

Staff training 

Estimated  at  500 
per FTE 

 NA  

            14.500  

                23.000  

– 

Title 
2 
Building, 
equipment and 
administrative 
expenditure 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Information 
technologies 
/ 
data-processing 

Database 
development  and 
maintenance, 
computer  software 
and 
related 
updates, etc. 
COI portal  

Infrastructure 

Equipment 

renting 
for 
Costs 
office space to host 
the agency. 

of 

Purchasing 
equipment, 
and 
furniture 
specific  computer 
hardware 

     500.000  

          500.000  

           1.000.000  

 NA  

          248.571  

              353.846  

       50.000  

            10.357  

                22.115  

information 
This  heading  comprises  all 
technologies  and  data-processing  activities  of 
the  agency.  It  also  includes  the  development 
and maintenance of the COI portal. 
The  exact  costs  of  the  COI  portal  cannot  be 
estimated  without  additional  research. 
Its 
development  and  maintenance  could  be 
(partly) outsourced. 

FRA is already settled in Vienna. Costs cover 
the  rent  of  new  office  space  to  host  the  new 
staff.  Note:  the  additional  amount  is  spread 
infrastructure  and  overheads.  Note: 
over 
amounts  of  EASO 
for 
calculation 

taken  as  basis 

Costs relate to purchasing of hardware for the 
portals  /  databases,  video-conferencing,  etc. 
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this 
equipment and furniture, etc. Note: amounts of 
EASO taken as basis for calculation 

Overheads 

          187.596  

              295.071  

Title 
Operations 

3 

– 

Coordination 
unit 

Not applicable 

/  needs 

Risk 
analysis 

Direct support 

Capacity 
building 
training 

/ 

Exchange 
best 
practicesSupport  to 
and 
monitoring 
quality  controlPool 
of 
asylum 
expertsIntra-EU 
relocationRegional 
Protection 
ProgrammesResett
lement 

Pool  of  asylum 
experts 
Resettlement 
Intra-EU relocation 

 NA  

          250.000  

              600.000  

Identification  of  risks  and  needs  under  the 
different tasks, supported by analytical work. 

 NA  

          150.000  

              600.000  

Activation  of  experts  (fees  for  secondment  of 
experts for 20-30 missions of 10 working days) 
Inputs  to  intra-EU  relocation  and  resettlement 
schemes.  The  latter  inputs  are  unlikely  to 
happen in the short term. 

best 

to 
and 

Exchange 
practices 
Support 
monitoring 
quality control 
Joint  production  of 
COI 
Pool  of  asylum 
experts  
Training 
capacity building 

and 

 NA  

          450.000  

learning  and 

           1.000.000   Organisation  and  facilitation  of  exchanges, 
information  sharing. 
needs 
and 
the  experts  pool 

peer 
of 
Preparation 
assessments. 
Inputs 
database and management of the pool. 
Delivery  of 
exercises. 
Joint  work  on  COI  collection,  production  and 
assessment 

training  and  capacity  building 

guidelines 
to 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 NA  

          450.000  

           1.000.000   Data  collection,  research,  analysis  to  support 
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building 
elements  of  these  tasks.  Development  of 
training  methods  and  courses  (including  e-
learning). 
Part  of 
outsourced. 

these  activities  could 

initially  be 

Planning, 
research 
development 

and 

best 

to 
and 

Exchange 
practices 
Support 
monitoring 
quality control 
Joint  production  of 
COI 
Joint  assessment 
of COI 
Intra-EU relocation 
Training 
and 
capacity building 
Regional Protection 
Programmes 

External 
relations 

Liaison 
cooperation 
external actors 

and 
with 

 NA  

            50.000  

              100.000  

(e.g. 

bodies 

participation 

Inputs  to  liaison  and  cooperation  with  third 
countries,  IGOs,  other  cooperation  structures 
and  EU 
/ 
organisation  of  meetings,  preparation  of 
briefing  materials,  etc).  Under 
this  Policy 
option  the  costs  are  lower  as  some  existing 
cooperation  structures  would  cease  to  exist 
and  FRA  would  gradually  become  the  single 
interlocutor on behalf of the EU. 

Information, 
communication 
and 
dissemination 

Events, 
meetings 
missions 

and 

       50.000  

          150.000  

of 

Development 
information, 
communication and 
dissemination 
strategies, 
and products. 

tools 

              300.000   Development  of  a  strategy  and  methological 
other 

brochures 

and 

tools,  website, 
documents. 
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and 
tools. 
It  will  be  important  for  the  agency  to  increase 
awareness and to promote its results. 

 NA  

          770.000  

           1.280.000  

The  meetings  of 
the  Management  Board 
already  take  place:  costs  not  included  as  a 
result of economy of scale. In addition, it would 
organise  events  to  promote  peer  learning, 
good practice and information exchanges, etc. 
and  to  convene  specific  working  /  expert 
groups. EURASIL would be one of the experts 
groups.  Finally,  it  could  finance  missions  of 
experts or staff. 

the 

(Meetings  of 
Management 
Board (8-12 for 30-
40 persons). 
of 
Organisation 
events, 
working 
and  expert  group 
meetings (15-25 for 
50 persons) 
Missions 
missions 
person) 

(20-30 
1 
of 

Total  

     600.000  

        6.654.449  

         12.104.600  

- Merge of Support Asylum Structure into FRONTEX 

Specification 

Estimated 
start-up costs 

Minimum 
ongoing costs 

Maximum 
ongoing costs 

Comments 

Category 
Title 1 - Staff 
costs 
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 
Director 

other 

Commission staff 
Estimated between 
2 - 3 FTEs 
Commission staff 
Estimated between 
3 - 5 FTEs 

Coordination 
unit staff 
Senior 
technical staff 
Coordination 
unit staff 
Administrative 
staff 

Agency staff 
Estimated between 
2-4 FTEs 

/ 

Agency staff 
Estimated between 
2 - 4 FTEs 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

       204.019  

       306.029  

       186.743  

       311.238  

 NA  

 NA  

Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control 
and auditing staff, etc. 
Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as administrative and 
support staff from other units within the DG. 
Director of FRONTEX already in place 

       204.019  

       408.039  

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit 

 NA  

       124.495  

       248.990  

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 
Staff benefits 

other 

Staff training 

Agency staff 
Estimated between 
20 - 30 FTEs 
Agency staff 
Estimated between 
5 - 8 FTEs 
Estimated 15% of 
total staff costs 
Estimated at 500 
per FTE 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

     2.040.194  

     3.060.292  

Staff to man the asylum department of 
FRONTEX 

       311.238  

       497.981  

Staff to man the asylum department of the 
agency 

       352.715  

       533.741  

         14.500  

         23.000  

– 

Title 
2 
Building, 
equipment and 
administrative 
expenditure 
Information 
technologies 
/ 
data-processing 

Infrastructure 

Equipment 

Overheads 

– 

3 

Title 
Operations 
Coordination 
unit 
Risk 
analysis 

/  needs 

Direct support 

Capacity 
building 
training 

/ 

       500.000  

       500.000  

     1.000.000  

 NA  

       248.571  

       353.846  

         50.000  

         10.357  

         22.115  

       187.596  

       295.071  

This heading comprises all information 
technologies and data-processing activities of 
the agency. It also includes the development 
and maintenance of the COI portal, as well as 
the broader information portal and experts 
pool database.  
COI portal 

FRONTEX is already settled in Warsaw. Costs 
cover the rent of new office space to host the 
new staff. Note: amounts of EASO taken as 
basis for calculation 

Costs relate to purchasing of hardware for the 
portals / databases, video-conferencing, etc. 
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this 
equipment and furniture, etc. Note: amounts of 
EASO taken as basis for calculation 

 NA  

       250.000  

       600.000  

Identification of risks and needs under the 
different tasks, supported by analytical work. 

 NA  

       150.000  

       600.000  

 NA  

       450.000  

     1.000.000  

Activation of experts (fees for secondment of 
experts for 20-30 missions of 10 working days) 
Inputs to intra-EU relocation and resettlement 
schemes. The latter inputs are unlikely to 
happen in the short term. 
Organisation and facilitation of exchanges, 
peer learning and information sharing. 
Preparation of guidelines and needs 
assessments. Inputs to the experts pool 
database and management of the pool. 
Delivery of training and capacity building 
exercises. 
Joint 

Database 
development and 
maintenance, 
computer software 
and related 
updates, etc. 
COI portal  

Costs for renting 
office space to host 
the agency. 

Purchasing of 
equipment, 
furniture and 
specific computer 
hardware 

Not applicable 
Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring, quality 
control and 
enforcement 
Pool of asylum 
experts 
Intra-EU relocation 
Regional Protection 
Programmes 
Resettlement 
Pool of asylum 
experts 
Resettlement 
Intra-EU relocation 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring, quality 
control and 
enforcement 
Joint production of 
COI 
Pool of asylum 
experts  
Training and 
capacity building 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 NA  

       450.000  

     1.000.000  

Data collection, research, analysis to support 
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building 
elements of these tasks. Development of 
training methods and courses (including e-
learning). Part of these activities could initially 
be outsourced. 

 NA  

         50.000  

       100.000  

         50.000  

       150.000  

       300.000  

 NA  

       770.000  

     1.280.000  

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third 
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures 
and EU bodies (e.g. participation / 
organisation of meetings, preparation of 
briefing materials, etc). Under this Policy 
option the costs are lower as some existing 
cooperation structures would cease to exist 
and Frontex would gradually become the 
single interlocutor on behalf of the EU. 
Development of a strategy and methological 
tools, website, brochures and other 
documents. 
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and 
tools. 
It will be important for the agency to increase 
awareness and to promote its results. 
The meetings of the Management Board 
already take place (costs removed from the 
calculation). In addition, it would organise 
events to promote peer learning, good practice 
and information exchanges, etc. and to 
convene specific working / expert groups.  

Planning, 
research 
development 

and 

External 
relations 

Information, 
communication 
and 
dissemination 

Events, 
meetings 
missions 

and 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring, quality 
control and 
enforcement 
Joint production of 
COI 
Joint assessment 
of COI 
Financial support 
(advisory role) 
Intra-EU relocation 
Training and 
capacity building 
Regional Protection 
Programmes 
Liaison and 
cooperation with 
external actors 

Development of 
information, 
communication and 
dissemination 
strategies, tools 
and products. 

(Meetings of the 
Management 
Board (8-12 for 30-
40 persons). 
Organisation of 
events, working 
and expert group 
meetings (15-25 for 
50 persons) 
Missions (20-30 
missions of 1 
person) 

Total  

       600.000  

     6.654.449  

   11.940.342  

- Merge of Support Asylum Structure into the future IT-Agency 

Category 
Title 1 - Staff 
costs 
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 

other 

Director 

Coordination 
unit staff 
Senior 
technical staff 
Coordination 
unit staff 
Administrative 
staff 
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

/ 

Specification 

Estimated 
start-up costs 

Minimum 
ongoing costs 

Maximum 
ongoing costs 

Comments 

Commission staff 
Estimated between 
3 - 5 FTEs 
Commission staff 
Estimated between 
4 - 8 FTEs 

Agency staff 
Estimated between 
2-4 FTEs 

Agency staff 
Estimated between 
2 - 4 FTEs 

Agency staff 
Estimated between 
20 - 30 FTEs 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  
 NA  

     306.029  

      510.049  

     248.990  

      497.981  

Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control 
and auditing staff, etc. 
Staff comprises both human resources within 
the unit itself as well as administrative and 
support staff from other units within the DG. 

 NA  
     204.019  

 NA  
      408.039  

Director of IT AGENCY to be appointed 
Staff to reinforce the coordination unit 

 NA  

     124.495  

      248.990  

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit 

 NA  

   2.040.194  

   3.060.292  

Staff to man the asylum department of the IT 
agency 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Administrative 
and 
support staff 
Staff benefits 

other 

Staff training 

Agency staff 
Estimated between 
5 - 8 FTEs 
Estimated 15% of 
total staff costs 
Estimated at 500 
per FTE 

 NA  

 NA  

 NA  

     311.238  

      497.981  

Staff to man the asylum department of the IT 
agency 

     352.715  

      533.741  

       14.500  

        23.000  

– 

Title 
2 
Building, 
equipment and 
administrative 
expenditure 
Information 
technologies 
/ 
data-processing 

Infrastructure 

Equipment 

Overheads 

– 

3 

Title 
Operations 
Coordination 
unit 
Risk 
analysis 

/  needs 

Direct support 

Capacity 
building 
training 

/ 

Planning, 
research 
development 

and 

500.000  

     500.000  

   1.000.000  

This heading comprises all information 
technologies and data-processing activities of 
the agency. It also includes the development 
and maintenance of the COI portal, as well as 
the broader information portal and experts 
pool database.  

 NA  

     248.571  

      353.846  

Note: amounts of EASO taken as basis for 
calculation. 

50.000  

       10.357  

        22.115  

     187.596  

      295.071  

Costs relate to purchasing of hardware for the 
portals / databases, video-conferencing, etc. 
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this 
equipment and furniture, etc. Note: amounts of 
EASO taken as basis for calculation 

 NA  

     250.000  

      600.000  

Identification of risks and needs under the 
different tasks, supported by analytical work. 

 NA  

     150.000  

      600.000  

 NA  

     450.000  

   1.000.000  

 NA  

     450.000  

   1.000.000  

Activation of experts (fees for secondment of 
experts for 20-30 missions of 10 working days) 
Inputs to intra-EU relocation and resettlement 
schemes. The latter inputs are unlikely to 
happen in the short term. 

Organisation and facilitation of exchanges, 
peer learning and information sharing. 
Preparation of guidelines and needs 
assessments. Inputs to the experts pool 
database and management of the pool. 
Delivery of training and capacity building 
exercises. 
Joint 

Data collection, research, analysis to support 
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building 
elements of these tasks. Development of 
training methods and courses (including e-
learning). Part of these activities could initially 
be outsourced. 

Database 
development and 
maintenance, 
computer software 
and related 
updates, etc. 
COI portal   
Costs for renting 
office space to host 
the agency. 

Purchasing of 
equipment, 
furniture and 
specific computer 
hardware 

Not applicable 
Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Pool of asylum 
experts 
Intra-EU relocation 
Regional Protection 
Programmes 
Resettlement 
Pool of asylum 
experts 
Resettlement 
Intra-EU relocation 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Joint production of 
COI 
Pool of asylum 
experts  
Training and 
capacity building 
Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Joint production of 
COI 
Joint assessment 
of COI 
Intra-EU relocation 
Training and 
capacity building 
Regional Protection 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
              
               
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Programmes 

External 
relations 

Liaison and 
cooperation with 
external actors 

 NA  

       50.000  

      100.000  

50.000  

     150.000  

      300.000  

 NA  

     770.000  

   1.280.000  

Information, 
communication 
and 
dissemination 

Events, 
meetings 
missions 

and 

Development of 
information, 
communication and 
dissemination 
strategies, tools 
and products. 

(Meetings of the 
Management 
Board (8-12 for 30-
40 persons). 
Organisation of 
events, working 
and expert group 
meetings (15-25 for 
50 persons) 
Missions (20-30 
missions of 1 
person) 

Total  

600.000  

   6.818.706  

  12.331.105  

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third 
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures 
and EU bodies (e.g. participation / 
organisation of meetings, preparation of 
briefing materials, etc). Under this Policy 
option the costs are lower as some existing 
cooperation structures would cease to exist 
and the IT Agency would gradually become 
the single interlocutor on behalf of the EU. 

Development of a strategy and methodological 
tools, website, brochures and other 
documents. 
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and 
tools. 
It will be important for the agency to increase 
awareness and to promote its results. 

Meetings of management board: To be 
adapted in view of costs of IT-agency. Same 
calculation method as for Frontex and FRA 
(costs removed from the calculation) In 
addition, it would organise events to promote 
peer learning, good practice and information 
exchanges, etc. and to convene specific 
working / expert groups.  

- European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 

Specification 
(2011 
onwards) 

Estimated 
start-up staff 
2010 

Estimated 
start-up costs 
2010 

Minimum 
ongoing costs 
(2011 
onwards) 

Maximum 
ongoing costs 
(2011 
onwards) 

Comments 

Commission 
staff 
Estimated 
between 2 - 5 
FTEs 
Commission 
staff 
Estimated 
between 3 - 5 
FTEs 
Agency staff 
1 FTE 

Agency staff 
Estimated 
between 6 - 7 
FTEs 
Agency staff 
Estimated 
between 6 - 7 
FTEs 

See 
maximum on-
going costs 

459.044  

See 
maximum on-
going costs 

217.867  

         204.019  

        459.044  

         186.743  

        217.867  

Staff comprises both human 
resources within the unit itself as well 
as financial staff, control and auditing 
staff, etc. 

Staff comprises both human 
resources within the unit itself as well 
as administrative and support staff 
from other units within the DG. 

Not 
applicable 

Agency staff 
Estimated 2 
FTEs 

Agency staff 
Estimated 2 
FTEs 

                      -   

         167.171  

        167.171  

204.019  

124.495  

         612.058  

        714.068  

Staff to man the coordination unit of 
the Agency 

         373.486  

        435.733  

Staff to man the coordination unit of 
the Agency 

 Category 
Title 1 - Staff 
costs 
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 

other 

Director 

/ 

Coordination 
unit staff 
Senior 
technical staff 
Coordination 
unit staff 
Administrative 
staff 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
               
  
              
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
              
              
  
              
              
Senior 
technical staff 

/ 

Administrative 
and 
support staff 

other 

Staff benefits 

Staff training 

– 

Title 
2 
Building, 
equipment and 
administrative 
expenditure 
Information 
technologies 
/ 
data-processing 

Infrastructure 

Equipment 

Overheads 

– 

3 

Title 
Operations 
Risk 
analysis 

/  needs 

Direct support 

Agency staff 
Estimated 
between 30 - 
50 FTEs 
Agency staff 
Estimated 
between 17 - 
29 FTEs 
Estimated 15% 
of total staff 
costs 
Estimated at 
500 per FTE 

Database 
development 
and 
maintenance, 
computer 
software and 
related 
updates, etc. 
COI portal   

Costs for 
renting office 
space to host 
the agency. 

Purchasing of 
equipment, 
furniture and 
specific 
computer 
hardware 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Pool of asylum 
experts 
Intra-EU 
relocation 
Regional 
Protection 
Programmes 
Resettlement 
Pool of asylum 
experts 
Resettlement 
Intra-EU 
relocation 

Agency staff 
Estimated 15 
FTEs 

Agency staff 
Estimated 5 
FTEs 

1.530.146  

       3.060.292  

     5.100.486  

Staff to man the various departments 
of the Agency 

311.238  

276.208  

12.000  

       1.058.209  

     1.805.180  

Staff to man the various departments 
of the Agency 

         617.775  

     1.035.850  

           35.000  

          52.000  

500.000  

         500.000  

     1.000.000  

50.000  

         600.000  

        800.000  

50.000  

           25.000  

          50.000  

         368.985  

        575.585  

This heading comprises all 
information technologies and data-
processing activities of the agency. It 
also includes the development and 
maintenance of the COI portal, as 
well as the broader information portal 
and experts pool database.  
COI portal  
The exact costs of the portal cannot 
be estimated without additional 
research. Its development and 
maintenance could be (partly) 
outsourced. 
The agency will establish its office in 
a Member State still to be defined. 
For this reason the costs may vary 
greatly. 
Start-up costs relate to renovation / 
preparation of the space. These 
costs are based on costs of existing 
agencies (FRA and FRONTEX) 

Start up costs relate to setting up the 
office and to purchasing of hardware 
for the portals / databases, video-
conferencing, etc. Ongoing costs 
relate to regular updating of this 
equipment and furniture, etc. 

See minimum 
on-going 
costs 

250.000  

         250.000  

        600.000  

Identification of risks and needs 
under the different tasks, supported 
by analytical work. 

See minimum 
on-going 
costs 

150.000  

         150.000  

        600.000  

Activation of experts (fees for 
secondment of experts for 20-30 
missions of 10 working days)  
Inputs to intra-EU relocation and 
resettlement schemes. The latter 
inputs are unlikely to happen in the 
short term. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
           
              
  
              
  
  
               
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
              
  
               
  
               
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
              
              
Capacity 
building 
training 

/ 

Planning, 
research 
development 

and 

External 
relations 

Information, 
communication 
and 
dissemination 

Events, 
meetings 
missions 

and 

Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Joint 
production of 
COI 
Pool of asylum 
experts  
Training and 
capacity 
building 
Exchange best 
practices 
Support to 
monitoring and 
quality control 
Joint 
production of 
COI 
Joint 
assessment of 
COI 
Intra-EU 
relocation 
Training and 
capacity 
building 
Regional 
Protection 
Programmes 
Liaison and 
cooperation 
with external 
actors 

Development of 
information, 
communication 
and 
dissemination 
strategies, tools 
and products. 

Meetings of the 
Management 
Board (8-12 for 
30-40 persons). 
Organisation of 
events, working 
and expert 
group meetings 
(15-25 for 50 
persons) 
Missions (20-
30 missions of 
1 person) 

See minimum 
on-going 
costs 

450.000  

         450.000  

     1.000.000  

See minimum 
on-going 
costs 

450.000  

         450.000  

     1.000.000  

See minimum 
on-going 
costs 

50.000  

           50.000  

        100.000  

50.000  

         150.000  

        300.000  

See minimum 
on-going 
costs 

1.010.000  

       1.010.000  

     1.600.000  

Organisation and facilitation of 
exchanges, peer learning and 
information sharing. Preparation of 
guidelines and needs assessments. 
Inputs to the experts pool database 
and management of the pool. 
Delivery of training and capacity 
building exercises. 
Joint work on COI collection, 
production and assessment 

Data collection, research, analysis to 
support the risk / needs analysis and 
capacity building elements of these 
tasks. Development of training 
methods and courses (including e-
learning). 
Part of these activities could initially 
be outsourced. 

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with 
third countries, IGOs, other 
cooperation structures and EU 
bodies (e.g. participation / 
organisation of meetings, 
preparation of briefing materials, 
etc). Under this Policy option the 
costs are lower as some existing 
cooperation structures would cease 
to exist and the agency would 
gradually become the single 
interlocutor on behalf of the EU. 
Development of a strategy and 
methological tools, website, 
brochures and other documents. 
Start-up costs relate to drafting of 
strategy and tools. 
It will be important for the agency to 
increase awareness and to promote 
its results. 
The agency would finance all 
meetings of the Management Board. 
In addition, it would organise events 
to promote peer learning, good 
practice and information exchanges, 
etc. and to convene specific working 
/ expert groups. EURASIL would be 
one of the experts groups. Finally, it 
could finance missions of experts or 
staff. 

Total agency 

6.145.016  

     10.318.738  

    17.612.984  

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
              
              
               
  
               
           
  
  
           
  
 
ANNEX 5: FINANCIAL ADDITIONAL DATA 

Table 5.1 – List of relevant 2002 ARGO and ERF projects 

Reference 
Number

Applicant organisation MS

Title of the project

Total forecast budget

Amount requested

2002/ARGO/10 

COA

JAI/2002/ERF/06

Municipality of Rome

JAI/2002/ERF/10

UNHCR

JAI/2002/ERF/26

Save the Children 
Sweden

NL

IT

EU

SE

JAI/2002/ERF/37

Red Cross - EU Office

EU

ENARO Exchange programs 
and conferences

Europe, land of Asylum
Provision of country of origin 
and related information
Separated children in
Europe Programme
Conference "The new EU 
Directive on minimum 
reception standards for asylum 
seekers - from Policy to 
Action" 

345,301.00

207,184.00

342,634.00

176,859.66

412,752.00

274,107.00

141,487.73

330,202.00

99,787.00

79,830.00

Total

1,377,333.66

1,032,810.73  

Table 5.2 – List of relevant 2003 ARGO and ERF projects 

Reference Number

Applicant organisation

MS

Title of the project

Total forecast budget

Amount requested

JAI/2003/ARGO/8 

Ministry of Public Order

JAI/2003/ARGO/9

FEDASIL

JAI/2003/ARGO/13

Ministero dell'Interno - 
Dipartimento per le Liberta e 
l'iimigrazione

JAI/2003/ARGO/2/18

CGRA

JAI/2003/ERF/ 002 

Rädda Barnen - Save the 
Children

JAI/2003/ERF/ 004

OXFAM

JAI/2003/ERF/ 005

JAI/2003/ERF/ 014

Churches' Commission for 
Migrants in Europe 
Forum Förderverein Pro Asyl 
e.V. DE 

JAI/2003/ERF/ 022 Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz

JAI/2003/ERF/ 037

Työministeriö (Minsitry of 
Labour)

TOTAL

EL

BE

IT

BE

SE

UK

BE

DE

FI

Administrative Cooperation among 
National Authorities on Asylum and 
Immigration Procedures around Europe

Eight European Conference on the 
Reception of Asylum Seekers
Towards more orderly and managed 
entry in the EU of persons in need of 
international protection - International
Développement d''un cadre de 
référence commun pour le traitement 
des demandes d''asile de République 
Démocratique du Congo – Elaboration 
d''une documentation pratique 
commune et de directives communes 
d''aide à la décision.

Separated Children in Europe 
Programme

Protection and Asylum : applying field 
based knowledge at the European level

141,243.45

77,371.61

44,853.79

25,024.29

137,159.54

85,759.54

549,253.10

170,408.51

418,420.71

331,066.53

143,359.99

112,305.66

 Making resettlement work ! 

62,950.00

49,120.00

Info and Cooperation 

211,244.50

168,995.50

 COI Network and Training 

104,882.40

81,882.40

MORE - Modelling of National 
Resettlement Process and 
Implementation of Emergency

499,658.00

370,578.00

2,313,025.48

1,472,512.04  

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 5.3 – List of relevant 2004 ARGO and ERF projects 

Reference Number

Applicant organisation

MS

Title of the project

Total forecast budget

Amount requested

JAI/2004/ARGO/023

Ministero dell'Interno- 
Dipartimento per leLibertà Civili e 
l'Immigrazione

IT

Studio di fattibilità pe un programma di 
reinsediamento di refugiati

JAI/2004/ARGO/08

ary - Office of Immigration and Natio HU

JAI/2004/ARGO/018

Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst

NL

Information exchange on Dublin 
Regulation among V4 countries
Dublin Liaison Officer from the 
Netherlands to Slovakia and Austria, to 
optimise operational co-operation in 
Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 

112,301.32

67,380.79

32,282.00

19,122.00

140,399.67

84,239.80

Second call

JLS/2004/ARGO/46

Ministerie van Justitie, Immigratie 
en Naturalisatiedienst

JLS/2004/ARGO/31

Ministry of Public Order

JLS/2004/ARGO/39

Commissariat général aux 
Réfugiés et Apatrides

JLS/2004/ARGO/42

Ministry of Interior Department of 
Civil Liberties and Immigration

JLS/2004/ARGO/50

Fedasil

JAI/2004/ERF/090

vivo e.V.

NL

EL

BE

IT

BE

DE

JAI/2004/ERF/082

Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag

HU

JAI/2004/ERF/060

Austrian Red Cross

JAI/2004/ERF/036

JAI/2004/ERF/084

Organizace pro pomoc 
uprchlikum

RED CROSS/EUROPEAN 
UNION OFFICE

JAI/2004/ERF/027

Commission des eglises aupres 
des migrants en Europe

AT

CZ

BE

BE

JAI/2004/ERF/074

Jesuit Refugee Service

BE

JAI/2004/ERF/073

Berliner Institut fur Vergleichende 
Soziolforschung

JAI/2004/ERF/039

Pro Asyl e.V.

TOTAL

DE

DE

General Directors Immigration Services 
Conference (GDISC).

ARGONAUTE II – The strengthening of 
the asylum procedure at the Greek 
external borders.
Echange d'agents entre les 
administrations d'asile/immigration DE, 
BE FR LUX t NL
Information exchange on Dublin 
Regulation among V4 countries.

The role of reception organisations in a 
changing European context: exchange, 
networking, exploring operational co-
operation.
Multi-Centre NETwork Capacity 
Building
Online Curriculum Resources in 
International and European Asylum 
Law: Capacity Building for Refugee-
assisting NGOs and Refugee Law 
Clinics
Stenghtening the COI capacity of legal 
counsels of asylum-seekers through 
transfer of COI training skills and e-
learning
Fostering the best interests of the child 
in care institutions for unaccompanied 
minors
European Union Forum on Reception 
and Health Care of Asylum Seekers
Understsanding resettlement in 
practice: capacity building for action I 
(Making resettlement work II)
Training for Persons Attending the 
Needs of Asylum Seekers and 
Refugees in Reception and Detention 
Centres
Traumatisierte Fluchtlinge in der EU: 
Institutionen, Schutzmechanismen und 
bewahrte Verfahren
Cross-border Asylum Network 
Information and co-operation Forum II

636,529.11

328,454.47

128,935.40

77,361.24

443,292.58

143,497.97

103,537.50

62,122.50

264,575.99

108,345.59

122,400.00

97,900.00

90,296.00

72,220.00

217,904.27

167,297.07

79,526.68

63,404.85

162,635.00

130,107.00

143,398.00

114,678.00

67,330.00

53,860.00

219,120.00

175,286.00

473,759.26

3,438,222.78

178,951.20

1,944,228.48

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 5.4 – List of relevant 2005 ARGO and ERF projects 

Reference Number

Applicant organisation

MS

Title of the project

Total forecast budget

Amount requested

JLS/2005/ARGO/GC/01 

Office français de protection des 
réfugiés et apatrides

FR

JLS/2005/ARGO/GC/02 

Ministry of Interior

IT

2005/ARGO/GC/03 

Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst

NL

2005/ARGO/GC/04 

Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst

NL

2005/ARGO/GC/12 

Bundesamt fuer Migration und 
Fluechtlinge

DE

2005/ARGO/GC/17  Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs MT

2005/ARGO/GC/20 

Commissariat general aux réfugiés 
et aux apatrides

JLS/2005/ERF/016

ICMC EUROPE

JLS/2005/ERF/020

Ministry of Labour

JLS/2005/ERF/024

Austrian Red Cross

BE

BE

FI

AT

JLS/2005/ERF/001

Hungarian Helsinki Committee

HU

JLS/2005/ERF/007

Churches Commission for Migrants 
in Europe

BE

JLS/2005/ERF/018

Greek Council for Refugees

GR

TOTAL

Poursuite du développement d'un 
cadre de référence commun pour 
le traitement de demandes 
d'asile de République 
démocratique du Congo. - 
Elaboration d'une documentation 
pratique commune.

Strengthening of reception 
capacity in respect of migration 
flows reaching the island of 
Lampedusa

Common EU guidelines for the 
use and validation of factual COI

General Directors' Immigration 
Services Conference 

EU-wide conference "Exchange 
on the implementation of Council 
Directive 2001/55/EC 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.

Intra-European burden-sharing in 
the field of asylum 
Pooling of asylum liaison offices 
in a country of origin: Great 
Lakes Region

Practical Cooperation for an 
European Resettlement Network

MOST - Modelling of Orientation, 
Services and Training related to 
the Resettlement and Reception 
of Refugees

COI Network III - Training, 
Master Class, Good Practice
Monitoring access of asylum 
seekers to territory and 
procedure at European airports - 
exchange of experience and best 
practices
Resettlement - Broadening the 
basis in Europe Providing 
continued and targeted 
information and discussion on 

Identifying and promoting good 
practices for unaccompanied 
minors in the EU asylum 
legislation

212,302.00

53,957.40

540,149.12

311,129.47

157,169.76

61,739.86

1,052,167.09

575,320.25

166,589.83

90,902.57

322,625.00

119,700.00

259,170.50

114,002.80

126,007.00

100,805.00

577,913.00

399,233.00

239,306.18

191,206.18

80,464.00

64,371.20

199,465.00

159,535.00

97,539.06

78,031.25

4,030,867.54

2,319,933.98  

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5.5 – List of relevant 2006 ARGO and ERF projects 

MS

Title of the project

Total forecast budget

Amount 
requested

Reference 
Number

Applicant 
organisation

2006/ARGO/GC/04 

IOM

2006/ARGO/GC/14 

2006/ARGO/GC/21

2006/ARGO/GC/09 

2006/ARGO/GC/16 

Immigration and 
naturalization service

COA (central agency 
for reception of 
asylum seekers)

Ministry of Interior, 
Department for civil 
liberties and 
immigration

COA (central agency 
for reception of 
asylum seekers)

JLS/2006/ERF/001

Hungarian Helsinki 
Committee

JLS/2006/ERF/004

Immigration and 
naturalization service

JLS/2006/ERF/010

JLS/2006/ERF/018

International 
Organization for 
Migration

Medical Rehabilitation 
Center for Torture 
Victims

JLS/2006/ERF/005

Dutch Council for 
Refugees

JLS/2006/ERF/016

JLS/2006/ERF/006

JLS/2006/ERF/008

Italian Council for 
Refugees
Ministry of Interior, 
Department for civil 
liberties and 
immigration
Immigration and 
naturalization service

BE

NL

NL

IT

NL

HU

NL

BE

GR

NL

IT

IT

NL

JLS/2006/ERF/014 University of Konstanz

DE

TOTAL

Exchange of information and best 
practices on first reception, 
protection and treatment of 
unaccompanied minors
General Directors' immigration 
services conference 2007 (GDISC 
2007)

180,111.73

144,111.73

1,202,727.23

625,440.38

Durable solutions in practice

333,970.00

184,830.00

Consolidating reception capacities 
in respect of migration flows 
reaching the island of Lampedusa 
and other strategic border points of 
the Sicilian costs (Praesidium II)

European asylum reception 
organisations' knowledge transfer 
hub (The Hub)
Enhancing the proper 
implementation of Community law in 
Member States through Online 
Teaching Resources and 
Information Exchange
General Directors' Immigration 
Services Conference Asylum 
Conference 2007
Not just numbers. Teaching Toolkit 
on Migration and Asylum in the 
European Union 

Development of Training Material for 
Professionals Working with Asylum 
Seekers and Refugees Survivors of 
Torture and Ill Treatment

Networking on the Transposition of 
the Qualification Directive: Sharing 
Information and Facilitating 
Dialogue between NGOs and other 
stakeholders
Services at Borders: a practical 
cooperation
Resettlement: Building up the basis. 
Promoting programmes for the 
resettlement refugees through 
information and awareness raising
European Asylum Curriculum, 
Phase II
Multi-Centre NETwork 
Strenghtening

619,712.67

371,827.60

538,608.00

258,008.00

199,762.58

139,833.81

83,402.00

58,381.40

478,401.28

334,880.90

71,545.00

50,081.00

252,094.00

176,465.00

163,197.94

114,238.56

89,667.62

62,767.33

655,737.70

400,000.00

202,702.92

141,800.00

5,071,640.67

3,062,665.71  

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
Table 5.6: Estimated FTE's dedicated to transnational practical cooperation 

Source:  feasibility  study.  During  the  case  studies  and  interviews  with  key  stakeholders  from 
public  and  civil  society  sectors,  interviewees  were  asked  to  estimate  the  total  time  allocated  to 
practical  cooperation  on  a  yearly  basis.  Not  all  stakeholders  were  able  to  provide  such  an 
estimate. Table 5.6 below shows the estimated human resources in FTE by country or by relevant 
organisation,  as  well  as  the  estimated  total  costs.  For  some  countries,  estimates  were  given  by 
both public authorities and NGOs. 

Name of organisation 

Asylum and Refugee Office (ES) 

Forum Refugie (FR) 

Terre d'asile (FR) 

Ministry of immigration (FR) 

OFPRA (FR) 

Ministry of Justice (NL) 

Vluchtelingenwerk (NL) 

Office for Foreigners, Department for Refugee Procedures (PL) 

Department of international cooperation/ Office for Foreigners (PL) 

Asylum section, Migration Policy department, Administrative and Internal 
Affairs, Ministry of Interior (SL) 

Asylum and Migration section (CZ) 

Red Cross (AT) 

Total (7 Member States) 

Average per Member States 

Assumed total EU27 

Assumed total cost

55

FTE  involved  in  practical 
cooperation 

3 

2 

10 

4 

6 

4 

4 

1 

2 

4 

2 

12 

54 FTE 

7.7 FTE 

208 FTE 

6,015,500 euro 

55 Based on annual gross salary in Services sector, Structure of Earnings Survey 2002 (Eurostat) 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
i This table concerns States that have an annual refugee resettlement programme target or quota in 2008.  The figures are based on information 
reported by States according to allocations provided for in 2008.  Owing to different fiscal / programme years among States and complexities 
associated with calculating yearly allocations, which in some cases are flexible, the figures in this table should be read as approximate.  
ii This includes resettlement processing for individuals who are in their country of origin (non-refugee). 
iii The majority of resettlement countries do not include family reunification within their quota allocation for UNHCR submissions.  Individuals 
accepted under family reunion programmes include individuals in their country of origin.   
iv Australia’s refugee resettlement intake for 2008/2009 has been increased by 500 places. 
v Citizens and/or permanent residents of Australia can propose / sponsor individuals under this category.  Community organisations can also 
propose under this category. 
vi Immediate family reunification is given priority under the Humanitarian Program (figures shown under “private sponsorship” column). 
vii 7,300 – 7,500 places comprise the total Government assisted target, including in-country processing. 
viii Government assisted resettlement. 
ix Denmark is operating a flexible quota of 1500 places over 3 years. Within the 3-year period, more or fewer places can be used depending on 
actual needs. 
x This figure is based on the rationale that each case comprises approximately 4 persons.  The agreement signed between France and UNHCR 
refers to “une centaine de cas”. 
xi This figure refers to an ad-hoc submission made by UNHCR and NGO / church groups for Iraqi refugees. 
xii 300 places of the 750 allocation could be used for non-UNHCR submitted cases. 
xiii Up to 300 places could be used for individuals in their home country who are family members of refugees resettled in New Zealand.  These 
places, if used, would be taken from the 750 places available for UNHCR submissions.   
xiv Close family members of resettled refugees are reunited and settled as refugees in Norway over and above the resettlement quota.   
xv This figure refers to the Mandate Programme which has no set limit but the figure is based on the average number resettled each year. 
xvi Where States provided a target range (e.g. Iceland 25-30), the higher figure has been used in calculating the total. 

_________________ 

EN 

91 

   EN