Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an European Asylum Support Office  - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2009) 66 final} {SEC(2009) 153}
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) 154 

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 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2009) 66 final} 
{SEC(2009) 153} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

1.1. 

Calls to set up a European Asylum Support Office  

The Commission adopted in June 2008 a Communication1 "Policy Plan on Asylum – An 
Integrated  Approach  to  Protection  across  the  EU",  which  set  out  a  road  map  for  the 
second  phase  of  completion  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  (CEAS),  and 
announced  that  it  would  put  forward  a  legislative  proposal  for  the  creation  of  a 
European Asylum Support office. 

At  the  end  of  September  2008,  the  European  Council  adopted  the  European  Pact  on 
Immigration  and  Asylum.  Under  this  Pact2,  the  European  Council  expressly  agreed  to 
"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 20073, the aim of which 
was  to  identify  the  options  for  shaping  the  second  phase  of  the  CEAS.  Specific 
questions4 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 
stakeholders5,  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 

1 

2

3 
4 
5 

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.  

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_REU
NION=&dd_FT_DATE=&fc=ALLLANG&srm=25&md=100&ssf= 
Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System - COM(2007) 301. 
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. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
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 stakeholders6.  

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 
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.  

6 

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 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
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 external dimension of the CEAS. 

2.3. 

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 
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.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The objectives are set out in the table overleaf.  

General 
objectives 

Specific objectives 

Operational 
(outputs and effects) 

objectives 

To improve fair and 
more harmonised 
treatment 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 through 
expanding the 
external dimension 
of the CEAS 

To  reduce  differences  in  implementation  of 
legislation,  policies  and  operational  practices, 
between Member States 

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

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 
deal with asylum requests, including situations of 
mass influx of asylum seekers  

To  support  Member  States  to  build 
capacity  and  support 
facing 
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 

Two sets of policy options are analysed in the impact assessment report.  

The first set of policy options refers to tasks and missions to be entrusted to the support 
structure. 

The second 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 
above, are studied in the impact assessment report.  

4.1. 

Tasks and missions to be entrusted to the future asylum support structure 

An  individual  analysis  for  tasks  and  missions  to  be  entrusted  to  the  future  asylum 
support structure was carried out assessing available options. The following tasks were 
assessed as possible to be entrusted to the future support structure: 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Exchange of best practices. 

Support to monitoring and quality control. 

Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of origin Information / 
improve assessment of Country of origin Information. 

Pool of asylum experts. 

Intra-EU relocation. 

Training and capacity building. 

Activities linked to the external aspects of practical cooperation linked to CEAS: 
resettlement and regional protection programmes.  

4.2. 

Options for the institutional form of the future asylum support structure 

An  individual  analysis  of  eight  options  for  institutional  form  of  the  support  structure 
(among them, two options quickly discarded) was carried out:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Status quo (discarded). 

Strengthening the European Commission's unit. 

Creating a new network. 

Creation of a new regulatory agency (non decision-making body). 

Incorporation of the support structure into an existing regulatory agency: 

– 

– 

– 

into the Fondamental Rights agency (FRA), 

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

into  the  future  Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  SIS  II,  VIS  and 
EURODAC  and  for  the  development  and  the  management  of  other  large-
scale IT systems. 

– 

Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision-making regulatory agency 
- option discarded in the policy plan on asylum).  

EN 

6 

   EN 

5. 

PREFERRED POLICY OPTION  

The seven tasks described are assessed in the impact assessment report as possible to be 
entrusted to the future support structure and feasible by this future support structure. 

This  impact  assessment  report  carried  out  an  individual  analysis  for  each  institutional 
available option for the future support asylum structure. 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 

7 

   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 the 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 

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 

0 

- - 

+ 

+++ 

+ 

- 

- - 

- - - 

- - -- 

Non-
available 

Non-
available 

Non-
available 

8 

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  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.  

EN 

9 

   EN