COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylumAn EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust
Date: 2011-12-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, action programme, financial aid, illegal migration, job access, refugee, right of asylum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 2.12.2011 
COM(2011) 835 final 

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

on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum 

An EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Solidarity  is  one  of  the  fundamental  values  of  the  European  Union  and  has  been  a  guiding 
principle of the common European asylum policy since the start of its development in 1999. It 
is now enshrined in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.1 

Solidarity has been recognised as an essential component of the Common European Asylum 
System (CEAS) since the outset. The need to translate solidarity into concrete measures flows 
from practical realities since the asylum systems of all Member States are interdependent. An 
overburdened  or  malfunctioning  system  in  one  Member  State  has  a  clear  impact  on  all  the 
others, including through secondary movements. Asylum flows are not constant, nor are they 
evenly distributed  across the  EU. They have varied from  a peak  of 425 000 applications for 
EU-27 States in 2001 down to under 200 000 in 2006, with a large increase expected this year. 
Increased  asylum  flows  can  stretch  the  capacity  of  some  Member  States  to  cope.  It  is  the 
Union's  responsibility  to  assist  these  Member  States,  also  in  order  to  uphold  the  Union's 
common values and fundamental rights by ensuring adequate reception of asylum seekers and 
refugees and access to protection.  

However,  solidarity  must  be  coupled  with  responsibility.  Member  States  must  ensure  that 
their systems are able to meet the standards set in international and European law, notably the 
1951  Geneva  Refugee  Convention,  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  and  the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  EU.  The  need  to  keep  one's  house  in  order  to  avoid 
impacts  on  other  Member  States  is  a  key  aspect  of  solidarity.  This  aspect  also  needs  to  be 
enhanced  in  order  to  create  an  environment  of  mutual  trust,  contributing  to  further 
development of mutual assistance. It is fundamental to increase trust to strengthen solidarity. 
Implementing the principle of solidarity requires a real commitment by Member States. The 
tough economic situation for the EU and its Member States makes this even more demanding. 
The  EU has  already developed a series of  solidarity tools that  constitute a  solid  basis. Each 
can  be  improved  and  new  components  can  be  established  to  provide  a  flexible  toolbox 
responding to different solidarity needs.  

To this end, the Commission proposes reinforcing intra-EU solidarity on asylum around four 
axes:  practical  cooperation  and  technical  assistance,  financial  solidarity,  allocation  of 
the  asylum  system.  This 
responsibilities,  and 
Communication also aims to contribute to the finalisation of the "asylum package" given that 
the next few months will be crucial for reaching the 2012 objective for which the solidarity 
dimension must play its part.  

tools  for  governance  of 

improving 

1. 

REALISING  THE  FULL  POTENTIAL  OF  PRACTICAL  COOPERATION  AND  TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE 

1.1.  Making practical cooperation a constitutive pillar of the CEAS 

Many practical cooperation measures have been undertaken in recent years, latest through the 
creation  of  the  European  Asylum  Support  Office  (EASO),  which  will  further  strengthen 

1 

This Communication does not address areas of solidarity linked to policies to curb irregular migration, 
even  though  there  is  a  link  between  other  migration  management  policies  and  a  well-functioning 
asylum system.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
practical  cooperation  in  the  field  of  asylum.  The  support  office  will  ensure  that  practical 
cooperation can become a major supporting pillar to the asylum system of the Union. Initial 
experience  of  the  CEAS  has  shown  that  practical  action  is  a  necessary  complement  to 
legislation  to  create  confidence  that  all  Member  States  perform  the  same  tasks  in  a  similar 
way with similar outcomes. 

The EASO was inaugurated in June 2011. It will provide a structure to add value to existing 
cooperation arrangements. For example, the European Asylum Curriculum has the potential to 
become a common standard for caseworkers across the EU, significantly enhancing trust that 
practices  across  Member  States  are  much  the  same  and  that  decisions  taken  follow  a 
consistent pattern. The EASO should measure the impact of these measures through specific, 
Union-wide objectives. 

Asylum  systems  will  improve  through  an  interaction  between  EU  legislation,  an  enhanced 
practical cooperation and an intelligent use of EU funding mechanisms. As the Union pursues 
the  adoption  of  more  harmonised  and  improved  common  standards  by  adopting  the  asylum 
legislative  package,  Member  States  will  have  better  common  implementation  tools  at  their 
disposal, which are provided by the support office's activities that will support national cost-
reduction  efforts.  The  EASO  will  also  be  able  to  identify  and  disseminate  best  practice  in 
aspects  such  as  access  to  procedure,  dealing  with  the  most  vulnerable  applicants,  sharing 
techniques and managing backlogs. Common tools and best practices, supported by EU funds, 
will  help  Member  States  implement  the  evolving  common  standards.  The  EASO  will  also 
usefully  contribute  to  transparent  and  strategic  management  of  the  CEAS,  including  by 
issuing its annual report on the state of asylum in the Union. 

The  impact  of  the  EASO  will  depend  on  the  Member  States’  willingness  to  use  the 
possibilities  it  offers  and  on  their  commitment  to  engage  in  such  collaboration.  It  will  be 
necessary  to  set  up  a  regular  practice  of  European  collaboration  between  national  asylum 
authorities. 

One  of  the  common  tools  that  the  EASO  needs  to  investigate,  as  invited  by  the  Stockholm 
Programme, are procedures facilitating the secondment of officials between Member States to 
help Member States that face particular pressures. To this end, the EASO should create a pool 
of experts, case workers and interpreters who could be mobilised at short notice in order to 
provide assistance to a Member State in need. 

It will be necessary to regularly review whether the mandate and the legal basis of the EASO 
are adequate to respond to the different challenges of solidarity be it short-term or structural, 
and to new forms of asylum flows.  

1.2. 

Filling the international protection gap in the Union’s reaction to migration and 
asylum crises 

The EASO’s role is also to assist Member States that face particular pressure. When translated 
into  specific  action,  the  EASO  can  become  a  key  actor  in  managing  asylum  and  migration 
emergencies. Being able to deploy EASO Asylum Support Teams based on operating plans in 
requesting Member States will be a new asset for solidarity in the field of asylum. 

Lessons should be learned from the Union’s response to the migratory consequences of events 
in  the  Southern  Mediterranean.  The  Union  was  rapidly  able  to  identify  additional  financial 
resources to assist the affected Member States, and deploy operational means coordinated by 
Frontex  for  border  control  operations,  which  also  aided  maritime  search  and  rescue 

EN 

3 

   EN 

operations. Frontex assisted in the screening of the new arrivals and by providing information. 
However, other operational solidarity measures specifically relating to international protection 
could not be deployed, notably because the EASO was not yet sufficiently operational. 

As the EASO takes steps to ensure it is ready to fill this gap in case of future needs, one of the 
essential aspects it should consider is coordination with other Agencies. The EASO, Frontex, 
and potentially Europol should make specific arrangements, together with the Commission, to 
ensure there is clarity on the respective roles of each and to ensure that emergency operating 
procedures  are  rapid  and  effective.  Such  procedures  could  include  the  deployment  of 
coordinated teams. 

The  need  for  cross-agency  cooperation  applies  equally  to  reacting  to  emergencies  and  to 
proactive  work,  such  as  risk  analysis  and  early  warning  capacity.  In  addition,  the  EASO 
should  support  the  integration  of  international  protection  aspects  in  the  work  of  Frontex,  in 
light of recently agreed amendments to the Frontex legal base that strengthen the mechanisms 
protecting fundamental rights in the context of Frontex operations. This could also be done in 
collaboration with the Fundamental Rights Agency. 

During  the  recent  events  in  the  Mediterranean, the  Commission  examined  the  possibility  of 
using  the  Union’s  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  to  assist  Member  States  facing  exceptional 
migration  flows  that  overwhelm  national  response  capacities.  At  the  request  of  Member 
States,  the  Mechanism  could  be  used,  under  very  specific  conditions,  to  coordinate  the 
mapping of offers and delivery of in-kind support. 

Key action points 

(cid:126)  Member States to contribute to EASO's activities and assets and make best 

use of EASO mutual tools. 

(cid:126)  Member  States  to  set  in  early  2012  a  quantitative  target  for  their  asylum 
officials to be trained using the European Asylum Curriculum by 2014. 

(cid:126)  EASO to provide technical support to Member States in fully implementing 

the asylum legislation. 

(cid:126)  EASO  to  review  in  2012  procedures  that  will  facilitate  the  secondment  of 
officials  to  help  Member  States  facing  particular  pressures  on  their  asylum 
systems, and to create a pool of experts, case handlers and interpreters that can 
be mobilised at short notice in crisis situations. 

(cid:126)  EASO  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  deployment  of  experts  by  evaluating 
Operating  Plan  methodology  and  the  initial  experience  of  Asylum  Support 
Teams in Greece. 

(cid:126)  The  Commission  to  evaluate  in  2013  the  EASO’s  impact  on  practical 
cooperation  on  asylum  and  on  the  CEAS  and  to  propose  possible  additional 
measures  deemed  necessary  to  ensure  effective  solidarity  and  sharing  of 
responsibilities. 

(cid:126)  The EASO  and  Frontex to  agree  in 2012 clear  cooperation arrangements to 
maximise analysis, technical assistance and deployment of means and experts 
to improve EU's capacity to act in emergency situations. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

(cid:126)  The  Commission  and  Member  States  to  examine  the  use  of  the  EU  Civil 
Protection  Mechanism  in  the  event  of  exceptional  migration  flows  that 
overwhelm national response capacities when specific conditions are met. 

2. 

ENHANCING  THE  ADDED  VALUE  OF  FINANCIAL  SOLIDARITY  INSTRUMENTS 
SUPPORTING ASYLUM POLICY 

2.1.  Maximising the use of the European Refugee Fund until 2013 

The European Refugee Fund (ERF) has demonstrated how the Union and its Member States 
working together can  create  significant added value. Since it was  created in 2000, the Fund 
has helped Member States to increase the capacity of their asylum systems. For example, it 
helped  Italy  to  put  in  place  an  asylum  reception  system.  It  assisted  the  EU-10+2  Member 
States with less established tradition of providing asylum prior to accession to further develop 
their  systems.  It  has  also  allowed  Member  States  to  initiate  refugee  integration  policies  and 
has  contributed  to  innovative  projects.  It  inspired  Member  States  to  take  on  new  activities 
including  resettlement  and  relocation.  In  recent  years,  it  has  provided  much-needed 
emergency assistance to Belgium, Greece, Italy, and Malta. 

For  the  remaining  two  years  of  operation  of  the  ERF  (2008-2013),  Member  States  must 
ensure that they make full use of the opportunities available under the Fund. This should start 
with  complying  with  all  formal  requirements  so  that  all  the  funds  can  be  disbursed.  It  is 
especially important that Member States use the ERF to finance investment that brings long-
term  benefits  to  their  asylum  systems.  The  Fund  is  not  designed  to  be  simply  a  top  up  of 
national operating budgets for asylum. To this end, the Commission has recently encouraged 
Member States to make more strategic use of the ERF in 2012 and 2013. 

Ultimately,  effective  implementation  of  the  legislative  package  on  asylum,  coupled  with 
innovative  practical  cooperation  projects,  should  reduce  the  costs  of  asylum  processes. 
Asylum  is  a  policy  area  where  investment  yields  longer-term  savings,  both  financial  and 
social.  That  is  why  the  ERF  should  be  used  in  particular  to  support  the  transposition  and 
implementation of second-phase CEAS legislation. 

2.2. 

A more flexible, integrated and targeted Asylum and Migration Fund from 2014 
to 2020 

From  2014,  Member  States  will  have  a  new  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund2  (AMF)  at  their 
disposal.  As  proposed  by  the  Commission  on  15  November  2011,  it  makes  a  number  of 
important  evolutionary  improvements  that  should  help  achieve  EU  policy  objectives  and 
generate more significant EU added value. 

An  important  innovation  is  an  overarching  home  affairs  policy  dialogue  with  each  Member 
State  on  their  use  of  the  new  Fund,  which  should  precede  multiannual  programming.  This 
dialogue would set the objectives Member States seek to achieve in the policy area and the 
specific  objectives  to  be  achieved  using  the  Fund’s  resources.  This  will  be  coupled  with 
annual reporting by Member States on implementation of the Fund. 

2 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and 
Migration Fund, COM(2011) 751. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
In parallel, the new Fund will be more flexible. Appropriations under direct responsibility of 
the  Commission  will  be  treated  as  a  single  envelope,  to  be  spent  in  light  of  policy 
developments  or  the  situation  in  Member  States  or  third  countries.  The  new  Fund  will  also 
better ensure that money goes where it is most needed. The criteria to use the allocations by 
Member  States  are  intended  to  be  more  targeted  and  are  designed  to  ensure  solidarity  with 
Member  States  under  particular  pressure,  or  those  with  the  greatest  need  to  still  develop 
capacity.  The  new  Fund  would  be  able  to  take  into  account  significant  fluctuations  in  the 
number  of  asylum  seekers  in  Member  States,  including  Dublin  transferees,  and  allocate 
additional  resources  to  Member  States  in  need  at  the  mid-term  review.  A  streamlined 
management system is foreseen to reduce the administrative burden involved.  

The  Fund  proposes  giving  a  financial  incentive  to  Member  States,  similar  to  that  currently 
used  for  the  resettlement  of  specific  categories  of  refugees  (vulnerable  groups  and  persons  
coming from the Regional Protection Programmes), to compensate Member States that agree 
to relocate beneficiaries of international protection from another Member State. 

Finally,  to  use  more  effectively  the  competence  and  expertise  of  the  Union's  home  affairs 
agencies, the proposal also envisages to make use of the possibility offered by the Financial 
Regulation  to  entrust,  within  the  resources  available  under  the  Fund,  the  implementation  of 
specific tasks to the agencies, in the framework of their missions and in complementarity with 
their work programmes. This is without prejudice to the overall staff reductions foreseen.  

2.3. 

Exploiting  complementarities  between  financial  instruments  for  maximum 
impact 

Financial solidarity for asylum purposes may also benefit, both directly and indirectly, from 
other  EU  financial  instruments.  For  example, the  European  Social  Fund  provides  assistance 
for  vocational  training  programmes  that  can  assist  asylum  seekers  and  beneficiaries  of 
international protection to gain access to the labour market or to increase their skill sets. Other 
Structural  Funds,  notably  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  may  also  be  used  to 
assist  eligible  regions  in  Member  States  to,  for  example,  help  build  infrastructure  such  as 
accommodation  centres.  Member  States  should  therefore  consider  using  other  EU  financial 
instruments in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. This requires strategic programming 
and robust inter-ministerial coordination. 

Key action points 

(cid:126)  Member States to make best use of the ERF 2011, 2012, 2013 programmes, 
including  the  emergency  measures.  In  2013,  programming  must  be  more 
strategically  used,  e.g.  to  support  transposition  and  implementation  of 
legislation adopted within the framework of the 2012 asylum package. 

(cid:126)  Co-legislators to agree quickly on the MFF specific instruments supporting 

asylum policy presented by the Commission on 15 November 2011. 

(cid:126)  Member States to ensure coordination and complementarity with other EU 
financial instruments to enhance their capacity to manage asylum flows. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

3. 

ENGAGING WITH THE ISSUE OF ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES 

3.1. 

The Dublin Regulation needs reform 

The objective of the Dublin Regulation, to assign responsibility for each asylum seeker to a 
Member State, remains at the core of the CEAS. A mechanism for determining responsibility 
for asylum applications remains necessary  to guarantee the right to an effective access to the 
procedures  for  determining  refugee  status,  without  compromising  the  objective  of  rapid 
processing  of  asylum  applications,  and  preventing  abuse  by  the  same  person  submitting 
multiple applications in several Member States. 

The  Dublin  Regulation’s  principles,  which  the  Commission  proposed  to  keep  in  its  2008 
proposal to revise the Regulation, are not purely to return asylum seekers back to the State of 
first entry. Several clauses temper this criterion. In certain situations, Dublin transfers could 
contribute to overstretching the capacity of a Member State under pressure, to the detriment 
not only of that Member State, but also of the rights of applicants. 

The evolving case-law has posed fundamental questions about how to effectively operate the 
Dublin system in all circumstances and to ensure that measures taken in the application of the 
Dublin  Regulation  fully  respect  fundamental  rights,  most  notably  in  the  2011  M.S.S.  vs. 
Belgium  and  Greece  ruling  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights.3  In  a  few  months,  the 
Court of Justice of the EU will also provide further guidance that will need to be taken into 
account in the development and the implementation of the CEAS. 

In  order  to  safeguard  its  integrity,  improvements  must  be  made  to  the  Dublin  system’s 
efficiency and the level of safeguards for applicants. Negotiations on the Commission’s 2008 
proposal revealed the need to enhance mutual trust in the Dublin system. One of the solutions 
could be to step up monitoring and problem resolution measures to intervene at earlier stages 
with evaluation and early warning devices. This should now be given priority in the last phase 
of the negotiations with a view to meeting the 2012 deadline (see section 4.2 below). 

Given  that  a  well-functioning  Dublin  system  is  essential  for  the  CEAS,  its  principles  and 
functioning should be regularly reviewed as other components of the CEAS and EU solidarity 
tools  are  built  up.  A  comprehensive  ‘fitness  check’  should  be  made  by  conducting  an 
evidence-based review covering the legal, economic and social effects of the Dublin system, 
including its effects on fundamental rights. 

3.2. 

Further developing relocation of beneficiaries of international protection  

Relocation consists of transferring beneficiaries or applicants for international protection from 
one  Member  State  to  another,  with  the  receiving  Member  State  assuming  responsibility  for 
examining the application or for integration measures.  

The idea of relocating applicants for international protection before their protection needs are 
assessed is contentious. Some stakeholders see it as a useful or even necessary measure, some 
Member  States  even  going  as  far  as  advocating  relocation  of  irregular  migrants,  whereas 
others contest this idea. Many questions remain as to  how such  action would interface with 
the Dublin system, its practical usefulness and cost-effectiveness compared to other forms of 
solidarity,  and  the  impact  on  applicants  themselves.  The  Commission  does  not  consider  it 

3 

Application no. 30696/09, 21.1.2011. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
useful to propose an EU mechanism for relocating applicants for international protection for 
the moment. Nevertheless, the Commission created the scope for Union co-financing of such 
activities in the AMF proposal, consolidating and further developing what is already possible 
under  the  ERF.  This  will  facilitate  trailblazing  by  Member  States  who  would  be  willing  to 
engage  in  voluntary  projects,  with  the  EASO  taking  a  coordinating  role.  Such  co-financing 
could also be useful in an emergency. 

By contrast, there is a consensus that relocating beneficiaries of international protection can 
be both useful and appropriate. In June 2009, the Commission proposed an EU-wide pilot, the 
EUREMA  (EU  Relocation  Malta  Project),  co-financed  by  the  ERF.  The  project  finished  in 
summer 2011, having resettled 227 beneficiaries of international protection from Malta to six 
other Member States. 

The  pilot  project  was  an  important  experience  for  all  actors  involved.  During  the  project, 
Member  States  were  creative  in  finding  solutions  to  many  legal  and  practical  issues 
concerning, for example, granting appropriate status or effective integration measures. These 
solutions could help the EASO prepare the support activities for relocation called for by the 
EASO’s  legal  base,  such  as  operational  preparatory  measures,  raising  awareness,  and 
coordinating  execution.  The  success  of  the  project  led  to  the  launching  of  its  second  phase 
with  a  pledging  conference  on  12  May  2011  at  the  initiative  of  the  Commission.  Although 
more  total  places  were  pledged  than  for  the  first  phase—a  total  of  nearly  340—the  number 
still remains low. The Commission urges Member States to go as far as they can in providing 
further  places,  especially  given  the  number  of  new  arrivals  of  asylum  seekers  in  Malta  in 
summer 2011. 

The Commission has strongly supported relocation by initiating and driving the pilot project. 
Based on the experience of the two phases of the project, and taking into account the EASO’s 
future support for relocation activities, the Commission will propose a voluntary, permanent 
scheme,  subject  to  a  further  impact  assessment.  It  would  allow  Member  States  to  request 
assistance through relocation, including in an emergency. 

A  further  recent  development  is  the  adoption  of  the  amended  Directive4  on  long-term 
residency  rights,  granting  recognised  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  certain  rights, 
equal  treatment  and  the  right  to  move  to  another  Member  State  after  five  years’  residency. 
This is not itself a solidarity measure, but it may provide some help in easing the pressure on 
certain  Member  States  if  a  number  of  recognised  beneficiaries  choose  to  move  to  another 
Member State under certain conditions. 

3.3. 

Investigating  the  feasibility  of  joint  processing  of  applications  on  the  Union's 
territory 

The  issue  of  joint  processing  of  asylum  applications  on  the  territory  of  the  Union  was  first 
raised  in  The  Hague  Programme.  The  Stockholm  Programme  invited  the  Commission  to 
finalise  its  study  on  the  feasibility  and  legal  and  practical  implications  to  establish  joint 
processing of asylum applications. 

4 

Directive  2011/51/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2011  amending 
Council  Directive  2003/109/EC  [concerning  the  status  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  long-term 
residents] to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
There are many aspects of joint processing that need to be clarified. The essential questions 
include an assessment of the type of situations where joint processing could be useful. Legal 
and administrative issues to be considered include compatibility with EU law, legal basis in 
the Treaties, the question of effective remedy, the status of persons subject to joint processing, 
who  would  have  the  competence  to  take  decisions,  the  link  to  transfer  of  protection  and/or 
mutual recognition of asylum decisions, and reconciliation with the Dublin system. Financial 
issues  include  the  costs  compared  to  a  purely  national  procedure  and  funding  mechanisms. 
Practical  issues  to  study  include  among  others  the  place  where  joint  processing  would  take 
place and the potential use of remote working. Joint processing would of course need to fully 
respect the rights of applicants. 

Joint processing on the Union’s territory could become a useful solidarity tool. It could assist 
Member States under pressure in reducing backlogs of cases, thus accompanying the Dublin 
system. It could be a way of disseminating best practice and sharing techniques, again with a 
view  to  harmonising  asylum  systems  by  increasing  trust  in  each  others’  asylum  systems. 
Given  the  varying  numbers  of  asylum  arrivals,  some  Member  States  go  through  periods  of 
relatively  reduced  pressure  and  may  have  spare  staffing  capacity  with  which  to  help  other 
Member  States.  It  is  worth  investigating  whether  resources  could  be  borrowed  or  shared 
according  to  capacity  between  Member  States,  possibly  in  connection  with  procedures  for 
secondment of officials to be developed by the EASO. 

The Commission will launch a study to consider these questions in depth. The outcome could 
be available at the end of 2012. 

3.4. 

Ensuring adequate allocation of responsibility in exceptional circumstances 

Apart from the emergency component of a future permanent relocation scheme, in the event 
of  a  mass  influx  of  displaced  persons,  the  Commission  will  always  consider  activating  the 
mechanism  of  the  Temporary  Protection  Directive  when  the  conditions  are  met.  This 
Directive is a useful tool in an exceptional situation. It provides for an adequate status for its 
beneficiaries,  while  relieving  the  asylum  system  and  creating  a  structured,  yet  voluntary, 
mechanism  for  the  transfer  of  beneficiaries  between  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  the 
criteria for its triggering are strictly defined: it can be done only in the event of a mass influx 
or  imminent  mass  influx  of  displaced  persons  unable  to  return  to  their  country  of  origin  in 
safe and durable conditions, in particular if there is also a risk that the asylums system will be 
unable to process this influx without adverse effects for its efficient operation. A mass influx 
implies the arrival in the Union of a large number of such displaced persons, who come from 
a specific country or geographic area, whether their arrival in the Union was spontaneous or 
aided,  for  example  through  an  evacuation  programme.  The  Union  has  not  found  itself  in  a 
situation  of  mass  influx  of  displaced  persons  since  the  Kosovo  refugee  crisis  of  1999.  The 
events of 2011 in the Southern Mediterranean have not led to an influx of persons into the EU 
of a comparable scale.  

Large  numbers  of  asylum  seekers  and  irregular  migrants  arriving  at  the  EU’s  southern 
external border often give rise to search and rescue situations. Member States are bound by 
obligations  under  international  law  to  assist  any  person  in  distress  at  sea  and  to  ensure 
disembarkation in a place of safety as soon as possible. The principle of non-refoulement must 
be  fully  respected.  These  obligations  also  apply  to  third  countries  of  departure.  The 
Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  ensure  the  closest  possible  cooperation  and 
coordination between them in meeting their obligations. While these are absolute obligations 
where  the  life  and  health  of  the  persons  are  paramount,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  without 

EN 

9 

   EN 

measures taken at EU level, large numbers of arrivals put a serious strain on Member States’ 
reception capacities and responsibilities, including with regard to return. The positive impact 
of measures such as relocation, as outlined in the previous section, should therefore be taken 
into account as a means of addressing the strain which may result from the disembarkation of 
rescued persons who apply and qualify for international protection. 

Key action points 

(cid:126)  Co-legislators to speed up negotiations to reform the Dublin Regulation to 

meet the 2012 deadline. 

(cid:126)  The  Commission  to  launch  a  ‘fitness  check’  of  the  Dublin  Regulation  in 

2014. 

(cid:126)  Member  States  to  increase  their  pledges  in  the  context  of  extending  the 
relocation  pilot  project  for  Malta,  as  underlined  during  the  Ministerial 
Conference of 12 May 2011. 

(cid:126)  Subject to a further impact assessment, the Commission to propose in 2012 a 
voluntary,  permanent  relocation  scheme  for  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection. 

(cid:126)  The EASO to engage in supporting and facilitating relocation, as foreseen 

by the EASO Regulation, on the basis of the EUREMA experience. 

(cid:126)  The Commission to launch a  study on the feasibility and legal and practical 
implications to establish joint processing of asylum applications, as foreseen 
in the Stockholm Programme, for results before the end of 2012. 

(cid:126)  The  EU  to  make  use  of  the  Temporary  Protection  Directive  when  criteria 

and situations are met. 

4. 

MUTUAL TRUST AT THE HEART OF A RENEWED GOVERNANCE SYSTEM 

4.1. 

Lessons from Greece: complementing infringement proceedings 

The Commission has  repeatedly underlined that the unclear standards of the current  asylum 
acquis  contribute  to  an  uneven  level  of  implementation  and  difficulties  in  monitoring.  The 
amended  CEAS  instruments  proposed  by  the  Commission  should  significantly  improve 
clarity and precision and allow the Commission to better supervise the application of EU law. 

At  the  same  time,  in  order  to  ensure  the  good  functioning  and  resilience  of  each  Member 
State's asylum system at all times, the traditional instruments of supervision of application of 
the  acquis  (such  as  infringement  proceedings  and  regular  evaluations  of  legal  instruments) 
must be complemented with additional, preferably preventive measures, based on an adequate 
level  of  mutual  trust.  While  Member  States  remain  primarily  responsible,  a  more 
comprehensive response is needed, especially as the Union has a duty not only to its Member 
State,  but  also  to  asylum  applicants.  The  developments  in  Greece  were  an  important 
experience in this regard as the Union provided a comprehensive reaction to the failing Greek 
asylum system which has shown some signs of improvement although much still needs to be 
done. 

Following  allegations  that  Greece  had  not  implemented  the  EU  asylum  legislation  correctly 
and  certain  aspects  of  its  asylum  system  were  very  poor,  including  inhumane  conditions  at 

EN 

10 

   EN 

detention  centres,  the  Commission  launched  an  infringement  procedure  against  Greece  in 
2009. However, the Commission recognised that it was necessary to provide various forms of 
assistance to Greece to improve the situation, given the humanitarian aspect of asylum.  

In parallel to the infringement proceedings, the Commission therefore engaged in a dialogue 
with the Greek authorities. It helped Greece develop a National Action Plan on Asylum and 
Migration Management. It coordinated assistance by experts from other Member States. It also 
provided  ERF  emergency  funding,  complemented  by  other  sources  of  EU  financial  support. 
After the request made by Greece, in April 2011 the EASO together with the Greek authorities 
developed  a  two-year  Operating  Plan  to  deploy  Asylum  Support  Teams,  which  have  started 
their work on the ground. 

Coupled with changes made by the Greek government, notably through the adoption of new 
laws,  a  number  of  positive  developments  can  be  identified  relating  to  the  Action  Plan.  In 
particular,  there  has  been  an  increase  in  asylum  recognition  rates  (from  less  than  1%  to 
12.35%) and the quality of decision making has improved. Although more progress is needed 
and serious concerns remain in certain areas, such as detention centres and access to certain 
rights, this is an example of where the Member State remains responsible for getting its own 
house in order, but is given both financial and practical assistance with which to do so.  

At a given point, monitoring must go beyond the strict question of application of the acquis, 
as  over  time,  the  accumulation  of  capacity  problems  and  problematic  management  choices 
could also potentially lead to serious fundamental rights infringements and destabilisation of 
the CEAS, including of the Dublin system.  

4.2. 

Strengthening the resilience of the Dublin system 

The  Commission,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Member  States  have  recently  discussed 
how to ensure the proper functioning of the asylum systems of all Member States and how to 
detect  and  address  emerging  problems  before  they  lead  to  crises  and  infringement 
proceedings. The idea of an evaluation and early warning mechanism seems to present a way 
forward. 

Such a mechanism could have two functions: first, ongoing monitoring of all Member States 
to  ensure  their  constant  preparedness;  second,  a  structured,  sequential  course  of  action  to 
address deficiencies before they grow into a fully-fledged crisis. 

In  practice,  an  evaluation  and  early  warning  process  could  cover  different  aspects  of 
governance of each Member State’s asylum system, including for example the geographical 
and budgetary organisation of the asylum system, the impact of Dublin transfers, the proper 
use  of  EU  solidarity  tools,  participation  in  EU  solidarity  initiatives  etc.  The  reports  and 
recommendations  resulting  from  the  assessment  would  provide  early  warning  on  potential 
problems.  They  could  also  be  used  to  better  coordinate  solidarity  measures  targeting  the 
Member  State,  including  better  programming  of  EU  Funds  and  priorities  of  the  EASO’s 
practical cooperation activities. The right means and procedural arrangements would need to 
be found to ensure the effectiveness of this process.  

Specific follow-up steps need to be provided for to ensure that the results of the assessment 
are adequately monitored. The plan could include requests for coordinated solidarity measures 
to support the action needed by the Member State concerned. The Commission believes that 
such a process could substantially improve mutual trust between Member States and with civil 
society organisations that are often critical of the Dublin system. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

4.3. 

Building mutual trust through other areas of migration management 

Mutual  trust  is  fundamental  to  a  well-functioning  asylum  cooperation.  Increased  trust  will 
lead  to  increased  solidarity,  which  is  why  it  is  so  important  to  enhance  trust.  Although  the 
objectives of each migration-related policy are different, better migration management in the 
form  of  better  border  management  and  visa  policy  can  also  have  a  positive  impact  on 
improving mutual trust between Member States in asylum matters. 

The  Commission  proposed  a  number  of  changes  to  Schengen  governance  on  16  September 
2011, aimed at safeguarding freedom of movement by improving mutual trust among Member 
States. The proposals would improve the common management of Schengen by revising the 
Schengen  evaluation mechanism. By  better ensuring  the proper  application of the Schengen 
acquis,  the  proposals  would  increase  confidence  in  the  Union’s  ability  to  handle  border 
control-related  problems  in  common  and  in  the  spirit  of  solidarity,  which  will  also  make  it 
easier for Member States to engage in asylum solidarity initiatives. 

On visa policy, one of the amendments to the Visa Regulation5 proposed by the Commission 
on 24 May 2011 may also contribute to the efficiency of Member States’ asylum systems. The 
introduction  of  a  visa  safeguard  clause,  as  a  last-resort  measure,  would  make  it  possible  to 
suspend visa-free movement from a third country where there is evidence that it has led, inter 
alia, to abuse of the asylum system. 

This  mechanism  would  in  particular  allow  the  Union  to  maintain  a  balance  between  better 
managing the movement of third-country nationals and ensuring that visa-free travel does not 
lead to irregularities or abuse. Thus, the Union will continue, on the one hand, to accompany 
visa liberalisation with protective mechanisms for Member States, drawing from experiences 
such  as  the  ‘post-visa  liberalisation  monitoring  mechanism’  set  up  to  ensure  the  smooth 
operation of the visa-free regime with the Western Balkan countries. On the other hand, the 
EU  will  also  activate  means  to  provide  solutions  to  Member  States  faced  with  a  specific 
asylum flow from third countries. The post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism allowed 
the  Commission  to  obtain  the  information  it  needed  and  to  propose  measures  oriented  at 
preventing subsequent inflows of irregular immigrants abusing the visa-free regime. 

(cid:126)  EU to meet the 2012 target for the asylum package.  

Key action points 

(cid:126)  Member  States  to  implement  EU  law  and  the  Commission  to  evaluate 

regularly and pursue infringements. 

(cid:126)  Greece to actively pursue implementation of its Action Plan, making full use 
of the available solidarity measures, to meet every deadline set in the Plan.  

(cid:126)  Co-legislators  to  finalise  negotiations  on  the  Dublin  Regulation  with 
reinforced  provisions  to  support  mutual  trust  between  Member  States  and 
early warning to detect early problems.  

(cid:126)  Co-legislators  to  approve  the  Schengen  package  of  16  September  2011  to 

improve the governance of border management. 

5 

COM(2011) 290. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
(cid:126)  Co-legislators  to  approve  the  amendment  to  the  Visa  Regulation  proposed 

by the Commission on 24 May 2011. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Union  and  its  Member  States  have  at  their  disposal  an  evolving,  flexible  toolbox  of 
solidarity measures. These measures can be used either together or separately. As proposed by 
this Communication, some can be improved and new measures could be developed. 

Other  aspects  of  migration  management  can  also  help  consolidate  intra-EU  solidarity  in  the 
field of asylum. The EU must have an efficient policy on returns to safeguard the credibility 
and  integrity  of  asylum  systems.  This  is  an  issue  that  the  Commission  will  address  in  a 
separate  Communication  in  2013.  Working  towards  more  convergence  in  legal  migration 
policy  can  also  support  solidarity,  in  particular  to  ensure  that  asylum  policy,  including  its 
solidarity  aspects,  does  not  suffer  the  consequences  of  ineffective  management  of  legal 
migration. 

Cooperation  with  third  countries,  especially  countries  of  origin  and  transit  of  refugees,  if 
conducted appropriately by the EU as a whole, can also help manage or prevent asylum flows. 
Such cooperation should include,  for example, helping to improve protection space in other 
regions  of  the  world,  or  offering  an  increased  number  of  resettlement  places  inside  the  EU. 
Such cooperation can also be a way to express solidarity with third countries, which often are 
under  much  higher  asylum  pressure  than  the  EU,  as  recently  demonstrated  in  the  migration 
crisis  related  to  the  events  in  the  Southern  Mediterranean,  and  as  highlighted  in  the 
Communication on a Global Approach to Migration and Mobility.6  

Finally,  the  Commission  always  retains  the  possibility  to  make  proposals  on  the  basis  of 
Article 78(3) TFEU in emergency situations characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of 
third countries, in order to adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member  States 
concerned  if  the  already  available  instruments  do  not  provide  the  required  possibilities  and 
legal basis.  

The success of the Union’s solidarity measures depends on the engagement and cooperation 
of all stakeholders. The Union must continue to discuss solidarity in asylum, including at high 
political levels, on a regular basis to improve and review the toolbox of solidarity measures on 
asylum. The Commission will report on the progress achieved in the next ‘Tracking Method’ 
annual reports on immigration and asylum. 

6 

COM(2011) 743. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
ANNEX 

Statistics on asylum 

Between  1998  (the  earliest  date  for  available  EU-level  data)  and  2010,  the  total  number  of 
asylum applications in the 27 EU Member States changed as follows. In the first half of 2011, 
the number of asylum applications increased by 14 % compared to the first half of 2010 (note 
that data from Greece and Luxembourg is not yet fully available). 

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Asylum applications in the first half of 2011 compared to the first half of 2010 

Source: Eurostat. 

H1 2010 

5
0
M
1
1
0
2

4
0
M
1
1
0
2

Change 
H1 
2010-
2011* 

65 
60 
290 

5 
85 
455 
430 

Full year 
2010 

H1 2011* 
14 790 
465 
370 
1 830 
22 890 
35 
685 
3 800* 
1 950 
28 835 
10 865 
895 
110 
185 
770* 
775 

6
0
M
1
1
0
2
2 525  2 420  2 320
65
60 
45
75 
270
290 
3 365  3 875  3 595
5
115

1
0
M
1
1
0
2
+29 % 2 335
115
-7 %
65
-20 %
365
-21 %
+24 % 4 245
5
+75 %
135
-33 %
605
+3 %*
240
+61 %
+11 % 4 400
590
185
5
35
115
115
10
-2 % 1 255
885
+15 %
365
-2 %
10
+19 %
50
+18 %
35
+128 %
35
-31 %
240
-35 %
-11 % 1 970
+7 % 2 140
*  Except  EL  and  LU.  For  these  two  Member  States,  the  absolute  values  for  the  first  half  of  2011  and  the 
comparison are calculated for first five months. Data extracted on 3 October 2011, source: Eurostat. 

10 
100 
815 
215
365 
5 125  5 010  4 365
1 460  3 305  2 110
150
165 
125 
25
40 
15 
30 
30
20 
135 
145 
160
110 
165 
1 130 
100
365 
1 095  1 295  1 215
980  1 000  1 085
550
550 
430 
15
20 
15 
110
95 
95 
55
35 
15 
40
35 
20 
220
210 
195 
2 040  2 375  1 960
2 020  2 070  2 235

+102 %
-28 %
+340 %
-5 %
+208 %*
-45 %
1 650  +2 650 %
7 105 
5 830 
2 865 
95 
560 
205 
205 
1 315 
12 620 
12 690 

11 445 
500 
465 
2 310 
18 455 
20 
1 025 
4 705 
1 210 
25 925 
5 370 
1 235 
25 
195 
295 
1 405 
60 
7 280 
5 065 
2 920 
80 
475 
90 
295 
2 025 
14 110 
11 875 

26 550 
1 030 
785 
5 105 
48 595 
35 
1 940 
10 275 
2 745 
52 725 
10 060 
2 870 
60 
505 
780 
2 095 
170 
15 110 
11 060 
6 535 
160 
880 
250 
540 
3 665 
31 940 
23 740 

3
0
M
1
1
0
2
2 825
70
70
325
4 075
5
125
1 005
365
5 295
1 775
125
5
35
230
135
30
1 155
970
520
15
125
30
30
240
2 310
2 230

2
0
M
1
1
0
2
2 365
90
55
290
3 735
5
125
920
335
4 640
1 625
145
20
35
145
90
15
1 090
910
450
20
85
35
45
210
1 965
1 995

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

: 

: 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Asylum applications (A) and new beneficiaries of protection (B) for the full year 2010 

Full year 2010: Applications and new beneficiaries per 1 000 000 population 

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

CY SE BE LU AT DK NL

EL FR FI DE EU

IE MT UK HU PL

IT

LT BG SI

SK CZ ES RO LV EE PT

A 3580 3419 2450 1564 1321 921 911 909 815 687 594 519 434 424 383 210 171 167 149 136 120 100 75

B 666 1045 350 438 583 266 524 13 160 311 158 151 35 533 227 28

15

76

5

21

12

18

21

60

14

41

8

29

11

26

11

15

5

Full year 2010: Applications and new beneficiaries per 1 000 km2 of surface 

1000

800

600

400

200

0

BE MT NL CY LU DE AT DK UK FR EL SE EU IT

IE HU PL

SI SK

FI CZ BG LT ES RO PT LV EE

A 870 554 363 311 304 136 132 118 98

B 124 696 209 58

85

36

58

34

58

83

16

78

1

72

22

59

17

33

15

28

23

21

12

11

11

10

2

3

2

1

2

5

3

9

1

8

0

5

1

4

1

2

1

1

0

1

0

Full year 2010: Applications and new beneficiaries per 1 000 units of GDP 

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

CY SE BE AT EL FR DK NL

FI

LU EU MT DE IE UK HU BG PL

A 149 113 85

B 28

35

12

43

19

42

31

30

1

6

9

28

16

24

11

22

21

6

6

21

26

21

14

14

13

13

11

5

1

8

2

2

1

LT

11

0

IT

7

3

SI

SK CZ RO ES LV

EE PT

6

1

5

1

4

1

4

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

0

Population: as of 1 January 2010. Surface: latest data available (2010 or earlier for some Member States). GDP: 
Purchasing Power Standard (an artificial unit of currency which eliminates the effect of price level differences 
across Member States7) for the full year 2010. Data extracted on 3 October 2011, source: Eurostat. 

7 

See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/purchasing_power_parities/introduction. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Comparison of first half 2011/2010: applications per 1 000 000 population 

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

MT LU BE SE CY AT FR NL EL DK DE EU FI UK IT

IE

SI HU PL BG LT LV ES SK CZ EE RO PT

6m2011 3995184013641351 1114 696 446 429 403 331 280 270 246 205 180 153 100 77

75

6m2010 145 588 10561511 1538 605 401 439 416 417 226 237 378 192 89 229 44 140 77

61

66

56

59

49

11

42

26

38

54

35

44

26

15

26

22

9

8

Comparison of first half 2011/2010: applications per 1 000 km2 of surface 

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

MT BE LU NL CY AT DE UK FR DK IT

EL EU SE SI

IE PL HU CZ BG SK FI ES LT RO LV PT EE

6m2011 5222 484 357 171 97

70

6m2010 190 375 114 175 134 60

64

52

52

49

46

41

42

54

36

18

35

36

31

27

29

32

10

4

10

15

9

9

8

15

5

6

4

5

4

6

4

6

4

2

3

3

2

2

2

0

1

1

1

0

Comparison of first half 2011/2010: applications per 1 000 units of GDP 

250

200

150

100

50

0

MT BE CY SE LU AT EL FR NL EU DK DE FI

IT UK BG IE HU PL

SI

LT LV RO SK CZ ES EE PT

6m2011 194 47

6m2010

7

36

46

64

45

50

26

8

23

20

19

19

17

15

13

13

11

10

11

14

10

8

9

13

7

4

7

7

6

6

5

7

5

9

5

5

5

2

4

4

4

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

1

2

1

0

0

Population: as of 1 January 2010. Surface: latest data available (2010 or earlier for some Member States). GDP: 
Purchasing Power Standard for the full year 2010. Data for EL and LU was not available for June 2011 and was 
extrapolated based on the available 5 months. Data extracted on 3 October 2011, source: Eurostat. 

Refugees resettled by Member States from third countries between 2006 and 2010 

10000

5000

0

SE

FI UK DE NL DK FR IE

IT

BE PT RO LU ES CZ AT BG EE EL CY LV LT HU MT PL

8888 3282 3059 2598 2247 1990 1081 536 331 62

57

40

35

13

8

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

SI

0

SK

0

Source: UNHCR for 2006–2007, Eurostat (extracted 8 December 2009) for 2008 except UK: UNHCR, Eurostat 
(extracted 1 August 2011) for 2009 and 2010. 

EN 

16 

   EN