COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU national, European citizenship, consulate, diplomatic protection, third country

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1556 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL 

on coordination and cooperation measures regarding consular protection for 
unrepresented EU citizens 

{COM(2011) 881 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1555 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Disclaimer:  This  report  commits  only  the  Commission's  services  involved  in  its  preparation  and 
does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENTError! Bookmark 
not defined. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Introduction...................................................................................................................4 

Context and consultation ..............................................................................................4 

Problem definition ........................................................................................................8 

Objectives ...................................................................................................................21 

Policy options and their impact ..................................................................................22 

Comparison of Policy Options....................................................................................34 

EU added value and implementation ..........................................................................36 

Annex I: Member State representations in third countries .......................................................39 

Annex II: Representation mapping ...........................................................................................49 

Annex III: Magnitude of the problem – Methodology and Data ..............................................51 

Annex IV: Overview on the consular protection delivered by Member States……………….57 

Annex V: Current procedures of the financial reimbursement framework…………………...59 

Annex VI: Key assumptions on costs and benefits - policy options 2 and 3………………….61 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  impact  assessment  examines  the  coordination  and  cooperation  measures  regarding  consular 
protection for unrepresented EU citizens with the aim of further facilitating consular protection in 
third countries. Special attention is given to financial reimbursement in crisis situations. It will be 
safeguarded  that  unrepresented  EU  citizens  are  treated  by  the  assisting  consular  authority  in  the 
same way as its own nationals; and quality of service for unrepresented EU citizens as well as the 
solidarity and collaboration between consular authorities will be further enhanced. 

An  EU  citizen,  travelling  to  or  living  in  a  third  country  where  his/her  Member  State  is  not 
represented by an embassy or consulate, has the right to enjoy the protection of the diplomatic and 
consular authorities of any other Member State under the same conditions as the nationals of that 
State.  This  right  is  enshrined  in  Articles  20(2)(c)  and  23  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union. 

Recent  major  crises  have  affected  a  considerable  number  of  EU  citizens  in  third  countries  (for 
instance in Libya, Egypt and Bahrain after the democratic uprisings in spring 2011 or in Japan after 
the earthquake in March 2011). Yet also in day-to-day situations (e.g. in the event of serious illness 
or  when  somone  is  a  victim  of  crime)  assistance  by  consular  authorities  is  often  essential  (for 
instance  assisting  with  access  to  medical  facilities  or  issuing  emergency  travel  documents).  The 
need for consular protection is expected to further increase in the future1. 

This  impact  assessment  accompanies  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  draft  Directive  on  the 
coordination and cooperation measures regarding consular protection for unrepresented citizens of 
the Union. 

2. 

CONTEXT AND CONSULTATION 

2.1. 

Policy context 

The  right  to  equal  treatment  on  consular  protection  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens  is  one  of  the 
specific rights granted by the concept of EU citizenship. It is commonly regarded as an expression 
of EU solidarity and of the identity of the Union in third countries, as well as one of the practical 
benefits of being an EU citizen. 

Consular  protection  for  EU  citizens  is  an  integral  component  of  the  Union's  policy,  fostering  the 
rights  of  the  EU  citizens.  The  Stockholm  Programme  prioritises  over  the  coming  years  the  needs 
and interests of the citizens and it emphasises that all opportunities offered by the Lisbon Treaty, in 
order to strengthen the European area of freedom, security and justice for the benefit of EU citizens, 
should be used by the European institutions2. Regarding consular protection the European Council 
invited  the  Commission  to  ‘consider  appropriate  measures  establishing  coordination  and 
cooperation necessary to facilitate consular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU’3. 

In  its  Resolution  of  25  November  2009  the  European  Parliament  emphasised  the  importance  of 
strengthening  the  coordination  and  cooperation  of  consular  protection;  as  it  considered  that  the 

1 
2 

3 

See below under point 3.1.  
OJ  2010/C  115/01  -  The  Stockholm  Programme  –  An  open  and  secure  Europe  serving  and  protecting  the 
citizens, Council document 17024/09 of 2 December 2009. 
Idem. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
exercise of the rights of EU citizens must be secured beyond national borders, and that they must be 
able  to  fully  exercise  their  specific  rights,  even  outside  the  Union4.  This  was  a  follow-up  to  its 
Resolution  of  11  December  2007  advocating  the  adoption  of  common  concepts  and  binding 
guidelines  for  establishing  common  standards  in  the  field  of  consular  protection,  and  –  once  the 
Lisbon  Treaty  has  been  ratified  –  subsequent  submission  of  a  proposal  for  amending  Decision 
95/553/EC5. 

The EU Citizenship Report 2010, a strategic initiative of the Commission, stemmed from President 
Barroso’s political commitment to obtain a comprehensive overview of the obstacles citizens still 
face and to propose how they can best be removed6. It stressed that there was still a gap between the 
applicable legal rules and the reality confronting citizens in their daily lives, particularly in cross-
border  situations,  and  underlined  the  importance  of  making  EU  citizenship  more  effective  in 
practice.  According  to  action  8  of  the  report,  the  Commission  would  consider  increasing  the 
effectiveness of the right of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including in times of crisis, 
by the diplomatic and consular authorities of all Member States, by proposing legislative measures 
in  2011  and  by  better  informing  citizens  via  a  dedicated  website  and  targeted  communication 
measures. The Commission reiterated this commitment7 in its Communication of 23 March 2011 on 
consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens8, which took stock of the Union's contribution to 
effective consular protection in third countries as announced in the Commission's Action Plan 2007-
20099 and presented the way forward based on the experience gained and the renewed institutional 
framework. 

The  Lisbon  Treaty  takes  account  of  the  increased  need  for  a  European  dimension  for  consular 
protection by reinforcing and clarifying the capacity of the Union to act. 

Consular  protection  for  EU  citizens,  introduced  by  the  Maastricht  Treaty,  is  also  enshrined  in 
Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This right confers a clear 
individual  entitlement  for  the  citizen  of  a  non-represented  Member  State  to  be  treated  by  the 
consular  and  diplomatic  authorities  of  another  Member  State  as  if  he/she  were  its  own  national. 
Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 form an integral part of Chapter II on non-discrimination and citizenship of 
the TFEU. 

Under  the  previous  legal  regime  Member  States  had  to  establish  the  necessary  rules  themselves. 
Two  succinct  sui  generis  decisions  were  adopted  (Decision  95/553/EC  on  consular  protection  for 
unrepresented EU citizens10 and Decision 96/409/CFSP regarding Emergency Travel Documents11), 
as  well  as  non-binding  guidelines  (on  consular  protection  of  EU  citizens  in  third  countries  in 
general  as  well  as  on  specific  terms  of  Decision  95/553  and  on  crisis  cooperation12).  The  Lisbon 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

European  Parliament  Resolution  of  25  November  2009  on  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  –  An  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  serving  the  citizen  – 
Stockholm  programme  (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2009-
0090&format=XML&language=EN). 
European Parliament Resolution of 11 December 2007 on the Green Paper: Diplomatic and consular protection 
of Union citizens in third countries (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-
TA-2007-0592&language=EN&ring=A6-2007-0454). 
COM(2010) 603 final. 
See also the Commission Work Programme 2011(COM(2010)623 final). 
COM(2011) 149 final. 
COM(2007) 767 final. 
OJ L 314, 28.12.1995, p. 73. 
OJ L 168, 16.7.1996, p. 4. 
Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries (Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 
2006  revised  by  Council  document  15613/10  of  05  November  2010  (not  published)).  Guidelines  for  further 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Treaty  conferred  on  the  Commission  the  right  to  initiate  legislative  proposals,  i.e.  directives 
establishing  cooperation  and  coordination  measures  necessary  to  facilitate  the  right  regarding 
consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens13. Any such legislative proposal would, following 
consultation of the European Parliament, be subject to qualified majority voting in the Council14. 

The Lisbon Treaty also allowed for the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS)15. 
Article  35  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU)  stipulates  that  the  diplomatic  and  consular 
missions of the Member States and the Union delegations in third countries shall contribute to the 
implementation  of  the  right  of  EU  citizens  as  referred  to  in  Article  20(2)(c)  TFEU  and  of  the 
measures adopted pursuant to Article 23 TFEU. 

Right to equal treatment as regards consular protection 

Every  EU  citizen  has,  in  a  third  country  in  which  his/her  Member  State  of  nationality  is  not 
represented,  the  right  to  protection  by  the  diplomatic  or  consular  authorities  of  any  EU  Member 
State, under the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This means that an EU citizen who 
travels  to  (or  lives  in)  a  non-EU  country,  where  his/her  home  Member  State  does  not  have  an 
embassy  or  a  consulate,  can  turn  to  another  Member  State’s  embassy  or  consulate  and  ask  for 
protection. The EU citizen then has the right to be treated in the same way as the assisting Member 
State would treat its own nationals (non-discrimination). 

2.2. 

Consultation and chronology 

2.2.1.  Consultation of stakeholders 

The  views  of  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  were  widely  sought  in  accordance  with  the 
general principles and minimum standards applicable to the consultation of interested parties. In a 
comprehensive  public  consultation  on  EU  citizens'  rights  in  2010,  contributions  from  all  citizens 
and  relevant  stakeholders  were  sought  with  a  view  to  identifying  concrete  actions.  Particular 
attention  was  given  to  consular  protection  for  EU  citizens.  This  public  consultation  followed  a 
previous one connected with the Green Paper of 2007 on diplomatic and consular protection of EU 
citizens  in  third  countries16.  The  ideas  put  forward  during  the  public  consultation  informed  the 
policy  debate  at  the  conference  "EU  citizens'  rights  –  the  way  forward"  of  1-2  July  2010,  during 
which consular protection was discussed in depth. 

A  2010  Eurobarometer  on  Citizenship  revealed  that  consular  protection  for  unrepresented  EU 
citizens  constitutes  the  least  known  EU  Citizenship  right17.  Stakeholders  involved  in  consular 
protection  (such  as  Member  States,  travel  associations,  non-governmental  organisations  and 
academics)  were  consulted,  including  via  two  dedicated  workshops  which  took  place  on  24 
September 2010 and on 23 June 2011. Consular and diplomatic authorities of all the Member States 
were  informed  in  the  Council  Working  Group  Consular  Affairs  (COCON)  and  consulted  via  an 

implementing  a  number  of  provisions  under  Decision  95/553/EC  (Council  document  11113/08).  Lead  State 
concept (Council document 10715/07) and European Union guidelines on implementation of the consular Lead 
State concept (document 2008/C317/06, OJ C317/06, p. 6). See as well Decision of the Representatives of the 
Governments  of  the  Member  States,  meeting  within  the  Council,  on  measures  implementing  the  Decision 
regarding protection for citizens of the European Union by diplomatic and consular representations (Council 
document 11107/95 (not published)). 
Article 23(2) TFEU. 
Article 16(3) TEU. 
Article 27 TEU. 
OJ C 30 of 10.2.2007, p. 8.  
Eurobarometer(2010), Flash EB No 294, European Union Citizenship. 

6 

   EN 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
online survey and bilateral interviews and six representative Member States were recently visited. 
To ensure that any measures proposed would be appropriate and proportional and to provide for a 
‘reality  check’,  field  missions  to  four  selected  third  countries  (Kazakhstan,  Sri  Lanka,  Cuba  and 
Egypt)  were  undertaken  by  an  external  consultancy  to  directly  consult  consular  practitioners 
working on the ground. 

2.2.2. 

Studies on consular protection  

This impact assessment also draws on four recent studies on consular protection for unrepresented 
EU citizens. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A  study  (2009)  on  Member  States'  legislations  and  practices,  carried  out  by  the  Instituto 
Europeo  de  Derecho,  examined  laws  and  practices  of  Member  States  in  the  field  of 
consular protection, including as regards the implementation of the Decision 95/553/EC on 
unrepresented EU citizens. 

Through the CARE (Citizens Consular Assistance Regulation in Europe) project activities 
(2009-2011), realised with the financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship 
Programme  of  the  European  Commission,  the  legal  framework  of  Member  States  on 
consular  and  diplomatic  protection  was  comprehensively  analysed.  Special  attention  was 
given to Article 23 TFEU. 

An  external  study  (2010)  by  the  consultancy  GHK  supported  the  Commission  in  its 
analysis of policy options and the related costs, focusing on crisis situations and financial 
reimbursement. 

A  second  external  study  (2011)  undertaken  by  the  consultancy  Matrix  Insight  provided 
further evidence, including via missions to third countries, evaluated Decision 95/553/EC 
and  the  current  functioning  of  cooperation  and  coordination  and  examined  how  consular 
protection for unrepresented EU citizens could be further improved. 

2.2.3. 

Internal consultation and scrutiny of the Impact Assessment 

An  Interservice  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group  involving  representatives  from  DG  ECHO, 
EEAS, DG HOME as well as the Legal Service and the Secretariat-General was created. 

IASG meetings were held on 17 June, 1 July and 15 July 2011. The IASG also supported the work 
on financial reimbursement in crisis situations through meetings on 15 July and 22 October 2010. 
Feedback  received  at  the  meetings  and  through  further  contacts  has  been  taken  into  account 
throughout  this  report.  The  European  Commission's  Impact  Assessment  Board  examined  this 
impact assessment in written procedure and issued its opinion on 16 September 2011. The opinion 
is fully taken into account in the Impact Assessment. In particular, explanations about the estimated 
costs/benefits and the similarities and variations of standard consular services have been developed 
and  the  analysis  of  consular  protection  in  crisis  situations  and  regarding  third  country  family 
members  have  been  further  elaborated.  Stakeholders'  views  about  the  option  elements  and  the 
expected benefits of awareness-raising measures have been further detailed. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

3.1.  Magnitude 

Large  numbers  of  EU  citizens  have  been  affected  by  recent  crises.  In  Libya  around  5.800  EU 
citizens  were  evacuated,  in  Haiti  2.700  EU  citizens  were  affected.  In  Egypt  there  were  at  least 
100.000 EU citizens (mostly tourists in the Red Sea region) and in Japan around 37.000 EU citizens 
involved18. Apart from their security, humanitarian or nuclear safety impacts, all these events were 
also consular crises19, as they required an appropriate consular response: providing information on 
safety measures, coordination of evacuations, issuance of emergency travel documents. 

All 27 Member States are represented in only three third countries: China, Russia and the United 
States (Annexes I and II present an overview of Member States' representations in third countries). 
France,  Germany,  the  UK,  Italy  and  Spain  (combined  population  of  314.815.000)  are  in  the  top 
quintile with representation in more than 50% of all third countries. Malta, Estonia, Luxembourg, 
Latvia  and  Cyprus  (combined  population  of  5.301.000)  are  in  the  bottom  quintile  with 
representations in less than 10% of all third countries. 

Figure 1: Number of representations in third countries per Member State (as a percentage of 
total third countries) 

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

FR DE UK

IT

ES NL RO CZ

SE

PL

BE

EL

AT BG DK HU PT

FI

SK

IE

SI

LT

CY

LV

EE MT LU

Source:  General  Secretariat  of  the  Council,  17770/2/09  REV  2  PESC  1795  RELEX  1235  COCON  47,  EU  diplomatic  representation  in  third 
countries, second half of 2010 

Currently there are no systematic data on unrepresented EU citizens travelling to or living in third 
countries.  To  obtain  the  number  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  travelling  or  residing  in  third 
countries, relevant travel and emigration patterns around the world have been analysed. Eurostat has 
information about trips to third countries in 2009 (both for holidays and business), and the UNWTO 
World  Tourism  Barometer20  provides  comprehensive  data  on  international  tourist  arrivals  in  third 
countries.  National  statistical  sources  as  well  as  information  by  travel  associations  are  used  for 
validation  and  to  fill  remaining  gaps.  Regarding  the  total  number  of  EU  citizens  living  in  third 

18 
19 

20 

See COM(2011) 149 final.  
A consular crisis is any situation caused by natural or manmade disaster that affects a high number of persons, 
requiring  the  immediate  and  direct  intervention  of  a  consular  authority  to  ensure  safety  and  security  of  its 
citizens present abroad. 
UNWTO(2010), World Tourism Barometer, Vol 8, No 2, June 2010. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
countries  Eurostat  emigration  figures  were  used  to  reflect  the  total  number  of  emigrants  both  by 
Member State and by third country21. 

Following  a  comparison  of  the  numbers  of  representations  and  the  actual  number  of  citizens 
travelling  to  or  residing  in  third  countries,  an  estimated  6.86  million  EU  citizens  travel  to  (5.12 
million) or live in (1.74 million) third countries where their Member State is not represented22. 

Figure 2: Estimate of total number of instances when travelling EU citizens are unrepresented 
in third countries (2009) 

On  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  Member  States,  in  2009  consular  protection  was 
provided  in  total  in  almost  300.000  cases23.  According  to  reported  data,  represented  EU  citizens 
appear to ask for and obtain consular protection much more often than unrepresented EU citizens. If 
one assumes that represented and unrepresented EU citizens are equally likely to get into a situation 
in which they could request consular protection (e.g. victim of robbery) around 7.300 unrepresented 
EU  citizens  have  been  thus  affected  in  third  countries24.  In  fact,  only  16%  of  these  citizens  have 
actually benefited from consular protection - although according to a recent Eurobarometer survey 
79% of EU citizens know about the existence of this right25 - a right that has however not yet been 
fully established26. 

21 

22 
23 

24 
25 
26 

A Member State's share of total emigration to third countries can be used to estimate the number of citizens of 
a particular Member State residing outside the EU. Further indications about the number of EU citizens living 
in third countries were obtained from expatriate associations. 
Please see Annex III for further details on the methodology. 
295.490 cases in 2009. As not all Member States reported cases this figure is partially based on extrapolations 
(see Annex III). 
Compared to how often represented nationals requested consular protection.  
Eurobarometer(2010), Flash EB No 294, European Union Citizenship. 
For the various reasons please see the following section. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 3: Unrepresented EU Citizens Potentially in Need of Consular 
Protection 

Unrepresented 
citizens who did 
not ask for/receive 
consular protection 
(84%) 

Unrepresented 
citizens who 
received consular 
protection (16%) 

As  time  goes  by  more  and  more  citizens  will  find  themselves  in  situations  where  they  may  be 
eligible  for  consular  protection  of  another  Member  State  (see  point  3.4  on  the  baseline  scenario). 
This  trend  is  further  aggravated  by  the  ongoing  rationalisation  of  Member  States'  consular 
networks. 

EU  citizens  travelling  to  and  living  in  third  countries  are  also  increasingly  exposed  to  crisis 
situations  (both  natural  and  manmade).  As  outlined  in  the  Commission's  recent  Communication 
"Towards  a  stronger  European  disaster  response:  the  role  of  civil  protection  and  humanitarian 
assistance"27, the recorded annual number of disasters has increased fivefold - from 78 in 1975 to 
nearly  400  currently.  This  is  the  effect  of  climate  change,  population  growth  combined  with 
increasing  urbanisation  and  other  factors28.  The  frequency  and  intensity  of  disasters  are  likely  to 
continue increasing. Also terrorism and civil unrests remain a significant security threat. Consular 
crises involving unrepresented EU citizens are even more likely to take place in the future due to an 
increasing  number  of  EU  citizens  travelling  to  third  countries  or  residing  there.  In  2010,  several 
consular  crises  had  an  impact  on  unrepresented  EU  citizens29;  also  the  consular  crises  in  the  first 
half of 2011, in Tunisia, Yemen and in particular in Libya, involved unrepresented EU citizens.  

3.2. 

General problem 

In line with the case-law of the European Court of Justice30, citizenship of the Union should be the 
fundamental status of EU citizens when exercising their rights under the Treaties. Citizens should 
be  able  to  make  use  of  their  rights  in  the  same  way  as  they  use  their  rights  as  national  citizens. 
However, the implementation of EU citizenship as a concrete reality ensuring equal treatment in 
regard to consular protection is currently not secured. There is no clear consensus on the content 
of  Article  23  TFEU  and  about  the  responsibilities  which  this  right  entails.  Cooperation  and 
coordination often work on an ad-hoc basis, depending to a large extent on personalities involved, 
rather  than  on  clear  divisions  of  responsibilities  and  established  procedures.  These  issues  are 

27 
28 
29 

30 

COM(2010)600 final, 26.10.2010. 
Such as increased industrial activity and environmental degradation. 
Haiti earthquake, Chile earthquake, Thailand civil unrest, Kyrgyzstan civil unrest, volcanic ash cloud, Ladakh 
floods, Yemen civil unrest, Ivory Coast civil unrest. According to information provided by the Member States 
in  Haiti  assistance  was  provided  to  more  than  200  unrepresented  EU  citizens,  in  Kyrgyzstan  to  89 
unrepresented citizens. See also Annex VI.  
See for instance case C-184/99 Grzelczyk. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
examined  in  more  depth  below  (points  3.2.1  and  3.2.2);  they  are  further  considered  through  a 
number of specific parameters which are analysed subsequently (point 3.3.). 

3.2.1. 

Scope and content not clear 

Article 23 TFEU 

"Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of 
which  he  is  a  national  is  not  represented,  be  entitled  to  protection  by  the  diplomatic  or  consular 
authorities  of  any  Member  State,  on  the  same  conditions  as  the  nationals  of  that  State.  Member 
States  shall  adopt  the  necessary  provisions  and  start  the  international  negotiations  required  to 
secure this protection. 

The  Council,  acting  in  accordance  with  a  special  legislative  procedure  and  after  consulting  the 
European  Parliament,  may  adopt  directives  establishing  the  coordination  and  cooperation 
measures necessary to facilitate such protection." 

Article 23 TFEU constitutes a Treaty right, even a fundamental right. To be effective as a right with 
concrete  meaning,  the  succinct  wording  of  Article  23  TFEU  is  not  sufficient.  A  tangible  right 
requires form and shape. 

Currently,  national  consular  laws  and  practices  diverge  considerably  as  do  views  about  the 
underlying  concepts  of  consular  protection  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens.  Clear,  distinct  and 
adequate demarcation as to the applicability and content of this right, including 1) which entity is 
responsible 2) under what conditions and 3) for what assistance are not sufficiently in place. This is 
all  the  more  important  as  consular  cases  frequently  involve  unrepresented  EU  citizens  and  their 
relatives  in  very  difficult  life  situations  (death,  serious  illness,  detention,  crime).  Often,  consular 
protection is the only way to get help (e.g. in cases of evacuation or detention) or at least greatly 
mitigates  the  process  (e.g.  transferral  of  corpse  and  help  with  burdensome  administrative 
procedures). 

The current legal framework mainly consists of Decision 95/553/EC, a succinct sui generis decision 
adopted  by  representatives  of  Member  State  governments  outside  the  framework  of  EU  law  as 
provided  for  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty31.  This  decision  is  supplemented  by  dispersed  non-binding 
guidelines32,  whose  implementation  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  consular  authorities  in  place  in 
third  countries.  The  current  framework,  despite  providing  a  basis  on  which  any  future  measures 
should  be  fully  built,  is  thus  liable  to  create  ambiguities  and  divergences  in  interpretation  and 
application, and leaves significant room for further clarification. Citizens are accordingly unable to 
rely  on  a  right  with  a  clear  ambit  (e.g.  a  clear  definition  of  when  citizens  are  "unrepresented"  or 
clarity as to which Member State they can turn to in a specific third country) and it is difficult to 
meet  their  expectations.  Although  general  awareness  about  this  right  is  relatively  high  (79%),  a 

31 

32 

OJ L 314, 28.12.1995, p. 73. Article 23(2) TFEU abandons the previous logic of intergovernmental decision-
making (see policy context under point 2.1). 
Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries (Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 
2006  revised  by  Council  document  15613/10  of  05  November  2010  (not  published)).  Guidelines  for  further 
implementing  a  number  of  provisions  under  Decision  95/553/EC  (Council  document  11113/08).  Lead  State 
concept (Council document 10715/07) and European Union guidelines on implementation of the consular Lead 
State concept (document 2008/C317/06, OJ C317/06, p. 6). See as well Decision of the Representatives of the 
Governments  of  the  Member  States,  meeting  within  the  Council,  on  measures  implementing  the  Decision 
regarding protection for citizens of the European Union by diplomatic and consular representations (Council 
document 11107/95 (not published)). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2010 Eurobarometer on Citizenship revealed that consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens 
constitutes the least known EU citizenship right;33 but citizens' expectations are high. Even though 
consular  protection  provided  by  Member  States  varies,  the  majority  of  EU  citizens  (62%)  would 
expect the same kind of help regardless of which Member State's embassy they turn to, while a third 
of EU citizens (28%) expect at least a minimum standard of help provided by any Member State34. 
The  current  divergences  make  it  difficult  for  the  citizen  to  establish  and  be  aware  of  the  clear 
content of this right and under which conditions he/she is entitled to ask for assistance. Current lack 
of clarity also encourages disproportionate expectations on the part of citizens as to what this right 
entails35. 

The specific areas where more clarity is needed will be examined below (point 3.3). 

Member States generally acknowledge that the current legal framework should be brought into line 
with  the  Lisbon  Treaty  and  that  this  should  provide  an  opportunity  to  achieve  further  clarity  and 
simplication.  Accordingly,  the  European  Council  invited  the  Commission  to  consider  appropriate 
measures  establishing  coordination  and  cooperation  necessary  to  facilitate  consular  protection  in 
accordance with Article 23 TFEU36. 

3.2.2.  Cooperation and coordination procedures not sufficiently established 

Under Article 23 TFEU the assisting Member State has to treat an unrepresented EU citizen as if 
he/she  was  its  own  national.  However,  unlike  dealing  with  own  nationals,  assisting  an 
unrepresented citizen requires cooperation and coordination with other Member States. 

Firstly, this concerns cooperation and coordination between the assisting Member State present on 
the  ground  and  the  Member  State  of  origin.  The  citizen's  Member  State  of  origin  often  has 
necessary information about the citizen/ his or her relevant contact persons, which may need to be 
provided  or  sought  for  further  guidance  (for  instance  if  the  citizen  is  detained  or  in  a  coma). 
Currently,  there  is  not  always  a  clear  framework  on  cooperation  and  coordination  between  the 
relevant  authorities  which  would  fill  the  gap  caused  by  the  lack  of  an  accessible  own  consular 
representation (see below under point 3.3 for further details). 

It  is  currently  not  easy  to  establish  how  and  by  whom  unrepresented  EU  citizens  would  be  taken 
care of, including in a crisis. This appears all the more important as unrepresented EU citizens may 
in a crisis find things even more difficult to deal with (given the absence of national authorities and 
single contact points). Unrepresented EU citizens constitute a vulnerable group: consular protection 
is often needed by citizens in difficult life situations, and they face an "entry barrier" to assistance 
given the absence of their own  representation in loco. Whereas for nationals it is evident that the 
local embassy/consulate is responsible for providing help, the situation for unrepresented citizens is 
more  complex,  since  it  involves  foreign  nationals  and  requires  coordination  and  cooperation  with 
authorities  not  represented  on  the  ground.  This  is  the  case  both  for  local  cooperation  (i.e. 
cooperation between the embassies/consulates in a given third country) and for cooperation in crisis 
situations  (e.g.  evacuation  of  citizens).  Despite  the  need  for  a  certain  degree  of  flexibility,  the 
division of roles and responsibilities for unrepresented EU citizens is often not sufficiently clear, so 
their equal treatment is not guaranteed. For example regarding local cooperation on the ground in 

33 
34 
35 

36 

Eurobarometer(2010), Flash EB No 294, European Union Citizenship. 
Idem. 
E.g. that a citizen would be unrepresented and could turn to another Member State's representation if his/her 
national embassy was situated in another part of the capital city. 
OJ  2010/C  115/01  -  The  Stockholm  Programme  –  An  open  and  secure  Europe  serving  and  protecting  the 
citizens, Council document 17024/09 of 2 December 2009. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
third  countries  the  EU's  role  is  ambiguous,  which  induces  a  suboptimal  use  of  resources  and 
capacities.  In crisis  situations financial  burden-sharing regarding  unrepresented EU  citizens is not 
established  and  current  reimbursement  procedures  are  cumbersome  and  do  not  reflect  the 
specificities of crisis situations. As a result assisting Member States often bear the whole financial 
responsibility for the protection of unrepresented EU citizens which may deter them from taking a 
proactive approach. These aspects will be further developed below. 

3.3. 

Specific parameters 

In  this  section  the  general  problems  are  further  examined  by  reference  to  the  following  specific 
parameters: 

1) Who is an unrepresented EU citizen? 

2)  Which  Member  State  assists  an  unrepresented  EU  citizen  and  how  is  this  assistance  to  be 
coordinated with the citizen's Member State of origin? 

3)  How  should  the  consular  actors  in  a  given  third  country  cooperate  with  each  other  and 
coordinate their action (in particular, how can the EU level provide added value in this respect)? 

4)  How  and  by  whom  should  unrepresented  EU  citizens  be  assisted  in  crisis  situations  and  how 
should the financial burden be shared between the assisting and the unrepresented Member State? 

These  parameters  will  be  analysed  in  turn.  They  are  accompanied  by  examples  illustrating  these 
parameters further. 

3.3.1.  Who is an unrepresented EU citizen? (Personal scope) 

Example 1: Andreas from Member State A was travelling in the vast non-EU country X. In a remote 
region  of  X  he  was  robbed  and  deprived  of  his  passport.  He  is  in  need  of  consular  protection 
(advice and issuance of an emergency travel document) and finds out that his own Member State A 
has  an  embassy  in  the  capital  of  X,  which  is  however  several  travel  hours  away.  It  is  unclear 
whether he has the right to turn to Member State B, which has a consulate in the region, or whether 
he needs to travel to the capital. Current non-binding guidelines point to factors such as convenient 
distance  and  reasonable  time,  depending  on  the  individual  circumstances  in  the  third  country 
concerned,  without  clarifying  what  constitutes  "convenient  distance"  or  "reasonable  travel  time". 
Andreas  therefore  travels  to  the  capital.  Besides  considerable  transport  costs  he  has  to  bear  the 
cost of staying in a hotel, as he is not able to return the same day. 

Variation: Andreas is accompanied by his wife Angela, a non-EU national. Angela was also robbed 
and deprived of her belongings. It is currently not clear to what extent she would also be entitled to 
assistance (as a family member of an unrepresented EU citizen). 

Example 2: Albert has been living in Member State A for 10 years but has not become a national. 
Nadja is a recognised refugee in Member State A. They were both on a bus journey in X when an 
accident happened. Albert was severly injured, Nadja died instantly. It is currently not clear to what 
extent Albert/ Nadja's parents would be eligible to request assistance like a national (e.g. assistance 
with medical care and in informing relevant persons, obtaining the death certificate and assisting 
with the repatriation of the corpse) in view of Article 23 TFEU. 

An  EU  citizen  is  unrepresented  not  only  if  his/her  home  Member  State  has  no  consular  and 
diplomatic  representation  at  all  in  a  given  third  country,  but  also  –  as  stipulated  in  Article  1  of 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Decision 95/553 - if this representation is not "accessible". There is however currently no clear and 
common  understanding  about  when  a  consular  representation  is  "accessible".  According  to  non-
binding  guidelines  a  permanent  representation  is  accessible  if  it  is  "safely  reachable,  by  an  EU 
citizen  by  land  (road  or  rail),  within  convenient  distance  and  reasonable  time,  depending  upon 
specific  circumstances  in  the  third  country  concerned"37.  This  leaves  considerable  scope  for 
interpretation and means that an EU citizen cannot possibly know in practice whether he/she has the 
right  to  turn  to  a  nearer  consulate  of  another  Member  State  or  not.  Representatives  of  Member 
States consulted expressed diverging views and interpretations (for instance distance of 400 km or 
on an island), other stakeholders stressed the need to render the right enshrined in Article 23 TFEU 
fully effective. Stakeholders further emphasised that the urgency of the assistance needs to be taken 
into account. 

Further,  it  is  currently  not  sufficiently  established  in  practice  as  to  which  extent  non-EU  family 
members of unrepresented EU citizens are given assistance. Consular practicioners consulted during 
study visits to third countries pointed out that this is a rather difficult and sensitive question. The 
decision to include non-EU family members generally appears to be taken on a case-by-case basis 
without clear criteria, though in times of crisis rules on family members tend to be applied in a more 
comprehensive  way38.  Similarily,  it  is  currently  not  clear  whether  long-term  residents  and 
recognised  refugees  residing  in  a  Member  State  would  be  entitled  to  consular  protection  like 
unrepresented EU citizens in the event that their Member State of residence is not represented in a 
third country. 

3.3.2.  Which  Member  State  assists  an  unrepresented  EU  citzen  and  how  and  which  type  of 
assistance  is  coordinated  with  the  citizen's  Member  State  of  origin?  (access  and 
coordination/cooperation) 

Maria  from  Member  State  M  lost  her  passport  in  non-EU  country  Y  where  there  is  no 
representation of her home Member State. She phoned the consulates of Member States A and B but 
was not offered assistance. She then personally visited the consulates of Member States C and D but 
was still not granted assistance (as the consular officials did not share her view that she had a right 
to turn to them). As a consequence, Maria was stuck for one week in Y until she - also thanks to the 
intervention of her home Member State - was finally assisted. Besides the personal inconvenience 
and distress she also had to bear additional costs of accommodation and a loss in income. 

According to the wording of the Treaty an unrepresented EU citizen can seek protection from the 
embassy  or  consulate  of  "any"  other  Member  State,  thus  allowing  the  citizen  to  choose  which 
representation he/she prefers to turn to. In practice, representations of Member States do not always 
accept that they have to assist an unrepresented EU citizen, but sometimes request him/her to turn to 
another  Member  State.  There  are  also  agreements  between  some  Member  States,  according  to 
which a specific Member State is represented by another Member State on consular matters (either 
generally  or  regarding  specific  third  countries).  Further  local  burden-sharing  arrangements  exist, 
whereby  a  specific  Member  State  should  take  care  of  citizens  of  specific  nationalities.  These 
arrangements  may  be  acceptable  as  long  as  an  efficient  treatment  of  unrepresented  citizens  is 
secured. They tend however not to be widely publicised and this makes it difficult for a citizen to 
know which representation would assist him/her. 

37 

38 

Guidelines  for  further  implementing  a  number  of  provisions  under  Decision  95/553/EC  (Council  document 
11113/08 of 24 June 2008). 
Communication  on  consular  protection,  p.  7  as  well  as  CARE  study  and  study  of  the  Instituto  Europeo  de 
Derecho. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
The  unrepresented  EU  citizen  Sandro,  a  citizen  of Member  State  S,  has  just  been  arrested  and  is 
being  held  in  a  Latinamerican  prison.  He  would  like  to  ask  for  consular  protection  from  the 
embassy  of  Member  State  B.  Currently  it  is  not  clarified  which  types  of  assistance  the  assisting 
Member State generally may deliver and how it cooperates and coordinates with the citizen's home 
Member State. For instance in the case of arrest or detention, Sandro may be visited and his family 
members or other related persons informed at his request, minimum standards of treatment may be 
monitored and information on his rights provided. The authorities of the assisted Member State S 
should be provided with all the relevant information about Sandro and then should liaise with his 
family  members  or  other  related  persons  (if  the  detainee  so  wishes).  The  authorities  should  be 
informed after any visit made to the detainee and instantly be informed about any complaint of ill-
treatment. Currently some cooperation rules exist but they are non-binding and merely indicative, 
so local consular staff of Member State B feel obliged to ask centrally for instructions, which might 
impair an efficient and swift treatment of the case. There is also currently no clear system in place 
via which the consular staff of Member State B would establish the relevant contact person(s) of the 
citizen's home Member State. 

Assisting an unrepresented  EU  citizen, unlike assistance to own nationals, often requires  efficient 
cooperation  with  the  consular  authorities  of  the  citizen's  home  Member  State.  The  latter  has  a 
certain "duty of protection" vis-à-vis its nationals. It may be in a better position to liaise with the 
citizen's  family  and  relatives  and  may  wish  to  provide  further  assistance  from  a  distance  (e.g. 
regarding complaints about ill-treatment in prison). Despite the fact that consular protection often 
concerns  citizens  in  particularly  difficult  circumstances  and  the  necessity  to  safeguard  efficient 
treatment, clear rules for cooperation and coordination between the assisting Member State and the 
citizen's  Member  State  of  origin  are  currently  not  sufficiently  established.  This  comprises  which 
types of assistance consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens typically entails (e.g. in case 
of  death,  victim  of  crime,  etc.)  and  how  the  assistance  is  to  be  coordinated  between  the  assisting 
Member  State  and  the  citizen's  Member  State  of  origin.  It  has  emerged  from  consultations  that 
consular officials would turn frequently first to their own authorities in the capital to ask for specific 
instructions on how to proceed. Cooperation and coordination appear to be based more on personal 
relations and knowledge than on clearly established communication channels and rules for standard-
type  situations,  inducing  time  loss  as  well  as  possible  discrimination  because  the  citizen  is  not  a 
national of the assisting Member State. 

Further,  simple  forms  of  legalization  of  third-country  documents  and  simple  notary  services  for 
unrepresented EU citizens are currently not included in the scope of consular protection measures 
explicitly codified in Article 3(1) of Decision 95/553/EC. This refers to the authentication of third- 
country documents of unrepresented EU citizens and the confirmation of an unrepresented citizen's 
signature  at  his/her  request  by  the  consular  authorities  of  another  Member  State.  These  activities 
may not be related to cases of immediate emergency, but having to travel to another third country to 
obtain this service is often rather cumbersome. 

3.3.3.  How should the consular actors present in a given third country cooperate with each and 
coordinate their action (in particular, how can the EU level add value and contribute to 
facilitate cooperation)? 

In a third country the representatives of the locally present consular and diplomatic representations 
generally meet and exchange their views on consular matters (e.g. prison conditions, experiences 
with third-country authorities). How should the issue of unrepresented EU citizens be included in 
this local cooperation? What is the role of the Union delegation as regards this local cooperation 
and what other tasks can it perform? 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Currently  local  cooperation  meetings  on  consular  protection  are  being  organised  to  exchange 
information on issues of interest. According to non-binding consular guidelines39, unless otherwise 
agreed  by  the  Ministries  of  the  Foreign  Affairs  centrally,  these  meetings  are  chaired  by  Member 
State  representatives  decided  locally  (the  so-called  local  Chair),  with  the  support  of  the  Union 
delegation. 

To  ensure  coordination  and  cooperation  in  regard  to  unrepresented  EU  citizens,  the  consular 
authorities  present  in  a  given  third  country  need  to  liaise  with  each  other  and  have  specific 
information  available  (for  instance  contact  details  of  unrepresented  Member  States'  authorities  as 
well  as  of  translators/lawyers/doctors  speaking  the  language  of  unrepresented  citizens).  Pertinent 
information  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens  is  currently  not  systematically  collected  (which  may 
bring about losses in time and efficiency when dealing with unrepresented EU citizens), but depend 
on the initiative and engagement of local staff. 

Further,  pursuant  to  the  Treaty,40  the  Union  delegations  are  obliged  to  ("shall")  contribute  to  the 
implementation of the right to equal consular protection of unrepresented EU citizens. Respective 
spheres  of  competence  and  scope  for  action  are  not  yet  spelled  out  and  accordingly  depend  to  a 
large degree on the persons, circumstances and views represented locally. For instance it may entail 
taking part in local cooperation meetings or put at disposal available logistics. The current setting is 
thus  not  conducive  to  a  fully  coherent  external  action  of  the  Union.  Stakeholders  underlined  the 
importance  of  setting  out  clearly  what  Union  delegations  can  and  cannot  do,  in  order  to  avoid 
duplications and allow for full use of resources. 

3.3.4.  How and by whom should unrepresented EU citizens be assisted in crisis situations, and 
how  should  the  financial  burden  be  shared  between  the  assisting  and  the  unrepresented 
Member State? (assistance in crisis situations and financial reimbursement) 

Also  in  crisis  situations  unrepresented  EU  citizens  have  a  right  to  equal  consular  protection.  In  a 
crisis, preparedness and a clear division of responsibilities is key. 

Due to huge floods in third country Y most of its infrastructure has been destroyed. Tourists from 
Europe  in  the  seaside  resorts  have  been  repatriated  by  their  tour  operators.  However,  about  500 
EU citizens (mostly backpack travellers) are still stranded in remote locations, of whom about 100 
are unrepresented. It is however not specified which actor should coordinate assistance regarding 
the  unrepresented  EU  citizens  (both  when  preparing  for  a  crisis  and  when  the  crisis  hits).  In  the 
following  days  the  consular  authorities  of  non-represented  Member  States  establish  lists  of 
nationals,  which  could  be  caught  up  in  the  crisis,  on  the  basis  of  information  from  families  and 
friends. These lists are being passed on (via Member States' Foreign Ministries) to all the Member 
States' consular representations present in country Y with a request to start cooperation to provide 
assistance.  The  stranded  unrepresented  citizens  are  in  considerable  distress,  because  the 
information they receive from different sources (their home Foreign Ministries, consulates of other 
EU countries) on their situation and when they might be evacuated is contradictory. 

According to legally non-binding guidelines of March 2006 (updated in November 2010)41 Member 
States should meet regularly and share consular contingency and evacuations plans. These activities 
should  be  coordinated  by  the  so-called  local  consular  Chair  (see  3.3.3  above).  In  2006/2007  the 

39 

40 
41 

Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 2006 revised by the Council document 15613/10 of 05 November 
2010 (not published). 
Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union.  
Council document 10109/2/06 of 16 June 2006 revised by the Council document 15613/10 of 05 November 
2010 (not published). 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States endorsed the Lead State42 concept – i.e. a Member State can volunteer to be "Lead 
State"  in  a  specific  third  country  and  would  consequently  assume  the  responsibility  for  consular 
crisis coordination. Coordination is being supplemented at EU level by practical tools managed by 
the  EEAS  Situation  Centre  (secure  website  to  facilitate  information  exchange  between  consular 
authorities and teleconferences). 

In  recent  years  crisis  coordination  has  improved  considerably  but  there  is  still  scope  for  further 
improvement regarding unrepresented EU citizens43. The current legal framework does not give a 
concrete response on who should focus on assisting unrepresented EU citizens in crisis situations, 
including  as  to  the  role  of  the  Lead  State.  As  a  result,  protection  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens 
cannot  be  as  efficient  as  in  the  case  of  represented  nationals.  The  non-binding  guidelines  are  not 
fully adhered to in practice. Contingency planning does not specifically cater for unrepresented EU 
citizens; in a crisis it is difficult to establish the number of unrepresented EU citizens. Activities are 
at  times  fragmented  (individual  actions  focusing  on  own  nationals  rather  than  a  coordinated 
approach).  Information  on  needs  and  available  resources  is  not  always  sufficient.  Particularly  in 
serious crises it is difficult for local staff to cope without support from crisis intervention specialists. 
The  coordination  framework  and  the  sharing  of  responsibilities  are  still  being  further  developed. 
Lead  States  are  currently  established  in  28  third  countries  out  of  146  where  at  least  one  Member 
State is represented44. There are nevertheless many countries at risk where – despite the presence of 
many  EU  citizens  but  only  a  few  Member  State  representations  –  Lead  States  have  not  been 
established.  Local  consular  Chairs,  which  are  also  important  as  they  could  assume  at  least  a 
coordinating if not an operational role, are established in less than 50 % of third countries45. 

Among  the  stranded  EU  citizens,  there  are  also  about  50  citizens  of  country  B.  Two  represented 
Member States have chartered planes, which are not sufficient to cover all the remaining tourists. 
Regarding  available  places  priority  is  given  to  the  nationals  of  assisting  Member  States.  The 
consulate of Member State B would like to charter a small plane with 60 available seats, but would 
need to receive additional funds from its capital. It is unclear how the financial burden would be 
shared  and  how  (and  by  whom)  assistance  will  be  reimbursed;  consultations  on  this  issue  would 
take time, whilst action is needed urgently. 

During a crisis consular protection usually covers also activities which generate considerable costs, 
like  the  organisation  of  evacuations  (sometimes  including  medical  assistance)  or  of  temporary 
shelter and subsistence. The question then arises how the financial burden should be shared. 

Evacuations  and  other  types  of  assistance  are  undertaken  by  consular  authorities  when  no  other 
'usual' solutions are available (like commercial means or assistance by travel operators or insurance 
companies)46. Member  States have  different approaches regarding seeking payment of emergency 
assistance from their nationals. Some ask their citizens for payment (e.g. via their insurance), whilst 
most appear not to charge for these costs47. 

42 

43 

44 
45 
46 

47 

Lead  State  concept  (Council  document  10715/07)  and  European  Union  guidelines  on  the  implementation  of 
the consular Lead State concept, document 2008/C317/06, OJ C317/06, p. 6.  
Studies  and  interviews  with  Member  States'  consular  representatives  in  capitals  and  third  countries, 
stakeholder workshops on 24 September 2010 and 23 June 2011. 
EEAS Situation Centre – update of 20 June 2011.  
EEAS document – update of 16 June 2011 and non-paper of the Council working party COCON. 
Council Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours requires travel operators 
to give ‘prompt assistance’ to European consumers who find themselves in difficulty, even if it is caused by 
force majeure (Article 5 (2)). It should however be noted that only 19% of the trips of EU consumers fall under 
this regime. Moreover, business trips are in principle excluded from the current framework of the Directive. 
CARE project study. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
If payment is required and an unrepresented EU citizen does not have accessible financial means, 
according  to  the  current  legal  framework  the  assisting  Member  State  and  the  citizen's  home 
Member  State  should  arrange  necessary  guarantees  and  reimbursement.  Current  legislation  and 
guidelines  provide  generic  yet  quite  cumbersome  procedures  in  this  respect  (as  illustrated  in  the 
Annex V on current procedures of the financial reimbursement framework). A few Member States 
also signed additional bilateral arrangements48. 

However, in practice the current reimbursement procedures are generally not applied. Regarding the 
recent crises, only in one case was a request for reimbursement sent49. 

There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, to receive reimbursement the assisting Member State 
would need to establish intensive contacts with the authorities of the unrepresented Member States, 
before  providing  the  assistance  and  following  its  delivery.  A  standard  practice  has  not  been 
established.  Decision  95/553/EC  does  not  provide  for  a  specific  procedure  in  crisis  situations.  Its 
general,  time-consuming  procedure  does  not  reflect  the  specificities  of  crisis  situations  (notably 
time pressure and high number of citizens requesting assistance) and standard formats or templates 
are not included. More recent non-binding guidelines clarify that costs could be requested on a pro-
rata basis (i.e. totals costs divided proportionally according to the number of persons assisted by an 
unrepresented  Member  State).  The  way  these  guidelines  relate  to  the  procedure  of  Decision 
95/553/EC is however not clear. 

Further, in most cases Member States are determined to give assistance to their own nationals and 
offer  unrepresented  citizens  their  spare  places  (for  which  they  then  do  not  charge).  As  described 
above only in a limited number of countries are there pre-established Lead States, expected to take 
action in times of crisis. One of the reasons is that assuming this role may entail considerable costs. 
If financial burden-sharing is not clear and is not taking place in practice, there is less incentive to 
take a proactive approach which entails responsibilities not related to own nationals. Finally, there 
may  be  difficulties  in  keeping  track  of  costs  incurred.  According  to  Member  States  it  is 
cumbersome and not always possible to establish the costs of particular evacuations. 

Consular  protection  in  crises  can  in  specific  situations  be  supported  at  EU  level  to  complement 
and support national resources. The European Civil Protection Mechanism can support consular 
assistance  to  EU  citizens  in  major  emergencies  in  third  countries,  if  requested  by  the  consular 
authorities of Member States50. The Mechanism was activated in past crises such as Libya (2010)51, 
Mumbai  (2008)52  and  Lebanon  (2006)53.  Its  operational  centre,  the  Monitoring  and  Information 

48 

49 
50 

51 

52 

53 

E.g.  Agreement  between  Poland  and  Lithuania  (1999),  Baltic  Treaty  between  Estonia,  Latvia  and  Lithuania 
(1999). 
Kyrgyzstan crisis (2010). 
See  Article  2(10)  of  the  Council  Decision  2007/779/EC  Euratom  establishing  the  EU  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism (Recast), OJ L 314, 1.12.2007, p. 9. 
In Libya the Mechanism was triggered by the HU Presidency to support the pooling of resources to evacuate 
EU citizens. In particular two grants (value of €112,000) were awarded to two Member States which evacuated 
about 150 EU citizens. 
In  Mumbai  the  Mechanism  was  triggered  by  the  French  Presidency  and  activated  in  order  to  assist  severely 
wounded EU citizens after the Mumbai attacks; this operation complemented bilateral operations undertaken 
by  Member  States  to  evacuate  more  than  100  non-wounded  EU  citizens  to  Europe.  One  Member  State 
(Sweden) offered a MEDEVAC aircraft and team, supported also by civil protection experts from France (the 
costs of such evacuation were co-funded at 50% by the Civil Protection Financial Instrument). 
The  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  was  activated  to provide help  in  addressing  the difficult  logistical  situation 
resulting from the large influx of evacuees. Requests regarded making available additional ships and aircrafts 
from  the  States  participating  in  the  Mechanism,  to  use  the  aircrafts  and  vessels  to  bring  the  humanitarian 
assistance to Cyprus and to repatriate nationals to their respective countries of origin. In addition, the MIC was 
requested to dispatch experts to assist the Cypriot authorities, Commission services and the Member States in 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Centre  (MIC),  gives  access  to  a  network  of  civil  protection  resources  allowing  for  pooling  and 
mobilisation  of  resources  (e.g.  transport  means,  medical  assistance  and  evacuation,  temporary 
shelter). Through the Mechanism a team of EU civil protection experts from Member States can be 
deployed and the Civil Protection Financial Instrument can cover transport evacuation costs up to 
50%54. The added value of the Civil Protection Mechanism in recent crises was generally assessed 
positively. There is still scope for further improvement as to the level of EU transport co-funding 
and regarding interoperability between civil and consular protection55. A reform to be presented in 
the second half of 2011 in parallel to this impact assessment and proposal on consular protection is 
currently  under  preparation56.  The  consequences  of  a  reinforced  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  and 
synergies  are  analysed  further  in  the  baseline  scenario  (see  point  3.4).  On  the  ground,  the  Union 
delegations supported Member States in crisis situations in specific cases upon request. Their tasks 
in times of crisis are currently not clearly spelled out. A small dedicated budget line was set up for 
assisting  with  logistical  support.  It  was  used  once  during  the  Gaza  crisis  in  January  2009,  when 
about 100 persons were evacuated in armoured buses. 

3.4. 

The baseline scenario 

All things being equal, the implementation of EU citizenship as a concrete reality for unrepresented 
EU citizens is likely to remain at current levels. Content and operability of this right would continue 
to lack clarity and accordingly hamper its full effectiveness for citizens. Whilst there may be a trend 
towards  more  cooperation,  such  a  development  would  be  predominantly  reactive  and  mainly 
concern crisis cooperation. It is unlikely that such cooperation would unify the understanding of the 
underlying concepts and terms and  that  all Member States would  be included and progress at the 
same pace. 

The underlying legal  framework  would continue to be  mainly composed of  scattered non-binding 
guidelines, whose implementation is left to the discretion of local consular authorities. Enforcement 
of applicable rules would not be safeguarded. Cooperation on the ground would remain at current 
levels,  with  the  specific  needs  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  not  being  taken  sufficiently  into 
account. The role of the Union delegations would remain unclear and initiatives would depend on 
the good will of persons involved, rather than on a clear division of responsibilities and adequate 
burden sharing. Suboptimal use of resources and capacities would continue. 

This  trend  is  destined  to  continue  against  a  background  of  expected  increases  in  requests  for 
consular  protection,  as  well  as  an  overall  rationalization  of  Member  States'  capacities  in  times  of 
austerity. Estimates suggest that the number of unrepresented EU citizens will increase considerably 
in the next years. On the basis of the latest UNWTO estimate of annual growth in tourist arrivals 
(7%  in  2010)57  and  the  average  annual  change  in  Eurostat  emigration  figures  in  the  period  2002-
200858, one can predict the changes in the number of unrepresented citizens over a five and ten year 
period. Assuming that growth rates and the number and location of representations remain constant, 
the number of unrepresented travellers to third countries is expected to increase from 5.12 million to 

the management of the situation. In response, the Monitoring and Information Centre immediately established 
an expert team in Larnaca. 
See  Article  4  of  the  Council  Decision  2007/162/EC,  Euratom  establishing  a  Civil  Protection  Financial 
Instrument, OJ L 71, 10.3.2007, p. 9.  
Stakeholder views as expressed at the Consular Erasmus Seminar (organised by France in Brussels on 11 and 
12 April 2011) and the workshop on a concept for common trainings for civil protection and consular experts 
(organised by DG ECHO in Brussels on 14 February 2011).  
Points of discussion include establishing a predefined accessible pool of resources, EU-funded assets to cover 
the gaps and different levels of EU transport co-funding. 
UNWTO (2010), World Tourism Barometer, Interim Update, April 2011. 
This period was used due to annual changes being volatile and 2009 data not being complete. 

54 

55 

56 

57 
58 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
 
 
7.18 million in five years, and to 10 million in ten years. For residents the change would be from 
1.74 million to 2.4 million and 3.3 million. In addition, the recorded annual number of crises has 
increased from 78 in 1975 to nearly 400 currently59 and the frequency and intensity of disasters are 
likely to continue growing. 

Rules  regarding  financial  reimbursement  would  continue  to  not  being  applied  in  crisis  situations. 
The  Lead  State  concept  would  not  develop  its  full  potential,  with  the  number  of  designated  Lead 
States  stagnating  or  merely  slightly  increasing.  Member  States  would  request  co-financing  of  the 
evacuations  by  the  European  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  on  an  ad-hoc  basis  or  ask  the  Union 
delegation to provide limited assistance. 

If  the  European  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  is  modified  as  envisaged,  it  will  be  in  a  position  to 
better support consular protection in major emergencies due to: 1) quicker mobilisation of transport 
and  other  assets  given  pre-defined  resources  2)  clearer  activation  procedures,  including  at  the 
request of a Lead State, possibly in coordination with the Presidency, 3) improved accessibility due 
to the higher level of co-financing (increase from 50% to 85 %), 4) better interoperability between 
crisis  experts  due  to  a  possibly  extended  pool  of  civil  protection  experts  (comprising  consular 
officials  and  specific  trainings).  These  improvements  could  in  turn  enhance  the  efficiency  of 
protection for unrepresented EU citizens and encourage Member States to act proactively in crises 
for the benefit of unrepresented EU citizens. An intensified utilisation of the Mechanism to support 
consular  protection  will  be  possible  within  the  limits  of  existing  resources  and  budgetary  means 
allocated to the Civil Protection Financial Instrument60. Better burden-sharing will therefore only be 
achieved to a limited extent, with EU co-funding focusing on specific operations (i.e. partially co-
financed61  evacuation  and  medical  evacuation,  pooling  of  experts).  Further  consular  support  in 
crises  would  still  be  needed,  in  particular  to  gather  information  about  unrepresented  citizens  and 
provide  subsistence  and  administrative  support  (issuance  of  emergency  travel  documents, 
representation in relation to the host country). 

3.5. 

EU Power to act 

3.5.1.  The legal basis 

The  EU  competence  to  adopt  legislation  on  consular  protection  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens  is 
conferred by Article 23(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Accordingly, 
the Council may adopt directives establishing the coordination and cooperation measures necessary 
to  facilitate  protection  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens.  The  necessity  for  further  facilitation  is 
demonstrated by the existing lack of clarity of scope and procedures. Pursuant to Article 35 TEU 
the  diplomatic  and  consular  missions  of  the  Member  States  and  the  Union  delegations  in  third 
countries shall contribute to the implementation of the right of EU citizens to protection as referred 
to in Article 20(2)(c) TFEU and of the measures adopted pursuant to Article 23 of that Treaty. 

3.5.2. 

Subsidiarity 

The  European  Union  is  better  placed  than  individual  Member  States  to  take  action  given  the 
following factors: 

1.  Safeguarding  equal  treatment  of  EU  citizens  requires  uniform  standards  on  cooperation  and 
coordination  procedures.  If  some  Member  States  do  not  respect  these  procedures  or  show  a 

59 

60 
61 

See the recent Commission's Communication "Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil 
protection and humanitarian assistance" COM(2010) 600 final. 
Currently 8 million EUR is available annually for support outside the EU.  
The remaining part of financial involvement would be subject to reimbursement. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
diverging interpretation of the ambit of this right, this could cause problems for citizens relying on 
protection by these Member States. 

2.  Assistance  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens  by  definition  entails  a  cross-border  dimension, 
extending the rights granted by EU citizenship beyond the Union's borders. This right illustrates the 
concrete benefits connected with the status of EU citizenship. It epitomises the special bond which 
membership of the Union creates. This right is inherently linked to the concept and competences of 
the Union. 

3.  EU  action  should  bring  about  economies  of  scale.  Streamlined  coordination  and  cooperation 
procedures  and  a  clearer  role  of  local  actors,  including  of  the  Union  delegations,  will  reduce  the 
need for ad hoc decisions taken on a case-by-case basis and for individual instructions. EU action 
under  the  Lisbon  Treaty  will  also  allow  for  effective  monitoring  of  implementation  and  facilitate 
ensuring  compliance,  as  for  any  proposed  EU  legal  measures  the  full  spectrum  of  enforcement 
mechanisms  will  apply  (e.g.  the  duty  to  transpose  a  directive  into  national  law,  references  for 
preliminary rulings). 

4.  Member  States  have  established  a  partial  interpretation  of  this  right  in  Decision  95/553/EC, 
whose  sui  generis  character  and  very  succinct  content  cannot  safeguard  a  sufficiently  consistent 
level  of  compliance  by  Member  States.  In  view  of  the  new  legal  regime  created  by  the  Lisbon 
Treaty, any reform of this Decision can only be undertaken in the form of EU legislation based on 
Article  23(2)  TFEU.  Member  States  are  precluded  from  adopting  further  substantial 
intergovernmental measures. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES 

OBJECTIVES 

GENERAL 

To foster the implementation of EU citizenship as a concrete reality ensuring 
equal  treatment  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens;  to  ensure  a  high  level  of 
protection  of  citizens'  fundamental  rights  and  promote  EU  values  such  as 
non-discrimination and mutual solidarity. 

SPECIFIC 

•  To clarify content and operability of this right. 

•  To simplify cooperation and coordination between consular authorities. 

OPERATIONAL  To provide the basis for a stable framework on cooperation and coordination 

by defining: 

•  who is an unrepresented EU citizen; 

•  which of the Member States present in a third country has to assist an 
unrepresented EU citizen and how assistance is to be coordinated with 
the citizen's Member State of origin; 

•  how the authorities present in a given third country should cooperate 
and coordinate amongst each other and what the role of the European 
Union entails; 

•  how  and  by  whom  unrepresented  EU  citizens  should  be  assisted  in 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
crisis situations and how financial reimbursement should operate. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT 

5.1. 

Overview 

To  address  the  problems  identified  in  part  3  and  in  accordance  with  the  objectives  established  in 
part 4 the following policy options are being considered: 

•  Policy option 1: Retention of the status quo. No action would be taken at EU level. 

•  Policy  option  2:  Directive  establishing  coordination  and  cooperation  measures  to  further 
facilitate consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens, clarifying the content of this right 
and fostering efficient equal treatment, reinforced by targeted awareness-raising measures. 

•  Policy  option  3:  Measures  establishing  further  and  tighter  rules  on  coordination  and 
cooperation,  including  reimbursement  for  financial  assistance  in  crisis  situations  through  a 
reimbursement  mechanism  and/  or  EU  funding,  expanding  the  assistance  rendered  to 
unrepresented EU citizens. 

Whilst retaining the status quo (option 1) would not entail taking action at EU level, the other policy 
options  would  further  reinforce,  albeit  to  different  extents,  the  protection  of  unrepresented  EU 
citizens. 

5.2. 

Discarded policy options 

The adoption of further non-binding guidelines has been discarded as a policy option as under the 
new  legal  regime  established  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty  it  would  no  longer  be  legally  feasible  for 
Member  States  to  negotiate  and  agree  such  texts62.  In  addition,  this  would  be  tantamount  to  the 
status quo (see below). 

Similarly,  making  provisions  for  local  EU  delegations  to  directly  and  exclusively  take  care  of 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  has  been  discarded,  as  it  would  not  be  in  compliance  with  the  legal 
framework on the European External Action Service63. 

5.3. 

Description and analysis of the impacts 

There  are  currently  no  overall  data  on  the  number  of  cases  where  inadequate  assistance  was 
provided; there is no reporting obligation. Accordingly, the options are evaluated below mostly in 
qualititative terms as to achieving the objectives set and in view of potential increases in efficiency 
and cost savings. 

The  analysis  includes  the  impacts  on  fundamental  rights,  pursuant  to  the  Commission's 
Communication on a Strategy for the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 

62 
63 

See also COM(2010) 149 final.  
According  to  the  Council  Decision  establishing  the  organisation  and  functioning  of  the  European  External 
Action  Service  (EEAS),  Union  delegations  shall  support  Member  States  in  their  diplomatic  relations  and  in 
their role of providing consular protection to EU citizens in third countries on a resource-neutral basis. By mid-
2013, the High Representative shall provide a review of the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. The review 
shall,  if  necessary,  be  accompanied  by  appropriate  proposals  for  the  revision  of  this  Decision.  In  that  case  the 
Council shall revise the Decision in the light of the review by the beginning of 2014. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European Union64. The options generally (except option 1) are likely to have a beneficial impact on 
citizens' fundamental rights though to varying degrees. 

5.3.1.  Policy Option 1: Status quo 

No action at EU level would be undertaken. 

Expected Impacts 

Effectiveness in 
attaining 
objectives 

Social impacts 
and fundamental 
rights 

Financial and 
economic impacts 

This  option  will  not  contribute  to  further  facilitating  cooperation  and 
coordination for the benefit of EU citizens. The right to equal consular 
protection  will  continue  to  lack  clarity,  which  will  hamper  the  full 
operability of this right. Cooperation and coordination will continue to 
depend to a considerable degree on ad hoc initiatives and personalities 
involved.  The  current  financial  reimbursement  rules  will  continue  to 
be  generally  not  applied  in  crisis  situations.  The  tangible  benefits  of 
this EU citizen right will not be further enhanced and the spectrum of 
enforcement mechanisms, such as the duty to transpose a directive into 
national  legislation  and  the  possibility  of  infringement  proceedings, 
will not be fully applied. 

No positive social impacts are to be expected. Delivery of assistance to 
unrepresented EU citizens as efficiently as to own nationals will not be 
safeguarded.  The  fundamental  right  to  equal  consular  protection  for 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  (Article  46  Fundamental  Rights  Charter) 
will  not  gain  full  effectiveness,  as  core  concepts,  responsibilities  and 
procedures are not sufficiently clear and effective implementation and 
application  will  not  be  ensured.  This  could  in  turn  undermine  the 
credibility and perception of the Fundamental Rights Charter and of a 
Union based on solidarity and non-discrimination. This appears all the 
more 
in  a 
important  as  unrepresented  EU  citizens  may  be 
psychologically  even  more  difficult  situation  (given  the  absence  of 
national authorities and single contact points). 

No direct new financial burdens are induced by this option. However, 
efficiency losses will continue to occur due to EU citizens who require 
assistance  having  disproportionate  or  unclear  expectations.  Use  of 
existing resources will not be further optimised and possible efficiency 
savings  will  not  be  realised,  despite  an  expected  increase  in  EU 
citizens seeking help in the coming years. Keeping the status quo will 
also have a negative economic impact on unrepresented citizens, who 
may seek support in suboptimal ways at higher cost due to insufficient 
clarity  about  their  right.  Maintaining  the  status  quo  will  preserve  the 
current inequalities in financial engagement in consular crises. 

64 

COM(2010) 573 final. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.3.2.  Policy Option 2: Directive establishing cooperation and coordination measures 

Description:  A  Directive  establishing  coordination  and  cooperation  measures  regarding  consular 
protection  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens,  clarifying  content  and  operability  of  this  right  and 
facilitating cooperation and coordination between consular authorities. 

This option will be analysed in view of the four specific parameters described above (point 3.3) and 
the four operational objectives (point 4). 

1.  Personal scope (Who is to be regarded as an unrepresented EU citizen?) 

The  Directive  could  clarify  when  an  EU  citizen  is  to  be  considered  as  unrepresented,  namely  (in 
line  with  the  wording  of  Decision  95/553/EC)  when  a  permanent  representation  of  his/her  own 
Member  State  is  sufficiently  "accessible".  Following  consultation  with  stakeholders,  a  balanced 
approach could lead to a permanent consular and diplomatic representation not being considered as 
"accessible", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return to his/her place of departure (via means of 
transport commonly used in the third country) at least the same day. Exceptions would need to be 
provided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even swifter assistance. 

The Directive  could further  specify to  what extent also non-EU family members of EU citizens 
would  be  included  in  consular  protection  for  EU  citizens.  Article  23  TFEU  provides  for  non-
discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union and established case-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits 
of EU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to ensure the full effectiveness of 
those  rights.  Accordingly,  the  Directive  could  specify  that  protection  should  be  given  to  non-EU 
family members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States give it to the non-EU family 
members of their own nationals65. 

These clarifications would in particular address the issues discussed under point 3.3.1 above. 

2.  Access  to  consular  protection  and  cooperation/coordination  (Which  Member  State  assists 
the unrepresented EU citizen and how is this assistance coordinated with the citizen' s Member 
State of origin?) 

The  Directive  could  stress  that  EU  citizens  can  turn  to  "any"  other  Member  State's  embassy  or 
consulate;  but  derogations  through  arrangements  by  Member  States  may  be  tolerated  as  long  as 
transparency  (through  notification  and  subsequent  publication  on  the  Commission's  website)  and 
effective treatment of applications are ensured. 

The Directive could specify which assistance Member States typically provide in the most frequent 
situations (i.e. arrest or detention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness, death, relief 
and repatriation in case of distress, and issuance of emergency  travel documents), on the basis of 
common  practices  of  Member  States  on  consular  protection66,  and  the  applicable  procedures  for 
cooperation and coordination between the embassy/consulate of the assisting Member State and the 
authorities  of  the  citizen's  Member  State  of  origin.  Whilst  Member  States'  consular  laws  and 

65 

66 

It should be born in mind that not all consular services offered to nationals/EU citizens can be applied to their 
third country family members. Notably, emergency travel documents cannot be issued (neither to third country 
family  members  of  nationals  nor  to  those  of  EU  citizens);  detained  third  country  family  members  can  be 
visited unless the consular authorities of the third country object. Please see Annex V for further details. 
As  identified  in  the  study  of  the  Instituto  Europeo  de  Derecho  and  as  described  in  the  Council  framework 
under the Spanish Presidency. Please see Annex V for details. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
practises  differ  with  some  Member  States  providing  further  services  the  exisiting  comparative 
studies  demonstrate  similarities  regarding  the  most  frequent  cases  of  consular  protection67.  The 
basis for this simplification would be Decision 95/553/EC and subsequent implementing measures. 

These measures adress the issues raised above, notably in point 3.3.2. 

3.  Local  coordination/  EU  added  value  (How  should  local  coordination  take  into  account  the 

specific needs of unrepresented EU citizens and what should the role of the EU entail?) 

The Directive could specify that local cooperation meetings on consular protection should include 
regular exchange of information on unrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings 
collects  the  relevant  contact  details  of  relevance  for  assistance  to  unrepresented  EU  citizens  (e.g. 
regionally responsible representations of unrepresented Member States). 

The  Directive  could  provide  that  Union  delegations  can  under  specific  conditions  chair  -  or 
otherwise  support  -  these  meetings.  Union  delegations  could,  without  prejudice  to  the  Council 
Decision  establishing  the  EEAS68,  provide  logistic  and  operational  support  (including  office 
accommodation  and  organisational  facilities)  as  well  as  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information 
between  Member  States'  representations.  Delegation  staff  could  raise  awareness  about  EU 
obligations  and  pinpoint  unrepresented  citizens  to  Member  States'  representations.  This  would 
further  optimise  the  use  of  resources  and  capacities  in  place.  It  would  also  guarantee  a  certain 
stability  and  contribute  to  a  more  uniform  approach:  given  that  Union  delegations  are  present  in 
most third countries, the local Chair currently frequently changes and as they are perceived as a sort 
of "natural" contact point for unrepresented EU citizens. 

These measures would tackle the problems examined above, notably in point 3.3.3. 

4.  Assistance  in  crisis  situations/financial  reimbursement  (How  and  by  whom  should 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  be  assisted  in  crisis  situations  and  how  should  financial 
reimbursement operate?) 

The  Directive  could  provide  for  the  following  points  to  further  improve  protection  for 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  in  crises.  Local  contingency  plans  should  include  unrepresented  EU 
citizens.  The  importance  of  the  Lead  State(s)  for  protecting  unrepresented  EU  citizens  should  be 
stressed and their role clarified. The Lead State(s) established should be in charge of coordinating 
and  leading  assistance  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens.  A  Lead  State  could  seek  additional  support 
from the Civil Protection Mechanism, the crisis management structures of the EEAS or local Union 
delegations.  The  role  of  the  latter  in  crisis  situations  should  be  clarified,  it  should  entail  assisting 
Member States regarding evacuations, shelter, deployment of expert teams and temporary housing 
of  Member  States'  consular  staff.  Additional  support  could  be  provided  and  synergies  fully 
exploited  if  the  intervention  teams,  such  as  those  under  the  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  could 
include national consular experts, notably from unrepresented Member States. Joint trainings could 
be provided for69.  

67 

68 
69 

The  studies  referred  to  are  the  ones  of  the  Instituto  Europeo  de  Derecho  and  the  CARE  (Citizens  Consular 
Assistance Regulation in Europe) project activities (see above under point 2.2.2). See annex V for details. 
OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 30 (Council document 2010/427/EU). 
Impact assessment on the 2011 review of the civil protection regulatory framework under preparation by DG 
ECHO. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Regarding  financial  burden-sharing  a  facilitated  reimbursement  procedure,  adjusted  to  crisis 
situations,  could  be  introduced70.  This  could  be  done  by:  1)  simplifying  the  procedural  exchange 
involving consular authorities and citizens; 2) adding standard formats for requests; 3) introducing 
an  easier  system  for  tracking  the  reimbursement  costs  (on  a  pro-rata  basis71,  fixed  rates  -  i.e. 
standardised  costs  for  evacuation,  medical  evacuation  and  shelter  -  in  case  costs  cannot  be 
calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure would complement the support available from 
the Civil Protection Mechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures. 

The proposed system of fixed sums72: 

Type of assistance 

Fixed sum 

Evacuation - long-haul journey 

the 

last  available  commercial 
Cost  of 
economy  air  ticket:  place  of  evacuation  – 
destination (OR 1.000 EUR) 

Internal journey to a safe location 

150 EUR 

Medical assistance 

2.500 EUR 

Subsistence 
offered) 

(accommodation 

and 

food 

200 EUR (per day) 

These measures are further detailed above (notably under point 3.3.4). 

5.  Awareness-raising  aimed  at  providing  further  guidance  for  citizens  and  consular 

practitioners 

Legal measures (see points 1. to 4.) could be accompanied by an EU-wide information campaign, 
similar  to  the  one  on  air  passenger  rights.  The  campaign  on  air  passenger  rights  is  currently  still 
ongoing; so far it is estimated that over 100 million citizens heard about the campaign and that it 
was supported by about 800 partners (plus 160 airports) such as travel agents and tourist offices. On 
consular protection numbers reached may be fewer given the more specialised subject matter. But 
the  network  developed  for  the  air  passenger  rights  campaign  could  be  used  as  stakeholders 
frequently coincide (travel agents, airports, etc.).  

In  cooperation  with  Member  States,  travel  and  expatriate  associations,  travel  guide  publishers, 
employers'  associations  and  international  companies73  citizens  could  be  better  informed. 
Awareness-raising should be targeted to the potential beneficiaires. Drawing from the preliminary 
experiences of the air passenger rights' campaign online advertisement, inexpensive giveaways (e.g. 

70 

71 

72 

73 

The reimbursement system for every-day situations would be build on the current one. Any advances incurred 
when  helping  an  unrepresented  EU  citizen  by  an  assisting  Member  State  (e.g.  providing  a  plane  ticket  and 
giving  indispensable  financial  funds  to  a  victim  of  robbery)  would  be  reimbursed  from  the  unrepresented 
Member State (which could then seek restitution from its national according to national rules, if applicable). 
The additional costs (e.g. cost of information exchange between an assisting consular authority and a consular 
authority of an unrepresented Member State) would be the administrative costs, not to be reimbursed (as it is 
currently the case). See further Annex VI. 
Pro-rata reimbursement refers to a proportional reimbursement based on the number of persons assisted (total 
costs divided by the number of assisted persons). 
The  proposal  for  the  fixed  sums  is  based  on  information  provided  by  Member  States  and  available  data  on 
recent crises, see further in Annex VI. 
As travellers and residents in third countries are frequently there for business purposes. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
luggage  tags)  and  audiovisual  material  where  cost-effective  (e.g.  for  viral  promotion  via  social 
networks and partner websites) could be particularly promising.  

Thanks to the campaign citizens could be informed about the content and ambit of this right (do's 
and  don'ts),  also  to  ensure  that  their  expectations  correspond  to  the  legal  reality.  Citizens  seeking 
additional  information  could  be  directed  to  the  Commission's  dedicated  website  on  consular 
protection74. 

For  consular  officials  tailor-made  trainings  could  be  further  supported  in  the  form  of  hands-on 
workshops, ensuring cost-efficiency by using existing training facilities and concepts (notably the 
training concept of “consular Erasmus” as recently agreed in the Council framework75). 

Expected Impacts 

A  Directive  could  foster  the  implementation  of  EU  citizenship  as  a 
concrete  reality  by  clarifying  the  content  of  this  right  and  by 
streamlining  cooperation  and  cooperation  procedures.  It  would  also 
allow  for  a  wide  panoply  of  enforcement  mechanisms  (such  as  the 
duty  to  transpose  a  Directive  into  national  legislation,  Commission 
monitoring  and  if  need  be  enforcement  of  compliance  and  the 
references).  Stakeholders  consulted 
possibility  of  preliminary 
generally consider clarity of legal provisions and a good definition of 
the  scope  of  assistance  provided  as  important  to  further  enhance 
efficiency of consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. 

1. Personal scope 

Effectiveness in 
attaining 
objectives 

Clarifying when a permanent representation is "accessible" will ensure 
operability  of  this  right  as  there  will  be  a  sufficiently  clear  (and 
common)  understanding  of  when  an  EU  citizen  is  to  be  regarded  as 
unrepresented.  By  establishing  a  term  of  reference  (travel  there  and 
back  on  the  same  day)  a  standard  is  set,  which  renders  this  concept 
operational  while  keeping  the  required  degree  of  flexibility.  Most  of 
the Member States consulted (63%)76 indicate that a travel time of up 
to  6  hours  to  reach  the  consulate  would  appear  reasonable  (but 
frequently  pointed  out 
that  urgent  cases  may  require  swifter 
treatment).  The  possibility  to  reach  the  consulate,  receive  consular 
protection  and  travel  back  at  least  within  the  same  day  would 
accordingly  be  an  appropriate  time  limit.  Including  third  country 
family  members  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  under  the  same 
conditions as those of own nationals will ensure equivalent treatment 
for  EU  citizens  and  their  family  in  line  with  the  case-law  of  the 
European  Court  of  Justice.  The  inclusion  of  third-country  family 
members  was  flagged  as  an  important  issue  by  civil  society 
representatives.77 
regards 

Implementation  appears 

feasible;  as 

74 
75 
76 
77 

http://ec.europa.eu/consularprotection/. 
See COM(2011) 149 final. 
According to the online survey, 37% of MS pointed to other travel time. 
As expressed inter alia at the dedicated workshop of 23 June 2011. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
equivalent  treatment  the  point  of  reference  is  solely  the  assisting 
Member  State78.  It  should  also  be  kept  in  mind  that  cases  related  to 
TCN  family  members  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  are  relatively 
few79 with most reported cases concerning crisis situations.  

2. Access to consular protection and cooperation/coordination 

Providing which of the Member States present in a third country has to 
assist  an  unrepresented  EU  citizen  and  how  this  assistance  is  to  be 
coordinated  with  the  citizen's  Member  State  of  origin  will  further 
clarify  cooperation  and  coordination  between  Member  States  and 
safeguard that assistance can be delivered to unrepresented EU citizens 
as efficiently as to own nationals. The necessary flexibility is ensured 
by  allowing  derogations  under  certain  conditions  and  by  restricting 
cooperation/coordination  procedures  to  the  standard  situations  (e.g. 
arrest or serious accident). Member States and civil society consultated 
generally  perceive  a  case  for  greater  transparency  as  to  bilateral  and 
local  arrangements  on  burden-sharing.  Civil  society  representatives 
stress  that  citizens  need  guaranteed  access  to  treatment  and  that  they 
should not be passed on from one consulate to the next one. Ensuring 
good communication channels and clear legal provisions are by a wide 
majority80  considered  as  important  or  very  important  factors  for  an 
even more efficient assistance. 

3. Local coordination/EU added value 

Specifying local coordination with regard to unrepresented EU citizens 
and spelling out the role of the Union delegations will safeguard that 
unrepresented EU citizens are provided with assistance and a point of 
contact, as efficiently as represented citizens, and it will optimise the 
use  of  resources  by  clarifying  respective  roles  and  responsibilities.  It 
would  also  ensure  that  the  Union  delegations,  often  perceived  as 
"natural"  contact  points  by  unrepresented  EU  citizens,  can  contribute 
their  share  in  accordance  with  citizens'  expectations  and  meet  their 
Treaty  obligation  under  Article  35  TEU.  Civil  society,  the  European 
Parliament81 and Member States with less extensive consular networks 
advocate a more substantive supporting role of the Union delegations 
(all  the  more  when  being  net  contributors,  "value  for  money"), 
whereas views of Member States with more extensive networks differ 

78 

79 
80 

81 

82 

I.e. if the assisting Member State would provide help to TCN family members of own nationals it would also 
need to do so for TCN family members of EU citizens. The assisted Member State (regardless of whether it 
generally delivers protection to TCN family members) would need to provide any information necessary to the 
assisting Member State in view of its duty to sincere cooperation under the Treaties and the right to family life 
as enshrined in the Fundamental Rights Charter. 
Only about 1,2% of EU citizens are estimated to have third country family members (cf. Annex III). 
According  to  the  online  survey  among  Member  States  68,8%  of  respondents  considered  clarity  of  legal 
proposals  as  a  very  important  (50%)  or  an  important  (18%)  factor  for  an  even  more  efficient  consular 
assistance; as regards overcoming practical challenges (e.g. ensuring clear communication channels) responses 
were similar (43% very important, 37% important). 
European Parliament resolution of 11 December 2007 on the Green Paper: Diplomatic and consular protection 
of Union citizens in third countries (see footnote 5). 
As expressed in the dedicated workshop of 23 June 2011 and in bilateral consultations. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
among them. 

4. Assistance in crisis situations/financial reimbursement 

This  policy  option  provides  for  a  clearer  division  of  tasks  regarding 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  in  crisis  situations  and  for  a  simple 
reimbursement  tool  without  creating  an  additional  administration 
layer.  Due  to  including  unrepresented  EU  citizens  fully  in  crisis 
preparation,  responsibilities  would  be  clearer  from  the  start  in  case  a 
crisis hits. Local staff could be supported by consular experts joining 
the intervention teams, including consuls from unrepresented Member 
States, to ensure sufficient staff for every citizen. Available resources 
of Union delegations would be fully used, for instance to temporarily 
house  consular  teams.  Timely  information  about  available  transport 
capacities would be ensured. Consular officials are generally in favour 
of  a  better  interrelation  between  consular  and  civil  protection  assets, 
within  the  respect  of  each  others  competences  and  powers;  the 
activation of the MIC should be further clarified. 

It is reasonable to assume that due to the facilitation of reimbursement, 
and  -  as  a  consequence  –  the  improved  coordination,  Member  States 
will  be  in  a  better  position  to  provide  pro-active  assistance  to 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  and  treat  them  as  if  they  were  their  own 
nationals.  The  role  and  the  attractiveness  of  the  Lead  State  concept 
would  be  considerably  reinforced.  The  reimbursement  system  would 
still  provide  for  a  considerable  degree  of  flexibility.  Member  States 
would  remain  free  to  decide  whether  or  not  to  claim  reimbursement. 
requesting 
For 
reimbursement  in  cases  where  costs  are  low.  Member  States  would 
thus be offered a voluntary instrument based on a few basic principles 
known  to  all  partners.  Representatives  from  Member  States  strongly 
support the Lead State concept which should be further enhanced and 
stress the benefits of comprehensive crisis preparedness82. 

instance  Member  States  may 

refrain 

from 

5. Awareness-raising among citizens and consular practitioners 

Awareness-raising would contribute to achieving full effectiveness of 
this right for unrepresented EU citizens, as knowing about a right is a 
prerequisite  for  using  it.  A  comprehensive  information  campaign 
requires  a  very  good  common  understanding  of  the  content  and  the 
ambit of the right, which needs to be established beforehand. Thanks 
to  an  awareness-raising  campaign  citizens'  general  awareness  would 
increase considerably and possible "psychological barriers" to address 
other EU consulates would be diminished. Further citizens' knowledge 
about  the  content  and  limits  of  this  right  would  be  considerably 
enhanced,  which  would  reduce  the  number  of  unfounded  cases. 
Member State representatives generally were in favour of awareness-
raising  initiatives  provided  they  include  clear  information  about  the 
scope  and  limits  of  consular  services  to  decrease  unjustified  requests 
("dos  and  don'ts").  Civil  society  representatives  stress  that  citizens 
need to be fully informed about their rights to be able to use them.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
Social impacts 
and fundamental 
rights 

Financial and 
economic impacts 

This  option  would  enhance  the  fundamental  right  to  equal  consular 
protection,  by  clarifying  the  content  of  this  right,  by  facilitating  the 
cooperation and coordination procedures necessary for its  application 
and by ensuring effective implementation and compliance. 

The  measure  under  point  1  (inclusion  of  non-EU  family  members) 
would  strengthen  the  right  to  family  life  as  well  as  the  rights  of  the 
child  (Articles  7  and  24  Fundamental  Rights  Charter).  The  measure 
under  point  3  (added  value  of  EU  action)  would  protect  the  EU 
citizens' right to good administration by the institutions and bodies of 
the  Union  (Article  41  Fundamental  Rights  Charter).  Clearer 
responsibilities and improved burden-sharing in crisis situations would 
ensure  non-discrimination  also  in  times  of  crisis  when  fundamental 
rights  are  a  sensitive  issue.  In  addition  the  principles  of  non-
discrimination,  life  and  integrity  of  the  person  and  the  right  of  the 
defence  and  to  a  fair  trial  would  be  reinforced  (Articles  2,  3,  21,  47 
and 48 Fundamental Rights Charter). 

The financial impact (costs and savings) of the legal measures (points 
1. to 4.) was estimated on the basis of the assumption that the number 
of cases concerning unrepresented EU citizens would increase83.  

The  cost  for  the  Member  States  would  be  about  750,000  EUR  per 
year.  Additional  cost  of  monitoring  was  estimated  at  314,40084  EUR 
(first year – set-up cost). In the following years monitoring should not 
induce any important cost (as it would become a part of reporting on 
consular  cases  which  the  Member  States'  consular  representations 
provide currently). For these reasons, monitoring should not impose an 
important administrative burden.  

No  additional  resources  will  be  needed  for  the  Union  delegations85. 
Regarding facilitation of reimbursements the implementation costs can 
be estimated at 89,610 EUR for all the Member States86. The limited 
additional  work  incurred  by  requesting  reimbursements  would  not 
entail the necessity to create additional posts. The additional financial 
and administrative burden for unrepresented Member States would be 
limited and still – due to economies of scale – be more beneficial than 
organising assistance separately for their own unrepresented citizens87. 

Comprehensive  awareness-raising  (point  5)  would  induce  costs  of 
approximately  1  million  EUR  for  an  EU-wide  information  campaign 
(see Annex VI). To be cost-effective awareness-raising would need to 

83 

84 

85 

86 
87 

Based  on  an  expected  10%  increase  of  consular  protection  cases  regarding  unrepresented  EU  citizens, 
following implementation of the several measures of the option, please see Annex VI for further details. 
Estimation based on assumption that the preparatory work during the first year could take one day of work of 
Member States' consular representations, see Annex VI for further details. 
The  cost  for  the  Union  delegations  was  estimated  at  the  level  of  262,000  EUR  per  year  (the  figure  reflects 
estimated 10 working days of work for an EU official in all delegations) . 
Idem. 
The  savings  of  the  assisting  Member  States  are  notably  time  savings  of  consular  staff  and  are  estimated  at 
1,438,260 EUR. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
be  well  targeted  and  tailored  to  the  needs  of  the  beneficiaries.  In  the 
long  term  cost-effectiveness  would  increase  as  the  exchange  of 
information  would  partly  be  self-sustained  (due  to  being  taken  up  by 
local  multipliers  and  in  national  training  schedules)  and  savings  for 
Member States due to less unfounded requests could result in savings 
of 897.360 EUR per year. 

This  policy  option  would  also  have  a  positive  economic  impact  for 
unrepresented  citizens  who  might  be  less  inclined  to  seek  support  on 
their own from suboptimal alternative sources and save time88 (savings 
would amount to more than 1.809.980 EUR). 

The analysis of financial costs and benefits is further specified in the 
Annex VI on key assumptions on costs and benefits. 

5.3.3.  Policy  Option  3:  Further  and  tighter  cooperation  and  coordination  measures  (notably 

regarding scope and types of assistance and financial reimbursement in crisis situations) 

Description:  This  policy  option  would  entail  a  Directive  establishing  further  and  tighter  rules  on 
coordination and cooperation, regarding scope and types of assistance and financial reimbursement 
in  crisis  situations,  accompanied  by  awareness-raising.  As  further  elements  elements  would  be 
added to the factors considered in option 2 only these additional elements will be examined in the 
following. 

1.  Personal scope 

The  Directive  could  stipulate  that  a  permanent  respresentation  is  to  be  regarded  as  not  accessible 
(and an EU citizen accordingly as unrepresented) in case it is a specific number of kilometres away 
(e.g.  more  than  500  km).  In  addition,  refugees  and  long-term  residents  should  be  treated  on  the 
same footing as unrepresented EU citizens. 

2.  Coordination and cooperation 

The  scope  of  coordination  and  cooperation  could  be  widened  and  also  entail  simple  forms  of 
legalisation of third-country documents and simple notary services for unrepresented EU citizens. 
This  would  entail  the  authentication  of  third-country  documents  and  confirmation  of  an 
unrepresented  citizen's  signature  at  his/her  request  by  the  consular  authorities  of  another  Member 
State. This would spare the citizen the need to contact and travel to another Member State to have 
his/her documents certified or signature confirmed. Such activities have a formal character but are 
very important to facilitate everyday life. 

3.  Assistance in crisis situations/financial reimbursement 

Financial reimbursement in crisis situations could be further reinforced by the following tools. 

Sub-option A: Compensation mechanism/Clearing house 

88 

The benefits to unrepresented EU citizens in everyday situations were estimated using two elements: 1) time 
saving  to  previously  unassisted  citizens  or  to  citizens  receiving  assistance  quicker  -  this  is  estimated  using 
average daily  wages  and  estimated  to be €60; 2)  avoidi ng  an ‘inconvenience’  cost associated with receiving 
sub-optimal assistance or having to seek out other forms of assistance. Estimating this cost takes the system of 
compensation  for  air  passengers  as  the  point  of  departure,  assuming  the  similarity  of  situation  of  a  citizen 
requiring the consular assistance and a stranded air passenger.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
A  specific  reimbursement  mechanism  could  be  set  up  at  EU  level  (Commission  or  EEAS).  A 
Member State could seek reimbursement from the Union, which would act as a clearing house and 
in  turn  ask  for  reimbursement  from  the  Member  State(s)  whose  citizens  have  been  assisted.  The 
intensive  and  diplomatically  sensitive  procedural  exchange  between  Member  States  would  be 
eliminated. The methods for tracking the costs could be based on pro-rata or on fixed sums systems 
(like in policy option 2). The reimbursements could be carried out at the end of each calendar year. 
This  option  would  require  additional  human  and  organisational  resources;  existing  structures 
(European Civil Protection Mechanism; EEAS crisis management structures)  could be  considered 
as "clearing house" to exploit synergies. 

Sub-option B: EU Funding 

Consular  protection  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens  could  be  co-funded  under  the  EU  budget. 
Member  States  assisting  unrepresented  citizens  during  crises  could  be  co-funded  above  a  certain 
threshold.  EU  funding  specifically  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens  could  be  embedded  in  existing 
structures  (Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  enhanced  budget  line  of  Union  delegations)  or  a  new 
financial  instrument  could  be  set  up.  This  sub-option  could  also  complement  the  first  sub-option, 
costs  requested  by  the  assisting  Member  State  could  be  co-funded  and  necessary  funds  could  be 
provided at the time of crisis. 

Expected Impacts 

1. Personal scope 

Effectiveness in 
attaining 
objectives 

Regulating  the  concept  of  "accessiblity"  by  laying  down  a  specific 
amount of kilometres would enhance clarity and legal certainty for the 
citizen  and  the  consular  authorities  involved,  as  a  clear  demarcation 
line  would  be  drawn.  However,  according  to  consular  practitioners 
effectiveness  would  be  reduced  as  local  circumstances  would  not  be 
fully  taken  into  account  (as  the  significance  of  a  specific  distance 
depends to a considerable degree on the state of transport networks in 
a given country).  

Treating  refugees  and  long-term  residents  on  an  equal  footing  would 
foster  the  implementation  of  EU  citizenship,  understood  in  a  wide 
sense,  and  promote  EU  values  such  as  solidarity.  Civil  society 
representatives  stress  that  solidarity  should  also  encompass  these 
groups. As Member States generally do not by law grant assistance to 
recognized  refugees  and  long-term  residents,  inclusion  of  these 
categories of persons would for the time being appear too ambitious in 
view of the objectives set. 

2. Cooperation and coordination 

Including  explicit  cooperation  and  coordination  measures  on  simple 
forms  of  legalisation  would  foster  the  implementation  of  EU 
citizenship  as  a  concrete  reality  with  tangible  benefits.  Important 
services for the citizen would need to be provided on the spot by other 
Member  States'  embassies/consulates,  which  would  in  turn  also 
significantly  improve  mutual  trust  between  consular  authorities  (as 
"notary"  activities  of  consular  authorities  of  other  Member  States 
would  be  recognized  like  acts  of  national  authorities).  However,  the 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
understanding of Member States' authorities regarding legalization and 
regarding 
the  applicable  procedures  still  varies  considerably; 
legalisation  of  documents  within  the  European  Union  rules  are 
currently  expected  to  be  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  201389. 
Member  State  representatives  advocated  a  further  exchange  on  best 
practises  and  most  of  them  considered  legislation  on  the  matter  as 
premature. 

3. Assistance in crisis situations/financial reimbursement 

Sub-option A: Compensation mechanism/Clearing house 

This  policy  option  could  facilitate  reimbursement  by  streamlining 
procedures  and  by  guaranteeing  the  reimbursement  for  the  assisting 
Member  State.  Under  such  circumstances,  Member  States  might  be 
more  inclined  to  provide  efficient  assistance  to  unrepresented  EU 
citizens  as  if  they  were  their  own  nationals.  When  being  consulted 
Member  States  were  generally  not  fully  convinced  about  sufficient 
added  value  of  this  sub-option.  There  is  therefore  a  risk  that  the 
specific arrangements at EU level would not be used. 

Sub-option B: EU funding 

Financial  support  at  EU  level  would  furthermore  reduce  inequalities 
between Member States which assist during crises (but do not request 
reimbursement)  and  those  which  are  not  represented.  Represented 
Member  States  would  have  secure  financing  and  it  is  reasonable  to 
consider  that  they  would  be  more  encouraged  to  assist  unrepresented 
EU citizens. The need to make full use of existing capacities and avoid 
any  duplication  of  structures  was  also  underlined  by  stakeholders 
given  the  existing  EU  instruments.  Support  for  this  option  among 
Member  States  differed  (notably  depending  on  whether  a  Member 
State  had  significant  own  crisis  capacities  and  whether  it  was  a  net 
payer to the EU budget or not). 

The  positive  impact  on  social  considerations  and  fundamental  rights 
would generally be high. The right to equal consular protection would 
be  reinforced  (e.g.  by  providing  for  legalisation  services)  and  the 
status of EU citizenship considerably enhanced. 

Social impacts 
and fundamental 
rights 

reimbursement 

Facilitating 
compensation 
mechanism/clearing  house  would  better  safeguard  non-discriminatory 
treatment of unrepresented EU citizens. 

through 

a 

Efficient  assistance  due  to  stable  capacities  secured  by  EU  funding 
would reinforce EU citizens' fundamental right to consular protection 
and their right to life, non-discrimination and family life. 

Financial and 

Given  the  necessity  of  additional  human  and  financial  resources  this 

89 

EU Citizenship Report 2010, COM(2010) 603 final. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
economic impacts  option would generate considerably higher costs than option 2, both at 
EU level and for Member States. This policy option would also induce 
further compliance costs. 

In addition to the costs of policy option 2 The additional measures of 
policy option 3 would induce the following costs: protection covering 
refugees  and  long  term  resident  would  bring  about  costs  of  81.080 
EUR  and  benefits  for  those  citizens  of  153.530  EUR.  Introducing 
legalization/simple  notary  services  would  induce  compliance  costs  of 
810.000  EUR,  whilst  benefits  for  citizens  are  estimated  at  192.960 
EUR. 

Cost-effectiveness 
mechanism/Clearing house 

of 

sub-option 

A: 

Compensation 

The  policy  option  would  trigger  additional  costs  at  EU  level.  The 
estimated annual cost would be at least 112.000 EUR (additional costs 
include the establishment of electronic files and regular maintenance). 

The savings on the side of the assisting Member States would depend 
on the individual case. The additional financial burden on the part of 
unrepresented  Member  States  would  be  limited90  and  still  –  due  to 
economies  of  scale  -  more  beneficial  than  organising  assistance 
separately for their unrepresented citizens. 

Cost-effectiveness of sub-option B: EU funding 

Reimbursement costs would amount to around 16-31 million EUR for 
a funding period of 6-7 years (depending on whether 50% or a higher 
percentage  of  the  activities  would  be  financed).  Additional  costs  of 
managing the fund at EU level would be estimated at least at the level 
of  780.000  EUR.  Member  States  would  contribute  to  the  fund 
according to the general budgetary framework. 

The analysis of financial costs and benefits is further specified in the 
Annex VI on key assumptions on costs and benefits. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF POLICY OPTIONS  

In  the  following,  the  policy  options  (part  5)  are  compared  in  view  of  the  objectives  established 
above (part 4). The policy options are set against the objectives defined in part 4 (+++ indicates the 
highest mark). 

Objectives/Costs:  Effectiveness 

in 

meeting 
objectives 

Social 
impacts 
and fundamental 
rights 

Financial 
economic 
impacts 

and 

90 

The  issue  of  subsequent  repayment  from  the  assisted  citizen  is  not  being  analysed  (as  it  depends  on  the 
legislation or practice of the respective Member State).  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
0 

++ 

0 

low91 

Policy Option 1: 

0 

Status quo 

Policy Option 2: 

++ 

EU  Directive  on 
cooperation 
and 
coordination 
measures 
and 
awareness raising 

Policy Option 3: 

++(+/-) 

++(+/-) 

medium/high92 

EU 
measures 
setting out further 
rules  and  further 
strengthening  the 
rights 
of  EU 
citizens 

1.  Defining  accessibility  by  a  specific  amount  of 
kilometres and including refugees and long-term residents:  

+93 

+ 

low 

2. Including simple forms of legalization/ notary activities: 

++94 

++ 

low/medium 

3. Compensation mechanism/ clearing house: 

++(+/-)95 

++(+/-) 

medium 

4. New financial instrument for EU funding: 

++(+)96 

++(+) 

high 

Following a comparison of the policy options, in terms of their costs and effectiveness in attaining 
the objectives set, policy option 2 is identified as the best placed variant and therefore constitutes 
the  preferred  option.  A  Directive  entailing  the  proposed  elements  would  provide  the  basis  for  a 
stable  framework  on  cooperation  and  coordination.  It  would  ensure  equal  protection  for  all 
unrepresented EU citizens in need of consular protection, by providing for a right with a clear and 
reliable  content  based  on  simplified  coordination and  cooperation  procedures.  This  may  lead  to  a 

91 
92 
93 

94 

95 
96 

See Annex VI for further details. 
See Annex VI for further details. 
Regulating  the  concept  of  "accessibility"  by  laying  down  a  specific  amount  of  kilometres  may  even  reduce 
effectiveness  as  local  circumstances  (quality  of  transport  networks)  would  not  be  sufficiently  taken  into 
account. Including long-term residents and refugees would further enhance effectiveness, but depart too much 
from the current framework. 
Including  simple  forms  of  legalization/notary  activities  could  further  enhance  effectiveness  of  services  but 
would appear premature at current stage; EU legislation on legalization within the EU is foreseen for 2013. 
A reimbursement mechanism would not enhance effectiveness if only rarely used by Member States. 
Setting  up  an  additional  EU-funding  instrument  could  have  a  beneficial  effect  as  Member  States  would  be 
more  inclined  to  proactively  assist  unrepresented  EU  citizens.  But  this  option  would  have  significant  cost 
impacts and a new EU fund would partially overlap with existing financial instruments (notably with the Civil 
Protection Mechanism). 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
limited increase in requests from unrepresented EU citizens. However, in view of the overall costs 
of assisting nationals, additional costs for assisting unrepresented EU citizens will still be minor; for 
more costly evacuations an improved reimbursement system will be provided for. In addition, due 
to raising awareness about the ambit and limits of this right, the number of unjustified requests will 
decrease and as a result a mere 10% increase in applications of unrepresented EU citizens is to be 
expected97. To maximise effectiveness and to ensure that all unrepresented EU citizens who wish to 
actually do profit from this renewed framework, awareness-raising measures should be included. In 
view  of  the  financial  impacts  a  fully  fledged  awareness-raising  campaign  should  accompany  the 
implementation of the Directive, as a full understanding of the content of this right is a precondition 
for comprehensive communication measures. 

Option  3  is  effective  in  achieving  the  objectives  set,  whilst  option  2  is  only  marginally  less 
effective.  Including  refugees  and  long-term  residents  as  well  as  broadening  the  type  of  assistance 
considered to simple legalisation of documents would however depart considerably from the current 
framework  and  practices,  which  is  deemed  to  be  premature  at  this  stage98.  The  costs  induced  by 
option 3 are disproportionally higher than those likely to be incurred by option 2. Synergies with the 
European  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  would  not  be  fully  exploited;  introducing  a  new  financial 
mechanism specifically for unrepresented EU citizens would amount to a partial duplication of the 
existing framework and generate significant additional costs. 

7. 

EU ADDED VALUE AND IMPLEMENTATION 

7.1. 

EU added value and proportionality 

The preferred set of measures would safeguard the implementation of EU citizenship as a concrete 
reality ensuring equal treatment for unrepresented EU citizens. Content and operability of the right 
to equal consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens would be clarified and cooperation and 
coordination between consular authorities facilitated. Equal treatment is a key element in the sphere 
of freedom, security and justice and the need to assist unrepresented citizens in need – be it in day-
to-day or in crisis situations – is a vital part of it. 

The right to equal treatment on consular protection is one of the specific rights conferred on the EU 
citizen  by  the  Treaty.  It  therefore  appears  appropriate  to  include  the  necessary  coordination  and 
cooperation measures to facilitate this right in the legal order of the Union, rather than in sui generis 
decisions of the Representatives of Governments of Member States. Practicability and coherence of 
this  right  will  be  further  enhanced  by  embedding  it  in  the  legal  orders  of  Member  States,  by  the 
right of national courts to request guidance on interpretation from the European Court of Justice and 
by the Commission's powers to ensure compliance. 

The Directive on cooperation and coordination measures will clarify and facilitate 

– 

– 

97 
98 

who is to be considered as an unrepresented EU citizen; 

which Member State assists the unrepresented EU citizen and how this assistance is to be 
coordinated with the citizen's Member State of origin; 

See Annex VI. 
For further details please see above (analysis of impacts of the specific elements of option 3). 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

how  and  by  whom  unrepresented  EU  citizens  should  be  assisted  in  crisis  situations  and 
how  the  financial  burden  should  be  shared  between  the  assisting  and  the  unrepresented 
Member State; 

how the consular actors present in a given third country should cooperate with each other 
and  coordinate  their  action  (notably  how  the  EU  level  can  provide  added  value  in  this 
respect). 

By  means  of  accompanying  awareness-raising  iniatives  the  full  effectivenes  of  the  legal  measure 
will be secured. 

The  preferred  policy  option  also  complies  with  the  principle  of  proportionality.  None  of  the 
alternative options reach the objectives in an equally effective way whilst being sensitive to costs 
incurred. The preferred option will require Member States to introduce a number of changes to their 
internal  legal  orders  but  the  general  and  specific  policy  objectives  cannot  be  reached  equally 
effectively by other means. 

The Directive also takes due account of the principle of proportionality by providing for sufficient 
flexibility as regards key concepts (e.g. regarding the definition of unrepresented EU citizen). It also 
restricts itself to laying down cooperation and coordination measures for frequent occurrences (e.g. 
death, victim of crime) and crisis situations. It further fully builds on and integrates previous legal 
measures (notably Decision 95/553/EC) as well as recent developments (e.g. the Lead State) with a 
clear focus on the unrepresented EU citizen. 

7.2. 

Transposition, monitoring and evaluation 

The envisaged deadline for transposition of the Directive will be two years following its entry into 
force.  Given  that  the  Directive  builds  on  previous  legal  measures  and  at  least  partially  reflects 
existing  practices,  two  years  are  deemed  sufficient  to  enable  Member  States  to  cater  for  the 
necessary modifications of national laws and practices. 

To  make  sure  that  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  adequately  complied  with,  a  functional 
monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanism  will  be  provided  for.  To  remedy  the  current  lack  of 
comprehensive data the Directive will call on Member States to inform the Commission about the 
implementation of this right, including by a yearly overview of statistics and relevant cases. Data 
provided by other sources (e.g. Eurostat, expatriate associations or national tourist ministries) will 
further  increase  the  robustness  of  data  sets  for  effectively  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the 
proposed  measures.  Additionally,  effectiveness  could  to  some  extent  be  assessed  through  future 
Eurobarometer surveys. 

The Commission is under a Treaty obligation to report every three years on the implementation of 
the EU citizenship rights, including the right to equal treament regarding consular protection. The 
relevant  report,  coming  after  3  to  5  years  of  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  should  entail  a 
specific study with emphasis on data collection and examine how well cooperation and coordination 
arrangements are working. 

The analysis should include: 

– 

– 

EN 

cases  of  consular  protection  rendered/not  rendered  to  unrepresented  EU  citizens,  both  in 
crisis and in day-to-day situations; 

role of the Lead State, including number of Lead States established; 

37 

   EN 

 
– 

requests for reimbursement of costs and for co-financing of assistance during crises. 

The  report  would  help  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  the  proposed  measures  and  further  deepen 
insight with a view to achieving optimal benefits for unrepresented EU citizens in distress. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I: MEMBER STATE REPRESENTATIONS IN THIRD COUNTRIES 

Third Country 

DE 

PT 

SI  FR  CZ 

SE  ES  BE  HU 

PL  DK  CY 

IE  LT  EL 

IT  LV  LU  NL  SK  MT  UK  EE  BG  AT  RO 

FI 

Afghanistan 

South Africa 

Albania 

Algeria 

Andorra 

Angola 

Antigua and Barbuda 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

  (cid:57)    (cid:57)     (cid:57)                                         

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)           (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)    

Saudi Arabia 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

Argentina 

Armenia 

FYROM 

Australia 

Azerbaijan 

Bahamas 

EN 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)           (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)           (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)    

(cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

39 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
Bahrain 

Bangladesh 

Barbados 

Belarus 

Belize 

Benin 

Bhutan 

Myanmar 

Bolivia 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                       (cid:57)           (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)         (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

                                          (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)               (cid:57)                 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                       (cid:57)           (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)         (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)    (cid:57) 

Bosnia & Herzegovina 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

Botswana 

Brazil 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                   (cid:57)           

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

Brunei Darussalam 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                               

Burkina Faso 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57)               (cid:57)                 

Burundi 

Cambodia 

Cameroon 

EN 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)       (cid:57)                           (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)                     (cid:57)   (cid:57)       

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)             (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

40 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
Canada 

Cape Verde 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

  (cid:57)    (cid:57)     (cid:57)                                         

Central African Republic 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)               (cid:57)     (cid:57)       (cid:57)    

Chile 

China 

Colombia 

Comoros 

Congo 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)           (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

      (cid:57)                                               

      (cid:57)       (cid:57)               (cid:57)                       

Democratic Republic of the Congo  (cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)             (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

North Korea 

South Korea 

Costa Rica 

Côte d'Ivoire 

Croatia 

Cuba 

Djibouti 

(cid:57)        (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)                       (cid:57)       (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)               (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)               (cid:57)                       

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

      (cid:57)                                               

Dominican Republic 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                 (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
Dominica 

Egypt 

El Salvador 

UAE 

Ecuador 

Eritrea 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                 (cid:57)                       

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                 (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                       (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

United States 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

Ethiopia 

Fiji 

Gabon 

Gambia 

Georgia 

Ghana 

Grenada 

Guatemala 

Guinea 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

      (cid:57)                                   (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                 (cid:57)                       

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)       (cid:57)         (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57)       

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)                 (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)         (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                             (cid:57)           

Guinea-Bissau 

  (cid:57)    (cid:57)     (cid:57)                                         

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
Equatorial Guinea 

      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                                         

Guyana 

Haiti 

Honduras 

India 

Indonesia 

Iraq 

Iran 

Iceland 

Israel 

Jamaica 

Japan 

Jordan 

Kazakhstan 

Kenya 

Kyrgyzstan 

Kiribati 

                                          (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)      

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                 (cid:57)                       

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)       (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)                     (cid:57)         (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)                     (cid:57)           

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                               

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
Kuwait 

Laos 

Lesotho 

Lebanon 

Liberia 

Libya 

Liechtenstein 

Madagascar 

Malawi 

Malaysia 

Maldives 

Mali 

Morocco 

Marshall Islands 

Mauritius 

Mauritania 

Mexico 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                               

(cid:57)                        (cid:57)                  (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57)                                           

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                               

(cid:57)                            (cid:57)             (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)               (cid:57)                 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

      (cid:57)                                   (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                                         

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
Micronesia 

Moldova 

Monaco 

Mongolia 

Montenegro 

Mozambique 

Namibia 

Nauru 

Nepal 

Nicaragua 

Niger 

Nigeria 

Norway 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)   (cid:57)           (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)                                 (cid:57)   (cid:57)       

(cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57)   (cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)         (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                             (cid:57)         (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)             (cid:57)                     (cid:57)         (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)       (cid:57)         (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)           (cid:57)    (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                                         

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

New Zealand 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

Oman 

Uganda 

Uzbekistan 

EN 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)      

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57)           (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)    

45 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

Pakistan 

Palau 

Panama 

Papua New Guinea 

      (cid:57)                                   (cid:57)           

Paraguay 

Peru 

Philippines 

Qatar 

Russia 

Rwanda 

St. Kitts-Nevis 

San Marino 

Vatican City State 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                 (cid:57)                       

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)       (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57)                     (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

                              (cid:57)                       

St. Vincent and the Grenadines                                                        

Saint Lucia 

Samoa 

      (cid:57)                                   (cid:57)           

São Tomé and Príncipe 

  (cid:57)                                  (cid:57)                 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
Senegal 

Serbia 

Seychelles 

Sierra Leone 

Singapore 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)               (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

      (cid:57)                                               

(cid:57)                                          (cid:57)           

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

Solomon Islands 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57)                               (cid:57)           

Somalia 

Sudan 

Sri Lanka 

Switzerland 

Suriname 

Swaziland 

Syria 

Tajikistan 

Tanzania 

Chad 

Thailand 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)               (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)       (cid:57)    

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                       (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)       (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

      (cid:57)                             (cid:57)                 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                   (cid:57)           

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)         (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                               

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)       (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
Timor-Leste 

  (cid:57)                                                    

Togo 

Tonga 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)                                               

Trinidad Tobago 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)                       (cid:57)     (cid:57)           

Tunisia 

Turkmenistan 

Turkey 

Tuvalu 

Ukraine 

Uruguay 

Vanuatu 

Venezuela 

Vietnam 

Yemen 

Zambia 

Zimbabwe 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57)           (cid:57)                       (cid:57)       (cid:57)    

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57)     (cid:57)               (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)       (cid:57)    

      (cid:57)                                               

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

(cid:57)      (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)   (cid:57)         (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)      

(cid:57)      (cid:57)   (cid:57)         (cid:57)   (cid:57)      (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)         (cid:57) 

(cid:57)  (cid:57)    (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57)               (cid:57) (cid:57)     (cid:57)     (cid:57)   (cid:57) (cid:57)  (cid:57)    

Source: General Secretariat of the Council, 17770/2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 RELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU diplomatic representation in third countries, second half of 2010; EC 
Consular Protection website; (order of the Council document follows the order of the rotating Presidencies as of 2007). 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
                                                      
                                                      
ANNEX II: REPRESENTATION MAPPING 

The table below presents the relation between the level of representations and the possibility to provide protection to unrepresented EU citizens in third 
countries.  The  numbers  in  the  cells  indicate  the  total  number  of  third  countries  where  the  provider  Member  State  (in  rows)  can  potentially  provide 
consular protection to a recipient from an unrepresented Member State (in columns). As an example, France (read horizontally), due to having a large 
number of representations in third countries can provide consular protection in a large number of third countries to many Member States. Conversely 
(read  vertically),  there  are  few  third  countries  where  French  citizens  would  be  required  to  seek  consular  protection  from  representations  of  other 
Member States. 

DE 

PT 

SI 

FR 

CZ 

SE 

ES 

BE  HU 

PL 

DK  CY 

IE 

LT 

EL 

IT 

LV 

LU 

NL 

SK  MT 

UK 

EE 

BG  AT  RO 

FI 

76 

99 

31 

5 

0 

3 

14 

83 

109 

0 

0 

4 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

25 

44 

31 

48 

44 

71 

25 

48 

17 

28 

26 

43 

24 

36 

5 

8 

10 

15 

4 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

DE 

PT 

SI 

FR 

CZ 

SE 

ES 

BE 

HU 

PL 

DK 

CY 

IE 

EN 

56 

51 

33 

55 

71 

56 

65 

99 

98 

61 

31 

103 

108 

37 

81 

104 

18 

106 

64 

62 

54 

72 

10 

11 

1 

0 

2 

1 

8 

3 

17 

11 

18 

33 

35 

10 

0 

0 

2 

10 

7 

8 

0 

6 

0 

38 

11 

39 

13 

4 

1 

21 

36 

1 

12 

5 

0 

38 

15 

10 

11 

1 

0 

7 

0 

16 

4 

91 

28 

67 

62 

39 

64 

81 

67 

75 

109 

102 

108 

72 

40 

113 

118 

46 

91 

114 

28 

116 

74 

72 

65 

82 

12 

7 

12 

18 

6 

25 

44 

17 

11 

20 

27 

18 

21 

51 

34 

33 

31 

46 

36 

41 

70 

14 

17 

3 

6 

16 

1 

6 

7 

13 

7 

3 

1 

6 

4 

9 

5 

0 

3 

24 

15 

23 

45 

7 

1 

14 

28 

13 

16 

24 

43 

12 

20 

15 

37 

0 

3 

0 

8 

0 

6 

3 

3 

17 

41 

41 

65 

40 

28 

41 

29 

9 

49 

45 

12 

51 

23 

2 

8 

47 

55 

73 

36 

14 

77 

49 

18 

30 

5 

43 

12 

41 

19 

12 

15 

1 

6 

6 

0 

3 

8 

0 

1 

52 

34 

47 

43 

12 

18 

55 

58 

79 

55 

39 

54 

44 

16 

21 

6 

8 

26 

50 

34 

55 

0 

3 

50 

11 

11 

7 

26 

55 

25 

20 

18 

28 

15 

55 

75 

14 

78 

42 

37 

34 

46 

4 

3 

8 

4 

0 

1 

32 

51 

14 

34 

25 

50 

25 

42 

4 

8 

11 

17 

4 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

54 

22 

15 

15 

26 

35 

4 

4 

50 

12 

12 

2 

5 

15 

25 

43 

20 

15 

17 

15 

12 

18 

1 

9 

1 

4 

0 

5 

5 

2 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LT 

EL 

IT 

LV 

LU 

NL 

SK 

MT 

UK 

EE 

BG 

AT 

RO 

FI 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

9 

20 

38 

48 

70 

6 

2 

7 

4 

40 

65 

10 

18 

3 

7 

64 

87 

3 

4 

22 

36 

19 

37 

24 

45 

15 

31 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

7 

4 

13 

4 

4 

5 

3 

11 

15 

1 

7 

23 

39 

8 

13 

8 

2 

29 

30 

14 

31 

42 

30 

44 

70 

0 

3 

3 

1 

27 

24 

1 

2 

4 

2 

3 

0 

9 

3 

0 

3 

1 

2 

2 

0 

2 

5 

1 

8 

7 

23 

39 

29 

34 

64 

5 

1 

4 

1 

0 

2 

9 

3 

21 

6 

36 

63 

6 

4 

57 

17 

4 

39 

69 

33 

3 

6 

3 

2 

66 

29 

22 

8 

3 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

8 

45 

74 

7 

70 

24 

9 

44 

42 

31 

46 

59 

44 

57 

87 

79 

86 

49 

25 

91 

0 

3 

5 

9 

0 

12 

9 

15 

10 

7 

1 

7 

4 

9 

3 

2 

0 

12 

11 

7 

13 

15 

19 

8 

14 

0 

4 

6 

7 

9 

2 

5 

21 

36 

18 

38 

28 

45 

8 

32 

3 

36 

33 

42 

21 

2 

37 

40 

2 

9 

8 

45 

12 

32 

11 

0 

2 

0 

3 

3 

1 

40 

44 

50 

36 

16 

49 

79 

12 

73 

28 

11 

97 

9 

47 

46 

55 

37 

3 

3 

6 

14 

24 

44 

14 

52 

75 

2 

0 

3 

0 

3 

2 

10 

7 

49 

69 

27 

5 

29 

69 

92 

1 

7 

2 

7 

3 

1 

7 

21 

44 

23 

42 

28 

51 

18 

33 

0 

0 

8 

0 

1 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

10 

3 

47 

12 

4 

9 

1 

5 

6 

22 

77 

37 

33 

28 

46 

4 

7 

1 

3 

3 

0 

1 

1 

5 

1 

72 

36 

29 

26 

40 

26 

9 

4 

4 

3 

0 

0 

1 

9 

1 

94 

52 

51 

42 

61 

0 

3 

42 

10 

47 

12 

53 

15 

13 

1 

5 

5 

2 

23 

18 

28 

36 

15 

8 

10 

Source: Matrix Insight Study on the basis of the General Secretariat of the Council, 17770/2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 RELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU diplomatic representation in third 
countries, second half of 2010; EC Consular Protection website; own calculations (order of the Council document follows the order of the rotating Presidencies as of 2007). 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III: MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM – METHODOLOGY AND DATA 

Figures were obtained by relying on a methodological approach involving the following three 
steps. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Use of official data sources (e.g. EUROSTAT, UNWTO) as starting points for the 
analysis. These data sources operate under codes of practice inter alia ensuring the 
accuracy and reliability of the data1. Where available also existing survey work was 
used. 

Use of economic modelling to fill remaining gaps, steps involved are outlined in the 
following. 

Filling of remaining gaps and triangulating results with information collected as 
part of this study (e.g. interview, survey) and other existing studies. 

Represented and Unrepresented EU Citizens in Third Countries  

All 27 Member States are represented in only three countries: China, Russia, and the United 
States2. There are several countries, including popular tourist destinations, where no or only 
very  few  EU  Member  States  have  diplomatic  and/or  consular  representations.  A  2010 
document from the General Secretariat of the Council3 provides an overview of the number of 
Member  State  representations  in  third  countries.  The  distribution  of  the  number  of 
representations is shown in the figure below: 

Figure 1: Number of representations in third countries per Member State  (as a percentage of total third 
countries) 

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

FR DE UK

ES

IT

NL

SE

BE

RO CZ

PL

EL

AT BG DK

PT HU FI

SK

IE

LT

SI

CY

LV MT

EE

LU

Source: General Secretariat of the Council, 17770/2/09 REV 2 PESC 1795 RELEX 1235 COCON 47, EU 
diplomatic representation in third countries, second half of 2010 

Methodology for Estimating the Number of Unrepresented Travellers  

1 

2 
3 

EN 

for 

example 

See 
of 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/quality/code_of_practice/compliance. 
SEC(2007) 1601, Commission Staff Working Document. 
General  Secretariat  of  the  Council,  17770/2/09  REV  2  PESC  1795  RELEX  1235  COCON  47,  EU 
diplomatic representation in third countries, second half of 2010. 

EUROSTAT 

Practice: 

Code 

the 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
To  estimate  the  number  of  EU  citizens  travelling  to  third  countries  where  they  are  not 
represented,  figures  on  relevant  travel  patterns  and  figures  on  total  trips  made  by 
Europeans  outside  of  the  EU  were  combined  with  the  data  on  Member  State 
representations around the world. 

Data on total trips made by Europeans outside of the EU 

EUROSTAT provides information about trips to third countries in 2009 (both for holiday and 
business). These figures represent individual trips and can be broken down into “travel to all 
countries of the world” and “travel to EU27”. Hence, the difference between these figures can 
be  used  as  the  total  number  of  trips  outside  of  the  EU,  which  can  then  be  broken  down  by 
Member State. Business and leisure trips have been combined and in the few instances where 
there were data gaps figures older than 2009 were used. Where relevant, national sources as 
well as information provided by travel associations were used for validation 

Data on travel patterns 

In  order  to  establish  how  many  citizens  travel  to  each  of  the  third  countries,  one  needs  to 
establish the ”attractiveness” of each third country. This is done using the UNWTO World 
Tourism  Barometer4,  which  includes  2010  figures  on  total  international  arrivals  to  most 
countries  in  the  world.  Dividing  the  number  of  arrivals  to  each  third  country  by  the  total 
number of arrivals to third countries yields an estimate of the proportion  of total  travel that 
would have this country as a destination5. Finally, multiplying these proportions by the total 
number of trips to third countries for each Member State yields an estimate of the total trips 
made by citizens of each Member State to each third country. 

Unrepresented travellers 

Combining  the  mapping  of  representations  with  the  figures  concerning  the  number  of 
travellers  in  specific  third  countries  allows  to  determine  the  total  number  of  unrepresented 
travellers.  The  resulting  total  number  of  unrepresented  travellers  is  5.12  million.  The 
distribution of the unrepresented trips is shown in the figure below: 

Figure  2:  Estimate  of  total  number  of  instances  when  travelling  EU  citizens  are  unrepresented  in  third 
countries6 

4 
5 

6 

UNWTO (2010), World Tourism Barometer, Vol 8, No. 2, June 2010. 
A number of assumptions are made here: Firstly, since the UNWTO data concerns international arrivals 
rather than arrivals by EU citizens, it was assumed that third countries are as attractive to EU citizens as 
they are to all international travellers. Secondly, where information for third countries is not available, 
the proportion was assumed to be zero. Since in many cases these are small countries with a very small 
number of travellers arriving from the EU each year, this is unlikely to have a substantial effect on the 
final  estimates.  Where  no  data  was  available  for  larger  countries  or  ones  more  likely  to  have  a 
substantial number of travellers from the EU indicative data was obtained from other sources (Libya - 
HVS report (2008) Tripoli, Libya – A Prosperous Prospect; Nigeria – UNWTO report (2006) Nigeria 
Tourism  Development  Master  Plan  -  Institutional  Capacity  Strengthening  to  the  Tourism  Sector  in 
Nigeria; Belarus - National Statistics Committee of Belarus (2010)). 
The estimates above are based on 2009 Eurostat figures regarding trips to third countries. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
700,000 

600,000 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

-

SI DE UK  SE AT

IT

IE DK  SK

CZ

LT NL

BE

ES HU FI

LU FR BG LV

EE  PL  RO  CY  PT

EL MT

Source: UNWTO World Tourism Barometer (2010), Eurostat (2010) and Matrix calculations 

Methodology for Estimating the Number of Unrepresented Residents  

Estimating the number of EU citizens residing outside of the EU 

There are some mechanisms through which Member States can collect such information, for 
instance through  documentation  that an individual  needs to maintain  in their home Member 
State,  or  for  using  voters’  registries.  On  the  basis  of  the  data  available  it  is  estimated  that 
31.02 million EU citizens are residing outside of the EU. Triangulation with other available 
data has shown that this is a sufficiently accurate representation of the current situation7. In 
order  to  establish  how  this  figure  is  distributed  by  Member  States,  Eurostat  emigration 
figures8 were used, which are broken down by Member State and country of next residence. 
This  allows  to  isolate  intra-EU  emigration  from  emigration  to  third  countries.  In  addition, 
dividing the total emigration to third countries for each Member State by the total emigration 
to  third  countries  for  all  of  the  EU  yields  a  fraction  representing  the  “propensity  to  reside 
outside of the EU”, which, multiplied by the estimate of the total number of EU citizens living 
outside of the EU, allows to obtain the number of citizens from each EU Member State living 
outside of the EU. 

Establishing the number of EU citizens residing in specific third countries 

The  final  step  in  establishing  the  number  of  unrepresented  citizens  is  to  distribute  these 
numbers  across  third  countries.  The  aforementioned  Eurostat  emigration  data  allows  to  do 
this, as it covers most of the third countries (and all the ones where substantial number of EU 
citizens emigrate to). These figures cannot be used directly as numbers of residents, as they 
are “flow” rather than “stock” figures. Instead the total EU emigration for each third country 
can be divided by the total EU emigration to third countries, to establish the “attractiveness” 
of  each  third  country.  This,  multiplied  by  the  estimated  number  of  citizens  from  each  EU 
Member State living outside of the EU yields an estimate of the total number of EU citizens 
living in each third country9 

7 
8 
9 

Individual data available was on Hungary and the United Kingdom. 
These were 2008 figures, as they provided the most complete picture. 
A number of assumptions were made in arriving at the final calculations. Firstly, since 2008 is the year 
for which the emigration data is most complete for the EU27 and third countries and this year has been 
used  in  the  calculations,  an  implicit  assumption  was  made  that  preferences  as  to  residence  in  third 
countries  in  2008  reflect  the  distribution  of  EU  citizens  in  third  countries  which  has  developed  over 
decades. Secondly, since the proportions of total emigration for each third country were obtained using 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
   
 
                                                 
Unrepresented residents 

Figure  3:  Combining  the  representation  mapping  and  the  figures  on  the  number  of  unrepresented 
residents in third countries results in a total of 1.74 million unrepresented residents.10 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

-

IE

BE CY DE UK AT

EL DK

SI

LT

SE

ES NL

LV PL

IT

PT MT FR

FI

LU RO EE HU CZ BG SK

Proportion of unrepresented EU citizens 

Finally, the proportion of unrepresented EU citizens (residents/travellers) varies per Member 
State  of  origin.  These  differences  are  illustrated  by  the  following  graph  and  could  be 
indicative of which Member States are most affected by reimbursement provisions. 

Figure 4: Proportion of unrepresented residents/travellers per Member State of origin 

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

LU

CY MT

EE

LV

LT

IE

SI

SK

PT

FI

DK

HU BG

BE

AT

EL

SE

CZ

PL

RO

ES

NL

IT

UK

DE

FR

% of unrepresented residents

% of unrepresented travellers

Consular cases 

It  is  important  to  understand  what  proportion  of  all  EU  travellers  and  residents  could  have 
requested  consular  protection.  Based  on  the  assumption  that  the  number  of  represented  EU 
citizens  who  receive  assistance  reflects  the  number  of  represented  EU  citizens  that  require 
assistance, it is possible to calculate the likelihood of requiring assistance. Based on the data 

10 

data for 16 EU Member States, an assumption is also made that the preferences of the citizens of these 
16 Member States reflect those of the EU27 as a whole. 
As  mentioned  earlier,  the  estimates  above  are  based  on  2009  Eurostat  figures  regarding  trips  to  third 
countries. Since the Eurostat data reflects trips to third countries in a given year rather than the number 
of individuals travelling to third countries (i.e. a single individual can make more than one trip), it is 
also  important  to  keep  in  mind  that  results  from  this  analysis  should  be  interpreted  as  the  number  of 
instances  when  EU  citizens  travel  to  third  countries  and  are  not  represented,  rather  than  unique 
unrepresented individuals. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
from  previous  European  Commission  data  collection  and  the  online  survey,  there  were  an 
estimated  295.490  consular  cases11  (10.944  per  Member  State,  both  within  and  outside  the 
EU) involving nationals across the EU27 in 2009, out of more than 300 million EU citizens 
travelling to or residing outside their home Member State (both within and outside the EU)12. 
Comparing the number of consular cases involving represented citizens and the total number 
of  travellers  and  residents  allows  for  estimating  the  likelihood  of  a  represented  EU  citizen 
requiring assistance. This average likelihood for the EU27 is estimated to be 0.1274%13.  

This  proportion  can  be  multiplied  to  the  figures  concerning  unrepresented  EU  citizens14. 
Accordingly, approximately 7.324 unrepresented citizens in third countries where other 
Member States are represented could have asked for and obtained consular assistance in 
2009. This represents 271 cases per Member State on average. Out the total number, 5.311 are 
estimated to be travellers and 2.013 residents. 

The  total  number  of  reported  consular  cases  involving  unrepresented  EU  citizens  is, 
however, much lower. Extrapolating reported to 27 Member States based on the likelihood 
of  asking  for  and  receiving  assistance  lead  to  a  total  of  1.189  reported  cases  involving 
unrepresented citizens (862 involving travellers and 327 involving residents), which equals 
to 44 cases per Member State and represents approximately 16% of the estimated number of 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  requiring  consular  assistance.  This  in  turn  means  that  the 
“assistance  shortfall”  (number  of  unrepresented  citizens  who  do  not  ask  for  or  receive 
assistance) is 84%. These figures are summarised in the table below. 

Figure 4: Summary  of scale of the problem 

Indicator 

Total number of consular cases involving represented citizens 
Total  number  of  unrepresented  citizens  potentially  in  need  of  consular 
protection 
Total  number  of  unrepresented  citizens  asking  for  or  receiving  assistance 
(estimated number of consular cases involving unrepresented citizens) 
Total number of unrepresented citizens not asking for or receiving assistance 
Divergence 

Total 

295.490 

MS 
Average
10.944 

7.324 

271 

1.189 

44 

6.135 

227 

84% 

Future trends 

Having estimated the current situation using the latest available data (for 2009), it is important 
to  also  look  at  how  the  above  figures  are  likely  to  develop  over  time.  Using  the  latest 
UNWTO estimate of annual growth in tourist arrivals (7% in 2010)15 and the average annual 

11 
12 
13 

14 

15 

Based on information provided by Member States. 
330,67 million EU citizens. 
This  average  likelihood  of  the  EU  27  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  mean  average  regarding  the 
likelihood calculated for each of the 21 Member States for which data on the number of consular cases 
was available (no sufficient data was available for BG,CY,ES,RO,SI,SK). 
For  this  calculation  a  total  number  of  5.75  million  citizens  was  used  (consisting  of  4.17  million 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  travelling  and  1.58  million  residing  abroad).  This  is  a  conservative  figure 
which solely takes into account third countries where there is a representation of at least one Member 
State. 
UNWTO (2010), World Tourism Barometer, Interim Update, April 2011. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
change in Eurostat emigration figures in the period 2002-200816, one can trace the changes in 
the  number  of  unrepresented  citizens  within  a  five  and  ten  year  period.  The  calculations 
suggest that, assuming the growth rates and the number and location of representations remain 
constant,  number  of  unrepresented  travellers  to  third  countries  would  increase  from  5.12 
million to 7.18 million in five years, and to 10 million in ten years. For residents the change 
would be from 1.74 million to 2.4 million and 3.3 million. This in turn suggests that over time 
more  citizens  will  be  finding  themselves  in  situations  where  they  may  be  eligible  for 
assistance from a representation of another EU Member State. 

16 

This was done due to annual changes being very volatile, 2009 data was incomplete. The annual change 
used is approx. 6.5% per annum. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX IV: OVERVIEW ON THE CONSULAR PROTECTION DELIVERED BY MEMBER STATES  

Type of protection 

Shared practises1  

Variations2 

Arrest or detention 

Victim of crime 

Serious accident/illness 

Death 

-  Assisting  in  informing  the 
citizen's  family  members  or 
other  related  persons  at  the 
citizen's request;  

-  Visiting 
the  citizen  and 
monitoring minimum standards 
of treatment in prison; 

-  Providing  information  on  the 
rights of the detained citizen.   

- Assisting in informing family 
members  or  other 
related 
persons, if the citizen has given 
his or her consent; 

-  Providing  the  citizen  with 
information  and/or  assistance 
regarding  relevant  legal  issues 
and health care. 

- Assisting in informing family 
members  or  other 
related 
persons; 

-  Assisting  with  medical  care, 
non-financial  advice  and  with 
repatriations. 

- Assisting in informing family 
members;  

- Obtaining death certificates, 
medical certificates and 
laissez-passers for repatriation 
where necessary. 

assistance 

is 
Financial 
generally  possible  as  a  last 
resort  but  modalities  may 
differ  (e.g.  some  Member 
States  provide  for  a  small 
hardship  fund,  one  Member 
State  foresees  financial  aid 
the 
for  nationals 
death penalty). 

facing 

Some  Member  States  also 
bring  victims  of  crime  in 
specialized 
contact  with 
support  institutions  (either  a 
specialized  national  institute 
or 
non-governmental 
a 
organization). 

few  Member  States 
In 
via/besides 
Foreign 
the 
Ministry  the  national  police 
is  informed,  which  in  turn 
informs  the  relatives  of  the 
deceased. 

Regarding third country 
family members  

In  most  Member 
States 
consular  protection  for  third 
country  family  members  of 
own  nationals  is  not  regulated 

In  one  Member  State  third 
country  family  members  of 
nationals  (and  nationals  of 
that  are 
Member  States 

1 

2 

As identified in the study of the Instituto Europeo de Derecho and in the Council framework. This overview 
aims at summarising basic principles.  
Based  on  the  study  of  the  Instituto  Europeo  de  Derecho  and  the  CARE  study  as  well  as  consultation  of 
stakeholders. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
by  national  law.  In  practise 
officials  appear  to  decide  on  a 
case-by-case  basis,  in  times  of 
crisis  family  members  tend  to 
be 
a  more 
treated 
comprehensive way. 

in 

of 

party 

contracting 
a 
specific  regional  Treaty) are 
entitled 
consular 
to 
assistance  under  a  new  law 
on  consular  assistance 
in 
crisis situations. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
ANNEX V: CURRENT PROCEDURES OF THE FINANCIAL REIMBURSEMENT FRAMEWORK 

Instrument 

Characteristics of the Procedure 

Decision 95/553/EC 

-  the  procedure  is  the  same  for  day-to-day  assistance  and  for  crisis 
situations 

Article  6,  annexes  I 
and II 

- the reimbursement should cover all (real) costs of assistance provided 
to  an  unrepresented  citizen  of  the  other  Member  State  (financial 
advances, all expenditures incurred and consular fee if applicable) 

-  the  assisting  Member  State  needs  to  comply  with  the  following 
requirements: 1) in principle it needs to receive an agreement from the 
Member  State  of  the  applicant's  nationality  to  engage  financially  in 
assistance, 2) make an applicant sign an undertaking to pay the full value 
of assistance (finance advanced, all costs, consular fee if applicable) to 
the  Member  State  of  the  applicant's  nationality,  unless  this  Member 
State  expressly  waives 
these
undertakings are provided for in annexes) 

this  requirement  (the  formats  of 

-  in  order  to  receive  reimbursement  the  government  of  the  assisting 
Member State makes a request to the government of the Member State 
of the applicant's nationality 

- the burden to request the possible reimbursement from an applicant is 
on the Member State of nationality of the applicant  

Lead State guidelines 

Points 5.2, 5.4 

-  the  Lead  State  submits  to  the  Member  States  of  the  applicants'
nationality a balance sheet of expenditure incurred by the Lead State (no 
format or templates are provided by the guidelines) 

- the Lead State requests the reimbursement of expenses generated by its 
mission from the Members States of nationality 

-  the  Lead  State  may  request  the  costs  to  be  paid  on  a  pro-rata  basis 
(proportionally to the number of assisted persons) 

- the contributions shall be determined after deduction, where applicable, 
of  the  expenditure  covered  by  the  Community  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism or logistic support from the local Union delegation 

- if possible the Lead State collects the undertaking of repayment from 
the applicants, to enable the Member States of the applicants' nationality 
to seek reimbursement 

Consular guidelines 

Points 12.8, 12.10 

-  the  procedure  provided  for  in  the  Decision 95/553/EC  shall  be 
followed 

-  Member  States  will  reimburse  those  Member  States  (acting  on  their 
behalf) for expenses incurred in securing the safety of their nationals in a 
pragmatic way 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
- in case the EU nationals are required to pay for evacuation costs or any 
related  costs  the  payment  arrangements  should  be  made  from  Member 
State to Member State, on a pro-rata basis.  

- the burden to request the possible reimbursement from an applicant is 
on the Member State of nationality of the applicant 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
ANNEX  VI:  KEY  ASSUMPTIONS  ON  COSTS  AND  BENEFITS  OF  THE  POLICY  OPTION  2  AND  THE 

POLICY OTION 3 

1. 

OVERVIEW ON METHODOLOGY 

1.1. 

The analysis below describes the financial and economic impacts of core elements of the 
policy options 2 and 3. It covers estimated financial costs and savings to Member States or 
EU bodies  and  EU budget as well as estimated benefits for EU citizens. In the summary 
the results are compared to illustrate the costs and benefits of both options. 

1.2. 

The following data and general assumptions are applied: 

• 

Cost of consular cases 

Both  in  everyday  and  in  crisis  situations  this  cost  is  assumed  to  be  similar  as  regards  assistance 
provided to represented and to unrepresented EU citizens. 

The cost of a consular case in an everyday situation refers to the overall administrative cost of 
consular  support  given  to  citizens  requesting  consular  protection.  It  does  not  include  financial 
advances incurred directly on behalf of a citizen (i.e. payments for a ticket to enable repatriation, 
consular  fee  for  the  issuance  of  ETDs),  which  are  due  to  be  reimbursed  to  the  assisting  Member 
State and then repaid by a citizen. It reflects the cost of the work of a consular official and the actual 
cost of service. The cost of a consular case in an everyday situation has been estimated on the basis 
of  the  interviews  with  consular  officials  and  the  survey  at  a  range  of  €30  to  543 1.  In  the  model 
calculations the mid, average figure of €286.50 per case  is used. 

The  cost  of  a  consular  case  in  a  crisis  situation  refers  to  the  overall  cost  of  support  given  to  a 
citizen in a crisis situation. It reflects the cost of specific services which have to be organised and, 
due  to  the  emergency  situation,  may  need  to  be  financed  in  principle  by  the  assisting  Member 
States. This cost is subject to reimbursement by the home Member State of an unrepresented citizen 
and then, depending on national rules, repaid by the assisted citizen. The average cost of consular 
support in crises is presented in the table on fixed sums (see point 5.3.2  of  the report). The fixed 
sums  are  based  on  information  provided  by  Member  States  stakeholders  regarding  the  cost  of 
assistance during recent crises2. 

• 

Length of a consular case 

1 

2 

At  the  lower  end  of  the  scale,  interview  respondents  placed  consular  cases  consisting  only  on  providing 
information, eventually requiring telephone calls - a third of a day at the lower end of the daily cost range was 
decided  to  be  a  sufficiently  accurate  reflection  of  the  costs  associated  with  some  of  the  less  time-intensive 
cases. At the higher end of the scale third country interview respondents placed death cases, and estimated the 
average  costs  of  death  cases  would  be  up  to  €400  for  expatriation  of  remains  (figure  derives  from  the 
maximum estimated cost of doing €4,000 and the fact th at consular authorities will bear these costs in around 
10%  of  the  cases)  and  up  to  €143  in  administrative  co sts  of  organising  certificates,  yielding  the  estimate  of 
€543. 
The detailed information was gathered via interviews in the framework of GHK study in 2010 and concerned 
the cost of Member State assistance in Lebanon (2006), Chad (2008), Haiti (2010) and Kyrgyzstan (2010). The 
findings  were  also  confirmed  by  use  of  other  sources  (Study  'A  cost  effective  analysis  of  shipboard 
telemedicine' P. H. Stoloff, F.E. Garcia, J. E. Thomason and D. S. Shia. Telemedicine Journal. Winter 1998, 
vol 4(4): 293-304, January 29, 2009). 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The interviews conducted as part of the study informed that the length of consular cases can vary 
substantially,  ranging  from  many  everyday  cases  requiring  often  no  more  than  a  few  hours  of 
consular  officials’  time  (e.g.  providing  EU  citizens  with  information  about  lawyers  or  doctors,  or 
simple  ETD  cases),  whilst  in  other  instances  a  case  could  last  considerably  longer  (e.g.  detention 
cases, death cases). 

It is important to note that the length of a consular case is perceived differently by consular officials 
and  citizens.  Whereas  for  a  citizen,  a  case  lasts  from  the  incident  in  question  (e.g.  arrest)  to  its 
resolution (e.g. release), a consular official would only spend a fraction of that time period engaged 
in  that  specific  case,  so  the  length  of  a  case  will  be  much  shorter  from  the  point  of  view  of  a 
consular official. 

• 

Cost of the work of a consular officer in a third country, a consular officer in a capital 
and an EU official in an EU delegation 

The  daily  cost  of  the  work  of  a  consular  officer  and  the  daily  cost  of  an  EU  Delegation  staff 
member are estimated within a range of €100-300 3. The daily cost of work of officials working in 
the Member States' capitals is estimated at €166, following Eurostat data 4. 

• 

Financial impact of increase of consular cases regarding unrepresented EU citizens 

In the analysis it is estimated that some of the proposed measures (i.e. active coordination between 
Member  States  or  awareness-rising,  see  below  point  2)  would  alone  result  in  10%  more 
unrepresented eligible citizens receiving the assistance, from the share of those who previously did 
not  ask/receive  it.  Using  the  scale  of  the  problem  analysis  yields  an  estimate  of  614  additional 
cases5.  The  growth  of  unrepresented  cases  has  proportional  impact  both  on  cost  and  benefits  of  a 
measure. 

The 10% growth of  unrepresented  cases is based on estimation about  the change that is expected 
due to the implementation of the proposed measure. Bearing in mind that currently high number of 
unrepresented citizens, who are potentially eligible to receive the assistance, do not receive it (due 
to  different  reasons  analysed  in  the  problem  definitions),  this  assistance  would  normally  be 
demanded and received, if the factors that impede it are limited by proposed measures (i.e. better 
awareness  of  citizens  enable  them  to  ask  for  assistance  when  they  are  unrepresented,  better 
awareness of consular  official  on  how to and when  issue an ETD). It is therefore very likely that 
these  measures  would  bring  an  increase  of  cases  of  unrepresented  citizens.  This  increase  is  not 
expected by the Member States stakeholders to be significantly higher as the proposed measures do 
not change the basics as regards the system of assistance6. 

The possibility of an higher increase of unrepresented cases, following more people travelling or a 
decreasing number of consular representations would result in higher costs for the assisting Member 
States.  Nevertheless,  if  the  benefits  outweigh  the  costs  for  10%  growth  level  of  impact,  they  will 

3 

4 
5 

6 

For consular officers the information on costs is based on the survey. For EU Delegation staff cost would be 
comparable  (based  on  monthly  salary  of  an  AD5  grade  official).  In  both  cases,  the  additional  potential 
elements of salary (i.e.: family allowances, travel allowances were not included). 
Based on the average hourly wage of legislators, senior officials and managers (Eurostat). 
Calculations  based  on  the  scale  of  the  problem  modelling,  which  yielded  an  average  assistance  shortfall  of 
84%. Applying this shortfall to the total number of unrepresented citizens estimated to be in situations where 
they seek assistance yields and estimate of 6,137 citizens who are not assisted. 614 is thus 10% of this figure. 
Replies of the Member States' stakeholders to the survey. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
also  do  proportionally  so  if  the  impact  is  higher  (since  the  additional  cost  of  assisting  a  single 
individual is estimated to be lower than the benefit the individual derives from the assistance). 

• 

Inconvenience and time savings to EU citizen to indicate benefits 

The  benefits  to  EU  citizens  may  range  widely  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  consular  case.  For 
example  provision  of  information  regarding  money  transfers  would  potentially  represent  only  a 
modest  time  saving  compared  to  not  receiving  the  assistance,  while  facilitating  the  search  for  a 
lawyer could help avoiding a prison sentence and thus would constitute a major impact on citizens’ 
well-being and would help saving a wide range of other substantial costs, such as foregone income. 

As case study interviews and the online survey suggest, the majority of consular cases are simple 
ones  and  consular  assistance  would  mainly  help  to  avoid  inconveniences,  as  well  as  to  save  time 
and money required for seeking assistance through other channels. 

The  benefits  to  unrepresented  EU  citizens  in  everyday  situations  were  estimated  using  two 
elements: 1) time saving to previously unassisted citizens or to citizens receiving assistance quicker 
-  this  is  estimated  using  average  daily  wages  and  estimated  to  be  €60 7;  2)  avoiding  an 
‘inconvenience’  cost  associated  with  receiving  sub-optimal  assistance  or  having  to  seek  out  other 
forms of assistance. Estimating this cost takes the system of compensation for air passengers as the 
point of departure, assuming the similarity of situation of a citizen requiring the consular assistance 
and a stranded air passenger. The cost is assumed to be between €125 and €600 per case

8. 

In  crisis  cases  the  measures  such  as  improved  coordination  can  also  result  in  citizens  receiving 
assistance quicker and avoiding waiting time and inconvenience, but it would not be appropriate to 
assume that the same timescales and levels of inconvenience would apply in crisis cases, requiring 
for example rescue or urgent medical assistance, as in “non-crisis” cases. In addition, in some crisis 
situations, citizens could avoid substantial costs (i.e. flights at higher price due to emergency9). On 
the other hand, also in crisis situation - following internal rules in some Member States - an assisted 
citizen may be requested to pay back cost of assistance. The variety of situations during crisis and 
unpredictability  of  their  occurrence  makes  it  impossible  to  quantify  the  impact  accurately. 
Therefore, estimating savings and benefits to citizens in crisis cases are necessarily more complex 
and are addressed qualitatively. However, one would expect that the benefit to EU citizens from 
obtaining assistance or obtaining it quicker and more efficient could be substantially higher in 
crises than in everyday cases. 

1.3. 

Financial framework of an EU Fund10 

The table below summaries the cost of establishing an EU fund dedicated to consular protection. 

Table 1 – Breakdown of cost for the establishment of a new budget line/fund 

Type of costs 

The costs of exchange of best practice and training for 6 -7 years (duration of the funding 

Euro 

1,330,00011 

7 

8 

9 
10 

Average net daily wage in the EU 27, calculated as the average of 1/260 of the annual net earnings for each 
Member State weighted by GDP. Based on 2009 Eurostat figures.  
See Article 7 of the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance 
to  passengers  in  the  event  of  denied  boarding  and  of  cancellation  or  long  delay  of  flights,  and  repealing 
Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1). 
Information provided by Member States regarding recent crisis in Japan. 
Based on methodology provided in the study of GHK. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
stream) 

The costs of provision of assistance to unrepresented EU citizens for 6 -7 years (duration of 
the funding stream) 

The costs for technical and administrative support  

Total  

For this calculation the following assumptions have been made: 

28,484,750 

780,00012 

30,594,750 

•  There  may  be,  on  average,  two  crisis  a  year,  a  smaller  one,  requiring  assistance  to  around  50 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  (crisis  1)  and  a  bigger  one,  requiring  assistance  to  2,000 
unrepresented EU citizens (crisis 2)13. 

•  The costs linked to the above-mentioned crisis are as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

Subsistence  costs  (accommodation  and  food  –  1  day)  –  50%  of  unrepresented 
citizens 

Long-haul flight – 100% of unrepresented citizens 

Assistance for people with special needs – 10% of unrepresented citizens 

–  Medical assistance - 25% of unrepresented citizens 

– 

– 

Repatriation of corpses – 2% of unrepresented citizens 

If the fixed sums rates are applied, the total costs for the two crises are as follows: 

Table 2 Costs incurred for crisis 1 and 2 

Type of assistance  

Crisis 1 costs 

Crisis  1: Number of 
unrepresented 
citizens 
the assistance 

receiving 

Crisis  2: Number of 
unrepresented 
citizens 
the assistance 

receiving 

Crisis 2 costs 

Subsistence (1 day) 

Long-haul flight 

25 

50 

Medical assistance 

12,5 

Other costs (special 
assistance needed) 

Other costs (i.e.: 
repatriation of 
corpses) 

5 

1 

5000 

50,000 

31,250 

10,000 

3,000 

1000 

2000 

500 

200 

40 

200,000 

2,000,000 

1,250,000 

400,000 

120,000 

11 
12 

13 

Two trainings per year. 
Technical and administrative support is envisaged at 780,000 euro over the 6-7 year period (at least two posts - 
the model AD grade 5 level taken as the point of reference). 
The  estimates  are  based  on  magnitude  of  consular  crises  which  involved  EU  citizens  in  recent  years  in 
Lebanon  (2006),  Chad  (2008),  Haiti  (2010),  and  Kyrgyzstan  (2010).  However,  information  on  assisted 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  is  not  collected  systematically,  according  to  the  Member  States'  stakeholders  in 
these  crises  assistance  was  given  from  more  than  to  2,000  (Lebanon)  to  89  (Kyrgyzstan)  unrepresented 
citizens. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
TOTAL 

99,250 

3,970,000 

Therefore,  it  is  estimated  that  a  total  of  4,069,250  euro  could  be  incurred  annually  for  assistance 
provided  to  unrepresented  EU  citizens.  The  costs  for  6  -7  years  (duration  of  the  funding  stream) 
would therefore amount to 29,324,750 euro. 

2. 

COSTS  AND  BENEFITS  OF  THE  POLICY  OPTION  2  –  DIRECTIVE  ESTABLISHING 
COOPERATION AND COORDINATION MEASURES 

2.1. 

Information on specific measures 

Core elements of the option 

Financial or economic impact 

Active coordination and 
cooperation between assisting 
Member States and authorities 
of the citizen's Member State 

Financial cost to the Member States 

It is likely that the additional cost for Member States to adapt to the revised 
coordination  and  cooperation  measures  will  be  relatively  low.  It  will 
involve additional structured meetings and contacts between consular staff, 
but  this  is  unlikely  to  require  substantial  additional  human  resources, 
especially  given  that  some  coordination  and  cooperation  already  takes 
place. Hence it is assumed here that there will be no significant cost to the 
Member States. 

Costs  to  the  assisting  Member  State  that  would  arise  following  the 
estimated  growth  of  10  %  of  unrepresented  cases  would  be  of  approx. 
€175,910 14.  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

Improved coordination and cooperation measures are likely to mainly have 
an impact on how the assistance is provided.  

It  is  assumed  here  that  for  each  unrepresented  case,  the  unrepresented 
citizens will save one to three days15, resulting in an average benefit to the 
citizens  of 
improved 
coordination  and  cooperation  would  result  in  10  %  more  unrepresented 
citizens  being  assisted  this  additional  benefit  is  estimated  to  represent  an 
average total saving for EU citizens of approx. €333,095 17. 

€ 142,68016.  In  addition,  assuming 

that 

the 

Savings to Member States 

Improved cooperation and coordination is also likely to result in saving to 
consular  staff,  since  cases  where  contacts  need  to  be  made  with  other 
Member States (i.e. most cases involving unrepresented citizens) would be 
resolved  quicker.  It  is  assumed  here  that  this  efficiency  saving  could  be 
equal to a total of almost 900 days18 across all consular cases, which results 
in a total saving of €180,300 19. 

14 

15 

Total costs range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on the cost of a single case, the figure represents the 
mid-point of that range. 
Based on the interviews, an assumption of 1-3 days is used to represent a wide range of situations, namely a 
speeding up of a routine case (from a full day, which could be required for some contacts between Member 
States, to an immediate assistance), and a speeding up of a more complex lengthy case, where a 3 days saving 
could be possible.  

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Clarification of personal scope 
(when a person is 
unrepresented + protection 
covers also non-EU family)  

Financial cost to the Member States 

There are two main elements of clarification of the personal scope: 

• 

definition  of  individuals  which  are  far  from  their  own 
trip  as 
representation  more 
“unrepresented”; and 

than  a  24-hour  round 

• 

Inclusion of third country family members. 

In the first case, there are likely to be no additional costs on aggregate EU 
level,  since  the  citizens  in  question  would  be  equally  likely  to  receive 
assistance,  except  that  it  will  be  provided  by  a  different  Member  State. 
Costs  are  however  likely  to  be  passed  on  from  one  Member  State  to 
another.  

In  the  latter  case,  the  key  cost  is  the  provision  of  additional  services  to 
third country family members, which should not be significant. Assuming 
that  1.2%  of  European  citizens  have  third  country  family  members20  (i.e. 
for  every  1,000  EU  citizens  12  will  have  third  country  family  members), 
one  can  estimate  that  88  third  country  family  members  of  unrepresented 
EU citizens21 would receive assistance. The average additional costs would 
be of €25,120 22.  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Obtained by multiplying the number of individuals estimated to be currently assisted (based on current scale of 
the  problem  analysis)  by  1  to  3  days  at  €60/day.  This  yields  a  range  of  €71,140  to  €214,020the  final  figure 
represents the mid-point of that range.  
Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases by both the lower (€125 plus 1 day at €60/day) and 
higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,590 to €552,600 
the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
Assumption  is  that  half  a day  is  saved per consular  case due  to better  awareness  of procedures  and  relevant 
contacts, which, multiplied by the number of assisted citizens (based on current scale of the problem analysis 
and  including  the  additional  10%),  yields  901,5  days.  This  is  based  on  the  experiences  from  case  studies, 
where consular staff noted that more complex cases can be quite consuming, and even for more routine cases 
(ETDs) unclear  procedures  can  require  time.  The 4-hour saving  thus reflects  what  an “average”  time  saving 
could  be  for  both  types  of  cases.  It  is  lower  than  the  time  saving  for  citizens,  since  it  is  assumed  that  for 
citizens a case lasts “longer” than for consular staff, since citizens “experience” their case from its start to its 
resolution, while consular officials only work on a case for a fraction of that time (the remainder of the time 
represents, for example, waiting for documents or for relevant national authorities to respond). 
Estimated  to  be  half of  the daily  cost  of  consular  staff (€100-€300)  multiplied  by  the number of  individuals 
estimated  to  be  currently  assisted  (based  on  current  scale  of  the  problem  analysis).  This  yields  a  range  of 
€90,150.00 to €270,450.00; the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
Estimate from Impact Assessment on Effective consular assistance in third countries: the contribution of the 
European Union, Action Plan 2007-2009, COM (2007) 767 final). No accurate recent data exists, but the 2007 
figure was  used based on  the  assumption  that  while  the number  of bi-national  marriages  may  be  on  the rise 
(see for example Lauth Bacas, J. (2002), “Cross-border marriages and the formation of Transnational Families: 
A  case  study  of  Greek-German  couples  in  Athens”,  Transnational  Communities  Programme  Working  Paper 
WPTC-02-10), the overall rate of marriages is declining and the rate of divorces is on the rise (see Eurostat 
demography statistics). This suggests that it is unlikely that the probability of a EU citizen is married to a third 
country national has changed substantially since 2007.  
Estimated  by  applying  the  1.2%  likelihood  to  the  total  number  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  estimated  to 
require assistance. 
Estimated by applying the cost of assistance to the number of cases (88). Range of €2,630.25 - € 47,607.54, the 
final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
In case of defining individuals within a 24-hour travel time and distance as 
“unrepresented”  the  key  benefit  to  these  individuals  could  be  receiving 
assistance  quicker,  either  through  not  having  to  travel  to  their  Member 
State’s  embassy  or  consulate  or  by  not  having  to  wait  for  a  consular 
official  to  travel  to  where  they  are.  Even  if  in  some  cases  the  actual 
procedures  could  potentially  last  longer  due  to  time  needed  to  exchange 
necessary information between the assisting and the home Member State's 
consular  authorities,  the  savings  are  still  likely  to  take  place  as  in  most 
cases  the  cost  of  travel  and  time  needed  for  travel  would  be  important. 
Moreover the time needed for standard assistance i.e. issuance of an ETD 
or  a  national  emergency  passport  is  comparable.  Savings  following  the 
difference between the cost of longer case proceeding time and travel time 
can vary on case by case.  

In the case of unrepresented family members, the saving to the 88 family 
members eligible for assistance would be €47,560 23. 

Savings to Member States 

In  the  case  of  the  24-hour  travel  time  and  distance,  the  Member  States 
could be able to save resources by not needing to travel to assist some of 
the represented citizens in distant parts of countries in question. However, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  benefits  to  citizens,  some  of  these  savings  could  be 
offset by cases involving unrepresented citizens being lengthier.  

It  is  assumed  that  no  significant  saving  to  Member  States  would  result 
from providing assistance to third country family members.  

Financial costs to the Member States 

Any additional cost is likely to be limited, since to some extent the Lead 
State will take on some of the tasks to date carried out. It is however likely 
that, assuming compliance with the Directive, the Lead State will perform 
additional tasks generally not performed earlier (i.e. contingency planning 
focusing also on unrepresented EU citizens).  

The  assumption  is  that  this  would  require  5-10  days  of  consular staff  per 
Lead State, resulting in additional costs of €49,000 24. 

The cost of assisting unrepresented citizens will not change for the citizens 
currently assisted. Although some of the initial costs might shift from one 
of the represented Member States to the Lead State these costs are subject 
to the reimbursement at the request of the assisting Member State  

It  is  possible  that  more  centralised  response  in  crisis  would  also  result  in 
more  unrepresented  citizens  being  assisted,  but  in  that  case  costs  should 
also  be  reimbursed  resulting  in  no  net  change  in  costs.  It  is  important  to 
note,  however,  that  consular  officials  may  need  to  spend  additional  time 
assisting the unrepresented citizens even if they do not bear the actual costs 

Clarity of tasks of a Lead State 
as regards unrepresented (local 
contingency planning, provide 
contact point for unrepresented 
MS) 

23 

24 

Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (88) by both the lower (€125 plus 1 day at €60/day) 
and  higher  end  of  the  compensation  (€600  plus  5  days  at  €60/day).  The  savings  range  from  €16,219.88  to 
€78,907.52, the final figure representing the mid-point of that range. 
Estimated to be 5 to 10 days multiplied by the €100-€300 
of €14,000.00 to €84,000.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 

range of daily consular staff cost. This yields a range 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
of provision of assistance (i.e. transport).  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

Improved and clearer involvement of Lead States can potentially result in 
more  efficient  assistance  in  crisis  cases,  resulting  both  in  potential  time 
savings to citizens that would be otherwise assisted, as well as additional 
assistance  to  the  previously  unassisted  citizens.  Assuming  that  10%  of 
unrepresented  citizens  in  third  countries  who  previously  did  not  ask 
for/receive consular protection with a Lead State would now receive it and 
given  that  countries  with  a  Lead  State  account  for  only  9.7%  of 
unrepresented  citizens,  yields  approximately  60  additional  unrepresented 
cases25. 

The  actual  benefits  for  unrepresented  citizens  will  vary  substantially, 
depending  on  the  situation  (see  above  point  1.2.).  One  would  however 
expect  that  overall,  the  more  efficient  assistance  received  in  crisis 
situations  would  represent  a  sizable  benefit  to  the  unrepresented  citizens 
most  likely  exceeding  the  benefit  to  each  citizen  of  non-crisis  assistance 
(i.e.  one  could  expect  it  to  be  higher  than  avoiding  the  non-crisis 
inconvenience cost, valued at up to €600). 

Savings to Member States 

More  centralised  crisis  response  is  likely  to  result  in  savings  to  Member 
States, since it can help speed up the delivery to services to unrepresented 
citizens in crisis situations and thus benefit the citizens, but also result in 
an  efficiency  gain  for  the  Member  States.  The  Lead  States  could 
additionally benefit from the better reimbursement procedures.  

Crisis intervention teams 
supported by consular experts 

Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 

Taking  the  example  of  the  cooperation  under  the  EU  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism,  the  main  cost  of  inclusion  of  consular  experts  in  civil 
protection  teams  are  the  daily  allowances,  travel  and  hotel  and  internal 
transport  costs,  as  well  as  other  costs.  Assuming  an  average  daily 
allowance of €63 and €82 in disaster areas and average hotel costs of €142 
and €184 respectively 26, as well as travel costs of €1,000 per expert 27, and 
assuming a length of a mission of 10-14 days, one obtains a total cost per 
expert of €3,890. 

Assuming that two consular experts are assigned to civil protection teams 
and are in turn involved in 5 crises every year yields an estimate of total 
costs of €38,900 . 

Benefits to unrepresented citizens and Member States 

Consular experts can benefit EU citizens mainly through helping Member 
States  on  the  ground  to  provide  more  appropriate  and  more  efficient 
assistance.  

25 

26 
27 

Taken to be 10% of 84% of all unrepresented citizens in third countries with lead states that are estimated to 
require assistance, which is in turn 9.7% of all unrepresented citizens estimated to require assistance.  
Based on data provided by DG ECHO. 
Conservative estimate of travel costs to third countries.  

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
Cooperation system for 
reimbursement of costs  

Financial cost to the Member States 

Limited  administrative  costs  at  national  level  would  be  incurred  for  the 
preparation  of  the  annual  financial  compensation  overviews.  These  could 
correspond to 20 man days per Member State per year; at an estimated rate 
of €166 per day  28.The total costs would thus amount to about €89,610.

The  introduction  of  the  compensation  system  could  also  result  in  more 
efficient  provision  of  consular  assistance  and,  as  a  result,  in  a  potential 
increase  in  the  number  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  receiving  assistance 
(more  proactive  actions  by  the  Member  States).  However,  such  costs 
would  be  subject  to  the  reimbursement  at  the  request  of  the  assisting 
Member  State,  although,  as  mentioned  earlier,  consular  officials  may 
require  more  time  to  deliver  the  assistance  even  if  they  will  not  bear  the 
costs of the assistance itself.  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

The  benefits  to  unrepresented  citizens  of  improved  assistance  in  crisis 
cases can be important, although, as explained previously, will be difficult 
to  estimate.  The  benefit  to  additionally  assisted  citizens  is  likely  to  be  at 
least the same as in non-crisis situations and possibly higher. 

Savings to Member States 

The  policy  option  would  imply  cost  savings  for  those  Member  States, 
which  historically  incur  higher  expenses  during  crises.  It  is  reasonable  to 
assume  that  the  process  of  managing  the  reimbursement  on  the  basis  of 
fixed  sums  will  be  more  cost-effective  as  it  is  expected  to  speed  up  the 
provision of consular protection to unrepresented EU citizens. As a model 
calculation shows29 in case of the assistance provided to 50 unrepresented 
citizens during crises a year it may be estimated that an assisting Member 
State would be reimbursed at the level of about €100,000.  

This measure is likely to result in limited costs and benefits in addition to 
those  generated  by  the  measures  above.  It  is  likely  to  ensure  that  EU 
citizens,  Member  States  and  the  European  Commission  have  better 
information concerning bilateral agreements, but this information is likely 
to  reinforce  and  support  other  coordination  and  coordination  measures 
rather than generate substantial costs and benefits on its own.  

Systematic notification of 
bilateral agreements to the 
Council 

EU delegation tasks  

Financial cost to the EU 

(logistic and operational 
support to MS 

Facilitating and monitoring 
information exchange between 
MS' representations 

The key cost to the EU  will be the cost of EU  Delegation activities. It is 
important  to  notice  that  generally  these  activities  are  already  performed 
and  some  synergies  with  tasks  related  to  the  local  Schengen  cooperation 
could  be  exploited.  Assuming  that  the  activities  foreseen  in  this  measure 
could require additional 10 days of EU Delegation staff in each delegation, 
it would result in total cost of €262,000 30.  

28 
29 
30 

Based on the average hourly wage of legislators, senior officials and managers (Eurostat). 
See point 1.2 above.  
Daily costs of EU Delegation staff, assuming a monthly salary of €4,639.67 (Grade AD5), is estimated to be in 
the  €240-300  range.  Since  this  is  within  the  range  of  10 0-€300  range  of  daily  cost  of  consular  staff,  it  is 
assumed that the costs of EU Delegation officials and Member State consular staff are in the same range. It is 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
Raising awareness of MS 
authorities and local authorities 
on the right of unrepresented 
EU citizens 

Informing unrepresented UE 
citizens about their rights and 
pinpointing them to MS 
representations 

Assisting MS in crisis 
situations regarding 
evacuation, shelter housing of 
expert teams 

Financial costs to the Member States 

The main cost of Member States would be the cost of providing additional 
assistance as a result of the efforts of EU delegations. Assuming that this 
would mean the 10% growth of unrepresented cases, the total cost of this 
assistance would be of approx. €175,910 31. 

It is however worth noting that in a situation where there already is a Lead 
State,  the  additional  tasks  carried  out  by  the  EU  Delegation,  and 
specifically  in  crisis  situations,  is  likely  to  be  lower  and  this  additional 
assistance is less likely to materialise.  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

The benefits to unrepresented citizens will be on one hand the benefits to 
those  who  previously  did  not  ask  for/receive  consular  protection  (i.e. 
avoidance  of  inconvenience  and  a  time  saving).  These  savings  would  be 
proportional  to  the  additional  assistance  provided  and  are estimated to be 
€333,095  32.  

Furthermore,  as  in  the  case  of  Lead  States,  improved  coordination  and 
assistance  by  EU  Delegations  could  result  in  more  efficient  assistance  to 
EU  citizens  already  assisted.  It  could  result  in  an  average  benefit  to  the 
citizens of €142,680 33.  

Savings to Member States  

Finally,  a  more  centralised  approach  is  likely  to  result  in  savings  to 
Member States, since the assistance and facilitation as provided by the EU 
Delegation is likely to help Member State provide assistance quicker (i.e. 
by obtaining information from the EU Delegation regarding procedures or 

however important to keep in mind that there are potential additional costs (i.e. family or travel allowances) 
that apply to both EU Delegation and consular staff. Final cost figure obtained by multiplying the €100-€300 
range  of daily  cost  by  10 days  and 131 delegations.  This  yields  a  cost  between €131,000  and €393,000,  the 
final  figure  representing  the  mid-point  of  that  range.  During  the  impact  assessment  process  the  involvement 
needed was estimated on average at the level of 10 working days per Union delegation.  
Total costs range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on the cost of a single case, the figure represents the 
mid-point of that range. 
Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases by both the lower (€125 plus 1 day at €60/day) and 
higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,560 to €552,600, 
the final figure representing the mid-point of that range.  
Obtained by multiplying the number of individuals estimated to be currently assisted (based on current scale of 
the problem analysis) by 1 to 3 days at €60/day. This  yields a range of €71,340 to €214,020 the final figure 
represents the mid-point of that range.  
Assumption  is  that  half  a  day  is  saved  per  consular  case  due  EU  Delegation  contributing  to  improved 
procedures,  which,  multiplied  by  the  number  of  assisted  citizens  (based  on  current  scale  of  the  problem 
analysis  and  including  the  additional  10%),  yields  901.5  days.  This  is  based  on  the  experiences  from  case 
studies, where consular staff noted that more complex cases can be quite consuming, and even for more routine 
cases  (ETDs)  unclear  procedures  can  require  time.  The  4-hour  saving  thus  reflects  what  an  “average”  time 
saving could be for both types of cases. It is lower than the time saving for citizens, since it is assumed that for 
citizens a case lasts “longer” than for consular staff, since citizens “experience” their case from its start to its 
resolution, while consular officials only work on a case for a fraction of that time (the remainder of the time 
represents, for example, waiting for documents or for relevant national authorities to respond). 
Estimated to be half of the €100-€300 range of daily cost of a consular official for the number of individuals 
estimated  to  be  currently  assisted  (based  on  current  scale  of  the  problem  analysis).  This  yields  a  range  of 
€90,150.00 to €270,450.00, the final figure representing the mid-point of that range. 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
relevant contacts). It could be assumed here that this efficiency saving will 
be  equal  to  a  total  almost  900  days34  across  all  consular  cases,  which 
results in a total saving between €180,300 35.  

However  the  more  important  additional  savings  to  Member  States  could 
result  from  the  additional  logistical  support  provided  by  the  EU 
Delegations (i.e. providing rooms, for meetings, means of communication, 
accommodating expert teams). 

Monitoring - MS provide 
yearly statistics on their 
assistance to unrepresented 

The  main  cost  of  this  measure  would  be  the  cost  to  Member  States  of 
collating  and  transferring  the  information.  Since  many  Member  States 
already  collect  such  information  and  generally  there  are  only  few 
'unrepresented' cases, this cost should be low.  

It is however important to note that the costs will be dependent on the type 
of reporting already in place. If effective reporting systems exist, the main 
cost  would  be  cost  relating  to  making  data  comparable  between  Member 
States. Such cost could be borne by the Member States centrally, or even 
by the EU, rather than by individual representations.  

Assuming that collecting and transferring such information would require 
1  day  of  consular  staff  per  embassy/consulate  (with  a  total  of  1,572 
embassies36)  for  each  Member  State,  the  total  cost  would  be  €314,400 37. 
This should however be viewed as the set-up cost that is incurred only in 
the  first  year.  Once  the  relevant  mechanisms  are  in  place,  in  consequent 
years, the costs of monitoring should be considerably lower.  

There  are  no  directs  financial  benefits  to  the  Member  States  or 
unrepresented  citizens,  although  the  information  is  of  course  of  value  in 
further policy-making process.  

Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 

Financial  cost  of  an  EU-wide  campaign  is  estimated  to  be  approximately 
€1 million 38. It can be assumed that the cost of additional cooperation with 
relevant  stakeholders  will  be  minimal,  as  awareness-raising  materials 
already developed as part of the campaign can be reused. As in the case of 
monitoring,  it  is  important  to  note  that  this  cost  is  largely  a  one-off  cost 
incurred in the first year, with the benefits likely to be observed yearly.  

The Commission consular website is already in place. However, it needs to 
be updated and maintained. The financial cost to the EU of maintaining the 
website is estimated at €88,000 39. 

Financial cost to the Member States 

Although the cost of awareness raising campaigns will be shared by both 
the  EU  and  the  Member  States,  the  assumption  is  that  most  of  the  costs 
would be borne by the EU, and the cost of awareness-raising campaign to 

Dissemination of information 
for citizens: EU-wide 
information campaign 
including advertisement in 
media (TV, radio spots) travel 
magazines, internet travel fora 
advertisements 

Cooperation with travel 
associations, expat 
associations, international 
employers on awareness 
raising 

36 
37 

38 

39 

Scale of the problem mapping. 
Obtained by multiplying the number of consulates/embassies (1,572) by the €100-€300 range of daily consular 
staff cost. This yields the range of €157,200 to €471,600, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
European  Commission  estimate  based  on  the  budget  dedicated  to  the  ongoing  Passenger  Rights  Awareness 
Campaign launched by the DG Mobility and Transport in June 2010. 
European Commission budget committed for maintenance in 2011. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Maintenance and further 
development of the dedicated 
Commission consular website 

the  Member  States  (dissemination  of  information  materials,  adding  links 
on the campaign to the national Ministries or Embassies portals) could be 
minimal. 

It  is  assumed  here  that  a  wide-ranging  awareness  raising  campaign  will 
increase the number of unrepresented citizens seeking assistance. The key 
cost  to  the  Member  States  would  be  the  cost  resulting  from  additional 
assistance, following the assumed growth of 10% of unrepresented cases. 
An average total cost to Member States would be of approx. €175,910 40.  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

The assumed additional 10% unrepresented citizens who would now seek 
and  receive  consular  protection  would  be  the  key  stakeholder  group  that 
would  benefit  from  the  policy  option.  the  benefits  would  consist  of 
avoiding  a  fixed  inconvenience  cost  as  well  as  a  time  saving  This  would 
then yield an average total saving of approx. €333,095 41.  

Savings to Member States 

A  well-designed  awareness  raising  campaign  will  not  only  ensure  that 
more  individuals  would  seek  assistance,  but  can  also  help  inform  both 
represented  and  unrepresented  travellers  and  residents  which  services 
consulates and embassies can provide and which they cannot provide. As a 
consequence,  consular  staff  can  save  time  by  not  having  to  deal  with 
requests for assistance that they are not in a position to address.  

Assuming  that  for  every  one  “well-founded”  request  for  assistance  there 
are five “unfounded” ones42 and assuming that an awareness campaign can 
reduce the number of these cases by 10% generates a reduction of 71,789 
cases43. Assuming that each such case would otherwise take 0.5 hours44 of 
consular staff time (at a cost of between €100 and €300 per day 45) would 
result in a saving of €897,360 46. 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 
46 

Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (614) by the cost of each consular case. Total costs 
range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on the cost of a single the case, the figure represents the mid-point 
of that range. 
Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (614) by both the lower 125 plus 1 day at €60/day) and 
higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,590 to €552,600 
the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
Assumption  based  on  case  study  interviews  where  consular  staff  noted  that  “unfounded”  cases  are  very 
common. 
Calculated as 90% of approx. 0.64% (five times the likelihood of a citizen being in a situation where they are 
eligible for assistance, estimated at 0.1274%) of the total number of travellers and residents, which is in turn 
based on the scale of the problem modelling.  
Based on the experience from case studies, where dealing with an “unfounded” case often takes a few minutes 
(answering a phone call), but can sometime require substantially more time (following up a case to establish 
that it is ultimately not substantiated). Estimate of 0.5 hours was chosen to reflect this range.  
Range of daily cost of consular staff based on the online survey. 
Obtained  by  multiplying  the  number  of  cases  by  half  an  hour  cost  of  consular  staff.  Savings  range  from 
€448,681.25 to €1,346,043.75 depending on the staff costs, the figure represents the mid-point of that range. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
Tailor made trainings for 
consular officials and 
development and maintenance 
of do's and don'ts list 

Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 

Financial cost to the EU of conducting a training event is estimated to be 
€95,000 47. Assuming that either one or two such training sessions will be 
provided  to  consular  officials,  yields  an  estimate  of  costs  to  the  EU 
between  €95,000  and  €190,000 .  Additional  cost  of  developing  “do’s  and 
don’ts” lists is assumed to be minimal. 

47 

48 

49 
50 

51 

European Commission estimate based on experience with budget provided for the trainings organised in 2010 
and 2011. 
Total costs range from €18,420 to €333,402 depending on
mid-point of that range. 
Based on the average hourly wage of legislators, senior officials and managers (Eurostat) 
Based  on  a  range  of  2-5  days  at  the  average  daily  rate  of  a  civil  servant.  The  final  total  costs  range  from 
€8,960.96 to €22,402.40, the figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases by both the lower and higher end of the compensation 
(€125 + 1 day at €60/day and €600 + 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from €113,590 to €552,600 the 
final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  

 the cost of a single the case, the figure represents the 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Financial cost to the Member States 

Assuming  that  most  costs  of  training would  be  borne  by  the  EU,  the  key 
cost  to  the  Member  States  will  be  the  cost  resulting  from  additional 
assistance following the estimated 10% growth of number of unrepresented 
cases. A total cost to Member States would be of approx. €175,910  48.  

In  addition,  it  is  important  to  take  into  account  the  opportunity  cost  of 
consular staff taking part in training. This will be largely dependent on the 
scale of the training, but it is assumed that the training will be targeted to 
small groups of consular officials (as large-scale training is likely not to be 
feasible,  given  the  number  of  EU  consular  officials  working  worldwide), 
potentially as a form of “training the trainers”. It is assumed here that each 
Member  State  would  dedicate  2-5  man-days  at  €166  per  day 49  for  the 
training resulting in an average total opportunity cost of €15,680 50. 

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

As in the case of awareness raising campaigns, the benefit to citizens will 
be  the  avoided  inconvenience  costs  and  fewer  days  lost  due  to  receiving 
assistance. This additional benefit is estimated to represent an average total 
saving for EU citizens of approx. €333,095 51. 

In addition, training of consular staff will mean that consular officials will 
be  more  aware  of  the  actions  to  take  in  certain  situations,  resulting  in 
providing assistance faster. Quicker assistance will represent a benefit for 
unrepresented citizens.  

It  is  assumed  here  that  for  each  'unrepresented'  case,  the  unrepresented 
citizens will save one to three days52, resulting in an average benefit to the 
citizens of €142,680 53.  

Savings to Member States 

The  outcome  of  training  is  also  likely  to  be  an  efficiency  saving  for  the 
Member  States  due  to  in  addressing  unrepresented  consular  cases.  In 
particular, with consular officials being more aware of the actions to take 
in certain situations, they would be able to spend less time per individual 
case. It is assumed here that this efficiency saving could be equal to a total 

52 
53 

54 

55 

There is no inconvenience cost saving, since assistance is provided regardless, but quicker.  
Obtained by multiplying the number of individuals estimated to be currently assisted (based on current scale of 
the problem analysis) by 1 to 3 days at €60/day. This yields a range of €71,340 to €214,020; the final figure 
represents the mid-point of that range.  
Assumption  is  that  half  a day  is  saved per consular  case due  to better  awareness  of procedures  and  relevant 
contacts, which, multiplied by the number of assisted citizens (based on current scale of the problem analysis 
and  including  the  additional  10%),  yields  892.5  days.  This  is  based  on  the  experiences  from  case  studies, 
where consular staff noted that more complex cases can be quite time-consuming and even for more routine 
cases  (ETDs)  unclear  procedures  can  require  time.  The  4-hour  saving  thus  reflects  what  an  “average”  time 
saving could be for both types of cases. It is lower than the time saving for citizens, since it is assumed that for 
citizens a case lasts “longer” than for consular staff, since citizens “experience” their case from its start to its 
resolution, while consular officials only work on a case for a fraction of that time (the remainder of the time 
represents, for example, waiting for documents or for relevant national authorities to respond). 
Estimated to be half of the daily cost of consular staff (€100-€300) for the number of individuals estimated to 
be  currently  assisted  (based  on  current  scale  of  the  problem  analysis).  This  yields  a  range  of  €90,150.00  to 
€270,450.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
almost 900 days54 across all consular cases, which results in a total saving 
between €180,300 55. 

2.2. 

Summary  

Looking at the individual measures of the policy option where both costs and benefits could be 
quantified, yields the following result per year:  

Core elements of the option 

Financial cost 
to the EU 
bodies and 
budget 

Financial cost 
to the Member 
States 

Benefits to 
unrepresented 
citizens 

Savings to 
Member States 

Net benefit 

Clarifying and extending the scope 
of consular protection 
Introducing additional coordination 
and cooperation measures 
Clarifying the role of Union 
delegations 
Monitoring 

Raising awareness - Guidance for 
citizens 

0.00 € 

25,120. 00 € 

47,560.00 € 

0.00 € 

22,440.00 € 

0.00 € 

  175,910.00 € 

 475,775.00 € 

180,300.00 € 

480,165.00 € 

262,000.00 € 

0.00 € 
1,088,000.00 € 
(including cost 
of the campaign 
to be incurred 
in the first year) 

175,910.00 € 
314,400.00 € 
(set-up cost) 

 475,775.00 € 

180,300.00 € 

218,165.00 € 

0.00 € 

0.00 € 

-314,400.00 € 

 175,910.00 € 

335,095.00 € 

897,360.00 € 

-31,455.00 € 

Raising awareness – Guidance for 
practitioners 

190,000.00 € 

 191,590.00 € 

 475,775.00 € 

180,300.00 € 

274,485.00 € 

Total 

1,540,000.00 € 

 1,058,840.00 € 

1,809,980.00 € 

1,438,260.00 € 

649,400.00 € 

Although the impacts of individual measures cannot be aggregated, since their individual impacts 
will  interact  with  each  other,  it  is  nevertheless  possible  to  look  at  the  cost-effectiveness  of 
individual measures. As shown in the above table, four out of six quantified measures appear to be 
cost  effective  and  the  sum  of  the  net  benefits  across  all  measures  is  positive,  suggesting  that  the 
policy  option  is  in  fact  cost-effective.  It  is  important  to  note  that  monitoring  and  awareness-
rising  measures  require  investments  in  first  year,  however  benefits  will  continue  to  be 
important also in following years. 

The cost to the Member States following implementation of policy measures relating to crises was 
states,  administrative  cost  of  exchange  of 
estimated  at  €138,610  (preparatory  task  of  lead 
information for reimbursement procedures), however savings to Member States should be important 
(i.e. in case a Member State provides assistance in crisis to 50 unrepresented EU citizens it could 
receive  reimbursement  at  €100,000.  The  cost  of  supporting  civil  protection  teams  by  consular 
officers  is  38,900.00  €.  However  benefits  were  not  quantified, 
improved  coordination  of  task  and 
clearer  financial  burden-sharing  would  result  in  more  efficient  assistance  in  crisis  cases,  resulting  both  in 
potential  time  savings  to  citizens  that  would  be  otherwise  assisted,  as  well  as  additional  assistance  to  the 
previously  unassisted  citizens.  The  actual  benefits  for  unrepresented  citizens  will  vary  substantially  and 
expected  benefit  to  the  unrepresented  citizens  will  be  most  likely  exceeding  the  benefit  to  each  citizen  of 
non-crisis assistance (i.e. one could expect it to be higher than avoiding the non-crisis inconvenience cost, 
valued at up to €600).  

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

COSTS  AND  BENEFITS  –  POLICY  OPTION  3:  FURTHER  AND  TIGHTER  COOPERATION 
AND COORDINATION MEASURES 

3.1. 

Information on specific measures 

Core elements of the option 

Financial or economic impact 

Scope of protection covers 
also refugees, long term 
residents on the same footing 
as EU citizens 

Financial costs to the Member States 

The  key  additional  cost  of  this  measure  will  be  the  cost  of  assisting 
refugees and long-term residents.  

Assuming  that  3.9%  of  EU  population  consists  of  third  country 
nationals with a permit to remain in the country for over 12 months1 
and  assuming  that  these  proportions  also  apply  to  travellers  (i.e.  for 
every 1,000 travellers from a particular unrepresented Member State, 
39  will  be  long-term  residents),  yields  a  total  number  of  283  long-
term residents and refugees who could potentially benefit from being 
assisted2. Assuming all of them are assisted in turn yields a total cost 
of €81,080 3. 

Assuming  that  just  over  7%  of  long-term  residents  are  refugees  or 
residents  in  refugee-like  situations4,  just  over  7%  of  the  total  cost 
(approx.  €5,840)  would  be  the  extra  cost  of  assisting  refugees  and 
individuals in refugee-like situations.  

Benefits to unrepresented long-term residents and refugees 

The  benefit  to  the  assisted  long-term  residents  and  refugees  now 
eligible for assistance would be the avoidance of inconvenience and 
time  saving.  If  we  assumed  that  there  would  be  283  long-term 
residents  and  refugees  now  eligible  for  assistance  estimated  savings 
could be € 153,5305. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Based  on  dividing  the  total  number  of  residence  permits  of  over  12  months  issued  to  third  country 
nationals by the population for each Member State and calculating the average. It is assumed here that 
this  number  covers  refugees  (as  it  concerns  all  permits,  rather  than  formally  defined  ‘long-term 
residents’). 
Estimated by applying the 3.9% proportion to the total number of unrepresented EU citizens estimated 
to require assistance. It is assumed here that the long-term residents and refugees can never be assisted 
by their own country of citizenship.  
Estimated  by  applying  the  cost  of  assistance  to  the  number  of  cases  (283).  Range  of  €8,490.00  -  € 
153,669.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 
Based  on  2009  UNHCR  data  on  the  number  of  refugees.  Calculated  by  dividing  the  total  number  of 
refugees by the total number of residents (3.9% of EU 27 population). 
Obtained  by  multiplying  the  number  of  additional  cases  (283)  by  both  the  lower  (€125  plus  1  day  at 
€60/day) and higher end of the compensation (€600 plus 5 days at €60/day). The savings range from 
€52,355.00 to €254,700.00, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The scope of assistance 
enlarged to further activities 
(legalisation/ simple notary 
activities) 

Financial burden sharing Sub-
option A. Compensation 
mechanism/clearing house 

Financial costs to the Member States 

The cost to Member States will be the cost of consular staff carrying 
out the legalisation6.  

The  legalisation  and  notary  services  are  however  the  activities  for 
which  the  applicants  pay  consular  fees7.  These  services  could 
generate incomes comparable to costs incurred.  

There  is  however  an  additional  cost  of  revising  the  national  legal 
framework to allow for legalisation. Assuming this cost of €10,000 to 
€50,000 per Member State 8 it would result in an average total cost of 
€810,000 9. 

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

The key benefit will be the cost saving to unrepresented EU citizens. 
Assuming  that  legalisation  of  documents  would  entail  an  average 
time saving of one day10 and a low inconvenience cost (€125), yields 
a benefit to EU citizens of €192,960 11. 

Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 

Creation of the additional administrative layer at the EU level would 
generate some costs. Assuming that at least two posts would need to 
be  created  (level  AD5)  the  annual  cost  would  amount  to  at  least 
€ 112,00012.  Additionally  it  would  be  necessary  to  keep  a  reserve 
budget  in  order  to  advance  funds  which  would  be  reconciled  in  the 
end  of  the  budget  year.  Additional  cost  would  be  to  establish 
electronic files and have regular maintenance. 

Financial cost to the Member States 

At  national  level  the  additional  administrative  costs  would  be 

6 

7 
8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Assuming that residents rather than travellers will use legalisation services, and that there is a total of 
818,704  unrepresented  EU  citizens  residing  in  countries  which  are  not  party  to  the  1961  Hague 
Convention  and,  finally,  assuming  that  unrepresented  EU  citizens  residing  in  third  countries  are  as 
likely to require legalisation as other forms of assistance yields a total number of unrepresented citizens 
likely to benefit of 1,043. Assuming that legalisation requires around an hour of consular officials’ time, 
generates a cost of €26.075 (obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (1,043) by 1 hour 
at  the  daily  cost  of  consular  staff  (€100-€300).  The  costs  range  from  €13,037.50  to  €  39,112.50,  the 
final figure represents the mid-point of that range). 
On average €10-30 (based on the in formation from the Member States). 
Assumption based on 5 to 25 working days for legal experts per Member State at a daily rate of €2,000, 
informed by the Impact Assessment on the right to information in criminal proceedings. 
Obtained by multiplying the estimated cost range by the number of Member States. Costs range from 
€270,000 to €1,350,000, the final figure represents the mid-point of that range.  
Once  again,  it  is  assumed  here  that  the  legalisation  activities  are  a  formality  and  not  receiving  such 
service or a delay would not result in a substantial loss of time for the citizen.  
Obtained by multiplying the number of additional cases (1,043) by an inconvenience cost of €125 and a 
loss of one day at €60/day. 
The average payment including basic allowances (Council Regulation 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010, 
OJ L 338 p.1, Intracom calculator). This measure would require more posts to be created if it would be 
complemented by the co-founding.  

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
comparable to the costs stemming from the option 2 – at the level of 
€89,610. 

Although  the  measure  could  result  in  additional  cases  of  providing 
assistance due to more efficient assistance provided in crisis, the costs 
of  such  assistance  would  be  reimbursed  by  the  citizen’s  Member 
State of origin, so no additional costs are likely to be incurred by the 
Member States.  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

As in the case of the second policy option, the benefits to citizens in 
crisis situations will be difficult to estimate, but they are likely to be 
substantial for previously unassisted EU citizens receiving assistance 
or and to those receiving more efficient assistance. 

Savings to Member States 

The policy option would imply cost savings for those Member States, 
which  historically  incur  higher  expenses  during  crises.  As  a  model 
calculation for EU funding shows (see the table below) in case of the 
assistance provided to 50 unrepresented citizens during crises a year 
it may be estimated that an assisting Member State could save about 
€ 100,000.  

Financial burden sharing Sub-
option B. EU funding 

Financial cost to the EU bodies and budget 

In total a minimum of 16 million (if the activities are co-financed at 
50%)  to  31  million  euro  if  activities  are  co-financed  at  the  higher 
percentage  would be  necessary  for  the period  of 6-7 years  (duration 
of the funding stream).  

Financial cost to the Member States 

At  national  level  the  additional  administrative  costs  would  be 
comparable to the costs stemming from the option 2 – at the level of 
€89,610. 

As above, the measures will not result in additional cost of providing 
assistance, due to reimbursement.  

Benefits to unrepresented citizens 

As  is  the  case  for  the  previous  measure,  the  benefits  to  EU  citizens 
receiving faster and more efficient assistance are likely be substantial, 
but  are  also  difficult  to  estimate,  due  to,  among  others,  the  fact  that 
some of these costs may need to be reimbursed by the citizen.  

Savings to Member States 

The policy option would imply cost savings for those Member States, 
which historically incur higher expenses during crises.  

As a model calculation for EU funding shows (see below) in case of 
the  assistance  provided  to  50  unrepresented  citizens  during  crises  a 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
year  it  may  be  estimated  that  an  assisting  Member  State  could  save 
about € 100,000.  

3.2. 

Summary  

The  additional  measures  foreseen  under  this  policy  option  which  are  quantifiable  are 
presented below: 

Core elements of the option 

Financial 
cost to the 
EU bodies 
and budget 

Financial 
cost to the 
Member 
States 

Benefits to 
unrepresented 
citizens 

Savings to 
Member States 

Net benefit 

Scope protection to cover 
refugees and long term residents 
on the same footing as EU 
citizens 
The scope of assistance enlarged 
to further activities (legalisation/ 
simple notary activities) 

0.00 € 

81,080.00 € 

153,530.00  € 

0.00 € 

72,450.00 € 

0.00 € 

810,000.00 € 
(set up costs) 

192,960.00 € 

0.00 € 

-617,040.00 € 

Total 

0.00 € 

891,080.00 € 

346,490. 00 € 

0.00 € 

-544,590.00 € 

Looking  at  the  two  other  measures  considered  as  part  of  this  option,  namely  measures 
concerning burden-sharing, the high costs associated with fund-based burden sharing (almost 
€4m/year,  assuming  a  commitment  of  €18.5m  over  6 
years),  is  likely  to  also  substantially 
outweigh the savings and make the option less cost effective. 

4. 

COMPARISON OF FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF POLICY OPTION 2 AND 3 

Comparing the two options, the costs across all measures of policy option 2 are estimated to 
ates, compared to benefits to citizens of 
be €1.54m for the EU and €1.1m for the Member St
€1.8m and savings to Member States of €1.43m.  Although these figures should not be seen as 
overall  economic  impact  across  the  policy  option13  and  they  do  not  include  benefits  for 
citizens stemming from measures relating to crisis, they do suggest that option 2 is likely to be 
cost-effective  as  a  whole.  The  policy  option  3  is  designed  to  consist  of  all  the  measures  of 
policy  option  2  and  the  additional  measures  presented  above.  Costs  across  all  the  policy 
measures of policy option 3 are estimated to be €5.9m to the EU, €2.3m to the Member States, 
compared to the benefits to EU citizens of €2.15m and savings to Member States of €1.43m. 
Although  these  figures  do  not  include  the  benefits  to  citizens  associated  with  improved 

13 

There  is  an  important  distinction  in  this  case  between  aggregated  cost-benefit  calculations  for  all  the 
policy  measures  and  the  aggregate  impact  of  each  option.  In  the  former  case,  presented  in  the  table, 
these are sums of costs and benefits across all proposed measures. In the latter case the calculation of 
the aggregate cost and benefit of each policy option would need to take into account the fact that the 
measures  can  possibly  interact  with  each  other.  -  I.e.  where  it  is  assumed  that  a  particular  measure 
would result in additional 10% of previously unassisted unrepresented citizens receiving assistance, this 
would  only  be  true  for  the  first  measure  introduced  (or  first  measure  to  generate  any  impact).  All 
subsequent measures can, at most lead to 10% of the remaining unassisted residents being assisted (i.e. 
9% of the initial number). The aggregated cost-benefit calculations for all policy measures would thus 
yield  a  higher  total  costs  and  benefits  than  the  aggregate  cost  and  benefit  calculation  for  the  whole 
option.  However,  since  both  costs  and  benefits  are  proportional  to  the  number  of  additional  cases, 
choosing  one  method  of  calculation  will  not  result  in  changes  in  cost-benefit  ratios  and  hence  the 
method used in the text can be used to identify the most cost-effective policy option while avoiding the 
added complexity and additional assumptions introduced by using the latter method. 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assistance  in  crisis  situations,  they  still  suggest  that  due  to  the  high  cost  of  the  fund-based 
mechanism, it is unlikely that the option will be more cost-effective than option 2. 

EN 

80 

   EN