COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL TOWARDS A REFORM OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM AND ENHANCING LEGAL AVENUES TO EUROPE
Date: 2016-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, European Union Agency for Asylum, aid to refugees, biometrics, external border of the EU, illegal migration, refugee, return migration, right of asylum, transfer of population

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.4.2016  COM(2016) 197 final   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL TOWARDS  A REFORM OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM AND ENHANCING LEGAL AVENUES TO EUROPE  
 
 
Migration  has  been  and  will  continue  to  be  one  of  the  defining  issues  for  Europe  for  the 
coming decades. Underlying trends in economic development, climate change, globalisation 
in transport and communications, war and instability in neighbouring regions, all mean that 
people  will  continue  to  seek  to  come  here  –  for  refuge,  for  a  better  life  or  following  their 
close  family.  European countries  will  continue  to  stand steadfast  in  meeting  their  legal  and 
moral commitment to those who need protection from war and persecution. And, as their own 
demographics  evolve,  they  will  need  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  and  benefits  of 
attracting foreign talents and skills. 

In  a  continuing  response  to  the  ongoing  migration  and  refugee  crisis,  on  10  February  the 
Commission  reported1  on  the  priority  actions  taken  under  the  European  Agenda  on 
Migration2  to  address  the  immediate  challenge  of  restoring  order  on  the  Eastern 
Mediterranean/Western  Balkans  route.  Following  the  European  Council  meetings  of  18-19 
February  and  17-18  March  and  the  meeting  of  the  Heads  of  State  or  Government  of  7 
March3, the Commission will continue to provide support to Member States to implement all 
the agreed elements to stem disorderly irregular migration flows, protect our external borders, 
and  safeguard  the  integrity  of  the  Schengen  area,  including  in  particular  the  decisions  on 
relocation,  the  hotspots  and  measures  to  ensure  returns  and  readmissions,  whilst  ensuring 
effective access to asylum procedures for those in need of international protection.  

Applying the current rules and improving the functioning of existing tools and mechanisms is 
key  to  regaining  control  of  the  present  situation.  But  at  the  same  time,  as  noted  in  the 
conclusions of the European Council of 18-19 February and those of 17-18 March4, it is time 
for progress to be made in reforming the EU's existing framework so as to ensure a humane 
and efficient asylum policy. There are significant structural weaknesses and shortcomings in 
the design and implementation of European asylum and migration policy, which the crisis has 
exposed. The EU now needs to put in place the tools to better manage migration flows in the 
medium  and  long  term,  in  line  with  the  approach  set  out  in  the  European  Agenda  on 
Migration.  

The  overall  objective  is  to  move  from  a  system  which  by  design  or  poor  implementation 
places  a  disproportionate  responsibility  on  certain  Member  States  and  encourages 
uncontrolled and irregular migratory flows to a fairer system which provides orderly and safe 
pathways to the EU for third country nationals in need of protection or who can contribute to 
the EU's economic development. The EU needs a robust and effective system for sustainable 
migration management for the future that is fair for host societies and EU citizens as well as 
for third country nationals and countries of origin and transit. For it to work, this system must 
be comprehensive, and grounded on the principles of responsibility and solidarity.  

Over  the  past  months,  significant  steps  have  been  taken  to  tackle  irregular  migration 
resolutely  and  manage  the  EU's  external  borders  more  efficiently.  It  is  essential  that  the 
proposed Regulation establishing a European Border and Coast Guard5 is adopted by June at 
the  very  latest  so  that  it  can  start  functioning  during  the  summer.  Implementation  of  the 

1 COM(2016)85 final. 
2 COM(2015)240 final. 
3 EUCO 1/16; SN 28/16. 
4 EUCO 12/1/16. 
5 COM(2015)671 final. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Action Plans against migrant smuggling6 and on return7 is also progressing, with all relevant 
Agencies and Member States having scaled up their work in this area. 

But reducing irregular flows to and within Europe, and protecting our external borders, can 
only  happen  effectively  if  we  look  at  the  migratory  phenomenon  in  a  broad  and 
comprehensive  perspective:  this  means  that  we  need  at the  same  time  to  enhance legal  and 
safe pathways to Europe, to improve the use and implementation of existing legal migration 
instruments,  to  strengthen  the  Common  European  Asylum  System    as  well  as  to  continue 
tackling the root causes of migration. If we want to improve our way of managing migration, 
we have to become better at attracting the skills and talents that we will need in the future, 
and  at  reaping  the  benefits  of  migration  by  ensuring  effective  integration  and  participation 
into the host society of all - refugees or legal migrants. 

Together  with  the  other  measures  following  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration,  this 
Communication  sets  out  steps  to  be  taken  towards  a  more  humane,  fair  and  efficient 
European asylum policy, as well as a better managed legal migration policy. 

I.  

TOWARDS A ROBUST AND SUSTAINABLE COMMON ASYLUM POLICY 

Inherent  weaknesses  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  in  time  of 

I.1 
migratory crisis 

The large-scale, uncontrolled arrival of migrants and asylum seekers in 2015 has put a strain 
not  only  on  many  Member  States’  asylum  systems,  but  also  on  the  Common  European 
Asylum  System  as  a  whole.  The  Common  European  Asylum  System  consists  of  a  legal 
framework covering all aspects of the asylum process and a support agency  - the European 
Asylum Support Office (EASO) - to support the implementation of the legal framework and 
facilitate practical cooperation between Member States. The crisis has exposed weaknesses in 
the design and implementation of the system, and of the 'Dublin' arrangements in particular. 

The  Dublin  Regulation8  establishes  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determining  which 
Member State is responsible for examining an application for international protection. Those 
who seek, or have been granted, protection do not have the right to choose in which Member 
State they want to settle. If the Member State in which the asylum seekers apply is not the 
one responsible for dealing with the application, they should be transferred to the responsible 
Member State.  

6 COM(2015)285 final. 
7 COM(2015)668 final. 
8 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the 
criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  application  for 
international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ 
L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31. The United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by this Regulation, following the 
notification  of  their  wish  to  take part  in  the  adoption  and  application  of  that Regulation  based  on 
Protocol 21 to the Treaties. The position of these Member States with regard to any amendment to 
this Regulation is defined by Protocol 21. Denmark applies the Dublin Regulation on the basis of an 
international agreement (OJ L 66, 8.3.2006 p.38). It shall, in accordance with Article 3 of that agreement, 
notify  the  Commission  of  its  decision  whether  or  not  to  implement  the  content  of  any  amendment  to  the 
Regulation. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  Dublin  system  was  not  designed  to  ensure  a  sustainable  sharing  of  responsibility  for 
asylum  applicants  across  the  EU,  a  shortcoming  that  has  been  highlighted  by  the  current 
crisis.  The  main  criterion  in  practice  for  allocating  responsibility  for  asylum  claims  is 
irregular entry through one Member State’s territory. Reliance on this criterion was based on 
the assumption that a linkage should be made between the allocation of responsibility in the 
field of asylum and the respect by Member States of their obligations in terms of protection 
of  the  external  border.  However,  the  ability  to  effectively  control  irregular  inflows  at  the 
external border is to some extent dependent on cooperation with third countries. In addition, 
the experience  of recent years has  shown that,  especially in situations of  mass influx along 
specific  migratory  routes,  the  current  system  places  responsibility,  in  law,  for  the  vast 
majority  of  asylum  seekers  on  a  limited  number  of  individual  Member  States,  a  situation 
which would stretch the capacities of any Member State. This also partly explains why over 
the past years there has been an increasing disregard of EU rules. Migrants also often refuse 
to make asylum applications or comply with identification obligations in the Member State of 
first arrival, and then move on to the Member State where they wish to settle and apply for 
asylum there. These secondary movements have resulted in many asylum applications being 
made in Member States which are not those of the first point of entry, a situation which has in 
turn led several Member States to reintroduce internal border controls to manage the influx.  

But  even  before  the  present  crisis,  there  have  been  serious  shortcomings  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Dublin  Regulation  such  that,  even  with  a  more  efficient  and  stricter 
enforcement  by  all  Member  States  of  the  existing  rules,  and  with  additional  measures  to 
prevent  secondary  movements,  there  is  a  high  likelihood  that  the  current  system  would 
remain  unsustainable  in  the  face  of  continuing  migratory  pressure9.  Problems  include 
difficulties in obtaining and agreeing on evidence proving a Member State's responsibility for 
examining the asylum application, leading therefore to an increase in the number of rejections 
of  requests  to  accept  the  transfer  of  applicants.  Even  where  Member  States  accept  transfer 
requests, only about a quarter of such cases result in effective transfers, and, after completion 
of  a  transfer,  there  are  frequent  cases  of  secondary  movements  back  to  the  transferring 
Member  State.  The  effectiveness  of  the  system  is  further  undermined  by  the  current  rules 
which provide for a shift of responsibility between Member States after a given time. So, if 
an  applicant  absconds  for  long  enough  in  a  Member  State  without  being  effectively 
transferred, this Member State will eventually become responsible.  

A  further  impediment  to  the  effective  functioning  of  the  Dublin  system  results  from  the 
difficulty in transferring applicants to Member States with systemic flaws in critical aspects 
of  their  asylum  procedures  or  reception  conditions.  The  effective  suspension  of  Dublin 
transfers to Greece  since 2011 has  proved a particularly  critical weakness in  the system, in 
particular given the large number of migrants arriving in Greece in recent months10. 

The  Common  European  Asylum  System  is  also  characterised  by  differing  treatment  of 
asylum seekers, including in terms of the length of asylum procedures or reception conditions 
across  Member  States,  a  situation  which  in  turn  encourages  secondary  movements.  Such 
divergences  result  in  part  from  the  often  discretionary  provisions  contained  in  the  current 

9  This has been  confirmed  by  an  external  evaluation on  the  implementation of  Regulation  (EU)  No 604/2013 
(Dublin  III  Regulation)  and  evaluation  report,  available  under  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-
do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants/index_en.htm. 
10 The Commission adopted on 10 February 2016 a Recommendation [C(2016) 871 final] on the urgent 
measures to be taken by Greece in view of the resumption of Dublin transfers. 

4 

 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
Asylum  Procedures  Directive11  and  Reception  Conditions  Directive12.  Moreover,  while  the 
Qualification  Directive13  sets  out  the  standards  for  the  recognition  and  protection  to  be 
offered at EU level, in practice recognition rates vary, sometimes widely, between Member 
States14. There is also a lack of adequate convergence as regards the decision to grant either 
refugee status (to be accorded to persons fleeing persecution) or subsidiary protection status 
(to  be  accorded  to  persons  fleeing  the  risk  of  serious  harm,  including  armed  conflict)  for 
applicants  from  a  given  country  of  origin.  This  divergence  has  likewise  encouraged 
secondary movements, as have variations in the duration of residence permits, as well as in 
access to social assistance and family reunification.  

The EU has  one  of the most protective and generous asylum systems in  the world, and  the 
granting  of  international  protection  status  in  EU  Member  States  has  in  practice  almost 
invariably led to permanent settlement in the EU, while its original and primary purpose was 
to grant protection only for so long as the risk of persecution or serious harm persists. Once 
the circumstances in the country of origin or the situation of an applicant change, protection 
is  no  longer  needed.  However,  although  the  Qualification  Directive  contains  provisions  on 
cessation of status, currently they are not systematically used in practice. 

Building  on  the  immediate  priorities  identified  in  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration,  the 
Commission has taken financial, legal15 and operational measures to better enforce Common 
European  Asylum  System  rules  as  further  outlined  in  the  Communication  of  10  February 
2016.  In  particular,  the  Commission  proposed  the  two  temporary  crisis  relocation  schemes 
agreed  in  September,  which  provide  for  the  transfer  of  responsibility  for  certain  asylum 
claimants from Italy and Greece to other Member States.  

It is imperative that these measures are implemented fully and swiftly to cope with immediate 
challenges. The Union must achieve through concerted action between all Member States and 
with  the  full  support  of  the  Commission  and  Union  bodies  the  proper  application  of  the 
existing  legal  framework  so  as  to  consolidate  stability  and  order  in  the  functioning  of  the 
Common European Asylum System. At the same time, the EU must learn from the present 
crisis and start addressing its inherent weaknesses for the longer term. Actions are therefore 
needed to ensure a humane, fair and efficient system for the future. 

I.2 Addressing the structural shortcomings: five priorities 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  considers  that  there  are  five  priority  areas  where  the 
Common European Asylum System should be structurally improved. 

11Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures 
for granting and withdrawing international protection , OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 249. 
12 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards 
for the reception of applicants for international protection , OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96. 
13 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for 
the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a 
uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection 
granted, OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p. 9. 
14 For instance, for the period between January and September 2015 the recognition rates for asylum seekers 
from Afghanistan varied from almost 100% in Italy to 5.88% in Bulgaria. 
15 The Commission adopted reasoned opinions against Member States in nine infringement cases concerning 
their non-transposition of directives which are part of the Common European Asylum System, on 10 February 
2016. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Priorities 

a)  Establishing  a  sustainable and  fair  system  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible 
for asylum seekers 

Objective: Adapting the Common European Asylum System to deal better with the arrival of 
a  high  number  of  asylum  seekers/refugees  through  specific  points  of  entry  and  ensuring  a 
high degree of solidarity and a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States through 
a fair allocation of asylum seekers.  

Actions:  The  Commission  will  propose  to  amend  the  Dublin  Regulation  by  either 
streamlining and supplementing it with a corrective fairness mechanism or moving to a new 
system based on a distribution key.  

b) Reinforcing the Eurodac system 

Objective:  Supporting  the  application  of  the  Dublin  Regulation  and  facilitating  the  fight 
against irregular migration.  

Actions: The Commission will propose to adapt the Eurodac system to reflect changes in the 
Dublin mechanism and expanding its purpose beyond asylum.  

c) Achieving greater convergence in the EU asylum system 

Objective:  Strengthening  and  harmonising  further  the  Common  European  Asylum  System 
rules,  so  as to  ensure  more  equal treatment  across  the  EU  and  reduce undue  pull  factors  to 
come to the EU.  

 Actions:  The  Commission  will  propose  a  new  Regulation  establishing  a  single  common 
asylum  procedure  in  the  EU  and  replacing  the  Asylum  Procedures  Directive,  a  new 
Qualification Regulation replacing the Qualification Directive and targeted modifications of 
the Reception Conditions Directive.  

d) Preventing secondary movements within the EU 

Objective: Ensuring that the functioning of the Dublin mechanism is not disrupted by abuses 
and asylum shopping by applicants for and beneficiaries of international protection.  

Actions:  The  Commission  will  include  strengthened  procedural  measures  in  its  proposals 
under  the  new  Asylum  Procedures  and  Qualification  Regulations  as  well  as  the  Reception 
Conditions Directive, to discourage and sanction irregular moves to other Member States.  

e) A new mandate for the EU’s asylum Agency 

Objective: Facilitating the functioning of the Common European Asylum System and of the 
revised  Dublin  distribution  mechanism,  developing  targeted  actions  in  key  areas,  and 
ensuring a more harmonised assessment of the protection needs across Member States.  
Actions: The Commission will propose to amend EASO’s mandate so it can play a new 
policy-implementing role as well as a strengthened operational role and providing sufficient 
financial resources and legal means for that purpose. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(a)  A  sustainable  and  fair  system  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for 
examining asylum claims 

The  Dublin  Regulation  establishes  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determining  which 
Member State is responsible for examining an application for international protection. They 
aim to ensure quick access of asylum applicants to an asylum procedure and the examination 
of  an  application  in  substance  by  a  single,  clearly  determined,  Member  State.  These 
objectives remain valid. The alternative – to allow asylum seekers to have their applications 
dealt with by the Member States of their choice – would act as a pull factor even if there was 
a completely level playing field between Member States in terms of reception conditions of 
asylum seekers and treatment of their claims. It would also not provide for solidarity or a fair 
sharing  of  responsibility.  The  need  for  such  criteria  and  mechanisms  is  envisaged  by  the 
Treaty.  

The  Commission  intends  to  put  forward,  as  a  matter  of  priority,  a  proposal  to  reform  the 
Dublin system. Two main options for reforming the determination of responsibility under the 
Dublin system should be considered at this stage. Under both options, Member States of first 
point of entry  should identify, register,  and fingerprint  all migrants, and return those  not  in 
need of protection. Moreover, as a further expression of solidarity, EU funding in relation to 
both  options  may  need  to  be  considered.  As  both  options  would  be  designed  to  address 
situations  of  mass  influx,  consideration  could  also  be  given  to  repealing  the  Temporary 
Protection Directive16. 

  Option 1: Supplementing the present system with a corrective fairness mechanism 

Under this option, the current criteria for the allocation of responsibility would be essentially 
preserved,  but  the  system  would  be  supplemented  with  a  corrective  fairness  mechanism, 
based on a distribution key, allowing for adjustments in allocation in certain circumstances. 
This option would maintain a linkage between the allocation of responsibility in the field of 
asylum  and  the  respect  by  Member  States  of  their  obligations  in  terms  of  protection  of  the 
external border, but would enable situations of mass influx through individual Member States 
to  be  more  effectively  confronted  and  ensure  greater  fairness  between  Member  States.  The 
corrective mechanism could be combined with amendments to the Dublin Regulation to make 
procedures more efficient, in particular by deleting the clauses on cessation of responsibility. 

The  supplementary  corrective  mechanism  could  emerge  from  the  crisis  relocation  scheme 
proposed by the Commission in September last year17, to be triggered in situations risking to 
jeopardize the application of the Dublin Regulation due to heavy pressures characterised by a 
large and disproportionate inflow of third country nationals which place significant demands 
on  the  asylum  system  of  a  Member  State.  It  could  be  considered  whether  triggering  the 
supplementary mechanism should also be linked to the prior activation of operational external 
border support from the future European Border and Coast Guard18.  

16 Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001, OJ L 212, 7.8.2001. This EU asylum instrument, intended to 
be  activated  in  response  to  the  mass  influx  of  persons  in  need  of  international  protection,  has  never  been 
triggered, due primarily to its lack of an in-built compulsory solidarity mechanism  to ensure a fair sharing of 
responsibility across Member States. 
17 COM (2015) 450 final. 
18 COM(2015)671 final. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                            
In  view  of  effectively  supporting  a  Member  State  confronted  with  a  significant  influx  of 
migrants,  adjustments  to  the  supplementary  mechanism  proposed  by  the  Commission  last 
year could be considered. In particular, in order to mitigate any significant unfairness in the 
allocation  between  Member  States,  relocation  could  take  place  as  soon  as  a  predefined 
threshold  in  the  number  of  asylum  applicants  is  reached  in  a  given  Member  State.  The 
threshold could, for example, be determined in such a way that relocation would only occur 
when the number of asylum seekers allocated to a given Member State significantly exceeds 
what  would  result  from  a  distribution  of  asylum  seekers  across  the  EU  based  on  certain 
objective  criteria.  Another  adjustment  could  enable  the  relocation  of  any  applicant  with  a 
reasonable likelihood of being granted international protection19, and not just of nationalities 
with a recognition rate of at least 75%. 

  Option  2:  A  new  system  for  allocating  asylum  applications  in  the  EU  based  on  a 

distribution key 

Under  a  new  system  for  allocating  asylum  applications  in  the  EU,  determination  of 
responsibility  would  for  the  most  part  no  longer  be  linked  with  the  Member  State  of  first 
application or irregular entry. Instead, responsibility would be primarily allocated on the basis 
of  a  distribution  key  reflecting  the  relative  size,  wealth  and  absorption  capacities  of  the 
Member  States20.  As  such,  this  would  entail  a  fundamental  change  to  the  current  system. 
However, certain criteria – notably family or dependency links, the best interest of the child, 
and possession of a visa or residence permit – would, as at present, override the application of 
the distribution key and could result in a corresponding deduction from the Member State's 
allocation  under  the  key.  Moreover,  once  the  responsibility  of  a  given  Member  State  is 
definitively established, this Member State would remain the only one responsible to examine 
a given applicant's claim, thereby deterring secondary movements and allowing procedures to 
be shortened and made more efficient. 

In  contrast  to  option  1,  most  applicants  would  be  directly  allocated,  on  the  basis  of  the 
distribution  key,  to  another  Member  State  when  they  make  an  application  anywhere  in  the 
EU.  Member  States  of  first  application  would,  however,  be  responsible  for  examining  the 
asylum claims of applicants for instance those coming from countries of origin which the EU 
has designated as safe so as to facilitate their speedy return and maintain a link with Member 
States’  obligations  in  terms  of  protection  of  the  external  border.  Different  variants  of  this 
option are possible, placing a greater or lesser responsibility on the Member State where the 
application  is  made  to  verify  whether  the  overriding  criteria  apply,  such  as  whether  the 
applicant  has  family  links  to  another  Member  State.  One  alternative  could  be  for  this 
verification  to  be  carried  out  by  the  Member  State  where  the  application  is  made;  another 
could be for that verification to only take place in the Member State to which allocation has 
been made on the basis of the distribution key.  

  Long-term perspective 

As signalled already in the European Agenda on Migration, in the long term, consideration 
could  be  given  to  the  possibility  of  transferring  responsibility  for  the  processing  of  asylum 

19 For example, to all applicants not coming from a country-of-origin designated as safe by the EU. 
20 Although the distribution key could follow the approach under the current and proposed relocation schemes, 
further reflection could be given to the design of the key, in particular as concerns the account to be taken of 
criteria such as the refugee population in Member States and unemployment levels as well as the other efforts 
made including through resettlement. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
claims from the national to the EU level, for instance by transforming EASO into an EU-level 
first-instance  decision-making  Agency,  with  national  branches  in  each  Member  State,  and 
establishing  an  EU-level  appeal  structure.  Under  such  an  approach,  Member  States  would 
remain responsible for the reception of asylum seekers, and of the refugees once recognised, 
which would be allocated to them on the basis of a distribution key as suggested above.  

This would establish a single and centralised decision-making process, in first instance and in 
appeal,  and  would  thereby  ensure  a  complete  harmonisation  of  the  procedures  as  well  as  a 
consistent evaluation of the protection needs at EU level. The distribution of asylum seekers 
among Member States based on a distribution key would in parallel ensure a fair sharing of 
responsibility  for  their  care.  In  addition  to  requiring  a  major  institutional  transformation, 
substantial  resources  would  need  to  be  allocated  to  these  new  EU-asylum  bodies  for  the 
processing  of  the  very  significant  numbers  of  applications  currently  dealt  with  by  Member 
States’ authorities21. Such a far reaching solution would therefore be difficult to envisage in 
the short or medium term.  

(b) Reinforcing the Eurodac system  

The Eurodac system and the fingerprints stored in that database are used by Member States as 
evidence that an applicant for international protection or irregular migrant was present in one 
Member  State  before  arriving  in  another  one,  to  support  the  application  of  the  Dublin 
Regulation.  The  Commission  will  propose  to  adapt  the  Eurodac  system  so  as  to  reflect 
changes in the Dublin mechanism, to ensure it provides the fingerprint evidence it needs to 
function.  

In  addition,  expanding  the  purpose  of  Eurodac  beyond  asylum  is  relevant  considering 
Member States' difficulties to effectively monitor the irregular entries at the external borders 
and  subsequent  movements.  Eurodac  can  be  used  to  substantially  enhance  Member  States' 
ability to  track  irregular  migrants  in  the  EU  by  storing  fingerprint  data  under  all  categories 
and allowing comparisons to be made with all stored data.  

The Commission will propose to extend the scope of Eurodac as a means to contribute to the 
fight against irregular migration by allowing the system to be used to facilitate the return of 
irregular  migrants.  In  doing  so,  Eurodac  will  be  used  as  a  means  to  accelerate  the 
identification  and  re-documentation  of  migrants  and  will  enable  a  better  assessment  of  the 
prospect of absconding, thus enhancing the effectiveness and speed of return and readmission 
procedures. 

As set out in its Communication on Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders 
and  Security22,  the  Commission  will  also,  in  the  context  of  the  overall  evaluation  of  the 
existing  system,  identify  gaps  that  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  long  term  by  developing 
certain  technical  functionalities  of  the  system  including  the  possible  use  of  other  biometric 
identifiers, in line with data protection standards. 

21 In 2015, 1.3 million applications were lodged in the EU. 
22 COM(2016)205 final. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(c) 

Greater convergence and a genuine common EU asylum system 

More  generally,  the  Commission  intends  to  propose  a  comprehensive  harmonisation  of 
procedures  across  the  EU  by  transforming  the  current  Asylum  Procedures  Directive  into  a 
new Regulation establishing a single common asylum procedure in the EU - replacing the 
current  disparate  arrangements  in  the  Member  States  -  which  would  reduce  incentives  to 
move to and within the EU. Following consultation with Member States and stakeholders, the 
Commission intends to propose the setting of new rules – in place of the current discretionary 
ones - on key aspects of the asylum procedure, including the rules on admissibility, the use of 
border and accelerated procedures, the treatment of subsequent applications, and the right to 
remain  in  the  territory.  An  essential  feature  of  such  a  common  procedure  will  be  the 
harmonisation  of  the  maximum  duration  of  the  procedure,  both  at  first  instance  and  at  the 
appeal stage. 

A critical aspect of a common approach concerns the use of the “safe country” mechanisms. 
In  September 2015, the  Commission  proposed the adoption of a Regulation  establishing  an 
EU common list of “safe countries of origin”23 in order to facilitate the swift processing of 
applications  of  persons  from  these  countries. It  is  important  that the  Regulation  be  adopted 
without delay by the European Parliament and the Council. The objective is to move towards 
a  fully  harmonised  list  of  safe  countries  of  origin  at  EU  level,  based  on  proposals  by  the 
Commission, with priority given to the inclusion of third countries from which a significant 
number of applicants originate. In addition, the Commission intends to propose to harmonise 
the procedural consequences of using the safe country of origin mechanism and remove the 
current discretion regarding whether or not to use it.  

As  regards  the  “safe  third  country”  mechanism,  which  enables  certain  applications  to  be 
declared  inadmissible  where  protection  could  be  availed  of  in  a  third  country,  the 
Commission,  in  its  Communication  of  10  February  2016,  encouraged  all  Member  States  to 
foresee  and  require  its  use  in  their  national  legislation.  The  Commission  also  intends  to 
propose  a  more  harmonised  EU  approach  to  its  use,  in  full  respect  for  the  international 
obligations enshrined in the EU Charter of fundamental rights and the European Convention 
on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Geneva Convention, so as to guarantee that it is applied in 
the same manner in all Member States, and to establish a mechanism for the adoption of an 
EU list of safe third countries. 

Furthermore,  it  must  be  ensured  that  applicants  are  granted  the  type  of  protection  they  are 
entitled to (refugee status or subsidiary protection) but only for so long as they need it, and 
that they are granted a more harmonised set of rights, while maintaining consistency with the 
Geneva  Convention  and  the  ECHR.  The  Commission  therefore  intends,  after  having 
consulted  Member  States,  to  propose  replacing  the  current  Qualification  Directive  by  a 
Regulation,  setting  uniform  rules  on  the  procedures  and  rights  to  be  offered  to 
beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  Some  of  the  rights  to  be  provided  could 
correspond to the regime applicable in each Member State in relation to other third country 
nationals or to nationals of that Member State. However, while fully respecting fundamental 
rights and international norms, the Commission will carefully examine the need to adapt the 
level  of  rights  in  order  to  reduce  both  undue  pull  factors  and  secondary  movements.  The 
Commission also intends to better clarify the difference between the refugee and  subsidiary 
protection status and differentiate further the respective rights attached to them. 

23 COM(2015)240 final. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  addition,  measures  will  be  provided  in  that  Regulation  to  ensure  that  a  systematic  and 
regular check is carried out, at least in the early years following the granting of a protection 
status,  and  that,  before  the  person  is  granted  long  term  residence  status,  renewal  of  the 
residence permit is linked with confirmation that there is still a need for protection, based on 
a consideration of the current situation in the person's country of origin and of their current 
personal circumstances. Today, few Member States have such a regular status review system 
in  place.  Given  the  inherently  more  temporary  nature  of  the  status,  more  regular  cessation 
reviews would be considered for subsidiary protection beneficiaries.  

More  harmonised  rules  on  identity  documents  for  beneficiaries  of  international  protection 
will  also  be  proposed.  In  addition,  further  initiatives  could  be  taken  in  the  longer  term  to 
develop  the  mutual  recognition  of  the  protection  granted  in  the  different  Member  States 
which could be the basis for a framework for transfers of protection.  

Changes  to  the  Reception  Conditions  Directive24  will  also  be  proposed,  following 
consultations with Member States, to increase as much as possible harmonisation across the 
Member  States.  Further  harmonising  the  treatment  of  asylum  seekers  across  the  EU  is 
critical,  not  only  to  ensure  that  this  treatment  is  humane,  but  also  to  reduce  incentives  to 
move to Europe and to other Member States within Europe. As a first step, the Commission 
has  asked  EASO  to  develop  common  technical  standards  and  guidance  for  the  reception 
systems of the Member States, in cooperation with a newly-created Network of EU Asylum 
Reception  Authorities  and  the  Fundamental  Rights  Agency.  These  new  standards  will  also 
serve as a benchmark to facilitate monitoring.  

(d) 

Preventing secondary movements within the EU  

The Commission intends to propose a range of measures across the whole asylum acquis to 
ensure that the functioning of the system is not disrupted by secondary movements of asylum 
applicants and beneficiaries of international protection to the Member State of their choice.  

Proportionate sanctions should be attached to failure by an applicant to remain in the Member 
State  responsible.  Other  Member  States  would  have  an  obligation  to  send  asylum  seekers 
who have absconded back to the responsible Member State, where they would be subject to 
an accelerated examination procedure where their right to remain pending the appeal would 
not be automatic, without prejudice to the principle of non-refoulement and to the right to an 
effective remedy. In addition, an applicant who has absconded or is likely to abscond should 
be  assigned  to  a  designated  area  in  the  Member  State,  or  detained  if  necessary, and,  where 
possible, material reception conditions could be provided only in kind. Furthermore, existing 
provisions  in  the  acquis  linking  the  fact  that  an  applicant  has  not  lodged  an  application  as 
soon as possible, despite having had an effective opportunity to do so, to the assessment of 
the  credibility  of  the  claim,  could  be  built  upon  and  reinforced.  This  could  have  as  a 
consequence  that  the  fact  that  a  person  had  irregularly  left  the  responsible  Member  State 
could be taken into account in the appraisal of the asylum claim. 

Moreover,  in  order  to  prevent  secondary  movements  of  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection,  the  rules  set  out  in  the  Qualification  Directive  on  provision  of  information, 

24 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards 
for the reception of applicants for international protection , OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
cooperation and reporting obligations will be reinforced (as for the asylum seekers). It will be 
clearly established that refugees are only entitled to rights and benefits in the Member State 
that has granted them protection and in which they have an obligation to remain. In addition, 
the  Dublin  Regulation  will  be  amended  to  oblige  Member  States  to  take  back  those 
beneficiaries of international protection who should remain in the Member State that granted 
them protection. The fact that a person has irregularly left the territory of that Member State 
could constitute a ground for initiating a status review.  

While fully respecting the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the provision 
of any right attached to the asylum procedure, including material reception conditions, will be 
made  conditional  upon  registration,  fingerprinting,  presence  and  stay  in  the  Member  State 
responsible.  Provisions  on  informing  applicants  of  their  obligation  to  apply  for  asylum  as 
soon  as  possible  when  arriving  in  the  EU  as  well  as  to  remain  in  the  responsible  Member 
State will be reinforced. Rules on the obligation for applicants to cooperate with and report to 
the  authorities  will  also  be  strengthened  and  specific  measures  taken  for  dealing  with 
applicants  for  which  there  is  a  high  risk  of  absconding,  including  use  of  accelerated 
examination  procedures.  In  addition,  common  EU  rules  on  the  documents  to  be  issued  to 
asylum seekers will be proposed that would certify their identity and clearly state that they do 
not in principle have the right to move to another Member State. While Member States could 
retain the possibility to provide applicants with a travel document when serious humanitarian 
reasons arise that require presence in another Member State, legislative provisions need to be 
clarified  to  ensure  that  travel  documents  are  never  issued  outside  these  exceptional 
circumstances. 

The  Long  Term  Residence  Directive25  will  also  be  amended  to  provide  that  the  5-year 
period  after  which  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  would  be  eligible  for  the  Long 
Term  Resident  status  should  be  restarted  each  time  the  person  leaves  without  authorisation 
the territory of the Member States that has granted protection.  

Generally,  Member  States  should  be  obliged  to  provide  for  effective,  dissuasive  and 
proportionate sanctions for irregular secondary movements. 

(e) 

A new mandate for the EU's Asylum Agency  

The Commission will propose a stronger mandate for EASO so that it can play a new policy-
implementing role and a strengthened operational role, and thereby facilitate the proper 
functioning of the Common European Asylum System.  

The Agency, in close cooperation with the Commission and without prejudice to the latter’s 
responsibility as guardian of the Treaties, would be responsible for a dedicated evaluation 
mechanism for monitoring the compliance of Member States with the asylum standards that 
are particularly necessary to adhere to in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Dublin 
system,  notably  regarding  reception conditions, access to  asylum  procedures  and respect  of 
essential  safeguards.  This  would  imply  monitoring  the  situation  in  all  Member  States  and 
identifying measures that should be taken by the Member States in order to remedy existing 
shortcomings. Where individual action by the Member States would be insufficient to address 
the situation, the Agency could intervene through enhanced support. Measures would also be 

25  Directive  2011/51/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2011  amending  Council 
Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection, OJ L 132, 19.5.2011, p. 1. 

12 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
foreseen  in  case  adequate  steps  are  not  taken  by  the  Member  State  concerned,  in  order  to 
mitigate as far as possible any incentive for Member States or asylum seekers not to respect 
the rules. If the Agency establishes, based on a substantiated assessment of the situation, that 
no  action  or  insufficient  action  has  been  taken  by  the  Member  State  concerned,  the 
Commission could be empowered to prescribe, by implementing acts, operational measures 
to be taken by that Member State, taking into account recommendations from the Agency. 

Another of the Agency's key tasks would be to  ensure a more harmonised assessment of 
international  protection  applications  across  the  EU,  based  on  the  criteria  defined  by  the 
Qualification  Directive.  The  objective  would  be  to  address  the  current  differences  in 
recognition rates, by issuing detailed and regular guidelines, based on a common analysis, on 
the  approach  to  be  taken  to  asylum  applicants  from  specific  countries-of-origin,  without 
prejudice  to  an  individual  examination  of  each  application.  Such  guidelines  would  be 
endorsed  by  the  Management  Board  and  would  be  used  by  Member  States.  A  reporting 
mechanism  would  facilitate  assessment  of  whether  the  Agency's  guidelines  are  taken  into 
account in  practice  by the Member States.  EASO, with  the support  of the Commission  and 
the Dutch presidency, is currently piloting this approach by coordinating the development by 
Member State experts of common guidelines on the assessment of Afghan asylum claims. In 
addition, a case-auditing system would be put in place to monitor the quality of the asylum 
decisions in the Member States, including adherence to these guidelines. 

Furthermore,  the  Agency  would  be  given  responsibility  for  the  evidentiary  assessment  of 
whether  third  countries  fulfil  the  criteria  for  designation  as  safe  third  country  or  safe  third 
country of origin, and could provide opinions to the Commission with a view to ensuring a 
harmonised approach. 

The  Agency  is  also  the  natural  choice  for  operating  the  distribution  mechanism  under  a 
reformed  Dublin  system,  whichever  option  is  chosen.  This  would  imply  the  application  of 
any distribution key for the allocation of asylum applicants to the respective Member States, 
via a mechanism not entailing discretion for the Agency.  

Following the model of the proposed European Border and Coast Guard, the Agency should 
be able to intervene, including on its own initiative, in support of Member States who have 
not  taken  necessary  remedial  actions  or  who  face  emergency  situations.  The  Agency’s 
interventions  would  consist,  in  particular,  in  assistance  with  case-handling  and  reception 
related  support.  Such  interventions  should  be  closely  linked  to  the  interventions  of  the 
proposed European Border and Coast Guard and could in many cases have the same trigger. 
The  Agency  would  need  to  have  at  its  disposal  a  rapid  reserve  pool  of  experts  which  the 
Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  contribute  to.  These  experts  could  be  deployed  within 
very short time limits when there is a need to implement emergency measures. 

Sufficient financial resources and legal means would have to be provided to the Agency, 
to  ensure  that  it  can  performs  effectively  in  its  enhanced  role,  including  as  regards  crisis 
prevention and management. Actions taken by EASO will have to be fully coordinated with 
other measures of support that could be provided to Member States under particular pressure, 
including  under  the  new  mechanism  proposed  by  the  Commission  on  the  provision  of 
humanitarian assistance support within the EU26.  

26 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the provision of emergency support within the Union, COM(2016)115 
final. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
II. ENSURING AND ENHANCING SAFE AND LEGAL MIGRATION 
ROUTES  

Smart management of migration requires not only a firm policy in addressing irregular flows 
while  ensuring  protection  to  those  in  need,  but  also  a  proactive  policy  of  sustainable, 
transparent  and  accessible  legal  pathways.  In  line  with  the  global  2030  Agenda  for 
Sustainable  Development,  we  recognise  thereby  the  positive  contribution  of  migrants  to 
inclusive  growth  and  the  multidimensional  reality  of  migration  requiring  a  coherent  and 
comprehensive response. 

On  the  one  hand,  more  legal  channels  are  needed  to  enable  people  in  need  of  international 
protection  to  arrive  in  the  EU  in  an  orderly,  managed,  safe  and  dignified  manner  and  to 
contribute  to  saving  lives  whilst  reducing  irregular  migration  and  destroying  the  business 
model  of  people  smugglers.  At  the  same  time,  the  responsibility  for  protection  should  not 
only be increased by the EU as a whole, but equally by the international community, as this is 
currently shared in an uneven manner at the global level. 

On the other hand, the EU needs a more proactive labour migration policy to attract the skills 
and  talents  it  needs  to  address  demographic  challenges  and  skills  shortages,  thereby 
contributing  to  economic  growth  and  the  sustainability  of  our  welfare  system.  More 
generally, the EU should take this opportunity to assess and improve the overall framework 
on legal and labour migration. 

In  addition,  and  as  highlighted  in  the  Communication  on  the  2016  European  Semester27 
effective integration of legally residing third country nationals staying in the EU is essential, 
both in the light of the recent challenges created by the refugee crisis as well as the existing 
and future challenges related to migration. Building on the work already done at EU level, the 
Commission  intends  to  step  up  its  action  on  integration  of  third  country  nationals,  by 
proposing an EU Action Plan on Integration. The Action Plan will outline actions related to 
the  policy  areas  most  relevant  to  integration  (e.g.  education,  labour  market  integration 
(including entrepreneurship), social inclusion, non-discrimination) with the aim of supporting 
Member States, with an indication of the EU budgetary resources available. 

Finally, the EU will have to strengthen its cooperation with key third countries of origin to 
ensure better and more comprehensive management of migration and mobility. 

II.1. Moving towards a more managed approach to refugee protection in the EU  
– a structured resettlement system 

In developing a structured resettlement system, the Commission is not starting from scratch. 
It has already recommended an EU-wide approach under which Member States have agreed 
to  resettle  22,504  refugees  in  2015-16  from  refugee  camps  in  the  Middle  East,  Northern 
Africa and the Horn of Africa, through the intermediary of the UNHCR. As announced in the 
Statement  agreed  between  the  Member  States  and  Turkey  of  18  March28,  a  mechanism  is 
established to substitute irregular and dangerous migrant crossings from Turkey to the Greek 

27 COM(2016)95 final.. 
28 SN 38/16. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                            
islands with the legal channel of resettlement from Turkey to the EU. For every Syrian being 
returned to Turkey, another Syrian will be resettled from Turkey to the EU. On the EU side, 
resettlement  under  this  mechanism  will  take  place  in  the  first  instance  by  honouring  the 
commitments under the above-mentioned EU-wide approach, of which 18,000 of the original 
22,504  places  for  resettlement  remain.  The  Commission  has  proposed  that  54  000  places 
which were foreseen for relocations will also now be available for the purpose of resettling 
Syrians from Turkey to the EU29 in case there is any further need for resettlement. In parallel, 
work is underway amongst Member States to put in place the humanitarian admission scheme 
for Syrian refugees currently in Turkey. Once irregular crossings between Turkey and the EU 
are  ending  or  at  least  have  been  substantially  and  sustainably  reduced,  this  scheme  will  be 
activated. EU Member States will contribute on a voluntary basis to this scheme.  

Building on these existing initiatives, the Commission  will set out  a  proposal framing the 
EU's policy on resettlement, providing a common approach to safe and legal arrival in the 
EU for persons in need of protection. This proposal will put in place a horizontal mechanism 
for  launching  targeted  EU  resettlement  initiatives,  by  setting  out  common  EU  rules  for 
admission  and  distribution,  on  the  status  to  be  accorded  to  resettled  persons,  on  financial 
support,  as  well  as  on  measures  to  discourage  secondary  movements.  Such  EU-level 
initiatives could be general in scope, aimed at enhancing resettlement globally, or to facilitate 
resettlement from a particular third country or region, possibly linked with certain conditions 
on  effective  cooperation  in  migration  management  (e.g.  the  reduction  of  the  number  of 
persons  spontaneously  arriving  in  EU  Member  States,  agreeing  on  or  improving  the 
implementation  of  readmission  agreements).  Such  a  mechanism  could  be  activated  by 
Implementing Acts, to be adopted on the basis of objectively-defined criteria (e.g. UNHCR 
global resettlement targets). 

The EU’s policy on resettlement should have the over-arching objective of ensuring that the 
Union  takes  on  its  fair  share  of  the  global  responsibility  to  provide  a  safe  haven  for  the 
world's refugees. This is a shared responsibility of the international community as a whole, 
and  will  only  be  adequately  and  sustainably  addressed  by  a  concerted  and  determined 
approach by all international actors. In that context, the EU needs to increase its support and 
participation  for  international  initiatives  aimed  at  addressing  global  migration  and  refugee 
challenges, such as UNHCR's global resettlement programmes,30 but also press for increased 
pledging in other international contexts such as the G20. For that, the EU needs a structured 
common system to pool European resettlement efforts more systematically. This will enable 
the EU to lead by example as well as providing a visible and concrete expression of European 
solidarity towards the international community.  

Member States should also consider other ways to increase legal entry options for people in 
need  of  international  protection.  Refugee-specific  schemes,  such  as  resettlement  and 
humanitarian  admissions,  should  be  complemented  by  making  existing  regular  admission 
schemes  for general  categories such as  students, researchers or  workers, more accessible to 
refugees, and initiatives already in place should be fully supported. Other initiatives, such as 
private  sponsorship,  where  the  costs  of  sponsorship  and  settlement  support  for  persons  in 
need  of  protection  can  be  supported  by  private  groups  or  organisations,  can  also  play  an 

29 COM(2016)171 final. 
30  In  particular,  the  UNHCR  High-level  meeting  on  Global  Responsibility  Sharing  through  Pathways  for 
Admission  of  Syrian  Refugees  in  Geneva  on  30  March  2016,  the  first  ever  World  Humanitarian  Summit  in 
Istanbul on 23-24 May 2016 and the UNGA Summit on large movements of refugees and migrants in New York 
on 19 September 2016. 

15 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
important  role  in  multiplying  the  legal  entry  possibilities.  Private  sponsorship  can  take 
various  forms,  from  scholarships  for  students  and  academics  to  integration  support  for 
sponsored family members. Private sponsorship is not only a way to increase the possibilities 
of legal entry but also helps to raise public awareness and support for refugees, and allows for 
a  more  welcoming  environment  as  local  communities  are  usually  involved.  This  should 
therefore be encouraged by developing best practices at EU level, taking inspiration from the 
models  and  experience  from  other  third-countries.  Member  States  are  also  encouraged  to 
make  full  use  of  other  available  legal  avenues  for  persons  in  need  of  protection,  such  as 
humanitarian  permits  and  the  Commission  will  assess  ways  to  promote  a  coordinated 
European approach in this respect too. 

II.2. A smarter and well-managed legal migration policy 

Over the course of the last 13 years, the EU has developed a broad range of instruments on 
admission of different categories of legal migrants. The "Blue Card" and the Intra-corporate 
Transferee  Directive31  create  a  legal  framework  for  highly  skilled  migrants;  the  revised 
Students and Researchers Directive32 facilitates admission and intra-EU mobility for foreign 
students and researchers, and provides their right to stay on for 9 months to seek a job or set 
up a business; the Seasonal Workers Directive33 - which will need to be fully transposed by 
Member States later this year – regulates the entry and temporary stay of seasonal workers, 
thereby facilitating circular migration and protecting this particularly vulnerable category of 
workers.  In  addition,  the  Single  Permit  Directive34  offers  a  single  permit  combining  both 
residence and work permit for third country nationals, the Long Term Residence Directive35 
regulates  the  conditions  and  rights  of  residence  for  third  country  nationals  who  have  been 
residing  in  the  EU  for  over  5  years,  and  the  Family  Reunification  Directive36  sets  the 
conditions for entry and residence for family members of third country nationals. 

However, further action at EU level is needed. Firstly, the EU has to improve migration rules 
for highly-skilled migrants through a reform of the EU Blue Card. Secondly, the EU should 
explore ways of attracting innovative entrepreneurs who can boost economic growth and help 
creating jobs. Thirdly, legal migration has to become fully part of the overall discussion with 
third  countries  of  origin  and  transit  on  how  to  cooperate  in  the  management  of  migration 
flows.  Finally,  a  reflection  should  start  on  possible  ways  to  change,  in  the  longer  term,  the 
whole EU model of managing legal, and particularly labour migration, including possibly by 
taking inspiration from successful models developed by other developed countries. 

a)  Attracting highly skilled workers to Europe: a more effective Blue Card  

Europe is an ageing continent with a declining working-age population37, expected to shrink 
by 18 million in the next decade. In addition, changes in the skills required by the EU labour 

31 Directive 2009/50EC and Directive 2014/66/EU respectively. 
32 Political agreement on the recast Directive has been reached by the co-legislator in 2015. Formal adoption 
will take place in the first half of 2016.  
33 Directive 2014/36/EU. 
34 Directive 2011/98/EU. 
35 Directive 2003/109/EC. 
36 Directive 2003/86/EC. 
37 See European Commission, The 2015 Ageing Report, European Economy 3/2015. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
markets  between  2012  and  2025  show  an  increasing  need  for  highly  skilled  human  capital 
(from  68  to  83  million, or  +23%)38.  At  the  same  time,  there is  a  need  to  better  harness  the 
potential of EU’s workforce as evidenced by the high unemployment rates, especially among 
youth,  the  low  participation  rates  and  the  persisting  labour  market  mismatches  in  the  EU. 
This requires concerted effort at all levels focused on investing in skills development of the 
existing  workforce,  fostering  policies  aimed  at  increasing  the  activity  rate  to  use  all  skills 
available,  and  through  promoting  intra-EU  mobility  of  workers.  The  forthcoming  Skills 
Agenda for Europe will be a vital component in this effort with its focus on making better use 
and  recognition  of  existing  skills  in  the  EU,  improving  the  recognition  of  foreign 
qualifications, as well as encourage further skills development where needed.39 

However,  it  seems  clear  that  these  measures  alone  will  not  be  sufficient  to  address  the 
shortfall in skills: the EU will also need to attract talents and skills from abroad to remain a 
global competitive  player. This  is  essential not  only  to  meet  current  and  future  skills needs 
and ensure a dynamic economy, but also to ensure the sustainability of our welfare systems in 
the longer term. 

Stakeholders' view clearly confirm this: in a public consultation on the Blue  Card launched 
across  the  EU  last  year40,  85%  of  respondents  including  employers  and  trade  unions 
considered that – in addition to policy measures such as recruiting from other Member States, 
increasing the retirement age and labour market participation rate – the recruitment of highly-
skilled  workers  from  outside  the  EU  is  a  necessary  measure  to  address  labour  shortages  in 
particular sectors or occupations in the EU. In parallel, the first European Dialogue on Skills 
and  Migration  has  called  for  an  end  to  the  fragmentation  of  admission  policies  for  highly-
skilled workers in Europe, advocating a fast and transparent admission scheme41. 

The  2009  Blue  Card  Directive  has  failed  to  reach  its  potential  as  the  EU-wide  scheme  for 
attracting  talented and  highly  skilled  third-country  nationals  it  was  meant  to  be.  Admission 
conditions are fairly restrictive, the Directive provides for little coherence and harmonisation, 
and  intra-EU  mobility  for  Blue  Card  holders  is  very  limited.  Furthermore,  a  variety  of 
national  schemes  for  highly  skilled  exists  in  parallel  with  the  EU  Blue  Card,  creating  a 
fragmented  framework  with  many  different  applicable  rules  and  procedures.  As  a 
consequence,  the  overall  number  of  admissions  for  highly  skilled  workers  into  the  EU 
remains low42, and compared to non-European OECD countries, the EU attracts low- rather 
than high-educated migrants43. 

To  make  sure that the Blue Card is an effective instrument that facilitates  the admission  of 
highly-skilled  workers,  the  Commission  will  propose  changes  to  the  current  Directive  with 
the overall aim of strengthening it as a Europe-wide scheme by developing a harmonised EU 

38 CEDEFOP projections.  
39 Upcoming initiative/Communication/strategy and one of the ten political priorities of the European 
Commission. 
40 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/public-consultation/2015/consulting_0029_en.htm. 

41 On 27-28 January, the Commission launched the European Dialogue on Skills and Migration, to be held on a 
regular basis, to engage business and trade union partners more closely in the process of attracting and 
integrating skilled third country nationals into the labour market (http://www.skillsandmigration.eu/). 
42 Only 13 852 Blue Cards were issued in 2014 (even less in previous years) – 87% of which by 1 Member State 
- and about 25 000 national highly skilled permits.  
43  Of all non-EU migrants coming to OECD countries, 48% of low-educated migrants choose an EU destination 
and 68% of the high-educated ones a non-European OECD destination. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
common  approach  including:  providing  for  more  flexible  admission  conditions;  improving 
and facilitating admission procedures; and enhancing rights, including to intra-EU mobility. 
Besides legislative changes, the Blue Card will also be better promoted so that employers as 
well as migrants are fully aware of the advantages of the scheme. 

b)  Attracting innovative entrepreneurs to the EU 

In  order  to  remain  a  global  competitive  player,  the  EU  needs  to  find  better  ways  to  attract 
new and support present migrant innovative entrepreneurs with human and financial capital 
to make positive contributions to the EU's growth and competitiveness. Attracting innovative 
entrepreneurs to the EU would not only be part of the general approach to soften the impact 
of the demographic decline. It would also capitalise on the expansion of innovative trends of 
the economy (in particular, the digital economy, the green economy and the social economy) 
and contribute more broadly to foster the EU's economic growth and competitiveness. This is 
also  fully  in  line  with  the  EU  "Start  Up  Initiative"  in  the  context  of  the  Single  Market 
Strategy44. 

Against  this  background,  the  Commission  will  work  further  on  ways  to  attract  and  support 
innovative  entrepreneurs,  including  start-ups,  from  third  countries.  This  could  involve  EU-
wide rules on admission (and intra-EU mobility) but also measures to support the creation of 
businesses  in  high  value-added  sectors  by  highly-skilled  migrant  entrepreneurs.  This 
approach  could  build  on  existing  initiatives  and  services  at  European,  national,  regional  or 
local level in the Member States and create appropriate synergies.  

c)  Towards a more coherent and effective model of legal migration management at EU 

level 

In order to manage legal migration policies effectively, the EU will have to make better use 
of  all  its  existing  instruments,  targeting  different  categories  and  skills  of  third-country 
nationals. That is why the Commission will launch a REFIT evaluation45 of the existing legal 
migration  instruments  with  a  view  to  identifying  potential  inconsistencies  and  gaps,  and 
streamlining  and  simplifying  the  rules  currently  in  place.  As  part  of  this  exercise,  the 
Commission  will also address the issue of whether there is a need for specific EU rules on 
international service providers within the context of trade agreements. The overall objective 
of this evaluation will be to improve existing rules as far as possible also in light of the need 
to prevent and combat labour exploitation, which the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) has 
shown46  to  be  common  among  migrant  workers.  In  that  respect,  the  Commission  will  also 
continue  monitoring  the  effective  enforcement  of  the  relevant  EU  acquis  to  ensure  the 
protection of the rights of the migrants who are working in the EU, in particular to prevent 
labour exploitation, irrespective of their legal status. 

The  Commission  will  launch  a  study  on  the  possible  development  of  a  mechanism  at  EU 
level  that  would  aim  at  improving  transparency  and  facilitating  the  matching  between 

44 COM(2015)550 final. 
45  See Commission Staff Working Document "Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) - State 
of Play and Outlook - REFIT Scoreboard" (SWD(2015) 110 final), annexed to Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions, "Better Regulation for Better Results - An EU agenda" (COM(2015)215 final). 
46 Severe labour exploitation: workers moving within or into the European Union at 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/severe-labour-exploitation-workers-moving-within-or-european-union. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
potential  migrants  and  employers.  In  this  regard,  some  developed  countries  which  compete 
with  the  EU  in  attracting  skilled  migrants47  have  recently  moved  towards  a  system  of  pre-
selection with a "pool of pre-screened candidates", followed by actual admission procedures. 
Such a system is both demand-driven (i.e. requiring the need for a job offer or a contract as a 
pre-requisite) and focuses on human capital elements (i.e. the skills and qualifications of the 
person, the experience etc.)48. Without questioning Member States' competence to decide the 
volumes of economic migrants they admit, the study would look into the possibility of a pre-
screening  mechanism  enabling  the  creation  of  a  pool  of  candidates  accessible  to  Member 
States and employers in the EU. 

d)  Strengthening cooperation with key countries of origin  

Ensuring legal migration pathways is the other side of the coin of reinforcing readmission and 
returns of those who have no right to stay – and both elements need to be fully included in the 
discussions  with  third  countries,  particularly  countries  of  origin  of  migrants,  on  how  to 
cooperate  for  an  effective  management  of  migratory  flows.  This  is  the  approach  adopted 
within  the  framework  of  policy  dialogues  and  operational  cooperation  with  third  countries 
under the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM), where legal migration and 
well-managed mobility are identified as priorities in the EU's external migration and asylum 
policy.  Within  the  GAMM,  the  EU  in  recent  years  has  signed  mobility  partnerships  and 
common  agendas  for  migration  and  mobility  with  several  countries  in  its  immediate  and 
further neighbourhood49. 

Closer cooperation will be sought with those partners that share interests with and are ready 
to  make  mutual  commitments  with  the  EU  and  its  Member  States,  in  particular  as  regards 
cooperation on readmission. The EU should offer a more comprehensive range of operational 
mechanisms  and  incentives  to  implement  the  Global  Approach  in  a  more  structured  and 
systematic  way,  as  done  through  the  High  Level  Dialogues,  where  more  legal  migration 
channels is a regular request formulated by third countries. 

In  its  Conclusions  on  Migration  of  18  February  2016,  the  European  Council  stressed  that 
regarding relations with relevant third countries, the comprehensive and tailor-made packages 
of  incentives  that  are  being  developed  for  specific  countries  to  ensure effective  returns  and 
readmission require the full support of the EU and the Member States. The Commission and 
the  High  Representative/Vice-President,  in  full  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  are 
pursuing  this  work  with  the  aim  to  propose  to  the  European  Council  comprehensive  and 
tailor-made  incentives,  both  positive  and  negative,  encompassing  all  policy  areas  and  to  be 
used in discussions with third countries. 

In doing so, the EU, in cooperation with the African partners, will build upon the conclusions 
set out in the Valletta Action Plan50 which includes – amongst the possible actions in the area 
of  legal  migration  and  mobility  –  the  pooling  of  offers  on  the  EU  side  on  legal  migration, 
including  pilot  projects  on 
in  certain 
sectors/professions, and increasing the number of scholarships in the context of the Erasmus+ 

recognition  of  qualifications 

facilitating 

47 For example Canada, Australia and New Zealand. 
48 See for example the Canadian "Express Entry" system: 
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/Immigrate/skilled/index.asp. 
49 Mobility partnerships exist with Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, the Republic of Moldova, Cape Verde, Georgia, 
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Common agendas for migration and mobility exist with Nigeria and Ethiopia. 
50 Valletta Summit, 11-12 November 2015. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
programme and the provision of support for pre-departure measures and public employment 
services.  

III. CONCLUSION 

The priority set by President Juncker that "Europe needs to manage migration better, in all 
aspects" – from the humanitarian imperative, the need for solidarity and the demographic and 
skills challenge  –  is  valid  more than ever. The Commission  is  therefore fully committed to 
achieving  the  important  objective  of  shaping  an  integrated,  sustainable  and  holistic  EU 
migration policy. 

To  that  end,  it  is  appropriate  through  this  Communication  to  launch  a  discussion  on  the 
important subject matters covered. There is no choice but to pursue the twin-track strategy of 
stabilising the present situation through the full respect and application of the existing legal 
framework, whilst facing up to the need in a future perspective to reform the architecture of 
those  rules.  In  the  midst  of  the  present  crisis,  the  limitations  of  the  present  system  and  the 
common  challenges  we  face  have  been  laid  bare.  Therefore,  it  is  precisely  at  this  moment, 
when concerted action and strong solidarity are most called for, that this future perspective is 
needed to open a path towards a humane and efficient European migration and asylum policy 
based  on  a  fair  sharing  of  responsibilities.  In  the  light  of  the  feedback  it  receives  to  this 
Communication, the Commission will then come forward with the appropriate proposals.  

20