Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 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 (recast)
Date: 2016-05-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, external border of the EU, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person, third country

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.5.2016  COM(2016) 270 final 2016/0133 (COD)   Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 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 (recast)  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

The  EU  is  working  towards  a  more  sustainable  approach  to  managing  migration,  both  for 
people  who  need  international  protection  and  for  those  who  move  for  other  reasons.  The 
approach  aims  to  end  irregular  and  dangerous  movements  and  the  business  model  of 
smugglers,  and  to  replace  these  with  safe  and  legal  ways  to  the  EU  for  those  who  need 
protection.  Protection in the region and resettlement from there to the EU should become the 
model for the future, and best serves the interests and safety of refugees.   

However it remains likely that in the short and medium term people will continue to arrive at 
the  EU's  external  borders.  Those  who  do  not  claim  international  protection  should  be 
returned.  Those  who  do  claim  asylum  should  have  their  claim  processed  efficiently,  and  be 
assured decent reception facilities and support in the Member State responsible to deal with 
their applications, whilst that process is ongoing and beyond that if their claims are found to 
be grounded.  

Recent experience has however shown that large-scale uncontrolled arrivals put an excessive 
strain on the Member States' asylum systems, which has led to an increasing disregard of the 
rules.  This  is  now  starting  to  be  addressed  with  a  view  to  regaining  control  of  the  present 
situation  by  applying  the  current  rules  on  Schengen  border  management  and  on  asylum,  as 
well  as  through  stepped  up  cooperation  with  key  third  countries  in  particular  Turkey. 
However the situation has exposed more fundamental weaknesses in the design of our asylum 
rules  which  undermine  their  effectiveness  and  do  not  ensure  a  sustainable  sharing  of 
responsibility, which now need to be addressed. 

On 6 April 2016, the Commission set out its priorities for improving the Common European 
Asylum System (CEAS) in its Communication "Towards a reform of the Common European 
Asylum System and enhancing legal avenues to Europe".1 The Commission announced that it 
would  progressively  work  towards  reforming  the  existing  Union  framework  on  asylum,  to 
establish  a  sustainable  and  fair  system  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for 
examining asylum applications, reinforce the Eurodac system, achieve greater convergence in 
the asylum system, prevent secondary movements, and establish an enhanced mandate for the 
European  Asylum  Support  Office  (EASO).  The  need  for  reform  has  been  widely 
acknowledged, including by the European Parliament2 and the European Council.3 

This  proposal  on  the  reform  of  the  Dublin  III  Regulation  is  part  of  the  first  instalment  of 
legislative  proposals  which  will  constitute  a  major  reform  of  the  CEAS.  This  first  package 
also includes a proposal for recast of the Eurodac Regulation and a proposal for establishing a 
European Union Agency for Asylum. The Eurodac proposal includes the necessary changes 
to adapt the system to the proposed Dublin rules, in line with its primary objective to serve the 

1 
2  

3 

COM(2016) 197 final. 
See for example European Parliament resolutions of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean 
and  the  need  for  a  holistic  EU  approach  to  migration  (2015/2095(INI));  of  10  September  2015  on 
migration and refugees in Europe (2015/2833(RSP). 
EUCO 19.02.2016, SN 16/16 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
implementation  of  the  Dublin  Regulation.  Eurodac  shall  also  become  a  database  for  wider 
immigration purposes, facilitating return and the fight against irregular migration. 

The proposal for a European Union Agency for Asylum aims to improve the implementation 
and  functioning  of  the  CEAS  by  building  on  the  work  of  the  European  Asylum  Support 
Office  and  further  develop  it  into  an  Agency  which  should  be  responsible  for  facilitating 
functioning  of  the  CEAS,  for  ensuring  convergence  in  the  assessment  of  applications  for 
international  protection  across  the  Union,  and  for  monitoring  the  operational  and  technical 
application of Union law. 

A  second  stage  of  legislative  proposals  reforming  the  Asylum  Procedures  and  Qualification 
Directives, as well as the Reception Conditions Directive will follow, to ensure the full reform 
of  all  parts  of  the  EU  asylum  system,  including  to  avoid  the  disruption  of  the  Dublin 
mechanism  by  abuses  and  asylum  shopping  by  applicants  for  and  beneficiaries  of 
international protection. In  particular, asylum procedures  will have to  speed  up and become 
more convergent, more uniform rules are needed on the procedures and rights to be offered to 
beneficiaries of international protection and reception conditions will have to be adapted, to 
increase as much as possible harmonisation across the Member States.  

As set out in its 6 April Communication, the migratory and refugee crisis exposed significant 
structural  weaknesses  and  shortcomings  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  the  European 
asylum  system,  and  of  the  Dublin  rules  in  particular.  The  current  Dublin  system  was  not 
designed to ensure a sustainable sharing of responsibility for applicants across the Union. This 
has led to situations where a limited number of individual Member States had to deal with the 
vast majority of asylum seekers arriving in the Union, putting the capacities of their asylum 
systems under strain and leading to some disregard of EU rules. In addition, the effectiveness 
of  the  Dublin  system  is  undermined  by  a  set  of  complex  and  disputable  rules  on  the 
determination of responsibility as well as lengthy procedures. In particular, this is the case for 
the  current  rules  which  provide  for  a  shift  of  responsibility  between  Member  States  after  a 
given  time.  Moreover,  lacking  clear  provisions  on  applicants'  obligations  as  well  as  on  the 
consequences for not complying with them, the current system is often prone to abuse by the 
applicants.  

The objectives of the Dublin Regulation – 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 – remain valid. It is clear, however, that the Dublin system must be 
reformed, both to simplify it and enhance its effectiveness in practice, and to be equal to the 
task  of  dealing  with  situations  when  Member  States'  asylum  systems  are  faced  with 
disproportionate pressure.  

This proposal is a recast of 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  ("the  Dublin  III 
Regulation").  

In particular, this proposal aims to: 

 

enhance  the  system's  capacity  to  determine  efficiently  and  effectively  a  single 
Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

In particular, it would remove the cessation of responsibility clauses and significantly 
shorten  the  time  limits  for  sending  requests,  receiving  replies  and  carrying  out 
transfers between Member States; 

ensure fair sharing of responsibilities between Member States by complementing the 
current  system  with  a  corrective  allocation  mechanism.  This  mechanism  would  be 
activated  automatically  in  cases  where  Member  States  would  have  to  deal  with  a 
disproportionate number of asylum seekers; 

discourage  abuses  and  prevent  secondary  movements  of  the  applicants  within  the 
EU, in particular by including clear obligations for applicants to apply in the Member 
State of first entry and remain in the Member State determined as responsible. This 
also  requires  proportionate  procedural  and  material  consequences  in  case  of  non-
compliance with their obligations.  

Targeted consultations with the European Parliament and the Member States, including on the 
basis of the 6 of April Communication, as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees (UNCHR) and civil society confirmed divergent views on the nature and extent to 
which the Dublin Regulation should be reformed4. Against this background, the Commission 
carefully  assessed  the arguments  brought  forward.  The  Commission  came  to  the conclusion 
that the current criteria in the Dublin system should be preserved, while supplementing them 
with  a  corrective  allocation  mechanism  to  relieve  Member  States  under  disproportionate 
pressure.  At  the  same  time,  the  new  Dublin  scheme  will  be  based  on  a  European  reference 
system  from  the  start  of  its  implementation  with  an  automatically  triggered  corrective 
solidarity mechanism as soon as a Member State carries a disproportionate burden.  

At the same time, other fundamental changes are introduced in order to discourage abuses and 
prevent secondary movements of the applicants within the EU. 

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

The  Dublin  system  is  the  cornerstone  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  and  deals 
with the determination of which Member State is responsible for an asylum claim. It operates 
through  the  legal  and  policy  instruments  in  the  field  of  asylum,  in  particular  asylum 
procedures,  standards  for  the  qualification  for  individuals  for  international  protection,  and 
reception conditions, as well as relocation and resettlement. 

Progress is being stalled by the fact that the track record of implementation of EU law in the 
field of asylum is poor. Ensuring the full and swift implementation by Member States of EU 
law is a priority. In particular, the Commission has been working over the last years with the 
Greek  authorities  to  prioritise  a  normalisation  of  the  situation  since  Dublin  transfers  were 
suspended in 2010. To that end, the Commission addressed a recommendation to Greece on 
10 February 20165 on the urgent measures to be taken by Greece in view of the resumption of 
Dublin transfers. 

4 See below under 3.4 "stakeholder consultation" 
5 C(2016) 871 final 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
This proposal is part of a package including proposals reforming other elements of the Dublin 
system,  which  will  ensure  consistency  of  provisions  in  this  policy  area.  The  proposal  for 
reform of the Eurodac Regulation includes the necessary changes to reflect those proposed in 
the Dublin Regulation and to assist in better controlling irregular migration. The Commission 
is  also  proposing  to  establish  a  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum  to  support  the 
functioning  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System,  including  of  the  revised  Dublin 
mechanism.  

In response to the crisis situation in Greece and Italy, the Council adopted in September 2015 
two relocation decisions6, which will be applied until September 2017. This was a temporary, 
ad  hoc  and  emergency  response  to  the  situation  in  these  two  Member  States  which 
experienced unprecedented flows of migrants and which should have been relieved of some 
of the burden in that the responsibility for certain asylum claimants from Italy and Greece is 
transferred to other Member States. The Commission reported twice on the implementation of 
these decisions7. 

With  a  view  to  designing  a  structural  solution  for  dealing  with  such  crisis  situations,  the 
Commission  proposed  a  crisis  relocation  mechanism  in  September  20158.  Relocation  was 
proposed  to  be  triggered  through  a  delegated  act,  which  would  also  determine  the  number 
persons  to  be  relocated.  This  proposal  introduces  an  automatically  triggered  corrective 
allocation  mechanism.  It  has  therefore  a  similar  objective  as  the  proposal  made  by  the 
Commission  in  September  2015  and,  depending  on  the  results  of  the  discussions  on  this 
proposal, the Commission could consider withdrawing the September proposal. 

The  proposal  also  envisages  new  rules  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for 
examining an application lodged by an unaccompanied minor, namely that – in the absence of 
family relations – the Member State of first application shall be responsible, unless this is not 
in the best interests of the minor. This rule will allow a quick determination of the Member 
State  responsible  and  thus  allow  swift  access  to  the  procedure  for  this  vulnerable  group  of 
applicants,  also  in  view  of  the  shortened  time  limits  proposed.  Given  that  this  rule  differs 
from  what  the  Commission  proposed  in  June  20149,  the  Commission  has  the  intention  to 
withdraw that proposal, on which it has so far been impossible to reach an agreement.  

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

This  proposal  is  consistent  with  the  comprehensive  long-term  policy  on  better  migration 
management  as  set  out  by  the  Commission  in  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration10,  which 
developed  President  Juncker's  Political  Guidelines  into  a  set  of  coherent  and  mutually 
reinforcing initiatives based on four pillars. Those pillars consist of reducing the incentive for 
irregular migration, securing external borders and saving lives, a strong asylum policy and a 
new policy on legal migration. This proposal, which further implements the European Agenda 
on Migration as  regards the objective of strengthening  the  Union's asylum policy should be 
seen as part of the broader policy at EU level towards building 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 the third country nationals concerned and countries of origin and transit.  

6 Council Decision 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 
7 COM (2016)165 and COM (2016)222  
8 COM (2015) 450 
9 Com (2014) 382 
10 COM(2015) 240 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis  

This proposal recasts Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and should therefore be adopted on the 
same legal basis, namely Article 78, second paragraph, point (e) of the TFEU, in accordance 
with the ordinary legislative procedure. 

• 

Variable geometry 

The  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  are  bound  by  Regulation  604/2013,  following  the 
notification of their wish to take part in the adoption and application of that Regulation based 
on the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of 
freedom, security and justice annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU.  

In  accordance  with  the  above-mentioned  Protocol,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  may 
decide to take part in the adoption of this proposal. They also have this option after adoption 
of the proposal. 

Under the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, Denmark 
does not take part in the adoption by the Council of the measures pursuant to Title V of the 
TFEU (with the exception of "measures determining the third countries whose nationals must 
be  in  possession  of  a  visa  when  crossing  the  external  borders  of  the  Member  States,  or 
measures relating to a uniform format for visas"). However, given that Denmark applies the 
current Dublin Regulation, on the basis of an international agreement that it concluded with 
the  EC  in  200611,  it  shall,  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  that  Agreement,  notify  the 
Commission  of  its  decision  whether  or  not  to  implement  the  content  of  the  amended 
Regulation. 

The participation of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark in the arrangements laid down 
in this proposal recasting Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 will be determined  in the course of 
negotiations  in  accordance  with  these  Protocols.  These  Protocols  notably  allow  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Ireland,  but  do  not  require  them,  to  opt  into  initiatives  in  the  policy  area  of 
freedom, security and justice while respecting their operability. 

 

Impact  of  the  proposal  on  non  EU  Member  States  associated  to  the  Dublin 
system 

In  parallel  to  the  association  of  several  non-EU  Member  States  to  the Schengen  acquis,  the 
the 
Union  has  concluded  several  agreements  associating 
Dublin/Eurodac acquis: 

these  countries  also 

to 

– the agreement associating Iceland and Norway, concluded in 2001; 

– the agreement associating Switzerland, concluded on 28 February 2008; 

– the protocol associating Liechtenstein, concluded on 7 March 2011. 

In  order  to  create  rights  and  obligations  between  Denmark  –  which  as  explained  above  has 
been  associated  to  the  Dublin/Eurodac  acquis  via  an  international  agreement  –  and  the 

11 Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the criteria and mechanisms 
for  establishing  the  State  responsible  for  examining  a  request  for  asylum  lodged  in  Denmark  or  any 
other  Member  State  of  the  European  Union  and  "Eurodac"  for  the  comparison  of  fingerprints  for  the 
effective application of the Dublin Convention (OJ L66, 8.3.2006,p.38) 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
associated  countries  mentioned  above,  two  other  instruments  have  been  concluded  between 
the Union and the associated countries12. 

In accordance with the three above-cited agreements, the associated countries shall accept the 
Dublin/Eurodac  acquis and its development without  exception. They do not  take part in the 
adoption  of  any  acts  amending  or  building  upon  the  Dublin  acquis  (including  therefore  this 
proposal)  but  have  to  notify  to  the Commission  within  a  given  time-frame  of  their decision 
whether or not  to accept  the content  of that act, once  approved by the European Parliament 
and the Council. In case Norway, Iceland, Switzerland or Liechtenstein do not accept an act 
amending  or  building  upon  the  Dublin/Eurodac  acquis,  the  respective  agreements  will  be 
terminated,  unless  the  Joint/Mixed  Committee  established  by  the  agreements  decides 
otherwise, by unanimity. 

 

Subsidiarity  

Title V of the TFEU on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice confers certain powers on 
these  matters  to  the  European  Union.  These  powers  must  be  exercised  in  accordance  with 
Article  5  of  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union,  i.e.  if  and  in  so  far  as  the  objectives  of  the 
proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by 
reason  of  the  scale  or  effects  of  the  proposed  action,  be  better  achieved  by  the  European 
Union.  

The  proposal  streamlines  the  current  Dublin  rules  and  complements  these  with  a  new 
corrective allocation mechanism to put in place a system to address situations when Member 
States' asylum systems are faced with disproportionate pressure. 

The aim is to achieve a fair sharing of responsibilities between Member States by relieving a 
Member State  with a disproportionate burden and sharing that  burden among the remaining 
Member  States.  By  definition,  this  requires  EU  action.  In  addition,  the  proposal  aims  at 
ensuring  the  correct  application  of  the  Dublin  system  in  times  of  crisis  and  at  tackling 
secondary  movements  of  third  country  nationals  between  Member  States,  issues  which  are 
cross-border  by  nature.  It  is  clear  that  actions  taken  by  individual  Member  States  cannot 
satisfactorily reply to the need for a common EU approach to a common problem. 

• 

Proportionality 

As regards the streamlining of the Dublin rules, the changes proposed are limited to what is 
necessary to enable an effective operation of the system, both in relation to the swifter access 
of  applicants  to  the  procedure  for  granting  international  protection  and  to  the  capacity  of 
Member States' administrations to apply the system. 

As  regards  the  introduction  of  a  new  corrective  allocation  mechanism,  Regulation  (EU)  No 
604/2013  does  not  provide,  in  its  current  form,  for  tools  enabling  sufficient  responses  to 
situations of disproportionate pressure on Member States’ asylum systems. The provisions on 
the  corrective  allocation  mechanism  that  the  proposal  introduces  seek  to  address  this  gap. 
These provisions do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of addressing 
the situation effectively. 

12 Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein to 
the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria 
and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a 
Member State or in Switzerland (concluded on 24.10.2008, OJ L 161, 24.06.2009, p. 8) and Protocol to 
the Agreement between the Community, Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning 
the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum 
lodged in a Member State, Iceland and Norway (OJ L 93, 3.4.2001). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
• 

Choice of the instrument 

Given  that  the  existing  Dublin  mechanism  was  established  by  means  of  a  Regulation,  the 
same  legal  instrument  is  used  for  streamlining  it  and  complementing  it  with  a  corrective 
allocation mechanism. 

3. 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

In the European Agenda for Migration, the Commission, while urging the Member States to 
fully  implement  the  Dublin  III  Regulation  and  existing  EU  asylum  acquis,  announced  the 
evaluation and possible revision of the Regulation in 2016. In line with this commitment the 
Commission  commissioned  external  studies  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Dublin  system.13  The 
evaluation assessed the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, consistency and EU added value 
of  the  Dublin  III  Regulation.  It  examined  the  extent  to  which  the  Regulation  addressed  its 
objectives, the wider policy needs of the EU and the needs of the target stakeholders.14 The 
evaluation  included  an  in-depth  study  on  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Dublin  III 
Regulation in the Member States.15 The main findings are set out below. 

3.1. The relevance of the Dublin III Regulation  

The Dublin system is a cornerstone of the EU asylum acquis and its objectives remain valid. 
An  EU  instrument  for  establishing  criteria  and  a  mechanism  for  determining  the  Member 
State responsible for examining an application is essential as long as separate national asylum 
systems  exist  within  the  Union.  Without  this,  Member  States  would  have  to  rely on  ad  hoc 
agreements  as  in  pre-Dublin  times,  which  would  make  the  determination  of  responsibility 
between  Member  States  extremely  difficult.  The  evaluation  concluded  that  no  national  or 
bilateral instrument could provide the same effect overall, which could result in a failure to 
address applications for international protection falling between national jurisdictions. Mixed 
views were expressed regarding the actual  impact of the Regulation, which should ensure a 
swift  access  to  the  asylum  procedures  for  the  applicant  and  lead  to  a  long-term  strategy 
discouraging  multiple  applications.  This  would  further  provide  efficiency  to  the  asylum 
system by preventing misuse and would reduce the overall costs.  

3.2 Implementation of the Regulation 

13  

Evaluation  and  implementation  reports  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-
do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants/index_en.htm. 

14  
The  evaluation  was  based  on  desk  research,  quantitative  analysis  and  consultations  with  legal/policy 
advisors in a total of 19 Member States (BE, BG, CH, CY, EL, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, RO, 
SE,  SI,  SK).  Information  from  the  other  12  Member  States  participating  in  the  Dublin  III  Regulation  was  not 
received in time to be included in the report.  
15  A  broad  range  of  stakeholders  were  consulted,  including:  Dublin  units  in  national  asylum  administrations, 
legal/policy  advisors,  NGOs,  lawyers/legal  representatives,  appeal  and  review  authorities,  law  enforcement 
authorities,  detention  authorities,  applicants  and/or  beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  A  total  of  142 
interviews were conducted. Field visits were conducted in 15 Member States (AT, BE, DE, EL, FR, HU, LU, IT, 
MT, NL, NO, PL, SE, UK, CH), whereas in 16 (BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, LT, LV, PT, RO, SI, SK, 
LI) phone interviews were conducted.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  General 

The  most  significant  problem  highlighted  in  the  evaluation  was  the  lack  of  consistent  and 
correct implementation across the Member States. It was further concluded that the design of 
the  Dublin  III  Regulation  had  a  number  of  shortcomings  which  made  it  more  difficult  to 
achieve its main objectives. The hierarchy of criteria as set out in the Dublin III Regulation 
does not take the capacity of the Member States into account, nor does it aim for a balance of 
efforts. The method of allocating responsibility delays access to the asylum procedure. Under 
the current system applicants may wait up to 10 months (in the case of "take back" requests) 
or 11 months (in the case of "take charge" requests), before the procedure for examining the 
claim  for  international  protection  starts.  This  undermines  Dublin’s  aim  to  ensure  an 
applicant's swift access to the asylum procedure. 

It  has  also  become  clear  that  the  Dublin  III  Regulation  was  not  designed  to  deal  with 
situations  of  disproportionate  pressure.  It  does  not  aim  at  the  objective  of  a  fair  sharing  of 
responsibility or to address the disproportionate distribution of applicants across the Member 
States.  These  factors  have  become  especially  evident  in  some  Member  States,  which  have 
experienced  difficulties  in  applying  the  Regulation  in  this  context,  with  registrations  of 
asylum  seekers  not  always  taking  place,  procedures  being  delayed  and  internal  capacity 
insufficient to deal with the cases in a timely manner.  

  Procedural guarantees and safeguards 

Information to the applicant about the Dublin procedure significantly differs. Approximately 
half  of  the  participating  Member  States  reported  that  the  information  provided  consists  of 
“general  information”,  which  may  fall  short  of  the  requirements  stipulated  in  Article  4(1). 
Furthermore, the findings suggest that in a small number of Member States, information may 
not be provided at all, and if provided it seems to be outdated.  

The personal interview  is  a standard practice when determining responsibility in nearly all 
Member States, but the lack of capacity in some of the overburdened countries has prevented 
the authorities from routinely conducting interviews. If interviews are omitted, the applicant 
will generally be allowed to submit information in other forms. Many Member States reported 
that interviews were severely delayed, as a result of the current high influx. 

The interpretation of the best interests of the child diverges. This has on some occasions led 
to  communication  issues  and  mistrust  between  the  Member  States.  Furthermore,  practical 
problems  have  been  identified  in  the  process  of  appointing  a  representative  for  the  minor, 
especially  as  a  consequence  of  the  current  high  influx.  This  however  constitutes  a  wider 
problem for the asylum procedure.  

  Criteria for determining the responsible Member State and evidence 

The criteria most often applied as grounds for transfer were those relating to documentation 
and  entry  (Articles  12  and  13),  resulting  in  placing  a  substantial  share  of  responsibility  on 
Member  States  at  the  external  border.  This  has  led  applicants  to  avoid  being  fingerprinted, 
contributing to secondary movements. 

Several  Member  States  indicated  that  the  interpretations  of  what  is  considered  to  be 
acceptable evidence by the authorities in the receiving country placed an unreasonable burden 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
of  proof  on  the  sending  country.  Eurodac  and  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)  data  are 
accepted as proof by nearly all Member States, and is the evidence most often relied on when 
determining  responsibility.  The  data  obtained  through  interviews  were  generally  not 
considered  as  sufficient  evidence.  The  discretionary  provision  and  provisions  on  dependent 
persons (Articles 16 and 17), dealing with humanitarian cases, are infrequently used, with the 
exception of only a small number of Member States. 

The criteria relating to family links were less frequently used, mainly due to the difficulty of 
tracing family or obtaining evidence of family connections. The Member States greatly differ 
in  respect  of  the  evidence  accepted  for  these  criteria,  but  a  main  requirement  is  usually 
documentary  evidence  (such  as  birth  or  marriage  certificate),  which  is  often  difficult  to 
produce for the asylum applicant. The substantial divergence on what is acceptable proof of 
family  connections  makes  it  difficult  to  determine  responsibility,  leading  to  lengthy 
procedures.  This  could  be  a  factor  in  driving  secondary  movements,  with  applicants 
attempting to travel onwards.  

  Taking charge and taking back procedures 

The number of "take back" requests was significantly higher than the number of "take charge" 
requests. Between 2008 and 2014 72% of outgoing Dublin requests were take back requests, 
against  28%  of  outgoing  take  charge  requests.  Similarly,  74%  of  incoming  Dublin  requests 
were  take  back  requests  compared  with  26%  of  incoming  take  charge  requests.    The 
timeframes  stipulated  for  submitting  and  replying  to  these  requests  were  mostly  complied 
with  by all Member States,  but the high  inflow of  migrant put  an increased pressure on the 
asylum agencies, prolonging the response time for some Member States. This also led to an 
increase  in  incomplete  requests,  which  could  lead  to  rejections  and  disputes.  This  also 
influenced the practice of ‘acceptance by default’, with some countries deliberately failing to 
respond to requests by the deadline as a way of handling the large amount of cases.  

In 2014, the total number of take charge and take back requests was 84,586 which represents 
13% of the total asylum applications made in the EU, which is a decline from previous years. 
Out of all requests, 33% were rejected by the receiving Member State, which could suggest 
that  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Dublin  III  Regulation  in  2014  has  made  it  harder  for  the 
Member States to reach consensus on the responsibility. In 2014, only about a quarter of the 
total  number  of  accepted  take  back  and  take  charge  requests  actually  resulted  in  a  physical 
transfer. These low numbers suggest that there are problems with the practical application of 
the  Dublin  III  Regulation.  However,  it  could  also  be  partly  explained  by  delays  in  the 
transfers, which is not captured in the annual data used in the evaluation. Another important 
reason for the low rate of transfers, as confirmed by many Member States, is the high rate of 
absconding  during  the  Dublin  procedures,  resulting  in  a  shift  of  responsibility  between 
Member States.  

  Implementation of transfers 

The timeframe for implementing the transfers varied significantly. The efficiency depends on 
the  capacity  and  resources  in  the  units  in  charge  of  implementing  transfers,  the  fact  that  a 
separate  authority  was  in  charge  of  the  arrangements,  the  number  of  cases,  the  degree  of 
cooperation  of  the  applicant  and  the  knowledge  of  their  whereabouts.  One  indicated  reason 
for delays was the extension  of the time limits as  per Article 29(2). Twenty Member States 
stated that the absconding of the applicant, allowing for a total of 18 months for transfers, was 

EN 

10 

   EN 

  
 
 
 
 
 
the primary explanation for delays. The practice of detention, reported as often used by 21 of 
31  countries,  varies  considerably  in  regards  to  the  stage  of  the  procedure:  some  authorities 
resort  to  detention  from  the  start  of  the  Dublin  procedure,  others  only  when  the  transfer 
request has been accepted by the responsible Member State. These divergent practices create 
legal  uncertainty  as  well  as  practical  problems.  Furthermore,  13  Member  States  highlighted 
that  transfers  in  general  lack  effectiveness, indicating  that  secondary  movements  are  ‘often’ 
observed following a completed transfer.  

  Appeals 

Remedies  are  available  against  a  transfer  decision  in  all  Member  States.  Member  States 
favour judicial remedies,  most  frequently  before the administrative courts. In  the process of 
appeals, all Member States have introduced time limits for an applicant to exercise their right 
to an effective remedy, although the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘reasonable period of 
time’ greatly vary, ranging from three to 60 days. If a case is appealed, some Member States 
will automatically suspend the transfer, whilst others apply Article 27(3)(c), where this has 
to be requested by the applicant. 

  Administrative cooperation 

All Member States indicated the frequent use of the secured electronic DubliNet network for 
exchange  of  information  and  informal  information  channels  are  only  applied  in  exceptional 
circumstances.  To  further  facilitate  the  effective  application  of  the  Dublin  III  Regulation, 
many Member States have concluded administrative arrangements as referred to in Article 36. 
However, to date, no Member State has made use of the conciliation procedure as described 
in Article 37, any disputes being resolved informally.  

  Early Warning and Preparedness Mechanism  

The  Early  Warning  and  Preparedness  Mechanism  has  not  been  implemented  to  date.  While 
some  Member  States  argued  that  the  conditions  for  triggering  the  mechanism  were  never 
fulfilled,  others  argued  that  it  is  difficult  to  reach  a  political  agreement  on  triggering  the 
mechanism  in  the  absence  of  clear  criteria  and  indicators  to  measure  the  pressure.  This 
procedure  was  also  considered  lengthy  and  complicated.  Alternative  support  measures  had 
also helped to relieve the pressure and may have obviated the need to trigger the mechanism. 
The  European  Asylum  and  Support  Office  was  used  as  an  example  of  support  that  made  it 
unnecessary  to  activate  the  mechanism,  helping  to  prevent  or  manage  crises  in  the  field  of 
international protection. 

3.3 Achieving the objectives of the Dublin III Regulation 

The main findings of the external study regarding the evaluation of the Dublin III Regulation 
were as set out below. 

  To prevent applicants from pursuing multiple applications, thereby reducing 

secondary movements 

Notwithstanding  the  aim  of  reducing  secondary  movements,  multiple  asylum  applications 
remain  a  common  problem  in  the  EU.  24%  of  the  applicants  in  2014  had  already  launched 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
previous  applications  in  other  Member  States,  which  suggests  that  the  Regulation  has  had 
little or no effect on this objective. It was further argued that it may have served inadvertently 
to  increase  the  incidence  of  other  types  of  secondary  movements,  since  the  national 
differences in the quality of reception and asylum systems continue to exist and continue to 
encourage secondary movements.  

  To ensure an equitable distribution of applicants for and beneficiaries of 

international protection between the Member States  

The Dublin III Regulation has limited impact on the distribution of applicants within the EU, 
given that net transfers in Dublin procedures are close to zero. When Member States receive 
and transfer similar numbers of applicants, their incoming and outgoing requests cancel each 
other  out,  indicating  that  there  is  no  or  very  little  redistributive  effect  from  the  Dublin  III 
Regulation. This appears to be due to: the hierarchy of criteria, which does not take Member 
States' capacity into account; the disproportionate responsibility placed on Member States at 
the  external  border,  by  mostly  applying  the  criteria  of  first  country  of  entry;  and  the  low 
number  of  actual  transfers,  which  suggests  that  applicants  are  able  to  submit  claims  where 
they  choose,  placing  a  greater  responsibility  on  more  desirable  destinations.  This  is  evident 
from the figures from 2014, where 70% of all first-time asylum applications were submitted 
in only five Member States.  

  The reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed in the 

implementation of the Dublin III Regulation  

The  direct  and  indirect  estimated  cost  of  Dublin-related  work  in  2014  in  Europe  was 
approximately EUR 1 billion. The absence of such a mechanism would generate even higher 
costs for the EU and EEA States, but the evaluation found that the Dublin III Regulation in 
general lacked efficiency. The legally envisaged time to transfer an applicant is long and the 
rate  of  actual  transfers  small:  both  of  these  have  a  significant  financial  implication  on  the 
indirect  costs;  and  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  system.  In  an  attempt  to  counteract 
absconding, the cost of detention in some Member States is very high. Absconding generates 
other indirect costs and reduces the efficiency of the system. Absence of transfers and returns 
of rejected applicants in practice generates high social costs linked to irregular migration. It is 
estimated  that  a  maximum  of  42%  of  the  Dublin  applicants  not  effectively  transferred  may 
still be staying as irregular migrants within the EU. 

There is a high likelihood that the current system will remain unsustainable in the context of 
the  continuing  migratory  pressure.  The  effective  suspension  of  Dublin  transfers  to  Greece 
from  2011  has  proved  a  particularly  critical  weakness  in  the  system  in  particular  given  the 
large number of migrants arriving in Greece in recent months. 

3.4 

Stakeholder consultations 

In addition to the external evaluation the Commission concluded targeted consultations with 
LIBE  coordinators  of  political  groups  of  the  European  Parliament's  Committee  on  Civil 
Liberties, Justice and Home affairs, with Member States and other stakeholders. 

The  coordinators  of  political  groups  of  the  European  Parliament's  Committee  on  Civil 
Liberties,  Justice  and  Home  affairs  were  consulted  on  basis  of  a  discussion  document  and 
preliminary results from the external evaluation of the Dublin Regulation. There was overall 
broad support for a fundamental reform of the Dublin system and a recognition that the status 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
quo  was  not  sustainable.  While  some  supported  having  objective  criteria  to  determine 
responsibility,  including  in  the  form  of  a  distribution  key,  others  noted  the  importance  of 
taking an applicant's preferences/characteristics into account, despite the difficulty in doing so 
in an objective, fair and workable way.  

The  Member  States  were  consulted  on  basis  of  the  same  documents.  There  was  agreement 
that  the  current  Regulation  is  too  complex and  over-regulated  and  thus  very  difficult  for 
administrations  to  apply.  Changes  added  under  the  2013  Dublin  III  reform  resulted  in 
increased  rights  for  applicants  which  could  be  misused  to  frustrate  the  entire  system. 
Secondary  movements  were  mentioned  as  the  most  pressing  implementation  problem.  The 
discussion  around  the  need  or  not  to  transform  Dublin  III  into  a    responsibility-sharing 
instrument, changing  its  current  purely  responsibility-allocation  nature, confirmed  that  there 
are two main views: some Member States called for a permanent system for burden sharing 
through  a  distribution  key,  while  others  were  in  favour  of  keeping  and  streamlining  the 
current system, including the irregular entry criterion. 

There  were  divergent  views  on  whether  the  preferences  of  applicants  should  be  taken  into 
account:  While  some  said  that  preferences  could  not  be  fully  ignored  as  this  would  almost 
inevitably result in secondary movements, others strongly advised against, as clear, objective 
criteria  were  needed  and  adding  preferences  would  result  in  complicated  case-by-case 
assessments.  Also,  Member  States  recalled  that  applicants  are  seeking  international 
protection/fleeing persecution and that, therefore, they should not be provided with excessive 
room for choosing the final country of asylum, since the rationale of Dublin is not that of an 
(economic) migration scheme. 

Other stakeholders such as UNHCR and non-governmental organisations working in the area 
of  asylum  were  also  consulted.  They  agreed  that  the  current  Dublin  III  regulation  has 
important  shortcomings  as  regards  its  underlying  rationale  –  the  irregular  entry  criterion  as 
default criterion in the first place – and that practice during the last months has shown that a 
fundamental  reform  is  necessary.  The  general  view  was  that  an  applicant's  preferences  or 
characteristics should be taken into account for the allocation of a Member State responsible 
in view of integration perspectives and to reduce secondary movements. To that same end, the 
family criterion should be expanded. Many underlined the need to make progress towards a 
level  playing  field  in  all  Member  States,  in  particular  as  regards  reception  conditions  and 
procedures.  

3.5 

Fundamental rights 

This  proposal  is  fully  compatible  with  fundamental  rights  and  general  principles  of 
Community as well as international law.  

In  particular,  better  informing  asylum-seekers about  the  application  of  this  Regulation  and 
their rights and obligations within it will on the one hand enable them to better defend their 
rights and on the other hand will contribute to diminish the level of secondary movements as 
asylum-seekers  will  be  better  inclined  to  comply  with  the  system.  The  effectiveness  of  the 
right to judicial remedy will be increased, by specifying the scope of the appeal and defined 
a  harmonised  time  limit  for  taking  decisions.  The  appeal  will  in  addition  have  automatic 
suspensive effect. 

The  right  to  liberty  and  freedom  of  movement  will  be  reinforced  by  shortening  the  time 
limits  under  which  a  person  may  be  detained  in  an  exceptional  case  prescribed  under  the 
Regulation and only if it is in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

The right to family reunification will be reinforced, in particular by enlarging the scope of 
the Regulation to include siblings as well as families formed in transit countries. 

The rights of unaccompanied minors have also been strengthened through better defining 
the principle of the best interests  of the child  and by setting out  a  mechanism  for making a 
best interests of the child-determination in all circumstances implying the transfer of a minor. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

The total financial resources necessary to support the implementation of this proposal amount 
to EUR 1828.6 million foreseen for the period 2017-2020. This would cover the transfer costs 
once  the  corrective  allocation  mechanism  has  been  triggered  for  the  benefit  of  a  Member 
State,  the  establishment  and  operation  of  the  IT  system  for  the  registration  and  automatic 
allocation  of  asylum  applicants,  but  also  support  for  developing  the  necessary  reception 
capacity, both as regards infrastructure and the running costs, in particular in those Member 
States which so far only had to deal with low numbers of asylum applicants.  

The financial needs are compatible with the current multiannual financial framework and may 
entail  the  use  of  special  instruments  as  defined  in  the  Council  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom) 
No 1311/2013.16 

5. 

DETAILED  EXPLANATION  OF  THE  SPECIFIC  PROVISIONS  OF  THE 
PROPOSAL 

The proposal retains the link between responsibility in the field of asylum and the respect by 
Member  States  of  their  obligations  in  terms  of  protection  of  the  external  border,  subject  to 
exceptions  designed  to  protect  family  unity  and  the  best  interests  of  the  child.  The  current 
criteria for the allocation of responsibility are essentially preserved, but targeted changes are 
proposed, notably to strengthen family unity under Dublin by extending the family definition. 

The main amendments made intend to on the one hand improve the efficiency of the system, 
notably  by  maintaining  a  stable  responsibility  of  a  given  Member  State  for  examining  an 
application, once that responsibility has been established. On the other hand, the amendments 
serve  to  limit  secondary  movements,  in  particular  by  deleting  the  rules  on  shift  of 
responsibility between Member States. 

The  system  is  supplemented  with  a  new  corrective  allocation  mechanism,  based  on  a 
reference key, allowing for adjustments in allocation of applicants in certain circumstances. It 
therefore means the system can deal with situations when Member States' asylum systems are 
faced  with  disproportionate  pressure,  by  ensuring  an  appropriate  system  of  responsibility 
sharing between Member States.  

I. Streamlining the Dublin Regulation and improving its efficiency 

With the aims of ensuring that the Dublin procedure operates smoothly and in a sustainable 
way, that it fulfils the aim of quick access to the examination procedure and to protection for 
those in need of it, and that secondary movements are discouraged, various modifications are 
proposed, in particular: 

16 

Council  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No 1311/2013  of  2 December  2013  laying  down  the  multiannual 
financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884). 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
  A new obligation is introduced that foresees that an applicant must apply in the 
Member  State  either  of  first  irregular  entry  or,  in  case  of  legal  stay,  in  that 
Member State. The aim is to ensure an orderly management of flows, to facilitate the 
determination of the Member State responsible, and to prevent secondary movements. 
With this amendment it is clarified that an applicant neither has the right to choose the 
Member  State  of  application  nor  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  the 
application.  In  case  of  non-compliance  with  this  new  obligation  by  an  applicant  the 
Member State must examine the application in an accelerated procedure. In addition, 
an  applicant  will  only  be  entitled  to  material  reception  rights  where  he  or  she  is 
required to be present. 

  Before  the  start  of  the  process  of  determining  the  Member  State  responsible,  the 
Regulation  introduces  an  obligation  for  the  Member  State  of  application  to  check 
whether  the  application  is  inadmissible,  on  the  grounds  that  the  applicant  comes 
from a first country of asylum or a safe third country. If this is the case, the applicant 
will be returned to that first country or safe third country, and the Member State who 
made the inadmissibility check will be considered responsible for that application. The 
Member State of application must also check whether the applicant comes from a safe 
country  of  origin  or  presents  a  security  risk,  in  which  case  the  Member  State  of 
application  will  be  responsible  and  has  to  examine  the  application  in  accelerated 
procedure. 

  The  Regulation  introduces  a  rule  that  once  a  Member  State  has  examined  the 
application  as  Member  State  responsible,  it  remains  responsible  also  for  examining 
future  representations  and  applications  of  the  given  applicant.  This  strengthens  the 
new rule that only one Member State is and shall remain responsible for examining an 
application and that the criteria of responsibility shall be applied only once.  

  The requirement of the cooperation of applicants is enhanced with a view to assuring 
quick access to status determination procedures, correct functioning of the system and 
preventing  the  circumvention  of  the  rules,  notably  absconding.  The  Regulation  sets 
out proportionate obligations of the applicant concerning the timely provision of all 
the elements and information relevant for determining the Member State responsible 
and also concerning cooperation with the competent authorities of the Member States. 
It is also explicitly stated that applicants have an obligation to be present and available 
for the authorities of a relevant Member State and respect the transfer decision. Non-
fulfilment  of  legal  obligations  set  out  in  the  Regulation  will  have  proportionate 
procedural  consequences  for  the  applicant,  such  as  preclusion  of  accepting 
information that was unjustifiably submitted too late.  

  The  Regulation  enlarges  the  scope  of  the  information  which  must  be  provided  to 
applicants. The personal interview serves to facilitate the process of determining the 
Member  State  responsible  by  helping  in  gathering  all  the  necessary  information. 
However,  it  should  not  result  in  delaying  the  procedure  when  the  applicant  has 
absconded or when sufficient information has already been provided.  

  The  rule  on  hierarchy  of  criteria  for  determining  responsibility  states  explicitly 
that  the  criteria  shall  be  applied  only  once.  This  means  that,  as  of  the  second 
application, the readmission rules (take back) will apply without exceptions. The rule 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
that  criteria  shall  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  situation  obtaining  when  the 
applicant  first  lodged  his  or  her  application with a  Member State, now applies to all 
criteria,  including  those  regarding  family  members  and  minors.  A  clear  cut-off 
deadline  for  providing  relevant  information  will  enable  a  quick  assessment  and 
decision. 

  The  definition  of  family  members  is  extended  in  two  ways:  by  (1)  including  the 
sibling  or  siblings  of  an  applicant  and  by  (2)  including  family  relations  which  were 
formed  after  leaving  the  country  of  origin  but  before  arrival  on  the  territory  of  the 
Member  State.  Siblings  are  a  rather  targeted  but  important  category  where  the 
possibility  to  prove  and  check  the  family  relation  is  relatively  easy  and  thus  the 
potential  for  abuse  is  low.  The  extension  to  cover  families  formed  during  transit 
reflects  recent  migratory  phenomena  such  as  longer  stays  outside  the  origin  country 
before  reaching  the  EU,  such  as  in  refugee  camps.  These  targeted  extensions  of  the 
family definition are expected to reduce the risk of irregular movements or absconding 
for persons covered by the extended rules.  

  A number of modifications are proposed to streamline the responsibility criteria set 
out  in  Articles  14,  15,  and  16.  In  Article  14  the  criteria  of  responsibility  regarding 
visas and residence documents have been clarified. In Article 15 on irregular entry, the 
clause  envisaging  cessation  of  responsibility  after  12  months  from  irregular  entry  as 
well  as  the  complicated  and  difficult  to  prove  clause  in  relation  to  illegal  stay  were 
deleted.  In  relation  to  the  criterion  of  visa  waived  entry,  the  exception  concerning 
subsequent entries to a Member States for which the need for an entry visa is waived 
is also deleted, in line with the approach that the Member State of first entry should, as 
a  rule,  be  responsible  and  in  view  of  preventing  unjustified  secondary  movements 
after entry. The discretionary clause is made narrower, to ensure that it is only used on 
humanitarian grounds in relation to wider family. 

  The amended Regulation establishes shorter time limits for the different steps of the 
Dublin  procedure,  in  order  to  speed  up  the  determination  procedure  and  to  grant 
swifter access of an applicant to the asylum procedure. This concerns time limits for 
submitting and replying to a take charge request, making a take back notification, and 
taking  a  transfer  decision.  As  a  result  of  shortening  the  time  limits,  the  urgency 
procedure was removed.  

  Expiry  of  deadlines  will  no  longer  result  in  a  shift  of  responsibility  between 
Member  States  (with  the  exception  of  the  deadline  for  replying  to  take  charge 
requests).  Such  shifts  appear  to  have  encouraged  circumventing  the  rules  and 
obstructing the procedure. The new rule should instead be that once a Member State 
was determined responsible, that Member State shall remain responsible. 

  Take back requests have been transformed into simple take back notifications, given 
that it is clear which the responsible Member State is and there will be no longer be 
any  scope  for  shift  of  responsibility.  Such  notifications  do  not  require  a  reply,  but 
instead an immediate confirmation of receipt. This will be a significant tool to address 
secondary  movements,  considering  the  current  prevalence  of  take  back  rather  than 
take charge requests. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Related  to  this  are  procedural  consequences  for  the  examination  of  the  application 
after a take back transfer. The rules have been modified as concerns how the Member 
States responsible should examine the application after taking the person back, with a 
view to dissuading and sanctioning secondary movements 

  An  obligation  for  the  Member  State  responsible  has  been  added  to  take  back  a 
beneficiary  of  international  protection,  who  made  an  application  or  is  irregularly 
present  in  another  Member  State.  This  obligation  will  give  Member  States  the 
necessary  legal  tool  to  enforce  transfers  back,  which  is  important  to  limit  secondary 
movements. 

  The  rules  on  remedies  have  been  adapted  in  order  to  considerably  speed  up  and 
harmonise  the  appeal  process.  In  addition  to  establishing  specific,  short  time  limits, 
making  use  of  a  remedy  automatically  suspends  the  transfer.  A  new  remedy  is 
introduced for cases where no transfer decision is taken, and the applicant claims that 
a family member or, in the case of minors, also a relative, is legally present in another 
Member State.  

  The conciliation procedure as a dispute resolution mechanism has not been formally 
used since it was foreseen in the 1990 Dublin Convention (albeit in a slightly different 
form), and seems therefore unnecessary and should be abolished. 

  The  objectives  of  the  existing  early  warning  and  preparedness  mechanism  are 
proposed to be taken over by the new European Union Agency for Asylum, as set out 
notably in Chapter 5 on monitoring and assessment and Chapter 6 on operational and 
technical  assistance  in  the  proposal  on  a  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum.  That 
mechanism has therefore been deleted from the Dublin Regulation. 

  A network of Dublin units is set up and facilitated by the European Union Agency 
for  Asylum  to  enhance  practical  cooperation  and  information  sharing  on  all  matters 
related  to  the  application  of  this  Regulation,  including  the  development  of  practical 
tools and guidance. 

 

 In  relation  to  unaccompanied  minors,  the  proposal  clarifies  that  the Member  State 
where the minor first lodged his or her application for international protection will be 
responsible, unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor. 
This rule will allow a quick determination of the Member State responsible and thus 
allow  swift  access  to  the  procedure  for  this  vulnerable  group  of  applicants,  also  in 
view of the shortened time limits proposed.  

  The provision on guarantees for unaccompanied minors is adapted to make the best 
interests  assessment  more  operational.  Thus,  before  transferring  an  unaccompanied 
minor  to  another  Member  State,  the  transferring  Member  State  shall  make  sure  that 
that Member State will take the necessary measures under the asylum procedures and 
reception conditions Directives without delay. It is also stipulated that any decision to 
transfer an unaccompanied minor must be preceded by an assessment of his/her best 
interests, to be done swiftly by qualified staff. 

II. Corrective allocation mechanism 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The recast Regulation establishes a corrective mechanism in order to ensure a fair sharing of 
responsibility  between  Member  States  and  a  swift  access  of  applicants  to  procedures  for 
granting  international  protection,  in  situations  when  a  Member  State  is  confronted  with  a 
disproportionate  number  of  applications  for  international  protection  for  which  it  is  the 
Member  State  responsible  under  the  Regulation.  It  should  mitigate  any  significant 
disproportionality in the share of asylum applications between Member States resulting from 
the application of the responsibility criteria. 

  Registration and monitoring system 

An  automated  system  is  established  that  will  allow  for  the  registration  of  all 
applications and the monitoring of each Member States' share in all applications. The 
Union's Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area 
of  freedom,  security  and  justice  (eu-LISA)  will  be  responsible  for  the  development 
and  technical  operation  of  the  system.  As  soon  as  an  application  is  lodged,  the 
Member  State  shall  register  that  application  in  the  automated  system,  which  will 
record  each  application  under  a  unique  application  number.  As  soon  as  a  Member 
State  has  been  determined  to  be  the  Member  State  responsible,  this  will  also  be 
included in the system. The automated system will also indicate, in real time, the total 
number of applications lodged in the EU and the number per Member State, as well as 
– after a Member State responsible has been determined – the number of applications 
that  each  Member  State  must  examine  as  Member  State  responsible  and  the  share 
which this represents, compared to other Member States. The system will also indicate 
the numbers of persons effectively resettled by each Member State. 

  Triggering the corrective allocation mechanism 

The  number  of  applications  for  which  a  given  Member  State  is  responsible  and  the 
numbers  of  persons  effectively  resettled  by  a  Member  State  are  the  basis  for  the 
calculation  of  the  respective  shares.  This  includes  applications  for  which  a  Member 
State would be responsible under the inadmissibility check, safe country of origin and 
security  grounds.  Calculations  take  place  on  a  rolling  one  year  basis,  i.e.  at  any 
moment, based on the number of new applications for which a Member State has been 
designated as responsible in the system over the past year and the number of persons 
the  percentage  of 
effectively  resettled.  The  system  continuously  calculates 
applications  for  which  each  Member  State  has  been  designated  as  responsible  and 
compares with the reference percentage based on a key. This reference key is based on 
two criteria with equal 50% weighting, the size of the population and the total GDP of 
a Member State. 
The  application  of  the  corrective  allocation  for  the  benefit  of  a  Member  State  is 
triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection 
for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the 
reference key. 

  Allocation of applications through a reference key and cessation 

As  of  the  triggering  of  the  mechanism,  all  new  applications  lodged  in  the  Member 
State  experiencing  the  disproportionate  pressure,  after  the  admissibility  check  but 
before  the  Dublin  check,  are  allocated  to  those  Member  States  with  a  number  of 
applications  for  which  they  are  the  Member  State  responsible  which  is  below  the 
number  identified  in  the  reference  key;  the  allocations  are  shared  proportionately 
between those Member States, based on the reference key. No further such allocations 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
will  be  made  to  a  Member  State  once  the  number  of  applications  for  which  it  is 
responsible exceeds the number identified in the reference key. 
The  allocation  continues  as 
long  as 
disproportionate pressure continues to be above 150% of its reference number. 
Family  members  to  whom  the  allocation  procedure  applies  will  be  allocated  to  the 
same  Member  State.  The  corrective  allocation  mechanism  should  not  lead  to  the 
separation of family members. 

the  Member  State  experiencing 

the 

  Financial solidarity 

A Member State of allocation may decide to temporarily not take part in the corrective 
mechanism  fora  twelve  months-period.  The  Member  State  would  enter  this 
information  in  the  automated  system  and  notify  the  other  Member  States,  the 
Commission  and  the  European  Agency  for  Asylum.  Thereafter  the  applicants  that 
would  have  been  allocated  to  that  Member  State  are  allocated  to  the  other  Member 
States  instead.  The  Member  State    which  temporarily  does  not  take  part  in  the 
corrective  allocation  must  make  a  solidarity  contribution  of  EUR  250,000  per 
applicant  to  the  Member  States  that  were  determined  as  responsible  for  examining 
those applications. The Commission should adopt an implementing act, specifying the 
practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism.  
The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission 
on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism. 

  Procedure in the transferring Member State and the Member State of allocation  
The  Member  State  which  benefits  form  the  corrective  mechanism  shall  transfer  the 
applicant  to  the  Member  State  of  allocation  and  shall  also  transmit  the  applicant's 
fingerprints in order to allow security verification in the Member State of allocation. 
This  aims  to  prevent  any  impediments  to  allocation  as  experienced  during  the 
implementation of the relocation decisions. Following the transfer, the Member State 
of  allocation  will  do  the  Dublin  check  to  verify  whether  there  are  primary  criteria, 
such as family in another Member State, apply in the case of the applicant. Where this 
should be the case, the applicant will be transferred to the Member State which would 
consequently be responsible. 

  Review clause 

It  is  foreseen  that  the  Commission  will  review  the  functioning  of  the  corrective 
allocation  mechanism  18  months  after  entry  into  force  of  this  Regulation  and  from 
then  on  annually,  in  order  to  assess  whether  the  corrective  allocation  mechanism  is 
meeting  its  objective  of  ensuring  a  fair  sharing  of  responsibility  between  Member 
States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States. 

The  Commission  will  in  particular  verify  that  the  threshold  for  the  triggering  and 
cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensure a fair sharing of responsibility 
between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting 
international  protection  in  situations  when  a  Member  State  is  confronted  with  a 
disproportionate  number  of  applications  for  international  protection  for  which  it  is 
responsible under this Regulation. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 604/2013 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

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 (recast) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 78(2)(e) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

17 
18  

 604/2013 recital 1 (adapted) 

A  number  of  substantive  changes  are  to  be  made  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
343/2003  of  18  February  2003  establishing  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for 
determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  asylum  application 
lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national17  Regulation (EU) 
No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council18  . In the interests of 
clarity, that Regulation should be recast. 

 604/2013 recital 2 

A  common  policy  on  asylum,  including  a  Common  European  Asylum  System 
(CEAS),  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  European  Union’s  objective  of  progressively 
establishing  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  open  to  those  who,  forced  by 
circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Union. 

OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1. 
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). 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 604/2013 recital 3 

(3) 

The European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, 
agreed  to  work  towards  establishing  the  CEAS,  based  on  the  full  and  inclusive 
application  of  the  Geneva  Convention  Relating  to  the  Status  of  Refugees  of  28  July 
1951,  as  supplemented  by  the  New  York  Protocol  of  31  January  1967  (‘the  Geneva 
Convention’), thus  ensuring that nobody is  sent back  to  persecution, i.e. maintaining 
the principle of non-refoulement. In this respect, and without the responsibility criteria 
laid  down  in  this  Regulation  being  affected,  Member  States,  all  respecting  the 
principle  of  non-refoulement,  are  considered  as  safe  countries  for  third-country 
nationals. 

(4) 

The Tampere conclusions also stated that the CEAS should include, in the short-term, 
a  clear  and  workable  method  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for  the 
examination of an asylum application. 

 604/2013 recital 4 

(5) 

(6) 

 604/2013 recital 5 

Such a method should be based on objective, fair criteria both for the Member States 
and for the persons concerned. It should, in particular, make it possible to determine 
rapidly  the  Member  State  responsible,  so  as  to  guarantee  effective  access  to  the 
procedures for granting  international protection and  not  to  compromise the objective 
of the rapid processing of applications for international protection. 

 604/2013 recital 6 

The  first  phase  in  the  creation  of  a  CEAS  that  should  lead,  in  the  longer  term,  to  a 
common procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted 
international  protection,  has  now  been  completed.  The  European  Council  of  4 
November  2004  adopted  The  Hague  Programme  which  set  the  objectives  to  be 
implemented in the area of freedom, security and justice in the period 2005-2010. In 
this respect, The Hague Programme invited the European Commission to conclude the 
evaluation  of  the  first-phase  legal  instruments  and  to  submit  the  second-phase 
instruments and measures to the European Parliament and to the Council with a view 
to their adoption before 2010. 

 604/2013 recital 7 
 new 

(7) 

In the Stockholm Programme, the European Council reiterated its commitment to the 
objective  of  establishing  a  common  area  of  protection  and  solidarity  in  accordance 
with Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), for 
those granted international protection, by 2012 at the latest. Furthermore it emphasised 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
that  the  Dublin  system  remains  a  cornerstone  in  building  the  CEAS,  as  it  clearly 
allocates responsibility among Member States for the examination of applications for 
international  protection. In  May  2015 
its 
Communication    on  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration  that  the  Dublin  Regulation 
would be evaluated and, if necessary, that a proposal for its revision would be made, in 
particular to achieve a fairer distribution of asylum seekers in Europe. 

the  Commission 

indicated 

in 

 604/2013 recital 8 

(8) 

The  resources  of  the  European  Asylum  Support  Office  (EASO),  established  by 
Regulation  (EU)  No  439/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council19, 
should be available to provide adequate support to the relevant services of the Member 
States  responsible  for  implementing  this  Regulation.  In  particular,  EASO  should 
provide  solidarity  measures,  such  as  the  Asylum  Intervention  Pool  with  asylum 
support teams, to assist those Member States which are faced with particular pressure 
and  where  applicants  for  international  protection  (‘applicants’)  cannot  benefit  from 
adequate standards, in particular as regards reception and protection. 

 new 

(9) 

The  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum  should  provide  adequate  support  in  the 
implementation of this Regulation, in particular by establishing the reference key for 
the distribution of asylum seekers under the corrective allocation mechanism, and by 
adapting  the  figures  underlying  the  reference  key  annually,  as  well  as  the  reference 
key based on Eurostat data. 

 604/2013 recital 9 (adapted) 
 new 

(10) 

In  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  evaluation  undertaken  of  the  implementation  of 
 Regulation (EU) 604/2013  the first-phase instruments, it is appropriate, at this 
stage,  to  confirm  the  principles  underlying  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003  (EU)  No 
604/2013, while making the necessary improvements, in the light of experience, to the 
effectiveness of the Dublin system and the protection granted to applicants under that 
system.  Given  that  a  well-functioning  Dublin  system  is  essential  for  the  CEAS,  its 
principles and functioning should be reviewed as other components of the CEAS and 
Union  solidarity  tools  are  built  up.  A  comprehensive  ‘fitness  check’  should  be 
foreseen  by  conducting  an  evidence-based  review  covering  the  legal,  economic  and 
social  effects  of  the  Dublin  system,  including  its  effects  on  fundamental  rights. 
Based  on  this  evaluation  and  on  consultation  with  Member  States,  the  European 
Parliament and other stakeholders, it is also considered appropriate to establish in the 
Regulation measures required for a fair share of responsibility between Member States 
for  applications  for 
that  a 
disproportionate burden is not placed upon some Member States.  

international  protection, 

in  particular 

to  ensure 

19 

OJ L 132, 29.5.2010, p. 11. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 604/2013 recital 10 

(11) 

In order to ensure equal treatment for all applicants and beneficiaries of international 
protection,  and  consistency  with  the  current  Union  asylum  acquis,  in  particular  with 
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 
granted20,  the  scope  of  this  Regulation  encompasses  applicants  for  subsidiary 
protection and persons eligible for subsidiary protection. 

 new 

(12) 

In  order  to  ensure  that  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  who  entered  the 
territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible without fulfilling 
the conditions of stay in that other Member State are taken back by the Member State 
responsible,  it  is  necessary  to  encompass  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  in 
the scope of this Regulation. 

 604/2013 recital 11 

(13)  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  protection21 
should apply to the procedure for the determination of the Member State responsible 
as regulated under this Regulation, subject to the limitations in the application of that 
Directive. 

 604/2013 recital 12 

(14)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 
on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection22 should 
apply  in  addition  and  without  prejudice  to  the  provisions  concerning  the  procedural 
safeguards regulated under this Regulation, subject to the limitations in the application 
of that Directive. 

20 

21 

22 

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). 
See  page  96  of  this  Official  Journal.  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). 
See  page  60  of  this  Official  Journal.  Directive  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. 60). 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 604/2013 recital 13 

(15) 

In  accordance  with  the  1989  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child 
and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the best interests 
of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this 
Regulation.  In  assessing  the  best  interests  of  the  child,  Member  States  should,  in 
particular, take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development, safety 
and security considerations and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her 
age  and  maturity,  including  his  or  her  background.  In  addition,  specific  procedural 
guarantees  for  unaccompanied  minors  should  be  laid  down  on  account  of  their 
particular vulnerability. 

(16) 

In accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union,  respect  for  family  life  should  be  a  primary  consideration  of  Member  States 
when applying this Regulation. 

 604/2013 recital 14 

 new 

(17) 

In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be 
in  need  of  international  protection,  or  who  represent  a  security  risk  are  transferred 
among  the  Member  States,  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  Member  where  an 
application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first 
country  of  asylum  and  safe  third  country,  examines  in  accelerated  procedures 
applications  made  by  applicants  coming  from  a  safe  country  of  origin  designated on 
the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns. 

(18)  The processing together of the applications for international protection of the members 
of  one  family  by  a  single  Member  State  makes  it  possible  to  ensure  that  the 
applications  are  examined  thoroughly,  the  decisions  taken  in  respect  of  them  are 
consistent and the members of one family are not separated. 

 604/2013 recital 15 

 new 

(19)  The  definition  of  a  family  member  in  this  Regulation  should  include  the  sibling  or 
siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving 
the  chances  of  integration  of  applicants  and  hence  reducing  secondary  movements. 
The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current 
migratory  trends,  according  to  which  applicants  often  arrive  to  the  territory  of  the 
Member  States  after  a  prolonged  period  of  time  in  transit.  The  definition  should 
therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
on  the  territory  of  the  Member  State.  This  limited  and  targeted  enlargement  of  the 
scope  of  the  definition  is  expected  to  reduce  the  incentive  for  some  secondary 
movements of asylum seekers within the EU. 

 604/2013 recital 16 
 new 

(20) 

In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests 
of  the  child,  the  existence  of  a  relationship  of  dependency  between  an  applicant  and 
his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, 
state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the 
applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on 
the  territory  of  another  Member  State  who  can  take  care  of  him  or  her  should  also 
become  a  binding  responsibility  criterion.  In  order  to  discourage  secondary 
movements  of  unaccompanied  minors,  which  are  not  in  their  best  interests,  in  the 
absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that 
where  the  unaccompanied  minor  first  has  lodged  his  or  her  application  for 
international  protection,  unless  it  is  demonstrated  that  this  would  not  be  in  the  best 
interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member 
State,  the  transferring  Member  State  should  make  sure  that  that  Member  State  will 
take  all  necessary  and  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  the  adequate  protection  of  the 
child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives 
tasked  with  safeguarding  respect  for  all  the  rights  to  which  they  are  entitled.  Any 
decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of 
his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise. 

 604/2013 recital 17 (adapted) 
 new 

(21)   Assuming  responsibility  by  a  Member  State  for  examining  an  application  lodged 
with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid 
down  in  this  Regulation  may  undermine  the  effectiveness  and  sustainability  of  the 
system  and  should  be  exceptional.   Any  Therefore,  a   Member  State  should 
be  able  to  derogate  from  the  responsibility  criteria,  in  particular   only   on 
humanitarian and compassionate grounds,  in particular for family reasons, before a 
Member  State  responsible  has  been  determined   in  order  to  bring  together  family 
members,  relatives  or  any  other  family  relations  and  examine  an  application  for 
international  protection  lodged  with  it  or  with  another  Member  State,  even  if  such 
examination  is  not  its  responsibility  under  the  binding  criteria  laid  down  in  this 
Regulation. 

(22) 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  aims  of  this  Regulation  are  achieved  and  obstacles  to  its 
application  are  prevented,  in  particular  in  order  to  avoid  absconding  and  secondary 
movements between Member States, it is necessary to establish clear obligations to be 
complied  with  by  the  applicant  in  the  context  of  the  procedure,  of  which  he  or  she 

 new 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
should  be  duly  informed  in  a  timely  manner.  Violation  of  those  legal  obligations 
should lead to appropriate and proportionate procedural consequences for the applicant 
and  to  appropriate  and  proportionate  consequences  in  terms  of  his  or  her  reception 
conditions. In line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the 
Member  State  where  such  an  applicant  is  present  should  in  any  case  ensure  that  the 
immediate material needs of that person are covered. 

 604/2013 recital 18 (adapted) 
 new 

the  applicant 

is  sufficient  for  determining 

(23)  A personal interview with the applicant should be organised in order to facilitate the 
determination  of  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  application  for 
international  protection   unless  the  applicant  has  absconded  or  the  information 
provided  by 
the  Member  State 
responsible .  As  soon  as  the  application  for  international  protection  is  lodged,  the 
applicant should be informed  in particular  of the application of this Regulation, 
 of  the  lack  of  choice  as  to  which  Member  State  will  examine  his  or  her  asylum 
application; of his or her obligations under this Regulation and of the consequences of 
not complying with them  and of the possibility, during the interview, of providing 
information  regarding  the  presence of  family  members,  relatives  or  any other  family 
relations in the Member States, in order to facilitate the procedure for determining the 
Member State responsible. 

 604/2013 recital 19 
 new 

(24) 

In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal 
safeguards  and  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  in  respect  of  decisions  regarding 
transfers  to  the  Member  State  responsible  should  be  established,  in  accordance,  in 
particular,  with  Article  47  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union.  An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer 
decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on 
the  basis  that  he  has  a  family  member  or,  for  unaccompanied  minors,  a  relative  in 
another  Member  State.   In  order  to  ensure  that  international  law  is  respected,  an 
effective  remedy  against  such  decisions  should  cover  both  the  examination  of  the 
application  of  this  Regulation  and  of  the  legal  and  factual  situation  in  the  Member 
State to which the applicant is transferred.  The scope of the effective remedy should 
be  limited  to  an  assessment  of  whether  applicants'  fundamental  rights  to  respect  of 
family  life,  the  rights  of  the  child,  or  the  prohibition  of  inhuman  and  degrading 
treatment risk to be infringed upon.   

(25)  The  Member  State  which  is  determined  as  responsible  under  this  Regulation  should 
remain  responsible  for  examination  of  each  and  every  application  of  that  applicant, 
including  any  subsequent  application,  in  accordance  with  Article  40,  41  and  42  of 
Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether  the applicant has left or was removed 

 new 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
from  the  territories  of  the  Member  States.  Provisions  in  Regulation  (EU)  604/2013 
which  had  provided  for  the  cessation  of  responsibility  in  certain  circumstances, 
including  when  deadlines  for  the  carrying  out  of  transfers  had  elapsed  for  a  certain 
period  of  time,  had  created  an  incentive  for  absconding,  and  should  therefore  be 
removed. 

(26) 

In  order  to  ensure  the  speedy  determination  of  responsibility  and  allocation  of 
applicants  for  international  protection  between  Member  States,  the  deadlines  for 
making  and  replying  to  requests  to  take  charge,  for  making  take  back  notifications, 
and for carrying out transfers, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should 
be streamlined and shortened to the greatest extent possible. 

 604/2013 recital 20 

(27)  The  detention  of  applicants  should  be  applied  in  accordance  with  the  underlying 
principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he or she 
is  seeking  international  protection.  Detention  should  be  for  as  short  a  period  as 
possible and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. In particular, the 
detention  of  applicants  must  be  in  accordance  with  Article  31  of  the  Geneva 
Convention.  The  procedures  provided  for  under  this  Regulation  in  respect  of  a 
detained person should be applied as a matter of priority, within the shortest possible 
deadlines. As regards the general guarantees governing detention, as well as detention 
conditions, where appropriate, Member States should apply the provisions of Directive 
2013/33/EU also to persons detained on the basis of this Regulation. 

 604/2013 recital 21 

(28)  Deficiencies in, or the collapse of, asylum systems, often aggravated or contributed to 
by particular pressures on them, can jeopardise the smooth functioning of the system 
put  in  place  under  this  Regulation,  which  could  lead  to  a  risk  of  a  violation  of  the 
rights  of  applicants  as  set  out  in  the  Union  asylum  acquis  and  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union,  other  international  human  rights  and 
refugee rights. 

 new 

(29)  Proper  registration  of  all  asylum  applications  in  the  EU  under  a  unique  application 
number  should  help  detect  multiple  applications  and  prevent  irregular  secondary 
movements and asylum shopping. An automated system should be established for the 
purpose of facilitating the application of this Regulation. It should enable registration 
of  asylum  applications  lodged  in  the  EU,  effective  monitoring  of  the  share  of 
applications  of  each  Member  State  and  a  correct  application  of  the  corrective 
allocation mechanism. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
(30)  The European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the 
area of freedom, security and justice established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/201123 
should  be  responsible  for  the  preparation,  development  and  the  operational 
management of the central system and the communication infrastructure between the 
central system and the national infrastructures. 

 604/2013 recital 22 (adapted) 
 new 

(31)  A process for early warning, preparedness and management of asylum crises serving 
to prevent a deterioration in, or the collapse of, asylum systems, with EASO playing a 
key role using its powers under Regulation (EU) No 439/2010, should be established 
in order to ensure robust cooperation within the framework of this Regulation and to 
develop  mutual  trust  among  Member  States  with  respect  to  asylum  policy.  Such  a 
process  should  ensure  that  the  Union  is  alerted  as  soon  as  possible  when  there  is  a 
concern that the smooth functioning of the system set up by this Regulation is being 
jeopardised  as  a  result  of  particular  pressure  on,  and/or  deficiencies  in,  the  asylum 
systems  of  one  or  more  Member  States.  Such  a  process  would  allow  the  Union  to 
promote  preventive  measures  at  an  early  stage  and  pay  the  appropriate  political 
attention to such situations. Solidarity, which is a pivotal element in the CEAS, goes 
hand in hand with mutual trust. By enhancing such trust, the process for early warning, 
preparedness and management of asylum crises could improve the steering of concrete 
measures of genuine and practical solidarity towards Member States, in order to assist 
the affected Member States in general and the applicants in particular. In accordance 
with Article 80 TFEU of the Treaty, Union acts should, whenever necessary, contain 
appropriate  measures  to  give  effect  to  the  principle  of  solidarity.,   A  corrective 
allocation  mechanism  should  be  established  in  order  to  ensure  a  fair  sharing  of 
responsibility between Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures 
for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted 
with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it 
is  responsible  under  this  Regulation.  and  the  process  should  be  accompanied  by 
such measures. The conclusions on a Common Framework for genuine and practical 
solidarity towards Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems, 
including  through  mixed migration flows, adopted by the Council on 8 March 2012, 
provide for a ‘tool box’ of existing and potential new measures, which should be taken 
into account in the context of a mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis 
management. 

 new 

(32)  A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States 
should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation 
mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function 
as  a  means  of  assisting  Member  States  under  disproportionate  pressure.  The 
application  of  the  corrective  allocation  for  the  benefit  of  a  Member  State  should  be 

23 Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the council of 25 October 2011 establishing 
a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, 
security and justice (OJ L 286, 1.11.2011, p. 1). 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
triggered automatically where  the number of applications for international protection 
for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% of the figure identified in the 
reference key. In  order to comprehensively reflect the  efforts of each Member State, 
the number  of persons  effectively  resettled  to  that Member State  should be  added  to 
the  number  of  applications  for  international  protection  for  the  purposes  of  this 
calculation. 

(33)  When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications 
in  the  benefitting  Member  State  should  be  allocated  to  Member  States  which  are 
below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those 
Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant 
may  for  serious  reasons  be  considered  a  danger  to  national  security  or  public  order, 
especially  rules  as  regards  the  exchange  of  information  between  competent  asylum 
authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should 
determine  the  Member  State  responsible,  and  should  become  responsible  for 
examining  the  application,  unless  the  overriding  responsible  criteria,  related  in 
particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State 
should be responsible. 

(34)  Under the allocation mechanism, the costs of transfer of an applicant to the Member 

State of allocation should be reimbursed from the EU budget. 

(35)  A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during 
a  twelve  months-period,  in  which  case  it  should  enter  this  information  in  the 
automated  system  and  notify  the  other  Member  States,  the  Commission  and  the 
European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been 
allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. 
The  Member  State  which  temporarily  does  not  take  part  in  the  corrective  allocation 
should  make  a  solidarity  contribution  of  EUR  250,000  per  applicant  not  accepted  to 
the  Member  State  that  was  determined  as  responsible  for  examining  those 
applications.  The  Commission  should  lay  down  the  practical  modalities  for  the 
implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The 
European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a 
yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism. 

 604/2013 recital 23 (adapted) 

Member  States  should  collaborate  with  EASO  in  the  gathering  of  information 
concerning  their  ability  to  manage  particular  pressure  on  their  asylum  and  reception 
systems,  in  particular  within  the  framework  of  the  application  of  this  Regulation. 
EASO  should  regularly  report  on  the  information  gathered  in  accordance  with 
Regulation (EU) No 439/2010. 

(36) 

In  accordance  with  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1560/200324,  transfers  to  the 
Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  application  for  international  protection 
may  be  carried  out  on  a  voluntary  basis,  by  supervised  departure  or  under  escort. 

 604/2013 recital 24 

24 

OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p. 3. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Member States should promote voluntary transfers by providing adequate information 
to the applicant and should ensure that supervised or escorted transfers are undertaken 
in  a  humane  manner,  in  full  compliance  with  fundamental  rights  and  respect  for 
human dignity, as well as the best interests of the child and taking utmost account of 
developments  in  the  relevant  case  law,  in  particular  as  regards  transfers  on 
humanitarian grounds. 

 604/2013 recital 25 

(37)  The progressive creation of an area without internal frontiers in which free movement 
of persons is guaranteed in accordance with the TFEU and the establishment of Union 
policies regarding the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals, including 
common  efforts  towards  the  management  of  external  borders,  makes  it  necessary  to 
strike a balance between responsibility criteria in a spirit of solidarity. 

 new 

(38)  The [General Data Protection Regulation (EU) .../2016] applies to the processing of 
personal data by the Member States under this Regulation from the date set out in that 
Regulation;  until  this  date  Directive  95/46/EC  applies.  Member  States  should 
implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and be able to 
demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with that Regulation and the 
provisions specifying its requirements in this Regulation. In particular those measures 
should  ensure  the  security  of  personal  data  processed  under  this  Regulation  and  in 
particular to prevent unlawful or unauthorised access or disclosure, alteration or loss 
of personal data processed. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each 
Member State should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the 
authorities concerned, including of the transmission to and from the automated system 
and to the authorities competent for carrying out security checks. 

(39)  The processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Asylum should be 
subject  to  the  monitoring  of  the  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  in  accordance 
with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in 
[Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing 
Regulation (EU) No 439/2010]. 

 604/2013 recital 26 (adapted) 

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on 
the  free  movement  of  such  data25  applies  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the 
Member States under this Regulation. 

25 

OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 604/2013 recital 27 (adapted) 

The  exchange  of  an  applicant’s  personal  data,  including  sensitive  data  on  his  or  her 
health,  prior  to  a  transfer,  will  ensure  that  the  competent  asylum  authorities  are  in  a 
position to provide applicants with adequate assistance and to ensure continuity in the 
protection  and  rights  afforded  to  them.  Special  provisions  should  be  made  to  ensure 
the  protection  of  data  relating  to  applicants  involved  in  that  situation,  in  accordance 
with Directive 95/46/EC. 

 604/2013 recital 28 

(40)  The  application  of  this  Regulation  can  be  facilitated,  and  its  effectiveness  increased, 
by  bilateral  arrangements  between  Member  States  for  improving  communication 
between  competent  departments,  reducing  time  limits  for  procedures  or  simplifying 
the processing of requests to take charge or take back, or establishing procedures for 
the performance of transfers. 

 604/2013 recital 29 (adapted) 

(41)  Continuity  between  the  system  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible 
established  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003  (EU)  No  604/2013  and  the  system 
established  by  this  Regulation  should  be  ensured.  Similarly,  consistency  should  be 
ensured between this Regulation and Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting 
Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 26 
June 2013 on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the 
effective  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  604/2013  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  and  on  requests  for  the  comparisons  with 
Eurodac  data  by  Member  States’  law  enforcement  authorities  and  Europol  for  law 
enforcement purposes26. 

 new 

(42)  A network of competent Member State authorities should be set up and facilitated by 
the  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum  to  enhance  practical  cooperation  and 
information  sharing  on  all  matters  related  to  the  application  of  this  Regulation, 
including the development of practical tools and guidance. 

26 

See page 1 of this Official Journal. Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the 
effective  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 604/2013  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 and on requests for 
the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law 
enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency 
for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice 
(OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 1). 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(43)  The  operation  of  the  Eurodac  system,  as  established  by  Regulation  [Proposal  for  a 
Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council], should facilitate the application of this Regulation. 

 604/2013 recital 30 (adapted) 

 604/2013 recital 31 

(44)  The operation of the Visa Information System, as established by Regulation (EC) No 
767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the 
Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on 
short-stay visas27, and in particular the implementation of Articles 21 and 22 thereof, 
should facilitate the application of this Regulation. 

(45)  With  respect  to  the  treatment  of  persons  falling  within  the  scope  of  this  Regulation, 
Member States are bound by their obligations under instruments of international law, 
including the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. 

 604/2013 recital 32 

 604/2013 recital 33 

(46) 

In  order  to  ensure  uniform  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation, 
implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should 
be  exercised  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general 
principles  concerning  mechanisms  for  control  by  the  Member  States  of  the 
Commission’s exercise of implementing powers28. 

 604/2013 recital 34 (adapted) 
 new 

(47)  The  examination  procedure  should  be  used  for  the  adoption  of  a  common  leaflet  on 
Dublin/Eurodac, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors; of a standard 
form for the exchange of relevant information on unaccompanied minors; of uniform 
conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent 
persons;  of  uniform  conditions  on  the  preparation  and  submission  of  take  charge 
 requests   and  take  back   notifications   requests;  of  two  lists  of  relevant 
elements of proof and circumstantial evidence, and the periodical revision thereof; of a 

27 

28 

Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning 
the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)  and  the  exchange  of  data  between  Member  States  on  short-stay 
visas (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60). 
Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States 
of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
laissez passer; of uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information 
regarding transfers; of a standard form for the exchange of data before a transfer; of a 
common  health  certificate;  of  uniform  conditions  and  practical  arrangements  for  the 
exchange  of  information  on  a  person’s  health  data  before  a  transfer,  and  of  secure 
electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests. 

(48) 

 604/2013 recital 35 (adapted) 

In  order  to  provide  for  supplementary  rules,  the  power  to  adopt  acts  in  accordance 
with  Article  290  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  should  be 
delegated  to  the  Commission  in  respect  of  the  identification  of  family  members  or 
relatives  of  an  unaccompanied  minor;  the  criteria  for  establishing  the  existence  of 
proven family links; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a relative to take care of 
an unaccompanied minor, including where family members, siblings or relatives of the 
unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State; the elements for assessing 
a dependency link; the criteria for assessing the capacity of a person to take care of a 
dependent  person  and  the  elements  to  be  taken  into  account  in  order  to  assess  the 
inability  to  travel  for  a  significant  period  of  time.  In  exercising  its  powers  to  adopt 
delegated acts, the Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the 
child  as  provided  for  under  Article  68(3)  of  this  Regulation.  It  is  of  particular 
importance  that  the  Commission  carry  out  appropriate  consultations  during  its 
preparatory  work,  including  at  expert  level   and  that  those  consultations  be 
conducted  in  accordance  with  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Interinstitutional 
Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making  of  13  April  2016 .   In  particular,  to  ensure 
equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and 
Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their 
experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing 
with  the  preparation  of  delegated  acts.   The  Commission,  when  preparing  and 
drawing  up  delegated  acts,  should  ensure  a  simultaneous,  timely  and  appropriate 
transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. 

(49) 

In  the application of this Regulation, including the preparation  of delegated  acts, the 
Commission  should  consult  experts  from,  among  others,  all  relevant  national 
authorities. 

 604/2013 recital 36 

 604/2013 recital 37 

(50)  Detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (EU) No 604/2013 
have  been  laid  down  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1560/2003.  Certain  provisions  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1560/2003  as  amended  by  Regulation  118/2014  should  be 
incorporated  into  this  Regulation,  either  for  reasons  of  clarity  or  because  they  can 
serve a general objective. In particular, it is important, both for the Member States and 
the  applicants  concerned,  that  there  should  be  a  general  mechanism  for  finding  a 
solution in cases where Member States differ over the application of a provision of this 
Regulation.  It  is  therefore  justified  to  incorporate  the  mechanism  provided  for  in 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 for the settling of disputes on the humanitarian clause 
into this Regulation and to extend its scope to the entirety of this Regulation. 

(51)  The  effective  monitoring  of  the  application  of  this  Regulation  requires  that  it  be 

evaluated at regular intervals. 

 604/2013 recital 38 

 new 

(52) 

In  order  to  assess  whether  the  corrective  allocation  mechanism  in  this  Regulation  is 
meeting  the  objective  of  ensuring  a  fair  sharing  of  responsibility  between  Member 
States  and  of  relieving  disproportionate  pressure  on  certain  Member  States,  the 
Commission should review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and 
in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective 
allocation  effectively  ensures  a  fair  sharing  of  responsibility  between  the  Member 
States  and  a  swift  access  of  applicants  to  procedures  for  granting  international 
protection  in  situations  when  a  Member  State  is  confronted  with  a  disproportionate 
number  of  applications  for  international  protection  for  which  it  is  responsible  under 
this Regulation.  

 604/2013 recital 39 

(53)  This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles which are 
acknowledged,  in  particular,  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union.  In  particular,  this  Regulation  seeks  to  ensure  full  observance  of  the  right  to 
asylum guaranteed by Article 18 of the Charter as well as the rights recognised under 
Articles  1,  4,  7,  24  and  47  thereof.  This  Regulation  should  therefore  be  applied 
accordingly. 

 604/2013 recital 40 

(54)  Since  the  objective  of  this  Regulation,  namely  the  establishment  of  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, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member 
States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, be better 
achieved  at  Union  level,  the  Union  may  adopt  measures  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity  as  set  out  in  Article  5  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union 
(TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, 
this  Regulation  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  in  order  to  achieve  that 
objective. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(55) 

(56) 

 604/2013 recital 41 (adapted) 

In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the 
United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, 
annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, those Member States have notified their wish to 
take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation. 

 new 

[In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Protocol  No  21  on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union,  those  Member  States  have  notified  their  wish  to  take  part  in  the 
adoption and application of this Regulation]  

OR 

[In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union,  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that  Protocol,  those  Member 
States are not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and are not bound by it or 
subject to its application.]  

OR 

(53)[In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  Protocol  No  21  on  the  position  of  the 
United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union,  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that  Protocol,  the  United 
Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or 
subject to its application.  

(54)  In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Protocol  No  21  on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union,  Ireland  has  notified  (,  by  letter  of  ...,)  its  wish  to  take  part  in  the 
adoption and application of this Regulation.]  

OR 

(53)  [In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Protocol  No  21  on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, the United Kingdom has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take 
part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.  

(54)  In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  Protocol  No  21  on  the  position  of  the 
United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union,  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that  Protocol,  Ireland  is  not 
taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its 
application.]  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
(57) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  Protocol  No  22  on  the  position  of  Denmark, 
annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption  of 
this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application, 

 604/2013 recital 42 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

CHAPTER I 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

SUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS 

Article 1 

Subject matter 

This  Regulation  lays  down  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determining  the   single  
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 (‘the Member State 
responsible’). 

For the purposes of this Regulation: 

Article 2 

Definitions 

(a)‘third-country national’ means any person who is not a citizen of the Union within 
the  meaning  of  Article  20(1)  TFEU  and  who  is  not  national  of  a  State  which 
participates in this Regulation by virtue of an agreement with the European Union; 

(b)‘application  for  international  protection’  means  an  application  for  international 
protection as defined in Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95/EU; 

(c)‘applicant’ means a third-country national or a stateless person who has made an 
application  for  international  protection  in  respect  of  which  a  final  decision  has  not 
yet been taken; 

(d)‘examination  of  an  application  for 
international  protection’  means  any 
examination  of,  or  decision  or  ruling  concerning,  an  application  for  international 
protection  by  the  competent  authorities  in  accordance  with  Directive  2013/32/EU 
and Directive 2011/95/EU, except for procedures for determining the Member State 
responsible in accordance with this Regulation; 

(e)‘withdrawal  of  an  application  for  international  protection’  means  the  actions  by 
which  the  applicant  terminates  the  procedures  initiated  by  the  submission  of  his  or 
her  application  for 
in  accordance  with  Directive 
2013/32/EU, either explicitly or tacitly; 

international  protection, 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(f)‘beneficiary  of  international  protection’  means  a  third-country  national  or  a 
stateless person who has been granted international protection as defined in Article 
2(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU; 

(g)‘family  members’  means,  insofar  as  the  family  already  existed   before  the 
applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States  in the country of origin, the 
following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the 
Member States: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the  spouse  of  the  applicant  or  his  or  her  unmarried  partner  in  a  stable 
relationship,  where  the  law  or  practice  of  the  Member  State  concerned  treats 
unmarried  couples  in  a  way  comparable  to  married  couples  under  its  law 
relating to third-country nationals, 

the minor children of couples referred to in the first indent or of the applicant, 
on condition that they are unmarried and regardless of whether they were born 
in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law, 

when  the  applicant  is  a  minor  and  unmarried,  the  father,  mother  or  another 
adult  responsible  for  the  applicant,  whether  by  law  or  by  the  practice  of  the 
Member State where the adult is present, 

when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the 
father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by 
the practice of the Member State where the beneficiary is present;, 

– 

the sibling or siblings of the applicant; 

 new 

 604/2013 

(h)‘relative’ means the applicant’s adult aunt or uncle or grandparent who is present 
in the territory of a Member State, regardless of whether the applicant was born in or 
out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law; 

(i)‘minor’  means  a  third-country  national  or  a stateless  person  below the  age  of  18 
years; 

(j)‘unaccompanied minor’ means a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member 
States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her, whether by law or by 
the  practice  of  the  Member  State  concerned,  and  for  as  long  as  he  or  she  is  not 
effectively  taken  into  the  care  of  such  an  adult;  it  includes  a  minor  who  is  left 
unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of Member States; 

(k)‘representative’  means  a  person  or  an  organisation  appointed  by  the  competent 
bodies  in  order  to  assist  and  represent  an  unaccompanied  minor  in  procedures 
provided for in this Regulation with a view to ensuring the best interests of the child 
and exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary. Where an organisation 
is appointed as a representative, it shall designate a person responsible for carrying 
out its duties in respect of the minor, in accordance with this Regulation; 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(l)‘residence  document’  means  any  authorisation  issued  by  the  authorities  of  a 
Member State authorising a third-country national or a stateless person to stay on its 
territory,  including  the  documents  substantiating  the  authorisation  to  remain  on  the 
territory  under  temporary  protection  arrangements  or  until  the  circumstances 
preventing  a  removal  order  from  being  carried  out  no  longer  apply,  with  the 
exception of visas and residence authorisations issued during the period required to 
determine the Member State responsible as established in this Regulation or during 
the examination of an application for international protection or an application for a 
residence permit; 

(m)‘visa’ means the authorisation or decision of a Member State required for transit 
or entry for an intended stay in that Member State or in several Member States. The 
nature of the visa shall be determined in accordance with the following definitions: 

– 

– 

– 

‘long-stay  visa’  means  an  authorisation  or  decision  issued  by  one  of  the 
Member States in  accordance  with its national law or  Union law required for 
entry for an intended stay in that Member State of more than three months, 

‘short-stay visa’ means an authorisation or decision of a Member State with a 
view to transit through or an intended stay on the territory of one or more or all 
the  Member  States  of  a  duration  of  no  more  than  three  months  in  any  six-
month  period  beginning  on  the  date  of  first  entry  on  the  territory  of  the 
Member States, 

‘airport  transit  visa’  means  a  visa  valid  for  transit  through  the  international 
transit areas of one or more airports of the Member States; 

(n)‘risk of absconding’ means the existence of reasons in an individual case, which 
are based on objective criteria defined by law, to believe that an applicant or a third-
country  national  or  a  stateless  person  who  is  subject  to  a  transfer  procedure  may 
abscond.; 

 new 

(o) 'benefitting Member State' means the Member State benefitting from the corrective 
allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation and carrying out the 
allocation of the applicant; 

(p) ‘Member State of allocation’ means the Member States to which an applicant will 
be  allocated  under  the  allocation  mechanism  set  out  in  Chapter  VII  of  this 
Regulation;  

(q) ‘resettled person’ means a person subject to the process of resettlement whereby, 
on a request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) 
based  on  a  person’s  need  for  international  protection,  third-country  nationals  are 
transferred  from  a  third  country  and  established  in  a  Member  State  where  they  are 
permitted to reside with one of the following statuses:  

(i)  ‘refugee  status’  within  the  meaning  of  point  (e)  of  Article  2  of  Directive 

2011/95/EU;  

(ii)  ‘subsidiary  protection  status’  within  the  meaning  of  point  (g)  of  Article  2  of 

Directive 2011/95/EU; or  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(iii)  any  other  status  which  offers  similar  rights  and  benefits  under  national  and 

Union law as those referred to in points (i) and (ii); 

(r)  ‘European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum'  means  the  Agency  as  established  by 
Regulation  (EU)  [Proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010]. 

 604/2013 

CHAPTER II 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND SAFEGUARDS 

Article 3 

Access to the procedure for examining an application for international protection 

1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country 
national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the 
border or in the transit zones. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, 
which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible. 

2. Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in 
this  Regulation,  the  first  Member  State  in  which  the  application  for  international  protection 
was lodged shall be responsible for examining it. 

Where it is impossible to transfer  an applicant to  the Member State primarily designated as 
responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in 
the  asylum  procedure  and  in  the  reception  conditions  for  applicants  in  that  Member  State, 
resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall 
continue  to  examine  the  criteria  set  out  in  Chapter  III  in  order  to  establish  whether  another 
Member State can be designated as responsible. 

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated 
on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the 
application  was  lodged,  the  determining  Member  State  shall  become  the  Member  State 
responsible. 

 new 

3. Any Member State shall retain the right to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject 
to the rules and safeguards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU. 

3.   Before  applying  the  criteria  for  determining  a  Member  State  responsible  in  accordance 
with  Chapters  III  and  IV,  the  first  Member  State  in  which  the  application  for  international 
protection was lodged shall: 

(a)  examine  whether  the  application  for  international  protection  is  inadmissible 
pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is 
not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the 
applicant; and 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
(b)  examine  the  application  in  accelerated  procedure  pursuant  to  Article  31(8)  of 

Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: 

(i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless 
person  and  was  formerly  habitually  resident  in  that  country,  designated  as  a  safe 
country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under 
Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or 

(ii)  the  applicant  may,  for  serious  reasons,  be  considered  a  danger  to  the 
national  security  or  public  order  of  the  Member  State,  or  the  applicant  has  been 
forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national 
law. 

4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application 
in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the 
Member State responsible. 

5.  The  Member  State  which  has  examined  an  application  for  international  protection, 
including  in  the  cases  referred  to  in  paragraph  3,  shall  be  responsible  for  examining  any 
further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant in accordance with Article 
40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was 
removed from the territories of the Member States. 

Article 4 

Obligations of the applicant 

1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered 
irregularly  into  the  territory  of  the  Member  States,  the  application  shall  be  made  in  the 
Member  State  of  that  first  entry.  Where  a  person  who  intends  to  make  an  application  for 
international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in 
that Member State. 

2.  The  applicant  shall  submit  as  soon  as  possible  and  at  the  latest  during  the  interview 
pursuant to Article 7, all the elements and information relevant for determining the Member 
State responsible and cooperate with the competent authorities of the Member States. 

3. The applicant shall: 

(a)  

(b)  

comply with a transfer decision notified to him or her in accordance with paragraphs 1 
and 2 of Article 27 and point (b) of Article 38; 

be present and available to the competent authorities in the Member State of 
application, respectively in the Member State to which he or she is transferred. 

Article 5 

Consequences of non-compliance 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
1.  If  an  applicant  does  not  comply  with  the  obligation  set  out  in  Article  4(1),  the  Member 
State  responsible  in  accordance  with  this  Regulation  shall  examine  the  application  in  an 
accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 

2.  The  Member  State  in  which  the  applicant  is  obliged  to  be  present  shall  continue  the 
procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the 
territory  of  that  Member  State  without  authorisation  or  is  otherwise  not  available  for  the 
competent authorities of that Member State.  

3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of 
Directive  2013/33/EU,  with  the  exception  of  emergency  health  care,  during  the  procedures 
under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to 
be present.  

4.  The  competent  authorities  shall  take  into  account  elements  and  information  relevant  for 
determining  the  Member  State  responsible  only  insofar  as  these  were  submitted  within  the 
deadline set out in Article 4(2). 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

Article 4 6 

Right to information 

1.  As  soon  as  an  application  for  international  protection  is  lodged  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 20 21(2) in a Member State, its competent authorities shall inform the applicant of the 
application  of  this  Regulation   and  of  the  obligations  set  out  in  Article  4  as  well  as  the 
consequences of non-compliance set out in Article 5  , and in particular of: 

(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice 
of  the  applicant  which  Member  State  shall  be  responsible  for  examining  the 
application for international protection; 

 new 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

(ab)   of   the  objectives  of  this  Regulation  and  the  consequences  of  making 
another  application  in  a  different  Member  State  as  well  as  the  consequences  of 
moving from one Member State to another  leaving the Member State where he or 
she  is  obliged  to  be  present   during  the  phases  in  which  the  Member  State 
responsible  under  this  Regulation  is  being  determined  and  the  application  for 
international  protection  is  being  examined   ,  in  particular  that  the  applicant  shall 
not  be  entitled  to  the  reception  conditions  set  out  in  Articles  14  to  19  of  Directive 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be 
present, with the exception of emergency health care  ; 

(bc)  of  the criteria  and the procedures  for determining the Member State 
responsible, the hierarchy of such criteria in the different steps of the procedure and 
their  duration,  including  the  fact  that  an  application  for  international  protection 
lodged in one Member State can result in that Member State becoming responsible 
under this Regulation even if such responsibility is not based on those criteria; 

(cd)   of   the  personal  interview  pursuant  to  Article  5  7  and  the  possibility 
 obligation   of  submitting   and  substantiating   information  regarding  the 
presence  of family  members, relatives  or  any  other  family  relations in  the  Member 
States, including the means by which the applicant can submit such information; 

(de)  of  the possibility to challenge a transfer decision and, where applicable, 
to apply for a suspension of the transfer  within 7 days after notification and of the 
fact that this challenge shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in 
relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 
13 and 18 are infringed upon  ; 

(ef)  the  fact  that  the  competent  authorities  of  Member  States   and  the  European 
Union Agency for Asylum process personal data of the applicant including for the  
can exchange  of  data on him or her for the sole purpose of implementing their 
obligations arising under this Regulation; 

(g) of the categories of personal data concerned; 

 new 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

(fh)  of  the right of access to data relating to him or her and the right to request 
that such data be corrected if inaccurate or be deleted if unlawfully processed, as well 
as  the  procedures  for  exercising  those  rights,  including  the  contact  details  of  the 
authorities referred to in Article 35 47 and of the national data protection authorities 
responsible for hearing claims concerning the protection of personal data  , and of 
the contact details of the data protection officer;  . 

(i) where applicable, of the allocation procedure set out in Chapter VII. 

 new 

2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided in writing in a language that 
the applicant  understands or is reasonably supposed to understand. Member States shall use 
the common leaflet drawn up pursuant to paragraph 3 for that purpose. 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Where necessary for the proper understanding of the applicant, the information shall also be 
supplied orally, for example in connection with the personal interview as referred to in Article 
5 7. 

3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, draw up a common leaflet, as well 
as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors, containing at least the information referred to 
in paragraph 1 of this Article. This common leaflet shall also include information regarding 
the  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  [Proposal  for  a  Regulation  recasting  Regulation  No 
603/2013] and, in particular, the purpose for which the data of an applicant may be processed 
within  Eurodac.  The  common  leaflet  shall  be  established  in  such  a  manner  as  to  enable 
Member  States  to  complete  it  with  additional  Member  State-specific  information.  Those 
implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to 
in Article 44 56(2) of this Regulation. 

Article 5 7 

Personal interview 

1.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  process  of  determining  the  Member  State  responsible,  the 
determining  Member  State  shall  conduct  a  personal  interview  with  the  applicant   ,  unless 
the applicant has absconded or the information provided by the applicant pursuant to Article 
4(2) is sufficient for determining the Member State responsible  . The interview shall also 
allow  the  proper  understanding  of  the  information  supplied  to  the  applicant  in  accordance 
with Article 4 6. 

2. The personal interview may be omitted if: 

(a) the applicant has absconded; or 

(b)  after  having  received  the  information  referred  to  in  Article  4,  the  applicant  has 
already provided the information relevant to determine the Member State responsible 
by other means. The Member State omitting the interview shall give the applicant the 
opportunity to present all further information which is relevant to correctly determine 
the Member State responsible before a decision is taken to transfer the applicant to 
the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 26(1). 

32. The personal interview shall take place in a timely manner and, in any event, before any 
decision is taken to transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 
26(1)  take charge request pursuant to Article 24 is made  . 

43. The personal interview shall be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or 
is reasonably supposed to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. Where 
necessary,  Member  States  shall  have  recourse  to  an  interpreter  who  is  able  to  ensure 
appropriate  communication  between  the  applicant  and  the  person  conducting  the  personal 
interview. 

54.  The  personal  interview  shall  take  place  under  conditions  which  ensure  appropriate 
confidentiality. It shall be conducted by a qualified person under national law. 

65.  The  Member  State  conducting  the  personal  interview  shall  make  a  written  summary 
thereof  which  shall  contain  at  least  the  main  information  supplied  by  the  applicant  at  the 
interview.  This  summary  may  either  take  the  form  of  a  report  or  a  standard  form.  The 
Member State shall ensure that the applicant and/or the legal advisor or other counsellor who 
is representing the applicant have timely access to the summary. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
Article 6 8 

Guarantees for minors 

1.  The  best  interests  of  the  child  shall  be  a  primary  consideration  for  Member  States  with 
respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation. 

2.  Each  Member States  where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present  
shall  ensure  that  a  representative  represents  and/or  assists  an   the   unaccompanied 
minor with respect to all  the relevant  procedures provided for in this Regulation. The 
representative shall have the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the 
minor  are  taken  into  consideration  during  the  procedures  carried  out  under  this  Regulation. 
Such  representative  shall  have  access  to  the  content  of  the  relevant  documents  in  the 
applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors. 

This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the relevant provisions in Article 25 of Directive 
2013/32/EU. 

3. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States shall closely cooperate with each 
other and shall, in particular, take due account of the following factors: 

(a) family reunification possibilities; 

(b) the minor’s well-being and social development; 

(c) safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of the minor 
being a victim of human trafficking; 

(d) the views of the minor, in accordance with his or her age and maturity. 

 new 

4.  Before  transferring  an  unaccompanied  minor  to  the  Member  State  responsible  or,  where 
applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure 
that  the  Member  State  responsible  or  the  Member  State  of  allocation  takes  the  measures 
referred  to  in  Articles  14  and  24  of  Directive  2013/33/EU  and  Article  25  of  Directive 
2013/32/EU  without  delay.  Any  decision  to  transfer  an  unaccompanied  minor  shall  be 
preceded  by  an  assessment  of  his/her  best  interests.  The  assessment  shall  be  based  on  the 
factors  listed  in  paragraph  3.  The  assessment  shall  be  done  swiftly  by  staff  with  the 
qualifications  and  expertise  to  ensure  that  the  best  interests  of  the  minor  are  taken  into 
consideration. 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

45.  For  the  purpose  of  applying  Article  8  10,  the  Member  State  where  the  unaccompanied 
minor  lodged  an  application  for  international  protection  shall,  as  soon  as  possible,  take 
appropriate action to identify the family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied 
minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child. 

To that end, that Member State may call for the assistance of international or other relevant 
organisations,  and  may  facilitate  the  minor’s  access  to  the  tracing  services  of  such 
organisations. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  staff  of  the  competent  authorities  referred  to  in  Article  35  47  who  deal  with  requests 
concerning  unaccompanied  minors  shall  have  received,  and  shall  continue  to  receive, 
appropriate training concerning the specific needs of minors. 

56. With a view to facilitating the appropriate action to identify the family members, siblings 
or  relatives  of  the  unaccompanied  minor  living  in  the  territory  of  another  Member  State 
pursuant  to  paragraph  4  5  of  this  Article,  the  Commission  shall  adopt  implementing  acts 
including a standard form for the exchange of relevant information between Member States. 
Those  implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  examination  procedure 
referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

CHAPTER III 

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE MEMBER STATE RESPONSIBLE 

Article 7 9 

Hierarchy of criteria 

1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied  only once,  
in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter. 

2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this Chapter shall 
be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant first lodged his or her 
application for international protection with a Member State. 

3. In view of the application of the criteria referred to in Articles 8, 10 and 16, Member States 
shall take into consideration any available evidence regarding the presence, on the territory of 
a Member State, of family members, relatives or any other family relations of the applicant, 
on condition that such evidence is produced before another Member State accepts the request 
to take charge or take back the person concerned, pursuant to Articles 22 and 25 respectively, 
and  that  the  previous  applications  for  international  protection  of  the  applicant  have  not  yet 
been the subject of a first decision regarding the substance. 

Article 8 10 

Minors 

 1. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, only the criteria set out in this article 
shall apply, in the order in which they are set out in paragraphs 2 to 5.  

12. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, tThe Member State responsible shall be 
that  where  a  family  member  or  a  sibling  of  the  unaccompanied  minor  is  legally  present, 
provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor 
whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State 
responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for 
the  minor,  whether  by  law  or  by  the  practice  of  that  Member  State,  or  sibling  is  legally 
present. 

23. Where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor who has a relative who is legally present 
in another Member State and where it is established, based on an individual examination, that 
the relative can take care of him or her, that Member State shall unite the minor with his or 
her relative and shall be the Member State responsible, provided that it is in the best interests 
of the minor. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

34. Where family members, siblings or relatives as referred to in paragraphs 1 2 and 2 3, stay 
in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis 
of what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor. 

45. In the absence of a family member, a sibling or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 1 2 
and  2  3,  the  Member  State  responsible  shall  be  that  where  the  unaccompanied  minor 
 first   has  lodged  his  or  her  application  for  international  protection,  provided  that  it  is 
 unless it is demonstrated that this is not  in the best interests of the minor. 

56. The Commission shall be  is  empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with 
Article  45  57  concerning  the  identification  of  family  members,  siblings  or  relatives  of  the 
unaccompanied  minor;  the  criteria  for  establishing  the  existence  of  proven  family  links; the 
criteria  for  assessing  the  capacity  of  a  relative  to  take  care  of  the  unaccompanied  minor, 
including  where  family  members,  siblings  or  relatives  of  the  unaccompanied  minor  stay  in 
more  than  one  Member  State.  In  exercising  its  powers  to  adopt  delegated  acts,  the 
Commission shall not exceed the scope of the best interests of the child as provided for under 
Article 6 8(3). 

67. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for 
the  consultation  and  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States.  Those 
implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to 
in Article 44 56(2). 

Article 9 11 

Family members who are beneficiaries of international protection 

Where  the  applicant  has  a  family  member,  regardless  of  whether the  family  was  previously 
formed  in  the  country  of  origin,  who  has  been  allowed  to  reside  as  a  beneficiary  of 
international  protection  in  a  Member  State,  that  Member  State  shall  be  responsible  for 
examining  the  application  for  international  protection,  provided  that  the  persons  concerned 
expressed their desire in writing. 

Article 10 12 

Family members who are applicants for international protection 

If the applicant has a family member in a Member State whose application for international 
protection in that Member State has not yet been the subject of a first decision regarding the 
substance,  that  Member  State  shall  be  responsible  for  examining  the  application  for 
international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing. 

Article 11 13 

Family procedure 

Where  several  family  members  and/or  minor  unmarried  siblings  submit  applications  for 
international protection in the same Member State simultaneously, or on dates close enough 
for  the  procedures  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  to  be  conducted  together, 
and where the application of the criteria set out in this Regulation would lead to their being 
separated,  the  Member  State  responsible  shall  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  following 
provisions: 

(a) responsibility for examining the applications for international protection of all the 
family  members  and/or  minor  unmarried  siblings  shall  lie  with  the  Member  State 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
which the criteria indicate is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of 
them; 

(b)  failing  this,  responsibility  shall  lie  with  the  Member  State  which  the  criteria 
indicate is responsible for examining the application of the oldest of them. 

Article 12 14 

Issue of residence documents or visas 

1.  Where  the  applicant  is  in  possession  of  a  valid  residence  document   or  a  residence 
document which has expired less than two  years before lodging the first application  , the 
Member State which issued the document shall be responsible for examining the application 
for international protection. 

2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa  or a visa expired less than six months 
before  lodging  the  first  application   ,  the  Member  State  which  issued  the  visa  shall  be 
responsible  for  examining  the  application  for  international  protection,  unless  the  visa  was 
issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for 
in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 
of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas29. In such a case, the represented 
Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 

3.  Where  the  applicant  is  in  possession  of  more  than  one  valid  residence  document  or  visa 
issued  by  different  Member  States,  the  responsibility  for  examining  the  application  for 
international protection shall be assumed by the Member States in the following order: 

(a) the Member State which issued the residence document conferring the right to the 
longest  period  of  residency  or,  where  the  periods  of  validity  are  identical,  the 
Member State which issued the residence document having the latest expiry date; 

(b) the Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the 
various visas are of the same type; 

(c) where visas are of different kinds, the Member State which issued the visa having 
the  longest  period  of  validity  or,  where  the  periods  of  validity  are  identical,  the 
Member State which issued the visa having the latest expiry date. 

4. Where the applicant is in possession only of one or more residence documents which have 
expired less than two years previously or one or more visas which have expired less than six 
months previously and which enabled him or her actually to enter the territory of a Member 
State,  paragraphs  1,  2  and  3  shall  apply  for  such  time  as  the  applicant  has  not  left  the 
territories of the Member States. 

Where the applicant is in possession of one or more residence documents which have expired 
more  than  two  years  previously  or  one  or  more  visas  which  have  expired  more  than  six 
months  previously and  enabled  him  or  her  actually to  enter the  territory  of  a  Member  State 
and where he has not left the territories of the Member States, the Member State in which the 
application for international protection is lodged shall be responsible. 

54. The fact that the residence document or visa was issued on the basis of a false or assumed 
identity  or  on  submission  of  forged,  counterfeit  or  invalid  documents  shall  not  prevent 
responsibility  being  allocated  to  the  Member  State  which  issued  it.  However,  the  Member 

29 

Regulation  (EC)  No  810/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  of  13  July  2009, 
establishing a Community Code on Visas  (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1). 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
State issuing the residence document or visa shall not be responsible if it can establish that a 
fraud was committed after the document or visa had been issued. 

Article 13 15 

Entry and/or stay 

1. Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the 
two lists mentioned in Article 22(3) 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in 
Regulation  [Proposal  for  a  Regulation  recasting  Regulation  (EU)  No  603/2013],  that  an 
applicant  has  irregularly  crossed  the  border  into  a  Member  State  by  land,  sea  or  air  having 
come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining 
the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the 
date on which the irregular border crossing took place. 

2.  When  a  Member  State  cannot  or  can  no  longer  be  held  responsible  in  accordance  with 
paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial 
evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3), that the applicant  — who 
has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry 
cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a 
Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State 
shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. 

If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member 
States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible 
for examining the application for international protection. 

Article 14 16 

Visa waived entry 

1. If a third-country national or a stateless person enters into the territory of a Member State in 
which the need for him or her to have a visa is waived, that Member State shall be responsible 
for examining his or her application for international protection. 

2.  The  principle  set  out  in  paragraph  1  shall  not  apply  if  the  third-country  national  or  the 
stateless person lodges his or her application for international protection in another Member 
State in which the need for him or her to have a visa for entry into the territory is also waived. 
In  that case,  that  other Member  State  shall  be  responsible  for  examining  the application  for 
international protection. 

Article 15 17 

Application in an international transit area of an airport 

Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of 
an airport of a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member 
State shall be responsible for examining the application. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

CHAPTER IV 

DEPENDENT PERSONS AND DISCRETIONARY CLAUSES 

Article 16 18 

Dependent persons 

1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe disability or old 
age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally 
resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in 
one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall 
normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that 
family ties existed in the country of origin, that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is 
able  to  take  care  of  the  dependent  person  and  that  the  persons  concerned  expressed  their 
desire in writing. 

2. Where the child, sibling or parent referred to in paragraph 1 is legally resident in a Member 
State other than the one where the applicant is present, the Member State responsible shall be 
the  one  where  the  child,  sibling  or  parent  is  legally  resident  unless  the  applicant’s  health 
prevents him or her from travelling to that Member State for a significant period of time. In 
such  a  case,  the  Member  State  responsible  shall  be  the  one  where  the  applicant  is  present. 
Such Member State shall not be subject to the obligation to bring the child, sibling or parent 
of the applicant to its territory. 

3. The Commission shall be  is  empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with 
Article  45  57  concerning  the  elements  to  be  taken  into  account  in  order  to  assess  the 
dependency link, the criteria for establishing the existence of proven family links, the criteria 
for assessing the capacity of the person concerned to take care of the dependent person and 
the elements to be taken into account in order to assess the inability to travel for a significant 
period of time. 

4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for the 
consultation and exchange of information between Member States. Those implementing acts 
shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

Article 17 19 

Discretionary clauses 

1. By way of derogation from Article 3(1)  and only as long as no Member State has been 
determined as responsible  , each Member State may decide to examine an application for 
international  protection  lodged  with  it  by  a  third-country  national  or  a  stateless  person 
 based on family grounds in relation to wider family not covered by Article 2(g)  , even if 
such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation. 

The  Member  State  which  decides  to  examine  an  application  for  international  protection 
pursuant to this paragraph shall become the Member State responsible and shall assume the 
obligations  associated  with  that  responsibility.  Where  applicable,  it  shall  inform,  using  the 
‘DubliNet’ electronic communication network set up under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 
1560/2003,  the  Member  State  previously  responsible,  the  Member  State  conducting  a 
procedure for determining the Member State responsible or the Member State which has been 
requested to take charge of, or to take back, the applicant. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

The  Member  State  which  becomes  responsible  pursuant  to  this  paragraph  shall  forthwith 
indicate  it  in  Eurodac  in  accordance  with  Regulation  [Proposal  for  a  Regulation  recasting 
Regulation  (EU)  No  603/2013]  by  adding  the  date  when  the  decision  to  examine  the 
application was taken. 

2. The Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is 
carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State 
responsible, may, at any time before  a Member State responsible has been determined  a 
first decision regarding the substance is taken, request another Member State to take charge of 
an applicant in order to bring together any family relations, on humanitarian grounds based in 
particular  on  family  or  cultural  considerations,  even  where  that  other  Member  State  is  not 
responsible  under  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Articles  8  10  to  11  13  and  16  18.  The  persons 
concerned must express their consent in writing. 

The  request  to  take  charge  shall  contain  all  the  material  in  the  possession  of  the  requesting 
Member State to allow the requested Member State to assess the situation. 

The  requested  Member  State  shall  carry  out  any  necessary  checks  to  examine  the 
humanitarian  grounds  cited,  and  shall  reply  to  the  requesting  Member  State  within  two 
 one   months  of  receipt  of  the  request  using  the  ‘DubliNet’  electronic  communication 
network  set  up  under  Article  18  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1560/2003.  A  reply  refusing  the 
request shall state the reasons on which the refusal is based. 

Where  the  requested  Member  State  accepts  the  request,  responsibility  for  examining  the 
application shall be transferred to it. 

CHAPTER V 

OBLIGATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATE RESPONSIBLE 

Article 18 20 

Obligations of the Member State responsible 

1. The Member State responsible under this Regulation shall be obliged to: 

(a) take charge, under the conditions laid down in Articles 21 24, 22 25 and 29 30, of 
an applicant who has lodged an application in a different Member State; 

(b) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 26 24, 25 and 29 30, an 
applicant  whose  application  is  under  examination  and  who  made  an  application  in 
another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a 
residence document; 

(c) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 26 24, 25 and 29 30, a 
third-country national or a stateless person who has withdrawn the application under 
examination  and  made  an  application  in  another  Member  State  or  who  is  on  the 
territory of another Member State without a residence document; 

(d) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 26 24, 25 and 29 30, a 
third-country national or a stateless person whose application has been rejected and 
who  made  an  application  in  another  Member  State  or  who  is  on  the  territory  of 
another Member State without a residence document.; 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 new 

(e) take back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30 a beneficiary of 
international protection, who made an application in another Member State than the 
Member  State  responsible  which  granted  that  protection  status  or  who  is  on  the 
territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible which granted 
that protection without a residence document. 

2.  In  a  situation  referred  to  in  point  (a)  of  paragraph  1,  the  Member  State  responsible  shall 
examine or complete the examination of the application for international protection. 

3.  In  a  situation  referred  to  in  point  (b)  of  paragraph  1,  the  Member  State  responsible  shall 
examine  or  complete  the  examination  of  the  application  for  international  protection  in  an 
accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 31 paragraph 8 of Directive 2013/32/EU. 

4.  In  a  situation  referred  to  in  point  (c)  of  paragraph  1,  the  Member  State  responsible  shall 
treat  any  further  representations  or  a  new  application  by  the  applicant  as  subsequent 
application in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU. 

5. In a situation referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, the decision taken by the responsible 
authority of the Member State responsible to reject the application shall no longer be subject 
to a remedy within the framework of Chapter V of Directive 2013/32/EU. 

6.  Where  a  Member  State  issues  a  residence  document  to  the  applicant,  the  obligations 
referred to in paragraph 1 shall be transferred to that Member State. 

7.  The  Member  State  responsible  shall  indicate  in  the  electronic  file  referred  to  in  Article 
22(2) the fact that it is the Member State responsible. 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

2.  In  the  cases  falling  within  the  scope  of  paragraph  1(a)  and  (b),  the  Member  State 
responsible  shall  examine  or  complete  the  examination  of  the  application  for  international 
protection made by the applicant. 

In  the  cases  falling  within  the  scope  of  paragraph  1(c),  when  the Member  State  responsible 
had discontinued the examination of an application following its withdrawal by the applicant 
before  a  decision  on  the  substance  has  been  taken  at  first instance,  that Member  State  shall 
ensure that the applicant is entitled to request that the examination of his or her application be 
completed  or  to  lodge  a  new  application  for  international  protection,  which  shall  not  be 
treated  as  a  subsequent  application  as  provided  for  in  Directive  2013/32/EU.  In  such  cases, 
Member States shall ensure that the examination of the application is completed. 

In  the  cases  falling  within  the  scope  of  paragraph  1(d),  where  the  application  has  been 
rejected  at  first  instance  only,  the  Member  State  responsible  shall  ensure  that  the  person 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
concerned has or has had the opportunity to seek an effective remedy pursuant to Article 46 of 
Directive 2013/32/EU. 

Article 19 

Cessation of responsibilities 

1.  Where  a  Member  State  issues  a  residence  document  to  the  applicant,  the  obligations 
specified in Article 18(1) shall be transferred to that Member State. 

2. The obligations specified in Article 18(1) shall cease where the Member State responsible 
can  establish, when requested to take charge or  take back an applicant or  another person as 
referred  to  in  Article  18(1)(c)  or  (d),  that  the  person  concerned  has  left  the  territory  of  the 
Member  States  for  at  least  three  months,  unless  the  person  concerned  is  in  possession  of  a 
valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. 

An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph shall be 
regarded  as  a  new  application  giving  rise  to  a  new  procedure  for  determining  the  Member 
State responsible. 

3. The obligations specified in  Article 18(1)(c) and (d) shall cease where the Member  State 
responsible  can  establish,  when  requested  to  take  back  an  applicant  or  another  person  as 
referred  to  in  Article  18(1)(c)  or  (d),  that  the  person  concerned  has  left  the  territory  of  the 
Member  States  in  compliance  with  a  return  decision  or  removal  order  issued  following  the 
withdrawal or rejection of the application. 

An application lodged after an effective removal has taken place shall be regarded as a new 
application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible. 

CHAPTER VI 

PROCEDURES FOR TAKING CHARGE AND TAKING BACK 

SECTION I 

START OF THE PROCEDURE 

Article 20 21 

Start of the procedure 

1.  The  process  of  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  shall  start  as  soon  as  an 
application for international protection is first lodged with a Member State  , provided that 
the Member State of first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to 
Article 3(4) or (5)  . 

2.  An  application  for  international  protection  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  lodged  once  a 
form  submitted  by  the  applicant  or  a  report  prepared  by  the  authorities  has  reached  the 
competent  authorities  of  the  Member  State  concerned.  Where  an  application  is  not  made  in 
writing, the time elapsing between the statement of intention and the preparation of a report 
should be as short as possible. 

3.  For  the  purposes  of  this  Regulation,  the  situation  of  a  minor  who  is  accompanying  the 
applicant and meets the definition of family member shall be indissociable from that of his or 
her family member and shall be a matter for the Member State responsible for examining the 

EN 

52 

   EN 

application  for  international  protection  of  that  family  member,  even  if  the  minor  is  not 
individually an applicant, provided that it is in the minor’s best interests. The same treatment 
shall  be  applied  to  children  born  after  the  applicant  arrives  on  the  territory  of  the  Member 
States, without the need to initiate a new procedure for taking charge of them. 

4. Where an application for international protection is lodged with the competent authorities 
of  a  Member  State  by  an  applicant  who  is  on  the  territory  of  another  Member  State,  the 
determination of the Member State responsible shall be made by the Member State in whose 
territory the applicant is present. The latter Member State shall be informed without delay by 
the  Member  State  which  received  the  application  and  shall  then,  for  the  purposes  of  this 
Regulation,  be  regarded  as  the  Member  State  with  which  the  application  for  international 
protection was lodged. 

The  applicant  shall  be  informed  in  writing  of  this  change  in  the  determining  Member  State 
and of the date on which it took place. 

5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who 
there  lodges  an  application  for  international  protection  after  withdrawing  his  or  her  first 
application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member 
State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 26 24, 25 
and 29 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was 
first  lodged,  with  a  view  to  completing  the  process  of  determining  the  Member  State 
responsible. 

That  obligation  shall  cease  where  the  Member  State  requested  to  complete  the  process  of 
determining  the  Member  State  responsible  can  establish  that  the  applicant  has  in  the 
meantime left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months or has 
obtained a residence document from another Member State. 

An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the second subparagraph shall 
be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member 
State responsible. 

 new 

SECTION II 

Application registration and monitoring 

Article 22 

Registration  

1.  The  Member  State  with  which  an  application  for  international  protection  is  lodged  shall 
enter  in  the  automated  system  referred  to  in  Article  44(1)  within  the  period  referred  to  in 
Article 10 (1) of Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) 603/2013] 
that: 

(a) such application is lodged; 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
(b)  where  applicable,  links  to  the  applications  of  family  members  or  relatives 

travelling together; 

(c)  the  reference  number  referred  to  in  Article  12  (i)  of  Regulation  [Proposal  for  a 

Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 

2. Upon entry of the information pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated system referred to in 
Article  44  shall  register  each  application  under  a  unique  application  number,  create  an 
electronic  file  for  each  application  and  communicate  the  unique  application  number  to  the 
Member State of application.  

3. Member States shall provide the European Union Agency for Asylum with information on 
the  number  of  third  country  nationals  effectively  resettled  on  a  weekly  basis.  The  Agency 
shall validate this information and enter the data in the automated system. 

4. Where a hit in Eurodac indicates that the applicant has previously lodged an application for 
international protection before having left or having been removed from the territories of the 
Member States, the Member State with which the new application is lodged shall also indicate 
which  Member  State  has  been  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  the  previous 
application. 

5.  The  Member  State with  which the  application  is  lodged  shall  search  the  VIS  pursuant  to 
Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that the applicant is 
in  possession  of  a  valid  visa  or  a  visa  expired  less  than  six  months  before  lodging  the  first 
application,  the  Member  State  shall  indicate  the  visa  application  number  and  the  Member 
State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued 
on behalf of another Member State. 

Article 23 

Information in the automated system 

1. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall indicate in real time: 

(a)  

the total number of applications lodged in the Union;  

(b) 

the actual number of applications lodged in each Member State; 

(c) 

the number of third country nationals resettled by each Member State; 

the  actual  number  of  applications  to  be  examined  by  each  Member  State  as 

(d) 
Member State responsible; 

the  share  of  each  Member  State  pursuant  to  the  reference  key  referred  to  in 

(e) 
Article 35. 

2.  In  the  electronic  file  referred  to  in  Article  22(2)  only  the  following  information  shall  be 
recorded:  

(a) 

the unique application number referred to in Article 22(2): 

EN 

54 

   EN 

(b) 

link to applications referred to in point b of Article 22 (1) and 22(4); 

the  reference  number  referred  to  in  point  d  of  Article  12(i)  of  Regulation 

(c) 
[Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]; 

the existence of an alert following the security verification pursuant to Article 

(d) 
40; 

(e) 

the Member State responsible; 

(f) 
in case of the indication of a previous application for international protection 
by  the  same  applicant  pursuant  to  Article  22(4),  the  Member  State  who  was 
responsible for that previous application; 

(g) 
in  case  of  the  indication  of  a  visa  issued  to  the  applicant  pursuant  to  Article 
22(5), the Member State which issued or extended the visa or on behalf of which the 
visa has been issued and the visa application number; 

where  the  allocation  mechanism  under  Chapter  VII  applies,  the  information 

(h) 
referred to in Article 36(4) and point (h) of Article 39. 

3.  Upon  communication  by  the  Member  State  responsible  pursuant  to  Article  20(7)  and 
Article  22(3)  the  automated  system  referred  to  in  Article  44(1)  shall  count  that 
application  and  that  third  country  national  effectively  resettled  for  the  share  of  that 
Member State. 

4. The electronic files shall be automatically erased after expiry of the period set out in Article 
17(1)  of  Regulation  [Proposal  for  Regulation  recasting  Regulation  (EU)  No 
603/2013]. 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

SECTION II III 

PROCEDURES FOR TAKE CHARGE REQUESTS 

Article 21 24 

Submitting a take charge request 

1.  Where  a  Member  State  with  which  an  application  for  international  protection  has  been 
lodged  considers  that  another  Member  State  is  responsible  for  examining  the  application,  it 
may  shall  , as quickly as possible and in any event within three  one  months of the 
date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 20 21(2), request that 
other Member State to take charge of the applicant. 

Notwithstanding  the  first  subparagraph,  in  the  case  of  a  Eurodac  hit  with  data  recorded 
pursuant  to  Article  13  of  Regulation  [Proposal  for  a  Regulation  recasting  Regulation  (EU) 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
No 603/2013]   or  of a  VIS hit  with data recorded pursuant to  Article 21(2) of Regulation 
(EU) 767/2008  , the request shall be sent within two months  weeks  of receiving that 
hit pursuant to Article 15(2) of that Regulation. 

Where the request to take charge of an applicant is not made within the periods laid down in 
the  first  and  second  subparagraphs,  responsibility  for  examining  the  application  for 
international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the application was lodged. 

2. The requesting Member State may ask for an urgent reply in cases where the application 
for  international  protection  was  lodged  after  leave  to  enter  or  remain  was  refused,  after  an 
arrest for an unlawful stay or after the service or execution of a removal order. 

The request shall state the reasons warranting an urgent reply and the period within which a 
reply is expected. That period shall be at least one week. 

32. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the request that charge be taken by another 
Member  State  shall  be  made  using  a  standard  form  and  including  proof  or  circumstantial 
evidence  as  described  in  the  two  lists  mentioned  in  Article  22(3)  25(4)  and/or  relevant 
elements  from  the  applicant’s  statement,  enabling  the  authorities  of  the  requested  Member 
State  to  check  whether  it  is  responsible  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  laid  down  in  this 
Regulation. 

The  Commission  shall,  by  means  of  implementing  acts,  adopt  uniform  conditions  on  the 
preparation and submission of take charge requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted 
in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

Article 22 25 

Replying to a take charge request 

1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks, and shall give a decision on 
the  request  to  take  charge  of  an  applicant  within  two   one   months  of  receipt  of  the 
request. 

 new 

2.  Notwithstanding  the  first  subparagraph,  in  the  case  of  a  Eurodac  hit  with  data  recorded 
pursuant  to  Article  13  of  Regulation  [Proposal  for  a  Regulation  recasting  Regulation  (EU) 
No 603/2013] or of a VIS hit with data recorded pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 
767/2008, the requested Member State shall give a decision on the request within two weeks 
of receipt of the request. 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

23.  In  the  procedure  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  elements  of  proof  and 
circumstantial evidence shall be used. 

34. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish, and review periodically, 
two lists, indicating the relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence in accordance 
with the criteria set out in points (a) and (b) of this paragraph. Those implementing acts shall 
be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
(a) Proof: 

(i) this refers to formal proof which determines responsibility pursuant to this 
Regulation, as long as it is not refuted by proof to the contrary; 

(ii) the Member States shall provide the Committee provided for in Article 44 
56  with  models  of  the  different  types  of  administrative  documents,  in 
accordance with the typology established in the list of formal proofs; 

(b) Circumstantial evidence: 

(i)  this  refers  to  indicative  elements  which  while  being  refutable  may  be 
sufficient,  in  certain  cases,  according  to  the  evidentiary  value  attributed  to 
them; 

(ii)  their  evidentiary  value,  in  relation  to  the  responsibility  for  examining  the 
application  for  international  protection  shall  be  assessed  on  a  case-by-case 
basis. 

45. The requirement of proof should not exceed what is necessary for the proper application 
of this Regulation. 

56.  If  there  is  no  formal  proof,  the  requested  Member  State  shall  acknowledge  its 
responsibility if the circumstantial evidence is coherent, verifiable and sufficiently detailed to 
establish responsibility. 

6. Where the requesting Member State has pleaded urgency in accordance with the provisions 
of Article 21(2), the requested Member State shall make every effort to comply with the time 
limit requested. In exceptional cases, where it can be demonstrated that the examination of a 
request for taking charge of an applicant is particularly complex, the requested Member State 
may give its reply after the time limit requested, but in any event within one month. In such 
situations the requested Member State must communicate its decision to postpone a reply to 
the requesting Member State within the time limit originally requested. 

7. Failure to act  Where the requested Member State does not object to the request  within 
the  two-month   one-month   period  mentioned  in  paragraph  1  and  the  one-month  period 
mentioned  in  paragraph  6   by  a  reply  which  gives  substantiated  reasons,  or  where 
applicable within the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 2, this  shall be tantamount 
to accepting the request, and entail the obligation to take charge of the person, including the 
obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival. 

SECTION III IV 

PROCEDURES FOR TAKE BACK REQUESTS  NOTIFICATIONS  

Article 23 26 

Submitting a take back  notification  request when a new application has been 
lodged in the requesting Member State 

1. Where a Member State with which a person as  In a situation  referred to in Article 
18 20(1)(b), (c), or (d)  or (e)  has lodged a new application for international protection 
considers that another  the  Member State where the person is present is responsible in 
accordance  with  Article  20(5)  and  Article  18(1)(b),  (c)  or  (d),  it  may  request  that  other 
Member State to take back that person where the person is present  shall make a take back 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
notification  at  the  latest  within  two  weeks  after  receiving  the  Eurodac  hit,  and  transfer  that 
person to the Member State responsible  . 

2.  A  take  back  request  shall  be  made  as  quickly  as  possible  and  in  any  event  within  two 
months  of  receiving  the  Eurodac  hit,  pursuant  to  Article  9(5)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
603/2013. 

If  the  take  back  request  is  based  on  evidence  other  than  data  obtained  from  the  Eurodac 
system,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the  requested  Member  State  within  three  months  of  the  date  on 
which  the  application  for  international  protection  was  lodged  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
20(2). 

3.  Where  the  take  back  request  is  not  made  within  the  periods  laid  down  in  paragraph  2, 
responsibility  for  examining  the  application  for  international  protection  shall  lie  with  the 
Member State in which the new application was lodged. 

42.  A  take  back  request   notification   shall  be  made  using  a  standard  form  and  shall 
include  proof  or  circumstantial  evidence  as  described  in  the  two  lists  mentioned  in  Article 
22(3) 25(4) and/or  relevant  elements  from the statements of the person concerned, enabling 
the authorities of the requested Member State to check whether it is responsible on the basis 
of the criteria laid down in this Regulation. 

3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notification to 
the Member State which made the notification. 

 new 

 604/2013 
 new 

4.  The Commission  shall, by means of implementing  acts, adopt  uniform conditions for the 
preparation and submission of take back  notifications  requests. Those implementing acts 
shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

Article 24 

Submitting a take back request when no new application has been lodged in the 
requesting Member State 

1. Where a Member State on whose territory a person as referred to in Article 18(1)(b), (c) or 
(d)  is  staying  without  a  residence  document  and  with  which  no  new  application  for 
international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible in 
accordance  with  Article  20(5)  and  Article  18(1)(b),  (c)  or  (d),  it  may  request  that  other 
Member State to take back that person. 

2.  By  way  of  derogation  from  Article  6(2)  of  Directive  2008/115/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in 
Member  States  for  returning  illegally  staying  third-country    nationals30,  where  a  Member 
State on whose territory a person is staying without a residence document decides to search 
the  Eurodac  system  in  accordance  with  Article  17  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  603/2013,  the 

30 

OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
request to take back a person as referred to in Article 18(1)(b) or (c) of this Regulation, or a 
person as referred to in its Article 18(1)(d) whose application for international protection has 
not been rejected by a final decision, shall be made as quickly as possible and in any event 
within two months of receipt of the Eurodac hit, pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) 
No 603/2013. 

If  the  take  back  request  is  based  on  evidence  other  than  data  obtained  from  the  Eurodac 
system,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the  requested  Member  State  within  three  months  of  the  date  on 
which  the  requesting  Member  State  becomes  aware  that  another  Member  State  may  be 
responsible for the person concerned. 

3. Where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in paragraph 2, the 
Member  State  on  whose  territory  the  person  concerned  is  staying  without  a  residence 
document shall give that person the opportunity to lodge a new application. 

4. Where a person as referred to in Article 18(1)(d) of this Regulation whose application for 
international protection has been rejected by a final decision in one Member State is on the 
territory of another Member State without a residence document, the latter Member State may 
either  request  the  former  Member  State  to  take  back  the  person  concerned  or  carry  out  a 
return procedure in accordance with Directive 2008/115/EC. 

When the latter Member State decides to request the former Member State to take back the 
person concerned, the rules laid down in Directive 2008/115/EC shall not apply. 

5. The request for the person referred to in Article 18(1)(b), (c) or (d) to be taken back shall be 
made using a standard form and shall include proof or circumstantial evidence as described in 
the  two  lists  mentioned  in  Article  22(3)  and/or  relevant  elements  from  the  person’s 
statements,  enabling  the  authorities  of  the  requested  Member  State  to  check  whether  it  is 
responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation. 

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish and review periodically two 
lists indicating the relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence in accordance with 
the  criteria  set  out  in  Article  22(3)(a)  and  (b),  and  shall  adopt  uniform  conditions  for  the 
preparation and submission of take back requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted 
in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 44(2). 

Article 25 

Replying to a take back request 

1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks and shall give a decision on 
the request to take back the person concerned as quickly as possible and in any event no later 
than one month from the date on which the request was received. When the request is based 
on data obtained from the Eurodac system, that time limit shall be reduced to two weeks. 

2. Failure to act within the one month period or the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 
1 shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and shall entail the obligation to take back the 
person concerned, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival. 

SECTION IV V 

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS 

Article 26 27 

Notification of a transfer decision 

EN 

59 

   EN 

1. Where the requested Member State accepts to take charge of or to take back an applicant or 
other person as referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or (d), the requesting Member State shall notify 
the person concerned  applicant in writing without delay  of the decision to transfer him 
or  her  to  the  Member  State  responsible  and,  where  applicable,  of  not  examining  his  or  her 
application for international protection. 

2.  Where  the  applicant  or  another  person  referred  to  in  Article  20(1)  (c),  (d)  or  (e)  is  to  be 
taken back, the Member State where the person concerned is present shall notify the person 
concerned in writing without undue delay the decision to transfer him or her to the Member 
State responsible. 

 new 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

3. If a legal advisor or other counsellor is representing the person concerned, Member States 
may choose to notify the decision to such legal advisor or counsellor instead of to the person 
concerned and, where applicable, communicate the decision to the person concerned. 

24. The decision referred to in paragraphs 1  and 2  shall contain information on the legal 
remedies  available,  including  on  the  right  to  apply  for  suspensive  effect,  where  applicable, 
and on the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies and for carrying out the transfer, 
and  shall,  if  necessary,  contain  information  on  the  place  where,  and  the  date  on  which,  the 
person concerned should appear, if that person is travelling to the Member State responsible 
by his or her own means. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  information  on  persons  or  entities  that  may  provide  legal 
assistance to the person concerned is communicated to the person concerned together with the 
decision referred to in paragraphs 1  and 2  , when that information has not been already 
communicated. 

35.  When  the  person  concerned  is  not  assisted  or  represented  by  a  legal  advisor  or  other 
counsellor,  Member  States  shall  inform  him  or  her  of  the  main  elements  of  the  decision, 
which  shall  always  include  information  on  the  legal  remedies  available  and  the  time  limits 
applicable for seeking such remedies, in a language that the person concerned understands or 
is reasonably supposed to understand. 

Article 27 28 

Remedies 

1. The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 18 20(1)(c), or (d)  or (e)  shall 
have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, 
against a transfer decision, before a court or tribunal. 

2. Member States shall provide for a reasonable period of time  7 days after the notification 
of a transfer decision  within which the person concerned may exercise his or her right to an 
effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1. 

3. For the purposes of appeals against, or reviews of, transfer decisions, Member States shall 
provide in their national law that:  the court or tribunal shall decide within a period of 15 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
days on the substance of the appeal or review. No transfer shall take place before this decision 
on the appeal or review is taken.  

(a) the appeal or review confers upon the person concerned the right to remain in the 
Member State concerned pending the outcome of the appeal or review; or 

(b) the transfer is automatically suspended and such suspension lapses after a certain 
reasonable  period  of  time,  during  which  a  court  or  a  tribunal,  after  a  close  and 
rigorous scrutiny, shall have taken a decision whether to grant suspensive effect to an 
appeal or review; or 

(c) the person concerned has the opportunity to request within a reasonable period of 
time  a  court  or  tribunal  to  suspend  the  implementation  of  the  transfer  decision 
pending the outcome of his or her appeal or review. Member States shall ensure that 
an effective remedy is in place by suspending the transfer until the decision on the 
first  suspension  request  is  taken.  Any  decision  on  whether  to  suspend  the 
implementation of the transfer decision shall be taken within a reasonable period of 
time,  while  permitting  a  close  and  rigorous  scrutiny  of  the  suspension  request.  A 
decision  not  to  suspend  the  implementation  of  the  transfer  decision  shall  state  the 
reasons on which it is based. 

4. Member States may provide that the competent authorities may decide, acting ex officio, to 
suspend  the  implementation  of  the  transfer  decision  pending  the  outcome  of  the  appeal  or 
review. 

 new 

4.  The  scope  of  the  effective  remedy  laid  down  in  paragraph  1  shall  be  limited  to  an 
assessment  of  whether  Articles  3(2)  in  relation  to  the  existence  of  a  risk  of  inhuman  or 
degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon. 

5. Where no transfer decision referred to in paragraph 1 is taken, Member States shall provide 
for  an  effective  remedy  before  a  court  or  tribunal,  where  the  applicant  claims  that  a  family 
member or,  in  the case of unaccompanied minors, a relative is  legally  present in  a Member 
State other than the one which is examining his or her application for international protection, 
and considers therefore that other Member State as Member State responsible for examining 
the application. 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

56. Member States shall ensure that the person concerned has access to legal assistance and, 
where necessary, to linguistic assistance. 

67. Member States shall ensure that legal assistance is granted on request free of charge where 
the person concerned  cannot  afford  the costs involved.  Member States  may provide  that,  as 
regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the 
treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Without arbitrarily restricting access to legal assistance, Member States may provide that free 
legal assistance and representation not be granted where the appeal or review is considered by 
the competent authority or a court or tribunal to have no tangible prospect of success. 

Where  a  decision  not  to  grant  free  legal  assistance  and  representation  pursuant  to  this 
paragraph is taken by an authority other than a court or tribunal, Member States shall provide 
the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal to challenge that decision.  In case 
the decision is challenged, this remedy shall be an integral part of the remedy referred to in 
paragraph 1.  

In complying with the requirements set out in this paragraph, Member States shall ensure that 
legal assistance and representation is not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant’s effective 
access to justice is not hindered. 

Legal  assistance  shall  include  at  least  the  preparation  of  the  required  procedural  documents 
and  representation  before  a  court  or  tribunal  and  may  be  restricted  to  legal  advisors  or 
counsellors specifically designated by national law to provide assistance and representation. 

Procedures for access to legal assistance shall be laid down in national law. 

SECTION V VI 

DETENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER 

Article 28 29 

Detention 

1.  Member  States  shall  not  hold  a  person  in  detention  for  the  sole  reason  that  he  or  she  is 
subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. 

2.  When  there  is  a  significant  risk  of  absconding,  Member  States  may  detain  the  person 
concerned  in  order  to  secure  transfer  procedures  in  accordance  with  this  Regulation,  on  the 
basis of an individual assessment and only in so far as detention is proportional and other less 
coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. 

3. Detention shall be for as short a period as possible and shall be for no longer than the time 
reasonably necessary to fulfil the required administrative procedures with due diligence until 
the transfer under this Regulation is carried out. 

Where a person is detained pursuant to this Article, the period for submitting a take charge or 
take  back  request   or  a  take  back  notification   shall  not  exceed  one  month   two 
weeks from the lodging of the application. The Member State carrying out the procedure in 
accordance with this Regulation shall ask for an urgent reply in such cases  on a take charge 
request   .  Such  reply  shall  be  given  within  two   one   weeks  of  receipt  of  the   take 
charge   request.  Failure  to  reply  within  the  two-week   one-week   period  shall  be 
tantamount  to  accepting  the   take  charge   request  and  shall  entail  the  obligation  to  take 
 the  person  in   charge  or  take  back  the  person,  including  the  obligation  to  provide  for 
proper arrangements for arrival. 

Where  a  person  is  detained  pursuant  to  this  Article,  the  transfer  of  that  person  from  the 
requesting  Member  State  to  the  Member  State  responsible  shall  be  carried  out  as  soon  as 
practically  possible,  and  at  the  latest  within  six   four   weeks   from  the  final  transfer 
decision  of the implicit or explicit acceptance of the request by another Member State to 
take charge or to take back the person concerned or of the moment when the appeal or review 
no longer has a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 27(3). 

EN 

62 

   EN 

When the requesting Member State fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting a take 
charge or take back request  or take back notification  or where the transfer does not take 
place  within  the  period  of  six   four   weeks  referred  to  in  the  third  subparagraph,  the 
person shall no longer be detained. Articles 21 24, 23, 26 24 and 29 30 shall continue to apply 
accordingly. 

4. As regards the detention conditions and the guarantees applicable to persons  detained,  in 
order to secure the transfer procedures to the Member State responsible, Articles 9, 10 and 11 
of Directive 2013/33/EU shall apply. 

SECTION VI VII 

TRANSFERS 

Article 29 30 

Modalities and time limits 

1.  The determining Member State whose take charge request referred to in Article 20(1) (a) 
was accepted or who made a take back notification referred to in Article 20(1) (b) to (e) shall 
take a transfer decision at the latest within one week of acceptance or notification and transfer 
the applicant or the person concerned to the Member State responsible.  

The transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 18 20(1)(c), or (d) 
 or  (e)   from  the  requesting  Member  State  to  the  Member  State  responsible  shall  be 
carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  national  law  of  the  requesting  Member  State,  after 
consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the 
latest within  four weeks from the final transfer decision  six months of acceptance of the 
request by another Member State to take charge or to take back the person concerned or of the 
final  decision  on  an  appeal  or  review  where  there  is  a  suspensive effect  in  accordance  with 
Article 27(3). 

If transfers to the Member State responsible are carried out by supervised departure or under 
escort, Member States shall ensure that they are carried out in a humane manner and with full 
respect for fundamental rights and human dignity. 

If  necessary,  the  applicant  shall  be  supplied  by  the  requesting  Member  State  with  a  laissez 
passer.  The  Commission  shall,  by  means  of  implementing  acts,  establish  the  design  of  the 
laissez passer. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination 
procedure referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

The Member  State responsible shall inform the requesting Member State, as appropriate, of 
the safe arrival of the person concerned or of the fact that he or she did not appear within the 
set time limit. 

2. Where the transfer does not take place within the six months’ time limit, the Member State 
responsible  shall  be  relieved  of  its  obligations  to  take  charge  or  to  take  back  the  person 
concerned  and  responsibility  shall  then  be  transferred  to  the  requesting  Member  State.  This 
time limit may be extended up to a maximum of one year if the transfer could not be carried 
out due to imprisonment of the person concerned or up to a maximum of eighteen months if 
the person concerned absconds. 

32.  If  a  person  has  been  transferred  erroneously  or  a  decision  to  transfer  is  overturned  on 
appeal or review after the transfer has been carried out, the Member State which carried out 
the transfer shall promptly accept that person back. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

43. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish uniform conditions for 
the  consultation  and  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States,  in  particular  in  the 
event of postponed or delayed transfers, transfers following acceptance by default, transfers of 
minors  or  dependent  persons,  and  supervised  transfers.  Those  implementing  acts  shall  be 
adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

Article 30 31 

Costs of transfer 

1. The costs necessary to transfer an applicant or another person as referred to in Article  18 
20(1)(c), or (d)  or (e)  to the Member State responsible shall be met by the transferring 
Member State. 

2. Where the person concerned has to be transferred back to a Member State as a result of an 
erroneous transfer or of a transfer decision that has been overturned on appeal or review after 
the  transfer  has  been  carried  out,  the  Member  State  which  initially  carried  out  the  transfer 
shall be responsible for the costs of transferring the person concerned back to its territory. 

3. Persons to be transferred pursuant to this Regulation shall not be required to meet the costs 
of such transfers. 

Article 31 32 

Exchange of relevant information before a transfer is carried out 

1. The Member State carrying out the transfer of an applicant or of another person as referred 
to  in  Article  18  20(1)(c)  or  (d)  shall  communicate  to  the  Member  State  responsible  such 
personal  data  concerning  the  person  to  be  transferred  as  is   adequate   appropriate, 
relevant  and  non-excessive   limited  to  what  is  necessary   for  the  sole  purposes  of 
ensuring that the competent authorities, in accordance with national law in the Member State 
responsible,  are  in  a  position  to  provide  that  person  with  adequate  assistance,  including  the 
provision of immediate health care required in order to protect his or her vital interests, and to 
ensure  continuity  in  the  protection  and  rights  afforded  by  this  Regulation  and  by  other 
relevant  asylum  legal  instruments.  Those  data  shall  be  communicated  to  the  Member  State 
responsible  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time  before  a  transfer  is  carried  out,  in  order  to 
ensure that its competent authorities in accordance with national law have sufficient time to 
take the necessary measures. 

2.  The  transferring  Member  State  shall,  in  so  far  as  such  information  is  available  to  the 
competent  authority  in  accordance  with  national  law,  transmit  to  the  Member  State 
responsible  any  information  that  is  essential  in  order  to  safeguard  the  rights  and  immediate 
special needs of the person to be transferred, and in particular: 

(a) any immediate measures which the Member State responsible is required to take 
in order to ensure that the special needs of the person to be transferred are adequately 
addressed, including any immediate health care that may be required; 

(b) contact details of family members, relatives or any other family relations in the 
receiving Member State, where applicable; 

(c) in the case of minors, information on their education; 

(d) an assessment of the age of an applicant. 

3.  The  exchange  of  information  under  this  Article  shall  only  take  place  between  the 
authorities  notified  to  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  Article  35  47  of  this  Regulation 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
using the ‘DubliNet’ electronic communication network set-up under Article 18 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1560/2003. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in 
paragraph 1 of this Article and shall not be further processed. 

4.  With  a  view  to  facilitating  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States,  the 
Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, draw up a standard form for the transfer of 
the  data  required  pursuant  to  this  Article.  Those  implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in 
accordance with the examination procedure laid down in Article 44 56(2). 

5.  The  rules  laid  down  in  Article  34(8)  to  (12)   46(8)   shall  apply  to  the  exchange  of 
information pursuant to this Article. 

Article 32 33 

Exchange of health data before a transfer is carried out 

1. For the sole purpose of the provision of medical care or treatment, in particular concerning 
disabled persons, elderly people, pregnant women, minors and persons who have been subject 
to  torture,  rape  or  other  serious  forms  of  psychological,  physical  and  sexual  violence,  the 
transferring  Member  State  shall,  in  so  far  as  it  is  available  to  the  competent  authority  in 
accordance with  national law, transmit to  the  Member State responsible information  on any 
special needs of the person to be transferred, which in specific cases may include information 
on that person’s physical or mental health. That information shall be transferred in a common 
health certificate with the necessary documents attached. The Member State responsible shall 
ensure that those special needs are adequately addressed, including in particular any essential 
medical care that may be required. 

The  Commission  shall,  by  means  of  implementing  acts,  draw  up  the  common  health 
certificate.  Those  implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  examination 
procedure laid down in Article 44 56(2). 

2. The transferring Member State shall only transmit the information referred to in paragraph 
1 to the Member State responsible after having obtained the explicit consent of the applicant 
and/or  of  his  or  her  representative  or,  if  the  applicant  is  physically  or  legally  incapable  of 
giving his or her consent, when such transmission is necessary  to protect public health and 
public security,   or, if the applicant is physically or legally incapable of giving his or her 
consent,   to  protect  the  vital  interests  of  the  applicant  or  of  another  person.  The  lack  of 
consent, including a refusal to consent, shall not constitute an obstacle to the transfer. 

3. The processing of personal health data referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be carried out 
by  a  health  professional  who  is  subject,  under  national  law  or  rules  established  by  national 
competent bodies, to the obligation of professional secrecy or by another person subject to an 
equivalent obligation of professional secrecy. 

4.  The  exchange  of  information  under  this  Article  shall  only  take  place  between  the  health 
professionals  or  other  persons  referred  to  in  paragraph  3.  The  information  exchanged  shall 
only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and shall not be further processed. 

5.  The  Commission  shall,  by  means  of  implementing  acts,  adopt  uniform  conditions  and 
practical  arrangements  for  exchanging  the  information  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  of  this 
Article.  Those  implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  examination 
procedure laid down in Article 44 56(2). 

6.  The  rules  laid  down  in  Article  34(8)  to  (12)   46(8)   shall  apply  to  the  exchange  of 
information pursuant to this Article. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

Article 33 

A mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management 

1.  Where,  on  the  basis  of,  in  particular,  the  information  gathered  by  EASO  pursuant  to 
Regulation  (EU)  No  439/2010,  the  Commission  establishes  that  the  application  of  this 
Regulation may be jeopardised due either to a substantiated risk of particular pressure being 
placed  on  a  Member  State’s  asylum  system  and/or  to  problems  in  the  functioning  of  the 
asylum  system  of  a  Member  State, 
in  cooperation  with  EASO,  make 
recommendations to that Member State, inviting it to draw up a preventive action plan. 

it  shall, 

The Member State concerned shall inform the Council and the Commission whether it intends 
to present a preventive action plan in order to overcome the pressure and/or problems in the 
functioning of its asylum system whilst ensuring  the protection of the fundamental rights of 
applicants for international protection. 

A  Member  State  may,  at  its  own  discretion  and  initiative, draw  up  a  preventive action  plan 
and  subsequent  revisions  thereof.  When  drawing  up  a  preventive  action  plan,  the  Member 
State may call for the assistance of the Commission, other Member States, EASO and other 
relevant Union agencies. 

2.  Where a  preventive action  plan is drawn up, the Member State concerned shall submit it 
and shall regularly report on its implementation to the Council and to the Commission. The 
Commission  shall  subsequently  inform  the  European  Parliament  of  the  key  elements  of  the 
preventive  action  plan.  The  Commission  shall  submit  reports  on  its  implementation  to  the 
Council and transmit reports on its implementation to the European Parliament. 

The Member State concerned shall take all appropriate measures to deal with the situation of 
particular  pressure  on  its  asylum  system  or  to  ensure  that  the  deficiencies  identified  are 
addressed  before  the  situation  deteriorates.  Where  the  preventive  action  plan  includes 
measures aimed at addressing particular pressure on a Member State’s asylum system which 
may  jeopardise  the  application  of  this  Regulation,  the  Commission  shall  seek  the  advice  of 
EASO before reporting to the European Parliament and to the Council. 

3.  Where  the  Commission  establishes,  on  the  basis  of  EASO’s  analysis,  that  the 
implementation of the preventive action plan has not remedied the deficiencies identified or 
where there is a serious risk that the asylum situation in the Member State concerned develops 
into a crisis which is unlikely to be remedied by a preventive action plan, the Commission, in 
cooperation with EASO as applicable, may request the Member State concerned to draw up a 
crisis  management  action  plan  and,  where  necessary,  revisions  thereof.  The  crisis 
management  action  plan  shall  ensure,  throughout  the  entire  process,  compliance  with  the 
asylum  acquis  of  the  Union,  in  particular  with  the  fundamental  rights  of  applicants  for 
international protection. 

Following  the  request  to  draw  up  a  crisis  management  action  plan,  the  Member  State 
concerned shall, in cooperation with the Commission and EASO, do so promptly, and at the 
latest within three months of the request. 

The Member State concerned shall submit its crisis management action plan and shall report, 
at  least  every  three  months,  on  its  implementation  to  the  Commission  and  other  relevant 
stakeholders, such as EASO, as appropriate. 

The  Commission  shall  inform  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  crisis 
management action plan, possible revisions and the implementation thereof. In those reports, 
the  Member  State  concerned  shall  report  on  data  to  monitor  compliance  with  the  crisis 

EN 

66 

   EN 

management action plan, such as the length of the procedure, the detention conditions and the 
reception capacity in relation to the inflow of applicants. 

4.  Throughout  the  entire  process  for  early  warning,  preparedness  and  crisis  management 
established  in  this  Article,  the  Council  shall  closely  monitor  the  situation  and  may  request 
further  information  and  provide  political  guidance,  in  particular  as  regards  the  urgency  and 
severity of the situation and thus the need for a Member State to draw up either a preventive 
action  plan or,  if necessary, a crisis  management  action plan.  The European Parliament and 
the  Council  may,  throughout  the  entire  process,  discuss  and  provide  guidance  on  any 
solidarity measures as they deem appropriate. 

 new 

CHAPTER VII  

Corrective allocation mechanism 

Article 34 

General Principle 

1. The allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a 
Member  State,  where  that  Member  State  is  confronted  with  a  disproportionate  number  of 
applications  for  international  protection  for  which  it  is  the  Member  State  responsible  under 
this Regulation. 

2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that 
the  number  of  applications  for  international  protection  for  which  a  Member  State  is 
responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19 , in addition to the 
number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 150% of the reference number for that 
Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35. 

3. The reference number of a Member State shall be determined by applying the key referred 
to  in  Article  35  to  the  total  number  of  applications  as  well  as  the  total  number  of  resettled 
persons that have been entered by the respective Member States responsible in the automated 
system during the preceding 12 months. 

4.  The  automated  system  shall  inform  Member  States,  the  Commission  and  the  European 
Union  Agency  for  Asylum  once  per  week  of  the  Member  States'  respective  shares  in 
applications for which they are the Member State responsible. 

5.  The  automated  system  shall  continously  monitor  whether  any  of  the  Member  States  is 
above  the  threshold  referred  to  in  paragraph  2,  and  if  so,  notify  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission of this fact, indicating the number of applications above this threshold.  

6. Upon the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the allocation mechanism shall apply. 

EN 

Article 35 

Reference key 

67 

   EN 

 
 
1. For the purpose of the corrective mechanism, the reference number for each Member State 
shall be determined by a key. 

2.  The  reference  key  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  be  based  on  the  following  criteria  for 
each Member State, according to Eurostat figures: 

(a)  

the size of the population (50 % weighting); 

(b)  

the total GDP (50% weighting); 

3. The criteria referred to in paragraph 2 shall be applied by the formula as set out in Annex I.  

4.  The  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum  shall  establish  the  reference  key  and  adapt  the 
figures  of  the  criteria  for  the  reference  key  as  well  as  the  reference  key  referred  to  in 
paragraph 2 annually, based on Eurostat figures. 

Article 36 

Application of the reference key 

1. Where the threshold referred to in Article 34(2) is reached, the automated system referred 
to  in  Article  44(1)  shall  apply  the  reference  key  referred  to  in  Article  35  to  those  Member 
States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below 
their share pursuant to Article 35(1) and notify the Member States thereof. 

2. Applicants who lodged their application in the benefitting Member State after notification 
of allocation referred to in Article 34(5) shall be allocated to the Member States referred to in 
paragraph 1, and these Member States shall determine the Member State responsible; 

3.  Applications  declared  inadmissible  or  examined  in  accelerated  procedure  in  accordance 
with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation. 

4. On the basis of the application of the reference key pursuant to paragraph 1, the automated 
system  referred  to  in  Article  44(1)  shall  indicate  the  Member  State  of  allocation  and 
communicate  this  information  not  later  than  72  hours  after  the  registration  referred  to  in 
Article 22(1) to the benefitting Member State and to the Member State of allocation, and add 
the Member State of allocation in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2). 

Article 37 

Financial solidarity 

1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this 
Regulation  and  at  the  end  of  each  twelve-month  period  thereafter,  enter  in  the  automated 
system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in 
Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member 
States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 

2. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key 
during  this  twelve-month  period  to  those  Member  States  with  a  number  of  applications  for 
which  they  are  the  Member  States  responsible  below  their  share  pursuant  to  Article  35(1), 
with  the  exception  of  the  Member  State  which  entered  the  information,  as  well  as  the 
benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
application  which  would  have  otherwise  been  allocated  to  the  Member  State  which  entered 
the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of that Member State.  

3.  At  the  end  of  the  twelve-month  period  referred  to  in  paragraph  2,  the  automated  system 
shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism 
the  number  of  applicants  for  whom  it  would  have  otherwise  been  the  Member  State  of 
allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 
per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the 
respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State 
determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.  

4.The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with 
the  examination  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  56,  lay  down  the  modalities  for  the 
implementation of paragraph 3.  

5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a 
yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism. 

Article 38 

Obligations of the benefitting Member State 

The benefitting Member State shall:  

(a) 
take a decision at the latest within one week from the communication referred 
to in Article 36(4) to transfer the applicant to the Member State of allocation, unless 
the benefitting Member State can accept within the same time limit responsibility for 
examining  the  application  pursuant  to  the  criteria  set  out  in  Articles  10  to  13  and 
Article 18; 

notify without delay the applicant of the decision to transfer him or her to the 

(b) 
Member State of allocation; 

transfer  the  applicant  to  the  Member  State  of  allocation,  at  the  latest  within 

(c)  
four weeks from the final transfer decision. 

Article 39 

Obligations of the Member State of allocation 

The Member State of allocation shall:  

(a) 
confirm  to  the  benefitting  Member  State  the  receipt  of  the  allocation 
communication  and  indicate  the  competent  authority  to  which  the  applicant  shall 
report following his or her transfer; 

communicate to the benefitting Member State the arrival of the applicant or the 

(b)  
fact that he or she did not appear within the set time limit; 

receive the applicant and carry out the personal interview pursuant to Article 7, 

(c) 
where applicable; 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
(d) 
examine  his  or  her  application  for  international  protection  as  Member  State 
responsible, unless, according to the criteria set out in Articles 10 to 13 and 16 to 18, a 
different Member State is responsible for examining the application; 

(e)   where,  according  to  the  criteria  set  out  in  Articles  10  to  13  and  16  to  18  a 
different Member State is responsible for examining the application, the Member State 
of allocation shall request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant; 

where applicable, communicate to the Member State responsible the transfer to 

(f) 
that Member State; 

(g)   where applicable, transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible; 

(h)   where applicable, enter in the electronic file referred to in Article 23(2) that it 
will examine the application for international protection as Member State responsible. 

Article 40 

Exchange of relevant information for security verification 

1.  Where  a  transfer  decision  according  to  point  (a)  of  Article  38  is  taken,  the  benefitting 
Member State shall transmit, at the same time and for the sole purpose of verifying whether 
the applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to the national security or public 
order,  the  fingerprint  data  of  the  applicant  taken  pursuant  to  Regulation  (Proposal  for  a 
Regulation recasting Regulation 603/2013/EU) to the Member State of allocation.  

2. Where, following a security verification, information on an applicant reveals that he or she 
is  for  serious  reasons  considered  to  be  a  danger  to  the  national  security  or  public  order, 
information on the nature of the alert shall be shared with the law enforcement authorities in 
the  benefitting  Member  State  and  shall  not  be  communicated  via 
the  electronic 
communication channels referred to in Article 47(4). 

The Member State of allocation shall inform the benefitting Member State of the existence of 
such alert, specifying the law enforcement authorities in the Member State of application that 
have  been  fully  informed,  and  record  the  existence  of  the  alert  in  the  automated  system 
pursuant to point d of Article 23(2), within one week of receipt of the fingerprints. 

3. Where the outcome of the security verification confirms that the applicant may for serious 
reasons  be  considered  a  danger  to  the  national  security  or  public  order,  the  benefitting 
Member  State  of  application  shall  be  the  Member  State  responsible  and  shall  examine  the 
application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.  

4. The information exchanged shall only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1 and 
shall not be further processed. 

Article 41 

Procedure for allocation 

1. Chapter V and Sections II to VII of Chapter VI shall apply mutatis mutandis. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
2.  Family  members  to  whom  the  procedure  for  allocation  applies  shall  be  allocated  to  the 
same Member State. 

Article 42 

Costs of allocation transfers 

For  the  costs  to  transfer  an  applicant  to  the  Member  State  of  allocation,  the  benefitting 
Member  State  shall  be  refunded  by  a  lump  sum  of  EUR  500  for  each  person  transferred 
pursuant  to  Article  38(c).  This  financial  support  shall  be  implemented  by  applying  the 
procedures laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.  

Article 43 

Cessation of corrective allocation 

The  automated  system  shall  notify  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  as  soon  as  the 
number  of  applications  in  the  benefitting  Member  State  for  which  it  is  the  Member  State 
responsible under this Regulation is below 150 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1). 

Upon  the  notification referred  to  in  paragraph 2,  the  application  of  the  corrective  allocation 
shall cease for that Member State.  

 604/2013 

CHAPTER VII VIII 

ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION 

 new 

Article 44 

Automated system for registration, monitoring and the allocation mechanism 

1.  For  the  purposes  of  the  registration  and  monitoring  the  share  of  applications  for 
international  protection  pursuant  to  Article  22  and  of  the  application  of  the  allocation 
mechanism set out in Chapter VII an automated system shall be established. 

2.  The  automated  system  shall  consist  of  the  central  system  and  the  communication 
infrastructure between the central system and the national infrastructures. 

3. The European agency for the operational management of large scale IT systems in the area 
of  freedom,  security  and  justice  established  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1077/2011  shall  be 
responsible for the preparation, development and the operational  management of the central 
system  and  the  communication  infrastructure  between  the  central  system  and  the  national 
infrastructures. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
4. The national infrastructures shall be developed and managed by the Member States. 

Article 45 

Access to the automated system 

1. The competent asylum authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 47 shall have 
access  to  the  automated  system  referred  to  in  Article  44(1)  for  entering  the  information 
referred to in Article 20(7), Article 22(1), (4) and (5), Article 37(1) and point (h) of Article 
39. 

2.  The  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum  shall  have  access  to  the  automated  system  for 
entering  and  adapting  the  reference  key  pursuant  to  Article  35(4)  and  for  entering  the 
information referred to in Article 22(3). 

3. The information referred to in Article 23(2), Article 36(4) and point h of Article 39 shall be 
accessible  for  consultation  only  by  the  competent  asylum  authorities  of  the  Member  States 
referred to in Article 47 for the purposes of this Regulation and of Regulation [Proposal for a 
Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 

4.  The  Commission  shall,  by  means  of  implementing  acts,  adopt  uniform  conditions  and 
practical arrangements for entering and consulting the information referred to in paragraphs 1 
and  3.  Those  implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  examination 
procedure laid down in Article 56(2). 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

Article 34 46 

Information sharing 

1. Each Member State shall communicate to any Member State that so requests such personal 
data  concerning  the  applicant  as  is  adequate   appropriate,  relevant  and  non-excessive 
 limited to what is necessary  for: 

(a) determining the Member State responsible; 

(b) examining the application for international protection; 

(c) implementing any obligation arising under this Regulation. 

2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 may only cover: 

(a)  personal  details  of  the  applicant,  and,  where  appropriate,  his  or  her  family 
members,  relatives  or  any  other  family  relations  (full  name  and  where  appropriate, 
former  name;  nicknames  or  pseudonyms;  nationality,  present  and  former;  date  and 
place of birth); 

(b)  identity  and  travel  papers  (references,  validity,  date  of  issue,  issuing  authority, 
place of issue, etc.); 

(c)  other  information  necessary  for  establishing  the  identity  of  the  applicant, 
including  fingerprints  processed   taken  of  the  applicant  by  the  Member  State,  in 
particular for the purposes of Article 40  in accordance with Regulation [Proposal 
for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]; 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(d) places of residence and routes travelled; 

(e) residence documents or visas issued by a Member State; 

(f) the place where the application was lodged; 

(g)  the  date  on  which  any  previous  application  for  international  protection  was 
lodged,  the  date  on  which  the  present  application  was  lodged,  the  stage  reached  in 
the proceedings and the decision taken, if any. 

3.  Furthermore,  provided  it  is  necessary  for  the  examination  of  the  application  for 
international protection, the Member State responsible may request another Member State to 
let it know on what grounds the applicant bases his or her application and, where applicable, 
the grounds for any decisions taken concerning the applicant.  The other Member State may 
refuse to respond to the request submitted to it, if the communication of such information is 
likely to harm its essential interests or the protection of the liberties and fundamental rights of 
the person concerned or of others. In any event, communication of the information requested 
shall be subject to the written approval of the applicant for international protection, obtained 
by  the  requesting  Member  State.  In  that  case,  the  applicant  must  know  for  what  specific 
information he or she is giving his or her approval. 

4. Any request for information shall only be sent in the context of an individual application 
for  international  protection.  It  shall  set  out  the  grounds  on  which  it  is  based  and,  where  its 
purpose is to check whether there is a criterion that is likely to entail the responsibility of the 
requested  Member  State,  shall  state  on  what  evidence,  including  relevant  information  from 
reliable  sources  on  the  ways  and  means  by  which  applicants  enter  the  territories  of  the 
Member  States,  or  on  what  specific  and  verifiable  part  of  the  applicant’s  statements  it  is 
based.  It  is  understood  that  such  relevant  information  from  reliable  sources  is  not  in  itself 
sufficient  to  determine  the  responsibility  and  the  competence  of  a  Member  State  under  this 
Regulation,  but  it  may  contribute  to  the  evaluation  of  other  indications  relating  to  an 
individual applicant. 

5.  The  requested  Member  State  shall  be  obliged  to  reply  within  five   two   weeks.  Any 
delays in the reply shall be duly justified. Non-compliance with the five  two  week time 
limit shall not relieve the requested Member State of the obligation to reply. If the research 
carried  out  by  the  requested  Member  State  which  did  not  respect  the  maximum  time  limit 
withholds information which shows that it is responsible, that Member State may not invoke 
the expiry of the time limits provided for in Articles 21, 23 and 24 as a reason for refusing to 
comply with a request to take charge or take back. In that case, the time limits provided for in 
Articles  21,  24  23  and  24  for  submitting  a  request  to  take  charge  or  take  back  shall  be 
extended  by  a  period  of  time  which  shall  be  equivalent  to  the  delay  in  the  reply  by  the 
requested Member State. 

6. The exchange of information shall be effected at the request of a Member State and may 
only  take  place  between  authorities  whose  designation  by  each  Member  State  has  been 
communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 35 47(1). 

7. The information exchanged may only be used for the purposes set out in paragraph 1. In 
each  Member  State  such  information  may,  depending  on  its  type  and  the  powers  of  the 
recipient authority, only be communicated to the authorities and courts and tribunals entrusted 
with: 

(a) determining the Member State responsible; 

(b) examining the application for international protection; 

(c) implementing any obligation arising under this Regulation. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. The Member State which forwards the information shall ensure that it is accurate and up-
to-date. If it transpires that it has forwarded information which is inaccurate or which should 
not have been forwarded, the recipient Member States shall be informed thereof immediately. 
They shall be obliged to correct such information or to have it erased. 

9. The applicant shall have the right to be informed, on request, of any data that is processed 
concerning him or her. 

If  the  applicant  finds  that  the  data  have  been  processed  in  breach  of  this  Regulation  or  of 
Directive 95/46/EC, in particular because they are incomplete or inaccurate, he or she shall be 
entitled to have them corrected or erased. 

The  authority  correcting  or  erasing  the  data  shall  inform,  as  appropriate,  the  Member  State 
transmitting or receiving the information. 

The  applicant  shall  have  the  right  to  bring  an  action  or  a  complaint  before  the  competent 
authorities or courts or tribunals of the Member State which refused the right of access to or 
the right of correction or erasure of data relating to him or her. 

108.  In  each  Member  State  concerned,  a  record  shall  be  kept,  in  the  individual  file  for  the 
person  concerned  and/or  in  a  register,  of  the  transmission  and  receipt  of  information 
exchanged. 

11. The data exchanged shall be kept for a period not exceeding that which is necessary for 
the purposes for which they are exchanged. 

12.  Where  the  data  are  not  processed  automatically  or  are  not  contained,  or  intended  to  be 
entered,  in  a  file,  each  Member  State  shall  take  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  compliance 
with this Article through effective checks. 

Article 35 47 

Competent authorities and resources 

1. Each Member State shall notify the Commission without delay of the specific authorities 
responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising under this Regulation, and any amendments 
thereto.  The  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  those  authorities  have  the  necessary  resources 
for carrying out their tasks and in particular for replying within the prescribed time limits to 
requests for information, requests to take charge, of and requests to take back  notifications 
and,  if  applicable,  complying  with  their  obligations  under  the  allocation  mechanism  
applicants. 

2. The Commission shall publish a consolidated list of the authorities referred to in paragraph 
1  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union.  Where  there  are  amendments  thereto,  the 
Commission shall publish once a year an updated consolidated list. 

3. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall receive the necessary training with respect 
to the application of this Regulation. 

4.  The  Commission  shall,  by  means  of  implementing  acts,  establish  secure  electronic 
transmission channels between the authorities referred to in paragraph 1  and between those 
authorities  and  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum   for  transmitting   information, 
fingerprint  data  taken  in  accordance  with  Regulation  [Proposal  for  a  Regulation  recasting 
Regulation  603/2013/EU],  
replies  and  all  written 
correspondence  and  for  ensuring  that  senders  automatically  receive  an  electronic  proof  of 
delivery.  Those  implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  examination 
procedure referred to in Article 44 56(2). 

requests,   notifications,  

EN 

74 

   EN 

Article 36 48 

Administrative arrangements 

1.  Member  States  may,  on  a  bilateral  basis,  establish  administrative  arrangements  between 
themselves concerning the practical details of the implementation of this Regulation, in order 
to facilitate its application and increase its effectiveness. Such arrangements may relate to: 

(a) exchanges of liaison officers; 

(b)  simplification  of  the  procedures  and  shortening  of  the  time  limits  relating  to 
transmission  and  the  examination  of  requests  to  take  charge  of  or  take  back 
applicants. 

2.  Member  States  may  also  maintain  the  administrative  arrangements  concluded  under 
Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 and Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. To the extent that such 
arrangements  are  not  compatible  with  this  Regulation,  the  Member  States  concerned  shall 
amend the arrangements in such a way as to eliminate any incompatibilities observed. 

3. Before concluding or amending any arrangement referred to in paragraph 1(b), the Member 
States  concerned  shall  consult  the  Commission  as  to  the  compatibility  of  the  arrangement 
with this Regulation. 

4.  If  the  Commission  considers  the  arrangements  referred  to  in  paragraph  1(b)  to  be 
incompatible  with  this  Regulation,  it  shall,  within  a  reasonable  period,  notify  the  Member 
States  concerned.  The  Member  States  shall  take  all  appropriate  steps  to  amend  the 
arrangement  concerned  within  a  reasonable  time  in  such  a  way  as  to  eliminate  any 
incompatibilities observed. 

5. Member States shall notify the Commission of all arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, 
and of any denunciation thereof, or amendment thereto. 

 new 

Article 49 

Network of Dublin units 

The European Union Agency for Asylum shall set up and facilitate the activities of a network 
of the competent authorities referred to in Article 47 (1), with a view to enhancing practical 
cooperation  and  information  sharing  on  all  matters  related  to  the  application  of  this 
Regulation, including the development of practical tools and guidance. 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

CHAPTER VIII 

CONCILIATION 

Article 37 

Conciliation 

75 

   EN 

EN 

 
 
 
 
1. Where the Member States cannot resolve a dispute on any matter related to the application 
of  this  Regulation,  they  may  have  recourse  to  the  conciliation  procedure  provided  for  in 
paragraph 2. 

2. The conciliation procedure shall be initiated by a request from one of the Member States in 
dispute  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  set  up  by  Article  44.  By  agreeing  to  use  the 
conciliation procedure, the Member States concerned undertake to take the utmost account of 
the solution proposed. 

The Chairman of the Committee shall appoint three members of the Committee representing 
three Member States not connected with the matter. They shall receive the arguments of the 
parties either in writing or orally and, after deliberation, shall propose a solution within one 
month, where necessary after a vote. 

The Chairman of the Committee, or  his  or  her deputy,  shall chair the discussion.  He or  she 
may put forward his or her point of view but may not vote. 

Whether  it  is  adopted  or  rejected  by  the  parties,  the  solution  proposed  shall  be  final  and 
irrevocable. 

CHAPTER IX 

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND FINAL PROVISIONS 

Article 38 50 

Data security and data protection 

take  all   implement   appropriate   technical  and 
1.  Member  States  shall 
organisational   measures  to  ensure  the  security  of  transmitted  personal  data   processed 
under  this  Regulation   and  in  particular  to  avoid  prevent   unlawful  or  unauthorised 
access or disclosure, alteration or loss of personal data processed. 

Each  Member  State  shall  provide  that  the  national  supervisory  authority  or  authorities 
designated  pursuant  to  Article  28(1)  of  Directive  95/46/EC  shall  monitor  independently,  in 
accordance  with  its  respective  national  law,  the  lawfulness  of  the  processing,  in  accordance 
with this Regulation, of personal data by the Member State in question. 

 new 

2. The competent supervisory authority or authorities of each Member State shall monitor the 
lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the authorities referred to in Article 47 of the 
Member  State  in  question,  including  of  the  transmission  to  and  from  the  automated  system 
referred to in Article 44(1) and to the authorities competent for carrying out checks referred to 
in Article 40. 

3.  The  processing  of  personal  data  by  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum  shall  be 
subject  to  the  monitoring  of  the  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  in  accordance  with 
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the provisions on data protection laid down in [Proposal for 
a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 
439/2010]. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

Article 39 51 

Confidentiality 

Member States shall ensure that the authorities referred to in Article 35 47 are bound by the 
confidentiality rules provided for in national law, in relation to any information they obtain in 
the course of their work. 

Article 40 52 

Penalties 

Member States shall  lay down the rules on  take the necessary measures to ensure that 
any misuse of data processed in accordance with this Regulation is punishable by penalties, 
including  administrative  and/or  criminal  penalties  in  accordance  with  national  law, 
 applicable  to  infringements  of  this  Regulation  and  shall  take  all  measures  necessary  to 
ensure  that  they  are  implemented.  The  penalties  provided  for  must  be   that  are  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive. 

Article 41 53 

Transitional measures 

Where an application has been lodged after [the first day following the entry into force of this 
Regulation]  the  date  mentioned  in  the  second  paragraph  of  Article  49,  the  events  that  are 
likely to entail the responsibility of a Member State under this Regulation shall be taken into 
consideration, even  if they precede that date, with the exception  of the events mentioned in 
Article 13(2). 

By way of derogation from Article 34(2), during the first three months after entry into force 
of  this  Regulation,  the  corrective  allocation  mechanism  shall  not  be  triggered.  By  way  of 
derogation from Article 34(3), after the expiry of the three month period following the entry 
into force of this Regulation and until the expiry of one year following the entry into force of 
this Regulation, the reference period shall be the period which has elapsed since the entry into 
force of this Regulation. 

 604/2013 

Article 42 54 

Calculation of time limits 

Any period of time prescribed in this Regulation shall be calculated as follows: 

(a) where a period expressed in days, weeks or months is to be calculated from the 
moment at which an event occurs or an action takes place, the day during which that 
event  occurs  or  that  action  takes  place  shall  not  be  counted  as  falling  within  the 
period in question; 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
(b) a period expressed in weeks or months shall end with the expiry of whichever day 
in the last week or month is the same day of the week or falls on the same date as the 
day  during  which  the  event  or  action  from  which  the  period  is  to  be  calculated 
occurred  or  took  place.  If,  in  a  period  expressed  in  months,  the  day  on  which  it 
should expire does not occur in the last month, the period shall end with the expiry of 
the last day of that month; 

(c)  time  limits  shall  include  Saturdays,  Sundays  and  official  holidays  in  any  of  the 
Member States concerned. 

Article 43 55 

Territorial scope 

As far as the French Republic is concerned, this Regulation shall apply only to its European 
territory. 

Article 44 56 

Committee 

1.  The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  a  committee.  That  committee  shall  be  a  committee 
within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall 
apply. 

Where  the  committee  delivers  no  opinion,  the  Commission  shall  not  adopt  the  draft 
implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 
shall apply. 

Article 45 57 

Exercise of the delegation 

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions 
laid down in this Article. 

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 8(5) 10(6) and 16 18(3) shall be 
conferred on the Commission for a period of 5 years from the date of entry into force of this 
Regulation. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not 
later than nine months before the end of the 5-year period. The delegation of power shall be 
tacitly  extended  for  periods  of  an  identical  duration,  unless  the  European  Parliament  or  the 
Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. 

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 8(5) 10(6) and 16 18(3) may be revoked at 
any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end 
to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following 
the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date 
specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
4.  Before  adopting  a  delegated  act,  the  Commission  shall  consult  experts  designated  by 
each  Member  State  in  accordance  with  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Interinstitutional 
Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. 

 604/2013  
new 

45. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the 
European Parliament and to the Council. 

 604/2013 

 604/2013 (adapted) 
 new 

56. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 8(5) 10(6) and 16 18(3) shall enter into force 
only  if  no  objection  has  been  expressed  either  by  the  European  Parliament  or  the  Council 
within a period of four  two  months of notification of that act to the European Parliament 
and  to  the  Council  or  if,  before  the  expiry  of  that  period,  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  have  both  informed  the  Commission  that  they  will  not  object.  That  period  shall  be 
extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council. 

Article 46 58 

 Review,  mMonitoring and evaluation 

By [18 months after entry into force] and from then on annually, the Commission shall review 
the  functioning  of  the  corrective  allocation  mechanism  set  out  in  Chapter  VII  of  this 
Regulation and in particular the thresholds set out in Article 34(2) and Article 43 thereof. 

By  [three years after entry into force]  21 July 2016, the Commission shall report to the 
European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the  application  of  this  Regulation  and,  where 
appropriate,  shall  propose  the  necessary  amendments.  Member  States  shall  forward  to  the 
Commission  all  information  appropriate  for  the  preparation  of  that  report,  at  the  latest  six 
months before that time limit expires. 

After having submitted that report, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament 
and to the Council on the application of this Regulation at the same time as it submits reports 
on  the  implementation  of  the  Eurodac  system  provided  for  by  Article  40  42  of  Regulation 
[Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013]. 

Article 47 59 

Statistics 

1.  In  accordance  with  Article  4(4)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  July  2007  on  Community  statistics  on  migration  and 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
international  protection31,  Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  (Eurostat), 
statistics concerning the application of this Regulation and of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003. 

2.  The  European  Union  Agency  for  Asylum  shall  publish  at  quarterly  intervals  the 
information transmitted pursuant to Article 34(4) . 

Article 48 60 

Repeal 

Regulation (EC) No 343/2003  (EU) No 604/2013  is repealed  for the Member States 
bound  by  this  Regulation  as  concerns  their  obligations  in  their  relations  between 
themselves. 

. 

Articles 11(1), 13, 14 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 are repealed. 

References  to  the  repealed  Regulation  or  Articles  shall  be  construed  as  references  to  this 
Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II. 

Article 49 61 

Entry into force and applicability 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

It  shall  apply  to  applications  for  international  protection  lodged  as  from  [ the  first  day 
following its entry into force  ]  of the sixth month following its entry into force and, from 
that date, it will apply to any request to take charge of or take back applicants, irrespective of 
the  date  on  which  the  application  was  made   .  The  Member  State  responsible  for  the 
examination of an application for international protection submitted before that date shall be 
determined in accordance with the criteria set out in Regulation 343/2003604/2013.  

References  in  this  Regulation  to  Regulation  (EU)  No  603/2013,  Directive  2013/32/EU  and 
Directive 2013/33/EU shall be construed, until the dates of their application, as references to 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2725/200032,  Directive  2003/9/EC33  and  Directive  2005/85/EC34 
respectively. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in 
accordance with the Treaties. 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  July  2007  on 
Community statistics on migration and international protection (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23). 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2725/2000  of  11  December  2000  concerning  the  establishment  of 
‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (OJ 
L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1). 
Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of 
asylum seekers (OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18). 
Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures for granting 
and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13). 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 604/2013 

ANNEX I 

REPEALED REGULATIONS (REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 48) 

Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 

(OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1) 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 only Articles 11(1), 13, 14 and 17 

(OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p. 3) 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 604/2013 (adapted) 

ANNEX II 

CORRELATION TABLE 

Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 

This Regulation 

Article 1 

Article 2(a) 

Article 2(b) 

Article 2(c) 

Article 2(d) 

Article 2(e) 

Article 2(f) 

Article 2(g) 

— 

— 

Article 2(h) 

Article 2(i) 

— 

Article 1 

Article 2(a) 

— 

Article 2(b) 

Article 2(c) 

Article 2(d) 

Article 2(e) 

Article 2(f) 

Article 2(h) 

Article 2(i) 

Article 2(j) 

Article 2(g) 

Article 2(k) 

Article 2(j) and (k) 

Article 2(l) and (m) 

— 

Article 3(1) 

Article 3(2) 

Article 3(3) 

Article 3(4) 

— 

— 

Article 2(n) 

Article 3(1) 

Article 17(1) 

Article 3(3) 

Article 4(1), introductory wording 

Article 4(1)(a) to (f) 

Article 4(2) and (3) 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
Article 4(1) to (5) 

Article 20(1) to (5) 

— 

— 

— 

Article 5(1) 

Article 5(2) 

— 

Article 20(5), third subparagraph 

Article 5 

Article 6 

Article 7(1) 

Article 7(2) 

Article 7(3) 

Article 6, first paragraph 

Article 8(1) 

— 

Article 8(3) 

Article 6, second paragraph 

Article 8(4) 

Article 7 

Article 8 

Article 9 

Article 10 

Article 11 

Article 12 

— 

Article 13 

Article 14 

Article 15(1) 

Article 15(2) 

Article 15(3) 

Article 15(4) 

Article 15(5) 

Article 9 

Article 10 

Article 12 

Article 13 

Article 14 

Article 15 

Article 16 

Article 3(2) 

Article 11 

Article 17(2), first subparagraph 

Article 16(1) 

Article 8(2) 

Article 17(2), fourth subparagraph 

Articles 8(5) and (6) and Article 
16(2) 

Article 16(1)(a) 

Article 18(1)(a) 

Article 16(1)(b) 

Article 18(2) 

EN 

84 

   EN 

Article 16(1)(c) 

Article 18(1)(b) 

Article 16(1)(d) 

Article 18(1)(c) 

Article 16(1)(e) 

Article 18(1)(d) 

Article 16(2) 

Article 16(3) 

— 

Article 19(1) 

Article 19(2), first subparagraph 

Article 19(2), second 
subparagraph 

Article 16(4) 

Article 19(3) 

— 

Article 17 

Article 18 

Article 19(1) 

Article 19(2) 

— 

Article 19(3) 

Article 19(4) 

— 

Article 19(5) 

Article 20(1), introductory 
wording 

— 

— 

— 

Article 19(3), second 
subparagraph 

Article 21 

Article 22 

Article 26(1) 

Article 26(2) and Article 27(1) 

Article 27(2) to (6) 

Article 29(1) 

Article 29(2) 

Article 29(3) 

Article 29(4) 

Article 23(1) 

Article 23(2) 

Article 23(3) 

Article 23(4) 

Article 20(1)(a) 

Article 23(5), first subparagraph 

— 

Article 20(1)(b) 

Article 20(1)(c) 

Article 24 

Article 25(1) 

Article 25(2) 

85 

EN 

   EN 

Article 20(1)(d) 

Article 29(1), first subparagraph 

Article 20(1)(e) 

Article 20(2) 

Article 20(3) 

Article 26(1), (2), Article 27(1), 
Article 29(1), second and third 
subparagraphs 

Article 29(2) 

Article 23(5), second 
subparagraph 

Article 20(4) 

Article 29(4) 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Article 28 

Article 30 

Article 31 

Article 32 

Article 33 

Article 21(1) to (9) 

Article 34(1) to (9), first to third 
subparagraphs 

— 

Article 34(9), fourth subparagraph 

Article 21(10) to (12) 

Article 34(10) to (12) 

Article 22(1) 

— 

— 

Article 22(2) 

Article 23 

— 

— 

Article 24(1) 

Article 24(2) 

Article 24(3) 

Article 25(1) 

Article 35(1) 

Article 35(2) 

Article 35(3) 

Article 35(4) 

Article 36 

Article 37 

Article 40 

— 

Article 41 

— 

Article 42 

86 

EN 

   EN 

Article 25(2) 

Article 26 

— 

Article 43 

Article 27(1), (2) 

Article 44(1), (2) 

Article 27(3) 

— 

— 

Article 28 

— 

— 

Article 29 

Article 45 

Article 46 

Article 47 

Article 48 

Article 49 

Regulation (EC) No 
1560/2003 

This Regulation 

Article 11(1) 

Article 13(1) 

Article 13(2) 

Article 13(3) 

Article 13(4) 

Article 14 

Article 17(1) 

— 

Article 17(2), first subparagraph 

Article 17(2), second subparagraph 

Article 17(2), third subparagraph 

Article 17(2), first subparagraph 

Article 37 

Articles 9, 10, 17(2), first 
subparagraph 

Article 17(2) 

Article 34(3) 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 

ANNEX I 

Formula for the reference key pursuant to Article 35 of the Regulation: 

Population effectMS 

35 

GDP effectMS 
ShareMS = 50% Population effectMS + 50% GDP effectMS 

36 

35  

36  

For  three  Member  States,  participation  depends  on  the  exercise  of  rights  as  set  out  in  the  relevant 
Protocols and other instruments. 
For  three  Member  States,  participation  depends  on  the  exercise  of  rights  as  set  out  in  the  relevant 
Protocols and other instruments. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX II 

CORRELATION TABLE 

Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 

This Regulation 

Article 1 

Article 1 

Article 2, introductory wording 

Article 2, introductory wording 

Article 2(a) to (n) 

Article 2(a) to (n) 

- 

Article 2(o), (p), (q) and (r) 

Article 3(1) and (2) 

Article 3(1) and (2) 

Article 3(3) 

- 

- 

- 

Article 3(3),(4) and (5) 

Articles 4 and 5 

Article 4(1), introductory wording 

Article 6(1), introductory wording 

- 

Article 4(1)(a) 

Article 4(1)(b) 

Article 4(1)(c) 

Article 4(1)(d) 

Article 4(1)(e) 

- 

Article 4(1)(f) 

- 

Article 6(1)(a) 

Article 6(1)(b) 

Article 6(1)(c) 

Article 6(1)(d) 

Article 6(1)(e) 

Article 6(1)(f) 

Article 6(1)(g) 

Article 6(1)(h) 

Article 6(1)(i) 

Article 4(2) and (3) 

Article 6(2) and (3) 

Article 5(1) 

Article 5(2) 

Article 5(3) 

Article 5(4) 

Article 5(5) 

EN 

Article 7(1) 

- 

Article 7(2) 

Article 7(3) 

Article 7(4) 

89 

   EN 

Aricle 5(6) 

Article 7(5) 

Article 6(1), (2) and (3) 

Article 8(1), (2) and (3) 

- 

Article 6(4) 

Article 6(5) 

Article 8(4) 

Article 8(5) 

Article 8(6) 

Article 7(1) and (2) 

Article 9(1) and (2) 

Article 7(3) 

- 

Article 8(1) 

Article 8(2) 

Article 8(3) 

Article 8(4) 

Article 8(5) 

Article 8(6) 

Article 9 

Article 10 

Article 11 

- 

Article 10(1) 

Article 10(2) 

Article 10(3) 

Article 10(4) 

Article 10(5) 

Article 10(6) 

Article 10(7) 

Article 11 

Article 12 

Article 13 

Article 12(1), (2) and (3) 

Article 14(1), (2) and (3) 

Article 12(4) 

Article 12(5) 

Article 13(1) 

Article 13(2) 

Article 14(1) 

Article 14(2) 

Article 15 

Article 16 

Article 17 

- 

Article 14(4) 

Article 15 

- 

Article 16 

- 

Article 17 

Article 18 

Article 19 

EN 

90 

   EN 

Article 18(1), introductory wording 

Article 20(1), introductory wording 

Article 18(1)(a) to (d) 

Article 20(1)(a) to (d) 

- 

- 

Article 18(2) 

Article 19 

Article 20(e) 

Article 20(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) 

- 

- 

Article 20(1), (2), (3) and (4) 

Article 21(1), (2), (3) and (4) 

Article 20(5), first subparagraph 

Article 21(5), first subparagraph 

Article 20(5), second and third subparagraphs 

- 

- 

- 

Article 21(1) 

Article 21(2) 

Article 21(3) 

Article 22(1) 

- 

Article 22(2) 

Article 22(3) 

Article 22(4) 

Article 22(5) 

Article 22(6) 

Article 22(7) 

Article 23(1) 

Article 23(2) 

Article 23(3) 

Article 23(4) 

- 

Article 22 

Article 23 

Article 24(1) 

- 

Article 24(2) 

Article 25(1) 

Article 25(2) 

Article 25(3) 

Article 25(4) 

Article 25(5) 

Article 25(6) 

- 

Article 25(7) 

Article 26(1) 

- 

- 

Article 26(2) 

Article 26(3) 

EN 

91 

   EN 

- 

Article 24 

Article 25 

Article 26(1) 

- 

Article 26(3) 

Article 26(4) 

- 

- 

Article 27(1) and (3) 

Article 27(2) 

Article 27(4) 

Article 27(1), (2) and (3) 

Article 28(1), (2) and (3) 

Article 27(4) 

- 

- 

Article 27(5) 

Article 27(6) 

Article 28 

Article 29(1) 

Article 29(2) 

Article 29(3) 

Article 29(4) 

Article 30 

Article 31 

Article 32 

Article 33 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Article 28(4) 

Article 28(5) 

Article 28(6) 

Article 28(7) 

Article 29 

Article 30(1) 

- 

Article 30(2) 

Article 30(3) 

Article 31 

Article 32 

Article 33 

- 

Article 34 

Article 35 

Article 36 

Article 37 

Article 38 

Article 39 

EN 

92 

   EN 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Article 40 

Article 41 

Article 42 

Article 43 

Article 44 

Article 45 

Article 34(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) 

Article 46(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) 

Article 34(8) 

Article 34(9) 

Article 34(10) 

Article 34(11) 

Article 34(12) 

Article 35 

- 

- 

Article 46(8) 

- 

- 

Article 47 

Article 36(1) and (2) 

Article 48(1) and (2) 

Article 36(3) 

Article 36(4) 

Article 36(5) 

- 

Article 37 

- 

- 

- 

Article 49 

- 

Article 38(1) first subparagraph 

Article 50(1) 

Article 38(1), second subparagraph 

- 

- 

- 

Article 39 

Article 40 

Article 41 

- 

Article 50(2) 

Article 50(3) 

Article 51 

Article 52 

Article 53, first subparagraph 

Article 53, second subparagraph 

EN 

93 

   EN 

Article 42 

Article 43 

Article 44 

Article 54 

Article 55 

Article 56 

Article 45(1), (2) and (3) 

Article 57(1), (2) and (3) 

- 

Article 45(4) 

Article 45(5) 

Article 46 

Article 47 

- 

Article 48 

Article 49 

Annex I 

Annex II 

- 

- 

Article 57(4) 

Article 57(5) 

Article 57(6) 

Article 58 

Article 59 

Article 59(2) 

Article 60 

Article 61 

- 

- 

Annex I 

Annex II 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

 

Title of the proposal/initiative  

Proposal for Regulation 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 
(recast) 

 

Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure37  

18 – Migration and Home Affairs 

 

Nature of the proposal/initiative  

 The proposal/initiative relates to a new action  

  The  proposal/initiative 
project/preparatory action38  

relates 

to  a  new  action 

following  a  pilot 

 The proposal/initiative relates to the extension of an existing action  

 The proposal/initiative relates to an action redirected towards a new action  

 

 

Objective(s) 

The Commission's multiannual strategic objective(s) targeted 
by the proposal/initiative  

In  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration  (COM(2015)240  final)  the  Commission 
announced that it will evaluate the Dublin system and determine whether a revision 
of  the  legal  parameters  of  Dublin  will  be  needed  to  achieve  a  fairer  distribution  of 
asylum seekers in Europe. 

The  crisis  has  exposed  significant  structural  weaknesses  and  shortcomings  in  the 
design and implementation of European asylum and migration policy, including the 
Dublin  system  which  was  not  designed  to  ensure  a  sustainable  sharing  of 
responsibility for asylum applicants across the EU. As noted in the conclusions of the 
European Council of 18-19 February 2016 and those of 17-18 March 2016, 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. 

On 6 April 2016 in its Communication "Towards a reform of the Common European 
Asylum System and enhancing legal avenues to Europe" (COM(2016) 197 final), the 
Commission  considered  it  a  priority  to  establish  a  sustainable  and  fair  system  for 
determining the Member State responsible for asylum seekers ensuring a high degree 
of  solidarity  and  a  fair  sharing  of  responsibility  between  Member  States  through  a 
fair  allocation  of  asylum  seekers.  It  committed  to  proposing  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. 

37 
38 

ABM: activity-based management; ABB: activity-based budgeting. 
As referred to in Article 54(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

95 

   EN 

                                                 
A fair allocation of asylum seekers would significantly change the current financial 
landscape  and  suppport  should  be  provided  for  developing  the  reception  capacity, 
both  infrastructure  and  running  costs,  especially  in  those  Member  States  which  did 
not have to deal with a high number of asylum seekers up so far. 

 

Specific objective(s) and ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned  

Specific objective No 

1.3: Enhance protection and solidarity 

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned 

18.03 – Asylum and Migration 

To enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the system for determining the Member 
State reponsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in a 
Member State by a third country national . 

To enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States.  

EN 

96 

   EN 

 

Expected result(s) and impact 

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted. 

Member States and the European Union as a whole will benefit from improving an 
efficiency and effectiveness of the streamlined Dublin Regulation, operational also in 
cases  of  high 
third  country  nationals.  Member  States  with  a 
disproportionate  number  of  applications  for  which  they  would  be  responsible  will 
benefit  from  a  corrective  allocation  mechanism,  which  will  relieve  the  particular 
pressure they are subject to and enable them to deal with the backlog of applications. 

influx  of 

Applicants  for  international  protection  will  benefit  from  more  efficient  and  faster 
system of determining a responsible Member State, which will enable quicker access 
to  an  asylum  procedure  and  the  examination  of  an  application  in  substance  by  a 
single, clearly determined, Member State. 

It  is  expected  that  reception  capacity  would  be  increased,  in  particular  in  those 
Member States which did not yet need to deal with a high number of asylum seekers. 
Also, Member States would be supported to provide food and basic assistance to the 
transferred asylum seekers. 

 

Indicators of results and impact  

Specify the indicators for monitoring implementation of the proposal/initiative. 

Set  up  and    functioning  of  the  automated  system  within  6  months  since  entry  into 
force of this Regulation.  

Number of transfers of applicants for international protection.  

Number  of  reception  places  partly  supported  under  the  additional  funding  to  be 
allocated  to  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  (AMIF)  for  the 
implementation of this proposal in the period 2017-2020. 

Number of transferred asylum seekers provided with assistance each year under the 
additional  funding  to  be  allocated  to  the  AMIF  for  the  implementation  of  this 
proposal. 

 

 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term  

The proposal aims to: 

• 
enhance the Dublin system's capacity to determine efficiently and effectively a 
member  state  responsible  for  examining  the  application  for  international  protection 
by  streamlining  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determination  of  Member  State 
responsible; 

contribute  to  preventing  secondary  movements  within  the  EU,  including  by 

• 
discouraging abuses and asylum shopping; 

• 
ensure  a  high  degree  of  solidarity  and  fair  sharing  of  responsibility  by 
providing  for  a  corrective  allocation  mechanism  activated  in  cases  where  any 
Member State receives a disproportionate number of applications for examination of 
which it would be responsible. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
 

Added value of EU involvement 

The  establishment  of  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  cannot  be 
achieved  by  the  Member  States  acting  on  their  own  and  can  only  be  achieved  at 
Union level.  

The added value of this proposal is streamlining and enhancing effectiveness of the 
current Dublin Regulation and providing for a corrective fairness mechanism that is 
applied  during  a  period  of  disproportionate  pressure  on  a  Member  State  for  its 
benefit.  

 

Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

The  Commission  evaluation  has  concluded  that  the  current  Dublin  system  is  not 
satisfactory. This requires a number of changes aimed at streamlining it and making it 
more efficient.  

The  Dublin  system  was  not  designed  as  an  instrument  for  solidarity  and  sharing  of 
responsibility. The migration crisis exposed this deficiency, which calls for inclusion 
of a corrective allocation system in the proposal. 

 

Compatibility and possible synergy with other appropriate 
instruments 

1. Transfer costs: 

Under  the  present  proposal,  the  Member  State  carrying  out  the  transfer  to  the 
Member State of allocation is  entitled to  receive  a lump sum of  EUR  500 for each 
person transferred, which should be implemented under AMIF shared management.  

AMIF  already  foresees  the  possibility  of  transfer  of  applicants  for  international 
protection as  part  of  the  national  programme  of  each  Member  State  on  a  voluntary 
basis (Article 7 and Article 18 of Regulation (EU)  No. 516/2014). 

Under  Council  Decisions  (2015/1523  and  2015/1601),  establishing  provisional 
measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece, 
160  000  third  country  nationals  should  be  transferred  by  26  September  2017.  This 
proposal does not affect the implementation of those decisions. 

Appropriate mechanisms will be established to enhance the synergies and avoid any 
overlaps between the new proposal and the already existing instruments. 

2. Establishment and technical maintainance of automated IT system for allocation of 
asylum seekers: 

The European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in 
the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  (eu-LISA)  shall  be  responsible  for  the 
preparation,  development  and  the  operational  management    of  the  automated  IT 
system for the allocation of the asylum seekers.  

3. Increase in the reception capacity: 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
To  support  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation,  additional  reception  capacity 
would  be  needed,  in  particular  in  those  Member  States  which  did  not  have  to  deal 
with a high number of asylum seekers up so far.  

4. Provision of food and  basic services to the transferred asylum seekers: 

To support the implementation of this Regulation, support would be needed for the 
provision of food and basic services to the transferred asylum seekers. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 

Duration and financial impact  

 Proposal/initiative of limited duration  

    Proposal/initiative in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY  

    Financial impact from 2016 to 2020  

 Proposal/initiative of unlimited duration 

  Implementation with a start-up period from 2017 to 2020, 

  followed by full-scale operation. 

  Management mode(s) planned  

 Direct management by the Commission 

   by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;  

    by the executive agencies  

 Shared management with the Member States  

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to: 

   third countries or the bodies they have designated; 

   international organisations and their agencies (to be specified); 

  the EIB and the European Investment Fund; 

  bodies referred to in Articles 208 and 209 of the Financial Regulation; 

   public law bodies; 

   bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that 

they provide adequate financial guarantees; 

   bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with 
the implementation of a public-private partnership and that provide adequate 
financial guarantees; 

   persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the CFSP 

pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act. 

 

If more than one management mode is indicated, please provide details in the ‘Comments’ section. 

Comments  

The transfers and support to reception capacity and running costs will be covered under AMIF 
shared management. 

The establishment and technical maintainance of the IT system will be entrusted to eu-LISA 
(indirect management) and the related costs are covered under this proposal.  

EN 

100 

   EN 

  MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

  Monitoring and reporting rules  

Specify frequency and conditions. 

By two years after entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission should report 
to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation 
and,  where  appropriate,  should  propose  the  necessary  amendments.  Member  States 
should forward to the Commission all information appropriate for the preparation of 
that report, at the latest six months before that time limit expires. 

After  having  submitted  that  report,  the  Commission  shall  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation at the same time 
as  it  submits  reports  on  the implementation  of  the  Eurodac system  provided  for  by 
(Article 40 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013). 

For  shared  management,  a  coherent  and  efficient  reporting,  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework is in place. For each national programme, Member States are 
required to set up a Monitoring Committee to which the Commission may participate 
in advisory capacity. 

On  an  annual  basis  Member  States  will  report  on  the  implementation  of  the 
multiannual programme. These reports are a precondition for annual payments in the 
framework  of  the  clearance  of  accounts  procedure,  set  out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No. 
514/2014. 

By  30  June  2018,  in  accordance  with  Aarticle  57(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
514/2014,  the  Commission  will  present  an  interim  evaluation  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  AMIF,    which  will    also  include  the  implementation  of  the 
financial resources made available by this Regulation. 

Moreover,  the  Commission  will  submit  an  ex-post  evaluation  report  by  30  June 
2024, covering the impact of the implementation of AMIF on the development of the 
area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice,  inlcuding  on  the  Common  European  Asylum 
System. 

For  the  establishemnt  and  technical  maintainance  of  the  IT  system  (indirect 
management),  eu-LISA  will  report  regularly  on  the  progress  made.  The  Agency  is 
subject to regular monitoring and reporting requirments. The Management Board of 
the Agency shall before 31 March each year, adopt a consolidated annual activity of 
the  Agency  for  the  previous  year  and  forward  it  by  15  June  at  the  latest  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Commission,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee and the Court of Auditors. This report shall be made public. Every 
three  years,  the  Commission  shall  conduct  an  evaluation  in  accordance  with  the 
evaluation  criteria  of  the  Commission  guidelines  to  assess  particularly  the  impact, 
effectiveness and efficiency of the Agency’s performance and its working practices 
in  relation  to  its  objectives,  mandate  and  tasks.  The  evaluation  shall,  in  particular, 
address  the  possible  need  to  modify  the  mandate  of  the  Agency,  and  the  financial 
implications of any such modification. 

EN 

101 

   EN 

  Management and control system  

 

Risk(s) identified  

DG HOME has not been facing important risks of errors in its spending programmes. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  recurrent  absence  of  significant  findings  in  the  annual 
reports of the Court of Auditors as well as by the absence of residual error rate above 
2% in the past years in DG HOME annual activity reports. 

The  management  and  control  system  follows  the  general  requirements  set  in  the 
Common  Strategic  Framework  Funds  and  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of 
the Financial Regulation. 

Multi-annual  programming  coupled  with  annual  clearance  based  on  the  payments 
made  by  the  Responsible  Authority  aligns  the  eligibility  periods  with  the  annual 
accounts of the Commission.  

On  the  spot  checks  will  be  carried  out  as  part  of  the  1st  level  controls,  i.e.  by  the 
Responsible  Authority  and  will  support  its  annual  management  declaration  of 
assurance. 

The use of lump sums (simplified cost option)  for the transfers shall further reduce 
mistakes made by the responsible authorities when implementing this proposal. 

 

Information concerning the internal control system set up 

In addition to the application of all regulatory control mechanisms, DG HOME will 
apply its antifraud strategy, which was adopted on 9 April 2013. This  strategy was 
developed  following  the  Commission's  new  anti-fraud  strategy  (CAFS)  adopted  on 
24  June  2011,  therefore  it  ensures  inter  alia  that  internal  anti-fraud  related  controls 
are  fully  aligned  with  the  CAFS  and  that  its  fraud  risk  management  approach  is 
geared to identify fraud risk areas and adequate responses. 

Also, DG HOME has adopted on 4 November 2015  an Audit Strategy for the shared 
management part of AMIF and the Internal Security Fund (ISF).  A Control Strategy 
for AMIF/ISF shared management is currently being developed by DG HOME. This 
strategy  will  include  all  controls  needed  for  the  management  of  the  national 
programmes under AMIF and ISF. 

 

Estimate of the costs and benefits of the controls and 
assessment of the expected level of risk of error  

Negligeable control costs and very low error risk. 

  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures. 

As  regards  shared  management,  Member  States  are  obliged,  in  accordance  with 
Article  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  No.  514/2014,  to  put  in  place  fraud  prevention 
measures which are effective and proportionate to the identified fraud risks.  

As  regards  indirect  management,  the  measures  foreseen  to  combat  fraud  are  laid 
down in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 1077/2011 which provides as follows: 

EN 

102 

   EN 

1. In order to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities, Regulation (EC) 
No 1073/1999 shall apply. 

2.  The  Agency  shall  accede  to  the  Interinstitutional  Agreement  concerning  internal 
investigations  by  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  and  shall  issue,  without 
delay, the appropriate provisions applicable to all the employees of the Agency. 

3.  The  decisions  concerning  funding  and  the  implementing  agreements  and 
instruments resulting from them shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors 
and OLAF  may carry  out,  if necessary, on-the-spot checks among the recipients of 
the Agency's funding and the agents responsible for allocating it. 

In  accordance  with  this  provision,  the  decision  of  the  Management  Board  of  the 
European  Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  large-scale  IT  systems  in  the 
area of freedom, security and justice concerning the terms and conditions for internal 
investigations  in  relation  to  the  prevention  of  fraud,  corruption  and  any  illegal 
activity detrimental to the Union's interests was adopted on 28 June 2012. 

Also, the Commission's anti-fraud strategy will apply. 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 

 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE 
PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and 
expenditure budget line(s) affected  

  Existing budget lines  

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines. 

Budget line 

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

3 Security and citizenship 

Type of  
expenditure 

Diff./Non-
diff.39 

Contribution  

from 
EFTA 
countrie
s40 

from 
candidat
e 
countrie
s41 

from 
third 
countrie
s 

within the 
meaning of 
Article 21(2)
(b) of the 
Financial 
Regulation  

Strengthening 

18.030101- 
and 
developing  the  common  European 
asylum 
enhancing 
solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing 
between the Member States 

system 

and 

Diff. 

NO 

NO 

YES* 

YES  

18.0207-  European  Agency  for  the 
operational  management  of  large-
scale  IT  systems  in  the  area  of 
freedom, security and justice 

Diff. 

NO 

NO 

YES* 

NO 

* possible contribution from the Schengen Associated Countries if these would participate in 
the new Dublin system

39 
40 
41 

Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 
EFTA: European Free Trade Association.  
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans. 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

 

Estimated impact on expenditure  

Summary of estimated impact on expenditure  

Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

Number 

3 Security and citizenship 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

COMMISSION 

 Operational appropriations  

Number of budget line 18.030101 

Number of budget line 18.0207 

Year 
2017 

Year 
2018 

Year 
2019 

Year 
2020 

Subsequent years 

TOTAL 

Commitments 

Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

(1) 

(2) 

(1a) 

(2a) 

445 

460 

460 

33,3 

261,35 

457,35 

460 

460 

1,750 
1,750 

0,983 
0,983 

0,135 
0,135 

0,735 
0,735 

613 

1825 

1825 

3,603 
3,603 

Appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed  from  the 
envelope of specific programmes42  

Number of budget line  

TOTAL appropriations 
for COMMISSION 

Commitments 

Payments 

(3) 

=1+1a 
+3 

=2+2a 

+3 

446,75  460,983  460,135  460,735 

1828,603 

35,05  262,333  457,485 

460.735 

613 

1828,603 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

446,75  460,983  460,135  460,735 

1828,603 

Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, 
direct research. 

105 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADING 3 
of the multiannual financial framework 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

35,05  262,333  457,485 

460.735 

613 

1828,603 

If more than one heading is affected by the proposal / initiative: 

 TOTAL operational appropriations  

Commitments 

Payments 

  TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature 
financed from the envelope for specific programmes  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 4 
of the multiannual financial framework 
(Reference amount) 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

446,75  460,983  460,135  460,735 

1828,603 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

35,05  262,333  457,485 

460.735 

613 

1828,603 

EN 

106 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

5 

‘Administrative expenditure’ 

Year 
2017 

Year 
2018 

Year 
2019 

Year 
2020 

Enter as many years as 
necessary to show the duration 
of the impact (see point 1.6)  

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

COMMISSION 

 Human resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  

0,536 

0,06 

0,536 

0,06 

0,536 

0,03 

0,536 

0,03 

TOTAL  

Appropriations  

0,596 

0,596 

0,566 

0,566 

TOTAL appropriations 
under HEADING 5 
of the multiannual financial framework  

(Total  commitments  = 
Total payments) 

0,596 

0,596 

0,566 

0,566 

2,144 

0,18 

2,324 

2,324 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 5 
of the multiannual financial framework  

Commitments 

Payments 

Year 
2017 

Year 
2018 

Year 
2019 

Year 
2020 

447,346 

461,579 

460,701 

461,301 

35,646 

262,929 

458,051 

460735,5
66 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Subsequent years 

TOTAL 

613 

1830,927 

1830,927 

EN 

107 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Estimated impact on operational appropriations  

    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

    The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below: 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
2017 

Year 
2018 

Year 
2019 

Year 
2020 

OUTPUTS 

Year 
2021 

o
N

Cost  N

o

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost  N

o

Cost  N

o

Cost  N

o

Cost 

Indicate 
objectives and 
outputs  

 

Type43 

Avera
ge 
cost 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 144… 

n/a 

1 

1,750 

1 

0,983 

1 

0,135 

1 

0,735 

- Output 

IT 
system 
and  
mainte
nance 

- Output 

Transf
ers 

0,000
5 

150
000 

75 

200
000 

100 

20000
0 

100 

200000 

100 

TOTAL 

Total 
No 

Total 
cost 

3,603 

375 

43 
44 

Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 
As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)…’  

EN 

108 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- Output 

Recept
ion 
places 

0,002 

500
00 

100 

- Output 

Runnin
g costs 

0,001
8 

150
000 

270 

200
000 

360 

20000
0 

360 

200000 

360 

TOTAL COST 

446,75 

460,9
83 

460,13
5 

460,73
5 

100 

1350 

1828,603 

EN 

109 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Estimated impact on appropriations of an administrative 
nature 

 

Summary  

    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an 

administrative nature  

    The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative 

nature, as explained below: 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
2017 

Year 
2018 

Year 
2019 

Year 
2020 

Enter as many years as necessary to show the 
duration of the impact (see point 1.6) 

TOTAL 

HEADING 5 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

Human resources  

0,536 

0,536 

0,536 

0,536 

0,06 

0,06 

0,03 

0,03 

0,596 

0,596 

0,566 

0,566 

Other administrative 
expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 5 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

Outside HEADING 545 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

Human resources  

Other expenditure  
of an administrative 
nature 

Subtotal  
outside HEADING 5 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

2,144 

0,18 

2,324 

TOTAL 

0,596 

0,596 

0,566 

0,566 

2,324 

The  appropriations  required  for  human  resources  and  other  expenditure  of  an  administrative  nature  will  be  met  by 
appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the 
DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which  may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual 
constraints.
allocation 

procedure 

budgetary 

light 

and 

the 

of 

in 

45 

Technical  and/or  administrative  assistance  and  expenditure  in  support  of  the  implementation  of 
EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.1.1.1.  Estimated requirements of human resources 

    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.  

    The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained 

below: 

Estimate to be expressed in full time equivalent units 

Enter 
as 
many 
years 
as 
necessa
ry to 
show 
the 
duratio
n of the 
impact 
(see 
point 
1.6) 

Year 
2017 

Year 
2018 

Year 2019 

Year 2020 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

18 01 01 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s 
Representation Offices) 

XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) 

XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) 

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) 

 External staff (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)46 

XX 01 02 01 (AC, END, INT from the ‘global 
envelope’) 

XX 01 02 02 (AC, AL, END, INT and JED in the 
delegations) 

XX 01 04 yy 47 

- at Headquarters 

- in Delegations  

XX 01 05 02 (AC, END, INT - Indirect research) 

10 01 05 02 (AC, END, INT - Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

TOTAL 

XX is the policy area or budget title concerned. 

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the 
action  and/or  have  been  redeployed  within  the  DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which 
may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual  allocation  procedure  and  in  the  light  of  budgetary 
constraints. 

Description of tasks to be carried out: 

Officials and temporary staff 

Support,  process  and  monitor  the  activities  related  to  the  implementation  of  this 
proposal, mainly regarding the transfer of applicants for international protection.   

46 

47 

AC=  Contract  Staff;  AL  =  Local  Staff;  END=  Seconded  National  Expert;  INT  =  agency  staff; 
JED= Junior Experts in Delegations.  
Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines). 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
External staff 

N/A 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
 

Compatibility with the current multiannual financial 
framework  

    The financial needs are compatible with the current multiannual financial 

framework and may entail the use of special instruments as defined in the Council 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013.48  The proposal/initiative will entail 
reprogramming of the relevant heading in the multiannual financial framework. 

Explain what reprogramming is required, specifying the budget lines concerned and the corresponding 
amounts. 

[…] 

    The proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility instrument or 

revision of the multiannual financial framework. 

Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding 
amounts. 

[…] 

 

Third-party contributions  

   The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third parties.  

   The proposal/initiative provides for the co-financing estimated below*: 

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
2017 

Year 
2018 

Year 
2019 

Year 
2020 

Enter as many years as necessary 
to show the duration of the 
impact (see point 1.6) 

Total 

Specify  the  co-financing 
body  

pm 

TOTAL appropriations 
co-financed  

pm 

pm 

pm 

pm 

pm 

pm 

pm 

pm 

pm 

* possible contribution from the Schengen Associated Countriesm if these would participate 
in the new Dublin system 

48 

Council  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No 1311/2013  of  2 December  2013  laying  down  the  multiannual 
financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884). 

EN 

113 

   EN