REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation and application of Council Directive (EU) 2015/637 of 20 April 2015 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and repealing Decision 95/553/EC
Date: 2022-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, Union delegation, application of EU law, consulate, diplomatic protection, international cooperation, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.9.2022  COM(2022) 437 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation and application of Council Directive (EU) 2015/637 of 20 April 2015 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and repealing Decision 95/553/EC  
 
 
1.  Introduction 

European Union (EU) citizenship, ‘destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of 
the  Member  States’1  of  the  EU,  offers  protection  to  EU  citizens  when  they  travel  or 
reside abroad. As part of EU citizenship rights, Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide that every EU citizen is entitled, 
in the territory of a third (i.e. non-EU) country in which the Member State of which they 
are a national is not represented, to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities 
of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State.  

The  fundamental  right  for  unrepresented  citizens  to  receive  consular  protection  from 
represented  Member  States  on  the  same  conditions  as  their  own  nationals2  is  an 
expression  of  the  external  dimension  of  EU  citizenship,  a  manifestation  of  Member 
States’ solidarity, and strengthens the identity of the EU in third countries. It protects EU 
citizens  who  find  themselves  in  difficulty  abroad.  Its  importance  is  most  clearly  felt  in 
the  context  of  large-scale  crisis  situations,  natural  or  caused  by  human  activity,  which 
may require urgent relief and repatriation of large numbers of EU citizens. 

On 20 April 2015, the Council adopted Directive (EU) 2015/637 on the coordination and 
cooperation  measures  to  facilitate  consular  protection  for  unrepresented  EU  citizens  in 
third  countries  (the  ‘Directive’)3,  the  first  piece  of  EU  secondary  law  adopted  in  this 
field4. The Directive’s purpose is to: (i) establish in EU law the applicable coordination 
and  cooperation  measures  necessary  to  facilitate  day-to-day  consular  protection  for 
unrepresented  EU  citizens;  (ii)  enhance  legal  certainty  regarding  the  scope,  conditions 
and procedures related to consular protection; and (iii) optimise the use of Member States 
and  EU  resources  including  in  times  of  crisis.  Member  States  had  to  transpose  the 
Directive into national law by 1 May 2018. 

Over  the  last  few  years,  several  events  have  posed  challenges  relevant  to  consular 
protection, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic, the crisis in Afghanistan, and Russia’s 
war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine.  These  crises  demonstrated  the  benefits  of  consular 
protection to EU citizens, as part of the rights flowing from EU citizenship5.  

1 Judgment of 18 January 2022, Wiener Landesregierung (Révocation d'une assurance de naturalisation), 
C-118/20, EU:C:2022:34, paragraph 38 and case-law cited. 
2 See Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’). 
3 OJ L 106, 24.4.2015, p. 1. 
4 Until the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty,  the right related to consular protection was governed by 
Article 20 of the Nice Treaty and, prior to that, Article 8c of the Maastricht Treaty, which left it to Member 
States to ‘establish the necessary rules among themselves’ to secure this protection. To comply with Article 
8c  and  considering  that  common  protection  arrangements  would  ‘strengthen  the  identity  of  the  Union  as 
perceived  in  third  countries’  and  the  ‘idea  of  European  solidarity’,  Member  States  adopted  Decision 
95/553/EC of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council of 
19  December  1995  regarding  protection  for  citizens  of  the  European  Union  by  diplomatic  and  consular 
representations (OJ L 314, 28.12.1995). The Lisbon Treaty replaced this method of implementation. Under 
the  new  approach,  the  Council,  acting  in  accordance  with  a  special  legislative  procedure  and  after 
consulting the European Parliament, was empowered to adopt directives establishing the coordination and 
cooperation  measures  necessary  to  facilitate  protection  by  the  diplomatic  or  consular  authorities  of  any 
Member State to EU citizens in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which  that 
person is a national is not represented. In view of the legal framework established by the Lisbon Treaty, the 
Directive also repealed Decision 95/553/EC. 
5 See for comprehensive information the article “Good stories on consular support for EU citizens stranded 
abroad” at https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/good-stories-consular-support-eu-citizens-stranded-abroad_en. 

1 

 
 
                                                 
Consular  protection  is  prone  to  become  more  relevant  in  the  future  as  the  frequency, 
severity  and  duration  of  crises  could  increase,  notably  the  crises  related  to  global 
warming, causing unavoidable multiple climate hazards and presenting multiple risks to 
ecosystems and humans6. This shows the need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place 
to  give  effect  to  EU  citizens’  rights  related  to  consular  protection  in  practice.  It  also 
shows the need to reinforce the EU consular protection legal framework, in particular to 
improve  crisis  preparedness  and  to  take  into  account  the  reduced  overall  EU  consular 
presence of Member States further to the United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal from the 
EU. 

In  this  regard,  the  UK’s  withdrawal  from  the  EU  also  affected  the  territorial  scope  of 
application of the Directive, by creating a new third country, which is home to at least 5.5 
million EU citizens7.  

As  mentioned  in  the  2020  EU  citizenship  report8,  the  2021  Commission  work 
programme9 announced a review of EU rules on consular protection to improve the EU’s 
and  Member  States’  preparedness  and  capacity  to  protect  and  support  EU  citizens  in 
times  of  crisis.  This  would  involve  strengthening  the  EU’s  supporting  role  and  making 
best use of its unique network of EU Delegations10. 

In  addition,  the  Strategic  Compass  for  Security  and  Defence11  submitted  by  the  High 
Representative  of  the  Union  for  Foreign  Affairs  and  Security  Policy/Vice-President  of 
the Commission (HR/VP) and endorsed by the Heads of State and of Government of the 
EU12, states that ‘[t]he EEAS crisis response mechanisms, our consular support and field 
security  will  also  be  reviewed  and  strengthened  to  better  assist  Member  States  in  their 
efforts  to  protect  and  rescue  their  citizens  abroad,  as  well  as  to  support  our  EU 
Delegations when they need to evacuate personnel’13.  

Moreover, in its June 2022 Communication on the follow up measures to the Conference 
on the Future of Europe, the Commission announced that it would consider new areas of 
actions  such  as  ‘making  European  citizenship  more  tangible  to  citizens,  including  by 

6  See  report  of  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  "Climate  Change  2022,  Impacts  Adaptation 
and Vulnerability" page 15.  
7 Considering only beneficiaries of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement (i.e., EU citizens who have lived in 
the UK before 31 December 2020 and continue to do so) to the exclusion of EU citizens who have moved 
to  the  UK  after  31  December  2020.  In  the  UK,  all  Member  States  are  represented  and  there  is  an  EU 
Delegation: the possibility of an EU citizen to be unrepresented is very limited. Local consular cooperation 
meetings  are  regularly  convened  locally,  and  consular  crisis  contingency  planning  is  ongoing.  Measures 
taken to adapt to the UK becoming a third country from the Directive’s perspective include adapting joint 
frameworks. Consular protection is not covered by the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement nor by the EU-UK 
Trade and Cooperation Agreement.  
8 EU Citizenship Report 2020 – Empowering citizens and protecting their rights. 
9 COM(2020) 690 final. 
10 This initiative is subject to relevant better regulation requirements and has not yet been presented.  
11 A  Strategic Compass  for Security and Defence,  for a European Union that protects its citizens, values 
and 
security, 
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/strategic_compass_en3_web.pdf. 
12 EU 7371/22. 
13 Following on this call an EEAS Crisis Response Centre (CRC) was created in July 2022 as the EEAS 
permanent crisis response capability, liaising with all EU Institutions’, Member States’ and partners’ crisis 
cells.  

international 

contributes 

interests 

peace 

and 

and 

to 

2 

 
                                                 
reinforcing  the  rights  attached  to  it  and  by  providing  reliable  and  easily  accessible 
information about it’14. 

2.  Scope of the implementation and application report 

In accordance with Article 19(1) of the Directive15, the Commission is to submit a report 
to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and application of the 
Directive by 1 May 2021. The delivery of this report was postponed in order to take into 
account  recent  developments  with  major  impact  on  consular  protection,  such  as  the 
lessons learned from the large-scale repatriations made necessary by the outbreak of the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the crisis in Afghanistan, and Russia’s war of aggression  against 
Ukraine16.  

The description and analysis contained in this report are based primarily on information 
provided  by  Member  States,  the  EEAS  and  EU  Delegations,  supplemented  by  external 
studies17 and direct feedback from EU citizens18.  

The report focuses on the measures Member States have taken to implement and apply 
the Directive.  It  assesses whether Member States implemented the  Directive within the 
specified timeframe, and whether national legislation and practice achieve the objectives 
and fulfil the requirements of the Directive. In addition, pursuant to Article 19(2) of the 
Directive, this report also considers the possible need for additional measures, including, 
where appropriate, amendments to adapt the Directive with a view to further facilitate the 
exercise of EU citizens’ rights related to consular protection19.  

3.  Purpose and main elements of the Directive 

The  Directive  lays  down  the  coordination  and  cooperation  measures  necessary  to 
facilitate  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  EU  citizens  to  enjoy,  in  the  territory  of  a  third 
country  in  which  the  Member  State  of  which  they  are  nationals  is  not  represented  (i.e. 
where they are ‘unrepresented’), the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities 
of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State, as set 
out  in  Article 20(2)(c) TFEU20.  In particular, the  Directive provides the definitions  and 
procedures necessary to implement this right. 

In line with Article 23 of the TFEU, the Directive refers to consular protection in third 
countries being provided by represented Member States to unrepresented EU citizens ‘on 

14 Annex to COM(2022) 404 final. 
15 All future references to articles concern the Directive unless stated otherwise. 
16 The reporting period therefore runs from 1 May 2018, when Member States were required to transpose 
the Directive into national law, to the date of publication of this report. 
17  Forthcoming  “Study  to  support  the  preparation  of  an  impact  assessment  on  a  potential  EU  policy 
initiative on the coordination & cooperation measures to facilitate the exercise of the EU citizens’ right to 
consular  protection”,  Tetra  Tech  Europe,  Asterisk  Research  &  Analysis  and  VVA,  and  “Consular 
protection  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  in  third  countries  effectiveness  and  future  of  the  EU  citizenship 
right to consular protection outside the EU”, EU-CITZEN:  Academic Network on European  Citizenship 
Rights. 
18  Flash  Eurobarometer 
https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2260_485_eng?locale=en. 
19  Any  legislative  proposal  would  be  subject  to  the  relevant  better  regulation  requirements,  such  as 
evaluation and impact assessment if relevant.  
20 Recital 4 and Article 1(1) of the Directive. 

and  Democracy,  February/March 

485:  EU  Citizenship 

2020, 

3 

 
                                                 
the  same  conditions’  as  to  their  own  nationals.  This  means  that  the  Directive  does  not 
harmonise the level of assistance Member States are required to provide to unrepresented 
citizens.  Rather,  unrepresented  EU  citizens  are  entitled  to  equal  treatment,  that  is,  to 
receive  the  same  level  of  protection  the  assisting  Member  States  would  provide  to  its 
own  nationals  in  the  same  situation.  In  practice,  this  means  that  unrepresented  EU 
citizens  may  receive  different  types  of  protection  and  different  levels  of  service 
depending  on  the  Member  State  from  which  they  seek  protection,  due  to  the  differing 
protection provided by Member States to their own nationals. 

The Directive contains the following elements: 

  The general principle of consular protection by Member States to unrepresented 

EU citizens on the same conditions as to their own nationals (Article 2). 

  The  possibility  that  the  Member  State  of  nationality  of  an  unrepresented  citizen 
requests the Member State from whom an unrepresented citizen seeks or receives 
consular  protection  to  redirect  the  case  to  his/her  own  Member  State  of 
nationality, which the requested Member State should relinquish (Article 3). 
  The  personal  scope  of  the  protection,  determining  who  is  entitled  to  consular 

protection (Articles 4, 5 and 6). 

  The conditions to access such protection, namely which Member State and what 
type of body unrepresented EU citizens can seek protection from (Article 7). 

  Rules on how to identify unrepresented EU citizens (Article 8). 
  A non-exhaustive list of the types of situations that may give rise to the need for 

consular protection (Article 9). 

  Rules  on  how  Member  States  are  to  cooperate  and  coordinate  with  one  another 

and the EU to ensure protection of unrepresented citizens (Article 10). 

  Specifications regarding the role of EU Delegations (Article 11). 
  Requirements for local cooperation between Member States (Article 12) and for 
crisis  preparedness  and  cooperation  of  Member  States  and  EU  Delegations  in 
third countries (Article 13). 

  Rules on the reimbursement of the costs of consular protection (Articles  14 and 

15). 

4.  General assessment 

4.1. Transposition of the Directive into national law 

Pursuant  to  Article 17,  Member  States  were  required  to  transpose  the  Directive  into 
national law by 1 May 2018.  

At  the  date  of  expiry  of  the  transposition  period,  10  Member  States  had  not 
communicated  the  necessary  measures  to  the  Commission.  The  Commission  engaged 
with the relevant Member States to ensure full transposition of the Directive and is still in 
dialogue  with  Member  States  on  the  implementation  of  specific  elements  of  the 
Directive.  

The  Commission  will  continue  to  closely  monitor  the  situation  and  take  the  necessary 
steps to ensure conformity with the Directive throughout the EU, including, where and if 
necessary, by initiating infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU. 

4 

 
4.2. Application of the Directive and potential gaps   

Since the date of its entry into application, the Directive has proven to be a useful tool to 
ensure protection and support to EU citizens, in particular in the context of the outbreak 
of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, a number of specific gaps and new needs 
pose challenges to EU citizens.  

First,  the  Directive  starts  from  the  premise  that  unrepresented  EU  citizens  can  always 
turn  to  another  Member  State  when  seeking  consular  protection  in  a  third  country. 
However,  there  are  many  countries  where  no  Member  State  has  an  in-country 
embassy  or  consular  post.  In  addition,  in  those  countries  where  only  few  Member 
States are present, the pressure on those Member States’ consular networks may be 
high, particularly in crisis situations. In particular, there are 25 third countries where 
no Member State has an in-country embassy or consular post21. In five of these countries, 
the EU Delegation is the only EU diplomatic presence22. However, in many more third 
countries, the consular or diplomatic presence by Member States is very low, and thus at 
high risk of being overwhelmed if a larger-scale crisis occurs. For example, in more than 
half of third countries,  a maximum of seven Member States are represented, often with 
limited  resources.  EU  Delegations,  present  in  most  of  the  third  countries  concerned, 
could  provide  useful  additional  support  to  Member  States,  if  required,  to  assist 
unrepresented EU citizens. 

Figure 1: EU Member States’ representation in third countries 

3%, 5

14%, 25

40%, 68

43%, 73

No EU MS representation

7 or less EU MS represented

Between 8 and 26 EU MS represented All EU MS represented

Second,  the  support  provided  by  EU  Delegations  to  EU  citizens  at  Member  States’ 
request  goes  beyond  the  terms  set  out  in  Article  11  of  the  Directive23,  which  mainly 

21  These  are  Afghanistan,  Antigua  and  Barbuda,  the  Bahamas,  Barbados,  Belize,  Bhutan,  Cook  Island, 
Dominica,  Eswatini,  Grenada,  Guyana,  Kiribati,  Lesotho,  Liechtenstein,  the  Maldives,  Marshall  Islands, 
Micronesia,  Nauru,  Palau  Republic,  Saint  Kitts  and  Nevis,  St  Vincent  and  the  Grenadines,  Samoa, 
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu. The number of third countries where no Member State has an in-country 
embassy or consular post has increased following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. 
22 Afghanistan, Barbados, Eswatini, Guyana and Lesotho. 
23 In this context, see also Article 221(2) of the TFEU and Article 5(10) of the Council Decision of 26 July 
2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (2010/427/EU) 
OJ L 201/30 of 3 August 2010. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
covers  coordination  and  logistical  support24.  This  is  notably  the  case  in  third  countries 
where  no  Member  State  is  represented  and  EU  Delegations  have  been  providing 
assistance to EU citizens in need. This has also been the case in  crisis situations where 
EU  Delegations  have  often  taken  an  active  role  in  assisting  the  Member  States  in 
providing assistance to EU citizens.     

More importantly, since the date the Directive entered into application, EU Delegations 
have  been  essential  for  the  functioning  of  local  and  crisis  cooperation.  Following  the 
outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  EU  Delegations,  the  EEAS  and  Commission 
services  including  its  Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) supported the 
Member States in organising the unprecedented joint exercise to repatriate about 600 000 
EU  citizens  affected  by  travel  restrictions  across  the  world,  notably  through  the  Union 
Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM)25. While this demonstrated the benefits of consular 
protection as part of the  EU citizenship rights, it also underscored the need to reinforce 
the existing EU framework for Member States and the EU to be able to face, in a more 
effective  manner,  possible  similar  challenges  in  the  future.  In  its  interim  assessment  of 
the  “COVID-19  lessons  learned”,  the  German  Presidency  of  the  Council26  considered 
that  the  repatriation  exercise  showed  that  ‘the  existing  instruments  provide  a  solid 
foundation to further enhance coordinated consular crisis response’27. 

The  description  of  the  role  of  EU  Delegations  in  the  Directive  seems,  on  all  available 
evidence,  too  narrow  to  completely  reflect  the  support  they  provide  on  the  ground  and 
their actual engagement, in particular during times of crisis. EU Delegations report being 
asked,  on  a  regular  basis,  to  act  directly  to  support  citizens  in  need  of  assistance,  well 
beyond the mandate envisaged for them when the Directive was adopted28. However, this 

24  “Union  delegations  shall  closely  cooperate  and  coordinate  with  Member  States'  embassies  and 
consulates  to  contribute  to  local  and  crisis  cooperation  and  coordination,  in  particular  by  providing 
available  logistical  support,  including  office  accommodation  and  organisational  facilities,  such  as 
temporary accommodation for consular staff and for intervention teams. Union delegations and the EEAS 
headquarters  shall  also  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States'  embassies  and 
consulates  and,  if  appropriate,  with  local  authorities.  Union  delegations  shall  also  make  general 
information  available  about  the  assistance  that  unrepresented  citizens  could  be  entitled  to,  particularly 
about agreed practical arrangements if applicable.” 
25  Decision  1313/2013/EU  states  that  the  UCPM  may  "be  used  to  provide  civil  protection  support  to 
consular  assistance  to  the  citizens  of  the  Union  if  requested  by  the  consular  authorities  of  the  Member 
States concerned". The UCPM co-financed 408 repatriation flights from 85 third countries, organised by 19 
Member  States,  2  Participating  States  and  the  UK  (still  part  of  the  UCPM  during  the  transition  period), 
bringing back to Europe 100,313 people, of which 90,060 EU citizens). 
26 ST 13613/20.  
27  In  this  context,  see  also  the  Council  conclusions  on  enhancing  preparedness,  response  capability  and 
resilience to future crises of 23 November 2021 where the Council stated that ‘Many recent lessons learned 
derive  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Despite  shortcomings,  the  EU  has  coped  well,  thanks  to 
coordination and solidarity. While exposing gaps in terms of preparedness and response to cross-sectoral 
crises, our response to the pandemic has proven the necessity and added value of working together. The use 
of EU consular cooperation and coordination for the successful repatriation by Member States with support 
from the EEAS and Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) of EU nationals stranded abroad because 
of  emergency  travel  restrictions  (…)  underlines  where  relevant  the  importance  of  consular  coordination 
and cooperation during crises and the need to draw lessons from the response to the COVID-19 outbreak 
and  other  crises,  and  awaits  the  presentation  of  a  Commission  proposal  in  2022  on  a  revision  of  the  EU 
consular 
(https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14276-2021-
INIT/en/pdf). 
28 As examples of recent direct provision of assistance to EU citizens by an EU Delegation we can cite an 
EU citizen in Afghanistan in dealing with travel documents and assistance over the rescue of an EU citizen 
whose boat went adrift in a location 100 km from Somalia. 

directive.’ 

protection 

6 

 
                                                 
situation is not ideal as it fails to provide the necessary legal certainty. Legal clarity and 
certainty regarding such situations could be improved, for example, by empowering EU 
Delegations to act when needed, at the request of Member States29.  

Third,  the  Directive  is  silent  regarding  consular  protection  of  certain  vulnerable 
groups among unpresented citizens. This may include demands for consular protection 
by  pregnant  women,  unaccompanied  minors,  persons  with  reduced  mobility,  persons 
with disabilities, or individuals subject to discrimination on any ground provided for in 
Article 21 of the Charter. Moreover, the Directive does not outline a specific regime for 
the consular assistance of victims of crime, which may include victims of domestic and 
gender-based  violence.  Access  to  adequate  consular  protection,  especially  in  times  of 
crisis,  may  be  more  complicated  for  individuals  from  these  groups  given  their  special 
needs. Whereas  Member States prioritise assistance to  unrepresented vulnerable  groups 
in practice, legal certainty  could be improved. This could possibly involve amendments 
to the Directive clarifying the special situation of vulnerable unrepresented citizens. 

Fourth, further steps could be taken to ensure that EU citizens are aware of their rights 
related to consular protection and have access to reliable and up-to-date information 
enabling its full exercise. Such information  should  include  the contact  details  of other 
Member  States’  embassies  and  consulates,  honorary  consuls  able  to  provide  consular 
protection  and  arrangements  between  Member  States.  While  the  Directive  includes 
references  to  the  provision  of  information  in  several  articles,  it  does  not  include  a 
dedicated article on communication relayed by EU channels and the provision of relevant 
information  to  EU  citizens  covering  all  the  above-mentioned  aspects.  Such  an  addition 
would  be  beneficial  to  ensure  that  a  minimal  and  consistent  level  of  information  is 
provided  to  citizens  further  facilitate  the  exercise  of  EU  citizens'  rights  related  to 
consular protection. 

In  this  regard,  Article  2(2)  provides  that  Member  States  need  to  inform  unrepresented 
citizens  regarding  the  extent  to  which  honorary  consuls  are  competent  to  provide 
protection in a given case. In addition, Article 7(2) states that Member States and the EU 
need  to  publicise  existing  practical  arrangements  between  Member  States  to  ensure 
transparency  for  unrepresented  citizens.  However,  Member  States  do  not  always  take 
specific  steps  to  inform  unrepresented  citizens  on  these  particular  aspects  and  the 
collection  of  information  at  EU  level,  to  disseminate  it  via  EU  channels,  is  not 
comprehensive.  As  a  result,  unrepresented  EU  citizens  may  not  have  easily  accessible 
and/or adequate information on the practical arrangements. It follows that comprehensive 
and  effective  information  requirements  would  improve  overall  consular  protection. 
Complementing the steps taken by Member States30, the EU could play a stronger role in 
that  regard  by  streamlining  the  information  and/or  providing  a  central  point  of  access 
and/or  make  further  use  of  its  global  and  local  communication  channels  to  relay 
information.  

There is also room for greater efficiency in the flow of information during times of crisis 
between the EEAS, EU Delegations, Member States and their representations, and, where 
applicable,  the  Commission.  Improving  the  information  flow  to  citizens  is  equally 
crucial.  For  example,  local  consular  cooperation  could  agree  on  a  central  source  of 

29 See footnote 27. 
30  Several  EU  Member  States  inform  their  citizens  of  their  rights  related  to  consular  protection  as  EU 
citizens,  for  example  through  references  on  passports,  official  websites,  and  information  material  for 
citizens living or traveling abroad. 

7 

 
                                                 
information which would serve as the primary tool of communication with unrepresented 
EU  citizens  in  crisis  situations  in  each  third  country.  The  channel(s)  could  either  be 
managed by EU Delegations or by Member States appointed to this role .  

Lastly, Member States should provide access to an effective legal remedy and redress 
to  unrepresented  EU  citizens,  to  ensure  unrepresented  citizens  have  an  avenue  to  seek 
legal  remedy  and  redress  when  their  rights  related  to  consular  protection  have  been 
violated31.  In  order  to  further  facilitate  the  exercise  of  EU  citizens’  rights  related  to 
consular protection, it could possibly be considered to introduce an explicit legal basis in 
the Directive for the processing of personal data of EU citizens in particular in crisis 
situations. In addition, in view of the increasing number and scale of crises, greater use of 
foresight mechanisms for crisis-preparedness is needed, especially given the human cost 
involved in consular protection failure. 

5.  Specific points of assessment 

The following section evaluates the implementation and application of Chapter 1 of the 
Directive  (general  provisions  and  scope),  Chapter  2  (coordination  and  cooperation 
measures) and Chapter 3 (financial provisions).  

5.1. General provisions and scope 

5.1.1.  Honorary consuls (Article 2(2)). 

Pursuant to Article 2(2), Member States may decide whether the Directive is to apply to 
the  consular  protection  provided  by  honorary  consuls.  The  Article  requires  Member 
States to ensure that unrepresented citizens are duly informed about such decisions and 
the extent to which honorary consuls are competent to provide protection in a given case. 

As  a  result  of  the  Directive’s  flexibility  in  this  regard,  the  implementation  of  this 
provision by Member States varies. Some Member States explicitly include the provision 
of consular protection to unrepresented citizens by honorary consuls in their legislation. 
The national legislations of some of these Member States further specifies that honorary 
consuls  can  provide  such  assistance  to  unrepresented  citizens  only  if  they  have  been 
expressly  instructed  to  do  so  by  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Other  Member  States 
expressly  specify  in  their  legislation  that  the  Directive  does  not  apply  to  honorary 
consuls, or else did not adopt an explicit provision on this matter. 

Regarding the application of Article 2(2) in practice, some of the Member States without 
specific legal provisions on the matter may involve their honorary consuls on a case-by-
case basis, incuding by enabling them to participate in local cooperation meetings where 
this is agreed at local level. Conversely, in some of those Member States where national 
law allows honorary consuls to provide consular protection, honorary consuls do not take 
such  a  role  in  practice.  Overall,  it  is  worthwile  noting  that  in  most  Member  States, 
honorary consuls are rarely or never involved in the provision of consular protection to 
unrepresented EU citizens. Only in one Member State are honorary consuls involved to a 
moderate  degree  (10-25%  of  all  consular  protection  provided  to  unrepresented  EU 
citizens).  Reasons  mentioned  by  Member  States  for  not  extending  the  scope  of  the 
Directive to honorary consuls include their limited powers in general (also vis-à-vis their 
own nationals), the limited services they can provide (for instance most of them cannot 

31 See article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

8 

 
                                                 
issue  emergency  travel  documents),  and  their  limited  capacity32.  In  this  regard,  in  the 
large majority of Member States, the consular powers assigned to honorary consuls are 
more restricted than those of ordinary consular officials.  

Member  States  do  not  always  take  specific  measures  to  inform  citizens  and  other 
Member  States  about  the  extent  to  which  honorary  consuls  are  competent  to  provide 
protection in a given case. For example, it may not be clear whether or not an honorary 
consul  of  a  Member  State  is  empowered  to  issue  emergency  travel  documents  to 
unrepresented EU citizens. This may create uncertainty. 

In conclusion, honorary consuls generally have limited powers and are mostly involved 
in  consular  protection  in  exceptional  circumstances.  Nevertheless,  in  crisis  situations 
their role may be essential. In this regard, the way in which Member States inform each 
other  and  EU  citizens  about  the  existence  of  honorary  consuls  and  the  extent  to  which 
they  are  able  to  provide  consular  protection  to  unrepresented  EU  citizens  could  be 
improved.   

5.1.2.  Unrepresented citizens in third countries (Articles 4 and 6) 

Articles 4 and 6 provide for a definition of ‘unrepresented citizen’. This definition covers 
every citizen holding the nationality of a Member State that is not represented in a third 
country, i.e. it has no embassy or consulate established there on a permanent basis, or it 
has no embassy, consulate or honorary consul there which is effectively in a position to 
provide consular protection in a given case. 

Accordingly, when a citizen’s Member State of nationality has an embassy, consulate or 
honorary  consul  established  in  a  third  country,  but  these  are  for  any  reason  unable  to 
provide  the  protection  the  citizen  concerned  would  otherwise  be  eligible  to  receive 
according  to  national  law  or  practice  in  a  given  case,  that  citizen  should  also  be 
considered  ‘unrepresented’.  As  stated  in  Recital  8  of  the  Directive,  accessibility  and 
proximity should also be taken into consideration in this context. For example, a citizen 
who seeks  consular protection from  the embassy or consulate of another Member State 
should not be redirected to the embassy, consulate or honorary consul of his or her own 
Member State of nationality when it is not possible, due to local circumstances (e.g. as a 
result of disruptions to the transport system due to a natural disaster) or lack of resources, 
for the citizen to safely reach or be reached by those latter instances in a way allowing 
him  or  her  to  receive  consular  protection.  This  will  necessarily  require  a  case-by-case 
assessment. The notion of absence of representation should be interpreted  in a way that 
ensures the effectiveness of the right of unrepresented citizens to be protected by another 
Member  State’s  embassy  or  consulate  on  the  same  conditions  as  to  its  own  nationals, 
taking into account the circumstances of each particular case, especially crisis situations. 
As  explained  below,  the  Commission  considers  that  there  could  be  a  need  to  further 
clarify and ensure the legal certainty of situations where an EU citizen can be deemed to 
be  unrepresented  because  there  is  no  embassy,  consulate  or  honorary  consul  in  a  third 
country which is effectively in a position to provide consular protection. 

32  A  new  format  for  the  EU  emergency  travel  document  will  apply  36  months  after  the  adoption  of 
forthcoming  additional  technical  specifications  for  emergency  travel  documents  established  by  Council 
Directive (EU) 2019/997. The new format will require the use of equipment for printing the uniform format 
for visas. It  may therefore impact the possibility  to provide this type  of consular protection assistance in 
places where Member States’ presence is limited. 

9 

 
                                                 
Most Member States have transposed the definitions included in Articles 4 and 633.  

Overall,  cases  in  which  Member  States  refuse  to  provide  consular  protection  to  an  EU 
citizen  holding  the  nationality  of  another  Member  State  because  he  or  she  is  not 
considered to be unrepresented appear to be very rare.  

Most  Member  States  have  reported  being  able  to  determine  the  scope  of  the  Directive 
with  regard  to  ‘unrepresented  citizens’  in  most  cases.  However,  some  Member  States 
have  voiced  difficulties  in  determining  whether  an  existing  embassy,  consulate  or 
honorary consul is effectively in a position to provide consular protection. In particular, 
when  determining  whether  consular  representations  can  effectively  provide  consular 
protection in a third country, Member States interpret concepts such as ‘accessibility’ and 
‘proximity’ differently. While some Member States consider the issue of remoteness or 
capacity  as  a  factor  in  the  assessment,  others  do  not.  Some  Member  States  noted 
difficulties in  determining to  what  extent lack of proximity  could  give rise to  a lack of 
representation.  Some  Member  States  expect  citizens  to  make  an  effort  to  access 
representations  of  their  Member  State  of  nationality,  including  over  larger  distances. 
Member States have reported that in case of doubt, they directly contact the Ministry of 
Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Member  State  of  nationality  and  will,  as  a  rule,  defer  to  the 
assessment  by  that  Member  State  in  determining  whether  an  individual  should  be 
considered  as  ‘unrepresented’.  Generally,  most  Member  States  take  the  view  that  the 
threshold  for  assessing  whether  an  individual  is  unrepresented  varies  depending  on  the 
nature  and  urgency  of  the  situation.  In  particular  in  crisis  situations,  where  Member 
States are faced with urgent requests for assistance, it can be very difficult, for them to 
confirm whether a citizen is unrepresented in a timely manner.  

In view of the above, there may be scope to further clarify the concept of ‘unrepresented 
citizen’,  notably  for  situations  where  the  Member  State  of  nationality  has  no  embassy, 
consulate  or  honorary  consul  that  is  effectively  in  a  position  to  provide  consular 
protection. Further clarifications, including as regard crisis situations, would facilitate the 
exercise  of  EU  citizens’  rights  related  to  consular  protection.  This  could  include,  for 
example, a ‘presumption of unrepresentedness’ in times of crisis, linked to the urgency of 
the request for assistance.  

5.1.3.  Family members of unrepresented citizens in third countries (Article 5) 

Pursuant  to  Article  5,  Member  States  are  to  provide  consular  protection  to  family 
members, who are not themselves EU citizens and who are accompanying unrepresented 
EU citizens in a third country, to the same extent and on the same conditions as would be 
provided to  the family  members of the citizens of the assisting Member State,  who are 
not themselves EU citizens, in accordance with its national law or practice. As noted in 
Recital  9  of  the  Directive,  such  protection  might,  depending  on  the  individual 
circumstances of each case, be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the right related to 
consular protection and of the right to respect for private and family life as recognised in 
Article 7 of the Charter. 

Only  three  Member  States  reported  that  they  would  not  provide  consular  assistance  to 
non-EU  family  members  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  as  a  matter  of  principle,  given 
that,  in  line  with  their  national  laws,  they  are  not  providing  consular  protection  for  the 

33 The Commission continues to be in dialogue with Member States to verify the full implementation of the 
Directive. 

10 

 
                                                 
family  members  of  their  own  nationals.  One  of  those  Member  States  may  provide 
support to such family members exceptionally in crisis situations, on the same conditions 
as their own nationals.  

In most Member States, the provision of consular protection to non-EU family members 
of  an  unrepresented  EU  citizen  is  assessed  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  Depending  on  the 
Member  State’s  national  law  and  practice,  a  family  member  can  be  an  individual  from 
the immediate family (such as children, spouses or parents) but may also cover extended 
family (such as siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.). Similarly, Member States interpret 
what  it  means  to  ‘accompany’  the  unrepresented  citizen  differently.  In  practice,  first-
degree  relatives  are  typically  prioritised  for  assistance.  Compared  to  Member  States’ 
practice in non-crisis times, increased protection is provided in times of crisis, depending 
on and proportional to the gravity and emergency of the crisis situation.  

5.1.4.  Access to consular protection and other arrangements (Article 7) 

Article  7(1)  establishes  the  general  principle  that  unrepresented  citizens  are  entitled  to 
seek protection from the embassy or consulate of any Member State. 

However, that does not prevent Member States from entering into bilateral arrangements, 
as  set  out  in  Article  7(2)  of  the  Directive,  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  the  effective 
protection  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens34.  First,  Member  States  may  represent  another 
Member  State  on  a  permanent  basis  as  provided  for  in  Article  8  of  the  Vienna 
Convention  on  Consular  Relations.  Second,  Member  States’  embassies  or  consulates 
may,  wherever  deemed  necessary,  conclude  practical  arrangements  on  sharing 
responsibilities  for  providing  consular  protection  to  unrepresented  citizens.  Such 
arrangements are to be notified to the Commission and the EEAS and publicised by the 
EU and Member States to ensure transparency. 

In  cases  where  a  practical  arrangement  has  been  concluded,  an  embassy  or  consulate 
from  which  the  unrepresented  citizen  seeks  consular  protection,  and  which  is  not 
designated  as  competent  according  to  the  specific  arrangement  in  place,  is,  pursuant  to 
Article 7(3) of the Directive,  required to  ensure that  the application is  redirected to  the 
relevant  embassy  or  consulate,  unless  consular  protection  would 
thereby  be 
compromised, in particular if the urgency of the matter requires immediate action by the 
requested embassy or consulate. 

All Member States have concluded such arrangements in some form. In this regard, two 
issues have been identified which can result in unrepresented EU citizens facing delays 
or obstacles in receiving the consular assistance they are entitled to. 

First,  most  arrangements  lack  a  sufficient  level  of  publicity  to  ensure  transparency  and 
effective  use  by  unrepresented  citizens.  Further  efforts  could  entail  referencing  all 
permanent  arrangements  between  Member  States 
to 
complement  locally  tailored  information.  This  would  help  in  clarifying  which  Member 
State  is  responsible  for  assisting  the  unrepresented  citizens  of  other  Member  States 
following a previous arrangement. 

in  a  centralised 

location, 

There  could  be  scope  to  further  strengthen  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  notify 
bilateral and practical  arrangements to the Commission, the EEAS and EU Delegations 

34 See also Recital 10 of the Directive. 

11 

 
                                                 
(so that they can be included on EU communication channels for further publicity), for 
example by including a timeframe within which the notification should be made. Similar 
notification  requirements  could  be  usefully  added  regarding  travel  advice  and  lists  of 
contacts  for  Member  States’  consular  networks,  including  honorary  consuls  and  the 
extent to which they can provide consular protection, for those Member States that apply 
Article 2(2). 

Second, in some instances, Member States have requested  that a bilateral agreement be 
concluded  between  the  respective  foreign  ministries  before  providing  assistance  to  an 
unrepresented  citizen  of  another  Member  State,  even  though  the  Directive  does  not 
include  such  a  requirement.  In  addition,  in  some  instances,  represented  Member  States 
refused  to  provide  consular  protection  to  unrepresented  citizens  arguing  that  this 
responsibility  would  fall,  due  to  bilateral  arrangements,  to  other  represented  Member 
States. In this respect, it should be recalled that Article 7 provides that unrepresented EU 
citizens  are  entitled  to  seek  protection  from  the  embassy  or  consulate  of  any  Member 
State. Moreover, it considers that, in cases where arrangements have been concluded, it is 
incumbent on the authorities of the Member States approached, not the citizen concerned, 
to redirect the application to the relevant embassy or consulate.  

Overall, there appears to be a lack of clarity and understanding regarding the procedure 
for  redirecting  applications  from  unrepresented  EU  citizens.  In  addition,  although  the 
Directive allows for bilateral agreements to be put in place between Member States, there 
seems to be a need to further clarify that this is not a precondition for providing consular 
assistance to unrepresented EU citizens. 

5.1.5.  Identification (Article 8) 

Article 8(1) requires that applicants seeking consular protection to establish that they are 
citizens of the EU by producing their passports  or identity cards.  Under Article 8(2), if 
the EU citizen is unable to produce a valid passport or identity card, nationality may be 
proven  by  any  other  means,  if  necessary  including  verification  with  the  diplomatic  or 
consular authorities of the Member State of which the applicant claims to be a national. 
Article 8(3) provides that with respect to the family members referred to in Article 5, the 
identity and existence of the family relationship may be proven by any means, including 
verification by the assisting Member State with the diplomatic or consular authorities of 
the Member State of nationality of the EU citizens referred to in Article 8(1). 

Most Member States have transposed Article 8 into national law35.  

The application of this provision appears overall effective, and Member States have not 
reported major issues in  identifying unrepresented EU citizens or their family members 
seeking consular protection. 

5.1.6.  Types of assistance (Article 9) 

Article 9 enumerates, in a non-exaustive manner36, the most common situations in which 
unrepresented  EU  citizens  may  seek  consular  assistance  from  represented  Member 
States: 

35 The Commission continues to be in dialogue with Member States to verify the full implementation of the 
Directive. 

12 

 
                                                 
  arrest or detention; 
  being a victim of crime; 
  a serious accident or serious illness; 
  death; 
 
  a need for emergency travel documents. 

relief and repatriation in case of an emergency; and 

In any of those situations, Member States must provide unrepresented  EU citizens with 
whatever assistance they would provide to their own nationals.  As a result, the level of 
support received may differ from one Member State to another.  

All Member States provide consular protection in the six situations listed in Article 9 of 
the Directive. The exact types of assistance that Member States provide in practice seem 
to  vary  greatly  across  Member  States  and  usually  takes  into  account  the  specific 
circumstances  of  each  case.  Most  Member  States  explicitly  mention  the  six  situations 
provided for in Article 9 in their national law, with the exception of two Member States 
where  the  six  situations  are  covered  through  policy  or  practice.  In  addition,  several 
Member  States  expressly  provide  for  the  application  of  the  Directive  also  in  situations 
other than those listed in Article 9, such as in relation to unaccompanied minors.  

Evidence  suggests  that  the  need  for  an  emergency  travel  document  is  the  main  case  of 
assistance  provided  by  Member  States  to  citizens  of  other  Member  States  during  non-
crisis situation, with queries and information requests second. This is one of the reasons 
for the adoption of Council Directive (EU) 2019/997 of 18 June 2019 establishing an EU 
Emergency Travel Document and repealing Decision 96/409/CFSP37, which is expected 
to  apply  as  of  2025.  In  2020,  most  cases  of  assistance  provided  to  unrepresented  EU 
citizens  were  for  relief  and  repatriation  in  case  of  emergency,  given  the  context  of  the 
COVID-19 crisis. It is estimated that at least 500 EU citizens and their family members 
evacuated from Afghanistan were unrepresented.  

Although  the  situation  list  described  above  is  non-exhaustive,  several  EU  Delegations 
have  reported  cases  of  unrepresented  EU  citizens  that  have  been  denied  consular 
protection by a Member State. In such cases, the reason cited by the Member State for its 
refusal was that the assistance requested was not one of the listed types, even though its 
own national legislation required it to provide such assistance to its own nationals.  

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  types  of  assistance  mentioned  in  Article  9  are  not 
exhaustive,  meaning  that  unrepresented  EU  citizens  are  also  entitled,  in  a  non-
discriminatory  manner,  to  other  types  of  consular  protection  assistance  that  Member 
States provide to their own nationals.  

It follows from these findings that clarity as to the consular assistance to be provided by 
Member States to unrepresented EU citizens could be improved, with a view to ensuring 
more predictability and legal certainty. 

36  As  noted  in  Recital  14  of  the  Directive,  ‘[s]ince  the  protection  needed  always  depends  on  the  factual 
situation,  consular  protection  should  not  be  limited  to  the  situations  specifically  mentioned  in  this 
Directive’. 
37 OJ L 163, 20.6.2019, p. 1 

13 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
5.2. Coordination and cooperation measures 

5.2.1.  General rules (Article 10) 

Article  10(1)  requires  Member  States  to  closely  cooperate  and  coordinate  with  one 
another and with the EU to ensure protection of unrepresented citizens. Paragraphs 2 and 
3 of Article 10 specify the way in which the assisting Member State is to cooperate with 
the Member State of nationality of the unrepresented citizen when receiving a request for 
consular  protection.  Paragraphs  2  and  3  also  include  requirements  for  the  exchange  of 
information  on  the  request  for  assistance  and  the  identity  of  the  unrepresented  citizen 
requesting assistance and of any family members to whom consular protection may also 
need  to  be  provided.  The  assisting  Member  State  is  also  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of 
information between the citizen and their Member State of nationality, while the Member 
State of nationality is responsible for contacts with the family members of the citizen, as 
well  as  any  other  relevant  persons  or  authorities.  Article  10(4)  specifies  that  Member 
States  are  to  notify  the  EEAS  through  its  secure  internet  site  of  the  relevant  contact 
point(s) in the ministries of foreign affairs.  

Most Member States have transposed Article 10 into national law38.  

Member  States  reported  that  cooperation  and  coordination  between  them  is  effective 
overall.  In  an  overwhelming  majority  of  cases,  EU  Delegations  ensure  in  practice  this 
coordination,  and  local  consular  cooperation  meetings  usually  take  place  in  their 
facilities. However, a number of issues have been identified. These are set out below. 

First, although rare, there have been instances where unrepresented EU citizens requested 
assistance from another Member State, which then forwarded the request to the nearest 
embassy of the citizen’s Member State nationality in a neighbouring jurisdiction.  

Second,  in  some  instances,  Member  States  of  nationality  have  refused  to  provide 
information  on  their  citizens  to  assisting  Member  States  arguing  protection  of  their 
personal data. 

Third,  represented  Member  States  are  sometimes  overwhelmed  by  the  number  of 
individual requests from EU citizens in crisis situations, also due to the limited access of 
unrepresented  Member  States  to  information  circulated  in  local  coordination  networks. 
Typically,  the  embassies  and  consulates  that  are  the  quickest  in  responding  to  citizens’ 
requests  tend  to  receive  the  highest  volume  of  requests  over  time,  and  are  therefore 
disincentivised  to  take  prompt  action.  In  these  cases,  further  digitalisation  of  consular 
services and enhanced cooperation could reduce pressure on the Member States present 
in a third country. 

Cooperation  between  Member  States  regarding  the  provision  of  consular  protection  to 
unrepresented citizens is overall effective. However, given the situations outlined above, 
some  inefficiencies  have  the  potential  to  lead  to  delays  or  even  omissions  in 
unrepresented citizens receiving assistance. Of particular note in this respect are the lack 
of  digital  tools,  capacity  issues  notably  in  times  of  crisis,  and  the  lack  of  explicit  legal 
basis for the processing of personal data of EU citizens (including on data transfers). In 
addition, consular authorities’ awareness of the principles and requirements provided for 

38 The Commission continues to be in dialogue with Member States to verify the full implementation of the 
Directive. 

14 

 
                                                 
in the Directive could be improved further to ensure that they live up to their obligation 
to provide assistance when required. 

5.2.2.  The role of EU Delegations (Article 11) 

Article  11  provides  that  EU  Delegations  are  to  closely  cooperate  and  coordinate  with 
Member  States’  embassies  and  consulates  in  order  to  contribute  to  local  and  crisis 
cooperation and coordination, in particular by providing logistical support and providing 
information  about  the  assistance  that  unrepresented  citizens  could  be  entitled  to.  In 
addition,  EU  Delegations  and  the  EEAS  headquarters  facilitate  the  exchange  of 
information between Member States’ embassies and consulates and, if appropriate, with 
local  authorities.  Lastly,  EU  Delegations  must  also  make  general  information  available 
about  the  assistance  that  unrepresented  citizens  could  be  entitled  to,  particularly  about 
agreed practical arrangements if applicable 

The mandate of EU Delegations in the field of consular protection is further  defined in 
Article 5(10) of the EEAS Decision, which requires these delegations  ‘upon request by 
Member  States,  to  support  the  Member  States  in  their  diplomatic  relations  and  in  their 
role  of  providing  consular  protection  to  citizens  of  the  Union  in  third  countries  on  a 
resource-neutral  basis’39.  This  clarifies  that  EU  Delegations  are  expected  to  provide 
support to Member States in assisting both unrepresented and represented EU citizens.   

EU Delegations are essential for the functioning of local consular cooperation networks. 
They  play  a  lead  role  in  chairing  or  supporting  the  chair  of  local  consular  cooperation 
meetings, in hosting these meetings, and in coordinating Member States’ consular crisis 
preparedness  and  response  locally.  Their  role  with  regard  to  EU  citizens  primarily 
consists  in  the  coordination  and  establishment  of  contacts  between  citizens  and  the 
representations of Member States available to provide consular protection. In this regard, 
the  active  role  of  EU  Delegations,  serving  as  a  focal  point  for  Member  States  (and  in 
some cases EU citizens) repeatedly goes beyond the requirements of the Directive.  

While  Member  States  consider  the  overall  cooperation  with,  and  coordination  by,  EU 
Delegations to be effective, many have highlighted the need to strengthen the overall role 
of  EU  Delegations.  Already  today,  EU  Delegations  take  a  proactive  role  both  in  crisis 
and non-crisis situations, and are often requested by Member States to act beyond their 
strict  remit,  notably  by  providing  direct  assistance  to  EU  citizens  in  need,  as 
demonstrated by recent examples. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, almost all EU Delegations were particularly active in 
the  overall  coordination  of  Member  States  action,  including  coordinating  repatriation 
flights and exchanging information both with professional representations and honorary 
consuls.  In  some  cases,  as  in  Fiji,  where  few  Member  States  maintain  a  diplomatic 
presence,  the  EU  Delegation  assumed  the  main  role  in  coordinating  the  repatriation 
flights for EU citizens40. 

39 See also Article 221(2) TFEU. 
40 In its Decision of 4 May 2022 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the 
European Union for the financial year 2020 (P9_TA(2022)0153), the European Parliament " Congratulates 
the EEAS on its crucial role in the major emergency action to repatriate more than 600 000 Union citizens 
stranded  around  the  world,  while  also  helping  to  set  up  the  large-scale  humanitarian  and  assistance 

15 

 
                                                 
 
During the 2021 Kabul airlift in Afghanistan, Member States without a presence at Kabul 
airport  turned  to  the  EEAS  and  the  EU  Delegation  to  secure  access  to  the  airport  and 
seats  on  board  planes  for  their  citizens.  The  EEAS  and  the  EU  Delegation  acted  to 
connect  these  citizens  with  colleagues  of  Member  States  who  were  present  in  Kabul 
airport. 

In Eswatini, during the unrest in the summer of 2021, Member States contacted the EU 
Delegation, the only EU diplomatic presence in the field, to share information about the 
presence  of  their  most  vulnerable  citizens  and  enquire  about  the  security  situation  and 
possible  evacuation  options.  A  clarification  of  the  EU  Delegations’  role  in  situations 
where it is the only EU diplomatic representation would have been essential to ensure a 
possible follow-up on evacuation had the situation presented itself.   

In Eritrea, the EU Delegation directly assisted an unrepresented EU citizen by reaching 
out to the local authorities to ensure transport and hospitalisation, enabling a safe return 
to Europe. 

In the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the EU Delegation in Kyiv 
successfully organised two “diplomatic train” operations by arranging with the Ukrainian 
Railways to book special wagons on the train from Kyiv to Chelm (Poland). Through this 
initiative, several hundreds of EU citizens, their family members as well as local agents 
of the EU Delegation and of Member States embassies were successfully evacuated from 
Ukraine in two operations organised on 9 March and 14 March 2022.  

In June 2022, acting on a request  from  a Member State, the EU  Delegation in  Somalia 
helped with the rescue of an EU citizen whose boat had broken in a location about 100 
km from Somalia, Kismayo coast. The EU  Delegation engaged with the Jubaland State 
Authorities, which made available four boats for the successful rescue operation. 

The survey of EU Delegations conducted as part of an ongoing impact assessment for a 
possible  review  of  the  Directive41  showed  that  citizens  already  frequently  request 
assistance  from  EU  Delegations  (in  particular  since  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic) and that these figures are on the rise42. 

In addition,  the network of EU  Delegations in  the Caribbean and the EU  Delegation in 
Fiji are among the few EU diplomatic posts in these large regions. The lack of a consular 
footprint  of  Member  States  is  particularly  critical  in  the  Caribbean,  which  is  prone  to 
natural  disasters  while  also  being  a  tourist  hub.  Similarly,  the  EU  Delegations  in  the 
landlocked countries of Eswatini and Lesotho, as well as the EU Delegations in Barbados 
and Guyana and, currently, in Afghanistan are the only EU diplomatic presence in these 
countries.  

operation ‘Team Europe’ to help partners around the world who were fighting the pandemic with far fewer 
resources than the Union. 
41  Forthcoming  “Study  to  support  the  preparation  of  an  impact  assessment  on  a  potential  EU  policy 
initiative on the coordination & cooperation measures to facilitate the exercise of the EU citizens’ right to 
consular protection”, Tetra Tech Europe, Asterisk Research & Analysis and VVA. 
42 Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of EU Delegations (c. 48%) responded that they received 
such  requests  sporadically  /  on  a  yearly  basis.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  there 
appears to be a substantial growth in the number of EU Delegations receiving requests for assistance from 
EU  citizens  directly:  c.  82%  of  respondents  stated  they  received  requests.  Furthermore,  the  frequency  of 
requests also increased: c. 30% of EU Delegations claimed they receive requests on a weekly basis. 

16 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
Overall, it follows from the above that it could be necessary to  clarify and enhance the 
role  of  EU  Delegations  to  better  reflect  their  ever  more  visible  role  on  the  ground  and 
ensure  legal  certainty,  including  by  endowing  them  with  competences  to  directly  assist 
EU citizens abroad, in certain circumstances and at Member States’ request. Further use 
of the extensive network of  EU Delegations would  reinforce the support offered to  EU 
citizens who find themselves in need abroad. 

There  should  be  room  for  solutions  that  are  tailor-made  to  the  individual  third  country 
and  to  the  individual  situation  in  order  to  make  optimal  use  of  available  resources. 
Solutions  with  limited  budgetary  impact  should  be  given  priority.  For  example,  the 
enhanced use of joint consular teams which would bring together EU and Member States 
consular  staff  ready  to  be  deployed  or  sent  as  reinforcement,  notably  in  response  to 
emergency and crisis situations. Member States’ consular staff could also be seconded to 
specific  EU  Delegations  to  reinforce  consular  expertise  in  the  field  in  countries  with 
limited consular footprint. 

Possible ways to address these developments could include expanding the assisting role 
of  EU  Delegations,  notably  in  those  third  countries  where  Member  States’  consular 
footprint  is  very  small.  In  this  regard,  in  a  Eurobarometer  on  EU  citizenship  and 
democracy from March 2020, more than nine in ten respondents agreed that, if they were 
in a country outside the EU where their Member State of nationality was not represented, 
they would like to seek support from an EU Delegation instead43.    

5.2.3.  Local cooperation (Article 12) 

Article 12 specifies that local cooperation meetings are to include a regular exchange of 
information on matters relevant to unrepresented citizens. It further specifies that in the 
context of such meetings, Member States are to agree, wherever necessary, on practical 
arrangements  as  referred  to  in  Article  7  to  ensure  that  unrepresented  citizens  are 
effectively  protected  in  the  third  country  concerned.  Local  cooperation  meetings  are 
chaired by a Member State representative in close cooperation with the EU Delegation, 
unless otherwise agreed by Member States. 

Overall, local cooperation meetings are useful and efficiently run, although the level and 
effectiveness  of  such  meetings  may  vary  from  one  third  country  to  another.  Since  the 
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, local cooperation meetings have largely been held 
remotely.  In  practice,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  a  clear  hierarchy  or  designation  of 
meeting chairs (with the EU Delegations increasingly being offered to chair). 

For Member States with lightly staffed representations, local coordination is crucial both 
as a source of information and as a practical tool to solve issues arising in the context of 
the  provision  of  consular  protection.  However,  as  reported  by  EU  Delegations, 
participation  to  local  consular  cooperation  meetings  is  uneven  (in  particular,  in  normal 
times and outside of crisis situations). This may be explained by the difficuly for some 
lightly  staffed  representations  to  participate  in  all  discussions,  or  for  unrepresented 
Member  States  to  access  these  local  cooperation  networks  (as  given  the  nature  of  the 
discussions, remote participation is not always possible or desirable).  

43  Flash  Eurobarometer 
https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2260_485_eng?locale=en.  

485:  EU  Citizenship 

and  Democracy,  February/March 

2020, 

17 

 
                                                 
Information discussed during local consular cooperation meetings is not always available 
or accessible to those Member States not present locally. Although meetings minutes are 
uploaded  onto  the  EEAS  consular  online  platform  (CoOL)  in  order  to  facilitate 
discussion and feedback, EU Delegations could inform unrepresented Member States of 
the agenda of such meetings in advance to ensure a continuous information flow. While it 
may  not  always  be  necessary  and  possible  to  involve  permanently  and  remotely 
unrepresented Member States with a low number of citizens present in the third country 
concerned, their involvement in times of crisis is crucial.  

In view of the above, additional measures could be envisaged to strengthen information 
exchange with and participation of unrepresented Member States in the context of local 
consular  cooperation.  In  addition,  the  most  reliable  way  of  knowing  the  number  of 
unrepresented  citizens  in  a third country is  through  the national  authorities  (at  least  for 
permanent  residents). Member States should be encouraged to  ensure that their citizens 
have  the  possibility  to  register  with  the  authorities  of  the  Member  State  of  nationality 
when travelling or living in countries where they are unrepresented.  

5.2.4.  Crisis preparedness and cooperation (Article 13) 

Member States represented in a third country are to coordinate contingency plans among 
themselves  and  with  the  EU  Delegation  to  ensure  that  unrepresented  citizens  are  fully 
assisted in the event of a crisis. The EU and Member States are to cooperate closely to 
ensure  efficient  assistance  for  unrepresented  citizens  in  the  event  of  an  emergency  or 
crisis and are to inform each other of available evacuation capacities in a timely manner 
where possible. 

Article  13(3)  of  the  Directive  provides  that  a  ‘lead  state’  or  the  Member  State(s) 
coordinating  assistance  is  in  charge  of  coordinating  any  support  provided  for 
unrepresented citizens,  with  the support of the other Member States concerned, the  EU 
Delegation and the EEAS headquarters. In addition, it provides that Member States are to 
provide  the  lead  state  or  the  Member  State(s)  coordinating  assistance  with  all  relevant 
information regarding their unrepresented citizens present in a crisis. The lead state or the 
Member  State(s)  coordinating  assistance  for  unrepresented  citizens  may  seek,  if 
appropriate,  support  from  instruments  such  as  the  crisis  management  structures  of  the 
EEAS and the UCPM. 

Crisis preparedness and cooperation is highly relevant in particular after the recent crises, 
allowing the combined capabilities of the EU and its Member States to be deployed for 
evacuation/repatriation  operations,  the  sharing  of  analyses  and  information,  and  the 
provision of support to represented and unrepresented  EU citizens. The responsiveness, 
efficiency,  and  assistance  from  the  EEAS,  the  relevant  EU  Delegations  and  the 
Commission’s  ERCC  in  supporting  cooperation  between  Member  States  has  been 
essential  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine 
and other situations of political crisis or (natural) disasters.  

In  the  context  of  crisis  preparedness  and  cooperation,  Article  13  calls  for  joint 
contingency  planning  (joint  frameworks);  exchanges  of  information  between  Member 
States;  assigning  a  coordination  role  to  the  lead  state  (or  any  other  Member  State 
coordinating the assistance); joint consular teams; and potential support from the EEAS 
(including  EU  Delegations)  and  the  UCPM.  EU  Delegations  have  a  leading  role  in 
coordinating the preparation of joint frameworks. 

18 

 
The EEAS estimates that about 94 joint frameworks are in place worldwide, and about 20 
more  are  expected  to  be  adopted  by  the  end  of  202244.  Joint  frameworks  have  been 
particularly useful already by the mere fact that they raise awareness of the need for crisis 
preparedness as such. However, they do not exist yet for each third country, and require 
frequent  updates  in  order  to  be  useful  in  times  of  crises.  The  joint  response  to  the 
COVID-19  crisis  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  has  helped  advance  cooperation 
between  Member  States.  In  the  aftermath  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak,  there  has  been  a 
greater focus on such information sharing and keeping up to date the joint contingency 
planning.  However,  the  extent  to  which  such  planning  includes  updated  information 
regarding the citizens of the unrepresented Member States in the territory is different in 
each third country.   

The  COVID-19  lessons  learned  assessment  reinforced  the  idea  of  a  larger  role  for  EU 
Delegations in crisis, including their role in assessing crisis situations. It also highlighted 
the  need  review  the  joint  frameworks  locally  in  view  of  the  local  experiences  acquired 
during  the  COVID-19  crisis45.  What  is  more,  in  third  countries  without  Member  State 
presence,  the  main  responsibility  for  preparing  the  joint  frameworks  falls  on  the  EU 
Delegations. For instance, the EU Delegations in Eswatini and Lesotho already prepared 
joint  frameworks.  Similarly,  the  EU  Delegation  in  Barbados  prepared  a  draft  joint 
framework for the whole Eastern Caribbean which is presently pending input by Member 
States.  

‘Lead states’ are present in 22 third countries. While the lead state concept is generally 
viewed  favourably,  particularly  by  Member  States  that  are  regularly  unrepresented,  the 
concept  has  its  practical  limitations  as  in  an  immediate  crisis  the  lead  state  may  be 
overburdened.  The  concept  is  also  less  comprehensive  in  terms  of  crisis  preparedness 
than  the  subsequently  adopted  concept  of  joint  frameworks46.  In  addition,  EU 
Delegations sometimes take on a coordinating role similar to the role a lead state would 
play. Such overlaps can lead to confusion. 

The  COVID-19  lessons  learned  assessment  noted  the  need  to  review  the  ‘lead  state’ 
concept in light of the shortcomings observed during that crisis47. In particular, it noted 
that, should the concept be retained, innovative means of support for lead states could be 
considered in order to ensure fair burden sharing. This could involve increasing the role 
of the EU Delegations to coordinate an EU response together with the lead state. 

Joint  consular  teams  have  been  used  by  some  Member  States  in  previous  crises.  For 
instance,  the  concept  proved  very  effective  during  the  early  stages  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, notably to ease the burden on the represented Member States. Such teams had 
been  set  up  during  the  2018  Football  World  Cup  in  Russia  and  after  the  earthquake  in 
Indonesia  in  2018.  However,  the  concept  could  be  better  integrated  into  the  Directive, 
including by providing for clear rules and procedures for unrepresented Member States to 
engage  with  each  other  more  actively  in  times  of  crisis  and  balance  out  the  burden  of 
responsibilities.  

The  Directive’s  recitals  provide  that  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  may  be 
relied on as a subsidiary means at the discretion of Member States. During the COVID-

44 EEAS internal data. 
45 ST 13613/20.  
46 See EU guidelines on the implementation of the consular Lead State concept (2008/C 317/06). 
47 ST 13613/20.  

19 

 
                                                 
19 crisis, support from the UCPM was requested an unprecedented number of times (408 
flights,  100.313  passengers  repatriated  on  UCPM-financed  flights)48.  Though  it  offers 
opportunities to support other consular crisis activities, prior to this extraordinary event, 
the UCPM was rarely used for consular support. There is a need to facilitate and advise 
on its further use when repatriations are necessary. Member States should be aware of the 
possibility and the process to activate the UCPM. 

The  extent  to  which  the  different  concepts  for  crisis  preparedness  and  cooperation 
referred  to  in  Article  13  of  the  Directive  are  used  and  how  they  are  used  varies  across 
third  countries.  Joint  contingency  planning  is  not  in  place  in  all  third  countries  and  its 
quality and content is mixed. Similarly, the role of lead state has been taken up in a fairly 
limited  number  of  third  countries.  Moreover,  Member  States  do  not  seem  to  be  fully 
familiar with the activation of the UCPM for consular purposes, which could point to a 
need to provide further guidance on how it can be used and adapt it further to respond to 
practical  needs49.  Finally,  although  the  use  of  joint  consular  teams  has  been  limited  to 
date, it seems to have been an effective and efficient tool to alleviate the burden on the 
represented Member States in times of crisis. Although the Directive makes a reference 
to  the  concept,  there  could  be  a  need  to  encourage  its  use  and  to  clarify  the  concept 
further if necessary.  

In view of the above, regarding a possible review of the concepts referred to by Article 
13, it is necessary to take into account the outcome of recent local experiences, including 
the  possibility  of  assigning  a  larger  role  to  EU  Delegations  in  crisis  preparedness.  In 
particular, crisis preparedness mechanisms are not consistent across all countries: while 
in some countries coordination responsabilities are defined in joint frameworks, in others 
the lead state concept is still being used, and when joint frameworks are in place, these 
are  not  at  the  same  level  of  quality.  In  some  third  countries  where  the  EU  is  solely 
represented  by  EU  Delegations,  the  main  responsibility  for  preparing  the  joint 
frameworks falls on them. In addition, the circumstances when and how the UCPM can 
be  activated  are  not  well  known.  Moreover,  there  is  no  consistency  in  who  is  chairing 
local  consular  cooperation  meetings,  and  the  extent  to  which  unrepresented  Member 
States  participate  in  them  varies.  Lastly,  there  is  a  lack  of  clarity  on  how  to  exchange 
information  on  unrepresented  EU  citizens  in  line  with  the  General  Data  Protection 
Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Regulation for the EU institutions. 

5.3. Financial procedures (Articles 14 and 15) 

Unrepresented citizens are to undertake to repay to their Member State of nationality the 
cost  of  consular  protection  that  would  have  to  be  borne  by  nationals  of  the  assisting 
Member  State  under  the  same  conditions.  Article  14(2)  provides  that  the  assisting 
Member State may request  reimbursement  from the Member State of nationality of the 
unrepresented citizen, and that reimbursement is to take place within a reasonable period, 
not  exceeding  12  months.  Finally,  the  unrepresented  citizen’s  Member  State  of 
nationality  may  ask  the  unrepresented  citizen  concerned  to  reimburse  the  costs 
concerned.  Article  14(3)  further  provides  that  the  assisting  Member  States  can  request 
reimbursement from the Member State of nationality for any unusually high but essential 
and justified costs in relation to assistance provided in cases of arrest or detention. 

48 Prior to this extraordinary event, the UCPM  was rarely used for consular support (up to 10 times in 20 
years). 
49 The Commission’s ERCC is finalising guidelines on the use of the UCPM for consular assistance. 

20 

 
                                                 
Article 15 provides that in crisis situations, the assisting Member State may submit any 
requests  for  reimbursement  of  the  costs  of  any  support  provided  to  an  unrepresented 
citizen  to  the  unrepresented  citizen’s  Member  State  of  nationality  even  if  the 
unrepresented citizen has not signed an undertaking to repay. The assisting Member State 
may ask the unrepresented citizen’s Member State of nationality to reimburse such costs 
on a pro-rata basis, by dividing the full value of the actual costs incurred by the number 
of citizens assisted. Where the assisting Member State was financially supported by way 
of assistance from the UCPM, any contribution from the unrepresented citizen’s Member 
State of nationality is to take into account the EU’s contribution. 

Articles 14 and 15 are transposed in most Member States50.  

As reported by Member States, reimbursement rules are rarely applied in practice. Only 
four  Member  States  reported  having  applied  requested  reimbursement  from  another 
Member State.  

The Directive is not explicit about the possibility for the assisting Member State to seek 
reimbursement from the unrepresented EU citizens directly, even though Member States 
are  using  this  method  in  practice.  Some  12  Member  States  provide  the  option  of 
recovering cost  of consular protection directly  from  the assisted unrepresented citizens. 
Several  of  these  Member  States  appear  to  first  attempt  direct  reimbursement  from  the 
unrepresented citizen and, only if this fails, seek it from the Member State of nationality.  

In  view  of  the  above,  there  could  be  a  need  for  more  clarity  as  regards  the  financial 
reimbursement  procedures  in  the  Directive.  In  addition,  in  the  context  of  a  possible 
review,  to  cover  situations  in  which  Member  States  have  decided  to  voluntarily  assist 
represented citizens, it could be considered whether to amend the reimbursement forms 
in  the  Annexes  to  the  Directive  to  cover  reimbursement  both  for  unrepresented  and 
represented EU citizens alike.  

6.  Conclusions 

The assessment of the application of the Directive by the Member States has shown that 
it  has  been  mostly  effective  in  achieving  its  objective  to  facilitate  the  exercise  by  EU 
citizens  of  their  rights  related  to  consular  protection  in  non-EU  countries  where  the 
Member State of which they are nationals is not represented.  

However,  crises  resulting  in  requests  for  consular  protection  are  increasing  in  number 
and  scale.  In  particular,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (unprecedented  in  scale  and 
complexity),  the  crisis  in  Afghanistan,  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  and 
the subsequent consular crises provided a context to identify gaps and reflect on how to 
strengthen  EU  citizens’  rights  related  to  consular  protection  and  to  further  facilitate  its 
exercise.  

There  could  be  room  for  clarifying  and  streamlining  measures  in  order  to  further 
facilitate  the  provision  of  consular  protection  to  unrepresented  EU  citizens,  including 
increasing  legal  certainty  with  respect  to  beneficiaries  and  ensuring  such  protection 
regardless  of  where  they  are  in  the  world.  In  addition,  consideration  could  be  given  to 
improving information provision and communication coordination. Furthermore, greater 

50 The Commission continues to be in dialogue with Member States to verify the full implementation of the 
Directive. 

21 

 
                                                 
use of  foresight  mechanisms is  needed for our  crisis-preparedness, especially  given the 
human  cost  involved  in  consular  protection  failure.  Moreover,  the  formal  role  of  EU 
Delegations  and  their  coordination  and  cooperation  with  Member  States  could  better 
reflect the reality of their work on the ground thereby giving them greater legal certainty.  

The  primary  obligation  for  providing  consular  protection  remains  with  the  Member 
States. However, there could be an argument to consider empowering EU Delegations in 
well-defined circumstances to interact more directly with EU citizens, at Member States’ 
request.  For  example,  in  cases  of  assistance  with  repatriation  notably  by  issuing 
emergency  travel  documents  where  EU  Delegations  are  in  the  sole  position  to  do  this, 
and  more  effectively  coordinate  an  EU  response  to  support  unrepresented  and 
represented citizens in particular during crisis situations. It will be important to monitor 
the  application  of  the  new  format  for  the  EU  emergency  travel  documents,  which  may 
have an impact on the possibility to provide this type of consular protection assistance in 
places  where  Member  States’  presence  is  limited.  Strengthening  the  role  of  EU 
Delegations in  this way  could  help  increase burden sharing  and  thereby  contribute to  a 
more efficient use of the overall pool of available EU resources in third countries.  

Such  a  strengthened  role  for  the  EU  Delegations  would  imply  making  use  of  the 
passerelle under Article 25 TFEU. Article 25 TFEU provides a simplified procedure for 
expanding  EU  citizenship  rights,  whereby  the  Council,  acting  unanimously  and  after 
obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, adopts provisions to strengthen or to 
add  to  the  rights  of  EU  citizens,  including  the  right  related  to  consular  protection  of 
unrepresented citizens. The Council’s adoption of such a decision would be a first step to 
creating  the  legal  basis  necessary  to  adopt,  in  a  second  step,  a  legal  framework  that 
strengthens the role of the EU Delegations in the area of consular protection.  

22