COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive (EU) 2015/637 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and Directive (EU) 2019/997 establishing an EU Emergency Travel Document
Date: 2023-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, European passport, consulate, diplomatic protection, embassy, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.12.2023  SWD(2023) 942 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT    Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Directive  amending Directive (EU) 2015/637 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and Directive (EU) 2019/997 establishing an EU Emergency Travel Document {COM(2023) 930 final} - {SEC(2023) 930 final} - {SWD(2023) 940 final} - {SWD(2023) 941 final}  
 
 
1.  NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1  What is the problem and what are its causes and consequences? 

EU  citizens  are  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  diplomatic  and  consular  authorities  of  any  other 
Member State under the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State. This right is set out in 
Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Article 46 of 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The coordination and cooperation measures 
necessary to facilitate the exercise of that right are laid down in Council Directive (EU) 2015/6371. 

On  a  day-to-day  basis,  consular  protection  is  provided  to  a  limited  number  of  unrepresented  EU 
citizens in need of assistance abroad. However, consular protection to unrepresented EU citizens is 
likely to become more common in the future as the frequency, severity and duration of crises with a 
consular element are likely to increase. Over the last few years, several large-scale events have required 
the provision of consular protection to EU citizens, in particular: the COVID-19 pandemic; the conflict 
in Afghanistan; Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; and, more recently, the conflict in Sudan 
and the repatriations from Israel and Gaza. 

These crises have demonstrated the need to: (i) improve the consular protection framework; and (ii) 
strengthen  coordination  and  cooperation  among  Member  States.  They  have  also  illustrated  how 
existing  rules  have  gaps  that  can  create  legal  uncertainty  and  undermine  the  effective  provision  of 
consular  assistance  to  EU  citizens.  In  particular,  the  rules  fail  to  reflect  the  increasing  role  of  EU 
delegations in supporting Member States in providing assistance to unrepresented EU citizens. The 
existing rules also do not address important recent developments in cooperation among Member States 
on crisis preparedness.  

On  this  basis,  a  number  of  challenges  to  the  effective  exercise  of  EU  citizens’  right  to  consular 
protection  have  been  identified.  These  challenges  include:  (i)  an  imprecise  definition  of  the  term 
‘unrepresented  citizen’;  (ii)  unclear  assignment  of  roles  and  tasks  in  local  consular  cooperation 
meetings; (iii) a lack of systematic consular contingency planning; (iv) the ineffectiveness of the ‘Lead 
State’ concept2; and (v) legal uncertainty related to the role of EU delegations in supporting Member 
States. In addition, there are inconsistencies in the information on consular assistance provided to EU 
citizens and there is a lack of reliable information on EU citizens living or travelling abroad. Finally, 
the procedures for reimbursing consular authorities for the assistance they provide are complex, under-
used, and do not cover EU delegations.  

1.2   What should be achieved? 

The general objective of the policy initiative in this area is to improve the exercise of the right to 
consular  protection  by  unrepresented  EU  citizens.  This  would  be  achieved  through  the  following 
specific  objectives:  (i)  to  increase  legal  certainty  for  EU  citizens  about  the  scope  of  the  right  to 
consular  protection;  (ii)  to  ensure  clear  roles,  coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms  between 
Member States and EU delegations, including in times of crisis; (iii) to improve communication with 
EU citizens and to provide them with high-quality information; and (iv) to increase the efficiency and 
use of the financial reimbursement procedures. 

1  

2  

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 
(OJ L 106, 24.4.2015, p. 1). 
The term ‘Lead State’ refers to one or more Member State(s) represented in a given third country, and in charge 
of coordinating and leading the assistance of unrepresented citizens during crises. 

 
 
 
2.  SOLUTIONS 

2.1   What are the options to achieve those objectives? 

The impact assessment examined several policy options for each specific objective with a range of 
potential measures to address the problems.  

The options under the first objective seek to ensure that the definition of ‘unrepresented EU citizen’ is 
clarified and improved to avoid future cases in which unrepresented EU citizens are not assisted on 
the basis of an incorrect interpretation or assessment of the situation by Member States. In particular, 
this objective seeks to address situations where the citizen’s Member State of nationality is in principle 
represented in the third country concerned by an embassy or consulate, but where it is unclear whether 
that  embassy  or  consulate  should  be  considered  as  ‘effectively  in  a  position  to  provide  consular 
protection’. Policy option 1(a) offers ‘soft’, non-binding measures, while policy option 1(b) proposes 
legislative changes to clarify the definition found in the Directive. Policy option 1(c) proposes the 
introduction of a new ‘presumption of unrepresentedness’.  

Under  the  section  for  the  second  specific  objective,  the  impact  assessment  examined  options  that 
address the problems related to the main concepts and processes through which Member States and 
EU  delegations  interact  to  provide  consular  assistance  to  unpresented  citizens.  On  local  consular 
cooperation networks, policy option 2(a) consists of ‘soft’ measures to better structure the different 
responsibilities in such networks, and policy option 2(b) proposes to assign the role of the chair of 
local consular cooperation meetings to the EU delegations. Policy option 2(c) consists of legislative 
amendments reviewing the concept of ‘Lead State’ and deciding on the assignment of clear tasks, in 
so-called  joint  consular  contingency  plans,  to  the  different  actors  involved.  Policy  option  2(c)  also 
proposes  to  include  provisions  on  such  plans  and  so-called  joint  consular  teams  in  Directive  (EU) 
2015/637.  Policy  option  2(d)  consists  of  legal  amendments  to  clarify  the  supporting  role  of  EU 
delegations, notably by aligning the provisions in the Directive with Council Decision 2010/427/EU3 
on  the  European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS).  Finally,  policy  option  2(e)  consists  of  legal 
amendments granting EU delegations new powers that would enable them to provide direct consular 
protection to unrepresented citizens in uncovered third countries upon request from the citizen. 

Options  that  pursue  the third  specific  objective  address  the  main  drivers  of  the  problems  linked  to 
communication  with  citizens,  namely:  (i)  problems  with  the  information  provided  to  citizens  by 
Member States and the EU; and (ii) the lack of information on citizens travelling or residing abroad. 
On  the  first  issue,  policy  option  3(a)  proposes  legal  amendments  with  new  requirements  on  the 
provision of information, while policy option 3(b) proposes setting up an EU travel-advice portal. On 
the second issue, policy option 3(c) recommends an EU-wide communication campaign, and policy 
option  3(d)  requires  Member  States  to  promote  measures  enabling  EU  citizens  to  inform  national 
authorities of their travel or residence abroad. 

Finally,  the  options  under  the  fourth  specific  objective  aim  at  reducing  the  complexity  and 
ineffectiveness of existing financial reimbursement procedures (reimbursing the consular authorities 
for assistance they provide to citizens of another Member State) so that these procedures are faster and 
used more often for the benefit of EU citizens and Member States.  Policy option 4(a) offers ‘soft’ 
measures to clarify the reimbursement process and provide training to Member States, while policy 

3  

Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European 
External Action Service (OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 30).  

2 

 
 
option 4(b) proposes legal amendments to improve the reimbursement procedures and to extend them 
to EU delegations to ensure compliance with the cost-neutrality requirement in Decision 2010/427/EU.  

2.2   What is the preferred combination of options? 

The  preferred  combination  of  options  would  result  in  the  following  legislative  amendments  to 
Directive (EU) 2015/637:  

•  Option 1(b): clarifying the definition of what it means for an EU citizen to be unrepresented; 

•  Option 2(b): the chairing of local coordination meetings, as a rule, by EU delegations; 

•  Option  2(c):  formalising  joint  consular  contingency  plans  and  joint  consular  teams  and 

reviewing the ‘Lead State’ concept; 

•  Option 2(d): strengthening the supporting role of EU delegations and aligning the text with 

Decision 2010/427/EU; 

•  Option  3(a):  requiring  Member  States  to  regularly  provide  the  Commission  and  the  EEAS 
with  information  on  their  consular  networks,  honorary  consuls,  and  bilateral  and  practical 
arrangements for providing consular protection; 

•  Option 3(d): requiring Member States to promote measures enabling EU citizens to inform 

consular authorities of their travels to or record their presence in third countries; 

•  Option 4(b): allowing assisting Member States to require unrepresented citizens to repay costs 

directly and extending reimbursement mechanisms to EU delegations.  

3.  IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED OPTION 

3.1 Benefits and costs of the preferred option 

The main benefit of the preferred option would be a more effective and efficient exercise of the right 
to consular protection by unrepresented EU citizens. This would be achieved through clarification of 
definitions  and  procedures,  thus  increasing  legal  certainty  for  citizens  and  Member  States.  Better 
preparedness  and  coordination  measures,  as  well  as  a  robust  legal  framework  for  the  role  of  EU 
delegations, will result in the better protection of EU citizens, in particular in crisis situations. 

Other benefits would include improved communication with EU citizens, including through facilitated 
access to reliable information and increased recording of citizens’ travels and residence abroad. The 
preferred measures also entail: (i) small savings and efficiencies for national administrations; and (ii) 
time saving and reduced burden for EU citizens. 

The costs of the preferred option to be borne by Member States and the EU are very limited.  

3.2 Subsidiarity and complementarity of the action at EU level 

Consular protection for unrepresented citizens entails, by definition, a cross-border dimension, given 
its nature as an EU citizenship right enjoyed vis-à-vis the authorities of Member States other than those 
of  one’s  nationality.  As  a  result,  it  cannot  effectively  be  addressed  by  Member  States  acting 
individually. 

3