CELEX: 52011PC0319
Language: en
Date: 2011-06-01
Title: Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection status (Recast) Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection status (Recast)

|
			
		
		
		52011PC0319
		
			Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection status (Recast) Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection status (Recast) /* COM/2011/0319 final - COD 2009/0165 */
			
				
		
		
			
			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.                      
Context of the Proposal
1.1.                
Grounds for and objectives of the proposal

As announced in the Policy Plan on Asylum[1], on 21 October 2009, the
Commission presented a proposal amending Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1
December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting
and withdrawing refugee status[2]
(hereafter – the Asylum Procedures Directive). 
The proposal was prepared on the basis of the
evaluation of the application of the current Directive in Member States. It
also incorporated the results of a wide consultation process with Member
States, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, non-governmental
organisations and other relevant stakeholders. The information about the
implementation of the current Directive was subsequently consolidated as an
Evaluation Report[3],
published in September 2009, whose conclusions further reinforced the case
behind the proposal.
On 6 April 2011, the European Parliament
adopted a first reading position on the Commission proposal which generally
supported the proposed amendments. 
The proposal was also discussed in the Council,
mainly under the Spanish Presidency of 2010. Discussions were however difficult
and the Council was unable to reach a position.
By presenting the modified proposal, the
Commission intends to use its right of initiative to boost the work to achieve
a true Common European Asylum System which will benefit Member States and
refugees alike. The Commission has a political responsibility to provide real
opportunities so that the Union respects its commitment set out in the
Stockholm Programme to achieve the Common European Asylum System by 2012. The
adoption of the amended Long Term Residence Directive which covers
beneficiaries of international protection gave a strong impetus towards this
direction. 
A common asylum procedure should be fast and
fair. To achieve these objectives, the Commission has continued to gather
knowledge on how to consolidate the best national practices and assemble them
into a system that is coherent and easy to implement across the Union. The
modified proposal brings together the additional knowledge and experience built
up during the discussions on the previous proposal. 
The system proposed in the modified proposal is
both efficient and protective. It is cost-effective and helps tackle
potential abusive claims. It guarantees that applications will be treated
similarly in all Member States. It fully respects fundamental rights
and the related developing case-law, thus also helping ensure it can withstand
challenge before the courts. At the same time, it is flexible enough to
accommodate the particularities of national legal systems. The rules that
compose it are clarified and simplified to ensure effective
implementation. 
The modified proposal should be viewed together
with the modified proposal on the Reception Conditions Directive. That proposal
inter alia aims to ensure better and more harmonised reception standards
for asylum seekers across the Union. 
The modified proposal also relates to the
Regulation establishing the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) adopted on 19
May 2010. Now that the EASO has started its activities, a more specific role
can be foreseen for it to support Member States in a more efficient
implementation of common rules. 

1.2.                
General context

The 2009 proposal and the present modified
proposal are part of a legislative package aiming to establish a Common
European Asylum System (CEAS). 
In particular, in 2008, together with the
proposal amending the Reception Conditions Directive, the Commission also
adopted proposals amending the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations. In 2009, the
Commission adopted proposals amending the Asylum Procedures and the
Qualification Directives. Finally, the European Asylum Support Office was established
by a Regulation of 19 May 2010 in order to increase coordination of operational
cooperation between Member States so that common rules in the area of asylum
are implemented effectively. 
This legislative package is in line with the 2008 European
Pact on Immigration and Asylum[4],
which reconfirmed the objectives of The Hague Programme, and called on the
Commission to present proposals for establishing, in 2012 at the latest, a
single asylum procedure comprising common guarantees. In the same framework, the Stockholm programme adopted by the European Council at its
meeting of 10–11 December 2009 underlined the need to
establish "a common area of protection and solidarity based on a common
asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted international
protection", based on "high protection standards" and "fair
and effective procedures", by 2012. In particular,
the Stockholm Programme affirmed that people in need of international
protection must be ensured access to legally safe and efficient asylum
procedures. In accordance with the Stockholm Programme, individuals, regardless
of the Member State in which their application for asylum is lodged, should be
offered the same level of treatment as regards procedural arrangements and
status determination. The objective should be that similar cases should be
treated alike and result in the same outcome.
An Impact Assessment was conducted as part of
the preparation of the previous proposal. The modified proposal is based on the
same principles as the previous proposal. In addition, it aims to reduce costs
and administrative burden while simplifying and clarifying certain provisions
to make their implementation easier. For this reason, the Impact Assessment
conducted for the previous proposal continues to apply to the modified
proposal. 

1.3.                
Consistency with other policies and objectives
of the Union

This proposal is fully in line with the Tampere
European Council Conclusions of 1999, The Hague Programme of 2004, the European
Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted by the European Council on 17 October
2008 and the Stockholm Programme of 2009 which requires the achievement of the
CEAS by 2012. 
The proposal is also consistent with the
objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular regarding better integration
of legal migrants. By promoting faster and more robust asylum procedures, it
fosters employability of refugees and persons in need of subsidiary protection
as their skills would suffer less from a long period without full access to
labour market. It also seeks to reduce Member States' reception costs, thus
promoting the sustainability of public finances. 

2.                      
Consultation of Interested Parties

As part of the preparatory work for the
previous proposal, the Commission presented a Green Paper, conducted several
experts' meetings, including with the UNHCR and civil society partners,
commissioned an external study, and collected data in response to several
detailed questionnaires. The Commission adopted the Evaluation Report on the
implementation of the current Directive on 8 September 2010. Its conclusions
further reinforced the findings of the preparatory work.
Following the presentation of the previous
proposal in October 2009, discussions were conducted at the technical level in
the Council, mainly under the Spanish Presidency. During the discussions,
several Member States opposed specific provisions of the proposal because of
the particularities of their asylum and/or legal systems. However, the Council
was unable to find satisfactory solutions. 
It became apparent that, in order to avoid
incorporating multiple exceptions for specific Member States and thus
jeopardising the overall coherence of the proposed system, there was an
opportunity for the Commission to revisit the proposal to propose a more
comprehensive solution to the issues voiced, while safeguarding the added value
of the text. Clarifying and simplifying the proposed provisions to make their
implementation easier for Member States should give a renewed impetus to the
discussions. Therefore, the Commission announced in the Justice and Home
Affairs Council that it would present a modified proposal for this Directive
before the start of the 2011 Polish Council Presidency. 
As part of the preparatory work for this
modified proposal, the Commission conducted a series of technical consultation
meetings in January–April 2010. The modified proposal
also takes into account the discussions in the framework of the Ministerial
Conference on the quality and efficiency in the asylum process, organised by
the Belgian Presidency on 13–14 September 2010. The conference inter alia focused
on the issues of interviews, training, country-of-origin information, priority
procedures and repeated applications.
The European Parliament adopted its first
reading position on 6 April 2011. The resolution generally supported the
Commission's proposal. Most of the proposed amendments aimed at strengthening
the guarantees for applicants. Some aimed to provide more flexibility for
Member States or to improve the overall coherence of the text. The substance of
the resolution was taken into account in the preparation of the modified
proposal, which thus incorporates many amendments either in text or in
substance.
The Parliament's position also contains an
important set of amendments which would lead to significant changes regarding
the various safe third country notions. The Commission carefully assessed this
amendment and concluded that the idea of deletion of national lists of safe
countries and the adoption of common EU lists could be considered in the
future. However, it will be realistic only once the EASO has the capacity to
support in a sustainable manner the replacement of national lists by drafting
reports on countries of origin based on relevant, reliable, accurate and
up-to-date country of origin information gathered in a transparent and
impartial manner, by the development of a common format and a common
methodology for presenting, verifying and using information on countries of
origin, and analysis of the information on countries of origin. 
Although the Parliament's amendments on the
various safe third country notions have not been incorporated in the modified
proposal, the Commission recognises the need to further harmonise these rules.
To that end, the Commission commits to organise, in an appropriate manner, a
regular review of the use of these notions with the Member States and the
involvement of the Parliament. This regular review process should help prepare
further harmonisation in the future. 
The modified proposal aims to be a balanced
solution to facilitate the negotiations between the two co-legislators. 

3.                      
Legal Elements of the Proposal
3.1.                
Summary of the proposed action

The main aim of this modified proposal is to
simplify and clarify rules, in order to make them more compatible with the
variety of national legal systems and to help Member States to apply them in a
way that is more cost-effective in their particular situations.
As with the previous proposal, the overall
objective remains to achieve procedures that are efficient and fair. The
proposal continues to ensure full respect of fundamental rights as it is
informed by developing case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
and the European Court of Human Rights, especially concerning the right to an
effective remedy. Compared to the current Directive, procedural guarantees
ensuring fair and efficient procedures have been revised in order to lead to
more consistent application of procedural principles. The proposal also
introduces more consistent and simplified procedural notions and devices, thus
providing asylum authorities with necessary procedural tools to prevent abuse
and quickly process clearly unfounded applications. 
With a view to facilitating consistent
application of the asylum acquis and simplifying applicable arrangements, the
proposal provides for a single procedure, thus making it clear that
applications should be considered in the light of both forms of international
protection set out in the Qualification Directive. The proposal enhances the consistency
with the modified proposal on the Reception Conditions Directive and the EASO
Regulation.

3.1.1.          
Making implementation easier for Member States

A number of changes were made to ensure the
proposal is more compatible with the variety of legal systems and other
arrangements in different Member States. This concerns, for example, rules on
decisions on the right to enter the territory, the possibility to postpone the
taking of a decision where the situation in the country of origin is
temporarily uncertain, and grounds for examining applications at the border.
Several provisions have also been made more flexible to ensure easier
implementation. 
In order to enable Member States to deal
appropriately with a large number of simultaneous asylum claims, rules have been
revised as regards access to procedure, conducting personal interviews, and
standard maximum duration of asylum procedures. 
Finally, all provisions have been thoroughly
revised throughout the text to clarify and simplify the rules in order to
facilitate discussions and ensure effective implementation. 

3.1.2.          
Better addressing potential abuse

The modified proposal enhances the ability of
Member States to address potential abuse of the asylum system. New rules
provide that Member States may accelerate procedures and examine at the border
claims where the applicant has made clearly false or obviously improbable
representations which contradict sufficiently verified country-of-origin
information, thus making the claim clearly unconvincing. The same applies to applicants
who are a danger to national security or public order.
To better deal with applicants who abscond or
fail to comply with their obligations, rules on implicit withdrawal of an
application have also been amended. According to these rules, Member States can
reject an application based on implicit withdrawal if the authorities already
have sufficient elements to adequately examine the claim. In order to increase
the applicants' awareness of the consequences of withdrawal, Member States are
required to inform applicants about these rules at the beginning of the
procedure.

3.1.3.          
'Frontloading': fast, fair and efficient
procedures

Frontloading means putting the adequate
resources into the quality of decision-making at first instance to make
procedures fairer and more efficient. A standard asylum procedure of no more
than six months remains a major objective of the proposal. At the same time,
the modified proposal makes a number of clarifications to enable an easier
implementation of this concept taking into account the particularities of
different Member States.
A key element of frontloading is early access
to support to help an applicant understand the
procedure. The modified proposal clarifies the substance of this basic support
to distinguish it from the free legal assistance available in appeals
procedures. Member States are free to find the appropriate modalities to
provide the support, including through non-governmental organisations,
government officials, or specialised services of the state. The amendments should
make the implementation of this key provision more cost-effective and dispel
misunderstandings which could lead to conflicts between these rules and the
general administrative law of several Member States. 
The proposal also simplifies the rules on the
training that Member States have to provide to the personnel examining and
taking decisions on applications. While a high level of competence of this
personnel remains the objective, as it is the only way to ensure robust and
defendable decisions by the asylum authorities, the modalities are simplified
and made more coherent in relation to other parts of the asylum acquis. 
Finally, provisions on applicants in need of
special procedural guarantees are simplified. The new rules are less
prescriptive to give Member States more latitude and flexibility to take into
account in the appropriate way the variety of potential specific situations of
applicants. At the same time, the rules continue to provide for a high level of
guarantees for these persons. 

3.1.4.          
Guaranteeing access to protection

To ensure that a person who expresses a wish to
request international protection has an effective opportunity to apply, the
modified proposal improves the rules on the initial steps to take in the asylum
procedure. 
In particular, it removes the potential
confusion between the receipt of a complete asylum application and the basic
act of registering the fact that a person is an applicant. It thus makes it
easier for Member States to comply with the proposed deadline of 72 hours to
register an applicant as such after his/her expression of wish to apply, which
can be prolonged if respecting it is practically impossible.
Moreover, it provides for simple rules on the
training and instructions to be given to border guards and any other
authorities likely to enter into contact with potential applicants. The new
rules should help Member States implement them taking into account the
diversity of their national situations. 

3.1.5.          
Clear rules on repeated applications

Even after an application for international
protection has been rejected, a person must be able to reapply if his/her
circumstances have changed, in order to take into account the possibility of
"sur place" claims in line with the Qualification Directive.
The modified proposal clarifies the rules regarding such applications to
prevent their potential abuse. 
According to these rules, a subsequent
application is subject to a rapid and efficient preliminary examination to
determine whether there are any new elements that justify further examination. If there are new elements, the subsequent application has
to be examined in conformity with the general rules. If there are not,
the application is declared inadmissible. To prevent abuse, Member States may
then make an exception from the right to remain in the territory even if the
person makes further applications for international protection. 

3.1.6.          
Increased coherence with other instruments of
the EU asylum acquis

The modified proposal revises a number of
devices to make them more coherent with other EU asylum instruments, in
particular with the modified proposal for the Reception Conditions Directive.
This concerns in particular provisions on special needs and vulnerable persons
and border procedures.
The modified proposal also aligns provisions on
training on the equivalent provisions of the EASO Regulation. It also foresees
a more concrete role for the EASO in the provisions regarding training and
access to procedure. The objective is to give Member States flexibility but
also support. The involvement of the EASO should also foster coherence in
implementation across the Union. 
With a view to facilitating consistent
application of the acquis and simplifying applicable arrangements, the
proposal provides for a single procedure, thus making it clear that
applications should be considered in the light of both forms of international
protection set out in the Qualification Directive. 

3.2.                
Legal basis

The modified proposal amends Directive
2005/85/EC and uses Article 78(2)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) as a legal basis which foresees the adoption of measures
for common procedures for the granting and withdrawing of uniform asylum or
subsidiary protection status.

3.3.                
Territorial application

The proposed Directive will be addressed to the
Member States. Application of the Directive to the United Kingdom and Ireland
will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Protocol No 21 annexed
to the TFEU.
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol
No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TFEU, Denmark is not bound by
the Directive nor is subject to its application. 

3.4.                
Subsidiarity principle

Title V of the TFEU on the Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice confers certain powers on these matters to the European
Union. These powers must be exercised in accordance with Article 5 of the
Treaty on European Union, i.e. if and in so far as the objectives of the
proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can,
therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better
achieved by the Union.
The legal base for Union action is established
in Article 78 TFEU. This provision states that the Union is to "develop a
common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a
view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring
international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.
This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating
to the status of refugees and other relevant treaties".
Due to the transnational nature of the problems
related to asylum and refugee protection, the EU is well placed to propose
solutions in the framework of the CEAS, in particular with regard to issues
concerning procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in
particular to avoid secondary movements. Although an important level of
harmonization was reached by the adoption of the directive in 2005, further EU
action is necessary in order to attain higher and more harmonised standards on
asylum procedures and to take further steps towards common asylum procedures.
These standards are also considered indispensible with a view to ensuring that
applicants for international protection who are the subject to the Dublin
procedures have their applications examined under equivalent conditions in
different Member States.

3.5.                
Proportionality principle

The impact assessment on the amendment of the
Asylum Procedures Directive[5],
conducted as part of the preparatory work for the previous proposal, assessed
each option with regard to the problems identified so as to represent an ideal
proportion between practical value and efforts needed and concluded that opting
for EU action does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of
solving those problems. The present modified proposal retains the guiding
principles of the previous proposal, while introducing additional flexibility for
Member States, thus further contributing to the respect of the principle of
proportionality. 

3.6.                
Impact on fundamental rights

This proposal was subject to an in-depth
scrutiny with a view to ensuring that its provisions are fully compatible with:

–              
fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the EU, and 
–              
obligations stemming from international law, in
particular from the Geneva Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights,
and from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
Ensuring higher standards on asylum procedures
as well as their consistent application across the Union will have an overall
positive impact for asylum seekers and will render the fundamental right to
asylum of Article 18 of the Charter more effective. In particular, the proposal
will reduce room for administrative error in asylum procedures thus ensuring
better respect for the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in Article
19 of the Charter and improving access to protection and justice with the guarantee that every applicant should have in the case of a
negative decision the right to an effective remedy before a court or a tribunal
according to Article 47 of the Charter. The proposal will also enhance gender
equality prescribed by Article 23 of the Charter, promote the best interests of
the child principle in the asylum procedures, in line with Article 24 of the
Charter, and reinforce the principle of non-discrimination as provided in
Article 21 of the Charter. 
2009/0165 (COD)
Amended proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL
on common procedures for granting and
withdrawing international protection status 
(Recast)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(2)(d) thereof,
Having regard to the
proposal from the European Commission,
Having regard to the
opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee[6],
Having regard to the
opinion of the Committee of the Regions[7],
Acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure,
Whereas:
ò new
(1)              
A number of
substantive changes are to be made to Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1
December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing
refugee status[8].
In the interest of clarity, that Directive should be recast.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 1 (adapted)
ð new
(2)              
A common policy on asylum, including a Common
European Asylum System, is a constituent part of the European Union's objective
of establishing progressively an area of freedom, security and justice open to
those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Ö Union Õ Community. ð It should be governed by the
principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its
financial implications, between the Member States. ï 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 2
(3)              
The European Council, at its special meeting in
Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, agreed to work towards establishing a Common
European Asylum System, based on the full and inclusive application of the
Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees, as
amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (Geneva
Convention), thus affirming the principle of non‑refoulement and
ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 3 (adapted)
(4)              
The Tampere Conclusions provide that a Common
European Asylum System should include, in the short term, common standards for
fair and efficient asylum procedures in the Member States and, in the longer
term, Ö Union Õ Community rules
leading to a common asylum procedure in the European Ö Union Õ Community.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 4
ð new
(5)              
ð The first phase of a Common European
Asylum System was achieved through the adoption of relevant legal instruments
foreseen in the Treaties, including Directive 2005/85/EC which was ï The minimum standards laid down in this
Directive on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee
status are therefore a
first measure on asylum procedures.
ò new
(6)              
The European Council,
at its meeting of 4 November 2004, adopted the Hague Programme, which set the
objectives to be implemented in the area of freedom, security and justice in
the period 2005-2010. In this respect, the Hague Programme invited the European
Commission to conclude the evaluation of the first phase legal instruments and
to submit the second phase instruments and measures to the Council and the
European Parliament. In accordance with the Hague Programme, the objective to
be pursued for the creation of the Common European Asylum System is the
establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform status valid
throughout the Union.
(7)              
In the European Pact
on Immigration and Asylum, adopted on 16 October 2008, the European Council
noted that considerable disparities remain between one Member State and another
concerning the grant of protection and called for new initiatives, including a
proposal for establishing a single asylum procedure comprising common
guarantees, to complete the establishment of a Common European Asylum System,
provided for in the Hague Programme.
(8)              
The European Council,
at its meeting of 10-11 December 2009, adopted the Stockholm Programme which
reconfirmed the commitment to establishing a common area of protection and
solidarity based on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those
granted international protection based on high protection standards and fair
and effective procedures by 2012. The Stockholm Programme affirmed that people
in need of international protection must be ensured access to legally safe and
efficient asylum procedures. In accordance with the Stockholm Programme,
individuals, regardless of the Member State in which their application for
asylum is lodged, should be offered the same level of treatment as regards
procedural arrangements and status determination. The objective should be that
similar cases should be treated alike and result in the same outcome. 
(9)              
The resources of the
European Refugee Fund and of the European Asylum Support Office, established by
Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council[9], should be mobilised to provide
adequate support to the Member States' efforts relating to the implementation
of the standards set in the second phase of the Common European Asylum System,
in particular to those Member States which are faced with specific and
disproportionate pressures on their asylum systems, due in particular to their
geographical or demographic situation.
(10)          
In order to ensure a
comprehensive and efficient evaluation of the international protection needs of
applicants within the meaning of Directive
[…/.../EU] [on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third
country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international
protection and the content of the protection granted (the Qualification
Directive)], the Union framework on procedures for granting
international protection should be based on the concept of a single asylum
procedure. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 5
ð new
(11)          
The main objective of this Directive is to ð further develop the standards for
procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international
protection with a view to establishing a common asylum procedure in the
Union ï introduce a minimum framework in the Community on
procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 6
ð new
(12)          
The approximation of rules on the procedures for
granting and withdrawing ð international protection ï refugee status should
help to limit the secondary movements of applicants for ð international protection ï asylum between
Member States, where such movement would be caused by differences in legal
frameworks ð , and create equivalent conditions
for the application of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] in
Member States ï.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 7
ð new
(13)          
It is in the very nature of minimum standards that Member States should have the power to introduce or maintain more
favourable provisions for third country nationals or stateless persons who ask
for international protection from a Member State, where such a request is
understood to be on the grounds that the person concerned is ð in need of international
protection ï a refugee within the
meaning of ð Directive […/…/EU] [the
Qualification Directive] ï Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 9
ð new
(14)          
With respect to the treatment of persons falling
within the scope of this Directive, Member States are bound by obligations
under instruments of international law to which they are party and which
prohibit discrimination. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 10
ð new
(15)          
It is essential that decisions on all
applications for ð international protection ï asylum be taken on the
basis of the facts and, in the first instance, by authorities whose personnel
has the appropriate knowledge or has receiveds
the necessary training in the field of asylum and ð international protection ï refugee matters.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 11 (adapted)
ð new
(16)          
It is in the interest of both Member
States and applicants for ð international protection ï asylum Ö that a
decision is made Õ to make a decision as soon as possible on applications for ð international protection ï asylum, ð without prejudice to an adequate and
complete examination ï. The organisation of the processing of applications
for asylum should be left to the discretion of Member States, so that they may,
in accordance with their national needs, prioritise or accelerate the
processing of any application, taking into account the standards in this
Directive.
(17)          
It is also in the
interest of both Member States and applicants to ensure a correct recognition
of international protection needs already at first instance. To that end,
applicants should be provided at first instance, free of charge, with legal and
procedural information, taking into account their particular circumstances. The
provision of such information should inter alia enable the applicants to
better understand the procedure, thus helping them to comply with the relevant
obligations. It would be disproportionate to require Member States to provide
such information only through the services of qualified lawyers. Member States
should therefore have the possibility to find the most appropriate modalities
for the provision of such information, such as through non-governmental
organisations, government officials or specialised services of the State. 
(18)          
In appeals procedures,
subject to certain conditions, applicants should be granted free legal
assistance and representation provided by persons competent to do so under
national law. Furthermore, at all stages of the procedure, applicants should
have the right to consult, at their own cost, legal advisers or counsellors
permitted as such under national law. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 12
ð new
(19)          
The notion of public order may ð inter alia ï cover a conviction for committing a serious crime.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 13 (adapted)
ð new
(20)          
In the interests of a correct recognition of
those persons in need of protection as refugees within the meaning of Article 1
of the Geneva Convention ð or as persons eligible for
subsidiary protection ï, every applicant should, subject to certain exceptions, have an effective access to procedures, the opportunity to
cooperate and properly communicate with the competent authorities so as to
present the relevant facts of his/her case and sufficient procedural guarantees
to pursue his/her case throughout all stages of the procedure. Moreover, the
procedure in which an application for ð international protection ï asylum is examined
should normally provide an applicant at least with the right to stay pending a
decision by the determining authority, access to the services of an interpreter
for submitting his/her case if interviewed by the authorities, the opportunity
to communicate with a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) ð and with organisations providing
advice or counselling to applicants for international protection ï or with any organisation working on its behalf, the right to appropriate notification of a decision, a motivation
of that decision in fact and in law, the opportunity to consult a legal adviser
or other counsellor, and the right to be informed of his/her legal position at
decisive moments in the course of the procedure, in a language he/she ð understands or ï Ö is Õ can reasonably be supposed to
understand ð and, in the case of a negative
decision, the right to an effective remedy before a court of a tribunal ï.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 14
In addition, specific procedural guarantees for unaccompanied minors
should be laid down on account of their vulnerability. In this context, the
best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States.
ò new
(21)          
With a view to
ensuring an effective access to the examination procedure, officials who first
come into contact with persons seeking international protection, in particular
those carrying out surveillance of land or maritime borders or conducting
border checks, should receive instructions and necessary training on how to
recognise and deal with requests for international protection. They should be
able to provide third country nationals or stateless persons who are present in
the territory, including at the border, in the territorial waters or in the
transit zones of the Member States, and wish to request international
protection, with all relevant information as to where and how applications for
international protection may be lodged. Where those persons are present in the
territorial waters of a Member State, they should be disembarked on land and
have their applications examined in accordance with this Directive.
(22)          
In order to facilitate
access to the examination procedure at border crossing points and in detention
facilities, information should be made available on the possibility to request
international protection. Basic communication necessary to enable the competent
authorities to understand if persons declare their wish to apply for
international protection should be ensured through interpretation arrangements.

(23)          
In addition,
applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, such as minors,
unaccompanied minors, persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other
serious acts of violence or disabled persons, should be provided with adequate
support in order to create the conditions necessary for their effective access
to procedures and presenting the elements needed to substantiate the
application for international protection. 
(24)          
National measures
dealing with identification and documentation of symptoms and signs of torture
or other serious acts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual
violence, in procedures covered by this Directive should inter alia be
based on the Manual on Effective
Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). 
(25)          
With a view to
ensuring substantive equality between female and male applicants, examination
procedures should be gender sensitive. In particular, personal interviews
should be organised in a way which makes its possible for both female and male
applicants to speak about their past experiences in cases involving gender
based persecution. The complexity of gender related claims should be properly
taken into account in procedures based on the safe third country concept, the
safe country of origin concept or the notion of subsequent applications. 
(26)          
The best interests of
the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing
this Directive, in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
(27)          
Procedures for
examining international protection needs should be organised in a way that
makes it possible for the competent authorities to conduct a rigorous
examination of applications for international protection. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 15
ð new
(28)          
Where an applicant makes a subsequent
application without presenting new evidence or arguments, it would be
disproportionate to oblige Member States to carry out a new full examination
procedure. In these cases, Member States should ð be able to dismiss an application as
inadmissible in accordance with the res judicata principle ï have a choice of procedure involving exceptions to
the guarantees normally enjoyed by the applicant.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 16
ð new
(29)          
Many asylum
applications ð for international protection ï are made at the border or in a transit zone of a Member State prior
to a decision on the entry of the applicant. Member States should be able to ð provide for admissibility and/or
substantive examination procedures which make it possible to decide on
applications made at the border or in transit zones at those locations in
well-defined circumstances ï keep existing procedures adapted to the specific
situation of these applicants at the border. Common rules should be defined on
possible exceptions made in these circumstances to the guarantees normally enjoyed
by applicants. Border procedures should mainly apply to those applicants who do
not meet the conditions for entry into the territory of the Member States.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 17
ð new
(30)          
A key consideration for the well‑foundedness
of an asylum application ð for international protection ï is the safety of the applicant in his/her country of origin. Where
a third country can be regarded as a safe country of origin, Member States
should be able to designate it as safe and presume its safety for a particular
applicant, unless he/she presents serious
counter‑indications.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 18
(31)          
Given the level of harmonisation achieved on the
qualification of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees,
common criteria for designating third countries as safe countries of origin
should be established.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 19
Where the Council has satisfied itself that those criteria are met in
relation to a particular country of origin, and has consequently included it in
the minimum common list of safe countries of origin to be adopted pursuant to
this Directive, Member States should be obliged to consider applications of
persons with the nationality of that country, or of stateless persons formerly
habitually resident in that country, on the basis of the rebuttable presumption
of the safety of that country. In the light of the political importance of the
designation of safe countries of origin, in particular in view of the
implications of an assessment of the human rights situation in a country of
origin and its implications for the policies of the European Union in the field
of external relations, the Council should take any decisions on the
establishment or amendment of the list, after consultation of the European
Parliament.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 20 (adapted)
(32)          
It results from the status
of Bulgaria and Romania as candidate countries for accession to the European
Union and the progress made by these countries towards membership that they
should be regarded as constituting safe countries of origin for the purposes of
this Directive until the date of their accession to the European Union.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 21
ð new
(33)          
The designation of a third country as a safe
country of origin for the purposes of this Directive cannot establish an
absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country. By its very nature,
the assessment underlying the designation can only take into account the
general civil, legal and political circumstances in that country and whether
actors of persecution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
are subject to sanction in practice when found liable in the country concerned.
For this reason, it is important that, where an applicant shows that there are ð valid ï serious reasons to
consider the country not to be safe in his/her particular circumstances, the
designation of the country as safe can no longer be considered relevant for
him/her.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 22 (adapted)
ð new
(34)          
Member States should examine all applications on
the substance, i.e. assess whether the applicant in question qualifies Ö for
international protection Õ as a refugee in
accordance with Directive
[…/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] Council Directive 2004/83/EC
of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of
third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who
otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection
granted, except where the present Directive
provides otherwise, in particular where it can be reasonably assumed that
another country would do the examination or provide sufficient protection. In
particular, Member States should not be obliged to assess the substance of an asylum application ð for international protection ï where a first country of asylum has granted the applicant
refugee status or otherwise sufficient protection and the applicant will be
readmitted to this country. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 23
ð new
(35)          
Member States should also not be obliged to
assess the substance of an an asylum
application ð for international protection ï where the applicant, due to a ð sufficient ï connection to a third country as defined by national law, can
reasonably be expected to seek protection in that third country ð, and there are grounds for
considering that the applicant will be admitted or re-admitted to that
country ï. Member States should only proceed on this basis where this
particular applicant would be safe in the third country concerned. In order to
avoid secondary movements of applicants, common principles for the
consideration or designation by Member States of third countries as safe should
be established.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 24
ð new
(36)          
Furthermore, with respect to certain European
third countries, which observe particularly high human rights and refugee
protection standards, Member States should be allowed to not carry out, or not
to carry out full examination of asylum
applications ð for international protection ï regarding applicants who enter their territory from such European
third countries. Given the potential consequences for the applicant of
a restricted or omitted examination, this application of the safe third country
concept should be restricted to cases involving third countries with respect to
which the Council has satisfied itself that the high standards for the safety
of the third country concerned, as set out in this Directive, are fulfilled.
The Council should take decisions in this matter after consultation of the
European Parliament.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 25
It follows from the nature of the common standards concerning both safe
third country concepts as set out in this Directive, that the practical effect
of the concepts depends on whether the third country in question permits the
applicant in question to enter its territory.
ò new
(37)          
In order to facilitate
regular exchange of information about the national application of the safe
country of origin, safe third country and European safe third country concepts
and to prepare possible further harmonisation in the future, Member States
should notify or periodically inform the Commission about the third countries
to which these concepts are applied.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 26
ð new
(38)          
With respect to the withdrawal of refugee ð or subsidiary protection ï status, Member States should ensure that persons benefiting from ð international protection ï refugee status are
duly informed of a possible reconsideration of their status and have the
opportunity to submit their point of view before the authorities can take a
motivated decision to withdraw their status. However,
dispensing with these guarantees should be allowed where the reasons for the
cessation of the refugee status is not related to a change of the conditions on
which the recognition was based.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 27 (adapted)
ð new
(39)          
It reflects a basic principle of Ö Union Õ Community law
that the decisions taken on an application for asylum ð international protection, the
decisions concerning a refusal to re-open the examination of an application
after its discontinuation, ï and Ö the
decisions Õ on the
withdrawal of refugee ð or subsidiary protection ï status are subject to an effective remedy before a court or
tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 of the Treaty. The
effectiveness of the remedy, also with regard to the examination of the
relevant facts, depends on the administrative and judicial system of each
Member State seen as a whole. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 28
(40)          
In accordance with Article 72 64 of
the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, this
Directive does not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon
Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the
safeguarding of internal security.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 29
ð new
(41)          
This Directive does not deal with procedures ð between Member States ï governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 Regulation
(EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and
mechanisms for determining the Member state responsible for examining an asylum application ð for international protection ï lodged in one of the Member States by a third‑country
national ð or a stateless person ï] (the Dublin
Regulation).
ò new
(42)          
Applicants with regard
to whom Regulation (EU) No […/…] [the Dublin Regulation] applies should enjoy
access to the basic principles and guarantees set out in this Directive and to
the special guarantees pursuant to Regulation (EU) No […/…] [the Dublin
Regulation]. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 30
(43)          
The implementation of this Directive should be
evaluated at regular intervals not exceeding two years.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 31 (adapted)
(44)          
Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to
establish minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and
withdrawing refugee status cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the
scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Ö Union Õ Community
level, the Ö Union Õ Community may
adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in
Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with
the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive
does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. 
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 32
In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of
the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to
the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom has
notified, by letter of 24 January 2001, its wish to take part in the
adoption and application of this Directive.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 33
In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of
the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to
the Treaty establishing the European Community, Ireland has notified, by letter
of 14 February 2001, its wish to take part in the adoption and
application of this Directive.
ò new
(45)          
In accordance with
Article 4a(1) of Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and
Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the
Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, and without prejudice to paragraph 2 of that Article, so long as the
United Kingdom and Ireland have not notified their wish to accept this measure,
in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, they are not bound by it and
continue to be bound by Directive 2005/85/EC.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 34
(46)          
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the
Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union
and to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union establishing the European Community, Denmark does not take part in the adoption of this Directive and
is not bound by it or subject to its application.
ê 2005/85/EC
recital 8
ð new
(47)          
This Directive respects the fundamental rights
and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. ð In particular, this Directive seeks
to ensure full respect for human dignity and to promote the application of
Articles 1, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 47 of the Charter and has to be implemented
accordingly. ï 
ò new
(48)          
The obligation to
transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those
provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with the earlier
Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged
arises under the earlier Directive.
(49)          
This Directive should
be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the
time-limit for transposition into national law of the Directive set out in
Annex II, Part B.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE,
CHAPTER I
General provisions
Article 1
Purpose
The purpose of this
Directive is to establish ð common ï minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing ð international
protection status by virtue of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] ï refugee status. 
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
(a)          "Geneva Convention"
means the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees, as
amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967;
(b)          "application" or "application for asylum" means an application made by a third
country national or stateless person which can
be understood as a request for international protection from a Member State
under the Geneva Convention. Any application for international protection is
presumed to be an application for asylum, unless the person concerned
explicitly requests another kind of protection that can be applied for
separately;
ò new
(b)          "application"
or "application for international protection" means a request made by
a third country national or a stateless person for protection from a Member
State, who can be understood to seek refugee status or subsidiary protection
status, and who does not explicitly request another kind of protection outside
the scope of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive], that can be
applied for separately; 
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
(c)          "applicant" or "applicant for ð international
protection ï asylum" means a third country national or
stateless person who has made an application for ð international
protection ï asylum in respect of which a final decision has not
yet been taken;
ò new
(d)          "applicant
in need of special procedural guarantees" means an applicant who due to
age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, serious physical
illness, mental illness, post traumatic disorders or consequences of torture,
rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence is in
need of special guarantees in order to benefit from the rights and comply with
the obligations provided for in this Directive; 
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
(e d)       "final
decision" means a
decision on whether the third country national or stateless person be granted
refugee ð or
subsidiary protection ï status by virtue of Directive
[…/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC and which is no longer subject to a remedy
within the framework of Chapter V of this Directive irrespective of
whether such remedy has the effect of allowing applicants to remain in the
Member States concerned pending its outcome, subject to Annex III of
this Directive;
(f e)        "determining authority" means any
quasi‑judicial or administrative body in a Member State responsible for
examining applications for ð international
protection ï asylum competent to take decisions at
first instance in such cases, subject to Annex I;
(g f)        "refugee"
means a third country
national or a stateless person who fulfils the requirements of Article 2(d) of Directive
[…/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] 1 of the Geneva Convention as set out in
Directive 2004/83/EC;
ò new
(h)          "person
eligible for subsidiary protection" means a third country national or a
stateless person who fulfils the requirements of Article 2(f) of Directive
[…/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive];
(i)           "international
protection status" means the recognition by a Member State of a third
country national or a stateless person as a refugee or a person eligible for
subsidiary protection; 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
(j g)        "refugee status" means the recognition by a Member State of a third
country national or Ö a Õ stateless person as a refugee;
ò new
(k)          "subsidiary
protection status" means the recognition by a Member State of a third
country national or a stateless person as a person eligible for subsidiary
protection;
(l)           "minor"
means a third country national or a stateless person below the age of 18 years;
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
(m h)      "unaccompanied minor" means ð a minor as
defined in Article 2(l) of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] ï a person below the age of
eighteen who arrives in the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an
adult responsible for him/her whether by law or by custom, and for as long as
he/she is not effectively taken into the care of such a person; it includes a
minor who is left unaccompanied after he/she has entered the territory of the
Member States;
(n i)        "representative"
means a ð person or
an organisation appointed by the competent bodies to act as a legal guardian in
order to assist and represent an unaccompanied minor in procedures provided for
in this Directive with a view to ensuring the child's best interests and
exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary. Where an organisation
acts as a representative, it shall appoint a person responsible for carrying
out the duties of the legal guardian in respect of the minor, in accordance
with this Directive ï person acting on behalf of an
organisation representing an unaccompanied minor as legal guardian, a person
acting on behalf of a national organisation which is
responsible for the care and well‑being of
minors, or any other appropriate representation appointed to ensure his/her
best interests;
(o j)        "withdrawal
of ð international
protection ï refugee status" means the decision by a competent
authority to revoke, end or refuse to renew the refugee ð or
subsidiary protection ï status of a person in accordance with Directive […/…/EU] [the
Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC;
(p k)       "remain
in the Member State"
means to remain in the territory, including at the border or in transit zones, of the Member State in which the application for ð international
protection ï asylum has been made or is being examined;.
ò new
(q)          "subsequent
application" means a further application made after a final decision has
been taken on a previous application, including cases where the applicant has
explicitly withdrawn his/her application and cases where the determining
authority has rejected an application following its implicit withdrawal in
accordance with Article 28(1). 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 3
Scope
1.           This Directive shall apply
to all applications for ð international
protection ï asylum made in the territory, including at the border ð , in the territorial waters ï or in the transit zones of the Member States, and to the
withdrawal of ð international
protection ï refugee status.
2.           This
Directive shall not apply in cases of requests for diplomatic or territorial
asylum submitted to
representations of Member States.
3.           Where Member States employ or introduce
a procedure in which asylum applications are examined both as applications on
the basis of the Geneva Convention and as applications for other kinds of
international protection given under the circumstances defined by
Article 15 of Directive 2004/83/EC, they
shall apply this Directive throughout their procedure.
3. 4.       Moreover, Member States may decide to apply this Directive in procedures for
deciding on applications for any kind of international protection ð falling outside of the scope of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] ï.
Article 4
Responsible
authorities
1.           Member
States shall designate for all procedures a determining authority which will be
responsible for an appropriate examination of the applications in accordance with this Directive, in
particular Articles 8(2) and 9. ð Member
States shall ensure that that authority is provided with appropriate means,
including sufficient competent personnel, to carry out its tasks in accordance
with this Directive. ï 
In accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003,
applications for asylum made in a Member State to the authorities of another
Member State carrying out immigration controls there shall be dealt with by the
Member State in whose territory the application is made.
2.           However, Member States may provide that Ö an Õ another
authority Ö other than that referred to in paragraph 1 Õ is responsible for the purposes of:
(a)     ð processing
cases pursuant to Regulation (EU) No […/…] [the Dublin Regulation], and ï processing cases in which it is considered to
transfer the applicant to another State according to the rules establishing
criteria and mechanisms for determining which State is responsible for
considering an application for asylum, until the transfer takes place or the
requested State has refused to take charge of or take back the applicant;
(b)     taking a decision on the application in the light of national
security provisions, provided the determining authority is consulted prior to
this decision as to whether the applicant qualifies as a refugee by virtue of
Directive 2004/83/EC;
(c)     conducting a preliminary examination pursuant to
Article 32, provided this authority has access to the applicant's file
regarding the previous application;
(d)     processing cases in the framework of the procedures provided
for in Article 35(1);
(b e)  ð granting
or ï refusing permission to enter in the
framework of the procedure provided for in Article ð 43 ï 35(2) to
(5), subject
to the conditions and as set out therein ð and
on the basis of the opinion of the determining authority. ï ;
(f)      establishing that an applicant is seeking to enter or has
entered into the Member State from a safe third country pursuant to
Article 36, subject to the conditions and as set out in that Article.
ò new
3.           Member States shall ensure that the
personnel of the determining authority are properly trained. To that end,
Member States shall provide for initial and, where relevant, follow-up training
which shall include the elements listed in Article 6(4) (a) to (e) of
Regulation (EU) No 439/2010. Member States shall also take into account the
training established and developed by the European Asylum Support Office. 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
4. 3.       Where Ö an authority is Õ authorities are designated in accordance with paragraph 2, Member States shall ensure
that the personnel of Ö that authority Õ such authorities have the appropriate knowledge or receive the necessary training to
fulfil their obligations when implementing this Directive.
ò new
5.           Applications
for international protection made in a Member State to the authorities of
another Member State carrying out border or immigration controls there shall be
dealt with by the Member State in whose territory the application is made.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
Article 5
More
favourable provisions
Member States may
introduce or maintain more favourable standards on procedures for granting and
withdrawing ð international
protection ï refugee status, insofar as those standards are compatible with
this Directive.
CHAPTER II
Basic principles and guarantees
Article 6
Access to
the procedure
1.           Member States may require
that applications for ð international protection ï asylum be ð lodged ï made in person and/or
at a designated place ð, without prejudice to paragraphs 2,
3, and 4 ï.
ò new
2.           Member
States shall ensure that a person who wishes to make an application for international
protection has an effective opportunity to lodge the application as soon as
possible. 
3.           When
a person declares his/her wish to make an application for international
protection, Member States shall ensure that the fact that that person is an
applicant is registered as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after
such declaration. 
To that end, Member
States shall ensure that the personnel of authorities likely to receive such
declarations has relevant instructions and receives the necessary training. 
In the implementation
of this paragraph, Member States shall take into account relevant guidelines
developed by the European Asylum Support Office.
4.           Where
a large number of third country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously
request international protection, which makes it impossible in practice to
respect the 72-hour time limit laid down in paragraph 3, Member States may
provide for that time limit to be extended to 7 working days.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
2.           Member States shall ensure that each adult having legal
capacity has the right to make an application for asylum on his/her own
behalf.
3.           Member States may provide that an application may be made
by an applicant on behalf of his/her dependants. In such cases Member States
shall ensure that dependant adults consent to the lodging of the
application on their behalf, failing which they shall have an opportunity to
make an application on their own behalf.
Consent shall be
requested at the time the application is lodged or, at the latest, when the
personal interview with the dependant adult is conducted.
4.           Member
States may determine in national legislation
(a)     the cases in
which a minor can make an application on his/her own behalf;
(b)     the cases in
which the application of an unaccompanied minor has to be lodged by a
representative as provided for in Article 17(1)(a);
(c)     the
cases in which the lodging of an application for asylum is deemed to constitute
also the lodging of an application for asylum for any unmarried minor.
5.           Member States shall ensure that
authorities likely to be addressed by someone who wishes to make an application
for asylum are able to advise that person how and where he/she may make such an
application and/or may require these authorities to forward the application to
the competent authority.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 6
ð new
Article 7
Applications made on behalf of dependants or minors
1. 2.       Member States shall ensure that each
adult having legal capacity has the right to make an application for ð international protection ï asylum on his/her own behalf.
2. 3.       Member States may provide that an application may be made
by an applicant on behalf of his/her dependants. In such cases Member States
shall ensure that dependant adults consent to the lodging of the application on their behalf, failing which they
shall have an opportunity to make an application on their own behalf.
Consent shall be requested at the time the
application is lodged or, at the latest, when the personal interview with the
dependant adult is conducted. ð Before consent is requested, each
adult among these persons shall be informed in private of relevant procedural
consequences and of his or her right to make a separate application for
international protection. ï
ò new
3.           Member
States shall ensure that a minor has the right to make an application for
international protection either on his/her own behalf, if he/she has the legal
capacity to act in procedures according to the national law of the Member State
concerned, or through his/her parents or other adult family members, or an
adult responsible for him/her, whether by law or by national practice of the
Member State concerned, or a representative.
4.           Member
States shall ensure that the appropriate bodies referred to in Article 10 of
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council[10] have the right to lodge an application for
international protection on behalf of an unaccompanied minor if, on the basis
of an individual assessment of his/her personal situation, those bodies are of
the opinion that the minor may have protection needs pursuant to Directive
[…/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive].
ê 2005/85/EC
article 6
ð new
5. 4.       Member States may determine in national legislation:
(a)     the cases in which a minor can make an
application on his/her own behalf;
(b)     the cases in which the application of
an unaccompanied minor has to be lodged by a representative as provided for in
Article 25 17 (1)(a);
(c)     the cases in which the lodging of an
application for ð international protection ï asylum is deemed to
constitute also the lodging of an application for ð international protection ï asylum for any
unmarried minor.
ò new
Article 8
Information and counselling at border crossing points and in detention
facilities
1.                      
Member States shall
ensure that information on the possibility to request international protection
is available in detention facilities and at border crossing points, including
transit zones, at external borders. Member States shall provide interpretation
arrangements to the extent necessary to facilitate access to procedure in these
areas.
2.           Member
States shall ensure that organisations providing advice and counselling to
applicants for international protection have access to the border crossing
points, including transit zones, at external borders. Member States may provide
for rules covering the presence of such organizations in these areas and that
such access is subject to an agreement with the competent authorities of the
Member State. 
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
Article 9 7 
Right to
remain in the Member State
pending the examination of the application
1.           Applicants shall be
allowed to remain in the Member State, for the sole purpose of the procedure,
until the determining authority has made a decision in accordance with the
procedures at first instance set out in Chapter III. This right to remain
shall not constitute an entitlement to a residence permit.
2.           Member
States can make an exception only where , in accordance with
Articles 32 and 34, ð a person
makes ï a subsequent application ð referred
to in Article 41ï will not be further examined or where they will surrender or extradite, as
appropriate, a person either to another Member State pursuant to obligations in
accordance with a European arrest warrant[11]
or otherwise, or to a third country, ð with the
exception of the country of origin of the applicant concerned, ï or to international criminal courts or
tribunals.
ò new
3.           A
Member State may extradite an applicant to a third country pursuant to
paragraph 2 only where the competent authorities are satisfied that an
extradition decision will not result in direct or indirect refoulement in
violation of international obligations of the Member State. 
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
Article 10 8
Requirements
for the examination of applications
1.           Without
prejudice to Article 23(4)(i), Member
States shall ensure that applications for ð international protection ï asylum are neither
rejected nor excluded from examination on the sole ground that they have not
been made as soon as possible.
ò new
2.           When
examining applications for international protection, the determining authority
shall first determine whether the applicants qualify as refugees and, if not,
determine whether the applicants are eligible for subsidiary protection. 
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
3. 2.       Member States shall ensure that decisions
by the determining authority on applications for ð international protection ï asylum are taken after an appropriate examination. To that end,
Member States shall ensure that:
(a)     applications are examined and
decisions are taken individually, objectively and impartially;
(b)     precise and up‑to‑date
information is obtained from various sources, such as the ð European Asylum Support Office and
the ï United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as to the
general situation prevailing in the countries of origin of applicants for asylum and, where necessary, in countries through which they have
transited, and that such information is made available to the personnel
responsible for examining applications and taking decisions; 
(c)     the personnel
examining applications and taking decisions have the knowledge with respect to
relevant standards applicable in the field of asylum and refugee law; .
ò new
(d)     the
personnel examining applications and taking decisions are instructed and have
the possibility to seek advice, whenever necessary, from experts on particular
issues, such as medical, cultural, religious, child-related or gender issues.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
4. 3.       The authorities referred to in Chapter V shall, through
the determining authority or the applicant or otherwise, have access to the
general information referred to in paragraph 3 2(b),
necessary for the fulfilment of their task.
5. 4.       Member States ð shall ï may
provide for rules concerning the translation of documents relevant for the
examination of applications.
Article 11 9
Requirements
for a decision by the determining authority
1.           Member States shall ensure
that decisions on applications for ð international protection ï asylum are given in
writing.
2.           Member States shall also
ensure that, where an application is rejected ð with regard to refugee status and/or
subsidiary protection status ï, the reasons in fact and in law are stated in the decision and
information on how to challenge a negative decision is given in writing.
Member States need not state the reasons for not granting refugee
status in a decision where the applicant is granted a status which offers the
same rights and benefits under national and Community law as the refugee status
by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC. In these cases, Member States shall ensure
that the reasons for not granting refugee status are stated in the applicant's
file and that the applicant has, upon request, access to his/her file.
Moreover, Member States need not provide information on how to challenge a
negative decision in writing in conjunction with a decision where the applicant
has been provided with this information at an earlier stage either in writing
or by electronic means accessible to the applicant.
3.           For the purposes of Article 7(2) 6(3),
and whenever the application is based on the same grounds, Member States may
take one single decision, covering all dependants ð , unless this would lead to the
disclosure of particular circumstances of an applicant which could jeopardize
his/her interests, in particular in cases involving gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity and/or age based persecution ï.
Article 12 10
Guarantees
for applicants for ð international
protection ï asylum
1.           With respect to the
procedures provided for in Chapter III, Member States shall ensure that
all applicants for ð international protection ï asylum enjoy the
following guarantees:
(a)     they shall be informed in a language
which they ð understand or ï Ö are Õ may reasonably be supposed to
understand of the procedure to be followed and of their rights and obligations
during the procedure and the possible consequences of not complying with their
obligations and not cooperating with the authorities. They shall be informed of
the time‑frame, as well as the means at their disposal for fulfilling the obligation to submit
the elements as referred to in Article 4 of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification
Directive] 2004/83/EC ð , as well as of the consequences of
an explicit or implicit withdrawal of the application ï. This information shall be given in time to enable them to exercise
the rights guaranteed in this Directive and to comply with the obligations
described in Article 13 11;
(b)     they shall receive the services of an
interpreter for submitting their case to the competent authorities whenever
necessary. Member States shall consider it necessary to give these services at
least when the determining
authority calls upon the applicant Ö is Õ to be interviewed
as referred to in Articles 14, 15, 12 and 13 ð 16, 17 and 34 ï and appropriate communication cannot be ensured without such
services. In this case and in other cases where the competent authorities call
upon the applicant, these services shall be paid for out of public funds;
(c)     they shall not be denied the
opportunity to communicate with the UNHCR or with any other organisation ð providing legal advice or
counselling to applicants for international protection in accordance with the
national law of ï working on behalf of the UNHCR in the territory of
the Member State pursuant to an agreement with
that Member State;
ò new
(d)     they and, if
applicable, their legal advisers shall not be denied access to the information
referred to in Article 10(3)(b), where the determining authority takes that
information into consideration for the purpose of taking a decision on their
application; 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
(e d)  they shall be given notice in reasonable time of the decision by
the determining authority on their application for ð international protection ï asylum. If a legal
adviser or other counsellor is legally representing the applicant, Member
States may choose to give notice of the decision to him/her instead of to the
applicant for ð international protection ï asylum;
(f e)   they shall be informed of the result of the decision by the
determining authority in a language that they ð understand or ï Ö are Õ may reasonably be supposed to
understand when they are not assisted or represented by a legal adviser or
other counsellor and when free legal assistance is not available. The information provided shall include information on how to
challenge a negative decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(2) 9(2).
2.           With respect to the
procedures provided for in Chapter V, Member States shall ensure that all
applicants for asylum enjoy
equivalent guarantees to the ones referred to in paragraph 1(b), (c) ð , (d) ï and (e d) of this Article.
Article 13 11
Obligations
of the applicants for ð international
protection ï asylum
1.           ð Member States shall impose upon
applicants for international protection the obligation to cooperate with the
competent authorities with a view to establishing their identity and other
elements referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification
Directive]. ï Member States may impose upon applicants for asylum ð other ï obligations to cooperate with the competent authorities insofar as
these obligations are necessary for the processing of the application.
2.           In particular, Member
States may provide that: 
(a)     applicants for asylum are required to report to the competent authorities or to appear
before them in person, either without delay or at a specified time;
(b)     applicants for asylum have to hand over documents in their possession relevant to the
examination of the application, such as their passports; 
(c)     applicants for asylum are required to inform the competent authorities of their current
place of residence or address and of any changes thereof as soon as possible.
Member States may provide that the applicant shall have to accept any
communication at the most recent place of residence or address which he/she
indicated accordingly;
(d)     the competent authorities may search
the applicant and the items he/she carries with him/her ð , provided the search is carried out
by a person of the same sex ï ;
(e)     the competent authorities may take a
photograph of the applicant; and
(f)      the competent authorities may record
the applicant's oral statements, provided he/she has previously been informed
thereof.
Article 14 12
Personal
interview
1.           Before a decision is taken
by the determining authority, the applicant for asylum shall be given the opportunity of a personal interview on his/her
application for ð international protection ï asylum with a person
competent under national law to conduct such an interview. ð Interviews on the substance of the
application for international protection shall be conducted by the personnel of
the determining authority. ï
Member States may also give the opportunity of a personal interview to
each dependant adult referred to in Article 6(3).
ò new
Where a large number
of third country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously request
international protection, which makes it impossible in practice for the
determining authority to conduct timely interviews on the substance of an
application, Member States may provide that the personnel of another authority
be temporarily involved in conducting such interviews. In such cases, the
personnel of that authority shall receive in advance the necessary training which shall include the elements listed in
Article 6(4)(a) to (e) of Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 and in Article 18(5) of
this Directive.
Where a person has
made an application for international protection on behalf of his/her
dependants, each adult concerned shall be given the opportunity of a personal
interview. 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Member States may determine in national
legislation the cases in which a minor shall be given the opportunity of a
personal interview. 
2.           The personal interview on
the substance of the application may be omitted where:
(a)     the determining authority is able to
take a positive decision ð with regard to refugee status ï on the basis of evidence available; or
(b)     the competent authority has already had a meeting with the
applicant for the purpose of assisting him/her with completing his/her
application and submitting the essential information regarding the application,
in terms of Article 4(2) of Directive 2004/83/EC; or
(c)     the determining authority, on the basis of a complete
examination of information provided by the applicant, considers the application
to be unfounded in cases where the circumstances mentioned in
Article 23(4)(a), (c), (g), (h) and (j) apply.
3.      The personal interview may also be omitted where 
(b)     it is not reasonably practicable, in particular where the ð determining ï competent authority is
of the opinion that the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed owing to
enduring circumstances beyond his/her control. When in doubt, ð the determining authority shall
consult a medical expert to establish whether the condition that makes the
applicant unfit or unable to be interviewed is temporary or permanent ï Member States may require a medical or psychological
certificate.
Where Ö a personal interview is not conducted Õ the Member State does not provide the
applicant with the opportunity for a personal interview pursuant to point
(b) this paragraph, or where applicable, Ö with Õ to the
dependant, reasonable efforts shall be made to allow the applicant or the
dependant to submit further information. 
3. 4.       The absence of a personal interview in accordance with this Article
shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on an
application for ð international protection ï asylum. 
4. 5..      The absence of a personal interview pursuant to
paragraph 2(b) and (c)
and paragraph 3 shall not adversely affect
the decision of the determining authority.
5. 6.       Irrespective of Article 28(1) 20(1), Member States, when deciding on the application for ð international protection ï asylum, may take into
account the fact that the applicant failed to appear for the personal
interview, unless he/she had good reasons for the failure to appear.
Article 15 13
Requirements
for a personal interview
1.           A personal interview shall
normally take place without the presence of family members unless the
determining authority considers it necessary for an appropriate examination to
have other family members present.
2.           A personal interview shall
take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality. 
3.           Member States shall take
appropriate steps to ensure that personal interviews are conducted under
conditions which allow applicants to present the grounds for their applications
in a comprehensive manner. To that end, Member States shall:
(a)     ensure that the person who conducts
the interview is sufficiently competent to take account of the personal ð and ï or general
circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant's cultural
origin ð , gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity ï or vulnerability ð within the meaning of Article 22 of
Directive […/…/EU] [the Reception Conditions Directive] ï , insofar as it is possible to do so; and
ò new
(b)     wherever
possible, provide for the interview with the applicant to be conducted by a
person of the same sex if the applicant concerned so requests; 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
(c b)  select an ð competent ï interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between
the applicant and the person who conducts the interview. The communication Ö shall Õ need not necessarily take place in the language preferred by the applicant for asylum Ö unless Õ if there is
another language which he/she may reasonably be supposed to understands and in which he/she is able to communicate ð clearly ï. ð Wherever possible, Member States
shall provide an interpreter of the same sex if the applicant so requests ï;
ò new
(d)     ensure that
the person who conducts an interview on the substance of an application for
international protection does not wear a military or law enforcement uniform;
(e)     ensure that
interviews with minors are conducted in a child appropriate manner.
ê 2005/85/EC
4.           Member States may provide
for rules concerning the presence of third parties at a personal interview.
5.           This Article is also
applicable to the meeting referred to in Article 12(2)(b).
ò new
Article 16
Content of a personal interview 
When conducting a
personal interview on the substance of an application for international
protection, the determining authority shall ensure that the applicant is given
an adequate opportunity to present elements needed to substantiate the
application in accordance with Article 4 of Directive […/…/EU] [the
Qualification Directive] as completely as possible. This shall include the
opportunity to give an explanation regarding elements which may be missing
and/or any inconsistencies or contradictions in his/her statements.
ê 2005/85/EC
Article 14
Status of the report of a personal
interview in the procedure
1.           Member States shall ensure that a
written report is made of every personal interview, containing at least the
essential information regarding the application, as presented by the applicant,
in terms of Article 4(2) of Directive 2004/83/EC.
2.           Member States shall ensure that
applicants have timely access to the report of the personal interview. Where
access is only granted after the decision of the determining authority, Member
States shall ensure that access is possible as soon as necessary for allowing an
appeal to be prepared and lodged in due time.
3.           Member States may request the
applicant's approval of the contents of the report of the personal interview.
Where an applicant refuses to approve the contents of the report, the
reasons for this refusal shall be entered into the applicant's file.
The refusal of an applicant to approve the contents of the
report shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on
his/her application.
4.           This Article is also applicable to the
meeting referred to in Article 12(2)(b).
ò new
Article 17
Report and recording of personal interviews
1.           Member
States shall ensure that a thorough report containing all substantial elements
is made of every personal interview.
2.           Member
States may provide for audio or audio-visual recording of the personal
interview. In this case, Member States shall ensure that
the recording of the personal interview is annexed to the report.
3.           Member
States shall ensure that the applicant has the opportunity to make comments
and/or provide clarifications with regard to any mistranslations or
misconceptions appearing in the report, at the end of the personal interview or
within a specified time limit before the determining authority takes a
decision. To that end, Member States shall ensure that the applicant is fully
informed of the content of the report, with the assistance of an interpreter if
necessary. Member States shall then request the approval of the applicant on
the content of the report. 
Member States need
not request the applicant's approval on the content of the report if the
interview is recorded in accordance with paragraph 2 and if the recording is
admissible as evidence in procedures referred to in Chapter V. 
4.           Where
an applicant refuses to approve the content of the report, the reasons for
this refusal shall be entered into the applicant's file.
The refusal of an
applicant to approve the content of the report shall not prevent the
determining authority from taking a decision on the application.
5.           Applicants
shall not be denied access to the report and, where applicable,
the recording, before the determining authority takes a decision. 
Article 18
Medical reports
1.           Member
States shall allow an applicant to have a medical examination carried out in
order to submit a medical certificate to the determining authority in support
of his/her statements regarding past persecution or serious harm. Member States
may require the applicant to submit the results of the medical examination to
the determining authority within a reasonable time limit after he/she has been
informed about his/her rights pursuant to this Article. If the applicant fails
to submit the results of the medical examination within that time limit without
good reasons, it shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a
decision on the application for international protection. 
2.           Without
prejudice to paragraph 1, in cases where the determining authority considers
that there is reason to believe that the applicant's ability to be interviewed
and/or to give accurate and coherent statements does not exist or is limited as
a results of post-traumatic stress disorder, past persecution or serious harm,
it shall ensure that a medical examination is carried out with the applicant's
consent. The applicant's refusal to undergo such a medical examination shall
not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on the application
for international protection. 
3.           Member
States shall provide for relevant arrangements in order to ensure that impartial
and qualified medical expertise is made available for the purpose of medical
examinations referred to in paragraph 2.
4.           Member
States shall provide for further rules and arrangements for identification and
documentation of symptoms of torture and other forms of physical, sexual or
psychological violence, relevant to the application of this Article. 
5.           Member
States shall ensure that the persons interviewing applicants pursuant to this
Directive receive training with regard to the awareness of symptoms of torture
and of medical problems which could adversely affect the applicant's ability to
be interviewed. 
6.           The
results of medical examinations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
assessed by the determining authority along with other elements of the
application.
Article 19
Provision of legal and procedural information free of charge in
procedures at first instance
1.           Member
States shall ensure that legal and procedural information is provided free of
charge to applicants, on request, in procedures at first instance provided for
in Chapter III. This shall include, at least, the provision of information on
the procedure in the light of the applicant's particular circumstances and
explanations of reasons in fact and in law in the event of a negative decision.

2.           The
provision of legal and procedural information free of charge shall be subject
to the conditions laid down in Article 21.
Article 20
Free legal assistance and representation in appeals procedures
ê 2005/85/EC
article 15(2)
ð new
1.           In the event of a negative decision by the
determining authority, Member States shall
ensure that free legal assistance and/or
representation is granted on request subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 ð in appeals procedures provided for
in Chapter V. This shall include, at least, the preparation of the required
procedural documents and participation in the hearing before the court or
tribunal of first instance on behalf of the applicant. ï
ò new
2.           Member
States may also provide free legal assistance and/or representation in
procedures at first instance provided for in Chapter III. In such cases,
Article 19 shall not apply. 
3.           Member
States may provide that free legal assistance and representation not be granted
if the applicant's appeal is considered by a court or tribunal to have no
tangible prospect of success. 
In such a case,
Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and representation is
not arbitrarily restricted and that the applicant's effective access to
justice is not hindered. 
4.           Free
legal assistance and representation shall be subject to the conditions laid
down in Article 21.
Article 21
Conditions for the provision of legal and procedural information free
of charge
and free legal assistance and representation
1.           Member
States may provide that the legal and procedural information referred to in
Article 19 and the legal assistance and representation referred to in Article
20 are provided by non-governmental organisations, government officials, or
specialised services of the State. 
ê 2005/85/EC
article 15 (adapted)
ð new
1.           Member
States shall allow applicants for asylum the opportunity, at their own cost, to
consult in an effective manner a legal adviser or other counsellor, admitted or
permitted as such under national law, on matters relating to their asylum
applications.
2. 3.       Member States may provide in their national legislation that ð the provision of legal and procedural
information free of charge referred to in Article 19 and ï free legal assistance and/or
representation Ö referred
to in Article 20 Õ Ö are Õ is granted:
(a)     only for procedures before a court or tribunal in accordance
with Chapter V and not for any onward appeals or reviews provided for
under national law, including a rehearing of an appeal following an onward
appeal or review; and/or
(a b)  only to those who lack sufficient resources; and/or
(b c)  only Ö through
the services provided by Õ to legal
advisers or other counsellors specifically designated by national law to assist
and/or represent applicants for ð international protection ï asylum. and/or
(d)     only if the appeal or review is likely to succeed.
Member States shall ensure that legal assistance and/or representation
granted under point (d) is not arbitrarily restricted.
3. 4.       Rules concerning the modalities for filing and processing
requests for ð legal and procedural information
under Article 19 and ï legal assistance and/or
representation Ö under
Article 20 Õ may be
provided by Member States.
4. 5.       Member States may also:
(a)     impose monetary and/or time limits on
the ð provision of legal and procedural
information free of charge referred to in Article 19 and the ï provision of free legal assistance and/or representation Ö referred
to in Article 20 Õ , provided
that such limits do not arbitrarily restrict access to ð the provision of legal and
procedural information and ï legal assistance and/or
representation; 
(b)     provide that, as regards fees and
other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be more favourable than the
treatment generally accorded to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal
assistance.
5. 6.       Member States may demand to be reimbursed wholly or partially
for any expenses granted if and when the applicant's financial situation has
improved considerably or if the decision to grant such benefits was taken on
the basis of false information supplied by the applicant.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 15(1) (adapted)
ð new
Article 22
Right to legal assistance and representation at all stages of the
procedure
1.           Member States shall allow Applicants applicants for asylum Ö shall be
given Õ the
opportunity, at their own cost, to consult Ö, at their own
cost, Õ in an
effective manner a legal adviser or other counsellor, admitted or permitted as
such under national law, on matters relating to their asylum applications ð for international protection, at all
stages of the procedure, including following a negative decision ï . 
ò new
2.           Member
States may allow non-governmental organisations to provide legal assistance
and/or representation to applicants for international protection in procedures
provided for in Chapter III and Chapter V. 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 23 16
Scope of
legal assistance and representation
1.           Member States shall ensure
that a legal adviser or other counsellor admitted or permitted as such under
national law, and who assists or represents an applicant for ð international protection ï asylum under the terms
of national law, shall enjoy access to Ö the Õ such
information in the applicant's file ð upon which a decision is or will be
made ï as is liable to be examined by the authorities
referred to in Chapter V, insofar as the information is relevant to the
examination of the application.
Member States may make an exception where
disclosure of information or sources would jeopardise national security, the
security of the organisations or person(s) providing the information or the
security of the person(s) to whom the information relates or where the
investigative interests relating to the examination of applications for of ð international protection ï asylum by the
competent authorities of the Member States or the international relations of
the Member States would be compromised. In these cases, Ö Member States shall: Õ
ò new
(a)     grant access
to the information or sources in question to a legal adviser or counsellor who
has undergone a security check or, at least, to specialised services of the
State that are allowed under national law to represent the applicant for this
specific purpose, insofar as the information is relevant to the examination of
the application or taking a decision to withdraw international protection;
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
(b)     Ö make Õ access to the
information or sources in question shall be available to the authorities
referred to in Chapter V, except where such access is precluded in
cases of national security.
2.           Member States shall ensure
that the legal adviser or other counsellor who assists or represents an
applicant for asylum has access
to closed areas, such as detention facilities and transit zones, for the
purpose of consulting that applicant ð , in accordance with Article 10(4)
and Article 18(2)(b) and (c) of Directive […/…/EU] [the Reception Conditions
Directive] ï. Member States may only limit the possibility of
visiting applicants in closed areas where such limitation is, by virtue of
national legislation, objectively necessary for the security, public order or
administrative management of the area, or in order to ensure an efficient
examination of the application, provided that access by the legal adviser or
other counsellor is not thereby severely limited or rendered impossible.
ò new
3.           Member
States shall allow the applicant to bring to the personal interview a legal
adviser or other counsellor admitted or permitted as such under national
law. 
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
4. 3.       Member States may provide rules covering the presence of
legal advisers or other counsellors at all interviews in the procedure, without
prejudice to this Article or to Article 25(1)(b) 17(1)(b).
4.           Member States may provide that the
applicant is allowed to bring with him/her to the personal interview a legal
adviser or other counsellor admitted or permitted as such under national law.
Member States may require the presence of the
applicant at the personal interview, even if he/she is represented under the
terms of national law by such a legal adviser or counsellor, and may require
the applicant to respond in person to the questions asked.
The absence of a legal
adviser or other counsellor shall not prevent the competent authority from
conducting the personal interview with the applicant ð , without
prejudice to Article 25(1)(b) ï.
ò new
Article 24
Applicants in need of special procedural guarantees
1.                      
Member States shall
ensure that applicants in need of special procedural guarantees are identified
in due time. To that end, Member States may use the mechanism provided for in
Article 22 of Directive […/…/EU] [the Reception Conditions Directive]. 
Member States shall
ensure that this Article also applies if it becomes apparent at a later stage
in the procedure that an applicant is in need of special procedural guarantees.
2.                      
Member States shall
take appropriate measures to ensure that applicants in need of special
procedural guarantees are granted sufficient time and relevant support to
present the elements of their application as completely as possible and with
all available evidence. 
In cases where the
determining authority considers that an applicant has been subjected to
torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual
violence, Article 31(6) and Article 32(2) shall not apply.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 25 17
Guarantees
for unaccompanied minors
1.           With respect to all
procedures provided for in this Directive and without prejudice to the
provisions of Articles 14 ð , 15, 16, ï and 17 12 and 14, Member States shall:
(a)     Ö take measures Õ as soon as
possible take measures to ensure that a representative represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor ð to enable him/her to benefit from the rights and
comply with the obligations provided for in this Directive ï with respect to the examination of the application. ð The representative shall have the
necessary expertise in the field of childcare and shall perform his/her duties in accordance with
the principle of the best interests of the child. ï Ö The Õ This
representative can also be the representative referred to in Directive […/…/EU] [the Reception
Conditions Directive] Article 19 of Directive
2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of
asylum seekers[12];
(b)     ensure that the
representative is given the opportunity to inform the unaccompanied minor about
the meaning and possible consequences of the personal interview and, where
appropriate, how to prepare himself/herself for the personal interview. Member
States shall ð ensure
that ï allow Ö a Õ the
representative ð and/or a
legal adviser or other counsellor admitted as such under national law are ï to
be present at that interview
and ð have an
opportunity ï to ask questions or make comments, within the
framework set by the person who conducts the interview.
Member States may require the presence of the
unaccompanied minor at the personal interview, even
if the representative is present.
2.           Member States may refrain
from appointing a representative where the unaccompanied minor:
(a)     will in all likelihood reach the age of ð 18 years ï maturity before a
decision at first instance is taken; or
(b)     can avail himself, free of charge, of a legal adviser or other
counsellor, admitted as such under national law to fulfil the tasks assigned
above to the representative; or
(c)     is married or has been married.
3.           Member States may, in accordance with
the laws and regulations in force on 1 December 2005, also refrain from
appointing a representative where the unaccompanied minor is 16 years old
or older, unless he/she is unable to pursue his/her application without a
representative.
3. 4.       Member States shall ensure that: 
(a)     if an unaccompanied minor has a
personal interview on his/her application for ð international protection ï asylum as referred to
in Articles 14, 15, ð 16, ï 17, and ð 34 ï 12, 13 and
14, that interview is conducted by a person who
has the necessary knowledge of the special needs of minors;
(b)     an official with the necessary
knowledge of the special needs of minors prepares the decision by the
determining authority on the application of an unaccompanied minor.
ò new
4.           Unaccompanied
minors, together with the representative, shall be provided, free of charge,
with legal and procedural information as referred to in Article 19 also for the
procedures for the withdrawal of international protection status provided for
in Chapter IV.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
5.           Member States may use
medical examinations to determine the age of unaccompanied minors within the
framework of the examination of an application for ð international protection ï asylum ð where, following general statements
or other relevant evidence, Member States still have doubts concerning the
applicant's age. If those doubts persist after the medical examination, Member
States shall assume that the applicant is a minor ï. 
ò new
Any medical
examination shall be performed in full respect of the individual's dignity,
selecting the less invasive examinations. 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
In cases where medical examinations are used,
Member States shall ensure that: 
(a)     unaccompanied minors are informed
prior to the examination of their application for ð international protection ï asylum, and in a
language which they may reasonably be supposed to understand, of the possibility that their age may be determined by
medical examination. This shall include information on the method of
examination and the possible consequences of the result of the medical
examination for the examination of the application for ð international protection ï asylum, as well as the
consequences of refusal on the part of the unaccompanied minor to undergo the
medical examination; 
(b)     unaccompanied minors and/or their
representatives consent to carry
out an examination Ö being
carried out Õ to determine
the age of the minors concerned; and
(c)     the decision to reject an application
for ð international protection ï asylum from an
unaccompanied minor who refused to undergo this medical examination shall not
be based solely on that refusal.
The fact that an unaccompanied minor has
refused to undergo such a medical examination shall not prevent the determining
authority from taking a decision on the application for ð international protection ï asylum. 
ò new
6.           Article
20(3), Article 31(6), Article
32(2), Article 33(2)(c), Article 38, and Article 43 shall not apply to
unaccompanied minors. 
ê 2005/85/EC
7. 6.       The best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration for Member States when implementing this Article.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 26 18
Detention
1.           Member
States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he/she is
an applicant for ð international protection ï asylum. ð Grounds and conditions of detention
as well as guarantees available to detained applicants for international
protection shall be in accordance with Directive […/…/EU] [the Reception
Conditions Directive] ï.
2.           Where
an applicant for ð international protection ï asylum is held in detention, Member States shall ensure that
there is a possibility of speedy judicial review ð in accordance with Directive […/…/EU]
[the Reception Conditions Directive] ï.
Article 27 19
Procedure
in Ö the Õ case of withdrawal of the application
1.           Insofar as Member States provide for the possibility of explicit
withdrawal of the application under national law, when
an applicant for asylum explicitly withdraws his/her application for ð international protection ï asylum, Member States shall ensure that the determining authority
takes a decision to either discontinue the examination or reject the
application.
2.           Member States may also
decide that the determining authority can decide to discontinue the examination
without taking a decision. In this case, Member States shall ensure that the
determining authority enters a notice in the applicant's file. 
Article 28 20
Procedure
in the case of implicit withdrawal or abandonment of the application
1.           When
there is reasonable cause to consider that an applicant for ð international protection ï asylum has implicitly withdrawn or abandoned his/her application for asylum, Member States shall ensure that the determining authority
takes a decision to either discontinue the examination or ð, provided that the determining authority
considers the application to be unfounded on the basis of an adequate
examination of its substance in line with Article 4 of Directive […/…/EU] [the
Qualification Directive] and further to a personal interview, ï reject the application on
the basis that the applicant has not
established an entitlement to refugee status in accordance with Directive
2004/83/EC.
Member States may assume that the applicant has
implicitly withdrawn or abandoned his/her application for ð international protection ï asylum in particular when it is ascertained that: 
(a)     he/she has failed to respond to
requests to provide information essential to his/her application in terms of
Article 4 of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC or has not
appeared for an personal interview as provided for in Articles 14, 15, ð 16 ï and 17 12, 13 and 14 Ö of this
Directive Õ , unless the
applicant demonstrates within a reasonable time that his/her failure was due to
circumstances beyond his/her control;
(b)     he/she has
absconded or left without authorisation the place where he/she lived or was
held, without contacting the competent authority within a reasonable time, or
he/she has not within a reasonable time complied with reporting duties or other
obligations to communicate.
For the purposes of
implementing these provisions, Member States may lay down time limits or
guidelines.
2.           Member States shall ensure
that the applicant who reports again to the competent authority after a
decision to discontinue as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is taken,
is entitled to request that his/her case be reopened ð or entitled to make a new
application which shall not be subject to the procedure referred to in Articles
40 and 41 ï , unless the request is examined in
accordance with Articles 32 and 34.
Member States may provide for a time limit ð of at least one year ï after which the applicant's case can no longer be re‑opened ð or the new application may be
treated as a subsequent application and subject to the procedure referred to in
Articles 40 and 41 ï.
Member States shall ensure
that such a person is not removed contrary to the principle of non‑refoulement.
Member States may allow the
determining authority to take up the examination at the stage where the it was discontinued.
ò new
3.           This
Article shall be without prejudice to Regulation (EU) No […/…] [the Dublin
Regulation].
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 29 21
The role of
UNHCR
1.           Member
States shall allow the UNHCR: 
(a)     to have access to applicants for ð international protection ï asylum, including
those in detention ð , at the border and ï Ö in
the Õ and in
airport or port transit zones;
(b)     to have access to information on
individual applications for ð international protection ï asylum, on the course
of the procedure and on the decisions taken, provided that the applicant for asylum agrees thereto;
(c)     to present its views, in the exercise
of its supervisory responsibilities under Article 35 of the Geneva
Convention, to any competent authorities regarding individual applications for ð international protection ï asylum at any stage of
the procedure.
2.           Paragraph 1 shall
also apply to an organisation which is working in the territory of the Member
State concerned on behalf of the UNHCR pursuant to an agreement with that
Member State.
Article 30 22
Collection
of information on individual cases
For the purposes of examining individual
cases, Member States shall not:
(a)          directly disclose information regarding individual applications for ð international protection ï asylum, or the fact
that an application has been made, to the alleged actor(s) of persecution ð or serious harm ï of the
applicant for asylum;
(b)          obtain any information from the
alleged actor(s) of persecution ð or serious harm ï in a manner that would result in such actor(s) being directly
informed of the fact that an application has been made by the applicant in
question, and would jeopardise the physical integrity of the applicant and
his/her dependants, or the liberty and security of his/her family members still
living in the country of origin.
CHAPTER III
Procedures at first instance
Section I
Article 31 23
Examination
procedure
1.           Member
States shall process applications for ð international protection ï asylum in an examination procedure in accordance with the basic
principles and guarantees of Chapter II.
2.           Member
States shall ensure that such a procedure is concluded as soon as possible,
without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination.
ò new
3.           Member
States shall ensure that a procedure is concluded within six months after the
application is lodged.
Member States may
extend that time limit for a period not exceeding a further six months, where:
(a)     complex
issues of fact and law are involved; 
(b)     a large
number of third country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously request international
protection which makes it impossible in practice to conclude the procedure
within the six-month time-limit;
(c)     where the
delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with
his/her obligations under Article 13.
Member States may
postpone concluding the procedure where the determining authority cannot
reasonably be expected to decide within the time limits laid down in this
paragraph due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin which is
expected to be temporary.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
4.           Member States shall ensure that, where a decision cannot
be taken within six months, the applicant concerned shall either:
(a)     be informed of the
delay; ð and ï or
(b)     receive, upon
his/her request, information on the ð reasons
for the delay and the ï time‑frame within which the decision on
his/her application is to be
expected. Such information shall not constitute an
obligation for the Member State towards the applicant concerned to take a
decision within that time‑frame.
ò new
The consequences of
failure to adopt a decision within the time limits laid down in paragraph 3
shall be determined in accordance with national law.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
5. 3.       Member States may prioritise or accelerate
any an examination ð of an application for international
protection ï in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of
Chapter II, including where the application is likely to be
well founded or where the applicant has special needs:
ò new
(a)     where the
application is likely to be well founded;
(b)     where the
applicant is vulnerable within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive […/…/EU]
[the Reception Conditions Directive], or is in need of special procedural
guarantees, in particular unaccompanied minors;
(c)     in other
cases with the exception of applications referred to in paragraph 6. 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
6. 4.       Member States may also provide that an examination procedure in accordance with the basic
principles and guarantees of Chapter II be prioritised
or accelerated ð and/or
conducted at the border in accordance with Article 43 ï if:
(a)     the applicant, in submitting his/her
application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not
relevant or of minimal relevance to the
examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee ð or a person eligible for subsidiary
protection ï by virtue of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC; or
(b)     the applicant clearly does not qualify as a refugee or for
refugee status in a Member State under Directive 2004/83/EC; or
(c)     the application for asylum is considered to be unfounded:
(b i)   because the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning
of this Directive Articles 29,
30 and 31, or
(ii)      because the country which is not a Member State, is
considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, without prejudice to
Article 28(1); or
(c d)  the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false
information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents
with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality that could have had a
negative impact on the decision; or 
(e)     the applicant has filed another application for asylum stating
other personal data; or
(d f)   the applicant has not produced information
establishing with a reasonable degree of certainty his/her identity or
nationality, or it is likely that, in bad faith,
Ö the
applicant Õ he/she has
destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped
establish his/her identity or nationality; or
(e g)  the applicant has made inconsistent, contradictory, ð clearly false or obviously ï improbable or insufficient
representations ð which contradict sufficiently
verified country-of-origin information, ï Ö thus
making Õ which make
his/her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to ð whether he/she qualifies as a
refugee or a person eligible for subsidiary protection by virtue of ï his/her having being the object of persecution
referred to in Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification
Directive] Directive 2004/83/EC; or
(h)     the applicant has submitted a subsequent application which does
not raise any relevant new elements with respect to his/her particular
circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin; or
(i)      the applicant has failed without reasonable cause to make
his/her application earlier, having had opportunity to do so; or
(f j)    the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay
or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would
result in his/her removal; or
(k)     the applicant has failed without good reason to comply with
obligations referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC or
in Articles11(2)(a) and (b) and 20(1) of this Directive; or
(l)      the applicant entered the territory of the Member State
unlawfully or prolonged his/her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has
either not presented himself/herself to the authorities and/or filed an
application for asylum as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his/her
entry; or
(g m) the applicant ð may for serious reasons be
considered ï is a danger to the
national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has
been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security Ö or Õ and public
order under national law.; or 
(n)     the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have
his/her fingerprints taken in accordance with relevant Community and/or
national legislation; or
(o)     the application was made by an unmarried minor to whom
Article 6(4)(c) applies, after the application of the parents or parent
responsible for the minor has been rejected and no relevant new elements were
raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in
his/her country of origin.
ò new
7.           Member
States shall lay down reasonable time limits for the adoption of a decision in
the procedure at first instance pursuant to paragraph 6 which ensure adequate
and complete examination.
8.           The
fact that an application for international protection was submitted after an
irregular entry into the territory or at the border, including in transit
zones, as well as the lack of documents or use of forged documents, shall not per
se entail an automatic recourse to the procedure at first instance pursuant
to paragraph 6. 
ê 2005/85/EC
Article 24
Specific procedures
1.           Member States may provide
for the following specific procedures derogating from the basic principles and
guarantees of Chapter II:
(a)     a preliminary examination for the purposes of
processing cases considered within the framework set out in Section IV;
(b)     procedures for the purposes of processing
cases considered within the framework set out in Section V.
2.           Member States may also
provide a derogation in respect of Section VI.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 28
ð new
Article 32
Unfounded
applications
1.           Without
prejudice to Articles 27 19 and 20, Member States may only consider an application for
asylum as unfounded if the determining authority has
established that the applicant does not qualify for ð international
protection ï refugee status pursuant to Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC.
2.           In
the cases mentioned in Article 23(4)(b) and
In in cases of unfounded
applications for asylum
in which any of the circumstances listed in Article 31(6) ð (a) to (f) ï 23(4)(a) and (c) to (o) apply, Member States may also consider an application as manifestly
unfounded, where it is defined as such in the national legislation.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
Section II
Article 33 25
Inadmissible
applications
1.           In addition to cases in
which an application is not examined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No […/…] [the Dublin Regulation] (EC) No
343/2003, Member States are not required to
examine whether the applicant qualifies ð for international protection ï as a refugee in
accordance with Directive […/…/EU] [the
Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC where an application is
considered inadmissible pursuant to this Article.
2.           Member States may consider
an application for ð international
protection ï asylum as inadmissible ð only ï pursuant to this Article if:
(a)     another Member State has granted
refugee status;
(b)     a country which is not a Member State
is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to
Article 35 26; 
(c)     a country which is not a Member State
is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to
Article 38 27;
(d)     the applicant is allowed to remain in the Member State
concerned on some other grounds and as result of this he/she has been granted a
status equivalent to the rights and benefits of the refugee status by virtue of
Directive 2004/83/EC;
(e)     the applicant is allowed to remain in the territory of the
Member State concerned on some other grounds which protect him/her against
refoulement pending the outcome of a procedure for the determination of status
pursuant to point (d);
(d f)   ð the
application is a subsequent application, where no new elements or
findings relating to the examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a
refugee or a person eligible for subsidiary protection by virtue of Directive
[…/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] have arisen or have been presented by
the applicant ï the applicant has lodged an identical application after a final decision;
(e g)  a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he/she
has in accordance with Article 7(2) 6(3)
consented to have his/her case be part of an application made on his/her
behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant's situation, which
justify a separate application.
ò new
Article 34
Special rules on an admissibility interview 
1.           Member
States shall allow applicants to present their views with regard to the
application of the grounds referred to in Article 33 in their particular
circumstances before a decision to consider an application inadmissible is
taken. To that end, Member States shall conduct a personal interview on the
admissibility of the application. Member States may make an exception only in
accordance with Article 42 in the case of a subsequent application. 
2.           Paragraph
1 shall be without prejudice to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No […/…] [the
Dublin Regulation].
3.           Member
States shall ensure that the person who conducts the interview on the
admissibility of the application does not wear a military or law enforcement
uniform.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
Section III
Article 35 26
The concept
of first country of asylum
A country can be considered to be a first
country of asylum for a particular applicant for ð international
protection ï asylum if: 
(a)          he/she has been recognised in
that country as a refugee and he/she can still avail himself/herself of that
protection, or 
(b)          he/she otherwise enjoys
sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle
of non‑refoulement,
provided that he/she will be re‑admitted
to that country.
In applying the concept of first country of
asylum to the particular circumstances of an applicant for ð international
protection ï asylum, Member States may take into account Article 38(1) 27(1). ð The applicant shall be allowed to
challenge the application of the first country of asylum concept in his/her
particular circumstances. ï
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
Article 27
The safe
third country concept
1.           Member States may apply
the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are
satisfied that a person seeking asylum will be treated in accordance with the
following principles in the third country concerned:
(a)     life and liberty are not threatened
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
group or political opinion;
(b)     the principle of non‑refoulement
in accordance with the Geneva Convention is respected; 
(c)     the prohibition of removal, in
violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment as laid down in international law, is respected; and
(d)     the possibility exists to request
refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in
accordance with the Geneva Convention.
2.           The application of the
safe third country concept shall be subject to rules laid down in national
legislation, including:
(a)     rules requiring a connection
between the person seeking asylum and the third country concerned on the basis
of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country;
(b)     rules on the methodology by which
the competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country
concept may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant.
Such methodology shall include case‑by‑case consideration of the
safety of the country for a particular applicant and/or national designation of
countries considered to be generally safe; 
(c)     rules in accordance with
international law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third
country concerned is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall
permit the applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country
concept on the grounds that he/she would be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment.
3.           When implementing a
decision solely based on this Article, Member States shall:
(a)     inform the applicant accordingly;
and
(b)     provide him/her with a document
informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that
country, that the application has not been examined in substance.
4.           Where the third country
does not permit the applicant for asylum to enter its territory,
Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with
the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II.
5.           Member States shall
inform the Commission periodically of the countries to which this concept is
applied in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
Article 28
Unfounded applications
1.           Without prejudice to Articles 19 and 20, Member States
may only consider an application for asylum as unfounded if the
determining authority has established that the applicant does not qualify for
refugee status pursuant to Directive 2004/83/EC.
2.           In the cases mentioned in Article 23(4)(b) and in
cases of unfounded applications for asylum in which any of the
circumstances listed in Article 23(4)(a) and (c)
to (o) apply, Member States may also consider an application as manifestly
unfounded, where it is defined as such in the national legislation.
ê 2005/85/EC
Article 29
Minimum common list of third
countries
regarded as safe countries of origin
1.           The Council shall, acting by a qualified
majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the
European Parliament, adopt a minimum common list of third countries which
shall be regarded by Member States as safe countries of origin in accordance
with Annex II.
2.           The Council may, acting by a qualified
majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the
European Parliament, amend the minimum common list by adding or removing third
countries, in accordance with Annex II. The Commission shall examine any
request made by the Council or by a Member State to submit a proposal to amend
the minimum common list.
3.           When making its proposal under
paragraphs 1 or 2, the Commission shall make use of information from the Member
States, its own information and, where necessary, information from UNHCR, the
Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations.
4.           Where the Council requests the
Commission to submit a proposal for removing a third country from the
minimum common list, the obligation of Member States pursuant to
Article 31(2) shall be suspended with regard to this third country as of
the day following the Council decision requesting such a submission.
5.           Where a Member State requests the
Commission to submit a proposal to the Council for removing a third country
from the minimum common list, that Member State shall notify the Council in
writing of the request made to the Commission. The obligation of this Member
State pursuant to Article 31(2) shall be suspended with regard to the
third country as of the day following the notification to the Council.
6.           The European Parliament shall be
informed of the suspensions under paragraphs 4 and 5.
7.           The suspensions under paragraphs 4
and 5 shall end after three months, unless the Commission makes a proposal
before the end of this period, to withdraw the third country from the minimum
common list. The suspensions shall in any case end where the Council rejects a
proposal by the Commission to withdraw the third country from the list.
8.           Upon request by the Council, the
Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on whether
the situation of a country on the minimum common list is still in conformity
with Annex II. When presenting its report, the Commission may make such
recommendations or proposals as it deems appropriate.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
Article 30
National designation of third countries
as safe countries of origin
1.           Without prejudice to Article 29, Member States may
retain or introduce legislation that allows, in accordance with
Annex II, for the national designation of third countries other than those
appearing on the minimum common list, as safe countries of origin for the
purposes of examining applications for asylum. This may include designation of
part of a country as safe where the conditions in Annex II are fulfilled
in relation to that part.
2.           By
derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may retain legislation in force
on 1 December 2005 that allows for the national designation of third countries,
other than those appearing on the minimum common list, as safe countries of
origin for the purposes of examining applications for asylum where they are
satisfied that persons in the third countries concerned are generally neither
subject to:
(a)     persecution as
defined in Article 9 of Directive 2004/83/EC; nor
(b)     torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
3.           Member
States may also retain legislation in force on 1 December 2005 that allows for
the national designation of part of a country as safe, or a country or part of
a country as safe for a specified group of persons in that country, where the
conditions in paragraph 2 are fulfilled in relation to that part or group.
4.           In
assessing whether a country is a safe country of origin in accordance with
paragraphs 2 and 3, Member States shall have regard to the legal
situation, the application of the law and the general political circumstances
in the third country concerned.
5.           The
assessment of whether a country is a safe country of origin in accordance with
this Article shall be based on a range of sources of information, including in
particular information from other Member States, the UNHCR, the Council of
Europe and other relevant international organisations.
6.           Member
States shall notify to the Commission the countries that are designated as safe
countries of origin in accordance with this Article.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 36 31
The safe
country of origin concept
1.           A third country designated
as a safe country of origin in accordance with Ö this
Directive Õ either Article 29 or 30 may, after an individual examination of the application, be
considered as a safe country of origin for a particular applicant for asylum only if:
(a)     he/she has the nationality of that
country; or 
(b)     he/she is a stateless person and was
formerly habitually resident in that country;
and he/she has not submitted any serious grounds for considering the country
not to be a safe country of origin in his/her particular circumstances and in
terms of his/her qualification as a refugee ð or a person eligible for subsidiary
protection ï in accordance with Directive […/…/EU] [the
Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC.
2.           Member States shall, in accordance with
paragraph 1, consider the application for asylum as unfounded where the third
country is designated as safe pursuant to Article 29.
2. 3.       Member States shall lay down in national legislation further
rules and modalities for the application of the safe country of origin concept.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 30
ð new
Article 37
National
designation of third countries
as safe countries of origin
1.           Without
prejudice to Article 29,
Member States may retain or introduce legislation that allows, in accordance with Annex I II, for the national designation of third
countries other than those appearing on the minimum common list, as safe countries of origin for the purposes of
examining applications for ð international
protection ï asylum. This may include designation
of part of a country as safe where the conditions in Annex II are
fulfilled in relation to that part.
2.           By derogation from paragraph 1,
Member States may retain legislation in force on 1 December 2005 that allows
for the national designation of third countries, other than those appearing on
the minimum common list, as safe countries of origin for the purposes of
examining applications for asylum where they are satisfied that persons in the
third countries concerned are generally neither subject to:
(a)     persecution as defined in Article 9 of Directive
2004/83/EC; nor
(b)     torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
3.           Member States may also retain
legislation in force on 1 December 2005 that allows for the national
designation of part of a country as safe, or a country or part of a country as
safe for a specified group of persons in that country, where the conditions in
paragraph 2 are fulfilled in relation to that part or group.
4.           In assessing whether a country is a safe
country of origin in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3, Member
States shall have regard to the legal situation, the application of the law and
the general political circumstances in the third country concerned.
ò new
2.           Member
States shall ensure a regular review of the situation in third countries
designated as safe in accordance with this Article.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 30
ð new
3. 5.       The assessment of whether a country is a safe country of
origin in accordance with this Article shall be based on a range of sources of
information, including in particular information from other Member States, ð the European Asylum Support
Office, ï the UNHCR, the Council of Europe and other relevant international
organisations.
4. 6.       Member States shall notify to the Commission the countries
that are designated as safe countries of origin in accordance with this
Article.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 27
ð new
Article 38
The safe
third country concept
1.           Member States may apply
the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are
satisfied that a person seeking ð international
protection ï asylum will be treated in accordance with the following principles in the
third country concerned:
(a)     life and liberty are not threatened on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion;
ò new
(b)     there is no
risk of serious harm as defined in Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification
Directive];
ê 2005/85/EC
article 27
ð new
(c b)  the principle of non‑refoulement in accordance with the
Geneva Convention is respected; 
(d c)  the prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom
from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as laid down in
international law, is respected; and
(e d)  the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to
be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
2.           The application of the
safe third country concept shall be subject to rules laid down in national
legislation, including:
(a)     rules requiring a connection between
the person seeking ð international
protection ï asylum and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be
reasonable for that person to go to that country;
(b)     rules on the methodology by which the
competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country concept
may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant. Such
methodology shall include case‑by‑case consideration of the safety
of the country for a particular applicant and/or national designation of
countries considered to be generally safe; 
(c)     rules in accordance with international
law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned
is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall permit the
applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the
grounds that ð that the third country is not safe
in his/her particular circumstances ï he/she would be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment. ð The applicant shall also be allowed
to challenge the existence of a connection between him/her and the third
country in accordance with point (a). ï
3.           When implementing a
decision solely based on this Article, Member States shall:
(a)     inform the applicant accordingly; and
(b)     provide him/her with a document
informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that
country, that the application has not been examined in substance.
4.           Where the third country
does not permit the applicant for ð international
protection ï asylum to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to a
procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees
described in Chapter II.
5.           Member States shall inform
the Commission periodically of the countries to which this concept is applied
in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 36
ð new
Article 39 
The
European safe third country countries concept
1.           Member States may provide
that no, or no full, examination of the asylum
application for ð international protection ï and of the safety of the applicant in
his/her particular circumstances as described in Chapter II, shall take place
in cases where a competent authority has established, on the basis of the
facts, that the applicant for asylum ð international protection ï is seeking to enter or has entered illegally into its territory
from a safe third country according to paragraph 2.
2.           A third country can only
be considered as a safe third country for the purposes of paragraph 1 where:
(a)     it has ratified and observes the
provisions of the Geneva Convention without any geographical limitations;
(b)     it has in place an asylum procedure
prescribed by law; and
(c)     it has ratified the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and
observes its provisions, including the standards relating to effective remedies; and
(d)     it has been so designated by the Council in accordance with
paragraph 3.
3.           The Council shall, acting by qualified
majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the
European Parliament, adopt or amend a common list of third countries that shall
be regarded as safe third countries for the purposes of paragraph 1.
43.         The
Member States concerned shall lay down in national law the modalities for
implementing the provisions of paragraph 1 and the consequences of decisions
pursuant to those provisions in accordance with the principle of
non-refoulement under the Geneva Convention, including providing for exceptions from the application of this
Article for humanitarian or political reasons or for reasons of public
international law.
54.         When
implementing a decision solely based on this Article, the Member States
concerned shall:
(a)     inform the applicant accordingly; and
(b)     provide him/her with a document
informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that
country, that the application has not been examined in substance.
65.         Where
the safe third country does not re-admit the applicant for asylum, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in
accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II.
ò new
6.           Member
States shall inform the Commission periodically of the countries to which this
concept is applied in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
ê 2005/85/EC
article 36
7.           Member States which have designated
third countries as safe countries in accordance with national legislation in
force on 1 December 2005 and on the basis of the criteria in paragraph 2(a),
(b) and (c), may apply paragraph 1 to these third countries until the Council
has adopted the common list pursuant to paragraph 3.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Section IV
Article 40 32
Subsequent
application
1.           Where a person who has applied for ð international
protection ï asylum in a Member State makes further
representations or a subsequent application in the same Member State, that
Member State ð shall ï may examine these
further representations or the elements of the subsequent application in the
framework of the examination of the previous application or in the framework of
the examination of the decision under review or appeal, insofar as the
competent authorities can take into account and consider all the elements
underlying the further representations or subsequent application within this
framework.
2.           Moreover, Member States may
apply a specific procedure as referred to in paragraph 3, where a person
makes a subsequent application for
asylum:
(a)     after his/her previous application has been withdrawn or
abandoned by virtue of Articles 19 or 20;
(b)     after a decision has been taken on the previous application.
Member States may also decide to apply this procedure only after a final
decision has been taken.
2. 3.       ð For the purpose of taking a decision
on the admissibility of an application for international protection pursuant to
Article 33(2)(d), ï a A subsequent application for ð international
protection ï asylum shall be subject first to a
preliminary examination as to whether , after the withdrawal of the previous application or after the
decision referred to in paragraph 2(b) of this Article on this application
has been reached, new elements or findings Ö have
arisen or have been presented by the applicant which relate Õ relating to the
examination of whether Ö the
applicant Õ he/she
qualifies as a refugee ð or a person eligible for subsidiary
protection ï by virtue of Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC have arisen or have
been presented by the applicant.
3. 4.       If, following the preliminary examination referred to in paragraph 2 3 of this Article Ö concludes that Õ new elements or findings Ö have Õ arisen or Ö been Õ are
presented by the applicant which significantly add to the likelihood of the
applicant qualifying as a refugee ð or a
person eligible for subsidiary protection ï by virtue of Directive Ö […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive] Õ 2004/83/EC, the
application shall be further examined in conformity with Chapter II. Ö Member
States may also provide for other reasons for a subsequent application to be
further examined. Õ
5.           Member States may, in accordance with national legislation,
further examine a subsequent application where there are other reasons why a
procedure has to be re‑opened.
4. 6.       Member States may decide to further
examine the application only if the applicant concerned was, through no fault
of his/her own, incapable of asserting the situations set forth in
paragraphs 2 and 3 3, 4 and 5 of this Article in the previous procedure, in
particular by exercising his/her right to an effective remedy pursuant to
Article 46 39.
ò new
5.           When
a subsequent application is not further examined pursuant to this Article, it
shall be considered inadmissible, in accordance with Article 33(2)(d). 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
6. 7.       The procedure referred to in this Article
may also be applicable in the case of:
(a)     a dependant who lodges an application after he/she has, in
accordance with Article 7(2) 6(3),
consented to have his/her case be part of an application made on his/her behalf
ð , and/or ï
(b)     ð an unmarried minor who lodges an
application after an application has been made on his/her behalf pursuant to
Article 7(5)(c) ï . 
In ð those cases ï this case, the
preliminary examination referred to in paragraph 2 3 of this Article
will consist of examining whether there are facts relating to the dependant's ð or the unmarried minor's ï situation which justify a separate application.
ò new
7.           Where a person with regard to whom a
transfer decision has to be enforced pursuant to Regulation (EU) […/…] [the
Dublin Regulation] makes further representations or a subsequent application in
the transferring Member State, those representations or subsequent applications
shall be examined by the responsible Member State, as defined in Regulation
(EU) […/…] [the Dublin Regulation], in accordance with this Directive.
Article 41
Specific rules following the rejection or inadmissibility of a
subsequent application
Where a person
makes a new application for international protection in the same Member
State after a final decision to consider an application inadmissible
pursuant to Article 40(5) or after a final decision to reject a previous
subsequent application as unfounded, Member States may do any of the following:
(a)          make an
exception to the right to
remain in the territory, provided the determining authority is satisfied that a
return decision will not lead to direct or indirect refoulement in violation of
international and Union obligations of that Member State,
(b)          provide
that the examination procedure be accelerated in accordance with Article
31(6)(f); in such case, Member States may also derogate from the time limits
normally applicable in accelerated procedures, in accordance with national
legislation,
(c)          derogate
from the time limits normally applicable to admissibility procedures provided
for in Articles 33 and 34, in accordance with national legislation. 
ê 2005/85/EC
Article 33
Failure to appear
Member States may retain or adopt the procedure
provided for in Article 32 in the case of an application for asylum filed at a
later date by an applicant who, either intentionally or owing to gross
negligence, fails to go to a reception centre or appear before the competent
authorities at a specified time.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 42 34
Procedural
rules
1.           Member
States shall ensure that applicants for ð international
protection ï asylum whose application is subject to a preliminary examination
pursuant to Article 40 32 enjoy
the guarantees provided for in Article 12(1) 10(1).
2.           Member
States may lay down in national law rules on the preliminary examination
pursuant to Article 40 32.
Those rules may, inter
alia:
(a)     oblige the applicant concerned to indicate facts
and substantiate evidence which justify a new procedure;
(b)     require submission of the new information by
the applicant concerned within a time limit after he/she obtained such
information; 
(b c)  permit the preliminary examination to be
conducted on the sole basis of written submissions without a personal interview ð , with the
exception of cases referred to in Article 40(6) ï.
Ö Those
rules Õ The conditions
shall not render impossible the access of applicants for asylum to a new procedure or result in the effective annulment or severe
curtailment of such access.
3.           Member States shall ensure
that:
(a)     the applicant is informed in an appropriate manner of the
outcome of the preliminary examination and, in case the application will not be
further examined, of the reasons for this and the possibilities for seeking an
appeal or review of the decision.;
(b)     if one of the situations referred to in
Article 32(2) applies, the determining authority shall further examine the subsequent application in conformity with the
provisions of Chapter II as soon as possible.
Section V
Article 43 35
Border
procedures
1.           Member
States may provide for procedures, in accordance with the basic principles and
guarantees of Chapter II,
in order to decide at the border or transit zones of the Member State on: 
(a)     ð the admissibility of an ï applications ð , pursuant to Article 33, ï made at such locations; ð and/or ï
ò new
(b)     the
substance of an application in a procedure pursuant to Article 31(6). 
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
2.           However, when procedures as set out in
paragraph 1 do not exist, Member States may maintain, subject to the
provisions of this Article and in accordance with the laws or regulations in
force on 1 December 2005, procedures derogating from the basic principles and
guarantees described in Chapter II, in order to decide at the border or in
transit zones as to whether applicants for asylum who have arrived and made an
application for asylum at such locations, may enter their territory.
3.           The procedures referred to in paragraph 2 shall ensure in particular that the
persons concerned:
(a)     are allowed to
remain at the border or transit zones of the Member State, without prejudice to
Article 7; 
(b)     are be immediately informed of their rights and obligations, as
described in Article 10(1) (a); 
(c)     have access, if necessary, to the services of an interpreter,
as described in Article 10(1)(b); 
(d)     are interviewed, before the competent authority takes a
decision in such procedures, in relation to their application for asylum by
persons with appropriate knowledge of the relevant standards applicable in the
field of asylum and refugee law, as described in Articles 12, 13 and 14; 
(e)     can consult a legal adviser or counsellor admitted or permitted
as such under national law, as described in Article 15(1); and
(f)      have a representative appointed in the case of unaccompanied
minors, as described in Article 17(1), unless Article 17(2) or (3)
applies.
Moreover, in case permission to enter is refused by a competent
authority, this competent authority shall state the reasons in fact and in law
why the application for asylum is considered as unfounded or as inadmissible.
2. 4.       Member States shall ensure that a
decision in the framework of the procedures provided for in paragraph 1 2 is taken within a reasonable time. When a decision has not
been taken within four weeks, the applicant for
asylum shall be granted
entry to the territory of the Member State in order for his/her application to
be processed in accordance with the other provisions of this Directive.
3. 5.       In the event of particular types of arrivals, or arrivals involving a large number of third country nationals or
stateless persons lodging applications for ð international protection ï asylum at the border
or in a transit zone, which makes it practically impossible Ö in
practice Õ to apply there
the provisions of paragraph 1 or the specific procedure set out in
paragraphs 2 and 3, those procedures may
also be applied where and for as long as these third country nationals or
stateless persons are accommodated normally at locations in proximity to the
border or transit zone.
ê 2005/85/EC
Article 36
The
European safe third countries concept
1.           Member States may
provide that no, or no full, examination of the asylum application and of the
safety of the applicant in his/her particular circumstances as described in
Chapter II, shall take place in cases where a competent authority has
established, on the basis of the facts, that the applicant for asylum is
seeking to enter or has entered illegally into its territory from a safe third
country according to paragraph 2.
2.           A third country can
only be considered as a safe third country for the purposes of paragraph 1
where:
(a)     it has ratified and observes the
provisions of the Geneva Convention without any geographical limitations; 
(b)     it has in place an asylum procedure
prescribed by law; 
(c)     it has ratified the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and
observes its provisions, including the standards relating to effective
remedies; and
(d)     it has been so designated by the
Council in accordance with paragraph 3.
3.           The Council shall,
acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after
consultation of the European Parliament, adopt or amend a common list of
third countries that shall be regarded as safe third countries for the
purposes of paragraph 1.
4.           The Member States
concerned shall lay down in national law the modalities for implementing the
provisions of paragraph 1 and the consequences of decisions pursuant to those
provisions in accordance with the principle of non‑refoulement under the
Geneva Convention, including providing for exceptions from the application
of this Article for humanitarian or political reasons or for reasons of public
international law.
5.           When implementing a
decision solely based on this Article, the Member States concerned shall:
(a)     inform the applicant accordingly;
and
(b)     provide him/her with a document
informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that
country, that the application has not been examined in substance.
6.           Where the safe third
country does not readmit the applicant for asylum, Member States shall
ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic
principles and guarantees described in Chapter II.
7.           Member States which
have designated third countries as safe countries in accordance with national
legislation in force on 1 December 2005 and on the basis of the criteria in
paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c), may apply paragraph 1 to these third
countries until the Council has adopted the common list pursuant to
paragraph 3.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
CHAPTER IV
Procedures for the withdrawal of ð international
protection ï refugee status
Article 44 37
Withdrawal
of ð international
protection ï refugee status
Member States shall
ensure that an examination to withdraw the ð international protection ï refugee status of a particular person may commence when new
elements or findings arise indicating that there are reasons to reconsider the
validity of his/her ð international protection ï refugee status.
Article 45 38
Procedural
rules
1.           Member States shall ensure
that, where the competent authority is considering withdrawing the ð international protection ï refugee status of a
third country national or stateless person in accordance with Article 14 ð or Article 19 ï of Directive […/…/EU] [the
Qualification Directive] 2004/83/EC, the person concerned shall enjoys the following guarantees:
(a)     to be informed in writing that the
competent authority is reconsidering his or her qualification for ð international protection ï refugee status and the
reasons for such a reconsideration; and
(b)     to be given the opportunity to submit,
in a personal interview in accordance with Article 12(1)(b) 10(1)(b) and Articles 14, 15, ð 16 ï and 17 12, 13 and
14 or in a written statement, reasons as to why
his/her ð international protection ï refugee status should
not be withdrawn.
In addition, Member States shall ensure that
within the framework of such a procedure:
(a)     the competent authority is able to
obtain precise and up‑to‑date information from various sources,
such as, where appropriate, from ð the European Asylum Support Office
and ï the UNHCR, as to the general situation prevailing in the countries
of origin of the persons concerned; and 
(b)     where information on an individual
case is collected for the purposes of reconsidering the ð international protection ï refugee status, it is
not obtained from the actor(s) of persecution ð or serious harm ï in a manner that would result in such actor(s) being directly
informed of the fact that the person concerned is a ð beneficiary of international
protection ï refugee whose status
is under reconsideration, nor jeopardise the physical integrity of the person
and his/her dependants, or the liberty and security of his/her family members
still living in the country of origin. 
2.           Member States shall ensure
that the decision of the competent authority to withdraw the ð international protection ï refugee status is
given in writing. The reasons in fact and in law shall be stated in the
decision and information on how to challenge the decision shall be given in
writing.
3.           Once the competent
authority has taken the decision to withdraw the ð international protection ï refugee status,
Article 20 15,
paragraph 2, ð Article 22 ï , Article 23(1) 16,
paragraph 1 and Article 29 21
are equally applicable.
4.           By derogation to
paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, Member States may decide that the ð international protection ï refugee status shall
lapse by law in case of cessation in accordance with
Article 11(1)(a) to (d) of Directive 2004/83/EC
or if the ð beneficiary of international
protection ï refugee has
unequivocally renounced his/her recognition as a ð beneficiary of international
protection ï refugee. ð Member States may also provide that
the international protection status shall lapse by law where the beneficiary of
international protection has become a citizen of that Member State. ï 
CHAPTER V
Appeals procedures
Article 46 39
The right
to an effective remedy
1.           Member States shall ensure
that applicants for ð international protection ï asylum have the right
to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, against the following:
(a)     a decision taken on their application
for ð international protection ï , including a decision:
ò new
(i)      to consider
an application unfounded in relation to refugee status and/or subsidiary
protection status,
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
(ii i)    to
consider an application inadmissible pursuant to Article 33 25
(2),
(iii ii)  taken
at the border or in the transit zones of a Member State as described in Article 43(1) 35(1),
(iii)     not to conduct an examination pursuant to Article 36; 
(b)     a refusal to re‑open the
examination of an application after its discontinuation pursuant to
Articles 27 and 28 19 and 20;
(c)     a decision not to further examine the subsequent application
pursuant to Articles 32 and 34;
(d)     a decision refusing entry within the framework of the
procedures provided for under Article 35(2);
(c e)  a
decision to withdraw ð international protection ï refugee status
pursuant to Article 45 38.
ò new
2.           Member
States shall ensure that persons recognised by the determining authority as
eligible for subsidiary protection have the right to an effective remedy as
referred to in paragraph 1 against a decision to consider an application
unfounded in relation to refugee status.
The person concerned
shall be entitled to the rights and benefits guaranteed to beneficiaries of
subsidiary protection pursuant to Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification
Directive] pending the outcome of the appeal procedures.
3.           Member
States shall ensure that the effective remedy referred to in paragraph 1
provides for a full examination of both facts and points of law, including an ex
nunc examination of the international protection needs pursuant to
Directive […/…/EU] [the Qualification Directive], at least in appeal procedures
before a court or tribunal of first instance.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
4. 2.       Member States shall provide for ð reasonable ï time limits and other necessary rules for the applicant to exercise
his/her right to an effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1.
ò new
The time limits shall
not render impossible or excessively difficult the access of applicants to an
effective remedy pursuant to paragraph 1. 
Member States may
also provide for an ex officio review of decisions taken pursuant to
Article 43.
ê 2005/85/EC
3.           Member States shall, where appropriate,
provide for rules in accordance with their international obligations dealing
with:
(a)     the question of whether the remedy pursuant to paragraph 1
shall have the effect of allowing applicants to remain in the Member State
concerned pending its outcome; 
(b)     the possibility of legal remedy or protective measures where
the remedy pursuant to paragraph 1 does not have the effect of allowing
applicants to remain in the Member State concerned pending its outcome. Member
States may also provide for an ex officio remedy; and
(c)     the grounds for challenging a decision under
Article 25(2)(c) in accordance with the methodology applied under
Article 27(2)(b) and (c).
ò new
5.           Without
prejudice to paragraph 6, Member States shall allow applicants to remain in the
territory until the time limit within which to exercise their right to an
effective remedy has expired or, when this right has been exercised within the
time limit, pending the outcome of the remedy. 
6.           In
the case of a decision to consider an application unfounded where any of the
circumstances listed in Article 31(6)(a) to (g) apply or of a decision to
consider an application inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2)(a) or (d), and
where, in such cases, the right to remain in the Member State pending the
outcome of the remedy is not foreseen under national legislation, a court or
tribunal shall have the power to rule whether or not the applicant may remain
on the territory of the Member State, either upon request of the concerned
applicant or acting on its own motion.
This paragraph shall
not apply to procedures referred to in Article 43.
7.           Member
States shall allow the applicant to remain in the territory pending the outcome
of the procedure to rule whether or not the applicant may remain on the
territory, laid down in paragraph 6. 
8.           Paragraphs
5, 6 and 7 shall be without prejudice to Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No […/…]
[the Dublin Regulation].
ê 2005/85/EC
9. 4.       Member States may lay down time‑limits for the court or
tribunal pursuant to paragraph 1 to examine the decision of the
determining authority.
5.           Where an applicant has been granted a
status which offers the same rights and benefits under national and Community
law as the refugee status by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC, the
applicant may be considered as having an effective remedy where a court or
tribunal decides that the remedy pursuant to paragraph 1 is inadmissible
or unlikely to succeed on the basis of insufficient interest on the part of the
applicant in maintaining the proceedings.
10. 6.     Member States may also lay down in national legislation the
conditions under which it can be assumed that an applicant has implicitly
withdrawn or abandoned his/her remedy pursuant to paragraph 1, together
with the rules on the procedure to be followed.
CHAPTER VI
General and final provisions
Article 47 40
Challenge
by public authorities
This Directive does not affect the
possibility for public authorities of challenging the administrative and/or
judicial decisions as provided for in national legislation.
Article 48 41
Confidentiality
Member States
shall ensure that authorities implementing this Directive are bound by the
confidentiality principle as defined in national law, in relation to any
information they obtain in the course of their work.
ò new
Article 49
Cooperation
Member States
shall each appoint a national contact point and communicate its address to the
Commission. The Commission shall communicate that information to the other
Member States.
Member States
shall, in liaison with the Commission, take all appropriate measures to
establish direct cooperation and an exchange of information between the
competent authorities.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 50 42
Report
No later than 1
December 2009 ð .........[13] ï, the Commission shall report to the European
Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the Member
States and shall propose any amendments that are necessary. Member States shall
send the Commission all the information that is appropriate for drawing up this
report. After presenting the report, the Commission shall report to the
European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive in the
Member States at least every ð five ï two years.
Article 51 43
Transposition
1.           Member States shall bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 December 2007 Ö Articles
[…] [the Articles that have been changed as to the substance by comparison with
the earlier Directive] by […] at the latest Õ. Concerning Article 15, Member States
shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 December 2008. They shall forthwith Ö communicate
to Õ inform the
Commission thereof Ö the text
of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this
Directive Õ.
ò new
2.           Member
States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Article 31(3) by [3 years from the date
of the transposition deadline]. They shall forthwith communicate to the
Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those
provisions and this Directive.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
3.           When Member States adopt Ö the Õ those
provisions Ö referred
to in paragraphs 1 and 2 Õ, they shall
contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a
reference on the occasion of their official publication. Ö Member
States shall determine how such reference is to be made. Õ The methods of making such reference shall be
laid down by Member States. Ö They
shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations
and administrative provisions to the directive repealed by this Directive shall
be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how
such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated. Õ
4.           Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
text of the Ö main Õ provisions of
national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive Ö and a
correlation table between those provisions and this Directive Õ.
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
ð new
Article 52 44
Transitional
provisions
Member States shall apply the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions Ö referred
to Õ set out in
Article 51(1) 43 to applications for ð international protection ï asylum lodged after ð […] ï 1 December 2007 and to
procedures for the withdrawal of ð international protection ï refugee status started
after ð […] ï 1 December 2007. ð Applications submitted before
[…] and procedures for the withdrawal of refugee status initiated before
[…] shall be governed by the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions adopted pursuant to Directive 2005/85/EC. ï 
ò new
Member States
shall apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions referred to in
Article 51(2) to applications for international protection lodged after […].
Applications submitted before […] shall be governed by the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions in accordance with Directive
2005/85/EC. 
ê 
Article 53
Repeal
Directive 2005/85/EC
is repealed for the Member
States bound by this Directive with effect from [day after the date set out in Article
51(1) of this Directive], without prejudice to the obligations of the Member
States relating to the time-limit for transposition into national law of the
Directive set out in Annex II, Part B.
References to
the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and
shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.
ê 2005/85/EC
Article 54 45
Entry into
force
This Directive shall
enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official
Journal of the European Union.
ê 
Articles […]
shall apply from [day after the date set out in Article 51(1)].
ê 2005/85/EC
(adapted)
Article 55 46
Addressees
This Directive is
addressed to the Member States in conformity with the Treaty establishing the
European Community Ö accordance with the Treaties Õ.
Done at Brussels, 
For the European Parliament                       For
the Council
The President                                                 The
President
ê 2005/85/EC
ANNEX I
Definition of "determining authority"
When implementing the provision of this Directive,
Ireland may, insofar as the provisions of section 17(1) of the Refugee Act 1996
(as amended) continue to apply, consider that:
- "determining authority" provided for in
Article 2 (e) (f) of this Directive shall, insofar as the examination of
whether an applicant should or, as the case may be, should not be declared to
be a refugee is concerned, mean the Office of the Refugee Applications
Commissioner; and
- "decisions at first instance" provided
for in Article 2 (e) (f) of this Directive shall include recommendations
of the Refugee Applications Commissioner as to whether an applicant should or,
as the case may be, should not be declared to be a refugee.
Ireland will notify the Commission of any amendments
to the provisions of section 17(1) of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended).
ANNEX I II
Designation of safe countries of origin for
the purposes of Articles 29 and 30 37(1)
A country is considered as a safe country
of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the
law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can
be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in
Article 9 of Directive […/…/EU]
[the Qualification Directive] Directive 2004/83/EC, no
torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat by reason
of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed
conflict.
In making this assessment, account shall be
taken, inter alia, of the extent to which protection is provided against
persecution or mistreatment by:
(a) the relevant laws and regulations of
the country and the manner in which they are applied;
(b) observance of the rights and freedoms
laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and/or the International Covenant for Civil and Political
Rights and/or the Convention against Torture, in particular the rights from
which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the said European
Convention;
(c) respect of the non-refoulement
principle according to the Geneva Convention;
(d) provision for a system of effective
remedies against violations of these rights and freedoms.
ê 2005/85/EC
ð new
ANNEX III
Definition of "applicant" or
"applicant for asylum"
When implementing the provisions of this Directive
Spain may, insofar as the provisions of "Ley 30/1992 de Régimen jurídico
de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común"
of 26 November 1992 and "Ley 29/1998 reguladora de la Jurisdicción
Contencioso-Administrativa" of 13 July 1998 continue to apply, consider
that, for the purposes of Chapter V, the definition of "applicant" or
"applicant for asylum" in Article 2(c) of this Directive shall
include "recurrente" as established in the abovementioned Acts.
A "recurrente" shall be entitled to the
same guarantees as an "applicant" or an "applicant for
asylum" as set out in this Directive for the purposes of exercising
his/her right to an effective remedy in Chapter V.
Spain will notify the Commission of any relevant
amendments to the abovementioned Act.
ê 
ANNEX
II IV 
Part A
Repealed Directive
(referred to in Article 53)
 Council Directive 2005/85/EC || (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13) 
Part B
Time-limit for transposition into
national law
(referred to in Article 51)
 Directive || Time-limits for transposition 
 2005/85/EC || First deadline: 1 December 2007 Second deadline: 1 December 2008 
ANNEX III
Correlation Table
 Directive 2005/85/EC || This directive 
 Article 1 || Article 1 
 Article 2 (a) to (c) || Article 2 (a) to (c) 
 - || Article 2 (d) 
 Article 2 (d) to (f) || Article 2 (e) to (g) 
 - || Article 2 (h) and (i) 
 Article 2 (g) || Article 2 (j) 
 - || Article 2 (k) and (l) 
 Article 2 (h) to (k) || Article 2 (m) to (p) 
 - || Article 2 (q) 
 Article 3 (1) and (2) || Article 3 (1) and (2) 
 Article 3 (3) || - 
 Article 3 (4) || Article 3 (3) 
 Article 4 (1) first subparagraph || Article 4 (1) first subparagraph 
 Article 4 (1) second subparagraph || - 
 Article 4 (2) (a) || Article 4 (2) (a) 
 Article 4 (2) (b) to (d) || - 
 Article 4 (2) (e) || Article 4 (2) (b) 
 Article 4 (2) (f) || - 
 - || Article 4 (3) 
 Article 4 (3) || Article 4 (4) 
 - || Article 4 (5) 
 Article 5 || Article 5 
 Article 6 (1) || Article 6 (1) 
 - || Article 6 (2) to (4) 
 Article 6 (2) and (3) || Article 7 (1) and (2) 
 - || Article 7 (3) 
 - || Article 7 (4) 
 Article 6 (4) || Article 7 (5) 
 Article 6 (5) || - 
 - || Article 8 
 Article 7 (1) and (2) || Article 9 (1) and (2) 
 - || Article 9 (3) 
 Article 8 (1) || Article 10 (1) 
 - || Article 10 (2) 
 Article 8 (2) (a) to (c) || Article 10 (3) (a) to (c) 
 - || Article 10 (3) (d) 
 Article 8 (3) and (4) || Article 10 (4) and (5) 
 Article 9 (1) || Article 11 (1) 
 Article 9 (2), first subparagraph || Article 11 (2), first subparagraph 
 Article 9 (2), second subparagraph || - 
 Article 9 (2), third subparagraph || Article 11 (2), second subparagraph 
 Article 9 (3) || Article 11 (3) 
 Article 10 (1) (a) to (c) || Article 12 (1) (a) to (c) 
 - || Article 12 (1) (d) 
 Article 10 (1) (d) and (e) || Article 12 (1) (e) and (f) 
 Article 10 (2) || Article 12 (2) 
 Article 11 || Article 13 
 Article 12 (1) first subparagraph || Article 14 (1) first subparagraph 
 Article 12 (2) second subparagraph || - 
 - || Article 14 (1) second and third subparagraph 
 Article 12 (2) third subparagraph || Article 14 (1) fourth subparagraph 
 Article 12 (2) (a) || Article 14 (2) (a) 
 Article 12 (2) (b) || - 
 Article 12 (2) (c) || - 
 Article 12 (3) first subparagraph || Article 14 (2) (b) 
 Article 12 (3) second subparagraph || Article 14 (2) second subparagraph 
 Article 12 (4) to (6) || Article 14 (3) to (5) 
 Article 13 (1) and (2) || Article 15 (1) and (2) 
 Article 13 (3) (a) || Article 15 (3) (a) 
 - || Article 15 (3) (b) 
 Article 13 (3) (b) || Article 15 (3) (c) 
 - || Article 15 (3) (d) 
 - || Article 15 (3) (e) 
 Article 13 (4) || Article 15 (4) 
 Article 13 (5) || - 
 - || Article 16 
 Article 14 || - 
 - || Article 17 
 - || Article 18 
 - || Article 19 
 Article 15 (1) || Article 22 (1) 
 Article 15 (2) || Article 20 (1) 
 - || Article 20 (2) to (4) 
 - || Article 21 (1) 
 Article 15 (3) (a) || - 
 Article 15 (3) (b) and (c) || Article 21 (2) (a) and (b) 
 Article 15 (3) (d) || - 
 Article 15 (3) second subparagraph || - 
 Article 15 (4) to (6) || Article 21 (3) to (5) 
 - || Article 22 (2) 
 Article 16 (1) first subparagraph || Article 23 (1) first subparagraph 
 Article 16 (1) second subparagraph first sentence || Article 23 (1) second subparagraph introductory words 
 - || Article 23 (1) (a) 
 Article 16 (1) second subparagraph second sentence || Article 23 (1) (b) 
 Article 16 (2) first sentence || Article 23 (2) 
 Article 16 (2) second sentence || - 
 - || Article 23 (3) 
 Article 16 (3) || Article 23 (4) first subparagraph 
 Article 16 (4) first subparagraph || - 
 Article 16 (4) second and third subparagraphs || Article 23 (4) second and third subparagraphs 
 - || Article 24 
 Article 17 (1) || Article 25 (1) 
 Article 17 (2) (a) || Article 25 (2) 
 Article 17 (2) (b) and (c) || - 
 Article 17 (3) || - 
 Article 17 (4) || Article 25 (3) 
 - || Article 25 (4) 
 Article 17 (5) || Article 25 (5) 
 - || Article 25 (6) 
 Article 17 (6) || Article 25 (7) 
 Article 18 || Article 26 
 Article 19 || Article 27 
 Article 20 (1) and (2) || Article 28 (1) and (2) 
 - || Article 28 (3) 
 Article 21 || Article 29 
 Article 22 || Article 30 
 Article 23 (1) || Article 31 (1) 
 Article 23 (2), first subparagraph || Article 31 (2) 
 - || Article 31 (3) 
 Article 23 (2), second subparagraph || Article 31 (4), first subparagraph 
 - || Article 31 (4), second subparagraph 
 Article 23 (3) || Article 31 (5) introductory words 
 - || Article 31 (5) (a) to (c) 
 Article 23 (4) (a) || Article 31 (6) (a) 
 Article 23 (4) (b) || - 
 Article 23 (4) (c) (i) || Article 31 (6) (b) 
 Article 23 (4) (c) (ii) || - 
 Article 23 (4) (d) || Article 31 (6) (c) 
 Article 23 (4) (e) || - 
 Article 23 (4) (f) || Article 31 (6) (d) 
 Article 23 (4) (g) || Article 31 (6) (e) 
 Article 23 (4) (h) and (i) || - 
 Article 23 (4) (j) || Article 31 (6) (f) 
 Article 23 (4) (k) and (l) || - 
 Article 23 (4) (m) || Article 31 (6) (g) 
 Article 23 (4) (n) and (o) || - 
 - || Article 31 (7) and (8) 
 Article 24 || - 
 - || Article 32 (moved Article 28) 
 Article 25 || Article 33 
 Article 25 (1) || Article 33 (1) 
 Article 25 (2) (a) to (c) || Article 33 (2) (a) to (c) 
 Article 25 (2) (d) and (e) || - 
 Article 25 (2) (f) and (g) || Article 33 (2) (d) and (e) 
 - || Article 34 
 Article 26 || Article 35 
 Article 27 (1) (a) || Article 38 (1) (a) 
 - || Article 38 (1) (b) 
 Article 27 (1) (b) to (d) || Article 38 (1) (c) to (e) 
 Article 27 (2) to (5) || Article 38 (2) to (5) 
 Article 28 || Article 32 
 Article 29 || - 
 Article 30 (1) || Article 37 (1) 
 Article 30 (2) to (4) || - 
 - || Article 37 (2) 
 Article 30 (5) and (6) || Article 37 (3) and (4) 
 Article 31 (1) || Article 36 (1) 
 Article 31 (2) || - 
 Article 31 (3) || Article 36 (2) 
 Article 32 (1) || Article 40 (1) 
 Article 32 (2) || - 
 Article 32 (3) || Article 40 (2) 
 Article 32 (4) || Article 40 (3) first sentence 
 Article 32 (5) || Article 40 (3) second sentence 
 Article 32 (6) || Article 40 (4) 
 - || Article 40 (5) 
 Article 32 (7), first subparagraph || Article 40 (6) (a) 
 - || Article 40 (6) (b) 
 Article 32 (7), second subparagraph || Article 40 (6), second subparagraph 
 - || Article 40 (7) 
 - || Article 41 
 Article 33 || - 
 Article 34 (1) and (2) (a) || Article 42 (1) and (2) (a) 
 Article 34 (2) (b) || - 
 Article 34 (2) (c) || Article 42 (2) (b) 
 Article 34 (3) (a) || Article 42 (3) 
 Article 34 (3) (b) || - 
 Article 35 (1) || Article 43 (1) (a) 
 - || Article 43 (1) (b) 
 Article 35 (2) and (3) (a) to (f) || - 
 Article 35 (4) || Article 43 (2) 
 Article 35 (5) || Article 43 (3) 
 Article 36 (1) to (2) (c) || Article 39 (1) to (2) (c) 
 Article 36 (2) (d) || - 
 Article 36 (3) || - 
 Article 36 (4) to (6) || Article 39 (3) to (5) 
 - || Article 39 (6) 
 Article 36 (7) || - 
 Article 37 || Article 44 
 Article 38 || Article 45 
 - || Article 46 (1) (a) (i) 
 Article 39 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) || Article 46 (1) (a) (ii) and (iii) 
 Article 39 (1) (a) (iii) || - 
 Article 39 (1) (b) || Article 46 (1) (b) 
 Article 39 (1) (c) and (d) || - 
 Article 39 (1) (e) || Article 46 (1) (c) 
 - || Article 46 (2) and (3) 
 Article 39 (2) || Article 46 (4) first subparagraph 
 - || Article 46 (4) second and third subparagraphs 
 Article 39 (3) || - 
 - || Article 46 (5) to (8) 
 Article 39 (4) || Article 46 (9) 
 Article 39 (5) || - 
 Article 39 (6) || Article 41 (10) 
 Article 40 || Article 47 
 Article 41 || Article 48 
 - || Article 49 
 Article 42 || Article 50 
 Article 43 first subparagraph || Article 51 (1) 
 - || Article 51 (2) 
 Article 43 second and third subparagraphs || Article 51 (3) and (4) 
 Article 44 || Article 52 first subparagraph 
 - || Article 52 second subparagraph 
 - || Article 53 
 Article 45 || Article 54 
 Article 46 || Article 55 
 Annex I || - 
 Annex II || Annex I 
 Annex III || - 
 - || Annex II 
 - || Annex III 
[1]               Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of Regions, "Policy plan on asylum - An integrated approach to
protection across the EU" - COM(2008) 360, 17.6.2008. 
[2]               OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13.
[3]               Report from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council on the application of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005
on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing
refugee status - COM(2010) 465, 8.9.2010. 
[4]               European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, Council
document 13440/08.
[5]               Commission staff working document accompanying the
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing
international protection - Impact Assessment - SEC(2009) 1376, 21.10.2009.
[6]               OJ C […], […], p. […].
[7]               OJ C […], […], p. […].
[8]               OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13.
[9]               OJ L 132, 29.5.2010, p.11.
[10]             OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98
[11]             Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures
between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).
[12]             OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.
[13]             Four years
after the date of adoption of this Directive.
The detailed explanation of the amended
proposal is presented in comparison to the 2009 Commission proposal amending
Directive 2005/85/EC.
Article 1
There are no
changes compared to the proposal of 2009.
Article 2
The Article has been changed compared to
the 2009 proposal in respect to:
(d)        The definition of applicants in
need of special procedural guarantees:
(i)      introduces a more
precise term, namely "applicant in need of special procedural
guarantees", which reflects better that special needs have to be taken
into account for the purposes of the Asylum Procedures Directive, 
(ii)     introduces sexual orientation and
gender identity cases where applicants may need special procedural guarantees
given that in these cases, inter alia, the examination of the application
and especially the personal interview has to ensure that the applicant is able
to present his/her case, and
(iii)     clarifies the nature of certain
grounds by replacing the term "mental health problems" with
"serious physical illness, mental illness or post traumatic
disorders".
(n)          The modified proposal extends the
scope of the term of "representative" in order to clarify that,
depending on the given national system, not only a person but also an
organisation can legally represent an unaccompanied minor. 
(q)          This new definition for
subsequent applications is necessary to support the clarification of the rules
on subsequent applications throughout the text.
Article 3
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 4
The modified proposal introduces
significant changes in order to simplify the rules and facilitate their
implementation.
It is clarified that the determining
authority should be provided with appropriate means, including sufficient
competent personnel, to carry out its tasks, and that the personnel of the
determining authority shall be properly trained. In order to simplify the rules
on the training activities that need to be provided for the personnel, the
modified proposal has been aligned with the relevant rules of the European
Asylum Support Office Regulation (Regulation (EU) 439/2010) by a reference to
Article 6(4)(a) to (e) thereof. This requirement on training thus covers now
the following elements:
(a)          international human rights and
the asylum acquis of the Union, including specific
legal and case-law issues;
(b)          issues related to the handling of
asylum applications from minors and vulnerable persons with specific needs;
(c)          interview techniques;
(d)          the use of expert medical and
legal reports in asylum procedures;
(e)          issues relating to the production
and use of information on countries of origin;
(f)           reception conditions, including
special attention given to vulnerable groups and victims of torture.
As regards the exceptions from the
principle of single determining authority, a new point (b) has been introduced
for cases where another authority (e.g. border guards) grant or refuse
permission to enter to the territory in case of a border procedure. It has been
clarified that in these cases, the decision on the permission must be based on
the opinion of the determining authority. This change aims to align the rules
of the Directive with the variety of arrangements on border control in Member
States.
Article 5
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 6 
In order to provide a clearer structure,
Article 6 of the 2009 proposal has been divided into two Articles: Article 6 of
the modified proposal lays down rules on the general principle of easy and
timely access, while the new Article 7 deals with applications made on behalf
of dependant or minors.
The terminology of the article has been
clarified compared to both the 2009 proposal and to the current Directive. A
clearer distinction is introduced between the terms "make" and
"lodge" relating to an application for international protection. In
line with the definition of an application of Article 2(b), an application is
deemed to be "made" as soon as a person who can be understood to seek
refugee status or subsidiary protection status makes a request for protection
from a Member State. This act does not require any administrative formalities.
Relevant administrative formalities are accomplished when an application is
"lodged". In line with paragraph 2, Member States shall give an
effective opportunity to lodge an application as soon as possible,
notwithstanding any practical restrictions in line with paragraph 1, to any
person who wishes to make an application. 
In paragraph 3, it has been clarified that
only the fact that a person who has made an application is an applicant needs
to be registered within 72 hours, not that the complete registration of the
application must be done within this time limit. This rule is clearer and more
compatible with the specificities of national asylum systems. 
The requirement to facilitate access to
asylum procedures by authorities other than the determining authority has been
simplified. It is now a general principle that the personnel of authorities
likely to receive applications shall have the relevant instructions and the necessary
training to comply with the obligation to facilitate access to procedure. A
reference to the guidelines developed by the European Asylum Support Office
aims to ensure further harmonisation through operational means.
In order to allow Member States to deal
efficiently with applications in case a large number of third country nationals
or stateless persons applies simultaneously, the proposal provides for the
possibility to extend the 72 hour deadline to 7 working days. 
Article 7 
The modified proposal clarifies the
conditions when a minor can make an application on his/her own behalf. This
includes the condition that the minor has the legal capacity to act in
procedures according to national law of the Member State concerned or through
his/her parents or other adult family members. 
Article 8 (corresponds to Article 7
of the 2009 proposal)
This Article simplifies the rules of the
corresponding Article 7 of the 2009 proposal. The simplification aims to give
more flexibility to Member States in the implementation of these rules.
Especially concerning interpretation arrangements, it has been clarified that
such arrangements need to be provided only to the very basic extent that is
necessary to facilitate access to procedure. In essence, the objective is to
enable the persons who wish to request international protection to do so. The
term "arrangement" indicates that Member States have a wide
discretion to find the appropriate modalities. 
Article 9 (corresponds to Article 8
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 10 (corresponds to Article 9
of the 2009 proposal)
In order to reflect the establishment of
the European Asylum Support Office and its specific important role in the EU in
supporting Member States with regard to reliable country of origin information
in asylum procedures, the sequence between the Office and UNCHR has been
reversed.
Under paragraph 3(b), the reference to the
right of the applicant and the legal adviser to access country-of-origin
information has been deleted from this Article. It has been moved to Article
12(1) as a new point (d) to improve coherence of the text.
An additional element has been added to
point (d) under paragraph 3 to ensure that the personnel examining applications
and taking decisions have also the possibility to seek advice on religious
matters which may be relevant in cases where refugees are persecuted for
reasons relating to religion.
Article 11 (corresponds to Article 10
of the 2009 proposal)
Two additional grounds have been added to
paragraph 3 taking into account that disclosure of particular information on
sexual orientation or gender identity could also jeopardize an applicant's
interest in case of a single decision that covers all dependants.
Article 12 (corresponds to Article 11
of the 2009 proposal)
Paragraph 1(a) and (f) has been amended.
The proposal stipulates that the language to be used to inform the applicant on
the procedure should be a language that the applicant understands or is
reasonably supposed to understand. Furthermore, under (a), in order to increase
the applicants' awareness of the consequences of withdrawal, Member States are
required to inform applicants about these rules at the beginning of the
procedure. This safeguard is necessary due to changes in the rules on
withdrawal.
In paragraph (1)(b), it has been clarified
that it is not only the determining authority that can call upon the applicant
to be interviewed, but also other competent authorities in case of an
admissibility interview. 
New point (d) contains the right of the
applicants and, if applicable, their legal advisers to access to information
referred to in Article 10(3)(b). This change does not introduce new
obligations; it has been moved from Article 10 since the inclusion of the access
to the information referred to in Article 10(1)(b) ensures more coherence in
this Article 12 with regard to the structure of the text.
Article 13 (corresponds to Article 12
of the 2009 proposal)
The modified proposal makes the wording of
paragraph 1 more precise and coherent without changing its content.
Article 14 (corresponds to Article 13
of the 2009 proposal)
Rules on personal interviews have been made
more flexible. While it remains a general rule that interviews on the substance
of an application shall be conducted by the personnel of the determining
authority, in case a large number of third country nationals or stateless
persons apply simultaneously, Member States may provide that the personnel of
another authority be involved in conducting such interviews. Nevertheless, in
this case, the personnel shall receive the same training that is provided for
the personnel of the determining authority. This practice may be applied only
temporarily, as long as the conditions last.
The third subparagraph of paragraph 1 has
been simplified and clarified without changing the obligation that dependant
adults shall be given the opportunity of a personal interview.
In paragraph 2(b), the term "competent
authority" has been changed to "determining authority" in order
to ensure that it is always the determining authority that decides if the
personal interview can be omitted in case the applicant is unfit or unable to
be interviewed.
Article 15 (corresponds to Article 14
of the 2009 proposal)
In paragraph 3(a), it has been clarified
that the person who conducts the interview must be competent to take account of
the personal and (instead of "or") general circumstances
surrounding the applications in order to make a proper decision. These are
conjunctive elements and not alternative ones; both have to be met. Sexual
orientation and gender identity have been added to the list of examples of
circumstances that have to be taken into account since these are also elements
that may need to be considered during the interview.
In paragraph 3(c), the wording has been
simplified without changing the content of the provisions. 
In paragraph 3(d), the rule that the
interviewer shall not wear a uniform has been made more precise, excluding only
military or law enforcement uniform.
In paragraph 3(e), the wording has been
made more accurate.
Article 16 (corresponds to Article 15
of the 2009 proposal)
This Article has been simplified to
facilitate its implementation by Member States. The requirement that the
questions addressed to the applicant are relevant to the assessment has been
removed since this is implicitly covered by the requirement to provide the
applicant with an adequate opportunity to present the elements of the case.
Article 17 (corresponds to Article 16
of the 2009 proposal)
This Article has been significantly changed
compared to the 2009 proposal. Member States are not required to make a
transcript of every personal interview. According to the proposed rules, a
thorough report has to be made which contains all substantial elements of the
interview. Member States may also provide that the interview is audio or
audio-visually recorded. Nevertheless, even in these cases, a thorough report
has to be made and the recording has to be annexed to the report.
The applicant has to have the opportunity
to make comments on the report. To that end, the applicant has to be informed
about the content of the report at the end of the personal interview or within
a specified time-limit before the determining authority takes a decision. The
term "fully" indicates that that this information has to include all
elements of the content of the report in a holistic way and, if necessary, with
the assistance of an interpreter. 
The proposal requires Member States to
request the approval of the applicant on the content of the report. There is an
exception from this rule, namely where the interview is audio or audio-visually
recorded. In this case, the applicant has to have the possibility to refer to
the recording as evidence in appeals procedures that has been attached to the
report as evidence. 
If the applicant refuses to approve the
report, this shall be indicated in the file. However, this refusal does not
prevent the determining authority from taking a decision.
Article 18 (corresponds to Article 17
of the 2009 proposal)
The proposal aims to significantly revise
the rules on medical reports. The title of the Article has been changed by
removing the term "legal" to better reflect the actual content of
this Article.
The first sentence of paragraph 1 lays down
the general principle that the applicant should be allowed to have a medical
examination in order to submit a medical certificate to the determining
authority in support of his/her claim. The scope of this medical certificate is
limited; its aim is to support the applicant's claim as regards past
persecution or serious harm. This is to clarify that the medical certificate
does not in itself constitute proof of persecution. Member States may set a
reasonable time limit for the certificate's submission in order not to delay
the examination and the decision. With a view to make procedures more efficient
and avoid abuse or unnecessary delay, the provision provides for the
possibility to make a decision without taking into account the certificate if
it was not submitted in time without good reason.
A medical examination may be particularly
relevant to the examination of the claim where the applicant is unable to fully
articulate the elements needed to substantiate his/her application. For this
reason, paragraph 2 requires the determining authority to carry out by its own
motion, with the consent of the applicant, a medical examination, if it
considers that there is a reason to believe that the applicant suffers from
post-traumatic stress disorder or past persecution or serious harm which would
make him/her unable to be interviewed. If the applicant refuses to undergo the
medical examination, this does not prevent the determining authority from
making a decision.
The new paragraph 5 clarifies the content
of the training to be provided by the Member States to the persons interviewing
the applicants. The term "awareness" indicates that the aim of the
training must be to ensure that the interviewers know and are able to recognise
the symptoms which could indicate previous torture other medical problems that
could hinder the applicant's ability to be interviewed.
Articles 19–22 (correspond to Article
18 of the 2009 proposal)
New Articles 19–22 aim to adjust and
clarify rules on the right to legal assistance and representation with a view
to make these rules more flexible while ensuring that the provision of legal
and procedural information free of charge is available to those who request it
and have no sufficient resources. This is one of the key elements of
"frontloading". The choice for this approach was fully supported by
the findings of a project in the UK, the so-called "Solihull pilot",
presented at the Ministerial Conference on Asylum in September 2010. This
project confirmed the hypothesis that "frontloading" the asylum
process, in particular by providing access to competent legal advice for asylum
applicants at the start of the procedure, leads to significant improvements in
the quality of first instance decisions. 
Compared to the 2009 proposal, the terminology
has been changed in order to avoid possible confusion between three different
notions: 1. the minimum level of provision of legal and procedural information
at first instance, 2. free legal assistance to ensure effective access to
justice in appeals proceedings, and 3. the right of applicants to contact a
legal adviser or counsellor at their own cost. In order to provide clearer
rules and structure, Article 18 of the 2009 proposal has been split into four
Articles. The split of these Articles makes the distinction between these
various notions at different stages of the procedure clearer.
Article 19
This Article lays down the rules on
provision of legal and procedural information free of charge in procedures at first
instance. The title of the Article aims to clarify that Member States are
obliged to provide, on request, applicants with legal and procedural
information free of charge in first instance procedures and that this is not to
be considered as "legal assistance and representation". Thus, in line
with several Member States' national legal systems, to comply with this
obligation, it is not necessary to appoint a lawyer to every applicant. 
The provision also sets a minimum level of
provision of legal and procedural information. First, it includes the
explanation of the procedural steps, devices, rights and obligations likely to
be relevant to the applicant's case, including the obligations to cooperate and
to submit the elements referred to in Article 4 of the Qualification Directive.
Second, it includes, in the event of a negative decision, the explanation of
the factual, substantive law and procedural reasons for the rejection, in order
to enable the applicant to take a more informed decision about whether to
exercise his/her right to an effective remedy. This clarification proved to be
necessary further to the experiences throughout the discussions on the previous
proposal. 
Note that Article 20(2) clarifies that if
Member States provide free legal assistance and/or representation in procedures
at first instance, this is presumed to include the elements foreseen under the
provision of legal and procedural information free of charge. 
Paragraph 2 refers to further conditions to
be applied which are described below under Article 21.
Article 20 
The title of this new Article indicates
that Member States shall ensure the availability of free legal assistance and
representation in case of appeals procedures. In the terminology of the
modified proposal, free legal assistance and representation means that the
applicant is assisted and represented by a competent person; in several Member
States' national systems this means a qualified lawyer. Minimum requirements
have been laid down here as well which include the preparation of procedural
documents and participation in the hearing before the court or tribunal. The
latter is limited to first-tier appeal procedures. In further instances Member
States are not bound by this Directive to provide any free legal assistance and
representation. Given that the minimum requirements under this provision
include both assistance (preparation of documents) and representation
(participation in the hearing), it has been clarified that this provision
covers both legal assistance "and" (instead of "and/or") representation.
Paragraph 2 refers to the practice of
several Member States where already in first instance procedures (i.e.
administrative procedures before the determining authority), free legal
assistance and/or representation (provided by lawyers) is available. This
paragraph accommodates their systems by clarifying that in this case these
Member States do not have to provide the legal and procedural information foreseen
under Article 19 in addition, since the legal assistance and representation by
a lawyer already covers these needs. 
Paragraph 3 describes the possibility of
the so-called "merits test". This means that Member States may
provide that free legal assistance and representation may not be available for
applicants whose appeal has no tangible prospect of success. Nevertheless, this
needs to be assessed by the court or tribunal and not by the determining
authority. The second subparagraph limits the application of merits test by
referring to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU which
stipulates that those who lack sufficient resources should receive legal aid in
so far as it is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. This
subparagraph thus should be read in conjunction with Article 21(2)(c) of the
Directive which lays down the general rule that free legal and procedural
information at first instance and free legal assistance and representation at
appeals procedures may be provided only for those who lack sufficient
resources.
Article 21 
This Article lays down the general
conditions that are applicable in cases of the provision of legal and
procedural information free of charge and free legal assistance and
representation. The new paragraph 1 aims to give wide discretion to Member
States on how to comply with these obligations. The appointment of a lawyer is
considered as a standard solution, nevertheless, Member States may fulfil the
obligations under Articles 19 and 20 through NGOs or state officials or
specialised services of the state. This provision accommodates several Member
States' existing systems.
Article 22 
This Article retains the right of the
applicant to consult a lawyer at all stages of the procedure. The main
distinction between the provisions of this Article and those of Articles 19–21
is that this covers only the right to contact a lawyer on the applicant's own
cost. It is also stipulated that Member States may allow non-governmental
organisations to provide such services.
Article 23 (corresponds to Article 19
of the 2009 proposal)
The modified proposal introduces a change with
regard to access to information in proceedings that concern national security
considerations. With a view to respecting the principle of equality of arms and
established case law, it provides for the possibility to allow Member States to
grant access to files only for specialised services of the state (advocates)
where national security is concerned. This provision aims to ensure that the
applicant is represented properly while no sensitive or confidential
information is disclosed. The rules allow the representative (State official,
advocate) not to have any contacts with the applicant. 
Article 24 (corresponds to Article 20
of the 2009 proposal)
The modified proposal aims to simplify the
provisions on persons with special needs. It aims to lay down the principles
and allows Member States to find the most appropriate modalities. 
First, the title of the Article, in line
with the definition in Article 2(d), clarifies that, for the purposes of this Directive,
procedures need to take into account the specific situation of applicants in
need of special procedural guarantees. This is in particular to clarify that
special procedural needs and special reception needs may be different.
The first paragraph stipulates that
applicants in need of special procedural guarantees need to be identified in
due time. This provision is fully in line with the relevant provisions of the
modified proposal on the Reception Conditions Directive; Member States may use
the mechanism described in Article 22 of the modified proposal for that Directive.

The proposal provides for a wide discretion
for Member States as regards the modalities to identify applicants in need of
special procedural guarantees if this becomes apparent during the procedure. This may particularly be the case for certain traumatic disorders
that may only be revealed over a period of time.
The second paragraph describes, in general
terms, the principle that applicants in need of special procedural guarantees
shall be granted sufficient time and relevant support to present the elements
of the application. This rule aims to provide maximum flexibility to Member
States to find the actual modalities to implement this provision in various
cases.
Article 25 (corresponds to Article 21
of the 2009 proposal)
The modified proposal essentially extends
the obligation of the representative to assist an unaccompanied minor. The
scope of assistance has been clarified and made broader with a view to the
special procedural needs of unaccompanied minors. Now the provision requires the
representative to assist the minor to enable him/her to benefit from all rights
and to comply with all obligations laid down in the Directive. The requirement
of impartiality has been removed since the representative shall act in the
interest of the unaccompanied minor; however, it has been specified that the
representative has to act in accordance with the principle of the best interest
of the child. 
Paragraph 2(b) has been removed given that
the fact that a minor is married or has been married does not mean per se that
he/she does not need assistance. This reflects possible cases of forced
marriages.
In paragraph 3(a), the requirement that an
interview shall be conducted by a person who has the necessary knowledge of the
special needs of minors has been extended to include also admissibility
interviews.
Paragraph 4 clarifies that not only the
unaccompanied minor but also his/her representative shall be provided with
legal and procedural information free of charge and that this also applies to
the case of withdrawal of a status, thus covering all procedures under the
Directive.
Paragraph 5 introduces a change with regard
to medical examinations for minors to determine the age stating that if the
examination could not reach a clear conclusion in this respect, the applicant
shall be considered as a minor.
Paragraph 6 excludes the possibility to
apply the "merits test" to the provision of free legal assistance and
representation in case of appeals procedures in order to ensure that the
interest of these unaccompanied minor applicants are protected.
Article 26 (corresponds to Article 22
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 27 (corresponds to Article 23
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the proposal
of 2009.
Article 28 (corresponds to Article 24
of the 2009 proposal)
This Article provides for the possibility
to reject an application as unfounded if it is considered implicitly withdrawn
on the condition that the application was adequately examined after a personal
interview.
Paragraph 2 provides for the possibility
for applicants who report again after an implicit withdrawal to make a new
application after the case was discontinued. As a general rule, this new
application cannot be considered as a subsequent application. As a consequence,
it cannot be considered inadmissible on the basis that it does not contain new
elements. Nevertheless, if the applicant reports again more than one year after
the previous application was considered withdrawn, Member States are not
obliged by the Directive to reopen the case and can process the new application
as a subsequent application. These provisions aim to provide tools to combat
abusive repeat applications.
Article 29 (corresponds to Article 25
of the 2009 proposal)
The wording of paragraph 1(a) has been
aligned with other articles of the Directive which does not change the content
of the provision.
Article 30 (corresponds to Article 26
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 31 (corresponds to Article 27
of the 2009 proposal)
The modified proposal introduces several
changes as regards the examination procedure at first instance and accelerated
procedures. The changes aim to accommodate specificities of Member States'
national systems and to ensure more flexibility and efficient means to deal
with abuse.
Paragraph 3 retains the general six-month
deadline for the conclusion of the procedure at first instance. Nevertheless,
two additional exceptions have been introduced, namely in case where large
number of applicants lodge applications simultaneously and where the
determining authority cannot keep the deadline due to the failure of the
applicant to comply with his/her obligations.
Member States may also postponeconcluding
the procedure in case where the determining authority cannot take a decision
due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin which is expected to be
temporary. In this case Member States may exceed the six+six month time limit.
However, the applicant shall keep his/her applicant status.
The grounds for prioritisation have been
amended in order to align the Directive with the modified proposal on Reception
Conditions Directive: Member States may prioritise an examination when the
applicant is vulnerable. The terminology has also been adjusted to the new term
"applicants in need of special procedural guarantees". Unaccompanied
minors have been also expressly referred to where the prioritisation may be
particularly justified.
Paragraph 6 clarifies that the grounds
under this paragraph may be used for both acceleration and examination at the
border. This change accommodates the national systems of Member States which
apply the general procedure at the border. Nevertheless, the list of cases that
can be accelerated or examined at the border remains exhaustive.
Two grounds for acceleration (and border
procedure) have been reintroduced:
(e) reintroduces point (g) of the 2005
Directive. This ground aims to provide the possibility to deal efficiently with
abusive cases. The wording has been adjusted, stipulating that this ground can
be used where the applicant has made clearly false or obviously improbable
representations which contradict sufficiently verified country-of-origin
information. This change aims to add an objective element to this ground. 
(g) reintroduces point (m) of the 2005
Directive which concerns cases of threat to national security or public order.
It has been clarified that an application can be accelerated if there are
serious reasons to consider an applicant as a danger to national security.
Paragraph 7 of the 2009 proposal has been
deleted. The requirement to ensure an adequate and complete examination has
been moved to new paragraph 7. Rules on manifestly unfounded applications were
deleted since Article 28 of the 2005 Directive has been reintroduced that
covers these rules. 
Article 32 (corresponds to Article 28
of the 2005 Directive)
This Article corresponds to Article 28 of
the 2005 Directive. The change in content concerns national security cases
since this is the only acceleration ground that cannot be considered as
manifestly unfounded, given that in these cases the reason for acceleration is
not based on the consideration that the claim is ill-founded. Article 28 of the
2009 proposal has been removed since it covered the same rules.
Article 33 (corresponds to Article 29
of the 2009 proposal)
Point (d) has been amended because the term
"identical" was very restrictive and made the application of this
inadmissibility ground impossible in practice and incompatible with the rules
on subsequent applications it was meant to serve. The modified proposal
clarifies that this inadmissibility ground can be used if there are no new
elements in case of a subsequent application. The link to subsequent
applications (and their definition) has been made clearer.
Article 34 (corresponds to Article 30
of the 2009 proposal)
The rules have been aligned with the
general rules on the personal interview. This concerns the requirement that the
interviewer should not wear a military or law enforcement uniform.
Article 35 (corresponds to Article 31
of the 2009 proposal)
The modified proposal foresees the explicit
possibility for the applicant to challenge the application of the first country
of asylum notion in his/her particular circumstances. 
Article 36 (corresponds to Article 34
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 37 (corresponds to Article 33
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 38 (corresponds to Article 32
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 39 (corresponds to Article 38
of the 2009 proposal)
In the interest of coherence, a new
paragraph 6 has been added requiring Member States to inform the Commission
periodically about the countries to which the European safe third country
concept is applied. This corresponds to an equivalent obligation relating to
safe third countries.
Article 40 (corresponds to Article 35
(1)-(7) and (9) of the 2009 proposal)
Rules on
repeated or subsequent applications have been significantly clarified in order
to ensure efficient handling of such claims. A definition of the term
"subsequent application" provides a clear scope for these rules. A subsequent
application may be considered inadmissible if there are no new elements which would significantly add to the likelihood that the
applicant qualifies for international protection status. The existence of new
elements has to be verified through a preliminary examination. If there are new
elements, the subsequent application has to be examined in conformity with the
general rules. It has been clarified that if there are no new elements, the
application shall be considered as inadmissible. The rules on subsequent
applications can also be applied in case an unmarried minor lodges a separate
application.
Article 41 (corresponds to Article 35
(8)-(9) of the 2009 proposal)
The content of these rules has not been
changed, but the text has been restructured to ensure more clarity. 
Article 42 (corresponds to Article 36 of the 2009 proposal)
Paragraph 3(b) has been deleted since it is
superfluous. This rule is covered by Article 40(3).
Article 43 (corresponds to Article 37 of the 2009 proposal)
This Article remains unchanged.
Nevertheless, the changes in Article 31 and 33 extend the scope of the
applicability of this Article through references. The additional acceleration
grounds allow Member States to examine these cases also in border procedure.
The change in the rules on inadmissibility of claims that have no new elements
also enables wider use of border procedures.
Article 44 (corresponds to Article 39
of the 2009 proposal)
There are no changes compared to the
proposal of 2009.
Article 45 (corresponds to Article 40
of the 2009 proposal)
Paragraph 4 has been changed. Member States
may provide that the international protection status shall lapse by law if the
beneficiary of the international protection status becomes a citizen of the
given Member State.
Article 46 (corresponds to Article 41
of the 2009 proposal)
The rules on the right to an effective
remedy have been essentially maintained in order to ensure compliance with the
established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the
European Court of Human Rights.
The changes concern the following elements:
In paragraph 5, it has been clarified that
the applicant shall have the right to remain in the Member State's territory
until the deadline to make an appeal. 
In paragraph 6, an additional ground has
been added where no automatic suspensive effect has to be provided: this is the
case where the application has been considered inadmissible because another
Member State has already granted refugee status. It has been clarified that
exceptions can be made from the principle of automatic suspensive only in case
where acceleration or inadmissibility grounds apply. As a consequence of the
extension of acceleration grounds under Article 31(6), this paragraph has a
wider scope than in the 2009 proposal. 
In paragraph 9, the obligation to set
deadlines for courts to make a decision on the appeal has been removed in order
to accommodate specificities of national judicial systems.
Paragraph
5 of the 2005 Directive has been deleted to ensure consistency with paragraph 2
and with the Qualification Directive.