COUNCIL OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION

Brussels, 23 February 2009

6700/09
ADD 1

Interinstitutional File:
2009/0027 (COD)

ASILE
CODEC
COVER NOTE
from:
date of receipt:
to:
Subject:

5
212

Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
20 February 2009
Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing an European Asylum Support
Office
- Impact assessment

Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2009) 153.

________________________

Encl.: SEC(2009) 153

6700/09 ADD 1

VH/es
DG H 1 B

1

EN

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 18.2.2009
SEC(2009) 153

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying document to the

Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
establishing an European Asylum Support Office

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

{COM(2009) 66 final}
{SEC(2009) 154}

EN

EN

Impact Assessment
On a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an European
Asylum Support Office
Lead DG:

Justice, Freedom and Security

Document reference number: COM(2008) … final
Commission Legislative Work Programme 2009 priority initiative
Agenda planning reference number: 2009/JLS/044
Table of contents
1.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES........4

1.1.

Calls to set up a European Asylum Support Office ........................................................4

1.2.

Consultation and expertise................................................................................................6

1.3.

The Impact Assessment Board..........................................................................................7

2.

PROBLEM DEFINITION......................................................................................................7

2.1.

Description of the problem................................................................................................7

2.2.

Specific problems ................................................................................................................8

2.2.1.
2.2.2.
2.2.3.

EN

Discrepancy in practices and non-optimal exchange of best practices at the EU level...................................8
Pressures on Member States asylum systems and over-burden for some Member States............................10
Limited cooperation and coordination as regards external dimension of the CEAS .....................................12

2.3.

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ...............................................14

2.4.

EU right to act ..................................................................................................................14

2.5.

Subsidiarity test................................................................................................................15

2.6.

Proportionality test ..........................................................................................................15

3.

OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................... 16

4.

POLICY OPTIONS............................................................................................................. 17

2

EN

4.1.

Options for the tasks and missions of the future asylum support structure ...............17

4.1.1. Exchange of best practices.......................................................................................................................................18
4.1.2. Support to monitoring and quality control ............................................................................................................18
4.1.3. Joint processing of asylum applications at the EU level.....................................................................................19
4.1.4. Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) / improve
assessment of COI .....................................................................................................................................................................19
4.1.5. Pool of asylum experts..............................................................................................................................................20
4.1.6. Intra-EU relocation....................................................................................................................................................21
4.1.7. Training and capacity building ................................................................................................................................21
4.1.8. Activities linked to the external aspects of practical cooperation linked to the CEAS: resettlement and
RPPs
22

4.2.

Options for the institutional format of the future asylum support structure .............23

4.2.1. Status quo....................................................................................................................................................................23
4.2.2. Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources .............................23
4.2.3. Creating a new network............................................................................................................................................24
4.2.4. Creation of the European Asylum Support Office as a regulatory agency......................................................24
4.2.5. Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency........................................25
4.2.5.1.
FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency)............................................................................................................26
4.2.5.2.
FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External
Borders of the Member States of the European Union).................................................................................................27
4.2.5.3.
JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS II, VIS and EURODAC and for
the development and the management of other large-scale IT systems). ...................................................................28
4.2.6. Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision-making body).........................................................28

5.

IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 29

5.1.

Impact of options for tasks and missions of the future support structure ..................29

5.1.1. Exchange of best practices.......................................................................................................................................29
5.1.2. Support to monitoring and quality control ............................................................................................................30
5.1.3. Joint processing of asylum applications at EU level ...........................................................................................31
5.1.4. Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) / improve
assessment of COI .....................................................................................................................................................................32
5.1.5. Pool of asylum experts..............................................................................................................................................33
5.1.6. Intra-EU relocation....................................................................................................................................................34
5.1.7. Training and capacity building................................................................................................................................35
5.1.8. Activities linked to the external aspects of practical cooperation linked to the CEAS: resettlement and
RPPs
35
5.1.9. Contribution of different tasks to the objectives ..................................................................................................36

5.2.

Impact of options for the institutional form of the support asylum structure ...........37

5.2.1. Status quo....................................................................................................................................................................37
5.2.2. Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources .............................37
5.2.3. Creating a new network............................................................................................................................................39
5.2.4. Creation of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) as a regulatory agency......................................40
5.2.5. Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency........................................43
5.2.5.1.
FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency)............................................................................................................44
5.2.5.2.
FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External
Borders of the Member States of the European Union).................................................................................................46
5.2.5.3.
JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS II, VIS, EURODAC and other
large-scale IT systems)........................................................................................................................................................49
5.2.6. Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision-making body).........................................................51

EN

3

EN

5.3.

Respect of fundamental rights ........................................................................................51

6.

PREFERRED POLICY OPTION...................................................................................... 52

7.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................................................ 54

ANNEX 1: OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED DURING THE
FEASIBILITY STUDY................................................................................................................ 55
ANNEX 2: STATISTICAL DATA............................................................................................. 63
ANNEX 3:.................................................................................................................................... 70
INFORMATION ON PRACTICAL COOPERATION RELATING TO COI ........................ 70
SHARING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION (COI) ................................................. 70
ANNEX 4: EX- ANTE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (EXCEL TABLES).................................. 74
ANNEX 5: FINANCIAL ADDITIONAL DATA........................................................................ 86

1.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

1.1.

Calls to set up a European Asylum Support Office
Work to set up a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) started immediately after
the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force in May 1999, on the basis of the orientations
given by the Tampere European Council (October 1999).
The 2004 Hague Multiannual Programme for strengthening the area of freedom, security
and justice 1 set out the framework and main objectives, one of these being ‘to provide
protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees and other
international treaties to persons in need’. Among other things, the European Council
invited the Council and the Commission to set up in 2005 appropriate structures
involving the national asylum services of the Member States, the aim being to facilitate
practical and collaborative cooperation. After establishing a common asylum procedure,

1

EN

The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, Presidency
Conclusions: Brussels, 4/5 November 2004.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/information_dossiers/the_hague_priorities/doc/hague_programme_e
n.pdf.

4

EN

these structures should be transformed, on the basis of an evaluation, into a European
support office for all forms of cooperation between Member States relating to the
CEAS.
The Commission identified in the Action Plan ten priorities 2, the third of which was
entitled ‘A common asylum area: establish an effective harmonised procedure in
accordance with the Union’ values and humanitarian tradition’. This was to include:
• work towards the establishment of a common asylum area taking into account the
humanitarian tradition and respect of international obligations of the Union and the
effectiveness of a harmonised procedure; and
• establishing a European support office for all forms of cooperation between
Member States relating to the Common European Asylum System (after the
establishment of a common asylum procedure and on the basis of an evaluation).
In April 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted conclusions on practical
cooperation in the field of asylum and expressly invited the Commission to put forward
suggestions to step up practical cooperation until a decision is taken on the future
structure for supporting practical cooperation.
With a view to preparing the second stage of the CEAS, in June 2008 the Commission
adopted a Communication3 entitled “Policy Plan on Asylum — An Integrated Approach
to Protection across the EU ”, which set out a road map for the second stage of
completing the CEAS, and announced that it would put forward a legislative proposal to
set up a European Asylum Support office.
In the meantime, the Commission Communication entitled “European Agencies — The
Way Forward ”4 , adopted in March 2008, placed a moratorium on setting up new
agencies within the Union. However, agencies which were already under interinstitutional discussion would go ahead as planned, including possible proposals in the
field of justice and home affairs. This specifically concerned a possible proposal to set
up a European Support Office for Asylum.
At the end of September 2008, the European Council adopted the European Pact on
Immigration and Asylum. Under this Pact5 , the European Council expressly agreed to
2

3

4
5

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme:
Ten priorities for the next five years, COM (2005) 184 Final.
Communication from the Commission to the EP, 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 Final.
“European Agencies — The Way Forward”, Com(2008)135 Final.
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ii_
PUBLIC_DOC=%3E0&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=13440%2F08&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff_TITRE
=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_DOCUMENT=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&
dd_FT_DATE=&fc=ALLLANG&srm=25&md=100&ssf=.

EN

5

EN

“establish in 2009 a European support office with the task of facilitating the exchange
of information, analyses and experience among Member States, and developing
practical cooperation between the administrations in charge of examining asylum
applications”.
1.2.

Consultation and expertise
The Policy Plan on Asylum was drafted on the basis of an in-depth reflection and debate
with stakeholders on the future architecture of the CEAS and on the results of the debate
that followed the Commission’s Green paper published in June 2007 6 , the aim of which
was to identify the options for shaping the second phase of the CEAS. Specific
questions 7 were asked as regards the possible creation of a support asylum structure. The
response to the public consultation included 89 contributions from a wide range of
stakeholders 8, including 20 Member States, regional and local authorities, the
Committee of Regions and the Economic and Social Committee, UNHCR, academic
institutions, political parties and a large number of NGOs. The replies to the Green
Paper showed broad support for enhancing practical cooperation activities related to the
CEAS and for the idea of creating a dedicated structure to support and coordinate such
activities in the form of an asylum support structure. The preferred policy option of the
policy plan impact assessment report included the creation of the European Support
Office for Asylum.
In early 2008, the Commission ordered an external feasibility study on the establishment
of structural support for the practical cooperation in the field of asylum, which would
feed into the impact assessment of the future European Asylum Support Office. The
external study was based on a round of stakeholder consultation, consisting of ten case
studies and interviews with over fifty stakeholders 9. Annex 1 to this report presents a
detailed overview of the stakeholders consulted during the feasibility study. The
contractor then organised two workshops, held in April 2008 and June 2008. During
these workshops, the stakeholders were invited to give their views concerning the tasks,

6
7
8

9

EN

Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System, COM (2007) 301Final.
See under para.3, questions 21 and 22.
The 89 contributions received are available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylum_s
ystem_en.htm.
The following work has been undertaken by the contractor: review and analysis of Member States responses
to the Green Paper; interview with DG JLS officials responsible for asylum and officials responsible for
agencies within Sec Gen. The following stakeholders have been interviewed: representatives of the
European Parliament; representatives of existing cooperation initiatives or structures (e.g. EURASIL, IGC,
GDISC, EMN); representatives of NGOs and inter-governmental organisations, including ECRE, UNHCR,
and Caritas Europe and Ministerial departments and competent bodies responsible for the formulation of
asylum policies in 10 Member States. Case study visits were undertaken to: Belgium, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.

6

EN

functions and organisational status of the support structure 10 . The feasibility study was
finalised at the beginning of November 2008.
The first meeting of the Inter-Service Steering Group took place on 10 October 2008,
bringing together representatives of different Commission departments involved in
preparing the impact assessment11 . It was convened to discuss the draft final report of
the feasibility study. A second meeting took place on 7 November 2008 to discuss the
draft impact assessment report prepared by JLS. Useful comments were given by the
DGs represented during the meetings or sent afterwards in writing and were taken into
account in the draft final report to be submitted to the Impact Assessment Board. In
particular, SEC GEN (comments given during the meeting of 07/11/2008) and BUDG
(comments given orally before the meeting) asked to reinforce the section detailing the
preferred option, specifically the text and comparison table of institutional options.
1.3.

The Impact Assessment Board
The Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) was consulted on the draft final
Impact Assessment report and issued its opinion on 8 December 2008. 12 The IAB
considered that ‘the report identifies a range of credible options for the institutional setup of the asylum support office". The IAB formulated a number of recommendations,
which have been taken into account in this report. The main recommendations were: (i)
to improve the comparability of options (ii) Clarify the added-value of each task
compared to the status quo, (iii) enhance the analysis of synergies of combining tasks
into a single organisation and iv) Clarify problem definition and objectives by the new
institutional structure.

2.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1.

Description of the problem
The European Council of September 2008, when adopting the European Pact on
Immigration and Asylum, solemnly reiterated that any persecuted foreigner is entitled to
obtain aid and protection on the territory of the European Union in 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, and other relevant treaties. Though much
progress has achieved in recent years as a result of implementing common minimum
standards with a view to introducing the CEAS, considerable disparities remain between
Member States on grant ing protection and on the forms that protection takes.
Legal instruments were adopted during the first phase of the CEAS. However, the
practical implementation of the Directives reveals significant differences in processing

10
11
12

EN

Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Finland, France, Malta, Slovenia and the UK, UNHCR, GDISC and
ECRE.
SG, LS, BEPA, BUDG, ADMIN, IAS, EMPL, EAC, RELEX, DEV, ELARG, AIDCO, ECHO.
The opinion will be available here: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2008_en.htm.

7

EN

asylum applications both in terms of quality of assessment and in terms of diversity of
processing across the Union. That is why the Commission, in the Policy Plan of June
2008 decided (1) to conduct a full-scale review of the asylum acquis to improve its
content and (2) stressed the need, in parallel to this review, to enhance practical
cooperation related to the CEAS.
Though practical cooperation related to the CEAS may be considered as already well
developed, many aspects remain limited in scope and non-optimal and therefore need to
be tackled.
2.2.

Specific problems
The main problems as regards practical cooperation are the following:
• Discrepancy in practices and non-optimal exchange of best practices at EU level;
• Pressures on Member State asylum systems and over-burdening of some Member
States, and
• Limited cooperation and coordination as regards the external dimension of the CEAS.

2.2.1.

Discrepancy in practices and non-optimal exchange of best practices at the EU level
At present, applications for international protection are not treated equally across the
EU. A key indicator of the unequal processing of applications is the substantial
difference in the recognition rates between Member States concerning asylum seekers
from the same country of origin. For instance, the recognition rate in Austria for persons
coming from Afghanistan in 2006 was 84%, compared to 2% in Greece (see Annex 2,
table 2.2. for more complete information — figures UNHCR)13. As a consequence,
asylum seekers have very different pro spects of finding protection, depending on where
in the EU their applications are examined. It is necessary to ensure asylum seekers’ right
to a fair and efficient asylum procedure. The substantial differences in the assessment of
protection needs from one Member State to another undermine the credibility of
European efforts to build a common asylum system. It is often difficult to identify the
reasons for these divergences in outcomes by Member States which, while applying
similar substantive rules regarding the legal criteria to be applied in deciding on the need
for protection, have in many instances widely differing case-loads and administrative
capacities, as well as significantly different administrative practices, traditions and
procedures. Member States may also have access to information on the situation in
countries of origin which varies in terms of its comprehensiveness and reliability.

13

EN

Other examples quoted in the Asylum Plan impact assessment as follows: on applications regarding asylumseekers from Russia (mostly of Chechen background), in Austria 63% of decisions were positive while in
Slovakia the percentage was 0%. 98% and 55% of Somali asylum-seekers got a positive decision in Malta
and in the UK respectively while the percentage of positive decisions for the same group was 0% in Greece
and Spain. In Belgium, 38% of Iraqi asylum-seekers received a positive decision, while in the UK that
percentage was 20% and in Greece less than 2%.

8

EN

As an example of the substantial differences across the EU in terms of decision- making
in granting protection, in 2006 the share of total positive decisions (i.e. decisions
granting international protection) varied considerably14 , as follows:
• it ranges between 0% and 3% for total first instance decisions in some Member
States, such as Slovakia (0.3%), Slovenia (1%), Greece (1.75%), and Cyprus (3%);
• it appears relatively limited in those Member States rendering the most asylum
decisions across the EU: Germany (6.3%), France (7.7%), UK (18.3%);
• it is significantly higher in certain Member States: Austria (26%), Belgium (29%),
Sweden (49%), Italy (56%); the data for Sweden are particularly notable considering
that it was the second most important country of asylum in the EU in 2006.
Practical cooperation related to the CEAS is currently carried out in informal fora set up
for this specific purpose. Some of these fora were set up by the Commission, such as
EURASIL15 , which is an expert group dealing with various aspects of practical
cooperation related to CEAS, in particular exchanging Country of Origin Information,
thema tic asylum related issues and best practices among the 27 EU Member States,
observer states 16 and the UNHCR. Others are external to the Commission, such as the
General Directors’ Immigration Services Conference (GDISC), which promotes
operational cooperation between the Immigration Services responsible for the
implementing immigration and asylum issues in Europe.
The informal nature of these fora and the fact that they do not have any decision- making
power appear, however, often to be an impediment to quick and effective results. These
fora provide information to participants, and to a certain extent exchange good practices
and discuss the interpretation of concepts enshrined in the asylum acquis. However, no
decision can be taken to ensure that best practices observed or tested are mainstreamed
and no effective follow- up is organised. This leads to discrepancies in practices within
the Union. It appears also that some Member States have a lot of expertise at national
level which is not shared. This is the case particularly at judicial level. In each Member
State, extensive national case law is often available but the interpretation of concepts
enshrined in the asylum acquis differ between countries due to the fact that national
judges are unaware of the decisions taken in other Member States of the Union. This can
contribute to wide divergences in the decisions to be taken on cases that may appear to
be similar from one country to another. Finally, the sustainability of the activities
undertaken in these fora (see below, e.g. training activities, Country of Origin
Information activities) is questionable due to resource problems and to a lack of a clear
long-term budget.

14

Source of information: Asylum Plan.
EURASIL, the EU network for asylum practitioners chaired by the Commission, was established in July
2002 following the decision of by the Committee of the Permanent Representatives (Coreper II) on 6 March to cease
the activities of the CIREA group (Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum).
16
Canada, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and USA.
15

EN

9

EN

A clear illustration of the problem and need to improve practical cooperation related to
the CEAS is the training of personnel in professions dealing in one way or another with
access to the asylum procedure. The level of training varies across the Union. Some
Member States have no experience in asylum as they have only recently become
destination countries for persons requesting international protection. In these Member
States, training is difficult to organise due to a lack of expertise. In the EURASIL
meetings, stakeholders regularly express the need for better training at European level of
personnel involved in the asylum assessment process. The experience of the European
Asylum Curriculum, which is a joint training initiative, has proved to be useful for
practitioners in the asylum field. So far, however, no other relevant initiative has been
undertaken. The financial sustainability of the project is moreover not fully established.
The same applies to training as there are no mechanisms to ensure that individual
learning from staff exchange programmes or projects results in organisational lear ning
(e.g. integrating practices, set ting up or modifying training programmes).
The existing problems and the need to step up practical cooperation related to CEAS are
also illustrated by the collection, organisation, assessment and presentation of Country
of Origin Information (COI). These are all central to the asylum processes and decision
making of EU Member States. COI enables the asylum authorities of Member States to
verify statements made by applicants concerning their need for protection and to
establish whether the applicant should benefit from international protection. It appears
that for the time being, the absence of consistently high quality COI across all Member
States may partly account for different recognition rates.
2.2.2.

Pressures on Member States asylum systems and over-burden for some Member States
Data on asylum applications relative to the size of the resident population of the Member
States show some interesting findings about the distribution of the burden of asylum
seekers across EU Memb er States. 17
• Cyprus received by far the largest number of applications for asylum in relative terms
in 2006 (5.9), followed by Malta and Sweden, with 3.1 and 2.7 applications
respectively per thousand population.
• Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom
remained above the EU average of 0.4 in 2006 but showed a significant decrease in
the number of applications per thousand population between 2003-2006.
• The new Member States (excluding Cyprus and Malta) were generally positioned
below the EU average in 2006.
According to the feasibility study, some Member States, being traditional emigration
countries, such as Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland and Malta have little experience in the
area of asylum. Such countries have experienced difficulties in setting up and running an

17

EN

Source: asylum plan. See also in annex 2 to this report, statistical data.

10

EN

asylum system in a relatively short period of time , with limited human and financial
resources to draw upon.
Some Member States suffer capacity problems concerning the processing of applications
(insufficient numbers of trained staff) and the reception of asylum seekers (e.g. lack of
housing and integration). This is currently addressed by the amendment to the reception
conditions directive to be proposed by the Commission during the second phase of the
CEAS. However, support to these Member States through practical cooperation needs to
be increased in parallel.
Some Member States experience problems linked to high or mass influxes of persons
seeking international protection, includ ing Malta and Greece 18. According to the
feasibility study, stakeholders, such as the UNHCR and NGOs active in the asylum field
indicate that difficulties to react in a timely manner to a mass influx results in backlogs
in handling cases (procedures for hiring extra staff are often very time-consuming, as is
training of new staff) and insufficient physical capacity to accommodate asylum seekers.
For example, a recent press report from the local head of the UN refugee agency
UNHCR said Greece was facing a crisis situation as it struggles to cope with an
increasing number of migrants from the Middle East and Africa arriving on its long
Mediterranean coast. This report states in particular that “(…) There is a backlog of
some 20 000 cases waiting to be processed (…). Greece needs to deploy translators and
legal councillors at reception centres along its frontier to ensure asylum requests are
quickly and fairly processed, but there is an undue burden on the countries which have
external borders in Europe”.19
It appears that the present level of practical cooperation in the area of solidarity, burden
sharing and increasing capacity is limited. Only a few initiatives have been taken, often
ad hoc and limited in scope, and have proved insufficient to efficiently support Member
States confronted with mass influxes. For example, a few initiatives have been launched
by ENARO (European Network of Asylum Reception Organisations 20 ). The aim of
cooperation is to develop best practice models for the reception of asylum seekers and
examine trends and developments in the profile and numbers of asylum seekers. As
such, it particularly addresses the problem that some Member States have little
experience in the area of asylum or suffer capacity problems. The approach to achieve

18

See Annex 2, table 2.1.

19

Fri 10 Oct 2008, 9:21 GMT, By Daniel Flynn, ATHENS (Reuters). Interview of Giorgos Tsarbopoulos,
local head of the UN refugee agency UNHCR.
20

EN

Belgium: Fedasil; Czech Republic: Refugee Facilities Administration; Denmark: Danish Red Cross; Finland:
Ministry of Employment and the Economy; Ireland: Reception and Integration Agency; Italy: Central
Service of the Protection System for asylum seekers and refugees; Malta: Ministry for the Family and
Social Solidarity; The Netherlands: Centraal Orgaan opvang Asielzoekers; Norway: HERO Mottak og
Kompetanse AS; Spain: Ministerio de Trabajo Y Asuntos Sociales Dirección General de Integración de Los
Inmigrantes; Sweden: Swedish Migration Board; Switzerland: Bundesamt für Migration Abteilung
Empfangs- und Verfahrenszentren; and, United Kingdom: Kent County Council Service for
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children.

11

EN

these aims involves exchange programmes for staff and experts, evaluations and
activities to identify best practices. This form of cooperation should be scaled up and all
stakeholders should be included in the process. Information for stakeholders could also
be more efficient.
The European Refugee Fund (ERF ) was created to address these problems of solidarity,
burden sharing and capacity. Financial support is provided through ERF not only to
increase the capacity of asylum systems in the Member States in general, but also to
improve reception conditions and access to asylum procedures. However, the ERF
clearly lacks the resources needed to effectively finance the real efforts made by
Member States to implement refugee policy. As an example, the French asylum
administration (OFPRA) alone costs approximately €50 million a year, while the total
resources of the ERF for 2008, to be allocated to the 27 Member States are
approximately €75 million21.
A reserve has recently been established for emergency measures22 . This reserve can,
from 2008, be used to address ‘particular pressures situations resulting from sudden
arrivals of large numbers […] which place significant and urgent demands on Member
States’ reception facilities or asylum systems.’23 . It is however too early to assess the
efficacy of this mechanism.
The project to establish a pool of interpreters addresses capacity problems in Member
States and sudden pressures. The ARGO 24 project was initiated under the GDISC
umbrella. The objective of the project was to set up a ‘Rapid Capacity Team’ for
interpreters, addressing particular pressures when needs arise. Following the success of
two pilot operations, the Interpreters’ Pool was extended to include more countries and
widen the pool of available languages and interpreters. Certain countries act as “donor”
countries, sharing their interpreter capacity, and others are “beneficiary” countries. The
scope of the pool has however remained limited; to date only a limited number of
interpreting missions have been carried out. There are also concerns about the
sustainability of the project and the availability of funding.
2.2.3.

Limited cooperation and coordination as regards external dimension of the CEAS
The EU is the main destination for asylum-seekers among industrialised countries. Most
refugees in the world live in poor regions close to areas of conflict, where resources for
addressing their needs are scarce and where a durable solution for them is difficult to

21

Source of information: Asylum Plan.
Council
Decision
2001/55/EC
of
20
July
2001
(10
million
each
year).
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/refugee/funding_refugee_en.htm.
23
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/refugee/funding_refugee_en.htm.
24
ARGO is an action programme for administrative cooperation at European Union level in the fields of
asylum, visas, immigration and external borders, replacing in part the Odysseus programme. See under
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/argo/funding_argo_en.htm.
22

EN

12

EN

attain. 25 The EU does not take its fair share in the responsibility for managing refugees
with third countries and countries of first asylum, which receive a far greater percentage
of the world’s refugees than Europe. The external dimension is therefore an integral
component of the CEAS and practical cooperation on the CEAS.
To date, the external dimension of the CEAS and related practical cooperation is limited
to a few initiatives taken in the fields of resettlement and Regional Protection
Programmes (RPPs).
• Resettlement is a durable solution for those refugees for whom return to their country
of origin is not feasible and who cannot receive permanent protection in the third
country either, among these particularly vulnerable persons. It implies the transfer of
refugees from a third country in which they have sought asylum to an EU State that
has agreed to grant them permanent protection there. Currently, resettlement is only
available for a comparatively small number of refugees. In 2006, less than 1% of the
almost 10 million refugees worldwide directly benefited from resettlement 26. Between
2003 and 2007, EU Member States collectively resettled a mere 9% of the world ’s
refugees (see Annex 2, Table 2.3 “EU share of refugees resettled worldwide” –
Source UNHCR). Several governmental and non-governmental bodies in the EU are
working to further expand resettlement. There has been some success in increasing
Member State participation in resettlement, but so far the number of refugees
resettled in the EU remains limited. There is also a lack of coordination between
Member States to identify political and geographical priorities. This does not allow
for a truly strategic use of resettlement at the EU level. Moreover, the lack of
coordinated cooperation on practical and logistical aspects results in limited
efficiency and extensive use of human and financial resources, and thus constitutes an
obstacle to making a substantial and sustained EU commitment to resettlement. Lack
of coordination also limits the scope for resettlement to develop its full potential as an
integral component of the external policies of the EU, for instance, in the context of
the Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs).

25

26

EN

Most refugees remain in regions close to their countries of origin, without durable solutions
and imposing a burden on poor, developing countries. By region, the CASWANAME region
(Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and Middle East) is the world’s most affected,
with close to 4 million refugees, followed by Africa with close to 2.5 million. Europe comes
third with 1.7 million refugees. The countries hosting the biggest refugee populations are, in
decreasing order: Pakistan, Iran, the US, Syria, Germany, Jordan, Tanzania and the UK25. At
the same time, in 2006, a total of 605 000 new or appeal applications for asylum or refugee
status were submitted to Governments or UNHCR offices in 151 countries, and out of the
total of 605 000 asylum applications lodged during 2006, some 504 000 (83%) requests were
submitted for the first time. Most applications were registered in Europe (307 000), followed
by Africa (159 000), the Americas (78 000), Asia (53 500), and Oceania (7 100). See also
annex 2, table 2.3 “EU share of refugees resettled worldwide” – Source UNHCR.
UNHCR
Statistical
Yearbook
2006,
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?id=478ce0712&tbl=STATISTICS.

13

EN

• Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs) were developed under the Programme for
Freedom, Security and Justice for the years 2005 to 2010. They aim to enhance the
protection capacity of the regions involved and provide Durable Solutions 27. The
RPPs are currently limited to two pilot regions that were selected by Member States
in September 2005, namely Tanzania (Great Lakes region), as mainly a region of
origin, and the Western Newly Independent States (WNIS) i.e. Ukraine, Moldova and
Belarus, as mainly a region of transit. Limited coordination to assess particular
refugee situations, set priorities, identify protection gaps and the specific steps to be
taken means that the current RPPs have a limited scope, and a limited impact in
improving protection and asylum systems in specific regions of the world which
receive a far greater percentage of refugees than the EU. The Commission
acknowledged the need to improve the RPPs in the Asylum Plan. It will evaluate the
RPPs, which will be the basis for develop ing these programmes further.
2.3.

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?
The baseline scenario (‘status quo ’) assumes that practical cooperation is developed in
an ad hoc and decentralised way, with relatively few resources.
The current framework for practical cooperation related to CEAS only provides for
financ ing ad hoc projects without much continuity. Resources would continue to be
scarce and coordination between Member States is still under developed. The quality of
country of origin information would continue to vary from one Member State to another
and information would not be fully shared. EURASIL meetings would continue to be
organised. However they have been held for years now without having a significant
impact, for instance, on approximating decision- making practices, which are still very
divergent. Without structural support (both from a human and financial resources point
of view), it will be difficult to achieve the level of coordination necessary to reach
convergence in the outcome of asylum decisions in the Member States. As regards the
external dimension and related practical cooperation, an ad-hoc exchange of information
would continue through Commission-chaired expert meetings on resettlement. There
would however be no infrastructure to ensure structural support and coordination on EUwide resettlement activities. This is all the more acute as the Commission is considering
putting forward a proposal on a joint EU resettlement scheme. One important part of this
will be improved coordination among EU Member states.

2.4.

EU right to act
The current legal basis for Community action in the area of asylum policy is established
in Article 63(1) and (2) TEC. These provisions state that the Council is to adopt
“measures on asylum, in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and
the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and other relevant
treaties” and also “measures on refugees and displaced persons” in areas such as
Member State responsibility, reception conditions, refugee qualification, granting of

27

EN

Communication by the European Commission COM (2005) 388 final on Regional Protection Programmes.

14

EN

protection (including temporary protection) and balancing of Member States’ efforts in
receiving asylum-seekers.
As regard practical cooperation (in the field of asylum), the current legal basis is
established in Article 66 TEC, which states that the Council, acting in accordance with
the procedure referred to in Article 67, shall take measures to ensure cooperation
between the relevant departments of the administrations of the Member States in the
areas covered by title IV (visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free
movement of persons), as well as between those departments and the Commission.
2.5.

Subsidiarity test
Community involvement in the asylum field is founded on the need for solidarity among
Member States in addressing a challenge that, in an EU without internal borders, cannot
be effectively dealt with by individual countries acting alone. This led to adoption by the
Community legislator of the acquis in the field of asylum, on the basis of specific
dedicated legal bases enshrined in the Treaty.
The need to act has already been assessed and established as regards the CEAS in recent
impact assessment reports, and in particular in the impact assessment on the asylum policy
plan 28.

There have been repeated calls from the European Council, the Council and the
European Parliament to develop a CEAS. The institutions of the Union committed to
improving implementation of the acquis in the field of asylum and clearly expressed the
view that strengthening practical cooperation between Member States on CEAS is the
best way to improve the situation.
Due to the transnational nature of the problems related to international protection, the
future support structure will be well placed to propose solutions under the CEAS to
significantly reduce the differences and divergences between the implementation of
national legislation. Regarding the subsidiarity principle, joint action and better practical
cooperation within the future support structure is justified as a means to finding a joint
solution to the problems described in this report, which have proven to be irresolvable
purely at national level.
2.6.

Proportionality test
Regarding the proportionality principle, once the need for joint action at EU level is
acknowledged (see above, under subsidiarity), it is necessary to assess how far EU
measures should go and what mandate the future support structure should be given by
the European legislator.

28

EN

See sec(2008)2029 and sec(2008)2030.

15

EN

The future support structure will be fully anchored in the CEAS. It will not be given any
decision- making power s and will not replace the national asylum administrations. Its
mandate will be limited to facilitating and strengthening all forms of practical
cooperation between Member States relating to the CEAS.
In view of the clear and limited mandate of the future support structure, setting up this
new Community institutional structure will not prevent further national action.
3.

OBJECTIVES
The objectives are set out in the table overleaf.

EN

16

EN

General
objectives

Specific objectives

Operational
objectives
(outputs and effects)

To reduce differences in implementin g
legislation, policies and operational practices,
between Member States.

To improve the capacity, knowledge and
know-how of the different actors
involved in the asylum process.

To reduce differences in the quality and content
of Country of Origin Information and harmonise
its collection, production and assessment.

To improve the collection and the
quality of Country of Origin Information
and make this accessible to all Member
States with a view to improving its
interpretation and assessment.

To improve
solidarity and
burden-sharing
between Member
States in the field of
asylum

To reduce overburdening of some Member
States.

To support Member States to build
capacity and support those facing
particular pressures on their asylum
system and reception capacity.

To better manage
refugee flows to the
EU by expanding
the external
dimension of the
CEAS

To enhance the implementation of aspects related
to the external dimension of asylum, such as
Regional
Protection
Programmes
and
resettlement .

To improve fair and
more harmonised
processing of
applications for
international
protection
throughout the
Union

4.

To improve the capacity of Member States to
handle asylum requests, including situations of
mass influx of asylum seekers.

To increase the successful resettlement
of applicants for international protection
outside of the EU.
To strengthen protection systems in third
countries.

POLICY OPTIONS
In this chapter, two sets of policy options are analysed.
The first set of policy options sets out potential tasks and missions that a support
structure may have (eight tasks and missions are described below under 4.1.).
The other set of policy options concerns the potential institutional organisation of the
support structure to allow it to operate optimally. Eight main institutional options for
establishing the support structure, which would fulfil the missions and tasks referred to
under 4.1, are described under 4.2.

4.1.

Options for the tasks and missions of the future asylum support structure
In view of the mandate given by the European Council to create the future support
structure, and following the consultations of stakeholders organised during the feasibility
study, a list of potential tasks to be entrusted to the future support structure is divided as
follows, in the interest of clarity.
The objective in defining all the tasks to be entrusted to the future support structure is to
fully ensure that the standards in practical cooperation related to CEAS will be improved

EN

17

EN

throughout the Member States. No definition of tasks could be understood as leading to
lower standards in the asylum policy29.
4.1.1.

Exchange of best practices
This covers the identification and exchange of best practices, lessons learnt and activities
which could contribute to a more uniform interpretation and implementation of asylum
legislation and a more equal treatment of asylum seekers in the different Member States.
The support structure would draw on inputs provided by different stakeholders with
relevant expertise (e.g. Member States, IGOs, NGOs, lawyers, case workers).
These tasks are part of the core tasks currently carried out by existing cooperation
structures, such as EURASIL, GDISC30 and IGC 31 , and supported by the Commission in
JLS Directorate General.

4.1.2.

Support to monitoring and quality control
This covers mechanisms to support monitoring and quality control to ensure a more
uniform interpretation and implementation of asylum legislation and a more equal
treatment of asylum seekers in the different Member States. According to the Treaty
provisions that define the role and competences of the Commission, the Commission is
responsible for enforcement, transposition and implementation of the CEAS legislative
instruments. The support structure would therefore be limited to suppo rting the
Commission in its task, in particular by collecting information and reporting on the state
of transposition and implementation of the Directives in each of the Member States, by
developing benchmarks and standards by which progress can be measured, by
coordinating peer learning activities, whereby Member States are asked to evaluate and
learn from their peers and by coordinating corrective action undertaken by the Member
States.
Monitoring and quality control by the Commission of the enforcement, transposition and
implementation of the CEAS legislative instruments is today facilitated by the
organisation of meetings of the Contact Committees 32 established under the different

29

30

See also Asylum Policy Plan in this respect.

During the NL Presidency of the EU in July 2004, a Conference was held in Rotterdam entitled ‘Immigration Services Together in the New
Europe’. The Conference was aimed at General Directors of European Immigration Services. During this conference it was concluded that there
was added value in face-to-face contact with European counterparts and the General Directors agreed to meet every year. A network was
established in order to facilitate practical cooperation. This network was named GDISC - General Directors’ of Immigration Services Conference.
31 The starting point for the IGC was a conference held in May 1985 under the auspices of UNHCR to consider “The Arrivals of Asylum-Seekers
and Refugees in Europe”. There were follow up discussions and seven States decided to launch an informal consultative process to study the
challenges facing the asylum system and possible solutions. A coordinator for the IGC was appointed within UNHCR headquarters in 1987 as
head of a unit responsible for the preparation of meetings of senior officials. In 1990, this unit was reorganised as the IGC Secretariat. In 1991, the
Secretariat became an independent entity with funding provided by States. At present, there are sixteen members of IGC: 10 EU States (Australia,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), 2 non -EU countries:
Switzerland and Norway, and 4 oversea countries: Canada, US, New Zealand and Australia.
32 As a basis for evaluation and to better coordinate the implementation of the asylum measures as well as the measures adopted on migration, the
Commission organises a structured exchange of views on how Member States implement and apply the legislation recently adopted through the

EN

18

EN

instruments, but also via the discussions which take place in the context of Eurasil,
GDISC, and the IGC. The UNHCR 33 also has a role to play in this regard.
4.1.3.

Joint processing of asylum applications at the EU level
This covers the joint processing of asylum applications at EU level by the support
structure on behalf of the Member States. This could be limited to the joint processing of
certain asylum applications at EU level, for example those for Member States under
particular pressure or those that Member States consider highly complicated. At present,
no such joint processing takes place.

4.1.4.

Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) /
improve assessment of COI
These tasks are part of the core tasks currently carried out by existing cooperation
structures, such as EURASIL, GDISC, the IGC, the UNHCR and the Red Cross
(Accord/ecoi.net 34) and are supported by the Commission in JLS Directorate General.
In light of the considerable work already undertaken in this area by the Commission and
other actors, and the wide range of existing COI sources, the support structure would be
in charge of a large number of coordination tasks:
- organising the management and maintenance of the COI portal, integrate existing COI
in the portal and keeping it updated;
- pooling existing information and expertise on a particular country of origin and asylum
thematic related issues available from actors on the ground (e.g. Member States,
Commission, Commission delegations, UNHCR field offices, local NGOs);
- coordinating fact-finding missions by bringing together States with an interest in or are
about to gather COI in a particular asylum sending country to avoid overlaps;
- enhanc ing the accessibility of COI and promoting its use (e.g. translation of
documents);
- coordinating and develop ing best practice exchanges, with a view to enhancing
consistency of COI interpretation and developing guidelines and benchmarks on how to
interpret COI;
- gathering information on the various policies implemented in the different Member
States and on how judges, case workers and other decision- makers reach different
interpretations of COI;

establishment of Contact Committees for each of the relevant instruments. The Commission regularly convenes the Contact Committees which
offer a platform for the exchange of views on the interpretation of the provisions of the Directives and the Regulations to facilitate the early
identification of possible problems and questions and offer an opportunity to enhance the value of the legislation through an agreed common
interpretation and a common methodology of implement ation.
33
34

EN

Quality initiative project See under 4.1.4
The Quality Initiative Project (2004-2009) is based on the supervisory role of UNHCR under the 1951 Refugee
Convention and its aim is to assist the UK Home Office in improving further the quality of first instance
decision-making. On the basis of its audit, UNHCR has highlighted a number of causes for concern,
focusing in particular on the application of the refugee definition, the approach to establishing the facts
(‘credibility’) and the conduct of interviews.

19

EN

- creating an overview of the current initiatives to promote joint and/or similar
interpretation of COI.
4.1.5.

Pool of asylum experts
The support structure could provide practical assistance to Member States with overall
capacity and resource problems, for example, by creating, managing, coordinating and
deploying joint pools of interpreters, translators and other experts. The following fields
could be covered:
- Interpreting;
- Humanitarian assistance;
- Assisting in the process of information collection to support decision making;
- Pre-screening;
- Translating documents and
- Sharing information on interview techniques.
The GDISC-led project creating an Interpreters pool35 provides a good example of how
to deal with capacity and resource-related challenges in situations of particular pressure.
Another entity which can be mentioned is ENARO, which is an ‘inter- institutional
linkage’ between European organisations active in the area of the reception of asylum
seekers 36. It facilitates cooperation in order to develop best practice models for the
reception of asylum seekers and examine trends and developments in the profile and
numbers of asylum seekers. As such, it particularly addresses the issue of how to deal
with capacity and sudden pressure situations. The approach adopted to achieve these
aims involves exchange programmes for staff and experts, evaluations and activities
aimed at identifying best practices. In addition, activities initiated on a more ‘ad hoc’
basis are relevant for addressing problems in terms of better preparedness (e.g. exchange
of information on a software system to manage reception capacities.)37

35

Twelve countries (UK, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Romania,
Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia) indicated their interest in joining this project: UK, Germany, Norway and
Netherlands volunteered to act as donor countries; Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia were to be the beneficiaries. Norway was to act both as donor and
as beneficiary in the project.

36

Belgium: Fedasil; Czech Republic: Refugee Facilities Administration; Denmark: Danish Red Cross; Finland:
Ministry of Employment and the Economy; Ireland: Reception and Integration Agency; Italy: Central
Service of the Protection System for asylum seekers and refugees; Malta: Ministry for the Family and
Social Solidarity; The Netherlands: Centraal Orgaan opvang Asielzoekers; Norway: HERO Mottak og
Kompetanse AS; Spain: Ministerio de Trabajo Y Asuntos Sociales Dirección General de Integración de Los
Inmigrantes; Sweden: Swedish Migration Board; Switzerland: Bundesamt für Migration Abteilung
Empfangs- und Verfahrenszentren; and, United Kingdom: Kent County Council Service for
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children.

37

According to Fedasil, which considers ENARO to be a good initiative, it is key to learn from
aspects that work well in other countries and build on existing experiences and know-how instead
of ‘reinventing the wheel’.

EN

20

EN

4.1.6.

Intra-EU relocation
In the Policy Plan on Asylum (Section 5.1.2.), the Commission indicates that “the best
way to ensure a high degree of solidarity is not to adopt a new overarching instrument
on intra-EU relocation, but to put at the disposal of Member States a series of
mechanisms, which will help them cope with the variety of challenges they are faced
with”. The Commission indicated during the discussion on the adoption of the
Immigration and Asylum Pact (adopted in October 2008 by the European Council) that
an assessment should be carried out of the potential impact of measures taken to
facilitate the internal relocation of beneficiaries of international protection. The study
should assess, in particular, the nature and characteristics of migratory flows in the
Member States concerned, the situation in the countries of origin and the risks of
creating pull effects.
This would imply that the support structure could manage and coordinate any future
intra-EU relocation scheme which would ensure that a proportion of arrivals are
transferred to other Member States, based on their capacity and willingness. It could
support the scheme by, for example, developing guidelines on selecting people for
relocation and identifying Member States interested in relocation. No such intra-EU
relocation instrument exists at present.

4.1.7.

Training and capacity building
This would include providing training and capacity building assistance to help Member
States develop a joint asylum curriculum and provide training and capacity building
programmes for state officials and potentially a wider range of stakeholders involved in
the asylum process. The European Asylum Curriculum (EAC), which is currently being
developed by GDISC, constitutes a key component of these activities, as it represents a
prime example of the benefits that can be gained from EU practical cooperation in the
area of asylum. In addition, general and specific expertise on, for example, torture
victims and unaccompanied minors, is required by national asylum administrations.
Training national asylum service personnel is central to implementing the CEAS.
Agreement on key principles of good practice for administrative aspects such as
interviewing and decision making provides a firm basis for greater convergence in
practice and administrative method s.
The support structure would therefore be in charge of:
- managing the EAC (European Asylum Curriculum). The EAC project38 is led by
Sweden under G DISC umbrella (which promotes operational cooperation between the

38

EN

The EAC is a EU Member State initiative intending to enhance the capacity and quality of the European asylum
process as well as to strengthen practical cooperation among the European asylum/immigration systems.
The cooperation between the Odysseus Academic Network and the Swedish, Dutch, Czech and Spanish

21

EN

Immigration Services responsible for implementing immigration and asylum issues in
Europe, see above under 2.2.1) and involves a range of governmental and nongovernmental bodies. The support structure would coordinate the development and
promotion of EAC and ensure its sustainability (financing and updating);
- identifying training needs in Member States;
- conducting capacity assessments of Member States;
- mapping existing (general and specific) expertise in training and capac ity building in
Member States and
- matching training and capacity needs with expertise and resources, and coordinating
exchanges (e.g. study visits).
It will organise general and specific training sessions, e.g. training targeting a specific
public (e.g. judges / case-workers) or on specific issues (e.g. how to deal with EAC /
treatment of vulnerable persons or unaccompanied minors / access and use of COI
portal) 39.
4.1.8.

Activities linked to the external aspects of practical cooperation linked to the CEAS:
resettlement and RPPs
The Hague Programme called for the establishment of a joint resettlement programme in
the framework of Regional Protection Programmes. In the Policy Plan on asylum, the
Commission announced that it would propose an initiative on this issue in 2009. The
Commission is therefore committed to improving and developing the external aspects of
CEAS.
The support structure could have an advisory and/or coordination role in developing and
implementing Regional Protection Programmes and in developing and implementing
resettlement schemes.
This would include, as regards RPPs
- monitoring the progress of activities in RPP countries,
- providing expertise and liaising with other stakeholders in order to ensure
complementarity of activities.
As regards resettlement, the support structure would have the following tasks:

Immigration Services aims to create a European Asylum Curriculum, which will provide common
vocational training for employees of the Immigration and Asylum Services in Europe. This project is
funded by the EU (ERF) and executed under the auspices of the General Directors’ Immigration Services
Conference (GDISC). The European Commission sits on its reference group. The EAC project update has
been presented in Eurasil meetings, both at the normal plenary and judges meetings.
39

EN

In addition to this, for example, the Red Cross have developed several capacity building initiatives concerning
COI, including the development of a training manual, organisation of seminars and query services (see
Annex 3). EAC also contains a module to improve knowledge and initial skills concerning the role of COI
in the context of refugee status determination

22

EN

- drawing upon existing input from different bodies (e.g. States’ and NGOs views on the
process and outcomes of twinning activities or EU- funded programmes; the discussions
held in the Co mmission expert group on resettlement and in the IGC workshop; research
undertaken by UNHCR), with a view to exploring joint positions and priorities;
- storing the information in a central location (e.g. portal);
- making this information available to a wide audience ;
- promoting active learning (e.g. e- learning, discussion forums, seminars).
Some governmental and non-governmental actors in the EU have been collaborating,
largely in a limited or exploratory way, in the area of resettlement. There has also been
a launch of new 'twinning' activities between existing and new or prospective
resettlement countries in the EU. The primary aim of twinning projects and other forms
of information exchange is to build the capacity of the national administrations, which
in the near future may be responsible for the design and implementation of resettlement.
Some actors are also actively sharing ideas on how to create political will for
resettlement 40 . In addition to this , resettlement is also discussed in the IGC. Workshops
on resettlement have been organised in which existing resettlement countries, such as
the USA, share their experiences with EU partners. The Commission has furthermore
initiated an expert group on resettlement, whose purpose is to share best practices on
resettlement and to discuss the results of the different projects on resettlement, in order
to make Member States which are no t currently resettlement countries familiar with
resettlement and to examine which aspects EU cooperation on resettlement would be
most fruitful.
4.2.

Options for the institutional format of the future asylum support structure

4.2.1.

Status quo
No changes would be made to the current situation in relation to practical cooperation in
the asylum field . Existing delivery mechanisms, i.e. very limited number of staff in
charge of practical cooperation41 within the unit dealing with asylum policy in
Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security, would be maintained at the current
level.

4.2.2.

Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources
The Commission would be responsible for the delivery of practical cooperation linked to
the CEAS and would undertake this internally, by setting up a dedicated unit within the
Directorate General for Justice, Freedom and Security. The unit would be managed by a
Head of Unit, possibly assisted by a Deputy Head of Unit and Heads of sectors, each

40
41

EN

E.g. Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen; Amnesty International Germany.
At present, AD staff dedicated to practical cooperation tasks in the Commission unit dealing with asylum
policy: 1,5.

23

EN

managing small teams within the unit in charge of specific aspects of practical
cooperation.
The unit could be either integrated into the present directorate of the Directorate General
currently dealing with asylum and immigration policy or be under the direct
responsibility of the Director-General to give it prominent political visibility.
4.2.3.

Creating a new network
A new network would be created on the basis of a Council decision, for example under
Article 66 TEC (practical cooperation). It would comprise a secretariat and receive a
dedicated budget line for its activities. The secretariat would be responsible for the dayto-day management of the network. The network would employ few staff at central
level, but in order to ensure consistent national inputs, human resources could be
allocated to national ‘units’ consisting of Member State authorities and / or other
relevant bodies.
The network would build on the existing network structures and would not absorb any
existing structures. It would be supported by a steering group (to be created) consisting
of Member State representatives and other relevant bodies (e.g. UNHCR). This steering
group would need to be coordinated by the Commission. The network could either
merge current relevant activities in the field of practical cooperation, such as those
carried out by EURASIL and GDISC, or coordinate such activities, thus acting as an
‘umbrella’ network. Additional tasks and functions could be added gradually.
The working method of the network would be the “Open Method of Coordination”
(OMC). Set up at the Lisbon European Council of March 2000, the OMC provides a
framework for political coordination without legal constraints. Member States agree to
identify and promote their most effective policies with the aim of learning from each
others’ experiences. This is a flexible and decentralised method, which involves: (1)
agreeing to common objectives which set out high-level, shared goals to underpin the
entire process; (2) agreeing to a set of common indicators which show how progress
towards these goals can be measured; (3) preparing national strategic reports, in which
Member States set out how they will plan policies over an agreed period to meet the
common objectives; (4) Evaluating these strategies jointly with the European
Commission and the Member States. The OMC is e.g. used in the fields of Social
Protection and Social Inclusion. It has never to date been used in the Justice, Freedom
and Security fields.
The Commission would be responsible for the overall coordination and management of
the network.

4.2.4.

Creation of the European Asylum Support Office as a regulatory agency
The European Asylum Support Office could be a structure with the institutional and
operational design of a regulatory agency. A European regulatory agency is defined as
an independent legal entity created by the legislator in order to help regulate a particular

EN

24

EN

sector at the European level and help implement a particular Community policy. By
performing its tasks, it helps to improve the way in which the rules are implemented and
applied throughout the EU 42.
The legal basis for the office, to be established through a regulation of the European
Parliament and/or Council, could be Article 66 TEC (practical cooperation) and/or
Article 63 TEC (asylum policy).
The European Asylum Support Office would have no decision-making powers. Its
activities would involve measures of an incentive nature, such as co-regulation, selfregulation, recommendations, referral to the scientific authority, networking and pooling
good practice, evaluating the application and implementation of rules, etc43.
Relationships with external bodies would be established, e.g. with UNHCR, external
bodies (e.g. GDISC, ENARO …) and NGOs (e.g. ECRE, Red Cross). UNHCR would
have a formally defined and strong role in the regulation establishing the office.
As far as financial rules are concerned, the European Asylum Support Office would be
created under Article 185 of the Financial Regulation44 . The financial basis for the future
agency would be a dedicated Community budget line. The decision over its seat, not to
be in Brussels or Luxemburg, would be taken by Heads of State and Governments. It
could be situated in a new Member State 45 .
The office would be managed by its Management Board, composed of representatives of
Member States and the Commission. The da y-to-day management of the office would be
entrusted to a Director, nominated by the Management Board upon a proposal by the
Commission.
4.2.5.

Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency
For reasons of economies of scale, it could be envisaged that the activities to be
entrusted to the asylum support structure be merged into an existing or future regulatory
agency.
There are three sub-options:

42

See draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies
(Com(2005)59.
43
See draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies
(Com(2005)59.
44
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to
the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1– 48. See in particular article 185.1:
“1. The Commission shall adopt a framework financial regulation for the bodies set up by the Communities and
having legal personality which actually receive grants charged to the budget. The financial rules of these bodies may
not depart from the framework regulation except where their specific operating needs so require and with the
Commission’s prior consent.”.
45
See conclusions of the representatives of the Member States on the location of the seats of certain offices
and agencies of the European Union, 13/12/2003, OJ L 29/3.02.2004.

EN

25

EN

• merge into FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency),
• merge into FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational
Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union),
• merge into the future JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS
II, VIS and EURODAC and other large-scale IT systems in application of Title IV of
the EC Treaty).
These options are studied by the Commission in this impact assessment report, for the
sake of completeness of this report, as supplementary options to the ones that were
envisaged by the stakeholders during consultations made in the context of the
preparation of the asylum policy plan and consultations specifically carried out for
preparation of this impact assessment report. It must be emphasized that no stakeholder,
Member States or non-governmental organisations consulted during the consultation
process proposed these options.
These three agencies are or will be regulatory agencies (see above under 4.2.4.).
4.2.5.1. FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency)
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) was established by Council
Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 200746 . The Agency’s goal is to provide
relevant institutions and authorities of the European Community and its Member States
with assistance and expertise on fundamental rights when implementing Community
law, and to support them in taking measures and formulating appropriate courses of
action. The Agency is not empowered to examine individual complaints or to exercise
regulatory decision- making powers. The Agency’s specific areas of work are laid down
in a five-year Multiannual Framework (Decision (2008/203/EC), adopted by the Council
after consultation with the European Parliament. The fight against racism, xenophobia
and related intolerance is one of the main priority areas of the FRA. The Agency works
closely with other institutions and bodies, operating at both national and European level,
and develops a fruitful cooperation with the Council of Europe and civil society, for
instance through the creation of a Fundamental Rights Platform.
Should the FRA take over the tasks to be entrusted to the future asylum support
structure, it would create a dedicated department for this purpose. Since it is an existing
agency, some of the existing horizontal departments, such as administration, finance and
procurement could be shared.
Currently, the FRA is fully dedicated to information tasks and does not have experience
in dealing with practical cooperation in the field of asylum.

46

EN

OJ L 53/2 22.2.2007.

26

EN

Should the FRA be put in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to the future asylum support
structure, the Management Board would need to be reconfigured. The legal basis of the
FRA, Article 308 TEC (implicit powers), could remain, but reference could also be
made to Article 66 TEC (practical cooperation) and/or to Article 63 TEC (asylum
policy).
FRA has its headquarters in Vienna (Austria).
4.2.5.2. FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation
at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union)
FRONTEX was established by Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 47. It coordinates
operational cooperation between Member States on managing external borders, assists
Member States in training national border guards, including the establishment of
common training standards; carries out risk analyses, follows up the development of
research into control and surveillance of external borders, assists Member States in
circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at external
borders, and provides Member States with the necessary support in organising joint
return operations. It cooperates closely with other Community and EU partners
responsible for the security of external borders, such as EUROPOL, CEPOL, OLAF, the
customs cooperation and the cooperation on phyto-sanitary and veterinary controls, in
order to promote overall coherency. FRONTEX strengthens border security by ensuring
the coordination of Member States’ actions to implement Community measures on
managing external borders.
Should FRONTEX take over the tasks to be entrusted to the future asylum support
structure, it would create a dedicated department for this purpose. Since it is an existing
agency, some of the existing horizontal departments, such as administration, finance and
procurement could be shared.
Currently, FRONTEX is fully dedicated to illegal immigration and does not have
experience in dealing with practical cooperation in the field of asylum.
Should FRONTEX be put in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to the future asylum
support structure, the Management Board would need to be reconfigured. It is currently
composed of high level representatives of national administrations dealing with illegal
immigration.
The legal basis of FRONTEX could need changing, by adding the legal basis of Article
63 TEC (asylum policy), should this be considered as necessary to entrust it of full
activities related to practical cooperation in the field of asylum.
FRONTEX has its headquarters in Warsaw (Poland).

47

EN

OJ L 349/25.11.2004.

27

EN

4.2.5.3. JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS II, VIS and
EURODAC and for the development and the management of other large-scale IT
systems).
The future Regulation being prepared by JLS aims to establish an Agency centred on the
operational management of large JLS IT systems. It will therefore be responsible for the
long-term operational management of the second generation Schengen Information
System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and EURODAC. It also aims to lay
down the framework for developing and managing other large-scale IT systems in
application of Title IV of the EC Treaty and Title VI of the EU Treaty.
Should the IT agency take over the tasks to be entrusted to the support asylum structure,
it would create a dedicated department for this purpose. Some of the horizontal
departments, such as administration, finance and procurement could be shared.
The proposal for establishing the IT agency is due to be adopted by the Commission in
January 2009. It will then be in the hands of the legislator for adoption of the founding
act establishing it. This IT agency, when created, will be a new regulatory agency and
will face the difficulties inherent in setting- up and creating any new body from scratch.
This may severely delay the setting- up of the support asylum structure, whilst the
European Council expressly called for its rapid establishment.
This IT agency will be fully dedicated to technical IT management of large JLS ITsystems. It will have no mandate as regards gathering information in the field of asylum,
being a centre of European expertise on asylum (except management of IT JLS
systems), networking and pooling good practice, evaluating the application and
implementation of rules in the field of asylum policies.
The legal basis for the IT-Agency would need a change. The present legal basis covers
Articles 62(2)(a), 62(2)(b)(ii), 63(1)(a), 63(3)(b) and 66TEC. As far as asylum policy is
concerned, the legal basis of the IT-Agency would have to be enlarged, since it is
presently restricted to the aspects covered by 63(1)(a) and 63(3)(b), should this be
considered as necessary to entrust it of full activities related to practical cooperation in
the field of asylum (question of choice of legal basis for the support structure: article 63
and/or article 66).
The headquarters of the future IT Agency have not yet been decided.
4.2.6.

Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision -making body)
The Common EU Asylum Authority would be a structure with the institutional and
operational design of a regulatory agency, created by secondary law (Regulation). Its
financial basis would be a dedicated budget line. It could in the longer term fully lead all
practical cooperation in the field of asylum, have responsibility for external action on
behalf of the Member States and become the single EU determining authority to
effectively implement a common asylum procedure for applications lodged in the EU,
taking into account that the acquis would have been amended accordingly.

EN

28

EN

5.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
The report will attempt to identify the direct and indirect, short-term and long-term
impact of the options. The social impact on asylum seekers are identified as the
fundamental rights of asylum seekers which will be better protected, and their social
integration in the Union (e.g. education, training, access to work) will be improved. As
regards the environmental impact, limited impact could be identified if a new
institutional structure is created outside Brussels. This would entail limited
environmental pressure on the host town (new office building to be found / travelling of
people from there to other places in Europe where meetings would be organised). The
most significant impact identified will be analysed as regards the tasks entrusted to the
support structure and in institutional terms.

5.1.

Impact of options for tasks and missions of the future support structure

5.1.1.

Exchange of best practices
These tasks are part of the core tasks currently carried out by existing cooperation
structures, such as EURASIL, GDISC and partially the IGC and supported by the
Commission’s JLS Directorate General. According to the Commission, they therefore
belong to the core tasks of the future support structure. There is a clear need to find ways
in order to provide better quality information, a more systematic and far-reaching
exchange of best practice and greater synergy compared to the current activities taking
place in multiple fora. A comprehensive approach and efficient coordination is needed.
This situation could be improved by the support structure taking a clear lead in the
exchange of information and best practices.
Stakeholders identified these tasks as important, all giving their strong support, in
particular from existing cooperation structures which are already seeing the benefits of
such exchanges as part of their own activities. The transfer of these tasks appears to
enjoy full support from the Member States and European Parliament, thus it appears
politically feasib le.
As these tasks are part of the core tasks of the future support structure, their costs would
be medium to high. These costs would also cover the costs involved in providing support
to monitoring and quality control (see under 5.1.2.). In view of the extensive character of
these tasks, the costs must be therefore assessed as covering most of the costs related to
tasks undertaken by the support structure. Moreover, the national inputs to practical
cooperation would initially continue to exist and gradually be reduced, due to greater
efficiencies (for more details see under 5.2, cost analysis of the options in institutional
terms).
Exchanging best practices will allow the Member States to compare different practices
with a view to retaining the best ones, and learning from each others. This should allow
approximation of diverging practices and favour a better and more uniform
interpretation and implementation of asylum legislation and fully contribute to the

EN

29

EN

general objective of improving fair and more harmonised processing of applications for
international protection through the EU.
The detailed costs of these tasks are evaluated in the financial tables contained in the
annexes to this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options.
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs
analysis / direct support / capacity building and training / planning, research and
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support. The costs for
exchange of best practices appear under the items risks and needs analysis / capacity
building and training / planning, research and development, in view of the scope of their
activities and the importance in the se tasks of the future support office.
Entrusting these tasks to the support structure would be likely to have a very positive
impact on the evolution of the asylum acquis and its practical implementation within the
Member States and be a good level of feasibility.
5.1.2.

Support to monitoring and quality control
These tasks will allo w the Member States to compare their practices, as well as the way
of transposing and implementing the different directives belonging to the acquis. It will
help to inform the Commission’s preparation of legislative amendments or assist the
Commission in its monitoring and evaluation role.
This task received an overall high support level from the stakeholders consulted during
the feasibility study. There were however some concerns over the definition of
monitoring as a task. This task is closely linked to other tasks, such as identifying
continuing differences in legislation, policies and practices and exchanging best
practices.
Exchanging best practices, to which this task is linked, should allow approximation of
diverging practices, de facto and de jure, favour a better and more uniform interpretation
and implementation of asylum legislation and improve fair and more harmonised
processing of applications for international protection through the EU.
The detailed costs of these tasks are evaluated in the financial tables contained in the
annexes to this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options.
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs
analysis / direct support / capacity building and training / planning, research and
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support. The costs for
exchange of best practices appear under the items risks and needs analysis / capacity
building and training / planning, research and development, in view of the scope of the
activities and their importance in these tasks of the future support office.
These tasks, fully linked to costs linked to exchanging best practices, would entail
medium to high costs. In view of the extensive character of these tasks, the costs must be

EN

30

EN

therefore assessed as covering most of the costs related to tasks undertaken by the
support structure. Moreover, national inputs to practical cooperation would initially
continue and gradually be reduced, due to greater efficiencies (for more details see under
5.2, cost analysis of the options in institutional terms).
Entrusting these tasks to the support structure appears therefore to have a very positive
impact on the evolution of the asylum acquis and its implementation within the Member
States, and a good level of feasibility. The monitoring and quality control which is
today to some extent carried out in the context of Contact Committees, Eurasil, the IGC
and the UNHCR is not sufficiently thorough and systematic to meet the needs of the
Commission and Member states in this regard. Current oversight tends to be ad hoc in
nature, and does not adequately or quickly ident ify shortcomings in the creation of the
CEAS. The support office could adopt a more comprehensive and timely approach to
monitoring and quality control, including - for example - by carrying out studies or
“peer reviews” aimed at identifying failures or shortcomings in the adoption and/or
implementation of legislation. In addition to this, adequate long-term financing of these
tasks is also very important.
5.1.3.

Joint processing of asylum applications at EU level
Legally and politically, these tasks cannot yet be deemed to be feasible.
As the way in which the CEAS in the Member States currently differs widely as regard
its national implementation, it would be impossible to envisage any joint processing
before further harmonisation and approximation of CEAS instruments, approximation of
practices, common interpretation of criteria and concepts and implementation based on
the same basis throughout the Union has been put in place.
The European Council has made it clear that the support structure will not be a decisionmaking body. Joint processing at the European level would therefore be legally
unfeasible, as it would entail at least some aspects of joint decision- making at European
level or giving some decisional power to the support structure on national requests for
international protection.
Legally speaking, as the support structure will be created under secondary law, it can
rely only on what is currently provided for in the present acquis. The modifications
planned to revise the CEAS acquis within the context of the second phase of CEAS do
not allow for decisional powers to be entrusted to a support structure at the European
level.
This option received low support from stakeholders consulted during the feasibility
study. The overall message from workshop participants was that this task is politically
unfeasible for the time being. While some actors have expressed an interest in exploring
or researching the issue of joint processing, they have been systematically discouraged
by political considerations. Member States consider the processing of applications for
international protection as an issue of national sovereignty.

EN

31

EN

Notwithstanding the contribution this option could bring to the objectives defined under
3., the Commission discards this option due to the very low feasibility given the current
legal and political difficulties.
The costs for this task do not appear in the financial tables contained in the annexes to
this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options as this task
appears unfeasible.
5.1.4.

Activities to improve the collection and quality of Country of Origin Information (COI) /
improve assessment of COI
Overall high support was given to COI tasks, both by Member States and other bodies.
COI activities were deemed by stakeholders and Member States to be of utmost
importance for the future development of an approximated acquis in the field on asylum
and a more uniform decision- making process in the different Member States.
COI tasks, and in particular the creation and management of the COI portal and related
training activities, would improve the collection and the quality of Country of Origin
Information and make this accessible to all Member States with a view to improving its
interpretation and assessment. This would therefore help improve fair and more
harmonised processing of applications for international protection throughout the Union.
The detailed costs of these tasks are evaluated in the financial tables contained in the
annexes to this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options.
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs
analysis / direct support / capacity building and training / planning, research and
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support. The costs for
activities related to COI appear under title 2 of the financial breakdown (building,
equipment and infrastructure expenditure) in view of the fact that the COI portal will be
an important IT system to be managed by the future support structure and under title 3 of
the financial breakdown (operations), under the items risks and needs analysis / capacity
building and training / planning, research and development, as well, in view of the scope
of these activities and their importance in the tasks of the future support office.
These core tasks are currently mainly carried out by a variety of existing cooperation
structures, networks or international organisations, including in particular EURASIL, the
UNHCR, the IGC and the Red Cross (Accord/ecoi.net). While it is clear that efforts to
improve the collection and quality of COI are currently being undertaken by a variety of
actors, it would be very desirable to create a more common approach and to develop
more efficient cooperation in order to avoid overlaps and provide cost effectiveness,
synergy and better quality information. Common training is needed for the collection
and production of quality COI. Member States also need better guidance and know-how
in order to assess it, since they sometimes interpret COI very differently. This, together
with national differences in who legally qualifies for international protection, may to
some extent account for the diverging recognition rates across the European Union.
Improving the collection and quality of COI should go some way toward reducing these

EN

32

EN

divergences in decision making, and to that end the development by a support structure
of common training, guidelines and access to the relevant COI (e.g. via an EU wide
COI-portal) are needed.
Entrusting these tasks to the support structure appears therefore to have a positive impact
on the practical cooperation related to CEAS and a high level of feasibility.
5.1.5.

Pool of asylum experts
It appears difficult for a support structure at the European level to establish and manage
internally a pool of asylum experts and other relevant professionals to address particular
pressures in Member States. It would be almost impossible for a structure at European
level to cover all different legislative / regulatory national contexts and languages in the
field of asylum. It must be recalled that, in the asylum field, a very high number of nonEuropean language s have to be covered. This would entail significant numbers of staff
in the support structure dedicated to these tasks, which is impractical, given the priorities
to be defined for the future Support structure as regards deliverables. This also raises
concerns over the proportionality of this measure.
Many stakeholders were in favour of this option but raised the point that a pool of
experts could not be familiar with all different legislative / regulatory / linguistic
contexts. In light of the current stage of the CEAS and of the coordination nature of the
tasks to be entrusted to the support structure, the pool of asylum experts could help
alleviate or share the burden of Member States experiencing particular pressures on their
nationa l asylum system.
Entrusting these tasks to the support structure appears therefore to entail (1) limited
positive impact on the evolution of the asylum acquis and its practical implementation
within the Member States and (2) high costs disproportionate to the goal to be attained.
For this reason, given the proportionality of measures to be taken and the scope of the
missions to be entrusted to the future support structure, the support structure will have a
coordination role (1) by gathering information from Member States over their capacities
and facilities and their availability, with a view to helping the Member States
experiencing particular pressures on their national asylum system and allowing them to
ask for help and support from another Member State when necessary and (2) by
supporting and organising the deployment of expert teams in the affected Member
States. The Member States expressed political support for this light option. These tasks
will, under the lightest and less costly way, help reduce overburdening of some Me mber
States by helping Member States to cope with mass arrivals.
The detailed costs of these tasks are evaluated in the financial tables contained in the
annexes to this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options.
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs
analysis / direct support / capacity building and training / planning, research and
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.

EN

33

EN

Current cooperation in this field is limited and not well developed. There have been
occasional initiatives by Member States, such as, the above-mentioned interpreters pool
project done under the auspices of GDISC. The objective of the project was to set up a
‘Rapid Capacity Team’ for interpreters, addressing particular pressures when needs
arise. Certain countries act as “donor” countries, sharing their interpreter capacity, and
others are “beneficiary” countries 48 . However, the scope of the pool has remained quite
limited; to date only a limited number of interpretations have been carried out. There are
also concerns about the sustainability of the project and the availability of funding. The
difficulties encountered by GDISC in creating and maintaining a sustainable pool of this
kind illustrate why initiatives of this kind are better suited to be being coordinated by a
permanent EU support structure with a stable funding base.
5.1.6.

Intra-EU relocation
This task received mixed scores from stakeholders, mainly because the notion of intraEU relocation was considered as unclear.
In view of the study to be launched by the Commission on developing relocation within
the Union, the support structure could at first have an advisory role to feed in the
assessment and definition of relocation measures or proposals. It could in the longer
term coordinate all exchanges of information related to relocation and possibly
coordinate any action linked to implementation of initiatives. This would contribute to
improving fair and more harmonised processing of applications for international
protection throughout the Union and reduce overburdening of some Member States.
The detailed costs of these tasks are evaluated in the financial tables contained in the
annexes to this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options.
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs
analysis / direct support / capacity building and training / planning, research and
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.
Entrusting these tasks to the support structure would appear likely to have a positive
impact on the evolution of the Member States’ action as regard relocation and
consequently to the objectives defined in this impact assessment report. In view of the
clearly limited role of the support structure over relocation, to be fully defined in the
context of future measures to be adopted about relocation, the option appears to be
feasible. Moreover, given that any such measures would involve relocating persons

48

EN

Twelve countries (UK, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Romania,
Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia) indicated their interest in joining this project: UK, Germany, Norway and
Netherlands volunteered to act as donor countries; Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and Slovakia were to be the beneficiaries. Norway was to act both as donor and
as beneficiary in the project.

34

EN

between Member States, entrusting a support function to an EU-wide support structure
would seem to be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
5.1.7.

Training and capacity building
There is overall high support from stakeholders for these tasks.
The stakeholders stressed that it would be important to take stock of existing approaches
at national and international level to training, curriculum development (e.g. European
Asylum Curriculum — EAC), etc, and approaches taken by NGOs. Organising general
and specific training sessions, e.g. training targeting a specific public (e.g. judges / caseworkers …) or specific issues (e.g. how to deal with EAC / treatment of vulnerable
persons or unaccompanied minors / access and use of COI portal…), will improve the
capacity, knowledge and know-how of the different actors involved in the asylum
process and therefore contribute to an improved, fair and more harmonised processing of
applications for international protection throughout the Union.
The detailed costs of these tasks are evaluated in the financ ial tables contained in the
annexes to this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options.
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs
analysis / direct support / capacity building and training / planning, research and
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.
Entrusting these important tasks to the support structure appears therefore to fully
enhance practical cooperation on CEAS and have a very positive impact on the
evolution of the asylum acquis and its practical implementation within the Member
States.
There is currently little training provided in the field of asylum .. Moreover, there is no
comprehensive EU-wide approach to training. Putting in place such EU-wide training
would provide a very important support for the needs of all Member States and for the
creation of the CEAS. The EAC project, which is currently still in the course of being
developed, is a good attempt to meet these needs. The project is well on the way, but
has yet to be implemented or even tested, and does not currently have adequate funding
to provide the sustainability of the future EAC.

5.1.8.

Activities linked to the external aspects of practical cooperation linked to the CEAS:
resettlement and RPPs
Member States and NGOs supported the idea of entrusting the task of resettlement to the
support structure. Most stakeholders stressed the need to cooperate with the UNHCR.
The support structure could provide added value by taking a coordination and advisory
role. It could facilitate and coordinate the identification and exchange of best practices
and lessons learnt.

EN

35

EN

As regards RPPs, these tasks received overall low support from the stakeholders. Many
actors preferred to await the results of the recent evaluation on RPPs to be conducted by
the Commission in 2009 and the Council’s proposals on the next steps, if any.
The Commission is however committed to improving and developing the external
aspects of CEAS. As part of it, the external aspects of practical cooperation on CEAS,
and in particular action to reinforce and improve work on resettlement and RPPs, will
improve the successful resettlement of persons in need of protection outside of the EU
and strengthen protection systems in third countries.
The detailed costs of these tasks are evaluated in the financial tables contained in the
annexes to this report as part of the cost-analysis report of the institutional options.
These costs are assessed for each institutional option assessed in this report (six options
assessed - see under 5.2 here below in this report) under different items (risks and needs
analysis / direct support / capacity building and training / planning, research and
development) per group of tasks that require that kind of financial support.
Entrusting these tasks to the support structure appears to have a positive impact on
developing the external aspects of practical cooperation on CEAS.
Stakeholders refer to problems in relation to the efficiency, costs and effectiveness of
resettlement programmes and projects due to lack of EU coordination in this area.
Attributing such a coordination role to the EU-wide support structure would resolve this
problem, as it would clearly best be organised at the Community level, and would
therefore be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
The number of EU countries engaged in resettlement remains low and the EU share of
global resettlement efforts very modest. Furthermore, the lack of EU coordination of
resettlement projects or programmes most likely causes higher costs and lower
efficiency. Each resettlement programme involves a similar set of activities, such as
interviewing refugees and assessing the grounds upon which resettlement will be
arranged and making travel arrangements from the host country. The national design
and implementation of resettlement programmes or projects results in a duplication of
efforts on the part of natio nal administrations, as well as for the UNHCR and NGOs, in
the country of resettlement and of first asylum. Better coordination of resettlement
efforts would go some way toward minimising these inefficiencies.
5.1.9.

Contribution of different tasks to the objectives
All tasks assessed here above are assessed as feasible and contribute to the three
objectives defined under (3). The task “joint processing of asylum applications at the EU
level” is discarded on account of its low legal and political feasibility.

EN

36

EN

An assessment of the impact of options for the institutional form of the future support
structure will identify which institutional body will be in the best position to fulfil most
efficiently these tasks.
5.2.

Impact of options for the institutional form of the support asylum structure
This impact assessment report contains an ex-ante financial analysis, which is obligatory
under the financial regulation. Detailed aspects of this ex-ante analysis are set out Annex
4 to this report with tables assessing the detailed costs under the following headings:
Staff costs / Building, equipment and administrative expenditure / Cost of operations.
The following paragraphs study in depth the implications of choosing an institutional
form for the support asylum structure. This structure will be entrusted with all the tasks
which have been assessed as being feasible (see under para. 5.1 here above). This report
takes the view that all tasks need to be carried out by a single support structure and that
each institutional policy option will all cover the same range of tasks . This will in
particular
(1) allow an easier assessment as regard effectiveness of the support structure to be
entrusted with a whole coherent and linked tasks.
(2) ensure coherence over a full mandate covering all aspects of practical cooperation
related to CEAS, in ways of working, inside the structure and vis-à-vis the outside
world, as this structure will be a single interlocutor for all the tasks defined in its
mandate,
(3) allow economies of scale in working, as a single body in charge of all the aspects
will be in a better position to assess priorities and put its effort on the most important
aspects of the different tasks in order to get quicker and better deliverables.
(4) and avoid duplication of work and tasks between different bodies, and possible
difficulties of coordination between different institutional bodies working in parallel
over the same subjects.

5.2.1.

Status quo
Given the express request of the European Council to “establish in 2009 a European
support office ”, this option can be discarded.

5.2.2.

Strengthening the European Commission by increasing human and financial resources
This unit would have mainly (1) a role of initiation of new practical cooperation
activities and (2) a role of coordination for these practical cooperation activities (already
on-going ones to be enhanced and future new ones). The existing practical cooperation
structures already developed by the Commission (e.g. EURASIL, EMN…) would
continue to exist and function in the same way as present and their activities would be

EN

37

EN

developed. Relationships with external bodies would be reinforced, e.g. with UNHCR,
external bodies (e.g. GDISC, ENARO …) and NGOs (e.g. ECRE, Red Cross…).
The political feasibility of the option appears low given the scores by the Member States
during the consultation organised in the context of the feasibility study.
As regards the legal feasibility of the option, there are no obstacles to reinforcing a
Commission’s unit. The decision to establish the unit would be an internal decision of
the European Commission. The decision as well as the setting-up phase could be swift.
As regards its functional and practical effectiveness, the Commission would be in a
position to steer the activities linked to practical cooperation related to CEAS. An
increase in staff in the Commission’s unit would however be fairly limited given the
current strict limitation of Commission staff. An increase in financial resources allocated
to this unit would for the same reason be limited, given the blocked financial
perspectives for the Community budget until 2013.
It would therefore most likely only be possible to create a new unit comprising about 12
members, mainly using existing financial resources. In view of the diversity and volume
of tasks to be entrusted to the support structure, the unit would quickly be overburdened
and would not be in a position to deliver efficiently. On a positive note, the unit would
have a strong Commission image, which may contribute to the active involvement of
Member State representatives in the activities at expert level.
The time needed to set up a new Commission’s unit would be very easy and quick and
would take the form of a revised organigramme to be adopted by the Commission.
As regards cost-effectiveness, the financial costs to set up a practical cooperation unit
within the Commission would range between 3 and 5.7 million euro with an estimated
set-up cost of over 0.3 million euro. In the first year, the unit is thus estimated to cost
around 3.3 euro, as it will include start- up costs, an initial round of recruitment and a
relatively limited set of tasks and activities, which can gradually be increased. See
detailed table of costs “EC Commission Unit” in Annex 4 (ex-ante financial analysis).
It is estimated that the national inputs to practical cooperation, estimated at around 6
million euro, would initially continue and gradually be halved, due to greater
efficiencies. The details are given in Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s dedicated to
transnational practical cooperation”).
In terms of staffing numbers, the unit would require between 11 – 15 FTEs. This number
of staff to be allocated to the Commission's unit is evaluated in view of the common size
of an administrative unit within the Commission’s administrative organisation. It is
considered it would not be possible to create a stronger unit or a whole service dedicated
to asylum tasks within the Commission in view of the current financial perspectives till
2013 and current restrictions over Commission's staff. Additional external resources
could be procured. The unit would also have access to a funding stream from the
European Refugee Fund .

EN

38

EN

This option, though entailing positive aspects in terms of delivery and effectiveness,
runs a high risk of failure on account of the limited staffing numbers and of the
consequent risk of the structure getting quickly overburdened in view of the number and
variety of tasks to be dealt with. It cannot therefore be deemed as a good option for
establishing the support structure.
5.2.3.

Creating a new network
Regarding the political feasibility of this option, it received mixed support by the
Member States. Overall, a higher level of political commitment would be given to a
more stable structure to further practical cooperation, rather than to a structure highly
dependent on inputs and outputs from other structures.
Regarding the legal feasibility of this option, the network would be established by a
Council Decision, probably on the legal basis of Article 66 TEC (administrative
cooperation). The feasibility might be reduced as a result of the different legal statuses
(or rather the absence of statuses) of some of the existing cooperation structures and the
extent to which these could sign up to an umbrella network and common work
programme.
Regarding its functional and practical effectiveness, an umbrella network, made up of
different existing cooperation structures, could be significantly hampered by low
participation and complex management and organisational structures. On the other hand,
the Open Method of Coordination, to be introduced as working method of the network,
would ensure a bottom- up approach building on existing successful work and focusing
on real needs and gaps. However, it must be recalled that the Open Method of
Coordination is unknown in the JLS sector. The use of the working method has been
limited to specific sectors, such as the social sector. Moreover, the OMC excludes de
facto the participation of the European Parliament in the process. This is likely to
significantly reduce the support of the European Parliament for this option.
However, the balance may tip in favo ur of participation as existing structures would
receive both financial and technical support for implementing activities. Such support
would be more continuous than current grants.
Regarding the management of the structure, an umbrella network of very different
structures involving different types of bodies could prove to be very difficult to manage
and coordinate practically and effectively. While a common work programme would
surely increase commitment and lead to some synergies, it could prove very difficult for
different existing cooperation structures to agree on a selection of activities and working
methods. Disagreement may result ni (severe) obstructions to the functioning of the
network. It would also require extensive work to identify the different roles and
responsibilities of members of the network and to make sure that they are fulfilled.
Regarding the time needed to set up the network, it is likely to entail delays. A proposal
for an establishment decision should be made by the Commission and then adopted by
the legislator. For the network to be fully operational, regarding participation, existing

EN

39

EN

cooperation structures may be resistant to the concept of being grouped into a larger
structure and find it difficult to convince their network partners to stay involved, as most
are based on voluntary participation. In addition, most existing structures will already
have defined their work programmes for the next 2-3 years. They may not wish to alter
this, or stop some activities altogether, because an umbrella network is created. Some
may also be unable to make changes as funding would already be in place for certain
activities. This would entail large delays of up to a few years before the network is
operational.
Regarding the Commission’s support for the network, the Commission would be most
likely responsible for running the network. This would place a substantial burden on the
Commission and require it to increase inputs both in terms of human and financial
resources in parallel to the creation of the network. The network would therefore require
substantial support from the Commission, to be estimated between 9-15 FTEs.
Additional external resources could be procured.
As regards cost-effectiveness, the financial costs for establishing the network would
range between 3.9 – 8 million euro with an estimated set- up cost of over 0.3 million
euro. In the first year, the network is thus estimated to cost around 3.3 euro, includ ing
start-up costs, an initial round of recruitment and a relatively limited set of tasks and
activities, which can gradually be increased. See detailed table of costs “Network” in
Annex 4 (ex-ante financial analysis).
It is estimated that the national inputs to practical cooperation estimated at around 6
million euro, would initially continue and gradually be halved, due to some efficiencies
made by the network. The details are given in Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s
dedicated to transnational practical cooperation”).
In terms of staff numbers, the network would include dedicated staff working in the
contracted coordination unit, which could range from 5-15 FTEs. Additional external
resources could be procured or obtained through grants.
This option has a low degree of feasibility and practical effectiveness, on account of the
difficulties the network would have for effective delivery (organisational structure and
working method). Moreover, it entails substantial support from the Commission. It can
therefore not be considered a good option for establishing the support structure.
5.2.4.

Creation of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) as a regulatory agency
The office would take over the activities on practical cooperation currently dealt with by
the Commission. It would absorb the existing Commission’s expert group EURASIL,
which would become a full working group of the office. As far as its mandate is
concerned, it would have a role of coordination and initiation of practical cooperation
activities in the field of asylum. It would bring technical support, e.g. being responsible
for managing and developing the COI portal or supplying necessary translations. It
would be a centre of European asylum expertise, networking and pooling good practice
and evaluating the application and implementation of CEAS rules.

EN

40

EN

Regarding the political feasibility of the option, all Community institutions are presently
in favo ur of this option. The Council, European Council and European Parliament
reiterated many times since the Hague programme and in subsequent positions that they
favour the option of a support office. The Commission indicated in the Communication
“Regulatory agencies — The way forward ” that an exception to the moratorium on
creation of new regulatory agencies would be made in order to keep open the possibility
of creating the support office for asylum, in the form of a regulatory agency. It appears
therefore that the creation of the Office is called for by all institutions. Upon a proposal
of the Commission, the political commitment of the Member States and European
Parliament (budgetary authority) can therefore be considered as high.
Regarding the legal feasibility of the option, the Support Office would be established by
a Regulation, which would make it an independent body in the institutional form of a
regulatory agency.
The functional and practical effectiveness of the office would be high, following these
lines:
• The structure of the agency would reflect a participatory approach, as it would be
managed by its Management Board, with the Member States and the Commission as
members.
• Other stakeholders would be involved in the office through participation in working
groups and consultative fora.
• The work programme and budget of the support office would be decided by the
Management Board.
• The office would be submitted to horizontal rules applicable to regulatory agencies
on evaluation and controls 49 .
• As far as evaluation is concerned, once the agency has been set up, both it and the
Commission will carry out regular evaluations of its activities and operations. On this
basis, the Commission may propose revising or, where appropriate, repealing the
basic act50.
• As far as controls are concerned, budgetary control, internal audits, annual reports by
the Court of Auditors, the annual discharge for the execution of the Community
budget and the investigations conducted by OLAF will make it possible to ensure, in
particular, that the resources allocated to the agencies are put to proper use.
Administrative control will ensure that a number of procedural safeguards are put in

49
See draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies,
com(2005)59.
50
See draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating fra mework for the European regulatory agencies,
com(2005)59.

EN

41

EN

place so that account is taken of the interests of interested parties and the quality of
output 51 .
With regard to the organisational structure of the Support O ffice, it would be preferable
to create a reduced management board to ensure efficient management, or, if this is
impractical, to set up an executive board in charge of the day-to-day management of the
office, since a large management board could slow down decision-making and reduce
the effectiveness of the Office.
Regarding the time needed to set up the support office, it is estimated that it could be
operational within one year of adopting the establishing act. Moreover, in view of the
fact that the Commission would fully support the new agency during the setting- up
phase (see under “support of the Commission to the future structure”), it seems possible
to reach this objective. Some precedents may be quoted, such as the European Chemical
Agency (ECHA - Helsinki), that, with full support from the Commission became
quickly operational.
Regarding cost-effectiveness, the financial costs to set up the support office would range
between 10.3 – 17.6 million euro with an estimated set-up cost of over 0.6 million euro.
This is an estimated cost in view of the number of varied tasks to be entrusted to the
Support Office and in view of the fact that the Support Office would from scratch take
over important tasks linked to practical cooperation initiatives already underway (e.g.
transfer of EURASIL to the support office, COI portal ). With this budget, the support
office is expected to greatly improve and expand practical cooperation linked to CEAS,
thus reducing current duplication, addressing gaps and expanding the overall scope of
cooperation in this area.
In the first year, the support office is estimated to cost around 6 million euro, (estimated
start-up costs), an initial round of recruitment and a relatively limited set of tasks and
activities, focused on the main priority tasks, which can gradually be increased. It is also
possible that in the first year of its implementation, the office may cost less than the
minimum running costs, as some time would be required for recruitment, development
of operational procedures and selection of activities. However, as there are already a
wide range of projects which could rapidly and either be taken over by the office and /or
developed and implemented in the short term, the office would quickly require a higher
level of resources. See detailed table of costs “EASO” in Annex 4 (ex -ante financial
analysis).
It is estimated that the national inputs to practical cooperation estimated at around 6
million euro would initially continue and gradually be reduced to a quarter, due to the
fact that the support office will take over many tasks as regards practical cooperation.
The final level of national support will be very low, as the support office would
effectively take over or finance most activit ies in the area of practical cooperation linked

51
See draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies,
com(2005)59.

EN

42

EN

to CEAS and introduce greater efficiencies. The details of these national inputs are given
in Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s dedicated to transnational practical
cooperation”).
Regarding the Commission’s support for setting up a support office, in terms of staffing,
it would require the support of the Commission of between 5 – 8 FTEs. This number
would cover all Commission staff within the Commission dealing with the agency,
including horizontal services dealing with horizontal tasks linked to agencies (such as
Directorate general responsible for Budget / Legal Service / Internal Audit Service /
Administration / Secretariat General) as well as sectoral services (Directorate general
justice/liberty and security, JLS staff dedicated to asylum policy). It should be noted that
the support office, when created, will be a new regulatory agency and will face the
difficulties inherent to setting-up any new institutional body from scratch. The
Commission must therefore be closely involved in setting up the support office, the
rapid creation of which is expressly asked for by the European Council with a view to
quick delivery and operational results. .
The support office would therefore require between 60-94 FTEs, in view of the number
of different and varied tasks to be entrusted to it (see paragraphs 4.1 and 5.1). This
number appears to be reasonable in view of the current level of staff involved in
different tasks in different existing bodies dealing with practical cooperation related to
CEAS. This number also involves economies of scale in view of the present duplications
between tasks in those different bodies / structures and therefore staff dealing with
parallel tasks and missions. Additional external resources could be procured or obtained
through grants.
The support office appears well placed as regards political and legal feasibility. Effective
delivery of results can be expected. As regards cost-effectiveness, the costs of creating a
new agency may appear medium to high but given the number of tasks to be covered by
the support office and improvement in the practical cooperation linked to asylum, the
costs appear reasonable. Moreover, in view of the important cuts in national resources
for practical cooperation to be made as a result of the activity of the support office, this
option appears as a good one for the future support structure.
5.2.5.

Incorporation of the support asylum structure into an existing regulatory agency
For reasons of economies of scale, the activities to be entrusted to the support asylum
structure could be merged into an existing regulatory agency. There are three suboptions (see description under 4.2.5):
• merge into FRA;
• merge into FRONTEX ;
• merge into the future JLS IT Agency

EN

43

EN

5.2.5.1. FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency)
Regarding the political feasibility of this option, the Council and European Council
called for the creation of a specific dedicated support office, and not the incorporation of
the future support asylum structure into an existing structure. This would also be in
contradiction with the objective pursued by the establishment of the Fundamental Rights
Agency, which deals with all fundamental rights issues and in contrast to the EUMC
which was dedicated only to racism and xenophobia. It must also be emphasized that no
stakehold er, Member States or non-governmental organisations consulted during the
consultation process organised with a view to preparing this impact assessment report
proposed such an option. For these reasons, the political feasibility of this option appears
low, even if asylum is a fundamental right.
Regarding the legal feasibility of the option, the legal basis for FRA is Article 308 TEC.
However, the Treaty already contains a specific legal basis for asylum policy (Article 63
TEC) and practical cooperation (Ar ticle 66 TEC), which could be considered as
necessary for entrusting to the Agency specific tasks as regards asylum.
The functional and practical effectiveness of the merger would be medium. There are
some pros and cons to this option, as follows:
• Some of the existing horizontal departments, such as administration, finance and
procurement could be shared, producing economies of scale, although the creation of
a dedicated asylum department within the agency may still entail reinforc ing these
horizontal services within the agency. In any case, the creation of an additional
department would imply a new significant change in terms of staff and organisational
structure of the agency, which has only very recently been modified. FRA
commenced operations only in March 2007.
• FRA is a relatively small agency with a staff of about 50 people. Should a dedicated
asylum structure be merged into FRA, the nature and content of the core tasks of
FRA would be substantially altered and possibly create an imbalance within the
newly established agency towards asylum tasks. This could potentially be politically
counterproductive as the FRA was been (recently ) created with the specific aim of
promoting the full range of fundamental rights, with certain priority areas referred to
in the basic Regulation.
• It would therefore be difficult to envisage merging a new dedicated asylum structure
of some 60-94 people (see above under para. 5.2.4) into the FRA without full-scale
changes to its operation and mission dedicated to data collection and related
awareness-raising about fundamental rights. For this reason, the asylum department
may be staffed by no more than 20-30 people, without risking upsetting the balance
within the agency and involve resistance within the Agency as regards the c reation of
this new department and new part of the mandate. Such a limited number of staff
dedicated to asylum tasks may however be a barrier to the full effectiveness and
positive impact of the support asylum structure merged into the FRA.

EN

44

EN

• The FRA is fully dedicated to data collection and related awareness-raising tasks
and, as such, was not meant to develop experience in dealing with practical
cooperation on asylum and related operational tasks. However, since its mandate
focuses on Fundamental Rights, and the right to asylum is a fundamental right, the
asylum tasks would be in line with the mandate. Politically, the stakeholders, in
particular external stakeholders (IGOs and NGOs), may consider it to be a positive
trend.
• FRA does not have operational tasks and, if it were to host an asylum department, it
would need to acquire know- how and expertise on practical cooperation and
operational tasks in the field of asylum policy. This could entail delays in setting up
the dedicated department and disrupt the current work of the FRA.
• Should the FRA be placed in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to a specific support
asylum structure, the Management and Executive Boards may need to be
reconfigured, as it currently does not include representatives of asylum national
services. This would open another transitional phase for the Agency, which has just
finished its institutional transformation process from EUMC to the Fundamental
Rights Agency.
Regarding the time needed to implement this option, an estimation is at least 3/4 years,
given the need to amend the establishing act of the FRA and the time needed after
adopting this amendment to implement the new mandate (hire new staff / provide for the
new organisation within the agency / adapt to new work).
Regarding cost-effectiveness, the financial costs for merging the support structure into
the FRA would range from 6.6 – 12.1 million euro with an estimated set- up cost of over
0.6 million euro. See detailed table of costs “FRA” in Annex 4 (ex-ante financial
analysis).
It is estimated that national inputs to practical cooperation, estimated at around 6 million
euro, would initially continue and gradually be reduced to a quarter, due to greater
efficiencies in the work of the FRA. The final contributions will be low, as the FRA
would effectively take over or finance most activities in the area of practical cooperation
and introduce greater efficiencies. The details of these national inputs are given in
Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE ’s dedicated to transnational practical cooperation”).
Regarding the Commission’s support for this option, in terms of staffing, it requires
substantial involvement of the Commission in supporting the FRA’s development, in
order to avoid any delay in achieving the asylum tasks. Merging asylum tasks into the
FRA would therefore require the Commission to dedicate between 5 – 8 FTEs.
Commission staff includes specialised staff dedicated to asylum tasks and horizontal
tasks linked to agencies within the Commission, particular ly regarding budge tary,
staffing and audit issues. This evaluation of the staff needed for supporting the merge of
the support structure is comparable to the one needed for creation of the support
structure under the form of a regulatory agency.

EN

45

EN

The asylum department of the FRA would require between 29-46 FTEs. This would
create within FRA a substantial new department working exclusively on new tasks, with
the risk of unbalancing the agency.
This option may have a certain level of feasibility in political terms. However, the
creation of an asylum department in the FRA entails the risk of institutional and legal
complications and would require a new adaptation phase for FRA. The option is
therefore a medium one for establishing the support structure, as it can result in making
it difficult for the agency to deliver what it has been expected to deliver at the time it
was created and on the basis of its current mandate and tasks.
5.2.5.2. FRONTEX (European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation
at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union)
Regarding the political feasibility of the option, the Council and European Council
called for the creation of a dedicated support office. For this reason, the political
feasibility of this option is medium low. Moreover, the main focus of FRONTEX is to
control legal immigration and to prevent illegal immigration and FRONTEX is not
familiar with fundamental rights issues in general, and in particular with the right to
asylum and the protection of personal data. For t hat reason, the risk exists that entrusting
FRONTEX with the tasks to be given to the support structure would not ensure that the
objective is properly reached and it would therefore be politically problematic to merge
an asylum department into FRONTEX. Finally, it must also be emphasized that no
stakeholder, Member States or non-governmental organisations consulted during the
consultation process organised with a view to preparing this impact assessment report
proposed such an option. For that reason, the political feasibility of the option appears
low.
Regarding the legal feasibility of the option, the legal basis of FRONTEX already covers
administrative cooperation (Article 66 TEC) but not asylum policy (Article 63 TEC). In
view of the fact that the Treaty contains a specific legal basis for asylum policy, if the
current legal basis were left unchanged, it could be legally disputed before the Court of
Justice. Should the current legal basis of FRONTEX remain unchanged, the agency
would not, legally speaking, be underpinned by the asylum acquis, should Article 63
TEC be considered necessary to entrust it with all activities related to practical
cooperation on CEAS.
The functional and practical effectiveness of the merger would be medium. There are
some pros and cons as follows:
• Some of the existing horizontal departments, such as administration, finance and
procurement could be shared, producing economies of scale. However, the creation of
a dedicated asylum department within the agency would entail reinforcing these
horizontal services within the agency. This would also imply a further change to the
staff and organisational structure of the agency, which is a relatively new and just
past the setting up phase.

EN

46

EN

• FRONTEX is a relatively small agency with a staff of about 70 people. Should a
dedicated asylum structure be merged into FRONTEX, the content of the work of
FRONTEX would radically change and possibly create an imbalance within the
agency towards asylum tasks. This may be politically counterproductive as
FRONTEX was created with the specific purpose of managing measures relating to
the management of external borders.
• It would be difficult to envisage merging a new dedicated asylum structure of some
60-94 people (see above under para. 5.2.4) into FRONTEX without a full-scale
change to its functioning and mission. For this reason, the asylum department should
be limited to a staff of 20-30 people, to avoid FRONTEX becoming an asylum
agency and losing its focus on the management of external borders. Such limited
staffing levels dedicated to asylum tasks might be a barrier to full effectiveness and
positive impact of the support asylum structure merged with FRONTEX.
• FRONTEX is fully dedicated to operational tasks linked to the management of
external borders. It does not have experience in dealing with practical cooperation in
the field of asylum. Even if FRONTEX were in a position to identify and assess
clearly and effectively the needs for protecting asylum seekers at the borders, in the
context of mixed flows, it does not follow that it would be in a position to improve
exchange of good practices (one of the objectives defined under 3) or achieve fair and
more harmonised processing of applications for international protection throughout
the Union.
• From a political point of view, the stakeholders, external stakeholders (IGOs and
NGOs), but also some Member States and the European Parliament may consider that
entrusting tasks in the asylum field to FRONTEX, an agency that mainly deals with
controlling legal immigration and preventing illegal immigration, is inappropriate and
potentially counterproductive. The political feasibility of this option appears therefore
low.
• If FRONTEX were to host an asylum department, it should acquire know-how and
expertise in this field, as they do not have any for the time being. This could entail
delays in setting up the dedicated department within FRONTEX and disrupt the
current work of FRONTEX.
• Should FRONTEX be placed in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to the support
asylum structure, the Management Board would have to be fully reconfigured, as it
currently include representatives of the national immigration services and does not
include representatives of asylum national services. Difficulties within the
Management Board have to be foreseen as it may be problematic to take into account
the different, if not diverging interests (illegal immigration / asylum) which would be
represented within the Agency.
• The Director of the agency is nominated by the Management Board. Should the
structure, members and functioning of the Management Board change in line with the

EN

47

EN

new asylum part of the agency, the nomination of the present director could be called
into question. The nomination of a new Director suitable for overseeing both inte rests
to be represented in the agency could be envisaged but may be problematic as it
should take into account the different, if not diverging interests (illegal immigration /
asylum) represented within the Agency. This may imply a difficult transitional period
for the agency.
• Regarding the time needed to implement this option, an estimation is 3/4 years, given
the need to amend the establishing act of FRONTEX and the time needed after
adoption of this amendment to implement the new mandate (hire new staff, provide
for new organisation within the agency, adapt to new tasks).
Regarding cost-effectiveness, the financial costs for merging the support structure into
FRONTEX would range from 6.6 – 11.9 million euro with an estimated set- up cost of
over 0.6 million euro. See detailed table of costs “FRONTEX” in Annex 4 (ex-ante
financial analysis).
It is estimated that national inputs to practical cooperation, estimated at around 6 million
euro, would initially continue and gradually be reduced to a quarter, due to efficiencies
in the work of FRONTEX. The final level of contributions will be low as FRONTEX
would effectively take over or finance most activities in the area of practical cooperation
and introduce greater efficiencies. The details of these national inputs are given in
Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE ’s dedicated to transnational practical cooperation”).
Regarding the Commission’s support for this option, in terms of staffing numbers,
FRONTEX would require between 5 – 8 FTEs of Commission staff. The Commission
would have to be closely involved in supporting FRONTEX’s development in order to
avoid any delay in fulfilling the asylum tasks. Commission staff includes specialised
staff dedicated to asylum tasks and horizontal tasks for agencies within the Commission,
in particular budgetary, staffing and audit issues. This evaluation of the staff needed for
supporting the merger of the support structure is comparable to the one needed for
creation of the support structure under the form of a regulatory agency.
The asylum department of FRONTEX would require between 29-46 FTEs. This would
create a new department working exclusively on new tasks with the risk of unbalancing
the agency.
The option of merging the support asylum structure into FRONTEX scores low on
political and legal feasibility, on account of the mandate of FRONTEX which focuses on
controlling legal immigration and preventing illegal immigration. Moreover, creating an
asylum department in FRONTEX entails the risk of ineffectiveness given the lack of
experience of FRONTEX in operational asylum tasks. The option therefore scores low
for establishing the support structure.

EN

48

EN

5.2.5.3. JLS IT Agency (Agency for the operational management of SIS II, VIS,
EURODAC and other large-scale IT systems).
Regarding the political feasibility of this option, the Council and European Council
called for the creation of a specific support office. It must also be emphasized that no
stakeholder, Member States or non-governmental organisations consulted during the
consultation process organised with a view to preparing this impact assessment report
proposed such an option. For that reason, the political feasibility of the option appears
very low.
Regarding the legal feasibility of the option, the legal basis of the IT Agency, as
currently provided for in the Commission’s proposal, covers part of the asylum acquis
(Article 63(1)(a) and 63(3)(b)) and administrative cooperation under Article 66TEC).
However, the asylum acquis is only partly covered. In view of the tasks to be entrusted
to the support asylum structure, the current legal basis enshrined in the asylum field
appears insufficient to cover the se tasks. Should the present legal basis of the IT Agency
remain unchanged, the agency could, legally speaking, be disputed before the Court of
Justice, should Article 63 TEC be considered necessary to entrust it with all activities
related to practical cooperation on CEAS.
The IT-Agency, in view of its mandate, will not be familiar with fundamental rights
issues in general and in particular with the right to asylum and the protection of personal
data. For that reason, the risk exists that entrusting this agency with the tasks to be given
to the support structure would not ensure that the objective is properly reached and it
would therefore be politically problematic to merge an asylum department into it.The
functional and practical effectiveness of the merge r would be medium. There are some
pros and cons, as follows:
• Some of the existing horizontal departments, such as administration, finance and
procurement could be shared, creating economies of scale. However, the creation of a
substantial, dedicated asylum department within the agency would entail reinforcing
the agency’s horizontal services.
• The IT Agency has an estimated staff of 120 people. Should a dedicated asylum
structure be merged into it, the content of the work of the agency could change and
possibly create an imbalance within the agency towards asylum tasks. This would be
politically counterproductive as the IT Agency will be created with the specific
purpose of managing large-scale IT systems such as SIS II and VIS, not only
EURODAC .
• It would be difficult to envisage a new dedicated asylum structure of some 60-94
people (see above under para. 5.2.4) to be merged into the IT Agency without a
wholesale change to its functioning and mission. For this reason, the asylum
department should be limited to a staff of 20-30 people, to avoid the IT Agency
becoming an asylum agency and losing its focus on the operational management of
large IT systems.

EN

49

EN

• The IT Agency will be fully dedicated to the operational management of large scale
IT systems. It will have no experience in dealing with practical cooperation in the
field of asylum. The IT Agency will also be in charge of the operational management
of the EURODAC database. However, this technical support to the EURODADC
system will not result in any positive impact on practical cooperation, approximation
and improving the exchange of good practices (one of the objectives defined under 3)
as it will be limited to managing the IT system.
• The IT agency will have to be created from scratch. The large-scale IT systems might
have to be moved to a new location (Strasbourg — France). This may entail delays
during the setting- up phase. It could be difficult for the new agency to begin activities
in two very different fields of work at the same time, which may prevent the agency
from becoming fully operational on both aspects of its mandate.
• Politically, stakeholders could deem entrusting tasks in the asylum field to an agency
dealing mostly with IT-systems in the field of border controls to be highly
inappropriate.
• Should the IT Agency be in charge of the tasks to be entrusted to the support asylum
structure, the Management Board would have to be reconfigured as it currently does
not include representatives of asylum national services.
• The Director of the agency is nominated by the Management Board. Should the
structure, members and functioning of the Management Board change in line with the
new asylum department, the nomination of the director will have to take into account
different, if not diverging interests (IT / Asylum) represented within the Agency.
Regarding cost-effectiveness, the financial costs for merging the support structure into
the future IT Agency would range from 6.6 – 12.3 million euro with an estimated set- up
cost of over 0.6 million euro. See detailed table of costs “IT Agency” in Annex 4 (exante financial analysis).
It is estimated that national inputs to practical cooperation, estimated at around 6 million
euro, would initially continue and gradually be halved, due to potential efficiencies. The
details of national inputs are given in Annex 5 (Table 5.6 “estimated FTE’s dedicated to
transnational practical cooperation”).
Regarding the time needed to implement this option, setting up a new Agency dedicated
to the operational management of large scale IT systems is a long process. It is expected
that the IT Agency should be legally established in 2011 and should become fully
operational in 2012. Further delays are, however, possible, given the length of decisionmaking process before the legislator
Regarding the Commission’s support for the option, in terms of staffing numbers, the
future IT Agency would require at least 7 – 12 FTEs (see impact assessment of the IT
Agency assessing the need for Commission support staff, 5-10 just to support the
creation of the IT Agency). The Commission would have to be closely involved in

EN

50

EN

supporting the IT Agency development to take on asylum work, in order to avoid any
delay in fulfilling asylum tasks. The Commission staff includes specialised staff
dedicated to asylum tasks and the horizontal tasks for Commission agencies, particularly
budgetary, staffing and audit issues. This evaluation of the staff needed for supporting
the merger of the support structure is comparable to the one needed for creation of the
support structure under the form of a regulatory agency.
The asylum department of the IT Agency would require between 29-46 FTEs, since it
would be difficult to envisage merging a new dedicated asylum structure of some 60-94
people (see above under para. 5.2.4) into the It-Agency without full-scale changes to its
operation and mission. This would create a substantial new department within the IT
Agency dedicated solely to new tasks, with the risk of unbalancing the agency. Such a
limited number of staff dedicated to asylum tasks may however finally be a barrier to the
full effectiveness and positive impact of the support asylum structure merged into the ItAgency.
This option of merging the support structure into the future IT Agency scores low on
political and legal feasibility terms, on account of the mandate of the IT Agency
dedicated to operational management of large scale IT systems. Moreover, creating an
asylum department in the future IT Agency entails the risk of ineffectiveness given the
fact that the staff of the IT Agency will be composed to a large extent of IT specialists
with no experience in asylum policies. Above all, the settin g up of a new Agency
dedicated to the operational management of large scale IT systems is a long process. It is
expected that the IT Agency is legally established in 2011 and should become fully
operational in 2012. This timeframe is not in line with the express request made by the
European Council to establish in 2009 a European support structure in the field of
asylum. The option therefore scores low for establishing the support structure.
5.2.6.

Creation of a Common EU Support Authority (decision -making body)
This option can be discarded as the Asylum Plan impact assessment report assessed this
option as politically and legally unfeasible.

5.3.

Respect of fundamental rights
The provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human
Rights, the evolving case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are a constant reference point for Community action
on asylum policy. Moreover, to the extent that the activities of the support asylum
support structure may involve the processing of the personal data of asylum seekers, it
will be necessary that these activities comply with Directive 95/46, which lays down the
legal framework to ensure the fundamental right to the protection of personal data for
any individual whose personal data is processed in the EU. The same goes for
Regulation (EC) 45/2001, which concerns the processing of personal data carried out by
the Community institutions and bodies.

EN

51

EN

Asylum seekers and persons benefiting from international protection are not EU citizens,
which does not however preclude them from being covered by the EU Charter on
Fundamental Rights, which contains the right to asylum and the protection of personal
data.
The support asylum structure will be in charge of ensuring better practical cooperation
on the CEAS instruments. The asylum regime may therefore be applied in a more
harmonised way throughout the Union, and reduce the current disparities in the
recognition rates for certain nationalities or groups of persons requesting international
protection. The current disparities between Member States create differences of
treatment between asylum seekers and may potentially lead in certain cases to violations
of fundamental rights such as the right to asylum (Article 18 of Charter), equality before
the law (Article 20 of the Charter) and non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter).
The support asylum structure, to be created by the legislator with the purpose of
improving practical cooperation related to the CEAS, will be able to contribute to
allowing any persecuted foreigner to obtain aid and protection on the territory of the
European Union in application of the Geneva Convention. Improving quality is in the
interest of the Member States and asylum seekers to impleme nt fundamental rights
within the Union. It is expected to have a positive impact as a result of exchanging best
practices, collecting asylum data to be used by the various stakeholders and collecting
and assessing COI, as these will all contribute to a more harmonised approach. All this
will also be achieved by ensuring close contact and full cooperation between the future
support asylum office and the Fundamental Rights Agency.
6.

PREFERRED POLICY OPTION
This impact assessment report carried out an individ ual analysis for each institutional
option for the future support asylum structure (see above, paragraphs 4 and 5) assessing
the available options. The major findings for the eight options are compared in the table
below. It must be noted that the criteria “Achievement of objectives”, “Political
feasibility” and “Implications for EU budget” were considered as key for the final
assessment of the options.

EN

52

EN

ASSESSMENT

Achievement
of objectives
(functional and
practical
effectiveness)

Time needed for
implementation

High (+++)
to
Low (- - -)

Short (+++)
To
Long (- - -)

OPTIONS

Option 1
Status Quo
Option 2
COM’s
Unit
Option 3
Network
Option 4
EASO
Option 5
FRA

Support needed
from the
Commission to
the future
(external)
structure

Legal feasibility

Political
feasibility

High (-- -)
to
Low (+++)

High (+++)
to
Low(- - -)

High (+++)
to
Low (- - -)

0

0

0

0

+

++

Nonapplicable

+++

--

--

-

--

++

+

Implication for EU budget
(see detailed figures in financial annexes to this impact
assessment report – Ex-ante financial analysis)

Positive
(+ to +++)
Negative
(- to - - - )
Estimated startup 2010

Minimum ongoing costs 2011

Maximum
ongoing costs
2011 onwards

0

0

0

320.000

2.959.017

5.732.809

0

-

+

-

---

+++

+

Option 7
IT Agency
Option 8
Authority

EN

- -+++

--+

----

+

---

3.970.395

8.067.187

10.318.738

17.612 984

600.000

6.654.449

12.104.600

600.000

6.654.449

11.940.342

600.000

6.818.706

12.331.105

Nonavailable

Nonavailable

Nonavailable

-

+++

6.145.016

++(+)

+

-

Option 6
FRONTEX

0
+

345.000

+++

Overall
Assessment

-

--

--

---

- - --

53

---

EN

On the basis of the above, from an institutional point of view, the creation of a
regulatory agency as the institutional feature for the future European Asylum Support
Office appears to be the preferred policy option.
The European Asylum Support Office appears the best option to enhanc ing practical
cooperation on CEAS as regards the full set of tasks to be entrusted to the support
structure. Though it is the most expansive solution in financial terms, the creation of the
support office under the form of a regulatory agency appears to be the preferred option,
as it will be the best efficient as regards the achievement of objectives, and as it appears
to have higher legal and political feasibility than the other institutional options. In
particular, the office will have full support from the European Parliament and Member
States for a quick adoption of the founding regulation. It will also have full support from
the Commission's services for helping in a quick set- up of the office after adoption of
the founding regulation by the legislator. It will be an European independent centre for
expertise in asylum at European level and will help Member States become familiar with
the systems and practices of others, to develop closer working relations between asylum
services at operational level, build trust and confidence in each others’ systems and
achieve greater consistency in practice.
Costs of preferred option
A detailed analysis of the costs of the preferred policy option is provided in Annex 4.
7.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The establishing act of the European Asylum Support Office will provide for all control
mechanisms of a regulatory agency.
- The establishing act of the Office will contain a clause to evaluate the Office. The
agency will be submitted to an evaluation every 5 years. Following this evaluation, a
review of the establishing act may be proposed by the Commission.
- The Office will produce an annual report, detailing the work carried out during the
reference period.
- The Office will produce an annual asylum report, which will cover the following
aspects, used as indicators for the activities of the Office (to be laid out in detail by the
legislator in the establishing act).

EN

54

EN

ANNEX 1:
OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED DURING THE
FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 1.1 Overview of stakeholders consulted in the course of the assignment
Name of organisation /
Institute

Contact person at
org/instit.
Jean
Louis
Brouwer

European Commission, DG
JLS

European Commission,
Secretariat General

European Parliament

de
Director Directorate B

Angela Martini

Head of asylum team
B2

Lauri Holmen

Policy officer asylum
Yes
B2

Gert Jan van Holk

Policy officer asylum
B2
Yes

Stephen Davies

Policy officer asylum
Yes
B2

Muriel Guin

Head of unit B4

Doede Ackers

Policy officer B4

Patrick Lefevre

Ass.
Programme
Manager B4

Hendrik Silberstein

Ass.
Programme
Manager B4

Françoise Comte

Legal
officer,
Agencies, SG-E1
Yes

Hubert Pirker

MEP for EPP

Yes

Ms. Jean Lambert

MEP for Greens

Yes

Claude Moraes

MEP

Difficulties
to
arrange interview

MEP for PSE

Difficulties
to
arrange interview

Martine Roure

EN

Interview
conducted

Position / role

55

Yes

Yes

EN

Baroness
Ludford
European Parliament

Sarah

Mr. Giusto Catania
Jeanine
Plasschaert

Difficulties
to
arrange interview

MEP for GUE

Difficulties
to
arrange interview
Yes

HennisMEP for ALDE -

Madeline Garlick

Senior
European
Affairs Officer
Yes

Blanche Tax

European
Officer

Chris Nash

Legal officer

Yes

CCME (Churches'
Commission for Migrants in
Europe)

Dorish Peschke

General secretary

Yes

Jesuit Refugee Service Europe

Jan Stuyt

Regional Director

Yes

Caritas

Peter Verhaeghe

Migration Officer

Yes

International Federation of
Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies

Andrea Jacober

Coordinator
Red Cross

Yes

UNHCR

ECRE

EN

MEP

Affairs
Yes

Austrian

IGC
(Inter-Governmental
Consultations on Asylum,
Refugee
and
Migration
Policies)
Mike Bisi

Deputy Coordinator

Yes

GDISC (General Directors of
27 European Immigration
Services)

Chair

Yes

Peter Veld

56

EN

EMN

Stephen Davies

Policy officer asylum
B2
Yes

Didier Mouton

Representative
OFPRA, France
Eurasil

John Ryan

Judge, representative
of Ireland to Eurasil

Wolfgang Bartsch

Judge, representative
of Germany to Eurasil Yes

Mark Ockelton

Judge, representative
Yes
of the UK to Eurasil

Petr Hlavacek

Representative
of
Department
for
Asylum and Migration
Policy, Czech Republic Yes

Ziga Tomc

Representative
of
Asylum
section,
Ministry of Interior,
Slovenia
Yes

Pawel Domanski

Representative
of
Office for Repatriation
and Aliens, Poland to
Yes
Eurasil

Peter Veld

General Director

H.P. Schreinemachers

Deputy
Director,
Yes
Policy division

Alexander Sorel

Senior
Advisor,
Directorate
for
European
and
International Affairs
Yes

Trees Wijn-Maatman

Head
of
department

Eurasil

of
to
Yes

The Netherlands
Immigratie
Naturalisatiedienst (IND)
Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Justice

Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland

EN

en

57

Yes

policy
Yes

EN

Stefan Kok

Senior policy officer

Yes

Commissariaat
voor
Vluchtelingen en Staatlozen
Dirk Van den Bulck

Commissaris-Generaal

Yes

Federaal Agentschap voor de
Opvang
van
Asielzoekers
(Fedasil)
Joan Ramakers

Adjunct-directeur
operationele diensten

Yes

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen

Director

Yes

Belgium

Pieter Degryse
Kathelijne Houben
Stefan Henau

Italy

Ministry of Interior

Renato Franceschelli

Prefect, Head of the
Department for Civil
Liberties
and
Immigration
Yes

Alessandra
Camporotta
Dipartimento
dell' ANCI
UNHCR
Lampedusa)

Immigrazione
(project

CIR

Luca Pacini

Head of Department

Paolo Artini

Regional Head
Protection

Christopher Hein

Director

Lin Homer

Director and
Executive

Neal Barcoe

Assistant
Director,
Asylum Policy, Border
and
Immigration
Agency
Yes

Mark Ockelton

Judge, representative
Yes
of the UK to Eurasil

Helen Muggeridge

International
Protection

in

Yes
of
Yes
Yes

United Kingdom

Home Office, Border and
Immigration Agency

British Refugee Council

EN

58

Chief
Yes

Policy Yes

EN

Advisor

Germany
BAMF (Federal Office for
Migration
and
Refugees,
Federal Ministry of the Interior) Albert Schmid

President of BAMF

Awaiting
response

DG Migration, integration,
refugees
and
European
harmonisation, Federal Ministry
of Interior
Gerold Lehnguth

Head of DG

Yes

Wolfgang Bartsch
Amnesty Deutschland

written

Judge, Representative
of Germany to Eurasil Yes

Julia Duchrow

Yes

Ulrik Åshuvud

Yes

Sweden
Swedish Migration Board

Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Department for Migration and
Asylum Policy.
Ola Henrikson

Director-General

Yes

Caritas Sverige (works with
refugee and social questions in
Sweden)
France
Benoit Meslin

Secretary General of
Yes
OFPRA

Didier Mouton

Service of European
Affairs
and
International
cooperation, Division
of
Judicial
and
International affairs
Yes

OFPRA

Ministry
of
Immigration,
integration, national identity and
co-development
Jean-Pierre Guardiola

EN

59

Chef du service de
l’asile, Ministère de
l’immigration,
de
l’intégration,
de
l’identité nationale et Yes

EN

du codéveloppement

Didier Mouton

Representative
OFPRA, France
Eurasil

of
to

Terre d'asile

Pierre Henry

Director-General

Yes

Forum Refugies

France Charlet

Project manager

Yes

Mathieu And re

Unit
Europe
and
International,
promotion of asylum
issues
Yes

Yes

Spain
Ministry of Labour, Department
for migrant’s integration, Social Roberto
Inigo
Intervention Unit

Amurrio
Deputy Director

Ministry of Interior, Office of
Asylum and Refuge (OAR)
Julian Prieto Hergueto
Imaculada
Torregrosa
CEAR

Yes

Deputy
DirectorGeneral for asylum
Yes

Vidal
Documentation officer

Luisa Diaz

Yes
Yes

Poland

Office for Repatriation and
Aliens
Caritas Poland

of

Marek Szonert

Director
international
cooperation
Representative
Eurasil

to

Pawel Domanski
Iwona Grudziaz

COI Unit

Katarzyna Sekula

Yes
Yes
Yes

Slovenia
Ministry of Interior

EN

Nina Gregori

60

Administrative Internal
Yes
Affairs Directorate

EN

Representative
of
Asylum
section,
Ministry of Interior,
Slovenia
Yes

Ministry of Interior, Eurasil
representative
Ziga Tomc

Table 1.2 Overview of participants to the second brainstorming workshop (11
June 2008)

EN

Country

Department / Organisation / Mr
Position
Ms

/ First name

Last name

CZ

Unit for Policy and Analysis, Ms
Department for Asylum and
Migration Policy
Ministry of the Interior of the
Czech Republic

Jaroslava

Posvarova

CY

Permanent Representation of Ms
Cyprus to the EU, Attache
JHA

Mary

Epiphaniou

DE

Federal Ministry of Interior

Christoph

Ehrentraut

FI

Ministry of Interior, Migration Ms
Department

Jutta

Gras

FI

Legal service and country Ms
information unit, Finnish
immigration service, Director

Jaana

Vuorio

FR

Ministry of immigration, Ms
integration, national identity
and development partnership,
Deputy head of the asylum
department

Odile

Cluzel

FR

OPFRA, Head of Service

Mr

Didier

Mouton

NL

GDISC

Mr

Bert

van Hoorn

NL

GDISC

Mr

Joel

Schoneveld

Mr

61

EN

Table 1.2 Overview of participants to the second brainstorming workshop (11
June 2008)

EN

MT

Policy
Development Ms
Directorate
Ministry for Jus tice and Home
Affairs

Alison

Gatt

MT

Ministry for Justice and Home Ms
Affairs

Rachelle

Cortis

SL

Permanent Representation of Ms
Cyprus to the EU, Asylum and
Migration Assistant

Natasa

Globocnik

UK

UK Home Office

Mr

Neal

Barcoe

NA

UNHCR,
Representative

Regio nal Ms

Judith

Kumin

NA

UNHCR, EU Policy Officer

Ms

Blanche

Tax

NA

ECRE, Head of Advocacy &
Development Unit

Ms

Patricia

Coelho

NA

ECRE, Advocacy Officer

Ms

Anne

Peeters

NA

European Commission, DG Mr
Justice, Freedom and Security

Gert Jan

van Holk

NA

European Commission, DG Mr
Justice, Freedom and Security

Lauri

Hollmen

NA

European Commission, DG Ms
Justice, Freedom and Security

Francoise

Comte

NA

GHK

Ms

Petra

van Nierop

NA

GHK

Ms

Hanne

Beirens

NA

GHK

Ms

Katarina

Granath

62

EN

ANNEX 2: STATISTICAL DATA

2.1. Trends in asylum applications and decisions in EU
Table 2.1 – Overview of numbers of asylum claims by country and year
Countr
y

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

EU 27

197,41
0 (p)

234,6
75 (p)

276,675
(p)

344,8 421,47
00
0

424,1
80

406,58
5

380,4
50

313,6
45

:

EU 25

196,53
0 (p)

233,4
90 (p)

275,145
(p)

342,5 417,58
95
5

419,4
70

403,46
5

377,4
35

311,5
75

:

EU 15)

178,64
0 (p)

210,4
85 (p)

238,070
(p)

306,4 385,42
10
5

375,4
50

379,53
0

352,9
65

295,8
45

242,8
45

Austria

13,350

22,46
0

24,635 (
p)

32,36 39,355
0

30,12
5

18,285

20,13
0

13,80
5

6,720

(p)

1997

(p)

EN

Belgiu
m

8,870
(p)

12,57
5 (p)

12,400 (
p)

13,58 18,800
5

24,50
5

42,690

35,78
0

21,96
5

11,79
0

Bulgari
a

500 (p
)

700 (p
)

985 (p)

1,320

2,890

2,430

1,755

1,350

835

370

Cyprus

4,540
(p)

7,715
(p)

9,675 (p)

4,405

950

1,620

650

790

225

:

Czech
Republi
c

2,730
(p)

3,590
(p)

5,300 (p)

11,40
0

8,485

18,09
5

8,790

7,355

4,085

2,110

Denmar
k

1,960

2,280

3,235

4,390

5,945

12,51
0

10,345

6,530

5,700

5,100

Estonia

5 (p)

10 (p)

10 (p)

15

10

10

5

25

25

-

63

EN

Finland

2,275
(p)

3,595
(p)

3,575 (p)

3,090

3,445

1,650

3,170

3,105

1,270

970

France

30,750

49,73
5

58,545 (
pr)

59,77 51,085
0 (r)

47,29
0

38,745

30,90
5

22,37
5

21,41
5

35,605 (
p)

50,56 71,125
5

88,28
5

78,565

94,77
5

98,64
5

104,3
55

4,470 (p)

8,180

5,665

5,500

3,085

1,530

2,950

4,375

(p)

9,050
(p)

Hungar
y

2,115
(p)

1,610
(p)

1,600 (p)

2,400

6,410

9,555

7,800

11,50
0

7,120

:

Ireland

4,240
(p)

4,305
(p)

4,265 (p)

7,485 11,635

10,32
5

10,940

7,725

4,625

3,880

Italy

10,350
(p)

9,345
(p)

9,630 (p)

13,70 16,015
5

17,40
0

15,195

18,45
0

13,10
0

1,890

Latvia

10 (p)

20 (p)

5 (p)

5

25

15

5

20

35

:

Lithuan
ia

145 (p
)

100 (p
)

165 (p)

395

365

425

305

145

160

240

Luxem
bourg

525 (p
)

800 (p
)

1,575 (p)

1,550

1,040

685

625

2,930

1,710

435

Malta

1,270
(p)

1,165
(p)

995 (p)

455

350

155

160

255

160

70

Netherl
ands

14,465

12,34
5

9,780 (p)

13,40 18,665
0

32,58
0

43,895

39,27
5

45,21
5

34,44
5

(pr)

(pr)
German 21,030
y
(p)

28,91
5
(p)

Greece

12,265

(p)

(p)

EN

Poland

4,225
(p)

5,240
(p)

7,925 (p)

6,810

5,170

4,480

4,660

3,060

3,425

3,580

Portuga
l

130 (p
)

115 (p
)

115 (p)

115

245

235

225

305

355

250

Romani
a

380 (p
)

485 (p
)

545 (p)

885

1,000

2,280

1,365

1,665

1,235

1,425

Slovaki
a

2,850
(p)

3,550
(p)

11,395 (
p)

10,30
0

9,745

8,150

1,555

1,320

505

645

64

EN

Sloveni
a

500 (p
)

1,550
(p)

1,090 (p)

1,050

650

1,510

9,245

745

335

70

Spain

,295 (
p)

5,050
(p)

5,365 (p)

5,765

6,310

9,490

7,925

8,405

4,935

4,975

Sweden 24,320
(p)

17,53
0

23,160 (
p)

31,35 33,015
5

23,50
0

16,285

11,22
0

12,84
0

9,680

40,625 (
p)

60,04 103,08
5
0

71,36
5

80,315

71,16
0

46,01
5

32,50
0

(p)
United
Kingdo
m

28,320
(r)

30,84
0
(p)

(:) Not available
(p) Provisional value
(r) Revised value
Source: Eurostat

2.2 Recognition rates in the EU
TABLE 2.2. RECOGNITION RATES (%) IN THE EU FOR 6 COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN
(2006)
Afghanistan
Procedure

Recognition
rate (%)

Austria

FA

84

Belgium

FI

19

DRC

FI

Cyprus

AR

Iraq

Iran
Recognition
rate (%)

73

78

29

13

24

6

20

12

24
8

FI

EN

Ethiopia

Recognition Recognition Recognition Recognition
rate (%)
rate (%)
rate (%)
rate (%)

AR
Bulgaria

Eritrea

81

Denmark

FI

14

Finland

FI

France

AR

13

FI

8

RA

100

12

2
63

65

23

25

EN

Germany

NA

23

11

35

RA

97

86

96

Greece

FA

2

Ireland

AR

19

FI

8

FA

Malta

FI

Netherlands

FI

45

Poland

FI

38

Portugal

FI

42

Spain

FI

Sweden

FI

UK

FI

16

82

78

2

2

2

17

12

Italy

8

67

61

85

79

70

5

78

58

51

7

19

33

90

29

13

17

8
64
20

54

21

NA=New Applications; FI=First instance decisions; AR=Administrative Review
RA=Repeat/reopened applications ; FA=Including first instance and appeal/review decisions

decisions;

The following countries did not have recognition rates for the selected countries of origin: Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

Source: UNHCR, 'Asylum applications and refugee status determination by origin and
country/territory of asylum',
http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?id=478ce34a2&tbl=STATISTICS)

2.3. Resettlement
Table 2.3.1 – EU share of refugees resettled worldwide

Table 2.3 – EU share of refugees resettled worldwide
Year

2003

EN

Total number of refugees
resettled worldwide

27,338

66

Arrivals
(persons) to EU
Countries

Total EU intake
(%)

2,441

8.9

EN

2004

42,008

3,469

8.3

2005

38,507

3,130

8.1

2006

29,560

3,697

12.5

2007

49,868

3,935

7.9

Source: UNHCR, 31 October 2008

Table 2.3.2 Approximate Capacity of Resettlement Countries in 2008 (number of
individual places allocated for resettlement)
UNHCR Working Group on Resettlement
Geneva, 15 October 2008

Approximate Capacity of Resettlement Countries in 2008
(number of individual places allocated for resettlement) i
Country of

EN

UNHCR
Submissions

Private
Sponsorship

NGO
Submissions

In Country
Processing ii

Family
Reunion iii

Total

Resettlement
Argentina

50

0

0

0

0

50

0

limited

0

vi

13,500

0

0

0

150

Australia

6,500

Brazil

150

iv

7,000

v

0
vii

viii

Canada

6,140

3,300 – 4,500

160

1,200

0

10,600-12,000

Chile

112

0

0

0

0

112

Denmark

500 ix

0

0

0

0

500

Finland

750

0

0

0

0

750

0

0

0

800

France

400

x

400

Iceland

25-30

0

0

0

0

25-30

Ireland

200

0

0

0

0

200

Netherlands

500

0

0

0

0

500

300

1,050

New Zealand

750

Norway
Paraguay

xii

xi

xiii

0

0

Up to 300

1,200 xiv

0

0

0

0

1,200

15

0

0

0

0

15

Portugal

30

0

0

0

0

30

Sweden

1,900

0

0

0

0

1,900

United Kingdom

750

0

0

0

130 xv

880

Uruguay

15

0

0

0

0

15

67

EN

USA

56,750

0

0

6,550

6,700

70,000

Totalx v i

76,242

12,200

160

8,050

6,830

103,182

Czech Republic: In 2008 the Czech Republic has taken about 38 persons and is finalising its
programme to establish an annual quota.

Table 2.3.3 Main features of EU resettlement programmes
Table 2.4 – Main features of EU resettlement programme s
Denmar
k

Finland

Swede
n

UK

Ireland

The
Netherla
nds

Portugal

France

Start of
official
program
me

1978

1979

1950

2003

1998

1977

2007

2008

Quota in
2007

1500 (3
year)

750
(yearly)

1900
500
(yearly) (yearly)

200
(yearly)

1500 (3
year)

30

*100*

Largest
groups of
refugees
in 2007

Congoles
e (DRC),
Burmese,
Burundia
ns

Burmese,
Iranians
and
Somalis

Colomb
ians,
Afghan
s,
Iranians

Burmese,
Ethiopian
s

Subsharia
n
Africans,
Eritreans,
Ethiopian
s

N/A

Resettlem Protectio
ent
n needs,
criteria
integratio
n
potential

Protectio
n needs,
Cf,
UNHCR
criteria
for
resettlem
ent,
condition
s to
receive

Protecti Protectio
on
n needs
needs

Protectio
n needs,
integratio
n
potential,
humanitar
ian
considera
tions

N/A

N/A

EN

Iranian
Congoles
e (DRC), Kurds
Ethiopian
s,
Burmese,
Mauritani
ans

68

Protecti
on
needs,
majorit
y on
legal
and
physica
l
protecti
on

EN

Table 2.4 – Main features of EU resettlement programme s
Denmar
k

Finland

Swede
n

UK

and
integrate
in FI

In
country
selection

Ireland

The
Netherla
nds

Portugal

France

grounds

Roughly
400
(yearly)

650

Roughl
y 850

Yes

Around
160

400
(yearly)

N/A

N/A

Roughly
100
(yearly)

100
(urgent
and
emergenc
y)

Remain
ing
quota
places

No

Vulnera 100
ble
(yearly)
cases or
20% of
quota

N/A

N/A

Urgent
and
Emergen
cy54

75

100

300

No

No

Yes (no
fixed
number
set)

N/A

N/A

Status
upon
arrival

Tempora
ry
residence
permit

Permanen
t
residence
permit

Perman
ent
residen
ce
permit

Permanen
t
residence
permit

Perman
ent
residen
ce
permit

Revocabl
e
residence
permit

52

Dossier
selection
53

N/A

Source: ICMC, Welcome to Europe! A guide to resettlement: A comparative review of
Resettlement in Europe.

52

States travel with a delegation of government officials to the country of asylum from which they have planned to resettle refugees, to conduct
individual interviews with refugees and their dependants, on the basis of which a decision of acceptance or refusal is made.
53
The case of the refugee is reviewed in the same manner as during a selection mission but no individual interview with the refugee takes place.
The decision is based solely on a paper submission by UNHCR that consist primarily of the Resettlement Registration Form.
54
Selection of candidates is almost invariably done ‘on paper’ as time constraints and safety reasons may not allow for a selection mission.

EN

69

EN

ANNEX 3:
INFORMATION ON PRACTICAL COOPERATION RELATING TO COI

Sharing country of origin information (COI)
Article 4 of the Qualification Directive requires that the assessment of an application for
international protection should take into account all relevant facts as they relate to the
country of origin. This should include laws and regulations of the country of origin and
how they are applied. Article 8 of the Asylum Procedures Directive requires Member
States to ensure that precise and up-to-date information is made available to personnel
responsible for examining applications and taking decisions. This includes information
from UNHCR on the general situation in countries of origin or transit of applicants for
asylum.
Member States’ asylum authorities collect and analyse information on the socio-political
situation in countries of origin through different sources. This information is generally
referred to as Country of Origin Information (COI). The sources include general public
sources, such as reports from UNHCR, the US Department of State on Human Rights,
NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, national and
international media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin and embassy reports.
Member States’ authorities also organise fact-finding missions when on-the-spot data
collection or a more reliable and efficient approach appears to be necessary. Some
administrations also specialise in collecting information on individual cases where this is
necessary to decide on a specific case.
Current cooperation
Different fora for cooperation and exchange of information on COI have developed to
address the need to share information. Information fora exist on an international level
(IGC, A8, UNHCR’s Refworld) and also on an informal bilateral level. At EU level,
asylum practitioners exchange views on COI at Eurasil, which was established by the
Commission in July 2002 as a network for asylum practitioners. The participants who
primarily attend these meetings represent EU Member State authorities responsible for
the adjudication of asylum applications in EU Member States (at first instance and also
from appeal bodies). UNHCR, other international or non-governmental organisations
and experts on certain issues have frequently attended Eurasil.
Eurasil has provided a forum for exchanging COI and best practices among EU
Member States, asylum adjudicators and the European Commission. Sessions on
particular Countries of Origin comprise presentations from Member States with a
particular interest in that country as well as field representatives from Member States
and international organisations. The activities also help practitioners to enhance working

EN

70

EN

relationships with each other. Eurasil has done important preparatory work, but its
current working methods do not provide the means for a structural follow-up. The legal
and political imperatives given by the adoption of the Qualification Directive and the
Asylum Procedures Directive make clear that a more systematic approach to COI is
required.
The ARGO financial programme has produced examples of concrete joint action on COI
between several Member States. Under ARGO 2003, two projects were funded which
supported fact finding missions to third countries with significant refugee producing
situations. Those projects should serve as a model for future missions and their findings
would be shared among all 27 Member States.
How to achieve joint compilation, assessment and application of COI
The practical needs of Member States in the COI field vary greatly. Some Member
States have invested heavily in this area and run sophisticated COI systems while others
retain more basic systems or rely on the services of NGOs or UNHCR. The need for all
Member States to apply COI in the same way and using, if possible, the same sources is
inherent in the logic of the Common European Asylum System.
Ensuring access to the same COI sources is the first challenge. To this end, the
establishment and development of an EU ‘common portal’ for accessing COI sources
should be the key initial activity for the EU in aiming for the joint approach called for in
the Hague Programme. Joint compilation, assessment and application of COI in support
of the Common European Asylum System means that Member States should have
access to a common repository of COI that is assembled in compliance with common
standards and principles.
The creation of EU -wide Common portal for COI
The first step in this process, which will be key to the future structure to support ongoing
cooperation in the field of asylum (possibly EASO=European Asylum Support Office)
to be developed under the EC Treaty, is to establish an easily accessible common entry
point for existing information. This is to be achieved by creating a one-stop ‘common
portal’ through which all Member States authorities could access all official COI
databases.
Also available via the ‘common portal’ will be the legislation of each Member State
transposing the Community legal instruments which are central to the Common
European Asylum System plus Community legislation, relevant national and EC case
law, information produced by the Commission’s external services on specific countries
and other official sources of information.
A ‘common portal’ provides a useful additional resource, particularly for those Member
States with less well developed COI resources. Time is saved by accessing key official
databases through one stop rather than searching and downloading individually from
different sites. The ‘common portal’ will most likely be, at the beginning, simply a

EN

71

EN

gateway to existing information on COI, possibly without any agreed standards for such
information. Nevertheless, it will represent a first step towards the common approach
envisaged in the Hague Programme as it can provide a platform on which a future EU
COI database could be built.
The Commission carried out a feasibility study into the creation of a Common EU COI
portal in 2007. After identifying Member State needs and the official databases used by
Eurasil States (BE - Globe, CH - Mila, DE - Milo, IE, AT in connection to Accord) and
some international organisations (UNHCR - Refworld, Red Cross – Accord and IGC)
the Commission paved the way to develop a suitable IT solution to establishing a
common portal in 2009 (indicative timetable). A pilot project to find the "best" prototype
for the portal is underway and will be finalised before the end of 2008. It is intended that
the "construction phase" will then begin and that the portal can become operational
within 12-18 months of that phase being initiated.
Common Guidelines on the production of COI
In parallel, another step would be to formally agree on guidelines on the production of
COI. Experience in the framework of Eurasil has shown that standards vary widely in
the collection and verification of COI among Member States, but that there is
nevertheless scope for agreement on at least a set of common basic principles.
An ARGO project undertaken by five Eurasil States developed a set of "common
guidelines for processing COI" in 2008, and the Commission can at a later stage propose
common basic principles on the production of COI. Such principles would address
issues such as transparency, cross-checking and citation, as well as training COI
researchers and conducting fact-finding missions. The application of these principles to
Member States’ own COI is the first step towards the longer term objective of
harmonised application of COI in line with the Hague Programme objectives.
Addressing translation challenges
A pragmatic solution needs to be found to the translation difficulties facing Member
States. Some Member States’ cour ts can accept COI that is not translated into the
language of the Member State; some insist that everything admitted to the court should
be translated into the language of the Member State. There are also practical difficulties
for COI practitioners in reading and understanding diverse COI sources. It is not
practical or feasible to undertake a comprehensive translation of all relevant COI into
English and then into all 20 Community languages.
The Eurasil COI -experts can advise on how to prioritise translation needs and on what
needs to be translated. If this can be achieved on a small scale, using available financial
resources, to address needs or help ease the burden in those Member States facing the
most difficulties, then a larger and more ambitious undertaking will be examined when
deciding whether to set up an EU COI database (this has not yet been agreed to
politically).

EN

72

EN

The EU COI Database
In order to achieve the ambitious objective of a common Asylum Procedure, it will be
necessary to ensure that Member States can not only access the same information but
also that that information is produced and applied in a harmonised way. Therefore, once
the portal is operational and guidelines for producing COI formalised, the time could be
ripe to move to a fully- fledged EU COI database, if there is political agreement. This
obviously entails serious resource implications and large scale IT and technical
requirements to set up and maintain such a system. The establishment and maintenance
of an EU COI database would clearly be the province of a future structure set up to
support practical cooperation in the field of asylum. The financial and technical
implications of taking this step will need to be examined.

EN

73

EN

ANNEX 4: EX- ANTE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
(EXCEL TABLES)
Detailed cost analysis for
- EC Commission Unit
Category

Title 1 - Staff
costs
Director
Senior /
technical staff
Administrative
and other
support staff
Staff benefits
Staff training
Title 2 –
Building,
equipment and
administrative
expenditure
Information
technologies /
data-processing

Infrastructure

Specification

Not applicable
Commission staff
Estimated between
7 - 9 FTEs
Commission staff
Estimated between
4 - 6 FTEs
Estimated 15% of
total staff costs
Estimated at 500
per FTE

Database
development and
maintenance,
computer software
and related
updates, etc.
COI portal

Estimated
start-up costs

Minimum
ongoing costs

Maximum
ongoing costs

NA
714.068

918.087

248.990

373.486

144.459

193.736

5.500

7.500

250.000

1.000.000

NA

No director required
Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control
and auditing staff, etc.
Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as administrative and
support staff from other units within the DG.

NA
NA

250.000

This heading mainly comprises the
development and maintenance of the COI
portal. It covers also other computer systems
to be developped. Some elements are already
covered by the EC overall budget.
COI portal
The exact costs of the portal cannot be
estimated without additional research. Its
development and maintenance could be
(partly) outsourced.

Not applicable

Equipment
20.000

Overheads

Comments

1.000

5.000

Infrastructure is covered by the overall EC
budget
Start-up costs mainly relate to the purchasing
of specific hardware to host the COI portal.
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this
equipment. Additional expenses for videoconferencing.

Not applicable
Overheads are covered by the overall EC
budget

Title 3 –
Operations
Coordination
unit
Risk / needs
analysis

Direct support

EN

Possible core
tasks
Not applicable
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Resettlement
Intra-EU relocation
Resettlement
Intra-EU relocation

NA
250.000

500.000

-

100.000

NA

74

Identification of risks and needs under the
different tasks, supported by analytical work.
The Commission could outsource part of these
activities to existing networks or contractors.

Inputs to resettlement scheme. The latter
inputs are unlikely to happen in the short term
and would only be minimal.
Advisory role to the intra-EU relocation
scheme, a task which is not likely to happen in
the short term.

EN

Capacity
building /
training

Planning,
research and
development

External
relations

Information,
communication
and
dissemination

Events,
meetings and
missions

Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Joint production of
COI
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Joint production of
COI
Intra-EU relocation
Liaison and
cooperation wit h
external actors

Development of
information,
communication and
dissemination
strategies, tools
and products.
Meetings Eurasil
(8-12 for 50
persons)
Organisation of
events (5-10 for 50
persons)
Missions (15-25
missions of 1
person)

NA
150.000

400.000

250.000

500.000

100.000

250.000

100.000

200.000

745.000

1.285.000

2.959.017

5.732.809

2.000.000

5.000.000

Minimum
ongoing costs

Maximum
ongoing costs

NA

NA

50.000

NA

Organisation and facilitation of exchanges,
peer learning and information sharing.
Organisation and facilitation could be
outsourced in part to existing networks or
contractors.

Data collection, research, analysis to support
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building
elements of these tasks.

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures
and EU bodies (e.g. participation /
organisation of meetings, preparation of
briefing mater ials, etc). Under these Policy
options the costs remain high as the
cooperation structures all continue to exist.
Development and implementation of a strategy
and methodological tools, website, brochures
and other documents.
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and
tools.
The Commission would fund the meetings of
EURASIL. In addition, it would organise events
to promote peer learning, good practice and
information exchanges, etc. and to convene
specific working / expert groups. Finally, it
could finance missions of experts or staff.

Total
Financing

Financing stream
Financing stream
providing grants to
practical
cooperation, as
part of the ERF
Community Actions

320.000
NA

This heading relates to additional activities that
could be financed, for example in case of
particular pressures or burden in certain
Member States. The unit could be involved in
decision making of the financial unit as to the
allocation of funding.

- Network

Category
Title 1 - Staff
costs
Director
Senior
/
technical staff
Administrative
and
other
support staff
Staff benefits
Staff training

Specification

Not applicable
Commission staff
Estimated between
5 - 7 FTEs
Commission staff
Estimated between
4 - 6 FTEs
Estimated 15% of
total staff costs
Estimated at 500
per FTE

Estimated
start-up costs

NA
NA

510.049

714.068

NA

248.990

373.486

NA

113.856

163.133

NA

4.500

6.500

Comments

No director required
Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control
and auditing staff, etc.
Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as administrative and
support staff from other units within the DG.

Title
2
–
Building,
equipment and
administrative
expenditure

EN

75

EN

Information
technologies /
data-processing

Database
development and
maintenance,
computer software
and related
updates, etc.
COI portal

250.000

250.000

1.000.000

Infrastructure

Costs for renting
office space to host
the coordination
unit

15.000

20.000

50.000

Equipment

Purchasing of
equipment,
furniture and
specific computer
hardware

30.000

3.000

10.000

35.000

105.000

Overheads

Title
3
–
Operations
Coordination
unit

Risk / needs
analysis

Direct support

Capacity
building /
training

Planning,
research and
development

External
relations

Information,
communication
and
dissemination

EN

NA

Costs for
contracting a
coordination unit

NA

Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Resettlement
Resettlement

NA

500.000
200.000

1.500.000
400.000

NA

-

50.000

Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring, quality
control and
enforcement
Joint production of
COI
Training and
capacity building
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Joint production of
COI
Training and
capacity building
Liaison and
cooperation with
external actors

NA

300.000

750.000

NA

350.000

600.000

NA

100.000

250.000

100.000

200.000

Development of
information,
communication and
dissemination
strategies, tools
and products.

50.000

76

This heading mainly comprises the
development and maintenance of the COI
portal. It covers also other computer systems
to be developped. Some elements are already
covered by the EC overall budget.
COI portal
The exact costs of the portal cannot be
estimated without additional research. Its
development and maintenance could be
(partly) outsourced.
It is assumed that the coordination unit would
rent a specific office space in the vicinity of the
Commission. Costs increase depending on the
requirements for this space (e.g. availability of
meeting rooms).
Start-up costs relate to renovation /
preparation of the space.
Start up costs relate to setting up the office
and to purchasing of hardware for the portals /
databases, video-conferencing, etc. Ongoing
costs relate to regular updating of this
equipment and furniture, etc.
Overheads are not calculated on the FTEs
above, as they would be incurred by the
coordination unit. They are therefore set as
7% of the contracted value of this unit (see
below).

Contracting of a coordination unit to provide
technical assistance to the Commission. The
costs variations relate to differences in the
work programme of the network and the task
package of the unit.
Identification of risks and needs under the
different tasks, supported by analytical work.
Part of these activities could initially be
outsourced to / taken forward by existing
cooperation structures and gradually being
integrated in the network.
Inputs to resettlement scheme. The latter
inputs are unlikely to happen in the short term
and would only be minim al.
Organisation and facilitation of exchanges,
peer learning and information sharing.
Preparation of guidelines and needs
assessments.
Delivery of training and capacity building
exercises
Organisation, facilitation and delivery could be
outsourced in part to existing networks or
contractors.
Data collection, research, analysis to support
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building
elements of these tasks. Development of
training methods and courses (including elearning).
Part of these activities could initially be
outsourced to / taken forward by existing
cooperation structures and gradually being
integrated in the network.
Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures
and EU bodies (e.g. participation /
organisation of meetings, preparation of
briefing materials, etc). Under this Policy
option the costs remain high as most
cooperation structures continue to exist.
Development of a strategy and metho dological
tools, website, brochures and other
documents.
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and
tools.

EN

Events,
meetings and
missions

Meetings EURASIL
(8-12 for 50
persons)
Meetings with
Steering Group (812 for 30 persons)
Meetings with
Consultative
Committee (4 -8 for
20 persons)
Organisation of
events (10-15 for
50 persons)
Missions (15-25
missions of 1
person)

NA

Total

345.000

1.235.000

1.895.000

3.970.395

8.067.187

The Commission would fund the meetings of
EURASIL. It would finance the meetings of the
Steering Group and of the Consultative
Committee. In addition, it would organise
events to promote peer learning, good practice
and information exchanges, etc. and to
convene specific working / expert groups.
Finally, it could finance missions of experts or
staff.

- Merge of Support Asylum Structure into FRA
Category

Specification

Estimated
start-up costs

Minimum
ongoing costs

Maximum
ongoing costs

Comments

Title 1 - Staff
costs
Senior
/
technical staff

Commission staff
Estimated between
2 - 4 FTEs

NA

204.019

408.039

Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control
and auditing staff, etc.

Administrative
and
other
support staff

Commission staff
Estimated between
3 - 6 FTEs

NA

186.743

373.486

Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as administrative and
support staff from other units within the DG.

Director

NA

NA

NA

Director of FRA already in place

Coordination
unit staff
Senior
/
technical staff

Agency staff
Estimated between
2-4 FTEs

NA

204.019

408.039

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit

Coordination
unit staff
Administrative
staff

Agency staff
Estimated between
2 - 4 FTEs

NA

124.495

248.990

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit

Senior
/
technical staff

Agency staff
Estimated between
20 - 30 FTEs

NA

2.040.194

3.060.292

Staff to man the asylum department of FRA

Administrative
and
other
support staff

Agency staff
Estimated between
5 - 8 FTE s

NA

311.238

497.981

Staff to man the asylum department of FRA

Staff benefits

Estimated 15% of
total staff costs

NA

352.715

533.741

Staff training

Estimated at 500
per FTE

NA

14.500

23.000

Title
2
–
Building,
equipment and
administrative
expenditure

EN

77

EN

Information
technologies /
data-processing

Database
development
and
maintenance,
computer software
and
related
updates, etc.
COI portal

500.000

500.000

1.000.000

Infrastructure

Costs for renting
office space to host
the agency.
Equipment

NA

Purchasing
of
equipment,
furniture
and
specific computer
hardware

Overheads

Title
3
Operations

10.357

22.115

Costs relate to purchasing of hardware for the
portals / databases, video-conferencing, etc.
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this
equipment and furniture, etc. Note: amounts of
EASO taken as basis for calculation

187.596

295.071

–

Coordination
unit

Not applicable

Risk / needs
analysis

Exchange
best
practicesSupport to
monitoring
and
quality controlPool
of
asylum
expertsIntra-EU
relocationRegional
Protection
ProgrammesResett
lement

NA

250.000

600.000

Identification of risks and needs under the
different tasks, supported by analytical work.

Direct support

Pool of asylum
experts
Resettlement
Intra-EU relocation

NA

150.000

600.000

Activation of experts (fees for secondment of
experts for 20 -30 missions of 10 working days)
Inputs to intra-EU relocation and resettlement
schemes. The latter inputs are unlikely to
happen in the short term.

Exchange
best
practices
Support
to
monitoring
and
quality control
Joint production of
COI
Pool of asylum
experts
Training
and
capacity building

NA

450.000

1.000.000

Organisation and facilitation of exchanges,
peer learning and information sharing.
Preparation
of
guidelines
and
needs
assessments. Inputs to the experts pool
database and management of the pool.
Delivery of training and capacity building
exercises.
Joint work on COI collection, production and
assessment

Capacity
building
training

EN

353.846

FRA is already settled in Vienna. Costs cover
the rent of new office space to host the new
staff. Note: the additional amount is spread
over infrastructure and overheads. Note:
amounts of EASO taken as basis for
calculation

248.571

50.000

This heading comprises all information
technologies and data-processing activities of
the agency. It also includes the development
and maintenance of the COI portal.
The exact costs of the COI portal cannot be
estimated without additional research. Its
development and maintenance could be
(partly) outsourced.

/

78

EN

Planning,
research
and
development

Exchange
best
practices
Support
to
monitoring
and
quality control
Joint production of
COI
Joint assessment
of COI
Intra-EU relocation
Training
and
capacity building
Regional Protection
Programmes

NA

450.000

1.000.000

Data collection, research, analysis to support
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building
elements of these tasks. Development of
training methods and courses (including elearning).
Part of these activities could initially be
outsourced.

External
relations

Liaison
and
cooperation
with
external actors

NA

50.000

100.000

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures
and EU bodies (e.g. participation /
organisation of meetings, preparation of
briefing materials, etc). Under this Policy
option the costs are lower as some existing
cooperation structures would cease to exist
and FRA would gradually become the single
interlocutor on behalf of the EU.

Information,
communication
and
dissemination

Development
of
information,
communication and
dissemination
strategies,
tools
and products.

150.000

300.000

Dev elopment of a strategy and methological
tools,
website,
brochures
and
other
documents.
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and
tools.
It will be important for the agency to increase
awareness and to promote its results.

Events,
meetings
missions

(Meetings of the
Management
Board (8-12 for 3040 persons).
Organisation
of
events,
working
and expert group
meetings (15-25 for
50 persons)
Missions
(20-3 0
missions
of
1
person)

770.000

1.280.000

The meetings of the Management Board
already take place: costs not included as a
result of economy of scale. In addition, it would
organise events to promote peer learning,
good practice and information exchanges, etc.
and to convene specific working / expert
groups. EURASIL would be one of the experts
groups. Finally, it could finance missions of
experts or staff.

6.654.449

12.104.600

and

Total

50.000

NA

600.000

- Merge of Support Asylum Structure into FRONTEX

Category
Title 1 - Staff
costs
Senior
/
technical staff
Administrative
and
other
support staff
Director
Coordination
unit staff
Senior
/
technical staff
Coordination
unit staff
Administrative
staff

EN

Specification

Commission staff
Estimated between
2 - 3 FTEs
Commission staff
Estimated between
3 - 5 FTEs

Estimated
start-up costs

Minimum
ongoing costs

Maximum
ongoing costs

NA

204.019

306.029

NA

186.743

311.238

Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control
and auditing staff, etc.
Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as adminis trative and
support staff from other units within the DG.
Director of FRONTEX already in place

NA

NA

NA

Comments

Agency staff
Estimated between
2-4 FTEs

NA

204.019

408.039

Staff t o reinforce the coordination unit

Agency staff
Estimated between
2 - 4 FTEs

NA

124.495

248.990

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit

79

EN

Senior
/
technical staff

Agency staff
Estimated between
20 - 30 FTEs

NA

2.040.194

3.060.292

Staff to man the asylum department of
FRONTEX

Administrative
and
other
support staff
Staff benefits

Agency staff
Estimated between
5 - 8 FTEs
Estimated 15% of
total staff costs
Estimated at 500
per FTE

NA

311.238

497.981

Staff to man the asylum department of the
agency

NA

352.715

533.741

NA

14.500

23.000

500.000

1.000.000

Staff training

Title
2
–
Building,
equipment and
administrative
expenditure
Information
technologies /
data-processing

Database
development and
maintenance,
computer software
and related
updates, etc.
COI portal

500.000

Infrastructure
Costs for renting
office space to host
the agency.

This heading comprises all information
technologies and data -processing activities of
the agency. It also includes the development
and maintenance of the COI portal, as well as
the broader information portal and experts
pool database.
COI portal

353.846

FRONTEX is already settled in Warsaw. Costs
cover the rent of new office space to host the
new staff. Note: amounts of EASO taken as
basis for calculation

10.357

22.115

Costs relate to purchasing of hardware for the
portals / databases, video-conferencing, etc.
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this
equipment and furniture, etc. Note: amounts of
EASO taken as basis for calculation

187.596

295.071

NA

250.000

600.000

Identification of risks and needs under the
different tasks, supported by analytical work.

NA

150.000

600.000

NA

450.000

1.000.000

Activation of experts (fees for secondment of
experts for 20 -30 missions of 10 working days)
Inputs to intra -EU relocation and resettlement
schemes. The latter inputs are unlikely to
happen in the short term.
Organisation and facilitation of exchanges,
peer learning and information sharing.
Preparation of guidelines and needs
assessments. Inputs to the experts pool
database and management of the pool.
Delivery of training and capacity building
exercises.
Joint

NA

248.571

Equipment
Purchasing of
equipment,
furniture and
specific computer
hardware

50.000

Overheads

Title
3
–
Operations
Coordination
unit
Risk / needs
analysis

Direct support

Capacity
building
training

EN

/

Not applicable
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring, quality
control and
enforcement
Pool of asylum
experts
Intra-EU relocation
Regional Protection
Programmes
Resettlement
Pool of asylum
experts
Resettlement
Intra-EU relocation
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring, quality
control and
enforcement
Joint production of
COI
Pool of asylum
experts
Training and
capacity building

80

EN

Planning,
research
and
development

External
relations

Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring, quality
control and
enforcement
Joint production of
COI
Joint assessment
of COI
Financial support
(advisory role)
Intra-EU relocation
Training and
capacity building
Regional Protection
Programmes
Liaison and
cooperation with
external actors

Information,
communication
and
dissemination

Development of
information,
communication and
dissemination
strategies, tools
and products.

Events,
meetings
missions

(Meetings of the
Management
Board (8-12 for 3040 persons).
Organisation of
events, working
and expert group
meetings (15-25 for
50 persons)
Missions (20-30
missions of 1
person)

and

NA

450.000

1.000.000

Data collection, research, analysis to support
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building
elements of these tasks. Development of
training methods and courses (including elearning). Part of these activities could initially
be outsourced.

NA

50.000

100.000

150.000

300.000

770.000

1.280.000

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures
and EU bodies (e.g. participation /
organisation of meetings, preparation of
briefing materials, etc). Under this Policy
option the costs are lower as some existing
cooperation structures would cease to exist
and Frontex would gradually become the
single interlocutor on behalf of the EU.
Development of a strategy and methological
tools, website, brochures and other
documents.
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and
tools.
It will be important for the agency to increase
awareness and to promote its results.
The meetings of the Management Board
already take place (costs removed from the
calculation). In addition, it would organise
events to promote peer learning, good practice
and information exchanges, etc. and to
convene specific working / expert groups.

6.654.449

11.940.342

50.000

NA

Total

600.000

- Merge of Support Asylum Structure into the future IT-Agency

Category
Title 1 - Staff
costs
Senior
/
technical staff
Administrative
and
other
support staff

Minimum
ongoing costs

Maximum
ongoing costs

NA

306.029

510.049

NA

248.990

497.981

NA
NA

NA
204.019

Agency staff
Estimated between
2 - 4 FTEs

NA

Agency staff
Estimated between
20 - 30 FTEs

NA

Specification

Commission staff
Estimated between
3 - 5 FTEs
Commission staff
Estimated between
4 - 8 FTEs

Director
Coordination
unit staff
Senior
/
technical staff
Coordination
unit staff
Administrative
staff
Senior
/
technical staff

EN

Agency staff
Estimated between
2-4 FTEs

Estimated
start-up costs

Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as financial staff, control
and auditing staff, etc.
Staff comprises both human resources within
the unit itself as well as administrative and
support staff from other units within the DG.

408.039

Director of IT AGENCY to be appointed
Staff to reinforce the coordination unit

124.495

248.990

Staff to reinforce the coordination unit

2.040.194

3.060.292

81

NA

Comments

Staff to man the asylum department of the IT
agency

EN

Administrative
and
other
support staff

Agency staff
Estimated between
5 - 8 FTEs

NA

311.238

497.981

Staff benefits

Estimated 15% of
total staff costs
Estimated at 500
per FTE

NA

352.715

533.741

NA

14.500

23.000

500.000

1.000.000

248.571

353.846

Note: amounts of EASO taken as basis for
calculation.
Costs relate to purchasing of hardware for the
portals / databases, video-conferencing, etc.
Ongoing costs relate to regular updating of this
equipment and furniture, etc. Note: amounts of
EASO taken as basis for calculation

Staff training

Title
2
–
Building,
equipment and
administrative
expenditure
Information
technologies /
data-processing

Infrastructure

Database
development and
maintenance,
computer software
and related
updates, etc.
COI portal
Costs for renting
office space to host
the agency.

500.000

NA

Staff to man the asylum department of the IT
agency

This heading comprises all information
technologies and data -processing activities of
the agency. It also includes the development
and maintenance of the COI portal, as well as
the broader information portal and experts
pool database.

Equipment
Purchasing of
equipment,
furniture and
specific computer
hardware

50.000

10.357

22.115

187.596

295.071

NA

250.000

600.000

Identification of risks and needs under the
different tasks, supported by analytical work.

NA

150.000

600.000

Activation of experts (fees for secondment of
experts for 20 -30 missions of 10 working days)
Inputs to intra -EU relocation and resettlement
schemes. The latter inputs are unlikely to
happen in the short term.

NA

450.000

1.000.000

Organisation and facilitation of exchanges,
peer learning and information sharing.
Preparation of guidelines and needs
assessments. Inputs to the experts pool
database and management of the pool.
Delivery of training and capacity building
exercises.
Joint

NA

450.000

1.000.000

Data collection, research, analysis to support
the risk / needs analysis and capacity building
elements of these tasks. Development of
training methods and courses (including elearning). Part of these activities could initially
be outsourced.

Overheads

Title
3
–
Operations
Coordination
unit
Risk / needs
analysis

Direct support

Capacity
building
training

/

Planning,
research
and
development

EN

Not applicable
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Pool of asylum
experts
Intra-EU relocation
Regional Protection
Programmes
Resettlement
Pool of asylum
experts
Resettlement
Intra-EU relocation
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Joint production of
COI
Pool of asylum
experts
Training and
capacity building
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Joint production of
COI
Joint assessment
of COI
Intra-EU relocation
Training and
capacity building
Regional Protection

82

EN

Programmes

External
relations

Liaison and
cooperation with
external actors

Information,
communication
and
dissemination

Development of
information,
communication and
dissemination
strategies, tools
and products.

Events,
meetings
missions

(Meetings of the
Management
Board (8-12 for 3040 persons).
Organisation of
events, working
and expert group
meetings (15-25 for
50 persons)
Missio ns (20-30
missions of 1
person)

and

NA

50.000

100.000

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with third
countries, IGOs, other cooperation structures
and EU bodies (e.g. participation /
organisation of meetings, preparation of
briefing materials, etc). Under this Policy
option the costs are lower as some existing
cooperation structures would cease to exist
and the IT Agency would gradually become
the single interlocutor on behalf of the EU.

150.000

300.000

Development of a strategy and metho dological
tools, website, brochures and other
documents.
Start-up costs relate to drafting of strategy and
tools.
It will be important for the agency to increase
awareness and to promote its results.

NA

770.000

1.280.000

Meetings of management board: To be
adapted in view of costs of IT-agency. Same
calculation method as for Frontex and FRA
(costs removed from the calculation) In
addition, it would organise events to promote
peer learning, good practice and information
exchanges, etc. and to convene specific
working / expert groups.

600.000

6.818.706

12.331.105

50.000

Total

- European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Category
Title 1 - Staff
costs
Senior
/
technical staff

Administrative
and
other
support staff

Director

Coordination
unit staff
Senior
/
technical staff
Coordination
unit staff
Administrative
staff

EN

Specification
(2011
onwards)

Estimated
start-up staff
2010

Estimated
start-up costs
2010

Commission
staff
Estimated
between 2 - 5
FTEs
Commission
staff
Estimated
between 3 - 5
FTEs
Agency staff
1 FTE

See
maximum ongoing costs

459.044

See
maximum ongoing costs

217.867

Agency staff
Estimated
between 6 - 7
FTEs
Agency staff
Estimated
between 6 - 7
FTEs

Agency staff
Estimated 2
FTEs

204.019

Agency staff
Estimated 2
FTEs

124.495

Not
applicable

-

83

Minimum
ongoing costs
(2011
onwards)

Maximum
ongoing costs
(2011
onwards)

Comments

204.019

459.044

Staff comprises both human
resources within the unit itself as well
as financial staff, control and auditing
staff, etc.

186.743

217.867

Staff comprises both human
resources within the unit itself as well
as administrative and support staff
from other units within the DG.

167.171

167.171

612.058

714.068

Staff to man the coordination unit of
the Agency

373.486

435.733

Staff to man the coordination unit of
the Agency

EN

Senior
/
technical staff

Administrative
and
other
support staff
Staff benefits

Staff training

Title
2
–
Building,
equipment and
administrative
expenditure
Information
technologies /
data-processing

Agency staff
Estimated
between 30 50 FTEs
Agency staff
Estimated
between 17 29 FTEs
Estimated 15%
of total staff
costs
Estimated at
500 per FTE

Agency staff
Estimated 15
FTEs

1.530.146

Agency staff
Estimated 5
FTEs

311.238

3.060.292

5.100.486

Staff to man the various departments
of the Agency

1.058.209

1.805.180

Staff to man the various departments
of the Agency

617.775

1.035.850

35.000

52.000

500.000

1.000.000

600.000

800.000

This heading comprises all
information technologies and dataprocessing activities of the agency. It
also includes the development and
maintenance of the COI portal, as
well as the broader information portal
and experts pool database.
COI portal
The exact costs of the portal cannot
be estimated without additional
research. Its development and
maintenance could be (partly)
outsourced.
The agency will establish its office in
a Member State still to be defined.
For this reason the costs may vary
greatly.
Start-up costs relate to renovation /
preparation of the space. These
costs are based on costs of existing
agencies (FRA and FRONTEX)
Start up costs relate to setting up the
office and to purchasing of hardware
for the portals / databases, videoconferencing, etc. Ongoing costs
relate to regular updating of this
equipment and furniture, etc.

276.208

12.000

Database
development
and
maintenance,
computer
software and
related
updates, etc.
COI portal

500.000

Infrastructure

Costs for
renting office
space to host
the agency.
Equipment

50.000

Purchasing of
equipment,
furniture and
specific
computer
hardware

50.000

Overheads
Title
3
–
Operations
Risk / needs
analysis

Direct support

EN

Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Pool of asylum
experts
Intra-EU
relocation
Regional
Protection
Programmes
Resettlement
Pool of asylum
experts
Resettlement
Intra-EU
relocation

See minimum
on-going
costs

250.000

See minimum
on-going
costs

150.000

84

25.000

50.000

368.985

575.585

250.000

600.000

Identification of risks and needs
under the different tasks, supported
by analytical work.

150.000

600.000

Activation of experts (fees for
secondment of experts for 20-30
missions of 10 working days)
Inputs to intra-EU relocation and
resettlement schemes. The latter
inputs are unlikely to happen in the
short term.

EN

Capacity
building
training

/

Planning,
research
and
development

External
relations

Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Joint
production of
COI
Pool of asylum
experts
Training and
capacity
building
Exchange best
practices
Support to
monitoring and
quality control
Joint
production of
COI
Joint
assessment of
COI
Intra-EU
relocation
Training and
capacity
building
Regional
Protection
Programmes
Liaison and
cooperation
with external
actors

Information,
communication
and
dissemination

Development of
information,
communication
and
dissemination
strategies, tools
and products.

Events,
meetings
missions

Meetings of the
Management
Board (8-12 for
30-40 persons).
Organisation of
e v ents, working
and expert
group meetings
(15-25 for 50
persons)
Missions (2030 missions of
1 person)

and

See minimum
on-going
costs

450.000

See minimum
on-going
costs

450.000

See minimum
on-going
costs

50.000

450.000

1.000.000

Organisation and facilitation of
exchanges, peer learning and
information sharing. Preparation of
guidelines and needs assessments.
Inputs to the experts pool database
and management of the pool.
Delivery of training and capacity
building exercises.
Joint work on COI collection,
production and assessment

450.000

1.000.000

Data collection, research, analysis to
support the risk / needs analysis and
capacity building elements of these
tasks. Development of training
methods and courses (including elearning).
Part of these activities could initially
be outsourced.

50.000

100.000

150.000

300.000

1.010.000

1.600.000

Inputs to liaison and cooperation with
third countries, IGOs, other
cooperation structures and EU
bodies (e.g. participation /
organisation of meetings,
preparation of briefing materials,
etc). Under this Policy option the
costs are lower as some existing
cooperation structures would cease
to exist and the agency would
gradually become the single
interlocutor on behalf of the EU.
Development of a strategy and
methological tools, website,
brochures and other documents.
Start-up costs relate to drafting of
strategy and tools.
It will be important for the agency to
increase awareness and to promote
its results.
The agency would finance all
meetings of the Management Board.
In addition, it would organise events
to promote peer learning, good
practice and information exchanges,
etc. and to convene specific working
/ expert groups. EURASIL would be
one of the experts groups. Finally, it
could finance missions of experts or
staff.

10.318.738

17.612.984

50.000

See minimum
on-going
costs

1.010.000

Total agency
6.145.016

EN

85

EN

ANNEX 5: FINANCIAL ADDITIONAL DATA
Table 5.1 – List of relevant 2002 ARGO and ERF projects
Reference
Number

Applicant organisation

MS

Title of the project

Total forecast budget

Amount requested

NL

ENARO Exchange programs
and conferences

345,301.00

207,184.00

342,634.00

274,107.00

176,859.66

141,487.73

412,752.00

330,202.00

99,787.00

79,830.00

2002/ARGO/10

COA

JAI/2002/ERF/06

Municipality of Rome

IT

JAI/2002/ERF/10

UNHCR

EU

JAI/2002/ERF/26

Save the Children
Sweden

SE

JAI/2002/ERF/37

Red Cross - EU Office

EU

Europe, land of Asylum
Provision of country of origin
and related information
Separated children in
Europe Programme
Conference "The new EU
Directive on minimum
reception standards for asylum
seekers - from Policy to
Action"

Total

1,377,333.66

1,032,810.73

Table 5.2 – List of relevant 2003 ARGO and ERF projects
Reference Number

Applicant organisation

MS

Title of the project

Total forecast budget

Amount requested

JAI/2003/ARGO/8

Ministry of Public Order

EL

Administrative Cooperation among
National Authorities on Asylum and
Immigration Procedures around Europe

141,243.45

77,371.61

JAI/2003/ARGO/9

FEDASIL

BE

44,853.79

25,024.29

JAI/2003/ARGO/13

Ministero dell'Interno Dipartimento per le Liberta e
l'iimigrazione

IT

137,159.54

85,759.54

JAI/2003/ARGO/2/18

CGRA

BE

549,253.10

170,408.51

JAI/2003/ERF/ 002

Rädda Barnen - Save the
Children

SE

Separated Children in Europe
Programme

418,420.71

331,066.53

JAI/2003/ERF/ 004

OXFAM

UK

Protection and Asylum : applying field
based knowledge at the European level

143,359.99

112,305.66

BE

Making resettlement work !

62,950.00

49,120.00

DE

Info and Cooperation

211,244.50

168,995.50

COI Network and Training

104,882.40

81,882.40

FI

MORE - Modelling of National
Resettlement Process and
Implementation of Emergency

499,658.00

370,578.00

JAI/2003/ERF/ 005
JAI/2003/ERF/ 014

Churches' Commission for
Migrants in Europe
Forum Förderverein Pro Asyl
e.V. DE

JAI/2003/ERF/ 022 Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz
JAI/2003/ERF/ 037

Työministeriö (Minsitry of
Labour)

Eight European Conference on the
Reception of Asylum Seekers
Towards more orderly and managed
entry in the EU of persons in need of
international protection - International
Développement d''un cadre de
référence commun pour le traitement
des demandes d''asile de République
Démocratique du Congo – Elaboration
d''une documentation pratique
commune et de directives communes
d''aide à la décision.

TOTAL

EN

2,313,025.48

86

1,472,512.04

EN

Table 5.3 – List of relevant 2004 ARGO and ERF projects
Reference Number
JAI/2004/ARGO/023

Applicant organisation
Ministero dell'InternoDipartimento per leLibertà Civili e
l'Immigrazione

MS

Title of the project
IT

Studio di fattibilità pe un programma di
reinsediamento di refugiati

Information exchange on Dublin
Ministry of
JAI/2004/ARGO/08
the Interior of Hungary - Office of Immigration and Nationality
HUof the Ministry of Interior
Regulation among V4 countries
Dublin Liaison Officer from the
Netherlands to Slovakia and Austria, to
JAI/2004/ARGO/018
Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst
NL
optimise operational co-operation in
Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003

Total forecast budget

Amount requested

112,301.32

67,380.79

32,282.00

19,122.00

140,399.67

84,239.80

636,529.11

328,454.47

128,935.40

77,361.24

443,292.58

143,497.97

103,537.50

62,122.50

264,575.99

108,345.59

122,400.00

97,900.00

90,296.00

72,220.00

217,904.27

167,297.07

79,526.68

63,404.85

162,635.00

130,107.00

143,398.00

114,678.00

67,330.00

53,860.00

219,120.00

175,286.00

Second call

JLS/2004/ARGO/46

Ministerie van Justitie, Immigratie
en Naturalisatiedienst

NL

JLS/2004/ARGO/31

Ministry of Public Order

EL

JLS/2004/ARGO/39

Commissariat général aux
Réfugiés et Apatrides

BE

JLS/2004/ARGO/42

Ministry of Interior Department of
Civil Liberties and Immigration

IT

JLS/2004/ARGO/50

Fedasil

BE

JAI/2004/ERF/090

vivo e.V.

DE

JAI/2004/ERF/082

Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag

HU

JAI/2004/ERF/060

Austrian Red Cross

AT

JAI/2004/ERF/036

Organizace pro pomoc
uprchlikum

CZ

JAI/2004/ERF/084

RED CROSS/EUROPEAN
UNION OFFICE

BE

JAI/2004/ERF/027

Commission des eglises aupres
des migrants en Europe

BE

JAI/2004/ERF/074

Jesuit Refugee Service

BE

JAI/2004/ERF/073

Berliner Institut fur Vergleichende
Soziolforschung

DE

JAI/2004/ERF/039

Pro Asyl e.V.

DE

General Directors Immigration Services
Conference (GDISC).
ARGONAUTE II – The strengthening of
the asylum procedure at the Greek
external borders.
Echange d'agents entre les
administrations d'asile/immigration DE,
BE, FR, LUX et NL.
Information exchange on Dublin
Regulation among V4 countries.
The role of reception organisations in a
changing European context: exchange,
networking, exploring operational cooperation.
Multi-Centre NETwork Capacity
Building
Online Curriculum Resources in
International and European Asylum
Law: Capacity Building for Refugeeassisting NGOs and Refugee Law
Clinics
Stenghtening the COI capacity of legal
counsels of asylum-seekers through
transfer of COI training skills and elearning
Fostering the best interests of the child
in care institutions for unaccompanied
minors
European Union Forum on Reception
and Health Care of Asylum Seekers
Understsanding resettlement in
practice: capacity building for action I
(Making resettlement work II)
Training for Persons Attending the
Needs of Asylum Seekers and
Refugees in Reception and Detention
Centres
Traumatisierte Fluchtlinge in der EU:
Institutionen, Schutzmechanismen und
bewahrte Verfahren
Cross-border Asylum Network
Information and co-operation Forum II

TOTAL

EN

87

473,759.26

178,951.20

3,438,222.78

1,944,228.48

EN

Table 5.4 – List of relevant 2005 ARGO and ERF projects
Reference Number

Applicant organisation

MS

Title of the project

Amount requested

JLS/2005/ARGO/GC/01

Office français de protection des
réfugiés et apatrides

FR

Poursuite du développement d'un
cadre de référence commun pour
le traitement de demandes
d'asile de République
démocratique du Congo. Elaboration d'une documentation
pratique commune.

JLS/2005/ARGO/GC/02

Ministry of Interior

IT

Strengthening of reception
capacity in respect of migration
flows reaching the island of
Lampedusa

540,149.12

311,129.47

2005/ARGO/GC/03

Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst

NL

Common EU guidelines for the
use and validation of factual COI

157,169.76

61,739.86

2005/ARGO/GC/04

Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst

NL

General Directors' Immigration
Services Conference

1,052,167.09

575,320.25

EU-wide conference "Exchange
on the implementation of Council
Directive 2001/55/EC on
minimum standards for giving
temporary protection in the event
of a mass influx of displaced
persons" and on measures
promoting a balance of efforts
between member states in
receiving such persons and
bearing the consequences
thereof.

166,589.83

90,902.57

322,625.00

119,700.00

259,170.50

114,002.80

212,302.00

53,957.40

2005/ARGO/GC/12

Bundesamt fuer Migration und
Fluechtlinge

DE

2005/ARGO/GC/17

Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs

MT

2005/ARGO/GC/20

Commissariat general aux réfugiés
et aux apatrides

BE

JLS/2005/ERF/016

ICMC EUROPE

BE

Practical Cooperation for an
European Resettlement Network

126,007.00

100,805.00

JLS/2005/ERF/020

Ministry of Labour

FI

MOST - Modelling of Orientation,
Services and Training related to
the Resettlement and Reception
of Refugees

577,913.00

399,233.00

JLS/2005/ERF/024

Austrian Red Cross

AT

239,306.18

191,206.18

JLS/2005/ERF/001

Hungarian Helsinki Committee

HU

80,464.00

64,371.20

JLS/2005/ERF/007

Churches Commission for Migrants
in Europe

BE

199,465.00

159,535.00

JLS/2005/ERF/018

Greek Council for Refugees

GR

97,539.06

78,031.25

Intra-European burden-sharing in
the field of asylum
Pooling of asylum liaison offices
in a country of origin: Great
Lakes Region

COI Network III - Training,
Master Class, Good Practice
Monitoring access of asylum
seekers to territory and
procedure at European airports exchange of experience and best
practices
Resettlement - Broadening the
basis in Europe Providing
continued and targeted
information and discussion on
refugee
resettlement
in Europe
Identifying
and promoting
good
practices for unaccompanied
minors in the EU asylum
legislation

TOTAL

EN

Total forecast budget

4,030,867.54

88

2,319,933.98

EN

Table 5.5 – List of relevant 2006 ARGO and ERF projects
Reference
Number

Applicant
organisation

MS

Title of the project

2006/ARGO/GC/04

IOM

BE

2006/ARGO/GC/14

Immigration and
naturalization service

NL

2006/ARGO/GC/21

COA (central agency
for reception of
asylum seekers)

NL

2006/ARGO/GC/09

Ministry of Interior,
Department for civil
liberties and
immigration

IT

2006/ARGO/GC/16

COA (central agency
for reception of
asylum seekers)

NL

JLS/2006/ERF/001

Hungarian Helsinki
Committee

HU

JLS/2006/ERF/004

Immigration and
naturalization service

NL

JLS/2006/ERF/010

International
Organization for
Migration

BE

JLS/2006/ERF/018

Medical Rehabilitation
Center for Torture
Victims

GR

JLS/2006/ERF/005

Dutch Council for
Refugees

Italian Council for
Refugees
Ministry of Interior,
Department for civil
JLS/2006/ERF/006
liberties and
immigration
Immigration and
JLS/2006/ERF/008
naturalization service
JLS/2006/ERF/016

JLS/2006/ERF/014 University of Konstanz

NL

IT

IT

NL
DE

Exchange of information and best
practices on first reception,
protection and treatment of
unaccompanied minors
General Directors' immigration
services conference 2007 (GDISC
2007)

Amount
requested

180,111.73

144,111.73

1,202,727.23

625,440.38

Durable solutions in practice

333,970.00

184,830.00

Consolidating reception capacities
in respect of migration flows
reaching the island of Lampedusa
and other strategic border points of
the Sicilian costs (Praesidium II)

619,712.67

371,827.60

538,608.00

258,008.00

199,762.58

139,833.81

83,402.00

58,381.40

478,401.28

334,880.90

71,545.00

50,081.00

252,094.00

176,465.00

163,197.94

114,238.56

89,667.62

62,767.33

655,737.70

400,000.00

202,702.92

141,800.00

European asylum reception
organisations' knowledge transfer
hub (The Hub)
Enhancing the proper
implementation of Community law in
Member States through Online
Teaching Resources and
Information Exchange
General Directors' Immigration
Services Conference Asylum
Conference 2007
Not just numbers. Teaching Toolkit
on Migration and Asylum in the
European Union
Development of Training Material for
Professionals Working with Asylum
Seekers and Refugees Survivors of
Torture and Ill Treatment
Networking on the Transposition of
the Qualification Directive: Sharing
Information and Facilitating
Dialogue between NGOs and other
stakeholders
Services at Borders: a practical
cooperation
Resettlement: Building up the basis.
Promoting programmes for the
resettlement refugees through
information and awareness raising
European Asylum Curriculum,
Phase II
Multi-Centre NETwork
Strenghtening

TOTAL

EN

Total forecast budget

5,071,640.67

89

3,062,665.71

EN

Table 5.6: Estimated FTE's dedicated to transnational practical cooperation

Source: feasibility study. During the case studies and interviews with key stakeholders from
public and civil society sectors, interviewees were asked to estimate the total time allocated to
practical cooperation on a yearly basis. Not all stakeholders were able to provide such an
estimate. Table 5.6 below shows the estimated human resources in FTE by country or by relevant
organisation, as well as the estimated total costs. For some countries, estimates were given by
both public authorities and NGOs.

FTE involved in practical
cooperation

Name of organisation
Asylum and Refugee Office (ES)

3

Forum Refugie (FR)

2

Terre d'asile (FR)

10

Ministry of immigration (FR)

4

OFPRA (FR)

6

Ministry of Justice (NL)

4

Vluchtelingenwerk (NL)

4

Office for Foreigners, Department for Refugee Procedures (PL)

1

Department of international cooperation/ Office for Foreigners (PL)

2

Asylum section, Migration Policy department, Administrative and Internal
Affairs, Ministry of Interior (SL)

4

Asylum and Migration section (CZ)

2

Red Cross (AT)

12

Total (7 Member States)

54 FTE

Average per Member States

7.7 FTE

Assumed total EU27

208 FTE

55

Assumed total cost

55

EN

6,015,500 euro

Based on annual gross salary in Services sector, Structure of Earnings Survey 2002 (Eurostat)

90

EN

i

This table concerns States that have an annual refugee resettlement programme target or quota in 2008. The figures are based on information
reported by States according to allocations provided for in 2008. Owing to different fiscal / programme years among States and complexities
associated with calculating yearly allocations, which in some cases are flexible, the figures in this table should be read as approximate.
ii
This includes resettlement processing for individuals who are in their country of origin (non-refugee).
iii
The majority of resettlement countries do not include family reunification within their quota allocation for UNHCR submissions. Individuals
accepted under family reunion programmes include individuals in their country of origin.
iv
Australia’s refugee resettlement intake for 2008/2009 has been increased by 500 places.
v
Citizens and/or permanent residents of Australia can propose / sponsor individuals under this category. Community organisations can also
propose under this category.
vi
Immediate family reunification is given priority under the Humanitarian Program (figures shown under “private sponsorship” column).
vii
7,300 – 7,500 places comprise the total Government assisted target, including in -country processing.
viii
Government assisted resettlement.
ix
Denmark is operating a flexible quota of 1500 places over 3 years. Within the 3-year period, more or fewer places can be used depending on
actual needs.
x
This figure is based on the rationale that each case comprises approximately 4 persons. The agreement signed between France and UNHCR
refers to “une centaine de cas”.
xi
This figure refers to an ad-hoc submission made by UNHCR and NGO / church groups for Iraqi refugees.
xii
300 places of the 750 allocation could be used for non-UNHCR submitted cases.
xiii
Up to 300 places could be used for individuals in their home country who are family members of refugees resettled in New Zealand. These
places, if used, would be taken from the 750 places available for UNHCR submissions.
xiv
Close family members of resettled refugees are reunited and settled as refugees in Norway over and above the resettlement quota.
xv
This figure refers to the Mandate Programme which has no set limit but the figure is based on the average number resettled each year.
xvi
Where States provided a target range (e.g. Iceland 25-30), the higher figure has been used in calculating the total.
_________________

EN

91

EN