Annexes to the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection - Impact Assessment

Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:

Tekst
Originele weergave

Meer informatie

1. Tekst

VH/es 1 DG H 1 B EN

Brussels, 21.10.2009 SEC(2009) 1376 (part II) Annexes to the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 554} {SEC(2009)1377} EN

Annex 1 Glossary .........................................................................................................4 Annex 2 Consultation with stakeholders ......................................................................7 Annex 3 New asylum applications in EU, 1987-2007 ...............................................18 Annex 4 New asylum applications and asylum decisions concerning Iraq, Russia and Somalia citizens, 2007 (only data disaggregated by citizenship included) .........19 Annex 5 Analysis of statistics on positive and negative decision on asylum applications.................................................................................................................21 Annex 6 Statistics attesting the wide divergences in the application of substantive grounds of international protection..........................................................22 Annex 7 First instance decisions on applications by citizenship, age and sex - Quarterly data (rounded) for 2008..............................................................................24 Annex 8 Comparison of trends regarding asylum influxes and recognition rates......26 Annex 9 Omissions of personal interviews ................................................................29 Annex 10 Costs for providing free legal assistance at first instance ..........................31 Annex 11 Costs related to an examination of an application at first instance............34 Annex 12.....................................................................................................................37 Annex 13 National asylum systems and costs............................................................38 Annex 14 Additional Problem: Incoherence between different EU instruments dealing with international protection..........................................................................51 Annex 15 Assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of sub-options ....59 Annex 16 Assessment of the status quo .....................................................................71 Annex 17 Content of the preferred option..................................................................80 Annex 18 Assessment of preferred policy option ......................................................87 Annex 19 A comparative analysis of international standards and the key principal elements of the preferred option................................................................104 Annex 20 Prevalence of torture among asylum seekers and refugees .....................111 Annex 21 Overview of international and community standards on access to effective remedy .......................................................................................................120 Annex 22 Accelerated procedures ............................................................................123 Annex 23 Timeframe(s) for completing an examination of an asylum application at first instance in the Member States.......................................................................127 Annex 24 The likely administrative costs of the preferred policy option ................129 EN 2

Annex 26 Asylum decisions in EU27 in 2008 (first instance) .................................141 Annex 27 Asylum seeking unaccompanied minors .................................................143 EN 3

EN 4

EN 5

A presumption is a legal conclusion compelled by a Safe country of origin: According to the Procedures Directive a country is considered as a safe country of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined of Article 9 of Directive 2004/82/EC, no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat of indiscriminate violence in situations of international armed conflicts. First country of asylum: A first country of asylum is a country in which a person has been granted a durable solution. Safe third country: A safe third country is a country in which an asylum seeker could have found protection as a refugee, and in which he/she has been physically present prior to arriving in the country in which he/she is applying for asylum. term used to describe someone's habits or manner of working, the acting independently, EN 6

A NNEX 2 C ONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS 1 . The main findings regarding the necessary improvements to the 2 : There was a recognition of the importance of better defining a common asylum procedure by the majority of the contributions, in terms of both reaching adequate compliance with existing legislation and defining a new instrument at EU level; 6 Compliance with existing legislation 60 8 50 Further harmonization of procedural guarantees r s 40 21 e s w n 6 f a 30 Further harmonization of the types of procedures 5 5 . o n 20 2 8 10 5 26 Creation of a European body (first level or appeal) 10 1 10 1 2 12 0 1 3 MS Gov MS Par Reg/Loc Aut CS & NGO Total Other Some requests for a new intervention related to some specific aspects were flagged: (i) harmonization of types of procedure (21/66); (ii) harmonization of procedural guarantees (10/66); (iii) institution of a European body (5/66). MS Gov stressed the necessity for a further law approximation and/or common asylum procedure mainly focused on the following aspects: The full text of these contributions is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_ asylumsystem_e.htm The numbers indicated in the analysis refer to the number of preferences expressed, for each question, per each of the single criteria identified (i.e. 3/7 MS Gov = 3 preferences expressed for a certain criteria on 7 total preferences expressed by respondent MS Gov) EN 7

· the harmonization of guarantees linked to asylum procedures; Various indications were given by MS Gov (i.e. FR) and NGOs to create European guidelines for interpretation or implementation of EU legislation, associated also with reflections (i.e. SE) on the possibility of EU of becoming party to the Geneva Convention as a single entity; DE supported the implementation of the CEAS, but with the condition of not defining detailed or binding procedural dispositions (especially on specific issues like access to the labor market); A few MS Gov (i.e. UK) together with Regional and Local Authorities (hereinafter Reg/Loc.Aut.) highlighted the need for a preliminary evaluation of the first phase of implementation of the CEAS before further improving or developing the legislation; NGOs contributions stressed the following elements: · the basic need to foster MS legislations to comply with EU existing legislation; · the necessity of supporting the creation of a European judicial body as a means for going towards the definition of a common asylum procedure; · the necessity of granting the fundamental right of appeal on behalf of asylum applicants. A low concentration of indications was detected on how to enhance the effectiveness of the access to asylum procedures, apart from a certain convergence on the necessity of training asylum staff (18/67); EN 8

60 17 50 7 By training (border personnel, others) e r s 40 8 s w 11 n f a 30 By acceleration of procedures 3 n . o 5 20 3 35 By setting deadlines for the decision at first level 4 2 10 1 22 1 10 1 2 1 0 1 MS Gov MS Par Reg/Loc Aut CS & NGO Total Other The definition of deadlines for the decision at first level (8/67) and the acceleration of procedures (7/67) were considered as two relevant aspects on which to intervene. The enhancement of the effectiveness of access to asylum procedures was considered as a main issue on which to intervene by MS Gov, with specific referral to: · the need for acceleration of procedures (4/18 (i.e. SE, LV)); · the importance of training of personnel (3/18 (i.e. MT, SE)); · the necessity of revising the concept of "safe European third country" (CZ); · the relevance of setting deadlines for first level decision (LV); DE did not find shortcomings in the current regulations, suggesting to identify national deficiencies during the evaluation process of the first phase of CEAS; NGOs and CS, indicating means for enhancing the effectiveness of the asylum procedure and improving the efficiency and protection guarantees, supported the following steps: · the granting of professional and legal assistance to asylum seekers before and during the asylum procedure; · the setting of deadlines for first level decision; · the training of personnel; · the access to information by applicants for international protection; · the efficient circulation and exchange of information between the national authorities in charge of the procedures; · the improvement of airport and sea procedures. EN 9

Right to legal advice (17/87) and to suspensive appeal (14/87) were considered as crucial procedural devices on which to intervene. 5 Abolition of all types of special procedures 80 14 70 60 5 Right to suspensive appeal e r s 11 30 50 s w n 40 Reconsideration of notions f a 17 . o n 30 17 14 Right to legal advise 20 3 10 Other 10 21 2 15 6 2 0 1 1 MS Gov MS Par Reg/Loc Aut CS & NGO Total 3 of: · "Safe third country" (EE, DE, PT); · "Safe European third country" (CZ, FR, PT); · "Safe country of origin" (EE, PT, SI); An EU list suggested for: · "Safe countries" (CZ, SI); · "Safe countries of origin" (FR, DE); · "Safe European third countries" (HU); Right to suspensive appeal and right to legal assistance were mentioned by some MS Gov (i.e. FR and SE respectively) as concepts to be further reviewed; A review of these concepts was supported also by a meaningful number of NGOs (11/62 and 14/62 respectively); The abolition of any kind of special procedure separate from the regular asylum procedure was supported by various NGOs: their application diminish applicants' protection guarantees; LV supports existing concepts of first country of asylum, safe third country and safe country of origin. EN 10

access to asylum procedures; procedural guarantees; The personal interview to the applicant and refusal of asylum applications were also mentioned by some NGOs as a matter of further revision. A low concentration of indications was collected on how to design a mandatory single procedure; Creating an authority competent for both types of applications 5 30 8 r s Examining subsidiary protection only after refugee status refusal e 20 s w n f a 1 4 . o n 3 10 5 21 Other (need of evaluation of first phase) 11 8 0 1 1 MS Gov MS Par Reg/Loc Aut CS & NGO Total The examination of subsidiary protection only after having discarded refugee status emerged as a possible procedure to achieve a more efficient system at EU level for processing applications (8/34). The design of a mandatory single procedure was supported in principle by some MS Gov (i.e. FR, DE), with no particular uniform indication emerging on how such a procedure should be designed: · reference to the Geneva Convention and international refugee law to develop a single procedure suggested by some (i.e. PT); · procedure to be based on the following steps according to NL: (i) registration (with restricted reception); (ii) interim period (medical examination, legal assistance, information), (iii) asylum application period (interviews, Dublin research, assessment of the type of procedure to be applied); · definition of an authority competent for both procedures (MT); · divergences in suggesting either independent authorities or cooperation amongst existing authorities; EN 11

A moderate consensus was built on the need for a better and more in-depth evaluation of the first phase of implementation of CEAS before proceeding with a single procedure and the second phase of harmonization in general (i.e. UK, HU and few NGOs); The examination of subsidiary protection after the denial of refugee applications (5/17) and the definition of an authority competent for both procedures (4/17) collected appreciations on behalf of NGOs. Meeting participants/respondents to questionnaires No participation / no information received from Representative from the following 20 Member States participated: The following seven Member States did not participate in the meeting: Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, Greece, Luxembourg, Hungary. Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Legal advisors from the following 20 Member States participated: The following six Member States did not participate in the meeting: Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, , Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, , Sweden and the United Kingdom. Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain. UNHCR was also represented Representatives from the following 18 Member States participated: The following eight Member States did not participate in the meeting: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. EN 12

Meeting participants/respondents to questionnaires No participation / no information received from Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. Five NGOs also took part in the meeting: The Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Dutch Refugee Council, the Slovak Human Rights League, the Finnish Refugee Advice Centre and the Lithuanian Red Cross as well as UNHCR Brussels. Government experts from 25 The following one Member States did not participate in the meeting: Member States participated: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Germany did not participate in the Experts' meeting on the Asylum Procedures Directive. Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. meeting on the Representatives from 21 NGOs participated: Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), European Women's lobby (EWL), International Rehabilitation Council for the Victims of Torture (IRCT), PIC, Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD), Italian Council for Refugee (ICR), Caritas Sweden, Caritas Europa, Asylkoordination Austria, Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, Save the Chidlren's, Asylum Aid UK, Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR), Amnesty International EU Office (AI), Greek Council for Refugees, France Terre d'Asile (FTA), Organization for Aid to Refugees, Swedish Red Cross, EN 13

Meeting participants/respondents to questionnaires No participation / no information received from Dutch Council for Refugees, ECRE. Representatives from 19 Member States participated: The following eight Member States did not participate in the meeting: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. Finland, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. Twenty Member States responded to the DG JLS questionnaire: The following six Member States did not submit responses: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. Sweden, Slovakia and United Kingdom. Fourteen Member States responded to the GHK questionnaire: The following twelve Member States did not submit responses: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Sweden and Slovakia. Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. The following NGOs submitted replies to the GHK survey: Dutch Council for Refugees (The Netherlands), Flemish Refugee Action (Belgium), France Terre d'Asile (France), Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland), Hungarian Helsinki Committee (Hungary), Irish Refugee Council (Ireland), Italian Council for Refugees (Italy), Lithuania Red Cross society (Lithuania), Medical Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Victims of torture (Greece), Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (Norway), Portuguese Refugee Council (Portugal), Romanian National Council for Refugees (Romania), Slovak Humanitarian Council (Slovakia) EN 14

EN 15

EN 16

EN 17

A NNEX 3 N EW ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN EU, 1987-2007 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 313645 380450 406585 424180 421470 344800 276675 234675 197410 222170 EU27 162775 210745 291645 397025 511185 672385 516705 300290 263655 227835 242845 EU15 5975 4510 8190 12945 15445 17675 26715 14340 11410 12435 11790 21965 35780 42690 24505 18800 13585 12400 12575 8870 11120 BE 2725 4670 4590 5290 4610 13885 14345 6650 5105 5895 5100 5700 6530 10345 12510 5945 4390 3235 2280 1960 2225 DK 57380 103075 121320 193065 256110 438190 322600 127210 127935 117335 104355 98645 94775 78565 88285 71125 50565 35605 28915 21030 19165 DE 6300 9300 6500 4100 2700 2110 860 1105 1280 1640 4375 2950 1530 3085 5500 5665 8180 4470 9050 12265 25115 GR 2500 4515 4075 8645 8140 11710 12645 11990 5680 4730 4975 4935 8405 7925 9490 6310 5765 5365 5050 5295 7195 ES 27670 34350 61420 54815 47380 28870 27565 25960 20415 17405 21415 22375 30905 38745 47290 51085 59770 58545 49735 30750 29160 FR 50 50 40 60 30 40 90 360 420 1180 3880 4625 7725 10940 10325 11635 7485 4265 4305 4240 3935 IE 11000 1300 2240 3570 24490 2590 1320 1830 1760 680 1890 13100 18450 15195 17400 16015 13705 9630 9345 10350 14050 IT 100 45 85 115 240 120 225 260 280 265 435 1710 2930 625 685 1040 1550 1575 800 525 425 LU 13460 7485 13900 21210 21615 20345 35400 52575 29260 22855 34445 45215 39275 43895 32580 18665 13400 9780 12345 14465 7100 NL 11405 15790 21880 22790 27305 16240 4745 5080 5920 6990 6720 13805 20130 18285 30125 39355 32360 24635 22460 13350 11920 AT 180 250 115 60 235 655 2090 615 330 270 250 355 305 225 235 245 115 115 115 130 225 PT 50 65 180 2745 2135 3635 2025 835 850 710 970 1270 3105 3170 1650 3445 3090 3575 3595 2275 1405 FI 18115 19595 30335 29420 27350 84020 37580 18640 9045 5775 9680 12840 11220 16285 23500 33015 31355 23160 17530 24320 36205 SE 5865 5740 16775 38200 73400 32300 28500 32830 43965 29640 32500 46015 71160 80315 71365 103080 60045 40625 30840 28320 27905 UK 225 790 650 1620 950 4405 9675 7715 4540 6770 CY 2110 4085 7355 8790 18095 8485 11400 5300 3590 2730 1585 CZ 0 25 25 5 10 10 15 10 10 5 15 EE 1260 7120 11500 7800 9555 6410 2400 1600 1610 2115 3420 HU 35 20 5 15 25 5 5 20 10 35 LV 240 160 145 305 425 365 395 165 100 145 125 LT 70 160 255 160 155 350 455 995 1165 1270 1380 MT 600 840 600 3580 3425 3060 4660 4480 5170 6810 7925 5240 4225 7205 PL 85 95 140 360 415 645 505 1320 1555 8150 9745 10300 11395 3550 2850 2640 SK 30 35 35 70 335 745 9245 1510 650 1050 1090 1550 500 370 SI 370 835 1350 1755 2430 2890 1320 985 700 500 815 BG 315 425 930 645 635 585 1425 1235 1665 1365 2280 1000 885 545 485 380 660 RO Source: Eurostat EN 18

A NNEX 4 N EW ASYLUM APPLICATIONS AND ASYLUM DECISIONS CONCERNING I RAQ , R USSIA AND S OMALIA CITIZENS , 2007 ( ONLY DATA DISAGGREGATED BY CITIZENSHIP INCLUDED ) IRAQ RUSSIA SOMALIA Other Other Other Asylum Geneva Humanita Other non- Asylum Geneva Humanita Other non- Asylum Geneva Humanita Other non applicatio Total Conventi rian positive Rejection status applicatio Total Conventi rian positive Rejection status applicatio Total Conventi rian positive Rejection status ns decisions on status decisions s decisions ns decisions on status decisions s decisions ns decisions on status decisions s decisions 38195 31785 6905 11025 160 10870 2815 16300 16535 3835 3200 80 6365 3045 9230 5670 1475 2215 20 1690 260 590 1005 120 265 na 615 na 930 1930 480 0 na 1450 na 65 125 10 25 na 90 na 1070 380 0 335 na 45 na 115 35 0 15 na 15 na 35 10 0 5 na 10 na 4325 7780 5760 35 na 1025 960 770 1210 200 25 na 570 415 120 180 65 50 na 35 30 5475 4030 65 10 0 3950 10 50 35 0 5 0 25 5 175 125 0 0 0 115 5 1580 1040 20 0 na 1020 na 75 115 20 0 na 95 na 145 100 0 0 na 100 na 145 145 45 25 na 75 na 3220 1675 300 0 na 1375 na 45 65 30 0 na 35 na 280 240 100 na na 140 na 50 45 5 na na 40 na 140 115 30 na na 90 na 0 na na na na na na 0 na na na na na na 0 na na na na na na 15 na na na na na na 15 na na na na na na 0 na na na na na na 2005 na na na na na na 80 na na na na na na 1875 na na na na na na 470 405 215 na na 95 95 2675 3650 2635 na na 540 475 465 305 190 na na 40 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 330 20 165 40 100 10 165 185 25 5 0 130 25 80 240 0 225 0 10 0 18560 13610 155 9565 120 2380 1390 790 1000 5 240 65 460 230 3350 1930 115 1415 20 270 110 2075 1675 210 135 na 1265 60 125 150 10 0 na 130 5 1960 1980 975 110 na 860 35 200 225 5 115 na 20 90 60 400 0 0 na 15 385 10 5 5 0 na 0 0 45 80 15 35 0 10 20 70 185 20 45 0 95 20 5 15 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 120 65 5 0 5 45 50 50 0 0 0 10 40 100 40 30 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 60 0 35 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 na 0 na 0 0 0 0 na 0 na 585 380 5 370 na 5 na 20 45 5 15 0 15 5 6670 5440 135 2830 15 1280 1180 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 145 0 40 0 20 80 305 340 0 0 0 95 245 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 530 330 0 275 0 10 40 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 245 190 105 0 0 75 10 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 30 40 10 0 0 30 0 EN 19

Impact assessment on Policy plan on asylum: an integrated approach to protection across the EU, table 5 annexes, SEC(2008)2029, Brussels 2008 EN 20

A NNEX 5 A NALYSIS OF STATISTICS ON POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE DECISION ON ASYLUM APPLICATIONS at While the number of asylum decisions was available for most EN 21

A NNEX 6 S TATISTICS ATTESTING THE WIDE DIVERGENCES IN THE APPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION 4 . 5 . In 2007, in Belgium 14% of Afghans asylum seekers received a protection 6 . The above shows that, despite the Data extracted from the EUROSTAT database See below Table on New asylum application 1987-2007 UNHCR statistical yearbook 2007 (Annexes) available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4981b19d2.html EN 22

7 . 8 . In 2008, 9 . See below Table on New asylum applications 1987-2007 See below for references to first instance decisions in 2008 These figures have been calculated on the basis of the information available on EUROSTAT; information was not available for the following countries: Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia. Statistics are available at: http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do (total positive decisions for the three first quarters of 2008) http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do (subsidiary protection decisions for the three first quarters of 2008) EN 23

A NNEX 7 F IRST INSTANCE DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS BY CITIZENSHIP , AGE AND SEX - Q UARTERLY DATA ( ROUNDED ) FOR 2008 MS 2008q01 2008q02 2008q03 2008q04 Total BE 575 800 555 : 1,930 BU 5 10 5 5 25 CZ 35 70 30 35 170 DK 40 : : : 40 DE 1,975 1,555 1,960 1,820 7,310 EE 5 0 0 0 5 IE 115 75 65 : 255 GR 45 55 245 : 345 ES 60 5 5 50 120 FR 1,325 1,265 915 : 3,505 IT 220 250 115 : 585 CY : : : : LV 0 0 0 : 0 LT 0 5 0 0 5 LU 20 15 5 : 40 HU 20 90 35 : 145 MT 0 10 0 10 20 NL 170 150 105 : 425 AT 570 520 520 : 1,610 PL 25 40 40 : 105 PT 5 0 5 0 10 RO 45 10 20 : 75 SI 0 0 0 0 0 SK 0 0 5 15 20 FI 15 40 10 : 65 SE 235 465 380 : 1,080 UK 1,150 1,275 1,125 : 3,550 Total 6,655 6,705 6,145 1,935 21,440 EN 24

MS 2008q01 2008q02 2008q03 2008q04 Total BE 80 125 85 : 290 BU 60 95 105 10 270 CZ 50 65 25 : 140 DK 85 : : : 85 DE 400 305 380 355 1,440 EE 0 0 0 0 0 IE 0 0 0 : 0 GR 0 0 0 : 0 ES 45 10 5 20 80 FR 70 40 320 : 430 IT 635 1,275 545 : 2,455 CY : : : : LV 0 0 0 0 0 LT 15 10 10 : 35 LU : : : : HU 0 10 35 : 45 MT 565 120 445 255 1,385 NL 370 380 430 : 1,180 AT 265 285 270 : 820 PL : 0 345 : 345 PT 30 15 10 5 60 RO 0 5 5 : 10 SI 0 0 0 0 0 SK 15 10 20 20 65 FI 90 105 95 : 290 SE 775 1,310 955 : 3,040 UK 475 570 570 : 1,615 Total 4,025 4,735 4,655 665 14,080 EN 25

A NNEX 8 C OMPARISON OF TRENDS REGARDING ASYLUM INFLUXES AND RECOGNITION RATES Czech Republic Spain 3000 9000 2730 8000 2500 7655 7000 2000 6000 1585 Applications 5000 5295 Applications 1500 4405 IT Positive decisions 4000 Positive decisions 1000 1050 3000 500 2000 305 390 320 1000 0 205 575 260 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Italy Malta 35000 3000 30000 30055 2500 2605 25000 2000 20000 Applications Applications 1500 1380 1405 15000 14050 Positive decisions 1270 Positive decisions 10000 10350 11833 1000 8118 550 625 5000 5220 500 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Cyprus France 8000 7000 6770 40000 6000 35000 35405 5000 30000 30750 29160 4540 Applications 25000 4000 Applications 3450 Positive decisions 20000 3000 Positive decisions 15000 2000 10000 1000 5000 5150 188 227 246 2855 3350 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Slovakia Poland 3000 8000 2850 2500 2640 7000 7205 7200 2000 6000 5000 1500 Applications 4225 Applications Positive decisions 4000 Positive decisions 1000 905 3000 2992 2000 2465 500 1000 1272 0 8 96 87 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Slovenia Bulgaria 600 900 800 815 500 500 745 700 400 370 600 300 Applications 500 500 Applications 240 Positive decisions 400 Positive decisions 200 300 335 295 200 100 100 95 0 9 8 4 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 EN 26

16 1400 15 15 14 1200 1180 12 10 1000 Applications 800 Applications 8 660 Positive decisions 600 Positive decisions 6 5 5 400 4 380 2 200 161 137 0 0 0 0 63 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Lithuania Latvia 250 60 215 50 50 200 40 150 145 Applications 35 Applications 125 30 100 95 Positive decisions Positive decisions 20 60 65 50 10 10 10 8 3 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Hungary United Kingdom 35000 4000 3500 30000 30545 3420 28320 27905 3000 3175 25000 2500 20000 Applications 2000 2115 Applications Positive decisions 15000 Positive decisions 1500 1000 10000 6805 6945 500 5000 5040 200 255 240 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Belgium Germany 14000 25000 12000 12322 20780 21335 11100 20000 18920 10000 10168 8000 Applications 15000 Applications 6000 Positive decisions 10000 Positive decisions 7870 8750 4000 2823 3197 5000 2000 2440 1955 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Ireland Luxembourg 4500 4240 600 4000 3935 3805 525 541 3500 500 3000 425 455 400 2500 Applications 370 300 Applications 2000 Positive decisions Positive decisions 1500 200 1000 500 648 581 595 100 103 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Netherlands Austria 16000 16000 14000 13380 14000 13350 12000 12000 11920 12750 10000 10000 8000 8545 Applications 8000 Applications 7090 Positive decisions 7378 Positive decisions 6000 6000 5377 5381 4000 4676 4000 2000 1979 2365 2000 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 EN 27

250 4000 225 3770 3500 200 3000 150 155 2500 130 Applications 2275 Applications 2000 100 Positive decisions Positive decisions 1500 1405 70 1000 50 857 30 500 620 580 25 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Sweden 40000 35000 36205 30000 25000 24320 24365 21445 Applications 20000 Positive decisions 15000 14575 10000 5000 7121 0 2006 2007 2008 EN 28

A NNEX 9 O MISSIONS OF PERSONAL INTERVIEWS Omissions of personal interviews Omission of the personal interview on the basis of Article 12(2)(b) APD Omission of the personal interview on the basis of Article 12(2)(c) APD AT No No BE No No BG No No EL Yes Yes CY 10 Yes Yes CZ No No as regards interviews on the substance Yes as regards admissibility interviews, including cases of subsequent applications EE No Yes Yes Yes No No as regards interviews on the substance Yes in cases falling under the safe third country notion No No as regards first applications Yes as regards subsequent applications No Yes Data refer to draft legislation Data refer to pre-transposition legislation in force EN 29

Omission of the personal interview on the basis of Article 12(2)(b) APD Omission of the personal interview on the basis of Article 12(2)(c) APD No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No as regards first applications Yes as regards subsequent applications No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes on the Member States' replies unless otherwise indicated. Data refer to draft legislation EN 30

A NNEX 10 C OSTS FOR PROVIDING FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AT FIRST INSTANCE 13 . The costs ranges for providing free legal 14 is available, overall costs 15 , there is evidence that the policy of frontloading leads to higher Due to the significant variation in costs, it has not been deemed appropriate to estimate the average costs. Outlining the range of costs per capita gives a better idea of how much may be spent by individual Member States. Lithuania indicated that not all asylum seekers in fact made use of legal advice, whilst Austria indicated that it intended to increase the number of legal advisors as there were only 14 advisors appointed to provide legal assistance to asylum seekers The following elements of frontloading are essential: The provision of good quality information and feedback opportunities from the very start and throughout the procedure; Limitations to the extent Member States can treat applications through accelerated procedures and derogate from basic principles and guarantees, such as omitting personal interviews; Quality reasoning and decision making, Placing addition focus on the special needs of woman and vulnerable applicants; and, Removing some of the root causes of subsequent applications. EN 31

Costs per capita Legal advice is provided in the admission procedure (i.e. in the initial 20 days of the asylum process). Services of legal advisors are covered by the Government. At the moment there are 14 legal advisors in AT; however, an increase to 22 legal advisors is planned. Ministry of the Interior costs of legal advice without EU- funds: 2007: 583.000,- 2008: 587.000,- The fees of the expert providing legal aid/representation can be broken down to his/her costs incurred and to its hourly rate. The hourly rate of an expert providing legal aid/representation is defined in the law on the annual budget of Hungary. In 2008 this rate is 3000 Ft/hour (app. 11,5 EUR). preparation for interviews, discussion of the interview and the intended decision to reject the asylum application, the submission of a view on the intended decision and legal assistance during the appeal procedure. There are three points at which legal assistance is required (including or excluding the provisional ruling) and with the following fixed points allocation ('hour allocation'). A payment that reflects the hours spent on the case in question. Intended decision is granted 7 points One point represents a payment of 107.02. Thus, 7 points equals 747.14 euro. In the majority of cases, legal aid at first instance covers one consultation and participation in an interview (however, not in all interviews, as this is obligatory only in cases of (a) unaccompanied children; and, (b) (in other cases) when an applicant requests so). There are cases when the same applicant receives legal advice several times, but this is not common practice. EN 32

Costs per capita Not all asylum applicants obtain legal aid; the individual asylum seekers need to approach a lawyer. Costs are as follows: Consultation 190 LTL (55 euro); Participation in the interview 140 LTL (40 euro); Provided each type of service is provided only once, the cost per capita at first instance would be 95 euro. In 2008 Lithuania spent 155,000 LTL (app. 45 000 eur) for legal aid for both first instance and appeal procedures. It can be noted that free legal assistance in Lithuania is much higher in appeal procedures than at first instance. Costs for appeal procedures include: Preparation of procedural documentation for an appeal 400 LTL (116 euro); Representation in the District Court 240 LTL (70 euro); Representation in the Highest Court 110 LTL (32 euro). However, as the proportion of appeal procedures and first instance procedures is not known for 2008, it is not possible to estimate the total costs for first instance decisions in Lithuania in 2008. During 2007 the cost to provide free legal assistance in the Swedish Refugee Board (i.e. the determining authority) was 6,167 SEK (app. 629 euro) per capita and from January-October 2008 it was 8,952 SEK per capita (app. 912 euro). EN 33

A NNEX 11 C OSTS RELATED TO AN EXAMINATION OF AN APPLICATION AT FIRST INSTANCE the costs required to examine an application at first instance the costs required to provide applicants with information on their rights and obligations during the procedure pursuant to Article 10 (1) (a) APD; the costs required to provide the services of an interpreter pursuant to Article 10 (1) (b) APD. of Provide applicants with information on their rights and obligations (Article 10 (1) (a)): costs Provide services of interpreters Article 10 (1) (b)): costs in first information No information provided Interpretation: 11.96 euro per hour for the interview Translation: 13.67 euro per page translated. information No information provided Costs for interpreters: 2006: app 435 2007: app 345 2008 (from January to October): 252 · Information material on asylum Costs for interpretation /translation: seekers' rights and obligations during the procedure were produced in eight languages (in total 700 ex): 138,128.85 EEK (app. 8,832 euro) (costs for compilation, translation, design and printing). 2006: app. 10,000 EEK (app. 639 euro) 2007: app. 99,000 EEK 16 (app. 6330 euro) In 2008, 61,495.70 EEK (app. 3,932 euro) (video conference equipment for interviews with asylum seekers when no interpreter is available in Estonia) asylum decision No information provided Interpretation of an asylum interview: 263 euro protection in 1,490 euro EN 34

in first on international on international · No information provided · Average cost for a hearing/interview with an asylum examination by the OFPRA was 663 euro in 2006. interpreter: 64 euro (2008) This cost was · Estimated to be up to 77 euro in 2009. estimated to be 510 euro in 2007. It does not include the "social" costs (e.g. at the reception centre) · No information provided · Costs for interpretation range 6 to 80 euro per hour. information Costs relate to legal assistance at first instance: · No information provided Consultation 190 LTL (55 euro); Participation in the interview 140 LTL (40 euro); · information · 24,360 euro · 2006: 81,410.48 euro · 2007: 88,728.88 euro · 2008 (January to October): 88,587.85 euro procedure: No information provided 2007 approx.: 5.5 mln. 2008 approx. 6.5 mln. up to and including October. Approx. 7.8 mln. on an annual basis. procedure: 2,777/ EN 35

in first 2009: costs estimated at 10 mln. cost of process (costs for The costs to provide the services of an interpreter were 2,064 SEK per asylum seeker in 2007 and 4,214 SEK per asylum seeker January October 2008. No information provided Written instruction on rights and obligations are provided to asylum seekers No information provided per one and beneficiaries of 17 international protection. The translation costs for these (into 19 languages) were 385,878.40 SKK (12 808.82 euro) in 2008. SK (23.17 euro) by ERF since Taking into account costs for accommodation, boarding, protection of asylum facilities, interpretation services, transport, health care costs, pocket money, other expenses expended on asylum applicants and salaries of personnel working in asylum facilities EN 36

A NNEX 12 Australia, Iceland, Canada, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Bulgaria and Romania Iceland, Canada, Norway, United States of America, Switzerland Ghana, Senegal Former Republic of Macedonia, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cap-Vert, Croatia, Georgia, Ghana, India, Madagascar, Mali, Maurice, Mongolia, Senegal, Tanzania, and Ukraine. Albania, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cap-Vert, Croatia, Ghana, Former Republic of Macedonia, Mali, Montenegro, Senegal, Ukraine; along with male asylum seekers from Benin, Ghana, Mali. Andorra, Australia, Croatia, Liechtenstein, San Marino. Australia, Ghana, Croatia, Iceland, Japan, South Africa, Canada, Kenya, Lichtenstein, Mauritius, Norway, New Zeeland, Seychelles Islands, USA, Switzerland. Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Ecuador, India, Jamaica, Macedonia, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Peru, Serbia, South Africa and Ukraine; along with male asylum seekers with clearly unfounded claims from the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. EN 37

A NNEX 13 N ATIONAL ASYLUM SYSTEMS AND COSTS the number of personnel employed within the responsible authorities Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 11,944,856 11,920 1,000 euro per applicant No omission of personal interview 28% Free legal assistance at certain stages Use of accelerated procedures Use of border procedures EN 38

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 11,575 1,765 euro per applicant 20,425,000 Free legal assistance 22% No omission of personal interview Use of accelerated procedures 18 815 578 euro per applicant, when assuming that the procedure represents 25% of the total costs. 1,885,500 No omission of personal interviews 22% The accelerated procedure for all applicants in the initial stage Also including all the relevant activities for asylum-seekers' reception, accommodation and maintenance, and the integration measures for refugee or subsidiary protection holders. EN 39

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 No information 6, 780 Almost 242 applicants / staff employed Omission of personal 3% interview provided/available No free legal assistance Information in a language to be `reasonably understand' or `supposed to be authorities understood' in examination Use of accelerated officers, 3 procedures Authority for 5,107,578 19 employees in the 1, 585 6.68 applicants / staff employed Omission of personal 12% interview at the Wages and salaries for all asylum facilities EN 40

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 806 euro per applicant, when assuming that the procedure represents 25% of the total costs. admissibility stage Advice and counselling by NGOs Use of accelerated procedures Use of border procedures 19,165 No information No free legal assistance 13% provided No omission of personal interview Border procedures No information 15 3 applicants / staff employed Omission of personal 11% provided interview EN 41

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 Use of accelerated procedures Use of border procedures 20 7,195 7,000,000 973 euro per applicant Omission of personal 5% interview Accelerated procedures Border procedures persons are employed No information 1405 23.41 applicants / staff employed No omission of personal interview 29% provided Service. The Free legal assistance The budget for applications is assumed to be the difference between the total budget and what is provided to NGOs. EN 42

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 Use of accelerated procedures 29,160 42,700,000 1,464 euro per Omission of personal 9% applicant interview No free legal assistance at first instance 72.9 applicants/staff member Derogations from the material requirements for the national designation Use of accelerated procedures 25,115 No information - Omission of personal 1% provided interview Accelerated procedures However, the Border procedures EN 43

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 presidential decree No free legal assistance Applications are examined by police officers transposing the Directive maintains that 8,000,000 will be required annually to implement its provisions No information 3420 65.7 applicants / staff employed Free legal assistance 10% provided Border procedures No omission of personal interview 3,935 No information - No free legal assistance 9% provided Accelerated procedures EN 44

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 No omission of personal interview 150 eligibility No information No information - No omission of personal interviews 41% provided available Territorial Commissions The safe country of origin notion is not used No free legal assistance, but quasi-judicial hearing at 1 st instance with UNHCR participation) 9,249,512 21 425 21.25 applicants / staff employed Free legal assistance 47% Use of accelerated procedures Including reception services, interpretation and allocations to NGOs. EN 45

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 934,200 125 7,474 euro per applicant No omission of personal interview 59% 224,848 35 8.75 applicants / staff employed No free legal assistance 39% Use of accelerated 6,424 euro per procedures applicant No omission of personal interview 1,380 130,638 95 euro per applicant Omission of personal 52% interview (not applied in practice) No free legal assistance (but NGOs provid bona fide services) EN 46

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 105,850,000 7,100 9.61 applicants / staff employed Free legal assistance 38% No omission of personal interview 14,908 euro per applicant Participation of NGOs in personal interviews Use of accelerated procedures 7,205 1,035,001.19 144 euro per applicant Omission of personal 36% interview Legal clinic providing bona fide services, a large number of Chechen asylum seekers) Use of accelerated procedures EN 47

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 225 No information - Omission of personal 23% provided interview in certain cases Free legal assistance Use of accelerated procedures Use of border procedures 22 660 211,202 320 euro per applicant No free legal assistance 16% Omission of personal interview Use of accelerated procedures No information 36 205 21.42 applicants / staff Free legal assistance 40% Including administrative expenditure, medicines, medical materials, interpreters EN 48

Total budget for the Number of Number of applicants per staff member Derogations / Additional provisions % positive decisions (EU average: 21%) asylum applications for procedure in 2007 in euro international protection Average costs of (Source: Eurostat, 2007, provisional applications in figures) 2005- 2007 provided employed No omission of personal interview The safe country of origin notion is not used 370 No information - Border procedures 1% provided Accelerated procedures Omission of personal interviews N/A 2640 22.18 applicants / staff employed No free legal assistance 1% Information in a language to be `reasonably understand' or `supposed to be understood' EN 49

A NNEX 14 A DDITIONAL P ROBLEM : I NCOHERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT EU INSTRUMENTS DEALING WITH INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION 24 . 25 . While recital (2) to the Asylum Procedures Directive contains a 26 , this has resulted in diverse approaches to the right 27 . Ireland and Greece are the only Member States which do not explicitly provide for a single procedure in their national legislation). Recital 24 QD, plus, Art. 2 (e) QD: "a person who does not qualify as a refugee") Report on the application of Directive 2003/86 on family reunification of third country nationals, October 2008 While AT, CZ, EE, FR, FI, LU, NL, PT and SE apply the Directive to subsidiary protection beneficiaries, national legislation of Lithuania, for example, explicitly denies the right to family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. EN 51

28 . While this phenomenon may be partly explained by the increasingly 2007: LU: 15,0 / 33,3, PT 4,5/18,2, FI 3,2/ 24,2 , SE 2,6/42,3, CZ 6,2 / 11, LT 6,9/34,5, MT 0,5 / 64,9, PL 2,4/46,4, BG 1, 9/41,6. Source: Eurostat EN 52

1 st appeal to for RF, 2 nd for against not granting of RF in first instance (Y/N) benefit from SP (Y/N) protection status granted by first instance body, while awaiting protection outcome of appeal (Y/N) statuses (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N, the appeal body (a tribunal) can decide that the first instance administrative body "was too generous" and deny SP Y Y Y Y. The decision of the first instance body, the Asylum Services, can be appealed to a second instance, a quasi judicial body who can overrule the first instance decision. Y Y Y N, decision of first instance is not considered to have come into force; N hence, applicant treated as asylum seeker Y Y Y Y, principle of administrative law that an appeal administrative body cannot worsen the situation of the applicant Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y, appeal body can only re-examine one element (i.e. decision EN 53

Operates single procedure for RF and SP (Y/N) Examines application Possibility to Applicant continues If applicant appeals against first instance decision not to grant RF, then appeal body cannot overturn first instance decisions on other 1 st appeal to for RF, 2 nd for against not granting of RF in first instance (Y/N) benefit from SP (Y/N) protection status granted by first instance body, while awaiting protection outcome of appeal (Y/N) statuses (Y/N) on RF) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N, decision of first instance is not considered to have come into force; N hence, applicant treated as asylum seeker Y Y Y N/A N/A Y Y Y N/A N/A Y Y N, appeal reviews all elements of first N (see left) instance decision; therefore, the right of protection is not granted if the first decision is challenged Y Y Y N/A N/A Y Y, third status Y Y Y Y Y Y N, person is N (see left) regarded as asylum seeker until a final decision is made on his/her case Y Y Y N/A N/A EN 54

Subsidiary protection MS 2008Q01 2008Q02 2008Q03 2008Q04 Total BE 0 0 0 0 BG 0 0 0 CH CZ 0 0 0 0 DE 90 60 60 30 240 EE 0 0 0 0 ES 0 0 0 0 EU27 FI 0 0 0 FR 0 0 0 GR 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 IE 0 0 0 IS 0 0 0 IT 0 0 0 LT 0 0 0 LV 0 0 0 0 MT 0 0 5 20 25 NO PL 0 0 0 PT 0 0 0 0 RO 0 0 0 SE 10 10 20 40 SI 0 0 0 0 SK 0 TR Total 305 EN 55

Changing the title of the directive and adding definitions such as "beneficiaries of subsidiary protection", "subsidiary protection status" and "withdrawal of subsidiary protection status"; Streamlining terms in relation to asylum, such as replacing "application / applicant for asylum" with "application / applicant for international protection" and adding "subsidiary protection (status)" when reference is made to "refugee status": Specific objective 1.3. reads as follows: to improve the efficiency of decision-making EN 56

EN 57

EN 58

A NNEX 15 A SSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS , EFFICIENCY AND COHERENCE OF SUB - OPTIONS Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: No impact 0: No impact 0: No impact The Directive's ambiguity on access procedures and non availability of services at the initial stage will preserve the current obstacles. The baseline scenario implies no additional costs. It would not however lead to sustainable and systemic improvements, and the flaws in access procedures would persist. The Asylum Procedures Directive would continue to lack elements to back up the refugee related provisions of the SBC. The accessibility of the Qualification Directive and of the Reception Conditions Directive would not improve. Jurisprudence and infringement cases would help clarify certain elements of access procedures but no systemic impact is expected. National practices will vary broadly, whereas practical cooperation stand-alone will be insufficient to change institutional attitudes. 3: 3: 3: The improved clarity of access related standards and the envisaged responsibilities of front line authorities would make Since MS have already in place access procedures, the expected costs mainly relate to adapting existing instructions and training materials in line with the amended Directive. ERF support could be made available, and the overall costs are expected to be limited. Since the option would be insufficient to address all access related The option is coherent with the Schengen Borders Code (SBC) and the Return Directive which oblige MS to respect the principle of non refoulement procedures more when conducting accessible. Since the border and immigration controls and with the Dublin Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive which apply from the moment the application has been submitted. The option lacks elements needed to adequately address challenges of mixed arrivals: a person may be returned or rejected before he/she articulates availability of information and services at the entry points would continue to be limited, some asylum seekers might still not be able to communicate their protection needs to the border or immigration problems, its overall efficiency would also be limited. authorities, whilst insufficient fairness of border a request for and admissibility international protection or gets to the competent authority. procedures might prevent asylum seekers from getting access to substantive examinations. EN 59

The option accommodates the specifics of mixed arrivals and has a stronger potential to ensure access to procedures for applicants with special needs. The basic guarantees would become accessible at the very beginning of asylum process, while the enhanced transparency would have long term systemic impacts on access Although the option implies higher costs in comparison to the baseline scenario and option 1, the proposed elements are indispensible to ensure that an applicant is (i) aware of the possibility of requesting protection and (ii) able to communicate such a request to the authorities concerned. Since the initial communication aims at establishing the wish to apply for protection rather than a substantive examination, the overall costs will not be significant. The option is coherent with and complements the Directive's guarantees for applicants (Art. 10) and the rights of a legal counsellor or advisor (Art. 16). It provides a necessary procedural back up to Art. 3 (b) of the Schengen Borders Code which requires MS to respect the rights of persons requesting international protection when conducting border controls. procedures. Some applicants might be wrongly deprived from having their applications examined in substance, since the option contains no safeguards against possible error when applying admissibility grounds. 4: 4: 4,5: The option ensures that (i) the competent While the option implies the highest costs in comparison to the base line scenario, they are not expected to be excessive or disproportionate. The option brings important impacts in terms of effectiveness. All the elements of the option are eligible for ERF support. In addition to the characteristics described authorities are under "Option 2. accessible and have a positive obligation to register the application, Coherence", the option is in line and compliments the Commission proposal for amending the Dublin regulation. that (ii) the applicant is able to communicate his/her request to border guards and/or immigration authorities when present at the border and that (iii) admissibility and/or entry procedures takes into account his/her particular circumstances. The option has a strong potential to facilitate access to effective remedy in the case of an inadmissibility decision or a decision to refuse entry in border procedures. The envisaged measures address, in a comprehensive and systemic way, all 3 sets of obstacles hampering the access and are expected to produce maximum impacts. 2.5 2.5 4 Practical cooperation stand- alone is insufficient to ensure systemic and durable impacts, since it lacks binding effect. Practical cooperation would produce costs for training and for setting up profiling and monitoring mechanisms. It will be largely covered by the The option is coherent with the proposed legislative options and compliments the Dublin regulation, the Schengen Borders Code and the EN 60

would reduce the or immigration efficiency of the option. authorities, are legal by their nature and therefore may only be addressed by a legislative intervention. The option has a strong potential to complement and strengthen impacts of legislative options. Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: 0: 0: Insufficient and vague standards will be capable of leading to administrative Findings of national courts and the ECJ may lead to changes in national legislation The ECJ and national case law may expectedly clarify the impact of procedural guarantees on different notions of the directive as well as their interplay with the proposed amendments errors, and and practices thus applicants will be provided with different levels of procedural safeguards depending on where in the EU their application is examined. Future case law of the ECJ and, where relevant, of national courts might, to some extent, clarify the scope of certain procedural implying additional costs for MS concerned. It is not, however, feasible to estimate in advance the magnitude of these costs, since it is not clear which standards in which MS to the Dublin regulation. may be affected by developments in jurisprudence. safeguards, whilst possible infringement proceedings and enhanced practical cooperation would lead to better MS' compliance with the Directive. These ad hoc measures, however, will not be able to either eliminate derogations from the current standards or, where relevant, introduce a new standard. 3,5: 3,5: 3,5: The deletion of derogations from the basic guarantees will improve the fairness of first instance procedures and provide more favourable While the option brings additional asylum personnel labour and legal assistance The option is coherent with the principle of adequate and complete examination (Arts. 8 (2), 23 (2) APD) and the requirements to take into costs, the enhanced guarantees should improve the quality of 1 conditions for st instance decisions thus account particular applicants to substantiate their application. The adequateness of procedural guarantees will be further improved by providing applicants with special needs with free limiting recourse to appeals and subsequent circumstances of the applicants when applying the safe third country, safe country of origin and safe country of asylum notions. The enhanced right to remain during the examination procedures is coherent with the principle of non-refoulement as set out in Art. 21 of the Qualification Directive. The option may lack arrangements aimed at (i) enhancing access to effective remedy under Art. 39 APD for all asylum seekers, since applications and reducing the overall costs. legal assistance. The effectiveness of this option may be hampered by possible difficulties to establish timely and correctly the special needs of the applicants, whilst the impact of personal interviews will vary between MS due to differences in EN 61

4: 3: 4 In comparison to option 1, option 2 has a stronger potential to increase the fairness of first instance The option implies higher costs in comparison to the baseline scenario and option 1 in particular in those MS which currently do not give legal aid to asylum applicants in first instance procedures (11 MS). These investments should, however, be overweighed by long term financial and administrative savings due to reduced recourse to appeals and subsequent applications. It will contribute to the increased overall efficiency of the procedures, in terms of duration and financial costs. The duration of receiving reception support will be reduced. The option is coherent with Art. 4 (1) of the Qualification Directive and instrumental to facilitate procedures and to applicants' access to procedural rights, including appeal rights, and ensure that they comply with procedural guarantees (Arts. 10, 11 and 39 APD). The option also facilitates access to information and effective remedy envisaged in the Commission's proposals for the revised Reception Conditions and Dublin instruments. facilitate MS' effort to take accurate decisions, since the right to legal assistance would become accessible for all asylum applicants at first instance. The option is expected to have positive systemic impacts on different stages and elements of asylum process, all of them being relevant to the specific objectives of the proposal, namely: increased accessibility and fairness of procedures, better determinations of protection needs, improved efficiency and quality of procedures, and better access to effective remedy. 4,5: 3: 4: The option gives applicants a realistic opportunity to present the elements of their application, thus facilitating access to protection for While the option implies additional interpretation and labour costs, it is also capable of bring long term savings as described under option 2. The option contributes to achieving 3 specific objectives, since it (i) improves the fairness of procedures, (2) promotes quality and efficient decision making and (3) enhances access to effective remedy. All elements of the option are eligible for ERF support. In addition to the characteristics described under "Option 2. Coherence", the option should further support the application of Art. 4 (1) of the Qualification Directive those who fulfil the substantive criteria. The first instance determinations would be based on complete and accurately established factual circumstances leading to the improved quality and defendability of decisions. and the envisaged measures on personal interviews introduced in the Commission's proposal for the revised Dublin Regulation. 2.5: 2.5: 4: Practical cooperation stand-alone will be insufficient to ensure systemic and durable impacts. Since asylum procedures are legal administrative Financial impacts of practical The option is relevant to enhancing MS' capacity to comply with their obligations under all relevant instruments of the acquis (the Qualification Directive, the Dublin Regulation and the Reception cooperation activities for MS are reduced by the fact that such activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. However, given procedures the outcomes of practical cooperation will only be effective if they the limitations of its EN 62

strengthen impacts of legislative options. movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0 : No impact 0: No impact 0: No impact Gender, age and trauma neutrality of the current standards will only partially be addressed by possible improvements at national level. The latter may result from ad hoc national The efficiency of the current standards will remain low, since the current procedures will largely remain gender, age and trauma neutral. Recourse to subsequent applications in cases involving gender and age based persecution will lead to further delays in delivering final determinations. The potential of the directive's standards to procedurally back up the notion of gender/age based persecution and the notion of past persecution/serious harm will initiatives, UNHCR remain low. advocacy efforts and/or practical cooperation activities. The impacts will be limited to the MS concerned and will vary across the EU. 3: 3: 3: The option would make The option produces additional costs related The option is coherent with both Art. 4 (1) of the Qualification Directive and the principle of adequate and complete examination (Arts. 8 (2), 23 (2) APD). It is also supportive to and develops further the requirements for personal interviews (Art. 13 APD). The option may lead to asymmetry with the current standards on accelerated and border procedures which allow MS to accelerate any examination, including procedures more responsive to the special needs of women and vulnerable asylum seekers. The envisaged to the medico-legal certification of symptoms of torture. Additional costs may also result from measures aimed at improving representation of unaccompanied minors and gender/age sensitive interviewing. The implied costs are not considered to be excessive given the basic nature of the proposed standards. measures should facilitate access to procedures for applicants with special needs and enable them to better present and substantiate their cases. Time pressures associated with accelerated, admissibility and border procedures would continue to re-produce the risk of error in cases involving applicants with special needs. in cases involving applicants with special needs. 3.5: 3.5: 4: While sharing the impacts of option 1, option 2 should have stronger overall impacts, since it mainstreams gender, age and trauma consideration throughout the procedure. It also contributes to The option does not require direct investments in services to asylum seekers. It would however require additional reception and labour costs at first instance, since applicants with The option would adequately back up the notion of gender/age based persecution and the notion of past persecution/serious harm set out in the Qualification Directive. special needs would be achieving 3 operational provided more time and support to substantiate their applications. Better objectives (i.e. (i) improved EN 63

efficiency of decision making and (iii) access to effective remedy). The option would not be able to eliminate risks resulting from procedural devices (i.e. accelerated procedures). 5: 4: 4 In addition to impacts, described under option 2, the option reduces the risk of error resulting from pressures associated with certain procedural The option implies higher reception costs in comparison to the baseline scenario and option 1 since certain applicants with special needs would be given more time to substantiate their claims. The option makes organisational elements of procedures responsive to the needs of vulnerable applicants. It is also in line with the Commission's proposal for the revised devices, such as manifestly unfounded Reception Conditions applications, accelerated or border procedures. Directive which provides for These investments should, however, be overweighed by long term financial and administrative savings due to reduced recourse to appeals and subsequent applications. It will contribute to the increased overall efficiency of the procedures, in terms of the length of asylum process and the financial costs involved. special measures aimed at identification of applicants with special needs and reinforces protection against detention of this category of applicants. 2: 4: 4: Practical cooperation stand-alone would be insufficient to address risks resulting from procedural arrangements set out in national legislation. At the same time, its combination Financial impacts of practical The option is coherent with the notion cooperation activities for MS are reduced by the fact that such activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. However, given of gender/age related persecution and the notion of past persecution/serious harm set out in the Qualification Directive. It is also supportive to MS' efforts to provide guarantees to applicants with special needs under the Dublin Regulation and Reception Conditions instruments. with legislative options would contribute to more consistent the limitations of its and accurate effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation can only contribute to a limited application of the envisaged standards. extent to enhancing substantive equality in the asylum process. Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0 : 0: 0: The ambiguity of the current standards will lead to further proliferation Continuous recourse to appeals and subsequent applications as well as secondary The current standards would continue to negatively affect the fairness of examination procedures thus causing tension with the directive's basic principles and guarantees. of disparate movements would accelerated, manifestly unfounded and/or priority procedures. No significant case law is expected. The Commission's role would also be limited, given a wide margin of discretion MS enjoy hamper the overall efficiency of current arrangements on accelerated and priority procedures. The reliability of decisions taken in accelerated procedures would remain low leading to the divergent EN 64

Qualification Directive. 2,5: 3: 3,5: The option would increase the fairness of accelerated procedures in The option implies additional labour costs to interview all applicants in accelerated procedures. While the costs are expected to be low, the limited potential of the option to achieve objectives negatively affect its overall efficiency, since appeals and subsequent applications would produce additional processing and reception costs. The option is coherent with the preferred option on procedural guarantees. It lacks the potential to ensure an appropriate examination of applications in line with Art. 8 (2) APD and may be insufficient to achieve the efficiency objective (Recital 3 to the APD). It should lead to more consistent application of the Qualification Directive. particular by giving to applicants the opportunity of substantiating his/her case in a personal interview. It lacks the potential to reduce disparate procedures between MS, and the time pressures would continue to negatively affect the assessment of applications by the asylum authorities. 4: 4: 4 The functional role, grounds and time The option implies higher reception costs and costs related to the reorganisation of asylum procedures. The option contributes to ensuring both the efficient and fair asylum procedures. limits for accelerated procedures would be more clearly defined leading to the convergence of procedures It, however, should increase the overall efficiency of procedures, since it would reduce additional reception between MS. It would also improve the reliability of first instance decisions, since the grounds and processing costs for accelerated related to appeals and subsequent applications. examinations would be linked with the strength of the claim, while the asylum authorities would be given the necessary time to adequately assess the elements of the application. Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0 : 0: 0: The Commission's monitoring activities While the current standards allow MS to take decisions quickly, the lack of comprehensive assessment opens The current standards would might bring more continue to negatively affect the fairness of examination procedures thus causing tension with the directive's basic principles and guarantees. consistency in the implementation of the safe country of origin notion. While this would address problems related to the incorrect and/or incomplete transposition of the directive, vague material requirements for the national designation, lack of arrangements on follow up regular assessments of the situation in the country of origin, omission of personal interviews and non-suspensive appeals would preserve divergent arrangements between MS and the level of procedural fairness of procedures based on this notion would remain low. room for subsequent applications and continues to cause, alongside other factors, secondary movements. More importantly, it does not resolve the problems identified. EN 65

3: 3: 3: The option would lead to more reliable The option releases MS from the current obligation to implement the Community list of safe countries of origin thus implying savings in labour costs. MS would need to invest in regular assessments of the situation in the country. The ERF funding and the EASO's support to MS in collecting quality country of origin information would allow MS to The option is coherent with the preferred options on procedural guarantees determinations, since decisions would be based on up to dater information and individual circumstances and accelerated procedures. It is also in line with the current standards which require MS be taken into account. The effectiveness of the notion would increase since the responsibility for the approval and amendment of the list would lay with MS which opted for its use, based on the requirements set out in the directive. The option leaves room to consider individual circumstances of the applicant (Art. 31 (1) APD and obtain up-to-date information on the situation in the country of origin (Art. 8 (1) (b) APD). It may lack the potential to address the current asymmetry with Art. 4 (1) and (3) (a)) of the Qualification optimise their financial allocations. for divergent national arrangements, since MS using the notion would stick to different sets of material requirements, while other MS would be free to refrain from using the notion. Directive which require MS to assess all relevant elements of the application and facts related to the country of origin. 4: 4 4: In addition to the positive impacts described under option 1, option 2 would lead to better consistency in implementing the safe country of origin notions since all national lists would be governed by common material requirements. The option implies higher reception and processing costs in MS which currently derogate from the agreed material requirements. It would however lead to more consistent and reliable determinations, based on the safe country of origin notion. In addition to the positive impacts described under option 1, the option is also consistent with Art. 4 (1) and (3) (a) of the Qualification Directive, since it requires more rigorous assessment of the situation in the country of origin. 3: 4 2: The option has a strong potential to ensure consistent application of the notion, since only countries which appear on the common list would be considered as safe in all 26 MS. The arrangement would be The option implies higher reception and processing costs in MS which currently derogate from the agreed standards and/or use wider national lists. Lesser costs would be required to regularly assess the situation in the safe countries. The option lacks consistency with the principle of the adequate examination and the QD requirement to assess the relevant facts, since all 26 MS, including those objecting to including a safe country in the list, would be obliged to follow the common list and consider applications from persons from safe countries as unfounded. less responsive to developments in the countries of origin since any amendments to the list would require actions at EU level involving both the Council and the European Parliament. This might lead to implementation problems and affect MS' international obligations under the Geneva Convention and Human Rights treaties. 2 2 3 Practical cooperation coordinated Financial impacts of practical The activities are consistent with EN 66

used for the cooperation would designation of safe countries and follow up assessments. While being insufficient to address divergences caused by different standards, it could approximate national lists, if the agreed material requirement were equally applicable in all MS. enhance MS' capacity to comply with their obligations under Art. 4 (1) of the Qualification Directive. the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation can only contribute to a limited extent to approximating MS' approaches. Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: No impact 0: No impact 0: No impact The lack of a level playing field in the area of quality assurance will While the current standards allow MS to take decisions quickly, the lack of comprehensive assessment opens The current standards would continue to negatively affect the fairness of examination procedures thus causing tension with the directive's basic principles and guarantees. continue to limit the effectiveness of the current room for subsequent directive. It will also negatively affect the effectiveness of the EASO's applications and continues to cause, alongside other factors, secondary movements. More importantly, it does not resolve the problems identified. The directive's activities, since the potential to back up the degree of acceptance of its services will vary between MS. Given positive feed backs of MS on the UNHCR quality initiatives, more MS may be willing to join them. Qualification Directive would remain limited, and the divergent interpretation of substantive grounds of international protection between MS would persist. This would improve decision making in the concerned MS. The sustainability of the quality assurance pilots would however depend on the level of institutional ownership of the concept, which would again vary between MS. No relevant international / Community case law is expected. Due to the ambiguity of the current standards on the quality decision making, it would be very difficult for the Commission to substantiate possible infringement cases. 3: 3: 4: The option would definitely improve the quality of decision making leading to more reliable The option produces costs for a number of MS to (i) reattribute functions between authorities, (b) The option backs up the qualification directive, in particular its Art. 4, by improving the EN 67

personnel to assess the claims and deliver reliable determinations. It also contributes to achieving the objective in line with the investments. The of ensuring fair Qualification Directive. Increased defendability of first instance decisions would contribute to reducing reception and processing costs related to the appeal proceedings. The preparedness of the asylum personnel to correctly apply the Qualification Directive would become equivalent across the EU. Same applies to the administrative capacity of MS to handle caseloads. This would enable MS to better and more consistently benefit from the EASO's support services, in particular those related to training and assistance to MS under pressures. The option would be able to only partly enhance the efficiency of procedures, since subsequent applications caused by the investments would improve the consistency and reliability of first instance examinations under the Qualification Directive across the EU. The option should bring long term savings. procedures. The option is consistent and tent current procedural arrangements would continue to delay final determinations. Access to the Qualification Directive would remain unequal between MS, since the length of first instance procedures would continue to vary. 4: 5: 4: In addition to the positive impacts described under option 1, option 2 would set out common targets for delivering first instance decisions, thus improving transparency and efficiency of procedures. It would also lead to more effective application of arrangements on subsequent applications. The option implies no additional costs in comparison to option 1. It also enhances the MS' capacity to deliver quicker final determinations, thus potentially reducing reception and labour costs. The option enhances the accessibility of the Qualification Directive for persons genuinely in need of protection. It is also consistent and interlinked with the Commission's proposal for establishing the EASO. 3: 2 : 4: Practical cooperation coordinated by the EASO would strengthen the quality of decision making in those MS which voluntarily accept good practices and ensure their sustainability. The impacts would vary depending on (i) the level of institutional ownership and (ii) the preparedness of national asylum systems to accept and implement the outcomes of the Practical cooperation would require allocations from both the national budgets and the EU programmes (Costs of quality initiatives amount to 125 000 EUR per MS, based on current ERF projects; the envisaged budget for developing the EAC in Feb. 2008 Sept. 2010 is 2 830 00 EUR, including 1 080 000 EUR in kind contribution). The activities would be largely covered by the EASO budget. Given effectiveness constraints and lesser potential to deliver consistent impacts across the The activities are consistent with and supportive to the application of the Qualification Directive and the Dublin Regulation. cooperation activities. Practical cooperation would have lesser impact of the efficiency of EN 68

problems are largely rooted in legislation. to the legislative options. Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: No impact 0: No impact 0: No impact The ECJ and ECtHR rulings may lead to better accessibility of remedies and clarify the scope of judicial review. The ECJ case law impact may however be limited, since only national courts "against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law", may seek ECJ position on the Directive's standards. The infringement proceedings might give the ECJ the opportunity to interpret the APD standards in line with the general principles of Community Law but the lack of binding standards in the directive would limit the Commission's ability to substantiate the case. Court's contribution would be of ad hoc and not of systemic nature. Developments in Community and international case law may produce additional costs for MS. It is difficult to predict the magnitude of costs, since it is not feasible to foresee which elements of the current standards might be addressed by the ECJ rulings. Limited access to effective remedy and insufficient scrutiny of first instance decisions by judiciary would continue to negatively affect the application of the Qualification Directive. Divergent interpretations of substantive grounds of international protection would persist. 4: 4: 4: The option would enhance the accessibility of courts or tribunals increasing the potential of the directive The option implies reception and processing costs resulting from better accessibility of remedy. The magnitude of costs would however be limited since the caseloads would not be significantly increased given the potential of other options (on procedural The option improves the assessment of the protection needs and therefore ensures better to comply with consistency with the Qualification Directive. It is in line with the discussed options on procedural guarantees, access to procedures and safe countries of origin notion. international standards on access to effective remedy. The scope and nature of review would be brought in line with respective case law of the ECJ and the ECtHR. Equality of arms would be better ensured to all parties to appeal procedures. This would lead to better supervision of first instance decisions by judiciary, limit room for administrative error and reduce the risk of refoulement. guarantees and procedural; notions) to limit the number of cases requiring appeal examinations. The ex-nunc and full assessment of the claims by appeal bodies would limit recourse to subsequent applications. 4: 2: 3: The option would lead to the harmonisation of asylum appeal procedures leading to better consistency in implementing the directive's provisions on access to effective remedy. The option implies significant costs related to the reorganisation of asylum appeal systems in MS. The magnitude of costs might be disproportionate to the objectives pursued. The option shares impacts described under option 1. It may however cause tension with the principle of procedural autonomy of MS. EN 69

30 Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 1 : 1: No impact 0: No impact The fact that MS already have a national single procedure in place allows expecting more coherent application of the Qualification Directive No additional allocations would be required. Several MS would have higher reception costs for persons granted subsidiary protection who appeal the first instance decisions with a view to obtaining refugee status. Additional processing and reception costs are also expected with regard to genuine refugees granted subsidiary protection in cases of successful appeals. No impacts on withdrawal procedures are expected. The asymmetry between the Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive would persist. This would leave room for the incorrect application of and the Asylum Procedures Directive. At the same time, with the absence of common rules on a single procedure, a trend substantive grounds of protection (i.e. the grant of subsidiary protection to persons eligible to grant subsidiary to refugee status). protection might further develop and affect more MS. Dublin procedures Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who are the subject to revocation (withdrawal) procedures would continue to be excluded from would not be adequately integrated in asylum procedures across the EU. procedural guarantees available for refugees. 3: 3: 3: The option would enhance The option implies no additional costs in comparison to the baseline scenario. Its added value is however limited since the majority of MS have already harmonised reference to the two sets of substantive grounds in their national legislation. The option improves coherence within Community level procedural the acquis. All the guarantees for persons who are not eligible for refugee statuses but fulfil the subsidiary protection criteria. It would have no impacts on the correct identification of genuine refugees. procedural notions and devices of the asylum procedures directive would take into account the protection needs in line with the two sets of substantive criteria. It has no impacts on Dublin procedures. 4: 4: 5: In addition to impacts of option 1, the No substantive costs are expected. Improved coherence between the asylum instruments would also support MS' efforts to deliver reliable The option is in line with the Qualification option contains crucial Directive and elements capable of ensuring "full and inclusive application of the Refugee Convention." It secures equal procedural protection for both refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary compliments the Commission's proposal for the revised Dublin Regulation. Given a central role of the APD in the CEAS, it is expected to improve coherence within the acquis as a whole. determinations at first instance, thus reducing recourse to appeals and subsequent applications. protection in the withdrawal procedures. The option also enhances fairness of Dublin procedures and secures better re-access to examination procedures for persons transferred under Dublin arrangements to the responsible MS. The problem definition and the policy options are discussed in annex 14. EN 70

A NNEX 16 A SSESSMENT OF THE STATUS QUO Assessment of the status quo Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) 0 At present, several obstacles exist in relation to the accessibility of the asylum procedure for persons seeking international protection. These relate in particular to: access to the Member State, as measures to prevent the entry of irregular migrant, if not accompanied by appropriate safeguards, may at the same time hamper access for persons intending to request asylum Difficulties to express a request for international protection at the EU external borders Obstacles related to getting access to the authorities competent to register the claim Legal barriers, such as the inadmissibility and/or border procedures. Several Member States, such as the Netherlands and Finland, are arguing for improved access to procedures, to ensure that the foreign national is not turned away at the border or not allowed to formulate his or her request for international protection. Problems have in particular been noted with regard to the surveillance of sea or land borders. There has bee also reports that persons in detention centres (e.g. in Greece and Italy) may lack information on and have limited access to asylum procedures. While profiling and monitoring mechanisms aimed at identifying asylum seekers in mixed arrivals 31 have been introduced on ad hoc basis in some MS (e.g. Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia), such protection-sensitive border control measures have not been mainstreamed at the entire EU external border. 12 Member States (SL, GE, CZ, EE, HU, RO, SP, PT, AU, GR) have border procedures in place capable of rejecting the claim within very short time limits. Access to effective remedy is not always adequately ensured in such The pilot profiling mechanisms have been tested at the external maritime border within "the Presidium project" , involving the Italian Ministry of Interior, UNHCR, IOM and the Italian Red Cross. ". EN 71

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) procedures. Officials at border entry points are not always trained in how to deal with asylum seekers. In the present situation, it cannot be expected that all Member States will voluntarily address these issues, with the persisting danger of refoulement. Practical cooperation and e.g. the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office may lead to some `voluntary' improvements compared to the present situation, e.g. through peer pressure, the development of specific projects (e.g. remote interpretation) and the identification of good practices (e.g. the quality initiatives). The development of guidelines for border guards may also bring a more consistent approach to border procedures. Similarly, lobbying and studies (conducted by UNHCR, academics, NGOs etc.) may also have some positive impacts on the Member States with regard to access to procedures. However, by not establishing certain principles and issues in Community law, changes in the Member States can always occur, for example due to national developments (e.g. change of government etc.), resulting in both positive and negative developments in relation to granting protection to applicants and beneficiaries for international protection. Acceding Member States are also left with a high level of discretion. Taking all these drivers for improvements or worsening of current problems into account, it is not expected that the objective will be achieved. Furthermore, the countries where improvements are most urgent are likely to be least `willing to learn' on a voluntary basis, although they, naturally, would need to take relevant case law into account. 0 The Directive in its present form leads to (a risk of) administrative error and arbitrariness in asylum procedures, which has a negative impact on asylum seekers' (equal) access to international protection and limited the overall efficiency of asylum process, since rejected applicants increasingly tend to recourse to subsequent applications, as attested by asylum statistics (the problem is particularly evident in CZ, AU and FR). Specific problems identified relate to: EN 72

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) Insufficient opportunity for asylum seekers to articulate and support the elements of their application as in at least 10 Member States a personal interview on substance can be omitted, not allowing a proper assessment of the individual circumstances of the applicant. Applicants' insufficient awareness of rights and obligations, since less than half of the Member States provide some form of institutionalised legal assistance in the first instance. The use of accelerated procedures, used by 25 MS, which do not enable applicants to fully prepare their claim and make it impossible for authorities to assess the latter. Specific obstacles for women and persons with special needs, due to a lack of gender, age and trauma sensitive arrangements. Several improvements can be expected, in particular in relation to appeal procedures, as a result of recent ECJ and ECtHR rulings and findings, which for example stress the principles of a rigorous and effective scrutiny, impartiality and independence. In addition, Similar to objective 1.1., peer pressure, the identification of good practices, lobbying, studies and practical cooperation may have some positive impacts. However, by not establishing certain principles and issues in Community law, changes in the Member States can always occur, for example due to national developments (e.g. change of government etc.), resulting in both positive and negative developments in relation to granting protection to applicants and beneficiaries for international protection. Acceding Member States are also left with a high level of discretion. On balance, it is not expected that the objective will be achieved through the status quo. In particular, the countries where improvements are most urgent are likely to be least `willing to learn' on a voluntary basis. 0 Disparity of procedures will persist, and the types and lengths of accelerated, manifestly unfounded and/or priority procedures will vary significantly between MS. Specific problems identified relate to: reliable EN 73

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) - divergent grounds and lengths of accelerated, priority and/or manifestly unfounded examinations; - insufficient time given to the determining authority to deliver reliable decisions; - insufficient fairness of procedures. These problems negatively affect the overall efficiency of asylum process. No significant international or national case law impact is expected. The EASO's role in this respect will be also limited since its will not able to influence procedural devises set out in national legislation. This will further cause secondary movements towards more efficient and fair procedures and unequal distributions of applications between MS. This will force MS concerned to procedurally response to these challenges on a unilateral basis bringing more divergences. 0 Under the Status Quo, inconsistencies with notably the Qualification Directive and the Dublin Regulation would continue to exist. Indeed, the experience of introducing subsidiary protection at the national level has shown a tendency to reduce numbers of positive decisions on refugee status. Research also demonstrates that a single procedure, if not equipped by additional safeguards, may lead to "watering down the Refugee Convention. Due to the inconsistencies, in at least four Member States the applicant no longer continues to benefit from the earlier granted protection status while awaiting the outcome of the appeal and is considered an asylum seeker. In four countries, the appeal body dealing with the case can actually overturn the first instance decision on the other protection status, with the potential to deny this first status too. Finally, the Asylum Procedures Directive lacks coherence with the Dublin regulation. In accordance with Recital 29, the Directive does not deal with the procedures governed by the Dublin Regulation. This leaves room for ambiguity on whether applicants who are the subject to the Dublin procedure may benefit from the basic principles and guarantees set out in the Directive. different EU dealing with 32 The assessment of this problem as well as relevant policy options are provided in Annex 15 EN 74

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) Furthermore, in at least three Member States, persons returned pursuant to the Dublin Regulation have seen the examination of their asylum applications discontinued or their application rejected. Some improvements can be expected as a result of practical cooperation, the exchanges of good practices and peer pressure / lobbying. These are expected to be minor, given that the inconsistencies are systemic flaws between the Directives which are unlikely to be voluntarily addressed by the Member States. In fact, by not making certain improvements to relevant Community law, changes in the Member States can always occur, for example due to national developments (e.g. change of government etc.), resulting in both positive and negative developments in relation to granting protection to applicants and beneficiaries for international protection. Acceding Member States are also left with a high level of discretion. On this basis, it is not expected that the objective will be achieved through the status quo. The Directive provides only few standards relevant to the quality and efficiency of asylum decision making, whilst the level of development of MS' quality and efficiency assurance systems vary significantly leading to the lack of a level playing field. This negatively affects the reliability of decisions preserving a margin for administrative error, on the one hand, and negatively affecting the overall efficiency of the process, on the over. The core procedural notions and devises relevant to the efficiency objective, including the time frame for asylum procedures and procedural approaches to subsequent applications, are currently addressed at Community level in a fragmental and limited way only. The specific problems identified includes: 0 - insufficient preparedness of the asylum personnel and different institutional capacity of MS to handle caseloads, - involvement of immigration or border guard authorities in the asylum decision making, - delays in delivering first instance decisions bring a number of negative implications, for example with regard to the execution of return decisions in respect of failed asylum applicants. - inadequate arrangements on subsequent applications. In 2008, subsequent applications made amounted to 35.5% EN 75

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) in Czech Republic, 29.4% in Belgium, 21.6% in Germany, 17.2% in Poland and 12.8% in the Netherlands. The root causes relate, amongst other issues, to the fact Member States have no explicit obligation to consider any new elements or further representations submitted by the applicant before the first instance decision or final decision by appeals bodies is taken and a lack of ex nunc examination of protection needs by appeal bodies. MS response to these challenges unilaterally, since the directive does not secure a common procedural response to this phenomenon. Some improvements can be expected as a result of practical cooperation, the exchanges of good practices and peer pressure / lobbying. These are expected to be minor, given the wide discretion provided for in the Directive. Lengthy procedures and high numbers of subsequent applications will continue to delay examination procedures in the first and second instance. The establishment of the EASO may lead to some `voluntary' improvements of the quality of procedures compared to the present situation, e.g. through the development of a common training programme, guidelines, good practice exchanges and peer learning. The quality initiatives of the UNHCR could also be adopted by a higher number of Member States. This would not lead, however, to systemic and consistent impacts, since changes in the Member States can always occur, for example due to national developments (e.g. change of government etc.), resulting in both positive and negative developments in relation to granting protection to applicants and beneficiaries for international protection. Acceding Member States are also left with a high level of discretion. On this basis, it is not expected that the objective will be achieved through the status quo, which implies a further proliferation of disparate procedures between the Member States. 0 Accessibility and quality of remedies vary, as appeal procedures do not in all countries undertake a full and ex nunc assessment by independent and impartial appeal bodies, suspensive effect is not always guaranteed, legal assistance is not systematically made available and time limits for lodging appeals are too short to meet, thus reducing the accessibility of remedies. Significant EN 76

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) variations in shares of appealed decisions (from 30 % in SP, to 49,9 % in Germany), to 87.5 % in FR) and in the rates of successful appeals are indicative in this respect. While some improvements can be expected as a result of the evolving respective case law of the ECJ and of the ECtHR , the impacts will not be either systemic or consistent across the EU. and 0 The Status quo does not involve any legislative action, i.e. no provisions will need to be transposed. 0 The Status quo would not bring about any additional financial costs than those that are currently being incurred or planned. 0 The Status quo will not require any political decisions to be taken. and economic 0 The economic impacts of maintaining the status quo would vary amongst the Member States depending on the number of applications for international protection, the number of first and second instance decisions, the number of persons employed in decision-making services and the overall costs incurred for national asylum systems. Current inefficiencies and ineffective decision-making would continue to exist. 0 Maintaining the status quo would mean that there would continue to be protection gaps and varying recognition rates, negatively affecting the access to protection and justice. Without clarifying the territorial scope of the Directive, defining the obligations of competent authorities, improvements to basic principles and guarantees and an effective remedy, persons seeking asylum would continue to suffer from reduced access to social protection. In the absence of gender, trauma and age-related arrangements women and persons with special needs EN 77

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) would continue to suffer from unequal treatment and discrimination. This social impact would also continue to be reduced by the inconsistencies between the Asylum acquis in relation to the refugee status, subsidiary protection and as a result of the many possibilities for Member States to derogate from basic principles and guarantees. Without clarifying the territorial scope of the Directive, defining the obligations of the competent authorities, introducing additional guarantees for persons who are physically present in the territory and wish to request international protection, better communication, including the possibility to challenge decisions, better application of the notion of safe country of origin across the EU, taking better account of the special needs of vulnerable and female asylum seekers persons seeking asylum would continue to have reduced chances to obtain protection and the necessary social and healthcare. As a result of continuing differences in the administrative capacity, the use of different authorities dealing with asylum claims and quality issues in relation to decision making and appeal procedures, reduced good governance would persist. The current negative social impacts would vary between the Member States, e.g. because of the current legal and practical situation. As outlined in the problem assessment, Member States, in certain cases (e.g. the right to effective remedy), seem to currently not achieve fundamental rights standards, which is of great concern. This is mainly due to the derogations allowed for in the current text of the Asylum Procedures Directive and the proliferation of disparate procedures between the Member States. The efficiency and quality of decision-making also varies greatly. It would be necessary for the Member States to take relevant case law into account, which may raise the standards with regard to some fundamental rights, however, this can only be expected to address some of the identified problems. It is therefore likely that not all of the following rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union EN 78

Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) would be sufficiently promoted if the status quo is maintained: Article 7: Respect for private and family life Article 18: Right to asylum Article 19: Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition Article 19: Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition Article 23: Equality between men and women Article 24: The rights of the child Article 35: Health care Article 47: Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial It is extremely difficult to assess what impacts the status quo could have on third countries; it would only be relevant to assess such impacts in combination with a group of measures in the area of asylum. EN 79

A NNEX 17 C ONTENT OF THE PREFERRED OPTION Sub-issue (where relevant) Description of preferred sub-options NA Legislative option 3 in combination with practical cooperation procedures accessible to Option 3: To amend the Directive to enable persons who wish to requesting protection to approach the competent authorities. To this end, to underline that the territorial scope of the Directive covers territorial waters; to require MS to ensure that all persons who intend to make an application for asylum have an effective opportunity to lodge an application as soon as possible; to underline that Member States should have to designate a competent authority responsible for the registration of applications for international protection and ensure that police, border guards, immigration authorities and administration of detention facilities should receive relevant instructions, including the obligation to register or forward to the competent authorities, whereas other authorities should be able to advise a person as to how and where s/he may lodge the application; to fix a reasonable time limit for completing formalities related to the registration of the applications. To require Member States to make information on access procedures as well as counselling and interpretation arrangements available for persons who are present at the border crossing points and immigration detention facilities and wish to apply for asylum; specify that organisations providing legal advice and counselling to asylum seekers should be allowed access to persons present at the border, in the transit zones or in detention facilities in agreement with the competent authorities of Member States. To revise the admissibility grounds, in particular the safe third country notion, with a view to bringing them in line with the Qualification Directive; require MS to provide for arrangements enabling the person concerned to make known her/his views as regards the grounds and information on which the authorities intend to base their decision to consider her/his application inadmissible; delete the European safe third country concept. seeking Practical cooperation: map jointly (national) guarantees for persons who are physically present in the EN 80

Sub-issue (where relevant) Description of preferred sub-options territory, including at the border, and wish to request international protection; develop EU-wide guidelines building on, for example, the UNHCR 10-point plan and test them at EU external borders; develop further and apply training programmes for border guards to raise awareness and improve skills for detecting requests for international protection, as well as addressing asylum seekers, including those with special needs; provide funding for border monitoring initiatives. To improve Improving procedural safeguards Combination of legislative option 2 and some specific elements of option 3, accompanied by practical cooperation activities of Option 2: To amend the Directive to enhance procedural principles and guarantees. In particular, to make it clear that personal interviews should be conducted with all asylum applicants with the exception of well founded cases and cases where the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed; to delete derogations from the basic principles and guarantees in border procedures; to clarify grounds for removing an applicant from the territory to ensure that extradition treaties are not used to return the applicant to her/his country of origin; to extend guarantees applicable to UNHCR partners to other non-governmental organisations; to extend the right to free legal assistance to asylum seekers, who lack financial resources, in procedures at first instance. Option 3: To require MS (i) to allow a legal advisor to be present in the personal interview, (ii) to make a transcript of the interview and give the opportunity to the applicant to comment on its content at the end of the interview; (iii) to allow applicants to have access to the transcript before a decision is taken. Practical cooperation: map and promote good practices in relation to personal interviews, legal assistance and interpretation services; provide support to MS through the Interpreters' pool and allocate funding for EN 81

Sub-issue (where relevant) Description of preferred sub-options legal assistance. Setting procedural guarantees Legislative option 3 in combination with practical cooperation for Option 3: To amend the Directive to introduce the notion of applicants with special needs to be accompanied by additional guarantees enabling the applicants to access asylum procedures and present the elements of their application for international protection as completely as possible and with all available evidence. In particular, to define the qualifications of the guardian, and to specify that the guardian shall have the right to apply for asylum on behalf of an unaccompanied minor, to delete the current possibility to refrain from appointing a representative where the unaccompanied minor is 16 years old or older and to provide for free legal assistance for unaccompanied minors throughout the asylum process, to introduce an obligation of Member States to inform each adult in private of her/his right to make a separate application for international protection and to give dependent adults the opportunity of presenting their individual circumstances to the personnel of the determining authority, to provide for the right of a child to lodge an application for international protection subject to the maturity test, to define the role of and procedure for obtaining medico-legal reports to document signs of past persecution or serious harm, to provide survivors of torture with necessary time to prepare for a personal interview on the substance of the application and to introduce gender and age sensitive requirements for interviewing asylum applicants, such as the obligation to provide an interpreter of the same sex and the requirement to conduct interviews with minors in a child friendly manner. In addition, to clarify in recital 9 that international obligations as regards the rights of women and vulnerable groups should be duly taken into account when applying the Directive and to applicant with special needs EN 82

Sub-issue (where relevant) Description of preferred sub-options exempt survivors of torture, persons with mental disabilities and unaccompanied minors from accelerated procedures which are based on the notion of manifestly unfounded applications. The latter category, unaccompanied minors, is also exempted from border procedures and the safe third country notion. This option also provides for including gender, trauma and age related issues in the training programmes for personnel of the responsible authorities. Practical cooperation: map national policies and practices on procedural arrangements for applicants with special needs; provide Community funding for national and cross border initiatives to develop gender, age and trauma sensitive procedures and evaluation mechanisms; develop EU wide gender, age and trauma related guidelines and provide support for training (through the EASO); promote gender and age sensitive COI. harmonise Approximating accelerated, priority Legislative option 2 and Option 2: To clarify the notion of manifestly unfounded applications and to provide for a limited and exhaustive list of grounds for an accelerated examination; to oblige Member States to ensure access to the improved procedural safeguards, including a personal interview, for all applicants who are the subject to accelerated procedures; to give the determining authority the necessary time to assess the elements of the application; to amend recital 11 emphasising that accelerated asylum procedures should be the exception; to leave discretion to Member States to provide for suspensive effect of appeals on a case by case basis. manifestly unfounded procedures Consolidating the notion of safe countries Legislative option 2 in combination with practical cooperation of Option 2: Under this option, both the notion of a common list of safe countries of origin and derogations from the material requirements for the designation would be deleted. This would leave the designation of safe countries of origin to the discretion of Member States, subject to the provisions of the Directive. No origin EN 83

Sub-issue (where relevant) Description of preferred sub-options derogation from the material requirements would be allowed. Member States would further be obliged to ensure a follow up review of the situation in third countries designated as safe countries of origin on a regular basis and to give the applicant the possibility of substantiating her/his claim. Practical cooperation: map country of origin information (COI) used for the national designation; enhance an exchange of information on the use of the notion within the framework of the EASO and EURASIL and make services of the common COI portal available to MS. . N/A Legislative option 2 · Option 2: To reduce current derogations form the principle of a single determining authority, and specify that a substantive interview should always be conducted by the personnel of the determining authority; to introduce minimum requirements for the content of the interview; to require the determining authority (i) to dispose sufficient numbers of specialised in-house personnel who have the necessary skills and expertise to undertake their tasks and (ii) to make external expertise on specific issues available to case owners; to underline that the personnel of the determining authority should receive initial and follow up training, and specify the minimum requirements for its content. To lay down a reasonable time limit (e.g. 6 months) for taking first instance decisions on the substance of the application; to require MS to take into account new elements or representations before a final decision is taken; to specify that the subsequent application procedures should not apply to persons whose applications have been rejected as implicitly withdrawn; to explicitly merge the subsequent application procedures with admissibility procedures and allow MS to remove an applicant from the territory in cases of multiple subsequent applications frustrating the enforcement of a return decision. Practical cooperation: organise and support training for asylum personnel (through EASO); make the EAC fully operational and accessible; provide funding and institutional support (through EASO) to quality initiatives, based on UNHCR pilots; map and promote good practices in making procedures more efficient, such as the UK Case Owner Model; provide expert support and emergency funding to MS under pressures. EN 84

Sub-issue (where relevant) Description of preferred sub-options N/A Legislative option 2 Option 2: To amend the Directive to address the elements of effective remedy, as developed by the ECJ and the ECtHR and provided for in the Charter, in asylum appeal procedures. In particular, to underline that the scope of review should include both facts and issues of law at least in procedures before a first level court or tribunal, and to specify that the review should be based on ex nunc examination of protection needs in respect of both sets of substantive criteria provided for in the Qualification Directive; to provide for automatic suspensive effect of appeals against decisions on (a) the substance of applications with the exception of manifestly unfounded applications, and (b) inadmissibility decisions and decisions taken in border procedures with the exception of identical subsequent applications and decisions taken pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. Where suspensive effect is not attached to appeals, interim measures may be granted by courts on a case by case basis. To require MS to make the materials used as a basis for a decision of the determining authority accessible to courts or tribunals in all cases; to require MS to set out reasonable time limits for lodging appeals. To ensure NA Legislative option 2 between EU Option 2: To amend the Directive to address the key elements of a single asylum procedure at the Community level. These would include a mandatory sequence of an examination of protection needs, the principle of a single determining authority, and the requirements for decision making at first instance and access to effective remedy in relation to both sets of substantive criteria provided for in the Qualification Directive. Applicants whose protection needs under the Refugee Convention are rejected whilst subsidiary protection is granted would be entitled to appeal against the decision in relation to refugee status while benefiting from subsidiary protection status pending the outcomes of the appeal procedure. In addition, to expand the Directive's provisions on the withdrawal of refuge status to cases of withdrawal of subsidiary protection, and to underline that the Directive covers persons who are the subject to the Dublin procedures dealing international EN 85

Sub-issue (where relevant) Description of preferred sub-options and that the notion of implicit withdrawal of the application does not apply to persons transferred to the responsible Member State pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. EN 86

A NNEX 18 A SSESSMENT OF PREFERRED POLICY OPTION Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + 4 The preferred option includes several elements that would bring about positive impacts in terms of removing obstacles to requesting international protection. This ultimately contributes to better access to international protection, by reducing the risk that persons are diverted away from the EU external borders and denied access without their protection needs being verified. The preferred option would also make the procedure for lodging an application more transparent and precise across the Union, since it would clarify the responsibility of competent authorities in an initial stage of the asylum process. More specifically, the preferred option would enable persons who wish to request protection to approach the competent authorities to a greater extent than at present by eliminating physical and formal obstacles. In particular, the option would: Widen the scope of the Directive to also cover territorial waters, which would strengthen protection against refoulement at the sea border and remove at least some of the physical obstacles to accessing the asylum procedure; Improve the access to information concerning the application process (at border crossing points and transit zones of airports or sea ports) by providing for communicative guarantees and institutional arrangements, which would enable persons wishing to apply for asylum to articulate their request for protection; and, Provide an effective opportunity to lodge an application as soon as possible, by clarifying the obligations of Member States. Reduce risk of incorrect application of admissibility grounds, thus ensuring that admissible claims are processed without delay while persons who do not meet EN 87

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + admissibility criteria are properly identified and, where applicable, alternative solutions are implemented. The latter applies to the safe country of asylum and safe third country cases. With regard to points (ii) and (iii), the option would, for example, introduce obligations for competent authorities of Member States to register applications for international protection; ensure that staff of relevant authorities, including police, border guards and administration of detention facilities are provided with clear instructions on how to deal with these cases and the need to forward the application to competent authorities; clarify Member States' obligations in joint border surveillance operations, ensure the availability of interpretation arrangements; access of organisations providing legal advice and counselling to asylum seekers at borders, transit zones and detention facilities; and, registration of applications with a reasonable time limit (e.g. 72 hours) which will ensure that the examination of the claim can start as soon as possible. It would also specify that persons who have indicated that they want to make an application should be able to stay on the territory. Practical cooperation activities will further help to improve the reception of persons at the external border and the screening of people to ensure that de facto asylum seekers are enabled to make an application for asylum. Impacts will vary between the Member States depending on their present situation e.g. with regard to whether the country has external border or is involved in joint operations, whether border procedures are in place and if the safe third country concept is being used. 4 The Directive in its present form leads to (a risk of) administrative error and arbitrariness in asylum procedures, which has negative impacts on (a) asylum seekers' (equal) access to international protection and (b) the overall efficiency of asylum process. The preferred option would significantly reduce (the risk of) these problems compared to the current situation, by (i) limiting the possibilities for Member States to derogate EN 88

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + from the basic procedural guarantees, with specific attention to persons with special needs; (ii) ensuring adequate procedural guarantees (again, also considering persons with special needs); (iii) improving the assessments in accelerated, manifestly unfounded and safe country of origin procedures; (iv) improving access for applicants to effective judicial remedy where procedures are challenged, (v) improving applicants' compliance with applicable procedural requirements. More specifically, the preferred option would bring about the following positive impacts for applicants: Being able to better articulate and support the elements of their application. The possibility to omit a personal interview would be deleted (which is currently possible in 10 Member States: CY, EE, EL, MT, PL, PT, FR, SL, SP, and UK). Free legal assistance would be available for applicants at first instance for those with limited resources, and the role of non-governmental organisations would be strengthened, leading to that the availability of independent counselling for asylum seekers would be improved in all stages of the asylum process. The preferred option would have particular benefits for persons with special needs, including minors (appointment of qualified guardian, who can apply for asylum on behalf of unaccompanied minors; interviews in a child- friendly manner), traumatised asylum seekers (role and procedure of medico- legal reports; necessary time to prepare for the personal interview) and women (information on the right to make a separate application for international protection; same sex interviewer, interpreter etc.). Better examination of protection needs. Better information on individual circumstances. The deletion of the possibility to omit a personal interview EN 89

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + would be crucial for assessing the individual circumstances of the applicant, not the least when applying the safe country of origin notion, and for drawing a conclusion as to whether the applicant's statements are credible. Furthermore, the concept of safe country of origin would need to be applied consistently in all Member States who choose to use this notion, without derogations from the substantive criteria, but with regular reviews of the situation in the third countries designated as safe countries. Finally, by e.g. defining the role and status of medico-legal reports and laying down adequate conditions for women, traumatised asylum seekers and children to disclose the circumstances they experienced in their country of origin, the option also contributes a better information basis for the determining authority with regard to asylum seekers with special needs. Limiting the use of accelerated, and, for asylum seekers with special needs, border procedures. Accelerated procedures would be limited to clearly defined cases (`manifestly unfounded applications'), a reasonable time limit for an expedite examination be established and access to the improved procedural guarantees, including a personal interview, ensured. Furthermore, certain categories of applicants such as unaccompanied minors, victims of torture and persons with mental disabilities would be exempted from accelerated and/or border procedures. The principle of non-refoulement in asylum procedures would be better respected through the elimination of a possibility to extradite an asylum applicant to her/his country of origin. The option would bring positive impacts on the overall efficiency of asylum process. In particular, it would: ( i) allow the asylum authorities to take robust decisions, based on complete and properly established factual circumstances of the claim, improve defendability of negative decisions and reduce risk of their annulment on procedural grounds by appeal bodies; (ii) improve transparency of procedures and promote partnership between asylum authorities and other actors of asylum process, EN 90

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + such as refugee assisting NGOs and legal service providers. The extent to which positive impacts will result from the option in the individual Member States depends on the present situation, i.e. to what extent the Member States already have similar provisions in place. In particular for (certain) Member States, the preferred option would contribute to higher quality decision making and prevent unnecessary litigation before appeal bodies. The provisions would also reduce the divergence between asylum procedures across the EU, and asylum procedures would become more transparent (e.g. by strengthening the role of non governmental organisations). 4,5 The preferred option would imply significant progress towards a more consistent application of the key procedural notions to the extent that it would clarify and better circumscribe definitions of the manifestly unfounded applications, accelerated procedures, prioritised procedures and safe countries of origin, and eliminate derogations. The directive's notions and devices will become less susceptible to administrative error, while providing asylum authorities with necessary procedural tools to prevent / respond to abuse and process quickly clearly unfounded or less complex applications. In particular, it would: reliable -give the asylum authorities necessary time to conduct a meaningful examination of the application and raise the overall fairness of accelerated procedures; -limit the use of accelerated procedures to manifestly unfounded or abusive cases while enabling MS to prioritise other cases, such as cases of applicants with special needs or well founded cases; -link the notion of manifestly unfounded applications with the strength of the claim in light of the Qualification Directive; -ensure the consistent application of the safe country of origin notion, based on common material requirements, regular reviews of the situation in countries designated as safe and procedural guarantees equally applied in all MS opted for this device. 4 The preferred option would increase consistency with notably the Qualification Directive and the Dublin Regulation. This would be achieved by harmonising references to refugee status and subsidiary protection; by introducing common rules on a single procedure; and, by emphasising that the Directive covers persons subject to the Dublin procedures, and, that the notion of implicit withdrawal of the application does not apply to persons transferred to the responsible Member State pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. different EU dealing with Ultimately, the preferred option would reduce the risk of rejecting protection claims of applicants who (i) do not raise grounds EN 91

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + relevant to the Geneva Convention, but who would qualify for subsidiary protection, and (ii) who are subject to the Dublin procedures. Hence, asylum applicants subject to the Dublin procedures would enjoy full access to Directive's principles and guarantees, whilst persons transferred to the responsible Member States could effectively re-access the asylum process. The option would also decrease divergences between EU Member States, as it would establish key elements of the single procedure at EU level, including a mandatory sequence of an examination of protection needs, the principle of a single determining authority, requirements for decision making at first instance and access to effective remedy in relation to both sets of substantive criteria provided for in the Qualification Directive. The option would thereby promote the frontloading of resources, a comprehensive and efficient processing of applications, and contribute to identify genuine refugees. 4 The preferred option would address several problems that decrease the quality and efficiency of decision-making, including causes of subsequent applications. The two issues are interlinked. The enhanced quality would be instrumental in achieving better efficiency. The quality would improve by - introducing the principle of a single determining authority; - strengthening the administrative capacity to deal with asylum applications through the inclusion of provisions to provide personnel with necessary skills and expertise; - enhanced quality of interviews. This would be reinforced through practical cooperation. Efficiency problems are further caused by the possibilities to derogate from the basic principles and guarantees, accelerated procedures, a lack of ex nunc examination of protection needs by courts or tribunals, the lodging of applications on behalf of dependent adults and minors (the personal interview may be omitted in these cases), unreasonable time limits for appeal and wide scope for diverse procedural approaches to subsequent applications in the Member States. In this regard, the preferred option would also contribute to eliminating the root causes of subsequent asylum applications and to consolidating the Directive's provisions dealing with subsequent applications, thus reducing disparate procedural arrangements in Member States, for example by encouraging the applicants and the determining authority to establish and assess all relevant elements of the application before a decision on the substance is taken at first instance. The improved efficiency and quality would have important EN 92

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + positive impacts on the asylum acquis as a whole. In particular, it would: reduce MS `reception costs, since (i) applications will be generally examined within 6 months, and (ii) more cases will result in a final decision already in the first instance; lead to quicker access to benefits set out in the Qualification Directive for genuine refugees and persons in need of subsidiary protection; enable MS to better identify cases of unfounded and abusive applications, including those based on false identity or nationality; improve credibility of asylum procedures leading to better public perception of asylum; support MS' efforts to remove from the territory failed asylum seekers, since robust decisions will be taken quicker; reduce possibilities for applicants with unfounded claims to benefit, for a long period of time, from reception conditions. 4 The preferred option will re-enforce MS' asylum appeal systems by improving the accessibility and quality of an effective remedy against negative first instance decisions before a court or tribunal. This will result in particular from: - the requirement to set up reasonable time limits for lodging appeals and laying down the principle of suspensive effect of appeals; - the availability of legal assistance already in the first instance procedures; - the requirement for a court or tribunal to conduct an ex nunc and full review of both facts and points of law; - reinforcing the principle of equality of arms in asylum appeal proceedings. and 3,5 Key elements of the preferred option that promote a consistent transposition include: Removing derogations; and, Establishing more narrow definitions. EN 93

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + As outlined above, the Directive in its present form leads to (a risk of) administrative error and lacks the potential to make procedures efficient. The preferred option would significantly reduce (the risk of) these problems compared to the current situation, by (i) limiting the possibilities for Member States to derogate from the basic procedural guarantees, with specific attention to persons with special needs; and, (ii) ensuring adequate procedural guarantees (again, also considering persons with special needs); (iii) improving the assessment of safety of third countries of origin; and, (iv) improving access for applicants to effective judicial remedy where procedures are challenged. Several of the elements that form part of the preferred option oblige Member States to take certain action or provide certain rights (which increases the likelihood of consistent transposition of high standards) 33 . Indeed, the option would decrease divergences between EU Member States, as it would establish key elements of the single procedure at EU level, including a mandatory sequence of an examination of protection needs, the principle of a single determining authority, requirements for decision making at first instance and access to effective judicial remedy in relation to both sets of substantive criteria provided for in the Qualification Directive. However, a few provisions include terminology that may be interpreted in different ways in the Member States (e.g. provisions on training, the notion of persons with special needs, the notion of safe country of origin etc.). In many of these cases, the preferred option foresees practical cooperation in order to achieve a common understanding. In terms of implementation, inconsistencies could arise in particular with regard to the following elements of the preferred option: · Type and amount of initial and ongoing training provided to various types of staff (police, boarder guards, and staff of the determining authority, e.g. case workers, interviewers etc.) and In particular, the preferred option would delete the possibility to omit a personal interview, and free legal assistance would need to be made available for applicants with limited resources at first instance. The option would also, for example, introduce obligations for the Member States to designate a competent authority for registration of applications for international protection; ensure that staff of relevant authorities, including police and border guards, are provided with clear instructions on how to deal with these cases and the need to forward the application to competent authorities; clarify Member States' obligations in joint border surveillance operations, ensure provision of interpretation services; access of organisations providing legal advice and counselling to asylum seekers at borders, transit zones and detention facilities; and, registration of applications with a reasonable time limit (e.g. 48 hours) which will ensure that the examination of the claim can start as soon as possible. It would also specify that persons who have indicated that they want to make an application should be able to stay on the territory. EN 94

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + the quality of this training. · Types of instructions provided to police, border guards and staff of detention facilities concerning how to ensure that all persons who wishes to apply for international protection receive information on how to do this, and monitoring of the extent to which these instructions are followed. · Provision of interpretation services to ensure a necessary level of communication between the person concerned and border guards and police authorities. · Determination of who has insufficient financial resources to be able to pay for legal assistance at first instance. · To what degree it is ensured that communication during the interview takes place in a language that the asylum seeker understands (e.g. through face to face interpretation or remote interpretation or, as has been reported happens at present, via a summary of what is being said and not full interpretation). · Provision of information to applicants on their right to comment on the report of the personal interview. · Interpretation of the notion of `persons with special needs', and the identification of these applicants. · Time given to survivors of torture to prepare for the personal interview. · Type of gender and age-sensitive requirements to interview asylum seekers, and how it is ensured that these are followed. · `Necessary' time taken for the determining authority to assess the elements of the application. · Types of cases where accelerated procedures are used, and time taken to carry out accelerated procedures. · Time taken to carry out `regular' procedures. · Use of the notion of `safe country of origin' and `regular' reviews of whether these countries are still to be considered as safe. · `protected from external intervention or influence'. · Determination and use of the possibility to prolong the time to take a decision from 6 to 9 months in `individual cases'. EN 95

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + · The interpretation of what `sufficient number of staff of the determining authority who have the necessary skills and expertise to be able to undertake their tasks' means in practice. 3,5 Some of the elements that form part of the preferred option could have important costs implications in some countries, depending on e.g. the existing support and measures in place, numbers/proportion of beneficiaries of international protection etc. Elements that could require substantial financial inputs by some countries resulting from, for example: Costs for providing free legal assistance at first instance to applicants who lack financial resources to stand for such themselves. Similar costs levels per capita were reported by the Netherlands (approximately 750 euro) and Sweden (in 2008, costs were around 900 euro). Lithuania, however, reported much lower costs (95 euro per capita). Due to the significant variation in costs and a limited number of Member States able to provide them to the Commission, it has not been deemed appropriate to estimate the average costs. As no information on the proportion of asylum seekers who may lack financial resources has been obtained, overall costs for the Member States have also not been possible to estimate. Despite the lack of data, it is however clear that this provision could, at least in the short term, imply significant costs for several Member States. However, when assessing the financial feasibility of the relevant provision, resulting benefits must also be taken into account. Indeed, in the long term, costs for free legal assistance at first instance may be outweighed as `frontloading' (which the provision of legal aid at first instance would contribute to) is economically advantageous. Whilst requiring substantial initial investments for Member States who currently do not provide for free legal assistance at first instance and other new elements that promote frontloading 34 , there is evidence that frontloading leads to higher recognition rates at the first instance and lower numbers of applications that have to be treated in appeal procedures. In fact, several Member States who do not, for example, provide legal assistance or clear communication in the first instance, have at present extremely low first instance decision rates (as low as 1% against a Community average of 21% in 2007), a high proportion of which is subsequently challenged. Indeed, according to Member States' experiences, i.e. Belgium and Netherlands, provision of free legal assistance at first instance contributes to quality decision making and prevents unnecessary The provision of good quality information and feedback opportunities from the very start and throughout the procedure; Limitations to the extent Member States can treat applications through accelerated procedures and derogate from basic principles and guarantees, such as omitting personal interviews; streamlining the examination process and posting sufficient numbers of qualified personnel, availability of in-house and external expertise, placing addition focus on the special needs of woman and vulnerable applicants; and, Removing some of the root causes of subsequent applications. EN 96

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + litigation before appeal bodies. Thus, on balance, some costs would be absorbed or even outweighed. 35 The UK New Asylum Model provides solid evidence of this. While the costs of the model in 2007 2008 was £ 176 million, of which £80 million (45 %) was accounted for by accommodation and welfare support (UK received 23 000 applications in 2007), a separate process has been established to complete, by 2011, a backlog of some 400,000 450,000 cases unresolved before the introduction of the new asylum model. The UK Border Agency estimates that this backlog cost nearly £ 600 million in 2007-08, of which £ 430 million (72 per cent) was accounted for by accommodation and welfare support 36 . · Increased reception costs for enabling people to stay in the country as for example their appeal against a decision has suspensive effect or because they cannot simply be denied entry at the border. · Increased costs for support services and products, including the provision of information, interpretation and translation services, legal assistance, guardianship and medico-legal examinations and reporting. · Increased costs for staff involved in decision-making due to a reduction in the proportion of applications that can be treated through accelerated or border procedures, higher investments in the training of staff responsible for registering and processing applications and increased time inputs required for personal interviews and reporting on the latter. · Increased costs for staff constituting the first contact point for people in border zones and other entry points, as these would require additional training and guidance. Investment at EU level would also be required to support practical cooperation, for example through the European Asylum Support Office, relating to identification of good practices, the sharing of learning, the preparation of guidance and various other activities. In addition, funding could be allocated, for example through the In addition to increasing the effectiveness of the asylum procedure, frontloading also ensures a fair treatment of applications and allows for their full scrutiny. Applicants not in need of international protection can be easier returned and do not spend years awaiting decisions and appeals. Applicants in need of international protection have quicker clarity on their status and can start their integration into the new society. Thus, the provision of free legal assistance at first instance may not only be financially advantageous as it may prevent appeal procedures and related costs (e.g. welfare provision to applicants waiting), but, importantly, from a human rights perspective, it is likely to reduce the numbers of persons who need to wait for a decision for years. Management of asylum applications by the UK Border agency. Report by the Controller and Auditor General. Op.cit. , page 4 EN 97

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + European Refugee Fund, to help some Member States in developing any new services that could be required as a result of the amendments to the Directive. Some Member States might therefore question the financial feasibility of the proposals and use it as an argument in any further negotiations. However, as further elaborated under the section discussing the financial and economic impacts, many costs could be largely off-set by financial gains on the longer term. Importantly, the preferred policy option is largely based on practices available in a number of Member States (e.g. legal assistance at first instance), which is an important indication of its feasibility. 3,5 Certain legislative elements of the preferred option may invite objections from some Member States, which e.g. would prefer retaining a higher level of flexibility in the application of the Directive. Based on the consultation, MS are in principle in favour of considering the following elements: more clear rules on access to procedures, common rules on a single procedure, adjustment of the safe third country notion, improved arrangements for personal interviews, a revised list of grounds of accelerated procedures, more effective provisions for dealing with subsequent applications, common training requirements, and the scope of judicial review. Examples of elements which are likely to be more controversial can be expected include: · Member States that at present do not provide for relevant guarantees, which would be compulsory, are likely to object against the removal of derogations. · With regard to the measures to improve the equal access of women and vulnerable asylum seekers, Member States have some practical concerns, for example, how to assess if a person is a minor, and are also concerned about the definition of special needs becoming too broad. Preliminary consultations with government experts' indicate that some Member States may be reluctant to explicitly exempt applicants with special needs, as a group, from accelerated and/or border procedures. · Whilst most countries agreed on the need to reduce the number of grounds included in Article 23(4) concerning the use of accelerated and prioritised procedures, by either merging or deleting some of these grounds, they are unlikely to agree with limiting acceleration of the procedure to one ground only, namely the manifestly unfounded cases. Furthermore, reducing the possibilities for Member States to use accelerated procedures could lead to objections from those Member States that currently use this possibility quite frequently (e.g. LV, PL, EN 98

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + SK) and for which the option would lead to increased costs. Introduction of free legal assistance at first instance to asylum seekers who lack financial resources to stand for this cost themselves. Countries that may object on the basis of comments made in the APD experts meeting in January 2009 include France, Italy, Cyprus and Latvia. · Introduction of the possibility of appeals against granting of subsidiary protection; · Some Member States may object to the automatic suspensive effect (of certain appeal procedures), because they prefer to grant this on a case-by-case basis. · The provision of interpretation services as well as advice to persons in entry points. There was overall consensus among Member States that the provision of such support could lead to an increase in bogus claims as any irregular migrant could feel encouraged to apply for asylum. · Member States are very much in favour of practical cooperation, e.g. on the EAC. 4.5 The preferred option would have the following social effects (the elements of the preferred option that in particular contribute to the effects are included in brackets): · Increased access to protection and justice as a lower number of persons may be rejected because of e.g. increased consistency between relevant instruments (harmonisation of references to refugee status and subsidiary protection; introduction common rules on a single procedure; inclusion of Dublin cases), the elimination of derogations from basic principles and guarantees (e.g. by omitting the possibility to conduct a personal interview) and improved guarantees (including access to free legal assistance at first instance, improved communication of information to asylum seekers, ensuring guarantees in accelerated procedures, reasonable time limits, taking better account of the special needs of vulnerable and female asylum seekers etc.). Also the improved asylum process, managed by a single authority with staff with necessary skills and expertise and a better application of the notion of safe country of origin across the EU would have positive effects. · Increased access to social protection as persons seeking asylum would have increased chances of obtaining protection and the EN 99

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + necessary social and healthcare (clarifying the territorial scope of the Directive, defining the obligations of the competent authorities, introducing additional guarantees for persons who are physically present in the territory and wish to request international protection, better communication, including the possibility to challenge decisions etc.), because of the elimination of derogations from basic principles and guarantees (e.g. omitting the possibility to conduct a personal interview) and improved guarantees (access to free legal assistance at first instance, improved communication of information to asylum seekers, automatic suspensive effect in case of appeals, taking better account of the special needs of vulnerable and female asylum seekers). Positive effects would also result from the introduction of a single determining body, with strengthened administrative capacity to deal with asylum applications personnel with necessary skills and expertise. · Increased equality/non-discrimination: in particular the elements that lead to increased consistency between different groups of applicants (harmonisation of references to refugee status and subsidiary protection; introduction of common rules on a single procedure; inclusion of Dublin cases) and the provisions that give increased access to protection (clarifying the territorial scope of the Directive, defining the obligations of the competent authorities, introducing additional guarantees for persons who are physically present in the territory and wish to request international protection, better communication, including the possibility to challenge decisions, taking better account of the special needs of vulnerable and female asylum seekers) would achieve positive effects. However, also access to effective remedy and the elimination of derogations from basic principles and guarantees (e.g. omitting the possibility to conduct a personal interview) as well as improved guarantees (access to free legal assistance at first instance, improved communication of information to asylum seekers, taking better account of the special needs of vulnerable and female asylum seekers) are key components of the preferred option that will enhance equality and non-discrimination. · Better public health: persons seeking asylum would have increased chances of obtaining protection and the necessary social and healthcare (clarifying the territorial scope of the Directive, defining the obligations of the competent authorities, introducing additional guarantees for persons who are physically present in the territory and wish to request international protection, better communication, including the possibility to challenge decisions, better application of the notion of safe country of origin across the EU, taking better account of the special needs of vulnerable and female asylum seekers) and e.g. the elimination of the possibility to omit a personal interview would lead to a better information basis for assessing the applicant's individual circumstances (for EN 100

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + example, when applying the safe country of origin notion, and for drawing a conclusion as to whether the applicant's statements are credible). · Good governance: would be better achieved within Member States through the introduction of a single determining authority and strengthening of the administrative capacity to deal with asylum applications by providing personnel with necessary skills and expertise (including border guards). Good governance would be also improved through increased transparency of access and examination procedures, promoting a specialised and well prepared determining authority, strengthening the quality of administrative decision making and streamlining examination procedures. Increased preparedness of asylum personnel and better scrutiny of cases will be instrumental to prevent abuse of procedures. Improved access to effective remedy would lead to better supervision of governmental decisions and practices in the area of asylum by independent judiciary. The benefits of the preferred option would vary between the Member States, e.g. because of the current legal and practical situation. 4.5 The preferred option would promote the following rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the elements of the preferred option that would particularly enhance each of the rights are included in brackets): · Article 18: Right to asylum (Harmonisation of references to refugee status and subsidiary protection; introduction of common rules on a single procedure; better protection against refoulement; removing derogations from basic principles and guarantees and improve guarantees; access to effective remedy; limitations to using the accelerated procedure; improvements of the substantive criteria for defining third countries of origin as safe; ensuring equal access to protection for persons with special needs) · Article 19: Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition (Harmonisation of references to refugee status and subsidiary protection; introduction of common rules on a single procedure; better protection against refoulement; removing derogations from basic principles and guarantees and improve guarantees; access to effective remedy; limitations to using the accelerated procedure; improvements of the substantive criteria for defining third countries of origin as safe; ensuring equal access to protection for persons with special needs) · Article 23: Equality between men and women (ensuring equal access to protection for persons with special needs) EN 101

Rating of relevance Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy sub-option objectives from 0, necessary to achieve the impact i.e .no impact, to 5; other objectives -, 0, or + · Article 24: The rights of the child (ensuring equal access to protection for persons with special needs) · Article 35: Health care (ensuring equal access to protection for persons with special needs) · Article 47: Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Harmonisation of references to refugee status and subsidiary protection; introduction of common rules on a single procedure; access to effective remedy; full and ex nunc review of first instance decisions, improvements of the substantive criteria for defining third countries of origin as safe; ensuring equal access to protection for persons with special needs). - It is extremely difficult to assess what impacts the proposed provisions and practical cooperation measures could have on third countries, e.g. in terms of reduced rejections and persons returned, increased asylum applications, remittances etc. Moreover, it would only be relevant to assess such impacts in combination with a group of measures in the area of asylum. However, overall, the combination of provisions proposed as part of the preferred option can be expected to increase the access to procedures for persons seeking international protection. It is worth recalling, however, that the asylum acquis as such has an export value as a number of its notions have been incorporated in the asylum systems of third countries. Also, other industrialized countries (i.e Australia, Canada and the USA) are closely following the developments in the EU asylum policy and practices. Importantly, the Asylum Procedures Directive is the only binding supranational set of rules governing asylum procedures in the world. In this respect, the preferred policy option would definitely contribute to setting advanced procedural standards in third countries. EN 102

EN 103

A NNEX 19 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND THE KEY PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF THE PREFERRED OPTION Authoritative interpretation Insufficient and vague Envisaged by international courts and standards of the standards of organisations Directive principle of Access to asylum procedures: Directive's provisions Envisaged standards on access: on 33 of the access to procedures: (a) Persons who express a wish to apply for asylum should be able to lodge an application for asylum (a) The directive does not define either the obligations of border guards / immigration authorities (UNHCR EXCOM To require MS to ensure access to procedures as soon as possible, conclusion No 8 ) or the moment when the application is considered to be lodged. (b) Border guards and immigration officers should have clear instructions for dealing with asylum requests. They should be required to act in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement and to refer such cases to a higher authority. (EXCOM conclusion No 80) To explicitly include territorial Art. 6 (1) allows MS to require that applications for asylum be made in person waters in the territorial scope of the Directive and/or at a designated place. To define responsibilities of The right to remain: Art. 6 (5) requires border guards and immigration authorities authorities likely to be addressed by someone who wishes to make an application to be able to advise (c) Applicants should be allowed to remain in the territory until a final decision is taken him/her. No obligation to facilitate access to the competent authorities is set out. To fix a time limit for (UNHCR EXCOM registering conclusion No 8). applications (b) Extradition may engage the responsibility of a State under (b) Art. 7 (2): MS can make an exception to the right to remain where they will surrender / extradite a person to a third country. To underline that information about access procedures, counselling the ECHR, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person if extradited will face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (Ryabikin v. and interpretation arrangements should be made available for Russia, Application no. persons who are present 8320/04, 19 June 2008, para 110). at the border points EN 104

To specify that refugee assisting NGOs should be allowed access to persons present at the border, in the transit zones or in detention facilities, in agreement with and subject to the rules set out by MS. Envisaged standards on the right to remain To specify that extradition arrangements (treaties ) may not be used to return an applicant to his/her country of origin EN 105

enable an applicant to on interviews: substantiate his/her application. The right to a personal (a) Art. 12 (2) (b) and (c): MS interview: To require MS to allow a personal interview may omit a personal interview on six grounds to all asylum applicants (a) a person must be given a realistic opportunity to prove his/her case (b) The directive does not specify whether a personal To require MS to make a transcript of the (Bahaddar v. The interview personal Netherlands (ECtHR, should be conducted in the admissibility stage. interview and give to an applicant an opportunity application 25894/94); to comment on its content (b) direct documentary evidence of the claim is often not available for asylum seekers, in particular in the case of fast procedures (ECtHR, Said v. the Netherlands, 2005, para. 49 ). (b) an applicant should be given a complete personal interview (UNHCR EXCOM conclusion No 30). principle of Procedural guarantees to Directive's standards Envisaged procedural guarantees: enable an applicant to on access to substantiate his/her information, counselling and advice: application. Access to information and advice on procedures, rights and obligations: (a) Art. 10 (1) (a) requires MS to inform applicants in a language which they may To keep the current standard of Art. 10 (1) (a) reasonably be supposed to understand of the procedure to be followed and of their rights and (a) The applicant should receive the necessary guidance as to the procedure To provide for free legal assistance at first instance for to be followed EN 106

(b) Free legal assistance may need to be provided to a person in (b) Art. 15 (1) requires MS to allow applicants, at their own cost, to consult in an effective manner a legal adviser or other counsellor. To allow a legal advisor (counsellor) to be present in an interview with the applicant the less advantageous position in a pre - judicial procedure to safeguard rights guaranteed by Community Law (Evans, Case C-63/01, 4 December 2003, paras 77, 78). (c) Art. 10 (1) (c) allows applicants To allow applicants to communicate to any to communicate to the refugee UNHCR or any other organisation working on behalf of the UNHCR. No standards on access to / by other service providers (NGOs) are set out. assisting NGOs principle of Procedural guarantees to Directive's communicative guarantees: Envisaged communicative guarantees: enable an applicant to substantiate his/her application. To require MS to conduct a personal interview with the applicant Communication of information to the authorities: Art.13 (3) (b) allows MS to conduct an interview in a in a language which the language s/he applicant may understands and is able The applicant should be given the services of a competent interpreter for submitting his/her case to the authorities (UNHCR EXCOM conclusions No 8 ). reasonably be supposed to understand and in which he/she is able to communicate. to communicate freely. principle of Procedural guarantees for Directive's standards Envisaged key applicants with special needs on applicants with guarantees for special needs applicants with special needs General principles: General principles refugees General principles: 1, the (a) Persons whose situations are significantly different should be treated significantly differently (ECtHR, Thlimmenos v. Greece, Application No. To set out the EN 107

14 ECHR, applicants. All To require MS to take steps to give to such applicants the opportunity guarantees and arrangements are gender, age and trauma neutral with the exception of special guarantees for unaccompanied minors (Art. 17). (b) Mechanisms for referral to psycho-social counselling and other support services should be made available where necessary (UNHCR Gender Guidelines). to present the elements of their application of as completely as possible and with all available evidence. Rights Guarantees for children: Guarantees for children: Guarantees for children: (b) States shall take To lay down the right of a minor to lodge appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking (a) Art. 6 (2) guarantees the right to apply for asylum only for adults having legal capacity. an refugee status application on receives appropriate his/her behalf protection (Article 22 CRC). To require MS to conduct interviews with minors in a child Guarantees for applicants with gender related claims: Guarantees for friendly applicants with gender related claims: manner To define the qualifications of the guardian and entitle him/her to apply for protection on behalf of the minor (c) Women asylum (b) Art. 6 (3): MS may provide seekers should be that an interviewed separately, application may be made by an applicant on behalf of without the presence of male his/her dependant family members adults. (UNHCR Gender To provide for free legal assistance to unaccompanied minors throughout the guidelines). (c) No gender related standards are set out either in the lists of rights and obligations (Art.10, 11 APD) or in the asylum (d) Claimants should be informed of the choice to have procedure interviewers and provisions on interpreters of the same sex interviews (Art. 13). Gender related as themselves guarantees: (UNHCR Gender guidelines, EXCOM (d) Art. 9 (3) allows MS to conclusion No 64). issue one single To introduce decision, covering all EN 108

requirements for interviews and (e) The claimant should be assured that his/her claim will be treated in the strictest confidence, and information provided by the claimant will not be provided to members of his/her family (UNHCR Gender Guidelines). decisions (e.g. same sex interpreters, separate decisions) To inform dependent adults about the right to apply for asylum and give them the possibility of presenting their cases to the authorities Requirements for examination procedures: Directive's standards Envisaged standards on examination on principle of procedures: accelerated /manifestly unfounded/ priority procedures: (a) The authorities must conduct a meaningful assessment of the claim Art. 23 (3): MS may prioritise or accelerate any examination To introduce a (b) Time limits should not be so short as to deny an applicant limited and Art. 23 (4), Art. 28 (2): MS may prioritise or accelerate exhausted list of grounds for a realistic examination accelerated procedures, opportunity to prove his or her claim. (Bahaddar v. The Netherlands (ECtHR, application 25894/94). while procedures on 16 specific grounds, preserving MS' consider such discretion to applications manifestly unfounded and omit a personal interview on 5 grounds prioritize other claims. (c) The applicant should be given a complete personal interview To specify that the determining authority should be given a necessary time to conduct a rigorous assessment of the claim. (UNHCR EXCOM conclusions No 30) principle of Requirements for asylum Directive's standards Envisaged standards authorities and the length of procedures: on decision making: on decision making: EN 109

refugees to the 1, the (a) States should allocate principle of a single determining To reduce sufficient personnel and authority. derogations from recourses to refugee status determination bodies so as to enable them to accomplish their task expeditiously (EXCOM conclusions No 30) Immigration and border guard the principle of a single determining authority authorities involved in asylum and decision making are not required specify that a general to have substantive interview of knowledge of refugee law. should always be conducted by the personnel of the determining authority. (b) Rights guaranteed by Community Law requires a procedural system which is easily accessible and ensures that the persons concerned will have their applications (b) Article 23 (2) refers to 6 months as a desirable time limit for taking decisions, but specifies that this shall not To require the constitute an determining authority to dispose sufficient numbers of specialised and trained dealt with obligation for the objectively and within Member State towards the applicant concerned to take a decision within that time frame. reasonable time ( Panayotova, 16 November 2004, Case C-327/02, para 27) in-house personnel To require MS to provide initial and follow up training to the asylum personnel and specify the minimum requirements for its content Standards on effective Directive's standards Envisaged elements: (Art. 13 remedy: on effective remedy: general of (a) An appeal body must (a) The directive does not define the scope of review - be independent and impartial (a court or tribunal) by a court To provide for a full and ex nunc assessment (tribunal). Under Recital 27, "the effectiveness of the remedy, also with regard of - ensure a full examination of facts and points of law; appeals. to the examination of the - carry out an ex nunc assessment of the protection needs, relevant facts, depends on the administrative and judicial system of each Member State seen as a whole." To introduce the principle of automatic suspensive effect of appeals and specify exceptional - enjoy access to materials upon which the administrative cases EN 110

effect may be - ensure equality of arms of parties to proceedings. granted on a case by case basis (b) Suspensive effect of appeals should be guaranteed. To require the determining authority to make materials on which it based its decision available to courts and tribunals in all cases. (c) The question whether the provision of legal aid is necessary for a fair hearing ...will depend, (c) Art. 39 (3) leaves it to MS to provide (or not) for suspensive effect of appeals in national legislation. inter alia , upon the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the To require MS to lay down reasonable time proceedings, the d) Art. 15 (2) (3) allow MS to derogate from the duty to grant free legal assistance limits for lodging appeals. complexity of the relevant law and in appeal procedure and the proceedings before higher courts and where the appeal does not have prospects for success. applicant's capacity to represent him or herself effectively ( Airey , pp. 14 16, § 26; McVicar , §§ 48 and 50; P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom , no. 56547/00, § 91, ECHR 2002-VI; and also Munro , cited above). A NNEX 20 P REVALENCE OF TORTURE AMONG ASYLUM SEEKERS AND 37 REFUGEES This analysis is prepared on the basis of information provided by the IRCT. EN 111

39 With a few exceptions, all clients of the European rehabilitation centres originate See for example Baker R. Psychological consequences for tortured refugees seeking asylum and refugee status in Europe. In Torture and its consequences. Cambridge University Press, 1992, p.83-106; Jose Quiroga and James M. Jaranson, Politically-motivated torture and its survivors; A desk study review of the literature, Volume 15, No. 2-3, Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture 2005, pp. 6-7; Miserez D. Refugees: the trauma of exile: the humanitarian role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Dordrecht: Martinus Nifhoff Publishers, 1980:80-6. Available at http://www.irct.org/Find-IRCT-members-33.aspx . EN 112

EN 113

EN 114

EN 115

40 ) that would need not changed considerably since 2007. Population of Concern including refugees and asylum seekers 2005 in the EU (date extracted 24 April 2007). Source: UNHCR Statistical Population Database, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/45c063a82.html. EN 116

Estimated Torture Victims 180.000 160.000 140.000 120.000 100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 France Germany Netherlands Sweden UK Estimated Torture Victims 14.000 12.000 10.000 8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0 Austria Bulgaria Denmark Finland Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Romania EN 117

The Referral considered by remit panel which is made up of CCST manager, director and co ordinating physician. If the request is considered appropriate client is registered and put on waiting list and legal representative is informed. Appointment is offered, referrer is informed of appointment, interpreter organised if necessary. Client is seen by examining physician. The average appointment time is 2 hours, includes full history taken and physical and mental state examination. In some cases a further assessment is required. Ongoing referral and GP liaison regarding client's well being also covered in this assessment if appropriate. Report is dictated and typed Report is reviewed and finalised by examining physician before review. Report is reviewed by senior physician. Report is amended and finalised by examining physician. (In some cases further input may be needed from senior physician) Report is submitted to legal representative 280 80 35 120 25 40 EN 118

50 675 440 120 52.5 180 37.5 40 50 45 965 EN 119

A NNEX 21 O VERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS ON ACCESS TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY 41 , which is also enshrined in the EU 42 . In essence, the ECJ jurisprudence establishes several 43 . The Directive, however, establishes only few 44 . This arrangement leaves room for 45 . t he Court explicitly applied this principle to immigration procedures 46 . In Wilson, 47 . Similarly, the ECtHR has 48 . It is also established modus operandi for the Court to collect 49 . In Muminov, the Court stressed that in order to See inter alia Union de Pequenos Agricultores, Case C 50/00, 2002, para 39. Pursuant to Article 47 (1) CFR, everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. As confirmed in the Wilson case, the concept of independence means that an appeal authority must act as a third party in relation to the authority which adopted the contested decision, while the notion of impartiality further requires objectivity and the absence of any interest in the outcome of the proceedings apart from the strict application of the rule of law. Case C-506/04, 19 September 2006, paragraphs 49-52. See Article 39 (1) in conjunction with recital 27 APD Article 26, Presidential decree No 90. Case C-136/03, 2 June 2005, para 57. Case C-506/04, 19 September 2006, para 62 In Na v. UK, the Court again instead that "A full and ex nunc assessment is called for as the situation in a country of destination may change in the course of time". See inter alia Said v. the Netherlands; Application no. 2345/02, 5 July 2005. EN 120

51 . Nor does it provide for the assessment of future 52 . The analysis of transposition 53 . These 54 . Also, it is apparent from the People's Mojahedin 55 . In Guliev, which concerned an 56 . As 57 . Muminov v. Rússia, 11 December 2008, para 102 Recital 27 merely provides that the effectiveness of the remedy, also with regard to the examination of the relevant facts, depends on the administrative and judicial system of each Member State seen as a whole. Article 32 (1) APD Article16 (1) APD Case C-341/04, 2 May 2006, para 66 See cases T-228/02, T-284/08, T-256/07. The CFI inter alia outlined that national authorities are not free from any review by the national courts simply because they state that the case concerns national security andterrorism, Case T-228/02, para 156 Guliev v. Lithuania, ECtHR, 16 December 2008, para 44 See Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, Application no. 50963/99, decision of 20 June 2002. In paragraph 137, The Court also maintained: "The [appeal] authority must be competent to reject the executive's assertion that there is a threat to national security where it finds it arbitrary or unreasonable. There must be some form of adversarial proceedings, if need be through a special representative after a security clearance" . EN 121

58 . 59 . In this respect, the ECtHR has recently made several important 60 . In Muminov 61 , which inter 62 , the Court summarised its relevant case law Article 35, Decree (decreto legislativo) of 28 January 2008, no. 25. Article 39 (3), APD Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France (application no. 25389/05). Muminov v. Russia, (application no. 42502/06), judgement of 11 December 2008. K.R.S. v. the UK, the inadmissibility decision of 2 December 2008. EN 122

A NNEX 22 A CCELERATED PROCEDURES Table 1 Transposition of grounds (Article 23 (4) APD) Countries that have transposed the provision AT, BE, BU, CY, CZ, GR, LU, SI, PL, PT and RO AT, BE, BU, CY, EE, GR, LU, SI, PT and RO BU, CY, EE, FI, FR, GE, GR, LU, LV, SI, PL, PT and RO BU, CY, FI, GR, LU, LV and PT BE, BU, CY, EE, GE, FR, GR, LU, SI, PL, PT and RO BE, BU, CY, EE, FR, GE, GR, LU, LV, SI, PL, PT and RO BE, BU, CY, GR, LU, PT and RO AT, BE, BU, CY, GE, GR, LU, SI, PL, PT and RO BE, BU, CY, CZ, FR, GR , LU and PT EN 123

BE, BU, CY, EE, FR, GR, LU, LV, SI and PT BE, BU, CY, EE, FR, GR, LU, LV, PL, SI, PT and RO BE, BU, CY, EE, GE, GR, LU, PT, SI and RO BE, BU, CY, CZ, EE, GR, LU and PT BE, CY, EE, FR, GR, LU, LV, SI, PL, PT and RO BE, BU, CY, CZ, EE, GR, LU, SI and PT EE, GE, GR, LU and PT. Table 2. Number of applications channelled in accelerated procedures pursuant to Article 23 (4) APD Number of cases in accelerated procedures EN 124

Number of cases in accelerated procedures Danger to national security: 213 cases in 2007 EU citizens: 382 cases (700 persons) were rejected in 2007 2005: 70 safe country of origin, 796 manifestly unfounded applications 2006: 8 safe country of origin, 352 manifestly unfounded applications 2007: 33 safe country of origin, 306 manifestly unfounded applications 2005: 30 applications concerning 42 applicants 2006: 42 cases concerning 45 applicants 2007: 21 cases concerning 26 applicants 2005: 4 applications 2006: 1 application 2007: 6 applications 2005: 1,434 applications 2006: 210 applications 2007: 1,568 applications 2008: 945 applications 2005:192 applications rejected as manifestly unfounded and inadmissible 2006: 334 applications rejected as manifestly unfounded and inadmissible 2007: 453 applications rejected as manifestly unfounded 2008 (until 30 Nov): 132 applications rejected as manifestly unfounded 2005: 3,405 accelerated applications 2006: 2,180 applications 2007: 531 application Table 3. Proportion of claims processed through accelerated procedures Number of applications Proportion examined through accelerated procedure 2005: 20 20% 2006: 8 12.5% 2007: 34 17.6% 2005: 1,609 2.61% EN 125

Number of applications Proportion examined through accelerated procedure 2006: 2,117 2.13% 2007: 3,419 0.76% 2005: 13,928 1,434 (10%) 2006: 14,437 210 (1%) 2007: 19,265 1,568 (8%) All decisions negative 2005: NA 5.4% 2006: NA 11.6% 2007: NA 17.3% All decisions negative 2005: 17,530 19% 2006: 24,322 9% 2007: 36,207 1% EN 126

A NNEX 23 T IMEFRAME ( S ) FOR COMPLETING AN EXAMINATION OF AN ASYLUM APPLICATION AT FIRST INSTANCE IN THE M EMBER S TATES Table 9.1 Timeframe(s) for completing an examination of an asylum application at first instance in the Member States (Source: European Migration Network) Timeframe Description Belgium 101 weeks (from 01/01/2007-31/03/2008) (Processing time for AS who received a final decision) Estonia 4 months in 2007. France 356 days (2007) 314 days (2006) 282 days (2005) (from the date of application and the date of cancelling decision or refusal decision before the court) 105 days (2007) 110 (2006) 108 (2005) (from the date of application and the date of positive or negative decision of the OPFRA). Germany On average, 21.7 months in 2006 (32,5% of the cases were closed within the first 6 months, 15% were finalised between 7 and 12 months, more than 10% between 19 and 24 months) (from the date of application until a possible final decision). Hungary 15 days for the first part (Preliminary assessment procedure) and 60 days for the second part (the in-merit procedure) which can be extended to 30 days. In appeal, the court shall decide on the statement of claim in a litigious procedure within 60 days of the receipt of the statement of claim. In practice, judicial procedure: 6 months to 1 year. Ireland In prioritised cases, time scales at first instance is: 17-20 working days. In non-prioritised cases, time scales at first instance is: 22-23 weeks. Some cases take significantly longer to complete due to, for example, medical reasons, non-availability of interpreters or because of judicial review proceedings. The Refugee appeal tribunal: 21 weeks on average to process and complete substantive appeals; 8 weeks for accelerated appeals; 9 weeks for prioritised cases. EN 127

Timeframe Description Lithuania 3 months (decision at first instance from the day the application is received), 3 months (for the decision in appellate instance) =} so, in a routine procedure, the final decision is taken within 6 months. Malta 6 months on average in the majority of cases (from the introduction of the formal asylum application till the first decision is reached) 4 months for the a final judicial decision (from the time the appeal is submitted) =} so 10 months for cases entering an appeal. The Netherlands Initial decision 14 weeks (2006) After appeal 14 weeks. (2006) 91% of final decisions taken within the target time limit (6 months) Poland For unfounded applications 2-3 months Other procedures: 8 months to 1,5 year (even though statutory limit is defined as 6 months) Portugal Admissibility phase 20 days; Concession phase 60 days. In practice, on average, final decision in 180 days. Slovenia No statistics on the average duration of the procedures for granting IP. However, statistics on the number of day the applicant stay on average in the Asylum Home 80 days (2007) 53 days (2008) Spain Ordinary procedure of refusal to consider an application: 60 days after filling the application Asylum applications at borders: the decision on the refusal to consider an application is taken within 7 days. EN 128

A NNEX 24 T HE LIKELY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION 63 have been assessed with regard to obligations to provide The obligation to provide applicants with general information about the various relevant elements of the Asylum Procedures Directive, including information on: · Interpretation services · Various information elements to enable applicants to access asylum procedures and present the elements of their application for international protection as completely as possible and with all available evidence · Access to legal assistance · Different types of procedures · The content of the review addressing both facts and figures · The time limits for decision-making · Etc. The provision of specific instructions to police, border guards, administration of detention facilities and other authorities likely to be addressed by someone who wishes to make an application for international protection, including: · To whom these persons should be referred to · The type of information to provide to people that may be requesting such protection. The obligation to provide information to organisations providing legal advice and counselling to potential asylum seekers, which are allowed access to persons present at the border, in the transit zones or in detention facilities. The legal duty of personnel of responsible authorities to undertake an identification procedure concerning applicants with special needs (to be accompanied by additional guarantees). According to the EC IA guidelines, `Administrative costs are defined as the costs incurred by enterprises, the voluntary sector, public authorities and citizens in meeting legal obligations to provide information on their action or production, either to public authorities or to private parties. Information is to be construed in a broad sense, i.e. including costs of labelling, reporting, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the information and registration'. EN 129

programmes for personnel of the responsible authorities, as well as general regular training. The legal duty concerning appeal procedures, in particular that the review should be based on ex nunc examination of protection needs, that some should have suspensive effects, etc. The tools for practical cooperation (identification and diffusion of best practices, mapping studies of particular approaches, development of guidelines, etc). 64 Scenario "t0": first year of implementation of the preferred PO Scenario "t0+2": third year of implementation of the preferred PO. The provided classification of type of obligation and actions required in relation to each individuated policy measure entailing additional administrative costs have been established according to the EU Standard Cost Model Manual. EN 130

Type of Type of action required Main assumptions of Main assumption of obligation Scenario "t0" Scenario "t0+2" An average of 5 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of units) per MS would be deputed to familiarise themselves with the revised obligations (assumption: two working days required, for an estimated total of 96 working hours per MS) No additional costs Familiarising with the information obligation to An average of 20 officials per MS would be involved in training about the revised No additional costs Training authorities on the Other -- obligations (assumption: information Creation of training course lasting 3 working days, with an estimated total of 480 hours per Member State obligation information the The provision of information on the rights and benefits to the applicants is estimated to require 0.2 hour per applicant. Based on the average number of applications per Member State in the past 5 years (2003-2007: 255,146 applicants), this amounts to 127,573 hours. The provision of information on the rights and benefits to the applicants is estimated to require 0.2 hour per applicant Submitting the information An average of 3 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of units) per MS would be deputed to familiarise themselves with the revised obligations (assumption: two working days required, for an estimated total of 48 working hours per MS) No additional costs Familiarising with the information obligation An average of 40 border officials, etc. per MS would be involved in training about Rerunning training for new of officials, etc. An average of 20 border officials, etc. per MS would be involved in training about the revised obligations (assumption: the revised obligations Other -- Training authorities on the (assumption: training course lasting 1 day, with an estimated total of 320 hours per Member State) of Creation of information information obligations training course lasting 1 day, with an estimated total of 160 hours per Member State) Development of guidelines or brochure, estimated at 20 working hours per MS No additional costs Producing new data Dissemination of guidelines or brochure to relevant MS staff, estimated at 40 working hours per MS Possible re-dissemination of the guidelines / brochure estimated at 40 working hours per MS Submitting the information An average of 2 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of units) per MS would be deputed to familiarise themselves with the revised obligations (assumption: 0.5 working day required, for an estimated total of 8 No additional costs Other -- Creation of information Familiarising with the information obligation EN 131

Type of Type of action required Main assumptions of Main assumption of obligation Scenario "t0" Scenario "t0+2" working hours per MS) Training authorities on the Time inputs included in training of the 40 border officials, etc. above Time inputs included in training of the 20 border officials, etc. above information obligation An average of 2 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of units) per MS would be deputed to familiarise themselves with the revised obligations (assumption: 0.5 working day required, for an estimated total of 8 working hours per MS) No additional costs Familiarising with the information obligation Time inputs included in the training on general information about the various relevant elements of the Asylum Procedures Directive No additional costs Training authorities on the information obligation Submission of recurring report 0.5 working hour for filling in the forms to 0.5 working hour for filling the forms to be submitted for each vulnerable/person with special needs identified. be submitted for each vulnerable/person with special needs identified. This would occur for each vulnerable applicant and the annual number of these people entering on average each MS is estimated to be 5,742; Filling in forms and tables 0.1 working hour in each MS for registering the information concerning vulnerable persons 0,1 working hour in each MS for registering Submitting the the information information concerning vulnerable persons An average of 3 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of units) per MS would be deputed to familiarise themselves with the revised obligations (assumption: 1 working day required, for an estimated total of 24 working hours per MS) No additional costs Familiarising with the information obligation Other -- Time inputs included in the training on general information about the various relevant elements of the Asylum Procedures Directive No additional costs Training authorities on the Creation of information information obligation Development of guidelines or brochure, estimated at 50 working hours per MS No additional costs Producing new data Dissemination of guidelines or brochure to relevant MS staff, estimated at 40 working hours per MS Possible re-dissemination of the guidelines / brochure estimated at 40 working hours per MS Submitting the information An average of 3 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of units) per MS would be deputed to No additional costs duty Other -- appeal Creation of Familiarising with the information obligation EN 132

Type of Type of action required Main assumptions of Main assumption of obligation Scenario "t0" Scenario "t0+2" familiarise themselves with the revised obligations (assumption: 1 working day required, for an estimated total of 24 working hours per MS) information An average of 20 appeal reviewers per MS would be involved in training about the revised obligations (assumption: training course lasting 0.5 working days, with an estimated total of 80 hours per Member State No additional costs Training authorities on the information obligation 240 working hours for the 240 working hours for the Commission's DG JLS to develop guidelines, identify the best practices on the application of the policy option, etc Commission's DG JLS to develop guidelines, identify the best practices on the application of the policy option, etc EU Producing new data Other -- and Creation of information Submitting the 80 working hours to disseminate the information 80 working hours to disseminate the information information EN 133

65 , 66 , and average hourly labour costs in industry 67 . 68 Information on the annual hours worked . 69 . The end result is Eurostat, `Main features of the services sector in the EU', Statistics in Focus -- Industry, trade and services 19/2007. Eurostat, `Earnings disparities across European countries and regions. A glance at regional results of the Structure of Earnings Survey 2002', Statistics in Focus Population and social conditions 7/2006. Eurostat, Europe in Figures 2005, p. 169. OECD Economic Outlook 81 database. The average increase in labour costs in Poland, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic was used for the New Member States that are not members of the OECD. Groningen Growth and Development Centre and the Conference Board, Total Economy Database, January 2007, http://www.ggdc.net . The average annual number of hours worked in the New Member States was 1 855 hours per worker, while the Eurostat data on labour costs per hour and per month result in an annual number of 1 800 hours worked in NACE section L, suggesting that the data match. EN 134

Tariff ( per Price Freq Nbr Total nbr Regulatory Total Time (per action (per of of origin cost hour) (hour) or equip) year) entities actions (%) Orig. Type of Description of required action(s) Target group i e i e Int EU Nat Reg Art. obligation Familiarising with the information obligation MS Asylum Services Other 24 96.00 2,288.6 1.00 27 27 61,793 100% Training members and employees about the information obligations MS Asylum Services Other 24 480.00 11,443.2 1.00 27 27 308,966 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services Other 24 85,048.67 2,027,560.2 1.00 1 1 2,027,560 100% Familiarising with the information obligation MS Border and Asylum Services Other 24 48.00 1,144.3 1.00 27 27 30,897 100% Training members and employees about the information obligations MS Border and Asylum Services Other 24 320.00 7,628.8 1.00 27 27 205,978 100% MS Border and Asylum Services Other Producing new data 24 20.00 476.8 1.00 27 27 12,874 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Border and Asylum Services Other 24 40.00 953.6 1.00 27 27 25,747 100% Familiarising with the information obligation MS Asylum Services Other 24 8.00 190.7 1.00 27 27 5,149 100% MS Asylum Services Other Filling forms and tables 24 2,871.00 68,444.6 1.00 1 1 68,445 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services Other 24 574.20 13,688.9 1.00 1 1 13,689 100% Familiarising with the information obligation MS Asylum Services Other 24 24.00 572.2 1.00 27 27 15,448 100% MS Asylum Services Other Producing new data 24 50.00 1,192.0 1.00 27 27 32,184 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services Other 24 40.00 953.6 1.00 27 27 25,747 100% EN 135

Tariff ( per Price Freq Nbr Total nbr Regulatory Total Time (per action (per of of origin cost hour) (hour) or equip) year) entities actions (%) Orig. Description of required Type of obligation Target group i e i e Int EU Nat Reg Art. action(s) Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services Other 24 85,048.67 2,027,560.2 1.00 1 1 2,027,560 100% Training members and employees about the information obligations MS Border and Asylum Services Other 24 160.00 3,814.4 1.00 27 27 102,989 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Border and Asylum Services Other 24 40.00 953.6 1.00 27 27 25,747 100% MS Asylum Services Other Filling forms and tables 24 2,871.00 68,444.6 1.00 1 1 68,445 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services Other 24 574.20 13,688.9 1.00 1 1 13,689 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services Other 24 40.00 953.6 1.00 27 27 25,747 100% Other Producing new data DG JLS 24 240.00 5,721.6 1.00 1 1 5,722 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) DG JLS Other 24 80.00 1,907.2 1.00 1 1 1,907 100% Total administrative costs () 2,271,806 EN 137

A NNEX 25 A SYLUM APPEAL DATA Recognition rate in first instance % Rejection decisions Appeals lodged Rejection decisions appealed % Appeals allowed Appeals allowed % 26.8% 16755 14055 83% 3385 23% 70 71 11.6% 25922 22676 87.5% 5415 20% 72 14% 5600 5386 96% 469 10% 73 27.6% 20702 10343 49.9% n/a n/a 74 8.4% 1570 471 30% 27 5.4% 75 55.7% 376 300 79.8% 68 22.7% 77% of rejection decisions are appealed in the EU; Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb1108.pdf Source: http://www.commission-refugies.fr/IMG/pdf/CNDA-Rapport_d_activite_2007.pdf and http://www.ofpra.gouv.fr/documents/Rapport_OFPRA_2007_BD.pdf Source: http://www.rvv-cce.be and http://www.cgvs.be/fr/binaries/Rapportannuel2006_tcm126- 9209.pdf Source: http://www.bamf.de/cln_092/nn_442496/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/DasBAMF/Publikationen/bros chuere-asyl-in-zahlen-2007,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/broschuere-asyl-in zahlen-2007.pdf Source: http://www.cear.es/files/Informe_Cear_2008.pdf Source: http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/EFB2567D-6C5F-4E4B-A6EF- 3AE5F1ACEDDC/0/statisticaloverview2007.pdf EN 138

110,846 appeals lodged . 20,506 applicants were granted . 14.2% . 25.14%. If 14.2% is added to that, the global recognition rate would be EN 139

2008 Total decisions Total positive decisions Percentage BE 5.238 396 7,6 BG 27 9 33,3 CZ : : N/A DK 478 164 34,3 DE 11.072 2.777 25,1 EE 1 0 0,0 IE 2.460 293 11,9 GR 1.338 359 26,8 ES : : N/A FR 24.351 6.319 25,9 IT 1.653 1.621 98,1 CY 2.847 36 1,3 LV 13 0 0,0 LT 36 1 2,8 LU 1) 668 246 36,8 HU 55 1 1,8 MT 2.688 1.411 52,5 NL 801 413 51,6 AT 2) 4.592 1.972 42,9 PL 183 29 15,8 PT 1 0 0,0 RO : : N/A SI 101 0 0,0 SK 3) 129 66 51,2 FI 94 82 87,2 SE 1.679 823 49,0 UK N/A EU 60.505 17.018 28,1 EN 140

A NNEX 26 A SYLUM DECISIONS IN EU27 IN 2008 ( FIRST INSTANCE ) Absolute numbers Percentages Refugee status Subsidiary Humanitarian Rejections Total decisions taken Refugee status Subsidiary Humanitarian Rejections 2550 430 10115 13095 19,5 3,3 0,0 77,2 25 270 375 670 3,7 40,3 0,0 56,0 170 150 35 1205 1560 10,9 9,6 2,2 77,2 200 315 210 525 1250 16,0 25,2 16,8 42,0 7310 1440 0 11465 20215 36,2 7,1 0,0 56,7 5 0 0 5 10 50,0 0,0 0,0 50,0 300 5 1160 3325 4790 6,3 0,1 24,2 69,4 355 15 5 29080 29455 1,2 0,1 0,0 98,7 150 110 15 4850 5125 2,9 2,1 0,3 94,6 4475 675 26610 31760 14,1 2,1 0,0 83,8 1695 7055 2100 9480 20330 8,3 34,7 10,3 46,6 N/A 0 0 0 10 10 0,0 0,0 0,0 100,0 10 55 45 110 9,1 50,0 0,0 40,9 50 0 140 300 490 10,2 0,0 28,6 61,2 170 70 155 510 905 18,8 7,7 17,1 56,4 20 1385 0 1275 2680 0,7 51,7 0,0 47,6 515 1615 3550 5245 10925 4,7 14,8 32,5 48,0 565 105 120 420 1210 46,7 8,7 9,9 34,7 190 1075 1505 1475 4245 4,5 25,3 35,5 34,7 10 60 40 110 9,1 54,5 0,0 36,4 85 10 15 565 675 12,6 1,5 2,2 83,7 0 0 0 155 155 0,0 0,0 0,0 100,0 20 65 5 280 370 5,4 17,6 1,4 75,7 EN 141

85 430 130 1020 1665 5,1 25,8 7,8 61,3 1690 4820 1325 21695 29530 5,7 16,3 4,5 73,5 4755 2190 135 16585 23665 20,1 9,3 0,6 70,1 25400 22345 10605 146655 205005 12,4 10,9 5,2 71,5 EN 142

A NNEX 27 A SYLUM SEEKING UNACCOMPANIED MINORS EUROSTAT provisional data on unaccompanied minors 2008 TOTAL Y0_13 Y14_15 Y16_17 UNK BE 487 51 98 338 0 BG 13 0 3 10 0 CZ : : : : : DK 302 : : : : DE 727 87 236 403 1 EE 0 0 0 0 0 IE 98 15 21 62 0 GR 296 35 46 215 0 ES : : : : : FR 410 13 11 386 0 IT 573 60 45 468 0 CY : : : : : LV 4 0 2 2 0 LT : : : : : LU : : : : : HU 176 1 175 0 0 MT 298 5 41 252 0 NL 725 31 143 444 107 AT 394 34 57 303 0 PL : : : : : PT 7 0 0 2 5 RO : : : : : EN 143

SK 71 16 55 0 0 FI 707 42 207 429 29 SE 1.510 170 433 907 0 UK 4.203 396 1.058 1.910 839 Trends in flows of asylum seeking unaccompanied minors 76 Austria Year Total asylum Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors <12 yrs <18 yrs 2006 414 56 358 2007 516 50 466 2008 770 64 706 Belgium Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 -18 yrs 68,6% 31,3% 6% 52% 42% 584 61,12% 38,88% 16 293 275 449 295 154 22 236 191 519 68,29% 31,71% 24 298 197 521 372 149 27 51 198 Bulgaria Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by The overview is based on MS replies to the EURASIL questionnaire EN 144

minors Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 -18 yrs 168 163 5 5 30 133 138 138 4 45 89 64 63 1 6 28 30 23 23 1 9 13 13 13 3 10 Czech Republic Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 -18 yrs 91 68 23 N/A N/A N/A 100 75 25 N/A N/A N/A 81 61 20 N/A N/A N/A 51 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hungary Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male Female <12 yrs* 12-16 yrs 17 -18 yrs** 59 50 8 - - - 41 37 4 - - - 61 53 8 - - - 73 66 5 - - - 176 161 15 1 female 161 male - 14 female Ireland Year Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by EN 145

minors Male (Age Female<12 yrs12-16 yrs17 -18 yrs Group) 2004 128 56 (0,37,19) 72 (1,46,25) 2005 131 71 (0,41,30) 60 (1,36,23) 2006 131 70 (2,34,34) 61 (2,31,28) 2007 94 39 (2,23,14) 55 (3,23,29) 2008 98 51 (5,27,19) 47 (6,27,14) Sweden Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 yrs 388 225 163 44 212 132 398 255 143 42 249 107 820 645 175 44 516 260 1264 1005 259 92 804 368 1510 1201 309 93 1039 378 Finland Year Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male (Age Female<12 yrs12-16 yrs17 -18 yrs Group) 2004 128 56 (0,37,19) 72 (1,46,25) 2005 131 71 (0,41,30) 60 (1,36,23) 2006 131 70 (2,34,34) 61 (2,31,28) 2007 94 39 (2,23,14) 55 (3,23,29) 2008 98 51 (5,27,19) 47 (6,27,14) EN 146

Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 -18 yrs 0-14 15-17 196 174 22 14 182 100 96 4 4 96 139 131 8 11 128 0-13 14-15 16-17 157 156 1 1 25 131 71 70 1 3 20 48 Lithuania Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 -18 yrs 11 6 5 1 1 9 9 4 5 3 6 3 3 3 5 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 United Kingdom Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied Male Female Unknown <14 14-15 yrs 16 -17 yrs Unknown yrs minors 2,990 2,010 980 * 285 830 1,805 70 2,965 2,190 775 * 345 905 1,630 85 3,450 2,585 865 5 495 940 1,840 180 3,525 2,840 680 5 385 845 1,800 495 3,970 3,475 480 15 440 1,075 1,665 790 EN 147

Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied minors Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 -18 yrs 636 397 239 331 213 118 186 101 85 180 121 59 324 232 92 France Total asylum Sex Age groups claims by unaccompanied Male Female <12 yrs 12-16 yrs 17 -18 Unknown yrs minors 1221 811 410 17 217 987 735 491 244 17 128 590 571 370 201 17 99 452 3 459 290 169 6 84 369 410 257 153 7 87 316 EN 148

2. Originele weergave

Open document als PDF

3. Meer informatie

21 okt '09
COM(2009)554 - Minimumnormen voor de procedures in de lidstaten voor internationale bescherming

Annexes to the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection - Impact Assessment - Hoofdinhoud

Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:

Delen

1.

Tekst

2.

Originele weergave

3.

Meer informatie

Zoeken:

Laatste nieuws:

publicatiedatum	23-10-2009
kenmerk	14959/09 ADD 3