Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Delen
VH/es 1 DG H 1 B EN
Brussels, 21.10.2009 SEC(2009) 1373 final (II part) ANNEXES Accompanying the Impact Assessment for the Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted EN 1
Glossary Consultation with Stakeholders New Asylum applications in EU, 1987-2007 Asylum applications in EU 27 in 2008 National practices regarding the application of the concept "actors of protection" National practices regarding the application of the concept "internal Protection" National practices regarding the application of the concept "particular social group' National practices regarding level of rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection Specific integration needs and challenges National practices and projects facilitating access to recognition of qualifications for beneficiaries of international protection Deficiencies and good practices regarding access to accommodation Definition of "family members" Statistics attesting the wide divergences in the application of the Directive Statistics on multiple applications Proportions of asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants for selected European states Comparison of trends regarding asylum influxes and recognition rates Asylum Appeal data for selected Member States Additional Problems identified, Operational Objectives and Assessment of relevant Policy Options Comparison of baseline scenario and options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence Assessment of the status quo Presentation of the preferred policy option EN 2
Comparison of current standards of the Directive with standards/objectives to be attained and envisaged legislative amendments Population of beneficiaries of international protection recognised between 2005 and 2008 and comparison with population of third-country nationals in MS The likely administrative costs of the preferred policy option Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in working age Prevalence of torture among asylum seekers and refugees Costs incurred by MS for providing integration programmes Costs of training and educational assistance for beneficiaries of international protection Costs for reception of asylum seekers in various MS EN 3
EN 4
EN 5
EN 6
1 . The main findings regarding the necessary improvements to the Qualification 2 : I. Further law approximation or standards raising regarding: (i) criteria for granting protection; (ii) rights and benefits attached to protection status(es) 68 70 68 Approximation of criteria 70 Approximation of criteria 60 60 46 Approximation of rights 46 Approximation of rights 29 29 50 50 e r s 40 Approximation of interpretation of common rules (guidelines) n s w e r s 19 Approximation of interpretation of common rules (guidelines) f a 40 n s w 30 20 19 n . o f a 19 20 30 13 20 . o 8 No further approximation n 10 19 17 20 7 14 13 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 8 MS Gov MS Par Reg/Loc Aut CS & NGO Total No further approximation 10 17 7 14 2 2 1 1 1 Almost complete agreement on further approximation, intended in terms of: 0 2 1 2 MS Gov MS Par Reg/Loc Aut CS & NGO Total § criteria for granting protection (29/68), § guidelines to be used for interpretation of common rules (17/68) § approximation of rights, mainly intended also as approximation of rights between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (20/68) 45 45 II. Further law approximation or standards raising regarding: (i) criteria for granting protection; (ii) rights and benefits attached to protection status(es) : The full text of these contributions is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylu msystem_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
§ criteria for awarding refugee and subsidiary protection status (i.e. DE, PT) § rights and benefits attached to the protection status, mainly intended also as approximation of rights between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (i.e. EI, LV, NL) Opposition from DK and SK to a further approximation at this stage, especially considering the necessity of assessing the current rules -DK however agrees with the principle of the approximation of rights between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection Support of NGOs and civil society (CS)' contributions of a further approximation, asking in particular for more comprehensive criteria (19/46) Better instruments for a more standardized interpretation of common rules (14/46) and approximation of rights between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection also significantly supported by NGOs and CS (13/46) III. Models for the definition of the statuses of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection 40 37 Other 2 One single uniform status for both 30 One uniform status for refugees only and not for subsidiary protection 20 20 20 1 14 Two different uniform status 1 13 10 5 0 14 3 1 8 2 5 0 1 MS Gov Re g/Loc Aut CS & NGO Tota l Significant positioning in favor of the definition of uniform models for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (35/37) Prevailing preference for the option of defining one single uniform status for both the figures (20/37) if compared to the one of establishing two different uniform statuses (14/37) 47 EN 8
IV. A single uniform status for all persons eligible for international protection 33 30 20 Yes r s e 20 No s w n 14 f a . o 13 n 10 6 12 4 13 2 7 2 2 2 2 0 MS Gov MS Par Reg/Loc Aut CS & NGO Total Preference for the definition of a single uniform status for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection mainly driven by the positioning of NGOs and CS Opposition to the uniform single status by the remaining 13 out of the 33 stakeholders, considering this option feasible only on a long term basis 48 Refusal of a "single uniform status" from FR and DE based on the fact that the two statuses respond to different Uniform status for both the refugees and the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection sustained by DK, NL, SE) but on a long term basis and with caution on the model to be implemented Prevalent orientation from NGOs and civil society (CS) contributions for supporting the uniform status for both the categories, encouraging the entitlement of the same set of rights for both the refugees and the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection The "two different uniform statuses" representing the other main option for NGOs and CS, as the grounds of protection are retained as different The "two different uniform statuses" supported also by National Parliaments, while positioning of Regional/Local Authorities appears quite differentiated ------------ EN 9
EN 10
EN 11
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 EN 12
257375 EU27 41845 FR 31200 IT 30545 UK 26945 DE 24875 SE 19885 GR 15940 BE 15255 NL 12750 AT 8515 PL 4440 ES 3865 IE 3770 FI 3450 CY 3175 HU 2605 MT 2375 DK 1650 CZ 1180 RO 905 SK 745 BG 520 LT 455 LU 260 SI 155 PT 55 LV 15 EE EN 13
3 . In other MS, such as Hungary, Belgium and the United Kingdom, NGOs have 4 . 5 . This lack of clarity is reflected in the fact that the German Federal Administrative 6 . have adopted a For more information see UNHCR study op.cit, p. 50 Information collected in the context of the consultations with NGOs. Odysseus report op.cit, p. 43; UNHCR study op.cit, p.48; ELENA/ECRE, "The impact of the EU Qualification Directive on International protection", October 2008, http://www.ecre.org/files/ECRE_QD_study_full.pdf . p.16 Decision of 7 February 2008, BVerwG 10 C 33.07, OVG 16 A 4354/05.A, p.2: http://www.bundesverwaltungsgericht.de/media/archive/6540.pdf EN 14
EN 15
7 . Indeed, by allowing the use of the concept 8 . ( Czech Republic, France, Hungary, See in particular judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 11 January 2007, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, paragraph 141. See also UNHCR Annotated Comments on the Qualification Directive op.cit, under Article 8; ECRE's contribution to the Green Paper consultation; Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, 2006, para.321. For more details see UNHCR study op.cit, pp 55-66. See for instance judgment of 12 October 2006, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium. EN 16
EN 17
9 10 or as alternative requirements (in at least another 10 MS) 11 . 12 . There is evidence that many female applicants 13 . 14 whereas in 11 MS women could be regarded 1516 . 17 . To cite an 18 . Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom Odysseus study, page 52; ECRE study, page 20; Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden Another example would be students, members of a certain profession or a social class, who do not share an immutable characteristic but who are nevertheless perceived by society as a group apart and who may well be targets of persecution based on their associations. For more information see, inter alia, T. Alexander Aleinikoff "Protected characteristics and social perceptions: an analysis of the meaning of "membership of a particular social group"", http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/419cbe1f4.pdf , 2003; p.42-48 Information provided by the European Women's Lobby For an indication of the number of female asylum seekers in these MS in 2008 see table below Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden Odysseus study op.cit, p.53 See UNHCR "Guidelines on `Membership of a Particular Social Group'", HCR/GIP/02/02, 7 May 2002; and "Guidelines on Gender-Related Persecution", HCR/GIP/02/01, 7 May 2002. . See UNHCR annotated comments on the EC Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, January 2005, comment under Article 10, ECRE study, p 21.This view was further endorsed in a recent judgment by the UK House of Lords: Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K, Fornah v. EN 18
MS Female applications in 2008 4,255 780 5 1,625 4,405 15 185 5,200 4,070 55 105 90 35 9,975 Total 30,800 Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 46, [2007] 1 AC 412, [2007] 1 All ER 671, [2006] 3 WLR 733 EN 19
19 . As a result, the Directive allows MS the discretion to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary 20 stated in the context of the 21 grant 22 beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are granted the minimum (one year) residence 23 : in Ireland, Slovenia and Bulgaria they See for instance France's contribution to the Green Paper consultation, para. III.b; Explanatory memorandum to the Commission' original proposal for the Directive, under Article 21 The Czech Republic and Romania Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovakia Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom EN 20
24 and the responses to the 25 , Luxembourg, Latvia and Portugal) use the possibility to reduce their 26 . 27 found that in Austria the level of benefits granted to 28 . 29 . Odysseus report, pages 113-115; ECRE report, pages 32-34; France Terre d'asile report, pages 48-50 Germany imposes additional criteria in relation to support grants for children and education. Such support grants are awarded to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection only if the person in question has been legally staying in Germany for at least three years. See ECRE study, p.256; France Terre d'asile report, p. 49. Information with regard to Austria is unclear. The Odysseus study (p.113) found that Portugal and Austria also has made use of the possibility to limit social assistance granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection whilst Austria's response to the DG JLS questionnaire states that `beneficiaries of subsidiary protection enjoy unrestricted and unconditional access to the labour market just like refugees'. No explanation as to how these benefits differ was, however, provided. The impact of the EU qualification directive on international protection, ECRE, pp.254-258 In its reply to the GHK questionnaire, Poland indicated that specific conditions would take effect as of 1 January 2009. No further information was, however, received on what such specific conditions would imply. The information provided in this table is based on the information given in the MS' responses to the DG JLS questionnaire and information provided in the ECRE study. The following 16 MS provided information on this issue as part of their response to the JLS questionnaire: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and United EN 21
Access to employment Access to social welfare Access to healthcare refugees Cyprus, Germany and Luxembourg Luxembourg, Latvia, Portugal and Germany Malta Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and United Kingdom Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and United Kingdom Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and United Kingdom Luxembourg Belgium Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg 30 , updated in the context of the Access to integration programme Refugees: right to participate for 2 years Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: no rights, but can be obliged to participate Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: Programmes vary depending on the community. In Flanders for examples these programmes include language courses as well as social and professional orientation. Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: benefit from the Contract of Reception and Integration (CAI). Personal accompaniment is only for refugees. Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: pre-integration measures left to the discretion of authorities. Both have access to linguistic training. Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: individual integration plan put into place by municipalities. Both have access to linguistic training for migrants. Kingdom. The remainder of the information is based on the ECRE report. Countries referred to in the ECRE report are indicated in italics in the table. Odysseus study, op.cit, p.127, France Terre d'Asile study EN 22
31 , various research across the EU points to the · Caritas Europa Study Migration, a Journey into poverty, 2006, available at http://www.caritas-europa.org/module/FileLib/Poverty2006ENWeb.pdf , , 27 · ECRE Policy Briefing on employment and employment support for refugees and migrants in Europe available at http://www.ecre.org/files/Policy%20Briefing_Employment%20and%20employment%20support.pdf ; · Fund for Refugee Employment and Education (FREE) Refugee Contribution to Europe: A feasibility study on the establishment of a FREE, November 2002; · Refugees, Recent Migrants and Employment, Challenging barriers, exploring pathways, Routledge Economics, Sonia McKay, October 2008, available at http://www.routledgeeconomics.com/books/Refugees-Recent-Migrants-and-Employment isbn9780415988773 ; · Integrating refugees into employment - some European examples www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au/events/2007semabs/pearson%20refugee%20integration%20CERC%2006030 7.pps ; · Employment integration of refugees: The influence of local factors on refugee job opportunities in Sweden, Pieter Bevelander and Christer Lundh, January 2007, http://ftp.iza.org/dp2551.pdf ; · How Important Is Homeland Education for Refugees' Economic Position in The Netherlands?, Joop Hartog and Aslan Zorlu, Journal of Population Economics, 2009, 22 (1), 219-246, http://www.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=1753 ; · Access to the labour market and vocational training, available at http://pomocprawna.home.pl/dosciagniecia/ICF/4LabourMarket1.pdf ; The MS' replies to the relevant questionnaires confirmed that such statistics are not systematically collected. EN 23
by UNHCR and ECRE in several MS; see for instance contributions by Caritas, p. 12; by ECRE, p. 25; by France Terre d'asile, p. 23-24; 32 . 33 . 34 ; moreover, recognising See for example http://www.equal-works.com/resources/contentfiles/1194.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal/policy-briefs/etg5-skill-audits-as_en.cfm Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, adopted in Lisbon on 11 April 1997 (ETS No. 165), Article VII; The introduction to the Council of Europe Working Party on Refugee Qualifications, Guidelines for the recognition of refugees' qualifications (1999) at: http://www.aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/Recognition/leg_aca/ref_guid.pdf. For information on projects in different MS providing support for recognition of qualification of immigrants and refugees see Annex 10 EN 24
36 . · Gelijkschakeling van diploma's, available at http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.be/pdf/rapport_gelijkschakeling.pdf · Resource project: Refugee's contribution to Europe, Education Action International, available at http://www.cear.es/upload/Resource_project%20_overall%20report_.pdf · Les droits des refugies - Emploi et formation: La validation des acquis de l'expérience, Fonds Européen pour les Refugies et France Terre d'Asile, Décembre 2007 · Les droits des refugies - Emploi et formation: La reprise des études, Fonds Européen pour les Refugies et France Terre d'Asile, Décembre 2007 · Les droits des refugies - Emploi et formation: La reconnaissance professionnelle des diplômes, Fonds Européen pour les Refugies et France Terre d'Asile, Décembre 2007 · Les droits des refugies - Emploi et formation: La reconnaissance professionnelle des diplômes pour les professions réglementées, Fonds Européen pour les Refugies et France Terre d'Asile, Décembre 2007 UNHCR Integration Note, op.cit; pages 7-9; ECRE Policy Briefing on employment and employment support for refugees and migrants in Europe, ECRE Policy briefing on access to vocational training and (higher) education for refugees and migrants Europe, available at 37 . However, in most MS For instance, as shown by the CARA study, it can cost as little as £1,000 to prepare a refugee doctor to practise in the United Kingdom compared to £250,000 to train a doctor from scratch, with potentially hundreds of refugee doctors living in the UK http://www.academic-refugees.org/useful-publications.asp For information on good practices developed in certain MS, see Annex 10 As indicated above, the experiences of the EQUAL asylum seekers theme clearly show the human and economic benefits of undertaking skills audits and ensuring access to relevant education, training and employment as soon as possible after the applicants' arrival in the host society. See for example http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal/policy-briefs/etg5-skill-audits-as_en.cfm EN 25
Type of programme 9 ERF projects specifically targeted at beneficiaries of international protection and co-financed by the Austrian Ministry of Interior: The Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance is the competent authority in validating the working skills and assists in job-seeking. In case of specialized qualifications, e.g. doctors, the national laws should be followed in order for a person to practice his/her profession. Exact data is not available on this topic. In order to enhance job finding possibilities of the target group the OIN reimburses the cost of official document translation. In addition NGOs organize project-based programmes related to assistance in job-seeking, however concerning finances they report to their sponsors; accordingly the OIN is not frequently informed about their activities. Special State Employment Agency employment measures, that would be directly aimed to the persons which received the status of the refugee or subsidiary protection status are not provided. However like for any other unemployed person, equal rights are provided for usage of all employment measures of the State Employment Agency. The Ministry of the Interior, as a body responsible for the integration of persons with international protection, by funding the work of the local NGOs that provide different programmes aimed at assisting persons with international protection in finding work and employment. The national Refugee Integration and Employment service provides, through the Employment Advice Service up to 12 months of information, advice and support into employment, dealing with .employability issues such as qualification recognition, job search skills and accessing training/education. EN 26
Europe, Berend Jonker, 2004, Education Action International, page 18, . These are: Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. The following countries did not reply to the MS questionnaire: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy , the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain, The following countries did not answer the question in the MS questionnaire: Estonia and Finland. Only the following countries replied to the NGO questionnaire: France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. All 6 NGOs from the 6 MS answered the question. EN 27
In Belgium, beneficiaries of international protection are given the opportunity to explain their circumstances and the reason why they do not possess the relevant proof of qualification; In Sweden, measures to recognise qualifications `should be based on the individual's needs and circumstances'; In Slovakia, beneficiaries of international protection can obtain the assistance of NGOs which benefit from ERF funds; In the Netherlands, under age beneficiaries of international protection can request an equivalence with an incomplete file on the basis of a `declaration o honour'; 39 . From a total of 120 40 . The excellent success rate also encouraged Resource project: Refugee's contribution to Europe, Education Action International, page 14 Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal, page 5 EN 28
42 providing found that when 43 . Therefore, 44 . Results of the study showed that out of 756 applications made 45 . Thus, as a result of its success the project was 46 . 47 to support refugees into 48 . It will also be helpful to refugees with Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal, page 8 Flemish Refugee Council in Flanders and Coordination et Initiatives pour Réfugés et Etrangers in Brussels Equivalence de diplômes étrangers rapport sur les pratiques en communautés flamande et française, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and CIRÉ asbl, page 13 Recognition of foreign qualifications, Flemish Refugee Council, power point presentation, slide no.2 Recognition of foreign qualifications, Flemish Refugee Council, power point presentation, slide no.4 Equivalence de diplômes étrangers rapport sur les pratiques en communautés flamande et française, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and CIRÉ asbl, page 15 The UK Centre for Materials Education defines APEL as `a process that enables people of all ages, backgrounds and attitudes to receive formal recognition for skills and knowledge they already possess.' See http://www.materials.ac.uk/resources/library/apelintro.asp, last searched 10 October 2008 The UK National Academic Recognition and Information Centre (UK NARIC) is the National Agency responsible for benchmarking and providing the equivalency of overseas qualifications to those in the UK. EN 29
EN 30
49 . 50 . Further deficiencies in 51 . refugees can stay in reception centres for a maximum period of 6 months following http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument Handbook on Integration, Second Edition, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration, pp. 32-36, 2005 EUMC study Migrants, Minorities and Housing: Exclusion, Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination in 15 Member States of the European Union, available at http://www.libertysecurity.org/IMG/pdf_EUMC_Migrants_minorities_and_housing.pdf Caritas Europa Study "Migration, a Journey into poverty", 2006, available at http://www.caritas europa.org/module/FileLib/Poverty2006ENWeb.pdf, pages 44 and 50. EN 31
December 2008, available at EN 32
52 ; indeed the 53 . Moreover, a recent order of the ECJ 54 argues in 55 and 56 . It should See Anja Klug 'Harmonization of Asylum in the European Union: Emergence of an EU Refugee System?' (2004) 47 German Yearbook of International Law (GYIL), p 622 Judgment of 16 December 2008, Case Gulijev v. Lithuania, paragraph 38. Order of 19 December 2008, in Case C-551/07, Sahin See UNHCR Annotated Comments to the Qualification Directive, op.cit. under Article 2(h) UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf , para. 185. See also EXCOM, Conclusions Nos. 24 (XXXII) Family Reunification, 1981, para. 5, and 88 (L), 1999, para. (ii). EN 33
57 address similar gaps with regard to asylum applicants by 58 . Such divergences are allowed by the Directive, to the extent that the 59 ; and provided that the implementing measures comply with Proposals of 9.12.2008 for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (COM (2008) 815 final/2, "Proposal for the amendment of the Reception Conditions Directive") and for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the MS by a third country national or a stateless person (COM (2008) 815 final/2, "Proposal for the amendment of the Dublin Regulation"). 2008 Report on Homophobia and Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the EU MS, http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/products/publications_reports/pub_cr_homophobia_0608_en.htm pp. 90-91, 151-152 The Qualification Directive refers to "the spouse of the beneficiary" "or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the legislation or practice of the MS concerned treats unmarried couples in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to aliens" EN 34
60 . 61 . The Data extracted from the EUROSTAT database http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00021 UNHCR statistical yearbook 2007 (Annexes) available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4981b19d2.html EN 35
62 . 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 36
2005 2006 2007 Other non- Other non- Other non Total Geneva Humanitarian Other positive status Total Geneva Humanitarian Other positive status Total Geneva Humanitarian Other positive status decisions Convention status decisions Rejections decisions decisions Convention status decisions Rejections decisions decisions Convention status decisions Rejections decisions 292295 21205 23765 1475 179595 65970 237380 16600 36180 1955 137390 45255 207965 24630 23235 1400 130448 28245 17585 3700 na na 10345 3545 8345 2230 210 na 5905 na 15135 1855 555 na 12725 na 1325 95 135 na 1100 na 925 110 60 na 755 na 850 70 405 na 375 na 48100 2465 655 na 27450 17530 30760 1350 605 na 17780 11025 28570 7195 675 na 12750 7955 10420 40 85 0 4585 5710 11180 65 130 0 9600 1380 20990 95 75 na 20685 140 5140 235 110 na 4795 na 4065 185 20 na 3860 na 5400 240 5 na 5155 na 51270 4075 110 na 47090 na 37495 2670 185 na 34640 na 29450 3390 145 na 25915 na 5240 455 na na 4785 na 4245 395 na na 3845 na 3810 375 na na 3430 na 20055 940 4355 na 7285 7475 9260 880 4340 na 3680 365 na na na na na na 1480 95 205 370 555 255 890 40 290 45 495 25 1035 155 345 40 430 65 19750 965 7855 na 8085 2850 14180 360 3985 na 7520 2320 na na na na na na 18585 4530 na na 5425 8635 15490 4065 na na 5865 5560 16045 5195 na na 6645 4205 90 5 10 0 75 0 105 25 5 0 75 0 110 5 20 0 85 0 3455 10 135 425 2515 370 2520 40 100 560 1540 285 2025 65 490 280 1050 140 23920 335 4425 600 15925 2640 46395 680 20765 1295 12680 10970 32470 855 13720 1065 12185 4650 36650 2470 2955 na 27780 3440 27520 2630 2410 na 20430 2050 27630 4480 2325 na 19485 1340 5795 40 120 na 3125 2510 5585 30 140 na 1780 3635 7170 25 185 na 2318 4640 4375 210 40 80 2635 1410 3020 220 85 60 2195 460 2275 140 250 0 1570 315 15 0 0 5 10 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 15 0 0 0 10 0 1655 95 95 0 855 610 2020 100 100 0 1215 605 2805 170 85 0 1375 1175 10 0 0 0 5 5 15 0 10 0 0 5 20 5 5 0 10 5 95 15 45 0 25 10 130 10 85 0 25 10 145 10 50 na 50 35 1160 35 485 na 580 60 1185 30 520 na 635 na 955 5 620 na 330 na 8840 310 1830 na 2285 4415 7280 420 2045 na 935 3875 6190 150 2870 15 1835 1315 3785 10 15 0 825 2935 2815 5 0 0 860 1945 2970 10 80 0 1180 1695 1785 15 10 0 665 1095 900 0 10 0 570 325 540 0 5 0 270 260 945 10 80 0 380 480 695 10 85 0 215 385 770 15 320 0 245 190 470 40 15 0 415 0 365 45 5 0 270 40 590 125 5 0 340 120 EN 37
2005 2006 2007 Other non- Other non- Other non Total Geneva Humanitarian Other positive status Total Geneva Humanitarian Other positive status Total Geneva Humanitarian Other positive status decisions Convention status decisions Rejections decisions decisions Convention status decisions Rejections decisions decisions Convention status decisions Rejections decisions 100% 7,3% 8,1% 0,5% 61,4% 22,6% 100% 7,0% 15,24% 0,82% 57,9% 19,1% 100% 11,8% 11,2% 0,7% 62,7% 13,6% 100% 21,0% na na 58,8% 20,2% 100% 26,7% 2,5% na 70,8% na 100% 12,3% 3,7% na 84,1% na 100% 7,2% 10,2% na 83,0% na 100% 11,9% 6,5% na 81,6% na 100% 8,2% 47,6% na 44,1% na 100% 5,1% 1,4% na 57,1% 36,4% 100% 4,4% 2,0% na 57,8% 35,8% 100% 25,2% 2,4% na 44,6% 27,8% 100% 0,4% 0,8% 0,0% 44,0% 54,8% 100% 0,6% 1,2% 0,0% 85,9% 12,3% 100% 0,5% 0,4% na 98,5% 0,7% 100% 4,6% 2,1% na 93,3% na 100% 4,6% 0,5% na 95,0% na 100% 4,4% 0,1% na 95,5% na 100% 7,9% 0,2% na 91,8% na 100% 7,1% 0,5% na 92,4% na 100% 11,5% 0,5% na 88,0% na 100% 8,7% na na 91,3% na 100% 9,3% na na 90,6% na 100% 9,8% na na 90,0% na 100% 4,7% 21,7% na 36,3% 37,3% 100% 9,5% 46,9% na 39,7% 3,9% na na na na na na 100% 6,4% 13,9% 25,0% 37,5% 17,2% 100% 4,5% 32,6% 5,1% 55,6% 2,8% 100% 15,0% 33,3% 3,9% 41,5% 6,3% 100% 4,9% 39,8% na 40,9% 14,4% 100% 2,5% 28,1% na 53,0% 16,4% na na na na na na 100% 24,4% na na 29,2% 46,5% 100% 26,2% na na 37,9% 35,9% 100% 32,4% na na 41,4% 26,2% 100% 5,6% 11,1% 0,0% 83,3% 0,0% 100% 23,8% 4,8% 0,0% 71,4% 0,0% 100% 4,5% 18,2% 0,0% 77,3% 0,0% 100% 0,3% 3,9% 12,3% 72,8% 10,7% 100% 1,6% 4,0% 22,2% 61,1% 11,3% 100% 3,2% 24,2% 13,8% 51,9% 6,9% 100% 1,4% 18,5% 2,5% 66,6% 11,0% 100% 1,5% 44,8% 2,8% 27,3% 23,6% 100% 2,6% 42,3% 3,3% 37,5% 14,3% 100% 6,7% 8,1% na 75,8% 9,4% 100% 9,6% 8,8% na 74,2% 7,4% 100% 16,2% 8,4% na 70,5% 4,8% 100% 0,7% 2,1% na 53,9% 43,3% 100% 0,5% 2,5% na 31,9% 65,1% 100% 0,3% 2,6% na 32,3% 64,7% 100% 4,8% 0,9% 1,8% 60,2% 32,2% 100% 7,3% 2,8% 2,0% 72,7% 15,2% 100% 6,2% 11,0% 0,0% 69,0% 13,8% 100% 0,0% 0,0% 33,3% 66,7% 0,0% 100% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% 100% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 66,7% 0,0% 100% 5,7% 5,7% 0,0% 51,7% 36,9% 100% 5,0% 5,0% 0,0% 60,1% 30,0% 100% 6,1% 3,0% 0,0% 49,0% 41,9% 100% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 50,0% 50,0% 100% 0,0% 66,7% 0,0% 0,0% 33,3% 100% 25,0% 25,0% 0,0% 50,0% 25,0% 100% 15,8% 47,4% 0,0% 26,3% 10,5% 100% 7,7% 65,4% 0,0% 19,2% 7,7% 100% 6,9% 34,5% na 34,5% 24,1% 100% 3,0% 41,8% na 50,0% 5,2% 100% 2,5% 43,9% na 53,6% na 100% 0,5% 64,9% na 34,6% na 100% 3,5% 20,7% na 25,8% 49,9% 100% 5,8% 28,1% na 12,8% 53,2% 100% 2,4% 46,4% 0,2% 29,6% 21,2% 100% 0,3% 0,4% 0,0% 21,8% 77,5% 100% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 30,6% 69,1% 100% 0,3% 2,7% 0,0% 39,7% 57,1% 100% 0,8% 0,6% 0,0% 37,3% 61,3% 100% 0,0% 1,1% 0,0% 63,3% 36,1% 100% 0,0% 0,9% 0,0% 50,0% 48,1% 100% 1,1% 8,5% 0,0% 40,2% 50,8% 100% 1,4% 12,2% 0,0% 30,9% 55,4% 100% 1,9% 41,6% 0,0% 31,8% 24,7% 100% 8,5% 3,2% 0,0% 88,3% 0,0% 100% 12,3% 1,4% 0,0% 74,0% 11,0% 100% 21,2% 0,8% 0,0% 57,6% 20,3% EN 38
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 EU27 38195 31785 6905 11025 160 10870 2815 16300 16535 3835 3200 80 6365 3045 9230 5670 1475 2215 20 1690 260 BE 590 1005 120 265 na 615 na 930 1930 480 0 na 1450 na 65 125 10 25 na 90 na DK 1070 380 0 335 na 45 na 115 35 0 15 na 15 na 35 10 0 5 na 10 na DE 4325 7780 5760 35 na 1025 960 770 1210 200 25 na 570 415 120 180 65 50 na 35 30 GR 5475 4030 65 10 0 3950 10 50 35 0 5 0 25 5 175 125 0 0 0 115 5 ES 1580 1040 20 0 na 1020 na 75 115 20 0 na 95 na 145 100 0 0 na 100 na FR 145 145 45 25 na 75 na 3220 1675 300 0 na 1375 na 45 65 30 0 na 35 na IE 280 240 100 na na 140 na 50 45 5 na na 40 na 140 115 30 na na 90 na IT 0 na na na na na na 0 na na na na na na 0 na na na na na na LU 15 na na na na na na 15 na na na na na na 0 na na na na na na NL 2005 na na na na na na 80 na na na na na na 1875 na na na na na na AT 470 405 215 na na 95 95 2675 3650 2635 na na 540 475 465 305 190 na na 40 70 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 FI 290 330 20 165 40 100 10 165 185 25 5 0 130 25 80 240 0 225 0 10 0 SE 18560 13610 155 9565 120 2380 1390 790 1000 5 240 65 460 230 3350 1930 115 1415 20 270 110 UK 2075 1675 210 135 na 1265 60 125 150 10 0 na 130 5 1960 1980 975 110 na 860 35 CY 200 225 5 115 na 20 90 60 400 0 0 na 15 385 10 5 5 0 na 0 0 CZ 45 80 15 35 0 10 20 70 185 20 45 0 95 20 5 15 10 5 0 0 0 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 135 120 65 5 0 5 45 50 50 0 0 0 10 40 100 40 30 0 0 0 10 LV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 60 0 35 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MT 5 5 0 5 na 0 na 0 0 0 0 na 0 na 585 380 5 370 na 5 na PL 20 45 5 15 0 15 5 6670 5440 135 2830 15 1280 1180 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 SK 130 145 0 40 0 20 80 305 340 0 0 0 95 245 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 SI 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BG 530 330 0 275 0 10 40 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 RO 245 190 105 0 0 75 10 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 30 40 10 0 0 30 0 Remarks Data rounded up to the nearest 5. EU27 - data for not all MS available. Italy - no data for 2006 (breakdown by citizenship) and 2007 available. Luxemburg - no decision data by citizenship available. Annual total for 2007 for some MS is based on aggregation of monthly figures Jan-Dec. In following MS only partial statistics for 2007 available: BE - 2007 Jan-Oct Impact assessment on Policy plan on asylum: an integrated approach to protection across the EU, table 5 annexes, SEC(2008)2029, Brussels 2008 EN 39
2008q01 2008q02 2008q03 2008q04 Total 575 800 555 : 1,930 5 10 5 5 25 35 70 30 35 170 40 : : : 40 1,975 1,555 1,960 1,820 7,310 5 0 0 0 5 115 75 65 : 255 45 55 245 : 345 60 5 5 50 120 1,325 1,265 915 : 3,505 220 250 115 : 585 : : : : 0 0 0 : 0 0 5 0 0 5 20 15 5 : 40 20 90 35 : 145 0 10 0 10 20 170 150 105 : 425 570 520 520 : 1,610 25 40 40 : 105 5 0 5 0 10 45 10 20 : 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 20 15 40 10 : 65 235 465 380 : 1,080 1,150 1,275 1,125 : 3,550 6,655 6,705 6,145 1,935 21,440 EN 40
2008q01 2008q02 2008q03 2008q04 Total 80 125 85 : 290 60 95 105 10 270 50 65 25 : 140 85 : : : 85 400 305 380 355 1,440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 0 : 0 45 10 5 20 80 70 40 320 : 430 635 1,275 545 : 2,455 : : : : 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 10 : 35 : : : : 0 10 35 : 45 565 120 445 255 1,385 370 380 430 : 1,180 265 285 270 : 820 : 0 345 : 345 30 15 10 5 60 0 5 5 : 10 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 20 20 65 90 105 95 : 290 775 1,310 955 : 3,040 475 570 570 : 1,615 4,025 4,735 4,655 665 14,080 EN 41
63 asylum applications It should be noted that the difference between the recorded 197,284 applications in the Eurodac system and the figure of 222,170 applications used elsewhere in this document (source: Eurostat) is mainly due to the fact that the Eurodac database does not store data for asylum-seekers below the age of 14 EN 42
EN 43
Czech Republic Spain 9000 2730 8000 7655 7000 6000 Applications 5000 5295 Applications 1585 4405 IT Positive decisions 4000 Positive decisions 1050 3000 500 2000 305 390 320 1000 205 575 260 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Italy Malta 3000 30055 2500 2605 2000 Applications 1500 Applications Positive decisions 1270 1380 1405 Positive decisions 14050 10350 11833 1000 8118 550 625 5000 5220 500 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Cyprus France 6770 40000 35000 35405 30000 30750 29160 4540 Applications 25000 Positive decisions Applications 3450 20000 Positive decisions 15000 10000 5000 3350 5150 188 227 246 2855 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Slovakia Poland 2850 8000 2640 7000 7205 7200 6000 5000 Applications 4225 Applications Positive decisions 4000 3000 2992 Positive decisions 905 2000 2465 500 1000 1272 0 8 96 87 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Slovenia Bulgaria 900 800 815 500 700 745 370 600 Applications 500 500 Applications 240 Positive decisions 400 Positive decisions 300 335 295 200 100 95 0 9 8 4 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 EN 44
Romania 15 15 1400 1200 1180 1000 Applications 800 Applications 8 Positive decisions 600 660 Positive decisions 6 5 5 4 400 380 2 200 161 137 0 0 0 0 63 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Lithuania Latvia 60 215 50 50 40 145 Applications 35 Applications 125 30 Positive decisions Positive decisions 95 20 60 65 50 10 10 10 8 0 0 3 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Hungary United Kingdom 35000 3420 30000 30545 3175 28320 27905 25000 Applications 20000 Applications 2115 Positive decisions 15000 Positive decisions 10000 6805 6945 500 5000 5040 200 255 240 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Belgium Germany 25000 12322 20780 21335 11100 20000 18920 10168 8000 15000 Applications 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 4240 600 3935 3805 525 541 500 425 455 400 Applications 370 300 Applications Positive decisions Positive decisions 200 500 648 581 595 100 103 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Netherlands Austria 16000 13380 14000 13350 12000 11920 12750 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 45
Portugal 4000 3770 225 3500 3000 155 2500 Applications 2275 Applications 130 2000 Positive decisions 1500 Positive decisions 1405 70 1000 857 50 620 580 30 25 500 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Sweden 36205 24320 24365 Applications 21445 Positive decisions 14575 5000 7121 0 2006 2007 2008 EN 46
Recognition rate in first instance % Rejection decisions Appeals lodged Rejection decisions appealed % Appeals allowed Appeals allowed % 26.8% 16755 14055 83% 3385 23% 64 65 11.6% 25922 22676 87.5% 5415 20% 66 14% 5600 5386 96% 469 10% 67 27.6% 20702 10343 49.9% n/a n/a 68 8.4% 1570 471 30% 27 5.4% 69 55.7% 376 300 79.8% 68 22.7% · 77% of rejection decisions are appealed in the EU; · 18.5% of appeals are allowed in the EU (=grant protection status). 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/broschuer e-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 47
First instance Percentage of rejection decisions asylum seekers on total EU appealed % Weighted UK 83% 12.56% 29.2 27.07 FR 87.50% 13.12% 30.5 26.25 BE 96% 4.50% 10.5 9.6 DE 49.90% 8.60% 20.0 9.98 ES 30% 3.23% 7.5 2.25 DK 79.80% 1% 2.3 1.83 Total 43.01% 100 76.98 Percentage of asylum Percentage of appeals granted seekers on total EU Weighted UK 23% 12.56% 36.5 8.39 FR 20% 13.12% 38.1 7.62 BE 10% 4.50% 13.1 1.31 ES 5.40% 3.23% 9.4 0.5 DK 22.70% 1% 2.9 0.65 1Total 34.41% 100 18.47 EN 48
Total positive 2008 Total decisions decisions Percentage 5.238 396 7,6 27 9 33,3 : : #VALUE! 478 164 34,3 11.072 2.777 25,1 1 0 0,0 2.460 293 11,9 1.338 359 26,8 : : #VALUE! 24.351 6.319 25,9 1.653 1.621 98,1 2.847 36 1,3 13 0 0,0 36 1 2,8 1) 668 246 36,8 55 1 1,8 2.688 1.411 52,5 801 413 51,6 2) 4.592 1.972 42,9 183 29 15,8 1 0 0,0 : : #VALUE! 101 0 0,0 3) 129 66 51,2 94 82 87,2 1.679 823 49,0 #DIV/0! 60.505 17.018 28,1 : 656 6.256 898 EN 49
DEFINITION Denial of protection to certain categories of persons and diverse recognition practices of applicants with similar claims as a result of the restrictive definition of the "causal nexus requirement" 70 . 71 adopt in their practice and jurisprudence a broad interpretation of this 72 . However, at least 7 countries 73 apply a strict definition of the nexus For more information see Alexander Aleinikoff op.cit pp 51-54 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden Odysseus study op.cit, p. 51, ECRE study op.cit, pages 144-146 Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom EN 50
74 . 75 . 76 out of 16 countries which provided information make use of 77 reported that they have had no cases of UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Status under Article 1C (5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 10 February 2003, paragraph 20 UNHCR Handbook, para. 136; UNHCR ExCom Conclusion No. 69 (XLIII) of 1992 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, Romania and Slovenia; no information is available for the following countries: Austria, Cyprus, Finland and United Kingdom Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia EN 51
BE 10 5 0 5 20 BG 0 0 0 CH CZ 0 20 15 5 40 DE 1,505 1,665 1,830 1,110 6,110 EE 0 0 0 0 0 ES 0 0 0 0 0 EU27 FI 30 25 30 85 FR 20 30 45 95 GR 45 55 245 345 HU 0 0 0 0 IE 0 5 0 5 IS 0 0 0 0 IT 0 0 0 0 LT 0 0 0 0 LV 0 0 0 0 0 MT 0 0 0 0 0 NO PL 5 0 0 5 PT 0 0 0 0 0 RO 0 0 0 SE 0 5 5 10 SI 0 0 0 0 0 SK 0 TR Total 6,715 78 out of nine responding MS make Belgium, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Poland; Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia and Slovenia indicated that they have so far never withdrawn a subsidiary protection status on the basis of Article 16. No information was available for the following countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland and United Kingdom. EN 52
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 Specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection in relation to integration are not met: Existing possibilities for MS to reduce benefits granted to beneficiaries of international protection EN 53
Unjustified differences between the content of protection for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in OBJECTIVES UNHCR Annotated comments on the Qualification Directive, under Articles 5 and 20. EN 54
-
-to prevent the unwarranted cessation of protection status under the same conditions as those applicable to family members of refugees territory under the same conditions as those applicable for refugees. a further amendment of the Directive is necessary, in order POLICY OPTIONS with the standards of the Geneva Convention EN 55
protection EN 56
EN 57
EN 58
EN 59
EN 60
EN 61
Specific objectives 1, 4 and 5: Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: Current Article 7 does not provide sufficiently clear criteria for assessing the ability of non-State agents to provide protection; the lack of clarity also allows for divergences and does not permit solid decision-making. These problems cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: Current Article 7 is not consistent with the Directive's approach to the assessment by MS of whether a change in the situation in the country of origin is "significant and non temporary to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services nature" in the context of applying cessation (Article 11(2)). or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 3: It would bring clarity as to the exhaustive character of the list and would stipulate with precision under what conditions parties and organisations may be equated to States regarding their ability to provide protection. 3: On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently 0: It would have no impact in terms of ensuring consistency with Article 11(2) of the Directive adopting a broader interpretation of the concept. On the other hand, it may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance examinations and to reducing appeals overall; moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices, it can contribute to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures and to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection between MS 4 It would ensure that the sole "willingness" or ability "in principle" to 4: On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS 3 It would bring consistency with the Directive's approach to EN 62
and enhancing the quality of first instance nature" before examinations and to reducing deciding on cessation (Article 11(2)). appeals overall; moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices, it can contribute to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures and to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection between MS 2: Practical cooperation may result to a certain extent in raising current standards, in facilitating decision-making and in increased 2: Financial impacts of practical 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 0 : It would have no impact in terms of ensuring consistency with Article 11(2) of the Directive convergence of national practices, but is insufficient, on its own, to systematically and comprehensively address the problems which flow from the ambiguities of the current provisions of the Directive the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation can only contribute to a limited extent to facilitating first instance decision-making and reducing appeals overall and to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. . EN 63
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The concept is currently defined in a broad and vague manner which allows for doubt and uncertainty in decision making, for interpretations contrary to the Geneva Convention and the ECHR as well as for diverse recognition practices. These problems cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provisions do not ensure coherence with the Directive's to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services provision on conditions for cessation (Article 14 (2)) and would also be inconsistent with the amended Article 7. by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 3: It would limit the scope for broad and divergent interpretations both of "internal protection" and of "technical obstacles" and would provide a clear framework for the reasonableness analysis, so as to limit the potential for violations of Article 3 ECHR. 2/3: On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently 0: It would not ensure coherence with the Directive's provision on conditions for cessation (Article 14 (2)) and would also be inconsistent with the amended Article 7. adopting a broader interpretation of the concept. On the other hand, it may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance examinations and to reducing appeals overall; moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices, it can contribute to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures and to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection between MS It would imply further costs to those incurred under option 2, to the extent that it would entail additional administrative costs for the MS applying paragraph 3 of Article 8, as a result of the specific time limit introduced for the duration of the technical obstacles, which would require authorities to re-open the files to re-assess the case and to issue a new decision once this period has expired. 3: It would ensure that the concept of internal protection under EU law is closely modelled on the core obligations flowing for the MS from the ECHR. 2/3: On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently 4: It would further ensure consistency with the notion of protection within the meaning of Article 7, as amended and with Article 11(2) of the current Directive. adopting a broader interpretation of the concept. On the other hand, it may contribute to facilitating To the extent that it would transpose the conditions set by the case law of the ECtHR and by removing the "technical obstacles" derogation, it would bring a greater degree of compatibility with ECHR and the Geneva Convention. As a result, it would have a greater positive effect in terms of achieving higher and more consistent protection standards than option 1. and enhancing the quality of first instance examinations and to reducing Moreover, the reference to the obligation of the competent authorities to obtain precise and up-to-date information on the general situation in the country reflects the requirement for the examination of applications established in Article 8(1) of appeals overall; moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices, it can contribute to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures and to a more EN 64
Costs linked to larger numbers of positive decisions could be higher than those under Option 1, since the possibility to apply the concept of internal protection notwithstanding the existence of technical obstacles would be removed. 3 4: It would have all the advantages of Option 2 but would also increase access to protection by explicitly placing on MS the burden of proof that an area constitutes an internal flight alternative. As a result, it would have a greater positive effect in terms of achieving higher and more consistent protection standards than option 2. 2: It would imply higher costs than Option 2 for those MS which currently place on the applicants the burden of proof that there is no internal 4: It would enhance coherence with the similar process followed and rules applied according to the Directive for establishing that the conditions for protection for them anywhere in the country of origin, as they cessation are fulfilled may have to undertake (Article 14 (2)). additional research to collect relevant evidence. 2: Practical cooperation may result to a certain extent in raising current standards, in facilitating decision-making and in increased 2: Financial impacts of practical 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 0: It would have no impact in terms of ensuring consistency with Article 7, as amended, and with Article 11(2) of the current Directive. convergence of national practices, but is insufficient, on its own, to adequately and comprehensively address the problems which flow from the ambiguities of the current provisions of the Directive the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation can only contribute to a limited extent to facilitating first instance decision-making and reducing appeals overall and to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. EN 65
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The ambiguity of the current provision allows for doubt and uncertainty in decision-making, 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: To the extent that the current provision to Dublin procedures, excludes the for interpretations asylum procedures or reception services possibility to identify a which are not compatible with the Geneva Convention and for diverse recognitions practices. These problems cannot particular social group on the basis of gender-related aspects alone, it affects negatively the access to protection for female applicants. It is thus not in line with the Directive's overall approach be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical towards ensuring cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. equal treatment to both male and female applicants. 2: As it provides for the possibility for MS to apply the alternative approach, it would create favourable conditions for a more inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, but its effect on access to protection would be marginal and it would be an inadequate measure in terms of 2: It may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance 2: To the extent that MS would voluntarily accept to apply the alternative approach, it would be a step towards ensuring consistency with the Directive's overall approach on equal access to protection for both male and female applicants. examinations and to reducing appeals overall; it may also result in higher recognition rates. However, both these effects will be limited only to those amongst the MS which currently apply the criteria in a cumulative way and which will voluntarily accept to apply them alternatively facilitating decision-making and ensuring a consistent interpretation. 3: As it would provide specific guidance on the weight to be attached to issues arising from the applicant's gender and would impose an overall obligation to duly consider such issues within the context of the definition of a particular social group, it would not only bring clarity about the scope of the concept, but would additionally ensure consistency of national practices. It would further ensure that all MS adopt a progressive and inclusive application of this Geneva Convention ground and would address the risk of gaps in the provision to women of the protection flowing for this Convention. 3: On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS which currently follow a more restrictive approach. On the other hand, 4: It would have a decisive impact in terms of ensuring consistency with the Directive's overall approach on equal access to protection for both male and female applicants it may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance examinations and to reducing appeals overall; moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices, it can contribute to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures and to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection between MS 4: As it makes the broad interpretation of the concept in line with the Geneva Convention compulsory for MS, access to protection will be significantly improved in those MS who currently follow the cumulative approach; moreover it would bring consistency of national practices These positive effects are particularly relevant to gender-related claims. 3: On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently adopting a cumulative approach. On the other hand, it may contribute 4: It would have a decisive impact in terms of ensuring consistency with the Directive's overall approach on equal access to protection for both male and female applicants to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance examinations and to reducing appeals overall; moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices, it can contribute to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures and to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection EN 66
2: The joint mapping of the interpretation of the concept and the exchange of best practices might result to a certain extent in convincing MS currently adopting a cumulative 2: Financial impacts of practical 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 2: To the extent that MS would voluntarily accept to attach more significance to gender related aspects as a result of practical cooperation, it would be a step towards ensuring consistency with the Directive's overall approach on equal access to protection for both male and female applicants. approach to adopt an alternative approach and thus in raising current standards, in facilitating decision making and in increased convergence of national practices, but it would be insufficient, on its own, to systematically and the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation can only contribute to a limited extent to facilitating first instance comprehensively address the decision-making and problems which flow from the ambiguity of the current provision of the Directive reducing appeals overall and to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. EN 67
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision allows for protection gaps and for an inconsistent provision of protection in the different MS. 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provision does not ensure full consistency with the Directive's overall approach towards addressing cases where the actors of protection are non-State to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services These problems cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence entities, as or infringement demonstrated in its Article 7. procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 2: It would bring more clarity about the scope of this notion and create favourable conditions 2: It may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance 0: It would not ensure full consistency with the Directive's overall for a more inclusive examinations and to approach towards application of the Geneva Convention. However, to the extent that such a broadening of the concept would only be an option offered, it would be an inadequate measure in terms of ensuring a consistent interpretation across the EU and it could not prevent potential protection gaps. reducing appeals overall; it may also result in higher recognition rates. However, both these effects will be limited only to those amongst the MS which currently apply a strict interpretation addressing cases where the actors of protection are non State entities, as demonstrated in its Article 7 and which will voluntarily accept to adopt a broader one 4: It would not only bring clarity about the scope of the concept and facilitate solid 3 On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently 5: It would ensure full consistency with the Directive's overall decision-making, but would adopting a stricter approach towards additionally ensure consistency of interpretation On the other hand, it may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance addressing cases where the actors of protection are non State entities, as demonstrated in its Article 7 national practices. It would further ensure that all MS adopt a progressive and inclusive application of this element of the Geneva Convention and would comprehensively address the risk of gaps in the provision of the protection flowing for this Convention. examinations and to reducing appeals overall; moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices, it can contribute to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures and to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection between MS 2: tThe joint mapping of the 2: Financial impacts of practical 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 2 :To the extent that MS would voluntarily accept to apply the alternative approach as a result of practical cooperation, it would be a step towards ensuring consistency with the Directive's overall approach on addressing cases where the actors of protection are non State entities, as demonstrated in its Article 7 interpretation of the concept and the exchange of best practices couldresult to a certain extent in raising current standards, in facilitating decision-making and in increased convergence of national practices, but it would be insufficient, on its the limitations of its own, to systematically and effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation can only contribute to a limited extent to facilitating first instance comprehensively address the problems which flow from the ambiguities of the current provision of the Directive decision-making and reducing appeals overall and to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. EN 68
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current Directive allows for withdrawals of protection in violation of the Geneva Convention. This problem cannot 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provision to Dublin procedures, regarding cessation to asylum procedures or reception services subsidiary protection would be inconsistent with the provision that would be introduced under the be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or amended Directive infringement procedures. Practical regarding cessation of refugee status cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 2: It would offer MS flexibility in the application of the relevant exceptions to cessation. However, it would have a limited effect on attaining the objective of achieving high protection standards across the EU and would not contribute to consistency in national cessation practices. 2: It would produce additional administrative costs for MS that currently 2: It would establish a certain parallelism with the relevant obligation do not apply the that would be exceptions to the "ceased introduced under the amended Directive regarding cessation of refugee status. However (because circumstances" cessation clauses in the case of subsidiary protection, since the validity of the "compelling reasons" invoked by beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to prevent the termination of their protection status will have to be assessed by the competent authorities. Furthermore, for those beneficiaries of subsidiary protection whose protection is not / no longer terminated because of "compelling reasons", costs linked to their protection status will have to be continued. of the optional element it contains), it would also introduce a discrepancy that could not be justified from a legal point of view However, it would imply all these costs only for those MS which would voluntarily accept to apply the exceptions in question. On the other hand, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would not only bring clarity about the scope of the concept, but would additionally 3: It would produce the same type of additional administrative costs and costs linked to the maintenance of protection statuses as option 1, with the difference that all MS would incur such costs. On the other hand, it would have a much stronger impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures 5: It would ensure a perfectly coherent approach within the Directive regarding exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses ensure consistency of national practices. It would further ensure that all MS adopt a progressive and inclusive application of this element of the Geneva Convention and would comprehensively address the risk of gaps in the provision of the protection flowing for this Convention. and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. EN 69
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision allows for unjustified differences in the duration of the residence permits granted to the two categories 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: To the extent that it provides the to Dublin procedures, possibility for a asylum procedures and reception services differentiation, the current of beneficiaries of provision does not allow for a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand and thus for giving effect to the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status. international protection as well as for a wide variation of relevant national practices. These problems cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate in this respect. 2: It would raise current standards in those MS that currently grant resident permits of less than 2 years, but would not result in a similar level of entitlements 2: It would result in a limited reduction of the costs associated with the renewal of residence permits for those MS which issue permits valid for one year only. 2: It would accomplish only a partial approximation of the treatment reserved by the Directive's legal framework to refugees, on the one hand, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand. for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees, and would not achieve a level playing field. Moreover, it would have no effect in terms of streamlining administrative procedures Moreover, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would imply the complete approximation 3: The introduction of an obligation to verify whether protection needs persist at the end of the 3 year period would imply an additional administrative burden on the MS, in particular for those countries that currently issue permits valid three years or more, and only re-assess the need on a case by case basis. For the MS which assess the need for protection on a yearly or every second year basis, an assessment every three years could, however, even imply a cost reduction. 3: It would be a positive step towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on of the duration of residence permits granted to the two categories, thus raising the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, streamlining administrative procedures and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would maintain a certain differentiation. More generally, it would contribute to establishing a level-playing field, and to a decrease of costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal EN 70
4: It would imply the complete approximation 4: It would result in an important reduction of the costs associated with the renewal of residence permits for those MS that issue permits valid for less than 3 years. 5: It would ensure a coherent approach within the Directive's legal of the duration of residence permits granted to the two categories, thus raising the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, streamlining procedures and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive. framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand in line with the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status as an end goal of the CEAS. More generally, it would contribute to establishing a level-playing field, and to a decrease of costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection. EN 71
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision allows for unjustified differences in the reasons for which refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection can travel outside the MS territories as well as for inconsistent national implementations. These problems cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: To the extent that it provides the to Dublin procedures, possibility for a asylum procedures and reception services differentiation, the current provision does not allow for coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand and thus for giving effect to the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status. by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate in this respect. 2: It would raise standards in those MS that currently apply the limitation allowed by the Directive, but would not result in a similar level of entitlements for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees; it would also mean that standards across the EU would still not be entirely consistent. 2: It would imply additional costs for the 3 MS affected, to the extent that they might need to change the format of the travel documents they currently issue as well as to issue new 2: It would achieve certain progress towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries travel documents to of subsidiary beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would maintain in place a certain differentiation protection after a year. On the other hand, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would imply the complete approximation of the reasons for which both categories of protected persons are allowed to travel, thus raising the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, streamlining procedures and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive. 4: It would imply additional costs for the 3 MS affected, to the extent that they might need to change the format of the travel documents they currently issue; however, contrary to option 1, it would not incur costs linked to issuing new documents to beneficiaries 5: It would ensure a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand in line with the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status as an end goal of the CEAS. of subsidiary protection after a year. More generally, it would contribute to establishing a level-playing field, and to a decrease of costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection. EN 72
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision allows for unjustified differences regarding access to employment granted to the two categories 0: It does not affect current costs related 0:The current provision would be to Dublin procedures, inconsistent with the asylum procedures and reception services approach adopted in the of beneficiaries of Proposal for the amendment of Council Directive 2003/9/EC, which international protection as well as for divergences at the national level. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement grants unconditional access of asylum seekers to the labour market procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate in this respect. To the extent that it provides the possibility for a differentiation, the current provision does not allow for coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand and thus for giving effect to the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status. 2: It would reduce the scope of discretion currently provided by the Directive with regard to access to the labour market for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, but it would not result in a complete approximation 2: It would impact in different degrees - on the labour markets of the three MS which currently apply the limitation allowed by the Directive. At the same time, it would have a limited impact in terms of increasing the possibilities for beneficiaries of international protection to become self-sufficient and thus in particular in terms of reducing social welfare costs and increasing 2: It would accommodate MS' obligations under the transitional arrangements set by the Accession Treaties: (according to the principle of "Community preference"). nor in streamlining procedures and would not achieve a level playing field. On the other hand, it would accomplish only a partial approximation of the treatment reserved by the Directive's legal framework to refugees, on the fiscal contributions. Relevant national measures would be eligible for co-funding under the ERF. one hand, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand. More generally, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 3: It would increase, but not completely approximate 3: It would impact in different degrees - on the labour markets of the three MS which currently apply the limitation allowed by the Directive. At the same time, it would have a limited impact in terms of increasing the possibilities for beneficiaries of international protection to become self-sufficient and thus in particular in terms of reducing social welfare costs and 3: It would be a positive step towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the entitlements of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection with those of refugees. Consistent application of standards across the EU would be promoted; however, differences would be likely to remain between those countries that would choose not to restrict the access to six months after receiving the status and those countries which the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would maintain a certain differentiation. EN 73
More generally, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would imply the complete approximation of access to employment for the two categories, thus improving the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary 4: It would have higher positive impacts than the other two options, both in terms of labour market policies and in terms of increasing the possibilities for beneficiaries of international protection to become self-sufficient and thus in terms of reducing social welfare costs and increasing 5: It would ensure consistency with the approach adopted in the Proposal for the amendment of Council Directive protection, streamlining 2003/9/EC, which grants procedures and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive. unconditional access of asylum seekers to the labour market. fiscal contributions. More generally, it would Relevant national measures would be eligible for co-funding under the ERF. ensure a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and More generally, it would contribute to establishing a level-playing field, and to a decrease of costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection. beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand in line with the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status as an end goal of the CEAS. EN 74
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision allows for unjustified differences regarding access to integration facilities granted to the two categories 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: To the extent that it provides the to Dublin procedures, possibility for a asylum procedures and reception services differentiation, the current of beneficiaries of provision does not allow for coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand and thus for giving effect to the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status. international protection as well as for divergences at the national level. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate. 2. It would increase protection standards in the MS which currently limit the access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to integration facilities to situations 2: It would imply increased costs for the 2: It would accomplish only a partial approximation of the treatment reserved by the Directive's legal framework to refugees, on the one hand, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand. MS that currently apply limitations, but to a lower level than the other options, as the MS would not have to provide integration programmes until after one year. Relevant national measures would be eligible for co-funding under the ERF.More generally, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers `where it is considered appropriate': the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection would be approximated to a level equivalent to that of refugees after a period of one year. The consistent application of protection standards across the EU would therefore also be promoted, but to a limited extent. and beneficiaries of international protection. 3: It would raise current standards by removing the discretion of MS to provide access to integration facilities only where they consider it appropriate while at the same time allowing MS a certain degree of flexibility in the content and structure of the integration programmes to be provided to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. 2: By obliging MS to grant beneficiaries 3: It would be a positive step towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on of subsidiary protection access to integration programmes equivalent to those provided to refugees, it would imply higher costs than option 1; such costs are likely to vary between the MS depending on how they interpret or apply `equivalent' and what measures are put in place for refugees. the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would allow for differentiations. On the other hand, as the term "equivalent" is not specific enough, it would still allow for divergent national practices Relevant national measures would be eligible for co funding under the ERF. More generally, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would imply the complete approximation of access to integration facilities for the two categories, thus improving the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, 4: By ensuring that the same integration 5: It would ensure a coherent approach within the Directive's legal programmes are provided to both categories, it would imply higher costs for the MS affected. More generally, it would framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary EN 75
Operational Objective: to approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision allows for an unjustified difference of treatment, to the extent that it allows MS to apply different conditions for the benefits granted to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary and results in divergences at the national level. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: To the extent that it provides the to Dublin procedures, possibility for a asylum procedures and reception services differentiation, the current provision does not allow for coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand and thus for giving effect to the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status. or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate. 2. It would increase protection standards in the 1 MS which currently applies different conditions to the access of family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary 2: It would imply increased costs for the 1 MS which currently applies different conditions, but to a lower level than the other option, as the MS would not have to provide the same conditions until after one year. Relevant national measures would be eligible for co-funding under the ERF. 2: It would accomplish only a partial approximation of the treatment reserved by the Directive's legal framework to refugees, on the one hand, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand. protection to integration facilities to benefits: the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection would be approximated to a level equivalent to that of refugees after a period of six months. The consistent application of protection standards across the EU would therefore also be promoted, but to a limited extent. Procedures would not be streamlined. More generally, it would have a very limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would imply the complete approximation of access to benefits for family members of the two categories, thus improving the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, streamlining procedures and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive. 4: By ensuring that the same conditions apply with regard to access to benefits for family members of both categories, it would imply higher costs for the 1 MS affected. Relevant national measures would be eligible for co funding under the ERF. 5: It would ensure a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand in line with the call of the Hague Programme for the establishment of a uniform status as an end goal of the CEAS. More generally, it would contribute to establishing a level-playing field, and to a decrease of costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection. EN 76
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: By granting beneficiaries of 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provisions have no international protection equal treatment with nationals in the context of national recognition procedures, the Directive does not adequately address the practical difficulties they encounter, to the extent that these are linked to their specific situation and are of a different nature than those faced by EU nationals. In addition, to address this gap, certain MS have taken specific measures; as a result national practices vary. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by to Dublin procedures, impact in terms of asylum procedures and reception services coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 3: It would constitute a positive step in the direction of meeting the specific needs of beneficiaries: it would cover all types of qualifications and address the problems linked to the absence of documentary evidence and the financial constraints. 3: It would entail additional costs for 4: It would ensure the those MS which would compatibility of any national measures for the validation of professional with the EU acquis on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications positively respond to the encouragement to develop alternative procedures and to help beneficiaries of international protection meet the costs of recognition procedures. Relevant national measures would be eligible for co-funding under the ERF. More generally, it would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration Because of the absence of binding effect, its impact in terms of effectively raising the current standards and ensuring a consistent application would be more limited than that of option 2. Costs related to alternative procedures will be more limited than under option 2 to the extent that this option covers only cases of absence of documentary evidence; on the other hand, they could be higher than under option 2 to the extent that this option addresses all types of qualifications. Regarding the provision of financial support, it might entail lesser costs than option 2, as it does not impose an obligation. On the other hand, it does not oblige MS to limit their exemptions to only those beneficiaries of international protection which can produce evidence of their inability to meet the relevant costs. Overall, it would have limited EN 77
and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would have a decisive impact in terms of addressing the specificities of the 3: Overall, the introduction of the obligations envisaged under this option would entail higher costs than those resulting from Option 1. A more detailed comparison of costs was made above. Relevant national measures would be eligible for co funding under the ERF. 2: It would ensure coherence between the EU asylum acquis and the obligations flowing from the Lisbon Convention for 22 MS situation of beneficiaries of international protection to the extent that it would impose an obligation on MS to take appropriate measures, also going beyond cases related to the lack of documentary evidence. More generally, it would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration On the other hand, it would only cover to qualifications obtained in one of the Contracting Parties to the Lisbon Convention and only the recognition of higher education. On the other hand, it would contribute to a higher degree than option 1 to establishing a level playing field. Because of its compulsory character, its impact in terms of effectively raising the current standards and ensuring a consistent application would be higher than that of option 2. 1: It could facilitate the task of competent authorities in different MS who are called upon 1: Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on to make assessments of qualifications of beneficiaries of However, given the international protection, as it would increase their knowledge about the trainings and curricula provided in different third countries; moreover it would facilitate the exchange and further development of existing national good practices. However, applied on its own, it would have only a marginal impact in terms of effectively addressing the problems of beneficiaries of international protection linked to the absence of documentary evidence and the financial constraints.. limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation can only contribute to a limited extent to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. integration; more specifically it would be compatible with the work being carried out by the Network of National Contact points on integration. EN 78
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provisions do not address the specific obstacles that hinder the effective access of beneficiaries of international protection to vocational training and employment. In addition, to address this gap, certain MS have taken specific measures; as a result national practices vary. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provisions have no to Dublin procedures, impact in terms of asylum procedures and reception services coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 3: It would enhance the access of beneficiaries of protection to training and employment. However, to the extent that it only encourages MS to take measures for the financial facilitation of access to training and to provide access to suitable training courses, its impact in terms of effectively raising the current standards and reducing differences between MS would be more limited than that of option 2. 3: It would imply additional costs for those MS that currently do not provide `suitable' training courses, or relevant financial support and which would decide to follow its encouragement and implement such measures. It would further incur compulsory costs for those MS which do not currently provide employment counselling services. 4: It would ensure consistency with the Commission's Proposal for an "EU Blue Card" Directive which grants third country nationals falling within its scope access to counselling services afforded by employment offices More generally, it would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration Overall, it would have limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: Because of its compulsory element and the broad scope of the obligations it would entail for MS, option 2 would have a decisive impact in terms of effectively and comprehensively addressing the specific 3: Compared to option 1, Option 2 would lead to higher costs as it would involve an obligation to offer suitable training courses and to provide 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration financial facilitation problems encountered by measures. On the other hand however, it would contribute to a higher degree than option 1 to establishing a level-playing field. beneficiaries of international protection regarding access to vocational training and employment as well as ensuring consistent standards in all MS. 12: It could facilitate the exchange and further development of existing national good practices. However, applied on its own, it would have only a marginal impact in terms of effectively addressing the specific needs and problems of beneficiaries of international protection regarding access to vocational training and employment 1: Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on However, given the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation could contribute only to a limited extent to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. integration; more specifically it would be compatible with the work being carried out by the Network of National Contact points on integration. EN 79
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provisions on the integration programmes to be provided to beneficiaries of international protection do not address the particularities of their situation; as a result the integration programmes they are offered in several MS do not adequately take into account the 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provisions have no to Dublin procedures, impact in terms of asylum procedures and reception services coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration different educational levels, professional backgrounds, family commitments, the lack of linguistic ability etc. Moreover, there is variation in national practices. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 3: It would enhance current standards, as it would require MS to develop in their integration policies the targeted response that they consider appropriate in relation to the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection. On the other hand, the flexibility it provides for means that its impact in terms of effectively raising the current standards and reducing differences between MS would be more limited than that of option 2. 3: It would imply additional costs for those MS that currently do not provide 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration integration programmes targeted at the needs of beneficiaries of international protection. The costs it would incur in terms of developing and providing introduction programmes and language courses tailored as far as possible would be lower than those implied under Option 2 in order to take into account the specific needs of the target group as an obligation in the programmes offered. Overall, it would have limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: As it would oblige MS to give to beneficiaries of international protection access 4: Compared to option 1, Option 2 would lead to higher costs as it would involve an obligation for MS to ensure access to integration programmes specifically designed to meet their needs. On the other hand, it would contribute to a higher degree than option 1 to establishing a level-playing field. 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration to integration programmes specifically designed to meet the particular integration challenges they encounter, it would have a decisive impact in terms of effectively raising current standards as well as ensuring consistent standards in all MS. 1: It could facilitate the exchange and further development of existing national good practices. However, applied on its own, it would have only a marginal impact in terms of effectively addressing the specific integration needs and problems of beneficiaries of international protection 1: Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on However, given the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation could contribute only to a limited extent to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. integration; more specifically it would be compatible with the work being carried out by the Network of National Contact points on integration. EN 80
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision gives MS the discretion to reduce the benefits to be granted to beneficiaries of international protection, where the protection status has been obtained on the basis of activities engaged in for the sole or main purpose of securing protection. To this extent, it is not conducive in terms of enhancing their integration, has the potential to lead to violations of the Geneva Convention and allows for divergent 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provision has no impact in terms of coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services national practices. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate. 2: This option would restrict the flexibility currently allowed to MS by obliging them to grant the persons concerned at least a certain level of rights prescribed by the Geneva Convention; it might thus bring a limited improvement of current standards and it would enhance consistency of application. 2/3: As there is no information available on what precisely the reduction of benefits means in the current practice of the three MS which apply the relevant provision, it is not possible to determine whether the introduction of option 1 would incur higher costs for these MS; it could imply additional costs for these 3 MS to the extent that they might need to grant the persons concerned additional rights and benefits compared to those that they grant currently. 3 : It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration It would have a certain impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: By completely eliminating the 3: It would imply additional costs for the 3 MS affected, to the extent that they might need to provide for rights and benefit in cases where previously they applied restrictions. 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration possibility to apply such sanctions, it would considerably raise standards, ensure full compatibility with the Geneva Convention and consistency in the application of these standards throughout the EU. More generally, it would contribute to establishing a level-playing field, and to a decrease of costs related to Dublin procedures and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection. EN 81
Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current provision does not address the problems faced by beneficiaries of international protection in the housing market and is therefore not conducive to their 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current provision has no impact in terms of coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration nor with the standards established in other instruments of the EU acquis or within the Directive to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services effective integration. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect. 2: As it would encourage MS to put in place policies aimed at preventing discrimination 3: It would imply additional costs for those MS which currently do not have in place policies banning discrimination regarding access to accommodation and which would voluntarily endeavour to develop such policies in response to the call of this option 2: It would constitute a step towards bringing the standards regarding accommodation in line with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration, but only in those MS which would implement it of beneficiaries of international protection and at ensuring equal opportunities regarding access to accommodation, it might enhance standards in those MS which would voluntarily accept to implement it. However, the lack of binding effect means that its impact in terms of effectively and comprehensively raising standards Overall, it would have limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and reducing differences between MS would be more limited than that of the other legislative options. and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 2: As it would encourage MS to grant beneficiaries of international protection access to accommodation under the same conditions as nationals, it might enhance standards in those MS which would voluntarily accept to implement it. However, the lack of binding effect means that its impact in terms of effectively and comprehensively raising standards 2: It would imply additional costs for those MS which currently do not provide beneficiaries of protection access to accommodation under the same conditions as nationals and which would voluntarily endeavour to raise their standards. 1: It might constitute a step towards bringing the standards regarding accommodation in line with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration, in those MS which would implement it Overall, it would have limited impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures and reducing differences between MS would be more limited than that of the other legislative options. and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 4: It would give effect to the political mandate on integration by raising current standards to the level of rights enjoyed by nationals. Due to its compulsory nature, it would be more effective in enhancing the integration 2/3: Compared to options 1 and 2, Option 3 would lead to costs for more MS, since all MS which currently do not apply this standard would have to implement it. 5: It would ensure consistency with the standards established in the "Long-term residents Directive" (equal access with nationals to procedures for obtaining housing) of beneficiaries of international protection and in reducing divergences in national practices than Option 1. On the other hand, it would have a more decisive impact than options 1 and 2 in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures - It would be compatible with the overall approach followed by the Qualification Directive: the same standard (same and the unequal conditions as nationals) applies for instance regarding the access distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international of refugees to EN 82
In the absence of precise information on the current legislations and practices of the different MS in terms of providing access - It would be in line with the approach advocated in the Handbook to accommodation on Integration beneficiaries of international (ensure equal opportunities in the housing market, in terms of access and quality) protection, it is not possible to determine the size of the additional costs it would imply and to compare it with Option 4. It is however reasonable to assume that it would be more costly than Options 1 and 2. 3: As it would require that the accommodation for beneficiaries of international protection should guarantee an adequate standard of living, it would have significant impact in terms of effectively raising current standards as well as ensuring consistent standards in all MS. 2: Compared to options 1 and 2, it would lead to costs for more MS as since all MS which currently do not apply this standard would have to implement it. On the other hand, it would contribute to a higher degree than these options to establishing a level-playing field. 4: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration - it would provide a link the Directive's standards directly to those set by the relevant human rights instruments, such as the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights (Article 34(3)) and the International However, the reference to "adequate standards" is not specific enough as a benchmark to allow the Commission to monitor the level of standards available in the MS In the absence of precise information on the current legislations and practices of the different MS in terms of providing access Covenant on to accommodation Economic, Social and Cultural rights (Article 11(1)). beneficiaries of international protection, it is not possible to determine the size of the additional costs it would imply and to compare it with Option 3. It is however reasonable to assume that it would be more costly than Options 1 and 2. - it would be in line with the standards provided in the Reception Conditions Directive, which imposes an equivalent obligation with regard to asylum seekers. 1: It could facilitate the exchange and further development of existing national good 1: Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. 3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on practices as well as the identification of the most cost-efficient solutions for the provision of assistance in the search for accommodation. However, applied on its own, it would have only a marginal impact in terms of effectively However, given the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation could contribute only to a limited extent to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. integration; more specifically it would be compatible with the work being carried out by the Network of National Contact points on integration, resulting in mutual benefits addressing the specific problems of beneficiaries of international protection regarding access to adequate accommodation EN 83
protection for respect of family life. Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 0: The current definition of family members does not sufficiently take into account the specificities of their situation. Moreover, it allows and to a certain extent even encourages divergences in national practices. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence 0: It does not affect current costs related 0: The current definition is inconsistent with the broadened definition of family members provided to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services for in the Commission's proposals for the amendment of the Reception Conditions Directive and the Dublin Regulation. or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate in this respect. 2: It would address as the wide range of situations where a minor might be considered dependent, while ensuring that the decisive criterion is the best interest of the child. It would thus have a decisive impact in terms of effectively raising current standards as well as in ensuring consistent standards in all MS 3/4: There is no data available on numbers of family members that would be affected by the broadening of the definition. However, both legislative options would lead to additional costs in relation to the provision 4: It would ensure coherence with the broadened definition of family members provided for in the Commission's proposals for the amendment of the Reception Conditions of adequate living Directive and the Dublin standards for the MS which do not currently apply broader definitions than those prescribed by the current Directive. Overall, Option 2 would lead to higher costs than option 1, since it would have a larger group of potential beneficiaries. On the other hand, procedural costs would be higher Regulation. for the processing of applications under Option 1, since it would be necessary to determine on a case by case basis not only the family or other relevant link but also whether it is in the best interests of the minor involved to resided in the same country as the other persons concerned. 3: Option 2 would have all the advantages 3/4: As indicated above, Option 2 would lead to higher costs than option 1, since it would have a larger 4: It would ensure coherence with the broadened definition of family members provided for of Option 1, whereas additionally allowing for a broader application of the concept of family members group of potential in the Commission's beneficiaries. On the other hand, procedural costs would be higher for the processing of applications under Option 1, since it would be necessary to determine on a case by case basis not only the family or other relevant link but also whether it is in the best interests of the minor involved to resided in the same country as the other persons concerned. proposals for the amendment of the Reception Conditions Directive and the Dublin Regulation. . 4: It would address more 4: It would imply additional costs for those MS which do not apply broader 4: It would ensure coherence with the broadened definition of family members provided for comprehensively than options 1 and 2 the specificities of the situation of beneficiaries of international protection while ensuring that the decisive criterion is the best interest of the child. It would thus have a decisive impact in terms of effectively raising current standards as definitions than the minimum currently imposed by the Directive. Due to its conditioning on vulnerability or special needs, it would imply lower costs than option 2, since it would have a smaller in the Commission's proposals for the amendment of the Reception Conditions Directive and the Dublin EN 84
4/5: It would increase protection 3/4: As indicated above, it would have a larger group of potential beneficiaries than option 3, resulting in higher costs. On the other hand it would imply lesser procedural costs. Overall, it would have a larger impact in terms of establishing a level-playing field, and thus in terms of reducing costs related to Dublin procedures 4: It would ensure coherence with the broadened definition of family members provided for standards and ensure consistency to a higher degree than option 3, due to the absence of a condition linked to vulnerability or special needs. in the Commission's proposals for the amendment of the Reception Conditions Directive and the Dublin Regulation. and the unequal . distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. 1: It would help MS to better define the notions and criteria related to the best interests of the child. . However, applied on its own, it would have only a marginal impact in terms of effectively addressing the 1: Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. 2: It would enable MS to draw on practices for the verification of family links developed in other related policy contexts, such as family reunification. However, given the limitations of its effectiveness on its own, practical cooperation could contribute only to a limited extent to reducing secondary movements and subsequent costs related in particular to Dublin procedures. deficiencies of the legislative provisions. EN 85
Rating (from 0, Motivation of the rating i.e.no impact, to 5) 0 Certain standards of the Directive do not fully reflect international standards and are not applied consistently. These problems could not be adequately addressed by infringement procedures against MS, as the level of ambiguity of the text of the Directive makes it difficult to clearly substantiate infringement cases. The ECJ and the ECtHR may be asked as they have in the past - to provide guidance aimed at addressing such inconsistencies and possible protection gaps. However, by its very nature, such guidance cannot systematically or fully address the identified problems, but only on a case-by-case basis. Progress on the basis of case law could only be expected to address some of the identified problems, such as: § The risk that persons are returned to a country where they cannot have access to effective and durable protection; § The risk that persons are returned to (part of) a country that is not safe or not possible to access; § Denial of protection in cases where persons are persecuted for reasons not related to a Geneva Convention ground, but where State protection is withheld for such reasons (the nexus requirement); § Denial of protection due to a restrictive interpretation of `membership of a particular social group' with regard to the significance of gender-related aspects; and, § The lack of possibility for refugees who are considered to constitute a danger to their security or their community to challenge the assertion of a security risk before an impartial tribunal and the negative effects of the withdrawal of refugee status in such cases for the family members present in the Member State. Practical cooperation (and advocacy), may lead to some `voluntary' raising of current standards and to increased convergence of national practices, but is insufficient, on its own, to adequately and comprehensively address the problems identified, which flow from the ambiguities and possibilities for derogations in the legislation itself. Moreover it is questionable whether those MS where improvements are most urgently needed will respond to a voluntary approach. Developments at MS level (e.g. change of government, factual developments, reevaluation of the situation etc.) may have either positive or negative consequences for asylum applicants in terms of access to protection. The current financial crisis may even entail an increased risk of pressures to resort to measures which could undermine the effective protection of fundamental rights, e.g. the right to asylum. MS may choose for instance to focus on their own nationals before allocating resources, allowing unconditional access to the labor market etc to beneficiaries of international protection or even to lower their standards regarding the grounds for protection in an effort to reduce the influxes of asylum seekers and the numbers of beneficiaries of international protection they are hosting. 0 The Qualification Directive allows MS in some respects to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection a lower level of rights than those granted to refugees As it is increasingly acknowledged that the distinction between the two groups as to protection needs is theoretical rather than real, most MS are already making changes in the direction of removing or closing the gaps between the two protection statuses. However, some countries still differentiate between these two categories and at least one country has introduced new legislation concerning varying conditions as late as in January 2009. The trend is therefore not only positive and, as mentioned above under objective 1.1, the current financial crisis entails an increased risk of negative trends in this respect. This objective cannot therefore be expected to be achieved if the status quo is maintained. 0 § The Qualification Directive does not take sufficiently into account the specific needs and integration challenges faced by beneficiaries of international protection, including with regard to § Having their skills and competences recognised; EN 86
-
5)§ Accessing relevant training and employment; § Accessing adequate integration programmes: § Accessing accommodation; § Accessing an adequate level of rights and benefits even where they obtained protection on the basis of "manufactured claims" Similar to objective 1.1., peer pressure, the identification and exchange of good practices, advocacy and cooperation may have some positive impacts. There may also be some changes in MS due to national developments. However, in view of the current financial crises, it is more likely that such developments will result in decreases of the level of protection granted to beneficiaries of international protection. 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 Because of the vague and ambiguous formulation of several provisions of the Directive, current substantial criteria for the identification of protection needs do not allow the asylum authorities to take robust decisions, based on a properly established assessment of the claims. As a result decision-makers have difficulties to reach quickly decisions on individual applications, whereas the possibility to interpret concepts in different ways results in intensive recourse to appeals and to subsequent applications, and in high rates of successful appeals against negative decisions. Practical cooperation and guidance by the ECJ and ECHR may help bring a certain degree of clarification that will facilitate decision making but only on a case by case basis and not systematically or comprehensively. 0 As indicated above, because of derogations allowed for in the current text of the Qualification Directive and unclear definitions, the Directive has been transposed and is being implemented in different ways in the MS, leading to widely divergent recognition rates and practices, the provision of different levels of rights, and consequently to secondary movements and the uneven distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection amongst MS. Interpretative guidance by the ECJ and ECHR may address such divergences but only on a case by case basis and not systematically or comprehensively. Practical cooperation, to be reinforced through the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office, can also be expected to increase convergence. However, progress can only be achieved on a voluntary basis. Maintaining the status quo would therefore have no impact in terms of addressing secondary movements and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection amongst MS Moreover, it cannot be excluded that, in view in particular of the current financial crisis, MS might be inclined to lower their protection standards (making more extensive use of the relevant possibilities/derogations allowed by the Directive) in order to reduce the inflows of asylum seekers and the numbers of beneficiaries of international protection they are hosting, so that convergence might be achieved at the level of the lowest common denominator. . It appears therefore unlikely that this objective could be achieved through the status quo. and implementation 0 The policy option does not involve any legislative action, i.e. no provisions will need to be transposed. 0 Status quo would not bring about any additional financial costs. 0 The economic impacts of maintaining the status quo with regard to the level of rights granted would vary amongst the MS depending on the number of beneficiaries of international protection in the country, as well as the number of them who are able to access employment and integrate successfully MS which do not take measures adequately supporting beneficiaries' access to EN 87
-
5)employment, accommodation and more generally to integration, can be expected to miss out on the potential labour supply and contributions to the economy that this category of persons can offer, and instead carry the costs of social welfare and healthcare benefits as well as the more general negative social consequences of dependency. Neither the `burden' nor the potential of beneficiaries of international protection to contribute to the economic development of the host country can therefore be expected to be shared more equally amongst MS under the status quo. Moreover, the persistence of divergences would continue to encourage secondary movements and the ensuing unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection amongst MS. This in turn would mean that there would be no reduction of the MS' costs regarding the implementation of the Dublin system nor any improvement in terms of addressing the overburdening of those MS providing higher standards. 0 Maintaining the status quo would mean that there would continue to be protection gaps and divergent recognition rates and practices, negatively affecting the access to protection and justice. Furthermore, there would be (in some MS) negative impacts on social integration and access to the labour market because of insufficient provision of (and access to) support and measures for beneficiaries of international protection to integrate socially and vocationally in the host society, taking into account their special needs. There would also continue to be unequal and inadequate access to housing, social welfare and healthcare due to the great differences in the application of the Directive in the MS, as well as differentiations between the rights attached to the two protection statuses, negatively affecting equality/non-discrimination. The persistence of current secondary movements may also negatively influence the perception of nationals in relation to asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection across the EU. 0 As outlined in the problem assessment, certain standards of the Qualification Directive do not fully reflect international standards. The outcome of possible infringement procedures and interpretative guidance by the ECJ and ECHR might address such deficiencies but only on a case by case basis and not systematically or comprehensively. Improvement might also occur through peer pressure, the identification and exchange of good practices, advocacy etc but progress on this basis would depend on the willingness of MS to raise their protection standards. Furthermore, as explained above, MS might even be inclined to lower their standards in certain respects. This would entail the risk of further undermining respect for fundamental rights It is therefore likely that several rights of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights would be insufficiently promoted if the status quo is maintained. These include: § Article 7: Respect for private and family life § Article 14: Right to education § Article 15: Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work § Article 16: Freedom to conduct a business § Article 18: Right to asylum § Article 19: Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition § Article 21: Non-discrimination § Article 24: Rights of the child § Article 34: Social security and social assistance § Article 35: Healthcare 0 It is extremely difficult to assess what impacts the status quo could have on third countries; In particular, it would be impossible to determine if and to what extent- the maintenance of the status quo would have any impact on the overall asylum flows to the EU, since, as outlined above, refugee flows are mainly driven by push factors EN 88
EN 89
Content of the preferred option Sub-issue (where Description of preferred sub-options relevant NA Legislative option 2 in combination with practical cooperation Option 2: This option would specify that the list of actors of protection contained in Article 7 is an exhaustive one, and would require that protection must be effective and durable and that the parties and organisations in question are willing and able to enforce the rule of law. Practical cooperation: MS could cooperate to explore the different interpretations of "parties" and jointly define which actors of protection in certain third countries are potentially able to effectively ensure such protection. Such cooperation could take place in the context of EURASIL and could benefit eventually from the creation of a European Asylum Support Office. NA Legislative option 2 Option 2 would require that the applicant should be able to travel to, gain admittance and settle in the proposed alternative location; it would delete the possibility to apply the internal flight alternative despite technical obstacles and would refer to the obligation of the competent authorities to obtain precise and up-to-date information on the general situation in the country. Practical cooperation: MS could cooperate to map the criteria they apply in the context of the "reasonableness" analysis and exchange information relevant for the assessment of the existence of an internal flight alternative in specific third countries, possibly with the assistance of the EU Portal on Country of Origin information and more generally of the EASO. NA Legislative option 2 in combination with practical cooperation Option 2: The nexus requirement could be broadened in a compulsory manner: it could be made explicit in the provision of Article 9(3) that the causal link condition is fulfilled where there is a connection between the acts of persecution and the absence of protection against such acts. Practical cooperation: MS could cooperate to map the application of the nexus requirement in the MS and its effects on the process and outcomes of determining whether an applicant is to be granted international protection or not. The exchange of this information and best practices would serve as a basis to approximate national decision-making on the matter. NA Legislative option 2 in combination with practical cooperation Option 2: The option would specify that gender related aspects should be given due consideration for the purposes of recognising membership of a particular social EN 90
Sub-issue (where Description of preferred sub-options relevant group or identifying a characteristic of such a group. Practical cooperation: MS could cooperate to jointly map the interpretation of the ground "membership of a particular social group" with regard to gender-related issues and its effects on the process and outcomes of determining whether an applicant is to be granted international protection or not. The exchange of this information and best practices would serve as a basis to approximate national decision-making on the matter. 4.6.1 Cessation regarding refugees To incorporate in the Directive the obligation to apply the exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses in the case of cessation of refugee status (Uncontroversial and therefore not assessed). 4.6.2 Cessation regarding beneficiaries of subsidiary protection Legislative option 2 Option 2: It could be envisaged to include a compulsory exception to cessation relating to compelling reasons arising out previous serious harm in Article 16. This would bring about a complete assimilation with respect to the application of the "compelling reasons" exceptions to cessation between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. 4.7.1 Duration of residence permit Legislative option 3 Option 3: To oblige MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection residence permits valid for at least 3 years, as is currently the case for refugees. 4.7.2 Access to benefits for family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection Legislative option 2 Option 2: To impose on MS the obligation to grant benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection under the same conditions applicable to family members of refugees. 4.7.3 Access to employment Legislative option 3 Option 3: MS would be obliged to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection unconditional access to employment and to activities such as employment-related education opportunities, vocational training and practical workplace experience, as is currently the case with refugees. 4.7.4 Social welfare and health care Legislative option 2 Option 2: To eliminate the possibilities for MS to reduce social welfare and health care for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to core benefits. 4.7.5 To enhance access to integration facilities Legislative option 3 Option 3: To oblige MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection access to integration facilities under the same conditions as to refugees. EN 91
Sub-issue (where Description of preferred sub-options relevant 4.8.1 To facilitate the recognition of qualifications Legislative option1 in combination with practical cooperation Option 1: MS could be encouraged to grant beneficiaries of international protection who cannot provide documentary evidence of their qualifications access to alternative appropriate schemes for the assessment, validation and accreditation of their prior learning. It would be further specified that any such measures should not affect MS' obligations under the EU rules on the recognition of professional qualifications. Moreover MS could be encouraged to exempt beneficiaries of international protection from the fees involved or to grant them financial assistance to meet these costs where they consider it necessary. Practical cooperation between MS to exchange best practices and information on the assessment of qualifications of beneficiaries of international protection obtained in different third countries, for instance, regarding the curricula or the training courses followed. MS could share knowledge gained and tools developed in this area. This option could also include the development of tools such as handbooks or databases containing information collected in the context of previous evaluations of qualifications regarding nationals of different third countries as well as the identification of cost-efficient solutions for provision of financial support. 4.8.2 To enhance access to vocational training and employment Legislative option 1 in combination with practical cooperation Option 1: would encourage MS to provide beneficiaries of international protection with access to suitable training courses to upgrade their skills. Option 1 would further broaden the list of the employment-related education activities which MS are obliged to offer beneficiaries of international protection under the current Qualification Directive by including counselling services offered by employment offices. Moreover, it could be envisaged to encourage MS to facilitate, where necessary, the participation of beneficiaries of international protection in vocational training through "part-work / part-study" programmes or maintenance grants and loans. Practical cooperation: MS' competent authorities could cooperate to explore what works best in terms of facilitating access to vocational training and employment, including through the exchange of experience and good practice in the context of the Network of National Contact Points on Integration, and through good practices developed in the context of the European Refugee Fund, the Integration Fund and the European Social Fund. 4.8.3 To enhance access to integration facilities Legislative option 1 in combination with practical cooperation Option 1: It could be envisaged to include in the relevant provision of the Directive (Article 33(1)) a reference to the `specific needs' of beneficiaries of international protection, so as to impose on MS the obligation "to ensure access to integration programmes which they consider appropriate so as to take into account" the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection. As examples of such integration programmes, reference could be made to introduction programmes and language training courses tailored as far as possible to these specific needs. Practical cooperation to develop common approaches and tools with regard to integration programmes and support provided to beneficiaries of international protection on the basis of good practices identified in the MS and transnational cooperation projects. EN 92
Sub-issue (where Description of preferred sub-options relevant 4.8.4 To enhance access to accommodation Legislative option 1 in combination with practical cooperation Option 1: To encourage MS to put in place policies aimed at preventing discrimination of beneficiaries of international protection and at ensuring equal opportunities regarding access to accommodation. Practical cooperation to explore what works best in particular in terms of facilitating access to the private housing market and in assisting individuals who cannot compete on the private housing market in finding social housing, as well as funding for specific programmes and projects to cover the costs of providing accommodation (e.g. good practices from ERF, Integration Fund, ESF) . 4.8.5 To reduce possibilities for limitations to access to rights and benefits Legislative option 2 Option 2: It could be envisaged to completely eliminate the possibility currently provided to MS to apply sanctions in the case of persons who engage in activities for the sole purpose of securing international protection. NA Legislative option 1 in combination with practical cooperation Option 1: to include in the definition of family members all the minor (married and unmarried) children of the beneficiary as well as the minor unmarried siblings of the beneficiary when the later is a minor and unmarried, provided it is in their best interests to reside in the same country as the beneficiary and, where the beneficiary is a minor, his/her parents or another adult relative responsible for him/her. Practical cooperation: Option 3 (practical cooperation): MS could jointly map the notions and criteria they use to determine the best interests of the child and exchange good practices EN 93
EN 94
EN 95
to be Current standard of the Directive Envisaged legislative 80 amendment Notion "actors of protection" The definition of "actors of protection" in Art. 7 allows MS to consider clans and tribes or NGOs as potential actors of protection and thus to return applicants to their country of origin despite the lack of effective protection To specify that the list of actors of protection in Article 7 is exhaustive, as well as to require that protection 81 as interpreted by must be effective and durable and that the parties and organisations in question are willing and able to enforce the rule of law. Notion "internal protection" The definition in Article 8 - To specify that in the alternative area the - merely requires the applicant should have absence of a well-founded fear of persecution , and not the accessibility (also in safe and legal terms) of effective access to effective and durable protection - to require that the applicant should be safely, legally and practically able to and durable protection travel to, gain - it allows the use of the concept despite technical obstacles, and thus in cases where admittance and settle in the alternative location; the proposed - to delete the possibility to apply the concept despite technical obstacles location is not practically accessible Causal nexus requirement The current wording of Article To specify that the causal nexus requirement is also 9(3) does not As indicated in the problem definition, the objectives pursued in the second phase are to ensure compatibility with international human rights and refugee law standards, taking into account their authoritative interpretation by competent organisations and courts and/or to fulfil the mandate of the Hague Programme. Qualifies as a refugee a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the country of nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, EN 96
of protection ground but against such acts social group. It where State protection is withheld for such reasons, allowing thus for denial of protection in such cases. Notion "Membership of a particular social group" Article 10(1) (d) of the Directive precludes the use of gender-related aspects as the sole basis for the identification of a particular social group. To this extent, it To provide that gender related aspects should be given due consideration for Geneva Convention, the purposes of defining a "particular social group". hinders access to protection for women and allows for gaps which may be incompatible with an inclusive interpretation of the Geneva Convention. According to the also identify EN 97
In Articles 11 and 16 of the Qualification To provide for exceptions to the cessation of refugee and subsidiary protection status Directive, reference to these exceptions has been relating to omitted. Member States may compelling reasons arising out out previous thus return previous beneficiaries of persecution/serious harm. international protection to their country of origin in cases where this would not be permitted by principle enshrined in the Geneva Convention. Level of rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection principle of non- The Directive allows MS to grant To grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection the same rights as refugees regarding enshrined in beneficiaries of subsidiary protection a lower level of rights than those granted to refugees regarding certain elements of the content of protection. and reasonable -the duration of residence permits, This possibility for -the reasons for travelling outside the MS' territory, differentiation was based on the assumption that the protection -access to employment, needs of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection would be of a short duration. Practical experience - access to social welfare, - access to healthcare with the implementation of - access of family members to benefits subsidiary protection showed that the initial assumption was inaccurate and can no longer serve as justification - access to integration programmes. of these differences in the content of protection. Overall rights of beneficiaries of international protection The provisions of the To enhance the access of beneficiaries regarding Directive regarding the of access of beneficiaries of international protection to EN 98
employment-related education opportunities, to accommodation and to refugees the most integration facilities reflect the legal standards provided by relevant refugee law and human rights instruments. However, as they do not take - to encourage MS to grant beneficiaries of international protection who cannot provide documentary evidence of their qualifications access to alternative appropriate schemes sufficiently into account the specific challenges and practical difficulties and obstacles they for the assessment, validation and accreditation of their prior learning and to exempt them favourable than that face, the rights formally granted by these provisions are often de facto unavailable. from the fees involved or to grant them financial assistance to meet these costs, where they consider it necessary. Thus, although they Covenant on formally comply with the relevant human rights which additionally standards, in practice these provisions are not adequate to ensure effective access to the rights guaranteed by the international instruments in a - to encourage MS to provide beneficiaries of international protection with access to suitable training courses to upgrade their skills. technical and guidance and consistent manner programmes. The throughout the EU nor to give - to oblige MS to offer beneficiaries effect to the integration mandate set by the Tampere and the Hague Programmes of international protection counselling services and more offered by employment offices. generally by the EU integration policy framework. - to encourage MS to facilitate, where necessary, the participation of favourable than that beneficiaries of international protection in vocational training through "part-work / part-study" programmes or maintenance grants and loans - to oblige MS to ensure beneficiaries of international protection access to integration EN 99
including adequate - to encourage MS to put in place policies aimed at preventing discrimination of integration, the beneficiaries of international protection and at ensuring equal opportunities regarding access to accommodation. - to eliminate the possibility currently provided to MS to apply sanctions in the case of persons who engage in activities and cultural protection for the sole purpose of securing cohesion, the international protection. of the Community's on Integration and establish a of third-country EN 100
Definition of "family members" The definition of family members To include in the definition of family members flowing from Articles 2(h) and 23(4) of the Directive does not address the case where the beneficiary of protection is a minor nor the wide range of situations where a minor might - all the minor (married and unmarried) children of the beneficiary as well as the minor unmarried siblings of the beneficiary when the later is a minor and unmarried, provided it is in their best interests to reside in the same country as the beneficiary and, where the beneficiary is a minor, his/her parents or another adult relative responsible for him/her. be a primary be considered dependent and does not sufficiently take into account the principle of the primacy of the best interests of the child. EN 101
Total number of persons receiving protection status between 2005-2008 Percentages TCN population (thousands) Ref 05 08 SP 05 08 Total 05 08 Ref SP Total 300,8 10320 640 10960 3,43 0,21 3,64 21,6 60 755 815 0,28 3,49 3,77 186,4 740 525 1265 0,40 0,28 0,68 196,9 315 685 1000 0,16 0,35 0,51 4788,8 18320 3375 21695 0,38 0,07 0,45 229,7 5 0 5 0,00 0,00 0,00 141,2 1525 5 1530 1,08 0,00 1,08 729,9 555 305 860 0,08 0,04 0,12 2856,8 780 215 995 0,03 0,01 0,03 2369,5 14345 1115 15460 0,61 0,05 0,65 2332,7 4900 22070 26970 0,21 0,95 1,16 47,2 95 445 540 0,20 0,94 1,14 426,7 5 15 20 0,00 0,00 0,00 37,4 45 235 280 0,12 0,63 0,75 27,2 340 840 1180 1,25 3,09 4,33 66,8 535 350 885 0,80 0,52 1,32 4,6 90 3010 3100 1,95 65,07 67,02 437,0 1840 13455 15295 0,42 3,08 3,50 550,1 14355 105 14460 2,61 0,02 2,63 31,0 1070 7820 8890 3,46 25,26 28,72 339,3 45 95 140 0,01 0,03 0,04 20,1 295 35 330 1,47 0,17 1,64 50,5 15 25 40 0,03 0,05 0,08 12,9 45 160 205 0,35 1,24 1,59 79,3 200 1155 1355 0,25 1,46 1,71 266,5 3560 43730 47290 1,34 16,41 17,74 2203,0 14335 9880 24215 0,65 0,45 1,10 18754,0 88735 111045 199780 0,47 0,59 1,07 EN 102
82 have been assessed with regard to obligations to provide · The obligation to provide applicants with general information about the various relevant elements of the Qualification Directive · The obligation to provide beneficiaries of international protection with information on their rights and benefits (including how and whether to obtain certain benefits, which organisations to address, etc.) · The tools for practical cooperation (identification and diffusion of best practices, mapping studies of particular approaches, etc) 83 Type of obligation Type of action required Familiarising with the information obligation Other -- Creation of information Training authorities on the information obligation Familiarising with the information obligation Training authorities on the information obligations Other -- Creation of information Producing new data Submitting the information Producing new data Other -- Creation of information Submitting the information 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'. 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 103
· Scenario "t0": first year of implementation of the preferred PO. · Scenario "t0+2": third year of implementation of the preferred PO. · Concerning implementation costs for familiarisation with the obligations and training of the personnel of MS Asylum Services: o 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); o An average of 10 officials per MS would be involved in training about the revised obligations (assumption: training course lasting two working days, with an estimated total of 160 hours per Member State). EN 104
· Concerning implementation costs to provide beneficiaries of international protection with information on their rights and benefits by the personnel of MS Asylum Services: o 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); o An average of 5 officials per MS would be involved in training about the revised obligations (assumption: training course lasting two working days, with an estimated total of 80 hours per Member State); o The collection and organisation of information to be included in the short guide or leaflet on the revised rights and benefits is estimated to require 40 working hours per Member State; o The provision of information on the rights and benefits to the applicants is estimated to require 0.5 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. · 160 working hours for the Commission's DG JLS to identify the best practices on the application of the policy option and 80 working hours to diffuse these. 84 , median gross annual 85 , and average hourly labour costs in industry and services of full 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. EN 105
86 . The relative 87 . Information on the annual hours worked per employee in the 88 . The end result is an average hourly · Concerning implementation costs for familiarisation with the obligations and training of the personnel of MS Asylum Services, no additional costs should be sustained two years after starting the implementation of the preferred PO. · Concerning implementation costs to provide beneficiaries of international protection with information on their rights and benefits by the personnel of MS Asylum Services, some additional costs could be incurred as a result of changed arrangements in relation to access to education, training, employment, integration facilities, housing and social and healthcare, as it can be expected that some services will only be improved / better geared towards the need of beneficiaries of international protection over time. The time inputs required to update the information are estimated as follows: o 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: one working day required, for an estimated total of 24 working hours per MS); o The revision and reorganisation of information to be included in the short guide or leaflet on the revised rights and benefits is estimated to require 15 working hours per Member State; 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 MS 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 MS 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 106
o The provision of information on the rights and benefits to the applicants will continue to exist and is estimated to require 0.5 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. · Continuation of the 160 working hours for the Commission's DG JLS to identify the best practices on the application of the policy option and 80 working hours to diffuse these. EN 107
Table A.2: Policy Options Obligations in 'Scenario t0' Tariff ( per Price Freq Nbr Total nbr Regulatory Total Time (per action (per of of origin cost hour) (hour) or equip) year) entities actions (%) Description of required Type of obligation Target group i e i e Int EU Nat Reg action(s) Familiarising with the information obligation MS 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 Asylum Services Other 24 160.00 3,814.4 1.00 27 27 102,989 100% Familiarising with the information obligation MS 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 Asylum Services Other 24 80.00 1,907.2 1.00 27 27 51,494 100% Designing information material (leaflet conception...) MS Asylum Services Other 24 40.00 953.6 1.00 27 27 25,747 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services Other 24 127,573.00 3,041,340.3 1.00 1 1 3,041,340 100% Other Producing new data DG JLS 24 160.00 3,814.4 1.00 1 1 3,814 100% Designing information material (leaflet conception...) DG JLS Other 24 80.00 1,907.2 1.00 1 1 1,907 100% Total administrative 3,289,086 costs () EN 108
Tariff ( per Price Freq Number Total number Regulatory Total Time (per action (per of of origin cost hour) (hour) or equip) year) entities actions (%) Description of required Target group i e i e Int EU Nat Reg action(s) Familiarising with the information obligation MS Asylum Services 24 48.00 1,144.3 1.00 27 27 30,897 100% Designing information material (leaflet conception...) MS Asylum Services 24 24.00 572.2 1.00 27 27 15,448 100% Submitting the information (sending it to the designated recipient) MS Asylum Services 24 127,573.00 3,041,340.3 1.00 1 1 3,041,340 100% Producing new data DG JLS 24 160.00 3,814.4 1.00 1 1 3,814 100% Designing information material (leaflet conception...) DG JLS 24 80.00 1,907.2 1.00 1 1 1,907 100% Total administrative 3,093,407 costs () EN 109
(see explanations below) Refugee status beneficiaries 2005-2008 Percentage of those between ages 18-64 (same as for SP) Number of Refugees after application of percentage for 2008 Number of SP after application of percentage for 2008 Total international protection ages 18 64 for 2005-2008 SP beneficiaries 2005 2008 Percentage of SP between 18-64 in 2008 10320 63,3 6528 640 63,3 405 7636 60 88,1 53 755 88,1 665 1561 740 73,4 543 525 73,4 386 1527 18320 57,0 10448 3375 57,0 1925 15804 5 0,0 0 0 0,0 0 0 1525 73,8 1125 5 73,8 4 1207 555 74,3 413 305 74,3 227 1019 780 62,5 488 215 62,5 134 899 14345 85,6 12284 1115 85,6 955 14439 4900 94,1 4610 22070 94,1 20763 47537 5 n/a n/a 15 n/a n/a 45 69,2 31 235 69,2 163 498 340 60,0 204 840 60,0 504 1608 535 75,0 401 350 75,0 263 1089 90 94,3 85 3010 94,3 2839 6028 1840 75,8 1395 13455 75,8 10202 25128 14355 12,7 1821 105 12,7 13 1952 1070 46,2 495 7820 46,2 3616 11977 45 64,3 29 95 64,3 61 249 295 57,9 171 35 57,9 20 284 15 n/a n/a 25 n/a n/a 45 94,1 42 160 94,1 151 447 200 67,0 134 1155 67,0 774 2130 3560 68,7 2444 43730 68,7 30027 76270 14335 53,9 7730 9880 53,9 5328 22992 88325 67,2 59373 111045 67,2 74646 245132 EN 110
89 . On the basis of this data, 238533,8 4779,1 3560,4 5232,5 2951,8 42020,9 695 2242 4937,4 22848,4 28234 25096,4 397,9 1215 1614 212,9 4208,7 170,3 8835,9 4252,1 17010,6 5625,1 9944,6 1041,8 2689,5 2702,9 4895,7 31119,7 Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers (OJ L 199, p. 123) EN 111
90 For example, the United States government Office of 91 With a 92 ) that would need specialized http://www.irct.org/Find-IRCT-members-33.aspx . Source: UNHCR Statistical Population Database, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/45c063a82.html. EN 112
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 113
MS Elements of integration/integration programmes Costs MT Management of the open accommodation centres by O.I.W.A.S and the organisations that administer certain homes on their behalf Exceeded EUR 1.7M in 2007 LT Integration of refugees LTL 1,100,000 (EUR 318,582) for 2006 LTL 1,200,000 (EUR 347,544) for 2007 LU Funds allocated to organisations supporting asylum seekers and refugees EUR 18,406,634 in 2006 (total cost, the share allocated to the organisations was not specified) LV Adaptation programme for general education for children of people who have received asylum seeker status EUR 29,026 in 2008 PL Poviat Family Support Centers: 1,614,792 PLN (EUR 338,405) in 2005 Individual Integration Programmes in Poland covered the following number of people in particular years: in 2005 - 486 refugees, in 2006 709 persons with the refugee status and in 2007 640 persons (data from the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy). 2,559,482 PLN (EUR 536,380) in 2006 1,895,646 PLN (EUR 397,262) in 2007 Public funds transferred by the public administration for non-governmental organisations implementing programmes for the integration of refugees 122,300 PLN (EUR 25,630) in 2005 93 161,000 PLN (EUR 33,740) in 2006 1,541,964 PLN (EUR 323,143) in 2007 EE Within the framework of the measure "Education" of the National Integration Programme 2000-2007, state co financing of the mission "Creation of a Schooling System for the Children of New Immigrants and Refugees in Order to Allow them to Acquire Education in the Estonian Education System" 5,048,314 Estonian kroons (EUR 337,025) in 2000-2007 State financing within the framework of the European 403,750 Estonian kroons (EUR 26,954) EN 114
Social Fund's EQUAL project "Improvement of Estonia's Readiness for Integration of Asylum Seekers into the Society" (year unknown) FI Projects promoting integration EUR 200,000 in 2007 Training within the framework of basic education EUR 2.2 million in 2006 Remedial immigrant education within the framework of basic education EUR 1.8 million in 2006 Preparatory classes for elementary education EUR 7.7 million in 2006 Preparatory classes for basic vocational education EUR 7.8 million SI Accommodation and care of applicants and persons who have obtained international protection EUR 1.5 million in 2008-2013 GR Receiving, accommodating, providing social support to and arranging the voluntary return of asylum seekers and refugees EUR 1,974,501 in 2005 EUR 2,165,000 in 2006 EUR 2,265,000 in 2007 UK Six funding streams which assist the integration of refugees with full or subsidiary forms of refugee protection status EUR 4.66 million in 2006-2008 NL Specific budget for integration policy in the Netherlands from the Minister for Residents, Neighbourhoods and Integration (Specific amounts for the refugee policy are unknown. The amounts in the budgets for the specialist ministers involved in integration such as the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment and the Minister for Education, Culture and Science are not stated) See Table below CY The state bears a large part of the financial cost involved in hosting asylum seekers and also makes a large contribution towards the integration of groups (refugees, persons under subsidiary protection etc.). Benefits to asylum seekers and recognised refugees/persons under subsidiary protection EUR 17,000,000 in 2007 Remedial Greek education programmes to immigrant pupils at all levels of education EUR 2,220,000 per annum Operating the three existing educational priority zones EUR 1,366,000 per annum IT Resources for integration of asylum seekers and refugees EUR 27,670,067.05 in 2006 EUR 26,676,980.39 in 2007 EUR 21,181,883.08 in 2008 Project for consolidation and development of a national network of reception, assistance, protection and integration for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection EUR 8,200,000 in 2007 EN 115
Obligations: 461,159 483,324 478,061 443,990 442,131 442,131 Including commitments by way of - - - - - - guarantee Expenditure: 461,159 483,324 478,061 443,990 442,131 442,131 Including legal obligations - 414,406 253,414 57,431 55,432 54,432 Programme: 461,159 483,324 478,061 443,990 442,131 442,131 Naturalisation and ethnic minorities 380,939 397,416 397,273 366,635 366,295 366,295 Facilitating naturalisation 380,939 397,416 397,273 366,635 366,295 366,295 Including irrelevant expenditure loan 27,074 27,074 27,074 27,074 27,074 27,074 facility Reducing the economic, social and cultural gap 80,220 85,908 80,788 77,355 75,836 75,836 Facilitating re-migration 33,343 36,406 36,414 36,431 36,432 36,432 Other instruments 46,877 49,502 44,374 40,924 39,404 39,404 Receipts: 2,349 7,142 11,723 16,320 20,404 24,464 Including irrelevant expenditure loan 1,895 6,688 11,269 15,866 19,950 24,010 facility EN 116
Cost 433,211.28 EMS - "All Together in Cyprus" Raising awareness in Cyprus on issues that concern refugees and persons under subsidiary protection, 117,173.99 IMCS Intercollege Vocational training to refugees and persons with subsidiary protection, 48,339.67 IMCS Intercollege Provision of Greek language programs to refugees and persons with subsidiary protection, 83,517.81. IMH "Integration Routes" Vocational training of refugees and persons under subsidiary protection, 56,926.67 2007: EMS - "All Together in Cyprus" Raising awareness in Cyprus on issues that concern refugees and persons under subsidiary protection, 127,481.00 University of Nicosia Vocational training to refugees and persons with subsidiary protection, 42,715.00 Frederick Orientation programs for refugees and persons with subsidiary protection, 25,629.00 MMC Management Centre Ltd Provision of Greek language programs to refugees and persons with subsidiary protection, 84,669.74 Czech language courses (free of charge): 2006: 37600 2007: 130 000 2008: 148 000 (until 31.7.2008) 2006: ca 120,000 SEK (11298) per person received 2007: ca 175 000 SEK (16476) per person received 2008: ca 220 000 SEK (20713) per person received (estimated) EN 117
-
-Q 40 B What is the total budget of reception conditions in euro for the last year for which figures are available? - Q 40 C What is the average cost of reception conditions in euro per asylum seeker for the last year for which figures are available? Question 40 B Question 40 C En 2005, le budget total de l'Agence (FEDASIL) s'est élevé à 238.041.764 Euros se répartissant comme suit : dotation fédérale de 223.176.000 Euros, dotation de la Loterie Nationale de 13.500.000 Euros et une contribution du Fonds européen pour les réfugiés de 1.365.764 Euros. Il y a lieu de remarquer que ce budget n'est pas uniquement alloué aux demandeurs d'asile mais comprend également l'accueil des personnes en séjour illégal ayant des enfants mineurs en état de besoin et les personnes ne pouvant, pour des raisons médicales ou des raisons indépendantes de leur volonté, retourner dans leur pays d'origine. Par ailleurs, il faut également prendre en considération l'aide sociale octroyée par les centres publics d'aide sociale. · Aide matérielle : Cette donnée n'est pas disponible. · Aide sociale octroyée par un Centre public d'aide sociale : Personne cohabitante 417,07 Euros/mois Personne isolée 625,60 Euros/mois Personne avec ménage à charge 834,14 Euros/mois Total budget of the RFA for running asylum centres in 2005 was 334,554,000 CZK (11,665,195).55 This 9.5 % less than in 2004 (370,085,000 CZK)56 but expenses per day (of stay in asylum centre) increased by 28 %, i.e. from 444 CZK (15,5) to 499 CZK (17.4). According to the Small Scale Study on Reception Conditions of the European Migration Network (see Q.8), the amount paid for an applicant per residential day is approximately 388 CZK (excepting investments and employee wages), i.e. 11.640 CZK per month ( 412). Total budget of the RFA in 2005 consists of: reception conditions stricto sensu (57%; 189,933,623 CZK, 6,622,586); wages (36%; 120,414,000 CZK, 4,198,583); and investment expenses (7%; 24,206,422 CZK, 844,027). Furthermore, the RFA provided financial contribution to the municipalities that consisted of 3,473,000 CZK (121,096) for expenses related to the running and management of the asylum facilities and 110,000 CZK (3,836) for expenses related to the education of minor asylum seekers. According to the information on website of the RFA, it amounts approximately to 350 CZK per day, i.e. 10.050 CZK per month ( 372). And finally, if we calculate the compulsory financial contribution of the applicants who have sufficient resources, it amounts to 258 CZK per day, i.e. 7.740 CZK per month ( 274). Total estimated budget of the RFA in 2006 is 288,057,000 CZK () and consists of: reception conditions stricto sensu (46%; 131,083,000 CZK, 4,570,589); wages (47%; 136,595,000 CZK, 4,762,780); and investment expenses (7%; 20,379,000 CZK, 710,573). In 2003, 1.4 billion Euro have been spent on benefits under the Act on The average cost for reception conditions can hardly be determined Benefits for Asylum Seekers. However, this number has to be read with the same reservations as above. since they depend on too many factors: the type of accommodation facility, if single men/women or families are concerned, if unaccompanied minors are concerned, the stage of the asylum procedure etc. According to the Estonian European Refugee Fund plan for the years 2005-2007, planned salary of CMB decision makers (five people) in 2005 was 1 076 010 EEK = 68798 EUR . No direct figures available, but if we add above mentions costs and divide them by number of asylum seekers then the amount per asylum seeker is 207 625 EEK or 13 275 EUR. In reality the sum is bigger as also finances that NGOs use should be added. Expenses on translators in 2005 for nine months was 21 600 EEK = 1381 EUR. Costs of the reception centre in 2005 are 1 186 265 EN 118
EEK = 75848 EUR. There are also projects managed by NGOs and financed by EU funds that support the reception conditions improvements. 44 The only information received by the Spanish authorities refers to the Q.40. C and D answered jointly: The costs of reception conditions are supported by the central information provided by Spain to Eurostat. Relating the target group of article government, taking into account also the funds of the European Refugee Fund and the ENEAS EQUAL programme. 3.3 European Refugee Fund II, the amounts are in the last three years: About financing Reception Centres, see Article 7 of Ministerial Order of 13 January 1989, regulating the Reception Centres for Refugees. - 2003: 5927. - 2004: 5553. - 2005: 5257. Selon les travaux parlementaires, le budget alloué à l'hébergement des demandeurs d'asile s'élevait en 2005 à 182 305 828 euros. Celui affecté à l'allocation d'insertion pour les demandeurs d'asile à 152 000 000 euros. Le coût journalier d'une place en CADA est d'environ 25 euros et plus exactement de 24, 82 euros. Le directeur de la DPM, lors de son audition par la MEC26 indique : "le coût moyen d'une place en CADA est exactement de 24,82 euros par personne et par jour. Ce chiffre, qui recouvre l'hébergement, la nourriture, l'accompagnement social, le transport vers l'OFPRA, le financement des éléments de la scolarisation des enfants et les petites dépenses de la vie quotidienne, ne paraît pas exorbitant. Par comparaison, une place en CHRS revient à presque 40 euros... Le coût de l'hébergement d'urgence est quant à lui estimé à un peu moins de 17 euros. Signalons toutefois, par honnêteté, que nous avons une mauvaise appréciation des coûts de l'hébergement en urgence alors que, pour les CADA, nous les connaissons à l'euro près, même si nous sommes en train d'en revoir totalement la structure avec les organismes gestionnaires, conformément aux exigences de la LOLF". Concernant les dépenses de santé, la Mission d'évaluation et de contrôle estimait que les dépenses dégagées par l'Etat en 2004 (sur la base approximative de 90 000 demandeurs d'asile en cours de procédure) s'élevaient à 204 500 000 (évaluation comprenant la CMU de base et la complémentaire). Au total, les dépenses engagées par la France au titre des conditions d'accueil des demandeurs d'asile peuvent être évalué à 538 805 828 euros (cette évaluation ne comprenant pas les crédits déconcentrés aux collectivités territoriales [environ 11 500 000 euros], qui gèrent les situations de mineurs isolés ainsi que les centres de rétentions administratives, et les aides versées aux associations (1 620 000 euros). Il n'existe pas d'évaluation disponible sur le coût moyen d'un demandeur d'asile par an. Sur le fondement des données délivrées par la Mission d'évaluation et de contrôle, il est possible d'estimer que le coût moyen d'un demandeur d'asile hébergé en CADA (hébergement et soins de santé) s'élève à 11 332 euros par an (9060 euros d'hébergement et 2 273 euros de soins). Pour un demandeur d'asile qui ne bénéficie pas d'un hébergement en centre d'accueil, le coût annuel s'élève approximativement à 5 813 euros (allocation d'insertion et soins de santé). Activities and interventions in favour of asylum seekers are financed through a National Fund Official figures are not available. However, based upon the calculation that has been performed by ICS in their 2006 report, taking into account the funds allocated to for asylum policies and services, instituted within the Ministry of Interior. This Fund accommodation of asylum seekers and the number of asylum seekers who have benefited from such accommodation, it results that in 2005 the average cost per person amounted to approximately 19 Euro. includes: - Government budget in favour of asylum seekers and refuges; - Financial contribution from the European Fund for refugees; As ICS points out such amount is all inclusive since it refers to the costs for housing and food, as well as for all the services that are supplied to the asylum seeker and to his/her family. - Financial contributions and gifts of private entities, associations and organisations, also at the international level, and made by other entities of the European Union. Pursuant to article 13 of legislative Decree 140/05, the government budget amounted in 2004 to Euro 5,16 million. In 2005 such amount was increased of Euro 8.865.500 and in 2006 of EN 119
Euro 17.731.000. Based upon the 2006 ICS report, it results that the total budget granted to the SPRAR in 2005 amounted to Euro 14.970.354. Out of this amount only Euro 10.604.732 were destined to ensure the activity of the accommodation centres. The residual amount was destined to cover the following costs: 1) activity of the central system of protection; 2) assisted repatriation; 3) contributions of first assistance. The total budget for reception conditions is 420,000 Cyprus pounds. 511 Euro per person per month (Approximately 700000 Euros) In 2005 and in 2006 the annual total budget for the reception system was LVL 87 723 (EUR It is not possible to provide the average cost since the budget for the reception does not 125 318, 56). provide for such a detailed calculation. However please take into account that in 2006 LVL 87 723 (EUR 125 318, 56) are available for the reception centre, where 200 inhabitants can be house and only 5 asylum seekers stayed or continue staying in this centre during first 6 months of 2006. There are no numbers available as to the total budget specifically No such calculations are available. for reception conditions, thus only the data on expenses for accommodation of asylum seekers in the reception centres could be presented. Furthermore, the financial data was only available for 2004 for the FRC. Total budget for reception of foreigners in the Foreigners' Registration Centre in 2004 was 850,295 Euro, fully covered from the state budget. Asylum seekers' reception constituted 323,538 Euro. It covered health care, nutrition, heating and electricity costs, monthly allowances, etc. The budget for reception at the Refugee Reception Centre in 2004 (also fully funded from the state budget) was 469,156 Euro. In 2005, the budget of the RRC was approximately 481,159 Euro. D'après les chiffres donnés par le Commissariat du Gouvernement aux Etrangers, en 2005, le coût de l'accueil et de l'entretien, s'est élevé à 18.468.319,21.-. Ce montant comprend entre autre les frais de personnel engagés par des ONGs en application d'accords de collaboration D'après les chiffres du Commissariat du Gouvernement aux Etrangers, le coût moyen en termes d'acceil d'un demandeur d'asile en 2005, s'est élevé à 9.267,06.-. conclus entre le Commissariat du Gouvernement aux Etrangers, la Croix Rouge Luxembourgeoise et la Caritas. Ce montant ne comprend pas le coût du personnel de l'Etat, des fonctionnaires, des employés et du personnel administratif et technique du Commissariat du Gouvernement aux Etrangers, ni les charges de l'accueil et le suivi psychosocial et sanitaire des demandeurs d'asile. No such data is available at the moment. the magnitude of the costs can be calculated in the Center Average cost in Euro* Békéscsaba 24.76 following way: Bicske The daily person/day overall average cost is available for all the three centers. That can be multiplied by the days and persons actually spent there 18,43 Debrecen 17,52 EN 120
-
*Rate vaguely that of December 2005 = 1 Euro = 250 HUF *Rate vaguely that of December 2005 = 1 Euro = 250 HUF Center Average cost in HUF Days in 2005 Total in HUF Total in EUR* Békéscsaba 6.190 30.196 186.913.240 Bicske 4608 49.402 227.644.416 Debrecen 4.380 88.202 438.088.202 Grand total 852.645.858 3.410.583 The total budget has been calculated by JHA to have been in the region of Lm5,000,000 (x 2.3 in euros) for the past year, but infrastructural works to improve and extend reception areas are in progress. Repair to damages That would be approximately Lm5 million divided by the numbers in open and closed centres, which are not static, but would be at least about 2,000 (some 800 staying at the Marsa open centre alone). caused, the detailing of personnel on land, at sea and in the air, fuel, wearand-tear, including police and army services, medical attention and hospital care, teachers and school, counsellors and coordinators, food and drink, transport, telephone cards which are given to inmates every two months, transport allowance, repatriations, upkeep, etc., all cost money, in a country where there has not been a rise in government-related salaries for years, in spite of a spiralling cost of living and unemployment above the EU average. Based on a capacity of 24 142 places, the COA's total costs for 2006 are estimated at 418.4 million (Minister of Justice and Minister for Alien Affairs and Integration: Determination of the budget of the Ministry for Justice (VI) for the year 2006 (published in the Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 2006, 63): Explanatory Memorandum). This includes amongst others the costs for COA's products and services and the costs for benefits provided to asylum seekers. No itemized figures available. A total budget cannot be given, because the Laender calculate independently and often benefits granted (like psychological care, schooling for asylum seekers etc) are not cited under the title of care for asylum seekers. The most reliable figure is probably the amount given in the explanatory notes of the Government Bill for the Basic Welfare Support Agreement: the estimated costs of reception conditions amounted to Euro 125.675.660,00, based on the assumption that 16 000 asylum seekers are in the care system (based on figures of 2002). In view of the above mentioned number of asylum seekers enjoying reception conditions of course this figure is no longer up to date. The Government Bills for a Basic Welfare Support Act for Burgenland and Upper Austria calculated 7.300,- per person and year. In 2005 the Office spent about 42 618 000 PLN (it is almost 11 000 000 euro), including 1 818 000 thousands PLN for medical treatment (about 466 153 euro). It about 1000 PLN per person (on average).It is about 250 euro per month per person. Le budget total du Conseil portugais pour les réfugiés a été de 209 011, 42 euros pour 2005. 2.049,13 euros pour demandeur d'asile en 2005. Total budget for reception conditions for 2004 was 1,057,365.21 EUR. The figure for 2005 is not available. The average cost of reception conditions in 2005 were approximately 18.19 EUR per asylum seeker per day. The total budget for 2005 was approximately 2 576 000 EUR. In the budget are included not only expenses for accommodation, food, pocket money, hygienic and other items, and health care, but also operational costs. The average cost per asylum seeker is approximately 20 EUR. In the budget are included not only expenses for accommodation, food, pocket money, hygienic and other items, and health care, but also operational costs. The total figure in 2005 was 34.362.355 euros. The average cost in 2005 per place in a reception centre was 14.124/place/year, and in the reception units for unaccompanied minors, 39.650 euros/place/year. EN 121
The total cost for reception conditions in 2005 was 388,573,000 Euro (SEK 3,603,781 000).91 The average cost for reception conditions for twenty-four hours to an individual in 2005 was 28,4 Euro (SEK 263).92 From this amount the cost for an individual for a one year period should be around 10,353 Euro (SEK 96,000) per year. Costs estimates for asylum support for 2005-06 are around £170 million (250 million). (See NASS evidence to House of Lords 32nd Report of Session 2005-06, p.52) The cost of accommodation and cash support per person in dispersed accommodation is £610 ( 900) per month. The cost of cash support for those requiring "subsistence only" support is £170 (250) per month (see NASS evidence to House of Lords 32nd Report of Session 2005-06, p.52). - Asylum seekers who cannot be accommodated in reception centres receive some financial support, namely around 18 euro per day for a maximum of 45 days (Study of the European Migration Network, "Reception systems, their capacities and the Social situation of Asylum applicants within the Reception System in the EU Member States", page 17 ) - Costs for reception in the region of Veneto are nearly 30 euro per person per day, whilst reception of vulnerable persons costs around 35 euro per day. This includes reception (accommodation, meals, etc), integration assistance, a public transport card and pocket money of 90 euro per month. The costs also cover administration and management (according to information provided on 5 May 2009 by Sara Scaggiante, responsible for the BOA Reception Centre). - Disabled asylum seekers are entitled to a community care assessment on which basis the local authority may decide to offer services to meet eligible assessed needs. They are not generally eligible for benefits, but can be provided with accommodation and minimal financial support (around 40 GBP per week) from the National Asylum Support Service. EN 122
