Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 52009SC1373

Commission staff working document accompanying 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 - Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 551} {SEC(2009) 1374}

/* SEC/2009/1373 final */

Date of document:
21/10/2009
Date of dispatch:
21/10/2009; Forwarded to the Council
Date of end of validity:
No end date
Author:
European Commission
Form:
Impact assessment
Additional information:
COD 2009/0164
Treaty:
Treaty establishing the European Community
Legal basis:
Link
Link
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Related document(s):

52009SC1373

Commission staff working document accompanying 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 - Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 551} {SEC(2009) 1374} /* SEC/2009/1373 final */


en

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 21.10.2009

SEC(2009) 1373 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying 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 Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 551} {SEC(2009) 1374}

1 PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 4

(...)

1.1 Background 4

(...)

1.1.1 Policy context 4

(...)

1.1.2 Organization and timing, consultation and expertise 6

(...)

1.2 The Impact Assessment Board 7

(...)

2 PROBLEM DEFINITION 8

(...)

2.1 Scope of the problem 8

(...)

2.2 What is the issue or the problem that may require action? 8

(...)

2.2.1 Harmonization on the basis of minimum standards: meaning, main elements and objectives 9

(...)

2.2.2 Problems with the standards set down by the current Directive 10

(...)

2.2.3 Statistical evidence of insufficient harmonization 13

(...)

2.2.4 The effect of insufficient harmonization on secondary movements 14

(...)

2.2.5 Insufficient harmonization as one of the factors for the unequal distribution of asylum seekers 15

(...)

2.2.6 Evidence for poor first instance decision-making 15

(...)

2.2.7 Difficulties in forecasting and quantifying costs in the asylum system 16

(...)

2.2.8 The economic situation 16

(...)

2.3 The Baseline scenario: "How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?" 17

(...)

2.4 Does the EU have the power to act? 18

(...)

2.4.1 The EU's right to act 18

(...)

2.4.2 Added value of EU action and respect for the principle of subsidiarity 18

(...)

3 OBJECTIVES 19

(...)

3.1 Global objective 19

(...)

3.2 Specific objectives 20

(...)

3.3 Operational objectives 20

(...)

4 POLICY OPTIONS 21

(...)

4.1 Status Quo 21

(...)

4.2 To limit the broad interpretation of "actors of protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention 21

(...)

4.3 To limit the broad interpretation of the concept of "internal protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention and the ECHR 22

(...)

4.4 To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the concept "particular social group" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention 24

(...)

4.5 To approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees 26

(...)

4.5.1 Duration of residence permits 26

(...)

4.5.2 Access to employment 27

(...)

4.5.3 Access to integration facilities 28

(...)

4.6 To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs 29

(...)

4.6.1 To enhance access to procedures for recognition of qualifications 29

(...)

4.6.2 To enhance access to vocational training and employment 32

(...)

4.6.3 To enhance access to integration facilities 33

(...)

4.6.4 To enhance access to accommodation 34

(...)

4.7 To better ensure the right of beneficiaries of international protection for respect of family life 36

(...)

4.8 Summary of further non contentious policy options selected 38

(...)

5 Presentation of the Preferred Policy Option 39

(...)

6 Assessment of Preferred Policy Option 39

(...)

6.1 EU added value 39

(...)

6.2 Proportionality 39

(...)

6.3 Summary of relevance, feasibility and expected impacts 40

(...)

6.4 Potential magnitude of financial impacts 44

(...)

6.4.1 Potential costs 44

(...)

6.4.2 Potential savings 48

(...)

6.4.3 Assistance from the European Refugee Fund and from the Asylum Support Office 49

(...)

6.4.4 Longer term benefits of successful integration 50

(...)

6.5 Tackling abuse of the asylum system 50

(...)

7 Monitoring and Evaluation 51

(...)

Lead DG: Justice, Freedom and Security

1 PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Policy context

Creating a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as a constituent part of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice emerged from the idea of making the EU a single protection area for persons in need of protection, based on the full and inclusive application of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ("Geneva Convention") and on the common humanitarian values shared by all Member States (MS).The objective pursued is a level playing field, where persons genuinely in need of protection are guaranteed access to a high level of protection under equivalent conditions in all MS and where those found not to be in need of protection are treated fairly and efficiently. As set out in the Tampere European Council Conclusions and confirmed in the Hague Programme, the objectives of the CEAS consist in the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform protection status valid throughout the EU.

In line with the Tampere Conclusions, the first stage of the creation of the CEAS involved harmonising MS' legal frameworks on the basis of common minimum standards. Considerable progress between 1999 and 2006 included the adoption of the four main legislative instruments which make up the current acquis. Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the " Qualification Directive") defined common criteria for the identification of persons in need of international protection and ensured that at least a minimum level of benefits is available for these persons in all MS.

The Hague Programme invited the Commission to evaluate the first-phase asylum instruments and to submit the second-phase instruments to the Council and the European Parliament before the end of 2010. On the basis of this evaluation, shortcomings have been identified and it is clear that the agreed common minimum standards have not created the desired level playing field.

In the Policy Plan on Asylum Policy Plan on Asylum ‘An integrated approach to protection across the EU’ COM(2008) 360 ("Policy Plan") of 17 June 2008, the Commission proposed the completion of the second phase of the CEAS through raising the standards of protection and ensuring their consistent application across the EU. The European Pact on Immigration and Asylum ("Pact"), adopted by the European Council on 17 October 2008, provided further political endorsement and impetus to this objective, by calling for initiatives to complete the establishment of the CEAS with a view to offering a higher degree of protection.[1]

Policy Plan on Asylum ‘An integrated approach to protection across the EU’ COM(2008) 360

In accordance with the roadmap set out in the Policy Plan, the Commission adopted, on 3 December 2008, proposals for the amendment of three first-phase instruments, e.g. the Dublin Regulation, the Eurodac Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive Proposal 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 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 Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person ( COM (2008) 820 final/2); Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EC) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person] ( COM (2008) 825 final) and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (COM 2008(815 final/2) , and, on 18 February 2009, a proposal for the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office ("EASO") Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Asylum Support Office (COM (2009) 66 final) . Further measures to be taken in the short-term in accordance with the Policy Plan include a proposal for the amendment of the Asylum Procedures Directive Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005, on procedures in MS for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, page 13) , to be adopted together with the proposal for the amendment of the Qualification Directive, as well as measures to reinforce the external asylum dimension, including by establishing a joint EU resettlement scheme and further developing Regional Protection Programmes. [2][3][4]

Proposal 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 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 Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person ( COM (2008) 820 final/2); Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EC) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person] ( COM (2008) 825 final) and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (COM 2008(815 final/2)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Asylum Support Office (COM (2009) 66 final)

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005, on procedures in MS for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, page 13)

There are several reasons why, in the present settings, a revision of the Directive can be realistically expected to achieve higher and more harmonised protection standards than those established in the first phase:

a) As will be demonstrated in detail below, the restrictive interpretation of human rights instruments forming the basis of the existing Directive's standards, the ambiguity, the possibilities for derogation and the low level of harmonization which characterize the Directive are due, to a large extent, to the unanimity requirement for its adoption. A fundamental difference in the political and legal framework for the adoption of the second-phase Directive is the applicability of Article 251 TEC (‘the co-decision procedure’), which means qualified majority voting in the Council and a stronger role for the European Parliament as co-legislator.

b) Negotiations in the 2 nd phase will start from a solid basis: certain progress has already been accomplished and the amending proposal is based on a thorough assessment of the implementation of the Directive , taking into account the results of the evaluations and the consultations with MS. On this basis, the amendments proposed seek to remedy the deficiencies identified and to address the concerns expressed by the MS themselves . For instance, the MS themselves have acknowledged the difficulties involved in implementing some of the vague and ambiguous provisions of the Directive; thus, the clarification of concepts and removal of current ambiguities is expected to result in streamlining, facilitating and enhancing the quality of the first-instance examinations of asylum applications, as well as in reducing appeals. Similarly, in the Pact, the European Council pointed to the persistence of wide disparities amongst MS in the granting of protection and the form of protection granted as the main problem to be addressed and called for a higher degree of protection.

c) A further factor expected to facilitate the adoption of the higher standards proposed is that they correspond to a large extent to recent developments in the case-law of the ECtHR and the ECJ , as well as in national jurisprudences. The standards set in the relevant rulings do not suffice as such to address the problems and inconsistencies identified, but can provide the basis for the establishment of acquis rules benefitting from the accessibility and coherent application across the EU guaranteed by the Community legal and institutional framework

d) Furthermore, the proposed legislative harmonisation based on high standards should not be seen in isolation but rather as a necessary complement, a piece to be added in a puzzle of EU policies and measures:

- The revision of the Qualification Directive is in particular complementary to the revision of the Asylum Procedures Directive. The revision of the latter Directive aims at providing asylum authorities with procedural tools which can adequately back up the correct and consistent implementation of the substantive criteria of the Qualification Directive and more generally at boosting the overall capacity of asylum authorities to make robust decisions and to efficiently manage the asylum process , through a wide range of frontloading measures.

- At the same time, by enabling authorities to process claims more rapidly while reaching solid decisions and thus to better deal with abuse, the Qualification Directive fits in the broader context of measures taken to improve the credibility of the asylum process notably by increasing the effectiveness of return policies, in particular through the entry into force of the "Return Directive" and the creation of the European Return Fund.

- Ensuring that asylum seekers have equal access to protection throughout the EU through further harmonization of rules and practices regarding the granting of protection, as envisaged by the revision, is a prerequisite for the effective functioning and the credibility of the Dublin System . As demonstrated in the Commission's proposal for its revision, the underlying principles of this System have been considered worth to uphold in the second phase. However, it has become clear that further efforts towards the achievement of a level-playing field are urgently needed with a view to ensuring that the Dublin System can operate in a fair and efficient manner.

- The proposals for the revision of the Dublin Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive contain elements regarding, for instance, the respect of the principle of non-discrimination and other fundamental rights or broadening the definition of family members which should be reflected in the revision of the Qualification Directive in order to ensure coherence in the instruments of the second-phase acquis .

- With a view to reducing secondary movements, the proposed revision of the Qualification Directive aims at addressing one of the relevant drivers, namely that asylum seekers have different chances of finding protection and the possibility to obtain, once recognised, different levels of rights in the different MS. It is thus part of a broader effort made in the second phase to reduce secondary movements : other drivers relating to the divergences in reception conditions and asylum procedures are being addressed in parallel, through the revision of the Reception Conditions Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive. The approximation of national practices will also increase as a result of enhanced practical cooperation through the creation of the EASO. In parallel, as a means of addressing the consequences of the uneven distribution of asylum seekers, further measures are being currently developed to ensure that responsibility for processing asylum applications and granting protection in the EU is shared more equitably, notably by assisting, based on the principle of solidarity, those MS which because of their geographical position are faced with particular pressures.

1.1.2 Organization and timing, consultation and expertise

The Commission presented in June 2007 a Green Paper COM (2007) 301 on possible options for the second phase of the CEAS. The contributions received from a wide range of stakeholders put across a broad range of views and ideas on possible amendments to the Directive. The Commission has collected information about the transposition and implementation of the Directive through its monitoring activities and has taken into account several studies Further studies include: UNHCR, "Asylum in the European Union, A study on the implementation of the Qualification Directive", November 2007 http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=473050632&page=search (the "UNHCR study"); ELENA/ECRE, "The impact of the EU Qualification Directive on International protection", October 2008, http://www.ecre.org/files/ECRE_QD_study_full.pdf.( "ECRE study"); France Terre d'Asile, "Asile La protection subsidiaire en Europe: Un mosaïque de droits", Les cahiers du social no 18, Septembre 2008; Dutch Refugee Council/ECRE, ‘Networking on the Transposition of the Qualification Directive’, December 2008, http://www.qualificationdirective.eu/research ; Nijmegen University, "The Qualification Directive: Central themes, Problem issues, and Implementation in selected MS", Karin Zwaan (ed), 2007 evaluating the implementation of the Directive and notably a report carried out, on behalf of the Commission, by the academic network Odysseus (the "Odysseus report") Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/wai/doc_asylum_studies_en.htm . Moreover, an external study GHK, Impact assessment studies on The future development of measures on the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as persons in need of international protection and on the content of the protection granted, based on Council Directive 2004/83/EC and The future development of measures on procedures in MS for granting and withdrawing refugee status, based on Council Directive 2005/85/EC, Multiple framework service contract JLS/2006/A1/004. was conducted on behalf of the Commission, analysing the existing evidence and results of consultation and questionnaires and further data was collected from academic publications and from commentaries by UNHCR and civil society stakeholders. [5][6][7][8]

COM (2007) 301

Further studies include: UNHCR, "Asylum in the European Union, A study on the implementation of the Qualification Directive", November 2007 http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=473050632&page=search (the "UNHCR study"); ELENA/ECRE, "The impact of the EU Qualification Directive on International protection", October 2008, http://www.ecre.org/files/ECRE_QD_study_full.pdf.( "ECRE study"); France Terre d'Asile, "Asile La protection subsidiaire en Europe: Un mosaïque de droits", Les cahiers du social no 18, Septembre 2008; Dutch Refugee Council/ECRE, ‘Networking on the Transposition of the Qualification Directive’, December 2008, http://www.qualificationdirective.eu/research ; Nijmegen University, "The Qualification Directive: Central themes, Problem issues, and Implementation in selected MS", Karin Zwaan (ed), 2007

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/wai/doc_asylum_studies_en.htm

GHK, Impact assessment studies on The future development of measures on the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as persons in need of international protection and on the content of the protection granted, based on Council Directive 2004/83/EC and The future development of measures on procedures in MS for granting and withdrawing refugee status, based on Council Directive 2005/85/EC, Multiple framework service contract JLS/2006/A1/004.

The Commission organised several experts' meetings to discuss possible amendments to the Directive: a meeting with judges, academics, UNHCR and a selected number of experts from MS on 26.06.2008; two meetings with MS (one at experts' level on 19.11.2008 and another one in the context of the Committee on Immigration and Asylum on 12.12.2008) and two meetings with NGOs, on 8.1.2009 and 23.2.2009 The main findings of all these consultations are presented in Annex 2. . The report also incorporates comments submitted during two meetings of the Inter-service Steering Group, on 18.12.2008 and 18.2.2009. In addition, bilateral consultations took place with DG EMPL, MARKT and EAC as well as with the Legal Service.[9]

The main findings of all these consultations are presented in Annex 2.

1.2 The Impact Assessment Board

The Impact Assessment (IA) was revised to take into account the opinions issued by the Impact Assessment Board on 6 April and 28 July 2009 The opinion will be available at: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2009_en.htm . . In particular, the IA explains to what extent the revision of legal norms can address the problem of low and diverse standards and how the harmonisation of minimum standards can contribute to a fairer burden-sharing among MS. Furthermore, it demonstrates more clearly the proportionality of the envisaged measures, it systematically refers to the number of MS potentially affected so as to provide indications of the magnitude of the implementation costs and further develops the monitoring and evaluation arrangements. In addition, the IA explains in a more comprehensive manner the different factors contributing to insufficient harmonisation and their interrelation with the flows of asylum seekers towards the different Member States. Finally, it specifically refers, for the different policy issues addressed, to the existing human rights standards set by EU or international law and demonstrates the necessity of EU action in those areas.[10]

The opinion will be available at: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2009_en.htm .

2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1 Scope of the problem

Following an increase between 1996 and 2002, fuelled by conflicts in former Yugoslavia, in the period 2003-2006 numbers of asylum seekers in the EU27 decreased sharply: from 344,800 asylum applications in 2003 to 197,410 in 2006 (-42.7%) See t able new asylum applications 1987-2007 in Annex 3 . This decreasing trend stopped in 2007, as numbers of applications rose to 222,170 (+12%), mainly due to the inflow of Iraqi asylum seekers. In 2008 there was a further increase (+8%) compared to 2007, as the number of applications reached 257,375 See Table in Annex 4 . Even so, asylum seekers represent a small fraction of overall migration flows to the EU (estimated at 1.5 -2 m immigrants per year). [11][12]

See t able new asylum applications 1987-2007 in Annex 3

See Table in Annex 4

The number of persons residing with a (refugee or other, humanitarian) protection status in the EU at the end of 2007 was close to 1.4 m , amounting thus to approximately 7.5% of the population of legally residing third country nationals (estimated at 18.5m) and representing 0.3% of the total EU population in 2007 (estimated at 497m). It should also be pointed out that this 1,4m represents a small part of the worldwide population of refugees , estimated at 11.4 m in 2007 UNHCR Annual Statistics Report 2007, available at www.unhcr.org/statistics . [13]

UNHCR Annual Statistics Report 2007, available at www.unhcr.org/statistics

2.2 What is the issue or the problem that may require action?

The flows of asylum seekers across the EU and the ways that individual MS choose to address these flows and handle asylum applications are interrelated in complex ways.

The diversity of national asylum legislations and practices was recognised from the beginning as one of the main factors affecting asylum flows Further factors include linguistic and cultural links, family ties, the presence of immigrant communities as well as geography. Indeed, as will be demonstrated below under section 2.2.5, some MS receive very high numbers of asylum seekers due to their geographical position. The different measures aimed at helping those MS adequately deal with these flows relate to financial solidarity, to burden sharing through relocation of beneficiaries of international protection and to tasks to be assigned to the future EASO. . Indeed, it was precisely with a view to limiting the impact of this factor on asylum flows the Tampere programme called for the adoption of legislative instruments harmonizing national asylum rules on the basis of minimum standards. [14]

Further factors include linguistic and cultural links, family ties, the presence of immigrant communities as well as geography. Indeed, as will be demonstrated below under section 2.2.5, some MS receive very high numbers of asylum seekers due to their geographical position. The different measures aimed at helping those MS adequately deal with these flows relate to financial solidarity, to burden sharing through relocation of beneficiaries of international protection and to tasks to be assigned to the future EASO.

However, as will be demonstrated below, the adoption of such standards was not sufficient in itself: divergences in asylum legislations and practices persist, despite the first phase of harmonization. There are several causes for these persistent divergences and, as will be demonstrated below, in sections 2.2.2 and 2.3, they are interlinked For instance, the vagueness, the ambiguity and the gaps in the Directive also make it difficult to substantiate infringement cases in cases of incomplete or incorrect implementation. . These factors in clude:[15]

For instance, the vagueness, the ambiguity and the gaps in the Directive also make it difficult to substantiate infringement cases in cases of incomplete or incorrect implementation.

- the incomplete and/or incorrect transposition and application of the acquis' rules, including the implementation of lower standards than those established by the acquis ;

- the implementation of higher standards than those established by the acquis;

- the vagueness and ambiguity of the acquis' standards.

The Commission is constantly and systematically monitoring the implementation of the asylum acquis by MS and any problems identified as flowing from the incomplete transposition or the incorrect implementation of these rules, including the implementation of lower standards, can only be addressed by infringement procedures.

Regarding the possibility for MS to go beyond the minimum standards prescribed by the acquis, as will be explained in more detail below under section 2.2.1, this possibility reflects the sovereign right of States to go beyond the minimum core of obligations established by human rights instruments and it is fundamental and inherent in human rights rules. Accordingly, all asylum Directives allow MS to introduce or retain more favourable standards, in so far as those standards are compatible with their rules. This possibility cannot be precluded and the ensuing divergences cannot be addressed by legislative measures. It is the European Court of Justice that, by applying this compatibility test, could eventually impose certain limits and define more clearly which more favourable national standards may be considered admissible.

However, the last factor, i.e. the vagueness and ambiguity of the acquis' standards themselves can (and indeed can only) be remedied by the amendment o f the first-phase legislation as called for by the Hague Programme.

2.2.1 Harmonization on the basis of minimum standards: meaning, main elements and objectives

Pursuant to Article 63 TEC, measures on qualification for refugee status and subsidiary protection are confined to setting minimum standards . This means that they aim at a certain degree of harmonization - and thus not at full harmonization - by establishing common denominators which are binding on all MS . However, they do not preclude MS from maintaining or introducing standards which are more favourable to the beneficiary of the EU legislation, provided that such alternative national standards do not annihilate the objective of harmonization. This approach is particularly relevant in the field of asylum. Indeed, the whole human rights edifice is based on international law instruments establishing a common core of obligations, whilst allowing signatory states to go beyond this minimum. As in other fields of EU law, the concept of harmonization on the basis of minimum standards addresses the division of powers between the Community and the MS The extent to which a Community measure may regulate a certain issue must be assessed by means of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. , not the specific content of Community measures. Hence, the common denominators established by way of minimum standards may set a high level of protection .[16]

The extent to which a Community measure may regulate a certain issue must be assessed by means of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

With a view to achieving the goals of the CEAS, the Directive aimed at ensuring that

- MS apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection and that

- at least a certain level of benefits would be available for these persons in all MS.

These minimum standards should therefore establish truly common denominators, achieving a meaningful level of harmonization. The main elements constituting the basis for these binding common denominators are Recitals 2, 3, 10 and 11 of the Directive[17]

Recitals 2, 3, 10 and 11 of the Directive

- the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention , which provides the cornerstone of the international regime for the protection of refugees, guaranteeing the principle of non-refoulement and ensuring that nobody is sent to persecution and,

- the fundamental rights flowing from general principles of Community law, which, themselves, are the result of constitutional traditions common to the MS and the European Convention on Human Rights, as enshrined, moreover, in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ("the Charter").

However, these human rights and refugee law standards set solely the lower threshold , not the upper limits of harmonization. Thus, harmonization cannot take place at a level lower than these standards, but may always go beyond this threshold, in line with the objectives set in the EU context and subject to the respect of proportionality and subsidiarity .

Harmonization on the basis of these standards should help to limit the secondary movements of asylum seekers between MS, where such movement is purely caused by differences in legal frameworks (recital 7 of the Directive) . At the same time, by ensuring that asylum seekers have equal access to protection in all MS, this harmonization constitutes a prerequisite for the fair and efficient operation of the Dublin system , which limits the possibility for asylum seekers to choose the MS which will examine their application.

2.2.2 Problems with the standards set down by the current Directive

On the basis of the contributions, evaluation reports, studies and ad hoc consultations referred to in section 1.1.2, the Commission has identified Asylum decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and their outcome depends not only on the applicable rules and their interpretation, but also on the credibility of the claims and the individual circumstances of the applicants. Moreover, MS do not systematically collect information on the specific grounds on which applications are accepted or rejected. As a result, it is not possible to determine with precision whether and to what extent the interpretation of certain provisions of the Directive in ways that may be incompatible with international standards have actually led to rejections of applications. The problems described below have been identified mainly on the basis of the – mostly anecdotal – evidence provided by the evaluation studies and the consultations: it refers to cases in the administrative and judicial practice in MS illustrating how the Directive allows for divergent interpretations and for measures that do not meet international standards. Indeed, even the UNHCR study, which was based on the sampling and analysis of a substantial number of asylum decisions and case files, could not establish more general decision-making patterns, as in many cases the assessment of the individual cases takes into account combinations of elements and the decisions themselves are not – or not sufficiently – motivated. as a main problem that the minimum standards adopted are vague and ambiguous . As a result:[18]

Asylum decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and their outcome depends not only on the applicable rules and their interpretation, but also on the credibility of the claims and the individual circumstances of the applicants. Moreover, MS do not systematically collect information on the specific grounds on which applications are accepted or rejected. As a result, it is not possible to determine with precision whether and to what extent the interpretation of certain provisions of the Directive in ways that may be incompatible with international standards have actually led to rejections of applications. The problems described below have been identified mainly on the basis of the – mostly anecdotal – evidence provided by the evaluation studies and the consultations: it refers to cases in the administrative and judicial practice in MS illustrating how the Directive allows for divergent interpretations and for measures that do not meet international standards. Indeed, even the UNHCR study, which was based on the sampling and analysis of a substantial number of asylum decisions and case files, could not establish more general decision-making patterns, as in many cases the assessment of the individual cases takes into account combinations of elements and the decisions themselves are not – or not sufficiently – motivated.

- they are insufficient to secure full compatibility with the evolving human rights and refugee law standards and

- they have not achieved a sufficient level of harmonisation

- they impact negatively on the quality and efficiency of decision-making.

Because of the unanimity requirement for the adoption of the Directive several of its provisions are formulated in a vague and ambiguous manner whereas others allow derogations from its rules. Additionally, in some cases, compromise was reached at the level of the more "conservative" or even restrictive interpretation of the Geneva Convention, the ECHR and other human rights instruments which are the sources of the international obligations that MS have in common Moreover, it should be noted that refugee and human rights obligations are the subject of a constantly evolving authoritative interpretation by competent national and international bodies and jurisdictions, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who has supervisory responsibility for the Geneva Convention, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) , the International Criminal Court etc, with a view to address the evolving nature of persecution and geopolitical developments . [19]

Moreover, it should be noted that refugee and human rights obligations are the subject of a constantly evolving authoritative interpretation by competent national and international bodies and jurisdictions, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who has supervisory responsibility for the Geneva Convention, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) , the International Criminal Court etc, with a view to address the evolving nature of persecution and geopolitical developments

The Directive's provisions are not, as such, incompatible with the abovementioned refugee law and human rights standards . However, the cumulative effect of all these restrictive provisions, ambiguities, deliberate "gaps" and derogation possibilities is that the current Directive does not guarantee the full compatibility of national implementation measures with these standards and allows for wide divergences amongst national decision-making practices. In some cases it may even encourage such divergences, as MS may consider themselves bound by their international obligations to provide higher standards than those established by the Directive. Indeed, in some of these cases, the need to apply higher standards has been explicitly affirmed in the jurisprudence developed since the adoption of the Directive by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the ECtHR and national jurisdictions. Finally, as a result of the vagueness and ambiguity of the applicable rules, decision-makers have difficulties to reach quickly robust 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.

It should be further noted that the current standards of the Directive are also not adequate to attain the objectives set by the Hague programme, i.e. the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform protection status . Support for these aims was demonstrated again very recently in the Pact, where the European Council highlighted its concern that " considerable disparities remain between one Member State and another concerning the grant of protection and the forms that protection takes" and called for "new initiatives to complete the establishment of a Common European Asylum System, provided for in the Hague Programme, and thus to offer a higher degree of protection".

Moreover, the current standards of the Directive regarding the rights to be granted to beneficiaries of international protection with a view to supporting their integration are also not adequate to ensure effective access to the rights guaranteed by the relevant international instruments in a consistent manner in all Member States. In the same vein, they are not adequate neither to achieve the Treaty objective of promoting social cohesion and the integration of legally residing third-country nationals nor to give effect to the integration mandate set by the Tampere and the Hague Programmes. These provisions of the Directive reflect the legal standards provided by relevant refugee law and human rights instruments For a detailed presentation of these standards see Annex 23 . However, it appears, on the basis of extensive research, that they do not take sufficiently into account the specific practical difficulties faced by beneficiaries of international protection compared to other legally residing third-country nationals. As a result , they do not ensure the consistent and effective implementation of the relevant legal standards. [20]

For a detailed presentation of these standards see Annex 23

Of relevance in this respect is the emerging European framework on integration . In relation specifically to beneficiaries of international protection , the need has been repeatedly acknowledged for MS to promote their social, economic and cultural integration in so far as it contributes to economic and social cohesion , the maintenance and strengthening of which is one of the Community's fundamental tasks provided for in Articles 2 and 3(1)(k) of the Treaty See for instance Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 May 2007, establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC (OJ L 144, p.1, "ERF"), recital 15. . In Tampere, the European Council had stated that the legal status of third-country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States' nationals and that a person who has resided legally in a Member State for a period of time to be determined and who holds a long-term residence permit should be granted in that Member State a set of uniform rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by citizens of the European Union.[21]

See for instance Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 May 2007, establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC (OJ L 144, p.1, "ERF"), recital 15.

The Hague Programme in particular called for further progress with respect to the fair treatment of legally resident third-country nationals in the EU and the active elimination of obstacles to the integration of all third-country nationals settled on a long-term basis in the MS. In line with this mandate, a series of important developments took place, including the adoption by the Council of Common Basic Principles on integration, the adoption of a Common Agenda for Integration establishing a working framework for the integration of third-country nationals and the setting up of a European Fund for Integration.

The Pact provided further impetus , inviting MS to establish "ambitious integration policies" including "specific measures to promote language learning and access to employment, essential factors for integration". Against this background, in the Council Conclusions following the European Ministerial Conference on Integration of 3/4 November 2008, MS agreed to give particular attention, when defining and implementing their national integration policies, to certain themes. These include introduction arrangements, access to housing, and the development of measures aimed at facilitating access to employment, such as individually tailored employment support measures, measures designed to identify previously acquired vocational skills and experience and, above all, to improve the recognition of such skills and experience.

The above problems are manifest in the following provisions of the Directive For a concise comparison of the standards of the Directive with the standards/objectives to be attained in the second phase, see table in Annex 23. For a detailed analysis of these problems on the basis of information provided by the evaluation reports and collected in the context of recent consultations see Annexes 5- 12 and 18. : [22]

For a concise comparison of the standards of the Directive with the standards/objectives to be attained in the second phase, see table in Annex 23. For a detailed analysis of these problems on the basis of information provided by the evaluation reports and collected in the context of recent consultations see Annexes 5- 12 and 18.

1) The definitions of the concepts “actors of protection” and “internal protection” do not contain adequate criteria for assessing the level and effectiveness of protection required, in line with the Geneva Convention and the ECHR, thus allowing MS to reject claims and return applicants to their country of origin despite the lack of effective protection. Moreover, these concepts are defined in a broad and vague manner which creates a risk of diverse recognition practices.

2) The definition of the concept "membership of a particular social group" regarding the significance to be attached to gender-related aspects allows for interpretations which may result in denial of protection for women, as well as for diverse recognition practices of applicants with similar claims.

3) Differences in the content of protection for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not objectively justified from a fundamental rights perspective. Based on the assumption that the protection needs of the latter category would be of a short duration, the Directive allows MS to limit their rights. This possibility has been used by a small number of MS, resulting in different levels of rights being granted to them in different MS. However, practical experience shows that this initial assumption was not accurate and can no longer serve as justification for such limitations of rights, assessed against the principle of non-discrimination. This differential treatment is further incompatible with the call of the Hague programme for a uniform protection status.

4) The specific integration needs of beneficiaries of international protection are not met : The Directive grants beneficiaries of international protection access to a series of rights, aimed at supporting their integration in the host societies; however, it does not take sufficiently into account the wide range of practical obstacles they encounter which are linked to their specific situation. For instance, they are often unable to provide documentary evidence to prove their claimed academic and professional qualifications or their limited financial capacities p revent them from seeking recognition of their qualifications or from following vocational training . Information on the concrete implementation of the Directive's provisions in MS' is fragmentary; however, numerous relevant studies demonstrate the disparities in MS' practices and that overall the rights formally granted to beneficiaries of international protection are often de facto unavailable to them: they lack effective access to sustainable employment and integration, resulting in l osses for the receiving societies and their economies For a detailed presentation of the problems, and references to the relevant studies see Annex 9 . [23]

For a detailed presentation of the problems, and references to the relevant studies see Annex 9

5) The definition of "family members" does not cover cases where the beneficiaries of protection are minors or the wide range of situations where a minor might be considered dependent . To this extent, it does not give full effect to the principle of the primacy of the best interests of the child flowing from the UN Convention on the Rights of the child .

2.2.3 Statistical evidence of insufficient harmonization

The wide divergences in the application of the Directive are illustrated by ample statistical evidence. To cite a few examples For references and more information on relevant statistics see Annex 13 : [24]

For references and more information on relevant statistics see Annex 13

- Percentages of total positive decisions in the different MS in 2007 varied from 27.5% in Germany, to 0.8% in Greece;

- Recognition rates for applicants from the same nationality for the period 2005-2007 varied significantly: for instance, for asylum seekers from Russia (mostly of Chechen background), from 63% in Austria to 0% in Slovakia; the percentage of positive decisions for Somali asylum-seekers was 98% and 55% in Malta and in the UK against 0% in Greece.

- Again regarding asylum applicants having the same nationality, certain MS tend to grant refugee status whereas others opt for subsidiary protection. On positive decisions regarding Iraqi applicants in 2007, Sweden granted refugee status to 155 persons and subsidiary protection to 9,565, whereas Germany granted refugee status to 5,760 persons and subsidiary protection to 35.

- The figures below show the different outcomes of first-instance decisions taken in selected MS in the 4 th quarter 2008 Source: Eurostat. EU-27: Refugee status and rejections: no data for DK, IT and CY available. Subsidiary protection: no data for DK, IT and CY available. Humanitarian reasons: no data for DK, FR, IT, CY and AT : [25]

Source: Eurostat. EU-27: Refugee status and rejections: no data for DK, IT and CY available. Subsidiary protection: no data for DK, IT and CY available. Humanitarian reasons: no data for DK, FR, IT, CY and AT

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

2.2.4 The effect of insufficient harmonization on secondary movements

Evidence suggests that the harmonization achieved by the Directive has not had any effect on secondary movements. Multiple applications remained high – at 17% in 2006 and 16% in 2007 For more information on relevant statistics see Annex 14 , whereas certain MS continue to be more "attractive" destinations than others. For instance, between January and December 2006, Belgium, Germany, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom received more than 3000 multiple applications while countries such as Cyprus and Portugal had received less than 100 such applications and Estonia one. In order to counter such secondary movements the Dublin mechanism has been established, setting criteria for the determination of the MS responsible for the examination of each asylum application. This mechanism limits the possibility for asylum seekers to choose the MS that will examine their application, based on the premise that they have similar chances of finding protection in all MS. However, to the extent that such a level-playing field has not yet been achieved, this system creates a phenomenon decried as an "asylum lottery". [26]

For more information on relevant statistics see Annex 14

Evidently, there is a multitude of reasons why asylum seekers may find one country more "attractive" than others: linguistic and cultural ties, presence of friends and relatives, even the size of the development aid it provides (as a proxy for the country's reputation for generosity) The findings of recent studies on the distribution of asylum applications across receiving countries are largely consistent with the responses from surveys of asylum seekers about why they chose one destination rather than another: they suggest that, while asylum policies do influence the numbers of applications, asylum flows are determined mostly by variables not related to asylum policy; see Timothy J. Hatton, "European asylum policy", National Institute Economic Review no 194, October 2005, available at http://ner.sagepub.com/cgi/conten/abstract/194/1/106 . However, their chances to obtain a status or a higher level of rights there also play a decisive role. Indeed, statistics provide clear indications of the impact of asylum policy rules on secondary movements: countries which introduced restrictive measures have often seen a decrease in the number of applications soon after the changes were implemented, e.g. Germany after 1993, Spain in 1995, and Denmark in 2001. The gaps and ambiguities inherent in the Directive's provisions allowed Sweden to restrict its policies concerning Iraqi asylum seekers in 2007. As a result, Sweden witnessed a decrease by 2/3 in the number of applications from that country in 2008, whereas its restrictive policy had a impact on its neighbouring countries: the number of applications from Iraqis in Germany and the Netherlands more than doubled in 2008 compared to 2007 , Finland received 4 times as many and Norway three times as many Asylum applications by Iraqis in Sweden decreased from 18,560 in 2007 to 6,330 in 2008, whereas in. Germany they increased from 4,325 in 2007 to 7,135 for Jan-Oct 2008, in the Netherlands from 2,005 in 2007 to 4,805 for Jan-Oct 2008 and in Finland from 290 in 2007 to 765 for Jan-Oct 2008); Source: Eurostat. . [27][28]

The findings of recent studies on the distribution of asylum applications across receiving countries are largely consistent with the responses from surveys of asylum seekers about why they chose one destination rather than another: they suggest that, while asylum policies do influence the numbers of applications, asylum flows are determined mostly by variables not related to asylum policy; see Timothy J. Hatton, "European asylum policy", National Institute Economic Review no 194, October 2005, available at http://ner.sagepub.com/cgi/conten/abstract/194/1/106

Asylum applications by Iraqis in Sweden decreased from 18,560 in 2007 to 6,330 in 2008, whereas in. Germany they increased from 4,325 in 2007 to 7,135 for Jan-Oct 2008, in the Netherlands from 2,005 in 2007 to 4,805 for Jan-Oct 2008 and in Finland from 290 in 2007 to 765 for Jan-Oct 2008); Source: Eurostat.

2.2.5 Insufficient harmonization as one of the factors for the unequal distribution of asylum seekers

The numbers of asylum-seekers per 1,000 inhabitants for the period 2004-2008 See Annex 15. show that the most affected MS form two groups. Some MS are affected due to their geographical position (Cyprus, Greece, Malta): they are the first MS where the asylum-seekers arrive, even if they are not their desired destination. As a result, even MS with poor reception conditions and low recognition rates receive very high numbers of asylum-seekers. Other MS are affected due to their perceived generosity , measured both in reception conditions and in recognition rates, which are higher than the EU average (23% in 2007): Sweden (46%), Austria (32.4%), Luxembourg (48%). MS offering high protection standards appear to carry a heavier burden in relative terms than MS offering lower standards and recognition rates. Indeed, the fact that Sweden receives five times more asylum applications than Spain , which is a border country, may be attributed to a large extent to the higher standards of protection it grants to asylum applicants and the higher recognition rate (around 46% in 2007 compared to Spain's 4.5 %) See tables in Annex 13 . A clear articulation between recognition rates and distribution of applications amongst MS is further demonstrated in the tables in Annex 16.[29][30]

See Annex 15.

See tables in Annex 13

2.2.6 Evidence for poor first instance decision-making

There are indications that the vagueness and ambiguity in current substantial criteria may have a negative impact on the quality of first instance examinations and on the solidity of the decisions taken . Firstly, MS are confronted with high numbers of repeated claims. In 2008, subsequent applications amounted to 36.4% in the Czech Republic, 28.5% in Belgium, 20.7% in Germany, 15.4% in Poland and 12.3% in the Netherlands. In the same year, out of 197,284 applications recorded in EURODAC, in 31,910 cases the same person had already made at least one asylum application before. Furthermore, in average, around 80 % of rejection decisions are appealed in the EU . These high percentages of subsequent and multiple applications as well as the particularly high percentage of appeals can partially be attributed to attempts by rejected asylum seekers to prevent their removal and prolong their entitlement to reception conditions . However, when considered in combination with the high rate of successful appeals (in 2008, 28% of appeals in the EU resulted in overturning negative decisions In 2008 appeals thus resulted in 18,500 final decisions to grant protection in addition to 47,745 positive first-instance decisions; for data on appeals in 2007 and 2008 see Annex 17 ), they also point to the low defendability of initial determinations and to the need to improve the robustness of negative decisions and reduce the risk of their annulment. [31]

In 2008 appeals thus resulted in 18,500 final decisions to grant protection in addition to 47,745 positive first-instance decisions; for data on appeals in 2007 and 2008 see Annex 17

2.2.7 Difficulties in forecasting and quantifying costs in the asylum system

It is impossible to forecast the financial impact of changes to the CEAS for several reasons. Firstly, the size or profile of flows of refugees fleeing in response to events around the world cannot be predicted from year to year. These events determine the personal motives and circumstances of individual applicants, which in turn determine the grounds on which their applications are accepted or rejected by MS To cite a theoretical example: if for instance the multi-national troops currently present in Iraq and who are potential actors of protection withdraw, the Directive's provisions on actors of protection, which are now often relevant in the determination of claims by Iraqi asylum seekers, would no longer be relevant for a large number of asylum claims in the EU. Depending on future conflicts around the world, different provisions of the Directive and other grounds of protection may acquire greater relevance in the future. . Secondly, MS have not been able to provide statistics on why, over a given period, certain applications have been accepted and others rejected. Protection is granted on a case-by-case basis as the result of a complex, context-specific analysis of the credibility of the claim and the individual circumstances of the applicant. [32]

To cite a theoretical example: if for instance the multi-national troops currently present in Iraq and who are potential actors of protection withdraw, the Directive's provisions on actors of protection, which are now often relevant in the determination of claims by Iraqi asylum seekers, would no longer be relevant for a large number of asylum claims in the EU. Depending on future conflicts around the world, different provisions of the Directive and other grounds of protection may acquire greater relevance in the future.

Moreover, there is no information available on the overall costs of hosting beneficiaries of protection As will be indicated below, the scant information collected on specific aspects does not allow for plausible estimates. . Different rights, such as access to education, recognition of qualifications, social welfare or employment support, are granted on the basis of individual needs and MS do not segregate statistics on the basis of such criteria. This problem is recognised by the EU, and it is being addressed by greater cooperation and information sharing among MS, the institutions and NGOs, soon to be assisted by the EASO. [33]

As will be indicated below, the scant information collected on specific aspects does not allow for plausible estimates.

It is thus impossible to estimate how many applicants might actually be affected by any amendments to the grounds of protection or to assess the effects of any amendments to the rights granted to beneficiaries of protection. This is unfortunately a constraint which future proposals must work within.

Of course, raising the standards of protection would make the EU a more attractive place for refugees. Evidence suggests, however, that such 'pull' factors are more relevant to economic migrants. G enuine refugees do not have a choice: they must leave their country to protect their lives. 'Push' factors are stronger than pull factors, as has been apparent following conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq. Any major conflicts in regions neighbouring the EU will inevitably result in flows of refugees to the EU, irrespective of the level of protection provided. As an indication it may be noted that, even if refugee flows increased by, for instance, 50%, they would still be close to the average for the past 20 years (340,000) while at the same time the creation of a level-playing field under the proposal would mitigate the effects of this increase by leading to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers amongst MS See Impact assessment to the Policy Plan on Asylum 'The Persistence of refugee flows towards the EU', (SEC (2008) 2029) p. 5 . [34]

See Impact assessment to the Policy Plan on Asylum 'The Persistence of refugee flows towards the EU', (SEC (2008) 2029) p. 5

2.2.8 The economic situation

In the present context, it is also necessary to take into account the severe strains that the current financial crisis is putting on MS' budgets and its effects on public support for measures to the advantage of beneficiaries of protection EU citizens may initially perceive any ‘special’ treatment for this category as unfair. According to a recent Eurobarometer survey of public opinion, 54% of EU citizens disagree with the idea that immigrants are needed to work in certain sectors of the economy in view of the ageing European population and the shortage of labour in certain sectors of the economy, whereas in the ten new MS (excluding Bulgaria and Romania) this figure is much higher, reaching close to 80% (compared to 49% in the fifteen old MS) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_215_en.pdf (pp. 39-40). However, other recent surveys show that attitudes towards genuine refugees are more positive than they are towards immigrants in general and that the humanitarian motives underlying refugee protection are more widely supported than negative press coverage would suggest; see Timothy J. Hatton, "European asylum policy", op.cit. p 113. . Raising the standards regarding the grounds for granting protection could result in higher recognition rates, thus incurring additional costs for some MS in terms of granting these persons the rights attached to their status. Further costs will result for some MS from raising the level of rights granted to beneficiaries of protection. [35]

EU citizens may initially perceive any ‘special’ treatment for this category as unfair. According to a recent Eurobarometer survey of public opinion, 54% of EU citizens disagree with the idea that immigrants are needed to work in certain sectors of the economy in view of the ageing European population and the shortage of labour in certain sectors of the economy, whereas in the ten new MS (excluding Bulgaria and Romania) this figure is much higher, reaching close to 80% (compared to 49% in the fifteen old MS) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_215_en.pdf (pp. 39-40). However, other recent surveys show that attitudes towards genuine refugees are more positive than they are towards immigrants in general and that the humanitarian motives underlying refugee protection are more widely supported than negative press coverage would suggest; see Timothy J. Hatton, "European asylum policy", op.cit. p 113.

Any further measures in this area can be co-funded by the European Refugee Fund (ERF) . In the longer term, some costs may be offset to a certain extent by savings in terms of welfare assistance, by the contributions of the beneficiaries to the economies of the host state and, more importantly, by the decreases in costs entailed by the proposal. However, MS have legal obligations from a fundamental rights perspective regarding beneficiaries of international protection , who do not arrive in the EU to obtain access to the labour market but to seek protection. In this sense, integration support can be considered to form part of the protection to be provided to them. Furthermore, the principle of non-discrimination, enshrined inter alia in Article 21, of the EU Charter is also relevant to the treatment to be afforded to them.

2.3 The Baseline scenario: "How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? "

The problems identified above may be addressed to a certain extent by the case law of the ECJ and ECtHR, as they may be asked to provide guidance aimed at addressing inconsistencies and possible protection gaps. However, by its very nature, such guidance by the ECJ and ECtHR cannot systematically or fully address the identified problems, but only on an ad hoc , case-by-case basis. The impact of the ECJ may be particularly limited , since only national courts against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy may seek its guidance through preliminary questions and these courts might not always be accessible to asylum seekers. Moreover, their rulings can interpret or annul existing rules but they cannot create new ones. Unless taken over and enshrined in the EU acquis , the standards they establish do not benefit from the accessibility and coherent application across the EU guaranteed by the Community legal and institutional framework. These problems could not be adequately addressed by infringement procedures either, as the problems identified do not flow from the incomplete transposition or the incorrect implementation of the Directive, but from the vagueness, the ambiguity and the gaps in the Directive, which make it difficult to substantiate infringement cases.

Practical cooperation , to be reinforced through the establishment of the EASO, may result in raising current standards and in increased convergence of national practices, e.g. through training, awareness raising, peer pressure, the identification of good practices and the provision of enhanced country of origin information. In particular, the EASO may reinforce the impact of the Directive's rules through the assessment of the asylum situation in the EU and recommendations on the implementation of the asylum instruments. However, such measures are insufficient, on their own, to adequately and comprehensively address the problems which flow from the ambiguities and possibilities for derogations in the legislation itself. It is also questionable whether those MS where improvements are most urgently needed will respond to a voluntary approach.

Both the ECJ and ECtHR case-law and enhanced practical cooperation have the potential to contribute to clarifying the rules of the Directive and thus to enhance the quality and efficiency of national asylum procedures. However, given the above mentioned limits to their impacts, it is unclear to what extent they may result in a systematic overall improvement or a significant reduction of the duration of the asylum process, of the possibilities for abuse and of the costs involved across the EU.

Developments at national level (e.g. change of government, factual developments, re-evaluation of the situation etc.) and eventual positive or negative impacts on asylum policy are impossible to predict . To cite an example, on the basis of their experience with the implementation of the subsidiary protection regime, several MS have taken steps towards closing the gaps between the rights provided to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees, realizing that a differentiation does not make sense in view of the similarity of the protection needs and the administrative burdens it entails. However, a few MS still differentiate, and at least one MS adopted new legislation introducing a differentiation with respect to the conditions for providing benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection as late as in January 2009. More generally, there are no indications that future developments will probably lead to higher standards or to increased harmonization; rather the opposite. Indeed, as the current financial crisis is putting severe strains on MS' budgets, it entails an increased risk of xenophobic tendencies and of pressures to resort to measures which could undermine the effective protection of fundamental rights . MS may choose for instance to focus on their own nationals before allocating resources to beneficiaries of protection or even to lower their standards so as to reduce the influxes of asylum seekers and deflect them elsewhere.

Moreover, the persistence of divergences would result in the persistence of high levels of secondary movements within the EU and, consequently, in the continuation of an intensive use of the Dublin system , with all the costs resulting for MS from its implementation. At the same time, the MS receiving higher numbers of asylum seekers as a result of providing higher standards (and possibly even other MS ) might be inclined to lower their standards (see section 2.2 above).

By contrast, 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 refugee flows are mainly driven by push factors such as political instability, no/poor rule of law, lack of respect for human rights, undemocratic regimes and armed conflicts and cannot be predicted As demonstrated in the reversal of trends described in section 2.1 above: following a sharp decrease in the period 2003-2006, asylum flows have increased again significantly since 2007. . [36]

As demonstrated in the reversal of trends described in section 2.1 above: following a sharp decrease in the period 2003-2006, asylum flows have increased again significantly since 2007.

2.4 Does the EU have the power to act?

2.4.1 The EU's right to act

The current legal base for Community action regarding the qualification and status of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection is established in Article 63 1(c), 2(a) and 3(a) TEC .

2.4.2 A dded value of EU action and respect for the principle of subsidiarity

The issues identified are of a transnational nature and cannot be tackled by MS acting in isolation. Action at the EU level can be expected to be more effective than MS action in several respects.

i) The objectives set by the Hague Programme - and confirmed in the Pact - regarding a uniform protection status and the integration of third-country nationals cannot be attained by unilateral MS action.

ii) It is unlikely that the level of protection will be comprehensively raised to meet the higher international standards as they have evolved through MS' unilateral actions . On the contrary, ‘a race to the bottom’ may occur, since those MS currently providing more generous protection standards may be inclined to lower their standards in order to avoid "attracting" larger numbers of asylum seekers. As indicated above, the current financial crisis aggravates this danger. The present circumstances lend thus particular urgency to the need for the EU to proactively dissuade MS from resorting to measures which could undermine the effective protection of fundamental rights Indeed, the whole creation of a CEAS and the Qualification Directive, in particular, "pursues the objective of developing a fundamental right to asylum which follows from the general principles of Community law which, themselves, are the result of constitutional traditions common to the Member States and the ECHR, as reproduced, moreover, in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights]". See Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 9 September 2008 in Case C-465/07, Elgafaji, point 21 . [37]

Indeed, the whole creation of a CEAS and the Qualification Directive, in particular, "pursues the objective of developing a fundamental right to asylum which follows from the general principles of Community law which, themselves, are the result of constitutional traditions common to the Member States and the ECHR, as reproduced, moreover, in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights]". See Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 9 September 2008 in Case C-465/07, Elgafaji, point 21

iii) S econdary movements and the uneven distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection are cross-border issues that can only be addressed at EU level. Evidently, no action is possible with a view to addressing the factors leading to secondary movements which are not related to asylum policy (such as the "friends and relatives" effect, cultural and linguistic links or employment opportunities). However, it is imperative to tackle those factors which are linked to the divergences of national legislations and practices and to different levels of rights provided in different MS and this can be achieved solely by enhanced harmonization at the EU level . Such harmonisation can indeed drastically reduce asylum seekers' incentive for movements and reduce the costs of transfers under the Dublin Regulation.

iv) Ambiguities and vagueness in the existing acquis can only be resolved at EU level. Action by MS cannot lead to an overall improvement of the quality and efficiency of the asylum process throughout the EU. Although authorities and courts in individual MS might attempt to clarify the meaning of certain notions, possibly also using the practical cooperation channels or seeking guidance from the ECJ, such actions cannot comprehensively and systematically address the problems resulting from the vagueness and ambiguity inherent in several provisions of the Directive. As a result, there would be no significant improvement in terms of frontloading and shortening the duration of asylum procedures nor in terms of achieving more solid, robust first-instance decisions which are not frequently overturned on appeal.

Compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in this respect is confirmed by the ECJ's case-law, according to which, once the Council ‘has found it necessary to improve the existing level of protection (minimum standards in the area of health and safety) and to further harmonise the law in this area while maintaining improvements already made, the achievement of this objective necessarily presupposes Community action' Case C-377/98, Netherlands v Council , paragraph 52¸ concerning the "Working time Directive" . [38]

Case C-377/98, Netherlands v Council , paragraph 52¸ concerning the "Working time Directive"

3 OBJECTIVES

3.1 Global objective

The global objective for the development of rules on the qualification and status of beneficiaries of international protection in the second phase of the CEAS is t o achieve higher standards of protection across the EU for persons in need of international protection . This objective is in line with the strategy for the completion of the CEAS announced by the Commission in the Policy Plan, falling, more specifically, within the cross-cutting objective to achieve "better and more harmonized standards of protection".

3.2 Specific objectives

The proposal to amend the Directive should pursue the following specific objectives:

1. To ensure the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention and full respect of the ECHR and of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ;

2. To approximate the content of protection granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection;

3. To raise the overall content of protection taking into account the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection ;

4. To improve the efficiency of the asylum process;

5. To ensure the consistent application of agreed protection standards across the EU.

3.3 Operational objectives

The following operational objectives will contribute to achieving specific objectives 1, 4 and 5:

· To limit the broad interpretation of the concepts "actors of protection" and "internal protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention and the ECHR

· To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the concept "membership of a particular social group" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention

· t o ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the “causal nexus requirement’ in line with the Geneva Convention See Annex 18 and section 4.8 below. [39]

See Annex 18 and section 4.8 below.

· to prevent the unwarranted cessation of protection status See Annex 18 and section 4.8 below. [40]

See Annex 18 and section 4.8 below.

The following operational objective will contribute to achieving specific objectives 2, 4 and 5:

· To eliminate unjustified differences between the rights granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection

The following operational objectives will contribute to achieving specific objectives 3 and 5:

· To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs

· To better ensure the right of beneficiaries of international protection for respect of family life.

4 POLICY OPTIONS

Given the diversity of problems identified, it is not possible to identify one single all-embracing policy option. Therefore, different policy options, legislative and non-legislative, have been identified for addressing each objective. A systematic comparison of the different options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence against the baseline scenario is presented in tables in Annex 19 .

4.1 Status Quo

The existing legal framework would remain unchanged and ongoing activities would continue. The Commission would continue monitoring the implementation of the Qualification Directive. For an assessment of the status quo see Annex 20.

4.2 To limit the broad interpretation of "actors of protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention

Option 1 (l egislative) : To specify that the list of actors of protection is an exhaustive one, to clarify that "parties" means political parties or entities and to require that such actors have administrative authority and full control over the territory and population in question.

Option 2 (l egislative) : As under option 1, to specify that the list of actors of protection is exhaustive, as well as to 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.

Option 3 (practical cooperation): MS could jointly map interpretations and share information on the criteria used to assess which actors of protection in certain third countries are potentially able to ensure adequate protection.

Option 1 would ensure 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. However, this may exclude entities which might not have a "political" character or the attributes of a State but which would nevertheless be able to effectively provide protection in the context of a given country/society.

Option 2 would also ensure clarity as to the exhaustiveness of the list and would strengthen the criteria to be applied in assessing the adequacy, accessibility and effectiveness of protection. Firstly, it would ensure that the “willingness to protect” may not be deemed sufficient in the absence of the "ability to protect", hereby also excluding parties (such as NGOs) which try to provide protection but do not have the (military, legal, etc.) power to do so. Secondly, even actors who are willing and able in principle to provide protection but not providing it in reality or who can provide protection only on a temporary basis are excluded from the scope of the concept. Thirdly, the requirement to enforce the rule of law would give more prominence to the already applicable condition relating to the operation of an effective legal system, thus clearly excluding entities such as criminal networks, warlords or guerrillas or even non-governmental organisations as potential actors of protection. The enforcement of the rule of law would also imply the enforcement of human rights standards. Finally, there would be more consistency in the approach under the Directive to the assessment by MS of whether a change in the situation in the country of origin is "significant and non-temporary nature" before deciding on cessation (Article 11(2)).

Option 3 would be a useful complement to the tighter definition of “actors of protection”. Several MS receive the same caseloads, i.e. asylum applicants from the same countries of origin and presenting similar claims. Exchange of information on the criteria used to assess potential actors of protection in these countries and the results of these assessments would contribute significantly to the approximation of national decision-making practices. Such cooperation could take place in the context of EURASIL and would benefit from the creation of the EASO.

Comparison of financial impacts : For MS that previously rejected applications on the basis that (particular) “actors of protection” (Option 1) or a (certain) level and type of protection (Option 2) are present in the applicant’s country of origin, both options may result in higher recognition rates. It is likely that their will be a greater increase of positive decisions under option 2 than option 1, as more MS will have to restrict their interpretation of “actors of protection”.

Social effects and fundamental rights: Under both legislative options, a number of applicants who under the current provision of the Directive could be denied protection on the basis of the presence of “actors of protection” might be granted protection in the future. This access to protection will be better enhanced under Option 2. Both Options 1 and 2 enhance respect for Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter but protection standards would be raised higher under option 2.

Overall assessment: To the extent that it imposes rather stringent conditions for the definition of the entities able to provide protection, Option 1 appears disproportionate. To the extent that it strengthens and clarifies the criteria for assessing the nature of the protection instead of overly restricting the definition of actors of protection, Option 2 appears more adequate and proportionate to achieve both enhanced compatibility with the Geneva Convention and enhanced quality and efficiency of decision-making. Option 3 imposes no obligations on MS, since they participate in cooperation activities on a voluntary basis. Option 2 should therefore be combined with Option 3 as part of the preferred policy option.

4.3 To limit the broad interpretation of the concept of "internal protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention and the ECHR

Option 1 (l egislative) :

· To specify the criteria to be used for the "reasonableness" analysis based on the relevant UNHCR Guidelines, i.e. safety and security of the applicant, respect for his/her fundamental rights and the possibility to survive at a basic level of subsistence;

· To confirm that the concept of internal flight alternative may apply notwithstanding technical obstacles to return to the country of origin but to specify that such obstacles must be of a temporary and exceptional nature and that they should not preclude the return for a period exceeding 6 months from the date of the decision, citing as examples the closure of airports and natural disasters;

· To specify that applicants falling within the scope of this option should be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection during the period in question, depending on what status they would be eligible for if the internal flight alternative would not apply.

Option 2 (l egislative):

· To introduce an additional requirement, namely that the applicant should be able to travel to, gain admittance and settle in the proposed alternative location;

· To delete the possibility to apply the internal flight alternative despite technical obstacles.

· To include an explicit reference to the obligation of the competent authorities to obtain precise and up-to-date information on the general situation in the country.

Option 3 (l egislative):

· To impose on MS the obligation to demonstrate on an individual basis that the conditions for applying the internal flight alternative are fulfilled while specifying that the duty of the applicant to substantiate his/her claim in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Directive would not be affected

· to introduce an additional requirement, namely that the applicant should be safely, legally and practically able to travel to, gain admittance and settle in the proposed alternative location;

· To delete the possibility to apply the internal flight alternative despite technical obstacles.

Option 4 (practical cooperation): MS could map the criteria for assessing “reasonableness” 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.

Option 1 would limit the scope for broad and divergent interpretations of internal protection and technical obstacles and would provide a clear framework for the reasonableness analysis, so as to limit the potential for violations of Article 3 ECHR, as interpreted in the Salah Sheekh judgment.

Option 2 would ensure conceptual coherence, by specifying that, for a Member State to deny its protection to an applicant, the absence of a well-founded fear of persecution or of risk of serious harm is not sufficient. It would also ensure that the concept of internal flight alternative under EU law is closely modelled on the core obligations flowing for the MS from the ECHR. To the extent that it would essentially transpose in the Directive the conditions set out in the Salah Sheekh judgment, it would not be open to criticisms about imposing "new", additional obligations on MS. Moreover, the deletion of the "technical obstacles" derogation would clearly and unquestionably ensure full compatibility with ECHR and the Geneva Convention. Finally, 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 the Asylum Procedures Directive.

Option 3 has all the advantages of Option 2 but, in addition, it would have an even greater positive effect in terms of achieving high protection standards across the EU, to the extent that it explicitly places on MS the burden of proof that an area constitutes an internal flight alternative.

The practical cooperation option would not suffice in itself to achieve the set objective, i.e. to restrict the broad interpretation of the concept of internal flight alternative in a manner consistent with the ECHR. However, as a complement to the legislative amendments, it could contribute significantly to the approximation of national decision-making practices.

Comparison of financial impacts : Under all options, MS which previously applied the notion of internal flight alternative in a broader manner would now carry the additional costs involved in granting protection to a larger number of applicants. Such costs are likely to be higher under Options 2 and 3, since the reference to technical obstacles would be removed. On the other hand, Option 1 would entail higher costs than Options 2 and 3 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. Option 3 may potentially incur additional costs for some MS, where the applicants carry the burden to prove that there is no internal protection for them anywhere in the country of origin. These MS may have to undertake additional research to collect evidence so as to fulfil their obligation to demonstrate that a certain area is as an internal flight alternative for the applicant.

Social effects and fundamental rights: All legislative options would have a positive effect on access to protection, as improved requirements would be put in place for defining whether an alternative location is safe and the risk of being sent back to the country of origin in violation of Article 3 ECHR would be significantly reduced. All options would also improve access to justice, as they would enhance the right to appeal. These effects would be higher under Options 2 and 3 than under Option 1, as they remove the possibility to return applicants despite temporary technical obstacles, and even higher under Option 3, as it imposes the burden of proof on MS. The rights covered under Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter would be better respected under Option 2 than under Option 1 and even better under Option 3 as the latter would ensure improved access to protection and a lower risk of refoulement. Where the applicant concerned is an unaccompanied minor, all options would also positively impact on the rights of the child (Article 24) by providing better protection of children and their best interests, to the extent that they impose a careful consideration of the individual circumstances in view of clearer and stricter criteria.

Overall assessment: By establishing criteria to be used for the reasonableness analysis, Option 1 might result in introducing "new", additional restrictions to the use of the concept. Options 2 and 3, on the other hand, would only introduce in the Directive the conditions set out in the Salah Sheekh judgment; thus, they would not go beyond the transposition of MS' obligations under the ECHR into the EU acquis. Option 3 might meet resistance from the Member States which currently do not carry the burden of proof. Option 2 appears thus to be the most balanced and proportionate approach, which would be appropriate to facilitate decision-making and also to bring the concept in line with relevant standards. Option 4 imposes no obligations on MS, since they participate in cooperation activities on a voluntary basis. The preferred option should therefore comprise Options 2 and 4.

4.4 To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the concept "particular social group" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention

Option 1 (l egislative): To explicitly allow MS to adopt the alternative application of the two relevant criteria by providing for the possibility to define a particular social group based on either one of the two criteria mentioned including based solely on gender-related aspects.

Option 2 (l egislative): To replace the last phrase of Article 10(1)(d) with a provision specifying that gender related aspects should be given due consideration for the purposes of recognising membership of a particular social group or identifying a characteristic of such a group.

Option 3 (l egislative): To replace the last phrase of Article 10(1)(d) as under Option 2 and also to specify that, for this ground to apply, it suffices that one of the two requirements is met

Option 4 (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.

Option 1 would explicitly endorse the broad interpretation of this notion, i.e. the alternative application of the criteria, which is already applied by at least 10 MS in their legislation and/or jurisprudence and would possibly encourage others to adopt it. It would thus clarify the scope of this notion and create favourable conditions for a more inclusive application of the Geneva Convention. However, to the extent that such a broadening of the concept would only be optional, it would be an inadequate measure in terms of ensuring a consistent interpretation and preventing potential protection gaps. In sum, Option 1 closely resembles the status quo.

Option 2 would not address the general issue of the application of the two criteria, but 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 in the assessment of the claim and specifically within the context of the definition of a particular social group. It would thus ensure consistency of national practices and would address the risk of gaps in the provision to women of the protection flowing for this Convention.

Option 3 presents all the advantages of Option 2 but would also bring clarity about the more general issue of the scope of the concept. It would further ensure that all MS adopt a progressive and inclusive application of this Geneva Convention ground and would comprehensively address the risk of gaps in the provision of the protection flowing for this Convention.

The practical cooperation option could be particularly helpful to those MS which might need to broaden their current interpretation and application of this concept and could in any case contribute to the approximation of national decision-making.

Comparison of financial impacts : O ptions 1 and 3 would incur costs related to higher recognition rates for those MS (at least 12) that currently apply cumulatively the relevant criteria. These extra costs will not apply to the (at least 10) MS that have already adopted an alternative approach to the concept. All legislative options would incur costs for those MS (at least 14) that currently do not provide the possibility to define a particular social group on gender related aspects alone and as a consequence may deny certain female applicants international protection. These extra costs will not apply to the (at least 11) MS that already provide for such a possibility. In the case of Option 1 all the above costs would be limited as they would affect only those MS which voluntarily accept to change their approach.

Social effects and fundamental rights: The effect of Option 1 on access to protection would be marginal, as it does not oblige Member States to change their approach. Option 2 would substantially improve the equality of treatment of female applicants and increasz their chances of being granted protection. Option 3 would have an even higher impact, as it would also tackle the general issue of the application of the relevant criteria. In the MS affected, Option 3 would also ensure better respect of the rights covered under Article 18 and especially Article 19 of the Charter than all the other options.

Overall assessment: All legislative options can be considered proportionate; however it appears that Option 1 would be an inadequate measure in terms of raising protection standards, improving efficiency and ensuring a consistent application. Option 3 would have the most positive effects in terms of ensuring that all MS adopt a progressive and inclusive application of this Geneva Convention ground but it might meet with strong resistance from a significant number of Member States. Therefore, Option 2 appears as the most proportionate and adequate to achieve the set objectives. Option 4 imposes no obligations on MS, since they participate in cooperation activities on a voluntary basis. The preferred option should therefore be a combination of Options 2 and 4.

4.5 To approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees

4.5.1 Duration of residence permits

Option 1 (l egislative) : To prolong the minimum duration of the residence permits granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection from the current 1-year period to 2 years.

Option 2 (l egislative) : To oblige MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection residence permits valid for at least 3 years, but to include as a compulsory element that the MS should re-assess at the moment of renewal whether the conditions for the protection status are still fulfilled.

Option 3 (l egislative) : To oblige MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection residence permits valid for at least 3 years, as is currently the case for refugees.

Option 1 would not result in a similar level of entitlements for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees, although it would lead to an improvement in those MS (at least 11) that currently grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection the minimum (1 year) residence permit. Some MS may still opt for more beneficial terms, in particular those (at least 7) MS which grant permits of 3 years or more. This means that the protection standards across the EU would not be entirely consistent, but in any case to a higher degree that at present. Standards would be enhanced in those MS (at least 8) that currently grant resident permits of less than 2 years.

Under Option 2, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection would be entitled to a residence permit of equal duration as refugees. Protection standards would be increased in those countries that currently grant permits valid for a period shorter than three years (at least 12 MS; in addition to those granting permits of one year, Poland grants a permit of two years), but decreased in those MS that currently renew residence permits automatically. It would also satisfy the need felt by certain MS to assess the persistence of protection needs of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection more strictly than in the case of refugees.

Option 3 would imply the complete approximation of the duration of residence permits granted to the two categories, thus raising the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive. It would also lead to optimal streamlining of the relevant administrative procedures.

Comparison of financial impacts : Option 1 would result in a limited reduction of the administrative and financial costs associated with the renewal of residence permits for those MS that issue permits valid for one year only. However, this reduction would not be as important as under option 3, where the need for renewal only would need to be assessed every three years on a case by case basis. In practice, option 3 would imply that those MS which check the need for protection every year at present would only need to do this every three years. Option 2 on the other hand, which would introduce 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 already 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. In practice the obligation to re-assess the need for protection would mean that within a three years period, all these beneficiaries’ (need for) residence permits would need to be checked by the MS. Depending on the number (and proportion) of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in the country, this requirement would be more costly in some MS than others.

Social effects and fundamental rights: All three options will lead to increased equality, access to social protection and integration for beneficiaries in some MS, but impacts will vary between the options. Option 3 will achieve the highest level of equality, protection and integration, whereas option 1 will have the least positive effects, since it would result in a better situation in the lowest number of MS and during the shortest time period. Indeed, longer validity of residence permits can be expected to have more positive effects on both social protection and integration. All options promote the rights in Articles 18 and 21 of the Charter. These rights would be enhanced to the highest degree by option 3 and to the lowest degree by option 1. As regards the situation of children and their right to such protection and care that is necessary for their well being (Article 24), option 3 would have the strongest positive impact.

Overall assessment : Option 1 is inadequate to achieve the desired level of approximation of rights, streamlining of procedures and consistency of standards. Option 2 is disproportionate in view of the additional administrative burden it implies in a compulsory manner, given that MS can on their own initiative check the persistence of protection needs as often as they see fit. Compared to these options, and taking into account that it would have the strongest positive impacts from the social/fundamental rights perspective, Option 3 should be the preferred policy option.

4.5.2 Access to employment

Option 1 (l egislative) : To guarantee beneficiaries of subsidiary protection access to employment-related education opportunities under the same conditions as refugees but to make their access to the labour market conditional on MS' compliance with the transitional arrangements in the Accession Treaties.

Option 2 (l egislative) : To establish a temporal limit of 6 months for the application of the limitations allowed by the current Qualification Directive.

Option 3 (l egislative) : To oblige MS 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.

Option 1 would not result in a complete approximation but would greatly reduce the scope of discretion currently provided by the Directive, which allows for the situation of the labour market to be taken into account including (and thus not exclusively) for possible prioritisation of access. Moreover, it would accommodate MS' obligations under the transitional arrangements set by the Accession Treaties: those MS that restrict access of workers from the Accession countries would have to give labour market access to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection only after they have given preferential labour market access to nationals from these "new" MS (according to the principle of "Community preference"). However, as the obligations imposed on MS in the context of economic migration and the ensuing principle of Community preference do not apply in the context of asylum, the imposition of such a condition might appear unnecessarily restrictive.

The establishment of a temporal limit envisaged under option 2 would mean that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection would have unconditional access to the labour market and to employment related education opportunities etc. at the latest 6 months after receiving their status. This option would thereby increase, but not completely approximate the relevant entitlements to those of refugees. Consistent application of standards would be promoted, but differences would remain between those MS which choose not to restrict the access to 6 months after receiving the status and those which do. It would have no impact in terms of streamlining administrative procedures.

Option 3 would imply the complete approximation of access to employment for the two categories, thus improving the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and enhancing consistency, as well as streamlining procedures. This option would further be consistent with the Proposal for the amendment of Directive 2003/9/EC (the Reception Conditions Directive) Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ L 31 of 6.2.2003, p. 18) which grants asylum seekers unconditional access to the labour market. [41]

Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ L 31 of 6.2.2003, p. 18)

Comparison of financial impacts : All options would have labour market impacts for the three MS which currently apply the limitation allowed by the Directive. Option 3 would have the strongest impact, to the extent that it would imply the complete elimination of any limitations currently applied. At the same time, all these options would have – again variable - impacts 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 fiscal contributions. In this respect as well, Option 3 would achieve higher positive impacts than the other two options, which both still reduce the access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to the labour market. Option 3 would result in administrative savings, to the extent that it would streamline procedures.

Social effects and fundamental rights: All three options would lead to increased equality/non-discrimination and integration for beneficiaries in some MS, but impacts would vary between the options. Option 3 would achieve the highest level of equality and integration, whereas option 1 would have the least positive effects, since it would maintain a difference between EU nationals and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in certain MS. All three options promote the rights established in Articles 15, 16 and 21 of the Charter; however, these rights are promoted to a higher extent by option 3 than options 1 and 2.

Overall assessment: All three options appear proportionate. However, in view of its higher positive social and financial impacts as well as its increased adequacy to achieve all relevant objectives, Option 3 should be the preferred option.

4.5.3 Access to integration facilities

Option 1 (l egislative) : MS could maintain the current possibility to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection access to integration facilities where it is considered appropriate, but only for a period of 1 year from the date the protection status is granted.

Option 2 (l egislative) : MS could be obliged to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection access to integration programmes equivalent to those provided to refugees.

Option 3 (l egislative) : It could be envisaged to oblige MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection access to integration facilities under the same conditions as to refugees.

Option 1 means that the ten MS that currently limit the access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to integration facilities to situations ‘where it is considered appropriate’ could continue to do so, but only for a period of 1 year from the date the protection status is granted. Protection standards would therefore be increased in these ten MS, and entitlements 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.

Option 2 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. The option would improve, but not eliminate current inconsistencies in the application of protection standards across the EU.

Option 3 would imply the complete approximation of the rights granted to the two categories regarding access to integration facilities, thus raising the content of the status of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, streamlining procedures and enhancing consistency. It would further have a decisive impact in terms of facilitating the integration of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

Comparison of financial impacts : All options would imply increased financial costs for the ten MS that currently apply limitations. Option 1 would result in the lowest level of costs, as the MS would not have to provide integration programmes until after one year. Option 2 would oblige the MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection access to integration programmes equivalent to those provided to refugees, and would therefore lead to a higher level of costs than option 1. The same is relevant for option 3, which would imply that the same integration programmes need to be provided to both categories. However, 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. Option 3 would also result in administrative savings, to the extent that it would streamline procedures.

Social effects and fundamental rights: All three options would lead to increased equality/non-discrimination, access to the labour market and social protection and integration for beneficiaries in some MS; however, impacts will vary between the options and between the MS. Option 3 would achieve the greatest benefits, whereas option 1 would have the least positive effects, since it would result in a better situation only after one year. All three options promote the rights established in Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 24 of the Charter. These rights would be promoted most through the implementation of option 3 and least through the implementation of option 1.

Overall assessment: O ption 1 might be more acceptable to those MS adopting a differentiated approach, but there are no reasonable and objective justifications for maintaining a differentiation. Option 2 might be the most proportionate, given the level of flexibility it allow MS. However, it would not be sufficiently effective in terms of achieving the set objective: raising the standards streamlining procedures and ensuring consistency. Option 3 is proportionate but also the most effective in this respect. It should therefore constitute the preferred option.

4.6 To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs

4.6.1 To enhance access to procedures for recognition of qualifications

Option 1 (l egislative) : 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.

Option 2 (l egislative) : An obligation could be imposed on MS reflecting the content of the Council of Europe's Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European region (Lisbon Convention) 11.4.1997, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=165&CL=ENG , Article VII , namely to take all feasible and reasonable steps within the framework of their education system and in conformity with their constitutional, legal, and regulatory provisions to develop procedures designed to assess fairly and expeditiously whether beneficiaries of international protection fulfil the relevant requirements for access to higher education, to further higher education programmes or to employment activities, even in cases in which the qualifications obtained in one of the Parties to this Convention cannot be proven through documentary evidence. MS could further be obliged to exempt beneficiaries of protection from the fees involved in the recognition procedures or to grant them financial assistance, on condition that the persons concerned produce evidence of their inability to meet these costs.[42]

11.4.1997, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=165&CL=ENG , Article VII

Option 3 (practical cooperation) : MS could 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 .

Option 1 would address all types of qualifications and would accommodate the specificities of the situation of beneficiaries of protection, by encouraging the adoption of appropriate procedures. The specification that any relevant measures should not affect the relevant MS' obligations under the EU rules on the recognition of professional qualifications would ensure the compatibility of any national measures for the validation of professional qualifications, in particular with regard to regulated professions, with the EU acquis on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

Compared to option 2, this option defines in stricter terms the scope of its application by referring only to cases where the beneficiaries of international protection lack documentary evidence of their qualifications. This option would improve the content of entitlements, but would ensure a consistent application to a lesser extent than option 2, as MS would only be encouraged to implement such measures. Moreover, a simple encouragement regarding the provision of financial support would not have a binding effect, so its impact in terms of effectively raising the current standards would be more limited than that of option 2. Nevertheless, it would constitute a positive step in the direction of meeting the specific needs of beneficiaries and would not require MS who already follow a flexible approach in this respect to adopt more restrictive policies.

The integration within the EU asylum acquis of the obligations flowing from the Lisbon Convention, as envisaged under option 2, could provide an objective basis for the second-stage Qualification Directive to address the specific problems encountered by beneficiaries of international protection with regard to the recognition of their qualifications. Their needs would further be met in a broad manner, since the relevant obligation has a scope that includes - but is not limited to - cases in which the qualifications obtained cannot be proven through documentary evidence. The fact that this Convention has been ratified so far by 22 MS further argues in favour of the feasibility of such an option. It should be noted however that its application is limited to qualifications obtained in one of the Contracting Parties and to the recognition of higher education only. It would not cover vocational education and training or upper secondary levels of education, nor would it cover academic qualifications for regulated professions as these would need to be recognised by chambers of commerce or other relevant bodies.

The obligation under Option 2 to ensure that beneficiaries of international protection are not prevented from using the recognition procedures because of financial constraints would have a decisive impact in terms of addressing the specificities of the situation of beneficiaries of international protection. On the other hand, requiring evidence of the inability of the persons concerned to assume the costs of the recognition procedures, as a necessary complement of such an obligation, would result in reducing the flexibility that MS currently have to provide for such exemptions on a case-by case basis and possibly under less stringent conditions.

Practical cooperation could facilitate the task of competent authorities in different MS who are called upon to make assessments of qualifications of beneficiaries of international protection, as it would increase their knowledge about the trainings and curricula provided in different third countries. Several existing national good practices could be further developed and transferred.

Comparison of financial impacts : Both options would result in additional costs in particular in those MS (at least 5) that currently have no specific provisions in place for the recognition of skills and competences for these specific groups. Option 2 would entail higher costs in general, as MS would be obliged take all feasible and reasonable steps to assist beneficiaries or international protection in the recognition of the skills. This obligation would however concern higher education only. Option 1 would also entail additional costs for those MS that would positively respond to the encouragement: whilst the number of persons would be limited to those who lack documentary evidence, this option would address all types of qualifications. Regarding the provision of financial support, option 2 would entail higher costs (for at least five MS) as these would be obliged to financially support the recognition procedures. On the other hand, other MS which previously applied a case-by-case approach could be encouraged to limit their exemptions to only those beneficiaries of international protection which can produce evidence of their inability to meet the relevant costs. The costs of option 1 would depend on the number of MS that would follow the recommendation.

Social effects and fundamental rights: Both options, option 1 for addressing all types of competences and skills, and option 2 for its obligatory nature for higher education would lead to improved access to the labour market and to personal empowerment. Indeed, more beneficiaries of protection would be able to find employment in their chosen field and would also receive improved equality of treatment and opportunities. However, option 1 would have a slightly lower positive effect as it only covers higher education. Both options would enhance respect for Articles 14, 15, 21 and 24 of the Charter.

Overall assessment: Option 1 is expected to have a lesser impact than Option 2 in terms of raising standards and ensuring consistency. However, Option 2 appears disproportionate, to the extent that it imposes on MS: i) an obligation to assist beneficiaries of protection in the recognition of their skills - indeed a rather broad obligation, which is not limited to cases of absence of documentary evidence - and ii) an obligation to help beneficiaries address relevant financial constraints while at the same time reducing their flexibility regarding applicable conditions. Under these circumstances, Option 1, combined with Option 3, should be the preferred policy option.

4.6.2 To enhance access to vocational training and employment

Option 1 (l egislative) would encourage MS to provide beneficiaries of international protection with access to suitable training courses to upgrade their skills and would oblige MS to offer beneficiaries of international protection counselling services offered by employment offices.

Option 2 (l egislative) would oblige MS to ensure that beneficiaries of international protection have access to suitable training courses to upgrade their skills and to individual advice and guidance on vocational training and educational opportunities and to individual employment support.

Option 3 (practical cooperation) : MS could explore what works best in terms of facilitating access to training and employment through the exchange of experience and good practice.

Option 1 has the potential to enhance the access of beneficiaries of protection to employment, although its impact can be expected to be more limited than that of option 2. Option 1 would also ensure consistency with the Commission's Proposal for an "EU Blue Card" Directive Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, COM(2007) 637 final, Article 15(1)(i). which grants third country nationals falling within its scope access to counselling services afforded by employment offices. 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 problems encountered by beneficiaries of international protection regarding access to vocational training and employment. Option 3 can assist MS to enhance their policies through the identification of good practices in the context of the Network of National Contact Points on Integration, and by learning from practices developed in the context of the ERF, the Integration Fund and the European Social Fund. [43]

Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, COM(2007) 637 final, Article 15(1)(i).

Comparison of financial impacts : Both legislative options could imply additional costs for those MS that currently do not provide ‘suitable’ training courses and guidance. Compared to option 1, Option 2 would lead to higher costs as it would involve an obligation to offer suitable training courses. Option 1 would incur such compulsory costs only to the extent that it provides for an obligation to offer employment counselling services.

Social effects and fundamental rights: Both legislative options would lead to increased access to the labour market, integration and social protection, in particular in those MS that currently provide limited services. Option 2 would achieve this to a higher degree than option 1, due to the obligation to provide and adapt relevant services to the beneficiaries’ specific needs. Both Options 1 and 2 promote the rights established in Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 24 of the Charter . These rights are promoted to a higher degree by Option 2 than Option 1.

Overall assessment: Because of their compulsory character, measures envisaged under Option 2 appear disproportionate with regard to the objective and the status quo. Option 1 on the other hand appears not only adequate to achieve the set objective but also proportionate to it. Options 1 and 3 should thus form part of the preferred policy option.

4.6.3 To enhance access to integration facilities

Option 1 (l egislative) : To include in the relevant provision of the Directive (Article 33(1)) a reference to the "specific needs" of beneficiaries of international protection, so that MS would be obliged "to ensure access to integration programmes which they consider to be appropriate so as to meet 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.

Option 2 (l egislative) : The current vague formulations according to which MS should "make provision for integration programmes which they consider to be appropriate or create pre-conditions which guarantee access to such programmes" could be replaced by the direct obligation "to ensure access to integration programmes specifically designed to meet" the particular integration challenges faced by this category.

Option 3 (practical cooperation) : Practical cooperation to develop common approaches and tools with regard to integration programmes and support on the basis of good practices identified in the MS and transnational cooperation projects.

Option 1 would require MS to develop in their integration policies a targeted response to the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection. However, unlike option 2, it allows for an assessment of "appropriateness", which means that MS have the flexibility to apply the measures they consider most adequate and effective, taking into account relevant factors such as the educational levels and professional backgrounds of the persons concerned, the size and the composition of the communities of beneficiaries of international protection.

Option 2 would improve the content of entitlements to a higher degree than option 1, as the MS would be obliged to ensure access to integration programmes specifically designed to meet the particular integration challenges encountered by beneficiaries of international protection. It would also reduce, to a certain extent, the flexibility of MS by removing the reference to pre-conditions which guarantee access to integration programmes. Overall, this option would also increase to a higher degree the consistency of the application of the Directive by MS.

Option 3 can assist MS to enhance their policies through the identification of good practices in the context of the Network of National Contact Points on Integration, and by learning from practices developed in the context of the ERF, the Integration Fund and the European Social Fund.

Comparison of financial impacts : Both options would result in additional costs for the development and provision of targeted integration programmes in the MS that do not currently provide such programmes. The key difference between the options is that whereas option 1 implies that the specific needs of the beneficiaries are to be taken into account as ‘appropriate’, option 2 obliges the MS to ensure access to integration programmes specifically designed to meet their needs. Naturally, this difference has costs implications: costs for developing and providing introduction programmes and language courses tailored as far as possible (Option 1) to the beneficiaries’ specific needs would lead to lower costs than integration programmes that must take into account the specific needs of the target group (Option 2).

Social effects and fundamental rights: Both options would lead to increased access to social protection and integration. Option 2 would achieve a higher level of protection and integration than option 1, due to the obligation to adapt the programmes to the beneficiaries’ specific needs. Both Options 1 and 2 promote the rights established in the Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 24 of the Charter . These rights are promoted to a higher degree by option 2 than option 1.

Overall assessment: Option 2 would raise current standards and ensure consistency to a higher degree than Option 1. However, in view of the degree to which it reduces flexibility for MS, it appears disproportionate. On balance, taking into account all the impacts described above, Option 1 appears more proportionate as well as adequate in terms of achieving the set objective. Option 3 imposes no obligations on MS, since they participate in practical cooperation activities on a voluntary basis. T he preferred policy option should thus comprise options 1 and 3.

4.6.4 To enhance access to accommodation

Option 1 (l egislative): To maintain the current standard (namely the obligation to guarantee beneficiaries of international protection access to accommodation under equivalent conditions as other legally resident third country nationals) while at the same time encouraging MS to put in place policies aimed at preventing discrimination of beneficiaries of international protection and at ensuring equal opportunities regarding access to accommodation.

Option 2 (l egislative): To maintain the current standard while at the same time encouraging MS to grant them access under the same conditions as nationals .

Option 3 (l egislative): To require that beneficiaries of international protection have access to accommodation under the same conditions as nationals .

Option 4 (l egislative): To require that the accommodation to which beneficiaries of international protection have access should guarantee an adequate standard of living .

Option 5 (practical cooperation) : Practical cooperation to identify and share best practices, in particular with a view to facilitating access to the private housing market and to assisting individuals who cannot compete on the private housing market in finding social housing, as well as regarding funding for programmes and projects to cover relevant costs.

Option 1 seeks to address the problems resulting from direct and indirect discrimination faced by beneficiaries of international protection in the housing market by calling on MS to develop and put in place housing policies aimed at preventing discrimination and achieving equality of opportunity. It reflects thus the approach advocated in the Handbook on Integration Second Edition, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration, pp. 32-36 regarding national housing policies towards immigrants.[44]

Second Edition, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration, pp. 32-36

Option 2 would have more positive effects as it would tend towards ensuring them access under the same conditions as nationals. However , a simple encouragement would not have a binding effect, nor achieve consistency in the level of rights provided by the different MS.

Option 3 would give concrete effect to the political mandate on integration by raising current standards to the level of rights enjoyed by nationals. In particular, it would be compatible with the overall approach followed by the Directive: the same standard (same conditions as nationals) applies for instance regarding the access of refugees to employment, to social welfare and to health care and the access of minors to education. Moreover, it would ensure consistency with the standards established in the "Long-term residents Directive", which guarantees third-country nationals who are long-term residents in the EU equal access with nationals regarding access to procedures for obtaining housing Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003, concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long term residents (OJ L 16, p. 44) , Article 11(1)(f) . [45]

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003, concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long term residents (OJ L 16, p. 44) , Article 11(1)(f)

It appears from information collected in the context of consultations with NGOs that the legislation of 5 MS (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) does not set specific standards on housing with regard to their nationals. However, the absence of specific legislation does not necessarily mean that these MS do not provide any standards or adequate standards to their nationals or to third country nationals. Indeed these MS are also bound by the relevant human rights standards flowing from the EU Charter ("right to housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources"), the European Social Charter and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. It is telling in this respect that, according to available information, at least 3 of these MS provide adequate accommodation standards to beneficiaries of protection, whereas one of them provides even more favourable standards than those required by the Directive In the Czech Republic, the state finances 5 "integration centers" where refugees can stay for a maximum period of 18 months; Hungary also provides refugees with the possibility to live in an open center for a period of 6 months which can be extended to 6 more months; in Poland, the state does not provide accommodation as such but grants substantial financial means to beneficiaries of international protection to find something on their own; Poland is further reported to provide more favourable standards . For more detailed information see A nnex 11. . [46]

In the Czech Republic, the state finances 5 "integration centers" where refugees can stay for a maximum period of 18 months; Hungary also provides refugees with the possibility to live in an open center for a period of 6 months which can be extended to 6 more months; in Poland, the state does not provide accommodation as such but grants substantial financial means to beneficiaries of international protection to find something on their own; Poland is further reported to provide more favourable standards . For more detailed information see A nnex 11.

Option 4 would provide an objective framework for establishing higher standards by linking them directly to the level established by the relevant human rights instruments. It would also be in line with the standards provided in the Reception Conditions Directive, which imposes an equivalent obligation with regard to asylum seekers. However, it might create a discrepancy in some cases, to the extent that it might result in granting in practice beneficiaries of protection higher standards than those to which nationals are entitled according to domestic legislation. Moreover, 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 This was one of the problems identified in the Commission in the context of the evaluation of the Reception Conditions Directive; see relevant Impact Assessment SEC (2008) 2944. . [47]

This was one of the problems identified in the Commission in the context of the evaluation of the Reception Conditions Directive; see relevant Impact Assessment SEC (2008) 2944.

Option 5 would help MS map best practices in the context for instance of the ERF, the Integration Fund and the European Social Fund and identify the most effective and efficient ways in terms of actively assisting beneficiaries of protection in the search for accommodation meeting their individual needs and/or providing financial assistance (housing allowances or subsidies) .

Comparison of financial impacts: Measures to provide access to accommodation do not necessarily imply high costs, as they do not necessarily mean actually providing accommodation. As demonstrated by current practices in several MS For a detailed presentation see Annex 11 , to the extent that beneficiaries of protection have access to the labour market and are self-sufficient, measures to support their access to housing consist mainly in assistance in the search for accommodation : facilitating their access to the private housing market and assisting those who cannot compete on the private housing market in finding social housing. It is mainly in cases where beneficiaries of protection lack sufficient resources or for the duration of an initial "integration" period that MS provide allowances to help them cover housing costs or even housing in special centres . [48]

For a detailed presentation see Annex 11

All legislative options would result in additional costs for those MS which currently do not have in place anti-discrimination policies or which do not provide beneficiaries of protection access to accommodation of adequate standards or under the same conditions as nationals, respectively. In the case of Options 1 and 2 , only those MS which would voluntarily endeavour to raise their standards would be affected. The size of the additional costs would vary between MS. However, in the absence of precise information on the current legislations and practices of the different MS in terms of providing access to accommodation to nationals/third country nationals/beneficiaries of international protection, it is not possible to determine the size of the additional costs. It is however reasonable to assume that Options 3 and 4 would be more costly than Options 1 and 2.

Social effects and fundamental rights: All legislative options would lead to increased access to social protection and integration. Option 4 would achieve a higher level of protection and integration than all other options, and promote to a larger extent adherence to Articles 34(3) and 24 of the Charter. However, it could have negative impacts on equality of treatment/non-discrimination (Article 21) in those countries where beneficiaries of protection would have a right to adequate standard of living which may be superior to the standards applying to nationals.

Overall assessment : The impact of Options 1 and 2 in terms of raising current standards would be more limited than that of Options 3 and 4 since it is up to Member States to voluntarily comply. Option 4 would not only have strong social/fundamental rights impacts but it would also ensure consistency with human rights instruments as well as within the acquis. However, the discrepancy it would create compared to the legislative treatment of nationals in certain MS might have a negative impact on public support. Despite its non-compulsory character, the same objections would apply for Option 2. Option 3 would promote access to social protection and integration to a higher degree than options 1 and 2 and would not result in differentiations compared to nationals. However there are strong doubts about its feasibility in the light of the current economic situation. O ption 1 appears thus more adequate and more proportionate to achieving the stated objective. Option 5 imposes no obligations on MS, since they participate in cooperation activities on a voluntary basis. Consequently, the preferred policy option should comprise options 1 and 5.

4.7 To better ensure the right of beneficiaries of international protection for respect of family life

Option 1 (legislative): To i nclude 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 latter 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, provided it is in his or her best interests to reside in the same country as these persons.

Option 2 (legislative): To i nclude in the definition of family members the persons covered by Option 1 but without the condition referring to the best interests of the minor involved to reside in the same country as the other persons.

Option 3 (legislative): To include in the definition of family members i) the category referred to in Option 1; ii) families which have been founded during flight or upon arrival in the host State and iii) close relatives who lived together as a family unit at the time of leaving the country of origin and who were wholly or mainly dependent on the beneficiary of international protection for reasons related to their vulnerability or special needs.

Option 4 (l egislative): As option 3, but without the condition of vulnerability or special needs.

Option 5 (practical cooperation) : MS could jointly map their interpretations of the notion of family and in particular of the notions of dependency and the criteria they use to determine the best interests of the child as well as exchange good practices for the purposes of verifying family links

Option 1 would take into account 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. To this extent 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 Directive and the Dublin Regulation. Thus, family members who are present in a Member State and would have already been granted, by virtue of the amended Reception Conditions Directive, the rights and benefits provided for family members of an asylum applicant will also be granted the rights and benefits laid down in the Qualification Directive where the applicant concerned is granted a protection status. More generally, it would increase consistency in protection of family members compared to the present situation. Finally, it has the potential to ensure full respect of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Option 2 would have all the advantages of Option 1, whereas additionally allowing for a broader application of the concept of family members.

Option 3 would have all the advantages of Option 1 but would also increase protection through the inclusion of families founded during flight or upon arrival in the host society (as this is currently omitted from the Directive), and in the 18 MS that have not opted for including close relatives. However, Option 3 would not increase protection standards to the same degree as option 4, due to the inclusion of the condition of vulnerability or special needs. On the other hand, by establishing this condition, it would provide authorities with objective criteria to verify whether the condition of dependency is fulfilled.

Option 4 would achieve a higher level of consistency than option 3, since it is likely that several MS (at least those 12 which currently apply broader definitions) would opt for higher standards than those established under option 3. Without a condition relating to vulnerability or special needs, it would also result in a higher level of standards than option 3, but would not provide an objective framework for applying the notion of dependency.

Practical cooperation could help MS to better define the criteria for determining the best interests of the child and to identify the most effective and cost-efficient methods for the verification of family links drawing on practices developed in other related policy contexts, such as of family reunification, but also in the context of the identification of vulnerable asylum seekers, in line with the Reception Conditions Directive.

Comparison of financial impacts : There is no precise data available on numbers of family members that would be affected by the broadening of the definition but all legislative options would lead to additional costs. Taking into account the size of the respective groups of potential beneficiaries, Option 4 would be the costliest one, followed in decreasing order by options 3, 2 and 1. Taking into account costs for processing of applications, Option 1 would be costlier than Option 2 whereas Option 3 would be costlier than Option 4, since Options 1 and 3 require specific assessments to determine not only the family or other relevant link but also whether it is in the best interests of the minor involved to reside in the same country or to establish the vulnerability or the special needs.

Social effects and fundamental rights: All options would lead to increased access to social protection and integration and promote the rights established in Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter. Taking into account the size of the respective groups of potential beneficiaries, Option 4 would better ensure respect for all these Articles – followed in decreasing order by options 3, 2 and 1.

Overall assessment: Option 1 has a more limited scope than all other options; indeed, it does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure respect of the primacy of the best interests of the child in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the child. Inversely, all other options might be perceived as overly broad and thus find less support amongst MS. On balance, option 1 therefore appears as the preferred legislative option in terms of raising standards, as well as in terms of feasibility and proportionality. Option 5 imposes no obligations on MS, since they participate in cooperation activities on a voluntary basis; it should also form part of the preferred policy option.

4.8 Summary of further non contentious policy options selected

A number of further policy options have been identified and assessed with a view to meeting the operational objectives. As they are not contentious, they are discussed in detail in Annex 18. Those which form part of the preferred policy option are as follows:

With a view t o ensuring a more inclusive interpretation of the “causal nexus requirement’ in line with the Geneva Convention:

· Legislative option: To specify that the causal link exists 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.

With a view to preventing the unwarranted cessation of protection status

· Legislative option : To incorporate in the Directive the obligation to apply in the case of cessation of both refugee and subsidiary protection status an exception to cessation relating to compelling reasons arising out previous persecution or serious harm.

With a view to ensuring the access of family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to benefits under the same conditions as those applicable to family members of refugees

· Legislative option: T o oblige MS to grant benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection under the same conditions as to family members of refugees.

With a view to ensuring that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection have the right to travel outside the MS' territory under the same conditions as those applicable for refugees.

· Legislative option : To eliminate the possibility to limit the reasons for which beneficiaries of subsidiary protection may travel outside the MS' territory

With a view to reducing cases in which MS can limit access to rights and benefits for beneficiaries of international protection

· Legislative option: to 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.

5 Presentation of the Preferred Policy Option

The elements that constitute the preferred option are outlined in Annex 21.

6 Assessment of Preferred Policy Option

6.1 EU added value

The preferred option would add value in the following ways ( for a detailed presentation of the added value/ the main advantages of the preferred option see Annex 22) :

- By ensuring that the standards of the Qualification Directive are clear and adequate with a view to guarantee full compliance with international human rights and refugee law standards, the preferred option would attain better respect for the right to asylum and more generally for fundamental rights, including the principle of non-discrimination.

- By reducing room for doubt, uncertainty and administrative error, these amendments would streamline and enhance the quality, fairness and effectiveness of the asylum procedure , Frontloading would enable authorities to better deal with cases of unfounded and abusive applications and more generally to process claims more rapidly while reaching solid decisions, so that more cases would result in a final decision already in the first instance and prolonged litigations would be avoided. This would also lead to quicker access to the rights set out in the Directive for persons genuinely in need of protection while at the same time supporting MS’ efforts to rapidly remove from the territory failed asylum seekers and improving the credibility of the whole process leading to a better public perception of asylum.

- By enhancing the consistent application of standards, these amendments would help reduce secondary movements and contribute to a more equal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection amongst MS.

6.2 Proportionality

The proportionality of the envisaged amendments is demonstrated by the following (for a concise comparison of the envisaged legislative amendments with the standards/objectives to be attained in the second phase see table in Annex 23):

- The amendments aimed at clarifying the grounds for protection do not go beyond the requirements of the Geneva Convention, the ECHR and the general principles of Community law , as interpreted in the case law of the ECtHR, the ECJ and national jurisprudences; rather, they closely reflect this case law and explicitly integrate it in the EU legislative acquis.

- The amendments giving effect to the call of the Hague Programme for a uniform protection status by approximating the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection with those of refugees address solely the differences in treatment which may no longer be considered as objectively justified . Further differences linked to the different grounds on which the statuses are granted and their different historical and legal origins (regarding, for instance, the type of travel documents to be issued or the grounds for exclusion) remain intact.

- More generally, regarding the amendments enhancing rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary/international protection, only those elements which are indispensable for attaining the objectives set by the Hague Programme and more generally relevant to the achievement of social and economic cohesion have been selected when developing the preferred option, whilst more far-reaching options have been discarded. For instance, the measures envisaged in order to enhance access to the labour market or to integration have been selected because they are sufficiently effective in terms of achieving these objectives and increasing equality and social protection without overly reducing national flexibility or encroaching on national competences. Indeed, they closely reflect the orientations established and the priorities set in the context of the emerging European integration framework. Moreover, they are designed either as encouragements or as result-oriented obligations, leaving modalities for achieving those targets to MS to maintain or establish in line with their administrative and institutional systems and accommodating to the maximum possible extent existing national arrangements. In cases where only fragmentary information about the current legislations and practices or the number of persons to be affected in the different MS is available (for instance regarding access to accommodation), particular care was taken to ensure that the options selected to be part of the preferred option are the "lightest" in terms of costs and administrative burdens as well as the least controversial.

6.3 Summary of relevance, feasibility and expected impacts

The relevance, feasibility and expected impacts of the preferred policy option are outlined below. Evidently, to the extent that standards currently applicable in MS vary, the impacts will also vary.

Assessment Criteria|Rating |Motivation of the rating and relevant aspects of the preferred policy option |

Relevance to specific objectives|

1.To ensure the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention and full respect of the ECHR and of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights |4|The preferred policy option can be expected to have important positive impacts in terms of ensuring full compatibility with the relevant standards. In particular, it would :- reduce the risk that persons are returned to (part of ) a country where their access to effective protection cannot be ensured, by limiting the broad interpretation of ‘actors of protection’ and "internal protection"; -reduce the risk of denial of protection in cases i) where persons are persecuted for reasons not related to a Geneva Convention ground, but where State protection is withheld for such reasons, by ensuring a more inclusive interpretation of the ‘nexus requirement’ and ii) where issues arising from an applicant's gender are not sufficiently taken into account for the purposes of identifying a particular social group, by requiring that gender-related aspects should be given due consideration; -reduce the risk that persons who have suffered atrocious forms of persecution/harm are returned to their country of origin, by introducing a compulsory exception to cessation relating to compelling reasons arising out previous persecution/serious harm; - remove all differences of treatment of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection which are currently allowed by the Directive and which can no longer be considered as in line with the principle of non-discrimination |

2. To approximate the content of protection granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection|4.5|The preferred option would substantially enhance the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection ensuring equality of treatment with refugees in relevant aspects. In particular, it would grant them: the right to a residence permit valid at least three years; the right to travel outside the MS' territory under the same conditions as refugees; unconditional access to employment and employment-related education activities; increased access to social welfare and healthcare; enhanced access to integration facilities; benefits for family members under the same conditions as those applicable for family members of refugees.|

3. To raise the overall content of protection taking into account the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection|4.5|As a result of the provisions introduced by the preferred option, beneficiaries of international protection would have enhanced access / rights regarding:-Procedures for recognition of their qualifications: MS would be encouraged to adopt appropriate procedures for those cases where beneficiaries of international protection lack documentary evidence of their qualifications, and to exempt beneficiaries of international protection from fees or grant them financial assistance if they are unable to cover the costs;-Vocational training and employment: MS would be obliged to provide beneficiaries of protection with employment support and would be encouraged to facilitate their access to suitable training; - Integration programmes: MS would be obliged to ensure access to appropriate integration programmes that take into account their specific needs- Access to accommodation: MS would be encouraged to put in place anti-discrimination policies - Access to rights and benefits for beneficiaries of protection who obtained their status on the basis of "manufactured" claims: MS would no longer have the possibility to restrict this access- Best interests of the child: The broadened definition of "family members" takes into account ensures the full respect of the best interests of the child |

4. To enhance the efficiency of the asylum process|4.0|The preferred option can thus be expected to facilitate, streamline and enhance the quality, the fairness and the effectiveness of the asylum process mainly in two ways:- As a result of the removal of the current ambiguities and of the clarification of the grounds for protection , the Directive's notions would leave less room for doubt, uncertainty and administrative error, so as to enable asylum authorities to better deal with cases of unfounded and abusive applications and more generally to process claims more rapidly while reaching robust decisions. Therefore, more cases would result in a final decision already in the first instance and prolonged litigations would be avoided. This would also lead to quicker access to the rights set out in the Qualification Directive for persons genuinely in need of protection while at the same time supporting MS’ efforts to rapidly remove from the territory failed asylum seekers and improving the credibility of the whole process leading to a better public perception of asylum. This result would be achieved in particular through the clarification and better definition of the concepts "actors of protection", "internal protection", "nexus requirement" and "membership of a particular social group". - As a result of the approximation of the rights granted to the two categories of beneficiaries of protection , the authorities would no longer need to apply separate conditions and procedures regarding residence permits and travel documents, access to employment, social welfare, healthcare and benefits for family members and to integration programmes. |

5. To ensure the consistent application of agreed high protection standards across the EU|3.5|The preferred option would imply significant progress towards a more consistent application of agreed high protection standards across Europe to the extent that it would eliminate derogations, clarify and better circumscribe definitions and approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees. Consistent application would be particularly enhanced through the following amendments:- The clarification and better definition of the concepts "actors of protection", "internal protection", "nexus requirement" and "membership of a particular social group"; - The elimination of the possibility to apply the concept of internal flight alternative notwithstanding technical obstacles;- The elimination of the possibilities for MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and their family members a lower level of rights than those of refugees;- The elimination of the possibilities for MS to apply sanctions in the case of beneficiaries of international protection who obtained protection on the basis of "manufactured" claims;- The broadening in compulsory terms of the definition of "family members". It should be noted however that some of the elements that form part of the preferred option enhance the consistent application of agreed high protection standards to a lesser degree than others, to the extent that they merely encourage MS to take certain measures or allow them a certain degree of flexibility. This is the case notably with the provisions aimed at facilitating the access of beneficiaries of international protection to suitable training, to procedures for the recognition of qualifications and to integration facilities. The practical cooperation activities foreseen as part of the preferred policy option would also significantly contribute to reducing divergences in national approaches and decision-making practices. |

Transposition and implementation feasibility|3.5|The elements outlined above that would promote a more consistent application of agreed high protection standards across Europe (notably the removal of possibilities for derogations regarding both grounds and content of protection and the clarification and better definition of grounds of protection) would evidently also promote a more consistent transposition and implementation of the Directive. However, a few provisions merely include an encouragement or terminology that may be interpreted in different ways in the MS. In most such cases, the preferred option foresees practical cooperation in order to achieve a common understanding. In terms of implementation, inconsistencies could arise concerning in particular with regard to the following elements of the preferred option: The entities which may be considered actors of protection: Practical cooperation between the MS would serve 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. The criteria for the assessment of accessibility of protection: Practical cooperation could help MS map the criteria they apply in the context of the “reasonableness” analysis and to reach a joint understanding of how accessibility of protection should be assessed. MS could also exchange information relevant for the assessment of the existence of an internal flight alternative in specific third countries, whereas the enhanced Country of origin information to be provided by the EASO would significantly improve the quality of such assessments throughout the EU.The elements in the situation in the country of origin which are relevant for the definition of a particular social group: MS could cooperate to jointly map the interpretation of the ground and its effects on the process and outcomes of determining whether an applicant is to be granted international protection or not, which would serve as a basis to approximate national decision-making.The criteria to assess what integration programmes may be considered appropriate so as to take into account the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection: Practical cooperation would serve to develop common approaches and tools with regard to integration programmes and support provided to beneficiaries of protection.The modalities of policies aimed at preventing discrimination regarding access to accommodation: Practical cooperation would help MS map best practices in the context for instance of the ERF, the Integration Fund and the European Social Fund and identify the most effective and efficient ways in terms of actively assisting beneficiaries of protection in the search for accommodation meeting their individual needs and/or providing financial assistance (housing allowances or subsidies) . The criteria to define the best interests of the child : Practical cooperation could include exchange of good practices Practical cooperation would evidently serve to ensure a consistent implementation of other provisions as well. For example, to approximate national decision-making on the implementation of the nexus requirement; explore what works best (and efficiently) in relation to procedures for recognition of competences gained in third countries; identify good and cost efficient practices concerning facilitation (also in financial terms) of access to recognition procedures, vocational training and employment.|

Financial feasibility|3.5|Some of the elements that form part of the preferred option could lead to increased costs for providing protection to higher numbers of applicants and for granting to beneficiaries of international protection the enhanced rights attached to their status. Financial implications will vary amongst MS depending on e.g. the existing support and measures in place, numbers/proportion of beneficiaries of international protection etc.On the other hand, by frontloading, streamlining and enhancing the quality of the first-instance examination of asylum applications, as well as by reducing appeals, it can lead to a decrease in the financial and administrative costs of national asylum processing systems. Moreover, by reducing differences of legal frameworks and decision-making practices and achieving further harmonisation of the criteria used to grant protection as well as of the rights granted, the envisaged amendments can be expected to lead to a reduction of secondary movement and thus to reduce the costs incurred by MS, in particular, for the implementation of the Dublin system. Furthermore, in the longer term, the initial investments into integration support could be absorbed to a certain extent by the positive economic and social effects of sustainable employment and successful integration of beneficiaries. For a detailed analysis see under 6.3 |

Political feasibility|3.5|Certain legislative elements of the preferred option may invite objections from some MS, which e.g. would prefer retaining a higher level of flexibility in the application of the Directive, in particular those options that may have costs implications as higher numbers of statuses would be granted, and/or rights would be increased. Most MS are in principle in favour of the following elements (few objections are therefore expected): clarification of nexus requirement; introducing "compelling reasons" exceptions to cessation; access to rights and benefits independent of whether the person acted in ‘bad faith’ in order to obtain protection; the conditions for granting benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection; approximation of rights regarding access to social welfare, healthcare and integration facilities for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.Examples of elements where objections can be expected to include: Limiting the broad interpretation of the concepts "actors of protection" and "internal protection" (MS which apply a more restrictive interpretation may object); Ensuring a more inclusive interpretation of the concept "particular social group" (MS which do not define a particular social group on gender-related aspects alone may object); Enhancing access to training and employment (opposition from certain MS that currently do not provide adapted services and support can be expected); Provision of integration facilities taking into account the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection (may be perceived by certain MS as restricting their flexibility in the field of integration policy); The right to a three year residence permit for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (consultations revealed some reservations).|

Social impacts|4.5|The preferred option contains several elements which would produce positive social effects:Increased access to protection and justice: a higher number of persons may obtain protection as a result of the clarification and definition in line with international standards of concepts: actors of protection, internal protection, nexus requirement, particular social group; introduction of limitations to cessation; certain amendments enhance access to protection in particular for female applicants (regarding the nexus requirement, particular social group).Increased social integration and access to the labour market as a result of the measures to assist in the social and vocational integration of beneficiaries of protection (measures that take into account their specific needs regarding access to training, employment, integration facilities, recognition of qualifications, housing). Increased access to social protection because of improvements of rights and benefits, in particular for certain categories of beneficiaries or their family members (limitations to cessation; elimination of the possibility to restrict benefits in cases of "bad faith"; rights of family members, enhanced rights of the child). Increased equality/non-discrimination : in particular as a result of the measures that give beneficiaries of subsidiary protection - and their family members - the same rights as refugees, and of the amendments which enhance access to protection in particular for female applicants (regarding the nexus requirement, particular social group). Better public health: some measures have a direct positive effect, such as increased rights to social welfare and healthcare (elimination of possibilities to restrict access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to social welfare and health care, elimination of the possibility to restrict benefits in cases of "bad faith", enhanced rights of family members), whereas others have an indirect effect, e.g. via enhanced access to employment/integration. However, some elements of the preferred option such as enhanced access to the labour market and accommodation could also be viewed negatively by nationals, in particular in the context of the current financial crisis. |

Impacts on fundamental rights|4.5|The preferred option would promote the following rights of the EU Charter: Article 7: Respect for private and family life (enhanced rights of family members, access to accommodation under the same conditions as nationals)Article 14: Right to education (enhanced access to education and training, to recognition of qualifications and to integration programmes)Article 15: Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work (enhanced access to education and training, to recognition of qualifications and to integration programmes) Article 16: Freedom to conduct a business (enhanced access to education and training, to recognition of qualifications and to integration programmes)Article 18: Right to asylum (amendments to concepts: actors of protection, internal protection, nexus requirement, particular social group; limitations to cessation; elimination of possibility to restrict benefits in cases of ‘bad faith’)Article 19: Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition (amendments to concepts: actors of protection, internal protection, nexus requirement, and particular social group; limitations to cessation)Article 21: Non discrimination (amendments aimed at approximating the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees)Article 24: Rights of the child (amendments to concepts: actors of protection, internal protection, particular social group; longer duration of residence permits for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, enhanced access to integration facilities, to, education, training and employment, access to accommodation under same conditions as nationals, measures ensuring better respect for family life). Article 34: Social security and social assistance: (elimination of possibilities to limit access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and certain family members and of the possibility to restrict benefits in cases of ‘bad faith’ )Article 35: Healthcare: (elimination of possibilities to limit access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and certain family members and of the possibility to restrict benefits in cases of ‘bad faith’) |

Impacts on third countries|-|As refugee flows are mainly determined by push factors, it is impossible to determine if –and to what extent- the preferred option would have an impact on the overall asylum flows to the EU – see above under 2.2.7 |

6.4 Potential magnitude of financial impacts

6.4.1 Potential costs

As indicated above in section 2.2, there are particular difficulties in quantifying potential costs and savings of measures applied in the CEAS. As shown in the table below, the total numbers of asylum seekers/ beneficiaries of international protection in the MS potentially affected by the amendments are often the only possible indications of the potential magnitude of costs.

Elements of preferred option|MS potentially affected|Numbers of applicants Data extracted from table on numbers of applications in 2008; see Annex 4 and of beneficiaries of international protection potentially affected For total numbers of beneficiaries of international protection (refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection) recognised between 2005 and 2008, see table in Annex 24 – Other a vailable indications on potential costs Data extracted from table on numbers of applications in 2008; see Annex 4 For total numbers of beneficiaries of international protection (refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection) recognised between 2005 and 2008, see table in Annex 24 |

a) Activities of MS asylum personnel to provide information i) to asylum seekers on the various elements of the revised Directive and ii) to beneficiaries of international protection on their rights and benefits b) Activities related to mapping, identification and exchanges of good practices, in the context of practical cooperation |All MS with the exception of DK|Based on a calculation of the hourly labour costs of MS asylum personnel at a rate of EUR 23.84, the likely total administrative costs of the preferred policy option amount to EUR 3,094,407. The assessment of these costs is presented in detail in Annex 25.|

Amendment of definition of "actors of protection " |It might affect in particular the recognition practices of BE, HU, SE and the UK. |In 2008 these MS received 15,940, 3,175, 24,875 and 30,545 applications respectively|

Amendment of definition of "internal protection" |It might affect in different degrees many different MS; a clear picture arises only in the case of the deletion of Article 8(3), which has been transposed by CY DE, IE, LU, NL, PT, SK and the UK |In 2008 these 8 MS received in total 81,575 applications|

Amendment of notion of "particular social group" |Its impact can be identified mainly with regard to female applicants, as it has the potential to enhance access to protection for certain categories. To this extent it would affect AT, CY EE, EL, IT, LV, LI NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, UK.|The 14 MS which would be affected received in 2008 a total number of 30,800 female applicants See Table in Annex 7 See Table in Annex 7|

Amendment of definition of the nexus requirement |It would affect at least the 7 MS which apply a strict definition: IT, LV, LU, PT, RO, SK and the UK . It would also improve access to protection for female applicants, one of the groups that are particularly affected by persecution by non-State actors but denied State protection because of their gender. |I n 2008 the 7 MS in question received in total 64,495 applications, of which 14,800 were lodged by women See Table in Annex 7 . See Table in Annex 7|

Introduction of exceptions to cessation|MS which make use of the possibilities to apply cessation: BE, CZ, DE, EL, FR, FI, IE MT, PL and SE. |Cessation of refugee status was applied in 2008 in total in 6,715 cases (of which 6,110 in DE, 345 in EL, 95 in FR, 85 in FI, 40 in CZ, 20 in BE, 10 in SE and 5 in IE and in PL). ). In the same year, cessation of subsidiary protection was applied in 305 cases (of which 240 in DE, 40 in SE and 25 in MT) See tables in Annex 18, under section 1.2 . See tables in Annex 18, under section 1.2|

Approximation of the rights attached to the two statuses|Overall impacts will vary significantly between MS: - some (such as IE, SE and UK) will practically not be affected at all , as they make no differentiation regarding the rights granted; - a majority of MS (including AT, BE, CZ, EE, FR, PL, RO and SI) maintain few differences (notably regarding the duration of residence permits), - whereas some MS make use of the possibilities for differentiation in different respects (CY, DE, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT)|

Elimination of the possibility to limit travel for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to cases related to humanitarian reasons|AT, LU and ES would need to change the format of the travel documents they currently issue. T he implementation of this amendment will not imply any costs in terms of rights. |The numbers of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in these MS in 2005-2008 amount to 105, 840, and 215 respectively. It should be further noted that only part of these populations would seek to acquire a travel document.|

Obligation for Member States to provide beneficiaries of subsidiary protection with unconditional access to the labour market|It will affect CY, DE and LU |The numbers of persons aged 15-64 who received subsidiary protection in these MS between 2005 and 2008 can be estimated at 445, 1,925 and 504 respectively. The comparison of these numbers with the n umbers of persons aged 15-64 in the labour force of these MS shows that the impact of this amendment on their labour markets will be minimal: the numbers of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who would potentially benefit from this amendment represent a percentage of 0.11% for CY, 0.0046 % for DE, and 0.23% for LU of the labour force of these MS See table in Annex 26. Data for Cyprus could not be disaggregated by age, so the figure of 445 includes all ages. Data were not available for 2008, so the data for Cyprus cover only 2005-2007. . In reality, this impact will be even lower, as the overall numbers of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection of working age include persons who possess no skills or will not seek employment and persons with special needs (importantly, an average 20% of asylum seekers populations are estimated to have suffered torture or other forms of violence For more detailed information on the prevalence of torture amongst asylum seekers and refugees see Annex 27 ). See table in Annex 26. Data for Cyprus could not be disaggregated by age, so the figure of 445 includes all ages. Data were not available for 2008, so the data for Cyprus cover only 2005-2007. For more detailed information on the prevalence of torture amongst asylum seekers and refugees see Annex 27|

Elimination of the possibility to reduce to core benefits the access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to social welfare and healthcare|The approximation of rights regarding social welfare would affect DE, LU, LV and PT whereas the approximation regarding healthcare would affect only MT . |Due to the lack of information on the cost of social welfare/healthcare granted to refugees in these States and the cost of the core benefits they currently grant to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, it is impossible to quantify the financial implications of the assimilation of the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees in this respect. An indication of the potential magnitude of the costs can only be provided on the basis of the populations of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection hosted in these MS for the period 2005-2008: 3,375 (DE), 340 (LU), 5 (LV), 3,010 (MT) and 95 (PT). |

Elimination of the possibility to apply specific conditions for benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection|The only MS affected would be PL. |As there is no information available neither on the nature of the applicable conditions, nor on the numbers of family members that might be concerned or the costs of the benefits, the only indication is the number of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in this country, i.e 7,820 persons between 2005 and 2008. |

Elimination of the possibility to limit access to integration facilities for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection only to cases where it is appropriate|It may be expected to affect at least 8 MS: BG, CZ, DE, EE, HU, LT, SK and PT . |As there is no information available on what this "appropriateness test" signifies in their national practices, it is not possible to estimate the numbers of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who are currently deprived of such access nor the numbers of beneficiaries who would benefit from this amendment. Due to the variation of the content of integration programmes in the different MS See Annex 9 it is also not possible to identify the additional integration facilities to which they would have access as a result. Relevant data indicate that the ensuing costs will be very limited: the total population of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in these countries for the period 2005-2008 amounted to 5,495 persons whereas the average per capita cost of integration programmes provided by one MS (PL) for the period 2005-2007 ( EUR 682 ) Poland is the only MS that provided information on such costs, see Annex 28 See Annex 9 Poland is the only MS that provided information on such costs, see Annex 28|

Enhancement of access to procedures for the recognition of qualifications of beneficiaries of protection|The only indications which may be drawn from the data available is that at least 4 MS (BE, NL, SK and SE) have in place procedures for the facilitation of access to recognition of qualifications for beneficiaries of international protection compared to nationals whereas at least 6 MS (EL, HU, LU, MT, PL and RO) do not . Moreover, it appears that, amongst those MS where recognition procedures are not free of charge, at least 4 MS provide beneficiaries of protection with financial assistance ( LU, RO, SK SE), whereas at least 4 others not (CY, EE, EL, LV) . |The piecemeal information available on current practices in MS and the absence of data on the costs of such procedures, or on the numbers of beneficiaries of protection who have recourse to such procedures does not allow for a quantification of impacts of the amendments aimed at encouraging the use of alternative procedures and exemptions from the fees or grants to cover the fees. In the 6 MS that might be affected by the introduction of alternative procedures – if they decide to transpose the new optional provisions - the numbers of persons aged 15-64 who were granted protection between 2005-2008 amounted to 1,019 (EL), 1,089 (HU), 1,608 (LU), 6,028 (MT), 11,977 (PL) and 284 (RO) See table in Annex 26 . Along the same lines, in the 4 MS that might be affected - if they accepted to introduce financial measures for the facilitation of access- these numbers amount to 0 (EE), 1,019 (EL) and 445 (CY) whereas no data is available for LV See table in Annex 26. Data for Cyprus could not be disaggregated by age, so the figure of 445 includes all ages. Data were not available for 2008, so the data for Cyprus cover only 2005-2007. . Again, it should be noted that the impact will be even lower, as these numbers comprise persons who will not in reality seek to recognise skills or qualifications as well as persons who will not need any specific facilitation arrangements or financial support. See table in Annex 26 See table in Annex 26. Data for Cyprus could not be disaggregated by age, so the figure of 445 includes all ages. Data were not available for 2008, so the data for Cyprus cover only 2005-2007.More importantly however it should be noted that recognising existing skills and competences is far less costly than educating and training persons with no such abilities: for instance it can cost as little as £1,000 to prepare a refugee doctor to practise in the UK compared to £250,000 to train a doctor from scratch. It further appears that re-qualification projects have a success rate of more than 80% See Annex 10 presenting the results of projects conducted in different MS. . See Annex 10 presenting the results of projects conducted in different MS. |

Mechanisms for employment support |Information available does not allow for the identification of those MS which might be affected. The impact should be limited, as beneficiaries of protection aged 15-64 recognised in EU27 between 2005 and 2008 are estimated at 245,132 and thus represent only 0.1% of the EU labour force (estimated in 2008 at 238,533,800) See table in Annex 26. . See table in Annex 26. Again, it should be noted that these numbers also comprise persons who will not in reality seek to use such support mechanisms |There is no precise information on measures currently in place or costs of such measures. MS only provided overall costs for certain projects, without any indications on numbers of beneficiaries, so that valid costs estimations cannot be done. For instance, regarding job seeking assistance: Austria: €433,211.28; Hungary: €2,000; and, Slovenia: 2006: €14,457.15; 2007: €23,753.82; and, 2008: €13,116.52 A full overview of the information provided by the MS is presented in Annex 29. . A full overview of the information provided by the MS is presented in Annex 29. However, since relevant measures and structures must already exist for the benefit of nationals, the costs of extending them to beneficiaries of international protection should be limited.|

Integration programmes considered appropriate to meet the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection.|On the basis of available information, it is not possible to identify which MS – and to what extent – would be affected. However, since all MS offer integration programmes to beneficiaries of protection and more generally to legally residing third-country nationals, it can be expected that more targeted/specific programmes can draw on the know-how, structure and resources already in place. A relevant indication in this respect is that persons granted international protection in the EU between 2005-2008 (and thus - at least partly - eligible to benefit from integration programmes nowadays) represent only 1,07% of the EU population of third-country nationals See table in Annex 24 . See table in Annex 24|Poland was the only country that provided data on numbers of refugees and costs of integration programmes: The average per capita cost for the period 2005-2007 was EUR 682. Information provided by other countries was not specific enough to allow for further per capita estimations For all available information see Annex 28. . For all available information see Annex 28. It should also be noted that the information provided by Poland refers to " general " integration programmes provided to beneficiaries of international protection; no information has been provided on costs for developing and providing such specifically targeted programmes|

The elimination of the possibility to reduce the benefits granted where protection has been obtained in bad faith|It would affect BG, CY and MT . |Due to the lack of information on the numbers of cases where such sanctions are applied and on what such reductions imply in the practice of these MS in terms of rights and costs, it is impossible to quantify the financial implications of the amendment. The numbers of beneficiaries of international protection in these MS for the period 2005-2008 are as follows: 815 (BG), 540 (CY) and 3,100 (MT). |

Policies against discrimination regarding access to accommodation |On the basis of the information available on national practices it is not possible to identify which MS do not have in place such policies |It is impossible to indicate with precision the changes in the legislation and the additional implementing measures that the MS which would accept to put in place such policies would need to implement or to estimate relevant costs, as there is no precise information on the measures actually implemented and the relevant costs. |

Broadening the definition of family members |The 14 MS which currently do not apply broader definitions, DE, ES, FR, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK would be affected . |It is not possible to estimate the impacts since there is great variation in the MS' current practices and there is no information on the costs of the relevant benefits or on the numbers of persons who would benefit from such a broadening . According to a UK report, the number of "dependants" accompanying or subsequently joining principal applicants in 2007 were estimated to an average of 1 dependant for every 5 principal applicants. This report also notes however that an average 22% of such dependants were granted protection themselves UK Home Office statistical bulletin: Asylum statistics 2007, available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds , para. 18 -21. . Moreover, the Directive's definition would cover only those dependants who are minors. Both these factors mean that the percentage of dependants who would fall within this definition would be even smaller. UK Home Office statistical bulletin: Asylum statistics 2007, available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds , para. 18 -21.The total number of persons having received international protection in the 14 MS concerned in 2005-2008 amounts to 92,590. Taking into account the above estimates, the overall number of "dependants" in a broad sense could be estimated at less than 18,500 . It is however impossible to estimate how many amongst them are already covered by the Directive's definition of family members or would benefit from its broadening. |

6.4.2 Potential savings

a) By diminishing the impetus for asylum seekers to move , the preferred option can reduce asylum flows within the EU, and the costs for the implementation of the Dublin system .

This system involves four categories of expenses: administrative costs related to the operation of Dublin units, operational and material costs of requests handling, costs relates to transfers, and costs related to the reception of applicants during the determination process, such as accommodation, allowances, health care, legal aid or costs of administrative custody measures. Due to the limited information available on these costs and the large disparities between these costs in different States participating in the Dublin System, only certain indications are possible. For example, handling outgoing or incoming requests in NOR costs approximately 880 € whereas in EE this does not exceed 15 €. The most costly part of the procedure is transfers: in IE, the overall cost of outgoing transfers in 2005 exceeded 100 000 € whereas the annual operation of the Dublin unit amounted to 250 000 € for that period. As for the total amount of reception related expenditures, it depends largely on the length of the Dublin procedure which varies from 22 days on average in the UK to 3 months in FI For more information see Commission report on the evaluation of the Dublin System ( SEC(2007) 742), p 14. .[66]

For more information see Commission report on the evaluation of the Dublin System ( SEC(2007) 742), p 14.

b) By enhancing solidity of first-instance decisions and reducing appeals, the preferred option can lead to administrative and financial savings : according to indications regarding procedures in the UK In the context of the consultations, MS were asked to provide information on the costs of appeal procedures and, if possible, the breakdown of these costs. However, no such data were provided. A single indication can be found in the Report by the UK Home Office "Management of asylum applications by the UK Border Agency" of 8 January 2009, available at www.nao.org.uk , appeals can double the cost of an asylum claim. As an indication of the considerable overall impact, an estimated 110,846 appeals were lodged in 2007 See Annex 17 . [67][68]

In the context of the consultations, MS were asked to provide information on the costs of appeal procedures and, if possible, the breakdown of these costs. However, no such data were provided. A single indication can be found in the Report by the UK Home Office "Management of asylum applications by the UK Border Agency" of 8 January 2009, available at www.nao.org.uk

See Annex 17

Both the shortening of the duration of the first-instance procedure and the decrease of appeals would entail a reduction of the costs involved in reception services : There are indications that, on average, 1 reception year may cost approximately EUR 11,000 per person This data includes however services provided in some MS to other third country nationals (see Impact Assessment on the revision of the Reception Conditions Directive, p. 45); for more detailed information see a summary of data available in Annex 30 whereas the average length of first instance procedures is 6 months and of appeal procedures is 1 year . Savings would evidently also be achieved in terms of administrative costs and specific costs associated with the appeals procedures (such as costs for providing legal assistance).[69]

This data includes however services provided in some MS to other third country nationals (see Impact Assessment on the revision of the Reception Conditions Directive, p. 45); for more detailed information see a summary of data available in Annex 30

c) As a result of the approximation of the rights granted to the two categories of beneficiaries of protection, the authorities would no longer need to apply separate conditions and distinct procedures for issuing residence permits and travel documents and for granting access to employment, social welfare, healthcare and benefits for family members and to integration programmes. Relevant administrative procedures would be streamlined and costs associated with creating and maintaining different infrastructures (for instance for integration programmes) would be reduced. T he specific obligation for MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection residence permits valid for at least 3 years will reduce administrative and financial costs associated with the renewal of residence permits for the 12 MS (AT, BE, CZ, CY, EE, FI, FR, LT, LU, PL, RO, and SK) which currently grant them permits of a shorter duration, since they will be assessing the persistence of protection needs and apply the necessary administrative renewal procedures only every three years instead of every year. Further savings may result from the mainstreaming of the procedure for issuing residence permits of the same duration for both categories of beneficiaries of international protection. The only available indication is the population of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in these 12 MS in 2005-2008, which amounts to 13,075 persons .

6.4.3 Assistance from the European Refugee Fund and from the Asylum Support Office

National measures to be taken in line with the standards of the proposal regarding the rights of beneficiaries of international protection are eligible for co-funding under the ERF at a level of 50% or 75% The Community contribution is 50% as a rule, but increased to 75% for actions addressing specific strategic priorities and in the MS covered by the Cohesion Fund (Article 14(4)). . In particular, the list of eligible actions includes: advice and assistance in areas such as housing, means of subsistence, integration into the labour market, medical, psychological and social care; actions enabling beneficiaries of international protection to adapt to the society of the MS in socio-cultural terms, and to share the values enshrined in the EU Charter; actions to promote durable and sustainable participation in civil and cultural life; measures focusing on education, vocational training, or recognition of qualifications and diplomas ; actions designed to promote self-empowerment and to enable such persons to provide for themselves; and measures to support the acquisition of skills, including language training. The financial envelope of the ERF for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2013 has been fixed at EUR 628 million .[70]

The Community contribution is 50% as a rule, but increased to 75% for actions addressing specific strategic priorities and in the MS covered by the Cohesion Fund (Article 14(4)).

The establishment of the EASO can be expected, through the pooling of good practice and the structured exchange of high-level expertise, to help MS identify the most cost-efficient ways to meet the higher standards aimed at, to a degree that would not be achieved within the framework of practical cooperation as it stands.

6.4.4 Longer term benefits of successful integration

It should be noted that in the longer term, the initial investments into integration support could be offset to a certain extent by the positive economic and social effects of sustainable employment and successful integration of beneficiaries. By facilitating access to the labour market, MS would achieve savings in terms of avoiding the provision of welfare assistance and would benefit from tax contributions submitted by employed beneficiaries of protection to their fiscal system. More generally, by promoting their self-sufficiency and their self empowerment, MS would avoid the negative social and economic consequences of dependency and exclusion.

As a rule, beneficiaries of international protection are expected to reach a satisfactory level of self-sufficiency and integration more or less 2 years following the granting of protection . Integration support is provided in most MS for approximately 1-1,5 years. Taking into account, in addition, their disadvantaged position in the labour market and the specific challenges they face, as well as the fact that a significant percentage are victims of violence or torture and that an even larger share of this population are persons who have been subject to severe traumas, extreme risks and poor social and health conditions, it can be assumed that it make take them even longer to reach such a milestone (significantly, in France the integration period lasts 5 years).

6.5 Tackling abuse of the asylum system

Abuse within the scope of application of the Directive's rules relates to factual elements, the factual circumstances invoked by the asylum seekers/beneficiaries of international protection in their effort to convince the authorities that they fulfil the relevant legal criteria. Asylum seekers may make false claims regarding their background, their identity, nationality, personal history, the situation in their country of origin, the reasons for which they may be persecuted and other elements of their asylum claim; recognised beneficiaries of protection may produce false documents for instance to prove a family link or to claim welfare benefits to which they are not entitled.

Therefore, amendments to the legal conditions that must be fulfilled for obtaining protection or a certain right/benefit cannot as such encourage or facilitate abuse . For instance, the fact that access of female applicants to protection is enhanced as a result of broadening the notion of "particular social group" does not mean that it would be easier for women to obtain protection on the basis of false claims. Asylum authorities would still need to establish, on the basis of the individual circumstances of the applicants and taking into account the general situation in their country of origin, as well as on the basis of an assessment of their credibility, that they indeed fulfil the criteria of the new definition. Similarly, broadening the definition of "family members" does not automatically make abuse easier than under the current provisions. As is the case already now in the context of the Qualification Directive but also in other policy contexts, such as family reunification, authorities will grant the relevant benefits only after verifying the existence of the claimed "family link", by requiring and assessing relevant evidence.

As indicated above, by clarifying and thus facilitating the application of the legal concepts , the revision of the Directive can strengthen the capacities of the authorities for an overall reliable determination of asylum claims. When the applicable legal criteria are clear and do not leave room for doubt and uncertainty, it is easier for the authorities to focus on the objective assessment of individual circumstances and of the credibility of the claims or on the verification of whether the legal conditions for obtaining a right are fulfilled - and thus to identify fraudulent claims.

However, measures aimed at directly enhancing the credibility assessment fall within the scope of the revision of the Asylum Procedures Directive. In this context it is envisaged for instance to improve the overall qualifications and abilities of the personnel, as well as certain aspects of the procedure such as the personal interviews with the applicants which can enable the authorities to reach an adequate and accurate assessment of the factual circumstances.

7 Monitoring and Evaluation

In addition to monitoring MS' compliance with the revised Directive, the Commission will ensure the monitoring and evaluation of the preferred policy option. The indicators listed below can be used to assess its efficiency and effectiveness in addressing the problems and meeting the policy objectives. They will be used by the Commission to assess the information received from MS for the purposes of preparing the reports to the EP and the Council on the application of the Directive, envisaged in Article 37 of the Proposal. The first report will be compiled once the deadline for transposition of the Directive expires and the subsequent ones every 5 years . MS are obliged to provide the data under points (1) to (9) pursuant to the "Migration Statistics Regulation" 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) , which establishes 2008 as the first reference year; these data are disaggregated by age, sex and citizenship of the persons concerned. Additionally, MS are obliged to provide the data under point (10) according to the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations, whereas d ata mentioned under (11) to (13) may be extracted from the annual and multi-annual ERF programmes submitted by MS. The relevant indicators are the following: [71]

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)

1. Numbers of asylum applicants or persons having been included in an asylum application as family members

2. Numbers of applications having been withdrawn

3. Numbers of persons covered by first instance decisions rejecting applications

4. Numbers of persons covered by first instance decisions granting or withdrawing refugee status or subsidiary protection

5. Numbers of applicants who are considered to be unaccompanied minors

6. Numbers of persons covered by final (appeal) decisions rejecting applications

7. Numbers of persons covered by final (appeal) decisions granting or withdrawing refugee status or subsidiary protection

8. Numbers of Dublin requests for taking back or taking charge of asylum applicants

9. Numbers of Dublin transfers

10. EURODAC hits

11. Costs of national actions relating to reception of asylum applicants

12. Costs of national actions relating to integration of beneficiaries of international protection

13. Numbers of persons benefiting from ERF-funded national actions

14. Level of financial resources allocated to MS from the ERF

15. Transposition by all Member States of the amendments proposed

Additional information on implementation measures and decision-making practices as well as relevant statistics will be collected in the context of regular meetings with MS' experts within existing networks (Contact Committees, Eurasil, ad hoc meetings with NGOs, UNHCR and other stakeholders). Moreover, the collection, evaluation and sharing of relevant information is expected to be an essential element of the work to be accomplished by the EASO. Three main aspects of its mission are relevant See relevant Proposal op.cit. Fn 3, in particular Articles 3,11 and 12. : [72]

See relevant Proposal op.cit. Fn 3, in particular Articles 3,11 and 12.

- It will organise, promote and coordinate all activities enabling the exchanging of information and the identifying and pooling of good practice in asylum matters between the MS.

- It will organise, coordinate and promote the exchange of information between national asylum authorities and between the Commission and national asylum authorities concerning the implementation of all asylum instruments, gathering in particular information on the processing of asylum applications by national authorities.

- It will collect and evaluate information on the implementation of the asylum rules by MS as part of its task to draw up annual reports on the situation of asylum in the EU.

Thus the EASO will not only institutionalise a comprehensive sharing of specific information on asylum processing through formalised procedures but will also ensure an in-depth systematic evaluation of the data collected. Its work in this area will thus result in a qualitative and quantitative leap in the collection and evaluation of information .

The systematic availability over longer periods of time of the data covered by the Migration Statistics Regulation, along with the structured and thorough collection, evaluation and sharing of significant quantities of information that will be accomplished by the EASO can be expected to crucially contribute to addressing the deficits and shortage of data encountered in the context of the preparation of the proposal for the amendment of the Qualification Directive and more generally to ensure that any future EU actions in the area of asylum can be based on a solid body of factual and statistical evidence and other related data.

[1] Policy Plan on Asylum ‘An integrated approach to protection across the EU’ COM(2008) 360

[2] Proposal 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 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 Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person ( COM (2008) 820 final/2); Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EC) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person] ( COM (2008) 825 final) and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (COM 2008(815 final/2)

[3] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Asylum Support Office (COM (2009) 66 final)

[4] Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005, on procedures in MS for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, page 13)

[5] COM (2007) 301

[6] Further studies include: UNHCR, "Asylum in the European Union, A study on the implementation of the Qualification Directive", November 2007 http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=473050632&page=search (the "UNHCR study"); ELENA/ECRE, "The impact of the EU Qualification Directive on International protection", October 2008, http://www.ecre.org/files/ECRE_QD_study_full.pdf.( "ECRE study"); France Terre d'Asile, "Asile La protection subsidiaire en Europe: Un mosaïque de droits", Les cahiers du social no 18, Septembre 2008; Dutch Refugee Council/ECRE, ‘Networking on the Transposition of the Qualification Directive’, December 2008, http://www.qualificationdirective.eu/research ; Nijmegen University, "The Qualification Directive: Central themes, Problem issues, and Implementation in selected MS", Karin Zwaan (ed), 2007

[7] Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/wai/doc_asylum_studies_en.htm

[8] GHK, Impact assessment studies on The future development of measures on the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as persons in need of international protection and on the content of the protection granted, based on Council Directive 2004/83/EC and The future development of measures on procedures in MS for granting and withdrawing refugee status, based on Council Directive 2005/85/EC, Multiple framework service contract JLS/2006/A1/004.

[9] The main findings of all these consultations are presented in Annex 2.

[10] The opinion will be available at: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/cia_2009_en.htm .

[11] See t able new asylum applications 1987-2007 in Annex 3

[12] See Table in Annex 4

[13] UNHCR Annual Statistics Report 2007, available at www.unhcr.org/statistics

[14] Further factors include linguistic and cultural links, family ties, the presence of immigrant communities as well as geography. Indeed, as will be demonstrated below under section 2.2.5, some MS receive very high numbers of asylum seekers due to their geographical position. The different measures aimed at helping those MS adequately deal with these flows relate to financial solidarity, to burden sharing through relocation of beneficiaries of international protection and to tasks to be assigned to the future EASO.

[15] For instance, the vagueness, the ambiguity and the gaps in the Directive also make it difficult to substantiate infringement cases in cases of incomplete or incorrect implementation.

[16] The extent to which a Community measure may regulate a certain issue must be assessed by means of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

[17] Recitals 2, 3, 10 and 11 of the Directive

[18] Asylum decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and their outcome depends not only on the applicable rules and their interpretation, but also on the credibility of the claims and the individual circumstances of the applicants. Moreover, MS do not systematically collect information on the specific grounds on which applications are accepted or rejected. As a result, it is not possible to determine with precision whether and to what extent the interpretation of certain provisions of the Directive in ways that may be incompatible with international standards have actually led to rejections of applications. The problems described below have been identified mainly on the basis of the – mostly anecdotal – evidence provided by the evaluation studies and the consultations: it refers to cases in the administrative and judicial practice in MS illustrating how the Directive allows for divergent interpretations and for measures that do not meet international standards. Indeed, even the UNHCR study, which was based on the sampling and analysis of a substantial number of asylum decisions and case files, could not establish more general decision-making patterns, as in many cases the assessment of the individual cases takes into account combinations of elements and the decisions themselves are not – or not sufficiently – motivated.

[19] Moreover, it should be noted that refugee and human rights obligations are the subject of a constantly evolving authoritative interpretation by competent national and international bodies and jurisdictions, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who has supervisory responsibility for the Geneva Convention, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) , the International Criminal Court etc, with a view to address the evolving nature of persecution and geopolitical developments

[20] For a detailed presentation of these standards see Annex 23

[21] See for instance Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 May 2007, establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC (OJ L 144, p.1, "ERF"), recital 15.

[22] For a concise comparison of the standards of the Directive with the standards/objectives to be attained in the second phase, see table in Annex 23. For a detailed analysis of these problems on the basis of information provided by the evaluation reports and collected in the context of recent consultations see Annexes 5- 12 and 18.

[23] For a detailed presentation of the problems, and references to the relevant studies see Annex 9

[24] For references and more information on relevant statistics see Annex 13

[25] Source: Eurostat. EU-27: Refugee status and rejections: no data for DK, IT and CY available. Subsidiary protection: no data for DK, IT and CY available. Humanitarian reasons: no data for DK, FR, IT, CY and AT

[26] For more information on relevant statistics see Annex 14

[27] The findings of recent studies on the distribution of asylum applications across receiving countries are largely consistent with the responses from surveys of asylum seekers about why they chose one destination rather than another: they suggest that, while asylum policies do influence the numbers of applications, asylum flows are determined mostly by variables not related to asylum policy; see Timothy J. Hatton, "European asylum policy", National Institute Economic Review no 194, October 2005, available at http://ner.sagepub.com/cgi/conten/abstract/194/1/106

[28] Asylum applications by Iraqis in Sweden decreased from 18,560 in 2007 to 6,330 in 2008, whereas in. Germany they increased from 4,325 in 2007 to 7,135 for Jan-Oct 2008, in the Netherlands from 2,005 in 2007 to 4,805 for Jan-Oct 2008 and in Finland from 290 in 2007 to 765 for Jan-Oct 2008); Source: Eurostat.

[29] See Annex 15.

[30] See tables in Annex 13

[31] In 2008 appeals thus resulted in 18,500 final decisions to grant protection in addition to 47,745 positive first-instance decisions; for data on appeals in 2007 and 2008 see Annex 17

[32] To cite a theoretical example: if for instance the multi-national troops currently present in Iraq and who are potential actors of protection withdraw, the Directive's provisions on actors of protection, which are now often relevant in the determination of claims by Iraqi asylum seekers, would no longer be relevant for a large number of asylum claims in the EU. Depending on future conflicts around the world, different provisions of the Directive and other grounds of protection may acquire greater relevance in the future.

[33] As will be indicated below, the scant information collected on specific aspects does not allow for plausible estimates.

[34] See Impact assessment to the Policy Plan on Asylum 'The Persistence of refugee flows towards the EU', (SEC (2008) 2029) p. 5

[35] EU citizens may initially perceive any ‘special’ treatment for this category as unfair. According to a recent Eurobarometer survey of public opinion, 54% of EU citizens disagree with the idea that immigrants are needed to work in certain sectors of the economy in view of the ageing European population and the shortage of labour in certain sectors of the economy, whereas in the ten new MS (excluding Bulgaria and Romania) this figure is much higher, reaching close to 80% (compared to 49% in the fifteen old MS) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_215_en.pdf (pp. 39-40). However, other recent surveys show that attitudes towards genuine refugees are more positive than they are towards immigrants in general and that the humanitarian motives underlying refugee protection are more widely supported than negative press coverage would suggest; see Timothy J. Hatton, "European asylum policy", op.cit. p 113.

[36] As demonstrated in the reversal of trends described in section 2.1 above: following a sharp decrease in the period 2003-2006, asylum flows have increased again significantly since 2007.

[37] Indeed, the whole creation of a CEAS and the Qualification Directive, in particular, "pursues the objective of developing a fundamental right to asylum which follows from the general principles of Community law which, themselves, are the result of constitutional traditions common to the Member States and the ECHR, as reproduced, moreover, in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights]". See Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 9 September 2008 in Case C-465/07, Elgafaji, point 21

[38] Case C-377/98, Netherlands v Council , paragraph 52¸ concerning the "Working time Directive"

[39] See Annex 18 and section 4.8 below.

[40] See Annex 18 and section 4.8 below.

[41] Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ L 31 of 6.2.2003, p. 18)

[42] 11.4.1997, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=165&CL=ENG , Article VII

[43] Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, COM(2007) 637 final, Article 15(1)(i).

[44] Second Edition, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration, pp. 32-36

[45] Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003, concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long term residents (OJ L 16, p. 44) , Article 11(1)(f)

[46] In the Czech Republic, the state finances 5 "integration centers" where refugees can stay for a maximum period of 18 months; Hungary also provides refugees with the possibility to live in an open center for a period of 6 months which can be extended to 6 more months; in Poland, the state does not provide accommodation as such but grants substantial financial means to beneficiaries of international protection to find something on their own; Poland is further reported to provide more favourable standards . For more detailed information see A nnex 11.

[47] This was one of the problems identified in the Commission in the context of the evaluation of the Reception Conditions Directive; see relevant Impact Assessment SEC (2008) 2944.

[48] For a detailed presentation see Annex 11

[49] Data extracted from table on numbers of applications in 2008; see Annex 4

[50] For total numbers of beneficiaries of international protection (refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection) recognised between 2005 and 2008, see table in Annex 24

[51] See Table in Annex 7

[52] See Table in Annex 7

[53] See tables in Annex 18, under section 1.2

[54] See table in Annex 26. Data for Cyprus could not be disaggregated by age, so the figure of 445 includes all ages. Data were not available for 2008, so the data for Cyprus cover only 2005-2007.

[55] For more detailed information on the prevalence of torture amongst asylum seekers and refugees see Annex 27

[56] See Annex 9

[57] Poland is the only MS that provided information on such costs, see Annex 28

[58] See table in Annex 26

[59] See table in Annex 26. Data for Cyprus could not be disaggregated by age, so the figure of 445 includes all ages. Data were not available for 2008, so the data for Cyprus cover only 2005-2007.

[60] See Annex 10 presenting the results of projects conducted in different MS.

[61] See table in Annex 26.

[62] A full overview of the information provided by the MS is presented in Annex 29.

[63] See table in Annex 24

[64] For all available information see Annex 28.

[65] UK Home Office statistical bulletin: Asylum statistics 2007, available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds , para. 18 -21.

[66] For more information see Commission report on the evaluation of the Dublin System ( SEC(2007) 742), p 14.

[67] In the context of the consultations, MS were asked to provide information on the costs of appeal procedures and, if possible, the breakdown of these costs. However, no such data were provided. A single indication can be found in the Report by the UK Home Office "Management of asylum applications by the UK Border Agency" of 8 January 2009, available at www.nao.org.uk

[68] See Annex 17

[69] This data includes however services provided in some MS to other third country nationals (see Impact Assessment on the revision of the Reception Conditions Directive, p. 45); for more detailed information see a summary of data available in Annex 30

[70] The Community contribution is 50% as a rule, but increased to 75% for actions addressing specific strategic priorities and in the MS covered by the Cohesion Fund (Article 14(4)).

[71] 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)

[72] See relevant Proposal op.cit. Fn 3, in particular Articles 3,11 and 12.

EN

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annex 1 Glossary

Annex 2 Consultation with Stakeholders

Annex 3 New Asylum applications in EU, 1987-2007

Annex 4 Asylum applications in EU 27 in 2008

Annex 5 National practices regarding the application of the concept "actors of protection"

Annex 6 National practices regarding the application of the concept "internal Protection"

Annex 7 National practices regarding the application of the concept "particular social group’

Annex 8 National practices regarding level of rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection

Annex 9 Specific integration needs and challenges

Annex 10 National practices and projects facilitating access to recognition of qualifications for beneficiaries of international protection

Annex 11 Deficiencies and good practices regarding access to accommodation

Annex 12 Definition of "family members"

Annex 13 Statistics attesting the wide divergences in the application of the Directive

Annex 14 Statistics on multiple applications

Annex 15 Proportions of asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants for selected European states

Annex 16 Comparison of trends regarding asylum influxes and recognition rates

Annex 17 Asylum Appeal data for selected Member States

Annex 18 Additional Problems identified, Operational Objectives and Assessment of relevant Policy Options

Annex 19 Comparison of baseline scenario and options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence

Annex 20 Assessment of the status quo

Annex 21 Presentation of the preferred policy option

Annex 22 Main advantages of the preferred policy option

Annex 23 Comparison of current standards of the Directive with standards/objectives to be attained and envisaged legislative amendments

Annex 24 Population of beneficiaries of international protection recognised between 2005 and 2008 and comparison with population of third-country nationals in MS

Annex 25 The likely administrative costs of the preferred policy option

Annex 26 Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in working age

Annex 27 Prevalence of torture among asylum seekers and refugees

Annex 28 Costs incurred by MS for providing integration programmes

Annex 29 Costs of training and educational assistance for beneficiaries of international protection

Annex 30 Costs for reception of asylum seekers in various MS

Annex 1 - Glossary

Asylum

Asylum is a form of protection given by a State on its territory based on the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ and internationally or nationally recognised refugee rights. It is granted to persons who are unable to seek protection in their country of citizenship and/or residence in particular for fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Common European Asylum System

Rules and principles at European Union level leading to a common asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted asylum. The major aims and principles were agreed to in October 1999 at the European Council in Tampere (Finland) by the Heads of State or Government. The second phase in the establishment of the Common European Asylum System started with the adoption of The Hague programme in November 2004.

Dublin system

The Dublin Convention and its successor, the Dublin Regulation, set the rules concerning which Member State is responsible for handling an asylum application. The objective of the system is to avoid multiple asylum applications, also known as ‘asylum shopping’. The Dublin system comprises the Dublin and Eurodac Regulations and their implementing regulations.

Geneva Convention

The Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 ("Geneva Convention"), sets out the grounds on which persons should be recognised as refugees and the rights that signatory states should afford to them. The Qualification Directive acknowledges that the Geneva Convention "provide[s] the cornerstone of the international legal regime for the protection of refugees" and recalls that the Tampere European Council agreed to work towards establishing a CEAS "based on the full and inclusive application" of this Convention, "thus affirming the principle of non-refoulement and ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution".

Human Rights instruments

In addition to the Geneva Convention, further sources for defining grounds for granting protection are international and regional notably the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. These instruments prohibit the expulsion of a foreigner to a country where he/she would be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but do not address the issue of a status that this person should be granted in the host state. The subsidiary protection regime introduced by the Qualification Directive draws on the prohibition of refoulement enshrined in these instruments but additionally addresses this gap by imposing on MS the obligation to provide the persons concerned a consolidated set of rights.

Multiple applications

Two or more applications for asylum submitted simultaneously or successively (i.e. while another application is pending or after the rejection of a previous application) by the same person in several MS with the aim of increasing chances of obtaining protection in the European Union.

Non-refoulement

The key principle of international refugee law, which requires that no State shall return a refugee in any manner to a country where his/her life or freedom may be endangered. The principle also encompasses non-rejection at the frontier. Its provision is contained in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and constitutes the legal basis for States’ obligation to provide international protection to those in need of it. Article 33(1) reads as follows: ‘No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’. Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Refugee

A person who fulfils the requirements of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, which defines a refugee as any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Refugee status

This is defined in the Qualification Directive as the status granted by a Member State to a third country national person who fulfils the requirements of the refugee definition as laid down in the Geneva Convention.

Secondary movements

Secondary movements by asylum-seekers take the form of multiple applications for asylum submitted simultaneously or successively by the same person in several MS. Secondary movements by refugees can also take the form of "asylum shopping", when, despite the fact that they already received international protection, they apply again for asylum in another Member State.

Subsidiary protection

The Qualification Directive created the subsidiary protection status in order to give protection to certain categories of persecuted people who are not covered by the Geneva Convention on refugees. This status contains a lower level of rights than the Geneva Convention status.

Tampere European Council

In October 1999 the Tampere European Council adopted a comprehensive approach to put into practice the new political framework established by the Treaty of Amsterdam in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The Council set ambitious objectives and deadlines for action in all relevant areas, including asylum and immigration, police and justice cooperation and fight against crime.

The Hague programme

The Tampere programme, adopted by the Tampere European Council in 1999, set the agenda for work in the area of Justice and Home Affairs for the period 1999-2004. Likewise, the European Council adopted in 2004 The Hague programme, which covers the period 2005-2010, and provides, inter alia, for the continuation of efforts aimed at establishing common European asylum and immigration policies.

Annex 2 - Consultation with Stakeholders

In the context of the consultation launched in June 2007 with the Green Paper on asylum, the Commission received 89 contributions from a wide range of stakeholders, including 20 MS, regional and local authorities, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, UNHCR, academic institutions, political parties and a large number of NGOs The full text of these contributions is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylumsystem_e.htm . The main findings regarding the necessary improvements to the Qualification Directive which emerged from the replies to the Green Paper may be summarized as follows 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) :[1][2]

The full text of these contributions is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylumsystem_e.htm

The numbers indicated in the analysis refer to the number of preferences expressed, for each question, per each of the single criteria identified (i.e. 3/7 MS Gov = 3 preferences expressed for a certain criteria on 7 total preferences expressed by respondent MS Gov)

I. Further law approximation or standards raising regarding: (i) criteria for granting protection; (ii) rights and benefits attached to protection status(es)

(...PICT...)

II. Further law approximation or standards raising regarding: (i) criteria for granting protection; (ii) rights and benefits attached to protection status(es) :

— Approximation considered necessary by almost all MS Gov contributions (17/19), with the major focus of MS Gov (15/19) on the necessity of approximation and/or clarification of:

§ 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)

(...PICT...)

V. Models for the definition of the statuses of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: the option of a single uniform status for both

(...PICT...)

— 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

------------

More recently, and with a view to discuss in a more concrete manner possible amendments to the Directive as well as their impacts, the Commission organised several informal experts' meetings :

- a meeting with judges, academics, UNHCR and a selected number of experts from MS on 26.06.2008;

- two meetings with MS (one at experts' level on 19.11.2008 and another one in the context of the Committee on Immigration and Asylum on 12.12.2008) and

-two meetings with NGOs, on 8.1.2009 and 23.2.2009

These informal meetings allowed the relevant stakeholders to discuss and explore, in a frank and open manner, the effects that the options under consideration for legislative changes could have on the problems identified as well as the results they could produce in the different national contexts. The views expressed by the different stakeholders on the specific options for amendments on which these discussions focused may be summarized as follows.

On the amendment of the definition of the concept “actors of protection ”:

M S generally acknowledge the need to better circumscribe the concept but caution against imposing overly stringent conditions which would transpose European values to other societies or require unrealistic guarantees of "absolute" protection; some emphasize in particular the need to keep a balanced, pragmatic approach in this context. UNHCR and NGOs insist on the need to clarify and strengthen the criteria used in the definition, and in particular to specify that effectiveness and accessibility of protection are necessary legal pre-requisites.

On the amendment of the definition of the concept “internal protection":

Regarding the deletion of paragraph 3 of Article 8, which allows for the possibility to apply the notion of internal protection despite the existence of technical obstacles, MS views appear divided: some are opposed to its deletion, as they see an added value in specifying that technical obstacles should not impede the use of this concept, whereas others argue in favour of this deletion, on the basis that temporary reasons to postpone travel to the country of origin have no place in the context of the assessment of the substance of asylum claims. Specific reservations were voiced by some MS about the interaction between, on the one hand, an explicit provision to be inserted to the effect that the burden of proof regarding the application of this concept rests with national authorities and, on the other hand, the duty of the applicant to substantiate his/her claim.

UNHCR and civil society organisations stress the necessity to ensure the compatibility of the concept both with the Geneva Convention and the ECHR, and in particular to address the protection gap due to the fact that the current provision does not require that the applicant has a genuine protection alternative, which is safely accessible in legal and practical terms. In their view, the most appropriate solution to address this gap would be to draw on the relevant pre-conditions set out in the ECtHR's judgment in the Salah Sheekh case.

On the amendment of the "nexus requirement":

There is general support for broadening the concept both amongst MS and amongst NGOs.

On the amendment of the definition of the concept "particular social group":

On the necessity to broaden the concept MS views are divided, depending on whether they currently provide for the possibility to define a particular social group based on gender-related aspects alone. UNHCR and NGOs on the other hand express a clear preference for an explicit broadening in this respect, with a view to ensuring the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, as well as consistency in national practices. This approach is in particular s trongly supported by NGOs concerned by women's rights, such as the European Women’s Lobby, in view of the significant numbers of female applicants affected by the interpretation of the notion of particular social group.

On the introduction of exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses:

The application of these exceptions with regard to cessation of refugee status is considered by MS as compulsory by virtue of the Geneva Convention; some MS would need to examine more closely the added value or applicability of these exceptions regarding the cessation of subsidiary protection. UNHCR and NGOs are in favour of the insertion of such exceptions with regard to cessation of both statuses.

On the approximation of the rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those granted to refugees:

There is general consensus amongst MS on the need to approximate the rights attached to refugee status and subsidiary protection, while maintaining two separate statuses. In view of the practical experience acquired so far through the implementation of the subsidiary protection regime, the overwhelming majority of MS acknowledge that the protection needs of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not of a more temporary nature than those of refugees and that granting different levels of rights to the two categories implies additional administrative and financial burdens. Consequently, most MS grant in most respects the same level of rights to the two categories of beneficiaries of international protection. However, a few MS retain some reservations, and would prefer to maintain a degree of flexibility regarding in particular the duration of the residence permits and the access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to the labour market, social welfare and healthcare.

In contrast, UNHCR and civil society stakeholders favor the establishment of a single uniform status for both categories, arguing that there is no justification for a differential treatment, given the compelling nature of the protection needs of both categories.

On measures to enhance the integration for beneficiaries of international protection:

MS, as well as civil society, acknowledge the need to ensure effective access to rights and express overall support for measures towards enhancing the integration process for beneficiaries of international protection. Some MS favour an approach aimed at granting them the same rights as nationals, whereas a few consider that the acquisition by beneficiaries of international protection of MS' citizenship should also be facilitated on the basis of common standards.

On broadening the definition of "family members":

Several MS favour such a broadening, insisting that the current definition is inadequate and pointing to the fact that they have already found it necessary to adopt broader definitions at national level. Others however, caution against it, pointing to the difficulties of preventing and dealing with potential abusive claims to benefits.

· Annex 3 - New Asylum applications in EU, 1987-2007

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat

· Annex 4 - Asylum applications in EU 27 in 2008

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|

||

Source: Eurostat |

Annex 5 - National practices regarding the application of the concept "actors of protection "

According to Article 7 of the Qualification Directive, protection can be provided not only by the State but also by parties and organisations, including international organisations. UNHCR and civil society stakeholders criticise this definition as not providing adequate criteria for assessing the level and effectiveness of protection required for non-state entities to qualify as actors of protection, thus allowing MS to reject asylum claims and return applicants to their country of origin despite the lack of effective protection. For instance, authorities in Sweden consider clans and tribes as potential actors of protection; this creates the risk that in the future entities such as criminal networks, warlords or guerrillas could be recognised as actors of protection For more information see UNHCR study op.cit, p. 50 . In other MS, such as Hungary, Belgium and the United Kingdom, NGOs have been considered as actors of protection with regard to women at risk of female genital mutilation and honour killings, to the extent that they diminish such risks Information collected in the context of the consultations with NGOs. . [3][4]

For more information see UNHCR study op.cit, p. 50

Information collected in the context of the consultations with NGOs.

Moreover, there are wide divergences in the national practices, for instance on the issue whether international organisations, such as UN Peacekeeping Forces, are able to provide protection 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 . This lack of clarity is reflected in the fact that the German Federal Administrative Court has asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling on the question whether it suffices if protection can be provided only with the assistance of multi-national troops 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 .[5][6]

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

In particular, on the basis of MS’ answers to the GHK questionnaire, the following divergences have been identified: 11 countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Sweden and Slovak Republic) have adopted a flexible interpretation of the concept (i.e. it is not required that the entity has control over the State or part of it but that this protection is effective and durable; these conditions are considered to be fulfilled in the case of UN missions). 6 amongst these MS (Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland and Sweden) mentioned the possibility of accepting clans as actors of protection if the assessment of the situation in the country of origin shows that they can provide sufficient protection.

On the other hand, the following 4 countries adopt a stricter definition (i.e. explicitly excluding international organisations): Finland and Romania (which require that the organisation has the State or a considerable part of the territory under its control), Malta (which considers the list as exhaustive) and the United Kingdom (which considers solely international organisations se potential actors of protection).

Belgium, France, Finland and Romania place emphasis on the accessibility, durability and effectiveness of the nature of protection in the country of origin. Other MS apply specific criteria in their analysis of the situation on a case-by-case basis. In particular, the Czech Republic takes into account the situation on the whole territory, the conditions to obtain protection and the nature of protection; Estonia examines the presence of a democratic system, the general political climate, the human rights situation and Sweden assesses the lack of willingness or ability of the actor of protection to provide effective protection. Finally, seven MS (Cyprus, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Poland and the Slovak Republic) rely mainly on the existence and accessibility of an effective legal system. According to the UNHCR study this is also the case in Germany and Greece.

· Annex 6 - National practices regarding the application of the concept "internal protection"

Deficiencies with respect to Article 8 have been noted in several regards. Firstly, the provision does not require the existence of actual protection but merely the absence of a well-founded fear of persecution or of a real risk of serious harm, which does not necessarily mean that protection is available to the applicant.

Moreover, it is criticized to the extent that it omits essential requirements flowing from the Geneva Convention and Article 3 ECHR, i.e. that the proposed location should be practically, safely and legally accessible to the applicant See in particular j udgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 1 1 January 2007, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, p aragraph 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. . Indeed, by allowing the use of the concept despite the existence of technical obstacles, it contradicts the requirement that the proposed location should be practically accessible. Particular concerns are expressed by NGOs such as Save the Children with regard to unaccompanied minors, to the extent that their vulnerability requires a thorough assessment taking into account in particular in the ECtHR case law S ee for instance judgment of 12 October 2006, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium. . [7][8]

See in particular j udgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 1 1 January 2007, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, p aragraph 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.

S ee for instance judgment of 12 October 2006, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium.

Furthermore, there is evidence that this broad definition of the concept allows for wide inconsistencies in its application by MS. T he UNHCR study provides several examples of divergent approaches in the application of the concept of internal flight alternative. For example, it shows that the French authorities generally consider that there is no internal protection alternative for those who have a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of serious harm by the State of Colombia; and that the State is unable to provide protection to the victims of FARC; as a result the concept of internal protection was not applied in any of the decisions reviewed in the study concerning Colombians. Yet in Germany, in 38 of the 60 Colombian decisions screened, the adjudicators found applicants to be able to seek refuge in one of Colombia’s bigger cities and their surrounding areas.

The treatment of the Chechen caseload also highlighted a divergent approach: in France and Sweden, the concept of internal protection was not applied in any of the decisions reviewed concerning Chechens, whereas according to German policy, most parts of the Russian Federation are accepted as possible internal protection alternatives. Furthermore, the ECRE study revealed that in six of the surveyed MS ( Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal and Sweden) the internal protection alternative is envisaged even if the actor of persecution is the State.

Moreover, according to information collected in the context of consultations with MS and NGOs, it appears that at least in Austria, Germany Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, it is the applicants who carry the burden to prove that they would not be safe in any part of their country of origin.

Twenty-five MS (all but Italy and Spain) are implementing the provisions of the first and second paragraph of article 8. However, only 8 MS have transposed Article 8(3): Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. MS' replies to the GHK questionnaire showed also different interpretations of what constitutes a technical obstacle for the return of an applicant: airport closure and/or unavailability of transportation (Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania and Sweden) ; lack of travel or identification documents ( Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Sweden - whereas the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Netherlands underlined that this cannot be considered an obstacle); lack of cooperation of authorities in the country of origin (Estonia, Luxembourg and Romania) and physical inability of the applicant (e.g. illness, pregnancy) ( Estonia, Luxembourg and Poland) .

Source: UNHCR study, pp.55-66; ECRE study, pp.131-132; Odysseus study, p.48; Information collected in the context of consultations with MS

· Annex 7 – National practices regarding the application of the concept "particular social group’

The Directive provides that persons qualify for refugee status where they have a well-founded fear of persecution because, inter alia, of their membership to a particular social group. This last ground is defined by reference to two criteria: that the members of this group share an innate characteristic or one that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that cannot reasonably be changed; and that they are perceived by society as a distinct group. The wording of the provision has allowed MS to apply these criteria as cumulative requirements ( at least 12 MS) Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom Odysseus study, page 52; ECRE study, page 20; or as alternative requirements (in at least another 10 MS) Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden . [9][10][11]

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

The cumulative approach may result in denial of refugee protection to members of groups of apparently unconnected and unallied individuals, such as victims of trafficking, women at risk of domestic violence, or who believe in values at odds with the social mores of the societies in which they live, for instance women who object to forced marriages or to female genital mutilation or who refuse to wear traditional garb, and who might not necessarily be perceived by society as a distinct group 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 . There is evidence that many female applicants experience difficulties to demonstrate that not only were they persecuted but also constituted or were considered part of a social group in the country of origin Information provided by the European Women’s Lobby .[12][13]

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

The Directive provides that “[g]ender related aspects might be considered" for the purposes of defining a particular social group, without "by themselves alone" creating a presumption in this respect. Consequently, 14 MS do not provide the possibility to define a particular social group on gender related aspects alone F or an indication of the number of female asylum seekers in these MS in 2008 see table below whereas in 11 MS women could be regarded as a social group Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden Odysseus study op.cit , p.53 .[14][15][16]

F or 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

In view of the above, it appears that the Directive does not allow for a broad, inclusive interpretation of the notion, in accordance with the UNHCR Guidelines 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. . T o cite an example of such an inclusive interpretation, courts and administrative instances in the United Kingdom have recognized "women in Afghanistan" or "women in Iran" as particular social groups . 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. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 46, [2007] 1 AC 412, [2007] 1 All ER 671, [2006] 3 WLR 733 . [17][18]

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. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 46, [2007] 1 AC 412, [2007] 1 All ER 671, [2006] 3 WLR 733

Numbers of female asylum seekers in MS which do not provide the possibility to define a ‘particular social group’ on gender related aspects alone (2008):

MS|Female applications in 2008|

Austria|4,255|

Cyprus|780|

Estonia|5|

Greece|1,625|

Italy|4,405|

Latvia|15|

Lithuania|185|

Netherlands|5,200|

Poland|4,070|

Portugal|55|

Romania|105|

Slovakia|90|

SIovenia|35|

United Kingdom|9,975|

Total|30,800|

Source: Eurostat

Annex 8 - National practices regarding level of rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection

Sources: Information gathered through consultation with MS; Directive 2004/83 Qualification Directive Synthesis Odysseus Study op.cit p. 100 , ECRE report, op.cit. p. 31-34.

When subsidiary protection was introduced, it was assumed that the beneficiaries' protection needs would be of a short duration, since most of them would be persons fleeing armed conflicts in their country of origin who would thus be able to return once the conflicts were over 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 . As a result, the Directive allows MS the discretion to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection a lower level of rights than those granted to refugees particularly with respect to the duration of residence permits, reasons to travel, benefits for family members, access to social welfare and health care, as well as access to the labour market, and integration facilities. [19]

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

However, taking into account the practical experience acquired so far through the implementation of the subsidiary protection regime, it appears that this initial assumption was not accurate. Although in both cases a significant change of circumstances in the country of origin may lead to the application of cessation and to the return of the persons concerned to their country of origin, there is no evidence that this happens more often or after a shorter period of stay in the host Member State in the case of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Acknowledging this, most MS grant in most respects the same level of rights to the two categories of beneficiaries of international protection. Two MS The Czech Republic and Romania stated in the context of the consultations that they had initially differentiated the level of rights granted to the two categories but soon realised that there was no ground for these differences and proceeded to an approximation. The relevant national practices are described in detail below.[20]

The Czech Republic and Romania

A. Residence permits and travel documents

The replies by 16 MS to the relevant questionnaires and the information contained in the Odysseus study) provide several indications that MS consider that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection have protection needs of similar duration as refugees ; tellingly at least 7 MS Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection residence permits longer than the 1 year prescribed as a minimum by the Directive. [21]

Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom

However, more generally, there is wide variation amongst MS regarding the duration of validity of the residence permits granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. In at least 11 MS Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovakia beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are granted the minimum (one year) residence permit, whereas in Poland they are granted permits valid for 2 years. In at least seven MS they are granted permits of the same length as refugees Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom : in Ireland, Slovenia and Bulgaria they are granted 3 years whereas Latvia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Hungary provide residence permits of 4 years or more. [22][23]

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovakia

Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom

MS were further asked to provide information regarding the travel documents issued to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and in particular on whether they apply the limitation allowed for in Article 25(2) of the Directive, thus issuing documents which enable their holders to travel only when serious humanitarian reasons arise that require their presence in another State. This survey showed that only 3 amongst the 19 MS which replied apply this limitation: Austria, Luxembourg and Spain.

B. Access to employment, social welfare and healthcare benefits and family unity

From the combined information provided by the available reports Odysseus report, pages 113-115; ECRE report, pages 32-34; France Terre d’asile report, pages 48-50 and the responses to the relevant questionnaires by 16 MS it appears that, with regard to access to employment, social welfare and healthcare and the right to maintain family unity, very few MS have made use of the possibilities provided by the Directive to limit the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. [24]

Odysseus report, pages 113-115; ECRE report, pages 32-34; France Terre d’asile report, pages 48-50

In particular, only 3 MS (Cyprus, Luxembourg and Germany) have made use of the possibility to limit their access to employment according to Article 26(3).

Only 4 MS (Germany 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. , Luxembourg, Latvia and Portugal) use the possibility to reduce their access to social welfare to core benefits according to Article 28(2) 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. . [25][26]

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.

Only one Member State (Malta) appears to apply the similar possibility to reduce their access to healthcare to core benefits according to Article 29(2).

In addition, the ECRE study The impact of the EU qualification directive on international protection, ECRE, pp.254-258 found that in Austria the level of benefits granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection depends on the region they are hosted by (this is due to the federal system). Furthermore, in Germany, in cases of subsidiary protection, there is a specific system of social benefits that reduces the benefits in general of about 30% and offers no access to some specific benefits concerning medical treatment.[27]

The impact of the EU qualification directive on international protection, ECRE, pp.254-258

Finally, in relation to the provision of benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, it appears that Poland is the only Member State that intends to use the possibility to apply specific conditions for providing benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, as allowed by Article 23(2) 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. . [28]

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 following table provides an overview of the difference (or lack thereof) in treatment between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection with regard to access to employment, social welfare and healthcare 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 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. .[29]

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 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.

Treatment of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection compared to refugees|Access to employment|Access to social welfare|Access to healthcare|

Difference |Cyprus , Germany and Luxembourg|Luxembourg, Latvia , Portugal and Germany|Malta|

No difference|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|

No reply|Luxembourg|Belgium|Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg|

C. Access to integration programmes

According to the information provided by the available studies Odysseus study, op.cit, p.127, France Terre d'Asile study , updated in the context of the consultations with MS and NGOs, at least four MS (Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK) do not differentiate between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in this respect. [30]

Odysseus study, op.cit, p.127, France Terre d'Asile study

The possibility to provide access to integration programmes to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to the degree that MS find it ‘appropriate’ has been transposed in the domestic legislation of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Portugal. A differentiation in terms of access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to integration facilities compared to access of refugees also appears in German practice. There is no information available on how this provision is implemented in practice. The study conducted by France Terre d’Asile reveals the following variations in the content and access of integration programmes for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

Country|Access to integration programme|

Germany|Refugees: right to participate for 2 yearsBeneficiaries of subsidiary protection: no rights, but can be obliged to participate|

Belgium|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.|

France|Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: benefit from the Contract of Reception and Integration (CAI).Personal accompaniment is only for refugees.|

Hungary|Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: pre-integration measures left to the discretion of authorities. Both have access to linguistic training.|

Sweden|Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: individual integration plan put into place by municipalities. Both have access to linguistic training for migrants.|

Annex 9 - Specific integration needs and challenges

The Qualification Directive grants beneficiaries of international protection access to a series of rights aimed at supporting their integration in the host societies; it appears, however, t hat this legal framework does not take sufficiently into account their specific needs and potential. This results in the de facto unavailability of rights formally granted, lack of access to sustainable employment and losses for the receiving societies and their economies. Although there are no exact figures available The MS' replies to the relevant questionnaires confirmed that such statistics are not systematically collected. , various research across the EU points to the disadvantaged position beneficiaries of international protection face in the labour market: many are unemployed or under-employed; they suffer higher levels of unemployment than the native population; many highly-skilled beneficiaries of international protection are working in low skilled, temporary and badly paid jobs . In addition to the ensuing negative social consequences of dependency and the significant burden for MS in terms of social welfare and benefits, this means that the huge potential beneficiaries of international protection represent remains in great part untapped. [31]

The MS' replies to the relevant questionnaires confirmed that such statistics are not systematically collected.

As regards the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection, it should be pointed out that, although they face m any integration challenges similar to those faced by other third country nationals staying legally in the EU, they also face specific obstacles, mainly due to the forced nature of their migration: the main factor distinguishing forced movement from voluntary migration is the predominance of non-economic imperatives; as a result, beneficiaries of international protection are less likely than other migrants to move to countries where they have already some cultural, linguistic or economic links.

Sources:

- Studies on challenges faced by beneficiaries of international protection to access the labour market

· 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%20060307.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 ;

· Further information on relevant studies on: http://www.employabilityforum.co.uk/refugee-employment/publications-and-research.htm

Further sources :

· Contributions received in the context of the Green Paper consultation and a series of assessments conducted by UNHCR and ECRE in several MS; se e for instance contributions by Caritas, p. 12; by ECRE, p. 25; by France Terre d'asile, p. 23-24;

· UNHCR Integration Note op.cit page 5;

· Annual report of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2008, p.43

One of the specific problems faced by beneficiaries of international protection is that they are often unable to provide documentary evidence to prove their claimed academic and professional qualifications : they may have had to leave their personal belongings and papers behind; there may be no way to communicate safely with the institution(s) where their qualifications were earned, or relevant files and archives may have been destroyed in acts of war or violence. The ensuing inability to certify previous studies and professional qualifications hinder their access to higher education or to employment activities. In particular, it appears that beneficiaries of international protection with professional backgrounds often face many difficulties in accessing the same profession because their diplomas are not recognised. Furthermore, many applicants have skills that were not earned through schooling or university studies, but e.g. in the home. Other ways of proving their skills than testing competences obtained through academia are therefore often needed. Several national and transnational projects under the asylum seekers theme of the EQUAL Initiative have developed and implemented ‘skills audits’ to test and validate the skills and competences of asylum seekers. The experiences from the EQUAL theme clearly show the human and economic benefits of undertaking such skills audits. The beneficiaries are able to access relevant education, training and employment, resulting in better physical and emotional well-being and the empowerment of the beneficiaries, and reduced healthcare and welfare costs for the host society 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 . [32]

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

A further obstacle flows from their limited financial capacities: often they are prevented from seeking recognition of their qualifications because they cannot afford the fees involved. The Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee recommends in this context that “[s]pecial measures aimed at low income groups, refugees and displaced persons and other disadvantaged groups should be considered in order to ensure that no applicant is prevented from seeking recognition of his or her foreign qualifications because of the costs involved” 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. .[33]

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.

Evidently, recognition of their qualifications is crucial with a view to finding suitable and long-term employment matching their skills and qualifications For information on projects in different MS providing support for recognition of qualification of immigrants and refugees see Annex 10 ; moreover, recognising existing skills and competences is far less costly than educating and training people with no such abilities 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 . [34][35]

For information on projects in different MS providing support for recognition of qualification of immigrants and refugees see Annex 10

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

The Directive grants beneficiaries of international protection equal treatment with nationals in the context of national recognition procedures. However, it 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 For information on good practices developed in certain MS, see Annex 10 .[36]

For information on good practices developed in certain MS, see Annex 10

Sources:

Studies on challenges faced by beneficiaries of international protection for recognition of skills and competences

· 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

Further sources :

- UNHCR Integration Note, op.cit; pages 7-9;

- ECRE Policy Briefing on employment and employment support for refugees and migrants in Europe, op.cit;

- ECRE Policy briefing on access to vocational training and (higher) education for refugees and migrants in Europe, available at http://www.ecre.org/files/Policy%20Briefing_Vocational%20training%20&%20higher%20education.pdf

Relevant research further shows that many beneficiaries of international protection are unable to work for years due to their situation of exile and lengthy asylum procedures. As a result of this protracted inactivity, their skills may become outdated 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 . However, in most MS there is a lack of suitable training courses to upgrade their qualifications tailored to their needs. MS' responses to the GHK questionnaire indicate that, at present, only Belgium, Cyprus, France, Lithuania and Poland offer beneficiaries of international protection training courses tailored to their professional abilities and needs.[37]

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

Sources: FREE Project report page 4, ECRE Policy Briefing on the assessment of skills and recognition of qualifications of refugees and migrants in Europe, p. 2.

A further important obstacle is that beneficiaries of international protection are often unfamiliar with labour market requirements and recruitment practices. However, it appears that they receive inadequate employment support: in particular they are offered professional orientation only in ten MS and that governments’ employment strategies for them are often part of broader policies for the unemployed or incorporated into integration policies for ethnic minorities and migrants.

Sources: ECRE Policy Briefing on employment and employment support for refugees and migrants in Europe, p. 2; ECRE policy Briefing on access to vocational training and (higher) education for refugees and migrants in Europe, p. 1. Resource project: Refugee’s contribution to Europe, Education Action International, page 12. For information on national practices regarding employment support for beneficiaries of international protection see Annex 11

Additional information collected in the context of consultations with Member States is presented below:

Country|Type of programme|

AT|9 ERF projects specifically targeted at beneficiaries of international protection and co-financed by the Austrian Ministry of Interior: |

CY|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.|

HU|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.|

LV|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 .|

SI|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.|

UK|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.|

Source: Information collected in the context of consultations with Member State

As mentioned above, in contrast to economic migrants, beneficiaries of international protection do not necessarily seek protection from countries with which they have cultural or linguistic links. As a result, lack of linguistic proficiency appears to be one of the main causes of their disadvantaged position in the labour market.

Sources: UNHCR response to the Green Paper, p.33; ECRE response to the Green Paper, p.27; ECRE Policy Briefing on introduction programmes and language courses for refugees and migrants in Europe, http://www.ecre.org/files/Policy%20Briefing_Introduction%20programmes%20&%20language%20courses.pdf

However, it appears that language courses currently available in the MS are neither adequate nor sufficient. Only scarce information on the availability of language courses was obtained through MS and NGOs responses to the GHK questionnaire. Eighteen countries confirmed that they offer language courses 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. . However, four NGOs (two from France and one from Ireland and the Netherlands) pointed out that these courses are neither adequate nor sufficient (i.e. they are not tailored to the particular needs of beneficiaries and not enough hours)[38]

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.

Furthermore, the Resource Project conducted by Education Action International (which conducted 297 interviews with refugees in 14 EU countries) found that at present language provision is insufficient to gain access to vocational training, higher education or employment. This is mostly due to the fact that language training is seldom tailored to refugees’ specific needs and is not provided as soon as the refugees arrive in the host country.

Source: Information collected in the context of consultations with MS and NGOs; Resource Project: Refugee’s contribution to Europe, Berend Jonker, 2004, Education Action International, page 18, http://www.cear.es/upload/Resource_project%20_overall%20report_.pdf .

More generally, there are currently great differences between MS regarding the provision of integration programmes: most have integration packages targeted at all migrants with little to no differentiation between categories. In particular, introduction programmes do not take into account the different educational levels, professional backgrounds, family commitments or other particularities of the situation of beneficiaries of international protection such as the length and the circumstances of their stay in the host Member State.

Sources: ECRE Policy Briefing on introduction programmes and language courses for refugees and migrants in Europe, p. 2

Annex 10 - National practices and projects facilitating access to recognition of qualifications for beneficiaries of international protection

MS and NGOs responses to the GHK questionnaire illustrate that at least in four countries the special needs of beneficiaries of international protection are taken into account (in certain circumstances):

§ 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’;

Responses to the same questionnaire reveal that in Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Romania, no alternative procedure is established to facilitate the access to recognition of qualification for beneficiaries of international protection.

The analysis of the NGOs and MS responses to the GHK questionnaire revealed that no financial assistance is provided in Belgium, France, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Greece; in Belgium and France however, services for recognition of qualification are free of charge (in France, on condition that the beneficiary is registered as a job-seeker). Such services are also free of charge in Malta, the Netherlands and Italy

In Luxembourg, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia financial support for recognition of qualification is provided. In Romania this is provided by the local agencies for labour force employment, in Sweden by the municipalities or the Swedish Public Employment Service and in Slovakia by NGOs benefiting from ERF funds.

Source: Information collected in the context of consultations with MS and NGOs.

In Portugal , the Jesuit Refugee Service implemented, in 2002-2005 a re-qualification support programme with financial support from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. This innovative programme was designed to support foreign medical doctors in procedures to obtain equivalence, granted by a Portuguese educational institution, of their medicine degrees. Support offered includes financial aid for the translation of study documents, purchase of books and payment of fees required by Medical Schools in the equivalence procedure. The programme also foresees intensive Portuguese language courses for candidates, internship grants and financial aid for registering with the Medical Association Resource project: Refugee’s contribution to Europe, Education Action International, page 14 . From a total of 120 doctors, the project had a success rate of 89% Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal, page 5 . The excellent success rate also encouraged the organisation to create a similar programme for 59 nurses which started in 2005 and ended in June 2007 and had a success rate 76% Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal, page 8 . [39][40][41]

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

Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal, page 8

Source: Resource project: Refugee’s contribution to Europe, Education Action International; Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal.

With regard to the obstacles facing beneficiaries of international protection in relation to having their skills and competences recognised, in Belgium , the two organisations Flemish Refugee Council in Flanders and Coordination et Initiatives pour Réfugés et Etrangers in Brussels providing refugees with the necessary support to obtain recognition of qualifications found that when applying for recognition refugees were confronted with a number of administrative obstacles. Such obstacles included lack of transparency of decisions, lack of alternative in the event of non-recognition, insufficient staff in certain services and general lack of information given to refugees with regard to their options (both in social services and schools) Equivalence de diplômes étrangers – rapport sur les pratiques en communautés flamande et française, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and CIRÉ asbl, page 13 . Therefore, between 2000 and 2004 the Flemish Refugee Council ran a pilot project for diploma equivalence which primarily targeted refugees and asylum seekers. Through providing support for submitting better prepared files, the project aimed at enhancing the chances at recognition of the foreign qualifications of refugees and asylum seekers so as to increase their employment opportunities Recognition of foreign qualifications, Flemish Refugee Council, power point presentation, slide no.2 . Results of the study showed that out of 756 applications made through the project, 84.5% resulted in recognition of qualifications, 11.8% were still waiting and only 3.7% had been rejected Recognition of foreign qualifications, Flemish Refugee Council, power point presentation, slide no.4 . Thus, as a result of its success the project was mainstreamed in 2006/2007 and transferred to the Flemish Centre for Minor Groups where introduction classes were created to train staff for providing more efficient support. Generally, it is also important to note that there are some good practices in Belgium with relation to recognition of qualifications: in Flanders, the process is free, levels of indication can be obtained (this can be recognised as equivalence at the discretion of employers) and recognitions of social promotion are available; in the French community, there is good information about procedures on the website and on flyers and decisions are always clearly justified Equivalence de diplômes étrangers – rapport sur les pratiques en communautés flamande et française, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and CIRÉ asbl, page 15 .[42][43][44][45][46]

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

Sources: Flemish Refugee Council in Flanders and Coordination et Initiatives pour Refugies et Etrangers in Brussels ; Equivalence de diplômes étrangers – rapport sur les pratiques en communautes flamande et française, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and CIRÉ asbl ; Recognition of foreign qualifications, Flemish Refugee Council, power point presentation.

A study by the University of Birmingham identified a need for a national system in the UK for the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) 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 to support refugees into appropriate employment and utilise their skills and experience. This would be of great benefit to refugees who are often not able to bring their certificates as a result of being forced out of their country due to persecution and human rights abuses. As a result, refugees are often unable to obtain an assessment by UKNARIC 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. . It will also be helpful to refugees with certificates of overseas qualifications that are assessed as being at a lower level in the UK. APEL could be used to complete the qualification without having to return to formal study or training. Without a national APEL system refugees are faced with extended periods of unemployment or underemployment in an attempt to requalify in the UK. The UK in turn misses out on a valuable source of skilled labour and tax income.[47][48]

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.

In particular, this study found an overreliance by employers and training providers on UKNARIC for assessing learning and experience from outside the EU. The study found low levels of APEL in the UK, which was often limited to building a portfolio of evidence for academic purposes. For example, the Refugee Assessment and Guidance Unit (London Metropolitan University) (RAGU) has successfully run a portfolio-based APEL course for refugees with a focus on accessing higher education. However, in other parts of Europe, APEL is also integrated into work-based assessments. The study developed a useful model for bringing APEL and work experience placements together

Source: Phillimore, Craig, Goodson, Sankey Employability initiatives for refugees in Europe: looking at, and learning from good practice (University of Birmingham, 2006)

 

Annex 11 – Deficiencies and good practices regarding access to accommodation

An important obstacle to the integration of beneficiaries of international protection may also be in some cases the lack of adequate housing. The Qualification Directive guarantees that beneficiaries of international protection have access to accommodation under equivalent conditions as other legally residing third country nationals. However, it appears that this does not ensure an adequate standard of housing, on the level that is required by human rights instruments, such as the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights (Article 34(3)) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (Article 11(1)). Of relevance in this respect is also the guidance provided in the General Comments on the latter Article of the Covenant, which indicate that "t he human right to adequate housing, which is […] derived from the right to an adequate standard of living, is of central importance for the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights […]" http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument .[49]

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument

The inadequacy of the standards in practice is illustrated by the fact that many beneficiaries of international protection (as a subset of third country nationals residing in Member States) experience direct and indirect discrimination in the housing market 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 . Further deficiencies in the housing provided to beneficiaries of international protection have also been identified by NGOs, such as Caritas, in other MS such as Bulgaria and Germany Caritas Europa Study "Migration, a Journey into poverty", 2006, available at http://www.caritas-europa.org/module/FileLib/Poverty2006ENWeb.pdf, pages 44 and 50. . [50][51]

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.

Good national practices

According to the Odysseus study, 5 MS ( Austria, Ireland, Latvia, Poland and Slovenia ) are reported to provide more favourable standards, with a view to providing the standards required in Article 21 of the Geneva Convention, which calls for "treatment as favourable as possible" and in international human rights instruments.

Source: Odysseus Study, op.cit. p.124

Consultations with MS and NGOs provided the following information: In Ireland and Sweden , beneficiaries of international protection are given the same rights as nationals concerning accommodation. In Poland , the state does not provide accommodation actively but gives substantial financial means to beneficiaries of international protection to find something on their own. In the Netherlands , municipalities have the obligation to assist beneficiaries of international protection in finding suitable house/accommodation. In Slovenia , all beneficiaries of international protection have the right to live in an “integration” house for a year following their recognition, after which they are given financial means to find an accommodation (this is co-financed by the State through funding to NGOs). In France, refugees can stay in reception centres for a maximum period of 6 months following the recognition of status.

According to the information provided by a recent study, Hungary also provides refugees with the possibility to live in an open center for a period of 6 months which can be extended to 6 more months. In the Czech Republic , the state finances 5 "integration centers" where refugees can stay for a maximum period of 18 months. In Austria , refugees can stay in a centre for 1 year, following which they can have access to approximately 6 000 apartments administered by the Austrian Integration Fund. In the UK , the national Refugee Integration and Employment Service provides 6 months of support via a personal case manager who assists in the search for housing.

Source: France Terre d'asile, "Panorama des initiatives sur l'accès au logement des réfugiés dans 15 pays européens", December 2008, available at http://buildinginclusion.oberaxe.es/repository/library/Refugee_TerreD_Asile.pdf , p. 8

More general information on recent policy reforms on "social housing" and their impacts in particular in Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic can be found in the study "Housing change in East and Central Europe: integration or fragmentation", by Stuart Lowe and S. Tsenkova (Ashgate Publishing, 2003).

The ECRE Policy briefing on housing for refugees and migrants in Europe provided the following information:

Throughout Italy there are initiatives such as the one in Bergamo, where the Casa Amica, a ‘social housing’ agency, has been involved in the creation of a network amongst the most important stakeholders in the field (e.g. local municipality, province, migrant associations and house-builders association), and promotes projects for housing, buying and renovating apartments in order to make them available for rent to disadvantaged persons, including refugees.

In the Netherlands , the Dutch Council for Refugees (DCR) has a presence both in reception centres (and all other asylum seekers centres), as well as local departments in the majority of the country’s municipalities. In the reception centres, the DCR team informs refugees about existing housing possibilities, and often organise one or two ‘facilitation days’ to ease the move from a centre to independent housing. In these ‘facilitation days’, a volunteer assists the refugee and/or family with signing the rental agreement, applying for a loan to furnish the house, applying for social benefits, gas and electricity, etc. In most municipalities, the local departments of the DCR will provide social guidance as part of the integration programme, which is organised by the municipality and which the refugee is obliged to follow.

In Portugal , the Portuguese Refugee Council (PRC), with the help of EQUAL I funding, started with the construction of a new reception centre in Loures. It is integrated in a residential area and it will be, in part, a community centre. The services available (kindergarden, sports field, documentation centre) will both be delivered to asylum seekers and to the local society.

Source: ECRE Policy briefing on housing for refugees and migrants in Europe, op. cit. p. 4

Annex 12 - Definition of "family members"

The Directive defines family members as including "in so far as the family already existed in the country of origin" the spouse of the beneficiary or his or her unmarried partner and the minor children of the couple, on condition that they are unmarried and dependent. MS can expand this definition so as to include "other close relatives who lived together as part of the family at the time of leaving the country of origin, and who were wholly or mainly dependent on the beneficiary of refugee or subsidiary protection status at that time".

This definition is criticized as resulting in unjustified limitations to the exercise of the right to respect for family life, firstly, to the extent that it disregards the fact that beneficiaries of international protection may have spent lengthy periods in exile or even on the territory of a Member State waiting for the outcome of the asylum procedure and may have founded a family during this time. In this respect it is argued that the ECtHR's jurisprudence on Article 8 ECHR does not differentiate as to when and where the family was established 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 ; indeed the standing case law of this Court adopts a flexible definition of family life, insisting that "when deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to "family life", a number of factors may be relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they have demonstrated their commitment of each other by having children together of by any other means Judgment of 16 December 2008, Case Gulijev v. Lithuania, paragraph 38. . Moreover, a recent order of the ECJ Order of 19 December 2008, in Case C-551/07, Sahin argues in favor of including in this definition families which have been founded during flight or upon arrival in the host State. [52][53][54]

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

Secondly, in the context of determining which relatives who are present in the Member State should be entitled to the benefits the Directive, the definition does not take into account that in other societies/countries the notion of family extends beyond the "nuclear family" See UNHCR Annotated Comments to the Qualification Directive, op.cit. under Article 2(h) and that the decisive criterion should be the de facto dependency on the beneficiary. UNHCR stresses the need for a more pragmatic and flexible approach, based on the UNHCR Handbook and EXCOM conclusions, which stipulate that other dependants living in the same household normally should benefit from the principle of family unity 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). . It should further be pointed out that a broadening of the definition has the potential to ensure full respect of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.[55][56]

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).

Thirdly, the current definition does not address the wide range of situations where a minor might be considered dependent and does not sufficiently take into account the principle of the primacy of the best interests of the child. For instance, even in the case of married minor children of the beneficiary of protection it might be in their best interest to reside in the same country as the beneficiary, notably in cases of forced marriages or where they are in practice separated from their spouse. Another situation that has not been taken into account is where the beneficiary is a minor: in such cases, the Directive does not provide for the possibility that his/her best interests may require to consider as "family members" within the meaning of the Directive his/her parents or another adult relative responsible for him/her or his/her minor unmarried siblings. It is further to be noted that the Commission's proposals for the second-phase asylum instruments 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"). address similar gaps with regard to asylum applicants by broadening the relevant definitions of family members; the adoption of these amendments in particular to the current Reception Conditions Directive would create an important discrepancy with the current provisions of the Qualification Directive, and would lead to the incongruous result that, in the cases concerned, the rights and benefits provided to persons considered as family members of an applicant would need to be withdrawn once the applicant was granted a protection status. [57]

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").

Finally, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights has pointed to the divergence of national approaches with regard to family reunification rights granted to same-sex spouses and unmarried partners 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 . Such divergences are allowed by the Directive, to the extent that the notion of "spouse" and the treatment of unmarried couples are determined by reference to the legislation or practice of MS 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" ; and provided that the implementing measures comply with fundamental rights, in particular the principle of non-discrimination (explicitly referred to in recitals 10 and 11). [58][59]

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"

The information provided by the Odysseus Study as well as the consultations with the MS and their replies to the relevant questionnaires showed that almost half of the MS have adopted different broader definitions of family members than the strict minimum required by the Directive, resulting in wide divergences in the scope of application of the principle of family unity: 9 MS have applied the "broad" definition allowed by the Directive by transposing Article 23(5) (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden) whereas some amongst them (Austria, Bulgaria, Finland and Sweden) as well as 3 more MS (Cyprus, Estonia and Italy) have extended their definitions of family to include, for instance: siblings, children of majority of age under education, parents of unaccompanied minors parents or grand-parents living with the beneficiary or who are dependent on him/her; close relatives having lived with the protected person before the person left the country of origin if a special relationship of dependence exists (e.g. disease, age, disability).

Source: Odysseus study, op.cit p. 98-99

Annex 13 - Statistics attesting the wide divergences in the application of the Directive

These divergences are illustrated firstly by the variability of the percentages of total positive decisions in the different MS . In 2007 the share of total positive decisions ranged between 0% and 4% of the total first instance decisions in some MS such as Greece (0.8%), Slovenia (1.8%), Cyprus (2.9%), Slovakia (3.3%) and Spain (4.5%). On the other hand, it was higher in the MS that in recent years have rendered most asylum decisions across the EU, i.e. Germany (27.5%), France (11.5%) and United Kingdom (24.6%); and significantly higher in certain MS: Sweden (48.2%), Luxembourg (52.2%), Denmark (55.9%) and Malta (65.4%). The data for Sweden are particularly relevant considering that it had the highest number of asylum applications in the EU in 2007 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 .[60]

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

Further evidence of divergences is provided by the analysis of recognition rates recorded in the MS regarding asylum applicants of the same nationality. A comparison of recognition rates for the period 2005-2007 shows for instance, that concerning applications regarding asylum seekers from Russia (mostly of Chechen background), in Austria 63% of decisions were positive while in Slovakia the percentage was 0%. 98% and 55% of Somali asylum seekers got a positive decision in Malta and in the UK respectively while the percentage of positive decisions for the same group was 0% in Greece and Spain. In Belgium, 38% of Iraqi asylum-seekers received a positive decision, while in Sweden that percentage was 98%, in the UK 20% and in Greece less than 2%. In 2007, in Belgium 14% of Afghans asylum seekers received a protection status while 98% were granted protection in Italy UNHCR statistical yearbook 2007 (Annexes) available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4981b19d2.html . The above shows that, despite the measures adopted in the first phase of the CEAS, it is still the case that asylum seekers have very different prospects of finding protection, depending on where in the EU their applications are examined. [61]

UNHCR statistical yearbook 2007 (Annexes) available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4981b19d2.html

The substantial divergences in the interpretation of the rules of the Qualification Directive are further exemplified by the fact that, again regarding asylum applicants coming from the same country of origin and having similar backgrounds, certain MS tend to a large extent to grant refugee status whereas others opt for subsidiary protection. To cite a few examples, looking at the positive decisions regarding Iraqi asylum applicants in 2007, Sweden granted refugee status to 155 persons and subsidiary protection to 9,565 persons, (thus, with regard to the proportion of positive decisions concerning refugee status and subsidiary protection, only approximately 1.6% were granted refugee status), whereas Germany granted refugee status to 5,760 persons and subsidiary protection to 35 (here, only 0.6% were granted subsidiary protection status). In the same year and regarding Somali applicants, Sweden granted refugee status to 115 persons and subsidiary protection to 1,415 (7.5% were thereby granted refugee status); inversely, the United Kingdom granted refugee status to 975 persons and subsidiary protection to 110 (corresponding to 10.1% for the latter group).

The overall recognition practices in 2008 provide further evidence of such divergences: Germany granted 7310 refugee statuses and 1440 subsidiary protection statuses, whereas Italy granted 585 refugee status and 2455 subsidiary protection statuses; Sweden 1080 refugee statuses and 3040 subsidiary protection statuses; Malta on the other hand granted refugee status in only 20 cases but 1,385 subsidiary protection statuses. In 2008, Bulgaria, Malta and Slovakia were the countries delivering the highest proportion of subsidiary protection statuses with respectively 95%, 99% and 82% of the total positive decisions resulting in subsidiary protection status. On the other hand, Hungary, Romania and Poland were the countries with the lowest proportion of subsidiary protection granted, with respectively 15%, 12% and 24% of positive decisions resulting in subsidiary protection status 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) .[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)

For a detailed presentation of data used in this annex, see tables below.

Table 1

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat

Table 2

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat

Table 3 New asylum applications and asylum decisions concerning Iraq, Russia and Somalia citizens, 2007 (only data disaggregated by citizenship included)

(...PICT...)

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

Table 4 First instance decisions granting Geneva Convention status - Quarterly data (rounded) for 2008

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat

Table 5 - First instance decisions granting subsidiary protection status - Quarterly data (rounded) for 2008

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat

Annex 14 - Statistics on multiple applications

Evidence of the failure of the Qualification Directive to achieve its objective of limiting the phenomenon of secondary movements is provided by the statistics produced by the EURODAC Central Unit on multiple applications, which show that the percentages of multiple applications remain at the same, significant levels: 17% and 16% in 2006 and 2007. Such figures would suggest that out of the total number of 197,284 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 asylum applications recorded in the system in 2007, in 31,910 cases, the same person had already made at least one asylum application before (in the same or in another Member State). This is a very clear indication that an important number of asylum seekers try to have their asylum claim examined in more than one Member State.[63]

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

Statistics produced by the EURODAC Central Unit further reveal that, in 2007, 204 refugees lodged a second asylum application after they had been recognised; in this case it may also be presumed that the reasons could include the possibility to obtain a higher level of rights.

Sources: Annex to the Communication on the Evaluation of the Dublin System, SEC(2007)742, Brussels, June 2007, p.42 ; Annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit 2006, SEC(2007)1184, Brussels, September 2007, pp.48-49

It should be pointed out that differences in recognition rates and practices and secondary movements cannot be solely attributed to the inconsistent application and interpretation of the Qualification Directive. There are various reasons why asylum seekers might find one Member State more attractive than another, such as cultural and linguistic links, family ties, geographic position etc. Other drivers are differences across EU in terms of practices, procedures, diverse country of origin information sources and decision making processes for granting protection as well as poor cooperation and exchange of information between national asylum administrations. It is however undeniable that having better chances of receiving protection or of obtaining a higher level of rights in one Member State than another is a decisive factor in this respect.

Annex 15 - Proportions of asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants for selected European states

(...PICT...)

Annex 16 - Comparison of trends regarding asylum influxes and recognition rates

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Annex 17– Asylum Appeal data for selected Member States

Member State|Recognition rate in first instance %|Rejection decisions|Appeals lodged|Rejection decisions appealed % |Appeals allowed |Appeals allowed %|

United Kingdom Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb1108.pdf Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb1108.pdf |26.8%|16755|14055|83%|3385|23%|

France 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.commission-refugies.fr/IMG/pdf/CNDA-Rapport_d_activite_2007.pdf and http://www.ofpra.gouv.fr/documents/Rapport_OFPRA_2007_BD.pdf |11.6%|25922|22676|87.5%|5415|20%|

Belgium Source: http://www.rvv-cce.be and http://www.cgvs.be/fr/binaries/Rapportannuel2006_tcm126-9209.pdf Source: http://www.rvv-cce.be and http://www.cgvs.be/fr/binaries/Rapportannuel2006_tcm126-9209.pdf |14%|5600|5386|96%|469|10%|

Germany Source: http://www.bamf.de/cln_092/nn_442496/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/DasBAMF/Publikationen/broschuere-asyl-in-zahlen-2007,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/broschuere-asyl-in-zahlen-2007.pdf Source: http://www.bamf.de/cln_092/nn_442496/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/DasBAMF/Publikationen/broschuere-asyl-in-zahlen-2007,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/broschuere-asyl-in-zahlen-2007.pdf |27.6%|20702|10343|49.9%|n/a|n/a|

Spain Source: http://www.cear.es/files/Informe_Cear_2008.pdf Source: http://www.cear.es/files/Informe_Cear_2008.pdf |8.4%|1570|471|30%|27|5.4%|

Denmark Source: http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/EFB2567D-6C5F-4E4B-A6EF-3AE5F1ACEDDC/0/statisticaloverview2007.pdf Source: http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/EFB2567D-6C5F-4E4B-A6EF-3AE5F1ACEDDC/0/statisticaloverview2007.pdf |55.7%|376|300|79.8%|68|22.7%|

If the percentages of rejection decisions appealed and of appeals allowed are weighted according to the relative weight of each of the above MS (measured by its share of the number of asylum applicants in the EU) and extrapolated to the rest of the EU, it appears that:

· 77% of rejection decisions are appealed in the EU;

· 18.5% of appeals are allowed in the EU (=grant protection status).

There were 143,956 negative decisions in first instance in the EU in 2007. Application of the 77% appeal percentage would mean that there were 110,846 appeals lodged throughout the EU. If 18.5% of them were successful, it would mean that 20,506 applicants were granted protection in appeal. Combining the two percentages (77% and 18.5%), the percentage of appeal recognition rate to be added to the first instance recognition rate can be established at 14.2%. The percentage of positive decisions in first instance for 2007 (incl. also humanitarian statuses) was 25.14%. If 14.2% is added to that, the global recognition rate would be 39.34%.

The following table shows the calculation of the weighted averages extrapolated to EU27:

 | |First instance rejection decisions appealed % |Percentage of asylum-seekers on total EU | |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 appeals granted |Percentage of asylum-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|

 |Total| |34.41%|100|18.47|

||||

2008|Total decisions|Total positive decisions|Percentage|

BE|5.238|396|7,6|

BG|27|9|33,3|

CZ|:|:|#VALUE!|

DK|478|164|34,3|

DE|11.072|2.777|25,1|

EE|1|0|0,0|

IE|2.460|293|11,9|

GR|1.338|359|26,8|

ES|:|:|#VALUE!|

FR|24.351|6.319|25,9|

IT|1.653|1.621|98,1|

CY|2.847|36|1,3|

LV|13|0|0,0|

LT|36|1|2,8|

LU 1)|668|246|36,8|

HU|55|1|1,8|

MT|2.688|1.411|52,5|

NL|801|413|51,6|

AT 2)|4.592|1.972|42,9|

PL|183|29|15,8|

PT|1|0|0,0|

RO|:|:|#VALUE!|

SI|101|0|0,0|

SK 3)|129|66|51,2|

FI|94|82|87,2|

SE|1.679|823|49,0|

UK| | |#DIV/0!|

EU|60.505|17.018|28,1|

NO|:|656||

CH|6.256|898||

||||

Annex 18 - Additional Problems identified, Operational Objectives and Assessment of relevant Policy Options

PROBLEM DEFINITION

1.1. 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"

Article 9(3) of the Qualification Directive is a mandatory provision requiring a connection (a "causal nexus") between the acts of persecution and the reasons for persecution under the Geneva Convention: to qualify for refugee status a person must have well founded fear of persecution by reason of one of these grounds.

A problem arises with respect to cases where the persecution emanates from non-State actors such as militia, clans, criminal networks, local communities or families and where the decisive factor is the absence of (state) protection. In many such cases the act of persecution is not committed for reasons related to a Geneva Convention ground: these actors do not persecute the individual because of his/her religion, gender, ethnicity etc., but, for instance with criminal motivations or for private revenge. However, it often happens that the State unable or unwilling to provide protection to the individual concerned because of a reason related to the Geneva Convention (for example religion, gender, ethnicity etc).

The Qualification Directive at present does not ‘accommodate’ situations when a person faces a risk of persecution which is unrelated to a Convention ground, but the inability or unwillingness of the State to offer protection is related to such a ground. In these situations, persons who seek to avoid persecution originated from non-state actors could have limited access to protection. This is particularly relevant for gender-related claims: typical examples include cases of domestic violence committed by a spouse which are tolerated by the state authorities or women threatened with female genital mutilation by their tribal group in a State that prohibits, but cannot stop, the practice For more information see Alexander Aleinikoff op.cit pp 51-54 . [74]

For more information see Alexander Aleinikoff op.cit pp 51-54

In order in particular to provide protection in such situations – whose number increases, at least 10 MS Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden adopt in their practice and jurisprudence a broad interpretation of this requirement that is in line with the Geneva Convention but goes beyond the current wording of Article 9(3) Odysseus study op.cit, p. 51, ECRE study op.cit, pages 144-146 . However, at least 7 countries Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom apply a strict definition of the nexus requirement and an asylum seeker would not qualify for protection if there is no connection between the act of persecution and the five Convention grounds. [75][76][77]

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

In view of the above, it appears that the current definition of the causal nexus requirement results on the one hand in 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. On the other hand, it allows for an inconsistent provision of protection in the different MS.

1.2. Unwarranted withdrawal of status of persons in need of protection

According to Articles 11(1) and 16(1) of the Qualification Directive, a person ceases to be eligible for refugee or subsidiary protection, respectively, where the circumstances which led to the granting of protection status have ceased to exist or have changed to such a degree that protection is no longer required. These “ceased circumstances” cessation provisions basically reproduce the cessation clauses of Article 1 C of the Geneva Convention and extend their application to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

However, in the current text of the Qualification Directive, reference to the exceptions to these clauses, set out in Articles 1C(5) and 1C(6) of the Geneva Convention are omitted. These Articles allow for an exceptional continuation of refugee protection for "compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution" and are intended to cover cases where refugees have suffered atrocious forms of persecution and therefore cannot be expected to return to their country of origin. According to the relevant UNHCR Guidelines, this category of persons might include ex-camp or prison detainees, survivors or witnesses of violence against family members, including sexual violence, as well as severely traumatised persons 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 .[78]

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

It should also be highlighted that, while its wording only relates to refugees, this exception is interpreted as reflecting a general humanitarian principle that is now w ell-grounded in State practice and is therefore applied beyond its wording UNHCR Handbook, para. 136; UNHCR ExCom Conclusion No. 69 (XLIII) of 1992 .[79]

UNHCR Handbook, para. 136; UNHCR ExCom Conclusion No. 69 (XLIII) of 1992

The fact that this exception has not been incorporated in the Qualification Directive means that, pursuant to Community law, persons who have suffered atrocious forms of persecution may be expected to return to their country of origin. The possibility thus provided to MS to withdraw the protection status in such cases has the potential to lead to violations of international Law. On the basis of the data available, it was impossible however to assess the extent to which this omission leads to the application of cessation in violation of the Geneva Convention.

In particular, the MS' responses to the DG JLS questionnaire provided only some information on the number of final decisions withdrawing refugee status in accordance with Article 11. In particular, it appears that 10 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 out of 16 countries which provided information make use of Article 11. Moreover, it appears that between 2006 and 2008, the number of cases of withdrawal of refugee status in Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland and Sweden ranged from 6 to 22. The Czech Republic further indicated that between July 1990 and December 2007, 30 asylum statuses were withdrawn, whereas four MS Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia reported that they have had no cases of withdrawal of refugee status on the grounds of Article 11.[80][81]

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

Data on withdrawals extracted from Eurostat (see table below) shows that Germany in particular makes extensive use of cessation of refugee status but there is no information regarding the extent to which the exceptions to cessation of the Geneva Convention are applied or not in this context.

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat data for 2008, quarterly (rounded)

Finally, the omission of the exception to the cessation clause poses a particular problem with regard to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Indeed, while refugees may be protected from an unwarranted withdrawal of protection in line with the Geneva Convention, the Directive leaving a protection gap in relation to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

The responses to the JLS questionnaire revealed that five 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. out of nine responding MS make use of Article 16 to withdraw subsidiary protection. The number of withdrawals is higher in Sweden and Slovakia, which have withdrawn such status in 54 and 46 cases respectively between 2007 and 2008 whereas Belgium and Romania have withdrawn status only in 1 and 5 cases respectively. [82]

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.

Data on withdrawals extracted from Eurostat (see table below) shows that Germany in particular makes use of cessation of subsidiary protection status but there is no information regarding the extent to which the exceptions to cessation of the Geneva Convention are applied or not in this context.

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat data for 2008, quarterly (rounded)

1.3. 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

A provision of the Qualification Directive which does not appear conducive to the integration of beneficiaries of international protection is contained in Article 20(6)(7), which allows 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 ("manufactured claims").

This discretion has been criticized by UNHCR firstly on the basis that, according to the Geneva Convention, the decisive factor for granting protection is whether the eligibility conditions are in fact fulfilled, taking into account all the relevant facts surrounding the claim and not whether the asylum-seeker acted in “bad faith”. T he Geneva Convention does not thus provide for sanctions in the case of persons who engage in activities for the sole purpose of securing refugee protection. Although such "manufactured" asylum claims should be discouraged, UNHCR considers that it would be preferable to address such claims by appropriate credibility assessments; such an approach would also be in line with Article 4(3)(d) of the Directive. Secondly, UNHCR points out that the application in particular of Article 20(6) in practice has the potential to lead to breaches of the principle of n on-discriminatory treatment of refugees enshrined in Article 3 of the 1951 Convention UNHCR Annotated comments on the Qualification Directive, under Articles 5 and 20. .[83]

UNHCR Annotated comments on the Qualification Directive, under Articles 5 and 20.

In addition to the concerns these provisions raise from the perspective of fundamental rights, it appears, on the basis of the information collected in the context of the consultations with MS, that these provisions have very limited added value in practice: only 3 MS have actually implemented them (Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta).

1.4. Unjustified differences between the content of protection for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection

As set out in detail in section 2.2.2., the Directive allows MS the discretion to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in some respects a lower level of rights than those granted to refugees. Such a differentiation is made inter alia with respect to the following issues:

A. The benefits for family members . The Directive allows MS to apply different conditions for the benefits granted to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. At present it appears that only Poland has made use of this possibility. However, for the reasons outlined in section 2.2.2., a differentiated treatment in the fields of social welfare and health care does not appear to be objectively justified. Arguably, it could even be considered contrary to the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the ECHR, as interpreted in the recent judgments of the ECtHR in cases Niedzwiecki v Germany and Okpisz v Germany, referred to above. Further concerns are raised in relation to the rights of the child, enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter and in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

B. The reasons for travelling outside the MS' territory . The Directive obliges MS to issue refugees travel documents which enable them to travel outside their territory, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require. However, it allows MS to issue beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who are unable to obtain a national passport documents which enable them to travel at least when serious humanitarian reasons arise that require their presence in another State, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require. The additional limitation thus allowed in the case of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and warranted by the assumption regarding the short duration of their protection needs can no longer be considered necessary or justified. Indeed, the MS replies to a relevant query by the Commission showed that, out of the 19 MS which replied, only 3 make use of the possibility to apply this limitation (Austria, Luxembourg and Spain).

2. OBJECTIVES

With a view to achieving the specific objectives set out in section 3.3, the following additional objectives have been identified.

With a view to achieving specific objectives 1, 4 and 5, it is necessary to pursue two further operational objectives, namely

- t o ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the “causal nexus requirement’ in line with the Geneva Convention

- to prevent the unwarranted cessation of protection status

Moreover, in the context of the operational objective “t o approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees ’, aimed at achieving specific objectives 2, 4 and 5 , it is necessary to

– ensure the access of family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to benefits under the same conditions as those applicable to family members of refugees

– ensure that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection have the right to travel outside the MS' territory under the same conditions as those applicable for refugees.

Finally, in the context of the operational objective ‘to enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs’, aimed at achieving specific objectives 3 and 5, a further amendment of the Directive is necessary, in order

– ‘to reduce cases in which MS can limit access to rights and benefits’.

3. POLICY OPTIONS

Different policy options, legislative and non-legislative, have been identified for addressing each objective. The preferred policy option could comprise both types of intervention (legislative and practical cooperation) or only one.

3.1 To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the "causal nexus requirement" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention

Option 1 (legislative): It could be envisaged to explicitly allow MS to adopt a broader interpretation of the nexus requirement by providing for the possibility to consider that the connection required in Article 9(3) is also satisfied where there is a link between the acts of persecution and the absence of protection against such acts.

Option 2(legislative): 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.

Option 3 (practical cooperation): MS could cooperate to map the application of the nexus requirement and to exchange best practices.

Option 1 would explicitly endorse the broad interpretation of this requirement which is already adopted by ten MS and possibly encourage others to adopt it. It would therefore bring more clarity about the scope of this notion and create favourable conditions for a more inclusive application of the Geneva Convention.

Option 2 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 element of the Geneva Convention and would comprehensively address the risk of gaps in the provision of the protection flowing for this Convention.

The joint mapping of the interpretation of the nexus requirement and the exchange of best practices that would be part of the practical cooperation option could be particularly helpful to those MS which will need to broaden their current interpretation and application of this concept and could in any case contribute to the approximation of national decision-making.

Comparison of financial impacts: Under both options, it can be expected that MS which currently apply a strict interpretation of the nexus requirement and which would broaden this interpretation would face additional costs as a result of granting protection to higher numbers of applicants. Under Option 2, more MS will have to bear these costs as the broad interpretation will be made compulsory, whereas under Option 1 it constitutes only a possibility to consider. These extra costs will not apply to the 10 MS that have already adopted a broad interpretation of the nexus requirement.

Social effects and fundamental rights: Option 1 creates favourable conditions for a more inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, but, as it is left to the MS to decide whether to adopt this approach, its effect on access to protection will be marginal. As Option 2 makes the broad interpretation of the nexus requirement compulsory for MS, access to protection will be significantly improved in those MS who currently apply the strict interpretation.

Option 2 – and Option 1 to a very limited extent – would also improve access to protection for female applicants for international protection, one of the groups that are particularly affected by persecution by non-State actors (e.g. domestic violence) but denied State protection because of their gender. In those MS that strictly interpret the nexus requirement, the treatment of their claim for international protection will be more favourable under Option 2, increasing their chance of being granted protection.

In MS that have, up until now, adopted a strict interpretation of the nexus requirement, the rights covered under Article 18 and especially Article 19 of the Charter would be better respected under Option 2. The impact of Option 1 is limited due to the fact that the decision to adopt the broad interpretation is left to the MS. Option 2 will ensure a full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention as to the nexus requirement consistently across the EU.

Overall assessment: T o the extent that it implies an optional broadening of the concept, Option 1 would be an inadequate measure in terms of ensuring a consistent interpretation across the EU and it could not prevent potential protection gaps. On the other hand, Option 2 appears adequate and proportionate in view of the stated objectives and has stronger social/fundamental rights impacts. It should therefore be part - in combination with Option 3- part of the preferred policy option.

3.2 To prevent the unwarranted withdrawal of status of beneficiaries of international protection

Regarding cessation of refugee status

The obligation to apply the exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses in the case of cessation of refugee status flows directly from the Geneva Convention , which is binding on all MS. Therefore, the explicit incorporation in Article 11 of the Qualification Directive of these exceptions can be considered as non-controversial. Moreover, since these obligations are already applicable in the national legal orders, their incorporation in the Qualification Directive will entail no additional administrative burdens or budgetary costs. There is thus no need to identify any other options.

Regarding cessation of subsidiary protection

Option 1 (legislative): It could be envisaged to grant MS the possibility to apply with regard to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection an exception to cessation relating to compelling reasons arising out previous serious harm.

Option 2 (legislative): It could be envisaged to include in Article 16 a compulsory exception to cessation relating to compelling reasons arising out previous serious harm.

Option 1 would offer MS flexibility in the application of these exceptions with regard to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Only MS that currently, or as a result of the amendment to the Directive, apply these exceptions would ensure that subsidiary protection is not terminated prematurely. Option 1 therefore would have a limited positive effect on attaining the objective of achieving high protection standards across the EU. Moreover, this option would not contribute to consistency in national cessation practices.

Option 2 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. This is necessary and justified to the extent that the reasoning behind the introduction in the Geneva Convention of the "compelling reasons" exceptions to cessation with regard to refugees applies equally with regard to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Hence, from a legal point of view, there seems to be no reason for allowing MS flexibility in the application of these exceptions with regard to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, as would be the case under Option 1.

Option 2 would make a strong contribution to the objectives of achieving high protection standards and reducing diverse recognition rates of persons from the same country of origin.

Comparison of financial impacts: Option 2 would produce additional costs for MS that currently do not apply the exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses in the case of cessation 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 State. Furthermore, for those beneficiaries of subsidiary protection whose protection is not / no longer terminated because of “compelling reasons”, costs for adequate living standards will have to be continued. Option 1 would imply all the above costs only for those MS which would voluntarily accept to apply the exceptions in question.

Social effects and fundamental rights: The effect of Option 1 on access to protection and justice will be marginal to non-existent as it provides for the possibility for MS to apply these exceptions. As Option 2 makes the application of the exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses in the case of cessation of subsidiary protection compulsory for MS, access to protection will be significantly improved in those MS that did not already apply this.

Option 2 will have a considerable positive effect on access to justice as, in the case of (the imminent) withdrawal of subsidiary protection, beneficiaries affected would have the legal certainty that they can contest this cessation on the basis of the exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses foreseen in the Geneva Convention. Their “compelling reasons” for retaining the subsidiary protection status would have to be heard by the state. This should reduce the risk of (prematurely) terminating protection. In turn, this legal certainty would have a beneficial effect on their psychological well-being and sense of security. In those MS that so far do not apply these exceptions, Option 2 would provide beneficiaries with the emotional tranquillity that if the situation in their country of origin changes to such an extent that their protection status could be withdrawn by the host state that their reasons for why a prolongation of subsidiary protection is required will be heard and given sufficient weight in the state’s assessment.

Under Option 2, the rights covered under Article 18 and especially Article 19 of the Charter would be better respected in those MS that, up until now, did not apply the exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses in the case of cessation of subsidiary protection as foreseen in the Geneva Convention.

Overall assessment: T o the extent that it implies an optional broadening of the concept, Option 1 would be an inadequate measure in terms of ensuring a consistent interpretation across the EU and it could not prevent potential protection gaps. On the other hand, Option 2 appears adequate and proportionate in view of the stated objectives and has stronger social/fundamental rights impacts. The preferred option would thus be Option 2.

3.3 To reduce possibilities for limitations to access to rights and benefits for beneficiaries of international protection

Option 1 (legislative): It could be envisaged to allow MS to reduce the benefits granted to beneficiaries of international protection who fall within this description only to a certain minimum level prescribed by Articles 3, 4, 16, 31, 32 and 33 of the Geneva Convention, relating inter alia to non-discrimination, religion, access to courts, education and expulsion.

Option 2 (legislative): It could be envisaged to 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.

Option 1: 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. To this end it would use as a reference the core of rights that MS are obliged to grant to persons who are "excluded" from refugee status because of the danger they pose to the security or community of a Member State in accordance with Article 14(4)-(6). However, it might be considered inappropriate to assimilate these two situations from the perspective of rights to be granted to them. Moreover, the limitation of rights under Article 14(4)-(6) relates to a certain kind of "tolerated" status for the persons concerned, whereas such a limitation with respect to refugees might be considered contrary to the principle of the non-discriminatory treatment of refugees, enshrined, inter alia, in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

Option 2: By completely eliminating the possibility for derogation from the level of rights that should be guaranteed to beneficiaries of international protection, option 2 would raise the standards provided by the current Qualification Directive. It would also ensure full compatibility of its standards with the Geneva Convention and consistency in the application of these standards throughout the EU.

Comparison of financial impacts: 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 (Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta), it is not possible to determine whether the introduction of option 1 would incur higher costs for these MS. In any event however, Option 2 would result in higher costs for them, since in those cases when rights and entitlements previously were restricted, costs would be incurred to provide for these rights and benefits.

Social effects and fundamental rights: Both options would enhance equality of treatment (between the group of persons affected and other beneficiaries of international protection), access to social protection, integration and public health. Indeed, with regard to the positive impacts on social protection, if the problems identified not be addressed, they could lead to destitution for those affected. Option 2 will achieve the positive effects to a higher degree than option 1, due to the elimination of the possibility to limit access to rights and benefits for the relevant group of persons.

Options 1 and 2 promote the right to asylum, established in Article 18 and the principle of non- discrimination in Article 21. These rights would be enhanced to a greater extent by option 2 than option 1.

Overall assessment: Both options appear proportionate. However, a treatment assimilating the persons concerned to those who are "excluded" from refugee status because of the danger they pose to the security or community of a Member State raises concerns from the perspective of the principle of non- discrimination. Taking this into account, as well as the higher positive effects of Option 2 in terms of raising standards and ensuring consistency, it appears that Option 2 should be part of the preferred option.

3.4 To ensure the access of family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to benefits under the same conditions as those applicable to family members of refugees

Option 1 (legislative): Under this option, MS could be allowed to apply different conditions for the benefits granted to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection but only for a period of six months from the date the protection status is granted.

Option 2 (legislative): It could be envisaged 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.

Option 1 would lead to an approximation of the conditions applicable for the benefits granted to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection with those applicable regarding family members of refugees after six months. At this point in time, standards would be increased and consistent application would be promoted.

Option 2 would imply the complete approximation of rights granted to the two categories regarding the benefits granted to their family members, thus raising the standards and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive.

Comparison of financial impacts: Both options would incur financial costs in those MS that apply specific conditions at present. This may, however, be a limited number (the only country where it has been confirmed that this applies is Poland). Costs could refer for instance to the difference between costs for providing core benefits to family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (which is the current obligation), e.g. emergency healthcare, and the entitlement to all benefits as provided for in the Directive.

Option 2 would lead to slightly higher costs than option 1 due to the six months period when MS are still allowed to apply different conditions.

Social effects and fundamental rights: Both options will lead to increased access to equality/non-discrimination, social protection, social integration and public health for beneficiaries; however, Option 2 will achieve a higher degree of positive effects than option 1, due to the six months exception.

Both options promote the rights established in the following articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: 14 (right to education), 15 (Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work), 16 (freedom to conduct a business), 21 (non-discrimination), 24 (rights of the child), 34(social security and social assistance) and 35 (h ealthcare). Option 2 promotes these rights to a higher degree than option 1.

Overall assessment: Both options appear proportionate. However, a differentiated treatment in the fields of social welfare and health care – even for a short period, as proposed under Option 1 - does not appear to be objectively justified; arguably, it could even be considered contrary to the prohibition of discrimination as interpreted in the recent judgments of the ECtHR referred to above. For this reason, Option 2 should be the preferred policy option.

3.5 To ensure that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection have the right to travel outside the MS' territory under the same conditions as those applicable for refugees

Option 1 (legislative): to allow MS to limit the reasons for which beneficiaries of subsidiary protection may travel outside their territory to serious humanitarian reasons requiring their presence in another State only for a period of 1 year following the granting of status.

Option 2 (legislative): to eliminate the possibility to limit the reasons for which beneficiaries of subsidiary protection may travel outside their territory

Option 1 would allow MS to maintain the current limitation in place for a limited period; it would not result in a similar, high, level of entitlements for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees, although it would lead to an improvement in the (at least) 3 MS which currently apply the limitation allowed by Article 25(2). This Option would also mean that standards across the EU would still not be entirely consistent.

Option 2 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 and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive.

Comparison of financial impacts : Option 1 could imply additional costs for the 3 MS affected, to the extent that they would possibly need to change the format of the travel documents they currently issue as well as to issue new travel documents to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection after a year. Option 2 would imply slightly smaller costs for these 3 MS, to the extent that they would not need to issue new travel documents to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection after a year.

Social effects and fundamental rights: Both options promote the rights in Articles 18 and 21 of the Charter and lead to increased equality and freedom of movement for beneficiaries in some MS, but Option 2 will have the strongest positive effect of the two.

Preferred option: Option 2 leads to a complete approximation of rights, enhanced consistency in the application of the Directive and has a higher positive impact on fundamental rights; at the same time it implies lesser costs for the MS affected than Option 1. It therefore appears to be the most effective, cost-efficient and proportionate option.

Annex 19 – Comparison of baseline scenario and options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence

In the following tables the different options are rated - from 0 (no impact in terms of effectiveness/efficiency/coherence) to 5 (very high level of effectiveness/efficiency/coherence)- considered against the baseline scenario in terms of effectiveness in achieving the set specific objectives, efficiency and coherence. It should be underlined that these are only some of the factors taken into account in the overall assessment in order to determine the elements that should be included in the preferred policy option. Further factors assessed (in the main text of the IA report) include proportionality and the social impacts of the different options and their impacts on fundamental rights. The tables contain the assessment of all options envisaged with a view to achieve the different operational objectives, including those presented in Annex 18

A. Specific objectives 1, 4 and 5:

-to ensure the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention and full respect of the ECHR and of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ;

- to improve the efficiency of the asylum process;

- t o ensure the consistent application of agreed protection standards across the EU

i) Operational Objective: To limit the broad interpretation of "actors of protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services |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 nature" in the context of applying cessation (Article 11(2)).|

Option 1(legislative)|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 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|0: It would have no impact in terms of ensuring consistency with Article 11(2) of the Directive |

Option 2(legislative) |4 It would ensure that the sole “willingness" or ability "in principle" to protect may not be deemed sufficient. It would thus exclude NGOs or other parties that do not have the military or legal power to provide effective and durable protection; by emphasizing the operation of an effective legal system it would exclude entities such as criminal networks, warlords or guerrillas as potential actors of protection. |4 : On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently 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|3 It would bring consistency 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 nature" before deciding on cessation (Article 11(2)).|

Option 3 (practical cooperation)|2: Practical cooperation may result to a certain extent in raising current standards, in facilitating decision-making and in increased 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|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 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. . |0 : It would have no impact in terms of ensuring consistency with Article 11(2) of the Directive |

ii) Operational Objective: To limit the broad interpretation of "internal protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention and the ECHR

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services |0: The current provisions do 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. |

Option 1(legislative)|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 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.|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. |

Option 2(legislative) |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. 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. |2/3: On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently 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 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. |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.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 the Asylum Procedures Directive. |

Option 3 (legislative) |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 protection for them anywhere in the country of origin, as they may have to undertake additional research to collect relevant evidence. |4: It would enhance coherence with the similar process followed and rules applied according to the Directive for establishing that the conditions for cessation are fulfilled (Article 14 (2)). |

Option 4(practical cooperation)|2: Practical cooperation may result to a certain extent in raising current standards, in facilitating decision-making and in increased 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|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 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. |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. |

iii) Operational Objective: To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the concept "particular social group" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |0: The ambiguity of the current provision allows for doubt and uncertainty in decision-making, for interpretations which are not compatible with the Geneva Convention and for diverse recognitions practices. These problems cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services |0: To the extent that the current provision excludes the possibility to identify a 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 towards ensuring equal treatment to both male and female applicants.|

Option 1(legislative)|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 facilitating decision-making and ensuring a consistent interpretation. |2: It may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance 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|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. |

Option 2(legislative)|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, 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 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|

Option 3(legislative) |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 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 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|

Option 4 (practical cooperation)|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 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 comprehensively address the problems which flow from the ambiguity of the current provision of the Directive|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 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. |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. |

iv) Operational Objective: To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the “causal nexus requirement’ in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |0: The current provision allows for protection gaps and for an inconsistent provision of protection in the different MS. These problems cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services |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 entities, as demonstrated in its Article 7.|

Option 1 (legislative)|2: It would bring more clarity about the scope of this notion and create favourable conditions for a more inclusive 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. |2: It may contribute to facilitating and enhancing the quality of first instance 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 a strict interpretation and which will voluntarily accept to adopt a broader one|0: It would not ensure full consistency with the Directive's overall approach towards addressing cases where the actors of protection are non-State entities, as demonstrated in its Article 7|

Option 2 (legislative) |4: It would not only bring clarity about the scope of the concept and facilitate solid decision-making, but would additionally 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. |3 On the one hand, it may result in higher recognition rates for MS currently adopting a stricter interpretation 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 |5: It would ensure full consistency with the Directive's overall approach towards addressing cases where the actors of protection are non-State entities, as demonstrated in its Article 7|

Option 3(practical cooperation)|2: tThe joint mapping of the interpretation of the concept and the exchange of best practices could result 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 own , to systematically and comprehensively address the problems which flow from the ambiguities of the current provision of the Directive|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 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. |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|

v) Operational Objective: To prevent the unwarranted withdrawal of protection status, regarding cessation of subsidiary protection

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |0: The current Directive allows for withdrawals of protection in violation of the Geneva Convention. This problem cannot be adequately and comprehensively addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures or reception services |0: The current provision regarding cessation to subsidiary protection would be inconsistent with the provision that would be introduced under the amended Directive regarding cessation of refugee status|

Option 1 (legislative)|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 do not apply the exceptions to the "ceased 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. 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.|2: It would establish a certain parallelism with the relevant obligation that would be introduced under the amended Directive regarding cessation of refugee status. However (because of the optional element it contains), it would also introduce a discrepancy that could not be justified from a legal point of view|

Option 2 (legislative) |4: 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 element of the Geneva Convention and would comprehensively address the risk of gaps in the provision of the protection flowing for this Convention. |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 and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection.|5: It would ensure a perfectly coherent approach within the Directive regarding exceptions to the "ceased circumstances" cessation clauses|

B . Specific objectives 2, 4 and 5:

- To approximate the content of protection granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection;

- to improve the efficiency of the asylum process;

- t o ensure the consistent application of agreed protection standards across the EU

i) Operational Objective: to approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees regarding the duration of residence permits

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |0: The current provision allows for unjustified differences in the duration of the residence permits granted to the two categories of beneficiaries of 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.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: To the extent that it provides the possibility for a differentiation, the current 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. |

Option 1 (legislative)|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 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 |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. 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.|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. |

Option 2 (legislative) |4: It would imply the complete approximation 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|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. 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.|3: It would be a positive step towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would maintain a certain differentiation.|

Option 3 (legislative)|4: It would imply the complete approximation 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. |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.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. |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. |

ii) Operational Objective : To ensure that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection have the right to travel outside the MS' territory under the same conditions as those applicable for refugees

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: 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. |

Option 1 (legislative)|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 travel documents to beneficiaries of subsidiary 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.|2: It would achieve certain progress towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would maintain in place a certain differentiation|

Option 2 (legislative)|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 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. |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. |

iii) Operational Objective: to approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees regarding access to employment

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |0: The current provision allows for unjustified differences regarding access to employment granted to the two categories of beneficiaries of 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 in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: The current provision would be inconsistent with the approach adopted in the Proposal for the amendment of Council Directive 2003/9/EC, which grants unconditional access of asylum seekers to the labour marketTo 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. |

Option 1 (legislative)|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 nor in streamlining procedures and would not achieve a level playing field. |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 fiscal contributions. 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.|2: It would accommodate MS' obligations under the transitional arrangements set by the Accession Treaties: (according to the principle of "Community preference").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 one hand, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand. |

Option 2 (legislative) |3: It would increase, but not completely approximate 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 would apply this restriction|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 increasing fiscal contributions. 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.|3: It would be a positive step towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would maintain a certain differentiation.|

Option 3 (legislative)|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 protection, streamlining procedures and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive. |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 fiscal contributions. Relevant national measures would be eligible for co-funding under the ERF.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. |5 : It would ensure consistency with the approach adopted in the Proposal for the amendment of Council Directive 2003/9/EC, which grants unconditional access of asylum seekers to the labour market. More generally, 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. |

iv) Operational Objective: to approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees regarding access to integration facilities

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |0: The current provision allows for unjustified differences regarding access to integration facilities granted to the two categories of beneficiaries of 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.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: 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. |

Option 1 (legislative)|2 . It would increase protection standards in the MS which currently limit the access of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to integration facilities to situations ‘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.|2: It would imply increased costs for the 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 and beneficiaries of international protection.|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. |

Option 2 (legislative) |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. On the other hand, as the term "equivalent" is not specific enough, it would still allow for divergent national practices|2: By obliging MS to grant beneficiaries 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. 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.|3: It would be a positive step towards a coherent approach within the Directive's legal framework towards refugees, on the one hand, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, on the other hand; however, it would allow for differentiations.|

Option 3 (legislative)|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, streamlining procedures and enhancing consistency in the application of the Directive. |4 : By ensuring that the same integration programmes are provided to both categories, it would imply higher costs for the MS affected. 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. |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. |

v) Operational Objective: to approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees regarding access of their family members to benefits

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: 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. |

Option 1 (legislative)|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 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.|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.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.|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. |

Option 2 (legislative)|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.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. |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. |

C. Specific objectives 3 & 5:

- To raise the overall content of protection taking into account the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection

- To ensure the consistent application of agreed protection standards across the EU

i) Operational Objective: To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs, and in particular to enhance their access to procedures for recognition of qualifications

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |0: By granting beneficiaries of 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 jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: The current provisions have no impact in terms of coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration |

Option 1 (legislative)|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. 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. |3: It would entail additional costs for those MS which would 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.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 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 ensure the compatibility of any national measures for the validation of professional with the EU acquis on the mutual recognition of professional qualificationsMore generally, it would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration|

Option 2 (legislative) |4: It would have a decisive impact in terms of addressing the specificities of the 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. 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 .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. |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.On the other hand, it would contribute to a higher degree than option 1 to establishing a level-playing field. |2: It would ensure coherence between the EU asylum acquis and the obligations flowing from the Lisbon Convention for 22 MS More generally, it would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration|

Option 3 (practical cooperation)|1: It could facilitate the task of competent authorities in different MS who are called upon to make assessments of qualifications of beneficiaries of 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.. |1 : Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. However, given the 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. |3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration; more specifically it would be compatible with the work being carried out by the Network of National Contact points on integration. |

ii) Operational Objective: To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs, and in particular to enhance their access to vocational training and employment

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: The current provisions have no impact in terms of coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration |

Option 1 (legislative)|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. 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: 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 officesMore generally, it would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration|

Option 2 (legislative) |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 problems encountered by beneficiaries of international protection regarding access to vocational training and employment as well as ensuring consistent standards in all MS. |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 financial facilitation measures. On the other hand however, 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|

Option 3 (practical cooperation)|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. 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. |3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration; more specifically it would be compatible with the work being carried out by the Network of National Contact points on integration. |

iii) Operational Objective: To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs, and in particular to enhance their access to integration facilities

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 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.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: The current provisions have no impact in terms of coherence with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration |

Option 1 (legislative)|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 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.|3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration|

Option 2 (legislative) |4: As it would oblige MS to give to beneficiaries of international protection access 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. |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|

Option 3 (practical cooperation)|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. 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. |3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration; more specifically it would be compatible with the work being carried out by the Network of National Contact points on integration. |

iv) Operational Objective: To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs, and in particular to reduce possibilities for limitations of their access to rights and benefits

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 national practices. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |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 |

Option 1 (legislative)|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. 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.|3 : It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration|

Option 2 (legislative)|4: By completely eliminating the 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. |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. 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. |3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on integration|

v) Operational Objective: To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs, and in particular to enhance their access to accommodation

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 effective integration. These problems cannot be addressed by possible guidance by jurisprudence or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be insufficient in this respect.|0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |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 |

Option 1 (legislative)|2 : As it would 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, 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 and reducing differences between MS would be more limited than that of the other legislative options. |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 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.|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|

Option 2(legislative)|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 and reducing differences between MS would be more limited than that of the other legislative options. |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. 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.|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|

Option 3(legislative)|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 of beneficiaries of international protection and in reducing divergences in national practices than Option 1. |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. 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 and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection In the absence of precise information on the current legislations and practices of the different MS in terms of providing access to accommodation 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 4. It is however reasonable to assume that it would be more costly than Options 1 and 2. |5: It would ensure consistency with the standards established in the "Long-term residents Directive" (equal access with nationals to procedures for obtaining housing) - It would be compatible with the overall approach followed by the Qualification Directive: the same standard (same conditions as nationals) applies for instance regarding the access of refugees to employment, to social welfare and to health care and the access of minors to education.- It would be in line with the approach advocated in the Handbook on Integration (ensure equal opportunities in the housing market, in terms of access and quality) |

Option 4(legislative) |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. 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|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.In the absence of precise information on the current legislations and practices of the different MS in terms of providing access to accommodation 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. |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 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (Article 11(1)). - it would be in line with the standards provided in the Reception Conditions Directive, which imposes an equivalent obligation with regard to asylum seekers. |

Option 5 (practical cooperation)|1: It could facilitate the exchange and further development of existing national good 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 addressing the specific problems of beneficiaries of international protection regarding access to adequate accommodation|1 : Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. 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. |3: It would be compatible with the priorities set and the initiatives called for in the context of the EU framework on 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|

· vi ) Operational Objective: To better ensure the right of beneficiaries of international protection for respect of family life.

|Effectiveness |Efficiency|Coherence|

Baseline scenario |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 or infringement procedures. Practical cooperation would also be inadequate in this respect. |0: It does not affect current costs related to Dublin procedures, asylum procedures and reception services |0: The current definition is inconsistent with the broadened definition of family members provided for in the Commission's proposals for the amendment of the Reception Conditions Directive and the Dublin Regulation. |

Option 1 (legislative)|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 of adequate living 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 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. |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 Directive and the Dublin Regulation.|

Option 2 (legislative) |3: Option 2 would have all the advantages of Option 1, whereas additionally allowing for a broader application of the concept of family members|3/4: As indicated above , 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 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. |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 Directive and the Dublin Regulation. . |

Option 3 (legislative) |4: It would address more 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 well as in ensuring consistent standards in all MS|4: It would imply additional costs for those MS which do not apply broader 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 group of potential beneficiaries. However, it would imply higher procedural costs for processing of applications than option 4, since it would be necessary to determine not only whether the close relatives are wholly or mainly dependent on the beneficiary, but also whether they are vulnerable or have special needs. |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 Directive and the Dublin Regulation.|

Option 4 (legislative) |4/5: It would increase protection standards and ensure consistency to a higher degree than option 3, due to the absence of a condition linked to vulnerability or special needs. |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 and the unequal distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection.|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 Directive and the Dublin Regulation. . |

Option 5 (practical cooperation)|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 deficiencies of the legislative provisions. |1 : Such cooperation activities are eligible for ERF support and would also be covered by the EASO mandate. 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. |2: It would enable MS to d raw on practices for the verification of family links developed in other related policy contexts, such as family reunification. |

Annex 20 - Assessment of the status quo

Assessment Criteria|Rating (from 0, i.e.no impact, to 5)|Motivation of the rating|

Relevance|

1 To enhance the full and inclusive application of the 1951 Refugee Convention and full respect of the ECHR and of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights|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.|

2 To approximate the content of protection granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection; |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, t he 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.|

3 To raise the overall level of protection taking into account the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection|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 toHaving their skills and competences recognised;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.|

4 To improve the efficiency of the asylum process|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. |

5 To ensure the consistent application of agreed protection standards across the EU|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 MSMoreover, 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.|

Feasibility|

Transposition and implementation feasibility|0|The policy option does not involve any legislative action, i.e. no provisions will need to be transposed.|

Financial feasibility|0|Status quo would not bring about any additional financial costs.|

Expected impacts|

Financial and economic impacts|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 successfullyMS which do not take measures adequately supporting beneficiaries' access to 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.|

Social impacts|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. |

Impacts on fundamental rights|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 rightsIt 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-discriminationArticle 24: Rights of the child Article 34: Social security and social assistance Article 35: Healthcare |

Impacts on third countries|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 |

Annex 21 - Presentation of the preferred policy option

On the basis of the assessment of the policy options as presented in section 4 it is clear that none of the individual policy options completely addresses the problems or fully achieves the objectives sought. However, by combining different policy options, a higher degree of effectiveness could be achieved.

Accordingly, the preferred option has been designed by merging the policy options that correspond to each specific objective. The preferred policy option combines legislative amendments with a view to ensuring higher standards of treatment for asylum seekers and practical cooperation measures that would allow more coherent and efficient implementation of the legislation.

The elements that form part of the preferred option are outlined in the table below.

Content of the preferred option|

Main issue/objective|Sub-issue (where relevant|Description of preferred sub-options|

4.2 To limit the broad interpretation of "actors of protection" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention and the ECHR |NA|Legislative option 2 in combination with practical cooperationOption 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.|

4.3 To limit the broad interpretation of the concept of "internal protection" i n line with the standards of the Geneva Convention and the ECHR |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.|

4.4 To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the "nexus requirement" i n line with the standards of the Geneva Convention |NA|Legislative option 2 in combination with practical cooperationOption 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.|

4.5 To ensure a more inclusive interpretation of the concept "Particular social group" in line with the standards of the Geneva Convention |NA|Legislative option 2 in combination with practical cooperationOption 2: The option would specify that gender related aspects should be given due consideration for the purposes of recognising membership of a particular social 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 To prevent the unwarranted withdrawal of status of beneficiaries of international protection|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 2Option 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 To approximate the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to those of refugees|4.7.1 Duration of residence permit|Legislative option 3Option 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 2Option 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 2Option 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 3Option 3 : To oblige MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection access to integration facilities under the same conditions as to refugees.|

4.8 To enhance the integration of beneficiaries of international protection taking into account their specific needs|4.8.1 To facilitate the recognition of qualifications|Legislative option1 in combination with practical cooperationOption 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 cooperationOption 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 cooperationOption 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.|

|4.8.4 To enhance access to accommodation|Legislative option 1 in combination with practical cooperationOption 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 2Option 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.|

4.9 To better ensure respect for the right of beneficiaries of international protection to family life |NA|Legislative option 1 in combination with practical cooperationOption 1 : to i nclude 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 |

Annex 22 – Main advantages of the preferred policy option

The key advantages of the preferred policy option may be summarized as follows:

1. Improving and further harmonising the personal scope of protection

The options that together make up the preferred policy option would strongly help to clarify and overall improve the definition of certain concepts so as to reduce potential protection gaps, as well as to enhance their consistent application across the EU. The amendments proposed to concepts such as ‘actors of protection’, ‘internal protection’, as well as to the ‘nexus requirement’ and the ‘particular social groups’ concepts will all lead to a more consistent and harmonised application across the EU, which should ultimately contribute to a decrease in the occurrence of diverse recognition practices and rates regarding persons having the same nationality and similar backgrounds – and to a subsequent reduction of secondary movements as well as to an overall improvement of the quality of the first-instance examination of asylum applications.

In addition, the improvements that are included in the preferred policy option will lead to higher protection standards overall, contributing in particular to ensuring a full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention and full respect for the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. These improvements have the potential to enhance access to protection for several categories of asylum applicants, depending on their individual circumstances and the particularities of their claims, and in particular for female asylum seekers, for example through the improvements to the definition and application of the concepts "nexus requirement" and "particular social group".

The preferred policy option responds thus to the call of the Hague programme and the European Pact on Asylum and Immigration for more uniformity of protection as well as for a higher degree of protection, addressing in particular the concerns expressed in the Pact on the persistence of considerable disparities between on MS and another concerning the grant of protection and the forms that protection takes.

2. Improving and further harmonising the rights and benefits of beneficiaries of international protection

The various options that form part of the preferred policy option will bring substantial improvements to the rights and benefits of beneficiaries of international protection and thus also increase protection standards overall. The specific needs of these beneficiaries will be adequately reflected in the preferred policy option and MS will be either encouraged or obliged to take these into account in all measures aimed at securing their successful integration, including access to recognition of qualifications, training and employment, as well as in their approaches towards integration programmes and provision of accommodation. Such integration support can have in the long term positive effects in terms of enhancing the possibilities of beneficiaries of international protection to contribute to the economic and socio-cultural development of the host States.

3. Removing the unjustified differences in rights between beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees

Several of the options included in the preferred policy option focus on removing the differences in rights and entitlements between beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees, which affect, albeit in a limited number of MS, the quality of the content of protection provided to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The preferred policy option proposes equal treatment with regard to access to employment, social welfare and healthcare and to integration facilities. It also proposes to streamline the duration of the residence permits and to no longer discriminate access to benefits for family members of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

The options will, overall, enhance the integration opportunities for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and increase the consistency in the application of the Qualification Directive. A differentiated treatment does not appear to be objectively justified and could even be considered contrary to the principle of non-discrimination as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and other human rights instruments. The approximation of rights and benefits could furthermore also contribute, to some extent, to a reduction in secondary movements towards MS which do not differentiate between the treatment of the two groups of beneficiaries.

4. Improving the quality and efficiency of the asylum process

As a result of the removal of the current ambiguities and of the clarification of the grounds for protection, the Directive's notions would leave less room for doubt, uncertainty and administrative error. The preferred option can thus be expected to facilitate, streamline and enhance the quality, the fairness and the effectiveness of the asylum procedure, while at the same time allowing for significant administrative and financial savings. I t would enable asylum authorities to better deal with cases of unfounded and abusive applications and more generally to process claims more rapidly while reaching robust decisions, so that more cases would result in a final decision already in the first instance and prolonged litigations would be avoided. This would also lead to quicker access to the rights set out in the Qualification Directive for persons genuinely in need of protection while at the same time supporting MS’ efforts to rapidly remove from the territory failed asylum seekers and improving the credibility of the whole process leading to a better public perception of asylum.

5. Improving cooperation and learning between MS

Nine of the options that together make up the preferred policy option are to be accompanied by practical cooperation between the MS, aimed at providing effective practical support to national administrations, enhancing the quality and increasing convergence of decision-making practices on the basis of higher protection standards. The European Asylum Support Office, which will coordinate and monitor various activities (e.g. common training, development of guidelines, identification of good practices, etc.) will have an important role to play in further encouraging the MS in adopting practices and approaches on the level of higher protection standards.

The preferred policy option would encourage MS in particular to jointly map the different interpretations of concepts and criteria, to share good practices with regard to improving and harmonising rights and entitlements and to identify cost-effective ways to further stimulate the integration process of beneficiaries of international protection.

Annex 23 – Comparison of current standards of the Directive with standards/objectives to be attained and envisaged legislative amendments

Standard/Objective to be attained in the second phase 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. 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.|Current standard of the Directive|Envisaged legislative amendment|

Notion "actors of protection "|

Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention Qualifies as a refugee a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being pers e cuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a pa r ticular 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, as interpreted by UNHCR requires the existence of effective protection in the country of origin as a condition for returning applicants there: If the applicant is " unable" to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin he should be granted refugee status Qualifies as a refugee a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being pers e cuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a pa r ticular 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, |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 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"|

Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, as interpreted by UNHCR, and the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in Article 3 ECHR, as interpreted by the ECtHR require - that the proposed alternative location – and thus, protection – should be practically, safely and legally accessible to the applicant. |The definition in Article 8- merely requires the absence of a well-founded fear of persecution , and not the accessibility (also in safe and legal terms) of effective and durable protection - it allows the use of the concept despite technical obstacles, and thus in cases where the proposed location is not practically accessible|- To specify that in the alternative area the applicant should have access to effective and durable protection - to require that the applicant should be safely, legally and practically able to travel to, gain admittance and settle in the alternative location;- to delete the possibility to apply the concept despite technical obstacles |

Causal nexus requirement|

According to Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, a prerequisite for qualification as a refugee is that the person is pers e cuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a pa r ticular social group. It requires thus a "causal nexus" between the acts of persecution and the reasons for persecutionThis nexus is interpreted by UNHCR as covering cases where the reason for the persecution is not related to a Geneva Convention ground but where the State withholds its protection because of such a ground|The current wording of Article 9(3) does not explicitly accommodate situations where persons are persecuted for reasons not related to a Geneva Convention ground but where State protection is withheld for such reasons, allowing thus for denial of protection in such cases. |To specify that the causal nexus requirement is also fulfilled where there is a connection between the acts of persecution and the absence of protection against such acts|

Notion "Membership of a particular social group"|

According to Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, persons qualify for refugee status where they have a well-founded fear of persecution, inter alia, because of their membership to a particular social group. According to UNHCR, this provision should be interpreted in an inclusive manner, in particular regarding the significance of gender-related elements of the asylum claims for the purposes of identifying a particular social group. According to the relevant UNHCR Guidelines, women are a clear example of a social subset defined by innate and immutable characteristics and who are frequently treated differently than men. Their characteristics also identify them as a group in society, subjecting them to different treatment and standards in some countries. |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 hinders access to protection for women and allows for gaps which may be incompatible with an inclusive interpretation of the Geneva Convention. |To provide that gender related aspects should be given due consideration for the purposes of defining a “particular social group”. |

Exceptions to cessation|

Articles 1C(5) and 1C(6) of the Geneva Convention provide for exceptions to cessation of refugee status in cases where there are compelling reasons arising out previous persecution. T hese exceptions are interpreted as reflecting a general humanitarian principle that is now w ell-grounded in State practice and is therefore applied beyond its wording|In Articles 11 and 16 of the Qualification Directive, reference to these exceptions has been omitted. Member States may thus return beneficiaries of international protection to their country of origin in cases where this would not be permitted by principle enshrined in the Geneva Convention. |To provide for exceptions to the cessation of refugee and subsidiary protection status relating to compelling reasons arising out previous persecution/serious harm.|

Level of rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection|

The principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 21 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights and in Article 14 ECHR requires an objective and reasonable justification for the different treatment of persons whose situations are not significantly different.The Hague programme calls for the establishment of a uniform protection status|The Directive allows MS to grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection a lower level of rights than those granted to refugees regarding certain elements of the content of protection. This possibility for differentiation was based on the assumption that the protection needs of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection would be of a short duration. Practical experience with the implementation of subsidiary protection showed that the initial assumption was inaccurate and can no longer serve as justification of these differences in the content of protection. |To grant beneficiaries of subsidiary protection the same rights as refugees regarding -the duration of residence permits, -the reasons for travelling outside the MS' territory, -access to employment, - access to social welfare, - access to healthcare - access of family members to benefits - access to integration programmes. |

Overall rights of beneficiaries of international protection |

The relevant human rights standards regarding employment are enshrined, with respect to refugees, in Articles 17 and 19 of the Geneva Convention . Article 17, on the right to engage in wage-earning employment, obliges States to accord refugees the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances, whereas Article 19, on the right to practice a profession, obliges States to provide refugees with treatment as favourable as possible and, in any case, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. More general provisions are contained in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, which additionally indicates the steps to be taken by states to achieve the full realization of the right to work, including technical and vocational guidance and training programmes. The relevant provisions of the EU Charter can be found in Article 15.With regard to housing, Article 21 of the Geneva Convention obliges States to grant refugees treatment as favourable as possible and, in any case, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Further applicable standards flow from Article 34(3) of the EU Charter (right to housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources), Article 31 of the European Social Charter (on access to housing of and adequate standard) and Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (on the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing).Regarding integration, the Geneva Convention enumerates a series of social and economic rights designed to assist the integration process of refugees, whereas in its Article 34 it calls on States to facilitate their assimilation and naturalization. The promotion of the social, economic and cultural integration of beneficiaries of international protection contributes to economic and social cohesion , the maintenance and strengthening of which is established in Articles 2 and 3(1)(k) TEC as one of the Community's fundamental tasks .The Tampere European Council conclusions called for the legal status of third-country nationals to be approximated to that of Member States' nationals . The Hague Programme called for further progress with respect to the fair treatment of legally resident third-country nationals in the EU and the active elimination of obstacles to the integration of all third-country nationals settled on a long-term basis in the MS.The Common Basic Principles on Integration, the Common Agenda on Integration and the Handbook on Integration identify and promote best practices and e stablish a working framework for the integration of third-country nationals.|The provisions of the Directive regarding the access of beneficiaries of international protection to employment, and employment-related education opportunities, to accommodation and to integration facilities reflect the legal standards provided by relevant refugee law and human rights instruments. However, as they do not take sufficiently into account the specific challenges and practical difficulties and obstacles they face, the rights formally granted by these provisions are often de facto unavailable. Thus, although they formally comply with the relevant human rights standards, in practice these provisions are not adequate to ensure effective access to the rights guaranteed by the international instruments in a consistent manner throughout the EU nor to give effect to the integration mandate set by the Tampere and the Hague Programmes and more generally by the EU integration policy framework. |To enhance the access of beneficiaries of international protection to the relevant rights by taking into account their specific needs, and in particular - to encourage MS 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 and to exempt them from the fees involved or to grant them financial assistance to meet these costs, where they consider it necessary. - to encourage MS to provide beneficiaries of international protection with access to suitable training courses to upgrade their skills.- to oblige MS to offer beneficiaries of international protection counselling services offered by employment offices. - 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- to oblige MS to ensure beneficiaries of international protection access to integration programmes which they consider to be appropriate so as to meet their specific needs- 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. - to 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. |

Definition of "family members"|

Respect for the rights of the child , as enshrined in Article 24 of the EU Charter and in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child require that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration for MS when implementing EU law. |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 be considered dependent and does not sufficiently take into account the principle of the primacy of the best interests of the child. |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. |

Annex 24 - Population of beneficiaries of international protection recognised between 2005 and 2008 and comparison with population of third-country nationals in MS

 | |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|

BE|300,8|10320|640|10960|3,43|0,21|3,64|

BG|21,6|60|755|815|0,28|3,49|3,77|

CZ|186,4|740|525|1265|0,40|0,28|0,68|

DK|196,9|315|685|1000|0,16|0,35|0,51|

DE |4788,8|18320|3375|21695|0,38|0,07|0,45|

EE (3)|229,7|5|0|5|0,00|0,00|0,00|

IE|141,2|1525|5|1530|1,08|0,00|1,08|

EL (3)|729,9|555|305|860|0,08|0,04|0,12|

ES |2856,8|780|215|995|0,03|0,01|0,03|

FR (2)|2369,5|14345|1115|15460|0,61|0,05|0,65|

IT|2332,7|4900|22070|26970|0,21|0,95|1,16|

CY|47,2|95|445|540|0,20|0,94|1,14|

LV|426,7|5|15|20|0,00|0,00|0,00|

LT|37,4|45|235|280|0,12|0,63|0,75|

LU|27,2|340|840|1180|1,25|3,09|4,33|

HU |66,8|535|350|885|0,80|0,52|1,32|

MT|4,6|90|3010|3100|1,95|65,07|67,02|

NL|437,0|1840|13455|15295|0,42|3,08|3,50|

AT|550,1|14355|105|14460|2,61|0,02|2,63|

PL |31,0|1070|7820|8890|3,46|25,26|28,72|

PT |339,3|45|95|140|0,01|0,03|0,04|

RO|20,1|295|35|330|1,47|0,17|1,64|

SI |50,5|15|25|40|0,03|0,05|0,08|

SK|12,9|45|160|205|0,35|1,24|1,59|

FIN|79,3|200|1155|1355|0,25|1,46|1,71|

SE|266,5|3560|43730|47290|1,34|16,41|17,74|

UK |2203,0|14335|9880|24215|0,65|0,45|1,10|

EU27|18754,0|88735|111045|199780|0,47|0,59|1,07|

Annex 25 - The likely administrative costs of the preferred policy option

Administrative costs 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 ’. have been assessed with regard to obligations to provide information associated to:[86]

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 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)

The main elements of the preferred policy option (PO) which entail additional administrative costs and which have been associated with the types of obligation and required actions are listed in the table below. 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. [87]

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.

Table A.1: Main elements of the preferred PO entailing additional administrative costs|

Policy measure|Type of obligation|Type of action required|

Obligation to provide applicants with general information the various relevant elements of the Qualification directive |Other — Creation of information|Familiarising with the information obligation|

||Training authorities on the information obligation|

The obligation to provide beneficiaries of international protection with information on their rights and benefits|Other — Creation of information|Familiarising with the information obligation|

||Training authorities on the information obligations|

||Producing new data|

||Submitting the information|

Identification and diffusion of best practicesMapping studies|Other — Creation of information|Producing new data|

||Submitting the information|

Firstly, the legal duty of staff to provide information to of applicants for international protection with general information on the various relevant elements of the Qualification Directive requires staff in the determining authorities to be aware of the changes that are relevant to their national systems which have to be communicated to the applicants. It is likely that some training of staff would be required.

The obligation to provide beneficiaries of international protection with information on their rights and benefits relates specifically to access to education, training, employment, integration facilities, housing and social and healthcare. Specific information to be provided, for example, relates to the type of integration programmes that are available, the procedures for recognition of skills and competences, etc. This could for example be provided through in the shape of a short guide or leaflet.

Finally, the preferred PO includes, as part of practical cooperation, the mapping, identification and exchanges of good practices, which will require time inputs at EU level for coordination and dissemination.

Main assumptions used to assess the costs associated with the preferred policy option

On the basis of these elements, the administrative costs have been assessed according to two scenarios:

· Scenario “t0”: first year of implementation of the preferred PO.

· Scenario “t0+2”: third year of implementation of the preferred PO.

These scenarios have been developed in order to assess the main administrative costs related to the “start-up” expenses of the new measures and those related to the costs needed to maintain these measures.

Main assumptions of Scenario “ t0 ”

With reference to Table A.2, the following main assumptions have been made in order to provide an estimate of the administrative costs the preferred policy option entails:

· 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).

· 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.

Assumptions for the hourly labour costs of Member State asylum personnel

The hourly labour costs of Member State asylum personnel have been estimated on the basis of the EU average hourly labour costs in public administration (NACE L), extracted from Eurostat. Eurostat provides hourly and monthly labour costs and gross earnings per economic sector. However, for government (NACE section L, public administration and defence; compulsory social security), we only have information on the New MS. Additional data were required to extend our information on labour costs to the entire EU-27.

Eurostat provides a number of possible indicators, namely average personnel costs in services in the EU27 in 2003 (NACE sections G, H, I, and K) Eurostat, ‘Main features of the services sector in the EU’, Statistics in Focus — Industry, trade and services 19/2007. , median gross annual earnings in industry and services in the EU25 in 2002 (the outcome of the Structure of Earnings Survey 2002) 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. , and average hourly labour costs in industry and services of full-time employees in enterprises with 10 or more employees in 2002) Eurostat, Europe in Figures 2005 , p. 169. . The relative differences between MS in the level of labour costs according to the various sources compare fairly well. OECD data were used to forecast the level of annual labour costs per Member State in 2008 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. . Information on the annual hours worked per employee in the total economy per Member State in 2005 was taken from the total economy database of the Groningen Growth and Development Centre 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. . The end result is an average hourly labour cost per employee in NACE section L (public administration and defence; compulsory social security) of €24.30 in the EU-27 in 2008, and €23.30 excluding Denmark. On the basis of this result, the hourly rate for 2009 has been estimated by applying the growth rate for average hourly labour costs in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2005, thus obtaining a final rate of €23.84 .[88][89][90][91][92]

Eurostat, ‘Main features of the services sector in the EU’, Statistics in Focus — Industry, trade and services 19/2007.

Eurostat, ‘Earnings disparities across European countries and regions. A glance at regional results of the Structure of Earnings Survey 2002’, Statistics in Focus – Population and social conditions 7/2006.

Eurostat, Europe in Figures 2005 , p. 169.

OECD Economic Outlook 81 database. The average increase in labour costs in Poland, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic was used for the New 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.

Main assumption of Scenario “t0+2”

With reference to Table A.3, the following main assumptions have been made in order to provide an estimate of the administrative costs the preferred policy option entails:

· 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;

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.

Tariffs: no significant changes in the tariffs (see Scenario “0”) due to the limited period elapsed from “Scenario 0” and the expected inflation rates at EU level (even though in the light of the economic crisis a minor decrease of the tariff could be expected.

Table A.2: Policy Options Obligations in 'Scenario t 0 '

Proposal for the future development of measures of the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as persons in need of international protection and on the content of the protection granted, based on Council Directive 2004/83/E |Tariff (€ per hour)|Time (hour)|Price (per action or equip)|Freq (per year)|Nbr of entities|Total nbr of actions|Total cost|Regulatory origin (%)|

No.|Ass. Art.|Orig. Art.|Type of obligation|Description of required action(s)|Target group|i|e|i|e| | | | | |Int|EU|Nat|Reg|

1| | |Other|Familiarising with the information obligation|MS Asylum Services|24| |48.00| |1,144.3|1.00|27|27|30,897| |100%| | |

2| | |Other|Training members and employees about the information obligations|MS Asylum Services|24| |160.00| |3,814.4|1.00|27|27|102,989| |100%| | |

3| | |Other|Familiarising with the information obligation|MS Asylum Services|24| |48.00| |1,144.3|1.00|27|27|30,897| |100%| | |

4| | |Other|Training members and employees about the information obligations|MS Asylum Services|24| |80.00| |1,907.2|1.00|27|27|51,494| |100%| | |

5| | |Other|Designing information material (leaflet conception…)|MS Asylum Services|24| |40.00| |953.6|1.00|27|27|25,747| |100%| | |

6| | |Other|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%| | |

7| | |Other|Producing new data|DG JLS|24| |160.00| |3,814.4|1.00|1|1|3,814| |100%| | |

8| | |Other|Designing information material (leaflet conception…)|DG JLS|24| |80.00| |1,907.2|1.00|1|1|1,907| |100%| | |

 | | | | | | | | | | | | |Total administrative costs (€)|3,289,086| | | | |

Table A.3: Policy Options Obligations in 'Scenario t 0+2 '

Proposal for the future development of measures of the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as persons in need of international protection and on the content of the protection granted, based on Council Directive 2004/83/E |Tariff (€ per hour)|Time (hour)|Price (per action or equip)|Freq (per year)|Number of entities|Total number of actions|Total cost|Regulatory origin (%)|

No.|Ass. Art.|Orig. Art.|Type of obligation|Description of required action(s)|Target group|i|e|i|e| | | | | |Int|EU|Nat|Reg|

1| | |Other|Familiarising with the information obligation|MS Asylum Services|24| |48.00| |1,144.3|1.00|27|27|30,897| |100%| | |

2| | |Other|Designing information material (leaflet conception…)|MS Asylum Services|24| |24.00| |572.2|1.00|27|27|15,448| |100%| | |

3| | |Other|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%| | |

4| | |Other|Producing new data|DG JLS|24| |160.00| |3,814.4|1.00|1|1|3,814| |100%| | |

5| | |Other|Designing information material (leaflet conception…)|DG JLS|24| |80.00| |1,907.2|1.00|1|1|1,907| |100%| | |

 | | | | | | | | | | | | |Total administrative costs (€)|3,093,407| | | | |

Annex 26 - Refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in working age (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|SP beneficiaries 2005-2008|Percentage of SP between 18-64 in 2008|Number of SP after application of percentage for 2008|Total international protection ages 18-64 for 2005-2008|

Belgium|10320|63,3|6528|640|63,3|405|7636|

Bulgaria|60|88,1|53|755|88,1|665|1561|

Czech Republic|740|73,4|543|525|73,4|386|1527|

Germany |18320|57,0|10448|3375|57,0|1925|15804|

Estonia|5|0,0|0|0|0,0|0|0|

Ireland|1525|73,8|1125|5|73,8|4|1207|

Greece|555|74,3|413|305|74,3|227|1019|

Spain|780|62,5|488|215|62,5|134|899|

France|14345|85,6|12284|1115|85,6|955|14439|

Italy|4900|94,1|4610|22070|94,1|20763|47537|

Latvia|5|n/a|n/a|15|n/a|n/a| |

Lithuania|45|69,2|31|235|69,2|163|498|

Luxembourg|340|60,0|204|840|60,0|504|1608|

Hungary|535|75,0|401|350|75,0|263|1089|

Malta|90|94,3|85|3010|94,3|2839|6028|

Netherlands|1840|75,8|1395|13455|75,8|10202|25128|

Austria|14355|12,7|1821|105|12,7|13|1952|

Poland|1070|46,2|495|7820|46,2|3616|11977|

Portugal|45|64,3|29|95|64,3|61|249|

Romania|295|57,9|171|35|57,9|20|284|

Slovenia|15|n/a|n/a|25|n/a|n/a| |

Slovakia|45|94,1|42|160|94,1|151|447|

Finland|200|67,0|134|1155|67,0|774|2130|

Sweden|3560|68,7|2444|43730|68,7|30027|76270|

United Kingdom|14335|53,9|7730|9880|53,9|5328|22992|

EU27|88325|67,2|59373|111045|67,2|74646|245132|

In order to estimate the percentage and absolute number of subsidiary protection beneficiaries living in the MS who are in working age and who could benefit from labour training and other measures to facilitate their employment, the data used are the number of persons who have received a positive subsidiary protection decision between 2005 and 2008 (since the entry into force of the Directive).

Data for the years 2005-2007 are not disaggregated by age. In 2008, however, EUROSTAT started collecting data disaggregated by age by virtue of the Statistics regulation 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) . On the basis of this data, the percentage of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who were in working age for the EU as a whole for 2008 can be calculated at 67%. Assuming that this percentage was stable at this level in the previous three years, the table above contains estimates of the numbers of working age refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in the different MS for the period 2005-2008, based on the application of the percentage of 67% to the corresponding numbers of beneficiaries of international protection in these MS. [93]

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)

Table on Active populations in EU 27 (2008)

Union européenne |238533,8|

Belgique|4779,1|

Bulgarie|3560,4|

République tchèque|5232,5|

Danemark|2951,8|

Allemagne |42020,9|

Estonie|695|

Irlande|2242|

Grèce|4937,4|

Espagne|22848,4|

France|28234|

Italie|25096,4|

Chypre|397,9|

Lettonie|1215|

Lituanie|1614|

Luxembourg |212,9|

Hongrie|4208,7|

Malte|170,3|

Pays-Bas|8835,9|

Autriche|4252,1|

Pologne|17010,6|

Portugal|5625,1|

Roumanie|9944,6|

Slovénie|1041,8|

Slovaquie|2689,5|

Finlande|2702,9|

Suède|4895,7|

Royaume-Uni|31119,7|

||

Source: EUROSTAT

Annex 27 - Prevalence of torture among asylum seekers and refugees

Source: International Rehabilitation Council for Torture victims

Torture and torture sequels are a common problem in refugee populations, as persecution and torture are major reasons for fleeing one’s country of origin. Various studies over the last decades have documented the high exposure rate to torture in refugee populations. Researchers commonly estimate that between 4-35% of any given refugee/asylum seeking group have experienced torture. See for example Baker R. Psychological consequences for tortured refugees seeking asylum and refugee status in Europe. In Torture and its consequences. Cambridge University Press, 1992, p.83-106; Jose Quiroga and James M. Jaranson, Politically-motivated torture and its survivors; A desk study review of the literature, Volume 15, No. 2-3, Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture 2005, pp. 6-7; Miserez D. Refugees: the trauma of exile: the humanitarian role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Dordrecht: Martinus Nifhoff Publishers, 1980:80-6. For example, the United States government Office of Refugee Resettlement counts between 400,000 – 500,000 torture survivors among refugees/asylum seekers in that country.[94]

See for example Baker R. Psychological consequences for tortured refugees seeking asylum and refugee status in Europe. In Torture and its consequences. Cambridge University Press, 1992, p.83-106; Jose Quiroga and James M. Jaranson, Politically-motivated torture and its survivors; A desk study review of the literature, Volume 15, No. 2-3, Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture 2005, pp. 6-7; Miserez D. Refugees: the trauma of exile: the humanitarian role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Dordrecht: Martinus Nifhoff Publishers, 1980:80-6.

The Netherlands based War Trauma Foundation has calculated that worldwide, over 300 million persons have been affected by war and violence in conflicts since WWII. By extrapolation, 60-120 million suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or related conditions after experiencing violence of war/conflict. Many post-conflict areas have less than one psychiatrist/psychologist per 100,000 to 1 million people.

In 2008, IRCT members in Europe (including non-EU states) treated 23,883 clients . This number is second only to the Sub-Saharan African region for numbers seen. In the following you find the numbers of tortured refugees/asylum seekers treated by the IRCT member centres based in the EU; the data (if available) are taken from the centre´s annual reports and IRCT´s global directory IRCT member centres and programmes published in 2008. Available at http://www.irct.org/Find-IRCT-members-33.aspx . With a few exceptions, all clients of the European rehabilitation centres originate from foreign countries.[95]

Available at http://www.irct.org/Find-IRCT-members-33.aspx .

It should be noted that these figures represent only those persons treated at IRCT member centres in the EU. Due to financial constraints rehabilitation centres are only able to provide specialized services to a very small part of the population in need. In average rehabilitation centres treat around 400 clients per year. Many more torture survivors may have received treatment at non-IRCT centres or through the public health system, and thousands more likely receive no support at all - especially those who are in immigrant detention facilities.

In 2007 IRCT had estimated the number of asylum seekers and refugees (based on the 2005 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees figures Population of Concern including refugees and asylum seekers 2005 in the EU (date extracted 24 April 2007). Source: UNHCR Statistical Population Database, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/45c063a82.html. ) that would need specialized rehabilitation services every year in some European host countries – presuming that approximately 20% of the asylum seekers have been subject to any form of violence or torture. Please see the tables below. Although this survey is 2 years old, it may still be a good estimate of EU refugee populations in need as the situation has probably not changed considerably since 2007.[96]

Population of Concern including refugees and asylum seekers 2005 in the EU (date extracted 24 April 2007). Source: UNHCR Statistical Population Database, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/45c063a82.html.

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Annex 28 - Costs incurred by MS for providing integration programmes

There are currently great differences between MS regarding the provision of integration programmes: most have integration packages targeted at all migrants with little to no differentiation between categories. As a result of this, as well as of lack of information concerning how many persons benefit from these integration programmes, it is difficult to estimate the costs of integration programmes for beneficiaries of international protection in the MS. Poland was the only country that provided data on numbers of refugees and costs of integration programmes. The costs were as follows (per capita and total costs): 2005: 670 euro (486 refugees benefitted, total costs were 338,405 euro); 2006: 757 euro (709 refugees benefitted, total costs were 536,380 euro); and, 2007: 621 euro (640 refugees benefitted, total costs were 397,262 euro). Information provided by other countries was not specific enough to be able to make per capita estimations. All data obtained are set out below

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 2006LTL 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: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).|1,614,792 PLN ( EUR 338,405) in 20052,559,482 PLN ( EUR 536,380) in 20061,895,646 PLN ( EUR 397,262) in 2007|

|Public funds transferred by the public administration for non-governmental organisations implementing programmes for the integration of refugees Pursuant to the Act on Public Benefit and Volunteer Work and the Act on Social Assistance, public institutions may fund non-governmental organizations also by implementing the programmes for social integration of refugees. The table below illustrates the funding of non-governmental organizations in this field in the years 2005-2007 - the data from the Mazowieckie Voivodeship Office, the Office of the Capital City of Warsaw and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Citizens Initiatives Fund). Pursuant to the Act on Public Benefit and Volunteer Work and the Act on Social Assistance, public institutions may fund non-governmental organizations also by implementing the programmes for social integration of refugees. The table below illustrates the funding of non-governmental organizations in this field in the years 2005-2007 - the data from the Mazowieckie Voivodeship Office, the Office of the Capital City of Warsaw and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Citizens Initiatives Fund). |122,300 PLN ( EUR 25,630) in 2005161,000 PLN ( EUR 33,740) in 20061,541,964 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 Social Fund’s EQUAL project “Improvement of Estonia's Readiness for Integration of Asylum Seekers into the Society”|403,750 Estonian kroons ( EUR 26,954) (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 2005EUR 2,165,000 in 2006EUR 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 su b sidiary protection etc.).||

|Benefits to asylum seekers and recognised refugees/persons under subsidiary protection|EUR 17,000,000 in 2007|

|Remedial Greek education pr o grammes 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 2006EUR 26,676,980.39 in 2007EUR 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|

Source: Indications from the ERF Multi-Annual Programmes 2008-2013, “Total National resources allocated”

Information for the Netherlands:

Year|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|

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 facility|27,074|27,074|27,074|27,074|27,074|27,074|

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 facility|1,895|6,688|11,269|15,866|19,950|24,010|

Source: Indications from the ERF Multi-Annual Programmes 2008-2013, “Total National resources allocated”

Annex 29 - Costs of training and educational assistance for beneficiaries of international protection

 Member State|Cost|

AT|€ 433,211.28|

CY|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 |

CZ|Czech language courses (free of charge): 2006: 37600€ 2007: 130 000€ 2008: 148 000€ (until 31.7.2008)|

SE|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) |

Source: Information collected through consultation with MS

It also appears from responses to the questionnaires that countries offering beneficiaries of protection training courses tailored to their professional abilities and needs include Cyprus, France, Lithuania and Poland, whereas countries providing them with different types of employment support include Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia and Slovenia.

Annex 30 – Costs for reception of asylum seekers in various MS

The following information was provided by MS in reply to relevant questions in the Country Reports Study on the Reception Directive:

- 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?

Country|Question 40 B|Question 40 C|

Belgium|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/moisPersonne isolée 625,60 Euros/moisPersonne avec ménage à charge 834,14 Euros/mois|

Czech Republic|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). 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.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).|According to the Small Scale Study on Reception Conditions of the European MigrationNetwork (see Q.8), the amount paid for an applicant per residential day is approximately 388CZK (excepting investments and employee wages), i.e. 11.640 CZK per month (€ 412).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 compulsoryfinancial contribution of the applicants who have sufficient resources, it amounts to 258 CZK per day, i.e. 7.740 CZK per month (€ 274).|

Germany|In 2003, 1.4 billion Euro have been spent on benefits under the Act onBenefits for Asylum Seekers. However, this number has to be read with the same reservations as above.|The average cost for reception conditions can hardly be determinedsince they depend on too many factors: the type of accommodationfacility, if single men/women or families are concerned, ifunaccompanied minors are concerned, the stage of the asylum procedure etc.|

Estonia|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 .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 EEK = 75848 EUR. There are also projects managedby NGOs and financed by EU funds that support the reception conditions improvements. 44|No direct figures available, but if we add above mentions costs and divide them by number ofasylum 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.|

Spain|The only information received by the Spanish authorities refers to theinformation provided by Spain to Eurostat. Relating the target group of article3.3 European Refugee Fund II, the amounts are in the last three years:- 2003: 5927.- 2004: 5553.- 2005: 5257.|Q.40. C and D answered jointly:The costs of reception conditions are supported by the centralgovernment, taking into account also the funds of the European Refugee Fund and the ENEAS EQUAL programme.About financing Reception Centres, see Article 7 of Ministerial Order of 13 January 1989, regulating the Reception Centres for Refugees.|

France|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.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'élevaientà 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 collectivitésterritoriales [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).|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".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 etde 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).|

Italy|Activities and interventions in favour of asylum seekers are financed through a National Fundfor asylum policies and services, instituted within the Ministry of Interior. This Fundincludes:- Government budget in favour of asylum seekers and refuges;- Financial contribution from the European Fund for refugees;- 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 2004to Euro 5,16 million. In 2005 such amount was increased of Euro 8.865.500 and in 2006 ofEuro 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 coverthe following costs: 1) activity of the central system of protection; 2) assisted repatriation; 3) contributions of first assistance.|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 toaccommodation 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.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.|

Cyprus|The total budget for reception conditions is 420,000 Cyprus pounds.(Approximately 700000 Euros)|511 Euro per person per month|

Latvia|In 2005 and in 2006 the annual total budget for the reception system was LVL 87 723 (EUR125 318, 56).|It is not possible to provide the average cost since the budget for the reception does notprovide for such a detailed calculation. However please take into account that in 2006 LVL87 723 (EUR 125 318, 56) are available for the reception centre, where 200 inhabitants can behouse and only 5 asylum seekers stayed or continue staying in this centre during first 6months of 2006.|

Lithuania|There are no numbers available as to the total budget specificallyfor reception conditions, thus only the data on expenses foraccommodation of asylum seekers in the reception centres could bepresented. 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.|No such calculations are available.|

Luxembourg|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 collaborationconclus 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.|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.-€.|

Hungary|No such data is available at the moment. the magnitude of the costs can be calculated in thefollowing way: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* Rate vaguely that of December 2005 = 1 Euro = 250 HUFCenter Average cost in HUF Days in 2005 Total in HUF Total in EUR*Békéscsaba 6.190 30.196 186.913.240Bicske 4608 49.402 227.644.416Debrecen 4.380 88.202 438.088.202Grand total 852.645.858 3.410.583|Center Average cost in Euro*Békéscsaba 24.76Bicske 18,43Debrecen 17,52*Rate vaguely that of December 2005 = 1 Euro = 250 HUF|

Malta|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 damagescaused, 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.|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).|

Netherlands|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.|

Austria|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.|

Poland|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.|

Portugal|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.|

Slovenia|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.|

Slovakia|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.|

Finland|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.|

Sweden|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.|

United Kingdom|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).|

Additional information collected ad hoc provides the following data:

Italy

- 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).

UK

- 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.

[1] The full text of these contributions is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/gp_asylum_system/news_contributions_asylumsystem_e.htm

[2] 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)

[3] For more information see UNHCR study op.cit, p. 50

[4] Information collected in the context of the consultations with NGOs.

[5] 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

[6] 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

[7] See in particular j udgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 1 1 January 2007, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, p aragraph 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.

[8] S ee for instance judgment of 12 October 2006, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium.

[9] Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom

[10] Odysseus study, page 52; ECRE study, page 20;

[11] Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden

[12] 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

[13] Information provided by the European Women’s Lobby

[14] F or an indication of the number of female asylum seekers in these MS in 2008 see table below

[15] Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden

[16] Odysseus study op.cit , p.53

[17] 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.

[18] . 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. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 46, [2007] 1 AC 412, [2007] 1 All ER 671, [2006] 3 WLR 733

[19] 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

[20] The Czech Republic and Romania

[21] Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom

[22] Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovakia

[23] Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom

[24] Odysseus report, pages 113-115; ECRE report, pages 32-34; France Terre d’asile report, pages 48-50

[25] 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.

[26] 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.

[27] The impact of the EU qualification directive on international protection, ECRE, pp.254-258

[28] 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.

[29] 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 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.

[30] Odysseus study, op.cit, p.127, France Terre d'Asile study

[31] The MS' replies to the relevant questionnaires confirmed that such statistics are not systematically collected.

[32] 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

[33] 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.

[34] For information on projects in different MS providing support for recognition of qualification of immigrants and refugees see Annex 10

[35] 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

[36] For information on good practices developed in certain MS, see Annex 10

[37] 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

[38] 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.

[39] Resource project: Refugee’s contribution to Europe, Education Action International, page 14

[40] Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal, page 5

[41] Recognition of qualification of migrant doctors, 2002-2005, Jesuit Refugee Service Portugal, page 8

[42] Flemish Refugee Council in Flanders and Coordination et Initiatives pour Réfugés et Etrangers in Brussels

[43] Equivalence de diplômes étrangers – rapport sur les pratiques en communautés flamande et française, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and CIRÉ asbl, page 13

[44] Recognition of foreign qualifications, Flemish Refugee Council, power point presentation, slide no.2

[45] Recognition of foreign qualifications, Flemish Refugee Council, power point presentation, slide no.4

[46] Equivalence de diplômes étrangers – rapport sur les pratiques en communautés flamande et française, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and CIRÉ asbl, page 15

[47] 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

[48] 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.

[49] http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument

[50] 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

[51] Caritas Europa Study "Migration, a Journey into poverty", 2006, available at http://www.caritas-europa.org/module/FileLib/Poverty2006ENWeb.pdf, pages 44 and 50.

[52] 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

[53] Judgment of 16 December 2008, Case Gulijev v. Lithuania, paragraph 38.

[54] Order of 19 December 2008, in Case C-551/07, Sahin

[55] See UNHCR Annotated Comments to the Qualification Directive, op.cit. under Article 2(h)

[56] 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).

[57] 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").

[58] 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

[59] 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"

[60] 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

[61] UNHCR statistical yearbook 2007 (Annexes) available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4981b19d2.html

[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)

[63] 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

[64] Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb1108.pdf

[65] 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

[66] Source: http://www.rvv-cce.be and http://www.cgvs.be/fr/binaries/Rapportannuel2006_tcm126-9209.pdf

[67] Source: http://www.bamf.de/cln_092/nn_442496/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/DasBAMF/Publikationen/broschuere-asyl-in-zahlen-2007,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/broschuere-asyl-in-zahlen-2007.pdf

[68] Source: http://www.cear.es/files/Informe_Cear_2008.pdf

[69] Source: http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/EFB2567D-6C5F-4E4B-A6EF-3AE5F1ACEDDC/0/statisticaloverview2007.pdf

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74] For more information see Alexander Aleinikoff op.cit pp 51-54

[75] Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden

[76] Odysseus study op.cit, p. 51, ECRE study op.cit, pages 144-146

[77] Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom

[78] 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

[79] UNHCR Handbook, para. 136; UNHCR ExCom Conclusion No. 69 (XLIII) of 1992

[80] 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

[81] Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia

[82] 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.

[83] UNHCR Annotated comments on the Qualification Directive, under Articles 5 and 20.

[84] 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.

[85] Qualifies as a refugee a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being pers e cuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a pa r ticular 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,

[86] 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 ’.

[87] 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.

[88] Eurostat, ‘Main features of the services sector in the EU’, Statistics in Focus — Industry, trade and services 19/2007.

[89] 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.

[90] Eurostat, Europe in Figures 2005 , p. 169.

[91] 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.

[92] 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.

[93] 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)

[94] See for example Baker R. Psychological consequences for tortured refugees seeking asylum and refugee status in Europe. In Torture and its consequences. Cambridge University Press, 1992, p.83-106; Jose Quiroga and James M. Jaranson, Politically-motivated torture and its survivors; A desk study review of the literature, Volume 15, No. 2-3, Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture 2005, pp. 6-7; Miserez D. Refugees: the trauma of exile: the humanitarian role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Dordrecht: Martinus Nifhoff Publishers, 1980:80-6.

[95] Available at http://www.irct.org/Find-IRCT-members-33.aspx .

[96] Population of Concern including refugees and asylum seekers 2005 in the EU (date extracted 24 April 2007). Source: UNHCR Statistical Population Database, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/45c063a82.html.

[97] Pursuant to the Act on Public Benefit and Volunteer Work and the Act on Social Assistance, public institutions may fund non-governmental organizations also by implementing the programmes for social integration of refugees. The table below illustrates the funding of non-governmental organizations in this field in the years 2005-2007 - the data from the Mazowieckie Voivodeship Office, the Office of the Capital City of Warsaw and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (Citizens Initiatives Fund).

Top