European Asylum Support Office

Annual Report
Situation of Asylum
in the European Union
2013

July 2014

SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*)Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00800 numbers or these calls
may be billed.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN 978-92-9243-232-4
doi:10.2847/28516
European Asylum Support Office 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Italy
Neither EASO nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for the use which may
be made of the information contained herein.

European Asylum Support Office

Annual Report
Situation of Asylum
in the European Union
2013

SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*)The information given is is free, as are most calls (though some operators,
phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN 978-92-95079-93-9
doi: 10.2847/90173
European Institute for Gender Equality, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Italy

Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 7
International Protection in the EU ......................................................................................................... 7
Major Developments in 2013 ................................................................................................................. 8
Functioning of the CEAS ......................................................................................................................... 8
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 11
2. International Protection in the EU ............................................................................................................... 13
2.1. Applicants for international protection in the EU ....................................................................... 13
2.2. Pending cases ............................................................................................................................. 17
2.3. Withdrawn applications ............................................................................................................. 20
2.4. Asylum decisions First instance decisions .............................................................................. 21
2.4.1. Recognition rate............................................................................................................. 21
2.4.2. Recognition rate by country of origin............................................................................. 24
2.5. Asylum decisions Second and higher instance decisions ....................................................... 25
2.5.1. Recognition rate............................................................................................................. 25
2.5.2. Recognition rate by country of origin for higher instances............................................ 27
2.6. Dublin .......................................................................................................................................... 30
2.7. Overview of developments in 2013 in main countries of origin ................................................. 32
2.8. Key challenges and responses ..................................................................................................... 37
2.8.1. Syria................................................................................................................................ 37
2.8.2. Russian Federation......................................................................................................... 41
2.8.3. Western Balkans............................................................................................................. 44
2.8.4. Task Force Mediterranean.............................................................................................. 48
3. Major developments in 2013 ....................................................................................................................... 49
3.1. Important developments at EU level related to asylum ............................................................. 49
3.1.1. Legislative: completion of CEAS...................................................................................... 49
3.1.2. Jurisprudence................................................................................................................. 52
3.1.3. Practical cooperation: translating legislation into action............................................... 53
3.1.4. The European Refugee Fund and the Asylum and Migration Fund................................ 54
3.2. Important developments at the national level ................................................................................ 55
3.2.1. Pressures on national asylum systems........................................................................... 55
3.2.2. Institutional changes...................................................................................................... 58
3.2.3. Important national jurisprudence.................................................................................. 60
3.2.4. Major legislative changes in MS..................................................................................... 63
3.2.5. Key policy changes related to integrity, efficiency and quality....................................... 66
3.2.6. Third-Country Support................................................................................................... 71
3.2.7. Malta/Intra-EU Relocation.............................................................................................. 73
4. The Functioning of the CEAS ......................................................................................................................... 75
4.1. Access to procedure .................................................................................................................... 75
4.2. Access to information and legal assistance ................................................................................. 77
4.3. Providing interpretation services ................................................................................................ 79
4.4. Dublin procedure ........................................................................................................................ 80
4.5. Specific procedures: admissibility, border and accelerated procedures...................................... 83
4.6. Reception of applicants for international protection .................................................................. 84
4.7. Detention .................................................................................................................................... 87
4.8. Procedures at first instance ......................................................................................................... 90
4.9. Procedures at second instance ................................................................................................... 92

4.10. The availability and use of country of origin information............................................................ 95

4.11. Vulnerable applicants.................................................................................................................. 98
4.12. Return.......................................................................................................................................... 101
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 103
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................... 105
A.
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................................... 105
B.
List of figures, tables and maps.................................................................................................... 107
C.
Statistics ...................................................................................................................................... 108

Acknowledgments
EASO would like to acknowledge the following organisations, institutions and individuals who, in reply to a call for
input, contributed to the 2013 Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union:
Aditus foundation
ASBL Le Monde des Possibles
Association Europenne pour la Dfense des Droits de lHomme (AEDH)
Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC)
Comisin Espaola de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR)
European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Flemish Refugee Action/Vluchtelingenwerk
Forum rfugis-Cosi
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
Irish Refugee Council
Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (NOAS)
ONG RESCATE Internacional
PRO ASYL

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 7

Executive Summary
The 2013 Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union aims to provide a comprehensive
overview of the number and nature of applications for international protection made in the EU28 and how they
were processed by the Member States (MS), in order to indicate important developments at both EU and national
level, and to describe how each of the key aspects of the Common European Asylum System works.

International Protection in the EU

In 2013, 435760 persons applied for international protection in the EU28, representing both the highest number
and the sharpest year-to-year growth (+30% compared to 2012) since EU-level data collection began in 2008.
The highest numbers of asylum applicants recorded were citizens of Syria, the Russian Federation and the Western Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM),
Kosovo(1), Montenegro and Serbia), while the main receiving MS were Germany, France, Sweden, the United
Kingdom and Italy.
At the end of 2013, more than 352000 persons were awaiting a decision on their asylum application in the EU28;
the volume of pending applications therefore increased by +33% compared to the previous year.
In line with this increased number of applicants, 328250 first instance decisions were issued in 2013 (a growth
of 14% compared to 2012). The overall recognition rate at EU28 level (including humanitarian protection) stood
at 34.4% based on the granting of refugee status to 49710 persons, subsidiary protection to 45535 persons and
humanitarian protection to 17665 persons. The highest recognition rates were for Syrians, Eritreans and stateless
persons.
While the statistics on decisions in appeal or in review were not complete at the time of writing, it is estimated
that around 135000 decisions in appeal or in review were issued in 2013.
The ongoing crisis in Syria posed a key challenge for the EU in 2013, with the number of Syrian applicants rising
109 %, with significant rises in both absolute (Sweden and Germany) and relative (Bulgaria, the Netherlands
and Romania) terms, triggering revisions of policies, the establishment of special procedure measures and the
engagement of additional resources, including emergency funding.
The tragic case of the boat carrying migrants towards Lampedusa that sank in October 2013, resulting in the
deaths of some 300 people, reignited the discussion regarding the need to provide safe access to EU territory and
asylum procedures, and led to the establishment of the Task Force Mediterranean.

(1) This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of
the International Court of Justice on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

8 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Major Developments in 2013

In June of 2013 the recast asylum acquis package was adopted. It included the recast Reception Conditions Directive, the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, the recast Dublin Regulation, and the recast Eurodac Regulation,
bringing the review process to completion (as the recast Qualification Directive was adopted in 2011). To highlight
a key points of the new package, Article 33 of the recast Dublin Regulation envisages an Early Warning, Preparedness and Crisis Management Mechanism whereby EASO will have a role in providing information to the European
Commission concerning a risk of particular pressure on a MS asylum system or problems in how it functions. It
also provides for the analysis of preventive and crisis management action plans prepared by the MS.
The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights issued a number of significant judgments in 2013 concerning matters of credibility assessment, membership in a particular social group;
persecution on the grounds of religion; prioritised, fast track and accelerated procedures; Dublin procedures;
and return, reception and detention conditions.
The operation of the European Refugee Fund, which included many projects implemented by the MS within its
framework, ended in 2013. Preparatory actions were taken to launch the new Asylum, Migration and Integration
Fund as of 2014.
Italy and Bulgaria, as well as Greece, were among the MS which faced increased pressures in 2013 due to large
numbers of arrivals and a significant volume of pending cases, respectively, which led to official requests that
EASO provide operational support to those MS.
At the national level several MS made changes in the organisation of their systems, including the creation of new
structures, the transfer of competencies and centralisation, and launching of internal reforms. Major legislative
changes at the national level were chiefly driven by the transposition of the recast Qualification Directive. Other
significant legislative changes in the MS concerned matters of responsibility for subsequent applications, reception conditions (including access to the labour market), detention policies, appeal procedures, and documents
issued to asylum applicants.
In terms of measures taken to enhance the integrity of procedures for international protection, in 2013 MS
focused on establishing the identity of applicants for international protection, age assessment and the issue of
subsequent applications. To ensure efficiency and in particular to shorten processing time, MS used screening
procedures and applied accelerated and fast track procedures. Efforts to further develop the quality of asylum
procedures remained a strong trend in the EU, with numerous MS continuing to implement quality projects
aimed at ensuring the fairness and efficiency of procedures for international protection.
Resettlement activities in 2013 were strongly marked by MS responses to the Syrian crisis, including the launching
of special resettlement programmes for Syrians, which carried on into 2014. Relocation efforts have continued,
inter alia, within the framework of the EUREMA II project.

Functioning of the CEAS

Many developments were noted with regard to specific aspects of the Common European Asylum System.
In terms of access to procedures and EU territory, rescue operations were launched in the Mediterranean, along
with monitoring projects in many MS. However, concerns remain with regard to alleged pushbacks and delays
in registration. MS strove to provide information to applicants for international protection, which sometimes
proved challenging especially in the context of detention.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 9

The European Refugee Fund was a significant source of (co-)financing for programmes providing legal and interpretation assistance to applicants for international protection, however it appears that further efforts are needed
to ensure its full accessibility and quality.
In terms of Dublin procedures, the lack of uniform practices for reporting statistical data and interpreting legal
notions (sovereignty clauses) persisted, and the complexity of the Dublin procedures remained a challenge. Out
of the many procedural modalities of processing cases (including accelerated procedures, border procedures,
prioritisation of certain caseloads), in 2013 developments in the MS mainly concerned the issue of subsequent
applications and accelerated procedures.
MS reception systems vary greatly; throughout 2013 many MS undertook initiatives to enhance reception conditions by improving coordination measures, creating new reception facilities and revising the rules on providing
reception (in particular as regards access to the labour market). Pressures stemming from the large numbers of
applicants also led MS to undertake contingency planning measures in the area of reception. Detention is applied
in many MS to varying degrees based on national policies; civil society and other organisations continued to
express concerns with regard to detention conditions and their impact on the well-being of the applicants.
As regards procedures at first instance, in 2013 many MS faced challenges due to effect that numbers of applicants had on the way determination procedures were conducted. Measures taken included revising the roles of
specific authorities in the asylum process, improving physical environments and facilities, as well as launching
new technological solutions to support the asylum process. Similarly, MS continued to improve identified issues
related to the quality, accessibility and interpretation of information on countries of origin by developing new
methodologies and products, and further developing databases.
As with first instance procedures, those conducted at the second instance level were marked by changes in
how the process is organised, internal reforms, and the creation of new institutions by MS. Concerns remained
with regard to discrepancies in jurisprudence of individual courts and the continuing need for the professional
development of members of courts and tribunals. However, the new legal framework of the recast acquis can be
expected to bring greater harmonisation to this area of the asylum process; already in 2013 many MS expanded
the possibility for an applicant to lodge an appeal, which included broadening the scope of its suspensive effect.
In light of how the concept of vulnerability in procedures for international protection has changed in the recast
acquis, multiple actions were undertaken in 2013 concerning vulnerable groups and applicants in need of special
procedural guarantees, including international projects and studies. At the MS level, special attention was paid
to the situation of unaccompanied minors and to applications made by LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex) applicants. While clear improvements have been made, and regardless of whether necessary
procedures are formally in place, some concerns remain. These include the actual availability of legal guardians
for unaccompanied minors, the effective use of age and vulnerability assessment procedures, the reception and
possible detention of vulnerable persons, and the approach towards victims of human trafficking.
Finally, the effective return of failed asylum seekers (which is an integral part of a credible asylum system)
remained an important matter in many MS, with measures taken to strengthen the application of voluntary
return as the preferred option.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 11

1. Introduction
The EASO Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU has been drawn up in accordance with Article 12 of
the EASO Regulation(2). Its objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of the situation of asylum in the EU,
describing and analysing flows of applicants for international protection to the EU, as well as major developments
in legislation, jurisprudence and policies at the EU/national level, and reporting on the practical functioning of the
Common European Asylum System (CEAS). As in previous years, the report continues to aim to provide independent sources of information and help identify areas where improvement is most needed (and thus where EASO
and other key stakeholders should focus their efforts), in line with its declared purpose of improving the quality,
consistency and effectiveness of the CEAS. The report does not claim to be exhaustive. State-specific examples
mentioned in the report serve only as illustrations of relevant aspects of the CEAS.
The report duly takes information already available from a wide range of sources into account. For the purpose
of this report, EASO received information from MS, EU institutions, civil society, international organisations and
academia. UNHCR(3) made a special contribution to this report (hereinafter referred to as UNHCR input).
To avoid duplicating the Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum, the European Commission was regularly
consulted during the drafting process and actively contributed. Information was also received via questionnaire
responses given as part of the drafting of the European Migration Networks Annual Report. To complement
this information, EASO requested additional information from MS through an Annual Report Matrix (and where
needed, clarifications were sought bilaterally)(4).
Finally, contributions were specifically sought from civil society by means of a call for input sent by the EASO
Executive Director to the members of the EASO Consultative Forum, inviting them to provide information on
their work relevant to how the CEAS functions. Several contributions were received in reply to this call and are
acknowledged in the list of contributors.
The EASO Annual Report covers the period from 1st January 31st December, inclusive, but also refers to relevant major developments in the year of writing.

(2) Regulation (EU) No.439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support Office http://easo.europa.eu/
wp-content/uploads/EASO-Regulation-EN.pdf.
(3) In accordance with its role under Article 35 of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is reflected in the EU Treaties
and the asylum acquis instruments.
(4) Information on state practices in footnotes that does not refer to a specific source is from this MS input.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 13

2. International Protection in the EU

2.1. Applicants for international protection in the EU
Requests for international protection in the EU are to a large extent related to developments in different regions
of the world and the forced migratory movements resulting from them. Ongoing armed conflicts, serious human
rights violations, terrorism or the persecution of specific groups are among many factors that can lead individuals
to leave their home country in order to seek refuge in another State. While the vast majority of persons in need
of international protection tend to remain in the region neighbouring their country of origin, a significant share
applies for international protection in the EU28.
2013 marked the highest level of applications for international protection recorded in the EU28 since EU-level
data collection(5) began, with 435760 applicants (or 859 applicants per million inhabitants)(6).

Asylum applicants in the EU28 at their highest point

since the beginning of EU-level collection

500,000
New asylum applicants

400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 1:Total asylum applicants in the EU, 20092013( )

7

As in past years, the proportion of new asylum applicants, that is to say persons who had never been registered
before in the asylum system of the reporting MS, was about 90%. This proportion, however, varies greatly based
on the citizenship of the asylum seeker.
The volume of applicants registered in 2013 followed the trend of steady increases over the past 3 years. However, the difference between 2012 and 2013 stands out as the sharpest year-to-year change recorded since 2008,
with +30% more applicants(8).

(5) 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) No311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0023:0029:EN:PDF.
(6) While this level is the highest recorded in recent years, the EU has seen higher levels, e.g. in 1992 when, due to developments in the former Yugoslavia, more
than 620000 applicants for international protection were reported in the EU15.
(7) When not available, figures for first-time asylum applicants have been replaced with data for total asylum applicants and vice-versa.
(8) Further to Croatias accession to the EU, statistics have been reported to Eurostat from January 2013 onwards. Its inclusion in the EU28 aggregate therefore
prompted an increase of 0.4 percentage points compared to 2012, with 1075 applicants reported.

14 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The clear upward trend in the amount of asylum applications since 2010 aside, the monthly change in asylum
applications made in 2013 further confirmed the seasonal pattern of asylum requests. The first half of the year
and the first quarter in particular is usually marked by levels below the monthly average, while the applications
generally peak towards the end of the third quarter.

The number of asylum applicants tends to be at its lowest in the 1st quarter
and reaches its highest in the 3rd quarter of the year

60,000
50,000
40,000

2013
2012
2011
2010
2009

30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 2:Evolution of asylum applicants in the EU28, January 2009 - December 2013
Due to continued crisis and conflict, applications for international protection recorded in the EU28 from Syrians
more than doubled in 2013 and reached 50495 applicants. This is the highest number of applicants from any
single country of origin recorded since 2008. While a very high figure at the EU28 level, this number pales in comparison to the 1800000 registered Syrian refugees recorded in Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt during
2013(9).
Applicants from the Russian Federation also showed sharp growth in 2013, reaching 41485 applicants, becoming the second most numerous citizenship group applying, ahead of Afghanistan, the number of which slightly
receded from 2012, with 26315 applicants. In spite of a slight increase, Pakistan remained the fourth-ranked
citizenship of asylum applicants, with 20895 applicants recorded last year.
However, when considered together, in 2013 applications from nationals of Western Balkans countries (Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYROM, Kosovo(10), Montenegro and Serbia), once again represented the most significant group of asylum applicants in the EU28, with 72840 total asylum applicants (or 17% of all applicants in the
EU28) and a 36% rise resulting from strong increases in the number of applicants from Kosovo and Albania, but
also moderate growth of applicants from Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYROM and Serbia(11).

(9) Since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, UNHCR has been registering Syrian refugees in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. As of 31 December 2013,
2301668 Syrians had been registered. The latest data available as of 4 May 2014, indicates a total of 2670383 Syrians registered since the beginning of the
conflict (source: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional).
(10) This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of
the International Court of Justice on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
(11) Throughout the report, where appropriate, Western Balkan countries are considered together for a number of reasons: their common EU-oriented perspective
(i.e. the expectation that they will eventually become candidates for EU accession), their geographical proximity to the EU, the fact that applications from most
of these countries are processed under an accelerated or prioritised procedure because they are considered manifestly unfounded and/or the country of origin
is considered to be safe by the most important destination countries, their common past (five out of six were part of Yugoslavia) and similar current economic
and social conditions.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 15

Map 1: Main countries of origin of asylum applicants in the EU28 in 2013

20,000

Western Balkans

Syria
Russia
Afghanistan
Pakistan

30,000

Afghanistan
Russia
Syria
Pakistan

40,000

Western Balkans
Afghanistan
Russia
Pakistan
Iraq

50,000

Afghanistan
Russia
Iraq
Somalia

60,000

Western Balkans
Afghansitan
Russia
Somalia
Iraq

70,000

Western Balkans

80,000

Western Balkans

Syria and Russia became main countries of origin

10,000
0
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 3:Main countries of origin of asylum applicants in the EU28, 2009 2013
From the MS perspective, 2013 was, in terms of ranking, almost in line with last year: Germany was the top
receiving country, followed by France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. However, the gap between the first
and the second receiving country increased very significantly. In 2013, Germany reported 126705 applicants,
or almost twice as many as France, with 66265 applicants. This major jump can be explained by the fact that
Germany was the first or second destination country for asylum applicants from the Western Balkans, Syria and
the Russian Federation. For the first time since 2011 and the Arab Spring, Italy re-entered the top 5 receiving
countries. This may be related to the high number of Mediterranean crossings recorded in 2013.

16 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Germany was the main country receiving asylum applicants in the EU28 in 2013

France
Germany
United Kingdom
Sweden
Belgium

France
Germany
Sweden
Belgium
United Kingdom

France
Germny
Italy
Belgium
Sweden

Germany
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
Belgium

120,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000

France
Sweden
United Kingdom
Italy

Germany

140,000

0
2013

Figure 4:Main MS receiving asylum applicants, 2009 2013

The growth in numbers of applicants for asylum in the EU was primarily due to the rising number of Syrians
seeking international protection (+26380 applicants; +109%). Syria was the main citizenship of origin for asylum applicants in eight MS. Asylum requests from Syrians affected some MS in a disproportionate manner. For
instance, they comprised 63% of all applications for international protection registered in Bulgaria during the
year (see section 2.8.1. on Syria). The Russian Federation accounted for the second most significant increase at
EU28 level (+17195; +71%), occurring primarily in Poland (with 84% of all asylum applicants registered) and
Germany (see section 2.8.2. on Russian Federation). Finally, Kosovo (+10015; +98%) represented the third most
significant increase at EU28 level, which was mainly registered in Hungary (see section 2.8.3. on the Western
Balkans). While their impact at EU level was less, the sharp increases in the number of applicants from Eritrea
(+8285; +129%) and applicants registered as stateless (+6075; +173%) were also significant.
On the contrary, the most significant decreases registered in 2013 were slight and corresponded mainly to citizens of Iraq (-1990;-15%), Georgia (-1715; -16%) and Afghanistan (-1705; -6%).
Syria, the Russian Federation and the Western Balkans countries fuelled the increase of 2013

30,000

240%

25,000

200%

20,000

160%

15,000

120%

10,000

80%

5,000

40%

-5,000

0%
Syria
Russia
Kosovo
Eritrea
Stateless
Somalia
Mali
Nigeria
Albania
Serbia
Bangladesh
Algeria
FYROM
BA
Pakistan
Congo (DR)
Iran
Afghanistan
Georgia
Iraq

-40%

Figure 5:Year-to-year change in the main citizenships of asylum applicants, 2012 2013

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 17

At the MS level, the overall rise in the number of asylum applicants at the EU level resulted in increases for 16
MS, but decreases in 11 M S(12). It is important to note that at national level 6 MS faced increases in numbers of
applicants of 50% or more, and 4 MS saw decreases of around 40% compared to the previous year. Such variations in numbers can have significant effects on states planning and preparedness.

Hungary and Bulgaria both recorded very large percentage increases in 2013

60,000
50,000
40,000

300%

+777%

250%
+416%

200%

30,000

150%

20,000

100%

10,000

50%

-10,000

0%
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Sweden
Bulgaria
France
Poland
Netherlands
Spain
Denmark
United Kingdom
Portugal
Malta
Finland
Austria
Estonia
Latvia
Slovenia
Ireland
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Slovakia
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Romania
Greece
Belgium

-50%

Figure 6:Year-to-year change in number of asylum applicants in the EU28 MS, 2012 2013

In relative terms, the most notable developments were recorded by Hungary (+16740 applicants; +777%) and
Bulgaria (+7145 +416%). While for the former this change was mainly due to sudden inflows of asylum applicants
from Kosovo, Pakistan and Afghanistan, for the latter most of the pressure was imputable to the relatively high
number of applicants from Syria. When considering the impact in terms of absolute numbers of asylum claims, the
most significant development occurred in Germany (+49220 applicants; 64% increase), which received high numbers of applications from Syrian nationals and citizens of the Russian Federation and the Western Balkan countries
(see section 2.8.1. on Syria, section 2.8.2. on Russian Federation and section 2.8.3. on the Western Balkans). In Italy
(+10595; +61%) growth mirrored the sharp increases in applicants from Nigeria, Somalia and Eritrea. In Sweden
(+10 415; +24%) the rise was driven by increases in the number of Syrian, stateless, and Eritrean applicants. Belgium
is the only MS that experienced a notable decrease in the number of applicants in 2013.

2.2. Pending cases(13)

Once a person has lodged his or her application for international protection, his or her case is considered open until
a final decision has been issued or the case is otherwise closed(14). A final decision means a decision which can no
longer be appealed(15). How long a case takes to be processed varies greatly depending on the nature and complexity of the case, but also on how the asylum system is set up and functions in each MS. The current number of
pending cases is thus key information when considering the pressure on the asylum system of the MS.
At the end of December 2013, more than 352000 applicants for international protection were awaiting a decision on their application in the EU28 (16). This level was the highest since the EU-level data collection began
(12) No comparison possible for Croatia.
(13) At the date of extraction, 2 May 2014, information for Cyprus (2009, 2011, and 2013), and the Netherlands (2012 and 2013) were not available.
(14) This may include instances where the case is otherwise closed, meaning no decision is taken on the merits of the case regarding granting protection and a
decision terminating/discontinuing the procedure is issued instead.
(15) At least in appeal procedures before a court or tribunal of first instance, as extraordinary means of appeal or review may still be available, depending on the
national legal framework.
(16) This figure concerns applications for international protection as defined under Regulation 862/2007 and does not include possible pending applications for
other national forms of protection, such as political asylum stipulated in legal acts of a constitutional rank (constitutional asylum).

18 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

and echoed the steady rise in the number of asylum applicants recorded throughout the year from February to
November 2013. By the end of December 2013, the number of pending cases was more than 33% higher than
at the end of December 2012.
Number of pending cases increases at EU28 level

400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 7:Pending cases in the EU28, 2009 2013

The main groups of applicants awaiting a decision on their claim for international protection at the end of the
past five years were almost equal to the main groups of asylum applicants registered in those years.
As of the end of December 2013, most of the pending caseload was attributable to applicants from the Western
Balkans region (45710 applicants awaiting decisions, or 13% of the total) a sharp rise from their status as the
second most significant source of caseload in 2012 followed by the cases of applicants from Afghanistan and
Pakistan (both circa 30000 or 9%), and Syria and Russian Federation, both of which remained the 4th and 5th most
significant sources of caseload for determining authorities.

20,000
15,000
10,000

Western Balkans

Afghanistan
Pakistan
Syria
Russia

25,000

Syria
Russia

30,000

Russia
Pakistan
Iraq

35,000

Western Balkans
Russia
Iraq
Afghanistan
Somalia

40,000

Afghanistan
Western Balkans

45,000

Western Balkans
Afghanistan
Iraq
Pakistan
Russia

50,000

Afghanistan
Western Balkans
Pakistan

Western Balkans applicants topped the stock of pending cases in the EU28

5,000
0
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 8:Distribution of pending cases by main countries of origin, 2009 2013

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 19

Pending cases were mainly found in the MS facing the largest numbers of applications, particularly Germany, but
a historical backlog of some 50000 cases meant Greece was among the top 5 EU countries for pending cases.

Caseloads of Eritrean, Albanian and Stateless more than doubled compared to December 2012

12,000

240%

10,000

200%

8,000

160%

6,000

120%

4,000

80%

2,000

40%

0
Syria
Russia
Eritrea
Albania
Serbia
Pakistan
Kosovo
Somalia
Georgia
Nigeria
Stateless
Bangladesh
FYROM
Congo (DR)
Iran
Guinea
Sri Lanka
Afghanistan
Turkey
Iraq

-2,000

0%
-40%

Figure 9:Distribution of pending cases by MS, 2009 2013

In relative terms, the most acute changes in numbers of pending cases occurred in the caseloads of Eritrean,
Stateless and Albanian applicants, which more than doubled in 2013. Among the top 20 single citizenships comprising the load of pending cases, a slight decrease (-5%) was only reported for applicants from Iraq.

By the end of 2013, out of all applicants awaiting a decision in the EU28, 38 % were in Germany

Greece
Germany
Belgium
Austria
France

Germany
Belgium
France
Austria
Sweden

2009

2010

2011

80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000

Greece
Belgium
France
Sweden

Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Sweden

100,000

Germany

120,000

Greece
France
Sweden
United Kingdom

Germany

140,000

0
2012

2013

Figure 10:Year-to-Year change in main single citizenship of pending cases, 2012 2013

From the MS perspective, Germany saw the largest change in pending cases from last year, with an increase of +67%
or +53600 cases, mainly of applicants from the Russian Federation, Syria and the Western Balkans. It should be noted
that the magnitude of this increase exceeds the total number of pending cases reported by any other MS. In relative
terms, Portugal, Hungary and Bulgaria registered the largest relative increases(17). While in Portugal and Bulgaria
these changes were mainly driven by increased caseload from Syria, in Hungary this change is primarily imputable to
new caseloads from Afghanistan. Decreases in the number of pending cases were only reported in six MS, the most
significant occurring in Belgium where the number of pending cases dropped by a third, or -8645 cases.
(17) This is the primary indicator of pressure on national asylum systems, as even minor rises in absolute numbers can represent a very serious challenge to smaller systems.

20 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Germany strongly inuences the load of pending cases in the EU28

60,000

600%

886%

50,000

500%

40,000

400%

30,000

300%

20,000

200%

10,000

100%
0%

-10,000

Germany
France
Greece
Sweden
Bulgaria
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Hungary
Austria
Romania
Ireland
Malta
Portugal
Estonia
Latvia
Finland
Lithuania
Denmark
Slovenia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Poland
Luxembourg
Belgium

-100%

Figure 11:Year-to-year change in the EU28 MS stock of pending cases, 2012 2013

2.3. Withdrawn applications(18)

Once a person has lodged an application for international protection, their application can be withdrawn during
the asylum procedure and before a final decision is issued. An applicant may withdraw their application either
explicitly (using procedures laid down in national law) or implicitly (when, by the actions or inaction of the applicant, MS deem that their application has been withdrawn or abandoned).
It is important to report on both types of withdrawn applications in order to understand the actual pressure on an asylum system (particularly on the reception system), however this breakdown is not provided for in Regulation 862/2007.

Relative to other asylum indicators, withdrawn applications remain low in magnitude

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 12:Withdrawn applications and share in total applications, 2009 2013

(18) Upon the date of extraction, 2 May 2014, annual data for Spain in 2013 was not available.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 21

During 2013, roughly 30000 applicants for international protection withdrew their claim in the EU28. Mirroring
the steady rise in the number of asylum applicants recorded throughout the year, this level was the highest since
data collection began in 2008. However, contrary to the increase recorded in 2012, the ratio of applicants withdrawn to the total number of applicants actually decreased by 2 percentage points in 2013 (accounting for 6% of
all applicants in the EU28). This is likely due to the high volume of Syrians who withdrew very few applications.
The significant discrepancies in the scope of reporting to Eurostat on withdrawn applications, and in particular
related to including implicitly withdrawn applications, makes any analysis across MS highly problematic(19). It is
hoped that a new data collection initiative launched in 2014 by EASO as part of its development of an Early warning and Preparedness System (EPS), which includes this breakdown, will bring more harmonised data and clarify
the issue of implicitly withdrawn applications.

2.4. Asylum decisions First instance decisions

2.4.1. Recognition rate
Once an application for international protection has been lodged, it is examined by a MS and a decision on the
case is issued. Regulation 862/2007 stipulates that MS notify of the following possible outcomes:
1. Granting refugee status (under Geneva Convention)
2. Granting subsidiary protection status
3. Granting authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons under national law concerning international
protection
4. Temporary protection status (under EU legislation)(20)
5. Rejection of the application
The EU temporary protection mechanism has not been used since it was included in EU legislation, and this
section will therefore focus on the positive decisions granted via refugee status, subsidiary protection or authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons under national law (referred to as humanitarian protection in the
remainder of this document)(21).
The bar graph below indicates that since 2009 the number of first instance decisions issued in the EU28 has
paralleled the change in asylum applicants and steadily increased to reach 328250 decisions in 2013 or a 14%
increase compared to 2012.
Out of these 328250 decisions, 112905 were positive, yielding an overall recognition rate at first instance of
34.4%, which is 2.8 percentage points higher than the 31.6% recognition rate from the previous year(22).

(19) Information gathered by EASO under the framework of EPS revealed that most of the figures exchanged with Eurostat relate solely to applicants who have
explicitly withdrawn their applications. This data is thus likely to be an underestimate of the phenomenon of implicitly withdrawn applications.
(20) Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and
on measures promoting a balance of efforts between MS in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:212:0012:0023:EN:PDF.
(21) Throughout this chapter, and in particular when considering the rate of positive decisions at first instance, it should be born in mind that this latter type of
protection is not harmonised at EU level and is reported only by 16 of the EU28 MS (Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary,
Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom), though it sometimes represents a high proportion of the positive
decisions issued.
(22) It should be noted that the reported recognition rate in the EASO 2012 Annual Report was later adjusted to include revision of data from MS. Data on decisions
from the Netherlands were not included in the 2012 Annual Report due to a transition to a new information system. Also, in the fourth quarter of 2012, a revised
figure for first instance decisions submitted by the Italian authorities indicated that 10925 decisions to grant humanitarian protection had been issued primarily
to applicants from Africa and in particular Nigeria and Ghana. The scale of that revision was such that the overall recognition rate in the EU27 rose by some 4
percentage points to 31.6%.

22 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Decisions issued paralleled the evolution in number of applicants

for international protection registered

350,000

Positive rst instance decision

300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 13:First instance decisions in the EU28, 2009 2013

The overall increase in positive decisions since 2009 is principally due to increases in decisions to grant refugee
and subsidiary protection status.

Figure 14:Evolution of positive decisions in the EU28, Q1 2009 Q4 2013

According to the Qualification Directive, refugee status should be granted in a situation of well-founded fear of
individual persecution. Throughout 2013, first instance decisions granting refugee status increased, and refugee
status was granted to 49710 persons compared to 37895 in 2012 (+31%). Most of these decisions were issued
by Germany, France and the United Kingdom (see Table 1) and usually related to applicants from Syria, Iran or
Afghanistan.
The use of subsidiary protection, which is often granted in a situation of generalised violence, has undergone
significant increases in the past 2 years (+57% from 2011 to 2012 and +45% from 2012 to 2013). A trigger for this
increase has been the decision made by many MS that Syrian applicants qualify for subsidiary protection, leading

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 23

to spectacular increases in decisions issued: 200, 10295 and 22610 decisions on subsidiary protection issued in
2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively.

The overall recognition rates at MS level reect the heterogeneity of applicants proles

Refugee status

100%

Subsidiary Protection

Humanitarian Protection

Total decision

76,165

90%
80%

61,715

70%
60%

45,005

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

25,245
22,355
21,390
16,610
15,590
13,080

EU28

6,965
4,540 2,895 2,365 1,435
900
3,185 2,810 1,905
1,245
840 800 305 195 190 185 175 95

55

DE FR SE IT UK BE AT NL EL DK HU FI PL BG ES MT RO LU CZ IE CY PT SI SK HR LT LV EE

Figure 15:First instance decisions in the EU28 MS, 2013

The preceding figure summarises the decisions at first instance issued by the EU28 MS in 2013 and indicates the
overall recognition rate at MS level. It must be recalled, however, that aggregating recognition rates corresponding to different countries of origin received by a MS to yield a total provides no indication of the general propensity of that MS to offer protection since MS receive quite different proportions of asylum requests from countries
of origin. This is mainly due to the fact that decisions on applications for international protection are issued on the
basis of individual examination of the application, the situation in the country of origin of the applicant and the
applicants specific profile. Significant differences in recognition rates between MS should therefore be expected.
Differences between MS in the type of protection granted should also be expected. Whether or not refugee status, subsidiary protection or humanitarian protection will be granted under national law will also depend on the
country and region of origin of applicants, their personal situation and the possibilities open to a first instance
authority under national law and policy.
Bearing these provisos in mind, the figure shows that the first instance recognition rate at MS level varied greatly
and ranged between 4% and 88% while most of the MS displayed overall recognition rates of between 20% and
46%.
In the EU28, Bulgaria and Malta had the highest positive decision rate in the EU28 at first instance with 88% and
84%, respectively, likely due to the fact that both in 2013 received applications almost exclusively from nationals
of countries with very poor security situations (Syria, Somalia etc.) a fact also evidenced by their very high use
of subsidiary protection. By contrast, three States displayed recognition rates in the single digits: Greece with a
positive decision rate of 4%(23), Hungary with 8% and Estonia 9%.
(23) This recognition rate aggregates decisions issued under both the previous asylum system and the new asylum system. Indeed, due to institutional changes
implemented in accordance with the Greek Action Plan on Asylum Reform and Migration Management, a new asylum system came into operation on 7 June 2013.
Within 2013, the recognition has risen from below 1% in the first semester 2013 (with the responsible authority being the Hellenic Police) to 15,4% by the end

24 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

2.4.2. Recognition rate by country of origin

The next graph gives an overview of the first instance decisions issued in the EU28 last year for the 20 main citizenships(24) (in terms of total first instance decisions issued). Among this group, Syrian, Eritrean and stateless
applicants had the highest recognition rates, with 90%, 76% and 75%, respectively. While Syrian and stateless
applicants were granted significantly more subsidiary protection than refugee statuses, Eritreans received almost
as many refugee protection statuses as subsidiary protection.
On the contrary, applicants from other countries of origin exhibit very low recognition rates. This is especially
the case for applicants from the Western Balkans (Serbia 2%, Kosovo 4%, FYROM 1%, and Albania 8%) but also
Georgia 5%, Bangladesh 8% and Armenia 9%.
In terms of the type of decisions issued disaggregated by country of origin, Syrian, Eritrean and Stateless applicants stood out as the countries where the highest numbers of decisions granted subsidiary protection status,
while Iran was the country of origin for which the most positive decisions granted refugee protection status (49%
of all decisions issued or 89% of positive decisions).

Recognition rates vary greatly depending on the applicants country of origin

Refugee status

100%

Subsidiary Protection

Humanitarian Protection

Total decision

36,770

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

25,540
22,805
18,575
15,870
14,475
11,225
11,165
10,200
8,905
8,920

20%

8,280

7,695

7,530

7,350
6,815

6,340
5,965

5,665
5,585

10%
0%

SY RU AF PK RS SO XK IR

IQ NG ER BD CD MK AL STLS GE LK GN AM

Figure 16:First instance decisions in the EU28 MS by main countries of origin, 2013
Comparing the first instance positive decision rates issued for the 10 main countries of origin of applicants across
the EU28 MS shows that the recognition rate afforded to some countries of origin varies more widely across the
EU than for others. This may be an indication either of the extent to which the profiles of applicants from that
country differ in different MS (e.g. certain clans or ethnicities going only to certain MS) or of the complexity that
asylum claims from certain countries of origin entail in general (leading to a different treatment of similar profiles
across MS). MS may also adopt different approaches to, and interpretations of, certain issues.

of 2013 (with the responsible authority being the new Asylum Service). In April 2014, the recognition rate at first instance stood at 19%.
(24) Citizenship is the statistical category used in the data collection under Regulation 862/2007, whereas country of origin is the term used in the context of
examination procedures for international protection. Both terms are used interchangeably in this section.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 25

Disparity in recognition rates in 2013

100%

Interquartile range

90%

Maximum

80%

Median

70%

EU28 rate

60%

Minimum

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

Kosovo

Serbia

Russia

Pakistan

Nigeria

Afghanistan

Iraq

Iran

Somalia

Syria

0%

Figure 17:Disparity in recognition rates in the EU28, 10 main citizenships, 2013

(>100 decisions by MS)
In the above graph, it can be seen that for some countries of origin MS are relatively comparable in terms of the
recognition rate afforded (represented by short light blue bands), while for others there is great variation among
MS (long light blue bands)(25).
This graph indicates, for example, that the recognition rates of Somali and Afghan applicants varied greatly and
ranged from 17% to 97% for the first and 11% and 92% for the second between receiving MS. By contrast, in
the cases of Kosovo and Serbia there seemed to be consensus across the majority of MS, and the recognition
rates varied little.
It should be highlighted that the dispersion does not necessarily indicate a lack of harmonisation across MS but
may rather indicate the complexity of caseloads. Indeed, multiple profiles of applicants exist even within a given
country of origin. The extent of harmonisation could only effectively be judged by examining a sizeable sample of
individual cases across MS that exhibit a similar profile.

2.5. Asylum decisions Second and higher instance decisions(26)

2.5.1. Recognition rate
The appeals instance normally decides on a variety of issues and is not limited to assessing the merits of cases in
terms of international protection. The current Asylum Procedures Directive does not prescribe any harmonised
standards for the organisation of the appeal or review procedure. In some MS the appeal instance examines the
case de novo in fact and in law, while in others the appeal instance only examines the legality of the decision
made by the first instance. Thus, in some MS the relevant second instance bodies make a decision based on the
merits of the application, while in others they may merely order the first instance body to review its decision.
Eurostat data regarding second instance decisions is therefore difficult to analyse.
(25) The red diamond indicates the EU28 recognition rate, the light blue circle represents the lowest recognition rate reported among the MS and the red circle shows the
highest recognition rate reported across the MS. The length of the light-blue band displays the range between the 25-percentile and 75-percentile of the recognition rate.
Taken together, these elements constitute a whisker-plot depicting the distribution of the recognition rate across the EU28 MS.
(26) On the date of extraction, 2 May 2014, information for Belgium and Poland was not available. For Spain, decisions granting refugee status in appeal or review
were also not available. Italian data on appeals is incomplete due to the delayed entry of data by the Territorial Commissions for the recognition of international
protection into the national IT system and will require subsequent revision.

26 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Decision in appeal or review expected to show only a slight increase in 2013

150,000
Positive decision in appeal or review

125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 18:Final decisions in appeal or review in the EU28, 2009 2013

2013

After a sharp increase in numbers of appeals from 2010 to 2011, primarily driven by strong increases in the number of final rejections issued by Germany and France (+15885 and + 10625 respectively), the number of final
decisions reached 128540 in 2011, and has continued to slowly grow since then. Although the set of information
on decisions in appeal or review is not yet complete, it is estimated(27) that there were about 135000 decisions
in appeal or review in 2013. These decisions were issued mostly on cases from the Western Balkans, Afghanistan
and Pakistan (see Figure 20 below). In terms of positive decisions, the recognition rate(28) in appeal or review
based on available figures was 19.7%, or 0.6 percentage point higher than in 2012.
Recognition rates in appeal or review are usually lower than the rate at rst instance

100%
90%

Refugee Status

Subsidiary protection

Humanitarian protection

Total decisions

37,550
36,660

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

14,010
12,955
EU28

6,860
3,900
1,895
1,090
1,660
1,550
960

685

670

580

415

140
230

100
115

95

95 60

55

40

35

FR DE UK SE AT EL NL DK RO ES CY HU LU IE CZ FI MT SK PT HR IT SI LV BG LT EE

Figure 19:Overview of final decisions in appeal or review across the EU28 MS, 2013
(27) Assuming the volume of decisions in appeal or under review not yet submitted by Poland, Belgium and Spain (refugee status) are on a par with the levels
recorded in 2012.
(28) The term recognition rate must be used with caution when applied to second instance. In MS where an appeal leads only to a review of the case by the first instance
body, it is unclear how the second decision is reported to Eurostat (as two separate decisions or only one where the first decision is later revised in the statistics).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 27

Figure 19 (above) gives an overview of numbers of final decisions issued for appeals or reviews by the EU28 MS
in 2013 (except Poland and Belgium), the legal regimes used, as well as the proportion of positive decisions for
appeals or reviews.
The recognition rate for cases in appeal or under review (19.7%) was 14.7 percentage points below the recognition rate at first instance (34.4%). As for first instance decisions, these overall rates at the MS level should be used
with due caution since dissimilarities in rates usually mirror differences in the caseloads for which decisions are
issued. However, clearly large disparities also exist in the likelihood of an appeal being successful in different MS.
This may be due to many factors: principally the size of the caseload from certain countries of origin, the propensity of nationals of that country of origin to appeal decisions and the likelihood of those appeals being successful
depending on how such cases can be reviewed according to national law.
That said, over a third of appealed first instance decisions resulted in a positive decision or a review in 7 MS
(including the UK, which also saw large numbers of appeals). In 9 MS applicants for international protection who
appealed the decision issued for their case by the first instance body had a less than 5% chance of success, and
in 6 of those MS the chances were close to zero.
There is no obvious correlation between recognition rates at the first instance and the recognition rate for the final
decision issued for appeals or reviews. These differences are probably related to the different mechanisms for
appeal existing across MS but also to the dissimilarities between the caseloads across MS and between instances.

2.5.2. Recognition rate by country of origin for higher instances

Figure 20 (below) gives a summary of the final decisions issued for appeals or reviews for the 20 main countries
of origin(29).
Firstly, this graph shows that the top countries of origin in terms of appeals are not also the top countries of
origin in terms of numbers of asylum seekers. Citizens of certain countries of origin are more likely to appeal
than others(30). Ranked first, for example, is Serbia followed by Afghanistan and Pakistan. Countries which are
not particularly significant in terms of levels of applications can be very significant in terms of appeals, such as
Sri Lanka and Iran. Moreover, countries that are very significant in terms of numbers of first instance decisions
and which have a high protection rate at first instance, such as Syria, see far lower levels of appeals (since
protection was granted at first instance, there is no reason to file an appeal). Recognition rates for appeals
or reviews vary significantly depending on the country of origin: Syria (69 %), Iran (52%) and Afghanistan
(51%) had the highest final recognition rates of the 20 main source countries. On the other hand, the lowest
rates were received by appeal applicants from the Western Balkans: Serbia (2%), FYROM (1%), Kosovo (7%),
Bosnia and Herzegovina (3%) (in line with the first instance recognition rates). A notable exception was Albania, whose final recognition rate was significantly higher than the rate at first instance, with 18% receiving a
positive decision in appeal or review.

(29) Citizenship is the statistical category used for data collection under Regulation 862/2007, whereas country of origin is the term used in the context of
examination procedures for international protection. Both terms are used interchangeably in this section.
(30) In the absence of EU-level data collection on the number of appeals or requests for review filed, their magnitude is assumed based on the number of decisions
issued in appeal or review. However, those two values do not necessarily directly correspond, as a certain number of appeals or requests for review may be
withdrawn before a decision for appeals or reviews is issued. In some MS decisions for appeals or reviews may also be made ex officio by the respective body
(with no appeal or request for review filed by the applicant).

28 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Applicants from Afghanistan, Syria and Iran had recognition rates

in appeal or review of over 50 %

100%

Refugee Status

Subsidiary Protection

Humanitarian Protection

Total decisions

10,940

90%
80%

8,630

70%

8,035

60%
50%

5,470

40%

5,300

4,915

4,510 4,500
4,415 4,215
4,100

30%

4,035

3,550
3,030 2,940 2,915
2,800 2,740

20%

1,995
1,870

10%
0%

RS

AF

PK MK BD RU XK

LK

IR

CD

SY

IQ AM CN

TR

BA NG GE

SO

AL

Figure 20:Overview of final decisions in appeal or review by main citizenship of applicants, 2013
In the case of Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Iran and Congo, the majority of appeals
resulted in the awarding of refugee status. Only for appeals by Afghans were a significant proportion awarded
humanitarian status.
Finally, the table below demonstrates that there can also be significant differences in recognition rates for appeals
or reviews for certain nationalities both between MS (or compared to the EU average) but also within individual
MS for different nationalities.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 29

Table 1:Recognition rates for final decisions in appeal or review across the EU 28
for selected countries of origin (total decisions>10)

30 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

2.6. Dublin
For 2013, at the time of writing, only incomplete data from 16 MS was available regarding how the Dublin system
functions. Data is annual, and should be supplied to Eurostat within 3 months of the end of the reference period.
The principles and way the Dublin system works are explained in section 4.4 on Dublin procedures.
MS collect data on the number of requests made to take charge(31) or take back(32) asylum applicants, the number of requests accepted, and actual transfers of persons made. During the period 20082012, on average some
35000 outgoing Dublin requests were made annually. 80% of the outgoing requests were accepted, but only
around 25%(33) of the outgoing requests resulted in the physical transfer of a person from one MS to another (on
average, about 8500 persons annually)(34). Thus, although the proportion of outgoing requests was on average
about 12% of the number of registered asylum applicants, Dublin transfers were made in the case of only about
3% of those making an asylum claim in the EU(35).

In 2013, most transfers were related to take back requests

Documentation and entry reasons

Take charge

Family reasons

1 422

Humanitarian reasons
Under examination - no
permission to stay
Rejection - no permission to stay

Take back

6 019

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Withdrawal - new application

Withdrawal of application during
Dublin procedure

Figure 21:Dublin outgoing transfers in EU by type of request, 2013

Based on the information provided by MS to Eurostat for 2013, between 6016 (incoming) and 7441 (outgoing)
Dublin transfers took place in the EU(36). The vast majority (81%(37) of all transfers registered in 2013) of Dublin
transfers took place following a take back request. In the remaining 19% of cases, the transfers followed a take
charge request.
Transfers based on take back requests were overwhelmingly connected to persons who were staying without
permission in a MS and whose application was under examination (82%) or who had been rejected (16%) in
another MS.

(31) Take charge requests concern cases where a State requests that another State take responsibility for an asylum application although the applicant in question
has not previously submitted an application in the other State. This can occur when there are specific circumstances indicating that the requested state would be
best placed to deal with the case, e.g. due to family unity reasons or when the other State has issued a work permit to the applicant before. This includes cases
in which a MS in which an application has been lodged approaches another MS on the basis of the discretionary clauses of Article 17 of the Dublin regulation
to take charge of an applicant (to bring together family members or on humanitarian grounds comprising family or cultural considerations), provided that the
persons concerned consent.
(32) Take back requests concern asylum applications where a State requests that another State take responsibility for an applicant because the person has already
made an asylum application in the requested State previously.
(33) In the absence of longitudinal (cohort) data, this number has been calculated based on annual data on registered requests and transfers. However, due to the
time interval between the events, the resulting number might not be fully accurate.
(34) Dublin statistics are collected in a manner that allows for mirror statistics: the outgoing transfers reported by MS A to MS B should therefore correspond to the
incoming transfers reported by MS B from MS A. However, for a number of reasons, including time lag, difference in reporting practices across MS, and missing
data for incoming transfers for some MS, there can be discrepancies between the two sets of data. Thus each year there is a difference of up to 40% (24% on
average) in the numbers of transfers reported as having taken place by receiving countries compared to sending countries.
(35) A Dublin procedure implies that an asylum application has been lodged in one of the states involved, so some asylum applicants are counted by more than one
state. Eurostat data collection processes on Dublin and Asylum under Regulation 862/2007 are not linked, making it impossible to calculate an exact percentage.
(36) However, given the relatively small number of States providing data, this is likely to be a significant underestimate of the final total.
(37) Based on figures reported for outgoing transfers.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 31

Half of all transfers based on take charge requests were motivated by documentation and entry reasons (52%),
followed by family reasons (35%). The remaining cases were connected to humanitarian reasons(38).
The map below (Map 2) indicates net Dublin transfers as reported by 16 MS (outgoing transfers from a MS less
incoming transfers to the same MS) while the actual number of outgoing and incoming transfers are shown in
Figure 22. The green arrows represent the net transfers between MS (only flows of above 200 net transfers are
displayed). A low number of net transfers does not necessarily mean that the reporting countries did not perform
Dublin transfers but rather that the number of outgoing and incoming transfers evened out (as was the case for
France and Austria, for example).
In terms of outgoing transfers, Germany stands out with 2677 net outgoing transfers (the number of outgoing
transfers from Germany was about 50% higher in 2013 compared to 2012)(39). Greece is in second place in terms
of net outgoing transfers with 632, most of which made Germany for family reasons(40). By contrast, Belgium
ranked first in terms of incoming transfers with 913, followed by Hungary(41) and Spain.
In terms of volume of transfers (incoming and outgoing), Germany was in first place with 5505 followed by Belgium with 2279 transfers made. Austria and France were the only other two MS among the states providing data
for 2013 which dealt with over 1000 Dublin transfers during the year.

Germany was the main country transferring asylum applicants to other Member States in 2013
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000

Figure 22:Dublin outgoing and incoming transfers, 2013

(38) If it can be demonstrated that an applicant for asylum had previously entered EU territory via another MS or that the application could be more appropriately
processed by another MS due to the presence of family members of the applicant in that state, then MS may agree to take charge of asylum applications made
in another state.
(39) At the time of writing Poland had not yet provided Dublin figures, but it can be expected that they will rank high in terms of incoming requests for the same
reason.
(40) See Section 2.8.2 on the influx of Russian applicants for asylum in summer 2013. Recall also that Dublin transfers to Greece remained in practice suspended
due to the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Application no. 30696/09) of 21
January 2011, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-103050.
(41) This is likely to be connected to the high number of Kosovar applicants who, as described in the section on the Western Balkans flow, entered Hungary and
then quickly travelled onwards to Germany and other MS.

32 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Map 2: Net Dublin transfers in 16 EU MS and main net transfer flows, 2013 (net transfers >200)

2.7. Overview of developments in 2013 in main countries of origin

Taking into consideration a combination of quantitative indicators (applications, pending cases and decisions),
a number of particularly relevant countries of origin of asylum applicants in 2013 have been selected. A short
update of some major developments in 2013 is given for each of these countries, with a focus on the human rights
and security situation. As the scope of this Annual Report does not allow for exhaustive coverage of all issues of
concern, the following section can only give an indication of potential grounds for international protection(42).

Syria
The armed conflict in Syria further escalated in 2013(43). According to Human Rights Watch, the government
intensified its attacks and began using increasingly deadly and indiscriminate weapons, culminating in a chemical
weapons attack on the Damascus countryside on August 21. Government forces and pro-government militias also
(42) It should be stressed that this information does not necessarily imply that asylum applicants in EU MS have left their country of origin because of the
developments listed below. Apart from the human rights and security issues, many other reasons may exist for applicants to come and apply for international
protection in the EU, for example, in relation to individual circumstances in the applicants private life.
(43) Amnesty International, Urgent steps must be taken to end Syrian humanitarian crisis, 13 January 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d4f9cf4.html
(accessed 17 January 2014); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Syria, s.d., http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 33

continued to torture detainees and commit executions. Armed opposition forces, including a growing number of
pro-opposition foreign fighters, have also carried out serious abuses including indiscriminate attacks on civilians,
executions, kidnapping, and torture.(44)
Other serious human rights problems committed by government forces and opposition groups included blocking
access to humanitarian assistance; targeted killing of protesters, bystanders, journalists, and medical professionals; the use of rape and assault as punishment and a war tactic; poor prison and detention centre conditions;
arbitrary arrest and detention; denial of fair public trial; arbitrary interference with privacy; the lack of press,
Internet, and academic freedom; and restriction of the freedoms of religion and movement(45).
According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, more than 100000 people had been killed in the conflict by
mid-2013(46). The continuing violence in Syria has caused one of the largest humanitarian crises in recent history,
leaving 6.5 million people displaced(47).

Afghanistan
The situation in Afghanistan was characterised by continued insurgency in different parts of the country. The most
significant human rights problems in Afghanistan in 2013 included, inter alia, torture and abuse of detainees;
increased targeted violence and endemic societal discrimination against women and girls; widespread violence,
including killings by armed insurgent groups of persons affiliated with the government; indiscriminate attacks on
civilians; and pervasive official corruption(48). The Taliban and other insurgents used attacks, improvised explosive
devices (IEDs), car bombs, and suicide attacks targeting Afghan and international military forces, the government
and the civilian population(49). In 2013, UNAMA recorded a 14% increase in civilian casualties compared to 2012,
making 2013 one of the most violent years since the beginning of the conflict. Most of this toll was attributed to
insurgents activities (74%). It was also one of the worst years for women and children, who were increasingly
victims of the violence. The primary death cause for these categories of persons was still IEDs, while most injuries
were caused by crossfire in the increasing number of ground battles(50).

Russian Federation
The human rights situation in the Russian Federation continued to worsen in 2013. The foreign agent NGO law
negatively impacted the position of civil society and opposition figures being targeted in criminal and administrative lawsuits widely considered to be politically motivated(51). Nationalist and xenophobic incidents were on
the rise, as demonstrated by riots in Moscow in October 2013. (52) In 2013, at least 20 people were killed and
(44) Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Syria, s.d., http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014).
(45) See, inter alia: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic: implementation of Human Rights
Council resolution 19/22, 25 September 2013, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/172/59/PDF/G1217259.pdf?OpenElement (accessed
15 April 2014); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Syria, s.d., http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014);
United States Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Afghanistan, 27 February 2014, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/
humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220386#sthash.1mGDjpgs.dpuf (accessed 11 April 2014). UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with
regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update II, 22 October 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5265184f4.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(46) BBC News Middle East, Syria death toll now above 100,000, says UN chief Ban
(47) Amnesty International, Urgent steps must be taken to end Syrian humanitarian crisis, 13 January 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d4f9cf4.
html (accessed 17 January 2014); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Syria, s.d., http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf (accessed
11 April 2014). UN Syria Regional Response Plan, Dec 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/syriarrp6/ (accessed 6 May 2014). UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response
Inter-agency Information Sharing Portal, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php (accessed 6 May 2014).
(48) U.S. Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Afghanistan, 27 February 2014, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/
humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220386#sthash.1mGDjpgs.dpuf (accessed 11 April 2014). UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International
Protection Needs of Asylum seekers from Afghanistan, 6 August 2013, HCR/EG/AFG/13/01, http://www.refworld.org/docid/51ffdca34.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(49) Ruttig, T., Some Things Got Better How Much Got Good? A review of 12 years of international intervention in Afghanistan, 30.12.2013, http://www.
afghanistan-analysts.org/some-things-got-better-how-much-got-good-a-short-review-of-12-years-of-international-intervention-in-afghanistan (accessed 11 April
2014). United States Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Afghanistan, 27 February 2014, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/
hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220386#sthash.1mGDjpgs.dpuf (accessed 11 April 2014).
(50) UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), Afghanistan: Annual Report 2013, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, February 2014, http://unama.
unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Feb_8_2014_PoC-report_2013-Full-report-ENG.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014).
(51) Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Russia, 21 January 2014 http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/russia (accessed 11 April 2014);
UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights and Democracy Report 2013 Section XI: Human Rights in Countries of Concern Russia, 10 April 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013 (accessed 11 April 2014),
examples of environmental activist Evgeny Vitishko and opposition figure Alexei Navalny. Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2014 Russia, 23 January 2014
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/russia-0#.U0gLm_mSxGw (accessed 11 April 2014), example of opposition leader Yevgeniy Urlashov.
(52) Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2014 Russia, 23 January 2014 http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/russia-0#.U0gLm_
mSxGw (accessed 11 April 2014).

34 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

173 injured in racially-motivated violence(53). Human rights activists experienced violence and harassment, in
particular those reporting on the North Caucasus, elections, corruption, xenophobia and nationalism, and LGBTI
rights(54). In June 2013 a law banning the promotion to minors of non-traditional sexual relations was passed,
which was internationally criticised for inciting homophobia(55). As regards the situation in the republics of the
Northern Caucasus, the source of most asylum applicants from the Russian Federation in EU+ countries, the
human rights situation continues to worry observers. The security situation, which seemed to have improved
compared to previous years, became more precarious again by the end of the year when a number of bombings
by insurgents hit the southern Russia. The social and economic situation in the region is particularly bad, with
very high levels of unemployment(56).

Somalia
The security situation in different areas of southern and central Somalia has improved in recent years(57). However, the non-international armed conflict continued through 2013. Armed clashes continued around Mogadishu
and in rural areas under Al-Shabaab control. Areas under the control of pro-government forces (58), including
Mogadishu, were often affected by attacks and other forms of violence. Civilians were killed and wounded by
crossfire in the context of armed clashes, by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and grenade attacks(59). Civilians
also continued to suffer from other conflict-related abuses, including targeted killings, displacement, and the
diversion or confiscation of humanitarian assistance by armed groups, principally Al-Shabaab(60).
UNHCRs synopsis of the situation in the areas under Al-Shabaabs control was that it continued to impose a
severe interpretation of Sharia law, especially affecting women. Further, Al-Shabaab banned leisure activities
such as playing football, listening to music and watching television, which are deemed to be un-Islamic. Stoning,
public whipping, and amputation are meted out as punishment to those who violate Al-Shabaabs interpretation
of Islam.(61) Other serious abuses against civilians by Al-Shabaab were also reported: killings of prominent peace
activists, community leaders, clan elders, and their family members for their role in peace-building, and beheadings of people accused of spying for and collaborating with Somali national forces and affiliated militias.(62) In
areas under the control of pro-government forces, Al-Shabaab remained able to target people, and an increase
in (large scale) attacks in Mogadishu was recorded throughout 2013(63).
The UN Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia reported that compared to south and
central Somalia, in Puntland [and in Somaliland] there are clear signs of social and economic progress, though
(53) International Crisis Group, Too Far, Too Fast: Sochi, Tourism and Conflict in the Caucasus, 30 January 2014 http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/
north-caucasus/228-too-far-too-fast-sochi-tourism-and-conflict-in-the-caucasus.aspx (accessed 11 April 2014).
(54) See, inter alia: FCO UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights and Democracy Report 2013 Section XI: Human Rights in Countries of Concern
Russia, 10 April 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013
(accessed 11 April 2014); International Crisis Group, Too Far, Too Fast: Sochi, Tourism and Conflict in the Caucasus, 30 January 2014 http://www.crisisgroup.org/
en/regions/europe/north-caucasus/228-too-far-too-fast-sochi-tourism-and-conflict-in-the-caucasus.aspx (accessed 11 April 2014); Human Rights Watch, World
Report 2014 Russia, 21 January 2014 http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/russia (accessed 11 April 2014); Freedom House, Freedom
in the World 2014 Russia, 23 January 2014 http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/russia-0#.U0gLm_mSxGw (accessed 11 April 2014).
(55) Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Russia, 21 January 2014 http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/russia (accessed 11 April 2014).
(56) See, inter alia: FCO UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights and Democracy Report 2013 Section XI: Human Rights in Countries of Concern
Russia, 10 April 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013
(accessed 11 April 2014); International Crisis Group: Too Far, Too Fast: Sochi, Tourism and Conflict in the Caucasus, 30 January 2014 http://www.crisisgroup.org/
en/regions/europe/north-caucasus/228-too-far-too-fast-sochi-tourism-and-conflict-in-the-caucasus.aspx (accessed 11 April 2014); Human Rights Watch, World
Report 2014 Russia, 21 January 2014 http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/russia (accessed 11 April 2014); Freedom House, Freedom
in the World 2014 Russia, 23 January 2014 http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/russia-0#.U0gLm_mSxGw (accessed 11 April 2014).
(57) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Protection Considerations with Regard to people fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, 17 January
2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html (accessed 6 May 2014); International Crisis Group, EJ Hogendoorn: Security and Governance
in Somalia: Consolidating Gains, Confronting Challenges, and Charting the Path Forward, 8 October 2013, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/
speeches/2013/hogendoorn-security-and-governance-in-somalia.aspx (accessed 6 May 2014).
(58) African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the Somalia National Armed Forces (SNAF).
(59) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Protection Considerations with Regard to people fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, 17 January
2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html (accessed 6 May 2014); International Crisis Group, EJ Hogendoorn: Security and Governance
in Somalia: Consolidating Gains, Confronting Challenges, and Charting the Path Forward, 8 October 2013, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/
speeches/2013/hogendoorn-security-and-governance-in-somalia.aspx (accessed 6 May 2014).
(60) U.S. Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 Somalia, 27 February 2014 http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/
humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220158#wrapper (accessed 11 April 2014). UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with Regard to
people fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, 17 January 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(61) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Protection Considerations with Regard to people fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, 17 January
2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(62) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Protection Considerations with Regard to people fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, 17 January
2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(63) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Protection Considerations with Regard to people fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, 17 January
2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html (accessed 6 May 2014).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 35

political conflict, security concerns and the fight against terrorism are having a negative impact on some basic
human rights, including the rights to justice and to freedom of expression and of the media.(64) The UN Secretary
General reported the situation to be relatively stable in Puntland and Somaliland throughout 2013, but noted an
increase in violent Al-Shabaab activities in Puntland by the end of the year(65).
According to UNHCR research, there are an estimated 1.1 million internally displaced persons living inside Somalia at the moment. It is estimated that 1.5 million out of a total population of approximately 10 million Somali
nationals live outside the country(66).

Eritrea
Characterised as one of most closed countries in the world, with a highly centralised and authoritarian regime,
no independent judiciary or press, and no elections since 1993, Eritreas human rights record remains extremely
poor: severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, association, religion and movement, a lengthy military service, as well as numerous arbitrary arrests and detention. Child abuse, female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C),
human trafficking, and forced child labour continue to occur(67).

Iran
Spring of 2013 in Iran was marked by tension preceding the presidential elections in June 2013, when Iranians
elected a moderate conservative cleric and long-time senior member of the regime, Dr. Hasan Fereidun Ruhani.
In November 2013, the so-called Joint Plan of Action was signed with Iran as a first step towards a comprehensible and verifiable diplomatic solution to concerns about the Iranian nuclear programme. As concerns the human
rights situation, although the UN Special Rapporteur for Iran welcomed some positive steps, he also stressed that
they currently do not address concerns about fundamental human rights. According to the U.S. Department of
State(68), the most serious human rights issues were related to restrictions of civil liberties, including the freedoms of assembly, speech, and press, and disregard for the physical integrity of persons unlawfully and arbitrarily
detained, tortured, or killed by the regime. Amendments to the Penal Code passed by parliament in February
continued to allow cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and punishments not based on codified law. More
than 369 Iranians were sentenced to death in 2013(69). In December, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution urging the government to improve human rights in Iran(70).

Iraq
In 2013 the security situation in Iraq deteriorated significantly. Internal sectarian tensions and divisions continued
to polarise the country, while the crisis in Syria fed instability in the region. In 2013 UNAMI recorded the highest
number of civilian casualties since 2008, with 7818 people killed and 17981 injured. Terrorist attacks directly targeted civilians and public places, including cafs, parks, restaurants, mosques and markets(71). Violence across Iraq
continued to grow as the parliamentary elections scheduled for 30 April 2014 approached. Furthermore, according
to the US Department of State, severe human rights problems persisted in 2013 in the form of politically-motivated
sectarian and ethnic killings; torture and abuses by government actors and illegal armed groups; and a lack of governmental transparency, exacerbated by widespread corruption at all levels of government and society(72).
(64) UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia, Shamsul Bari, 16 August 2013, section B,
http://www.refworld.org/country,,,,SOM,,522db1204,0.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(65) UN Reports of the Secretary General on Somalia, available via: http://www.refworld.org/publisher,UNSC,,SOM,,,0.html.
(66) UNHCR, Policy Development and Evaluation Service: History, overview, trends and issues in major Somali refugee displacements in the near region, February
2014, http://www.unhcr.org/5310b0159.html (accessed 11 April 2014).
(67) Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Eritrea, 21 January 2014, http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/eritrea (accessed 11
April 2014); U.S. Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 Eritrea, 27 February 2014, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/
humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220111 (accessed 10 January 2014).
(68) U.S. Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 Iran, 27 February 2014, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/
index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220352#wrapper (accessed 11 April 2014).
(69) Amnesty International, Death sentences and executions 2013, http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2014/en/652ac5b3-3979-43e2-b1a16c4919e7a518/act500012014en.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014).
(70) United Nations, Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at its 66th session, http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/r66_en.shtml (accessed 11 April 2014).
(71) UN Security Council, Second report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 2110 (2013), http://www.ecoi.net/file_
upload/1226_1395836181_n1425303iraq.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014).
(72) U.S. Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 Iraq, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.
htm?year=2013&dlid=220355#wrapper (accessed 11 April 2014).

36 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Egypt
Anti-government protests and demonstrations in the spring of 2013 resulted in the ousting of president Morsi
on 30 June 2013, followed by weeks of violent clashes between security forces and pro-Morsi demonstrators.
On 14 August 2013, several hundred demonstrators were reportedly killed during operations to disperse sit-ins
organised by the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo and Giza. A six-month state of emergency was declared on 14
August. During this period the use of excessive force against demonstrators continued, resulting in hundreds
of casualties. The attacks on the sit-ins led to an outburst of sectarian violence as supporters of the Muslim
Brotherhood held Coptic Christians responsible for the ousting of Morsi. Human Rights Watch reported at least
32 attacks on churches, 20 of which were torched. On 25 December the interim government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. Human rights concerns, both under the Morsi regime and under the
interim government, were related to the use of excessive force by security forces, including arbitrary arrests,
unlawful killings and torture, restrictions on freedom of expression and press and freedom of assembly. Corruption continues to be widespread, and the situation of women and girls remains highly problematic(73). In
Sinai, authorities were confronted with Islamist militants who target police, military and the local Christian
community(74).

Pakistan
In June 2013, Pakistan experienced its first-ever democratic transfer of power from one civilian government completing its full term to another. The election campaign had been violent, with over 130 people killed. The new
government faced a deteriorating security environment with frequent terrorist attacks across the country(75).
The country suffered from sectarian attacks, often directed at Shia minorities, killing hundreds of people. Furthermore, violence against women and children remained a serious concern. For example, hundreds of honour
killings have been reported in 2013 (76). Ahmadiyya and Christians continued to be harassed by Islamists and
faced difficulties obtaining state protection(77). The civilian population also continued to be affected by violence
resulting from conflicts between the government and militants, e.g. Baluchistan, the Taliban or Al Qaeda and
other groups(78). In the countryside, poor access to justice, corruption, and low standards of rule of law persisted.
Human rights violators could act with impunity, and mistreatment in police custody continued to be reported(79).
During 2013, the moratorium on the use of the death penalty continued to be respected(80). However, during the
year at least 16 people were on death row for blasphemy, and another 20 were serving life sentences. Reporters
Without Borders reported a worsening situation for freedom of expression, making the country one of the worst
for journalists to work in(81).

(73) See, inter alia: U.S. Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 Egypt, 27 February 2014, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/
humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220350#wrapper (accessed 11 April 2014); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Egypt, 21 January 2014,
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/egypt (accessed 11 April 2014); Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2014 Egypt, 23 January
2014 http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/egypt-0#.U0gKs22RSjY (accessed 11 April 2014).
(74) Jamestown Foundation, Sinai Jihadists Respond to Egyptian Military Offensive with Statements and Suicide Bombs, 19 September 2013, Terrorism Monitor
Volume: 11 Issue: 18, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/5243edc34.html (accessed 7 May 2014); Jamestown Foundation, Sinai Insurgency Exploits Political
Crisis in Egypt, 17 July 2013, Terrorism Monitor Volume: 11 Issue: 14, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/51e68f654.html (accessed 7 May 2014).
(75) UK Government, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Corporate Report: Pakistan A country of concern, 10 April 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/pakistan-country-of-concern/pakistan-country-of-concern (accessed 11 April 2014). Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Pakistan, s.d.,
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf.
(76) UK Government, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Corporate Report: Pakistan A country of concern, 10 April 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/pakistan-country-of-concern/pakistan-country-of-concern (accessed 11 April 2014). Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Pakistan, s.d., http://
www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf. The Dawn, Sectarian violence increased in 2013, says report, s.d., http://www.dawn.com/news/1078664/
sectarian-violence-increased-in-2013-says-report (accessed 11 April 2014).
(77) Minority Rights Group International, State of the Worlds Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2013 Pakistan, 24 September 2013, available at: http://www.
refworld.org/docid/526fb73714.html (accessed 7 May 2014). United States Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Pakistan,
27 February 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/53284a8e21.html (accessed 7 May 2014).
(78) UK Government, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Corporate Report: Pakistan A country of concern, 10 April 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/pakistan-country-of-concern/pakistan-country-of-concern (accessed 11 April 2014). Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014 Pakistan, s.d.,
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf.
(79) UK Government, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Corporate Report: Pakistan A country of concern, 10 April 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/pakistan-country-of-concern/pakistan-country-of-concern (accessed 11 April 2014).
(80) UK Government, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Corporate Report: Pakistan A country of concern, 10 April 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/pakistan-country-of-concern/pakistan-country-of-concern (accessed 11 April 2014).
(81) Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index 2013, s.d., http://fr.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/classement_2013_gb-bd.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 37

Nigeria
According to the US Department of State: Casualties and human rights abuses associated with Boko Haram
attacks as well as the governments response to this violence escalated throughout the year 2013. The most serious human rights abuses during the year were those committed by Boko Haram, which conducted killings, bombings, abduction and rape of women, and other attacks throughout the country, resulting in numerous deaths,
injuries, and widespread destruction of property; those committed by security services, which perpetrated extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, beatings, arbitrary detention, mistreatment of detainees, and destruction of property; and widespread societal violence, including ethnic, regional, and religious violence.(82)
Other serious human rights problems included vigilante killings; prolonged pre-trial detention; denial of a fair
public trial; executive influence on the judiciary; infringements on citizens privacy rights; restrictions on the
freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion, and movement; official corruption; violence against women; child
abuse; female genital mutilation/cutting (FMG/C); infanticide; sexual exploitation of children; trafficking in persons; discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, regional origin, religion, and disability; forced and bonded labour; and child labour(83).
Inter-communal violence in the Middle Belt states also led to hundreds of casualties. While the 2009 amnesty
for activists in the oil-rich Niger Delta contributed to the decline in violence, persistent poverty, corruption and
environmental degradation threatened the relative stability of this region. Nigerian security services, and also
the recently-created vigilante group the Civilian Joint Task Force (C-JTF) have been involved in a number of
human rights abuses in the country and operated with impunity(84).
According to the IDMC, there were at least 470500 newly displaced people in 2013 fleeing brutal attacks by the
Islamist armed group Boko Haram, by government-led counterinsurgency operations in north-eastern Nigeria,
and by ongoing inter-communal conflicts in the countrys central Middle Belt region. The bulk of displacements
occurred in three northeastern states affected by Boko Haram violence, namely Borno, Yobe and Adamawa,
where the government maintained a state of emergency since June 2013(85).
In January 2014, President Jonathan approved the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill. This new law criminalises public displays of affection between same-sex couples and restricts the work of organisations defending gay
people and their rights(86).

2.8. Key challenges and responses

2.8.1. Syria
With a 109% increase in applications for international protection, Syria became the main country of origin of asylum seekers in the EU28 in 2013 (applications for international protection from Syria have also been analysed by
EASO in its previous annual reports in 2011(87) and 2012(88). The increase was widespread; the volume of Syrian
applicants increased in nearly all MS in 2013.

(82) U.S. Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Nigeria, 27 February 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/
docid/53284a92b.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(83) U.S. Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Nigeria, 27 February 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/
docid/53284a92b.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(84) Human Rights Watch, Nigeria: Escalating Communal Violence, 15 April 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/534d288f4.html (accessed 6 May
2014). United States Department of State, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Nigeria, 27 February 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/
docid/53284a92b.html (accessed 6 May 2014).
(85) Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), Nigeria IDP Figures Analysis, available at http://www.internal-displacement.org/sub-saharan-africa/nigeria/
figures-analysis, (accessed 16 May 2014).
(86) Human Rights Watch, Nigeria: Anti-LGBT Law Threatens Basic Rights, 14.01.2014, http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/14/nigeria-anti-lgbt-law-threatensbasic-rights, (accessed 11 April 2014).
(87) EASO, 2011 Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union and on the Activities of the European Asylum Support Office, p.24, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/european-asylum-support-office/docs/easo_annual_ report_final_en.pdf.
(88) EASO, Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union 2012, pp. 30-33, available at: http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/EASOAnnual-Report-Final.pdf.

38 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Bulgaria saw the largest percentage increase of Syrian applicants in 2013

17,500

+109%

15,000
+62%

12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000

+116%

+93%

+107%

+10%

+312%

Romania

+56%

Belgium

+370%

2,500

France

+902%

Denmark

Austria

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Germany

Sweden

Figure 23:Syrian applicants in 2013 and year-to-year change by main receiving MS

(>90% of Syrian applicants in the EU 28)
As in 2012, Germany and Sweden were the main receiving countries for Syrian asylum seekers, but in 2013 Sweden became the principal country of destination by a large margin and saw an increase of 109% (Germany saw
a less intense +62%). While these increases were very significant for those two MS, in relative terms even larger
rises were recorded in several other countries. In Bulgaria, for example, the number of Syrian applicants was ten
times greater than in 2012, making it the third most significant receiving MS in the EU for Syrians (and leading
Bulgaria to request operational support from EASO see section 3.2.1.3. on Bulgaria). The number of Syrian
applicants in the asylum systems of Romania and the Netherlands also increased by a factor of more than 4.

The highest level of Syrian applicants reached in the main receiving countries
between September and November 2013

3,000
Sweden

2,500

Germany

2,000

Bulgaria

1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 24:Evolution of Syrian asylum applicants in selected MS, 2013

In line with general seasonal patterns, increases were most seen in the third quarter of the year. In Sweden, a
particularly sharp increase is noticeable in September, which partly corresponds to the decision of the Migration

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 39

Board in that month to grant permanent residence permits to Syrians. The rise in applications also led to a
steady increase in pending cases over the year as shown below. In the three main receiving countries, the load of
pending cases increased steadily in the second half of the year.

Pending cases on the rise, mirroring the ow of asylum applicants

10,000
Germany

8,000

Sweden
Bulgaria

6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 25:Evolution of the stock of pending cases of Syrian asylum applicants

in selected MS, 2013

Syrians granted high protection rates in the EU28

100%

Refugee status

Subsidiary Protection

Total decision

Humanitarian Protection

12,875
EU28

90%
80%
70%

9,200

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

2,370

10%
0%

SE

2,015

1,690

1,620

1,485

1,260 1,120

DE NL BG UK BE DK FR

870

AT RO

780
270

IT

195

175

160

175

MT CY HU EL

170

FI

115

ES

CZ

Figure 26:First instance decisions issued to Syrian applicants in the EU28, 2013 (>100 decisions)
However, reported negative outcomes are likely to be related to reporting issues rather than an actual practice by
MS(89). The effective protection rate of genuine Syrians is likely to be closer to 100%.
(89) This could be due, inter alia, to factors such as: reporting negative decisions in regards to Dublin cases (as was the instruction to MS before revision of the

40 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

While almost all first instance decisions issued to Syrian applicants were thus positive across MS, there was significant variation in the legal regime used in those positive decisions: in the United Kingdom, Denmark, France,
Austria and Hungary, for example, Syrians were mainly granted refugee status, while in Sweden, Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium, Romania, Malta, Cyprus, Finland, Spain and the Czech Republic Syrians were most commonly
granted subsidiary protection status(90). These differences most likely stem from MS practices when interpreting
the criteria of the Qualification Directive and national policies.
Civil society organisations(91) and UNHCR reported on the situation of Syrian applicants for international protection across the EU. Issues were raised with regard to access to territory due to the fact that hardly any possibility
exists for obtaining a visa to travel to Europe, with alleged cases of pushbacks, over-use of detention and a lack of
suitable reception conditions for families, who constituted the majority of applicants(92).
Measures taken in MS and by the European Commission
MS undertook various policy- or procedure-related initiatives during the year. On 3 September, SMB (Swedish
Migration Board) revised its policy on Syrian applicants to ensure that applicants given subsidiary protection
status were generally awarded permanent residence permits. The decision also paved the way for awarding permanent residence to those previously granted subsidiary protection status with temporary permits(93).
In Germany, on 1 October 2013 a special decision-making group for Syria was created to process applications
from Syria using a prioritised procedure. Syrian applicants whose personal hearings were not yet scheduled thus
had the opportunity to state the facts of their claim in written form.
The European Commission took steps to support MS coming under pressure due to the increased number of
Syrian applications. Emergency funding from the European Refugee Fund was provided to Bulgaria, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, France, Hungary and the Netherlands (see section 3.1.4. on the European Refugee
Fund). At the request of the Bulgarian authorities, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (EUCPM) was triggered in
order to provide civil protection assets from other MS necessary in order to host Syrian asylum seekers in the
early stages of the crisis.

EASO Practical Cooperation Workshops on Syria

After two Practical Cooperation Workshops on Syria in 2012 focusing mainly on country of origin information,
refugee status determination issues and contingency planning, EASO organised a third Workshop on 18-19
March 2013. During this meeting, the main objective apart from giving an update on the situation in Syria
and neighbouring countries was to map policy changes (e.g., temporary freezing of status determination)
and analyse diverging decision practices in EU+ countries with regard to the Syrian asylum caseload due to not
only different profiles of applicants arriving in EU+ countries, but also different interpretations of legal definitions, in particular Article 15(b) and (c) of the Qualification Directive.

Eurostat guidelines in December 2013); reporting of implicitly withdrawn applicants as rejections; applicants registered as Syrians, but found not to be Syrians
after identity assessment during the procedure and not updated in the information system.
(90) As regards Greece, the recognition rate at first instance under the new asylum procedure stands at almost 100% (63.3% for refugee status and 35,9% for
subsidiary protection).
(91) ECRE Information Note on Syrian asylum seekers and refugees in Europe, November 2013 http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/824.html.
(92) See the following public statements by UNHCR: UNHCR, Responding to protection needs of displaced Syrians in Europe, June 2013, http://www.unhcr.
org/51b7149c9.pdf, UN High Commissioner for Refugees urges Europe to do more for Syrian asylum seekers, 18 July 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/51e916e14.
html, Protection of Syrians in the EU, UNHCRs paper for the Informal JHA Council, Vilnius, 18 July 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/51f22b999.html, UNHCR urges
countries to enable safe passage, keep borders open for Syrian refugees, 18 October 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5263d44b4.html, UNHCR on denied entry
and pushed back: Syrian refugees trying to reach the EU, 15 November 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5289ca114.html, UNHCR concerned at reports that
asylum seekers, including Syrians, denied entry to some EU countries, 15 November 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/528615d54.html.
(93) A trend that was visible by the end of the year was that Syrian male applicants arrived without their families, who then joined them through family reunification
once a permit had been granted to the male family member, as opposed to the whole family arriving together.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 41

EASO COI Specialist Network on Syria

As outlined in Section 4.10 of this report and as part of the overall EASO COI Network Approach, an EASO
COI Specialist Network on Syria was established in April 2013. The network held its kick-off meeting on 27-28
June 2013, with the participation of 12 COI researchers from EU+ countries. During this first meeting, the
network focused on the current situation in Syria, based on a presentation of key findings from a Norwegian/
Swedish fact-finding mission to Turkey and Iraq, which addressed several questions regarding Syrian asylum
applications.

2.8.2. Russian Federation

As illustrated by Figure 3, in 2013 applicants from the Russian Federation increased significantly to become the
second largest citizenship of origin for asylum claims in the EU-28. Although the number of applicants from the
Russian Federation had been relatively stable since 2008 at around 20000 applicants annually, 2013 saw a significant rise with 71% more applicants registered than in 2012, reaching a volume of 41485 applicants. The vast
majority of these persons were from the Northern Caucasus region(94).

The number of applicants from the Russian Federation mostly increased in Germany and Poland

17,500
15,000

+353%
+111%

12,500
10,000
7,500

- 14%

5,000

- 8%

2,500

- 19%

0
Germany

Poland

France

Austria

Belgium

Figure 27:Russian applicants in 2013 and year-to-year change by main receiving MS

This growth was mainly driven by large increases registered in Germany, which became the biggest receiver of
applicants from Russia after an increase by a factor of 4.5 between 2012 and 2013. Poland, the traditional main
country of reception for this group, dropped to second place despite the fact that the number of applications
made there doubled. The decision by the German Constitutional Court of 18 July 2012 to increase the benefits
paid to asylum seekers which was already identified in last years EASO Annual Report(95) as a potential pull
factor for asylum seekers from the Western Balkans was likely also a significant pull factor for the Russian flow.
By contrast, in France and Austria, also traditional destination countries for Russian applicants, the number of
applicants decreased from 2012 to 2013.

(94) Information received from EASO Practical Cooperation meeting on Russia 1718 July 2013.
(95) EASO Annual Report 2012, p.34.

42 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

High correlation of the ow of asylum applicants from the Russian Federation

to Germany and Poland

3,000
Germany

2,500

Poland

2,000

France

1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 28:Evolution of Russian asylum applicants in selected MS, 2013

Changes in the flow of citizens from the Russian Federation to Poland and Germany were highly correlated and
underwent a massive increase in the spring of 2013. Information received from the main destination MS shows
that most of the persons who lodged an application for international protection in Poland were Chechens arriving
by train who applied for asylum at the border and then subsequently absconded and travelled to Germany to
apply for international protection once more. This pattern is substantiated by the correlation of the flow of asylum applicants to Germany and Poland and the significant increase of take back requests between Germany and
Poland in 2013 (2258 transfers based on a take back request were reported by Germany)(96).

Similar inows but dierent impacts on the stock of pending cases

14,000

Germany

12,000

Poland

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 29:Evolution of pending cases of Russian asylum applicants in Germany and Poland, 2013
The surge had unexpected effects on the load of pending cases in Germany and Poland. In Germany, the number of Russian applicants awaiting decision naturally increased alongside the increasing amount of applications
(96) Note however that Dublin statistics exchanged under the framework of Regulation862/2007 are not disaggregated by citizenship.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 43

lodged each month and for some reason stabilised from June onwards, indicating that the number of decisions
issued and applications withdrawn were sufficient to offset the applications registered in each month. In Poland,
the load of pending cases not only remained surprisingly stable over the spring but also tended to decrease in the
second half of the year, accounting for 1175 pending cases by the end of December 2013(97).

Decisions issued to applicants from the Russian Federation diered signicantly across MS

100%
90%

Refugee status

Subsidiary Protection

Humanitarian Protection

Total decision

11,370

80%
70%
60%
50%

5,310

40%
30%

2,935
1,895

20%

1,430

10%
0%

DE

FR

AT

PL

BE

EU28
820

SE

820

DK

305

270

110

NL

FI

UK

Figure 30:First instance decisions issued to Russian applicants in the EU28, 2013 (>100 decisions)
Recognition rates for Russian applicants varied significantly between MS in 2013 as shown above. When protection was granted, refugee status was normally the result (except in Denmark), though Poland and the Netherlands granted humanitarian protection in a large majority of their positive decisions.
Measures taken in MS
In Germany a temporary task force for operative management (PGOS) was implemented on 15 May 2013 to
develop measures to more efficiently handle the flow of Russian citizens. Because of the relatively high protection rate for applicants from the Russian Federation at the EU-28 level, the diversity of reasons for claiming
international protection given by the applicants, and the inconclusive findings in terms of country of origin information (e.g. concerning Chechnya), the use of immediate or priority proceedings was not deemed possible.
Instead changes were introduced which included amending the usual schedule of interviews; carrying out identification procedures (personal data, fingerprints) as quickly as possible after the arrival of the applicant; and
asking applicants, in the context of the identification procedure, if there were reasons not to be returned to the
country of origin. In case of EURODAC hits, the asylum procedure was transferred to the Dublin section immediately. Germany also deployed Chechen interpreters from Austria. In addition, because of the increasing influx
from the Russian Federation, decisions on asylum applications from this country of origin were made in every
branch office of the Federal Office instead of being assigned to specific ones only.

(97) This development suggests that the number of withdrawn applications reported to Eurostat by Poland is significantly underestimated.

44 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

EASO Practical Cooperation Workshop on the Russian Federation

On 17-18 July 2013, EASO held a Practical Cooperation Workshop on the increased numbers of applications for
international protection from citizens of the Russian Federation.
During the workshop participants from 14 MS, the European Commission, Frontex and UNHCR analysed pull
and push factors to shed light on this recent trend. Preliminary findings seemed to indicate that the sudden
surge in numbers was a result of specific pull factors in MS rather than changes in the situation in the country
of origin. Information on the financial benefits and asylum procedures in MS were widely available on the
Internet. Other pull factors in several EU MS were the existence of a large diaspora, geographical proximity
and the relative ease of access to the EU. The deterioration of the security and human rights situation in the
Northern Caucasus is not substantial enough to explain a mass exodus; the majority of applicants seemed to
have left in search of a better future.
During presentations, experts at the meeting raised concerns about the human rights situation in the Russian
Federation, especially for specific groups such as political opponents, NGOs and human rights activists, artists
and intellectuals, sexual minorities and non-traditional religious organisations.
Breakout sessions during the workshop allowed MS to discuss challenges related to country of origin information
and refugee status determination (RSD) that are specific to the Russian caseload, such as the availability of protection, internal flight alternatives, origin verification and the availability of reliable sources of information.
Participants also discussed best practices for measures taken to facilitate the processing of applications within
short timeframes, and exchanged experience related to returning rejected applicants.

2.8.3. Western Balkans

In 2013, the Western Balkan countries(98) continued to represent a very significant workload for the asylum systems of the EU28. The number of Western Balkan applicants registered in the EU-28 increased by 36% from 2012
to 2013 and, when considered together, represented 17% of the EU total (with 72840 total asylum applicants,
more than for Syria) in 2013, despite a very low recognition rate of only 3.8% on average across MS.

Large percentage increases of applicants from Kosovo and Albania

25,000

+17%
+98%

20,000
15,000

+15%

+47%

10,000

+22%

5,000
-23%
0
Serbia

Kosovo

FYROM

Albania

Bosnia and Montenegro

Herzegovina

Figure 31:Western Balkan applicants in 2013 and year-to-year change by main receiving MS
(98) Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYROM, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia, see Ft. 11 on page 14.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 45

The intensity of the change varied by individual country of origin: for Serbia, FYROM and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the number of applicants rose between 15 and 22%, while the highest relative increases were registered
for Kosovo (double the number of 2012) and Albania (which increased by half). The sharp increase of applicants
from the Western Balkans was therefore mostly driven by the change in number of applicants from Kosovo and
Albania, as well as the comparatively moderate increases of applicants from Serbia, FYROM, and Bosnia and
Herzegovina.

Applicants from Kosovo surged in June

4,000

Serbia

3,500

Kosovo

3,000

FYROM

2,500

Albania
BA

2,000

Montenegro

1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 32:Evolution of Western Balkans asylum applicants in the EU28, 2013

The flow of applicants from the Western Balkans diverged significantly in 2013 from the pattern observed in 2012.
While in 2012 a short-term surge was observed in the month of October in line with previous years, in 2013 the
flow of applicants from Serbia, FYROM, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina picked up from June onwards and
started to subside only in December 2013. At the EU28 level, applications from Kosovo showed a significant rise
during the spring of 2013.

EASO Practical Cooperation Workshop on the Western Balkans

On 21 and 22 March, EASO organised a Practical Cooperation Workshop on the Western Balkans with the
aim of better understanding the factors behind the fluctuating but persistently high numbers of asylum
applicants from those states, as well as increasing the preparedness of EU+ countries to address particular
challenges related to this phenomenon. Participants from 10 EU+ countries, Frontex and UNHCR discussed
the most likely pull and push factors and presented a wide range of measures taken by EU+ countries to
influence these factors. The workshop showed that a more in-depth analysis was needed to better understand the interaction between both pull and push factors and to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of
measures taken.

46 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Germany is the main country receiving applicants from Serbia, FYROM,

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro
Kosovo

FYROM

Serbia

Montenegro

Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Albania

Figure 33:Distribution of Western Balkan applicants across selected MS, 2013

Applicants from different Western Balkans states applied in different MS. The figure above indicates the distribution of Western Balkans applicants across MS receiving more than 1 % of all Western Balkan applicants.
While Germany received most of the applicants from Serbia, FYROM, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina,
France and the United Kingdom were the main countries receiving applicants from Albania. The vast majority of
applicants from Serbia and FYROM were of Roma ethnicity, while applicants from Kosovo and Albania were overwhelmingly ethnic Albanians. For Kosovo, Hungary was the main receiving country. However, it should be noted
that this was most probably because this MS proximity was attractive to citizens of the only WB country without
visa liberalisation. In fact, the vast majority of Kosovar applicants in Hungary subsequently absconded from open
reception centres after crossing the land border and applying for asylum and then travelled onwards within the
Schengen zone to other MS.

Western Balkan applicants enjoyed generally higher recognition rates in Italy

than in other EU MS
Kosovo
3.9
FYROM

17

4.6

59

67

0.2

17

48

5.6

1.2

7.8

Serbia
10

2.2

2.9

25

1.8

1.3

Montenegro
1.8
Bosnia and
Herzegovina

0.6

43

11

20

37

Albania
10

14

AT

BE

DE

DK

EL

FI

FR

59

HU

IT

LU

NL

3.3

28

SE

UK

Figure 34:First instance recognition rate for Western Balkan applicants across selected MS, 2013

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 47

While at the overall EU28 level the recognition rate for applicants from Western Balkan countries remained very
low, in a few MS it was relatively high. In Italy, the recognition rate was much higher than the EU28 average for
each of the six WB countries, with an overall protection rate for the region of 46%. Otherwise, a higher recognition rate for a particular nationality in a given MS probably stems from the specific profile of applicants coming to
this MS and the practice adopted by this MS as a result(99).

If not for humanitarian protection, Italys protection rate would be

on a par with that of other Member States

100%

Refugee Status

Subsidiary protection

Humanitarian protection

Total decision

24,405

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
10,375

40%
30%

4,485

20%

1,760

10%
0%

DE

FR

SE

BE

1,240

AT

EU28

1,025

1,010

970

745

690

675

540

150

HU

IT

UK

LU

DK

EL

NL

FI

Figure 35:First instance decisions issued to Western Balkan applicants in the EU28, 2013 (>100 decisions)

EASO report on the Western Balkans

In November 2013, EASO published a report entitled Asylum applicants from the Western Balkans. Comparative analysis of trends, push-pull factors and responses. The findings of the report, which analysed data from
2009 until July 2013, highlighted that the WB flow is limited to a small number of MS and Associate Countries
and in some cases greatly affects their asylum systeMS ability to process other claims. The number of applications varies over time (with a general upward trend) and is strongly seasonal (increasingly so in recent years),
with major peaks just before winter. Asylum seekers from the Western Balkans consist mainly of Roma from
Serbia and FYROM, and Albanians from Albania and Kosovo. Though citizens of Western Balkan states face one
of the highest asylum claim rejection rates of any countries of origin, the rate varies by destination country and
country of origin, with Albania seeing the highest number of positive decisions and FYROM the lowest overall.
The most important push factors behind the decision of some WB citizens to claim asylum in the EU+ are
considered to be the societal problems of specific groups which are closely linked especially in the case of
Roma to unemployment and poverty. In turn, problems accessing the labour market have led many to rely
on social infrastructure and services (including welfare benefits) that are insufficient a third push factor.
Finally, it should be noted that insufficient and hard-to-access healthcare also constitutes a push factor for a
small but significant number of applicants.

(99) E.g. MS may receive caseloads related to blood feud and vendetta and may grant such cases international protection; see EASO report Asylum applicants from
the Western Balkans. Comparative analysis of trends, push-pull factors and responses http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/BZ0213708ENC.pdf, p.41.
(100) The report makes use of Eurostat statistics and is based on an analyses of replies to detailed questionnaires provided by experts involved in various aspects
of dealing with the phenomenon both in the region and in the destination countries. It is also based on the results of a Practical Cooperation meeting hosted by
EASO in March 2013. Desk research and a study visit to selected Western Balkan countries have further complemented the analysis and allowed EASO to illustrate
the broader context within which pull and push factors should be interpreted. The Report is available online at: http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/
BZ0213708ENC.pdf.

48 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The principal pull factors determining the choice of destination country are mainly economic in nature. MS
experts see the linked issues of (particularly cash) benefits provided during the asylum procedure and long
processing times as the main factors influencing both the decision of WB citizens to apply for asylum and
where they apply for asylum. The presence of an existing diaspora is likely to be a strong factor given the
almost perfect correlation between the number of residence permits and the list of MS most affected by the
WB flow. The possibilities of finding legal or illegal work may also be important depending on the profile of the
applicants. Tangible benefits other than cash, such as healthcare, may be particularly important as pull factors
for certain individual profiles of applicant.
A catalogue of measures has been taken by MS to reduce both push and pull factors. The report stresses that
a package of measures, which must include at minimum very short procedures for manifestly unfounded
applications (while allowing the possibility of regular procedures where cases have merit) and reduced cash
benefits, appears to be the most effective contribution to reducing numbers of largely unfounded applications.

2.8.4. Task Force Mediterranean

On 3 October 2013, a boat with around 500 migrants sank off the coast of Lampedusa. The loss of over 300 lives
triggered numerous calls for an EU response to prevent deaths at sea and to prevent such tragedies from happening again. A special body, known as The Task Force Mediterranean (TFM), was set up following the JHA Council
of 7-8 October 2013 in order to examine concrete actions that could be taken in regard to this problem. The TFM
brought together experts from all MS, the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS),
EASO, Frontex, Europol, FRA, and EMSA. On the basis of the discussions, the European Commission adopted a
Communication (COM(2013) 869 final) on 4 December 2013. The European Parliament also adopted a resolution
on this subject on the 23 of October(101).
Various lines of action have been developed by the TFM, which include numerous actions earmarked for EASO,
such as assistance and reinforced dialogue with countries of origin and transit in line with the Global Approach to
Migration and Mobility; a renewed focus on resettlement and regional protection efforts; the exploration of legal
channels to safely access the European Union, as well as a general focus on increased resettlement efforts; the
fight against human trafficking and smuggling and criminal networks; ensuring a speedy and sustainable return
of migrants in a humane and dignified manner; strengthening the management of the EUs external borders;
implementation of the recently adopted Eurosur Regulation; and support for MS facing pressure on their migration and asylum systems.
Finally, in response to the tragedy in Lampedusa, Italy launched the Mare Nostrum operation in the Mediterranean Sea, rescuing thousands of people between October and December 2013 and bringing a total of over 9000
migrants to safety.

EASO Action Plan concerning Task Force Mediterranean

EASO developed an action plan on its measures established in European Commissions Communication on
TFM. EASO measures include a pilot project with MS to learn more about smuggling and trafficking routes and
a pilot project on supported processing of asylum applications in MS. Moreover, EASO will implement initiatives within Mobility Partnerships (supporting asylum-related measures within EU mobility partnerships with
Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan, in particular within the framework of the joint EASO-Frontex ENPI project). In
line with the EASO External Action Strategy, EASO could provide training and other capacity-building measures
as part of Regional Protection Programmes in Libya, Tunisia and Jordan and will investigate the feasibility of a
pilot project on supported processing, while improving data provision to allow better contingency planning.

(101) European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on migratory flows in the Mediterranean, with particular attention to the tragic events off Lampedusa
(2013/2827(RSP)).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 49

3. Major developments in 2013

3.1. Important developments at EU level related to asylum
3.1.1. Legislative: completion of CEAS
The key development in 2013 was the completion of the new asylum acquis package, consisting of the recast
Reception Conditions Directive(102), recast Asylum Procedures Directive(103), recast Dublin Regulation(104), and the
recast Eurodac Regulation(105) (the recast Qualification Directive was adopted in 2011).
The adopted package was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 June 2013.
The two recast directives will require transposition into the national frameworks of the MS bound by those directives(106), and the general deadline for transposition is 20 July 2015(107). At the same time, some provisions of the
recast Asylum Procedures Directive(108) have a later deadline for transposition of 20 July 2018. Certain provisions
of both directives(109) will apply directly as of 21 July 2015.
The two recast regulations entered into force on 19 July 2013 and are directly applicable in the countries bound
by them(110) with no transposition into the national legal frameworks of the MS needed. The recast Dublin Regulation will be applicable to applications for international protection lodged as of 1 January 2014 and to all requests
to take back or take charge starting 1 January 2014, whereas the recast Eurodac Regulation will take effect on
20 July 2015. An amended Dublin Implementing Regulation was prepared during the second half of 2013 and
received the positive opinion of the Dublin III Committee(111) on 13 December 2013. It was consequently adopted
by European Commission on 30 January 2014(112) and is applicable as of 9 February 2014.
The main changes brought by the new recast package are the following:
The aim of the revised Asylum Procedures Directive is more efficient and faster procedures for international
protection. It provides for more specific rules concerning access to procedure by clarifying the different steps in
(102) Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international
protection (recast).
(103) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international
protection (recast).
(104) Regulation (EU) No604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS
responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the MS by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast).
(105) Regulation (EU) No603/2013 of the European Parliament and of The Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of Eurodac for comparing fingerprints in
order to effectively apply Regulation (EU) No604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS responsible for examining an application
for international protection lodged in one of the MS by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for comparison with Eurodac data by MS
law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the
operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (recast).
(106) Denmark is not bound by the directives. UK has opted out of both recast directives and thus continues to be bound by the Asylum Procedures Directive
(Directive 2005/85/EC) and the Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2003/9/EC). Ireland has not opted into either recast directive or into the Reception
Conditions Directive (Directive 2003/9/EC) and thus continues to be bound only by the Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2005/85/EC).
(107) Nonetheless, as some of the provisions, such as the ones on detention (e.g. based on objective criteria defined by law Art. 2 lit. n) or on an effective
remedy (e.g. For the purposes of appeals against, or reviews of, transfer decisions, MS shall provide in their national law Art. 27(3)), make a reference to
national MS legislation, MS are left an option to regulate this specific issue at the national level.
(108) Article 31 (3)-(5) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive concerning time limits for concluding the examination procedure at first instance.
(109) Recast Asylum Procedures Directive: Article 47 concerning the possibility for public authorities to challenge administrative and or judicial decisions as
provided in the national legislation and Article 48 concerning confidentiality principles binding the authorities implementing the Directive. Recast Reception
Conditions Directive: Article 13 concerning discretionary medical screening of applicants and Article 29 concerning basic training and allocation of resources.
(110) The recast Dublin Regulation will be applied by all MS, as well as Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Ireland has not opted into the recast Eurodac
Regulation and Denmark is not bound by it.
(111) Committee established on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No182/2011.
(112) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No118/2014 of 30 January 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No1560/2003 laying down detailed rules for applying
Council Regulation (EC) No343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS responsible for examining an asylum application lodged
in one of the MS by a third-country national.

50 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

the procedure and putting in place, inter alia, additional requirements for arrangements at the external borders
of the EU as well as in detention facilities. The asylum procedure should as a rule take no longer than 6 months.
This time limit can be extended up to 21 months only under certain clearly defined exceptional circumstances.
Decision-makers and other staff involved in the asylum procedure should receive appropriate training; applicants
should receive more robust information and support so that their claims can be presented and examined in a
complete manner; applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, e.g. due to their age, disability, illness,
sexual orientation or traumatic experiences, should be identified in due time and provided with adequate support such as sufficient time to make their claims; the protection of unaccompanied children has been considerably strengthened, by inter alia, the obligation to ensure adequate representation in the childs best interest
and restricted use of certain special procedures (e.g. accelerated and border procedures); the conditions and
safeguards for applying border and accelerated procedures have been clarified and, in particular, the grounds
under which such procedures can be applied have been made exhaustive. Also rules on subsequent applications
have been clarified to ensure, on the one hand, the applicants right to have a complete examination of his/her
application for international protection and, on the other, to ensure that MS can efficiently process claims such
as those made only in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a decision that would result in imminent
removal from a MS. The provisions concerning access to appeal procedures in front of a court have been revised
to ensure full compliance with fundamental rights in that regard.
The revised Reception Conditions Directive introduces for the first time common rules to ensure that asylum
applicants can only be detained in specific cases according to a detailed list of grounds. There are rules on appealing against a detention order, with legal guarantees regarding legal assistance and information and restrictions
on detaining vulnerable persons, including minors. It clarifies the obligation to conduct an individual assessment
to identify the particular reception needs for vulnerable persons and ensures access to psychological support. It
sets forth rules concerning qualifications required of the representatives of unaccompanied minors. Applicants
for international protection are to be given access to employment after a maximum period of 9 months from the
lodging date of the application.
The revised Dublin Regulation introduces a mechanism (in Art. 33) for an early warning, preparedness and crisis
management mechanism aimed at preventing crises arising from particular pressures on, or internal shortcomings of, national asylum systems. Additional guarantees are provided to persons in a Dublin procedure, comprising an obligatory personal interview and information on the procedure for establishing the MS responsible, more
ample options for reunifying family and relatives, and additional guarantees for minors (such as specific rules on
assessing the best interest of a child and tracing family members within EU territory). The transfer decision can
be appealed and a motion for suspensive effect of the appeal may be submitted (including guaranteeing the right
to remain within the territory while the court is determining the motion for suspension). Legal assistance free
of charge is to be provided upon request and the overall duration of detention is strictly limited. More precise
deadlines are introduced for procedures between States, with a general maximum limit of 11 months for take
charge cases(113) and 9 months for take back cases(114) (with exceptions in cases where the applicant absconds
or is imprisoned)(115). The Dublin Regulation, in its revised form, also covers applicants who could otherwise fall
under the Return Directive as irregular migrants and be returned as such.

EASO activities related to Early warning and Preparedness

In 2013, EASOs proposal for the development of an EASO Early warning and Preparedness System (EPS) was
approved at the Management Board (MB) meeting of February. It established three main steps:
1. Mapping how MS asylum systems function and how statistical data on asylum is reported to Eurostat;
2. Deciding on the most important and effective indicators that could provide a comprehensive overview (from
access to procedure to return and integration) of the practical functioning of the CEAS with useful timescales;
3. Setting up a Group for the Provision of Statistics (GPS) comprising representatives nominated by MS to be
their single points of contact responsible for the quality and timeliness of asylum statistics.
(113) Take charge requests concern cases where a State requests that another State take responsibility for an asylum application although the applicant in
question has not previously submitted an application in the other State. This can occur when there are specific circumstances indicating that the requested state
would be best placed to deal with the case, e.g. due to family unity reasons or when the other State has issued a work permit to the applicant before.
(114) Take back requests concern asylum applications where a State requests that another State take responsibility for an applicant because the person has
already made an asylum application in the requested State previously.
(115) Second instance proceedings extend these deadlines as long as suspensive effect is granted.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 51

On 9-10 April, EASO organised the first meeting of the GPS. Members discussed EASOs draft proposal for a comprehensive set of 22 indicators aimed at providing data on the practical functioning of all key aspects of the CEAS.
They suggested that a questionnaire on the main issues be developed by EASO and sent to MS for replies. This
was done over the summer of 2013 in close cooperation with other European bodies dealing with asylum data
(DG ESTAT, DG HOME, Frontex) to ensure that a common EU approach was adopted so that a uniform method of
asking States to provide information is applied by the various organisational stakeholders and Eurostat guidelines
are updated as appropriate.
In early November, EASO sent a draft report entitled EPS Overview of Statistical Practice in Europe to MB
and GPS members. The report was the first comprehensive overview of current practice regarding the collection of statistical data regarding asylum across the EU+. It concluded that major disparities existed for data collection and reporting across the EU, due to both varying interpretations of the EU asylum acquis and migration
statistics regulation and the organisational specifics of the national asylum systems and reporting practices.
Given the disparities in practice between national systems, the difference in how each MS organises their asylum system and the resource limitations of both EASO and MS, the process of developing a comprehensive EPS
will inevitably need to be incremental so that at each stage, participating states develop harmonised procedures regarding the data being collected and ensure the quality and utility of the analyses provided as a result.
At each stage, EASO will propose a limited number of new indicators and disaggregations to be collected with
a certain periodicity and timeliness. When approved by the GPS and the EASO MB, EASO begins data collection
and provides analyses (entering it into regular analytical products), the utility of which are checked by end
users before a further expansion of data collection is planned.
In line with this plan, EASO therefore developed its proposal for Stage II of EPS, i.e. the next step in the rollout of EASOs statistical analysis work, building on current data-collection activities and EASO analytical products (monthly and quarterly). This was reviewed and revised with the GPS and was adopted by MS at the 29
November Management Board meeting. Stage II focuses on the first instance and establishes data collection
using 4 indicators (applications, withdrawals, decisions and pending cases). Monthly data collection started on
1 April 2014.

5. Gain feedback
and new
insights

4. Embed new
analysis in
regular products

3. Pilot data
collection

1. Propose the
collection of
new information

2. Feasibility
study with GPS
members

EASO also significantly contributed to the process of revising Eurostats Technical guidelines for the data collection under Art. 4 of Regulation 862/2007 Statistics on asylum (amended version published in December 2013).
EASOs EPS will serve to provide information to the European Commission as part of the Early Warning, Preparedness and Crisis Management Mechanism established in Art. 33 (1) of the recast Dublin Regulation. To this
end, the European Commission and EASO have signed an arrangement defining the modes of cooperation and
coordination between the two parties on aspects related to this mechanism.

52 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The revised Eurodac Regulation improves data protection standards and sets new time limits for transmitting
fingerprint data to the central unit of Eurodac. A major change is the possibility that national police services and
Europol can access Eurodac data for the purposes of comparing Eurodac data with fingerprints linked to criminal
investigations (though this is possible only if specific requirements are met, is limited to only the most serious
crimes and is a last resort after checking other available databases. There is no possibility to share information
with third countries).
Further details on the changes brought by the revised package are provided in the thematic sections in Chapter
4 of this report.

3.1.2. Jurisprudence(116)
As in the previous year, in 2013 there were significant developments concerning jurisprudence at European level
issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and
related to interpreting and applying legal instruments of the CEAS and other related instruments.
The CJEU has a primary role in interpreting EU law to ensure its correct and uniform application in all EU countries. Specifically in the field of asylum, the CJEU performs its role by ensuring the consistent and harmonised
application of the asylum acquis in all EU countries (through preliminary rulings), as well as in the context of proceedings for failure by MS to fulfil an obligation laid down in EU law (through infringement procedures) or even
with regards to cases where the legality of a piece of EU legislation is reviewed (through actions for annulment).
One of the CJEUs specific tasks is to safeguard the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU [the
Charter is part of EU law, so this is not an additional task], which establishes the right to asylum (Article 18) and
establishes the prohibition of torture and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 4); protection
in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition (Article 19); the rights of the child (Article 24); the right to good
administration (Article 41) or the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47).
Article 6 (3) of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) establishes that Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the
ECHR and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the MS, shall constitute general principles
of the Unions law. To that end, the ECHR is considered by the CJEU as a treaty of special significance.
One of the major cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2013 concerned the Qualification
Directive and the question of whether homosexuals may be regarded as members of a particular social group
Case X,Y,Z (C-199/12)(117) concerned Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive. The Court ruled
on the issue of whether homosexuals for the purposes of assessing grounds of persecution may be regarded
as being members of a social group. It ruled that Art. 10(1)(d) must be interpreted as meaning that the existence
of criminal laws, such as those at issue in each of the cases in the main proceedings, which specifically target
homosexuals supports the finding that those persons must be regarded as forming a particular social group.
Article 9(1), read together with Article 9(2)(c), must be interpreted as meaning that the criminalisation of homosexual acts per se does not constitute an act of persecution. However, a term of imprisonment which sanctions
homosexual acts and which is actually applied in the country of origin which adopted such legislation must be
regarded as a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment and thus constitutes an act of persecution. Article
10(1)(d), read together with Article 2(c), must be interpreted as meaning that only homosexual acts which are
criminal in accordance with the national law of the MS are excluded from its scope. When assessing an application for refugee status, the competent authorities cannot reasonably expect, the applicant for asylum to conceal
his homosexuality in his country of origin or to exercise reserve in the expression of his sexual orientation in order
to avoid the risk of persecution.

(116) To select jurisprudence throughout the report, EASO has referred, among other sources, to the Newsletter on European Asylum Issues for Judges (NEAIS)
published by the Centre for Migration Law (CMR) of Radboud University Nijmegen in close cooperation with the University of Essex, Aarhus University and the
Refugee Law Reader, available at http://cmr.jur.ru.nl/neais/; the Annual Report of the European Court of Human Rights for 2013, available at http://www.echr.coe.
int/Pages/home.aspx? p=echrpublications&c=#newComponent_1345118680892_pointer; and the respective judgments quoted in the text.
(117) Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12, X and Others [7 November 2013], ref. from Raad van State (Netherlands).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 53

The CJEU has also issued judgments concerning the Asylum Procedures Directive in the context of prioritised
and accelerated procedures (see section 4.5 on specific procedures), Dublin procedures (see section 4.4. on Dublin procedure) and return (see section 4.12. on return).
The ECtHR bases its judgements on its competence to ensure that state parties observe the provisions of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), including specific
provisions such as the prohibition of inhumane or degrading treatment (Article 3), the prohibition of collective
expulsions (Article 4 of Protocol 4), the right to liberty and security (Article 5), the right to respect of family and
private life (Article 8), and the right to effective remedy (Article 13). Those aspects remain closely related to asylum, particularly as regards the principle of non-refoulement and reception/detention conditions.
In 2013 the ECtHR issued many judgments that could be of relevance to various aspects of qualification for international protection, including issues of credibility assessment (see section 3.2.5.1) on integrity and persecution
on the ground of religion and section 4.8 on procedures at first instance. Further ECtHR judgments were relevant
to many aspects of procedures for international protection including fast track and priority procedures (see
section 3.2.5.2 on efficiency), subsequent applications (see section 3.2.5.1 on integrity), Dublin procedures (see
section 4.4. on Dublin procedure), reception and detention conditions (see section 4.7. on detention).

3.1.3. Practical cooperation: translating legislation into action

The important role laid down for EASO in implementing the CEAS was highlighted in the Communication from the
European Commission on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum. It noted that the support office will
ensure that practical cooperation can become a major supporting pillar to the asylum system of the Union, as
initial experience of the CEAS has shown that practical action is a necessary complement to legislation to create
confidence that all MS perform the same tasks in a similar way with similar outcomes(118).
Following the adoption of the new asylum acquis, one of EASOs key roles is to support its coherent and comprehensive implementation. Practical cooperation activities are a key element in promoting common practices
in order to reach common outcomes on similar cases and to discuss and take action on various issues of EU-wide
relevance in the field of asylum.
In its contribution to the post-Stockholm programme(119), EASO outlined its position on advanced practical cooperation, emphasising the need to take practical cooperation to a new level to work towards the consolidation of
national practices and convergence of policies in the EU, and to increase cooperation and information exchange
between national asylum services, ultimately leading to coherent decisions on similar asylum cases.
In 2013 EASO continued to act as a catalyst of practical cooperation in the field of international protection. Specific activities in 2013 included, inter alia, organising meetings and workshops on asylum policy and COI, publishing reports, training, quality-related activities (including those related to unaccompanied minors and vulnerable
persons), data analysis, operational support to countries under pressure, and activities relating to the external
dimension of the CEAS. Throughout this Annual Report, in the relevant thematic sections, references are made to
concrete EASO activities undertaken in 2013. More details will be found in EASOs Annual Activity Report 2013.

EASO Consultative Forum 2013

The EASO Consultative Forum was set up in October 2011, soon after the establishment of EASO. The forum
constitutes a process for exchanging information and pooling knowledge between EASO and civil society organisations and relevant bodies operating in the area of asylum policy. Civil society operating in the area of asylum is
characterised by a considerable number of active and diverse organisations at local, regional, national, European
and International level. These organisations, in their various forms and functions, play a key role in the debate
on, and implementation of, asylum policy and practices at the national as well as at the EU level, and have been
instrumental in supporting the fairness and accuracy of asylum procedures, bringing certain cases to the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights, among other things.
(118) Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum An EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust, COM(2011)835
final, 2 December 2011 (http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0835:FIN:EN:PDF), accessed 27 May 2013.
(119) http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/EASO-written-contribution-in-full1.pdf

54 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

During 2013, EASO continued strengthening its relationship with civil society and the Consultative Forum membership base grew to 60 organisations. Throughout the year, EASO consulted and involved registered civil society
organisations on various areas of its work. They are included as members of the reference group that participates
in drafting and updating the EASO training modules, an activity very much at the heart of the content of the operational work in the area of asylum. EASO also involved organisations in the work of gaining a real overview of the
situation regarding age assessment of unaccompanied minors and EASO welcomed comments from civil society
on the 2014 EASO Work Programme and the EASO Annual Report on the situation of asylum in the EU and Annual
Activity Report, which were shared with the Management Board.
Via an open call for input published on the EASO website in 2013 and again in 2014, the Executive Director requested
that Consultative Forum members provide information about any work they carried out throughout the year which
in their view contributed to the implementation of the CEAS, be it at a local regional, national or European level.
EASO took all relevant input received from civil society into consideration and reflected it in the reports.
Experts from civil society have been invited to participate in EASO workshops, meetings and seminars throughout
the year. In 2013 alone, more than 30 organisations have been directly involved in the work of EASO. Moreover,
an area of the EASO Website dedicated to the Consultative Forum has been developed in order to facilitate consultations. A quarterly consultation calendar is published on the EASO website. EASO published nine newsletters
in 2013, which also contained reports from EASO meetings and workshops, to ensure that civil society has access
to the information.
On 27/28 November 2013 EASO held the third EASO Consultative Forum plenary meeting in Malta. Over 80
representatives from 45 different organisations participated in this years meeting. Topics discussed were: EASOs
Early Warning and Preparedness System (EPS), EASOs work in Greece, EASOs quality processes, EASOs case
study about the Western Balkans, EASOs role in the external dimension of the CEAS, Common Country of Origin
Information (COI) products produced by EASO, and EASOs role in emergency situations.
EASO has highlighted its wish to develop a permanent, two-way dialogue with civil society outside of the annual
plenary meeting and consultation on the Annual Report and the Annual Work Programme. Taking into consideration lessons learned and feedback from civil society organisations, EASO has decided to establish consultation channels with select organisations focused on three key areas of EASOs work: Unaccompanied Minors (age
assessment and family tracing), the EASO Training Curriculum (through the Reference Group) and the EASO Early
warning and Preparedness System (EPS). Following an open call for expression of interest, EASO received an
encouraging number of applications from organisations that have specific expertise in these areas.
In addition to EASOs practical cooperation activities concerning MS first instance asylum administration in coordination with the European Commission and with the regular participation of UNHCR and other EU agencies,
activities have also begun to involve members of courts and tribunals specialised in asylum .

3.1.4. The European Refugee Fund and the Asylum and Migration Fund
2013 is the last year of operation of the European Refugee Fund (ERF). The ERF has, since its creation, been a crucial instrument used by MS to address deficiencies in their asylum systems, carry out pilot projects and research,
share knowledge and best practices through bilateral and multilateral projects and improve the implementation
of the European asylum acquis in various areas.
The national ERF projects reported by MS for 2013 are numerous and diverse. However, a few trends may be identified. In particular, significant numbers of MS sought to improve: reception conditions especially for vulnerable
persons , including medical and psychological care, legal assistance and counselling for asylum seekers training;
resettlement and intra-EU relocation; integration of beneficiaries of international protection; COI; and efficiency of
administrative practices and structures. Many projects were implemented by or through non-governmental organisations, whose contribution to the implementation of the CEAS should be highlighted(120).
The European Commission regularly reports on the use of the money allocated through this important instrument of European financial solidarity(121).

(120) Examples of projects co-financed under the ERF are available under http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/example-of-projects/index_en.htm
(121) For more information, see http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/migration-asylum-borders/refugee-fund/index_en.htm.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 55

Alongside ordinary activities, the European Commission has mobilised emergency funding amounting to 36 million euros to address situations of pressure in MS. This is the highest level since the creation of the fund. Greece,
Italy, Malta, Bulgaria, Germany, France, Hungary, Cyprus and The Netherlands were the beneficiaries of this emergency support.
Starting in 2014, and until 2020, a new, more strategic approach will be taken via the new Asylum, Migration and
Integration Fund (AMIF), which will focus on people flows and the integrated management of migration. It will
support actions addressing all aspects of migration, including asylum, legal migration, integration and returning
irregularly staying non-EU nationals. The aim of the AMIF is to ensure a more coherent system for channelling
EU funding and increase the possibility of strategic planning, while reducing the administrative burden on MS.
In 2013 policy dialogues were held with each MS participating in the AMIF in order to discuss each MS priorities
for using the new Fund over its seven year duration (122) (it is anticipated that national plans will be adopted in
second quarter of 2014).

3.2. Important developments at the national level

3.2.1. Pressures on national asylum systems
Information provided in this section concerns MS to which operational support was provided by EASO during the
course of 2013. It should be noted however that other MS have also faced significant pressures on their system,
in terms of both absolute and relative numbers, as illustrated by data presented in Chapter 2 of the report.

3.2.1.1. Greece
In Greece, on 7 June 2013 the new Asylum Service became responsible for registering and examining all new
asylum applications at first instance, and the new Appeals Authority became responsible for all appeals filed.
The Hellenic Police remains responsible for examining asylum applications filed before that date. As of the end of
2013, the Regional Offices of Attica (Athens), Northern Evros (Fylakio), Southern Evros and Lesvos, as well as the
Mobile Asylum Unit of Amygdaleza (Athens), registered and processed asylum applications.
At the end of December 2013, the load of pending cases was 49800(123) and comprised pending cases to be
examined by the new Asylum Service (around 5%(124) of the total) and a historical backlog under the responsibility of the Hellenic Police and the Appeal Committees of Presidential Decree 114/2010 (around 95% of the total).

(122) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/funding-home-affairs-beyond-2013/index_en.htm.
(123) Due to the break in time series featured in Eurostat data (July 2013), the figures used in this section reflect provisional statistics submitted to EASO.
(124) According to provisional figures provided to EASO.

56 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000

All
Hellenic Police

20,000

New Asylum Service

10,000
0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 36:Evolution of the stock of pending cases in Greece, 2013.

The Minister of Public Order and Citizen Protection appointed 20 (out of 30 initially planned)(125) committees(126)
which are responsible for examining this backlog. The 20 committees include 18 Appeals Committees dealing
with appeals filed after November 2010 (according to Presidential Decree 114/2010) and 2 Special Committees
dealing with appeals submitted before November 2010. The committees are composed of one member recommended by the National Commission for Human Rights, one member nominated by UNHCR and a chair (who is
a civil servant); all members are appointed by decision of the Minister of Public Order and Citizen Protection and
have the power to make decisions independently.
The establishment of the new institutions was a significant challenge requiring the training of new caseworkers
and of the bolstering of administrative capacity (e.g., in relation to quality, country of origin information, statistics,
etc.). The operation of the new institutions had the following immediate consequences: full access to information
provided to all those interested in applying for asylum and third country nationals in general, detailed registration, faster processing of fingerprints, more effective identification and prioritisation of vulnerable individuals
and significantly improved interviews and decisions. Allegations of abuse of the registration process, unfairness
of decisions or lack of understanding of the content of decisions and other problems identified in the past ceased.
While measures were being taken, a number of concerns continued to be raised with regard to issues such as
access to the territory and asylum procedure, reception capacity, and protection of unaccompanied minors(127).
In order to strengthen access to asylum procedures and establish an institutional and procedural framework for the
initial reception of third country nationals who arrive in the country in an irregular manner, the following measures
have been taken: the First Reception Service has operated a First Reception Center in Fylakio, in the Evros region
(Greek/Turkish land borders), since March 2013 as well as two Mobile First Reception Units in the north-eastern
Aegean Islands (Lesvos, Samos and Chios) since July 2013. Furthermore, it now has the joint competence to operate open reception facilities in order to raise the total capacity of reception facilities for both asylum seekers and
unaccompanied children and make structures sustainable and improve the quality of the services provided. The First
Reception Service has also prepared Standard Operating Procedures in order to provide minimum reception conditions for asylum seekers and unaccompanied children within the institutional framework of reception facilities.
This has led to a decisive improvement in how new arrivals of third-country nationals are registered and screened;
in the coverage of their basic needs, including medical and psychological support and age assessment; as well as in
providing new arrivals with information on their rights and obligation in a language they understand.

(125) The rest could not be constituted due to lack of funds.

(126) Depending on the priorities set, the number of Committees mandated to deal with appeals submitted before or after November 2010 may be modified by
virtue of Ministerial Decision.
(127) UNHCR, Current issues of refugee protection in Greece, July 2013, https://www.unhcr.gr/fileadmin/Greece/News/2013/PCjuly/Greece_Positions_July_2013_
EN.pdf (accessed 15 July 2014)

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 57

EASO support to Greece

Upon request from the Greek authorities and within the framework of the implementation of the revised Action
Plan on Migration and Asylum, EASO provided emergency support to Greece under the Operating Plan Phase I
(OPI) (01/04/2011-31/03/2013). The emergency support focussed on 1) tackling backlog, 2) setting up a sustainable and efficient asylum and reception structure and 3) guaranteeing the quality of the asylum and reception
process. In order to implement the measures agreed under OPI, EASO selected, deployed and managed over 40
experts nominated by 14 MS in over 50 Asylum Support Teams (ASTs).
OPI was complemented by the EASO UNHCR grant agreement (23/11/2012-31/03/2013), which aimed to identify inactive cases and bring about the adoption of interruption decisions for appeals considered inactive. The grant
agreement supported Greek authorities in undertaking an administrative cleansing of the backlog. Over 90 police
cadets were trained and buildings were refurbished. In 2013 the focus was on increasing the capacity to process
and conduct individual interviews for active appeals cases by establishing, by 01/04/2013, 10 Appeals and Special
Committees (in addition to the 10 existing ones), including secretarial support and interpretation services.
Following a request in early 2013 from the Greek Minister for Public Order and Citizen Protection, building on the
results of the OPI and under the overall umbrella of the Greek Revised National Action Plan on Migration and
Asylum, on 07/03/2013 Greece and EASO signed the Operating Plan Phase II (OPII) (01/04/2013-31/12/2014) for
emergency support. Through the selection and deployment of experts nominated by MS, further technical and
operational support was provided to Greece, particularly in the areas of training, reception and EU funding. OPII
covers 15 support measures to be implemented via 55 ASTs. In 2013, EASO also launched three calls for experts to
support the implementation of OPII.
Finally, under the EASO-Frontex working arrangement and in the context of OPII, both agencies delivered the
first joint pilot training on nationality establishment at the end of April of 2013. This measure helped strengthen
the access to asylum procedures of all migrants staying in Greece (including in the border areas) with hopes of
qualifying as beneficiaries of international protection.

3.2.1.2. Italy
Due to the persistently high number of boat arrivals in southern Italy, the Italian asylum system experienced
renewed pressure in 2013. Gaps and challenges to be (and being) addressed included access to territory and
to the asylum procedure, protection of unaccompanied minors, the quality of the asylum procedure, reception
conditions and local integration of refugees(128).

EASO support to Italy

Following a request by Italy to EASO for support in improving and enhancing the Italian asylum and reception
system, an EASO Special Support Plan was signed between EASO and the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Italian Ministry of Interior on 4 June 2013.
Under the Special Support Plan, EASO will provide support for 45 activities of a technical and operational nature
to assist in enhancing Italys implementation of the CEAS instruments. Support teams formed by MS and EASO
experts have been established with the aim of supporting Italy on Country of Origin Information (COI), the reinforcement of analytical capabilities and of the Dublin system, quality conditions in reception centres, operational
procedures for emergency capacity and further support to appeal instances.
The EASO support teams started implementing activities in September 2013. Support was provided for Italys
data collection and analytical capacity for example, a fact-finding mission and meeting with the Ministry of
Interior took place early November 2013. COI support was given to the National Asylum Commission in three
workshops for Italian asylum decision-makers at both the territorial and central level, which were organised
through video-conferences during October-December 2013. EASO also supported Italy though a technical report
on the Dublin-related requirements with respect to infrastructure, staff and resources in the Ministry of Interior,
as well as a plan for training on the DubliNet system, Dublin procedures and best way to handle vulnerable cases.

(128) UNHCR, UNHCR Recommendations on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Italy, July 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/522f0efe4.html (accessed
15 April 2014).

58 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Three thematic workshops (five days each) on the management and practical implementation of the Dublin Regulation Procedures were organised in November-December 2013.
A mapping exercise on reception conditions and the need to consolidate the reception system quality standards
took place in October 2013. Finally, three professional development seminars on Evidence Assessment, Interview
Techniques and COI were organised in Malta during October-December 2013 for Italian judges who deal with
asylum-related cases.

3.2.1.3. Bulgaria
In 2013, Bulgaria faced very significant pressure on its asylum system due to a 416% increase in the number
of applicants compared to 2012. Most applicants in Bulgaria were Syrian families. Challenges faced by Bulgaria
were related, inter alia, to access to the territory and registration of applications, insufficient and poor reception
conditions, the lack of guardians for unaccompanied minors, detention and limited administrative capacity for
determining the international protection needs of asylum applicants (e.g., credibility assessments, lack of Country
of Origin Information, etc.). A number of improvements could already be noted by the beginning of 2014, most
notably in the area of reception conditions(129).

EASO support to Bulgaria

Following a request by the Bulgarian Government to EASO for support, an Operating Plan was signed on 17
October 2013 under which Bulgaria will receive support until the end of September 2014. The EASO measures
to support Bulgaria fall under three categories, namely operational support, institutional support and horizontal
support. After a kick-off meeting in Sofia on 5 November 2013, the implementation of the EASO Operating Plan
to Bulgaria took full effect.
In 2013, the immediate support activities focussed on mapping out the asylum process; suggesting step-by-step
solutions for asylum registration, asylum procedure and reception processes; and supporting the process of
pre-registering asylum seekers in different Reception Centres. In this regard a manual on the registration process
was developed for the new staff members with EASO support. Furthermore, the following activities were undertaken: support for the reception system; support in COI matters and support in training new staff. Concerning
the latter, EASO has started the process of translating four EASO Training Modules into Bulgarian, with the aim of
making these modules available to Bulgarian officials in early 2014.
The first stocktaking meeting took place on 12 December 2013 in Sofia, during which the way forward in 2014
was planned. Finally, it should be noted that 15 experts from five different EU+ countries were deployed in the
first three months of operation.
EASO Operating Plan to Bulgaria: Stock taking report on the asylum situation in Bulgaria(130) was released on
25 February 2014.

3.2.2. Institutional changes

In 2013 several institutional changes were introduced in the MS.
Centralisation
Austria established the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (131), operational as from 1 January 2014. The
Federal Office will be the single competent authority for first instance asylum procedures, return matters (volun(129) UNHCR, UNHCR launches emergency operation to improve conditions for refugees and asylum seekers in Bulgaria, 6 December 2013, available at http://
www.unhcr.org/52a1bad09.html. See also: UNHCR, Bulgaria as a country of asylum, January 2014, http://www.refworld.org/docid/52c598354.html (accessed
15 January 2014) and updated version UNHCR, UNHCR observations on the current asylum system in Bulgaria, April 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/
docid/534cd85b4.html [accessed 27 April 2014].
(130) Full report available at: http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/EASO-Report-stock-taking-mission-to-Bulgaria-final-.pdf
(131) As stipulated in 2012 in the Act on the Restructuring of the Aliens Authorities (FLG. I No87/2012)

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 59

tary and forced), such as return decisions, entry bans, procurement of return certificates, and humanitarian stay;
and reports to the Austrian Ministry of the Interior (MoI)(132). Along with the Federal Office, a central Federal
Administrative Court(133) dealing with all appeals against decisions of the Federal Office started operations on 1
January 2014.
On 26 March 2013, the Home Secretary announced in Parliament that on instead of starting 1 April 2013 the
United Kingdom Border Agency would no longer exist as an executive agency of the Home Office. This change
means that the work previously undertaken by the Agency continues, but now as part of the central management
structures of the Home Office.
Changes in competencies/administrative status
In Belgium the competence to assess new facts and circumstances presented by asylum applicants during a subsequent application has shifted from the Immigration Office to the European Commissioner General for Refugees
and Stateless Persons (CGRS)(134), which entails significant changes to the procedure see section 3.2.5.1. on
integrity. Also, some changes were made to the procedure regarding the appeal body, i.e. the Council for Aliens
Law Litigation: certain administrative tasks were abolished; first steps were taken for the electronic processing of
appeals and the improper use of access to the judge was discouraged, among other changes.
In Denmark the composition of the Refugee Appeal Board was broadened by adding to the Board civil society
representatives identified and nominated by the Danish Refugee Council and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Complaints concerning transfers under the Dublin Regulation will now be addressed by the Refugee Appeals Board(135).
Furthermore, complaints will have an automatic suspensive effect on the deadline for leaving Denmark.
In Ireland, the responsibility for processing applications for subsidiary protection in both new cases and those
in process was transferred from the Minister for Justice and Equality to the Office of the Refugee Applications
Commissioner. This shift took effect on 14 November 2013(136).
In Germany, the handling of Dublin cases shifted from the special Dublin section to the branch offices, as the
processing of Dublin procedures is given top priority. Effective 28 June 2013, the Federal Office for Migration and
Refugees is again responsible for handling asylum claims that have been made at the border or areas close to the
border.
Establishment of new structures
In Sweden an additional Migration Court opened in Lule on 1 October 2013, and at the same time Swedish
Migration Board (SMB) increased its capacity with an additional Administrative Procedure Unit. Due to the
increasing caseload of unaccompanied minors as well as Dublin cases, the SMB opened an additional unit for
each of these purposes in Stockholm (Dublin) and in Malm (UAM). In addition, in order to meet the increased
demands for housing as part of reception services, the SMB procured rented temporary accommodation which
proved to be significantly more efficient than buying or building new reception centres.

(132) The Federal Office has its headquarters in Vienna. It is subdivided into three initial reception centres (EAST East in Traiskirchen, EAST West in Thalham and
EAST Airport at Vienna International Airport Schwechat) and nine Regional Offices (Vienna, Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Burgenland, Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg,
Tyrol and Vorarlberg) with approximately 630 employees. Specific tasks of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum include first instance asylum procedures;
Dublin procedures and communication with other European authorities; basic welfare support; decisions regarding humanitarian stay; decisions on alien police
matters, including return; issues related to voluntary return; decisions on custody pending deportation and issuance of documents such as Convention Travel
Documents.
(133) As stipulated by the Amendments to the Administrative Jurisdiction of 2012 (FLG. I No51/2012).
(134) This development was welcomed by UNHCR, as the CGRS has greater expertise in asylum matters and is the asylum body that will also decide on the merits.
See UNHCR, Commentaires du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les rfugis relatifs aux: projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 dcembre 1980 sur
laccs au territoire, le sjour, ltablissement et lloignement des trangers et la loi du 12 janvier 2007 sur laccueil des demandeurs dasile et de certaines autres
catgories dtrangers, et projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 dcembre 1980 sur laccs au territoire, le sjour, ltablissement et lloignement des trangers,
et modifiant la loi du 27 dcembre 2006 portant des dispositions diverses, 29 January 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5114befc2.html, p.31.).
(135) By amendments to the Aliens Act adopted by the Danish Parliament (Act no. 1619 of 26 December 2013).
(136) Under the European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013.

60 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In Italy, seven additional sections of the Territorial Commissions(137) continue to operate: two in Rome, two in
Syracuse, one in Turin, one in Bari and one in Crotone; four additional Territorial Commissions were also established in Sicily, Apulia and Rome.
In 2013 the Maltese Government increased the capacity of the Refugee Appeals Board (RAB), which is now composed of six chambers instead of two(138).
Internal reforms
In France an action plan for reforming working methods used by OFPRA was adopted on 22 May 2013 and has been
implemented since 1 September 2013. The action plan is structured around seven major aspects (harmonisation,
expertise, task-sharing, career paths, management, well-being at work, and streamlining of processes)(139). It integrates all the tasks and activities of the Office, in line with the case law of the National Asylum Court (CNDA).
In Croatia, in November 2013, all staff from the Asylum Department were relocated from the headquarters of the
Ministry of the Interior to the Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers with a view to improving work and achieving
better results in general.
At the end of 2013, several structural and procedural changes (including the creation of a joint processing unit for
legal migration, responsible for asylum and residence permits, and simplification of procedures) were initiated at
the Police and Border Guard of Estonia.

3.2.3. Important national jurisprudence

In Belgium, on 14 May 2013, the Council of State turned down two appeals for suspension lodged against the Royal
Decree of 26 May 2012 establishing the list of safe countries of origin. On 18 July 2013, the Constitutional Court in
Belgium judged a claim to annul the provision on concept of safe countries of origin in the Immigration Act (Article
57/6/1, Paragraph 4), confirming the constitutional character of the article with the exception of two interpretations
(concerning vulnerable groups and unaccompanied minor asylum seekers). Thus the introduction of the concept of
safe country of origin in Belgian legislation was confirmed(140). On 24 October 2013, the Council for Alien Law Litigation
(CALL) confirmed the CGRS policy with regard to various gender-related issues concerning Guinea (forced marriages
and fear of FGM for minor girls, among others) and the relevance and objectiveness of the COI used by the CGRS(141).
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) of the Czech Republic imposed a new obligation on the Ministry of the
Interior to provide a detailed justification in cases where the deadline for issuing a decision is postponed. The
SAC also confirmed that applicants for international protection may submit written evidence not only in the language of the procedure or in the Czech language, but in any language, and the administrative body is obligated
to provide a translation into the Czech language or the language of the administrative procedure. Another SAC
decision confirmed that an asylum applicant may leave the territory of the Czech Republic for a short period of
time, contrary to the current wording of the Asylum Act. All these decisions have a potentially far-reaching impact
(137) The asylum system in Italy is based on 10 territorial commissions responsible for inquiries and decisions on applications for the recognition of international
protection status. A national commission based in Rome is responsible for coordinating activity. Up to a maximum of 10 additional sections of Territorial
Commissions can be instituted only for periods of time when doing so is strictly necessary.
(138) UNHCR input.
(139) The key measures are as follows: a Harmonisation Committee is responsible for helping develop and ensure compliance with the doctrine, rules and work
tools common to all employees of the Office, including ad hoc working groups and necessary consultations. Cross-cutting issues (torture, violence against women,
trafficking, sexual orientations, unaccompanied minors) are tackled by specific groups working to adapt the practice of the Office in a spirit of cooperation with
institutional and associative partners. To increase the Offices ability to react to fluctuations in flow, the work to process major nationalities is shared between four
divisions. Reference tools are prepared, geographical focal points are designated and reference materials are drafted for each pooled nationality. While preserving
the guarantees of individual examination, specific attention is given to investigating repetitive applications and applications, which are either unfounded or which
display a clear need for protection. This specific treatment can at any time be reverted to in-depth consideration at the discretion of the investigator.
(140) However, on 16 January 2014 that same Constitutional Court determined, in the context of claims made by applicants from safe countries of origin, that a
cassation appeal against the rejection of such a claim by the CGRS does not currently contain sufficient guarantees to be effective. To be effective the Court found
that such appeals need to incorporate a full ex nunc assessment of facts and law and have suspensive effect (UNHCR input).
(141) It should be noted that an appeal against this CALL decision was lodged at the Council of State, which declared the appeal admissible on 23 December 2013.
Moreover, several other CALL decisions strongly criticise CGRS position on these issues, e.g. CALL 117.008 of 16 January 2014, where a CGRS decision that relied
on that same CGRS COI document was annulled, and more recently CALL 122.669 of 17 April 2014 (three judges) where CALL overturned CGRS refusal decision
that relied on the same COI and granted refugee status to the female applicant and her daughter. Although these are 2014 cases, they relate to the same issues
and are based on the same COI. (UNHCR input).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 61

and could result in the necessity of amending the respective provisions of the Act. In another decision, the SAC
addressed the issue of access to the territory(142).
In Germany, the Federal Administrative Court passed several significant judgments, making the following points:
It determined the applicants duty to cooperate by providing their fingerprints for the purposes of identity
establishment, including the duty to refrain from any manipulation of their fingerprints. If applicants prevent
such identification by distorting their fingertips, the procedure may be terminated for reasons of abandonment
of the application, without deciding on the merits of the case(143).
It established that asylum or refugee status can be denied not only if the applicant has collaborated with terrorist organisations as an armed militant or combatant and thus taken part in actions violating the purposes and
principles of the United Nations as described in the Convention, but also if the applicant collaborated ideologically or propagandistically with such organisations, provided that his or her roles were sufficiently important
and of considerable weight and influence(144).
An applicant can be excluded from receiving refugee status when he/she has received a prison sentence of
three or more years, but only if the sentence concerned one single crime and was not an accumulation of several sentences for other criminal acts with lesser sanctions(145).
Following the CJEU judgment(146), the Federal Administrative Court now holds that the violation of the right to practice a religious belief in public may lead to an infringement of the freedom of religion and can amount to persecution
in the sense of Article 9 (1) of the recast Qualification Directive if the consequences of defying the prohibition are
threats to life, health or freedom, criminal persecution or the danger of being submitted to inhumane and humiliating treatment. The restrictions on religious practices are only relevant, however, if the applicant can substantiate that
he/she would feel personally compelled to adhere to the prohibited practices in his country of origin(147).
Noprotection against deportation is accorded to minors under the Residence Act as minors are sufficiently
protected since the foreigners registration offices of the federal states are obligated to ensure that unaccompanied minors may only be deported if there are guarantees that they would be received by family or care
institutions upon their return(148).
German administrative courts have also issued multiple decisions in the context of Dublin procedures, stating
that the asylum systems of Italy(149), Hungary(150) and Poland(151) do not exhibit systematic deficiencies(152).

(142) Decision No5 Azs 15/2013-73. The SAC stated that mere entrance without a valid visa or valid documents could not be in itself a reason for refusal of a leave
to access the territory as the situation of asylum seekers differs from the situation of other migrants. Moreover, it stated that the practice of refusing access to the
territory cannot constitute a general preventive measure (UNHCR input).
(143) Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 5 September 2013 10C 1.13, concerning section 15(2) no 7 of the Asylum Procedure Act.
(144) Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 19 November 2013 10C 26,12, concerning section 3(2) of the Asylum Procedure Act.
(145) Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 31 January 2013 10C 17.12 concerning Section 60 Par. VIII sentence 1 alternative 1 of the Residence Act.
(146) Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11, Y and Z, of 5 September 2012.
(147) Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 2 February 2013 10C 20.12 et al. The decisions were to the effect that practicing Ahmadi Muslims from Pakistan
are as to the rule to be granted refugee status in Germany due to the legal restrictions and other perils for this group to practice their faith in public in Pakistan.
(148) Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 13 June 2013 10C 13.12. The case concerned section 60, paragraph VII, sentences 1 and 2, and section 58a (1a)
of the Residence Act.
(149) Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt (OVG Sachsen-Anhalt), judgment of 14 November 2013 4 L 44/13. The Court held that an order to transfer
a non-vulnerable asylum seeker to Italy does not oblige Germany to assume responsibility for the case under Art. 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation. The court
ruled that the Italian asylum procedure, the asylum follow-up procedures, and the conditions of reception do not show systematic deficiencies that would imply
inhumane or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the European Unions Fundamental Rights Charter.
(150) Administrative Court of Baden-Wrttemberg (VGH Baden-Wrttemberg), judgment of 6 August 2013 12 S 675/13; Higher Administrative Court of SaxonyAnhalt (OVG Sachsen-Anhalt), judgment of 31 August 4 L 169/12.
(151) Administrative Court in Kassel (VG Kassel), judgment of 26 August 2013 4 L 984/13.KS.A; Administrative Court in Oldenburg (VG Oldenburg), judgment of
14 November 2013 3 B 6286/13.
(152) There were a high number of German administrative court decisions which temporarily suspended Dublin transfers to Italy and also a considerable number
of court judgements in the main proceedings which found that Germany was obligated to apply the sovereignty clause according to Art. 3 (2) Dublin II Regulation.
For example, with regard to Italy the following Administrative Courts found systemic deficiencies in the sense of the N.S. judgment and the risk of a violation of
Art. 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights / Art. 3 EHCR in Italy: Main Administrative of Court, Frankfurt judgment of 09 July 2013 7 K 560/11.F.A, judgment
of 18 April 2013 9 K 28/11.F.A; Administrative Court of Braunschweig, judgment of 20 September 2013 7 A 66/12, judgment of 21 February 2013 7 A
57/11; Administrative Court of Giessen, judgment of 24 January 2013 6 K 1329/12.GI.A. The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia found that
further information on the situation in Italy was required in the summary proceedings and ordered suspensive effect through the order of 25 June, 2013 19
B 441/13.A. (Meanwhile, in March 2014 this HAC ruled that the situation in Italy did not exhibit systemic deficiencies barring a Dublin transfer.) With regard to
Hungary, the Administrative Court of Munich found in its judgement of 10 October 2013 M 10 K 13.30611 that due to the risk of being detained based on the
legal changes in Hungary there were systemic deficiencies in the Hungarian asylum system and the risk of a violation of Art. 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights/Art. 3 ECHR at least for families with young children. With regard to Poland, the Administrative Court of Wiesbaden, through the order of 10 September
2013 5 L 652/13.WI.A, and the Administrative Court Meiningen, through the order of 26 April 2013 8 E 20075/13 Me, ordered suspensive effect in order to
clarify the question of systemic deficiencies in the main proceedings (UNHCR input).

62 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

On 25 April 2013, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court issued a landmark decision on the application of
Section 51 of the Finnish Aliens Act in relation to a situation in which a person could not actually be removed
from the country but voluntary return would probably have been possible(153). In line with the decision, if it is
evident that there is likely a technical obstruction for returning a rejected asylum seeker to his/her home country,
a temporary residence permit, as defined in Section 51 of the Finnish Aliens Act, can be issued regardless of the
fact that there is no enforceable return decision.
In France, the highest administrative court (Conseil dEtat), in a decision issued in May 2013, held that the failure
by an applicant for international protection to send their request to the determining authority within the time
limit prescribed by the law does not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application. Such an application,
however, may be the subject of an accelerated procedure if the time limit has been blatantly exceeded.
In Luxembourg the Tribunal (Tribunal administratif) ruled that the authorities have to ensure that the benefit of
the doubt is given to applicants for international protection in age determination procedures.
In the Netherlands on 9 January 2013, the Administrative Law Department of the Council of State (Afdeling
bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State AbRS) ruled on the situation of Tibetan asylum seekers returning
to China. Because there is no thematic report from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs discussing the situation of
Tibetans returning to China, the State Secretary was unable to substantiate, without further investigation, that
the applicant had not made it plausible that they were at real risk of being treated in a manner in conflict with
Article 3 of the ECHR as a returning Tibetan. A temporary stop of six months on decisions and returns of (former)
Tibetan-Chinese applicants entered into force on 7 June 2013(154). On 24 May 2013, the AbRS ruled on two cases
(nos 201109839/1 and 201109256/1) on the motivation of the credibility of religious conviction. This concerns
the assessment of the alleged conversion to Christianity, in terms of the applicants factual knowledge of the faith
they converted to, or of the conversion process itself(155).
In Slovakia the Supreme Court(156) determined that the credibility of an applicant for international protection is essential to the decision regarding international protection. The applicant for asylum, however, is not obligated to demonstrate their persecution by evidence other than their own credible statement. The administrative authority, when in
doubt, is obligated to collect all available evidence refuting, questioning or confirming the credibility of the applicant for
asylum. According to Slovak legislation, court decisions do not constitute a source of law. Nevertheless, the Supreme
Court of the SR publishes its decisions of key importance in the Collection of Opinions of the Supreme Court and Court
Decisions in order to provide advice to judges who, however, remain independent in the execution of their functions.
In Spain the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on the importance of providing legal assistance to UAMs
and which gives priority to identity documents over age assessment tests that fail to meet scientific requirements, in line with UNHCRs opinion(157). As a result, pending UASC applications were being reconsidered. Other
important decisions of the Spanish Supreme Court included the following points:
The need to justify decisions if differing from UNHCRs opinion and apply flexible criteria to accelerated

(153) The case concerned an applicant from Somalia (Somaliland) whose subsequent application was refused and he was ordered to be returned to his country.
It was established that it was not actually possible to force A to return to As home country, but voluntary return may have been an option. According to Section
51, Subsection 1 of the Finnish Aliens Act, aliens residing in the country without a residence permit are issued a temporary residence permit in a situation in
which they cannot actually be removed from the country. In this case, the question was how much significance should be attributed to the possibility of returning
voluntarily to the home country when interpreting this Section of the Act. In its solution, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that when Section 51 of the
Aliens Act had been ordered as a prerequisite to the issuance of a temporary residence permit, the intention had been to refer only to the inability to actually
perform a forced return. When the Return Directive was enforced, the Section was not amended. The significance of voluntary return with regard to Section
51, Subsection 1 of the Finnish Aliens Act had remained unclear as regards the national implementation of the Directive. Obligations for an illegally resident
third-country national, such as the obligation to use a voluntary return system established in the MS for the return to the home country, could not be derived
solely on the basis of the indirect effect related to the concept removal from the country in the Directive. If a person could not actually be returned through a
forced return, a temporary residence permit was to be issued on the basis of the Section in question and according to the literal interpretation of the Section,
regardless of the fact that it would probably have been possible for the person in question to return voluntarily to the country in question. Under the prevailing
circumstances, A had to be issued a temporary residence permit until the return could actually be performed.
(154) On 10 March 2014 the State Secretary changed the policy. Since then there is no longer a moratorium and cases are again dealt with on an individual
basis (UNHCR Input).
(155) It is standard practice for the Immigration Service to assess both factual knowledge and the conversion process. In this decision, the Council of State
considered that the IND (State secretary) could indeed consider the applicant not credible because of the fact that he did not prove to have knowledge about his
new faith (UNHCR input).
(156) Judgment issued on of 9 April 2013 in case no. 1/10/2013 published in the Collection of the Supreme Court opinions and court decisions Nr. 7/2013.
(157) STS 3186/2013, 17 June 2013 (UNHCR input).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 63

procedures as per UNHCRs recommendations(158).

The importance of providing legal assistance to UAMs and of giving priority to identity documents over age
assessment tests that fail to meet scientific requirements, in line with UNHCRs opinion(159).
Decisions made by the Spanish National High Court (first instance judicial body) included the following points:
The need to justify the application of Article 1F(a) of the Geneva Convention to exclude a person from refugee
status, in line with UNHCRs recommendations(160).
Two cases supported by UNHCR concerning victims of trafficking in human beings in which, although the Court
did not consider that those cases would qualify for refugee or subsidiary protection, it decided to grant a
humanitarian status based on the special situation of the applicants(161).
The UK Supreme Court heard the case EM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which concerned an appeal from the Court of Appeal regarding the circumstances in which returns under the Dublin II
Regulation should take place if it is claimed that such a return would expose the asylum seeker to the risk of inhumane or degrading treatment. The Supreme Court, in its judgment handed down in 2014, found that the Court
of Appeal had been wrong to consider that only a systemic breach by the receiving country of its human rights
obligations would justify not returning an asylum seeker to that country(162).

3.2.4. Major legislative changes in MS

Transposition of the recast Qualification Directive
Changes in legislative frameworks of the MS(163) were primarily marked by the deadline for the transposition of
the recast Qualification Directive, which fell on 21 December 2013. Depending on how the national framework
was shaped prior to the transposition process, various elements of the recast Qualification Directive may have
required new elements to be brought into the asylum systems of the MS.
In Belgium the transposition process(164) clarified some new concepts (e.g. social group, gender-based persecution,
actors of protection, internal flight alternative) and introduced the concept of first country of asylum. This will result
in rejection of asylum applications based on the rebuttable assumption that the applicant already enjoys sufficient
protection or refugee status in another country. Other amendments include the issuance of a single (extendable)
order to leave the territory after a negative decision of the CGRS, the legal obligation for applicants to complete the
CGRS questionnaire when registering their applications in the Immigration Office and new provisions introduced as
a legal basis for a material support distribution plan. In Croatia, the main new development in terms of amendments
to the Act are related to a procedure for applicants against whom a European warrant of arrest was issued and a
decision on extradition/return was handed down, making it so that the asylum procedure shall not prevent extradition/return to other MS or to the International Criminal Court(165). Also, on 27 June 2013 the minister of Ministry of
the Interior adopted ordinance amendments on forms and data collection. In the Czech Republic, the main effect of
(158) Case STS 1971/2013, 8079130032013100105, N appeal 2529/2012, available at: http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/doAction?action=contentpdf&
databasematch=TS&reference=6710796&links=%222529/2012%22&optimise=20130517&publicinterface=true, case STS 1957/2013, 28079130032013100102,
N appeal 2429/2012, available at: http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/doAction?action=contentpdf&databasematch=TS&reference=6710793&links=%222429
/2012%22&optimise=20130517&publicinterface=true. The case concerned the admission to the determination procedure of 17 Saharawi applicants who
applied for asylum just after the Camp Gdeim Iziq events in November 2010, which had been previously rejected at administrative level, against UNHCRs
recommendation. The Supreme Court stated the need to apply flexible admissibility criteria to accelerated procedures (at the border and in internment centres)
in line with UNHCRs recommendations and to further justify decisions if differing from UNHCRs opinion. Asylum authorities started to apply this jurisprudence
in 2013 (UNHCR input).
(159) STS 3186/2013.
(160) SAN REC 327/2012.
(161) SAN REC 404/2010, SAN REC 263/2012. It should be noted that the humanitarian status granted is the one regulated under the aliens legislation but not the
humanitarian protection set forth in the asylum law.
(162) The Court confirmed the critical test established in Soering v UK, by which the removal of a person from a MS of the Council of Europe to another country is forbidden
if it is shown that there is a real risk that the person transferred will suffer treatment contrary to Article 3 of ECHR. Further, it held that the EU requires that its laws,
including the Dublin II Regulation, be applied in conformity with fundamental rights, including those provided under Article 3 of ECHR and its EU equivalent, Article 4 of EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights. UNHCR joined the case as an intervener. Cf. UNHCR, R on the application of EM (Eritrea) and others v. The Secretary of State for the Home
Department: Case for the Intervener, 3 October 2013, UKSC 2012/2072-2075, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/5252611e4.html
(163) Neither the UK nor Ireland have opted into this Directive, and they continue to be bound by Directive 2004/83/EC. Denmark is not bound by this Directive.
(164) Changes to the Immigration Law were published in the Official Gazette on 22 August 2013 and entered into force on 1 September 2013.
(165) The act on amendments to the Asylum Act was adopted on 22 November 2013 and entered into force on 10 December 2013.

64 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

the transposition-related amendments is that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are entitled to integration support under the same conditions as persons granted refugee status. In Germany the requirements to grant refugee
status or subsidiary protection were consolidated solely within the Asylum Procedure Act instead of the former division between the Asylum Procedure Act and the Residence Act(166). Under special conditions, protection status can
now be granted to family members of persons who are entitled to subsidiary protection, even if the family members
do not meet the conditions for receiving protection status. Persons who are entitled to subsidiary protection now
have the right to attend an integration course(167). Effective as of 21 October 2013, Greece transposed the Qualification Directive, introducing certain improvements to some of its more problematic aspects, such as the fact that
asylum can be granted even if there are reasons to believe that past persecution will not be repeated (improvement
of Article 11 Par. 3 of the Qualification Directive). The transposition was enacted by presidential decree 141/2013
and resulted in several improvements to, and clarifications of, the previous regime(168). In Luxembourg the transposition(169) enhanced safeguards for asylum seekers, especially for unaccompanied minors and vulnerable persons.
According to the new provisions, protection in the country of origin has to be available and effective and the internal
flight alternative has to be effective and of a non-temporary nature. Refugee status and subsidiary protection status
were also harmonised (in terms of their validity period).
Transposition of Council Directive of 11 May 2011 amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC to extend the scope
of the act to beneficiaries of international protection(170)
This Directive provides that refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection can acquire long-term resident
status on a basis similar to that of other third-country nationals legally living in the EU for more than five years. In
Lithuania the transposition was to the effect that persons who have been granted refugee status in the Republic
of Lithuania are issued a permanent residence permit(171). In Latvia, the allowance for acquiring the official language will be also granted for persons with subsidiary protection status(172).
Other changes
Other significant legislative changes in the MS were related to responsibility for subsequent applications, reception conditions (including access to the labour market), detention policies, appeal procedures, and documents
issued to asylum applicants.
In Belgium the CGRS is now responsible for assessing whether new elements exist in the case of subsequent
applications, a competence that previously belonged to the Immigration Department(173).
In Cyprus on 12 July 2013, new legislative amendments were made concerning the provision of material aid to
applicants for international protection(174). Another legislative amendment of the Refugee Law (1/2/2013) sets out
the criteria determining which body is responsible for examining subsequent applications (the Asylum Service or the
Refugee Reviewing Authority), grants the right of appeal against a negative decision of the Director of the Asylum
Service to beneficiaries of international protection for applications for family reunification, permits the disclosure of
information for the purposes of criminal investigation and prosecution and restricts applicants and beneficiaries of
international protections rights to residence and movement to only the Government controlled areas(175).
Effective as of 6 September 2013, Germany adjusted its national regulations(176) for temporary legal protection
against transfer decisions in order to ensure a smooth application of the new Dublin Regulation (applicable to
(166) The recast Qualification Directive was implemented as national law on 1st December 2013.
(167) However, they are only admitted if enough places are available (UNHCR input).
(168) For the English text of PD 141/2013 please see www.asylo.gov.gr
(169) Law of 19 June 2013
(170) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0051.
(171) Amendments to the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens adopted on 27 June 2013
(172) Amendments adopted as of 24 October 2013.
(173) On 1 September, two laws which modify the asylum procedure (and the reception and public welfare centre laws) came into force. The Royal Decree from
1981 and the Royal Decrees regulating the procedure were also modified.
(174) Published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus under the Refugee Law Regulations for Reception Conditions (R.A.P. 255/2013). The Reception
Conditions Regulations were amended in July 2013 under emergency procedures. One of the major changes made was the introduction of a voucher system to
replace cash assistance. The level of welfare benefits for qualifying asylum seekers were reduced to less than 50% of what is provided to nationals, which is not
sufficient to cover the basic need of applicants (320 EURO/month for an asylum seeker compared to 678 EURO/month for a national). In addition, a maximum
amount of assistance was set at 735 EURO regardless of the number of family members.
(175) Bill (no 9{1}), amending the Cyprus Refugee Law.
(176) Section 34a(2) Asylum Procedure Act.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 65

applications filed after 1 January 2014) and to improve legal protection in the current procedure, introducing the
suspensive effect of appeals filed within a week. In anticipation of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, the
waiting period for the labour market access of asylum seekers was shortened to nine months(177).
Effective as of 14 June 2013, Greece adopted its new asylum procedure via Presidential Decree 113. The new procedure introduced reforms regarding, inter alia, the registration, interview and decision-making process(178). The
statute of the Asylum Service was adopted by ministerial decision effective 6 June 2013. Also, new procedures for
medical assessments and providing psychosocial support for those in first reception centres were legislated via a
ministerial decision of the Minister of Health effective 29 October 2013.
In Estonia, on 1 October 2013 amendments to Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens (AGIPA) and
related acts entered into force. These allow for the detention of asylum applicants with the permission of an
administrative court in order to perform initial proceedings or if necessary in order to ensure the security of
state or public order and if the efficient application of the surveillance measures provided is impossible. (179) The
changes to AGIPA also include specifications for reimbursement and cost rates incurred by the local government
following the settlement of beneficiaries of international protection.
In France, the validity of documents confirming the right to remain in the territory issued to applicants for international protection was extended in March 2013 to reflect the average time for processing applications(180). In
terms of legal proceedings, a set of rules on litigation before the Court was provided in a decree(181).
In Hungary, the most relevant procedural change was the introduction of asylum detention, in force since 1 July
2013 (see also Section 4.7. on detention). National legislation amended in 2013 stipulates that asylum seekers
who previously withdrew their asylum application in a written form will no longer be automatically treated as
subsequent applicants (as of 1 January 2014). In addition, for those considered subsequent applicants, the right
to remain in the territory will be ensured during the full examination of their claim(182).
In Ireland, in parallel to the transfer of responsibility for processing both new and pending applications for subsidiary protection from the Minister for Justice and Equality to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner,
the new Regulations(183) provide for applicants to be interviewed as part of the first instance investigation of their
application by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. In addition, in the event of a negative recommendation
following the first instance investigation of their case, applicants now have the opportunity to file an appeal.
Appeals are dealt with by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Both of these offices are statutorily independent in the
exercise of their functions. The Minister for Justice and Equality signed new regulations into law: the European
Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013 (S.I. No 426 of 2013) governing the investigation and acceptance
of applications for subsidiary protection in Ireland. The Regulations came into effect on 14 November 2013.
In Italy, the Parliament delegated the Government to adopt appropriate legislative decrees for the transposition
of numerous EU Directives according to certain criteria(184).

(177) Section 61(2) Asylum Procedure Act in 6 September 2013 version.

(178) For the legal text in English see www.asylo.gov.gr.
(179) Detention has to be proportional, and upon detention the essential circumstances related to the asylum seeker, including the risk of escape, shall be taken
into account in every single case.
(180) The first document issued to the applicant continues to be issued for a period of one month for filing the application with the authority making the decision.
However, it is now renewed for a period of six months as opposed to three.
(181) Decree No2013-751 relating to the proceedings before the National Court of Asylum was signed on 16 August 2013 and published on 18 August 2013. The
changes concerned the following aspects: strengthening the adversarial nature of the proceedings, changing the status of the oral hearing, and extending the
written instruction; giving the Court an option to use sources of geopolitical information in compliance with the adversarial nature of the proceedings against the
applicant; enabling the Court to organize the schedule of the court sessions in advance, indicating the expected date of closure of the proceedings and precise
descriptions of the course of the court session.
(182) See Section 15(2) of Act CXCVII of 2013 (promulgated on 28 November 2013 in the Hungarian Official Journal, in force since 1 January 2013). The European
Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Hungary, inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance with Article 7 (2) of the Asylum Procedures
Directive governing the right to remain in the territory of the MS concerned (Council Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards for procedures in MS for
granting and withdrawing refugee status).
(183) European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013
(184) European delegation law 2013 no. 96/2013. With reference to the transposition of Directive 2011/51/EU, Art. 6 of the enabling act establishes that that
the residency calculation for issuing long-term residence permits is calculated from the date international protection is requested. Moreover, the period falling
between the request for international protection and the recognition has to be considered as a whole. Furthermore, the conditions for receiving long-term
residency status for international protection status holders have to be limited exclusively to a sufficient income, and must also be calculated taking into account
the specific vulnerable circumstances in which international protection status holders may find themselves.

66 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In Slovakia the following legislative amendments entered into force on 1 May 2013: a work permit is not required
under the amended Act on Employment Services for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection; under the amended Act
on Residence of Aliens, long-term resident status can also be granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary
protection; under the amended Act on Asylum, the time limit for filing an asylum application has been extended
to be indefinite (the first asylum for the purpose of family reunification is granted for a 3-year period); and the
time limit for filing the application for extending subsidiary protection has been extended from 30 days to 90 days.
In the United Kingdom new Immigration Rules came into effect in October 2013 allowing the relocation to the UK
of certain Afghan nationals (and their families) employed by the UK government in Afghanistan, mostly as front
line interpreters. The new policy and procedure is part of a wider redundancy/severance package offered to staff
who are losing their jobs as part of the military drawdown (those persons are not refugees).

3.2.5. Key policy changes related to integrity, efficiency and quality

3.2.5.1. Integrity
Integrity measures described in this section concern activities and initiatives implemented by MS in order to
prevent and combat unfounded claims for international protection, which may involve attempts to fraudulently
take advantage of legal guarantees in the national asylum systems. Such claims, unless detected, consume the
resources available to the national asylum authorities, taking up time and funds that could otherwise be used to
ensuring protection for those in genuine need.
A key aspect of the integrity of procedures is the credibility assessment performed in order to establish
whether the applicants statements substantiating the claim are truthful in light of other circumstances of the
case and other evidence. The importance of this aspect of examining applications for international protection
was highlighted in two major research initiatives in 2013: the CREDO project(185) and UNHCR report Beyond
Proof. As noted by UNHCR, a common understanding and approach to credibility assessment is still lacking
among MS(186).

Credibility assessment and assessment of risk

The case I. v Sweden (no. 61204/09) involved a family of Russian citizens of Chechen origin. The first and
second applicant submitted that they had been tortured in Chechnya and were at risk of further illtreatment upon return to Russia. The Swedish authorities had not actually questioned whether the first applicant
had been subjected to injuries caused by illtreatment resembling torture. The domestic authorities however
found that he had not established with sufficient certainty, inter alia, why he had been subjected to it and
by whom. The lack of credibility regarding the alleged activities gave the authorities reason to question the
credibility of his statements. The Court shared the domestic authorities opinion about the credibility of the
statements. However, the majority of the Court made a cumulative assessment of certain factors in the case
and found that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would be exposed to a real risk
of treatment contrary to Art. 3 if deported to Russia. Two judges were of a dissenting opinion and found this
cumulative assessment too far-reaching. Neither the applicants nor the State party (Sweden) requested that
the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

(185) Credibility was the key focus of CREDO, a joint project between the Hungarian-Helsinki Committee (HHC), UNHCR, the International Association of Refugee
Law Judges (IARLJ) and UK Asylum Aid. with support from the European Refugee Fund. The project started at the end of 2011 to contribute to quality credibility
assessments and promote more harmonised approaches, reflecting the relevant provisions in EU law and international standards. As part of the CREDO project,
UNHCR conducted research regarding the practice of three EU MS (Belgium, the Netherlands, United Kingdom) and gathered jurisprudence from EU courts
and beyond to provide a better understanding of state practices, standards and the issues at stake in this complex area of asylum law. The findings of the
UNHCR report, published in May 2013, are also informed by a multi-disciplinary approach drawing on the developments in psychology, neuro-biology and the
workings of the human memory, gender, anthropology and sociology: UNHCR, Beyond Proof, Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems: Full Report, May
2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/519b1fb54.html; it also provides credibility checklists UNHCR, CREDO Credibility Assessment Checklists,
15 May 2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/51dd2f0d4.html, also in Bulgarian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, Slovakian; as part of the project,
the IARLJ developed a specific study on Judicial criteria and standards http://www.iarlj.org/general/images/stories/Credo/Credo_Paper_March2013-rev1.pdf;
and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee published a Multidisciplinary Training Manual http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/Credibility-Assessment-in-AsylumProcedures-CREDO-manual.pdf.
(186) See above-mentioned report, page 13: In 2013 the ERF application for a CREDO 2 project was approved. CREDO 2 will focus on credibility assessments in
child assessment claims, with a special focus on asylum claims by accompanied children too. CREDO 2 will fund national research mainly in three EU MS to better
understand existing legal and policy frameworks and above all state practices in this area (Austria, Italy and Sweden). The choice of these state was based on the
number of child applications they handled and the importance of these claims for the national asylum authorities (UNHCR Input).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 67

In the case R.J. v France(187), a Tamil applicant claimed to have been persecuted by the Sri Lankan authorities
because of his ethnic origin and his political activities in support of the LTTE. The ECtHR reiterated that there is
no generalised risk of treatment contrary to Art. 3 for all Tamils returned to Sri Lanka, but for those applicants
representing such interest to the authorities that they may be exposed to detention and interrogation upon
return. In this case, the applicant presented a medical certificate in support of his claim to have been subjected
to mistreatment, which was considered relevant evidence by the ECtHR. In particular, the Court found that the
gravity and recent infliction of the applicants wounds create a strong presumption of treatment contrary to
Art. 3 that the French authorities had not effectively rebutted and thus the applicants expulsion would result
in a violation of Art.3.
The case of N.K. v France(188) involved a Pakistani applicant who converted to the Ahmadiyya religion. As a
result of his conversion, the applicant claimed to have been subjected to mistreatment. He also claimed that
an arrest warrant had been issued against him for preaching the Ahmadiyya religion due to which he feared
to be at risk of mistreatment upon return. While the case was initially rejected on the basis of an adverse
credibility finding by the French authorities, the ECtHR noted that the domestic authorities had not submitted
evidence that would question the authenticity of the documents produced by the applicant in support of his
statements. Observing that the risk of mistreatment of persons of the Ahmadiyya religion in Pakistan is well
documented, the ECtHR stated that belonging to this religion would not in itself be sufficient grounds for the
application of Art. 3. In this case, however, the Court concluded that the applicant was perceived by the Pakistani authorities not as simply practicing the Ahmadiyya beliefs, but as a proselytiser and thus had a profile
exposing him to the attention of the authorities in case of return.
In 2013 measures taken by the MS to enhance the integrity of procedures for international protection focused
on establishing the identity of applicants for international protection(189), age assessment(190) and the issue of
subsequent applications(191).

EASO activities related to age assessment

In December 2013 EASO published its paper on Age assessment practice in Europe(192), providing an analysis of
the circumstances of age assessment, procedural means and safeguards, age assessment tools and methods, the
decision-making process, and cooperation with other actors. It gave key recommendations in all of those areas.

With regard to that last issue, the issue of subsequent applications is less clear-cut than cases of identity and age
fraud, which are usually a deliberate and conscious choice made by the applicant. Applicants submitting subsequent applications after a decision has been reached in a previous procedure may do so for fully justified reasons,
in view of changed circumstances in their individual situation or due to developments in their country of origin.
Key jurisprudence in 2013 emphasised that mechanisms used by MS to combat unfounded subsequent applications need to take into account that such applications are not always or even usually a means of taking advantage
of the asylum system and that focus should be on verifying whether a subsequent application has merit and, if
so, on examining them in full.

(187) ECtHR Case of R.J. v France (Application No10466/11), judgment issued on 19 September 2013.
(188) ECtHR Case of N.K. v France (Application No7974/11), judgment issued on 19 December 2013.
(189) More thorough and systematic examinations of identity documents were introduced in Sweden. SMB is carrying out a project (Verification and storage
of documents- VEF) with the aim of increasing systematic controls of identification documents. Documents will be scanned, and original documents will be
sent to the Unit for Biometrics and Document Verification for authentication and storage during the asylum process. The SMB aims to improve its capacity to
systematically verify all travel documents. Results from those activities indicated an increase in the percentage of forged and counterfeit id-documents among
Syrian applicants (found to be 10%). The German Federal Office used special language and text analysis for preventing cases of nationality fraud from Mali. In
Romania, nationality tests were used for citizens of Syrian Republic.
(190) Germany launched a project (implemented from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2015) entitled Development and validation of a legally permissible and practicable
method for age estimation of refugee minors with the forensic medical institute of the University of Mnster, co-financed by the ERF and the Federal Office. The
Swedish Migration Board was working to conclude agreements with relevant healthcare providers to ensure that medical age assessments of unaccompanied minors
can be carried out in accordance with the new operational guidance notes on age assessment from the National Board of Health and Welfare (adopted in 2012).
(191) By means of an amendment to the Asylum Act, Croatian legislation developed a mechanism to limit misuse of the asylum system through reapplying for
asylum after the decision to refuse the asylum application becomes enforceable. This mechanism stipulates that any asylum application submitted by an asylum
seeker after a refusal of a previous application becomes enforceable and which does not contain any new relevant facts and circumstances will be rejected. In
Belgium the competence to assess new facts and circumstances presented by asylum applicants during a subsequent application has shifted from the Immigration
Office to the CGRS, with relevant changes to the procedure.
(192) http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/EASO-Age-assessment-practice-in-Europe1.pdf.

68 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The case of Mohammed v AUT (no. 2283/12) concerns a Sudanese asylum seeker who arrived in Austria via
Greece and Hungary. The Austrian authorities rejected the application and ordered him to be transfered to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation. When placed in detention with a view to his forced transfer almost a year later,
he lodged a second asylum application with no suspensive effect in relation to the transfer order. The ECtHR considered the applicants initial claim against the Dublin transfer admissible, due to the alarming nature of reports
published in 2011-12 regarding Hungary as a country of asylum and in particular regarding Dublin transferees.
His second application for asylum in Austria could therefore not prima facie be considered abusively repetitive or
entirely manifestly unfounded. In the specific circumstances of the case, the applicant had been deprived of de
facto protection against forced transfer and of a meaningful substantive examination of his arguable claim concerning the situation of asylum seekers in Hungary. Accordingly, Art. 13 in conjunction with Art. 3 had been violated. The Court further noted the subsequent legislative amendments and the introduction of additional legal
guarantees concerning detention of asylum seekers and their access to basic facilities in Hungary and considered
that the applicant would therefore no longer be at a real and individual risk of being subjected to treatment in
violation of Art. 3 upon transfer to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation.

Subsequent applications and right to appeal

The case of I.K. v Austria(193) involved a Russian applicant of Chechen origin who claimed that his removal from
Austria to Russia would expose him to the risk of ill-treatment because his family had been persecuted in Chechnya.
Upon the rejection of both his and his mothers applications in Austria, the applicant had withdrawn his appeal,
having allegedly received mistaken legal advice. After his mother was recognised as a refugee as a result of the
appeal proceedings, the applicant lodged a new asylum request which was dismissed by the courts. The ECtHR
found that the applicant had relied on the same reasons for explaining his flight as his mother. However, while she
had been granted asylum after the Austrian asylum court considered her account to be convincing, the authorities had dismissed the applicants second asylum request and had not examined the connections between his
and his mothers proceedings.
The ECtHR held that there was no indication that the applicant would be at less of a risk for persecution upon
returning to Russia than his mother, who had been granted asylum in Austria after the Austrian courts found her
account convincing. Furthermore, there were recent reports documenting the practice of collective punishment
of relatives and suspected supporters of alleged insurgents. As a result, the ECtHR found that there would be
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhumane or degrading treatment) if the applicant was
removed to Russia.

3.2.5.2. Efficiency
Various initiatives were implemented by MS in 2013 to improve the efficiency of the asylum process, i.e. to conduct
procedures for international protection in a way that makes optimal use of available time and resources, so that
cost-effective decisions can be made without undue delay. Steps and actions that are not needed in a specific case
were omitted. Efficiency is relevant both for well-founded applications (where applicants should be granted protection as soon as possible and without going through overly lengthy procedures) and for applications which are not
justified (where they should be swiftly detected and processed to avoid, inter alia, a pull effect).
The length of the procedure for international protection is also directly linked to the costs of reception provided
to an applicant while their case is processed. The same principle of efficiency applies to reception conditions:
provision of extensive resources over a prolonged period of time to persons with unfounded claims comes at
the expense of those in need of protection. Short procedures are also in the best interest of persons who have
justified grounds for applying, so that they can be provided sooner with a more stable legal status in the country
of asylum and gain access to all the rights connected to the particular status granted.
Another efficiency measure consists in priority procedures, where certain types of cases (caseloads) are processed as a first priority before others. Cases which display elements described in the current APD as giving
grounds to believe they are unfounded can be processed in an accelerated manner, in which all procedural guarantees are maintained but the case is processed within a shorter timeframe.
(193) ECtHR Case of I.K. v Austria (Application no. 2964/12), judgment issued on 28 March 2013.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 69

In 2013, MS used screening procedures in order to assign cases to an appropriate processing channel (194). The aim
of this was to decrease normal length of procedures(195) and apply accelerated and fast track procedures(196).
To ensure efficiency, comprehensive programmes were instated, including internal reorganisation (197) and
appraisal exercises(198) to establish the optimum work methodology. In addition to additional human and other
resources(199), new IT and technological solutions were also launched(200).
In the case of M.E. v France, (201) the ECtHR considered that the return of the applicant, an Egyptian Coptic
Christian who had been convicted of proselytism, would violate Art. 3. However, the ECtHR did not consider the
examination of this case in the French accelerated or priority procedure incompatible with Art. 13.
In doing so, the ECtHR noted the fact that the applicant had been able to lodge an appeal with suspensive effect
against the removal order as well as an asylum request with suspensive effect. Given that the applicant had
delayed the submission of his application three years, the ECtHR considered that he could not validly argue that
the reduced and very short deadlines to prepare the asylum request in the special procedure had affected the
accessibility of the remedies available to him.
The ECtHR came to a similar finding on the use of the priority procedure for the assessment of an application
involving an Iranian national whose return was found to be in violation of Art.3 in the case KK v France(202).

(194) In Cyprus the procedure for screening all applications submitted before the Asylum Service in order to increase the speed of examination (primarily for
manifestly unfounded applications) was formalised during 2013 and integrated under ERF/national co-funded actions.
(195) The average duration of procedures at first instance in Austria continues to decrease (with more than 50% of cases decided within three months and almost
90% within eight months). Also in Bulgaria, the timeframes for processing cases were reduced. In Finland, one of the objectives of the current Government
Programme is to speed up the processing of asylum applications as part of a project aiming to improve the effectiveness of the administration of immigration
affairs (implemented in 20112014). At the same time, the intent is to scale the budget of the reception system to the number of asylum seekers and the
shortened asylum application processing times. The Police are also trying to accelerate the actual removal of persons after the refusal of asylum. In France in
2013, the National Court of Asylum has continued to reduce its average processing time, which dropped to 6 months 24 days from 8 months 7 days in 2012.
Simultaneously, the Court strengthened judicial guarantees for asylum seekers by increasing the size of the court and, secondly, implementing a significant
internal reorganisation over 5 years to improve the balance of hearing schedules and capacity building and to devote more time to the examination of each case
before the hearing and to its review after the hearings, allowing for debate and interpretation of the case. In Greece, the average duration of the procedure in first
instance was 68 days for the New Asylum Service and 44 at the appeal stage.
(196) In Luxembourg the fast track procedure was applied for most Western Balkan countries, mainly using the criteria of safe country of origin and manifestly
unfounded claims.
(197) In Spain internal reorganisation measures were adopted to improve the quality of the border procedure, including a larger number of protection officers
dealing with border claims as well as improvements to the drafting and justification of decisions. In Sweden, the Swedish Migration Board has taken a number
of measures, including case segmentation for processing applications under accelerated procedures (manifestly unfounded applications and Dublin cases) more
efficiently and to optimise performance and avoid bottlenecks. The introduction of case segmentation principles has had a positive effect on end-to-end processing
times for applications handled via accelerated procedures. With regard to the situation in Syria, a special operation was set up to process applications from Syrians
that were previously granted temporary permits and now usually receive permanent residence permits. Finally, a housing secretariat was established. It is
involved in capacity planning and coordinating housing for applicants. In December 2013 the SMB took additional measures to increase efficiency and capacity. A
new emergency plan was adopted to create a capacity to manage up to 3000 applications per week (as opposed to 1600 previously), whereby 1200 applications
per week are considered normal (rather than the previous 900). The SMB is planning to launch two new asylum examination units during 2014. One detention
unit has been temporarily closed and personnel will give assistance to application and reception units. In France an action plan was launched to achieve further
improvements regarding harmonisation, expertise, sharing, career paths, management, well-being at work, and streamlining asylum processes (see Section 3.2.2.
on institutional changes).
(198) in 2013 in Estonia, the Estonian Advice Centre performed an appraisal of support services offered to asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international
protection. The study was co-financed by the European Refugee Fund and the Ministry of the Interior. Currently there are approximately 15 support services
offered to asylum seekers and 17 support services offered to beneficiaries of international protection. In general, the division of labour in offering the services is
well-arranged in Estonia; there is very little duplication of services financed from different sources. Service-providers supported by different sources are in general
aware of each other and are in communication and cooperate with one another. The needs for training differ between service-providers. English and cultural
diversity awareness training are global needs for most of the service providers. The main areas that needed the most improvement were Estonian language
training, accommodations, courses and activities, and psychological counselling. However, the evaluation also noted that all services are project-based. Since
NGOs involved in providing services are dependent on the calls for project proposals under the national ERF, the sustainability of this support service is not
guaranteed (UNHCR input).
(199) In 2013 in Italy, the Italian System of Protection for Asylum Seekers and Refugees (SPRAR) has been enhanced and its accommodating capacity increased to 9400
in order to handle the continuous and consistent number of landings on the Italian coasts. As of 17 September 2013, the annual accommodating capacity of the
SPRAR was set at 16000 ordinary places, with the possible activation of additional places by local entities of the network in case of need. In Luxembourg, new staff
was hired in response to the influx of applicants from the Western Balkan Countries 2013 (continuing from 2012). In Croatia there was an increase in the number of
officers assigned to asylum tasks and in their continual education through seminars, conferences and international meetings. In Sweden, staff recruitment was used
as a means to increase efficiency, including extended opening hours (shift work for staff) at application units. France recruited new case-workers at OFPRA.
(200) In Germany several developments in the IT infrastructure were implemented, including upgrading IT structures e.g. by introducing the MARiS work-flow system,
electronic asylum files, access to internal and external data-bases, voice recognition software to determine the asylum seekers region of origin and the EASO
Training Curriculum e-learning programme. The Federal Offices statistics and controlling units collect the most important data, compile analyses and document all
relevant developments as a basis for planning and steering. At management level the extended steering committee for asylum meets regularly at the Federal Office
for Migration and Refugees. The committee evaluates internal analyses and monitoring reports and makes the required decisions. Steering elements include the
assignment of caseworkers, efficient allocation of the caseload, if required, establishment of temporary support units or the prioritisation of cases from specific
countries of origin. At peak workload times a project group for operative control is established that directly reports to the Federal Offices President or Vice President.
In Italy, a national project launched in 2012 to completely digitise applications for international protection continued in 2013. This includes direct electronic input of
data by police stations immigration offices and its immediate transmission to the relevant territorial commission. In Sweden the Migration Board has continued to
increase the use of video interviews and the digitisation of some features of the asylum process, e.g. by introducing a web-based solution for legal counsels appointed
in asylum cases. Text-message reminders to applicants were introduced as a measure to decrease the number of cancelled asylum interviews. The SMB has also fully
implemented a web-based system to handle matters regarding legal counsels, which increases efficiency and transparency in this matter.
(201) ECtHR Case of M.E. v France (Application No50094/10), judgment issued on 6 June 2013.
(202) ECtHR Case of K.K. v France (Application No18913/11), judgment issued on October 2013.

70 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

3.2.5.3. Quality
In 2013 numerous MS (Austria (203), Belgium (204), France (205), Ireland (206), Latvia (207), Lithuania (208), Netherlands(209), Poland(210), Romania(211), Sweden(212), and United Kingdom(213) continued implementing quality projects aimed at ensuring that procedures for international protection are conducted in a fair and efficient way, fully
in line with international legal standards. Other MS took steps to launch internal quality procedures. (214) Due to
the high numbers of applicants, some MS suspended their quality audit programmes(215). In Greece UNHCR has
deployed ten liaison officers providing on-the-job training and advice on the quality of interviews and decisions
at first instance, as well as ex post evaluations of those decisions.

EASO Quality Matrix

In 2013 EASO continued the Quality Matrix, launched in 2012. The purpose of this matrix is to comprehensively
cover all areas of the CEAS over a two-year period. The exercise will result in a database of good practices, quality
mechanisms and tools, and quality projects and initiatives. The Matrix will also enable EASO to identify MS support needs. In 2013, the Quality Matrix focused on mapping the core aspects of the determining stage of asylum
procedures, i.e. Personal Interview, Evidence Assessment, Eligibility, and Exclusion.
As part of the Quality Matrix mapping exercise, EASO maintains a List of Projects & Initiatives implemented in EU
MS since 2004. The list is intended to be a comprehensive and permanent database of projects and initiatives
which share the common goal of improving quality. It covers different aspects of the CEAS and is organised by
themes including, for example, quality of the procedure, minors, country of origin information, reception conditions, etc. It is developed and regularly updated with information provided by MS and other relevant stakeholders.

(203) In Austria in 2013 UNHCR conducted a quality assurance project entitled STARQ in cooperation with the Federal Asylum Office (FAO) for the purpose of
studying existing first instance quality assurance mechanisms and drawing up recommendations. The project included gathering feedback and opinions from
NGOs and lawyers via an online survey and further improved assessment forms for future evaluations of RSD interviews and decisions, allowing for a central
overview, statistical reporting and rapid identification of hot spots (UNHCR input).
(204) The asylum procedure enhancement project (launched in 2011 at the initiative of the Federal Government) was continued, analysing the efficiency of
each authority involved in the asylum process (Immigration Office, CGRS, CALL) and proposing measures to increase it and further reduce the asylum claim
processing times while maintaining a high quality standard. During 2013 measures will be further developed and implemented, including the development by
CGRS of a Quality project. This includes the definition of quality indicators, the gradual implementation of a quality unit and further enhancements of the quality
management processes. Also UNHCR and other organisations with expertise on the matter will be consulted.
(205) In collaboration with UNHCR, under an agreement signed on 25 September 2013 between the Director General of the OFPRA and the UNHCRs representative
in France. This control is based on an ex post verification of a representative sample of case records by a team of experienced caseworkers in cooperation with
representatives of UNHCR and supervised by the coordinator of quality control. An evaluation grid with ninety-three criteria was developed.
(206) The authority making decisions at first instance (ORAC) continues to prioritise its quality assurance processes as part of its decision-making process for asylum
and subsidiary protection applications, including the use of checklists to ensure that applications are accepted or rejected in line with international best practise
and the quality control of cases during and after deliberation. ORAC training programmes also place a strong emphasis on quality. UNHCR also continues to assist
ORAC in the development of its quality processes.
(207) From September 2013 to January 2014, a UNHCR project Improving the quality of the first instance asylum procedure in Latvia was being implemented, with
the participation of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, the State Border Guard and providers of legal assistance.
(208) A project for improving the quality of first instance procedures launched in 2012 is currently being implemented, in cooperation with UNHCR
(209) The IND (Asylum Department) continued to use the LEAN management instruments, launched in April 2012, to save costs, increase quality and improve their
services. LEAN management has proven to be a method for simultaneously saving costs and improving the quality of organisations. Case files are subjected to
random internal quality checks, which involves interview and decision-making evaluations by a senior caseworker. The results of the quality check are given as
feedback to the caseworker(s) involved with the case file. A quarterly quality report (using statistics) is drawn up to provide an overview of the case file quality.
The quality checks take into account feedback from the appeals court.
(210) A monthly analysis of the quality of refugee procedures, aimed at the protection and improvement of the efficiency and quality of the refugee system in
Poland, is conducted simultaneously by the Office for Foreigners and UNHCR and combined with monitoring activities concerning second-instance decisions
which overturned first-instance decisions and average processing time.
(211) At AID level the quality management system for asylum procedures was continued under the Cooperation Agreement between General Immigration
Inspectorate (GII) and UNHCR Romania, signed on 28 September 2011. The cooperation includes a monthly analysis/audit of a sample of cases decided at each
regional centre and drafting guidance notes on the basis of the results of the analysis.
(212) The SMB quality system has recently been developed and reconstructed. Many of the measures implemented during 2013 were done within the framework
of a project called The Learning Organisation (DLO) that has been active since 2011. The project was extensive and holistic, and its aim was to ensure high quality
and harmonised processing by the authority. The project includes a long list of measures including; 1) a standard for legal quality (indicators on legal quality); 2)
a standard for legal guidelines; 3) methods for systematic quality follow-up, as well as 4) tools and guidance regarding the processing of asylum cases (handbook
on asylum interviews, a case learning method, including a case bank. There is also an enhanced focus on coaching and on a training programme for newly hired
staff.). Furthermore, the SMB has initiated a discussion on legal quality issues with four other Swedish authorities (Tax Board, Social Insurance Agency and the
Authority for financial grants to students-CSN). The aim is to set up a network and exchange knowledge and best practices.
(213) A strengthened audit framework for the national asylum system was introduced on 1 April 2013. The main difference between this and the previous system is
that monthly auditing sample considered has been reduced from 10% of substantive interviews and decisions to 5%, but the audit now encompasses the whole
asylum system, including returns. In addition, the way quality is assessed and reported has changed. The Home Office now clearly assesses the potential impact
of non-conformity with its quality standards. Errors are categorised as minor, serious or critical depending upon their potential impact on the circumstances of
each case. As this is the first year of the new framework, reliable information on its effectiveness in improving quality is not yet available.
(214) In late 2013, the BAMF decided to further enhance its focus on asylum quality by re-establishing a specific division for Quality Assurance, which will constitute
UNHCRs main counterpart in asylum cooperation matters at BAMF (training, decision monitoring, structured exchange) (UNHCR input).
(215) In Hungary joint quality audits based on a cooperation agreement concluded by OIN and UNHCR on 27 July 2010 were suspended in 2013 at OINs
request due to capacity problems.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 71

3.2.6. Third-Country Support

3.2.6.1. Resettlement
Resettlement activities in 2013 were strongly marked by MS responses to the Syrian crisis, including the launching
special resettlement programmes for Syrians, which continued in 2014(216).
Statistical information on resettlement is available in Annex C.14.
Regular resettlement programmes were continued in 2013 in numerous MS (Denmark (217), France (218), Finland(219), Germany(220), Hungary(221), Ireland(222), the Netherlands(223), Portugal(224), Sweden(225) and the United
Kingdom(226)). New resettlement programmes were adopted in Belgium(227), Romania(228) and Spain(229).
Due to unpredictable circumstances, the Czech Republic was not in a position to fulfil its 2013 resettlement quota
and its implementation was postponed until 2014. However, a financial contribution was provided to countries
affected by the Syrian migration flow(230).
(216) In Austria in September 2013 it was decided to grant permanent asylum via humanitarian admission to 500 Syrian refugees, with a focus on particularly
vulnerable persons, with 250 Syrian refugees to be admitted to Austria as family reunification cases in cooperation with IOM and another 250 Syrian refugees
to be admitted in cooperation with UNHCR. Beyond its regular resettlement programme, Germany adopted a humanitarian admission programme in response
to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the entire region. 5000 vulnerable Syrian refugees will benefit from the programme, for which UNHCR and IOM are the
Federal Governments main implementation partners. They will be permitted to stay for the duration of the conflict. A decision was made in December 2013 to
increase the quota for Syrian refugees by another 5000 to 10000. During 2013, thirty-one Afghan refugees also arrived from Syria to Ireland under an EU-funded
Preparatory Action for Emergency Resettlement. In France, the decision to grant residency and international protection to 500 vulnerable Syrian refugees was
announced in October 2013. In addition to the arrival of Syrian refugees via the annual resettlement program, a dedicated humanitarian admission program was
set up in partnership with UNHCR in order to be implemented in 2014. The Swedish Migration Board assumed the role of chair of the Core Group Syria aiming
to secure resettlement and other forms of humanitarian admission for 30000 Syrian refugees in 2014.
(217) In 2013 Denmark resettled 515 persons and conducted three selection missions (to Nepal in order to resettle refugees from Bhutan; to Ecuador in order to
resettle refugees from Colombia; and to Uganda in order to resettle refugees from the DRC). Furthermore, Denmark has also resettled refugees on a dossier basis
from various countries.
(218) A framework agreement with UNHCR has been in place since 4 February 2008, providing for the submission by UNHCR of 100 cases for resettlement each
year. Since 2008, 632 people were welcomed in France as part of the resettlement program. In 2013, 88 persons were resettled in France (the program is still
under implementation).
(219) The following 2013 resettlement quota was established: Afghan refugees in Iran: 200 persons; Congolese refugees in Southern Africa: 150 persons; Iraqi,
Iranian, Afghan and Somali refugees in Turkey: 150 persons; Sudanese refugees in Egypt: 150 persons; emergencies: 100 persons.
(220) In 2013 the current annual resettlement allocation for Germany of 300 persons was met by accepting refugees from Iran, Iraq, and Syrians who came from Turkey.
(221) Hungary has committed to undertake the resettlement of 10 persons in 2013 as Hungarys second resettlement exercise, geared towards Syrian refugees. The
selection mission has been carried out; 1 person arrived in December 2013, the transportation of the remaining persons was underway.
(222) Ireland agreed to accept 80 persons under its annual resettlement programme. During the year, four medical cases (19 persons) (including one medical case
from Syria) whose medical needs could not be met except through resettlement were admitted, two persons arrived to join other family members resettled in
2012 and 24 DRC refugees arrived from refugee camps in Tanzania.
(223) Resettlement missions to Uganda, Rwanda, Jordan, Kenya, Thailand, and Sudan, as well as an interview mission in the ETC (Emergency Transit Centre) in
Romania were performed. The ETC hosted Eritrean refugees who previously were in alien detention in Yemen. Furthermore, the Netherlands has held interviews
with Iraqi refugees through a video link with the UNHCR office in Damascus (Syria), and the UNHCR has submitted individual files. In addition to the resettlement
missions, the UNHCR may submit certain individual files if they constitute emergency cases. The quota for 2013 (as in previous years) is an average of 500 invited
refugees per year (approx. 400 people selected through resettlement missions and approx. 100 people through individual nominations by the UNHCR).
(224) Portugal has participated since 2007 in the resettlement of refugees recognised by UNHCR, each year receiving 30 refugees from several nationalities and
backgrounds. For the first time in 2012, Portugal included 10 minors in the quota. These resettled refugees were from different nations origins, such as the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan, and came via eight different countries: Egypt, Ethiopia, Morocco, Senegal, Thailand,
Turkey, Tunisia and Ukraine.
(225) In 2013, refugees from mainly the following countries of origin were resettled to Sweden: Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of
Congo. The countries via which the resettled refugees came were: Ecuador, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Malaysia. Cultural orientation
(CO) has been carried out in the form of traditional CO programmes (1.5 days of information) as well as shorter information sessions (workshops) just after the
granting of residence permits by selection missions. These activities have been carried out in Ecuador (workshop), Sudan (full COP), Kenya (full COP), Uganda
(workshop), Iran (workshop), and Jordan (workshop). These activities have been carried out solely by employed Swedish personnel.
(226) The Gateway Protection Programme (managed by the Home Office and since 2007 co-funded by the European Refugee Fund III and the Home Office) is a
humanitarian scheme which supports up to 750 refugees each year by relocating them from refugee camps to live in the UK. It supports refugees who have been
identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as being highly vulnerable.
(227) 2013 marked the first year of the Belgian structural resettlement programme within the framework of the Joint EU Resettlement Programme after two ad hoc
resettlement operations (Iraq in 2009 and Libya in 2011). The quota for 2013 was 100 persons to be selected through 2 selection missions (Tanzania and Burundi)
and for a small number on a dossier basis (20 persons). Belgium also announced its intention to gradually increase its resettlement quota as follows: 2014: 100
(expected to be 75 Syrians and 25 refugees in the Great Lakes Region), 2015 and 2016: 150, 2017 and 2018: 200, 2019 and 2020: 250.
(228) Romanias obligations as a state of resettlement is a primary goal set by the National Strategy on Immigration 20112014. The pledge for 2013 concerned 40
Iraqi refugees to be resettled from Turkey.
(229) On 13 December 2013, a new National Resettlement Programme was adopted by the Spanish Government in accordance with the legal provisions in the
Spanish Asylum Law. As part of the programme, Spain has pledged to resettle up to 100 beneficiaries of international protection, in addition to the quota of 30
refugees included in the previous programme. This new programme will focus on refugees affected by the Syrian conflict coming from the neighbouring countries.
(230) As an act of solidarity with Syrian refugee crisis, government of the Czech Republic agreed to provide 2 mil EUR to countries affected by the Syrian migration
flow. The contribution was divided as follows: a 500000 EUR donation to the Turkish Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD)
to support local communities affected by the Syrian influx, a 1 mil. EUR donation to the Bulgarian State Agency for Refugees to support reception and asylum
infrastructure; a 400000 EUR contribution to the Regional Protection and Development Program in the countries neighbouring Syria. The Czech Republic became
an implementing partner in the RDPP Program; 100 000 EUR for a Program of Medical evacuations for Syrians designed for patients in need that have no
guarantee of medical treatment in the country concerned and who are in life-threatening condition (as an addition to the previously released 600000 EUR).

72 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Resettlement practices across the EU were the subject of reports by civil society organisations(231).
Emergency Transit Centres in Slovakia and Romania
Under the tripartite agreement between the Slovak Government, the UNHCR and the IOM(232), Slovakia operates
an Emergency Transit Centre in Humenn, which hosted 138 persons, including 79 Afghani refugees from Iran and
59 refugees from Eritrea. In both cases refugees are being gradually resettled to third countries.
Romania continued to manage the Emergency Transit Centre in Timioara under the Tripartite Agreement with
UNHCR. In 2013 the ETC hosted 344 evacuated persons and 271 persons have been resettled to countries such as
the Netherlands, UK, USA, and Finland.

EU activities on resettlement
Building on the first seminar on EU Resettlement Policy held in 2012, EASO organised a practical cooperation
meeting on resettlement on 12-13 November 2013. The meeting created an opportunity to discuss possible
future coordinated actions, such as joint selection missions and an EASO proposal for a resettlement specialists
network with representatives of EU MS, the European Commission, UNHCR, IOM and key NGOs working in this
area.
The European Union, represented by the European Commission and EASO, was also present at the Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement (ATCR) which took place 1-3 July 2013 in Geneva. Some of the main topics
discussed were Global Resettlement Overview and Priorities and Resettlement Targets for 2014 & Multi-Year
Commitments. There was also a session which featured breakout groups to allow for discussion of selected priority refugee situations (Afghans in Iran and Pakistan, and Colombians in Ecuador).

3.2.6.2. External dimension and capacity-building in Third Countries

The activities of EASO related to the external dimension of the CEAS are undertaken within the framework of the
broader EU external relations policy and in agreement with the European Commission. In this regard, 2013 was
an important year, with continuing and increasing migratory pressures in the EUs immediate neighbourhood,
especially as result of the ongoing conflict in Syria and steadily increasing migratory flows through the Mediterranean, resulting in the loss of many lives. In the context of the Syrian conflict, the EU and MS combined remain
the largest humanitarian and non-humanitarian donor in the region; the EUs efforts in the field of protection
centred on developing a Regional Development and Protection Programme (RDPD) and supporting UNHCRs call
to the international community for the resettlement of up to 30000 of the most vulnerable Syrians in 20132014.

EASO activities related to the external dimension and capacity-building in Third

Countries
The EASO Regulation mandates EASO to coordinate the exchange of information and other actions taken on
issues arising from the implementation of instruments and mechanisms relating to the external dimension of the
CEAS. Pursuant to its mandate, and in accordance with Article 49 of the Regulation, EASO sought cooperation
with competent third-country authorities on technical matters, especially to promote and assist capacity-building
in the third countries own asylum and reception systems and to support the implementation of regional protection programmes, and other actions related to long-lasting solutions.

(231) ECRE Comparative Study on Best Practices for the integration of resettled refugees in the EU MS, January 2013 (LIBE Committee), January 2013 http://www.
ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/747.html.
(232) Agreement in force from 24 June 2012 to 24 September 2013; a new agreement was signed on 24 June 2013 for a period of 15 months. During their stay in
Slovakia, evacuees are provided with accommodation, food, and basic hygienic products (partially covered from the ERF resources). Health and social care for
refugees is ensured by the UNHCR, and the transfer itself is secured by the IOM.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 73

On 25 October 2013, EASO organised a Practical Cooperation Workshop on the role of EASO in the external
dimension of the CEAS, which was attended by NCPs of the MS. The meeting focused on the main elements of
the EASO External Action Strategy, which was subsequently adopted by the EASO Management Board on 29
November 2013. The strategy defines the approach, the general framework within which EASO will undertake
its work related to the external dimension of the CEAS, the role of EASO regarding the external dimension of the
CEAS, its underlying principles, the implementation methodology, the geographical priorities, as well as forms of
EASO External Action.
EASO activities related to capacity-building in third countries in 2013 included supporting the EU-Jordan Dialogue
on Migration, Mobility and Security, for which a meeting took place in Jordan in February 2013, as well as a
meeting under the framework of the EU-Morocco Mobility Partnership on 23 September 2013, both with EASO
participation. In addition, a meeting under the EU-Tunisia Mobility Partnership took place in November 2013.
In 2013, EASO also prepared and submitted a project proposal under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, with the aim of providing capacity-building support to relevant authorities in Morocco, Tunisia
and Jordan. The project, financed by the European Commission (DG DEVCO) and entitled Promoting the participation of Jordan in the work of EASO as well as the participation of Tunisia and Morocco in the work of EASO and
Frontex was approved and signed on 31 December 2013, with an implementation period of 18 months.
Finally, since 2012 EASO was involved in the Prague Process Pilot Project Quality and training in the asylum
processes, which is implemented within the framework of the Prague Process Targeted Initiative. In 2013, EASO
decided to support UNHCRs project Asylum systems quality initiative in Eastern Europe and the southern Caucasus. One pillar of this project, with a similar scope to the Prague Process project, will be the focus on EASO
support.

Within the framework of the Prague Process, Sweden led a capacity-building project on asylum entitled Quality
and training in the asylum process, with the support of UNHCR. This project aims to provide support to Eastern
European countries in implementing the administrative management of the asylum application. A partnership
between France and Moldova was initiated as part of the project. Additionally it also serves a supporting role in
the Eastern Partnership Panel on Asylum and Migration and is a partner in the Budapest Process Silk Routes II
project, with the goal of capacity-building for migration matters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. A bilateral twinning project with Armenia and ongoing discussions with Turkey about supporting the newly established General
Directorate for Migration Management can also be mentioned in this respect.

3.2.7. Malta/Intra-EU Relocation

In 2013 the implementation of EUREMA II (Pilot Project for Intra-EU relocation from Malta) continued, with the
participation of Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia and with funding from the
European Refugee Fund, Community Actions 2011. A total of 91 pledges to relocate people were made under
EUREMA II. EUREMA II is an extension of the EUREMA I project(233).
Following the methodology of the EUREMA I project, local partners formed a Selection Committee to prepare
dossiers of beneficiaries of international protection for referral to the MS. UNHCR undertook a pre-screening
process based on the available information on potential candidates. Persons selected were then counselled by
UNHCR for possible referral. Participating MS were expected to conduct a selection mission in Malta and interview referred candidates. The International Organisation for Migration was responsible for organising cultural orientation courses, providing necessary pre-travel medical examinations and organising travel arrangements. The
project provided financial support to the host countries to provide integration programmes for up to one year,
including e.g. accommodation expenses, language training and other aspects to ensure successful integration.
Ireland received 3 Somali families (10 persons) from Malta in 2013. Poland pledged to relocate 50 people under
EUREMA II, 7 persons were finally registered for the programme and 6 of them actually arrived in Poland in
mid-January 2013 (followed by 23 other persons arriving under family reunification).

(233) The European Commission announced the extension on 11 April 2011, and on 12 May 2011 a Ministerial pledging conference for relocation of migrants from
Malta and resettlement of migrants from North Africa was organised.

74 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

No refugees were relocated from Malta to Bulgaria due to a lack of candidates for relocation. Similarly, Hungary
agreed to relocate 5 persons from Malta in 2013; however, there were no beneficiaries interested in relocation to
Hungary. Also, Slovakias and Romanias pledge of 10 persons each, was not implemented due to lack of interest
by candidates or lack of candidates matching national criteria.
Also outside the Eurema II framework, relocation took place at the bilateral level, with pledges for a total number
of 215 persons to be relocated from Malta to other MS (Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark) in the
period 20122013, most of whom were effectively relocated by the end of 2013.

EASO activities on relocation

EASO started its work on relocation in the summer of 2012 by conducting a fact-finding exercise on relocation
activities in relation to Malta. In June and November 2013, EASO organised expert meetings on relocation with
the participation of MS, the European Commission, UNHCR and IOM. Discussions focused on the practical and
legislative aspects of a common relocation approach, the development of support material on how to translate
the use of EU funding for relocation in practice and the mapping of relocation best practices in MS, including
internal organisation systems and reception and integration conditions. Participants shared their knowledge and
best practices on relocation within the EU. Participants also agreed on specific EASO tools for relocation, such as
the development of a practical handbook and relocation methodology. In 2014, EASO will conduct an update of
the fact-finding report on relocation published in 2012, which will feed into the evaluation of the EUREMA pilot
project that the European Commission will undertake together with EASO in 2014.
The European Commission organised, for the first time, an Annual Relocation Forum to provide an opportunity
to help MS understand their relocation needs in the immediate future and prepare their pledges. The meeting
was held on 25 September and the Executive Director of EASO gave a presentation which outlined the key legal
and practical characteristics of intra-EU relocation as enshrined in the EASO Regulation, which gives a clear coordination role to EASO in the field of relocation. EASO advocated a Common Relocation Approach, on the basis of
a common framework, funding (AMF), information provided by EASO and tools developed by EASO.

Intra-EU relocation was also a subject of reports published in 2013 by civil society organisations, emphasising,
inter alia, EASOs key role in responsibility-sharing(234).

Finally, it should be noted that 390 persons were resettled from Malta to the United States in 2013(235).

(234) ECRE Enhancing Intra-EU Solidarity Tools to Improve Quality and Fundamental Rights Protection in the Common European Asylum System, January 2013.
http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/688.html.
(235) UNHCR input.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 75

4. The Functioning of the CEAS

4.1. Access to procedure
The initial stage of the procedure is of crucial importance in swiftly managing mixed migration flows and ensuring that third-country nationals who may be in need of international protection have an effective opportunity
to present their applications for international protection and have their protection needs assessed in a fair and
efficient procedure.
However, access to procedure in the EU effectively continues to presuppose access to the territory (which
includes MS borders, territorial waters or transit zones). Third-country nationals in EU territory who wish to apply
for asylum must be treated in accordance with the EU asylum acquis. In particular, MS must guarantee the right
to effectively make a claim for international protection (without obstacles) in a timely manner (without undue
delay), thereby safeguarding the right to asylum under Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.
At the EU level, aspects relevant to access to procedure are currently regulated in the APD. The recast version
of the APD was adopted on 26 June 2013 and has a general transposition deadline of 20 July 2015 (see section
3.1.1. above for details).
Comprehensive general rules on access to procedure are provided in Article 6 of the recast APD, whereas Articles
7 and 8 deal with the specific issues regarding access to the procedure by dependants or minors and access to the
procedure at border crossing points and in detention facilities(236).
The recast Directive now clearly distinguishes between making an application (which consists in the applicant
expressing the intention to apply for international protection) and lodging an application (which is a formal process of filing an application in line with legal procedure). The recast Directive also provides for an additional procedural step registration of the application , which may however be included in the lodging phase provided
that the time limits for registration referred to in the recast directive are respected. The recast Directive further
clarifies that although the applicant may be required to lodge their application in person and/or in a specific location, the MS has to ensure that an effective opportunity is provided to lodge an application as soon as possible.
In line with the rules established in the Dublin Regulation, the recast directive also explicitly refers to the fact that
an application is considered lodged once it has reached the competent authority of the concerned MS.
The recast APD also sets forth a duty for MS to provide information and training to the personnel of authorities
who are likely to receive applications for international protection (and they are not themselves in charge of
registering such applications) so that they can both identify persons who may wish to apply for international
protection and inform those persons claiming international protection about how and where an application can
be lodged(237).
In response to the tragedy in Lampedusa, Italy launched the Mare Nostrum operation in the Mediterranean Sea,
rescuing thousands of people between October and December 2013 and bringing a total of over 9000 migrants
to land.

(236) The current version of the APD regulates both those issues in a single article (Article 6) and, unlike the recast version, does not elaborate on applications made
on behalf of dependants or minors.
(237) In Italy throughout 2013 national authorities continued efforts to further improve training activities on the international protection of refugees. This
particularly targeted operators involved in complex rescue operations at sea, such as the Guardia di Finanza and the navy (Marina militare).

76 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In terms of access to the territory, concerns were expressed by civil society and international organisations about
alleged pushbacks at some of the external sea and land borders of the EU (238). At the same time, thousands
of third-country nationals were rescued throughout the year on the high seas or shores of EU countries. For
instance, the Greek coastguard rescued 2511 persons in 110 incidents during 2013. UNHCR also noted improvements in that regard(239).
The recast APD reinforces the need to swiftly register all applicants by introducing a requirement for all applications to be registered within a maximum of six days, depending on whether the application was made to the
authority in charge of registration or whether those two functions are the responsibility of two different bodies(240). Delays in registration may, inter alia, lead to belated entry of the applicants data in various information
systems, including Eurodac, which may then impact Dublin procedures (see section 4.4. below on Dublin procedures). Such delays also impact applicants access to their rights during the procedure(241).
Information provided by the applicant at the application stage of the procedure often serves as an indication of
which procedural mode should be used for their case whether it requires, inter alia, a regular examination procedure or whether the application should be processed in an accelerated mode or via another specific procedure.
More information on those types of procedures is provided further on in section 4.5.

(238) Concerns have been raised, inter alia, about the situations in Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, and Cyprus: UNHCR, UNHCR concerned at reports that asylum
seekers, including Syrians, denied entry to some EU countries, 15 November 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/528603886.html (accessed 15 April 2014). For
more specifics about the situation in Italy, see: Human Rights Watch, Turned Away Summary Returns of Unaccompanied Migrant Children and Adult
Asylum Seekers from Italy to Greece, January 2013, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/italy0113ForUpload_0.pdf. For more specifics about the
situation in Greece, see, inter alia: UNHCR, UNHCR seeks clarifications on the fate of Syrian refugees in Evros, 13 November 2014, http://www.unhcr.gr/nea/
artikel/2768a7a2ced20c6daca7326788699f09/unhcr-seeks-clarifications-on-the-fa.html (accessed 15 April 2014); UNHCR, Statement on Boat Incident off
Greece Coast, 14 January 2014, http://www.unhcr.org/52df83d49.html (accessed 15 April 2014); Amnesty International, Fortress Europe: Syrian Refugee Shame
Exposed, 13 December 2013, https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/fortress-europe-syrian-refugee-shame-exposed-2013-12-11 (accessed 15 April 2014); Amnesty
International, Frontier Europe: Human Rights Abuses on Greeces Border with Turkey, 2013, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR25/008/2013/en/
d93b63ac-6c5d-4d0d-bd9f-ce2774c84ce7/eur250082013en.pdf (accessed 15 April 2014); PROASYL, Pushed Back: systematic human rights violations against
refugees in the Aegean sea and at the Greek-Turkish land border, 7 November 2013, http://www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/fm-dam/l_EU_Fluechtlingspolitik/proasyl_
pushed_back_24.01.14_a4.pdf (accessed 15 April 2014). Concerns have also been raised regarding access to the territory and asylum procedures in the Spanish
enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, where additional measures to dissuade entries over the fences and reinforced surveillance were introduced. See, inter alia:
UNHCR recommendations concerning the situation of the international protection system in Ceuta and Melilla, developed alongside the Ministry of Interior in
February 2014 (UNHCR input); Human Rights Watch, Abused and Expelled: Ill-treatment of Sub-Saharan African Migrants in Morocco, February 2014, http://
www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/morocco0214_For Upload_0.pdf (accessed 15 April 2014); Asociacin Pro Derechos Humanos de Andaluca, Derechos
Humanos en la Frontera Sur 2013, March 2013, http://www.aedh.eu/L-AEDH-in-the-report-Derechos.html (accessed 15 April 2014); the Ombudsmans Offices
annual report 2013, pp.186-89, available at http://www.defensordelpueblo.es/es/Documentacion/Publicaciones/anual/index.html. Concerns were also raised
regarding efforts by the Maltese government to push back migrants, which sparked critical reactions from, inter alia, the European Commission: http://europa.
eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-676_en.htm (accessed 15 April 2014) and UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org.mt/news-and-views/press-releases/683-pr-accessto-asylum-must-be-ensured-unhcr-. Also, in Estonia access to territory and the asylum procedure for persons applying at external border crossing points (BCPs)
remains of concern to UNHCR. The Estonian border authorities systematically reject, within the admissibility or accelerated procedure, asylum applications lodged
by persons who have arrived to Estonia through the Russian Federation. Those refused admission do not have access to an effective remedy at the border and
are returned to the Russian Federation within 48 hours (UNHCR input). The Committee Against Torture has also pointed out this gap in its recent Concluding
Observations, which recommend that Estonia ensure that all persons seeking asylum in the State party, including at its border crossing points, enjoy all procedural
guarantees, including the right to appeal negative decisions, as well as access to legal assistance and interpreters and ensure that decisions concerning asylum,
including under the accelerated procedure, are made by the Citizenship and Migration Board or a determining authority which meets relevant international
criteria. CAT/C/EST/CO/5, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT/C/EST/CO/5&Lang=En. On the
topic of access to international protection and sea borders, see also Fundamental Rights Agency, Fundamental rights at Europes southern sea borders, August
2013, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/summary-fundamental-rights-southern-sea-borders_en.pdf (accessed 15 April 2014). Also noteworthy is the
briefing paper prepared in December 2013 for the European Parliament by Dr Elspeth Guilt and Dr Violeta Moreno-Lax: Current Challenges for International
Refugee Law, with a Focus on EU Policies and EU Co-operation with the UNCHR, EXPO/B/DROI/2012/15, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/
join/2013/433711/EXPO-DROI_NT%282013%29433711_EN.pdf. Reports published on the issue of access to the territory in 2014 include: Human Rights Watch,
Containment Plan. Bulgarias Pushbacks and Detention of Syrian and Other Asylum Seekers and Migrants (29 April 2014), available at: http://www.hrw.org/
reports/2014/04/28/containment-plan.
(239) In 2013, UNHCR noted important improvements in a number of areas of the asylum system in Cyprus. For example, previous restrictions on access to asylum
procedures for persons appearing at the Ledra Palace check point (buffer zone) have eased, thus ensuring compliance with the non-refoulement obligation. In
Germany on 28 June 2013, the Federal Ministry of the Interior (MoI) lifted its previous internal instruction of 3 March 2006 relating to situations where third
country nationals requested asylum from the Federal Police at the border or were picked up at/near the border by the Federal Police. The instructions had
stipulated that in such cases and when there were indications that another Dublin state is responsible, an asylum request had to be submitted to the Federal
Police, which would then decide on the entry to, or the removal from, the territory; as a result, the BAMF did not formally open asylum procedure in these cases.
According to the MoI, the aim of this instruction was to make sure that the persons concerned could be transferred to the MS responsible directly, in detention.
In practice, these provisions were criticised for obstructing access to the asylum procedure and for automatically leading to the detention of asylum seekers in the
respective cases. With the lifting of this instruction, access to the asylum procedure should now also be guaranteed for asylum seekers in such border situations
and the detention of asylum seekers should be reduced. The instructions were also lifted in reaction to several administrative court decisions (e.g. Administrative
Court Frankfurt/Oder, decision of 24.6.2013 1 L 179/13.A) (UNHCR Input). In Hungary, UNHCR noted improvements in 2013. Access to the territory was
generally unhindered in 2013. The government maintained the open door policy despite a significant increase in asylum applications (776% increase, 18900
applications compared to 2157 in 2012), incl. 380 unaccompanied/separated minors (183 in 2012). The government handled the influx largely following UNHCRs
10-point plan (i.e. with a balance of security measures and compliance with human rights obligations) (UNHCR input).
(240) Where simultaneous applications for international protection by a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons make it very difficult in
practice to respect this time limit, MS may establish provisions that extend that time limit to 10 working days (Article 6.5. recast APD).
(241) Which may lead to lack of documentation and lack of access to reception conditions, for example in Bulgaria (UNHCR input)

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 77

In 2013, many MS instated monitoring mechanisms for such procedures, including joint projects with other stakeholders, such as civil society organisations and UNHCR(242).
In particular, UNHCR noted concerns regarding access to procedure by persons with no valid travel documents,
who may be subjected to penalisation in breach of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention(243).

4.2. Access to information and legal assistance

Providing information on access to the asylum procedure at border crossing points and in detention facilities
The recast APD recognizes the importance of facilitating the access of persons who may be in need of international protection to examination procedures at border crossing points and in detention facilities by establishing
an obligation for MS to ensure information on the possibility of applying is given to those persons(244). Article 8
regulates the scope of the information and counsel to be provided by the MS, including as much interpretation as
necessary to facilitate access to the procedure. It also concerns access to applicants by organisations and persons
(other than the authorities of the MS themselves) providing advice and counsel. This provision reflects the common practice across MS where civil society organisations are involved in a range of those activities.
In general, brochures and leaflets remain a popular means of providing information to applicants for international protection. In 2013, many MS (e.g. Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece) published new informational materials,
updated the existing resources (e.g. the United Kingdom, Croatia(245)) or translated those materials into foreign
languages. Other means were also used in the process, such as audiovisual presentation (e.g. in Malta). Despite
those efforts, challenges remained with regard to the practical accessibility of information for all applicants(246),
particularly in the context of detention(247).
Providing legal and procedural information free of charge in procedures
The recast APD makes a clear distinction between free legal assistance which, under certain conditions, must
be provided at the appeal stage (Article 20) and free legal and procedural information at the first instance stage
(Article 19), which is information beyond that given in writing (Article 11(2) and 12(1)(f). The main purpose is to
ensure that applicants are well-informed about the rights and obligations applicable to their specific case.

(242) In Croatia, for example, over the course of 2013 phase III of the project Monitoring of the procedures used by the Ministry of the Interior police officers in the
area of migration and asylum border monitoring was implemented. The partners in the implementation of this project phase were the Ministry of the Interior
(MoI), the Croatian Law Centre (HPC) and the UNHCR. In previous phases of the project, no limitations or barriers to access to asylum procedure were recorded.
Access to territory and the asylum procedure has improved in Latvia since a border monitoring agreement between the Latvian State Border Guard (SBG) and
UNHCR was reached in 2011. Nevertheless, as highlighted in the first annual report submitted to the SBG in mid-2013, there are still a number of gaps, such as
access to information about the Latvian asylum system at border-crossing points (BCPs), the availability of free legal aid and ensuring the right to effective remedy
at the BCPs, the need to improve the conditions (access to healthcare, safeguards for use of disciplinary sanctions) in asylum seeker detention centres and the
identification and treatment of applicants with specific needs. Also, UNHCR has received reports from the Ombudsman Office and NGOs about obstacles at some
BCPs to accessing the territory and asylum procedure, mainly for Georgian applicants from Georgia who are generally considered by the SBG as having manifestly
unfounded applications (UNHCR Input). In Lithuania, the recommendations contained in the first report published within the tripartite border monitoring MOU
between the Lithuanian State Border Guards (SBG), UNHCR and the Lithuanian Red Cross Society (LRCS) continued to be implemented. The preliminary findings in
the second border monitoring report were presented to the SBG. They contained recommendations on AGD-sensitive identification mechanisms and interviews,
access to the procedure and legal advice for a/s in detention, humane reception conditions, and non-penalisation and detention for irregular entry pursuant to
Article 31 in the 1951 Convention. In parallel, implementation of the border monitoring MOU continued in 2013, including seven monitoring visits to border
crossing points by the LRCS; two seminars on access to territory and procedure, interviewing, and reception standards attended by 30 border officials from
various border units and the Foreigners Registration Centre; and UNHCRs training of journalists to enhance public awareness and understanding (UNHCR input).
Similar tri-partite joint border monitoring agreements between governments, NGOs and UNHCR exist and have been renewed for many years with other MS:
Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Lithuania. In addition, UNHCR, IOM, NGOs and governmental partners have agreed on joint projects for
improving initial reception/arrival support in Italy (Praesidium: http://www.unhcr.it/news/dir/168/view/1312/il-progetto-praesidium-131200.html) and Greece
(New Arrival Intervention project: http://www.unhcr.gr/fileadmin/Greece/Extras/Factsheet/FACTSHEETGREECE0314EN.pdf) (UNHCR input).
(243) UNHCR input.
(244) Preamble Recital 28.
(245) UNHCR input.
(246) For example in Belgium, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain (UNHCR input).
(247) The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, upon the conclusion of its visit to Hungary (23 September 2 October 2013), highlighted that the problem
relating to effective legal remedy is made worse by the severe lack of effective legal assistance to these vulnerable persons. Most of those that we interviewed
stated that they did not have legal assistance and those that did have a lawyer stated that it was someone from a civil society organisation rather than the one
provided by the government. OHCHR Press Release, Hungary: UN experts concerned at overuse of detention and lack of effective legal assistance, 2 October
2013, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13817&LangID=E.

78 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Legal assistance
According to the current legal framework concerning the right to legal assistance and representation expressed in
Article 15 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, MS are required to provide access to legal assistance to applicants
for international protection. However they may limit its scope by providing assistance only in appeal procedures,
only to applicants who lack sufficient resources, only via legal advisors or counsellors specifically designated by
national law, or only if the appeal/review is likely to succeed. The flexibility of the legal framework results in a
differing scope of state-sponsored free-of-charge legal assistance provided to applicants for international protection across MS.
The European Refugee Fund was a significant source of (co-)financing for programmes providing legal assistance
to applicants for international protection (inter alia, in Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia,
etc.). Civil society organisations often play a crucial role in providing free of charge legal information and assistance in cooperation with UNHCR. Civil society organisations may also be involved in a non-binding way in the
procedure(248).
Legal aid may also be provided by specialised providers, appointed by the state, and the system used may depend
on the stage of the procedure. For example, in Slovakia, the Legal Aid Centre provides legal assistance to persons
in reception centres who were issued a negative decision. Effective 1 January 2013, only lawyers or the Legal Aid
Centre may represent an applicant for asylum in the court procedure of appeal against decisions of the Migration
Office. Representation in first-instance proceedings may be provided by civil society organisations or by the Legal
Aid Centre.
The provision of free legal advice has been a subject of monitoring activities and projects by civil society organisations and UNHCR in Austria for example, where free legal advice is provided both during the initial admission
procedure as well as in appeal procedures(249).
In the United Kingdom, legal aid reforms under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act
2012 (250) came into effect in 2013. The changes did not affect the provision of legal aid for asylum applicants.
However, the reforms resulted in the elimination of legal aid for family reunification and trafficking cases(251).
UNHCR has expressed concern about the lack of access to, or quality of, legal assistance in several MS(252).
(248) E.g. in Portugal, the Portuguese Council for Refugees (CPR Conselho Portugus para os Refugiados, an NGO that has an operational partnership agreement
with UNHCR, financed by the Portuguese government) also plays an important role in this process, given that all asylum applications must be communicated
to CPR once they are submitted. CPR may then contact applicants, provide legal advice, interview them and deliver a non-binding opinion on the merits of the
asylum application.
(249) After a pilot monitoring project during which about 50 counselling sessions were observed and interviews with about 30 applicants were conducted, UNHCR
issued a report with its main findings and recommendations (www.unhcr.at/fileadmin/rechtsinfos/fluechtlingsrecht/4_oesterreich/4_2_asyl_positionen/4_2_4_
positionen_ab_2011/UNHCR-Rechtsberatungs-Monitoring.pdf) as well as benchmarks for quality legal aid, which were developed as part of the project (pp. 56-57
of the report). Some concerns about the quality of the legal advice provided were also identified (UNHCR input).
(250) UK Government, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/schedule/1/
enacted.
(251) UNHCR input. Additionally, the UK government proposed further reforms which would introduce a requirement of 12 months of lawful residence in the UK
before access to civil legal aid can be given to individuals. This would affect resettled refugees as well as those whose asylum applicant status ends, either though
recognition as a refugee, the granting of complementary protection or rejection of their asylum application. Additionally, the government has proposed that legal
aid for judicial review be removed for all actions undertaken prior to the granting of permission for judicial review. This could negatively impact a large number
of persons of concern to UNHCR given evidence showing that the greatest number of judicial reviews between 2005 and 2011 were on asylum and immigration
matters. UNHCR, Ministry of Justice Consultation on Transforming Legal Aid Response of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), June 2013,
available at: http://www.unhcr.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/UNHCR_Submission_to_the_Ministry_of_Justice_Consultation_on_Legal_Aid__June_2013_.
pdf?_ga=1.26926973.1399042224.1387472800.
(252) This is the case, e.g., in Cyprus, where according to UNHCR applicants for international protection experience difficulties accessing State legal aid schemes
during the administrative stage of their refugee status determination process. Legal aid may be granted at the level of judicial review before the Supreme Court,
which involves a means and merit test a challenging task for an asylum applicant not familiar with legal procedural standards (UNHCR input). In France, marked
discrepancies exist between asylum seekers housed in asylum-specific reception centers (CADA) during their asylum procedures, which receive concomitant
personalised social and administrative accompaniment, and other asylum seekers who are to rely upon limited legal services offered by the Plateformes daccueil
(UNHCR input). In Malta, free legal aid is only available at second instance and access to this aid is negatively impacted by a lack of interpreting support (UNHCR
input). In Poland, UNHCR remains concerned about access to legal assistance for asylum seekers, especially those in detention. As there is no state-organised
system of free legal aid in such cases, the major burden rests on NGOs. They are, however, dependent on financial grants provided usually on a yearly basis by,
inter alia, the European Refugee Fund, which limits the scope of assistance provided. Only a few NGOs travel to the detention facilities, and only one does so on
a regular basis. This situation may hamper especially vulnerable groups, including women, who face additional difficulties in accessing the services. Authorities
stated that they would introduce a system of free legal assistance for asylum seekers with financing secured from AMIF in 2015 (UNHCR input). UNHCR input on
Portugal mentions the lack of expertise of legal representatives and consequent poor quality of appeals (UNHCR input). In Sweden, a new system of distributing
cases currently being rolled out by the Swedish Migration Board, the authority in charge of administering legal aid to asylum seekers, has been met with stark
criticisms from asylum lawyers for being based solely on a system of equitable distribution of cases to all lawyers registered with the SMB, with no regard being

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 79

Changes regarding provision of legal assistance in MS

Changes in procedures due to developments in legislation in 2013 resulted in an increased need for legal assistance. In Ireland, for example, additional funding has been provided to the Refugee Legal Service to support the
provision of legal advice to subsidiary protection applicants before the interview (the application processes for
Geneva and subsidiary protection are separate in Ireland). In Denmark, applicants for international protection
who filed a complaint about being transferred under the Dublin III Regulation were provided with access to legal
aid in filing the complaint(253). In Croatia, access to the system of legal aid(254) has been extended under an Agreement signed by the Ministry of the Interior and the Legal Clinic of the University of Law in Zagreb, which provides
counsel to asylum seekers. Croatian law also stipulates that an applicant for international protection has access to
free legal aid during court procedure(255). Similarly, rising numbers of applicants may require additional resources
to be deployed. This is the case in Hungary, where as of 1 January 2013 a new free legal assistance service
was launched in all reception centres, in cooperation with civil society organisations. In Finland, at the beginning
of 2013 the task of administrating legal aid to asylum seekers was transferred from reception centres to legal aid
offices(256). In Belgium, plans for reforming legal aid were put on hold after the Council of States negative advice
in June 2013(257).

4.3. Providing interpretation services

The current legal framework of the APD guarantees the provision of interpretation services to asylum applicants
to the extent outlined in Article 10. The duty of MS to provide interpretation services during the asylum process
includes: providing information regarding the basic features of the asylum process(258) in a language that the
asylum applicant may reasonably be supposed to understand; services of an interpreter for submitting their
case to the competent authorities whenever necessary (but at least during the personal interview if needed to
ensure proper communication) and providing information to the applicant on the result of the decision and how
to challenge a negative decision in a language that they may reasonably be supposed to understand (unless the
applicant is assisted or represented by a legal adviser or other counsellor and when free legal assistance is not
available).
The recast APD adds additional requirements for the MS to ensure that arrangements for interpreting services
are in place to the extent necessary to facilitate access to the asylum procedure at the detention facilities and
border crossing points where indications show that third-country nationals or stateless persons held or present
there may wish to make an application for international protection (Article 8.1). Also, Article 46.7 emphasises
the importance of ensuring the interpreting services necessary for preparing and submitting the request for
suspensive effect to the court in the border procedure(259). According to Article 15.3 (c) of the recast APD, a personal interview is to be provided in a language preferred by the applicant unless there is another language the
applicant understands and is able to use to communicate clearly. Also, according to Article 17.3, MS shall ensure
that applicants are fully informed of the content of the report/substantive elements of transcript of their personal
interview, with interpreting services if necessary.
paid to the qualifications or suitability of the particular lawyer assigned to a case (UNHCR input). In Belgium, UNHCR is concerned that the quality of legal
assistance varies greatly from one lawyer to another. Not all asylum seekers can count on advisers specialised in aliens law and refugee law. The limited access
to quality legal aid is particularly worrying for asylum seekers who are detained, as well as for asylum seekers who have specific needs. Some initiatives, such as
a legal permanence, enabling immediate access to legal aid in one of the closed centres, could be evaluated and, depending on the results of the evaluation,
expanded to other centres (UNHCR input). Similar concerns were also raised regarding Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain (UNHCR input).
(253) By amendments to the Aliens Act adopted by the Danish Parliament (Act no. 1619 of 26 December 2013)
(254) Since the Croatian asylum system was formed, legal aid at the first instance has been provided to asylum seekers by a non-governmental organisation (the
Croatian Law Centre). Croatian law also stipulates that an asylum seeker has access to free legal aid during court procedure.
(255) The legal aid provided by the State has been established in Article 34 of the Asylum Act as a separate institute. It comprises assistance in preparing an appeal
and representation before an administrative court. The legal aid is provided by solicitor or counsellor from the associations registered for granting legal aid
within the ministry responsible for the administration of justice. The right to legal aid may be exercised by an applicant who does not possess sufficient means
of subsistence or some other valuables. The legal aid is granted upon an asylum seekers request and the costs thereof are born by the Ministry of the Interior.
Where an asylum seeker possesses sufficient means of subsistence or some other valuables, an administrative court may rule that the costs of legal aid be borne
by applicant.
(256) Ministry of Justice: http://oikeusministerio.fi/fi/index/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/2012/12/6DC9EHt4A.html (link in Finnish)
(257) UNHCR input.
(258) The procedure to be followed, the applicants rights and obligations during the procedure, the possible consequences of not complying with those obligations
and not cooperating with the authorities, the time-frame, as well as the means at the applicants disposal for fulfilling the obligation to submit the elements
needed to substantiate their application for international protection.
(259) All applicants to making an appeal, and if needed, a request for suspensive effect must be guaranteed interpreting services (otherwise the right is not
effective; furthermore, Art 12(1)(b) refers to the need for interpreting services for submitting the case to the competent authorities (i.e., also courts, not just the
authority determining the asylum status))

80 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

All of the aforementioned amendments to the APD point to the importance of interpreting services in ensuring communication between the applicant and the authorities in the asylum process, including the application,
examination and appeal stages.
As for legal information and assistance, in 2013, the ERF continued to be an important financing tool for providing interpreting services in the MS. For example in Italy, additional resources were allocated under the ERF
2013 Annual Program to strengthen translation and interpreting services in the territorial commissions(260). In
the Netherlands, the TVcN (Tolk- and Vertaalcentrum Nederland) arranges interpreting and translation services
in more than 130 different languages. The availability of interpreters may also pose a challenge to the asylum
authorities(261). Challenges were also noted by UNHCR(262) with regard to lack of standardised training and accreditation for interpreters working on asylum procedures, e.g. in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Romania, as
well as with regard to the availability of interpretation services at the border (e.g. in Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania).

EASOs list of available languages

EASO coordinates the provision of available languages in different MS. This is done through EASO a List of Available Languages (LAL) collated by EASO, which includes all languages generally available for direct translation from
a given foreign language to the mother tongue of the MS.
In April 2013, the list of available languages was updated and made available to the MS. In the last quarter of
2013, EASO provided contacts for two MS Greece and Cyprus in need to interpretation services for languages not available in their own administrations. Contacts were established but practical constraints did not
allow the provision of the requested services.

4.4. Dublin procedure

The Common European Asylum System is based on the principle of one MS being responsible for the determination of a claim for international protection.
Information provided in this section is based on EU level legislation and MS practices in effect in 2013, as governed by the Dublin II Regulation(263), the European Commission Regulation laying down detailed rules for the
application of the Dublin Regulation(264) and the Eurodac Regulation(265). For information on the recasting of the
legal instruments of the Dublin system, see section 3.1.1.
Until the end of 2013 the criteria for establishing which MS is responsible were set forth in the Dublin II
Regulation(266). The criteria for determining responsibility set out in Articles 6-14 are to be applied on the
basis of the situation existing when the asylum seeker first lodged his or her application with a MS and in
the following order: principle of family unity(267), issuance of residence permits or visas(268), illegal entry or

(260) Inter alia, decisions and terms and modes of appeal were translated into English, Spanish, French and Arabic.
(261) Greece, for instance, faced challenges in this regard, cf. https://www.unhcr.gr/fileadmin/Greece/News/2013/PCjuly/Greece_Positions_July_2013_EN.pdf.
(262) UNHCR input.
(263) Council Regulation (EC) No343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS responsible for examining an
asylum application lodged in one of the MS by a third-country national http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:050:0001:0010:EN:PDF.
(264) Commission Regulation (EC) No1560/2003 of 2 September 2003, laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No343/2003 establishing
the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the MS by a third-country national http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R1560:en:PDF
(265) Council Regulation (EC) No2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective
application of the Dublin Convention http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000R2725.
(266) Council Regulation (EC) No343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS responsible for examining an
asylum application lodged in one of the MS by a third-country national http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:050:0001:0010:EN:PDF.
(267) When the asylum seeker is an unaccompanied minor, the MS responsible for examining his or her application is the MS in which a member of his/her family
is legally present, provided that this is in the best interest of the minor. In the absence of a family member, the MS responsible is the one in which the minor has
lodged his or her application for asylum. For adults, the MS in which the asylum seeker has a family member who has been allowed to reside as a refugee or who is
in the midst of an application process will be responsible for examining the asylum application, provided that the person concerned so desires. In addition, asylum
applications submitted simultaneously or within a short interval of time by several family members can be examined together.
(268) When the asylum seeker possesses a valid residence document or visa, the MS that issued it will be responsible for examining the asylum application. When
the asylum seeker possesses more than one valid residence document or visa issued by different MS, responsibility for examining the asylum application will be
assumed by the MS that issued the residence document conferring the right to the longest period of residency. The same rules apply when the asylum seeker is in
possession of one or more residence documents that expired no more than two years earlier or one or more visas that expired no more than six months earlier,
but where the asylum seeker has not left the territories of MS.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 81

stay in a MS(269), legal entry to a MS(270), and application in an international transit area of an airport(271). If
no MS can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed, the first MS with which the asylum application
was lodged will be responsible for examining it.
By way of derogation from those criteria, as set forth in Article 3.2 of the Dublin II Regulation, any MS may at its
own discretion decide to examine an asylum application under discretionary clauses even if such examination is
not its responsibility.
Once an application is made in any MS, if this MS deems that another MS is responsible, it can call on that
MS with a take back(272) or a take charge(273) request, depending on the circumstances of the case. In both
instances, such a request to take charge or to take back should provide all the information necessary for
determining whether it is actually responsible to the MS to which the request was made. The rules concerning
making requests and subsequent transfers are laid down in the Regulation(274).
When the State to which the request was made takes charge of or takes back the person concerned, a reasoned
decision stating that the application is inadmissible in the State in which it was lodged and that the obligation
exists to transfer the asylum seeker to the MS responsible is sent to the applicant. The transfer can be then made
on the basis of that decision.
ECRE, together with Forum rfugis-Cosi and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, published the report Dublin II
Regulation. Lives on Hold. European Comparative Report(275) in February 2013, which concluded that practice
regarding Dublin procedures across EU is characterised by significant differences between MS as well as prolonged waiting times for decision and transfer of applicants. It also commented on the lack of uniform practices
regarding reporting statistical data and interpreting legal notions (in particular sovereignty clauses); however,
good communication and administrative cooperation between MS was recognised.
The complexity and importance of Dublin procedures was also underscored by the fact that the Court of Justice
of the European Union ruled on four cases in 2013 concerning systemic deficiencies in a MSs asylum system
preventing a Dublin transfer to that MS, the rights of unaccompanied minors in a Dublin procedure and practical
application of the humanitarian clause of the Dublin Regulation.
In the Abdullahi (C-394/12)(276) case, the Court stated that Art. 19(2) of Dublin II must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a MS has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the
criterion laid down in Art. 10(1) of that regulation namely, as the MS of first entry of the applicant for asylum
into the EU the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion
is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the asylum applicant reception conditions in
that MS, providing substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being
subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 4 of the Charter (of FREU).

(269) When the asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a MS, that MS will be responsible for examining the asylum application. This responsibility
ceases 12 months after the date on which the border has been illegally crossed. When the asylum seeker has been living for a continuous period of at least five
months in a MS before lodging his/her asylum application, that MS becomes responsible for examining the application. When the applicant has been living for a
period of at least five months in several MS, the MS where he/she lived most recently shall be responsible for examining the application.
(270) When a third-country national applies for asylum in a MS where he/she is not subject to a visa requirement, that MS will be responsible for examining the
asylum application.
(271) When a third-country national applies for asylum in an international transit area of an airport of a MS, that MS shall be responsible for examining the
application.
(272) Take charge requests concern cases where a state requests that another state take responsibility for an asylum application even though the applicant in
question has not previously submitted an application in the other State, but where there are specific circumstances indicating that the requested state would be
best placed to deal with the case, e.g. due to family unity reasons or where the other State has previously issued a work permit to the applicant. This includes
cases in which a MS where an application has been lodged approaches other MS on the basis of discretionary clauses of Article 17 of the Dublin regulation to
take charge of an applicant (to reunite family members or on humanitarian grounds comprising family or cultural considerations), provided that the persons
concerned consents.
(273) Take back requests concern asylum applications where a State requests another State to take responsibility for applicant because the person has previously
made an asylum application in the requested State.
(274) Commission Regulation (EC) No1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 establishing detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No343/2003 establishing
the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the MS by a third-country national http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R1560:en:PDF.
(275) http://www.dublin-project.eu/dublin/Dublin-Project/Dublin-Project-Part-II.
(276) CJEU C-394/12, Abdullahi, [10 December 2013] ref. from Asylgerichtshof (Austria).

82 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In the Puid (C-4/11)(277) case, the Court stated that when the MS cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in
the asylum procedure and in the asylum seekers reception conditions in the MS initially identified as responsible
in accordance with the criteria (set out in Chapter III) of the Dublin II Regulation exist, which is a matter for the
referring court to verify, the MS determining the responsible MS is required not to transfer the asylum seeker
to the MS initially identified as responsible and, subject to the exercise of the right to examine the application
itself, to continue to examine the criteria set out in that chapter in order to establish whether another MS can be
identified as responsible in accordance with one of those criteria or, if it cannot, under Art. 13 of the Regulation.
Conversely, if it is found in such a situation that it is impossible to transfer an asylum seeker to the MS initially
identified as responsible, that in itself mean that the MS determining the MS responsible is required itself, under
Art. 3(2) of Dublin II, to examine the application for asylum. The Court also decided that systematic deficiencies
in a countrys asylum procedure and residence conditions do not generate an individual right to demand that
another MS of the Dublin II Regulation assume responsibility for the applicants case in accordance with Article 3
(2) of the Dublin II Regulation. The MS is prohibited, though, from transferring the applicant to this country when
his health and livelihood would be in jeopardy due to said systematic deficiencies.
In the case M.A. (C-648/11)(278), the Court stated that fundamental rights include, in particular, those set out in
Art. 24(2) of the Charter, whereby in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private
institutions, the childs best interests are to be a primary consideration. The second paragraph of Art. 6 Dublin II
cannot be interpreted in any way that disregards that fundamental right. Consequently, although express mention of the best interest of the minor is made only in the first paragraph of Art. 6, the effect of Art. 24(2) of the
Charter, in conjunction with Art. 51(1) thereof, is that the childs best interests must also be a primary consideration in all decisions adopted by the MS on the basis of the second paragraph of Art. 6. Thus, Art. 6 must be
interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where an unaccompanied
minor with no family member legally present in the territory of MS has lodged asylum applications in more than
one MS, the MS in which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the responsible MS. This does not imply, however, that an unaccompanied minor whose application has
been rejected by a first MS can subsequently compel another MS to deal with his or her application. When the
application has already been rejected as inadmissible by the first state, the MS in question does not have to again
verify whether the applicant is a refugee.
In the Halaf (C-528/11)(279) case, the Court stated that Art. 3(2) must be interpreted as permitting a MS, which
is not indicated as responsible, to examine an application for asylum even though no circumstances exist which
establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15. That possibility is not conditional on the MS
responsible under those criteria having failed to respond to a request to take back the asylum seeker concerned.
The MS in which the asylum seeker is present is not obligated, during the process of determining the MS responsible, to request that UNHCR present its views when it is apparent from the UNHCRs documents that the MS
indicated as responsible is in violation of the rules of European Union law on asylum.

The Dublin Regulation was also analysed by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the mistreatment threshold, which would prevent an intended Dublin transfer under Article 3 of the European Convention of
Human Rights on torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.
In the case Mohammed Hussein et al. v the Netherlands and Italy(280), the ECtHR reiterated that in the absence of
exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds standing in the way of removal, a reduction in material and social
living conditions upon removal from a Contracting State was not sufficient in itself to amount to a breach of Article 3.
While the general situation and living conditions of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and other persons granted
residence for international protection in Italy may display some shortcomings, the Court held that it had not been
shown to display a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering to asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group as was the case in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece(281). As the applicant failed to show that
she and her children would not benefit from the same support again if returned to Italy, her complaints under ECtHR
Art. 3 against Italy and the Netherlands were considered manifestly unfounded, and therefore inadmissible.

(277) CJEU C-4/11, Puid, [14 November 2013] ref. from Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany).
(278) CJEU C-648/11, M.A., [6 June 2013] ref. from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (UK).
(279) CJEU C-528/11, Halaf, [6 June 2013] ref. from Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) 12.10.2011.
(280) ECtHR Case Mohamed Hussein and others v Netherlands and Italy (Application No27725/10, judgment issued on 2 April 2013.
(281) ECtHR Case M.S.S v Belgium and Greece (Application No30696/09), judgment issued on 21 January 2013.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 83

4.5. Specific procedures: sdmissibility, border and accelerated

procedures
According to the old APD, in line with Article 23.4, examination procedures at first instance can also be conducted in an accelerated or prioritised manner in specific circumstances (282) if they remain in accordance
with the basic principles and guarantees of the asylum process. In addition, in line with Article 24, specific
procedures can be put in place by MS for the purpose of preliminary examinations of cases considered as subsequent applications (Articles 32-34 APD) and cases considered within the framework of border procedures
(Article 35 APD). In the case of those specific procedures, certain derogations from the basic principles and
guarantees are possible.
Many applications for international protection are made at the border or in a transit zone of a MS prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant. In line with the recast APD, MS have the possibility to conduct admissibility
procedures in those areas to establish whether an application is admissible and whether the merits of the claim
should be given further deliberation. MS also have the possibility to conduct substantive examination procedures at the border or in the transit zone(283). In addition to regular substantive examination procedure, where
the merits of the application in terms of international protection are determined to established whether a form
of protection should be granted, the new EU asylum acquis significantly clarifies and strengthens the different
procedural modes under which an application for international protection can be processed, as well as the procedural consequences deriving from the examination of a claim in one or another modality (i.e., lack of automatic
suspensive effect). Those procedural modalities are:
admissibility procedures MS may decide under certain clearly defined circumstances whether the case is
admissible, and the protection merits of the application will be further examined only if that is the case;
border procedures MS may decide at the border/transit zones to examine the admissibility of the claims/
their substance before granting the right to enter the territory (however, if no decision is made within 4 weeks,
the applicant must be granted the right to enter the territory and have his/her claim processed from within
the territory). Under the recast Directive, MS will only be able to apply border procedures in circumstances
for which one or more of a limited and clearly defined number of grounds apply (as opposed to the current
non-exhaustive list of grounds);
accelerated procedures the timelines for processing the case, i.e. a shorter deadline for reaching the decision
at the administrative stage of the procedure and a shorter deadline for filing an appeal. Conditions under which
the examination of a claim may be accelerated are the same as for border procedures.
prioritised procedures applications examined before other, previously made applications, without deviating
from normally applicable procedural time limits, principles and guarantees.

(282) (a) the applicant, in submitting his/her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant or of minimal relevance to the
examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC; or (b) the applicant clearly does not qualify as a refugee or for refugee
status in a MS under Directive 2004/83/EC; or c) the application for asylum is considered to be unfounded: (i) because the applicant is from a safe country of origin
within the meaning of Articles 29, 30 and 31, or (ii) because the non-MS country is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, without prejudice to
Article 28(1); or (d) the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents
with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or (e) the applicant has filed another application for
asylum stating other personal data; or (f) the applicant has not produced information establishing with a reasonable degree of certainty his/her identity or
nationality, or it is likely that, in bad faith, he/she has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his/her identity
or nationality; or (g) the applicant has made inconsistent, contradictory, improbable or insufficient statements which make his/her claim clearly unconvincing in
relation to his/her having been the object of persecution referred to in Directive 2004/83/EC; or (h) the applicant has submitted a subsequent application which
does not present any relevant new elements with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin; or (i) the applicant
has failed, without reasonable cause, to make his/her application earlier, having had opportunity to do so; or (j) the applicant is making an application merely in
order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his/her removal; or (k) the applicant has failed, without good
reason, to comply with obligations referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC or in Articles 11(2)(a) and (b) and 20(1) of this Directive; or (l) the
applicant entered the territory of the MS unlawfully or prolonged his/her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself/herself to
the authorities and/or filed an application for asylum as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his/her entry; or (m) the applicant is a danger to the national
security or public order of the MS, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious public security and public order reasons under national law; or (n) the
applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his/her fingerprints taken in accordance with relevant Community and/or national legislation; or (o) the
application was made by an unmarried minor to whom Article 6(4)(c) applies after the application of the parents or parent responsible for the minor has been
rejected and no relevant new elements were raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin.
(283) Recast APD preamble Recital 38.

84 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In the case H.I.D. (CJEU C-175/11), the Court of Justice stated that Article 23(3) and (4) of the current ADP must be
interpreted as not precluding a MS from examining by way of prioritised or accelerated procedure, in compliance
with the basic principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II of the Directive, certain categories of asylum applications defined on the basis of the criterion of the nationality or country of origin of the applicant (284). However,
Article 31.8 of the recast APD, which was adopted after this ruling was issued, has now established an exhaustive
list of well-defined circumstances where the examination procedure can be accelerated and/or conducted at the
border or in transit zones. (285)

It should be noted that procedures set forth in the national legal frameworks may combine some of the features
listed above, e.g. border procedures can be used for the purpose of an admissibility procedure or for the purpose
of a full examination procedure. Up to now, there has been no EU-wide regular data collection on the procedural
mode used by the MS to arrive at a particular decision. However, such collection was launched by EASO as of 1
April 2014 (concerning data as of 1 March 2014). In line with the setup of the collection, MS will from that date
report on a monthly basis the number of decisions issued at first instance, disaggregated by type of procedure
(normal, border, admissibility, accelerated).
In 2013, developments in the MS regarding procedural modes mainly had to do with the issue of subsequent
applications and accelerated procedures. As mentioned above in section 3.2.5.1. on integrity, if a subsequent
application is submitted after a final decision has been reached on a previous application, MS employ specific
measures to verify whether the subsequent application contains new facts or is merely a repetition of a previous
claim and as such could be declared inadmissible(286).

4.6. Reception of applicants for international protection

According to the current legislative framework outlined in the RCD, applicants should be offered an equivalent
level of treatment with regard to reception conditions in all MS. This is an important instrument to ensure that
certain standards (defined in the RCD as minimum standards) are available to all applicants regardless of where
they made their application. This also prevents secondary movement of asylum applicants among MS in an
attempt to reach MS which offer better reception conditions. The recast RCDs objective is to ensure adequate
and comparable reception conditions throughout the EU.
(284) This judgement interpreted the current Directive and will no longer be valid (regarding this specific point) in relation to the recast Directive (which, unlike the
current Directive, includes an exhaustive list of grounds).
(285) (a) the applicant, in submitting his or her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues not relevant to the examination of whether he or she
qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU; or (b) the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of
this Directive; or (c) the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents
with respect to his or her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or (d) it is likely that, in bad faith, the applicant has
destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his or her identity or nationality; or (e) the applicant has made clearly
inconsistent and contradictory, clearly false or obviously improbable statements which contradict sufficiently verified country-of-origin information, thus making
his or her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU; or (f)
the applicant has introduced a subsequent application for international protection that is not inadmissible in accordance with Article 40(5); or (g) the applicant is
making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his or her removal; or (h) the
applicant entered the territory of the MS unlawfully or prolonged his or her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself/herself
to the authorities or not made an application for international protection as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his or her entry; or (i) the applicant
refuses to comply with an obligation to have his or her fingerprints taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) No603/2013 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No604/2013
establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the MS
by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by MS law enforcement authorities and Europol for law
enforcement purposes (12); or the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the MS, or the applicant
has been forcibly expelled for serious public security or public order reasons under national law.
(286) In Belgium, the responsibility to assess new facts and circumstances presented by the asylum seeker during a subsequent application has since September
2013 been shifted from the Immigration Office to the asylum authority (CGRS). Similarly, in Cyprus, the latest legislative amendment of the Refugee Law
(1/2/2013) has set out the criteria establishing which authority is responsible for the examination of subsequent applications (the Asylum Service or the Refugee
Reviewing Authority). Also, in Croatia admissibility procedures are now used to process subsequent applications and not accelerated procedures as it was the
case before. In Latvia amendments to the Asylum Law reduce the time period for examining applications in an accelerated procedure (at first instance) from 10
working days to 5 working days (time limits for court adjudications have not changed). In practice, the accelerated procedure is applied very rarely. In the United
Kingdom guidance clarifying the criteria for entry into the Detained Fast Track process was updated in 2013 and improvements were made to the screening
process. The Asylum Act in Portugal establishes an admissibility stage of the asylum procedure with a broad range of grounds on which an asylum application
can be considered inadmissible. UNHCR noted continuing concerns with regard to the admissibility stage of the asylum procedure, including its length and the
legal status of asylum seekers appealing against a non-admissibility decision (UNHCR input) In Estonia, as noted by UNHCR, the current wording of Article 20 and
Article 21(1) in the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens (AGIPA) mix the grounds for channelling an asylum application through the admissibility
procedure with the grounds for rejecting a claim (in the accelerated procedure) on its merits (UNHCR Input). UNHCR also noted concerns regarding accelerated
procedures in France (UNHCR input).

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 85

MS reception systems vary greatly. In addition, in some MS the responsibility for reception conditions in the context of international protection is not centralised, but remains at the regional level, leading to further differences.
As part of its 2013 work plan, the European Migration Network finalised a study (published in 2014) The Organisation of Reception Facilities for Asylum Seekers in different MS. European Migration Network Study 2014(287)
analysing this situation in 24 MS.
Many MS undertook multiple initiatives to improve reception conditions throughout 2013. However despite such
projects, reception conditions and social rights accorded to applicants for international protection in the MS continued to be an object of concern for civil society organisations and UNHCR(288).
Coordination measures
A new working group of the Federal Government-Province Coordination Council was established in 2013 in
order to work on common quality criteria for reception facilities across Austria(289). In Belgium, Fedasil ended
the crisis-management mode and all aspects related to asylum, reception and return were brought under the

(287) European Migration Network, The Organisation of Reception Facilities for Asylum Seekers in different MS. European Migration Network Study 2014, http://
ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european%20migration%20_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/emn_second_focussedstudy2013_
oganisation_of_reception_facilities_final_version_28feb2014.pdf.
(288) For a description of reception systems in the EU, including challenges raised by civil society and UNHCR, see the ECRE AIDA project, http://www.
asylumineurope.org/. UNHCR input to the Annual Report 2013 included a high number of country-specific examples of challenges in the reception field. In
addition to the examples of Belgium and Estonia given earlier in this section, and concerns mentioned in previous sections regarding reception conditions
in Greece and Bulgaria, a non-exhaustive set of examples in other MS can be mentioned: In Cyprus, at the beginning of 2013, there were 2580 applicants
for international protection awaiting a decision both at the Asylum Service and the Refugee Reviewing Authority. Due to the closure of two out of the three
reception centres for asylum seekers (temporarily organised with ERF funding in private hotels) in 2013, the total reception capacity fell to 80 persons.
The government plans to increase capacity to 400 persons by September 2014. UNHCR expressed concerns about the reduction of financial allowances,
limited material support and access to medical care (UNHCR input). Concerns regarding reception conditions in Croatia were raised by the Jesuit Refugee
Service Europe: http://www.jrseurope.org/news_releases/Balkanspressrelease2013.htm. PRO ASYL released criticisms of social support for asylum seekers
in Germany: http://www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/fm-dam/o_Rechtspolitik/PROASYL_AsylbLG_BMAS_Januar_2013.pdf. Initial findings compiled by UNHCR as
part of a study on reception conditions for asylum seekers in Germany reveal a very mixed picture of the reception facilities. While some reception centres
are kept in quite good repair, a significant number of initial reception centres are in a bad state of repair and maintenance, aggravated by the fact that many
of the reception facilities are overcrowded. This phenomenon is mainly attributable to high number of new arrivals in Germany, but is also partly also a
consequence of generally inaccurate assumptions by the federal states and municipalities underlying projections of numbers of asylum seekers. In addition,
the remote geographical location of some of the initial reception centres, but especially of many of the facilities used as subsequent accommodation
prevents a significant number of asylum seekers from claiming basic services, maintaining contacts with their communities and participating in social life and
renders their access to healthcare, legal and social counselling rather difficult (UNHCR input). In Portugal, asylum seekers access to healthcare continued
to be a concern in 2013. Asylum seekers are no longer granted free access to primary and emergency healthcare in Portugal but are required to pay taxes
(taxas moderadoras) as is the case with national citizens. The legal and practical inability of asylum seekers in the admissibility stage to register with Social
Security and thus be granted a social security identification number (NISS) has prompted healthcare providers to charge asylum seekers for the full cost of
healthcare, thus rendering access to the National Health Service impossible without financial support from organisations such as the Portuguese Refugee
Council (CPR) (UNHCR input). In Romania, while certain aspects of reception conditions improved compared to preceding years, UNHCR remains concerned
that the monthly allowance for food and other goods remains insufficient to meet the basic needs of asylum seekers, particularly asylum seekers with special
needs or vulnerabilities (UNHCR input). In France marked discrepancies exist between asylum seekers accommodated in dedicated reception centers (CADA)
throughout/upon their asylum procedures, which receive concomitant personalised social and administrative accompaniment, and other asylum seekers
who are to rely upon limited legal services offered by the Platformes daccueil. The major crisis of the national accommodation scheme for asylum seekers
(Dispositive national daccueil) continued. In 2013, CADA only received about one third of all asylum seekers. While the number of slots in CADA increased
from 4500 in 2002 to 23503 in 2013, they remain insufficient in light of the scale of pressing needs. However, the creation of an additional 2000 slots
scheduled for 2014/2015 (which is welcomed by UNHCR) constitutes both a significant increase and notable engagement, particularly against the backdrop
of the prevailing adverse economic situation. Overall, the increase in the percentage of families and the longer duration of stay constitute two important
reasons for this bottleneck. This crisis also hit the corollary scheme of emergency shelters which has, for lack of sufficient CADA slots, eventually become
the principal accommodation mode, though it is well-suited and prone to incurring increased expenses related to the CADA scheme. These shortcomings
are partly (but only to a very limited extent) remedied by NGOs and civil society (UNHCR Input). Italy needs a comprehensive reform of the reception
system as it continues to lack a consolidated and coordinated national reception system as well as a coherent contingency/emergency plan in order to tackle
emergency situations related to the sudden influx of mixed migratory flows. Government centres for asylum seekers (CARAs) remained largely overcrowded
and the MoI struggled to identify spaces to accommodate newly arrived asylum seekers. The enlargement of the SPRAR network and the opening of new
emergency facilities by the prefectures, especially in Sicily, Calabria and Apulia, did not keep pace with the increasing reception needs. Moreover, reception
conditions in most of these facilities fell short of adequate standards. On a number of occasions asylum seekers, including Dublin returnees, did not have
immediate access to reception measures when they applied for international protection, but instead received it weeks or months later, a violation of Article
13 par. 1 of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, which establishes minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. The delays are the
result of structural gaps in the existing reception system and a lack of capacity, slow administrative procedures and delays in the registration of the asylum
applications (UNHCR input).
(289) In 2013, UNHCR visited 41 facilities in all nine Austrian provinces and interviewed more than 250 asylum seekers as well as about 40 owners of reception
facilities. In addition to good practices, UNHCR identified a number of deficiencies, in particular with respect to hygienic conditions, furnishing, food, privacy, and
the treatment of asylum seekers. A working group with representatives from five provinces was established with the aim of setting up quality standards for material
reception conditions. At the end of 2013, a draft version of these standards was published, which, if adopted as such, would constitute a step toward ensuring
quality accommodations and support for asylum seekers in Austria. In 2013, also other institutions dealt with the issue of quality of reception conditions in certain
facilities and made their findings available to the public, cf. Journalist platform Dossier (www.dossier.at); Ombudsman (www.volksanwaltschaft.gv.at/aktuelles/
news/maengel-in-asylunterkuenften-im-burgenland,
www.volksanwaltschaft.gv.at/aktuelles/news/missstaende-in-kaerntner-fluechtlingsunterkuenften;
Austrian Court of Audit (www.rechnungshof.gv.at/fileadmin/downloads/2013/berichte/berichte_bund/Bund_2013_03.pdf). During a session of the Coordination
Council in January 2014, the federal government and 7 out of 9 provinces adopted the aforementioned quality standards for material reception conditions and
declared them to be binding for the agreeing parties.

86 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

supervision of a single state secretary(290). In Italy the Ministry of Interior set-up a pilot monitoring scheme on
reception centres for asylum seekers(291).
New and moved reception facilities
In Bulgaria new accommodation facilities for around 3000 persons were opened. In 2013 Croatia established
a new asylum reception centre for asylum seekers in Zagreb(292). In April 2013 in Estonia the Illuka Reception
Center for Asylum Seekers ceased to be a state agency administered by the Ministry of Social Affairs, and instead
a contract was established with a public enterprise AS Hoolekandeteenused to provide reception centre services
in the village of Vao(293). On 1 October 2013 a detention centre was also established in Estonia, operating jointly
as an initial reception and expulsion centre (administrated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs), allowing for the
detention of asylum seekers for initial procedures or if such measures are necessary for upholding public order or
protecting national security. There are further plans to establish a joint detention centre at Tallinn Prison, which
raised concerns from UNHCR(294). France has decided to increase its dedicated accommodation capacity by 4000
places, 2000 of which were opened in 2013. A new open reception centre with a capacity of 216 persons and
with special facilities for families was opened in Vmosszabadi in Hungary.
New rules on providing reception
In Hungary, the system of rules concerning providing reception were amended, with an emphasis on rules for
withdrawing reception(295). In Greece new rules regarding first reception were introduced, with a special emphasis on identifying vulnerable caseloads. In Latvia, the national Asylum Law was supplemented with the condition
that asylum seekers can be accommodated outside the accommodation centre for asylum seekers, if capacity is
exceeded and the living conditions requirements defined in the Asylum Law are met.
Access to the labour market
As of 6 September 2013, after nine months of residence in Germany applicants for asylum may start working
with the authorisation of the Federal Employment Agency(296). Improvements are also envisaged regarding the
freedom of movement of asylum applicants while in reception(297). As of 1 July 2013, in Hungary applicants for
international protection were entitled to work within the reception centre within nine months of the submission
of the application, and longer according to the general rules applicable to foreigners.
In Austria in March 2013, the Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection (FMLSC) issued
a decree allowing asylum seekers up to the age of 25 to take up vocational training in occupations with a shortage
of apprentices.

(290) This was done in order to facilitate cooperation and coordination between policy-makers, Fedasil, the CGRS and the Immigration Office (chain management)
and to focus more on quality, individual needs and fully respecting the standards established in the Reception Conditions Directive, decreasing the reception
capacity and installing a buffer capacity. According to UNHCR, however, some concerns remain, as a number of legislative measures have been taken to exclude
certain categories of persons from the benefits of reception. Cf. UNHCR, Commentaires du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les rfugis relatifs aux:
projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 dcembre 1980 sur laccs au territoire, le sjour, ltablissement et lloignement des trangers et la loi du 12 janvier 2007
sur laccueil des demandeurs dasile et de certaines autres catgories dtrangers (ci-aprs projet de loi monocamral ), et projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15
dcembre 1980 sur laccs au territoire, le sjour, ltablissement et lloignement des trangers, et modifiant la loi du 27 dcembre 2006 portant des dispositions
diverses (ci-aprs projet de loi bicamral), 29 janvier 2013, http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5114befc2.pdf, p.36, paras 130133).
(291) Commissions comprised of local prefectures, provincial police HQs, UNHCR, IOM, Save the Children and the Italian Red Cross, all partners in the Praesidium
project, carried out quarterly monitoring visits to government centres as an initial attempt to develop more systematic monitoring and quality control systems
(UNHCR input).
(292) The RC also serves as a registration centre and will have a capacity of 600 (the overall target number of reception places is 700) once the RC in Kutina,
specifically intended for vulnerable applicants, is opened (UNHCR input).
(293) The services provided shall also include assistance for beneficiaries of international protection.
(294) UNHCR is concerned about the Estonian Governments plans to start accommodating asylum seekers detained in the territory in the Tallinn Prison, where
convicted criminals are held. In UNHCR`s view, detention of asylum seekers for immigration-related reasons should not be punitive in nature and the conditions
of their detention must be humane. The use of prisons, jails, and similar facilities should be avoided (UNHCR input).
(295) Taking the provisions of the recast Directive into consideration, changes were made, with special attention paid to reception conditions. According to the
modified Act on Asylum (Act LXXX of 2007), material reception conditions may no longer be refused. The rules stipulate that the refugee authority may restrict
and withdraw these conditions in exceptional and duly justified cases. The restriction or withdrawal of reception conditions should be proportionate to the
perpetrated act and the personal situation of the asylum seeker should be of primary interest. The refugee authority has the option of imposing a sanction (assign
another lodgings) in cases when the applicant breaches the rules of conduct of the designated accommodation or acts in a seriously violent manner.
(296) 61 Par. 2 Asylum Procedure Act
(297) The new coalition agreement envisages various improvements with regard to receiving asylum seekers. Concerning legal restrictions on the movement
of asylum seekers, it extends free movement at least to the state to which the asylum seeker is assigned; further, movement to other federal states should be
possible for a week with only unilateral notification and information on the destination.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 87

Contingency planning in the field of reception

The very significant increases experienced by MS such as Bulgaria and Hungary in 2013 along with the adoption
of Art. 33 of the recast Dublin Regulation led to a renewed focus in MS and by the European Commission and
EASO on contingency planning for large influxes of asylum seekers. At political level, including the policy dialogues
between the European Commission and MS, there was focus on contingency planning as a strategic measure over
the next seven years, and calls were made in various quarters for considering possible innovative approaches
such as joint processing (as is done for visas) and even joint reception capacity.
Looking at the variation in reception capacity, influxes of asylum seekers are not evenly distributed across the
EU and vary considerably from year to year. Considering the statistics for past 20 years, overall the numbers of
asylum claims has remained relatively stable at 300-350000 per year with variations of not more than 20% (and
usually around 10%) from year to year. As indicated above, at national level six MS faced increases of 50% or
more in numbers of applicants and four MS saw decreases of circa 40% compared to the previous year. Such
variations in numbers can significantly affect states planning and preparedness.
Therefore transnational projects aimed at rationalising the use of reception capacity in the EU, which create
intra-national capacity, could greatly assist in reducing the pressures on individual MS from year to year and help
in the planning and streamlining of capacity.
Contingency planning measures have been taken in Romania in the area of reception based on risk analyses done
by the General Inspectorate for Immigration taking into consideration the Syrian situation, as well as pressure on
the neighboring countries (mostly the situation in Turkey and Bulgaria), and an Integrated Action Plan of Ministry
of Internal Affairs for the preparations necessary to deal with a possible large influx of applicants for international
protection/illegal migrants in Romania was prepared(298).
As part of the renewed focus on the issue of contingency planning, the European Commission, together with
EASO, has been in contact with several MS in order to increase their capacity to withstand situations of pressure
deriving from unrest in states neighboring the EU. Such activities have been pursued on the basis of a thorough
assessment of the vulnerability of MS asylum systems and their exposure to risk. The results will feed into the
implementation of the new Art. 33 of the recast Dublin Regulation, which became available on 1 January 2014
and which will constitute a prior instrument for contingency planning and crisis prevention at the EU level.
EASO and contingency planning
EASO organises practical cooperation meetings to identify possible measures that could be taken by MS in order
to be prepared in the most effective manner for a possible additional influx of persons seeking international protection, to discuss where additional support by EASO could be provided to add value, and to set up a preparedness
framework under which reception and asylum procedures should be made available as soon as possible. The crisis
in Ukraine and its possible impact on the CEAS has emphasised the need for concerted contingency planning efforts
amongst MS both from a practical and operational point of view.

4.7. Detention
The general legal principle concerning detention, as laid out in the Receptions Conditions Directive and present also in its recast version, is that a person cannot be held in detention for the sole reason that he/she is an
applicant for international protection. The Directives also elaborate on further aspects of detention, including
grounds, conditions and legal guarantees for applicants.

(298) This plan includes definite measures to ensure quick allotment of supplementary resources to the General Inspectorate for Immigration to be able to properly
deal with a possible large influx of illegal immigrants and/or asylum applicants and, at the same time, to maintain and to respect the standards set in the national
and European legislation. Amongst other goals, these measures aim to gradually increase the reception capacity for applicants for international protection and
illegal migrants: Stage I increase reception capacity for asylum seekers from 920 to 1230 in already existent places in our accommodation centres. Stage II
increase of another 2000 accommodation places in rooms under Ministry of Internal Affairs management (hotels, hostels, etc.) which will be allotted to GII. Stage
III in 2014 GII will draft a law regarding the management of a possible large influx of applicants for international protection/illegal migrants in Romania, which
will also establish that other local or central administrative authorities will grant resources to GII, including accommodation. An additional measure is to identify a
new location for the Emergency Transit Centre in Timisoara and to move it out of the Regional Procedures and Accommodation for Asylum Seekers Centre, freeing
up an extra capacity of 200 places and creating a separation of workflows. GII proposed also that a new regional centre for procedures and accommodation for
asylum seekers be established in Constanza County to immediately take charge of the applicants that are coming from the Black Sea.

88 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In certain MS, detention is the principal mode of providing reception services e.g. in Malta, whose practices
have been criticised by UNHCR and the Council of Europe(299) and were the subject, in September 2013, of a
detailed published analysis(300).
A number of MS changed their legislative framework on detention in 2013. In Lithuania, the amendments to the
Law on the Legal Status of Aliens adopted on 10 October 2013 regulate the situations in which an asylum seeker
may be detained(301). In Latvia detention during the asylum procedure was clarified in the Asylum Law(302). In
France, to comply with the judgment I.M. vs. France, new administrative regulations end the automaticity of the
use of accelerated procedures for claims made by those in detention (this concerns people who have been placed
in detention under the Return Directive). If OFPRA considers that the request is not manifestly unfounded, then
detention can end and the request is considered under the normal procedure.
Hungary noted specific developments with regard to its detention policy in 2013. After the introduction of a
legal framework in January 2013 which lessened the use of detention in asylum cases, Hungary experienced
very high numbers of asylum applicants from Kosovo (see section 2.8.3. on the Western Balkans). Following this
development, a new specific regime for detention (asylum detention) was introduced on 1 July 2013, with more
robust guarantees, including a possibility of bail(303). This development was however criticised by civil society
organisations(304). Arbitrariness (lack of legal basis) has remained one of the main concerns and was one of the
items discussed during the visit by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in Hungary (23 September 2
October)(305). Also a lack of an effective remedy was reported by this Working Group as problematic(306).
Civil society organisations and UNHCR expressed their concerns regarding detention practices in the MS and
the impact of detention conditions on the well-being and human rights of asylum applicants and former asylum
applicants awaiting return to their country of origin(307).
(299) UNHCRs position is that the Maltese practice of detaining all asylum seekers who arrive to the territory in an irregular manner is unlawful, as this is not
specifically authorised by Maltese law, European law or international refugee law. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCRs Position on the
Detention of Asylum seekers in Malta, 18 September 2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52498c424.html and Council of Europe, http://www.coe.
int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/ PressReleases/140-15_10_2013_Malta_en.asp.
(300) http://www.unhcr.org.mt/news-and-views/press-releases/699-unhcr-presents-position-on-the-detention-of-asylum seekers-in-malta
(301) It is stipulated that an asylum seeker may be detained only in order to determine and/or verify his or her identity/nationality and/or identify the reasons for
lodging an application for asylum, as well as in cases where his or her application for the granting of asylum is based on grounds clearly unrelated to the threat
of persecution in the country of origin or is based on fraud or when the asylum seeker is refused temporary territorial asylum and ground exist for believing that
he/she may hide in order to avoid return to a foreign country or expulsion from the Republic of Lithuania. Until the adoption of these amendments, the Law
on the Legal Status of Aliens did not regulate the detention of an asylum seeker, which has led to a number of cases in which some aliens who illegally entered
the Republic of Lithuania were provided with accommodation at the Foreigners Registration Centre with no restrictions to their freedom of movement and
subsequently departed illegally to other countries of the European Union.
(302) Stating:- the asylum seeker is released from detention when the circumstances that were the basis for the detention no longer exist; detained asylum seekers
are accommodated in accordance with general principles of human rights and internal security as well as personal characteristics and psychological compatibility;
when deciding whether to detain asylum seekers, the feasibility of applying an alternative to detention is evaluated regular reporting to the State Border Guard
within the territorial unit.
(303) Detention may only be ordered on the basis of an individual assessment and the full consideration of alternative options. The refugee authority can choose
between three alternatives for ensuring the presence of the asylum seeker. The alternatives to asylum detention are: designated place of residence, asylum bail,
and regular reporting to the refugee authority. The detention of asylum seekers must be exceptional and has to be proportionate to the objectives to be achieved.
It should serve as a last resort in order to ensure the presence of the applicant, and possible alternative to detention shall take priority over asylum detention. It is
important to note that asylum detention may not be ordered for the sole reason that the person seeking recognition has submitted an application for recognition.
Unaccompanied minors must not be detained. Families with minors may only be placed in asylum detention as a last resort, and the best interest of the child
must be taken into account as a primary consideration. Families with minors may only be detained for up to 30 days. In order to ensure family unity and with a
view to their special needs, a specific closed reception centre was assigned to host families with minors in detention. The period of asylum detention is much
shorter than the period of aliens policing detention as per the provisions of the Third Country Nationals Act and is carried out in special facilities serving the sole
purpose of asylum detention. Asylum detention lasts for a maximum of 72 hours which can be extended by the competent court a maximum of two times by up
to a maximum of sixty days, for a maximum total length of 6 months. One of the main goals of the asylum detention is to ensure that asylum seekers are present
during asylum procedures, including the Dublin procedure.
(304) Statements made by Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Briefing paper of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee for the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
UN Commission of Human Rights 8 October 2013 (updated after the meeting of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention with Hungarian NGOs on 23
September 2013) http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC_briefing-paper_UNWGAD_8_Oct_2013.pdf; and PROASYL: Ungarn: Flchtlinge zwischen Haft und
Obdachlosigkeit. Aktualisierung und Ergnzung des Berichts vom Mrz 2012 (Oktober 2013) http://www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/fm-dam/q_PUBLIKATIONEN/2013/
Ungarn_ Update_Okober_2013.pdf.
(305) OHCHR, Hungary: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Statement upon the conclusion of its visit to Hungary (23 September 2 October 2013), http://
www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13816&LangID=E.
(306) Ibid. It should be noted that the Hungarian authorities do not agree with the findings of the Working Group regarding legal remedy and state that legal
regulations, Act LXXX of 2007, as well as the 29/2013 Decree of the Ministry of Interior exhaustively regulate the procedure regarding objections against asylum
detention and against the application of measures to ensure availability. See also the website of the European Commission at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/homeaffairs/what-is-new/eu-law-and-monitoring/infringements_by_country_hungary_en.htm [accessed on 24 February 2014].
(307) See http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe.html for details on detention practice in Europe. The issue of the systematic detention
applied in Malta was brought up by UNHCR. UNHCRs Position on the Detention of Asylum seekers in Malta, 18 September 2013, available at: http://www.
refworld.org/docid/52498c424.html and Council of Europe http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/PressReleases/140-15_10_2013_Malta_en.asp.
The Committee Against Torture issued recommendations regarding the use of detention in Belgium http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/
Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2FC%2FBEL%2FCO%2F3&Lang=en) and Poland (http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symb
olno=CAT%2FC%2FPOL%2FCO%2F5-6&Lang=en). With regard to Belgium, UNHCR expressed concerns related to the systematic detention of persons seeking
asylum who arrive at the border (except for families with children) and the general detention of asylum seekers facing transfer under the Dublin III Regulation

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 89

UNHCR raised serious concerns specifically related to the detention of Syrians in particular MS (308).
Also, the European Court of Human Rights issued multiple judgments in 2013 concerning detention in the context
of effective remedy.
In a number of cases against Greece, Malta and Cyprus, the ECtHR found that the reception conditions afforded
to asylum seekers violated Art.3.
In the cases A.F, (309) Horshill (310), B.M(311), and C.D. and others(312) v Greece, these violations were related
to the lack of space available to detainees, the duration of detention, overcrowding, unhygienic conditions,
lack of external contact, and lack of access to telephone, translators and information.
In the case Aden Ahmed v Malta(313), concerning an Eritrean applicant who had irregularly entered Malta by
boat, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to the conditions the applicant
endured while in detention for a period of fourteen and a half months. Furthermore, the ECtHR found a violation of Art. 5 1 mainly due to the failure of the Maltese authorities to pursue deportation, or to do so with
due diligence, and of Art. 5 4 due to the absence of an effective and speedy domestic remedy to challenge
the lawfulness of the applicants detention.
In the cases Horshill(314) and C.D. and others(315), the ECtHR found that the Greek authorities had acted in
compliance with Art. 5 1 (lawfulness of detention). However, in the case of C.D. and others(316), the ECtHR
found that there had been no effective domestic remedy against the applicants detention in two police stations where he was subjected to treatment in violation of Art. 3, and therefore that Art. 13 had also been
violated, in addition to Art. 3.
Following a similar ruling in the case Suso Musa v Malta(317), and in accordance with Art. 46 ECHR, the ECtHR
requested that the Maltese authorities establish a mechanism to allow individuals seeking a review of the lawfulness of their immigration detention to obtain a determination of their claim within a reasonable time-limit.
The ECtHR further recommended that Malta take the necessary steps to improve the conditions and shorten
the length of detention of asylum seekers.
In the case Housein v Greece(318), the ECtHR found that the detention of an unaccompanied minor in an adult
detention centre and without effective administrative review violated the applicants rights under Article 5
1 and 4.
The case M.A. v. Cyprus(319) concerned a Syrian Kurds detention by Cypriot authorities and his intended
deportation to Syria after an early morning police operation removing him and other Kurds from Syria from an
encampment outside government buildings in Nicosia in protest of the Cypriot governments asylum policy. It
is one of 38 similar applications pending before the ECtHR.

(UNHCR input). Concerns about detention in Germany were raised by PROASYL: Schutzlos hinter Gittern: Report on Asylum seekers in detention http://www.
proasyl.de/fileadmin/fm-dam/q_PUBLIKATIONEN/ 2013/Abschiebungshaft_Bericht_Juli_2013_Webversion.pdf. UNHCR also raised concerns regarding detention
practices in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the United Kingdom (UNHCR input). Concerning Greece, see also http://www.
unhcr.gr/nea/artikel/2b713d4f68c7e44faa2b8917ee2ecf86/i-ypati-armosteia-z-3.html.
(308) This is the case, e.g., in Cyprus. Since the new Menoyia detention centre was opened at the beginning of 2013, a total of 179 Syrian nationals were held there
for periods ranging from two to four months. Their detention was ordered for unlawful entry or stay in the country, and in some cases following prosecution and
conviction for attempting to leave the country with fraudulent documents. A number of Syrians have also been detained at Menoyia after having served a prison
term for minor offenses such as traffic violations. UNHCR has addressed a letter to the Minister of the Interior requesting a clear change of policy and practice in
regard to the detention of Syrian nationals who have fled or remained outside their country to seek safety and protection in Cyprus and for whom the government
has declared a moratorium on return to Syria (UNHCR input).
(309) ECtHR Case A.F. v Greece (Application No53709/11), judgment issued on 13 June 2013.
(310) ECtHR Case Horshill v Greece (Application No70427/11), judgment of 1 August 2013.
(311) ECtHR Case B.M. v Greece (Application No53608/11), judgment issued on 19 December 2013.
(312) ECtHR Case C.D. and others v Greece (Application No33441/10), judgment issued on 19 December 2013.
(313) ECtHR Case Aden Ahmed v Malta (Application No55352/12), judgment issued on 23 July 2013.
(314) ECtHR Case Horshill v Greece (Application No70427/11), judgment of 1 August 2013.
(315) ECtHR Case C.D. and others v Greece (Application No33441/10), judgment issued on 19 December 2013.
(316) ECtHR Case C.D. and others v Greece (Application No33441/10), judgment issued on 19 December 2013.
(317) ECtHR Case Suso Musa v Malta (Application No42337/11), judgment issued on 23 July 2013.
(318) ECtHR Case Housein v Greece (Application No71825/11), judgment issued on 24 October 2013.
(319) ECtHR Case M.A. v Cyprus (Application No41872/10), judgment issued on 23 July 2013.

90 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In this case, the ECtHR held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective
remedy) along with Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 due to the lack of an effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect to challenge the applicants deportation. The ECtHR also found a violation of Article 5 1 and 4
(right to liberty and security) due to the unlawfulness of the applicants entire period of detention for deportation with no effective remedy at his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, but no violation of
Article 5 2 as concerned the applicants awareness of the reasons for his arrest and for his ensuing detention,
and no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No 4 (collective expulsion of aliens).
In light of these challenges, MS continued initiatives to improve detention conditions in 2013. For example in the
Netherlands, since 1 January 2013 the Schiphol Airport Application Centre (AC) became a part of the Schiphol
Judicial Complex (JCS), which in addition to Schiphol AC also houses a detention centre and a courthouse. The
detention facilities for applicants in detention were a considerable improvement over the previous building,
which made it possible to let applicants go through a (full) rest and preparation term of six days prior to the general asylum procedure (as is the case for applicants in one of the district ACs).
Up to now, there has been no EU-wide data collection on the numbers of asylum applicants in detention in MS.
However the data collection launched by EASO as part of Stage II of its EPS will have MS reporting on a monthly
basis on their stock of pending first instance cases where applicants are in detention. It should be noted that the
current definition of detention as provided in the RCD (Article 2 (k)) and its recast version (Article 2 (h)) refers to
confinement by the MS within a particular place, where the applicant is deprived of his/her freedom of movement. This notion therefore covers a wide range of arrangements which may differ across the MS.

4.8. Procedures at first instance

Under the current legislative framework at EU level, the procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status
are governed by the APD. Key basic principles include access to the procedure (see Section 4.1. on access to
procedure), right to remain in the MS while the examination of the application is pending(320), requirements for
the examination of application(321), requirements for a decision(322), guarantees for applicants for asylum(323), and
obligations of applicants for asylum(324). The APD also includes provisions in Articles 19 and 20 on the procedure
to be used when an application is withdrawn (including implicit withdrawal/abandonment of an application)
before a decision is made on a case. A separate issue is the procedure concerning withdrawal of refugee status
once granted, which is regulated in Chapter IV of the APD and concerns situations where a person has been
granted refugee status before and elements and findings arise indicating reasons to reconsider the validity of
that status(325).
In 2013 some MS faced challenges due to high numbers of applicants, which affected the way determination
procedures were conducted(326).
(320) In Hungary the amendments to the Third Country Nationals Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2013, reconfirmed that asylum seekers enjoy the right
to stay on in Hungarian territory during the course of the whole asylum procedure (both administrative procedure and judicial review) (UNHCR input).
(321) Those include the following points laid out in Article 8 of the APD: MS should not as a rule reject an application or exclude it from examination on the sole
grounds that the application was not made as soon as possible. An appropriate examination needs to be ensured, including an individual, objective and impartial
approach. Precise and up-to-date information concerning the situation in the country of origin needs to be obtained from various sources. The personnel must
have the relevant knowledge.
(322) These include the following points laid out in Article 9 of the APD: a requirement for a written decision; in cases of rejection the reasons in fact and in law
are to be stated in the decision and information on how to challenges a negative decision is to be provided (unless it was provided at an earlier stage). One single
decision may be issued to all dependants. With regard to Cyprus, UNHCR welcomed the resumption of the RSD procedure in for Syrian asylum seekers in 2013,
which had been put on hold since 2011 (UNHCR input).
(323) According to Article 10 APD, these include the right to information, the right to the services of an interpreter, the right to contact UNHCR, the right to be given
notice of the decision, the right to be informed of the result of the decision in a language they may be reasonably expected to understand (when there is no legal
representative and no free legal aid is available).
(324) According to Article 11 APD an applicant may be obligated to cooperate with the competent authorities in the following ways: by reporting to the authorities,
handing over documents relevant to the examination of the claim, providing information on the applicants place of residence and address, being subjected to a
search; having their photograph taken and having their oral statements recorded (provided the applicant has been informed thereof).
(325) In that context, Bulgaria practice concerning Palestinian refugees was assessed by UNHCR as not being in line with Article 1D of the Geneva Convention and
standards set forth in the El Kott case (UNHCR input). In Cyprus, the Asylum Service no longer applies the changed circumstances cessation clause to Palestinians
who fled Iraq in the early-mid 2000, were accorded subsidiary protection arriving from Iraq and at some point 2010 started to be subjected to the cessation
clause (UNHCR input).
(326) In Hungary the high number of applications in 2013 resulted in an increased workload for the asylum authorities. In order to avoid a backlog when processing
cases, a number of temporary measures were introduced, including the redistribution of staff of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN). Aliens police
officers working at OIN who previously received migration officers training including a training module on asylum were assigned to conduct (only) the first
asylum interview and make decisions to terminate the procedure due to the applicant having absconded. All other procedural acts have been performed only by

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 91

The length of the asylum procedure remains a concern in many MS(327) and was the object of initiatives taken by
the governments in order to reduce processing times(328).
The following were the main developments noted by the MS in terms of the organisation of their examination
procedures:
In Denmark the process for first instance asylum claims was revised as of 2 May 2013 (Act no. 430 of 1 May 2013).
Before this date the police were responsible for registration (including the fingerprint check with EURODAC),
establishing identities and determining travel routes. Now the tasks of the police in first instance processing are
limited to registration (including fingerprint check with EURODAC). The establishing identities and the determining travel routes have become integral parts of the initial interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service
asylum adjudicators. The main goal of these changes is to help reach the goal of an average processing time at
first instance of no more than 50 days for asylum claims.
In Germany, since 1 December 2013 every application for asylum is considered an application for international
protection (before then only refugee status was included; subsidiary protection used to be examined ex officio
when applying for asylum and could also be requested separately at the aliens registration authority). The asylum
authority is now the sole body deciding whether to grant international protection.
In Greece, as mentioned above, the asylum procedure was completely reformed so that now the decision of first
instance is made by the caseworker conducting the interview. This has led to a significantly shortened duration of
the procedure (from several years down to approximately two months).
Polish authorities introduced the possibility of interviewing persons placed in detention facilities via internet. A
quality audit in 2014 will assess how well the mechanism works(329). In Spain in 2013, a renewed cooperation
agreement with UNHCR was signed by the Ministry of Interior. The purpose of the agreement is to guarantee
UNHCRs participation in the refugee status determination procedure and provide for a financial contribution(330).
In the United Kingdom, the Home Office completed a programme to improve the physical environment of the
Asylum Screening Unit (ASU) in Croydon, often the first contact point between the Home Office and the applicant.
The ASU in Croydon deals with 55% of all in-country asylum applicants. The new environment now provides private rooms for screening interviews and facilities for applicants with children(331).
UNHCR continued to issue guidance on international protection in 2013(332).
asylum caseworkers. During this temporary period, the involvement of the aliens police officers working at OIN on asylum casework followed close evaluation of
the workload and geographical position of the regional directorates. In Germany since October 2013 asylum applicants from Syria receive a questionnaire from
the Federal Office to prepare the interview. The applicants get the chance to forward the reasons why they are seeking international protection in writing. They
even may add documents to the questionnaire to prove their Syrian origin or to prove they are at risk or persecuted. This is done as a pilot project in order to
counter the high influx of applicants from Syria and to speed up the procedure for these applicants, as an interview cannot be granted in a timely manner because
of the high influx. If a decision regarding the asylum application can be reached based on the answers to the questionnaire, the personal interview can be skipped
and protection status quickly granted. Also, in view of the conflict and developing situation in South-Sudan and the Central African Republic, the decisions for
applicants from these countries of origin were down-prioritised until further notice. With regards to Bulgaria, see UNHCRs observations on the current asylum
system in Bulgaria, 2 January 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52c598354.html.
(327) In the Czech Republic, in view of the disproportionate length of the RSD, the Ombudsmans office conducted an inquiry and issued a report whereby it
recommends that immediate steps be taken in order to decrease the number of pending cases. The Ministry of the Interior acknowledged the reported flaws
and informed that relevant steps would be taken in order to minimise the number of cases taking longer than the legally stated 90 days. Moreover, there were
three judgments rendered by the Supreme Administrative Court (1 Ans 19/2012, 8 Ans 14/2012, and 1 Ans 11/2013) addressing the issue. The judgments
defined under what circumstances the extension of the time period would be lawful under Art. 27 of the Asylum Act. It has been found that the judgments of
the Supreme Administrative Court and the investigation of the Ombudsman have brought a significant improvement (UNHCR input). The situation was addressed
by the authorities through a number of human resources management, organisation and methodological-type measures. In the context of Spain, the length of
procedures although according to official statistics in 2013 the average processing time of asylum claims lodged in the course of 2013 and 2014 in Ceuta and
Melilla was been 6 months and 22 days (6 months being the time limit for the examination of claims set by the Asylum Law) was particularly cumbersome and
problematic for applicants in the cities of Ceuta and Melilla due to the reception conditions considered by UNHCR to be of lower standard than those on the
mainland (UNHCR input).
(328) The French Government has allocated additional funds to both OFPRA and the CNDA in order to reinforce their instruction capacities and reduce the total
average time for processing claims to one year. By the end of 2013, the claim processing time was reduced to 6 months and 24 days at the CNDA and to six months
at the OFPRA (around 12 months altogether).
(329) UNHCR input.
(330) While some concerns remain, UNHCR noted improvements with regard to the reasoning of decisions, the use and analysis of COI, the quality of first interviews,
especially at internment centres, prisons or police offices outside Madrid, as well as in in-depth interviews of UASCs (UNHCR input).
(331) UNHCR input.
(332) E.g., UNHCR, UNHCR Position on Returns to the Central African Republic, 24 April 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5177b7a44.html; UNHCR, UNHCR

92 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

EASO and Training

EASO training activities are being carried out within the framework of the Agencys Work Programme and its
Training Strategy, which was developed in 2012. EASOs core training tool is the EASO Training Curriculum, a
common vocational training system consisting of 13 interactive modules.
In 2013 EASO organised 13 train-the-trainer sessions, with 164 participants from 23 EU MS. At the same time,
EASO administrated 140 national training sessions in 15 EU MS. The target groups were the employees of the
national asylum administrations.
In 2013 EASO updated the following EASO Training Curriculum modules:
Inclusion
Interviewing Children
Interviewing Vulnerable Persons
Dublin Regulation III (update launched in QIII)
Asylum Procedure Directive (update launched in QIV)
In 2013, EASO finished developing a new module on CEAS and completely redrafted the module on Interview
Techniques. In 2013, EASO also began developing two new modules a module for managers in the field of
asylum and module on gender, gender identity and sexual orientation.
In 2013, EASO also introduced a new training tool EASO Training Handbooks. The first two EASO Training
Handbooks were developed for the EASO core module Inclusion and the CEAS module.
Each handbook forms an overall summary and a reference guide to the relevant module and is available to all
trainees who were trained in the module.
Handbooks were developed by teams of MS experts and reviewed by the EASO Reference Group, which consists of different international organisations and also members of civil society, with the coordination of the
EASO expert. The target group for this activity were the trainees of the Inclusion module and CEAS module.
After the handbooks were finalised, they were translated into 18 national languages of the MS and will be
electronically published in all of these languages, as well as in English. Moreover, copies of the English version
of the Inclusion Handbook and copies of the English version of the CEAS Handbook will be printed. Printed
versions of these handbooks will be distributed to individual trainees who have participated or will be participating in one of the train-the-trainer sessions held at EASO.

4.9. Procedures at second instance

The current EU-level legislative framework for appeals procedures is set forth in Chapter V of the Asylum Procedures Directive. The basic concept, stipulated in Article 39, obligates MS to ensure that applicants have the right
to an effective remedy before a court or a tribunal for the different types of decisions issued at first instance listed
in this article. The catalogue of decisions covered by the right to effective remedy includes not only decisions on
the merits of the claim (e.g. decisions rejecting the case or granting subsidiary protection, which the applicant
may wish to appeal by claiming refugee status), but also, inter alia, decisions considering an application inadmissible, decisions refusing to re-open a case which was discontinued, and decisions not to further examine a
subsequent application. Therefore appeal bodies would normally decide on a variety of issues and are not limited
to assessing the merits of the case in terms of international protection.
Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum seekers from Afghanistan, 6 August 2013, HCR/EG/AFG/13/01, http://www.
refworld.org/docid/51ffdca34.html; UNHCR, Ukraine as a country of asylum. Observations on the situation of asylum seekers and refugees in Ukraine, July
2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/51ee97344.html; UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian
Arab Republic, Update II, 22 October 2013, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5265184f4.html; UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No 10: Claims to
Refugee Status related to Military Service within the context of Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,
3 December 2013, HCR/GIP/13/10, http://www.refworld.org/docid/529ee33b4.html; UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with Regard to people
fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, 17 January 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d7fc5f4.html; UNHCR, UNHCR Position on Returns to Mali
Update I, January 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52cc405a4.html.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 93

The current APD does not prescribe any harmonised standards concerning the organisation of the appeal or the
procedure to be followed, therefore MS can and have transposed the directive in various ways according to what
is expected to be best suited to ensuring the right to effective remedy within their national framework. Consequently, there is limited harmonisation of practices at the appeals stage. In 2013, UNHCR noted discrepancies
among jurisprudence of individual courts(333) or among chambers within a single body(334), along with the continuing need for capacity-building for members of courts and tribunals(335).
The recast APD develops the legislative framework for procedures at second instance by, inter alia, stipulating
that MS shall ensure that an effective remedy provides for a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and
points of law, including, where applicable, an examination of international protection needs, at least in appeals
procedures before a court or tribunal of first instance (Article 46.3 of the recast APD), strengthening guarantees
concerning time limits for the applicant to exercise their right to an effective remedy (Article 46.4. of the recast
APD) and the suspensive effect of an appeal in terms of the applicants right to remain in the territory pending an
appeal (Article 46.5-7 of the recast APD).
The systems of appeals procedures in matters of international protection implemented in the MS reflect the
diversity of their legal systems and judicial structures. In some MS the appeal instance examines the case de novo,
meaning that it is assessed in its entirety and considers all facts available to the appeals instance at the time of the
decisions is issued (ex nunc examination). In some MS, the appeal instance only examines the legality of the decision made at first instance, or if it examines facts as well, this is limited to the facts which were available during
the first instance procedure, when the decision was made (ex tunc examination). This variety is further reflected
by the rules and requirements concerning the appeal to be lodged. In some MS cases can only be appealed on
points of law (e.g. only infringement of procedure can be brought up)(336). In other MS an appeal can be submitted on points of fact (e.g. the interpretation of the facts of the case can be challenged).
Concerns noted with regard to procedures at second instance included the lack of suspensive effect of appeals
in some MS(337).
New institutions
In Austria, the Federal Administrative Court took up its duties on 1 January 2014. As part of the reorganisation, applicants for international protection gained the option of approaching the Higher Administrative Court to
appeal negative decisions of the Federal Administrative Court(338). In Greece the new Appeals Authority began
receiving appeals in July 2013.
(333) E.g., in Germany, Italy.
(334) E.g., in Malta in 2013, the capacity of the Refugee Appeals Board (RAB) was increased from two to six chambers. UNHCR notes, however, some inconsistencies
regarding decision-making and interpretations of refugee law between the six new chambers and considers that a coordinating function is needed to ensure
that all six chambers have a consistent approach to assessing asylum claims and in their legal interpretations of relevant law (UNHCR input). Also, in Belgium the
absence of uniformity of jurisprudence within the CALL raises concerns (UNHCR input).
(335) UNHCR input.
(336) In Cyprus, appeal before the Supreme Court is limited to judicial review on points of law and does not cover the merits of the case. This, according to the
jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, cannot be said to be an effective remedy against an unfavourable first instance decision. The
government has recently taken some steps to ensure compliance with international and EU standards in this area by laying the legislative groundwork for the
creation of a first instance administrative court which would have the authority to examine administrative decisions, including those for asylum claims, for issues
relating to both merits and points of law (UNHCR input).
(337) According to the Cyprus Refugee Law, refugee applicants are allowed to remain in the country only for the duration of the administrative examination of
their claim. The right to remain ceases from the date of sending the decision of the Reviewing Authority, i.e. upon the second instance administrative decision.
Once a negative decision is made/upheld at that stage, the asylum seeker is automatically declared to be a prohibited migrant and served with a deportation/
detention order. The Supreme Court of Cyprus ruled in Leonie Yomba vs Republic (10 August 2010) that the restriction on the right to remain violates the EU
acquis. However the practice continues, and no remedy or protective measure has since been introduced. The European Court of Human Rights has also found
in MA vs Cyprus (No 41872/10, 23/7/2013) that Cyprus lacked an effective domestic judicial remedy against the deportation of applicants for international
protection because of the lack of an automatic suspensive effect of appeals. Cyprus was consequently found to be in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The Court furthermore found a violation of Article 5 due to the fact that the asylum seeker was subjected to deportation
orders as an illegal migrant while his asylum claim was still pending and due to the duration of his detention (8 months), which the Court found undoubtedly too
long. In France there is no suspensive appeal before the second instance CNDA when the asylum seekers claim has been rejected in an accelerated procedure.
The Ministry of Interior argues that this would create enormous difficulties within the French asylum system as too many asylum seekers whose claim is deemed
to be manifestly unfounded or fraudulent would then enjoy the possibility of lodging an appeal with suspensive effect. This would as the authorities claim
saturate the asylum procedure. Since mid-2012, asylum-related actors have been engaged in a discussion of the structural and legislative changes that are needed
to render the asylum system in France more efficient (UNHCR input). It should be noted that lack of suspensive effect is an issue in other MS; see for example the
ECtHRs judgements in Mohammed v. Austria (Application No 2283/12), 6 June 2013, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-120073; Josef
v. Belgium (Application No 70055/10), 27 February 2013, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-141199; A.C. e.a. c. Espagne (Requte no
6528/11), 22 April 2014.
(338) UNHCR input.

94 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Changes in the procedure

In Belgium several changes were made to the appeals procedure before the Council for Aliens Law Litigation
(CALL) (339). This law aligns the CALL with the CGRS in terms of competence and procedure. The amendment
clarifies the situations in which the CALL only acts as an annulment body (asylum application by an EU national,
asylum application lodged by a person from a safe country of origin, multiple asylum applications) and extends
them to include technical refusals and asylum applicants who have obtained refugee status in the first country of
asylum (if this country is an EU MS)(340). Furthermore, procedural changes were made regarding, inter alia, the
possibility of introducing an additional appeal note and time limits. The legislation includes provisions addressing
the improper use of the right of access to justice. An asylum seeker who, for example, has indicated that he or she
does not need an interpreter at the time of lodging his or her asylum application will no longer be able to request
an interpreter for the hearing in appeal at the CALL.
In Latvia amendments in the Asylum Law have the effect that if an asylum seeker has not informed the first
instance, or the court, about his or her location, or there is information that an asylum seeker is no longer located
in the Republic of Latvia, the court may abandon an asylum seekers application without examining it. The court
decides on this issue via a written procedure. Also, the amendments stipulate that the court cannot summon
witnesses from abroad using state financial means.
In Romania, the appeal stage has been substantially amended with the entry into force of the new Civil Procedure
Code(341). The New Civil Procedure code aims to provide parties with more simple and accessible means of exercising their civil rights, as well as to accelerate civil proceedings, including enforcement procedures. The new code
also aims to ensure the requirements for a predictable duration of the trial and to provide effective remedies to
unify case law. It is noteworthy that the new code is the first Romanian civil procedure code to expressly raise the
right of the parties to a fair trial, within a reasonable and predictable time, to the rank of a principle of civil procedure(342). The code creates a new mechanism designed to ensure, alongside the existing procedure of recourse
in the interest of law, that the predictability of the civil trial is enhanced and that Romanian case law is unified.
Under this new procedure, a question of interpretation of a law that has generated differing case law and that is
essential to the solution rendered in a trial, may be referred to the Supreme Court for an official interpretation.
This official interpretation will be binding on all Romanian courts.
Additional means of appeal introduced
In Cyprus, the right to appeal against a negative decision of the Director of the Asylum Service with regards to
applications for family reunification granted to beneficiaries of international protection was introduced (343).
In Ireland the rules on appeal regarding subsidiary protection were amended. The legislation took effect on 14
November 2013 and provides for an appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal regarding negative decisions
made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner(344).
Internal reorganisation
In France, the National Court of Asylum has significantly reorganised its hearings scheme since 1 January 2013 to
enhance the serenity of hearings, the in-depth examination of each case and the time devoted to interpretation.
(339) On 22 August 2013, the law of 8 May 2013 (I) (II) was published in the Belgian Official Gazette.
(340) To UNHCR, it is a source of concern that a cassation appeal (recours en annullation) against a decision by the CGRS not to take an asylum claim into
consideration (dcisions de non prise en considration) does not confer an automatic suspensive effect, that it is not evaluation ex nunc and that is only a review
in law and not in fact. It seems that the conditions for an effective remedy are not met in these cassation appeals before the CALL. Indeed, the January 2014
judgment of the Constitutional Court concerning appeals in the context of claims made by applicants from safe countries of origin determines that a cassation
appeal against the rejection of such a claim by the CGRS does not currently offer sufficient guarantees to be considered effective. To be effective, the Court found
that such appeals need to incorporate a full ex nunc assessment of facts and law and confer suspensive effect (UNHCR input).
(341) Entered into force on 15 February 2013. The Code applies to appeal procedures in cases of international protection, together with Law No122/2006 on
asylum in Romania.
(342) To ensure the timeliness of the trial, under the new code the judge must estimate the duration of the trial at the first court hearing to which the parties are
legally summoned, taking into consideration the facts of the dispute and the pleas of the parties. Furthermore, as a rule, the judge is bound to set court hearings
at close intervals, even on consecutive days. The code also institutes a distinct special procedure against the breach of the right to have the trial settled within an
optimal and predictable time: the challenge against undue prolongation of the trial. According to the new procedure, the party who considers the trial to have
been prolonged unnecessarily may request that such conduct be remedied.
(343) According to the bill (no 9{1}).
(344) In July 2013 the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) noted that, following the Judgment of the High Court in the case M.M. v. the Minister for
Justice, Equality and Law Reform, it was revising its procedures for reaching decisions regarding applications for subsidiary protection. Provisions were to include,
among other things, an oral interview for each applicant and the right to appeal a negative decision before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Such an appeal must
be received within 15 days of the decision. The appellant may indicate whether they wish the Tribunal to hold an oral hearing for the purpose of the appeal.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 95

EASOs cooperation with courts and tribunals

EASOs cooperates with courts and tribunals under the framework of EASOs legal mandate. This cooperation
consists of implementing professional development activities, collecting and exchanging jurisprudence and
providing support in the context of special and emergency support operations.
General framework During 2013, EASO adopted a concept note that outlines its approach and defines the
main areas of cooperation, and established a network consisting of representatives from the CJEU, ECtHR,
the MS, Norway and Switzerland. EASO has also consolidated its cooperative relationship with the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ) and the Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ)
through a formal exchange of letters and continued its collaboration with UNHCR, the Fundamental Rights
Agency (FRA), academia, civil society organisations and other relevant partners such as the European Judicial
Training Network (EJTN).
Professional development In December 2013, EASO held its first advanced workshop aimed at stimulating
discussion among experienced court and tribunal members regarding the implementation of Article 15 c) of
the Qualification Directive. The long-term objective will be to facilitate the development of a full professional
development curriculum for members of courts and tribunals.
Collection and exchange of jurisprudence In the context of a wider EASO initiative on this subject, EASO has
developed a collection of European and national jurisprudence on the implementation of Article 15c) of the
Qualification Directive which has been distributed through the EASO network. The collection provides a useful
overview of over 100 relevant European and national decisions on the subject.
Special and emergency support operations Within the context of the Special Support plan for Italy, EASO
developed a professional development plan for the Italian Judiciary in close cooperation with the Italian
Judicial School. The plan included the organisation of three pilot seminars in Malta, which were attended by
approximately sixty Italian Judges, and will continue with the organisation of a course as part of the official
programme of the Italian School in 2014.

4.10. The availability and use of Country of Origin Information

The availability and appropriate use of Country of Origin Information (COI) are crucial components of well-informed, fair and well-reasoned asylum decisions. In 2013, MS continued efforts to improve the quality and accessibility of COI by developing new methodologies and products and further developing databases.
Methodologies/Quality
In Austria, a new methodology was adopted and is now used by the COI Department of the newly established
Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum(345). The methodology was developed in accordance with the Common Guidelines and EASO COI Report Methodology to ensure a European approach. In Belgium, as part of an
ERF-funded project, the COI research department of the CGRS (Cedoca) developed an approach for harmonising
the COI product drafting process(346). Germany in 2013 developed a compendium on Quality Standards for COI,
which is based on international and European standards and also includes the results of evaluations of (the use)
of COI by adjudicators and other users, as well as COI quality assurance mechanisms devised and applied by
(345) This document clearly outlines the standards for COI work. It contains mandatory instructions for each product type and specifies the norms and the
procedures for preparing the products. Finally, the methodology consists of quality assurance methods and measurements. COI products defined by the
methodology include: Query Responses (AFB), which serve as the selective response to questions submitted by requesting users; COI Reports (LIB), which provide
an overall description of the situation in countries of origin or in Dublin states, insofar as they are relevant to asylum and immigration cases; short information
(KI) offer immediate facts relevant to incidents in countries of origin and new developments; COI Research Papers, which are scientific articles consisting of
information collected in reference to country-specific topics; and FFM-reports, which structure and summarise all relevant information gathered during factfinding missions (FFM). The new methodology is the result of an external evaluation conducted in during 2010 and 2011. It is accompanied by instructions
developed by our advisory council (the advisory council consists of renowned experts from fields related to refugees, migration and international relations).
The reconstruction was set up with working parties that included all staff in the COI-Unit and the support of the main customers. Their task was to revise our
procedures, keeping the main focus on the needs of the customers.
(346) This ensures more transparency regarding the research and information used in asylum decisions, which benefits the asylum seeker and his/her legal
representative and facilitates exchange at EU level. Also, the aim is to increase the quality of the products and the efficiency of the COI department. In a second
stage, certain COI products will be published on the CGRS website.

96 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

EASO and European partner authorities of BAMF, who are also asked to undertake peer reviews in the future(347).
In Luxembourg a separate COI unit was established. In the United Kingdom, the Home Office reviewed its COI
processes in 2013. It proposed merging the teams responsible for COI reports and Operational Guidance Notes
and for the staff to work in regional teams (covering a number of countries) to produce products that combine
COI and policy guidance. The aims of the proposed reforms were, inter alia, cutting costs, improving efficiency,
improving consistency between NGOs and the COI reports by eliminating the differences between the updating
cycles for the two products, and clearly reflecting Home Office positions in relation to country guidance cases(348).
It is also important to mention the publication in 2013 of the revised edition of the Accord/Austrian Red Cross COI
training manual Researching Country of Origin Information(349).
Joint products
In January 2013, the OIN Documentation Centre (Hungary) and the COI Unit of the Federal Asylum Office (Austria) finalised their joint report on the situation of Kurds in Turkey, which has been uploaded to the Common COI
Portal.
Cooperation in the field of COI

EASO COI Network Approach

The EASO COI Network Approach, which links different COI-related EASO activities into one coherent structure
and makes use of the available resources in the most effective way, was launched.
The two core elements of the EASO COI Network strategy are: 1) the Strategic COI Network, comprising COI
Heads of Units or experts otherwise responsible for COI from all MS, Associate Countries, the European
Commission and UNHCR, facilitating strategic discussions of issues including cross-cutting COI practices;
and 2) a series of Specific Expert Networks linking COI experts from MS who specialise in a specific country,
region, or theme, and who can exchange information and harmonise COI practices in their specific area of
expertise.
The tasks of the Specific Networks can include mapping currently existing and planned COI products at national
level to avoid duplicating efforts; exchanging information on sources, bibliographies, planned fact-finding missions, etc.; and assessing the need for and producing EU-level COI following the EASO COI Report Methodology. All relevant information generated by these networks is posted on the EASO COI Portal so that it is
available to COI experts and decision-makers across the EU.
The networks also serve as an important capacity-building tool for newly hired COI officials who start dealing
with a specific Country of Origin, as well as for countries that are currently establishing their COI capacity and
are interested in joining some country-specific networks in order to benefit from existing expertise. The COI
Network approach thus leverages the COI expertise already present in MS and helps create it where it does
not exist. The Network Approach thus allows the gradual creation of a corpus of EU COI which will meet the
needs of decision-makers across the Union and gradually lead to higher and more harmonised standards in
this essential part of the CEAS.
The first Strategic Network meeting, held in April 2013, marked the beginning of this process. During this meeting, and based on an EASO Country Determination Methodology, it was decided to start with three pilot COI
Specialist Networks on Syria, Somalia and Pakistan. For the Syria network, a kick-off meeting was held in June
2013. For Somalia and Pakistan, kick-off meetings were held in September 2013. After consulting the Strategic
Network, EASO decided in November 2013 to start four new COI Specialist Networks in 2014 on Afghanistan,
Iraq, Iran and the Russian Federation. The kick-off meeting for the network on Iraq was held in January 2014.
The Specialist Networks also continued sharing information after the meetings. In 2014, cooperation within
the networks is expected to intensify, as the Specialist Networks will play a key role in EASO COI production
and a formal COI query system.

(347) The new standards are also available for perusal and monitoring by the BAMFs Expert Forum, which consists of members from UNHCR, NGOs, churches,
courts, ministries etc. The Quality Compendium will also serve as a basis for enhancing COI capacities in EU MS as well as in other countries (UNHCR input).
(348) UNHCR input.
(349) http://www.coi-training.net/handbook/Researching-Country-of-Origin-Information-2013-edition-ACCORD-COI-Training-manual.pdf.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 97

Also outside the framework of EASO, cooperation between MS in the field of COI continued in 2013. Relevant
examples are the cooperation between German-speaking countries (D-A-CH-L) and the MedCOI project, which
focuses on the availability and accessibility of medical treatment in countries of origin.
It should be noted that COI research capacity is not limited to national asylum administrations or UNHCR; a number of civil society organisations also engage in COI-related activities. In 2013 civil society organisations active in
the field of COI were mapped(350).
Databases
The integration of the Finnish electronic COI database TELLUS into the EASO Common COI Portal was completed.
This will multiply the number of users and expand them to an international level(351). In Romania the national
COI portal http://www.portal-ito.ro/ continued to operate in cooperation with GIIs non-governmental partner,
CNRR. In Lithuania the operation and development of the national COI portal http://www.coi.migracija.lt/ continued. The COI Unit at the Swedish Migration Board has focused on three key developments during 2013. One
has been the governments priority of giving greater emphasis to LGBTI issues in the agencys country information
products. Furthermore, the agency launched a unique legal database, integrated into the Lifos COI database,
offering more than 500 legal documents and legal decisions from several instances, including the Court of Justice
of the European Union and UN bodies. Finally, Lifos launched the Focus Countries internet service, a web-based
collection of key country and legal information on the nine most frequent countries of origin of asylum seekers in
Sweden. In April 2013, UNHCR re-launched the Refworld database (www.refworld.org), which provides access to
more than 167000 documents relevant to countries of origin, asylum and key protection issues(352).

EU COI Common Portal

The Common Country of Origin Information (COI) portal was built to enable asylum officials to access a wide
range of COI from a single point of entry. Therefore, the portal offers the possibility of connecting official COI
databases owned by MS and Associate Countries to a single web application, and allows MS which do not have
web-based systems to upload and share COI documents in a local area designed for this purpose called the
Upload Area. Five national COI databases are currently connected: Germany, France, Norway, Sweden and
Finland. In 2013 the COI Portal was partly revamped, and now features EASOs visual identity.
A network of National Common Portal Administrators (NCPAs) was set up in February 2013. NCPAs act as a contact point between national users and the EASO (registrations, user questions, technical issues). The administers manage their respective Upload Area, ensuring the consistency and quality of this area, or oversee the
connection of their national COI databases. They also provide training on the COI Portal to their national users
when necessary. A NCPA training was organised in April and a second NCPA meeting was held in November
2013. To support NCPAs in their role, a NCPA Guide was developed, and a User Guide was made available in
order to assist them in training new users.
An advisory group was set up comprising representatives from EU+ countries whose national databases are
connected or in the process of being connected to the portal and representatives from EU+ countries using
the Upload Area. The role of this group (made up of 11 participants and the European Commission) is to share
experiences on the practical use of the portal and discuss general directions in relation to its development so
as to ensure full functionality and eventual improvement.

Despite efforts to increase the quality and accessibility of COI, the actual use and interpretation of COI by decision-makers is still often found to be insufficient and inconsistent, although at the same time improvements
have been noted by UNHCR in some MS(353). One especially relevant concern regarding the use of COI in asylum
decisions relates to the inequality of arms, whereby the applicants do not have access to the relevant information

(350) ARC Asylum research Consultancy/Vluchtelingen Werk Nederland, NGOs working on Country of Origin Information in Europe: A mapping exercise (October
2013) http://asylumresearchconsultancy.com/webfm_send/122.
(351) The Finnish Immigration Service has been using TELLUS since 2001. TELLUS currently holds more than 23000 documents and has more than 600 national
users, such as local register offices, police units and administrative courts, in addition to the FIS employees.
(352) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Refworld Revamped, 15 April 2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/516c211e4.html.
(353) UNHCR input.

98 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

available to the asylum authority(354). Finally, there is the issue of national COI-related resources often only being
available to first instance and not second instance bodies(355).

4.11. Vulnerable applicants

The current version of the APD specifically mentions one group of applicants who require additional guarantees,
i.e. unaccompanied minors, whose situation is regulated in Article 17. The recast version of the APD significantly
expands this approach by including the notion of applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, set forth
mainly in Article 24 of the recast APD. The core elements of the new framework are the need to identify applicants who are in need of special procedural guarantees (in particular as result of torture, rape or any other form
of psychological, physical or sexual violence) and to provide them with adequate support(356). In terms of reception conditions, the current version of the RCD includes provisions for persons with special needs, as well as the
principle of talking into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons. The recast RCD includes the category
of applicants with special reception needs(357), and Chapter IV comprises a set of provisions concerning this
category, including provisions on assessing the special reception needs of vulnerable persons, minors, unaccompanied minors, and victims of torture and violence.
Given how the concept of vulnerability in procedures for international protection has developed, multiple actions
were undertaken in 2013 to address this issue, including international projects and studies.
The Response to Vulnerability in Asylum (RVA) project, co-financed by the European Refugee Fund (ERF), aimed
to improve responses to vulnerable applicants needs in the asylum systems of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom(358). In the United Kingdom, UNHCRs Quality Integration Project, in its
recent audit of asylum claims, examined how the best interests of children in asylum-seeking families are determined. The findings and accompanying recommendations were published in Considering the best interests of a
child within a family seeking asylum(359) in December 2013.
The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) published a study Recognising Victims of Torture in National Asylum Procedures: A comparative overview of early identification of victims and their access to
medico-legal reports in asylum-receiving countries(360). Civil society organisations also implemented initiatives
and projects concerning the recognition of victims of torture(361).
Also noteworthy in this regard is the work done by UNHCR on the topic of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)(362).
(354) This may occur, e.g., because the asylum decision only refers to lengthy reports in a language the applicant does not understand, without specifying and
translating the relevant pieces of information on which the decision is based (UNHCR input).
(355) UNHCR input.
(356) Art. 22 RCD2 establishes that MS shall take into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons such as minors; unaccompanied minors; disabled people;
elderly people; pregnant women; single parents with children who are minors; victims of human trafficking; persons with serious illnesses; persons with mental
disorders; and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female
genital mutilation, in the national law implementing this directive. This provision is referred to in Art. 24 APD2 as well. The category listed here is thus only one
subcategory of vulnerable persons.
(357) Article 2 (k) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive: applicant with special reception needs: means a vulnerable person, in accordance with Article 21,
who is in need of special guarantees in order to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations provided for in this Directive.
(358) The RVA project was implemented between December 2012 and December 2013 and was coordinated by the UNHCR Regional Representation in Central
Europe. The main activities included gathering data on the legal, procedural and support provisions relating to vulnerable asylum seekers across the participating
states; enhancing state knowledge of the issues affecting vulnerable asylum seekers through targeted capacity-building activities; working to ensure an effective
and proper method of identifying vulnerable asylum seekers; and creating and introducing tools for effective and tailored responses to the support and procedural
needs of vulnerable asylum seekers. The RVA project also focused on developing the capacity of the existing internal audit mechanisms across the participating
states to assess vulnerable asylum seekers.
(359) Available at: http://www.unhcr.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/UNHCR-Best_Interest-screen.pdf.
(360) International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, Recognising Victims of Torture in National Asylum Procedures: A comparative overview of early
identification of victims and their access to medico-legal reports in asylum-receiving countries http://www.irct.org/files/Filer/publications/MLRweb.pdf.
(361) The Croatian Law Center implemented a project entitled Protection of Victims of Torture among Vulnerable Groups of Migrants, underwritten
by the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which aims to provide assistance to asylum seekers and torture survivors. Under this project, a group of
NGOs support the potential victims with legal and medical/psycho-social assistance. Parcours dExil led another relevant project, http://protect-able.eu/
resources/. Also, in Austria an interdisciplinary research project on victims of torture in the asylum procedure was finished: http://www.nwv.at/recht/
voelkerrecht/1054_krieg_und_folter_im_asylverfahren/.
(362) UNHCR, UNHCRs Contribution to the European Commissions Consultation on Female Genital Mutilation in the EU, May 2013, available at: http://www.
refworld.org/docid/51a701594.html; and the UNHCR study, Too Much Pain: Female Genital Mutilation & Asylum in the European Union A Statistical
Overview, February 2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/512c72ec2.html. The UNHCR publication Too Much Pain provides an unprecedented
level of statistical detail regarding the countries of origin practicing FGM from which asylum-seeking and refugee women and girls in the European Union
come. The statistical data also provides a clear map of the EU MS where these women and girls reside. As such, the messages the European Union should

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 99

At the MS level, special attention was paid to the situation of unaccompanied minors(363) and to applications
made by LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex) applicants (364). While clear improvements
have been made, whether or not the necessary procedures are formally in place, some concerns remain.
These include the actual availability of legal guardians for unaccompanied minors(365), the effective use of
procedures for age assessment and determining vulnerability(366), the reception and possible detention of
vulnerable persons(367), and approaches towards victims of trafficking in human beings(368).

convey must be adjusted to each of the EU MS where these refugee women and girls reside, and most importantly tailored to the specific FGM-practising
communities in each MS.
(363) In Austria in 2013, the MoI and the European Refugee Fund continued their support of a quality assurance project aiming to assist authorities in processing the
asylum procedures of unaccompanied minors (UBAUM). The project was implemented by UNHCR in cooperation with the Federal Asylum Office. In Estonia as a
result of amendments to the law it is now possible to contract natural and juridical persons to safeguard the representation of UAM during international protection
procedures. In Cyprus the Social Welfare Services are appointed as the official guardian of unaccompanied minors. Furthermore, the lawyer representing applicants
for international protection should be approved in the register of practicing lawyers. In Belgium on 10 June 2013, an updated version of the National Action Plan
(NAP 2010-2014) was approved by the Ministerial Conference. This new version includes measures regarding information and awareness raising, prevention of forced
marriage, training of people who are professionally in charge of girls and women who are victims (or at risk) of these kinds of violence, and protection of victims.
In Bulgaria in early August 2013 a separate protected area for unaccompanied minors was created in the Sofia Registration and Reception Centre. Accelerated
procedures are not applied to UAMs and foreigners coming from a country under armed conflict (Syria). In Estonia a workshop on unaccompanied minors carried out
under the IPE project focused on defining the best interests of the child based on the forthcoming UNHCR, Unicef BID handbook. The vulnerable groups workshop
focused on issues related to trauma, torture, LGBT and trafficking. International protection officer staff from the Spanish Office for Asylum and Refugees received
training on LGBT claims, focusing on credibility aspects. In Italy, following the Lampedusa tragedies on 3 and 9 October 2013, the National Fund for the Reception of
Unaccompanied Minors was increased to 20 million EUR. The PRUMA (Promoting reunification of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation)
project works for to reunify minors with their parents in another MS using Dublin procedures. The partners are OIM, Greece, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Malta,
and Norway. The coalition agreement of 29 October 2012 states that under certain conditions, children remaining in the Netherlands for a long period of time and
unaccompanied minor foreign nationals (UMFNs) may be eligible for a regular residence permit for the duration of one year. This involves a final arrangement, part
of which is a transitional arrangement (the childrens pardon). The arrangement took effect as of 1 February 2013. A new policy on unaccompanied minors was
implemented starting 1 June 2013. As a result, the special residence permit for unaccompanied minors has been abolished. The new policy focuses on returning
more unaccompanied minors who do not require protection in The Netherlands in order to carry out these returns faster (adequate reception facilities have
been arranged in the country of origin or in the country of permanent residence). If an unaccompanied minor cannot be returned to adequate reception facilities
through no fault of the unaccompanied minor and the unaccompanied minor was, at the time of his or her initial application, younger than 15 years of age, the
unaccompanied minor may be entitled to a residence permit pursuant to the no-fault policy for unaccompanied minors. This permit will be granted for five years
period. In Sweden there was a policy change concerning unaccompanied minors (UAMs). The Swedish Migration Board is responsible for the asylum process and the
local municipalities are responsible for accommodations and for ensuring the general welfare of the child. The Swedish Migration Board signs agreements with local
municipalities for a number of accommodation places for asylum seeking UAMs to which the Board then refers the UAM. However, the number of accommodation
places available through agreements has never been sufficient for the high number of UAMs coming to Sweden. In 2013, the Swedish Parliament passed an act giving
the Swedish Migration Board the possibility to refer UAMs to local municipalities who have not signed an agreement with the Board or refer a number of UAMs to
a municipality which exceeds the signed agreement in place. This change in policy entered into force on 1 January 2014. The United Kingdoms policy on granting
limited leave to UAMs applying for international protection was incorporated into the Immigration Rules. UNHCRs Quality Integration Project, in its recent audit
of asylum claims, examined how the best interests of children in asylum-seeking families are determined. The findings and accompanying recommendations were
published in Considering the best interests of a child within a family seeking asylum in December 2013 (available at: http://www.unhcr.org.uk/fileadmin/user_
upload/docs/UNHCR-Best_Interest-screen.pdf). The findings indicate some positive practices, with some decision-makers identifying issues related to the welfare
and best interests of the child. The report also highlights a number of shortcomings, including observations that the best interests of children were not respected in
all decisions, that limited mechanisms exist for collecting information relevant to determining the best interests of a child and a finding that decision-makers rarely
balance elements in light of a particular childs situation to reach a decision based on their best interests.
(364) France increased OFPRAs internal expertise on both UAM and LGBT by creating a dedicated working group of specialists who are in charge of providing
support to other case officers and developing guidelines for best practices. In Sweden the Migration Board adopted new guidelines regarding refugee status
determination when LGBT claims (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) are made. A number of LGBT specialists were appointed and received special training
during the year. LGBT specialists support case officers and decision-making officers in managing and processing asylum applications in which LGBT claims are
made. Training in the norm-critical approach was introduced for new and existing staff members (particularly targeting asylum case officers).
(365) UNHCR input, e.g., on Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Germany. Regarding the latter, with reference to the decision
of the Federal Court of Justice of 29.05.2013 (dec. XII ZB 530/11), guardians are not entitled to have a lawyer nominated as a complementary guardian
(Ergnzungspfleger) to represent the minor in the asylum procedure if the guardian himself/herself has no a detailed knowledge of asylum-specific issues. The
decision questions a practice which was mainly developed in the Federal State of Hesse and which was often used as a good practice example. However, the court
decision triggered a legal debate on the question of how the German guardian system can be adapted to the European standards. At present, there are no binding
obligations for guardians of UASC to complete any special training. UNHCR has been involved in cases where family courts do not nominate guardians for UASC
if one or both of the parents is/are alive and is/are in sporadic contact over phone from their home countries (such as Afghanistan and Iraq) with the minor. It is
argued that it is possible for the parents to fulfil their parental responsibilities from abroad. However, this view is not in accordance with international standards
and the European approach to the representation of asylum-seeking children (UNHCR input). In Belgium, UASCs do not have immediate access to a guardian.
When the age of the minor is uncertain, a guardian will not be assigned until an age determination test (which is carried out exclusively on the basis of a physical
medical test) has confirmed that he or she is a child. It is however important that a qualified and independent guardian be assigned to counsel the child. This is
not guaranteed at the moment, undermining respect for the childrens rights, particularly for UASC who are detained at the border and who arrive as stowaways
at sea ports (UNHCR input).
(366) UNHCR input, e.g., on Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, Spain.
(367) The Maltese Reception Regulations state that the specific situation of vulnerable people, including minors and pregnant women, will be taken into account.
These regulations further state that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. However, Regulation 15 states that unaccompanied minors
over 16 may be placed in detention centres for adult asylum seekers. According to UNHCR, procedures for the early release of vulnerable individuals are regulated
by policy and practice rather than by law and are implemented by the immigration authorities. Release is not automatic, and vulnerable persons are still, in
practice, detained upon arrival. Vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied and separated children, pregnant women, families with children, and persons with
severe medical and psychological conditions are usually released from detention only after they undergo a vulnerability or age assessment procedure (UNHCR
input). Concerns were also raised by UNHCR regarding Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia, and Slovenia (UNHCR
input). In Malta, UNHCR raised concerns regarding LGBTI asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection who are not in a position to reside in the open reception
centres because of harassment but cannot afford private accommodation (UNHCR input). In Poland, in November 2013 the Committee against Torture found
the detention of children in guarded centres whether on their own or with their parents to be absolutely unacceptable: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13929&LangID=E.
(368) E.g., in the United Kingdom, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came into force in April 2013, significantly limited
legal aid for victims of trafficking. Legal aid will be available to a victim of trafficking for an application for leave to enter or remain; however, the person must
furnish proof of a conclusive determination under the National Referral Mechanism that they are a victim of trafficking or that there is a reasonable grounds
determination that they are a victim and there has been no conclusive determination stating that they are not. A victim of trafficking is not entitled to legal
aid before going to authorities to establish that they have been trafficked unless they begin their application as an asylum case (for which legal aid is available)
(UNHCR input).

100 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In 2013 UNHCR provided relevant guidance on protection issues concerning vulnerable applicants(369).

EASO activities on Vulnerable Groups

Between December 2012 and February 2013, EASO and the European Commission sent a joint questionnaire
to MS on current policy and practice relating to family tracing (FT). This led to a better understanding of how
MS were conducting FT in practice, as well as some of the key issues and challenges they faced. This was followed by wider consultation of relevant experts from civil society (academics, IGOs, NGOs, medical practitioners), members of Courts and Tribunals in the MS, the European Commission and other EU Agencies.
During 2013, EASO held a series of expert meetings on family tracing, which sought to address the key issues,
challenges and good practices available. The aim was to provide an opportunity to share information and
exchange practices. MS administrations were joined by other relevant actors with expertise in the field, including the European Commission, FRA, UNHCR, ECRE, NGOs, members of courts and tribunals in the MS, ICRC,
IOM and Save the Children. By opening up participation to other relevant experts, EASO widened the debate
to include a range of perspectives, further enhancing the scope of joint cooperation between not only MS, but
other EU agencies and organisations as well. Outcomes included enhanced cooperation, agreements to work
together to develop common tools and commitments to further develop a network of experts.
The EASO handbook, which aims to support policy officers in developing age assessment processes and procedures within the framework of the CEAS, was finalised in 2013. The publication was developed in consultation
and collaboration with MS administrations as well as other relevant experts who were given the opportunity
to review and comment on its content, scope and draft versions.
Furthermore, EASOs Interviewing Children module was also reviewed and updated by a content group consisting of MS experts and a reference group which included the European Commission, FRA, UNHCR, ECRE and
IARLJ. The update focused on making sure the module included the provisions of the recast EU asylum acquis,
addressed the concept of the best interests of the child, and highlighted child-specific provisions related to
conducting an interview. The module was also shared as instance of good practice during a conference organised with CEPOL and as part of UNHCRs CREDO project.
In September 2013, EASO recruited a seconded national expert whose main task will be to focus on gender and
LGBTI issues within the asylum context.
In October 2013, EASO hosted a Gender session in Malta as part of its Didactic Seminar during which the
Gender perspective of the EASO training modules was analysed. EASO also participated in a seminar in Rome
on assessing asylum claims by LGBTI asylum seekers organised by UNHCR and the Council of Europe.
In December 2013, EASO began developing a new EASO training module on Gender, Gender Identity and
Sexual Orientation. The objective of developing the module is to provide asylum case officers with enough
awareness, skills and knowledge to be able to:
1. Explain how experiences and attitudes regarding gender, gender identity and sexual orientation influence
the way the asylum claim is processed.
2. Identify gender, gender identity and sexual orientation issues/factors when processing an asylum claim
3. Apply an appropriate approach to gender, gender identity and sexual orientation when processing the
asylum claim.

(369) UNHCR, UNHCRs Contribution to the European Commissions Consultation on Female Genital Mutilation in the EU, May 2013, available at: http://www.
refworld.org/docid/51a701594.html; UNHCR, Too Much Pain: Female Genital Mutilation & Asylum in the European Union A Statistical Overview, February
2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/512c72ec2.html; UNHCR, Too Much Pain: Female Genital Mutilation & Asylum in the European Union A
Statistical Update (March 2014), March 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/5316e6db4.html; UNHCR, Update on refugee women: promoting
gender equality and eliminating sexual and gender-based violence, 4 June 2013, EC/64/SC/CRP.12, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5209f48d4.html; UNHCR,
Working with Older Persons in Forced Displacement, 2013,http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ee72aaf2.html; UNHCR, Update on HIV/AIDS and refugees, 19 June
2013, EC/64/SC/CRP.18/Rev. 1, http://www.refworld.org/docid/51f617e44.html; UNHCR, UNHCR Accountability Frameworks for Age, Gender and Diversity
Mainstreaming and Targeted Actions, 24 June 2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/51c95f544.html.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 101

In the case Arslan (C-534/11)(370), although the judgment is primarily about the interpretation of the Return
Directive, the European Court of Human Rights elaborates on the meaning of the Reception Conditions Directive. The CJEU ruled that the Directive does not preclude the detention on the basis of a provision of national
law of a third-country national who has applied for international protection (after having been detained under
Art. 15 of the Return Directive) when it appears, after an assessment on a case-by-case basis of all the relevant
circumstances, that the application was made solely to delay or jeopardise the enforcement of the return decision and that it is objectively necessary to continue detention to keep the person concerned from permanently
evading his return.

4.12. Return
The effective return of failed asylum seekers is an integral part of a credible asylum system. EU law on return is
covered in the remit of general immigration/aliens law and in the EU Return Directive. For the practical operation
of the CEAS, whether a failed asylum applicant is effectively returned to their country of origin is of vital interest,
since an inability to return may constitute a major pull factor.
Return procedures include voluntary return (whereby a person declares their willingness to return to the country
of origin, usually formally withdrawing their application for international protection, and can be provided with
support from the MS to cover return travel costs) and forced return (whereby a person is returned by the public
authorities of the MS to their country of origin or to another country where they are legally entitled to stay).
Voluntary return is a preferred option in many MS(371).
It should be noted that a person who has formally been refused international protection may still be granted
leave to remain in the MS (outside of the scope of the asylum law and under national migration and residence
law) if their return is not feasible, e.g. for technical reasons or because of the situation in the country of origin.
Therefore, return policies remain linked to developments in the current situation in the countries of origin(372)
or other factor. For example, some MS use a system where returns can also be suspended at certain times of
year(373).
EASO is working to develop and improve information about returning failed asylum seekers based on a step
by step approach. The first step will be to include a request in the next development of EPS that MS begin to
regularly collect data on the return of those who have received a final negative asylum decision so that a more
complete picture can be gained of the effective functioning of this final part of the CEAS.

(370) Case C-534/11, Arslan [30 May 2013], ref. from Nejvy sprvn soud (Czech Republic), 22.9.2011.
(371) E.g., inter alia, in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, and the United Kingdom.
(372) The Czech Republic applied a no return policy to nationals of Egypt from September to December 2013. The same policy is applied to Belarusians (since
December 2010) and Syrians (since May 2011), as well as to nationals of South Sudan (since April 2012) and Mali (since May 2012).
(373) Four out of the 16 federal states in Germany (Bremen, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) have decided to implement a
winter return ban for minorities from Serbia, Kosovo, FYRM, Montenegro, BiH and Albania, which means that these individuals shall not be forcibly returned
until 1 April 2014 (unless they are criminal offenders). Some of the other federal states in Germany have announced that they would not implement a return ban;
however, they advise a careful and individual assessment of the situation before forcibly returning individuals and stress that humanitarian aspects must be taken
into account (UNHCR input)
(374) Case C-534/11, Arslan [30 May 2013], ref. from Nejvy sprvn soud (Czech Republic), 22.9.2011.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 103

5. Conclusion
As outlined in the statistical section of this report, in 2013 EU MS faced the highest numbers of persons applying for international protection since the beginning of EU-level data collection. Similarly, the overall number of
decisions issued in 2013 and the number of cases pending at the end of the year grew in comparison to the year
before. These numbers necessitated increased efforts by the EU to provide protection to those in need, which in
some cases resulted in increased pressures on individual MS and the need to activate the support of EASO.
As in previous years, the numbers of applications received from nationals of specific countries of origin continued to vary significantly among the MS. Nonetheless, at the EU level, 2013 was strongly marked by two
particular flows: one of Syrian applicants and one of applicants from Western Balkan countries. While individual assessment of each case remains a principle of the CEAS, in general each of those flows displayed very
different features. Due to the ongoing conflict, applicants from Syria received almost universally high levels
of protection (which led to the activation of their right to integration and family reunification), whereas the
majority of applications from citizens of Western Balkan countries were regarded as unfounded (leading to
the question of ensuring effective return of refused applicants and the use of accelerated or prioritised procedures to avoid overloading the asylum system). These two particular flows alone testify to the complexity and
multi-faceted nature of the asylum environment in Europe, which EASO follows closely, particularly in terms of
data collection and analysis, in order to provide better support to MS as needed while improving knowledge of
the effective operation of the CEAS.
At the same time, the above and other developments in 2013 described in the report evidenced the need to conduct asylum procedures in a time- and resource-efficient manner to ensure an adequate response to a genuine need
for protection in a procedure fully in line with international standards and the EUs commitment to fundamental
rights. Toward the end of 2013, the tragic events in Lampedusa underscored the fact that access to the territory and
the right to international protection are fundamentally linked. EASO will be an important part of the response to be
provided in that regard at the EU level, with many initiatives already underway.
In 2013, the MS continued developing their national systems, undertaking many initiatives, launching organisational and procedural reforms and adjusting their policies. The report highlighted the fact that while many challenges remain, including, e.g., alleged pushbacks, delays in registration, and reception and detention conditions,
numerous improvements were noted in terms of providing information and legal assistance to applicants for
international protection, and launching new procedural and technological solutions. A deeper understanding of
the concept of vulnerable groups and applicants in need of special procedural guarantees and practical responses
were noticeable developments in 2013, yet there is still room for improvement in that regard. EASO will thus
continue its work with the MS and other stakeholders in these and other areas, looking for innovative solutions
and serving as a catalyst for practical cooperation.
In mid-2013, the EU finished recasting the EU asylum acquis which when fully transposed and implemented by
participating MS, will bring the environment of international protection in Europe to a new enhanced level. There
was also a strong focus in 2013 on early warning, preparedness, crisis management and contingency planning
as measures for ensuring that national asylum systems function properly. All those elements set the scene for
ensuring the further harmonisation of practices and for strengthening solidarity and practical cooperation among
the MS, including in the external dimension of the CEAS. From another perspective, the launching of the new
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund presents an additional opportunity for MS to build high-quality asylum
systems via both national projects and joint initiatives. Possibilities for creating and testing new solutions, such as
joint processing of asylum applications and providing joint reception, will emerge, and EASO may play a leading
role in them.
In addition to operational needs, many areas of the CEAS merit further analysis to better understand developments across the EU. Lack of uniform practices regarding reporting statistical data, the complexity of legal frameworks and procedures instituted by the MS, and conflicting interpretations of legal notions of the asylum acquis
by individual authorities and judicial bodies will all be key points of focus for EASOs activities in cooperation with
MS in the years to come.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 105

ANNEXES
A. List of Abbreviations
ACCORD
AF
AL
AM
AMIF
APD
AST
AVR
BA
BAMF
BD
BFA
CADA
CD
CEAS
Cedoca
CGRA
CIR
CJEU
CN
CNDA
COA
COI
CRC
CREDO
CSOs
D-A-CH
EASO
ECHR
ECRE
ECtHR
EMN
ENARO
EPS
ER
ERF
ETC
EU
EUREMA
FDQ
Fedasil

Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation
Afghanistan
Albania
Armenia
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund
Asylum Procedures Directive
Asylum Support Teams
Assisted Voluntary Return
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Germany)
Bangladesh
Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Austria)
Centre dAccueil de Demandeurs dAsile (France)
The Democratic Republic of the Congo
Common European Asylum System
Centre for Documentation and Research (Belgian COI unit)
Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (Belgium)
Council for Refugees (Italy)
Court of Justice of the European Union
China
Court Nationale du Droit dAsile / National Asylum Appeal Court (France)
Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Netherlands)
Country of Origin Information
Committee of the Red Cross
Improved credibility assessment in EU asylum procedures project (UNHCR)
Civil Society Organisations
Cooperation network between Germany-Austria-Switzerland (and Luxembourg)
European Asylum Support Office
European Convention on Human Rights
European Council on Refugees and Exiles
European Court of Human Rights
European Migration Network
European Network of Reception Organisations
Early warning and Preparedness System
Eritrea
European Refugee Fund
Emergency Transit Centre
European Union
EU Pilot Project for the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection from Malta
Further Developing Quality Project (UNHCR)
Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Belgium)

106 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

FFM
FIS
FGM
Frontex
FYROM
GE
GN
IARLJ
ICJ
ICMC
IDP
IGC
IOM
IQ
IR
LGBT
LK
MedCOI (II)
MK
MOI
MS
NG
NGO
OFPRA
OIN
ORAC
PK
QD
QI
RS
RSD
RU
SAC
SMB
STLS
SO
SY
THB
TR
UAM
UASC
UBAUM II
UKBA
UNHCR
UNRWA
VIS
VREN
XK

Fact Finding Mission

Finnish Immigration Service
Female Genital Mutilation
EU Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Georgia
Guinea
International Association of Refugee Law Judges
International Commission of Jurists
International Catholic Migration Commission
Internally Displaced Person
Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees
International Organisation for Migration
Iraq
Iran
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
Sri Lanka
Project on the availability and accessibility of medical COI
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Federal Ministry of the Interior (Austria)
Member State(s)
Nigeria
Non-Governmental Organisation
Office franais de Protection des Rfugis et Apatrides
Office of Immigration and Nationality (Hungary)
Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (Ireland)
Pakistan
Qualification Directive
Quality Integration (UKBA)
Serbia
Refugee Status Determination
Russian Federation
Supreme Administrative Court (Poland)
Swedish Migration Board
stateless
Somalia
Syrian Arab Republic
Trafficking of Human Beings
Turkey
Unaccompanied Minor
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children
Assisting Authorities in Asylum Procedures of Unaccompanied Minors (Project) (Austria)
UK Border Agency
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
United Nations Relief and Works Agency
Visa Information System
Voluntary Return European Network
Kosovo

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 107

B. List of figures, tables and maps

Figure 1: Asylum applicants in the EU, 20092013
Figure 2: Evolution of asylum applicants in the EU28, January 2009 - December 2013
Figure 3: Main countries of origin of asylum applicants in the EU28, 20092013
Figure 4: Main MS receiving asylum applicants, 20092013
Figure 5: Year-to-year change in main citizenship of asylum applicants, 20122013
Figure 6: Year-to-year change in numbers of asylum applicants the EU28 MS, 20122013
Figure 7: Pending cases in the EU28, 20092013
Figure 8: Distribution of pending cases by main countries of origin, 20092013
Figure 9: Distribution of pending cases by MS, 20092013
Figure 10: Year-to-year change in main citizenship of pending cases, 20122013
Figure 11: Year-to-year change in the EU28 MS stock of pending cases, 20122013
Figure 12: Withdrawn applications and share in total applications, 20092013
Figure 13: First instance decisions in the EU28, 20092013
Figure 14: Evolution of positive decisions in the EU28, Q1 2009Q4 2013
Figure 15: First instance decisions in the EU28 MS, 2013
Figure 16: First instance decisions in the EU28 MS by main countries of origin, 2013
Figure 17: Disparity in recognition rate in the EU28, 10 main citizenships, 2013 (>100 decisions by MS)
Figure 18: Final decisions in appeal or review in the EU28, 20092013
Figure 19: Overview of final decisions in appeal or review across the EU28 MS, 2013
Figure 20: Overview of final decisions in appeal or review by main citizenship of applicants, 2013
Figure 21: Dublin outgoing transfers in EU by type of requests, 2013
Figure 22: Dublin outgoing and incoming transfers, 2013
Figure 23: S yrian applicants in 2013 and year-to-year change by main receiving MS (>90 % of Syrian applicants in
the EU28)
Figure 24: Evolution of Syrian asylum applicants in selected MS, 2013
Figure 25: Evolution of the stock of pending cases of Syrian asylum applicants in selected MS, 2013
Figure 26: First instance decisions issued to Syrian applicants in the EU28, 2013 (>100 decisions)
Figure 27: Russian applicants in 2013 and year-to-year change by main receiving MS
Figure 28: Evolution of Russian asylum applicants in selected MS, 2013
Figure 29: E volution of pending cases of Russian asylum applicants in Germany and Poland, 2013
Figure 30: First instance decisions issued to Russian applicants in the EU28, 2013 (>100 decisions)
Figure 31: Western Balkan applicants in 2013 and year-to-year change by main receiving MS
Figure 32: Evolution of Western Balkans asylum applicants in the EU28, 2013

108 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Figure 33: Distribution of Western Balkan applicants across selected MS, 2013
Figure 34: First instance recognition rate for Western Balkan applicants across selected MS, 2013
Figure 35: First instance decisions issued to Western Balkan applicants in the EU28, 2013 (>100 decisions)
Figure 36: Evolution of the stock of pending cases in Greece, 2013
Table 1: R
 ecognition rates for final decisions in appeal or review across the EU28 for selected countries of origin
(total decisions>10)
Map 1: Main countries of origin of asylum applicants in the EU28 in 2013
Map 2: Net Dublin transfers in the EU28 and main net transfer flows, 2013 (net transfers >200)

C. Statistics
Disclaimer
Figures used in this annex reflect annual datasets published on the Eurostat website on 2 May 2014 and collected
within the framework of Regulation (EC) 862/2007 of 11 July 2007 on community statistics on migration and
international protection.
The data used for this publication are provided to Eurostat by the Ministries of Interior, Justice or immigration
agencies of the MS. Data are based entirely on relevant administrative sources. Apart from statistics on new asylum applicants, these data are supplied by MS according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation 862/2007.
It should be noted that the indicators on asylum applicants, new asylum applicants, and withdrawn applications
are collected by Eurostat on a monthly basis. Indicators on first instance decisions such as refugee status granted,
subsidiary protection status granted, authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons, and rejections are submitted to Eurostat on a quarterly basis.
For the aforementioned indicators, the annual figures presented in the following annexes are computed as the
aggregation of data submitted to Eurostat throughout the year on a monthly (or quarterly) basis.
The figures presented in this publication are provisional and may be subject to updates or revisions by the MS.
Data made available on Eurostat website are rounded to the nearest 5. As such, aggregates computed on the
basis of rounded figures may slightly deviate from the actual total.
Also, please note that a 0 may not necessarily indicate a real zero value but could also represent a value of 1
or 2.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 109

Annex C1: Asylum applicants in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
% chg. on Share per million
last year in EU28 inhabitants

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

32 910

48 475

53 235

77 485

126 705

+ 64

29%

1,545

Serbia (14%)

47 620

52 725

57 330

61 440

66 265

+8

15%

1,041

Congo (DR) (8%)

24 175

31 850

29 650

43 855

54 270

+ 24

12%

5,679

Syria (30%)

31 665

24 335

26 915

28 800

29 875

+4

6.9%

468

Pakistan (16%)

17 640

10 000

40 315

17 335

27 930

+ 61

6.4%

468

Nigeria (13%)

21 615

26 080

31 910

28 075

21 030

- 25

4.8%

1,884

Russia (10%)

4 665

2 095

1 690

2 155

18 895

+ 777

4.3%

1,907

Kosovo (33%)

15 780

11 045

14 420

17 415

17 500

+0

4.0%

2,071

Russia (16%)

16 135

15 100

14 590

13 095

17 160

+ 31

3.9%

1,023

Somalia (19%)

10 590

6 540

6 885

10 750

15 240

+ 42

3.5%

396

Russia (84%)

15 925

10 275

9 310

9 575

8 225

- 14

1.9%

744

Pakistan (17%)

3 720

5 065

3 945

6 045

7 170

+ 19

1.6%

1,280

Syria (24%)

855

1 025

890

1 385

7 145

+ 416

1.6%

981

Syria (63%)

3 005

2 740

3 420

2 565

4 485

+ 75

1.0%

96

Mali (33%)

4 910

3 085

2 915

3 095

3 210

+4

0.7%

592

Iraq (26%)

2 385

175

1 890

2 080

2 245

+8

0.5%

5,328

Somalia (45%)

960

885

1 720

2 510

1 495

- 40

0.3%

75

Syria (68%)

3 200

2 875

1 770

1 635

1 255

- 23

0.3%

1,449

Syria (45%)

Reporting country
Germany
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
Italy
Belgium
Hungary
Austria
Netherlands
Poland
Greece
Denmark
Bulgaria
Spain
Finland
Malta
Romania
Cyprus
Croatia
Luxembourg
Ireland
Czech Republic
Portugal
Slovakia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Latvia
Estonia

Highest share

Sparkline

Citizenship

1 075

0.2%

252

Syria (18%)

480

780

2 150

2 050

1 070

- 48

0.2%

1,992

Kosovo (15%)

2 680

1 935

1 290

955

920

-4

0.2%

200

Nigeria (14%)

1 235

775

750

740

695

-6

0.2%

66

Ukraine (21%)

140

155

275

295

500

+ 69

0.1%

48

Syria (29%)

805

540

490

730

440

- 40

0.1%

81

Afghanistan (25%)

450

495

525

645

400

- 38

0.1%

135

Georgia (30%)

190

240

355

295

270

-8

0.1%

131

Syria (22%)

60

65

340

205

195

-5

0.0%

96

Georgia (74%)

40

35

65

75

95

+ 27

0.0%

72

Citizenship

Vietnam (26%)

Reporting country

Syria
Russia
Afghanistan
Serbia
Pakistan
Kosovo
Somalia
Eritrea
Iran
Nigeria
Iraq
FYROM
Albania
Stateless
Bangladesh
Other

5 970

6 195

8 490

116 140

104 135

136 280

EU28

263 835

259 400

309 040

335 290

4 750

5 010

8 145

24 115

50 495

+ 109

12%

2,248

Sweden (33%)

20 110

18 595

18 325

24 290

41 485

+ 71

10%

289

Germany (37%)

20 455

20 600

28 160

28 020

26 315

-6

6.0%

846

Germany (31%)

5 460

17 740

14 105

19 055

22 420

+ 18

5.1%

3,122

Germany (80%)

9 925

9 220

16 265

19 785

20 895

+6

4.8%

117

United Kingdom (22%)

14 275

14 310

9 880

10 210

20 225

+ 98

4.6%

11,217

Hungary (31%)

19 000

14 360

12 370

14 280

18 670

+ 31

4.3%

1,830

Sweden (21%)

5 230

4 540

5 725

6 400

14 685

+ 129

3.4%

2,395

Sweden (33%)

8 565

10 340

11 890

13 600

12 785

-6

2.9%

167

Germany (37%)

10 270

6 805

13 075

7 520

11 650

+ 55

2.7%

69

Italy (31%)

18 845

15 830

15 230

13 190

11 200

- 15

2.6%

344

Germany (37%)
Germany (85%)

930

7 550

5 555

9 625

11 065

+ 15

2.5%

5,365

2 065

1 925

3 080

7 500

11 040

+ 47

2.5%

3,491

France (46%)

1 845

2 245

2 465

3 515

9 590

+ 173

2.2%

n.a.

Sweden (72%)

6 300

9 155

+ 45

2.1%

59

France (49%)

127 885

144 085

+ 13

33%

n.a.

France (27%)

435 760

+ 30

859

Syria (12%)

n.a.

110 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Annex C2: New asylum applicants in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
2009

2010

2011

2012

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

2013

Reporting country
Germany
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
Italy
Hungary
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Greece
Denmark
Bulgaria
Spain
Finland
Malta
Romania
Cyprus
Croatia
Luxembourg
Ireland
Portugal
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Latvia
Estonia
Austria

EU28

Sparkline

Citizenship
27 575

41 245

45 680

64 410

109 375

+ 70

29%

1,334

Russia (14%)

42 070

48 030

52 140

54 265

60 475

+ 11

16%

950

Congo (DR) (9%)

23 600

31 785

29 630

43 835

54 255

+ 24

14%

5,678

Syria (30%)

30 645

22 615

25 870

27 885

28 950

+4

7.7%

453

Pakistan (16%)

17 640

10 000

40 320

17 170

26 920

+ 57

7.1%

451

Pakistan (12%)

18 565

n.a.

4.9%

1,874

Kosovo (33%)

14 880

13 290

11 560

9 660

14 375

+ 49

3.8%

857

Somalia (21%)

9 655

4 330

4 985

9 175

13 970

+ 52

3.7%

363

Russia (85%)

16 595

21 565

25 355

18 335

11 965

- 35

3.2%

1,072

Congo (DR) (9%)

Pakistan (17%)

9 310

9 575

7 860

- 18

2.1%

711

3 720

5 065

3 945

6 045

7 170

+ 19

1.9%

1,280

Syria (24%)

705

1 230

6 980

+ 467

1.8%

958

Syria (64%)

2 550

2 970

2 350

4 285

+ 82

1.1%

92

Mali (34%)

2 905

2 985

+3

0.8%

550

Iraq (25%)

2 385

145

1 865

2 060

2 205

+7

0.6%

5,233

Somalia (46%)
Syria (69%)

1 695

2 420

1 405

- 42

0.4%

70

3 200

2 835

1 745

1 590

1 150

- 28

0.3%

1,328

Syria (41%)

1 045

n.a.

0.3%

245

Syria (18%)

1 915

2 000

990

- 51

0.3%

1,843

Kosovo (15%)

2 650

1 915

1 280

940

910

-3

0.2%

198

Nigeria (14%)

140

155

275

290

500

+ 72

0.1%

48

Syria (29%)

620

380

485

505

490

-3

0.1%

47

Syria (14%)

315

320

550

290

- 47

0.1%

54

Afghanistan (29%)

210

370

405

560

250

- 55

0.1%

84

Georgia (40%)

175

195

305

260

240

-8

0.1%

117

Syria (23%)

50

60

335

190

185

-3

0.0%

91

Georgia (78%)

35

30

65

75

95

+ 27

0.0%

72

Vietnam (26%)

n.a

n.a

n.a

Citizenship
Syria
Russia
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Somalia
Kosovo
Serbia
Eritrea
Iran
Albania
Nigeria
Iraq
Stateless
Georgia
Congo (DR)
Other

Highest share

Reporting country
2 865

3 775

6 455

20 805

46 960

+ 126

12%

2,091

Sweden (35%)

13 400

12 725

12 650

17 445

35 140

+ 101

9%

245

Germany (42%)

13 510

16 180

22 270

21 080

21 320

+1

5.6%

685

Germany (36%)

5 385

5 800

14 805

17 100

19 180

+ 12

5.1%

107

United Kingdom (23%)

16 865

12 920

10 600

12 850

17 740

+ 38

4.7%

1,739

Sweden (22%)

9 775

11 725

7 550

7 165

16 905

+ 136

4.5%

9,376

Hungary (36%)

3 205

14 615

10 650

13 635

15 120

+ 11

4.0%

2,105

Germany (76%)

4 990

4 325

5 575

6 235

14 445

+ 132

3.8%

2,356

Sweden (34%)

6 140

8 500

10 285

11 740

11 020

-6

2.9%

144

Germany (40%)

1 305

1 075

2 860

6 875

10 530

+ 53

2.8%

3,330

France (48%)

7 735

5 435

12 225

6 725

10 215

+ 52

2.7%

61

Italy (32%)

14 105

12 550

12 785

11 360

9 325

- 18

2.5%

286

Germany (42%)

1 400

1 805

2 135

3 190

9 195

+ 188

2.4%

n.a.

Sweden (75%)

6 775

4 370

6 045

9 785

8 020

- 18

2.1%

1,777

France (31%)

4 180

5 000

5 795

7 475

7 485

+0

2.0%

114

France (70%)

84 205

86 080

120 475

104 815

125 295

+ 20

33%

n.a.

Germany (27%)

195 840 206 880 263 160 278 280 377 895

+ 36

745

Syria (12%)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 111

Annex C3: Pending cases at the end of the year in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 2009-2013
2013
2009

2010

2011

2012

22 670

45 610

57 905

80 255

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

2013

Reporting country
Germany
Greece
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
Austria
Belgium
Italy
Bulgaria
Spain
Ireland
Finland
Poland
Hungary
Luxembourg
Denmark
Malta
Romania
Czech Republic
Croatia
Latvia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Portugal
Estonia
Cyprus
Netherlands

EU28

Sparkline

Citizenship
133 855

+ 67

38%

1,632

Afghanistan (11%)

1 330

55 960

14 100

39 460

49 800

+ 26

14%

4,502

Pakistan (32%)

22 820

18 670

22 850

24 480

38 915

+ 59

11%

611

Russia (12%)

18 910

18 550

18 110

22 795

27 675

+ 21

7.9%

2,896

Syria (25%)

14 845

15 140

18 845

22 940

+ 22

6.5%

359

Pakistan (13%)

28 500

21 995

20 530

21 740

22 175

+2

6.3%

2,624

Afghanistan (28%)

28 025

31 925

40 330

26 165

17 520

- 33

5.0%

1,570

Guinea (10%)

4 335

4 050

13 515

11 345

13 655

+ 20

3.9%

229

Nigeria (14%)

1 315

1 530

1 385

1 270

5 650

+ 345

1.6%

776

Syria (60%)

3 275

2 710

2 670

2 790

4 345

+ 56

1.2%

93

Mali (35%)

5 750

5 150

4 210

3 530

3 805

+8

1.1%

829

Nigeria (16%)

4 080

2 090

2 170

2 515

2 495

-1

0.7%

460

Iraq (21%)

2 785

2 175

2 625

2 380

1 990

- 16

0.6%

52

Russia (59%)

450

200

360

385

1 885

+ 390

0.5%

190

Afghanistan (37%)

420

680

1 655

2 090

1 670

- 20

0.5%

3,110

Kosovo (18%)

1 195

1 215

1 910

1 555

1 485

-5

0.4%

265

Somalia (22%)

220

25

180

745

905

+ 21

0.3%

2,148

Somalia (41%)

25

25

50

35

345

+ 886

0.1%

17

Syria (33%)

750

715

560

565

310

- 45

0.1%

29

Syria (8%)

235

n.a.

0.1%

55

Syria (17%)

50

55

235

190

195

+3

0.1%

96

Georgia (74%)

70

290

255

340

170

- 50

0.0%

31

Afghanistan (26%)

140

180

175

175

125

- 29

0.0%

42

Afghanistan (28%)

105

155

155

195

100

- 49

0.0%

49

Kosovo (20%)

15

30

10

60

+ 500

0.0%

Syria (67%)

25

20

15

15

40

+ 167

0.0%

30

Syria (25%)

2 360

1 225

n.a.

n.a

n.a

n.a

16 240

13 050

10 415

n.a.

n.a

n.a

n.a

11 655

22 750

26 990

31 570

32 020

+1

9.1%

1,029

2 780

21 420

13 660

27 795

31 620

+ 14

9.0%

176

Greece (51%)

2 960

6 855

8 165

14 765

26 065

+ 77

7.4%

1,161

Germany (35%)

15 530

14 585

13 820

14 600

25 045

+ 72

7.1%

175

Germany (52%)

6 545

10 885

10 930

10 510

14 770

+ 41

4.2%

2,057

Germany (88%)

5 485

10 015

10 425

12 315

13 275

+8

3.8%

174

Germany (56%)

14 140

22 730

13 060

13 385

12 775

-5

3.6%

392

Germany (43%)

9 360

8 350

8 005

7 980

11 660

+ 46

3.3%

1,143

Germany (42%)

2 560

8 825

6 235

8 720

11 445

+ 31

3.2%

74

Greece (62%)

6 305

7 845

8 435

8 185

11 390

+ 39

3.2%

67

Germany (24%)

4 005

7 580

5 705

7 770

11 225

+ 44

3.2%

2,488

Greece (42%)

7 070

8 970

6 670

5 440

9 265

+ 70

2.6%

5,139

Germany (39%)

1 170

2 020

2 720

4 325

9 245

+ 114

2.6%

2,924

France (42%)

1 790

2 535

2 625

3 305

8 830

+ 167

2.5%

1,440

Germany (46%)

Citizenship
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Syria
Russia
Serbia
Iran
Iraq
Somalia
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Georgia
Kosovo
Albania
Eritrea
FYROM
Other

Highest share

Reporting country
Germany (46%)

1 110

3 770

3 415

5 205

7 860

+ 51

2.2%

3,811

Germany (92%)

71 025

85 110

90 670

89 225

115 840

+ 30

33%

n.a.

Germany (31%)

163 490

244 245

231 530

265 095

352 330

+ 33

695

Afghanistan (9%)

n.a.

112 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Annex C4: Withdrawn applications in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
% chg. on Share per million
last year in EU28 inhabitants

2010

2011

2012

2013

2 880

4 250

4 190

5 500

4 825

- 12

16%

505

Serbia (10%)

2 115

3 070

3 000

3 055

4 750

+ 55

16%

58

Russia (21%)

415

1 325

1 800

4 690

4 090

- 13

14%

370

Pakistan (31%)

1 520

1 135

1 365

3 005

+ 120

10%

536

Russia (14%)

3 690

3 055

2 720

2 420

2 540

+5

8.5%

40

Pakistan (17%)

4 055

2 965

2 465

2 155

1 880

- 13

6.3%

222

Russia (19%)

1 185

2 910

1 945

2 155

1 705

- 21

5.7%

153

Russia (11%)

1 345

895

655

1 140

1 565

+ 37

5.2%

41

Russia (86%)

345

345

150

150

1 195

+ 697

4.0%

121

Kosovo (33%)

740

n.a.

2.5%

174

Somalia (22%)

655

620

515

560

+9

1.9%

647

Iraq (22%)

900

635

420

390

535

+ 37

1.8%

117

Nigeria (13%)

635

595

355

335

425

+ 27

1.4%

25

Iraq (9%)

25

40

325

930

355

- 62

1.2%

661

Serbia (15%)

350

510

360

435

310

- 29

1.0%

57

Iraq (23%)

160

120

130

245

305

+ 24

1.0%

Algeria (10%)

30

315

230

340

285

- 16

1.0%

53

Afghanistan (19%)

45

95

105

180

195

+8

0.7%

27

Iraq (31%)

95

120

170

110

175

+ 59

0.6%

85

Syria (31%)

85

210

150

170

125

- 26

0.4%

42

Georgia (36%)

10

155

135

150

115

- 23

0.4%

Syria (17%)

300

60

60

90

+ 50

0.3%

214

Somalia (39%)

10

10

105

130

85

- 35

0.3%

42

Georgia (88%)

75

80

75

65

55

- 15

0.2%

Syria (18%)

10

25

+ 150

0.1%

19

Georgia (20%)

1 225

315

580

105

15

- 86

0.1%

Pakistan (33%)

10

+ 100

0.0%

Senegal (50%)

225

145

165

130

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2 245

1 930

1 125

1 890

3 610

+ 91

12%

25

Poland (37%)

630

695

1 005

2 490

2 570

+3

8.6%

14

Greece (50%)

1 140

1 640

1 180

1 645

1 515

-8

5.1%

49

Greece (24%)

865

2 160

2 030

2 180

1 500

- 31

5.0%

209

Germany (38%)

665

1 120

835

1 330

1 445

+9

4.8%

142

Sweden (33%)

210

535

320

580

1 375

+ 137

4.6%

61

Sweden (28%)

780

1 055

860

1 380

1 295

-6

4.3%

287

Greece (31%)

1 345

1 365

1 160

1 270

1 110

- 13

3.7%

34

Greece (18%)

1 320

1 275

820

545

1 090

+ 100

3.6%

605

Hungary (37%)

1 005

290

340

990

885

- 11

3.0%

Greece (48%)

530

735

670

660

835

+ 27

2.8%

11

Germany (25%)

915

1 135

720

665

765

+ 15

2.6%

Germany (16%)

435

490

685

650

745

+ 15

2.5%

19

Sweden (21%)

165

165

265

380

730

+ 92

2.4%

22

Sweden (31%)

610

595

510

700

670

-4

2.2%

United Kingdom (51%)

7 350

9 160

8 870

9 580

9 820

+3

33%

n.a.

Sweden (21%)

20 210

24 345

21 395

26 935

29 960

+ 11

59

Russia (12%)

Reporting country
Sweden
Germany
Greece
Denmark
United Kingdom
Austria
Belgium
Poland
Hungary
Croatia
Cyprus
Ireland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Finland
France
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Lithuania
Romania
Malta
Latvia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Italy
Portugal
Spain

EU28

Sparkline

Citizenship

Citizenship
Russia
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Serbia
Somalia
Syria
Georgia
Iraq
Kosovo
Bangladesh
Iran
Nigeria
Algeria
Morocco
India
Other

Highest share

2009

Reporting country

n.a.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 113

Annex C5: Unaccompanied minors in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
2009

2010

2011

2012

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

2013

Reporting country
Sweden
Germany
United Kingdom
Austria
Italy
Belgium
Hungary
France
Denmark
Malta
Greece
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Finland
Portugal
Cyprus
Croatia
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Ireland
Romania
Spain
Slovakia
Estonia
Latvia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Poland

Citizenship
2 250

2 395

2 655

3 575

3 850

+8

31%

403

Afghanistan (32%)

1 305

1 950

2 125

2 095

2 485

+ 19

20%

30

Afghanistan (28%)

2 990

1 715

1 395

1 125

1 175

+4

9.5%

18

Albania (38%)

1 040

600

1 005

1 375

935

- 32

7.5%

111

Afghanistan (43%)

415

305

825

970

805

- 17

6.5%

13

Somalia (20%)

705

860

1 385

975

465

- 52

3.7%

42

Afghanistan (26%)

270

150

60

185

380

+ 105

3.1%

38

Afghanistan (55%)

445

610

595

490

365

- 26

2.9%

Congo (DR) (29%)

520

410

270

355

350

-1

2.8%

62

Morocco (19%)

45

25

105

335

+ 219

2.7%

795

Somalia (84%)

40

145

60

75

325

+ 333

2.6%

29

Afghanistan (54%)

1 040

700

485

380

310

- 18

2.5%

18

Afghanistan (19%)

10

20

25

60

185

+ 208

1.5%

25

Syria (32%)

535

315

150

165

160

-3

1.3%

29

Somalia (22%)

10

55

+ 450

0.4%

Guinea (64%)

20

35

15

25

55

+ 120

0.4%

64

Somalia (45%)
Afghanistan (55%)

70

55

- 21

0.4%

13

10

20

20

15

45

+ 200

0.4%

84

Morocco (22%)

25

25

60

50

30

- 40

0.2%

15

Afghanistan (17%)

55

35

25

25

20

- 20

0.2%

Rwanda (25%)

40

35

55

135

15

- 89

0.1%

Iraq (33%)

20

15

10

15

10

- 33

0.1%

Mali (50%)

30

20

+0

0.0%

Afghanistan

n.a.

0.0%

Unknown

n.a.

0.0%

Syria

10

10

- 100

0%

n.a.

10

10

- 100

0%

n.a.

360

230

405

245

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Citizenship
Afghanistan
Somalia
Syria
Eritrea
Albania
Morocco
Stateless
Pakistan
Algeria
Guinea
Congo (DR)
Gambia, The
Iraq
Bangladesh
Iran
Other

EU28

Highest share

Reporting country
4 595

3 945

5 245

5 245

3 310

- 37

27%

106

Sweden (38%)

1 800

1 200

645

960

1 580

+ 65

13%

155

Sweden (36%)
Sweden (36%)

75

110

155

395

1 010

+ 156

8.1%

45

410

325

250

250

715

+ 186

5.8%

117

Sweden (48%)

95

55

165

335

535

+ 60

4.3%

169

United Kingdom (83%)

65

75

125

300

525

+ 75

4.2%

16

Sweden (60%)

50

70

70

90

350

+ 289

2.8%

n.a.

Sweden (87%)

70

165

225

400

340

- 15

2.7%

Germany (26%)

150

175

200

350

335

-4

2.7%

Sweden (37%)

310

405

480

385

290

- 25

2.3%

25

Belgium (28%)

195

270

285

340

215

- 37

1.7%

France (49%)

85

45

55

105

205

+ 95

1.6%

114

Italy (56%)

825

555

415

320

200

- 38

1.6%

Germany (43%)

80

70

105

135

195

+ 44

1.6%

Italy (36%)

315

335

310

240

175

- 27

1.4%

United Kingdom (40%)

3 070

2 810

2 960

2 690

2 445

-9

20%

n.a.

Germany (24%)

12 190

10 610

11 690

12 540

12 425

-1

24

Afghanistan (27%)

Sparkline

114 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Annex C6: Refugee status granted at first instance in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
% chg. on Share per million
last year in EU28 inhabitants

2010

2011

2012

2013

8 155

7 755

7 100

8 765

10 910

+ 24

22%

133

Syria (27%)

3 910

4 080

3 340

7 070

9 140

+ 29

18%

144

Russia (14%)

5 595

4 495

5 515

6 555

7 475

+ 14

15%

117

Syria (19%)

1 480

1 935

2 335

3 745

6 750

+ 80

14%

706

Syria (28%)

2 425

2 700

3 810

3 985

3 910

-2

7.9%

350

Afghanistan (16%)

1 885

2 055

2 480

2 680

3 160

+ 18

6.4%

374

Syria (22%)

2 250

1 615

1 805

2 050

3 110

+ 52

6.3%

52

Eritrea (30%)

350

660

735

1 035

1 600

+ 55

3.2%

286

Syria (63%)

695

810

710

630

1 235

+ 96

2.5%

74

Iran (36%)

75

165

160

545

540

-1

1.1%

100

Iraq (35%)

50

40

70

145

385

+ 166

0.8%

19

Syria (75%)

35

60

45

30

255

+ 750

0.5%

23

Syria (18%)

180

245

335

230

205

- 11

0.4%

Palestine (32%)

130

80

155

85

195

+ 129

0.4%

Syria (36%)

40

20

10

20

180

+ 800

0.4%

25

Syria (81%)

170

75

45

70

175

+ 150

0.4%

18

Syria (43%)

105

25

60

65

130

+ 100

0.3%

28

Syria (23%)

110

55

30

35

110

+ 214

0.2%

205

Iran (27%)

60

75

105

50

90

+ 80

0.2%

20

45

70

35

45

+ 29

0.1%

107

50

30

55

80

35

- 56

0.1%

40

Iraq (29%)

15

20

15

20

25

+ 25

0.1%

12

Afghanistan (20%)

Reporting country
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Sweden
Belgium
Austria
Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
Finland
Romania
Greece
Spain
Poland
Bulgaria
Hungary
Ireland
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Malta
Cyprus
Slovenia
Portugal
Lithuania
Slovakia
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia

Citizenship

9 Myanmar/Burma (33%)

EU28

Eritrea (33%)

25

15

20

+ 33

0.0%

Guinea (25%)

10

15

15

+0

0.0%

Afghanistan (67%)

15

10

- 50

0.0%

Unknown

10

- 50

0.0%

Kazakhstan

10

10

10

- 50

0.0%

Unknown

+0

0.0%

Kyrgyzstan

Citizenship
Syria
Iran
Afghanistan
Iraq
Eritrea
Russia
Somalia
Pakistan
Congo (DR)
Sri Lanka
Stateless
Guinea
Sudan
China
Turkey
Other

Highest share

2009

Reporting country
475

980

1 360

5 690

9 920

+ 74

20%

442

Germany (29%)

1 565

3 315

3 825

4 490

5 435

+ 21

11%

71

Germany (34%)

1 455

2 150

2 675

3 410

4 605

+ 35

9.3%

148

Germany (28%)

7 405

4 930

4 465

3 850

3 235

- 16

6.5%

99

Germany (65%)

1 950

1 705

1 815

1 360

3 105

+ 128

6.2%

506

Italy (30%)

1 745

1 885

1 765

2 380

2 680

+ 13

5.4%

19

France (47%)

1 775

1 790

1 780

1 720

2 400

+ 40

4.8%

235

Sweden (35%)

295

360

730

1 195

2 235

+ 87

4.5%

12

United Kingdom (40%)

France (65%)

595

535

525

1 100

1 455

+ 32

2.9%

22

1 200

1 195

925

1 350

1 435

+6

2.9%

71

France (64%)

270

370

605

745

1 320

+ 77

2.7%

n.a.

Sweden (55%)

475

580

1 080

930

1 160

+ 25

2.3%

101

Belgium (47%)

385

625

930

905

820

-9

1.6%

22

United Kingdom (59%)

540

575

600

935

775

- 17

1.6%

France (45%)

570

715

465

515

540

+5

1.1%

France (43%)

7 115

5 370

5 490

7 410

8 590

+ 16

17%

n.a.

France (38%)

27 815

27 080

29 035

37 985

49 710

+ 31

98

Syria (20%)

Sparkline

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 115

Annex C7: Subsidiary protection status granted at first instance in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

Reporting country
Sweden
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Belgium
Bulgaria
Austria
France
Malta
Denmark
Finland
Romania
Spain
Czech Republic
Hungary
Greece
Cyprus
Poland
Portugal
United Kingdom
Lithuania
Slovakia
Luxembourg
Ireland
Latvia
Slovenia
Croatia
Estonia

Citizenship
4 970

5 970

5 390

7 595

16 145

+ 113

35%

1,690

Syria (59%)

405

545

665

6 975

7 005

+0

15%

85

Syria (83%)

5 335

1 465

2 265

4 495

5 550

+ 23

12%

93

Somalia (22%)

3 270

4 010

4 065

3 325

3 460

+4

7.6%

206

Syria (48%)

480

805

1 265

1 565

2 370

+ 51

5.2%

212

Syria (56%)

230

120

180

150

2 280

+1 420

5.0%

313

Syria (82%)

1 335

1 390

1 605

1 775

1 760

-1

3.9%

208

Afghanistan (48%)

1 145

1 015

1 275

1 575

1 565

-1

3.4%

25

Syria (31%)

1 660

165

690

1 235

1 445

+ 17

3.2%

3,429

Somalia (45%)

345

520

385

545

1 130

+ 107

2.5%

202

Somalia (33%)

805

1 240

715

775

785

+1

1.7%

145

Iraq (51%)

10

30

10

85

530

+ 524

1.2%

26

Syria (92%)

160

350

630

285

325

+ 14

0.7%

Syria (45%)

20

75

200

125

240

+ 92

0.5%

23

Syria (40%)
Syria (30%)

60

115

100

240

185

- 23

0.4%

19

105

20

85

45

175

+ 289

0.4%

16

Syria (34%)

1 040

370

10

125

+1 150

0.3%

144

Syria (96%)

2 330

195

155

140

120

- 14

0.3%

Russia (67%)

45

50

40

85

115

+ 35

0.3%

11

Guinea (17%)

125

145

125

135

70

- 48

0.2%

Afghanistan (14%)

30

15

15

40

40

+0

0.1%

13

Afghanistan (50%)

135

55

80

100

30

- 70

0.1%

Eritrea (33%)

15

25

+ 400

0.1%

47

Afghanistan (40%)

25

15

35

20

- 43

0.0%

Pakistan (25%)

20

15

20

20

+0

0.0%

10

Syria (75%)

15

15

+0

0.0%

Syria (33%)

15

15

+0

0.0%

Syria (67%)

- 100

0.0%

n.a.

75

75

200

10 295

22 610

+ 120

50%

1,007

Sweden (42%)

2 230

3 435

4 880

4 565

4 895

+7

11%

157

Italy (24%)

8 320

6 930

5 025

5 360

3 805

- 29

8.4%

373

Italy (32%)

235

135

270

720

3 670

+ 410

8.1%

n.a.

Sweden (83%)

1 890

1 265

1 755

1 595

3 400

+ 113

7.5%

555

Sweden (53%)

3 050

2 600

2 500

1 580

1 425

- 10

3.1%

44

Finland (28%)

560

415

385

2 145

1 050

- 51

2.3%

71

Italy (98%)

2 695

525

465

405

615

+ 52

1.4%

Austria (24%)

445

140

245

840

515

- 39

1.1%

n.a.

Germany (52%)

225

205

340

235

445

+ 89

1.0%

Italy (83%)

235

300

375

350

335

-4

0.7%

Netherlands (28%)

225

80

120

240

285

+ 19

0.6%

Italy (72%)

345

175

330

335

190

- 43

0.4%

10

Italy (68%)

Citizenship
Syria
Afghanistan
Somalia
Stateless
Eritrea
Iraq
Mali
Russia
Unknown
Pakistan
Iran
Nigeria
Cte d'Ivoire
Albania
Sudan
Other

EU28

Highest share

Reporting country

35

25

60

55

150

+ 173

0.3%

47

France (67%)

135

95

230

295

130

- 56

0.3%

Netherlands (31%)

3 375

2 305

2 795

2 380

2 015

- 15

4%

n.a.

Italy (20%)

24 075

18 705

19 975

31 395

45 535

+ 45

90

Syria (50%)

Sparkline

116 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Annex C8: Authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons granted at first instance in the EU28 by MS and main
citizenship, 20092013
2013
% chg. on Share per million
last year in EU28 inhabitants

2010

2011

2012

2013

1 475

1 220

3 075

15 480

7 525

- 51

43%

126

Nigeria (19%)

4 280

3 180

2 050

1 550

4 850

+ 213

27%

289

Somalia (53%)

1 205

2 145

1 910

1 400

2 205

+ 58

12%

27

Afghanistan (61%)

640

605

1 075

1 060

1 120

+6

6.3%

117

Afghanistan (33%)

2 680

1 855

1 600

1 155

960

- 17

5.4%

15

Albania (18%)

65

230

170

290

370

+ 28

2.1%

10

Russia (70%)

80

190

190

240

295

+ 23

1.7%

54

Afghanistan (22%)

10

15

125

160

115

- 28

0.7%

273

Syria (65%)

95

170

190

120

80

- 33

0.5%

14

Afghanistan (63%)

25

30

45

20

70

+ 250

0.4%

Afghanistan (21%)

30

30

35

80

35

- 56

0.2%

Afghanistan (29%)

20

20

10

15

+ 200

0.1%

Armenia (33%)

40

25

15

15

10

- 33

0.1%

12

Iraq (50%)

155

70

10

40

- 88

0.0%

Unknown

10

15

20

10

- 50

0.0%

Unknown

55

0.0%

Reporting country
Italy
Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
United Kingdom
Poland
Finland
Malta
Denmark
Greece
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Hungary
Spain
Romania

EU28

Sparkline

Citizenship

Citizenship
Somalia
Afghanistan
Nigeria
Iraq
Pakistan
Ghana
Mali
Syria
Bangladesh
Russia
Gambia, The
Turkey
Iran
Cte d'Ivoire
Unknown
Other

Highest share

2009

Syria

Reporting country
2 845

1 815

600

295

2 785

+ 844

16%

273

Netherlands (92%)

2 180

2 525

2 840

2 155

2 490

+ 16

14%

80

Germany (54%)

485

260

580

4 930

1 565

- 68

8.9%

Italy (91%)

1 245

660

575

610

850

+ 39

4.8%

26

Netherlands (59%)

85

115

320

980

830

- 15

4.7%

Italy (85%)

110

125

170

2 915

790

- 73

4.5%

31

Italy (98%)

20

10

60

225

480

+ 113

2.7%

32

Italy

40

115

110

185

470

+ 154

2.7%

21

Netherlands (78%)

80

85

80

1 020

420

- 59

2.4%

Italy (89%)

90

205

160

315

415

+ 32

2.3%

Poland (63%)

45

55

65

325

390

+ 20

2.2%

218

Italy (91%)

80

170

255

305

355

+ 16

2.0%

Italy (72%)

265

335

360

330

340

+3

1.9%

Netherlands (57%)

165

100

345

995

335

- 66

1.9%

17

Italy (88%)

175

160

205

145

315

+ 117

1.8%

n.a.

Italy (57%)

2 955

3 065

3 795

5 895

4 835

- 18

27%

n.a.

Italy (51%)

10 865

9 800

10 520

21 625

17 665

- 18

35

Somalia (16%)

NB: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, France, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, and
Slovenia are not featured in this table as the type of decision Authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons is
not applicable to these MS.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 117

Annex C9: Rejections at first instance in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
% chg. on Share per million
last year in EU28 inhabitants

Highest share

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

17 000

34 855

30 605

41 470

56 040

+ 35

26%

683

30 240

32 515

37 600

51 165

51 010

-0

24%

801

Kosovo (8%)

16 825

19 130

17 895

19 115

20 990

+ 10

10%

2,197

Somalia (13%)

11 460

12 720

14 735

18 940

15 110

- 20

7.0%

1,354

Congo (DR) (12%)

22 695

20 170

15 715

14 150

13 855

-2

6.4%

217

Pakistan (19%)

14 185

3 350

8 490

11 095

12 580

+ 13

5.8%

1,137

Pakistan (34%)

11 595

10 320

9 155

11 435

11 690

+2

5.4%

1,383

Russia (19%)

13 950

6 975

16 960

5 255

9 060

+ 72

4.2%

152

Nigeria (20%)

9 320

9 575

8 955

8 160

6 045

- 26

2.8%

360

Afghanistan (10%)

1 415

785

740

750

4 180

+ 457

1.9%

422

Kosovo (24%)

855

1 935

2 255

2 985

4 155

+ 39

1.9%

742

Russia (15%)

4 055

3 910

2 740

1 960

2 210

+ 13

1.0%

57

Russia (69%)

4 130

2 175

2 405

2 070

1 835

- 11

0.9%

39

Cte d'Ivoire (13%)

1 690

2 660

1 535

1 530

1 565

+2

0.7%

288

Iraq (19%)

355

405

980

1 610

1 115

- 31

0.5%

2,076

Kosovo (20%)

3 000

1 565

1 295

840

695

- 17

0.3%

151

Nigeria (17%)

2 725

2 015

2 560

1 230

635

- 48

0.3%

733

Bangladesh (13%)

430

330

365

540

555

+3

0.3%

53

Ukraine (27%)

430

355

1 000

1 390

515

- 63

0.2%

26

Pakistan (18%)

375

375

410

470

355

- 24

0.2%

49

Iraq (27%)

885

125

720

155

300

+ 94

0.1%

712

Somalia (43%)

45

75

50

130

170

+ 31

0.1%

16

Guinea (24%)

120

165

+ 38

0.1%

39

Algeria (39%)

100

90

185

175

160

-9

0.1%

78

Pakistan (13%)

140

205

100

250

125

- 50

0.1%

23

Somalia (24%)

100

175

285

335

120

- 64

0.1%

40

Georgia (58%)

35

25

70

120

65

- 46

0.0%

32

Georgia (46%)

20

25

50

45

45

+0

0.0%

34

Vietnam (44%)

Russia
10 660
Serbia
3 530
Pakistan
7 740
Afghanistan
8 315
Kosovo
8 045
Bangladesh
5 185
FYROM
590
Nigeria
10 530
Albania
1 435
Georgia
5 925
Congo (DR)
3 445
Somalia
6 000
Bosnia and Herzegovina820
Armenia
4 095
Iran
5 185
Other
86 560

11 195

10 515

11 305

21 835

+ 93

10%

152

Germany (51%)

12 370

10 970

18 520

15 480

- 16

7.2%

2,156

Germany (75%)

Reporting country
Germany
France
Sweden
Belgium
United Kingdom
Greece
Austria
Italy
Netherlands
Hungary
Denmark
Poland
Spain
Finland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Romania
Bulgaria
Malta
Portugal
Croatia
Slovenia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia

Citizenship

Citizenship

EU28

Serbia (21%)

Reporting country

168 060

5 695

10 005

13 150

15 060

+ 15

7.0%

84

Greece (28%)

10 110

12 500

11 525

10 810

-6

5.0%

347

Germany (28%)

9 650

9 710

7 470

10 810

+ 45

5.0%

5,996

France (39%)

3 745

6 795

7 690

7 570

-2

3.5%

49

France (46%)

4 470

4 435

8 405

7 455

- 11

3.5%

3,615

Germany (80%)

6 490

7 470

5 605

6 735

+ 20

3.1%

40

Italy (27%)

1 165

1 760

4 045

6 720

+ 66

3.1%

2,125

France (47%)

5 235

4 200

6 675

6 060

-9

2.8%

1,343

France (36%)

3 080

3 345

6 675

6 040

- 10

2.8%

92

France (58%)

5 185

3 495

4 675

5 485

+ 17

2.5%

538

Sweden (49%)

1 475

1 750

4 820

5 105

+6

2.4%

1,332

Germany (60%)

5 755

4 260

5 715

5 090

- 11

2.4%

1,714

France (60%)

5 685

5 355

5 035

5 040

+0

2.3%

66

Germany (27%)

75 530

81 295

76 185

80 050

+5

37%

n.a.

France (27%)

166 835

177 860

197 495

215 345

+9

425

Russia (10%)

Sparkline

118 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Annex C10: Final decision in appeal or review granting refugee status in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship,
20092013
2013
2009

2010

2011

2012

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

2013

Reporting country
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Austria
Sweden
Netherlands
Romania
Greece
Denmark
Ireland
Finland
Hungary
Cyprus
Italy
Latvia
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Croatia
Malta
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Portugal
Estonia
Lithuania
Belgium
Spain
Poland

Citizenship
4 040

4 245

4 930

4 290

4 270

-0

30%

67

Sri Lanka (13%)

6 215

6 010

4 010

3 920

3 715

-5

26%

58

Pakistan (19%)

1 410

1 220

1 680

2 110

2 960

+ 40

21%

36

Iran (24%)

1 400

1 060

1 325

1 240

1 180

-5

8%

140

Afghanistan (61%)

310

285

455

725

685

-6

5%

72

Iran (34%)

45

90

120

70

450

+ 543

3%

27

Iran (48%)

65

85

75

160

390

+ 144

3%

19

Syria (77%)

30

35

195

185

325

+ 76

2%

29

Iraq (25%)

65

130

220

230

265

+ 15

2%

47

Iran (42%)

260

130

75

45

55

+ 22

0%

12

Pakistan (18%)

20

90

50

- 44

0%

Iran (30%)

10

20

25

+ 25

0%

Unknown (40%)

25

25

20

10

+ 100

0%

12

Egypt

45

70

65

45

- 89

0%

Egypt

+0

0%

Egypt

115

n.a.

0%

n.a.

20

30

40

- 100

0%

n.a.

20

- 100

0%

n.a.

10

- 100

0%

n.a.

- 100

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

165

195

425

295

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

25

15

10

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

20

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

755

895

960

1 405

2 035

+ 45

14%

65

Austria (35%)

1 000

1 300

1 395

1 710

1 995

+ 17

14%

26

Germany (36%)

Citizenship
Afghanistan
Iran
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Syria
Russia
Congo (DR)
Iraq
Bangladesh
Turkey
Eritrea
Somalia
Guinea
Sudan
Egypt
Other

EU28

Highest share

Reporting country

305

390

550

825

1 260

+ 53

9%

United Kingdom (55%)

1 075

1 505

1 515

1 255

1 200

-4

8%

59

United Kingdom (48%)

115

250

670

855

1 105

+ 29

8%

49

Germany (41%)

1 550

1 260

1 355

1 060

745

- 30

5%

France (72%)

380

425

385

435

540

+ 24

4%

France (87%)

785

580

615

605

520

- 14

4%

16

Germany (32%)

315

365

365

450

505

+ 12

4%

France (89%)

625

595

430

385

315

- 18

2%

France (60%)

315

275

255

305

250

- 18

2%

41

France (54%)

375

445

360

250

240

-4

2%

24

United Kingdom (31%)

200

220

275

205

220

+7

2%

19

France (89%)

225

360

305

265

220

- 17

2%

France (48%)

30

40

90

115

185

+ 61

1%

France (54%)

6 085

4 745

4 265

3 385

3 060

- 10

21%

n.a.

France (43%)

14 135

13 650

13 790

13 510

14 395

+7

28

Afghanistan (14%)

Sparkline

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 119

Annex C11: Final decision in appeal or review granting subsidiary protection status in the EU28 by MS and main
citizenship, 20092013
2013
2009

2010

2011

2012

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

2013

Reporting country
France
Sweden
Germany
Romania
Netherlands
Denmark
Austria
Greece
United Kingdom
Finland
Italy
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Hungary
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Lithuania
Spain
Slovenia
Portugal
Malta
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Belgium
Poland

Highest share

Sparkline

Citizenship
1 320

1 035

1 195

1 390

1 180

- 15

22%

19

Afghanistan (13%)

1 155

710

725

1 450

990

- 32

19%

104

Syria (55%)

140

235

350

1 135

950

- 16

18%

12

Syria (51%)

30

30

35

115

535

+ 365

10%

27

Syria (93%)

125

390

1 140

435

n.a.

8%

26

Afghanistan (20%)
Afghanistan (35%)

70

155

200

180

285

+ 58

5%

51

375

375

460

300

240

- 20

5%

28

Afghanistan (44%)

15

80

90

220

+ 144

4%

20

Afghanistan (43%)

170

210

175

140

120

- 14

2%

Afghanistan (17%)

35

35

215

145

75

- 48

1%

14

Iraq (27%)

270

60

- 78

1%

Egypt (67%)

10

15

55

+ 267

1%

64

Syria

10

20

15

20

35

+ 75

1%

Syria (43%)

15

40

90

35

- 61

1%

Afghanistan (43%)

20

260

25

15

- 40

0%

Belarus (67%)

10

10

10

n.a.

0%

19

Albania (50%)

10

+0

0%

Afghanistan

n.a.

0%

Kyrgyzstan

20

- 100

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

- 100

0%

n.a.

10

- 100

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

115

85

50

30

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

75

35

55

25

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

15

40

135

1 650

1 710

+4

32%

76

Sweden (32%)

210

490

945

860

890

+3

17%

29

Germany (21%)

510

510

970

310

370

+ 19

7%

36

France (31%)

280

230

290

265

210

- 21

4%

France (38%)

490

320

350

125

185

+ 48

4%

Netherlands (38%)

20

50

95

175

180

+3

3%

n.a.

Sweden (72%)

95

90

100

115

135

+ 17

3%

45

France (81%)

115

150

130

115

135

+ 17

3%

Netherlands (33%)

15

20

65

55

100

+ 82

2%

France (70%)

15

30

90

145

90

- 38

2%

n.a.

Germany (61%)

45

50

70

90

85

-6

2%

27

France (65%)

55

55

55

80

80

+0

2%

France (81%)

15

15

25

40

75

+ 88

1%

France (53%)

135

35

90

80

75

-6

1%

12

Sweden (53%)

Citizenship

Reporting country

Syria
Afghanistan
Somalia
Russia
Iraq
Stateless
Armenia
Iran
Sudan
Unknown
Albania
Congo (DR)
Bangladesh
Eritrea
Kosovo
Other

90

150

250

190

70

- 63

1%

39

France (86%)

1 575

1 135

1 375

1 160

875

- 25

17%

n.a.

France (44%)

EU28

3 680

3 370

5 035

5 455

5 265

-3

10

Syria (32%)

NB:Ireland is not featured in the preceding table above as subsidiary protection status cannot be granted in
appeal or review in Ireland.

120 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Annex C12: Final decision in appeal or review granting authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons in the EU28
by MS and main citizenship, 20092013
2013
2009

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

2011

2012

2013

740

1 005

1 340

1 775

2 045

+ 15

775

1 405

3 060

2 845

1 060

- 63

24%

17

Afghanistan (9%)

530

255

640

715

705

-1

16%

74

Afghanistan (10%)

Reporting country
Germany
United Kingdom
Sweden
Greece
Netherlands
Finland
Cyprus
Italy
Spain
Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Slovakia
Romania
Malta
Poland

EU28

Sparkline

Citizenship
46%

25

Afghanistan (60%)

135

255

365

+ 43

8%

33

Iraq (16%)

85

195

290

55

190

+ 245

4%

11

Afghanistan (26%)

10

30

40

45

50

+ 11

1%

Afghanistan (20%)

45

80

45

25

25

+0

1%

29

Egypt (40%)

200

260

470

- 99

0%

Unknown

30

- 83

0%

Unknown

25

25

10

n.a.

0%

Unknown

n.a.

0%

n.a.

- 100

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

- 100

0%

n.a.

15

15

40

25

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Citizenship
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
Nigeria
Kosovo
Pakistan
Serbia
Russia
China
Albania
Ethiopia
Unknown
Turkey
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Other

Highest share

2010

Reporting country
435

600

1 000

1 170

1 510

+ 29

34%

49

Germany (81%)

230

285

450

495

290

- 41

6.5%

Germany (48%)

115

135

235

210

165

- 21

3.7%

Netherlands (24%)

45

170

160

395

155

- 61

3.5%

United Kingdom (58%)

80

55

140

180

140

- 22

3.1%

78

Germany (57%)

45

50

195

260

130

- 50

2.9%

United Kingdom (58%)

Germany (54%)

90

85

95

150

120

- 20

2.7%

17

60

115

135

110

110

+0

2.5%

Germany (55%)

15

95

485

345

100

- 71

2.2%

United Kingdom (90%)

25

20

40

55

100

+ 82

2.2%

32

United Kingdom (60%)

20

30

85

60

90

+ 50

2.0%

Germany (50%)

50

50

125

30

90

+ 200

2.0%

n.a.

Sweden (56%)

90

85

160

215

85

- 60

1.9%

Germany (41%)

60

70

180

75

80

+7

1.8%

Greece (25%)

65

55

215

240

80

- 67

1.8%

United Kingdom (69%)

800

1 310

2 165

2 260

1 210

- 46

27%

n.a.

United Kingdom (37%)

2 225

3 210

5 865

6 250

4 455

- 29

Afghanistan (34%)

NB: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, France, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, and
Slovenia are not featured in this table as the type of decision Authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons is
not applicable to these MS.

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 121

Annex C13: Final decision in appeal or review issuing a rejection in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship,
20092013
2013
2009

2010

2011

2012

% chg. on Share per million

last year in EU28 inhabitants

2013

Reporting country
France
Germany
Sweden
United Kingdom
Austria
Greece
Denmark
Spain
Cyprus
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Hungary
Romania
Ireland
Czech Republic
Malta
Slovakia
Portugal
Croatia
Slovenia
Finland
Latvia
Lithuania
Italy
Bulgaria
Estonia
Belgium
Poland

Citizenship
14 180

17 800

28 425

30 570

32 100

+5

33%

504

4 430

5 315

21 200

24 420

30 705

+ 26

31%

374

Serbia (30%)

13 405

11 575

11 375

13 060

10 575

- 19

11%

1,107

Afghanistan (9%)

10 425

14 345

10 415

8 285

9 115

+ 10

9%

143

Pakistan (24%)

10 065

9 105

7 540

6 415

5 435

- 15

6%

643

Russia (21%)

2 065

215

1 115

2 990

+ 168

3%

270

Pakistan (33%)

EU28

Congo (DR) (10%)

310

790

1 810

1 085

1 110

+2

1%

198

Afghanistan (23%)

1 680

1 530

1 100

1 100

1 085

-1

1%

23

Nigeria (17%)

2 580

2 870

3 110

1 500

875

- 42

1%

1,011

Iraq (35%)

425

675

1 205

645

820

+ 27

1%

49

Afghanistan (22%)

170

160

325

900

660

- 27

1%

1,229

Kosovo (23%)

145

165

275

290

625

+ 116

1%

63

Pakistan (16%)

575

420

1 180

1 945

625

- 68

1%

31

Syria (21%)

3 140

2 640

1 250

645

525

- 19

1%

114

Nigeria (18%)

390

380

365

415

395

-5

0%

38

Ukraine (39%)

475

325

505

415

135

- 67

0%

320

Ghana (30%)

20

170

65

110

+ 69

0%

20

Afghanistan (18%)

20

20

65

100

+ 54

0%

10

Guinea (20%)

100

95

-5

0%

22

Algeria (37%)

70

15

70

35

60

+ 71

0%

29

Afghanistan (8%)

10

45

65

50

55

+ 10

0%

10

Russia (27%)

10

15

10

40

45

+ 13

0%

22

Afghanistan (33%)

50

65

30

215

30

- 86

0%

10

Russia (50%)

1 475

1 260

1 175

445

20

- 96

0%

Nigeria (25%)

40

15

n.a.

0%

Unknown

10

- 100

0%

n.a.

7 055

7 700

9 985

12 160

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

10

60

2 175

900

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

3 085

3 405

8 680

10 170

10 755

+6

11%

1,498

Germany (87%)

3 245

3 025

3 175

5 485

6 585

+ 20

7%

37

United Kingdom (33%)

Germany (87%)

Citizenship
Serbia
Pakistan
FYROM
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Kosovo
Russia
Congo (DR)
Armenia
Sri Lanka
Iraq
BA
China
Turkey
Georgia
Other

Highest share

Reporting country

445

800

3 170

3 950

5 425

+ 37

6%

2,631

2 175

2 070

2 935

5 420

4 685

- 14

5%

30

France (66%)

2 545

2 960

4 180

5 450

4 200

- 23

4%

135

Germany (35%)

2 600

3 375

7 365

5 880

4 190

- 29

4%

2,324

Germany (50%)

5 390

4 340

6 995

6 385

3 855

- 40

4%

27

France (38%)

2 230

2 570

2 620

3 345

3 555

+6

4%

54

France (91%)

2 650

3 395

4 490

3 025

3 230

+7

3%

1,088

France (75%)

2 155

3 160

3 675

3 050

3 165

+4

3%

156

France (66%)

7 320

5 110

5 300

3 900

3 055

- 22

3%

94

Germany (46%)

360

405

755

2 040

2 825

+ 38

3%

737

Germany (76%)

1 660

2 580

3 090

3 265

2 755

- 16

3%

France (68%)

3 360

3 350

3 910

3 065

2 525

- 18

3%

33

France (52%)

1 675

1 565

1 795

2 175

2 480

+ 14

3%

550

France (56%)

32 315

35 345

41 715

40 280

35 005

- 13

36%

n.a.

France (33%)

73 210

77 455

103 850

106 885

98 290

-8

194

Serbia (11%)

Sparkline

122 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Annex C14: Resettled persons in the EU28 by MS and main citizenship, 2009-2013
2013
% chg. on Share per million
last year in EU28 inhabitants

2010

2011

2012

2013

1 890

1 790

1 620

1 680

1 820

+8

38%

190

Eritrea (22%)

945

720

455

1 040

965

-7

20%

15

Somalia (33%)

725

545

585

730

675

-8

14%

124

Afghanistan (38%)

450

495

515

470

515

+ 10

11%

92

Congo (DR) (27%)

370

430

540

430

310

- 28

6%

18

Congo (27%)

2 070

525

145

305

280

-8

6%

Iraq (59%)

520

360

130

100

90

- 10

2%

Congo (DR) (22%)

190

20

45

50

85

+ 70

2%

19

Afghanistan (35%)

45

25

85

n.a.

2%

Congo (DR) (65%)

160

55

n.a.

0%

n.a.

80

- 100

0%

n.a.

40

25

- 100

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.
n.a.

Reporting country
Sweden
United Kingdom
Finland
Denmark
Netherlands
Germany
France
Ireland
Belgium
Italy
Spain
Czech Republic
Greece
Slovakia
Portugal
Cyprus
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Hungary
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Austria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Croatia

Citizenship

n.a.

0%

35

30

15

- 100

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

40

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

30

n.a.

0%

n.a.
n.a.

- 100

0%

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

0%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Citizenship
Somalia
Congo (DR)
Eritrea
Afghanistan
Iraq
Colombia
Sudan
Syria
Iran
Stateless
Myanmar/Burma
Bhutan
Congo
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Other

EU28

Highest share

2009

Reporting country
140

685

620

590

820

+ 39

17%

80

Sweden (45%)

425

440

445

510

665

+ 30

14%

10

United Kingdom (32%)

150

315

710

395

525

+ 33

11%

86

Sweden (75%)

470

335

210

860

520

- 40

11%

17

Finland (49%)

3 865

1 340

485

420

360

- 14

7%

11

Germany (46%)

20

25

170

340

+ 100

7%

Sweden (62%)

60

45

130

290

265

-9

5%

United Kingdom (60%)

35

10

75

260

+ 247

5%

12

Sweden (94%)

125

110

55

45

215

+ 378

4%

Germany (51%)

495

150

275

200

160

- 20

3%

n.a.

Denmark (75%)

465

490

400

340

140

- 59

3%

Finland (75%)

200

325

55

145

100

- 31

2%

135

United Kingdom

10

25

45

25

90

+ 260

2%

21

Netherlands (94%)

145

175

355

555

80

- 86

2%

United Kingdom (44%)

10

65

55

- 15

1%

Netherlands (64%)

825

565

280

245

230

-6

5%

n.a.

Sweden (40%)

7 400

5 060

4 090

4 930

4 825

-2

10

Somalia (17%)

Sparkline

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:
one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

more than one copy or posters/maps:

from the European Unions representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

BZ-AB-14-001-EN-C
Doi 10.2847/28516