Considerations on COM(2016)465 - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2016)465 - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2016)465  |
| date | May 14, 2024 |
| (2) | A common policy on asylum based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (the ‘Geneva Convention’), is a constituent part of the Union’s objective of establishing progressively an area of freedom, security and justice open to third-country nationals and stateless persons who seek protection in the Union, thus affirming the principle of non-refoulement. Such a policy should be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility. |
| (3) | The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) establishes a system for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, common standards for asylum procedures, reception conditions and procedures and rights of beneficiaries of international protection. Notwithstanding the progress that has been made in the development of the CEAS, there are still notable differences between the Member States with regard to procedures used, reception conditions provided to applicants, recognition rates and type of protection granted to beneficiaries of international protection. Those differences are important drivers of secondary movement and undermine the objective of ensuring that all applicants are equally treated wherever they apply for international protection in the Union. |
| (4) | In its communication of 6 April 2016‘Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe’, the Commission underlined the need for strengthening and harmonising further the CEAS. It also set out priority areas where the CEAS should be structurally improved, namely the establishment of a sustainable and fair system for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, the reinforcement of the Eurodac system, the achievement of greater convergence in the Union asylum system, the prevention of secondary movements within the Union and an enhanced mandate for the European Union Agency for Asylum established by Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) (the ‘Asylum Agency’). That communication replies to calls by the European Council on 18-19 February 2016 and on 17-18 March 2016 to make progress in reforming the Union’s existing framework so as to ensure a humane, fair and efficient asylum policy. That communication also proposes a way forward in line with the holistic approach to migration set out by the European Parliament in its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration. |
| (5) | Reception conditions continue to vary considerably between Member States in particular with regard to the reception standards provided to applicants. More harmonised reception standards set out at an adequate level across all Member States will contribute to more equal treatment and the fairer distribution of applicants across the Union. |
| (6) | The resources of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), and of the Asylum Agency should be mobilised in order to provide adequate support to Member States in implementing the reception standards set out in this Directive, including to Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on their asylum systems, due in particular to their geographical or demographic situation. |
| (7) | In order to ensure the equal treatment of applicants throughout the Union, this Directive should apply during all stages and types of procedures for international protection, in all locations and facilities housing applicants and for as long as they are allowed to remain on the territory of the Member States as applicants. It is necessary to clarify that material reception conditions should be available to applicants from the moment they express their wish to apply for international protection to officials of the competent authorities in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7). |
| (8) | A daily expenses allowance should be provided to applicants in all cases as part of the material reception conditions in order for applicants to enjoy a minimum degree of autonomy in their daily life. It should be possible to provide the daily expenses allowance as a monetary amount, in vouchers, in kind, such as in products, or as a combination thereof provided that such an allowance includes a monetary amount. |
| (9) | Where an applicant is present in a Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), the applicant should not be entitled to material reception conditions, access to the labour market, language courses or vocational training in accordance with this Directive from the moment the applicant has been notified of a decision to transfer him or her to the Member State responsible. Unless a separate decision has been issued to this effect, the transfer decision should state that the relevant reception conditions have been withdrawn. In all circumstances, Member States should ensure access to health care and a standard of living for applicants which is in accordance with Union law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), and other international obligations. |
| (10) | With respect to the treatment of persons falling within the scope of this Directive, Member States are bound by obligations under instruments of international law to which they are party. |
| (11) | Standard conditions for the reception of applicants sufficient to ensure them an adequate standard of living and comparable living conditions in all Member States should be laid down. The harmonisation of reception conditions for applicants should help to limit the secondary movements of applicants influenced by the variety of conditions for their reception. |
| (12) | In order to ensure that applicants are aware of their rights and obligations, Member States should provide them in writing, or, where necessary, orally, or, where appropriate, in a visual form, with information relating to the reception conditions set out in this Directive. Such information should be provided as soon as possible, and in good time, and should include the reception conditions to which applicants, including applicants with special reception needs, are entitled, employment rights and obligations, the circumstances under which the granting of material reception conditions may be restricted to a geographical area or limited to a specific place and the consequences of not complying with such restrictions or limitations and of absconding, as well as the situations in which it is possible to order detention, possibilities for appeal and review and possibilities for the provision of legal assistance and representation. Member States should, in particular, inform applicants of the reception conditions to which they are not entitled in a Member State other than the one in which they are required to be present. A Member State should no longer be obliged to provide that information where it is no longer necessary to effectively enable the applicant to benefit from the rights, and comply with the obligations, provided for in this Directive, or where the applicant is not available to the competent authorities or has absconded from the territory of that Member State. The Asylum Agency should develop a template with standard information relating to reception conditions to be provided by Member States to applicants as soon as possible and no later than three days from the making of the application or within the timeframe for its registration. |
| (13) | Harmonised Union rules on the documents to be issued to applicants should contribute to making it more difficult for applicants to move in an unauthorised manner within the Union. Member States should be able to provide applicants with a travel document only where duly justified serious humanitarian reasons or other imperative reasons arise. The validity of travel documents should be limited to the purpose and duration necessary for the reason for which they are issued. Serious humanitarian reasons could be considered to arise where, for example, an applicant needs to travel to another State for necessary medical treatment which is not available within the Member State in which the applicant is required to be present, to visit relatives in particular cases such as where close relatives are seriously ill or to attend funerals of close relatives. Other imperative reasons could include situations such as attending marriages of close relatives, or travelling as part of a study curriculum or with foster families. The issuance and use of such a travel document does not affect the Member States’ responsibilities under Regulation (EU) 2024/1351. Member States retain the right to assess applicants’ rights to stay on their territory. |
| (14) | Applicants do not have the right to choose the Member State of application. An applicant is to apply for international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1351. |
| (15) | Applicants are required to remain available to the competent authorities of the Member States. Appropriate measures should be taken to prevent applicants from absconding. Where the applicant has absconded and has travelled to another Member State without permission, it is vital, for the purpose of ensuring a well-functioning CEAS, that the applicant is swiftly transferred to the Member State where he or she is required to be present. Until such a transfer has taken place, there is a risk that the applicant may abscond and his or her whereabouts should therefore be closely monitored. |
| (16) | The fact that an applicant has previously absconded to another Member State is an important factor when assessing the risk that the applicant may abscond. Member States should take appropriate measures to prevent the applicant from absconding again and to ensure that he or she remains available to the competent authorities, once the applicant has been transferred to the Member State where he or she is required to be present. His or her whereabouts should therefore continue to be closely monitored. |
| (17) | Member States should be able to freely organise their reception systems. As part of that organisation, Member States should be able to allocate applicants to accommodation within their territory in order to manage their asylum and reception systems. Member States should also be able to put in place mechanisms for assessing and addressing the needs of their reception systems, including mechanisms for verifying applicants’ actual presence in the accommodation. Such mechanisms should not restrict the applicants’ freedom of movement within the territory of the Member State concerned. Member States should not be required to take an administrative decision for that purpose. |
| (18) | Where applicants are able to move freely only within a geographical area of the Member States’ territory, Member States should guarantee the applicants’ effective access to their rights under this Directive and to the procedural guarantees in the procedure for international protection within that geographical area. The possibility to temporarily leave that geographical area should be assessed individually, objectively and impartially. Where applicants have not been granted effective access to those rights and procedural guarantees in that geographical area, the allocation to that area should no longer apply. |
| (19) | For reasons of public order or in order to effectively prevent the applicant from absconding, Member States should be able to decide that the applicant is allowed to reside only in a specific place, such as an accommodation centre, a private house, flat, hotel or other premises adapted for housing applicants. Such decision should not result in the detention of the applicant. Such decision could be necessary in cases where the applicant has not complied with the obligations to remain in the Member State where he or she is required to be present, or in cases where the applicant has been transferred to the Member State where he or she is required to be present after having absconded to another Member State. Where the applicant is entitled to material reception conditions, such material reception conditions should be provided subject to the applicant residing in that specific place. |
| (20) | Where there is a risk that an applicant may abscond or where it is necessary to ensure that restrictions to an applicant’s freedom of movement are respected, Member States could require applicants to report to the competent authorities at a specified time or at reasonable intervals, without disproportionately affecting the rights of applicants under this Directive. |
| (21) | All decisions restricting an applicant’s freedom of movement should take into account relevant aspects of the individual situation of the applicant, including the special reception needs of that applicant, and the principles of necessity and proportionality. Applicants should be duly informed of such decisions, of the procedures for challenging them and of the consequences of non-compliance. |
| (22) | All provisions under this Directive relating to detention, residence and reporting obligations as well as the reduction and withdrawal of rights or benefits should be applied with due regard to the principle of proportionality, ensuring at all times effective access to the applicable reception conditions in accordance with this Directive, in particular with regard to health care, education, family unity and access to the labour market. Particular attention is to be paid to the possible cumulative effect of measures. |
| (23) | In view of the serious consequences for applicants who have absconded or who are considered to be at risk of absconding, the meaning of absconding should be defined in view of encompassing both a deliberate action and the factual circumstance, which is not beyond the applicant’s control, of not remaining available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities, such as by leaving the territory of the Member State where the applicant is required to be present. Member States should be able to consider that an applicant has absconded even if the applicant has previously not been considered to be at risk of absconding. |
| (24) | Where Member States define in national law the objective criteria that are relevant for determining a risk of absconding under this Directive, they could consider factors such as: the applicant’s cooperation with competent authorities or compliance with procedural requirements; the applicant’s links in the Member State; and whether the application for international protection has been rejected as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded. In the overall assessment of the individual situation of an applicant, a combination of several factors frequently provides the basis for concluding that there is a risk of absconding. |
| (25) | An applicant should be considered as no longer being available to the competent authorities where that applicant fails to respond to requests relating to the procedures under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 or the procedure under Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 unless the applicant provides adequate reasons why he or she was unable to respond to those requests, for example medical or other unexpected reasons which are beyond his or her control. |
| (26) | The detention of applicants should be applied in accordance with the underlying principle that persons should not be held in detention for the sole reason that they are seeking international protection, particularly in accordance with the international legal obligations of the Member States and in particular with Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. It should be possible for applicants to be detained only under the very clearly defined exceptional circumstances laid down in this Directive and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality with regard to both the manner and the purpose of such detention. The detention of applicants pursuant to this Directive should only be ordered in writing by judicial or administrative authorities stating the reasons on which it is based, including in cases where the person is already detained when making the application for international protection. Where an applicant is held in detention, that applicant should have effective access to the necessary procedural guarantees, such as judicial review and the right to free legal assistance and representation, where applicable under this Directive. |
| (27) | An acceptable maximum timeframe for the judicial review of detention should be determined in light of the circumstances of each case, taking into account the complexity of the procedure, as well as the diligence shown by the competent authorities, any delay caused by the detained person and any other factors causing delay for which the Member State cannot be held responsible. |
| (28) | Where an applicant has been allowed to reside only in a specific place but has not complied with that obligation, there still needs to be a risk that the applicant could abscond in order for the applicant to be detained. In all circumstances, special care should be taken to ensure that the length of the detention is proportionate and that it ends as soon as the obligation put on the applicant has been fulfilled or there are no longer reasons for believing that the applicant will not fulfil that obligation. The applicant should also have been made aware of the obligation in question and of the consequences of non-compliance. |
| (29) | With regard to administrative procedures relating to the grounds for detention, the notion of ‘due diligence’ at least requires that Member States take concrete and meaningful steps to ensure that the time needed to verify the grounds for detention is as short as possible, and that there is a real prospect that such verification can be carried out successfully in the shortest possible time. Detention should not exceed the time reasonably needed to complete the relevant administrative procedures. |
| (30) | The grounds for detention set out in this Directive are without prejudice to other grounds for detention, including detention grounds within the framework of criminal proceedings, which are applicable under national law and unrelated to the third-country national’s or stateless person’s application for international protection. |
| (31) | Applicants who are in detention should be treated with full respect for human dignity and their reception should be specifically designed to meet their needs in that situation. In particular, Member States should ensure that Article 24 of the Charter and Article 37 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are applied. |
| (32) | There may be cases where it is not possible in practice to immediately ensure certain reception guarantees in detention, for example due to the geographical location or the specific structure of the detention facility. Any derogation from those guarantees should be temporary and should only be applied under the circumstances set out in this Directive. Derogations should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and should be duly justified, taking into consideration the circumstances of each case, including the level of severity of the derogation applied, its duration and its impact on the applicant concerned. |
| (33) | In order to better ensure the physical and psychological integrity of applicants, detention should be a measure of last resort and it should only be possible to detain applicants after all non-custodial alternative measures to detention have been duly examined. The obligation to examine those alternative measures should not prejudge the use of detention where such alternative measures, including residence and reporting obligations, cannot be applied effectively. Any decision imposing detention should state the reasons why other less coercive alternative measures could not be applied effectively. Any alternative measure to detention should respect the fundamental human rights of applicants. |
| (34) | In order to ensure compliance with the procedural guarantee of the opportunity to contact organisations or groups of persons that provide legal assistance, information should be provided on such organisations and groups of persons. |
| (35) | When deciding on housing arrangements, Member States should take into account the best interests of the child, as well as the particular circumstances of any applicant who is dependent on family members or close relatives such as unmarried minor siblings already present in the Member State. |
| (36) | Member States should be able to resort to temporary housing solutions of a lower standard where the normally available housing capacities are temporarily exhausted. Member States should also be able to resort to those temporary housing solutions where, due to a disproportionate number of persons to be accommodated or a man-made or natural disaster, the normally available housing capacities are temporarily unavailable. Member States should consider providing such temporary housing solutions in fixed building structures to the extent possible. |
| (37) | The reception of persons with special reception needs should be a primary concern for national authorities in order to ensure that such reception is specifically designed to meet their special reception needs. Member States should also ensure, as far as possible, the prevention of assault and violence, including violence committed with a sexual, gender, racist or religious motive, when providing housing. Violence with a religious motive also entails violence directed towards people who do not have a religious belief or who have renounced their religious faith. |
| (38) | In applying this Directive, Member States should seek to ensure full respect for the principles of the best interests of the child and of family unity, in accordance with the Charter, the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, where applicable, the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. |
| (39) | Reception conditions need to be adapted to the specific situation of minors and their special reception needs, whether unaccompanied or within families, with due regard to their security, including security against sexual and gender-based violence, physical and emotional care and need to be provided in a manner that encourages their general development. |
| (40) | Minors should, as a rule, not be detained. They should be placed in suitable accommodation with special provisions for minors, including where appropriate in non-custodial, community-based placements. Given the negative impact of detention on minors, such detention should only be used, in accordance with Union law, exclusively in exceptional circumstances, where strictly necessary, as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time, after it has been established that other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively, and after detention is assessed to be in their best interests. Minors should never be detained in prison or another facility used for law enforcement purposes. Minors should not be separated from their parents or care-givers, and the principle of family unity should generally lead to the use of adequate alternatives to detention for families with minors, in accommodation suitable for them. Moreover, everything possible should be done to ensure that a viable range of adequate alternatives to the detention of minors is available and accessible. In this context, Member States are to take into account the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants of 19 September 2016, relevant authoritative guidance by the United Nations’ treaty body on the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and relevant case-law. |
| (41) | In its communication of 12 April 2017‘The protection of children in migration’, the Commission underlined that Member States must put in place appropriate safeguards to protect all children in migration present on their territory, including by the adoption of measures to ensure that children are provided with safe and appropriate accommodation as well as necessary support services to secure the child’s best interests and wellbeing, in accordance with the Member States’ obligations arising from national, Union and international law. |
| (42) | Representatives play a crucial role in guaranteeing access to the rights under this Directive and in safeguarding the best interests of all unaccompanied children. The early appointment of representatives is essential for tackling situations of migrant children going missing in the Union. Member States should ensure that representatives are appointed as early as possible, in line with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to ensure that unaccompanied children benefit fully from their rights as applicants for international protection granted under this Directive. |
| (43) | The main role of a representative should be to guarantee the best interests of the child and represent, assist or act on behalf of an unaccompanied minor. The representative should be able to explain information provided to the unaccompanied minor, liaise with the competent authorities to ensure immediate access for the unaccompanied minor to material reception conditions and health care and represent, assist or, in accordance with national law, act on behalf of an unaccompanied minor to ensure that that minor can benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations provided for in this Directive. Representatives should be appointed in accordance with the procedure defined by national law. |
| (44) | Member States should appoint a representative where an application is made by a person who claims to be a minor and who is unaccompanied. A representative should also be appointed where the competent authorities have objective grounds to believe that the person is a minor in view of relevant visible signs, statements or behaviour. Where a Member State has assessed that a person who claims to be a minor is without any doubt above the age of 18 years, it need not appoint a representative. |
| (45) | Until the representative has been appointed, Member States should designate a person suitable to provisionally act as a representative under this Directive. That person might be for example an employee of an accommodation centre, of a child-care facility, of social services, or of another relevant organisation designated to carry out the tasks of a representative. Persons whose interests conflict or could potentially conflict with those of the unaccompanied minor should not be designated as a person suitable to provisionally act as a representative. It is also important that such person be immediately informed when an application for international protection is made by an unaccompanied minor. |
| (46) | Member States should ensure that applicants receive the necessary health care, whether provided by generalists or, where needed, specialist practitioners. The necessary health care should be of adequate quality and include, at least, emergency care and essential treatment of illnesses, including of serious mental disorders, and sexual and reproductive health care which is essential in addressing a serious physical condition. To respond to public health concerns with regard to disease prevention and safeguard the health of applicants, applicants’ access to health care should also include preventive medical treatment, such as vaccinations. Member States should also be able to require medical screening for applicants on public health grounds. The results of medical screening should not influence the assessment of applications for international protection, which should always be carried out objectively, impartially and on an individual basis in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. |
| (47) | It should be possible for an applicant’s entitlement to material reception conditions under this Directive to be curtailed in certain circumstances, such as where an applicant has absconded to another Member State from the Member State where that applicant is required to be present. However, Member States should in all circumstances ensure access to health care and a standard of living for applicants which is in accordance with Union law, including the Charter, and other international obligations, including the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Member States should in particular provide for the applicant’s subsistence and basic needs, both in terms of physical safety and dignity and in terms of interpersonal relationships, with due regard to the inherent vulnerabilities of the person as applicant for international protection and that of his or her family or care-giver. Due regard should also be given to applicants with special reception needs. The specific needs of applicants who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence, in particular women, should also be taken into account, including via ensuring access, at different stages of the procedure for international protection, to health care, legal assistance, and appropriate trauma counselling and psycho-social care. |
| (48) | The specific needs of minors, in particular with regard to respect for the child’s right to education and access to health care should be taken into account. Minor children of applicants and applicants who are minors should be granted the same access to education as Member States’ own nationals and under similar conditions. That access need not be provided during school holidays. Their education should, as a rule, be integrated with that of Member States’ own nationals and be of the same quality. Member States should also ensure the continuity of the education of minors for so long as an expulsion measure against them or their parents is not enforced. |
| (49) | In view of the Charter, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and relevant case-law, and in order not to discriminate against family members on the basis of the place where the family was formed, the notion of family should also include families formed outside the country of origin of applicants, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member States. |
| (50) | In order to promote the self-sufficiency of applicants and to limit wide discrepancies between Member States, it is essential to provide clear rules on the applicants’ access to the labour market and to ensure that such access is effective, by not imposing conditions that effectively hinder an applicant from seeking employment, not unduly restricting access to specific sectors of the labour market or working time of an applicant and not setting unreasonable administrative formalities. Applicants who have effective access to the labour market and have been allowed to reside only in a specific place should be able to seek employment within a reasonable distance from that place. Where required by an applicant’s employment contract, Member States should be able to grant the applicant permission to leave their territory to carry out specific work tasks in another Member State in accordance with national law. Labour market tests used to give priority to nationals or to other Union citizens or to third-country nationals and stateless persons lawfully residing in the Member State concerned should not hinder effective access for applicants to the labour market and should be implemented without prejudice to the principle of preference for Union citizens as expressed in the relevant provisions of the applicable Acts of Accession. |
| (51) | Access to the labour market should entitle the applicant to seek employment. It is possible for Member States to also allow applicants to be self-employed. |
| (52) | In order to increase integration prospects and self-sufficiency of applicants, earlier access to the labour market is encouraged where the application is likely to be well-founded, including when its examination has been prioritised in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. Member States should therefore consider reducing that time period as much as possible in cases where the application is likely to be well-founded. Access to the labour market should not be granted or, if already granted, should be withdrawn where an applicant’s application for international protection is likely to be unfounded and for which an accelerated examination procedure is therefore applied, including where relevant information or documents relating to the identity of the applicant is withheld by that applicant. |
| (53) | Once applicants are granted access to the labour market, they should be entitled to a common set of rights based on equal treatment with the nationals of the Member State concerned. Working conditions should cover at least pay and dismissal, health and safety requirements at the workplace, working hours, leave and holidays, taking into account collective agreements in force. Such applicants should also enjoy equal treatment as regards freedom of association and affiliation, education and vocational training, recognition of professional qualifications and, with regard to employed applicants, social security. It is possible for Member States to grant equal treatment also to applicants who are self-employed. Member States are to use their best endeavours to prevent the exploitation of applicants or any form of discrimination against them in the workplace by means of undeclared work practices and other forms of severe labour exploitation. |
| (54) | Once applicants are granted access to the labour market, a Member State should recognise professional qualifications acquired by an applicant in another Member State in the same way as those of citizens of the Union and should take into account qualifications acquired in a third country in accordance with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (9). Measures should also be considered with a view to effectively addressing the practical difficulties encountered by applicants concerning the authentication of their foreign diplomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifications, in particular where applicants cannot provide documentary evidence and cannot meet the costs related to the recognition procedures. |
| (55) | The branches of social security referred to in Article 3(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) apply regarding applicants in employment. |
| (56) | Due to the possibly temporary nature of the stay of applicants and without prejudice to Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), Member States should be able to exclude social security benefits which are not dependent on periods of employment or on contributions from equal treatment between applicants and their own nationals. Member States should also be able to restrict the application of equal treatment in relation to education and vocational training and the recognition of formal qualifications. In addition, Member States should also be able to limit the right to freedom of association and affiliation by excluding applicants from taking part in the management of certain bodies and from holding a public office. |
| (57) | Union law does not limit the power of the Member States to organise their social security schemes. In the absence of harmonisation at Union level, it is for each Member State to lay down the conditions under which social security benefits are granted, as well as the amount of such benefits and the period for which they are granted. However, when exercising that power, Member States are to comply with Union law. |
| (58) | Language skills are important to ensure that applicants have an adequate standard of living. Those skills also constitute a deterrent against secondary movements. Member States should therefore ensure or facilitate access to language courses to the extent they consider such courses appropriate in order to help enhance an applicant’s ability to act autonomously and interact with competent authorities. |
| (59) | The right to equal treatment should not give rise to rights in relation to situations which fall outside the scope of Union law. |
| (60) | To ensure that the material reception conditions provided to applicants comply with the principles set out in this Directive, it is necessary to further clarify the nature of those conditions, which should include not only housing, food and clothing but also personal hygiene products. It is also necessary that Member States determine the level of material reception conditions provided in the form of financial allowances or vouchers on the basis of relevant references applied to ensure adequate standard of living for nationals, such as, depending on the national context, minimum income benefits, minimum wages, minimum pensions, unemployment benefits and social assistance benefits. It is not, however, necessary for the amount granted to applicants to be the same as for nationals. Member States should be able to grant less favourable treatment to applicants than to nationals as specified in this Directive. Member States should also have the possibility to adapt the level of financial allowances or the vouchers granted to applicants in regions referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), provided that the standard of reception conditions provided for in this Directive is ensured. |
| (61) | In order to restrict the possibility of abuse of the reception system, Member States should be able to provide material reception conditions only to the extent applicants do not have sufficient means to provide for themselves. Member States should be able to require applicants with sufficient means to cover, contribute to or refund the cost of the material reception conditions or health care received, including through financial guarantees. It is possible for applicants to be considered as having sufficient means to provide for themselves if, for example, they have been working for a reasonable period of time. When assessing the resources of an applicant and requiring an applicant to cover or contribute to the cost of the material reception conditions or health care received, Member States should respect the principle of proportionality and take into account the individual circumstances of the applicant and the need to respect his or her dignity or personal integrity, including the applicant’s special reception needs. Applicants should not be required to cover or contribute to the costs of their necessary health care where the health care is provided free of charge to Member States’ nationals. Applicants should not be required to take out loans to pay for reception conditions. |
| (62) | The possible abuse of the reception system should also be prevented by specifying the circumstances in which material reception conditions can be reduced or withdrawn. Member States should be able to reduce or withdraw the daily expenses allowance or, where duly justified and proportionate, reduce other material reception conditions where certain conditions are met, including where the applicant does not cooperate with the competent authorities or does not comply with the procedural requirements established by them. Non-cooperation or non-compliance can be considered to occur in particular where: applicants fail to attend fixed appointments or comply with reporting obligations for reasons which are not beyond their control; applicants fail to lodge their applications for international protection in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 despite having had an effective opportunity to do so; or applicants fail to respect requests to provide information in order to facilitate their identification, including by refusing to provide biometric data or necessary contact information or by refusing to co-operate during medical screening procedures. Member States should also, where duly justified and proportionate, be able to withdraw other material reception conditions where the applicant has seriously or repeatedly breached the rules of the accommodation centre or has behaved in a violent or threatening manner in the accommodation centre. Member States should always ensure a standard of living for all applicants in accordance with Union law, including the Charter, and international obligations, taking into account applicants with special reception needs and the best interests of the child. |
| (63) | It is possible for Member States to apply other penalties, including disciplinary measures in accordance with the rules of the accommodation centre, in as far as those penalties are not contrary to this Directive. |
| (64) | Member States should establish appropriate guidance, monitoring and control of their reception conditions. In order to ensure comparable reception conditions, Member States should be required to take into account, in their monitoring and control systems, available non-binding operational standards, indicators, guidelines and best practices regarding reception conditions developed by the Asylum Agency. Provided that the material reception conditions provide for an adequate standard of living, conditions in premises for housing applicants could be considered appropriate despite differing from one facility to another. The efficiency of national reception systems and cooperation among Member States in the field of reception of applicants should be secured, including through the Asylum Agency network of reception authorities. |
| (65) | Appropriate coordination should be encouraged between the competent authorities as regards the reception of applicants, and harmonious relationships between local communities and accommodation centres should therefore be promoted. |
| (66) | Experience shows that contingency planning is needed to ensure to the extent possible adequate reception of applicants in cases where Member States are confronted with a disproportionate number of applicants for international protection. Whether the measures envisaged in Member States’ contingency plans are adequate should be monitored and assessed. Contingency planning is an integral part of the Member States’ planning processes and cannot be seen as an exceptional activity. |
| (67) | The Asylum Agency should assist Member States to draw up and review their contingency plans, with the agreement of the Member State concerned. A contingency plan should consist of a comprehensive set of measures that are necessary in order to deal with a possible disproportionate pressure on the Members States’ reception systems, and to enhance the efficiency of those systems. For the purpose of this Directive, a situation of disproportionate pressure may be characterised by a sudden and massive influx of third-country nationals and stateless persons to the extent that that influx places an extreme burden even on a well-prepared reception system. To achieve greater preparedness for such a situation, the template developed by the Asylum Agency should include guidance on how to identify possible scenarios, the impact of those scenarios, actions to be taken and resources available to respond to those scenarios. |
| (68) | Member States should have the power to introduce or maintain more favourable provisions for third-country nationals and stateless persons who ask for international protection from a Member State. |
| (69) | Member States are invited to apply the provisions of this Directive in connection with procedures for deciding on applications for forms of protection other than those provided for under Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12). |
| (70) | The implementation of this Directive should be evaluated at regular intervals. Member States should provide the Commission with the necessary information in order for the Commission to be able to fulfil its reporting obligations under this Directive. |
| (71) | Since the objective of this Directive, namely to establish harmonised standards for the reception conditions of applicants in Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. |
| (72) | In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents (13), Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified. |
| (73) | In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application. |
| (74) | In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application. |
| (75) | This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and to promote the application of Articles 1, 4, 6, 7, 18, 21, 24 and 47 of the Charter and has to be implemented accordingly. |
| (76) | The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive amendment as compared to the earlier Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directive. |
| (77) | This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limit for the transposition into national law of the Directive set out in Annex I, |