A number of substantive changes have been made to Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). To ensure harmonisation and more convergence in asylum decisions and as regards the content of international protection in order to reduce incentives to move within the Union, to encourage beneficiaries of international protection to remain in the Member State that granted them protection and to ensure equality of treatment of beneficiaries of international protection, that Directive should be repealed and replaced by a Regulation.
(2)
A common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 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 those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Union. Such a policy should be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, among the Member States. The Geneva Convention is the cornerstone of the international legal regime for the protection of refugees.
(3)
The CEAS is based on common standards for asylum procedures, recognition and protection offered at Union level, reception conditions and a system for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection. Notwithstanding progress achieved so far in the progressive development of the CEAS, there are still significant disparities between the Member States in the procedures used, recognition rates, type of protection granted, level of material reception conditions and benefits given to applicants for, and beneficiaries of, international protection. Those divergences could lead to secondary movements and undermine the objective of ensuring that all applicants are equally treated wherever they apply 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 set out its options for improving the CEAS, namely to establish a sustainable and fair system for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, to reinforce the Eurodac system, to achieve greater convergence in the Union asylum system, to prevent secondary movements within the Union and to transform the European Asylum Support Office into an agency. That communication is in line with calls by the European Council on 18-19 February 2016 to make progress towards reforming the Union's existing framework so as to ensure a humane and efficient asylum policy.
(5)
As Article 78(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) calls for a uniform status of asylum and for a well-functioning CEAS, substantial progress should be made regarding the convergence of national asylum systems with special regard to differing recognition rates and type of protection status in the Member States. Moreover, the rights granted to beneficiaries of international protection should be further clarified and harmonised.
(6)
A Regulation is therefore necessary to ensure a more consistent level of harmonisation throughout the Union and to provide a higher degree of legal certainty and transparency.
(7)
The main objective of this Regulation is, on the one hand, to ensure that Member States apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection and, on the other hand, to ensure that a common set of rights is available for beneficiaries of international protection in all Member States.
(8)
The further approximation of rules on the recognition and content of refugee status and subsidiary protection status should moreover help to limit the secondary movement of applicants for international protection and beneficiaries of international protection between Member States.
(9)
International protection should be granted to third country nationals and stateless persons who fall under the scope of this Regulation and who qualify for international protection. International protection should not be granted to those third country nationals and stateless persons who fall outside the scope of this Regulation. National humanitarian statuses, where granted, should not entail a risk of confusion with international protection.
(10)
The provisions of this Regulation on the content of international protection, including the rules to discourage secondary movements, should apply to those who were granted international protection following the positive conclusion of a resettlement or humanitarian admission procedure in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1350 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).
(11)
This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, this Regulation seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and the right to asylum of applicants for asylum and their accompanying family members and to promote the application of the provisions of the Charter relating to human dignity, respect for private and family life, freedom of expression and information, the right to education, freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work, freedom to conduct a business, the right to asylum, protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition, equality before the law, non-discrimination, the rights of the child, and rights relating to social security, social assistance, and health care. Those provisions should therefore be implemented accordingly.
(12)
With regard to the treatment of persons falling within the scope of this Regulation, Member States are bound by obligations under instruments of international law to which they are party, including, in particular, those that prohibit discrimination.
(13)
The resources of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), should be used to provide adequate support to Member States in their efforts to implement the standards set by this Regulation, in particular to those Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressure on their asylum systems, due in particular to their geographical or demographic situation. While the general principle of the prohibition of double funding should be respected, Member States should take full advantage, at all levels of governance, of the possibilities offered by funds which are not directly related to asylum and migration policy but which could be used to fund actions in that area.
(14)
The European Union Agency for Asylum, established by Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) (the ‘Asylum Agency’), should provide adequate support in the application of this Regulation, in particular by providing, upon the request or with the agreement of the Member State concerned, experts to assist that Member State’s authorities in receiving, registering and examining applications for international protection, and by providing updated information regarding third countries, including country of origin information, and relevant guidelines and tools. When applying this Regulation, Member States’ authorities should take into account operational standards, indicators, guidelines and best practices developed by the Asylum Agency. When assessing applications for international protection, and without prejudice to the case-by-case nature of those assessments, Member States’ authorities should take into account the information, reports, common analysis on the situation in countries of origin and guidance notes developed at Union level by the Asylum Agency and the European networks on third-country information in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/2303.
(15)
When applying this Regulation the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration, in accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States’ authorities should, in particular, take due account of the principle of family unity, and the minor’s well-being and social development, linguistic skills, safety and security and the views of that minor with due regard to the minor’s age and maturity.
(16)
With a view to safeguarding the best interests of the child and the minor’s general well-being, and in order to encourage continuity in assistance and representation for unaccompanied minors, Member States should seek to ensure, in so far as possible, that the same natural person remains responsible for an unaccompanied minor, including during the asylum procedure and following the granting of international protection.
(17)
An adult child should be considered dependent, on the basis of an individual assessment, only in circumstances where that child is unable to support him or herself due to a physical or mental condition linked to a serious non-temporary illness or severe disability.
(18)
The provisions on family unity in this Regulation do not interfere with the values and principles recognised by the Member States. In the event of a polygamous marriage, it is for each Member State to decide whether they wish to apply the provisions on family unity to polygamous households, including to the minor children of a further spouse and a beneficiary of international protection.
(19)
The application of the provisions on family unity should always be based on genuine family relationships and should not include forced marriages and marriages or partnerships contracted for the sole purpose of enabling the person concerned to enter or reside in the Member States. In order not to discriminate against family members based on where a family was formed, the notion of family should also include families formed outside the country of origin but before their arrival on the territory of the Union.
(20)
Where a Member State decides, for the purposes of family unity, that the best interests of a married minor lie with that minor’s parents, the spouse of that minor should not derive any residence rights from that marriage under this Regulation.
(21)
This Regulation is without prejudice to the Protocol No 24 on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the TFEU.
(22)
The recognition of refugee status is a declaratory act.
(23)
Consultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) could provide valuable guidance for Member States’ authorities when determining whether an applicant is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention.
(24)
When examining whether applicants have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm and whether stable, established non-state authorities, including international organisations, control a State or a substantial part of its territory and provide protection, and when assessing whether applicants have access to protection against persecution or serious harm in another part of the country of origin other than their home area (‘internal protection alternative’), the determining authority should take into account, inter alia, relevant general information and recommendations issued by the UNHCR.
(25)
Standards for the definition and content of refugee status should be laid down to guide the competent national bodies of Member States in the application of the Geneva Convention.
(26)
It is necessary to introduce common criteria for recognising applicants for asylum as refugees within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention.
(27)
Where one or more particular aspects of the applicant’s statements are not supported by documentary or other evidence, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt provided that the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate the need for international protection, all relevant elements at the applicant's disposal have been submitted and a satisfactory explanation has been given regarding the lack of other relevant elements, the applicant’s statements are found to be coherent and plausible and general credibility has been established taking into account the moment when the applicant applied for international protection and, where appropriate, the reasons for not having applied sooner.
(28)
The determining authority should not conclude that the applicant lacks credibility merely because the applicant did not rely on his or her declared sexual orientation on the first occasion he or she was given to set out the ground for persecution, unless it is evident that the applicant merely intends to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a decision resulting in his or her return.
(29)
Convictions, beliefs or orientations of the applicant giving rise to activities which could be a basis for a well-founded fear of being persecuted or a real risk of suffering serious harm should be taken into account even if they were fully or partially concealed while in the country of origin.
(30)
Where the applicant is not available during the procedure due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control, the relevant provisions of and the relevant safeguards set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) and Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) apply.
(31)
In particular, it is necessary to introduce common concepts of protection needs arising sur place, sources of harm and protection, internal protection and persecution, including the reasons for persecution.
(32)
Protection can be provided either by the State or by stable, established non-State authorities, including international organisations, that control the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State and that meet the conditions set out in this Regulation, provided that they are able and willing to offer protection. Such protection should be effective and of a non-temporary nature.
(33)
Where the State or agents of the State are not the actors of persecution or serious harm, the determining authority should examine, as part of the assessment of the application for international protection, whether an internal protection alternative exists once it has been established that the qualification criteria set out in this Regulation would otherwise apply to an applicant. An internal protection alternative against persecution or serious harm should be effectively available to applicants in a part of the country of origin to which they can safely and legally travel and gain admittance and in which they can reasonably be expected to settle. The burden of demonstrating the availability of internal protection alternative should fall on the determining authority. Where the determining authority demonstrates that an internal protection alternative is available, applicants should be entitled to present evidence and submit elements at their disposal.
(34)
When considering whether applicants can be reasonably expected to settle in another part of their country of origin, the determining authority should also take into account whether applicants would be able to cater for their own basic needs in relation to access to food, hygiene and shelter in the context of local circumstances in their country of origin.
(35)
Where the State or agents of the State are the actors of persecution or serious harm, there should be a presumption that effective protection is not available to the applicant and the determining authority need not examine whether an internal protection alternative exists. The determining authority should be able to examine whether an internal protection alternative exists only where it is clearly established that the risk of persecution or serious harm stems from an actor whose power is clearly limited to a specific geographical area or where the State itself only has control over certain parts of the country concerned.
(36)
When assessing a sur place application, the fact that the risk of persecution or serious harm is based on circumstances that do not constitute an expression or continuation of convictions or orientations held in the country of origin could serve as an indication that the sole or main purpose of the applicant was to create the necessary conditions for applying for international protection.
(37)
Depending on the circumstances, acts of persecution of a gender-specific or child-specific nature might include, inter alia, under-age recruitment, genital mutilation, forced marriage, child trafficking and child labour, and trafficking for sexual exploitation.
(38)
Acts of persecution might take the form of disproportionate or discriminatory prosecution or punishment. Such disproportionate or discriminatory prosecution or punishment might arise, inter alia, in situations where an applicant refuses to perform military service on moral, religious or political grounds or due to belonging to a particular ethnic group or holding a particular citizenship.
(39)
One of the conditions for qualification for refugee status within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention is the existence of a causal link between the reasons for persecution, namely race, religion or belief, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and the acts of persecution or the absence of protection against such acts.
(40)
It is equally necessary to introduce a common concept of the persecution ground ‘membership of a particular social group’. For the purpose of defining a particular social group, issues arising from an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender, including gender identity and gender expression, which could be related to certain legal traditions and customs, resulting in, for example, genital mutilation, forced sterilisation or forced abortion, should be given due consideration in so far as they are related to the applicant’s well-founded fear of being persecuted. Depending on the circumstances, disability could be a characteristic for the purpose of defining a particular social group.
(41)
The circumstances in the country of origin, including, for example, the existence and application of criminal laws which specifically target lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, can mean that those persons are to be regarded as forming a particular social group.
(42)
When assessing an application for international protection, the competent authorities of the Member States should use methods for the assessment of an applicant's credibility in a manner that respects that applicant’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter and the ECHR, in particular the right to human dignity and respect for private and family life. Specifically as regards sexual orientation and gender identity, applicants should not be submitted to detailed questioning or tests as to their sexual practices.
(43)
The purposes and principles of the United Nations are set out in the Preamble to and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in its resolutions relating to measures countering terrorism. Those resolutions declare, inter alia, that ‘acts, methods and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ and that ‘knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’.
(44)
For the purpose of applying the provisions of this Regulation on exclusion from international protection where there are reasonable grounds to assume that an applicant has committed an act or acts contrary to the purposes and principles set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, it is not a prerequisite to establish that such an applicant has been convicted of one of the terrorist offences referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11).
(45)
For the purpose of applying the provisions of this Regulation on exclusion from international protection to an applicant for having committed acts constituting participation in the activities of a terrorist group, the fact that it has not been established that such an applicant committed, attempted to commit or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council does not preclude Member States’ authorities from regarding the conduct of the applicant as contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(46)
For the purposes of the individual assessment of facts that might constitute serious reasons for considering that an applicant has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, has instigated such acts or has otherwise participated in such acts, the fact the applicant was convicted by the courts of a Member State of participating in the activities of a terrorist group is of particular importance, as is a finding of a court or tribunal that the applicant was a member of the leadership of such a group, and there should be no requirement to establish that the applicant instigated a terrorist act or otherwise participated in it.
(47)
Committing a political crime is not, in principle, a ground justifying exclusion from refugee status. However, particularly cruel actions, where the action in question is disproportionate to the alleged political objective, and terrorist acts which are characterised by their violence, even if committed with a purportedly political objective, should be regarded as serious non-political crimes and therefore can give rise to exclusion from refugee status.
(48)
Standards for the definition and content of subsidiary protection status should also be laid down. Subsidiary protection should be complementary and additional to the refugee protection enshrined in the Geneva Convention. While the grounds for protection differ between refugee status and subsidiary protection status, the ongoing need for protection could be similar in duration. The content of the protection offered by refugee status or subsidiary protection status might only differ where explicitly provided for in this Regulation. This Regulation nevertheless allows Member States to grant the same rights and benefits under both statuses.
(49)
It is necessary to introduce common criteria on the basis of which applicants for international protection are to be recognised as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Those criteria should be drawn from international obligations under human rights instruments and practices existing in Member States.
(50)
For the purpose of assessing serious harm which could qualify applicants as persons eligible for subsidiary protection, the notion of indiscriminate violence should include violence that might extend to people irrespective of their personal circumstances.
(51)
For the purpose of assessing serious harm, situations in which a third country’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups, or in which two or more armed groups confront each other, should be considered an internal armed conflict. It is not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as an ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ under international humanitarian law nor is it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.
(52)
As regards the proof required to establish the existence of a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person, determining authorities should not require applicants to adduce evidence that they are specifically targeted by factors related to their personal circumstances. However, the level of indiscriminate violence required to substantiate the application is lower where applicants are able to show that they are specifically affected due to factors related to their personal circumstances. Moreover, the existence of a serious and individual threat should exceptionally be considered by the determining authority to be established where the degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the armed conflict rises to such a high level that there are substantial grounds for believing that civilians, returned to the country of origin or to the relevant part of country of origin, would, solely on account of their presence there, face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm.
(53)
Depending on the circumstances, including the length and purpose of the stay, travel to the country of origin could serve as an indication that beneficiaries of refugee status have re-availed themselves of the protection of the country of origin or re-established themselves in their country of origin or that, for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, the grounds for granting that status have ceased to exist.
(54)
In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, Member States should ensure that applicants have access to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against decisions by determining authorities to reject applications for international protection as unfounded or against decisions to withdraw international protection. In that respect, the reasons which led a determining authority to decide to reject an application for international protection or to withdraw international protection from a beneficiary should be subject to thorough review by a competent court or tribunal within the framework of any action brought against that rejection or withdrawal decision.
(55)
The travel documents issued to beneficiaries of international protection for the first time or renewed following the entry into force of this Regulation should comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (12) or with equivalent minimum standards for security features and biometrics.
(56)
The residence permits issued to beneficiaries of international protection for the first time or renewed following the entry into force of this Regulation should comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 (13).
(57)
In the period between the granting of international protection and the issuance of a residence permit, Member States should ensure that beneficiaries of international protection have effective access to all the rights laid down in this Regulation, with the exception of freedom of movement within the Union and the issuance of a travel document.
(58)
Family members will, due to their close relationship to beneficiaries of international protection, normally be vulnerable to acts of persecution or serious harm that could constitute the basis for the granting of international protection. For the purpose of maintaining family unity, where family members present on the territory of the same Member State do not qualify for international protection, they should be entitled to apply for a residence permit. Such residence permits should be granted, unless family members fall within the exclusion grounds or unless reasons of national security or public policy otherwise require. Family members should also be entitled to the rights accorded to the beneficiary of international protection once international protection has been granted. Without prejudice to the provisions of this Regulation related to maintaining family unity, where the situation falls within the scope of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (14) and the conditions for family reunification set out therein have been fulfilled, family members of the beneficiary of international protection who do not individually qualify for such protection should be granted residence permits and rights in accordance with that Directive. This Regulation should be applied without prejudice to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (15).
(59)
Travel documents should be issued to family members of beneficiaries of international protection in accordance with national procedures.
(60)
When assessing a change of circumstances in a third country, the competent authorities of the Member States should verify, having regard to the individual situation of a beneficiary of international protection, that the actor or actors of protection in that country have taken reasonable steps to prevent the persecution or serious harm, that they therefore operate, inter alia, an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm and that the beneficiary of international protection will have access to such protection if the refugee status or the subsidiary protection status is withdrawn.
(61)
When assessing whether the grounds on which the granting of international protection was based have ceased to exist, the determining authority should take into account all relevant and available national, Union and international sources of information and guidance, including recommendations issued by the UNHCR.
(62)
Where an applicant falls within the scope of Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention relating to the provision of protection or assistance by organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the UNHCR, when considering whether that protection or assistance has ceased to exist for reasons beyond the control, and independent of the volition, of the applicant, the determining authority should ascertain whether the applicant was forced to leave the area of operations of the relevant organ or agency, whether the applicant’s personal safety was at serious risk and whether the relevant organ or agency was unable to ensure the applicant’s living conditions in accordance with its mandate.
(63)
Where the refugee status or the subsidiary protection status ceases to exist, the decision by the determining authority of a Member State to withdraw the status does not prevent the third-country national or stateless person concerned from applying for residence on the basis of grounds other than those which justified the granting of international protection or from continuing to remain legally on the territory of that Member State on other grounds, in particular when holding a valid Union long-term residence permit, in accordance with relevant Union and national law.
(64)
A decision to end international protection should not have a retroactive effect. A decision to revoke international protection should have a retroactive effect. Where a decision is based on a cessation ground, it should not have a retroactive effect. Where refugee status or subsidiary protection status is revoked on the basis that it should never have been granted, acquired rights could be retained or lost in accordance with national law.
(65)
Beneficiaries of international protection should reside in the Member State which granted them protection. Beneficiaries of international protection who are in possession of a valid travel document and a residence permit issued by a Member State applying the Schengen acquis in full should be allowed to enter into and move freely within the territory of the Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full, within the authorised period of stay in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16) and with Article 21 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (17). Beneficiaries of international protection can equally apply to reside in a Member State other than the Member State that granted them international protection, in accordance with relevant Union and national rules. However, that does not imply any transfer of the refugee status or subsidiary protection status and related rights.
(66)
In order to ensure that beneficiaries of international protection respect the authorised period of stay or residence in accordance with the relevant national, Union or international law, Council Directive 2003/109/EC (18) should be amended to provide that the five-year period after which beneficiaries of international protection are eligible for Union long-term resident status should, in principle, be restarted each time a beneficiary of international protection is found in a Member State other than the Member State that granted that beneficiary international protection without a right to stay or to reside there.
(67)
Member States’ authorities retain a certain discretion with regard to public policy and national security, which should be interpreted in accordance with national, Union and international law. Subject to an individual assessment of the specific facts, public policy and national security considerations can cover cases in which a third-country national belongs to an association which supports international terrorism or supports such an association. When assessing whether a third country national or stateless person poses a risk to a Member State’s national security, its authorities are entitled to take account, inter alia, of information received from other Member States or third countries.
(68)
When deciding on entitlement to the benefits provided for in this Regulation, a competent authority should take due account of the best interests of the child and of the particular circumstances of the dependency on the beneficiary of international protection of close relatives who are already present in the Member State concerned and who are not family members. In exceptional circumstances, where a close relative of a beneficiary of international protection is a married minor but not accompanied by his or her spouse, the best interests of the minor could be seen to lie with his or her original family.
(69)
Member States should be able to restrict access to employed or self-employed activities as regards posts which involve the exercise of public authority and responsibility for safeguarding the general interest of the State or other public authorities. In the context of the exercising of the right to equal treatment as regards membership of an organisation representing workers or engaging in a specific occupation, it should be possible to exclude beneficiaries of international protection from taking part in the management of bodies governed by public law and from holding an office governed by public law.
(70)
Housing benefits should constitute a core benefit to the extent that they can be regarded as social assistance.
(71)
In order to enhance the effective exercise by beneficiaries of international protection of the rights and benefits laid down in this Regulation, it is necessary to take into account their specific needs and the particular integration challenges with which they are confronted and to facilitate their access to integration-related rights, in particular as regards employment-related educational opportunities and vocational training, and access to recognition procedures for foreign diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, in particular in circumstances where there is a lack of documentary evidence or an inability to meet the costs related to recognition procedures.
(72)
Beneficiaries of international protection should enjoy equal treatment with nationals of the Member State that granted them international protection as regards social security.
(73)
Access to healthcare, including physical and mental healthcare and sexual and reproductive healthcare, should be ensured for beneficiaries of international protection, provided that it is also ensured for nationals of the Member State that granted them international protection.
(74)
In order to facilitate the integration of beneficiaries of international protection into society, they should have access to integration measures, at local, regional and national level, under conditions to be set by the Member States. Member States should consider maintaining access to language courses for beneficiaries of international protection where they had access to language courses as applicants.
(75)
The effective monitoring of the application of this Regulation requires that it be evaluated at regular intervals.
(76)
Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to establish standards for the granting of international protection to third-country nationals and stateless persons by Member States, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
(77)
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) 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 Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(78)
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the 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 Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application,
