European Union: Application of the Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union (2013-June 2015)

1. The Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union

The European Union (EU) member states are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and UK [also referred to as the EU28] (UK May 2014, 8; EU n.d.a).

The Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union [also known as the Spanish Protocol, Aznar Protocol, Protocol 24, and herein called the Protocol], is an annex to the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty which established the European Community (UK May 2014, 6; EU 1997, 103). The Protocol is also part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (EU 15 June 2015; ECRE 16 June 2015). The Protocol applies to all EU member states (ibid.; EU 15 June 2015; UK May 2014, 6) considering any asylum claim from nationals of other EU states (ibid.). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official of the EU Delegation to Canada in Ottawa provided information produced by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), an EU agency that provides practical and technical support to EU members and the European Commission on asylum issues (EU n.d.b), indicated that the Protocol "provides that applications [for asylum] from EU citizens may be 'taken into consideration' or declared 'admissible' for processing by another [member state] only in very limited circumstances" (EU 10 June 2015). The sole article of the Protocol states the following:

Given the level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms by the Member States of the European Union, Member States shall be regarded as constituting safe countries of origin in respect of each other for all legal and practical purposes in relation to asylum matters. Accordingly, any application for asylum made by a national of a Member State may be taken into consideration or declared admissible for processing by another Member State only in the following cases:

if the Member State of which the applicant is a national proceeds after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, availing itself of the provisions of Article 15 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to take measures derogating in its territory from its obligations under that Convention;

if the procedure referred to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union has been initiated and until the Council, or, where appropriate, the European Council, takes a decision in respect thereof with regard to the Member State of which the applicant is a national;

if the Council has adopted a decision in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union in respect of the Member State of which the applicant is a national or if the European Council has adopted a decision in accordance with Article 7(2) of that Treaty in respect of the Member State of which the applicant is a national;

if a Member State should so decide unilaterally in respect of the application of a national of another Member State; in that case the Council shall be immediately informed; the application shall be dealt with on the basis of the presumption that it is manifestly unfounded without affecting in any way, whatever the cases may be, the decision-making power of the Member State. (EU 2012a, Protocol No. 24)

Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of Title I of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) state the following:

On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.

The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations. (EU 2012b)

The EUR-Lex website indicates that as of 10 March 2015, the "preventive and sanctioning mechanisms of Article 7 TEU have so far not been applied" (EU 10 Mar. 2015).

The Treaty of Amsterdam states that the Protocol "does not prejudice the right of each Member State to take the organisational measures it deems necessary to fulfil its obligations under the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees" (EU 1997, 141). The EASO official explained the Protocol as follows:

[W]hile Member States shall be regarded as constituting safe countries of origin in respect to each other, a Member State may decide unilaterally to take into consideration an application by a citizen of another Member State or declare it admissible for processing. In such cases, the application is to be processed with an assumption that it is manifestly unfounded. This assumption can however be rebutted and indeed in some cases, applications have been considered in substance in a 'normal' procedure and in a very small number of cases, international protection has been granted. All examined cases should be reported to European Council …

Given the criterion in place to take into consideration or declare admissible the application of an EU citizen, it follows that EU citizens' applications being decided on in EU Member States should be based on unilateral decisions from a Member State to consider such an application admissible. (EU 10 June 2015)

2. Overview of the Application of the Protocol and Aggregated Statistics on Asylum Claims Lodged by EU Nationals in EU Member States

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a legal assistant with the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) [1] explained that EU member states are party to the protocol and thus, do apply it, "disregarding claims from nationals of an … EU Member State as either prima facie inadmissible, invalid, or manifestly unfounded" (ECRE 16 June 2015). The ECRE legal assistant indicated that according to EU statistics, between 2013 and 2015, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries in the 28 EU countries to have granted asylum or subsidiary protection status to EU citizens at first instance (ibid.).

The ECRE legal assistant also stated that EU members have "divergent practices" in "safe country of origin designations," some of which include EU states (ibid.). Similarly, in correspondence with the Research Directorate, a representative of the EU Rights Clinic [2] stated that "most member states maintain their own lists of 'safe countries'," while other states do not have such lists (EU Rights Clinic 22 June 2015). The ECRE Asylum Information Database (AIDA) Project Annual Report for 2013-2014 explained that, for example,

Malta, Germany and Austria designate all EU Member States as safe countries of origin whereas this is not the case in the other countries. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, EU Member States, except Croatia, as well as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are listed as safe third countries but not as safe countries of origin. In Belgium, asylum applications from nationals of other EU Member States or Accession States to the EU are not formally included in the list of safe countries of origin but are subject to the same admissibility procedure as applications from a safe country of origin. (ECRE 9 Sept. 2014, 50)

EASO provided the following information based on statistics collected from the Eurostat database regarding asylum applications from EU citizens made in other member states [see note 3]:

In 2014, 790 applications from citizens of the EU28 were lodged in the 28 Member States. The United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Belgium were the main receiving countries of EU28 applications with 195, 175, 145 and 140 EU applicants respectively or 83% of all EU applicants registered in the EU28.

Since 2008, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Romania were the main EU28 source countries of applicants representing 61% of the EU28 applications received between 2008 and 2014. The number of applications received from these three EU countries however declined significantly since 2011. In contrast, in 2013 and 2014, the number of applications lodged by Polish citizens has increased, with Poland becoming the top source country of EU applications in 2014.

In 2014, 585 first instance decisions were issued on applications by EU citizens and were mainly issued to applicants from Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. Virtually all these decisions led to the rejection of the case and the only positive decisions on EU applications recorded in 2014 were issued by Belgium to Romanian applicants (10 persons reported having been granted refugee status).

A total of 305 applications by EU citizens were withdrawn in 2014. Although cohort data is not available, the ratio of withdrawn applications to the number of applications lodged in 2014 yields a 38% withdrawn/application ratio, which is much higher than the overall ratio for applicants of all nationalities, which is 11%, indicating that a significant proportion of EU citizens lodging an application for international protection subsequently abandon their claim.

…only information on EU applications during the first quarter of 2015 is available: over this period, 150 EU citizens applied for international protection in the EU28, 35 withdrew their applications. 105 first instance decisions were issued, all negative, rejecting the EU citizen's application. (EU 10 June 2015)

3. Protocol Application by Individual Member States

Specific information on the application of the Protocol by Croatia, Denmark, France, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

3.1 Austria

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Austria in Ottawa indicated that in 2013 and 2014, Austria received respectively 21 and 29 applications for asylum from EU citizens of various countries (Austria 25 June 2015). The official stated that, according to Austria's procedural law on Federal Immigration and Asylum, member states of the EU are considered safe countries of origin, and "[t]his means that these cases [from EU applicants] are rejected already during the initial admission procedure and appeals have no suspensive effect" (ibid.).

3.2 Belgium

The Treaty of Amsterdam includes a declaration by Belgium that it shall "carry out an individual examination of any asylum request by a national of another Member state" (EU 1997, 144). According to ECRE, Belgium also made such a declaration on approval of the TFEU (ECRE 16 June 2015, 1-2). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa indicated that Belgium applies the Protocol; however, he further explained that

[a]n accelerated admissibility procedure - although not defined as such in the law - applies with regard to asylum applications by EU nationals and nationals of EU accession candidate countries, as well as with regard to asylum seekers from a safe country of origin (based on a list) or who have already obtained refugee status in another EU member state. In those cases the [Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, CGRS] can decide 'not to take into consideration' such applications (a decision of inadmissibility) if no elements are submitted that the person has a well-founded fear of persecution or there are serious grounds for a real risk of serious harm, within five or fifteen working days respectively.

While the EU national is not entitled to a full jurisdictional appeal, he or she may appeal for the annulment of a decision by the CGRS not to take into consideration the application, within 30 days of that decision, before the Council of Aliens Law Litigation. While this appeal has no suspensive effect, it is possible for the applicant to make a request for a suspension of removal together with his or her appeal. (Belgium 15 June 2015)

The EU EASO representative similarly explained that

Belgium opted to keep the possibility to carry out an individual assessment of any asylum request although there is an accelerated procedure for EU citizens. In accordance with Article 57/6 2 of the Belgian Aliens Act, the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons is competent to [make] a decision "not to take the application into consideration" for EU citizens. This term is however somewhat misleading and refers rather to an accelerated procedure and not to an admissibility procedure. Every adult EU asylum applicant is invited for an interview and in principle a motivated decision is taken. However, the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons may also decide to [make] a normal decision, and even to grant a protection status (but this remains rather exceptional). (EU 10 June 2015)

The Embassy of Belgium official indicated that the number of positive decisions in cases of EU nationals is "very low" (Belgium 15 June 2015). The official indicated that Belgium received 175 applications for asylum from EU nationals in 2013, and that 145 applications were received in 2014 (with Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia being the 4 top source countries for both years) (ibid. 29 May 2015). The official indicated that no positive decisions were given in 2013, and 10 were given in 2014 (ibid. 15 June 2015). The ECRE Legal Assistant also stated that, according to EU statistics, Belgium granting protection to 10 applicants from EU countries in 2014 (ECRE 16 June 2015).

3.3 Bulgaria

According to the profile of Bulgaria's asylum procedures published on ECRE's AIDA Project website,

National legislation allows for the use of a safe country of origin and safe third country concept in the asylum procedure. Prior to the EU accession, national lists of safe countries of origin and third safe countries were adopted annually by the asylum administration (State Agency for Refugees - SAR) and applied extensively to substantiate negative first instance decisions.

However, the national court considered that the safe country of origin and safe third country concept can only be applied as a rebuttable presumption that could be contested by the asylum seeker in each and every individual case. In 2007, the national law was amended to introduce explicitly the right for the asylum seeker to rebut the safe country presumption. (ECRE and Bulgarian Helsinki Committee 31 Jan. 2015, 36)

3.4 Cyprus

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official from the Consulate General of Cyprus in Toronto stated that the Protocol is applicable for Cyprus, but that "the Asylum Service has never received asylum applications from nationals of EU member states. Therefore, there is no practical experience on this" (Cyprus 18 June 2015).

3.5 Czech Republic

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, the Ministry of Interior provided information to the Embassy of the Czech Republic in Ottawa indicating that the Czech Republic considers itself as a party to the Protocol, and that the Protocol is "currently applied in practice" (Czech Republic 15 June 2015). Furthermore, the source stated that in the Czech Republic,

[the] situation of asylum applications lodged by EU nationals is regulated by the Act on Asylum (No.325/199 Coll.) in Section 10a. If an application for international protection is lodged by an EU national, such an application is rejected as inadmissible and according to Section 25 of the Asylum Act, the proceedings are discontinued. (ibid.)

Furthermore, the source indicated that from 2013 to June 2015, 27 applications for asylum were made by nationals of EU countries, and that "all applications were rejected for the reason of inadmissibility" (ibid.).

3.6 Estonia

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Police and Border Guard Board of Estonia indicated that EU countries are considered by Estonia as "safe countries" and Estonia has not received any asylum applications from EU nationals between 2013 and 2015 (Estonia 15 June 2015).

3.7 Finland

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, the Finnish Immigration Service provided information to the Embassy of Finland in Ottawa, which states that Finland considers itself a party to the Protocol, and that

[a]ccording to the Finnish Aliens' Act, the Finnish Immigration Service shall notify the Ministry of the Interior immediately of any application for asylum made by a citizen of the European Union if it does not consider the State in question a safe country of origin for the applicant and if it does not apply the relevant sections of the Aliens' Act on the decision on the application. The Ministry of the Interior notifies the Council of the European Union of the matter. (Finland 12 June 2015)

According to the Finnish Immigration Service website,

EU citizens seeking asylum in Finland are considered to come from a safe country of origin. Almost without exception, EU citizens will receive a negative decision and, if necessary, will be turned back to their home country. (ibid. n.d.)

The Finnish Immigration Service indicated that between 2013-2015, Finland has received a "few" applications from nationals of other EU countries, and the "safe country of origin/manifestly unfounded" provisions of the Aliens' Act have been applied in these instances (ibid. 12 June 2015).

3.8 Germany

Germany considers EU members states to be "safe countries" of origin (ECRE 16 June 2015; EU Rights Clinic 22 June 2015).

3.9 Hungary

ECRE's AIDA Project, which produces country reports on selected European countries' asylum procedures, states that in Hungary's case,

[t]he admissibility procedure will end by either referring the application to the in-merit procedure for a detailed examination, or it will be found inadmissible or manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissibility grounds are EU citizenship, refugee status in the EU or in a third country, repeated applications on the same factual basis, or where the asylum seeker originates from a safe third country. The application will be considered manifestly ill-founded if it contains no or little relevant information, conceals the country of origin or the applicant cannot present good reasons for having delayed the submission of the application beyond a reasonable time. (ibid.)

3.10 Ireland

According to the website of Ireland's Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner,

[t]he EU Treaty Protocol on asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union essentially provides that applications for refugee status from EU nationals shall be inadmissible for processing by another EU Member State except in very exceptional circumstances. These exceptions flow from failure to meet obligations relating to respect for human rights and the rule of law under the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Treaties.

In practice, the application of the Protocol means that applicants from EU States will not be allowed to enter into the asylum process.

Accordingly, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner will not accept asylum applications from any EU citizens. (Ireland n.d.)

3.11 Italy

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Italy in Ottawa indicated that Italy has not received any applications for asylum from EU nationals between 2013 and 2015 (Italy 15 June 2015). Further information on the application of the Protocol by Italy could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

3.12 Latvia

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Latvia in Ottawa stated that the Protocol is "binding to Latvia" and that in the period between 2013 and 2015, Latvia has received one application for asylum from a citizen of the EU, which "was reviewed under the concept of safe country of origin" (6 July 2015).

3.13 Malta

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Malta in the US indicated that it is possible for EU nationals to submit 'international protection applications" in Malta; the official noted, however, that "EU Member States are considered safe countries as provided by the Protocol" (Malta 15 June 2015). The official indicated that in the case of applicants coming from countries considered as safe countries of origin,

it is the policy of the Office [of the Refugee Commissioner] to accept all applications coming from whichever country of origin (including EU member states if that were to materialize) giving [applicants] the possibility of presenting their case fully, and then follow the asylum procedure. (ibid. 23 June 2015)

The official explained that in Malta, there is

a single asylum procedure in place whereby each case is first examined [to assess] whether the applicant fulfils the eligibility criteria for refugee status and, only if the person does not, subsequently, [the Office] examines whether he/she is eligible for subsidiary protection status. (ibid.).

The official stated that Malta has received no applications for asylum from EU nationals for the past 8 years (ibid.).

3.14 Netherlands

According to information on the AIDA Project website, in the Netherlands, "legislation has incorporated the safe country of origin concept" under the 2000 Aliens Act (ECRE and Dutch Council for Refugees n.d.). The same source explains that "in practice the safe country concepts are hardly applied. In the safe country concept the burden of proof against refoulement lies on the side of the [Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) (Immigratie en Naturalisatiedienst, IND)]. No lists of safe countries of origin or safe third countries exist or are being used by the asylum authorities" (ibid.). Information on the number of applications made by nationals of EU member states in the Netherlands could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. The ECRE legal assistant indicated that, according to EU statistics, the Netherlands granted international protection to 5 persons from the EU in 2013 (16 June 2015).

3.15 Poland

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Poland in Ottawa stated that in Poland, the Protocol "is used in practice in procedures for international protection" (Poland 16 June 2015). Poland has received several applications for asylum from EU nationals in 2013-2015 (ibid.). No positive decisions were given (ibid.).

3.16 Romania

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Romania stated that Romania is a party to the Protocol, and "applies its provisions" (Romania 16 June 2015). The source indicated that in Romania,

EU Member States are considered safe countries of origin, [and] the procedure applied to the citizens of these countries is an accelerated one. The Romanian Law No 122/2006 on Asylum provides, nevertheless, procedural guarantees for unlimited access to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. Each application is revised on an individual basis, also in line with EU Directive 32/2013. (ibid.)

The official indicated that Romania had received two requests for asylum from EU nationals during the period of 2013 to 2015, and both were rejected under an accelerated procedure (ibid.).

3.17 Slovak Republic

In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the European Law Unit of the Slovakia Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs indicated that Slovak Republic is a party to the Protocol and that it "respects and applies its provisions" (Slovak Republic 17 June 2015). The source indicated that Slovak Republic has received three applications for asylum from EU nationals during the period of 2013 to 31 May 2015, one of which was rejected as inadmissible because the applicant was an EU national, and the other two were "ceased" for other reasons (ibid.).

3.18 UK

In May 2014, the UK Home Office produced a guidance document, Asylum Policy Instruction, explaining how the Home Office will consider asylum and human rights submissions by nationals from the European Economic Area (EEA) and the EU (UK May 2014, 4). The document states that "[t]he procedures set out in the [Spanish] protocol for handling asylum claims from EU nationals (including dual nationals) must be followed" (ibid., 6). The Home Office "policy objective" when considering asylum claims from EEA/EU nationals is to:

Process claims efficiently and in accordance with the UK's obligations under the Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the EU;

Consider [EEA/EU] claims within the context of a presumption that any such claim is "clearly unfounded" but ensure a process exists to rebut that assumption;

Inform EEA/EU nationals of their free movement rights where they are not subject to removal action. (ibid., 4)

Information on the number of applications made by nationals of EU member states in the UK and the number of such applications that were granted could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

Notes

[1] The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) is a "pan-European alliance of 87 NGOs protecting and advancing the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and displaced persons" with the mission to "promote the establishment of fair and humane European asylum policies and practices in accordance with international human rights law" (ECRE n.d.).

[2] The EU Rights Clinic is a not-for-profit service that "helps EU migrants and their family members overcome problems they encounter when moving within the EU" (ECAS n.d.). The EU Rights Clinic is an initiative launched in collaboration between the University of Kent in Brussels and the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) (European Citizens' House n.d.). ECAS "receives, documents, and classifies" complaints from EU citizens and organizes and carries out advocacy campaigns on rights issues in Europe (ECAS n.d.).

[3] The EU delegation in Ottawa noted that with respect to Eurostat information on claims by EU nationals, "[i]n the case of positive decisions, individual applications must have been taken into consideration or declared admissible. In the case of negative decisions, it is not possible to see on what grounds the applications were rejected, i.e., whether, in line with the Protocol, they were not considered or were declared inadmissible, or whether they were rejected following a consideration/an admissibility decision in an individual case" (EU 15 June 2015).

References

Austria. 25 June 2015. Embassy of Austria in Ottawa. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Belgium. 15 June 2015. Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

_____. 29 May 2015. Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Cyprus. 18 June 2015. Consulate General of the Republic of Cyprus in Toronto. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Czech Republic. 15 June 2015. Correspondence from the Department for Asylum and Migration Policy, Ministry of Interior, provided by an official at the Embassy of Czech Republic in Ottawa.

Estonia. 15 June 2015. Police and Border Guard Board. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

EU Rights Clinic. 22 June 2015. Correspondence from a representative to the Research Directorate.

European Citizen Action Service (ECAS). N.d. "EU Rights Clinic." [Accessed 6 July 2015]

European Citizens' House. N.d. "ECAS Launches EU Rights Clinic in the European Year of Citizens." <<http://www.citizenhouse.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97:ecas-launches-eu-rights-clinic-in-the-european-year-of-citizens&catid=56:all-press-releases&Itemid=315#_ftn1> [Accessed 8 July 2015]

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). 16 June 2015. Correspondence from a legal assistant to the Research Directorate.

_____. 9 September 2014. Asylum Information Database (AIDA) Project. Mind the Gap: An NGO Perspective on Challenges to Accessing Protection in the Common European Asylum System. Annual Report 2013/2014. [Accessed 26 June 2015]

_____. N.d. "About Us." [Accessed 22 June 2015]

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. 31 January 2015. Country Report: Bulgaria. [Accessed 8 July 2015]

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and Dutch Council for Refugees. N.d. "The Safe Country Concepts - Netherlands." [Accessed 22 June 2015]

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and Hungarian Helsinki Committee. 17 February 2015. Country Report: Hungary. [Accessed 20 June 2015]

European Union (EU). 15 June 2015. EU Delegation to Canada in Ottawa, Political and Public Affairs. Correspondence from an advisor to the Research Directorate.

_____. 10 June 2015. EU Delegation to Canada in Ottawa. Correspondence from a representative of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to the Research Directorate.

_____. 10 March 2015. "Promoting and Safeguarding the EUs Values." [Accessed 8 July 2015]

_____. 2012a. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union. <<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN> [Accessed 17 June 2015]

_____. 2012b. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union. [Accessed 8 July 2015]

_____. 1997. Treaty of Amsterdam. [Accessed 13 June 2015]

_____. N.d.a. "List of Countries." [Accessed 22 June 2015]

_____. N.d.b. European Asylum Support Office (EASO). "What is EASO." [Accessed 22 June 2015]

Finland. 12 June 2015. Correspondence from an official of the Finnish Immigration Service, provided through an official at the Embassy of Finland in Ottawa.

_____. N.d. Finnish Immigration Service. "Accelerated Procedure." [Accessed 12 June 2015]

Ireland. N.d. Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. "EU Applicants." [Accessed 19 June 2015]

Italy. 15 June 2015. Embassy of Italy in Ottawa. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Latvia. 6 July 2015. Embassy of the Republic of Latvia in Ottawa. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Malta. 23 June 2015. Embassy of Malta in Washington, DC. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

_____. 15 June 2015. Embassy of Malta in Washington, DC. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Poland. 16 June 2015. Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Ottawa. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Romania. 16 June 2015. Embassy of Romania in Ottawa. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Slovak Republic. 17 June 2015. Correspondence from the European Law Unit, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, provided by an official at the Embassy of the Slovak Republic in Ottawa.

United Kingdom (UK). May 2014. Home Office. Asylum Policy Instructions: EEA/EU Asylum Claims. Version 2.0. [Accessed 2 July 2015]

Additional Sources Consulted

Oral sources: The following were unable to provide information for this Response: Embassy of Sweden in Ottawa.

The following were unable to provide information within the time constraints of this Response: Bulgaria - Embassy in Ottawa; Denmark - Embassy in Ottawa; Germany - Embassy in Ottawa; Luxembourg - Embassy in the United States; Netherlands - Embassy in Ottawa; Portugal - Embassy in Ottawa.

Attempts to contact the following were unsuccessful within the time constraints of this Response: Croatia - Embassy in Ottawa; France - Embassy in Ottawa; Greece - Asylum Service, Embassy of Greece in Ottawa; Lithuania - Embassy in Ottawa; Slovenia - Embassy in Ottawa; Spain - Embassy in Ottawa; UK - Embassy in Ottawa.

Internet sites, including: Amnesty International; BBC; Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; Danish Refugee Council; Denmark - Danish Immigration Service; ecoi.net; European Database of Asylum Law; European Union - Immigration Portal, Migration and Home Affairs; Factiva; Forced Migration Review; France - Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides; Freedom House; Germany - Federal Ministry of Interior; Greece - Asylum Service; Human Rights Quarterly; Human Rights Watch; Hungarian Helsinki Committee; International Crisis Group; Ireland - Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner; Irish Refugee Council; Italian Council for Refugees; Menedék; Latvia - Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs; Quaker Council for European Affairs; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Sweden - Swedish Migration Agency; UN - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Refworld, UNHCR.