Since 1980s, a number of factors caused an overall enhancement in the number of persons applying for asylum in Europe. This rapid increase in asylum applications and the end of the ideological gains towards refugees with the end of the politicized Cold War environment, necessitated European countries to re-focus on their immigration and asylum policies in a more systematic manner, especially after the ratification of the &lsquo / Single European Act&rsquo / . Following the transfer of competencies in asylum and migration to the Community level, discussions were quickly moved within a European framework although harmonization of divergent national practices about an issue directly related to state sovereignty, has not been deemed as a troublefree task for the Member States. On the other hand, the acquis regarding this problematic and state-centric issue has already started to be transferred to the Applicant Countries for the EU membership, as part of the pre-accession strategy, and also to the third countries through bilateral agreements. This thesis work will focus on the concerns regarding the extension of these European asylum acquis to the third countries as well as on the advantages of creating a Common Asylum Policy within the Union and its Associates.

Denna uppsats ämnar att undersöka arbetet med den gemensamma asyl policyn inom EU.Beslutet för policyn togs 1999 vid EU mötet i Finska Tammerfors och började med en plan på fem år.Jag vill i denna studie se vad som har hänt sedan 1999 och effekten av detta på personer som söker asyl inom EU:s gränser. Detta är ett interdisciplinärt arbete genom att jag ser på faktorer som de legala utvecklingarna genom vilka lagar som presenterats och implementerats samt ett frågeformulär som jag sänt till personer som jobbar för organisationer i samarbete med the European Council for Refugees and Exiles för att få deras syn på utvecklingen. Jag presenterar även statistik och diagram från the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees för att illustrera mönster i utvecklingen av migrationsmönster. Utgångspunkten för harmoniseringen är att alla Medlems Stater ska behandla ansökningar om asyl på ett likvärdigt sätt, men under nuvarande omständigheter verkar det som att det finns stora skillnader i antalet ansökningar, antalet erkända flyktingar och vilken status som godkänns inom EU:s medlemsländer.Dublin regulationen uppfattas som ett orättvist verktyg mot asylsökanden eftersom staterna har olikheter i erkännandet och olika status för flyktingar. EU:s medlemsländer har en ganska lång väg kvar i harmoniseringsarbetet innan de kan hävda att de har likvärdig hantering av asylsökanden. / The aim of this study is to investigate the development of the Common European Asylum System which was called for at the Tampere European Council in 1999. The intention was to harmonize the legal standards of asylum seekers and refugees and coordinating the policies Thus, with this study I want to give an account as to what has happened so far and what effect this might have had on asylum seekers in the Member States of the European Union.This is done through an interdisciplinary approach by looking at the developments in the legal section as to what laws have been passed and implemented so far but also with a questionnaire sent to organizations working in connection to European Council for Refugees and Exiles aiming to understand their perception of the harmonization process. Further, I present statistics and diagrams taken from statistic publications of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in order to illustrate patterns in the history of migration as to trends and patterns.The main idea of the harmonization process is that all Member States should treat asylum applications in a similar way. However at present there still seems to be major differences in the numbers of applications, the recognition rates and what status granted between the Member States of the European Union. The Dublin Regulation is perceived as an unjust tool against the asylum seekers since states have differences in the recognition and statuses. The Member States of the European Union still have a very long way to go in this harmonization process to claim equal treatment of asylum seekers.

Turkey has been one of the few countries that signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees with the provision of maintaining geographical limitation to that of offering protection only to European nationals. This is, however, expected to change as Turkey heads towards EU membership. Since 1999, Turkey has been declared as a candidate country to the European Union (EU), in the Helsinki Summit. It is expected to adopt EU Asylum Acquis into its legislation and to lift the geographical limitation of the 1951 Geneva Convention. This study aims to analyze EU&rsquo / s Common Asylum Policy in order to present a comprehensive overview to EU Asylum Acquis and practices that are expected to be adopted by Turkey during the pre-accession process. The aim of this thesis is to analyze deficiencies of European Common Asylum Policy and its potential positive and negative effects on Turkey&rsquo / s asylum policy.

Denna rapport syftar till att utvärdera de för- och nackdelar den svenska gasmarknadsmodellen har relativt de shippermodeller som finns i Europa, där modellernas lämplighet att stimulera ökad konkurrens i synnerhet beaktas. Därtill behandlas de krav som nuvarande och kommande EU-lagstiftning ställer och vilka konsekvenser detta får för Sveriges del. Studien ska ge underlag för en bedömning om den svenska modellen är välfungerande eller om en förändring kan motiveras, och i så fall i vilken riktning. Till fördel för nuvarande svenska modell lyfts lättförståelighet och lägre motpartsrisk vid kapacitetsbokning fram. Även pristransparensen bedöms vara bättre till följd av att gas och transport faktureras separat. Transportkostnad fram till den svenska gränsen ingår likväl fortfarande i gaspriset. En shippermodell å andra sidan, bedöms skapa bättre förutsättningar för konkurrens och därmed öka incitamenten för utländska aktörer att ta sig in på den svenska marknaden. Dels ges aktörerna möjlighet att konkurrera om transport, dels skulle modellen överenstämma med de modeller utländska aktörer har på sina hemmamarknader. Många aktörer menar att den svenska modellen fungerar tillfredsställande i sin nuvarande utformning och att val av marknadsmodell inte är viktigast för utvecklandet av naturgasmarknaden. Mot bakgrund av detta samt de fördelar modellen har och den svenska marknadens ringa storlek, så framstår det som ett rimligt alternativ att behålla den. Vad gäller EU:s harmoniseringsarbete är det två nätkoder som i nuläget är mest aktuella, CMP och CAM, där CAM får konsekvenser för kapacitetsbokning i gränspunkter ellanentry/exit-zoner. Gränspunkten mellan Sverige och Danmark är i nuläget undantaget från CAM men åsikterna om huruvida detta är möjligt framöver eller inte går isär, ytterligare införselpunkter kan komma att skapa problem. Därtill vet vi inte i nuläget vilka konsekvenser kommande lagstiftning kan få för Sverige. Ett modellbyte kan således bli oundvikligt i slutändan. Vid ett byte är vår rekommendation är att undersöka möjligheten att övergå till en hel shippermodell, där både transmissions- och distributionsnät inkluderas i entry/exitzonen. Att ha en avvikande modell är tidskrävande, primärt för Energimarknadsinspektionen och Swedegas, till följd av EU:s harmoniseringsarbete som utarbetas för en shippermodell då detta är den vanligaste lösningen i Europa i allmänhet. Vi tror dessutom att en sådan lösning skulle gynna konkurrensen på marknaden, inte minst på hushållsmarknaden till följd av att kunden enbart får en kontaktpunkt oavsett om gasleverantör och distributionsbolag befinner sig inom samma koncern eller inte. / This report aims to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the Swedish gas market model in comparision to shipper models, which are common in the EU in general. The models’ suitability to stimulate competition is especially considered. In addition, the requirements of present and future EU legislation sets and the resulting consequences for Sweden are covered in the report. The study will provide a basis for assessing whether the Swedish model is well functioning or if a change is needed, and if so in which direction. Advantages of the Swedish model are that it is easy to understand and that it has a lower counterparty risk when it comes to capacity reservation. Also, the price transparency is considered to be better since the gas and transport charges are invoiced separately. Transportation cost to the Swedish border is nevertheless still included in the gas price. A shipper model on the other hand, is expected to create a more competitive market and to increase incentives for foreign players to enter it. The players are given the opportunity to compete for transportation and the model would also match the models foreign players face in their home markets, thus lowering the entry barriers. Many respondents think that the Swedish model works well in its present form and that the choice of market model is not of highest importance for the development of the natural gas market. In light of this, the benefits of the current model and the Swedish market's small size, it seems like a reasonable option to keep it. As for the EU harmonization, there are two network codes that are currently most relevant, CMP and CAM. The CAM network code has implications for capacity reservation in the cross-border points between different entry/exit-zones. The point between Sweden and Denmark is currently excluded from CAM, but opinions regarding whether this is possible in the future or  not differ. Additional entry points might create problems. In addition, at this point we do not know what impact future legislation may have. A model change can thus be inevitable in the  end.   If changing, our recommendation is to investigate the possibility of switching to a full shipper model where both the transmission and distribution networks are included in the entry/exit-zone. Having a model that differs from the rest of EU is time consuming, primarily for EI and Swedegas, since the harmonization efforts made by the EU are tailored for a shipper model since this is the prevailing system in Europe in general. We also believe that such a solution would benefit market competition. This is particularly true for the residential market because the customer only gets one contact point, whether gas suppliers and distribution companies are in the same Group or not.