Executive summary

Meeting protective demands outside state territory is no new phenomenon. This study is concerned with a particular practice of extending protection, which may be termed "Protected Entry Procedures". It describes arrangements allowing a non-national

… to approach the potential host state outside its territory with a claim for asylum or other form of international protection, and
… to be granted an entry permit in case of a positive response to that claim, be it preliminary or final.

Protected Entry Procedures aim at complementing the present system of extraterritorial migration control in the EU with mechanisms allowing for the differentiation between persons in need of protection and other categories of migrants before they reach the border of potential host states. What distinguishes Protected Entry Procedures from traditional resettlement is precisely the fact that the individual is directly engaging the potential host state in a procedure aiming at the securing of physical transfer and legal protection. In this mechanism, the individual autonomy of the protection seeker is accorded a central role. A primary goal of Protected Entry Procedures would be to offer legal alternatives for migration to bona fide protection seekers. It aims at identifying deserving beneficiaries at the earliest stage possible, which may assist in cutting fiscal, social and other costs both for the potential host country and for the protection seeker. On the other hand, the potential for cost reduction is bought at the price of certain risks for protection seekers and destination states alike, and the real challenge is to find a system that balances the former against the latter.

When formulating Protected Entry Procedures, actors will relate to the following choices:

… Formal versus informal approaches: Should the Protected Entry Procedure be law-based and predictable, or policy-based and flexible? Could a mix of both elements be conceived?
… Definition of beneficiaries: Is the Protected Entry Procedure mainly used for protection seekers with close links to the destination state, e.g. family ties? Does it merely cater for narrowly defined vulnerable groups? Or, is it inclusively formulated, e.g. by largely replicating those definitions of beneficiaries applicable in territorial processing?
… Choice of countries: Is the Protected Entry Procedure used in third countries only, or is it used in countries of origin as well? Are applications from third countries turned down by referring to the protective capacity of that country (i.e. by using a safe third country-argument)?
… Risk distribution during decision-making: Is the applicant obliged to wait for the whole length of determination procedures in the country where the diplomatic representation is located, or is an entry visa granted after a preliminary assessment (testing the likelihood that the applicant fulfils definitional criteria)?
… Aversion of persecutory threats: Does the diplomatic representation remain passive vis-ý-vis persecutory threats during the waiting period, or is there a possibility of extending rudimentary forms of protection in situ (e.g. by organising a transfer out of the territory of the state in question)?

This study shows that Protected Entry Procedures are unilaterally made use of by six Member States, with a notable divergence among their practices (Austria, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK). Clearly, these states perceive the Protected Entry Procedure as a complement to, and not a replacement of territorial processing. Our analysis also revealed that international law features a mandatory requirement to consider urgent protection claims filed with diplomatic representations and to facilitate legal entry, e.g. by issuing an entry visa, in specific cases. Furthermore, expansion, qualification and harmonisation of Protected Entry Procedures are in no way contrary to the present acquis. Quite the opposite: the goal to fight illegal immigration would be accommodated, while the intentions as well as the letter of the Tampere Conclusion would be implemented.

To be a credible alternative to illegal migration and the territorial seeking of protection, Protected Entry Procedures must be utilised widely and function in a predictable and uniform manner. The study concludes that the harmonisation of a unilateral Protected Entry Procedure through a Community instrument setting minimum standards should be considered. In a second, and legislatively much more challenging stage, the development of a truly multilateral system could be discussed, by which Member States would integrate the Protected Entry Procedure into their joint visa policies, and refine it with an allocation mechanism regulating the distribution of protective responsibilities. Maintaining a degree of informality and flexibility is appropriate with regard to Protected Entry Procedures in countries of origin. With regard to third countries, practices should be law-based, predictable, reflecting the refugee definition and categories of subsidiary protection to their full extent, and highly integrated with the territorial processing of protection claims. For claims filed in countries of origin and urgent claims filed in third countries, the representation should be entitled to grant visas based on accelerated prima facie assessments. Finally, a demanding reconceptualisation of the "safe third country"; notion is necessary, if a Protected Entry Procedure in third countries is intended to offer a realistic alternative to unauthorised entry.