COMMISSION
STAFF WORKING PAPER
Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2010)
Background
This paper summarises the main actions taken in 2010 at both EU and
Member State level for each of the commitments made in the European Pact on
Immigration and Asylum and the relevant asylum and migration objectives in the
Stockholm Programme and its accompanying Action Plan. The reporting period is
from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2010.
Following publication of the First Annual Report on Immigration and
Asylum,[1]
the JHA Council adopted conclusions,[2]
which were then endorsed by the European Council, and invited the
Commission to continue reporting on the progress made, covering both the
implementation of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum and of the relevant
sections of the Stockholm Programme, and its accompanying Action Plan. This
report serves to meet this request.
Overview
The structure of this paper broadly follows the main commitments of
the Pact, with main sections on Legal immigration and Integration; Irregular
immigration and Return; Border Control; International Protection; Unaccompanied
Minors; and the Global Approach to Migration. A Statistical Annex providing
data for 2010 is also given. Each main section then addresses both the
applicable Pact commitment(s) and Stockholm Programme objectives, giving, for
each one of these, relevant developments and achievements, at both EU and
Member State level.
Methodology
The summaries of developments at national level presented here have
been prepared notably on the basis of factual information provided by National
Contact Points of the European Migration Network (EMN NCPs). Information on
developments at EU level has been provided primarily by the Commission. The inputs
provided by the EMN NCPs have been invaluable for drawing up this paper.
However, one should note that the summaries in this paper are the
responsibility of the Commission; the EMN will under its own responsibility
produce its complementary EMN Annual Policy Report 2010 where more detailed
information may be obtained.[3]
This paper should not be treated as an
exhaustive identification of all relevant Member State activity in relation to
each commitment/objective. In particular, the fact that a Member State is not
identified in relation to a certain activity or policy does not mean that it
did not or does not pursue that activity or policy, but rather that there were
no specific developments in 2010 and/or because such developments were not
reported by the EMN NCPs.
I. Legal immigration – integration........................................................................................... 4
I.1 Economic migration............................................................................................................... 4
I.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum........................................................................ 4
I.1.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.3)............................................................................. 10
I.1.3 Key statistics..................................................................................................................... 12
I.2 Family Reunification............................................................................................................ 12
I.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum...................................................................... 12
I.2.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4)............................................................................. 14
I.3 Other legal migration............................................................................................................ 14
I.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum...................................................................... 14
I.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4)............................................................................. 17
I.4 Integration............................................................................................................................ 18
I.4.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum...................................................................... 18
I.4.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.5).............................................................................. 21
II. Irregular Immigration and Return.................................................................................. 25
II.1 Irregular migration.............................................................................................................. 25
II.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum.................................................................... 25
II.1.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.6)............................................................................ 29
II.2 Return................................................................................................................................. 33
II.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum.................................................................... 33
II.2.2 Stockholm Programme.................................................................................................... 36
II.2.3 Key statistics.................................................................................................................... 37
II.3 Actions against human trafficking...................................................................................... 37
II.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum.................................................................... 37
II.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 7.3 plus Section 4.4.2).................................................. 39
III. Border Control................................................................................................................. 39
III.1 Control and surveillance at external
borders...................................................................... 39
III.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum................................................................... 39
III.1.2 Stockholm Programme................................................................................................... 43
III.2 Cooperation with respect to border
control........................................................................ 45
III.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum................................................................... 45
III.2.2 Stockholm Programme................................................................................................... 47
III.3 Management of the External Borders................................................................................ 49
III.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum................................................................... 49
III.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 5.1).............................................................................. 50
IV. International Protection................................................................................................... 50
IV.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum...................................................................... 50
IV.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.2.1)............................................................................. 57
IV.3 Key statistics..................................................................................................................... 60
V. Unaccompanied minors..................................................................................................... 60
V.1 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.7 plus
2.3.2).............................................................. 60
V.2 Key statistics...................................................................................................................... 63
VI. Global Approach to Migration........................................................................................ 63
VI.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum...................................................................... 63
VI.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.1)............................................................................. 69
VII. Statistical Annex............................................................................................................. 73
Table 1: Provisional Statistics on Legal Migration –
First Residence Permits Granted for
............. Education,
Remunerated Activities and Other Reasons, including, when
............. available, Family
Reunification, in 2010..................................................................... 73
Table 2: Statistics on irregular
migration – Third-country nationals apprehended, ordered to leave and
returned (including both forced and voluntary return) in 2010.................................................. 75
Table 3: Statistics on border –
Third-country nationals refused entry in 2010........................... 77
Table 4: Published Statistics on
Asylum Applicants and on First Instance Decisions by Outcome in 2010 78
Table 5: Statistics on Unaccompanied
Minors in 2010.............................................................. 80
I. Legal
immigration – integration
I.1.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment:
I.(a) to invite Member States and the Commission to implement policies for
labour migration, with due regard to the
acquis communautaire and Community preference, bearing in mind potential human
resources within the EU, and using the most appropriate resources, which take
account of all the needs of the labour market of each Member State, pursuant to
the conclusions of the European Council of 13 and 14 March 2008;
At EU level the implementation of
the 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration[4]
progressed. In July 2010, the Commission presented proposals for two new
Directives. The first one concerns third country national seasonal workers, who
are needed, in particular, in the agriculture and tourism sectors. Seasonal
workers are a group that need protection – they often face exploitation and
poor conditions which may threaten their health and safety. The proposal
introduces a special procedure for the entry and residence, and a common set of
rights and obligations. The second legislative proposal sets up a fast-track
entry procedure for intra-corporate transferees from non-EU countries bringing
skills and knowledge that EU companies do not have at their disposal. It brings
know-how and innovation to the EU economy and makes it more competitive.
As part of the work on assessing national
labour market needs, the European Migration Network (EMN) undertook a study on
"Satisfying Labour Demand through Migration."[5]
In addition, a study on "Employment and Labour Market Integration Policies
in the European Union (2000-2009)" was commissioned from the International
Organisation for Migration (IOM) on Migration,[6]
which inter alia shows that, at EU level, recent
third-country national migrants accounted for an employment increase of almost
3.7 million and around a quarter of the overall rise in employment.
At national level, several Member
States reported on the adoption of new policy in 2010 (IE, EL FR, LU, HU, NL,
PL, SI). This included the introduction of ministerial decrees setting
conditions for obtaining residence permits for Ôexceptional economic contributionsÕ
(FR) and conditions for exempting third-country nationals from acquiring work
permits (HU), as well as the introduction of new arrangements concerning the
issuing of employment permits for doctors (IE). In EL, the National Immigration
Policy aimed primarily at the rational management of legal migration flows,
using legal migration as a way to meet the labour market needs, in an effort to
enhance the competitiveness of the national economy and promote smooth
integration of long term migrants. In LU, following an analysis of the national
economic situation, new measures were proposed in April 2010 aimed at improving
national competitiveness and ensuring convergence between migration policy and
labour shortages, while taking into account Union preference. An
inter-ministerial Working Group is currently working on a set of
recommendations to apply these measures. In NL, the Modern Migration Policy
Bill was adopted during 2010 which provided for fast, effective and manageable
admission procedures for third-country nationals arriving for economic reasons.
PL reported on the adoption of their National Employment Action Plan which
envisaged the creation of an appropriate migration policy responding to the
needs in the labour market, as well as the reinforcement of integration for
migrants in the labour market. Regulations prolonging, for an indefinite period
of time, the possibility to undertake work by neighbouring third-country
nationals on the basis of an employerÕs declaration of their willingness to
employ such workers were also adopted. In SI the proposal for a new Act on
Employment and Work of Foreigners was adopted, which included a number of new
measures, such as free access to the labour market for third-country nationals
who have resident status in another Member State.
Improvements to the governance of legal
migration were reported, including the modification of existing policies (CZ,
IE, ES, LV, HU, FI, SK, SE, UK). In six Member States, these modifications
related to legislative amendments (CZ, LV, HU, SK, FI, SE), and for FI this was
still in Parliament, or implementation of new legislation adopted in December
2009 (ES). The legislative changes related to institutional changes (CZ, LV),
the reinforcement and adjustment of the existing instruments for measuring the
needs of the labour market (ES), the improvement of third-country national
workersÕ rights to residence permits (HU, SK), the introduction of exemptions
for particular categories of workers (SK) and the improvement of arrangements
for particular worker groups (SE). In addition, IE updated immigration
arrangements through the consolidation of policies with regard to work permit
holders and the introduction of Ôgrace periodsÕ for those working for less than
five years who have become redundant involuntarily.[7]
UK also made amendments to their points-based system in 2010, which included
the revision of criteria for Tier 1 (highly skilled applicants), as well as the
introduction of additional requirements for Tier 2 (skilled workers with a job
offer).
Several Member States (CZ, EL, ES, AT, PL,
RO, SK, FI, UK) reported on their plans for the future development of their
labour migration policy. These future plans included launching the
ÔRed-White-Red Card,Õ a new points-based migration model (AT); establishing a
system of economic migration which would allow third-country nationals to apply
for three different types of single permits depending on their skills (CZ);
preparing the issuance of residence permits to third country nationals in the
form of a separate document and the creation of one-stop-shop for immigrants
(EL); providing the possibility of on-site hiring by companies (IT); setting up
an flexible economic migration system, corresponding to the identified needs of
the national labour market (RO); developing priorities and rules for economic
migration (SK); and launching a pilot project for developing operating models
for recruitment in the health sector, including international recruitment
either as a national project or with other EU Member States (FI). Of these
Member States, AT and PL foresaw potential amendments to their legislation
concerning economic migration, which for PL included expanding the issuance of
residence permits to graduates of higher schools and universities seeking employment.
In addition, UK envisaged future reforms which would control economic migration
by limiting, in the future, the number of third-country nationals entering the
UK for employment and introducing measures to reduce abuse of immigration
through Õstudent routes.Õ
To ensure that labour migration meets the
various needs of the labour market, several Member States (EE, EL, IT, CY, HU,
AT, PT, SI, UK) reported on the implementation of their Annual Quotas, as well
as the changes experienced in their quota systems. A few Member States lowered
their quotas (IT, CY, HU), with only one Member State reporting the retention
of the same quota from the previous year (PT). In EL, a decrease was
experienced in the number of requests by employers for third-country national
workers. In SI, although the implementation of the work permit quota continued,
no obligation was placed on employers to follow this quota in 2010. ROÕs draft
National Strategy on Immigration for the period 2011-2014 envisaged setting up
admission quotas to manage labour market needs from 2011. An interim limit was
introduced in the UK on economic migration of third-country nationals ahead of
a permanent limit to be introduced in 2011.
ES and LT reduced their list of professions
and/or sectors where labour shortages existed. In ES, the reduction was a
consequence of a self-regulating mechanism reflecting labour market needs. For
example, in LT the professions included in the Shortage Occupations List
decreased, compared to 2009, with only six professions included in the second
half of 2010. In addition, FR reported that the list of shortage occupations
was extended in 2010 due to the continued implementation of agreements signed
with different countries of origin for the concerted management of migration flows.
A few Member States reported the
involvement of other actors for the implementation of labour migration
policies. For example, consultations were held with various stakeholders for
the negotiation of the new migration model (AT); a policy proposal (still under
consideration) concerning the role, duties and practices of the public
employment service in international recruitment was drafted (FI); and proposals
to implement an annual limit on economic migration from third-country nationals
(UK). Some Member States (BE, ES, FR, HU, UK) also emphasised the continued
involvement of other stakeholders, including the Economic Migration Service
(BE), the public employment agencies (ES, FR, HU), the Immigration Office (HU)
and the Migration Advisory Committee (UK). In ES, the Tripartite Labour
Commission on Immigration, consisting of the main employer and trade union
organisations, as well as local authorities, continued its involvement.
With regard to salary thresholds, EE
reported on governmental debates on lowering the salary threshold for
third-country nationals entering the Member State, with it finally being
decided not to lower the salary threshold.
Some Member States (EE, AT, PL, SK)
targeted specific groups. These included (highly) qualified workers (AT, PL,
SK), seasonal workers (EL), young people with higher education (EE), workers
from Western Balkans and Caucasus regions (PL) and students and researchers
(SK).
Four Member States (BG, CZ, PL, UK) changed
their policy as a result of the economic crisis. These changes related to the
limitation of work permits issued (BG); impacts on the Green Card project (CZ);
more flexible approach of employers of third-country nationals experiencing
temporary financial difficulties, resulting in reducing work hours and wages
(PL); and tighter entry criteria for highly skilled
third-country national workers (UK), including increased salary thresholds for
workers entering on the Tier 1 visa for highly skilled workers.
Commitment:
I.(b) to increase the attractiveness of the EU for highly qualified workers
At EU level, work continued on the
preparation for the coming into force of Directive 2009/50/EC on the EU Blue
Card Scheme in June 2011. A meeting of the contact committee for this directive
was held in September 2010, and a wide ranging debate took place based on
questions that the Member States had sent in advance. Despite this, for the
time being, formal transposition is so far disappointing, with only one Member
State (ES) having formally communicated to the Commission its national measures
of transposition and two others (EE, NL) of partial transposition.
At national level, most of the
Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, IT, CY, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL,
PT, RO, FI, SE, SK) took steps to increase the attractiveness of the EU for
highly qualified workers. These steps included preparations for the
transposition of the Blue Card Directive, as well as the implementation of
incentive mechanisms for highly-qualified workers. With regard to the
transposition of the Blue Card Directive, several Member States reported that
they were in the process of transposing the Directive through the introduction
of draft legislation (DE, EE, FR, LV, LT, AT, PL, PT, RO, SK), whilst others
had undertaken preparatory work for transposition (BE, CY, EL, LU, HU, MT, NL,
FI) or planned to do so in 2011 (IT, SE). Both ES and CZ adopted legislation
transposing the Blue Card Directive, while in SI, national legislation was
considered to be already in line with the Directive.
Additional measures aimed at attracting
highly-qualified workers were undertaken. These measures included simplifying
procedures and relaxing conditions for entry or renewal of permits (CZ, DE, ES,
IT, HU, PT), facilitating or planning to facilitate access to the labour market
for third-country nationals who graduated from education establishments in the
Member State (IE, AT) and establishing a new fiscal regime related to the
recruitment of highly skilled foreign nationals in order to decrease
recruitment costs (LU). In addition, one-stop shops were opened in DK and new
expat centres were established in NL, which aimed to provide high-quality
services to highly skilled migrants in order to quickly enter and integrate in
the Member State. Examples of those who benefited from these measures included
third-country national graduates with university degrees from the Member States
(IE); individuals providing exceptional economic contributions through the
creation of jobs (FR); academics (ES, IT); highly qualified executives (ES);
engineers, technicians and scientists (ES); teachers (PT); and artists of
recognised international repute (ES).
A few Member States (FR, ,LT, AT) planned
policies to further facilitate the reception of highly-skilled workers by
simplifying administrative procedures, through the establishment of a single
contact point for both employers and highly qualified migrants (FR), shortening
terms for processing applications for residence permits for highly qualified
workers from six to three months (LT) and introducing a points-based system
which would favour the entry of (highly) qualified migrants (AT).
and
take new measures to further facilitate the reception of students and
researchers and their movement within the
EU;
At EU level, the Commission started
the evaluation of Directive 2004/114/EC on third-country national students and
of Directive 2005/71/EC on third-country national researchers. In accordance
with both directives, the Commission is preparing a report to the European
Parliament and to the Council on their application in the Member States. These
two reports will be available in 2011.
At national level, a number of
Member States undertook actions or put forward proposals for future changes to
their policy area concerning students (BG, IE, EE, ES, FR, LT, LU, HU, AT, PL,
PT, SK, UK) and researchers (ES, LT, LU, PL).
For students, a few Member States
(IE, EE, PT) undertook new actions or modified procedures to facilitate the
entry and stay of third-country nationals through the simplification of procedures.
For example, EE
introduced an exception in the Aliens Act from 1st October 2010,
which allows third-county nationals legally staying in Estonia to apply for a
residence permit in Estonia (instead of from the Estonian foreign
representation) for studying in an officially certified study programme of
MasterÕs study or Doctoral study. FR and PT also
undertook measures to promote academic facilities in order to attract
third-country national students. For example, FR took new measures to promote
the French education systems abroad through the Campus France Services. PT also
reported on future plans to propose the extension of opportunities to issue
temporary residence permits to students enrolled in a study programme or study
research. LU continued to support the reception of third-country national
students through the funding of exchange programmes.
IE launched a new five year strategy
document ÔInvesting in Global RelationshipsÕ which set objectives for increased
international student numbers in higher education and English language schools
in order to increase the economic impact of the international education sector
by Û300 million to Û1.2 billion by 2015.
In EE, legislative amendments were adopted
concerning residence permit for study to participate in voluntary for voluntary
service within the framework of a youth project or program recognised by the
Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia. In ES, amended legislation
regulating the regime for admission for study, student exchange, non-employee
status training or volunteering, establishing permits for stay, as well as
authorising the related third-country nationals to undertake remunerated
activity providing this does not restrict the pursuit of their studies. The new
legislation also recognised facilities for third-country students taking part
in EU programmes aimed at promoting mobility towards and within the Union.
In HU, with regard to the modification of
entry conditions, legislative amendments were adopted requiring students to
show that they had sufficient resources for themselves and their family members.
Some Member States (IE, FR, LT, PL, UK)
outlined planned actions relating to students. These related to legislative
proposals facilitating the issuance of residence permits for students (PL); a
review of access to the labour market by third-country national students by the
Interdepartmental Committee on Student Immigration (IE); the planned
establishment of a Mediterranean Office for Youth promoting student mobility
(FR); an expansion of those who would be able to obtain a residence permit on
the basis of studies (LT); and a review of the student ÔrouteÕ, in order to
propose a more selective system for students entering the territory (UK).
For researchers, legislative
amendments were implemented (ES) or introduced (LT) in order to facilitate the
application for researchers wishing to enter these Member States. These new
provisions concerned the creation of a Ôresearch visaÕ which defined a
facilitated regime for the granting of residence and work permits to workers
engaged in research activities, as well as a special regime for researchers
(ES), and proposed the reduction in the application processing time for
researchers to three months (LT). In LU, legislation on training and research
introduced in 2008 continued to show its effects with the situation of
doctorate and post-doctorate researchers improving. LU also established
structural indicators for the management of researchers, which would be
integrated in the performance contracts 2011-2013 of research institutions and
universities. PL undertook actions to elaborate its final policy-oriented
conclusions for future actions
in this domain. Among these were facilitating the admission of researchers and
strengthening its scholarship system.
Concerning the transposition of Directive
2004/114/EC on admission conditions for students, BG proposed draft legislation
which aimed to make additions specifying the groups of third-country nationals
who are entitled to right of residence under the Directive.
Commitment:
I.(c) to ensure, in encouraging temporary or circular
migration, pursuant to the conclusions of the European Council of 14 December
2007, that those policies do not aggravate the brain drain;
See also Commitment V.(b) [Section VI.1)
At EU level, co-operation with third
countries is an essential element of the EU's immigration policy, which
promotes all measures that aim at minimising the negative and maximising the
positive impacts of highly skilled immigration on developing countries. The
"Blue Card" Directive, for example, makes a clear reference to the
need to develop ethical recruitment policies and principles applicable to
public and private employers in key sectors, for example, the health and
education sectors. The directive is without prejudice to EU or bilateral
ethical recruitment agreements, and it allows Member States to reject an
application for ethical recruitment reasons.
At national level, several Member
States (DE, EE, ES, IT, SI, SE, UK) reported on ongoing actions to prevent or
not aggravate the brain drain. These measures related to promoting the transfer
of knowledge with the ÔReturning Experts Programme' (DE); facilitating the
return of third-country nationals who have benefited from working in the Member
State (ES); implementing projects increasing the entrepreneurship of migrants
returning to Africa (IT); improving brain circulation through enabling
temporary return (SE); and implementing a Medical Training Initiative providing
third-country medical specialists with a fixed period of training in the Member
State before returning to their country of origin (UK).
Regarding the countries subjected to brain
drain, UK developed a list of countries and professions subject to brain drain,
based on the OECDÕs Corporation Development Assistance CommitteeÕs list of aid
recipients, created by the UK Department of International Development. Measures
in the UK aimed mostly at health sector professions.
With regard to future plans for combating
brain drain, PTÕs Immigration Integration Plan 2011-2013 envisaged the creation
of a working group to coordinate the attribution of scholarships with the needs
of the countries of origin in order to limit brain drain.
On awareness raising campaigns, two Member
States (EE, PL) undertook measures addressed to their nationals wishing to
return from other (Member) States through the launching of a job vacancy
website (EE) and the implementation of an information campaign providing Polish
nationals with information which would assist them in deciding on returning to
their home country (PL).
With regard to temporary and circular
migration,[8]
some Member States (BE, CZ, ES, IT, NL, PL) undertook actions or introduced new
legislation to favour this migration in 2010. These measures included the
increased cooperation with third countries to implement the principles of
circular migration (CZ); the offering of 9 224 seasonal contracts in countries
of origin and the implementation of circular migration projects in the
framework of bilateral agreements (ES); plus the setting of a quota of 4 000
third-country national seasonal workers in order to encourage circular
migration programmes (IT). In addition, IT, NL introduced projects aimed at
promoting circular migration. For example, in NL, the pilot project provided an
opportunity for a small group of labour migrants from Indonesia and South
Africa to perform temporary work. This project also aimed to enable the
individuals to improve their professional positions or set up a business of
their own upon return to their country of origin. PL adopted regulations prolonging, for an
indefinite period of time, the possibility to undertake work by third-country
nationals for up to 6 months without the need to obtain the work permit.
Concerning future actions, three Member
States (CZ, NL, SE) planned to develop their circular migration policy, through
the integration of third-country cooperation into a new legislative act (CZ),
the continuation of pilot projects in third countries (NL) and the development
of recommendations from the Committee on Circular Migration (SE). In addition,
ROÕs draft National Strategy on Immigration, for the period 2011-2014,
envisages the setting of quotas for temporary migrant workers, offering
third-country nationals the possibility to gain professional experiences, which
could subsequently be used in the country of origin upon return.
I.1.2
Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.3)
invites the Commission and the Council to
continue to implement the Policy Plan on Legal Migration;
See the entry under Commitment I (a)
[Section I.1.1]
Improving
skills recognition and labour matching
At EU level, the Commission started
preparation for its policy paper on addressing labour shortages through
migration in EU Member States which could be adopted in 2012 in the form of a
Green Paper. Currently there is no EU wide method to assess what skills are
needed for specific labour shortages in the Member States and whether workers
from third countries have the skills and qualifications needed to fill in such
jobs. An EU wide system of identifying labour shortages would help those Member
States that do not have their own well-developed systems, and would be more
transparent for immigrants allowing them to apply where their skills are needed
most. A common and transparent European framework improving the recognition of
skills and qualifications of third country nationals would help employers to
identify more accurately third country nationals to employ, and would allow the
skills potential of migrants to be fully realised.
At national level, many Member
States (DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, SI, SK)
undertook actions related to skills recognition and labour matching.
For the former, actors involved in the
process included university authorities (AT), government ministries (ES, LT),
employers (ES, FR, SI), Trade Unions (ES), Qualifications Recognition
Information Centres (MT) and national organisations for international
cooperation in higher education (NL). In IT, greater powers were delegated to
social partners for the recognition of skills and qualifications.
Five Member States (DE, EL, LV, LU, SI)
developed their skills recognition process. For example, DE provided for
uniform criteria to be developed for improving the assessment and recognition
of international qualifications in a benchmark paper, with legislation to be
introduced in 2011. EL transposed Directive 2005/36/EC, concerning the
recognition of professional qualifications, into national legislation and
prepared for the implementation of the National Qualifications Framework and
its correspondence to the European one. LU published a new Regulation
concerning the organisation of the recognition and validation of prior learning
(including those acquired outside the school context). In SI, the Act on the
Recognition of Professional Qualifications was adopted which defined a uniform
procedure for the recognition of professional qualifications for third-country
nationals in the medical and dental professions. RO adopted the Amending
Protocol on the Agreement with Moldova, on mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and scientific titles issued by educational institutions in the
contracting States.
For the improvement of skills recognition
in the future, IE and LT planned actions which related to the establishment of
an amalgamated qualifications agency (IE) and the formulation of a human
resource policy, which would include a national policy towards the recognition
of regulated professions, as well as the allocation of an institution to deal
with it (LT).
In order to assist third-country nationals
with skills recognition, information sharing was undertaken by IT and PT
through the publication of a dedicated handbook assisting third-country
nationals with the recognition procedure (IT), as well as the publication of a
guide to skills recognition which summarised the national educational system
and the processes for academic and professional recognition (PT).
On labour matching, existing bilateral
agreements for the coordination and management of migration flows were
implemented by ES which included labour matching instruments. Moreover,
coordination committees were established to manage these agreements.
Many Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE,
EE, EL, ES, HU, NL, SI, FI, SE, UK) reported on the methods and tools used to
analyse labour market needs and shortages. These included the use of lists of
bottleneck occupations (BE, IE, ES), lists of vacancies (CZ, EE, EL), reports
from employers and inquiries conducted by the Public Employment Service (AT)
and a yearly prognosis by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy on the
structure of the workforce (trends, bottle necks, labour demand) (FI). Some
referred to stakeholders involved in the analysis of the labour market, which
included employment agencies (BG, SI), national employment agencies (DE, EE, EL,
ES, LU, HU, NL, AT), regional employment agencies (DK, ES), expert groups on
future skills needs (IE), employersÕ associations and trade unions (ES), local
employers (ES, AT, SI, UK), central statistics offices (PL), national research
institutes (SE) and advisory committees (UK).
With regard to future measures, EL aims to
undertake a nationwide survey creating a regional Òimmigrants mapÓ on the
quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the migrant population who
reside and/or work there. ES plans to evaluate its current labour matching
mechanism with a view to improving its flexibility, transparency and
adaptability to the situation of the labour market, whilst MT aims to establish
a Labour Market and Skills Shortage Committee, to provide transparent,
independent and evidence-based analysis of labour market needs and shortages,
identify underlying factors and produce skills-shortages lists. PLÕs draft ÒMigration Policy of PolandÓ aims to establish
an efficient system for monitoring labour market needs and shortages in the
future. ROÕs draft National Strategy on Immigration 2011-2014 will
introduce annual evaluations of the national labour market, in order to
identify labour shortages and set adequate quotas.
To ensure that labour demand could not be
covered by national and other EU workers, LU (legislative procedure ongoing)
and UK amended their labour immigration system whereby job vacancies were
advertised with the national Public Employment Service for a reasonable period
of time.
Several Member States (BG, CZ, LV, HU, NL,
SK) described the effects of the economic crisis on national policies for
skills recognition and labour matching. These included the reduction in the
number of vacancies in Member States either as a result of their labour market
analysis (CZ, ES, LV) or due to less work permits being issued (BG, HU, LV). In
addition, NL established 33 mobility centres to combat the effects of the
crisis.
invites the Commission to assess the impact and effectiveness of measures adopted in
this area with a view to determining whether there is a need for consolidating
existing legislation, including regarding
categories of workers currently not covered by Union legislation;
At EU level, the evaluation of
existing directives, which has started, will help to prepare a possible
consolidation of existing legislation and in the definition of categories of
workers to be covered. See also Section I.3.2.
Efforts
to promote concerted mobility and migration with countries of origin should be closely linked
with efforts to promote the development of opportunities for decent and
productive work and improved livelihood options in third countries
in order to minimise the brain drain. (Section
6.1.2.).
See the entry under Commitment V.(d)
[Section VI.1]
Table 1 in the Statistical Annex
gives a provisional overview of the residence permits issued in 2010 by
reasons (education, remunerated activities and other reasons[9]).
Of the Member States providing such data, most residence permits were issued in
2010 by IT (326 000 up to and including September 2010), FR (189 500) and DE (125
978). Member States which issued permits mainly for the purpose of education
were FR (58 000 or 30.6% of all permits), DE (42 775 or 34%) and SE (14 188 or 39.7%).
Those who issued permits mostly for the purpose of remunerated activities were IT
(200 500 up to and including September 2010 or 61.5%), and again DE (25 015 or 19.9%)
plus SE (21 507 or 60.3%). The highest number of permits issued for Ôother
reasonsÕ were again by FR (114 500 or 60.4%), IT (113 00 or 34.7%) and DE (58
188 or 46.2%).
I.2.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment:
I.(d) to regulate family migration more
effectively by inviting each Member State, in compliance with the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to take
into consideration in its national legislation, except for certain specific
categories, its own reception capacities and families' capacity to integrate,
as evaluated by their resources and accommodation in the country of destination
and, for example, their knowledge of that country's language
At EU level, see the entry below
under Stockholm Programme (Section I.2.2).
At national level, several Member
States (BE, ES, CY, HU, AT, FI, SI, SE, UK) documented changes to existing
policies. These included modifications to the (set of) conditions for family
reunification, to the categories of persons exempt from fulfilling these
conditions, and to the procedures for applying for or renewing residence
permits within the framework of family reunification. In order to facilitate
integration of reunited families, ES introduced measures on the schooling of
minors, including an improvement of the estimation of the necessary places available
at the respective schools.
Some Member States (BE, DK, ES, PL, SI)
undertook or adopted new legislation to promote the integration of
third-country nationals coming for the purpose of family reunification. ES
introduced grants for local authorities to develop innovative integration
programmes with a total value of one million euros in 2010. These grants
included specific measures for third-country nationals who arrive for the
purpose of family reunification. PLÕs draft Migration Policy of Poland proposed
that concrete measures to promote the integration of third country national
family members would be set out in an Action Plan once the policy was adopted.
In SI, legislative amendments removed the restrictive provision of providing
integration assistance to family members of persons granted international
protection for a period of three years maximum.
With regard to the (set of) conditions for
family reunification, BE and SE added to national regimes by stipulating that
sponsors were to provide proof of a stable income to support the family
member(s), as well as suitable accommodation.
Some Member States (CY, HU, SI, SE) made
legislative changes introducing exemptions concerning categories of persons who
did not have to fulfil conditions set for family reunification. Those granted
international and subsidiary protection were mostly targeted (HU, SI, SE), as
well as children (FI, SE) and staff and their family members, employed by
companies of Òinternational interestÓ (CY). With regard to future actions, LT
also recommended, through its draft law, the facilitation of conditions for
family reunification for students, owners and directors of small and medium
sized companies, waiving the general requirement to have resided for two years,
instead to hold a temporary residence permit valid for no less than one year
and to have reasonable expectations to obtain the right to permanent residence.
Additional legislative changes were made by
EE, EL, ES, HU and SE. These changes referred to the inclusion of new groups
eligible for family reunification (ES, SI), as well as the limitation of those
eligible (ES, SI); the facilitation of applications for family reunification
for rejected asylum applicants on Member State territory (SE); the introduction
of new conditions for proof of stable income (FI); the waiving of the two year
obligation prior to obtaining a temporary residence permit for some categories
of spouses (EE); and the introduction of new conditions for terminating the
right of residence of a third-country national family member (HU). Legislation
in EE also included conditions additional to the Directive 2003/86/EC for
obtaining an independent residence permit. Moreover in EL, legislation
regulated the temporary residence of family members of third-country nationals
appealing against the decision rejecting their residence permit until a
judicial decision is pronounced.
In addition to legislative changes, BG
planned amendments which would provide a simplified procedure for obtaining a
residence permit for family reunification of a long-term resident, while RO
prepared amendments to its relevant Aliens law to transpose Directive
2003/86/EC.
On language requirements, a few Member
States (FR, NL, UK) introduced greater conditions, while others (IT, AT),
planned to introduce such conditions in the near future. FR, for example,
entered into conventions with 38 additional countries in 2010 concerning the
evaluation of language skills and knowledge of French language prior to the
admission of a spouse. AT planned language integration measures which would be
principally targeted at family members before entry via family reunification
and would oblige them to have up to level A1 of German. In IT, conditions were
also being introduced with regard to the social integration of family members
which obliged them to learn the Italian language.
A few Member States (BE, DE, FI) referred
to the need to step up action against marriages of convenience. BE, for
example, introduced a legislative proposal tightening the current terms for
family reunification in order to improve the fight against marriages of
convenience. Due to the national election, however, this action was postponed.
DE adopted a bill extending the required minimum length of a marriage.
Legislative changes were also made in SK and FI which extended reasons for
refusal of applications when false, incomplete or misleading information was
provided.
I.2.2
Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4)
evaluation and, where necessary,
review of the directive on family reunification, taking into account the importance of integration measures
At EU level, a European Court ruling
on family reunification has to be mentioned. Relevant case law had already
stated that the Directive on family
reunification of third country nationals "imposes a precise positive
obligation on Member States, requiring them in cases determined by the
Directive to authorise family reunification of certain members of the sponsorÕs
family and leaving them no leeway in this."[10] This principle was further fortified in a judgment
of the European Court of Justice on 4th March 2010 (Case-578/08) when interpreting the
provision which enables Member States to require stable and regular financial
resources. The European Court of Justice held that this "may"
clause in question must be interpreted strictly and
must not be used by the Member States in a manner which would undermine the
objective of the Directive, which is to promote family reunification, and the
effectiveness thereof.[11]
BE and NL described the effects experienced
on their family reunification policy due to jurisprudence. BE indicated that
the Constitutional Court declared certain elements of Belgian Law
discriminatory due to distinctions between EU and third-country nationals
regarding the application of legal deadlines. NL noted that the family
reunification policy was brought into line with the obligations ensuing from
Directive 2003/86/EC, following the aforementioned judgment, which forbid the
distinction between Ôfamily formationÕ and Ôfamily reunification.[12]
The policy change resulted in a decrease in the income requirement which had
applied to family formation applications, as well as the application of a
uniform age for all categories.
I.3.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment: I.(e) to strengthen mutual
information on migration by improving
existing instruments where necessary;
At EU level, two Contact Committees have taken place in 2010, dealing, on the one
hand, with the Blue Card Directive, and, on the other, with the four Directives
on legal migration (Family Reunification, Long-term
Residents, Students and Researchers Directives). Members of these committees were from national administrations responsible for the transposition
and application of the directives. Through this committee, Member States may,
on an informal basis, ask questions and hear the Commission's and the other
Member States' views on the interpretation of the Directive.
The European Migration Network (EMN)[13]
continued to serve as a useful source of information to support policymakers inter
alia through its Studies (e.g. on unaccompanied
minors, assisted return, labour demand and on non-EU harmonised protection
statuses) and Ad-Hoc Queries (99 individual queries launched in 2010 alone
with, on average, 16+ Member State responses to each one or, alternatively,
over 1600 individual responses provided by the EMN NCPs). The Mutual
Information Mechanism (MIM), however, was practically not used (only 3
communications received from one Member State in 2010).[14]
The modalities of data collection based on
the Migration Statistics Regulations 862/2007 were further developed, thus
allowing for a more complete statistical coverage. The harmonisation of
migratory statistics has facilitated better comparisons between the Member
States and served to better support also the development of policy.
Elsewhere, in the context of information
exchange on irregular migration, the possibility for FRONTEX to take over the
ICONet[15]
is part of the negotiations on the amendment of the Frontex Regulation (See Section
III.1.1). The promotion of the use of ICONet by
ILOs is included in the amendment of the ILO Regulation expected to be adopted
in 2011. CIREFI ceased to exist, according to the agreement reached among
Member States, and FRONTEX was invited to take over the collection of relevant
data related to irregular immigration instead. Through its Risk Analysis
Network (FRAN), the Agency now ensures the regular collection, analysis and
dissemination of relevant information (e.g. number of refusals at the external
borders, apprehension and return of irregular immigrants) with a view to
facilitating better situational awareness by the competent national
authorities. Furthermore, FRONTEX also facilitates topical discussions on
various matters related to irregular immigration which constitute a common
concern for the Member States, again in place of CIREFI.
In the context of information exchange in
asylum, the EURASIL network organised nine workshops, including workshops
focusing on the latest situation in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The EURASIL
network also facilitated ad hoc written queries
on asylum-related matters submitted by Member States for feedback.
Additionally, the construction of the Common Country-of-Origin Information
(COI) Portal began. The COI Portal will be a tool enabling users in national
authorities examining asylum applications to rapidly access COI via a reliable,
secure and user-friendly 'one-stop-shop' at EU level. This is achieved by
linking Member States' COI IT systems to the COI Portal, allowing the users to
search across the connected systems. Once the European Asylum Support Office
(EASO) has become fully operational, it is expected that it would take over the
activities of both EURASIL and COI.
At national level, most Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI,
SK, FI, SE, UK) shared and exchanged information on migration with other Member
States, which took different forms. Many Member States (CZ, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT,
CY, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, UK) referred to the European Migration
Network (EMN) as a method of sharing and disseminating information, with HU and
PT specifically mentioning the creation of their new EMN national website and
CY referring to the establishment of the EMN National Contact Point and
National Network in 2010. CY, LV and LT emphasised the added-value of the EMN
Ad-Hoc Queries[16] as a way of
obtaining information in a relatively short period. Several Member States also
made use of other existing (EU) platforms and networks, such as EURES (BG, PL),
EUROSTAT (CZ, NL, PL, PT, SK, UK), FRAN[17]
(BG, CZ, PL, SK), ICMPD[18]
(BG, CZ, PL), ICONET[19]
(IE, PL, SK), GDISC[20]
(CZ, NL, UK) and MIM[21]
(NL). LT referred to the exchange of information with international
organisations, such as IOM and UNHCR. Few Member States (BE, DK, FR, AT) had
ongoing exchange of information and co-operation with other Member States via
bilateral contacts. BE set up a twinning project between the Belgian and
Bulgarian Migration Directorates to strengthen the exchange of information. FR
engaged in specific cooperation to strengthen mutual information with DE, IT
and UK, especially in the area of sea surveillance (IT), irregular migration in
the Calais area (UK) and other themes (DE).
LT, PL and FI shared information at
regional level, FI within the framework of the Nordic Council of Ministers and
LT, PL within the Council of the Baltic Sea States. SK exchanged information at
multilateral level on irregular migration with HU, PL and Ukraine.
On other measures, PL concluded an
agreement with the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to establish, among
other priorities, cooperation in the field of analytical activities. PL also
presented its draft Migration Policy which recommended intensifying the process
of cooperation with other Member States in terms of exchanging information.
Commitment:
I.(f) to improve information on the possibilities and conditions of legal
migration, particularly by putting in place
the instruments needed for that purpose as soon as possible;
At EU level, the Euraxess website[22]
continued to provide information on the rights and obligations of researchers
from third countries, as well as posting job vacancies. The Commission also
continued its work on the future EU Immigration Portal. All Member States have
co-operated with the Commission in the drafting of texts concerning their
national immigration policies. The Portal will be launched in 2011.
At national level, almost all Member
States provided information on the possibilities and conditions of legal
migration. Such information was mainly available on the official websites of
Ministries and/or employment agencies (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY,
LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK), in specific brochures
published in different languages (BE, CZ, DE, CY, LU, MT, AT, PL, SI) and/or in
other media (AT, UK).
In addition, six Member States (BG, EE, FR,
IT, NL, PL) make use of their embassies abroad for providing information to
third-country nationals considering to migrate to their Member State. FR also
noted that the French Office for Migration and Integration was present in a
number of countries of origin and provided information targeting permanent
and/or seasonal workers. In addition, IT emphasised the role of third-countries
authorities and NGOs in multiplying the information provided by its national
authorities.
Five Member States (EE, FR, PL, SE, UK)
reported on providing specific information to third-country national students,
with EE, PL publishing information on universitiesÕ websites and SE on specific
web pages. FR also emphasised the role of the Campus France Service, present in
89 countries abroad. UK used the participation of overseas staff in student
fairs and conferences to inform and raise awareness about its immigration
requirements.
Three Member States (BG, CZ, SK)
highlighted the important role of their information and integration centres
which delivered information to newly-arrived third-country nationals.
With regard to specific measures
implemented in 2010, FR set up and NL improved their single portal to present
information about legal migration in a unified way. EE, PT, FI also set up new
or further developed existing websites, the purpose being to provide
information to diaspora encouraging nationals to re-migrate (EE), facilitating
the renewal and issuance of residence permits (PT) and improving the
streamlining of information provision by category of migrants (FI). FI also
reported on the current reform of the Info Bank Online service, which aimed to
support immigrant integration by providing information on Finnish society and
its services in 15 languages from the perspective of the immigrant user. This
targeted three main groups, namely immigrants living in FI, immigration authorities
and third-country nationals planning to migrate to FI. HU and SE established
new online visa application and administration systems, which, for the latter,
enabled the applicant to check their application status online. LU continued
the project ÔMigrate properly informed,Õ in Cape Verde, which aimed to better
inform Cape-Verde nationals about the possibilities and constraints for
migrating. In the NL, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service closely
cooperated with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs to improve the
consistency in the provision of information provided by Dutch embassies and
consulates.
Six Member States (BE, LU, NL, PL, RO, UK)
referred to future measures. These measures related to the implementation of a
new website with more easily accessible information on legal migration
possibilities in 2011 (BE); the improvement and harmonisation of the
information related to immigration published on different websites (LU); the
development of an Immigration and Naturalisation Service website with a strong
client focus (NL); the organisation of information campaigns on issues related
to labour migration in the main countries of origin (PL, RO); the publication
of a guide for third-country national workers (RO); and the creation of a
single portal to improve the quality of information provided to visa applicants
(UK).
ES changed its information policies as a
result of the economic crisis, in order to avoid creating false expectations
when providing information to third-country nationals for the prevention of
irregular migration.
Several Member States (IE, EL, ES, CY, LT,
NL, AT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE) made contributions to the EU Immigration Portal. ES
also indicated that the two main websites providing information on admission, procedures, employment
and hiring, run by the Ministry of Labour and
Immigration, would be linked to the Portal once it was established.
I.3.2
Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4)
consolidation
of all legislation in the area of immigration,
starting with legal migration, which would be based on an evaluation of the existing acquis de lÕUnion and include amendments
needed to simplify and/or, where necessary,
extend the existing provisions and improve their implementation and coherence
The Commission plans to consolidate the legislation in the area of legal immigration in an Immigration
Code only in 2013 - taking into account evaluations of the existing legislation
and the need for simplification and transparency.
invites the Commission to consider how existing information sources and networks can
be used more effectively to ensure the availability
of the comparable data on migration issues
with a view to better informing policy choices, which also takes account of
recent developments; (Section 6.1.3, A concerted policy in keeping with
national labour-requirements)
See the entry under Commitment I.(e)
[Section I.3.1]
I.4.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment
I.(g) to invite Member States, in line with the common principles approved by
the Council in 2004, to establish ambitious policies, in a manner and with
resources that they deem appropriate, to promote the harmonious integration in their host countries of immigrants who are likely to settle
permanently
At EU level, in March 2010 the
Commission published its Report to the 2010 Ministerial Conference on
Integration: The consolidation of the EU framework on integration.[23] By 2010,
all the integration tools announced in the 2005 Common Agenda for Integration
had been put in place to support Member States to establish ambitious policies.
The fourth European Ministerial Conference on Integration was held in Zaragoza
in April 2010 and Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the
Governments of the Member States were adopted on Integration as a Driver for
Development and Social Cohesion at the JHA Council of 3-4 June 2010.[24]
The European Fund for the Integration of
Third-Country Nationals continued to provide financial support for integration.
The Commission approved the national annual programmes for 2010 and started
processing the final reports of 2007. By 30 June 2010, 1 949 projects had been
funded. Concerning Community Actions, the 2010 annual work programme was
adopted in July 2010 and the call for proposals was published in November 2010.
More than 100 proposals were submitted, with selection taking place in 2011.
At national level, several Member
States (BE, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, CY, LU, AT, PT, SE) reported on their
policy or the adoption of new policy. This included the establishment of new integration
strategies (AT, PT); legislative changes concerning integration (DK, EL, ES,
FR, LU, PL, FI, SE); the publication of a new integration policy document (BE)
and nationwide integration programme (DE, CY, LU); institutional changes (BE,
EL, LU, AT); and the introduction of new funding initiatives (IE).
Legislative changes introduced included the
right to vote and stand for elections at municipal level for certain categories
of legally residing third-country nationals (EL, ES) and third-country nationals
of Greek origin (EL), plus for all legally-residing third-country nationals
(LU); the automatic acquisition of citizenship for third-generation immigrants
and, under certain conditions, for second generation immigrants (EL); a
facilitated access to citizenship by naturalisation for third-country nationals
who had an Ôexceptional integration pathwayÕ (FR); new requirements to respect
the integration contract in case of renewal of temporary residence permits and
to sign the ÔCharter of the CitizenÕs rights and dutiesÕ in case of
naturalisation (FR); the definition of execution modalities for the existing
Reception and Integration contracts (LU); new requirements to demonstrate a
certified knowledge of the national language in order to be granted residence
and/or settlement permits (PL); institutionalised participation of
third-country nationals in public life at municipal level with the setting up
of Councils on Immigrant Integration in each municipality (EL); plus provisions
establishing new integration models (FI) and introduction plans (SE). In IE,
new funding initiatives focuses on the promotion of integration through sport.
In DK, new legislation underlined the responsibility of the individual
third-country national for their integration process, while also recognising
the need for a strong commitment from the host society to support successful
integration.
Other Member States (EL, LV, MT, PL, FI,
UK) modified their existing policies. For example, MT amended its legislation
concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents,
which transposed Directive 2003/109/EC, and introduced new integration measures
in connection with the acquisition of such status. In order to facilitate
access of third country nationals to the long term resident status, EL
simplified the procedure for obtaining the required Greek language certificate and
lowered the relevant permit fee. FI proposed an amendment to the Citizenship
Act which aimed to facilitate access to citizenship for persons demonstrating
sufficient command of one of the national languages. LV and PL modified their
legislation to further define access to education for different categories of
third-country nationals and establish compensatory courses at schools for
third-country nationals (PL). In the UK, the Migration Impacts Fund, introduced
under the previous government, was closed, with local authorities taking over
responsibility for funding the supported projects.
In other developments, CZ published its
ÔAnnual Report on the implementation of National Strategy for the Integration
of Immigrants;Õ EE introduced a free induction programme for newly-arrived
third-country nationals; and AT launched the ÒNational Action Plan (NAP)Ó on
Integration, which defines the principles and goals of national integration
policy.
Several Member States (BE, BG, IE, LT, PL,
RO, SI) planned developments in their integration policy. This included the
introduction of a new Integration Act (BE- Flanders), foreseen for 2011; the
elaboration of a new national strategy on Migration, Asylum and Integration and
the creation of national forums for integration (BG); the implementation of
more funding initiatives (IE); the possible establishment of a coordinating
institution for the integration of third-country nationals (LT); the
introduction of facilitated rules of stay for legally residing third-country
nationals positively impacting on integration (PL); the extension of the
categories of third-country nationals being able to participate in integration
programmes (PL); the improvement of the access to housing (PL); and the
enhancement of integration activities for third-country nationals, together
with the setting up of integration information centres (RO). LT also planned
the future implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on the
participation of third-country nationals in public life at local level, whilst
for SI, the planned amendment of the Regulation on Integration in 2011 aims to
broaden the scope of beneficiaries of language courses provided free of charge.
Most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE,
EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, SE, FI, UK)
have measures in place to enable migrants to learn the language of the host
countries and to acquire knowledge of the host societyÕs history and culture
(BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI,
SE, UK). EE started to offer free language courses to unemployed and low paid
third-country national migrants, additionally to the induction programme and courses
for citizenship exams. Among innovative measures, BG and IE undertook regional
schemes. These related to mobile teams delivering language and civic
integration courses in regions where there was a limited number of
third-country nationals (BG), as well local volunteers conducting English
language classes (IE). In NL, the ÔHouse for Democracy and The Rule of LawÕ was
established in September 2010 which aimed to increase peopleÕs knowledge of and
participation in democracy, targeted at particular groups, including
third-country nationals participating in civic integration programmes.
Concerning civic orientation, SE introduced new legislation guaranteeing a
minimum of 60 hours of civic orientation to newly-arrived third-country
nationals. Similarly, DE planned to extend its orientation courses from 45 to
60 hours.
Many Member States (DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, CY,
LU, HU, AT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK) also referred to support services,
programmes and/or projects to enhance migrantsÕ access to employment, including
job-related language training (DE, AT, SI); employment preparation activities
(EE, ES, PL, SE); social support and training (CY, MT); mapping of labour
market possibilities for newly-arrived third-country nationals (EL, HU);
project promoting immigrant entrepreneurship (PT); advisory programmes (PL,
RO); and projects focusing on refugeesÕ access to employment (EL, UK). In AT,
for example, a new
location ÒHabibi – House for Education and Professional IntegrationÓ was
established, acting as a one-stop-shop for labour market oriented integration
of migrants. A comprehensive multiannual agreement was
signed in FR in order to facilitate the professional orientation of
third-country nationals who had signed the 'Reception and Integration Contract'
and shorten the delay to access employment. This foresaw the adaptation of
services offered by the Public Employment Service to newly-arrived
third-country nationals, the definition of the services offered by the Public
Employment Service to the migrants during their first five years and the
prevention of discrimination within the Public Employment Service and at local
level when dealing with migrants. In LU, as part of the proposed reform of the
Employment Administration Agency, legally established third-country nationals
(having a perspective to stay longer) and their family members will benefit
from the AgencyÕs services.
Several Member States (DE, EE, EL, ES, CY,
NL, PT, SK, UK) also reported on measures to facilitate migrantsÕ access to
public and social services. Most of the measures emphasised the role of
municipalities (EL) and/or local integration and/or information centres (NL,
PT, SK) and social workers (HU). EE started to develop a support person service
for newly arrived third-country nationals in the municipalities. UK indicated
that access to accident and emergency services were free of charge for migrants
and that they had the right to register to a local (general practitioner)
doctor.
As well, several Member States (EE, EL, ES,
CY, IT, LV, HU, PL, SK, UK) noted that these activities, projects and
programmes received funds from the European Integration Fund or the European
Social Fund (DE, EL, UK) or the European Refugee Fund (EL, PL, UK).
Commitment I.(h) Promote information exchange on best
practices in terms of reception and integration
At EU level, four meetings of
National Contact Points on Integration (NCPI) took place. Moreover, the
Commission launched the third edition of the 'Handbook on Integration for
policymakers and practitioners' on the occasion of the IV Ministerial
Conference on Integration, held in Zaragoza in April. Handbooks were
distributed to all Member States in 22 official languages. The European Web
Site on Integration (on www.integration.eu)
incorporated 27 Country Coordinators into its governance structure in order to
offer first-hand information from all Member States on a regular basis.
At national level, most Member
States outlined their participation in the National Contact Point on Integration,
the European website on Integration and the European Integration Forum. Some
also contributed to the preparation of the EU Belgian Presidency Expert
Conference on European Integration Modules in December 2010. This conference
was a first step in the development and use of the European Integration Modules
and aimed at achieving a shared understanding of the used terminology and
clarifying the concept of ÔmodulesÕ by presenting practical experiences in
different Member States.
In addition, several Member States referred
to the establishment of working groups and/or structural exchanges at national
level among actors involved in integration policies (BE, BG, LU, HU, MT, NL,
AT, PL, SI); the further development (DK, IE, LV, AT,
PT, SI) or initiation (EL) of websites enabling the publication of
information on integration matters; the creation of
an internet portal providing information on integration matters (EL); the
introduction of specific funding streams for the transfer of know-how and good
practices (ES); research on best practices relating
to equal treatment of female migrant workers (EL); the organisation of
thematic conference to exchange best practices (EE, ES, LU); the consultation
of national and international integration experts to identify best practices
(AT); the publication of a compendium of cases of
successful application of local awareness-raising and equal treatment and
non-discrimination plans (ES); and the publication of newsletters on integration-related issues
which facilitated dialogue and exchange of good practices (SE).
In DK, the campaign ÒNeeding All
YoungstersÓ was implemented in 2010 which used role models with migrant
backgrounds to inspire young migrants to perform better in their studies and in
the workplace.
Several Member States (IE, ES, NL, PT, SE)
jointly elaborated a Decalogue of citizenship, tolerance and dialogue that summarises common arguments of conviviality in order to
promote a European discourse of tolerance, based on the generation of a
rationale for harmony and respect, on recognition of differences, and on
building European citizenship estranged from any kind of racism and xenophobia.
National, regional and local governmentÕs representatives, Mass Media, NGOs,
Trade Unions, Universities and entrepreneurships participated in the procedure.
I.4.2
Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.5)
through the development of a coordination mechanism involving the Commission and the Member States
using a common reference framework, which should improve structures and tools
for European knowledge exchange,
At EU level, Member States invited
the Commission in the Council conclusions of June 2010 to develop a new agenda
on integration, including a coordination mechanism, as proposed in the
Stockholm Programme, which would improve structures and tools for European
knowledge exchange and facilitate mainstreaming of integration priorities in
all relevant areas. The Commission started working on a new European agenda on
integration, which will be presented in 2011. Reinforcing coordination of
integration priorities in relevant policy areas and cooperation between levels
of governance to develop and implement these is part of this work.
to incorporate integration issues in a
comprehensive way in all relevant policy areas
At EU level, the Commission reported
to the fourth Ministerial Conference on the promotion of a cross-cutting
approach to integration policy. Integration has become an important dimension
of a wide range of policies, including employment, education and social
policies. In 2010, the Europe 2020 Strategy was approved by Heads of States and
Governments, including, as one of its headline targets, the aim to bring to 75%
the level of employment, including through the better integration of legal
migrants. In its Communication on 'An Agenda for new skills and jobs: A
European contribution towards full employment' adopted in November 2010, the
Commission underlined the need to manage better the integration of migrants
legally residing in the EU, particularly through removing barriers to
employment, such as discrimination or the non-recognition of skills and
qualifications, which put migrants at risk of unemployment and social
exclusion.[25]
The Commission adopted in December 2010 its
Communication on 'The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A
European framework for social and territorial cohesion'.[26]
Managing integration of migrants is highlighted as being at the forefront of
European and national policy agendas in the fight against poverty and social
exclusion.
Numerous EU initiatives have confirmed that
education has an important contribution to make to the successful integration
of migrants. In September 2010, the Commission adopted its Communication 'Youth
on the Move: An initiative to unleash the potential of young people to achieve
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the European Union', underlining the
need for tailored measures for young people with a migrant background.[27]
The Communication on 'Tackling early school leaving: A key contribution to the
Europe 2020 Agenda' also emphasises the need to support children with a migrant
background.[28]
Several other initiatives in areas such as
health, housing, sport and urban development, could be mentioned to illustrate
how integration issues are incorporated in relevant policy areas.
At national level, most Member
States (CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU,
NL, AT, PT, RO, FI, SI, SK, SE, UK) reported on approaches and/or
measures to better incorporate integration issues in a comprehensive way in all
relevant policy areas. Many of these Member States (DE,
EL, ES, CY, LU, NL, AT, RO, SK, FI) mainstreamed integration objectives
and/or targets in other sectoral policy areas, such as education, employment,
childhood and adolescence, gender, housing, social welfare, health care
services and tax policy. CZ, LU and UK organised regular joint meetings with
representatives of other Ministries for designing (LU) and implementing (CZ,
LU) their national integration strategy or ensuring that the needs of refugees,
public service use and integration issues were considered in the development of
other policies (UK). In the beginning of 2010 in EE,
a Steering Committee for the Integration Plan 2008-2013 started its activities
to better incorporate integration issues with the topics belonging in the
responsibility other Ministries. PT and SE highlighted that their
national integration strategy covered other policy areas, such as education,
employment, health, housing and culture. With regard to approaches developed by
other Member States, IT mentioned the Inter-Ministry ÔPlan for integration in
security: Identity and MeetingÕ adopted in June 2010, which illustrated the
increased importance allocated to integration and its place in other policy
areas. LV referred to the developments of the ÔMain Positions of the Society
Integration Policy 2010-2016,Õ which envisaged the involvement of other state
administration and municipal institutions. HU noted that due to the lack of a
comprehensive integration act, rights enhancing integration were mentioned in
different sectoral pieces of legislation.
towards the identification of joint practices and European
modules to support the integration process,
including essential elements such as introductory courses and language classes,
a strong commitment by the host community and the active participation of
immigrants in all aspects of collective life,
At EU level, the Commission launched
a project for the development of European modules to support Member States in
their development and implementation of integration policies, as called for in
the Stockholm Programme and reiterated in the Council conclusions of June 2010.
Modules are developed within three main areas: 1) introductory and language
courses; 2) strong commitment by the host society; and 3) active participation
of migrants in all aspects of collective life.
The modules are a natural evolution of the
'Handbook on Integration for policymakers and practitioners' and they are
developed in close dialogue between the Commission and Member States. Meetings
of the NCPI were used to discuss priorities and expert meetings were organised
to identify main challenges and experiences of measures to meet these
challenges. The first expert seminar on introductory and language courses was
organised in Riga (LV) on 28-29 October 2010 with further seminars planned in
2011. A third seminar on the active participation of migrants in all aspects of
collective life is organised in Brussels (BE) in April 2011.
The Belgian Presidency organised an expert
conference on European integration modules on 15-16 December 2010. This
conference was an occasion for discussion on the concept of modules and for
exchange of good practice. It gave a first input regarding the scope and use of
modules.
towards the development of core indicators in a limited number of relevant policy areas (e.g. employment,
education and social inclusion) for monitoring the results of integration
policies, in order to increase the comparability of national experiences and
reinforce the European learning process,
At EU level, the
Commission launched a pilot project for the evaluation of integration policies,
including use of the indicators proposed in the Annex to the Council
conclusions of June 2010. The aim is to increase comparability and contribute
to the European learning process, based on monitoring of results of integration
policies. Indicators have been identified in four areas of relevance for
integration, building on national experiences and the Common Basic Principles
for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU: employment, education, social
inclusion and active citizenship. On the one hand, the pilot project includes
reporting on the availability and quality of already harmonised data by
Eurostat and, on the other hand, it includes analysing the significance of the
defined indicators taking into account the national contexts, in dialogue
between the Commission and Member States.
improved consultation with and involvement
of civil society
At EU level, two meetings of the
European Integration Forum were convened, with almost 100 civil society
organisations represented. In June 2010, participants discussed the role of the
media in the integration process and gave their input on the new European
Agenda on Integration (to be published in 2011). During the following two
months, organisations sent written contributions, a summary of which is
available on the European Web Site on Integration (www.integration.eu). In December,
participants in the Forum discussed ways to encourage migrants' participation
and strong commitment by the host society.
At national level, most Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT,
CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, AT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK) regularly
involved civil society organisations in integration policymaking and measures.
This included consultation of civil society organisations for the elaboration
(DK, DE, ES, CY, LV, LU, AT, PL, PT, RO) and implementation (CZ, DK, DE, EE,
SK) of national integration plans; participation of civil society organisations
in hearings and government initiatives (BG, EL, ES, FI); implementation of
integration projects (BG, CZ, DK, ES, CY, LT, LU, MT, UK); involvement of NGOs
in the design and implementation of local integration plans (EL, ES, FI); and
implementation of measures facilitating access to employment (EL, FR). Other
Member States mentioned the strategic role of NGOs in specifying the annual
priorities and actions of the European Integration Fund (EL, LV, HU). Five
Member States (ES, IE, NL, SI, UK) also mentioned the existence of national
dialogue structures on integration policy, whilst SE adopted a formalised
agreement between the government, municipalities and NGOs to strengthen the
role of the latter in the integration of newly-arrived migrants and facilitate
NGOs access in integration projects. In DK, the
establishment of local integration councils and a national council for ethnic
minorities was foreseen in the new Integration Act in 2010 in order to ensure
the consultation of ethnic minorities throughout policymaking. In LU, a
specific study was carried out to better understand the needs of NGOs when
elaborating and managing projects supported by national and EU funding.
With regard to planned measures, BE
indicated that the Minority Forum, an umbrella organisation of migrantsÕ
organisations, would act as official advisor of the Commission for Integration
Policy in Flanders as of 2011. In IT, the Territorial
Councils for Immigration, under the Ministry of Interior, aimed to link at
provincial level in the future the most significant (public and private)
organisations working in the field of integration. In PL the draft Migration
Policy foresees creating a consultative and advisory committee composed of
non-state actors located at the Office for Foreigners.
enhance democratic values and social cohesion in relation to immigration and integration of immigrants and
promote intercultural dialogue and contact
At EU level, see the entry under
Commitment I. (g) [Section I.4.1]
At national level, most Member
States (BE, DK, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI,
SK, FI, SE) reported on actions undertaken to enhance democratic values and
social cohesion in relation to immigration and integration of immigrants and
promote intercultural dialogue and contact. ES, CY, AT and PT established
intercultural dialogue as a key priority of their national integration plan and
DE, AT engaged and/or continued formalised and active dialogue with
representatives of migrantsÕ religious communities. This related to further
developing dialogue with representatives of the Muslim community through the
German Islam Conference, which was focused on issues related to the practical
participation of Muslims in German life, including the establishment of Islamic
religious instructions in State schools and Islamic theology classes in
universities (DE); and initiating a series of talks between experts, Muslim
representatives and citizens under the ÔIslam, People, DialogueÕ initiative
(AT). Furthermore, roundtables were organised by BE, EE, AT on
interculturalism. In BE, these roundtables, held in 2009, led to the
publication in November 2010 of 68 recommendations to recognise and manage the
growing diversity of the society.
BE, IE and SI also focused on the promotion
of diversity and intercultural dialogue in the media. These measures included
the launching of an action plan applicable to the French Community concerning
diversity in the audiovisual media (BE), as well as the establishment of a new
migrant media internship programme for local and regional newspapers aimed at
documenting issues of immigration and integration and helping communities to
understand the challenges and perspectives of migrants (IE). Within the
framework of the action plan in BE, a ÔFirst Overview on Good Practices on
Equal Opportunities and Diversity in the Audiovisual Media of the French
CommunityÕ was published in December 2010.
With regard to other implemented measures,
these included the establishment of a specific web portal to improve
communication between cultural organisations, minority communities, media,
government and other stakeholders (EE); the creation of a database in order to
register cultural associations and migrant contact groups (EL); the promotion
of intercultural civic education and management of intercultural community
living through social and neighbourhood mediation and prevention of conflicts
(ES); the active participation of intercultural mediators in schools (IT);
involving civil society in the formulation of integration policy through the
Advisory Board for Ethnic Relations (FI); the participation of public services
in festivals dedicated to migration and cultural diversity (LU); integration
courses focusing on civic aspects and democratic values (MT); the establishment
of an African Cultural Information Centre (SK); the elaboration of a study for
the establishment of an Immigration Museum (EL); the provision of training
related to diversity management (LV, LU); and the continued implementation of
the Ômixed ethnic teamsÕ concept which aimed at developing small-scale
activities in different neighbourhoods and reinforcing mutual understanding
among different cultures (EL, NL). In addition, several Member States (CY, ES,
LT, LU, HU, PL, SK, SE) mentioned the funding of projects promoting
intercultural dialogue.
On future measures, HU reported on the
current preparation of its EU Presidency Conference on Promoting Integration
through Media and Intercultural Dialogue. Moreover, PL indicated that its draft
Migration Policy provided recommendations for actions addressed to the host
society and actions aimed at mainstreaming intercultural dialogue.
II. Irregular
immigration and return
II.1.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment:
II.(a) to use only case-by-case regularisation, rather than generalised regularisation, under national law, for
humanitarian or economic reasons;
At EU level, there were no specific
developments concerning regularisation in 2010.
At national level, eight Member
States (BE, BG, EL, FR, IT, CY, AT, PT) had used case-by-case regularisation in
2010 although the reasons for regularisation varied. For BE and AT,
regularisation could only be undertaken on humanitarian grounds. In FR and CY,
the reasons for regularisation were also of humanitarian nature, whilst, in
other instances, the reasons were linked to the regular employment of the
migrant and to the length of residence in the Member State (FR), or in cases
where the removal order of a third-country national could not be executed
within six months (CY). In EL, in cases where exceptional reasons exist which
necessitate the residence of a third-country national, a residence permit may
be issued after taking into consideration the opinion of a relevant Committee
foreseen in the law; the length of the said permit cannot exceed six months and
shall not be renewed for the same reason, but only for one of the other reasons
foreseen in national legislation.
With regard to generalised regularisation,
BG undertook generalised regularisation of third-country nationals, and their
children, mainly from the former Soviet Union, through the application of
recently adopted legislation. BG also made steps to ratify the UN Convention on
Stateless persons by introducing a national mechanism to regularise stateless
persons. In SK, regularisation was not undertaken as the Ôtolerated residence
permitÕ was considered a sufficient legalisation mechanism for the prevention
of illegal stay.
Some Member States (BE, EL, IT, CY, PT)
reported on the number of regularisations undertaken in 2010. This ranged from
the regularisation of respectively 50 and 16 353 persons on humanitarian
grounds (CY, BE) to the regularisation of 210 000 third-country nationals
working in the healthcare and social sector (IT). Additionally, PT regularised
659 minors on the grounds of safeguarding the family unit, as part of the
national ÒGoes to SchoolÓ programme. CY also regularised 30 persons whose
removal order could not be executed and EL granted a residence permit for
exceptional reasons, as per the abovementioned procedure, to 419 third country
nationals.
Commitment
II.(c) to ensure that the risks of irregular migration are prevented within the framework of the modalities of the policies for the
entry and residence of third-country
nationals or, where appropriate, other policies, including the modalities of
the framework for freedom of movement;
At EU level, opening new channels of legal migration may
contribute to preventing irregular migration and/or overstaying for the purpose
of employment. Presented in July 2010, the Commission's proposal for a
Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals
for the purposes of seasonal employment[30] concerning low-skilled migrant workers and the proposal for a
Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in
the framework of an intra-corporate transfer[31] concerning highly-qualified workers, are of particular relevance in
this respect. Both proposals provide for a precise scope of beneficiaries and a
common set of admission controls to be performed by Member States prior to the
entry of third-country nationals into the EU territory. They also include
provisions on sanctions to be applied in case of non-compliance with the
conditions for admission.
At national level, IE drafted
legislation outlining a future strategy for preventing irregular migration
through the elaboration of rules relating to the suppression of migrant
smuggling and trafficking in human beings. EL submitted to parliament for vote
a draft law for the establishment of a First Reception Service responsible for
the efficient management of the flows of illegally entering third-country
nationals and their swift integration in first reception procedures. In PL, the
draft Migration Policy of Poland was developed, with recommendations elaborated
concerning the future combating of irregular migration with emphasis on the
improved control of administrative procedures for legalisation of stay, the reduction
of irregular migration routes and the promotion of voluntary return. In
addition, FI developed a cross-sectoral Action Plan of 30 measures for
preventing irregular migration.
Specific programmes were introduced by CZ
and IT to prevent irregular migration. In CZ, a temporary assisted return
programme was set up to encourage the return of third-country nationals who
lost their jobs as a result of the economic crisis and who subsequently risked
residing in the Member State without legal authorisation. In IT, the ÔMigrantes
OperationÕ was set up in Calabria to facilitate checks of migrantsÕ documents,
while at national level, the ÔUnique Document of Fiscal RegularityÕ in the
construction sector contributed to the detection of undeclared work. In addition,
DK modified its legislation to enable the merging of data from various public
databases in order to introduce controls on compliance with conditions linked
to the granting of residence permits, while LTÕs State Border Guard Service and
the Police Department signed an agreement to coordinate activities related to
the control of third-country nationals.
Commitment:
II.(d) to develop cooperation
between Member States, using, on a voluntary
basis and where necessary, common arrangements to ensure the expulsion of
illegal immigrants (biometric identification
of illegal entrants, joint flights, etc.);
At EU level, cooperation
in the field of return of irregularly staying third-country nationals
intensified. The role of FRONTEX was strengthened, as well as the allocations
under the annual budget of the Agency. The latter increased by 70% compared to
2009 amounting to Û9 341 000. FRONTEX co-ordinated (data covering the period
between 1 January and 3 December 2010) in total 37 joint return flights with a
total number of 1 896 returnees. Twenty Member States (BE, CZ, DE, HU, IE, EL,
ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL, SI, FI, SE, UK) and two Schengen associated
countries (CH, NO) participated in these flights. Countries of return were
Albania, Armenia, Burundi, Cameroon, Columbia, Ecuador, Gambia, Georgia, Iraq,
Kosovo, Nigeria and Ukraine. In 24 of the 37 joint operations, at least one of
the participating Member States provided for monitoring in accordance with
their national legislation. FRONTEX co-financed 34 joint return operations. The
first joint return flight chartered by the Agency and destined for Georgia,
took off on 28 September 2010 from Poland with 59 returnees on board from four
Member States.
At national level, most Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, PL,
RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) had positive co-operation with each other in the
removal of irregular migrants, mostly in supporting FRONTEX operations (as
outlined above also).
Five Member States (DK, EE, FR, LV, UK)
described other forms of cooperation in this area which related to
participation in international projects (EE); the provision of expertise and
assistance on the identification of irregular migrants in the Mediterranean
region (EE, FR, LV), including, for LV, the provision of assistance in the
removal of third-country nationals; and the exchange of information on personal
data and travel documents of irregular migrants (EE). For example, EE
participated in the ICMPD project ÔEnhancing Return to Georgia OperationallyÕ
(ERGO), which aimed at improving the forced return system to Georgia. EE also
cooperated with specific States by exchanging information on the personal data,
identity and travel documents of irregular migrants. In addition, UK
participated in political dialogue with NL over joint approaches to the return
of irregular migrants from Iraq, while DK contributed actively to the Temporary
desk on Iraq. The potential of an EU agreement with key migration countries on
biometric matches for evidencing nationality was also considered by the UK. As
for future measures, RO planned participating in the ÔEuropean Initiative on
Return Management (EURINT)Õ, in cooperation with BE, DE and NL.
Commitment:
II.(g) to invite Member States to take rigorous action, also in the interest of
the immigrants, by way of dissuasive and proportionate penalties against
those who exploit illegal immigrants
(employers, etc.);
At EU level, the Commission
organised another two meetings of a Contact Committee with Member States representatives
in order to discuss the implementation of the Employer Sanctions Directive
2009/52/EC, which partly addresses the problem of exploitation. The
aforementioned proposal for a Directive on seasonal workers also aims to
prevent the exploitation of this vulnerable group.
At national level, many Member
States (DK,[32] DE, IE, EE,
EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LU, NL, PT, UK) described existing national legislation
regulating sanctions on persons employing migrants illegally. In DE, a fine of
up to Û500 000 can be imposed according to the Social Code. EE and
CY also imposed fines on employers in breach of legislation and provided data
related to enforcement (DE, EE, CY). On the number of fines issued, EE issued
94 penalties in 2010 with fines of up to 50 000 kroon (Û3 200). In CY, 775
cases of illegal employment were brought to justice, from January to September
2010, with 1 035 third-country national workers and 785 employers arrested. LU
carried out several business inspections, including three Ôafterwork actions,Õ
17 controls related to the fight against illegal employment during weekends and
196 additional controls. In ES, following the introduction of a legislative
amendment in 2010, the employment of irregular migrants could be considered as
a criminal offence, punishable with a prison term of up to five years. In IT,
the Anti-Mafia Investigation Directorates highlighted the link between
exploitation of irregular migrants and organised crime. In EL, the procedure
for imposing fines to employers employing migrants illegally became more
efficient, due to legislative amendments allowing the Labour Supervisory Body
to directly impose the administrative fines foreseen by legislation and
establishing more severe fines through the introduction of specific criteria
for defining their amount.
CZ, LV, NL adopted legislation to transpose
the Employer Sanctions Directive 2009/52/EC, with CZ reporting the entry into
force of its national legislation on 1st January 2011. A number of
other Member States (DE, FR, CY, LT, LU, PL, RO, SI, SK) drafted legislation to
transpose the EmployersÕ Sanctions Directive with all legislation expected to
be adopted in 2011, whilst BE, BG, EE, EL, HU, MT, AT, FI undertook
preparations for the transposition of the Directive. These preparations
included the establishment of a working group examining transposition (BG, EL),
as well as the identification of required legislative changes, including
amendments to the Penal Code enabling imprisonment and forced termination for
employers exploiting irregular workers (EE).
Commitment:
II.(h) to put into full effect the Community provisions pursuant to which an
expulsion decision taken by one Member State is applicable throughout the EU, and, within that framework, an alert for such a decision
entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) obliges other Member States to
prevent the person concerned from entering or residing within their territory.
At EU
level, the deadline for the implementation of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC)
expired on 24 December 2010.[33]
According to the case law developed by the European
Court of Justice, provisions of a Directive which confer rights on individuals
and which are sufficiently clear and unconditional become directly effective from
the end of the time limit for the implementation of the Directive. Many of the
provisions of the Return Directive fulfil these requirements and have become
directly effective as of 24.12.2010 in those Member States which have not yet
adopted national legislation transposing the Directive. This means that they
are legally enforceable rights which can be relied upon in national courts.
The Commission organised, in the
course of 2010, three Contact Committee meetings with Member States
representatives in view of preparing the implementation of the Return
Directive. At these meetings, the Commission repeatedly encouraged Member
States to enter alerts related to entry bans issued in accordance with the
Return Directive in the SIS in order to give full effect to the European
dimension of entry bans issued under the Return Directive. These meetings also included special workshops at which Member
States and International Organisations, as well as NGOs, discussed the issue of
return of minors as well as alternatives to
detention. Three comparative studies were launched:
one relating to the situation of minors in return procedures, one on forced return monitoring and
one on reintegration of returnees.
All Member States which fully use the SIS
have implemented national procedures for the creation of Art. 96 alerts in the
SIS. National implementation of Article 96 may vary between Member States. One
area of concern occurs when a person is checked at the external border, is
subject of an Article 96 alert, but is also in possession of a seemingly valid
residence permit or visa. This causes problems for border guards. As
highlighted by the Commission during all recent SIS evaluations, this can be
overcome: firstly, through national administrations granting 24/7 access on
permit/visa data to their national SIRENE bureau, to allow confirmation of the
status of the permit/visa; and secondly, through use of alerts under Article
100 3(e) when a residence permit or visa is withdrawn but the document not
recovered.
At national level, many Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, LU, NL, AT, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI) described
relevant developments. Several (BE, BG, CZ, EL, LU, NL, PL, SK, FI) referred to
the status of transposition of the Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC),
with inter alia FI stating that with the
implementation of the return directive, expulsion decisions will as a general
rule be accompanied by an entry ban, thereby increasing the number of entries
into the Schengen Information System (SIS). AT also reported that all legally binding
and enforceable residence and return bans were registered in the SIS. DK and SI
indicated having transposed the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions in
their national legislation. Moreover, EE reported that between January and
October 2010, 965 banned third-country nationals were entered into the SIS. RO
participated in discussions between Member States on the draft standard form
for the mutual recognition of the expulsion decisions, within the framework of
the Contact Committee on the Return Directive.
II.1.2
Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.6)
improving
the exchange of information on
developments at national level in the area of regularisation, with a view to ensuring consistency with the principles of the
Pact on Asylum and Migration;
See the entry under Commitment I.(e)
[Section I.3.1]
Member
States to put into full effect the Union
provisions pursuant to which a return decision issued by one Member State is
applicable throughout the European Union and the effective application of the principle
of mutual recognition of return decisions by
recording entry bans in the SIS and facilitating exchange of information;
See the entry under Commitment II.(h)
[Section II.1.1]
more
effective action against illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings
and smuggling of persons by developing information on migration routes as well
as aggregate comprehensive information which improves our understanding of and
response to migratory flows
At EU level, the negotiations
between the Council and the Parliament have been completed on a proposal for a
Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and
protecting victims.[34]
The new instrument, foresees reinforcement of the system of prosecution of
trafficking, including more severe penalties, enhancement of protection of
victims' rights, strengthening measures to prevent trafficking and establishing
effective monitoring systems. The Commission also adopted the implementation
report[35]
on Directive 2004/81/EC on residence permits for victims of trafficking which
showed that its potential is not being put to full use. The Commission will
thus examine the need for amendments of this Directive. Other developments
included the launching of the anti-trafficking website[36]
and the appointment of the new EU Anti-Trafficking Co-ordinator.[37]
At national level, Member States
made use of different tools to gather information on migration routes and
migratory flows. Some Member States (BG, DE, EE, CY, LT, PT) considered
information provided from agencies and organisations as particularly useful.
This related to FRONTEX information on migration routes (DE, EE, LT), Europol
(EL, CY, LT), as well as information provided by the ICMPD (BG, PT) and ICONET
(PT). In addition, in DE, CY and UK, liaison officers deployed overseas, work
to collect information on migration routes. PT also made use of information
collected via the Electronic Complaints System of the Ministry for Home Affairs
and through an ÔSOSÕ Immigrant telephone helpline. AT outlined methods
undertaken to gather data on migration routes through interviews conducted with
asylum applicants on entry into the country. These interviews were also used to
assess the applicant for possible cases of trafficking.
Several Member States (CZ, DE, EE, ES, CY,
AT, PT, RO, FI, UK) reported on the role of specific governmental research
institutes in the collection and analysis of information on migration routes
and flows. For example, in CZ, the inter-ministerial Analytical Centre for
Border Protection and Migration undertakes regular meetings to exchange
information and discuss current problems and new findings, while in the UK,
researchers at the Border Agency conducted analysis of administrative data
looking at the common pathways through the immigration system that result in
settlement. In ES, such activities are undertaken as part of the National Plan
against trafficking in human beings.
A number of Member States (EE, EL, FR, LV,
LT, AT, UK) reported on the relevant departments of the Police and Border Guard
responsible for data collection and analysis. In EL, a special unit in the Police Headquarters was
established for the analysis of operational information with the use of
specific software. Based on the analysis of five cases, the unit has already
provided accurate information regarding networks of traffickers in human beings
with connections to several Member States. In LV, the
Analytical Division of the State Border Guard used information on routes and
flows to produce tactical warnings. In AT, the ÔCentral Service for Combating
Illegal Migration and Trafficking in Human BeingsÕ (of the Austrian Criminal
Intelligence Service) registers each time an irregular migrant is stopped
and/or investigated. In PL, a Central National Visa Registry, containing
information on third-country nationals applying for visas and a register of
visas already issued was planned to be established in 2010.
Several Member States (BE, BG, CZ, HU, NL,
PL, RO, SI, SK, FI) described specific mapping exercises undertaken to identify
migration routes used for irregular migration. BG and NL participated in the
ICMPDÕs ÔMediterranean Transit MigrationÕ (MTM) dialogue on its interactive map
(iMap) on irregular migration routes in Africa, the Middle East, and the
Mediterranean Sea Region. CZ, HU, NL, PL, RO and SK also contributed actively
to the development of a similar iMap – the Building Migration
Partnerships (BMP iMap), which focused on the eastern European external
borders. Under the initiative of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU,
BE, FI and SK took part in a joint operation (Operation Hermes), which aimed to
establish a mapping of routes of irregular migration and the smuggling of human
beings within the Schengen area, to strengthen the collaboration with
non-Schengen Member States, and to promote the role of the European police
networks.
The UK developed a strategy to improve
intelligence in the area of non-scheduled aviation and maritime (air and sea)
traffic to identify threats and encourage the public to report suspicious
activity in this area. Similarly, IT noted a drastic reduction in the number of
irregular migrants apprehended at the maritime borders, with authorities
suspecting, in some cases, the use of non-scheduled maritime transport, such as
luxury boats, or unofficial landing areas on the Italian coast by traffickers.
With regard to future measures, DK planned
to develop information collection activities while indicating that due to its
geographical location, direct migratory flows were limited.
increased targeted training and equipment support
At EU
level, see the entry under Commitment IV.(e) [Section IV.1]
At national level, and referring
also to Sections III.1.1 and IV.1, many Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, CY, LT, NL, AT, PL, SI, SK, FI, UK)
carried out some form of staff training of border guards and other police
authorities, immigration office staff and personnel from other relevant
Ministries and departments (see also Section III.1.1). This included training in the identification of irregular
migrants (BE, EE); prevention of irregular migration (LT); detection of false
documents (CZ, CY, EL, FR, LT, NL, SI); techniques for interviewing asylum
applicants (EE); use of specific equipment – e.g. fingerprint scanners
(UK); escort and detention of irregular migrants (EL, FR); treatment of
vulnerable groups and protection of human rights of third-country nationals
under return procedures (EL); prevention of and awareness-raising on human
trafficking (IE, ES, PL, FI); work with the SIS (LT) and migration-related
crime (NL). In NL, all inspectors of the Health and Safety Inspectorate
carrying out inspections on illegal employment and underpayment were trained in
the application of legislative provisions. Similarly, in SK, officials from the
Ministry of Interior were trained in the application of the new EU visa code
legislation. A ÔEuropean Training DayÕ (in November 2010) was also organised by
SK for 40 border guards and aliens police officers to inform them of EU
instruments (i.e. Schengen instruments), as well as issues such as document
forgery. RO produced a ÔGuide on best practices on inter-institutional
cooperation in the area of combating illegal migration and return of
third-country nationalsÕ, which was disseminated to all authorities with
competencies in this area.
IE and PL carried out a number of training
activities relating to human trafficking, In IE, the IOM and the Anti Human
Trafficking unit delivered a ÔTrain the TrainersÕ programme with a total of 40
persons trained from 14 different organisations. Since then, 180 persons in
four organisations received training on human trafficking by those who attended
the course. In addition, awareness-raising and training in the area of human
trafficking was delivered to staff of national employment rights authority
inspectors, and members of the Police, and to probationary policemen during
their final phase of training. Similarly, LV described a large number of
training activities. These included the training of 40 officials of the State
Border Guard in best practices in EU Member States in the identification of
asylum applicants, and best practices in detention centres for asylum
applicants.
Six Member States (EL, IT, AT, PL, PT, UK)
introduced new equipment to support the combating of irregular migration. AT used
license plate recognition devices for tracing irregular plates in the national
database. In PT, a mobile system for reading travel documents (SMILE system -
Mobile System for Documentary Controls and Collecting Biometric Data) was
introduced. Moreover, the use of mobile fingerprint scanners was extended in
UK, while in IT, a project for the development of an integrated system (System
Analysis of Maritime Trafficking) of information gathering, analysis and
monitoring aimed at the coordination of activities relating to irregular
migration was launched, which also aimed at providing a broader overview of the
Mediterranean and land borders. EL upgraded the daily operation of the
Readmission Unit within the State Police Headquarters, as well as the Expulsion
Department of the main Regional Aliens Police Directorate, by providing them
with additional electronic equipment, with the financial assistance of the
European Return Fund. PL extended the use of
specialized vehicles for carrying out mobile checks and devices for
rapid screening and fingerprint identification.
a coordinated approach by Member States by developing
the network of liaison officers in country of origin and transit
At EU
level, political agreement was achieved on the Commission proposal for the
amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an
immigration liaison officers (ILO) network, aimed at ensuring efficient use of
this important cooperation tool for the management of migration and external
borders. As also mentioned in Section I.3.1, the changes to the Regulation aim at
facilitating the integration of FRONTEX into the ILO networks. Formal adoption
of the amendment will take place in 2011. Thus the inclusion of FRONTEX into
the information exchanges among the ILO's posted in a given third country or
region currently still depends entirely on the Member States concerned.
Reporting from Member States' immigration liaison officers to FRONTEX takes
place through Member States' central offices. In 2010, the Agency was invited
to ILO meetings organised by Member States in Moscow, Dakar, Zagreb and Tirana.
In turn, ILOs posted in the Western Balkans, Eastern Borders and Africa were
invited to the regional analytical meetings of FRONTEX.
At national level, many Member
States (CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, AT, PT, SI, SE, UK)
described recent developments in relation to Immigration Liaison Officers
(ILOs), with four CZ, HU, PT, SE sending new ILOs to third countries. The most
prominent third countries included Vietnam, Egypt, Ukraine, Serbia, China and
Pakistan, while CZ, PT and SE also sent ILOs to the Russian Federation.
With regard to the achievements of ILOs, FR
reported on the success of ILO missions, including an investigation launched
concerning the landing of 124 Kurdish migrants on the Corsica coast, the
dismantlement of a smuggling network of Chinese migrants and preventing 148 migrants
in Morocco from entering the EU illegally.
Some Member States reported that ILO
missions were, in some instances, undertaken for very specific purposes. For
example, AT reported the planned stationing of an ILO in Thailand from 2011
onwards in order to focus on combating child sex tourism.
Concerning other activities, some Member
States (DE, EL, ES, IT, RO, UK) developed their ILO networks through attendance
at network meetings (IT, UK) and enlargement of ILO networks in other Member
States (DE). Moreover, EL cooperated with IT in view of strengthening the role of their
respective liaison officers, which involved inter alia the deployment of Greek and
Italian liaison officers at selected Italian and Greek ports. ES held two meetings of liaison officer networks in Dakar (Senegal)
and Bogot‡ (Colombia) concerning human trafficking, while ILOs from DE worked
with NL Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) and PT Immigration and
Borders Service (SEF) to further expand their cooperation. RO analysed ILOÕs
activities undertaken to date and planned a review of the deployment of ILOs in
countries of origin and transit in 2011.
EE reported on cooperation with LV and LT,
despite them not having an independent Liaison Officer, with all three Member
States sharing an ILO in Belarus due to the establishment of a project
facilitating information exchange and communication between the Russian
Federation, Belarus and themselves in the field of irregular migration. DK
cooperated with other Nordic countries on the deployment of liaison officers to
third-countries, while AT and SI jointly sent liaison officers to Albania and
Montenegro.
II.2.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment:
II.(b) to conclude
readmission agreements at EU or bilateral level
with those countries with which this is necessary, so that each Member State
has the legal instruments to ensure that illegal immigrants are expelled;
At EU level, the Commission presented in November 2010
recommendations to the Council to negotiate readmission and visa facilitation
agreements with Belarus, in the framework of the Eastern Partnership. The
readmission agreement with Pakistan entered into force on 1 December 2010. The
readmission agreement with Georgia was signed on 22 November 2010 and will
likely enter into force on 1 March 2011. Negotiations with Turkey (blocked
since 2006 and re-launched late 2009) accelerated in the course of 2010. With
Cape Verde, another round of negotiations was held in October 2010. Further
efforts were undertaken at various levels in order to launch the talks with
China and Algeria. Joint Readmission Committee meetings to monitor the implementation
of EU readmission agreements took place in 2010 with, for example, the Russian
Federation, Ukraine, Moldova and some of the Western Balkan countries.
Following the request to the Commission in
the Stockholm Programme to present an evaluation of EU readmission agreements
and policy, an evaluation report was drafted by the Commission which has now
been presented to the European Parliament and the Council in early 2011.[38]
At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT,
PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) referred to EU readmission agreements, national protocols to implement
these, and other bilateral agreements with third countries, which were
concluded and/or entered into force in 2010.
On EU
readmission agreements, several Member States (CZ, EE, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT,
AT, PL, SI, SE) made specific reference to implementing protocols to make the
EU readmission agreements effective in their respective Member States,
particularly with the following third countries: Albania (SK),
Bosnia-Herzegovina (BG, EE, MT, PT), FYROM (EE, BG, AT) Kazakhstan (LT), Moldova (EE, LV, LT, AT, PT, RO, SK), Montenegro (BG, MT, AT), Russian Federation (EE, ES, CY, LV, LT, SK, FI), Serbia (EE, MT,
AT, PT), Ukraine (BG). Whilst EE, EL, CY, LT, LV, AT RO, SI were planning and/or negotiating
implementing protocols, specifically with Albania (EL, SI), Bosnia-Herzegovina
(EL, CY, LV, AT), FYROM (EL, LV, LT), Moldova (EL, CY), Montenegro (EE), the
Russian Federation (EE, EL, LT, AT, RO), Serbia (EE, EL, CY, RO) and Ukraine
(EE, AT, RO).
Several
Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, AT) made reference to other bilateral
agreements, concluded at national level with third countries. BE, for example,
referred to an agreement between Benelux countries and Kosovo, CZ referred to
agreements with Switzerland, Armenia, Kosovo,
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, DK, DE and AT referred to the signature
of an agreement with Kosovo (which for DE entered into force on 1st
September 2010), IE referred to agreements with Hong Kong and Nigeria, FI
referred to an agreement with Switzerland and UK referred to agreements with
Georgia and Pakistan. EL referred to ongoing efforts and experts' meetings for
a better implementation of the bilateral readmission protocol signed with
Turkey. Other Member
States (BE, ES, EE, EL, FR, CY, LV, LT, AT, RO, SI, UK), stated that they were
in the process of negotiating one or more bilateral readmission agreements with
third countries, such as Afghanistan (EL), Armenia (EE, CY), Azerbaijan (EE,
LV), Bangladesh (EL), Bosnia-Herzegovina (LT), Colombia (LV), Indonesia (EL),
Iraq (EL), Jordan (CY), Kazakhstan (BE, EE, EL, LT), Kosovo (EE, LV, LT, SI),
Nigeria (EL), Qatar (CY), Serbia (UK), Sudan (RO), Syria (RO) and Tunisia (RO).
Commitment:
II.(f) to invite Member States, specifically with the support of Community
instruments, to devise incentive systems to assist voluntary return
At EU level, Member States
were encouraged to make use of the means provided by the European Return Fund
and provide for innovative measures encouraging voluntary return. Those
measures are eligible for co-funding up to 75% under the priority 3 of the
Strategic Guidelines for the European Return Fund. Voluntary departure appears
to have become the preferred option of return, in line with the Return
Directive. This is also reflected in the way Member States programme the EU
assistance available from the Return Fund. Under the national Annual Programmes
2010, more than half of the total funds programmed (excluding technical
assistance) are, in one way or another, related to voluntary return.
The European Return Fund is in its third
year of implementation. Currently, the Member States are implementing the 2009
and 2010 programmes and therefore the actual implementation of the projects
under these programmes is firmly on its way. The Member States are gaining more
experience over time and in many cases the annual programmes are becoming more
sophisticated. Besides putting greater emphasis on voluntary return, several
Member States are also addressing measures related to the Return Directive. The
impact of the establishment of the Fund is thus starting to become evident, as
the Commission is receiving progress reports on the annual programmes. In accordance
with the legal basis for the Fund, the Commission is currently carrying out a
mid-term review of the programmes.
At national level, most Member States (BE, BG,
CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI,
SK, FI, SE, UK) had programmes, measures and incentives in place to promote
assisted voluntary return.[39]
Many
Member States (CZ, DE, IE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI,
SE, UK) gave details of the general content of their national assisted return
programmes and projects, which were either newly established, or set up prior
to and continued in 2010. These programmes and projects include information
campaigns, counselling on return opportunities, outreach activities, financial
assistance, support to set up an economic activity in the country of return and
other forms of reintegration assistance. FI, for example, commenced, in cooperation with the IOM, an assisted return project
to develop and strengthen cooperation between authorities and actors involved in assisted
voluntary return, to increase the availability of information on return
opportunities, and to assist returnees with their return arrangements, also
paying them a financial incentive (up to Û1 500 per adult and up to Û1 000
per minor). IT, SK and SE used measures such as information campaigns on
assisted voluntary return. Following the transposition of the Return Directive,
SI introduced changes to the Aliens Act related to voluntary return.
Several
Member States (IE, ES, DK, DE, IT, FR, FI, SK, SE, UK) had geared their
programmes and projects to specific categories of potential returnees, or to
their specific needs. FR, for example, reported that
they differentiated between assisted voluntary return and assisted humanitarian
return, with different target groups. In ES, within the national assisted
voluntary programme, three sub-programmes exist, including a humanitarian
programme for vulnerable returnees; a reintegration return programme, helping
those who wish to set up a business in their country of origin; and a programme
for unemployed third-country nationals allowing return with advance
unemployment benefits. The latter allows unemployed immigrants to return to
their country of origin with the unemployment benefits they accumulated in ES.
DK runs two projects with the aim to promote assisted voluntary return for
Victims of trafficking, unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups. The
UK runs three assisted return programmes, one of which was started in 2010,
namely an assisted voluntary return programme for irregular migrants (AVRIM)
and an assisted voluntary return programme for families and children (AVRFC),
which encourages families to return as an alternative to detention.
Many Member States (BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES,
IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, AT, PL, RO, SK, FI, SE) also reported on assisted return
and re-integration projects financed by the European Return Fund, which
involved, depending on the Member State, collaboration between governments, IOM
and NGOs in Member States, as well as in countries of origin.
From the
information provided, in general, it seems that Member State programmes and
projects are placing increased focus on the provision of post-departure
assistance, providing support to the reintegration of the individuals to ensure
a successful and sustainable return. In most cases, such re-integration
measures are carried out by the IOM. However, some Member States, such as NL
and SE, started new reintegration projects in 2010 in cooperation with national
organisations and civil society in the Member State and in the country of
return. BE, ES, IT, LU and AT also referred to
reintegration incentives to encourage ÔproductiveÕ return. In BE, a new
reintegration programme was initiated in March 2010, providing Û2 000 in kind
assistance for the creation of a micro-businesses, complementary to the
financial assistance provided under the regular assisted return programme (Û700
per adult). The programme, coordinated by the government and implemented by the
IOM and Caritas, involved specialised guidance and counselling in
micro-business development. To obtain the complementary assistance, the
applicant had to demonstrate a business plan, which was assessed by a local
reintegration partner in the country of return (IOM or Caritas). In LU, the
2010 Annual Programme for assisted voluntary return focused on reintegration
measures and income-generating activities instead of granting pocket money.
On future measures, CY was negotiating a
draft agreement to establish an IOM office on its territory, which would also
favour the further development of voluntary return activities. PL held talks on broadening the
category of third-country nationals eligible to be granted assistance within
the voluntary return programme in order to include also persons identified as
victims of human trafficking.
the
conclusion of effective and operational readmission agreements, on a case-by-case basis at EU or bilateral level
See the entry under Commitment II.(b)
[Section II.2.1]
ensuring
that the objective of the EUÕs efforts on readmission should add value and
increase the efficiency of return policies, including existing bilateral
agreements and practices
See the entry under Commitment II.(b) [Section
II.2.1]
the
presentation by the Commission of
an evaluation, also of ongoing negotiations, during 2010 of the EC
readmission agreements and propose a
mechanism to monitor their implementation.
The Council should define a
renewed, coherent strategy on readmission
on that basis, taking into account the overall relations with the country
concerned, including a common approach towards third countries that do not
cooperate in readmitting their own nationals,
At EU level, see the entry under Commitment II.(b) [Section II.2.1]
At national level, most Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL,
AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) confirmed that the EU readmission
agreements were important tools in rendering return policies more efficient,
as, for example, they provided increased clarity on and harmonised return
procedures. PT, however, drew attention to issues which sometimes inhibited the
effective implementation of readmission agreements, such as bureaucratic problems,
difficulties in identifying an interlocutor and long response times, while MT
highlighted the difficulties related to the issuing of travel documents.
assistance
by the Commission and Frontex and Member States on a voluntary basis, to Member
States which face specific and disproportionate pressures, in order to ensure
the effectiveness of their return policies towards certain third states
At EU level, see the entry under Commitment II.(b) [Section II.2.1] in respect to Return, as well as Commitment IV.(c) [Section
IV.1] for a general overview of actions taken in
regard to disproportionate pressures.
At national level, several Member
States (DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, IT, LU, NL, AT, UK) mentioned that, within the
FRONTEX operational framework, they provided support to EL, which faced
disproportionate pressures. Conversely, MT, as a Member State facing
disproportionate pressures, participated in the MELITA Project, a joint
operation between MT and FRONTEX aimed at enhancing partnerships with
identified countries of origin. MT also developed the MAREMCA Project on
ÔStrengthening MaltaÕs long-term Return Management CapacitiesÕ within the
framework of the European Return Fund, in order to enhance the effectiveness of
the readmission process. This project involved cooperation with authorities
from Ghana and Nigeria, as well as discussions with other EU Member States in
relation to best practices and approach in the return of irregular migrants to
their country of origin.
increased
practical cooperation between Member States, for instance by chartering of
joint return flights
At EU level, see the entry under Commitment II.(d)
[Section II.1.1]
At national level, the majority of
Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, HU, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL,
SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) organised and / or participated in joint return flights.
EE, LV, LT, PT and RO did not take part in these, with EE indicating that this
was mainly due to its very low number of returnees.
Many of the joint return flights (CZ, DE,
IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, NL, AT, PL, SI, FI, SE, UK) were undertaken in
cooperation with FRONTEX. DE, for example, organised three flights and
participated in a total of 13 joint return operations. ES organised five joint
return flights to Colombia, Ecuador, Georgia and Ukraine, returning 308
third-country nationals. FR participated in 19 of these operations, with
Kosovo, Albania, Nigeria, Georgia and Pakistan as the main destinations. AT
coordinated 12 joint return operations and participated in eight additional
operations. NL organised two flights and participated in a total of seven joint
return flights. PL took part in 10 joint flights coordinated by FRONTEX and
returned a total of 90 third-country nationals.
Some Member States (FR, IE, EL, AT, SE, UK)
also organised return flights on their own initiative, in cooperation with
other Member States. SE, since October 2008, has carried out 14 non-FRONTEX
chartered flights to Iraq, some of which jointly with DK, NL, NO and UK, while
AT organised four chartered flights with PL in 2010. CY organised a joint
flight with EL for the return of irregular migrants to Syria and also organised
8 direct chartered flights for the return of 562 migrants to Afghanistan,
Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria, with the support of the European Return Fund.
encouraging
of voluntary return, including through
the development of incentive systems, training, reintegration and subsidies,
and by using the possibilities offered by existing financial instruments,
See the entry under Commitment II.(f)
[Section II.2.1]
Table 2 in the Statistical Annex
gives an overview of the number of third-country nationals apprehended, ordered
to leave and effectively returned following an order to leave in 2010. It also includes
statistics on the number of third-country nationals returned as part of forced
and voluntary return measures. On the basis of these data, the number of
apprehensions ranged from 132 524 (EL, provisional data) to 195 (LV) in 2010.
When compared to voluntary return, forced return still occurred more frequently
in 2010 in a number of Member States, most notably in EL (52 469 forced returns
versus 420 voluntary return), CY (3 097 forced returns versus 966 voluntary
returns), FR (15 496 forced returns versus 2 422 voluntary returns) and RO (290
forced returns versus 51 voluntary returns). BE, PL and PT had the highest proportion
of voluntary to forced returns.
II.3 Actions
against human trafficking
II.3.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment:
II.(e) to step up cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit, in particular to combat human trafficking and to provide better information to communities under threat
At EU level, the fight against
trafficking was included as one of the priority actions in the revised Action
Plan in the framework of the Africa-EU Partnership on Migration, Mobility and
Employment adopted at the Africa-EU Summit in December 2010. Trafficking in
human beings has been a priority under the Thematic Programme on Migration and
Asylum and a number of projects strengthening third countries' capacities to
fight against trafficking in human beings have been financed in this context,
including awareness raising campaigns.
With regard to developments on the
provision of better information, see Commitment I.(f) [Section I.3.1].
At national level, most Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO,
SK, FI, SE, UK) cooperated with third countries of origin and transit to combat
human trafficking. Actions undertaken focused on raising awareness of
communities under threat (BE, ES, CY, IT, LV, AT, PL, PT, SE); as well as a
range of other activities, such as the development and implementation of
national strategies (ES, EL, LT, PT, SK, SE); cooperation and capacity building
between Member State agencies (BG, LT, NL, SE); monitoring and assistance to
victims (BG, EL, CY, PT, SE); and hosting regional counter-trafficking
conference with an aim to increase cooperation between receiving and sending
countries (LT).
Nine Member States (BE, EL, ES, CY, IT, LV HU, NL, PT) carried out
activities in countries of origin in order to reduce irregular migration. BE
carried out information campaigns and sent out missions to specific countries
(e.g. Brazil, Serbia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Morocco and Afghanistan). CY enhanced
cooperation and dialogue with neighbouring countries of origin and transit,
especially with Syria. Concerning projects to prevent irregular migration, NL
participated in a project to strengthen the capacity of the Liberian Immigration
Service to reduce irregular migration, while ES proposed several initiatives
for irregular migration prevention projects with Latin America and the
Asia-Pacific region.
With regard to awareness-raising, and see
also Section I.3.1, Member States referred to
the organisation of information campaigns (BE, ES, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, SE); the
production and distribution of information leaflets in foreign languages (BE,
CY, PL, SK, FI); the creation of websites (LV, PL, SK, FI) and maintaining
telephone hotlines for reporting cases (BE, CY, AT, FI) or for victims of
trafficking (SK, PL, FI, SE); and organising meetings with high-school students
and their parents, as well as with university students (PL). ES funded
awareness-raising activities of international organisations in Latin America,
Asia and the Pacific and included specific measures in its Action Plan for
women and peace-building.
PT introduced a new strategy on
counter-human trafficking which included numerous measures, structured around
four strategic areas of intervention: knowledge, awareness and prevention;
education and training; protection and assistance; and criminal investigation
and cooperation. Other Member States (ES, SE) confirmed that they were
currently implementing strategies which had been developed in previous years.
ES, for example, in line with its Comprehensive Plan on the Trafficking of
Human Beings for Sexual Exploitation, identified priority trafficking
countries. In EL, the ratification of the UN Convention against Transnational
Organised Crime and its three Protocols introduced a broadened definition of
victims of trafficking and migrant smuggling and further ensured and expanded
the protection, as well as the reflection period available to them.
Nine Member States (BG,
DK, EL, LT, NL, PL, RO, SE, UK) reported on cooperation
and capacity building with third countries. EL, for example, reported
cooperation with the diplomatic authorities of victimsÕ countries of origins, as well as cross-border operational cooperation of
law enforcement agencies for dismantling organised criminal networks in the
framework of the on-going ILAEIRA operation against human trafficking, which
involves 21 Member
States, third countries, international organisations and NGOs. DK ran a
regional programme from 2007 to 2010 in Thailand, Cambodia and Burma to protect
children against sexual exploitation and trafficking, as well as a project in
Mali to combat organised crime as part of the General Good Governance Programme
and a project in Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus on human trafficking under the
Danish Neighbourhood Programme. LT referred to a human trafficking
prevention project in Kaliningrad, aimed at providing assistance to victims and
sharing best practices with partners in the Russian Federation. NL referred to
a new law enforcement cooperation working agreement with Nigeria, in the
context of which Dutch police officers delivered a number of training sessions
to their Nigerian counterparts, to combat human trafficking and smuggling. SE
undertook numerous activities,
such as visiting and exchange programmes and actions within the Council of the
Baltic Sea States region.
Other measures listed by the Member States
included monitoring and direct assistance. BG, a source and transit country
itself, was involved in various projects, sometimes jointly implemented with
other Member States, such as NL. These aimed at, for example, reducing the
number of victims from BG and RO exploited in IE and ES and developed the
EU-Transnational Monitoring Network, to monitor movements between countries of
origin and destination. SE developed rehabilitation programmes for victims of trafficking and safe return
programmes. In EL, protection and assistance to victims
is offered through a network of state and non-state actors participating in the
ILAEIRA operation.
II.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 7.3 plus
Section 4.4.2)
The
European Council invites the Commission to examine whether ad hoc cooperation agreements with specific third countries
to be identified by the Council
could be a way of enhancing the fight against trafficking and smuggling of
persons and making proposals to that end. In
particular, such agreements could involve full use of all leverage available to
the Union, including the use of existing financing programmes, cooperation in
the exchange of information, judicial cooperation and migration tools
There were no specific developments to
report for 2010.
III.1 Control
and surveillance at external borders
III.1.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment:
III.(a) invite Member
States and the Commission to mobilise all their available resources to ensure more effective control of the external land, sea
and air borders;
At EU level, on 24 February 2010, the Commission proposed an amendment to the
FRONTEX Regulation[40]
aimed at strengthening the functioning of the agency, including in particular a
reinforcement of the legal framework to ensure full respect of fundamental
rights during FRONTEX activities. The examination of the Commission proposal
has not yet yielded a final outcome yet; a compromise among Member States in
Council is, however, emerging on a number of issues. Discussion on the proposal
will continue in 2011.
The first FRONTEX specialised branch entitled "FRONTEX
Operational Office" became operational on 1 October 2010. The main tasks
of the FRONTEX Operational Office (FOO) are: Contribution to the preparation
and evaluation of the Joint Operations being launched in the Eastern
Mediterranean region; Coordination activities in the implementation of those
Joint Operations; Providing information for the situational awareness in the
region and reporting on events related to the Joint Operations; and Gathering
and assessing information and intelligence for risk analysis purposes. It should
fulfil its tasks within the Eastern Mediterranean region (Italy, Malta, Greece
and Cyprus). The functioning of the FOO has to be evaluated after 9 months of
activity. The outcome of the independent evaluation will serve as the basis for
the decision of the Management Board on whether to pursue the pilot project
and/or to establish other similar operational offices. The Agency should report
back to the Council on the results of the evaluation and its subsequent
decision by the end of 2011.
Following a Commission proposal
of 7 December 2009, the Council adopted a Decision on 26th April
2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code on the surveillance of the sea
external borders, in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by
FRONTEX, including on the high seas. Any measures taken during surveillance
operations must be in full respect of fundamental rights. In this regard, the
Decision sets out rules for sea border operations which specify that no person
should be disembarked in or handed over to the authorities of a country in
contravention of the principle of non-refoulement, or from which there is a risk
of expulsion or return to another country in contravention of that principle.
Due to the persistently high
migratory pressure on the external land borders with Turkey, Greece requested
on 24 October 2010 the deployment of Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT)
together with the equipment needed for stepping up border control in the
affected border area. In accordance with the established procedure, FRONTEX
identified, in close cooperation with the Greek authorities, the adequate
composition of the RABIT (i.e. number and profile of guest officers) and the
type of assets to be deployed. Consequently, a total of 190 persons from 26
Member States were deployed, including border guards and interpreters. The
operation also entailed the deployment of necessary equipment, such as a fixed
wing surveillance aircraft, a number of thermo-vision vehicles, patrol cars and
other transport means.
At national level, most Member
States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SK,
FI, SE, UK) undertook activities to increase the effectiveness of border
controls. These included an increase in staff (BE) and operational means (EL),
a reorganisation of human resources more efficiently (EL, LT, FI) and
establishing a new naval assistance office for maritime border controls (LT). A
few Member States (EL, IT, AT) also reported on direct cooperation with other
Member States, outside FRONTEX joint operations. IT and AT cooperated with ES,
with AT providing support in narcotics control and IT discussing the deployment
of joint control devices for border surveillance operations. AT also cooperated
with neighbouring Member States (including HU and SK) in patrolling their
shared borders through 'mixed police patrols' and through common police
cooperation centres. IT, in April 2010, signed an agreement with FR, concerning
the creation of a rapid action border guard force at the Franco-Italian borders
in 2011. EL cooperated with IT in view of increasing efficiency of border
surveillance at selected ports of both countries and with BG in an effort to
combat organised crime and irregular migration at the Greek-Bulgarian borders.
Most Member States (BE, BG, DK, DE, IE, EE,
EL, ES, FR, CY, IT, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK)
also listed their participation in FRONTEX operations and missions. Their
inputs ranged from the deployment of staff, experts and technical equipment to
the participation in risk assessments and training courses. Specific FRONTEX
operations and initiatives included CRONOS, PULSAR, HYDRA, INDALO, AGELAUS,
ATTICA, POSEIDON, HERMES, HUBBLE, HAMMER, MINERVA, NEPTUNE, JUPITER, UNITY, the
Focal Points and the European Patrols Network. Several Member States (BE, DK,
DE, EE, ES, IT, LU, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, SE) made specific reference to the
deployment of border guards and immigration and return experts to EL through
the RABIT mechanism. On this matter, EL particularly welcomed the signature of
an operational plan with FRONTEX in October 2010, allowing for the deployment
of experts and guest officers as part of RABIT and their cooperation with the
Hellenic border control forces, to rapidly tackle irregular migration along the
borders with Turkey and assist EL in the surveillance of their external borders
In addition, EL referred to the POSEIDON joint operation, which involves the
deployment of patrol units of the 25 participating Member States, and the
establishment of a pilot FRONTEX Operational Office within the premises of the
Coast Guard at the Piraeus port, aiming to effectively combat irregular
migration and dismantle organised smuggling networks in the South-Eastern
Mediterranean region.
Other measures to ensure more effective
border control were also mentioned by many Member States (BE, BG, DE, EL, ES,
FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, RO). These included the acquisition of
new equipment, the printing of a pocket book for border guards, improvements to
informatic systems and creating linkages between different national systems,
organising simulations, undertaking risk assessments, implementing legislative
and procedural changes, developing comprehensive border management plans and
strategies plus cooperation with neighbouring countries. For example, following
the identification of deficiencies in exercising external border controls and
given the increased pressure on its borders, EL elaborated the National Action
Plan ÔGreece-SchengenÕ to enhance effective border controls. Member States also
often referred to the European Border Fund (EBF) as a means of financing such
activities. Several Member States (BE, BG, DE, EL, LT, AT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK)
also indicated that they planned to further develop border control in the
future, which ranged from the development of a State border protection
programme, building new facilities at the external border crossing points, an
increased focus on checking the authenticity of passports, further training,
reorganisation of services and evaluation, to planned collaboration with other
Member States and / or third countries.
Many Member States (BG, CZ, EL, IT, CY, LV,
HU, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, SE) organised and delivered training to
increase the skills and competences of their existing staff (See also Section
II.1.2). Such training was provided in different
formats, including courses, workshops, seminars, online interactive training
and training on the job, including practical and theoretical components. In NL,
for example, a new Coaching & Supervision Department was established at
Amsterdam Airport, which can also provide additional ad-hoc and other training,
where necessary, to border guards. The focus of the training provided in the
Member States ranged from ÔgeneralÕ, basic training covering all aspects of
border control, to training on very specific topics, such as the identification
of forged documents, fingerprinting, search and rescue missions at sea,
implementation of quality management systems, EU legislation, the use of new
equipment and software and human rights. Three Member States (IT, PL, PT)
organised language training to enable better communication between border
guards and third-country nationals. The beneficiaries of training were
primarily border guards, but detention staff, immigration officials, police
officers and other relevant staff, were also involved.
Training activities provided are also
described in Sections II.1.2 and under Commitment
IV.(e) [Section IV.1].
Commitment:
III.(e) deploy modern technological means
to ensure that systems are interoperable and to enable the effective integrated
management of the external border, in line with the conclusions of the European
Council on 19 and 20 June 2008 and of the Council on 5 and 6 June 2008. From
2012, depending on the Commission's
proposals, the focus should be on establishing electronic recording of entry
and exit, together with a fast-track procedure for European citizens and other
travellers;
At EU
level, the Commission continued its preparation of proposals accompanied
with impact assessments on a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and an
Entry/Exit System (EES) providing for modern technological means which shall be
interoperable with existing and future large scale IT systems. The study on the
costs of the entry/exit system and the Registered Traveller Programme was
finalised in April 2010. The study analysed the development, maintenance and
administrative costs under different implementation options. The
state of play and necessary further steps taken were discussed together with
Member States in Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum in
October 2010.
A policy study on feasibility, practical
implications and impact of a possible EU European System of Travel
Authorisation (ESTA) was started. On the basis of the study, the Commission
will present in 2012 a report to the European Parliament and the Council as
part of the "Smart Border Package," in which it will indicate whether
the establishment of an EU ESTA should be considered.
At national level, most Member
States referred to the deployment of modern technological means, particularly
in order to facilitate the entry of bona fide travellers, to improve the
effectiveness of border checks, to upgrade existing or introduce new border
management systems and to improve border surveillance. Several Member States
(BE, DE, EE, ES, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, FI, UK) referred to measures taken towards
automated and electronic border crossing, such as testing Registered Traveller
schemes (DE, NL, UK). A number of Member States (DE, EE, ES, HU, NL, AT, PL,
UK) reported on the development of automated border crossing points. FI piloted
a project introducing automated border control at its land borders and EE
indicated working on a Ôvirtual check-inÕ system to facilitate border
crossings. DE and UK specifically mentioned the expanding use of biometrics for
facilitating border crossings, with DE using iris scanning for their Registered
Traveller test programme, whilst UK started negotiations with an airport operator,
for a scheme whereby passengers can pre-register their biometric data in order
to be able to pass through specifically enabled gates more rapidly.
Several Member States (BE, CZ, DE, IT, NL,
AT, PT, SK, SE) also implemented measures to improve the effectiveness and
ÔscrutinyÕ of border checks. These consisted of introducing and/or increasing
the existing number of passport readers and other devices to verify travel and
identification documents, or procedures, including verifying biometric
information. NL and PT furthermore piloted and/or implemented new Passenger
Information systems. Several Member States (IE, EL, ES, CY, LV, LT, HU, PL, PT,
SI, SK, FI, SE) also referred to the development, upgrading or inter-linking of
national border management information systems, often making links to relevant
upcoming EU systems, such as EUROSUR, and large-scale informatic systems, such
as the Registered Traveller Programme and the Entry/Exit System. LT, for
example, noted that the modernisation of their border monitoring systems also
took in account the future integration in EUROSUR and they are also preparing
an electronic arrival and departure record keeping system, in line with the EU
entry/exit system. DK chaired a Nordic Workshop on the potential gains and pitfalls
of the entry-exit system to inform the CommissionÕs proposals. PL confirmed
that developments to their national systems aimed to ensure full integration,
operability and compatibility with current and future EU Systems. PT
implemented an entry and exit security system, whilst FI has an entry / exit
system already in place.
Ten Member States (BE, EL, ES, IT, LT, MT,
RO, SI, FI, UK) described the deployment of modern technological means to
improve border surveillance. This included the acquisition of high-tech border
surveillance equipment, such as thermal imaging cameras day binoculars, x-ray
devices and scanners, and procurement of patrol boats, vehicles and
helicopters, often purchased with the support of the European Border Fund
(EBF).
The
European Council calls on the Commission and Member States
to ensure that the SIS II and the VIS system
now become fully operational in keeping with the timetables to be established
for that purpose. Before creating new systems, an evaluation of these and
existing systems should be made and the
difficulties encountered when they were set up should be taken into account.
The setting up of an administration for large IT systems could play a central
role in the possible development of IT systems in the future.
At EU level, a clear, realistic
roadmap for the finalisation of SIS II, widely supported by stakeholders, was
presented to the October JHA Council. The target date for making the system
ready for operations is March 2013. Final agreement has been reached on the
technical specifications for the interaction of the SIS II Central System with
the national systems. These are a pre-requisite for finalising technical
development. Work is progressing smoothly and in a constructive atmosphere, with
most stakeholders showing good commitment towards the prompt and timely
conclusion of the project.
The development of the Visa Information
System progressed well. The foreseen date for the technical readiness of the
VIS is now 24 June 2011, which will allow the start of operations in principle
on 11th October 2011, provided that Member States notify their
national readiness as well. The VIS will be deployed at consular posts around
the world in a regional manner, in order to avoid potential problems of a big
bang approach. The Commission adopted on 30 November 2009 a decision
(2010/49/EC) determining the first regions for the start of operations of the
Visa Information System (VIS) following an assessment and taking into account
elements such as the average visa refusal and entry refusal rates for each of
the regions concerned, as well as the fact that consular presence or
representation should be increased in certain regions in order to efficiently
implement the VIS in these regions. According to this assessment, the first
region where the collection and transmission of visa data to the VIS should
start for all visa applications should be North Africa; the second region
should be the Near East and the third region should be the Gulf region.[41]
For the determination of the further regions, subsequent decisions should be
taken at a later stage on the basis of an additional and up-dated assessment of
these other regions.
At national level, most Member
States (BG, DK, DE, EE, ES, IT, CY, LT, LV, LU, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK,
FI, SE) also reported on progress with regard to the implementation of the VIS,
with most confirming to be in line with the EU timetable. EE and SE, for
example, referred to the testing of the system, together with six other Member
States, as part of OST (Operational System Test). Other Member States referred
to national developments, such as the purchasing and installation of the
necessary equipment (BG, EL, ES, LU), legislative changes to accommodate the
implementation of VIS (HU), the delivery of training courses to staff of
embassy and consular offices (EL, LV, LT), efforts to ensure the compatibility
of national systems with VIS (DK, IT, LT, LU), and the organisation of testing
phases to ensure compliance (LU, FI).
See also the entry under Commitment
II.(h) [Section II.1.1].
invites the Commission
present proposals for an entry/exit system
alongside a fast track registered traveller programme with a view to such a system becoming operational as soon as
possible,
See the entry
under Commitment III.(e) [Section III.1.1]
The European Council invites the Commission to make the necessary proposals to achieve the objectives
related to the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur)
JAI
Council Conclusions 3 / 4 June 2010 on the follow-up of the European Pact on
Immigration and Asylum, Section 4.d: Another
crucial measure is the swift implementation of the phases and steps laid down
for the development of the European Surveillance System (EUROSUR).
At EU level, in close
coordination with FRONTEX and the Member States, the Commission continued to
develop the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR), which shall be
gradually established from 2013. A first report on the progress of EUROSUR,
covering the period between February 2008 and July 2009, was already published
on 24 September 2009. A second report on the progress made in the development
of EUROSUR between August 2009 and October 2010 was published in January 2011.[42]
The support for development of
the national components of EUROSUR and of a permanent European Patrol Network
at the southern maritime borders of the EU Member States is defined as one of
the strategic priorities of the External Borders Fund. For the upcoming
programming phase 2011-2013, Member States were encouraged to direct their
European Border Fund (EBF) allocations to several areas of particular
importance to the EU in line with the Stockholm Programme. This includes
EUROSUR and in particular, establishment and further development of the single
national coordination centres, as well as extension and upgrading of the mobile
and stationary components of the national border surveillance systems.
At national level, see the entry
under Commitment III.(e) [Section III.1.1].
invites the Commission
to continue to examine the issue of automated
border controls and other issues connected
to rendering border management more efficient. This includes also the European
Council inviting Member States and
the Commission to explore how the
different types of checks carried out at
the external border can be better coordinated, integrated and rationalised with a view to the twin objective of facilitating access and
improving security
At EU level, see the entry under Commitment:
III.(e) [Section III.1.1]
At national level, several Member States
reported on developments in addition to those described under Commitment
III.(e) [Section III.1.1] with regard to the
implementation of automated border controls and improved border checks. For
example, BG, since November 2010, operated a new National Coordination Centre
which coordinates all the activities related to border management, while EL
undertook preparatory actions for setting up an Operational Coordination Centre for this
purpose within the State Police Headquarters. HU and SK
started preparations for such centres. FR and UK opened a Joint Coordination
Centre to control movement of people and goods between the two Member States,
as part of their ÔEvianÕ bilateral agreement, signed in July 2009 and updated
in November 2010. LU outlined the importance of cooperation between
cross-border airports. BE set up the ÔMaritime Information Cross PointÕ to
facilitate multi-agency data sharing (including participation of defence,
police services and customs) and NL undertook preparations for joint border
checks by border guards and customs. For this purpose, training courses were
organised with the aim to conduct effective and efficient border checks on, for
instance, luggage and freight. The implementation of an Automated Clearance
Service, in addition to its already existing fast-track border gates, was also
being considered in UK.
III.1.3 Key statistics
Table 3 in the Statistical Annex
gives an overview of the number of third-country nationals refused entry in
2010 and by type of border, including land, sea and air borders. The
geographical position of Member States seems to be a major determining factor
regarding the number of refusals, with Member States forming EuropeÕs external
border having relatively higher number of refusals. The number of refusals by
Member States in 2010 ranged from 290 045 (ES), followed by 22 895 (PL), down
to 80 (DK). Member States refusing entry mostly
at a land border were again ES (281 750 or 97.1% of total) and PL (22 255 or 97.2%)
and then HU (10 215 or 97.5%). EE was the only one refusing entry primarily at
a sea border (1 260 or 75.7% of all refusals). Member States who had all their
refusals at an air border were CZ, DK, MT and SE, with BE, DE, NL and PT also
having more than 95% of all their refusals at air borders.
III.2
Cooperation with respect to border control
III.2.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment: III.(b) generalise the issue of biometric visas,
improve cooperation between Member StateÕs consulates and set up joint consular
services for visas
At EU level, and with regard to the
use of biometrics in the Visa Information System, see the entry under Section
III.1.2. In addition, the External Borders Fund has
co- financed (under Union actions) the setting up of two common application
centres (in Praia, Cap Verde and Kinshasa, Congo).
At national level, a number of
Member States reported on progress with regard to the implementation of
biometric visas and on consular cooperation. With regard to biometric visas,
many Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, FR, IT, LV, HU, MT, NL, PT, SK,
FI) prepared for their issuing or started the issuing in a selection of their
consular offices mainly in North Africa, in line with EU guidelines.[43]
FR, for example, and as of March 2010, equipped 169 of its 193 consular offices
to issue biometric visas and SK equipped all its embassies with fingerprinting
devices. CZ expected to have around 180-200 fingerprinting visa workstations in
total. IT started the testing in two North-African States, whilst IE started in
Nigeria and PT established a visa centre in Cape Verde, fully capable of
collecting and issuing biometric visas. LV envisaged a testing phase in their
consular office in Egypt. The UK, not participating in VIS, also required
people applying for visas to register a digital photograph and fingerprint.
A few Member States referred to cooperation
between consular offices. EE, for example, indicated that visa representation
agreements were signed with DK, FR and PL, whilst SK was negotiating such
agreements with CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, LV, LT, PL. Their Ministry of Foreign
Affairs also mandated its embassies to start negotiations concerning the
possible establishment of joint consular services. CZ reported that, since
2010, ES, FR and PT represented it in more than 30 third countries, whilst it,
at the same time, respectively represented FR and ES in Ukraine and Moldova.
Following the signing of representation agreements, EL is represented by FR,
IT, LT, ES, BE, NL, DE, PT, SE, AT and HU, while it represents FR and HU. CY is
currently analysing the costs and benefits of signing visa representation
agreements with other Member States, prior to engaging into new negotiations.
LT signed visa representation agreements with DK, DE, EL, LV and NO and planned
to sign an agreement with SK. With the adoption of the Visa Code, LU confirmed
the continuation of most of the existing representation agreements. PL signed
visa representation agreements with EE, NL and SE, to represent these Member
States in several third countries and to be represented in others. SK signed
agreements with HU, AT and SI. The latter will also be represented by SK in CY,
RO and Ukraine. BE, in cooperation with SE, established a Common Application
Centre in Kinshasa, DR Congo in April 2010. LU participated in Common
Application Centres in Chisinau (Moldova), Praia (Cape Verde) and Podgorica
(Montenegro).
On future measures, LU will represent NL in
13 European cities (Geneva, Madrid, Prague, Rome, Brussels, Paris, Vienna,
Copenhagen, Berlin, Bern, Lisbon, Athens and Warsaw) from 2011.
Commitment: III.(d) give
fuller consideration, in a spirit of solidarity, to the difficulties of
those Member States subjected to disproportionate influxes of immigrants and, to that end, invite the Commission to submit proposals;
For both EU and national level, see
the entry under Commitment: IV.(c) [Section IV.1] and, with respect to return, Section II.2.2.
Commitment: III.(f) intensify cooperation with the countries
of origin and of transit in order to
strengthen control of the external border and to combat illegal immigration by
increasing the European Union's aid for the training and equipping of those
countries' staff responsible for managing migration flows;
At EU level, initiatives were
implemented through the MIEUX facility administered by the ICMPD, offering EU
expertise to third countries to enhance their capacities to better address
irregular migration and mixed migratory flows. EU-funded projects continued
around the world, including on capacity-building for immigration services in
the Horn of Africa; on technical assistance for the EU-ASEAN Migration and
Border Management Programme; and on the Eastern Partnership Panel on Integrated
Border Management.
At national level, in addition to
the signature of readmission agreements (see Commitment II.(b) [Section
II.2.1]), several Member States (EE, EL, IT, CY,
AT, PT, RO, SI) also concluded bilateral or multi-lateral agreements with
countries of origin or transit, in view of strengthening external border
control or combating irregular immigration. EE agreed on a bilateral action
plan with the State Border Guard of Belarus in May 2010 and signed a bilateral
cooperation agreement with the State Border Guard of Moldova in November 2010.
EL established contact points in third countries for the exchange of
information and developed further police cooperation with Albania, including
the conduct of joint operations with the Albanian Border Police. IT signed
special police cooperation agreements with Libya, Tunisia, Nigeria, Algeria,
Niger, Ghana, Egypt, Senegal and Gambia. CY signed a bilateral cooperation
agreement to combat organised crime, including irregular migration, with South
Africa and negotiated similar agreements with Syria and Qatar. AT signed
bilateral police cooperation and security agreements with Georgia, Moldova,
Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. PT signed bilateral agreements with Cape
Verde and Brazil and negotiated agreements with Angola, Guinea-Bissau, S‹o TomŽ
& Pr’ncipe, Mozambique and East Timor. RO signed a bilateral agreement with
Moldova, for the regulation of small border traffic, and negotiated a similar
agreement with Serbia, as well as a draft cooperation protocol for opening a
joint border-crossing point with the latter. RO also discussed agreements on
cooperation and countering organised crime with Moldova, the Russian
Federation, Syria and Ukraine. Under the agreement
related to border transport and cooperation signed with Croatia, SI adopted
additional measures to strengthen control of the external border.
Several other forms of cooperation with
third countries were also developed and/or continued in 2010. BE continued its
ÔBorder Guard AssistanceÕ programme, launched in 2008, which also includes
participation in the control of travel documents in non-EU airports in Western
and Central African countries. It also continued its ÒField WorkersÓ project,
launched in 2007, which deploys specialised immigration offers to consular
offices in third countries. In 2010, field workers were active in Cameroon,
Ivory Coast and Ecuador. FR signed a co-operation agreement with BE to
participate in the project. DK contributed to two capacity building projects
with the migration authorities in Ghana: the first aimed at improving migration
management by providing support to the Ghana Immigration Service, while the
second focused on combating trafficking and irregular migration from, and via,
Ghana by providing information to transiting and potential migrants as well as
expertise to responsible authorities for detecting, investigation and
prosecuting human traffickers and smugglers. DE and SE indicated that they used
liaison officers in third countries for border control issues. CZ and SK
launched a project to build capacity at the Moldovan-Romanian border, focusing
on identification of forged and falsified travel documents. IT continued
participation in a mission to Libya, while EL participated in training projects
to Libya and Niger implemented under the auspices of the Italian authorities.
LV organised a training visit, as part of the Border Management Programme in
Central Asia, to introduce their model of integrated border management to
participants from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan. They also organised training of border guards in Uzbekistan, to
work with dogs detecting narcotics and explosives. ES referred to its
participation in the Seahorse Network, together with PT, Morocco, Mauritania,
Senegal, Gambia, Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau. AT deployed document advisors to
Thailand, Egypt, Lebanon and India and participated in a twinning project with
Serbia to implement the latterÕs integrated border management strategy. PL
continued conducting joint border control with Ukraine, in particular at border
crossing points. UK mentioned projects to strengthen border control and build
capacity of staff in Ghana, East Africa and Libya.
The
European Council encourages the Commission and Member States
to take advantage of the entry into force
of the Visa Code and the gradual
roll-out of the VIS in order to intensify regional consular cooperation by means of regional consular programmes which could include, in
particular, the establishment of common visa application centres where necessary on a voluntary basis.
At EU level, and since 5th
April 2010, the Visa Code now applies, streamlining the procedures for issuing
Schengen short stay visas and enhancing local consular cooperation. In
accordance with the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, the
Commission plans to present a Communication on regional consular cooperation
programmes in 2011.
Details on the development of the VIS are
given in Section III.1.2 and on the setting up
of common visa application centres under Commitment III.(f) [Section
III.2.1].
At national level, Member States
provided relevant information related to the VIS on other commitments of the
Pact (see also Section III.1.2). Following the
entry into force of the Visa Code on 5th April 2010, several Member
States (EE, EL, FR, LV, MT, NL, AT, PL) confirmed its implementation. In
addition, CZ, LV, PL, SI, SK and RO introduced legislative changes. In CZ,
these concerned internal regulations concerning the visa issuing process, as
well as internal instructions and guidelines. In May 2010, PL put forward an amendment
to the Act of Foreigners to fully implement the Visa Code. LV approved a
Regulation setting out the competences of diplomatic and consular missions in
order to comply with the Visa Code and also envisaged amendments to its
Immigration Law, to regulate procedures for motivating refusal and appeal. RO
drafted amendments to its Law of AliensÕ regime to transpose the Visa Code. CY
and LT started gradually implementing the rules, regulations and practices in
accordance with the Visa Code. CZ and LT reported on measures taken to increase
awareness and understanding of the Visa Code. CZ briefed its diplomatic
missions and consular offices on the main changes well before its
implementation. LT organised centralised training on the implementation of the
Visa Code in Vilnius, as well as five regional training sessions in the bigger
diplomatic missions and consular offices (Kaliningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Kiev and
Chicago).
invites
the Commission and Council to continue to explore the possibilities created by the conclusion
of visa facilitation agreements with third
countries in appropriate cases,
The Commission
presented in November 2010 a recommendation to the Council to negotiate a visa
facilitation agreement (together with a recommendation to negotiate a readmission
agreement) with Belarus, in the framework of the Eastern Partnership. The Visa
Facilitation Agreement with Georgia was signed on 17 June 2010 and will enter
into force on 1 March 2011. With Cape Verde, a round of negotiations was held
in October 2010.
Joint Visa
Facilitation Committees to monitor the implementation of EU Visa Facilitation
Agreements with the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Moldova took place in 2010.
These three Joint Committees agreed on suggestions for amendments and additions
to the respective Visa Facilitation Agreements. On this basis, the Commission
presented in October 2010 recommendations to the Council to re- negotiate the
Visa Facilitation Agreements with the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Moldova.
invites
the Commission to keep the list
of third countries whose nationals are or are not subject to a visa requirement
under regular review in accordance with
appropriate criteria relating e g to illegal immigration, public policy and
security, which take account of the Union's internal and external policy
objectives,
In 2010, two reviews of the lists of
Regulation 539/2001 were adopted: transfer of Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina to
the positive list (Regulation 1091/2010) and transfer of Taiwan to the positive
visa list (Regulation 1211/2010).
invites
the Commission to strengthen its
efforts to ensure the principle of visa reciprocity and prevent the
(re)introduction of visa requirements by third countries towards any Member State and to identify measures which
could be used prior to imposing the visa reciprocity mechanism towards those
third countries.
The Commission issued the 6th
reciprocity report,[44]
which takes stock of the efforts to achieve full reciprocity with third
countries on the EU positive list.
The European Council, with a view to creating the possibility of
moving to a new stage in the development of the common visa policy, while
taking account of Member States competences in this area, invites the Commission
to present a study on the possibility of establishing a common European issuing
mechanism for short term visas. The study
could also examine to what degree an assessment of individual risk could
supplement the presumption of risk associated with the applicantÕs nationality.
In accordance
with the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, this initiative is
scheduled for 2014.
invites the Commission
to prepare a study on the possibility and usefulness of developing a
European system of travel authorisation and,
where appropriate, to make the necessary proposals. (Section 5.1, Integrated management of the external borders)
See the entry under Commitment III.(e)
[Section III.1.1].
invites the Council
and the Commission to support
enhanced capacity building in third countries
so that they can control efficiently their external borders.
See the entry under Commitment: III.(f)
[Section III.2.1].
III.3
Management of the External Borders
III.3.1
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment
III.(c) give the Frontex agency, with due regard for the role and responsibilities of the Member
States, the resources to fulfil its mission of coordinating the control of the
external border of the European Union, to cope with crisis situations and to
undertake, at the request of Member States, any necessary operations, whether temporary or permanent, in
accordance, in particular, with the Council conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2008;
In the
light of the results of an evaluation of the agency, its role and operational
resources will be strengthened and a decision may be taken to create specialised
offices to take account of the diversity of
situations, particularly for the land border to the East and the sea border to
the South: creating such offices should on no account undermine the unity of
the Frontex agency.
Ultimately,
the possibility of setting up a European system of border guards may be examined;
See the
entry under Commitment III. (a) [Section III.1.1]
Commitment
III.(g) improve the modalities and
frequency of the Schengen evaluation process
in accordance with the Council conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2008.
At EU
level, and further to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the
Commission proposed on 16 November 2010 a Regulation on the establishment of an
evaluation mechanism to verify the correct application of the Schengen acquis.[45]
The Council welcomed the proposal in general. However, questions on the
competences of the Member States within a modified evaluation mechanism were
raised. The European Parliament has not yet taken position on the proposal. The proposal, which would give the Commission greater responsibility
for the oversight of such evaluations, specifies that the evaluation should pay
particular attention to the respect of fundamental rights when applying the
Schengen acquis.
In the framework of the Schengen evaluation, training was provided to
Schengen evaluation experts, as well as to leading experts by FRONTEX together
with PL and FI.
III.3.2
Stockholm Programme (Section 5.1)
requests
the Commission to put forward proposals
no later than early 2010 to clarify the mandate and enhance the role of FRONTEX, taking account of the results of the evaluation of the Agency
and the role and responsibilities of the Member States in the area of border control. Elements of these proposals could
contain preparation of clear common operational procedures containing clear
rules of engagement for joint operations at sea, with due regard to ensuring
protection for those in need who travel in mixed flows, in accordance with
international law; increased operational cooperation between Frontex and
countries of origin and transit and examination of the possibility of regular
chartering financed by Frontex In order to promote the proper enforcement of
the applicable statutory framework for Frontex operations, the Commission should consider including a mechanism for reporting and
recording incidents that can be satisfactorily followed up by the relevant
authorities,
See the
entries under Commitment III. (a) [Section III.1.1]
invites
FRONTEX itself to consider, within
its mandate, establishing regional and/or specialised offices to take account of the diversity of situations, particularly for
the land border to the East and the sea border to the South; creating such
offices should on no account undermine the unity of the Frontex agency; before
creating such offices, Frontex should report to the Council on its intentions,
See the
entry under Commitment III. (c) [Section III.3.1]
invites
the Commission to initiate a
debate on the long-term development of FRONTEX.
This debate should include, as was envisaged in the Hague programme, the
feasibility of the creation of a European system of border guards,
See the
entry under Commitment III. (c) [Section III.3.1]
considers
that the evaluation of the Schengen area
will continue to be of key importance and that it therefore should be improved
by strengthening the role of Frontex in this field,
See the
entry under Commitment III. (g) [Section III.3.1]
IV.1 European
Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Commitment
IV.(a) establish in 2009 a European support office with the task of facilitating the exchange of information,
analyses and experience among Member States, and developing practical
cooperation between the administrations in charge of examining asylum
applications. That office will not have the power to examine applications or to
take decisions but will use the shared knowledge of countries of origin to help
to bring national practices, procedures, and consequently decisions, into line
with one another;
At EU level, and during the first
semester of 2010, the co-legislators (Council and Parliament) formally approved
the creation of the EASO[46]
and Member States decided that its seat would be in Valletta, Malta. Since
then, the Commission has been actively working with a view to prepare the start
of operations of the EASO, which should be fully operational
by 19 June 2011. The first Management Board meeting was held in Valletta
on 25-26 November 2010. During this meeting, Mr Rob Visser was selected as
Executive Director of the EASO. He made a statement in the LIBE Committee of
the European Parliament on 9 December 2010.
According to its founding Regulation, the
EASO will focus on three main tasks:
á develop practical cooperation among Member States on asylum, by
facilitating exchange of information on countries of origin, by providing
Member States with support for translation and interpretation, training of
asylum officials and assisting in the relocation of recognised refugees.
á support Member States under "particular pressure," in
particular through the establishment of an early warning system, coordinating
teams of experts to assist EU countries in managing asylum applications and in
putting in place appropriate reception facilities.
á contribute to the implementation of the CEAS by collecting and
exchanging information on best practices, drawing up an annual report on the
asylum situation in the EU and adopting technical documents,
such as guidelines and operating manuals, on the implementation of the Union's
asylum instruments.
Through the implementation of the above
tasks, the EASO will fulfil certain actions included in the Stockholm
Programme, namely those related to the "development
of a common educational platform, building on in particular the European Asylum
Curriculum", and those concerning the "development
of procedures that will facilitate the secondment of officials in order to help
those Member States facing particular pressures of asylum-seekers".
Commitment
IV.(b) invite the Commission to
present proposals for establishing, in 2010 if possible and in 2012 at the
latest, a single asylum procedure
comprising common guarantees and for adopting a uniform status for refugees and
the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection;
At EU level, the
Commission submitted its proposal for the recast of the Qualification and
Asylum Procedures Directives in October 2009.
The proposal amending the Qualification Directive clarifies certain
legal concepts, such as Òactors of protectionÓ, Òinternal protectionÓ or
Òmembership of a particular social group,Ó in order to enable national
authorities to apply the criteria more robustly and to identify more quickly
persons in need of protection. Furthermore, the proposal aims to approximate
the rights granted to refugees and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.
The amendments concern the duration of residence permits, access to social
welfare, health care and the labour market. Progress was achieved in the course
of 2010 with technical discussions in the Council completed. The Belgian Presidency
proposed several compromise amendments and an important number of reservations
were lifted.[47]
The amendments to the Asylum Procedures
Directive aim mainly to provide for a single procedure
by ensuring the simplification and rationalisation of asylum
procedures, as well as a reduction of administrative burden for Member States;
facilitate access to examination procedures; enhance the
efficiency of the examination
process of applications; improve the quality of asylum decisions; and ensure access to effective remedy for asylum
applicants in line with EU and international obligations of Member States. A
first reading at technical level in the Council was
completed under the Spanish Presidency in the first half of 2010. However,
progress on the proposal was very limited, discussions were difficult and only
few technical points were agreed upon. The most problematic elements of the
proposal concern legal assistance, accelerated procedures, border procedures
and appeals.[48] To give an
impulse to the stalled negotiations, the Commission will adopt a modified
amended proposal in 2011 before the Polish Presidency.
A compromise was reached between the
European Parliament and the Council in December 2010 on the extension of the
legal system for third-country nationals with long-term resident status
to include persons with international protection. The Commission had proposed
that such persons, who initially were not covered by Directive 2003/109/EC, may
be granted the rights under long-term resident status after a period of five
years' legal residence. It is expected that the formal adoption of the
amendment will take place in the first Semester of 2011.[49]
This modification of Directive 2003/109/EC will facilitate the integration of
beneficiaries of international protection by granting them a higher level of
rights and promoting their mobility.
This commitment is directly related to the
invitation from the European Council in the Stockholm Programme to the Council and the European Parliament "to intensify
the efforts to establish a common asylum procedure and uniform status in
accordance with Article TFUE for those who are granted asylum or subsidiary
protection by 2012 at the latest."
Commitment
IV.(c) solidarity with Member State(s) which are faced with specific and
disproportionate pressures on their national asylum systems
At EU level, solidarity on asylum
issues took different forms in the course of 2010. The establishment of the
EASO will also contribute to strengthen intra-EU solidarity in the field of
asylum.
The pilot project started in 2009 to
relocate about 250 beneficiaries of international protection from Malta to 10
Member States continued to be implemented, with the support of UNHCR and IOM.
By the end of the year, approximately 220 such persons had already been
relocated to 6 Member States, with the remaining ones expected to be relocated
during 2011. The project received, in April 2010, a grant of almost Û2 million
from the Commission through the European Refugee Fund Community Actions.
Relocation was also the object of an external study requested by the
Commission.[50]
In August 2010, after a high-level
technical mission to Athens organised by the Commission, the Greek authorities
sent an Action Plan to reform its asylum system and better manage the significant
influx of asylum-seekers that the country receives. Based on offers of
assistance by several EU Member States and on a number of immediate needs
highlighted by Greece, the Commission identified four priority actions for the
immediate deployment of expertise to Greece. On this basis, teams of Member
States' experts were deployed on the ground in December 2010 providing
expertise in the areas of case management of asylum claims, registration and
screening of international protection needs in cases of mixed migration flows,
as well as the provision of training to the Greek authorities in accordance
with the European Asylum Curriculum framework. Other teams were deployed in
early 2011 in particular to provide expertise in the area of quality management
of asylum decision-making. The Commission provided to Greece almost Û10 million
from the emergency funding reserve of the European Refugee Fund.
Negotiations continued on the amendments
to the Dublin Regulation. One such amendment concerns the creation of an
exceptional mechanism for the temporary suspension of transfers of asylum
seekers to the first country of entry in the EU territory, thus allowing the EU
to deal with exceptional situations where certain Member States are confronted
with particular pressure on their asylum systems that they cannot cope with on
their own.
The support to Greece, the relocation pilot
project with Malta and the clause on suspension of transfers in Dublin are a
test of the possibilities for three of the actions included in the Stockholm
Programme: "developing mechanisms for sharing responsibility between
the Member States while assuring that asylum systems are not abused, and the
principles of the Common European Asylum System not undermined", "creating instruments and coordinating mechanisms
which will enable Member States to support each other in building capacity,
building on Member States own efforts to increase their capacity with regard to
their national asylum systems" and "using
in a more effective way, existing EU financial systems aiming at reinforcing
internal solidarity".
At national level, several Member
States (BE, DE, HU, AT, PT, SE, UK) reported having set up or taken part in initiatives to help other
Member States facing a massive influx of asylum applicants. These Member States
mentioned initiatives specifically aimed at providing support to EL (DK, DE,
IT, HU, AT, SE, UK), CY (HU), MT (HU, UK) and PL (BE). These included
provisions of specific training (DE, AT, UK), capacity building (DE, HU, AT,
UK), exchanges of asylum officers (BE, DE), secondment of staff (HU, SE),
signature of Memorandum of Understanding (AT), support for the fast and
efficient implementation of ELÕs Action Plan for Migration Management (DK),
participation in migration missions focusing on the situation of Member States
under particular pressure (HU) and organisation of specific pilot projects
(UK). In addition, HU participated in migration
missions in EL, CY and MT. DK also indicated having forwarded the curriculum
vitae of 14 asylum experts to the European Asylum Support Office asylum expert
pool.
With regard to specific training, three
Member States (DE, AT, UK) provided specific training to EL on asylum
procedures (DE) and quality assurance (AT, UK). UK also provided training in
language analysis to officers in MT.
Four Member States (DE, HU, AT, UK)
developed capacity building measures. DE offered EL the possibility to access
their Information System on Countries of Origin and the GDISC Pool of
Interpreters. HU and AT provided support to EL to improve Refugee Status
Determination Procedures (HU) and their related quality assurance (AT). UK
provided support to MT in processing asylum applications and language analysis
as part of the Interpreters Pool Project. This project offers support to Member
States lacking capacity by providing interpreters via video-conferencing. Since
April 2010, UK provided interpretation capacity on three occasions. MT
particularly welcomed this initiative. As a Member State facing specific and
disproportionate pressures on its national asylum system, CY referred to the
Project ÔParticular Pressures CyprusÕ, which aimed to strengthen and enhance
its asylum system. Within this project, CY benefitted from the expertise of the
Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service and Central Agency for the
Reception of Asylum Seekers. Visits were also organised in IE, CY and NL to
exchange experiences with regard to the implementation of accelerated asylum
procedures, interview techniques and the handling of particular target groups,
such as unaccompanied minors and vulnerable persons. EL mentioned the funding
of emergency measures by the European Refugee Fund and the expertsÕ missions
organised for the implementation of the National Action Plan for the Reform of
the Asylum System and the Management of Migration Flows, adopted in August
2010.
Two Member States (BE, PL) undertook
activities in 2010 relating to the exchange of asylum officers. BE organised an
exchange programme with asylum case workers from PL, where ten asylum case
workers were invited to BE to discuss the asylum decision making process and
attend interviews, with the goal of improving the quality of the asylum
procedure in PL. Focus was placed on asylum applications from the Russian
Federation. DE also invited a Greek Liaison Officer to the Federal Office for
Migration and Refugees.
With regard to other measures, HU and SE
sent seconded staff to EL to assist in the processing of asylum applications
(HU, SE) and provide training within the European Asylum Curriculum (SE). AT
negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with EL to agree on bilateral
cooperation in internal security, including asylum matters. On new projects in
2010, UK ran various pilot projects in EL with one focusing on language
analysis and allowing EL authorities to use Sprakab, the UK's language analysis
service provider. Another project aimed at helping EL authorities to identify
persons in need of international protection, improving detention conditions and
guaranteeing fairness in asylum procedures.
In EL, the adoption of a legislative
amendment in November 2010 enabled the prompt examination of asylum
applications pending at first or second instance and reintroduced the
examination, by an independent committee, of asylum applications at second instance.
A draft law was also submitted to parliament for vote, proposing to revise the
national asylum system through the establishment of a new Asylum Service, that
would take charge of all competencies related to the granting of international
protection.
Asylum was one of the priorities of the
Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union and BE organised a
ministerial conference on ÔQuality and Efficiency in the Asylum ProcessÕ in
September 2010. The focus of this conference was placed on practical
cooperation and solidarity between Member States.
With regard to future measures, NL
indicated their intention to also provide assistance to EL in the
implementation of their Action Plan for Migration Management.
and
participation in coordinated reallocation measures
At national level, six Member States
(DE, FR, LU, PT, SI, UK) relocated beneficiaries of international protection in
the framework of the EUREMA (European Re-allocation for Malta) pilot project in
2010. In addition, four Member States (HU, PL, RO, SK) agreed to relocate
beneficiaries of international protection from MT also via this project.
The numbers of beneficiaries of
international protection relocated from MT to other Member States in 2010
ranged from 102 (DE) and 93 (FR) to 10 (UK), 8 (SI) and 6 (LU, PL, PT). HU, PL,
RO and SK agreed to relocate from 10 (HU, SK) to 6 (PL, RO) beneficiaries of
international protection. In total, MT indicated that approximately 255
beneficiaries of international protection would be relocated within the
framework of the EUREMA pilot project.
In addition, PL proposed amendments to its
national asylum legislation, introducing provisions enabling the relocation of
beneficiaries of international protection from other Member States.
With regard to future measures, BE
indicated their intention to take part in the EUREMA pilot project from 2011
onwards.
Commitment:
IV.(d) strengthen cooperation
with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure better protection for people outside the territory of
EU Member States who request protection, in particular by moving, on a
voluntary basis, towards the resettlement
within the European Union
At EU level, while pursuing its
support to the existing Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs) in Eastern Europe
and Tanzania/Great Lakes region, the Commission decided, after an evaluation of
the RPPs conducted by an external consultant in 2009, to extend RPPs to two new
regions: the Horn of Africa (Kenya, Yemen and Djibouti) and Northeast Africa
(Egypt, Libya and Tunisia). The contract with UNHCR concerning the
implementation of the Horn of Africa RPP was signed in October 2010, with the
bulk of activities taking place in Kenya and covering Somali refugees. The
development the Northeast Africa RPP is on-going.
Negotiations on the proposal for the establishment of a 'Joint EU
Resettlement Programme'[51]
continued in 2010 and good progress was made by the co-legislators (Council and
Parliament). There is wide agreement on its contents, but no adoption has taken
place so far, because of a disagreement on the procedural issue, namely how to
adopt the annual resettlement priorities. The Commission will support efforts
to find a solution and hopes that the 'Joint EU Resettlement Programme' will be
formally adopted in 2011. The Commission will, in any event, continue working
to develop resettlement within the EU.
Under the current European Refugee Fund,
the pledging exercise for 2011 (related to the granting of Û4 000 per resettled
refugee) was conducted in 2010. Nine Member States have pledged their readiness
to resettle in 2011 a total of 2 483 refugees belonging to one of the four
categories mentioned in the ERF decision.
The above-mentioned developments in the
area of resettlement and RPPs closely respond to the Stockholm Programme's actions related to "the enhancement of capacity building in
third countries, in particular their capacity to provide effective protection,
and to further develop and expand the idea of Regional Protection Programmes,
on the basis of the forthcoming evaluations"
and to "the encouragement of voluntary participation of Member States
in the joint EU resettlement scheme and increase the total number of resettled
refugees, taking into consideration the specific situation in each Member State" as well as to "finding ways to strengthen EU support
for the UNHCR".
At national level, ten Member States
(CZ, DK, DE, IE, FR, IT, PT, FI, SE, UK) resettled refugees from different
regions of the world, mainly in cooperation with the UNHCR. ES adopted an
annual resettlement programme for the first time, after the entry into force of
the new national Asylum Act in 2009.
Refugees resettled in EU Member States
included Burmese refugees from Thailand (CZ, IE, NL, FI), Malaysia (CZ, IE, NL)
and Bangladesh (UK), Iraqi refugees from Syria (DE, IE, FI, SE, UK), Jordan
(DE, IE, SE) and Lebanon (NL, SE), Congolese refugees from Rwanda (FI, SE, UK),
Afghan refugees from Iran (FI, SE), Iranian refugees (DE, SE), Syrian refugees
(IE), Ethiopian refugees (IE, NL, SE, UK), Eritrean refugees (NL, SE), Somali
refugees (SE, UK), Palestinian refugees from Al-Tanf camp (IT) and Bhutanese
refugees from Nepal (NL, UK).
Four Member States (IE, FR, FI, SE)
favoured the resettlement of emergency cases (FI), medical cases (IE) and/or
the resettlement of particular categories of refugees, such as catholic
nationals from Iraq (FR), refugees from the East and Horn of Africa (SE) and
stateless refugees (SE).
Two Member States (PL, SK) also referred to
their participation in the project on ÔPromotion of resettlement in the EU
countries through practical cooperation of the Member StatesÕ jointly
implemented by UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and
the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), which started in March
2010.
The size of the annual quota of persons
accepted for resettlement varies from one Member State to another (e.g. on
annual basis, SE resettles around 2 000 persons, FI and UK each resettle 750
persons, IE accepted 200 persons, FR had 100 files, NL promised to resettle
2000 refugees from 2008 to 2011, while DK has a 3-year flexible quota of 1 500
refugees). The quota agreed by ES under the 2010 annual resettlement programme
was 75. While it has not set a fixed quota, DE resettled more that 2 500
persons in 2009 and 2010.
With regard to other resettlement-related
activities, SK had finished the resettlement transfer of 98 Palestinian
refugees from Iraq and has signed another tripartite agreement in order to
admit 100 refugees for the period of six months. RO hosted 137 refugees in
urgent need of evacuation from their first asylum countries in its Emergency
Transit Centre, prior to their further resettlement to other Member States or
third-countries.
For future measures, BG and HU indicated
that they were considering their potential involvement in resettlement
activities through a pilot project (BG) and/or through the elaboration of a
National Resettlement Programme (HU). LU decided to engage in resettlement
activities on a more systematic basis and will establish an annual quota. In
addition, the draft ÔMigration Policy of PolandÕ elaborated in 2010 indicated
that PL could join in future resettlement programmes.
Commitment:
IV.(e) invite the Member States to provide the personnel responsible for
external border controls with training in
the rights and obligations pertaining to international protection.
At EU level, on 24 February 2010,
and as mentioned also in Section III.1.1, the
Commission proposed an amendment to the FRONTEX Regulation which introduces inter
alia an explicit requirement for all border guards
taking part in operations to have been trained in fundamental rights, so as to
ensure full respect of fundamental rights and in particular the principle of non-refoulement. On 26 May 2010, FRONTEX concluded a cooperation arrangement with
FRA, the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency, covering, inter alia, such activities.
The 26 April 2010 Council Decision
supplementing the Schengen Borders Code[52]
on the surveillance of the EU's external maritime borders, in the context of
operational cooperation coordinated by FRONTEX, foresees that border guards
involved in such operations should be specifically trained in human rights and
refugee law.
In the framework of the implementation of the Common Core Curriculum
for Basic Level Training of border guards, a teacher exchange programme has
been initiated and successfully implemented in 2010. This programme will be
extended to students (border guards) exchange starting in 2011. Regular
training organised by FRONTEX for the members of the RABIT Pool, as well as for
the participants of Member States' border guards in joint operations hosted by
other Member States, contributes greatly to the common understanding of tasks
and the development of a European organisational culture of the border guard
services within the European Union.
At national level, in addition to
the information provided in Sections II.1.2 and III.1.1, most Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU,
NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) also provided training to personnel
responsible for external border controls on international protection.
With regard to the categories of staff
trained, many Member States (BE, DE, EE, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, FI,
SE, UK) referred to the training of border officials and/or police officers
(SK, SE).
The content of the training varied,
covering issues such as rights and obligations under international protection
(BE, DE, IT, CY, LT, NL, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK), asylum proceedings (EE),
identification and interview of asylum applicants (LV, NL), management of
stressful situations (HU), specific training on vulnerable applicants (ES) and
unaccompanied minors (AT).
In addition, EE referred to the
participation of border guards in study visits to other Member States as part
of the training programme financed with the support of the European Refugee
Fund. IT mentioned the renewal of the ÔPraesidium projectÕ for the fifth
consecutive year, which commits international organisations in providing
information about their rights to third-country nationals arriving on the
Southern Italian coastline.
Three Member States (ES, RO, UK) indicated
that the training provided was fully in line with the European Asylum
Curriculum, whilst DE, RO and UK also mentioned their participation in FRONTEX
Border Guards training programmes. LT and HU referred to the involvement of
UNHCR in delivering the training.
IV.2 Stockholm
Programme (Section 6.2.1)
Subject to a report from the Commission on the legal and practical consequences, the European Union should seek accession to
the Geneva Convention and 1967
Protocol.
This report
is scheduled, according to the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm
Programme, for 2013.
invites the Council
and the European Parliament to
intensify the efforts to establish a common asylum procedure and a uniform
status in accordance with Article 78 TFUE
for those who are granted asylum or subsidiary protection by 2012 at the
latest,
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
invites the Commission
to consider, once the second phase of the CEAS has been fully implemented and
on the basis of an evaluation of the effect of that legislation and of the
EASO, the possibilities for creating a framework for the transfer of
protection of beneficiaries of international protection when exercising their acquired residence rights under EU law,
A
Communication is expected, according to the Action Plan implementing the
Stockholm Programme, in 2014.
invites the Commission
to undertake a feasibility study on Eurodac
as a supporting tool for the entire CEAS, while fully respecting data
protection rules,
A
Communication on Eurodac development, namely on the feasibility on its
development into a supporting tool for the entire Common European Asylum System
(CEAS) is scheduled, according to the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm
Programme, for 2012.
invites
the Commission to consider, if
necessary, in order to achieve the CEAS, proposing new legislative
instruments on the basis of an evaluation,
During 2010 the Commission focused on the
existing package and presented no new legislative instruments in the field.
invites
the Commission to finalise its
study on the feasibility and legal and practical implications to establish joint
processing of asylum applications.
A Communication on the appropriateness, the
possibilities and the difficulties, as well as the legal and practical
implications of joint processing of asylum applications within the Union, is
scheduled, in accordance with the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm
Programme, for 2014.
developing the mechanism for sharing responsibility between
the Member States while assuring that asylum
systems are not abused, and the principles of the CEAS are not undermined,
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
creating instruments and coordinating mechanisms which will enable Member States to support each other in
building capacity, building on Member States own efforts to increase
their capacity with regard to their national
asylum systems,
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
using, in a more effective way, existing EU financial systems aiming at reinforcing internal solidarity,
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
the EASO to evaluate and develop procedures that will facilitate the
secondment of officials in order to help
those Member States facing
particular pressures of asylum seekers.
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
invites
the EASO to develop methods to better identify those who are in need of international protection in mixed flows, and to cooperate
with Frontex wherever possible. (Section
5.1, Integrated management of the external borders)
EASO was not
yet operational in 2010.
EASO should further
develop a common educational platform for
national asylum officials, building on in particular the European Asylum
Curriculum (EAC).
EASO was not
yet operational in 2010.
The EASO should be fully
involved in the external dimension of the CEAS.
EASO was not
yet operational in 2010.
invites the Council and
the Commission to enhance
capacity building in third countries, in
particular their capacity to provide effective protection, and to further
develop and expand the idea of Regional Protection Programmes, on the basis of the forthcoming evaluations. Such efforts
should be incorporated into the Global Approach to Migration, and should be
reflected in national poverty reduction strategies and not only be targeting
refugees and internally displaced persons but also local populations.
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
invites the Council
and the Commission to find ways to
strengthen EU support for the UNHCR,
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
invites the Council,
the European Parliament and the Commission to encourage the voluntary participation of Member States in the
joint EU resettlement scheme and increase
the total number of resettled refugees,
taking into consideration the specific situation in each Member State,
See the
entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1].
invites the Commission
to report annually to the Council and the
European Parliament on the resettlement efforts made within the EU, to carry
out a mid-term evaluation during 2012 of the
progress made, and to evaluate the joint EU resettlement programme in 2014 with a view to identifying necessary improvements,
On
resettlement efforts undertaken in 2010, see entry under Commitment IV.(c)
[Section IV.1].
invites the Commission
to explore, in that context and where appropriate, new approaches concerning access
to asylum procedures targeting main transit countries, such as protection programmes for particular groups or certain
procedures for examination of applications for asylum, in which Member
States could participate on a voluntary
basis.
A
Communication on this subject will be issued, according to the Action Plan
implementing the Stockholm Programme, in 2013.
EASO should further
develop a common educational platform for national asylum officials, building
on in particular the European Asylum Curriculum (EAC).
EASO was not yet operational in 2010.
Table 4 in the Statistical Annex
gives an overview of the number of Asylum Applicants (including new
applications submitted) plus First Instance Decisions by outcome in 2010. While
in 2009 Member States recorded a total of 266 400 asylum applications
(including new applications), the number in 2010 was 257 815, a slight decrease
of 3%. DE (48 490), FR (51 595) and SE (31 875) had the highest number of
applications, while EE (35), LV (65) and PT (160) had the lowest number. As a
proportion of the total population, however, this was highest for CY (1 320
applicants per million inhabitants), SE (990) and BE (765) and lowest for EE
(5), PT (5) and LV (10). The most important countries of citizenship of
asylum-seekers in the EU were, in order: Afghanistan (20 580), Russia (18 500),
Serbia (17 715, excluding Kosovo), Iraq (15 800) and Somalia (14 350).
In terms of protection status granted, 55
095 asylum-seekers received a protection status in the EU at First Instance
(Refugee, Subsidiary protection or Humanitarian). For the EU-27 as a whole,
protection was granted in 25% of decisions taken in first-instance procedures.
Positive decisions granted on the basis of Refugee Status were largest for DE
(7 755 or 74.2% of all positive decisions), UK (4 445 or 69%) and FR (4 095 or
80%). For subsidiary protection, the largest positive decisions were granted by
SE (5 955 or 70% of all positive decisions), NL (4 010 or 53%) and again UK (1
850 or 28.7%). For those Member States granting protection for Humanitarian
Reasons, these were largest for NL (2 745 or 36.3% of all positive decisions),
DE (2 145 or 20.5%) and IT (1 225 or 28.5%).
V.1 Stockholm
Programme (Section 6.1.7 plus 2.3.2)
develop an action plan, to be adopted by the Council, on
unaccompanied minors which underpins and supplements the relevant legislative
and financial instruments and combines measures directed at prevention,
protection and assisted return
At EU level, the Commission adopted
in May 2010 the Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors (2010 – 2012),[55]
which was complemented by the publication as well of the EMN's study on
unaccompanied minors.[56]
On the basis of the Commission's Action Plan, in June 2010, the Council adopted
Council conclusions on unaccompanied minors.[57]
The Action Plan identifies main strands for action such as prevention,
reception and identification of durable solutions. These actions are to be
implemented by a series of concrete measures which are outlined in the Action
Plan and which are not limited to immigration policies, but also address the
root causes of migration. In order to facilitate the implementation of the
Action Plan and, in general, to coordinate the actions in the field, the
Commission maintained regular contacts with Member States concerned, EU
services and stakeholders.
The protection of inter alia unaccompanied minors is also embedded in the aforementioned
directive on combating trafficking (Section II.1.2) and in the proposed directives on asylum (Section IV.1). In respect of data collection, Guidelines to Article 6 of the
Migration Statistics Regulation 862/2007 addressed the shortcomings which had
been identified concerning the limited statistical data on unaccompanied
minors.
The Schengen Borders Code proposal (See under
Commitment IV.(e) [Section IV.1]) included a
specific mention of the training module on unaccompanied minors for border
guards. The redrafted Article 15 provided that 'Member States shall ensure
that the border guards are specialised and properly trained professionals,
taking into account common core curricula for border guards established and
developed by FRONTEX. Training curricula shall include specialised training for
detecting particularly vulnerable situations concerning unaccompanied minors
and victims of trafficking.' Efforts were also made
to establish a list of national contact points for consultation purposes on
minors (currently established on a voluntary basis by Section 3.7 and Annex 37
of the Schengen Handbook) which would be formally established and its use would
be made obligatory.
The Commission initiated a comparative
study, via the Community Actions of the European Return Fund, on best practices
in the field of return of minors, including unaccompanied minors. The fund's
Annual Work Programme for 2010 promoted the cooperation of Member States in the
field of pre-departure and reintegration assistance for returnees putting
emphasis on the specific needs of unaccompanied minors. In accordance with the Return
Directive, the actions should take into account the best interests of the
child, and, prior to returning an unaccompanied minor, the Member State must
ensure that s/he is returned to a family member, nominated guardian or adequate
reception facilities.
The issue of unaccompanied minors was
discussed in the framework of the EU-US Platform for cooperation on Migration
and Refugee issues. It was also regularly discussed in the migration subgroup
of the G8, in the context of the EU-Africa Partnership on Migration, Mobility
and Employment and of the Rabat Process on Migration and Development (expert
meeting on vulnerable groups), as well as on the occasion of the JHA
Subcommittee meeting with Algeria and of the Working Group on Social and
Migration Affairs with Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia. Many conferences and
workshops concerning unaccompanied minors also took place, in particular one
under the Belgian Presidency on 'Unaccompanied Minors: children crossing the
external borders of the EU in search of protection.'
At national level, some Member
States (DK, EE, EL, HU, FI) reported on legislative developments in relation to
unaccompanied minors. These developments related to the inclusion of a
definition of Ôunaccompanied minorÕ in national legislation in relation to the
Return Directive (EE); the improvement of criminal law for minor offenders;
prevention and treatment of victimisation and juvenile delinquency, including inter
alia unaccompanied minors (EL); restriction of the
grounds to grant a residence permit to unaccompanied minors if they have the
possibility to return to a reception and care centre in the country of origin
(DK); the modification of hosting facilities by conferring a major role to
child protection authorities (HU); and the introduction of provisions
concerning the age assessment of an asylum applicant through medical
examination when doubts arose regarding the applicantÕs age (FI), as well as
the intensification of the use of age testing measures (DK).
Thirteen Member States (BE, IE, EL, ES, FR,
IT, FI, MT, NL, PL, SI, SK, UK) mentioned policy developments occurring in
2010. These developments included the establishment of a task force which
examined possible actions to minimise the risk for unaccompanied minors,
including cooperation between different authorities (BE); the setting up of an
advisory group to address the issue of education entitlement for unaccompanied
minors (MT); the continued implementation of a Joint Protocol on missing
children; the production of reports proposing, amongst others, better
coordination and management of unaccompanied minorsÕ rights and their
protection (FR, FI); and the development of information and prevention
activities through information campaigns (PL). In NL, the improved asylum
procedure entered into force which, in addition to extending the application
procedure, included provisions providing unaccompanied minors with a longer
period of rest and preparation with a target time of approximately three weeks.
SI established an interdepartmental working group on unaccompanied minors whose
main tasks are to examine and assess the existing problems related to
unaccompanied minors, prepare guidelines and recommendations, as well as
guarantee adequate protection and provision of care and assistance to unaccompanied
minors with the possibility to involve NGOs and local authorities. Three Member
States (EL, IT, UK) developed their policies concerning unaccompanied minor
asylum applicants. These developments concerned the introduction of
institutional plans to shift competence for minor asylum applicants (IT), the
provision of particular care for minor asylum applicants as part of the revised
asylum system and asylum seekersÕ social integration projects (EL), and
enhancement of policy guidance to ensure the fair treatment of minors during
the asylum process (UK).
Various measures were introduced by ES to
improve the care of unaccompanied minors, including the introduction of support
for regional competent authorities, as well as coordination and cooperation
between ministries, cities and regions to improve policies regarding this
vulnerable group of migrants. Measures were also undertaken to improve support
in the area of prevention by means of agreements for funding projects carried
out in countries of origin aiming to raise awareness on the risks of irregular
migration for minors, as well as providing better education for future access
to work.
Some Member States (BG, FR, AT, PT, SE)
commented on their support of the implementation of the Action Plan on
unaccompanied minors. For example, FR described their commitment following the
adoption of the Action Plan to better coordinate at national level the
reception and care of unaccompanied minors. AT reported on training provided
for officials from the Federal Asylum Office, funded by the European Refugee
Fund, on a number of topics, including best practices of other Member States
and the specific psychological components and requirements of officials during
preliminary proceedings.
In 2010, conferences were hosted by BE and
SK which focused on the exchange of best practice on detection, identification
and protection of unaccompanied minors, as well as enabling Member States to
cross-evaluate working methods concerning the protection of unaccompanied
minors (BE). For BE, the conference was organised under the auspices of the
Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
In addition to Member State cooperation at
conferences, SE was involved in the safe return and reintegration of
unaccompanied minors to their country of origins, often in close cooperation
with other Member States. Furthermore, EL focused on inter-institutional
cooperation at both national and transnational level, through the continued
implementation of the bilateral agreement with Albania for the protection and
assistance to minor victims of trafficking.
With regard to the most prominent countries
of origin, DK and DE reported that Afghanistan remained the country of origin
of most minors travelling alone in 2010. Additionally, UK launched a call for
proposals to establish reception arrangements, including reintegration and
family tracing, in Kabul for returning male unaccompanied minors.
Concerning the reception of unaccompanied
minors, HU outlined the difficulties experienced concerning age assessment and
family tracing, as well as the pressure placed on child protection facilities
to host unaccompanied minors.
Some Member States (EL, FR, HU, FI, UK)
reported on the implementation of future measures relating to unaccompanied
minors. Such measures related to the adoption of future legislation concerning
accommodation of minors (HU, FI), the increase of the accommodation capacity
for minors (EL), as well as the establishment of specific reception areas for
minors in airports (FR) and programmes for reintegration assistance for
unaccompanied minors in return countries (UK).
Table 5 in the Statistical Annex
gives an overview of the provisional number of unaccompanied minors including,
when possible, those who did not apply for asylum plus those unaccompanied
minor who did apply for asylum in 2010. On the basis of these provisional data,
IT (4 438), ES (3 800) and SE (2 363) had the highest total number of
unaccompanied minors, while DE (1 950), UK (1 585) and BE (1 080) came after SE
(2 395) in regard to the highest number of unaccompanied minorsÕ asylum
applicants in 2010.
VI. Global
Approach to migration
VI.1 European
Pact on Immigration and Asylum
Main
commitment: Create a comprehensive partnership with the countries of origin and
of transit to encourage the synergy between migration and development
Commitment: V.(a) conclude EU-level or bilateral agreements
with the countries of origin and of transit
containing, as appropriate, clauses on the opportunities for legal migration
adapted to the labour market situation in the Member States, the control of
illegal immigration, readmission, and the development of the countries of
origin and of transit;
At EU level, co-operation with the
Republic of Moldova, Cape Verde and Georgia in the framework of the Mobility
Partnerships continued. A third EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership Meeting took
place in October 2010 and aimed at evaluating the progress achieved in the
course of the preceding year and at identifying priorities of the cooperation in
the future. Under the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde, implementation of
the ongoing initiatives continued and new initiatives were identified and
discussed with the Cape Verdean partners and the EU Member States. The EU
supported Cape Verde inter alia in the
development of the national immigration strategy through the MIEUX facility.
Discussions on new potential mobility
partnerships were ongoing with Armenia and Ghana. An exploratory mission to
Ghana took place in March 2010 with the aim to explore the interest of the
Ghanaian authorities in engaging in a Mobility Partnership with the EU.
Negotiations on Partnership and Cooperation
Agreements (PCA), which include a Migration Article with readmission
provisions, were continued with Vietnam, Philippines, Iraq, Brunei, Singapore,
Malaysia, Libya[58] and
Mongolia. The PCAs with Vietnam, Iraq and the Philippines were initialled in
2010, as well as the Framework Agreement with the Republic of Korea. During the
revision of the Cotonou Agreement, launched in May 2009, an attempt was made to
clarify readmission obligations contained therein. The negotiations did not
however render the intended result. Subsequently, a dialogue with the ACP
countries on all aspects of migration, including readmission, was launched and
the meeting devoted to the readmission took place in December 2010.
Migration issues and asylum are also
subject to regular dialogue within the context of the Stabilisation and
Association Process and of relevant agreements with enlargement countries.
Furthermore, the Commission regularly reports on efforts by these candidate
countries in the context of yearly progress reports.[59]
At national level, several Member States continued participation in the EU Mobility
Partnerships, including those with the Republic of Moldova (BG, DE, EL, CY, IT,
PL, PT, SK, SE), Georgia (BE, BG, DE, EE, EL, LV, SE, UK) and Cape Verde (ES,
FR, LU, PT).
A number of
Member States (DK, EL, FR, CY, IT, LV, LT, AT, PL, RO, SE, UK) also referred to
new agreements with third countries, concluded, or planned to be (BG, PL), at
national level, including in relation to labour migration. DK, for example,
signed a bilateral Social Security Agreement with India to enhance the existing
legal framework and improve the conditions for overseas Danish and Indian
workers. FR concluded a new bilateral agreement with Lebanon and CY signed a bilateral agreement to combat organised crime with South
Africa and negotiated similar agreements with Syria and Qatar. IT reported
that readmission agreements had been strengthened in order to include
provisions for the labour market, such as the reservation of quotas, as well as
the drafting of worker lists with relevant qualifications. LT and SK outlined
their Youth Exchange Agreements concluded with Canada, which included specific
provisions for issuing Canadian citizens with a national ÒDÓ visa or residence
and work permits if they satisfy immigration requirements for the duration of
their authorised stay (LT), and increased possibilities for young citizens of
both countries to complete their higher vocational education, university
education or training connected to internships and work placement in each
others' country (SK). Moreover, SK prepared an agreement with New Zealand on a
working holiday scheme which would allow citizens of both states to be employed
for up to six months by a single employer without a work permit, while also
allowing enrolment in educational or study courses not exceeding six months. PL negotiated with Ukraine and
Moldova agreements on coordination of social security
to foster and control the movement of economic
migrants, as well as signed a local border traffic agreement with Belarus.
AT concluded new agreements with
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia and Moldova, which focused on combating
organised crime, smuggling and human trafficking, as well as support measures
for visa liberalisation for the agreements with Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
EL further enhanced police cooperation with Albania in the field of
intelligence gathering and in combating organised crime, irregular migration,
trafficking in human beings and smuggling of drugs and weapons. Similarly, LV
signed bilateral agreements with Albania and Armenia, centred on
counter-terrorism, combating organised crime and drugs trafficking and fighting
sexual abuse and exploitation of, in particular, minors. RO negotiated
bilateral project agreements with Serbia, Syria and the Russian Federation and
a trilateral project agreement with Ukraine and Moldova on cooperation and combating
organised crime. SE referred to its ongoing discussions with the Russian
Federation and India, and on its intentions to conclude agreements with these
countries, as well as with Armenia in the near future. UK also mentioned the
explanatory talks on an EU Mobility Partnership with Ghana.
Commitment: V.(b) encourage Member States, as far as they are
able, to offer the nationals of partner countries to the East and South of
Europe opportunities for legal
immigration adapted to the labour market
situation in Member States, enabling those nationals to acquire training or
professional experience and accumulate savings that they can use for the
benefit of their home countries.
At EU level, initiatives included projects funded under the
Thematic Programme. One initiative concerned cooperation with labour market
agencies, notably within a project under the EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership,
which targets capacity building of the Moldovan agency through a network of
European agencies. Information and assistance is offered to Moldovans in the
diaspora to return to the Moldovan labour market, including assistance via the
European Training Foundation (ETF) to improve recognition of foreign skills and
qualifications.
A study to evaluate projects on labour
migration and circular migration (see also Commitment I.(c) [Section I.1.1]) funded under the Thematic Programme was prepared, and started in
February 2011. As called for in the Stockholm Programme, a study on circular
migration was carried out by the European Migration Network with reports
covering most EU Member States.[60]
The Belgian EU Presidency organised a conference on legal migration in October
2010, which also addressed the need for better labour matching between the EU and third countries.
At national level, a few Member States (BG, HU, PT)
referred to the EU Mobility Partnerships with Moldova and Georgia as a tool to
facilitate labour migration. In relation to this, BG, HU and PL described its
participation in a project to strengthen MoldovaÕs capacity to manage labour
and return migration, including the provision of information to potential
migrants about legal immigration opportunities in the EU and the risks of
irregular migration. Other Member States reported on agreements with third
countries (EL, FR), specific projects (IT, NL), new regulations (PL) and their
wider national policy (SE).
FR, for example, noted that their
agreements on concerted management of migration flows provided legal migration
opportunities to third-country nationals from partner States in East and South
of Europe, including mobility of youth (Albania, Bosnia, Morocco, Algeria, as
well as in various Sub-Saharan Francophone countries). FR has also concluded agreements related to
legal migration and co-development in East and South of Europe (FYROM,
Montenegro (ongoing) and with Lebanon, as well as on ongoing agreement with the
Russian Federation on labour migration. In EL, revision of the bilateral
agreement with Egypt concerning cooperation on employment related issues is
ongoing. PL introduced new provisions, coming into force on 1st
January 2011, which waived the requirement to have a work permit for citizens
from Ukraine, Belarus, the Russian Federation, Moldova and Georgia. NL referred
to its circular migration pilot project (see under Commitment I.(c) [Section I.1.1]), whilst SE indicated that their
immigration policy overall offered increased legal migration opportunities for
third-country nationals, including from East and South Europe, although neither
these or other nationalities were Ôprioritised.Õ
Commitment: V.(c) pursue
policies of cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit in order to
deter or prevent illegal immigration,
At EU level, efforts were made with
regard to relations to Libya during 2010. However, recent events have radically
changed the situation and the policy in this region will have to be completely
redefined once the situation has stabilised.
In terms of what did occur in 2010 prior to
the recent events, Commissioners Malmstršm and FŸle visited Tripoli in October
2010 and jointly signed a Cooperation Agenda with M. Yunis Al-Obeidi, Secretary
of the People's Public Committees for Public security and M. Moussa Koussa,
Secretary of the People's Public Committee for External Relations and
International Cooperation. This document included a list of issues and
initiatives, in the fields of migration, asylum, border management, mobility or
related to the cooperation with the origin countries of migration, on which the
two sides were ready to discuss and possibly launch concrete initiatives.
In addition, the implementation of the
"Sahara-Mediterranean project" started, based on co-funding of up to
10MÛ by the Commission through the Thematic programme of Cooperation in the
areas of Migration and Asylum. The project was implemented by the Italian
Ministry of Interior, in partnership with Greece and Malta, as well as the IOM,
and provided technical advice and assistance to Libya on the prevention of
irregular migration and the reception of irregular migrants. Another project,
implemented in Libya by the UNHCR in partnership with ICMPD, Italian Conseil
for Refugees and the "Peace, Care and Relief" NGO, and also funded by
the Commission under the Thematic Programme, was suspended, following the
closure of the UNHCR office in Tripoli in June 2010.
During 2010, the negotiation of the
readmission agreement with Turkey made important progress and in May the chief
negotiators reached an agreement at their level. The text was, however, not
endorsed by the EU Member States, some of which requested to clarify and
improve some points. The Commission since then has been working, in contact
with these Member States and with Turkish authorities, to this purpose.
In July 2010, Commission experts carried
out a mission to Turkey to start a dialogue on visa issues. The mission in
particular enabled to present the new EU Visa Code to Turkish authorities, and
to promote its implementation through the development of the Local Schengen
Cooperation among the EU Member States' Consulates in Ankara. Moreover, the
annual progress report on Turkey was issued in November 2010.
In the Mediterranean region, meetings of
the Justice and Home Affairs Subcommittee took place with Algeria, Tunisia,
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon. Meetings of the Working Group of Social affairs and
Migration took place with Tunisia, Jordan and Egypt.
At national level, many Member States (BE, DK, DE,
EE, EL, ES, IE, IT, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) co-operated
with countries of origin and/or countries of transit.
AT, for
example, in cooperation with RO and SI, established Law Enforcement
Coordination Units in Albania and Serbia, focusing on combating organised
crime, including irregular immigration resulting from smuggling and trafficking
in human beings. Through a number of projects implemented in several
third-countries located at the EUÕs eastern border, as well as in Ghana and
Kenya, DK contributed to the effective implementation of the Global Approach to
Migration by enhancing cooperation with countries of origin and transit. IE operated a visa office in Nigeria, which cooperates with the
national immigration authorities in Sub-Saharan Africa. FR has 15 ongoing
agreements promoting concerted management of migration flows, with the majority
of these focusing on the prevention of irregular immigration. EL referred to
increased police cooperation, including joint operations and intelligence
gathering, with Albania in order inter alia to
prevent and combat irregular migration, as well as to efforts made in order to
improve cooperation with Turkey in preventing irregular migration. IT lead the
ÒSahara MedÓ police cooperation project with Libya, aimed at preventing and
managing irregular migration from the Sahara desert to the Mediterranean Sea.
RO carried out cooperation activities to deter or prevent irregular migration
with Moldova, including organisation of study visits of Moldovan experts in RO.
UK has capacity-building projects in China, Vietnam, Turkey and Ukraine,
providing support to authorities in migration flow management.
Cooperation
measures specifically concerning border control have been
described under Commitment III.(f) [Section III.2.1].
Commitment: V.(d) More
effective migration and development policies
At EU level, policy coherence for
development has moved ahead. Substantial work has been done on diasporas, brain
drain and remittances. A number of projects maximising the impact of migrants
as agents of development have been implemented. Moreover, in order to reduce
brain drain, the EU and its Member States promoted the inclusion of a reference to
circular migration of
health personnel in the WHO Global Code of Practice on the
International Recruitment of Health Personnel, which was adopted in May 2010.
As a way to further support evidence-based
policies and coherence in migration and development, the EU also supported
Extended Migration Profiles through a process oriented towards country
ownership and capacity building. Such profiles have been prepared in regional
contexts (16 draft profiles within the Prague process), as well as within the
framework of the Mobility Partnership with Moldova.
At national level, many Member States (BE, DK, DE, ES,
FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SE, UK) undertook activities to
integrate migration and development policies effectively. This ranged from
participation in international platforms and agreements with third countries (DE, ES, FR,
PT, FI, UK), to specific efforts at national level to ensure that migration and
development were jointly taken into account in policymaking (DK, ES, IE, NL, SE).
DE and ES, for example, mentioned their
active involvement in the EU cooperation platforms on migration and development
with Ethiopia, as well as their participation in a Joint Expert Group under the
EU-Africa Partnership on Migration, Mobility and Employment, where ES actively
co – chairs, on behalf of the EU, the MME EU - Africa VII Partnership. DK
adopted a new national development strategy including a number of elements
making the bridge between migration and development. It also supported a Study
on Migration and Development, which started in 2008 and will end in 2011, to
understand the relation between migration and development and inform Danish
development policies and pilot projects. FR noted that their concerted management of
migration flows agreements with various third countries, clearly linked
migration and development objectives, for example, through the funding of local
development projects managed by migrantsÕ associations and the support provided
to diasporas. LU mentioned development elements
within the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde, in which ES is one of the key
partners. Elsewhere, EL, ES, FI, PT and UK referred to their involvement
in the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), with, for example, ES substantially involved at the GFMD Puerto Vallarta
meeting, as co-chair of the 3.3 Round table and as rapporteur of Table 3.
With
regard to national policymaking, in IE, for example, the Cross-departmental
Inter-departmental Committee on Development (IDCD), including a representative of
the Department of Justice and Law Reform, continued to meet in 2010. NL is
funding three PhD candidates, to gain a better insight into options to improve
the integration of migration and development policy. SE issued a Communication
to the national Parliament on ÒMeeting Global Challenges – Government
communication on policy coherence for developmentÓ, which examined how it had
contributed to the objective of equitable and sustainable global development,
placing emphasis on the remittances and the transfer of skills and knowledge to
third countries. In addition, the government decided to develop a policy for
migration in its development cooperation. SE also
established a network of organisations to exchange experience on migration and
development.
Commitment: V.(e) promote
co-development actions that enable migrants
to take part in the development of their home countries.
See the entry in Section VI.2 under
remittances and Diaspora groups.
Commitment
V(f) firmly implement the partnership between the EU and Africa agreed in Lisbon in December 2007, the conclusions of the first Euro-Mediterranean
ministerial meeting on migration held in
Albufeira in November 2007 and the Rabat action plan and to that end call on the second Euro‑African
ministerial conference on migration and development in Paris in Autumn 2008 to
decide on practical measures; develop, in accordance with its conclusions of
June 2007, the Global Approach to Migration to the East and South-east of
Europe, and, in this respect, welcome the
initiative of a ministerial conference on this topic in April 2009 in Prague;
continue to make use of the existing political and sectoral dialogues,
particularly with the countries of Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia, in order to consolidate mutual understanding of what is at
stake in the field of migration and intensify current cooperation;
Within the Africa-EU Migration
Mobility and Employment (MME) Partnership, a new Action
Plan for 2011-2013 was developed and adopted at the 3rd Africa-EU
Summit in Tripoli in November 2010. Follow-up activities within the Rabat/Paris
process included a thematic meeting on vulnerable migrants and a technical seminar on diasporas in development for the Africa countries. Under the European Neighbourhood Policy, regular meetings in the
Justice and Home Affairs sub-Committees took place both with countries in the
Mediterranean region, and in Eastern Europe and South Caucasus.
The
European Union-Latin America (EU-LAC) Structured Dialogue on Migration was
further developed during 2010. The VIth EU/LAC Summit took place in
May 2010 and included the adoption of the Madrid Action Plan, which identifies
this migration dialogue as one of the priorities in EU-LAC relations.
Commitment
V(g) speed up the deployment of the key tools of the Global Approach to
Migration (migration balances, cooperation
platforms, partnerships for mobility and circular migration programmes), to
ensure a balance between the migration routes from the South and those from the
East and South-east and take account of the lessons learned in these matters
when negotiating EU and bilateral agreements on migration and readmission with
countries of origin and of transit, as well as Pilot Mobility Partnerships;
Further efforts were made to increase the
geographic balance of the Global Approach to Migration, including in the
revision of the funding programmes, notably in the preparation of the new
multi-annual strategy 2011-2013 for the Thematic Programme Migration and
Asylum. Also, a total of 70 new projects to the value of Û74 million were
approved under the 2009-2010 call for proposals of this programme.
Commitment
V(h) ensure when implementing these various actions that they are consistent
with other aspects of the EU's development cooperation policy, particularly the European Consensus on Development of 2005, and
other policies, particularly the
neighbourhood policy.
See the
entry under Commitment V. (d) [Section VI.1]
VI.2 Stockholm
Programme (Section 6.1.1)
continued
and expanded use of the Mobility partnership
instrument as the main strategic, comprehensive and long-term cooperation
framework for migration management with third countries, adding value to
existing bilateral frameworks. Success in implementing these partnerships
requires improved coordination and substantial capacity-building efforts in
countries of origin, transit and destination. The European Council calls for
further development of the Mobility partnership instrument, while respecting
their voluntary nature. Partnerships should be flexible and responsive to the
needs of both the EU and the partner countries, and should include cooperation
on all areas of the Global Approach,
The Prague process (Building Migration
Partnerships) continued throughout 2010 with workshops on capacity building and
in improving the evidence-base for migration policies focusing on migration
profiles and i-Maps. The 10th Ministerial Conference of the Brdo
process October, covered irregular migration and other related issues. At the
end of 2010, governments party to the Sšderkšping Process invited Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia to take part in that process, with a view to achieve
better synergies with the Eastern Partnership.
The tools of the Global Approach to
Migration were increasingly applied. Notably, cooperation with the Republic of
Moldova, Cape Verde and Georgia in the framework of the Mobility Partnerships
continued. The EU has, for example, supported Cape Verde in the development of
the national immigration strategy through the MIEUX facility. The Mobility Partnership
with Georgia, launched in February 2010, includes a Û3 million flagship
initiative focusing on support to the implementation of the readmission
agreement and the reintegration of returning Georgians. Discussions on new
potential Mobility Partnerships were ongoing with Armenia and Ghana.
more
efficient use of the Union's existing cooperation instruments to increase
the capacity of partner countries, with a
view to ensuring well-functioning infrastructures and sufficient administrative
capacity to handle all aspects of migration, including improving their capacity
to offer adequate protection and increasing the benefits and opportunities
created by mobility.
As a way to further support evidence-based
policies and coherence in migration and development, the EU also supported
Extended Migration Profiles through a process oriented towards country
ownership and capacity building. Such profiles have been prepared in regional
contexts (16 draft profiles within the Prague process), as well as within the
framework of the Mobility Partnership with Moldova. Furthermore, the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Observatory on Migration[61]
was inaugurated in October 2010.
The European Council recognises the need for increased policy
coherence at European level in order to promote the positive development
effects of migration within the scope of the EUÕs activities in the external
dimension and to align international migration more closely to the achievement
of the Millennium Development Goals. The European Council calls on the Council to ensure that it acts in a coordinated and coherent manner in
this field.
The European
Commission adopted, on 21 April 2010, a Policy Coherence for Development Work
Programme 2010-2013 that included a chapter on migration, focusing in particular
on facilitation of legal migration and mobility, including circular migration,
and promotion of migration and development agenda (remittances, brain drain,
dialogue with diaspora, enhancing migrants' rights and gender dimension).
Migration and development has taken a prominent place in the dialogue and
cooperation with third countries, for example in the context of the EU-ACP
dialogue and EU-LAC dialogue, as well as in financing through EU funds projects
strengthening positive impacts of migration on development, such as the EU-UN
Joint Migration and Development Initiative.
The European Council underlines the need to take further steps to
maximise the positive and minimise the negative effects of migration on development in line
with the Global Approach on Migration. Effective policies can provide the
framework needed to enable countries of destination and origin and migrants
themselves to work in partnership to enhance the effects of international
migration on development.
See the
entry under Commitment V. (d) [Section VI.1]
Council invites the Commission to submit proposals before 2012 on how to further ensure efficient, secure and low-cost
remittance transfers, and enhance the
development impact of remittance transfers, as well as to evaluate the feasibility
of creating a common EU portal on remittances
to inform migrants about transfer costs and encourage competition among
remittance service providers,
At EU level, an initiative on
remittances, which had been delayed, finally resulted in the launch of the
African Remittances Institute in June 2010, in cooperation with the African
Union and the World Bank. It will help the African countries in devising
policies to create enabling institutional frameworks, improving data
methodologies, encouraging competition to achieve reduction in transfer costs,
developing financial and business advisory services and credit facilities, and
promoting and working with diasporas to participate in these mechanisms and
instruments.
At national level, Member States
reported on their involvement in wider initiatives with respect to remittances,
led by the World Bank (CZ, DK, UK), the IOM (BE) and on activities launched at
national level to support the transfer or remittances (DE, FR, IT, ES, SE). CZ,
for example, following a World Bank review and recommendations with respect to
the remittance market in their Member State, funded an in-depth national survey
on the remittance market, which was subsequently presented at a seminar in
October 2010. Actions will be planned as a result of the study. The UK continued participation in
the World BankÕs Global Remittances Working Group, with the aim to reduce the
costs of transfer of remittances by five percent over five years. DK continued
supporting a World Bank Study on ÔMigration and Remittances for the development
of AfricaÕ and DE maintained a website, to inform migrants of
the options and prices for transferring money with banks or money transfer
agencies, in an effort to make the money transfer market more transparent and
to promote competition. The aim is for money transfers to the countries of
origin to become cheaper and more secure. IT continued a Solidarity Fund in the
Andes and a project in Senegal, supported by four banking foundations and
implemented in cooperation with some NGOs. Migrants are involved as both
beneficiaries and possible investors of small amounts of money to finance
agro-pastoral activities. ES evaluated several projects which focused on
channelling remittances towards productive investments and adopted a new
regulation that will allow for a further liberalization of the money transfer
market, by reducing the amount of capital needed to set up a company. SE also
referred to studies on remittances, including a case study of the impact of
remittances from SE to Iraq.
The implementation of the Global Approach needs to be accelerated
by the strategic use of all its existing instruments and improved by increased
coordination. A balance between the three areas (promoting mobility and legal
migration, optimising the link between migration and development, and
preventing and combating illegal immigration) should be maintained. The
principal focus should remain on cooperation with the most relevant
countries in Africa and Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. Dialogue and cooperation should be further developed also with
other countries and regions such as those in Asia and Latin America on the basis of the identification of common interests and
challenges (See also Section 7.5 of Stockholm Programme)
See the
entry under Commitment V.(f) [Section VI.1]
strategic, evidence based and systematic use of all available
instruments of the EU Global Approach to
Migration - migration profiles, migration missions, cooperation platforms on
migration and development and Mobility partnerships - for long-term cooperation on all dimensions of this policy in
close partnership with selected third countries along priority migratory
routes,
The Commission has also been active in
further developing migration profiles and the concept of circular migration
within the framework of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (the
GFMD), in Greece in November 2009 and in Mexico in November 2010.
See also under Commitment V.(b) and V.(d) [Section VI.1].
how diaspora groups may be further involved in EU development
initiatives, and how EU Member States may support diaspora groups in their
efforts to enhance development in their countries of origin
At EU level, the migration and development dialogue with civil society, includes migrant
associations and diaspora groups. The EU wants to reach out to these groups;
make them part of the policy framework, and partners in development. A project funded in 2010 aimed at the establishment of an African diaspora platform, whose
implementation will start at the beginning of 2011. Under
the Joint EC-UN Joint Migration and Development Initiative, activities include
working with diasporas, as this initiative aims to support civil society
organisations, local authorities and other actors implementing that implement
projects in the area of migration and development.
At national level, several Member
States (BE, DE, IE, ES, IT, LU, NL, SK, SE, UK) reported on activities
supporting diaspora groups in enhancing the development in their countries of
origin, including networks, dialogue and remittance projects.
BE continued supporting the IOM Programme
ÔMigration for Development in AfricaÕ (MIDA) which promotes the transfer of
knowledge, remittances and other resources by the diasporas from Burundi, the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda living in Europe to their countries of
origin. In IE, for example, a global network of
identified, influential members of the Diaspora was established as ÔThe Global
Irish NetworkÕ, launched in February 2010. EL, as chair of the 2009 Global
Forum for Migration and Development, disseminated relevant recommendations in
2010, suggesting, inter alia, to further include diaspora data into migration
profiles and engage diaspora organizations in development planning. An
evaluation of pilot projects on remittances in ES also included findings on the
key characteristics of migrant communities in Spain and their relationship with
their country of origin. The study also found that the migrant population was
relatively recent and it was therefore not yet possible to speak of diasporas.
Follow-up research is planned, as well as support to migrantsÕ associations to
engage in initiatives aimed at their respective communities. Within the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde, LU
developed a micro-finance project, gathering the savings of its Cape Verde
Diaspora with the aim of both improving the financing of the sector and
reinforcing the relationship with this country. NL organised its annual
meeting with Diaspora groups. SE has several ongoing projects, one using
foreign-born nationals as a resource in trade promotion. In the UK, the
Department for International Development (DfID) funded a diaspora volunteering
scheme, through Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), working with diasporas in
need, for example, after the floods in Pakistan.
ways
to further explore the concept of circular migration and study ways to
facilitate orderly circulation of migrants,
either taking place within, or outside, the framework of specific projects or
programmes including a wide-ranging study on how relevant policy areas may
contribute to and affect the preconditions for increased temporary and circular
mobility.
See the entry under Commitment V.(b)
[Section VI.1]
The
connection between climate change, migration and development needs to be
further explored, and the European Council therefore invites the Commission to present an analysis of the effects of climate change on
international migration, including its
potential effects on immigration to the European Union.
The above mentioned analysis will be
presented in 2011.
This Annex contains data, primarily as provided by the
Commission's Eurostat and in accordance with the Regulation (EC) 862/2007. Due
attention must be paid to the notes given for each Table.
In some cases, where Eurostat data were not available, provisional data, particularly for Table 1, as obtained by the EMN from
the respective national agencies is provided instead and indicated, except for
Table 1, in italics, as well as in the
corresponding Notes for each Table. Ultimately, these provisional data, which,
other than some of the data in Table 1, are nominally in accordance with
Regulation (EC) 862/2007, will be finalised and also made available via the
Eurostat database.
Member
State |
Total |
Education
reasons |
Remunerated
activities |
Other
reasons |
BE |
24
656 |
5
601 |
3
026 |
16
029 |
BG |
17
308 |
5
741 |
2
128 |
9
439 |
CZ |
11
551 |
3
865 |
4
391 |
491 |
DK |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
DE |
125
978 |
42
775 |
25
015 |
58
188 |
EE |
3
551 |
459 |
941 |
2
151 |
IE |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
EL |
15
782 |
1
188 |
13
610 |
984 |
ES |
290
813 |
22
068 |
26
706 |
242
039 (includes family reunification) |
FR |
189
500 |
58
000 |
17
000 |
114
500 (includes family reunification) |
IT |
326
000 |
12
500 |
200
500 |
113
000 (includes family reunification) |
CY |
18
648 |
2
682 |
12
857 |
3
109 |
LV |
1
499 |
206 |
450 |
843 |
LT |
1
738 |
426 |
592 |
710
(includes family reunification) |
LU |
6
945 |
507 |
1
917 |
4
521 (includes family reunification) |
HU |
12
909 |
4
421 |
4
386 |
4
102 |
MT |
1
874 |
134 |
290 |
1
450 (excludes for international protection) |
NL |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
AT |
30
763 |
3
735 |
2
923 |
24
105 (includes family reunification) |
PL |
21
210 |
6
261 |
11
604 |
3
345 |
PT |
16
550 |
5
258 |
10
343 |
949 |
RO |
5
444 |
3
119 |
1
674 |
651
(Residence permits for family reasons not included) |
SI |
9
717 |
829 |
5
951 |
75 |
SK |
4
381 |
321 |
1
797 |
2
263 |
FI |
16
335 |
4
490 |
2
987 |
2
649 |
SE |
35
695 |
14
188 |
21
507 |
NA |
UK |
550
105 |
268
525 |
116
670 |
164
905 |
Notes:
1. "NA" means data are Not
Available at the time this report was published.
2. "Other Reasons" groups
together all other permits issued, including inter
alia family reunification (indicated in the Table
above), for unremunerated trainees, volunteers. Owing to the different and
inconsistent manner in which the data for these other reasons were available at
the time this report was published, they have all been grouped together in this
one column.
3. Statistics are for first nine
months of 2010 (IT) and up to 20 December (PL).
4. For ES, UK data are for 2009, and
thus highlighted in Grey,
and for UK rounded to the nearest 5.
5. BE figures relate to issued long
term visa; figures on residence permits are not available yet.
6. CZ figures refer to the number of long-term
visa (type D) issued to third-country nationals in 2010. Statistics are based
on national definitions.
7. DE data come from the
ÒWanderungsmonitoringÓ by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.
8. LU figures include both first
permits and renewals.
Member
State |
Third-country
nationals apprehended |
Third-country
nationals ordered to leave |
Third-country
nationals returned following an order to leave (Returned
to a third country) |
Third-country
nationals returned as part of forced return measures |
Third-country
nationals returned as part of voluntary return measures |
BE |
12
115 |
28
195 |
4
415 (4
200) |
1
668 |
2
745 |
BG |
1
705 |
1
705 |
295 (210) |
NA |
NA |
CZ |
2
655 |
2
915 |
920 (920) |
NA |
NA |
DK |
665 |
NA |
520 (385) |
511 |
NA |
DE |
50
250 |
19
190 |
13
895 (10
875) |
NA |
NA |
EE |
860 |
110 |
80 (40) |
39 |
7 |
IE |
4
325 |
1
495 |
805 (805) |
NA |
460 |
EL |
132
524 |
132
524 |
54
261 |
52
469 |
420 |
ES |
70
315 |
78
920 |
21
955 (19
860) |
NA |
6
780 |
FR |
56
220 |
76
590 |
17
045 (13
235) |
15
496 |
2
422 |
IT |
46
955 |
46955 |
4
890 (4
890) |
10
600 |
NA |
CY |
8
005 |
2
845 |
4
065 (4
060) |
3
097 |
966 |
LV |
195 |
210 |
190 (190) |
94 |
16 |
LT |
1
345 |
1
345 |
1
235 (1
230) |
137 |
55 |
LU |
NA |
NA |
202 |
59 |
143 |
HU |
3 255 |
2 405 |
1 360 (1 120) |
1 360 (Police HQ) 659 (Aliens
Police) |
426 |
MT |
245 |
245 |
270 (police
and voluntary returns) (270) |
231 (police
returns only, not necessarily escorted) |
42 (41
of which were police related cases) |
NL |
7
580 |
29
870 |
10
355 (9
345) |
NA |
NA |
AT |
15
220 |
11
050 |
6
335 (5
355) |
2
166 |
4
167 |
PL |
3
995 |
10
700 |
6
770 (6
620) |
508 |
1
622 |
PT |
10
118 |
7
047 |
771 |
133 |
559 |
RO |
3
525 |
3
435 |
3
015 (3
015) |
290 |
51 |
SI |
3
415 |
3
415 |
1
940 (1
085) |
NA |
NA |
SK |
1
440 |
870 |
600 (585) |
605 |
130 |
FI |
3
755 |
3
835 |
1
930 (960) |
NA |
234 |
SE |
27
460 |
20
205 |
14
645 (10
900) |
1868 |
NA |
UK |
53
700 |
53
700 |
53
615 (44
705) |
NA |
NA |
Notes:
1. Data for the first three columns
are rounded figures (to nearest 5) and as provided by Eurostat, May 2011,
except when indicated in italics, in which case
they are provisional as provided by the EMN. "NA" means Not Available
at the time this report was published.
2. Data for the last two columns are
not recorded via Regulation 862/2007 and are as provided by the EMN. In
principle, the last two columns should sum up to be the same as the middle
column, although, for various reasons, this is not the case for all Member
States.
3. BE data on forced return exclude
Dublin-cases.
4. LU figure for those returned
following an order to leave includes individuals leaving the country after an
administrative decision stating that their stay is illegal and imposing an
obligation to leave, and individuals whose application for international
protection was rejected. The figure for voluntary return includes 44 persons
detained in a detention centre before return.
Table 3:
statistics on border – Third-country nationals refused entry in 2010
Member
State |
Total
refused |
Refused
at the land border |
Refused
at the sea border |
Refused
at the air border |
BE |
1
855 |
Not
Applicable |
85 |
1
770 |
BG |
3
070 |
2
550 |
60 |
455 |
CZ |
330 |
Not
Applicable |
Not
Applicable |
330 |
DK |
80 |
Not
Applicable |
0 |
80 |
DE |
3
550 |
Not
Applicable |
150 |
3
395 |
EE |
1
665 |
395 |
1
260 |
15 |
IE |
2
790 |
560 |
240 |
1
985 |
EL |
4
211 |
3
386 |
190 |
635 |
ES |
290
045 |
281
750 |
230 |
8
065 |
FR |
9
840 |
1
060 |
600 |
8
175 |
IT |
4
215 |
Not
Applicable |
1
270 |
2
945 |
CY |
685 |
Not
Applicable |
85 |
605 |
LV |
815 |
440 |
25 |
350 |
LT |
1
965 |
1
870 |
40 |
55 |
LU |
NA |
Not
Applicable |
Not
Applicable |
NA |
HU |
10
475 |
10
215 |
Not
Applicable |
265 |
MT |
130 |
Not
Applicable |
0 |
130 |
NL |
2
810 |
Not
Applicable |
65 |
2
745 |
AT |
400 |
85 |
Not
Applicable |
315 |
PL |
22
895 |
22
255 |
50 |
590 |
PT |
2
062 |
Not
Applicable |
9 |
2
053 |
RO |
3
357 |
1
253 |
25 |
2
079 |
SI |
7
845 |
7
635 |
0 |
210 |
SK |
840 |
830 |
Not
Applicable |
15 |
FI |
1
185 |
995 |
15 |
180 |
SE |
90 |
Not
Applicable |
0 |
90 |
UK |
16
365 |
1
510 |
2
305 |
12
555 |
Notes:
1. Data are rounded figures (to
nearest 5) and as provided by Eurostat, May 2011, except when indicated in italics, in which case they are provisional as provided by the EMN. "NA"
means Not Available at the time this report was published, whereas "Not
Applicable" means that such data are not relevant, e.g. because a Member
State does not have an external EU land and/or sea border.
Member
State |
Asylum
Applicants (incl. New) |
|
Total
Decisions |
Total
Positive |
Refugee
status |
Subsidiary
protection |
Humanitarian
reasons |
Rejected |
BE |
26
130 (21
600) |
|
16
245 |
3
510 |
2
700 |
805 |
- |
12
740 |
BG |
1
025 (NA) |
|
515 |
140 |
20 |
120 |
- |
375 |
CZ |
780 (385) |
|
500 |
175 |
75 |
75 |
20 |
330 |
DK |
5
070 (NA) |
|
3
280 |
1
345 |
660 |
520 |
170 |
1
935 |
DE |
48
490 (41
255) |
|
45
310 |
10
445 |
7
755 |
545 |
2
145 |
34
865 |
EE |
35 (30) |
|
40 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
- |
25 |
IE |
1
940 (1
920) |
|
1
600 |
25 |
25 |
5 |
- |
1
575 |
EL |
10
275 (NA) |
|
3
455 |
105 |
60 |
20 |
30 |
3
350 |
ES |
2
740 (2
550) |
|
2
785 |
610 |
245 |
350 |
15 |
2
175 |
FR |
51
595 (46
885) |
|
37
620 |
5
115 |
4
095 |
1
020 |
- |
32
505 |
IT |
10
050 (10
050) |
|
11
325 |
4
305 |
1
615 |
1
465 |
1
225 |
7
015 |
CY |
2
875 (NA) |
|
2
440 |
425 |
30 |
370 |
25 |
2
015 |
LV |
65 (60) |
|
50 |
25 |
5 |
20 |
- |
25 |
LT |
495 (370) |
|
190 |
15 |
<2 |
15 |
- |
175 |
LU |
780 (NA) |
|
475 |
70 |
55 |
15 |
- |
405 |
HU |
2
095 (NA) |
|
1
040 |
260 |
75 |
115 |
70 |
785 |
MT |
175 (145) |
|
350 |
210 |
45 |
165 |
15 |
125 |
NL |
15
100 (13
290) |
|
17
145 |
7
565 |
810 |
4
010 |
2
745 |
9
575 |
AT |
11
050 (NA) |
|
13
770 |
3
445 |
2
055 |
1
390 |
- |
10325 |
PL |
6
540 (4
330) |
|
4
420 |
510 |
80 |
195 |
230 |
3
910 |
PT |
160 (160) |
|
130 |
55 |
5 |
50 |
- |
75 |
RO |
885 (NA) |
|
425 |
70 |
40 |
30 |
0 |
355 |
SI |
245 (195) |
|
115 |
25 |
20 |
<2 |
- |
95 |
SK |
540 (315) |
|
295 |
90 |
5 |
55 |
30 |
205 |
Member
State |
Asylum
Applicants (incl. New) |
|
Total
Decisions |
Total
Positive |
Refugee
status |
Subsidiary
protection |
Humanitarian
reasons |
Rejected |
FI |
3
090 (NA) |
|
4
260 |
1
595 |
165 |
1
240 |
190 |
2
665 |
SE |
31
875 (31
810) |
|
27
630 |
8
495 |
1
935 |
5
955 |
605 |
19
140 |
UK |
23
715 (22
060) |
|
26
690 |
6
440 |
4
445 |
1
850 |
140 |
20
250 |
TOTAL
(EU-27) |
257
815 (NA) |
|
222
105 |
55
095 |
27
045 |
20400 |
7
645 |
167
010 |
Notes:
1. These are rounded figures (to
nearest 5) and as published by Eurostat, March 2011. "NA" means Not
Available at the time this report was published and figures in brackets in the
second column correspond to new asylum applicants in 2010.
2. Note that there is no direct
correlation between New Asylum Applicants and Decisions made in a particular
year, since, for example, some decisions may have been made on asylum
applicants which were submitted prior to 2010.
3. "-" means that Humanitarian
reasons are not applicable in BE, BG, EE, IE, FR, LV, LT, LU, AT, PT and SI.
4. For IT, due to a technical error,
there is an underestimation of the share of minor asylum applicants. The number
of first instance rejections is overestimated. See Eurostat report for further
details.
5. For AT, according to their national
annual statistics (Jahresstatistik 2010), there are some differences from
Eurostat, with Total Asylum applicants being 11 012; Total Decisions 13 785;
Total Positive 3 453; Refugee Status 2 077; Subsidiary protection 1 376,
Rejected 10 332.
Table 5:
Statistics on Unaccompanied Minors in 2010
Member
State |
Unaccompanied
minors |
Unaccompanied
minor asylum applicants |
BE |
NA |
1
080 |
BG |
19 |
20 |
CZ |
NA |
4 |
DK |
NA |
410 |
DE |
Not
Applicable |
1
950 |
EE |
0 |
0 |
IE |
NA |
35 |
EL |
NA |
145 |
ES |
3
800 |
15 |
FR |
Not
Applicable |
610 |
IT |
4
438 |
305 |
CY |
51 |
35 |
LV |
5 |
5 |
LT |
9 |
10 |
LU |
NA |
20 |
HU |
NA |
150 |
MT |
3 |
5 |
NL |
Not
Applicable |
700 |
AT |
Not
Applicable |
600 |
PL |
Not
Applicable |
230 |
PT |
NA |
5 |
RO |
NA |
35 |
SI |
2 |
25 |
SK |
119 |
5 |
FI |
NA |
330 |
SE |
2
363 |
2
395 |
UK |
NA |
1
595 |
Notes:
1. "NA" means Not Available
at the time this report was published, whereas "Not Applicable" means
that it is not possible to determine as data on unaccompanied minors not
applying for asylum are not recorded.
2. The
column "Unaccompanied Minors" includes both those who did and those
who did not apply for asylum. Data are provisional and as provided by the EMN.
For ES, this is the stock as of 30 June 2010.
3. The column "Unaccompanied
minor asylum applicants" are rounded figures (to the nearest 5) and as
provided by Eurostat, May 2011, except when indicated in italics, in which case they are provisional as provided by the EMN.
4. CY provided figures for UAMs up to
August 2010 and for UAMs asylum applicants up to November 2010.
6. CZ figures are based on national
definitions.
[1] The First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) consisted of: (i) a Communication (COM(2010) 214) and (ii) a factual Commission Staff Working Paper (SEC(2010) 535).
[2] 3018th JHA Council, 3 June 2010, see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/114881.pdf.
[3] More information, including the EMN Annual Policy Report referred to, is available from http://www.emn.europa.eu. The EMN did not address Pact commitments: III(c), III(g), IV(a), IV(b), V(f), V(g), V(h) nor those Stockholm objectives which were principally for actions at EU level, e.g. on implementation of the Policy Plan on Legal migration [Section I.1.2]. They may be identified as those sub-sections with no information "At national level."
[4] COM(2005) 669 final of 21 December 2005.
[5] Synthesis and National Reports available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies."
[6] See http://www.labourmigration.eu/research/report/13-migration-employment-and-the-outcomes-of-labour-market-integration-policies-in-the-european-union.
[7] This grace period refers to a six month period under which a worker can seek alternative work without a labour market needs test being applied.
[8] The EMN has also undertaken a study on temporary and circular migration, see http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies."
[9] Other reasons groups together all other permits issued, including inter alia family reunification, for unremunerated trainees, volunteers. Owing to the different and inconsistent manner in which the data for these other reasons were available at the time this report was published, they have all been grouped together in this one column.
[10] Para 60 C-540/03 Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 22 December 2003.
[11] Case-578/08 Chakroun on Article 7(1) the possibility to require stable and regular financial resources from the sponsor. The specific questions were whether the phrase 'recourse to the social assistance system' allows Member States to include special assistance granted by local authorities and whether a distinction can be drawn according to whether the family relationship arose before or after the sponsor entered the territory of the host Member State. The answer was "no" to both questions.
[12] Family formation refers to the establishment of a family relationship after the entry of the sponsor into the Member State while family reunification means the reunification of family members with a sponsor legally-residing in the Member State.
[13] All EMN outputs are available from http://www.emn.europa.eu.
[14] As concluded in the last report on the implementation of the MIM (COM(2009) 687), any information currently communicated through the MIM is now provided in this report on the implementation of the Pact.
[15] ICONet is a secure web-based information and coordination network for Member StatesÕ Migration Management Services, OJ L 83, 1.4.2005, p. 48.
[16] See http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Ad-Hoc Queries."
[17] FRONTEX Risk Analysis.
[18] International Centre for Migration Policy Development
[19] Secure web-based Information and Coordination Network for Member StatesÕ Migration Management Services, established by Council Decision 2005/267/EC, OJ 2005 L 83, p. 48.
[20] General Directors of Immigration Services Conference
[21] Mutual Information Mechanism for national asylum and immigration measures, established by Council Decision 2006/688/EC, OJ L 283, 14.10.2006, p. 40–43
[23] SEC(2010) 357 of 19 March 2010.
[24] Council document 9248/10.
[25] COM(2010) 682 final
[26] COM(2010) 758 final
[27] COM(2010) 477 final
[28] COM(2011) 18 final
[29] The European Pact on Asylum and Immigration and the Stockholm Programme interchangeably refers to illegal and irregular migration. In keeping with recent reports from the Commission, the term "irregular" is used here.
[30] COM (2010) 379 final.
[31] COM (2010) 378 final.
[32] Due to DKÕs general reservation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, DK did not transpose Directive 2009/52/EC. However, DKÕs legislation contains rules regulating sanctions on persons employing migrants illegally and DKÕs police regularly carries out controls together with other relevant authorities to ensure that workplaces do not employ irregular migrants.
[33] By 18th March 2011, 9 Member States (BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, MT, PT, SK, FI) plus Switzerland and Norway have notified full transposition of the Return Directive and 4 Member States (BE, LT, LV, SE) had notified partial transposition of the Directive to the Commission. On 27 January 2011 the Commission decided to launch formal infringement procedures and to send letters of formal notice to all Member States which did not notify full transposition of Directive 2008/115/EC.
[34] This was formally published as Directive 2011/36/EU on 5th April 2011, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:101:0001:0011:EN:PDF.
[35] COM(2010) 493
[36] www.ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking
[37] See Press Release at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1715.
[38] COM(2011) 76 .
[39] The EMN has recently completed a study on Assisted Return, available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies."
[40] COM(2010) 61 final.
[41] In March 2011, there was a consensus among Member States that the sequence of the first regions for the start of operations should not be changed, despite the political situation in certain countries of North Africa, the Near East and the Gulf Region. A position supported by the Commission.
[42] SEC(2011) 145 final.
[43] See Footnote 42.
[44] COM(2010)620 final
[45] COM(2010) 624 final.
[46] Regulation (EU) 439/2010 published in the Official Journal of the EU on 29 May 2010.
[47] Following an orientation vote on 1 February 2011, the Parliament's LIBE committee adopted a draft report on the Commission's proposal, available from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5818632.
[48] On 24th March 2011, the European Parliament's LIBE committee adopted a report on the Commission's proposal, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2011-0085+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.
[49] This was adopted by the Council on 11th April 2011, see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/121451.pdf.
[50] http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/asylum/docs/final_report_relocation_of_refugees.pdf
[51] COM(2009) 456 final.
[52] Council Decision 2010/252/EU (OJ L 111/20, 4th May 2010).
[53] The figures presented here are based on the published data from Eurostat, March 2011, available from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-11-005/EN/KS-QA-11-005-EN.PDF.
[54] There is no specific commitment on unaccompanied minors in the Pact, only under the Stockholm Programme.
[55] COM(2010) 213 Final
[56] Available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies."
[57] Council conclusions on unaccompanied minors, 3018th JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting, Luxembourg, 3 June 2010.
[58] Though this changed in 2011 owing to the events occurring there.
[59] See http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/how-does-it-work/ for details of this process and the yearly progress reports.
[60] Available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies."