EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52016SC0160
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fourth report on progress by Kosovo* in fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fourth report on progress by Kosovo* in fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fourth report on progress by Kosovo* in fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap
SWD/2016/0160 final
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 4.5.2016
SWD(2016) 160 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
Fourth report on progress by Kosovo* in fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap
{COM(2016) 276 final}
*This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Commission launched a visa liberalisation dialogue with Kosovo on 19 January 2012. On 14 June 2012, it handed over to Kosovo a roadmap, which identified all the legislation and other measures that Kosovo needed to adopt and implement to advance towards visa liberalisation.
The Commission adopted three previous reports on Kosovo’s progress in the visa dialogue—on 8 February 2013, 1 24 July 2014 2 and 18 December 2015. 3 These reports contained an assessment of progress made by Kosovo, recommendations to the Kosovo authorities and statistical data about the potential migratory and security impacts of visa liberalisation.
This is the Commission staff working document (SWD) accompanying the Commission’s fourth report, 4 setting out in greater detail the potential security and migratory impacts of visa liberalisation, as well as the set of measures that Kosovo has implemented since December 2015 to prevent an irregular migration crisis.
This SWD draws upon reports submitted by Kosovo, reports drafted by EU Member States’ experts participating in an assessment mission to Kosovo on 17-18 March 2016, information provided by the EU Office in Kosovo, EUROPOL, FRONTEX, EASO and EULEX, as well as statistical data compiled by EUROSTAT and supplied by Member States.
The visa dialogue is conducted without prejudice to EU Member States’ position on status.
2. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SECURITY AND MIGRATORY IMPACTS OF VISA LIBERALISATION
2.1. Security: Current situation and potential impact of visa liberalisation with Kosovo
Kosovo continues to face challenges in effectively preventing and combating organised crime, corruption and terrorism. Criminal networks operating in Kosovo continue to pose a considerable threat to the internal security of the European Union.
2.1.1. Current situation
Geographical reach
Albanian-speaking organised crime groups are already present and engaged in criminal activities in 19 Member States and Schengen Associated States. Such groups can be composed of persons not only from Kosovo, but also of Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia. Some also hold EU citizenship. They often have interests in their region of origin and maintain contacts with diaspora communities.
Some members of these groups return to Kosovo to evade prosecution abroad, while others have been known to run operations in the EU from Kosovo.
Criminal sectors
These groups are active in a considerable range of crime areas, and there are indications that they could pose a threat in the following sectors:
-Drug trafficking, such as the production and trafficking of cannabis and trafficking of heroin and cocaine;
-Some groups have become active in facilitating irregular migration from Kosovo and, recently, third-country nationals in the European refugee crisis;
-Corruption, money-laundering and fraud, including excise and benefit fraud;
-Trafficking in human beings, notably for sexual exploitation;
-The illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons;
-Foreign terrorist fighters originating from Kosovo who have returned from Syria or Iraq.
Counterfeit commodity smuggling undertaken by some of these groups remains a problem affecting the Western Balkans rather than the EU.
Drug trafficking
In the heroin and cocaine trade affecting the EU, the Western Balkan route, including Kosovo, continues to play an important role. Kosovo is still used as a storage location and distribution centre for trafficked heroin.
Despite a significant law enforcement effort in 2014-2015 to eradicate cannabis plantations, production continues in Kosovo on a smaller scale. Cannabis is produced for the regional market, and large seizures in 2014 indicate that most of the cannabis is trafficked from Albania through Kosovo to EU Member States.
Cannabis grown in Albania and Kosovo is distributed in some EU Member States and Schengen Associated States. Some competition in the cannabis trade with organised crime groups active in the EU has also been detected.
Kosovo is less exposed to the trafficking of synthetic drugs, although precursors have been detected in lorries.
Between 2014 and 2015, the number of criminal investigations of drug trafficking increased from 22 to 29. In 2015, Kosovo confiscated 1 kg of heroin, 25 grammes of cocaine and 83 kg of cannabis. By volume, cannabis remains the type of drug most commonly trafficked in Kosovo.
Most of these groups also engage in serious crimes other than drug trafficking.
Facilitating irregular migration
Some criminal groups involved in facilitating irregular migration have focused on Kosovo in particular. Some facilitators are members of the diaspora community; others are former migrants themselves.
These groups often employ EU nationals as drivers or local smugglers and cooperate with document forgers who facilitate their services. In the past, private cars were most often used; but the Kosovo migration crisis between September 2014 and April 2015 showed an increasing reliance on bus companies. Corrupt border officials have been known to be bribed to facilitate passenger movement.
False residence permits in some EU Member States and Schengen Associate States have been used to regularise migrants’ stay in the Schengen area. Some travel agencies have offered fraudulent document packages to persons seeking to apply for Schengen visas. Another method of document fraud involves applications for Serbian biometric passports, in circumvention of the residence requirement that is necessary in Serbia to qualify for such travel documents. Bribery is sometimes used to facilitate this process.
Counterfeit documents have often been used by these groups to facilitate irregular migration.
Migrant smuggling remains a multinational business. Suspects originate from more than 100 countries, including Bulgaria, Hungary, Iraq, Kosovo, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Syria and Turkey. There have been some indications of Kosovo-based organised crime groups collaborating with Russian-speaking groups in migrant smuggling.
Corruption, money-laundering and fraud
Kosovo has a legislative and institutional framework against corruption in place. However, implementation remains a challenge. Transparency International’s 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index 5 ranked Kosovo 103th of 167 countries surveyed globally, with the worst ranking in the Western Balkans for a third consecutive year.
Despite recent progress in modernising the legislative framework and the enforcement of a centralised public procurement system, public procurement remains a major source of corruption in Kosovo.
The trafficking of counterfeit medicine and cigarettes remains a moderate problem in Kosovo. Fuel smuggling, particularly in the north of Kosovo, remains a problem.
The illicit proceeds of serious crime are increasingly invested in legitimate businesses in EU Member States and Schengen Associated States. The most common form of money-laundering include investing in real estate, use of tax havens and investing in businesses, such as restaurants, bars, casinos, travel companies and construction companies in the Western Balkans and some EU Member States.
Trafficking in human beings
Kosovo continues to be affected by trafficking in human beings. Earlier, persons were trafficked to Kosovo for sexual exploitation; today, this is increasingly becoming a domestic problem.
Workers from Kosovo have also been trafficked to EU Member States for labour exploitation, using fraudulent documents.
Trafficking of small arms and light weapons
The total number of registered and unregistered firearms currently in circulation in the Western Balkans is estimated between 3.2 and 6.2 million. Small arms and light weapons are typically smuggled into the EU along the Western Balkan route, including Kosovo.
Reactivated small weapons are sometimes converted in Kosovo before being trafficked to the EU. However, weapon tracing and law enforcement controls of arms have improved in Kosovo, not least owing to Kosovo’s participation in the EU-Western Balkan Action Plan on trafficking in firearms.
Criminal methods
Some groups have also been known to set up legal businesses, such as shops, restaurants, casinos and workshops, across the Western Balkan to facilitate their criminal enterprises.
Corruption and bribery of public officials both in the Western Balkans and sometimes also in the EU are used when necessary to facilitate criminal enterprises.
Some of these groups have also established criminal partnerships in the Western Balkans and Member States. In the EU, such partnerships have been observed with Italian organised crime groups and Nigerian and Moroccan groups active in Member States. In the Western Balkans, Kosovo-based groups have set up partnerships with Turkish, Romanian and Bulgarian organised crime groups.
Violence is sometimes used to maintain discipline; several members possess firearms.
Many of these groups are financially well off and are capable of laundering the proceeds of crime in other sectors or legitimate businesses. Poorer groups have sometimes resorted to extortion and loan sharking to boost profits.
Terrorism
The spread of Islamic radicalism and extremism remains a concern in Kosovo, as in the broader Western Balkan region. Estimates of foreign terrorist fighters from Kosovo who have operated in Syria or Iraq range from 150 to 300, which represents the highest number of foreign terrorist fighters per capita in Europe. Some have already returned to Kosovo.
Kosovo authorities have taken a number of steps to combat violent extremism and the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, including through arrests and the prevention of departure via legislation. On 17 September 2014, its authorities arrested fifteen individuals on suspicion of terrorism, including 9 imams whose activities had been monitored for some time. In March 2015, Kosovo adopted a law that prevents participation in foreign armed conflicts and started implementing a strategy to de-radicalise returning foreign terrorist fighters. Kosovo also actively participates in the EU’s Western Balkan Counter-Terrorism Initiative. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of such measures on the flow of departures or Kosovo’s capacity to detect and monitor returns, but the Commission noted in its 2015 enlargement package that Kosovo’s efforts “need to be enhanced to identify, prevent and disrupt the flow of foreign terrorist fighters traveling to conflict areas such as Iraq and Syria.” 6
The resources, including Arabic language skills, that Kosovo can deploy to combat violent extremism remain limited, although authorities have recently strengthened their efforts to monitor terrorist recruitment online. Kosovo is also considering the establishment of a referral mechanism. This would be a multi-agency safeguarding process designed to identify persons vulnerable and therefore susceptible to radicalisation. Kosovo should pay particular attention to improving its capacity to prevent radicalisation.
2.1.2. Potential security impact of visa liberalisation with Kosovo
An assessment of the security impact of visa liberalisation for Kosovo reveals that drug trafficking, the facilitation of irregular migration, corruption, money-laundering and fraud, trafficking in human beings, the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons and returning foreign terrorist fighters pose potential threats to the European Union’s internal security. As reflected in the Commission’s previous assessments, Kosovo has taken steps to address these matters, but monitoring and effectively addressing them after visa liberalisation remains essential.
Albanian-speaking organised crime groups are capable of managing movement between the EU and Kosovo and are often connected to organised crime groups in their diaspora. It remains unclear to what extent visa-free travel might contribute to cross-border criminality. Nevertheless, the difference in living standards between the EU and Kosovo may facilitate an increase in certain crime areas, such as organised property crime and mobile itinerant crime. Visa liberalisation could also have an impact on undetected entry into the EU of persons from Kosovo who return from war zones where they had joined terrorist networks. Continued implementation of legislation adopted in the context of the visa dialogue and enhanced operational cooperation and information sharing with Member States will be essential to mitigate these threats.
2.2. Migration: current situation and potential impact of visa liberalisation for Kosovo
2.2.1. Current situation
Irregular migration numbers from Kosovo to the EU have fluctuated over the past years and have varied across Member States. While late 2014 and early 2015 saw an unprecedented rise in irregular migration and a corresponding increase in asylum applications from Kosovo, these numbers have declined since May 2015 (Figure 2.1).
Asylum applications in the first quarter of 2016 reached their lowest quarterly level since the visa dialogue was launched with Kosovo in January 2012 (Figure 4.5).
As part of its European Agenda on Migration, the Commission proposed on 9 September 2015 establishing an EU common list of safe countries of origin that would include Kosovo. It considered that the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation in Kosovo. There are no indications of refoulement. Discrimination or violence against individuals belonging to vulnerable groups of persons such as women, LGBTI and persons belonging to ethnic minorities, including ethnic Serbs, still occurs in individual cases. At least six Member States have designated Kosovo as a safe country of origin. On this basis, the Commission concluded that Kosovo was a safe country of origin within the meaning of the Asylum Procedures Directive. 7
Figure 4.6 shows a considerable drop in the asylum recognition rate of applicants from Kosovo. Across the EU and Schengen Associated States, the asylum recognition rate fell from 7.3% to 2.6% between 2014 and 2015, suggesting that hardly any applicant from Kosovo merits international protection in the Schengen area.
Kosovo migration crisis, September 2014 - April 2015
Between September 2014 and April 2015, there was a large-scale irregular migration flow from Kosovo, via Serbia and Hungary, mainly to Germany and Austria. According to Eurostat, 87,595 persons from Kosovo sought asylum in the EU and Schengen Associated States between September 2014 and April 2015 (Figure 2.1).
Kosovo’s steps to contain the migration crisis
Under EU facilitation and in close cooperation with Serbia, Kosovo took a number of immediate operational steps that contributed to reducing irregular migration flows as of April 2015. Since May 2015, the number of asylum applications have continuously decreased.
Kosovo took the following steps to reduce irregular migration flows:
1)Organised a targeted information campaign, including at its border/boundary-crossing points with Serbia. This included the distribution of leaflets in the official languages of Kosovo and senior politicians informing the public of the consequences of irregular entry to, or overstay in the, Schengen area, as well as the consequences of receiving a Schengen entry ban. Kosovo should continue organising such campaigns to inform the public of the rights and obligations of entry to the Schengen area;
Figure 2.1. Kosovo asylum applications in Member States and Schengen Associated States during Kosovo migration crisis, 2014-2015
Source: Eurostat
2)Enhanced border/boundary controls, including first and second-line checks and surveillance, along its border/boundary-crossing points with Serbia, by thoroughly checking ID cards, the administrative licences of buses and explaining the conditions of entry to the Schengen area. Kosovo was reminded that its practice of “dissuading” travellers from leaving Kosovo must be in line with travellers’ fundamental rights;
3)Stepped up investigations of travel companies facilitating transfers to Serbia, with a focus on newly established companies. This included revoking the licences of bus companies that did not meet the conditions of transport and domestic legislation;
4)Ensured the reception of returnees to Kosovo from all EU Member States and Schengen Associated States, finding practical arrangements for their identification, registering them in the reintegration database, providing comprehensive information on the benefits they might be eligible for and ensuring their transfer to home municipalities;
5)Took steps to enhance information exchange, via EULEX, with Europol on the criminal aspects of irregular migration, with FRONTEX on migration-related risk analysis and with EASO on asylum trends;
6)Adopted a resolution on 5 February 2015 to address the push factors of irregular migration. Among other measures, this resolution grants customs, tax, and administrative benefits for individuals who employ more than ten persons. A decision on 4 March 2015 pardoned utility bill arrears and created a seasonal work programme for 900 beneficiaries of social welfare.
Kosovo is committed to implementing the above measures to prevent abuse of the visa-free scheme.
3.2.2. Potential migratory impact of visa liberalisation for Kosovo
As of May 2015, the Kosovo authorities introduced several mitigating measures that have contributed to reducing irregular migration flows and informing the public about their rights and obligations to enter the Schengen area.
These measures should remain in place and must continue to prevent abuse of the visa-free scheme.
The Commission has added Kosovo to its proposal for an EU list of safe countries of origin.
3.3. Migratory performance indicators
The Commission has continued to monitor the five performance indicators set out in the visa roadmap. 8 A substantial decrease in these performance indicators, over the course of the visa dialogue, has been used as an indicative reference in the Commission’s assessments of the potential migratory impact of visa liberalisation for Kosovo.
Last year, the following trends could be observed:
-the visa refusal rate for Kosovo, calculated as an average for 13 Member States and Schengen Associated States, fell by 1.2% from 21.1% to 19.9% between 2014 and 2015 (Figure 4.1);
-the number of refused entries at Schengen external borders fell by 30% from 1,315 to 925 between 2014 and 2015 (Figure 4.2);
-the number of illegal stays in EU Member States or Schengen Associated States increased by 73% from 13,545 to 23,500 between 2014 and 2015 as a direct consequence of the Kosovo migration crisis (Figure 4.3);
- the number of asylum applications lodged in EU Member States or Schengen Associates States increased by 90% from 38,450 to 73,215 between 2014 and 2015 as a consequence of the Kosovo migration crisis (Figure 4.4). However, a comparison of asylum applications between the first quarters of 2015 and 2016 reveals a dramatic drop of 96%. The first quarter of 2016 also yielded the lowest quarterly total of asylum applications—2,015—that Kosovo has recorded since the beginning of the visa dialogue (Figure 4.5);
-the number of rejected readmission applications increased by 121% from 208 to 459 between 2014 and 2015, while the rejection rate of readmission applications fell from 8.2% to 3.8% in the same period (Figure 4.7). The return rate also increased from 50.1% to 85.6% between 2014 and 2015 (Figure 4.8), suggesting that Kosovo responded efficiently to the migration crisis by swiftly readmitting returnees.
3. CONCLUSION
An assessment of the security impact of visa liberalisation for Kosovo reveals that drug trafficking, the facilitation of irregular migration, corruption, money-laundering and fraud, trafficking in human beings, the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons and returning foreign terrorist fighters pose potential threats to the European Union’s internal security. As reflected in the Commission’s previous assessments, Kosovo has taken steps to address these matters, but monitoring and effectively addressing them after visa liberalisation remains essential.
Albanian-speaking organised crime groups are capable of managing movement between the EU and Kosovo and are often connected to organised crime groups in their diaspora. It remains unclear to what extent visa-free travel might contribute to cross-border criminality. Nevertheless , the difference in living standards between the EU and Kosovo may facilitate an increase in certain crime areas, such as organised property crime and mobile itinerant crime. Visa liberalisation could also have an impact on undetected entry into the EU of persons from Kosovo who return from war zones where they had joined terrorist networks. Continued implementation of legislation adopted in the context of the visa dialogue and enhanced operational cooperation and information sharing with Member States will be essential to mitigate these threats.
An overview of the migratory performance indicators that the Commission uses to monitor the potential migratory impact of visa liberalisation suggests the following:
-The visa refusal rate and the number of refusals of entry fell in the reporting period, as required by the visa liberalisation roadmap, but the former remains high;
-The number of illegal stays and asylum applications increased as a result of the Kosovo migration crisis in late 2014-early 2015;
-The number of rejected readmission application also increased in absolute terms, but a drop in the rejection rate of readmission applications and a considerable increase in the return rate suggests that Kosovo was able to address effectively the aftermath of the migration crisis.
The above data illustrate the main trends in the security and migration fields, showing that the EU remains an attractive destination for persons from Kosovo with potential migratory and security challenges to be monitored. The reinforced visa liberalisation suspension clause proposed by the Commission will help in this respect to mitigate the associated risks.
4. STATISTICS
Figure 4.1. Applications for short-term Schengen visas in Kosovo, 2012-2015
|
Year |
Visa category |
Belgium/Netherlands/ Luxembourg 9 |
Germany |
Greece |
Finland |
Hungary |
Slovenia |
Switzerland/Austria/ France/Liechtenstein |
Norway |
Total |
|
2015 |
Total A, C visa applications |
160 |
31.263 |
5.697 |
1.412 |
3.048 |
3.999 |
24.663 |
2.164 |
72.406 |
|
Total A, C visas delivered |
137 |
24.680 |
5.047 |
1.194 |
2.658 |
2.920 |
19.232 |
1.922 |
57.790 |
|
|
Total A, C visas refused |
23 |
6.396 |
646 |
218 |
371 |
1.079 |
5.449 |
231 |
14.413 |
|
|
Refusal rate for A, C visas |
14,4% |
20,5% |
11,3% |
15,4% |
12,2% |
27,0% |
22,1% |
10,7% |
19,9% |
|
|
2014 |
Total A, C visa applications |
2.967 |
28.924 |
6.937 |
1.360 |
2.468 |
3.734 |
22.531 |
1.549 |
70.470 |
|
Total A, C visas delivered |
1.943 |
23.531 |
5.995 |
1.181 |
1.788 |
2.798 |
16.709 |
1.419 |
55.364 |
|
|
Total A, C visas refused |
868 |
5.393 |
942 |
172 |
641 |
936 |
5.822 |
130 |
14.904 |
|
|
Refusal rate for A, C visas |
29,3% |
18,6% |
13,6% |
12,6% |
26,0% |
25,1% |
25,8% |
8,4% |
21,1% |
|
|
2013 |
Total A, C visa applications |
2.823 |
26.071 |
4.556 |
1.314 |
2.819 |
4.415 |
23.917 |
1.496 |
67.411 |
|
Total A, C visas delivered |
1.915 |
21.849 |
4.275 |
1.144 |
2.067 |
3.281 |
17.993 |
1.279 |
53.803 |
|
|
Total A, C visas refused |
869 |
4.222 |
281 |
170 |
753 |
1.134 |
5.924 |
217 |
13.570 |
|
|
Refusal rate for A, C visas |
30,8% |
16,2% |
6,2% |
12,9% |
26,7% |
25,7% |
24,8% |
14,5% |
20,1% |
|
|
2012 |
Total A, C visa applications |
2.774 |
25.733 |
485 |
1.282 |
2.289 |
4.631 |
22.131 |
759 |
60.084 |
|
Total A, C visas delivered |
1.829 |
16.600 |
441 |
989 |
1.618 |
3.295 |
17.553 |
532 |
42.857 |
|
|
Total A, C visas refused |
926 |
5.404 |
44 |
293 |
671 |
1.336 |
4.578 |
227 |
13.479 |
|
|
Refusal rate for A, C visas |
33,4% |
21,0% |
9,1% |
22,9% |
29,3% |
28,8% |
20,7% |
29,9% |
22,4% |
Source: EU Office, Local Schengen Cooperation group data (These figures could not be verified by the Commission)
Figure 4.2. Refused entry at Schengen external borders for Kosovo, 2012-2015
|
Member State/Schengen Associated State |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Belgium |
35 |
25 |
15 |
10 |
|
Bulgaria |
65 |
60 |
160 |
75 |
|
Czech Republic |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Denmark |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Germany |
85 |
90 |
55 |
60 |
|
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Ireland |
5 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
|
Greece |
40 |
15 |
40 |
N/A |
|
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
|
France |
235 |
110 |
65 |
120 |
|
Croatia |
0 |
720 |
560 |
520 |
|
Italy |
30 |
50 |
35 |
20 |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Luxembourg |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Hungary |
80 |
140 |
150 |
N/A |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Netherlands |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Austria |
10 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
|
Poland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
|
Romania |
0 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
Slovenia |
0 |
150 |
115 |
N/A |
|
Slovakia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Finland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Sweden |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
United Kingdom |
40 |
40 |
55 |
55 |
|
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Liechtenstein |
0 |
5 |
0 |
N/A |
|
Norway |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Switzerland |
45 |
45 |
45 |
45 |
|
Total (EU + SAC) |
670 |
1.465 |
1.315 |
925 |
Source: Eurostat, DG HOME calculations
Figure 4.3. Illegal stays in EU Member States and Schengen Associated States for Kosovo, 2012-2015
|
Member State/Schengen Associated State |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Belgium |
250 |
290 |
295 |
N/A |
|
Bulgaria |
5 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
Czech Republic |
15 |
45 |
185 |
265 |
|
Denmark |
10 |
0 |
10 |
20 |
|
Germany |
2.645 |
3.070 |
4.110 |
18.965 |
|
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
|
Ireland |
25 |
5 |
0 |
20 |
|
Greece |
95 |
60 |
35 |
N/A |
|
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
France |
610 |
845 |
1.270 |
1.415 |
|
Croatia |
0 |
275 |
230 |
150 |
|
Italy |
180 |
180 |
130 |
150 |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Luxembourg |
20 |
25 |
35 |
10 |
|
Hungary |
190 |
965 |
2.075 |
N/A |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Netherlands |
0 |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
|
Austria |
495 |
1.175 |
1.780 |
1.995 |
|
Poland |
10 |
10 |
5 |
10 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
|
Romania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Slovenia |
0 |
100 |
100 |
N/A |
|
Slovakia |
5 |
15 |
75 |
105 |
|
Finland |
50 |
40 |
40 |
70 |
|
Sweden |
525 |
725 |
1.370 |
45 |
|
United Kingdom |
70 |
100 |
90 |
115 |
|
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
|
Liechtenstein |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
Norway |
45 |
65 |
90 |
150 |
|
Switzerland |
1.280 |
1.790 |
1.615 |
N/A |
|
Total (EU + SAC) |
6.525 |
9.785 |
13.545 |
23.500 |
Source: Eurostat, DG HOME calculations
4.4. Asylum applications lodged in EU Member States and Schengen Associated States for Kosovo, 2012-2015
|
Member State/Schengen Associated State |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Belgium |
1.740 |
1.270 |
840 |
735 |
|
Bulgaria |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Czech Republic |
10 |
10 |
15 |
15 |
|
Denmark |
130 |
80 |
80 |
115 |
|
Germany |
2.535 |
4.425 |
8.920 |
37.095 |
|
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Ireland |
5 |
5 |
5 |
15 |
|
Greece |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
France |
3.715 |
5.550 |
2.770 |
4.275 |
|
Croatia |
0 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
Italy |
100 |
100 |
105 |
350 |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Luxembourg |
210 |
160 |
140 |
235 |
|
Hungary |
225 |
6.210 |
21.455 |
24.455 |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Netherlands |
40 |
50 |
60 |
690 |
|
Austria |
310 |
935 |
1.905 |
2.470 |
|
Poland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
Romania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Slovenia |
20 |
35 |
20 |
30 |
|
Slovakia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Finland |
80 |
70 |
65 |
165 |
|
Sweden |
1.045 |
1.270 |
1.480 |
1.775 |
|
United Kingdom |
40 |
40 |
30 |
30 |
|
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Liechtenstein |
0 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
|
Norway |
130 |
255 |
145 |
175 |
|
Switzerland |
585 |
700 |
405 |
565 |
|
Total (EU + SAC) |
10.920 |
21.175 |
38.450 |
73.215 |
Source: Eurostat, DG HOME calculations
4.5. Asylum applications in EU Member States and Schengen Associated States for Kosovo, First Quarter results, 2012-2016
|
Member State/Schengen Associated State |
2012 Q1 |
2013 Q1 |
2014 Q1 |
2015 Q1 |
2016 Q1 |
|
Belgium |
440 |
415 |
220 |
320 |
85 |
|
Bulgaria |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Czech Republic |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
Denmark |
30 |
15 |
10 |
45 |
10 |
|
Germany |
470 |
690 |
1.380 |
23.170 |
1.055 |
|
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Ireland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
Greece |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
France |
580 |
1.390 |
830 |
1.660 |
335 |
|
Croatia |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Italy |
25 |
25 |
25 |
80 |
70 |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Luxembourg |
70 |
25 |
35 |
75 |
10 |
|
Hungary |
35 |
400 |
165 |
23.255 |
45 |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Netherlands |
0 |
5 |
15 |
30 |
140 |
|
Austria |
65 |
90 |
135 |
2.125 |
50 |
|
Poland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Romania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Slovenia |
0 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
Slovakia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Finland |
15 |
5 |
30 |
55 |
5 |
|
Sweden |
240 |
245 |
260 |
880 |
115 |
|
United Kingdom |
10 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
|
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Liechtenstein |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Norway |
45 |
60 |
35 |
95 |
10 |
|
Switzerland |
130 |
145 |
85 |
265 |
85 |
|
Total (EU + SAC) |
2.155 |
3.540 |
3.240 |
52.070 |
2.015 |
Source: Eurostat, DG HOME calculations
4.6. Recognition rate at first instance of asylum applications in Member States and Schengen Associated States for Kosovo, 2012-2015
|
Total Decisions |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Positive Decisions |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Recognition rate |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Belgium |
1.240 |
535 |
550 |
650 |
Belgium |
95 |
30 |
55 |
45 |
Belgium |
7,7% |
5,6% |
10,0% |
6,9% |
|
Bulgaria |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Bulgaria |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Bulgaria |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Czech Republic |
10 |
15 |
10 |
20 |
Czech Republic |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Czech Republic |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Denmark |
135 |
80 |
100 |
125 |
Denmark |
10 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
Denmark |
7,4% |
0,0% |
15,0% |
0,0% |
|
Germany |
2.655 |
2.860 |
2.320 |
27.370 |
Germany |
55 |
35 |
40 |
130 |
Germany |
2,1% |
1,2% |
1,7% |
0,5% |
|
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
Estonia |
0,0% |
0,0% |
100,0% |
0,0% |
|
Ireland |
5 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
Ireland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Ireland |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Greece |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
Greece |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Greece |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Spain |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
France |
2.500 |
4.415 |
5.510 |
4.775 |
France |
210 |
205 |
530 |
530 |
France |
8,4% |
4,6% |
9,6% |
11,1% |
|
Croatia |
0 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
Croatia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Croatia |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Italy |
85 |
110 |
110 |
135 |
Italy |
45 |
60 |
55 |
55 |
Italy |
52,9% |
54,5% |
50,0% |
40,7% |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Cyprus |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Latvia |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Lithuania |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Luxembourg |
175 |
230 |
100 |
150 |
Luxembourg |
0 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
Luxembourg |
0,0% |
2,2% |
5,0% |
3,3% |
|
Hungary |
45 |
1.010 |
3.575 |
1.220 |
Hungary |
5 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
Hungary |
11,1% |
0,0% |
0,3% |
0,0% |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Malta |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Netherlands |
25 |
45 |
40 |
55 |
Netherlands |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Netherlands |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Austria |
265 |
775 |
N/A |
1.540 |
Austria |
35 |
30 |
0 |
60 |
Austria |
13,2% |
3,9% |
0,0% |
3,9% |
|
Poland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Poland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Poland |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Portugal |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Romania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Romania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Romania |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Slovenia |
20 |
15 |
5 |
25 |
Slovenia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Slovenia |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Slovakia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Slovakia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Slovakia |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Finland |
75 |
85 |
105 |
105 |
Finland |
10 |
35 |
45 |
0 |
Finland |
13,3% |
41,2% |
42,9% |
0,0% |
|
Sweden |
725 |
1.050 |
655 |
1.385 |
Sweden |
40 |
30 |
65 |
55 |
Sweden |
5,5% |
2,9% |
9,9% |
4,0% |
|
United Kingdom |
15 |
20 |
55 |
40 |
United Kingdom |
5 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
United Kingdom |
33,3% |
25,0% |
9,1% |
0,0% |
|
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Iceland |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Iceland |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Liechtenstein |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
Liechtenstein |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Liechtenstein |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Norway |
125 |
220 |
100 |
160 |
Norway |
5 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
Norway |
4,0% |
4,5% |
0,0% |
6,3% |
|
Switzerland |
355 |
435 |
405 |
450 |
Switzerland |
50 |
85 |
165 |
115 |
Switzerland |
14,1% |
19,5% |
40,7% |
25,6% |
|
Total (EU + SAC) |
8.455 |
11.905 |
13.655 |
38.220 |
Total (EU + SAC) |
565 |
530 |
995 |
1.005 |
Total (EU + SAC) |
6,7% |
4,5% |
7,3% |
2,6% |
Source: Eurostat, DG Home calculations
4.7. Readmission applications processed by Kosovo, 2013-2015
|
Category/Year |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Readmission requests from EU MS + SAC |
3.778 |
2.535 |
12.370 |
|
Requests accepted by Kosovo |
3.095 |
2.164 |
11.818 |
|
Rejected requests by Kosovo |
404 |
208 |
465 |
|
Pending requests |
279 |
163 |
87 |
|
Effective returns |
5.115 |
4.610 |
16.546 |
|
Refusal rate for readmission requests |
10.1% |
8.2% |
3.8% |
Source: Kosovo, 2016 (These figures could not be verified by the Commission)
4.8. Return rate from Member States and Schengen Associated States for Kosovo, 2012-2015
|
Orders to leave |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Effective returns |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Return rate |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
Belgium |
2.345 |
2.070 |
1.035 |
860 |
Belgium |
445 |
420 |
250 |
270 |
Belgium |
19,0% |
20,3% |
24,2% |
31,4% |
|
Bulgaria |
5 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
Bulgaria |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
Bulgaria |
100,0% |
100,0% |
100,0% |
50,0% |
|
Czech Republic |
10 |
10 |
30 |
105 |
Czech Republic |
0 |
5 |
10 |
60 |
Czech Republic |
0,0% |
50,0% |
33,3% |
57,1% |
|
Denmark |
180 |
100 |
50 |
120 |
Denmark |
45 |
75 |
70 |
60 |
Denmark |
25,0% |
75,0% |
140,0% |
50,0% |
|
Germany |
1.180 |
1.275 |
1.505 |
10.625 |
Germany |
855 |
1.005 |
1.095 |
13.965 |
Germany |
72,5% |
78,8% |
72,8% |
131,4% |
|
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Estonia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Estonia |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Ireland |
10 |
20 |
5 |
5 |
Ireland |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
Ireland |
50,0% |
25,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Greece |
0 |
0 |
35 |
25 |
Greece |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Greece |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Spain |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Spain |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
France |
2.070 |
2.205 |
2.700 |
2.900 |
France |
465 |
390 |
490 |
565 |
France |
22,5% |
17,7% |
18,1% |
19,5% |
|
Croatia |
N/A |
285 |
270 |
170 |
Croatia |
N/A |
275 |
245 |
130 |
Croatia |
N/A |
96,5% |
90,7% |
76,5% |
|
Italy |
180 |
180 |
130 |
150 |
Italy |
65 |
50 |
35 |
35 |
Italy |
36,1% |
27,8% |
26,9% |
23,3% |
|
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Cyprus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Cyprus |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Latvia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Latvia |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Lithuania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Lithuania |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Luxembourg |
260 |
200 |
85 |
120 |
Luxembourg |
45 |
100 |
170 |
120 |
Luxembourg |
17,3% |
50,0% |
200,0% |
100,0% |
|
Hungary |
1.610 |
1.785 |
1.910 |
1.075 |
Hungary |
1.300 |
1.440 |
1.270 |
650 |
Hungary |
80,7% |
80,7% |
66,5% |
60,5% |
|
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Malta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Malta |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Netherlands |
35 |
105 |
125 |
510 |
Netherlands |
30 |
45 |
35 |
220 |
Netherlands |
85,7% |
42,9% |
28,0% |
43,1% |
|
Austria |
330 |
720 |
0 |
2.560 |
Austria |
365 |
790 |
440 |
1.455 |
Austria |
110,6% |
109,7% |
0,0% |
56,8% |
|
Poland |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
Poland |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
Poland |
0,0% |
100,0% |
100,0% |
0,0% |
|
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Portugal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Portugal |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Romania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Romania |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Romania |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
0,0% |
|
Slovenia |
0 |
100 |
100 |
105 |
Slovenia |
0 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
Slovenia |
0,0% |
90,0% |
90,0% |
85,7% |
|
Slovakia |
5 |
0 |
20 |
90 |
Slovakia |
5 |
0 |
15 |
70 |
Slovakia |
100,0% |
0,0% |
75,0% |
77,8% |
|
Finland |
110 |
90 |
N/A |
180 |
Finland |
80 |
80 |
: |
90 |
Finland |
72,7% |
88,9% |
N/A |
50,0% |
|
Sweden |
865 |
665 |
755 |
1.595 |
Sweden |
795 |
920 |
390 |
975 |
Sweden |
91,9% |
138,3% |
51,7% |
61,1% |
|
United Kingdom |
70 |
100 |
90 |
115 |
United Kingdom |
85 |
100 |
95 |
105 |
United Kingdom |
121,4% |
100,0% |
105,6% |
91,3% |
|
Iceland |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Iceland |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Iceland |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Liechtenstein |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
Liechtenstein |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
Liechtenstein |
0,0% |
0,0% |
100,0% |
0,0% |
|
Norway |
260 |
315 |
330 |
330 |
Norway |
85 |
205 |
150 |
175 |
Norway |
32,7% |
65,1% |
45,5% |
53,0% |
|
Switzerland |
405 |
450 |
520 |
585 |
Switzerland |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
0 |
Switzerland |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
0,0% |
|
Total (EU + SAC) |
9.930 |
10.685 |
9.710 |
22.235 |
Total (EU + SAC) |
4.675 |
6.005 |
4.865 |
19.040 |
Total (EU + SAC) |
47,1% |
56,2% |
50,1% |
85,6% |
Source: Eurostat, DG Home calculations
*This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
COM (2013) 66 final
COM(2014) 488 final.
COM(2015) 906 final, accompanied by SWD(2015) 706 final
COM(2016) 276 final.
SWD(2015) 215
Directive 2013/32/EU
They are as follows: the visa refusal rate for applicants from Kosovo, the rate of refused entry into the Schengen area, the number of illegal stays in the territory of one of the Member States, the total number of asylum applications and the number of rejected readmission application submitted by a Member State to Kosovo.
The 2015 data for Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg only cover the months of November and December 2015.
