This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52011SC0620
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document
/* SEC/2011/0620 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document /* SEC/2011/0620 final */
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. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Legal immigration – integration............................................................................................. 6 I.1 Economic migration................................................................................................................. 6 I.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum............................................................................ 6 I.1.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.3)................................................................................ 12 I.1.3 Key statistics...................................................................................................................... 14 I.2 Family Reunification............................................................................................................... 14 I.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.......................................................................... 14 I.2.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4)................................................................................ 16 I.3 Other legal migration.............................................................................................................. 16 I.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.......................................................................... 16 I.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4)................................................................................ 19 I.4 Integration............................................................................................................................. 20 I.4.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.......................................................................... 20 I.4.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.5)................................................................................ 23 II. Irregular Immigration and Return..................................................................................... 27 II.1 Irregular migration................................................................................................................ 27 II.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum........................................................................ 27 II.1.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.6)............................................................................... 31 II.2 Return.................................................................................................................................. 35 II.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum........................................................................ 35 II.2.2 Stockholm Programme...................................................................................................... 38 II.2.3 Key statistics..................................................................................................................... 39 II.3 Actions against human trafficking........................................................................................... 40 II.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum........................................................................ 40 II.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 7.3 plus Section 4.4.2)..................................................... 41 III. Border Control................................................................................................................... 41 III.1 Control and surveillance at external
borders......................................................................... 41 III.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum....................................................................... 41 III.1.2 Stockholm Programme..................................................................................................... 45 III.2 Cooperation with respect to border
control.......................................................................... 47 III.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum....................................................................... 47 III.2.2 Stockholm Programme..................................................................................................... 49 III.3 Management of the External Borders................................................................................... 51 III.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and
Asylum....................................................................... 51 III.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 5.1)................................................................................ 52 IV. International Protection..................................................................................................... 53 IV.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.......................................................................... 53 IV.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.2.1)................................................................................ 60 IV.3 Key statistics...................................................................................................................... 62 V. Unaccompanied minors....................................................................................................... 63 V.1 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.7 plus
2.3.2)................................................................. 63 V.2 Key statistics........................................................................................................................ 65 VI. Global Approach to Migration.......................................................................................... 66 VI.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.......................................................................... 66 VI.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.1)................................................................................ 71 VII. Statistical Annex.............................................................................................................. 76 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......................................................................... 76 Table 2: Statistics
on irregular migration – Third-country nationals apprehended, ordered to leave
and returned (including both forced and voluntary return) in 2010...................................................................... 78 Table 3: Statistics
on border – Third-country nationals refused entry in 2010................................ 80 Table 4: Published
Statistics on Asylum Applicants and on First Instance Decisions by Outcome in
2010 81 Table 5:
Statistics on Unaccompanied Minors in 2010................................................................. 83 I. Legal
immigration – integration
1.1.
I.1 Economic migration
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
‘exceptional economic contributions’ (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 employer’s 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
workers’ 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 ‘grace periods’ 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
‘Red-White-Red Card,’ 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 ’student routes.’ 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. RO’s 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 Master’s 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 ‘Investing in Global Relationships’ 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 €300 million to €1.2 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 ‘route’, 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 ‘research visa’ 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 ‘Returning 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 OECD’s Corporation Development Assistance Committee’s 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, PT’s 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,
RO’s 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), employers’ 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 “immigrants map” 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. PL’s draft “Migration Policy of Poland” aims to establish
an efficient system for monitoring labour market needs and shortages in the
future. RO’s 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] I.1.3 Key
statistics 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 ‘other
reasons’ were again by FR (114 500 or 60.4%), IT (113 00 or 34.7%) and DE (58
188 or 46.2%). I.2 Family
Reunification 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. PL’s 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 “international interest” (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 sponsor’s 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 ‘family formation’ and ‘family 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 Other
legal migration 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 universities’ 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 ‘Migrate properly informed,’ 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 l’Union 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
Integration 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 ‘exceptional integration pathway’ (FR); new requirements to respect
the integration contract in case of renewal of temporary residence permits and
to sign the ‘Charter of the Citizen’s rights and duties’ 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
‘Annual Report on the implementation of National Strategy for the Integration
of Immigrants;’ EE introduced a free induction programme for newly-arrived
third-country nationals; and AT launched the “National Action Plan (NAP)” 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 society’s 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 ‘House for Democracy and The Rule of Law’ was
established in September 2010 which aimed to increase people’s 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 migrants’ 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 refugees’ access to employment (EL, UK). In AT,
for example, a new location “Habibi – House for
Education and Professional Integration” 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 Agency’s services. Several Member States (DE, EE, EL, ES, CY,
NL, PT, SK, UK) also reported on measures to facilitate migrants’ 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 ‘modules’ 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 “Needing All
Youngsters” 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
government’s 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
‘Plan for integration in security: Identity and Meeting’ 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 ‘Main
Positions of the Society Integration Policy 2010-2016,’ 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 migrants’
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 migrants’ 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 ‘Islam, People,
Dialogue’ 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 ‘First Overview on Good Practices on
Equal Opportunities and Diversity in the Audiovisual Media of the French
Community’ 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 ‘mixed ethnic teams’ 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 Irregular
migration[29] 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 ‘tolerated residence
permit’ 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 “Goes to School” 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 ‘Migrantes
Operation’ was set up in Calabria to facilitate checks of migrants’ documents,
while at national level, the ‘Unique Document of Fiscal Regularity’ 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 LT’s 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 €9 341 000. 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 ‘Enhancing Return to Georgia Operationally’
(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 ‘European Initiative on
Return Management (EURINT)’, 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 €500 000 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 (€3 200). 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 ‘afterwork actions,’ 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 Employers’ 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 ‘SOS’ 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
‘Central Service for Combating Illegal Migration and Trafficking in Human
Beings’ (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
ICMPD’s ‘Mediterranean Transit Migration’ (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 ‘European Training Day’ (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 ‘Guide on best practices on
inter-institutional cooperation in the area of combating illegal migration and
return of third-country nationals’, 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 ‘Train the Trainers’ 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 Bogotá (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 ILO’s
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 Return 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 €1 500 per adult and up to €1 000 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
‘productive’ return. In BE, a new reintegration programme was initiated in
March 2010, providing €2 000 in kind assistance for the creation of a
micro-businesses, complementary to the financial assistance provided under the
regular assisted return programme (€700 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. II.2.2
Stockholm Programme 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 EU’s 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
‘Strengthening Malta’s long-term Return Management Capacities’ 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] II.2.3 Key
statistics 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 victims’ 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. Border
Control 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 ‘Greece-Schengen’ 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 ‘general’, 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 ‘virtual check-in’
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
‘scrutiny’ 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 Commission’s 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). III.1.2
Stockholm Programme 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 ‘Evian’
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 ‘Maritime Information Cross Point’ 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
Europe’s 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 State’s 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, São Tomé & Príncipe,
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
‘Border Guard Assistance’ 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 “Field Workers” 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 latter’s 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. III.2.2
Stockholm Programme 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 Aliens’ 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 applicant’s 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. International Protection 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: · 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. · 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. · 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 “actors of protection”, “internal
protection” or “membership of a particular social group,” 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 €2 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 €10 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 EL’s 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 ‘Particular Pressures Cyprus’, 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 experts’ 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 ‘Quality and Efficiency in the Asylum Process’ 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 €4 000 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 ‘Promotion of resettlement in the EU
countries through practical cooperation of the Member States’ 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 ‘Migration Policy of Poland’ 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 ‘Praesidium project’ 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. IV.3 Key
statistics[53] 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.
Unaccompanied minors[54] 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 ‘unaccompanied minor’ 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 applicant’s 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 minors’ 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 seekers’ 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). V.2 Key
statistics 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 minors’ 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 “D”
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 Moldova’s 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 ‘prioritised.’ 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 Malmström and Füle 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
10M€ 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 EU’s 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 “Sahara Med” 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 migrants’
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 “Meeting Global Challenges
– Government communication on policy coherence for development”, 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 €74 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 Söderköping 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 €3 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 EU’s 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 Bank’s 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 ‘Migration and Remittances
for the development of Africa’ 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 ‘Migration for Development in Africa’ (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 ‘The Global Irish Network’, 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 migrants’ 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. VII.
Statistical Annex 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. 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 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
“Wanderungsmonitoring” by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. 8. LU figures include both first
permits and renewals. Table 2:
statistics on irregular migration – Third-country nationals apprehended,
ordered to leave and returned (including both forced and voluntary return) in
2010 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.
2.
Table 4: Published Statistics
on Asylum Applicants and on First Instance Decisions by Outcome in 2010[62]
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 States’ 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 States’ 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 [22] http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/general/index
[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 DK’s general reservation in the area of Justice
and Home Affairs, DK did not transpose Directive 2009/52/EC. However, DK’s
legislation contains rules regulating sanctions on persons employing migrants
illegally and DK’s 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." [61] See http://www.acpmigration-obs.org/.
[62] See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-11-005/EN/KS-QA-11-005-EN.PDF.