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 ri