EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 6.5.2010 
SEC(2010) 535 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) 
 
  
accompanying the 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 
 
First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) 
   
{COM(2010) 214} 
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum 
(2009) 
Main actions undertaken at EU level and main actions undertaken and developments 
planned at Member State level for each of the commitments made in the Pact 
This paper summarises the main actions taken at  both EU and Member State level, the latter 
including the most significant developments pl anned, for each of the commitments made in 
the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. The reporting period is from the adoption of 
the Pact in October 2008 until the end of 2009. Reference is al so made to some EU-level 
developments that have taken place in the first part of 2010. 
The summaries of developments at national level have been prepared notably on the basis of 
factual information provided by Member States  and by Annual Policy Reports from National 
Contact Points of the European Migration Netw ork (EMN NCPs). For ease of reference the 
phrase “Member States reported” is  used in the paper to refer to both sources of information. 
The EMN adapted the specifications  for its Annual Policy Reports in order to cover 26 of the 
36 commitments of the Pact, and brought forwar d the timing so that they could provide 
information on activities at Member State leve l for this first Commission Annual Report. The 
input provided by the EMN NCPs has been invaluable for drawing up this paper. However, 
one should note that the summaries in this pa per are the responsibil ity of the Commission 
staff; the EMN will under its own responsib ility produce the EMN Annual Policy Report 
2009. 
Some Member States and some EMN NCPs took the opportunity to provide information not 
only about developments within the reporting period, but also about relevant ongoing Member 
State policies. It was decided to summarise bot h types of information in this paper, where 
possible identifying the specific de velopments within the reporti ng period, given that this is 
the first reporting exercise si nce the Pact was adopted. Moreove r, the information provided by 
Member States and EMN NCPs gave  varying levels of details. 
This paper should, therefore, not be treated as an exhaustive identification of all relevant 
Member State activity in relation to each commitm ent. In particular, the fact that a Member 
State is not identified in relation to a certain ac tivity or policy does not mean that it did not or 
does not pursue that activity or policy but rath er that there were no specific developments 
during the reporting period.  
In line with its Communication of June 20091, the Commission will review the reporting 
process with a view to its impr ovement for next year’s report. 
                                                 
1 COM(2009) 266 final of 10 June 2009. 
 
EN 3   EN I. LEGAL IMMIGRATION – INTEGRATION  
Main commitment: Organise legal  immigration to take account of the priorities, needs and 
reception capacities determined by each Me mber State, and to encourage integration 
Commitment: I. (a) to invite Member States and the Commission to  implement policies for 
labour migration , with due regard to the acquis co mmunautaire and Community preference, 
bearing in mind potential human resources wi thin 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 , implementation of the 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration2 continued during 
the reporting period. The first di rective stemming from this Pl an was adopted in June 2009 
(the so-called EU Blue Card Directive, see I. (b) below), discussions c ontinued in the Council 
as regards the Framework Directive3 and the Commission pursued its  preparation of proposals 
for the three remaining Directives (seasona l workers, intra-corporate transferees and 
remunerated trainees). Presentation of the proposals was postponed, taking notably into 
account the change of legal basis resulting from the Lisbon Treaty. 
Closely linked to this objective of managing migration in the best  interest of national labour 
markets is the Commission's initiative on New Skills for New Jobs4 which proposes measures 
aiming at better matching workers' skills and the needs of the EU employment market. 
Alongside upgrading skills of the EU labour force and better matching the internal labour supply and the demand of skills, the employment and geographical mobility of third-country 
workers can help reduce skills mismatches and ensure that their skills  can be used at the 
optimal level. 
Actions developed in the framework of the Glob al Approach (see chapter V below) are also 
relevant. 
At national level
, most Member States reported on labour  migration policies to address labour 
shortages at national level (B E, BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES , FR, IT, CY, LV , LT, LU, HU, 
MT, NL, AT, PL, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK). 
To ensure that labour migration meets the vari ous needs of the labour market, several Member 
States referred to a labour immigration syst em that was predominantly employer-led and 
demand driven, whereby it was up to the individu al employer to demonstrate a vacancy could 
not be filled by national or EU labour force and therefore called for the recruitment of a third-country national (BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, MT, NL, FI , SE, UK). This system is independent of 
their country of origin or of the number of  work permits already issued (i.e. quota). 
Other Member States drew up, or drew up in addition,  a list of professi ons and/or sectors 
where labour shortages existed (IE, ES, FR, IT, LT , PT, SI, UK), or were considering to do so 
(MT). In PL regional authorities  may draw up such lists. The recruitment of third-country 
                                                
 
2 COM(2005) 669 final of 21 December 2005. 
3 Proposal for a Council Directive on a single applica tion procedure for a single permit for third-country 
nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-
country workers legally residing in a Member State, COM (2007) 638 final of 23.10.2007. 
4 COM(2008) 868 final of 16 December 2008. 
 
EN 4   EN nationals to work in these listed professions or sectors was facilitated as their application 
would not be subjected to an i ndividual labour market test (ES,  FR, IT, SI (but see below for 
changes resulting the economic crisis)) or would be prioritised (LT, UK) . LT reported that an 
occupation was added to the list when the dema nd for labour was twice as high as the existing 
labour supply for a specific occupation and work places had remained unfilled for three 
months. Annual quotas for work permits based on evaluations of the labour market are set by 
at least SI and RO. According to the UK Po ints Based System, a third-country national 
needed sufficient points to enter or remain in  the UK; points were scored for attributes 
predicting a migrant’s success in the labour market and/or for f actors relating to whether they 
were likely to comply with th e conditions of their stay. 
Furthermore, to address the labour shortages id entified in the set list  of professions and 
sectors, some Member States established quot a for labour migration based on an assessment 
of the quality of cooperation offered by third co untries under bilateral agreements (IT) defined 
a maximum number of job vacancies per year ( EL) or identified source countries which were 
eligible for a work permit/visa (CZ, LT). 
PL identified a group of neighbouring countries , as well as the Republic of Moldova and 
Georgia, the citizens of which we re eligible for work up to six months without a work permit. 
EE, PL and SE set wage thresholds in relati on to labour migration. EE stated that the offer 
made to third-country nationals was to include earning a quarter more th an the average salary. 
PL examined if wages of migrant workers were not worse then those offered to local employees. SE examined in each case whether employment conditions – including wages, 
social insurance coverage and ot her terms of employment – were equivalent to conditions that 
applied to employees already resident in Sweden.  
Improvements to the governance of legal migr ation were reported, in cluding the adoption of 
new policy concepts (e.g. CZ – Green Card system), better coordination of government 
agencies or set up of new bodies to implemen t policies (BE, DE, LV , LU, FI, SE, UK), the 
development of comprehensive strategies (FR,  HU, LT), and the simplification and shortening 
of procedures (BE, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HU, LT,  NL, PL, SE, UK). For example, BE launched 
the Economic Migration service to  facilitate and speed up th e visa delivering process for 
third-country nationals with an  “economically interest ing” project and to  avoid that third-
country nationals working in Belgium were ha mpered in their professional activities by 
administrative delay for which they were not res ponsible. Measures to re fine the identification 
and matching of labour market needs were put  forward by some, including the establishment 
of centres, committees and/or ag encies with the right economic and labour market expertise 
(DE, LU, FI, UK), and planned for the near fu ture by others (HU, MT). For example, in 
Germany, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Soci al Affairs created an alliance to advise the 
Federal government concerning the demand for la bour (“alliance for lab our”). Its aim was to 
develop measures to close gaps and effectively prevent a lack of skille d labour in the future, 
such as steering migration flows. 
With regard to the principle of Union prefer ence, several Member States reported on action 
undertaken to ensure that the labour dema nd could not be cove red by national and EU 
manpower or by non-EU manpower lawfully reside nt on a permanent basis in that Member 
State (BG, DE, IE, EE, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK). Some 
stated that the job vacancy was advertised with the national Public Employment Service 
(PES) and sometimes EURES for a reasonable pe riod of time (IE, LT, LV , LU, MT, SE, UK). 
Others referred to an individual labour market test (AT) or to  a requirement for employers to 
 
EN 5   EN ask permission to recruit a third-country nationa l from the government agency dealing with 
unemployment (EE). EL, IT and PT reported that  this principle was ta ken into account when 
the annual quotas for issuing work and/or re sidence permits or the annual number of job 
vacancies for third-country nationals were set.  
Due to the economic crisis, a few Member St ates had tightened en try or permit renewal 
criteria (CZ, IE), quota (IT, PT, SI) or reduced professions eligible for work permits (IE). In 
the case of ES and LT, the number of occupati ons included in the ‘Catalogue of Shortage 
Occupations’ (ES) or the ‘list of occupations in demand’ (LT)  was reduced (e.g. LT: from 60 
occupations in 2007 to 7 occupations in 2009). SI in March 2009 abolished the procedure of 
issuing permits for professions in short supply w ithout an individual labour  market test and in 
June 2009 introduced new rules prohibiting employ ment in certain sectors or from certain 
regions. These restrictive measures in relation to  labour migration were generally meant to be 
of a temporary nature. One Member State cons idered similar measures for the foreseeable 
future (BG), while others claimed that thei r demand-driven labour migration systems were 
sufficiently flexible to adjust to labour mark et dynamics (DK, ES, MT, AT, LT, FI, SE, UK). 
The latter were portrayed as se lf-regulatory, result ing in less vacancies, fewer applications 
and more rejections / fewer permits issued. IE introduced a scheme that allows migrant 
workers made redundant to remain for a period to search for a new job and, once alternative 
employment is found, exempts their applicati on for a work permit from the standard 
individual labour market test. 
As to statistics, some Member States reported on the number of applications for work permits 
(EL, ES, LT, FI), of decisions taken (EE, UK),  or of permits issued (EL, ES, HU, LT, LU, 
MT, PL, RO, SI), rendering comparisons between  Member States difficult at this stage. 
However, a decrease in the number of applicat ions for work permits (BE, ES) of permits 
granted (CY, LT, MT, RO) and of annual quota for work permits (SI) was an emerging trend 
across the EU, which may be related to the economic crisis. 
Commitment: I.(b) to increase the attractiveness of the EU for highly qualified workers 
At EU level , the Council adopted the so-called EU Blue Card Directive5 (2009/50/EC) to 
facilitate the admission of highly qualified workers and their families by establishing a fast-track admission procedure and by granting them e qual social and economic rights as nationals 
of the host Member State in a number of areas. Th e Directive also facilitates the movement of 
EU Blue Card holders to a second Member  State for the purpos e of highly qualified 
employment. Member States have until June 2011 to transpose the Directive into national law. 
At national level
, many MS reported having taken steps to  increase the attractiveness of the 
EU for highly qualified workers (BE, CZ, DE , ES, FR, IT, LT, LU, NL, AT, PT, SE, UK). 
With regard to the transposition of the Blue Card  Directive, some Member States reported that 
they were in the process of tr ansposing the Directive; others had undertaken preparatory work 
for transposition or planned to do so in 2010. UK and IE did not opt into the Directive, but the 
UK reported that it provided attractive labour  migration opportunities for highly qualified 
third-country nationals under Tier  1 of its Points Based System. 
                                                 
5 Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country 
nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17. 
 
EN 6   EN Measures were aimed at simplifying, and he reby accelerating, procedures and relaxing 
conditions for entry or renewal of permits (DE,  IE, ES, IT, LT, LU, AT, SK). Hereto, some 
Member States introduced a “one-stop-shop” admission procedure (AT) or new types of 
permits (e.g. FR: “Skills and talents” permit and “Exceptional economic contribution” permit). An overview of the steps that Member States undertook to improve the governance of 
legal migration is at I.(a) above. Some Member States specified who be nefited from measures 
put in place (BE, DE, ES, SK, UK), for exampl e: individuals with uni versity degrees from 
third countries (DE), senior st aff members (e.g. CEO) (BE), thos e active in particular sectors 
or professions (ES) (see the second part  of I.(b) below for further details). 
As to the results of the measures undertaken, a few Member States reported an increase in 
permits granted to highly qualified migrants (DE, FR). For example, a 45 % increase in 
permits granted was reflected in the figures  provided by DE (from 473 in 2008 to 689 in 
2009) and FR (from 1 664 “workers on assignment”  in the first 11 mont hs of 2008 to 1 954 in 
the same period in 2009). The effects of the ec onomic crisis on the numbers of highly-skilled 
workers were mixed: some reporte d little change to the numbers of permits (CY) while others 
reported a reduction in the numbers of applicat ion (ES, NL). As to the simplification and 
acceleration of procedures, ES reported that the average time for processing an application in 
2008 was 12.93 days; in 2009 it fell to 11.21 days. LT reported that the aim was to issue 
documents to highly-skilled workers within 3-4 weeks, compared to a normal period of two 
months for skilled workers. 
and take new measures to further facilitate the reception of students and researchers  and 
their movement within the EU; 
At EU level , the Commission launched the procedures to commission external transposition 
studies for the Students Directive6 and Researchers Directive7 with a view to preparing 
implementation reports on the directives as well as, where relevant, proposals for their 
amendment in order further to e nhance the attractiveness of EU as  a centre of excellence for 
studies and research. The mobility of researchers was also facilitated by more organisations that employ or fund researchers committing th emselves to the European Charter for 
Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the R ecruitment of Researchers which spell out the 
roles, responsibilities and rights of researcher s as well as of their employers and funders; by 
the end of 2009 there were 144 signatories re presenting some 1000 individual institutions. 
At national level
, two Member States put forward proposal s for future changes to this policy 
area (IE, HU). IE published a set of proposals fo r reform of non-EEA student immigration and 
launched a public consultation. The proposals contained more  than 20 discussion items 
including capping the length of time a person ca n spend in Ireland as a student at no more 
than five years or two years in further educa tion or English language classes; introducing a 
two-tier system to facilitate th e targeting of incentives toward s the upper end of the academic 
spectrum; a stronger inspection process; possi ble changes in respect  of visas; and new 
guidelines on work placement or internshi p. HU’s 2009 Strategy focused in particular on 
facilitating international mobility and employment of researchers and scientists. 
                                                 
6 Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country 
nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange , unremunerated training or voluntary service, OJ L 
375, 23.12.2004. 
7 Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country 
nationals for the purposes of scientific research, OJ L 289, 3.11.2005, p. 15. 
 
EN 7   EN As to students , a few Member States reported modifyi ng the procedures for the admission of 
third-country nationals wishing to study in th e Member State during th e reporting period (LV, 
LT, NL, PL, UK). LV, for example, no longer requi red candidates to interact with, and visit, 
its embassies, which was costly in time and financial resources, but allowed higher educational establishments to directly submit the third-country national’s documents relating to their application for a residence permit to th e Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs. 
The UK announced a policy review which woul d consider introducing mandatory pre-entry 
English language testing for some courses an d changing the rules on part-time work by 
students. 
In 2009, PT adopted a decree expa nding the social rights avai lable to students in higher 
education to foreign students who held a perm anent residence permit or  who benefited from 
the status of long-term resident. 
In 2009, a few Member States also facilitated access to the labour market for third-country 
nationals who graduated from e ducation establishments in the Member State (CZ, IE, FR, IT, 
LV, LU, PL, AT) and SK planned to do so in the near future. IT introduced the possibility for 
doctorate or postgraduate students to convert a residence permit for reason of study into a 
work permit, as some other Member States al ready had (ES). FR requi red that, in order to 
grant this facilita tion, the revenue offered to the third-c ountry national gradua te was at least 
1.5 times the national minimum revenue. 
FI mentioned measures to facilitate  the naturalisation of graduates. 
As to researchers
, BE removed the requirement for a work  permit. AT amended legislation to 
allow the “residence permit – researcher” to be issued for two years (instead of one year). 
After two years of residence it is possible to change this for the “settlement permit – 
unrestricted” which grants free access to the labour market. 
Some German universities established “Welco me Centres”, giving advice on work, studying, 
living and family issues to foreign resear chers, with the aim of strengthening their 
international competitiveness and attractiveness. RO made available in English and French on 
an official website its admission requirements for students. 
Several Member States provided data as to the number of res earchers and/or students that 
were issued a permit in 2009 (BG, DE, EE, EL, FR, LT, HU, MT, PL, FI) or in the academic 
year 2008-9 (RO). These ranged from 3 “res earch residence permits” for employment 
specifically concerned with research in LT to 2 330 “long-stay scientific visas” for researchers 
in FR and from 110 permits for study purpose in  EL to 63 571 “long-stay students visas” for 
students in FR. 
Commitment: I.(c) to ensure, in encouraging temporary or circular migration, pursuant to 
the conclusions of the European Council of 14 December 2007, t hat those policies do not 
aggravate the brain drain ; 
At EU level , the concept of circular migration has been further developed in a way not to 
contribute to brain drain. The Co mmission contributed to the furt her development of circular 
migration at the third Global Forum on Migratio n and Development in Athens in November 
2009. A conference in March 2009 on circular migration and la bour matching reviewed 
initiatives that assist migrants in better acces sing labour markets abroad as well as finding 
employment in the source country upon retu rn. Support to diaspora networking and diaspora 
 
EN 8   EN involvement in efforts to enhance development in countries of origin has included support to 
temporary return – “brain circulation” – of the highly skilled as a way to  mitigate brain drain. 
Circular migration with a view not to aggravat e brain drain has also been incorporated in 
several of the inter-regional cooperation processes (see V.(f) be low). Furthermore, work has 
continued on the implementation of the progra mme for EU action to tackle the critical 
shortage of health workers in developing c ountries (2007-2013) to avoid unacceptable brain 
drain in sectors that are critical for developm ent. The EU Blue Card Directive (see I.(b) 
above) incorporates provisions to  facilitate circular migrati on with a view to avoid brain 
drain. 
At national level , many Member States reported on measur es to prevent or not aggravate the 
brain drain (BE, BG, CZ, DK,  EE, ES, FR, CY, LT, LU, NL , AT, PT, SE, UK). These 
included allowing migrants to return temporar ily to the country of  origin through, for 
example, multiple entry visas (see also I.(d) below), hereby creating a sense of security that they had the option to return to the EU and the opportunity for co-nationals to benefit from the 
migrant’s skills and knowledge gained from th e job (training) in the EU (BE, PT, SE). 
The link between migration and development, in  general, and the need to maximise the 
positive contribution of migrants and migration to the development of third countries, in 
particular, was mentioned by many Member St ates (BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, NL, AT, PT, SE, 
UK) (see also information under V.(d) and V.(e ) below). Some Member States set up co-
development projects tied to circular or tempor ary migration programmes or pilot projects to 
promote the skills and knowledge transfer to lo cal people (BE, ES, NL, PT). Others referred 
to development programmes or projects to supp ort the education system (AT) or the public 
health service of third countries (SE, UK), with  the aim of rendering the labour market in the 
country of origin more attractive to existing or  potential migrants. A few opted for restricting 
the issuing or renewal of work  permits for those originating from countries or professional 
sectors which were the specific target of de velopment projects or programmes (FR, UK). BG 
and CY referred to actions in the framework of  the Mobility Partnership with the Republic of 
Moldova (see V.(a) below). SE also referred to the importance of setting up portable social benefits (e.g. pensions) for tempor ary migrants working in the EU. 
In relation to the objective of not aggravating the brain drain, a few Member States referred to 
legislative measures limiting the duration of work permits issued to third-country nationals to 
two years (LT, LU) or four years (CY) and, upon the expiry of the work permit, obliging 
third-country nationals to return to their countr y of origin (LT) or only allowing them to take 
up a new position after a waiting period of mi nimum one month (LT). RO referred to a 
legislative provision that temporary residence may be extended only for the same purpose as 
that for which it had previously been granted or extended. 
Commitment: I.(d) to regulate family migration  more effectively by inviting each Member 
State, in compliance with th e European Convention for the Pr otection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms, to take into consideration in its national legislation, except for 
certain specific categories, its own reception capac ities and families' capacity to integrate, as 
evaluated by their resources and accommodati on in the country of  destination and, for 
example, their knowledge of that country's language; 
 
EN 9   EN At EU level , the Commission adopted a report8 on the implementation in Member States of 
the Family Reunification Directive9. The Directive sets out the conditions under which legally 
residing third-country nationals have the right to be joined by their non-EU family members. 
The report identified possible prob lems in Member States' transposition legislation and, while 
giving recommendations for a better application of the Directive, showed that the impact of 
the Directive remains limited with its low-level binding character leaving Member States with much discretion. As follow-up, the report announces a wide consultation in the form of a Green Paper on the future of the family reunification regime. 
At national level
, several Member States documented changes to existing policies during the 
reporting period (BE, EL, ES, IT, LT, LU, NL, AT , PL). These included modifications to the 
(set of) conditions for family reunification, to the categories of pers ons exempted from 
fulfilling these conditions for family reunificatio n, and to the procedures for applying for or 
renewing residence permits within the framework of family reunification. 
As to the (set of) conditions for family reunifications, Member States presented the following 
as elements of existing regimes. In order to  better take account of families’ capacity to 
integrate when considering applications fo r family reunification, many Member States 
stipulated that sponsors were required to have  a stable and regular income to support the 
family member(s) (BE, BG, DK, ES, FR, IT , LT, LU, NL, AT, PL, PT, FI, UK), suitable 
accommodation (BE, BG, DK, ES, FR, IT, LU, AT, UK) and/or a previous period of 
residence (ES). Some demanded that family me mbers were to attain a specific level of 
language proficiency (DK, NL, PT), some after i ssuance of a residence ti tle (AT), and/or sign 
an integration contract or agreement (AT) . BE undertook steps to negotiate agreement 
protocols with the Communities, i.e. the enti ties competent for the integration of foreign 
nationals, with the objective of tying the issuance of a residence permit for family 
reunification to a commitment to integrate and/or  integration in the host society. IT recently 
adopted legislation providing for an integr ation agreement, which will be implemented 
shortly. AT set in certain cases  quota regarding family reunifica tion with the aim of respecting 
its national reception capacities. 
Some of these elements were added to na tional regimes during the reported period. For 
example, previous to 2009, BE required sponsor s to have a health in surance and sufficient 
accommodation. However, legislation was amended to include sufficient, stable and regular 
income as a precondition for family reunifica tion. SE put forward pr oposals to introduce a 
support requirement. In light of the economic crisis, PT reduced by half the means of 
subsistence that third-country na tionals require in order to ap ply for family reunification. New 
legislation concerning security issues adopt ed by IT in 2009 stipulated that accommodation 
was to comply with health standards and to be  certified by municipal au thorities. The growing 
emphasis on integration commitments (e.g. thr ough contract) also reflected Member State 
concerns (BE) about integration of family members. 
Some Member States reporte d on legislative changes intr oducing exemptions concerning 
categories of persons who did not have to fulf il conditions set for fam ily reunification (EL, 
LT, LU, AT, PL). Enhanced protection of fam ily unity, of children and of those granted 
international protection seemed to  be at heart of this. ES appr oved a reform of its legislation 
                                                 
8 COM(2008) 610 of 8 October 2008. 
9 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ L 251, 
3.10.2003, p. 12. 
 
EN 10   EN on family reunification stipulating that onl y long-term resident s can apply for the 
reunification of ascendants and granting dire ct access to the labour market for reunited 
spouses and children from the age of 16. CY ame nded legislation so as to facilitate family 
reunification for third-country nationals working for foreign companies. LT facilitated family reunification for highly qualified workers, for th ird-country nationals who arrive to lecture or 
perform an internship at nati onal research and study instituti ons and for persons who have 
invested substantially in projects of importa nce to the State. RO facilitated admission for 
business development and for study incl uding by allowing family reunification. 
A number of Member States referred to the need to step up action against marriages of 
convenience (BE, FR, IT, LT, NL, AT). BE reporte d that legally register ed partnerships could 
be introduced in the Aliens Act (i.e. the core of Belgian immigration le gislation). This would 
imply that, if there are serious doubts on the ge nuine nature of the re lationship, the legally 
registered partnership would only be conclude d, and the first temporar y residence permit only 
issued, once the stable and sust ainable nature of the relati on had been investigated and 
verified. In 2009, BE also put measures in pl ace to promote better cooperation between the 
different actors involved, such as the production of a “road book on marriages of 
convenience” targeting all offi cial authorities involved in the issue (e.g. the Immigration 
Department, municipalities, the judiciary) and th e creation of a federal database to be used by 
local authorities (i.e. civil servants in charge  of marriages). In bot h BE and LT, a higher 
number of investigations into (potential ) marriages of conveniences were opened. CY 
reported preparation of draft le gislation. NL reported that fraud and abuse were being tackled 
vigorously, including by way of checks on th e relationship’s genuineness each time an 
application is received from a partner in a thir d country. In FR there wa s consideration of the 
problem of marriages of convenience, which we re coined “grey marri ages” highlighting the 
potential exploitation by one  of the parties involved. 
Commitment: I.(e) to strengthen mutual information on migration  by improving existing 
instruments where necessary; 
At EU level , the various instruments available at EU level for the mutual exchange of 
information on migration continued to be us ed, though to varying degrees. The European 
Migration Network through its Studies (e.g. on unaccompanied minors) and Ad-Hoc Queries 
(89 in 2009 alone with each query having 19+  Member States re sponding) to request 
information on a broad range of asylum and migr ation related topics showed a clear need for 
information exchange, including by the Comm ission, for supporting policy development at 
EU and national levels. An evaluation10 of the Mutual Information Mechanism indicated that 
its practical functioning did not meet expect ations, with a relatively small number of 
contributions received on an infrequent basis (by end of 2009, 47 from 16 Member States). 
Elsewhere, an assessment of CIREFI11 concluded that it remained a useful platform covering 
all areas of illegal immigration, but  that a necessary level of synergy should be found in order 
to avoid redundancy and duplication of work by other European bodies (e.g. the planned 
FRONTEX Information System). Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the 
future of CIREFI was discussed in connectio n with the overall re structuring of Council 
working structures. It was decided to abolis h CIREFI by mid-2010. The allocation of its tasks 
between FRONTEX and relevant Council working gr oups will be decided in the first half of 
                                                 
10 COM(2009) 687 final of 17 December 2009. 
11 Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration. See OJ 
C 274, 19.9.1996, p. 50. 
 
EN 11   EN 2010. On ICONet12, developments included the possibility  that this may be taken over by 
FRONTEX and an amendment to the ILO (Immigration Liaison Officer) Regulation13 to 
support the use of ICONet by ILOs. In the field of asylum, the activitie s of European Asylum 
Support Office (EASO – see IV.(a) below) will result in better coordinati on of the exchange 
of information. 
At national level , all Member States except CY were active in the European Migration 
Network, although RO was unable to provide an annual policy report. Some Member States 
reported strengthening their Nati onal Contact Point (LU), or creating (PT) or strengthening 
(HU) their national network. CY reported on ac tions being taken to remedy its lack of 
sufficient participation, includi ng the hiring of new personnel. 
In addition to references to the Mutual Information Mechanism, Member States also 
mentioned exchange of information within  Council and other EU bodies as well as 
participation in GDISC14 (EL, IT) and the National Contact Points on Integration (see I.(h) 
below). The UK reported explori ng possible overlaps and synergie s between different mutual 
information mechanisms including EASO, GDISC  and the Inter-governmental Consultations 
on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (IGC). The UK also reported on how it aims to overcome 
its current difficulties in supplying certain data required under the Statistics Regulation15. 
Commitment: I.(f) to improve information on the possibilities and conditions of legal 
migration , particularly by putting in place the instru ments needed for that purpose as soon as 
possible; 
At EU level , the Commission continued its development of the EU Immigration Portal with a 
view to its official launch in 2010. The Port al will be a globally ac cessible, objective and 
reliable source of information on the possibiliti es and conditions of legal immigration to the 
EU. The Portal will also provi de information on the dangers and consequences of irregular 
immigration into the EU. 
At national level , most Member States reported that  information on the possibilities and 
conditions of legal migration was available on the official websites of ministries and/or 
employment agencies (BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) or would be availabl e (CY). For example, the Residence Wizard, 
implemented by the Dutch Immigration and Natu ralisation Service, provides information on 
staying in the Netherlands a nd on residence permits. The client can customise their 
application to their particular case, in order to find out whether they are eligible and to learn about the specific conditions a nd requirements that apply. LT also reported that legislative 
acts concerning “Aliens” and “Citizenship” we re translated into Russian and English. 
Some also referred to the websites of welcome or business centres (DE, NL) or meetings with 
representatives of the forei gn business environment (RO). Ot her measures for disseminating 
relevant information included brochures or othe r informational material (CZ, EL, ES, CY, LT, 
                                                
 
12 ICONet is a secure web-based information and coordination network for Member States’ Migration 
Management Services, OJ L 83, 1.4.2005, p. 48. 
13 Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 of 19 February 2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison 
officers network, OJ L 64, 2.3.2004, p. 1. 
14 General Directors of Immigr ation Services Conference. 
15 Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on 
Community statistics on migration and international protection, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23. 
 
EN 12   EN AT, PL, RO, SI), manuals (EL, IT) available in  different languages, or the use of cultural 
mediators (PT). Several Member States set up projects to rais e awareness in third countries 
(BG, CZ, ES, IT, LT, LU, PL, PT, UK). For exam ple, LU set up the pr oject “Migrate with 
eyes open” in Cape Verde in 2006, extended into 2009 and 2010, with the aim of enabling Cape Verdeans to decide whether to migrate or  not, being aware of the legal conditions to do 
so. The “CAMPO - Centre to Support Immigrants  in their Country of Origin Project”, which 
has been running since 2008, was established by PT for similar reasons. ES includes information about legal migration and prevention against the risk of the illegal immigration in 
all its bilateral agreements with countries of origin on migratory issues. 
Commitment: I.(g) to invite Member States, in line with the common principles approved 
by the Council in 2004, to establish ambitious po licies, 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 ; those policies, the implementation of which 
will call for a genuine effort on the part of the host countries, should be based on a balance 
between migrants' rights (in particular to ed ucation, work, security, and public and social 
services) and duties (compliance with the host country's laws). They will include specific 
measures to promote language-learning and access to employment, essential factors for 
integration; they will stress respect for the iden tities of the Member States and the EU and for 
their fundamental values, such  as human rights, freedom of opinion, democracy, tolerance, 
equality between men and women, and the compul sory schooling of children. The European 
Council also calls upon the Member States to  take into account, by means of appropriate 
measures, the need to combat any forms of di scrimination to which migrants may be exposed; 
At EU level , in October 2008 the Commission publishe d its Report to the 2008 Ministerial 
Conference on Integration entitled Strengthening actions and tool s to meet integration 
challenges16. The third European Ministerial C onference on Integration took place in 
November 2008 in Vichy and Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the 
Governments of the Member States on integr ation policies in the European Union were 
adopted at the JHA Council of 27/28 Novemb er 2008. After the end of the reporting period, 
the Commission published a Report17 to the fourth Ministerial C onference on Integration held 
in April 2010 in Zaragoza. 
During the reporting period the Commission adopted 100 programming documents of the 
European Fund for the Integration of Third-C ountry Nationals, including all the multiannual 
national programmes 2007-2013 and all a nnual programmes for 2007, 2008 and 2009. 
Concerning Community Actions, the 2008 annual work programme was adopted in October 
2008 and the call for proposals publi shed in December leading to selection of nine projects. 
The 2009 annual work programme was adopted in  September 2009 and the call for proposals 
published in December 2009. 
As regards action against discrimination, the Commission continued infringement procedures 
against certain Member States to ensure correct transposition of the Racial Equality Directive
18 and the Employment Equality Directive19. The European Parliament and Council 
                                                 
16 SEC(2008) 2626 of 8 October 2008. 
17 SEC(2010) 357 of 19 March 2010. 
18 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. 
19 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal 
treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. 
 
EN 13   EN continued legislative discussi ons on the Commission proposal fo r a new Directive prohibiting 
discrimination outside employment  based on religion or belief,  age, disabil ity or sexual 
orientation. The Council adopted the Fram ework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia20 
which contributes to the fight against discri mination by obliging Member States to make 
punishable by criminal penalties inter alia  public incitement to violence or hatred against a 
group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, colour, religion, 
descent or national or ethnic or igin. Member States have un til November 2010 to implement 
the Framework Decision. 
The Commission also contributed to combati ng discrimination by providing financial support 
through the Progress Programme and the Speci fic Programme on Fu ndamental Rights and 
Citizenship. 
At national level , many Member States reported on a na tional strategy or plan on integration 
(BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE, ES, IT, LU, HU, NL, PT, RO, SK, SE, UK) . Others reported that this 
national strategy was in the course of being re vised (BE, FR, SE), or  developed (CY, AT, 
PL). Legislation amended in Wallonia (BE) allo wed for the set up of local integration plans. 
SI reported that its implementation in 2009 of r ecent legislation established an overall system 
of integration where previously  only beneficiaries of international prot ection had benefited. 
As to institutional changes, the set up or bette r coordination of centres and agencies concerned 
with integration was mentioned by a few (BE, CZ). 
Most Member States reported having measures in place to enable migrants to learn the 
language of the host country (BE, BG, CZ, DK,  DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, 
MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK) and to ac quire knowledge of the host society’s history 
and culture (BE, BG, EL, ES , FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, SI, FI, SE, UK). Several 
Member States also referred to support servi ces to enhance migrants’ access to employment 
(DK, EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LU, MT, AT, PT, RO, FI, SE), including skills assessment (FR), 
job orientation (ES, IT, PT), qualification m easures and mentoring programmes (AT, PT), 
projects to promote immigrant entrepreneurship  (PT) and partnerships  with industries (FR, 
AT). SE undertook steps to boost migrants ’ personal motivation to learn the Swedish 
language and find a job thr ough a bonus system, ultimate ly speeding up the “social 
introduction of migrants”. Some Member Stat es mentioned general in tegration programmes 
(DE, IT, NL, PL, PT), some of which ended with  an integration test. IT  reported on specific 
efforts to promote integration of nomadic communities. 
A few Member States also repor ted on measures to facilitate migrants’ access to public and 
social services (IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, PT, UK), such as access to online website resources (EL, 
IE), cultural mediators (EL, ES, IT, PT), a pr oject to familiarise parents with the national 
school system (FR, ES), support services for th e integration of immigr ant students in schools 
(CY, EL), interventions to sensitise and advise teachers, students and parents and to establish 
a network of partners (psychological support group) to support students and their families 
(EL) and a funding mechanism for local public se rvices to manage the transitional impacts 
and pressures of migration (UK) . In 2009, PT launched a circular stipulating that access to the 
national health service by regul ar and irregular immigrants wa s a fundamental human right. 
Others referred to civic orientation courses as  helping migrants in accessing public and social 
services (see paragraph above). 
                                                 
20 Framework Decision 2008/91/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions 
of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. 
 
EN 14   EN Some Member States indicated that these ac tivities, projects or pr ogrammes received funds 
from the European Fund for the Integration of  Third-Country Nationals  (BE, BG, EE, ES, FR, 
IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, AT, PT, SK, UK) or  the European Social Fund (ES, MT). 
Expectations were that, through the measures put  in place, migrants would gain a particular 
level of language proficiency in a set time period (CZ, FR, IT, AT, PT, FI) and/or of 
knowledge of, and respect for, national values (FR) or common/fundament al values (BG, DK, 
DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, NL, AT, FI, SE). Respect for human rights (BG), rule of law 
(IT, NL), gender equality (BG, DK, DE, ES, FR, FI), democracy (DK, NL, FI), freedom of 
opinion (DK, FR), compulsory education (EL, FR, FI), religious diversity (DE) or other 
“basic values of Europe” (EE) were the main fundamental values reported by Member States. 
A few Member States drew up integration contra cts or agreements to lay down the conditions 
for integration in the host society and to ascertain the migrant’s commitment to, and active participation in, the integration process (DK, EL, FR, IT, AT), or planned to do so (LU). 
Others referred to language tests as a conditi on for acquiring long-term  EC residence status 
(CY, EL) or permanent residence (CZ, LT). A few Member States developed a guide for 
migrants on their rights and duties, available in  several languages (EL, SK, UK), or launched 
projects with that aim  (BG, HU, SK). In g e neral, the balance between migrants’ rights and 
duties featured in many national policies prom oting integration of migrants (BG, CZ, DK, 
DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LU, HU, NL, AT, FI, SE, UK). 
Many Member States reported on measures to combat discrimi nation to which migrants may 
be exposed (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR , IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, 
FI, SE). These predominantly included anti-dis crimination legislation (BE, BG, CZ, IE, EE, 
EL, ES, MT, AT, PT, RO, SE), awareness rais ing campaigns (BG, CZ , EE, EL, ES, CY, LV, 
LU, HU, MT, PT, FI), training of personnel dea ling with the target gr oup (EL, CY, MT, PT) 
and the set up or further development of an equality body (BE, DK, IT, AT). In LU, the 
mission of the Office for Reception and Integrati on was widened to include the fight against 
discrimination. FR established a Diversity Ch arter and a Diversity Label that could be 
attributed to companies and EL plans to undert ake a research on discrimination issues. FR 
also started an experiment of  using anonymous CVs. PT organi sed competitions, such as the 
“Posters Against Discrimination Competition” and the “Award for Journalism, Human Rights and Integration”, which recogni ses the contribution of media professionals in promoting 
tolerance and integration and combating all forms of racism and discrimination. 
DK, DE, EE, FR and FI referred to developi ng indicators for assessing integration policy 
results. 
Commitment: I.(h) to promote information exchange on best practice  implemented, in line 
with the common principles approved by the Council in 2004, in terms of reception and 
integration, and on EU measures to s upport national integration policies. 
At EU level , seven meetings of National Contact Po ints on Integration took place in the 
reporting period. The text of the third edition of the Handbook on Integration for policy-
makers and practitioners  was finalised for publication in April 2010. In April 2009, the 
Commission launched the European  Web Site on Integration ( www.integration.eu ) and 
organised in cooperation with the European Econ omic and Social Committee the first meeting 
of the European Integration Forum. The Foru m provides opportunities for dialogue with civil 
society; its second meeting in November  2009 brought together over 80 organisations. 
 
EN 15   EN At national level , most Member States promoted info rmation exchange on best practices 
implemented in terms of reception and integr ation (BE, BG, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, 
LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PT, SK, SI, FI, SE, UK). 
Several Member States established or furt her developed (BG, EL, LV, HU, AT, UK) or 
started preparing (SI) na tional websites enabling the excha nge on integration matters, often 
within the framework of the European Fund fo r the Integration of Th ird-Country Nationals 
(EIF). Stakeholders in four Member States had the opportunity to meet each other in inter-
institutional working groups to discuss integrat ion (BG, IT, HU, AT). Some Member States 
organised events (e.g. conferences, seminars) (EL,  ES, AT, SK), dialogue  initiatives (BE, EE, 
LU, SE), consultations with Muslim representa tives (DE) or awareness raising campaigns 
(AT, EE, ES) with integration as topical focus. Others issued newsletter s or quarterly journals 
(IT, AT, PT, SE), and/or funded knowledge ins titutes that had as objective to collect and 
disseminate information on integration (NL, PT ). LT referred to the development of a manual 
on intercultural communication an d training courses on cultural  diversity, as well as other 
activities in the area of integration, undertaken in  cooperation with IOM. 
In addition, several Member States reported on  their participation in the National Contact 
Points on Integration, the European Website on Integration and the European Integration 
Forum. Bilateral meetings or cooperation in re lation to integration took place between FR and 
DE, and NL and BE. CY reported it would organise a Mediterra nean Forum for the exchange 
of views and best practices. 
II. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION  
Main commitment: Control ille gal immigration in particular by ensuring that illegal 
immigrants return to their countries of origin or to a transit country 
Commitment: II.(a) to use only case-by-case regularisation , rather than generalised 
regularisation, under national law, fo r humanitarian or economic reasons; 
At EU level , a “Study on practices in the area of re gularisation of illegally staying third-
country nationals in the Member States of the EU” was published in January 2009. The study, 
produced by ICMPD21 subsequent to the Commission’ s Communication on policy priorities 
in the fight against illegal immi gration of third-country nationals22, presents evidence on 
issues related to regularisations in or der to inform policies in this area. 
At national level , many Member States reported that they  had used case-by case regularisation 
during the reporting period (BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LT, LU, NL, AT, PT, FI). Several other Member States indicated th at they had not undertaken any form of 
regularisation (BG, CZ, DK, IE, HU, MT, RO, SK, SE). 
The reasons reported for regularisation varied . In some Member States the reasons for 
regularisation were of humanitarian nature (B E, EL, CY, AT) whilst in others the reasons 
were linked to the economy and employment (BE, FR, IT), or both (DE, PT). Several 
Member States used grounds such as close ties to the Member State, study and integration 
                                                
 
21 International Centre for Migration Policy Development. 
22 COM (2006) 402 final of 19 July 2006. 
 
EN 16   EN reasons, health reasons or extr aordinary reasons justified by a competent authority (DE, EE, 
EL, ES, LT, NL, PT). 
BE and IT described that in 2009 new regular isation schemes were und ertaken. BE introduced 
measures with regard to long lasting asylum procedures and urgent humanitarian situations 
taking into consideration current  practice related to internati onal conventions and the ECHR. 
IT had launched a large-scale re gularisation process for those ir regularly employed in the area 
of domestic work or in activities related to the care for the sick and/or disabled. Almost 
300 000 applications were received (180 408 for do mestic workers and 114 336 for assistants 
to the sick/disabled), the main nationalities represented being from Ukraine and Morocco. 
DE indicated that it was not taking any meas ures to legalise the residence of immigrants 
staying illegally and that it continued to look at this critica lly in light of the current economic 
crisis. However, the Residence Act provided that  third-country nationals  who were subject to 
an enforceable obligation to leav e the country, but who had reside d in the Federa l territory for 
several years on grounds of a exceptional leave to remain (“Duldung”) and who had integrated themselves, could – under specifi c circumstances – be granted a permanent 
perspective in Germany. 
Commitment: II.(b) to conclude readmission agreements at EU or bilateral level  with 
those countries with which this is necessary , so that each Member State has the legal 
instruments to ensure that il legal immigrants are expelled; 
At EU level , in November 2008 the Commission pres ented recommendations to Council to 
negotiate readmission agreements with Georgia and Cape Verde, following which in June 
2009 Council authorised the Commission to negotiate  in line with negotiations directives. The 
negotiations with those count ries are ongoing. A readmission agreement with Pakistan was 
signed (October 2009) and is in the process of ratification by both Parties. Two negotiation 
rounds (January and October 2009) were held with Morocco during which certain progress 
was noted which brought the negotia tions process to a final stag e. Following several contacts 
at technical and political level the negotiations  with Turkey (blocked since 2006) were re-
launched. Further efforts were undertaken at vari ous levels in order to launch the talks with 
China and Algeria. 
In addition to EU readmission agreements negotiations on Partnership and Cooperation 
Agreements (PCA) were continued with Viet nam, Philippines, Iraq, Brunei, Singapore, 
Malaysia, Libya and Republic of Korea. Th e revision of the Cotonou Agreement aiming inter 
alia at clarifying readmission obligations c ontained therein was launched in May 2009. 
At national level , some Member States reported that bilateral readmission agreements with 
third countries were concluded or entered into  force in 2009 (BE, DE, LU, HU, SK, FI). Other 
Member States referred to bilateral agreements  in general (BG, CZ, DK, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, 
IT, LV, LT, PL, SE, UK). DK  highlighted its May 2009 readmission agreement with Iraq. 
Many Member States also stated that they we re in the process of negotiating one or more 
bilateral readmission agreements with third co untries (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FR, IT, CY, 
LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, RO, FI, UK) . FR also referred to non-legally binding 
procès-verbaux that it had agreed  or was negotiating with third countries for the delivery of 
laissez-passer documents, as well as to its Ag reements related to Concerted Management of 
Migration Flows (see V.(a) below). LU referred to  earlier cooperation with third countries in 
the field of readmission through, for example, a memorandum of understanding with Nigeria. 
 
EN 17   EN Several Member States also referred to EU read mission agreements with third states (BE, BG, 
CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, FI). Within the 
framework of these EU readmission agreements , some Member States reported that they 
concluded or were in the process of negotiatin g the required implemen tation protocols with 
countries such as Albania (EL, FR, IT, HU,  MT, PL, PT, SK), Armenia (PT), Bosnia-
Herzegovina (EE, MT, NL, PT), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EE, IT, HU, 
LV, LT, NL, PT, SK), Hong Kong (MT), Macao (MT), Republic of Moldova (EE, EL, IT, 
LV, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK), Montenegro (IT, HU, MT, PT), Serbia (EE, EL, FR, IT, 
LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK), Russia (EE,  EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, 
PT, RO, FI), Sri Lanka (MT) and/or Ukraine (EE, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK). For BG, it was 
of prime importance to conclude and impl ement a readmission agreement with Turkey; 
similarly, CY strongly believed that the EU shoul d intensify efforts to conclude readmission 
agreements with key countries of or igin and transit such as Turkey. 
In order to ensure readmissi on by third countries, FR drew upon the practice of consular 
‘laissez-passer’ and to readmission clauses ad opted in agreements related to Concerted 
Management of Migration Flows. 
the effectiveness of EU readmissi on agreements will be evaluated; 
At EU level , meetings of the joint readmission committees were held with the crucial third 
countries with which the EU has concluded re admission agreements (in particular with all 
Western Balkans countries and Ukraine in  November-December 2008 and with Russia in 
November 2008 and June 2009). The Commission gathers regularly th e information from 
Member States on the applic ation of all EU readmissi on agreements in force. 
negotiating directives that have not succeeded should be reviewed; 
At EU level , discussions on the negotiati ons that are underway were  held regularly in both 
thematic and geographic Council working groups. 
Member States and the Commissi on will consult closely wh en future EU readmission 
agreements are negotiated; 
At EU level , Member States were regularly involve d in the preparati on of negotiations 
directives for new EU readmission agreements and in the subsequent outcome of negotiation 
sessions. All drafts of agreements (in particular  in relation to Morocco, Georgia, China, Cape 
Verde) were discussed with Member States. Sim ilar consultations were organised with regard 
to negotiations directives for, and/or drafts  to be discussed in the framework of, PCA 
negotiations. 
At national level , MT reported that it had submitted a non-paper to the Member States on EU-
Libya Cooperation on Readmission, highlighting th e importance of concluding an EU-Libya 
readmission agreement, possibly within the context of the EU-Libya Framework Agreement currently under negotiation. 
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; 
 
EN 18   EN At EU level , the EU Blue Card Directive23 (see I.(b) above) limits the occupational mobility 
of a third-country highly qualified worker for th e first two years of employment in a Member 
State in order to avoid abus e of this specific scheme. 
As regards the right of free movement of EU citizens and their family members, the 
Commission assists Member States in impl ementing Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to 
move and reside freely within the territory of the Member St ates. It issued a Communication 
on guidance for better transposition a nd application of Directive 2004/38/EC24. These 
guidelines include a section on the measures to tackle abuse and fraud (such as marriages of 
convenience). In addition, the Commission promotes exchange of information on abuse and 
fraud among Member States in the framework of its expert group on free movement of EU 
citizens and their family members. 
At national level , Member States provided relevant information on other commitments of the 
Pact (see I.(d) above and II.(g) and III.(e) below). 
In BE a Bill modifying the Aliens Act was being elaborated in order to give a legal ground to 
the introduction of individual data on third-country nationals , who are the subject of a 
restrictive measure, for the purpose of entry refu sal or refusal of issu ing a residence permit. 
DK reported on actions it takes to prevent possibl e abuse of the right of free movement of EU 
citizens and their family members. CY reported that when a permit expires the third-country 
national is notified that they have to depart; if there is no record of  departure a deportation 
order is issued. RO reported that  it posted specialists to Roma nian consulates to check for 
false documents in applications. SI referred to regular risk analyses in cluding in the field of 
abuse of residence permits, prohibiting certain employment of third-country nationals (a 
measure introduced also in response to the econ omic crisis, see I.(a) above) and a database 
upgrade allowing checking between  records of residence permits and of work permits. 
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 , FRONTEX co-ordinated from Octobe r 2008 until the end of 2009 in total 37 
joint return flights w ith a total number of ar ound 1 900 returnees. Nineteen Member States 
(CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL, RO , SK, FI, SE, UK) and three 
Schengen associated countries (CH, IS, NO) partic ipated in these flights.  Countries of return 
were Albania, Armenia, Cameroon, Columbia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Gambia, Georgia, 
Kosovo, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Togo and Vietnam. Of the 30 joint operations FRONTEX co-financed 21, 2 of which with EU funding from the Return Preparatory Actions. 
Furthermore, the Commission launched under the Return Fund Community Actions 2009 a 
call for proposal for supporting joint return  operations with around € 2.2 million and for 
supporting the cooperation of two or more Memb er States with third-country consular 
authorities and immigration services in or der to facilitate re turn with € 1 million. 
At national level
, many Member States made positive experiences with joint return operations 
and co-operation in the field of identification and documen tation of returnees. The co-
                                                 
23 Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country 
nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17. 
24 COM (2009) 313 final of 2 July 2009. 
 
EN 19   EN financing possibilities for these kinds of activities offered under  the European Return Fund as 
well as the added value of FRONTEX c oordination were broadly appreciated. 
More particularly, several Member States (B E, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, HU, MT, 
AT, RO, UK) reported on joint f lights organised by FRONTEX and/ or joint flights organised 
by other Member States. Following an initiative  of HU, the possibility  to also carry out 
FRONTEX-coordinated joint return operations by land was actively considered and first 
preparatory steps were taken. 
Some Member States (DE, FR , CY, HU, MT, PL, UK) highlight ed participation in joint 
projects aimed at facilitating th e identification of  illegally staying third-country nationals and 
issuing travel documents in pr eparation of their return. MT reported on its difficulties in 
identifying migrants arriving il legally by boat, further complicat ed by factors including lack 
of cooperation from the migrants themselves and from certain countries of origin, and 
therefore considered joint acti on – through FRONTEX – in this field a top priority. In this 
context express support for FRONTEX joint operation Attica was expressed by DE, EL. 
Emphasis was also given to the added value of Immigration Liaison Offi cers cooperation in 
this field (HU, FI). Some Member States (EE,  LV) underlined that the transposition of the 
Return Directive will facilitate increased cooper ation between Member States in this field in 
the future. 
Commitment: II.(e) to step up cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit , 
under the Global Approach to Migration, in or der to control ille gal immigration, in 
particular to follow with them an ambitious  policy on police and judicial cooperation to 
combat international crimi nal organisations engaged in trafficking migrants and in human 
trafficking, 
At EU level , Mobility Partnerships negotiated by th e Commission included the three priority 
areas of the Global Approach to Migrati on (legal migration, illegal migration and 
migration/development). The Mo bility Partnership w ith Georgia (see V.(a) below) supports, 
among other activities, information campaigns on the risks of illegal migration and reintegration of victims of trafficking. The Mobility Partnership with the Republic of 
Moldova (see V.(a) below) includes also several actions providing for ca pacity building in the 
area of anti-trafficking, information campaigns on the risks of illegal migration and reintegration of victims of trafficking. Also, th e fight against traffickin g of human beings has 
been identified as one of the priorities for years 2009-2010 in the fram ework of the Africa-EU 
Partnership on Migration, M obility and Employment. 
At national level
, most Member States listed bilateral ag reements/projects with third countries 
(BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY , LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK), 
some of which expected to conclude additional agreements in the near future (IE, CY, PL). 
SE reported that it had not conc luded any bilateral agreements with third states during the 
period although it had been active at political level,  not least in the course of the Swedish EU 
Council Presidency. 
As to the focus of the bilateral agreements with third countries, Member States reported that 
the agreements and cooperation focused on information exchange, police and border guard cooperation, such as conducting joint crime inve stigations and cross-border operations against 
illegal immigration and human trafficking, as  well as on institutional capacity building of 
third states (BG, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV , LT, HU, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK). Regarding 
the latter, IT referred to the training of law enforcement units in Iraq and PT to capacity-
 
EN 20   EN building of Brazilian federal poli ce and consular staff. ES repor ted creating contacts with key 
African countries to achieve closer cooperatio n in tackling il legal immigration and human 
trafficking, based on cooperation agreements and memoranda of understanding. CY reported 
on cooperation with Syrian authorities incl uding on the risks undergone by migrants. UK 
reported that it had contributed to capacity building of  relevant authorities in a number of 
jurisdictions by helping to improve the i nvestigation and prosecution of offences. 
Some Member States also re ferred to close cooperation with  regional and international 
organisations (IE, EL, FR, IT, LV, LT, SK). So me of these mentioned that they cooperated 
and exchanged information with Europol and/or  Interpol (EL, FR, LV, LU, IT, RO, SK), 
whilst others (IE, FR) referred to agreements  with ILO including concerning, for example, 
actions against forced labour, human trafficki ng and the elimination of child labour (IE). HU 
referred to its cooperation with in the framework of the Söder köping process and the Budapest 
process. RO referred to opera tional cooperation with third c ountries’ authorities and through 
SECI. 
and to provide  better information to communities under threat  so as to avoid the tragedies 
that can occur, particularly at sea; 
At EU level , information campaigns have been in cluded as key components in numerous 
projects in the area of migration management in  various parts of the wo rld. Projects with such 
types of activities have been funded thr ough the Thematic Progr amme “Cooperation with 
Third Countries in the areas of Migration and Asylum” and its processor, the AENEAS 
Programme, for example in West  Africa (Benin, Cameroon, Nigeri a, Senegal, Ghana, Mali), 
Bangladesh, India, the Democratic Repub lic of Congo, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya. 
At national level , some Member States reported on information campaigns targeting 
communities under threat of illegal  immigration and/or exploitati on in third states (BE, EE, 
EL, ES, IT, PL, PT, FI, UK). The UK, in Nairobi, for example, reported that it had been working with the producers of a popular Kenyan soap opera to promote messages about the 
dangers of illegal immigration. BE had organi sed campaigns against illegal immigration in 
North Punjab, India by means of po sters, brochures, filmed documentaries, plays, etc. It also 
referred to an information campaign in th e Democratic Republic of Congo and one 
concerning Brazilian migrants under threat. ES set up an awareness campaign on illegal 
immigration in Senegal, during 2007, in collaboration with the IOM and the EU. 
Commitment: II.(f) to invite Member States, specifically with th e support of Community 
instruments, to devise incentive systems to assist voluntary return  
At EU level , Member States were encouraged to make use of the means provided by the 
European Return Fund and to elaborate on i nnovative measures improving voluntary return. 
Those measures are eligible for co-funding up to 75 % under the priority 3 of the Strategic 
Guidelines for the European Return Fund. 
At national level , most Member States reported that incentive systems to assist voluntary 
return of illegally-staying immigrants were in  place (BE, BG, CZ, DK , DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, 
FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK). From the information 
provided, it appears that increasingly, Member Stat es were providing rein tegration assistance 
to ensure successful and permanent return, ra ther than merely focusing on repatriating the 
individual to his/he r country of origin. 
 
EN 21   EN The European Return Fund was also perceived as  an important instrume nt to finance return 
incentives. In this respect, several Member States reported that they set up an incentive 
system or implemented return act ivities with the assi stance of the European Return Fund (BE, 
EL, LV, LT, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, SK). EL, for example, reported on an ongoing programme 
involving collaboration between government and NGOs. IT also cooperated with NGOs as 
part of EU-funded projects. BE indicated that in 2010 it would with support from the 
European Return Fund coordinate an evalua tion of the reintegration support offered by 
different Member States. 
Several Member States (BG, CZ, IE, ES, IT , LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SK, 
UK) referred to voluntary return programmes whic h were set up in colla boration with/carried 
out by IOM. Some gave details on the content of these programmes (BE,  CZ, DE, IE, ES, FR, 
LT, LU, HU, MT, PT, AT, SE, UK). A few of these Member States  indicated providing 
different types of incentives depending on the ca tegory of the pot ential returnee (BE, IE, FR, 
AT, SE, UK). In BE, AT, SE and the UK, persons who had applied for international 
protection were also eligible for reintegrati on grants. The UK provides assistance mainly “in 
kind” such as education, vocational training or job placements and offers added incentives to 
Iraqi and Afghan nationals specifically for rebuilding homes destroyed in conflict. FR 
differentiated between voluntary and humanitarian  return assistance and referred to the 
provision of reintegration assistance. Reintegrat ion assistance was also mentioned by LT, LU 
and SK. HU and SK referred to measures such as information campaigns, brochures, 
websites, and HU also to toll free phone numbers  and capacity building of those who worked 
on return, whilst PL also reported on specific in formation measures for groups under threat of 
trafficking and exploitation. 
CY reported on plans to establish an IOM offi ce in Cyprus a main aim of which would be 
developing voluntary return programmes. 
Some Member States reported on new return schemes for lega lly residing immigrants who 
lost their job (and hence their work permit) due  to the current economic crisis (CZ, ES). 
Two Member States reported on their budget for 2009 for return and reintegration assistance: 
€ 9 million (FR) and € 185 000 (LU for a specifi c IOM project). As to the maximum amount 
of financial help that individua ls could be given, FR reported on € 2 000 for a single adult, 
€ 3 500 for a couple and € 1 000 per minor child (€  500 from the fourth child onwards) within 
the context of voluntary return. Within the fr amework of humanitarian return, the amounts 
were limited to € 300 per adult and € 100 per mi nor child. Reintegration assistance, in the 
form of financial help with the start up of  a business project, wa s provided by FR up to 
€ 7 000. LU referred to financial help gran ted under the IOM project: a “reintegration 
stipend” (e.g. accommodation, clothing) of maxi mum € 1 500 and an “additional reintegration 
stipend” of € 1 500 for setting up an activit y that generated revenu e and of € 600 for job 
search. BE also reported providing up to € 2 000 for persons starting a small-scale self-
employed activity in the country of origin. 
Many Member States provided data on the numbe r of third-country nationals who voluntarily 
returned with assistance through nationally or ganised programmes in 2009 (BG, CZ, DE, EE, 
ES, FR, LU, HU, PT, UK). Figures ranged from 3 voluntarily returned in EE to 5 871 in FR 
(first 9 months of 2009). 
and to keep each other informed  on this point in order to prevent the fraudulent return to the 
EU of those who receive such aid; 
 
EN 22   EN At EU level , no focused activities took place on this specific point. 
At national level , only one Member States reported on a dditional national measures to prevent 
abuse of voluntary return programmes (FR). Th e Member State had set up a computer-based 
registration system to ensure a proper admi nistrative and financia l follow-up of return 
assistance, which also enabled identifi cation of possible fr audulent returns. 
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 Employer Sanctions Directive was adopted25. Its aim is to reduce the 
employment pull factor for ille gal immigration by ensuring that all Member Stat es introduce 
similar penalties for employers of illegally st aying third-country nationals and enforce the 
penalties effectively. The Direc tive tackles exploitation in part icular by making the presence 
of particularly exploitative working conditions  one of the serious ci rcumstances in which 
Member States must provide for criminal sanc tions. In those criminal cases Member States 
will be able to grant temporary residence perm its in a similar way as is already done for 
victims of trafficking. Member States have until July 2011 to transpose the Directive. In October 2009, the Commission orga nised a first meeting of a Contact Committee with 
Member States representatives in order to discuss the implementation of the Directive. 
After the end of the reporting period and following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, 
the Commission on 29 March 2010 presented a proposal for a Direc tive on preventing and 
combating trafficking in human beings, an d protecting victims, repealing Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA
26. The proposal, building on and replacing a proposal made in 2009, 
foresees reinforcement of the system of pr osecution of trafficking, including more severe 
penalties, enhancement of protection of victim s' rights, strengthenin g measures to prevent 
trafficking and establishing e ffective monitoring systems.  
At national level , ES reported that it had transposed the Employer Sanctions Directive into 
national legislation. Some other Member States indicated they were preparing for its future 
transposition. DK does not participate in the Di rective, but reported on  national legislation 
and regular inspections of comp anies. The UK did not opt in to  the Directive, but reported 
that its introduction of civil pe nalties in February 2008 meant that  it had measures in place to 
deal effectively with illegal employment issues. 
Some Member States reported stepping up action in this area (BG, IT, LT, AT, PL, PT). In 
PL, since January 2009, the Border Guards were a llowed to verify the legality of foreigners’ 
employment on the whole nationa l territory. In IT and PT, more severe penalties were 
introduced for those who explo it illegal immigration. IT intr oduced legislation penalising 
those who rent property to an illegally staying immigrant. In AT, different sanctions were in 
force concerning exploitation of illegally-sta ying immigrants, human smuggling and aiding 
and abetting illegal immigrati on. CY reported on draft legisl ation including sanctions on 
persons renting housing to illegally staying migr ants and EL on legislation in force regarding 
sanctions on carriers and smugglers. 
                                                 
25 Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for 
minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country 
nationals, OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24. 
26 COM(2009) 136 final of 25 March 2009COM(2010) 95 final of 29 March 2010. 
 
EN 23   EN A few Member States (EL, FR, LV, LT, PL, PT) pr ovided data relating to enforcement. As to 
the number of businesses checked for the em ployment of illegally-staying third-country 
nationals, 628 inspections were reported by LV and 1 700 by PL for 2009. In LT, 15 cases of 
employing third-country nationals illegally were detected in 2009. With regard to the number 
of employers or entities that  had been sanctioned for the em ployment of illegally-staying 
third-country nationals, 10 were given administrative penalties in  LV. In PT, 791 entities were 
penalised administratively for employing third-c ountry nationals in an irregular situation. FR 
mentioned the submission of 17 lawsuits agai nst employers over the period of October 2008-
October 2009 and the issuing of one fine. UK referred to over 2 700 fines worth over £ 27 
million having been issued. 
Commitment: II.(h) to put into full effect the Community provisi ons 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 en tered in the Schengen In formation System (SIS) 
obliges other Member States to prevent the pe rson concerned from ente ring or residing within 
their territory. 
At EU level , the Commission organised in the c ourse of 2009 three Contact Committee 
meetings with Member States representa tives in view of preparing the upcoming 
implementation of the Return Directive27 which must be transposed  into national legislation 
by 24 December 2010. At these meetings, the Commission expressly encouraged Member 
States to enter alerts related to entry bans i ssued in accordance with the Return Directive in 
the SIS in order to give full effect to the Eur opean dimension of entry bans issued under the 
Return Directive. The Commission also reiterated its intention to use the review of the SIS II, envisaged under the review cl ause of Article 24(5) of Re gulation (EC) No 1987/2006, to 
propose a formal obligation to register in the SIS entry bans issued under the Return 
Directive. 
At national level
, some Member States reported that they entered all e xpulsion decisions in 
SIS (FI, IT, HU, MT, ). Other Member States i ndicated that they only entered part of their 
decisions (EE, EL, FR, LT, AT, PT, SK. SE). FR, for example, reported that their system was 
more elaborated, as it included five categorie s of expulsion decisions (to date, two expulsion 
decisions were entered in SIS, one concerning  deportation decree and another one concerning 
a judicial territory ban). EL repor ted that about 20 % of its expul sion orders were entered into 
SIS (13 452 out of 65 339 expulsion decisions ta ken were entered during the first eleven 
months of 2009) as they only ente red data of persons whose iden tity they had been able to 
determine. The majority of persons were arrest ed without identity documents or a verifiable 
identity. 
Several Member States reported that they we re planning to make better use of Directive 
2001/40/EC on the mutual recognitio n of decisions on the expulsion  of third-coun try nationals 
(BE, BG, CZ, EL, FR, IT, PL). A few Member St ates, however, expressed their concerns with 
regard to the validity  and consequences of expulsion deci sions entered in SIS (SE, UK). The 
UK, which is party to the law enforcement el ement of SIS, indicated that it assessed the 
individual situation (and any recent changes to  it) of the person when Member States called 
upon it to enforce expulsion decisi ons. SE changed its criteria for entering expulsion decisions 
                                                 
27 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on 
common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country 
nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98. 
 
EN 24   EN in SIS, due to the potentially serious conseq uences for the individual concerned tied to 
entering expulsion decisions in SIS. 
A few Member States reported on the transpositi on of the Return Directive (BG, ES, FR, NL, 
RO, SK, SE). 
Several Member States (BG, EE, EL, FR, LV, LT, LU, PT) reported on the number of 
expulsion decisions they had taken during the reporting period, ranging from 22 in LV (2009) 
to 65 339 in EL. 
III. BORDER CONTROL  
Main commitment: Make border controls more effective 
Commitment: III.(a) invite Member States an d the Commission to mobilise all their available 
resources to ensure more effective control of the ex ternal land, sea and air borders ; 
At EU level , the Commission has engaged in discussions  with Member States with a view to 
presenting the necessary legislative propos als in 2010. These proposals will enhance the 
existing provisions regarding the coordina tion by FRONTEX of operational activities 
conducted by Member States, the establishment of an EU Entry/Exit System and an EU 
Registered Traveller Programme. In order to  clarify the rules applicable to FRONTEX 
operations at sea and therefore to encourage Me mber State participation to these operations, 
the Commission presented to the Schengen Bord ers Code Committee a draft for a Decision 
establishing guidelines for FRONTEX operations at sea; a proposal for a Council decision on 
such guidelines has been agreed. After the e nd of the reporting period, the Commission on 24 
February 2010 presented a legislative pr oposal to amend the FRONTEX Regulation28. 
At national level , most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR , IT, CY, LV, LT, 
LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, UK) reported to have increased their efforts to 
ensure more effective border controls. At l east two Member States explicitly linked these 
efforts also to increased illegal immigration ( EL, HU). Whilst very few referred to an increase 
in financial resources (EE, FR), several desc ribed increases in the number of staff employed 
(EL, ES, FR, IT). ES, for example, reported a 53.4 % increase in the num ber of police officers 
dealing with immigration and border cont rol between 2003 and 2008. In April 2009, the UK 
launched the UK Border Agency, with 25 000 sta ff and a presence in 13 5 countries, bringing 
together the workforce at the border and incr easing the number of officers dealing with 
immigration at the border. 
Several Member States implemented measures to increase the capac ity of existing staff 
working at the external borders (BE, BG, FR, IT, LV, LT, NL, PT, SI, SK, FI) through 
training. Such training was pr ovided in different formats (e.g. ad-hoc, workshops, basic 
training), including both theore tical and practical components.  The focus of the training 
ranged from ‘general’ training co vering all aspects of border control to training on very 
specific topics, including detect ion, detention, use of (new) equipment and software, alien 
legislation, professional quality standards. The beneficiaries of the training included border 
guards, detention staff, immigration officials,  police officers and other relevant personnel. 
                                                 
28 COM(2010) 61 final of 24 February 2010. 
 
EN 25   EN LV, for example, tested the practic al skills and capacity of the State Border Guard to organise 
border guard services and control, including de tection and detention method and techniques, 
as well as the level of coopera tion between territorial units. 
Other Member States reported on the acqui sition of new equipment (ranging from ICT 
equipment and detection devices to aircrafts and vessels) and the us e of new technologies 
(BE, BG, CZ, EE, FR, LT, MT, PL, SI, SK, FI, UK), as well as on the renewal of the current 
border control system and the development of  new systems (IE, EE, LT, PT, SK). SK, for 
example, described the development of the RALEN system, which is used to detect humans at 
railway and motorway border cros sing points. NL continued the Port-Related Supervision of 
Foreign Nationals, established in  2008, to detect illegal entr ies in and round docks in the 
harbour and on the coastline. Many Member States  referred to the use of the External Border 
Fund in increasing their capacity  and know-how with regard to  border control (BE, CZ, EE, 
HU, LT, PL) and to their participation in FRONTEX operations (BE, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FR, 
CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, PL, SK, UK). RO referred to projects being developed 
through the Schengen Facility. Other actions of interest launched by the Member States to 
reinforce external border contro ls include the continued involvement of BG in the Black Sea 
Border Coordination and Information Centre (B SBCIC) and the reorganisation of the Border 
Police in FR. 
Commitment: III.(b) generalise the issue of biometric visa s as from 1 January 2012  at the 
latest, as a result of the Visa Information System (VIS), 
At EU level , the technical development of the central  Visa Information System (VIS) and of 
its biometric components entered the second of  four testing phases in April 2009. The main 
development contractor encountered a series of  technical problems during this testing phase 
mainly related to the performance of the system . Therefore, it was no longer feasible to start 
operations on 21 December 2009 as initially fore seen. A delay of approximately ten months 
should be anticipated. An updated project plan  of the central VIS was presented by the 
Commission in January 2010. 
At national level , one Member State has reported sign ificant contractual problems with the 
development of their national visa system. Th ese problems will not allow this Member State 
to be ready before September 2010. Therefore, the VIS cannot start operations before that 
date. Two Member States have also encountered  delays of less significant nature with the 
development of their national systems. The Council agreed in 2005 th at the VIS would be 
rolled-out on a progressive regional basis. Me mber States committed to endeavour completing 
the VIS roll-out worldwide within 24 months fr om the start of operations in the first region. 
The draft decision determining the first regions for the VIS roll-out (Nor th Africa, Near East, 
Gulf region) was adopted by the Commission in December 2009. 
Several Member States confirmed that they would implement the registration of biometric 
data for the issuing of visas in the near fu ture (BE, CZ, EL, IT, HU, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, 
PL, PT) or were in some third countries alr eady doing so (BG, FR). Many indicated that the 
relevant systems should be in place in 2010 and c onfirmed that they were focusing on the first 
regions mentioned in the draft decision. Some  Member States referred to preparatory 
measures, including pilot tests of the system, being planned or undertak en (BE, DK, IT, CY, 
LT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SE). 
At least three Member States described th e successful testing and implementation of 
biometric visas within their own national system s (FR, FI, SE, UK). France reported that, 
 
EN 26   EN through the VISABIO programme which covere d 160 out of the 194 French consulates 
authorised to deliver visas, as well as 389 bor der points (representing 80 % of total entry/exit 
traffic), at the end of 2009, 50 % of visas issued were expected to be biometric. While the UK 
does not participate in the VIS, it had a global visa biometric programme in place since the 
end of 2007 which had so far enrolled over 4 mill ion sets of fingerprints and detected over 
4 000 false identities: all visa  applicants (save a few who were exempt) had to provide 
fingerprints and a digital photogr aph. SE reported a complete implementation of VIS within 
the national system including biometric equipmen t, being fully prepared for the VIS roll-out. 
Finally there have been two pilot projects of Common Visa Application Centres led by BE in 
Kinshasa (Congo) and PT in Praia (Cape Verde). 
immediately improve cooperation between Member States' consulates , 
At EU level , by allowing new forms of cooperation be tween Member States for the reception 
of visa applications Member States are to assess (Article 40 of th e Community Code on 
Visas29) the possibility of having recourse to th ese different forms of cooperation before 
outsourcing the collection of visa applica tions to an external  service provider. 
At national level , several Member States reported on increased and improved consular 
cooperation (DE, EL, CY, LV, LT, AT, PL, FI).  In addition, HU and PL referred to the 
development of a VIS pilot project also with SI in Turkey and Thailand, possibly expanding 
such cooperation to other Member  States in the near future. 
pool resources as far as possible and gradually set up, on a voluntary basis, joint consular 
services for visas ; 
At EU level , the Common Consular Instru ctions provide the necessary  rules for the setting up 
of Common Visa Application Centres to be es tablished by Member States. Financial support 
can be obtained from the External Borders Fund Community Actions for such projects. 
At national level , Member States reported on a high number of visa representation agreements 
signed with the purpose of issuing Schengen visas on behalf of other Member States (DE, EE, 
FR, LV, LT, HU, AT, PL, FI), or of having othe r Member States issuing such visas on their 
behalf (DE, EE, FR, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, PL, FI , SE). Some Member States confirmed that 
these had been concluded in 2009 or are be ing negotiated (DE, EE, LV, LTSK, SE). 
EE indicated, for example, that  it had concluded visa repr esentations with 11 Schengen 
Member States (DE, ES, FR, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, SI, FI) to re present EE in 79 third 
countries. The country issued visas on behalf of  NL, PL, SI and FI. LV  described that it was 
represented by 38 diplomatic and consular represen tations of five Member States. At the same 
time, LV itself represented six other Member St ates in eight of its di plomatic or consular 
representations. FI, in turn, was being re presented by other Member States in 57 
representations, whilst it repres ented other Schengen countries in  a total of 16 places. Visa 
representation agreements were mainly signed with  other Nordic countries. FR indicated that 
it was represented by nine Member States in 17 cities, and that it represented 20 other 
                                                 
29 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 
establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1. 
 
EN 27   EN Member States in the world. DE indicated th at it had concluded 233 Schengen representation 
agreements with 18 Member States. 
Some Member States also referred to future pl ans to sign visa representation agreements (CZ, 
DE, EE, LT, MT, SE). BG was examining the possible recourse to such arrangements. CZ 
mentioned that it had approached other Memb er States with diplomatic or consular 
representations in third countri es where CZ itself did not ha ve a presence, to negotiate 
possible representation agreements. DE indicated  that agreements with two Member States 
were about to be concluded. EE referred to cons ultations with FR, PL and SK. CY referred to 
a joint office with MT and di scussions with HU and SI.  
Commitment: III.(c) give the Frontex agency , with due regard for the role and 
responsibilities of the Member St ates, the resources to fulfil its mission of coordinating the 
control of the external border of the European Un ion, to cope with crisis situations and to 
undertake, at the request of Member States, any  necessary operations, whether temporary or 
permanent, in accordance, in particular, with  the Council conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2008. 
In the light of the results of an evaluation of  the agency, its role and operational resources 
will be strengthened and a decision may be taken to create specialised offices to take account 
of the diversity of situations, particularly for the land border to the East and the sea border to 
the South: creating such offices should on no a ccount undermine the unity of the Frontex 
agency. Ultimately, the possibili ty of setting up a European syst em of border guards may be 
examined; 
At EU level , the Commission pursued its preparation of  a legislative proposal to amend the 
FRONTEX Regulation30. A workshop with all Member St ates took place in September 2009 
to discuss possible improvements to th e current Regulation. The Commission undertook 
consultations with interested stakeholders with  a view to adopting a proposal in the beginning 
of 2010. As required by the Regulation, the FR ONTEX Management Board commissioned an 
independent external evaluation on the implemen tation of the Regulation to examine how the 
work of the Agency could be improved. Th e Management Board thereafter issued 
recommendations regarding changes of the Regu lation. After the end of the reporting period, 
the Commission in February 2010 presented a legislative proposal (see III.(a) above). The current legal framework of the FRONTEX Agen cy foresees the creation of specialised 
branches of FRONTEX. In February 2010 th e FRONTEX Management  Board decided to 
launch a pilot project of an operational office in Piraeus. 
At national level
, all Member States reported on their par ticipation in and contributions to all 
kinds of FRONTEX-related activities. Many Member  States (BE, EL, CY, LU and, within the 
limits of its involvement, UK) expressly highli ghted the joint responsib ility of all Member 
States to assure effective control of ex ternal borders in a spirit of solidarity. 
More particularly, Member Stat es reported that they made re sources available to FRONTEX 
in the context of CRATE (Centralised Records of Available Technical Equipment) (CZ, DK, 
DE, EE, EL, CY, PL, PT, RO, FI, UK) or deployed staff. AT, fo r example, delegated officers 
to the FRONTEX Focal Point Offices. SE and UK al so confirmed that they had, and were still 
ready to deploy personnel to work on the act ivities of the agency. NL, SK and UK provided 
                                                 
30 Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the Extern al Borders of the Member States of the European 
Union, OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1. 
 
EN 28   EN staff for the delivery of training courses, for example in relation to document analysis and 
return policy. Member States indicated that they  had provided equipment, such as an aircraft 
(DE, LT, LU, PL, SK, FI), vesse ls (DE, MT), freight detection equipment (UK) and other 
equipment (DE, LT, NL). Some Member States  (IE, NL, UK) also refe rred to having led the 
implementation of joint operations, such as joint return flights, or (EL, CY) actively participated in Joint Support Teams. Others reported on financial resources provided to 
FRONTEX (SK, UK). BG, FR and UK referred to thei r contributions to risk analyses as part 
of the agency.  
Many Member States reported on their other form s of participation in the different activities 
and operations of FRONTEX, including the Joint Support Teams, the joint return flights and 
the joint operations including Nautilus, Saturn, Poseidon and the RABITs (Rapid Border Intervention Teams). MT reported that it ho sted the joint operati on Nautilus but that 
participation by other Member States was limited, and it considered that future operations 
would benefit from wider participation. 
Support was expressed for the following changes: a reinforced obligator y use of CRATE (DE, 
AT); creation of specialised branches for the land border to the East (DE, LV) and the sea 
border to the South (EL, CY, LV, MT); continuous evaluatio n of personnel involved with 
RABITs and Joint Support Teams (EL); more e ffective maritime borders management in the 
framework of joint European operations (EL) and elaborati on of Guidelines relating to 
FRONTEX operations at sea (DE). 
Commitment: III.(d) give fuller considerat ion, in a spirit of solidarity, to the difficulties of 
those Member States subjected to di sproportionate influxes of immigrants  and, to that end, 
invite the Commission to  submit proposals; 
At EU level , a pilot project was launched, consisting in  the relocation to other Member States 
of beneficiaries of internati onal protection currently present in Malta: see IV.(c) below. 
At national level , in addition to the pilot project further described unde r IV.(c) below, several 
Member States (CZ, DK, DE, EL, IT, MT, NL, SK, UK) reported on othe r initiatives taken. 
To put in practice the principle of solidar ity and burden sharing, EL, IT, CY and MT 
presented common initiative combating illega l immigration in the Mediterranean which 
recommended actions to put an end to loss of life  at sea, to tackle illegal immigration and to 
provide international protection to those who need it. CZ, NL and UK referred to a working 
group for tackling the particular pressures of illegal migration and other activiti es within the 
framework of GDISC. DE, LU, HU, MT, SK a nd UK referred to FRONTEX operations, such 
as Nautilus, which involved the provision of equipment and the secondment of staff. DK 
referred to assisting EL, CY and MT with  exchange of experience on managing mixed 
migration flows. 
Commitment: III.(e) deploy modern technological means  to ensure that systems are 
interoperable and to enable the effective integrated management  of the external border, in 
line with the conclusions of the European C ouncil on 19 and 20 June 2008 and of the Council 
on 5 and 6 June 2008. 
At EU level , the Commission continued its preparation of proposals on the establishment of 
an EU Entry/Exit System and an EU Register ed Traveller Programme providing for modern 
technological means which shall be interopera ble with existing and future large scale IT 
systems. 
 
EN 29   EN At national level , many Member States referred to th e deployment of modern technological 
means (described below), in particular in vi ew of the EU Entry/Ex it System and the EU 
Registered Traveller Programme, but also to im plement national initiatives aimed at rendering 
border control systems effective and interope rable (BG, IE, EE, EL, FR, CY, LV, NL, AT, 
PT, RO, FI, SE). 
EE, for example, reported that it had set up an ICT agency to improve exchanges between 
relevant national agencies. IE mentioned that, in  order to renew its border control system, new 
technological equipment had been purchased and put in place. NL, as part of their Border 
Management Renewal Programme, indicated that  it was implementing a project on Passenger 
Related Data Exchange (the PARDEX project),  to enable quicker and improved collection, 
analysis and dissemination of passenger data. BG , as part of a pilot project, set up a Single 
Information System in one of its ports, to tr ack in and outgoing ships and to verify their 
accompanying documents. PT, which had been equipped with an automatic border control system (RAPID) based on the recognition of biom etric data of passengers (facial) and cross-
referencing these with their biographical data, extended it in 2009 to border posts of two 
airports in the Azores. ES, which closely followed the imp lementation of the EUROSUR 
integrated surveillance system for external bor ders, deployed significant human and material 
resources to extend an effective system for ex ternal border control at  the national level, 
known as the Integrated External Surveillan ce System (SIVE), to other areas of the 
Mediterranean. Also as part of EUROSUR, RO reported on the Integrated Surveillance 
System of the Sea Border (SCOMAR) which su rveys the Black Sea. FI developed automatic 
border checks at Helsinki airport and started automated border checks as a pilot project at 
Vaalimaa border crossing point in the eastern la nd border. FI also acqu ired new fingerprint 
and passport readers. Other Member States (EL,  FR, LV, LT, LU, AT, SI, SK, SE) referred to 
a range of technological devices and equipment acquired for checks at border crossing points, 
including equipment for scanning and storing fi ngerprints, hand-held scanners, etc. FR, for 
example, installed readers to control and verify the identity of persons, which also facilitated 
consultation of national databases and interna tional police records (Inte rpol). LV introduced 
an automated fingerprint identification system. 
From 2012, depending on the Commission's proposal s, the focus should be on establishing 
electronic recording of entry and exit, together with a fast -track procedure for European 
citizens and other travellers; 
At EU level : 1. After concluding the technical feasibil ity study on the EU Entry/Exit System 
and EU Registered Traveller Programme, the Commission presen ted a consultation paper to 
Member States describing technical implementa tion scenarios for the systems. Industry was 
also consulted in two working groups of the European Innovation and Research Forum 
(ESRIF). 
An expert meeting was organized regarding th e Registered Traveller Programme. Entry/Exit 
was discussed with Member States in the Counc il on the basis of two qu estionnaires prepared 
by French and Czech Council Presidencies. In or der to have a comprehensive assessment of 
the impacts of establishing an En try/Exit System, a data collectio n exercise was carried out at 
all external border crossing points, between 31 August and 6 September 2009, with collection 
of the number of border crossing s by EU citizens and third-count ry nationals, visa holders and 
non visa holders. 
 
EN 30   EN At the end of 2009 an additional study was launched by the Commission to analyse and 
estimate the development and maintenance costs of the Entry/Exit System and Registered 
Traveller Programme. 
2. The Commission launched a study under the Eu ropean Borders Fund to analyse the 
feasibility, the practical implications and th e impacts of a EU-wide electronic system for 
travel authorisation (ESTA), applicable to th ird-country nationals not  subject to the visa 
requirement before their en try into the Schengen Area. 
At national level , several Member States made reference to  preparations relevant to the future 
Entry/Exit System and the Registered Travelle r Programme (CZ, IE, EE, ES, FR, IT, HU, NL, 
AT, SK, FI, UK). In a number of cases, they al so reported on the development of automated 
border crossing points, also often called ‘e -borders’, which sh ould facilitate the 
implementation of the two EU initiatives. 
FI confirmed that it was preparing for the introduction of the future EU Entry/Exit System 
although it has had a national entr y/exit system in place for a long time. Two other Member 
States (CZ, HU) indicated that they were curre ntly examining how to establish the Entry/Exit 
system. Some Member States ( EE, FR, SK) referred to the data  collection exercise which was 
carried out at all extern al border crossing points. 
As to the Registered Traveller Programme, one Me mber State (NL) reported on a pilot project 
called FLUX, launched in 2008. The project consis ted of the creation of a group of ‘bona 
fide’ frequent travellers, US and Dutch na tionals, who, following registration of personal 
details and biometric characteristics, as well as a background check, should benefit from 
facilitated crossing of the border points. FI co nfirmed that the Border Guards Strategy on 
automated border checks already took into account the future implementation of the fast-track 
procedure and registered  travellers programs. 
Some Member States (ES, FR, HU, PT, FI, UK ) reported on the implementation of automated 
border crossing points or e-borde rs, which in the future could support the Entry/Exit System 
and fast-track procedures. E-borders were repo rted to be in place in three Member States, 
namely FR, FI and UK (since 2005). In FR, fo r example, since November 2009, 15 specific 
control points have been set up for EU citizens in  Roissy and Orly airpor ts. Twelve more will 
be added in provincial ai rports in 2010. Other Member States (ES, HU) were in the process of 
developing such systems. NL, with a project entitled NO-Q included in their Border 
Management Renewal Programme, used ICT to allow for automated border crossings of EU 
citizens via the national airport,  Schiphol. ES aimed to intro duce a national automated border 
control system for EU citizens with a biometric passport, while HU examined the possibility 
of an e-gate at the Budapest airport. 
EE referred to its participation in EU work ing groups on ESTA. RO referred a national 
system managing information on third-county nationals entering/exiting the country. IE 
described a similar national measure, namely their Border Information System which would 
ensure that all passenger informa tion collected by carriers prior to travel was sent to an Irish 
Border Operations Centre (I-BOC) for screening.  The UK, finally, indicated that it collected 
and processed Passenger Name Records (PNR) through its e-Borders programme, which was 
considered to be similar to the Entry/Exit Syst em. It also referred to its Automated Clearance 
System in place, which allowed eligible passengers (adult British and EEA citizens, who held new biometric e-Passports) to pass through immigr ation controls via a secure automated gate. 
 
EN 31   EN Commitment: III.(f) intensify cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit  in 
order to strengthen control of the external bo rder and to combat illegal immigration by 
increasing the European Union's aid for the tr aining and equipping of t hose countries' staff 
responsible for managing migration flows; 
At EU level , the European Commission invited in July 2009 both Turkey and Libya to 
establish a dialogue and coope ration aimed at jointly mana ging mixed migration flows 
transiting through their te rritories, including with  the aim of preventing them from reaching 
the EU borders in the Mediterran ean and of providing relief to the Member States located in 
that region, which are exposed to disproportionate  influxes of migrants. The specific offers of 
cooperation made by the Commissi on to Libya have not yet been  accepted by the authorities 
of the latter for discussion. The dialogue with Turk ey has started, thanks in particular to the 
visit jointly carried out in Ankara on the 5 November 2009 by the Commission Vice-President 
responsible for migration and the Swedish Minister for Migratio n and Asylum Policy 
representing the Council Presid ency, as a result of which Tu rkish authorities agreed to 
intensify their cooperatio n with the EU to meet the comm on challenge of managing migration 
flows and to tackle irregular migration in pa rticular, and to resume the negotiation of the 
readmission agreement. 
Under the Thematic Programme (TP) “Cooperati on with Third Countries in the areas of 
Migration and Asylum” the EU supports seve ral projects, which started in 2009, aiming at 
providing assistance in the fight  against illegal migration, in cluding through training of the 
competent authorities in third countries. In particular, proj ect "MIEUX" aims at providing 
third-country authorities with short-term tec hnical assistance to impr ove their capacities to 
fight against illegal migration. 
At national level , Member States have also developed agreements, and other forms of bilateral 
and multilateral cooperation, with third countries of origin and of transit in order to strengthen 
the external border and to combat illegal immigration. 
Some agreements focussed exclusively on borde r control and illegal immigration, while in 
others, these aspects were embedded in wide r cooperation agreements, projects and other 
measures (BG, EL, FR, IT, LV, NL, AT, SE, UK), for example as part of readmission agreements, the activities of Immigration Liai son Officers (FR, NL, SE), EU-funded projects 
such as AENEAS (EL), joint oper ations with third countries (B G, SK), development aid (AT) 
and participation in internationa l and EU networks and platform s, such as TAIEX and the EU 
Border Assistance Mission (e.g. EE, LV, LT). Thes e, at the same time, also covered issues 
such as human trafficking, cross-border an d organised crime, administrative capacity 
building, international protecti on, rescue operations and devel opment. PT emphasised its 
cooperation with Portuguese-speak ing countries in different asp ects of migration management 
and border control, providing te chnical assistance and training trainers. EL referred to the 
need to be able to exchange information in real  time (24/7) with author ities of third countries. 
Agreements and other forms of cooperation focusing exclusively on border control and illegal 
immigration included bilateral cooperation agreem ents with third countri es (BG, EE, CY, HU, 
SK), joint projects and operations (CZ, LT, PT , FI, UK), twinning (HU, SI, FI, UK), technical 
services and support (FR) and contacts (DK). Measures included in these agreements and 
other forms of cooperation primarily covere d capacity building of  border control and 
surveillance authorities and their operational staff in countries of  origin and transit (BG, ES, 
FR IT, HU, NL, AT, RO, UK). IT, for example,  reported on training of  Libyan officials and 
on mutual training between Italian and Algerian police forces. NL referred to the provision of 
 
EN 32   EN advice and sharing of experiences on border c ontrol with relevant authorities in third 
countries. UK referred to the training of borde r guards and provision of technical equipment 
in Ethiopia. ES established speci alised cooperation teams. Some  Member States also deployed 
resources (IT) such as dogs, trucks, patrol boa ts and ICT equipment or provided other forms 
of technical support (CZ, PT).  LT reported on a development c ooperation project concerning 
the training of Georgian border police members and their dogs. 
Two multilateral forms of coope ration were mentioned. FR referred to the Conference of 
Interior Ministries of Occide ntal Mediterranean (CIMO), whic h included the participation of 
ES, FR, IT, MT, PT. CIMO aimed to exchange  operational informati on on illegal migration 
and organised crime among border staff operating in the harbours of the Mediterranean. BG 
reported on the Black Sea Litto ral States Border/Coast Guar d Cooperation Forum, in which 
countries also exchanged experiences. The Seahorse project, undertaken with FRONTEX, 
was also highlighted by some Member States (ES, FR, PT, SK). 
Commitment: III.(g) improve the modalities and frequency of the Schengen evaluation 
process  in accordance with the Council conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2008. 
At EU level , the Commission proposed on 4 March 2009 a Regulation and a Decision on the 
establishment of an evaluation mechanism to ve rify the correct application of the Schengen 
acquis31. While the Council welcomed the proposal in general, questions on the competences 
of the Member States within a modified ev aluation mechanism were raised. The European 
Parliament rejected the proposals as they did not foresee the adoption in co-decision. These 
proposals need to be reassessed in the light of  the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. 
At national level , all Member States acknow ledge that the Schengen ev aluation process is an 
important review mechanism which needs to be  not only maintained but also strengthened. 
Many Member States participated actively in the discussion of the Commission proposal in 
2009 and hope was expressed that it will be possib le to achieve agreement on the basis of an 
amended Commission proposal in 2010. 
EL emphasised that any Schengen evaluation mu st go hand in hand with flanking support to 
those Member States which are faced with partic ular difficulties at their borders, based on the 
spirit of solidarity, and that exchange of know-how and best practice should be promoted 
As regards Member States not yet part of the Schengen area, BG noted that its evaluations had 
so far been successful, CY reported on preparat ions it has undertaken  for future Schengen 
evaluations and RO also reported on its prior ity to achieve accession to the Schengen area. 
IV. ASYLUM  
Main commitment: Construct a Europe of asylum 
Commitment: IV.(a) establish in 2009 a European support office  with the task of facilitating 
the exchange of information, analyses and experience among Member States, and developing 
practical cooperation between the administrat ions in charge of examining asylum 
applications. That office will not have the power to examine applications or to take decisions 
                                                 
31 COM(2009) 102 final and COM(2009) 105 final of 4 March 2009. 
 
EN 33   EN but will use the shared knowledge of countries of  origin to help to bring national practices, 
procedures, and consequently decision s, into line with one another; 
At EU level , the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation establishing the European 
Asylum Support Office (E ASO) on 18 February 200932. Political agreement on the text was 
reached by Council and Parliament in Nove mber 2009. EASO will coordinate and step up 
practical cooperation on asylum between Member  States, so helping to  harmonise different 
national practices in comp lement of legislation. 
The Office will support Member States in their efforts to implement a more consistent and 
fairer asylum policy, for example by helping to  identify good practices, organising training at 
European level and improving acce ss to accurate information on countries of origin. It will 
also be responsible for coordinating support te ams made up of national experts that will be 
deployed at the request of Member  States faced with particular pressures. It will also provide 
scientific and technical assistance for the de velopment of asylum policy and legislation. 
The Office will be set up in the form of an  agency, an independent European body. The 
Commission and the Member States will be re presented on the Management Board, which 
will be the Office's governing body. The Office will work closely w ith the authorities 
responsible for asylum in the Member States and with the Office of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees. There will also be a Consultative Forum for dialogue with civil 
society organisations. 
The Regulation creating the EASO will be fo rmally adopted in 2010, and the Office will 
therefore be set up in the course of 2010. Its headquarters will be established in Valletta, 
Malta. 
At national level , Member States strongly supported th e establishment of the EASO, a support 
which was essential quickly to reach a politi cal agreement between Council and Parliament. 
SE organised a seminar in Octo ber 2009 to reflect on the future  tasks and objectives of the 
EASO. Many Member States, notably through th e GDISC network, engaged in projects which 
prepared the ground for future EASO activitie s: the Temporary Desk on Iraq, the European 
Asylum Curriculum, the European C ountry of Origin Sponsorship, etc. 
Commitment: IV.(b) invite the Commission to present proposals for es tablishing, in 2010 if 
possible and in 2012 at the latest, a single asylum procedure  comprising common guarantees 
and for adopting a uniform status  for refugees and the beneficiari es of subsidiary protection; 
At EU level , the Commission adopted proposals to amend the Qualification Directive33 and 
Asylum Procedures Directive34 on 21 October 200935. The aim is to offer a higher degree of 
protection to victims of persecu tions and to further harmonise and consolidate substantive and 
procedural standards of protection across the Union. 
                                                 
32 COM(2009) 66 final of 18 February 2009. 
33 Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status 
of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need 
international protection and the content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12. 
34 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of  1 December 2005 on minimum sta ndards on procedures in Member 
States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13. 
35 COM (2009) 551 final and COM (2009) 554 final of 21 October 2009. 
 
EN 34   EN The proposal for the revised Qualification Direc tive is expected to simplify and consolidate 
substantive standards of prot ection and lead to enhanced coherence between EU asylum 
instruments, thus improving efficiency of the asylum process. In particular, the proposal 
clarifies certain legal concepts used to defi ne the grounds for international protection. By 
reducing room for uncertainty and administrative error, by clarifying th e legal concepts and 
thus simplifying their application, the proposal st rengthens the cap acities of the authorities to 
deal with cases of unfounded and abusive applications and more generally to process claims 
more rapidly while reaching solid decisions at firs t instance. To ensure a greater uniformity of 
protection, it eliminates the differences in the level of rights gran ted to refugees and 
beneficiaries of subsidiary prot ection which can no longer be consid ered as justif ied, such as 
the duration of residence permits , access to social welfare, h ealth care and the labour market. 
The specific integration challenges faced by be neficiaries of international protection are 
addressed by facilitating the recognition of their qualifications, their access to vocational training as well as to integration facilities. 
The proposal for the revised Asylum Procedures  Directive aims at improving the coherence 
between EU asylum instruments and at simplifying and consolidating procedural 
arrangements across the Union. The proposal e xplicitly provides for a single examination 
procedure, reduces exceptions to and develops further comm on procedural guarantees, and 
reinforces the capacity of asylum  authorities to deliver robust d ecisions within the prescribed 
time limits. The envisaged list of common guara ntees includes reinforced arrangements on 
personal interviews, better access to free lega l assistance, and additional guarantees for 
applicants with special needs, such as vi ctims of torture or unaccompanied minors. By 
frontloading services, expertise and advice, the pr oposal is expected to improve the quality of 
asylum decision making, thus leading to better defendability of first instance determinations 
and reduced recourse to appeals and subseque nt applications. These measures are also 
instrumental in discouraging abuse, improvi ng applicants' compliance with procedural 
obligations and increasing the overall e fficiency of the asylum process. 
It is expected that discussions on the two proposals in the C ouncil and the European 
Parliament will take approximately two years. 
Commitment: IV.(c) establish pro cedures, in the case of crisis in a Member State faced with 
a massive influx of asylum-seekers , to enable the secondment of officials from other Member 
States to help that State and the demonstratio n of effective solidarity  with that State by 
mobilising existing EU programmes more rapidly. 
At EU level , the European Asylum Support Office basic regulation (see IV.(a) above) 
provides for a separate chapter devoted to th e coordination by the Offi ce of asylum support 
teams made up of asylum experts who will pr ovide operational support to Member States 
subject to strong pressures on their asylum syst ems. These teams should in particular provide 
expertise about inte rpreting services, information on the c ountries of origin and knowledge of 
the handling and management of asylum cases. 
At national level , several Member States (BE, LV, LU, NL, UK) reported having set up or 
taken part in initiatives to help other Memb er States facing a massive influx of asylum 
seekers. These included establ ishing specific procedures fo r such assistance (UK), the 
provision of support through FRON TEX operations (LU, UK) and participation in the High 
Level Working Group on Particular Pressures wi thin the framework of the GDISC (BE, CZ, 
NL, UK). Member States involv ed in the GDISC Working Group referred to the development 
of a Catalogue of Services wh ich described the different t ypes and methods of practical 
 
EN 35   EN support, both onsite and from a distance, which members of this working group could offer to 
EU Member States facing particular pressure s. One Member State (NL) indicated that 
services offered within the GDISC framework ra nged from an interprete rs’ pool to training 
and advice on the reception modalities and asylum procedure. 
Two Member States (NL, UK) mentioned that they had already provide d practical support to 
Member States facing a massive influx of asyl um seekers in 2009 (EL, CY, MT). Within the 
GDISC framework, NL and UK participated in a pilot project on particul ar pressures in MT. 
NL provided expertise and training with rega rd to medical advice, age testing, language 
analysis (to identify cases of possible ‘nationa lity swapping’), return  and document analysis. 
UK delivered training in language analysis. MT re ported that this project offered a relevant 
form of assistance. UK, in cooperation with NL , also seconded two qua lity assurance officers 
to EL to provide training to the national police on asylum decisi on-making and on language 
analysis. In addition, CY and NL reported on a project in CY whic h provided advice on the 
reception of asylum seekers and on the organisati on of the asylum application procedure. NL 
reported that discussions were taking place to launch a similar project in EL. LV indicated 
that it had not yet used the national existi ng procedure put in place for this purpose. 
Another Member State (AT) mentioned its invo lvement in practical cooperation with other 
Member States’ asylum authorities by means of  working visits, exchange of information and 
through institutionalised networks such as Eurasil. 
For those Member States which are faced with spec ific and disproportionate pressures on 
their national asylum systems , due in particular to thei r geographical or demographic 
situation, solidarity shall also aim to promote,  on a voluntary and coordinated basis, better 
reallocation of beneficiaries of international protection from su ch Member States to others, 
while ensuring that asylum syst ems are not abused. In  accordance with those principles, the 
Commission, in consultation with the Office of  the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees where appropriate, will facilitate su ch voluntary and coordinated reallocation. 
At EU level , the Commission launched in June 2009 th e idea of a pilot project consisting of 
the relocation to other Member States of beneficiaries of in ternational prot ection currently 
present in Malta. The June European Council supported the project, given the particular 
situation in that Member State. 
In mid-July Commission official s visited Malta to meet all th e stakeholders and learn from 
past and current experiences (notably a proj ect between France and Malta that led to the 
relocation to France of 95 beneficiaries of international protection). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) participated in this mission. 
In mid-September some Member States declared their intention to relocate beneficiaries of 
international protection from Malta. The Commission reported to  the September JHA Council 
on this matter and asked for more Member St ates to get involved. The European Council 
conclusions of 30 October 2009 not ed the launch of the pilot pr oject and urged more Member 
States to participate in the project. By the end of 2009, te n Member States (DE, FR, HU, LU, 
PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK) had declar ed their intention to join the pilot project and to relocate 
about 255 beneficiaries of international protection. 
In parallel to the pilot projec t, a research study had been launched to look at all the 
implications and impacts of relocation at EU le vel. Results should be available in the summer 
of 2010. 
 
EN 36   EN At national level , some Member States reported that  their asylum systems were under 
particular pressure (EL, CY, MT). Another Me mber State (BE) reporte d a saturation of its 
reception centres for asylum seekers due to a structural lack of capacity. The common 
initiative of EL, IT, CY and MT on combating illegal immigration in the Mediterranean (see 
III.(d) above) urged other Member States to consider relocating beneficiaries of international protection from Member States facing specific and disproportionate pr essures due to their 
geographical or demographic circumstances. CY recalled its support for relocation but 
indicated it had no agreements or contacts with  other Member States as regards relocation. 
In 2009, DE and FR provided support to MT by voluntarily relocating beneficiaries of 
international protection. DE relocat ed 11 beneficiaries of internat ional protection as part of a 
bilateral agreement, while FR relocated 95 benefi ciaries of international protection, as part of 
a project co-financed by the Europe an Refugee Fund Community Actions. 
As regards the intra-EU relocation pilot pr oject to be implemented in 2010 concerning 
beneficiaries of international pr otection currently in Malta, in addition to the ten participating 
Member States (indicated above) other Memb er States (BE, BG) reported that their 
participation in the pilot projec t was being discussed. MT reported  that the participation of ten 
Member State was welcome but that wider part icipation would have given it a more truly 
European dimension and considered that furthe r intra-EU relocation, be yond the pilot project, 
is required. 
DK stated that it does not support relocation betw een Member States, considering that this 
might constitute a pull factor; instead it c onsidered solidarity should take place through 
FRONTEX, the EASO (see IV.(a) above), othe r practical cooperation and the solidarity 
funds; LT supported that position. 
Specific funding under existing EU financial in struments should be provided for this 
reallocation, in accordance with budgetary procedures; 
At EU level , the relocation pilot project with Malt a to be implemented in 2010 could be 
financed with resources from the European  Refugee Fund (ERF) Community Actions (2009 
budget). The 2008 budget of the ERF Community Actions provided about € 700 000 for the 
French project which led to the relocation to  France of 95 beneficiaries of international 
protection in July 2009. 
At national level , Member States also referred to the usefulness of accessing EU funding for 
relocation projects. FR in particular menti oned that its 2009 relocation project under the ERF 
Community Actions received up to 90 % co-financing. 
Commitment: IV.(d) strengthen cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees  to ensure better protection for pe ople outside the territory of EU 
Member States who request protection, in particular by: 
– moving, on a voluntary basis, towards the re settlement within the EU of people 
placed under the protection of the Office of the UNHCR, particularly as part of 
regional protection programmes; 
 
EN 37   EN At EU level , the Commission adopted on 2 Septembe r 2009 a proposal for the establishment 
of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme36. This proposal consisted of a Communication and a 
proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council amending Decision 
573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee F und. The aims of the Joint EU Resettlement 
Programme are (1) further to strengthen the hum anitarian impact of th e EU by ensuring that it 
continues to give greater and be tter targeted support to international prot ection of refugees 
through voluntary resettlement, (2) to enhance th e strategic use of rese ttlement by ensuring 
that it is properly integrated into the Union's external and humanitarian policies generally, and (3) to better streamline the EU's resettlement e fforts so as to ensure that the benefits are 
delivered in the most cost-effective manner.  The Programme will primarily consist of a 
mechanism which allows for the setting of co mmon annual priorities on resettlement and 
more effective use of the financial assistance  available through the ERF "pledging" exercise. 
This will be complemented by strengthened pr actical cooperation, enhanced effectiveness of 
external asylum policies and a regular eval uation of the Joint Resettlement Programme. 
The Joint EU Resettlement Programme will also consist of strengthened practical cooperation 
with respect to resettlement  within the EU. This will involve both the governments of 
Member States, as well as NGOs and will be carried out in close cooperation with UNHCR. 
The European Asylum Support Office basic regulat ion (see IV.(a) above) contains separate 
provisions providing for practical  cooperation on resettlement. 
At national level
, an increasing number of Member States  reported having resettled refugees 
from different regions of the wo rld, nearly in all cases in c ooperation with UNHCR. Particular 
importance was attached to the resettlement of  Iraqis after the Council agreed in November 
2008 to resettle about 10  000 of them in the EU. In 2008 and 2009, BE, DK, DE, EI, IT, FR, 
LU, NL, PT, FI, SE and UK resettled Iraqis. RO set up with UNHCR an Evacuation Transit Facility, and SK temporarily hoste d refugees to be resettled el sewhere. Some Member States 
established for the first time resettlement progr ammes (RO, PT, FR) or started a reflection on 
establishing them (HU, SK). 
Some Member States reported having resettle ment programmes in place in cooperation with 
UNHCR (CZ, DK, IE, FR, LU, NL, FI, SE, UK). BE established a pilot project for the 
resettlement of refugees in 2009 and HU planned to run one in  2010 within the framework of 
its Annual Program 2010 of the European Refugee Fund. 
The size of the annual quota of  persons accepted for resettlement varies from one Member 
State to another (e.g. on an annua l basis, SE resettles about 1900 persons, DK resettles about 
500 persons, IE accepted 200 persons, FR dealt with hundreds of cases and FI and UK each 
referred to 750 resettled persons). Some Member States (e.g. BE and IE ) indicated that they 
favoured the resettlement of par ticular categories of vulnerabl e refugees in line with the 
UNHCR resettlement criteria (e.g. BE referred to women at risk and FI mentioned refugees 
with medical needs). 
As to future measures, a few Member States indicated that they were considering their 
potential involvement in resettlement activity (BG,  PL), while others stat ed that they did not 
plan to take part in resettlement activities in  the near future (EE, LV, AT). BE and HU both 
reported that they were consid ering taking further steps for the establishment of a national 
resettlement programme, on the ba sis of the results of the pilot projects in which they were 
                                                
 
36 COM(2009) 447 final and COM(2009) 456 final of 2 September 2009. 
 
EN 38   EN currently participating (BE) or which they were  planning (HU). CY and MT indicated that the 
specific and disproportionate pressures in thei r own systems meant they were for the time 
being only in a position to particip ate as observers in EU efforts. 
– inviting the Commission, in liaison with the Office of the UNHCR, to present 
proposals for cooperation with third countries  in order to strengthen the capacities 
of their protection systems; 
At EU level , the Commission informed the Member States on the results of an external 
evaluation of the Regional Prot ection Programmes (RPPs) and put forward a first set of 
recommendations for their improvement. As an  overall assessment of RPPs, the evaluation 
report concludes that, based on the evidence and stakeholder views, the concept of a RPP has 
constituted a first and successful step toward s establishing a mechanism to increase the 
capacity of areas which are close to  regions of origin, or which ar e areas of transit, to protect 
refugees through the three durable solutions, na mely Repatriation, Local integration and / or 
Resettlement. The evaluation has also proposed  some improvements for the implementation 
of RPPs, which relate mostly to the manage ment of RPPs, the available resources, the 
engagement of authorities of th ird countries and, finally, the st rengthening of resettlement to 
Europe. The Commission has proposed to con tinue the current RPPs in Tanzania and 
Ukraine/Belarus/Republic of Moldova and to ex tend RPPs to two new regions, namely North 
Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia) and the Horn of Africa (neighbouring countries of Somalia, 
namely Kenya, Djibouti and Yemen). 
The Commission has started discussions with  UNHCR on the possible components of these 
RPPs. The authorities of the beneficiary countries  will be involved in these discussions at an 
early stage as well. Within the context of the High Level Working Group of the Council, an 
EU mission visited Kenya in December 2009, inter al ia to discuss how RPPs can contribute to 
strengthen the asylum capacity in Kenya. 
The EU also supports through the Thematic Programme (TP) “Cooperation with Third 
Countries in the areas of  Migration and Asylum” several othe r projects, which also started in 
2009, proposed and implemented by other inte rnational organisations, as well as non-
governmental organisations, which aim at improvi ng the legal and social protection of asylum 
seekers and refugees, at monitoring safe and dignified return and at strengthening reception 
capacities. Support to actions in the area of asylum and refugee protection remains a priority 
in the TP call for proposals 2009-2010. 
At national level , Member States considered that this commitment was the responsibility of 
the Commission. Some of them (UK) reporte d on how they supported Regional Protection 
Programmes in third countries such as Ukraine. 
Commitment: IV.(e) invite the Member States to provide the personnel responsible for 
external border controls with training  in the rights and obli gations pertaining to 
international protection. 
At EU level , FRONTEX has provided training to Memb er States’ border guards with regard 
to human rights and refugee law. In its pr oposal for a Council decision as regards the 
surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of FRONTEX coordinated operations37 
                                                 
37 COM(2009) 658 final of 27 November 2009. 
 
EN 39   EN the Commission proposed that border guards pa rticipating in FRONTEX maritime operations 
should be trained with regard to relevant pr ovisions of human right s and refugee law. The 
Schengen Catalogue updated by the Council in March 2009 reco mmends the development of 
specialized and advanced courses for border gua rds on human rights and dealing with asylum 
seekers. 
At national level , almost all Member States confirmed that they were providing training to 
personnel responsible for external border cont rol on international pr otection and protection 
sensitivity (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, 
FI, SE, UK) or had prepared a training plan (BG, RO). 
With regard to the categories of staff traine d, most Member States referred to training of 
border officials (BE, CZ, EE, EL, FR, IT, LV , LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK). 
Others mentioned the training of  other officials invol ved in field of asylum and immigration 
(FR, IE, MT, AT, SK, SE), such as immigr ation officers (IE), immigration police (MT), 
national police (SE), detention centre staff (FR,  MT, SK) and asylum department staff (SK). 
Other groups mentioned included NGOs, social workers and lawy ers (EL). One Member State 
(ES) stated that all public em ployees and others working with  applicants for international 
protection, refugees and benefici aries of subsidiary protection should receive pr oper training, 
as stipulated in national asylum law. The cont ent of the training varies , covering issues such 
as rights and obligations under in ternational protection (FR, NL, PT), fundamental rights (DE, 
LT, HU, MT, PT, SE, UK), asylum law (FR, IT , LT, HU, PT, SK), detention (SK), reception 
conditions (EL), profiling and risk analysis  when conducting border monitoring (LT) and 
cooperation with representatives of the third se ctor (SK). Several Memb er States referred to 
the involvement of UNHCR in the delivery of tr aining (BE, DE, IE, LT, HU, PT, SK), while 
two Member States (BE, DE) referred to FR ONTEX Border Guard tr aining programmes. FI 
has implemented fully the European Common Core Curriculum (CCC) for border guards in 
its training programs. CCC includes all necessary aspects of fundamental rights and international protection. 
BG reported on a tripartite memorandum of u nderstanding between th e Chief Directorate 
“Border Police” of the Ministry of Interior, th e UNHCR Office in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian 
Helsinki Committee. 
V.
 GLOBAL APPROACH TO MIGRATION  
Main commitment: Create a comprehensive partne rship with the countries of origin and of 
transit to encourage the synergy between migration and development 
Commitment: V.(a) conclude EU-level or bilateral agreements with the countries of origin 
and of transit  containing, as appropriate, clauses on the opportunities for legal migration 
adapted to the labour market si tuation in the Member Stat es, the contro l of illegal 
immigration, readmission, and the development of  the countries of origin and of transit; 
At EU level , the Mobility Partnership with Georgi a was signed on 30 November. 16 Member 
States participate: BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, FR, IT, LT , LV, NL, PL, RO, SE, UK. The 
Partners support information campaigns on the ways  of legal entry and stay to the EU and its 
Member States. Several Member States also  support labour migra tion programs. The ongoing 
Mobility Partnership with the Republic of Mo ldova (signed by BG, CZ, DE, EL, FR, IT, CY, 
LT, HU, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, SE) includes seve ral actions on facilitati on of legal migration, 
 
EN 40   EN most notably the flagship project led by SE with 12 Member States, which provides capacity 
building to National Employment Agency, provide s for information campaigns on the ways of 
legal entry and stay to the EU and its Member  States. Several Member States also support 
labour migration programs. 
The ongoing Mobility Partnership with Cape Verd e (signed by ES, FR, LU, NL, PT) contains 
several actions aiming at the facilitation of legal migration. One of the initiative aims at reinforcing the Centre on Migration Inform ation and Reintegration (CAMPO) in order inter 
alia to provide information on legal migration possi bilities and promote retu rn of migrants to 
Cape Verde. Other initiatives include improving security of travel documents and promoting 
the role of diaspora. Some Member State (FR, PT) participating in the Mobility Partnership 
have signed bilateral agr eements that include provisions on labour migration. 
At national level
, several Member States reported on their participation in the Mobility 
Partnership with the Republic of Moldova (BG, CZ, DE, EL, IT, CY, LT, HU, PL, PT, RO, 
SI, SK, SE), Georgia (BE, BG, DK, EE, FR, LV, SE) and Cape Verde (ES, LU, PT). As to future measures, one Member State (LT) also mentioned its intention to participate in the 
Mobility Partnership with Georgia. 
Two Member States mentioned the setting up of  new, more comprehensive and integrated 
agreements regulating legal migration, the figh t against illegal immi gration, cooperation to 
development and integration (ES: Framework Agreements for Cooperation on Immigration; 
FR: Agreement related to Concerted Manageme nt of Migration Flows). These agreements 
included provisions concerning the movement of  persons and students, labour migration, the 
fight against illegal immigration (i.e. read mission provisions and police cooperation) and 
development (i.e. social and economic re integration, development projects with 
underdeveloped regions). ES had signed these new agreements with six countries (Cape 
Verde, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Mali an d Niger), while FR had concluded these with 
nine countries (Gabon, Benin, Congo, Senegal, T unisia, Mauritius, Cape Verde, Burkina 
Faso, Cameroon) and was negotiating with thr ee other countries (Mali, Egypt, Equatorial 
Guinea). 
RO referred to a series of ag reements with the Republic of Moldova that it has signed (on 
local border traffic) or woul d like to sign (on cooperation on immigration and asylum, on 
protocol for the EU readmission agreem ent and on a Joint Contact Centre). 
Under this commitment, many Member States re ferred to bilateral agreements with third 
countries which, however, did not necessarily reflect the concept of an integrated and 
comprehensive approach, such as readmission ag reements (BE, EE, FI, IT, CY, LU, AT, UK), 
police cooperation agreements (AT), visa f acilitation agreements (AT), memorandum of 
understanding on labour mobility (DK), agreements  on labour migration (BG, IT), agreements 
to combat illegal immigration (CY, HU) and/ or agreements or pilo t projects related to 
temporary migration (LT, PT). PT reported on a 2009 protocol proposal for admitting Cape 
Verdeans for temporary or permanent subord inate professional activities, as well as 
professional internships, within the framework of the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde. EL reported on its involvement in an AE NEAS project focusing on readmission and 
reintegration in Albania. DE reported on a draft framework agreement on cooperation in 
migration issues with Ghana. 
 
EN 41   EN the European Council invites the Member States and the Commission to inform and consult 
each other on the objectives and limits of such bilateral agreemen ts, and on readmission 
agreements; 
At EU level , In September 2009, Commission issued its Staff Working Document on the 
evaluation of the pilot Mobility  Partnerships. The Member St ates were consulted in the 
process of preparation of the doc ument during two expert meetings. 
At national level , DK reported that it provides genera l information. CY reported that it 
informs other Member States and the Comm ission including during Schengen evaluation 
procedures. RO note that it had sent its draft local border traffic agreement with the Republic 
of Moldova to the Commission for an opinion. 
Commitment: V.(b) encourage Member States , as far as they are able, to offer the nationals 
of partner countries to th e East and South of Europe  opportunities for legal immigration  
adapted to the labour market situation in Memb er States, enabling those nationals to acquire 
training or professional experience and accumulate  savings that they c an use for the benefit 
of their home countries. 
At EU level , the Mobility Partnerships negotiate d by the Commission include the three 
priority areas of the Global A pproach to Migration (legal mi gration, illegal migration and 
migration/development). The Mobility Partners hip with Georgia (see  V.(a) above) includes 
support for information campaigns on the ways of legal entry and stay to the EU and its Member States. Several Member States also  support labour migra tion programs. The ongoing 
Mobility Partnership with the Republic of Moldova (see V.(a) above) also includes several 
actions on facilitation of legal migration, most notably the flagship project led by SE with 12 
Member States, which provides capacity build ing to the National Employment Agency, and 
information campaigns on the ways of legal entry and stay to the EU and its Member States. In this framework circular migration and pl anned return migration is promoted. Social 
remittances are also the focus in the progra mme of special training for Moldovan workers 
abroad. Several Member States also  support labour migration programs. 
At national level
, to ensure that nationals of partner c ountries to the East and South of Europe 
had opportunities for legal migr ation, two types of approach were identified amongst the 
Member States reporting on this commitment (BG, DK, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, HU, PL, 
SE). One group of Member States  referred implicitly to and/or  repeated thei r national labour 
policy, as described under I.(a) above, as offeri ng specific opportunities for citizens from 
countries in East and South Europe (EL, ES, FR, IT, PL, SE). One Member State (IT) 
reported on the establishment of preferred entry quotas for citizens from certain countries of 
East and South Europe (e.g. Republic of Mol dova, Albania) and anot her (EL) mentioned 
agreements favouring labour migration of seas onal workers (e.g. Albania and Egypt). Other 
Member States reported on their labour migration policy which facilitated the recruitment and work possibilities of foreigners in general (DK, SE) and from specific countries (i.e. Ukraine, 
Belarus, Russian Federation, Republic of Moldov a) (PL) on their territory. One Member State 
(LT) reported on the existence of policy guidelin es which gave priority to highly-skilled 
workers from source countries (i.e. Belarus,  Ukraine, Republic of Moldova and South 
Caucasus countries). 
A second group of Member States referred to initiatives and/or projects devel oped within the 
framework of the Mobility Part nership with the Republic of Moldova (BG, DE, HU), which 
 
EN 42   EN encouraged the legal migration of Moldova ns by providing them with information on 
opportunities for legal migration (HU). 
FR also reported on the negotiation of agreements related to mobility of young people and 
labour migration with countries of East and South Europe (e.g. the former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Russia). ES mentioned the signature of Agreements 
regulating and managing Employ ment Migration Flows (e.g. with Morocco, Mauritania, 
Ukraine) which offered seasonal and stable  legal migration opportunities. Finally, HU 
referred to trans-border cooperation to favour legal migration of ethnic national communities 
living in adjacent countries. 
The European Council invites Member States to en courage in this context forms of temporary 
or circular migration, in order to prevent a brain drain; 
At EU level , under the Thematic Programme “Cooperatio n with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the EU supports seve ral projects, which started in 2009, aiming at 
promoting circular migration schemes, includi ng a project fosteri ng the bonds between the 
Ghanaian diaspora and their communities of origin, by making their remittances more effective and promoting circular migration for th e development of the private sector in Ghana. 
Support to circular migration schemes remains a priority in the Thema tic Programme’s call 
for proposals 2009-2010. 
At national level
, several Member States set up projec ts and/or agreements encouraging 
temporary or circular migration (ES, FR, NL, PT ) or indicated that they were planning to do 
so (SE, UK). IT reported that it has for se veral years has addresse d this issue by providing 
significant quota of seasona l workers (80 000 in 2009). 
Two Member States (ES, FR) referred to th e new, more comprehensive and integrated 
agreements (see V.(a) above) which favoured te mporary and circular migration, including a 
commitment to return. FR provided the exampl e of specific provisions aimed at facilitating 
entry of young nationals from signatory countries, offering them the possibility to have their 
first professional experience in France in view  of increasing their employability in their 
country of origin once returned. 
In addition, NL mentioned the launch of a pilot project on circular migration aimed at 
encouraging trained labour migrants from Indone sia and South Africa to work and learn in the 
Netherlands for a maximum of two years. The project included, for example, measures to 
facilitate the recognition of skills and compet ences acquired in the Netherlands, in order to 
favour return and reintegration in the home countries. EE also i ndicated the simplification of 
legal requirements to work in Estonia as a shor t term temporary migrant. PT referred to a pilot 
project which offered Ukrainian c itizens the opportunity to work for six months in Portugal in 
very specific sectors of the economy (i.e. hot el, agriculture and rest aurant) on a temporary 
visa. The project included reintegration support  measures for those migrants returning to 
Ukraine, such as the set up of professional projects. 
As to future measures, LU reported on a provisi on related to circular migration within the 
framework of the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde and on the possibility to activate it in 
the future. SE mentioned the creation of a parliamentary committee to explore and propose 
measures to facilitate circular migration. UK i ndicated its intention to develop the concept of 
circular migration. 
 
EN 43   EN Commitment: V.(c) pursue policies of coopera tion with the countries of origin and of 
transit in order to deter or  prevent illegal immigration, in particular by capacity-building  in 
those countries; 
At EU level , a number of projects in third countries aim to support capacity building in the 
fight against irregular migration, funde d both under thematic and under geographic 
instruments. One such example is the project Seahorse Cooperation Centres, which promotes 
and encourages interregional cooperation (Maghreb-Sub-Sahara n Africa), collaboration and 
dialogue on the management of migratory fl ows, including transit and migration, by 
networking Immigration Authoriti es. Another example is the project MIEUX, a facility 
aiming to provide short-term technical assistance  to third countries to help them prevent and 
manage illegal migration. Assistance to third c ountries in the fight against illegal migration 
remains a priority in the Thematic Programme’s call for proposals 2009-2010. 
At national level , several Member States reported th at they supported capacity building in 
third countries, including countries of origin a nd/or countries of trans it (BE, BG, DK, DE, EL, 
ES, FR, IT, CY, HU, MT, NL, AT , PL, PT, RO, FI, SE, UK). So me of the reported capacity 
building and cooperation measures with third co untries included assistance to border control 
authorities, which have been listed under III.(f) above. 
Commitment: V.(d) integrate migration and development policies  more effectively by 
examining how such policies may benefit the regi ons of origin of immi gration, in coherence 
with other aspects of development poli cy and the Millennium Development Goals. 
At EU level , the Commission published in September 2009 a Communication on Policy 
Coherence for Development - Establishing th e policy framework for a whole-of-the-Union 
approach38 with an accompanying report that included a chapter on the coherence of 
migration policy with development policy. Th e Council adopted Conclusions on how to 
enhance synergies between migration and de velopment on that basis in November 2009. 
At national level , several Member States stressed the im portance of integrating migration into 
development policies (BE, BG, DE, FR, IT, MT, NL, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK). 
DK and DE reported that they played active roles in the EU cooperation platform on 
migration and development in Ethiopia. FR re ferred to its new, more comprehensive and 
integrated agreements (see V.(a) above), to an  agreement with the African Development Bank 
to set up a fund to improve transfers to and invest ments in migrants’ countries of origin and to 
the Rabat action plan and the de velopment of a three-year op erational cooperation programme 
for 2009-2011, which included various measures to  enhance the synergie s between migration 
and development. UK referred to its policy gu idelines of 2007, which included guidance on 
remittances, and its general policy on reducing poverty in developing countries through enhancing the link between mi gration and development.  
BE, BG, DK, HU, AT, SK, FI, SE and UK indi cated that their development framework / 
strategies took into account the migration and development nexus. BE, PT and FI reported on the importance of enhancing the synergies betw een migration and development and of their 
active role in the Global Forum on Migration a nd Development (GFMD). In this respect, BE 
organised the first GFMD in 2007 and EL the third GFMD in 2009. FI reported that it 
                                                
 
38 COM (2009) 458 final of 15 September 2009. 
 
EN 44   EN seconded its first liaison officer  to the Finnish embassy in A ddis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2009, 
whose terms of reference included migration a nd development issues. RO reported that its 
national development assistance  budget include co-financing of  projects in the field of 
migration. 
Some Member States reported th at they planned to integrate migration further into their 
development cooperation policies (N L, ES). NL, for example, reported that it was interested 
in further developing cooperation with third c ountries on circular migration, whilst ES was 
including migration issues into the strategies  of its decentralised development agencies. 
The European Council invites Member States and the Commission in this context to focus, 
within the sectoral priorities identi fied with the partner countries, on solidarity development 
projects  that raise the living standards of citizens, fo r example in the areas of nutrition, health 
care, education, vocational  training and employment; 
At EU level , the EU delivers over a half of devel opment assistance in the world, thus 
contributing to address the root causes of migr ation. The Commission aims in particular to 
insert migration issues in its cooperation prog rammes with third countri es as well as through 
specific instruments such as the Thematic Pr ogramme “Cooperation with Third Countries in 
the areas of Migration and Asylum” as well as through geographical instruments such as the 
EDF and the ENPI. Through the Thematic Program me in particular, the EU funds numerous 
projects fostering the links between migratio n and development such as an EU-UN Joint 
Migration and Development Initiative, mana ged by UNDP and aiming at building the 
capacity and providing a platfo rm to facilitate stronger networking and knowledge sharing 
among small size actors working on migration and development issues and at facilitating the 
development and dissemination of global best practices in migration and development, a 
project with the World Bank aiming at supporting the establishment of the Africa Remittances 
Institute, which will have as its core objective the capacity building of Member States of the 
African Union, remittance senders and recipien ts, private sector, universities, and other 
stakeholders, to develop and implement strategies  to use remittances as development tools, as 
well as a project whose overall objective is to promote an effective management of migration 
flows of doctors and nurses betw een Latin American and the EU. 
At national level , several Member States referred to solid arity development projects with third 
countries (BG, DK, ES, FR, IT, LU, MT, PT, FI, SE ). Some of these projec ts related to health 
care (FR, LU, SE) and water and sanitation (FR, MT), while other projects focused on 
education (ES, LU, MT), vocational training (E S, FR, LU), employment  (LU, FI) and local 
development (LU). CY reported that its develo pment assistance focused on health, education, 
nutrition and employment. ES reported on other so lidarity cooperation projects in the field of 
strengthening institutions  in third countries and providing support to vulnerab le groups. DK 
referred to its Region Of Origin Initiative. 
Commitment: V.(e) promote co-development actions  that enable migrants to take part in 
the development of their home countries. 
At EU level , under the Thematic Programme “Cooperatio n with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the EU supports seve ral projects, which started in 2009, aiming at 
promoting co-development actions, includ ing a targeted project on migration and 
development of € 15 million, a project supporting the creation of businesses in Morocco by 
members of the Moroccan diaspora  in Europe and a project whic h supports the investment of 
Senegalese migrants in Italy in their count ry of origin. Support to the involvement of 
 
EN 45   EN diasporas in the development of their country of origin remains a priority in the Thematic 
Programme’s call for proposals 2009-2010. 
At national level , several Member States reported on their involvement in co-development 
actions aimed at enabling migran ts to take part in the deve lopment of their home countries 
(DE, ES, FR, IT, LU, HU, AT, PT). 
Some Member States (DE, AT) referred to their involvement in research  studies and projects 
aimed at maximising the investment of remittances  in the development of countries of origin, 
such as creating and strengthening small and me dium-sized enterprises. ES also financed 
projects in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa focusing on the effective use of migrant 
remittances as an instrument for generating employment and promoting local development and social integration. Other Member Stat es (ES, FR) mentioned their cooperation, for 
example through co-development projects, with migrant associations in order to help 
improving living conditions in the region and/or countries the latter represented. LU referred 
to cooperation with certain Balk an states and regions to enab le rejected asylum-seekers and 
returned persons to take part in th e development of their own countries. 
In addition, two Member States (DE, HU) referred to projects developed within the 
framework of the Mobility Part nership with the Republic of Mo ldova, aimed at strengthening 
the link between the Moldovan diaspora and its home country and promoting co-development 
projects. RO reported school and university sc holarships for Moldovan citizens. Two other 
Member States (LU, PT) mentioned projects de veloped within the framework of the Mobility 
Partnership with Cape Verde, aimed at develo ping the sector of micro-finance by mobilising 
savings of the Cape Verdean diaspora and/ or by involving, in a more general way, the 
diaspora in the development of its country of origin. 
The European Council recommends that Member  States support the adoption of specific 
financial instruments for transferring migrants' remittances  securely and more cheaply to 
their countries for the purposes of  investment and welfare insurance; 
At EU level , under the Thematic Programme “Cooperatio n with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the EU is co-funding  several projects, whic h started in 2009 and 
which aim to contribute to improved capacities of immigrant associations from Sub-Saharan 
countries based in the EU to actively support the development of their countries of origin and 
to enable micro-finance institutions to facilitate  the transfer of migrant remittances to their 
countries of origin in a safer and cheaper manne r. Support to actions ai ming at facilitating the 
transfer of migrant rem ittances to their countries  of origin remains a pr iority in the Thematic 
Programme’s call for proposals 2009-2010. 
At national level , several Member States developed initiatives aiming at facilitating the 
transfer of migrants’ remittances  to their country of origin (D E, EL, ES, FR, IT, NL, PT, UK). 
Some Member States helped to establish webs ites to improve clarity and transparency of 
information on remittances. These websites allow migrants to identify which financial institution offers the most favourable conditions for the transfer of mo ney to their respective 
home countries (DE, FR, IT, NL, PT, UK). At least one Member State (ES) signed 
agreements of intention with banks to reduce the costs of sending remittances. 
In addition, FR, IT and UK reported on their par ticipation in global ini tiatives on remittances, 
such as those of the G8 and the World Bank. FR  referred to its agreem ent with the African 
 
EN 46   EN Development Bank to set up a fund to improve transfers to and investments in migrants’ 
countries of origin. In the context of a November 2009 conference organised under its 
presidency of the G8, IT indicated its intention to reduce costs of remittances from the current 
10 % to 5 % within 5 years (the so-called 5 x 5). 
As to future measures, one Member State (SE) i ndicated that it planned to address the issue of 
cheaper and safer transfer of remittances as part of its national policy for global development. It envisaged organising a series of hearings with key stakeholders. 
Commitment: V.(f) firmly implement the partnership between the EU and Africa  agreed in 
Lisbon in December 2007, the conclusions of the first Euro-Mediterranean ministerial 
meeting  on migration held in Albufeira in November 2007 and the Rabat action plan  and to 
that end call on the second Euro-African ministerial conference on migration and 
development in Paris in autumn 2008 to  decide on practical measures; 
At EU level , under the Thematic Programme “Cooperatio n with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the Commission supports  a number of actions in the areas included 
the EU-Africa Partnership on Migration, Mob ility and Employment (MME) and the Rabat 
Action Plan and Paris Cooperation Programme. In addition, the Commission has earmarked 
€ 3 million to support the political dialogue in the framework of these processes. As far as the 
MME Partnership is concerned; three meetings of the joint Informal Expert Group took place 
and a series of priority actions has been identified and their implementation discussed. A Senior Official Meeting should be organised during the second half of 2010 to prepare the 
next EU-Africa Summit of Heads of States and Governments. 
At national level
, the Rabat process has a Comité de Pilotage  which promotes the work for 
preparing the Dakar Ministerial Meeting in 2011 with the partic ipation at Member State level 
of BE, ES, FR and IT. FR indicat ed that it had organised the second Euro-African ministerial 
Conference on migration and development wher e the three-year cooperation programme 
(2009-2011) was approved. ES reported that it was an active prom oter of the Global 
Approach to Migration which was the main dr iver of the Rabat Process and that it had 
promoted from the beginning of this dialogue the link for friendship and cooperation between 
the members of the Process. IT reported on projects implemented with various African 
countries. PT participates actively in the EU/Africa Strategy, in particular the MME 
Partnership, with the m easures developed and implemented in  this context being contained in 
the Partnership Scoreboard. In line with th e conclusions of the first Ministerial Euro-
Mediterranean meeting on Migration which t ook place in Albufeira in November 2007, PT 
developed and created a website with information on the transfer of remittances. 
develop, in accordance with its conclusions of June 2007, the Global Approach to Migration 
to the East and South-east of Europe , and, in this respect, we lcome the initiative of a 
ministerial conference on this  topic in April 2009 in Prague; 
At EU level , The Commission supported the Czech Council Presidency in the project 
“Building Mobility Partnerships” through  funding from the Thematic Programme 
“Cooperation with Third Countries in th e areas of Migration and Asylum” and by 
participating in preparatory and follow-up workshops. The initiative brought together 
representatives from 49 governments and focu sed on strengthening cooperation in migration 
management, and developing principles and el ements for close migration partnerships 
between the partic ipant countries. 
 
EN 47   EN At national level , Some Member States (BG, CZ, HU, PL, PT, RO) reported their 
participation in the Building Migration Partne rships project by hosting or participating in 
workshops, seminars and senior officials meetin gs and facilitating the implementation of the 
Prague Ministerial Conference Joint Declara tion signed in April 2009 with the aim of 
strengthening the implementation of the Global Approach to Migration to the Eastern and 
South-Eastern Regions Neighbourin g the European Union. In line with the Declaration’s 
pragmatic and operational approach, several in troductory missions were launched within the 
framework of the Building Migr ation Partnerships project. 
continue to make use of the existing political and sector al dialogues, particularly with the 
countries of Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia , in order to consolidate mutual 
understanding of what is at stake in the field of migration and intensify current cooperation; 
At EU level , the EU-Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Structured Dialogue on Migration 
was launched on 30 June 2009 with the objective to  identify common challenges and areas for 
mutual cooperation as well as building a stronge r evidence base for EU-LAC migration in 
order to better understand its r ealities, based on the principle of shared responsibility, 
strengthening our commitment and willingne ss to discuss issues on migration and 
development, regular and irregular migrati on. The first EU-LAC High Level Migration 
Meeting was organised in Brus sels on 25 September 2009 to exch ange experiences and best 
practices on migration and development and on remittances. After the end of the reporting period, the second EU-LAC High Level Migratio n Meeting was organised in Madrid on 17-
18 February 2010 on education, health and migra tion, and the third meeting in Madrid on 15-
16 March 2010 families, vulnerable groups and migration. 
In relation to Asia, the annual meeting EU-ASE M of Directors General on Migration was held 
was held in Goa on 2 December 2009. Back-to-b ack with the EU-ASEM meeting an EU-India 
bilateral meeting on migration was organised on 3 December.  
At national level
, Member States have shown interest in strengthening EU relationships on 
migration with Latin America and the Caribbe an (through the EU-LAC Structured Dialogue 
on Migration and also bilaterally with Peru th rough the mission on migrat ory issues) and Asia 
(through the ASEM and bilateral co ntacts with countries such as  India, Pakistan, China and 
Central Asian countries). 
Commitment: V.(g) speed up the deployment of the key tool s of the Global Approach to 
Migration  (migration profiles, cooperation platform s, mobility partnerships and circular 
migration programmes), to ensure a balance betw een the migration routes from the South and 
those from the East and South-east and take account  of the lessons learned in these matters 
when negotiating EU and bilateral agreements on migration and readmission with countries 
of origin and of transit, as well as pilot Mobility Partnerships; 
At EU level , the Building Migration Partnerships in itiative, launched in April 2009, aimed to 
bring a greater balance between the EU initiati ves focusing on the migration routes from the 
south and those that target migration routes from the east and south-east. In addition to 
migration profiles that were prepared during the programming exercise of the 10th EDF for 
ACP countries, the Commission has co-funded a nu mber of migration profiles, including 10 
in Western Africa and 17 for the Eastern and So uth-eastern European co untries that are party 
to the Building Migration Partnerships init iative. The Commission also promoted in the 
framework of the GFMD in Athens in November  2009 circular migration as well as migration 
profiles and their usefulness as a tool fo r policy coherence between migration and 
 
EN 48   EN development. Further progress through various  meetings was made on the cooperation 
platform in Ethiopia, and the one in the Re public of Moldova linked to the EU-Moldova 
Mobility Partnership. A circular migra tion programme between Portugal and Ukraine 
received co-funding from the Thematic Programme  “Cooperation with Third Countries in the 
areas of Migration and Asylum”. In Sept ember 2009, Commission issu ed a Staff Working 
Document on the evaluation of th e pilot Mobility Partnerships39. The Member States were 
consulted in the process of preparation of th e document at two expert meetings. December 
2009 Council Conclusions confirmed th e value of Mobility Partners hips as a key tool of the 
Global Approach. 
At national level , several Member States have reported their participation in the Mobility 
Partnerships with the Republic of Moldova (B G, DE, EL, IT, CY, HU, PL, PT, RO), Cape 
Verde (LU, PT), and Georgia (BE, EE, IT), th e Cooperation Platform in Ethiopia (DE, SE, 
UK) and in Black Sea (BG, PT, RO), and migratory missions to Armenia, Tanzania, Belarus and Kenya. 
Commitment: V.(h) ensure when implementi ng these various actions that they are 
consistent with other aspects of the EU's development cooperation policy , particularly the 
European Consensus on Development of 2005, and other policies , particularly the 
neighbourhood policy. 
At EU level , Council Conclusions on Migration for Development adopted in November 2009 
highlight that the Global Appro ach to Migration provides a bala nced and global framework to 
take into account development concerns in th e EU approach to migration. The Conclusions 
also underline the need generally to contin ue the implementation of the migration and 
development agenda of the Global Approach but al so further to facilita te circular migration 
schemes, the temporary and permanent return of migrants as well as their reintegration. 
At national level , most Member States defend the ne cessity to take into account and 
strengthen synergies between migration and deve lopment, with special attention to the EU 
Policy Coherence on Development. PT created an informal internal network for policy 
coherence for development alongs ide the Interministerial Co mmission for Cooperation, which 
the existing formal body for interministerial coordination. 
                                                 
39 SEC(2009) 1240 of 18 September 2009.