COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

4th Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2012)

Disclaimer

This document is a European Commission staff working document for information purposes. It does not represent an official position of the Commission on this issue, nor does it anticipate such a position.

Contents

1........... INTRODUCTION.. 5

2........... Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020: Asylum and Migration Fund 5

3........... LEGAL MIGRATION AND MOBILITY.. 7

3.1........ Promoting legal migration channels through better information for migrants. 8

3.2........ Economic migration. 10

3.2.1..... Satisfying labour market needs and skills recognition. 10

3.2.2..... Highly qualified workers. 12

3.2.3..... Cooperation with partner /third countries for economic migration. 13

3.3........ Students and Researchers. 14

3.4........ Family Reunification. 15

3.5........ Integration. 17

3.5.1..... Promoting integration through participation: socio-economic contribution of migrants. 19

3.5.2..... Promoting integration through participation: rights and obligations – achieving equal treatment and belonging 21

3.5.3..... Promoting action at local level 23

3.5.4..... Involvement of countries of origin. 24

3.5.5..... Cooperation, consultation and coordination of stakeholders. 25

3.6........ Managing Migration and Mobility. 27

3.6.1..... Visa Policy. 27

3.6.2..... Schengen Governance. 31

4........... INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM... 33

4.1........ Common European Asylum System.. 34

4.1.1..... Intra-EU solidarity including Relocation. 37

4.1.2..... Cooperation with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 39

4.1.3..... Support to national asylum systems: Greece. 40

4.1.4..... Support to national asylum systems: Conflict in Syria. 41

4.1.5..... Relocation. 42

4.1.6..... Enhancing the external dimension including Resettlement 42

5........... UNACCOMPANIED MINORS AND OTHER VULNERABLE GROUPS. 45

6........... ACTIONS ADDRESSING TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS. 48

6.1........ Measures to identify, protect and assist victims of trafficking. 50

6.2........ Measures to prevent trafficking in human beings, and to increase the prosecution of traffickers. 52

6.3........ Coordination and cooperation among key actors. 53

7........... EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF EU MIGRATION POLICY.. 55

7.1........ The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM) 55

7.2........ Immigration Liaison Officers. 55

7.3........ Mainstreaming of migration in development policies. 58

7.4........ Migrants' Remittances. 59

7.5........ Working with diasporas. 60

7.6........ Efforts to mitigate ‘brain drain’ 61

8........... IRREGULAR MIGRATION.. 62

8.1........ Employer Sanctions. 63

8.2........ Strategic Priority I : Strengthening cooperation with third countries of transit and origin on migration management 63

8.2.1..... Ensure implementation of all EU readmission agreements to their full effect 63

8.2.2..... Enhance the capacity of countries of origin and transit to manage mixed migration flows. 66

8.2.3..... Prevention of irregular migration from (a) the Southern Mediterranean countries. 66

8.2.4..... Prevention of irregular migration from (b) the Eastern Partners. 67

8.2.5..... Prevention of irregular migration from (c) the Western Balkans. 67

8.2.6..... Prevention of irregular migration from (d) the Western Mediterranean and the African Atlantic coast 68

8.3........ Strategic Priority II: Enhanced border management at the external borders. 69

8.3.1..... Preventing and combating irregular immigration by ensuring strong and efficient border control agreements with third countries. 69

8.3.2..... Border control including Frontex operations. 70

8.4........ Strategic Priority III : Preventing irregular migration via the Greek-Turkish Border 75

8.4.1..... Ensuring effective border controls are in place at the Greek-Turkish border 75

8.4.2..... Combating irregular immigration transiting Turkey to EU.. 75

8.5........ Strategic Priority IV: Better tackling of abuse of legal migration channels. 76

8.5.1..... Prevent an increase in unfounded asylum applications as a direct consequence of introducing visa free regimes in third countries and decrease the number of overstayers in the Schengen area. 76

8.5.2..... Combating and preventing irregular migration caused by visa liberalisation. 76

8.6........ Strategic Priority V: Safeguarding and protecting free movement by prevention of abuse by third-country nationals 77

8.6.1..... Improve the understanding of abuse of free movement rights by third country nationals and organised crime aiming at facilitating irregular immigration. 77

8.6.2..... Prevent the fraudulent acquisition and use of free movement rights by third-country nationals. 78

8.7........ Strategic Priority VI: Enhancing migration management, including cooperation on return practices. 78

8.7.1..... Ensuring that all Member States have efficient migration management systems in place in order to be prepared for fluctuating migration pressures. 79

8.7.2..... Maximising the potential of a common EU approach in the field of return, both voluntary and forced in compliance with existing EU acquis. 79

9........... Provision and Exchange of Information to support Policy Development 83

9.1........ Exchange of information at EU level 83

9.2........ Exchange of information at regional and national levels. 84

10......... STATISTICAL ANNEX.. 86

11......... ABBREVIATIONS USED.. 100

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a factual overview of the main developments in migration and international protection during 2012 at both EU and national level. It complements the Communication from the Commission[1]. The main reporting period is from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012.

Following an introduction to the development of a more horizontal, cross-cutting proposal for future Union funding of asylum and migration beyond 2013, the paper is then structured according to the following main sections: Legal Migration and Mobility, International Protection and Asylum, Unaccompanied Minors, Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, the External Dimension of EU Migration Policy and Irregular Migration. A detailed Statistical Annex (Chapter 10) provides data on migration in 2012 from the European Migration Network National Contact Points as well as from Eurostat, where data available.

The Commission shall, on the basis of article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) 377/2004, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 493/2011 on the creation of an Immigration Liaison Officers Network, report an annual factual summary, and where appropriate recommendations, to the European Parliament on the development of immigration liaison officers network. This report is included in section 7.2.

Information on developments at EU level were provided primarily by the Commission, with developments at national level[2] based primarily on the information provided by National Contact Points of the European Migration Network (EMN NCPs), including Norway,[3] as part of its Annual Policy Report activity.[4]

2. Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020: Asylum and Migration Fund[5]

The Commission adopted the package of proposals for the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 in the area of Home Affairs on 15 November 2011. This package covers 4 legislative proposals which together provide for the creation of an Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF) and an Internal Security Fund (ISF), supported by a common regulatory framework (general provisions or 'Horizontal Instrument').

These proposals were accompanied by a Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'Building an open and secure Europe: the Home Affairs Budget for 2014-2020'.[6]

Negotiations on the proposals started in 2012 under the Danish Presidency and continued under the Cypriot Presidency. In the European Parliament, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) is responsible for the MFF Home Affairs package. The negotiations between the Council, Parliament and the Commission (trilogues) started early 2013.

Based on the principles of solidarity and responsibility sharing, the Asylum and Migration Fund is proposed to not be a simple merger of the three existing Funds – the European Refugee Fund, the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals and the European Return Fund but a more comprehensive instrument to support the effective and integrated management of migration flows in the European Union.

The proposal foresees that more than 80% of the Fund's resources will be channelled through national programmes of Member States covering the whole period 2014-2020. Following a policy dialogue with the Commission, each Member State would design its programme pursuing the objectives of the Fund and taking into account its respective policy needs. Approximately one fifth of the Fund's resources would be managed directly by the Commission to support Union actions, the functioning of the European Migration Network and to provide emergency assistance. An important part of the financial resources for Union actions would be to support actions implemented in third countries necessary for the implementation of EU internal policy priorities on migration and asylum. These initiatives will mainly serve the EU's own interest and will be coherent with EU external cooperation priorities and strategies towards the third countries concerned. It would for example be possible to support the cooperation with third countries on the implementation of readmission agreements, non-development oriented activities under mobility partnerships and resettlement activities under Regional Protection Programmes. The proposed Fund also foresees an emergency assistance mechanism able to respond quickly to different aspects of migratory pressure in Member States and third countries.

In the field of legal migration and integration, the Fund would encourage the development of proactive immigration strategies relevant to and supportive of EUs economic growth strategy and the integration process of third-country nationals, including during the pre-departure stage. It will promote a local approach to integration by fostering the regional and local cooperation in the development of integration strategies and measures. Particular attention in the integration process is paid to the specific needs of beneficiaries of international protection, as well as to vulnerable groups of migrants (unaccompanied minors, women, youth and children, the elderly, etc.).

In the field of return, the Fund would further support fair and effective return management with emphasis on voluntary return, promote a more strategic focus on EU standards through implementation of actions linked to the requirements of the EU acquis on return and through co-operation with other Member States.

In the field of asylum, the Fund would continue to strengthen and develop the Common European Asylum System by ensuring the efficient and uniform application of the EU acquis on asylum and enhance the solidarity and responsibility sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows. In this respect, the Fund contains an ambitious resettlement and relocation component allowing Member States to support not only the preparatory actions related to resettlement and relocation operations, but also the setting up and development of necessary infrastructure and services.

3. LEGAL MIGRATION AND MOBILITY

Table 1 in the Statistical Annex gives a provisional overview of the residence permits issued in 2012 by reason (family, education, remunerated activities and other). Of the Member States providing such statistics, most residence permits were issued by Italy (202 269) and France (193 799). Member States which issued permits mainly for family reasons were Greece (71% of all permits), Portugal (49%), Italy (49%) and Sweden (48%)The highest proportions of permits issued for the purpose of education were by Germany (40%), Finland (32%) and Hungary (31%). Those who issued permits mostly for the purpose of remunerated activities were Lithuania (71%), Cyprus(66%) and Slovenia (58%). The highest share of permits issued for ‘other reasons’ were by Poland (39%) and Bulgaria (38%). The overall position across the Member States and Norway are shown in Figures 1a and 1b below.

Figure 1a: Total first residence permits 2012

Figure 1b: First residence permits, by reason in 2012

Source: EMN APR 2012 National Reports

Notes: (a) means that statistics do not cover the full year (DE: 1st January – 30th June 2012; FR: 1st January to 30th September 2012; PT 1st January to 27th November 2012; FI: 1st January to 31st December 2012 but statistics provisional. For some Member States, statistics were not available for the full year at the time of publication (see Table 1 in Chapter 10 - Statistical Annex)

The year 2012 saw significant developments in the field of completing and further improving and implementing the EU legislative framework regulating legal migration by third-country nationals to the European Union. Transposition of Directives like the "Blue Card" Directive on highly skilled workers and the Employer Sanctions Directive adopted in 2009, and the 2011 "Single Permit" Directive progressed. Negotiations continued on the Intracorporate transfer Directive and the Seasonal workers Directive. The Commission prepared a proposal for a recast of the Directives on Students and an Researchers. These developments completes the legal acquis covering key types of third-country migrants, by facilitating access to the European labour market and at the same time ensuring third-country workers have equivalent rights. Such measures prevent exploitation of certain groups of third-country workers, and at the same time contribute to achieving economic growth objectives by helping to fill skills-gaps and counteract demographic trends towards an ageing of the population. Promotion of legal migration channels also entails informing migrants, and potential migrants, of the legal channels of migration.

3.1. Promoting legal migration channels through better information for migrants

At EU level :

One example of a key information tool to promote legal immigration is the 'EU Immigration Portal'[7]. In 2012 the Spanish and Arabic language versions were developed of the 'EU Immigration Portal', initially launched in November 2011 in English and French. The Spanish language version was subsequently launched in January 2013. The 'EU Immigration Portal' provides hands-on information for migrants interested in moving to or within the EU. Migrants and potential migrants can find more than 600 pages of text with specific information about migration procedures in all 27 Member States, plus links to their national immigration websites and a contact directory of governmental and non-governmental organisations which can help them. In 2012 there were 62 259 unique visitors for the EU Immigration Portal were, with traffic gradually increasing to about 7 000 unique visitors per month in the last quarter of the year. The 'national content' is provided by the National Contact Points of the European Migration Network (EMN) for update the sections on national legislation. Member States welcomed the Portal and some of them took it as a reference in the revamping of their own official immigration websites.

At national level, Member States attach high importance to providing information to third country nationals on the routes and conditions of legal migration. This is demonstrated by the fact that all[8] Member States and Norway provide information on legal migration channels, generally through online instruments as well as information campaigns or projects. Many Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SE, UK) and Norway undertook efforts to improve this information in 2012. Multilingual websites and more general information campaigns and projects were the most commonly-used instruments. Whilst all Member States and Norway have at least one regularly updated website or portal in place with the latest information available to (potential) migrants, some have websites targeting specific groups, such as (qualified or highly qualified) professionals (AT, BE, DE, FR), students (BE, FR, IT, LT, SE) and investors (IE, PT).

In addition to online facilities, information campaigns, materials, projects and programmes were launched by nine Member States (BE, CZ, EL, FI, IE, IT, LT, PL, SE, SK, UK) plus Norway, with a view to improve the provision of information on legal migration channels. Examples of such measures include introduction packs (BE, CZ, IE), television programmes (SK, continued from 2011) and brochures to inform employers (PL). These measures, and especially the online materials, have the advantage also of targeting third-country nationals at pre-departure stage. Italy has for example, reported launching specific pre-departure orientation programmes, targeting Moroccan nationals. The United Kingdom introduced a range of new measures to communicate changes in its national immigration policies, via relevant websites, news-letters, leaflets partner forums etc, both nationally and with partners overseas. Greece implemented pre-departure information campaigns in Moldova and Georgia (in the framework of EIF).

Other measures to facilitate information provision include the establishment of Local Coordination Offices in Countries of Origin (IT), a specific project to improve communication and services to third-country nationals to promote legal labour migration (SE) and a “contact point system for employers” whereby employers are assigned a contact person to deal with any queries they may have in relation to legal migration channels for third-country nationals (NO). Greece gradually established a number of “one stop – shop” authorities better managing legal migration in implementing relevant legislation.

3.2. Economic migration

At EU level: The employment package,[9] adopted in April 2012, provides a medium-term agenda for EU and Member States action to support a job-rich recovery and reach Europe's 2020 goals for smart, sustainable and inclusive jobs and growth. It states that, in the longer term, and especially in view of the EU's demographic development, economic immigration by third country nationals is a key consideration for the EU labour market.

With the proposal of a Directive on Intra-corporate transfers in 2010, the Commission took initiative to facilitate the temporary transfer of foreign employees of multinational companies to a branch of the company on EU territory, so called intra-corporate transfers.[10] Until now, the fragmented approach has a heavy impact on the attractiveness of such transfers into the EU and often leads international staff to turn down their EU assignments. The proposed Directive is expected bring substantial benefits to the EU in terms of innovation, enhanced competitiveness and increased investment flows. In 2012 negotiations continued between the co-legislators on the proposed Directive for intra-corporate transferees.

Negotiations also continued between the co-legislators on the proposed Directive for Seasonal workers[11]. Following the adoption of the "Single permit" Directive in 2011[12], its implementation started by some Member States started notifying the transposing acts in 2012.

3.2.1. Satisfying labour market needs [13] and skills recognition

At EU level: In December 2012, the Commission launched the EU Skills Panorama, a website presenting quantitative and qualitative information on short- and medium-term skills needs, skills supply and skills mismatches. There are around 2 million job vacancies across the EU despite high levels of unemployment. The EU Skills Panorama shows the top bottleneck occupations to be in the fields of Health, Information Communication Technologies, Engineering, Sales and Finance.[14]

At national level, methods and tools to analyse labour market needs and shortages are considered to be helpful for both Member States that are facing high unemployment rates as well as Member States that (foresee to) have (sectorial) labour shortages (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, IE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI), for example, the use of annual analysis on labour market trends, shortages and demand (EE, EL, IE, IT, PL, FI), via the Public Employment Services (ES, NL, SI, SK), lists of occupations experiencing ‘bottlenecks’ (AT, BE, ES, LT), research (RO, UK) and mechanisms for forecasting (IT, LV, FI). In 2012, Czech Republic and Germany initiated new projects on labour market forecasting; Germany established an employment monitoring service for analysis of current and long-term labour market needs and expects to issue its first labour market prognosis in 2013; and Poland identified new plans for the monitoring of labour migration. Malta has strengthened links with private employment agencies, social partners and other organisations to better understand the foreign direct investment patterns and the types of employment this may generate in the short and medium terms. In the Netherlands the Public Employment Service tests each individual application for an employment permit against the availability of manpower in the Netherlands/the EU.

Thirteen Member States (AT, CY, CZ, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, SE, UK) amended or introduced changes in their approach to legal migration. These changes appear to suggest two parallel trends, with some introducing more restrictive labour market policies towards labour migrants (e.g. CY), whilst in others there is an emphasis on attracting (high-level) skills e.g. AT, FR, LV, SE, UK (see also Section 3.2.3 below). In France, regional lists of occupational shortages applicable to third-country nationals (30 professions including six on a national level, in certain sectors such as audit and accounting, IT, construction and public works, electricity and electronics sectors) were established under the Decree of 18 January 2008. Finland identified shortages in nursing staff, Ireland identified medical staff, Latvia reported on staff in international shipment and Estonia foresees labour shortages in the coming decade in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, construction, education, and transportation and storage. In Malta, in sectors such as construction, hospitality and caring, skills shortages have been identified. In general it seems that some Member States with more open labour market migration policies have targeted (highly) qualified workers, investors or entrepreneurs.

Conversely, Sweden does not focus on particular skills or qualification levels, and rather than operating “selectively”, the system is demand-driven, according to the individual needs of employers who decide themselves whether they have a shortage and need to recruit from outside the EU or not. This approach applies to unskilled, skilled and highly qualified workers. Spain, which considers a non-EU labour-force important for keeping up with global competition and economic growth, focused on the development of training and integration programs for immigrants, amongst other priorities in its Annual Plan for Labour Policy 2012.

With regard to improved labour matching, the Public Employment Service in Austria assesses since 2012 the migration background of registered unemployed/job-seekers in order to ensure “targeted services” (e.g. German courses, basic skills acquisition) for third-country nationals. Austria has also implemented a project “Mentoring for Migrants” where tutors support qualified migrants to enter the labour market. In Poland an online portal has been launched to provide entrepreneurs with information on, for example, relevant regulations.

Sweden intends to launch labour matching programmes in 2013. In relation to the growth agenda, Sweden plans to introduce labour market matching for third-country nationals and employment schemes to encourage employers to hire more third-country nationals. Apprenticeships and training ‘on the job’ are also planned for low skilled third-country nationals, as well as funding to increase efforts for generating growth among third-country national entrepreneurs. Norway plans to launch a programme aiming to increase labour market participation of third-country nationals, and particularly of women, and an Action Plan in 2013 on how to better use the skills of third-country nationals. In Malta, third country nationals who may have initially arrived in Malta in an irregular manner, and obtain a legal status, can participate in training programs and employers of such migrants may seek reimbursement for any training costs incurred. In Italy, 41.3 % of non-national workers employed are over-educated in relation to the duties they perform; as a result, the public debate has mainly focused on issues of brain waste.

Several Member States (AT, BE, DE, EE, IE, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK, SE, UK) and Norway undertook actions related to skills recognition in order to address labour market needs and with the aim in some Member States to attract (highly) qualified workers. Changes in 2012 included simplifying and shortening recognition procedures (AT, BE, LT), facilitating validation procedures and increasing information provision (AT), the extension of the Act on the recognition of qualifications, to include (amongst others) long-term residents, refugees or those under subsidiary protection (SI) and better cooperation between service providers to facilitate procedures (BE). In Germany, following amendments to the Recognition Act, vocational qualifications acquired abroad can now be recognised as equivalent to a German qualification, and over 500 occupations will no longer require candidates to be nationals and in Malta a legal notice for the validation of informal and non-formal learning came into force, allowing third country nationals to have their skills and competences validated against the national occupational standards already developed.

In terms of future plans on skills recognition, Norway expects to complete its database of approved higher education programmes in 2013 which should ensure faster and improved processing of applications for recognition and Slovak Republic also expects to introduce legislative changes that simplify recognition procedures. Spain continued to implement its procedure of skills-recognition for third-country nationals whereby the third-country national can obtain official accreditation relative to their work experience, which will count towards a professional or training certificate.

3.2.2. Highly qualified workers

At EU level: In the course of 2012 most Member States transposed the Directive 2009/50/EC on highly qualified workers, the so called "Blue Card" Directive. Infringement procedures for non-communication of national measures were therefore closed, except for Lithuania and Sweden. The Commission started its assessment of the conformity of the transposition in 2012. Following this detailed evaluation of the transposition of the Directive into national legislation, the Commission may launch infringement procedures, should shortcomings be identified.

Preparations started in 2012 for a Commission report on the implementation of the Blue Card Directive due out in 2014. This report will be based on the evaluation of the transposition into national legislation by the Member States and on the first statistics on the volumes of third-country nationals who have been granted an EU Blue Card which are expected to become available in the course of 2013.

At national level : Attracting highly qualified workers, as well as investors and entrepreneurs, gained increasing importance. Most Member States introduced legislative changes to facilitate or simplify the entry of qualified or highly qualified workers, for the implementation of the Blue Card Directive as well as to cope with labour shortages (in certain sectors). Several Member States (AT, BE, CY, DE, IT, PL, PT, UK) implemented specific measures to facilitate entry of highly qualified workers. Incentive mechanisms for attracting highly qualified workers included: the 5-point programme on skills recognition of third-country graduates with a view to facilitating labour market access (AT), shortened period for granting residence permit for the purpose of family reunification (EL), shortened period for granting a national long-term residence permit (DE) and agreements of Memorandums of Understanding between government and employer associations to facilitate the entry of highly qualified third-country workers (IT). Estonia organised consultations with social partners in order to improve legislation and smoothen procedures for attracting highly-qualified workers. In United Kingdom, the skills threshold for skilled workers was increased to graduate level (National Qualifications Framework (NQF) 6) in most cases, to improve selectivity, while the resident labour market test was relaxed for jobs paying £70 000(€81 000) or above, or requiring PhD-level skills. Austria has granted skilled workers access to designated shortage occupations (some 26). The main occupational fields covered are construction, wood production, agriculture and horticulture, forestry, automotive and machinery, electro-technics, electronics and telecommunications, as well as information technology and health / medicine. The skilled workers can apply for residence permits introduced in 2011 (the so called “Red-White-Red Card” and “Red-White-Red Card plus”) that allow third-country national workers entry and access to the labour market, based on a defined points-based system.

Attracting investors (HU, IE, LV, PL, PT, SE, UK) and/or entrepreneurs (IE, FR, LV, PL, UK) is on the political agenda in several Member States. Measures to attract investors include granting a residence permit for those that make an exceptional economic contribution (FR, LV, PT), fast-track procedures for granting a long-term residence permit (HU), accelerated procedures for intra-corporate transfers of third-country national investors (CZ) and a third-country national investor programme offering entrepreneurs and investors rights to reside in the Member State in return for an investment for the purpose of “saving or creating jobs” (IE). Specific measures for attracting entrepreneurs included targeted information provision to third-country national entrepreneurs (PL), a new immigration route for Graduate Entrepreneurs, who have been recognised by their higher education institutions (HEI) as having exceptional business skills or ideas (UK) and plans to allocate funding for targeted efforts for generating growth among entrepreneurs with a migration background in 2013 (SE).

With regard to actions planned in 2013, United Kingdom plans to extend the Graduate Entrepreneur route for 2013 to enable up to 1 000 MBA graduates of UK Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) to stay on in the United Kingdom and will also establish a scheme to enable the ‘brightest and best’ graduates of overseas business schools to enter as Graduate Entrepreneurs. Czech Republic aims to attract highly-education third-country nationals and therefore plans to produce a list of occupations for highly educated third-country employees. Spain initiated research into possible legislative reforms to facilitate access to the labour market for highly skilled workers and began work on measures to boost business through use of migrant labour.

3.2.3. Cooperation with partner /third countries for economic migration

At EU level: The issue of legal migration and mobility, including labour migration, continued to be an integral part of the EU's cooperation with third countries and a key area of the EU's external migration policy in 2012, as defined through the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM). Its policy priority of "better organising legal migration and fostering well-managed mobility" is one of the four priority areas of the GAMM. According to the Commission Communication on the GAMM of 18 November 2011[15], European policy on the organisation and facilitation of legal migration and mobility is based on the premise of offering employers wider opportunities to find the best individuals for vacancies on the global labour market. It equally seeks to offer new European employment possibilities for talented people from around the globe, fully respecting Member States’ competence to manage their labour markets (See also chapter 7.1).

At national level, several Member States (BE, BG, CZ, EL, FR, NL, PL, PT, SE) reported on their continued participation in the EU Mobility Partnerships including those with Georgia (BE, BG, CZ, FR, PL, SE), Republic of Moldova (BG, CZ, FR, PL, PT, RO, SE), Armenia (BE, BG, CZ, FR, PL), Tunisia (PL, SE), Azerbaijan (BG, CZ) and Cape Verde (FR, NL, PT). BE, ES, IT and PT expect to participate in the EU Mobility Partnership with Morocco which is planned to be concluded in 2013.

Other Member States (EL, ES, HU, IT, NL, PL, SI, SK, SE) concluded, ratified or reviewed bilateral agreements with third-countries in 2012, including Ukraine (PL), India (SE), New Zealand (ES, HU, SK), Canada (ES), Bosnia and Herzegovina (SI) and Azerbaijan (NL). Italy signed agreements with Egypt, Albania, Moldova, and Sri Lanka and concluded agreements with Bangladesh, Philippines, Ghana, Morocco, Tunisia and Peru. The concluded bilateral agreements mostly aimed to strengthen cooperation in labour migration management with countries of origin that generate the largest inflows of third-country nationals (IT), developing a working holiday scheme for youth (HU, SK), set general principles of employment for third-country nationals (SI) and reach agreements on pensions and accident insurance (DE).

In terms of planned bilateral agreements, Bulgaria has opened negotiations with Moldova, Armenia, and Ukraine for labour migration agreements, the first two in the framework of Mobility Partnerships. Spain began to negotiate possible agreements with Japan and Australia. Italy expects to conclude agreements with India, China, Ecuador, Ukraine and Russia in the near future and Germany plans on starting negotiations on social insurance agreements with the Philippines in March 2013 with the main purpose to agree on pensions and accident insurance thereby avoiding “double insurance”. Luxembourg plans to conclude an agreement on circular migration with Cape Verde and Hungary will ratify a working holiday scheme with the Republic of Korea in 2013.

3.3. Students and Researchers

At EU level: In 2012 the Commission prepared a proposal on the on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service and au pairing, which was subsequently adopted in March 2013[16]. The initiative is based on the findings of the 2011 Commission implementation reports on Directive 2004/114/EC on the conditions for admission of third country nationals for the purpose of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service ("the Students Directive") and Directive 2005/71 on a specific procedure for admitting third country nationals for the purposes of scientific research ("the Researchers Directive"). These reports showed a number of weaknesses of these Directives. The Commission's work programme for 2012 therefore included a revision of both Directives which aims at remedying the weaknesses identified and merge the two existing Directives into a single legislative instrument. The proposed new Directive is a recast of these two previous Directives, and foresees several improvements. These concern, in particular, the introduction of clearer admission conditions which better link obtaining a residence permit and a visa, and to which groups they apply to. This would avoid situations in which people fulfil the conditions for a permit, but not the conditions for a visa, and therefore cannot enter into the Member States concerned.

Increasing coherence of EU migration rules with EU mobility programmes such as Erasmus Mundus and Marie Curie Fellowships will aim at avoiding situations in which people fulfil the conditions of EU funding programmes, and have succeeded in obtaining a scholarship or a fellowship, but cannot take this up, as there is a problem with the admission conditions.

Another major improvement refers to the introduction of procedural guarantees, mainly in the form of time limits for decisions on applications which are aimed at facilitating third-country nationals' applications.

The proposal gives students more opportunities to work during their studies so that they can support themselves adequately. It also provides for both researchers and students (after graduation or after their research contract comes to an end) the possibility to remain under certain conditions on the EU territory to identify job opportunities. This would not amount to an automatic right to work, but to offering a possibility to identify job opportunities. The granting of a work permit would remain a national responsibility.

Other improvements refer to facilitating intra-EU mobility by allowing students and researchers' intra-EU mobility on the basis of the initial authorization for a given period.

The proposed Directive also aims at a better protection of vulnerable groups by providing for several safeguards or addressing certain rights of equal treatment with nationals, along the lines of the provisions of the Single Permit Directive (2011/98/EU).

At national level, several Member States (AT, BG, DE, FR, IE, IT, LT, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK) undertook new measures to further facilitate the reception of students and researchers and their movement within the EU. Three Member States (PL, SK, SE) made legislative changes or implemented a national strategy to facilitate mobility of students (PT). Other measures implemented in 2012 include simplified and faster procedures to enable individuals to transfer from a student permit to a work permit (FR), extension of the period to search for adequate employment after graduation (DE), scholarship programmes for students (AT, IT), entry quotas (IT), issuance of temporary residence permits to students and researchers (PL), simplified admission process for international students (SE), funding of high-qualified non-EEA students (UK) and facilitated access for third-country nationals by granting “International Student Status” (PT). Bulgaria has introduced provisions to prolong residence permits for the families of researchers from third countries, in line with that of the researcher. Moreover, Estonia organised consultations with social partners in order to improve legislation and smoothen procedures for students and researchers. The Slovak Republic aims to facilitate access for students and researchers by the exemption of payment of an administrative fee for issuance of a Schengen visa and a shortened decision-making period for temporary residence permit.

Ireland announced a “student probationary extension” for those students who had been continuously resident since before 1st January 2005. The new arrangements will allow eligible students to continue to remain there for (up to) an additional two years. Greece and United Kingdom reported that the presence of international students leads to economic advantages for educational institutions and the national economy, and the United Kingdom announced that from April 2013 all international PhD students who have completed their studies in the United Kingdom will be able to remain in the Member State for an additional 12 months to find skilled work or establish themselves as entrepreneurs.

With regard to researchers, two Member States (DE, UK) introduced measures, that included an accelerated visa procedure for this group (and their spouse) who have unrestricted access to the labour market (DE) and relaxation of the resident labour market test and exemptions for those in specified PhD level occupations from minimum salary requirements at the point of settlement (UK). Spain launched measures introduced through legislation of 2011, such as work and residence permits for researchers conducting research projects under signed hosting agreements with research organizations. Lithuania made legislative amendments in order to facilitate the entry and residence conditions for both researchers and students. In Italy the Ministry for Foreign Affairs is financing bilateral scientific projects in order to increase the mobility of researchers from third countries. Lastly, Luxembourg increased the government budget on research, development and innovation and plans to implement a number of measures related to the recruitment, training, skills and careers prospects of researchers.

3.4. Family Reunification

At EU level: In 2012 a public consultation took place on family reunification, following the 2011 Green Paper on Family Reunification,[17] which was based on the findings of the 2008 implementation report[18] on Directive 2003/86/EC[19]. The 2012 consultation took the form of written contributions and a public hearing held on 31 May-1 June 2012 within the framework of the European Integration Forum[20]. This public consultation yielded 120 contributions, including from 24 Member States, international organisations, social partners, NGOs and individuals. The overall conclusion from the public consultation was that the Directive should not be re-opened, but that the Commission should ensure the full implementation of existing rules, open infringement procedures where necessary and produce guidelines. An overall summary of the stakeholder response to the Green paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals was published by the Commission on 11 May 2012[21]. As a further follow-up step to the public consultation the Commission also convened an expert group in September 2012, which brought together experts from the Member States to discuss the issues under the Directive that seem to be of concern for all.

As a follow-up, the Commission is preparing guidelines on efficient, transparent and clear implementation of family reunification rules at EU level by clarifying identified implementation issues and providing practical guidance. This process, which also takes into account complaints received by the Commission and ECJ judgments,[22] will address the need to guarantee the fundamental right to family life while ensuring that this right is genuinely and coherently applied according to the rules of the Directive, as well as supporting Member States to tackle misuse.

The Commission also issued a European Migration Network report on "Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification – Marriages of convenience and false parenthood declarations[23].

At national level, several Member States (BE, BG, IT, LT, NL, PT, SK, SE, UK) and Norway introduced changes to existing policies and legislation regulating family reunification. Five Member States (BE, LT, NL, SK, UK) made legislative amendments to set a renewed legal framework for family reunification (NL, UK) and tackling marriages of convenience (BE). Non-legislative measures introduced in Norway included opening for more discretionary exceptions to the income requirements for certain groups. Portugal has introduced greater flexibility in its procedures for assessing proof of subsistence for the purpose of family reunification in light of the economic downturn.

Two Member States (LV, SE) introduced specific measures for the integration of third-country national family members. Latvia launched integration projects for vulnerable groups of third-country nationals such as women with small children, elderly people and the Swedish government proposed to invest over 4,6 million EUR in civic orientation to third-country nationals immigrating for the purpose of international protection and family reunification. Spain also focused measures on strengthening the integration of those migrants already resident in Spain through family reunification.

In terms of future measures, Belgium plans to develop an Action Plan to tackle the issue of marriages of convenience and the United Kingdom will introduce in 2013 requirements for third-country national applicants for settlement to pass the “Life in the UK” test and present an English language qualification (at B1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) unless they are exempt. Finland has examined the possibility of extending the requirement for sufficient resources as well as introducing an accommodation requirement. Ireland aims to examine all options for developing a comprehensive policy approach towards family reunification and settlement. Bulgaria plans to introduce measures to prolong residence permits for certain family members following termination of marriage and in the event of emergency circumstances.

3.5. Integration

Figure 2: Total unemployment rates and unemployment rates of third country nationals

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, (see Table 2 in Statistical Annex).

Table 2 in the Statistical Annex gives an l overview of one of the key indicators of integration of third country nationals the unemployment rate of third-country nationals, compared to total unemployment in the respective (Member) State. Across the EU-27, the unemployment rate for third country nationals was some 21.3% in 2012 compared with a total unemployment rate of 10.6%. The highest unemployment rates for third-country nationals were reported by Spain (38.6%) and Greece (35.9%), compared with national averages of 25.2% and 24.5 respectively, followed by Belgium (30.7%, compared with a total rate of 7.6%) and Sweden (30.6%, compared with total unemployment rate of 8.1%).

For the EU as a whole, the gap between total unemployment rates and unemployment rates of third-country nationals was some 10.7 percentage points, although individual Member States showed considerable variations. The gap was greatest in Belgium (23.1 percentage points) and Sweden (22.5 percentage points), and lowest in Ireland and United Kingdom (2.6 and 3.3 percentage points respectively). The differences between the total unemployment rates and the unemployment rates of third-country nationals are shown in Figure 2b below.

Figure 2b: % point difference between total unemployment rates and unemployment rates of third country nationals per Member State

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, 4th Quarter 2012 (see Table 2 in the Statistical Annex).

At EU level: Despite the constructive legislative progress facilitating legal migration, there are serious challenges facing third-country nationals in terms of integration, not the least on the labour market. The unemployment rates for third-country nationals which is much higher compared to the national averages, are important indicators. Further efforts to increase integration are therefore needed.

EU legislation on equal treatment prohibits discrimination based, inter alia, on racial or ethnic origin and on religion as enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights[24]. This protection is provided in the area of employment, but on the basis of racial or ethnic origin, it covers also other areas such as education, healthcare and housing. Prohibition of discrimination protects everyone in the EU, including third-country nationals[25]. In 2013 the Commission will report on the implementation of the two anti-discrimination directives in the Member States. For this purpose, the Commission in 2012 asked the Member States to report to the Commission how, among other issues, their national legislation provides for protection from discrimination to all, including third-country nationals.

The Commission provides a framework for dialogue and knowledge exchange between stakeholders at different levels including through the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EIF)[26].

In 2012, the Commission continued to implement the priorities as set out in the European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals adopted in July 2011[27] and the Council Conclusions adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December 2011.[28] Efforts continue to coordinate and monitor policy developments at EU level, in finalising the draft European modules on migrant integration to support integration in the Member States and further developing common European indicators for monitoring of results of integration policies. Furthermore, the issue of succesful integration of migrants in host societies – in particular into the labour market – is part of the EU’s cooperation with third countries in line with the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility[29] (GAMM). In dialogues with different partners, the Commission continues to explore the role of diaspora communities and transnational networks in this context, e.g. in improving the preparation of migrants for their residence in the Member States.

In 2012, the Commission also continued to develop the European Web Site on Integration[30]. Key developments include the release of Special Features to put news on integration in a wider and deeper perspective by linking it with the other content on the website and Integration Dossiers that identify emerging policy or practice trends. In 2012 the website had some 2000 unique visitors per week.

3.5.1. Promoting integration through participation: socio-economic contribution of migrants

At EU level: The economic downturn in recent years has had severe implications for the European economies and labour markets, including a significant decline in the net annual migrant inflows mainly due to the declining number of economic migrants – but also to increasing return migration from the Member States most affected by the crisis (for instance Spain). Nevertheless, net migration has remained positive in most Member States and the overall population of immigrants continued to grow, though at a slower pace.

Against this background and in view of the specific role played by migration in reaching the employment goals of the EU 2020 strategy, the 8th meeting of the European Integration Forum on 16-17 October 2012 focused on the contribution of migrants to economic growth in the EU[31].

At national level, a majority of Member States (AT, BE, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK) and Norway reported developments in efforts to promote integration through enhancing the socio-economic contribution of migrants. This included legislative changes (PL, LV, NL, SE, NO), the introduction of new policy documents (PL) or updates thereof (NL) and consultation mechanisms (RO).

The importance of language training in relation to effective integration of third-country nationals, is evidenced by the high number of Member States and Norway reporting new or on-going provision to improve access to language training (AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, HU, IT, LV, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK), using both national funding and funding from the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EIF), the European Refugee Fund (ERF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). Member States aimed to increase accessibility by ensuring the wide availability of facilities for language training through decentralised access (IT, LV, PT, UK), including via language portals (LV) and community-based English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) projects (UK). In Malta, training to teachers on the teaching of languages to third-country nationals was organised by the Ministry of Education. In some Member States, the requirements for language proficiency from third-country nationals increased; in Poland, for example, the draft Act on Foreigners of 18 October 2012, stipulates that applicants from third countries for a permanent residence permit will have to first prove competence in the Polish language, a measure to further facilitate their integration. In Estonia, language classes in preparation for citizenship tests are offered free of charge.

Several (Member) States undertook measures to improve access to social and health services for third-country nationals, and new developments were reported (EL, IT, FR, LV, RO and NO). In Latvia, a draft proposal for amendments to legislation for unemployed people and jobseekers aims to establish greater equality for third-country nationals who legally reside and work in the Member State with nationals if they become unemployed or are looking for a job, ensuring access rights to state support measures; and in France, an inter-ministerial working group on access to social rights for migrants was established. In Italy and Romania, new measures were introduced to gauge uptake of social and health services, in Italy, in particular, in light of the take up of such provision by migrants who entered as a consequence of the political situation in North Africa. In Norway, a White Paper on Integration announced a national strategy to target the specific health challenges of the immigrant population, planned for 2013. In Greece two programs of intercultural mediation in the main public hospitals were conducted within the framework of EIF, and in Portugal, the second generation of the Pilot Project for Intercultural Mediation in Public Services was launched.

Other specific integration initiatives recently introduced include measures to enhance the attainment of migrant children in the education system (BE, PT), new support measures and civic integration schemes to improve understanding of the host culture (CZ, LU, MT, NL, SI, UK) and widening the timeframe within which arriving family members may access integration support (SE). In Sweden and Norway, changes in family benefits were introduced which effectively lower the age of a child for whom benefits can be claimed to encourage the labour market integration of parents, and encourage enrolment of children in kindergarten, to facilitate the integration of immigrant children into the community and their acquisition of Norwegian. In Portugal, the Choices Programme aims to enhance the social inclusion of children and young people from the most vulnerable socio-economic contexts, including the descendants of migrants and ethnic minorities.

Member States also demonstrated how various measures can work together to promote effective socio-economic integration. In Germany, for example, the EIF annual programme was expanded and new aspects added to provide a ‘joined-up’ approach to measures for pre-integration, training, enhancing participation in society and promoting openness within society towards other cultures, as well as tools for monitoring and evaluation. Similar four-stage ‘integration pathways’ were prepared (Wallonia) and continued (Flanders) in Belgium consisting of personalised assistance, language training, citizenship and social and professional orientation. Latvia and Portugal established national centres to support migrants and assist integration, facilitating access to a range of services in a single office.

In Greece, information and awareness-raising actions took place, aimed at eliminating negative stereotypes, and strengthening interaction between migrants and citizens, as well as showing migrants’ positive impact on Greek society, including a series of projects promoting integration through art (photos, painting, theatre etc.) undertaken in the framework of the EIF.

For particularly vulnerable groups, language courses in Estonia and Hungary targeted the most vulnerable third-country nationals, including those with disabilities (EE). In France, new initiatives were launched under the EIF to facilitate access to public services for older migrants. In Greece, a guide was developed for disabled persons of migrant origin which consists of a bilingual information guide setting out rights and available support and in Romania, a programme was implemented to assist vulnerable people including those with special needs to access appropriate medical and psychological care. Italy adopted a National Strategy for the Inclusion of the Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities, as a consequence of implementing COM(2011) 173 (final)[32].Portugal introduced measures to simplify the requirements for granting autonomous residence permits to family members of third-country national victims of domestic violence and Spain continued to implement programmes targeting victims of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation aimed at improving employability and social inclusion and providing access to education amongst other areas.

In terms of future measures, Sweden will make significant investments over four years (2013-2016) to improve educational performance (including language skills) of both children and adult third-country nationals. Quality will be improved by making language courses more flexible and targeted towards individual needs. In Slovenia, a Regulation on assistance programmes for the integration of third-country nationals was adopted, with new provisions for Slovenian language and society training, entering into force on 1st January 2013. The United Kingdom continues to require those seeking to enter to work, study or marry to have an appropriate knowledge of the English language before entry. Those seeking to live permanently, or take up citizenship, are generally required to demonstrate their knowledge of the English language and life in United Kingdom and from October 2013, applicants for permanent residence will be required to demonstrate that they meet this requirement by passing the ‘Life in the UK test’ and obtain an English language qualification at B1 on the Common European Framework of Reference of Languages. These measures aim to ensure that applicants have the necessary knowledge and understanding to integrate with wider society from the outset.

3.5.2. Promoting integration through participation: rights and obligations – achieving equal treatment and belonging

At EU level : Following the Eurostat pilot study on 'Indicators of Immigrant Integration' published in June 2011[33] the Commission launched a project in 2012 aimed at further exploring the role of indicators for integration policy at EU level. In this framework, a number of independent scientists, civil society and policy-makers, in close cooperation with the EU National Contact Points on Integration, looked at different options for monitoring the degree of migrants' integration (outcomes of policies), including through a thorough process of comparative data collection and analysis.

On 19-20 April 2012, the Danish Presidency organised a conference on “Enhancing democratic values, promoting social cohesion, and furthering intercultural dialogue: Sharing of best European practices”, in Vejle (DK), to discuss how to move forward with the draft European Modules on Migrant Integration. As a follow-up, the Danish Presidency proposed possible steps to further progress and fully transform the draft European Modules on Migrant Integration into a flexible and relevant toolbox with the finalization of the modules into a user-friendly version as a first important step. In 2012 the Commission prepared the work to finalize the modules into a publication.

On 27 November 2012, the Education, Youth and Culture Council adopted conclusions identifying the priorities needed to address the participation and social inclusion of young people with emphasis on those with a migrant background.[34]

At national level, (Member) States undertook specific measures to promote the integration of migrants through their active participation in the democratic process, with several specific examples of migrant involvement in the design and implementation of integration policies (BE, CZ, EE, FI, IE and NO). In Estonia, for example, national minorities took an active part in the elaboration of Ida-Virumaa County development plan, which emphasised integration and the situation of migrants. New measures include improving the participation of migrants in advisory boards at local level (BE) and consultative forums (FI, HU, IE, SK), to stimulate their involvement in policy-making at various levels, and one-day “welcome courses” for newly arrived immigrants, setting out their rights and responsibilities designed and delivered in the main by migrants, working also with an NGO (CZ). (Member) States reported on their work with migrants’ associations to improve migrants’ participation (DE) specifically in the democratic process (PT, NO). In Germany, migrants' organisations act as dialogue partners, helping to shape social integration approaches, and receive support from the Federal Government; in Norway, national funding has increased in order to widen participation.

In Italy, the national equality body against discrimination (UNAR) proposed to the government to grant third-country nationals the right to work in public administration bodies under the same conditions as EU citizens. Bulgaria and Estonia also reported on initiatives to support the development of equal treatment for migrants. In Estonia for example, this consisted of awareness-raising with employers, a survey of perceptions on equal treatment, translation of relevant materials and training to national culture organisations with migrant backgrounds.

Specific actions were also undertaken to encourage migrant take up of voting rights. These consisted of awareness-raising campaigns to encourage migrants to register on the voters' lists and to exercise their right to vote on the occasion of recent elections (BE, FI, LU, PT, UK and NO). Infrastructural developments in this area include the designation of an Electoral Roll Supporting Office to support the electoral enrolment of migrants, in cooperation with local Parish Councils (PT), and improvements to information provision on the rights and responsibilities of migrants within the democratic process, in the form of new guidance documents (UK). In Italy, where under current legislation third-country nationals do not have the right to vote, even at the administrative level, a number of initiatives were encouraged at the local level to promote the representation of foreign citizens. A proposal for a popular initiative law, entitled “Policies on political and administrative participation and on the right to vote free from discriminations based on citizenship or nationality”, was filed, which aims to extend the right to vote in administrative elections to migrants who have been legally living in Italy for at least 5 years. In Greece projects promoting the participation of migrants in associations were developed and in Spain, a call for proposals was launched aimed at developing such projects.

3.5.3. Promoting action at local level

At EU level: As stated in the European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals[35], prompting integration at local level is a key to achieve durable and effective solutions to the challenges of this policy field. Taking into account the wide diversity of the different national contexts, local and regional authorities as well as civil society and the scientific community are essential partners for the Commission in developing the right tools to advance knowledge on the specific issues at stake and supporting successful policy action.

On 20 November 2012, the Cyprus Presidency organised a conference in Nicosia (CY) on the role of local and regional authorities and communities in shaping and implementing integration policies[36].

The exchange of information on good practices via the European Web Site on Integration[37] continued in 2012. By the end of the year, 112 practices had been uploaded on the website meaning that there were a total of 718 examples of good practices, most of these undertaken at the local and regional level. To give further visibility to the important work and role of local and regional authorities and to further increase the exchange of knowledge between these actors, the Commission initiated the development of an interactive map (to be launched on the website in 2013) that will show the work being carried out at the local and regional level in a user-friendly way.

In the 2012 call for proposal 2012-2013 under the European Integration Fund[38] community actions programme was launched. Specific priority to local action to enhance migrants' economic, social, cultural and political participation was given as well as to cooperation with countries of origin in fostering integration. In 2012 the Commission selected 9 proposals based on the work programme of 2011[39].

To further increase the exchange of innovative local and regional methodologies and practices of integration, the Commission also began preparing the launch of two pilot studies on cities and regions that have particularly interesting experiences in this field. The studies will be funded by the 2012-13 Work Programme for the European Integration Fund Community Actions.

At national level, the critical importance of promoting action at the local level was reflected in new initiatives in (Member) States with the active involvement of local authorities to address specific integration challenges and to improve multi-level cooperation between the different levels of governance (AT, EL, IT, MT, NL, PT, SE, SK, NO).

To promote action at local level among the various organisations, several (Member) States reported on new infrastructure: a cooperation platform was established by Netherlands to support the ‘Common Integration Agenda’ (GIA) which in 2012 focussed on enhancing local and national diversity policy through information exchange and harmonisation; in Portugal, new partnerships between local authorities and local support centres for the integration of migrants were established; and in Slovak Republic, there were new projects to promote social and cultural orientation bringing together representatives from local government, towns and municipalities and representatives of state and public administrations. Portugal also completed a national study Diagnosis of Immigrant Population in Portugal: Challenges and Potentials, that aimed to contribute to a better understanding of migrant communities living in different municipalities, to support integration interventions and reduce special inequalities. In Sweden, performance-related funding to stimulate the work of municipalities in urban areas that face problems of extensive exclusion was introduced to improve employment rates, school results and a reduction of dependency on social welfare. In Norway, new collaborative agreements on integration were established with two municipalities, which will eventually be rolled out to include 15 municipalities in Western Norway. Italy carried out a consultation process involving relevant stakeholders working to improve integration at local level to identify strategic priorities in the planning framework for EU funding. In Greece, two projects to enhance migrants’ participation in migrants’ integration councils, which have been set up in each municipality, were implemented. Spain continued to provide European Integration Fund co-financing local authorities to implement integration projects; in 2012, Spain focused on projects that encourage migrant participation in local organisations, that promote the use of common space and that implement social interventions in neighbourhoods with high rates of xenophobia. In February 2012, United Kingdom published its strategy on ‘Creating the Conditions for Integration’ that sets out its approach to creating an integrated society.

Member States reported a range of local integration initiatives, operating both in rural areas (AT), as well as residential areas of growing cities (FI). The focus of such initiatives varied, for example, supporting migrants during the transition between school, training and work (DE); providing extra-curricular activities for children and young people within localities where there are large numbers of third-country nationals, to enable integration with their EU peers (MT); and addressing equality (IE) and discrimination (SE) issues. Methods included using the resources of municipal education and cultural institutions, for example, libraries, museums, cultural centres (LV); and arranging the hosting of migrant families by national families and establishing ‘family pairs’ (PT). Action at local level also included awareness-raising initiatives (BG, EL); the introduction of a newspaper disseminating practical information for the integration of third-country nationals (LV), the manual ‘Living Together Joins/Merges Differences: integration in (fast-track) transition’ (NL) and guides to newly arrived immigrants to facilitate their integration by offering social networking and giving advice on practical issues (SE). Intercultural training of local government staff, police and civil servants working directly with migrants took place in Greece, as well as actions to provide technical support to Councils of Migrants Integration within the country’s Municipalities, including training of stakeholders, the facilitation of networking and the exchange of best practices among the members of the network.

3.5.4. Involvement of countries of origin

At EU level: The role of countries of origin is an important element in EU integration policies and cooperation with countries of origin is one issue addressed in the European Agenda for Integration.

Cooperation with source countries was among the priorities of the 2011, as well as 2012-2013, calls for proposal under European Integration Fund Community Actions programme.

At national level, Member States have worked with countries of origin of migrants to play a role in their integration before departure, during stay in the EU, and on return. Recognising that early integration measures can be effective in facilitating integration on arrival, a number of new measures were introduced (AT, BG, CZ, IT, LV, NO).

New pre-departure measures include language training (AT); the provision of information on entry and residence conditions via diplomatic and consular representations abroad as well as on the home pages of relevant national Ministries (AT, LV); plus specific packages of support for labour migrants (IT). In Austria, a learning platform has been launched in five languages offering pre-departure German courses at all levels, as well as literacy courses to assist migrants to meet the requirements of the Austrian Settlement and Residence Act which requires third-country nationals to demonstrate German language skills to level A1 of the Common European Framework when applying for certain residence titles. Special projects have been established by Italy in those countries where bilateral agreements have been signed and in Hungary, a new project was launched that aims to create an Information Point in Subotica, Serbia, in order to support the pre-accession integration programs and provide trainings for third-country nationals from the Western Balkan states.

Initiatives directly involving third countries aimed at improving integration of third country nationals during stay include pre-departure linguistic and civic education training to family members of resident workers from third countries (IT) and supported actions to facilitate the role of third country community organisations in the provision of services to migrants (PL), for example, language courses, career counselling, assistance in finding accommodation.

For migrants from third countries aiming to return to their country of origin, a number of new initiatives and collaborations with third countries were reported to facilitate this (see Section II, Priority VI for details of voluntary return programmes).

3.5.5. Cooperation, consultation and coordination of stakeholders

At EU level: The EU group of National Contact Points on Integration (NCPI) allows for a regular exchange of information on the implementation and evaluation of Member States integration policies, including through their use of EU funds. The NCPI met three times in 2012 (9 February, 5 June and 15 October). On those occasions, an exchange of information on legislative and policy developments in the field of immigration and integration took place. Coordination and monitoring of policy initiatives in the field of integration was also reinforced by in depth debates on specific initiatives, regularly held during these NCPI meetings.

The European Integration Forum met twice in 2012. The 7th Forum took place on 31 May-1 June as a public hearing on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the EU (see above, 1.4) and the 8th Forum took place on 16-17 October and focused on the contribution of migrants to economic growth in the EU (see above 1.5.1).

The Commission closely followed the preparation of the draft report of the European Parliament on the "Integration of migrants, its effects on the labour market and the external dimension of social security coordination"[40], subsequently adopted in March 2013[41].

Recognising the importance of evidence-based policy making in the area of immigration and integration, the Commission reinforced its links with independent research. In this framework, on 25-26 June 2012, the Commission initiated a formal collaboration with the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute, which conducts policy relevant research on global migration issues.

At national level, several Member States (AT, BE, EE, ES, HU, IE, NL, RO, SK) reported on the activities of national mechanisms set up to improve the cooperation, consultation and coordination of stakeholders. In Austria, for example, the Integration Advisory Committee met twice in 2012, to facilitate exchanges of information between the Federal Government, the Federal States, the Association of Towns and Municipalities, the social partners, the Federation of Austrian Industries, and relevant NGOs. Specifically, the Integration Advisory Committee has been involved in developing innovative measures such as the “Red-White-Red Primer” to facilitate the socio-political integration of migrants. In Belgium, the Interdepartmental Commission on Integration Policy prepared an "Integrated Action Plan” coordinating inputs from across a wide stakeholder group, which was approved by government in 2012. In Ireland, the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration (OPMI) coordinated activities amongst officials from statutory bodies, embassy officials, representatives of NGO and civil society groups, researchers, as well as visiting experts and academics from different countries on integration issues. The Romanian authorities developed a new consultation mechanism between the responsible authorities, civil society and migrant communities and in Slovakia, the Inter-ministerial Commission for Migration and Integration of Foreigners (MEKOMIC), which brings together experts representing all key central state administration bodies, relevant state authorities and institutions, as well as, on an ad-hoc basis, international and non-governmental organisation active in the field of integration, continued in its work. Other stakeholders including representatives from migrant communities actively participated in meetings of the Forum for Integration. In addition to existing national mechanisms set up in previous years, in 2012, at regional level Spain implemented various “integrated action plans” in various municipalities of Catalonia where there are large numbers of immigrants. The aim of the action plans is to integrate migrants, preventing conflicts and ensuring interaction between residents of different cultures.In relation to European level mechanisms, several Member States reported on their activities in the framework of the European Integration Forum and actions by the National Contact Points on Integration. These included contributions to the European Web Site on Integration (AT, BE, EE, LV), and attending meetings of the European Integration Forum (AT, BE, CZ, EE, EL, IE, IT, LV, NL, PL, SE, SK).

Other measures included for example,: conferences such as the Expert Conference on immigrant integration within the framework of the EU Presidency (CY) and a series of expert meetings and round-table discussions with stakeholders to identify problems and problem-solving approaches in specific integration issues (NL), In Hungary, the Budapest Migration Round-table was established as a network of stakeholders to empower relevant NGOs and create more inclusive approaches for migrant inhabitants of Budapest. Other measures included engagement in other relevant EU and international activities, such as the network of experts established by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (LV) and the UNHCR Project Integration Evaluation Tool in Central Europe promoting the integration of third country nationals under international protection (SK), and the publication of a new integration monitoring study ‘Measuring and monitoring immigrant integration in Europe’ (NL) In Estonia, a trilingual website platform focussing on the national integration strategy was launched, providing information to all stakeholders, as well as the general public

3.6. Managing Migration and Mobility

Figure 3: Total visas issued in 2012 showing breakdown (where relevant) between Schengen and National visas (21 Member States and Norway)

Source: EMN APR 2012 National Reports. For some Member States, statistics were not available for the full year at the time of publication (see Table 3 in the Statistical Annex)

Table 3a and b in the Statistical Annex gives a provisional overview of the number of visas issued, by type. The four Member States issuing the highest number of visas in total are United Kingdom (2 229 357), Italy (1 870 382), France (1 771 290) and Germany (1 523 743). France, Germany and Finland ranked as the Member States issuing most Schengen visas (over 90%). In comparison, Poland issued a large number and share of national visas (277 073), representing over 20%).

3.6.1. Visa Policy

At EU level: Negotiations continued in 2012 on amendments[42] to Council Regulation 539/2001[43] proposed by the Commission in order to make a number of technical amendments, introduce a new visa suspension mechanism and revise the existing reciprocity mechanism. The co-legislators found agreement on most of the issues under discussion, but disagreement over the revised reciprocity mechanism prevented the amendments from being formally adopted by the end of 2012. Whatever its final form, the revised reciprocity mechanism is expected to be more efficient and to put more pressure on third countries not respecting the principle of reciprocity. The suspension mechanism will provide a last resort measure in situations where the visa-free regime with a given third country has led to sudden and substantial increases of irregular migrants or unfounded asylum applications from that third country, by allowing a quick re-imposition of the visa obligation on nationals of the concerned third country, on a temporary basis.

On 7 November 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal amending the visa lists of Council Regulation 539/2001[44]. The Commission proposed to move to the visa free list 16 small Caribbean and Pacific island nations. Exempting the citizens of these islands from the Schengen visa requirement will not only promote their mobility but will also provide them with the chance to take advantage of opportunities that may arise from business exchanges, the development of partnerships in many fields and people to people contacts.

In line with the GAMM, visa liberalisation dialogues continued with Russia, Ukraine and Moldova in 2012 while new dialogues were launched with Kosovo*[45] and Georgia, aiming at reaching in due course visa free travel for citizens of both sides. It is an influential instrument for a forward-looking policy on mobility and represents a step further towards closer cooperation and integration between the EU and partner countries.

The Commission continued its efforts, in close cooperation with the Member States concerned, in order to achieve full mutual visa free travel for all EU citizens with the third countries which are exempt from the visa requirement by the EU. On 26 November 2012, the Commission adopted its seventh report about breaches of the principle of visa reciprocity by third countries[46]. Full reciprocal visa-free travel for all EU Member States was established with Brazil. Japanese authorities further extended the temporary visa waiver granted for Romanian citizens. Regretfully, there are still two important cases of "non-reciprocity" that remain: the United States of America still maintains a visa requirement for citizens of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania and Poland; Canada also imposes a visa requirement for the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania.

In anticipation of the Visa Code revision[47], the Commission presented a Communication to the Council and European Parliament on ‘the implementation and development of the common visa policy to spur growth’[48] and a Report ‘on the functioning of Local Schengen Cooperation during the first two years of implementation of the Visa Code’.[49]

The Visa Information System (VIS) successfully started operations in two new regions: the Near East (Israel, Jordan, the Lebanon and Syria), on 10 May 2012, and the Gulf region (Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen), on 2 October 2012. On visa facilitation agreements, the Commission opened negotiations with Armenia and Azerbaijan in February and March respectively. The agreement with Armenia was signed in December and by that time substantial progress was achieved with Azerbaijan. The agreement with Cape Verde was signed in October and the amended agreements with Moldova and Ukraine were signed in June and July respectively. By the end of 2012 there remained one open issue in the negotiations on the amended agreement with the Russian Federation.

As regards Member States' presence/representation arrangements for the purpose of processing short stay visa applications, consular coverage has increased in 2012: Schengen visa applications can be lodged in an increasing number of locations mainly via external service providers and secondly via "traditional" representation arrangements. More than 130 new representation arrangements can be reported; France is still in the lead when it comes to representation of other Member States. The use of external service providers is also getting more and more widespread: Member States launched cooperation with external service providers in more than 100 locations, mainly in Turkey, India and Russia.

Furthermore, in 2012, three Commission Implementing Decisions[50] on the harmonisation of supporting documents were adopted covering the following locations: Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Chile, United Kingdom and Egypt.

After the adoption of Decision No 1105/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011[51] on the list of travel documents which entitle the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa and on setting up a mechanism for establishing this list, the Travel Document Committee was established and took up its work to update the existing list of travel documents. Four meeting were held in 2012. In addition a Travel Document Expert Group was created and examined travel documents as requested by Member States.

At national level, Member States reported a range of updates in relation to the implementation of the Visa Code (BG, CZ, DE, IT, LV, LT, PL, PT, RO, SK, and SE). In Lithuania, an amendment to the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens, was passed which harmonises the provisions of this Law with the Visa Code[52]. In Bulgaria, the implementation of a visa-free regime for holders of a valid Schengen visa, valid long-stay visas and residence permits issued by Member States which fully apply the Schengen acquis, plus Switzerland and Liechtenstein came into force. Romania has further modified its national legal framework (Government Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002) to bring the national legal framework more fully in line with EU provisions in relation to visas.

Member States have reported positively on their experiences of rolling out the Visa Information System (VIS) in North Africa following its launch in 2011, and in 2012, in the Middle East (BG, EL, ES, HU, LU, NL, NO). Whilst successfully implemented, Finland has reported that only approximately 1% of visa applications in Finnish Missions are issued with VIS, due to the very high numbers of visa applications in the Russian Federation. Spain also reported successful operation of the VIS, but expressed concerns over the quality of biometric and alphanumeric data entered by consular authorities. In Italy, as a consequence of the national “spending review” a restructuring of the Italian consular network is being implemented, which has resulted in the closure of several consulates. However, a new online platform for managing visa requests was also implemented during the period. Latvia applies the VIS in the first two regions of the VIS roll-out, involving diplomatic missions in Egypt and Israel. Estonia use VIS in all national missions.

In relation to the processing of biometric data, several Member States (BG, DE, EE, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV,PT and RO) reported recent developments. Germany, for example, aims to further expand the collection of biometric data in its visa procedure, and has carried out verification of visa holders' fingerprints as part of the standard check at some border crossing points since the end of 2011. In Latvia, work has been undertaken to improve the functionality of the national VIS (NVIS), including the improvement of the operation of the NVIS integrated biometrics equipment and in Lithuania, the legal amendments referred to above stipulate that biometric data are to be routinely obtained from third country nationals when national visas are issued. In Portugal, equipment for checking fingerprints (instruments and software) has been installed in Lisbon Airport and will be extended to all border posts. Ireland continued to operate biometric data collection (‘e-Visa’) as part of the visa application process in Nigeria, and has indicated its intention to expand this collection system to include other countries, notably Pakistan. Whilst Romania does not yet issue biometric visas, this approach has been successfully tested at the Cahul Consulate General in the Republic of Moldova for the purpose of issuing biometric visas, and at neighbouring border crossing points, for the purpose of verification.

A number of Member States (BG, CZ, ES, IE, HU, IT, LU, LV, PL, PT, SK, and SE) reported new cooperation initiatives. Bulgaria has developed further dialogue on migration and mobility with Turkey and the Western Balkans, to enhance economic, cultural, commercial and academic relations between the two countries. In this connection, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria approved Decision № 76 and the Decision № 48 of 27 January 2012, which granted visa-free access for certain categories of Turkish citizens plus holders of diplomatic and official passports. Ireland introduced new measures to enable the cross-checking of visa application data with the immigration fingerprint database in the UK.

With regard to consular activities, new cooperation arrangements have been established between EU Member States for representation in third countries: some examples are given in the table below:

Member State || Member State represented || Countries of representation

Belgium || Czech Republic Estonia || Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo

Czech Republic || Slovak Republic || Philippines, Ghana, Mongolia, Pakistan and Algeria, plus Kenya (through a reciprocal arrangement)

Finland || Estonia || Bulgaria

Latvia || Sweden || Astana (Kazakhstan)

Netherlands || Estonia || Oman, Aruba and Curacao.

Portugal || Sweden Greece || Cape Verde Kenya and Australia

Spain || Portugal || Israel (for a 3 month period)

Sweden || Latvia || Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Lusaka (Zambia). There is also an existing agreement between Sweden and Latvia in Georgia.

Norway || Estonia || The Philippines

Table II : New cooperation arrangements for consular arrangements. Source EMN.

Lithuania increased its diplomatic representation in 17 third countries and signed agreements to represent another Member State in a third country with six EU Member States. Hungary signed visa representation agreements with the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, Austria, Austria, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Netherlands, Belgium, plus a number of non-EU Member States, Poland has signed visa representation agreements with Estonia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden and Netherlands and has initiated talks on representation with other Schengen Area countries which remain on-going. Italy has a new agreement on the reciprocal representation for the issuing of Schengen visas (with Estonia in Kosovo) and other pre-existing cooperation frameworks. Spain is no longer represented by Germany in Lilongwe (Malawi) nor by the Netherlands in Asmara (Eritrea) and is negotiating with other Member States to represent them in these cities. Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland have reported that they are now working with outsourcing organisations in some third countries. Greece, for example, has established visa centres in collaboration with external providers in Russia, China, India, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Turkey, and new centres to be established in other geographical areas are in progress, whereas in Lithuania, these were in Russian Federation and Ukraine, in Hungary, India, and in Poland, Kaliningrad Oblast and Ukraine.

3.6.2. Schengen Governance

At EU level : In September 2011, the European Commission had proposed to strengthen the EU's area without internal borders by enhancing the evaluation and monitoring of the application of the Schengen rules (COM (2011)559. In addition a mechanism was set out for the reintroduction of internal border controls as a last resort (COM (2011)560). The proposed mechanism will not make it any easier to reintroduce internal border controls, but rather, it will ensure that a coordinated EU response is available to protect the functioning and the integrity of the Schengen Area as a common good shared by 400 million people. It would only apply in exceptional circumstances. These proposals were intensively examined and discussed by the European Parliament and the Council in 2012. Negotiations will continue in 2013.

At the same time, the Commission announced its intention to present a biannual overview on the functioning of Schengen, providing the basis for a regular debate in the European Parliament and in the Council. The first report (COM (2012) 230) covered the period 1 November 2011 - 30 April 2012 and was adopted on 16 May, discussed by the JHA Council on 7 June and by the European Parliament on 4 July 2012. The second report (COM (2012) 686), covering 1 May – 31 October 2012, was adopted on 23 November, debated by the JHA Council 6-7 December and by the European Parliament on 18 December 2012.

In its 4.5.2011 Communication on Migration (COM(2011) 248), the Commission had committed itself to issue guidelines to ensure a coherent implementation and interpretation of rules governing the Schengen area. Two areas were identified in which such guidelines could have an added value: issuing of temporary residence permits and travel documents to non-EU citizens and police measures in the internal border zones. In 2012, after consultations with the Member States, guidelines in these two areas were developed and annexed to the first biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, COM (2012) 230.

Schengen enlargement: As regards the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, the European Parliament adopted its legislative resolution approving the accession of Romania and Bulgaria by a large majority on 8 June 2011 and the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 9 June 2011 concluded that both Romania and Bulgaria fulfil the so-called Schengen criteria. The necessary unanimity in Council for taking the decision to lift internal border control with these two Member States has however not yet been reached.

At national level, (Member) States reported a range of recent developments. Latvia developed a list of documents necessary for the receipt of Schengen Visas within the framework of local Schengen cooperation in accordance with Article 48 of the Visa Code, aimed at reducing irregular visa applications and facilitating the processing of regular applications in the Schengen area. Norway reported recent developments in its national administrative and operational structure and procedures, in particularly, progress in developing a National Coordination Centre (NCC), to assist in preparations for the implementation of EUROSUR from 2013.

Italy and Slovenia undertook actions to review and appraise aspects of Schengen governance. Slovenia began an evaluation of the Schengen system, focussing initially on air and sea borders and an evaluation of performance at the external land border is planned for 2013.

In Spain, a week-long suspension of the internal Schengen border took place at the time of the meeting of the Central European Bank in Barcelona (in early May). During this week , Spain controlled the entry of 669,385 persons and rejected 68 entries for reasons of national security or lack of documentation. Poland, also temporarily reinstated border controls at the sections of the border with Germany, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Lithuania at the time of the organisation of the European football championship finals (EURO 2012) by Poland and Ukraine in June 2012. A further development in the field of Schengen governance in Poland was the preparation of an Agreement between the Governments of Poland and Russian Federation on the rules of local border traffic, which entered into force on 27th July 2012.

4. INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM

Figure 4a: Asylum applications in EU-27, January 2011 – December 2012

Source: Eurostat Data in focus 05/2013

Figure 4b : Total first instance decisions on asylum applications and total positive decisions in first instance 2012 Source : Eurostat

Table 4 and 5 in the annex, provide an overview of Asylum Applicants and First Instance Decisions by Member State in 2012.[53] In 2012, there were 331 975 asylum applicants[54], a nearly 10 % increase from 2011, and as for the previous year it is estimated that around 90% of these were new applicants and around 10% were repeat applicants. The main country of citizenship of the applicants remained Afghanistan (26 250 or 8% of the total), and in 2012 the second coutnry became Syria (23 0510 or 7%) and there after the Russian Federation (23 360 or 7%), Pakistan (6%) and Serbia (6%). Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Belgium register 70% of all applicants. with the highest number registered in Germany (77 500, or 23%), followed by France (60 600, or 18%), Sweden (43 900, or 13%), the United Kingdom (28 200, or 8%) and Belgium (28 1000, or 8 %). When compared with the population of each Member State, the highest rates of applicants registered were recorded in Malta (4 980 applicants per million inhabitants), Sweden (4 625), Luxembourg (3 905), Belgium (2 535) and Austria (2 065)

A total of 268 495 first instance decisions were made,[55] of which 71 580 were positive decisions (some 26,7 %). Of these 37 245 (14%) were granted refugee status, 27 920 (10%) subsidiary protection and 6 415 (2%) authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons. 196 920 were rejections (73% of decisions).

4.1. Common European Asylum System

At EU level, the goal of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament had been to complete the package of instruments of the second phase of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) by the end of 2012. This ambition came close to being achieved during 2012. In this context, the Commission emphasizes that the completion of the second phase of CEAS does not end with a political agreement on the new legislation, but also entails its actual adoption and future implementation, as informed by the developing case law of the CJEU in relation to the Qualification Directive[56].

Political agreement was reached on 27th June 2012 concerning the Reception Conditions Directive [57] and endorsed at the JHA Council on 25 October 2012. The Recast of the Directive further harmonises the Union's rules to ensure that there are appropriate material reception conditions for asylum seekers across the EU. For the first time in an EU instrument, detailed rules have been adopted on the issue of detention of asylum seekers (informed by the developing case law of the European courts) aimed at ensuring that such detention can only exceptionally be resorted to, and that the fundamental rights of the concerned persons are fully respected.

The amended Directive will help to ensure that the most vulnerable are adequately protected. It clarifies the obligation to conduct an individual assessment in order to identify the special reception needs of vulnerable persons; it provides particular attention to unaccompanied minors and victims of torture and ensures that vulnerable asylum seekers can also access psychological support. Finally, it includes rules on the qualifications of the representatives for unaccompanied minors.

The amended Reception Conditions Directive addresses the obligation to guarantee dignified living conditions for asylum seekers as well as the need to counteract abusive asylum applications. The Directive includes certain tools to be used against such abuses such as the possibility to withdraw or reduce material support.

After years of difficult negotiations, agreement was finally reached at the end of 2012 as concerns the recast Dublin Regulation[58]. The new Regulation will increase the efficiency of the system and will ensure higher standards of protection. An early warning, preparedness and crisis management mechanism is foreseen, geared to addressing the root causes of dysfunctions in national asylum systems or problems stemming from particular pressures. It provides clear reference to solidarity with MSs under pressure and an obligation to comply with fundamental rights.

The new Regulation introduces a series of provisions on the protection of applicants fundamental and procedural rights, such as a compulsory personal interview, guarantees for minors (including a detailed description of the factors that should lay at the basis of assessing a child's best interests) and extended possibilities of reunifying them with relatives. Applicants will be guaranteed the right to appeal against a transfer decision. The Regulation also now provides for the possibility for appeals to be suspensive, together with the guarantee of the right for a person to remain on the territory pending the decision of a court or on the suspensive effect. Legal assistance is to be provided free of charge upon request.

There is a single ground for detention, namely where there is a risk of absconding, and the scope for detention is strictly limited. It intr