REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

First Progress Report on the implementation by Russia of the Common Steps towards visa free short-term travel of Russian and EU citizens under the EU-Russia Visa Dialogue

I. Background

The EU-Russia Summit in St Petersburg in May 2003 agreed that the Parties would start examining the conditions for reciprocal visa-free travel as a long-term perspective which laid down the basis for the visa free discussions between Russia and the EU. Consequently, in spring 2007, the EU-Russia Visa Dialogue was launched. Similarly to the visa dialogues with other third countries and based on the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, the EU-Russia Visa Dialogue was built around four Blocks (document security including biometrics, illegal migration including readmission, public order and security, and external relations).

Between December 2007 and March 2010 six expert meetings took place in Moscow in order to explore the state of EU and Russian legislation and practice in all fields under the four Blocks of the Visa Dialogue.

Based on the findings of these expert meetings, the Commission proposed to the Council that, at the May 2010 EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council on Justice, Freedom and Security (JLS PPC), both sides should agree to start working towards a document on "Common Steps towards visa-free travel" that would list technical criteria and requirements for a visa free regime. The Council accepted that approach.

On that basis, the May 2010 JLS PPC tasked the senior officials to discuss how to move to a practical phase. On the proposal of the senior officials, who met several times in 2010, the November 2010 EU-Russia JLS PPC endorsed formally the methodology of the Common Steps and invited the senior officials to draft the document.

The first EU draft of such a list was transmitted to Russia in March 2011 with a view to starting the negotiations. The process lasted until the end of the year and the “Common Steps towards visa free short-term travel of Russian and EU citizens” were officially agreed between the EU and Russia at the 15 December 2011 Summit. The Summit also launched their implementation.

A dedicated kick-off meeting between the EU and Russian experts took place in March 2012. During that meeting both sides discussed and explained their understanding of each Common Step and operational measure necessary to be addressed in order to fully evaluate their proper implementation.

Russia and the EU thereafter prepared their respective written reports on the state of implementation of all the Common Steps. Russia transmitted its written report on 13 April 2012 whereas the EU side did so on 31 May 2012. Further written exchanges and replies to additional questions formulated by both sides were carried out until September 2012.

On the basis of the written exchanges both Parties organised experts’ field missions. Four missions of EU experts to Russia (both Moscow and numerous regions) took place between September 2012 and July 2013 (one mission per Block). Similarly, Russian experts undertook four missions in the EU between December 2012 and October 2013 (in total 23 visits to particular Member States were organised).

The EU-Russia Visa Dialogue is based on full reciprocity between the Parties. The way towards visa liberalisation depends on the progress made in implementing the Common Steps and there is no automaticity in the process. As the Common Steps specify in their final provisions, only once the implementation of the Common Steps is completed, the Parties will decide, in accordance with their respective internal procedures, on starting negotiations on an EU-Russia visa waiver agreement. The full implementation of the EU-Russia visa facilitation and readmission agreements is very important for the Visa Dialogue.

Furthermore, while considering the implementation of the Common Steps, the evolution and assessment of other issues, as listed in the final provisions of the Common Steps, will be also taken into account (links between the migratory flows and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; rate of visa applications refusals, of readmission applications accepted and of effective returns; number of return decisions, of refused entries at the border and of apprehensions of respective citizens irregularly staying at each other’s territory as well as border crossing time between the EU and Russia).

The Commission has regularly reported both to the Council and to the European Parliament about all developments under the Visa Dialogue. At the appropriate time, the Commission will also present a comprehensive assessment of inter alia possible migratory, border management and security impacts on the EU and on the regional coherence of a future EU-Russia visa free regime.

This is the first progress report presented by the Commission describing the state of play of the implementation of the Common Steps by Russia, formulating issues of concern and recommendations.

II. Assessment of the implementation of the Common Steps under each Block

Block 1: Document security, including biometrics

General assessment

During the last few years, Russia has made a lot of progress in this area. This includes the introduction of the biometric passport in 2006 and its updates according to ICAO standards in 2010 and 2013. The production, issuance and personalisation of international biometric passports are quite secure and follow the relevant practices and standards of ICAO. Stolen and lost passports are reported to the centralised Interpol database, albeit through a manual process. Breeder documents (including internal passports — Russia’s main identity documents (IDs)) are secure enough for their purpose and the personalisation as well as issuance procedures reflect the current standards. Training programmes including measures against corruption are provided, although their efficiency remains to be analysed. It should also be noted that the liberal regulation concerning change of name, coupled with the fact that there is no central civil registry, might create potential for abuses.

Detailed comments

Introduce ICAO-compliant biometric passports on the basis of a comprehensive and secure identity management, taking into account work carried out in the ICAO framework and adequate protection of personal data and ensure their authenticity, facilitate accurate verification of identity of their holders by relevant authorities of both Parties.

Following the introduction of biometric passports in 2006, an updated version has been issued since 1 March 2010. It is ICAO-compliant and includes enhanced security features. Starting from 2013, a third generation of biometric passports containing also information on fingerprints is being issued. Although the demand for non-biometric passports is declining, it is still possible to obtain them and there are no plans to end their issuance.

The main competences for the production and issuance of both international passports and breeder documents are held by: State Printing House Goznak; State Registry Office (ZAGS) with its regional and local offices (responsible for issuance of source certificates); the Federal Migration Service (FMS) with its regional and local offices (responsible for issuance of international passports and Russian internal passports).

The current generation of biometric passports is well protected against forgery and meets ICAO standards. The issuing process is reliable and quite secure, be it at the stage of checking the identity of the applicant, printing and storing blank passports or personalising them. The security of the information stored for this process is governed by the Federal Law No 152-FZ of 27 July 2006 ‘On personal data’.

The breeder documents (i.e. internal passports and source certificates) are technically well protected against forgery. Furthermore, the new type of internal passport (issued since January 2008) carries additional security features and its content is machine-readable according to ICAO standards. Blanks are produced (at central level) and stored in a secure and efficient way. Personalisation and issuance of those documents take place at the regional level and the relevant procedures reflect the current standards.

The visited central and local premises of the relevant authorities handling both international passports and breeder documents were well secured. The administrative security procedures concerning access to and handling of documents were in place.

There is no central registry. The source certificates are handled regionally and each region has its own registry and electronic database (at least in the offices visited by the EU experts). Consultations between regions take place administratively in case of any doubts (via official request sent by post). The Russian authorities referred to plans to establish a new centralised electronic civil registry but no firm date was provided. Some improvement in this regard might be a portal of interconnection between various federal agencies and ministries (SMEV), allowing for electronic handling of requests (reportedly already operational).

The rules for changing one’s name appear to be quite liberal and remain a concern. In fact, there are currently no restrictions on citizens who want to change their name. Moreover, due to the lack of a centralised civil registry, name changes can only be tracked at the regional level or after a formal request to another ZAGS regional office, which requires time, thus creating scope for abuses.

Ensure prompt and systematic reporting to the Interpol database on lost and stolen passports.

Information about lost and stolen international passports is stored in the centralised database of the FMS and then reported to the National Central Bureau (NCB) of Interpol (based at the Ministry of the Interior, MoI) in order to be integrated through the push-pull information system of Interpol’s Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database. Uploads to the Interpol database are done manually on a daily basis.

The MoI has been carrying out a development project in order to improve the information exchange between the FMS and Interpol’s NCB aiming at automatic uploads to SLTD (to be accomplished by 2013).

So far, Russia has not integrated lost and stolen internal passports or breeder documents into Interpol’s SLTD database because those documents cannot be used abroad. Nonetheless, the possibility of including also such documents is being considered by the Russian side.

Maintain regular exchange of passport specimens and visa forms, information on false documents and cooperation on document security.

Passport specimens and visa forms are regularly exchanged via diplomatic channels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The FMS receives the specimens of foreign documents from the MoI and sends them for information to the FMS’s territorial offices.

Conduct training programs on the methods of the document protection, on the basis of ICAO standards, inter alia on introduction of biometric parameters, as well as exchange of information on the methods and respective possible scientific researches in the field.

Officers of ZAGS and FMS are subject to initial trainings followed by regular updates. E-learning programmes are also provided. The Consular Department of the MFA has established a training centre offering courses on the issuance procedure and security features of biometric passports.

The efficiency of the training programmes is likely to vary according to the size of a particular office, its (more or less) remote location and human resources available. The officers who were met during the EU expert missions in all premises of the relevant authorities were well aware of the relevant procedures, their duties and competences.

Undertake and if necessary improve anti-corruption measures, including ethical norms, targeting officials of any public authority that deals with comprehensive and secure identity management.

According to the Russian authorities, anti-corruption issues are included in the general trainings for the respective staff, and the anti-corruption content is updated when new relevant legislation is approved. However, the experts’ mission could not really check the content and quality of the training courses and curricula requirements (in particular with regard to ZAGS).

As part of a general anti-corruption policy, the FMS adopted the Code of Ethics and Conduct of State Civil Servants (the FMS Order of 25 February 2011), which is being implemented with regard to all its employees. Some of its provisions are explicitly incorporated in the FMS’s employment contracts. The FMS has also established channels of communication with citizens for the purpose of combating corruption (website, hotline, etc.) and is putting preventive measures in place.

The importance of anti-corruption measures in the field of document security is particularly underlined by the fact that, even if the system for the issuance of documents works well to prevent forgery, corruption may create more opportunities for obtaining original documents illegally.

Issues of concern and actions recommended to be followed up under Block 1:

On the basis of the above findings the Commission identified the following issues of concern requiring further discussion with the Russian authorities:

The rules regulating change of name in Russia are quite liberal and might open some scope for abuses and easy changes of identity. Those changes would not be easily detectable in particular by authorities of third countries including the EU Member States. Furthermore, the lack of information about the content and outcomes of trainings and curricula requirements of the FMS and ZAGS officials in particular with regard to anti-corruption measures did not allow the Commission to fully evaluate the progress in this area. Finally, the Commission will continue to exchange information with the Russian authorities with regard to further development of a centralised civil registry, the electronic system interlinking the federal agencies and Ministries (SMEV) and an automated system for the introduction of alerts into Interpol’s SLTD database.

Block 2: Illegal migration, including readmission

General assessment

In recent years, Russia’s migration policy has undergone significant changes. The new Migration Policy Concept that was adopted in 2012 is a visible sign of that process.

In fact, the Russian authorities have started a broader reflection on migration that takes into account also the beneficial effects that migration flows can bring in terms of economic development. Moreover, the Russian authorities have acknowledged that bureaucracy and inefficiency of the migration procedures are frequently the cause that turns many regular migrants into irregular ones and have recognised the pressing need to integrate migrants into Russian society.

As regards visas and legal migration channels, the FMS is the main authority managing migration in Russia and ensuring coherence. A full and comprehensive system of rules is in place. Some rules are still quite complex (e.g. quotas and work permits).

Certain amendments have already been introduced to the Federal Law, in particular in the context of implementation of the EU-Russia Visa Facilitation Agreement (VFA); improvement of the situation of highly qualified specialists (HQSs); facilitation of migration registration and visa procedures; and simplification of access to the labour market (regarding the quota system and patents). Further changes, in particular improving the legal migration procedures also for other groups of migrants, are expected.

Irregular migration is a challenge of which the responsible authorities are aware. Efforts are increasingly being devoted to ensuring the effective return of irregular migrants that are apprehended in Russian territory as well as to overall enforcement of the migration rules. Proper cooperation with Belarus (due to the State Union and absence of border controls) as well as the flows from CIS countries (including proper passport controls) seems to pose a challenge. The return procedures are in place and cooperation on returns with many countries of origin is being developed. The EU-Russia readmission agreement functions satisfactorily.

Both for irregular migration and border management, the information gathering system and in particular the risk analysis, including at the regional level, were difficult to evaluate. The collection of defined indicators (e.g. illegal border crossings, refusals of entry, etc.) on new irregular migration channels, routes and cross-border crime, provided it is made available to local units, could enhance the effectiveness of border controls.

With regard to asylum, the administrative structures and procedures are in place, and the reception centres for asylum seekers that were visited by the EU experts met the basic requirements and current standards. Provision of more information at border crossing points (BCPs) for potential asylum seekers as well as reinforced and structured cooperation between the FMS and Border Guard Service (BGS) (a service of the Federal Security Service, FSB) could be considered. Rules making the access to certain rights for recognised refugees and asylum seekers subject to their registration as well as bringing the status of temporary asylum (subsidiary protection) closer to that of refugee should be considered. The new asylum law is expected to bring about some improvements in this sense.

The border management system and procedures at BCPs are of standard value even if some improvements could contribute to their efficiency. Equipment at BCPs is regularly improved. The BGS is a professional border management and law enforcement authority with a well-established position among the agencies.

The BGS is in principle committed to cooperation with the border authorities of the neighbouring countries and Frontex. Some progress has been achieved also in regard to cooperation between the BGS and third countries’ border management authorities, including with EU Member States. The latter should now be deepened and more structural information and data should be exchanged.

With regard to cooperation with other relevant agencies in Russia, the BGS should deploy additional efforts in order to render the scope of cooperation more concrete, in particular with the FMS and Federal Customs Service (FCS).

Data gathering is done on a regular basis and analysis units exist in the relevant agencies (at least in the BGS and FMS). The data are still gathered separately by each agency, which leads to fragmented statistics. The risk analysis is not shared and even if it is prepared there is some doubt about its comprehensiveness and methodology.

According to the Russian authorities, the training programmes including on document security for border guards are well developed. The anti-corruption measures form part of that and ethical codes exist. The content of those however was not shared with the EU experts.

Detailed comments

2.1 Migration issues

Conclude between Russia and all the relevant EU Member States the implementing protocols to the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the European Community on Readmission of 25 May 2006, while ensuring effective implementation of this Agreement.

The EU-Russia readmission agreement entered into force on 1 June 2007. It is monitored regularly by the Commission in cooperation with the EU Member States (for the EU) and by the FMS (for Russia). The main platform for discussing any issues arising during the implementation of the Agreement is the Joint Readmission Committee (JRC) which so far has met twice per year (13 meetings organised until now in Moscow and Brussels).

All readmission procedures under the Agreement are operational. Overall evaluation of the Agreement is satisfactory. All the technical points are addressed regularly at the JRC meetings. Given the good cooperation achieved so far, during the last JRC meeting it was decided to reduce the frequency of meetings to one per year.

The FMS is the main agency on the Russian side responsible for the implementation of the Agreement, and it has a special unit dealing with all related matters.

The BGS is responsible for the accelerated readmission procedure at the BCPs. The BGS’s border delegates have been appointed for the implementation of the border readmission procedure. However, during meetings at some BCPs, the EU experts noticed that local BGS representatives were not fully aware of the details of that procedure.

The implementing protocols under the Agreement (between Russia and EU Member States) have been almost concluded. Protocols have been signed with 23 EU Member States). The Protocol with Greece has been signed and should be ratified in the near future. Russia informed that it is open to negotiating further with Croatia. During several JRC meetings Russia informed that it is ready to negotiate the protocol with the UK. Ireland and Denmark are not bound by the Agreement.

Effectively implement the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the European Community on the Facilitation of the Issuance of Visas to the Citizens of the Russian Federation and the European Union of 25 May 2006.

The EU-Russia visa facilitation agreement (VFA) entered into force on 1 June 2007 (in parallel to the readmission agreement). It is monitored regularly by the Commission in cooperation with the EU Member States (for the EU) and by the MFA (for Russia). The main platform for discussing any issues arising during the implementation of the agreement is the Joint Visa Facilitation Committee, which meets regularly at the request of one of the Parties, normally at least once a year (9 meetings organised until now in Moscow and Brussels).

In order to ensure full, correct and harmonised implementation of the provisions of the VFA by the Parties, the Joint Committee developed and adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the VFA. The meetings of the Joint Committee are considered by both Parties as a platform for constructive cooperation and an opportunity to discuss any technical issue arising in the context of the application of the Agreement. The Agreement is being implemented satisfactorily.

The Commission does not have detailed statistics on visas delivered by Russia for the period 2007-2011. The exact refusal rate for EU citizens is unknown but, according to the Russian side’s estimation, would constitute approximately only 0.01-0.02 % (about 200-300 rejections a year). Approximately 1.25 million visas are issued annually to EU citizens, of which about 45 % are multiple-entry visas with a long-term validity.

Before the final decision on its signature is taken, the upgraded VFA must be assessed in the light of the overall EU-Russia relations.

Amend the above-mentioned visa facilitation agreement in order to further simplify visa requirements for the short-term travels.

The text of the upgraded VFA has been cleared and will contain, inter alia, a reciprocal visa waiver for civilian air crew members and its provisional applicability as of signature. This will put an end to the current unbalanced situation, in which all EU Member States exempt Russian civilian air crew from the visa obligation, while Russia still maintains a visa obligation for those Member States with whom it does not have bilateral visa waiver agreements for this category of persons (BE, CZ, EE, EL, FI, IE, LV, LX, PT, SI, SK).

One issue remains open: the visa waiver for holders of biometric service passports as requested by the Russian side. On the EU side the safeguards that are to accompany this visa waiver are still being examined.

Work to ensure facilitation, further simplification and transparent application of the respective rules on registration/listing of citizens legally staying on the other Party's territory, on issuance of permits to legally stay/reside and exercise labour activity, aiming to reduce in practice the length of administrative procedures and burden for citizens; and regularly exchange information on respective visa policies.

Russia has a comprehensive system of legal migration rules which are laid down in several federal laws and amendments thereto. The FMS is the main authority responsible for their implementation.

Many changes have been introduced with regard to the listing (recording) of foreigners, which is mandatory at each place of stay in Russia. Currently, this obligation is imposed on each foreigner (regardless of his/her length of stay) within seven working days at the FMS regional office (previously three working days). This period can be prolonged on the basis of bilateral agreements, as is the case, for instance, for France (10 days) or Kazakhstan (30 days).

Furthermore, third-country nationals (TCNs) residing as HQSs (see below) and their family members are entitled to stay in Russia for up to 90 or 30 days (depending on the circumstances) without migration recording.

The migration recording procedures are to be carried out by the Host Party (the latter is clearly defined by law) to the FMS. For tourists, this task should be performed by hotels or the person inviting them to Russia. The TCN is not obliged to have, at least directly, any specific contact with the FMS. The documents necessary for the recording (including copies of passport and migration card) can be submitted directly or by mail by the Host Party.

Furthermore, TCNs are no longer responsible for non-compliance with the obligation of migration recording and sanctions are only applicable to the Host Party (previously the responsibility was also on the TCN).

Registration procedures are applicable to TCNs legally residing in Russia for a longer period (work, studies, etc.). Some improvements have also been introduced in that procedure, in particular with regard to the ways of submitting the request. Having said this, despite the fact that the procedure is declaratory in nature, the supporting documentation required from the applicant is sometimes difficult to meet (e.g. proof of ownership of the property or a statement by the owner). Given that access to several social rights for migrants is dependent on valid registration, the procedure could create a de facto hurdle to accessing those rights.

The two main types of permits issued for legal stay of TCNs are temporary and permanent residence permits.

A TCN interested in obtaining a temporary residence permit in Russia needs to apply to the relevant territorial office of the FMS or to the relevant diplomatic mission or consular office of Russia in the country of residence. If the application is approved, a four-month visa valid for entry to Russia is issued. The application can be submitted in person or in electronic format, together with the requested supporting documents including a certificate confirming the absence of HIV or addiction to drugs. The Russian authorities have six months to decide on the request. The reasons for refusal are clearly specified by law.

It appears that TCNs residing in Russia with a temporary residence permit are allowed to work only in the region and on the position as authorised in the (usually one-year) work permit. Furthermore, if their work permit is limited only to one region, their business trips within Russia cannot be longer than 10 days. Those rules seem to be quite restrictive.

The temporary residence permit has a validity of three years and can be renewed at the TCN’s request by providing the same set of documents (including those concerning HIV and drug addiction), if the TCN had left the country and returned to Russia. If he/she has stayed in Russia uninterruptedly for three years, the TCN can also apply for a permanent residence permit (see below).

A privileged status in the legislation on labour migration of Russia is held by HQSs. To attract HQSs into the Russian labour market, the Russian authorities have facilitated their employment and residence rules. HQSs are quota-exempt and, together with their family members, entitled to receive multiple-entry visas for the period of validity of their work contracts (up to three years) and repeated extensions of their permits for up to three years each time. Moreover, if they perform labour activity in two or more regions, the permit issued is valid in those regions. In case of changed employer they have 30 working days to search for a new one. HQSs are also entitled to apply for a permanent residence permit without undergoing the procedure of a temporary residence permit and, together with their family members, they enjoy broad socio-economic rights.

A permanent residence permit can be issued to a TCN, after he/she has been living in the country on the basis of a temporary residence permit for at least one year. The residence permit is issued for a period of up to five years and may be renewed an unlimited number of times.

The TCN must submit an application to the relevant FMS territorial office at least six months before the expiry of the temporary residence permit. The application must be accompanied by an extensive set of documents similar to those required for a temporary residence permit. The grounds for refusal to issue a permanent residence permit are similar to those for temporary residence permits.

The legal status of a foreign citizen in possession of a permanent residence permit is very close to that of a Russian citizen, including exemption from quota and work permit obligations.

Foreign nationals can perform labour activity only on the basis of a work permit, unless they fall under one of the exceptions that are listed in the Federal Law No 115-FZ of 2001.

In order to get a work permit, the TCN has to apply to the territorial department of the FMS at the place of stay and submit the application form and the requested supporting documents. The work permit is issued within 10 working days after receipt of the application. If the work permit is to be granted within 30 days, the TCN has to submit medical documents (including confirmation of being HIV negative, drug addiction free and not affected by serious infectious diseases), under the threat of termination of the work contract. The medical tests are to be undertaken only in designated (and a limited number of) places, which sometimes creates practical difficulties.

The number of work permits that may be issued to TCNs annually is limited by a quota that is established by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection in cooperation with the MFA and other institutions. The whole process is quite complex, time-consuming and inflexible. Quotas are set for each region in advance for the coming year on the basis of forecasts gathered from employers. This approach might cause problems and delays and its efficiency is doubtful. Russian authorities seem aware of this as they are considering a revision of the quota rules.

In parallel to the quota and work permits system, there is a ‘patent’ system which is reserved for foreign citizens coming to Russia under a visa-free regime and in particular from CIS countries (with the exception of Turkmenistan). A patent is issued within 10 working days, upon a request made by a (hosting) Russia citizen. It authorises the labour activity for personal, domestic or other similar needs of an individual, on the basis of a labour agreement or civil contract (for nannies, domestic help, etc.). A patent may be provided for a period of one to three months and extended up to one year. After that period a new patent may be issued. The number of issued patents is not limited.

Initially, Russia had no integration policy for migrants. More recently however, after a strong inflow of TCNs (in particular from CIS countries), this became a need which was also recognised by the Migration Policy Concept (see below). Some measures are being implemented including teaching of the Russian language, history and cultural traditions; pre-departure courses organised in countries of origin for prospective migrant workers going to Russia; vocational training and lessons on Russian migration laws and language. Two pilot projects in this field have been implemented in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. In addition, the FMS has reportedly established a special unit dealing with integration. A comprehensive integration strategy is still not fully in place.

All visa-related procedures are regulated by Government Regulations which are also in conformity with the provisions of the EU-Russia VFA.

In order to get any type of visa, a foreign citizen should apply to the diplomatic mission or consular office of Russia and submit the necessary (clearly specified and rather standard) documents including an invitation. Some additional documents might be necessary for long-stay visas. On that basis, a visa will be issued according to the purpose of visit. The visa may be refused by the MFA on the basis of reasons specified by law. There is no obligation to give justification for such refusal.

Non-conformity of the claimed purpose for entry with the actual one is considered a violation of the entry or residence regime and punishable (fine, expulsion and/or re-entry ban).

Visa holders are obliged to leave Russian territory upon expiry of the authorised period of stay stated in the visa. The total duration of stay of a foreign citizen in Russia on the basis of a multiple-entry short-stay (business) visa cannot exceed 90 days within each period of 180 days. Long-stay visas are issued specifically for the length of the purpose of stay in Russia.

The visa policy of Russia relies very much on specific bilateral agreements. Russia has concluded more than a hundred agreements either on visa-free short-term travel (most significantly with Israel and Turkey) or on visa facilitation (e.g. with the EU or the United States). Moreover, visa-free regimes apply to almost all CIS countries (apart from Turkmenistan). According to the information provided by the Russian side, other visa-free agreements might be signed with Japan, South Korea and India.

Exchange information, including within the Russia-EU Dialogue on Migration, on a legal framework, as well as on administrative structures, including their respective competences and working methods, and on infrastructure (including detention centres) for effective general migration management, in particular for effective elaboration of methodology on inland detection and expulsion of illegal migrants, as well as the current flows, statistics and risk analysis of illegal migration and closely cooperate in the fight against crimes, connected to the illegal migration, and addressing possible deficiencies.

The new Migration Policy Concept (Concept) for the period 2012-2025 was elaborated by the FMS and adopted by the President of the Russian Federation in June 2012. It is the main policy document on migration in Russia. The Concept aims to promote migration to Russia for some groups of TCNs, in particular HQSs and large investors, students, compatriots and qualified workers (namely from CIS countries), according to market needs. In this regard, it defines measures for promoting migration, such as creating the conditions for family reunification, gradually simplified procedures of entry and stay for business, labour (improvement of the quota systems) and educational/scientific purposes, procedures in respect of residential registration and medical care, development of circular migration, etc. The Concept focuses on the positive effects of regular migration, which is presented as a necessary response to demographic decline. Implementing laws are being developed at the federal level. At the same time the Concept puts emphasis on respect of the migration rules by TCNs in Russia and on curbing irregular migration.

Most migration-related competences in Russia belong to the FMS. Since 2012, the FMS is subordinated directly to the Russian Government and its head has been recently raised to the rank of a federal minister. The FMS is a leading federal executive body comprising regional offices, inter-regional structures and contact points located abroad. The FMS is responsible for drawing up and implementing the federal migration policy and for the management of activities on both regular and irregular migration.

Another actor involved in migration management is the BGS, which is responsible for border checks and border surveillance. Other ministries and agencies are also involved in migration control and management according to their competences (Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, MFA, etc.).

According to the Russian authorities, although the FMS does not carry out controls in the border area, it cooperates with the BGS on the basis of an Annual Cooperation Plan and regional plans. Despite that information, the EU experts during their mission could not confirm the FMS operational cooperation with the BGS. The FMS is not present at the BCPs even if the communication channels between the BGS and the regional FMS office are established.

Russia’s international cooperation on migration matters involves mainly contacts between the FMS and migration agencies from CIS countries on the basis of the 1992 Agreement, which includes exchange of liaison officers. The activities focus on the fight against irregular migration. Operative-preventive measures and special operations against irregular migration and trafficking in human beings are conducted reportedly also in the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and, on the Russian side, they involve the FMS, MoI, FSB and Rosfinmonitoring.

Further cooperation takes place in the readmission area on the basis of bilateral agreements. In addition to the EU, Russia has concluded such agreements inter alia with Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, China, Turkey, Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Belarus and Vietnam. Readmission negotiations are carried out inter alia with Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, India, Belarus, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Russian side has indicated that all agreements in force work in a satisfactory manner.

The EU-Russia Migration Dialogue was launched in 2011 and several sessions on both irregular and legal migration have taken place. In particular, two sessions on irregular migration and one on legal migration were organised in Bratislava, Kaliningrad and Budapest (both sides exchanged in the field of legal migration statistics on labour shortages, quotas and visas, as well as best practices on integration policies; with regard to irregular migration, statistics on returns were exchanged.). The Migration Dialogue provides a useful platform for discussion and exchange of best practices on the respective migration policies.

The State Union between Russia and Belarus and the lack of border controls between the countries require reinforced contacts and cooperation between the relevant agencies. The two countries do not have a common visa policy and entry to Russia does not mean authorisation to enter Belarus and vice versa.

Both the Russian BGS and the FMS reportedly cooperate with the Belarusian migration authorities in their border area. Having said this, no tangible tools (databases, information exchanges) of that cooperation seem to exist (apart from the mutual recognition of migration cards).

The FMS has quite extensive and detailed statistics on entries and stays of regular migrants in Russia (in particular thanks to the established entry/exit database). Some of the most significant figures show that annually 13-14 million TCNs enter Russia. The majority (70 %) come mainly from CIS countries and only 10 % from the EU. Less than 5 % of those who enter come to reside on a long-term basis.

The FMS is aware of the composition of irregular migration flows to Russia but more detailed statistics were not really provided. According to the available information, irregular migration (evaluated at around 4 million persons) originates mainly from CIS countries (80 %) and concerns originally regular migrants, who then remain in Russian territory beyond the validity period of their permit. There seem to be no common statistics on irregular migration between the FMS and BGS and each agency collects its own data (the FMS on inland situation and the BGS on apprehensions at the border). This does not contribute to comprehensive knowledge on the irregular migration flows in Russia. Consequently, no comprehensive and structured risk assessment is prepared by either agency or at least was not provided to the EU experts during their mission.

Irregular migration rules which are clearly laid down in law have, according to the information provided by the FMS, been evaluated and aim at increasing sanctions for the organisation of irregular migration. Liability of carriers for bringing travellers without the necessary authorisation to enter Russia is provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences. The FMS further cooperates with railway carriers by giving them access to the personal data database in order to detect people named on the re-entry-ban list.

The FMS, being responsible for detection of irregular migration within Russia but not being an enforcement agency, conducts the checks in cooperation with police and other agencies if necessary. The FMS clearly focuses on controls at workplaces. The regular controls require prior planning (one year ahead) and publication. The unexpected controls require prosecutor’s authorisation.

An entry/exit database was established by the FMS in cooperation with the BGS. It gathers data about the entry, exit and stay of TCNs in Russia. Another system is being also developed as a pilot exercise aiming at electronic filling of migration cards which need to be submitted by each TCN entering Russia (apart from Belarusian nationals). The system already functions at the Moscow airports and it should be extended to all BCPs in the future (no specific dates have been provided though).

A person apprehended while irregularly staying in Russia may be administratively fined and/or issued with a removal order. In addition, a re-entry ban may be imposed on the person, which for those who commit violations of migration rules several times may be of unlimited duration. Information about persons with entry bans is introduced into a special database.

If the person is apprehended for the first time, the sole penalty seems to be in most cases an administrative fine (with no removal order). This however leaves the person in an ambiguous situation as regards his/her status in Russia. The persons apprehended are also fingerprinted and their data are stored in a database.

Two types of return procedure are in place: expulsion and deportation. The legal framework and the procedure for both are regulated by the Federal Law No 115 FZ and an order by the MoI.

Administrative expulsion may be voluntary or involuntary and is ordered by a court. It is carried out by the Federal Bailiff Service, or by the Police. Deportation concerns a foreign citizen who has not left Russian territory as required by the migration rules (e.g. termination or cancellation of a permit or of validity of the visa, refusal of asylum application, etc.). The decision on the deportation is made by the head of the FMS territorial unit or by the head of the FMS. The right to appeal against both types of decisions can be filed by the person concerned within ten days.

For actual return, the person will be subject to readmission if Russia has a readmission procedure with the country of origin.

Two types of detention centres exist: for persons subject to expulsion or deportation; or for persons whose return to the country of origin is covered by a readmission agreement. The latter are administered by the FMS. The former are administered by the MoI but as of 2014 will also be managed by the FMS. The persons may be put in detention on the basis of a court ruling, which can be appealed against within 10 days. The Code on Administrative Offences does not stipulate a maximum detention period.

Some of the centres for migrants awaiting readmission have been built with the support of the EU project AENEAS following the conclusion of the EU-Russia readmission agreement. The centres for irregular migrants awaiting readmission that have been visited by the EU experts (Moscow region, Rostov-on-Don and Pskov) have been found to be in line with the general EU standards.

2.2 Asylum issues

· Establish clear and transparent asylum procedures effectively accessible for persons seeking asylum.

· Ensure proper status, including rights and duties, for persons recognized to be in need of international protection in accordance with the Parties’ obligations under international law, including under the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees.

Russia acceded to both the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol in 1993, when the first law on refugees was also adopted. The law extends to so-called temporary asylum (subsidiary protection). The legislation has since been extensively amended. Moreover, an entirely new law on refugees is under preparation, which should address many outstanding issues.

In principle, any asylum application should be lodged at a BCP when entering Russian territory. In practice however, such a request can also be initiated when the person concerned has already entered Russian territory, either legally or irregularly. Asylum applications are examined by the territorial offices of the FMS.

In this context, it should be noted that the FMS is not present at the BCPs. This situation requires strong cooperation between the BGS and FMS as well as adequate training of border guards on international protection. The information on the relevant procedures should be also available at BCPs.

During the visits at the BCPs by the EU experts, very little information about international protection and procedures was available for potential asylum seekers. The BGS pointed out that the standard training of its border guards covers also international protection. The FMS reported also that it organises some trainings for the BGS on that topic. In practice, the cooperation between the BGS and FMS seems to be on an ad hoc basis. This might lead in some situations to refusal of entry for a person claiming asylum at a BCP. One of the aims of the new draft law on asylum is indeed to revise border procedures.

Once submitted, the admissibility of the application needs to be verified within five days. During that time however, no document is issued to the applicant, which may lead to risk of refoulement in some cases. According to the FMS, the admissibility is refused solely if the applicant is subject to a criminal procedure, in which case the asylum application may be only examined after that procedure is finalised. Reportedly, only 1-2 % of cases are declared inadmissible. The decision on inadmissibility may be contested at a court.

After a case is declared admissible, a substantial review of the application is made by the officers of the FMS territorial offices, who conduct interviews with the applicants (the latter need to also fill in special questionnaires). Free of charge interpretation is normally provided, although some problems might occur with less common languages.

While assessing asylum applications, the FMS uses various sources including its own and the MFA’s. Reportedly, information is also gathered through requests that are regularly addressed to the UNHCR and from NGOs specialised in human rights. However, the FMS does not seem to have a tangible and structured Country of Origin Information (COI) system which could contribute to a more systematic approach in the evaluation of each case.

The decision on an application should be issued within three months (the period may be extended by an additional three months).

Any refusal of an asylum application can be appealed at a court within one month. The appeal suspends the return procedure. There is no designated board of appeal or court specialised in asylum cases. The appeals are handled by the regular court system. The FMS stated that it organises regular training for judges on international protection. Having said this, it was not possible to ascertain the efficiency of that training and the percentage of successful appeals as the relevant authorities refused to meet the EU experts. According to non-governmental sources, the number of court decisions quashing administrative decisions in such appeals is close to zero. The person whose application has been refused is obliged to leave Russian territory within three days of the notification on the decision.

The persons recognised as refugees receive their status for an indefinite period. This results from a change in 2013; earlier, the status was granted for three years renewable upon another application and evaluation. The Russian legislation protects recognised refugees against refoulement. Persons recognised as refugees are issued with biometric IDs (as of July 2013). They have the same socio-economic rights as Russian citizens (including freedom of movement, work, education, healthcare). However, the possibility to exercise those rights depends heavily in practice on whether or not the person concerned has valid registration at an address in Russia, which for some (especially those staying outside the reception centres) may constitute an obstacle. Access to rights can be even more complicated for recognised beneficiaries of so-called temporary asylum (a form of subsidiary protection), since their status is less privileged than that of refugees (the rights are the same as those of asylum seekers and the status is granted for one year). The new draft law on international protection equalises the status of refugees and beneficiaries of temporary asylum, which is welcome.

Regarding the reception conditions for asylum applicants, the FMS operates a number of reception centres for asylum seekers, where they are allowed, but not obliged, to stay. Apart from these centres, and if asylum seekers do not wish to stay there, no further assistance such as pocket-money or food coupons is provided to them.

Asylum seekers during the procedure are protected from refoulement. They are entitled to work and have access to healthcare and education. The access to those rights is dependent however on registration which may be difficult to obtain for those who do not live in a reception centre. With regard to the statistics, the recognition rate for asylum applicants appears to be relatively low. In the period 2006-2011, out of some 13 000 applicants, only 7 % (9 % in 2011) were recognised as refugees. However, 40 % of the applicants were granted temporary asylum. Applicants originated mainly from Afghanistan, Georgia and more recently Syria.

· Closely cooperate, within the Russia-EU Dialogue on Migration, on the asylum related issues.

On 14 December 2011, an extended thematic session on international protection was held in the framework of the EU-Russia Migration Dialogue in Moscow. During this session, the Parties exchanged information, statistical data and experience on all aspects of granting asylum, including international and national law, and addressed opportunities for further development of cooperation between Russia and the EU in this area. The next specialised sessions on international protection should be organised under the Migration Dialogue in December 2013 in Stockholm and 2014.

Furthermore, within the Prague Process Targeted Initiative and its pilot project as well as within the UNHCR Quality Initiative Eastern Europe Project — both supported by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and funded by the EU — several EASO training modules have been translated into Russian (Inclusion, COI, Interview Techniques, and Drafting and Decision-making). Russia was invited to participate in both projects.

· Exchange information on respective administrative structures competent for treatment of asylum cases, including on reception facilities for asylum seekers, and addressing possible deficiencies.

The FMS is the body responsible for receiving and considering claims for international protection. According to the information provided by the Russian side, the FMS territorial offices have separate refugee departments dealing with asylum seekers, who receive ad hoc training several times a year from the FMS and UNHCR experts.

The FMS cooperates regularly with UNHCR in the field of asylum. A number of NGOs are active in this field and work together with the FMS and UNHCR as well.

The EU experts visited two reception centres for asylum seekers in Ochyor and Vishnyi Volochek, and assessed them positively even if they were located in rather remote areas. Neither was running at full capacity.

The two reception centres visited had a ‘health point’ with at least two trained nurses on duty. One centre also had a psychologist amongst its staff. The centres did not have interpreters amongst their staff. If necessary, third party interpreting can be hired.

There seems to be no particular training for the centres’ staff for dealing with the specific needs of asylum seekers or refugees, or vulnerable persons in particular. The authorities in both centres stated to prefer applying an individual approach, whereby every resident receives the care and attention he/she requires.

· Develop a comprehensive exchange of information on their respective policies towards integration and adaptation of recognized refugees and persons granted international protection, and addressing possible deficiencies.

There seems to be no special policy addressing the question of integration and adaptation of persons granted international protection into Russian society. In practice, however, there are some initiatives similar to those offered to other migrants. Most of them are offered to refugees who choose to stay in one of the state-operated accommodation centres. There are no specific integration programmes or assistance offered to those who live outside the centres.

A certain level of integration is ensured by the rights guaranteed to refugees including education or the possibility to acquire Russian citizenship. Refugees formally have the right to ‘invite’ also their family members. The latter however need to go through the same recognition procedure.

2.3 Border management issues

· Optimise the appropriate working mechanism for closer cooperation and more intensive contacts and information exchange between the Russian and EU Member States’ border services, in particular at state border crossing points and effectively implement the working arrangement between the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the EU ("FRONTEX") and the Border Guards Service of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation.

The BGS established cooperation with Frontex in 2006 when a working arrangement was signed. Since then, several action plans have been agreed for the gradual development of the cooperation, and the last one, for the period 2013-2015, was agreed in October 2013. This cooperation covers the whole spectrum of activities of Frontex with particular attention to operations and risk analysis. Some positive steps have been achieved. In the area of exchange of information and analytical activities, however, there is still room for improvement not only for the agreed, defined and regular exchange of statistical data but also in the area of joint analysis, which could contribute to a better understanding of the situation regarding irregular migration in the region.

The cooperation between the BGS and the border agencies of EU Member States bordering Russia is satisfactory and established at central, regional and local levels. This cooperation covers also the deployment of border delegates for direct contacts on a daily basis. Furthermore, best practices are exchanged and common trainings organised. Having said this, there is still limited information exchange in particular about violation of green borders, false documents detected at BCPs and queues at BCPs.

· Undertake necessary steps in order to develop cooperation between the Federal Agency for the Development of the State Border Facilities of the Russian Federation (Rosgranitsa) and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the EU ("FRONTEX").

Rosgranitsa is involved in several multilateral international forums for cooperation. The agency has also developed cooperation (within its competences) with the neighbouring EU Member States and cooperation protocols to that effect exist with Latvian and Estonian authorities.

During the experts’ mission, Rosgranitsa repeated its offer from 2010 to develop and sign a joint memorandum/arrangement with Frontex in order to cooperate in the development of BCPs, especially through the exchange of best practices. In the meantime Rosgranitsa has participated in several events organised by Frontex, in particular in the area of research and development linked to automatic border control systems of the future.

· Deploy appropriate staff, resources, technical equipment and infrastructure at the relevant parts of the state border, as well as effectively implement border control procedures and best practices at their common state border crossing points to ensure secure environment for the movement across the borders between the EU and the Russian Federation, while fighting cross-border crime, improve efficiency of controls of that movement and make common border crossing less strenuous and reduce the waiting time.

The EU experts’ Block 2 mission visited many BCPs at various parts of the Russian border i.e. the border with Kazakhstan (Karaozek-Kotyayevka), Ukraine (Matveyev Kurgan, Kuibyshev, Krasnodon, Belgorod, Naumovka, Nehotyeyevka and Troebortnoe), Belarus (due to the lack of border controls no BCPs are there), Latvia (Terehova-Burachki and Zilupe-Sebeza) and Estonia (Narva-Ivangorod and Kunichina-Gora) as well as various airports (Domodedovo, Sheremetyevo, Vnukovo, Rostov-an-Don and Astrakhan) and seaports (St Petersburg and Astrakhan).

Rosgranitsa is the Russian agency in charge of purchasing equipment and developing the infrastructure for BCPs. The agency owns the basic equipment and infrastructure in the existing 372 international and 259 local BCPs along the whole Russian border. It is also responsible for the development of those existing BCPs. A special financial programme is devoted to the development of facilities and infrastructure at BCPs in Russia managed by Rosgranitsa. The priorities of those improvements for the moment are: Sochi area, sea borders and international train connections. It is recommended that the EU-Russia border be part of those priorities.

The improvements and changes of infrastructure at any BCP are agreed by special Coordination Boards established for that purpose. They bring together the main actors at any BCP: Rosgranitsa, BGS and FCS.

It is clear that many efforts are devoted to improving the existing BCPs. Some of the visited BCPs were very recent. At the same time, the old (still working) BCPs in those places were very outdated — no real access to those facilities was granted to the EU experts. Some of the new BCPs already provided the facilities necessary to carry out joint border checks (e.g. at the border with Ukraine and Kazakhstan).

Efforts are also being made to limit the waiting time at the most crowded BCPs (in particular with the EU). Rosgranitsa is well aware of the problem. Some terminals (e.g. at BCPs with Latvia) were built in order to accelerate the lorry controls and several other projects aim at boosting the capacity of other BCPs between Russia and the EU Member States. Also some facilitating measures like websites with web cameras providing information in real time at the BCPs are being implemented. Here, some procedural improvements might be envisaged in particular concerning the current strict division of tasks between the FCS (controlling only goods) and the BGS (controlling only persons) and a very formalistic approach to those procedures by each agency. On 12 September 2013, FCS classified consignments of goods coming from one EU Member State into the highest risk profile, leading to 100% physical controls for lorries loaded in that Member State. The lengthy controls involved the unloading of the entire vehicle, a very costly and disruptive process. Neither the Commission nor that Member State were notified in advance. This practice increased substantially the waiting time at the relevant BCPs. The practice at those BCPs has been restored to normal. The situation will continue to be closely monitored.

The legislation and practices with regard to border checks are of applicable standards. The procedures are quite unified across the country. The main concern seems to be the approach to the border checking of persons. It seems that those checks are primarily focused on checking the identity of the person. Virtually no attention is paid to the purpose of the visit even if the law fully allows the border guards to interview the travellers and refuse entry if there is doubt about the good faith of a traveller. No profiling of travellers is used in the person’s checks including at the big airports, where the design of booths renders it impossible even to screen persons visually before their appearance in front of the border guard.

The equipment in BCPs is rather standard. Officers at the first-line checks have a passport reader, a computer with access to at least the entry ban and wanted persons database and a basic set of tools to check the authenticity of documents. This may be considered sufficient. Second lines of document control were not shown to the EU experts apart from Sheremetyevo airport and St Petersburg seaport. Those second-line checks which were shown were of sufficient quality. For the other places, one should assume that those second lines do not exist. This situation seems to be confirmed by a practice according to which at the BCPs with the EU Member States, the second-line checks are done by the EU border guards. The above, combined with the fact that no database on forged documents exists, nor is any other information on such documents accessible at the BCPs, might limit the efficiency of border controls.

At some airports, the preparation for the fully automatic checks (so-called ABC) has been done and some gates are already installed (although not yet operational). The border checks done in trains or on ships are undertaken with the use of mobile equipment guaranteeing the same quality control as at the stationary BCPs.

The equipment for control of goods at BCPs was also present (x-rays, sensors, etc.) but the EU experts were refused to closely evaluate it. Obviously, due to the Customs Union the BCPs with Kazakhstan are designed only to focus on the control of persons.

Due to the State Union with Belarus and the absence of border controls, no BCPs exist there. This requires reinforced cooperation between the authorities which was not really seen during the EU mission.

Another particularity is the access of CIS nationals to Russia on the basis of only their internal passports (IDs). This issue seems to have now been addressed with the recent requirement for CIS nationals to hold an international passport when entering Russia, which should come into force in 2015.

Visas are not delivered at the border apart from very exceptional situations. Having said this, border guards are entitled to prolong the visa for up to three days on exit from Russia — this happens mostly if someone has overstayed in Russia the validity of his/her visa by up to three days.

With regard to the green and blue borders surveillance, the EU experts were informed that appropriate resources and equipment were in place. However, more detailed information was refused by the Russian authorities. It is therefore not possible to make any conclusions on that point.

· Exchange information on their appropriate border-related administrative structures, maintain cooperation between their border services, law enforcement and other competent agencies and address possible deficiencies.

The BGS is the authority responsible for border surveillance of all the land and maritime external borders of Russia and for the border controls at all BCPs. The agency’s activity is carried out at federal, regional and local/BCP level. The BGS has been an integral part of the FSB since 2003, but it has its own budget. Another agency involved in border management is Rosgranitsa, which is in charge of the purchase and administration of the equipment for BCPs. Customs are also present at each BCP for controls on goods.

The authorities concerned affirmed that the operational cooperation between Russian law enforcement agencies, i.e. BGS, FMS, Police/MoI, FCS, is working well. The interinstitutional agreements are reportedly in place and meetings at central, regional and local level are being held. This assessment could not be verified by the EU experts, since they could not consult any written cooperation agreement or protocol. The strict distinction of tasks and followed practice between the BGS and FCS does not really confirm the cooperation between those two agencies.

· Develop a data gathering and analysing system allowing to carry out regular risk analysis for border management.

The BGS (and FMS) has specialised units and personnel for gathering comprehensive border-related information, statistics and risk analysis at central and regional levels. Some doubts were however raised with regard to the distribution of the gathered information within the BGS (from headquarters to BCPs and vice versa). Moreover, the exchange of information between the analytical units of different law enforcement authorities should be enhanced. For the moment each of those agencies develops their own statistics according to its own needs and indicators — this results for example in lack of harmonised statistics for irregular migration. On top of that, the statistical office (Rosstat) does not have competence to gather irregular migration statistics.

Various databases are developed both by the BGS and FMS which cover major needs. The interconnectivity of some databases however could also be improved as some of them may be consulted only through the respective regional branches of the agencies or by official administrative requests (e.g. entry/exit system managed by the FMS).

Furthermore, the quality and methodology of risk analysis was impossible to evaluate. The EU experts could not see any sample of risk analysis which reportedly is prepared regularly on a monthly, quarterly and yearly basis.

The cooperation with the neighbouring EU Member States for the collection and analysis of data is in place. The information exchange under the working arrangement between the BGS and Frontex has been described above.

Russia aims at gathering data on passengers arriving to, departing from and transiting through its territory by any means of transport (air, sea or land). The legislation is being implemented gradually as of 1 December 2013 and obliges transport operators to provide Advanced Passenger Information. The purpose of the measure seems to be security rather than irregular migration. The Russian side has confirmed that the scope of the legislation is limited to Advanced Passenger Information. The relevant legislation has been amended. The intended collection of data for overflights remains a significant concern for the EU. The situation will be closely monitored.

· Pursue set of measures for prevention and suppression of the document fraud and their use for the border crossing, inter alia by training of law-enforcement, border and customs agencies staff.

All the BCPs visited were equipped with the basic material for detecting forged documents. The personnel is trained to use the equipment through training courses, seminars and workshops.

All first-line border guards are trained on document security in one of the BGS training centres. In addition, they have qualification-raising courses once every five years. Heads of BCPs are responsible for additional training on the spot. The BCP staff have to pass a test once a year. Refresher courses are usually provided on an ad hoc basis.

Suspect documents are investigated more thoroughly at second-line controls (if present at particular BCPs — see also above for remarks on second-line document checks). The officers for second lines do not have particular training but they are recruited from the more experienced staff.

No database on forged documents exists nor is any particular material with examples of forged documents accessible at BCPs. The most common materials available at BCPs are the specimens of international travel documents with description of their most important security features. The novelties with regard to forgeries are disseminated in an ad hoc way (e.g. at the beginning of the shift).

· Conduct training programmes and implement anti-corruption measures, including ethical norms, specifically targeting officials of state border-related structures, and addressing possible deficiencies.

The EU experts visited the BGS academy and one of the institutes for the training of officers. The officers’ training system was positively assessed and is reportedly in line with the Bologna process. Academic approach and scientific research are integral parts of training. Measures against corruption and ethics belong to the basic education of every officer.

The institute organises also updating courses for BGS officers. These courses are mandatory for each officer once every five years and they are of one or two months’ duration. However, the training programmes of border guards and warrant officers were not presented to the mission team.

Anti-corruption measures and ethical norms are reportedly included in the basic training of the BGS officers. The EU experts were told that neither the FMS nor BGS provides additional courses on combating corruption. The EU experts were not allowed to see the anti-corruption code of the BGS. It was explained that different types of internal and external controls including questionnaires addressed to travellers, hotlines and cameras are available at the BCPs to detect and prevent attempts at corruption.

Issues of concern and actions recommended to be followed up under Block 2:

On the basis of the above findings the Commission identified the following issues of concern requiring further discussion with the Russian authorities:

· The conditions of stay under a temporary residence permit and/or work permit in particular with regard to length of business trips, registration procedure, quota system, renewals procedure and linked health tests appear to be unnecessarily complicated;

· A comprehensive integration strategy including for persons under international protection is not fully in place, which limits the ability to effectively manage the legal migration flows;

· The decisions on granting international protection status do not seem to be based on a coherent country of origin information system which could provide a solid basis for authorities with regard to the real situation in the countries of origin of applicants. This might impact on the consistency of those decisions;

· The absence of border checks between Russia and Belarus allows free circulation between the two countries (including possible secondary movements of irregularly staying persons). In order to prevent possible abuses in an efficient manner, tangible and structural cooperation between the FMS/BGS and the relevant authorities in Belarus needs to be established;

· Effective migration management requires good cooperation between the authorities controlling the border (i.e. BGS) and authorities tackling the situation inland (FMS) e.g. through possible interconnection of databases, presence of FMS officers at some BCPs and dissemination of information on asylum procedures. This guarantees not only a good overview of the situation (e.g. statistics on apprehensions of irregular migrants both inland and at the border) but also proper access to international protection mechanisms at the border;

· In some cases, the apprehended persons irregularly staying in Russia are not issued with a removal order but are only administratively fined. This might create legal limbos where the person is not entitled to stay in Russia but not obliged to leave either;

· Many BCPs at the border with the EU do not have sufficient capacity to cope effectively with the flow of persons, thus contributing to a long waiting time. Furthermore, the infrastructure of some of the BCPs at the border with CIS countries is outdated. This could be addressed both by the development of the relevant BCPs and by improvement of procedures for checks at BCPs by various authorities. In this context, one should also note that the authorities virtually use no profiling or risk analysis during checks on persons at the BCPs — doing this could further improve the efficiency of those checks.

The following actions are recommended with a view to further improving the implementation of the relevant Common Steps:

· Render fully operational the accelerated procedure under the EU-Russia readmission agreement by informing and training the border guards about their tasks in this context;

· Adopt the new draft law on asylum including covering the procedure at the border; bringing the rights of persons under subsidiary protection closer to those of refugees; access to rights regardless of registration; issuance of proper documentation to asylum seekers also under the admissibility procedure;

· Given the important number of asylum seekers in the EU originating from Russia, organise information campaigns in mostly concerned regions about the rights and obligations of persons under international protection or those applying for it in the EU;

· Improve the exchange of relevant, harmonised, indicator-based and regular statistical information and the joint analytical work with Frontex under the working arrangement concluded by BGS;

· Establish second-line document checks at least at the busiest BCPs and provide the BCPs with appropriate materials on possible forgery techniques so that they are better equipped to detect falsified documents.

Given the lack of sufficient information, the Commission was unable to fully evaluate the progress with regard to the following issues relevant for Block 2:

· Green and blue border surveillance strategy (equipment, techniques etc.);

· Training content and ethical code of border guards;

· Efficiency of judicial appeal system for asylum (statistics, trainings, etc.);

· The possible risk analysis reports on irregular migration and border management;

· The content of inter-institutional agreements between the BGS and other law enforcement agencies on cooperation on border management.

Block 3: Public order, security and judicial cooperation

General assessment

With its fully-fledged administrative structure and capacity of law enforcement agencies, Russia has been active in the past years in tackling transnational crime, terrorism and corruption. The multitude of agencies however has the disadvantage of a potential overlapping of competences. The interconnection of the relevant databases could also help in the contacts between the respective agencies. Furthermore, although Russia is open to international cooperation and has established various channels to that end in those areas, in practice the process is very centralised and mainstreamed through the headquarters of the relevant agencies. This results in long delays in the handling of third countries’ requests. This cooperation could be further enhanced by the conclusion of the operational agreement with Europol. The police reform implemented over several years should be further improved as some of its initial goals were apparently not reached.

Russia has developed a comprehensive anti-money laundering/counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) system. The shortcomings identified by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) are being addressed by upcoming legislative amendments. The Russian authorities are also pursuing a global anti-drug strategy, aiming to suppress both supply and demand. On trafficking in human beings (THB), Russia itself acknowledges that its data do not capture the extent of the problem. Although the actions are undertaken in order to fight against the criminal aspects of THB, a clear framework for comprehensive treatment (including shelters) for victims is lacking. Russia also has a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy, in line with international practice, with a clear focus on the threat originating from the Northern Caucasus region. Little effort, however, has been made in the above areas in order to prepare risk analysis linked to the establishment of the Customs Union (with Kazakhstan and Belarus) and a possible visa free regime with the EU.

Russia has recently undertaken many strategic and legislative efforts against corruption. It has now ratified all major international conventions including those of the UN, OECD and Council of Europe (CoE) and is consequently subject to their monitoring mechanisms. Russia seems open to implementing the recommendations formulated during those monitoring activities. There are undoubtedly still several concerns here, including with regard to cooperation with civil society, independence of the judiciary and public procurement.

For judicial cooperation, Russia has ratified the two Hague Conventions relating to Child Abduction and Child Protection. The implementation of the former (with some minor possible improvements) is ready although the issue of the acceptance of Russia’s accession by all EU Member States on behalf of the EU is still pending. The latter Convention entered into force very recently and although the Central Authority has been appointed, the implementing legislation is still being prepared. On criminal matters, Russia is a party to the main CoE Conventions providing the basis for efficient cooperation. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters is however (similarly to the law enforcement area) extremely centralised, which delays the responses to various requests. Furthermore, some EU Member States encounter problems with their requests where replies are not given within six months or not at all.

On data protection, Russia has ratified the 1981 CoE Convention and it is implemented by means of several federal laws and other implementing acts. The ratification of the additional Protocol however is still pending and the Commission does not consider the designated supervisory body (Roskomnadzor) to be independent.

Detailed comments

3.1 Fight against transnational organised crime, terrorism and corruption

· Follow relevant international standards in the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing, in particular effectively fulfill relevant Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) recommendations.

Russia has developed a comprehensive AML/CFT system since the adoption of its first legislation in 2001. The main legal basis in this area is the Federal Law No 115-FZ. Some provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code on Administrative Violations are also applicable in this context. This legal framework has been amended several times, mostly due to the necessity of aligning it with the international standards.

The core agency in this respect is the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring (Rosfinmonitoring) which plays the role of Russian Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). It was placed under the direct authority of the President in May 2012. Rosfinmonitoring is a professional, well-equipped and sufficiently staffed agency (at its headquarters and regional offices).

Rosfinmonitoring leads the national coordination mechanism against money laundering and takes part in the national anti-terrorism mechanism. Furthermore, the agency was ordered in June 2013 to outline a National Strategy on AML and on 5 July 2013 presented an action plan to enhance transparency and prevent misuse of companies and other legal entities. In 2014, Rosfinmonitoring will produce the first ever National Threat Assessment in the AML/CFT area as well. Rosfinmonitoring also runs an International Training and Methodology Centre, which carries out relevant trainings for 3 000 participants a year. Online courses are also available for self-training. Criminal investigation of AML cases reported by Rosfinmonitoring is carried out by several law enforcement agencies, while CFT cases are investigated by the FSB following the report by Rosfinmonitoring.

Rosfinmonitoring carries out active international cooperation, in particular by providing the secretariat of the Eurasian Group (EAG) and taking over the chairmanship of FATF in July 2013. In 2011, there were 1 200 exchanges of information with foreign FIUs.

The Russian system against money laundering and terrorism financing has been thoroughly evaluated by international actors (FATF and CoE/Moneyval) in recent years. In order to respond to the recommendations formulated by FATF in its most recent report, which was published in 2012, a bill containing a number of amendments to the national legislation is pending in the State Duma. Once the bill has entered into force, the main remaining issue should be the criminal liability of legal entities, which is still absent under Russian law.

The mission found substantial progress in line with other international actors’ evaluations. According to the EU experts, the Russian institutional and legal framework is mostly in line with the international standards. The statistics on activity provided during the EU mission are included in the ‘Second Third Round Written Progress Report’ submitted to Moneyval.

With regard to terrorist financing, the Russian authorities have reported an increasing interconnection between terrorism and organised crime, as well as the fact that the proceeds of extortion, thefts and robberies are used to finance terrorist activities. The authorities are well aware of the risks in this field.

Inter-agency cooperation between Rosfinmonitoring and FSB seems to be well-established and functioning.

· Further enhance exchange of information and cooperation between relevant agencies of both Parties to effectively combat trafficking in illicit narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors, and effectively implement the working arrangement between the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and relevant agencies of the Russian Federation.

The Strategy of the State Anti-Drug Policy elaborated by the Federal Drug Control Service (FDCS) of Russia was adopted in 2010 and is valid until 2020. Its focal points are: reduction of demand, reduction of offer and international cooperation.

The main agency responsible for combating drug-related crime, including the implementation of the strategy, is the FDCS. In 2007, a central Anti-Narcotic Committee was established, with regional committees across Russia to coordinate the work and actions in this area. The committee is headed by the FDCS and reportedly involves other law enforcement agencies.

As regards reduction of demand, the emphasis is on young people who have not yet abused drugs. Treatment and rehabilitation are offered, and cooperation exists with schools, parents and NGOs. Investments are being made for the establishment of treatment centres though they do not currently match the needs (e.g. lack of places for HIV treatment). Treatment programmes seem to focus only on one disease per programme, which does not allow for the holistic and comprehensive treatment of persons.

Work on the supply side is carried out by many law enforcement agencies. The central position is held by the FDCS. Criminal investigations however may be carried out by Police, FDCS, FSB and Investigative Committee (depending on the circumstances and facts of the case). The number of law enforcement agencies (including the FCS for border checks) as well as their competences calls for clarification and clearer division. This situation also has an impact on the efficiency of international cooperation. Furthermore, the designer drug problem and, in particular, the slowness in putting new drug combinations on the list of banned substances is seen as a shared concern.

Statistics about the narcotics situation are being produced with data collected from the districts, while the national committee is responsible for the overall implementation and reports to the President. However, no analysis exists concerning the potential risks for drug smuggling following the establishment of the Customs Union with Kazakhstan and Belarus as well as the possible visa free regime with the EU.

Key partners in international cooperation include the Central Asian countries. Other important partners are Pakistan, Afghanistan, the USA and EU Member States (including on the basis of international agreements). Russia is also active in international and regional forums such as the Pompidou Group or the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS). The main cooperation flow is centralised and requires contacts between the headquarters for any cooperation request. This results in long delays in getting responses. Although some mechanisms of direct cooperation in the field were pointed out by the Russian authorities, the current practice should be reinforced.

Cooperation between the FDCS and the EMCDDA is in place on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 26 October 2007. In this context, the EMCDDA and the FDCS have established a stable and permanent communication channel allowing them to exchange information on different topics of mutual interest. The FDCS and the EMCDDA have also exchanged invitations for technical meetings and invitations to expert meetings. The EMCDDA receives regular requests for information on national and EU drug-related legislation.

The EU-Russia agreement on the control of drug precursors was signed during the June 2013 Summit. The agreement should enter into force once ratification procedures are completed on both sides.

· Exchange information on respective strategies and laws to fight trafficking in human beings including to protect its victims, in accordance with the Parties’ obligations under the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocol on Trafficking in Human Beings and addressing possible deficiencies.

Penalties for THB in Russia were stipulated for the first time by the Federal Law No 162-FZ of 2003 amending the Russian Criminal Code. Russia also ratified both the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocol on THB in 2004.

Russia is a country of origin, transit and destination of THB. The main aims are sexual and labour exploitation. Although the official (rather basic) statistics indicate that human trafficking offences constitute only 0.1 % of all offences, even the authorities themselves say that the real number is much higher (ca. 8 %). The main regions of origin of the victims are Central Asia and the South Caucasus States. No specific statistics on THB victims were available.

The authority with the main responsibility for investigation of THB is the MoI, which has a dedicated department for these issues. The FSB handles criminal offences involving a national threat and large-scale organised activities through irregular immigration. The Investigative Committee, on the other hand, conducts criminal investigations in cases involving minors or officials. Although the FMS is not competent to investigate those cases, it is responsible for the situation of any irregular migrant and will at least interact with the THB victims. Similarly to other areas, the overlapping competences may still cause problems in this field. The Government does not have a body to monitor its anti-trafficking activities and make periodic assessments measuring its performance. The MoI issued a roadmap for its reform, which included the formation of an Interagency Anti-Trafficking Commission with representation of the General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO), the MFA, the FMS, the FSB, the Investigative Committee, and other agencies.

Russia does not have a dedicated action plan against THB addressing the phenomenon coherently. THB is still tackled mainly from the crime angle, i.e. fighting against networks organising it. From that perspective no particular comments are required except for the issue of overlapping competences mentioned above. Having said this, no specific legislation on the protection of victims of THB exists and the only applicable rules seem to be the ones on the protection programme for victims and witnesses of any offences. This approach should be improved given the particular situation of THB victims which might not be covered by general schemes. Shelters for victims are usually managed by NGOs or international organisations, e.g. the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Red Cross or churches. Some funding/support is provided by the state (the FMS) or municipalities on an ad hoc basis. The IOM plays an important role in assisting victims, and cooperation with such actors as the MoI and FMS is established. The IOM is also providing a shelter in St Petersburg and carries out regional programmes in the Republic of Karelia and other regions. The shelter visited in the Moscow region arranged by the Church hosted several Vietnamese THB victims awaiting return. They had access to the basic needs including health care. Having said this, clearly the centre was arranged on a very provisory basis. More structural solutions should be aimed for.

On the basis of available information, there have been no nationwide campaigns to raise awareness of THB in Russia. In 2012 the MoI published and distributed an informational brochure warning of the dangers of becoming a victim of trafficking. In some parts of the country, the MoI teamed up with community councils to distribute the pamphlets in public places, such as educational centres. The MoI conducted regular training in 2012 designed to guide its officers in handling trafficking cases.

International cooperation was evaluated as effective in practice by the Russian authorities, with joint operations with Ukraine, Spain, Finland and Uzbekistan.

· Ensure exchange of information and cooperation between relevant agencies of both Parties to effectively combat terrorism and trafficking in firearms and other serious transnational crimes, in accordance with applicable international law and legislation of the Parties.

Russia has a rather comprehensive counter-terrorism (CT) system, based upon the Federal Law No 35-FZ of 2006 and its subsequent amendments. Russia is also a party to all major UN and CoE conventions related to CT, ratification of which has required also additional legislative changes.

The leading agency in this respect is the FSB, while policy measures are dealt with by the National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NATC) and its regional branches. The NATC is an interministerial body, which is chaired and supported by the FSB.

The Russian CT policy is comprehensive and in line with relevant international practice (e.g. the UN Global CT Strategy), also covering issues of countering radicalisation and dealing with the victims of terrorism. Legislation and practical arrangements seem to be under constant development, e.g. a three-level national alert system, a new CT inter-agency intelligence database. A national mechanism to freeze terrorist assets by court order is in place.

The Russian authorities clearly consider the threat posed by terrorism originating from the Northern Caucasus region to be a priority.

The Russian authorities claim that terrorist threats other than those posed by religious extremism, albeit present in their country, are kept under control and so far they have not reached the level that could result in actual acts of terrorism.

As regards inter-agency cooperation in the prosecution of terrorism, the FSB is both a security service and a law enforcement agency which has a mandate to carry out CT-related criminal investigations as well. The Investigative Committee pointed out however that most of the criminal investigations in terrorism-related cases are carried out by them, following preparatory work by the FSB. The MoI has also a department for the fight against extremism. Finally, specialized and trained CT units exist both at central and territorial level of the GPO. The competences as regards the fight against terrorism and extremism seem to be legally regulated. Nevertheless, the EU experts had the impression that the practical work of the MoI on extremism is overlapping with the CT work done by the FSB within its exclusive competence.

CT aspects are dealt with both in the general and specific training for law enforcement personnel. The visit to the Academy of Management of the MoI in Domodedovo demonstrated that Russia has satisfactory capacities in this respect.

The Russian authorities are very well aware of the significance of international cooperation as regards the prevention of and fight against terrorism. Russia is an active partner playing a key role within many international forums, including the Global Counterterrorism Forum, and cooperates with the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator.

With regard to trafficking of firearms, the EU experts had the impression that the phenomenon was not being sufficiently tackled by the majority of the visited agencies. The rules for legal possession of guns are reportedly very strict in Russia. The EU experts however assessed the need for increased knowledge about current trends in trafficking of firearms (including so-called piece-by-piece smuggling) by the competent Russian agencies (including the FCS). Similarly to the anti-drugs area, no risk assessment is prepared analysing the impact on firearms trafficking of a possible visa free regime between the EU and Russia as well as the Customs Union.

· Exchange information on respective strategies and laws to fight and to prevent corruption, including within the public sector, and address possible deficiencies.

In terms of policy and legislation, Russia has recently undertaken many efforts. The main piece of legislation is the Federal Law ‘On Countering Corruption’. It is further complemented by many provisions in other acts including Criminal Code and Administrative Offences Code. Further provisions are also laid down in numerous decrees. The main basis for the anti-corruption policy in Russia is the 2010 National Anti-Corruption Strategy, complemented by National Anti-Corruption Plans (currently for 2012-2013). This framework (covering inter alia relevant administrative framework, definition of corruption, access to information, conflict of interest, rules for declaration of assets, etc.) provides a comprehensive structure for the fight against corruption in Russia. Further improvements are however needed and various legislative initiatives are also ongoing (e.g. the most recent introduction of whistleblowers’ protection into Russian law).

Russia has further ratified all major international conventions in the area, including the ones of UN, OECD and CoE. Following those ratifications, Russia is also subject to the monitoring mechanisms that are provided for in those instruments. In this context, Phase 1 evaluation by OECD as well as three evaluation rounds by GRECO were undertaken by March 2012. One UNCAC evaluation also took place at the beginning of 2013. All those processes resulted in recommendations, which should now be fully implemented. Russia also endeavours to follow relevant recommendations of FATF, of which it assumed the chairmanship in summer 2013.

The two main authorities responsible for the implementation of anti-corruption policies in Russia are the Presidential Administration (policy side) and the GPO (operational and incriminations side).

A supreme body at the political (but also partially at executive) level is the Presidential Anti-Corruption Council (PACC) chaired by the President and bringing together the heads of relevant agencies and ministries. It coordinates activities, formulates proposals to the President and monitors the implementation of anti-corruption legislation, according to the National Anti-Corruption Plan. A Presidium acting under the PACC and chaired by the Head of the Presidential Administration is in charge of more operational tasks in cooperation with the specialised department within the Presidential Administration. In particular, the Presidium checks the declarations of assets submitted by the senior officials of all agencies and deals with cases of conflict of interest concerning the said senior officials as well.

The GPO coordinates all the executive agencies in the implementation of the anti-corruption laws and strategy. The GPO has a specialised unit at the central and regional levels recruited with specially trained prosecutors aiming at managing the anti-corruption cases.

The investigations by the GPO rely on operational support from the FSB and the MoI. Certain investigative competences in corruption cases belong also to the Investigative Committee. The EU experts were informed that specialised units for anti-corruption cases exist also in those agencies at least at the central level while at the regional level particular officials are specialised in such cases. Similarly to the law enforcement remarks, the division of competences among those authorities is unclear. Cooperation between agencies seems to exist but the rules and standards underpinning it do not seem to be very well defined.

On top of the above framework, the law requires that all federal agencies establish special committees for internal investigations on the conduct of the agency’s officials and on conflicts of interest. Also, all those agencies have to establish a separate unit (within their human resources department) for conducting in particular checks on the declarations of assets of the agency’s officials.

In similar vein, a model Code of Ethics for state officials was prepared and approved by the Presidium of the PACC. The model contains references to the most relevant legal provisions as well as to the ethical norms of conduct to be followed by each official. On that basis each agency in Russia should develop its own internal code of conduct. Unfortunately, none of this code was shared with the EU experts.

With regard to training of the most relevant agencies fighting against corruption, the GPO has developed a specialised programme both for its own officials and for other agencies. Furthermore, the prosecutors of the specialised anti-corruption units undergo further training focused on their work. Other agencies provided only very general information on anti-corruption training of their officers. It seems that this training is just a part of their regular training programmes. No more specific information on the content of that training was provided.

According to the information provided by the GPO during the EU mission, the number of registered corr