EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION 
Brussels, 25.2.2015  
COM(2015) 58 final 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 
Fifth Report on the Post-Visa Liberalisa tion Monitoring for the Western Balkan 
Countries in accordance with the Commission Statement of 8 November 2010 
(Text with EEA relevance)  
 
2 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 
Fifth Report on the Post-Visa Liberalisation Monitoring for the Western Balkan 
Countries in accordance with the Co mmission Statement of 8 November 2010 
(Text with EEA relevance) 
  
1. INTRODUCTION  
Since December 2009, citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro 
and Serbia have been able, with biometric passpor ts, to travel visa-free to EU Member States 
(with the exception of Ireland and th e United Kingdom) in accordance with 
Regulation 539/20011. Citizens of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina have enjoyed the 
same visa-free travel status since December 20 10. Visa-free travel remains one of the core 
achievements of these countries’ European integration efforts. 
In its 8 November 2010 statement to the Jus tice and Home Affairs Council, the Commission 
emphasised that each Western Balkan country had to continue implementing measures set out in its visa roadmap to maintain the integrity of  the visa-free travel scheme. It established a 
post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism to ev aluate the sustainabili ty of reforms aiming 
to uphold the scheme’s integrity. 
This is the fifth post-visa liberalisa tion monitoring report published since 2010.
2 It provides 
an overview of the development of the post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism, reviews the functioning of the vi sa-free travel scheme and recommends reforms to prevent the 
recurrence of the problems that have beset this scheme since 2010. 
2. A
 STRENGTHENED POST -VISA LIBERALISATION MONITORING MECHANISM  
The dialogue between the Commission and the Western Balkan countries concerning the 
visa-free travel scheme takes place under the stabilis ation and association process and in the 
framework of accession negotiations on chapte rs 23 and 24. Commission officials visited 
Albania in April 2014, Bosnia and Herzegovina in May, July and November 2014, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in November 2013, Montenegro in February, March, July 
and October 2014, and Serbia in February 2014. With  the help of Member State experts, they 
verified the progress and quality of reforms relating to the visa-free scheme. Further details of 
these reforms are set out in the Euro pean Commission’s 2014 enlargement package3. 
In December 2012, each visa-free Western Balkan country began submitting to the 
Commission regular statistics on migration flows to the EU. In  November 2014, the visa-free 
countries submitted a set of narrative reports on  the steps taken to re duce irregular migration 
to the EU. 
Assisted by the Western Balkans Risk Analysis  Network, Frontex has issued 47 alert reports 
to date. Its quarterly Western Balkans risk an alyses summarise the la test trends in border 
control and irregular mi gration from the region. Europol and the European Asylum Support 
                                                            
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. 
2 The reference numbers of the previous reports are as follows: SEC(2011) 695, SEC(2011) 1570, 
COM(2012) 472, and COM(2013) 836. 
3  COM(2014) 700. 
 
3 Office (EASO) also issue monthly asylum tre nd reports and an annual report on the asylum 
situation in the EU. These reports provide a sophi sticated assessment of migration trends from 
the Western Balkans and the steps taken by EU Member States and the visa-free states to 
prevent asylum abuse. 
3. FUNCTIONING OF THE VISA -FREE TRAVEL SCHEME IN 2013  AND IN THE FIRST 
THREE QUARTERS OF 2014 
3.1. Overview of developments 
The number of asylum applications  submitted in the EU and Schengen-associated countries 
by nationals of the five visa-fre e Western Balkan countries has b een rising steadily since visa 
liberalisation in 2009, peaking in 2013 at 53  705 applications (Figure 1).4 The number of 
applications submitted in the first nine months of 2014 was 40  % higher than in the first nine 
months of 2013, suggesting that 2014 ma y well break all previous records. 
The number of citizens of visa-free Western Balkan countries  as a percentage of the 
overall asylum intake in the EU and Schengen-a ssociated countries has also risen since visa 
liberalisation. After a record 11.4  % in the first three quart ers of 2012, it reached 10.7  % in the 
first nine months of 2014 alone (Figure 2).5 
The influx of asylum-seekers from the Western Balkans has become a year-round 
phenomenon , with a number of ‘mini-peaks’ in January, March and July 2014 between the 
peaks in the winters of October 2013 and Oc tober 2014 (Figure 3). The number of asylum 
applications between these wint er peaks remained high, with th e result that the number of 
applications in the first three quarters of 2014 was 87  % of the total for the whole of 2013. 
The number of repeat applications  – second or multiple applicati ons – as a percentage of the 
total has also risen since early 2013, reaching a new record of 37  % in September 2014 
(Figure 3). This means that nearly 4 in 10 West ern Balkan applicants that month had already 
submitted an asylum application in the EU before re-applying for asylum. 
Germany  remains the largest recipient of Western Balkan visa-free asylum applications 
(Figure 4).6 Its share of the Western Balkan intake increased from 12  % in 2009 to 75  % in the 
first nine months of 2014. These developmen ts led Germany to adopt legislation in 
September 2014 placing Serbia, the former Yugo slav Republic of Macedonia, and Bosnia and 
Herzegovina on a list of sa fe countries of origin.7 It is too early to assess the impact of this 
measure. In October 2014, asylum app lications in Germany increased from all Western 
Balkan visa-free countries, indicating the onset of a ne w winter surge. Meanwhile, 
applications in Sweden remained stable. In time, Germany’s asylum reform could trigger a 
considerable redistribution of asyl um applicant flows across the EU. 
Collectively, Serbian citizens  remained the largest group of  Western Balkan visa-free 
asylum-seekers in the EU and Sc hengen-associated countries (42  % in 2013), although their 
regional share has fallen since visa liberalis ation (Figure 5). The citizens of the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania together represented 21  % of Western Balkan 
asylum-seekers in 2013, although Albania’s share has been stea dily rising and that of the 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been falling since visa liberalisation. The citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina represented a further 14
 % of Western Balkan 
                                                            
4 Source: Eurostat. 
5 Source: Eurostat. 
6 Source: Eurostat. 
7 Gesetz zur Einstufung weiterer Staaten als sichere Herkunftsstaaten und zur Erleichterung des 
Arbeitsmarktzugangs für Asylbewerber und geduldete Ausländer , 5 November 2014. 
 
4 asylum-seekers in 2013, their share having risen since vi sa liberalisation. M ontenegro’s share, 
at 2  % in 2013, remained negligible. 
The citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia  were most likely to seek 
asylum in the EU and Schengen-associated co untries in 2013, with fi ve applicants per 1  000 
inhabitants (Figure 6). Albanian citizens had the second highest pr opensity to do so, with four 
applicants per 1  000 inhabitants. The citizens of Se rbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and 
Montenegro came third, fourth and fifth, wi th three, two and one applicants per 1  000 
inhabitants, respectively. 
The geographical link between source and destination countries  has become more skewed 
towards Germany than in previous years (Figur e 7). Previously, the ove rwhelming majority of 
applicants from Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina targeted Germany; most Albanian applications were lodged in France, Sweden, 
the UK or Belgium; and Montenegrin applicants  headed to France, Luxembourg or Sweden. 
By 2014, Germany had become the top destinat ion for nationals of all Western Balkan 
countries. 
The asylum recognition rate
8 across the EU and Schengen-associated countries continued to 
fall for all Western Balkan visa-free citizens, indicating that the over whelming majority of 
applications remained unfounded (Figure 8). There was still some  variation between the five 
visa-free countries in 2013, however. The recognition rate fell to 3.7  % for Montenegrin 
citizens, 2.7  % for Serbian citizens and 1  % for nationals of the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia. Meanwhile, 8.1  % of Albanian applicants and 5.9  % of citizens of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina received in ternational protection in the EU and Schengen-associated countries, 
suggesting that a slightly higher proportion of applications from those two countries were 
deemed worthy of international protection. 
According to Frontex, the unfounded asylum-to-return ratio  stayed close to 4:1 over the 
past year in the top five most-affected Memb er States and Schengen-associated countries.9 
This indicates that Member States are still cons trained in their ability to return those deemed 
ineligible for international protection. The method of returning applicants continued to vary between the main destination states: Germany and Switzerland repatriated the majority of 
applicants via enforced return procedures (w ith the exception of the winter months, when 
Germany would halt enforced returns); Belg ium, Luxembourg and Sweden opted for the 
voluntary method. 
In its 2014 Western Balkans annual risk analysis, Frontex identified two migratory risks  
with regard to movement from the Western Ba lkans to the EU: the secondary movements of 
irregular migrants entering th e EU at the Greek-Turkish bo rder and transiting through the 
Western Balkans, and the abuse of the EU visa-free travel scheme by Western Balkan 
nationals. The first risk manifested itself mainly in the illegal crossing of green borders – border sections between border-crossing points – between the Western Balkan countries and 
at borders between the latter and the EU; the sec ond in asylum abuse, illegal stays in Member 
States and document fraud on the pa rt of Western Balkan nationals.
10 
Frontex detected a 27  % increase in illegal border crossing  at the green borders between the 
Western Balkan countries and at borders betw een the latter and the EU in 2013. Of some 
40 000 instances of illegal border crossing, 22  000 concerned non-European migrants 
transiting through the We stern Balkans and 18  000 involved Western Balkan nationals, 
                                                            
8 The recognition rate is calculated as the number of positive decisions (on refugee status, subsidiary 
protection or humanitarian status) as a percentage of the total number of first-instance decisions. 
9 Frontex, Post-Visa Liberalisation Monitoring Mechanism, Report No 46. 
10 Frontex, Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis 2014. 
 
5 including Kosovo citizens.* Half of all detections occurred at the Serbian-Hungarian border, 
mostly in the first half of 2013. This was likely a result of Hungary ceasing the practice of 
detaining asylum-seekers in the first half of 2013, which led to an exceptional increase in 
illegal border crossing and asylum applications  by third-country nationa ls, including Western 
Balkan citizens. 
According to Frontex, EU detections of illegal stays by Western Balkan citizens rose by 5  %, 
to 38  300 between 2012 and 2013. Citizens of Western Balkan countries, Kosovo citizens 
included, represented 11  % of all EU detections la st year, compared to 10  % in 2012. 
Albanian, Serbian and Kosovo citizens made up 42  %, 25  % and 16  % respectively of illegal 
stayers in the EU in 2013. More than half of all detections were reported by Greece, Germany, 
France and Hungary. 
Frontex also detected an 18  % increase in document fraud  in the EU in 2013. Despite a 14  % 
drop in detections in 2013, Al banians still made up the la rgest group of third-country 
nationals trying to enter the EU w ith false documents. They made up 85  % of Western Balkan 
nationals using fraudulent documents, followed by Serbian citizens (8  %) and Kosovo citizens 
(4 %). The most common types of fraudulent docum ents used by Albanian travellers were 
Greek and Italian identity documents.  
3.2. The ‘push factors’ of asylum a buse and measures to address it 
The most common ‘ push factors ’ driving asylum flows from the Western Balkans remained 
the following: deprivation, unemployment, discri mination, poor access to health care, social 
benefits and education, and, for Albanians, ‘blood feuds’.11 To tackle these issues, the 
Commission recommended last year that the visa -free countries increase targeted assistance to 
minority populations, especially Roma pe ople; enhance operational cooperation and 
information exchange with neighbouring states , EU Member States and the relevant EU 
agencies; investigate and prosecute facilitators of irregular migration; enhance border controls 
in compliance with citizens’ fundamental righ ts; and organise information campaigns about 
the visa-free travel scheme. Each Western Balk an country has taken steps in these areas: 
– Albania continued to carry out a number of campaigns informing citizens of their 
rights and obligations under the visa-free sc heme. It also considerably improved its 
assistance programme for the Roma, ste pped up exit controls, and investigated 
several facilitators of irregular migration. Accord ing to Frontex, Albania’s 
introduction of stricter legislation allowi ng  citizens to change  their name only once 
and prohibiting those with a migration in fringement history from changing their 
name, successfully reduced the number of applications from nearly 600 a month in January 2013 to about 35 a month by December 2013;
12 
− Bosnia and Herzegovina  carried out several media campaigns to inform citizens of 
their rights and obligations under the visa-f ree travel scheme, including in villages 
from which a considerable number of citizen s travelled to the EU to lodge asylum 
applications. It also held a series of meetings with representatives of the top 
destination countries, including Germany a nd Sweden, on facilita tors of irregular 
migration, blocked 22 unauthorised borde r-crossing points with Montenegro, and 
adopted an action plan to inte grate the Roma in the medium term. It has also adopted 
                                                            
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and 
the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 
11 These issues are described in detail in EASO’s Asylum Applicants from the Western Balkans , 2013. In 
Albania, actual instances of blood feud are very rare, yet this phenomenon is still used by some as a 
pretext to lodge asylum applications. 
12 Frontex, Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis , 2014. 
 
6 two action plans under the Roma strategy, one on the educational needs of the Roma 
and one specifically related to employment, housing and healthcare, and has stepped up its efforts to address the housing needs of the Roma;  
– The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia  improved the integration of the 
Roma community in education, civil regi stration, employment and healthcare, and 
opened joint law enforcement centres with Serbia and Kosovo, organising a number of joint patrols. It stepped up cooperati on with Frontex, began sharing information 
via Europol’s SIENA platform, and prosecu ted several facilitators of irregular 
migration. According to Frontex, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
considerably strengthened bor der controls, leading to a 41
 % increase in exit refusals 
in 2013;13 
− Montenegro  continued to carry out strict bord er controls, including exit controls 
with neighbouring states; aligned its IBM strategy with the EU model; applied its 
criminal legislation against facilitators of irregular migration, resulting in two major 
police operations against 27 ci tizens; signed an operationa l agreement with Europol; 
started offering scholarships for Roma students; and stepped up its reception 
capacities for asylum seekers and irregular migrants;  
– Serbia  stepped up its assistance programme fo r the Roma, including in employment, 
civil registration, and empowering local govern ments in the field of social inclusion. 
It distributed leaflets and set up a governme nt website informing citizens of their 
rights and obligations under the visa-free sc heme, prosecuted severa l facilitators of 
irregular migration, and improved the exchange of information with the 
most-affected EU and Schengen-associated c ountries. In its 2014 re port, Frontex also 
highlighted the success of Serbia ’s stricter border controls.14 
3.3. The ‘pull factors’ of asylum a buse and measures to address it 
The main ‘ pull factors ’ driving asylum abuse from the Western Balkans remained 
unchanged, including the presence of a diaspor a community in the recipient states, the 
duration of the asylum procedure, the amount of cash benefits received, access to begging or 
the illegal labour market, and knowledge of past asylum recognitio n rates. 2013 afforded 
several examples of how Member States sough t to mitigate the impact  of these factors: 
– Hungary  enhanced border controls with Serbia in 2013, refusing entry to 5  400 
Serbian citizens, 65  % more than in the previous year. Nearly three quarters of 
Hungary’s entry refusals were issued owing to overstaying, failing to meet the 
conditions of subsistence or failing to jus tify the purpose of stay. Last year, Serbian 
border authorities refused exit to more than 6  500 Serbian citizens unable to justify 
the purpose of their stay in the EU. Altogether, the two c ountries’ border authorities 
prevented entry to the Schengen area of nearly 5 in 1  000 travellers, a significantly 
higher proportion than at any other s ection of the EU’s external border;15 
– Germany  revised its asylum procedure on 29 September 2014, adding Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia to its list of safe countries of origin. Given that the overwhelming majority of Western Balkan 
applicants chose Germany as their principal destin ation country in 2013, this 
legislative amendment is likely to have an  impact on the distri bution of migration 
flows in the medium term. 
                                                            
13 Frontex, Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis , 2014. 
14 Frontex, Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis , 2014. 
15 Frontex, Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis , 2014. 
 
7 Several Member States, including the main EU  destination states with the exception of 
Sweden, have adopted national legislation defini ng certain visa-free Western Balkan countries 
as safe countries of origin , in line with the Asylum Procedures Directive: 
– Albania , whose citizens mainly targeted Fr ance, the UK, Germany, Sweden and 
Belgium for asylum in 2013, is considered a safe country of origin by Austria, 
Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the UK; 
– Bosnia and Herzegovina , whose citizens mainly targeted Germany, France, Sweden 
and Switzerland for asylum in 2013, is cons idered a safe country of origin by 
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the UK; 
– The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , whose citizens mainly targeted 
Germany, Belgium, Sweden and France for asylum in 2013, is considered a safe 
country of origin by Austria, Belgium,  the Czech Republic, Germany, France, 
Luxembourg and the UK; 
– Montenegro , whose citizens mainly targeted  Germany, France, Luxembourg and 
Sweden for asylum in 2013, is considered a safe country of origin by Austria, 
Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg, Slovakia and the UK;  
– Serbia , whose citizens mainly targeted Germany, Sweden, Belgium and France for 
asylum in 2013, is considered a safe country  of origin by Austria, Belgium, the 
Czech Republic, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the UK.  
The use of the safe country of origin concep t should be coupled with  other measures to 
mitigate asylum abuse. EASO has summarised other reforms that have successfully reduced 
asylum abuse in recent years while resp ecting applicants’ fundamental rights: 
– high-level visits to the countries c oncerned and information campaigns in 
cooperation with local NGOs a nd municipalities, to inform  citizens about the rights 
and obligations of visa-free travel , using print and electronic media; 
– continued operational cooperation with the authorities of the c ountries concerned; 
– reducing cash benefits, such as pocket m oney and financial retu rn assistance, to 
reduce the financial incen tives for asylum abuse; 
– shortening asylum procedures by having mo re staff assess asylum cases in peak 
periods or by establishing an accelerated – fast-track – procedure that enables the 
swift processing of applications  at peak times or for citiz ens of particular countries. 
3.4. Other developments related to the EU visa-free scheme 
The European Parliament and the Council adopted a revised Asylum Procedures Directive 
(Directive 2005/85/EC ) in June 2013. This instrument, which ente rs into force in June 2015, 
creates new tools to prevent abuse of the asylum system. For example, it limits an applicant’s right to remain in a country if  their second asylum applicati on does not contain new elements 
compared to a previous one or if the second application is subm itted to prevent the applicant’s 
imminent removal. Under the dire ctive, limits to the right to re main can also be applied to 
applicants who have submitted a third or subseq uent asylum application. These rules do not 
constitute an exception to the principle of non-refoulement , which must always be respected. 
The European Parliament and the Council also amended the Visa Regulation  (Regulation 
539/2001) in December 2013, introducing a visa  suspension mechanism for temporarily 
suspending third-country nationals’ visa-free status under exceptional circumstances. This 
mechanism may be applied only as a temporar y measure and can only be triggered in an 
emergency. No Member State has yet requested activation of the visa suspension mechanism. 
 
8 4. NEXT STEPS  
The overwhelming majority of citizens from the visa-free Western Balkan countries are 
bona fide travellers with legitimate grounds to travel  to the EU. The visa-free travel scheme 
has fulfilled its purpose: it has strengthened people-to-people contact between the Western Balkans and the EU, including with diaspora communities in the Member States, enhanced 
business opportunities and cultural exchanges, a nd enabled the visa-free countries’ citizens to 
get to know the EU better. All of the Western Balkan  countries concerned have expressed a 
desire to continue implementi ng the reforms necessary to maintain their citizens’ visa-free 
travel status. 
Yet, asylum abuse has continued to afflict the visa-free scheme since visa liberalisation. The 
situation remains untenable and requires reforms in both the visa-free Western Balkan countries and in the most-affected EU Member  States and Schengen-as sociated countries. 
The Commission urges each Western Balkan count ry to back up its political commitment to 
visa-free travel with effectiv e policies on the ground. Each visa-f ree country must  be able to 
show a sustainable downward trend in the overall asylum intake. 
The Commission recommends that each visa-f ree Western Balkan country continues to: 
(1) Increase targeted assistance to minority populations , in particular those of Roma 
ethnicity, aiming to improve their long -term socio-economic integration via 
educational, employment and vocatio nal training progra mmes, including by 
implementing national strategies and usi ng domestic assistance, supported by 
available EU assistance and bilateral assistance offered by EU Member States; 
(2) Strengthen operational cooperati on and information exchange  with neighbouring 
states, EU Member States and Schenge n-associated countries, the European 
Commission and, as appropriate, Frontex, Euro pol and EASO, in the fields of border 
management, migration, asylum and r eadmission, in accordan ce with EU and 
national legislation; 
(3) Investigate facilitators of irregular migration  and prosecute those who enable the 
abuse of the visa-free scheme, in clos e cooperation with the law enforcement 
authorities of EU Member States, Sche ngen-associated countries and Europol; 
(4) In strict compliance with ci tizens’ fundamental rights, strengthen border controls  
and develop closer cooperation with EU Member States that have a direct 
responsibility for managing th e EU’s external borders; 
(5) Enhance targeted information and awareness campaigns  aimed at further 
clarifying to citizens the rights and obligations of visa-free travel, including information on liability for any abuse of rights under the visa-free scheme. 
The Commission also recommends that those EU Member States and Schengen-associated 
countries that have faced the largest infl ows of unfounded asylum applications from the 
Western Balkans consider taking additional action in the following areas: 
(1) Where appropriate, consider streamlining asylum procedures  for the citizens of the 
five visa-free Western Balkan countries , including by having more staff assess 
asylum cases in peak periods or by establ ishing an accelerated pr ocedure that enables 
the swift processing of applications at p eak times or for citizens of particular 
countries. Where appropriate, consider using the safe country of origin concept as 
part of reforming domestic asylum procedures; 
(2) Consider a more cautious and selective use of cash benefits , such as pocket money 
and financial return assistance, to reduce the financial incentive s for asylum abuse; 
 
9 (3) Organise high-level visits to the countries concerned and information campaigns , in 
cooperation with local NGOs a nd municipalities, to inform  citizens about the rights 
and obligations of visa-free travel , using print and electronic media; 
(4) Strengthen operational cooperation and information exchange , including through 
liaison officers, with the authoriti es of the countries concerned. 
The Commission will continue to  assess the implementation of  these measures through the 
present post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism and will report to the European Parliament and the Council in 2015. 
 
10 5. STATISTICS  
Figure 1: Asylum applications made by West ern Balkan visa-free nationals to EU and 
Schengen-associated countries  
 
Figure 2: Total asylum applic ations in the EU and Schengen-associated countries, with 
the Western Balkan share 
 
 
11 Figure 3: Seasonality of Western Balk an asylum applications since 2009 
 
Figure 4: Top EU and Scheng en-associated country recipients of Western Balkan 
asylum applications 
 
 
12 Figure 5: Western Balkan brea kdown of asylum seekers in EU and Schengen-associated 
countries 
 
Figure 6: Propensity of Western Balkan citi zens to seek asylum in EU and Schengen-
associated countries16 
 
                                                            
16 Calculated as the number of asylum applications in the EU and Schengen-associated countries divided 
by population size. 
 
13 Figure 7: Top EU and Schengen-associated country destinations for Western Balkan 
asylum applicants 
 
 
 
14 
 
 
 
15 
 
Figure 8: Recognition rate of Western Ba lkan asylum applications in EU and 
Schengen-associated countries