Contents

1............ INTRODUCTION.. 6

2............ INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM... 7

2.1......... Common European Asylum System.. 7

2.1.1...... The Qualification Directive. 10

2.1.2...... The Reception Conditions Directive. 11

2.1.3...... The Asylum Procedures Directive. 11

2.1.4...... The Dublin Regulation. 12

2.1.5...... The Eurodac Regulation. 13

2.1.6...... Institutional and legislative changes. 14

2.1.7...... Jurisprudence. 15

2.1.8...... Efficiency and quality of asylum procedures. 18

2.1.9...... Challenges in the asylum field. 19

2.2......... Emergency funding after "Lampedusa" and other emergency measures funded in 2013. 20

2.3......... Cooperation with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 21

2.3.1...... Participation in EASO activities and provision of support by EASO to the Member States. 22

2.4......... Intra-EU solidarity including relocation. 22

2.4.1...... Support to national asylum systems including relocation. 22

2.4.2...... Joint/supported processing of asylum applications. 23

2.5......... Enhancing the external dimension including resettlement 24

2.5.1...... Cooperation with third countries including resettlement 24

3............ IRREGULAR MIGRATION AND RETURN.. 27

3.1......... Priority I: Strengthening cooperation with third countries of transit and origin on migration management & Priority VII: Preventing illegal immigration from and via the Southern Mediterranean countries 28

3.1.1...... Prevent and combat irregular immigration by ensuring smooth and orderly return of irregular migrants between states; ensure implementation of all EU readmission agreements to their full effect 28

3.1.2...... Enhance the capacity of countries of origin and transit to manage mixed migration flows. 30

3.1.3...... Prevention of irregular migration from the Southern Mediterranean countries; the Western Mediterranean and the African Atlantic coast 31

3.1.4...... Prevention of irregular migration from the Eastern Partners; address migratory pressures via the 'Silk Routes', including prevention of irregular migration and combating trafficking in human beings 33

3.1.5...... Prevention of irregular migration from the Western Balkans. 34

3.2......... Priority II: Enhanced border management at the external borders. 36

3.2.1...... Border control measures: technology, equipment and infrastructure, including systems linked to EU instruments and actions to coordinate different types of border checks. 36

3.2.2...... Border control measures: (other) activities to improve the effectiveness of controls at external borders (e.g. training and policy) 37

3.2.3...... Border control measures: support to Member States experiencing disproportionate pressures at the border (including participation in FRONTEX operations) 38

3.2.4...... Preventing and combating irregular immigration by ensuring strong and efficient border control agreements with third countries. 38

3.3......... Priority III: Preventing irregular migration from Turkey. 39

3.3.1...... Ensure effective border controls at the Greek-Turkish border and combat irregular immigration transiting Turkey to enter the EU.. 39

3.4......... Priority IV: Better tackling of abuse of legal migration channels. 41

3.4.1...... Prevent an increase in unfounded asylum applications as a direct consequence of introducing a visa free regime for a third country; combat and prevent irregular migration caused by visa liberalisation 41

3.4.2...... Combat and prevent irregular migration through misuse of family reunification. 43

3.4.3...... Combat and prevent irregular migration through misuse of student migration. 44

3.5......... Priority V: Safeguarding and protecting free movement by prevention of abuse by third-country nationals 44

3.5.1...... Improve the understanding of abuse of free movement rights by third country nationals and organised crime aimed at facilitating irregular immigration; and prevent the fraudulent acquisition and use of free movement rights by third-country nationals. 44

3.6......... Priority VI: Enhancing migration management including cooperation on return practices. 46

3.6.1...... Ensure that all Member States have efficient migration management systems in place in order to be prepared for fluctuating migration pressures. 46

3.6.2...... Maximise the potential of a common EU approach in the field of return, both voluntary and forced in compliance with existing EU acquis. 47

3.7......... Other measures to combat irregular migration. 54

3.7.1...... Developing a network of immigration liaison officers. 54

3.7.2...... Monitor and identify migration routes. 56

3.7.3...... Identify and curb irregular migration routes inside the Schengen Area through improved cooperation and information exchange; improve the situational picture of migration pressures by taking into account modi operandi used for secondary movements within the EU.. 56

3.7.4...... Sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. 56

3.8......... The fight against facilitation of irregular migration (‘smuggling’) 57

3.8.1...... National actions and international cooperation against smuggling. 58

3.8.2...... Activities to monitor smuggling. 59

4............ UNACCOMPANIED MINORS AND OTHER VULNERABLE GROUPS. 60

4.1......... Unaccompanied minors. 60

4.2......... Other vulnerable groups. 62

5............ ACTIONS ADDRESSING TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS. 64

5.1......... Implementation of the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings: Identifying, protecting and assisting victims of trafficking. 64

5.1.1...... Improving the identification of and provision of information to victims. 64

5.1.2...... Protection of Child Victims of Trafficking. 66

5.2......... Implementation of the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings: Enhanced coordination and cooperation among key actors and policy coherence. 68

5.2.1...... Coordination and cooperation among key actors. 68

5.2.2...... Coordinating EU External Policy Activities. 70

5.3......... Implementation of the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings: Increased knowledge of and effective response to emerging concerns related to all forms of trafficking in human beings. 70

5.3.1...... Developing an EU-wide system for data collection. 70

6............ Legal Migration and Mobility. 72

6.1......... Promoting legal routes to Europe – developing and implementing EU legislation. 73

6.1.1...... Highly qualified workers - implementation of the EU Blue Card Directive. 74

6.1.2...... Intra-Corporate Transferees (ICTs) 76

6.1.3...... Seasonal workers. 77

6.1.4...... Students and researchers. 77

6.1.5...... The "Single Permit" Directive, simplified procedure and equal rights extended to a wider group 79

6.1.6...... Family Reunification. 80

6.2......... Economic migration and trade related mobility. 82

6.2.1...... Satisfying labour market needs. 82

6.2.2...... Skills Recognition and labour matching. 84

6.2.3...... Developing migrants' entrepreneurship and trade related mobility. 85

6.2.4...... Cooperation with partner / third countries for economic migration. 85

6.2.5...... Efforts to mitigate ‘brain drain’ 87

6.2.6...... Efforts to avoid ‘social dumping’ 87

6.2.7...... Promoting legal migration channels. 89

6.3......... Integration. 90

6.3.1...... A European agenda for the integration of third-country nationals. 91

6.3.2...... Promoting integration through participation: rights and obligations, achieving equal treatment and belonging 93

6.3.3...... Non-discrimination and equal treatment 94

6.3.4...... Cooperation, consultation and coordination of stakeholders and promoting action at local level 95

6.3.5...... Involvement of countries of origin. 96

6.4......... Managing Migration and Mobility. 98

6.4.1...... Visa Policy. 98

6.4.2...... Schengen Governance. 99

6.4.3...... Smart Border Package. 100

7............ MAXIMISING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF MIGRATION AND MOBILITY.. 102

7.1......... Progress towards ensuring effective policy coherence and mainstreaming of migration in development policies. 102

7.2......... Migrants’ Remittances. 104

7.3......... Working with Diasporas. 105

8............ PROVISION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT POLICY DEVELOPMENT 107

8.1......... Exchange of Information within the European Migration Network. 107

8.2......... Exchange of Information and Communication. 107

9............ STATISTICAL ANNEX.. 110

10.......... ABBREVIATIONS USED.. 138

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper, which accompanies the Communication from the Commission on the 5th Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2013)[1], provides a factual overview of the main developments in the area of migration and international protection over the year 2013, at both EU and national level. It covers the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013.

The paper is structured according to the following main sections: International Protection and Asylum, Irregular Migration and Return, Unaccompanied Minors and other vulnerable groups, Trafficking in Human Beings, Legal Migration and Mobility, and Development and Migration. A Statistical Annex (Chapter 9) provides 2013 data on migration from Eurostat, and the European Migration Network National Contact Points.

Information regarding developments at EU level were provided essentially by the Commission, whereas developments at national level[2] refer to the contributions provided by the National Contact Points of the European Migration Network (EMN NCPs), including Norway[3], as part of its Annual Policy Report activity[4].

2. INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM

2.1. Common European Asylum System

Figure 1: Asylum applications in EU-28, January 2012 – December 2013

Source: Eurostat (migr_asyapp)

Figure 2: Total first instance decisions on asylum applications and total positive decisions in first instance, 2013

Source: Eurostat (migr_asydec)

Tables 1 and 2 in the Annex, provide an overview of asylum applicants and first instance decisions by Member State and Norway in 2013.

During 2013, there were 434 160 asylum applicants, representing an increase of nearly 30 % since 2012 (336 015 asylum applicants)[5] (see Figure 1). The main countries of citizenship of the applicants were Syria (50 470) representing 12% of total EU-28 applicants, Russian Federation (41 270 or 10%) and Afghanistan (26 290 or 6%). Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Italy registered nearly 70% of all applicants, with the highest number registered in Germany (126 705, or 29% of the total) and followed by France (64 760, or 14%), Sweden (54 270, or 12%), the United Kingdom (29 875, or 6%) and Italy (27 930, or 6 %). When compared with the population of each Member State, the highest rates of applicants registered were recorded in Cyprus (5 330 applicants per million inhabitants), Luxembourg (32 070), Malta (2 245) and Romania (1 905).

A total of 326 310 first instance decisions were made in 2013 (see Figure 2), of which 11 730 were positive decisions (some 35%). Of these 49 510 (15%) applicants were granted refugee status, 45 540 (14%) subsidiary protection and 17 685 (5%) authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons. There were 213 580 rejections (65% of decisions) overall.

At EU level: 2013 was an important year in terms of the advancement of the Common European Asylum System. The co-legislators finalised negotiations on the recast Dublin and Eurodac Regulations and on the recast Reception Conditions and the Asylum Procedures Directives. Consequently the full package of asylum instruments was adopted on 26 June 2013[6]. The CEAS will provide better access to the asylum procedure for those who seek protection; will lead to fairer, quicker and better quality asylum decisions; and will provide dignified and decent conditions both for those who apply for asylum and those who are granted international protection within the EU.

An emphasis on uniform implementation follows from the adoption of the new asylum instruments and will be the focus of Member States' efforts over the next few years. Contact Committees were held on each instrument in 2013 in order to discuss the provisions in detail with the aim of ensuring correct transposition of the new texts and harmonisation of asylum practices. The goal of the CEAS is that an asylum application in one Member State should follow a similar process and lead to a similar outcome as in any other Member State, and that a similar treatment is afforded to them during the examination of their asylum application. Following conclusion of the negotiation of new legislation in 2013, the Commission stepped up its regular contact with Member States to monitor their application of EU asylum law.

At national level: Before looking at the implementation of the EU asylum acquis, this report addresses some horizontal developments in Member States, related to the CEAS.

Eight Member States (BE, BG, EL, IT, LU, NL, SE, UK) adopted policies to enhance the situation of vulnerable groups within the asylum procedure (see also section 4.2). In the area of legislation, a political agreement entered into effect in the Netherlands, granting, under specific conditions, residence permits to unaccompanied minors (initially for a period of one year, but eventually leading to a permit for an indefinite period of time). In the United Kingdom, the policy on granting limited leave to unaccompanied asylum seeking children was incorporated into the Immigration Rules. Meanwhile several Member States drafted action plans or guidelines on how to deal with vulnerable groups. Belgium updated its National Action Plan 2010-2014 on domestic violence, which also includes information on how to better deal with vulnerable groups in asylum procedures and Sweden adopted new operational guidelines for age assessments of unaccompanied minors. In Spain, subsidiary provisions to the Asylum Law in relation to vulnerable groups were drafted and their adoption is currently under internal consultation. Bulgaria designated a special area for unaccompanied minors in one of its reception centres and Italy raised the budget for the National Fund for the Reception of Unaccompanied Minors to EUR 20 million.

Training also remained an important area of national activity in implementing the CEAS, with at least eleven Member States (BE, EE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LV, LU, MT, SE, SI) participating in training courses in 2013. Hungary trained staff in preparing the implementation of the recast Dublin Regulation. Staff in Estonia participated in training on processing asylum claims while Italy trained officials involved in complex rescue operations at sea, such as the Finance Police (Guardia di Finanza) and the navy. Sweden expanded the induction programme of the Swedish Migration Board for new recruits, started a new course and trained a number of LGBT-specialists to assess LGBT claims by asylum applicants. Spain also provided training to staff from the Spanish Office for Asylum and Refugees on LGBT claims and training on the international protection procedure to staff in the Aliens Offices. A Belgian expert coordinated the update of the EASO Interviewing Children Module. Staff members in Belgium and Luxembourg participated in EASO training, respectively on the issues of age assessment and family tracing (BE) and interviewing vulnerable persons (LU).

Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Italy and Sweden amended policies on Country of Origin Information (COI). Belgium aims to harmonise the drafting of COI products, enhance efficiency of the department and publish (in the near future) some COI products on the website of the office of the CGRS (Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons)[7]. Meanwhile, Hungary improved COI-related output through regular reports, conferences and training. Sweden launched a legal country database within the COI Unit, gave priority to LGBT issues within the country information products, and started an internet service “Focus Countries” which includes key country and legal information on the nine most frequent countries of origin of asylum seekers. In Italy, national experts collaborated in developing definitions and implementing methodologies for quality control, while authorities responsible for asylum applications increased usage of the EU COI Portal. Finally, Luxembourg confirmed the production of 18 reports in 2013 by Country of Origin Unit of the Asylum Unit. Croatia gained access to Austrian database on countries of origin.

Several Member States (BE, CY, HU, IE, SK) amended legislation in the area of appeal or judicial review. Belgium amended several elements of the appeal procedure before the Council for Aliens Law Litigation, including procedural changes and some provisions to tackle improper use of the right of access to justice. Croatia provided training to administrative courts judges dealing with asylum cases, including updates and information on the activities within the framework of EASO and other issues related to the asylum procedure. The Refugee Law amended in Cyprus now grants the right of appeal to beneficiaries of international protection applying for family reunification. New legislation in Hungary reconfirmed that asylum-seekers enjoy the right to stay on the territory during the course of the whole asylum procedure. For rejected applicants in Ireland it is now possible to appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in case of negative decisions made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The Slovak Republic laid down the provision that since January 2013 only lawyers or the Legal Aid Centre may represent an asylum in appeal procedures.

2.1.1. The Qualification Directive

At EU level: The Qualification Directive[8] was the first of the recast asylum instruments to be adopted in December 2011. It specifies the grounds for granting international protection. Its provisions also foresee a series of rights.

The minimum standards in the previous Directive[9] were to a certain extent vague, which maintained divergences in national asylum legislation and practices. The chances of a person to be granted international protection could vary tremendously depending on the Member State processing the asylum application.

The new Qualification Directive will contribute to improve the quality of the decision-making and ensure that people fleeing persecution, wars and torture are treated fairly, in a uniform manner. It clarifies the grounds for granting international protection and will lead to more robust determinations. It significantly upgrades the rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. It will also ensure a better taking into account of the best interests of the child and of gender-related aspects and it will improve the access of beneficiaries of international protection to rights and integration measures. The new Directive becomes applicable from 22 December 2013.

Finally, based on the extension of the scope of the Long Term Residents Directive[10] applicable as of 20 May 2013, beneficiaries of international protection have become entitled to the status of long term residents and to intra-EU mobility under certain conditions, in particular after five years of legal and continuous residence in the Member State that granted the protection.

At national level: A number of Member States (BE, CY, EL, IT, NL, LV, SE) changed policies or practices on first instance procedures. Belgium amended its Immigration Law, including changes to implement provisions of the recast EU Qualification Directive and the current Asylum Procedures Directive by clarifying certain concepts and introducing the concept of ‘first country of asylum’. This makes it possible to reject an asylum application if the asylum seeker already enjoys refugee status in another Member State, or sufficient protection in a third country. Legislation was also amended in Cyprus where the access procedure was changed to allow applicants and their legal representatives’ access to the interview transcript before proceeding with an appeal procedure. Greece implemented the Qualifications Directive through the adoption of a presidential degree concerning mainly legal aid to asylum applicants. Latvia implemented several procedural changes, such as deadlines, clarification of the procedure for submission of repeated applications, while specifying the conditions for the application of judicial proceedings. Sweden did not amend procedures but continued its increased use of video interviews to improve flexibility and cost-efficiency. Finally, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Slovak Republic updated their list of safe countries.

2.1.2. The Reception Conditions Directive

At EU level: The recast Reception Conditions Directive[11] met with political agreement between the co-legislators in 2012 and was adopted in June 2013 together with the remaining recast asylum instruments. It deals with access to reception conditions for asylum seekers while they wait for the examination of their claim. It ensures that applicants have access to housing, food, health care and employment, as well as medical and psychological care.

Under the previous Directive,[12] diverging practices among Member States sometimes led to an inadequate level of material reception conditions for asylum seekers. The new Directive aims to ensure better as well as more harmonised standards of reception conditions throughout the Union. These include, for the first time, detailed common rules on the issue of detention of asylum seekers, ensuring that their fundamental rights are fully respected. The new Directive becomes fully applicable from 21 July 2015.

At national level: In the area of reception facilities, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Poland amended the capacity of accommodation. In Belgium, the agency responsible for the reception of asylum seekers (Fedasil) was able to decrease reception capacity, focus more on quality and install a buffer capacity if the need arises to deal with sudden increases of asylum-seekers. Bulgaria increased reception capacity with 3 000 places and Poland opened a new reception centre administrated by external institutions. Through its adoption of the Integrated Action Plan for management of a potential mass influx of asylum seekers / illegal immigrants, in the case of massive influx of asylum applicants, Romania will now be able to increase its reception capacity up to 2 500 places. Greece established a new reception centre in Evros as well as two mobile reception units in Chios and Samos. Due to the dramatic increase of the number of asylum-seekers, Hungary established new reception facilities, one reception centre in Vámosszabadi (operating since August 2013) and a temporary one in Nagyfa (operating between May-October 2013). After the Lampedusa tragedy in October 2013 (see also section 2.2), Italy set up a fund to deal with the exceptional influx of asylum-seekers, which should also meet the potential increased future needs in the area of reception. Reception legislation was amended in Hungary and Lithuania. Hungary created a new detention regime, while as of 1st July 2013 a person seeking recognition is entitled to work within the reception centre within nine months of the submission of the application for recognition, and beyond that according to the general rules applicable to foreigners. Lithuania amended legislation regarding grounds for detention of asylum seekers. Austria and the Slovak Republic worked on the quality of the accommodation centres and reception facilities. Austria started a new working group on common quality criteria for reception facilities.

2.1.3. The Asylum Procedures Directive

At EU level: The Asylum Procedures Directive[13] sets out rules on the whole process of claiming asylum, including on: how to apply, how the application will be examined, what help the asylum seeker will be given, how to appeal, what can be done if the applicant absconds, or how to deal with repeated applications.

The previous Directive[14] was the lowest common denominator between Member States at the time. The rules were often too vague and derogations allowed Member States to go below basic agreed standards.

The new Asylum Procedures Directive is much more precise. It creates a coherent system, which ensures that asylum decisions are made more efficiently and more fairly and that all Member States examine applications with a common high quality standard.

The new Directive includes clearer rules on how to apply for asylum. Procedures will be both faster and more efficient such that normally an asylum procedure will not take longer than six months.

Anyone in need of special support - for example because of their age, disability, illness, sexual orientation, or traumatic experiences - will receive adequate assistance, including sufficient time, to explain their claim. Clear cases that are unlikely to be well-founded can be dealt with in special procedures ('accelerated' and/or 'border' procedures). Rules on appeals in front of courts are much clearer than previously and provide for an effective protection of the applicants' rights. Member States will also become better equipped to deal with abusive claims, in particular with subsequent applications made by the same person.

The new Directive becomes applicable from 21 July 2015, with the exception of the provisions regarding the duration of the asylum procedure which will become applicable as of 21 July 2018.

At national level: Bulgaria and Hungary introduced new practices to enhance applicants’ access to the asylum procedure for applicants by improving access to information. In the Netherlands a new Application Centre for the registration of applications for international protection was opened at Schiphol Airport. The general asylum procedure for aliens at Schiphol AC has changed and applicants filing a claim at the airport are now entitled to six days preparation prior to submitting the application as is the case at other Application Centres. Greece has established four new regional asylum offices (Attica, North Evros, South Evros and Lesvos), while the opening of other four is planned in 2014.

Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovak Republic amended policies relating to access to legal counselling and interpretation. A new free legal assistance service in Hungary started its work in all reception centres, while the Office of Immigration and Nationality extended cooperation with other organizations (e.g. Hungarian Helsinki Committee) that provide free legal assistance for asylum-seekers. In a similar vein, Poland launched a working group on providing free legal aid from 2015. Italy launched projects for legal counselling and interpretation.

2.1.4. The Dublin Regulation

At EU level: The Dublin Regulation[15] determines that the responsibility for examining claim lies primarily with the Member State which played the greatest part in the applicant's entry or residence in the EU. The criteria for establishing responsibility run, in hierarchical order, from family considerations, to recent possession of visa or residence permit in a Member State, to whether the applicant has entered EU irregularly, or regularly.

Experience of the previous Regulation[16] has however shown the need to better address situations of particular pressure on Member States' reception capacities and asylum systems. The revised Regulation contains sound procedures for the protection of asylum applicants and improves the system’s efficiency.

New provisions include: an early warning, preparedness and crisis management mechanism; a series of provisions on protection of applicants, such as compulsory personal interview, guarantees for minors; the possibility for appeals to suspend the execution of the transfer for the period when the appeal is judged; an obligation to ensure legal assistance free of charge upon request; a single ground for detention in case of risk of absconding; strict limitations of the duration of detention; an obligation to guarantee right to appeal against transfer decision; more legal clarity of procedures between Member States - e.g. exhaustive and clearer deadlines. The entire "Dublin procedure" cannot last longer than 11 months to take charge of a person, or 9 months to take him/her back (except for absconding or where the person is imprisoned). The new Regulation became applicable in 1 January 2014.

A revision of the Dublin Implementing Regulation was adopted in early 2014 to assist national authorities in the implementation of the new instrument.[17] In 2013 the CJEU also issued significant judgments on the Dublin Regulation.[18] The Implementing Regulation covers various issues relevant for the application of the Dublin Regulation, such as uniform conditions for the consultation and exchange of information on minors and dependent persons, including standard forms on the exchange of information between Member States on these issues; uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take charge and take back requests, as well as the exchange of information regarding Dublin transfers, including on a person's health; two lists of relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence; a common format for a laissez passer; a common leaflet on the Dublin and Eurodac regulations, as well as a specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors; the set-up of secure electronic transmission channels for the transmission of requests.

At national level: Croatia began to implement the Dublin Regulation on 1st July 2013, receiving some 372 applications over the year from other (Member) States, predominantly Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria and Switzerland. Hungary experienced an augmented caseload resulting from the Dublin procedure (by 465% compared to 2012) due to increased requests from the other Member States and Spain also experienced an increased number of requests within the Dublin procedure (a 20% raise as compared to 2013). Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom declared that they would no longer send back unaccompanied minors (UAMs) if there are no family members residing in another (Member) State in keeping with the ECJ ruling on UAMs of June 2013 (Case C‑648/11).As a result these Member States will consider substantive claims for asylum from UAMs even if they have previously applied for asylum in another Member State.

2.1.5. The Eurodac Regulation

At EU level: The Eurodac Regulation[19] establishes an EU asylum fingerprint database. When someone applies for asylum, no matter where they are in the EU, their fingerprints are transmitted to the Eurodac central system. Eurodac has been operating since 2003 and has proved a very successful IT tool.

Some updates were however required, in particular to reduce the delay of transmission by some Member States. The new Regulation therefore sets time limits for fingerprint data to be transmitted and ensures full compatibility with the latest asylum legislation and better addresses data protection requirements.

Until now, the Eurodac database could only be used for asylum purposes. The new Regulation now allows national law enforcement forces and Europol to compare fingerprints linked to criminal investigations with those contained in Eurodac. This will take place under strictly controlled circumstances and only for the purpose of the prevention, detection and investigation of serious crimes and terrorism.

Eurodac has been operated by the Commission since 2003. In June 2013, the operational management of Eurodac was transferred to the EU-LISA.[20]

2.1.6. Institutional and legislative changes

At national level: Austria established new institutions, which would take over responsibility for processing asylum applications and appeals. The United Kingdom established new immigration rules allowing a stateless person to apply for Leave to Remain though the Home Office but separately form the Asylum system. In Belgium, Finland and Ireland there were shifts in the governmental departments responsible for the assessing new facts and circumstances presented by applicants for international protection during subsequent applications (BE), legal aid and cost compensation (FI) and the granting subsidiary protection (IE). In Greece the new Asylum Service, the first four new regional asylum offices and the new First Reception Service became operational. In response to a sudden influx of applicants for international protection, Italy set up seven temporary territorial commissions (regional offices) to process decisions on applications. The United Kingdom restructured its processes for case management meaning that a single case worker would no longer be responsible for a single case, but rather that management of the case would be passed down through different expert teams throughout the life of the case via clear and effective handovers. Croatia continued to further strengthen its own asylum capacities increasing the number of employees in the competent office.

Legislative changes in the asylum field took place in 21 Member State (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, IE, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK). Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovak Republic made changes to transpose the EU Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU. In Italy, amendments to legislation in this area also introduced a regulation relevant to international and subsidiary protection status holders’ access to public employment. These citizens (as well as third-country family members of EU citizens and third-country nations with residency permission in the EC over a long period of time) can be employed by public authorities on an equal footing with EU citizens. Eight Member States (CZ, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO) changed national legislation to transpose Directive 2011/51/EU amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection. Croatia transposed five Directives through several amendments to the Asylum Act which entered into force on 10 December 2013[21].

In 2013, Ireland signed the EU Subsidiary Protection Regulation, which came into force in the same year and gives applicants the opportunity of appeal. This national legislation makes it possible for applicants to be interviewed as part of the first instance investigation of their application and gives them the opportunity of an appeal. Cyprus amended the national Refugee Law Regulations for Reception Conditions regarding financial and other aid to those seeking international protection. Germany amended national legislation to ensure temporary legal protection against transfer decisions. Estonia amended national laws in the area of the protection of the rights of unaccompanied minors, as well as in the field of reception and detention. Luxembourg also amended national legislation on international protection. Latvia made changes to the Asylum law regarding reception and detention. The United Kingdom introduced provisions to allow a stateless person to apply for leave to remain on that basis. The new policy and procedure is primarily intended for those who do not qualify for refugee status or subsidiary protection. Two Member States drafted national action plans: Bulgaria drafted an action plan for dealing with increased migratory pressures. France adopted an Action Plan to reform the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) aiming at improving its working method.

2.1.7. Jurisprudence

At EU level: On 6 June 2013, the CJEU issued a judgment in Case C‑648/11, MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 6 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003.[22] The CJEU confirmed that where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his family legally present in the territory of a Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the ‘Member State responsible’.

On 7 November 2013, the CJEU issued a judgment in Case C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12, X, Y, Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel concerning persecution based on sexual orientation. The CJEU confirmed that a person's sexual orientation is a characteristic so fundamental to his or her identity that he or she should not be forced to renounce it. In that connection, the Court recognises that the existence of criminal laws specifically targeting homosexuals supports a finding that those persons form a separate group which is perceived by the surrounding society as being different. The CJEU further confirmed that not all violations of the fundamental rights of an applicant amount to persecution within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, but only those which are sufficiently serious. This is not the case of the mere existence of laws criminalising homosexual acts. However, the enforcement of such laws, in particular where the penalty attached is a term of imprisonment, may constitute an act of persecution. Finally, the CJEU ruled that it is not reasonable to expect that in order to avoid persecution an asylum seeker should conceal his homosexuality in his country of origin or exercise restraint in expressing it.

On 14 November 2013 the CJEU issued a judgment in Case C‑4/11, in the proceedings Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid, concerning the interpretation of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation and more precisely whether the duty of the Member States to exercise their right under the first sentence of Article 3(2) results in an enforceable personal right on the part of the asylum seeker to force a Member State to assume responsibility.

The Grand Chamber ruled that where the Member States cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member State initially identified as responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national provide substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify, the Member State which is determining the Member State responsible is required not to transfer the asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible and, subject to the exercise of the right itself to examine the application, to continue to examine the criteria set out in that chapter, in order to establish whether another Member State can be identified as responsible in accordance with one of those criteria or, if it cannot, under Article 13 of the Regulation. Conversely, in such a situation, a finding that it is impossible to transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible does not in itself mean that the Member State which is determining the Member State responsible is required itself, under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, to examine the application for asylum.

On 10 December 2013 the CJEU issued the judgment in Case C‑394/12, a request for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt concerning the interpretation of Articles 10, 16, 18 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003. The Grand Chamber ruled that Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in Article 10(1) of that regulation – namely, as the Member State of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the European Union – the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

At national level: In Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom a number of cases provided for new jurisprudence in the area of asylum. In Croatia administrative courts delivered 68 judgements on the decisions of rejections: 66 of them confirmed the first instance decision, while, in one case the proceedings were suspended and in one case the first instance decision was annulled.

In Belgium, jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court confirms the introduction of the concept of safe country of origin in Belgian legislation[23]. The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) of the Czech Republic confirmed that asylum seekers may send written evidence to the administrative body in their language of preference and the administrative body has the obligation to translate it in Czech or the language of the administrative procedure. In another ruling, the SAC confirmed that an asylum seeker may leave the territory of the Czech Republic for a short term, which is contrary to Asylum act. The implications of both rulings could be far-reaching and result in the amendment of relevant legislation.

Regarding procedural rights for asylum seekers there were developments in France, Germany and Slovak Republic. In France, a legal notice states that if an asylum seeker does not respect the regulatory time limit to send a request to the responsible authority, it does not prevent the submission of another request, which could be subject to an accelerated procedure. In Germany, the Federal Administrative Court held that an asylum procedure may be terminated if the asylum-seeker manipulates his or her fingertips and thus avoids having fingerprints taken. Consequently, it establishes the precedent of the obligation to cooperate.

The Supreme Court in Slovak Republic ruled that applicants are not required to prove persecution by manner other than by their own credible statement. It is up to the administrative authority, when in doubt over the credibility of the applicant´s statement, to find evidence demonstrating that the applicant´s statement is not truthful.[24]

In the area of return, a court in Finland ruled that if a person cannot be returned through forced return, a temporary residence permit is to be issued, regardless of the fact if it would probably have been possible for the person in question to return voluntarily. This ruling guides the Finnish Immigration Service towards the principle that if there is a technical obstacle for returning an asylum seeker to his/her home country, a temporary residence permit, as defined in Section 51 of the Finnish Aliens Act, can be issued regardless of the fact that there is no enforceable return decision.

Both in Ireland and the Netherlands there were court rulings relating to the issue of grounds for refusal. In Ireland, a Supreme Court ruling denied the Minister the possibility to rely on the fact of a marriage being religious as a ground for refusal. Also in Ireland, a High Court ruling stated that proxy marriages which were valid according to the law of the locality in which it took place would be recognised as valid in Irish law. In case the Minister is presented with such a case, he or she will have to consider the applicant’s assertion that a marriage has taken place and assess its credibility, based on all circumstances.

In relation to the application of the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) to asylum seekers claiming persecution on grounds of their sexual orientation in the Netherlands, the Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that while homosexuals should be considered as a specific social group as intended in the Convention on Refugees and Article 10, paragraph 1d of the Directive, the single penalization of homosexual acts can be deemed an act of persecution in the sense of the Directive unless a prison sentence given in a law stating that homosexual acts are penalised is actually adhered to. Nonetheless, the Court also ruled that upon assessing an application for asylum, the authorities cannot expect that asylum seekers keep their sexual orientation a secret in their country of origin or practice it with reticence so as to avoid persecution.

2.1.8. Efficiency and quality of asylum procedures

At national level: Thirteen Member States (BE, BG, DE, CY, EE, EL, FI, HR, IT, LU, PL, SE, UK) undertook measures in 2013 to safeguard or improve efficiency of their of asylum procedures.

Bulgaria, Cyprus and Luxembourg reduced processing times of applications. Luxembourg created a separate unit for the Western Balkans within the Refugee Department. Applications have been in majority resulted in an accelerated procedure. Because of increased migratory pressures, Cyprus formalised the procedures for asylum applications and integrated it under ERF national co-financing actions to increase the processing speed. Greece improved the efficiency and quality of services following the introduction of four new regional asylum offices and increasing the service of interpreting and guidance to applicants. Romania continued to implement, on permanent bases, the system for ensuring the management of asylum procedures quality, according with the Cooperation Agreement with UNHCR.

Germany, Italy and Sweden improved their efficiency in the area of IT and digital government. Italy continued a project started in 2012 on the digitalisation of international protection applications and status recognition. Germany made improvements to IT systems and the management of process flows. Sweden digitalised parts of the application process. In other areas, Estonia outsourced the accommodation of asylum applicants, which should lead to efficiency gains. Sweden introduced a special procedure for applications from Syria, started case segmentation and provided accommodation for applicants subject to accelerated procedures in facilities near transport hubs. Croatia, with a view to improving work and achieving better results in general, relocated all Asylum Section staff from the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior to the Asylum Seekers Reception Centre.

Thirteen Member States (BE, CY, DE, EE, FI, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, PL, SE, UK) introduced measures related to the quality of the national asylum system. Belgium, Latvia, Fran ce, Poland the United Kingdom improved the quality of the national asylum system through the improvement of internal procedures and working methods. Belgium set up a ‘Quality project’ to achieve better quality asylum decisions and harmonise working methods, while it includes quality indicators, setting up of a quality unit and methods of quality management. Spain signed a new cooperation agreement with the United National High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), aimed to guarantee the UNHCR’s participation in the procedure and including a financial grant to fulfil its role within the procedure. Two Member states (LT and LV) implemented projects with UNHCR with the aim of improving the quality of first instance asylum procedures. Poland implemented a large set of measures to enhance both efficiency and quality by reducing workload, introducing monitoring indicators and participation in UNHCR and EASO projects. The United Kingdom introduced a strengthened audit framework and enhanced internal quality assessment standards. In France, an agreement was signed between the OFPRA’s Director General and the UNHCR Representative in France establishing quality controls and an evaluation grid with criteria on the interview, investigation and decision. The objective is to envisage useful measures for the improvement of the quality of the decisions taken. In other areas, Luxembourg improved the quality of reception of applications and communications by moving to new facilities, while it also intensified cooperation with other Member States, in particular Austria and the Netherlands. Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Poland and Sweden carried out training activities to improve the knowledge and competence of staff.

Five Member States (BE, FI, IT, LV, SE) demonstrate evidence of the effectiveness of the above-mentioned measures. In Finland, improvements led to quicker investigation and removal procedures, enhanced cost-efficiency and acceleration of the placement of asylum seekers that received a residence permit. Italy partially overcame delays in examining asylum applications. Sweden reached better end-to-end processing times for applications subjected to accelerated procedures. Latvia trained 25 providers of legal assistance and 10 representatives of the State Border Guard

2.1.9. Challenges in the asylum field

At national level: In 2013, at least seventeen Member States experienced challenges in the asylum field (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE).

The challenge most frequently identified relates to increased migratory flows and high numbers of asylum applications (AT, BG, CY, DE, ES, FR, HU, IT, RO, SE). Member States are dealing with these pressures on the asylum system in a variety of ways. Because of the increase in applications, Cyprus is facing the additional challenge of managing costs. Cyprus and Sweden seek to address the issue by having additional costs covered under the ERF. Malta experienced its second highest number of annual arrivals of irregular migrants by boat during the past decade, all of whom then proceeded to apply for international protection. Malta sought, and received, funding under the European Refugee Fund Emergency Assistance to cover some of the costs related to accommodation and asylum–processing. As higher number of refugees arriving in Italy, the country also struggled to avoid the violation of non-refoulement at borders or at sea. To deal with higher numbers of asylum seekers, Hungary and Italy developed plans to increase reception capacity, which in the case of Hungary is funded through the ERF emergency assistance. To tackle the increase in applications from the Western Balkans recorded in some regions of the country, Belgium, France and Sweden visited this region to assess the reasons for the increase. When Germany faces challenges in over- or understaffing levels, it makes use of staff temporarily posted in other sections of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (e.g. in the integration section) who are still trained to process the claims.

Other challenges experienced by Member States not directly relating to increases in asylum applications include the length of proceedings, either relating to administrative procedures of international protection (CZ) or high numbers of pending appeal cases (IE, PT). To tackle this issue, the Czech Republic proposed changes in human resource management, while Ireland plans to revise national legislation in the area. Portugal conducted meetings with judicial authorities with a view to reducing delays in appeal. Malta reduced the backlog in appeal cases by creating three further chambers (in addition to the previous two) within the Refugee Appeals Board, as well as by increasing the number of lawyers providing legal aid to appellants. Germany sought to address the issue of applicants who have previously registered in the asylum systems of other (Member) States manipulating their fingertips to prevent a successful EURODAC matching by introducing new procedures; applicants who do not provide useable prints will be requested to re-take their fingerprints in compliance with their obligation to cooperate and if this attempt fails again the case will terminated. In a similar vein, the Netherlands faced challenges in establishing the authenticity of claims of religious conversion as a reason for asylum applications and was criticised for its procedures by external advocacy groups; it sought to address this challenge by involving relevant religious interest groups in the asylum interviews so that the assessment is transparent. Finally, Sweden faced the difficulty of providing enough housing in municipalities for asylum applicants granted residency. The Ombudsman’s Office of Latvia investigated ways to improve access to social assistance and social services for persons with subsidiary protection status by conducting a study on the topic and subsequent discussions with representatives of relevant ministries, local authorities and service providers.

Eight Member States (CZ, DE, EE, FI, HU, IE, IT, NL) faced at least some criticism for the challenges described above. The Czech Republic and Germany were criticised by the NGOs, the ombudsman and the Supreme Administrative Court (CZ), the general public (DE) for the length of proceedings and Ireland faced criticism in the media over the quality and appropriateness of its direct provision reception centres in consideration of the time some applicants spend there. Other points of criticism not indicated above were the detention of unaccompanied minors seeking international protection (FI), the overcrowding of open reception centres (HU) and the cost of dealing with the influx from migrants from North Africa (IT). For Estonia, the isolated location of the accommodation centre was criticized, a situation in the process of being rectified in 2014.

2.2. Emergency funding after "Lampedusa" and other emergency measures funded in 2013

At EU level: The Commission paid particular attention to Italy following the tragedy of Lampedusa in order to support the authorities in managing their migratory flows and step up their capacity to monitor the central Mediterranean route with a view to improve border surveillance and save lives. To this end, Frontex operations have been strengthened with an additional budget of EUR 7.9 million while Italy received emergency allocations under the European Refugee Fund, European Borders Fund and the Return Fund for a total of EUR 23 million. This was aided by the implementation of a Special Support Plan by EASO aimed at strengthening the Italian asylum system by providing training, Country of Origin Information and support in order to improve the management of the reception system.

In addition, emergency measures were funded in 2013 under the European Refugee Fund (ERF) for a total amount of EUR 36.34 million to respond promptly to the consequences from the Syrian crisis, of which EUR 28.34 million were made available from October 2013. Nine Member States benefitted of the ERF emergency measures:

Hungary received EUR 1.17 million to reinforce its accommodation and administrative capacity, to meet the challenges caused by the unprecedented increase in the number of asylum seekers during the summer of 2013.

Italy received EUR 12 million to strengthen the reception capacity through new facilities, increase service supply in the already existing centres, and reinforce the asylum procedure.

France received EUR 1.6 million to increase emergency reception capacity for asylum seekers in 2 particular regions (720 extra places).

Malta received EUR 3.7 million to improve the accommodation conditions in open reception centres, the renovation and provision of supplies for closed reception centres, and to reinforce the capacity of the Refugee Commissioner's office in dealing with the asylum claims.

Germany, which was faced with the sudden arrival of a large number of asylum seekers (+ 68% during the first two quarters of 2013 compared to the same period in 2012), received EUR 4 million to cover additional reception and accommodation for asylum seekers, including coverage of basic needs and supplies.

The Netherlands received EUR 1.12 million for opening one additional reception centre to enable 600 asylum seekers to be properly housed and catered for.

Greece received EUR 4 million to, inter alia, provide for the basic needs of people that may be in need of international protection and medical screening.

Cyprus received EUR 3.1 million to increase open accommodation capacities, together with provision of medical support and screening, as well as to prepare for a situation of mass influx from Syria.

Bulgaria received EUR 5.65 million to enhance its accommodation and administrative capacity, transportation/transfers, legal assistance and translation. Bulgaria plans to increase emergency accommodation capacities by up to 5 000 places.

Additionally, emergency support was allocated to Greece and Bulgaria under the External Borders Fund Community Actions:

Greece received almost EUR 2 million under the External Borders Fund for a project to support the First Reception Mobile Units operation for the first reception procedures in areas that are under pressure by high migration flows.

Bulgaria was provided EUR 2.4 million under the External Borders Fund for reinforcing capacities of the Bulgarian Border Police to identify and register new arrivals (within mixed flows), improving accommodation capacities of the centres managed by the Border Police, supporting costs of internal transportation of migrants, maintenance of border control and surveillance technical equipment.

2.3. Cooperation with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

At EU level: The European Asylum Support Office[25], that became operational in June 2011, continued to be built up in 2013, reaching a total of 71 staff and an allocation of EUR 11.9 million. The agency has contributed significantly to the further development of practical cooperation projects. In the field of training, 2 111 officials have been trained in the modules included in the EASO Training Curriculum in 2013. EASO also stepped up its activities in order to enhance the quality of the asylum procedure focusing on access to protection, personal interview, evidence assessment, and family tracing. As regards Country of Origin Information (COI), it published a report on the Western Balkans[26] and held several workshops on Syria, Russia and other key countries of origin of asylum applicants. In the field of COI, the agency also developed a new so-called "network approach" strategy, establishing networks of experts from Member States in constant contact with key countries of origin of asylum seekers, in order to share information and harmonise decisions at EU level. In parallel, EASO developed its capacity to provide up-to-date information on the main indicators in the field of asylum, including: new applications, backlog of pending cases, and other qualitative analyses, thereby contributing to the wider effort of implementing the provisions of Article 33 of the recast Dublin Regulation which establishes a permanent early warning and preparedness mechanism to prevent crisis in the field of asylum to happen.

While developing these practical cooperation activities, the agency has continued its operational activities in Member States by providing assistance to Greece, in line with the wider Action Plan on Migration and Asylum, as well as by activating a special support plan for Italy and for Bulgaria due to the difficulties these two countries were facing in managing their asylum applications.

EASO also published its second "Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the Union"[27] which provides factual information on the state of play of the implementation of the Common European Asylum System and an analysis of asylum flows towards the European Union.

The agency also developed some initial actions in the field of relocation, resettlement and the external dimension of the CEAS which will be developed further in 2014.

During 2013, the European Commission carried out a first evaluation of the impact of EASO on the implementation of the Common European Asylum System as foreseen in the Communication on Intra EU Solidarity.[28]

2.3.1. Participation in EASO activities and provision of support by EASO to the Member States

At national level: In 2013, 28 (Member) States apart from participated in EASO activities. Activities ranged from the provision of experts and staff for Asylum Support Teams (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EL, FI, FR, IE, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK, UK, NO), participation in training courses (BG, CY, EL, ES, HR, LU, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK), practical cooperation, group meetings, workshops and seminars (BE, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK, UK) and institutional development and developing training modules (BE, CY, EL, ES, FR, IE, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK). At the end of 2013 an association agreement between Norway and EASO was initialled, and signings are expected in early 2014. Norway provided experts to EASO in 2013.

Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom received support from EASO. This support concerned technical assistance (BG, EL), training and workshops (BG, EL, FI, FR, IT, HU, NL, PL, UK), emergency exercises (HU, RO) and special support plans (IT). UNHCR relocated 410 refugees in Romania to other countries.

The EASO Training Curriculum was also used as a basis for training third country national authorities within the EU-funded UNHCR project ‘Asylum Systems Quality Initiative in Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus’. The project was jointly implemented in 2013 by Germany, Poland, Romania and Sweden with a view to improving the quality of decision-making in this region. In the first phase of the project, current asylum practices in the beneficiary countries were mapped and in the second phase quality control mechanisms will be established, staff will be trained, and country of origin information and translate selected modules of the EASO Training Curriculum will be translated into Russian.

2.4. Intra-EU solidarity including relocation

2.4.1. Support to national asylum systems including relocation[29]

At EU level: 692 persons (either beneficiaries of international protection or, in a few cases, asylum seekers) have been relocated from Malta since 2005. Following on from the EUREMA I pilot project, a second project took place from 2011-2013. Ninety-seven places were pledged for relocation through this project, but only 14 persons were relocated. During the same period, 264 persons were relocated through bilateral agreements outside the EUREMA project. Some of the reasons for the limited success of the EUREMA II project include the fact that most participants were "new" Member States that were for the first time embarking on resettlement / relocation activities and had only small non-European communities already established; or they had some limiting criteria as to whom to relocate (e.g. families rather than single men).

Following on from a discussion at the October 2012 JHA Council, the Commission announced that an annual Relocation Forum would be held to discuss relocation issues. The first one took place on 25 September 2013. The Forum was an opportunity for Member States to discuss with the Commission both their needs for relocation and their intentions as regards future relocation activities. Under the new Asylum and Migration Fund, there will no longer be a project-based approach, but instead the financing for relocation will be mainstreamed into Member States' national programmes. In addition, a EUR 6 000 lump-sum per person relocated is given to the Member State.

The Commission will evaluate the EUREMA projects and the bilateral relocation efforts in 2014.

At national level: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Portugal, Sweden, Slovak Republic and Norway provided support to other (Member) States experiencing specific and disproportionate pressures on their national asylum systems. A number of Member States provided material and logistic support to Bulgaria (AT, BE, CZ, DK, HU, SK), Greece (AT, BE, UK) and Italy (BE). Denmark is in close contact with the Bulgarian authorities in order to support them with their asylum system. Sweden sent several asylum experts to Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Romania; and Norway provided EEA grants to Greece. The Czech Republic assisted the Asylum Intervention Teams managed by EASO in both Greece and Italy. Portugal deployed several experts to provide assistance to Greece and Bulgaria.

Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Slovak Republic continued to participate in EUREMA II to support Malta with the relocation of beneficiaries of protection. Ireland relocated ten people for permanent resettlement on a bilateral basis. Poland accepted seven persons under EUREMA II and saw six persons arrive in January 2013. Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovak Republic offered relocation to Malta but noted that no suitable candidates were found. The four persons (citizens of Eritrea) relocated by Lithuania arrived in December 2012. Portugal also relocated 4 citizens of Sudanese nationality from Malta in 2012. Persons relocated under the EUREMA II project were assisted to integrate in the respective Member States throughout 2013.

2.4.2. Joint/supported processing of asylum applications

At EU level: In 2013, the Commission undertook a study on the feasibility, and on the legal and practical implications, of establishing a mechanism for the joint processing of asylum applications on the territory of the EU.[30] The purpose of the study was to provide a basis for discussion and informed decisions about the possible development of such a solidarity mechanism that would help Member States cope with some of the challenges they face in asylum matters.

The study indicated that the mechanism for joint processing would be employed in a situation where a Member State's asylum system is struggling to cope with the inflow of asylum seekers. In such a scenario, "joint processing teams" would be set up on an ad hoc basis, consisting of officials from the existing EASO Asylum Intervention Pool, who will support the State in crisis either on the ground or by means of remote working. Participation in the EASO Asylum Intervention Pool is mandatory, but participation in support processing missions is voluntary, as is the request for support from the Member State in crisis.

The supporting officials can make recommendations on the basis of the EU acquis but the final decision is made by the Member State responsible for the application (as defined by the Dublin Regulation), which would also be responsible for any ensuing appeal cases, as well as for returns and removal operations. This mechanism would be financed through funding of EASO and support from the Asylum, Migration and Immigration Fund (AMIF).

The start of a first pilot project of supported processing was included in the recommendations of the Task Force Mediterranean (TFM), and will be started by EASO in 2014.

2.5. Enhancing the external dimension including resettlement

2.5.1. Cooperation with third countries including resettlement[31]

At EU level: The EU has pursued policy dialogues and cooperation with third countries and regions in line with the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM), the overarching framework of the EU external migration and asylum policy, and thereby contributing to institutional and legislative reforms and capacity building in partner countries. The policy dialogues have been matched by financial and operational support in the area of international protection and asylum. Through the Commission’s development cooperation instruments more than 15 new projects in 20 partner countries have been launched in 2012-2013, for an amount of more than EUR 25 million.

In addition to work on existing Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs),[32] and following a call from the Justice and Home Affairs Council in 2012,[33] the Commission is responding to the on-going conflict in Syria and the refugee situation in neighbouring countries by setting up during 2014 a Regional (Development) and Protection Programme in the Middle East, complementary to the immediate humanitarian assistance already being provided.

Apart from wider humanitarian efforts in the region, the Commission is also providing financial support to the UNHCR to support efforts enabling refugees in countries neighbouring Syria to be properly registered and thus gain access to protection. The support includes assisting the local authorities with the provision of transport from border crossing points, providing the necessary equipment and supplies, as well as, wherever necessary, providing training and familiarising non-governmental organisations, officials, and other stakeholders with the basic principles of international protection.

Solidarity is also being shown with the countries neighbouring Syria that are hosting almost all of the more than two million refugees who have fled Syria since 2011. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called for the international community at large to offer some 12 000 places for the resettlement and humanitarian admission of Syrians in 2013, only to increase this call to some 30 000 by the end of 2014. Several Member States (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) responded to this call by offering more than 13 100 places. The European Commission continues to support this call for resettlement and humanitarian admission. The European Union also became member of the Core Group on the Resettlement of Refugees from Syria.

The resettlement of refugees from outside the EU continues to be a key act of solidarity between the EU and its Member States with third countries that are hosting large refugee populations. The Commission's goal is to ensure that more refugees are resettled each year by more Member States, while respecting the voluntary nature of resettlement. In reaching agreement on the Joint EU Resettlement Programme[34] under the European Refugee Fund in March 2012, Member States agreed, for the first time, on specific common EU resettlement priorities for 2013[35]. This gives a strong political signal of unity and solidarity with the international community and refugees in need of a sustainable solution and is an expression of the importance that the EU and the Member States attach to directing the Union's resettlement efforts towards protracted situations that need special attention and increased efforts. The outlines of the Union Resettlement Programme from 2014 onwards are under negotiation as part of the new Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.

Under the 2013 call for proposals on Resettlement (Preparatory Action), which supports the exchange of best practices and knowledge transfer on resettlement between targeted municipalities and local authorities in Member States, only one project was financed (EUR 0.5 million): SHARE II - Building a European Resettlement Network for Cities and Regions, whose project coordinator is the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) - Europe. SHARE II follows up on the SHARE Project' implemented during 2012-2013 by ICMC Europe in partnership with Sheffield, UNHCR, EUROCITIES and others in 13 countries. The main objective of the SHARE projects is to build toward a network of cities and regions in Europe committed to receiving resettled refugees, ensuring a significant number of places and good quality reception and integration structures and practice’. SHARE II reaches out to actors in all EU Member States through activities involving Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

In 2013, three projects selected under the 2012 call on Preparatory Action on emergency resettlement were implemented, i.e. to enable the resettlement of refugees during emergency situations. UNHCR received EUR 1.5 million to renovate and upgrade the UNHCR Emergency Transit Facility in Romania and Slovakia, to support its staff capacity for urgent resettlement in headquarters and in Brussels, to support the existing European Resettlement Network in particular with regard to emergency resettlement activities and to support the development of an info campaign presenting the emergency resettlement itinerary of a few individuals. Ireland (Department of Justice and Equality) got a grant of EUR 415 156,56 to resettle 30 persons from Syria and finally Austria, after an application submitted in October 2013, was awarded a grant of EUR 1 million to resettle 250 Syrian refugees from neighbouring countries. Both projects include pre-departure medical examinations and cultural orientation, the transfer of the refugees to the resettling country, reception and orientation of the resettled refugees and integration of refugees in the local community.

At national level: Thirteen (Member) States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DK, FR, HU, IE, NL, SE, SK, UK, NO) cooperated with third countries to enhance the external dimension of international protection. This includes support to Armenia for Armenian-Syrian refugees (AT), institutional development of the asylum system to Burundi (BE), training to Burundi and Kyrgyzstan (BE), organising international workshops on resettlement (BG), the implementation of the Regional Development and Protection Program for Refugees and Host Communities in the Middle East (CZ), coordination, co-funding and co-implementation of the Regional (Development) and Protection Programme set up in the Middle East (DK, NL, UK), security cooperation with Hong Kong (FR), support to development of the asylum and migration capacities of Serbia (HU), and readmission and return (NO). Furthermore, this support includes cooperation under the framework of the Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration and Asylum (FR, PL, SE), migration management in Armenia (SE) and training under the European Asylum Curriculum for Eastern Partnership countries, together with Germany (SE).

Twelve (Member) States took part in resettlement activities (BE, FI, FR, HU, IE, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK, NO). In at least ten (Member) States (DE, DK, FR, HU, NL, PT, SE, SK, UK, NO) the activity concerned the resettlement of refugees placed under the protection of the Office of the UNHCR in third countries. Romania took the decision to resettle 40 Iraqis refugees from Turkey. The Czech Republic and Spain postponed the implementation of the resettlement quota to 2014.

DE has adopted a humanitarian admission programme at federal level for the admission of 10 000 Syrians in 2013-204, in particular those in special need of protection, in this way providing a substantial part of all resettlement or humanitarian admission places for Syrians in the EU for 2013-2014.

3. IRREGULAR MIGRATION AND RETURN

This chapter includes activities at the EU level and in the Member States that have contributed to combating irregular migration, and focuses primarily on the Strategic Priority Areas outlined in the Strategic Response to EU Action on Migratory Pressures[36].

Figure 3: Third-country nationals refused at external borders and Third-country nationals found to be illegally present 2013

Source: Eurostat, [migr_eirfs] Notes: Third-country nationals refused at external borders: statistics not published for EL and NO due to lack of reliability because of small sample size. Third-country nationals found to be illegally present: statistics not published for EL, NL and NO due to lack of reliability because of small sample size.

Table 7 in the Statistic Annex shows the number of third-country nationals refused at the external borders and those found to be illegally present in 2013. Statistics for refusals at the external border are available for 26 Member States and for those found to be illegally present, for 25 Member States.

The highest numbers of refusals at the border were reported by Spain (192 775); Poland (40 386); United Kingdom (13 435); France (11 745) and Hungary (11 055). The number of refusals reported by Spain represented a figure significantly higher than the reported numbers by all other Member States combined. Poland also reported a relatively high number of refusals (40 385) when compared with other Member States. The lowest numbers of refusals at the external borders were reported by Luxembourg (0); Denmark (140); Sweden (180); Malta (300) and Czech Republic (310). Statistics for all Member States (where available) are shown above in Figure 3.

The highest numbers of those found to be illegally present were reported by Germany (86 305); United Kingdom (57 195); France (48 965); Spain (46 195); and Austria (25 960). The lowest numbers of refusals at the external borders were reported by Latvia (175); Luxembourg (260); Denmark (395); Estonia (910) and Slovak Republic (1 025).

In 16 out of the 25 Member States for which statistics were available for comparison, the number of third-country nationals found to be illegally present exceeded the number of those refused at the external border. The differences were most marked in Germany (82 460); United Kingdom (43 760); France (37 220); Austria (25 600) and Sweden (24 220). Conversely, in 10 Member States, refusals of third country nationals at the border (far) exceeded those found to be illegally present. These differences were most marked in Spain (146 580); and Poland (31 105).

3.1. Priority I: Strengthening cooperation with third countries of transit and origin on migration management & Priority VII: Preventing illegal immigration from and via the Southern Mediterranean countries

3.1.1. Prevent and combat irregular immigration by ensuring smooth and orderly return of irregular migrants between states; ensure implementation of all EU readmission agreements to their full effect

At EU level: EU readmission policy remains an important priority, with the emphasis being placed on implementing those EU Readmission Agreements already in force, and completing outstanding mandates.

It is expected that the Mobility Partnership established with Morocco on 7 June will lead to a re-launching of negotiations on a Readmission Agreement in due course. The first meeting on the implementation of the Mobility Partnership took place on 24-25 September in Rabat. Negotiations on a Mobility Partnership with Tunisia will include a commitment to concluding a Readmission Agreement. Partnership negotiations with Egypt are foreseen once conditions allow. Elements on readmission are included in the EU-India Common Agenda on Migration and Mobility, in discussion since April. Efforts are being made to rekindle readmission negotiations with China following new proposals from the Commission and the EEAS. A Readmission Agreement was signed with Armenia on 19 April and the Readmission Agreement with Azerbaijan was initialled in July with Commission proposals for its signature and conclusion submitted on 29 October. The Mobility Partnership with Azerbaijan was signed on 5 December. The Readmission Agreement with Cape Verde was signed on 18 April, and a further Readmission Agreement with Turkey was signed on 16 December. Following indications from the side of Belarus, the Commission started preparations for launching readmission negotiations with this country, acting on the last of the negotiating directives for the countries of the Eastern Partnership.

Over the course of 2013, the EU institutions and agencies have continued to apply pressure on certain third countries to fully implement EU Readmission Agreements. In the case of Pakistan, the first readmission applications were examined under the Agreement, and were approved following successful efforts by the Commission and the Delegation of the EU to Pakistan. Joint return flights were organised by FRONTEX in April. A Joint Readmission Committee (JRC) meeting took place in Islamabad on 7 July, and the next one is scheduled to take place in Brussels, with the date still to be confirmed. Regular JRCs have been promoted with cooperating third countries, including the first JRC with Sri Lanka, which took place in Colombo on 18 February, and the sixth and fourth JRC meetings, respectively, with the Republic of Moldova[37] on 12 June and Georgia on 26 February in Brussels. The issue of irregular migration, including readmission, is regularly addressed in each of the seven regional dialogues and three bilateral dialogues under GAMM, with the aim of asserting pressure through diplomatic channels to encourage relevant third countries to cooperate further on readmission.

With regard to ensuring the effective implementation of Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement, to follow on from the expert recommendations on readmission endorsed by EU and ACP Ministers in April 2012, the EU has proposed the organisation of a regional seminar on readmission to provide for expert exchanges on specific issues. This proposal was accepted by the ACP States and the seminar is likely to focus on the West African region and take place in the second quarter of 2014.

At national level: During 2013, protocols to support the implementation of EU readmission agreements entered into force in at least eight Member States (CZ, DE, EE, EL, HR, PL, SK, UK). A further four Member States (EL, FR, HR, NL) signed and/or ratified such protocols with third countries or started negotiations (LV). Ireland completed the necessary parliamentary procedures to opt-in to eleven EU readmission agreements, which is now undergoing the requisite procedure at EU level before taking effect. No new developments were reported in relation to EU readmission agreements in Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Lithuania and Sweden during the reference period.

The Czech Republic, Belgium, The Netherlands and Poland together with IOM supported the authorities in Georgia to develop software for submitting readmission applications through the Internet. EU readmission agreements are supplemented by a joint declaration between the European Commission and the respective partner government encouraging the latter to enter into a similar agreement also with Norway (and Iceland). Readmission agreements with Norway have been concluded on this basis with a number of countries, e.g. Montenegro, FYROM and Serbia. Norway is currently either in contact with or planning to contact all remaining third-countries which have an EU readmission agreement in place; however, no new agreements were concluded in 2013.

No new developments took place in relation to the implementation of the EU readmission agreements with Hong Kong (2003) and Macao (2004). It should be noted that no progress has been made with third countries belonging to the Mediterranean area due to the political instability in these countries. Indeed, many Member States have bilateral readmission agreements in place with third countries and for this reason have not developed implementing protocols with these countries.

Table 2.1: Implementing protocols under EU Readmission Agreements

|| Negotiation planned || In negotiation || Approved &awaiting third country’s signature || Signed || Ratified || Entered into force

Albania || EL || PT || || BG || || HR

Bosnia Herzegovina || || LV || DE, EL, SK || BE, FR, NL, LU || || CZ, HR, HU,

FYROM || || LV || SK || BE, LU, NL || || HR

Georgia || DE || ES, LV, PT || CZ, SK || BE, LU, NL || || EE

Hong Kong || || || || || ||

Kosovo[38] || || || || HR || || EE

Macao || || || || || ||

Moldova || || EL, PT || || BE, ES, LU, NL || ||

Montenegro || || LV || || EE || BE, LU || DE, HR, SK

Pakistan || || HU, LV, PL || || || || UK

Russia || || || || || || PL, PT

Serbia || || LV, PT || ES || BE, EL, BG, LU, NL || || CZ, HR, RO

Sri Lanka || NL || UK || || || ||

Ukraine || || BE, LV, LU, NL, PT || EE || CZ || ||

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

At EU level: In order to allow persons requiring international protection to access it as soon as possible after initial displacement and as close as possible to their region of origin, Regional Protection Programmes are used to build third countries' capacity in the field of international protection. The Commission is working for the Regional Protection and Development Programme in the Middle Eastern countries to be operational early 2014, in order to respond effectively to the Syrian crisis, and the situation of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries. This complements the significant support already provided to Syrian refugees under EU development and humanitarian funding.

To avert secondary movements, it is also necessary to improve refugees' access to the means for self-reliance in third countries of first asylum. In February, the Commission organised a one month Mission of Member State experts to Moldova in the framework of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan. The mission concluded that Moldova's asylum, border and migration management frameworks are in line with EU practices and have been well-implemented.

Strengthening the capacity of third countries to better tackle the challenges of mixed migratory flows is a key element of the existing Mobility Partnerships with Moldova, Cape Verde, Georgia and Armenia, as well as the Mobility Partnership signed with Morocco in June. The Commission, EASO, FRONTEX and Europol continue to work to identify new actions and initiatives aimed at strengthening third countries' capacities.

At national level: Several (Member) States (BE, CZ, FI, HU, IT, NL, PL, RO, SK, UK, NO) implemented actions to support third countries of first asylum with the means to guarantee refugee protection and to better manage mixed migration flows. In some cases this assistance was provided within the framework of EU programmes, such as Regional Protection Programmes[39] (CZ, DK, NL, UK), Mobility Partnerships (BE, DK, NL, PL, RO, SK) and the Prague Process (BE, PL).

In the case of four (Member) States (CZ, HU, UK, NO), actions were implemented to support third countries experiencing high influxes of asylum seekers and refugees from Syria. The Czech Republic and Hungary sent aid to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, and Norway also financed a project to support the Turkish Government. The Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom provided funding towards the Regional Development Protection Programme set up in 2013 to support refugees and host communities in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.[40] The programme is coordinated by Denmark and aims to improve the communities’ capacity for integration of refugees by developing social infrastructure (energy supply, healthcare services, education) and creating greater possibilities for the refugees to contribute economically to their host society (e.g. vocational training and skills development, creating better employment opportunities, and supporting micro-enterprise finance). Within the framework of EU Mobility Partnerships, Belgium and Poland provided support to Armenia and Georgia on voluntary return and reintegration, Czech Republic helped Georgia with voluntary return and reintegration, and the Slovak Republic helped to establish a permanent independent and institutionalised training mechanism to build capacity for analysing data on migration in Moldova and Georgia. The Slovak Republic also aims to lead future projects in Azerbaijan. In a report on Italy’s participation in the EU, Italy’s Council of Ministers expressed their hope for continued negotiations with Morocco and Tunisia on Mobility and Security Partnerships and similar initiatives with other Southern Mediterranean countries to bring about shared migration flow management. Under the Prague Process, Belgium and Hungary participated in the pilot project ‘Quality and training in the asylum processes’ and hosted a study visit for Kyrgyzstan’s and Belarus’ asylum and migration authority, respectively.

Belgium, Finland and Poland bilaterally supported third countries to build capacity to manage mixed migration flows. Finland’s Immigration service (FIS) similarly set up learning exchange visits with asylum authorities in Iraq, and visited the USA, China and Korea to present on good practices there. The Finnish Immigration Service (FIS) also investigated the opportunity of establishing a shared EU facility centre in Ethiopia for management of migration flows. Similarly, Poland and Sweden implemented a twinning project Support the State Migration Service for Strengthening of Migration Management in Armenia. Belgium provided support to the Burundi National Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (ONPRA) to assist in the development of the organisation and to provide training to their staff based around the EASO Asylum Curriculum.

3.1.3. Prevention of irregular migration from the Southern Mediterranean countries; the Western Mediterranean and the African Atlantic coast

At EU level: Member State-Third Country regional networks of cooperation in the Mediterranean, such as the European Commission-funded 'Seahorse Mediterranean Network' should continue in the framework of EUROSUR. Two workshops have taken place within the framework of FRONTEX'S AFIC (Africa-FRONTEX Intelligence Community) project in May and September, with a conference and the release of the second Joint Annual Report in November. The project included Morocco, Western Sahara, DR Congo and Cameroon. FRONTEX also recently invited selected third countries to take part in a European Patrol Network (EPN) meeting to become familiar with FRONTEX-coordinated maritime activities.

Europol is in the process of negotiating a Strategic Agreement with Morocco, through which it will be able to be more active in information sharing (no personal data).

In order to strengthen its operational cooperation with the competent border control authorities in the Southern Mediterranean countries, FRONTEX supports Member States taking part in its joint operations to integrate third country observers or nominate suitable contact points for dealing with urgent matters regarding the operation. FRONTEX also supports the EU-funded EuroMed Migration III project. FRONTEX delivered a presentation to the 4th Irregular EuroMed Migration Training session in September and EuroMed Migration raises awareness of FRONTEX's role in the third countries concerned. The Commission will also fund a project to support the practical cooperation of FRONTEX and EASO with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan. With a view to maintaining and developing the current effective handling of the migration situation in this region, FRONTEX continues to facilitate Member State coordination in European Patrol Network (EPN) areas and support several joint operations in the Mediterranean and North Africa: Joint Operations EPN- Indalo and EPN- Minerva in the Western Mediterranean, and Joint Operation EPN-Hera located off the North African coast. FRONTEX also supports national efforts of the Southern Mediterranean countries, by facilitating initiatives such as the EPN Common Patrols as a part of EUROSUR.

At national level: The prevention of irregular migration from the southern Mediterranean region remained a strategic priority for Italy, as outlined in the 2013 report of the Council of Ministers on Italy’s participation in the EU. Other Member States (DE, FR, HU, IT, PL) also sought to prevent irregular migration from this region (especially from Tunisia and Morocco) by building the capacity of border authorities in the respective countries through provision of equipment e.g. patrol boats (DE, IT), training (HU, PL) and secondment of experts (FR). Hungary hosted and Poland participated in peer-to-peer meetings of border guards as part of the EU-funded EUROMED Migration III project.[41] Italy also targeted a training and information campaign at public administrators and third sector actors in Morocco, with a view to increasing understanding and awareness of Italian migration rules. Austria and Bulgaria fostered dialogue with officials in Morocco and Algeria on readmission matters. This was especially important for Bulgaria, since in 2013 Algeria and Morocco were amongst the top five source countries of irregular migration to Bulgaria. Malta and Libya have convened the Joint Working Group on Security and Illegal Migration, with the aim of enhancing cooperation and sharing information in addressing illegal migration across the central Mediterranean. The Maltese and Libyan sides agreed on cooperation in this sphere. Furthermore, the Maltese side offered training to the Libyan side in relation to border control and police issues, which offer was accepted by the Libyan side. In Spain, the project “Seahorse Mediterranean Network”, approved by the European Commission, was presented within Guardia Civil Headquarters in Madrid, and will be developed over the next three years in collaboration with Spain (Guardia Civil), Italy (Ministry of Interior), France (PAF), Malta (Armed Forces), Portugal (GNR), Cyprus (Police), Greece (Coast Guard) and Libya (Coast Guard). Thus, Member States and Libya will join forces in an agreement to curb irregular immigration between Mediterranean countries. The “Seahorse Mediterranean Network” project is an extension of EU cooperation projects implemented since 2006 between Spain and African countries on the Atlantic coast: The “Seahorse Atlantic” programme made it possible to diminish migratory pressures via sea from Africa to Europe. A further project, the “West Sahel Project”, co-financed by the EU and Spain and implemented by Guardia Civil was set up in 2011 and was completed during the reference year. The project involved the following countries: Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal, as associated countries and principal beneficiaries of the action.

To prevent irregular migration from the African Atlantic coast, Belgium and Italy carried out information campaigns in Senegal on legal migration channels and the risks of migrating irregularly. Belgium also carried out such actions in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the framework of the Dakar Strategy, [42] the Netherlands participated in meetings to discuss border management with actors from North, Central and West Africa.

3.1.4. Prevention of irregular migration from the Eastern Partners; address migratory pressures via the 'Silk Routes', including prevention of irregular migration and combating trafficking in human beings

At EU level: The fight against irregular migration is an integral part of the Mobility Partnerships, which are important instruments in terms of cooperation with the Eastern Partnership countries. For example, the EU-funded project 'Targeted Initiative for Armenia' aimed at strengthening Armenia's migration management capacities, focuses on return and reintegration activities. In February, there were joint workshops held under the Legal Migration Pilot and Migration and Development Pilot Projects of the EU-funded Prague Process Targeted Initiative. The workshop that took place in Tbilisi on 9 October for the Migration and Development Pilot Project focused on policies of circular migration. The first meeting of the Prague Process National Contact Points was held on 10-11 October in Tbilisi and focussed on fostering cooperation on labour migration among the Prague Process States.

Several actions were taken in 2013 to enhance cooperation and coordination with the Eastern Partners in the prevention of, and the fight against, irregular migration, organised crime, trafficking in human beings, money laundering and terrorism. A workshop on the illegal immigration Pilot Project held in Warsaw on 11-12 March focussed on readmission and return and was followed up by a practical study visit in June. The Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration and Asylum held in Georgia on 20-21 March focussed on practical aspects of readmission, return and reintegration. A workshop on the victims of trafficking in human beings was held in Warsaw on 21-22 May. Cooperation has been reinforced through on-going visa liberalisation dialogues with Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. Additionally, the visa dialogues with these three countries encourage the legislative and operational approximation towards European best-practices.

Europol has signed a Strategic Agreement with Moldova, a Moldovan liaison officer has been posted in the Hague since July and Europol entered the final phase of starting negotiations with Moldova for concluding an operational agreement in 2014. Georgia is in the process of being included in the list of third countries with which Europol can conclude agreements.

The Ministerial Conference of 19 April in Istanbul, concluded with the approval of a Declaration establishing a "Silk Routes' Partnership for Migration", redirected the focus of the Budapest Process towards the migration originating from and taking place within the Silk Routes' countries, such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Commission and several Member States have taken various initiatives to implement the Declaration and develop cooperation with those countries. Since June 2013, three scoping missions have taken place to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan with a two day workshop taking place in Brussels on 17-18 July with the Commission and the UK, Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland in attendance. Clear progress was achieved in terms of multilateral agreement in respect of Afghanistan and a range of country-specific activities. An expert meeting took place in Islamabad on 28-29 October and work is underway with Pakistani senior officials to undertake a training needs assessment on migration. Basic training on migration issues covering a broad range of actors working in the area of migration in Afghanistan is scheduled for December 2014. The Commission has launched a EUR 2.6 million projects to support the implementation of the Silk Routes Partnership in 2014-2015, with additional co-funding from EU MS and Turkey.

The issue of trafficking in human beings is systematically included in all bilateral and regional policy dialogues within the framework of the GAMM.

At national level: Belgium continued with information campaigns targeting North Caucasus and Armenia and Germany made plans to launch an information campaign in Chechnya targeting 20-30 year olds. Two EU projects: ‘Support Reintegration of Georgian Returning Migrants and the Implementation of EU-Georgia Readmission Agreement’ (implemented by Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden in conjunction with IOM)[43] and the ICMPD project ‘Fostering Cooperation in the Area of Migration with and in the Silk Routes Region’[44] ended in 2013. Both projects aimed to foster dialogue and cooperation, and in the case of the ICMPD project to develop understanding of migration from this region. The results of both projects have yet to be disseminated.

Member States delivered training to border authorities and provided equipment to support border management in the Eastern Partnership countries of Moldova (DE, PL, SE) and the Ukraine (PL, SE). In the case of Poland, Romania and Sweden, the training was given within the framework of the ‘European Commission Training and Consulting Mission for Moldova and Ukraine’ (EUBAM). Action agreements on combating cross-border crime were signed between Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and joint operations subsequently carried out. A similar action plan signed between Lithuania and Belarus led to the dismantling of a transnational criminal grou