Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in view of the European Council of Thessaloniki on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents
Date: 2003-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, EU visa policy, cooperation policy, external border of the EU, illegal migration, migration control, return migration, third country, trafficking in human beings

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 3.6.2003
COM(2003) 323 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
IN VIEW OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF THESSALONIKI

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON POLICY ON ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION, SMUGGLING AND TRAFFICKING OF HUMAN BEINGS,
EXTERNAL BORDERS AND THE RETURN OF ILLEGAL RESIDENTS

   
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
IN VIEW OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF THESSALONIKI

ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON POLICY ON ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION, SMUGGLING AND TRAFFICKING OF HUMAN BEINGS,
EXTERNAL BORDERS AND THE RETURN OF ILLEGAL RESIDENTS

Table of Contents

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

3.

4.

5.

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3

Policy Developments ................................................................................................... 3

Visa Policy ................................................................................................................... 4

Border Control Policy: Towards the development of a Common and Integrated
Policy for the management of the external borders. .................................................... 6

Return Policy................................................................................................................ 8

Key flanking measures............................................................................................... 10

Operational co-operation and exchange of information............................................. 11

Partnership with third countries ................................................................................. 12

The appropriate financial resources and burden sharing mechanism ........................ 14

Conclusions................................................................................................................ 17

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

As long ago as 1994, the Commission stressed that the management of migration flows was
one  of  three  essential  elements,  together  with  cooperation  with  countries  of  origin  and  the
integration  of  legal  immigrants,  for  a  comprehensive  and  therefore  effective  immigration
policy. The Tampere European Council confirmed this approach and added the separate  but
complementary objective of establishing a common asylum system.

At Laeken and in Seville, the European Council re-emphasised the importance of measures to
combat  illegal  immigration.  In  Seville,  in  particular,  it  launched  a  number  of  detailed
initiatives, including operational measures, aimed at implementing this priority quickly. 2002
was  certainly  particularly  productive  in  terms  of  political  programming  as  the  Council
adopted  three  successive  actions  plans,  each  time  on  the  basis  of  communications  from  the
Commission, to form a comprehensive and coherent set of measures.

The  European  Council  in  Thessaloniki  provides  an  opportunity  to  carry  out  a  preliminary
assessment  of  this  work.  In  any  case,  this  assessment  could  only  be  very  preliminary  as  it
would  be  presumptuous  to  try  to  draw  final  conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of  the
common policy after so short a time. Nevertheless, it is advisable for the Heads of State and
Government to review the progress made in the last few months in order to make a political
evaluation and draw up guidelines as to the priorities to be pursued before the completion of
the overall programme defined at Tampere.

This communication is the Commission’s contribution to the exercise. It is not by any means
an exhaustive inventory of the work carried out so far - such an inventory can be found in the
“road  map”  drawn  up  by  the  Danish  Presidency  and  recently  updated  by  the  Greek
Presidency. With particular regard to operational cooperation in the management of external
frontiers,  the  Commission  also  refers  to  the  special  report  produced  by  the  Presidency,  on
which it was able to collaborate.

As  part  of  the  framework  gradually  built  up  in  its  three  communications  on  measures  to
combat illegal immigration, integrated management of external borders and the repatriation of
illegal  immigrants,  the  Commission  aims  to  highlight  the  consistency  of  this  constantly
evolving policy and create the basis for a follow-up process which will be given shape with
the drafting of an annual report.

In  particular,  a  limited  number  of  initiatives  or  questions  will  be  tackled  which,  in  the
Commission’s  view,  also  constitute  essential  elements  for  the  effectiveness  of  common
action, be it in the strengthening of operational cooperation, mainly through the introduction
of large information processing systems, the mobilisation of financial resources in pursuit of a
common  effort,  or  the  adoption  and  implementation  of  legislative  acts.  The  Commission  is
also keen to emphasise the importance of other measures in the field of judicial and criminal
matters, social affairs and external relations.

3

The  Heads  of  State  and  Government  meeting  in  Thessaloniki  will  also  have  their  attention
drawn  to  two  other  dossiers  concerned  with  important  aspects  of  the  integrated  approach
called  for  at  Tampere,  namely  the  international  dimension  of  the  asylum  system  and  the
integration  of  immigrants.  In  response  to  a  request  from  the  European  Council,  specific
communications  have  also  been  prepared  for  this  purpose.  The  Commission  welcomes  this
opening up of the agenda and hopes that the balanced vision which has guided the Union so
far and which must continue to inspire it in the context of the new constitutional treaty, will
be confirmed; at the same time it repeats its hope that the proposals still before the Council
will be adopted quickly.

2.

POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

2.1.

Visa Policy

The  Community  visa  policy,  which  was  set  up  as  one  of  the  measures  accompanying  the
removal  of  controls  of  persons  at  the  internal  borders,  can  significantly  contribute  to  the
prevention of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration represents one of the basic criteria for
the determination of those third countries whose nationals are subject to the visa requirement,
besides  other  criteria  such  as  public  policy  and  security,  EU's  external  relations,  regional
coherence and reciprocity, listed in Council Regulation (EC) N° 539/2001.

The review of the list of third countries whose nationals must  be  in  possession  of visas
was one of the priorities indicated in the Seville European Council. The Commission proposal
for amending the  list of third  countries in order to transfer  Ecuador to  the  negative  list  was
endorsed  and  adopted  by  the  Council  in  March  2003.  The  amendment  of  Regulation  No
539/2001 demonstrates the contribution of the common visa policy to the fight against illegal
immigration. A correct  and timely implementation on the  ground by all Member States  will
serve that purpose.

The European Councils of  Laeken and Seville as well as the comprehensive plan to combat
illegal  immigration  and  trafficking  of  human  beings  (hereinafter  called  “Santiago  Action
Plan”) have given high priority to the establishment of a common Visa Information System
(VIS). The Council adopted in June 2002 the guidelines for the introduction of such a system
and invited the Commission to carry out a feasibility study following the guidelines adopted.
The objectives of the VIS as set out in the Council guidelines are in particular to facilitate the
fight  against  fraud,  to  contribute  to  the  prevention  of  "visa  shopping",  to  improve  visa
consultation,  to  facilitate  identifications  for  the  application  of  the  Dublin  II  regulation  and
return procedures, to improve the administration of the common visa policy and to contribute
towards internal security and combating terrorism. The VIS should  comprise  a  Central  Visa
Information  System  (C-VIS)  and  a  National  Visa  Information  System  (N-VIS)  in  each
Member  State.  The  feasibility  study  is  now  available,  and  provides  an  analysis  of  the
technical and financial aspects of the VIS.

The importance of biometrics for the overall efficiency of the system must be underlined. The
study has assessed three options, which can be envisaged as biometric identifiers for the time
being: iris scanning, facial recognition and fingerprints and recommends the latter as primary
biometric  identifier  for  identification  purposes.  Fingerprint  technology  would  provide  the
required accuracy to identify individuals and fingerprint databases would still be used for the
next decades even if the biometric technology changes. A second biometric identifier such as
facial  recognition  could  be  implemented  to  improve  the  accuracy.  In  any  case,  the  use  of

4

biometrics at such an unprecedented scale will bear a significant impact on the system, both in
technical and financial terms.

The estimates set out in the feasibility study for the investments costs of the central system,
the  C-VIS,  and  for  all  the  N-VIS,  including  their  communication  infrastructure,  range  from
about  130  million  to  nearly  200  million  Euros,  depending  on  which  basic  architecture  and
which functionalities are chosen.. These costs, of which the development and operation of the
“biometrics” module represents a high proportion, could however be spread over a period of
ten  to  twelve  years,  depending  on  the  implementation  and  how  quickly  consular  posts  are
connected to the VIS. However, the VIS is not an issue for the Community budget alone. The
main financial burden concerns the national parts of the VIS, and in particular the equipment
of the Member States’ consular posts, world-wide connections, shipping and training.

Given  the  important  financial  consequences  of  the  VIS  project,  the  study  has  focused  on
synergies  and  recommends  the  technical  integration  of  SIS  II  (second  generation  of  the
Schengen  information  system)  and  VIS  in  its  central  part,  an  option  that  would  generate
important budgetary savings. However, the political agendas of SIS II and VIS to date differ
substantially:  while  for  the  new  SIS  there  has  already  been  a  decision  on  the  Community
financing  and  responsibility  for  the  development  of  the  system  with  a  set  of  core
functionalities agreed to start implementation, VIS is starting from scratch. The Commission
has assigned a high priority to both projects but in particular to SIS which underpins crucial
aspects of Schengen co-operation and the new version of which must become operational in
2006  when  the  accession  countries  are  expected  to  be  ready  to  apply  the  Schengen  acquis
fully.

The further development of the VIS will depend upon the strategic orientations to be decided
by the Council, in particular with regard to the following issues:

– 

– 

– 

the development of the VIS , and if so, the choice of the option and technical solution
for the architecture of the system,

confirmation of the  general  approach  given  in  the  Council  guidelines  on  which  the
feasibility study is based,

choice  of  the  biometric  identifier  or  identifiers  to  be  stored  and  processed  in  the
system.

According  to  that  political  orientations,  the  Commission  will  take  the  necessary  steps  for
implementing the system in technical, legal and financial terms.

In a broader context, the verification and identification of travellers and the  vulnerability of
current  travel  documents  have  been  on  the  agenda  of  the  EU  and  other  fora  such  as  ICAO
(International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation),  G8,  IGC  and  the  EU/US  transatlantic  relation.
Two Commission proposals dealing respectively with the uniform format for visas and for
residence  permits  for  third  country  nationals  were  designed  to  make  these  documents
more secure and to establish a reliable link between the document issued and its holder. The
Council  adopted  both  proposals  in  the  first  half  of  2002  and  the  Committee  established  by
Regulation  1683/95  on  a  uniform  format  for  visas  assisted  the  Commission  in  developing
further  technical  specifications  for  the  uniform  format  of  visas.  In  relation  to  the  two  new
instruments the additional technical specifications were adopted by  the Commission  in June
and August 2002.

5

The  possibility  of  adding  biometric  identifiers  for  enhancing  the  security  of  visas  and
residence permits even further and to facilitate the verification and identification of the person
has  been  raised  in  the  Council  and  would  imply  an  amendment  of  the  aforementioned
instruments, which the Commission will present in the near future. At the same time it would
be appropriate to advance the implementation date (mid 2007) set out in those instruments for
the  obligatory  integration  of  the  photograph  in  the  visa  and  residence  permit.  The
Commission  will  propose  harmonised  and  interoperable  solutions  regarding  the  use  of
biometrics in order to obtain the maximum added value taking into account the results of the
VIS  (Visa  information  system)  feasibility  study  and  the  ICAO  recommendations.  However,
the biometrics issue also has an impact on passports given the new US regulations requiring
further  security  features  for  passports  of  nationals  benefiting  from  the  US  visa  waiver
programme.  The  Commission  will  present  proposals  on  harmonised  security  features
including biometrics in EU passports that would not  only  support  their  acceptance  vis-à-vis
third  countries  but  also  facilitate  their  controls  by  the  authorities  and  make  them  less
vulnerable  to  fraud.  The  Commission  therefore  underlines  the  urgency  of  having  definitive
international  standards  in  this  field  in  order  to  facilitate  stakeholders’  decisions  on  ongoing
projects  that  envisage  biometric  identifiers  given  also  the  large  investments  they  may
represent.

The creation of common administrative structures for the establishment of common EU
visa issuing offices was another of the points addressed by the Santiago action plan in its visa
chapter. As evidenced by the abortive experience in Pristina, there is no progress to be noted
in this field although this is a crucial issue when it comes to reinforcing consular co-operation
and harmonising the examination of visa applications. Common visa issuing offices can offer
important effects of synergy in terms of technical equipment and personnel, in particular if the
Council decides to set-up and deploy on a global scale the visa information system.

2.2.

Border Control Policy: Towards the development of a Common and Integrated
Policy for the management of the external borders.

A  common  and  integrated  policy  for  the  management  of  the  external  borders,  which
contributes inter alia to the fight against illegal immigration, was the overall ambition of the
Commission's  Communication  of  May  2002  on  integrated  management  of  the  external
borders. The Council's Plan for the management of the external borders, which was adopted in
June  2002,  endorsed  the  Commission's  approach  and  ambitious  objectives.  It  established  a
programme of actions, initiatives and studies to be executed either by the Member States or
by the Commission. The Seville European  Council  underlined this Plan and  assigned to the
Commission some additional tasks such as the burden sharing study.

Member States’ pilot projects and joint operations are implemented through co-ordinating
centres  for  punctual  joint  operations  on  the  various  kinds  of  borders  or  by  establishing
European  definitions  for  risk  assessment  and  for  the  training  of  border  guards;  drafting
respectively  common  rules  for  risk  analysis  and  for  the  core  curriculum  for  training.  The
Commission  has  participated  actively  in  these  operational  and  strategic  projects,  whose
content and objectives may have an extremely significant impact on the common objective of
ensuring an equivalent level of control and surveillance at the European external borders1.

1 The projects monitored have been the Berlin Centre for joint operations on the land borders, the Finnish project
on the CIRAM –Common Integrated Risk Analysis Model- and the Austrian project for a Common Core
Curriculum for national border guards training

6

                                                
The  evaluation  of  these  joint  operations  and  projects,  which  have  involved  nearly  all  the
member  States  and  some  of  the  future  ones,  is  based  on  a  two-pronged  analysis.  Firstly  on
immediate results in terms of common practices and experiences gained from the co-operation
and  secondly  on  long  term  benefits  for  developing  improved,  more  effective  security
standards applied to the checks and surveillance tasks at the external borders. In this sense the
final judgement is positive overall since both the Member States and the accession countries
have  widely  and  actively  participated  in  the  projects  providing  their  various  methodologies
and experiences and being ready to meet and assume those of the other Member States. The
objective of improving mutual trust and knowledge in a very sensitive area has been achieved.
As a logical consequence, the gradual building of common practices in the management of the
checks and surveillance activities at the external borders has also been achieved. Finally, the
two  horizontal  projects  on  the  common  model  for  risk  analysis  and  the  training  curriculum
have in particular promoted a common awareness of the need to ensure an equivalent level of
external border security, removing the weak points and widening the strong ones.

However, the Commission’s evaluation of the operational co-ordination and co-operation
between Member States has to take into account the statement contained in annex III of the
Council's  Plan  for  the  management  of  the  external  borders.  Following  this  statement  all  the
operational  initiatives  are  to  be  placed  in  the  institutional  framework  of  the  EU  with  due
regard  for  the  co-ordinating  role  of  the  "Common  Unit  of  external  border  practitioners”.
Moreover,  these  initiatives  are  to  be  in  conformity  with  the  general  objective  of  the
Community  of  ensuring  everywhere  an  equivalent  level  of  control  and  surveillance  at  the
external borders. This Common Unit, with extensive tasks for the overall management of the
European common policy for the external borders, is intended to verify the content, approve
and  control  the  implementation  of  the  joint  operations  and  pilot  projects  following  the
Council’s plan.

The  Common  Unit  for  External  Borders  Practitioners  meets  in  the  Council  under  the
aegis  of  the  SCIFA  (Strategic  Committee  of  the  Council  for  Immigration,  Frontiers  and
Asylum)  in  the  so-called  SCIFA+  formation.  This  institutional  status  raises  questions  about
the effectiveness of SCIFA + when carrying out some of the important tasks which have been
conferred  on  the  Common  Unit.  Its  strategic  and  operational  tasks  are  at  the  core  of  the
common policy for the management of the external borders. They imply the execution of the
common  and  integrated  risk  assessment,  the  co-ordination  of  joint  operational  actions,  the
strategic  management  ensuring  a  convergence  among  the  national  staff  and  equipment
policies and risk assessment inspections in critical cases at the external borders. A much more
operational  body  should  perform  the  daily  operational  management  of  these  activities
requiring a permanent and systematic activity. Notwithstanding the work done by the SCIFA+
in  approving  these  operations  and  projects,  its  limitations  as  a  Council Working  Party  have
been demonstrated, when co-ordinating and managing the joint operations and pilot projects
raising therefore the need of alternative institutional solutions.

From  an  institutional  point  of  view  there  are  some  significant  lessons  to  be  drawn.  The
decentralised  network  of  national  centres  confers  a  central  role  on  the  responsible  national
services. This is a logical  and effective solution  since these  services have the exclusive  and
pertinent,  professional  qualifications  to  perform  the  operations  required.  On  the  other  hand,
the need for a coherent, effective and really operational co-ordination of all these centres has
appeared clearly to all the stakeholders. The current arrangements for this co-ordination have
shown structural limits in guiding these actions effectively. New institutional devices must be
envisaged  in  view  of  facilitating  Member  States  actions  while  ensuring  an  effective,
continuous  and  fully  operational  co-ordination  for  these  activities.  This  framework  must  be
developed with the final aim of building up the common and integrated European policy for

7

the management of the external borders and  creating  the European  border  guard.  Therefore,
the concept of the Common Unit proposed by the Commission in its Communication of 2002
and  endorsed  by  the  European  Council  should  be  reviewed:  certain  more  strategic  co-
ordination tasks could remain with SCIFA +; the more operational tasks could be entrusted to
a new permanent Community structure able to exercise this day-to-day management and co-
ordination tasks and to respond in time to emergency situations. The status and legal basis of
this  operational  Community  structure  remain  to  be  defined  given  the  present  drafting  of
article 62 TEC.

As regards the recast of the Common Manual of external  borders, it seemed necessary  -
before presenting concrete proposals- to make a thorough analysis  of  the  acquis  on external
borders and of the existing gaps, as well as of the procedural complexities linked to the recast.
The  Commission  therefore  will  present  to  the  Council  a  working  document  on  this  issue,
analysing the current situation and proposing several options on the way to proceed.

Following the discussion with current and future Member States on the Commission working
document  “Developing  the  acquis  on  local  border  traffic”  issued  in  September  2002,
legislative proposals will be presented by the Commission in due course.

The  increasing  illegal  immigration  arriving  by  sea  raised  political  awareness  on  the
importance  of  an  effective  control  and  surveillance  of  the  EU  external  maritime  borders.
The Commission’s feasibility study on improving sea border controls intends to give response
to  these  concerns.  Indeed,  the  study  has  two  clear  objectives:  to  identify  the  gaps  and
weaknesses  existing  at  these  borders  and  to  provide  a  list  of  the  appropriate  legislative  and
operational  measures  in  order  to  have  an  equivalent  level  of  effective  protection  at  the
external borders. Once completed the study, which is expected in June 2003, the Commission
will  submit  it  to  the  Member  States  and  organise  an  expert  meeting  in  order  to  prepare  the
appropriate follow-up.

2.3.

Return Policy

The  importance  of  an  effective  return  policy  has  been  reflected  in  policy  developments
regarding the fight against illegal immigration throughout the year 2002. Based on the broad
consultation process among all relevant stakeholders launched by the Commission’s Green
Paper on a Community Return Policy and followed by a Communication in October 2002,
the Council adopted a Return Action Programme in November 2002 following a request by
the Seville European Council.

The credibility and integrity of the legal immigration and asylum policies are at stake unless
there is a Community return policy on illegal residents. Moreover, all efforts to fight illegal
immigration  are  questionable,  if  those  who  manage  to  overcome  these  measures  succeed
finally to maintain their illegal residence. The signal effect of a failed return policy on illegal
residents cannot be underestimated.

The Return Action Programme laid emphasis on the need for immediate enhanced operational
co-operation  of  Member  States’  enforcement  authorities,  but  called  also  for  the  creation  of
common minimum standards and country specific programmes as well as an intensification of
co-operation  with  third  countries  on  return.  After  having  designed  the  Community  return
policy it is essential that all measures as set out in the Return Action Programme are swiftly
implemented. Only this will ensure that the message  gets across that immigration must take
place within a clear legal procedural framework and that illegal entry and residence will not
lead to the desired stable form of residence.

8

A concrete proposal for enhancing operational co-operation among Member States is the
German initiative for assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air which
are  well advanced. This instrument could  not only facilitate returns to  the  country  of  origin
when  direct  flights  are  not  available,  but  also  improve  the  co-operation  of  enforcement
services. Such co-operation should also be extended to joint return operations, in particular by
organising joint charter flights. The Commission is preparing, therefore, in close co-operation
with the Member States, draft guidelines on security provisions for removals by air, which are
crucial in order to safeguard a smooth and safe return of the persons concerned.

In large part, however, the key obstacle for returns is not the concrete removal operation, but
rather  the  process  of  getting  proper  return  travel  documents  for  undocumented  illegal
residents.  Better  information  exchange  and  sharing  of  best  practices  with  a  common
handbook should improve  the  situation,  but  a  substantial  change  can  only  be  achieved  with
new  means  of  identification  of  undocumented  persons.  The  VIS  could  assist  in  the
identification of undocumented persons inter alia by biometric means and with the retrieval of
scanned travel documents, under precondition that these persons have once applied for a visa
and thus their data have been entered into the system by the consular post.

The discussion of the German initiative on assistance in  cases of  transit for  the purposes of
removal  by  air  has  already  shown  that  not  only  assistance  of  the  transit  Member  State  is
needed,  but  also  the  existence  of  a  clear  legal  basis  for  the  continuation  of  the  removal
operation  initiated  by  another  Member  State,  in  particular  if  the  use  of  coercive  force  is
unavoidable.  Consequently,  a  binding  regime  of  mutual  recognition  and  common  standards
needs to be established  in order to  facilitate  the  work  of  the  services  involved  and  to  allow
enhanced  co-operation  among  Member  States.  It  must  also  ensure  an  adequate  and  similar
treatment  of  illegal  residents,  who  are  the  subject  of  measures  terminating  a  residence,
regardless of the Member State, which enforces the removal.

Consequently,  the  Commission  intends  to  take  the  initiative  to  prepare  a  proposal  for  a
Council Directive on minimum standards for return procedures and mutual recognition
of  return  decisions.  This  proposal  will  build  upon  the  existing  Directive  on  mutual
recognition of expulsion decisions, which has – among other shortcomings –not established a
binding framework for the mutual recognition of all return decisions. In addition a majority of
Member  States  have  failed  so  far  to  communicate  to  the  Commission  any  measures
incorporating this Directive into national law, the deadline for which was 2 December 2002.
In the meantime, the Commission’s proposal on the compensation of financial imbalances due
to the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions following the implementation of the former
Directive  is  being  discussed.  Nevertheless  a  bilateral  financial  compensation  cannot  work
satisfactorily in  the  long  run  if  there  is  not  sufficient  information  on  expulsion  decisions  of
other  Member  States.  Consequently,  this  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  the  issue  of
harmonisation of the criteria for entering third country nationals in the refusal of entry list of
the SIS (Schengen Information system) will be discussed.

Integrated  country-specific  return  programmes  should  be  designed  to  ensure  effective,
timely  and  –  above  all  –  sustainable  return.  Such  programmes  should,  therefore,  provide
reasonable  assistance  to  returnees  and  also  to  the  country  of  origin  concerned  to  allow
adequate  capacity  building.  As  requested  by  the  Seville  European  Council,  the  Council
adopted  with  the  general  Return  Action  Programme  the  first  specific  pilot  programme  for
Afghanistan  on  28  November  2002.  It  is  obviously  too  early  to  draw  lessons  from  that
experience, which will require a full assessment focusing specifically on the sustainability of
the return and safety of the returnees, but a more integrated approach should be privileged in
the future. Indeed, if added value at Community level can lie in particular with the support of

9

the  arrival  and  integration  of  the  returnees  in  the  country  of  origin,  better  co-ordination  at
other stages of the return process is needed for the sake of efficiency. Moreover, the model of
trilateral agreements, tailored to the needs of destination countries, involving at a much earlier
stage the authorities of the said countries as well as operators should be further explored.

2.4.

Key flanking measures

Over the last years the fight against smuggling and trafficking of human beings has been
continuously  discussed  in  connection  with  illegal  immigration.  While  the  substantial  link
between these phenomena is recognised (these two offences, although separate in law, often
overlap  in  practice),  their  relation  has  to  be  clarified  as  both  should  be  the  targets  of  a
coherent EU policy.

The Council adopted a Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings in July
2002. Furthermore, the seriousness of this crime has been underlined by the fact that it falls
within  the  scope  of  the  European  arrest  warrant  as  adopted  by  the  Council.  Trafficking
appears  as  a  cross-border  phenomenon  affecting  Member  States  and  third  countries  as
countries  of  origin,  transit  and  destination:  some  victims  enter  EU  Member  States  illegally
while others arrive legally but in a considerable number of cases, the residence status of the
latter becomes illegal after some time.

A Council Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence
and a Council Framework Decision on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent
these  activities,  were  adopted  in  November  2002.  The  decisive  element  is  the  illegal  entry
into,  transit  across  or  residence  in  a  Member  State.  Combating  human  smuggling  is  a
complementary element of a policy combating illegal immigration as in many cases the illegal
entry into a Member State would hardly be possible without the services of smugglers.

Smuggling and trafficking are mainly controlled by criminal networks and dismantling them
requires information. This is why it is crucial to encourage the victims of these networks to
co-operate  with  the  law  enforcement  authorities  in  their  fight  against  the  smugglers  and
traffickers of human beings. The Commission, therefore, adopted a proposal on 11th February
2002  on  a  short-term  residence  permit  issued  to  victims  of  smuggling  or  trafficking  in
human beings who co-operate with the competent authorities. The text is still waiting to be
discussed in the Council.

The  Brussels  Declaration, which  came out of  the  European  Conference  on  Preventing  and
Combating  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  -  Global  Challenges  for  the  21st  Century,  of
September  2002,  is  another  milestone  in  the  development  of  EU  policy  in  this  field.  The
Brussels  Declaration  aims  at  further  developing  European  and  international  co-operation,
concrete  measures,  standards,  best  practices  and  mechanisms  to  prevent  and  combat
trafficking in human beings. The Commission's work in the near future will be guided by this
declaration which will form the basis of further initiatives at EU level, possibly structured by
an action plan based on the opinion of an expert group set up to that end.

Undeclared work, while difficult to measure, seems to be on the increase in many Member
States. It tends to act as a pull factor for illegal migration and it can lead to exploitation and
insecurity for the migrants involved, while undermining the financing and delivery of public
services  and  social  protection.  The  Employment  guidelines  have  included,  since  2000,  a
commitment  to  combat  undeclared  work  and  the  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  in
Stockholm drew attention to the need to reduce the informal economy as one of the measures
needed to develop the European employment strategy. New targets will therefore be set in the

10

2003  guidelines.  Tackling  undeclared  work  requires  putting  in  place  a  range  of  policies,
which combine preventive actions with sanctions. As in the case of smuggling and trafficking,
particular attention should be paid to gender issues in this framework. Such measures must go
hand in hand both with fighting illegal migration flows and ensuring that there are clear and
transparent legal channels available for economic migrants to fill job shortages which are also
growing in most Member States. The Commission’s proposal for a directive on the admission
of  third  country  nationals  for  employment  will  play  an  important  role  in  simplifying  and
clarifying for potential immigrants how legal entry to the EU can be obtained.

Regarding  carriers’  liability  the  recently  adopted  Council  Directive  supplementing  the
provisions of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement has not achieved proper
harmonisation  at  EU  level.  These  provisions  only  cover  passenger  and  not  goods  transport;
moreover, rail transport is only partially covered and Member States have a wide discretion in
implementing  these  provisions.  In  addition,  many  of  them  are  late  in  incorporating  this
Directive  into  national  law.  A  Round  Table  on  Carriers  Liability  was  organised  bringing
together  in  November  2001  representatives  from  Member  States,  the  transport  industry,
European  Institutions,  humanitarian  organisations  and  other  interested  parties  to  reflect  on
possible ways forward at European level. As a follow-up, a series of expert meetings focusing
on specific issues took place in  the course  of 2002  in the framework of a so-called  “Round
Table Process” providing a useful forum for discussion and mutual understanding between the
actors involved. The main conclusion of this process so far is that there is no immediate need
for  new  harmonising  measures,  but  that  regular  consultations  should  be  pursued  under  the
auspices of the Commission.

2.5.

Operational co-operation and exchange of information

The  importance  of  proper  gathering  and  exchange  of  information,  intelligence  and
analysis was repeatedly underlined in the Commission’s Communication of November 2001
and the Santiago Action Plan. There are in this field several actors involved at very different
levels.

Regarding  statistics,  the  available  information  is  not  sufficient  for  a  proper  monitoring  and
evaluation of legal and illegal immigration policy. The lack of commitment of some Member
States to provide the data and the fact that definitions and statistical methods are only partially
harmonised,  which  often  results  in  the  provision  of  data  which  are  not  comparable,  hinders
statistical analysis or other outputs. The  Commission has  therefore presented an  action  plan
for the collection and analysis of Community statistics, which intends first of all to respond to
the request of the Council in its conclusions of May 2001 for a comprehensive and common
framework  for  future  action  on  improving  statistics.  One  of  the  main  aims  is  to  have  a
discussion  about  possible  future  legislation  to  underpin  all  statistical  work  in  the  field.  The
co-operation and co-ordination among  authorities  providing data, international organisations
and other relevant actors is another of the future steps that the Commission is proposing in its
action plan.

The  CIREFI  group  has  continued  its  work  on  the  collection  and  exchange  of  information
concerning  illegal  immigration  including  when  appropriate  the  analysis  of  the  information
and  drawing  up  of  conclusions.  In  this  context  in  January  2003,  Commission  services  have
suggested to Member States a platform for the exchange of information based on modern and
secure  web  technologies,  which  is  called  ICONet  (Information  and  Co-ordination
Network).  Given  its  flexibility  ICONet  could  be  the  ideal  platform  for  the  collection  and
dissemination of information in several areas such as immigration liaison officers or return as
well. Taking into account the outcome of the current pilot phase the Commission will prepare

11

a legal basis for  ICONet that would better identify  its content, use cases and procedures for
modification.

The creation of an ILO (immigration liaison officers) network was referred to in the initial
Communication  of  November  2001  and  the  following  action  plans  of  the  Council.  Efforts
focused  on  two  seminars  held  in  Funchal  (Portugal)  and  Athens  during  the  Portuguese  and
Greek  Presidency,  a  report  prepared  by  the  Danish  Presidency  and  the  pilot  project  led  by
Belgium for the creation of an ILO network in the Western Balkans. Currently, although all
Member  States  agree  on  the  important  role  that  ILOs  carry  out  in  the  prevention  and  fight
against  illegal  immigration  in  the  countries  of  origin  or  transit  and  that  this  role  should  be
further  increased,  there  is  no  agreement  on  streamlining  tasks  and  definitions  of  ILOs.
Networks of ILOs in certain regions or third countries would at least provide the basis for the
co-operation  and  co-ordination  among  the  ILOs  in  the  field,  including  the  national  services
responsible  for  their  posting.  A  legal  basis  for  such  networks  would  formalise  this  co-
operation and co-ordination by defining their objectives and letting Member States know what
information or services can be expected or requested via them.

Another important potential actor is Europol whose objective is improving the co-operation
between Member States in preventing and combating serious forms of international organised
crimes  such  as  illegal  immigrant  smuggling  and  trafficking  of  human  beings.  Europol’s
increasing operational support is demonstrated for example in its analysis support to Member
States investigations being also regularly involved in border control pilot projects and experts
meetings on new trends and modus operandi in the flows of illegal immigration. Europol is
also  providing  strategic  support  with  periodical  intelligence  bulletins  and  annual  threats
assessment and has until now signed full operational agreements with several third countries
and  Interpol  that  provide  for  the  exchange  of  personal  data  on  illegal  immigration  crime
networks  and  the  exchange  of  liaison  officers.  In  the  future  its  role  will  also  include
participation in Member States joint investigation teams targeting criminal networks.

3.

PARTNERSHIP WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

In order to be effective, the objectives of a Community policy on illegal migration need to be
taken  into  account  in  the  global  framework  of  the  EC’s  relations  with  third  countries.  The
Seville European Council left no doubt that combating illegal immigration requires a greater
effort  by  the  European  Union  and  a  targeted  approach  to  the  problem,  with  the  use  of  all
appropriate  instruments  in  the  context  of  the  EU’s  external  relations,  while  pursuing  the
constant long-term goal to develop an integrated, comprehensive approach to tackle the root
causes of illegal migration.

In a concrete follow up to the Seville conclusions, the Council identified in November 2002
nine  countries2  with  which  co-operation  on  the  management  of  migration  flows  would
need to be intensified in the first instance. For most of these countries, the Commission has
already  programmed  assistance  for  establishing  an  adequate  legislative  framework  ,
reinforcing their external borders and promoting institutional and administrative capacity for
managing migration . In addition, open and frank exchanges on migration problems and the
ways  to  address  them  had  already  begun  in  the  more  general  context  of  the  EC  policy
dialogue with these third countries. In general terms, these countries take a positive attitude to

2 Albania, China, the former Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, Ukraine, Libya and

Turkey

12

                                                
exploring ways for better managing migration flows, including for tackling illegal migration,
and seem open to intensify their co-operation with the EU in that field. During the talks, third
countries have made it clear however that they often find themselves confronted with illegal
and  transit  migration  that  is  increasingly  causing  problems.  They  have  called  upon  the
Commission  and  Member  States  for  co-operation  that  would  also  take  into  account  these
problems.

Besides these nine, there are however many more countries of origin and transit that require
the attention of the EU and its Member States when addressing the issue of migration. In this
respect,  the  new  neighbours  of  the  enlarged  European  Union  are  to  be  given  particular
attention  as  recognised  by  the  Council  on  14  April  2003  during  the  debate  on  the
Communication  of  the  Commission  on Wider  Europe  which  sketches  a  new  framework  for
the EU’s relations with the eastern and southern neighbours.

The  EU  needs  therefore  to  continue  on  better  integrating  migration  related  issues  in  its
external  relations  policy.  It  is  with  this  purpose  in  mind  that  the  Commission  presented  its
Communication on integrating migration issues in the EU’s external  relations with  third
countries of December 2002. On that basis the Council adopted in May 2003 conclusions on a
number of important subjects that are also relevant for this policy area. It proposed to ensure
that the full migration agenda is taken forward in the dialogue within  the  context of current
and future Association,  Co-operation or  equivalent agreements,  including the  root causes  of
migration and the possibilities to address these in a comprehensive manner, the Community
legal migration policy, the joint management of migration flows, including visa policy, border
control, asylum, readmission and counteracting illegal migration, and the integration of legal
migrants living and working in the EU.

In its Communication the Commission expressed its intention to examine the extent to which
greater priority should be given to specific programmes relating to migration, including illegal
migration,  in  the  framework  of  the  midterm  review  of  the  Country  Strategy  Papers,  in
addition to the concrete initiatives aimed at addressing migration, including illegal migration,
in  third  countries  already  integrated  in  the  EC’s  external  policies  and  programmes,  such  as
MEDA, CARDS, TACIS and PHARE. Without prejudging the results of the CSP review, the
Commission also considered that budget line B7-667 dedicated to the co-operation with third
countries  in  the  field  of  migration  should  be  significantly  reinforced  and  should  come  as
complement to what can be achieved in the CSP review, in order to finance specific, targeted
actions  in  the  field  of  migration  complementary  to  those  financed  under  the  more  generic
developments lines. Aiming at giving concrete expression to this, the Commission untends to
put  to  the  Council  a  proposal  for  a  legal  basis  establishing  a  multiannual  cooperation
programme with third countries in the field of immigration. The general objective of this
financial instrument will be, in future,  to provide  a  specific and  complementary  response to
the needs of third countries of origin and transit in their efforts to ensure third countries with a
stimulus in their preparation for implementing existing or future readmission agreements with
the Community or to support them in implementation proper.

The  swift  return  of  illegal  migrants  to  the  country  they  came  from  is  one  of  the  major
elements in combating illegal migration. Having in place EC readmission agreements with
the third countries concerned will facilitate the return in a way that is acceptable both for the
EU  Member  States  and  the  receiving  country.  So  far  the  Council  has  authorised  the
Commission to negotiate Community readmission agreements with 11 third countries/entities
(Morocco, Sri Lanka, Russia, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Macao, Ukraine, Albania, Algeria, China
and  Turkey)  and  the  Commission  has  successfully  concluded  negotiations  with  Sri  Lanka,

13

Hong  Kong  and  Macao.  Negotiations  with  most  of  the  other  countries,  in  particular  with
Russia, Ukraine and Marocco are well underway.

The  Seville  European  Council  explicitly  called  for  the  speeding-up  of  ongoing  readmission
negotiations.  From  its  side,  the  Commission  is  making  all  the  necessary  efforts  to  complete
these negotiations in a satisfactory way , but this also requires a greater level of political and
diplomatic support from the Member  States. However,  experience so far  has taught  that  the
time needed to negotiate a readmission agreement, which is seen as being in the sole interest
of the Community, should not be underestimated. They can only succeed if they are part of a
broader  co-operation  agenda,  which  takes  duly  into  account  the  problems  encountered  by
partner countries to effectively address migration issues.

Compensatory  measures  in  the  field  of  migration  policy  such  as  more  generous  visa  policy
with  respect  to  the  co-operating  countries  or  increased  quotas  for  migrant  workers,  closer
economic  co-operation,  trade  expansion,  additional  development  assistance,  better  market
access  or  WTO  compatible  tariff  preferences  are  demands  often  mentioned  as  areas  where
greater  generosity  is  expected  from  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  in  order  to  lead  to  more
progress in the negotiations.

That is the reason why the Commission considers that the issue of “leverage” – i.e. providing
incentives  to  obtain  co-operation  of  third  countries  in  the  negotiation  and  conclusion  of
readmission agreements with the EC – should be envisaged on a country by country basis, in
the  context  of  the  global  policy,  co-operation  and  programming  dialogues  with  the  third
countries concerned, taking into account in particular the  importance  of the third  country in
terms of emigration flows towards the EU and the state of its relations and co-operation with
the Community and the Member States. It will then be up to the Community and its member
States  to  decide  whether  to  make  available  supplementary  types  of  incentives  to  obtain  the
desired  results.  This  problem  does  however  in  principle  not  arise  to  possible  future
negotiations  with  ACP  countries.  Since  Article  13  of  the  Cotonou  Agreement  already
provides  for  clear  legal  obligations  for  the  Parties  to  that  Agreement  as  regards  the
readmission of own nationals illegally present on the territory of another Party and as regards
the  conclusion  of  bilateral  readmission  agreements,  the  Commission  considers  that  such
supplementary  financial  incentives  are  not  necessary  and  therefore  shall  not  apply  to  those
countries.

4.

THE APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND BURDEN SHARING MECHANISM

The  European  Council  of  Seville  asked  the  Commission  to  evaluate  the  financial  resources
available  in  three  specific  areas:  the  management  of  external  borders,  return  of  illegal
residents and co-operation with third countries in the area of immigration. The Commission
reported on these three fields in an integrated manner in the second part of its Communication
“Integrating  Migration  issues  in  the  European  Union’s  Relations  with  third  countries”  of  3
December 2002.

The statement made by the Commission in this Communication as regards the clear disparity
between  the  political  importance  given  in  the  EU  to  the  JHA  policies  and  the  financial
resources of the Community budget allocated to these policies still stands. In 2002, financial
instruments  in  support  of  the  asylum  and  immigration  policy  (including  the  emergency
reserve of the European Refugee Fund) within the heading “Internal policies” of the Financial
perspectives  represented  0,96  %  of  the  total  expenditure  under  this  heading  (6,236  billion
Euros).

14

Burden-sharing between Member States and the Union for the management of external
borders  is  one  of  the  five  components  of  the  common  policy  for  the  management  of  the
external  borders,  as  designed  by  the  Commission  and  endorsed  by  the  Council.  The
conclusions of the Seville European Council meeting called on the Commission to carry out
before June 2003,  "a study  ……concerning burden sharing between Member States  and  the
Union for the management of external borders.”

According  to  the  Council’s  Plan  for  the  management  of  the  external  borders,  the  following
conditions apply for the burden sharing and for drawing on the Community budget:

– 

– 

– 

National budgets remain the main source of investments and planned spending.

Investment will be mainly on equipment and human resources.

The bases of the sharing will be established at the Union level and within the limits
of the Community financial perspectives.

Furthermore, the Plan also set the following orientations for Community contribution:

– 

– 

Financing purchases of joint equipment, in particular with a view to supporting joint
operations by Member States.

Setting up a mechanism for redistributing funds between Member States.

In order to carry out this study, and in particular to evaluate the level and nature of financial
resources  allocated  at  national  level  to  the  management  of  external  borders  (controls  and
surveillance  of  persons),  the  Commission  collected  information  from  the  Member  States.
Gathering detailed and comparable data proved difficult, and such analytical methodology did
not allow the Commission to conclude in a detailed way on the questions raised. However, the
data  gathered did  confirm the  very  substantial  size  of  the  investments  and  operational  costs
arising from the management of external border surveillance, of which the control of persons
is a significant part.

In its communication of December 2002, the Commission  put forward 4  main  criteria to  be
taken into account in evaluating the burden of each Member State:

– 

– 

– 

– 

The geographical situation of a Member State and the nature of the borders;

The migratory pressure at the different types of border (land, sea and airport);

The number of checks carried out on persons entering and leaving the Schengen area;

The quality standard of controls and surveillance at external borders, as measured by
the common risk analysis method applied to each type of border.

These criteria were discussed on several occasions by the Council since January 2003, and the
Commission concluded from the debates that took place that the validity of these criteria was
acknowledged. Certain Member States have also suggested to take into account other criteria
linked with the overall cost of reception of asylum seekers, or of return measures.

Furthermore, the Commission considers that these discussions have also confirmed two of the
basic principles outlined in its Communication of December 2002:

15

–  the principles of subsidiarity and additionality of the Community’s financial intervention:
the Community budget  can only be  called  upon  for  expenses  deriving  from  an  operation
that has a clear added value for the Community;

–  only  the  types  of  expenditure  directly  linked  to  the  Community  dimension  of  external
border  control  should  be  co-financed  (costs  arising  from  the  organisation  of  joint
operations,  co-ordination,  development  of  quality  standards,  control  of  implementation,
exchange of information and experiences).

In spite of the difficulties encountered for the collection and analysis of data, the basic options
have been confirmed and a framework of reference is in place for the further elaboration of a
burden-sharing mechanism.

The  main  question  still  remaining  is  that  of  the  availability  of  financial  resources  for  an
instrument addressing the structural needs identified.

(cid:1)  In  the  short  term  the  Commission  has  already  put  forward  the  possibility  to  revise  the
ARGO  programme.  The  increase  of  the  funds  available  under  this  programme,  even  if
they  are  of  a  limited  amount,  may  be  used  to  ease  the  burden  of  the  Member  States
concerned.  The  provision  of  financial  support  to  national  projects  in  the  area  of  external
borders  for  addressing  specific  structural  weaknesses  at  strategic  border  points  would  be
identified  in  agreement  with  the  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  objective  criteria  (risk
assessment). The increase of the ARGO Programme is already provided for the PDB of the
year 2004 and for the following years. However, the revision of ARGO, which is intended
to promote administrative co-operation, will not be able to tackle the structural dimension
of the investments required.

(cid:1)  In  the  long  term,  a  substantial,  adequate  solution  for  burden  sharing  would  rely  on  the
new post-2006 financial perspectives for the area of the JHA. The preparation of the next
multi-annual  financial  perspective  offers  indeed  an  important  opportunity  to  shape  the
political project for the enlarged Union after 2006 in the light of the Convention work. The
Commission is determined to fully recognise the development and maintenance of the area
of freedom, security and justice as a priority objective of the Union.

(cid:1)  In  the  meantime,  the  Budgetary  Authority  could  consider  to  make  use  of  part  of  the
margin available from 2004 to 2006 to address the most pressing structural needs in this
area  and  to  cover  a  wider  definition  of  solidarity  that  would  include  the  cost  of  the
reception  of  asylum  seekers,  a  support  to  the  implementation  of  integrated  return
programmes, and the development of the VIS.

16

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Based  on  this  preliminary  stock-taking  exercise,  the  Commission  feels  that  the  following
guidelines should be considered as priorities for guiding the actions of the Union’s institutions
over the coming months in implementing, in accordance with the conclusions of the Seville
European Council, the action plans adopted in 2002:

(cid:1)  The  principle  of  solidarity -  a  corollary  of  the  mutual  trust  between  Member  States  on
which the development of an area of freedom, security and justice is founded - should be
reinforced  and  consolidated.  This  principle,  incorporated  in  the  present  Treaty  in
connection with  the  reception  of  refugees  and  displaced  persons,  inspired  the  creation  of
the European Refugee Fund. It is important that the work of the Convention should extend
its scope  to  cover  all aspects of  common  immigration  and  asylum  policies, including the
issue of visas and external border controls.

(cid:1)  Although this solidarity can take a variety of forms, in particular through the strengthening
of  operational  cooperation,  it  is  unquestionably  of  major  financial  importance.  For  this
reason the principle of solidarity should be reflected in budgets within the new post-2007
financial perspective.

(cid:1)  In the meantime, the Commission is willing to examine, in agreement with the budgetary
authority and in accordance with the principles governing the utilisation of the budget, the
possibility of using part of the budgetary margin available for internal policies to support a
solidarity drive over the period 2004-2006 which could include:

– 

– 

– 

a  structural  approach  to  requirements  in  terms  of  external  border  controls,
extending  beyond  a  simple  reinforcement  of  the  ARGO programme;  with  this  in
view, the Commission could  send  the  Council  as  soon  as  possible  a  proposal  for  a
legal basis for the management of a new instrument  based on the June 2002 action
plan,  the  communication  of  December  2002  (part  II)  and  the  lessons  drawn  from
projects carried out in the context of SCIFA+; 

with the renewal of the ERF, the adoption of a more targeted approach, concentrating
available resources, to reception and integration of refugees and displaced persons;

the  gradual  development  of  the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS),  in  the  light  of  the
options  to  be  selected  by  the  Council  on  the  basis  of  the  results  of  the  feasibility
study.

(cid:1)  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  is  willing  to  examine  with  the  Member  States  the
elements  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  developing  a  separate  instrument  designed  to
assist  a  common  return  policy  by  financing  specific  programmes  covering  the  various
stages  of  this  process  and  aiming  to  guarantee  their  long-term  success;  the  necessary
proposals will be tabled at the end of 2003 and will cover the various stages of this process
and the different arrangements.

(cid:1)  The  Commission  has  entered  €10  million  in  the  preliminary  draft  budget  for  2004  to
finance the initial phase of development of the VIS.  Its programming  for 2005-2006  will
also see an increase in appropriations for ARGO (from €6.5 million in 2004 to €12 million
a year in 2005 and 2006), with a view to boosting support for the "external border control"
strand of this administrative cooperation programme, although it must not be forgotten that

17

this will also have to cover the growing needs in the fields of immigration, asylum and visa
policy.

This programming will have to be adapted in the light of the political guidelines set by the
Thessaloniki  European  Council.  Preliminary  objective  and  reasonable  estimates  suggest
that of the additional needs, for the period 2004-2006, amount to a total of  €140 million to
cover  the  further  development  of  the  VIS,  the  implementation  of  an  integrated  return
programme and the establishment of an instrument of Community solidarity to protect the
external borders.

This amount is  justified  by  the  structural  inadequacy  of  the  resources  currently  available
for immigration and asylum policies in the Community budget, and would be partly offset
by a reallocation of some of the funds allocated to  existing instruments (ARGO and ERF).
It  must  also  be  seen  against  the  Member  States'  total  annual  expenditure  on  the
management of external borders (nearly €3 billion a year) and the Community effort being
made under the so-called "Schengen facility" agreed by the Copenhagen European Council
to prepare new Member States to take over the Schengen acquis (€970 million  for 2004-
2006).

(cid:1)  As  these  measures  would    take  up  30  to  45%,  depending  on  the  year,  of  the  margin
currently available in heading 3 of the financial perspective for 2004-2006, and given the
uncertainty  which  affects  this  margin,  in  particular  should  current  forecasts  of  growth
levels and inflation prove not to be correct, an alternative option would consist in deferring
certain parts of this initiative,

while at the same time expressing the  commitment to make use, in coming budget years,
of  all  the  flexibility  available.  The  Commission  would,  at  this  stage,  programme  the
appropriations required for:

–  the  development  of  the  VIS  for  2005  and  2006  -  €15  million  in  2005  and
€20 million in 2006 - the lowest possible  amount  for  operating the  system  in  its
initial years;

–  an  initial  attempt  at  solidarity  and  closer  cooperation  on  control  of  external
borders,  with  financial  resources  of  €15  million  a  year  for,  2005  and  2006  to
cover, among other things, the development of training and exchange programmes
for  officers  responsible  for  checks  and  surveillance  of  borders,  the  introduction
and  widespread  use  of  new  technologies  for  the  purposes  of  surveillance,
enhancing  interoperability  of  existing  systems  and  improving  the  control  and
surveillance  capacity  at  border  crossing  points  jointly  identified  as  showing
structural  shortcomings.  For  the  year  2004,  and  pending  the  adoption  of  the
relevant  legal  basis,  this  financial  support  could  be  envisaged  through  the
reinforcement, of the funds available to the ARGO Programme by an amount of
15M€, through the budgetary procedure.

The implementation of an integrated return programme would have to be deferred until the
adoption of the post-2007 new financial perspective.

On  the  basis  of  the  conclusions  of  the  Thessaloniki  European  Council,  the  Commission
will submit when appropriate  to  the budgetary authority a revised  programming that will
reflect the options chosen as well as the new weighting between policies of Heading 3 of

18

the financial perspectives that may be necessary.  It will also take them into account for the
preparation of the new financial perspectives.

(cid:1)  The  conclusions  of  the  Seville  European  Council  laid  the  basis  for  strong  action  on
external  border  controls.  This  initiative  has  led  to  the  introduction  of  a  number  of  pilot
projects to try out various forms of cooperation identified either by the European Council
itself or in the plan adopted by the Council. These first trials have been  evaluated on the
basis  of  the  report  produced  by  the  Presidency  with  the  assistance  of  the  Commission.
Lessons  should  also  be  drawn  from  the  Commission  study  into  the  particularly  sensitive
and complex question of maritime borders.  The  Commission  is  convinced  that  the  first
priority must  be to  guarantee the  consistency  and long-term  nature  of  Community  action
by setting priorities and creating a stable framework and methods.

(cid:1)  On  the  first  point,  the  Commission  feels  that  special  attention  should  be  paid  to  risk
analysis,  staff  training  and  greater  standardisation  of  verification  equipment  and
procedures,  which  underpin  all  genuinely  effective  policies.  On  the  second  point,  the
Commission believes that requirements in terms of planning, support (training, information
gathering  and  processing,  network  analysis,  etc.),  organisation  and  evaluation  of
operational  cooperation  could  require,  beyond  the  creation  of  a  joint  unit  made  up  of
practitioners, the establishment of a Community operational structure. The role of this
body  would  be  to  implement  the  strategic  guidelines  adopted  by  the  Council  with  the
assistance, if need be, of the “centres” set up as pilot projects whose contribution would
have been validated by the Council. Clearly, such an operational body could only be fully
effective if it was endowed with the powers and resources - human, material and financial -
necessary for the accomplishment of the basic tasks of common interest conferred upon it.
Within the  context of the resources  allocated  by  the  budgetary  authority, this  operational
structure could play a role in the management of Community financing. It could also mark
the first step on the road to the creation of a “European Corps of  Border Guards”, which
the Commission still firmly believes is necessary to support and complement the actions of
Member States’ bodies in the management of their external borders.

(cid:1)  The  development  of  a  common  visa  information  system  represents  an  organisational,
technological and financial challenge for the Union and the Member States over the next
few  years. It is vital that the Council should lay down,  as  soon  as  possible following the
Commission’s  feasibility  study  and  before  the  end  of  2003  at  the  latest,  the  guidelines
necessary  for  programming  the  development  of  the  system,  the  preparation  of  the  legal
basis allowing it to be set up, and the release of financial resources in accordance with the
options  chosen.  The  importance  of  these  choices  should  not  be  underestimated  either  at
Community level or in terms of their impact on national administrations and budgets.

(cid:1)  In  this  framework  a  coherent  approach  is  needed  on  biometric  identifiers  or  biometric
data in the EU; this would result in harmonised solutions for documents for third country
nationals,  EU  citizens’  passports  and  information  systems  (VIS  and  SIS  II).  Building  on
the  consensus  reached  at  the  informal  ministerial  meeting  in  Veria  in  March,  the
Commission  will  propose  the  appropriate  instruments  starting  with  visas  and  residence
permits for third country nationals and following with EU citizens’ passports.

19

(cid:1)  The implementation of a common return policy for illegal immigrants is largely dependent
on  action  by  the  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  greater  efficiency  can  be  achieved  by
increasing cooperation and introducing the necessary legislative framework, in addition to
the possible adoption of a specific financial instrument. Some progress has been made in
both  these  areas  but  greater  efforts  are  needed.  The  Commission  is  therefore  asking  the
Council  to  look  into  the  possibility  of  conferring  on  the  operational  structure,  which
would  be  set  up  for  border  control,  similar  responsibilities  for  the  organisation  of
cooperation on returns. Also, with a view to consolidating its ad hoc legislative efforts up
to  this  point,  the  Commission  confirms  its  intention  of  tabling  a  proposal  laying  down
common minimum standards.

(cid:1)  The conclusions of the Seville European Council, the conclusions of the Council meetings
of  November  2002  and  May  2003,  and  the  Commission  communication  of  December
2002, set out  the political  guidelines for  the  integration of immigration policy  into the
Union's relations with third countries. Nothing needs to be added and it is important to
implement these guidelines. The Commission points out that it made two commitments in
this connection in its communication in December. Firstly, it will shortly table a proposal
for  a  cooperation  programme  with  the  aim  of  providing  a  specific  and  complementary
response  to  the  needs  of  non-EU  countries  of  origin  and  of  transit  in  their  efforts  to
improve the management of migratory flows and, in particular, to encourage non-member
countries in preparing to implement readmission agreements or to help them in the actual
implementation  of  the  agreements.  Secondly,  as  promised  in  the  communication  of
December 2002, it will ensure that by 2004 at the latest the priorities for the management
of migration flows will be  duly  taken into account, on  a country-by-country basis and in
the  context  of  the  programming  dialogue  as  part  of  the  ongoing  process  of  revision  of
national and regional strategy documents.

(cid:1)  Work  on  developing  a  common  policy  on  readmission  must  continue.  This  implies  the
swift conclusion and full implementation of the agreements already negotiated. In the case
of ongoing negotiations, the Commission must enjoy the steadfast political support of the
Member States, and the Council must display a willingness to consider the expectations of
the  non-EU  countries  taking  part  in  these  negotiations  in  a  broader  context.  Finally,  the
Commission  recommends  that a  detailed  assessment  of  geographical  priorities  be  carried
out, taking into account in particular the importance of the third country concerned and the
state of its relations and cooperation with the Community and the Member States, before
entering  into  other  negotiations,  especially  in  the  context  of  the  implementation  of  the
Cotonou Agreement.

(cid:1)  The  common  policy  to  combat  illegal  immigration  outlined  at  Tampere  and  refined  in
Seville will only work if it combines a set of measures which correspond to the different
aspects of the problem. It must therefore be based on:

– 

strengthening  the  Union’s  ability  to  gather,  exchange  and  process  information  on
this  phenomenon,  in  particular  the  rapid  and  complete  implementation  of  the
statistics action plan, the development of ICONet and the bringing together in a joint
framework  and  networking  of  the  many  liaison  officers  seconded  to  non-EU
countries;  in  addition,  further  thought  should  be  given  to  ways  of  integrating  in  a
coherent  framework  not  only  these  various  instruments  but  also  EUROPOL,  the
operational  structure  for  which  the  Commission  is  calling,  and  even  the  European
Migration  Network  which  is  currently  being  studied  from  the  point  of  view  of
feasibility;

20

– 

working towards greater consistency of action in the field of combating trafficking
in human beings, where the Commission will play its role by taking the necessary
initiatives based  on the  Brussels  Declaration,  and  combating  undeclared  work  by
the  fixing  of  objectives  under  the  European  employment  strategy  and  indirectly  by
the  swift  adoption  of  the  proposal  for  a  directive  on  admission  for  employment
purposes.

(cid:1)  The effectiveness of the joint action depends on the establishment of political frameworks
and the adoption of measures, but also their implementation in full. This requires greater
cohesion,  which  could  be  obtained  by  the  merger  of  the  three  action  plans  which
occasionally  lead  to  duplication.  A  regular  political  monitoring  process  must  be
introduced:  the  Commission  now  intends  to  draw  up  a  report  like  this  one  on  an  annual
basis;  the  Council  could  then  discuss  it  and  draw  the  necessary  conclusions  for  the
direction of joint action at its end-of-year meeting. Finally, the Member States must fulfil
the commitments they entered into: as regards the implementation of Community acts, the
Commission  will  assume  its  full  responsibilities,  if  necessary  through  the  use  of  the
infringement procedures provided; these procedures could usefully be supplemented by a
system of peer review.

21