Commission staff working paper - First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) {COM(2010) 214}
Date: 2010-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: border control, economic recession, illegal migration, immigration, report, right of asylum

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.5.2010 
SEC(2010) 535 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) 

accompanying the 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) 

{COM(2010) 214} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum 
(2009) 

Main  actions  undertaken  at  EU  level  and  main  actions  undertaken  and  developments 
planned at Member State level for each of the commitments made in the Pact 

This paper summarises the main actions taken at both EU and Member State level, the latter 
including  the  most  significant  developments  planned, for each of the commitments  made in 
the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. The reporting period is from the adoption of 
the  Pact  in  October  2008  until  the  end  of  2009.  Reference  is  also  made  to  some  EU-level 
developments that have taken place in the first part of 2010. 

The summaries of developments at national level have been prepared notably on the basis of 
factual information provided by Member States and by Annual Policy Reports from National 
Contact Points of the European Migration Network (EMN NCPs). For ease of reference the 
phrase “Member States reported” is used in the paper to refer to both sources of information. 

The EMN adapted the specifications for its Annual Policy Reports in order to cover 26 of the 
36  commitments  of  the  Pact,  and  brought  forward  the  timing  so  that  they  could  provide 
information on activities at Member State level for this first Commission Annual Report. The 
input provided by the EMN NCPs has been invaluable for drawing up this paper. However, 
one  should  note  that  the  summaries  in  this  paper  are  the  responsibility  of  the  Commission 
staff;  the  EMN  will  under  its  own  responsibility  produce  the  EMN  Annual  Policy  Report 
2009. 

Some Member States and some EMN NCPs took the opportunity to provide information not 
only about developments within the reporting period, but also about relevant ongoing Member 
State  policies.  It  was  decided  to  summarise  both  types  of  information  in  this  paper,  where 
possible identifying the specific developments within the reporting period, given that this is 
the first reporting exercise since the Pact was adopted. Moreover, the information provided by 
Member States and EMN NCPs gave varying levels of details. 

This  paper  should,  therefore,  not  be  treated  as  an  exhaustive  identification  of  all  relevant 
Member State activity in relation to each commitment. In particular, the fact that a Member 
State is not identified in relation to a certain activity or policy does not mean that it did not or 
does  not  pursue  that  activity  or  policy  but  rather  that  there  were  no  specific  developments 
during the reporting period. 

In  line  with  its  Communication  of  June  20091,  the  Commission  will  review  the  reporting 
process with a view to its improvement for next year’s report. 

1 

COM(2009) 266 final of 10 June 2009. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
I. LEGAL IMMIGRATION – INTEGRATION 

Main commitment: Organise legal immigration to take account of the priorities, needs and 
reception capacities determined by each Member State, and to encourage integration 

Commitment: I. (a) 
to invite Member States and the Commission to implement policies for 
labour migration, with due regard to the acquis communautaire and Community preference, 
bearing  in  mind  potential  human  resources  within  the  EU,  and  using  the  most  appropriate 
resources,  which  take  account  of  all  the  needs  of  the  labour  market  of  each  Member  State, 
pursuant to the conclusions of the European Council of 13 and 14 March 2008; 

At EU level, implementation of the 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration2 continued during 
the  reporting  period.  The  first  directive  stemming  from  this  Plan  was  adopted  in  June  2009 
(the so-called EU Blue Card Directive, see I.(b) below), discussions continued in the Council 
as regards the Framework Directive3 and the Commission pursued its preparation of proposals 
for  the  three  remaining  Directives  (seasonal  workers,  intra-corporate  transferees  and 
remunerated  trainees).  Presentation  of  the  proposals  was  postponed,  taking  notably  into 
account the change of legal basis resulting from the Lisbon Treaty. 

Closely linked to this objective of managing migration in the best interest of national labour 
markets is the Commission's initiative on New Skills for New Jobs4 which proposes measures 
aiming  at  better  matching  workers'  skills  and  the  needs  of  the  EU  employment  market. 
Alongside  upgrading  skills  of  the  EU  labour  force  and  better  matching  the  internal  labour 
supply and the demand of skills, the employment and geographical mobility of third-country 
workers  can  help  reduce  skills  mismatches  and  ensure  that  their  skills  can  be  used  at  the 
optimal level. 

Actions developed in the framework of the Global Approach (see chapter V below) are also 
relevant. 

At national level, most Member States reported on labour migration policies to address labour 
shortages at national level (BE, BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, 
MT, NL, AT, PL, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK). 

To ensure that labour migration meets the various needs of the labour market, several Member 
States  referred  to  a  labour  immigration  system  that  was  predominantly  employer-led  and 
demand driven, whereby it was up to the individual employer to demonstrate a vacancy could 
not be filled by national or EU labour force and therefore called for the recruitment of a third-
country national (BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, MT, NL, FI, SE, UK). This system is independent of 
their country of origin or of the number of work permits already issued (i.e. quota). 

Other  Member  States  drew  up,  or  drew  up  in  addition,  a  list  of  professions  and/or  sectors 
where labour shortages existed (IE, ES, FR, IT, LT, PT, SI, UK), or were considering to do so 
(MT).  In  PL  regional  authorities  may  draw  up  such  lists.  The  recruitment  of  third-country 

2 
3 

4 

COM(2005) 669 final of 21 December 2005. 
Proposal for a Council Directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country 
nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-
country workers legally residing in a Member State, COM (2007) 638 final of 23.10.2007. 
COM(2008) 868 final of 16 December 2008. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
nationals  to  work  in  these  listed  professions  or  sectors  was  facilitated  as  their  application 
would not be subjected to an individual labour market test (ES, FR, IT, SI (but see below for 
changes resulting the economic crisis)) or would be prioritised (LT, UK). LT reported that an 
occupation was added to the list when the demand for labour was twice as high as the existing 
labour  supply  for  a  specific  occupation  and  work  places  had  remained  unfilled  for  three 
months. Annual quotas for work permits based on evaluations of the labour market are set by 
at  least  SI  and  RO.  According  to  the  UK  Points  Based  System,  a  third-country  national 
needed  sufficient  points  to  enter  or  remain  in  the  UK;  points  were  scored  for  attributes 
predicting a migrant’s success in the labour market and/or for factors relating to whether they 
were likely to comply with the conditions of their stay. 

Furthermore,  to  address  the  labour  shortages  identified  in  the  set  list  of  professions  and 
sectors, some Member States established quota for labour migration based on an assessment 
of the quality of cooperation offered by third countries under bilateral agreements (IT) defined 
a maximum number of job vacancies per year (EL) or identified source countries which were 
eligible for a work permit/visa (CZ, LT). 

PL  identified  a  group  of  neighbouring  countries,  as  well  as  the  Republic  of  Moldova  and 
Georgia, the citizens of which were eligible for work up to six months without a work permit. 

EE,  PL  and  SE  set  wage  thresholds  in  relation  to  labour  migration.  EE  stated  that  the  offer 
made to third-country nationals was to include earning a quarter more than the average salary. 
PL  examined  if  wages  of  migrant  workers  were  not  worse  then  those  offered  to  local 
employees.  SE  examined  in  each  case  whether  employment  conditions  –  including  wages, 
social insurance coverage and other terms of employment – were equivalent to conditions that 
applied to employees already resident in Sweden. 

Improvements to the governance of legal migration were reported, including the adoption of 
new  policy  concepts  (e.g.  CZ  –  Green  Card  system),  better  coordination  of  government 
agencies or set up of new bodies to implement policies (BE, DE, LV, LU, FI, SE, UK), the 
development of comprehensive strategies (FR, HU, LT), and the simplification and shortening 
of procedures (BE, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HU, LT, NL, PL, SE, UK). For example, BE launched 
the  Economic  Migration  service  to  facilitate  and  speed  up  the  visa  delivering  process  for 
third-country  nationals  with  an  “economically  interesting”  project  and  to  avoid  that  third-
country  nationals  working  in  Belgium  were  hampered  in  their  professional  activities  by 
administrative delay for which they were not responsible. Measures to refine the identification 
and matching of labour market needs were put forward by some, including the establishment 
of centres, committees and/or agencies with the right economic and labour market expertise 
(DE,  LU,  FI,  UK),  and  planned  for  the  near  future  by  others  (HU,  MT).  For  example,  in 
Germany, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs created an alliance to advise the 
Federal government concerning the demand for labour (“alliance for labour”). Its aim was to 
develop measures to close gaps and effectively prevent a lack of skilled labour in the future, 
such as steering migration flows. 

With regard to the principle of Union preference, several Member States reported on action 
undertaken  to  ensure  that  the  labour  demand  could  not  be  covered  by  national  and  EU 
manpower or by non-EU  manpower  lawfully resident on a permanent basis in that Member 
State (BG, DE, IE, EE, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK). Some 
stated  that  the  job  vacancy  was  advertised  with  the  national  Public  Employment  Service 
(PES) and sometimes EURES for a reasonable period of time (IE, LT, LV, LU, MT, SE, UK). 
Others referred to an individual labour market test (AT) or to a requirement for employers to 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
ask  permission  to  recruit  a  third-country  national  from  the  government  agency  dealing  with 
unemployment (EE). EL, IT and PT reported that this principle was taken into account when 
the  annual  quotas  for  issuing  work  and/or  residence  permits  or  the  annual  number  of  job 
vacancies for third-country nationals were set.  

Due  to  the  economic  crisis,  a  few  Member  States  had  tightened  entry  or  permit  renewal 
criteria (CZ, IE), quota (IT, PT, SI) or reduced professions eligible for work permits (IE). In 
the  case  of  ES  and  LT,  the  number  of  occupations  included  in  the  ‘Catalogue  of  Shortage 
Occupations’ (ES) or the ‘list of occupations in demand’ (LT) was reduced (e.g. LT: from 60 
occupations in 2007 to 7 occupations in 2009). SI in March 2009 abolished the procedure of 
issuing permits for professions in short supply without an individual labour market test and in 
June  2009  introduced  new  rules  prohibiting  employment  in  certain  sectors  or  from  certain 
regions. These restrictive measures in relation to labour migration were generally meant to be 
of  a  temporary  nature.  One  Member  State  considered  similar  measures  for  the  foreseeable 
future  (BG),  while  others  claimed  that  their  demand-driven  labour  migration  systems  were 
sufficiently flexible to adjust to labour market dynamics (DK, ES, MT, AT, LT, FI, SE, UK). 
The  latter  were  portrayed  as  self-regulatory,  resulting  in  less  vacancies,  fewer  applications 
and  more  rejections  /  fewer  permits  issued.  IE  introduced  a  scheme  that  allows  migrant 
workers made redundant to remain for a period to search for a new job and, once alternative 
employment  is  found,  exempts  their  application  for  a  work  permit  from  the  standard 
individual labour market test. 

As to statistics, some Member States reported on the number of applications for work permits 
(EL, ES,  LT,  FI), of decisions  taken (EE, UK), or of permits issued (EL, ES, HU, LT, LU, 
MT,  PL,  RO,  SI),  rendering  comparisons  between  Member  States  difficult  at  this  stage. 
However,  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  applications  for  work  permits  (BE,  ES)  of  permits 
granted (CY, LT, MT, RO) and of annual quota for work permits (SI) was an emerging trend 
across the EU, which may be related to the economic crisis. 

Commitment: I.(b) 

to increase the attractiveness of the EU for highly qualified workers 

At  EU  level,  the  Council  adopted  the  so-called  EU  Blue  Card  Directive5  (2009/50/EC)  to 
facilitate the admission of highly qualified workers and their families by establishing a fast-
track admission procedure and by granting them equal social and economic rights as nationals 
of the host Member State in a number of areas. The Directive also facilitates the movement of 
EU  Blue  Card  holders  to  a  second  Member  State  for  the  purpose  of  highly  qualified 
employment. Member States have until June 2011 to transpose the Directive into national law. 

At national level, many MS reported having taken steps to increase the attractiveness of the 
EU for highly qualified workers (BE, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, LT, LU, NL, AT, PT, SE, UK). 
With regard to the transposition of the Blue Card Directive, some Member States reported that 
they were in the process of transposing the Directive; others had undertaken preparatory work 
for transposition or planned to do so in 2010. UK and IE did not opt into the Directive, but the 
UK  reported  that  it  provided  attractive  labour  migration  opportunities  for  highly  qualified 
third-country nationals under Tier 1 of its Points Based System. 

5 

Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country 
nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Measures  were  aimed  at  simplifying,  and  hereby  accelerating,  procedures  and  relaxing 
conditions for entry or renewal of permits (DE, IE, ES, IT, LT, LU, AT, SK). Hereto, some 
Member  States  introduced  a  “one-stop-shop”  admission  procedure  (AT)  or  new  types  of 
permits  (e.g.  FR:  “Skills  and  talents”  permit  and  “Exceptional  economic  contribution” 
permit). An overview of the steps that Member States undertook to improve the governance of 
legal migration is at I.(a) above. Some Member States specified who benefited from measures 
put  in  place  (BE,  DE,  ES,  SK,  UK),  for  example:  individuals  with  university  degrees  from 
third countries (DE), senior staff members (e.g. CEO) (BE), those active in particular sectors 
or professions (ES) (see the second part of I.(b) below for further details). 

As  to  the  results  of  the  measures  undertaken,  a  few  Member  States  reported  an  increase  in 
permits  granted  to  highly  qualified  migrants  (DE,  FR).  For  example,  a  45 %  increase  in 
permits  granted  was  reflected  in  the  figures  provided  by  DE  (from  473  in  2008  to  689  in 
2009) and FR (from 1 664 “workers on assignment” in the first 11 months of 2008 to 1 954 in 
the same period in 2009). The effects of the economic crisis on the numbers of highly-skilled 
workers were mixed: some reported little change to the numbers of permits (CY) while others 
reported  a  reduction  in  the  numbers  of  application  (ES,  NL).  As  to  the  simplification  and 
acceleration of procedures, ES reported that the average time for processing an application in 
2008  was  12.93  days;  in  2009  it  fell  to  11.21  days.  LT  reported  that  the  aim  was  to  issue 
documents to highly-skilled workers within 3-4 weeks, compared to a normal period of two 
months for skilled workers. 

and  take  new  measures  to  further  facilitate  the  reception  of  students  and  researchers  and 
their movement within the EU; 

At EU level, the Commission launched the procedures to commission external transposition 
studies  for  the  Students  Directive6  and  Researchers  Directive7  with  a  view  to  preparing 
implementation  reports  on  the  directives  as  well  as,  where  relevant,  proposals  for  their 
amendment in order further to enhance the attractiveness of EU as a centre of excellence for 
studies and research. The mobility of researchers was also facilitated by more organisations 
that  employ  or  fund  researchers  committing  themselves  to  the  European  Charter  for 
Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers which spell out the 
roles, responsibilities and rights of researchers as well as of their employers and funders; by 
the end of 2009 there were 144 signatories representing some 1000 individual institutions. 

At national level, two Member States put forward proposals for future changes to this policy 
area (IE, HU). IE published a set of proposals for reform of non-EEA student immigration and 
launched  a  public  consultation.  The  proposals  contained  more  than  20  discussion  items 
including  capping  the  length  of  time  a  person  can  spend  in  Ireland  as  a  student  at  no  more 
than  five  years  or  two  years  in  further  education  or  English  language  classes;  introducing  a 
two-tier system to facilitate the targeting of incentives towards the upper end of the academic 
spectrum;  a  stronger  inspection  process;  possible  changes  in  respect  of  visas;  and  new 
guidelines  on  work  placement  or  internship.  HU’s  2009  Strategy  focused  in  particular  on 
facilitating international mobility and employment of researchers and scientists. 

6 

7 

Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country 
nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service, OJ L 
375, 23.12.2004. 
Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country 
nationals for the purposes of scientific research, OJ L 289, 3.11.2005, p. 15. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As to students, a few Member States reported modifying the procedures for the admission of 
third-country nationals wishing to study in the Member State during the reporting period (LV, 
LT, NL, PL, UK). LV, for example, no longer required candidates to interact with, and visit, 
its  embassies,  which  was  costly  in  time  and  financial  resources,  but  allowed  higher 
educational establishments to directly submit the third-country national’s documents relating 
to their application for a residence permit to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs. 
The  UK  announced  a  policy  review  which  would  consider  introducing  mandatory  pre-entry 
English  language  testing  for  some  courses  and  changing  the  rules  on  part-time  work  by 
students. 

In  2009,  PT  adopted  a  decree  expanding  the  social  rights  available  to  students  in  higher 
education to foreign students who held a permanent residence permit or who benefited from 
the status of long-term resident. 

In  2009,  a  few  Member  States  also  facilitated  access  to  the  labour  market  for  third-country 
nationals who graduated from education establishments in the Member State (CZ, IE, FR, IT, 
LV, LU, PL, AT) and SK planned to do so in the near future. IT introduced the possibility for 
doctorate  or  postgraduate  students  to  convert  a  residence  permit  for  reason  of  study  into  a 
work  permit,  as  some  other  Member  States  already  had  (ES).  FR  required  that,  in  order  to 
grant this facilitation, the revenue offered to the third-country national graduate was at least 
1.5 times the national minimum revenue. 

FI mentioned measures to facilitate the naturalisation of graduates. 

As to researchers, BE removed the requirement for a work permit. AT amended legislation to 
allow  the  “residence  permit  –  researcher”  to  be  issued  for  two  years  (instead  of  one  year). 
After  two  years  of  residence  it  is  possible  to  change  this  for  the  “settlement  permit  – 
unrestricted” which grants free access to the labour market. 

Some German universities established “Welcome Centres”, giving advice on work, studying, 
living  and  family  issues  to  foreign  researchers,  with  the  aim  of  strengthening  their 
international competitiveness and attractiveness. RO made available in English and French on 
an official website its admission requirements for students. 

Several  Member  States  provided  data  as  to  the  number  of  researchers  and/or  students  that 
were issued a permit in 2009 (BG, DE, EE, EL, FR, LT, HU, MT, PL, FI) or in the academic 
year  2008-9  (RO).  These  ranged  from  3  “research  residence  permits”  for  employment 
specifically concerned with research in LT to 2 330 “long-stay scientific visas” for researchers 
in FR and from 110 permits for study purpose in EL to 63 571 “long-stay students visas” for 
students in FR. 

to ensure, in encouraging temporary or circular migration, pursuant to 
Commitment: I.(c) 
the  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  of  14  December  2007,  that  those  policies  do  not 
aggravate the brain drain; 

At  EU  level,  the  concept  of  circular  migration  has  been  further  developed  in  a  way  not  to 
contribute to brain drain. The Commission contributed to the further development of circular 
migration at the third Global Forum on Migration and Development in Athens in November 
2009.  A  conference  in  March  2009  on  circular  migration  and  labour  matching  reviewed 
initiatives  that  assist  migrants  in  better  accessing  labour  markets  abroad  as  well  as  finding 
employment in the source country upon return. Support to diaspora networking and diaspora 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
involvement in efforts to enhance development in countries of origin has included support to 
temporary return – “brain circulation” – of the highly skilled as a way to mitigate brain drain. 
Circular  migration  with  a  view  not  to  aggravate  brain  drain  has  also  been  incorporated  in 
several of the inter-regional cooperation processes (see V.(f) below). Furthermore, work has 
continued  on  the  implementation  of  the  programme  for  EU  action  to  tackle  the  critical 
shortage of health workers in developing countries (2007-2013) to avoid unacceptable brain 
drain  in  sectors  that  are  critical  for  development.  The  EU  Blue  Card  Directive  (see  I.(b) 
above)  incorporates  provisions  to  facilitate  circular  migration  with  a  view  to  avoid  brain 
drain. 

At national level, many Member States reported on measures to prevent or not aggravate the 
brain  drain  (BE,  BG,  CZ,  DK,  EE,  ES,  FR,  CY,  LT,  LU,  NL,  AT,  PT,  SE,  UK).  These 
included  allowing  migrants  to  return  temporarily  to  the  country  of  origin  through,  for 
example, multiple entry visas (see also I.(d) below), hereby creating a sense of security that 
they had the option to return to the EU and the opportunity for co-nationals to benefit from the 
migrant’s skills and knowledge gained from the job (training) in the EU (BE, PT, SE). 

The  link  between  migration  and  development,  in  general,  and  the  need  to  maximise  the 
positive  contribution  of  migrants  and  migration  to  the  development  of  third  countries,  in 
particular, was mentioned by many Member States (BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, NL, AT, PT, SE, 
UK)  (see  also  information  under  V.(d)  and  V.(e)  below).  Some  Member  States  set  up  co-
development projects tied to circular or temporary migration programmes or pilot projects to 
promote the skills and knowledge transfer to local people (BE, ES, NL, PT). Others referred 
to  development  programmes  or  projects  to  support  the  education  system  (AT)  or  the  public 
health service of third countries (SE, UK), with the aim of rendering the labour market in the 
country of origin more attractive to existing or potential migrants. A few opted for restricting 
the  issuing  or  renewal  of  work  permits  for  those  originating  from  countries  or  professional 
sectors which were the specific target of development projects or programmes (FR, UK). BG 
and CY referred to actions in the framework of the Mobility Partnership with the Republic of 
Moldova (see V.(a)  below).  SE  also  referred to the importance of setting up portable social 
benefits (e.g. pensions) for temporary migrants working in the EU. 

In relation to the objective of not aggravating the brain drain, a few Member States referred to 
legislative measures limiting the duration of work permits issued to third-country nationals to 
two  years  (LT,  LU)  or  four  years  (CY)  and,  upon  the  expiry  of  the  work  permit,  obliging 
third-country nationals to return to their country of origin (LT) or only allowing them to take 
up  a  new  position  after  a  waiting  period  of  minimum  one  month  (LT).  RO  referred  to  a 
legislative provision that temporary residence may be extended only for the same purpose as 
that for which it had previously been granted or extended. 

Commitment: I.(d) 
to regulate family migration more effectively by inviting each Member 
State, in compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental  Freedoms,  to  take  into  consideration  in  its  national  legislation,  except  for 
certain specific categories, its own reception capacities and families' capacity to integrate, as 
evaluated  by  their  resources  and  accommodation  in  the  country  of  destination  and,  for 
example, their knowledge of that country's language; 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
At EU level, the Commission adopted a report8 on the implementation in Member States of 
the Family Reunification Directive9. The Directive sets out the conditions under which legally 
residing third-country nationals have the right to be joined by their non-EU family members. 
The report identified possible problems in Member States' transposition legislation and, while 
giving recommendations for a better application of the Directive, showed that the impact of 
the Directive remains limited with its low-level binding character leaving Member States with 
much  discretion.  As  follow-up,  the  report  announces  a  wide  consultation  in  the  form  of  a 
Green Paper on the future of the family reunification regime. 

At national level, several Member States documented changes to existing policies during the 
reporting period (BE, EL, ES, IT, LT, LU, NL, AT, PL). These included modifications to the 
(set  of)  conditions  for  family  reunification,  to  the  categories  of  persons  exempted  from 
fulfilling these conditions for family reunification, and to the procedures for applying for or 
renewing residence permits within the framework of family reunification. 

As to the (set of) conditions for family reunifications, Member States presented the following 
as  elements  of  existing  regimes.  In  order  to  better  take  account  of  families’  capacity  to 
integrate  when  considering  applications  for  family  reunification,  many  Member  States 
stipulated  that  sponsors  were  required  to  have  a  stable  and  regular  income  to  support  the 
family  member(s)  (BE,  BG,  DK,  ES,  FR,  IT,  LT,  LU,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  FI,  UK),  suitable 
accommodation  (BE,  BG,  DK,  ES,  FR,  IT,  LU,  AT,  UK)  and/or  a  previous  period  of 
residence  (ES).  Some  demanded  that  family  members  were  to  attain  a  specific  level  of 
language proficiency (DK, NL, PT), some after issuance of a residence title (AT), and/or sign 
an  integration  contract  or  agreement  (AT).  BE  undertook  steps  to  negotiate  agreement 
protocols  with  the  Communities,  i.e.  the  entities  competent  for  the  integration  of  foreign 
nationals,  with  the  objective  of  tying  the  issuance  of  a  residence  permit  for  family 
reunification to a commitment to integrate and/or integration in the host society. IT recently 
adopted  legislation  providing  for  an  integration  agreement,  which  will  be  implemented 
shortly. AT set in certain cases quota regarding family reunification with the aim of respecting 
its national reception capacities. 

Some  of  these  elements  were  added  to  national  regimes  during  the  reported  period.  For 
example,  previous  to  2009,  BE  required  sponsors  to  have  a  health  insurance  and  sufficient 
accommodation.  However,  legislation  was  amended  to  include  sufficient,  stable  and  regular 
income  as  a  precondition  for  family  reunification.  SE  put  forward  proposals  to  introduce  a 
support  requirement.  In  light  of  the  economic  crisis,  PT  reduced  by  half  the  means  of 
subsistence that third-country nationals require in order to apply for family reunification. New 
legislation  concerning  security  issues  adopted  by  IT  in  2009  stipulated  that  accommodation 
was to comply with health standards and to be certified by municipal authorities. The growing 
emphasis  on  integration  commitments  (e.g.  through  contract)  also  reflected  Member  State 
concerns (BE) about integration of family members. 

Some  Member  States  reported  on  legislative  changes  introducing  exemptions  concerning 
categories  of  persons  who  did  not  have  to  fulfil  conditions  set  for  family  reunification  (EL, 
LT,  LU,  AT,  PL).  Enhanced  protection  of  family  unity,  of  children  and  of  those  granted 
international protection seemed to be at heart of this. ES approved a reform of its legislation 

8 
9 

COM(2008) 610 of 8 October 2008. 
Council  Directive  2003/86/EC  of  22  September  2003  on  the  right  to  family  reunification,  OJ  L  251, 
3.10.2003, p. 12. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
on  family  reunification  stipulating  that  only  long-term  residents  can  apply  for  the 
reunification  of  ascendants  and  granting  direct  access  to  the  labour  market  for  reunited 
spouses  and  children  from  the  age  of  16.  CY  amended  legislation  so  as  to  facilitate  family 
reunification for third-country nationals working for foreign companies. LT facilitated family 
reunification for highly qualified workers, for third-country nationals who arrive to lecture or 
perform  an  internship  at  national  research  and  study  institutions  and  for  persons  who  have 
invested  substantially  in  projects  of  importance  to  the  State.  RO  facilitated  admission  for 
business development and for study including by allowing family reunification. 

A  number  of  Member  States  referred  to  the  need  to  step  up  action  against  marriages  of 
convenience (BE, FR, IT, LT, NL, AT). BE reported that legally registered partnerships could 
be introduced in the Aliens Act (i.e. the core of Belgian immigration legislation). This would 
imply  that,  if  there  are  serious  doubts  on  the  genuine  nature  of  the  relationship,  the  legally 
registered partnership would only be concluded, and the first temporary residence permit only 
issued,  once  the  stable  and  sustainable  nature  of  the  relation  had  been  investigated  and 
verified. In 2009, BE  also  put  measures in place to  promote better cooperation between the 
different  actors  involved,  such  as  the  production  of  a  “road  book  on  marriages  of 
convenience”  targeting  all  official  authorities  involved  in  the  issue  (e.g.  the  Immigration 
Department, municipalities, the judiciary) and the creation of a federal database to be used by 
local  authorities  (i.e.  civil  servants  in  charge  of  marriages).  In  both  BE  and  LT,  a  higher 
number  of  investigations  into  (potential)  marriages  of  conveniences  were  opened.  CY 
reported preparation of draft legislation. NL reported that fraud and abuse were being tackled 
vigorously,  including  by  way  of  checks  on  the  relationship’s  genuineness  each  time  an 
application is received from a partner in a third country. In FR there was consideration of the 
problem  of  marriages  of  convenience,  which  were coined “grey marriages”  highlighting the 
potential exploitation by one of the parties involved. 

Commitment: I.(e) 
instruments where necessary; 

to strengthen mutual information on migration by improving existing 

At  EU  level,  the  various  instruments  available  at  EU  level  for  the  mutual  exchange  of 
information  on  migration  continued  to  be  used,  though  to  varying  degrees.  The  European 
Migration Network through its Studies (e.g. on unaccompanied minors) and Ad-Hoc Queries 
(89  in  2009  alone  with  each  query  having  19+  Member  States  responding)  to  request 
information on a broad range of asylum and migration related topics showed a clear need for 
information  exchange,  including  by  the  Commission,  for  supporting  policy  development  at 
EU and national levels. An evaluation10 of the Mutual Information Mechanism indicated that 
its  practical  functioning  did  not  meet  expectations,  with  a  relatively  small  number  of 
contributions  received on an infrequent basis (by  end  of  2009,  47  from  16  Member  States). 
Elsewhere, an assessment of CIREFI11 concluded that it remained a useful platform covering 
all areas of illegal immigration, but that a necessary level of synergy should be found in order 
to  avoid  redundancy  and  duplication  of  work  by  other  European  bodies  (e.g.  the  planned 
FRONTEX  Information  System).  Following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  the 
future  of  CIREFI  was  discussed  in  connection  with  the  overall  restructuring  of  Council 
working structures. It was decided to abolish CIREFI by mid-2010. The allocation of its tasks 
between FRONTEX and relevant Council working groups will be decided in the first half of 

10 
11 

COM(2009) 687 final of 17 December 2009. 
Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration. See OJ 
C 274, 19.9.1996, p. 50. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2010.  On  ICONet12,  developments  included  the  possibility  that  this  may  be  taken  over  by 
FRONTEX  and  an  amendment  to  the  ILO  (Immigration  Liaison  Officer)  Regulation13  to 
support the use of ICONet by ILOs. In the field of asylum, the activities of European Asylum 
Support Office (EASO – see IV.(a) below) will result in better coordination of the exchange 
of information. 

At  national  level,  all  Member  States  except  CY  were  active  in  the  European  Migration 
Network, although RO was unable to provide an annual policy report. Some Member States 
reported  strengthening  their  National  Contact  Point  (LU),  or  creating  (PT)  or  strengthening 
(HU)  their  national  network.  CY  reported  on  actions  being  taken  to  remedy  its  lack  of 
sufficient participation, including the hiring of new personnel. 

In  addition  to  references  to  the  Mutual  Information  Mechanism,  Member  States  also 
mentioned  exchange  of  information  within  Council  and  other  EU  bodies  as  well  as 
participation  in  GDISC14  (EL,  IT)  and  the  National  Contact  Points  on  Integration  (see  I.(h) 
below). The UK reported exploring possible overlaps and synergies between different mutual 
information mechanisms including EASO, GDISC and the Inter-governmental Consultations 
on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (IGC). The UK also reported on how it aims to overcome 
its current difficulties in supplying certain data required under the Statistics Regulation15. 

Commitment: I.(f) 
to  improve  information  on  the  possibilities  and  conditions  of  legal 
migration, particularly by putting in place the instruments needed for that purpose as soon as 
possible; 

At EU level, the Commission continued its development of the EU Immigration Portal with a 
view  to  its  official  launch  in  2010.  The  Portal  will  be  a  globally  accessible,  objective  and 
reliable source of information on the possibilities and conditions of legal immigration to the 
EU.  The  Portal  will  also  provide  information  on  the  dangers  and  consequences  of  irregular 
immigration into the EU. 

At  national  level,  most  Member  States  reported  that  information  on  the  possibilities  and 
conditions  of  legal  migration  was  available  on  the  official  websites  of  ministries  and/or 
employment agencies (BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL, 
PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) or would be available (CY). For example, the Residence Wizard, 
implemented by the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service, provides information on 
staying  in  the  Netherlands  and  on  residence  permits.  The  client  can  customise  their 
application to their particular case, in order to find out whether they are eligible and to learn 
about  the  specific  conditions  and  requirements  that  apply.  LT  also  reported  that  legislative 
acts concerning “Aliens” and “Citizenship” were translated into Russian and English. 

Some also referred to the websites of welcome or business centres (DE, NL) or meetings with 
representatives of the foreign business environment (RO). Other measures for disseminating 
relevant information included brochures or other informational material (CZ, EL, ES, CY, LT, 

12 

13 

14 
15 

ICONet  is  a  secure  web-based  information  and  coordination  network  for  Member  States’  Migration 
Management Services, OJ L 83, 1.4.2005, p. 48. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 of 19 February 2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison 
officers network, OJ L 64, 2.3.2004, p. 1. 
General Directors of Immigration Services Conference. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  July  2007  on 
Community statistics on migration and international protection, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
AT,  PL,  RO,  SI),  manuals  (EL,  IT)  available  in  different  languages,  or  the  use  of  cultural 
mediators  (PT).  Several  Member  States  set  up  projects  to  raise  awareness  in  third countries 
(BG, CZ, ES, IT, LT, LU, PL, PT, UK). For example, LU set up the project “Migrate with 
eyes  open”  in  Cape  Verde  in  2006,  extended  into  2009  and  2010,  with  the  aim  of  enabling 
Cape Verdeans to decide whether to migrate or not, being aware of the legal conditions to do 
so. The “CAMPO - Centre to Support Immigrants in their Country of Origin Project”, which 
has  been  running  since  2008,  was  established  by  PT  for  similar  reasons.  ES  includes 
information about legal migration and prevention against the risk of the illegal immigration in 
all its bilateral agreements with countries of origin on migratory issues. 

Commitment: I.(g) 
to  invite  Member  States,  in  line  with  the  common  principles  approved 
by the Council in 2004, to establish ambitious policies, in a manner and with resources that 
they  deem  appropriate,  to  promote  the  harmonious  integration  in  their  host  countries  of 
immigrants who are likely to settle permanently; those policies, the implementation of which 
will call for a genuine effort on the part of the host countries, should be based on a balance 
between  migrants'  rights  (in  particular  to  education,  work,  security,  and  public  and  social 
services)  and  duties  (compliance  with  the  host  country's  laws).  They  will  include  specific 
measures  to  promote  language-learning  and  access  to  employment,  essential  factors  for 
integration; they will stress respect for the identities of the Member States and the EU and for 
their  fundamental  values,  such  as  human  rights,  freedom  of  opinion,  democracy,  tolerance, 
equality between men and women, and the compulsory schooling of children. The European 
Council  also  calls  upon  the  Member  States  to  take  into  account,  by  means  of  appropriate 
measures, the need to combat any forms of discrimination to which migrants may be exposed; 

At  EU  level,  in  October  2008  the  Commission  published  its  Report  to  the  2008  Ministerial 
Conference  on  Integration  entitled  Strengthening  actions  and  tools  to  meet  integration 
challenges16.  The  third  European  Ministerial  Conference  on  Integration  took  place  in 
November  2008  in  Vichy  and  Conclusions  of  the  Council  and  the  Representatives  of  the 
Governments  of  the  Member  States  on  integration  policies  in  the  European  Union  were 
adopted at the JHA Council of 27/28 November 2008. After the end of the reporting period, 
the Commission published a Report17 to the fourth Ministerial Conference on Integration held 
in April 2010 in Zaragoza. 

During  the  reporting  period  the  Commission  adopted  100  programming  documents  of  the 
European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals, including all the multiannual 
national  programmes  2007-2013  and  all  annual  programmes  for  2007,  2008  and  2009. 
Concerning Community Actions, the 2008 annual work programme was adopted in October 
2008 and the call for proposals published in December leading to selection of nine projects. 
The 2009 annual work programme was adopted in September 2009 and the call for proposals 
published in December 2009. 

As regards action against discrimination, the Commission continued infringement procedures 
against  certain  Member  States  to  ensure  correct  transposition  of  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive18 and the Employment Equality Directive19. The European Parliament and Council 

16 
17 
18 

19 

SEC(2008) 2626 of 8 October 2008. 
SEC(2010) 357 of 19 March 2010. 
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between 
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. 
Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  of  27  November  2000  establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal 
treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
continued legislative discussions on the Commission proposal for a new Directive prohibiting 
discrimination  outside  employment  based  on  religion  or  belief,  age,  disability  or  sexual 
orientation.  The  Council  adopted  the  Framework  Decision  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia20 
which  contributes  to  the  fight  against  discrimination  by  obliging  Member  States  to  make 
punishable  by  criminal  penalties  inter  alia  public  incitement  to  violence  or  hatred  against  a 
group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, colour, religion, 
descent or national or ethnic origin. Member States have until November 2010 to implement 
the Framework Decision. 

The Commission also contributed to combating discrimination by providing financial support 
through  the  Progress  Programme  and  the  Specific  Programme  on  Fundamental  Rights  and 
Citizenship. 

At national level, many Member States reported on a national strategy or plan on integration 
(BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE, ES, IT, LU, HU, NL, PT, RO, SK, SE, UK). Others reported that this 
national  strategy  was  in  the  course  of  being  revised  (BE,  FR,  SE),  or  developed  (CY,  AT, 
PL). Legislation amended in Wallonia (BE) allowed for the set up of local integration plans. 
SI reported that its implementation in 2009 of recent legislation established an overall system 
of  integration  where  previously  only  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  had  benefited. 
As to institutional changes, the set up or better coordination of centres and agencies concerned 
with integration was mentioned by a few (BE, CZ). 

Most  Member  States  reported  having  measures  in  place  to  enable  migrants  to  learn  the 
language of the host country (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, 
MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK) and to acquire knowledge of the host society’s history 
and  culture  (BE,  BG,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  LU,  MT,  NL,  SI,  FI,  SE,  UK).  Several 
Member States also referred to support services to enhance migrants’ access to employment 
(DK, EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LU, MT, AT, PT, RO, FI, SE), including skills assessment (FR), 
job  orientation  (ES,  IT,  PT),  qualification  measures  and  mentoring  programmes  (AT,  PT), 
projects  to  promote  immigrant  entrepreneurship  (PT)  and  partnerships  with  industries  (FR, 
AT).  SE  undertook  steps  to  boost  migrants’  personal  motivation  to  learn  the  Swedish 
language  and  find  a  job  through  a  bonus  system,  ultimately  speeding  up  the  “social 
introduction  of  migrants”.  Some  Member  States  mentioned  general  integration  programmes 
(DE, IT, NL, PL, PT), some of which ended with an integration test. IT reported on specific 
efforts to promote integration of nomadic communities. 

A few Member States also reported on measures to facilitate migrants’ access to public and 
social services (IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, PT, UK), such as access to online website resources (EL, 
IE),  cultural  mediators  (EL,  ES,  IT,  PT),  a  project  to  familiarise  parents  with  the  national 
school system (FR, ES), support services for the integration of immigrant students in schools 
(CY, EL), interventions to sensitise and advise teachers, students and parents and to establish 
a  network  of  partners  (psychological  support  group)  to  support  students  and  their  families 
(EL)  and  a  funding  mechanism  for  local  public  services  to  manage  the  transitional  impacts 
and pressures of migration (UK). In 2009, PT launched a circular stipulating that access to the 
national health service by regular and irregular immigrants was  a fundamental human right. 
Others referred to civic orientation courses as helping migrants in accessing public and social 
services (see paragraph above). 

20 

Framework Decision 2008/91/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions 
of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some  Member  States  indicated  that  these  activities,  projects  or  programmes  received  funds 
from the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (BE, BG, EE, ES, FR, 
IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, AT, PT, SK, UK) or the European Social Fund (ES, MT). 

Expectations were that, through the measures put in place, migrants would gain a particular 
level  of  language  proficiency  in  a  set  time  period  (CZ,  FR,  IT,  AT,  PT,  FI)  and/or  of 
knowledge of, and respect for, national values (FR) or common/fundamental values (BG, DK, 
DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, NL, AT, FI, SE). Respect for human rights (BG), rule of law 
(IT, NL), gender equality (BG, DK, DE, ES, FR, FI), democracy (DK, NL, FI), freedom of 
opinion  (DK,  FR),  compulsory  education  (EL,  FR,  FI),  religious  diversity  (DE)  or  other 
“basic values of Europe” (EE) were the main fundamental values reported by Member States. 

A few Member States drew up integration contracts or agreements to lay down the conditions 
for  integration  in  the  host  society  and  to  ascertain  the  migrant’s  commitment  to,  and  active 
participation  in,  the  integration  process  (DK,  EL,  FR,  IT,  AT),  or  planned  to  do  so  (LU). 
Others referred to language tests as a condition for acquiring long-term EC residence  status 
(CY,  EL)  or  permanent  residence  (CZ,  LT).  A  few  Member  States  developed  a  guide  for 
migrants on their rights and duties, available in several languages (EL, SK, UK), or launched 
projects  with  that  aim  (BG,  HU,  SK).  In  general,  the  balance  between  migrants’  rights  and 
duties  featured  in  many  national  policies  promoting  integration  of  migrants  (BG,  CZ,  DK, 
DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LU, HU, NL, AT, FI, SE, UK). 

Many Member States reported on measures to combat discrimination to which migrants may 
be exposed (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, 
FI, SE). These predominantly included anti-discrimination legislation (BE, BG, CZ, IE, EE, 
EL, ES, MT, AT, PT, RO, SE), awareness raising campaigns (BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, CY, LV, 
LU, HU, MT, PT, FI), training of personnel dealing with the target group (EL, CY, MT, PT) 
and  the  set  up  or  further  development  of  an  equality  body  (BE,  DK,  IT,  AT).  In  LU,  the 
mission of the Office for Reception and Integration was widened to include the fight against 
discrimination.  FR  established  a  Diversity  Charter  and  a  Diversity  Label  that  could  be 
attributed  to  companies  and  EL  plans  to  undertake  a  research  on  discrimination  issues.  FR 
also started an experiment of using anonymous CVs. PT organised competitions, such as the 
“Posters Against Discrimination Competition” and the “Award for Journalism, Human Rights 
and  Integration”,  which  recognises  the  contribution  of  media  professionals  in  promoting 
tolerance and integration and combating all forms of racism and discrimination. 

DK,  DE,  EE,  FR  and  FI  referred  to  developing  indicators  for  assessing  integration  policy 
results. 

Commitment: I.(h) 
to promote information exchange on best practice implemented, in line 
with  the  common  principles  approved  by  the  Council  in  2004,  in  terms  of  reception  and 
integration, and on EU measures to support national integration policies. 

At  EU  level,  seven  meetings  of  National  Contact  Points  on  Integration  took  place  in  the 
reporting  period.  The  text  of  the  third  edition  of  the  Handbook  on  Integration  for  policy-
makers  and  practitioners  was  finalised  for  publication  in  April  2010.  In  April  2009,  the 
Commission  launched  the  European  Web  Site  on  Integration  (www.integration.eu)  and 
organised in cooperation with the European Economic and Social Committee the first meeting 
of the European Integration Forum. The Forum provides opportunities for dialogue with civil 
society; its second meeting in November 2009 brought together over 80 organisations. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
At  national  level,  most  Member  States  promoted  information  exchange  on  best  practices 
implemented  in  terms  of  reception  and  integration  (BE,  BG,  DK,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT, 
LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PT, SK, SI, FI, SE, UK). 

Several  Member  States  established  or  further  developed  (BG,  EL,  LV,  HU,  AT,  UK)  or 
started  preparing  (SI)  national  websites  enabling  the  exchange  on  integration  matters,  often 
within  the  framework  of  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third-Country  Nationals 
(EIF).  Stakeholders  in  four  Member  States  had  the  opportunity  to  meet  each  other  in  inter-
institutional working groups to discuss integration (BG, IT, HU, AT). Some Member States 
organised events (e.g. conferences, seminars) (EL, ES, AT, SK), dialogue initiatives (BE, EE, 
LU,  SE),  consultations  with  Muslim  representatives  (DE)  or  awareness  raising  campaigns 
(AT, EE, ES) with integration as topical focus. Others issued newsletters or quarterly journals 
(IT,  AT,  PT,  SE),  and/or  funded  knowledge  institutes  that  had  as  objective  to  collect  and 
disseminate information on integration (NL, PT). LT referred to the development of a manual 
on  intercultural  communication  and  training  courses  on  cultural  diversity,  as  well  as  other 
activities in the area of integration, undertaken in cooperation with IOM. 

In  addition,  several  Member  States  reported  on  their  participation  in  the  National  Contact 
Points  on  Integration,  the  European  Website  on  Integration  and  the  European  Integration 
Forum. Bilateral meetings or cooperation in relation to integration took place between FR and 
DE, and NL and BE. CY reported it would organise a Mediterranean Forum for the exchange 
of views and best practices. 

II. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION 

Main  commitment:  Control  illegal  immigration  in  particular  by  ensuring  that  illegal 
immigrants return to their countries of origin or to a transit country 

Commitment: II.(a) 
regularisation, under national law, for humanitarian or economic reasons; 

to  use  only  case-by-case  regularisation,  rather  than  generalised 

At  EU  level,  a  “Study  on  practices  in  the  area  of  regularisation  of  illegally  staying  third-
country nationals in the Member States of the EU” was published in January 2009. The study, 
produced by ICMPD21 subsequent to the Commission’s Communication on policy priorities 
in  the  fight  against  illegal  immigration  of  third-country  nationals22,  presents  evidence  on 
issues related to regularisations in order to inform policies in this area. 

At national level, many Member States reported that they had used case-by case regularisation 
during  the  reporting  period  (BE,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  CY,  LT,  LU,  NL,  AT,  PT,  FI). 
Several  other  Member  States  indicated  that  they  had  not  undertaken  any  form  of 
regularisation (BG, CZ, DK, IE, HU, MT, RO, SK, SE). 

The  reasons  reported  for  regularisation  varied.  In  some  Member  States  the  reasons  for 
regularisation  were  of  humanitarian  nature  (BE,  EL,  CY,  AT)  whilst  in  others  the  reasons 
were  linked  to  the  economy  and  employment  (BE,  FR,  IT),  or  both  (DE,  PT).  Several 
Member  States  used  grounds  such  as  close  ties  to  the  Member  State,  study  and  integration 

21 
22 

International Centre for Migration Policy Development. 
COM (2006) 402 final of 19 July 2006. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reasons, health reasons or extraordinary reasons justified by a competent authority (DE, EE, 
EL, ES, LT, NL, PT). 

BE and IT described that in 2009 new regularisation schemes were undertaken. BE introduced 
measures  with  regard  to  long  lasting  asylum  procedures  and  urgent  humanitarian  situations 
taking into consideration current practice related to international conventions and the ECHR. 
IT had launched a large-scale regularisation process for those irregularly employed in the area 
of  domestic  work  or  in  activities  related  to  the  care  for  the  sick  and/or  disabled.  Almost 
300 000 applications were received (180 408 for domestic workers and 114 336 for assistants 
to the sick/disabled), the main nationalities represented being from Ukraine and Morocco. 

DE  indicated  that  it  was  not  taking  any  measures  to  legalise  the  residence  of  immigrants 
staying illegally and that it continued to look at this critically in light of the current economic 
crisis. However, the Residence Act provided that third-country nationals who were subject to 
an enforceable obligation to leave the country, but who had resided in the Federal territory for 
several  years  on  grounds  of  a  exceptional  leave  to  remain  (“Duldung”)  and  who  had 
integrated  themselves,  could  –  under  specific  circumstances  –  be  granted  a  permanent 
perspective in Germany. 

to  conclude  readmission  agreements  at  EU  or  bilateral  level  with 
Commitment: II.(b) 
those  countries  with  which  this  is  necessary,  so  that  each  Member  State  has  the  legal 
instruments to ensure that illegal immigrants are expelled; 

At  EU  level,  in  November  2008  the  Commission  presented  recommendations  to  Council  to 
negotiate  readmission  agreements  with  Georgia  and  Cape  Verde,  following  which  in  June 
2009 Council authorised the Commission to negotiate in line with negotiations directives. The 
negotiations  with  those  countries  are  ongoing.  A  readmission  agreement  with  Pakistan  was 
signed (October 2009) and is in the process of ratification by both Parties. Two negotiation 
rounds  (January  and  October  2009)  were  held  with  Morocco  during  which  certain  progress 
was noted which brought the negotiations process to a final stage. Following several contacts 
at  technical  and  political  level  the  negotiations  with  Turkey  (blocked  since  2006)  were  re-
launched. Further efforts were undertaken at various levels in order to launch the talks with 
China and Algeria. 

In  addition  to  EU  readmission  agreements  negotiations  on  Partnership  and  Cooperation 
Agreements  (PCA)  were  continued  with  Vietnam,  Philippines,  Iraq,  Brunei,  Singapore, 
Malaysia, Libya and Republic of Korea. The revision of the Cotonou Agreement aiming inter 
alia at clarifying readmission obligations contained therein was launched in May 2009. 

At  national  level,  some  Member  States  reported  that  bilateral  readmission  agreements  with 
third countries were concluded or entered into force in 2009 (BE, DE, LU, HU, SK, FI). Other 
Member States referred to bilateral agreements in general (BG, CZ, DK, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, 
IT,  LV,  LT,  PL,  SE,  UK).  DK  highlighted  its  May  2009  readmission  agreement  with  Iraq. 
Many  Member  States  also  stated  that  they  were  in  the  process  of  negotiating  one  or  more 
bilateral readmission agreements with third countries (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FR, IT, CY, 
LV,  LT,  LU,  HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  RO,  FI,  UK).  FR  also  referred  to  non-legally  binding 
procès-verbaux that it had agreed or was negotiating with third countries for the delivery of 
laissez-passer documents, as well as to its Agreements related to Concerted Management of 
Migration Flows (see V.(a) below). LU referred to earlier cooperation with third countries in 
the field of readmission through, for example, a memorandum of understanding with Nigeria. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Several Member States also referred to EU readmission agreements with third states (BE, BG, 
CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, FI). Within the 
framework  of  these  EU  readmission  agreements,  some  Member  States  reported  that  they 
concluded  or  were  in  the  process  of  negotiating  the  required  implementation  protocols  with 
countries  such  as  Albania  (EL,  FR,  IT,  HU,  MT,  PL,  PT,  SK),  Armenia  (PT),  Bosnia-
Herzegovina (EE, MT, NL, PT), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EE, IT, HU, 
LV,  LT,  NL,  PT,  SK),  Hong  Kong  (MT),  Macao  (MT),  Republic  of  Moldova  (EE,  EL,  IT, 
LV, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK), Montenegro (IT, HU, MT, PT), Serbia (EE, EL, FR, IT, 
LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK), Russia (EE, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, 
PT, RO, FI), Sri Lanka (MT) and/or Ukraine (EE, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK). For BG, it was 
of  prime  importance  to  conclude  and  implement  a  readmission  agreement  with  Turkey; 
similarly, CY strongly believed that the EU should intensify efforts to conclude readmission 
agreements with key countries of origin and transit such as Turkey. 

In  order  to  ensure  readmission  by  third  countries,  FR  drew  upon  the  practice  of  consular 
‘laissez-passer’  and  to  readmission  clauses  adopted  in  agreements  related  to  Concerted 
Management of Migration Flows. 

the effectiveness of EU readmission agreements will be evaluated; 

At  EU  level,  meetings  of  the  joint  readmission  committees  were  held  with  the  crucial  third 
countries  with  which  the  EU  has  concluded  readmission  agreements  (in  particular  with  all 
Western  Balkans  countries  and  Ukraine  in  November-December  2008  and  with  Russia  in 
November  2008  and  June  2009).  The  Commission  gathers  regularly  the  information  from 
Member States on the application of all EU readmission agreements in force. 

negotiating directives that have not succeeded should be reviewed; 

At  EU  level,  discussions  on  the  negotiations  that  are  underway  were  held  regularly  in  both 
thematic and geographic Council working groups. 

Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  consult  closely  when  future  EU  readmission 
agreements are negotiated; 

At  EU  level,  Member  States  were  regularly  involved  in  the  preparation  of  negotiations 
directives for new EU readmission agreements and in the subsequent outcome of negotiation 
sessions. All drafts of agreements (in particular in relation to Morocco, Georgia, China, Cape 
Verde) were discussed with Member States. Similar consultations were organised with regard 
to  negotiations  directives  for,  and/or  drafts  to  be  discussed  in  the  framework  of,  PCA 
negotiations. 

At national level, MT reported that it had submitted a non-paper to the Member States on EU-
Libya Cooperation on Readmission, highlighting the importance of concluding an EU-Libya 
readmission agreement, possibly within the context of the EU-Libya Framework Agreement 
currently under negotiation. 

Commitment: II.(c) 
to ensure that the risks of irregular migration are prevented within the 
framework  of  the  modalities  of  the  policies  for  the  entry  and  residence  of  third-country 
nationals or, where appropriate, other policies, including the modalities of the framework for 
freedom of movement; 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
At EU level, the EU Blue Card Directive23 (see I.(b) above) limits the occupational mobility 
of a third-country highly qualified worker for the first two years of employment in a Member 
State in order to avoid abuse of this specific scheme. 

As  regards  the  right  of  free  movement  of  EU  citizens  and  their  family  members,  the 
Commission  assists  Member  States  in  implementing  Directive  2004/38/EC  on  the  right  to 
move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It issued a Communication 
on  guidance  for  better  transposition  and  application  of  Directive  2004/38/EC24.  These 
guidelines include a section on the measures to tackle abuse and fraud (such as marriages of 
convenience). In addition, the Commission promotes exchange of information on abuse and 
fraud among Member States in the  framework  of  its  expert  group  on free movement  of  EU 
citizens and their family members. 

At national level, Member States provided relevant information on other commitments of the 
Pact (see I.(d) above and II.(g) and III.(e) below). 

In BE a Bill modifying the Aliens Act was being elaborated in order to give a legal ground to 
the  introduction  of  individual  data  on  third-country  nationals,  who  are  the  subject  of  a 
restrictive measure, for the purpose of entry refusal or refusal of issuing a residence permit. 
DK reported on actions it takes to prevent possible abuse of the right of free movement of EU 
citizens and their family members. CY reported that when a permit expires the third-country 
national  is  notified  that  they  have  to  depart; if  there  is  no  record  of  departure  a  deportation 
order  is  issued.  RO  reported  that  it  posted  specialists  to  Romanian  consulates  to  check  for 
false documents in applications. SI referred to regular risk analyses including in the field of 
abuse  of  residence  permits,  prohibiting  certain  employment  of  third-country  nationals  (a 
measure  introduced  also  in  response  to  the  economic  crisis,  see  I.(a)  above)  and  a  database 
upgrade allowing checking between records of residence permits and of work permits. 

Commitment: II.(d) 
to develop cooperation between Member States, using, on a voluntary 
basis  and  where  necessary,  common  arrangements  to  ensure  the  expulsion  of  illegal 
immigrants (biometric identification of illegal entrants, joint flights, etc.); 

At  EU  level,  FRONTEX  co-ordinated  from  October  2008  until  the  end  of  2009  in  total  37 
joint  return  flights  with  a  total  number  of  around  1 900  returnees.  Nineteen  Member  States 
(CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) and three 
Schengen associated countries (CH, IS, NO) participated in these flights. Countries of return 
were  Albania,  Armenia,  Cameroon,  Columbia,  Cote  d'Ivoire,  Ecuador,  Gambia,  Georgia, 
Kosovo,  Mongolia,  Nigeria,  Pakistan,  Togo  and  Vietnam.  Of  the  30  joint  operations 
FRONTEX co-financed 21, 2 of which with EU funding from the Return Preparatory Actions. 

Furthermore,  the  Commission  launched  under  the  Return  Fund  Community  Actions  2009  a 
call  for  proposal  for  supporting  joint  return  operations  with  around  € 2.2 million  and  for 
supporting  the  cooperation  of  two  or  more  Member  States  with  third-country  consular 
authorities and immigration services in order to facilitate return with € 1 million. 

At national level, many Member States made positive experiences with joint return operations 
and  co-operation  in  the  field  of  identification  and  documentation  of  returnees.  The  co-

23 

24 

Directive  2009/50/EC  of  25 May  2009  on  the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country 
nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17. 
COM (2009) 313 final of 2 July 2009. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
financing possibilities for these kinds of activities offered under the European Return Fund as 
well as the added value of FRONTEX coordination were broadly appreciated. 

More particularly, several Member States (BE, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, HU, MT, 
AT, RO, UK) reported on joint flights organised by FRONTEX and/or joint flights organised 
by  other  Member  States.  Following  an  initiative  of  HU,  the  possibility  to  also  carry  out 
FRONTEX-coordinated  joint  return  operations  by  land  was  actively  considered  and  first 
preparatory steps were taken. 

Some  Member  States  (DE,  FR,  CY,  HU,  MT,  PL,  UK)  highlighted  participation  in  joint 
projects aimed at facilitating the identification of illegally staying third-country nationals and 
issuing  travel  documents  in  preparation  of  their  return.  MT  reported  on  its  difficulties  in 
identifying migrants arriving illegally by boat, further complicated by factors including lack 
of  cooperation  from  the  migrants  themselves  and  from  certain  countries  of  origin,  and 
therefore  considered  joint  action  –  through  FRONTEX  –  in  this  field  a  top  priority.  In  this 
context  express  support  for  FRONTEX  joint  operation  Attica  was  expressed  by  DE,  EL. 
Emphasis was also given to the added value of Immigration Liaison Officers cooperation in 
this  field  (HU,  FI).  Some  Member  States  (EE,  LV)  underlined  that  the  transposition  of  the 
Return Directive will facilitate increased cooperation between Member States in this field in 
the future. 

Commitment: II.(e) 
to  step  up  cooperation  with  the  countries  of  origin  and  of  transit, 
under  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration,  in  order  to  control  illegal  immigration,  in 
particular  to  follow  with  them  an  ambitious  policy  on  police  and  judicial  cooperation  to 
combat  international  criminal  organisations  engaged  in  trafficking  migrants  and  in  human 
trafficking, 

At EU level, Mobility Partnerships negotiated by the Commission included the three priority 
areas  of  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  (legal  migration,  illegal  migration  and 
migration/development).  The  Mobility  Partnership  with  Georgia  (see  V.(a)  below)  supports, 
among  other  activities,  information  campaigns  on  the  risks  of  illegal  migration  and 
reintegration  of  victims  of  trafficking.  The  Mobility  Partnership  with  the  Republic  of 
Moldova (see V.(a) below) includes also several actions providing for capacity building in the 
area  of  anti-trafficking,  information  campaigns  on  the  risks  of  illegal  migration  and 
reintegration of victims of trafficking. Also, the fight against trafficking of human beings has 
been identified as one of the priorities for years 2009-2010 in the framework of the Africa-EU 
Partnership on Migration, Mobility and Employment. 

At national level, most Member States listed bilateral agreements/projects with third countries 
(BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK), 
some of which expected  to  conclude additional agreements in the near  future  (IE, CY,  PL). 
SE  reported  that  it  had  not  concluded  any  bilateral  agreements  with  third  states  during  the 
period although it had been active at political level, not least in the course of the Swedish EU 
Council Presidency. 

As to the focus of the bilateral agreements with third countries, Member States reported that 
the  agreements  and  cooperation  focused  on  information  exchange,  police  and  border  guard 
cooperation, such as conducting joint crime investigations and cross-border operations against 
illegal  immigration  and  human  trafficking,  as  well  as  on  institutional  capacity  building  of 
third states (BG, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK). Regarding 
the  latter,  IT  referred  to  the  training  of  law  enforcement  units  in  Iraq  and  PT  to  capacity-

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
building of Brazilian federal police and consular staff. ES reported creating contacts with key 
African  countries  to  achieve  closer  cooperation  in  tackling  illegal  immigration  and  human 
trafficking, based on cooperation agreements and memoranda of understanding. CY reported 
on  cooperation  with  Syrian  authorities  including  on  the  risks  undergone  by  migrants.  UK 
reported  that  it  had  contributed  to  capacity  building  of  relevant  authorities  in  a  number  of 
jurisdictions by helping to improve the investigation and prosecution of offences. 

Some  Member  States  also  referred  to  close  cooperation  with  regional  and  international 
organisations  (IE,  EL,  FR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  SK).  Some of these mentioned that they cooperated 
and  exchanged  information  with  Europol  and/or  Interpol  (EL,  FR,  LV,  LU,  IT,  RO,  SK), 
whilst  others  (IE,  FR)  referred  to  agreements  with  ILO  including  concerning,  for  example, 
actions against forced labour, human trafficking and the elimination of child labour (IE). HU 
referred to its cooperation within the framework of the Söderköping process and the Budapest 
process. RO referred to operational cooperation with third countries’ authorities and through 
SECI. 

and to provide better information to communities under threat so as to avoid the tragedies 
that can occur, particularly at sea; 

At  EU  level,  information  campaigns  have  been  included  as  key  components  in  numerous 
projects in the area of migration management in various parts of the world. Projects with such 
types  of  activities  have  been  funded  through  the  Thematic  Programme  “Cooperation  with 
Third  Countries  in  the  areas  of  Migration  and  Asylum”  and  its  processor,  the  AENEAS 
Programme, for example in West Africa (Benin, Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Mali), 
Bangladesh, India, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya. 

At  national  level,  some  Member  States  reported  on  information  campaigns  targeting 
communities  under  threat  of  illegal  immigration  and/or  exploitation  in  third  states  (BE,  EE, 
EL,  ES,  IT,  PL,  PT,  FI,  UK).  The  UK,  in  Nairobi,  for  example,  reported  that  it  had  been 
working with the producers of a popular Kenyan soap opera to promote messages about the 
dangers  of  illegal  immigration.  BE  had  organised  campaigns  against  illegal  immigration  in 
North Punjab, India by means of posters, brochures, filmed documentaries, plays, etc. It also 
referred  to  an  information  campaign  in  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  and  one 
concerning  Brazilian  migrants  under  threat.  ES  set  up  an  awareness  campaign  on  illegal 
immigration in Senegal, during 2007, in collaboration with the IOM and the EU. 

Commitment: II.(f) 
instruments, to devise incentive systems to assist voluntary return 

to  invite  Member  States,  specifically  with  the  support  of  Community 

At  EU  level,  Member  States  were  encouraged  to  make  use  of  the  means  provided  by  the 
European Return Fund and to elaborate on innovative measures improving voluntary return. 
Those  measures  are  eligible  for  co-funding  up  to  75 %  under  the  priority  3  of  the  Strategic 
Guidelines for the European Return Fund. 

At  national  level,  most  Member  States  reported  that  incentive  systems  to  assist  voluntary 
return of illegally-staying immigrants were in place (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, 
FR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  LU,  HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK).  From  the  information 
provided, it appears that increasingly, Member States were providing reintegration assistance 
to  ensure  successful  and  permanent  return,  rather  than  merely  focusing  on  repatriating  the 
individual to his/her country of origin. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
The European Return Fund was also perceived as an important instrument to  finance  return 
incentives.  In  this  respect,  several  Member  States  reported  that  they  set  up  an  incentive 
system or implemented return activities with the assistance of the European Return Fund (BE, 
EL, LV, LT, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, SK). EL, for example, reported on an ongoing programme 
involving  collaboration  between  government  and  NGOs.  IT  also  cooperated  with  NGOs  as 
part  of  EU-funded  projects.  BE  indicated  that  in  2010  it  would  with  support  from  the 
European  Return  Fund  coordinate  an  evaluation  of  the  reintegration  support  offered  by 
different Member States. 

Several  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  IE,  ES,  IT,  LT,  LU,  HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK, 
UK) referred to voluntary return programmes which were set up in collaboration with/carried 
out by IOM. Some gave details on the content of these programmes (BE, CZ, DE, IE, ES, FR, 
LT,  LU,  HU,  MT,  PT,  AT,  SE,  UK).  A  few  of  these  Member  States  indicated  providing 
different types of incentives depending on the category of the potential returnee (BE, IE, FR, 
AT,  SE,  UK).  In  BE,  AT,  SE  and  the  UK,  persons  who  had  applied  for  international 
protection were also eligible for reintegration grants. The UK provides assistance mainly “in 
kind” such as education, vocational training or job placements and offers added incentives to 
Iraqi  and  Afghan  nationals  specifically  for  rebuilding  homes  destroyed  in  conflict.  FR 
differentiated  between  voluntary  and  humanitarian  return  assistance  and  referred  to  the 
provision of reintegration assistance. Reintegration assistance was also mentioned by LT, LU 
and  SK.  HU  and  SK  referred  to  measures  such  as  information  campaigns,  brochures, 
websites, and HU also to toll free phone numbers and capacity building of those who worked 
on return, whilst PL also reported on specific information measures for groups under threat of 
trafficking and exploitation. 

CY  reported  on  plans  to  establish  an  IOM  office  in  Cyprus  a  main  aim  of  which  would  be 
developing voluntary return programmes. 

Some  Member  States  reported  on  new  return  schemes  for  legally  residing  immigrants  who 
lost their job (and hence their work permit) due to the current economic crisis (CZ, ES). 

Two Member States reported on their budget for 2009 for return and reintegration assistance: 
€ 9 million (FR) and € 185 000 (LU for a specifi
c IOM project). As to the maximum amount 
of  financial  help  that  individuals  could  be  given,  FR  reported  on  € 2 000  for  a  single  adult, 
 500 from the fourth child onwards) within 
€ 3 500 for a couple and € 1 000 per minor child (€
the  context  of  voluntary  return.  Within  the  framework  of  humanitarian  return,  the  amounts 
were  limited  to  € 300  per  adult  and  € 100  per  mi nor  child.  Reintegration  assistance,  in  the 
form  of  financial  help  with  the  start  up  of  a  business  project,  was  provided  by  FR  up  to 
€ 7 000.  LU  referred  to  financial  help  gran ted  under  the  IOM  project:  a  “reintegration 
stipend” (e.g. accommodation, clothing) of maximum € 1 500 and an “additional reintegration 
stipend”  of  € 1 500  for  setting  up  an  activit y  that  generated  revenue  and  of  € 600  for  job 
search.  BE  also  reported  providing  up  to  €  2 000  for  persons  starting  a  small-scale  self-
employed activity in the country of origin. 

Many Member States provided data on the number of third-country nationals who voluntarily 
returned with assistance through nationally organised programmes in 2009 (BG, CZ, DE, EE, 
ES, FR, LU, HU, PT, UK). Figures ranged from 3 voluntarily returned in EE to 5 871 in FR 
(first 9 months of 2009). 

and to keep each other informed on this point in order to prevent the fraudulent return to the 
EU of those who receive such aid; 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
At EU level, no focused activities took place on this specific point. 

At national level, only one Member States reported on additional national measures to prevent 
abuse of voluntary return programmes (FR). The Member State had set up a computer-based 
registration  system  to  ensure  a  proper  administrative  and  financial  follow-up  of  return 
assistance, which also enabled identification of possible fraudulent returns. 

Commitment: II.(g) 
to invite Member States to take rigorous action, also in the interest of 
the immigrants, by way of dissuasive and proportionate penalties against those who exploit 
illegal immigrants (employers, etc.); 

At  EU  level,  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive  was  adopted25.  Its  aim  is  to  reduce  the 
employment pull factor for illegal immigration by ensuring that all Member States introduce 
similar  penalties  for  employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  and  enforce  the 
penalties effectively. The Directive tackles exploitation in particular by making the presence 
of  particularly  exploitative  working  conditions  one  of  the  serious  circumstances  in  which 
Member  States  must  provide  for  criminal  sanctions.  In  those  criminal  cases  Member  States 
will  be  able  to  grant  temporary  residence  permits  in  a  similar  way  as  is  already  done  for 
victims  of  trafficking.  Member  States  have  until  July  2011  to  transpose  the  Directive.  In 
October  2009,  the  Commission  organised  a  first  meeting  of  a  Contact  Committee  with 
Member States representatives in order to discuss the implementation of the Directive. 

After the end of the reporting period and following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, 
the  Commission  on  29  March  2010  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  preventing  and 
combating  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  protecting  victims,  repealing  Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA26. The proposal, building on and replacing a proposal made in 2009, 
foresees  reinforcement  of  the  system  of  prosecution  of  trafficking,  including  more  severe 
penalties,  enhancement  of  protection  of  victims'  rights,  strengthening  measures  to  prevent 
trafficking and establishing effective monitoring systems.  

At  national  level,  ES  reported  that  it  had  transposed  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive  into 
national  legislation.  Some  other  Member  States  indicated  they  were  preparing  for  its  future 
transposition.  DK  does  not  participate  in  the  Directive,  but  reported  on  national  legislation 
and  regular  inspections  of  companies.  The  UK  did  not  opt  in  to  the  Directive,  but  reported 
that its introduction of civil penalties in February 2008 meant that it had measures in place to 
deal effectively with illegal employment issues. 

Some Member States reported stepping up action in this area (BG, IT, LT, AT, PL, PT). In 
PL, since January 2009, the Border Guards were allowed to verify the legality of foreigners’ 
employment  on  the  whole  national  territory.  In  IT  and  PT,  more  severe  penalties  were 
introduced  for  those  who  exploit  illegal  immigration.  IT  introduced  legislation  penalising 
those who rent property to an illegally staying immigrant. In AT, different sanctions were in 
force  concerning  exploitation  of  illegally-staying  immigrants,  human  smuggling  and  aiding 
and  abetting  illegal  immigration.  CY  reported  on  draft  legislation  including  sanctions  on 
persons renting housing to illegally staying migrants and EL on legislation in force regarding 
sanctions on carriers and smugglers. 

25 

26 

Directive  2009/52/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  June  2009  providing  for 
minimum  standards  on  sanctions  and  measures  against  employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals, OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24. 
COM(2009) 136 final of 25 March 2009COM(2010) 95 final of 29 March 2010. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A few Member States (EL, FR, LV, LT, PL, PT) provided data relating to enforcement. As to 
the  number  of  businesses  checked  for  the  employment  of  illegally-staying  third-country 
nationals, 628 inspections were reported by LV and 1 700 by PL for 2009. In LT, 15 cases of 
employing third-country nationals illegally were detected in 2009. With regard to the number 
of  employers  or  entities  that  had  been  sanctioned  for  the  employment  of  illegally-staying 
third-country nationals, 10 were given administrative penalties in LV. In PT, 791 entities were 
penalised administratively for employing third-country nationals in an irregular situation. FR 
mentioned the submission of 17 lawsuits against employers over the period of October 2008-
October  2009  and  the  issuing  of  one  fine.  UK  referred  to  over  2 700  fines  worth  over  £ 27 
million having been issued. 

Commitment: II.(h) 
to  put  into  full  effect  the  Community  provisions  pursuant  to  which  an 
expulsion decision taken by one Member State is applicable throughout the EU, and, within 
that framework, an alert for such a decision entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) 
obliges other Member States to prevent the person concerned from entering or residing within 
their territory. 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  organised  in  the  course  of  2009  three  Contact  Committee 
meetings  with  Member  States  representatives  in  view  of  preparing  the  upcoming 
implementation of the Return Directive27 which must be transposed into national legislation 
by  24  December  2010.  At  these  meetings,  the  Commission  expressly  encouraged  Member 
States to enter alerts related to entry bans issued in accordance with the Return Directive in 
the SIS in order to give full effect to the European dimension of entry bans issued under the 
Return Directive. The Commission also reiterated its intention to use the review of the SIS II, 
envisaged  under  the  review  clause  of  Article  24(5)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1987/2006,  to 
propose  a  formal  obligation  to  register  in  the  SIS  entry  bans  issued  under  the  Return 
Directive. 

At  national  level,  some  Member  States  reported  that  they  entered  all  expulsion  decisions  in 
SIS  (FI,  IT,  HU,  MT,  ).  Other  Member  States  indicated  that  they  only  entered  part  of  their 
decisions (EE, EL, FR, LT, AT, PT, SK. SE). FR, for example, reported that their system was 
more elaborated, as it included five categories of expulsion decisions (to date, two expulsion 
decisions were entered in SIS, one concerning deportation decree and another one concerning 
a judicial territory ban). EL reported that about 20 % of its expulsion orders were entered into 
SIS  (13 452  out  of  65 339  expulsion  decisions  taken  were  entered  during  the  first  eleven 
months  of  2009)  as  they  only  entered  data  of  persons  whose  identity  they  had  been  able  to 
determine. The majority of persons were arrested without identity documents or a verifiable 
identity. 

Several  Member  States  reported  that  they  were  planning  to  make  better  use  of  Directive 
2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals 
(BE, BG, CZ, EL, FR, IT, PL). A few Member States, however, expressed their concerns with 
regard to the validity and consequences of expulsion decisions entered in SIS (SE, UK). The 
UK,  which  is  party  to  the  law  enforcement  element  of  SIS,  indicated  that  it  assessed  the 
individual situation (and any recent changes to it) of the person when Member States called 
upon it to enforce expulsion decisions. SE changed its criteria for entering expulsion decisions 

27 

Directive  2008/115/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 December  2008  on 
common  standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in  SIS,  due  to  the  potentially  serious  consequences  for  the  individual  concerned  tied  to 
entering expulsion decisions in SIS. 

A few Member States reported on the transposition of the Return Directive (BG, ES, FR, NL, 
RO, SK, SE). 

Several  Member  States  (BG,  EE,  EL,  FR,  LV,  LT,  LU,  PT)  reported  on  the  number  of 
expulsion decisions they had taken during the reporting period, ranging from 22 in LV (2009) 
to 65 339 in EL. 

III. BORDER CONTROL 

Main commitment: Make border controls more effective 

Commitment: III.(a)  invite Member States and the Commission to mobilise all their available 
resources to ensure more effective control of the external land, sea and air borders; 

At EU level, the Commission has engaged in discussions with Member States with a view to 
presenting  the  necessary  legislative  proposals  in  2010.  These  proposals  will  enhance  the 
existing  provisions  regarding  the  coordination  by  FRONTEX  of  operational  activities 
conducted  by  Member  States,  the  establishment  of  an  EU  Entry/Exit  System  and  an  EU 
Registered  Traveller  Programme.  In  order  to  clarify  the  rules  applicable  to  FRONTEX 
operations at sea and therefore to encourage Member State participation to these operations, 
the  Commission  presented  to  the  Schengen  Borders  Code  Committee  a  draft  for  a  Decision 
establishing guidelines for FRONTEX operations at sea; a proposal for a Council decision on 
such guidelines has been agreed. After the end of the reporting period, the Commission on 24 
February 2010 presented a legislative proposal to amend the FRONTEX Regulation28. 

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, 
LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, UK) reported to have increased their efforts to 
ensure  more  effective  border  controls.  At  least  two  Member  States  explicitly  linked  these 
efforts also to increased illegal immigration (EL, HU). Whilst very few referred to an increase 
in financial resources (EE, FR), several described increases in the number of staff employed 
(EL, ES, FR, IT). ES, for example, reported a 53.4 % increase in the number of police officers 
dealing with immigration and border control between 2003 and 2008. In April 2009, the UK 
launched the UK Border Agency, with 25 000 staff and a presence in 135 countries, bringing 
together  the  workforce  at  the  border  and  increasing  the  number  of  officers  dealing  with 
immigration at the border. 

Several  Member  States  implemented  measures  to  increase  the  capacity  of  existing  staff 
working  at  the  external  borders  (BE,  BG,  FR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  NL,  PT,  SI,  SK,  FI)  through 
training.  Such  training  was  provided  in  different  formats  (e.g.  ad-hoc,  workshops,  basic 
training),  including  both  theoretical  and  practical  components.  The  focus  of  the  training 
ranged  from  ‘general’  training  covering  all  aspects  of  border  control  to  training  on  very 
specific  topics,  including  detection,  detention,  use  of  (new)  equipment  and  software,  alien 
legislation,  professional  quality  standards.  The  beneficiaries  of  the  training  included  border 
guards,  detention  staff,  immigration  officials,  police  officers  and  other  relevant  personnel. 

28 

COM(2010) 61 final of 24 February 2010. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
LV, for example, tested the practical skills and capacity of the State Border Guard to organise 
border guard services and control, including detection and detention method and techniques, 
as well as the level of cooperation between territorial units. 

Other  Member  States  reported  on  the  acquisition  of  new  equipment  (ranging  from  ICT 
equipment  and  detection  devices  to  aircrafts  and  vessels)  and  the  use  of  new  technologies 
(BE, BG, CZ, EE, FR, LT, MT, PL, SI, SK, FI, UK), as well as on the renewal of the current 
border  control  system  and  the  development  of  new  systems  (IE,  EE,  LT,  PT,  SK).  SK,  for 
example, described the development of the RALEN system, which is used to detect humans at 
railway and motorway border crossing points. NL continued the Port-Related Supervision of 
Foreign  Nationals,  established  in  2008,  to  detect  illegal  entries  in  and  round  docks  in  the 
harbour and on the coastline. Many Member States referred to the use of the External Border 
Fund in increasing their capacity and know-how with regard to border control (BE, CZ, EE, 
HU, LT, PL) and to their participation in FRONTEX operations (BE, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FR, 
CY,  LV,  LT,  LU,  HU,  MT,  AT,  PL,  SK,  UK).  RO  referred  to  projects  being  developed 
through  the  Schengen  Facility.  Other  actions  of  interest  launched  by  the  Member  States  to 
reinforce external border controls include the continued involvement of BG in the Black Sea 
Border Coordination and Information Centre (BSBCIC) and the reorganisation of the Border 
Police in FR. 

Commitment: III.(b)  generalise the issue of biometric visas as from 1 January 2012 at the 
latest, as a result of the Visa Information System (VIS), 

At EU level, the technical development of the central Visa Information System (VIS) and of 
its biometric components entered the second of four testing phases in April 2009. The main 
development contractor encountered a series of technical problems during this testing phase 
mainly related to the performance of the system. Therefore, it was no longer feasible to start 
operations on 21 December 2009 as initially foreseen. A delay of approximately ten months 
should  be  anticipated.  An  updated  project  plan  of  the  central  VIS  was  presented  by  the 
Commission in January 2010. 

At  national  level,  one  Member  State  has  reported  significant  contractual  problems  with  the 
development of their national visa system. These problems will not allow this Member State 
to  be  ready  before  September  2010.  Therefore,  the  VIS  cannot  start  operations  before  that 
date.  Two  Member  States  have  also  encountered  delays  of  less  significant  nature  with  the 
development  of  their  national  systems.  The  Council  agreed  in  2005  that  the  VIS  would  be 
rolled-out on a progressive regional basis. Member States committed to endeavour completing 
the VIS roll-out worldwide within 24 months from the start of operations in the first region. 
The draft decision determining the first regions for the VIS roll-out (North Africa, Near East, 
Gulf region) was adopted by the Commission in December 2009. 

Several  Member  States  confirmed  that  they  would  implement  the  registration  of  biometric 
data for the issuing of visas in the near future (BE, CZ, EL, IT, HU, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, 
PL, PT) or were in some third countries already doing so (BG, FR). Many indicated that the 
relevant systems should be in place in 2010 and confirmed that they were focusing on the first 
regions  mentioned  in  the  draft  decision.  Some  Member  States  referred  to  preparatory 
measures, including pilot tests of the system, being planned or undertaken (BE, DK, IT, CY, 
LT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SE). 

At  least  three  Member  States  described  the  successful  testing  and  implementation  of 
biometric  visas  within  their  own  national  systems  (FR,  FI,  SE,  UK).  France  reported  that, 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
through  the  VISABIO  programme  which  covered  160  out  of  the  194  French  consulates 
authorised to deliver visas, as well as 389 border points (representing 80 % of total entry/exit 
traffic), at the end of 2009, 50 % of visas issued were expected to be biometric. While the UK 
does not participate in the VIS, it had a global visa biometric programme in place since the 
end  of  2007  which  had  so  far  enrolled  over  4  million  sets  of  fingerprints  and  detected  over 
4 000  false  identities:  all  visa  applicants  (save  a  few  who  were  exempt)  had  to  provide 
fingerprints and a digital photograph. SE reported a complete implementation of VIS within 
the national system including biometric equipment, being fully prepared for the VIS roll-out. 

Finally there have been two pilot projects of Common Visa Application Centres led by BE in 
Kinshasa (Congo) and PT in Praia (Cape Verde). 

immediately improve cooperation between Member States' consulates, 

At EU level, by allowing new forms of cooperation between Member States for the reception 
of  visa  applications  Member  States  are  to  assess  (Article  40  of  the  Community  Code  on 
Visas29)  the  possibility  of  having  recourse  to  these  different  forms  of  cooperation  before 
outsourcing the collection of visa applications to an external service provider. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  reported  on  increased  and  improved  consular 
cooperation  (DE,  EL,  CY,  LV,  LT,  AT,  PL,  FI).  In  addition,  HU  and  PL  referred  to  the 
development of a VIS pilot project also with SI in Turkey and Thailand, possibly expanding 
such cooperation to other Member States in the near future. 

pool resources as far as possible and gradually set up, on a voluntary basis, joint consular 
services for visas; 

At EU level, the Common Consular Instructions provide the necessary rules for the setting up 
of Common Visa Application Centres to be established by Member States. Financial support 
can be obtained from the External Borders Fund Community Actions for such projects. 

At national level, Member States reported on a high number of visa representation agreements 
signed with the purpose of issuing Schengen visas on behalf of other Member States (DE, EE, 
FR, LV, LT, HU, AT, PL, FI), or of having other Member States issuing such visas on their 
behalf (DE, EE, FR, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, PL, FI, SE). Some Member States confirmed that 
these had been concluded in 2009 or are being negotiated (DE, EE, LV, LTSK, SE). 

EE  indicated,  for  example,  that  it  had  concluded  visa  representations  with  11  Schengen 
Member States (DE, ES, FR, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, SI, FI) to represent EE in 79 third 
countries. The country issued visas on behalf of NL, PL, SI and FI. LV described that it was 
represented by 38 diplomatic and consular representations of five Member States. At the same 
time,  LV  itself  represented  six  other  Member  States  in  eight  of  its  diplomatic  or  consular 
representations.  FI,  in  turn,  was  being  represented  by  other  Member  States  in  57 
representations,  whilst  it  represented  other  Schengen  countries  in  a  total  of  16  places.  Visa 
representation agreements were mainly signed with other Nordic countries. FR indicated that 
it  was  represented  by  nine  Member  States  in  17  cities,  and  that  it  represented  20  other 

29 

Regulation  (EC)  No  810/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009 
establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States in the world. DE indicated that it had concluded 233 Schengen representation 
agreements with 18 Member States. 

Some Member States also referred to future plans to sign visa representation agreements (CZ, 
DE,  EE,  LT,  MT,  SE).  BG  was  examining  the  possible  recourse  to  such  arrangements.  CZ 
mentioned  that  it  had  approached  other  Member  States  with  diplomatic  or  consular 
representations  in  third  countries  where  CZ  itself  did  not  have  a  presence,  to  negotiate 
possible  representation  agreements.  DE  indicated  that  agreements  with  two  Member  States 
were about to be concluded. EE referred to consultations with FR, PL and SK. CY referred to 
a joint office with MT and discussions with HU and SI.  

for 

the  Frontex  agency,  with  due  regard 

Commitment: III.(c)  give 
the  role  and 
responsibilities  of  the  Member  States,  the  resources  to  fulfil  its  mission  of  coordinating  the 
control  of  the  external  border  of  the  European  Union,  to  cope  with  crisis  situations  and  to 
undertake, at the request of Member States, any necessary operations, whether temporary or 
permanent, in accordance, in particular, with the Council conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2008. 
In the light of the results of an evaluation of the agency, its role and operational resources 
will be strengthened and a decision may be taken to create specialised offices to take account 
of the diversity of situations, particularly for the land border to the East and the sea border to 
the  South:  creating  such  offices  should  on  no  account  undermine  the  unity  of  the  Frontex 
agency. Ultimately, the possibility of setting up a European system of border guards may be 
examined; 

At EU level, the Commission pursued its preparation of a legislative proposal to amend the 
FRONTEX Regulation30. A workshop with all Member States took place in September 2009 
to  discuss  possible  improvements  to  the  current  Regulation.  The  Commission  undertook 
consultations with interested stakeholders with a view to adopting a proposal in the beginning 
of 2010. As required by the Regulation, the FRONTEX Management Board commissioned an 
independent external evaluation on the implementation of the Regulation to examine how the 
work  of  the  Agency  could  be  improved.  The  Management  Board  thereafter  issued 
recommendations regarding changes of the Regulation. After the end of the reporting period, 
the  Commission  in  February  2010  presented  a  legislative  proposal  (see  III.(a)  above).  The 
current  legal  framework  of  the  FRONTEX  Agency  foresees  the  creation  of  specialised 
branches  of  FRONTEX.  In  February  2010  the  FRONTEX  Management  Board  decided  to 
launch a pilot project of an operational office in Piraeus. 

At national level, all Member States reported on their participation in and contributions to all 
kinds of FRONTEX-related activities. Many Member States (BE, EL, CY, LU and, within the 
limits  of  its  involvement,  UK)  expressly  highlighted  the  joint  responsibility  of  all  Member 
States to assure effective control of external borders in a spirit of solidarity. 

More particularly, Member States reported that they made resources available to FRONTEX 
in the context of CRATE (Centralised Records of Available Technical Equipment) (CZ, DK, 
DE, EE, EL, CY, PL, PT, RO, FI, UK) or deployed staff. AT, for example, delegated officers 
to the FRONTEX Focal Point Offices. SE and UK also confirmed that they had, and were still 
ready to deploy personnel to work on the activities of the agency. NL, SK and UK provided 

30 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  of  26  October  2004  establishing  a  European  Agency  for  the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European 
Union, OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
staff  for  the  delivery  of  training  courses,  for  example  in  relation  to  document  analysis  and 
return policy. Member States indicated that they had provided equipment, such as an aircraft 
(DE,  LT,  LU,  PL,  SK,  FI),  vessels  (DE,  MT),  freight  detection  equipment  (UK)  and  other 
equipment (DE, LT, NL). Some Member States (IE, NL, UK) also referred to having led the 
implementation  of  joint  operations,  such  as  joint  return  flights,  or  (EL,  CY)  actively 
participated  in  Joint  Support  Teams.  Others  reported  on  financial  resources  provided  to 
FRONTEX (SK, UK). BG, FR and UK referred to their contributions to risk analyses as part 
of the agency.  

Many Member States reported on their other forms of participation in the different activities 
and operations of FRONTEX, including the Joint Support Teams, the joint return flights and 
the  joint  operations  including  Nautilus,  Saturn,  Poseidon  and  the  RABITs  (Rapid  Border 
Intervention  Teams).  MT  reported  that  it  hosted  the  joint  operation  Nautilus  but  that 
participation  by  other  Member  States  was  limited,  and  it  considered  that  future  operations 
would benefit from wider participation. 

Support was expressed for the following changes: a reinforced obligatory use of CRATE (DE, 
AT);  creation  of  specialised  branches  for  the  land  border  to  the  East  (DE,  LV)  and  the  sea 
border  to  the  South  (EL,  CY,  LV,  MT);  continuous  evaluation  of  personnel  involved  with 
RABITs and Joint Support Teams (EL); more effective maritime borders management in the 
framework  of  joint  European  operations  (EL)  and  elaboration  of  Guidelines  relating  to 
FRONTEX operations at sea (DE). 

Commitment: III.(d)  give fuller  consideration,  in  a  spirit  of  solidarity,  to  the  difficulties  of 
those Member States subjected to disproportionate influxes of immigrants and, to that end, 
invite the Commission to submit proposals; 

At EU level, a pilot project was launched, consisting in the relocation to other Member States 
of beneficiaries of international protection currently present in Malta: see IV.(c) below. 

At national level, in addition to the pilot project further described under IV.(c) below, several 
Member States (CZ, DK, DE, EL, IT, MT, NL, SK, UK) reported on other initiatives taken. 
To  put  in  practice  the  principle  of  solidarity  and  burden  sharing,  EL,  IT,  CY  and  MT 
presented  common  initiative  combating  illegal  immigration  in  the  Mediterranean  which 
recommended actions to put an end to loss of life at sea, to tackle illegal immigration and to 
provide international protection to those who need it. CZ, NL and UK referred to a working 
group for tackling the particular pressures of illegal migration and other activities within the 
framework of GDISC. DE, LU, HU, MT, SK and UK referred to FRONTEX operations, such 
as  Nautilus,  which  involved  the  provision  of  equipment  and  the  secondment  of  staff.  DK 
referred  to  assisting  EL,  CY  and  MT  with  exchange  of  experience  on  managing  mixed 
migration flows. 

Commitment: III.(e)  deploy  modern  technological  means  to  ensure  that  systems  are 
interoperable  and  to  enable  the  effective  integrated  management  of  the  external  border,  in 
line with the conclusions of the European Council on 19 and 20 June 2008 and of the Council 
on 5 and 6 June 2008. 

At EU level, the Commission continued its preparation of proposals on the establishment of 
an EU Entry/Exit System and an EU Registered Traveller Programme providing for modern 
technological  means  which  shall  be  interoperable  with  existing  and  future  large  scale  IT 
systems. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
At  national  level,  many  Member  States  referred  to  the  deployment  of  modern  technological 
means  (described  below),  in  particular  in  view  of  the  EU  Entry/Exit  System  and  the  EU 
Registered Traveller Programme, but also to implement national initiatives aimed at rendering 
border  control  systems  effective  and  interoperable  (BG,  IE,  EE,  EL,  FR,  CY,  LV,  NL,  AT, 
PT, RO, FI, SE). 

EE,  for  example,  reported  that  it  had  set  up  an  ICT  agency  to  improve  exchanges  between 
relevant national agencies. IE mentioned that, in order to renew its border control system, new 
technological  equipment  had  been  purchased  and  put  in  place.  NL,  as  part  of  their  Border 
Management Renewal Programme, indicated that it was implementing a project on Passenger 
Related  Data  Exchange  (the  PARDEX  project),  to  enable  quicker  and  improved  collection, 
analysis  and  dissemination  of  passenger  data.  BG, as part of a pilot project, set up a Single 
Information  System  in  one  of  its  ports,  to  track  in  and  outgoing  ships  and  to  verify  their 
accompanying  documents.  PT,  which  had  been  equipped  with  an  automatic  border  control 
system (RAPID) based on the recognition of biometric data of passengers (facial) and cross-
referencing  these  with  their  biographical  data,  extended  it  in  2009  to  border  posts  of  two 
airports  in  the  Azores.  ES,  which  closely  followed  the  implementation  of  the  EUROSUR 
integrated surveillance system for external borders, deployed significant human and material 
resources  to  extend  an  effective  system  for  external  border  control  at  the  national  level, 
known  as  the  Integrated  External  Surveillance  System  (SIVE),  to  other  areas  of  the 
Mediterranean.  Also  as  part  of  EUROSUR,  RO  reported  on  the  Integrated  Surveillance 
System of the Sea Border (SCOMAR) which surveys the Black Sea. FI developed automatic 
border  checks  at  Helsinki  airport  and  started  automated  border  checks  as  a  pilot  project  at 
Vaalimaa  border  crossing  point  in  the  eastern  land  border.  FI  also  acquired  new  fingerprint 
and passport readers. Other Member States (EL, FR, LV, LT, LU, AT, SI, SK, SE) referred to 
a range of technological devices and equipment acquired for checks at border crossing points, 
including  equipment  for  scanning  and  storing  fingerprints,  hand-held  scanners,  etc.  FR,  for 
example, installed readers to control and verify the identity of persons, which also facilitated 
consultation of national databases and international police records (Interpol). LV introduced 
an automated fingerprint identification system. 

From 2012,  depending  on  the  Commission's  proposals,  the  focus  should  be  on  establishing 
electronic  recording  of  entry  and  exit,  together  with  a  fast-track  procedure  for  European 
citizens and other travellers; 

At EU level: 1. After concluding the technical feasibility study on the EU Entry/Exit System 
and EU Registered Traveller Programme, the Commission presented a consultation paper to 
Member  States  describing  technical  implementation  scenarios  for  the  systems.  Industry  was 
also  consulted  in  two  working  groups  of  the  European  Innovation  and  Research  Forum 
(ESRIF). 

An expert meeting was organized regarding the Registered Traveller Programme. Entry/Exit 
was discussed with Member States in the Council on the basis of two questionnaires prepared 
by French and Czech Council Presidencies. In order to have a comprehensive assessment of 
the impacts of establishing an Entry/Exit System, a data collection exercise was carried out at 
all external border crossing points, between 31 August and 6 September 2009, with collection 
of the number of border crossings by EU citizens and third-country nationals, visa holders and 
non visa holders. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
At  the  end  of  2009  an  additional  study  was  launched  by  the  Commission  to  analyse  and 
estimate  the  development  and  maintenance  costs  of  the  Entry/Exit  System  and  Registered 
Traveller Programme. 

2.  The  Commission  launched  a  study  under  the  European  Borders  Fund  to  analyse  the 
feasibility,  the  practical  implications  and  the  impacts  of  a  EU-wide  electronic  system  for 
travel  authorisation  (ESTA),  applicable  to  third-country  nationals  not  subject  to  the  visa 
requirement before their entry into the Schengen Area. 

At national level, several Member States made reference to preparations relevant to the future 
Entry/Exit System and the Registered Traveller Programme (CZ, IE, EE, ES, FR, IT, HU, NL, 
AT, SK, FI, UK). In a number of cases, they also reported on the development of automated 
the 
border  crossing  points,  also  often  called  ‘e-borders’,  which  should  facilitate 
implementation of the two EU initiatives. 

FI  confirmed  that  it  was  preparing  for  the  introduction  of  the  future  EU  Entry/Exit  System 
although it has had a national entry/exit system in place for a long time. Two other Member 
States (CZ, HU) indicated that they were currently examining how to establish the Entry/Exit 
system. Some Member States (EE, FR, SK) referred to the data collection exercise which was 
carried out at all external border crossing points. 

As to the Registered Traveller Programme, one Member State (NL) reported on a pilot project 
called  FLUX,  launched  in  2008.  The  project  consisted  of  the  creation  of  a  group  of  ‘bona 
fide’  frequent  travellers,  US  and  Dutch  nationals,  who,  following  registration  of  personal 
details  and  biometric  characteristics,  as  well  as  a  background  check,  should  benefit  from 
facilitated  crossing  of  the  border  points.  FI  confirmed  that  the  Border  Guards  Strategy  on 
automated border checks already took into account the future implementation of the fast-track 
procedure and registered travellers programs. 

Some Member States (ES, FR, HU, PT, FI, UK) reported on the implementation of automated 
border crossing points or e-borders, which in the future could support the Entry/Exit System 
and  fast-track  procedures.  E-borders  were  reported  to  be  in  place  in  three  Member  States, 
namely FR, FI and UK (since 2005). In FR, for example, since November 2009, 15 specific 
control points have been set up for EU citizens in Roissy and Orly airports. Twelve more will 
be added in provincial airports in 2010. Other Member States (ES, HU) were in the process of 
developing  such  systems.  NL,  with  a  project  entitled  NO-Q  included  in  their  Border 
Management Renewal Programme, used ICT to allow for automated border crossings of EU 
citizens via the national airport, Schiphol. ES aimed to introduce a national automated border 
control system for EU citizens with a biometric passport, while HU examined the possibility 
of an e-gate at the Budapest airport. 

EE  referred  to  its  participation  in  EU  working  groups  on  ESTA.  RO  referred  a  national 
system  managing  information  on  third-county  nationals  entering/exiting  the  country.  IE 
described a similar national measure, namely their Border Information System which would 
ensure that all passenger information collected by carriers prior to travel was sent to an Irish 
Border Operations Centre (I-BOC) for screening. The UK, finally, indicated that it collected 
and processed Passenger Name Records (PNR) through its e-Borders programme, which was 
considered to be similar to the Entry/Exit System. It also referred to its Automated Clearance 
System in place, which allowed eligible passengers (adult British and EEA citizens, who held 
new biometric e-Passports) to pass through immigration controls via a secure automated gate. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
Commitment: III.(f) 
intensify  cooperation  with  the  countries  of  origin  and  of  transit  in 
order  to  strengthen  control  of  the  external  border  and  to  combat  illegal  immigration  by 
increasing the European Union's aid for the training and equipping of those countries' staff 
responsible for managing migration flows; 

At  EU  level,  the  European  Commission  invited  in  July  2009  both  Turkey  and  Libya  to 
establish  a  dialogue  and  cooperation  aimed  at  jointly  managing  mixed  migration  flows 
transiting through their territories, including with the aim of preventing them  from  reaching 
the EU borders in the Mediterranean and of providing relief to the Member States located in 
that region, which are exposed to disproportionate influxes of migrants. The specific offers of 
cooperation made by the Commission to Libya have not yet been accepted by the authorities 
of the latter for discussion. The dialogue with Turkey has started, thanks in particular to the 
visit jointly carried out in Ankara on the 5 November 2009 by the Commission Vice-President 
responsible  for  migration  and  the  Swedish  Minister  for  Migration  and  Asylum  Policy 
representing  the  Council  Presidency,  as  a  result  of  which  Turkish  authorities  agreed  to 
intensify their cooperation with the EU to meet the common challenge of managing migration 
flows  and  to  tackle  irregular  migration  in  particular,  and  to  resume  the  negotiation  of  the 
readmission agreement. 

Under  the  Thematic  Programme  (TP)  “Cooperation  with  Third  Countries  in  the  areas  of 
Migration  and  Asylum”  the  EU  supports  several  projects,  which  started  in  2009,  aiming  at 
providing  assistance  in  the  fight  against  illegal  migration,  including  through  training  of  the 
competent  authorities  in  third  countries.  In  particular,  project  "MIEUX"  aims  at  providing 
third-country  authorities  with  short-term  technical  assistance  to  improve  their  capacities  to 
fight against illegal migration. 

At national level, Member States have also developed agreements, and other forms of bilateral 
and multilateral cooperation, with third countries of origin and of transit in order to strengthen 
the external border and to combat illegal immigration. 

Some  agreements  focussed  exclusively  on  border  control  and  illegal  immigration,  while  in 
others,  these  aspects  were  embedded  in  wider  cooperation  agreements,  projects  and  other 
measures  (BG,  EL,  FR,  IT,  LV,  NL,  AT,  SE,  UK),  for  example  as  part  of  readmission 
agreements, the activities of Immigration Liaison Officers (FR, NL, SE), EU-funded projects 
such as AENEAS (EL), joint operations with third countries (BG, SK), development aid (AT) 
and participation in international and EU networks and platforms, such as TAIEX and the EU 
Border  Assistance  Mission  (e.g.  EE,  LV,  LT).  These,  at  the  same  time,  also  covered  issues 
such  as  human  trafficking,  cross-border  and  organised  crime,  administrative  capacity 
building,  international  protection,  rescue  operations  and  development.  PT  emphasised  its 
cooperation with Portuguese-speaking countries in different aspects of migration management 
and  border  control,  providing  technical  assistance  and  training  trainers.  EL  referred  to  the 
need to be able to exchange information in real time (24/7) with authorities of third countries. 

Agreements and other forms of cooperation focusing exclusively on border control and illegal 
immigration included bilateral cooperation agreements with third countries (BG, EE, CY, HU, 
SK), joint projects and operations (CZ, LT, PT, FI, UK), twinning (HU, SI, FI, UK), technical 
services  and  support  (FR)  and  contacts  (DK).  Measures  included  in  these  agreements  and 
other  forms  of  cooperation  primarily  covered  capacity  building  of  border  control  and 
surveillance authorities and their operational staff in countries of origin and transit (BG, ES, 
FR IT, HU, NL, AT, RO, UK). IT, for example, reported on training of Libyan officials and 
on mutual training between Italian and Algerian police forces. NL referred to the provision of 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
advice  and  sharing  of  experiences  on  border  control  with  relevant  authorities  in  third 
countries. UK referred to the training of border guards and provision of technical equipment 
in Ethiopia. ES established specialised cooperation teams. Some Member States also deployed 
resources (IT) such as dogs, trucks, patrol boats and ICT equipment or provided other forms 
of technical support (CZ, PT). LT reported on a development cooperation project concerning 
the training of Georgian border police members and their dogs. 

Two  multilateral  forms  of  cooperation  were  mentioned.  FR  referred  to  the  Conference  of 
Interior Ministries of Occidental Mediterranean (CIMO), which included the participation of 
ES, FR, IT, MT, PT. CIMO aimed to exchange operational information on illegal migration 
and organised crime among border staff operating in the harbours of the Mediterranean. BG 
reported on the Black Sea Littoral States Border/Coast Guard Cooperation  Forum,  in which 
countries  also  exchanged  experiences.  The  Seahorse  project,  undertaken  with  FRONTEX, 
was also highlighted by some Member States (ES, FR, PT, SK). 

Commitment: III.(g)  improve  the  modalities  and  frequency  of  the  Schengen  evaluation 
process in accordance with the Council conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2008. 

At EU level, the Commission proposed on 4 March 2009 a Regulation and a Decision on the 
establishment  of  an  evaluation  mechanism  to  verify  the  correct  application  of  the  Schengen 
acquis31. While the Council welcomed the proposal in general, questions on the competences 
of  the  Member  States  within  a  modified  evaluation  mechanism  were  raised.  The  European 
Parliament rejected the proposals as they did not foresee the adoption in co-decision. These 
proposals need to be reassessed in the light of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. 

At national level, all Member States acknowledge that the Schengen evaluation process is an 
important  review  mechanism  which  needs  to  be  not  only  maintained  but  also  strengthened. 
Many  Member  States  participated  actively  in  the  discussion  of  the  Commission  proposal  in 
2009 and hope was expressed that it will be possible to achieve agreement on the basis of an 
amended Commission proposal in 2010. 

EL emphasised that any Schengen evaluation must go hand in hand with flanking support to 
those Member States which are faced with particular difficulties at their borders, based on the 
spirit of solidarity, and that exchange of know-how and best practice should be promoted 

As regards Member States not yet part of the Schengen area, BG noted that its evaluations had 
so  far  been  successful,  CY  reported  on  preparations  it  has  undertaken  for  future  Schengen 
evaluations and RO also reported on its priority to achieve accession to the Schengen area. 

IV. ASYLUM 

Main commitment: Construct a Europe of asylum 

Commitment: IV.(a)  establish in 2009 a European support office with the task of facilitating 
the exchange of information, analyses and experience among Member States, and developing 
practical  cooperation  between  the  administrations  in  charge  of  examining  asylum 
applications. That office will not have the power to examine applications or to take decisions 

31 

COM(2009) 102 final and COM(2009) 105 final of 4 March 2009. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
but will use the shared knowledge of countries of origin to help to bring national practices, 
procedures, and consequently decisions, into line with one another; 

At EU level, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation establishing the European 
Asylum Support Office (EASO) on 18 February 200932. Political agreement on the text was 
reached  by  Council  and  Parliament  in  November  2009.  EASO  will  coordinate  and  step  up 
practical  cooperation  on  asylum  between  Member  States,  so  helping  to  harmonise  different 
national practices in complement of legislation. 

The  Office  will  support  Member  States  in  their  efforts  to  implement  a  more  consistent  and 
fairer asylum policy, for example by helping to identify good practices, organising training at 
European  level  and  improving  access  to  accurate  information  on  countries  of  origin.  It  will 
also  be  responsible  for  coordinating  support  teams  made  up  of  national  experts  that  will  be 
deployed at the request of Member States faced with particular pressures. It will also provide 
scientific and technical assistance for the development of asylum policy and legislation. 

The  Office  will  be  set  up  in  the  form  of  an  agency,  an  independent  European  body.  The 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  will  be  represented  on  the  Management  Board,  which 
will  be  the  Office's  governing  body.  The  Office  will  work  closely  with  the  authorities 
responsible for asylum in the Member States and with the Office of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees. There will also be a Consultative Forum for dialogue with civil 
society organisations. 

The  Regulation  creating  the  EASO  will  be  formally  adopted  in  2010,  and  the  Office  will 
therefore  be  set  up  in  the  course  of  2010.  Its  headquarters  will  be  established  in  Valletta, 
Malta. 

At national level, Member States strongly supported the establishment of the EASO, a support 
which was essential quickly to reach a political agreement between Council and Parliament. 
SE  organised  a  seminar  in  October  2009  to  reflect  on  the  future  tasks  and  objectives  of  the 
EASO. Many Member States, notably through the GDISC network, engaged in projects which 
prepared  the  ground  for  future  EASO  activities:  the Temporary Desk on  Iraq, the  European 
Asylum Curriculum, the European Country of Origin Sponsorship, etc. 

Commitment: IV.(b)  invite the Commission to present proposals for establishing, in 2010 if 
possible and in 2012 at the latest, a single asylum procedure comprising common guarantees 
and for adopting a uniform status for refugees and the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection; 

At EU level, the Commission adopted  proposals to amend  the  Qualification  Directive33 and 
Asylum Procedures Directive34 on 21 October 200935. The aim is to offer a higher degree of 
protection to victims of persecutions and to further harmonise and consolidate substantive and 
procedural standards of protection across the Union. 

32 
33 

34 

35 

COM(2009) 66 final of 18 February 2009. 
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status 
of  third  country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who  otherwise  need 
international protection and the content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12. 
Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member 
States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13. 
COM (2009) 551 final and COM (2009) 554 final of 21 October 2009. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The proposal for the revised Qualification Directive is expected to  simplify and consolidate 
substantive  standards  of  protection  and  lead  to  enhanced  coherence  between  EU  asylum 
instruments,  thus  improving  efficiency  of  the  asylum  process.  In  particular,  the  proposal 
clarifies  certain  legal  concepts  used  to  define  the  grounds  for  international  protection.  By 
reducing room for uncertainty and administrative error, by clarifying the legal concepts and 
thus simplifying their application, the proposal strengthens the capacities of the authorities to 
deal with cases of unfounded and abusive applications and more generally to process claims 
more rapidly while reaching solid decisions at first instance. To ensure a greater uniformity of 
protection,  it  eliminates  the  differences  in  the  level  of  rights  granted  to  refugees  and 
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection which can no longer be considered as justified, such as 
the duration of residence permits, access to social welfare, health care and the labour market. 
The  specific  integration  challenges  faced  by  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  are 
addressed  by  facilitating  the  recognition  of  their  qualifications,  their  access  to  vocational 
training as well as to integration facilities. 

The proposal for the revised Asylum Procedures Directive aims at improving the coherence 
between  EU  asylum 
instruments  and  at  simplifying  and  consolidating  procedural 
arrangements  across  the  Union.  The  proposal  explicitly  provides  for  a  single  examination 
procedure,  reduces  exceptions  to  and  develops  further  common  procedural  guarantees,  and 
reinforces the capacity of asylum authorities to deliver robust decisions within the prescribed 
time  limits.  The  envisaged  list  of  common  guarantees  includes  reinforced  arrangements  on 
personal  interviews,  better  access  to  free  legal  assistance,  and  additional  guarantees  for 
applicants  with  special  needs,  such  as  victims  of  torture  or  unaccompanied  minors.  By 
frontloading services, expertise and advice, the proposal is expected to improve the quality of 
asylum decision making, thus leading to better defendability of first instance determinations 
and  reduced  recourse  to  appeals  and  subsequent  applications.  These  measures  are  also 
instrumental  in  discouraging  abuse,  improving  applicants'  compliance  with  procedural 
obligations and increasing the overall efficiency of the asylum process. 

It  is  expected  that  discussions  on  the  two  proposals  in  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament will take approximately two years. 

Commitment: IV.(c)  establish procedures, in the case of crisis in a Member State faced with 
a massive influx of asylum-seekers, to enable the secondment of officials from other Member 
States  to  help  that  State  and  the  demonstration  of  effective  solidarity  with  that  State  by 
mobilising existing EU programmes more rapidly. 

At  EU  level,  the  European  Asylum  Support  Office  basic  regulation  (see  IV.(a)  above) 
provides for a separate chapter devoted to the coordination by the Office of asylum support 
teams  made  up  of  asylum  experts  who  will  provide  operational  support  to  Member  States 
subject to strong pressures on their asylum systems. These teams should in particular provide 
expertise about interpreting services, information on the countries of origin and knowledge of 
the handling and management of asylum cases. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  (BE,  LV,  LU,  NL,  UK)  reported  having  set  up  or 
taken  part  in  initiatives  to  help  other  Member  States  facing  a  massive  influx  of  asylum 
seekers.  These  included  establishing  specific  procedures  for  such  assistance  (UK),  the 
provision of support through FRONTEX operations (LU, UK) and participation in the High 
Level Working Group on Particular Pressures within the framework of the GDISC (BE, CZ, 
NL, UK). Member States involved in the GDISC Working Group referred to the development 
of  a  Catalogue  of  Services  which  described  the  different  types  and  methods  of  practical 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
support, both onsite and from a distance, which members of this working group could offer to 
EU  Member  States  facing  particular  pressures.  One  Member  State  (NL)  indicated  that 
services  offered  within  the  GDISC  framework  ranged  from  an  interpreters’  pool  to  training 
and advice on the reception modalities and asylum procedure. 

Two Member States (NL, UK) mentioned that they had already provided practical support to 
Member States facing a massive influx of asylum seekers in 2009 (EL, CY, MT). Within the 
GDISC framework, NL and UK participated in a pilot project on particular pressures in MT. 
NL  provided  expertise  and  training  with  regard  to  medical  advice,  age  testing,  language 
analysis (to identify cases of possible ‘nationality swapping’), return and document analysis. 
UK delivered  training in language analysis. MT reported that this project offered a relevant 
form of assistance. UK, in cooperation with NL, also seconded two quality assurance officers 
to EL to provide training to the national police on asylum decision-making and on language 
analysis. In addition, CY and NL reported on a project in CY which provided advice on the 
reception of asylum seekers and on the organisation of the asylum application procedure. NL 
reported  that  discussions  were  taking  place  to  launch  a  similar  project  in  EL.  LV  indicated 
that it had not yet used the national existing procedure put in place for this purpose. 

Another  Member  State  (AT)  mentioned  its  involvement  in  practical  cooperation  with  other 
Member States’ asylum authorities by means of working visits, exchange of information and 
through institutionalised networks such as Eurasil. 

For those Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on 
their  national  asylum  systems,  due  in  particular  to  their  geographical  or  demographic 
situation, solidarity shall also aim to promote, on a voluntary and coordinated basis, better 
reallocation  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  from  such  Member  States  to  others, 
while ensuring that asylum systems are not abused. In accordance with those principles, the 
Commission,  in  consultation  with  the  Office  of  the  United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for 
Refugees where appropriate, will facilitate such voluntary and coordinated reallocation. 

At EU level, the Commission launched in June 2009 the idea of a pilot project consisting of 
the  relocation  to  other  Member  States  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  currently 
present  in  Malta.  The  June  European  Council  supported  the  project,  given  the  particular 
situation in that Member State. 

In  mid-July  Commission  officials  visited  Malta  to  meet  all  the  stakeholders  and  learn  from 
past  and  current  experiences  (notably  a  project  between  France  and  Malta  that  led  to  the 
relocation to France of 95 beneficiaries of international protection). The United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) participated in this mission. 

In  mid-September  some  Member  States  declared  their  intention  to  relocate  beneficiaries  of 
international protection from Malta. The Commission reported to the September JHA Council 
on  this  matter  and  asked  for  more  Member  States  to  get  involved.  The  European  Council 
conclusions of 30 October 2009 noted the launch of the pilot project and urged more Member 
States to participate in the project. By the end of 2009, ten Member States (DE, FR, HU, LU, 
PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK) had declared their intention to join the pilot project and to relocate 
about 255 beneficiaries of international protection. 

In  parallel  to  the  pilot  project,  a  research  study  had  been  launched  to  look  at  all  the 
implications and impacts of relocation at EU level. Results should be available in the summer 
of 2010. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
At  national  level,  some  Member  States  reported  that  their  asylum  systems  were  under 
particular  pressure  (EL,  CY,  MT).  Another  Member  State  (BE)  reported  a  saturation  of  its 
reception  centres  for  asylum  seekers  due  to  a  structural  lack  of  capacity.  The  common 
initiative of EL, IT, CY and MT on combating illegal immigration in the Mediterranean (see 
III.(d) above) urged other Member States to consider relocating beneficiaries of international 
protection  from  Member  States  facing  specific  and  disproportionate  pressures  due  to  their 
geographical  or  demographic  circumstances.  CY  recalled  its  support  for  relocation  but 
indicated it had no agreements or contacts with other Member States as regards relocation. 

In  2009,  DE  and  FR  provided  support  to  MT  by  voluntarily  relocating  beneficiaries  of 
international protection. DE relocated 11 beneficiaries of international protection as part of a 
bilateral agreement, while FR relocated 95 beneficiaries of international protection, as part of 
a project co-financed by the European Refugee Fund Community Actions. 

As  regards  the  intra-EU  relocation  pilot  project  to  be  implemented  in  2010  concerning 
beneficiaries of international protection currently in Malta, in addition to the ten participating 
Member  States  (indicated  above)  other  Member  States  (BE,  BG)  reported  that  their 
participation in the pilot project was being discussed. MT reported that the participation of ten 
Member  State  was  welcome  but  that  wider  participation  would  have  given  it  a  more  truly 
European dimension and considered that further intra-EU relocation, beyond the pilot project, 
is required. 

DK  stated  that  it  does  not  support  relocation  between  Member  States,  considering  that  this 
might  constitute  a  pull  factor;  instead  it  considered  solidarity  should  take  place  through 
FRONTEX,  the  EASO  (see  IV.(a)  above),  other  practical  cooperation  and  the  solidarity 
funds; LT supported that position. 

Specific  funding  under  existing  EU  financial  instruments  should  be  provided  for  this 
reallocation, in accordance with budgetary procedures; 

At  EU  level,  the  relocation  pilot  project  with  Malta  to  be  implemented  in  2010  could  be 
financed with resources from the European Refugee Fund (ERF) Community Actions (2009 
budget). The 2008 budget of the ERF Community Actions provided about € 700 000 for the 
French  project  which  led  to  the  relocation  to  France  of  95  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection in July 2009. 

At national level, Member States also referred to the usefulness of accessing EU funding for 
relocation projects. FR in particular mentioned that its 2009 relocation project under the ERF 
Community Actions received up to 90 % co-financing. 

Commitment: IV.(d)  strengthen  cooperation  with  the  Office  of  the  United  Nations  High 
Commissioner for Refugees to ensure better protection for people outside the territory of EU 
Member States who request protection, in particular by: 

– 

moving,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  towards  the  resettlement  within  the  EU  of  people 
placed  under  the  protection  of  the  Office  of  the  UNHCR,  particularly  as  part  of 
regional protection programmes; 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
At EU level, the Commission adopted on 2 September 2009 a proposal for the establishment 
of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme36. This proposal consisted of a Communication and a 
proposal  for  a  Decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  amending  Decision 
573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund. The aims of the Joint EU Resettlement 
Programme are (1) further to strengthen the humanitarian impact of the EU by ensuring that it 
continues  to  give  greater  and  better  targeted  support  to  international  protection  of  refugees 
through  voluntary  resettlement,  (2)  to  enhance  the  strategic  use  of  resettlement  by  ensuring 
that it is properly integrated into the Union's external and humanitarian policies generally, and 
(3)  to  better  streamline  the  EU's  resettlement  efforts  so  as  to  ensure  that  the  benefits  are 
delivered  in  the  most  cost-effective  manner.  The  Programme  will  primarily  consist  of  a 
mechanism  which  allows  for  the  setting  of  common  annual  priorities  on  resettlement  and 
more effective use of the financial assistance available through the ERF "pledging" exercise. 
This will be complemented by strengthened practical cooperation, enhanced effectiveness of 
external asylum policies and a regular evaluation of the Joint Resettlement Programme. 

The Joint EU Resettlement Programme will also consist of strengthened practical cooperation 
with  respect  to  resettlement  within  the  EU.  This  will  involve  both  the  governments  of 
Member States, as well as NGOs and will be carried out in close cooperation with UNHCR. 
The  European  Asylum  Support  Office  basic  regulation  (see  IV.(a)  above)  contains  separate 
provisions providing for practical cooperation on resettlement. 

At national level, an increasing number of Member States reported having resettled refugees 
from different regions of the world, nearly in all cases in cooperation with UNHCR. Particular 
importance was attached to the resettlement of Iraqis after the Council agreed in November 
2008 to resettle about 10 000 of them in the EU. In 2008 and 2009, BE, DK, DE, EI, IT, FR, 
LU, NL, PT, FI, SE and UK resettled Iraqis. RO set up with UNHCR an Evacuation Transit 
Facility, and SK temporarily hosted refugees to be resettled elsewhere. Some Member States 
established for the first time resettlement programmes (RO, PT, FR) or started a reflection on 
establishing them (HU, SK). 

Some Member States reported having resettlement programmes in place in cooperation with 
UNHCR  (CZ,  DK,  IE,  FR,  LU,  NL,  FI,  SE,  UK).  BE  established  a  pilot  project  for  the 
resettlement of refugees in 2009 and HU planned to run one in 2010 within the framework of 
its Annual Program 2010 of the European Refugee Fund. 

The  size  of  the  annual  quota  of  persons  accepted  for  resettlement  varies  from  one  Member 
State to another (e.g. on an annual basis, SE resettles about 1900 persons, DK resettles about 
500 persons, IE accepted 200 persons, FR dealt with hundreds of cases and FI and UK each 
referred to 750 resettled persons). Some Member States (e.g. BE and IE) indicated that they 
favoured  the  resettlement  of  particular  categories  of  vulnerable  refugees  in  line  with  the 
UNHCR resettlement criteria (e.g. BE referred to women at risk and FI mentioned refugees 
with medical needs). 

As  to  future  measures,  a  few  Member  States  indicated  that  they  were  considering  their 
potential involvement in resettlement activity (BG, PL), while others stated that they did not 
plan to take part in resettlement activities in the near future (EE, LV, AT). BE and HU both 
reported  that  they  were  considering  taking  further  steps  for  the  establishment  of  a  national 
resettlement  programme, on  the basis of the results of the pilot projects in which they were 

36 

COM(2009) 447 final and COM(2009) 456 final of 2 September 2009. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
currently participating (BE) or which they were planning (HU). CY and MT indicated that the 
specific  and  disproportionate  pressures  in  their  own  systems  meant  they  were  for  the  time 
being only in a position to participate as observers in EU efforts. 

– 

inviting  the  Commission,  in  liaison  with  the  Office  of  the  UNHCR,  to  present 
proposals for cooperation with third countries in order to strengthen the capacities 
of their protection systems; 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  informed  the  Member  States  on  the  results  of  an  external 
evaluation  of  the  Regional  Protection  Programmes  (RPPs)  and  put  forward  a  first  set  of 
recommendations  for  their  improvement.  As  an  overall  assessment  of  RPPs,  the  evaluation 
report concludes that, based on the evidence and stakeholder views, the concept of a RPP has 
constituted  a  first  and  successful  step  towards  establishing  a  mechanism  to  increase  the 
capacity of areas which are close to regions of origin, or which are areas of transit, to protect 
refugees through the three durable solutions, namely Repatriation, Local integration and / or 
Resettlement. The evaluation  has  also proposed some improvements for the  implementation 
of  RPPs,  which  relate  mostly  to  the  management  of  RPPs,  the  available  resources,  the 
engagement of authorities of third countries and, finally, the strengthening of resettlement to 
Europe.  The  Commission  has  proposed  to  continue  the  current  RPPs  in  Tanzania  and 
Ukraine/Belarus/Republic of Moldova and to extend RPPs to two new regions, namely North 
Africa  (Egypt,  Libya,  Tunisia)  and  the  Horn  of  Africa  (neighbouring  countries  of  Somalia, 
namely Kenya, Djibouti and Yemen). 

The Commission has started discussions with UNHCR on the possible components of these 
RPPs. The authorities of the beneficiary countries will be involved in these discussions at an 
early stage as well. Within the context of the High Level Working Group of the Council, an 
EU mission visited Kenya in December 2009, inter alia to discuss how RPPs can contribute to 
strengthen the asylum capacity in Kenya. 

The  EU  also  supports  through  the  Thematic  Programme  (TP)  “Cooperation  with  Third 
Countries in the areas of Migration and Asylum” several other projects, which also started in 
2009,  proposed  and  implemented  by  other  international  organisations,  as  well  as  non-
governmental organisations, which aim at improving the legal and social protection of asylum 
seekers  and  refugees,  at  monitoring  safe  and  dignified  return  and  at  strengthening  reception 
capacities. Support to actions in the area of asylum and refugee protection remains a priority 
in the TP call for proposals 2009-2010. 

At national level, Member States considered that this commitment was the  responsibility of 
the  Commission.  Some  of  them  (UK)  reported  on  how  they  supported  Regional  Protection 
Programmes in third countries such as Ukraine. 

invite  the  Member  States  to  provide  the  personnel  responsible  for 
Commitment: IV.(e) 
external  border  controls  with  training  in  the  rights  and  obligations  pertaining  to 
international protection. 

At EU level, FRONTEX has provided training to Member States’ border guards with regard 
to  human  rights  and  refugee  law.  In  its  proposal  for  a  Council  decision  as  regards  the 
surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of FRONTEX coordinated operations37 

37 

COM(2009) 658 final of 27 November 2009. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the Commission proposed that border guards participating in FRONTEX maritime operations 
should  be  trained  with  regard  to  relevant  provisions  of  human  rights  and  refugee  law.  The 
Schengen Catalogue updated by the Council in March 2009 recommends the development of 
specialized and advanced courses for border guards on human rights and dealing with asylum 
seekers. 

At  national  level,  almost  all  Member  States  confirmed  that  they  were  providing  training  to 
personnel  responsible  for  external  border  control  on  international  protection  and  protection 
sensitivity (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, 
FI, SE, UK) or had prepared a training plan (BG, RO). 

With  regard  to  the  categories  of  staff  trained,  most  Member  States  referred  to  training  of 
border officials (BE, CZ, EE, EL, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK). 
Others mentioned the training of other officials involved in field of asylum and immigration 
(FR,  IE,  MT,  AT,  SK,  SE),  such  as  immigration  officers  (IE),  immigration  police  (MT), 
national police (SE), detention centre staff (FR, MT, SK) and asylum department staff (SK). 
Other groups mentioned included NGOs, social workers and lawyers (EL). One Member State 
(ES)  stated  that  all  public  employees  and  others  working  with  applicants  for  international 
protection, refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection should receive proper training, 
as stipulated in national asylum law. The content of the training varies, covering issues such 
as rights and obligations under international protection (FR, NL, PT), fundamental rights (DE, 
LT, HU, MT, PT, SE, UK), asylum law (FR, IT, LT, HU, PT, SK), detention (SK), reception 
conditions  (EL),  profiling  and  risk  analysis  when  conducting  border  monitoring  (LT)  and 
cooperation with representatives of the third sector (SK). Several Member States referred to 
the involvement of UNHCR in the delivery of training (BE, DE, IE, LT, HU, PT, SK), while 
two Member States (BE, DE) referred to FRONTEX Border Guard training programmes. FI 
has implemented fully the European Common Core Curriculum (CCC) for border guards in 
its  training  programs.  CCC  includes  all  necessary  aspects  of  fundamental  rights  and 
international protection. 

BG  reported  on  a  tripartite  memorandum  of  understanding  between  the  Chief  Directorate 
“Border Police” of the Ministry of Interior, the UNHCR Office in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian 
Helsinki Committee. 

V. GLOBAL APPROACH TO MIGRATION 

Main commitment: Create a comprehensive partnership with the countries of origin and of 
transit to encourage the synergy between migration and development 

Commitment: V.(a) 
conclude EU-level or bilateral agreements with the countries of origin 
and  of  transit  containing,  as  appropriate,  clauses  on  the  opportunities  for  legal  migration 
adapted  to  the  labour  market  situation  in  the  Member  States,  the  control  of  illegal 
immigration, readmission, and the development of the countries of origin and of transit; 

At EU level, the Mobility Partnership with Georgia was signed on 30 November. 16 Member 
States participate: BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, FR, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, RO, SE, UK. The 
Partners support information campaigns on the ways of legal entry and stay to the EU and its 
Member States. Several Member States also support labour migration programs. The ongoing 
Mobility Partnership with the Republic of Moldova (signed by BG, CZ, DE, EL, FR, IT, CY, 
LT, HU, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, SE) includes several actions on facilitation of legal migration, 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
most notably the flagship project led by SE with 12 Member States, which provides capacity 
building to National Employment Agency, provides for information campaigns on the ways of 
legal  entry  and  stay  to  the  EU  and  its  Member  States.  Several  Member  States  also  support 
labour migration programs. 

The ongoing Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde (signed by ES, FR, LU, NL, PT) contains 
several  actions  aiming  at  the  facilitation  of  legal  migration.  One  of  the  initiative  aims  at 
reinforcing the Centre on Migration Information and Reintegration (CAMPO) in order inter 
alia to provide information on legal migration possibilities and promote return of migrants to 
Cape Verde. Other initiatives include improving security of travel documents and promoting 
the role of diaspora. Some Member State (FR, PT) participating in the Mobility Partnership 
have signed bilateral agreements that include provisions on labour migration. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  reported  on  their  participation  in  the  Mobility 
Partnership with the Republic of Moldova (BG, CZ, DE, EL, IT, CY, LT, HU, PL, PT, RO, 
SI, SK, SE), Georgia (BE, BG, DK, EE, FR, LV, SE) and Cape Verde (ES, LU, PT). As to 
future  measures,  one  Member  State  (LT)  also  mentioned  its  intention  to  participate  in  the 
Mobility Partnership with Georgia. 

Two  Member  States  mentioned  the  setting  up  of  new,  more  comprehensive  and  integrated 
agreements  regulating  legal  migration,  the  fight  against  illegal  immigration,  cooperation  to 
development  and  integration  (ES:  Framework  Agreements  for  Cooperation  on  Immigration; 
FR:  Agreement  related  to  Concerted  Management  of  Migration  Flows).  These  agreements 
included provisions concerning the movement of persons and students, labour migration, the 
fight  against  illegal  immigration  (i.e.  readmission  provisions  and  police  cooperation)  and 
development 
reintegration,  development  projects  with 
underdeveloped  regions).  ES  had  signed  these  new  agreements  with  six  countries  (Cape 
Verde, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Mali and Niger), while FR had concluded these with 
nine  countries  (Gabon,  Benin,  Congo,  Senegal,  Tunisia,  Mauritius,  Cape  Verde,  Burkina 
Faso,  Cameroon)  and  was  negotiating  with  three  other  countries  (Mali,  Egypt,  Equatorial 
Guinea). 

(i.e.  social  and  economic 

RO  referred  to  a  series  of  agreements  with  the  Republic  of  Moldova  that  it  has  signed  (on 
local  border  traffic)  or  would  like  to  sign  (on  cooperation  on  immigration  and  asylum,  on 
protocol for the EU readmission agreement and on a Joint Contact Centre). 

Under  this  commitment,  many  Member  States  referred  to  bilateral  agreements  with  third 
countries  which,  however,  did  not  necessarily  reflect  the  concept  of  an  integrated  and 
comprehensive approach, such as readmission agreements (BE, EE, FI, IT, CY, LU, AT, UK), 
police  cooperation  agreements  (AT),  visa  facilitation  agreements  (AT),  memorandum  of 
understanding on labour mobility (DK), agreements on labour migration (BG, IT), agreements 
to  combat  illegal  immigration  (CY,  HU)  and/or  agreements  or  pilot  projects  related  to 
temporary migration (LT, PT). PT reported on a 2009 protocol proposal for admitting Cape 
Verdeans  for  temporary  or  permanent  subordinate  professional  activities,  as  well  as 
professional internships, within the framework of the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde. 
EL  reported  on  its  involvement  in  an  AENEAS  project  focusing  on  readmission  and 
reintegration  in  Albania.  DE  reported  on  a  draft  framework  agreement  on  cooperation  in 
migration issues with Ghana. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
the European Council invites the Member States and the Commission to inform and consult 
each  other  on  the  objectives  and  limits  of  such  bilateral  agreements,  and  on  readmission 
agreements; 

At  EU  level,  In  September  2009,  Commission  issued  its  Staff  Working  Document  on  the 
evaluation  of  the  pilot  Mobility  Partnerships.  The  Member  States  were  consulted  in  the 
process of preparation of the document during two expert meetings. 

At  national  level,  DK  reported  that  it  provides  general  information.  CY  reported  that  it 
informs  other  Member  States  and  the  Commission  including  during  Schengen  evaluation 
procedures. RO note that it had sent its draft local border traffic agreement with the Republic 
of Moldova to the Commission for an opinion. 

Commitment: V.(b) 
encourage Member States, as far as they are able, to offer the nationals 
of partner countries to the East and South of Europe opportunities for legal immigration 
adapted to the labour market situation in Member States, enabling those nationals to acquire 
training or professional experience and accumulate savings that they can use for the benefit 
of their home countries. 

At  EU  level,  the  Mobility  Partnerships  negotiated  by  the  Commission  include  the  three 
priority  areas  of  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  (legal  migration,  illegal  migration  and 
migration/development).  The  Mobility  Partnership  with  Georgia  (see  V.(a)  above)  includes 
support  for  information  campaigns  on  the  ways  of  legal  entry  and  stay  to  the  EU  and  its 
Member States. Several Member States also support labour migration programs. The ongoing 
Mobility  Partnership  with  the  Republic  of  Moldova  (see  V.(a)  above)  also  includes  several 
actions on facilitation of legal migration, most notably the flagship project led by SE with 12 
Member States, which provides capacity building to the National Employment Agency, and 
information campaigns on the ways of legal entry and stay to the EU and its Member States. 
In  this  framework  circular  migration  and  planned  return  migration  is  promoted.  Social 
remittances  are  also  the  focus  in  the  programme  of  special  training  for  Moldovan  workers 
abroad. Several Member States also support labour migration programs. 

At national level, to ensure that nationals of partner countries to the East and South of Europe 
had  opportunities  for  legal  migration,  two  types  of  approach  were  identified  amongst  the 
Member  States  reporting  on  this  commitment  (BG,  DK,  DE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  LT,  HU,  PL, 
SE). One group of Member States referred implicitly to and/or repeated their national labour 
policy,  as  described  under  I.(a)  above,  as  offering  specific  opportunities  for  citizens  from 
countries  in  East  and  South  Europe  (EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  PL,  SE).  One  Member  State  (IT) 
reported on the establishment of preferred entry quotas for citizens from certain countries of 
East  and  South  Europe  (e.g.  Republic  of  Moldova,  Albania)  and  another  (EL)  mentioned 
agreements favouring labour migration of seasonal workers (e.g. Albania and Egypt). Other 
Member States reported on their labour migration policy which facilitated the recruitment and 
work possibilities of foreigners in general (DK, SE) and from specific countries (i.e. Ukraine, 
Belarus, Russian Federation, Republic of Moldova) (PL) on their territory. One Member State 
(LT)  reported  on  the  existence  of  policy  guidelines  which  gave  priority  to  highly-skilled 
workers  from  source  countries  (i.e.  Belarus,  Ukraine,  Republic  of  Moldova  and  South 
Caucasus countries). 

A second group of Member States referred to initiatives and/or projects developed within the 
framework of the Mobility Partnership with the Republic of Moldova (BG, DE, HU), which 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
encouraged  the  legal  migration  of  Moldovans  by  providing  them  with  information  on 
opportunities for legal migration (HU). 

FR  also  reported  on  the  negotiation  of  agreements  related  to  mobility  of  young  people  and 
labour migration with countries of East and South Europe (e.g. the former Yugoslav Republic 
of  Macedonia,  Montenegro,  Serbia  and  Russia).  ES  mentioned  the  signature  of  Agreements 
regulating  and  managing  Employment  Migration  Flows  (e.g.  with  Morocco,  Mauritania, 
Ukraine)  which  offered  seasonal  and  stable  legal  migration  opportunities.  Finally,  HU 
referred to trans-border cooperation to favour legal migration of ethnic national communities 
living in adjacent countries. 

The European Council invites Member States to encourage in this context forms of temporary 
or circular migration, in order to prevent a brain drain; 

At EU level, under the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the EU supports several projects, which started in 2009, aiming at 
promoting  circular  migration  schemes,  including  a  project  fostering  the  bonds  between  the 
Ghanaian  diaspora  and  their  communities  of  origin,  by  making  their  remittances  more 
effective and promoting circular migration for the development of the private sector in Ghana. 
Support  to  circular  migration  schemes  remains  a  priority  in  the  Thematic  Programme’s  call 
for proposals 2009-2010. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  set  up  projects  and/or  agreements  encouraging 
temporary or circular migration (ES, FR, NL, PT) or indicated that they were planning to do 
so  (SE,  UK).  IT  reported  that  it  has  for  several  years  has  addressed  this  issue  by  providing 
significant quota of seasonal workers (80 000 in 2009). 

Two  Member  States  (ES,  FR)  referred  to  the  new,  more  comprehensive  and  integrated 
agreements  (see  V.(a) above)  which  favoured temporary and circular migration, including a 
commitment  to  return.  FR  provided  the  example  of  specific  provisions  aimed  at  facilitating 
entry of young nationals from signatory countries, offering them the possibility to have their 
first  professional  experience  in  France  in  view  of  increasing  their  employability  in  their 
country of origin once returned. 

In  addition,  NL  mentioned  the  launch  of  a  pilot  project  on  circular  migration  aimed  at 
encouraging trained labour migrants from Indonesia and South Africa to work and learn in the 
Netherlands  for  a  maximum  of  two  years.  The  project  included,  for  example,  measures  to 
facilitate  the  recognition  of  skills  and  competences  acquired  in  the  Netherlands,  in  order  to 
favour return and reintegration in the home countries. EE also indicated the simplification of 
legal requirements to work in Estonia as a short term temporary migrant. PT referred to a pilot 
project which offered Ukrainian citizens the opportunity to work for six months in Portugal in 
very  specific  sectors  of  the  economy  (i.e.  hotel,  agriculture  and  restaurant)  on  a  temporary 
visa.  The  project  included  reintegration  support  measures  for  those  migrants  returning  to 
Ukraine, such as the set up of professional projects. 

As  to  future  measures,  LU  reported  on  a  provision  related  to  circular  migration  within  the 
framework of the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde and on the possibility to activate it in 
the  future.  SE  mentioned  the  creation  of  a  parliamentary  committee  to  explore  and  propose 
measures to facilitate circular migration. UK indicated its intention to develop the concept of 
circular migration. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
Commitment: V.(c)  pursue  policies  of  cooperation  with  the  countries  of  origin  and  of 
transit in order to deter or prevent illegal immigration, in particular by capacity-building in 
those countries; 

At EU level, a number of projects in third countries aim to support capacity building in the 
fight  against  irregular  migration,  funded  both  under  thematic  and  under  geographic 
instruments. One such example is the project Seahorse Cooperation Centres, which promotes 
and  encourages  interregional  cooperation  (Maghreb-Sub-Saharan  Africa),  collaboration  and 
dialogue  on  the  management  of  migratory  flows,  including  transit  and  migration,  by 
networking  Immigration  Authorities.  Another  example  is  the  project  MIEUX,  a  facility 
aiming to provide short-term technical assistance to third countries to help them prevent and 
manage  illegal  migration.  Assistance  to  third  countries  in  the  fight  against  illegal  migration 
remains a priority in the Thematic Programme’s call for proposals 2009-2010. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  reported  that  they  supported  capacity  building  in 
third countries, including countries of origin and/or countries of transit (BE, BG, DK, DE, EL, 
ES, FR, IT, CY, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, FI, SE, UK). Some of the reported capacity 
building and cooperation measures with third countries included assistance to border control 
authorities, which have been listed under III.(f) above. 

Commitment: V.(d) 
integrate  migration  and  development  policies  more  effectively  by 
examining how such policies may benefit the regions of origin of immigration, in coherence 
with other aspects of development policy and the Millennium Development Goals. 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  published  in  September  2009  a  Communication  on  Policy 
Coherence  for  Development  -  Establishing  the  policy  framework  for  a  whole-of-the-Union 
approach38  with  an  accompanying  report  that  included  a  chapter  on  the  coherence  of 
migration  policy  with  development  policy.  The  Council  adopted  Conclusions  on  how  to 
enhance synergies between migration and development on that basis in November 2009. 

At national level, several Member States stressed the importance of integrating migration into 
development policies (BE, BG, DE, FR, IT, MT, NL, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK). 

DK  and  DE  reported  that  they  played  active  roles  in  the  EU  cooperation  platform  on 
migration  and  development  in  Ethiopia.  FR  referred  to  its  new,  more  comprehensive  and 
integrated agreements (see V.(a) above), to an agreement with the African Development Bank 
to set up a fund to improve transfers to and investments in migrants’ countries of origin and to 
the Rabat action plan and the development of a three-year operational cooperation programme 
for 2009-2011, which included various measures to enhance the synergies between migration 
and development. UK referred to its policy guidelines of 2007, which included guidance on 
remittances,  and  its  general  policy  on  reducing  poverty  in  developing  countries  through 
enhancing the link between migration and development.  

BE,  BG,  DK,  HU,  AT,  SK,  FI,  SE  and  UK  indicated  that  their  development  framework  / 
strategies took into account the migration and development nexus. BE, PT and FI reported on 
the importance of enhancing the synergies between  migration  and  development  and  of  their 
active role in the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). In this respect, BE 
organised  the  first  GFMD  in  2007  and  EL  the  third  GFMD  in  2009.  FI  reported  that  it 

38 

COM (2009) 458 final of 15 September 2009. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
seconded  its  first  liaison  officer  to  the  Finnish  embassy  in  Addis  Ababa,  Ethiopia  in  2009, 
whose  terms  of  reference  included  migration  and  development  issues.  RO  reported  that  its 
national  development  assistance  budget  include  co-financing  of  projects  in  the  field  of 
migration. 

Some  Member  States  reported  that  they  planned  to  integrate  migration  further  into  their 
development cooperation policies (NL, ES). NL, for example, reported that it was interested 
in  further  developing  cooperation  with  third  countries  on  circular  migration,  whilst  ES  was 
including migration issues into the strategies of its decentralised development agencies. 

The  European  Council  invites  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  this  context  to  focus, 
within the sectoral priorities identified with the partner countries, on solidarity development 
projects that raise the living standards of citizens, for example in the areas of nutrition, health 
care, education, vocational training and employment; 

At  EU  level,  the  EU  delivers  over  a  half  of  development  assistance  in  the  world,  thus 
contributing  to  address  the  root  causes  of  migration.  The  Commission  aims  in  particular  to 
insert migration issues in its cooperation programmes with third countries as well as through 
specific instruments such as the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in 
the areas of Migration and Asylum” as well as through geographical instruments such as the 
EDF and the ENPI. Through the Thematic Programme in particular, the EU funds numerous 
projects  fostering  the  links  between  migration  and  development  such  as  an  EU-UN  Joint 
Migration  and  Development  Initiative,  managed  by  UNDP  and  aiming  at  building  the 
capacity  and  providing  a  platform  to  facilitate  stronger  networking  and  knowledge  sharing 
among small size actors working on migration and development issues and at facilitating the 
development  and  dissemination  of  global  best  practices  in  migration  and  development,  a 
project with the World Bank aiming at supporting the establishment of the Africa Remittances 
Institute, which will have as its core objective the capacity building of Member States of the 
African  Union,  remittance  senders  and  recipients,  private  sector,  universities,  and  other 
stakeholders, to develop and implement strategies to use remittances as development tools, as 
well as a project whose overall objective is to promote an effective management of migration 
flows of doctors and nurses between Latin American and the EU. 

At national level, several Member States referred to solidarity development projects with third 
countries (BG, DK, ES, FR, IT, LU, MT, PT, FI, SE). Some of these projects related to health 
care  (FR,  LU,  SE)  and  water  and  sanitation  (FR,  MT),  while  other  projects  focused  on 
education (ES, LU, MT), vocational training (ES,  FR,  LU),  employment (LU, FI) and local 
development (LU). CY reported that its development assistance focused on health, education, 
nutrition and employment. ES reported on other solidarity cooperation projects in the field of 
strengthening institutions in third countries and providing  support to vulnerable  groups.  DK 
referred to its Region Of Origin Initiative. 

Commitment: V.(e)  promote  co-development  actions  that  enable  migrants  to  take  part  in 
the development of their home countries. 

At EU level, under the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the EU supports several projects, which started in 2009, aiming at 
targeted  project  on  migration  and 
promoting  co-development  actions, 
including  a 
the  creation  of  businesses  in  Morocco  by 
development  of  € 15 million,  a  project  supporting 
members of the Moroccan diaspora in Europe and a project which supports the investment of 
Senegalese  migrants  in  Italy  in  their  country  of  origin.  Support  to  the  involvement  of 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
diasporas  in  the  development  of  their  country  of  origin  remains  a  priority  in  the  Thematic 
Programme’s call for proposals 2009-2010. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  reported  on  their  involvement  in  co-development 
actions  aimed  at  enabling  migrants  to  take  part  in  the  development  of  their  home  countries 
(DE, ES, FR, IT, LU, HU, AT, PT). 

Some Member States (DE, AT) referred to their involvement in research studies and projects 
aimed at maximising the investment of remittances in the development of countries of origin, 
such  as  creating  and  strengthening  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises.  ES  also  financed 
projects in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa focusing on the effective use of migrant 
remittances  as  an  instrument  for  generating  employment  and  promoting  local  development 
and  social  integration.  Other  Member  States  (ES,  FR)  mentioned  their  cooperation,  for 
example  through  co-development  projects,  with  migrant  associations  in  order  to  help 
improving living conditions in the region and/or countries the latter represented. LU referred 
to cooperation  with  certain Balkan states and regions to enable  rejected asylum-seekers and 
returned persons to take part in the development of their own countries. 

In  addition,  two  Member  States  (DE,  HU)  referred  to  projects  developed  within  the 
framework of the Mobility Partnership with the Republic of Moldova, aimed at strengthening 
the link between the Moldovan diaspora and its home country and promoting co-development 
projects.  RO  reported  school  and  university  scholarships  for  Moldovan  citizens.  Two  other 
Member States (LU, PT) mentioned projects developed within the framework of the Mobility 
Partnership with Cape Verde, aimed at developing the sector of micro-finance by mobilising 
savings  of  the  Cape  Verdean  diaspora  and/or  by  involving,  in  a  more  general  way,  the 
diaspora in the development of its country of origin. 

The  European  Council  recommends  that  Member  States  support  the  adoption  of  specific 
financial  instruments  for  transferring  migrants'  remittances  securely  and  more  cheaply  to 
their countries for the purposes of investment and welfare insurance; 

At EU level, under the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the EU is co-funding several projects, which started in 2009 and 
which aim to contribute to improved capacities of immigrant associations from Sub-Saharan 
countries based in the EU to actively support the development of their countries of origin and 
to  enable  micro-finance  institutions  to  facilitate  the  transfer  of  migrant  remittances  to  their 
countries of origin in a safer and cheaper manner. Support to actions aiming at facilitating the 
transfer of migrant remittances to their countries of origin remains a priority in the Thematic 
Programme’s call for proposals 2009-2010. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  developed  initiatives  aiming  at  facilitating  the 
transfer of migrants’ remittances to their country of origin (DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, NL, PT, UK). 

Some  Member  States  helped  to  establish  websites  to  improve  clarity  and  transparency  of 
information  on  remittances.  These  websites  allow  migrants  to  identify  which  financial 
institution offers the most favourable conditions for the transfer of money to their respective 
home  countries  (DE,  FR,  IT,  NL,  PT,  UK).  At  least  one  Member  State  (ES)  signed 
agreements of intention with banks to reduce the costs of sending remittances. 

In addition, FR, IT and UK reported on their participation in global initiatives on remittances, 
such as those of the G8 and the World Bank. FR referred to its agreement with the African 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
Development  Bank  to  set  up  a  fund  to  improve  transfers  to  and  investments  in  migrants’ 
countries  of  origin.  In  the  context  of  a  November  2009  conference  organised  under  its 
presidency of the G8, IT indicated its intention to reduce costs of remittances from the current 
10 % to 5 % within 5 years (the so-called 5 x 5). 

As to future measures, one Member State (SE) indicated that it planned to address the issue of 
cheaper and safer transfer of remittances as part of its national policy for global development. 
It envisaged organising a series of hearings with key stakeholders. 

Commitment: V.(f) 
firmly implement the partnership between the EU and Africa agreed in 
Lisbon  in  December 2007,  the  conclusions  of  the  first  Euro-Mediterranean  ministerial 
meeting on migration held in Albufeira in November 2007 and the Rabat action plan and to 
that  end  call  on  the  second  Euro-African  ministerial  conference  on  migration  and 
development in Paris in autumn 2008 to decide on practical measures; 

At EU level, under the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the areas 
of Migration and Asylum” the Commission supports a number of actions in the areas included 
the  EU-Africa  Partnership  on  Migration,  Mobility  and  Employment  (MME)  and  the  Rabat 
Action Plan and Paris Cooperation Programme. In addition, the Commission has earmarked 
€ 3 million to support the political dialogue in the framework of these processes. As far as the 
MME Partnership is concerned; three meetings of the joint Informal Expert Group took place 
and  a  series  of  priority  actions  has  been  identified  and  their  implementation  discussed.  A 
Senior  Official  Meeting  should  be  organised  during  the  second  half  of  2010  to  prepare  the 
next EU-Africa Summit of Heads of States and Governments. 

At national level, the Rabat  process has  a  Comité de Pilotage which promotes the work for 
preparing the Dakar Ministerial Meeting in 2011 with the participation at Member State level 
of BE, ES, FR and IT. FR indicated that it had organised the second Euro-African ministerial 
Conference  on  migration  and  development  where  the  three-year  cooperation  programme 
(2009-2011)  was  approved.  ES  reported  that  it  was  an  active  promoter  of  the  Global 
Approach  to  Migration  which  was  the  main  driver  of  the  Rabat  Process  and  that  it  had 
promoted from the beginning of this dialogue the link for friendship and cooperation between 
the  members  of  the  Process.  IT  reported  on  projects  implemented  with  various  African 
countries.  PT  participates  actively  in  the  EU/Africa  Strategy,  in  particular  the  MME 
Partnership, with the measures developed and implemented in this context being contained in 
the  Partnership  Scoreboard.  In  line  with  the  conclusions  of  the  first  Ministerial  Euro-
Mediterranean  meeting  on  Migration  which  took  place  in  Albufeira  in  November  2007,  PT 
developed and created a website with information on the transfer of remittances. 

develop, in accordance with its conclusions of June 2007, the Global Approach to Migration 
to  the  East  and  South-east  of  Europe,  and,  in  this  respect,  welcome  the  initiative  of  a 
ministerial conference on this topic in April 2009 in Prague; 

At  EU  level,  The  Commission  supported  the  Czech  Council  Presidency  in  the  project 
“Building  Mobility  Partnerships” 
the  Thematic  Programme 
“Cooperation  with  Third  Countries  in  the  areas  of  Migration  and  Asylum”  and  by 
participating  in  preparatory  and  follow-up  workshops.  The  initiative  brought  together 
representatives from 49 governments and focused on strengthening cooperation in migration 
management,  and  developing  principles  and  elements  for  close  migration  partnerships 
between the participant countries. 

through  funding  from 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
At  national  level,  Some  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  HU,  PL,  PT,  RO)  reported  their 
participation  in  the  Building  Migration  Partnerships  project  by  hosting  or  participating  in 
workshops, seminars and senior officials meetings and facilitating the implementation of the 
Prague  Ministerial  Conference  Joint  Declaration  signed  in  April  2009  with  the  aim  of 
strengthening  the  implementation  of  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  to  the  Eastern  and 
South-Eastern  Regions  Neighbouring  the  European  Union.  In  line  with  the  Declaration’s 
pragmatic and operational approach, several introductory missions were launched within the 
framework of the Building Migration Partnerships project. 

continue to make use of the existing political and sectoral dialogues, particularly with the 
countries  of  Latin  America,  the  Caribbean  and  Asia,  in  order  to  consolidate  mutual 
understanding of what is at stake in the field of migration and intensify current cooperation; 

At EU level, the EU-Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Structured Dialogue on Migration 
was launched on 30 June 2009 with the objective to identify common challenges and areas for 
mutual  cooperation  as  well  as  building  a  stronger  evidence  base  for  EU-LAC  migration  in 
order  to  better  understand  its  realities,  based  on  the  principle  of  shared  responsibility, 
strengthening  our  commitment  and  willingness  to  discuss  issues  on  migration  and 
development,  regular  and  irregular  migration.  The  first  EU-LAC  High  Level  Migration 
Meeting was organised in Brussels on 25 September 2009 to exchange experiences and best 
practices  on  migration  and  development  and  on  remittances.  After  the  end  of  the  reporting 
period, the second EU-LAC High Level Migration Meeting was organised in Madrid on 17-
18 February 2010 on education, health and migration, and the third meeting in Madrid on 15-
16 March 2010 families, vulnerable groups and migration. 

In relation to Asia, the annual meeting EU-ASEM of Directors General on Migration was held 
was held in Goa on 2 December 2009. Back-to-back with the EU-ASEM meeting an EU-India 
bilateral meeting on migration was organised on 3 December.  

At  national  level,  Member  States  have  shown  interest  in  strengthening  EU  relationships  on 
migration with Latin America and the Caribbean (through the EU-LAC Structured Dialogue 
on Migration and also bilaterally with Peru through the mission on migratory issues) and Asia 
(through the ASEM and bilateral contacts with countries such as India, Pakistan, China and 
Central Asian countries). 

Commitment: V.(g) 
speed  up  the  deployment  of  the  key  tools  of  the  Global  Approach  to 
Migration  (migration  profiles,  cooperation  platforms,  mobility  partnerships  and  circular 
migration programmes), to ensure a balance between the migration routes from the South and 
those from the East and South-east and take account of the lessons learned in these matters 
when negotiating EU and bilateral agreements on migration and readmission with countries 
of origin and of transit, as well as pilot Mobility Partnerships; 

At EU level, the Building Migration Partnerships initiative, launched in April 2009, aimed to 
bring a greater balance between the EU initiatives focusing on the migration routes from the 
south  and  those  that  target  migration  routes  from  the  east  and  south-east.  In  addition  to 
migration  profiles  that  were  prepared  during  the  programming  exercise  of  the  10th  EDF  for 
ACP countries, the Commission has co-funded a number of migration profiles, including 10 
in Western Africa and 17 for the Eastern and South-eastern European countries that are party 
to  the  Building  Migration  Partnerships  initiative.  The  Commission  also  promoted  in  the 
framework of the GFMD in Athens in November 2009 circular migration as well as migration 
profiles  and  their  usefulness  as  a  tool  for  policy  coherence  between  migration  and 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
development.  Further  progress  through  various  meetings  was  made  on  the  cooperation 
platform  in  Ethiopia,  and  the  one  in  the  Republic  of  Moldova  linked  to  the  EU-Moldova 
Mobility  Partnership.  A  circular  migration  programme  between  Portugal  and  Ukraine 
received co-funding from the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the 
areas  of  Migration  and  Asylum”.  In  September  2009,  Commission  issued  a  Staff  Working 
Document  on  the  evaluation  of  the  pilot  Mobility  Partnerships39.  The  Member  States  were 
consulted  in  the  process  of  preparation  of  the  document  at  two  expert  meetings.  December 
2009 Council Conclusions confirmed the value of Mobility Partnerships as a key tool of the 
Global Approach. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  have  reported  their  participation  in  the  Mobility 
Partnerships  with  the  Republic  of  Moldova  (BG,  DE,  EL,  IT,  CY,  HU,  PL,  PT,  RO),  Cape 
Verde  (LU,  PT),  and  Georgia  (BE,  EE,  IT),  the  Cooperation  Platform  in  Ethiopia  (DE,  SE, 
UK) and in Black Sea (BG, PT, RO), and migratory missions to Armenia, Tanzania, Belarus 
and Kenya. 

Commitment: V.(h) 
ensure  when  implementing  these  various  actions  that  they  are 
consistent  with  other  aspects  of  the  EU's  development  cooperation  policy,  particularly  the 
European  Consensus  on  Development  of  2005,  and  other  policies,  particularly  the 
neighbourhood policy. 

At EU level, Council Conclusions on Migration for Development adopted in November 2009 
highlight that the Global Approach to Migration provides a balanced and global framework to 
take  into  account  development  concerns  in  the  EU  approach  to  migration.  The  Conclusions 
also  underline  the  need  generally  to  continue  the  implementation  of  the  migration  and 
development  agenda  of  the  Global  Approach  but  also  further  to  facilitate  circular  migration 
schemes, the temporary and permanent return of migrants as well as their reintegration. 

At  national  level,  most  Member  States  defend  the  necessity  to  take  into  account  and 
strengthen  synergies  between  migration  and  development,  with  special  attention  to  the  EU 
Policy  Coherence  on  Development.  PT  created  an  informal  internal  network  for  policy 
coherence for development alongside the Interministerial Commission for Cooperation, which 
the existing formal body for interministerial coordination. 

39 

SEC(2009) 1240 of 18 September 2009. 

EN 

48 

   EN