COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Accompanying the document
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, border control, illegal migration, immigration, migrant worker, residence permit, right of asylum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 24.5.2011 
SEC(2011) 620 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 

Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2010) 

{COM(2011) 291 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2010) 

Background 

This paper summarises the main actions taken in 2010 at both EU and Member State level for each 
of  the  commitments  made  in  the  European  Pact  on  Immigration  and  Asylum  and  the  relevant 
asylum and migration objectives in the Stockholm Programme and its accompanying Action Plan. 
The reporting period is from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2010. 

Following  publication  of  the  First  Annual Report  on Immigration  and  Asylum,1 the JHA Council 
adopted  conclusions,2  which  were  then  endorsed  by  the  European  Council,  and  invited  the 
Commission to continue reporting on the progress made, covering both the implementation of the 
European  Pact  on  Immigration  and  Asylum  and  of  the  relevant  sections  of  the  Stockholm 
Programme, and its accompanying Action Plan. This report serves to meet this request.  

Overview 

The structure of this paper broadly follows the main commitments of the Pact, with main sections 
on  Legal  immigration  and  Integration;  Irregular  immigration  and  Return;  Border  Control; 
International  Protection;  Unaccompanied  Minors;  and  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration.  A 
Statistical Annex providing data for 2010 is also given. Each main section then addresses both the 
applicable Pact commitment(s) and Stockholm Programme objectives, giving, for each one of these, 
relevant developments and achievements, at both EU and Member State level. 

Methodology 

The summaries of developments at national level presented here have been prepared notably on the 
basis  of  factual  information  provided  by  National  Contact  Points  of  the  European  Migration 
Network (EMN NCPs). Information on developments at EU level has been provided primarily by 
the Commission. The inputs provided by the EMN NCPs have been invaluable for drawing up this 
paper.  However,  one  should  note  that  the  summaries  in  this  paper  are  the  responsibility  of  the 
Commission; the EMN will under its own responsibility produce its complementary EMN Annual 
Policy Report 2010 where more detailed information may be obtained.3 

This  paper  should  not  be  treated  as  an  exhaustive  identification  of  all  relevant  Member  State 
activity in relation to each commitment/objective. 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 in 2010 and/or because 
such developments were not reported by the EMN NCPs. 

1 

2 

3 

JHA 

The First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2009) consisted of: (i) a Communication (COM(2010) 
214) and (ii) a factual Commission Staff Working Paper (SEC(2010) 535). 
3018th 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/114881.pdf.  
More 
from 
http://www.emn.europa.eu.  The  EMN  did  not  address  Pact  commitments:  III(c),  III(g),  IV(a),  IV(b),  V(f), 
V(g),  V(h)  nor  those  Stockholm  objectives  which  were  principally  for  actions  at  EU  level,  e.g.  on 
implementation  of  the  Policy  Plan  on  Legal  migration  [Section  I.1.2].  They  may  be  identified  as  those  sub-
sections with no information "At national level."  

the  EMN  Annual  Policy  Report 

is  available 

information, 

including 

Council, 

referred 

2010, 

June 

see 

to, 

3 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Legal immigration – integration ..........................................................................................4 

I.1 Economic migration...............................................................................................................4 

I.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.......................................................................4 

I.1.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.3).............................................................................10 

I.1.3 Key statistics.....................................................................................................................12 

I.2 Family Reunification ...........................................................................................................12 

I.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.....................................................................12 

I.2.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4).............................................................................14 

I.3 Other legal migration...........................................................................................................14 

I.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.....................................................................14 

I.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4).............................................................................17 

I.4 Integration............................................................................................................................18 

I.4.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.....................................................................18 

I.4.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.5).............................................................................21 

II. Irregular Immigration and Return ..................................................................................25 

II.1 Irregular migration .............................................................................................................25 

II.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum ...................................................................25 

II.1.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.6)............................................................................29 

II.2 Return .................................................................................................................................33 

II.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum ...................................................................33 

II.2.2 Stockholm Programme ....................................................................................................36 

II.2.3 Key statistics....................................................................................................................37 

II.3 Actions against human trafficking .....................................................................................38 

II.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum ...................................................................38 

II.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 7.3 plus Section 4.4.2).................................................39 

III. Border Control .................................................................................................................39 

III.1 Control and surveillance at external borders.....................................................................39 

III.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum ..................................................................39 

III.1.2 Stockholm Programme...................................................................................................43 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
III.2 Cooperation with respect to border control.......................................................................45 

III.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum ..................................................................45 

III.2.2 Stockholm Programme...................................................................................................47 

III.3 Management of the External Borders ...............................................................................49 

III.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum ..................................................................49 

III.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 5.1) .............................................................................50 

IV. International Protection...................................................................................................51 

IV.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.....................................................................51 

IV.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.2.1).............................................................................58 

IV.3 Key statistics .....................................................................................................................60 

V. Unaccompanied minors .....................................................................................................61 

V.1 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.7 plus 2.3.2) .............................................................61 

V.2 Key statistics ......................................................................................................................63 

VI. Global Approach to Migration........................................................................................64 

VI.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.....................................................................64 

VI.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.1).............................................................................69 

VII. Statistical Annex..............................................................................................................74 

Table 1: Provisional Statistics on Legal Migration – First Residence Permits Granted for 
Education, Remunerated Activities and Other Reasons, including, when 
available, Family Reunification, in 2010....................................................................74 

Table 2: Statistics on irregular migration – Third-country nationals apprehended, ordered to leave 

and returned (including both forced and voluntary return) in 2010 ...........................76 

Table 3: Statistics on border – Third-country nationals refused entry in 2010.........................78 

Table 4: Published Statistics on Asylum Applicants and on First Instance Decisions by Outcome in 

2010 ............................................................................................................................79 

Table 5: Statistics on Unaccompanied Minors in 2010 ............................................................81 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
I. LEGAL IMMIGRATION – INTEGRATION 

1.1. 

I.1 Economic migration 

I.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

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  the  implementation  of  the  2005  Policy  Plan  on  Legal  Migration4  progressed.  In  July 
2010,  the  Commission  presented  proposals  for  two  new  Directives.  The  first  one  concerns  third 
country  national  seasonal  workers,  who  are  needed,  in  particular,  in  the  agriculture  and  tourism 
sectors. Seasonal workers are a group that need protection – they often face exploitation and poor 
conditions which may threaten their health and safety. The proposal introduces a special procedure 
for  the  entry  and  residence,  and  a  common  set  of  rights  and  obligations.  The  second  legislative 
proposal sets up a fast-track entry procedure for intra-corporate transferees from non-EU countries 
bringing skills and knowledge that EU companies do not have at their disposal. It brings know-how 
and innovation to the EU economy and makes it more competitive. 

As  part  of  the  work  on  assessing  national  labour  market  needs,  the  European  Migration  Network 
(EMN) undertook a study on "Satisfying Labour Demand through Migration."5 In addition, a study 
on "Employment and Labour Market Integration Policies in the European Union (2000-2009)" was 
commissioned from the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) on Migration,6 which inter 
alia shows that, at EU level, recent third-country national migrants accounted for an employment 
increase of almost 3.7 million and around a quarter of the overall rise in employment. 

At national level, several Member States reported  on  the adoption of new policy in 2010 (IE, EL 
FR, LU, HU, NL, PL, SI). This included the introduction of ministerial decrees setting conditions 
for  obtaining  residence  permits  for  ‘exceptional  economic  contributions’  (FR)  and  conditions  for 
exempting third-country nationals from acquiring work permits (HU), as well as the introduction of 
new  arrangements  concerning  the  issuing  of  employment  permits  for  doctors  (IE).  In  EL,  the 
National Immigration Policy aimed primarily at the rational management of legal migration flows, 
using  legal  migration  as  a  way  to  meet  the  labour  market  needs,  in  an  effort  to  enhance  the 
competitiveness of the national economy and promote smooth integration of long term migrants. In 
LU, following an analysis of the national economic situation, new measures were proposed in April 
2010  aimed  at  improving  national  competitiveness  and  ensuring  convergence  between  migration 
policy  and  labour  shortages,  while  taking  into  account  Union  preference.  An  inter-ministerial 
Working Group is currently working on a set of recommendations to apply these measures. In NL, 
the Modern Migration Policy Bill was adopted during 2010 which provided for fast, effective and 
manageable  admission  procedures  for  third-country  nationals  arriving  for  economic  reasons.  PL 
reported on the adoption of their National Employment Action Plan which envisaged the creation of 

4 
5 
6 

COM(2005) 669 final of 21 December 2005. 
Synthesis and National Reports available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies." 
See 
market-integration-policies-in-the-european-union. 

http://www.labourmigration.eu/research/report/13-migration-employment-and-the-outcomes-of-labour-

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
an  appropriate  migration  policy  responding  to  the  needs  in  the  labour  market,  as  well  as  the 
reinforcement  of  integration  for  migrants  in  the  labour  market.  Regulations  prolonging,  for  an 
indefinite period of time, the possibility to undertake work by neighbouring third-country nationals 
on  the  basis  of  an  employer’s  declaration  of  their  willingness  to  employ  such  workers  were  also 
adopted.  In  SI  the  proposal  for  a  new  Act  on  Employment  and  Work  of  Foreigners  was  adopted, 
which  included  a  number  of  new  measures,  such  as  free  access  to  the  labour  market  for  third-
country nationals who have resident status in another Member State.  

Improvements  to  the  governance  of  legal  migration  were  reported,  including  the  modification  of 
existing policies (CZ, IE, ES, LV, HU, FI, SK, SE, UK). In six Member States, these modifications 
related to legislative amendments (CZ, LV, HU, SK, FI, SE), and for FI this was still in Parliament, 
or  implementation  of  new  legislation  adopted  in  December  2009  (ES).  The  legislative  changes 
related  to  institutional  changes  (CZ,  LV),  the  reinforcement  and  adjustment  of  the  existing 
instruments  for  measuring the  needs of the labour market (ES), the improvement of  third-country 
national  workers’  rights  to  residence  permits  (HU,  SK),  the  introduction  of  exemptions  for 
particular  categories  of  workers (SK)  and  the  improvement  of  arrangements  for  particular  worker 
groups  (SE).  In  addition,  IE  updated  immigration  arrangements  through  the  consolidation  of 
policies  with  regard  to  work  permit  holders  and  the  introduction  of  ‘grace  periods’  for  those 
working  for  less  than  five  years  who  have  become  redundant  involuntarily.7  UK  also  made 
amendments to their points-based system in 2010, which included the revision of criteria for Tier 1 
(highly skilled applicants), as well as the introduction of additional requirements for Tier 2 (skilled 
workers with a job offer).  

Several Member States (CZ, EL, ES, AT, PL, RO, SK, FI, UK) reported on their plans for the future 
development  of  their  labour  migration  policy.  These  future  plans  included  launching  the  ‘Red-
White-Red  Card,’  a  new  points-based  migration  model  (AT);  establishing  a  system  of  economic 
migration  which  would  allow  third-country  nationals  to  apply  for  three  different  types  of  single 
permits depending on their skills (CZ); preparing the issuance of residence permits to third country 
nationals in the form of a separate document and the creation of one-stop-shop for immigrants (EL); 
providing  the  possibility  of  on-site  hiring  by  companies  (IT);  setting  up  an  flexible  economic 
migration  system,  corresponding  to  the  identified  needs  of  the  national  labour  market  (RO); 
developing  priorities  and  rules  for  economic  migration  (SK);  and  launching  a  pilot  project  for 
developing operating models for recruitment in the health sector, including international recruitment 
either as a national project or with other EU Member States (FI). Of these Member States, AT and 
PL foresaw potential amendments to their legislation concerning economic migration, which for PL 
included expanding the issuance of residence permits to graduates of higher schools and universities 
seeking  employment.  In  addition,  UK  envisaged  future  reforms  which  would  control  economic 
migration  by  limiting,  in  the  future,  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  entering  the  UK  for 
employment and introducing measures to reduce abuse of immigration through ’student routes.’  

To  ensure  that  labour  migration  meets  the  various  needs  of  the  labour  market,  several  Member 
States  (EE,  EL,  IT,  CY,  HU,  AT,  PT,  SI,  UK)  reported  on  the  implementation  of  their  Annual 
Quotas, as well as the changes experienced in their quota systems. A few Member States lowered 
their quotas (IT, CY, HU), with only one Member State reporting the retention of the same quota 
from  the  previous  year  (PT).  In  EL,  a  decrease  was  experienced  in  the  number  of  requests  by 
employers  for  third-country  national  workers.  In  SI,  although  the  implementation  of  the  work 
permit quota continued, no obligation was placed on employers to follow this quota in 2010. RO’s 

7 

This grace period refers to a six month period under which a worker can seek alternative work without a labour 
market needs test being applied. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
draft  National  Strategy  on  Immigration  for  the  period  2011-2014  envisaged  setting  up  admission 
quotas to manage labour market needs from  2011. An interim  limit  was introduced in  the  UK on 
economic migration of third-country nationals ahead of a permanent limit to be introduced in 2011.  

ES and LT reduced their list of professions and/or sectors where labour shortages existed. In ES, the 
reduction  was  a  consequence  of  a  self-regulating  mechanism  reflecting  labour  market  needs.  For 
example, in LT the professions included in the Shortage Occupations List decreased, compared to 
2009, with only six professions included in the second half of 2010. In addition, FR reported that 
the  list  of  shortage  occupations  was  extended  in  2010  due  to  the  continued  implementation  of 
agreements  signed  with  different  countries  of  origin  for  the  concerted  management  of  migration 
flows.  

A  few  Member  States  reported  the  involvement  of  other  actors  for  the  implementation  of  labour 
migration  policies.  For  example,  consultations  were  held  with  various  stakeholders  for  the 
negotiation  of  the  new  migration  model  (AT);  a  policy  proposal  (still  under  consideration) 
concerning  the  role,  duties  and  practices  of  the  public  employment  service  in  international 
recruitment  was  drafted  (FI);  and  proposals  to  implement  an  annual  limit  on  economic  migration 
from third-country nationals (UK). Some Member States (BE, ES, FR, HU, UK) also emphasised 
the continued involvement of other stakeholders, including the Economic Migration Service (BE), 
the  public  employment  agencies  (ES,  FR,  HU),  the  Immigration  Office  (HU)  and  the  Migration 
Advisory Committee (UK). In ES, the Tripartite Labour Commission on Immigration, consisting of 
the  main  employer  and  trade  union  organisations,  as  well  as  local  authorities,  continued  its 
involvement. 

With  regard  to  salary  thresholds,  EE  reported  on  governmental  debates  on  lowering  the  salary 
threshold for third-country nationals entering the Member State, with it finally being decided not to 
lower the salary threshold.  

Some Member States (EE, AT, PL, SK) targeted specific groups. These included (highly) qualified 
workers (AT, PL, SK), seasonal workers (EL), young people with higher education (EE), workers 
from Western Balkans and Caucasus regions (PL) and students and researchers (SK).  

Four  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  PL,  UK)  changed  their  policy  as  a  result  of  the  economic  crisis. 
These  changes  related  to  the  limitation  of  work  permits  issued  (BG);  impacts  on  the  Green  Card 
project  (CZ);  more  flexible  approach  of  employers  of  third-country  nationals  experiencing 
temporary financial difficulties, resulting in reducing work hours and wages (PL); and tighter entry 
criteria for highly skilled third-country national workers (UK), including increased salary thresholds 
for workers entering on the Tier 1 visa for highly skilled workers.  

Commitment: I.(b) to increase the attractiveness of the EU for highly qualified workers 

At EU level, work continued on the preparation for the coming into force of Directive 2009/50/EC 
on the EU Blue Card Scheme in June 2011. A meeting of the contact committee for this directive 
was  held  in  September  2010,  and  a  wide  ranging  debate  took  place  based  on  questions  that  the 
Member States had sent in advance. Despite this, for the time being, formal transposition is so far 
disappointing, with only one Member State (ES) having formally communicated to the Commission 
its national measures of transposition and two others (EE, NL) of partial transposition. 

At national level, most of the Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, IT, CY, LT, LU, 
MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, FI, SE, SK) took steps to increase the attractiveness of the EU for highly 
qualified  workers.  These  steps  included  preparations  for  the  transposition  of  the  Blue  Card 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Directive,  as  well  as  the  implementation  of  incentive  mechanisms  for  highly-qualified  workers. 
With  regard  to  the  transposition  of  the  Blue  Card  Directive,  several  Member  States  reported  that 
they  were  in  the  process  of  transposing  the  Directive  through  the  introduction  of  draft  legislation 
(DE,  EE,  FR,  LV,  LT,  AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK),  whilst  others  had  undertaken  preparatory  work  for 
transposition (BE, CY, EL, LU, HU, MT, NL, FI) or planned to do so in 2011 (IT, SE). Both ES 
and  CZ  adopted  legislation  transposing  the  Blue  Card  Directive,  while  in  SI,  national  legislation 
was considered to be already in line with the Directive. 

Additional measures aimed at attracting highly-qualified workers were undertaken. These measures 
included simplifying procedures and relaxing conditions for entry or renewal of permits (CZ, DE, 
ES, IT, HU, PT), facilitating or planning to facilitate access to the labour market for third-country 
nationals  who  graduated  from  education  establishments  in  the  Member  State  (IE,  AT)  and 
establishing  a  new  fiscal  regime  related  to  the  recruitment  of  highly  skilled  foreign  nationals  in 
order to decrease recruitment costs (LU). In addition, one-stop shops were opened in DK and new 
expat centres were established in NL, which aimed to provide high-quality services to highly skilled 
migrants  in  order  to  quickly  enter  and  integrate  in  the  Member  State.  Examples  of  those  who 
benefited  from  these  measures  included  third-country  national  graduates  with  university  degrees 
from the Member States (IE); individuals providing exceptional economic contributions through the 
creation of jobs (FR); academics (ES, IT); highly qualified executives (ES); engineers, technicians 
and scientists (ES); teachers (PT); and artists of recognised international repute (ES).  

A few Member States (FR, ,LT, AT) planned policies to further facilitate the reception of highly-
skilled  workers  by  simplifying  administrative  procedures,  through  the  establishment  of  a  single 
contact  point  for  both  employers  and  highly  qualified  migrants  (FR),  shortening  terms  for 
processing applications for residence permits for highly qualified workers from six to three months 
(LT)  and  introducing  a  points-based  system  which  would  favour  the  entry  of  (highly)  qualified 
migrants (AT). 

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

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  started  the  evaluation  of  Directive  2004/114/EC  on  third-country 
national students and of Directive 2005/71/EC on third-country national researchers. In accordance 
with both directives, the Commission is preparing a report to the European  Parliament  and  to  the 
Council on their application in the Member States. These two reports will be available in 2011. 

At national level, a number of Member States undertook actions or put forward proposals for future 
changes to their policy area concerning students (BG, IE, EE, ES, FR, LT, LU, HU, AT, PL, PT, 
SK, UK) and researchers (ES, LT, LU, PL). 

For students, a few Member States (IE, EE, PT) undertook new actions or modified procedures to 
facilitate the entry and stay of third-country nationals through the simplification of procedures. For 
example, EE introduced an exception in the Aliens Act from 1st October 2010, which allows third-
county  nationals  legally  staying  in  Estonia  to  apply  for  a  residence  permit  in  Estonia  (instead  of 
from the Estonian foreign representation) for studying in an officially certified study programme of 
Master’s  study  or  Doctoral  study.  FR  and  PT  also  undertook  measures  to  promote  academic 
facilities in order to attract third-country national students. For example, FR took new measures to 
promote  the  French  education  systems  abroad  through  the  Campus  France  Services.  PT  also 
reported  on  future  plans  to  propose  the  extension  of  opportunities  to  issue  temporary  residence 
permits to students enrolled in a study programme or study research. LU continued to support the 
reception of third-country national students through the funding of exchange programmes. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
IE  launched  a  new  five  year  strategy  document  ‘Investing  in  Global  Relationships’  which  set 
objectives  for  increased  international  student  numbers  in  higher  education  and  English  language 
schools  in  order  to  increase  the  economic  impact  of  the  international  education  sector  by  €300 
million to €1.2 billion by 2015.  

In EE, legislative amendments were adopted concerning residence permit for study to participate in 
voluntary for voluntary service within the framework of a youth project or program recognised by 
the  Ministry  of  Education  and  Research  of  Estonia.  In  ES,  amended  legislation  regulating  the 
regime  for  admission  for  study,  student  exchange,  non-employee  status  training  or  volunteering, 
establishing permits for stay, as well as authorising the related third-country nationals to undertake 
remunerated activity providing this does not restrict the pursuit of their studies. The new legislation 
also  recognised  facilities  for  third-country  students  taking  part  in  EU  programmes  aimed  at 
promoting mobility towards and within the Union. 

In  HU,  with  regard  to  the  modification  of  entry  conditions,  legislative  amendments  were  adopted 
requiring  students  to  show  that  they  had  sufficient  resources  for  themselves  and  their  family 
members.  

Some  Member  States  (IE,  FR,  LT,  PL,  UK)  outlined  planned  actions  relating  to  students.  These 
related  to  legislative  proposals  facilitating  the  issuance  of  residence  permits  for  students  (PL);  a 
review  of  access  to  the  labour  market  by  third-country  national  students  by  the  Interdepartmental 
Committee on Student Immigration (IE); the planned establishment of a Mediterranean Office for 
Youth  promoting  student  mobility  (FR);  an  expansion  of  those  who  would  be  able  to  obtain  a 
residence  permit  on  the  basis  of  studies  (LT);  and  a  review  of  the  student  ‘route’,  in  order  to 
propose a more selective system for students entering the territory (UK). 

For  researchers,  legislative  amendments  were  implemented  (ES)  or  introduced  (LT)  in  order  to 
facilitate  the  application  for  researchers  wishing  to  enter  these  Member  States.  These  new 
provisions  concerned  the  creation  of  a  ‘research  visa’  which  defined  a  facilitated  regime  for  the 
granting  of  residence  and  work  permits  to  workers  engaged  in  research  activities,  as  well  as  a 
special regime for researchers (ES), and proposed the reduction in the application processing time 
for researchers to three months (LT). In LU, legislation on training and research introduced in 2008 
continued  to  show  its  effects  with  the  situation  of  doctorate  and  post-doctorate  researchers 
improving.  LU  also  established  structural  indicators  for  the  management  of  researchers,  which 
would  be  integrated  in  the  performance  contracts  2011-2013  of  research  institutions  and 
universities.  PL  undertook  actions  to  elaborate  its  final  policy-oriented  conclusions  for  future 
actions  in  this  domain.  Among  these  were  facilitating  the  admission  of  researchers  and 
strengthening its scholarship system. 

Concerning  the  transposition  of  Directive  2004/114/EC  on  admission  conditions  for  students,  BG 
proposed  draft  legislation  which  aimed  to  make  additions  specifying  the  groups  of  third-country 
nationals who are entitled to right of residence under the Directive.  

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

See also Commitment V.(b) [Section VI.1) 

At  EU  level,  co-operation  with  third  countries  is  an  essential  element  of  the  EU's  immigration 
policy,  which  promotes  all  measures  that  aim  at  minimising  the  negative  and  maximising  the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
positive impacts of highly skilled immigration on developing countries. The "Blue Card" Directive, 
for  example,  makes  a  clear  reference  to  the  need  to  develop  ethical  recruitment  policies  and 
principles  applicable  to  public  and  private  employers  in  key  sectors,  for  example,  the  health  and 
education  sectors.  The  directive  is  without  prejudice  to  EU  or  bilateral  ethical  recruitment 
agreements, and it allows Member States to reject an application for ethical recruitment reasons.  

At national level, several Member States (DE, EE, ES, IT, SI, SE, UK) reported on ongoing actions 
to  prevent  or  not  aggravate  the  brain  drain.  These  measures  related  to  promoting  the  transfer  of 
knowledge  with  the  ‘Returning  Experts  Programme'  (DE);  facilitating  the  return  of  third-country 
nationals  who  have  benefited  from  working  in  the  Member  State  (ES);  implementing  projects 
increasing  the  entrepreneurship  of  migrants  returning  to  Africa  (IT);  improving  brain  circulation 
through enabling temporary return (SE); and implementing a Medical Training Initiative providing 
third-country  medical  specialists  with  a  fixed  period  of  training  in  the  Member  State  before 
returning to their country of origin (UK).  

Regarding the countries subjected to brain drain, UK developed a list of countries and professions 
subject to brain drain, based on the OECD’s Corporation Development Assistance Committee’s list 
of aid recipients, created by the UK Department of International Development. Measures in the UK 
aimed mostly at health sector professions. 

With  regard  to  future  plans  for  combating  brain  drain,  PT’s  Immigration  Integration  Plan  2011-
2013 envisaged the creation of a working group to coordinate the attribution of scholarships with 
the needs of the countries of origin in order to limit brain drain. 

On  awareness  raising  campaigns,  two  Member  States  (EE,  PL)  undertook  measures  addressed  to 
their nationals wishing to return from other (Member) States through the launching of a job vacancy 
website (EE) and the implementation of an information campaign providing Polish nationals with 
information which would assist them in deciding on returning to their home country (PL). 

With regard to temporary and circular migration,8 some Member States (BE, CZ, ES, IT, NL, PL) 
undertook actions or introduced new legislation to favour this migration in 2010. These measures 
included  the  increased  cooperation  with  third  countries  to  implement  the  principles  of  circular 
migration  (CZ);  the  offering  of  9  224  seasonal  contracts  in  countries  of  origin  and  the 
implementation of circular migration projects in the framework of bilateral agreements (ES); plus 
the setting of a quota of 4 000 third-country national seasonal workers in order to encourage circular 
migration  programmes  (IT).  In  addition,  IT,  NL  introduced  projects  aimed  at  promoting  circular 
migration. For example, in NL, the pilot project provided an opportunity for a small group of labour 
migrants from Indonesia and South Africa to perform temporary work. This project also aimed to 
enable the individuals to improve their professional positions or set up a business of their own upon 
return to their country of origin. PL adopted regulations prolonging, for an indefinite period of time, 
the possibility to undertake work by third-country nationals for up to 6 months without the need to 
obtain the work permit.  

Concerning  future  actions,  three  Member  States  (CZ,  NL,  SE)  planned  to  develop  their  circular 
migration  policy,  through  the  integration  of  third-country  cooperation  into  a  new  legislative  act 
(CZ),  the  continuation  of  pilot  projects  in  third  countries  (NL)  and  the  development  of 
recommendations from the Committee on Circular Migration (SE). In addition, RO’s draft National 

8 

The  EMN  has  also  undertaken  a  study  on  temporary  and  circular  migration,  see  http://www.emn.europa.eu 
under "EMN Studies." 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Strategy  on  Immigration,  for  the  period  2011-2014,  envisages the setting of quotas for  temporary 
migrant  workers,  offering  third-country  nationals  the  possibility  to  gain  professional  experiences, 
which could subsequently be used in the country of origin upon return. 

I.1.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.3) 

invites  the  Commission  and  the  Council  to  continue  to  implement  the  Policy  Plan  on  Legal 
Migration; 

See the entry under Commitment I (a) [Section I.1.1] 

Improving skills recognition and labour matching 

At EU level, the Commission started preparation for its policy paper on addressing labour shortages 
through  migration  in  EU  Member  States  which  could  be  adopted  in  2012  in  the  form  of  a  Green 
Paper.  Currently  there  is  no  EU  wide  method  to  assess  what  skills  are  needed  for  specific  labour 
shortages  in  the  Member  States  and  whether  workers  from  third  countries  have  the  skills  and 
qualifications needed to fill in such jobs. An EU wide system of identifying labour shortages would 
help those Member States that do not have their own well-developed systems, and would be more 
transparent for immigrants allowing them to apply where their skills are needed most. A common 
and transparent European framework improving the recognition of skills and qualifications of third 
country  nationals  would  help  employers  to  identify  more  accurately  third  country  nationals  to 
employ, and would allow the skills potential of migrants to be fully realised. 

At national level, many Member States (DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, 
PT, RO, SI, SK) undertook actions related to skills recognition and labour matching.  

For  the  former,  actors  involved  in  the  process  included  university  authorities  (AT),  government 
ministries  (ES,  LT),  employers  (ES,  FR,  SI),  Trade  Unions  (ES),  Qualifications  Recognition 
Information  Centres  (MT)  and  national  organisations  for  international  cooperation  in  higher 
education (NL). In IT, greater powers were delegated to social partners for the recognition of skills 
and qualifications.  

Five Member States (DE, EL, LV, LU, SI) developed their skills recognition process. For example, 
DE provided for uniform criteria to be developed for improving the assessment and recognition of 
international  qualifications  in  a  benchmark  paper,  with  legislation  to  be  introduced  in  2011.  EL 
transposed  Directive  2005/36/EC,  concerning  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications,  into 
national legislation and prepared for the implementation of the National Qualifications Framework 
and  its  correspondence  to  the  European  one.  LU  published  a  new  Regulation  concerning  the 
organisation of the recognition and validation of prior learning (including those acquired outside the 
school context). In SI, the Act on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications was adopted which 
defined  a  uniform  procedure  for  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  for  third-country 
nationals  in  the  medical  and  dental  professions.  RO  adopted  the  Amending  Protocol  on  the 
Agreement with Moldova, on mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and scientific titles issued 
by educational institutions in the contracting States.  

For the improvement of skills recognition in the future, IE and LT planned actions which related to 
the  establishment  of  an  amalgamated  qualifications  agency  (IE)  and  the  formulation  of  a  human 
resource  policy,  which  would  include  a  national  policy  towards  the  recognition  of  regulated 
professions, as well as the allocation of an institution to deal with it (LT).  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
In order to assist third-country nationals with skills recognition, information sharing was undertaken 
by IT and PT through the publication of a dedicated handbook assisting third-country nationals with 
the  recognition  procedure  (IT),  as  well  as  the  publication  of  a  guide  to  skills  recognition  which 
summarised  the  national  educational  system  and  the  processes  for  academic  and  professional 
recognition (PT). 

On  labour  matching,  existing  bilateral  agreements  for  the  coordination  and  management  of 
migration flows were implemented by ES which included labour matching instruments. Moreover, 
coordination committees were established to manage these agreements.  

Many Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, HU, NL, SI, FI, SE, UK) reported on 
the methods and tools used to analyse labour market needs and shortages. These included the use of 
lists  of  bottleneck  occupations  (BE,  IE,  ES),  lists  of  vacancies  (CZ,  EE,  EL),  reports  from 
employers and inquiries conducted by the Public Employment Service (AT) and a yearly prognosis 
by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy on the structure of the workforce (trends, bottle 
necks,  labour  demand)  (FI).  Some  referred  to  stakeholders  involved  in  the  analysis  of  the  labour 
market,  which  included  employment  agencies  (BG,  SI),  national  employment  agencies  (DE,  EE, 
EL, ES, LU, HU, NL, AT), regional employment agencies (DK, ES), expert groups on future skills 
needs  (IE),  employers’  associations  and  trade  unions  (ES),  local  employers  (ES,  AT,  SI,  UK), 
central statistics offices (PL), national research institutes (SE) and advisory committees (UK). 

With  regard  to  future  measures,  EL  aims  to  undertake  a  nationwide  survey  creating  a  regional 
“immigrants map” on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the migrant population who 
reside and/or work there. ES plans to evaluate its current labour matching mechanism with a view 
to  improving  its  flexibility,  transparency  and  adaptability  to  the  situation  of  the  labour  market, 
whilst  MT  aims  to  establish  a  Labour  Market  and  Skills  Shortage  Committee,  to  provide 
transparent,  independent  and  evidence-based  analysis  of  labour  market  needs  and  shortages, 
identify  underlying  factors  and  produce  skills-shortages  lists.  PL’s  draft  “Migration  Policy  of 
Poland” aims to establish an efficient system for monitoring labour market needs and shortages in 
the  future.  RO’s  draft  National  Strategy  on  Immigration  2011-2014  will  introduce  annual 
evaluations  of  the  national  labour  market,  in  order  to  identify  labour  shortages  and  set  adequate 
quotas. 

To  ensure  that  labour  demand  could  not  be  covered  by  national  and  other  EU  workers,  LU 
(legislative  procedure  ongoing)  and  UK  amended  their  labour  immigration  system  whereby  job 
vacancies were advertised with the national Public Employment Service for a reasonable period of 
time.  

Several Member States (BG, CZ, LV, HU, NL, SK) described the effects of the economic crisis on 
national  policies  for  skills  recognition  and  labour  matching.  These  included  the  reduction  in  the 
number of vacancies in Member States either as a result of their labour market analysis (CZ, ES, 
LV)  or  due  to  less  work  permits  being  issued  (BG,  HU,  LV).  In  addition,  NL  established  33 
mobility centres to combat the effects of the crisis. 

invites the Commission to assess the impact and effectiveness of measures adopted in this area with 
a  view  to  determining  whether  there  is  a  need  for  consolidating  existing  legislation,  including 
regarding categories of workers currently not covered by Union legislation; 

At EU level, the evaluation of existing directives, which has started, will help to prepare a possible 
consolidation of existing legislation and in the definition of categories of workers to be covered. See 
also Section I.3.2. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Efforts  to  promote  concerted  mobility  and  migration  with  countries  of  origin  should  be  closely 
linked with efforts to promote the development of opportunities for decent and productive work and 
improved  livelihood  options  in  third  countries  in  order  to  minimise  the  brain  drain.  (Section 
6.1.2.).  

See the entry under Commitment V.(d) [Section VI.1] 

I.1.3 Key statistics 

Table  1  in  the  Statistical  Annex  gives  a  provisional  overview  of  the  residence  permits  issued  in 
2010  by  reasons  (education,  remunerated  activities  and  other  reasons9).  Of  the  Member  States 
providing such data, most residence permits were issued in 2010 by IT (326 000 up to and including 
September 2010), FR (189 500) and DE (125 978). Member States which issued permits mainly for 
the purpose of education were FR (58 000 or 30.6% of all permits), DE (42 775 or 34%) and SE (14 
188 or 39.7%). Those who issued permits mostly for the purpose of remunerated activities were IT 
(200 500 up to and including September 2010 or 61.5%), and again DE (25 015 or 19.9%) plus SE 
(21 507 or 60.3%). The highest number of permits issued for ‘other reasons’ were again by FR (114 
500 or 60.4%), IT (113 00 or 34.7%) and DE (58 188 or 46.2%). 

I.2 Family Reunification 

I.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

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 

At EU level, see the entry below under Stockholm Programme (Section I.2.2). 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  (BE,  ES,  CY,  HU,  AT,  FI,  SI,  SE,  UK)  documented 
changes  to  existing  policies.  These  included  modifications  to  the  (set  of)  conditions  for  family 
reunification,  to  the  categories  of  persons  exempt  from  fulfilling  these  conditions,  and  to  the 
procedures  for  applying  for  or  renewing  residence  permits  within  the  framework  of  family 
reunification. In order to facilitate integration of reunited families, ES introduced measures on the 
schooling of minors, including an improvement of the estimation of the necessary places available 
at the respective schools. 

Some Member States  (BE, DK,  ES,  PL, SI) undertook or  adopted new legislation to promote the 
integration of third-country nationals coming for the purpose of family reunification. ES introduced 
grants for local authorities to develop innovative integration programmes with a total value of one 
million  euros  in  2010.  These  grants  included  specific  measures  for  third-country  nationals  who 
arrive for the purpose of family reunification. PL’s draft Migration Policy of Poland proposed that 
concrete measures to promote the integration of third country national family members would be set 

9 

Other  reasons  groups  together  all  other  permits  issued,  including  inter  alia  family  reunification,  for 
unremunerated trainees, volunteers. Owing to the different and inconsistent manner in which the data for these 
other reasons were available at the time this report was published, they have all been grouped together in this 
one column.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
out  in  an  Action  Plan  once  the  policy  was  adopted.  In  SI,  legislative  amendments  removed  the 
restrictive  provision  of  providing  integration  assistance  to  family  members  of  persons  granted 
international protection for a period of three years maximum. 

With regard to the (set of) conditions for family reunification, BE and SE added to national regimes 
by  stipulating  that  sponsors  were  to  provide  proof  of  a  stable  income  to  support  the  family 
member(s), as well as suitable accommodation.  

Some  Member  States  (CY,  HU,  SI,  SE)  made  legislative  changes  introducing  exemptions 
concerning categories of persons who did not have to fulfil conditions set for family reunification. 
Those granted international and subsidiary protection were mostly targeted (HU, SI, SE), as well as 
children  (FI,  SE)  and  staff  and  their  family  members,  employed  by  companies  of  “international 
interest”  (CY).  With  regard  to  future  actions,  LT  also  recommended,  through  its  draft  law,  the 
facilitation  of  conditions  for  family  reunification  for  students,  owners  and  directors  of  small  and 
medium sized companies, waiving the general requirement to have resided for two years, instead to 
hold  a  temporary  residence  permit  valid  for  no  less  than  one  year  and  to  have  reasonable 
expectations to obtain the right to permanent residence.  

Additional legislative changes were made by EE, EL, ES, HU and SE. These changes referred to the 
inclusion of new groups eligible for family reunification (ES, SI), as well as the limitation of those 
eligible  (ES,  SI);  the  facilitation  of  applications  for  family  reunification  for  rejected  asylum 
applicants  on  Member  State  territory  (SE);  the  introduction  of  new  conditions  for  proof  of  stable 
income (FI); the waiving of the two year obligation prior to obtaining a temporary residence permit 
for  some  categories  of  spouses  (EE);  and  the  introduction  of  new  conditions  for  terminating  the 
right of residence of a third-country national family member (HU). Legislation in EE also included 
conditions  additional  to  the  Directive  2003/86/EC  for  obtaining  an  independent  residence  permit. 
Moreover in EL, legislation regulated the temporary residence of family members of third-country 
nationals appealing against the decision rejecting their residence permit until a judicial decision is 
pronounced.  

In  addition  to  legislative  changes,  BG  planned  amendments  which  would  provide  a  simplified 
procedure  for  obtaining  a  residence  permit  for  family  reunification  of  a  long-term  resident,  while 
RO prepared amendments to its relevant Aliens law to transpose Directive 2003/86/EC. 

On language requirements, a few Member States (FR, NL, UK) introduced greater conditions, while 
others (IT, AT), planned to introduce such conditions in the near future. FR, for example, entered 
into conventions with 38 additional countries in 2010 concerning the evaluation of language skills 
and  knowledge  of  French  language  prior  to  the  admission  of  a  spouse.  AT  planned  language 
integration  measures  which  would  be  principally  targeted  at  family  members  before  entry  via 
family  reunification  and  would  oblige  them  to  have  up  to  level  A1  of  German.  In  IT,  conditions 
were also being introduced with regard to the social integration of family members which obliged 
them to learn the Italian language.  

A  few  Member  States  (BE,  DE,  FI)  referred  to  the  need  to  step  up  action  against  marriages  of 
convenience.  BE,  for  example,  introduced  a  legislative  proposal  tightening  the  current  terms  for 
family  reunification  in  order  to  improve  the  fight  against  marriages  of  convenience.  Due  to  the 
national  election,  however,  this  action  was  postponed.  DE  adopted  a  bill  extending  the  required 
minimum length of a marriage. Legislative changes were also made in SK and FI which extended 
reasons for refusal of applications when false, incomplete or misleading information was provided. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
I.2.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4) 

evaluation  and,  where  necessary,  review  of  the  directive  on  family  reunification,  taking  into 
account the importance of integration measures 

At EU level, a European Court ruling on family reunification has to be mentioned. Relevant case 
law had already stated that the Directive on family reunification of third country nationals "imposes 
a precise positive obligation on Member States, requiring them in cases determined by the Directive 
to  authorise  family  reunification  of  certain  members  of  the  sponsor’s  family  and  leaving  them  no 
leeway in this."10 This principle was further fortified in a judgment of the European Court of Justice 
on 4th March 2010 (Case-578/08) when interpreting the provision which enables Member States to 
require stable and regular financial resources. The European Court of Justice held that this "may" 
clause  in  question  must  be  interpreted  strictly  and  must  not  be  used  by  the  Member  States  in  a 
manner  which  would  undermine  the  objective  of  the  Directive,  which  is  to  promote  family 
reunification, and the effectiveness thereof.11  

BE  and  NL  described  the  effects  experienced  on  their  family  reunification  policy  due  to 
jurisprudence. BE indicated that the Constitutional Court declared certain elements of Belgian Law 
discriminatory due to distinctions between EU and third-country nationals regarding the application 
of  legal  deadlines.  NL  noted  that  the  family  reunification  policy  was  brought  into  line  with  the 
obligations  ensuing  from  Directive  2003/86/EC,  following  the  aforementioned  judgment,  which 
forbid  the  distinction  between  ‘family  formation’  and  ‘family  reunification.12  The  policy  change 
resulted  in  a  decrease  in  the  income  requirement  which  had  applied  to  family  formation 
applications, as well as the application of a uniform age for all categories.  

I.3 Other legal migration 

I.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

Commitment:  I.(e)  to  strengthen  mutual  information  on  migration  by  improving  existing 
instruments where necessary; 

At EU level, two Contact Committees have taken place in 2010, dealing, on the one hand, with the 
Blue  Card  Directive,  and,  on  the  other,  with  the  four  Directives  on  legal  migration  (Family 
Reunification,  Long-term  Residents,  Students  and  Researchers  Directives).  Members  of  these 
committees were from national administrations responsible for the transposition and application of 
the directives. Through this committee, Member States may, on an informal basis, ask questions and 
hear the Commission's and the other Member States' views on the interpretation of the Directive. 

The European Migration Network (EMN)13 continued to serve as a useful source of information to 
support policymakers inter alia through its Studies (e.g. on unaccompanied minors, assisted return, 

10 
11 

12 

13 

Para 60 C-540/03 Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 22 December 2003. 
Case-578/08 Chakroun on Article 7(1) the possibility to require stable and regular financial resources from the 
sponsor.  The  specific  questions  were  whether  the  phrase  'recourse  to  the  social  assistance  system'  allows 
Member  States  to  include  special  assistance  granted  by  local  authorities  and  whether  a  distinction  can  be 
drawn according to whether the family relationship arose before or after the sponsor entered the territory of the 
host Member State. The answer was "no" to both questions.  
Family  formation  refers  to  the  establishment  of  a  family  relationship  after  the  entry  of  the  sponsor  into  the 
Member State while family reunification means the reunification of family  members with a sponsor legally-
residing in the Member State. 
All EMN outputs are available from http://www.emn.europa.eu.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
labour demand and on non-EU harmonised protection statuses) and Ad-Hoc Queries (99 individual 
queries  launched  in  2010  alone  with,  on  average,  16+  Member  State  responses  to  each  one  or, 
alternatively, over 1600 individual responses provided by the EMN NCPs). The Mutual Information 
Mechanism (MIM), however, was practically not used (only 3 communications received from one 
Member State in 2010).14  

The  modalities  of  data  collection  based  on  the  Migration  Statistics  Regulations  862/2007  were 
further  developed,  thus  allowing  for  a  more  complete  statistical  coverage.  The  harmonisation  of 
migratory  statistics  has  facilitated  better  comparisons  between  the  Member  States  and  served  to 
better support also the development of policy. 

Elsewhere,  in  the  context  of  information  exchange  on  irregular  migration,  the  possibility  for 
FRONTEX to take over the ICONet15 is part of the negotiations on the amendment of the Frontex 
Regulation (See  Section III.1.1).  The  promotion  of  the  use  of  ICONet  by  ILOs  is  included  in  the 
amendment  of  the  ILO  Regulation  expected  to  be  adopted  in  2011.  CIREFI  ceased  to  exist, 
according to the agreement reached among Member States, and FRONTEX was invited to take over 
the  collection  of  relevant  data related  to  irregular  immigration  instead.  Through  its  Risk  Analysis 
Network  (FRAN),  the  Agency  now  ensures  the  regular  collection,  analysis  and  dissemination  of 
relevant  information  (e.g.  number  of  refusals  at  the  external  borders,  apprehension  and  return  of 
irregular  immigrants)  with  a  view  to  facilitating  better  situational  awareness  by  the  competent 
national authorities. Furthermore, FRONTEX also facilitates topical discussions on various matters 
related to irregular immigration which constitute a common concern for the Member States, again 
in place of CIREFI. 

In  the  context  of  information  exchange  in  asylum,  the  EURASIL  network  organised  nine 
workshops, including workshops focusing on the latest situation in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The EURASIL network also facilitated ad hoc written queries on asylum-related matters submitted 
by Member States for feedback. Additionally, the construction of the Common Country-of-Origin 
Information (COI) Portal began. The COI Portal will be a tool enabling users in national authorities 
examining asylum applications to rapidly access COI via a reliable, secure and user-friendly 'one-
stop-shop'  at  EU  level.  This  is  achieved  by  linking  Member  States'  COI  IT  systems  to  the  COI 
Portal,  allowing  the  users  to  search  across  the  connected  systems.  Once  the  European  Asylum 
Support  Office  (EASO)  has  become  fully  operational,  it  is  expected  that  it  would  take  over  the 
activities of both EURASIL and COI. 

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, 
NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) shared and exchanged information on migration with other 
Member States, which took different forms. Many Member States (CZ, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LT, 
HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, UK) referred to the European Migration Network (EMN) as a method 
of sharing and disseminating information, with HU and PT specifically mentioning the creation of 
their  new  EMN  national  website  and  CY  referring  to  the  establishment  of  the  EMN  National 
Contact Point and National Network in 2010. CY, LV and LT emphasised the added-value of the 
EMN  Ad-Hoc  Queries16  as  a  way  of  obtaining  information  in  a  relatively  short  period.  Several 
Member States also made use of other existing (EU) platforms and networks, such as EURES (BG, 

14 

15 

16 

As  concluded  in  the  last  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  MIM  (COM(2009)  687),  any  information 
currently communicated through the MIM is now provided in this report on the implementation of the Pact. 
ICONet  is  a  secure  web-based  information  and  coordination  network  for  Member  States’  Migration 
Management Services, OJ L 83, 1.4.2005, p. 48. 
See http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Ad-Hoc Queries."  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PL), EUROSTAT (CZ, NL, PL, PT, SK, UK), FRAN17 (BG, CZ, PL, SK), ICMPD18 (BG, CZ, PL), 
ICONET19 (IE, PL, SK), GDISC20 (CZ, NL, UK) and MIM21 (NL). LT referred to the exchange of 
information with international organisations, such as IOM and UNHCR. Few Member States (BE, 
DK, FR, AT) had ongoing exchange of information and co-operation with other Member States via 
bilateral  contacts.  BE  set  up  a  twinning  project  between  the  Belgian  and  Bulgarian  Migration 
Directorates  to  strengthen  the  exchange  of  information.  FR  engaged  in  specific  cooperation  to 
strengthen mutual information with DE, IT and UK, especially in the area of sea surveillance (IT), 
irregular migration in the Calais area (UK) and other themes (DE). 

LT, PL and FI shared information at regional level, FI within the framework of the Nordic Council 
of Ministers and LT, PL within the Council of the Baltic Sea States. SK exchanged information at 
multilateral level on irregular migration with HU, PL and Ukraine. 

On other measures, PL concluded an agreement with the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to 
establish, among other priorities, cooperation in the field of analytical activities. PL also presented 
its  draft  Migration  Policy  which  recommended  intensifying  the  process  of  cooperation  with  other 
Member States in terms of exchanging information. 

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 Euraxess website22 continued to provide information on the rights and obligations 
of  researchers  from  third  countries,  as  well  as  posting  job  vacancies.  The  Commission  also 
continued its work on the future EU Immigration Portal. All Member States have co-operated with 
the Commission in the drafting of texts concerning their national immigration policies. The Portal 
will be launched in 2011. 

At national level, almost all Member States provided information on the possibilities and conditions 
of  legal  migration.  Such  information  was  mainly  available  on  the  official  websites  of  Ministries 
and/or employment agencies (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, 
PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK), in specific brochures published in different languages (BE, CZ, DE, 
CY, LU, MT, AT, PL, SI) and/or in other media (AT, UK). 

In addition, six Member States (BG, EE, FR, IT, NL, PL) make use of their embassies abroad for 
providing information to third-country nationals considering to migrate to their Member State. FR 
also noted that the French Office for Migration and Integration was present in a number of countries 
of  origin  and  provided  information  targeting  permanent  and/or  seasonal  workers.  In  addition,  IT 
emphasised  the  role  of  third-countries  authorities  and  NGOs  in  multiplying  the  information 
provided by its national authorities. 

Five  Member  States  (EE,  FR,  PL,  SE,  UK)  reported  on  providing  specific  information  to  third-
country national students, with EE, PL publishing information on universities’ websites and SE on 

17 
18 
19 

20 
21 

22 

FRONTEX Risk Analysis. 
International Centre for Migration Policy Development 
Secure  web-based  Information  and  Coordination  Network  for  Member  States’  Migration  Management 
Services, established by Council Decision 2005/267/EC, OJ 2005 L 83, p. 48. 
General Directors of Immigration Services Conference 
Mutual  Information  Mechanism  for  national  asylum  and  immigration  measures,  established  by  Council 
Decision 2006/688/EC, OJ L 283, 14.10.2006, p. 40–43 
http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/general/index  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
specific  web  pages.  FR  also  emphasised  the  role  of  the  Campus  France  Service,  present  in  89 
countries  abroad.  UK  used  the  participation  of  overseas  staff  in  student  fairs  and  conferences  to 
inform and raise awareness about its immigration requirements. 

Three  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  SK)  highlighted  the  important  role  of  their  information  and 
integration centres which delivered information to newly-arrived third-country nationals. 

With  regard  to  specific  measures  implemented  in  2010,  FR  set  up  and  NL  improved  their  single 
portal to present information about legal migration in a unified way. EE, PT, FI also set up new or 
further  developed  existing  websites,  the  purpose  being  to  provide  information  to  diaspora 
encouraging nationals to re-migrate (EE), facilitating the renewal and issuance of residence permits 
(PT) and improving the streamlining of information provision by category of migrants (FI). FI also 
reported on the current reform of the Info Bank Online service, which aimed to support immigrant 
integration by providing information on Finnish society and its services in 15 languages from the 
perspective of the immigrant user. This targeted three main groups, namely immigrants living in FI, 
immigration  authorities  and  third-country  nationals  planning  to  migrate  to  FI.  HU  and  SE 
established  new  online  visa  application  and  administration  systems,  which,  for  the  latter,  enabled 
the  applicant  to  check  their  application  status  online.  LU  continued  the  project  ‘Migrate  properly 
informed,’  in  Cape  Verde,  which  aimed  to  better  inform  Cape-Verde  nationals  about  the 
possibilities  and  constraints  for  migrating.  In  the  NL,  the  Immigration  and  Naturalisation  Service 
closely  cooperated  with  the  Dutch  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  improve  the  consistency  in  the 
provision of information provided by Dutch embassies and consulates. 

Six Member States (BE, LU, NL, PL, RO, UK) referred to future measures. These measures related 
to the implementation of a new website with more easily accessible information on legal migration 
possibilities  in  2011  (BE);  the  improvement  and  harmonisation  of  the  information  related  to 
immigration  published  on  different  websites  (LU);  the  development  of  an  Immigration  and 
Naturalisation  Service  website  with  a  strong  client  focus  (NL);  the  organisation  of  information 
campaigns  on  issues  related  to  labour  migration  in  the  main  countries  of  origin  (PL,  RO);  the 
publication of a guide for third-country national workers (RO); and the creation of a single portal to 
improve the quality of information provided to visa applicants (UK). 

ES  changed  its  information  policies  as  a  result  of  the  economic  crisis,  in  order  to  avoid  creating 
false  expectations  when  providing  information  to  third-country  nationals  for  the  prevention  of 
irregular migration. 

Several Member States (IE, EL, ES, CY, LT, NL, AT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE) made contributions to 
the EU Immigration Portal. ES also indicated that the two main websites providing information on 
admission,  procedures,  employment  and  hiring,  run  by  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Immigration, 
would be linked to the Portal once it was established. 

I.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.4) 

consolidation  of  all  legislation  in  the  area  of  immigration,  starting  with  legal  migration,  which 
would be based on an evaluation of the existing acquis de l’Union and include amendments needed 
their 
to  simplify  and/or,  where  necessary,  extend 
implementation and coherence 

the  existing  provisions  and 

improve 

The  Commission  plans  to  consolidate  the  legislation  in  the  area  of  legal  immigration  in  an 
Immigration Code only in 2013 - taking into account evaluations of the existing legislation and the 
need for simplification and transparency.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
invites the Commission to consider how existing information sources and networks can be used 
more effectively to ensure the availability of the comparable data on migration issues with a view 
to better informing policy choices, which also takes account of recent developments; (Section 6.1.3, 
A concerted policy in keeping with national labour-requirements) 

See the entry under Commitment I.(e) [Section I.3.1] 

I.4 Integration 

I.4.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

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 

At  EU  level,  in  March  2010  the  Commission  published  its  Report  to  the  2010  Ministerial 
Conference on Integration: The consolidation of the EU framework on integration.23 By 2010, all 
the integration tools announced in the 2005 Common Agenda for Integration had been put in place 
to  support  Member  States  to  establish  ambitious  policies.  The  fourth  European  Ministerial 
Conference on Integration was held in Zaragoza in April 2010 and Conclusions of the Council and 
the  Representatives  of  the  Governments  of  the  Member  States  were  adopted  on  Integration  as  a 
Driver for Development and Social Cohesion at the JHA Council of 3-4 June 2010.24  

The European Fund for the  Integration  of  Third-Country Nationals continued  to provide financial 
support  for  integration.  The  Commission  approved  the  national  annual  programmes  for  2010  and 
started  processing  the  final  reports  of  2007.  By  30  June  2010,  1  949  projects  had  been  funded. 
Concerning Community Actions, the 2010 annual work programme was adopted in July 2010 and 
the call for proposals was published in November 2010. More than 100 proposals were submitted, 
with selection taking place in 2011. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  (BE,  DK,  DE,  IE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  CY,  LU,  AT,  PT,  SE) 
reported  on  their  policy  or  the  adoption  of  new  policy.  This  included  the  establishment  of  new 
integration  strategies  (AT,  PT);  legislative  changes  concerning  integration  (DK,  EL,  ES,  FR,  LU, 
PL, FI, SE); the publication of a new integration policy document (BE) and nationwide integration 
programme  (DE,  CY,  LU);  institutional  changes  (BE,  EL,  LU,  AT);  and  the  introduction  of  new 
funding initiatives (IE).  

Legislative changes introduced included the right to vote and stand for elections at municipal level 
for  certain  categories  of  legally  residing  third-country  nationals  (EL,  ES)  and  third-country 
nationals  of  Greek  origin  (EL),  plus  for  all  legally-residing  third-country  nationals  (LU);  the 
automatic acquisition of citizenship for third-generation immigrants and, under certain conditions, 
for second generation immigrants (EL); a facilitated access to citizenship by naturalisation for third-
country nationals who had an ‘exceptional integration pathway’ (FR); new requirements to respect 
the integration contract in case of renewal of temporary residence permits and to sign the ‘Charter 
of  the  Citizen’s  rights  and  duties’  in  case  of  naturalisation  (FR);  the  definition  of  execution 
modalities  for  the  existing  Reception  and  Integration  contracts  (LU);  new  requirements  to 

23 
24 

SEC(2010) 357 of 19 March 2010. 
Council document 9248/10. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
demonstrate a certified knowledge of the national language in order to be granted residence and/or 
settlement  permits  (PL);  institutionalised  participation  of  third-country  nationals  in  public  life  at 
municipal level with the setting up of Councils on Immigrant Integration in each municipality (EL); 
plus  provisions  establishing  new  integration  models  (FI)  and  introduction  plans  (SE).  In  IE,  new 
funding  initiatives  focuses  on  the  promotion  of  integration  through  sport.  In  DK,  new  legislation 
underlined  the  responsibility  of  the  individual  third-country  national  for  their  integration  process, 
while also recognising the need for a strong commitment from the host society to support successful 
integration.  

Other Member States (EL, LV, MT, PL, FI, UK) modified their existing policies. For example, MT 
amended its legislation concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, 
which  transposed  Directive  2003/109/EC,  and  introduced  new  integration  measures  in  connection 
with the acquisition of such status. In order to facilitate access of third country nationals to the long 
term  resident  status,  EL  simplified  the  procedure  for  obtaining  the  required  Greek  language 
certificate and lowered the relevant permit fee. FI proposed an amendment to the Citizenship Act 
which aimed to facilitate access to citizenship for persons demonstrating sufficient command of one 
of the national languages. LV and PL modified their legislation to further define access to education 
for different categories of third-country nationals and establish compensatory courses at schools for 
third-country nationals (PL). In the UK, the Migration Impacts Fund, introduced under the previous 
government, was closed, with local authorities taking over responsibility for funding the supported 
projects. 

In other developments, CZ published its ‘Annual Report on the implementation of National Strategy 
for  the  Integration  of  Immigrants;’  EE  introduced  a  free  induction  programme  for  newly-arrived 
third-country nationals; and AT launched the “National Action Plan (NAP)” on Integration, which 
defines the principles and goals of national integration policy. 

Several  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  IE,  LT,  PL,  RO,  SI)  planned  developments  in  their  integration 
policy. This included the introduction of a new Integration Act (BE- Flanders), foreseen for 2011; 
the elaboration of a new national strategy on Migration, Asylum and Integration and the creation of 
national  forums  for  integration  (BG);  the  implementation  of  more  funding  initiatives  (IE);  the 
possible  establishment  of  a  coordinating  institution  for  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals 
(LT);  the  introduction  of  facilitated  rules  of  stay  for  legally  residing  third-country  nationals 
positively impacting on integration (PL); the extension of the categories of third-country nationals 
being able to participate in integration programmes (PL); the improvement of the access to housing 
(PL);  and  the  enhancement  of  integration  activities  for  third-country  nationals,  together  with  the 
setting up of integration information centres (RO). LT also planned the future implementation of the 
Council of Europe Convention on the participation of third-country nationals in public life at local 
level,  whilst  for  SI,  the  planned  amendment  of  the  Regulation  on  Integration  in  2011  aims  to 
broaden the scope of beneficiaries of language courses provided free of charge.  

Most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, 
PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, SE, FI, UK) have measures in place to enable migrants to learn the language of 
the host countries and to acquire knowledge of the host society’s history and culture (BE, CZ, DK, 
DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK). EE started to offer 
free language courses to unemployed and low paid third-country national migrants, additionally to 
the induction programme and courses for citizenship exams. Among innovative measures, BG and 
IE  undertook  regional  schemes.  These  related  to  mobile  teams  delivering  language  and  civic 
integration courses in regions where there was a limited number of third-country nationals (BG), as 
well local volunteers conducting English language classes (IE). In NL, the ‘House for Democracy 
and  The  Rule  of  Law’  was  established  in  September  2010  which  aimed  to  increase  people’s 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
knowledge of and participation in democracy, targeted at particular groups, including third-country 
nationals participating in civic integration programmes. Concerning civic orientation, SE introduced 
new  legislation  guaranteeing  a  minimum  of  60  hours  of  civic  orientation  to  newly-arrived  third-
country nationals. Similarly, DE planned to extend its orientation courses from 45 to 60 hours.  

Many Member States (DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, CY, LU, HU, AT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK) also 
referred  to  support  services,  programmes  and/or  projects  to  enhance  migrants’  access  to 
employment,  including  job-related  language  training  (DE,  AT,  SI);  employment  preparation 
activities  (EE,  ES,  PL,  SE);  social  support  and  training  (CY,  MT);  mapping  of  labour  market 
possibilities  for  newly-arrived  third-country  nationals  (EL,  HU);  project  promoting  immigrant 
entrepreneurship (PT); advisory programmes (PL, RO); and projects focusing on refugees’ access to 
employment  (EL,  UK).  In  AT,  for  example,  a  new  location  “Habibi  –  House  for  Education  and 
Professional  Integration”  was  established,  acting  as  a  one-stop-shop  for  labour  market  oriented 
integration  of  migrants.  A  comprehensive  multiannual  agreement  was  signed  in  FR  in  order  to 
facilitate the professional orientation of third-country nationals who had signed the 'Reception and 
Integration  Contract'  and  shorten  the  delay  to  access  employment.  This  foresaw  the  adaptation  of 
services  offered  by  the  Public  Employment  Service  to  newly-arrived  third-country  nationals,  the 
definition  of  the  services  offered  by  the  Public  Employment  Service  to  the  migrants  during  their 
first five years and the prevention of discrimination within the Public Employment Service and at 
local level when dealing with migrants. In LU, as part of the proposed reform of the Employment 
Administration  Agency,  legally  established  third-country  nationals  (having  a  perspective  to  stay 
longer) and their family members will benefit from the Agency’s services. 

Several  Member  States  (DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  CY,  NL,  PT,  SK,  UK)  also  reported  on  measures  to 
facilitate migrants’ access to public and social services. Most of the measures emphasised the role 
of municipalities (EL) and/or local integration and/or information centres (NL, PT, SK) and social 
workers  (HU).  EE  started  to  develop  a  support  person  service  for  newly  arrived  third-country 
nationals in the municipalities. UK indicated that access to accident and emergency services were 
free  of  charge  for  migrants  and  that  they  had  the  right  to  register  to  a  local  (general  practitioner) 
doctor.  

As  well,  several  Member  States  (EE,  EL,  ES,  CY,  IT,  LV,  HU,  PL,  SK,  UK)  noted  that  these 
activities,  projects  and  programmes  received  funds  from  the  European  Integration  Fund  or  the 
European Social Fund (DE, EL, UK) or the European Refugee Fund (EL, PL, UK). 

Commitment  I.(h)  Promote  information  exchange  on  best  practices  in  terms  of  reception  and 
integration 

At EU level, four meetings of National Contact Points on Integration (NCPI) took place. Moreover, 
the  Commission  launched  the  third  edition  of  the  'Handbook  on  Integration  for  policymakers  and 
practitioners' on the occasion of the IV Ministerial Conference on Integration, held in Zaragoza in 
April.  Handbooks  were  distributed  to  all  Member  States  in  22  official  languages.  The  European 
Web  Site  on  Integration  (on  www.integration.eu)  incorporated  27  Country  Coordinators  into  its 
governance structure in order to offer first-hand information from all Member States on a regular 
basis. 

At national level, most Member States outlined their participation in the National Contact Point on 
Integration,  the  European  website  on  Integration  and  the  European  Integration  Forum.  Some  also 
contributed  to  the  preparation  of  the  EU  Belgian  Presidency  Expert  Conference  on  European 
Integration Modules in December 2010. This conference was a first step in the development and use 
of  the  European  Integration  Modules  and  aimed  at  achieving  a  shared  understanding  of  the  used 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
terminology and clarifying the concept of ‘modules’ by presenting practical experiences in different 
Member States. 

In addition, several Member States referred to the establishment of working groups and/or structural 
exchanges at national level among actors involved in integration policies (BE, BG, LU, HU, MT, 
NL, AT, PL, SI); the further development (DK, IE, LV, AT, PT, SI) or initiation (EL) of websites 
enabling  the  publication  of  information  on  integration  matters;  the  creation  of  an  internet  portal 
providing information on integration matters (EL); the introduction of specific funding streams for 
the  transfer  of  know-how  and  good  practices  (ES);  research  on  best  practices  relating  to  equal 
treatment of female migrant workers (EL); the organisation of thematic conference to exchange best 
practices (EE, ES, LU); the consultation of national and international integration experts to identify 
best  practices  (AT);  the  publication  of  a  compendium  of  cases  of  successful  application  of  local 
awareness-raising  and  equal  treatment  and  non-discrimination  plans  (ES);  and  the  publication  of 
newsletters on integration-related issues which facilitated dialogue and exchange of good practices 
(SE). 

In DK, the campaign “Needing All Youngsters” was implemented in 2010 which used role models 
with  migrant  backgrounds  to  inspire  young  migrants  to  perform  better  in  their  studies  and  in  the 
workplace.  

Several  Member  States  (IE,  ES,  NL,  PT,  SE)  jointly  elaborated  a  Decalogue  of  citizenship, 
tolerance and dialogue that summarises common arguments of conviviality in order to promote a 
European discourse of tolerance, based on the generation of a rationale for harmony and respect, on 
recognition of differences, and on building European citizenship estranged from any kind of racism 
and  xenophobia.  National,  regional  and  local  government’s  representatives,  Mass  Media,  NGOs, 
Trade Unions, Universities and entrepreneurships participated in the procedure. 

I.4.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.5) 

through the development of a coordination mechanism involving the Commission and the Member 
States  using  a  common  reference  framework,  which  should  improve  structures  and  tools  for 
European knowledge exchange, 

At  EU  level,  Member  States  invited  the  Commission  in  the  Council  conclusions  of  June  2010  to 
develop  a  new  agenda  on  integration,  including  a  coordination  mechanism,  as  proposed  in  the 
Stockholm  Programme,  which  would  improve  structures  and  tools  for  European  knowledge 
exchange  and  facilitate  mainstreaming  of  integration  priorities  in  all  relevant  areas.  The 
Commission started working on a new European agenda on integration, which will be presented in 
2011.  Reinforcing  coordination  of  integration  priorities  in  relevant  policy  areas  and  cooperation 
between levels of governance to develop and implement these is part of this work. 

to incorporate integration issues in a comprehensive way in all relevant policy areas 

At EU level, the Commission reported to the fourth Ministerial Conference on the promotion of a 
cross-cutting  approach  to  integration  policy.  Integration  has  become  an  important  dimension  of  a 
wide range of policies, including employment, education  and  social policies.  In 2010, the  Europe 
2020 Strategy was approved by Heads of States and Governments, including, as one of its headline 
targets, the aim to bring to 75% the level of employment, including through the better integration of 
legal  migrants.  In  its  Communication  on  'An  Agenda  for  new  skills  and  jobs:  A  European 
contribution towards full employment' adopted in November 2010, the Commission underlined the 
need  to  manage  better  the  integration  of  migrants  legally  residing  in  the  EU,  particularly  through 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
removing  barriers  to  employment,  such  as  discrimination  or  the  non-recognition  of  skills  and 
qualifications, which put migrants at risk of unemployment and social exclusion.25 

The Commission adopted in December 2010 its Communication on 'The European Platform against 
Poverty  and  Social  Exclusion:  A  European  framework  for  social  and  territorial  cohesion'.26 
Managing integration of migrants is highlighted as being at the forefront of European and national 
policy agendas in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. 

Numerous EU initiatives have confirmed that  education has an  important contribution to make to 
the  successful  integration  of  migrants.  In  September  2010,  the  Commission  adopted  its 
Communication  'Youth  on  the  Move:  An  initiative  to  unleash  the  potential  of  young  people  to 
achieve  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  in  the  European  Union',  underlining  the  need  for 
tailored measures for young people with a migrant background.27 The Communication on 'Tackling 
early school leaving: A key contribution to the Europe 2020 Agenda' also emphasises the need to 
support children with a migrant background.28 

Several  other  initiatives  in  areas  such  as  health,  housing,  sport  and  urban  development,  could  be 
mentioned to illustrate how integration issues are incorporated in relevant policy areas. 

At national level, most Member States (CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, NL, AT, 
PT,  RO,  FI,  SI,  SK,  SE,  UK)  reported  on  approaches  and/or  measures  to  better  incorporate 
integration  issues  in  a  comprehensive  way  in  all  relevant  policy  areas.  Many  of  these  Member 
States  (DE,  EL,  ES,  CY,  LU,  NL,  AT,  RO,  SK,  FI)  mainstreamed  integration  objectives  and/or 
targets in other sectoral policy areas,  such as education,  employment, childhood and adolescence, 
gender,  housing,  social  welfare,  health  care  services  and  tax  policy.  CZ,  LU  and  UK  organised 
regular joint meetings with representatives of other Ministries for designing (LU) and implementing 
(CZ,  LU)  their  national  integration  strategy  or  ensuring  that  the  needs  of  refugees,  public  service 
use  and  integration  issues  were  considered  in  the  development  of  other  policies  (UK).  In  the 
beginning  of  2010  in  EE,  a  Steering  Committee  for  the  Integration  Plan  2008-2013  started  its 
activities to better incorporate integration issues with the topics belonging in the responsibility other 
Ministries. PT and SE highlighted that their national integration strategy covered other policy areas, 
such as education, employment, health, housing and culture. With regard to approaches developed 
by other Member States, IT mentioned the Inter-Ministry ‘Plan for integration in security: Identity 
and  Meeting’  adopted  in  June  2010,  which  illustrated  the  increased  importance  allocated  to 
integration  and  its  place  in  other  policy  areas.  LV  referred  to  the  developments  of  the  ‘Main 
Positions of the Society Integration Policy 2010-2016,’ which envisaged the involvement of other 
state administration and municipal institutions. HU noted that due to the lack of a comprehensive 
integration  act,  rights  enhancing  integration  were  mentioned  in  different  sectoral  pieces  of 
legislation.  

towards  the  identification  of  joint  practices  and  European  modules  to  support  the  integration 
process, including essential elements such as introductory courses and language classes, a strong 
commitment  by  the  host  community  and  the  active  participation  of  immigrants  in  all  aspects  of 
collective life,  

25 
26 
27 
28 

COM(2010) 682 final 
COM(2010) 758 final 
COM(2010) 477 final 
COM(2011) 18 final 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At  EU  level,  the  Commission  launched  a  project  for  the  development  of  European  modules  to 
support Member States in their development and implementation of integration policies, as called 
for in the Stockholm Programme and reiterated in the Council conclusions of June 2010. Modules 
are developed within three main areas: 1) introductory and language courses; 2) strong commitment 
by the host society; and 3) active participation of migrants in all aspects of collective life.  

The  modules  are  a  natural  evolution  of  the  'Handbook  on  Integration  for  policymakers  and 
practitioners'  and  they  are  developed  in  close  dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  Member 
States. Meetings of the NCPI were used to discuss priorities and expert meetings were organised to 
identify  main  challenges  and  experiences  of  measures  to  meet  these  challenges.  The  first  expert 
seminar on introductory and language courses was organised in Riga (LV) on 28-29 October 2010 
with further seminars planned in 2011. A third seminar on the active participation of migrants in all 
aspects of collective life is organised in Brussels (BE) in April 2011. 

The Belgian Presidency organised an expert conference on European integration modules on 15-16 
December 2010. This conference was an occasion for discussion on the concept of modules and for 
exchange of good practice. It gave a first input regarding the scope and use of modules. 

towards  the  development  of  core  indicators  in  a  limited  number  of  relevant  policy  areas  (e.g. 
employment,  education  and  social  inclusion)  for  monitoring  the  results  of  integration  policies,  in 
order  to  increase  the  comparability  of  national  experiences  and  reinforce  the  European  learning 
process, 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  launched  a  pilot  project  for  the  evaluation  of  integration  policies, 
including use of the indicators proposed in the Annex to the Council conclusions of June 2010. The 
aim  is  to  increase  comparability  and  contribute  to  the  European  learning  process,  based  on 
monitoring  of  results  of  integration  policies.  Indicators  have  been  identified  in  four  areas  of 
relevance  for  integration,  building  on  national  experiences  and  the  Common  Basic  Principles  for 
Immigrant  Integration  Policy  in  the  EU:  employment,  education,  social  inclusion  and  active 
citizenship. On the one hand, the pilot project includes reporting on the availability and quality of 
already harmonised data by Eurostat and, on the other hand, it includes analysing the significance of 
the  defined  indicators  taking  into  account  the  national  contexts,  in  dialogue  between  the 
Commission and Member States. 

improved consultation with and involvement of civil society 

At EU level, two meetings of the European Integration Forum were convened, with almost 100 civil 
society organisations represented. In June 2010, participants discussed the role of the media in the 
integration  process  and  gave  their  input  on  the  new  European  Agenda  on  Integration  (to  be 
published  in  2011).  During  the  following  two  months,  organisations  sent  written  contributions,  a 
summary of which is available on the European Web Site on Integration (www.integration.eu). In 
December, participants in the Forum discussed ways to encourage migrants' participation and strong 
commitment by the host society. 

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, 
LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, AT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK) regularly involved civil society organisations 
in integration policymaking and measures. This included consultation of civil society organisations 
for the elaboration (DK, DE, ES, CY, LV, LU, AT, PL, PT, RO) and implementation (CZ, DK, DE, 
EE,  SK)  of  national  integration  plans;  participation  of  civil  society  organisations  in  hearings  and 
government initiatives (BG, EL, ES, FI); implementation of integration projects (BG, CZ, DK, ES, 
CY, LT, LU, MT, UK); involvement of NGOs in the design and implementation of local integration 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
plans  (EL,  ES,  FI);  and  implementation  of  measures  facilitating  access  to  employment  (EL,  FR). 
Other Member States mentioned the strategic role of NGOs in specifying the annual priorities and 
actions of the European Integration Fund (EL, LV, HU). Five Member States (ES, IE, NL, SI, UK) 
also  mentioned  the  existence  of  national  dialogue  structures  on  integration  policy,  whilst  SE 
adopted  a  formalised  agreement  between  the  government,  municipalities  and  NGOs  to  strengthen 
the  role  of  the  latter  in  the  integration  of  newly-arrived  migrants  and  facilitate  NGOs  access  in 
integration projects. In DK, the establishment of local integration councils and a national council for 
ethnic minorities was foreseen in the new Integration Act in 2010 in order to ensure the consultation 
of  ethnic  minorities  throughout  policymaking.  In  LU,  a  specific  study  was  carried  out  to  better 
understand the needs of NGOs when elaborating and managing projects supported by national and 
EU funding.  

With regard to planned measures, BE indicated that the Minority Forum, an umbrella organisation 
of migrants’ organisations, would act as official advisor of the Commission for Integration Policy in 
Flanders as of 2011. In IT, the Territorial Councils for Immigration, under the Ministry of Interior, 
aimed to link at provincial level in the future the most significant (public and private) organisations 
working in the field of integration. In PL the draft Migration Policy foresees creating a consultative 
and advisory committee composed of non-state actors located at the Office for Foreigners.  

enhance  democratic  values  and  social  cohesion  in  relation  to  immigration  and  integration  of 
immigrants and promote intercultural dialogue and contact 

At EU level, see the entry under Commitment I. (g) [Section I.4.1] 

At national level, most Member States (BE, DK, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, 
NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE) reported on actions undertaken to enhance democratic values and 
social cohesion in relation to immigration and integration of immigrants and promote intercultural 
dialogue  and  contact.  ES,  CY,  AT  and  PT  established  intercultural  dialogue  as  a  key  priority  of 
their national integration plan and DE, AT engaged and/or continued formalised and active dialogue 
with representatives of migrants’ religious communities. This related to further developing dialogue 
with representatives of the Muslim community through the German Islam Conference, which was 
focused  on  issues  related  to  the  practical  participation  of  Muslims  in  German  life,  including  the 
establishment  of  Islamic  religious  instructions  in  State  schools  and  Islamic  theology  classes  in 
universities  (DE);  and  initiating  a  series  of  talks  between  experts,  Muslim  representatives  and 
citizens  under  the  ‘Islam,  People,  Dialogue’  initiative  (AT).  Furthermore,  roundtables  were 
organised  by  BE,  EE,  AT  on  interculturalism.  In  BE,  these  roundtables,  held  in  2009,  led  to  the 
publication  in  November  2010  of  68  recommendations  to  recognise  and  manage  the  growing 
diversity of the society.  

BE, IE and SI also focused on the promotion of diversity and intercultural dialogue in the media. 
These  measures  included  the  launching  of  an  action  plan  applicable  to  the  French  Community 
concerning diversity in the audiovisual media (BE), as well as the establishment of a new migrant 
media  internship  programme  for  local  and  regional  newspapers  aimed  at  documenting  issues  of 
immigration and integration and helping communities to understand the challenges and perspectives 
of  migrants  (IE).  Within  the  framework  of  the  action  plan  in  BE,  a  ‘First  Overview  on  Good 
Practices  on  Equal  Opportunities  and  Diversity  in  the  Audiovisual  Media  of  the  French 
Community’ was published in December 2010. 

With  regard  to  other  implemented  measures,  these  included  the  establishment  of  a  specific  web 
portal  to  improve  communication  between  cultural  organisations,  minority  communities,  media, 
government  and  other  stakeholders  (EE);  the  creation  of  a  database  in  order  to  register  cultural 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
associations  and  migrant  contact  groups  (EL);  the  promotion  of  intercultural  civic  education  and 
management  of  intercultural  community  living  through  social  and  neighbourhood  mediation  and 
prevention  of  conflicts  (ES);  the  active  participation  of  intercultural  mediators  in  schools  (IT); 
involving  civil  society  in  the  formulation  of  integration  policy  through  the  Advisory  Board  for 
Ethnic  Relations  (FI);  the  participation  of  public  services  in  festivals  dedicated  to  migration  and 
cultural diversity (LU); integration courses focusing on civic aspects and democratic values (MT); 
the establishment of an African Cultural Information Centre (SK); the elaboration of a study for the 
establishment  of  an  Immigration  Museum  (EL);  the  provision  of  training  related  to  diversity 
management  (LV,  LU);  and  the  continued  implementation  of  the  ‘mixed  ethnic  teams’  concept 
which  aimed  at  developing  small-scale  activities  in  different  neighbourhoods  and  reinforcing 
mutual understanding among different cultures (EL, NL). In addition, several Member States (CY, 
ES, LT, LU, HU, PL, SK, SE) mentioned the funding of projects promoting intercultural dialogue.  

On  future  measures,  HU  reported  on  the  current  preparation  of  its  EU  Presidency  Conference  on 
Promoting  Integration  through  Media  and  Intercultural  Dialogue.  Moreover,  PL  indicated  that  its 
draft  Migration  Policy  provided  recommendations  for  actions  addressed  to  the  host  society  and 
actions aimed at mainstreaming intercultural dialogue.  

II. IRREGULAR IMMIGRATION AND RETURN 

II.1 Irregular migration29 

II.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

Commitment: II.(a) to use only case-by-case regularisation, rather than generalised regularisation, 
under national law, for humanitarian or economic reasons; 

At EU level, there were no specific developments concerning regularisation in 2010.  

At national level, eight Member States (BE, BG, EL, FR, IT, CY, AT, PT) had used case-by-case 
regularisation in 2010 although the reasons for regularisation varied. For BE and AT, regularisation 
could  only  be  undertaken  on  humanitarian  grounds.  In  FR  and  CY,  the  reasons  for  regularisation 
were also of humanitarian nature, whilst, in other instances, the reasons were linked to the regular 
employment  of  the  migrant  and  to  the  length  of  residence  in  the  Member  State  (FR),  or  in  cases 
where the removal order of a third-country national could not be executed within six months (CY). 
In EL, in cases where exceptional reasons exist which necessitate the residence of a third-country 
national, a residence permit may be issued after taking into consideration the opinion of a relevant 
Committee foreseen in the law; the length of the said permit cannot exceed six months and shall not 
be  renewed  for  the  same  reason,  but  only  for  one  of  the  other  reasons  foreseen  in  national 
legislation. 

With regard to generalised regularisation, BG undertook generalised regularisation of third-country 
nationals,  and  their  children,  mainly  from  the  former  Soviet Union,  through  the  application  of 
recently adopted legislation. BG also made steps to ratify the UN Convention on Stateless persons 
by introducing a national mechanism to regularise stateless persons. In SK, regularisation was not 

29 

The  European  Pact  on  Asylum  and  Immigration  and  the  Stockholm  Programme  interchangeably  refers  to 
illegal  and  irregular  migration.  In  keeping  with  recent  reports  from  the  Commission,  the  term  "irregular"  is 
used here. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
undertaken as the ‘tolerated residence permit’ was considered a sufficient legalisation mechanism 
for the prevention of illegal stay. 

Some Member States (BE, EL, IT, CY, PT) reported on the number of regularisations undertaken in 
2010. This ranged from the regularisation of respectively 50 and 16 353 persons on humanitarian 
grounds (CY, BE) to the regularisation of 210 000 third-country nationals working in the healthcare 
and social sector (IT). Additionally, PT regularised 659 minors on the grounds of safeguarding the 
family unit, as part of the national “Goes to  School” programme. CY also regularised 30 persons 
whose  removal  order  could  not  be  executed  and  EL  granted  a  residence  permit  for  exceptional 
reasons, as per the abovementioned procedure, to 419 third country nationals. 

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; 

At  EU  level,  opening  new  channels  of  legal  migration  may  contribute  to  preventing  irregular 
migration  and/or  overstaying  for  the  purpose  of  employment.  Presented  in  July  2010,  the 
Commission's  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country 
nationals  for  the  purposes  of  seasonal  employment30  concerning  low-skilled  migrant  workers  and 
the proposal for a Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the 
framework  of  an  intra-corporate  transfer31  concerning  highly-qualified  workers,  are  of  particular 
relevance in this respect. Both proposals provide for a precise scope of beneficiaries and a common 
set  of  admission  controls  to  be  performed  by  Member  States  prior  to  the  entry  of  third-country 
nationals into the EU territory. They also include provisions on sanctions to be applied in case of 
non-compliance with the conditions for admission. 

At national level, IE drafted legislation outlining a future strategy for preventing irregular migration 
through the elaboration of rules relating to the suppression of migrant smuggling and trafficking in 
human  beings.  EL  submitted  to  parliament  for  vote  a  draft  law  for  the  establishment  of  a  First 
Reception Service responsible for the efficient management of the flows of illegally entering third-
country nationals and their swift integration in first reception procedures. In PL, the draft Migration 
Policy of Poland was developed, with recommendations elaborated concerning the future combating 
of  irregular  migration  with  emphasis  on  the  improved  control  of  administrative  procedures  for 
legalisation  of  stay,  the  reduction  of  irregular  migration  routes  and  the  promotion  of  voluntary 
return.  In  addition,  FI  developed  a  cross-sectoral  Action  Plan  of  30  measures  for  preventing 
irregular migration. 

Specific  programmes  were  introduced  by  CZ  and  IT  to  prevent  irregular  migration.  In  CZ,  a 
temporary assisted return programme was set up to encourage the return of third-country nationals 
who lost their jobs as a result of the economic crisis and who subsequently risked residing in the 
Member State without legal authorisation. In IT, the ‘Migrantes Operation’ was set up in Calabria 
to facilitate checks of migrants’ documents, while at national level, the ‘Unique Document of Fiscal 
Regularity’ in the construction sector contributed to the detection of undeclared work. In addition, 
DK modified its legislation to enable the merging of data from various public databases in order to 
introduce controls on compliance with conditions linked to the granting of residence permits, while 

30 
31 

COM (2010) 379 final. 
COM (2010) 378 final. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
LT’s  State  Border  Guard  Service  and  the  Police  Department  signed  an  agreement  to  coordinate 
activities related to the control of third-country nationals. 

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,  cooperation  in  the  field  of  return  of  irregularly  staying  third-country  nationals 
intensified.  The  role  of  FRONTEX  was  strengthened,  as  well  as  the  allocations  under  the  annual 
budget  of  the  Agency.  The  latter  increased  by  70%  compared  to  2009  amounting  to  €9  341  000. 
FRONTEX  co-ordinated  (data  covering  the  period  between  1  January  and  3  December  2010)  in 
total 37 joint return flights with a total number of 1 896 returnees. Twenty Member States (BE, CZ, 
DE,  HU,  IE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  CY,  LU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  SI,  FI,  SE,  UK)  and  two  Schengen 
associated  countries  (CH,  NO)  participated  in  these  flights.  Countries  of  return  were  Albania, 
Armenia,  Burundi,  Cameroon,  Columbia,  Ecuador,  Gambia,  Georgia,  Iraq,  Kosovo,  Nigeria  and 
Ukraine. In 24 of the 37 joint operations, at least one of the participating Member States provided 
for monitoring in accordance with their national legislation. FRONTEX co-financed 34 joint return 
operations. The first joint return flight chartered by the Agency and destined for Georgia, took off 
on 28 September 2010 from Poland with 59 returnees on board from four Member States. 

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, 
LU, HU, MT, AT, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) had positive co-operation with each other in the 
removal of irregular migrants, mostly in supporting FRONTEX operations (as outlined above also).  

Five Member States (DK, EE, FR, LV, UK) described other forms of cooperation in this area which 
related to participation in international projects (EE); the provision of expertise and assistance on 
the  identification  of  irregular  migrants  in  the  Mediterranean  region  (EE,  FR,  LV),  including,  for 
LV,  the  provision  of  assistance  in  the  removal  of  third-country  nationals;  and  the  exchange  of 
information  on  personal  data  and  travel  documents  of  irregular  migrants  (EE).  For  example,  EE 
participated  in  the  ICMPD  project  ‘Enhancing  Return  to  Georgia  Operationally’  (ERGO),  which 
aimed at improving the forced return system to Georgia. EE also cooperated with specific States by 
exchanging information on the personal data, identity and travel documents of irregular migrants. In 
addition,  UK  participated  in  political  dialogue  with  NL  over  joint  approaches  to  the  return  of 
irregular  migrants  from  Iraq,  while  DK  contributed  actively  to  the  Temporary  desk  on  Iraq.  The 
potential  of  an  EU  agreement  with  key  migration  countries  on  biometric  matches  for  evidencing 
nationality was also considered by the UK. As for future measures, RO planned participating in the 
‘European Initiative on Return Management (EURINT)’, in cooperation with BE, DE and NL. 

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  Commission  organised  another  two  meetings  of  a  Contact  Committee  with 
Member  States  representatives  in  order  to  discuss  the  implementation  of  the  Employer  Sanctions 
Directive  2009/52/EC,  which  partly  addresses  the  problem  of  exploitation.  The  aforementioned 
proposal for a Directive on seasonal workers also aims to prevent the exploitation of this vulnerable 
group. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
At national level, many Member States (DK,32 DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LU, NL, PT, UK) 
described existing national legislation regulating sanctions on persons employing migrants illegally. 
In  DE,  a  fine  of  up  to  €500  000  can  be  imposed  according  to  the  Social  Code.  EE  and  CY  also 
imposed fines on employers in breach of legislation and provided data related to enforcement (DE, 
EE, CY). On the number of fines issued, EE issued 94 penalties in 2010 with fines of up to 50 000 
kroon (€3 200). In CY, 775 cases of illegal employmen t were brought to justice, from January to 
September 2010, with 1 035 third-country national workers and 785 employers arrested. LU carried 
out several business inspections, including three ‘afterwork actions,’ 17 controls related to the fight 
against  illegal  employment  during  weekends  and  196  additional  controls.  In  ES,  following  the 
introduction  of  a  legislative  amendment  in  2010,  the  employment  of  irregular  migrants  could  be 
considered as a criminal offence, punishable with a prison term of up to five years. In IT, the Anti-
Mafia Investigation Directorates highlighted the link between exploitation of irregular migrants and 
organised crime. In EL, the procedure for imposing fines to employers employing migrants illegally 
became  more  efficient,  due  to  legislative  amendments  allowing  the  Labour  Supervisory  Body  to 
directly impose the administrative fines foreseen by legislation and establishing more severe fines 
through the introduction of specific criteria for defining their amount. 

CZ, LV, NL adopted legislation to transpose the Employer Sanctions Directive 2009/52/EC, with 
CZ reporting the entry into force of its national legislation on 1st January 2011. A number of other 
Member  States  (DE,  FR,  CY,  LT,  LU,  PL,  RO,  SI,  SK)  drafted  legislation  to  transpose  the 
Employers’ Sanctions Directive with all legislation expected to be adopted in 2011, whilst BE, BG, 
EE,  EL,  HU,  MT,  AT,  FI  undertook  preparations  for  the  transposition  of  the  Directive.  These 
preparations included the establishment of a working group examining transposition (BG, EL), as 
well as the identification of required legislative changes, including amendments to the Penal Code 
enabling imprisonment and forced termination for employers exploiting irregular workers (EE).  

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 deadline for the implementation of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC) expired on 
24  December  2010.33  According  to  the  case  law  developed  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice, 
provisions  of  a  Directive  which  confer  rights  on  individuals  and  which  are  sufficiently  clear  and 
unconditional become directly effective from the end of the time limit for the implementation of the 
Directive.  Many  of  the  provisions  of  the  Return  Directive  fulfil  these  requirements  and  have 
become  directly  effective  as  of  24.12.2010  in  those  Member  States  which  have  not  yet  adopted 
national  legislation  transposing  the  Directive.  This  means  that  they  are  legally  enforceable  rights 
which can be relied upon in national courts. 

32 

33 

Due  to  DK’s  general  reservation  in  the  area  of  Justice  and  Home  Affairs,  DK  did  not  transpose  Directive 
2009/52/EC.  However,  DK’s  legislation  contains  rules  regulating  sanctions  on  persons  employing  migrants 
illegally and DK’s police regularly carries out controls together with other relevant authorities to ensure that 
workplaces do not employ irregular migrants.  
By 18th March 2011, 9 Member States (BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, MT, PT, SK, FI) plus Switzerland and Norway 
have notified full transposition of the Return Directive and 4 Member States (BE, LT, LV, SE) had notified 
partial  transposition  of  the  Directive  to  the  Commission.  On  27  January  2011  the  Commission  decided  to 
launch formal infringement procedures and to send letters of formal notice to all Member States which did not 
notify full transposition of Directive 2008/115/EC.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission organised, in the course of 2010, three Contact Committee meetings with Member 
States  representatives  in  view  of  preparing  the  implementation  of  the  Return  Directive.  At  these 
meetings,  the  Commission  repeatedly  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. These meetings also included 
special  workshops  at  which  Member  States  and  International  Organisations,  as  well  as  NGOs, 
discussed  the  issue  of  return  of  minors  as  well  as  alternatives  to  detention.  Three  comparative 
studies were launched: one relating to the situation of minors in return procedures, one on forced 
return monitoring and one on reintegration of returnees. 

All Member States which fully use the SIS have implemented national procedures for the creation 
of  Art.  96  alerts  in  the  SIS.  National  implementation  of  Article  96  may  vary  between  Member 
States. One area of concern occurs when a person is checked at the external border, is subject of an 
Article 96 alert, but is also in possession of a seemingly valid residence permit or visa. This causes 
problems for border guards. As highlighted by the Commission during all recent SIS evaluations, 
this can be overcome: firstly, through national administrations granting 24/7 access on permit/visa 
data  to  their  national  SIRENE  bureau,  to  allow  confirmation  of  the  status  of  the  permit/visa;  and 
secondly, through use of alerts under Article 100 3(e) when a residence permit or visa is withdrawn 
but the document not recovered. 

At national level, many Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, LU, NL, AT, PL, RO, SI, SK, 
FI) described relevant developments. Several (BE, BG, CZ, EL, LU, NL, PL, SK, FI) referred to the 
status  of  transposition  of  the  Return  Directive  (Directive  2008/115/EC),  with  inter alia  FI  stating 
that  with  the  implementation  of  the  return  directive,  expulsion  decisions  will  as  a  general  rule  be 
accompanied  by  an  entry  ban,  thereby  increasing  the  number  of  entries  into  the  Schengen 
Information System (SIS). AT also reported that all legally binding and enforceable residence and 
return  bans  were  registered  in  the  SIS.  DK  and  SI  indicated  having  transposed  the  mutual 
recognition of expulsion decisions in their national legislation. Moreover, EE reported that between 
January  and  October  2010,  965  banned  third-country  nationals  were  entered  into  the  SIS.  RO 
participated  in  discussions  between  Member  States  on  the  draft  standard  form  for  the  mutual 
recognition  of  the  expulsion  decisions,  within  the  framework  of  the  Contact  Committee  on  the 
Return Directive. 

II.1.2 Stockholm programme (Section 6.1.6) 

improving  the  exchange  of  information  on  developments  at  national  level  in  the  area  of 
regularisation, with a view to ensuring consistency with the principles of the Pact on Asylum and 
Migration; 

See the entry under Commitment I.(e) [Section I.3.1] 

Member  States  to  put  into  full  effect  the  Union  provisions  pursuant  to  which  a  return  decision 
issued  by  one  Member  State  is  applicable  throughout  the  European  Union  and  the  effective 
application of the principle of mutual recognition of return decisions by recording entry bans in 
the SIS and facilitating exchange of information;  

See the entry under Commitment II.(h) [Section II.1.1] 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
more effective action against illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings and smuggling of 
persons  by  developing  information  on  migration  routes  as  well  as  aggregate  comprehensive 
information which improves our understanding of and response to migratory flows 

At  EU  level,  the  negotiations  between  the  Council  and  the  Parliament  have  been  completed  on  a 
proposal for a Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting 
victims.34 The new instrument, 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.  The  Commission 
also adopted the implementation report35 on Directive 2004/81/EC on residence permits for victims 
of trafficking which showed that its potential is not being put to full use. The Commission will thus 
examine the need for amendments of this Directive. Other developments included the launching of 
the anti-trafficking website36 and the appointment of the new EU Anti-Trafficking Co-ordinator.37 

At  national  level,  Member  States  made  use  of  different  tools  to  gather  information  on  migration 
routes  and  migratory  flows.  Some  Member  States  (BG,  DE,  EE,  CY,  LT,  PT)  considered 
information  provided  from  agencies  and  organisations  as  particularly  useful.  This  related  to 
FRONTEX  information  on  migration  routes  (DE,  EE,  LT),  Europol  (EL,  CY,  LT),  as  well  as 
information provided by the ICMPD (BG, PT) and ICONET (PT). In addition, in DE, CY and UK, 
liaison officers deployed overseas, work to collect information on migration routes. PT also made 
use of information collected via the Electronic Complaints System of the Ministry for Home Affairs 
and  through  an  ‘SOS’  Immigrant  telephone  helpline.  AT  outlined  methods  undertaken  to  gather 
data  on  migration  routes  through  interviews  conducted  with  asylum  applicants  on  entry  into  the 
country. These interviews were also used to assess the applicant for possible cases of trafficking.  

Several Member States (CZ, DE, EE, ES, CY, AT, PT, RO, FI, UK) reported on the role of specific 
governmental research institutes  in the  collection and  analysis  of  information  on  migration  routes 
and  flows.  For  example,  in  CZ,  the  inter-ministerial  Analytical  Centre  for  Border  Protection  and 
Migration undertakes regular meetings to exchange information and discuss current problems and 
new  findings,  while  in  the  UK,  researchers  at  the  Border  Agency  conducted  analysis  of 
administrative data looking at the common pathways through the immigration system that result in 
settlement. In ES, such activities are undertaken as part of the National Plan against trafficking in 
human beings.  

A number of Member States (EE, EL, FR, LV, LT, AT, UK) reported on the relevant departments 
of the Police and Border Guard responsible for data collection and analysis. In EL, a special unit in 
the Police Headquarters was established for the analysis of operational information with the use of 
specific  software.  Based  on  the  analysis  of  five  cases,  the  unit  has  already  provided  accurate 
information regarding networks of traffickers in human beings with connections to several Member 
States.  In  LV,  the  Analytical  Division  of  the  State  Border  Guard  used  information  on  routes  and 
flows to produce tactical warnings. In AT, the ‘Central Service for Combating Illegal Migration and 
Trafficking in Human Beings’ (of the Austrian Criminal Intelligence Service) registers each time an 
irregular migrant is stopped and/or investigated. In PL, a Central National Visa Registry, containing 

34 

35 
36 
37 

formally  published  as  Directive  2011/36/EU  on  5th  April  2011, 

This  was 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:101:0001:0011:EN:PDF.  
COM(2010) 493 
www.ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking  
See Press Release at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1715.  

see  http://eur-

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
information on third-country nationals applying for visas and a register of visas already issued was 
planned to be established in 2010.  

Several  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  CZ,  HU,  NL,  PL,  RO,  SI,  SK,  FI)  described  specific  mapping 
exercises  undertaken  to  identify  migration  routes  used  for  irregular  migration.  BG  and  NL 
participated in the ICMPD’s ‘Mediterranean Transit Migration’ (MTM) dialogue on its interactive 
map  (iMap)  on  irregular  migration  routes  in  Africa,  the  Middle  East,  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
Region.  CZ,  HU,  NL,  PL,  RO  and  SK  also  contributed  actively  to  the  development  of  a  similar 
iMap – the Building Migration Partnerships (BMP iMap), which focused on the eastern European 
external borders. Under the initiative of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU, BE, FI 
and SK took part in a joint operation (Operation Hermes), which aimed to establish a mapping of 
routes  of  irregular  migration  and  the  smuggling  of  human  beings  within  the  Schengen  area,  to 
strengthen  the  collaboration  with  non-Schengen  Member  States,  and  to  promote  the  role  of  the 
European police networks.  

The  UK  developed  a  strategy  to  improve  intelligence  in  the  area  of  non-scheduled  aviation  and 
maritime  (air  and  sea)  traffic  to  identify  threats  and  encourage  the  public  to  report  suspicious 
activity  in  this  area.  Similarly,  IT  noted  a  drastic  reduction  in  the  number  of  irregular  migrants 
apprehended  at  the  maritime  borders,  with  authorities  suspecting,  in  some  cases,  the  use  of  non-
scheduled maritime transport, such as luxury boats, or unofficial landing areas on the Italian coast 
by traffickers. 

With  regard  to  future  measures,  DK  planned  to  develop  information  collection  activities  while 
indicating that due to its geographical location, direct migratory flows were limited.  

increased targeted training and equipment support 

At EU level, see the entry under Commitment IV.(e) [Section IV.1] 

At national level, and referring also to Sections III.1.1 and IV.1, many Member States (BE, BG, CZ, 
IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, CY, LT, NL, AT, PL, SI, SK, FI, UK) carried out some form of staff training 
of  border  guards  and  other  police  authorities,  immigration  office  staff  and  personnel  from  other 
relevant  Ministries  and  departments  (see  also  Section  III.1.1).  This  included  training  in  the 
identification  of  irregular  migrants  (BE,  EE);  prevention  of  irregular  migration  (LT);  detection  of 
false  documents  (CZ,  CY,  EL,  FR,  LT,  NL,  SI);  techniques  for  interviewing  asylum  applicants 
(EE); use of specific equipment – e.g. fingerprint scanners (UK); escort and detention of irregular 
migrants (EL, FR); treatment of vulnerable groups and protection of human rights of third-country 
nationals under return procedures (EL); prevention of and awareness-raising on human trafficking 
(IE, ES, PL, FI); work with the SIS (LT) and migration-related crime (NL). In NL, all inspectors of 
the  Health  and  Safety  Inspectorate  carrying  out  inspections  on  illegal  employment  and 
underpayment  were  trained  in  the  application  of  legislative  provisions.  Similarly,  in  SK,  officials 
from the Ministry of Interior were trained in the application of the new EU visa code legislation. A 
‘European Training Day’ (in November 2010) was also organised by SK for 40 border guards and 
aliens  police  officers  to  inform  them  of  EU  instruments  (i.e.  Schengen  instruments),  as  well  as 
issues  such  as  document  forgery.  RO  produced  a  ‘Guide  on  best  practices  on  inter-institutional 
cooperation in the area of combating illegal migration and return of third-country nationals’, which 
was disseminated to all authorities with competencies in this area. 

IE and PL carried out a number of training activities relating to human trafficking, In IE, the IOM 
and the Anti Human Trafficking unit delivered a ‘Train the Trainers’ programme with a total of 40 
persons  trained  from  14  different  organisations.  Since  then,  180  persons  in  four  organisations 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
received  training  on  human  trafficking  by  those  who  attended  the  course.  In  addition,  awareness-
raising and training in the area of human trafficking was delivered to staff of national employment 
rights authority inspectors, and members of the Police, and to probationary policemen during their 
final phase of training. Similarly, LV described a large number of training activities. These included 
the training of 40 officials of the State Border Guard in best practices in EU Member States in the 
identification of asylum applicants, and best practices in detention centres for asylum applicants.  

Six Member States (EL, IT, AT, PL, PT, UK) introduced new equipment to support the combating 
of irregular migration. AT used license plate recognition devices for tracing irregular plates in the 
national database.  In PT, a mobile  system for reading travel documents (SMILE system - Mobile 
System  for  Documentary  Controls and Collecting Biometric Data) was introduced. Moreover, the 
use of mobile fingerprint scanners was extended in UK, while in IT, a project for the development 
of  an  integrated  system  (System  Analysis  of  Maritime  Trafficking)  of  information  gathering, 
analysis and monitoring aimed at the coordination of activities relating to irregular migration was 
launched, which also aimed at providing a broader overview of the Mediterranean and land borders. 
EL upgraded the daily operation of the Readmission Unit within the State Police Headquarters, as 
well  as  the  Expulsion  Department  of  the  main  Regional  Aliens  Police  Directorate,  by  providing 
them  with  additional  electronic  equipment,  with  the  financial  assistance  of  the  European  Return 
Fund. PL extended the use of specialized vehicles for carrying out mobile checks and devices for 
rapid screening and fingerprint identification.  

a coordinated approach by Member States by developing the network of liaison officers in country 
of origin and transit 

At EU level, political agreement was achieved on the Commission proposal for the amendment of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers  (ILO) 
network, aimed at ensuring efficient use of this important cooperation tool for the management of 
migration and external borders. As also mentioned in Section I.3.1, the changes to the Regulation 
aim  at  facilitating  the  integration  of  FRONTEX  into  the  ILO  networks.  Formal  adoption  of  the 
amendment  will  take  place  in  2011.  Thus  the  inclusion  of  FRONTEX  into  the  information 
exchanges among the ILO's posted in a given third country or region currently still depends entirely 
on  the  Member  States  concerned.  Reporting  from  Member  States'  immigration  liaison  officers  to 
FRONTEX takes place through Member States' central offices. In 2010, the Agency was invited to 
ILO  meetings  organised  by  Member  States  in  Moscow,  Dakar,  Zagreb  and  Tirana.  In  turn,  ILOs 
posted in the Western Balkans, Eastern Borders and Africa were invited to the regional analytical 
meetings of FRONTEX. 

At national level, many Member States (CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, AT, PT, 
SI, SE, UK) described recent developments in relation to Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs), with 
four  CZ,  HU,  PT,  SE  sending  new  ILOs  to  third  countries.  The  most  prominent  third  countries 
included Vietnam, Egypt, Ukraine, Serbia, China and Pakistan, while CZ, PT and SE also sent ILOs 
to the Russian Federation.  

With regard to the achievements of ILOs, FR reported on the success of ILO missions, including an 
investigation  launched  concerning  the  landing  of  124  Kurdish  migrants  on  the  Corsica  coast,  the 
dismantlement  of  a  smuggling  network  of  Chinese  migrants  and  preventing  148  migrants  in 
Morocco from entering the EU illegally. 

Some  Member  States  reported  that  ILO  missions  were,  in  some  instances,  undertaken  for  very 
specific  purposes.  For  example,  AT  reported  the  planned  stationing  of  an  ILO  in  Thailand  from 
2011 onwards in order to focus on combating child sex tourism. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
Concerning other activities, some Member States (DE, EL, ES, IT, RO, UK) developed their ILO 
networks  through  attendance  at  network  meetings  (IT,  UK)  and  enlargement  of  ILO  networks  in 
other Member States (DE). Moreover, EL cooperated with IT in view of strengthening the role of 
their  respective  liaison  officers,  which  involved  inter  alia  the  deployment  of  Greek  and  Italian 
liaison officers at selected Italian and Greek ports. ES held two meetings of liaison officer networks 
in  Dakar  (Senegal)  and  Bogotá  (Colombia)  concerning  human  trafficking,  while  ILOs  from  DE 
worked with NL  Immigration and  Naturalization Service (IND) and PT Immigration and  Borders 
Service (SEF) to further expand their cooperation. RO analysed ILO’s activities undertaken to date 
and planned a review of the deployment of ILOs in countries of origin and transit in 2011. 

EE  reported  on  cooperation  with  LV  and  LT,  despite  them  not  having  an  independent  Liaison 
Officer,  with  all  three  Member  States  sharing  an  ILO  in  Belarus  due  to  the  establishment  of  a 
project  facilitating  information  exchange  and  communication  between  the  Russian  Federation, 
Belarus  and  themselves  in  the  field  of  irregular  migration.  DK  cooperated  with  other  Nordic 
countries  on  the  deployment  of  liaison  officers  to  third-countries,  while  AT  and  SI  jointly  sent 
liaison officers to Albania and Montenegro. 

II.2 Return 

II.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

Commitment: II.(b) 
to  conclude  readmission  agreements  at  EU  or  bilateral  level  with  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,  the  Commission  presented  in  November  2010  recommendations  to  the  Council  to 
negotiate  readmission  and  visa  facilitation  agreements  with  Belarus,  in  the  framework  of  the 
Eastern  Partnership.  The  readmission  agreement  with  Pakistan  entered  into  force  on  1  December 
2010. The readmission agreement with Georgia was signed on 22 November 2010 and will likely 
enter into force on 1 March 2011. Negotiations with Turkey (blocked since 2006 and re-launched 
late 2009) accelerated in the course of 2010. With Cape Verde, another round of negotiations was 
held in October 2010. Further efforts were undertaken at various levels in order to launch the talks 
with China and Algeria. Joint Readmission Committee meetings to monitor the implementation of 
EU readmission agreements took place in 2010 with, for example, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, 
Moldova and some of the Western Balkan countries. 

Following the request to the Commission in the Stockholm Programme to present an evaluation of 
EU readmission agreements and policy, an evaluation report was drafted by the Commission which 
has now been presented to the European Parliament and the Council in early 2011.38 

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG,  CZ, DK,  DE,  IE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  IT,  CY,  LV,  LT, 
HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  referred  to  EU  readmission  agreements, 
national  protocols  to  implement  these,  and  other  bilateral  agreements  with  third  countries,  which 
were concluded and/or entered into force in 2010.  

On EU readmission agreements, several Member States (CZ, EE, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, AT, 
PL,  SI,  SE)  made  specific  reference  to  implementing  protocols  to  make  the  EU  readmission 
agreements  effective  in  their  respective  Member  States,  particularly  with  the  following  third 

38 

COM(2011) 76 . 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
countries:  Albania  (SK),  Bosnia-Herzegovina  (BG,  EE,  MT,  PT),  FYROM  (EE,  BG,  AT) 
Kazakhstan (LT), Moldova (EE, LV, LT, AT, PT, RO, SK), Montenegro (BG, MT, AT), Russian 
Federation (EE, ES, CY, LV, LT, SK, FI), Serbia (EE, MT, AT, PT), Ukraine (BG). Whilst EE, EL, 
CY,  LT,  LV,  AT  RO,  SI  were  planning  and/or  negotiating  implementing  protocols,  specifically 
with Albania (EL, SI), Bosnia-Herzegovina (EL, CY, LV, AT), FYROM (EL, LV, LT), Moldova 
(EL, CY), Montenegro (EE), the Russian Federation (EE, EL, LT, AT, RO), Serbia (EE, EL, CY, 
RO) and Ukraine (EE, AT, RO). 

Several  Member  States  (BE,  CZ,  DK,  DE,  IE,  EL,  AT)  made  reference  to  other  bilateral 
agreements,  concluded  at  national  level  with  third  countries.  BE,  for  example,  referred  to  an 
agreement  between  Benelux  countries  and  Kosovo,  CZ  referred  to  agreements  with  Switzerland, 
Armenia,  Kosovo,  Kazakhstan  and  the  Russian  Federation,  DK,  DE  and  AT  referred  to  the 
signature of an agreement with Kosovo (which for DE entered into force on 1st September 2010), IE 
referred to agreements with Hong Kong and Nigeria, FI referred to an agreement with Switzerland 
and  UK  referred  to  agreements  with  Georgia  and  Pakistan.  EL  referred  to  ongoing  efforts  and 
experts'  meetings  for  a  better  implementation  of  the  bilateral  readmission  protocol  signed  with 
Turkey. Other Member States (BE, ES, EE, EL, FR, CY, LV, LT, AT, RO, SI, UK), stated that they 
were  in  the  process  of  negotiating  one  or  more  bilateral  readmission  agreements  with  third 
countries,  such  as  Afghanistan  (EL),  Armenia  (EE,  CY),  Azerbaijan  (EE,  LV),  Bangladesh  (EL), 
Bosnia-Herzegovina  (LT),  Colombia  (LV),  Indonesia  (EL),  Iraq  (EL),  Jordan  (CY),  Kazakhstan 
(BE, EE, EL, LT), Kosovo (EE, LV, LT, SI), Nigeria (EL), Qatar (CY), Serbia (UK), Sudan (RO), 
Syria (RO) and Tunisia (RO). 

Commitment: II.(f) to invite Member States, specifically with the support of Community instruments, 
to devise incentive systems to assist voluntary return 

At EU level, Member States were encouraged to make use of the means provided by the European 
Return  Fund  and  provide  for  innovative  measures  encouraging  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. Voluntary departure appears to have become the preferred option of return, 
in line with the Return Directive. This is also reflected in the way Member States programme the 
EU assistance available from the Return Fund. Under the national Annual Programmes 2010, more 
than half of the total funds programmed (excluding technical assistance) are, in one way or another, 
related to voluntary return. 

The European Return Fund is in its third year of implementation. Currently, the Member States are 
implementing  the  2009  and  2010  programmes  and  therefore  the  actual  implementation  of  the 
projects  under  these  programmes  is  firmly  on  its  way.  The  Member  States  are  gaining  more 
experience over time and in many cases the annual programmes are becoming more sophisticated. 
Besides  putting  greater  emphasis  on  voluntary  return,  several  Member  States  are  also  addressing 
measures  related  to  the  Return  Directive.  The  impact  of  the  establishment  of  the  Fund  is  thus 
starting  to  become  evident,  as  the  Commission  is  receiving  progress  reports  on  the  annual 
programmes. In accordance with the legal basis for the Fund, the Commission is currently carrying 
out a mid-term review of the programmes.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
At national level, most Member States  (BE, BG,  CZ, DK,  DE,  IE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  IT,  CY,  LV,  LT, 
LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) had programmes, measures and incentives 
in place to promote assisted voluntary return.39  

Many Member States (CZ, DE, IE, ES, FR, IT, LV,  LU,  HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  FI,  SE, 
UK) gave details of the general content of their national assisted return programmes and projects, 
which were either newly established, or set up prior to and continued in 2010. These programmes 
and projects include information campaigns, counselling on return opportunities, outreach activities, 
financial assistance, support to set up an economic activity in the country of return and other forms 
of reintegration assistance. FI, for example, commenced, in cooperation with the IOM, an assisted 
return  project  to  develop  and  strengthen  cooperation  between  authorities  and  actors  involved  in 
assisted voluntary return, to increase the availability of information on return opportunities, and to 
assist returnees with their return arrangements, also paying them a financial incentive (up to €1 500 
per adult and up to €1 000 per minor). IT, SK and SE  used measures such as information campaigns 
on  assisted  voluntary  return.  Following  the  transposition  of  the  Return  Directive,  SI  introduced 
changes to the Aliens Act related to voluntary return. 

Several Member States (IE, ES, DK, DE, IT, FR, FI, SK, SE, UK) had geared their programmes and 
projects  to  specific  categories  of  potential  returnees,  or  to  their  specific  needs.  FR,  for  example, 
reported that they differentiated between assisted voluntary return and assisted humanitarian return, 
with  different  target  groups.  In  ES,  within  the  national  assisted  voluntary  programme,  three  sub-
programmes  exist,  including  a  humanitarian  programme  for  vulnerable  returnees;  a  reintegration 
return  programme,  helping  those  who  wish  to  set  up  a  business  in  their  country  of  origin;  and  a 
programme  for  unemployed  third-country  nationals  allowing  return  with  advance  unemployment 
benefits.  The  latter  allows  unemployed  immigrants  to  return  to  their  country  of  origin  with  the 
unemployment  benefits  they  accumulated  in  ES.  DK  runs  two  projects  with  the  aim  to  promote 
assisted  voluntary  return  for  Victims  of  trafficking,  unaccompanied  minors  and  other  vulnerable 
groups. The UK runs three assisted return programmes, one of which was started in 2010, namely 
an assisted voluntary return programme for irregular migrants (AVRIM) and an assisted voluntary 
return  programme  for  families  and  children  (AVRFC),  which  encourages  families  to  return  as  an 
alternative to detention. 

Many Member States (BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, AT, PL, RO, SK, FI, SE) 
also reported on assisted return and re-integration projects financed by the European Return Fund, 
which  involved,  depending  on  the  Member  State,  collaboration  between  governments,  IOM  and 
NGOs in Member States, as well as in countries of origin.  

From the information provided, in general, it seems that Member State programmes and projects are 
placing  increased  focus  on  the  provision  of  post-departure  assistance,  providing  support  to  the 
reintegration of the individuals to ensure a successful and sustainable return. In most cases, such re-
integration measures are carried out by the IOM. However, some Member States, such as NL and 
SE, started new reintegration projects in 2010 in cooperation with national organisations and civil 
society in the Member State and in the country of return. BE, ES, IT, LU and AT also referred to 
reintegration  incentives  to  encourage  ‘productive’  return.  In  BE,  a  new  reintegration  programme 
was  initiated  in  March  2010,  providing  €2  000  in  kind  assistance  for  the  creation  of  a  micro-
businesses,  complementary  to  the  financial  assistance  provided  under  the  regular  assisted  return 
programme (€700 per adult). The programme, coor dinated by the government and implemented by 

39 

The EMN has recently completed a study on Assisted Return, available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under 
"EMN Studies." 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
involved  specialised  guidance  and  counselling 

the  IOM  and  Caritas, 
in  micro-business 
development. To obtain the complementary assistance, the applicant had to demonstrate a business 
plan, which was assessed by a local reintegration partner in the country of return (IOM or Caritas). 
In LU, the 2010 Annual Programme for assisted voluntary return focused on reintegration measures 
and income-generating activities instead of granting pocket money. 

On  future  measures,  CY  was  negotiating  a  draft  agreement  to  establish  an  IOM  office  on  its 
territory, which would  also favour the further  development of voluntary return  activities. PL held 
talks on broadening the category of third-country nationals eligible to be granted assistance within 
the  voluntary  return  programme  in  order  to  include  also  persons  identified  as  victims  of  human 
trafficking.  

II.2.2 Stockholm Programme 

the conclusion of effective and operational readmission agreements, on a case-by-case basis at EU 
or bilateral level 

See the entry under Commitment II.(b) [Section II.2.1] 

ensuring  that  the  objective  of  the  EU’s  efforts  on  readmission  should  add  value  and  increase  the 
efficiency of return policies, including existing bilateral agreements and practices 

See the entry under Commitment II.(b) [Section II.2.1]  

the presentation by the Commission of an evaluation, also of ongoing negotiations, during 2010 of 
the EC readmission agreements and propose a mechanism to monitor their implementation. The 
Council  should  define  a  renewed,  coherent  strategy  on  readmission  on  that  basis,  taking  into 
account  the  overall  relations  with  the  country  concerned,  including  a  common  approach  towards 
third countries that do not cooperate in readmitting their own nationals, 

At EU level, see the entry under Commitment II.(b) [Section II.2.1]  

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, 
LU,  HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  confirmed  that  the  EU  readmission 
agreements were important tools in rendering return policies more efficient, as, for example, they 
provided  increased  clarity  on  and  harmonised  return  procedures.  PT,  however,  drew  attention  to 
issues which sometimes inhibited the effective implementation of readmission agreements, such as 
bureaucratic problems, difficulties in identifying an interlocutor and long response times, while MT 
highlighted the difficulties related to the issuing of travel documents. 

assistance  by  the  Commission  and  Frontex  and  Member  States  on  a  voluntary  basis,  to  Member 
States  which  face  specific  and  disproportionate  pressures,  in  order  to  ensure  the  effectiveness  of 
their return policies towards certain third states  

At EU level, see the entry under Commitment II.(b) [Section II.2.1] in respect to Return, as well as 
Commitment  IV.(c)  [Section  IV.1]  for  a  general  overview  of  actions  taken  in  regard  to 
disproportionate pressures. 

At national level, several Member States (DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, IT, LU, NL, AT, UK) mentioned 
that,  within  the  FRONTEX  operational  framework,  they  provided  support  to  EL,  which  faced 
disproportionate pressures. Conversely, MT, as a Member State facing disproportionate pressures, 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
participated  in  the  MELITA  Project,  a  joint  operation  between  MT  and  FRONTEX  aimed  at 
enhancing  partnerships  with  identified  countries  of  origin.  MT  also  developed  the  MAREMCA 
Project on ‘Strengthening Malta’s long-term Return Management Capacities’ within the framework 
of the European Return Fund, in order to enhance the effectiveness of the readmission process. This 
project involved cooperation with authorities from Ghana and Nigeria, as well as discussions with 
other  EU  Member  States  in  relation  to  best  practices  and  approach  in  the  return  of  irregular 
migrants to their country of origin.  

increased practical cooperation between Member States, for instance by chartering of joint return 
flights 

At EU level, see the entry under Commitment II.(d) [Section II.1.1] 

At national level, the majority of Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, HU, 
LU, MT, NL, AT, PL, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) organised and / or participated in joint return flights. EE, 
LV, LT, PT and RO did not take part in these, with EE indicating that this was mainly due to its 
very low number of returnees. 

Many of the joint return flights (CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, NL, AT, PL, SI, FI, SE, UK) 
were  undertaken  in  cooperation  with  FRONTEX.  DE,  for  example,  organised  three  flights  and 
participated  in  a  total  of  13  joint  return  operations.  ES  organised  five  joint  return  flights  to 
Colombia, Ecuador, Georgia and Ukraine, returning 308 third-country nationals. FR participated in 
19  of  these  operations,  with  Kosovo,  Albania,  Nigeria,  Georgia  and  Pakistan  as  the  main 
destinations.  AT  coordinated  12  joint  return  operations  and  participated  in  eight  additional 
operations. NL organised two flights and participated in a total of seven joint return flights. PL took 
part in 10 joint flights coordinated by FRONTEX and returned a total of 90 third-country nationals.  

Some Member States (FR, IE, EL, AT, SE, UK) also organised return flights on their own initiative, 
in  cooperation  with  other  Member  States.  SE,  since  October  2008,  has  carried  out  14  non-
FRONTEX chartered flights to Iraq, some of which jointly with DK, NL, NO and UK, while AT 
organised four chartered flights with PL in 2010. CY organised a joint flight with EL for the return 
of  irregular  migrants  to  Syria  and  also  organised  8  direct  chartered  flights  for  the  return  of  562 
migrants  to  Afghanistan,  Egypt,  Pakistan  and  Nigeria,  with  the  support  of  the  European  Return 
Fund.  

encouraging of voluntary return, including through the development of incentive systems, training, 
reintegration and subsidies, and by using the possibilities offered by existing financial instruments, 

See the entry under Commitment II.(f) [Section II.2.1] 

II.2.3 Key statistics 

Table  2  in  the  Statistical  Annex  gives  an  overview  of  the  number  of  third-country  nationals 
apprehended, ordered to leave and effectively returned following an order to leave in 2010. It also 
includes statistics on the number of third-country nationals returned as part of forced and voluntary 
return measures. On the basis of these data, the number of apprehensions ranged from 132 524 (EL, 
provisional  data)  to  195  (LV)  in  2010.  When  compared  to  voluntary  return,  forced  return  still 
occurred more frequently in 2010 in a number of Member States, most notably in EL (52 469 forced 
returns  versus  420  voluntary  return),  CY  (3  097  forced  returns  versus  966  voluntary  returns),  FR 
(15  496  forced  returns  versus  2  422  voluntary  returns)  and  RO  (290  forced  returns  versus  51 
voluntary returns). BE, PL and PT had the highest proportion of voluntary to forced returns. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
II.3 Actions against human trafficking 

II.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

Commitment: II.(e) to step up cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit, in particular 
to combat human trafficking and to provide better information to communities under threat  

At EU level, the fight against trafficking was included as one of the priority actions in the revised 
Action  Plan  in  the  framework  of  the  Africa-EU  Partnership  on  Migration,  Mobility  and 
Employment adopted at the Africa-EU Summit in December 2010. Trafficking in human beings has 
been a priority under the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum and a number of projects 
strengthening  third  countries'  capacities  to  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  have  been 
financed in this context, including awareness raising campaigns. 

With regard to developments on the provision of better information, see Commitment I.(f) [Section 
I.3.1]. 

At national level, most Member States  (BE, BG,  CZ, DK,  DE,  IE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  CY,  LV,  LT, 
NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  cooperated  with  third  countries  of  origin  and  transit  to 
combat human trafficking. Actions undertaken focused on raising awareness of communities under 
threat  (BE,  ES,  CY,  IT,  LV,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SE);  as  well  as  a  range  of  other  activities,  such  as  the 
development and implementation of national strategies (ES, EL, LT, PT, SK, SE); cooperation and 
capacity building between Member State agencies (BG, LT, NL, SE); monitoring and assistance to 
victims (BG, EL, CY, PT, SE); and hosting regional counter-trafficking conference with an aim to 
increase cooperation between receiving and sending countries (LT). 

Nine Member States (BE, EL, ES, CY, IT, LV HU, NL, PT) carried out activities in countries of 
origin  in  order  to  reduce  irregular  migration.  BE  carried  out  information  campaigns  and  sent  out 
missions to specific countries (e.g. Brazil, Serbia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Morocco and Afghanistan). 
CY enhanced cooperation and dialogue with neighbouring countries of origin and transit, especially 
with  Syria.  Concerning  projects  to  prevent  irregular  migration,  NL  participated  in  a  project  to 
strengthen the capacity of the Liberian Immigration Service to reduce irregular migration, while ES 
proposed several initiatives for irregular migration prevention projects with Latin America and the 
Asia-Pacific region.  

With  regard  to  awareness-raising,  and  see  also  Section  I.3.1,  Member  States  referred  to  the 
organisation  of  information  campaigns  (BE,  ES,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  FI,  SE);  the  production  and 
distribution  of  information  leaflets  in  foreign  languages  (BE,  CY,  PL,  SK,  FI);  the  creation  of 
websites (LV, PL, SK, FI) and maintaining telephone hotlines for reporting cases (BE, CY, AT, FI) 
or for  victims  of trafficking (SK, PL, FI, SE); and organising meetings with high-school students 
and their parents, as well as with university students (PL). ES funded awareness-raising activities of 
international organisations in Latin America, Asia and the Pacific and included specific measures in 
its Action Plan for women and peace-building. 

PT  introduced  a  new  strategy  on  counter-human  trafficking  which  included  numerous  measures, 
structured  around  four  strategic  areas  of  intervention:  knowledge,  awareness  and  prevention; 
education and training; protection and assistance; and criminal investigation and cooperation. Other 
Member  States  (ES,  SE)  confirmed  that  they  were  currently  implementing  strategies  which  had 
been  developed  in  previous  years.  ES,  for  example,  in  line  with  its  Comprehensive  Plan  on  the 
Trafficking  of  Human  Beings  for  Sexual  Exploitation,  identified  priority  trafficking  countries.  In 
EL,  the  ratification  of  the  UN  Convention  against  Transnational  Organised  Crime  and  its  three 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Protocols  introduced  a  broadened  definition  of  victims  of  trafficking  and  migrant  smuggling  and 
further ensured and expanded the protection, as well as the reflection period available to them. 

Nine Member States (BG, DK, EL, LT, NL, PL, RO, SE, UK) reported on cooperation and capacity 
building with third countries. EL, for example, reported cooperation with the diplomatic authorities 
of victims’ countries of origins, as well as cross-border operational cooperation of law enforcement 
agencies for dismantling organised criminal networks in the framework of the on-going ILAEIRA 
operation  against  human  trafficking,  which  involves  21  Member  States,  third  countries, 
international  organisations  and  NGOs.  DK  ran  a  regional  programme  from  2007  to  2010  in 
Thailand,  Cambodia  and  Burma  to  protect  children  against  sexual  exploitation  and  trafficking,  as 
well  as  a  project  in  Mali  to  combat  organised  crime  as  part  of  the  General  Good  Governance 
Programme and a project in Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus on human trafficking under the Danish 
Neighbourhood Programme. LT referred to a human trafficking prevention project in Kaliningrad, 
aimed  at  providing  assistance  to  victims  and  sharing  best  practices  with  partners  in  the  Russian 
Federation. NL referred to a new law enforcement cooperation working agreement with Nigeria, in 
the context of which Dutch police officers delivered a number of training sessions to their Nigerian 
counterparts, to combat human trafficking and smuggling. SE undertook numerous activities, such 
as visiting and exchange programmes and actions within the Council of the Baltic Sea States region. 

Other  measures  listed  by  the  Member  States  included  monitoring  and  direct  assistance.  BG,  a 
source and transit country itself, was involved in various projects, sometimes jointly implemented 
with  other  Member  States,  such  as  NL.  These  aimed  at,  for  example,  reducing  the  number  of 
victims from BG and RO exploited in IE and ES and developed the EU-Transnational Monitoring 
Network,  to  monitor  movements  between  countries  of  origin  and  destination.  SE  developed 
rehabilitation programmes for victims of trafficking and safe return programmes. In EL, protection 
and assistance to victims is offered through a network of state and non-state actors participating in 
the ILAEIRA operation. 

II.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 7.3 plus Section 4.4.2) 

The European Council invites the Commission to examine whether ad hoc cooperation agreements 
with specific third countries to be identified by the Council could be a way of enhancing the fight 
against  trafficking  and  smuggling  of  persons  and  making  proposals  to  that  end.  In  particular, 
such agreements could involve full use of all leverage available to the Union, including the use of 
existing  financing  programmes,  cooperation  in  the  exchange  of  information,  judicial  cooperation 
and migration tools 

There were no specific developments to report for 2010. 

III. BORDER CONTROL 

III.1 Control and surveillance at external borders 

III.1.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

Commitment: III.(a) 
resources to ensure more effective control of the external land, sea and air borders; 

invite  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  mobilise  all  their  available 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
At  EU  level,  on  24  February  2010,  the  Commission  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  FRONTEX 
Regulation40  aimed  at  strengthening  the  functioning  of  the  agency,  including  in  particular  a 
reinforcement  of  the  legal  framework  to  ensure  full  respect  of  fundamental  rights  during 
FRONTEX  activities.  The  examination  of  the  Commission  proposal  has  not  yet  yielded  a  final 
outcome yet; a compromise among Member States in Council is, however, emerging on a number 
of issues. Discussion on the proposal will continue in 2011.  

The  first  FRONTEX  specialised  branch  entitled  "FRONTEX  Operational  Office"  became 
operational  on  1  October  2010.  The  main  tasks  of  the  FRONTEX  Operational  Office  (FOO)  are: 
Contribution to the preparation and evaluation of the Joint Operations being launched in the Eastern 
Mediterranean  region;  Coordination  activities  in  the  implementation  of  those  Joint  Operations; 
Providing information for the situational awareness in the region and reporting on events related to 
the  Joint  Operations;  and  Gathering  and  assessing  information  and  intelligence  for  risk  analysis 
purposes. It should fulfil its tasks within the Eastern Mediterranean region (Italy, Malta, Greece and 
Cyprus). The functioning of the FOO has to be evaluated after 9 months of activity. The outcome of 
the  independent  evaluation  will  serve  as  the  basis  for  the  decision  of  the  Management  Board  on 
whether to pursue the pilot project and/or to establish other similar operational offices. The Agency 
should report back to the Council on the results of the evaluation and its subsequent decision by the 
end of 2011. 

Following  a  Commission  proposal  of  7  December  2009,  the  Council  adopted  a  Decision  on  26th 
April  2010  supplementing  the  Schengen  Borders  Code  on  the  surveillance  of  the  sea  external 
borders, in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by FRONTEX, including on the high 
seas.  Any  measures  taken  during  surveillance  operations  must  be  in  full  respect  of  fundamental 
rights.  In  this  regard,  the  Decision  sets  out  rules  for  sea  border  operations  which  specify  that  no 
person should be disembarked in or handed over to the authorities of a country in contravention of 
the  principle  of  non-refoulement,  or  from  which  there  is  a  risk  of  expulsion  or  return  to  another 
country in contravention of that principle.  

Due to the persistently high migratory pressure on  the external land borders with  Turkey, Greece 
requested  on  24  October  2010  the  deployment  of  Rapid  Border  Intervention  Teams  (RABIT) 
together with  the  equipment needed for stepping up border control in the affected border  area. In 
accordance  with  the  established  procedure,  FRONTEX  identified,  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
Greek  authorities,  the  adequate  composition  of  the  RABIT  (i.e.  number  and  profile  of  guest 
officers)  and  the  type  of  assets  to  be  deployed.  Consequently,  a  total  of  190  persons  from  26 
Member States were deployed, including border guards and interpreters. The operation also entailed 
the  deployment  of  necessary  equipment,  such  as  a  fixed  wing  surveillance  aircraft,  a  number  of 
thermo-vision vehicles, patrol cars and other transport means.  

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EL, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, 
AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  undertook  activities  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  border 
controls. These included an increase in staff (BE) and operational means (EL), a reorganisation of 
human  resources  more  efficiently  (EL,  LT,  FI)  and  establishing  a  new  naval  assistance  office  for 
maritime  border  controls  (LT).  A  few  Member  States  (EL,  IT,  AT)  also  reported  on  direct 
cooperation with other Member States, outside FRONTEX joint operations. IT and AT cooperated 
with ES, with AT providing support in narcotics control and IT discussing the deployment of joint 
control devices for border surveillance operations. AT also cooperated with neighbouring Member 
States (including HU and SK) in patrolling their shared borders through 'mixed police patrols' and 

40 

COM(2010) 61 final. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
through  common  police  cooperation  centres.  IT,  in  April  2010,  signed  an  agreement  with  FR, 
concerning the creation of a rapid action border guard force at the Franco-Italian borders in 2011. 
EL cooperated with IT in view of increasing efficiency of border surveillance at selected ports of 
both countries and with BG in an effort to combat organised crime and irregular migration at the 
Greek-Bulgarian borders.  

Most Member States (BE, BG, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, CY, IT, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, 
AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) also listed their participation in FRONTEX operations and 
missions. Their inputs ranged from the deployment of staff, experts and technical equipment to the 
participation in risk assessments and training courses. Specific FRONTEX operations and initiatives 
included CRONOS, PULSAR, HYDRA, INDALO, AGELAUS, ATTICA, POSEIDON, HERMES, 
HUBBLE,  HAMMER,  MINERVA,  NEPTUNE,  JUPITER,  UNITY,  the  Focal  Points  and  the 
European Patrols Network. Several Member States (BE, DK, DE, EE, ES, IT, LU, NL, AT, PL, PT, 
SK,  SE)  made  specific  reference  to  the  deployment  of  border  guards  and  immigration  and  return 
experts  to  EL  through  the  RABIT  mechanism.  On  this  matter,  EL  particularly  welcomed  the 
signature of an operational plan with FRONTEX in October 2010, allowing for the deployment of 
experts and guest officers as part of RABIT and their cooperation with the Hellenic border control 
forces,  to  rapidly  tackle  irregular  migration  along  the  borders  with  Turkey  and  assist  EL  in  the 
surveillance  of  their  external  borders  In  addition,  EL  referred  to  the  POSEIDON  joint  operation, 
which  involves  the  deployment  of  patrol  units  of  the  25  participating  Member  States,  and  the 
establishment of a pilot FRONTEX Operational Office within the premises of the Coast Guard at 
the  Piraeus  port,  aiming  to  effectively  combat  irregular  migration  and  dismantle  organised 
smuggling networks in the South-Eastern Mediterranean region.  

Other  measures  to  ensure  more  effective  border  control  were  also  mentioned  by  many  Member 
States (BE, BG, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, RO). These included the 
acquisition  of  new  equipment,  the  printing  of  a  pocket  book  for  border  guards,  improvements  to 
informatic  systems  and  creating  linkages  between  different  national  systems,  organising 
simulations,  undertaking  risk  assessments,  implementing  legislative  and  procedural  changes, 
developing  comprehensive  border  management  plans  and  strategies  plus  cooperation  with 
neighbouring  countries.  For  example,  following  the  identification  of  deficiencies  in  exercising 
external border controls and given the increased pressure on its borders, EL elaborated the National 
Action  Plan  ‘Greece-Schengen’  to  enhance  effective  border  controls.  Member  States  also  often 
referred  to  the  European  Border  Fund  (EBF)  as  a  means  of  financing  such  activities.  Several 
Member States (BE, BG, DE, EL, LT, AT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) also indicated that they planned to 
further develop border control in the future, which ranged from the development of a State border 
protection  programme,  building  new  facilities  at  the  external  border  crossing  points,  an  increased 
focus  on  checking  the  authenticity  of  passports,  further  training,  reorganisation  of  services  and 
evaluation, to planned collaboration with other Member States and / or third countries. 

Many  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  EL,  IT,  CY,  LV,  HU,  LT,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  FI,  SE) 
organised and delivered training to increase the skills and competences of their existing staff (See 
also Section II.1.2). Such training was provided in different formats, including courses, workshops, 
seminars,  online  interactive  training  and  training  on  the  job,  including  practical  and  theoretical 
components.  In  NL,  for  example,  a  new  Coaching  &  Supervision  Department  was  established  at 
Amsterdam Airport, which can also provide additional ad-hoc and other training, where necessary, 
to border guards. The focus of the training provided in the Member States ranged from ‘general’, 
basic training covering all aspects of border control, to training on very specific topics, such as the 
identification  of  forged  documents,  fingerprinting,  search  and  rescue  missions  at  sea, 
implementation  of  quality  management  systems,  EU  legislation,  the  use  of  new  equipment  and 
software  and  human  rights.  Three  Member  States  (IT,  PL,  PT)  organised  language  training  to 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
enable better communication between border guards and third-country nationals. The beneficiaries 
of training were primarily border guards, but detention staff, immigration officials, police officers 
and other relevant staff, were also involved. 

Training  activities  provided  are  also  described  in  Sections  II.1.2  and  under  Commitment  IV.(e) 
[Section IV.1]. 

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. 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,  the  Commission  continued  its  preparation  of  proposals  accompanied  with  impact 
assessments  on  a  Registered  Traveller  Programme  (RTP)  and  an  Entry/Exit  System  (EES) 
providing  for  modern  technological  means  which  shall  be  interoperable  with  existing  and  future 
large scale IT systems. The study on the costs of the entry/exit system and the Registered Traveller 
Programme  was  finalised  in  April  2010.  The  study  analysed  the  development,  maintenance  and 
administrative costs under different implementation options. The state of play and necessary further 
steps  taken  were  discussed  together  with  Member  States  in  Strategic  Committee  on  Immigration, 
Frontiers and Asylum in October 2010. 

A policy study on feasibility, practical implications and impact of a possible EU European System 
of Travel Authorisation (ESTA) was started. On the basis of the study, the Commission will present 
in 2012 a report to the European Parliament and the Council as part of the "Smart Border Package," 
in which it will indicate whether the establishment of an EU ESTA should be considered. 

At national level, most Member States referred to the deployment of modern technological means, 
particularly  in  order  to  facilitate  the  entry  of  bona  fide  travellers,  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of 
border  checks,  to  upgrade  existing  or  introduce  new  border  management  systems  and  to  improve 
border  surveillance.  Several  Member  States  (BE,  DE,  EE,  ES,  LV,  LT,  HU,  NL,  AT,  FI,  UK) 
referred  to  measures  taken  towards  automated  and  electronic  border  crossing,  such  as  testing 
Registered Traveller schemes (DE, NL, UK). A number of Member States (DE, EE, ES, HU, NL, 
AT, PL, UK) reported on the development of automated border crossing points. FI piloted a project 
introducing  automated  border  control  at  its  land  borders  and  EE  indicated  working  on  a  ‘virtual 
check-in’  system  to  facilitate  border  crossings.  DE  and  UK  specifically  mentioned  the  expanding 
use of biometrics for facilitating border crossings, with DE using iris scanning for their Registered 
Traveller  test  programme,  whilst  UK  started  negotiations  with  an  airport  operator,  for  a  scheme 
whereby  passengers  can  pre-register  their  biometric  data  in  order  to  be  able  to  pass  through 
specifically enabled gates more rapidly. 

Several  Member  States  (BE,  CZ,  DE,  IT,  NL,  AT,  PT,  SK,  SE)  also  implemented  measures  to 
improve  the  effectiveness  and  ‘scrutiny’  of  border  checks.  These  consisted  of  introducing  and/or 
increasing  the  existing  number  of  passport  readers  and  other  devices  to  verify  travel  and 
identification  documents,  or  procedures,  including  verifying  biometric  information.  NL  and  PT 
furthermore  piloted  and/or  implemented  new  Passenger  Information  systems.  Several  Member 
States  (IE,  EL,  ES,  CY,  LV,  LT,  HU,  PL,  PT,  SI,  SK,  FI,  SE)  also  referred  to  the  development, 
upgrading or inter-linking of national border management information systems, often making links 
to relevant upcoming EU systems, such as EUROSUR, and large-scale informatic systems, such as 
the  Registered  Traveller  Programme  and  the  Entry/Exit  System.  LT,  for  example,  noted  that  the 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
modernisation  of  their  border  monitoring  systems  also  took  in  account  the  future  integration  in 
EUROSUR and they are also preparing an electronic arrival and departure record keeping system, 
in  line  with  the  EU  entry/exit  system.  DK  chaired  a  Nordic  Workshop  on  the  potential  gains  and 
pitfalls  of  the  entry-exit  system  to  inform  the  Commission’s  proposals.  PL  confirmed  that 
developments  to  their  national  systems  aimed  to  ensure  full  integration,  operability  and 
compatibility  with  current  and  future  EU  Systems.  PT  implemented  an  entry  and  exit  security 
system, whilst FI has an entry / exit system already in place. 

Ten Member States (BE, EL, ES, IT, LT, MT, RO, SI, FI, UK) described the deployment of modern 
technological  means  to  improve  border  surveillance.  This  included  the  acquisition  of  high-tech 
border surveillance equipment, such as thermal imaging cameras day binoculars, x-ray devices and 
scanners,  and  procurement  of  patrol  boats,  vehicles  and  helicopters,  often  purchased  with  the 
support of the European Border Fund (EBF). 

III.1.2 Stockholm Programme 

The European Council calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that the SIS II and 
the VIS system now become fully operational in keeping with the timetables to be established for 
that purpose. Before creating new systems, an evaluation of these and existing systems should be 
made  and  the  difficulties  encountered  when  they  were  set  up  should  be  taken  into  account.  The 
setting  up  of  an  administration  for  large  IT  systems  could  play  a  central  role  in  the  possible 
development of IT systems in the future. 

At  EU  level,  a  clear,  realistic  roadmap  for  the  finalisation  of  SIS  II,  widely  supported  by 
stakeholders,  was  presented  to  the  October  JHA  Council.  The  target  date  for  making  the  system 
ready  for  operations  is  March  2013.  Final  agreement  has  been  reached  on  the  technical 
specifications for the interaction of the SIS II Central System with the national systems. These are a 
pre-requisite  for  finalising  technical  development.  Work  is  progressing  smoothly  and  in  a 
constructive  atmosphere,  with  most  stakeholders  showing  good  commitment  towards  the  prompt 
and timely conclusion of the project. 

The  development  of  the  Visa  Information  System  progressed  well.  The  foreseen  date  for  the 
technical  readiness  of  the  VIS  is  now  24  June  2011,  which  will  allow  the  start  of  operations  in 
principle on 11th October 2011, provided that Member States notify their national readiness as well. 
The VIS will be deployed at consular posts around the world in a regional manner, in order to avoid 
potential  problems  of  a  big  bang  approach.  The  Commission  adopted  on  30  November  2009  a 
decision  (2010/49/EC)  determining  the  first  regions  for  the  start  of  operations  of  the  Visa 
Information  System  (VIS)  following  an  assessment  and  taking  into  account  elements  such  as  the 
average visa refusal and entry refusal rates for each of the regions concerned, as well as the fact that 
consular  presence  or  representation  should  be  increased  in  certain  regions  in  order  to  efficiently 
implement  the  VIS  in  these  regions.  According  to  this  assessment,  the  first  region  where  the 
collection and transmission of visa data to the VIS should start for all visa applications should be 
North  Africa;  the  second  region  should  be  the  Near  East  and  the  third  region  should  be  the  Gulf 
region.41  For  the  determination  of  the  further  regions,  subsequent  decisions  should  be  taken  at  a 
later stage on the basis of an additional and up-dated assessment of these other regions. 

41 

In March 2011, there was a consensus among Member States that the sequence of the first regions for the start 
of  operations  should  not  be  changed,  despite  the  political  situation  in  certain  countries  of  North  Africa,  the 
Near East and the Gulf Region. A position supported by the Commission. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At national level, most Member States (BG, DK, DE, EE, ES, IT, CY, LT, LV, LU, HU, NL, AT, 
PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE) also reported on progress with regard to the implementation of the VIS, 
with most confirming to be in line with the EU timetable. EE and SE, for example, referred to the 
testing of the system, together with six other Member States, as part of OST (Operational System 
Test).  Other  Member  States  referred  to  national  developments,  such  as  the  purchasing  and 
installation of the necessary equipment (BG, EL, ES, LU), legislative changes to accommodate the 
implementation  of  VIS  (HU),  the  delivery  of  training  courses  to  staff  of  embassy  and  consular 
offices (EL, LV, LT), efforts to ensure the compatibility of national systems with VIS (DK, IT, LT, 
LU), and the organisation of testing phases to ensure compliance (LU, FI).  

See also the entry under Commitment II.(h) [Section II.1.1]. 

invites the Commission present proposals for an entry/exit system alongside a fast track registered 
traveller programme with a view to such a system becoming operational as soon as possible, 

See the entry under Commitment III.(e) [Section III.1.1]  

The  European  Council  invites  the  Commission  to  make  the  necessary  proposals  to  achieve  the 
objectives related to the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) 

JAI Council Conclusions 3 / 4 June 2010 on the follow-up of the European Pact on Immigration 
and  Asylum,  Section  4.d:  Another  crucial  measure  is  the  swift  implementation  of  the  phases  and 
steps laid down for the development of the European Surveillance System (EUROSUR). 

At  EU  level,  in  close  coordination  with  FRONTEX  and  the  Member  States,  the  Commission 
continued  to  develop  the  European  Border  Surveillance  System  (EUROSUR),  which  shall  be 
gradually established from 2013. A first report on the progress of EUROSUR, covering the period 
between  February  2008  and  July  2009,  was  already  published  on  24  September  2009.  A  second 
report on the progress made in the development of EUROSUR between August 2009 and October 
2010 was published in January 2011.42  

The  support  for  development  of  the  national  components  of  EUROSUR  and  of  a  permanent 
European Patrol Network at the southern maritime borders of the EU Member States is defined as 
one of the strategic priorities of the External Borders Fund. For the upcoming programming phase 
2011-2013,  Member  States  were  encouraged  to  direct  their  European  Border  Fund  (EBF) 
allocations  to  several  areas  of  particular  importance  to  the  EU  in  line  with  the  Stockholm 
Programme. This includes EUROSUR and in particular, establishment and further development of 
the  single  national  coordination  centres,  as  well  as  extension  and  upgrading  of  the  mobile  and 
stationary components of the national border surveillance systems.  

At national level, see the entry under Commitment III.(e) [Section III.1.1]. 

invites the Commission to continue to examine the issue of automated border controls and other 
issues connected to rendering border management more efficient. This includes also the European 
Council inviting Member States and the Commission to explore how the different types of checks 
carried  out  at  the  external  border  can  be  better  coordinated,  integrated  and  rationalised  with  a 
view to the twin objective of facilitating access and improving security 

42 

SEC(2011) 145 final.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At EU level, see the entry under Commitment: III.(e) [Section III.1.1] 

At national level, several Member States reported on developments in addition to those described 
under Commitment III.(e) [Section III.1.1] with regard to the implementation of automated border 
controls  and  improved  border  checks.  For  example,  BG,  since  November  2010,  operated  a  new 
National  Coordination  Centre  which  coordinates  all  the  activities  related  to  border  management, 
while EL undertook preparatory actions for setting up an Operational Coordination Centre for this 
purpose within the State Police Headquarters. HU and SK started preparations for such centres. FR 
and UK opened a Joint Coordination Centre to control movement of people and goods between the 
two Member States, as part of their ‘Evian’ bilateral agreement, signed in July 2009 and updated in 
November 2010. LU outlined the importance of cooperation between cross-border airports. BE set 
up  the  ‘Maritime  Information  Cross  Point’  to  facilitate  multi-agency  data  sharing  (including 
participation  of  defence,  police  services  and  customs)  and  NL  undertook  preparations  for  joint 
border checks by border guards and customs. For this purpose, training courses were organised with 
the aim to conduct effective and efficient border checks on, for instance, luggage and freight. The 
implementation  of  an  Automated  Clearance  Service,  in  addition  to  its  already  existing  fast-track 
border gates, was also being considered in UK. 

III.1.3 Key statistics 

Table 3 in the Statistical Annex gives an overview of the number of third-country nationals refused 
entry in 2010 and by type of border, including land, sea and air borders. The geographical position 
of  Member  States  seems  to  be  a  major  determining  factor  regarding  the  number  of  refusals,  with 
Member States forming Europe’s external border having relatively higher number of refusals. The 
number of refusals by Member States in 2010 ranged from 290 045 (ES), followed by 22 895 (PL), 
down to 80 (DK). Member States refusing entry mostly at a land border were again ES (281 750 or 
97.1% of total) and PL (22 255 or 97.2%) and then HU (10 215 or 97.5%). EE was the only one 
refusing entry primarily at a sea border (1 260 or 75.7% of all refusals). Member States who had all 
their refusals at an air border were CZ, DK, MT and SE, with BE, DE, NL and PT also having more 
than 95% of all their refusals at air borders. 

III.2 Cooperation with respect to border control 

III.2.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

Commitment: III.(b) generalise the issue of biometric visas, improve cooperation between Member 
State’s consulates and set up joint consular services for visas 

At EU level, and with regard to the use of biometrics in the Visa Information System, see the entry 
under Section III.1.2. In addition, the External Borders Fund has co- financed (under Union actions) 
the setting up of two common application centres (in Praia, Cap Verde and Kinshasa, Congo).  

At  national  level,  a  number  of  Member  States  reported  on  progress  with  regard  to  the 
implementation  of  biometric  visas  and  on  consular  cooperation.  With  regard  to  biometric  visas, 
many  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  CZ,  DK,  DE,  IE,  EL,  FR,  IT,  LV,  HU,  MT,  NL,  PT,  SK,  FI) 
prepared  for  their  issuing  or  started  the  issuing  in  a  selection  of  their  consular  offices  mainly  in 
North Africa, in line with EU guidelines.43 FR, for example, and as of March 2010, equipped 169 of 
its  193  consular  offices  to  issue  biometric  visas  and  SK  equipped  all  its  embassies  with 

43 

See Footnote 42. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
fingerprinting  devices.  CZ  expected  to  have  around  180-200  fingerprinting  visa  workstations  in 
total.  IT  started  the  testing  in  two  North-African  States,  whilst  IE  started  in  Nigeria  and  PT 
established a visa centre in Cape Verde, fully capable of collecting and issuing biometric visas. LV 
envisaged a testing phase in their consular office in Egypt. The UK, not participating in VIS, also 
required people applying for visas to register a digital photograph and fingerprint. 

A few Member States referred to cooperation between consular offices. EE, for example, indicated 
that  visa  representation  agreements  were  signed  with  DK,  FR  and  PL,  whilst  SK  was  negotiating 
such  agreements  with  CZ,  DE,  EE,  ES,  FR,  LV,  LT,  PL.  Their  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  also 
mandated its embassies to start negotiations concerning the possible establishment of joint consular 
services. CZ reported that, since 2010, ES, FR and PT represented it in more than 30 third countries, 
whilst it, at the same time, respectively represented FR and ES in Ukraine and Moldova. Following 
the signing of representation agreements, EL is represented by FR, IT, LT, ES, BE, NL, DE, PT, 
SE, AT and HU, while it represents FR and HU. CY is currently analysing the costs and benefits of 
signing  visa  representation  agreements  with  other  Member  States,  prior  to  engaging  into  new 
negotiations. LT signed visa representation agreements with DK, DE, EL, LV and NO and planned 
to sign an agreement with SK. With the adoption of the Visa Code, LU confirmed the continuation 
of  most  of  the  existing  representation  agreements.  PL  signed  visa  representation  agreements  with 
EE, NL and SE, to represent these Member States in several third countries and to be represented in 
others. SK signed agreements with HU, AT and SI. The latter will also be represented by SK in CY, 
RO  and  Ukraine.  BE,  in  cooperation  with  SE,  established  a  Common  Application  Centre  in 
Kinshasa, DR Congo in April 2010. LU participated in Common Application Centres in Chisinau 
(Moldova), Praia (Cape Verde) and Podgorica (Montenegro). 

On future measures, LU will represent NL in 13 European cities (Geneva, Madrid, Prague, Rome, 
Brussels, Paris, Vienna, Copenhagen, Berlin, Bern, Lisbon, Athens and Warsaw) from 2011. 

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; 

For  both  EU  and  national  level,  see  the  entry  under  Commitment:  IV.(c)  [Section  IV.1] and, with 
respect to return, Section II.2.2. 

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, initiatives were implemented through the MIEUX facility administered by the ICMPD, 
offering  EU  expertise  to  third  countries  to  enhance  their  capacities  to  better  address  irregular 
migration and mixed migratory flows. EU-funded projects continued around the world, including on 
capacity-building  for  immigration  services  in  the  Horn  of  Africa;  on  technical  assistance  for  the 
EU-ASEAN Migration and Border Management Programme; and on the Eastern Partnership Panel 
on Integrated Border Management. 

At  national  level,  in  addition  to  the  signature  of  readmission  agreements  (see  Commitment  II.(b) 
[Section II.2.1]), several Member States (EE, EL, IT, CY, AT, PT, RO, SI) also concluded bilateral 
or  multi-lateral  agreements  with  countries  of  origin  or  transit,  in  view  of  strengthening  external 
border  control  or  combating  irregular  immigration.  EE  agreed  on  a  bilateral  action  plan  with  the 
State Border Guard of Belarus in May 2010 and signed a bilateral cooperation agreement with the 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
State Border Guard of Moldova in November 2010. EL established contact points in third countries 
for the exchange of information and developed further police cooperation with Albania, including 
the  conduct  of  joint  operations  with  the  Albanian  Border  Police.  IT  signed  special  police 
cooperation  agreements  with  Libya,  Tunisia,  Nigeria,  Algeria,  Niger,  Ghana,  Egypt,  Senegal  and 
Gambia.  CY  signed  a  bilateral  cooperation  agreement  to  combat  organised  crime,  including 
irregular migration, with South Africa and negotiated similar agreements with Syria and Qatar. AT 
signed  bilateral  police  cooperation  and  security  agreements  with  Georgia,  Moldova,  Albania  and 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  PT  signed  bilateral  agreements  with  Cape  Verde  and  Brazil  and 
negotiated agreements with Angola, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé & Príncipe, Mozambique and East 
Timor.  RO  signed  a  bilateral  agreement  with  Moldova,  for  the  regulation  of  small  border  traffic, 
and negotiated a similar agreement with Serbia, as well as a draft cooperation protocol for opening 
a  joint  border-crossing  point  with  the  latter.  RO  also  discussed  agreements  on  cooperation  and 
countering  organised  crime  with  Moldova,  the  Russian  Federation,  Syria  and  Ukraine.  Under  the 
agreement  related  to  border  transport  and  cooperation  signed  with  Croatia,  SI  adopted  additional 
measures to strengthen control of the external border. 

Several  other  forms  of  cooperation  with  third  countries  were  also  developed  and/or  continued  in 
2010.  BE  continued  its  ‘Border  Guard  Assistance’  programme,  launched  in  2008,  which  also 
includes participation in the control of travel documents in non-EU airports in Western and Central 
African countries. It also continued its “Field Workers” project, launched in 2007, which deploys 
specialised  immigration  offers  to  consular  offices  in  third  countries.  In  2010,  field  workers  were 
active  in  Cameroon,  Ivory  Coast  and  Ecuador.  FR  signed  a  co-operation  agreement  with  BE  to 
participate  in  the  project.  DK  contributed  to  two  capacity  building  projects  with  the  migration 
authorities in Ghana: the first aimed at improving migration management by providing support to 
the  Ghana  Immigration  Service,  while  the  second  focused  on  combating  trafficking  and  irregular 
migration  from,  and  via,  Ghana  by  providing  information  to  transiting  and  potential  migrants  as 
well  as  expertise  to  responsible  authorities  for  detecting,  investigation  and  prosecuting  human 
traffickers and smugglers. DE and SE indicated that they used liaison officers in third countries for 
border control issues. CZ and SK launched a project to build capacity at the Moldovan-Romanian 
border,  focusing  on  identification  of  forged  and  falsified  travel  documents.  IT  continued 
participation  in  a  mission  to  Libya,  while  EL  participated  in  training  projects  to  Libya  and  Niger 
implemented under the auspices of the Italian authorities. LV organised a training visit, as part of 
the Border Management Programme in Central Asia, to introduce their model of integrated border 
to  participants  from  Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyzstan,  Tajikistan,  Turkmenistan  and 
management 
Uzbekistan.  They  also  organised  training  of  border  guards  in  Uzbekistan,  to  work  with  dogs 
detecting  narcotics  and  explosives.  ES  referred  to  its  participation  in  the  Seahorse  Network, 
together  with  PT,  Morocco,  Mauritania,  Senegal,  Gambia,  Cape  Verde  and  Guinea  Bissau.  AT 
deployed document advisors to Thailand, Egypt, Lebanon and India and participated in a twinning 
project with Serbia to implement the latter’s integrated border management strategy. PL continued 
conducting joint border control with Ukraine, in particular at border crossing points. UK mentioned 
projects to strengthen border control and build capacity of staff in Ghana, East Africa and Libya. 

III.2.2 Stockholm Programme 

The  European  Council  encourages  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to  take  advantage  of  the 
entry into force of the Visa Code and the gradual roll-out of the VIS in order to intensify regional 
consular  cooperation  by  means  of  regional  consular  programmes  which  could  include,  in 
particular, the establishment of common visa application centres where necessary on a voluntary 
basis. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
At EU level, and since 5th April 2010, the Visa Code now applies, streamlining the procedures for 
issuing Schengen short stay visas and enhancing local consular cooperation. In accordance with the 
Action  Plan  implementing  the  Stockholm  Programme,  the  Commission  plans  to  present  a 
Communication on regional consular cooperation programmes in 2011.  

Details on the development of the VIS are given in Section III.1.2 and on the setting up of common 
visa application centres under Commitment III.(f) [Section III.2.1]. 

At  national  level,  Member  States  provided  relevant  information  related  to  the  VIS  on  other 
commitments of the Pact (see also Section III.1.2). Following the entry into force of the Visa Code 
on  5th  April  2010,  several  Member  States  (EE,  EL,  FR,  LV,  MT,  NL,  AT,  PL)  confirmed  its 
implementation.  In  addition,  CZ,  LV,  PL,  SI,  SK  and  RO  introduced  legislative  changes.  In  CZ, 
these  concerned  internal  regulations  concerning  the  visa  issuing  process,  as  well  as  internal 
instructions and guidelines. In May 2010, PL put forward an amendment to the Act of Foreigners to 
fully  implement  the  Visa  Code.  LV  approved  a  Regulation  setting  out  the  competences  of 
diplomatic  and  consular  missions  in  order  to  comply  with  the  Visa  Code  and  also  envisaged 
amendments to its Immigration Law, to regulate procedures for motivating refusal and appeal. RO 
drafted amendments to its Law of Aliens’ regime to transpose the Visa Code. CY and LT started 
gradually implementing the rules, regulations and practices in accordance with the Visa Code. CZ 
and LT reported on measures taken to increase awareness and understanding of the Visa Code. CZ 
briefed  its  diplomatic  missions  and  consular  offices  on  the  main  changes  well  before  its 
implementation.  LT  organised  centralised  training  on  the  implementation  of  the  Visa  Code  in 
Vilnius,  as  well  as  five  regional  training  sessions  in  the  bigger  diplomatic  missions  and  consular 
offices (Kaliningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Kiev and Chicago).  

invites  the  Commission  and  Council  to  continue  to  explore  the  possibilities  created  by  the 
conclusion of visa facilitation agreements with third countries in appropriate cases, 

The Commission presented in November 2010 a recommendation to the Council to negotiate a visa 
facilitation agreement (together with a recommendation to negotiate a readmission agreement) with 
Belarus,  in  the  framework  of  the  Eastern  Partnership.  The  Visa  Facilitation  Agreement  with 
Georgia was signed on 17 June 2010 and will enter into force on 1 March 2011. With Cape Verde, a 
round of negotiations was held in October 2010.  

Joint  Visa  Facilitation  Committees  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  EU  Visa  Facilitation 
Agreements  with  the  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine  and  Moldova  took  place  in  2010.  These  three 
Joint  Committees  agreed  on  suggestions  for  amendments  and  additions  to  the  respective  Visa 
in  October  2010 
Facilitation  Agreements.  On 
recommendations to the Council to re- negotiate the Visa Facilitation Agreements with the Russian 
Federation, Ukraine and Moldova.  

the  Commission  presented 

this  basis, 

invites the Commission to keep the list of third countries whose nationals are or are not subject to 
a  visa  requirement  under  regular  review  in  accordance  with  appropriate  criteria  relating  e  g  to 
illegal  immigration,  public  policy  and  security,  which  take  account  of  the  Union's  internal  and 
external policy objectives,  

In  2010,  two  reviews  of  the  lists  of  Regulation  539/2001  were  adopted:  transfer  of  Albania  and 
Bosnia-Herzegovina  to  the  positive  list  (Regulation  1091/2010)  and  transfer  of  Taiwan  to  the 
positive visa list (Regulation 1211/2010).  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
invites  the  Commission  to  strengthen  its  efforts  to  ensure  the  principle  of  visa  reciprocity  and 
prevent  the  (re)introduction  of  visa  requirements  by  third  countries  towards  any  Member  State 
and  to identify  measures  which  could  be  used  prior  to  imposing  the  visa  reciprocity  mechanism 
towards those third countries. 

The Commission issued the 6th reciprocity report,44 which takes stock of the efforts to achieve full 
reciprocity with third countries on the EU positive list. 

The  European  Council,  with  a  view  to  creating  the  possibility  of  moving  to  a  new  stage  in  the 
development of the common visa policy, while taking account of Member States competences in this 
area,  invites  the  Commission  to  present  a  study  on  the  possibility  of  establishing  a  common 
European issuing mechanism for short term visas. The study could also examine to what degree 
an  assessment  of  individual  risk  could  supplement  the  presumption  of  risk  associated  with  the 
applicant’s nationality. 

In  accordance  with  the  Action  Plan  implementing  the  Stockholm  Programme,  this  initiative  is 
scheduled for 2014.  

invites  the  Commission  to  prepare  a  study  on  the  possibility  and  usefulness  of  developing  a 
European system of travel authorisation and, where appropriate, to make the necessary proposals. 
(Section 5.1, Integrated management of the external borders) 

See the entry under Commitment III.(e) [Section III.1.1]. 

invites the Council and the Commission to support enhanced capacity building in third countries 
so that they can control efficiently their external borders. 

See the entry under Commitment: III.(f) [Section III.2.1]. 

III.3 Management of the External Borders 

III.3.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

Commitment III.(c) give the Frontex agency, with due regard for 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; 

See the entry under Commitment III. (a) [Section III.1.1]  

44 

COM(2010)620 final  

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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, and further to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission proposed on 
16  November  2010  a  Regulation  on  the  establishment  of  an  evaluation  mechanism  to  verify  the 
correct  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis.45  The  Council  welcomed  the  proposal  in  general. 
However,  questions  on  the  competences  of  the  Member  States  within  a  modified  evaluation 
mechanism were raised. The European Parliament has not yet taken position on the proposal. The 
proposal,  which  would  give  the  Commission  greater  responsibility  for  the  oversight  of  such 
evaluations,  specifies  that  the  evaluation  should  pay  particular  attention  to  the  respect  of 
fundamental rights when applying the Schengen acquis.  

In  the  framework  of  the  Schengen  evaluation,  training  was  provided  to  Schengen  evaluation 
experts, as well as to leading experts by FRONTEX together with PL and FI. 

III.3.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 5.1) 

requests the Commission to put forward proposals no later than early 2010 to clarify the mandate 
and enhance the role of FRONTEX, taking account of the results of the evaluation of the Agency 
and the role and responsibilities of the Member States in the area of border control. Elements of 
these  proposals  could  contain  preparation  of  clear  common  operational  procedures  containing 
clear  rules  of  engagement  for  joint  operations  at  sea,  with  due  regard  to  ensuring  protection  for 
those  in  need  who  travel  in  mixed  flows,  in  accordance  with  international  law;  increased 
operational  cooperation  between  Frontex  and  countries  of  origin  and  transit  and  examination  of 
the  possibility  of  regular  chartering  financed  by  Frontex  In  order  to  promote  the  proper 
enforcement of the applicable statutory framework for Frontex operations, the Commission should 
consider  including  a  mechanism  for  reporting  and  recording  incidents  that  can  be  satisfactorily 
followed up by the relevant authorities, 

See the entries under Commitment III. (a) [Section III.1.1]  

invites FRONTEX itself to consider, within its mandate, establishing regional and/or 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; before creating such offices, Frontex should report to the Council on its intentions, 

See the entry under Commitment III. (c) [Section III.3.1]  

invites  the  Commission  to  initiate  a  debate  on  the  long-term  development  of  FRONTEX.  This 
debate should include, as was envisaged in the Hague programme, the feasibility of the creation of 
a European system of border guards, 

See the entry under Commitment III. (c) [Section III.3.1]  

considers that the evaluation of the Schengen area will continue to be of key importance and that it 
therefore should be improved by strengthening the role of Frontex in this field, 

See the entry under Commitment III. (g) [Section III.3.1]  

45 

COM(2010) 624 final. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
IV. INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION 

IV.1 European Pact on Immigration and 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  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,  and  during  the  first  semester  of  2010,  the  co-legislators  (Council  and  Parliament) 
formally approved the creation of the EASO46 and Member States decided that its seat would be in 
Valletta, Malta. Since then, the Commission has been actively working with a view to prepare the 
start  of  operations  of  the  EASO,  which  should  be  fully  operational  by  19  June  2011.  The  first 
Management Board meeting was held in Valletta on 25-26 November 2010. During this meeting, 
Mr Rob Visser was selected as Executive Director of the EASO. He made a statement in the LIBE 
Committee of the European Parliament on 9 December 2010.  

According to its founding Regulation, the EASO will focus on three main tasks: 

•  develop  practical  cooperation  among  Member  States  on  asylum,  by  facilitating 
exchange  of  information  on  countries  of  origin,  by  providing  Member  States  with 
support  for  translation  and  interpretation,  training  of  asylum  officials  and  assisting  in 
the relocation of recognised refugees. 

•  support  Member  States  under  "particular  pressure,"  in  particular  through  the 
establishment  of  an  early  warning  system,  coordinating  teams  of  experts  to  assist  EU 
countries in managing asylum applications and in putting in place appropriate reception 
facilities. 

•  contribute to the implementation of the CEAS by collecting and exchanging information 
on  best  practices,  drawing  up  an  annual  report  on  the  asylum  situation  in  the  EU  and 
adopting  technical  documents,  such  as  guidelines  and  operating  manuals,  on  the 
implementation of the Union's asylum instruments. 

Through the implementation of the above tasks, the EASO will fulfil certain actions included in the 
Stockholm  Programme,  namely  those  related  to  the  "development  of  a  common  educational 
platform,  building  on  in  particular  the  European  Asylum  Curriculum",  and  those  concerning  the 
"development  of  procedures  that  will  facilitate  the  secondment  of  officials  in  order  to  help  those 
Member States facing particular pressures of asylum-seekers".  

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 submitted its proposal for the recast of the Qualification and Asylum 
Procedures Directives in October 2009. The proposal amending the Qualification Directive clarifies 

46 

Regulation (EU) 439/2010 published in the Official Journal of the EU on 29 May 2010.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
certain  legal  concepts,  such  as  “actors  of  protection”,  “internal  protection”  or  “membership  of  a 
particular social  group,”  in  order  to enable national authorities to apply the  criteria more robustly 
and  to  identify  more  quickly  persons  in  need  of  protection.  Furthermore,  the  proposal  aims  to 
approximate  the  rights  granted  to  refugees  and  to  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection.  The 
amendments concern the duration of residence permits, access to social welfare, health care and the 
labour  market.  Progress  was  achieved  in  the  course  of  2010  with  technical  discussions  in  the 
Council  completed.  The  Belgian  Presidency  proposed  several  compromise  amendments  and  an 
important number of reservations were lifted.47  

The amendments to the Asylum Procedures Directive aim mainly to provide for a single procedure 
by  ensuring  the  simplification  and rationalisation  of  asylum  procedures,  as  well  as  a  reduction  of 
administrative burden for Member States; facilitate access to examination procedures; enhance the 
efficiency of the examination process of applications; improve the quality of asylum decisions; and 
ensure  access  to  effective  remedy  for  asylum  applicants  in  line  with  EU  and  international 
obligations of Member States. A first reading at technical level in the Council was completed under 
the  Spanish  Presidency  in  the  first  half  of  2010.  However,  progress  on  the  proposal  was  very 
limited,  discussions  were  difficult  and  only  few  technical  points  were  agreed  upon.  The  most 
problematic  elements  of  the  proposal  concern  legal  assistance,  accelerated  procedures,  border 
procedures and appeals.48 To give an impulse to the stalled negotiations, the Commission will adopt 
a modified amended proposal in 2011 before the Polish Presidency. 

A compromise was reached between the European Parliament and the Council in December 2010 
on  the  extension  of  the  legal  system  for  third-country  nationals  with  long-term  resident  status  to 
include  persons  with  international  protection.  The  Commission  had  proposed  that  such  persons, 
who  initially  were  not  covered  by  Directive  2003/109/EC,  may  be  granted  the  rights  under  long-
term  resident  status  after  a  period  of  five  years'  legal  residence.  It  is  expected  that  the  formal 
adoption  of  the  amendment  will  take  place  in  the  first  Semester  of  2011.49  This  modification  of 
Directive 2003/109/EC will facilitate the integration of beneficiaries of international protection by 
granting them a higher level of rights and promoting their mobility.  

This commitment is directly related to the invitation from the European Council in the Stockholm 
Programme  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  "to  intensify  the  efforts  to  establish  a 
common asylum procedure and uniform status in accordance with Article TFUE for those who are 
granted asylum or subsidiary protection by 2012 at the latest." 

Commitment  IV.(c)  solidarity  with  Member  State(s)  which  are  faced  with  specific  and 
disproportionate pressures on their national asylum systems 

At  EU  level,  solidarity  on  asylum  issues  took  different  forms  in  the  course  of  2010.  The 
establishment  of  the  EASO  will  also  contribute  to  strengthen  intra-EU  solidarity  in  the  field  of 
asylum.  

47 

48 

49 

EN 

Following an orientation vote on 1 February 2011, the Parliament's LIBE committee adopted a draft report on 
the Commission's proposal, available from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5818632.  
On  24th  March  2011,  the  European  Parliament's  LIBE  committee  adopted  a  report  on  the  Commission's 
proposal, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-
2011-0085+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.  
This 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/121451.pdf.  

adopted 

Council 

2011, 

April 

11th 

was 

see 

see 

the 

on 

by 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The pilot project started in 2009 to relocate about 250 beneficiaries of international protection from 
Malta to 10 Member States continued to be implemented, with the support of UNHCR and IOM. By 
the end of the year, approximately 220 such persons had already been relocated to 6 Member States, 
with the remaining ones expected to be relocated during 2011. The project received, in April 2010, 
a grant of almost €2 million from the Commissi on through the European Refugee Fund Community 
Actions. Relocation was also the object of an external study requested by the Commission.50  

In August 2010, after a high-level technical mission to Athens organised by the Commission, the 
Greek authorities sent an Action Plan to reform its asylum system and better manage the significant 
influx  of  asylum-seekers  that  the  country  receives.  Based  on  offers  of  assistance  by  several  EU 
Member  States  and  on  a  number  of  immediate  needs  highlighted  by  Greece,  the  Commission 
identified four priority actions for the immediate deployment of expertise to Greece. On this basis, 
teams  of  Member  States'  experts  were  deployed  on  the  ground  in  December  2010  providing 
expertise  in  the  areas  of  case  management  of  asylum  claims,  registration  and  screening  of 
international protection needs in cases of mixed migration flows, as well as the provision of training 
to  the  Greek  authorities  in  accordance  with  the  European  Asylum  Curriculum  framework.  Other 
teams  were  deployed  in  early  2011  in  particular  to  provide  expertise  in  the  area  of  quality 
management of asylum decision-making. The Commission provided to Greece almost €10 million 
from the emergency funding reserve of the European Refugee Fund.  

Negotiations  continued  on  the  amendments  to  the  Dublin  Regulation.  One  such  amendment 
concerns  the  creation  of  an  exceptional  mechanism  for  the  temporary  suspension  of  transfers  of 
asylum seekers to the first country of entry in the EU territory, thus allowing the EU to deal with 
exceptional situations where certain Member States are confronted with particular pressure on their 
asylum systems that they cannot cope with on their own. 

The  support  to  Greece,  the  relocation  pilot  project  with  Malta  and  the  clause  on  suspension  of 
transfers in Dublin are a test of the possibilities for three of the actions included in the Stockholm 
Programme:  "developing mechanisms  for  sharing responsibility between the Member States while 
assuring that asylum systems are not abused, and the principles of the Common European Asylum 
System  not  undermined",  "creating  instruments  and  coordinating  mechanisms  which  will  enable 
Member States to support each other in building capacity, building on Member States own efforts to 
increase their capacity with regard to their national asylum systems" and "using in a more effective 
way, existing EU financial systems aiming at reinforcing internal solidarity".  

At national level, several Member States (BE, DE, HU, AT, PT, SE, UK) reported having set up or 
taken part in initiatives to help other Member States facing a massive influx of asylum applicants. 
These Member States mentioned initiatives specifically aimed at providing support to EL (DK, DE, 
IT, HU, AT, SE, UK), CY (HU), MT (HU, UK) and PL (BE). These included provisions of specific 
training (DE, AT, UK), capacity building (DE, HU, AT, UK), exchanges of asylum officers (BE, 
DE), secondment of staff (HU, SE), signature of Memorandum of Understanding (AT), support for 
the  fast  and  efficient  implementation  of  EL’s  Action  Plan  for  Migration  Management  (DK), 
participation  in  migration  missions  focusing  on  the  situation  of  Member  States  under  particular 
pressure  (HU)  and  organisation  of  specific  pilot  projects  (UK).  In  addition,  HU  participated  in 
migration missions in EL, CY and MT. DK also indicated having forwarded the curriculum vitae of 
14 asylum experts to the European Asylum Support Office asylum expert pool. 

50 

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/asylum/docs/final_report_relocation_of_refugees.pdf  

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
With regard to specific training, three Member States (DE, AT, UK) provided specific training to 
EL  on  asylum  procedures  (DE)  and  quality  assurance  (AT,  UK).  UK  also  provided  training  in 
language analysis to officers in MT.  

Four Member States (DE, HU, AT, UK) developed capacity building measures. DE offered EL the 
possibility  to  access  their  Information  System  on  Countries  of  Origin  and  the  GDISC  Pool  of 
Interpreters.  HU  and  AT  provided  support  to  EL  to  improve  Refugee  Status  Determination 
Procedures  (HU)  and  their  related  quality  assurance  (AT).  UK  provided  support  to  MT  in 
processing asylum applications and language analysis as part of the Interpreters Pool Project. This 
project  offers  support  to  Member  States  lacking  capacity  by  providing  interpreters  via  video-
conferencing.  Since  April  2010,  UK  provided  interpretation  capacity  on  three  occasions.  MT 
particularly  welcomed  this  initiative.  As  a  Member  State  facing  specific  and  disproportionate 
pressures on its national asylum system, CY referred to the Project ‘Particular Pressures Cyprus’, 
which aimed to strengthen and enhance its asylum system. Within this project, CY benefitted from 
the  expertise  of  the  Dutch  Immigration  and  Naturalisation  Service  and  Central  Agency  for  the 
Reception  of  Asylum  Seekers.  Visits  were  also  organised  in  IE,  CY  and  NL  to  exchange 
experiences  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  accelerated  asylum  procedures,  interview 
techniques  and  the  handling  of  particular  target  groups,  such  as  unaccompanied  minors  and 
vulnerable  persons.  EL  mentioned  the  funding  of  emergency  measures  by  the  European  Refugee 
Fund and the experts’ missions organised for the implementation of the National Action Plan for the 
Reform of the Asylum System and the Management of Migration Flows, adopted in August 2010. 

Two  Member  States  (BE,  PL)  undertook  activities  in  2010  relating  to  the  exchange  of  asylum 
officers.  BE  organised  an  exchange  programme  with  asylum  case  workers  from  PL,  where  ten 
asylum case workers were invited to BE to discuss the asylum decision making process and attend 
interviews, with the goal of improving the quality of the asylum procedure in PL. Focus was placed 
on asylum applications from the Russian Federation. DE also invited a Greek Liaison Officer to the 
Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.  

With regard to other measures, HU and SE sent seconded staff to EL to assist in the processing of 
asylum applications (HU, SE) and provide training within the European Asylum Curriculum (SE). 
AT  negotiated  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  with  EL  to  agree  on  bilateral  cooperation  in 
internal security, including asylum matters. On new projects in 2010, UK ran various pilot projects 
in EL with one focusing on language analysis and allowing EL authorities to use Sprakab, the UK's 
language  analysis  service  provider.  Another  project  aimed  at  helping  EL  authorities  to  identify 
persons  in  need  of  international  protection,  improving  detention  conditions  and  guaranteeing 
fairness in asylum procedures.  

In EL, the adoption of a legislative amendment in November 2010 enabled the prompt examination 
of asylum applications pending at first or second instance and reintroduced the examination, by an 
independent committee, of asylum applications at second instance. A draft law was also submitted 
to parliament for vote, proposing to revise the national asylum system through the establishment of 
a  new  Asylum  Service,  that  would  take  charge  of  all  competencies  related  to  the  granting  of 
international protection.  

Asylum was one of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union 
and  BE  organised  a  ministerial  conference  on  ‘Quality  and  Efficiency  in  the  Asylum  Process’  in 
September  2010.  The  focus  of  this  conference  was  placed  on  practical  cooperation  and  solidarity 
between Member States. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
With regard to future measures, NL indicated their intention to also provide assistance to EL in the 
implementation of their Action Plan for Migration Management.  

and participation in coordinated reallocation measures 

At  national  level,  six  Member  States  (DE,  FR,  LU,  PT,  SI,  UK)  relocated  beneficiaries  of 
international protection in the framework of the EUREMA (European Re-allocation for Malta) pilot 
project in 2010. In addition, four Member States (HU, PL, RO, SK) agreed to relocate beneficiaries 
of international protection from MT also via this project. 

The numbers of beneficiaries of international protection relocated from MT to other Member States 
in 2010 ranged from 102 (DE) and 93 (FR) to 10 (UK), 8 (SI) and 6 (LU, PL, PT). HU, PL, RO and 
SK agreed to relocate from 10 (HU, SK) to 6 (PL, RO) beneficiaries of international protection. In 
total,  MT  indicated  that  approximately  255  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  would  be 
relocated within the framework of the EUREMA pilot project.  

In  addition,  PL  proposed  amendments  to  its  national  asylum  legislation,  introducing  provisions 
enabling the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection from other Member States. 

With  regard  to  future  measures,  BE  indicated  their  intention  to  take  part  in  the  EUREMA  pilot 
project from 2011 onwards. 

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 European Union 

At EU level, while pursuing its support to the existing Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs) in 
Eastern Europe and Tanzania/Great Lakes region, the Commission decided, after an evaluation of 
the RPPs conducted by an external consultant in 2009, to extend RPPs to two new regions: the Horn 
of  Africa  (Kenya,  Yemen  and  Djibouti)  and  Northeast  Africa  (Egypt,  Libya  and  Tunisia).  The 
contract  with  UNHCR  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Horn  of  Africa  RPP  was  signed  in 
October 2010, with the bulk of activities taking place in Kenya and covering Somali refugees. The 
development the Northeast Africa RPP is on-going.  

Negotiations  on  the  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  a  'Joint  EU  Resettlement  Programme'51 
continued  in  2010  and  good  progress  was  made  by  the  co-legislators  (Council  and  Parliament). 
There  is  wide  agreement  on  its  contents,  but  no  adoption  has  taken  place  so  far,  because  of  a 
disagreement on the procedural issue, namely how to adopt the annual resettlement priorities. The 
Commission  will  support  efforts  to  find  a  solution  and  hopes  that  the  'Joint  EU  Resettlement 
Programme'  will  be  formally  adopted  in  2011.  The  Commission  will,  in  any  event,  continue 
working to develop resettlement within the EU.  

Under the current European Refugee Fund, the pledging exercise for 2011 (related to the granting of 
€4  000  per  resettled  refugee)  was  conducted  in  2010.  Nine  Member  States  have  pledged  their 
readiness  to  resettle  in  2011  a  total  of  2  483  refugees  belonging  to  one  of  the  four  categories 
mentioned in the ERF decision.  

51 

COM(2009) 456 final. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  above-mentioned  developments  in  the  area  of  resettlement  and  RPPs  closely  respond  to  the 
Stockholm  Programme's  actions  related  to  "the  enhancement  of  capacity  building  in  third 
countries,  in  particular  their  capacity  to  provide  effective  protection,  and  to  further  develop  and 
expand the idea of Regional Protection Programmes, on the basis of the forthcoming evaluations" 
and to "the encouragement of voluntary participation of Member States in the joint EU resettlement 
scheme and increase the total number of resettled refugees, taking  into consideration the specific 
situation  in  each  Member  State"  as  well  as  to  "finding  ways  to  strengthen  EU  support  for  the 
UNHCR".  

At national level, ten Member States (CZ, DK, DE, IE, FR, IT, PT, FI, SE, UK) resettled refugees 
from different regions of the world, mainly in cooperation with the UNHCR. ES adopted an annual 
resettlement programme for the first time, after the entry into force of the new national Asylum Act 
in 2009. 

Refugees  resettled  in  EU  Member  States  included  Burmese  refugees  from  Thailand  (CZ,  IE,  NL, 
FI), Malaysia (CZ, IE, NL) and Bangladesh (UK), Iraqi refugees from Syria (DE, IE, FI, SE, UK), 
Jordan  (DE,  IE,  SE)  and  Lebanon  (NL,  SE),  Congolese  refugees  from  Rwanda  (FI,  SE,  UK), 
Afghan  refugees  from  Iran  (FI,  SE),  Iranian  refugees  (DE,  SE),  Syrian  refugees  (IE),  Ethiopian 
refugees  (IE,  NL,  SE,  UK),  Eritrean  refugees  (NL,  SE),  Somali  refugees  (SE,  UK),  Palestinian 
refugees from Al-Tanf camp (IT) and Bhutanese refugees from Nepal (NL, UK). 

Four  Member States (IE, FR, FI, SE)  favoured  the resettlement  of emergency cases (FI), medical 
cases  (IE)  and/or  the  resettlement  of  particular  categories  of  refugees,  such  as  catholic  nationals 
from Iraq (FR), refugees from the East and Horn of Africa (SE) and stateless refugees (SE). 

Two  Member  States  (PL,  SK)  also  referred  to  their  participation  in  the  project  on  ‘Promotion  of 
resettlement  in  the  EU  countries  through  practical  cooperation  of  the  Member  States’  jointly 
implemented by UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the International 
Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), which started in March 2010.  

The size of the annual quota of persons accepted for resettlement varies from one Member State to 
another  (e.g.  on  annual  basis,  SE  resettles  around  2  000  persons,  FI  and  UK  each  resettle  750 
persons,  IE  accepted  200  persons,  FR  had  100  files,  NL  promised  to  resettle  2000  refugees  from 
2008  to  2011,  while  DK  has  a  3-year  flexible  quota  of  1  500  refugees).  The  quota  agreed  by  ES 
under  the  2010  annual  resettlement  programme  was  75.  While  it  has  not  set  a  fixed  quota,  DE 
resettled more that 2 500 persons in 2009 and 2010. 

With regard to other resettlement-related activities, SK had finished the resettlement transfer of 98 
Palestinian  refugees  from  Iraq  and  has  signed  another  tripartite  agreement  in  order  to  admit  100 
refugees for the period of six months. RO hosted 137 refugees in urgent need of evacuation from 
their  first  asylum  countries  in  its  Emergency  Transit  Centre,  prior  to  their  further  resettlement  to 
other Member States or third-countries.  

For future measures, BG and HU indicated that they were considering their potential involvement in 
resettlement  activities  through  a  pilot  project  (BG)  and/or  through  the  elaboration  of  a  National 
Resettlement  Programme  (HU).  LU  decided  to  engage  in  resettlement  activities  on  a  more 
systematic  basis  and  will  establish  an  annual  quota.  In  addition,  the  draft  ‘Migration  Policy  of 
Poland’ elaborated in 2010 indicated that PL could join in future resettlement programmes.  

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

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
At  EU  level,  on  24  February  2010,  and  as  mentioned  also  in  Section  III.1.1,  the  Commission 
proposed  an  amendment  to  the  FRONTEX  Regulation  which  introduces  inter  alia  an  explicit 
requirement  for  all  border  guards  taking  part  in  operations  to  have  been  trained  in  fundamental 
rights,  so  as  to  ensure  full  respect  of  fundamental  rights  and  in  particular  the  principle  of  non-
refoulement.  On  26  May  2010,  FRONTEX  concluded  a  cooperation  arrangement  with  FRA,  the 
EU's Fundamental Rights Agency, covering, inter alia, such activities. 

The  26  April  2010  Council  Decision  supplementing  the  Schengen  Borders  Code52  on  the 
surveillance  of  the  EU's  external  maritime  borders,  in  the  context  of  operational  cooperation 
coordinated  by  FRONTEX,  foresees  that  border  guards  involved  in  such  operations  should  be 
specifically trained in human rights and refugee law. 

In the framework of the implementation of the Common Core Curriculum for Basic Level Training 
of border guards, a teacher exchange programme has been initiated and successfully implemented in 
2010.  This  programme  will  be  extended  to  students  (border  guards)  exchange  starting  in  2011. 
Regular training organised by FRONTEX for the members of the RABIT Pool, as well as for the 
participants  of  Member  States'  border  guards  in  joint  operations  hosted  by  other  Member  States, 
contributes  greatly  to  the  common  understanding  of  tasks  and  the  development  of  a  European 
organisational culture of the border guard services within the European Union. 

At  national  level,  in  addition  to  the  information  provided  in  Sections  II.1.2  and  III.1.1,  most 
Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, 
UK)  also  provided  training  to  personnel  responsible  for  external  border  controls  on  international 
protection. 

With regard to the categories of staff trained, many Member States (BE, DE, EE, IT, CY, LV, LT, 
HU, NL, AT, PL, FI, SE, UK) referred to the training of border officials and/or police officers (SK, 
SE). 

The content of the training varied, covering issues such as rights and obligations under international 
protection (BE, DE, IT, CY, LT, NL, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK), asylum proceedings (EE), identification 
and  interview  of  asylum  applicants  (LV,  NL),  management  of  stressful  situations  (HU),  specific 
training on vulnerable applicants (ES) and unaccompanied minors (AT). 

In addition, EE referred to the participation of border guards in study visits to other Member States 
as  part  of  the  training  programme  financed  with  the  support  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund.  IT 
mentioned  the  renewal  of  the  ‘Praesidium  project’  for  the  fifth  consecutive  year,  which  commits 
international  organisations  in  providing  information  about  their  rights  to  third-country  nationals 
arriving on the Southern Italian coastline.  

Three Member States (ES, RO, UK) indicated that the training provided was fully in line with the 
European  Asylum  Curriculum,  whilst  DE,  RO  and  UK  also  mentioned  their  participation  in 
FRONTEX  Border  Guards  training  programmes.  LT  and  HU  referred  to  the  involvement  of 
UNHCR in delivering the training.  

52 

Council Decision 2010/252/EU (OJ L 111/20, 4th May 2010). 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
IV.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.2.1) 

Subject to a report from the Commission on the legal and practical consequences, the European 
Union should seek accession to the Geneva Convention and 1967 Protocol. 

This report is scheduled, according to the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, for 
2013. 

invites  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  to  intensify  the  efforts  to  establish  a  common 
asylum  procedure  and  a  uniform  status  in  accordance  with  Article  78  TFUE  for  those  who  are 
granted asylum or subsidiary protection by 2012 at the latest, 

See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

invites the Commission to consider, once the second phase of the CEAS has been fully implemented 
and on the basis of an evaluation of the effect of that legislation and of the EASO, the possibilities 
for creating a framework for the transfer of protection of beneficiaries of international protection 
when exercising their acquired residence rights under EU law, 

A  Communication  is  expected,  according  to  the  Action  Plan  implementing  the  Stockholm 
Programme, in 2014.  

invites  the  Commission  to  undertake  a  feasibility  study  on  Eurodac  as  a  supporting  tool  for  the 
entire CEAS, while fully respecting data protection rules,  

A  Communication  on  Eurodac  development,  namely  on  the  feasibility  on  its  development  into  a 
supporting tool for the entire Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is scheduled, according 
to the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, for 2012. 

invites  the  Commission  to  consider,  if  necessary,  in  order  to  achieve  the  CEAS,  proposing  new 
legislative instruments on the basis of an evaluation, 

During  2010  the  Commission  focused  on  the  existing  package  and  presented  no  new  legislative 
instruments in the field. 

invites the Commission to finalise its study on the feasibility and legal and practical implications to 
establish joint processing of asylum applications. 

A Communication on the appropriateness, the possibilities and the difficulties, as well as the legal 
and practical implications of joint processing of asylum applications within the Union, is scheduled, 
in accordance with the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, for 2014.  

developing the mechanism for  sharing responsibility between the  Member  States while assuring 
that asylum systems are not abused, and the principles of the CEAS are not undermined, 

See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

creating instruments and coordinating mechanisms which will enable Member States to support 
each other in building capacity, building on Member States own efforts to increase their capacity 
with regard to their national asylum systems, 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

using,  in  a  more  effective  way,  existing  EU  financial  systems  aiming  at  reinforcing  internal 
solidarity, 

See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

the  EASO  to  evaluate  and  develop  procedures  that  will  facilitate  the  secondment  of  officials  in 
order to help those Member States facing particular pressures of asylum seekers. 

See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

invites  the  EASO  to  develop  methods  to  better  identify  those  who  are  in  need  of  international 
protection  in  mixed  flows,  and  to  cooperate  with  Frontex  wherever  possible.  (Section  5.1, 
Integrated management of the external borders) 

EASO was not yet operational in 2010.  

EASO  should  further  develop  a  common  educational  platform  for  national  asylum  officials, 
building on in particular the European Asylum Curriculum (EAC). 

EASO was not yet operational in 2010. 

The EASO should be fully involved in the external dimension of the CEAS. 

EASO was not yet operational in 2010.  

invites  the  Council  and  the  Commission  to  enhance  capacity  building  in  third  countries,  in 
particular their capacity to provide effective protection, and to further develop and expand the idea 
of  Regional  Protection  Programmes,  on  the  basis  of  the  forthcoming  evaluations.  Such  efforts 
should be incorporated into the Global Approach to Migration, and should be reflected in national 
poverty reduction strategies and not only be targeting refugees and internally displaced persons but 
also local populations. 

See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

invites the Council and the Commission to find ways to strengthen EU support for the UNHCR, 

See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

invites  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Commission  to  encourage  the  voluntary 
participation of Member States in the joint EU resettlement scheme and increase the total number 
of resettled refugees, taking into consideration the specific situation in each Member State, 

See the entry under Commitment IV.(b) [Section IV.1]. 

invites  the  Commission  to  report  annually  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the 
resettlement  efforts  made  within  the  EU,  to  carry  out  a  mid-term  evaluation  during  2012  of  the 
progress  made,  and  to  evaluate  the  joint  EU  resettlement  programme  in  2014  with  a  view  to 
identifying necessary improvements,  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
On resettlement efforts undertaken in 2010, see entry under Commitment IV.(c) [Section IV.1]. 

invites  the  Commission  to  explore,  in  that  context  and  where  appropriate,  new  approaches 
concerning  access  to  asylum  procedures  targeting  main  transit  countries,  such  as  protection 
programmes  for  particular  groups  or  certain  procedures  for  examination  of  applications  for 
asylum, in which Member States could participate on a voluntary basis. 

A  Communication  on  this  subject  will  be  issued,  according  to  the  Action  Plan  implementing  the 
Stockholm Programme, in 2013.  

EASO  should  further  develop  a  common  educational  platform  for  national  asylum  officials, 
building on in particular the European Asylum Curriculum (EAC). 

EASO was not yet operational in 2010.  

IV.3 Key statistics53 

Table 4 in the Statistical Annex gives an overview of the number of Asylum Applicants (including 
new  applications  submitted)  plus  First  Instance  Decisions  by  outcome  in  2010.  While  in  2009 
Member  States  recorded  a  total  of  266  400  asylum  applications  (including  new  applications),  the 
number in 2010 was 257 815, a slight decrease of 3%. DE (48 490), FR (51 595) and SE (31 875) 
had  the  highest  number  of  applications,  while  EE  (35),  LV  (65)  and  PT  (160)  had  the  lowest 
number. As a proportion of the total population, however, this was highest for CY (1 320 applicants 
per  million  inhabitants),  SE  (990)  and  BE  (765)  and  lowest  for  EE  (5),  PT  (5)  and  LV  (10).  The 
most important countries of citizenship of asylum-seekers in the EU were, in order: Afghanistan (20 
580), Russia (18 500), Serbia (17 715, excluding Kosovo), Iraq (15 800) and Somalia (14 350). 

In terms of protection status granted, 55 095 asylum-seekers received a protection status in the EU 
at  First  Instance  (Refugee,  Subsidiary  protection  or  Humanitarian).  For  the  EU-27  as  a  whole, 
protection  was  granted  in  25%  of  decisions  taken  in  first-instance  procedures.  Positive  decisions 
granted  on  the  basis  of  Refugee  Status  were  largest  for  DE  (7  755  or  74.2%  of  all  positive 
decisions),  UK  (4  445  or  69%)  and  FR  (4  095  or  80%).  For  subsidiary  protection,  the  largest 
positive decisions were granted by SE (5 955 or 70% of all positive decisions), NL (4 010 or 53%) 
and  again  UK  (1  850  or  28.7%).  For  those  Member  States  granting  protection  for  Humanitarian 
Reasons, these were largest for NL (2 745 or 36.3% of all positive decisions), DE (2 145 or 20.5%) 
and IT (1 225 or 28.5%).  

53 

The  figures  presented  here  are  based  on  the  published  data  from  Eurostat,  March  2011,  available  from 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-11-005/EN/KS-QA-11-005-EN.PDF.  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
V. UNACCOMPANIED MINORS

54 

V.1 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.7 plus 2.3.2) 

develop  an  action  plan,  to  be  adopted  by  the  Council,  on  unaccompanied  minors  which 
underpins  and  supplements  the  relevant  legislative  and  financial  instruments  and  combines 
measures directed at prevention, protection and assisted return 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  adopted  in  May  2010  the  Action  Plan  on  Unaccompanied  Minors 
(2010  –  2012),55  which  was  complemented  by  the  publication  as  well  of  the  EMN's  study  on 
unaccompanied minors.56 On the basis of the Commission's Action Plan, in June 2010, the Council 
adopted Council conclusions on unaccompanied minors.57 The Action Plan identifies main strands 
for action such as prevention, reception and identification of durable solutions. These actions are to 
be implemented by a series of concrete measures which are outlined in the Action Plan and which 
are  not  limited  to  immigration  policies,  but  also  address  the  root  causes  of  migration.  In  order  to 
facilitate  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and,  in  general,  to  coordinate  the  actions  in  the 
field, the Commission maintained regular contacts with Member States concerned, EU services and 
stakeholders.  

The  protection  of  inter  alia  unaccompanied  minors  is  also  embedded  in  the  aforementioned 
directive on combating trafficking (Section II.1.2) and in the proposed directives on asylum (Section 
IV.1).  In  respect  of  data  collection,  Guidelines  to  Article  6  of  the  Migration  Statistics  Regulation 
862/2007  addressed  the  shortcomings  which  had  been  identified  concerning  the  limited  statistical 
data on unaccompanied minors.  

The  Schengen  Borders  Code  proposal  (See  under  Commitment  IV.(e)  [Section  IV.1])  included  a 
specific mention of the training module on unaccompanied minors for border guards. The redrafted 
Article  15  provided  that  'Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  border  guards  are  specialised  and 
properly  trained  professionals,  taking  into  account  common  core  curricula  for  border  guards 
established and developed by FRONTEX. Training curricula shall include specialised training for 
detecting  particularly  vulnerable  situations  concerning  unaccompanied  minors  and  victims  of 
trafficking.'  Efforts  were  also  made  to  establish  a  list  of  national  contact  points  for  consultation 
purposes on minors (currently established on a voluntary basis by Section 3.7 and Annex 37 of the 
Schengen Handbook) which would be formally established and its use would be made obligatory. 

The Commission initiated a comparative study, via the Community Actions of the European Return 
Fund,  on  best  practices  in  the  field  of  return  of  minors,  including  unaccompanied  minors.  The 
fund's Annual Work Programme for 2010 promoted the cooperation of Member States in the field 
of pre-departure and reintegration assistance for returnees putting emphasis on the specific needs of 
unaccompanied  minors.  In  accordance  with  the  Return  Directive,  the  actions  should  take  into 
account the best interests of the child, and, prior to returning an unaccompanied minor, the Member 
State  must  ensure  that  s/he  is  returned  to  a  family  member,  nominated  guardian  or  adequate 
reception facilities.  

54 
55 
56 
57 

There is no specific commitment on unaccompanied minors in the Pact, only under the Stockholm Programme. 
COM(2010) 213 Final 
Available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies." 
Council  conclusions  on  unaccompanied  minors,  3018th  JUSTICE  and  HOME  AFFAIRS  Council  meeting, 
Luxembourg, 3 June 2010. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  issue  of  unaccompanied  minors  was  discussed  in  the  framework  of  the  EU-US  Platform  for 
cooperation  on  Migration  and  Refugee  issues.  It  was  also  regularly  discussed  in  the  migration 
subgroup  of  the  G8,  in  the  context  of  the  EU-Africa  Partnership  on  Migration,  Mobility  and 
Employment  and  of  the  Rabat  Process  on  Migration  and  Development  (expert  meeting  on 
vulnerable groups), as well as on the occasion of the JHA Subcommittee meeting with Algeria and 
of  the  Working  Group  on  Social  and  Migration  Affairs  with  Morocco,  Egypt  and  Tunisia.  Many 
conferences  and  workshops  concerning  unaccompanied  minors  also  took  place,  in  particular  one 
under the Belgian Presidency on 'Unaccompanied Minors: children crossing the external borders of 
the EU in search of protection.'  

At national level, some Member States (DK, EE, EL, HU, FI) reported on legislative developments 
in relation to unaccompanied minors. These developments related to the inclusion of a definition of 
‘unaccompanied  minor’  in  national  legislation  in  relation  to  the  Return  Directive  (EE);  the 
improvement  of  criminal  law  for  minor  offenders;  prevention  and  treatment  of  victimisation  and 
juvenile delinquency, including inter alia unaccompanied minors (EL); restriction of the grounds to 
grant  a  residence  permit  to  unaccompanied  minors  if  they  have  the  possibility  to  return  to  a 
reception  and  care  centre  in  the  country  of  origin  (DK);  the  modification  of  hosting  facilities  by 
conferring  a  major  role  to  child  protection  authorities  (HU);  and  the  introduction  of  provisions 
concerning  the  age  assessment  of  an  asylum  applicant  through  medical  examination  when  doubts 
arose  regarding  the  applicant’s  age  (FI),  as  well  as  the  intensification  of  the  use  of  age  testing 
measures (DK). 

Thirteen Member States (BE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, FI, MT, NL, PL, SI, SK, UK) mentioned policy 
developments  occurring  in  2010.  These  developments  included  the  establishment  of  a  task  force 
which  examined  possible  actions  to  minimise  the  risk  for  unaccompanied  minors,  including 
cooperation between different authorities (BE); the setting up of an advisory group to address the 
issue of education entitlement for unaccompanied minors (MT); the continued implementation of a 
Joint  Protocol  on  missing  children;  the  production  of  reports  proposing,  amongst  others,  better 
coordination and management of unaccompanied minors’ rights and their protection (FR, FI); and 
the development  of information and prevention activities  through information  campaigns (PL). In 
NL,  the  improved  asylum  procedure  entered  into  force  which,  in  addition  to  extending  the 
application procedure, included provisions providing unaccompanied minors with a longer period of 
rest  and  preparation  with  a  target  time  of  approximately  three  weeks.  SI  established  an 
interdepartmental working group on unaccompanied minors whose main tasks are to examine and 
to  unaccompanied  minors,  prepare  guidelines  and 
assess 
recommendations, as well as guarantee adequate protection and provision of care and assistance to 
unaccompanied minors with the possibility to involve NGOs and local authorities. Three Member 
States (EL, IT, UK) developed their policies concerning unaccompanied minor asylum applicants. 
These developments concerned the introduction of institutional plans to shift competence for minor 
asylum applicants (IT), the provision of particular care for minor asylum applicants as part of the 
revised  asylum  system  and  asylum  seekers’  social  integration  projects  (EL),  and  enhancement  of 
policy guidance to ensure the fair treatment of minors during the asylum process (UK). 

the  existing  problems  related 

Various measures were introduced by ES to improve the care of unaccompanied minors, including 
the  introduction  of  support  for  regional  competent  authorities,  as  well  as  coordination  and 
cooperation  between  ministries,  cities  and  regions  to  improve  policies  regarding  this  vulnerable 
group of migrants. Measures were also undertaken to improve support in the area of prevention by 
means  of  agreements  for  funding  projects  carried  out  in  countries  of  origin  aiming  to  raise 
awareness on the risks of irregular migration for minors, as well as providing better education for 
future access to work. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Some Member States (BG, FR, AT, PT, SE) commented on their support of the implementation of 
the Action Plan on unaccompanied minors. For example, FR described their commitment following 
the  adoption  of  the  Action  Plan  to  better  coordinate  at  national  level  the  reception  and  care  of 
unaccompanied  minors.  AT  reported  on  training  provided  for  officials  from  the  Federal  Asylum 
Office, funded by the European Refugee Fund, on a number of topics, including best practices of 
other  Member  States  and  the  specific  psychological  components  and  requirements  of  officials 
during preliminary proceedings.  

In 2010, conferences were hosted by BE and SK which focused on the exchange of best practice on 
detection,  identification  and  protection  of  unaccompanied  minors,  as  well  as  enabling  Member 
States to cross-evaluate working methods concerning the protection of unaccompanied minors (BE). 
For BE, the conference was organised under the auspices of the Belgian Presidency of the Council 
of the European Union.  

In  addition  to  Member  State  cooperation  at  conferences,  SE  was  involved  in  the  safe  return  and 
reintegration of unaccompanied minors to their country of origins, often in close cooperation with 
other  Member  States.  Furthermore,  EL  focused  on  inter-institutional  cooperation  at  both  national 
and  transnational  level,  through  the  continued  implementation  of  the  bilateral  agreement  with 
Albania for the protection and assistance to minor victims of trafficking. 

With  regard  to  the  most  prominent  countries  of  origin,  DK  and  DE  reported  that  Afghanistan 
remained the country of origin of most minors travelling alone in 2010. Additionally, UK launched 
a call for proposals to establish reception arrangements, including reintegration and family tracing, 
in Kabul for returning male unaccompanied minors.  

Concerning  the  reception  of  unaccompanied  minors,  HU  outlined  the  difficulties  experienced 
concerning  age  assessment  and  family  tracing,  as  well  as  the  pressure  placed  on  child  protection 
facilities to host unaccompanied minors.  

Some  Member  States  (EL,  FR,  HU,  FI,  UK)  reported  on  the  implementation  of  future  measures 
relating  to  unaccompanied  minors.  Such  measures  related  to  the  adoption  of  future  legislation 
concerning  accommodation  of  minors  (HU,  FI),  the  increase  of  the  accommodation  capacity  for 
minors (EL), as well as the establishment of specific reception areas for minors in airports (FR) and 
programmes for reintegration assistance for unaccompanied minors in return countries (UK). 

V.2 Key statistics 

Table  5  in  the  Statistical  Annex  gives  an  overview  of  the  provisional  number  of  unaccompanied 
minors  including,  when  possible,  those  who  did  not  apply  for  asylum  plus  those  unaccompanied 
minor who did apply for asylum in 2010. On the basis of these provisional data, IT (4 438), ES (3 
800) and SE (2 363) had the highest total number of unaccompanied minors, while DE (1 950), UK 
(1 585) and BE (1 080) came after SE (2 395) in regard to the highest number of unaccompanied 
minors’ asylum applicants in 2010.  

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
VI. GLOBAL APPROACH TO MIGRATION 

VI.1 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum 

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,  co-operation  with  the  Republic  of  Moldova,  Cape  Verde  and  Georgia  in  the 
framework  of  the  Mobility  Partnerships  continued.  A  third  EU-Moldova  Mobility  Partnership 
Meeting took place in October 2010 and aimed at evaluating the progress achieved in the course of 
the preceding year and at identifying priorities of the cooperation in the future. Under the Mobility 
Partnership  with  Cape  Verde,  implementation  of  the  ongoing  initiatives  continued  and  new 
initiatives  were  identified  and  discussed  with  the  Cape  Verdean  partners  and  the  EU  Member 
States.  The  EU  supported  Cape  Verde  inter  alia  in  the  development  of  the  national  immigration 
strategy through the MIEUX facility.  

Discussions  on  new  potential  mobility  partnerships  were  ongoing  with  Armenia  and  Ghana.  An 
exploratory mission to Ghana took place in March 2010 with the aim to explore the interest of the 
Ghanaian authorities in engaging in a Mobility Partnership with the EU.  

Negotiations on Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCA), which include a Migration Article 
with  readmission  provisions,  were  continued  with  Vietnam,  Philippines,  Iraq,  Brunei,  Singapore, 
Malaysia, Libya58 and Mongolia. The PCAs with Vietnam, Iraq and the Philippines were initialled 
in 2010, as well as the Framework Agreement with the Republic of Korea. During the revision of 
the  Cotonou  Agreement,  launched  in  May  2009,  an  attempt  was  made  to  clarify  readmission 
obligations  contained  therein.  The  negotiations  did  not  however  render  the  intended  result. 
Subsequently, a dialogue with the ACP countries on all aspects of migration, including readmission, 
was launched and the meeting devoted to the readmission took place in December 2010.  

Migration  issues  and  asylum  are  also  subject  to  regular  dialogue  within  the  context  of  the 
Stabilisation  and  Association  Process  and  of  relevant  agreements  with  enlargement  countries. 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  regularly  reports  on  efforts  by  these  candidate  countries  in  the 
context of yearly progress reports.59 

At national level, several Member States continued participation in the EU Mobility Partnerships, 
including  those  with  the  Republic  of  Moldova  (BG,  DE,  EL,  CY,  IT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  SE),  Georgia 
(BE, BG, DE, EE, EL, LV, SE, UK) and Cape Verde (ES, FR, LU, PT).  

A number of Member States (DK, EL, FR, CY, IT, LV, LT, AT, PL, RO, SE, UK) also referred to 
new  agreements  with  third  countries,  concluded,  or  planned  to  be  (BG,  PL),  at  national  level, 
including  in  relation  to  labour  migration.  DK,  for  example,  signed  a  bilateral  Social  Security 
Agreement  with  India  to  enhance  the  existing  legal  framework  and  improve  the  conditions  for 

58 
59 

Though this changed in 2011 owing to the events occurring there. 
See  http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/how-does-it-work/  for  details  of  this  process  and  the  yearly  progress 
reports.  

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
overseas  Danish  and  Indian  workers.  FR  concluded  a  new  bilateral  agreement  with  Lebanon  and 
CY  signed  a  bilateral  agreement  to  combat  organised  crime  with  South  Africa  and  negotiated 
similar  agreements  with  Syria  and  Qatar.  IT  reported  that  readmission  agreements  had  been 
strengthened in order to include provisions for the labour market, such as the reservation of quotas, 
as well as the drafting of worker lists with relevant qualifications. LT and SK outlined their Youth 
Exchange  Agreements  concluded  with  Canada,  which  included  specific  provisions  for  issuing 
Canadian  citizens  with  a  national  “D”  visa  or  residence  and  work  permits  if  they  satisfy 
immigration requirements for the duration of their authorised stay (LT), and increased possibilities 
for  young  citizens  of  both  countries  to  complete  their  higher  vocational  education,  university 
education  or  training  connected  to  internships  and  work  placement  in  each  others'  country  (SK). 
Moreover,  SK  prepared  an  agreement  with  New  Zealand  on  a  working  holiday  scheme  which 
would  allow  citizens  of  both  states  to  be  employed  for  up  to  six  months  by  a  single  employer 
without a work permit, while also allowing enrolment in educational or study courses not exceeding 
six months. PL negotiated with Ukraine and Moldova agreements on coordination of social security 
to foster and control the movement of economic migrants, as well as signed a local border traffic 
agreement with Belarus.  

AT  concluded  new  agreements  with  Albania,  Bosnia-Herzegovina,  Georgia  and  Moldova,  which 
focused  on  combating  organised  crime,  smuggling  and  human  trafficking,  as  well  as  support 
measures  for  visa  liberalisation  for  the  agreements  with  Albania  and  Bosnia-Herzegovina.  EL 
further  enhanced  police  cooperation  with  Albania  in  the  field  of  intelligence  gathering  and  in 
combating  organised  crime,  irregular  migration,  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  smuggling  of 
drugs and weapons. Similarly, LV signed bilateral agreements with Albania and Armenia, centred 
on  counter-terrorism,  combating  organised  crime  and  drugs  trafficking  and  fighting  sexual  abuse 
and exploitation  of, in  particular, minors. RO  negotiated bilateral  project agreements with Serbia, 
Syria and the Russian Federation and a trilateral project agreement with Ukraine and Moldova on 
cooperation and combating organised crime. SE referred to its ongoing discussions with the Russian 
Federation and India, and on its intentions to conclude agreements with these countries, as well as 
with  Armenia  in  the  near  future.  UK  also  mentioned  the  explanatory  talks  on  an  EU  Mobility 
Partnership with Ghana. 

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,  initiatives  included  projects  funded  under  the  Thematic  Programme.  One  initiative 
concerned  cooperation  with  labour  market  agencies,  notably  within  a  project  under  the  EU-
Moldova Mobility Partnership, which targets capacity building of the Moldovan agency through a 
network of European agencies. Information and assistance is offered to Moldovans in the diaspora 
to return to the Moldovan labour market, including assistance via the European Training Foundation 
(ETF) to improve recognition of foreign skills and qualifications. 

A study to evaluate projects on labour migration and circular migration (see also Commitment I.(c) 
[Section I.1.1]) funded under the Thematic Programme was prepared, and started in February 2011. 
As  called  for  in  the  Stockholm  Programme,  a  study  on  circular  migration  was  carried  out  by  the 
European  Migration  Network  with  reports  covering  most  EU  Member  States.60  The  Belgian  EU 

60 

Available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies." 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Presidency  organised  a  conference  on  legal  migration  in  October  2010,  which  also  addressed  the 
need for better labour matching between the EU and third countries. 

At national level, a few Member States (BG, HU, PT) referred to the EU Mobility Partnerships with 
Moldova  and  Georgia  as  a  tool  to  facilitate  labour  migration.  In  relation  to  this,  BG,  HU  and  PL 
described  its  participation  in  a  project  to  strengthen  Moldova’s  capacity  to  manage  labour  and 
return  migration,  including  the  provision  of  information  to  potential  migrants  about  legal 
immigration  opportunities  in  the  EU  and  the  risks  of  irregular  migration.  Other  Member  States 
reported on agreements with third countries (EL, FR), specific projects (IT, NL), new regulations 
(PL) and their wider national policy (SE).  

FR, for example, noted that their agreements on concerted management of migration flows provided 
legal  migration  opportunities  to  third-country  nationals  from  partner  States  in  East  and  South  of 
Europe, including mobility of youth (Albania, Bosnia, Morocco, Algeria, as well as in various Sub-
Saharan Francophone countries). FR has also concluded agreements related to legal migration and 
co-development in East and South of Europe (FYROM, Montenegro (ongoing) and with Lebanon, 
as well as on ongoing agreement with the Russian Federation on labour migration. In EL, revision 
of  the  bilateral  agreement  with  Egypt  concerning  cooperation  on  employment  related  issues  is 
ongoing. PL introduced new provisions, coming into force on 1st January 2011, which waived the 
requirement  to  have  a  work  permit  for  citizens  from  Ukraine,  Belarus,  the  Russian  Federation, 
Moldova  and  Georgia.  NL  referred  to  its  circular  migration  pilot  project  (see  under  Commitment 
I.(c)  [Section  I.1.1]),  whilst  SE  indicated  that  their  immigration  policy  overall  offered  increased 
legal  migration  opportunities  for  third-country  nationals,  including  from  East  and  South  Europe, 
although neither these or other nationalities were ‘prioritised.’ 

Commitment: V.(c) 
order to deter or prevent illegal immigration, 

pursue policies of cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit in 

At  EU  level,  efforts  were  made  with  regard  to  relations  to  Libya  during  2010.  However,  recent 
events have radically changed the situation and the policy in this region will have to be completely 
redefined once the situation has stabilised.  

In terms of what did occur in 2010 prior to the recent events, Commissioners Malmström and Füle 
visited Tripoli in October 2010 and jointly signed a Cooperation Agenda with M. Yunis Al-Obeidi, 
Secretary of the People's Public Committees for Public security and M. Moussa Koussa, Secretary 
of  the  People's  Public  Committee  for  External  Relations  and  International  Cooperation.  This 
document  included  a  list  of  issues  and  initiatives,  in  the  fields  of  migration,  asylum,  border 
management, mobility or related to the cooperation with the origin countries of migration, on which 
the two sides were ready to discuss and possibly launch concrete initiatives.  

In addition, the implementation of the "Sahara-Mediterranean project" started, based on co-funding 
of up to 10M€ by the Commission through the Thema tic programme of Cooperation in the areas of 
Migration  and  Asylum.  The  project  was  implemented  by  the  Italian  Ministry  of  Interior,  in 
partnership  with  Greece  and  Malta,  as  well  as  the  IOM,  and  provided  technical  advice  and 
assistance to Libya on the prevention of irregular migration and the reception of irregular migrants. 
Another project, implemented in Libya by the UNHCR in partnership with ICMPD, Italian Conseil 
for Refugees and the "Peace, Care and Relief" NGO, and also funded by the Commission under the 
Thematic  Programme,  was  suspended,  following  the  closure  of  the  UNHCR  office  in  Tripoli  in 
June 2010.  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
During 2010, the negotiation  of  the readmission  agreement  with  Turkey  made  important  progress 
and  in  May  the  chief  negotiators reached  an  agreement  at  their  level.  The  text  was,  however,  not 
endorsed by the EU Member States, some of which requested to clarify and improve some points. 
The  Commission  since  then  has  been  working,  in  contact  with  these  Member  States  and  with 
Turkish authorities, to this purpose.  

In July 2010, Commission experts carried out a mission to Turkey to start a dialogue on visa issues. 
The mission in particular enabled to present the new EU Visa Code to Turkish authorities, and to 
promote its implementation through the development of the Local Schengen Cooperation among the 
EU  Member  States'  Consulates  in  Ankara.  Moreover,  the  annual  progress  report  on  Turkey  was 
issued in November 2010. 

In  the  Mediterranean  region,  meetings  of  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Subcommittee  took  place 
with  Algeria,  Tunisia,  Egypt,  Jordan,  Lebanon.  Meetings  of  the  Working  Group  of  Social  affairs 
and Migration took place with Tunisia, Jordan and Egypt.  

At national level, many Member States (BE, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, IE, IT, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, 
PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) co-operated with countries of origin and/or countries of transit.  

AT, for example, in cooperation with RO and SI, established Law Enforcement Coordination Units 
in  Albania  and  Serbia,  focusing  on  combating  organised  crime,  including  irregular  immigration 
resulting  from  smuggling  and  trafficking  in  human  beings.  Through  a  number  of  projects 
implemented in several third-countries located at the EU’s eastern border, as well as in Ghana and 
Kenya,  DK  contributed  to  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  by 
enhancing  cooperation  with  countries  of  origin  and  transit.  IE  operated  a  visa  office  in  Nigeria, 
which  cooperates  with  the  national  immigration  authorities  in  Sub-Saharan  Africa.  FR  has  15 
ongoing  agreements  promoting  concerted  management  of  migration  flows,  with  the  majority  of 
these  focusing  on  the  prevention  of  irregular  immigration.  EL  referred  to  increased  police 
cooperation, including joint operations and intelligence gathering, with Albania in order inter alia 
to  prevent  and  combat  irregular  migration,  as  well  as  to  efforts  made  in  order  to  improve 
cooperation  with  Turkey  in  preventing  irregular  migration.  IT  lead  the  “Sahara  Med”  police 
cooperation  project  with  Libya,  aimed  at  preventing  and  managing  irregular  migration  from  the 
Sahara  desert  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  RO  carried  out  cooperation  activities  to  deter  or  prevent 
irregular  migration  with  Moldova,  including  organisation  of  study  visits  of  Moldovan  experts  in 
RO. UK has capacity-building projects in China, Vietnam, Turkey and Ukraine, providing support 
to authorities in migration flow management.  

Cooperation  measures  specifically  concerning  border  control  have  been  described  under 
Commitment III.(f) [Section III.2.1]. 

Commitment: V.(d)  More effective migration and development policies  

At EU level, policy coherence for development has moved ahead. Substantial work has been done 
on diasporas, brain drain and remittances. A number of projects maximising the impact of migrants 
as agents of development have been implemented. Moreover, in order to reduce brain drain, the EU 
and  its  Member  States  promoted  the  inclusion  of  a  reference  to  circular  migration  of  health 
personnel  in  the  WHO  Global  Code  of  Practice  on  the  International  Recruitment  of  Health 
Personnel, which was adopted in May 2010. 

As a way to further support evidence-based policies and coherence in migration and development, 
the  EU  also  supported  Extended  Migration  Profiles  through  a  process  oriented  towards  country 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
ownership  and  capacity  building.  Such  profiles  have  been  prepared  in  regional  contexts  (16  draft 
profiles  within  the  Prague  process),  as  well  as  within  the  framework  of  the  Mobility  Partnership 
with Moldova.  

At national level, many Member States (BE, DK, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, 
SK, SE, UK) undertook activities to integrate migration and development policies effectively. This 
ranged from participation in international platforms and agreements with third countries (DE, ES, 
FR, PT, FI, UK), to specific efforts at national level to ensure that migration and development were 
jointly taken into account in policymaking (DK, ES, IE, NL, SE). 

DE and ES, for example, mentioned their active involvement in the EU cooperation platforms on 
migration  and  development  with  Ethiopia,  as  well  as  their  participation  in  a  Joint  Expert  Group 
under the EU-Africa Partnership on Migration, Mobility and Employment, where ES actively co – 
chairs,  on  behalf  of  the  EU,  the  MME  EU  -  Africa  VII  Partnership.  DK  adopted  a  new  national 
development  strategy  including  a  number  of  elements  making  the  bridge  between  migration  and 
development. It also supported a Study on Migration and Development, which started in 2008 and 
will end in 2011, to understand the relation between migration and development and inform Danish 
development  policies  and  pilot  projects.  FR  noted  that  their  concerted  management  of  migration 
flows agreements with various third countries, clearly linked migration and development objectives, 
for example, through the funding of local development projects managed by migrants’ associations 
and  the  support  provided  to  diasporas.  LU  mentioned  development  elements  within  the  Mobility 
Partnership with Cape Verde, in which ES is one of the key partners. Elsewhere, EL, ES, FI, PT and 
UK  referred  to  their  involvement  in  the  Global  Forum  on  Migration  and  Development  (GFMD), 
with, for example, ES substantially involved at the GFMD Puerto Vallarta meeting, as co-chair of 
the 3.3 Round table and as rapporteur of Table 3. 

With  regard  to  national  policymaking,  in  IE,  for  example,  the  Cross-departmental  Inter-
departmental Committee on Development (IDCD), including a representative of the Department of 
Justice and Law Reform, continued to meet in 2010. NL is funding three PhD candidates, to gain a 
better  insight  into  options  to  improve  the  integration  of  migration  and  development  policy.  SE 
issued a Communication to the national Parliament on “Meeting Global Challenges – Government 
communication on policy coherence for development”, which examined how it had contributed to 
the objective of equitable and sustainable global development, placing emphasis on the remittances 
and the transfer of skills and knowledge to third countries. In addition, the government decided to 
develop  a  policy  for  migration  in  its  development  cooperation.  SE  also  established  a  network  of 
organisations to exchange experience on migration and development. 

Commitment: V.(e) 
development of their home countries. 

promote  co-development  actions  that  enable  migrants  to  take  part  in  the 

See the entry in Section VI.2 under remittances and Diaspora groups. 

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; 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; continue to make use of 
the existing political and sectoral dialogues, particularly with the countries of Latin America, the 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
Caribbean and Asia, in order to consolidate mutual understanding of what is at stake in the field of 
migration and intensify current cooperation; 

Within the Africa-EU Migration Mobility and Employment (MME) Partnership, a new Action Plan 
for  2011-2013  was  developed  and  adopted  at  the  3rd  Africa-EU  Summit  in  Tripoli  in  November 
2010.  Follow-up  activities  within  the  Rabat/Paris  process  included  a  thematic  meeting  on 
vulnerable migrants and a technical seminar on diasporas in development for the Africa countries. 
Under the European Neighbourhood Policy, regular meetings in the Justice and Home Affairs sub-
Committees took place both with countries in the Mediterranean region, and in Eastern Europe and 
South Caucasus. 

The  European  Union-Latin  America  (EU-LAC)  Structured  Dialogue  on  Migration  was  further 
developed  during  2010.  The  VIth  EU/LAC  Summit  took  place  in  May  2010  and  included  the 
adoption of the Madrid Action Plan, which identifies this migration dialogue as one of the priorities 
in EU-LAC relations.  

Commitment V(g) speed up the deployment of the key tools of the Global Approach to Migration 
(migration  balances,  cooperation  platforms,  partnerships  for  mobility  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; 

Further efforts were made to increase the geographic balance of the Global Approach to Migration, 
including in the revision of the funding programmes, notably in the preparation of the new multi-
annual strategy 2011-2013 for the Thematic Programme Migration and Asylum. Also, a total of 70 
new projects to the value of €74 million were  approved under the 2009-2010 call for proposals of 
this programme.  

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. 

See the entry under Commitment V. (d) [Section VI.1]  

VI.2 Stockholm Programme (Section 6.1.1) 

continued  and  expanded  use  of  the  Mobility  partnership  instrument  as  the  main  strategic, 
comprehensive  and  long-term  cooperation  framework  for  migration  management  with  third 
countries,  adding  value  to  existing  bilateral  frameworks.  Success  in  implementing  these 
partnerships requires improved coordination and substantial capacity-building efforts in countries 
of  origin,  transit  and  destination.  The  European  Council  calls  for  further  development  of  the 
Mobility  partnership  instrument,  while  respecting  their  voluntary  nature.  Partnerships  should  be 
flexible and responsive to the needs of both the EU and the partner countries, and should include 
cooperation on all areas of the Global Approach,  

The Prague process (Building Migration Partnerships) continued throughout 2010 with workshops 
on  capacity  building  and  in  improving  the  evidence-base  for  migration  policies  focusing  on 
migration  profiles  and  i-Maps.  The  10th  Ministerial  Conference  of  the  Brdo  process  October, 
covered irregular migration and other related issues. At the end of 2010, governments party to the 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
Söderköping Process invited Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia to take part in that process, with a 
view to achieve better synergies with the Eastern Partnership. 

The  tools  of  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  were  increasingly  applied.  Notably,  cooperation 
with  the  Republic  of  Moldova,  Cape  Verde  and  Georgia  in  the  framework  of  the  Mobility 
Partnerships continued. The EU has, for example, supported Cape Verde in the development of the 
national immigration strategy through the MIEUX facility. The Mobility Partnership with Georgia, 
launched  in  February  2010,  includes  a  €3  million 
flagship  initiative  focusing  on  support  to  the 
implementation  of  the  readmission  agreement  and  the  reintegration  of  returning  Georgians. 
Discussions on new potential Mobility Partnerships were ongoing with Armenia and Ghana. 

more  efficient  use  of  the  Union's  existing  cooperation  instruments  to  increase  the  capacity  of 
partner  countries,  with  a  view  to  ensuring  well-functioning  infrastructures  and  sufficient 
administrative  capacity  to  handle  all  aspects  of  migration,  including  improving  their  capacity  to 
offer adequate protection and increasing the benefits and opportunities created by mobility. 

As a way to further support evidence-based policies and coherence in migration and development, 
the  EU  also  supported  Extended  Migration  Profiles  through  a  process  oriented  towards  country 
ownership  and  capacity  building.  Such  profiles  have  been  prepared  in  regional  contexts  (16  draft 
profiles  within  the  Prague  process),  as  well  as  within  the  framework  of  the  Mobility  Partnership 
with Moldova. Furthermore, the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Observatory on Migration61 
was inaugurated in October 2010. 

The  European  Council  recognises  the  need  for  increased  policy  coherence  at  European  level  in 
order  to  promote  the  positive  development  effects  of  migration  within  the  scope  of  the  EU’s 
activities  in  the  external  dimension  and  to  align  international  migration  more  closely  to  the 
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The European Council calls on the Council to 
ensure that it acts in a coordinated and coherent manner in this field. 

The European Commission adopted, on 21 April 2010, a Policy Coherence for Development Work 
Programme 2010-2013 that included a chapter on migration, focusing in particular on facilitation of 
legal  migration  and  mobility,  including  circular  migration,  and  promotion  of  migration  and 
development  agenda  (remittances,  brain  drain,  dialogue  with  diaspora,  enhancing  migrants'  rights 
and gender dimension). Migration and development has taken a prominent place in the dialogue and 
cooperation with third countries, for example in the context of the EU-ACP dialogue and EU-LAC 
dialogue,  as  well  as  in  financing  through  EU  funds  projects  strengthening  positive  impacts  of 
migration on development, such as the EU-UN Joint Migration and Development Initiative. 

The  European  Council  underlines  the  need  to  take  further  steps  to  maximise  the  positive  and 
minimise  the  negative  effects  of  migration  on  development  in  line  with  the  Global  Approach  on 
Migration. Effective policies can provide the framework needed to enable countries of destination 
and origin and migrants themselves to work in partnership to enhance the effects of international 
migration on development.  

See the entry under Commitment V. (d) [Section VI.1]  

Council invites the Commission to submit proposals before 2012 on how to further ensure efficient, 
secure  and  low-cost  remittance  transfers,  and  enhance  the  development  impact  of  remittance 

61 

See http://www.acpmigration-obs.org/.  

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
transfers, as well as to evaluate the feasibility of creating a common EU portal on remittances to 
inform  migrants  about  transfer  costs  and  encourage  competition  among  remittance  service 
providers, 

At EU level, an initiative on remittances, which had been delayed, finally resulted in the launch of 
the  African  Remittances  Institute  in  June  2010,  in  cooperation  with  the  African  Union  and  the 
World Bank. It will help the African countries in devising policies to create enabling institutional 
frameworks,  improving  data  methodologies,  encouraging  competition  to  achieve  reduction  in 
transfer  costs,  developing  financial  and  business  advisory  services  and  credit  facilities,  and 
promoting and working with diasporas to participate in these mechanisms and instruments. 

At national level, Member States reported on their involvement in wider initiatives with respect to 
remittances,  led  by  the  World  Bank  (CZ,  DK,  UK),  the  IOM  (BE)  and  on  activities  launched  at 
national  level  to  support  the  transfer  or  remittances  (DE,  FR,  IT,  ES,  SE).  CZ,  for  example, 
following a World Bank review and recommendations with respect to the remittance market in their 
Member  State,  funded  an  in-depth  national  survey  on  the  remittance  market,  which  was 
subsequently  presented  at  a  seminar  in  October  2010.  Actions  will  be  planned  as  a  result  of  the 
study.  The  UK  continued  participation  in  the  World  Bank’s  Global  Remittances  Working  Group, 
with  the  aim  to  reduce  the  costs  of  transfer  of  remittances  by  five  percent  over  five  years.  DK 
continued supporting a World Bank Study on ‘Migration and Remittances for the development of 
Africa’ and DE maintained a website, to inform migrants of the options and prices for transferring 
money with banks or money transfer agencies, in an effort to make the money transfer market more 
transparent and to promote competition. The aim is for money transfers to the countries of origin to 
become  cheaper  and  more  secure.  IT  continued  a  Solidarity  Fund  in  the  Andes  and  a  project  in 
Senegal, supported by four banking foundations and implemented in cooperation with some NGOs. 
Migrants  are  involved  as  both  beneficiaries  and  possible  investors  of  small  amounts  of  money  to 
finance  agro-pastoral  activities.  ES  evaluated  several  projects  which  focused  on  channelling 
remittances  towards  productive  investments  and  adopted  a  new  regulation  that  will  allow  for  a 
further liberalization of the money transfer market, by reducing the amount of capital needed to set 
up a company. SE also referred to studies on remittances, including a case study of the impact of 
remittances from SE to Iraq. 

The implementation of the Global Approach needs to be accelerated by the strategic use of all its 
existing  instruments  and  improved  by  increased  coordination.  A  balance  between  the  three  areas 
(promoting mobility and legal migration, optimising the link between migration and development, 
and  preventing  and  combating  illegal  immigration)  should  be  maintained.  The  principal  focus 
should remain on cooperation with the most relevant countries in Africa and Eastern and South-
Eastern Europe. Dialogue and cooperation should be further developed also with other countries 
and regions such as those in Asia and Latin America on the basis of the identification of common 
interests and challenges (See also Section 7.5 of Stockholm Programme) 

See the entry under Commitment V.(f) [Section VI.1]  

strategic,  evidence  based  and  systematic  use  of  all  available  instruments  of  the  EU  Global 
Approach  to  Migration  -  migration  profiles,  migration  missions,  cooperation  platforms  on 
migration  and  development  and  Mobility  partnerships  -  for  long-term  cooperation  on  all 
dimensions of this policy in close partnership with selected third countries along priority migratory 
routes, 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
The Commission has also been active in further developing migration profiles and the concept of 
circular migration within the framework of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (the 
GFMD), in Greece in November 2009 and in Mexico in November 2010. 

See also under Commitment V.(b) and V.(d) [Section VI.1]. 

how diaspora groups may be further involved in EU development initiatives, and how EU Member 
States  may  support  diaspora  groups  in  their  efforts  to  enhance  development  in  their  countries  of 
origin 

At  EU  level,  the  migration  and  development  dialogue  with  civil  society,  includes  migrant 
associations and diaspora groups. The EU wants to reach out to these groups; make them part of the 
policy  framework,  and  partners  in  development.  A  project  funded  in  2010  aimed  at  the 
establishment of an African diaspora platform, whose implementation will start at the beginning of 
2011.  Under  the  Joint  EC-UN  Joint  Migration  and  Development  Initiative,  activities  include 
working  with  diasporas,  as  this  initiative  aims  to  support  civil  society  organisations,  local 
authorities  and  other  actors  implementing  that  implement  projects  in  the  area  of  migration  and 
development.  

At national level, several Member States (BE, DE, IE, ES, IT, LU, NL, SK, SE, UK) reported on 
activities  supporting  diaspora  groups  in  enhancing  the  development  in  their  countries  of  origin, 
including networks, dialogue and remittance projects.  

BE  continued  supporting  the  IOM  Programme  ‘Migration  for  Development  in  Africa’  (MIDA) 
which promotes the transfer of knowledge, remittances and other resources by the diasporas from 
Burundi,  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  and  Rwanda  living  in  Europe  to  their  countries  of 
origin. In IE, for example, a global network of identified, influential members of the Diaspora was 
established  as  ‘The  Global  Irish  Network’,  launched  in  February  2010.  EL,  as  chair  of  the  2009 
Global  Forum  for  Migration  and  Development,  disseminated  relevant  recommendations  in  2010, 
suggesting, inter alia, to further include diaspora data into migration profiles and engage diaspora 
organizations  in  development  planning.  An  evaluation  of  pilot  projects  on  remittances  in  ES  also 
included findings on the key characteristics of migrant communities in Spain and their relationship 
with their country of origin. The study also found that the migrant population was relatively recent 
and it was therefore not yet possible to speak of diasporas. Follow-up research is planned, as well as 
support  to  migrants’  associations  to  engage  in  initiatives  aimed  at  their  respective  communities. 
Within the Mobility Partnership with Cape Verde, LU developed a micro-finance project, gathering 
the savings of its Cape Verde Diaspora with the aim of both improving the financing of the sector 
and reinforcing the relationship with this country. NL organised its annual meeting with Diaspora 
groups.  SE  has  several  ongoing  projects,  one  using  foreign-born  nationals  as  a  resource  in  trade 
promotion.  In  the  UK,  the  Department  for  International  Development  (DfID)  funded  a  diaspora 
volunteering scheme, through Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), working with diasporas in need, 
for example, after the floods in Pakistan. 

ways  to  further  explore  the  concept  of  circular  migration  and  study  ways  to  facilitate  orderly 
circulation of migrants, either taking place within, or outside, the framework of specific projects or 
programmes  including  a  wide-ranging  study  on  how  relevant  policy  areas  may  contribute  to  and 
affect the preconditions for increased temporary and circular mobility. 

See the entry under Commitment V.(b) [Section VI.1]  

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
The connection between climate change, migration and development needs to be further explored, 
and the European Council therefore invites the Commission to present an analysis of the effects of 
climate  change  on  international  migration,  including  its  potential  effects  on  immigration  to  the 
European Union. 

The above mentioned analysis will be presented in 2011. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
VII. STATISTICAL ANNEX  

This Annex contains data, primarily as provided by the Commission's Eurostat and in accordance 
with the Regulation (EC) 862/2007. Due attention must be paid to the notes given for each Table. 

In some cases, where Eurostat data were not available, provisional data, particularly for Table 1, as 
obtained  by  the  EMN  from  the  respective  national  agencies  is  provided  instead  and  indicated, 
except for Table 1, in italics, as well as in the corresponding Notes for each Table. Ultimately, these 
provisional data, which, other than some of the data in Table 1, are nominally in accordance with 
Regulation (EC) 862/2007, will be finalised and also made available via the Eurostat database.  

TABLE 1: PROVISIONAL STATISTICS ON LEGAL MIGRATION – FIRST RESIDENCE PERMITS GRANTED 
FOR  EDUCATION,  REMUNERATED  ACTIVITIES  AND  OTHER  REASONS,  INCLUDING,  WHEN 
AVAILABLE, FAMILY REUNIFICATION, IN 2010 

Member 
State 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 
LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 
PT 

RO 

SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

Total 

24 656 
17 308 
11 551 
NA 
125 978 
3 551 
NA 
15 782 

290 813 

189 500 

326 000 

18 648 
1 499 

1 738 

6 945 

12 909 

1 874 

NA 

30 763 

21 210 
16 550 

5 444 

9 717 
4 381 
16 335 
35 695 
550 105 

Education reasons 

5 601 
5 741 
3 865 
NA 
42 775 
459 
NA 
1 188 

22 068 

58 000 

12 500 

2 682 
206 

426 

507 

4 421 

134 

NA 

3 735 

6 261 
5 258 

3 119 

829 
321 
4 490 
14 188 
268 525 

Remunerated 
activities 
3 026 
2 128 
4 391 
NA 
25 015 
941 
NA 
13 610 

26 706 

17 000 

200 500 

12 857 
450 

592 

1 917 

4 386 

290 

NA 

2 923 

11 604 
10 343 

1 674 

5 951 
1 797 
2 987 
21 507 
116 670 

Other reasons 

16 029 
9 439 
491 
NA 
58 188 
2 151 
NA 
984 
242 039 (includes family 
reunification) 
114 500 (includes family 
reunification) 
113 000 (includes family 
reunification) 
3 109 
843 
710 (includes family 
reunification) 
4 521 (includes family 
reunification) 
4 102 
1 450 (excludes for 
international protection) 
NA 
24 105 (includes family 
reunification) 
3 345 
949 
651 (Residence permits for 
family reasons not included) 
75 
2 263 
2 649 
NA 
164 905 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
Notes: 
1. "NA" means data are Not Available at the time this report was published. 
2. "Other Reasons" groups together all other permits issued, including inter alia family reunification (indicated in the 
Table above), for unremunerated trainees, volunteers. Owing to the different and inconsistent manner in which 
the data for these other reasons were available at the time this report was published, they have all been grouped 
together in this one column.  

3. Statistics are for first nine months of 2010 (IT) and up to 20 December (PL). 
4. For ES, UK data are for 2009, and thus highlighted in Grey, and for UK rounded to the nearest 5. 
5. BE figures relate to issued long term visa; figures on residence permits are not available yet. 
6.  CZ  figures  refer  to  the  number  of  long-term  visa  (type  D)  issued  to  third-country  nationals  in  2010.  Statistics  are 

based on national definitions. 

7. DE data come from the “Wanderungsmonitoring” by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. 
8. LU figures include both first permits and renewals. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
TABLE 2: STATISTICS ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION – THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS APPREHENDED, 
ORDERED  TO  LEAVE  AND  RETURNED  (INCLUDING  BOTH  FORCED  AND  VOLUNTARY 
RETURN) IN 2010 

Member 
State 

Third-
country 
nationals 
apprehended 

Third-country 
nationals 
ordered to leave 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

12 115 

28 195 

1 705 

2 655 

665 

1 705 

2 915 

NA 

50 250 

19 190 

860 

4 325 

132 524 

70 315 

56 220 

46 955 

8 005 

195 

1 345 

NA 

3 255 

110 

1 495 

132 524 

78 920 

76 590 

46955 

2 845 

210 

1 345 

NA 

2 405 

MT 

245 

245 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

7 580 

15 220 

3 995 

10 118 

3 525 

29 870 

11 050 

10 700 

7 047 

3 435 

Third-country 
nationals returned 
following an order 
to leave 
(Returned to a 
third country) 
4 415 
(4 200) 
295 
(210) 
920 
(920) 
520 
(385) 
13 895 
(10 875) 
80 
(40) 
805 
(805) 
54 261 
21 955 
(19 860) 
17 045 
(13 235) 
4 890 
(4 890) 
4 065 
(4 060) 
190 
(190) 
1 235 
(1 230) 
202 

1 360 
(1 120) 

270 
(police and 
voluntary returns) 
(270) 

10 355 
(9 345) 
6 335 
(5 355) 
6 770 
(6 620) 
771 
3 015 
(3 015) 

Third-country 
nationals 
returned as part 
of forced return 
measures 

Third-country 
nationals returned 
as part of voluntary 
return measures 

1 668 

2 745 

NA 

NA 

511 

NA 

39 

NA 

52 469 

NA 

15 496 

10 600 

3 097 

94 

137 

59 
1 360 
(Police HQ) 
659 
(Aliens Police) 
231 
(police returns 
only, not 
necessarily 
escorted) 

NA 

2 166 

508 

133 

290 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

7 

460 

420 

6 780 

2 422 

NA 

966 

16 

55 

143 

426 

42 
(41 of which were 
police related 
cases) 

NA 

4 167 

1 622 

559 

51 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
Member 
State 

Third-
country 
nationals 
apprehended 

Third-country 
nationals 
ordered to leave 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

3 415 

1 440 

3 755 

27 460 

53 700 

3 415 

870 

3 835 

20 205 

53 700 

Third-country 
nationals returned 
following an order 
to leave 
(Returned to a 
third country) 
1 940 
(1 085) 
600 
(585) 
1 930 
(960) 
14 645 
(10 900) 
53 615 
(44 705) 

Third-country 
nationals 
returned as part 
of forced return 
measures 

Third-country 
nationals returned 
as part of voluntary 
return measures 

NA 

605 

NA 

1868 

NA 

NA 

130 

234 

NA 

NA 

Notes: 
1. Data for the first three columns are rounded figures (to nearest 5) and as provided by Eurostat, May 2011, except 
when  indicated  in  italics,  in  which  case  they  are  provisional  as  provided  by  the  EMN.  "NA"  means  Not 
Available at the time this report was published. 

2.  Data  for  the  last  two  columns  are  not  recorded  via  Regulation  862/2007  and  are  as  provided  by  the  EMN.  In 
principle,  the  last  two  columns  should  sum  up  to  be  the  same  as  the  middle  column,  although,  for  various 
reasons, this is not the case for all Member States. 

3. BE data on forced return exclude Dublin-cases. 
4.  LU  figure  for  those  returned  following  an  order  to  leave  includes  individuals  leaving  the  country  after  an 
administrative  decision  stating  that  their  stay  is  illegal  and  imposing  an  obligation  to  leave,  and  individuals 
whose application for international protection was rejected. The figure for voluntary return includes 44 persons 
detained in a detention centre before return. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE 3: STATISTICS ON BORDER – THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS REFUSED ENTRY IN 2010 

Member State 

Total refused 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

1 855 
3 070 
330 
80 
3 550 
1 665 
2 790 
4 211 
290 045 
9 840 
4 215 
685 
815 
1 965 
NA 
10 475 
130 
2 810 
400 
22 895 
2 062 
3 357 
7 845 
840 
1 185 
90 
16 365 

Refused at the 
land border 
Not Applicable 
2 550 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
395 
560 
3 386 
281 750 
1 060 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
440 
1 870 
Not Applicable 
10 215 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
85 
22 255 
Not Applicable 
1 253 
7 635 
830 
995 
Not Applicable 
1 510 

Refused at the sea 
border 
85 
60 
Not Applicable 
0 
150 
1 260 
240 
190 
230 
600 
1 270 
85 
25 
40 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
0 
65 
Not Applicable 
50 
9 
25 
0 
Not Applicable 
15 
0 
2 305 

Refused at the air border 

1 770 
455 
330 
80 
3 395 
15 
1 985 
635 
8 065 
8 175 
2 945 
605 
350 
55 
NA 
265 
130 
2 745 
315 
590 
2 053 
2 079 
210 
15 
180 
90 
12 555 

Notes: 
1. Data are rounded figures (to nearest 5) and as provided by Eurostat, May 2011, except when indicated in italics, in 
which case they are provisional as provided by the EMN. "NA" means Not Available at the time this report 
was published, whereas "Not Applicable" means that such data are not relevant, e.g. because a Member State 
does not have an external EU land and/or sea border. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

TABLE  4:  PUBLISHED  STATISTICS  ON  ASYLUM  APPLICANTS  AND  ON  FIRST  INSTANCE 
DECISIONS BY OUTCOME IN 201062 

Member 
State 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

Asylum 
Applicants 
(incl. New) 
26 130 
(21 600) 
1 025 
(NA) 
780 
(385) 
5 070 
(NA) 
48 490 
(41 255) 
35 
(30) 
1 940 
(1 920) 
10 275 
(NA) 
2 740 
(2 550) 
51 595 
(46 885) 
10 050 
(10 050) 
2 875 
(NA) 
65 
(60) 
495 
(370) 
780 
(NA) 
2 095 
(NA) 
175 
(145) 
15 100 
(13 290) 
11 050 
(NA) 
6 540 
(4 330) 
160 
(160) 
885 
(NA) 
245 
(195) 
540 
(315) 

Total 
Decisions 

Total 
Positive 

Refugee 
status 

Subsidiary 
protection 

Humanitarian 
reasons 

Rejected 

16 245 

3 510 

2 700 

515 

500 

140 

175 

20 

75 

3 280 

1 345 

660 

45 310 

10 445 

7 755 

40 

1 600 

3 455 

2 785 

15 

25 

105 

610 

10 

25 

60 

245 

37 620 

5 115 

4 095 

11 325 

4 305 

1 615 

2 440 

425 

50 

190 

475 

1 040 

350 

25 

15 

70 

260 

210 

30 

5 

<2 

55 

75 

45 

17 145 

7 565 

810 

13 770 

3 445 

2 055 

4 420 

510 

130 

425 

115 

295 

55 

70 

25 

90 

80 

5 

40 

20 

5 

805 

120 

75 

520 

545 

5 

5 

20 

350 

1 020 

1 465 

370 

20 

15 

15 

115 

165 

4 010 

1 390 

195 

50 

30 

<2 

55 

- 

- 

20 

170 

12 740 

375 

330 

1 935 

2 145 

34 865 

- 

- 

30 

15 

- 

1 225 

25 

- 

- 

- 

70 

15 

25 

1 575 

3 350 

2 175 

32 505 

7 015 

2 015 

25 

175 

405 

785 

125 

2 745 

9 575 

- 

230 

- 

0 

- 

30 

10325 

3 910 

75 

355 

95 

205 

62 

See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-11-005/EN/KS-QA-11-005-EN.PDF.  

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

FI 

SE 

UK 

TOTAL 
(EU-27) 

Asylum 
Applicants 
(incl. New) 
3 090 
(NA) 
31 875 
(31 810) 
23 715 
(22 060) 
257 815 
(NA) 

Total 
Decisions 

Total 
Positive 

Refugee 
status 

Subsidiary 
protection 

Humanitarian 
reasons 

Rejected 

4 260 

1 595 

165 

27 630 

8 495 

1 935 

26 690 

6 440 

4 445 

1 240 

5 955 

1 850 

190 

605 

140 

2 665 

19 140 

20 250 

222 105 

55 095 

27 045 

20400 

7 645 

167 010 

Notes: 
1. These are rounded figures (to nearest 5) and as published by Eurostat, March 2011. "NA" means Not Available at the 
time  this  report  was  published  and  figures  in  brackets  in  the  second  column  correspond  to  new  asylum 
applicants in 2010. 

2.  Note  that  there  is  no  direct  correlation  between  New  Asylum  Applicants  and  Decisions  made  in  a  particular  year, 
since, for example, some decisions may have been made on asylum applicants which were submitted prior to 
2010. 

3. "-" means that Humanitarian reasons are not applicable in BE, BG, EE, IE, FR, LV, LT, LU, AT, PT and SI. 
4. For IT, due to a technical error, there is an underestimation of the share of minor asylum applicants. The number of 

first instance rejections is overestimated. See Eurostat report for further details. 

5. For AT, according to their national annual statistics (Jahresstatistik 2010), there are some differences from Eurostat, 
with Total Asylum applicants being 11 012; Total Decisions 13 785; Total Positive 3 453; Refugee Status 2 
077; Subsidiary protection 1 376, Rejected 10 332. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 5: STATISTICS ON UNACCOMPANIED MINORS IN 2010 

Member 
State 

Unaccompanied minors 

Unaccompanied minor asylum applicants 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

NA 
19 
NA 
NA 
Not Applicable 
0 
NA 
NA 
3 800 
Not Applicable 
4 438 
51 
5 
9 
NA 
NA 
3 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
NA 
NA 
2 
119 
NA 
2 363 
NA 

1 080 
20 
4 
410 
1 950 
0 
35 
145 
15 
610 
305 
35 
5 
10 
20 
150 
5 
700 
600 
230 
5 
35 
25 
5 
330 
2 395 
1 595 

Notes: 
1.  "NA"  means  Not  Available  at  the  time  this  report  was  published,  whereas  "Not  Applicable"  means  that  it  is  not 

possible to determine as data on unaccompanied minors not applying for asylum are not recorded. 

2. The column "Unaccompanied Minors" includes both those who did and those who did not apply for asylum. Data are 

provisional and as provided by the EMN. For ES, this is the stock as of 30 June 2010.  

3.  The  column  "Unaccompanied  minor  asylum  applicants"  are  rounded  figures  (to  the  nearest  5)  and  as  provided  by 
Eurostat,  May  2011,  except when  indicated  in  italics,  in  which  case  they  are  provisional  as provided  by  the 
EMN. 

4. CY provided figures for UAMs up to August 2010 and for UAMs asylum applicants up to November 2010. 
6. CZ figures are based on national definitions. 

EN 

81 

   EN