COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Third Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2011) Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Third Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2011)
Date: 2012-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, border control, brain drain, external border of the EU, illegal migration, integration of migrants, internal migration, international cooperation, migrant unemployment, return migration, trafficking in human beings

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.5.2012  
SWD(2012) 139 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

on the Third Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2011) 

Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 

Third Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2011) 

{COM(2012) 250 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Disclaimer 
This document is a European Commission staff working document for information purposes. It does 
not  represent  an  official  position  of  the  Commission  on  this  issue,  nor  does  it  anticipate  such  a 
position. 

Contents 

I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................4 

I.1. Proposal for a Regulation establishing an Asylum and Migration Fund..............................4 

II. Legal Migration and Mobility.............................................................................................5 

II.1. Promoting legal migration channels....................................................................................5 

II.2 Economic migration .............................................................................................................6 

II.1.1 Satisfying labour market needs .........................................................................................8 

II.1.2 Skills recognition.............................................................................................................10 

II.1.3 Global Approach to Migration and Mobility ..................................................................11 

II.1.4 Mobility Partnerships and other (bilateral) agreements with third countries................13 

II.1.5 Highly qualified workers .................................................................................................15 

II.1.5 Students and Researchers................................................................................................15 

II.2. Family Reunification.........................................................................................................17 

II.3. Integration .........................................................................................................................20 

II.3.1 Promoting and exchanging information on integration..................................................23 

II.3.2 Mainstreaming in other policy areas ..............................................................................24 

II.3.3 Involving other stakeholders ...........................................................................................24 

II.3.4 Promoting values and cohesion ......................................................................................25 

II.4. Managing Migration and Mobility ....................................................................................26 

II.4.1 Visa Policy.......................................................................................................................26 

II.4.2 Frontex ............................................................................................................................28 

II.4.3 Schengen Governance .....................................................................................................31 

II.4.4 Agreements with third countries .....................................................................................32 

II.4.5 Use of modern technology...............................................................................................33 

II.4.6 Training of Border Guards..............................................................................................35 

III. Reducing Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Human Beings..............................37 

III.1 Reducing Irregular Migration ...........................................................................................37 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
III.1.1 Information Exchange and Training..............................................................................38 

III.1.2 Cooperating with (third) countries ................................................................................42 

III.1.3 Readmission Agreements ...............................................................................................44 

III.1.4 Return.............................................................................................................................46 

III.1.5 Employer Sanctions........................................................................................................50 

III.1.6 Regularisations ..............................................................................................................52 

III.2 Actions against Trafficking in Human Beings..................................................................52 

IV. Promoting International Protection................................................................................55 

IV.1. Common European Asylum System................................................................................55 

IV.2. European Asylum Support Office (EASO) .....................................................................57 

IV.3. Intra-EU Solidarity ..........................................................................................................57 

IV.4. Enhancing the External Dimension .................................................................................58 

IV.5 Unaccompanied Minors....................................................................................................59 

V. Maximising the Development Impact of Migration and Mobility.................................62 

V.1 Remittances ........................................................................................................................64 

V.2 Working with diasporas .....................................................................................................65 

VI. Provision and Exchange of Information to support Policy Development ...................67 

VII. Statistical Annex..............................................................................................................69 

Table 1: Provisional First residence permits, by reason, in 2011.............................................69 

Table 2: Unemployment rate of third-country nationals, in 2011.............................................71 

Table 3: Number of visas issued, by type, in 2011 ...................................................................73 

Table 4: Training of border guards on asylum, in 2011............................................................75 

Table 5: Third-country nationals Refused Entry, Apprehended, ordered to leave and returned, in 

2011 ............................................................................................................................77 

Table 6: Number of third-country nationals regularised, in 2011.............................................80 

Table 7: Data on human trafficking, in 2011 ............................................................................82 

Table 8: Asylum Applicants and First Instance Decisions by Outcome, in 2011 ....................84 

Table 9: The number of third-country nationals relocated and resettled, in 2011 ....................87 

Table 10: Unaccompanied minors, in 2011 ..............................................................................88 

VIII.   Abbreviations Used...................................................................................................89 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 

This  paper  provides  a  factual  overview  of  the  main  developments  in  migration  and  international 
protection  during  2011  at  both  EU  and  national  level.  It  complements  the  accompanying 
Communication  from  the  Commission.1  The  reporting  period  is  from  1  January  2011  to  31 
December 2011.  

Following an introduction to the more horizontal, cross-cutting proposal for future Union funding of 
asylum  and  migration  beyond  2013,  the  paper  is  then  structured  according  to  the  following  main 
sections:  Legal  Migration  and  Mobility;  Reducing  Irregular  Migration  and  Trafficking  in  Human 
Beings; Promoting International Protection; and Maximising the Development Impact of Migration 
and Mobility; plus one on Provision and Exchange of Information to support Policy Development. 
Further  sub-sections  on  more  specific  topics  within  these  broad  categories  are  also  included.  In 
addition, a detailed Statistical Annex (Section VII) providing data primarily for 2011 is also given.  

Information  on  developments  at  EU  level  were  provided  primarily  by  the  Commission,  with 
developments  at  national  level2  based  primarily  on  the  information  provided  by  National  Contact 
Points of the European Migration Network (EMN NCPs), including Norway,3 as part of its Annual 
Policy Report activity.4  

I.1. Proposal for a Regulation establishing an Asylum and Migration Fund5 

On  15  November  2011,  the  Commission  published  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund  in  view  of  the  new 
multiannual  financial  framework  2014-2020.  Discussions  on  this  proposal  with  the  co-legislators 
have  started.  The  Fund  intends  to  focus  on  people  flows  and  the  integrated  management  of 
migration.  It  also  proposes  to  support  actions  in  relation  to  inter  alia  asylum  and  migration,  the 
integration of third-country nationals and return management. 

The  proposal  foresees  that  more  than  80%  of  the  Fund's  resources  will  be  channelled  through 
national programmes of Member States covering the whole period 2014-2020. Following a policy 
dialogue  with  the  Commission,  each  Member  State  would  design  its  programme  pursuing  the 
objectives of the Fund and taking into account its respective policy needs. Approximately one fifth 
of the Fund's resources would be managed directly by the Commission to support Union actions, 
the  functioning  of  the  European  Migration  Network  and  to  provide  emergency  assistance.  An 
important part of the financial resources for Union actions would be for the external dimension in 
the  field  of  asylum  and  migration  policy  to  cater  for  the  EU  interests  in  its  relations  with  third 
countries.  It  would  be  possible  to  support  the  cooperation  with  third  countries  on  the 
implementation  of  readmission  agreements,  mobility  partnerships  and  regional  protection 
programmes.  Based  on  the  experience  with  the  latest  crisis  in  the  Mediterranean,  the  Fund  also 

1  
2  

3  

4  
5  

COM(2012) 250 final 
Given the focus of and the manner in which this paper was produced, it should not be treated as an exhaustive 
identification  of  all  relevant  Member  State  activities.  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 2011 and/or because such developments were 
not reported by the EMN NCP(s).  
Since DK is not formally part of the EMN, information on their national developments has been provided via 
their Permanent Representation. In addition contributions from Norway provided by their NO EMN NCP are 
included as they participate in the EMN via a Working Arrangement concluded in November 2010.  
See http://www.emn.europa.eu under "Annual Policy Reports" for the individual National Reports. 
COM(2011) 751 final 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
foresees  an  emergency  assistance  mechanism  able  to  respond  quickly  to  different  aspects  of 
migratory pressure in Member States and third countries.  

In  the  field  of  legal  migration  and  integration,  the  Fund  would  encourage  the  development  of 
proactive  immigration  strategies  relevant  to  and  supportive  of  the  integration  process  of  third-
country  nationals,  including  during  the  pre-departure  stage.  It  will  promote  a  local  approach  to 
integration  by  fostering  the  regional  and  local  cooperation  in  the  development  of  integration 
strategies and measures. Particular attention in the integration process is paid to the specific needs 
of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, as well as to vulnerable groups of 
migrants (unaccompanied minors, women, youth and children, the elderly, etc.). 

In  the  field  of  return,  the  Fund  would  further  support  fair  and  effective  return  management  with 
emphasis  on  voluntary  return,  promote  a  more  strategic  focus  on  EU  standards  through 
implementation of actions linked to the requirements of the EU acquis on return and through co-
operation with other Member States. 

In the field of asylum, the Fund would continue to strengthen and develop the Common European 
Asylum System by ensuring the efficient and uniform application of the EU acquis on asylum and 
enhance the solidarity and responsibility sharing between the Member States, in particular towards 
those most affected by migration and asylum flows. In this respect, the Fund contains an ambitious 
resettlement and relocation component allowing Member States to support not only the preparatory 
actions related to resettlement and relocation operations, but also the setting up and development of 
necessary infrastructure and services. 

II. LEGAL MIGRATION AND MOBILITY 

Table  1  in  the  Statistical  Annex  gives  a  provisional  overview  of  the  residence  permits  issued  in 
2011  by  reason  (family,  education,  remunerated  activities  and  other).  Of  the  Member  States 
providing  such  data,  most  residence  permits  were  issued  by  IT  (331  100)  and  FR  (193  400). 
Member States which issued permits mainly for family reasons were EL (57.1% of all permits they 
issued), PT (45.2%), and FI (43.5%). The highest proportions of permits issued for the purpose of 
education were by MT (32.4%), HU (31.4%) and DE (31.0%). Those who issued permits mostly for 
the purpose of remunerated activities were CY (72.6%), LT (52.6%) and PL (49.7%). The highest 
share of permits issued for ‘other reasons’ was by LV (48.5%). 

II.1. Promoting legal migration channels 

At EU level, the Commission launched in November 2011 the 'EU Immigration Portal,'6 a website 
with hands-on information for migrants interested in moving to the EU. The site is also directed at 
already  legally  residing  migrants  who  would  like  to  move  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  It 
provides  specific  information  about  migration  procedures  in  all  27  Member  States,  plus  links  to 
their  national  immigration  websites.  Migrants  and  potential  migrants  can  also  find  a  vast  contact 
directory of governmental and non-governmental organisations which can help them. Most Member 
States  (BE,  CZ,  IE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  IT,  CY,  LV,  LT,  HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  reported 
making contributions or planning to make contributions to the EU Immigration Portal.  

At national level, almost all Member States and NO 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, LT, LU, NL, 

6  

http://ec.europa.eu/immigration 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK), or in specific brochures published in different languages and/or in 
other media (ES, IT, LV, LT, LU, PL, PT, UK). A number of Member States (DE, EL, HU, AT, SI, 
FI, UK) worked towards, or launched, a “one-stop shop” providing inter alia information on legal 
migration, integrating all its online information into one single site to provide improved quality of 
information  and  easier  access  for  applicants.  For  example,  in  FI,  the  JUPO  project  continued, 
developing  the  website  of  the  Finnish  Immigration  Service  together  with  the  Info  Bank  Online 
Services aimed at migrants. A user panel of 15 migrants was set up to help with the task. In DE, 
next to its one-stop shop, the Federal Agency for Employment also offers a Migration Check on the 
internet,  by  means  of  which  employers  and  interested  third-country  nationals  can  obtain  initial 
information whether the intended employment could be admitted. In IT, a number of thematic sites 
exist, providing information regarding the entry visa, entry for study reasons and circular mobility. 
In LV, the Ministry of Culture published a booklet for third-country nationals entering the Member 
State for employment, family reunification or study, available in Latvian, English and Russian, with 
information  provided  on  administrative  procedures.  AT 
launched  a  migration  platform 
(www.migration.gv.at)  which  contains  information,  in  both  German  and  English,  on  the  main 
requirements for entering Austria, as well as on living and working there. Similarly, SI launched a 
migration  platform  (www.infotujci.si)  which  contains  information  in  seven  foreign  languages  (SI, 
EN, FR, ES, RU, BA, AL) on the main requirements for entering Slovenia, as well as on living and 
working  there.  The  UK  also  used  student  fairs  and  conferences  and  television  series  to  raise 
awareness of visa requirements and legal migration. 

Some  Member  States  (FR,  NL,  SK,  UK)  made  use  of  their  embassies  abroad  to  disseminate 
information on the possibilities and conditions of legal migration. For example, the NL used a joint 
knowledge  bank  with  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  answer  questions  from  third-country 
nationals.  In  2011,  a  project  was  launched  to  make  the  knowledge  bank  “Atlas”  available  to 
diplomatic posts.  

With  regard  to  future  measures,  CY  plans  to  publish  information  leaflets  on  legal  migration  for 
2012,  covering  the  procedures  of  entry,  residence  and  employment  and  others  on  the  rights  and 
obligations of third-country national workers. These will be available in the languages of the main 
countries of origin of the workers, with the financial support from the European Integration Fund. 
For third-country nationals with a risk of exploitation, CY will also take steps for their employment 
contracts to be translated in their mother tongue. In its strategy document "Polish Migration Policy: 
Current  state  of  play  and  further  actions"  adopted  in  2011,  PL  envisages  the  organisation  of 
information campaigns in the main countries of origin of third-country nationals coming to Poland, 
providing comprehensive single-source information on legal migration to the country. As part of its 
new  Migration  Policy,  SK  plans  to  create  information  and  consultation  centres  for  migrants  to 
improve  their  access  to  information  about  entry  and  residence,  and  about  living  and  working 
conditions including information on countries of origin.  

II.2 Economic migration 

At  EU  level,  the  Single  Permit  Directive7  was  finally  adopted  in  December  2011.  The  new 
legislation provides for a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals 
to  reside  and  work  in  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  and  on  a  common  set  of  rights  for  legally 
residing third-country national workers, in order to simplify  migration procedures and ensure that 
workers from countries outside the EU, legally residing in a Member State, will enjoy a common set 

7  

Directive 2011/98/EU of 13 December 2011 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  rights  on  equal  footing  with  nationals.  Member  States  must  transpose  the  Directive  by  25 
December 2013. 

The  Commission  assisted  in  the  negotiations  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
proposals for Directives on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the 
purposes  of  seasonal  employment8  and  on  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country 
nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer.9 An evaluation  report on the Long term 
Residents' Directive (2003/109/EC)10 was presented in September 2011.  

Table  2  in  the  Statistical  Annex  gives  a  provisional  overview  of  the  unemployment  rate  of  third-
country nationals. Of those Member States able to provide data, the highest rates are reported by ES 
(35.3%) and SE (31.6%).  

At national level, many Member States (CZ, LV, AT, PL, RO, SK) plus NO adopted new policies 
for  labour  migration  or  introduced  legislation  to  implement  policies  for  labour  migration.  This 
included  the  adoption  of  strategic  policy  documents  (CZ,  PL,  RO,  SK)  and  the  introduction  of  a 
new  points-based  migration  model  primarily  for  qualified  and  highly  qualified  third-country 
nationals (AT). With regard to new policy documents, in CZ, the strategic policy document “New 
System  of  Economic  Immigration”  provided  for  the  setting  up  of  transparent  conditions  for 
economic  migration  (including  employment,  self-employment  and  for  business)  of  third-country 
nationals,  increasing  the  responsibilities  of  various  entities  involved  in  the  migration  process  and 
strengthening the links between immigration and integration of third-country nationals. For RO, the 
new  National  Strategy  on  Immigration  (2011-2014)  set  as  a  strategic  objective  the  promotion  of 
legal migration for the benefit of all parties: Romanian society, immigrants and their countries of 
origin. SK outlined a number of measures in its new policy for migration – these include, inter alia 
the  establishment  of  an  Immigration  and  Naturalisation  Office,  the  promotion  of  economic 
immigration in line with the economy’s needs, and emphasis on highly qualified migrants.  

Several Member States (BE, EE, EL, ES, LV, LT, LU, HU, PL, SI, SK) and NO made changes to 
their existing policies. For example, BE adopted a Royal Decree adapting the existing law on the 
employment of third-country national workers exempting family members of EU citizens from the 
labour  card  obligation.  EE,  LV,  LU  and  SI  made  several  legislative  changes  to  their  respective 
Aliens Act following the transposition of the Blue Card Directive. This included, amongst others, 
the abolition of the labour market test (LV) when extending the residence permit for employment 
(EE),  the  placement  of  an  obligation  on  employers  to  notify  the  Police  about  third-country 
nationals’  commencing  work  or  failing  to  commence  work  when  expected  to  (EE),  granting 
residence permits to family members for a maximum of six months after the application date (LU), 
and of an identical duration as that of the Blue Card holders (LU). SI introduced a new Employment 
and  Work  of  Aliens  Act  which  inter  alia  abolishes  seasonal  work  in  catering  and  tourism  and  in 
construction.  In  SK,  amendments  were  made  to  existing  legislation  relating  to  Employment 
Services in order to prevent abuse. These included placing an obligation on employers to request a 
valid  residence  document  from  third-country  nationals  prior  to  their  employment,  as  well  as 
obliging  employers  to  inform  the  Office  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family  regarding  the  start 
and  end  of  an  employment  relationship  of  a  third-country  national  or  an  EU  national  and  their 
family members. These changes were made within the framework of the transposition of the Blue 
Card Directive and the Employer Sanctions Directive. 

8  
9  
10  

COM(2010) 379 final 
COM(2010) 378 final 
COM(2011) 585 final 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The new Aliens Act implementing Regulation in ES consolidated a model based on legal migration 
linked to the labour market, encouraging social cohesion and integration. In LV, a new Regulation 
was  adopted  which  facilitated  the  process  for  acquiring  a  work  permit,  by  marking  residence 
permits for “commercial activity”, thus removing the need for third-country nationals to reapply for 
separate  work  permits  each  time  they  change  job.  The  Regulation  also  extended  the  group  of 
migrants  able  to  work  in  the  territory  without  a  work  permit  to  those  entering  for  family 
reunification and studies. In LT, the Law on Employment through Temporary Agencies entered into 
force,  which  aimed  to  promote  the  flexibility  of  the  labour  market  and  its  adaptation  to  different 
market conditions. In PL, the Act on the Promotion of Employment and Labour Market Institutions 
and  certain  other  Acts  and  Ordinances  were  amended,  affecting  who  (i.e.  citizens  from  Belarus, 
Georgia,  Republic  of  Moldova  [henceforth  Moldova],  Russian  Federation  and  Ukraine)  and  how 
long  (i.e.  maximum  six  months)  third-country  nationals  can  work  in  Poland  on  the  basis  of  a 
statement  of  the  employer,  and  what  this  statement  registered  in  a  Poviat  Labour  Office  should 
consist  of.  The  UK  made  several  changes  to  the  Points  Based  System  (PBS).  For  workers,  the 
changes included applying an upper numerical limit and greater selectivity for workers admitted to 
fill specific vacancies at higher skill levels, while improving the routes available to those migrants 
who  would  generate  wealth  or  become  leaders  in  their  field.  In  NO,  a  new  rule  was  introduced 
which enabled failed asylum applicants to reapply for a residence permit as a labour migrant and 
subsequently avoid multiple-year entry bans.  

II.1.1 Satisfying labour market needs11 

To ensure that labour migration meets the various needs of the labour market, some Member States 
(CZ, EE, IT, PT, UK) and NO reported on the implementation of their annual quotas as well as, in 
AT, changes experienced in their quota system. In EE, after the annual immigration quota set for 
2011 was attained already in August 2011, the quota was raised to 1 344 – i.e. 0.1% of the Estonian 
population. In IT, after an initial Flow Decree enabling the entry of 60 000 seasonal workers (March 
2011), a further Flow Decree enacted in December 2010 and implemented in 2011, foresaw 98 080 
employed  third-country  nationals.  The  UK  also  placed  a  limit  of  21  000  on  the  third-country 
nationals permitted to enter for Tier 1 (high-value migrants) and Tier 2 (skilled migrants with a job 
offer)  of  the  PBS  combined  in  2011-2012.  In  NO,  the  quota  for  new  permits  for  skilled  labour 
migrants was maintained at 5 000 persons, but was not reached in 2011. 

In  addition,  some  Member  States  (DK,  DE,  ES,  FR,  LT,  CY,  UK)  made  changes  to  their  list  of 
professions  and/or  sectors  where  labour  shortages  existed.  DK  developed  a  ‘Positive  list,’  which 
gives  easy  access  for  professions  where  there  is  a  shortage  of  qualified  professionals  and  DE 
adopted  the  Skilled  Labour  Concept,  which  comprised  the  setup  of  a  shortage  occupation  list 
checked and updated on a bi-annual basis and for which priority checks are no longer required. In 
ES, these changes included the reduction in the number of occupations included in the Catalogue of 
Occupations  in  Short  Supply,  a  self-regulated  instrument  which  reflects  changes  in  the  labour 
market, produced on a quarterly basis in ES. The new Aliens Act Implementing Regulation aims at 
improving  labour  needs  forecasting  mechanism  mainly  by  increasing  the  number  of  information 
sources  to  be  used  in  the  preparation  of  this  catalogue  (i.e.  statistics  on  persons  registered  as  job 
seekers  in  the  National  Public  Employment  Services).  The  list  of  occupations  in  short  supply  is 
produced on a bi-annual basis in LT. Elsewhere, FR created a new list of 14 occupations, fixing the 
regional  occupation  list  for  third-country  nationals;  CY  placed  restrictions  on  sectors  for 
employment  for  third-country  nationals;  and  LT  listed  shipbuilding  and  repair,  transportation  and 
services as understaffed occupations. In the UK, the Government adopted recommendations made 

11 See also EMN Study ‘Satisfying Labour Demand through Migration’ for further information. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to revise the shortage occupation list. AT considered 
the implementation of a new shortage occupation list for 2012. 

The particular groups of migrants favoured in some Member States included the following: highly-
qualified  workers  (NL,  AT,  SK,  UK),  skilled  workers  and  key  workers  (AT),  scientific  workers 
(SK), and migrants who are investors or entrepreneurs or who are leaders in the fields of science, 
engineering, humanities or the arts (UK).  

In  regard  to  links  with  third  countries,  DK  concluded  a  reciprocal  Working  Holiday  Agreement 
with Argentina to allow young Argentinean citizens to travel in DK for up to a year and work for up 
to  six  months  to  explore  the  possibilities  of  studying  and  working  there.  Such  Working  Holiday 
Agreements  also  exist  between  DK  and  Australia,  Canada,  Chile,  Japan,  New  Zealand  and  South 
Korea.  In  ES  the  new  Aliens  Act  implementing  Regulation  enables  the  representatives  of 
employers’ organisations and trade unions in both Spain and the country of origin to participate as 
advisers in the selection process of recruiting abroad, when the relevant administrations request this. 
Moreover,  information  on  the  national  employment  situation  prepared  by  the  National  Public 
Employment  Service  and  proposals  from  employers  and  trade  union  organisations  are  taken  into 
account in order to prepare the annual forecast of positions to be recruited from abroad. FI entered 
into  negotiations  for  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  with  China  which  aimed  to  enhance  the 
exchange of information of both authorities on labour market issues.  

ES, IT, CY and UK reported on changes experienced as a result of the economic crisis. ES, which 
also focused on the professional retraining of unemployed, including migrant workers, experienced 
a reduction of 40% in the number of occupations in its Catalogue of Occupations in Short Supply, 
in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2011,  compared  with  the  fourth  quarter  of  2010.  In  CY,  the  Ministerial 
Committee for the Employment of Third-Country Nationals restricted approvals to employers only 
for sectors where needs could not be met by Cypriot or EU citizens and suspended the employment 
of  citizens  of  Vietnam,  Ethiopia  and  Myanmar  as  domestic  workers,  deemed  vulnerable  to 
exploitation.  In  IT  the  government  announced  that  no  annual  quotas  for  subordinate  employment 
would be applied, with 280 000 unemployed third-country nationals given priority placement. In the 
UK, the shortage occupation list became substantially more selective due to the economic crisis and 
to the Government's aim to limit numbers of non-EEA migrants coming to the UK. It now concerns 
only 190 000 employees, 1% of the total UK work force.  

Many Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LU, AT, PL, SK, FI, UK) 
reported on the methods and tools used to analyse labour market needs and shortages and to satisfy 
labour demand, as well as the actors involved in the process. Methods included forecasting (EE, IT, 
LV, LU, FI) and longitudinal studies (LU); undertaking an annual prognosis on the development of 
the structure of the workforce and labour reserves (LU, FI); publishing biannually, a labour market 
analysis  on  the  employment  prospects  for  different  types  of  jobs  (DK);  undertaking  employer 
surveys (PL, FI); and drawing up shortage occupation lists (BE, CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, AT, SK, 
UK).  In  addition,  IE  reported  that  the  National  Skills  Bulletin  published  in  2011  indicated  no 
change in occupations for which new work permits would be issued. The Bulletin showed that no 
labour shortages exist in the Irish labour market and that skills shortages continued to be confined to 
senior positions, skilled professionals and particularly "niche" areas, such as positions with foreign 
languages.  By  contrast,  in  LV,  the  Ministry  of  Economics  published  a  report  forecasting  labour 
demand and supply to 2016, as affected by demographic trends, economic activity, education and 
professional mobility. The Report predicted that 7.1% to 9.9% of labour demand would not be met 
in 2016. With regard to the actors involved in the process, in LU, the  reform of  the  Employment 
Office  included  the  introduction  of  an  Observatory  of  the  Labour  Market  to  enable  a  better 
understanding of the functioning of the labour market. PL plans to set up a system for monitoring 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
labour  market needs and shortages,  as laid down  in the strategy document “The Polish Migration 
Policy”  adopted  by  the  inter-ministerial  Committee  on  Migration  on  20th  July  2011  and  to  be 
implemented  in  2012.  In  SE,  many  national  authorities  and  research  institutes  are  involved  in 
analysing the future labour market needs, with the government giving its assessment in the annual 
budget bill. In the UK, the identification of shortage occupations and revisions to the list were based 
on  detailed  analysis  of  labour  market  indicators  and  evidence  from  employers,  unions  and  other 
organisations. The MAC (Migration Advisory Committee) also works closely with the UK’s skills 
and employment body, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.  

Concerning  points  systems,  developments  occurred  in  both  AT  and  UK.  AT  introduced  a  points 
system, dependent on a number of criteria, such as level of education, work experience, language 
skills, age, effects on the labour market, capability of the national economy and security aspects. In 
UK,  a  model  was  introduced  for  operating  the  Tier  2  limit  where  Certificates  of  Sponsorship  are 
prioritised according to a points table and distributed to employers on a monthly basis. Priority is 
given  to  those  applying  for  a  shortage  occupation,  as  specified  on  the  Shortage  Occupation  List, 
secondly to those applying for a job requiring PhD-level skills and a Resident Labour Market Test, 
and  lastly  to  other  Resident  Labour  Market  Test  applicants.  Points  are  also  awarded  for  higher 
salaried jobs. 

A few Member States (IE, LV, SI, SK) and NO reported on future measures. In IE, the adoption of 
the  Qualifications  and  Quality  Assurance  (Education  and  Training)  Bill  2011  was  planned.  LV 
reported that the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs was in the process of developing an 
Immigration Conception by December 2012 which would, amongst others, address the possibility 
of introducing quotas for labour migration. In SI there will be changes and amendments to the Act 
on the Procedure of Recognising the Qualifications of EU, EEA and Swiss Confederation nationals 
performing regular occupations or activities in Slovenia. It extends the scope of beneficiaries to the 
procedure  for  recognising  professional  qualifications  also  to  certain  third-country  nationals.  SK 
acknowledged the need to improve labour matching due to the absence of a comprehensive strategy. 
The need to have an efficient collection and processing of labour market data and the creation of 
regularly  updated  list  of  jobs  that  encounter  a  lack  of  labour  forces  was  highlighted.  SK  also 
planned  to  undertake  analysis  of  the  national  economy’s  needs  and  the  benefits  of  economic 
migrants  as  a  basis  for  considering  the  adoption  of  regulatory  and  control  measures,  as  well  as 
incentives for third-country nationals wishing to work in SK. In NO, recommendations proposed in 
the "Better Integration" report were under consideration. 

ES,  FR  and  LV  described  the  effects  of  the  economic  crisis  on  national  policies  for  skills 
recognition and labour matching. For instance, in FR, the list of occupations open to third-country 
nationals was re-examined due to the economic situation. LV’s forecasting reports noted a number 
of drivers which would impact on the balance between labour demand and supply.  

II.1.2 Skills recognition  

Many Member States undertook actions related to skills recognition and labour matching. For skills 
recognition, some Member States (DE, IT, CY, LT, NL, PT) and NO undertook actions to facilitate 
procedures. These included introducing the Act for improving the establishment and recognition of 
professional  qualifications  acquired  abroad,  in  order  to  promote  the  legal  right  to  an  evaluation 
procedure  of  the  professional  qualifications  acquired  abroad  and  to  remove  the  requirement  of 
German citizenship to access employment in a number of occupations (DE); approving a Standard 
Procedure  for  Recognition  of  Regulated  Professional  Qualifications  to  ensure  that  third-country 
nationals can work in similar professions in the Member State (LT); modifying the accreditation of 
credentials  (NL);  and  establishing  a  database  online  for  academic  records/recognition  of 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
qualifications (PT). In addition, IE introduced future legislative changes through the Qualifications 
and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Bill which seeks to provide for the establishment 
of a Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority, amalgamating responsibilities currently falling 
under a number of authorities. In 2011, NL offered legally residing third-country nationals the same 
rights  to  skills  recognition  as  citizens,  meaning  that  they  were  entitled  to  the  recognition  of 
diplomas, with accreditation of prior learning expedited. NL is looking into options to extend this 
system  to  persons  benefiting  from  international  protection.  PT’s  Institute  for  Employment  and 
Professional Training provided information online relating to the recognition of qualifications from 
third countries, with training also provided to mediators at the National Immigrant Support Centre 
in  Lisbon  on  mechanisms  for  academic  and  professional  recognition.  SE's  National  Agency  for 
Higher  Education  is  responsible  for  developing  a  national  framework  for  validation  of  foreign 
professional  qualifications,  as  well  as  providing  certificates  and  synchronising  joint  efforts  with 
relevant  stakeholders  in  the  field.  In  NO,  a  report  on  “Better  Integration”  was  published  which 
analysed  skills  recognition  for  migrant  workers  and  recommended  a  faster  and  more  accessible 
skills recognition process.  

II.1.3 Global Approach to Migration and Mobility 

At  EU  level,  and  following  an  extensive  evaluation  and  external  consultation  process,  the 
Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the  new  Global  Approach  to  Migration  and  Mobility 
(GAMM)12  which  defines  the  overarching  framework  of  the  EU  external  migration  policy  and 
includes  a  more  consistent,  systematic  and  strategic  approach  in  the  EU  relations  with  third 
counties.  The  GAMM  highlights  the  need  to  include  the  external  EU  migration  policy  in  other 
relevant  EU  policies  (both  with  the  external  and  development  policies  and  with  other  internal 
policies, such as economic, employment, education and social policies). The migrant's perspective 
is at the centre of the new framework: special attention is paid to their aspirations and concerns, to 
the compliance with human rights standards in all actions and to the situation of vulnerable groups, 
such as unaccompanied minors or the victims of trafficking.  

The  new  framework  is  based  on  four  pillars:  facilitating  and  organising  legal  migration  and 
mobility; preventing and reducing irregular migration and trafficking in human beings; promoting 
international protection and enhancing the external dimension of asylum policy; and maximising the 
development  impact  of  migration  and  mobility.  The  GAMM  is  global  in  its  geographical  scope, 
though the intensity of the cooperation will be more intense with certain regions, in particular with 
countries  in  the  EU  Neighbourhood.  Migration  Dialogues  continue  to  drive  EU  cooperation  with 
third  countries  and  regions.  Once  progress  is  achieved,  cooperation  can  step  up  through  the 
conclusion  of  a  Mobility  Partnership,  the  main  framework  for  cooperation  which  should  include 
provisions on visa facilitation and readmission, or a Common Agenda on Migration and Mobility, a 
lighter  form  of  cooperation  that  can  eventually  evolve  into  a  Mobility  Partnership  (see  Section 
II.1.4). Concrete results were achieved with Southern Mediterranean countries, where dialogues on 
migration, mobility and security have started with Tunisia and Morocco in October 2011. 

The issue of brain drain is systematically addressed in these dialogues and cooperation's with third 
countries. The "EU Blue Card" Directive encourages Member States to refrain from pursuing active 
recruitment  in  developing  countries  in  sectors  suffering  from  a  lack  of  personnel.  Furthermore, 
Member States may reject an application for an EU Blue Card in order to ensure ethical recruitment 
in  sectors  suffering  from  a  lack  of  qualified  workers  in  the  countries  of  origin.  This  issue  is 
identified as a priority in the four Mobility Partnerships signed so far, including the latest, the EU-

12  

COM(2011) 743 final 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Armenia Mobility Partnership signed in October 2011. Migration and development is an important 
part of the Prague Process Action Plan, adopted at the Ministerial Conference in Poznan. The EU 
has approved financial assistance for projects aiming to minimise the negative effects and maximise 
the positive impact of migrants on their countries of origin. 

At national level,  some  Member  States (DE, IE,  ES, NL,  PT, SE) reported on  ongoing actions to 
prevent  or  not  aggravate  brain  drain.  These  included  a  Returning  Experts  programme  offering, 
amongst  others,  individual  counselling  on  return  and  career  planning,  help  in  networking  with 
important  local  organisations  and  financial  support  (DE);  initiating  a  recruitment  campaign  with 
Pakistan and India for non-consultant level hospital doctors in compliance with the World Health 
Organisation Guidelines on Ethical Recruitment (IE); establishing an Immigration Integration Plan 
Working Group dealing with measures aimed at brain drain which, among others, re-established the 
need to align the granting of scholarships with the labour market situation of the country of origin 
(PT);  developing  data  and  indicators  for  the  phenomena  of  brain  drain  (SE);  and  developing  a 
system  giving  preferential  access  to  the  labour  market  for  migrants  committed  to  return  to  their 
country  of  origin  and  potentially  rejecting  future  applications  in  the  case  of  non-return  (ES).  In 
addition,  in  NL,  the  second  stage  of  the  IOM’s  Temporary  Return  of  Qualified  Nationals  project 
was extended to 2012, providing migrants with the opportunity to help with the reconstruction of 
their  country  of  origin.  This  included  the  temporary  outsourcing  of  migrants  to  their  country  of 
origin in order to carry out work for which there is no local expertise.  

In order to prevent brain drain relating to students, ES reported that it does not permit the issuance 
of  residence  and  work  permits  to  students  who  have  been  subsidised  by  the  Member  State  or  the 
country of origin to undertake their studies on its territory.  

With  regard  to  temporary  and  circular  migration,13  some  Member  States  (CZ,  ES,  FR,  SE) 
undertook actions or introduced legislation to favour these types of migration. Measures included 
clarifying  and  speeding  up  procedures  to  facilitate  a  ‘circular  migration  model’  of  seasonal  work 
and  strengthening  the  rights  of  the  workers  involved  or  developing  a  system  giving  preferential 
access  to  the  labour  market  for  migrants  committed  to  return  to  their  country  of  origin  and 
potentially  rejecting  future  applications  in  the  case  of  non-return  (ES);  and  the  publication  of  a 
parliamentary  report  proposing  legislative  changes  and  other  recommendations  to  facilitate  and 
stimulate  circular  migration  with  third  countries  so  as  to  promote  positive  development  (SE).  In 
addition, in FR, in order to better articulate migration and development policies, a new concept of 
Solidarity  Development  was  adopted  for  partnerships  with  countries  of  origin.  The  new  policy 
encourages the migration of students who study in France and then return to their country of origin 
in  order  to  use  their  skills  obtained.  After  completing  their  studies  (at  least  a  master’s  degree), 
students  are  entitled  to  stay  for  six  months  in  order  to  receive  a  “first  experience”  in  the  French 
market with a view to bring their experience to their country of origin.  

Some Member States (CZ,  IT,  SK, UK) planned future actions relating to temporary and circular 
migration. CZ plans to introduce a new admission category for temporary-circular labour migrants 
with simplified admission rules for circular migrations. In IT, investments were planned to promote 
circular migration. SK, as part of its new Migration Policy, developed plans to update the provisions 
of  the  legal  framework  enabling  the  entry  of  migrants  to  the  labour  market  for  short-term 
employment.  In  the  UK,  it  was  proposed  to  break  the  link  between  temporary  and  permanent 
migration by reducing the number of migrants eligible to stay permanently in the UK.  

13  

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

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
II.1.4 Mobility Partnerships and other (bilateral) agreements with third countries 

At EU level, concrete proposals were made to enhance further the level of political and operational 
cooperation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs between the EU and its Eastern Partners (so-
called  "Eastern  Partnership"),  including  inter  alia  investigating  the  further  opening  of  legal 
migration channels for migrants.14 

The implementation of the Mobility Partnerships signed with Moldova (2008), Cape Verde (2008) 
and Georgia (2009) progressed with new projects approved for funding. For Moldova, a High Level 
Meeting took place in November 2011. A number of new initiatives have been launched, including 
on  mobility  of  health  workers  and  strengthening  the  capacity  of  the  Moldovan  authorities  to 
negotiate  and  implement  social  security  agreements.  In  Georgia,  the  Mobility  Centre  established 
with the support of the EU was inaugurated in March 2011. A new Mobility Partnership between 
the EU, involving 10 EU Member States, and Armenia was signed in October 2011. The EU has 
started  a  process  towards  negotiating  new  Mobility  Partnerships  with  other  countries,  including 
Tunisia and Morocco.   

At national level, ten Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DE, FR, IT, NL, PL, RO and SE) entered into 
the  fourth  EU  Mobility  Partnership  concluded  with  Armenia  on  27th  October  2011,  to  promote 
mobility  and  co-operation  on  migration  issues.  Member  States  continued  their  participation  in  all 
EU Mobility Partnerships, including those with Moldova (reported by BG, DE, EL, CY, IT, PL, PT, 
SK, SE), Georgia (reported by BE, BG, DE, EE, EL, LV, PL, SE, UK) and Cape Verde (reported by 
ES,  FR,  LU,  NL,  PT).  NL  noted  that  whilst  with  Georgia  the  emphasis  is  on  return  and 
reintegration,  for  Armenia  and  Cape  Verde  their  emphasis  is  on  strengthening  migration 
management. Other than their involvement in the current Mobility Partnerships with Armenia, Cape 
Verde,  Georgia  and  Moldova,  no  Member  States  reported  the  development  of  new  multilateral 
agreements. 

Six Member States (BE, CZ, DE, HU, PL, RO) explicitly referred to the EU Mobility Partnerships 
with Armenia, Moldova and Georgia as tools to facilitate labour migration with nationals of partner 
countries  to  the  East  and  South  East  of  Europe.  In  DE,  for  example,  through  these  partnerships, 
citizens of Moldova and Georgia (as well as Armenia in the future), who have legal residence titles 
in DE, are able to leave DE for longer periods than the usual 6 months (i.e. for up to 24 months) 
without losing their residence titles. CZ has specifically developed cooperation on (circular) labour 
migration with Georgia. HU concluded a project to inform potential migrants from Moldova about 
legal  migration  routes  to  the  EU  and  legal  employment  in  Member  States,  as  well  as  the  risks  of 
irregular migration, and assistance for returning migrants.  

The UK described its involvement in negotiating the planned new Mobility Partnership with Ghana, 
which  it  expects  will  be  concluded  in  2012.  The  Partnership  will  include  support  (including 
funding)  for  capacity  building  project  work,  where  the  UK  aims  to  focus  on  border  capacity 
management. The Partnership will be the first of its kind in Sub-Saharan Africa to offer practical 
solutions in a key source country to address the issue of irregular migrants coming to the EU. 

Under a new, simplified system, aimed at reducing irregular migration, citizens of Ukraine, Belarus, 
Russian  Federation,  Moldova  and  Georgia  were  granted  the  possibility  to  work  in  PL  for  up  to  6 
months within a period of 12 months, without the need to obtain a work permit. 

14  

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. See COM(2011) 564 final. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  the  main,  however,  Member  States  have  not  reported  that  their  labour  migration  policy 
specifically  favours  labour  migration  from  countries  to  the  East  and  South  of  Europe.  However, 
three  Member  States  (EL,  EE,  IT)  have  adopted  policies  to  facilitate  opportunities  for  labour 
migration  from  countries  to  the  East  and  South  of  Europe.  To  promote  its  work  with  the  Eastern 
partnership, EE and LT exempted citizens of Belarus from paying the state fee when submitting an 
application for long-stay ‘D’-visa.15 EL has amended the provisions of its laws on national visas for 
seasonal  workers  and  fisheries  employees,  which  facilitates  the  employment  of,  amongst  others, 
third-country nationals from Egypt in the fisheries sector. Most countries with which IT has signed 
labour  mobility  and  readmission  agreements  benefit  from  a  privileged  treatment  in  the  entry 
procedures, through the assignment of specific quotas. These include countries from the East and 
South  of  Europe.  In  relation  to  the  development  of  circular  migration,  no  Member  States  have 
reported that they favoured circular migration from East and South of Europe in their labour market 
policy. 

A  number  of  Member  States  (ES,  FI,  HU,  IT,  LV,  NL,  SK)  referred  to  new  bilateral  agreements 
concluded  in  addition  to  those  outlined  above.  ES  developed  new  bilateral  agreements  with 
Cameroon,  Brazil,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Croatia  and  Jordan  for  combating  criminality, 
including human trafficking and organised crime. FI concluded a bilateral social security agreement 
with  India  to  enable  the  co-ordination  of  pension  rights  of  persons  moving  between  the  two 
countries.  FI  also highlighted a  planned  memorandum  of understanding,  to be signed with  China, 
regarding labour market issues. PL signed a bilateral local border traffic agreement with the Russian 
Federation (Kaliningrad Oblast).  

IT  signed  a  new  agreement  with  Tunisia  in  relation  to  departure  controls  and  readmissions.  LV 
developed an agreement with Belarus to enhance its cooperation and develop its relations with and 
to simplify travel procedures for residents at borderlands, respecting geographical proximity and a 
shared  cultural  heritage.  SK  concluded  a  bilateral  agreement  with  Canada  for  the  promotion  of 
university  education.  These  Member  States  worked  independently  of  the  EU  in  developing  these 
agreements. 

BE, HU and SE reported that they were in the process of negotiating or re-negotiating new bilateral 
agreements. BE described its work in supporting the Rabat Process on Migration and Development, 
and  negotiated  with  the  Moroccan  government  a  renewal  of  their  bilateral  agreement  on  social 
security  rights.  The  purpose  of  this  action  was  to  ensure  the  equal  treatment  of  Moroccan  and 
Belgian  nationals  in  terms  of  social  security  rights  and  obligations,  as  well  as  the  portability  of 
rights acquired. HU aims to conclude a bilateral readmission agreement with Kosovo,16 as part of its 
commitment  to  deepen  cooperation  between  countries  of  origin  and  transit,  to  address  irregular 
migration. SE referred to their negotiation of bilateral agreements with both India and the Russian 
Federation concerning labour migration. Again, the Member States involved worked independently 
of the EU in developing these agreements.  

ES has played a major role in the elaboration of the strategy in the Third Euro-African Ministerial 
Conference  on  Migration  and  Development  which  contains  three  pillars  for  cooperation  and 
dialogue:  organising  legal  migration,  fight  against  irregular  migration  and  strengthening  the 
synergies between migration and development. 

15  
16  

Ukrainian citizens were also exempted in 2010 (EE) and 2009 (LT). 
This  designation  is  without  prejudice  to  positions  on  status,  and  is  in  line  with  UNSCR  1244  and  the  ICJ 
Opinion  on  the  Kosovo  Declaration  of  Independence.  All  subsequent  mentions  of  Kosovo  are  also  to  be 
understood within the context of this statement. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
II.1.5 Highly qualified workers 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  launched  a  first  set  of  infringement  procedures  for  non-
communication  of  national  measures  transposing  the  "EU  Blue  Card"  Directive17  by  sending 
reasoned opinions to Malta, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Portugal and Italy in October 2011. At the 
end of December 2011 only the case against Malta was closed. The next step will be referral to the 
European  Court  of  Justice  and  the  possible  imposition  of  a  financial  sanction.  A  second  set  of 
infringements  was  launched  in  February  2012  with  the  sending  of  reasoned  opinions  to  Slovenia, 
Austria, Cyprus, Greece and Finland.  

At national level, many Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, AT, 
SI,  SK,  SE,  UK)  reported  on  new  steps  taken  to  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  for  highly 
qualified  workers.  For  example,  in  ES,  the  new  Aliens  Act  Implementing  Regulation  includes  a 
preferential and privileged procedure for Blue Card  holders  and  their  family  members.  Following 
the introduction of the “Red-White-Red Card” in AT, no quota system applies to highly qualified 
workers.  In  addition,  certain  highly  qualified  third-country  nationals  are  now  entitled  to  obtain  a 
“visa  for  the  purpose  of  a  job  search”  and  stay  for  six  months  in  the  territory  (to  look  for 
employment)  without  already  having  been  guaranteed  work.  The  Government  in  DK  has 
undertaken general measures to attract highly qualified workers, and specific measures to facilitate 
access  of  such  workers  to  the  ‘cleantech’  sector.  There  is  also  a  Job  Card  Scheme,  informed  by 
DK’s bi-annual labour market analysis, which allows easier and faster access to a residence permit 
for  priority  professions.  In  DE,  the  Federal  government  adopted  a  draft  law  to  lower  the  annual 
salary threshold from €66 000 to €48 000 and to immediately obtain a permanent right of residence 
in  DE  for  highly  qualified  workers.  Furthermore,  scientists  with  special  expertise,  teaching 
personnel  and  scientific  staff  in  leading  positions  continue  to  be  exempted  from  this  salary 
threshold.  In  LU,  new  tax  provisions  for  highly  qualified  people,  approved  in  December  2010, 
became  applicable  in  2011,  resulting  in  a  tax  relief  regarding  certain  expenses  paid  for  by  the 
employer  within  the  context  of  recruitment  or  expatriation,  subject  to  not  exceeding  a  reasonable 
amount.  NL  prepared  the  launch  of  a  pilot  project,  due  in  2012,  which  would  facilitate  stays  of 
shorter than three months for highly qualified workers. This new system would no longer require 
the  verification  of  labour  supply  in  the  market  for  those  wishing  to  work  for  fewer  than  three 
months. UK launched an “Exceptional Talent” route (Tier 1 of its Points Based System (PBS)) for 
third-country nationals recognised, or having the potential to be recognised, as leaders in the fields 
of  science,  engineering,  humanities  and  arts.  Changes  were  also  introduced  relating  to  the 
settlement  rights  of  migrants.  Fast  track  settlement  rights  for  investors  and  entrepreneurs  were 
introduced,  with  those  in  Tier  1,  investing  €6  million,  gaining  settlement  after  three  years,  for 
example. Though the UK introduced these incentives for specific types of highly qualified workers, 
it required those wishing to obtain highly skilled employment to apply through Tier 2 of the PBS, 
where they need to have an offer of a graduate level job from a licensed employer prior to arrival. 
With regard to intra-corporate transferees, the UK excluded these workers from the annual limit but 
introduced a new salary threshold linked to the length of their stay.  

II.1.5 Students and Researchers 

At EU level, evaluation reports on the Students Directive (2004/114/EC)18 and on the Researchers' 
Directive (2005/71/EC)19 were presented. These reports identified a number of shortcomings which 

17  
18  
19  

Directive 2009/50/EU of 25 May 2009 
COM(2011) 587 final 
COM(2011) 901 final 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
could be taken into consideration in order to revise the current legal framework and possibly merge 
the Researchers and the Students Directives into a single instrument.  

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

For  students,  a  few  Member  States  (IE,  ES,  FR,  LV,  LT,  AT,  PT,  SK)  undertook  new  actions  or 
modified  procedures  to  facilitate  the  entry  and  stay  of  third-country  nationals  through  the 
simplification of procedures. For example, LT introduced new rules regulating the issuance of visas 
which expanded the range of students to whom multi-entry national visas may be issued. Moreover, 
a Programme was launched concerning the Internationalisation of Higher Education which included 
the  promotion  of  academic  mobility  of  students  and  teachers  and  the  elimination  of  barriers  for 
these individuals to enter the Member State. To facilitate access of third-country nationals to higher 
education in PT, the system of Simplified Certification of Foreign Citizens, which streamlines the 
process  of  validating  documents  of  candidate  students  from  third  countries,  was  consolidated.  SE 
introduced  tuition  fees  for  third-country  nationals  coming  to  study,  as  well  as  two  scholarship 
schemes.  The  Swedish  Aid  Programme,  for  example,  targeted  highly-qualified  students  from  12 
countries, covering tuition and accommodation. 

DE,  ES,  AT  and  SK  amended  legislation  in  order  to  modify  entry  and  stay  procedures  for  third-
country national students. In DE, a newly adopted draft law aims at allowing international students 
with a degree from a German university to work without restrictions during the twelve months they 
are authorised to look for a job after the completion of their degree. After two years of work, they 
are eligible for a permanent residence permit. This draft law also plans to facilitate the process of 
admitting  researchers.  In  AT,  new  provisions  were  introduced  through  the  amendment  of  past 
legislation, allowing third-country nationals who have completed a university degree there to stay 
for a further six months following completion of their studies for the purpose of finding a job. The 
new Aliens Act Implementing Regulation in ES implemented the provisions for studying, student 
mobility,  unremunerated  internships  and  voluntary  work,  allowing  mobility  and,  in  some  cases, 
permits for paid employment or self-employment for students. In IE, the new Immigration Regime 
for full-time non-EEA students entered into force.  

In the UK, changes were made to Tier 4 (Student Tier) of the PBS to tackle abuse and improve the 
support  and  oversight  given  to  flows  of  international  students.  Changes  included  increasing  the 
level  of  English  language  requirements,  refusing  entry  at  the  border  to  students  who  cannot 
communicate with UK Border Agency staff without an interpreter, placing restrictions on the right 
to  work  for  some  students  and  reserving  the  right  to  bring  dependents  only  for  postgraduate 
university students and some government sponsored students. Institutions were also required to be 
licensed  as  Highly  Trusted  Sponsors  by  the  UK  Border  Agency.  These  changes  provided  greater 
guarantees for genuine students that they were studying at bona fide institutions.  

Concerning cooperation with third countries, SK and LT negotiated with New Zealand concerning 
the  “Work-Leave  Programme.”  Upon  its  entry  into  force,  this  programme  will  increase  the 
opportunities for young people of these Member States to take up short-term training, study and/or 
employment  opportunities  in  New  Zealand.  SK  also  entered  into  an  agreement  regarding  Youth 
Mobility with  Canada which aimed to simplify the  administrative  procedures governing the entry 
and  stay  of  young  citizens  between  18  and  35  years  for  the  purpose  of  completing  their  higher 
education,  attending  special  preparation  with  an  internship  programme  or  obtaining  work 
experience.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Concerning  future  actions,  a  five  year  strategy  continued  in  IE  entitled  “Investing  in  Global 
Relationships.” The strategy set the objectives of increasing the number of international students in 
both higher education and English language schools by 50% and 25% respectively by 2015 and of 
raising  the  economic  impact  of  the  international  education  sector  for  IE  by  €300  million  to 
approximately €1.2 billion in 2015. It also aimed to align immigration rules with specific courses, 
by  introducing  fast-track  visas  for  some  degree  programmes.  LT  in  its  draft  law  proposes  more 
favourable rules for employment of students during their studies, as well as in the period following 
their studies. In LU, the draft Act on Foreigners foresees the issuing of temporary residence permits 
for  third-country  nationals  starting  their  studies  for  the  duration  of  one  year  and  three  additional 
months  and  of  a  two-year  residence  permit  if  they  continue  their  studies,  in  line  with  Council 
Directive 2004/114/EC. 

For  researchers,  legislative  instruments  were  introduced  in  ES  and  FR  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
applications  for  researchers  wishing  to  enter  these  Member  States.  In  ES,  the  new  Regulation 
encouraged  researchers  to  relocate  to  Spain,  with  a  new  regime  for  work  and  residence  permits 
introduced enabling third-country nationals to initiate projects with research bodies there. In FR, a 
2011 Decree extended the possibility of benefiting from a long-stay visa providing exemption from 
a residence permit to scientists, researchers and trainees. With regard to future measures, as part of 
its 2020 National Reform Programme, the LU Government intends to develop, in agreement with 
the public research institutions, a range of consistent actions focusing on recruitment, training, skills 
and  career  prospects  for  researchers  of  third  country  and  EU  origin  to  develop  an  environment 
favourable to the boom in research. Concerning University lecturers, LT, in its draft law, proposes 
to facilitate the entry of lecturers and their family members and to distinguish it as a separate group 
in the law. Amending legislation in SK newly defined the conditions of admission of third-country 
nationals for the purposes of research and development, including conditions and requirements for 
hosting a third-country national and the responsibilities of the admitting organisations. DE plans to 
introduce further facilitations in relation to the admission of scientists and their family members.  

II.2. Family Reunification 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  public  debate  on  family  reunification  via  a  Green 
Paper,20  in  view  of  the  call  of  the  Stockholm  Programme  and  the  findings  of  the  2008 
implementation  report  on  Directive  2003/86/EC21  on  the  right  to  family  reunification  identifying 
national  implementation  problems  and  shortcomings  of  the  Directive.  The  Green  Paper  invites 
stakeholders  to  reflect  on  more  effective  family  migration at EU  level without  losing sight of the 
objective  of  the  Directive  to  determine  the  condition  of  the  existing  right  to  family  reunification. 
The deadline for reply was 1 March 2012. 

At national level, many Member States (BE, DK, DE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, NL, AT, SK, FI, UK) 
and NO documented changes to family reunification regulations. Several Member States (BE, DK, 
ES,  FR,  LV,  LT,  AT,  SK,  UK)  developed  or  adopted  new  legislation  relating  to  the  rights  and 
conditions for family reunification. New legislation adopted in LV and SK provided access to the 
labour  market  for  third-country  nationals  entering  for  the  purpose  of  family  reunification.  For 
example, in SK, new legislative provisions included the modification of conditions for the granting 
of a temporary residence permit for the purpose of family reunification and provided the possibility 
for these migrants to run a business immediately after being granted a residence permit.  

20  
21  

COM(2011) 735 final 
COM(2008) 610 final 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
LT  and  UK  modified  certain  aspects  of  their  family  reunification  legislation  to  make  it  less 
restrictive.  In  LT,  family  members  of  third-country  nationals  entering  the  Member  State  for 
pedagogical  work/research  may  now  be  issued  a  long-term  national  visa  which  facilitates  their 
arrival. UK reinstated a minimum age of 18 for those wishing to sponsor a spouse or partner and for 
those applying to enter or remain in the UK on that basis. This change was a result of a Supreme 
Court  hearing  which  found  that  a  minimum  age  of  21  was  unlawful  when  applied  to  genuine 
couples.  The  requirement  for  a  person  subject  to  immigration  control  to  obtain  the  Secretary  of 
State’s permission to marry or enter into a civil partnership was also withdrawn.  

Conversely,  BE,  DK  and  ES  introduced  additional  requirements  for  family  reunification.  BE 
introduced a number of changes including an income requirement and tightening the preconditions 
for reunification with unmarried partners on the grounds of a “stable relationship” with the control 
period  increasing  from  two  to  three  years.  Changes  in  DK  included  a  PBS  for  applicants,  with 
points allocated according to work experience, language skills and educational attainment. There is 
also a requirement on the spouse to demonstrate sufficient collateral to meet any public assistance 
requirements of the applicant, and a need to demonstrate that the spouse and applicant’s combined 
‘attachment’  to DK is stronger that their attachment to another country. DK also implemented an 
initiative to introduce fees for submitting an application for family reunification (currently €1 081) 
and for any appeals made, under legislation agreed in 2010. Such changes are likely to be modified 
in the future under the new Danish Government, who took office in October 2011. In ES, the Aliens 
Regulation  introduced  provisions  on  procedures,  processes  and  means  of  proof  for  family 
reunification, thereby clarifying financial and housing requirements and the methods for proving a 
relationship analogous to marriage by formal registration or other means to justify an unregistered 
relationship.  

LV and SK reported on the assessment criteria for family reunification in their Member States. In 
LV,  the  family’s  capacity  to  integrate  is  not  examined,  with  the  only  criterion  being  whether  the 
family  member  wishing  to  receive  a  residence  permit  belongs  to  one  of  the  categories  of  family 
members listed in the Immigration Law. Moreover, in SK, the new act on the stay of aliens, which 
was adopted in October 2011 and entered into force in January 2012, stipulates that the extent of 
integration into society is not given by a requirement for language knowledge, level of education or 
work experience. 

FI and UK undertook assessments of their family reunification policy. In FI, a Working Group was 
established  to  examine  the  effects  of  previous  legislative  changes  made  to  family  reunification 
legislation  and  to  consider  whether  new  changes  would  be  needed  in  view  of  aligning  Finnish 
legislation  with  other  Nordic  countries.  The  UK  launched  a  consultation  on  family  migration 
proposing a number of recommendations to tackle abuse, promote integration and reduce burdens 
on the taxpayer, including introducing  a  minimum  income  threshold for those sponsoring a third-
country  national  spouse,  partner  or  dependants,  extending  the  probationary  period  before  spouses 
and partners can apply for settlement and increasing the English language requirement for spouses, 
partners  and  adult  dependants  under  65  applying  for  settlement.  These  recommendations  were 
under consideration by the government in 2011.  

Several Member States (BE, DE, ES, FR, HU, NL, AT, UK) undertook actions to promote stronger 
integration of third-country nationals who migrated to the respective Member States for the purpose 
of  family  reunification.  In  FR,  new  legislation  provided  the  French  Office  for  Immigration  and 
Integration with the competence to receive requests for family reunification. The Office deals with 
the  integration  of  this  category  of  persons  following  their  requests,  with  this  development 
considered  as  beneficial  in  the  efficiency  of  integration  policy  in  France.  In  order  to  ensure 
integration  and  prevent  marriages  of  convenience,  NL  reported  that  the  government  agreed  to  a 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
proposal  from  the  Ministry  of  Immigration  and  Asylum  to  tighten  the  requirements  for  family 
migration.  The  proposal  included  limiting  eligibility  to  core  family  (including  spouses  and  those 
with a registered partner); introducing a one year waiting period so that the third-country national 
could  firstly  integrate  themselves;  extending  the  qualification  period  for  continued  independent 
residence  from  three  to  five  years;  and  prohibiting  access  to  social  benefits  until  two  years  have 
passed. Following the publication of the EU Green Paper on family reunification, the government 
stressed the need to promote the emancipation and integration of migrants as well as the promotion 
of  economic  self-reliance  of  migrants.  In  DE,  the  Act  on  Residence  was  changed,  extending  the 
minimum  marital  cohabitation  time  for  a  foreign  spouse  to  be  granted  an  independent  right  of 
residence in case of a break up from two to three years. In AT, the integration of family members 
continued to be a priority, with the integration of family members coming and living in the Member 
State emphasised through stricter standards of the Integration Agreement and by the introduction of 
German  language  skill  requirements  before  immigration  (dependent  on  the  kind  of  residence  title 
the  third-country  national  applies  for).  In  ES  the  new  Aliens  Act  Implementing  Regulation 
establishes  that  victims  of  gender-based  violence  and  their  children  will  have  the  right  to  an 
individual  residence  permit,  completely  independent  from  the  sponsor’s  one,  in  order  to  promote 
their  integration  in  the  host  society  as  they  will  be  able  to  enjoy  all  the  rights  granted  by  an 
independent residence and work permit. 

Some Member States (DE, FR, IT, NL, AT) and NO introduced or changed language requirements 
for  third-country  nationals  residing  in  their  Member  State  following  family  reunification.  A 
decision  of  the  Federal  Administrative  Court  in  DE  resulted  in  changes  to  the  regulation  for  the 
provision  of  evidence  of  language  skills:  a  third-country  national  who  has  applied  for  a  visa  for 
subsequent unification of spouses without having a basic knowledge of German may be granted a 
visa in order to acquire these language skills in Germany in particular circumstances. In FR, from 1 
January 2012, persons wishing to acquire nationality by marriage with a French national will need 
to  prove  they  have  a  level  of  French  that  corresponds  to  “B1  oral,"  defined  by  the  repository  of 
languages  used  in  Europe.  Additionally,  NL  raised  the  level  of  the  Spoken  Dutch  Test  from  A1 
minus to A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and added a literacy 
and understanding written texts test. IT planned to implement the Integration Agreement between 
the  state  and  the  newly-entered  third-country  nationals.  One  of  the  main  provisions  relates  to 
language  learning,  with  the  agreement  applicable  to  third-country  nationals  reunited,  with  the 
exception of children under 16 years of age. The UK considered introducing changes to its language 
requirements.  In  NO,  the  obligatory  number  of  hours  for  studying  the  Norwegian  language 
increased in 2011 from 250 hours to 550 hours, and the eligibility for free tuition was extended to a 
wider number of migrant groups. 

LV,  HU  and  SK  undertook  other  actions  to  better  integrate  family  members  into  society.  For 
example, under the Integration Fund, LV implemented the programme “Open to Integration 2011” 
which  was  aimed  at  specific  vulnerable  groups,  such  as  women,  children  and  young  people  with 
low  levels  of  education  and  special  needs  to  provide  access  to  support  groups,  language  classes, 
interest  groups,  etc.  The  project  also  aimed  to  raise  awareness  amongst  its  nationals  of  the 
importance  of  integration.  An  education  summer  camp  was  also  organised  for  third-country 
nationals up to the age of 25 years in order to teach them about Latvian culture, society, history and 
geography. 

Concerning  future  actions,  in  HU,  a  four  weekend-long festival will be organized  in  2012  in  five 
Hungarian  cities  for  third-country  nationals  and  Hungarians  to  meet  each  other  and  socialise 
together.  The  festival  will  show  films,  exhibitions  and  concerts  featuring  the  topic  of  migration. 
Following  a  Government  Enquiry  in  SE  in  2010,  which  proposed  extending  the  target  group  for 
civic orientation to all newly-arrived third-country national adults with a residence permit valid for 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
more than one year, it was planned to spend 40 million SEK (approx. €4.5M) for this purpose in the 
2012 Budget. 

II.3. Integration 

At EU level, whilst the main responsibility lies with Member States, the Commission continues to 
provide a framework for dialogue and knowledge exchange between stakeholders at different levels 
and  for  monitoring  results  of  integration  policies,  including  through  the  European  Fund  for  the 
Integration of  third-country nationals.  The European Agenda for the  Integration of Third-Country 
Nationals was adopted in July 201122 to promote a stronger economic, social, cultural and political 
participation of legally resident third-country nationals in their receiving countries in order to fully 
benefit of the potential of migration. Integration through participation, more action at local level and 
the involvement of countries of origin in support of the integration process were the main targeted 
areas. Actions should include improved coordination and monitoring of policy developments at EU 
level, the development of a flexible European toolbox and European modules to support integration 
practices  in  the  Member  States  and  the  further  development  of  common  European  indicators  for 
monitoring of results of integration policies. Contextually, the results of the first Eurobarometer on 
integration were published.23 Council Conclusions on the European Agenda for the Integration of 
Third-Country  Nationals  were  adopted  in  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  of  December 
2011.24  

The  aforementioned  proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  an  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund25  will 
encourage the development of proactive immigration strategies for the integration process of third-
country  nationals,  including  during  the  pre-departure  stage.  It  will  promote  a  local  approach  to 
integration  by  fostering  the  regional  and  local  cooperation  in  the  development  of  integration 
strategies and measures. Particular attention in the integration process is paid to the specific needs 
of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, as well as to vulnerable groups of 
migrants (unaccompanied minors, women, youth and children, the elderly, etc.).  

At national level, many Member States (BE, DK, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, MT, 
AT, PT, SI, SK, FI, UK) and NO reported on policy developments in relation to integration. This 
included legislative changes (FR, IT, AT, SK, FI), the introduction of new policy documents (BE, 
EE, EL, ES, LV, LU, PT, AT) or an update thereof (CZ, SK) and institutional changes (CY, SK, 
AT).  

New legislation on integration entered into force in FI. The Integration Act introduced provisions to 
cover  the  integration  of  all  immigrants  residing  in  Finland  (whose  residence  is  legally  registered) 
from  the  point  of  arrival,  e.g.  by  providing  information,  an  initial  assessment  of  immigrants’ 
employment, training and other integration capabilities along with their needs for language training 
and  individual  integration  plans.  Elsewhere,  other  legislative  changes  were  introduced,  including 
the  adoption  of  the  Integration  Agreement  stipulating  mutual  obligations  for  the  State  and  third-
country  nationals  in  the  integration  process  with  emphasis  on  the  role  of  local  authorities,  the 
regions and non-profit organisations (IT), and new requirements to demonstrate knowledge of the 
national language in order to be granted citizenship or long-term residence permit (AT).  

22  
23  
24  
25  

COM(2011) 455 final 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_5969_migrant_en.pdf 
3135th Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels, 13 and 14 December 2011 
COM(2011) 751 final 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Several Member States (BE, EE, EL, ES, LV, LU, PT, AT) introduced new policy documents. For 
example,  in  order  to  facilitate  migrants’  integration,  BE  published  a  concept  note  on  ‘Integration 
and Civic Integration’ aimed at a more efficient and effective integration policy. In EL, the National 
Strategy for Third-Country Nationals’ Integration was developed in order to promote an extended 
consultation  process  between  public  institutions  and  civil  society  and  enhance  migrants’ 
participation  in  social  life  and  the  labour  market.  ES  approved  the  second  ‘Strategic  Plan  for 
Citizenship and Integration 2011-2014’ to increase social cohesion and LU officially introduced the 
National  Action  Plan  on  Integration  and  Against  Discrimination,  covering  a  number  of  common 
basic principles in order to facilitate the political and social integration of migrants. The National 
Action  Plan  is  strengthened  by  the  Law  of  13  February  2011  on  Communal  Elections  and  its 
provisions,  such  as  the  "passive"  right  to  vote  for  non-EU  nationals  within  the  framework  of  the 
municipal elections of 2011, the abolition of the condition of nationality to access the positions of 
mayor and deputy mayor by the law of 13 February 2011 or renewal of consultative bodies at the 
national and municipal level (including Consultative Integration Committees in every municipality 
with  more  than  20%  foreigners).  Furthermore,  PT  began  implementing  its  ‘Immigration  and 
Integration Plan’, which was adopted in 2010. 

CZ  updated  its  ‘Policy  for  Integration  of  Immigrants  in  the  Territory  of  the  Czech  Republic  – 
Living  Together’  whereby  a  strong  focus  was  placed  on  migrants’  language  skills,  economical 
independence,  orientation  and  their  contacts  with  the  host  society.  It  also  opened  a  debate  on 
increased language requirements for obtaining a permanent residence permit.   

CY,  AT,  SK  and  FI  introduced  institutional  changes.  CY  appointed  the  Advisory  Committee  on 
Integration  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  National  Action  Plan  on  Integration 2010-2012. AT 
established the State Secretariat for Integration under the Ministry of the Interior, aiming to address 
opportunities  and  challenges  of  integration,  whilst  SK  set  up  the  Centre  for  the  Coordination  of 
Foreigners’  Integration  under  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family.  Similarly,  in  FI 
integration matters were transferred to the Ministry of Employment and the Economy.  

Other  initiatives  with  regard  to  improving  integration  included  the  establishment  of  an 
interdepartmental working group to consider issues of payment for health care services for persons 
under  subsidiary  and  temporary  protection  (LT);  the  implementation  of  the  project  ‘To  Live  in 
Latvia’ (LV); the introduction of health education sessions in open and closed centres and cultural 
mediators  at  local  health  centres  (MT);  the  establishment  of  a  Forum  for  Integration  stimulating 
discussions between actors in the field of integration and meetings with migrant communities (SK); 
and  the  launch  of  a  project  to  update  the  handbook  ‘Life  in  the  UK’  (UK).  Furthermore,  IE 
introduced  a  formal  citizenship  ceremony  and  EE  carried  out  a  monitoring  exercise  of  Estonian 
society in order to gain better understanding of migrants’ needs. 

With regard to future measures, DK, LU, NL, PL and FI planned developments in their integration 
policy. DK supplemented its existing policy with new initiatives contributing to equal opportunities 
and social inclusion. The Government also aims to launch a new national integration survey tool for 
monitoring the effectiveness of integration measures, in employment, education and citizenship. NL 
produced  a  ‘Memorandum  on  Integration,  Cohesion  and  Citizenship’  setting  out  its  policy 
intentions,  including  the  future  obligation  for  migrants  to  finance  their  (compulsory)  civic 
integration  course  themselves.  PL  included  in  its  draft  Act  on  Foreigners  a  requirement  to  speak 
Polish  when  applying  for  a  residence  permit  for  an  undefined  period  and  is  working  on  a  draft 
nationwide  integration  policy.  FI  has  set  several  policy  objectives  for  the  coming  years  including 
the  introduction  of  a  governmental  integration  programme,  better  integration  of  migrants  into  the 
labour  market  and  improvement  of  the  recognition  of  foreign  qualifications  making  access  to 
further education and training easier. NO published a report on long-term strategies to increase the 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
labour  market  participation  of  migrants  and  recommended  to  focus  on  migrant  women  and 
extension  of  programmes  providing  free  classes  in  Norwegian  language  and  social  studies.  In 
2012/2013, LU will reform professional training programmes to increase the range of professional 
training courses with a specific linguistic framework (SLF) in order to address the difficulties that a 
growing number of students encounter in the trilingual education system and notably with regard to 
classes held in German.  

Many Member States (CZ, DE, IE, EE, EL, IT, CY, LV, LU, NL, AT, PL, SI, SK, SE, UK) and NO 
commented on measures in place to enable migrants to learn the language of the host country and to 
acquire knowledge of the host society’s history and culture (CZ, DE, EE, IT, CY, LV, NL, PL, SI, 
SK,  UK).  With  financial  support  of  the  European  Integration  Fund,  EL  organised  information 
campaigns to promote the integration of migrants and training for intercultural mediators; IT carried 
out 103 territorial projects, plus 16 language training projects; SK implemented several projects, for 
example, the continuation of the operation of a Migration Information Centre and the launch of a 
television programme to support Third-Country Nationals’ integration; and UK supported projects 
that  increased  interaction  between  migrants  and  the  established  community  and  helped  migrants 
access  the  labour  market.  LU  launched  the  Welcome  and  Integration  Contract,  a  reciprocal  and 
optional  contract  between  a  migrant  and  the  State, under which the signatory agrees to undertake 
language training, attend civic instruction courses and participate in an orientation day. Completion 
of  such  a  course  is  taken  as  evidence  of  good  integration  in  order  to  obtain  long-term  residence 
status  and  the  signatory  is  then  exempted  from  obligatory  civic  courses  for  acquisition  of 
Luxembourgish nationality. SI launched a media campaign entitled "I learn Slovene so that I will be 
able  to  say  who  I  am"  to  promote  State  sponsored  language  courses  for  foreigners.  The  UK 
published a handbook ‘Life in the UK’ containing information about history and society.  

Several  Member  States  (CZ,  IE,  EL,  ES,  AT,  PL,  PT,  FI,  SE)  reported  on  support  services, 
programmes  and/or  projects  to  enhance  migrants’  access  to  employment  including  individual 
action/integration  plans  (PL,  FI,  SE),  social  support  and  training  (IE,  PL,  PT),  the  promotion  of 
entrepreneurship  (DK,  PT),  employment  preparation  activities  (IE,  SE)  and  assessment  of  labour 
market  possibilities  for  migrants  (FI).  ES  set  out  in  their  Strategic  Plan  for  Citizenship  and 
Integration  and  in  the  labour  market  reforms  with  several  priority  measures  for  employment  of 
migrants,  for  example,  including  migrants  in  retraining  opportunities.  DK  established  a  National 
Centre  for  Immigrant  Entrepreneurship,  which  aims  to  improve  the  survival  and  growth  of 
enterprises  owned  by  immigrants,  by  improving  the  quality  of  business  advice.  IE  implemented 
several  measures  with  the  involvement  of  the  business  sector  and  trade  union  organisations, 
including the ‘Workplace Diversity Initiative’ embedding diversity and quality in the workplace, in 
addition  to  the  Employment  of  People  from  Immigrant  Communities  (EPIC)  Programme  which 
provides  workplace  and  social  skills  training  to  third-country  nationals.  EL  established  the 
opportunity for immigrants to participate in the projects entitled ‘Job creation at local level through 
programmes  of  public  benefit’  and  ‘Local  Integrated  Programs  Supporting  Employment  of 
Vulnerable Social Groups.’ In order to combat discrimination on the labour market, PT carried out 
awareness raising campaigns.  

Some  Member  States  (CZ,  IE,  EL,  ES,  PT)  also  commented  on  measures  to  facilitate  migrants’ 
access  to  public  and  social  services.  CZ  enhanced  access  to  public  and  social  services  through 
projects  implemented  by  NGOs  and  the  Regional  Foreign  Nationals  Integration  Support  Centres, 
funded  by  the  European  Social  Fund  and  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country 
nationals.  ES  worked  towards  the  objective  of  guaranteeing  public  access  to  participatory  and 
public  services  on  equal  terms  for  all  citizens  and  PT  continued  to  implement  their  ‘Borders  and 
Foreigners  Service  On  The  Move  Programme’,  which  aims  to  provide  a  set  of  services  for 
vulnerable  groups,  such  as  the  elderly  and  children  who  find  it  difficult  to  access  Aliens  and 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Borders  Service  (SEF  -  Serviço  de  Estrangeiros  e  Fronteiras)  facilities.  ES  has  signed  new 
agreements  on  reciprocal  participation  on  local  elections  with  Cape  Verde  and  the  Republic  of 
Korea,  in  addition  to  the  existing  ones  with  Colombia,  Peru,  Iceland,  Ecuador,  Chile,  Paraguay, 
New Zealand, Bolivia and Norway. 

II.3.1 Promoting and exchanging information on integration26 

At EU level, the aforementioned European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals 
again  emphasised  the  importance  for  the  exchange  of  knowledge  and  good  practice  between 
Member  States  in  the  context  of  the  National  Contact  Points  on  Integration,  indicating  that  this 
could  be  further  developed  through  targeted  meetings  and  benchmarking  exercises.  Coordination 
and  monitoring  of  policy  developments  within  existing  policy  frameworks  among  the  EU 
institutions,  and  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  was  also  identified  as  a  means  to 
contribute  to  more  efficient  and  effective  integration  policies.  The  measures  proposed  in  the 
resultant JHA Council conclusions27 included to develop a non-binding coordination mechanism in 
order  to  improve  the  structures  and  tools  for  European  knowledge  exchange  mentioned  in  the 
Stockholm  Programme  by  reinforcing  the  already  existing  structures,  such  as  the  network  of 
National  Contact  Points  on  Integration,  and  exploring  possible  further  measures  to  enhance 
coordination and mutual learning; to consider further development of a monitoring system including 
appropriate data collection and analysis to monitor the degree of integration (outcomes of policies) 
based on agreed common indicators, recognising the principle of subsidiarity; and to explore ways 
of improving the cooperation of the National Contact Points on Integration who should concentrate 
on the exchange of best practice as well as on horizontal aspects of integration. 

The exchange of information via the European Website on Integration28 continued. Draft European 
modules  on  integration29  were  also  developed  in  cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  in  a  pilot  project  finalised  in  2011.  A  pilot  study  on  Indicators  of  Immigrant 
Integration was published by Eurostat in June 201130 and the study on the socio-economic situation 
of migrants entitled 'Migrants in Europe - A statistical portrait of the first and second generation' 
was published in December 2011.31  

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  outlined  their  participation  and/or  contribution  in  the 
European Integration Forum (BE, IE, EE, EL, LV, HU, PL, SE) and/or the European Website on 
Integration (CZ, IE, IT, CY, LV, HU, PL, AT, SE). With regard to the European Integration Forum, 
BE  further  reported  that  it  enabled  close  consultation  with  authorities,  civil  society  and  other 
stakeholders and EE shared materials from the forum with minority communities.  

Several Member States also referred to national websites enabling the publication of information on 
integration  matters  (CZ,  DK,  IE,  EE,  ES,  CY,  AT,  SI,  SK,  UK),  the  organisation  of  thematic 
conferences gathering a range of stakeholders (LT, HU, SK, SE) and the launch of other initiatives 
involving civil society (BE, DE, PL) and migrant communities (DE, SK, PL). To this end, SE and 
SK  each  organised  a  national  conference  on  integration  gathering  representatives  from  national 
authorities, municipalities, civil society and academic institutions and SK organised meetings with 
migrant  communities.  In  DE,  the  Migration  Counselling  for  Adult  Immigrants  and  the  Germany 

26  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  

See also Section VI 
3135th JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting, Brussels, 13 and 14 December 2011 
http://www.integration.eu   
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/resources/detail.cfm?ID_ITEMS=25494  
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-11-009/EN/KS-RA-11-009-EN.PDF 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-31-10-539/EN/KS-31-10-539-EN.PDF 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Islam  Conference  supports  the  integration  process  of  particular  migrant  groups  in  a  continuous 
manner.  DK  launched  the  initiative  ‘Knowledge  that  works’,  which  aims  to  identify  and 
disseminate  existing  knowledge  on  integration,  and  to  support  dialogue  between  knowledge 
providers and practitioners, via a knowledge portal (www.integrationsviden.dk). IT developed and 
launched in 2012 a ‘Portal for Integration’ aimed at ensuring access to national and local integration 
services  for  third-country  nationals,  promoting  good  practice  and  monitoring  the  course  of  the 
institutional  interventions  made  by  the  government.  Other  measures  implemented  included,  for 
example, an increase of the number of Advisory Boards for Ethnic Relations and the extension of 
the mandate from three to four years (FI). 

II.3.2 Mainstreaming in other policy areas 

Most Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, NL, AT, PT, SI, 
SK, FI, SE, UK) and NO reported on approaches and/or measures to better incorporate integration 
issues in a comprehensive way in all relevant policy areas. Some Member States (BE, EL, LV, PT, 
AT,  SK)  described  national  policy  documents  aimed  at  placing  integration  objectives  in  the 
mainstream and/or targets in other sectoral policy areas including a national action plan (BE, CY, 
LU, AT) or guidelines (LV). In LV, for example, the ‘Guidelines on National Identity and Society 
Integration  Policy’  provided  for  the  development  of  a  system  of  coordinated  cooperation  and 
information exchange between the institutions involved in development and implementation of the 
integration policy.  

Other Member States set up interdepartmental working groups or committees (EE, FR, IT, AT, FI, 
SE,  SI,  UK)  and  CZ  reported  on  inter-ministerial  cooperation  complemented  by  a  Board  on 
Integration  that  comprises  representatives  of  these  ministries.  In  FR,  representatives  of  ministries 
plus national social protection organisations and associations suggested actions enabling access to 
entitlements (e.g. welfare payments, retirement) to be facilitated for elderly migrants. All Ministries 
in NO must report on their integration measures in the annual budget report and integration issues 
are also mainstreamed into labour policy.  

Institutional  changes  in  DK  resulted  in  the  abolition  of  the  former  Ministry  of  Refugees, 
Immigration  and  Integration  Affairs,  resulting  in  a  new  mainstreaming  approach  to  integration 
across all political areas, for example, labour markets, education and housing, consistent with DK’s 
aim to improve equal opportunities and social inclusion of immigrants. 

II.3.3 Involving other stakeholders 

At EU level, two meetings of the European Integration Forum32 continuing the involvement of civil 
society  were  organised,  one  in  May  2011  on  'Integration  through  local  action'  and  the  other  in 
November 2011 on 'The involvement of countries of origin in the integration process.' A conference 
on Promoting migrant integration through media and intercultural dialogue was organised during 
the  Hungarian  Presidency  in  May  2011.  Another  one  on  Common  Integration  Policy:  Preventing 
Exclusion of Immigrants in the EU was also held during the Polish Presidency in October 2011. 

At national level, most Member States (BE, CZ, DE, IE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  CY,  LV,  LU,  HU, 
MT,  AT,  PL,  PT,  SI,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  and  NO  regularly  involved  civil  society  organisations  in 
integration  policymaking  and  measures.  In  2011,  this  included  consultation  of  civil  society 
organisations  and  members  of  the  public  for  the  elaboration  (CZ,  EE,  EL,  ES,  CY,  MT,  PL,  PT, 

32  

http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/policy/legal.cfm  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
UK) and implementation (DE, FR) of national integration policy and plans. Other Member States 
mentioned the strategic role that NGOs play in specifying the annual priorities and actions  of the 
European  Integration  Fund  (IT,  LV)  and  the  establishment  of  an  advisory  board  including 
representatives from civil society, as well as other stakeholders (CY, ES, AT). 

In CZ, information seminars were organised encouraging debates and exchange of views between 
NGOs  and  the  Ministry  of  Interior.  Also,  the  Regional  Foreign  Nationals  Integration  Support 
Centres organise regional platforms on integration including the participation of local stakeholders, 
NGOs and municipalities. DE organized Integration Summits, where dialogue forums were held to 
define  strategic  goals,  operational  goals  and  specific  individual  measures.  EL  held  online 
consultations  on  their  draft  National  Strategy  for  Third  Country  Nationals’  Integration  via  a  web 
dialogue platform addressed to all stakeholders, including civil society. ES reported on a ‘Forum for 
the Integration of Immigrants’ which included a wide range of actors from civil society, and in SE 
there were discussions on how civil society can play a more active role in the introduction of newly 
arrived migrants and how to facilitate the access of NGOs to the integration fund projects and SK 
published press releases on integration. For SI, the work of the Alien Integration Council includes 
representatives  from  local  communities,  NGOs  and  various  ministries.  In  the  UK,  the  voluntary 
sector  is  represented  on  UK  Border  Agency  stakeholder  forums  and  funding  is  provided  to  three 
large  refugee  organisations  to  act  on  behalf  of  the  refugee  sector,  including  contributing  to  and 
responding  to  government  policy.  In  NO,  the  Directorate  of  Integration  and  Diversity  (IMDi) 
funded civil society organisations helping migrants to participate in public debates and discussions, 
and the Contact Committee for Immigrants and the Authorities (KIM) supported dialogue between 
civil society and authorities active in the field of migration.  

II.3.4 Promoting values and cohesion 

Most Member States (CZ, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, SE, 
UK) and NO reported on actions undertaken to enhance democratic values and social cohesion in 
relation to immigration and integration of migrants and promoted intercultural dialogue and contact. 
CZ,  HU  and  SK  reported  on  the  organisation  of  multicultural  events.  CZ,  for  example,  organised 
regional cultural events, in PL the National Platform for Cooperation run by the IOM organised a 
seminar  on  the  active  role  of  foreigners  in  democratic  society,  and  in  SK  the  IOM  organised  an 
international  conference  on  ‘Dialogue  on  Integration’  in  cooperation  with  EMN  and  EIF  support. 
Other Member States engaged and/or continued formalised and active dialogue with representatives 
of migrant communities, including the organisation of a Diversity Consultation Day by the Garda 
(Police)  Racial,  Intercultural  and  Diversity  Office  (IE)  aimed  to  engage  with  representative 
organisations  and  persons  within  a  wide  spectrum  of  communities.  UK  encouraged  actions  at 
neighbourhood level to bring people together, to support migrant integration and tackle community 
conflict, extremism and race inequality.  

Other  measures  included  training  on  intercultural  communication  for  teachers  and  youth  workers 
(EE)  and  for  medical  and  social  services  practitioners  (LV),  the  implementation  of  projects  on 
multiculturalism  and  tolerance  (EE),  and  intercultural  and/or  religious  dialogue  and  contact  (SK, 
SE).  AT  listed  intercultural  dialogue  as  a  key  priority  on  their  national  integration  plan,  EL 
implemented actions to promote intercultural dialogue (including painting, photography and theatre 
workshops, and a cultural event on “Immigrants' day”) and FR used the Reception and Integration 
Contract as a basis for integration grounded on the values of the French Republic. ES approved a 
Comprehensive  Strategy  to  combat  racism,  racial  discrimination,  xenophobia  and  other  related 
forms  of  intolerance.  It  includes  seven  priority  areas  for  action:  education,  employment,  health, 
housing, mass media, Internet, sports and awareness-raising. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Both IT and PT carried out campaigns and/or awareness raising initiatives. In IT, for example, civil 
society  implemented  numerous  initiatives  including  campaigns  on  literacy,  discrimination  against 
women and citizenship. 

NO  undertook  several  actions  to  enhance  democratic  values  and  social  cohesion.  Following  the 
right-wing  terrorist  attack  of  July  2011,  integration  was  put  on  the  agenda  for  public  debate  and 
religious  groups  increased  their  actions  aimed  at  social  cohesion.  The  Norwegian  Centre  against 
Racism ran a so-called ‘tea time campaign’ encouraging Muslim families and ethnic Norwegians to 
come together and thereby promoting interreligious dialogue.  

II.4. Managing Migration and Mobility 

II.4.1 Visa Policy 

At EU level, further progress was made in the development of the EU acquis on short stay visas. In 
this  regard  particular  attention  should  be  drawn  to  the  proposed  amendments33  to  Regulation 
539/2001 in order to make a number of technical modifications and to introduce a visa safeguard 
mechanism that can be used as a last resort measure in situations where the visa-free regime with a 
given  third  country  would  lead  to  sudden  and  substantial  increases  of  irregular  migrants  or 
unfounded asylum applications from that third country.   

In  the  same  framework,  the  Commission  expressed  readiness  to  revise  the  existing  reciprocity 
mechanism  -  applied  in  cases  where  a  third  country  on  the  EU  positive  list  introduces  a  visa 
requirement  for  the  citizens  of  one  or  more  Member  States  -  in  order  to  make  it  more  efficient. 
Taking into account the call for a new reciprocity mechanism made by the European Parliament in 
its declaration adopted in March 2011 and the suggestions made by certain Member States during 
the negotiations on the amendment to Regulation 539/2001, the Commission closely worked with 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  order  to  improve  the  current  reciprocity  mechanism, 
while respecting the institutional and legal framework of the Treaty. The Commission continued its 
efforts, in close cooperation with the Member States concerned, in order to achieve full mutual visa-
free travel for the citizens of all EU Member States with the third countries which are exempt from 
the  visa  requirement  by  the  EU.  Full  reciprocal  visa-free  travel  for  all  EU  Member  States  was 
established with Brunei Darussalam. However, a handful of cases of non-reciprocity still remained, 
mainly with the US and Canada. 

The Visa Information System (VIS) successfully started operations in the first region North Africa 
(Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) on 11 October 2011. On visa facilitation 
agreements,  the  Commission  opened  negotiations  on  upgrading  the  existing  Visa  Facilitation 
Agreements  with  the  Russian  Federation  in  April  2011  and  with  Ukraine  and  Moldova  in  May 
2011.34  By  the  end  of  2011  substantial  progress  was  achieved  on  all  three  negotiations  and  for 
Ukraine  negotiations  on  the  amendment  of  the  visa  facilitation  agreement  were  finalised.35 
Substantial  progress  was  also  achieved  in  the  ongoing  negotiations  on  a  Visa  Facilitation 
Agreement with Cape Verde. The Visa Facilitation Agreement with Georgia entered into force on 1 
March  2011.  The  existing  Visa  Facilitation  Agreements  with  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, 

33  
34  

35  

COM(2011) 290 final 
The First Progress Reports on the implementation by Moldova (see SEC (2011) 1075 final) and by Ukraine 
(see SEC (2011) 1076 final) of the Action Plans on Visa Liberalisation were presented on 16 September 2011. 
The Second Progress Reports on the implementation by Moldova (see SEC (2012) 12 final) and by Ukraine 
(see SEC(2012) 10 final) of the Action Plans on Visa Liberalisation were presented on 9 February 2012. 
December 2011, see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/127064.pdf.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Georgia,  Moldova,  Montenegro,  Ukraine,  the  Russian 
Federation and Serbia continued to be implemented. 

On the other hand, following also an initiative by the European Commission, Member States made, 
in the course of 2011, concrete efforts not only to harmonise their procedures for issuing visas to the 
benefit of Turkish applicants, but also to improve the conditions by applying some of the optional 
facilitations provided for by the existing EU visa legislation. 

Table  3  gives  a  provisional  overview  of  the  number  of  short-term  and  long-stay  visas  issued. 
Member States which issued the highest number of [Schengen] short-term ("C" type) visas were FR 
(1 938 555), DE (1 588 595), IT (1 445 745), ES (1 337 990) and FI (1 244 680). For [National] 
long-stay  ("D"  type)  visas,  provisional  figures  show  that  the  largest  number  were  issued  by  IT            
(237 810), FR (165 745) and DE (162 260).  

At  national  level,  a  number  of  Member  States  reported  on  progress  in  the  collection  of  biometric 
data in relation to visas, and on consular cooperation.  

With regard to the collection of biometric data from visa applicants, many Member States (BE, BG, 
CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, EE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, AT, PT, SK, FI, SE and UK) and NO reported 
progress.  In  relation  to  the  roll  out  of  the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)  -  which  applies  to  22 
(Schengen)  Member  States  plus  three  associated  states  of  NO,  Switzerland  and  Iceland  -  several 
Member  States  (BE,  CZ,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  NL,  PT,  SK,  FI,  SE)  have  referred 
specifically  to  their  experience  in  using  the  VIS  in  the  first  region  (i.e.  North  Africa)  from  11 
October 2011 and in the second and third region in the course of 2012 (e.g. in the Near East and 
Gulf  Regions).  Also  NO  started  using  the  VIS  in  a  first  phase  for  applications  lodged  at  its 
consulates in Rabat, Algiers, and Cairo and will deploy it in a second phase in the Near East and 
Gulf Regions. Meanwhile BG, RO established its National Visa Information System as part of the 
process  for  its  accession  to  Schengen  and  BG  declared  its  readiness  to  use  VIS  in  the  1st  and  2nd 
regions.  Some  Member  States  indicated  the  extent  to  which  their  consular  and  diplomatic  posts 
were equipped with equipment for collection of biometric data (BE – 90%, FR – 88%, LV – 100%). 
Other Member States referred to national developments, such as the purchasing and installation of 
the necessary equipment (AT, LV), legislative changes in view of the implementation of VIS (EE, 
LT, LV, AT, SK, FI), the organisation of training to consular staff (LT, LV), efforts to ensure the 
compatibility of national informatics systems with the VIS (BE, BG, CZ, IT, LT, NL, RO, SE) and 
the organisation of testing phases to ensure compliance (LT, PT).  

IE and UK do not participate in the VIS, but have undertaken other actions to collect biometric data 
from visa applicants. IE continued to collect fingerprints from third-country nationals applying for 
visas  through  Visa  Application  Centres  in  Nigeria  (Abuja  /  Lagos).  This  data  will  be  checked  on 
entry to IE. In January 2011, the Minister for Justice and Equality announced plans to introduce the 
collection of biometric data from visa applicants in Pakistan in order to increase the traceability of 
Pakistani  migrants  which  was  prompted  by  the  high  number  of  marriages  between  Pakistani 
nationals  and  EU  citizens  from  the  Baltic  States.  For  the  UK,  in  view  of  the  2012  Olympics  and 
Paralympics,  biometric  data  will  be  collected  in  advance  of  entry  or  on  arrival,  following  the 
passing of legislation allowing for multiple entry visits valid from date of issue until 8 November 
2012 for holders of the Games Family accreditation card. The fee corresponds to that of a six month 
visit  visa.  In  addition,  a  member  of  the  UK  Border  Agency  Identity  Services  was  seconded  to 
Canada to contribute expertise to the Canadian project to roll out and deploy biometric systems in 
Canadian Visa Application Centres (VAC).  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
Many Member States referred to representation arrangements concluded with other Member States 
(BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, AT, SK, FI, SE), or, in the case of FI, the termination 
of  visa  representation  arrangements.  Following  the  signing  of  representation  agreements,  EE  is 
represented by 14 Schengen Member States (AT, HU, FI, DE, SI, LV, LT, NL, ES, PL, FR, DK, SE 
and  Switzerland)  in  84  countries  regarding  the  processing  and  issuing  of  short-stay  visas,  and 
represents  six  Member  States  (DE,  LV,  NL,  PL,  SI,  FI)  in  four  countries  (Russian  Federation 
(Pskov), Belarus (Minsk), Bulgaria (Sofia) and Georgia (Tbilisi)). In addition to having concluded 
representation arrangements with CZ and LV, SK was negotiating such arrangements with DE, EE, 
ES, FR, LT and PL. 

In  a  similar  vein,  the  Schengen  House  in  Kinshasa,  DR  Congo  has  been  set  up  as  a  Common 
Application  Centre  in  accordance  with  Article  41(2)  of  the  Visa  Code  in  the  framework  of  a 
Belgian-Portuguese project co-financed by the External Borders Fund. It is open to the public since 
5 April 2010. BE also represents AT, FI, FR, LT, LU, NL and PT for Schengen visa applications, 
and enrols biometric identifiers for applications for DE in the Schengen House. SE participates with 
an own desk and also represents DK plus Iceland and Norway. Long-stay visa applications for BE 
and LU are lodged in the Schengen House as well. 

II.4.2 Frontex 

At EU level, an amendment to the Frontex Regulation36 was adopted in order for the agency to be 
better  prepared  to  face  the  challenges  at  the  EU  external  borders  together  with  Member  States. 
Frontex may now acquire or lease its own technical equipment, such as vessels or helicopters for 
the coordination of border control activities. In addition Frontex will be deploying European Border 
Guard  Teams  in  the  near  future.  These  teams  will  consist  of  national  border  guards  assigned  or 
seconded  by  Member  States.  Frontex  will  also  be  able  to  strengthen  its  cooperation  with  third 
countries and will have the possibility to provide them with technical assistance. The full respect of 
fundamental  rights  and  obligations  under  various  international  law  instruments  received  specific 
attention. For instance a Fundamental Rights Officer will be created within the Agency to assist in 
matters  having  implications  for  fundamental  rights  and  a  Consultative  Forum  on  Fundamental 
Rights will be set up with the participation of relevant international organisations and NGOs. 

The  first  Frontex  specialised  branch  entitled  "Frontex  Operational  Office  (FOO),"  which  became 
operational in October 2010, continued with its main tasks, notably: 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. These tasks are to 
be  undertaken  in  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  region  (Italy,  Malta,  Greece  and  Cyprus)  and  the 
Agency should report back to the Council on the evaluation of the functioning of the FOO in the 
course of 2012. The outcome of the independent evaluation forms the basis for the decision of the 
Management  Board  on  whether  to  pursue  the  pilot  project  and/or  to  establish  other  similar 
operational offices.  

Due  to  the  persistently  high  migratory  pressure  on  the  external  land  borders  with  Turkey,  and 
following  a  request  from  Greece  in  October  2010,  the  deployment  of  Rapid  Border  Intervention 
Teams  (RABIT),37  together  with  the  equipment  needed  for  stepping  up  border  control  in  the 

36  
37  

Regulation (EU) No 1168/2011 of 22 November 2011 
Established via Council Regulation (EC) 863/2007 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
affected border area, continued until March 2011, after which it was followed up by the continuous 
Joint  Operation  Poseidon  Land  2011  and  Project  Attica  2011.  In  accordance  with  the  established 
procedure,  Frontex  identified,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Greek  authorities,  the  most  adequate 
composition  of  the  teams  (i.e.  number  and  profile  of  guest  officers)  and  the  type  of  assets  to  be 
deployed. As a result, a total of 190 staff 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. The deployment of the first ever RABIT team in Greece was considered to be a 
success.38 

With the aim to better deal with the emergency situation in North Africa, the Commission proposed 
to increase the 2011 budget for Frontex by an additional €30M (an increase of 23.87% compared to 
the  previous  year)  to  reinforce  its  capacity  to  deal  with  the  increased  migratory  pressure  at  the 
southern Mediterranean border. This increase for 2011 was approved in September 2011.  

Cooperation  in  the  field  of  return  of  irregularly  staying  third-country  nationals  has  intensified. 
Frontex  coordinated  39  joint  return  flights  with  a  total  number  of  2  059  returnees  to  Armenia, 
Columbia,  Ecuador,  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo,  Gambia,  Georgia,  Iraq,  Kosovo,  Nigeria, 
Serbia and Ukraine. Twenty Member States (BE, CZ, DE, HU, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, MT, 
NL, AT, PL, SI, FI, SE, UK) and three Schengen associated countries (CH, IS, NO) participated in 
these  flights.39  In  19  of  these  joint  operations,  at  least  one  of  the  participating  Member  States 
provided  for  monitoring  in  accordance  with  their  national  legislation.  Frontex  co-financed  37  of 
these joint return operations. 

The amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison 
officers (ILO) network was adopted,40 with the aim to facilitate the integration of Frontex into the 
ILO networks. In 2011, the Agency was invited to two ILO meetings organised by Member States 
in  Moscow,  two  in  Kiev  and  two  in  Ankara.  In  turn,  ILOs  posted  in  West  and  North  Africa 
(Algeria,  Benin,  Burkina  Faso,  Cape  Verde,  Egypt,  Gambia,  Ghana,  Guinea,  Guinea-Bissau, 
Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo) were invited 
to the regional analytical meetings of Frontex. 

At  national  level,  Member  States  undertook  activities  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  border 
controls  by  mobilising  all  available  resources.  Activities  undertaken  included  deploying  staff  to 
support  Frontex  actions,  cooperating  with  other  Member  States  in  this  regard,  and  otherwise 
improving human resourcing. 

Most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, NL, AT, PT, 
RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) and NO listed their participation in Frontex operations and missions to control 
external  land,  sea  and  air  borders.  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  PULSAR,  INDALO,  AENEAS,  ATTICA,  DEMETER, 
POSEIDON  Land,  POSEIDON  Sea,  HERA,  HERMES,  HAMMER,  HUBBLE,  JUPITER, 
METEOR,  MINERVA,  MITRAS,  NEPTUNE,  the  Focal  Points  Land,  Sea  and  Air,  the 
Coordination Points and the European Patrols Network. Several Member States (BE, DE, ES, LV, 
NL,  AT,  RO,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  and  NO  made  specific  reference  to  the  deployment  of  experts  in 

38  
39  
40  

RABIT Operation 2010 Evaluation Report 
See Section III.1.4 for further details. 
Regulation (EU) No 493/2011 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
border control, border surveillance, immigration and return to EL through the RABIT mechanism. 
BE and UK also seconded experts to EL to support the drafting of its first Operational Action Plan 
under the authority of the EASO. During the Ice Hockey World Championship in April and May 
2011,  SK  participated  in  the  METEOR  operation  at  the  Vienna-Schwechat  airport  and  in  the 
JUPITER operation at the Slovak-Ukrainian border. Next to EL, AT and SK, other Member States 
that benefited from support included BG, ES, IT, RO, and SI. 

LT also reported on direct cooperation with other Member States, outside Frontex joint operations. 
Its  State  Border  Guard  Service  participated  in  the  MARSUNO  project,  which  aims  to  achieve  a 
higher  degree  of  interoperability  among  existing  monitoring  and  tracking  systems  in  order  to 
improve  maritime  surveillance  in  the  Northern  Sea  basins.  Likewise,  PL  cited  its  involvement, 
along  with  other  Member  States,  in  Frontex  working  group  meetings  within  the  Direct  Contact 
Points (DCP) and the Core Country Group for Return Matters (CCG).  

Five  Member  States  (CZ,  AT,  PT,  FI,  SE)  described  recent  developments  with  regard  to  their 
liaison officers in countries of origin and transit. CZ participated in an event held by HU and funded 
by  the  EU’s  External  Border  Fund  to  strengthen  capacity  and  foster  relations  between  Member 
States’ liaison officers. The Border Police in FR provided operational monitoring of the network of 
liaison  offices  and  security  advisers,  and  to  this  end  established  a  monthly  activity  report,  use  of 
which  enables  the  measures  taken  against  irregular  migration  networks  and  more  specifically 
controls in airports to be made more effective. AT held two conferences for its liaison officers and 
for accredited liaison officers in Austria - a networking event hosted by the Federal Office for the 
Prevention and Combating of Corruption and an annual event also attended by police attachés of the 
Ministry  of  Interior  aimed  at  encouraging  the  exchange  of  experiences  and  informing  liaison 
officers about security developments and organisational procedures. SI appointed a liaison officer to 
be based in IT. 

A  few  Member  States  (DE,  ES,  PT,  FI,  SE)  deployed  new  liaison  officers  in  third  countries:  DE 
deployed  24  ILOs  in  third-countries  and  EU  Member  States,  as  well  as  34  document  and  visa 
advisors  throughout  19  countries;  ES  deployed  new  Interior  Attachés  with  immigration 
competences to Niger, Yemen and Cameroon; PT set up ILOs in Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau (in 
partnership with DE and NL and with funding from the External Borders Fund), as well as Turkey 
and Algeria; FI deployed ILOs in Addis Ababa and New Delhi; and SE established their migration 
experts in Addis Ababa, Bangkok, Beijing, Damascus, Moscow and Skopje. By contrast, SK stated 
that it does not have, nor plans to put in place ILOs, as their tasks in the area of irregular migration 
are  partly  ensured  by  SK’s  network  of  police  attachés  which  have  a  presence  in  SK’s  foreign 
missions  abroad  (especially  in  third  countries  in  which  SK  has  a  security  interest).  SK’s  police 
attachés have the job of monitoring and analysing migration flows amongst other tasks.  

Beyond  2011,  several  Member  States  (DE,  EE,  IT,  LT,  NL,  AT,  PT,  FI,  SE)  are  planning  to 
implement  further  ILOs:  DE  in  Tunisia;  AT  in  Ukraine;  PT  in  the  Russian  Federation  (date  not 
specified);  SE  in  New  Delhi  and  Tehran  (also  in  2012);  and  FI  in  Abuja,  Nigeria  (in  2012).  EE 
plans  to  send  an  additional  temporary  or  permanent  ILO  to  a  third  country  considered  a  main 
irregular migration destination, but has so far been delayed by budgetary constraints. Through the 
ongoing project MELITA, MT is working towards setting up contact points in strategic countries of 
origin and transit. This project faced difficulties during 2011 due to the conflict in Libya since most 
of the discussions were organised in Tripoli. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
II.4.3 Schengen Governance 

At  EU  level,  the  European  Commission  proposed  to  strengthen  the  EU's  area  without  internal 
borders by enhancing the evaluation and monitoring of the application of the Schengen rules.41 In 
addition, in order to ensure a coordinated EU response to protect the functioning and the integrity of 
the Schengen Area, a mechanism was proposed for the temporary reintroduction of internal border 
controls  in  exceptional  circumstances.42  At  the  same  time,  it  was  proposed  to  launch  a  biannual 
debate  on  the  functioning  of  the  Schengen  area,  an  idea  endorsed  by  the  Council  in  December 
2011.43 In the Communication on Migration44 the Commission committed itself to issue guidelines 
to  ensure  a  coherent  implementation  and  interpretation  of  rules  governing  the  Schengen  area.  In 
consultations  with  Member  States'  experts,  the  issue  of  temporary  residence  permits  and  travel 
documents to non-EU citizens and police measures in the internal border zones were identified as 
areas in which such guidelines could represent an added value. 

In  December  2011,  Liechtenstein  became  the  latest  country  taking  part  in  the  Schengen  area 
bringing  the  amount  of  passport-free  travel  to  over  400  million  Europeans.  On  the  accession  of 
Romania  and  Bulgaria,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  its  legislative  resolution  approving  the 
accession of Romania and Bulgaria by a large majority on 8 June 2011 and the Justice and Home 
Affairs  Council  of  9  June  2011  concluded  that  both  Romania  and  Bulgaria  fulfil  the  so-called 
Schengen criteria. The necessary unanimity in Council for taking the decision to lift internal border 
control with these two Member States has, however, not yet been reached. 

Several  amendments  to  the  Schengen  Borders  Code  (SBC)  were  proposed.45  The  Commission 
believes they improve clarity and narrow the scope for divergent interpretations, while responding 
to  practical  problems  that  have  arisen.  The  aim  is  to  provide  for  an  explicit  legal  framework  for 
bilateral agreements related to joint border checks on road traffic. The proposed amendments also 
aim to strengthen further the protection of fundamental rights by requiring that training is provided 
on the protection of unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking, as well as providing third-
country  nationals  with  full  access  to  international  protection  in  accordance  with  EU  law  at  joint 
border  crossing  points,  operated  through  bilateral  agreements,  between  Member  States  and 
neighbouring  third  countries.  Negotiations  have  advanced  in  Autumn  2011  and  adoption  can  be 
expected in the course of 2012.   

The  Commission  adopted  a  recommendation  amending  the  common  ''Practical  Handbook  for 
Border Guards (Schengen Handbook)''46 to be used by Member States' competent authorities when 
carrying  out  the  border  control  of  persons,  taking  into  account  the  latest  developments.  This 
Practical  Handbook  for  Border  Guards  contains  common  guidelines,  best  practices  and 
recommendations  on  border  controls  in  order  to  assist  the  border  guards  of  Member  States  in 
implementing the common rules on border control of persons and has to be regularly updated. 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1342/2011  was  adopted.  It  enables  easier  border  crossing  for  people  in  the 
Kaliningrad area, as well as in a specific border area on the Polish side. The Kaliningrad region of 
the  Russian  Federation  with  a  population  of  almost  one  million  inhabitants  is  the  only  enclave 
within the EU. Treating the entire Kaliningrad area as a border area prevents an artificial division of 

41  
42  
43  
44  
45  
46  

COM(2011) 559 final 
COM(2011) 560 final 
The first report was published in May 2012 as COM(2012) 230 final. 
COM(2011) 248 final 
COM(2011) 118 final 
C (2006) 5186 final 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
that  region  and  will  enhance  economic  and  cultural  interchange.  At  the  same  time,  all  provisions 
that guarantee the security of the entire Schengen area remain valid. 

II.4.4 Agreements with third countries 

In  addition  to  the  signature  of  readmission  agreements  and  their  implementation  protocols  (see 
Section III.1.3), some Member States (EE, IT, LV, AT, RO, PT) 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  October  2011  and  signed  bilateral  cooperation  agreements  with  the 
Federal  Security  Services  of  the  Russian  Federation  in  August  2011  and  with  the  Ministry  of 
Interior  of  Georgia  in  December  2011,  with  the  main  purpose  of  exchanging  information.  EL 
organised  meetings  to  identify  focal  points  and  try  to  improve  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information with Turkey in the framework of the existing bilateral Readmission Protocol. PT signed 
a bilateral agreement with Timor to improve its internal security through technical cooperation (e.g. 
staff  training,  consultancy)  and  bilateral  cooperation  agreements  to  reinforce  border  controls 
through  the  introduction  of  new  technologies  (i.e.  PASSE  system)  with  Guinea,  Sao  Tome  and 
Principle, Cape Verde and Timor. RO concluded an agreement with Moldova on the establishment 
and operation of a Common Contact Centre in Galati (Romania). NO referred to an agreement with 
the Russian Federation in relation to local border traffic which is not yet in force. 

LT ratified the 2010 agreement with Belarus on travel of border residents, signed an agreement on 
activities  of  border  representatives  with  the  Russian  Federation  in  August  2011  and  continued  its 
work  as  part  of  the  LV-LT-Belarus  Cross-Border  Cooperation  Programme  and  LT-PL-Russian 
Federation  Cross-Border  Cooperation  Programme  to  maintain,  modernise  and  develop  the 
infrastructure  of  border  crossing  points  and  to  train  personnel.  LT  is  also  in  the  process  of 
negotiating bilateral agreements to combat organised crime with Serbia and with Georgia. Border 
guards  from  PL  and  Ukraine  intensified  their  cooperation  in  view  of  the  2012  European  Football 
Championship  and  prepared  a  Joint  Report  on  the  risks  of  irregular  migration  during  the  event, 
which  sets  out  the  measures  planned,  including  combined  border  checks  and  advance  passenger 
information arrangements.  

Several  other  forms  of  cooperation  with  third  countries  were  also  developed  and/or  continued  in 
2011.  Some  Member  States  referred  to  projects,  such  as  the  “Eastern  Partnership  -  Integrated 
Border  Management  Initiative”  (CZ,  LV),  two  capacity-building  projects  with  the  migration 
authorities  in  Ghana  (DK),  the  West  Sahel  Project  (ES)  and  “Support  to  Integrated  Border 
Management  System  in  the  South  Caucasus  (SCIBM)”  (LV).  LV  also  exchanged  experience  on 
second-line document control and transposition of EU legislation with Croatia, Belarus and Georgia 
within the framework of “Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (TAIEX).” Croatia also 
takes  part  in  a  quadrilateral  police  cooperation  centre  along  with  HU,  AT  and  SI.  FI  operated  a 
twinning  cooperation  project  with  Turkish  Border  Authorities  to  further  develop  its  risk 
management capacity in line with the EU’s Integrated Border Management principles. Next to these 
European  Commission  supported  projects,  projects  organised  by  IOM  were  also  listed,  such  as  a 
seminar on border control issues organised by IOM Moscow (LV) and on risk analysis, ethics and 
combating organised crime organised by IOM Kazakhstan (LV). Exchange visits and cooperation 
between  border  guards  (departments)  were  mentioned  by  LV  (in  cooperation  with  the  Russian 
Federation  and  Armenia),  IE  (with  UK),  and  PT  (with  Angola,  Cape  Verde,  Guinea-Bissau  and 
Mozambique).  The  latter  was  part  of  the  Technical-Police  Cooperation  Programme,  in  which  the 
Portuguese  Aliens  and  Borders  Service  (SEF)  provided  training  to  its  counterparts  on 
fingerprinting, secure documentation and for maritime border trainers in these Portuguese speaking 
countries.  In  connection  with  the  preparation  of  the  European  Football  Championship  in  PL  and 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
Ukraine  in  2012,  the  SK  Border  Guard  department  will  select  and  prepare  an  expert  document 
advisor  to  be  deployed  at  its  foreign  mission  in  Kiev  during  the  period  from  April  to  September 
2012. Also LV signed a cooperation agreement with the UNHCR and Regional Office for the Baltic 
and Nordic Countries on 12 January 2011 which is aimed at encouraging information exchange on 
irregular  migration.  The  agreement  also  gives  the  UNHCR  the  right  to  observe  the  Latvian  State 
Border  Guard's 
international  protection  and  action  of 
expulsion/return.  DE  and  PL  signed  a  declaration  of  intent  to  implement  a  pilot  project  on  “Joint 
German-Polish, mixed-staffed offices.” 

interaction  with 

those  seeking 

II.4.5 Use of modern technology 

At EU level, the Commission Communication 'Smart Borders – options and the way ahead'47 set out 
the main options for moving forward in this area. The future 'Smart Borders' initiative will consist 
of an Entry/Exit System (EES) to record the time, place of entry and the length of authorised short 
stay and a Registered Travellers Programme (RTP) allowing certain groups of frequent travellers to 
enter  the  EU  using  simplified  border  checks  at  automated  gates.  The  Commission  envisages 
presenting  legislative  proposals  in  the  course  of  2012  on  the  basis  of  an  extensive  impact 
assessment.  

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  onwards.  A  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper48  highlighted  the  main  actions  to  have  it 
operational by 2013. This document detailed the progress made up to October 2010, complementing 
the 2009 progress report. The Commission adopted also a proposal for a Regulation establishing the 
European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)49 which will streamline cooperation and enable 
systematic information exchange between Member States as well as with Frontex. 

The  Commission  funded  a  study  on  the  practical  implications  of  an  EU  Electronic  System  for 
Travel  Authorisation  (EU  ESTA).  In  line  with  the  results  of  this  study,  the  Communication  on 
Smart  Borders50  concluded  that  the  preparations  for  the  development  of  an  EU  ESTA  should  be 
discarded at this stage. 

At national level, most Members States (BE, CZ, DE, ES, EL, EE, FR, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, 
PT,  SI,  SK,  FI,  UK)  and  NO  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, CZ, DK, DE, ES, FR, LV, NL, AT, PT, FI, UK) introduced or further 
implemented  automated  border  checks  to  simplify  and  speed  up  border  crossings.  In  CZ,  the 
automated  border  control  system  ‘Easy  GO’  (eGate)  was  piloted  at  Prague  Ruzyně  international 
airport. DE tested state-of-the art document reading and document verification devices to verify the 
authenticity of documents on the basis of optical and digital features. In FR, the checks concerned 
specific  travellers  who  had  pre-registered  with  the  PARAFE  Automated  Fast-Track  Crossing  at 
External  Borders  programme  (Passage  Rapide  aux  Frontières  Extérieures),  and  in  FI  they 
concerned border checks for EU/EEA/CH citizens at Helsinki International Airport and Vaalimaa 

47  
48  
49  
50  

COM(2011) 680 final 
SEC(2011) 145 
COM(2011) 873 final 
COM(2011) 680 final 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
land border crossing point. NL reported on its maximum use of automated border control through 
its  ‘Innovation  of  Border  Management’  programme  (Programma  Vernieuwing  Grensmanagement 
(VGM))  and  the  UK  reported  that  it  uses  a  number  of  automated  fast-track  border  checks  (e-
Passport  gates,  IRIS)  and  is  developing  another  (Automated  Clearance  Service  plus).  The  NL 
system will eventually allow for the automated border crossing of EU nationals and will include the 
expansion  of  the  Registered  Travellers  Programme  (RTP).  In  addition,  ES,  LV  and  SE  made 
reference  to  the  EU’s  Automated  Border  Crossing  (ABC)  System  –  LV  participated  in  the 
workgroup of Frontex Agency on introduction of Automated Border Crossing (ABC) System and 
SE  looked  into  the  possibility  of  developing  E-gates  and/or  automated  border  control  (i.e.  ABC-
gates)  plus  questioned  the  added  value  of  introducing  ABC-gates.  NO  will  start  using  eGate 
passports in 2012 (this was funded by the EU External Borders Fund, to which NO contributes). In 
LU,  on  the  other  hand,  politicians  wonder  whether  an  automatic  control  system  at  airports  would 
provide added value, given the limited volume of their air traffic. 

In  addition  to  these  actions,  EE  set  up  an  arrangement  for  three  border-crossing  points  with  the 
Russian  Federation  -  an  electronic  booking  system  for  transport  vehicles  was  introduced  at  three 
Estonian border checkpoints (Narva, Luhamaa, Koidula) through which vehicle owners can book a 
border crossing time in advance (in order to solve the long queue problem). In relation to improving 
the effectiveness and ‘scrutiny’ of border checks, several Member States (BE, CZ, EE, ES, FR, IT, 
LV,  PL,  PT,  SE,  UK)  and  NO  described  newly  implemented  and  ongoing  measures.  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  (BE,  DK,  DE,  EE,  IT,  LV,  UK,  NO).  CZ,  DK,  ES  and  PT  further  implemented  the 
Passenger  Information  systems,  with  CZ  implementing  an  automated  system  for  receiving  and 
processing Advanced Passenger Information (API); DK fully implementing the POLKON system, 
allowing automatic checking of passenger and crew lists in national, SIS II and Interpol databases; 
ES allowing for passenger journeys by sea (i.e. between Morocco and Spain); and PT setting up the 
integral  operation  of  the  Automatic  Recognition  System  for  Passengers  Identified  by  Documents 
(RAPID)  at  all  national  air  border  posts.  NL’s  ‘Innovation  of  Border  Management’  programme 
mentioned above began to make use of pre-collected data on passengers and their luggage, which 
will complete its first phase 2012. The second phase will involve the setting up of an information 
system enabling different government agencies to store passenger data. Officials of the UK Border 
Agency  and  the  European  Commission  have  been  working  together  to  reach  an  agreed 
understanding of how the UK Government’s operation of the e-Borders system is compatible with 
EU law. 

FR and UK made reference to use of the EU False and Authentic Documents online tool (iFADO). 
FR continued to use this tool, whereas UK played a key role in the establishment of the EU FADO 
(False and Authentic Documents Online) database and its public version PRADO (Public Register 
of Authentic Documents Online).51 The control authorities’ version of the iFADO database has been 
made  available  to  staff  in  government  departments  and  technical  discussions  were  completed  in 
November 2011 to make it available to UK Police Officers over their intranet. 

As to the future, further discussions were held in IE regarding the progression of the Irish Border 
Information  System  (IBIS),  which  will  entail  all  information  collected  by  carriers  prior  to  travel 
being sent to an Irish Border Operations Centre where it will be screened against watch-lists. In NO, 
a  pilot  project  will  be  established  in  2012  which  will  provide  advanced  passenger  information 
(electronic passenger lists) to NO. 

51  

http://prado.consilium.europa.eu/  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  relation  to  improving  the  efficiency  of  border  checks,  EE  and  FI  Member  States  introduced 
mobile equipment for border checks – for instance, EE introduced mobile document control devices 
(‘Visotec  Mobile  100’)  to  carry  out  border  checks  when  there  is  no  static  control  equipment  and 
connection to databases. 

Regarding  information  systems,  several  Member  States  (CZ,  DK,  ES,  IT,  LV,  LT,  PL,  SK,  SE) 
prepared,  developed,  upgraded  or  interlinked  national  border  management  information  systems, 
often  making  links  to  relevant  upcoming  EU  systems,  such  as  EUROSUR,  and  large-scale 
information systems, such as the Registered Traveller Programme and the Entry/Exit System. For 
example, LV updated its State Border Guard IT systems to enable it to host the SIS.  

Several  Member  States  (BE,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  MT,  PL,  SI,  SK)  and  NO  also 
described the deployment of modern technological means to improve border surveillance. Several 
of these actions were carried out within the framework of the EUROSUR mechanism. For example, 
EE  led  the  PERSEUS  project  for  surveillance  of  Europe's  maritime  borders.  SK  undertook 
preparations to  introduce the new Schengen border  control standard through the  EUROSUR pilot 
project. SK was evaluated as one of the best prepared for the EUROSUR system, and was offered 
testing of this system. The prerequisite for the national implementation of EUROSUR system is the 
establishment of a national coordination centre, which SK is setting up. SI also reported that all the 
necessary measures for implementation of EUROSUR were in place. LT described the introduction 
of  surveillance  systems  (towers  with  (day/night/thermographic  camera)  surveillance  equipment, 
protective fences equipped with sensor cables and video surveillance tools; motion detectors). EE 
bought and installed wireless surveillance equipment, ‘Smartdec’, which helps to identify irregular 
border crossings between the border crossing points and in landscapes which are difficult to reach; 
ES  has  installed  a  communications  node;  IT  installed  radar  stations  for  coastal  surveillance  and 
purchased surveillance and control equipment; and, similarly to EE, LV, launched a "wireless data 
transfer  network"  to  facilitate  REIS  system  of  border  control,  acquired  portable  sensors  (land 
border)  and  floating  apparatus  (sea  border).  In  2012,  NO  plans  to  establish  the  National 
Coordination Centre for European Border Surveillance at the National Crime Investigation Service 
(Kripos/NCIS). 

II.4.6 Training of Border Guards 

At  EU  level,  the  amendment  of  the  Frontex  Regulation  contains  an  explicit  requirement  for  all 
border  guards  taking  part  in  operations  to  have  been  trained  in  fundamental  rights,  to  ensure  full 
respect  of  fundamental  rights  and  in  particular  the  principle  of  non-refoulement.  Furthermore  the 
Regulation  includes  a  new  possibility  for  the  Agency  to  implement  with  the  Member  States  an 
'Erasmus'-style  exchange  programme  for  border  guards.  The  practical  implementing  rules  will  be 
adopted by the Agency during 2012. In the framework of the implementation of the Common Core 
Curriculum  for  Basic  Level  Training  of  border  guards,  a  students'  exchange  programme  was 
initiated  in  2011.  Regular  training  organised  by  Frontex  for  the  members  of  the  Rapid  Border 
Interventions Teams (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. In the framework of the Schengen evaluation, training was provided to 
Schengen evaluation experts, as well as to leading experts by Frontex.  

At national level, many Member States (BG, CZ, DK, IE, EE, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, 
AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK) organised and delivered training to increase the skills and competences of 
their existing staff. Such training was provided in different formats, including courses, workshops, 
seminars,  road-shows,  online  interactive  training  and  training  on  the  job,  including  practical  and 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
theoretical components. Some (BG, IE, PT, RO, SK, UK) Member States also referred to Frontex 
training. 

In NL, the Border Security Training Centre (BSTC) was established to provide course programmes 
and training sessions in the area of border security to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, but also 
to  national  and  international  cooperating  organisations,  including  members  of  the  agency  of 
European  border  control  organisations  (Frontex),  staff  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalisation 
Service  (IND),  the  Government  Road  Transport  Agency  (RDW),  Police,  Customs,  and  the 
Netherlands  Forensic  Institute  (NFI).  HU  created  a  "comprehensive  further  education  system"  for 
Border  Police.  In  SK,  a  trainers´  network  was  created  at  selected  organisational  units  of  Border 
Police  Service  and  Aliens  Police  Service  (BBAP  PFP).  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, 
detection  of  stolen  vehicles,  search  and  rescue  missions  at  sea,  implementation  of  quality 
management systems, EU legislation, the use of new equipment and software and human rights. 

LT, SK and FI organised language training to 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,  airline  crew,  and  other  relevant  staff,  were 
also  involved.  For  example,  FI  organised  training  for  the  ground  crew  of  the  Nordavia  airline  in 
Arkhangelsk,  Russian  Federation,  and  the  ground  crew  of  Belavia  airline  in  Minsk,  Belarus.  FI 
organises training for staff whenever an airline opens a new route originating from a risk country. 
The  UK  National  Document  Fraud  Unit  (NDFU)  gave  specialist  support  and  advice  to  the  UK 
Border  Agency  Olympic  Project  on  training  for  volunteers  and  paid  staff,  as  well  as  technical 
guidance for the development of the accreditation cards for the Olympic and Paralympics Games.  

Many Member States (BE, BG, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, SE, 
UK)  and  NO  also  provided  training  to  personnel  responsible  for  external  border  controls  on 
international protection. Table 4 indicates the total number of border guards and number of border 
guards  who  received  training  on  asylum.  With  regard  to  the  categories  of  staff  trained,  several 
Member  States  (BE,  DK,  EE,  EL,  ES,  IT,  CY,  LT,  LU,  HU,  NL,  AT,  PL,  SK,  FI,  UK)  and  NO 
referred to the training of border officials and/or police officers. The content of the training varied, 
covering issues such as human rights (BG, EE, EL, CY, LT, NL, FI, UK), international protection 
(BG, EL, CY, HU, SK, UK), reception of asylum applicants (BG, LT, FI), international law (EE) 
and  diseases  (IT).  IT  referred  to  trainings  for,  for  example,  staff  of  Asylum  Applicants 
Accommodation Centres and medical and paramedical personnel of Local Health Centres. EE and 
IT both received funding from the European Return Fund (ERF). 

BG  organised  with  the  UNHCR  training  of  officers  guarding  the  state  border  (RDBP  Elhovo, 
Smolyan and Airports) entitled “Access to the territory and procedure for granting refugee status in 
Bulgaria and the application of the Dublin Regulation” with the participation of State Agency for 
Refugees  at  the  Council  of  Ministers  and  other  non-governmental  organizations  –  Bulgarian  Red 
Cross and Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. Likewise, SI referred to the involvement of the UNHCR 
who provided training to border guards related to access to international protection in cooperation 
with  the  Police  and  in  accordance  with  a  memorandum  of  cooperation  between  the  UNHCR  and 
Police.  PT  and  UK  also  mentioned  the  involvement  of  Frontex  and  UNHCR  in  delivering  the 
trainings.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
III.   REDUCING IRREGULAR MIGRATION AND TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS 

III.1  Reducing Irregular Migration 

At  EU  level,  the  Council  has  adopted  Conclusions  addressing  irregular  migration  on  11-12  April 
2011 and 9-10 June 2011. Moreover the Commission adopted Communications on 4 May and 24 
May  2011  which  include  priorities  for  reducing  irregular  migration.52  These  Council  Conclusions 
and  Commission  Communications  extensively  examined  the  situation  of  irregular  migration, 
including  composition  of  flows,  nature  and  scale  of  the  impact,  as  well  as  measures  and  best 
practices  undertaken  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States.  In  terms  of  information  provision,  the 
launched  EU  Immigration  Portal  also  describes  the  risks  related  to  irregular  migration,  such  as 
becoming  a  victim  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  of  further  exploitation  by  criminals  and 
smuggling of migrants.  

Table 5 provides an overview of the indicators used to measure irregular migration, namely refusals 
of entry, apprehensions and returns. On refusals, ES was by far the largest with 227 655 followed 
by  PL  (20  225).  Most  apprehensions  occurred  in  EL  (88  840),  followed  by  ES  (68  825),                   
FR (57 975), DE (56 345) and UK (54 175), whilst for returns to a third country these were mainly 
from UK (40 485), ES (20 325), DE (14 120) and FR (13 360). 

At national level, most Member States (BE, BG, DK, DE, IE, ES, FR, CY, IT, LV, LT, LU, HU, 
MT, AT, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI) described policies or actions aimed at preventing the risks of irregular 
migration.  Reducing  irregular  migration  was  explicitly  stated  as  a  policy  priority  in  BE,  DK,  FR, 
LV,  AT  and  FI,  with  LV,  SK,  FI  introducing  new  policies  related  to  this.  BG  updated  its  risk 
analysis  of  the  migration  processes  and  prognosis  for  changes  in  migratory  pressure.  AT 
restructured the tasks of the Aliens' Police in order to increase its efficiency. In LV, the reduction of 
irregular  migration  was  included  amongst  the  actions  outlined  in  the  Planned  Action  of  the  new 
Cabinet of Ministers and was announced as a priority of the new Minister of Interior for his term in 
office.  SK  released  a  National  Plan  of  Border  Control  Management  (2011-2014),  which  includes 
measures to prevent the risks of irregular migration. 

In its Government Programme, the new government in FI highlighted combating irregular migration 
as part of internal security and immigration policy. According to their Government Programme, the 
government will enhance the investigation and prevention of the use of irregular foreign workers. 
The  Labour  and  Mines  Inspectorate  in  LU  made  a  joint  declaration  with  the  Minister  of  Work, 
Employment  and  Health  of  FR  and  made  an  agreement  to  cooperate  with  PT’s  Authority  of 
Working  Conditions  (ACT)  in  order  to  strengthen  mutual  cooperation  with  these  Member  States 
regarding  the  control  of  transnational  secondment  of  workers  and  the  prevention  the  irregular 
employment of migrants.    

Six Member States (IE, ES, FR, CY, LT, SK) introduced changes to legislation aimed at preventing 
the risks of irregular migration. Legislative amendments brought in by ES, CY and LT were aimed 
at  preventing  irregular  entry  /  stay  in  the  EU  through  fraudulent  activity.  For  example,  in  ES  the 
new  Aliens  Act  Implementing  Regulation  (2011)  reinforced  sanctions  on  those  migrants  abusing 
legal  routes  into  the  EU,  e.g.  using  counterfeit  employment  contracts,  marriages  of  convenience, 
false  legal  representation  of  a  minor  and  fraudulent  registration  in  population  register,  and  LT 
adopted amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences in order to include persons providing 

52  

COM(2011)  248:  Communication  on  Migration;  COM(2011)  291  plus  SEC(2011)  620:  Annual  Report  on 
Immigration  and  Asylum  (2010);  and  COM(2011)  292/3:  Communication  on  ‘A  dialogue  for  migration, 
mobility and security with the Southern Mediterranean countries’. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
accommodation and persons providing false data for verification of letters of invitation to irregular 
migrants amongst the listed administrative offences. FR’s Law relating to Immigration, Integration 
and Nationality of 16 June 2011 brought in different measures: the maximum period of detention 
was  increased  from  32  to  45  days,  the  resources  available  to  the  government  departments  to  take 
action to prevent employment of undocumented foreigners were increased and ‘temporary waiting 
zones’ were created in case of unexpected inflows of migrants.  

In addition to the policy and legislative developments described above, several Member States (BE, 
CZ, DK, EE, IT, AT, LU, SK, FI, UK) and NO undertook specific actions to ensure that the risks of 
irregular migration are prevented. This included actions taken at national level (CZ, DK, EE, SK, 
FI, UK), e.g. in carrying out inspections and on-the-spot checks (CZ, EE, FI) and in third countries 
(BE, IT, NO). DK implemented a system for merging data from various public databases to carry 
out compliance controls on conditions linked to the granting of residence permits, for example, for 
family  reunification,  study,  etc.  following  legal  amendments  made  in  2010.  LU  built  a  new 
detention centre which began operation in August 2011. MT also continued its policy of detention 
for those migrants found to be illegally resident on the Member State territory. 

By contrast, SK introduced an ‘alternative to detention’ for  third-country migrants ordered to return 
which allows the migrant to regularly report his/her stay or to make a warranty deposit, as long as 
he/she demonstrates proof of accommodation and financial coverage of his/her stay. These changes 
are applicable from the entry into force of the new Act on Aliens on 1 January 2012 although the 
Act  was  adopted  on  21  October  2011.  At  local  level,  AT  and  UK  introduced  and  continued 
modalities  to  prevent  the  risks  of  irregular  migration:  AT  created  new  sections  for  ‘border  and 
aliens’ police matters within each Provincial Police Command and the UK continued to implement 
its Local Immigration Teams (first launched in 2008), which are aimed at increasing engagement of 
local  actors  on  local  immigration  issues  and  community  concerns,  with  a  focus  on  prevention  of 
irregular migration. AT also restructured the roles and responsibilities of the Aliens’ Police in order 
to increase its efficiency. 

Within countries of origin, BE carried out awareness-raising activities to inform potential migrants 
of the risks of migrating irregularly using media such as radio programmes and information leaflets. 
In 2011, projects were carried out in Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, 
Guinea  (Conakry),  the  Russian  Federation,  DR  Congo  and  Brazil,  as  well  as  Serbia,  Albania  and 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  IT  considered  readmission  agreements  with  third  countries  and 
preferential  entry  quotas  useful  in  preventing  the  risks  of  irregular  migration.  PL  and  NO  also 
reported that it takes a broad approach to preventing irregular migration through cooperation with 
third countries. 

III.1.1 Information Exchange53 and Training 

At  EU  level,  information  exchange  was  undertaken  in  a  variety  of  ways.  The  amended  Frontex 
Regulation provides for the possibility for the Agency to take over the ICONet.54 The promotion of 
the use of ICONet by ILOs is also included in the amendment of the ILO Regulation which came 
into force on 16 June 2011. Following the dissolution of CIREFI, Frontex took over the collection 
of relevant data related to irregular immigration. Through its Risk Analysis Network (FRAN), the 
Agency  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 

53  
54  

See also Section VI 
Council Decision 2005/267/EC of 16 March 2005 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
view  to  facilitating  better  situational  awareness  by  the  competent  national  authorities.55 
Furthermore, Frontex organised two 'tactical meetings' aimed at facilitating topical discussions on 
various  matters  related  to  irregular  immigration  which  constitute  a  common  concern  for  the 
Member States. Frontex was also involved in the training of border guards (see also Section II.4.6). 

At  national  level,  Member  States  described  a  variety  of  actions  taken  to  collect  and  exchange 
information on migratory routes involving smuggled, trafficked or otherwise irregular migrants and 
on trends and risks in (irregular) migratory flows. Most Member States and NO commented on the 
usefulness  of  information  exchange  with  /  through  international  organisations  and  agencies.  This 
concerned  cooperation  with  Frontex  (with  explicit  mentions  made  by  BE,  CZ,  DE,  EE,  FR,  CY, 
LV,  LT,  PL,  PT,  FI,  SE,  SI,  UK  and  NO),  e.g.  through  Frontex's  FRAN  (BE,  EE,  PL,  SK)  and 
ICONet (PL, PT); Europol (DE, EL, FR, CY, LT, AT, SE, SI, SK, UK); Interpol (EL, FR, LT, SE, 
SK); and the Intergovernmental Consultation on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (NO). The NL, 
together  with  FR,  IT  and  UK,  launched  the  third  stage  of  the  MTM  i-Map  project  which  will 
involve  participation  from  Europol,  Frontex,  IFAD  (International  Fund  for  Agricultural 
Development), Interpol, IOM, UNHCR, and UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). 
At  the  2011  meeting  of  the  G8,  FR  proposed  that  members  adopt  a  standard  definition  for  the 
common  analysis  of  irregular  immigration.  NL  implemented  the  proposals  of  the  Committee  on 
Operational  Cooperation  on  Internal  Security  (COSI)  in  relation  to  general  aviation  and  pleasure 
boating, which have the aim of improving information exchanges, cooperation and possibly, joint 
border controls.  

Several Member States (IE, EL, LV, HU, AT, PL, SK, UK) cooperated bilaterally to improve their 
knowledge  of  migratory  routes  and  flows.  AT  and  HU  (in  conjunction  with  Europol)  launched 
common analysis of smuggling routes through the Balkans and identified three main routes: through 
Turkey  to  EL  via  land;  through  EL  to  IT  via  sea;  and  through  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia,  Serbia  and  HU  to  AT.  As  a  result  of  the  research,  AT  and  HU  have  increased 
operational cooperation in this area. PL also exchanged information with HU. IE’s Garda (Police) 
and  the  UK’s  Serious  Organised  Crime  Agency  (SOCA)  further  negotiated  a  planned  a 
Memorandum of Understanding which would support the detection, prevention and investigation of 
human  trafficking  and  other  crimes.  The  Baltic  Sea  Region  countries  (EE,  LV,  LT,  SE,  FI) 
cooperate multilaterally on a regular basis in relation to (irregular) migration, e.g. through the “Task 
Force on Organized Crime” project. FI reported that it increased its information-exchange activities 
with other Baltic States. SE cooperated with other Nordic countries. SK reported on the use of the 
Daily Statistics Reports (DSR) and Monthly Statistics Reports (MSR) with HU, PL, and Ukraine.   

Some  Member  States  (BE,  DE,  LT,  PL,  FI)  reported  on  information  exchange  between  different 
national  departments  and  agencies  in  relation  to  irregular  migration  routes,  trends  and  risks.  BE 
launched  a  number  of  meetings  of  the  inter-departmental  Forum  for  Information  Exchange  and 
Consultation  with  Regard  to  Irregular  Immigration  with  brings  together  the  Immigration  Office, 
Foreign Affairs and the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, as well as the 
Social  Inspection  Services  and  the  Federal  Police  with  a  view  to  elaborating  preventive  and 
operational  measures.  In  FI,  the  LAMA  working  group  led  by  the  National  Police  Board  and 
involving  a  number  of  relevant  ministries  and  agencies  met  to  discuss  monitoring  data  on  illegal 
entry and to recommend action. In LT, the permanent working group composed of representatives 
from  Police,  Customs,  State  Border  Guard  Service  and  Financial  Crime  Investigation  Service 
prepared an assessment on irregular migration and smuggling of persons. In DE, the Joint Centre 

55  

See  http://www.frontex.europa.eu/situation_at_the_external_border/art28.html  for  example  of  such  an 
assessment. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for  Illegal  Migration  Analysis  and  Policy  (GASIM)  makes  use  of  an  intensive  exchange  of 
information between a number of different authorities. 

Several Member States (BE, CZ, DE, EL, ES, LV, LT, PL, PT, UK) and NO reported on the role of 
specific  governmental  research  departments.  In  CZ,  the  Risk  Analysis  Department  of  the  Alien 
Police  Service  produces  reports  based  on  data  from  a  number  of  sources  and  disseminated  to 
relevant institutions, regional police directorates and police departments, with a view to coming up 
with a practical response. CZ also has an Analytical Centre for Border Protection and Migration, an 
interdepartmental body functioning under the auspices of the Ministry of the Interior which collects 
information  and  statistical  data,  produces  reports  and  strategic  documents  and  proposes  practical 
measures as well as legislative changes. ES has two different agencies monitoring information on 
irregular  migration  routes  via  land  and  via  sea  respectively  and  EL  established  an  Operational 
Centre  in  September  2011  within  the  Aliens  Directorate  of  the  Hellenic  Police  headquarters  to 
coordinate cooperation against irregular migration and enhance situational awareness at the external 
land, sea and air borders. EL also plans to establish a national co-ordination centre in the near future 
as  an  interdisciplinary  executive  agency  of  the  Ministry  of  Citizen  Protection.  LV’s  State  Border 
Guard  analytical  division  summarises  information  data  collected  nationally  and  from  Frontex  in 
order  to  produce  "tactical  warnings"  and  monthly  analytical  reports  on  trends  and  the  methods 
employed by criminal networks to smuggle and trafficking humans into the  country. PL’s Border 
Guard  developed  and  made  used  of  a  Common  Integrated  Risk  Analysis  Model  (CIRAM)  for 
preventing irregular migration. PT's SEF constituted a Risk Analysis Unit (RAU), which analyses 
information related to migratory phenomena and trafficking in human beings at borders, along with 
information  communicated  by  the  ILOs  and  the  intelligence  services  of  third  countries,  by  Police 
and Customs Cooperation Centres and the results of inspections conducted in the national territory 
and all the information obtained at border posts.  

FR, NL and SK reported on cooperation with third countries in relation to developing information 
on  migratory  routes  or  flows.  FR’s  Strategic  Analysis  Unit  of  the  Border  Police  conducted  five 
exploratory  missions  -  to  Egypt,  Kosovo,  Algeria,  Ukraine,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  -  aimed  at 
further  understanding  irregular  migratory  flows  from  these  countries.  NL  implemented  the  Silk 
Route  Project,  which  is  aimed  at  promoting  post-crisis  development  in  specific  countries,  and 
facilitated  dialogue  with  participating  third  countries  in  relation  to  irregular  migration.  SK 
implemented  the  EU-funded  Building  of  Migration  Partnership  (BMP)  project,  which  focuses  on 
the  link  between  development  and  migration  in  Eastern  and  South-Eastern  EU  neighbouring 
countries. SK also cooperated with Moldova in a project aimed at enhancing Moldova’s capacity to 
prevent irregular migration.  

Some  Member  States  (EL,  FR,  CY,  PL,  PT,  UK)  reported  specifically  on  how  they  make  use  of 
information  provided  through  their  network  of  liaison  officers.  For  example,  in  FR,  the  Border 
Police  monitors  operation  of  the  network  of  liaison  offices  and  security  advisers,  and  draws  up 
monthly activity reports. 

Some  Member  States  (EE,  MT,  FI,  SK)  and  NO  collected  qualitative  information  on  migratory 
routes and inflows. EE reported that it interviews all detected irregular migrants (both overstayers 
and those entering illegally) about their migratory route and whether or not they used a ‘facilitator’. 
Similarly, NO’s Police Immigration Service collects information from persons applying for asylum 
on  their  migration  routes,  modes  of  transportation,  assistance  from  smugglers,  use  of  travel  and 
identity documents, etc. The FI National Police Board consults with a network of experts on illegal 
entry, informing decision-making on measures taken at local level and staff training needs and SK 
utilises information collected from informers and information held in criminal files. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
Also,  in  relation  to  the  development  of  information  on  irregular  migration  routes  and  flows,  IT 
reported that, in light of continuing developments in North Africa it paid special “priority attention” 
to  the  analysis  of  migratory  flows  from  Libya  and  Tunisia.  Similarly,  CY  reported  that  it  had 
gathered  information  and  intelligence  regarding  the  routes  and  modus  operandi  followed  by 
irregular migrants or by members of smuggling or human trafficking networks, following the Arab 
Spring. NL proposed an EU ‘Swift Action Teams’ (SAT) pilot project to prevent possibly irregular 
migrants from travelling by plane to the EU. 

Most Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, IE, EL, ES, EE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PT, SI, 
SK, FI, SE, UK) and NO reported that they had implemented training. IT, AT specifically reported 
that this represented an increase from previous years. In DK, peer-to-peer training was carried out 
by  the  Danish  National  Police  to  improve  capacity  to  carry  out  targeted  training  of  police 
employees in the Danish Police Districts, to upgrade their skills to address issues of illegal stay. EL 
reported that they completed the creation of a ‘trainers’ pool’. BE, EE and LV carried out training 
aimed at improving official’s skills in interacting with (irregular) migrants, refugees, and returnees. 
EE  implemented  three  projects  –  one  of  these  “Raising  the  capability  of  officials  dealing  with 
returnees  returning  to  third  countries”  looked  at  the  cultural  differences  and  psychological 
behaviour of migrants and at best practise.  

In relation to detecting and preventing irregular migration, four Member States (CZ, LT, SK, SE) 
trained  officials,  such  as  consular  staff,  Immigration  Liaison  Officers  (ILOs),  border  guards  and 
customs  officials,  on  how  to  detect  forged  or  false  documents.  In  NL,  labour  inspectors  received 
training in how to recognise the signs  of potential labour exploitation. Some Member States (EL, 
CY, MT, SK) were supported in their training activities by Frontex. In SK, Frontex trained border 
police in statistical methods of risk analysis and languages (e.g. English). ES organised courses on 
irregular migration for senior police officers from Morocco, Mali, Guinea, Nigeria, the Gambia and 
Ghana provided by the Spanish National Police. 

In relation to human trafficking, IE delivered a training course on "Tackling Trafficking in Human 
Beings:  Prevention,  Protection  and  Prosecution"  to  90  members  of  the  national  police  as  well  as 
members  of  police  forces  from  HU,  RO  and  UK.  IE  also  delivered  awareness  raising  training  on 
human trafficking to 3 196 trainee police officers; 42 members of Irish Garda Reserve (police), 96 
Immigration Officers; 192 Ethnic Liaison Officers and 80 Senior Investigating Officers. In CY, the 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  considered  training  its  embassy/consular  staff  on  the  issue  of  human 
trafficking,  especially  its  staff  in  countries  which  are  considered  countries  of  origin/transit  of 
trafficked persons. 

In addition, FI increased the number of basic courses in the area of migration at the Police Training 
College; SE began developing an interactive online training course on issues related to the Swedish 
Alien’s Act and relevant EU legislation for the Swedish Police, Customs and Coast Guard; and the 
UK Border Agency chaired the EU Working Group on Mobile ID devices for immigration and is 
developing a reference library of good practice guides and advice.56  

Eight Member States (BE, CZ, IE, ES, IT, CY, LT, UK) reported on the development of equipment 
support in relation to combating irregular migration. Computer software was developed in BE - a 
central  database  concerning  all  aspects  of  return  was  implemented  in  order  to  streamline  the 
national strategic approach on return. Two Member States (LT, UK) updated their hardware – e.g. 
with  fingerprint  readers  and  capture  data  and  CZ  equipped  consular  staff  and  ILOs  with  basic 

56  

Available at www.e-mobidig.eu 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
technical equipment (magnifying glass, UV lamp, etc). BE and ES supported third countries in their 
actions  to  prevent  outward  irregular  migration  by  providing  technical  equipment:  ES  provided 
computer equipment for migration control to Mali, Guinea and the Gambia and BE sent hardware 
and  information  (e.g.  electronic  information  on  fingerprints  to  facilitate  the  identification  of 
irregular  migrants)  to  Morocco.  IE  and  UK  also  agreed  to  strengthen  their  Common  Travel  Area 
(CTA) by enhancing electronic border systems with a view to combating abuse of the system.  

With  regard  to  future  actions,  ES  plans  in  2012  to  deliver  online  training  on  border  control 
(including  the  detection  of  false  documents)  for  its  National  Police  Force  following  a  review. 
Similarly, SK are planning to carry out intensive training on  the detection of false and forged travel 
documents, visas, ID cards, residence permits, motor vehicle documents, etc. for the national border 
police, to be held at least once a month. NO is planning to increase its staff at the Storskog border 
control  post  near  to  the  Russian  Federation  in  the  North  East  of  NO,  following  the  signing  of  an 
agreement with the Russian Federation (signed 2010, but not yet in force). Also, further steps were 
taken to draft legislation on borders – this will be based on the conclusions of a White Paper (NOU 
2009:20, "New Border Act: The police's border surveillance and entry and exit control") published 
in 2009. It is expected the Borders Act will be adopted in 2012-13.  

III.1.2 Cooperating with (third) countries 

At EU level, important policy progresses were made under the Global Approach to Migration and 
Mobility and the Eastern Partnership57 to improve the cooperation with third countries of origin and 
transit  with  the  aim  to  control  irregular  migration.  Remarkable  developments  were  registered  in 
relation  to  Southern  Mediterranean  countries  and  to  Turkey.  In  relation  with  the  former,  the 
European Council in June 2011 adopted conclusions accepting the idea, proposed by the European 
Commission,  to  offer  to  Southern  Mediterranean  countries  (first  to  Tunisia,  Morocco  and  Egypt), 
tailor-made  Dialogues  on  migration,  mobility  and  security  leading  towards  the  establishment  of 
Mobility Partnerships. In relation with the latter, the Justice and Home Affairs Council in February 
2011  adopted  conclusions  approving  the  text  of  the  readmission  agreement  negotiated  by  the 
European Commission with Turkish authorities, encouraging Turkish authorities to cooperate in the 
prevention of irregular migration and to fulfil the existing obligations on readmission, inviting the 
Member States to further approximate their modalities of implementation of the Visa Code towards 
Turkish visa applicants, and taking notice of the intention of the Commission to launch a Dialogue 
on visa, mobility and migration.  

Priority  also  continued  to  be  given  to  neighbouring  countries,  focussing  on  areas  such  as  border 
management, document security, readmission and reintegration or trafficking in human beings. In 
this context, short-term technical assistance continued to be provided, mainly through the MIEUX 
facility58  (with  around  15  requests  for  assistance  processed  during  2011),  while  several  other 
projects  have  been  launched  (in  Libya,  Central  Asian  Republics  –  Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyzstan, 
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and Cape Verde). Support has been provided to help third 
countries  to  manage  mixed  flows  of  irregular  migrants  and  refugees/asylum  seekers,  notably 
through projects to support the development of Regional Protection Programmes in Eastern Europe 
(Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine), Northeast Africa (Egypt, Libya and Tunisia), Great Lakes Region 
(Tanzania) and Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Kenya and Yemen).   

57  
58  

COM(2011) 564 final 
http://www.icmpd.org/MIEUX.1672.0.html 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
At national level, several Member States (IE, ES, HU, IT, LV, LU, AT, PL, SE and UK) and NO 
referred  to  specific  co-operation  with  countries  of  origin  and  /  or  countries  of  transit  to  deter  or 
prevent  irregular  migration.  AT  cooperated  with  both  HU  and  Serbia  in  combating  human 
smuggling, and with Moldova and Bosnia Herzegovina, on the issue of irregular migration. AT also 
took part in the Convention on Police Cooperation in Southeast Europe. In October 2011, the AT, 
HU  and  Serbian  Ministries  of  Interior  signed  a  trilateral  Joint  Declaration  on  joint  actions  and 
cooperation measures. 

ES developed an Agreement with the Republic of Cameroon in combating criminality in relation to 
terrorism,  organised  crime  and  irregular  migration.  IT  holds  an  agreement  with  Tunisia  to  fight 
against irregular migration, which commits the Tunisian Police Authorities to intensify controls on 
departures,  and  to  accept  direct  readmission  of  Tunisians  arriving  irregularly  in  IT.  LT  has  a  re-
admission  agreement  with  Kazakhstan  and  coordinates  agreements  with  Serbia  and  Georgia  on 
criminality which includes prevention of irregular migration and human trafficking. LU concluded 
its CAMPO59 project in 2011, which promoted and encouraged legal mobility between Cape Verde 
and  the  EU  by  providing  information  on  legal  migration  channels.  The  project  also  facilitated 
reintegration of returning emigrants into the Cape Verdean labour market. PL refers to a number of 
concrete  bilateral  projects  set  up  to  reduce  irregular  migration  to  and  through  its  territory.  These 
include  capacity  building  projects  with  Moldova  and  Georgia,  and  support  to  the  reintegration  of 
migrants  returning  to  Georgia.  SE  and  NO  highlighted  policies  in  relation  to  liaison  officers;  for 
example,  a  NO  liaison  officer  in  Bangkok  takes  part  in  Immigration  and  Customs  Enforcement 
(ICE), working with Thai and international partners to prevent irregular migration, trafficking and 
smuggling.  

Many Member States (BE, CZ, IE, EE, HU, LV, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI, UK) identified specific 
concrete  actions  taken  to  pursue  policies  of  cooperation  with  countries  of  origin  and  of  transit  in 
order to deter or prevent irregular migration. These included the further development of the ‘Forum 
Salzburg’  Group,  launched  in  2010,  which  resulted  in  the  creation  of  the  ‘Police-Equal-
Performance-Project’  in  relation  to  law  enforcement  cooperation  in  Southeast  Europe  (AT),  and 
setting up visa processing offices in third countries (IE reported offices now in Abuja, Abu Dhabi, 
Beijing, London, Moscow and New Delhi). CZ, as one of the leading states of the Prague Process, 
actively promoted  enhanced cooperation with EU neighbouring states on the East  and South-East 
borders  with  regard  to  all  migration  relevant  issues,  in  particular  the  fight  against  irregular 
migration. EE held regular meetings with the Russian Federation and Eastern Partnership countries. 
As  part  of  the  LV-Russian  Agreement  on  cooperation  in  combating  irregular  migration,  LV 
describes an exchange of experience between the LV State Border Guard and the Russian Federal 
Service in relation to Detention Centres in the Russian Federation (Pskov) and in LV (Daugavpils). 
Operation KORDON 2011 also resulted in co-operation between LV and the Pskov Oblast Board of 
the Russian Federal Border Guard Service. NL reported that the last stage of its capacity building 
project,  ‘Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Competence  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  and 
Naturalisation, Liberia’ was completed. PL has reported cooperation activities between its Border 
Guard and Ukraine, both in the context of the EURO 2012 European Football Championship finals, 
and  in  the  realisation  of  the  readmission  agreement  between  EU  and  Ukraine.  The  PL  Border 
Control Office also met with experts from Vietnam in the context of a seminar on ‘Strengthening 
the  capacities  of  the  Vietnamese  immigration  service  in  combating  illegal  migration’,  and  held 
meetings with diplomatic representatives of third-countries lacking diplomatic representation in the 
territory  of  Poland  (Burundi,  Sierra  Leone,  Somalia,  Guinea  Bissau,  Cameron).  Official 

59   

http://www.campo.com.cv/;  CAMPO:  for  greater  mobility  of  skills  between  Cape  Verde  and  the  EU, 
http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/fr/node/1846  

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consultations were also prepared with diplomatic representatives of Afghanistan, Congo, Pakistan, 
Nigeria and Iraq. 

CZ, DE, HU and PT explicitly referred to their participation, along with other Member States, in the 
Poznan Ministerial Conference "Building  Migration Partnerships," within the scope of the Prague 
Process.  PT  gave  several  examples  of  concrete  actions  for  cooperation  with  third  countries, 
including  the  ITINERIS  Project,  providing  protection  against  the  exploitation  of  the  rights  of 
migrants from Brazil to EU Member States, and promoted by means of a partnership between PT, 
ES,  Brazil  and  ICMPD  and  focuses  on  protecting  rights  of  migrant  workers  against  human 
trafficking  and  exploitation.  PT  also  seconded  a  staff  member  for  a  period  of  18  months  in 
Mozambique  to  manage  the  project  "Capacity  building  for  border  management"  which  aims  to 
combat irregular migration along border between Tanzania, Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia. FI 
continued to participate in a border security training project in Kazakhstan in Central Asia, and has 
launched a twinning project in Turkey.  

SK  undertook  operative  and  inspection  visits  to  selected  foreign  missions,  including  India  and 
Pakistan,  to  allow  a  direct  exchange  of  information  with  regard  to  the  analysis  of  the  risk  of 
irregular migration. UK outlined a range of concrete actions in relation to partnership working with 
countries  of  origin,  including  China  (a  capacity  building  project,  helping  provincial  Chinese 
authorities  with  migration  flow,  risk  profiling,  and  document  fraud  detection).  In  relation  to 
partnership working with countries of transit, UK undertook concrete actions in Turkey (in relation 
to training and capacity building on border control, document fraud detection, the development of 
reception and detention centres and best practice in countering "nationality shopping"; which will 
be intensified in 2012); and in the Ukraine (sharing expertise on border management issues, with a 
particular emphasis on preparations for the Olympics Games in 2012, which resulted in signing of a 
declaration of intention to cooperate on border and migration management). UK also referred to its 
active participation in the Budapest Process, and in the IGC Workshop on Protection in the Region, 
focussing  on  the  protracted  refugee  situation  in  the  Horn  of  Africa.  Within  the  framework  of 
Budapest Forum, HU has reported that it leads the initiative providing assistance to the preparations 
of the Western Balkans to EU integration in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. 

In relation to future cooperation activities to deter or prevent irregular migration, CZ highlighted its 
intention  to  launch  a  pilot  project  in  2012,  focussing  on  the  exchange  of  analytical  methods  for 
detecting irregular migration channels and exchanging best practices on combating organised crime 
networks  involved  in  smuggling  of  migrants  and  trafficking  in  human  beings.  The  project  will 
promote 
the 
implementation  of  international  standards  regarding  the  security  of  travel  documents,  visas  and 
other relevant  documents. PL and SE will implement a twinning project to support the Armenian 
State Migration Service in strengthening migration management.   

the  development  of  Integrated  Border  Management  model  and  facilitate 

III.1.3 Readmission Agreements 

At EU level, the Commission published a comprehensive evaluation of the EU readmission policy60 
with  15  recommendations  for  further  improvement.  Amongst  other  measures,  the  Commission 
underlined  the  necessity  of  introducing  provisions  that  commit  to  respecting  fundamental  rights, 
especially  in  consideration  of  third  countries  which  are  not  party  to  the  relevant  international 
conventions. In case of persistent human rights violations in a third country, the Commission would 
be  in  favour  of  a  possibility  of  suspending  the  agreement.  Also,  the  Commission  announced  its 

60  

COM(2011) 76 final 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
intention of launching a pilot project aimed at monitoring the wellbeing of persons after they have 
been readmitted to a third country, with a view to establishing a so called “post-return monitoring 
mechanism.”  The  evaluation  was  followed  by  the  Council  conclusions  adopted  in  June  2011 
defining the EU strategy on readmission.61 

The EU agreement with Georgia entered into force on 1 March 2011. Negotiations on readmission 
agreements with Turkey and Cape Verde were finalised at the level of negotiators. For Turkey the 
outcome was endorsed by the Council; for Cape Verde consultations with the Member States were 
also accomplished. Three mandates to negotiate readmission agreements with Belarus, Armenia and 
Azerbaijan were adopted by the Council following the respective Commission proposals. 

The  Commission  continued  its  consultations  with  the  Member  States  on  the  EU  readmission 
negotiations  and  agreements.  In  its  task  to  monitor  the  application  of  the  EU  readmission 
agreements  in  force,  the  Commission  co-organised  numerous  meetings  of  Joint  Readmission 
Committees (in particular with the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Moldova, Albania, Serbia, former 
Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  and  Georgia).  The  proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  an 
Asylum and Migration Fund62 contains provisions proposing support for the cooperation with third 
countries  on  the  implementation  of  readmission  agreements,  mobility  partnerships  and  regional 
protection  programmes.  Based  on  the  experience  with  the  crisis  in  the  Mediterranean,  it  also 
foresees  an  emergency  assistance  mechanism  able  to  respond  quickly  to  different  aspects  of 
migratory pressure in Member States and third countries. 

At  national  level,  Member  States  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. The entry into force, on 1st March 2011, of the EU’s readmission agreement with 
Georgia63 was reported by CZ, EL and NL. As NO is not an EU Member State, it can only enter 
into bilateral readmission agreements with third countries. However, NO benefits from a clause in 
EU  readmission  agreements  that  encourages  signatory  countries  to  also  conclude  readmission 
agreements  with  Norway  in  the  same  terms.  NO  also  maintains  regular  communication  with  the 
European Commission in relation to readmission agreements.  

In  order  to  make  the  EU  readmission  effective,  the  following  Member  States  reported  on  signing 
implementing  protocols  with  the  following  third  countries:  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  (AT), 
Montenegro (CZ), Moldova (CZ, MT), Russian Federation (CZ, EE, LU, HU, PL, AT) and Serbia 
(EE, AT, RO). Bilateral protocol agreements between Moldova and three Member States (LT, HU, 
MT) entered into force, as did the implementing protocol agreements between NL and the Russian 
Federation, MT and Albania, and HU and Albania and HU and Serbia. Some Member States (BE, 
CZ,  LT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  FI)  also  negotiated  EU  implementing  protocols  with  the  following  third 
countries:  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  (BE,  CZ,  LT);  Russian  Federation  (PT);  Serbia  (PT,  SK); 
Ukraine  (BE,  CZ,  PL);  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  (LT)  and  Moldova  (PL). 
Implementing  protocol  agreements  are  also  being  planned  for  beyond  2011  with  Albania  (CZ); 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  (EL,  ES,  HU,  SK);  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  (EL,  SK); 
Georgia (CZ, LT, HU, PL, SK); Montenegro (ES, SK); Moldova (EL, CY); Pakistan (EL), Russian 
Federation  (EL,  LT,  FI);  Serbia  (EL,  ES,  CY,  PL);  and  Ukraine  (SK).  Negotiations  on 
implementing protocol between CZ and Serbia closed in September 2011. 

61  
62  
63  

3096th Justice and Home Affairs Council, Luxembourg, 9 and 10 June 2011 
COM(2011) 751 final 
All EU Member States, except DK and IE, are signatories to this agreement. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Several Member States (BE, BG, CZ, EL, EE, IT, CY, LV, LU, PL, SK, FI, UK) and NO confirmed 
that  readmission  agreements  add  value  –  notably  because  they  increase  the  efficiency  of  return 
policies (BG, CZ, LV, PL, NO), may incentivise migrants to return voluntarily (NO) or discourage 
persons  to  migrate  irregularly  to  a  Member  State  (EL)  in  cases  where  their  country  of  origin  has 
signed  an  agreement.  BE,  UK  and  NO  reported  that  the  readmission  agreements  are  useful 
diplomatic  tools  that  demonstrate  cooperation  between  a  Member  State  and  a  third  country  (BE, 
NO) and intensify cooperation on returns (UK) and LV noted the value of readmission agreements 
in enabling third countries to gather information on the number of nationals who have been forcibly 
returned from LV due to irregular stay. In relation to particular third countries, BE reported that it 
has found readmission agreements with Balkan countries particularly useful and EE commented on 
the  importance  of  such  agreements  with  the  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine,  Georgia  and  Moldova. 
CY  noted  the  usefulness  of  EU  readmission  agreements  in  encouraging  the  cooperation  and 
collaboration of third countries that are reluctant to negotiate such agreements on a bilateral level – 
particularly for smaller Member States that have a limited negotiating capacity. 

ES  and  AT  commented,  however,  that,  while  theoretically  readmission  agreements  speed  up 
requests  to  third  countries  and  access  to  documentation,  the  quality  and  speed  of  readmissions 
depend  on  implementation  -  i.e.  on  the  willingness  of  the  country  of  destination  to  cooperate. 
Similarly, PT described constraints related to readmission agreements. It stated that the process for 
implementing some bilateral agreements can be overly long and inefficient.  

In addition to EU readmission agreements, several Member States (BE, CZ, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, 
AT,  RO,  SE,  FI)  and  NO  signed  bilateral  readmission  agreements  with  the  following  third 
countries:  Belarus  (CZ);  Kosovo  (BE,  CZ,  LU,  HU,  NL,  AT,  FI,  SI,  SE,  NO);  Kazakhstan  (LV, 
LT); Tanzania and Ukraine (NO); and a bilateral agreement with Switzerland and Armenia entered 
into  force  in  CZ.  SK  concluded  bilateral  agreements  with  Switzerland  and  Vietnam.  LT  drafted 
texts  for  readmission  agreements  with  Kosovo.  AT’s  agreement  with  Kosovo  was  aimed  at 
supporting assessment of citizenship and return; facilitating transit and transfer modalities; and the 
possible  issuance  of  travel  documents/substitutes.  BE  negotiated  and  CZ  planned  bilateral 
readmission  agreements  with  Kazakhstan.  IT  signed  a  bilateral  agreement  with  Tunisia  with  the 
purpose of strengthening controls preventing new departures of irregular migrants, facilitating the 
rapid  readmission  of  irregular  migrants  returning  from  IT  and  providing  training  support  and 
resources.  EL  is  in  the  process  of  negotiating  bilateral  agreements  with  Indonesia,  Bangladesh, 
Kazakhstan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria and maintains its efforts for enhancing cooperation with 
Turkey in implementing the bilateral Greek-Turkish Readmission Protocol signed in 2002.  

III.1.4 Return 

At EU level, infringements procedures (against BE, LT, SE, NL, PL) have been launched for non-
communication  of  national  measures  transposing  the  Return  Directive.64  The  Commission 
organised  three  Contact  Committee  meetings  in  which  Member  States  were  encouraged  to  enter 
alerts related to entry bans in the Schengen Information System (SIS) in order to give full effect to 
the  European  dimension  of  entry  bans  issued  in  accordance  with  the  Return  Directive.  Three 
comparative  studies  relating  to  the  situation  of  minors  in  return  procedures65,  to  forced  return 

64  

65   

Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008. As of 17 April 2012, Full transposition was notified by AT, BE, 
BG,  CZ, DK, EE, FI,  FR,  EL, HU,  LU,  MT,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK,  ES,  IT, LV,  CY, DE, NL plus  Liechtenstein, 
Norway and Switzerland; Partial transposition by LT; and no transposition so far by PL and Iceland. DK, IE 
and UK did not participate in the adoption of this Directive. 
http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/63-projects/261-return-of-children.html 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
monitoring66  and  on  reintegration  of  returnees  were  finalised.  Two  comparative  studies  on  the 
correct  transposition  of  the  Return  Directive  by  Member  States  and  on  the  situation  of  non-
removable returnees were launched. 

The  ECJ  delivered  two  judgements67  in  which  it  clarified  the  extent  to  which  national  law 
provisions criminalising irregular stay are compatible with the Return Directive. The Court found 
that these rules preclude national law from imposing a prison term on an irregularly staying third-
country  national  who  does  not  comply  with  an  order  to  leave  the  national  territory  or  during  the 
return procedure. However, the Court specified that such prison sentences could be applied to third-
country  nationals  to  whom  the  return  procedure  has  been  applied  and  staying  irregularly  with  no 
justified grounds for non-return.  

The  Commission  has  encouraged  Member  States  to  make  consistent  use  of  the  European  Return 
Fund  encouraging  innovative  measures  for  voluntary  return  or  departure,  which  has  become  the 
preferred  option  of  return,  in  line  with  the  Return  Directive.  Those  measures  are  eligible  for  co-
funding up to 75% under the priority 3 of the Strategic Guidelines for the European Return Fund. 
Under the national Return Fund Annual Programmes, more than half of the total funds programmed 
(excluding technical assistance) are related to voluntary return. The European Return Fund, under 
its  strategic  priority  to  support  specific  innovative  tools  for  return  management,  also  supports 
actions  and  modes  of  cooperation  with  consular  and/or  immigration  services,  including  projects 
which test new working methods to speed up the process of documenting returnees in cooperation 
with the consular authorities and immigration services of third countries. Looking to the future, the 
aforementioned  proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  an  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund  would 
further support fair and effective return management with emphasis on voluntary return, promote a 
more strategic focus on EU standards through implementation of actions linked to the requirements 
of the EU acquis on return and through co-operation with other Member States. 

Table  5  in  the  Statistical  Annex  provides  a  provisional  overview  of  the  number  of  third-country 
nationals ordered to leave and returned, with some data also on the breakdown between forced and 
voluntary  returns.  Of  the  data  available,  most  forced  return  measures  were  implemented  by  FR        
(12 990), IT (12 180, first semester 2011) and EL (11 535). The number of third-country nationals 
returned  through  an  Assisted  Voluntary  Return  Programme  were  highest  in  ES  (6  770)  and  BE          
(3 255). 

At national level, nine Member States (DE, EL, FR, LV, LT, LU, NL, AT, SK) reported that they 
had completed the transposition of the Return Directive. Following transposition, LV began to enter 
information on expulsions into the Schengen Information  System (SIS) and in reports to Frontex. 
DK,  which  did  not  take  part  in  the  adoption  of  the  Return  Directive,  reported  that  they  had 
incorporated EU legislation on reciprocal recognition of decisions on return into their legislation.  

Some  Member  States  (EE,  EL,  ES,  IT,  SK)  provided  information  on  the  mutual  recognition  of 
removal orders and of refusal of entry alerts into the SIS. BE entered into an agreement with FR in 
relation  to  the  provisions  of  Council  Directive  2001/40/EC  (on  mutual  recognition  of  expulsion 
decisions) for Algerian and Vietnamese citizens. IT entered an alert in the SIS in respect of third-
country  nationals  removed  and  EE  entered  222  refusal  of  entry  alerts  based  upon  entry  bans  into 
SIS.  ES  provided  statistics  for  2010:  900  persons  were  refused  entry  following  a  refusal  of  entry 
alert  received  via  the  SIS  database.  In  NL,  as  the  Returns  Directive  was  only  transposed  in 

66  
67   

http://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/doc_centre/immigration/docs/studies/Forced%20Return%20Monitoring%20Study%20Final%20Report.pdf 
Cases C 61-11 and C 329-11 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
December  2011,  return  decisions  earlier  in  2011  were  issued  without  entry  bans  and  were  not 
always  recognised  by  other  Member  States.  CY  does  not  apply  the  provisions  of  the  Schengen 
acquis  with  regards  to  the  SIS.  However,  where  information  regarding  an  expulsion  decision  is 
received,  the  details  of  the  person  involved  are  inserted  into  the  'stop  list'  database,  which  is  the 
national database equivalent to SIS. 

EL, IT and MT benefited from return support in relation to specific and disproportionate pressures 
in order to  ensure  the effectiveness  of their return policies and were supported in eight expulsion 
flights  by  other  Member  States.  For  instance,  ES,  EE,  FR,  UK  and  NO  supported  EL  in 
implementing effective return actions. ES, EE and UK participated in the Frontex ATTICA project 
in EL (EE contributed 133 days); FR participated, amongst other operations and along with other 
Member  States,  in  the  Frontex  RABIT  operation  (see  also  Section  II.4.2)  in  which  36  experts  of 
their  Border  Police  participated;  NO  signed  a  cooperation  agreement  with  EL  in  November  2011 
which  would  involve  (amongst  other  actions)  NO  funded  IOM  voluntary  returns  programmes  in 
EL;  and  ES  participated  in  an  inter-governmental  peer  review  mission  to  EL  to  support  border 
control. UK also provided support to MT on plans to facilitate diplomatic relations and agreements 
on  returns  with  countries  where  MT  has  a  lack  of  representation  and  ES  participated  in  the 
HERMES  operation  to  assist  IT  in  its  returns.  DE  and  PL  also  reported  on  their  participation  in 
Frontex operations to support Member States facing disproportionate pressures. 

Many Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, FR, IT, CY, HU, NL, AT, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, 
UK) and NO reported that they participated in joint return flights. Several of these (BE, DK, IE, ES, 
FR,  IT,  AT,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK)  described  participation  in  joint  flights  organised  through  Frontex 
and/or reported (BE, DK, IT, NL, AT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK) on joint flights organised with other 
Member States bilaterally. SK reported on a joint return flight organised by ES to Pakistan, where 
the air company of the previous connecting flight refused entry to both the returnee and the escort 
police,  and  in  a  joint  return  flight  to  Serbia  organised  by  DE,  where  the  third-country  national 
concerned  was  transported  to  the  airport  of  the  country  of  return  (Kosovo),  but  denied  entry  by 
police authorities at the airport on arrival (Pristina), because Kosovo did not accept the emergency 
travel document issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Serbia. DK participated in joint return 
operations with other Nordic countries, typically in collaboration with Norway and Sweden, where 
a total of 7 joint operations were completed, all to Iraq, and led by SE, with some 30 individuals 
removed from Denmark. 

Six Member States (BE, IE, ES, NL, SE, UK) reported that they led joint flights: BE organised one 
to Kinshasa/DRC and Lagos/Nigeria; ES organised a flight to Georgia, a flight to the Ukraine, and 
two flights with stopover in both countries; NL organised three and took part in four organised by 
other  Member  States;  and  UK  led  on  a  Frontex  return  joint  operation  to  Nigeria.  The  flight 
successfully removed 51 people with no right of stay in UK and a total of 61 people with no right of 
stay in AT, FR, ES, HU and NO. SE organised three joint return operations financed by Frontex, as 
well as ten independent joint return operations. UK also reported that it participated in meetings of 
the  Frontex  Core  Country  Group  and  Direct  Contact  Points  in  Return  Matters  to  evaluate  recent 
return operations and define needs for the future.  

Seven  Member  States  (BE,  IE,  EL,  LT,  NL,  AT,  UK)  described  other  forms  of  cooperation  with 
other Member States. For example, BE signed bilateral cooperation agreements with DE, FR, LU, 
NL  and  Switzerland  and  AT  organised  four  bilateral  return  operations  with  PL  in  2011.  EL 
readmitted  irregular  migrants  who  had  transited  through  the  country  on  the  basis  of  the  existing 
bilateral  readmission  agreements  with  FR  and  IT.  A  number  of  projects  were  also  ongoing 
involving  bilateral  cooperation  between  Member  States:  BE  and  NL  continued  to  collaborate 
through  the  ‘European  Initiative  on  Return  Management’  (EURINT)  by  elaborating  a  common 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
approach  to  identifying  irregular  migrants  from  specific  countries  of  origin  (Nepal,  Azerbaijan, 
Armenia and Pakistan); IE and UK participated in Operation Gull, which facilitates the checking of 
passenger  status  of  third-country  nationals  travelling  between  the  UK  and  Ireland  via  Northern 
Ireland;  and  the  national  border  guard  service  of  LT  cooperated  with  those  of  NL  within  the 
framework of Council Directive 2003/110/EC (on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of 
removal  by  air)  to  remove  39  third-country  nationals  via  Riga  (LV)  and  one  via  Schiphol  (NL) 
airports.  

FI outlined the aim to draft a comprehensive return policy that would take into account the role of 
Frontex  in  relation  to  organising  joint  return  operations,  as  a  key  objective  in  the  Ministry  of  the 
Interior's financial plan for 2011-2014. HU supported the development of an annex to the Handbook 
on the Schengen Borders Code: “Transit by land of returnees” (Annex 39). 

LV adopted legislation to transpose Directive 2003/110/EC and Council Decision 2004/573/EC (on 
the  organisation  of  joint  flights  for  removals).  Because  of  this,  to  date,  it  has  only  participated  in 
joint flights as an observer in order to acquire experience in organising joint flights. 

Some Member States (BE, CZ, IT, NL, FI)  introduced policy or legislation in relation to assisted 
voluntary  return  (AVR)  in  2011.  BE’s  new  Federal  government  (sworn  in  on  6  December  2011) 
outlined  its  intention  to  prioritise  voluntary  return  in  its  coalition  agreement.  FI  continued  to 
develop AVR through a specific project running 2010-2012, which aims inter alia to develop and 
consolidate  assisted  voluntary  return  practices  and  policies.  IT  introduced  new  legislation  to 
regulate implementation of Assisted Return programmes providing logistical and financial support 
for  eligible  returnees.  NL  planned  a  new  subsidy  framework  that  will  apply  to  NGOs  and 
international organisations that provide in-kind assistance for sustainable return and reintegration to 
asylum applicants or former asylum applicants and CZ put forward plans to build a national Return 
Centre  responsible  for  the  AVR  agenda.  By  contrast,  FR  introduced  assisted  return  without 
financial aid in 2011 for third-country nationals classed as destitute or dangerous, who have been 
present in mainland France for less than three months. 

Most Member States (BE, CZ, DK, IE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, 
PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK) and NO implemented AVR projects - some (CZ, EL, EE, IT, LU, MT, 
AT, RO, SK, FI) explicitly  stated that this was through the support  of the EU’s European Return 
Fund.  AT  implemented  nine  voluntary  return  projects  (through  the  Return  Fund):  four  of  these 
provided counselling for returnees (including those in detention) and their families; three projects 
specifically  coordinating  return  and  reintegration  assistance  for  voluntary  returnees  to  Nigeria, 
Georgia  and  Russian  Federation/Chechen  Republic;  one  project  provided  reintegration  support  in 
the  form  of  micro-credits  in  Kosovo;  and  one  pilot  project  supported  the  development  of 
organisations to support the voluntary return of female victims of  trafficking in human beings. In 
MT, the project 'RESTART II' provided reintegration packages of up to €2 600 and training to assist 
in the setting up of economic activity at the returning country. A new project - RESTART III - is 
planned  for  January  2012.  It  is  expected  to  fund  up  to  100  applicants  and  to  provide  vocational 
training to returnees including through agencies such as the Employment and Training Corporation 
and the Malta College of Arts, Sciences and Technology. CY reported that it is planning to establish 
an office of IOM to assist with assisted return in the future. 

The European Return Fund also supported the Italian Networking for the Assisted Voluntary Return 
(NIRVA)  Network  Project.  The  network  provides  several  services,  such  as  organising  the  return 
journey  and  starting  the  reintegration  process  in  the  social  and  labour  network  in  the  country  of 
origin. The EU also financed the IOM project “Creation of the Voluntary Return European Network 
(VREN)”  with  the  participation  of  15  EU  Member  States  and  Switzerland.  SE  launched  the 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
European  Return  Platform  for  Unaccompanied  Minors  (ERPUM)  with  NL,  NO  and  UK,  which 
aimed,  amongst  other  goals,  at  developing  models  for  a  humane  and  organised  return  for 
unaccompanied children. SE also participated in Common Planning and Evaluation Platform with 
BE,  NL,  DE  and  FR  in  to  find  common  reintegration  projects  in  which  Member  States  can 
cooperate and share the costs. 

DK,  EE,  NL,  PL  and  NO  reported  on  other  incentive  systems  to  assist  voluntary  return.  DK 
implemented  two  projects  to  promote  assisted  voluntary  return  for  specific  groups,  ‘Assisted 
voluntary return for Victims of Trafficking, Unaccompanied minors and other Vulnerable Groups’ 
and  a  pilot  project  ‘Tracing  of  Unaccompanied  Minors’  Families  in  Country  of  Origin.'  EE 
implemented the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration in Estonia (VARRE) project with the 
IOM, seven returnees participated in the project. NL’s Repatriation and Departure Service launched 
four  programmes  for  post-arrival  assistance  for  migrants  returning  to  Afghanistan,  Azerbaijan, 
Burundi,  and  Sierra  Leone  and  IOM  in  NL  launched  the  project  ‘Assisted  Voluntary  Return  for 
Families  with  underage  Children’.  PL  undertook  other  projects  that  are  not  aimed  at  organising 
voluntary  returns,  but  on  improving  the  cooperation  between  countries,  e.g.  in  organising  charter 
flights, confirming the identity of citizens and issuing substitute travel documents. Additionally, a 
number  of  seminars  were  conducted  for  various  stakeholders,  such  as  local  authorities,  non-
governmental  organisations,  Border  Guard  and  Office  for  Foreigners,  in  order  to  present  the 
Assisted Voluntary Returns programme, in particular the scope of assistance provided to returnees, 
and  to  share  experience  and  work  out  ways  of  enhancing  collaboration  in  providing  interested 
migrants with return and reintegration assistance. NO’s Directorate of Immigration (UDI) launched 
a programme for vocational  training  for failed asylum applicants to improve their prospects upon 
return.  

III.1.5 Employer Sanctions 

At  EU  level,  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive68  is  a  new  tool  to  hold  employers  of  irregularly-
staying migrants accountable. Transposition by Member States into national legislation should have 
occurred  by  20  July  2011.  Only  some  Member  States  have  done  so  and  the  Commission  has 
launched (against BE, IT, LU, SE) a first set of infringement procedures for non-communication of 
national  measures  transposing  Directive  2009/52/EC69  providing  for  minimum  standards  on 
sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.  

At  national  level,  some  Member  States  (BE,  CZ,  FR)  described  existing  national  legislation 
regulating sanctions on persons employing migrants illegally. Several Member States (CZ, DE, EE, 
FR,  IT,  LV,  HU,  MT,  NL,  AT,  SI,  SK)  transposed  the  Employers  Sanctions  Directive.  In  seven 
Member States (DE, EE, LV, HU, NL, AT, SK) the legislation was transposed via amendments to 
existing  legislation.  For  example,  EE  transposed  the  Directive  through  amendments  to  the  Aliens 
Act, Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Individual Labour Dispute Resolution Act, whilst AT 
introduced amendments to its Aliens' Employment Act. For LV, four pieces of legislation - relating 
to  labour,  administrative  violations  and  criminal  law  -  were  amended.  In  the  remainder  of  the 
transposing Member States, the provisions of the Directive were brought in through new legislation. 
A few Member States (FI, LT, SE) are currently in the process of drafting legislation to transpose 
the Employer Sanctions Directive. A few Member States (EL, CY, PL, PT) are awaiting adoption of 
draft  legislation  to  transpose  the  Directive.  EL  has  finalised  the  draft  legislation  transposing  the 
Directive  though  it  is  not  yet  adopted.  In  the  meantime,  Law  3996/2011  “Reform  of  the  Labour 

68  
69  

Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009  
Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009  

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Inspectorate” was adopted, which aims to increase the effectiveness of the Labour Inspectorate in 
combating  inter  alia  employment  of  irregular  migrants.  CY’s  Council  of  Ministers  approved  its 
draft  legislation  in  October  2011  and  the  bill  is  currently  being  discussed  at  the  House  of 
Representatives; PT presented its draft legislation to the parliament on 10 March 2011 – the process 
of parliamentary approval has now begun and it is expected that the law will be adopted in 2012; 
and in PL the draft act is expected to become legally binding in early 2012. In LU the Directive has 
not  yet  been  transposed  and  up  to  the  end  of  2011  no  draft  legislation  had  been  presented  to  the 
Council of Government. 

DK,  IE  and  UK  have  not  ‘opted  in’  to  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive.  For  DK,  national 
legislation  does,  however,  contain  rules  on  sanctions  against  employers  hiring  irregular  migrants. 
Control  operations  are  carried  out  in  workplaces  to  ensure  compliance,  by  the  Danish  police, 
together  with  other  relevant  authorities,  including  the  immigration  authorities.  In  IE  the  National 
Employment  Rights  Authority  has  the  responsibility  of  ensuring  compliance  with  employment 
rights legislation and for investigating alleged breaches of employment law (including employment 
of irregular migrants). In the UK, through its “Civil Penalties regime” an employer who knowingly 
employs  a  third-country  national  working  in  breach  of  their  conditions  of  stay  /  entry  can  face 
criminal prosecution. Naturally, NO is also not a signatory to the Employer Sanctions Directive. Its 
Labour  Inspection  Authority  of  Norway  is  responsible  for  examining  the  conditions  of 
remuneration,  working  conditions  and  health  and  safety  of  migrants  and  for  reporting  suspected 
violations to the Directorate of Immigration and/or the police.  

Four Member States (ES, EE, PT, UK) provided information on sanctions that had been imposed. In 
ES,  the  national  Security  and  Police  Forces  responded  to  18  cases  of  human  trafficking  for  the 
purposes  of  labour  exploitation  and  arrested  and  charged  37  people  for  exploitation  between 
January  and  September  2011.  EE  reported  that  the  number  of  recorded  cases  of  employment  of 
irregular migrants decreased  in 2011  to  88 from 141 in  2010 - it cites the main reason as regular 
inspections  by  the  Police  and  Border  Guards  and  the  deterrent  of  sanctions.  In  PT,  as  part  of  its 
strategy  to  combat  employment  of  irregular  migrants,  552  administrative  offences  were  filed  in 
2011  (to  end  September).  In  the  UK,  through  its  civil  penalty  regime,  the  UK  Border  Agency 
collected over £3.2million (approx. €3.8M) in penalty payments in 2011. Over 6 500 civil penalties 
have  been  issued  to  employers  since  the  “Civil  Penalties  regime”  started  in  February  2008  to  the 
end of September 2011.  

Some Member States (CZ, ES, EE, FR, LU, SK, UK) provided information on the types of penalties 
which can be issued to employers breaching the conditions of employment of migrants, and which 
are  in  alignment  with  those  outlined  in  Articles  5-7  of  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive.  In 
addition,  SK  publishes  lists  of  employers  who  have  been  identified  by  labour  inspectors  as 
contracting illegal work / employment on the website of the National Labour Inspectorate. This list 
serves other ministries involved in tax and insurance payment collection, as well as for reviewing 
applications for subsidy and recovery of subsidies already paid.  

In CZ, the maximum fine for employers breaching legislation regulating the employment of migrant 
workers doubled to 10 million CZK (approx. 400 000 €); a minimum fine of 250 000 CZK (approx. 
10 000 €) was also established. In ES employers hiring workers whose permits do not allow them to 
work  may  receive  fines  of  up  to  €500  for  each  worker;  the  hiring  of  workers  with  no  residence 
permit (i.e. illegally staying migrants) is punishable with a fine of between €10 000 and €100 000 
per worker. In SK, the minimum fine that can be imposed is €2 000 and the maximum is €200 000; 
there is also a fine for illegal work, which is up to €331. In the UK, civil penalties of up to £10 000 
(€12 000) can be imposed on persons employing irregular migrants.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
III.1.6 Regularisations 

At  EU  level,  there  is  no  competence  for  regularisations,  although  Member  States,  when  adopting 
the  European  Pact  on  Immigration  and  Asylum,  agreed  to  use  only  case-by-case  regularisation, 
rather than generalised regularisation, under national law, for humanitarian or economic reasons. 

At national level, no Member State undertook generalised regularisations and three (BE, AT, UK) 
explicitly  stipulated  that  they  did  not  carry  out  such  generalised  regularisations.  However,  eight 
Member  States  (AT,  BE,  FR,  CY,  HU,  LT,  PT,  UK)  plus  NO  did  undertake  case-by-case 
regularisations,  whilst  DK,  DE,  EE  and  FI  did  not  do  any  kind  of  regularisation  (generalised  nor 
case-by-case) and they have no legislation in place to allow for it. 

Table  6  in  the  Statistical  Annex  gives  a  provisional  overview  of  the  number  of  third-country 
nationals  regularised  in  some  Member  States.  By  decreasing  order,  the  highest  number  of 
regularisations were made by IT (22 500), BE (9 300), FR (7 205) and PT (6 835).  

IT,  by  regularising  the  last  22  500  domestic  workers,  finalised  a  process  started  in  2009  when  a 
targeted case-by-case regularisation was launched. Through this measure, the government allowed 
employers  illegally  hiring  national,  EU  and  third-country  national  workers  to  regularise  their 
position. In EL, case-by-case regularisation is granted, in exceptional circumstances only, to those 
third-country  nationals  who  demonstrate  special  ties  with  Greece  unless  there  are  public  order 
considerations.  In  FR,  case-by-case  regularisations  can  be  undertaken  for  humanitarian  reasons, 
integration reasons or economic reasons. LV also takes into consideration the personal, social and 
economic link of an individual with the country of residence, as well as the rights and legal interests 
of the third-country national and national legislation. In CY and HU regularisations are undertaken 
for humanitarian reasons or – in the case of CY - where a removal cannot be executed within six 
months (in this case the irregular migrant is given a special residence and employment permit for a 
set period of time and under certain conditions). PL plans to undertake a regularisation programme 
for those third-country nationals who have been living (irregularly) in PL since 20 December 2007 
or before; or who have been living (irregularly) in PL since 1 January 2010 and who prior to that 
date were granted a final decision on refusal to award the refugee status along with a removal order. 
Applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the UK case-by-case regularisation is only 
ever considered where there are exceptional compassionate circumstances.  

III.2  Actions against Trafficking in Human Beings 

At  EU  level,  a  new  Directive  on  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  was 
adopted70  and  the  EU  Anti-Trafficking  Coordinator  took  up  her  mandate  in  March  2011.  A  new 
Integrated  Strategy  on  countering  trafficking  in  human  beings,  scheduled  for  May  2012,  will 
provide  for  an  overall  strategic  policy  orientation,  improve  coordination  and  coherence  between 
different  relevant  stakeholders,  and  elaborate  existing  and  new  EU  policies  relevant  to  human 
against  trafficking  while  focusing  on  implementation  failures  and  new  tendencies  in  human 
trafficking.  A  new  group  of  15  experts  in  trafficking  in  human  beings  was  appointed  on  17 
November 2011 in order to provide the Commission with expertise related to trafficking in human 
beings.  The  first  meeting  of  the  newly  set  up  Commission  Inter-Service  Group  took  place  in 
December  2011:  it  brings  together  17  different  Commission  services  to  ensure  that  EU  policy  on 
trafficking in human beings draws on the entire range of relevant policy fields.  

70  

Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2011 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
At  the  2011  Anti-Trafficking  Day,  seven  JHA  agencies71  signed  a  joint  statement  on  their  future 
cooperation  in  the  field.72  The  Commission  (Home  Affairs  together  with  Eurostat),  has  started  a 
data collection initiative on trafficking in human beings at EU level, whose result are expected in 
2012. In 2011 another study on typologies of and policy responses to child begging in the EU has 
been launched (currently implemented by ICMPD). The anti-trafficking policy website continues to 
work as a 'one stop shop' for practitioners and the public interested in the problem of trafficking.73 
The EU Immigration Portal includes a section on 'Protecting the victims of trafficking' too.  

Addressing  trafficking  is  a  priority  for  the  EU  in  the  field  of  fight  against  organised  crime  in  the 
period 2011 – 2013. Eight strategic goals in this area have been adopted by the Standing Committee 
on  Operational  Cooperation  on  Internal  Security  (COSI).  Draft  operational  actions  in  the  area  of 
fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  have  been  formulated  and  were  adopted  by  COSI  in 
December 2011. The first updated implementation report of the 2009 Action Oriented Paper (AOP) 
on strengthening the EU external dimension on combating trafficking in human beings was adopted 
by  the  JHA  Council  in  June  2011.  The  report  recommends  developing  a  list  of  priority  countries 
and regions for future partnerships in the area of human trafficking.  

The Commission has also funded new projects targeting different aspects in the field of trafficking 
in human beings such as training of judiciary, data collection, prevention activities on trafficking for 
forced labour and a network for parliamentarians. 

Table 7 provides key statistics on human trafficking. Of the data available, the highest numbers of 
third-country nationals receiving a residence permit as victims of human trafficking are to be found 
in IT (665) and NL (245). Other Member States, who could provide data, each issued less than 60 
permits, with six (EE, LV, LT, HU, MT, FI) granting none. With regards to arrested traffickers, this 
was highest for FR (4 880), followed by EL (850) and EE (490). Data on convicted traffickers is 
available  for  seven  Member  States  only,  with  the  highest  numbers  of  convictions  reported  by  EE 
(55) and LT (10). 

At national level, many Member States reported on action undertaken with countries of origin and 
transit  to  better  inform  communities  and  to  combat  human  trafficking.  In  relation  to  awareness-
raising campaigns, BE continued collaboration with the Brazilian authorities to raise awareness on 
human  trafficking  and  smuggling.  ES  outlined  a  number  of  actions  including  awareness  raising 
activities  in  third  countries  in  its  ‘Master  Plan  for  Spanish  Co-operation  2009-12.’  CY  and  PL 
published  leaflets  targeting  victims  of  human  trafficking  in  foreign  languages,  such  as  English, 
Russian,  Vietnamese,  Bulgarian  Arabic,  Russian,  Romanian,  and  Spanish.  The  leaflets  provide 
information  on  where  victims  can  access  support  in  the  Member  State.  In  CY,  Stop  Trafficking 
leaflets were distributed by an NGO at passport control areas of the CY airports. PT's Observatory 
for  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  created  a  website,  as  well  as  a  database,  along  with  a  geo-
reference platform to gather information about trafficking in human beings. The UK developed an 
animated  film  (entitled  ‘Mai  and  Tam  Take  Control’)  targeting  Vietnamese  migrants  and 
demonstrating  the  risks  posed  by  traffickers  –  the  project  was  led  by  the  International  Child 
Protection  Network  (ICPN)  through  its  UK  Child  Exploitation  and  Online  Protection  (CEOP) 
protection. 

71  
72  
73  

EIGE, EUROJUST, EUROPOL, FRA, CEPOL, Frontex and EASO 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?id=55a48066-dcf5-4e71-b191-cedcf0caa97a 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/ 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
LV (who considers its own citizens constitute also a community under threat) took action to protect 
its  nationals  from  the  risks  of  human  trafficking,  placing  information  on  the  risks  of  human 
trafficking (types of recruiters, on work abroad, on the consequences of trafficking in human beings 
and possibilities of help to the victims of human trafficking) on the web pages of the Ministry of 
Welfare,  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Ministry  of  the  Interior  and  State  Police  and  non-
governmental  websites.  It  also  placed  posters  promoting  the  “Stop  Sex  Trade”  campaign  at  all 
border crossing points. HU and PL also carried out actions to prevent the trafficking of their own 
nationals. 

In  relation  to  other  forms  of  cooperation,  four  Member  States  (BE,  IE,  NL,  AT)  reported  on 
cooperative  action  specifically  with  Nigeria.  AT  and  BE  participated  in  the  'Enhancing  Multi-
stakeholder  cooperation  to  fight  human  trafficking  in  countries  of  origin  and  destination’  project 
with Nigeria; IE began exploring options for a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nigerian 
National Agency for Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) to enhance cooperation in the 
combating  of  human  trafficking;  and  NL  also  cooperated  with  the  NAPTIP  in  setting  a  joint 
approach to prevent human trafficking from Nigeria.  

Five Member States (CZ, DK, CY, LV, LT) undertook actions in relation to countries at the Eastern 
border of Europe, namely: Belarus (CZ, LT), Moldova (CZ), Ukraine (CZ, DK, CY) and Russian 
Federation  (LV,  LT).  CZ’s  actions  were  aimed  at  strengthening  cooperation  with  stakeholders  in 
source countries and exchange of best practice and LV signed a cooperation agreement in relation 
to combating human trafficking with Russian Law Enforcement Authorities. Similarly, LT met with 
authorities of Belarus and the Russian Federation working in the field of prevention and control of 
human  trafficking  to  discuss  the  most  important  issues  and  best  practices.  CY  organised  and 
participated  in  a  number  of  workshops  –  a  workshop  in  Ukraine  was  entitled  “Strengthen  the 
protection  of  the  victims  of  trafficking  and  ensure  a  better  protection  during  repatriation  by  the 
creation of a multidisciplinary operational network.” DK has approved a further phase (2012-2014) 
of  the  Danish  Programme  against  Human  Trafficking  with  implementing  partner  IOM  in  the 
Ukraine,  through  which  it  will  engage  with  governments  and  NGOs  in  Ukraine,  Moldova  and 
Belarus to counter trafficking in human beings. 

DK,  ES,  EL,  AT,  PL,  UK  reported  on  cooperation  with  other  third  countries.  DK’s  Good 
Governance  Programme  with  Mali  operates  some  activities  aimed  at  tackling  human  trafficking, 
and a further programme in Burma has established an ‘anti-trafficking’ network which, with other 
measures,  aims  to  reduce  migration  amongst  local  women  from  disadvantaged  areas.  AT 
participated  in  three  projects  to  enhance  cooperation  with  third  countries  in  combating  human 
trafficking  –  one  in  Nigeria  (see  above),  a  second  in  the  Western  Balkans,  Kosovo  and  Turkey 
aimed  at  creating  opportunities  for  combined  law  enforcement  action,  and  a  third  in  the  Western 
Balkans  and  Turkey  aimed  at  collecting  and  analysing  data  on  organised  crime.  EL  continued 
cooperation  with  Albania  and  its  efforts  for  enhancing  cooperation  with  Turkey  in  the  area  of 
combating  human  trafficking.  UK  took  part  in  a  number  of  actions  targeting  the  prevention  of 
human  trafficking  from  China,  Vietnam,  Cambodia  plus  Romania  –  this  involved  a  two-day 
workshop  in  Beijing  organised  by  IOM  for  senior  Chinese  consular  and  immigration  officials  to 
strengthen victim identification procedures and introduce safe and voluntary return mechanisms for 
victims  of  human  trafficking;  and  work  with  stakeholders  in  Vietnam,  Cambodia  plus  Romania 
(countries considered a source of child trafficking victims or a destination country of UK travelling 
sex  offenders)  to  raise  awareness  of  child  protection  issues  and  deliver  prevention  work.  ES 
contributed  to  the  actions  of  international  organisations,  such  as  UNIFEM,  UNFPA,  UNDP, 
UNHCR, and also takes part in bilateral actions with Latin America and Asia pacific region, such as 
the  creation  of  a  regional  centre  in  Tapachula,  Mexico,  for  the  assistance  of  victims  of  human 
trafficking.  ES  also  participated  in  the  2nd  Latin-American  Summit  of  Public  Prosecutors  which 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
resulted  in  the  creation  of  the  Latin-American  Network  of  Prosecutors  specialised  in  combating 
human trafficking.   

Seven Member States (CZ, ES, LV, AT, PL, PT, UK) reported on policy developments in relation 
to cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit, in particular to combat human trafficking 
and to provide better information to communities under threat. CZ drafted a new National Strategy 
on  trafficking  in  human  beings  for  2012  –  2015.  Measure  III  of  the  Strategy,  which  aims  at 
enhancing  cooperation  at  international  level  with  emphasis  on  source  countries,  was  incorporated 
into the Strategy. Similarly, LV’s Ministry of the Interior developed an Action plan for “Improving 
of the Efforts at  Combating of Trafficking in Persons.” PL implemented several actions under its 
National  Plan  of  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  for  2011-2012  (some  described 
above).  AT  began  to  elaborate  a  National  Action  Plan  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  for 
2012-2014 which would replace the Plan that ran 2009-2011. PT implemented its Second National 
Plan  against  Human  Trafficking  (2011-2013).  Finally,  the  UK  implemented  its  new  strategy  on 
human trafficking - amongst the goals outlined is to build capacity in source and transit countries 
and  address  the  root  causes  by  alleviating  poverty.  ES  has  incorporated  the  fight  against  human 
trafficking  in  strategic  development  policies  concerning  the  main  countries  of  origin  of  human 
trafficking victims. 

IV.   PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION 

Table  8  provides  an  overview  of  Asylum  Applicants  and  First  Instance  Decisions  in  2011.74  In 
2011, there were 302 455 asylum applicants, a 16.8% increase from 2010, and it is estimated that 
around  90%  of  these  were  new  applicants  and  around  10%  were  repeat  applicants.  The  main 
countries  of  citizenship  of  the  applicants  were  Afghanistan  (28  000  or  9%  of  the  total),  Russian 
Federation (18 200 or 6%), Pakistan (15 700 or 5%), Iraq (15 200 or 5%) and Serbia (13 900 or 5%) 
with  the  highest  number  registered  in  FR  (57  335),  followed  by  DE  (53  255),  IT  (34  115),  BE          
(31 915), SE (29 670), UK (26 430), NL (14 600), AT (14 420), EL (9 310) and PL (6 900). These 
ten  Member  States  accounted  for  more  than  90%  of  all  applicants.  When  compared  with  the 
population  of  each  Member  State,  the  highest  rates  of  applicants  registered  were  recorded  in  MT       
(4 500 applicants per million inhabitants), LU (4 200), SE (3 200), BE (2 900) and CY (2 200). A 
total  of  237  365  first  instance  decisions  were  made,75  of  which  177  900  were  rejections  (75%  of 
decisions), 28 995 (12%) were granted refugee status, 21 400 (9%) subsidiary protection and 9 065 
(4%) authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons.  

IV.1. Common European Asylum System 

At EU level, the proposal to recast the Qualification Directive was adopted in December 2011.76 In 
particular, the text strengthens the criteria for qualification for international protection, notably the 
notions of actors of protection and internal protection, as well as the provisions related to the best 
interests  of  the  child  and  to  gender.  It  further  approximates  the  rights  granted  to  refugees  and  to 
beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection  on  access  to  employment,  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications and health care, and it extends the validity of residence permits  for beneficiaries of 
subsidiary protection.  

74  
75  

76  

As published by Eurostat (see also News Release 46/2012 of 23 March 2012) 
It should be noted that first instance decisions made in 2011 may refer to applications registered in previous 
years. 
Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  Commission's  revised  proposal  for  the  Asylum  Procedures  Directive77  established  a  single 
asylum procedure (for refugee and subsidiary protection statuses) comprising common guarantees. 
The  only  Member  State  without  a  single  procedure  (IE)  has  opted  out  of  the  negotiations  on  this 
proposal.  The  Commission  proposal  amending  the  Asylum  Procedures  Directive  foresees  an 
obligation for Member States to ensure that personnel likely to receive applications for international 
protection,  including  officials  who  first  come  into  contact  with  persons  seeking  international 
protection, in particular those carrying out surveillance of land or maritime borders or conducting 
border checks, have relevant instructions and receive the necessary training.  

The  original  Reception  Conditions  Directive  (2003/9/EC)  left  certain  areas  too  open  for 
interpretation by Member States which meant that an applicant for international protection did not 
receive the same level of care and comfort across the EU. That is why the Commission proposed a 
recast  Reception  Conditions  Directive.78  The  aim  of  these  amendments  is  to  have  a  more 
harmonised and coherent reception system to make sure that the same dignified standards of living 
are  applied  throughout  the  EU,  irrespective  of  where  an  asylum  application  has  been  made.  An 
explicit reference to victims of trafficking as vulnerable persons is also included and provides for 
specific reception guarantees, such as the need to identify in a timely and appropriate manner their 
special needs including the necessary medical and psychological support.  

For the recast Dublin Regulation,79 discussions focused on the issue of an  emergency mechanism 
which  could  suspend  Dublin  transfers  to  a  Member  State  subject  to  particular  pressures  under 
certain circumstances. In order to end the stalemate, the October 2011 JHA Council announced a 
shift  of  discussions  from  addressing  crisis  towards  preventing  them  via  an  'evaluation  and  early 
warning' mechanism. The Commission supported the principle of having such a mechanism within 
the  Dublin  Regulation.  In  the  Commission's  view,  the  mechanism  should  serve  the  purpose  of 
effectively identifying and addressing both situations of particular pressure, as well as problems in 
the  functioning  of  asylum  systems.  It  should  be  equipped  with  solidarity  measures  to  enable 
Member States to support each other better in dealing with such challenges.  

Negotiations on EURODAC were stalled throughout 2011 as Council pushed for inclusion of law 
enforcement  access  –  the  Commission  noted  that  this  could  be  proposed  but  only  as  part  of  real 
progress  on  negotiations  on  the  remainder  of  the  asylum  package.  The  feasibility  study  on 
EURODAC80 as a supporting tool for the Common European Asylum System will be postponed to 
at least 2013. The feasibility study on joint processing of asylum applications on the territory of the 
EU is ongoing and results are foreseen for the end of 2012.  

The  proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  an  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund81  will  continue  to 
strengthen  and  develop  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  by  ensuring  the  efficient  and 
uniform  application  of  the  EU  acquis  on  asylum  and  enhance  the  solidarity  and  responsibility 
sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected. 

At national level, Member States remained committed to establishing a Common European Asylum 
System and activities undertaken towards this goal are outlined elsewhere in this Section IV.  

77  
78  
79  
80  
81  

COM(2011) 319 final 
COM(2011) 320 final 
COM(2008) 820 final 
Council Regulation No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 
COM(2011) 751 final 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
IV.2. European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 

At EU level, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) was inaugurated in Malta in June 2011. 
EASO has coordinated teams of experts from Member States in order to help Greece to cope with 
the  increasing  flow  of  asylum  seekers  reaching  its  borders,  as  well  as  to  support  the  Greek 
authorities  in  order  both  to  improve  reception  conditions  for  asylum  seekers  and  refugees  and  to 
increase the quality of decision making and the capacity of the Greek authorities to process asylum 
applications.  These  actions  occurred  in  the  overall  context  of  the  reform  of  their  Asylum  System 
that Greece is currently undertaking. EASO has also conducted a short term deployment of Asylum 
Support Teams in Luxembourg to train newly recruited officials in order to process the increasing 
number of applications they are receiving. Furthermore the agency  is taking over some activities, 
tools and methodologies from practical cooperation measures formerly undertaken by the European 
Commission  and/or  Member  States,  and  is  developing  new  concepts  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
exchange  of  information,  and  the  convergence  of  EU  standards  in  the  field  of  asylum  within  the 
framework of existing EU law. Formal negotiations on the participation of associate countries to the 
EASO were launched in 2012 with the aim to conclude them during the Danish Presidency of the 
Council of the EU. 

One  of  the  measures  being  transferred  to  EASO  is  the  European  Asylum  Curriculum  (EAC).82 
Some  Member  States  are  translating  EAC  modules  in  their  national  languages  making  use  of  the 
European Refugee Fund (ERF), while EASO has provided translation for some modules in Greek in 
order to train officials in the framework of the overall deployment of Asylum Support Teams there. 
Concerning the common educational platform, the Commission called on the Member States in its 
Communication on Solidarity83 to set, in early 2012 a quantitative target for their asylum officials, 
to be trained using the European Asylum Curriculum by 2014.  

The Commission called on EASO to review procedures for secondment of asylum officials in 2012. 
It also called on EASO and Frontex to agree in 2012 clear cooperation arrangements to maximise 
analysis,  technical  assistance  and  deployment  of  means  and  experts.  At  the  same  time,  the 
effectiveness of any such cooperation depends on the Member States' contributions to the EASO's 
and Frontex's activities and assets.  

At national level, Member States made notable contributions to support the establishment of EASO 
notably in terms of the provision of staff for Asylum Support Teams established in EL and LU.  

IV.3. Intra-EU Solidarity 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  enhanced  intra-EU  solidarity  in  the 
field  of  asylum,84  addressing  inter  alia  the  Commission's  practical  and  financial  support  for 
relocation of beneficiaries of international protection in the framework of the EU Relocation Malta 
(EUREMA) project.85  

Table  9  provides  statistics  on  third-country  nationals  relocated  in  and  resettled  to  EU  Member 
States. Of the data available, most third-country nationals were relocated to DE (150). 

82  
83  
84  
85  

http://www.asylum-curriculum.eu/ 
COM(2011) 835 final 
COM(2011) 835 final 
See http://www.doi.gov.mt/en/press_releases/2011/06/pr1243.pdf for an overview. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At national level, several Member States (BE, DK, DE, FR, CY, LT, NL, AT, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK) 
and  NO  reported  having  set  up  or  taken  part  in  initiatives  to  support  some  Member  States  faced 
with  specific  and  disproportionate  pressures  on  their  national  asylum  systems.  This  concerned 
support in particular to EL and MT (see report on EUREMA below). Actions included participation 
in  EASO  support  through  its  Operating  Plan  (reported  by  BE,  CZ,  NL,  AT,  SK,  FI,  SE,  UK); 
secondment of experts and staff (SK, UK); support for the implementation of EL’s Action Plan for 
Migration  Management  (BE,  CY,  NL,  AT);  the  processing  of  asylum  applications  (PT,  FI); 
reception conditions (FI); and the transfer of asylum applicants (LT). NO also provided support to 
EL - e.g. by funding research and voluntary organisations in addition to assistance in improving the 
quality  and  capacity  of  Greek  reception  facilities,  and  involvement  in  the  Operating  Plan  to  EL, 
organised  by  EASO.  Conversely,  SI  explained  that  its  current  austerity  policy  prevents  the 
provision  of  assistance  to  other  Member  States  exposed  to  particular  pressures  on  their  asylum 
systems. 

With regards to the participation in EASO support, the majority of Member States seconded experts 
for the Asylum Intervention Pool (e.g. BE, CZ, AT, SE) or the EAC Expert Pool (e.g. BE, SE). In 
addition, the UK made interpreters available to MT. 

In 2010-2011, ten Member States (DE, FR, UK, SI, SK, HU, RO, LU, PT, PL) pledged to relocate 
beneficiaries  of  international  protection  from  MT  through  the  EUREMA  (European  Re-allocation 
for MT) project, following a successful project by FR the previous year to relocate Iraqi nationals 
from MT. Some 227 persons were relocated to six of the Member States that had made pledges. For 
the  2011-2012  project,  eight  Member  States  (BG,  HU,  LT,  LU,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK)  pledged  places 
through the EUREMA project, with further bilateral pledges by five Member States (DE, ES, NL, 
IE, DK) plus NO and CH. The total number of places pledged in 2011 for relocation from MT in 
the 2011-2012 EUREMA II project is 97 which, when added to  the  bilateral pledges,  amounts to 
362.  

IV.4. Enhancing the External Dimension 

At EU level, Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs) in North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia) were 
launched, whilst RPPs in Tanzania and Eastern Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine) – both Phase II 
- and in the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Kenya, Yemen) continued to be implemented. 

Negotiations progressed slowly with the Council and the European Parliament on establishing the 
Joint EU Resettlement Programme due to a procedural disagreement between the co-legislators over 
a  choice  of  a  procedure  for  the  establishment  of  the  annual  joint  EU  priorities  (delegated  vs. 
implementing acts). However, they are likely to be finalised in 2012. The aforementioned proposal 
for  a  Regulation  establishing  an  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund86  also  contains  an  ambitious 
resettlement and relocation component allowing Member States to support not only the preparatory 
actions related to resettlement and relocation operations but also the setting up and development of 
necessary infrastructure and services.  

At national level, several Member States (BE, CZ, DK, IE, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SE, UK) and NO 
resettled  refugees  from  different  regions  of  the  world,  mainly  in  cooperation  with  UNHCR.  ES 
launched an Annual Refugee Resettlement Programme.  

86  

COM(2011) 751 final 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some  of  the  refugees  resettled  in  EU  Member  States  came  from  Northern  Africa,  including 
emergency  cases  from  Libya  (FI)  and  Tunisia  (PT),  as  well  as  Congolese  and  Eritrean  refugees 
from Libya (BE) and Sudanese refugees who had fled to Tunisia from Libya (IE). Other Member 
States  and  NO  resettled  Afghan  refugees  (FI,  SK,  SE,  and  NO),  Somali  refugees  (SK,  SE), 
Sudanese  refugees  (FI,  SE),  Ethiopian  refugees  (IE,  SE),  Palestinian  refugees  (IT),  Senegal  and 
Syria  refugees  (PT),  Congolese  refugees  from  Rwanda  (FI),  Congolese  refugees  (SE)  and 
Myanmarese refugees from Thailand (FI). In the case of SK, this concerned only resettlement for 
six months after which refugees were resettled to their final country of destination.  

Four Member States (DE, FR, SE, UK) and NO favoured the resettlement of particular categories of 
refugees,  such  as  families  and  single  parents  with  newborn  babies  and  small  children  (DE),  Iraqi 
nationals from Iraq or neighbouring countries (i.e. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey) who were 
threatened for belonging to a religious minority (FR) and refugees from Afghanistan and Horn of 
Africa  (SE).  UK  favoured  Somali  and  Ethiopian  refugees  from  Kenya,  plus  a  small  number  of 
refugees from Yemen, Bhutanese refugees from Nepal, and Iraqi refugees from Syria and Jordan.  

Some Member States (IE, CZ, DK, NL, FI, SE, UK) and NO have set a quota with respect to the 
number  of  persons  accepted  for  resettlement.  The  size  of  the  annual  quota  varies,  however,  from 
one  Member  State  to  another.  For  example,  and  referring  to  Table  9,  DK  resettled  some  515 
persons, FI some 585 persons and SE some 1 620 persons in 2011. NO accepted 1 340 persons and 
in response to the Libyan uprising, also offered 250 additional resettlement places through UNHCR. 
NO  indicated  also  that  60  per  cent  of  the  persons  accepted  for  resettlement  through  the  set  quota 
should be women.   

Following  the  Arab  Spring,  HU  adopted  a  Governmental  Decision  on  the  launch  of  an  asylum 
solidarity programme in Northern Africa. To this end, HU focuses its resettlement commitments to 
the  Northern  African  region  and  considers  developing  and  implementing  a  pilot  resettlement 
programme for the region in close cooperation with UNHCR.  

Several  Member  States  reported  on  other  resettlement-related  activities,  for  example,  the 
development  of  a  resettlement  project  for  Palestinian  refugees  (IT),  resettlement  delegation 
missions  (SE)  and  the  participation  in  the  final  conference  of  the  project  jointly  implemented  by 
UNHCR, the IOM and the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) on ‘Promotion of 
resettlement  in  the  EU  countries  through  practical  cooperation  of  the  Member  States’  (PL,  SK). 
With regard to future measures, NL indicated that they will resettle another 2 000 refugees between 
2012 and 2015.  

IV.5  Unaccompanied Minors 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  continued  the  implementation  of  the  2010  Action  Plan  on 
Unaccompanied Minors (2010 – 2014).87 The Directive on trafficking in human beings88 includes 
new provisions on particular assistance, support and protection to unaccompanied child victims of 
trafficking in human beings. The recast Qualification Directive89 strengthens the obligation to trace 
family members of unaccompanied minors and contains an indicative list of elements to be taken 
into account when assessing the best interests of the child, in particular the principle of family unity. 
The  Schengen  Borders  Code  proposal90  includes  a  specific  mention  of  the  training  module  on 

87  
88  
89  
90  

COM(2010) 213 final 
Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2011 
Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 
COM(2011) 118 final 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
unaccompanied  minors  for  border  guards.  National  contact  points  for  consultation  purposes  on 
minors currently established on a voluntary basis will be formally established and made obligatory. 
A  comparative  study  on  best  practices  in  the  field  of  return  of  minors,  including  unaccompanied 
minors,  was  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor.  An  expert  meeting  on  unaccompanied  minors 
devoted to the issue of guardianship/representation was organised by the Commission in June 2011.  

Close cooperation with the countries of origin and transit are important elements of the common EU 
approach to unaccompanied minors. The issue was 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).  The  2012 
EASO Work Programme provides that the agency will organise a number of activities concerning 
age  assessment,  including  setting-up  a  working  group  on  age  assessment,  delivering  technical 
documentation and developing training activities plus a handbook on age assessment. 

Table 10 in the Statistical Annex gives an overview of the provisional number of unaccompanied 
minors including, where possible, a distinction between those who did and those who did not apply 
for  asylum  in  2011.  Of  the  data  available,  SE  (2  655),  DE  (2  125)  and  BE  (2  040)  received  the 
largest number of unaccompanied minors applying for asylum. 

At national level, several Member States (BE, DK, ES, IT, LV, LU, HU, AT, PL, SI, FI) reported 
on  legislative  developments  in  relation  to  unaccompanied  minors.  Many  of  these  improved  the 
rights  of  unaccompanied  minors  and  provided  greater  assistance  and  protection  to  them.  For 
example,  ES’s  New  Regulation  on  Aliens  and  the  Amendments  to  LV’s  Immigration  Law 
introduced  new  provisions  relating  to  age  determination  and  return  procedures  with  respect  to 
minors'  rights  (ES)  and  the  procedure  for  removal  of  vulnerable  persons,  including  minors  (LV). 
The new provisions in LV state that vulnerable persons should be accompanied to their country of 
return  in  order  to  ensure  that  they  are  handed  over  to  a  suitable  guardian.  LU  also  reported  on 
legislative  changes  which  include  the  obligation  to  provide  administrative  and  jurisdictional 
assistance  to  unaccompanied  minors  and  the  granting  of  access  to  the  basic  education  system, 
depending  on  the  duration  of  their  stay.  In  HU  legislative  changes  stipulated  that  unaccompanied 
minors must be provided shelter through the regular Hungarian child protection system rather than 
through a reception centre. AT referred to the imposition of an obligation on competent authorities 
to  ensure  that  minors  can  be  returned  to  the  care  of  a  family  member,  an  official  guardian  or  an 
adequate reception facility in the country of origin, in cases of return. SI amended its International 
Protection  Act  on  the  implementation  of  guardianship  extending  and  more  precisely  defining  the 
powers  of  the  legal  representative,  as  well  as  equating  unaccompanied  minors  with  nationals  in 
exercising their rights to health care. 

Furthermore, PL and FI reported on the enhanced focus on the best interest of children  and their 
development  and  health  (FI),  whilst  SI  reported  that  its  inter-departmental  working  group 
(composed  of  representatives  from  the  ministries  of  interior,  education  and  sports  and  of  labour, 
family and social affairs) dealt primarily with the procedure at the border or the first contact with an 
unaccompanied  minor;  guardianship;  age  assessment;  accommodation;  finding  their  families;  and 
return/reintegration.  

In  addition  to  the  above  legislative  changes,  BE,  DK,  IT  and  SK  introduced  changes  to  their 
residence  permit  system  related  to  unaccompanied  minors,  which  for  SK  was  via  its  new  Act  on 
Stay of Aliens adopted in October 2011, which entered into force on 1 January 2012. BE introduced 
greater  legal  compliance  for  unaccompanied  minors  who  have  not  applied  for  asylum  and  new 
provisions  regarding  residence  permit  applications  and  IT  amended  provisions  to  the  procedure 
which  allows  unaccompanied  minors  turning  18  to  convert  to  (another)  legal  residence  permit. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
According to the new provisions, a resident permit for study and work may be obtained by those 
minors having been placed in custody or subjected to protection, with approval by the Committee 
for  Foreign  Affairs.  BE  also  produced  guidance  on  sustainable  outcomes  for  minors  (BE).  DK 
established that a residence permit cannot be granted to an unaccompanied minor on the grounds of 
age, or an insufficient social network in the home country, where return to a reception / care centre 
is possible. Together with other Member States and the IOM Denmark, DK is involved in a project 
to establish such a centre in Afghanistan, the country of origin from which DK receives the majority 
of its unaccompanied minors. DK has also reported that residence permits issued under the specific 
rules set out above are only valid until the minor reaches the age of 18, after which, return to the 
country of origin will normally take place. 

Six Member States (IE, EL, ES, IT, PL, FI) referred to policy developments. These developments 
included  prohibiting  the  detention  of  unaccompanied  minor  asylum  applicants  and  ensuring  that 
each child has the right to attend school in accordance with the Government Programme (FI); the 
stated  aim  of  allocation  of  a  dedicated  social  worker  for  each  unaccompanied  minor  (IE); 
agreements  with  the  autonomous  cities  of  Ceuta  and  Melilla  to  improve  assistance  to 
unaccompanied  minors  (ES);  the  development  of  protection  services  and  the  provision  of 
accommodation in secure places within the scope of the National Programme for the protection of 
unaccompanied minors (IT); and the launch of the National Plan of Action Against Trafficking in 
Human Beings for 2011 – 2012 with particular emphasis on unaccompanied minors (PL).  

ES,  AT  and  SE  commented  on  their  support  for  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  on 
unaccompanied minors. For instance, ES reported on a project delivered in Senegal aiming at the 
prevention  of  irregular  migration  by  unaccompanied  minors  from  Senegal  to  the  EU.  The  project 
focused  on  targeted  awareness-raising  activities,  as  well  as  career  and  educational  guidance  and 
training to young people at risk of becoming unaccompanied minors. AT undertook actions as part 
of the UBAUM I project including the development of best practice guidelines for family tracing, 
evaluation  and  development  of  quality  standards  in  asylum  proceedings  and  training  of  legal 
advisors.  

In addition to these changes, in PT the two Commissions responsible for the protection of children’s 
rights  placed  emphasis  on  the  protection  of  children  and  the  prevention  of  risks  that  affect  their 
safety, health, training and education. EE implemented two projects in relation to unaccompanied 
minors,  one  of  which  focussed  on  the  minimum  standards  for  the  reception  and  protection  of 
asylum applicants aiming to enhance the capacity of the Estonian asylum system. In IT, following 
the announcement of a humanitarian emergency due to the Arab Spring, specific competences were 
attributed to the Ministry of Labour and Welfare for the provision of support to those municipalities 
supporting or authorising expenses for the reception of unaccompanied minors. SK was involved in 
two  regional  projects,  financed  by  the  European  Refugee  Fund,  focussing  on  care  for 
unaccompanied  minors,  and  one  project  at  national  level  dealing  with  psychological  and 
pedagogical  care  for  unaccompanied  minors.  EL  also  funded  several  programmes  for 
unaccompanied  minors  addressing,  for  instance,  the  assistance  and  transfer  to  Accommodation 
Centres,  medical  assistance,  as  well  as  psychological  and  social  support.  Developments  also 
occurred  in  relation  to  the  European  Returns  Platform  for  Unaccompanied  Minors  (ERPUM).  SE 
launched the ERPUM project in cooperation with NL, UK and NO, aimed at developing models for 
a  humane  and  organised  approach  to  return  for  unaccompanied  minors.  UK  also  reported  the 
development of plans, as part of the ERPUM project, for the return of unaccompanied children to 
Afghanistan, in cooperation with NL, SE and NO. In addition, NO began developing an information 
campaign  for  unaccompanied  minors  and  their  families  in  Afghanistan,  to  be  carried  out  in 
cooperation with UNICEF.  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
EL,  ES,  NL,  UK  as  well  as  NO,  reported  on  the  implementation  of  future  measures  relating  to 
unaccompanied  minors.  For  example,  EL’s  “Central  Scientific  Council  for  Preventing  and 
Combating  Minors’  Victimization  and  Criminalization”  will  focus  in  2012  on  unaccompanied 
minors and the issues they face. A focus group has been set up to identify the main problems and 
deal  with  common  issues,  such  as  detention  and  lack  of  accommodation  facilities  for 
unaccompanied  minors.  ES  plans  to  adopt  a  Framework  protocol  for  unaccompanied  foreign 
minors.  This  will  aim  to  coordinate  the  involvement  of  all  the  related  institutions  and 
administrations, from locating the minors to identifying them, determining their ages, placing them 
in the care of the public service for the protection of minors, and documenting them. The NL started 
a review of the unaccompanied minor policy in 2011, with all amendments identified entering into 
force  in  2012.  The  review  aimed,  as  a  main  objective,  to  more  rapidly  grant  a  decision  on 
unaccompanied minors’ stay. As a result, NL planned to abolish the existing residence permit for 
unaccompanied  minors.  Emphasis  was  also  placed  on  the  return  of  unaccompanied  minors  not  in 
need  of  protection.  The  UK  is  considering  ways  to  increase  its  level  of  family  tracing  within  a 
number  of  third  countries  and  NO  reported  that  they  will  present  a  White  Paper  on  migrating 
children  in  2012,  and  that  they  are  initiating  and  sponsor  efforts  to  develop  more  effective  and 
reliable age assessment methods. 

V.   MAXIMISING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF MIGRATION AND MOBILITY 

At EU level, the Commission adopted a Communication on a Dialogue on Migration, Mobility and 
Security with Southern Mediterranean countries, which was endorsed by the European Council in 
its conclusions of 24 June 2011.91 The dialogue on migration, mobility and security with Morocco 
and Tunisia has been officially launched in October 2011. Negotiations with Tunisia are evolving 
very positively and a Mobility Partnership could be concluded in the first semester of 2012. Talks 
with Morocco have been slowed down due to the negative vote of the European Parliament on the 
Fisheries agreement in December 2011, but will be reopen in March 2012 after the positive vote of 
the European Parliament on the agreement on liberalisation of agricultural and fisheries products in 
February 2012. Egypt expressed in September 2011 its lack of readiness to start the dialogue for the 
time being. For the Euro-African Dialogue on Migrations (the Rabat Process), a new Action plan 
for  the  2011-2013  period  has  been  adopted  at  the  Ministerial  Conference  held  in  Dakar  in 
November  2011.  A  second  Action  Plan  (2011-2013)  was  adopted  at  the  third  Africa-EU  Summit 
that took place in Tripoli on 29-30 November 2010. Implementation did not proceed in 2011 due to 
issues within the AU Commission in relation to its African co-chair (Libya).  

Dialogue  and  cooperation  with  countries  in  Eastern  and  South-Eastern  Europe  has  also  been 
substantially  reinforced,  notably  through  the  regular  meetings  at  ministerial,  senior  officers  and 
technical levels between the EU and those countries, including the annual meetings of the Justice, 
Freedom and Security sub-committees. An Eastern Partnership Summit was held in Warsaw: a joint 
declaration  reaffirming  the  total  commitment  to  increased  mobility  between  all  the  partners  was 
issued.  Dialogues  on  visa-free  regimes  have  been  launched  with  Ukraine  and  Moldova,  visa-
facilitation  and  readmission  agreements  are  being  implemented  with  both  those  countries  and 
Georgia  and  the  Commission  has  been  mandated  to  negotiate  similar  agreements  with  Armenia, 
Azerbaijan  and  Belarus.  A  Mobility  Partnership  has  been  signed  with  Armenia,  adding  to  the 
existing Mobility Partnerships with Moldova, Cape Verde and Georgia. 

91  

COM(2011) 292 final 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  GAMM  priorities  will  be  further  promoted  as  they  will  increase  the  policy  coherence  at 
European level in the field of migration and development and will support capacity building in third 
countries. A Commission Staff Working Paper on Migration and Development,92 accompanying the 
GAMM  Communication,  underlined  the  importance  of  putting  in  place  a  more  comprehensive 
framework  on  migration  and  development  and  suggestions  were  made  to  broaden  the  traditional 
agenda.  As  a  result,  new  priority  issues  to  be  addressed  include  mitigating  the  negative  social 
consequences  of  emigration  on  communities  and  families  in  countries  of  origin,  improving 
protection  for  the  human  rights  of  migrants  during  their  transit  process  and  supporting  the 
integration  of  migrants  in  destination  countries  by  building  on  EU  best  practices.  Better  attention 
will also be paid to the South-South dimension of migration in EU dialogue with partner countries 
and in external cooperation.  

Furthermore, on 13 October 2011, the Commission adopted the Agenda for Change on increasing 
the  impact  of  EU  Development  Policy.93  Recognising  that  migration  has  increasing  weight  in  the 
economies of several developing countries, the Agenda for Change calls on the EU to better address 
the interrelationship between migration, mobility and employment and to promote regional labour 
mobility  in  the  Global  South.  In  addition,  the  EU  should  assist  developing  countries  in 
strengthening their policies, capacities and activities in the area of migration and mobility, with a 
view  to  maximising  the  development  impact  of  the  increased  regional  and  global  mobility  of 
people. 

Elsewhere, and in terms of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), the Commission produced in 
2011  its  biannual  report.94  The  Commission  also  organised  an  expert  meeting  in  May  2011  to 
discuss environmentally induced migration as part of the EU external migration policy within the 
GAMM framework. 

At national level, many Member States (BE, DK, DE, ES, CY, LT, NL, AT, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK) 
and  NO  undertook  actions  to  integrate  migration  and  development  policies  effectively.  These 
included  studies  (DK,  NL,  SE,  NO),  approaches  or  strategies  for  integrating  migration  and 
development policies (DK, ES, SK), and solidarity projects (AT, DK, DE, FI, LT, PT, UK). 

In  relation  to  research,  in  DK,  a  three-year  study  on  migration  and  development  was  concluded, 
which analysed the relationship between migration and development, with a view to inform future 
development policies and pilot projects, whilst Maastricht University in NL is conducting policy-
supporting research within the framework ‘Migration and Development: A World in Motion’. The 
duration of the project is from 2009 to 2014, and includes research projects on remittances, 'brain 
drain’, return, migration, and development as a part of EU external policy and EU cooperation with 
third countries in mobility partnerships.  Reports from  SE’s  Parliamentary  Committee  for  Circular 
Migration  and  Development  were  presented  in  May  2010  and  March  2011  and  in  NO,  the 
Norwegian Peace Research Institute (PRIO) published a handbook on the role of diasporas in peace 
building,  including  case  studies  from  the  Horn  of  Africa.  ES  and  SK  both  referred  to 
methodological approaches to mainstream migration into international development policy, with SK 
implementing  this  approach  through  action  plans  in  their  Migration  Policy  documents.  Solidarity 
projects  have  included  working  with  diaspora  communities  (AT,  FI  and  UK);  cross  border  co-
operation (LT); and support to migrants in countries of origin (PT, UK). In ES, the Spain-ECOWAS 
Migration  and  Development  Fund  earmarked  €10  million  to  boost  the  positive  and  alleviate  the 

92  
93  
94  

SEC(2011) 1353 final 
COM(2011) 637 final 
SEC(2011) 1627 final 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
negative  effects  of  migration,  through  financing  projects  for  civil  society  and  strengthening 
institutions  of  the  Member  States  and  the  ECOWAS  Commission  in  their  management  of  the 
migration  phenomenon.  Projects  carried  out  within  the  framework  of  this  Fund  include:  ‘Return 
Migration and Development in Nigeria: global best practices in particular migration perspectives’ 
and ‘Promotion of development nexus of migration in the ECOWAS region.’ 

Other activities included developing a website providing information to entrepreneurs and investors 
in  countries  in  Africa  and  funding  capacity-developing  projects  for  migrants'  organisations  to 
promote  civic  engagement  of  migrants  (BE);  involvement  in  international  initiatives,  such  as  the 
Third  Euro-African  Ministerial  Conference  on  migration  and  development  (Dakar)  in  November 
2011  and  the  Western  Balkans  Ministerial  Forum  (Ohrid)  in  October  2011  (CY);  supporting 
countries, for example, the Western Balkans, in combining development and the implementation of 
coherent migration policies by fostering regional platforms for the exchange of experience and good 
practices  (DE);  continued  support  for  an  Inter-departmental  Committee  on  Development  during 
2011 (IE); development of cooperation agreements to promote cooperation in the implementation of 
official development aid programmes (SK); regularly consultation with diaspora groups (UK); and 
participation in the UN initiative the Global Forum on Migration and Development (NO). 

Several  Member  States  made  reference  to  planned  future  actions  to  integrate  migration  and 
development policies effectively in the near future. For example, CZ, in the context of the Action 
Plan  of  the  Prague  Process,  will  undertake  specific  projects  on  migration  and  development, 
including  a  study  of  relevant  policies  and  legislation  (on  migration,  taxes,  the  recognition  of 
diplomas  etc.)  of  countries  of  origin  and  destination  in  order  to  identify  successful  practices  and 
focus  on  possibilities  of  facilitating  circular  migration.  IT’s  Ministry  of  Labour  is  formalising 
cooperation  agreements  to  promote  regular  migration  with  Ukraine,  Moldova,  Albania,  Egypt, 
Morocco, Tunisia, Ghana, Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Ecuador and 
Peru. IT will also develop a service network in third countries abroad to improve the management 
of  migratory  (labour)  flows  by  creating  local  coordination  offices  in  Italian  Embassies  in  third 
countries with the responsibility of operative support and cooperative development.  

V.1  Remittances  

At EU level, the Commission and several Member States are supporting developing countries in the 
establishment of policy frameworks more conducive for remittances through a number of projects. 
Efforts  to  mitigate  brain  drain  have  been  advanced  by  supporting  the  World  Health  Organisation 
(WHO) Code of practice on the international recruitment of health personnel. The EU supports 51 
out of the 57 countries that have been identified by the WHO as facing an all out Human Resources 
for  Health  (HRH)  crisis.  The  EU  Programme  for  Action  to  tackle  the  critical  shortage  of  health 
workers  in  developing  countries  (2007  –  2013)95  produced  a  clear  set  of  actions  to  be  supported, 
aimed  at  enhancing  developing  countries’  capacities  to  train,  manage  and  retain  their  health 
workers. 

A  study  was  launched  in  September  2011  with  the  overall  objective  of  analysing  the  state  of 
implementation  of  existing  EU  commitments  with  regard  to  remittances  and  of  developing 
additional practical proposals. The study will identify the following pending issues: improving data 
collection  at  both  the  EU  and  partner  country  levels;  making  estimations  of  informal  flows; 
determining  the  needs  of  migrants  and  their  families;  making  a  preliminary  assessment  of  the 

95  

COM(2006) 870 final 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
impact of the implementation of the Directive on payment on transparency and cost; and assessing 
the feasibility of creating an EU-wide remittance portal. 

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  (BE,  DK,  DE,  ES,  FR,  IT,  UK)  and  NO  were  active  in 
promoting  co-development  actions  and  support  instruments  for  transferring  migrants'  remittances. 
DE launched a website to inform migrants  about the  services and  fees of banks and other money 
transfer  institutes,  which  aims  to  improve  the  transparency  of  the  money  transfer  market  and  to 
increase competition. The website ultimately aims to make money transfers to  countries of origin 
both cheaper and more secure. NO has also established a public website "Sending Money Home," 
set  up  by  the  Norwegian  Consumer  Council,  which  allows  migrants  to  compare  the  prices  of 
remittance transfers. 

ES  and  UK  contributed  to  such  developments  through  their  participating  in  the  World  Bank-led 
Global  Remittances  Working  Group,  which  committed  to  reducing  average  costs  of  transferring 
remittances  from  10%  to  5%  by  2014.  DK  reported  its  support  for  a  World  Bank  study  on 
migration,  remittances  and  development  support,  aimed  at  improving  the  flows  of  migration  and 
remittances  in  sub-Saharan  Africa  and  the  UK  reported  that  its  Department  for  International 
Development had also continued to support various initiatives to help reduce the cost and improve 
the  speed  and  safety  of  transmitting  remittances  to  countries  such  as  Bangladesh,  Ghana  and 
Pakistan.  In  IT,  a  protocol  of  agreement  was  signed  by  the  Ministry  of  Interior  and  the  Italian 
Banking Association to promote the financial inclusion of migrants. Research was also carried out 
by  the  Bank  of  Italy  on  Credit  to  immigrants  in  IT  and  by  the  Italian  Banking  Association  on 
Immigrants  and  Financial  Inclusion.  Conversely,  in  IT,  Law  decree  no.138,  approved  on  14 
September 2011 with Law no. 148, setting out additional urgent measures for financial stabilisation 
and  development,  introduced  a  new  stamp  duty  of  2%  on  international  money  transfers  made  by 
non-EU citizens to non-EU countries.96   

CZ and SE reported planned actions to promote co-development actions and support instrument for 
transferring migrants' remittances to their countries. In terms of the recently endorsed Action Plan 
of the Prague Process, cooperation on migration and development will be supported by a specific 
project  led  by  CZ,  analysing  policies  and  legislation  (on  migration,  taxes,  the  recognition  of 
diplomas  etc.)  of  countries  of  origin  and  destination  in  order  to  identify  successful  practices  and 
focus on the possibilities of facilitating circular migration. In SE, the Parliamentary Committee on 
Circular Migration and Development proposed to set up a website where consumers can compare 
the costs of transferring a given sum of money to a given country through different operators. The 
implementation of this proposal is currently under consideration.  

V.2 Working with diasporas 

At EU level, the contribution of diaspora organisations as agents for development of their countries 
of origin vis-à-vis both policymakers and donors are increasingly valued. Hence, the budget line for 
non-state actors and Local Authorities in Development is also open to diaspora organisations. The 
EC-UN  joint  initiative  for  migration  and  development  fosters  exchange  of  experience  and  best 
practices among diaspora organisations, provides capacity building and supports their involvement 
in the development of their countries of origin. Promoting dialogue and cooperation with diaspora is 
one of the key aspects of this programme. One of the studies financed by the European Commission 
is on the possible involvement of diaspora groups with EU action in the Horn of Africa. Moreover, 
one of the 12 initiatives of the 2011-2013 Migration Mobility and Employment (MME) Action plan 

96  

This measure was abolished at the beginning of 2012.  

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
aims to establish an Africa–EU Diaspora Cooperation Framework in order to engage diasporas in 
the development of Africa and to build capacity, knowledge and transfer skills.  

At national level, few Member States were able to report on specific national policies with regard to 
supporting  diaspora  groups  in  enhancing  development  in  their  country  of  origin.  SE  reported  that 
the Government Communication "Global Challenges - our responsibility" specifically states that it 
is necessary to increase knowledge nationally about diasporas and their contribution to development 
in  countries  of  origin;  promote  the  transfer  of  knowledge  from  individual  labour  immigrants  and 
diasporas to their countries of origin; work to enable more secure and cheaper remittance transfers; 
and support activities that will encourage entrepreneurship among migrants.   

However, several Member States (BE, DK, DE, IT, NL, AT, PT, FI, SE and UK) have all reported 
on specific activities with regard to supporting diaspora groups in enhancing development in their 
country  of  origin.  In  AT,  the  Austrian  Development  Agency  (ADA)  created  a  number  of  events 
involving diasporas during the time of the World Cup, and enhanced their visibility and profile with 
the  Austrian  business  community,  increasing  self-esteem.  AT  also  implements  the  ‘Migration  for 
Development in the Western Balkans’ (MIDWEB) project, supported by the Ministries of Labour, 
Social Affairs and Consumer Protection, European and International Affairs and IOM, which works 
with  the  Balkan  diaspora  to  provide  information  about  opportunities  for  legal  migration  for 
potential  labour  migrants  and  to  improve  development  in  the  Balkans.  In  BE,  the  Belgian 
Cooperation  Development  Department  has  a  specific  budget  line  to  co-finance  projects  and 
programs from associations of migrant diasporas who wish to contribute to the development of their 
countries  of  origin,  and  also  supports  the  fourth  implementation  phase  of  the  MIDA  Great  Lakes 
Programme,  with  the  aim  to  encourage  the  mobility  of  the  skills  and  resources  of  the  diaspora  in 
response  to  local  development  needs.  A  "Diaspora  Cell,"  established  within  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  CBL-ACP  by  the  DGDC  in  collaboration  with  the  Belgian  Investment  Company  for 
Developing  Countries  (BIO)  and  Centre  for  Development  of  Enterprise  (CDE),  further  supports 
migrants willing to invest in their countries of origin. The Danish Refugee Council in DK supports 
a  fund  for  diaspora  involvement  in  rehabilitation  and  redevelopment  in  former  home  countries, 
aimed  specifically  at  the  Afghani  and  Somali  diaspora.  In  DE,  an  independent  programme  was 
launched  to  allow  migrant  organisations  to  receive  advice,  and  (sometimes)  financial  support,  for 
development-related project proposals in their countries of origin. FI provides specific development 
cooperation  funds  for  the  initiatives  of  diaspora  organisations  in  Finland  within  their  countries  of 
origin. The Somali diaspora in Finland has been most active in this respect. In IT, regional and local 
governments, with immigrant associations, NGOs and civil society organisations, have established 
partnership relations with similar institutions and organisations in migrants' countries of origin, to 
facilitate return and initiate co-development relations. 

NL,  together  with  Switzerland  and  the  IOM,  are  financing  the  development  of  a  'Diaspora 
Handbook.'  The  Handbook  will  show  how  policymakers  can  best  involve  diaspora  groups  in  the 
countries of origin and cooperate with them, by showing good practices and lessons learned. It will 
also include sources from where more information can be found. 

To  facilitate  the  post-conflict  reconciliation  process  in  Guinea-Bissau,  PT  supported  the 
organisation of a conference "Peace and Reconciliation" which targeted the PT-based diaspora from 
Guinea-Bissau. PT has facilitated and supported a fruitful dialogue between the diverse groups of 
the  diaspora.  In  SE,  the  ‘Kosmopolit’  project  targets  foreign-born  nationals  to  support  trade 
promotion, helping to give developing countries greater access to the Swedish market, and improve 
those  countries’  chances  of  attracting  foreign  investment.  Further,  the  project  ‘Investment 
Cooperation with Entrepreneurs from Immigrant Backgrounds’ supports business ideas which have 
the  potential  to  become  viable  enterprises  in  the  entrepreneur’s  country  of  origin.  The  UK’s 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
Department for International development (DFID) co-funds the ‘Common Ground Initiative’ (CGI) 
which aims to increase funding to small and diaspora organisations to create sustainable change in 
disadvantaged communities in countries of origin, mainly in Africa. 

VI.   PROVISION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

The  developments  described  in  this  paper  were  informed  through  a  number  of  associated 
instruments  some  of  which  have  been  outlined  previously  in  the  relevant  section.  Indeed,  the 
provision  and  exchange  of  information  in  order  to  better  inform  policymakers  continued  to  be  an 
important activity across the whole range of asylum and migration issues. 

At  EU  level,  the  European  Migration  Network  (EMN)97  continued  to  serve  as  a  useful  source  of 
information to support policymakers inter alia through its Studies (e.g. on temporary and circular 
migration; on labour demand and undertaking studies on visa policy as a migration channel and on 
practical  responses  to  reducing  irregular  migration)  and  Ad-Hoc  Queries  (76  individual  queries 
launched in 2011 alone with, on average, 17+ Member State responses to each one or, alternatively, 
over  1300  individual  responses  provided  by  the  EMN  NCPs).  The  EMN  also  made  a  number  of 
innovations, such as the production of briefing EMN Inform notes, as part of an external evaluation 
of the EMN, in order to better inform policymakers. Another development was the completion of a 
multilingual Glossary of asylum and migration with 300+ terms based on EU acquis serving inter 
alia  to  improve  comparability  between  EU  Member  States  through  the  use  and  common 
understanding of the terms and definitions contained therein.  

In  light  of  events  in  2011,  the  Commission  took  steps  in  order  to  revive  the  Mutual  Information 
Mechanism (MIM),98 which was again infrequently used. The MIM is a web-based platform which 
allows  Member  States  to  rapidly  exchange  information  on  national  asylum  and  immigration 
measures in a catalogued, uniform and registered format, whilst strengthening mutual confidence. 
Following  a  meeting  of  the  National  Contact  Points  held  in  December  2011,  the  Commission 
developed  draft  Common  Guidelines  on  the  use  of  the  MIM,  setting  a  list  of  cases  where 
information  should  be  communicated  via  MIM  (such  as  regularisations,  reintroduction  of  borders 
checks,  sudden  influx  of  third  country  nationals,  temporary  residence  permits,  and  abuse  of  entry 
systems). 

In  the  context  of  information  exchange  in  asylum,  the  Eurasil  network  organised  six  workshops, 
including workshops focusing on the latest situation in Nigeria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Eurasil 
network  also  facilitated  ad  hoc  written  queries  on  asylum-related  matters  submitted  by  Member 
States  for  feedback.  Additionally,  the  EU  COI  Portal  was  launched  in  July  2011.  The  EU  COI 
Portal is a tool which enables 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.  Preparations  began  regarding  the  transfer  of  the  EU  COI  Portal  and  the 
activities of the Eurasil network to the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).  

At  national  level,  all  Member  States  shared  and  exchanged  information  on  migration  with  other 
Member  States.  In  addition  to  participating  in  the  work  of  the  European  Migration  Network,  to 
which NO became a member in 2010, and benefitting from its Ad-Hoc Queries for collecting and 
exchanging  information,  several  Member  States  and  NO  reported  that  they  made  use  of  other 

97  
98  

All outputs of the EMN are publicly available at http://www.emn.europa.eu.  
Council Decision 2006/688/EC of 5 October 2006 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
existing  (EU)  platforms  and  networks,  including  the  EU  Immigration  Portal  (BE,  DE,  PL,  UK), 
National Contact Points for Integration (PT, SK, UK), Eurasil (NO), FRAN (CZ, SK), GDISC (CZ, 
NL, SE, UK and NO), ICMPD (CZ, IT, PL), Eurostat (CZ, PL, UK), IGC (NL, FI, UK and NO), 
OECD (FI), ICONet (IE), i-MAP (IT). Some Member States (EL, ES, MT, NL, PL, PT) highlighted 
the importance of the Mutual Information Mechanism (MIM).  

A  number  of  Member  States  (IE,  EE,  LV,  LT,  AT,  PL,  PT,  FI,  UK)  referred  to  cooperation  at 
regional  level  and  national  level.  Concerning  the  Baltic  Region,  LV  referred  to  meetings  of  the 
Migration  Sub-group  and  Statistics  Working  Group  of  the  Baltic  Council  of  Ministers,  in 
cooperation  with  LT,  EE,  DK,  NO,  PL,  SE  and  FI. The  participating  States  discussed  changes  to 
their  relevant  national  legislation  on  migration  and  use  of,  and  means  of  obtaining,  EU  funds  to 
improve migration services. In this context, the Migration Department in LT, in cooperation with its 
LT EMN NCP, held a meeting of the Statistics Working Group of the Baltic Sea countries in 2011.   

In  relation  to  minors,  EE  referred  to  cooperation  amongst  the  National  Contact  Points  for 
Unaccompanied  and  Trafficked  Children  and  within  the  Baltic  Sea’s  Working  Group  for 
Cooperation  on  Children  at  Risk.  FI  reported  on  cooperation  within  the  framework  of  Nordic 
cooperation on migration and asylum (NSHF) with FR, SE, DK, NO and Iceland.  

Information was also shared by AT at national level, with regional cooperation undertaken through 
an operative network “Forum Salzburg.” PT continued, in 2011, to perfect the immigration statistics 
portal,  making  detailed  statistical  information  available  at  national  level  about  the  foreign 
community resident in PT. The UK highlighted their national efforts to share information, such as 
the  use  of  the  Migration  Statistics  User  forum  for  users  to  discuss  their  need  for,  and  use  of, 
migration  statistics.  The  UK  also  established  a  new  format  for  statistical  publications  on 
immigration which includes topic based briefs and more detailed tables that provide greater access 
to time series data and breakdowns by detailed nationality. 

In relation to asylum, SK collaborated with other Member States in exchanging information on the 
best  asylum  procedures  through  the  European  Network  of  Asylum  Reception  Organisations 
(ENARO), with exchanges in 2011 with Switzerland.  

* 

*        * 

EN 

68 

   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 
and, following the practice of Eurostat, data values are rounded down or up to the nearest five. 

In some cases, where Eurostat data were not available and unless indicated otherwise, the data were 
provided  by  the  EMN  from  their  respective  national  agencies.  Nominally,  therefore,  these  are 
provisional data covering the first nine months of 2011 and they are indicated in italics, as well 
as  in  the  corresponding  Notes  for  each  Table.  Ultimately,  these  provisional  data,  which  are 
nominally in accordance with Regulation (EC) 862/2007, will be finalised and also made available 
via the Eurostat database.  

TABLE 1: PROVISIONAL FIRST RESIDENCE PERMITS, BY REASON, IN 2011 

Member 
State 

Total 

Family 
reasons 

Education 
reasons 

Remunerated 
activities 

Other 
reasons 

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 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

22 990 

2 850 

5 510 

72 820 

27 475 

22 580 

3 205 

1 225 

NA 

NA 

13 100 

7 480 

NA 

NA 

193 400 

82 885 

331 100 

141 405 

9 780 

3 775 

2 290 

2 385 

295 

930 

690 

720 

18 950 

2 256 

1 265 

230 

41 855 

16 745 

NA 

NA 

31 060 

6 895 

25 576 

11 565 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

3 950 

1 125 

23 680 

10 290 

87 655 

23 790 

NA 

NA 

370 

NA 

1 050 

NA 

56 960 

30 260 

1 085 

490 

305 

280 

5 959 

410 

8 920 

NA 

5 100 

6 320 

NA 

NA 

375 

5 815 

6 835 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

9 830 

17 155 

1 221 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

4 805 

5 610 

385 

NA 

3 380 

1 190 

NA 

NA 

24 690 

28 870 

119 342 

40 095 

7 100 

530 

1 205 

520 

1 395 

1 830 

90 

865 

6 595 

4 140 

390 

235 

8 420 

7 770 

NA 

NA 

15 440 

3 630 

6 775 

NA 

NA 

1 420 

6 390 

920 

NA 

NA 

1 010 

1 185 

26 120 

30 910 

NA 

NA 

69 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
NO 

26 765 

11 060 

3 865 

7 520 

4 325 

Notes: 
1.  Unless  indicated  to  the  contrary  below,  data  are  provisional  for  the  first  nine  months  of  2011  and  rounded  to  the 

nearest five and as provided by the respective EMN NCP (see below also). 

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
3. The following periods are covered in the data from the following Member States: 

DK: January – November 2011 
DE, FR, IT, LT, LV, PT, SE, NO: whole of 2011 
MT: from 1st January to 23 October 2011 
HU: from 1st January to 31 October 2011 

4. DE: Issued residence permits 2011 with first entry from 01/01/2011 onwards (current new arrivals) and cut-off date 
31/12/2011,  i.e.  data  are  for  the  whole  of  2011.  Source:  Bundesamt  für  Migration  und  Flüchtlinge  (2012): 
“Wanderungsmonitor” 

5.  For  LU,  resident  permits  for  ‘education  reasons’  include  residents permits  issued  for  ‘pupils’  (110)  and  ‘students’ 

(170). Resident permits for ‘remunerated activities do not include resident permits issued for ‘researchers’ (30). 

6. For MT, data for permits granted for family reasons include residence permits issued in accordance with the Family 
Reunification  Directive,  national  policies  and  family  members  of  Maltese  nationals.  Data  for  permits  granted  for 
education reasons include residence permits issued in accordance with the provisions of the Students’ Directive and 
others issued for the purpose of English language study and other short courses. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE 2: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

99

 OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS, IN 2011 

Member 
State 

Total 
(%) 

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 

NO 

NA 

NA 

NA 

19.4 

14.6 

19.7 

15.0 

20.6 

35.3 

NA 

12.1 

NA 

15.4 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

9.8 

NA 

23.4 

NA 

NA 

10.0 

24.3 

31.6 

NA 

11.3 

Notes: 
1.  Unless  indicated  to  the  contrary  below,  data  are  provisional  for  the  first  nine  months  of  2011  and  rounded  to  the 

nearest five and as provided by the respective EMN NCP (see below also). 

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published or, in the case of LT, because no data can be 

given as the small sample size is statistically unreliable. 

99  Based  on  the  ILO  definition,  Eurostat  defines  unemployed  persons  as  persons  aged  15  to  74  who:  (1)  are  without 
work; (2) are available to start work within the next two weeks; and (3) have actively sought employment at some 
time during the previous four weeks. The unemployment rate is the number of people unemployed as a percentage of 
the labour force. The labour force is the total number of people employed plus unemployed. Current deviations from 
the definition of unemployment in the EU Labour Force Survey: Spain, Italy and United Kingdom: Unemployment is 
restricted to persons aged 16-74. In Spain and Italy the legal minimum age for working is 16. Employment data used 
for  Italy  includes  also  those  above  74.Unemployment  rate  can  be  broken  by  groups  of  country  of  citizenship,  age 
groups and sex. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
3. FR: In 2010 this was 23.5%. 
4. EL, AT: average of 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2011 
5. ES: data refers to the Economically Active Population Survey, 3rd Quarter 2011. 
6. LV: Data are for the whole of 2011 and provided by the State Employment Agency. 
7. FI: Average rate for the year 2011 
8. DE and IT data include both TCNs and EU nationals and for IT are for the whole of 2011. 
9. PT: Data for whole of 2011. 
10.  SK data  are  for  the  whole  of  2011  and  explains  that  its  lower  unemployment  rate  of  foreigners  in  part  relates  to 
Slovak legislation, which stipulates that if the employment of the foreigner for the purpose of which s/he obtained a 
temporary residence permit is terminated, s/he is obliged to leave the Slovak Republic.  

11.  CY  indicates  that  the  total  unemployment  rate  in  November  2011  reached 8.2%  and  third  country  nationals  who 

reside permanently in Cyprus constitute about 8% of this rate. 

12.  NO:  Data  are  for  the  whole  of  2011  and  are  on  the  basis  of  registrations  at  the  Norwegian  Labour  and  Welfare 

Services. Corresponding unemployment rate for EU citizens in Norway is 5.2% and for its nationals 2.2%. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
TABLE 3: NUMBER OF VISAS ISSUED, BY TYPE, IN 2011 

Member 
State 

[Schengen] 
Short-term 
("C" type) 

[National] 
Long-stay 
("D" type) 

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 

NO 

201 525 

742 760 

557 455 

84 265 

1 588 595 

142 030 

Not applicable 

755 775 

1 337 990 

1 938 555 

1 445 745 

NA 

156 305 

340 690 

8 810 

278 020 

31 110 

390 460 

270 540 

893 455 

126 515 

127 455 

38 125 

69 680 

1 244 680 

192 490 

Not applicable 

138 495 

28 120 

8 460 

NA 

5 970 

162 260 

NA 

100 375 

24 870 

NA 

165 745 

237 810 

51 290 

3 020 

2 485 

545 

6 790 

NA 

NA 

20 215 

2 535 

13 165 

8 770 

NA 

1 235 

NA 

2 485 

NA 

NA 

Notes: 
1.  Unless  indicated  to  the  contrary  below,  data  for  "[Schengen]  Short-term  ("C"  type)"  visas  are  as  provided  by  the 
Member States to the Commission (May 2012) in accordance with Article 46 of the Visa Code and for the whole of 
2011,100  whilst  data  for  "[National]  Long-stay  ("D"  type)"  visas  are,  unless  stated  to  the  contrary  below,  are 
provisional for the first nine months of 2011 and as provided by the respective EMN NCP. In both cases, data are 
rounded to the nearest five. 

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published, whereas "Not applicable" means that these 

Member States do not issue such visas as they are not (yet) part of the Schengen area. 

3. [Schengen] Short-term ("C" type) visas entitle the holder to stay on the territories of all Member States for a period of 
maximum three months in any six-month period from the date of first entry in the territory of the Member States. 
Such  visas  may  be  issued  for  the  purpose  of  a  1  –  2  ("C")  or  multiple  entries  ("MEV  C  Visas")  or  with  limited 

100 Data are also available at http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_visa_en.htm. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
territorial  validity  ("LTV  C")  which  entitles  the  holder  to  stay  only  in  the  Member  State(s)  for  which  the  visa  is 
valid. Unless stated to the contrary below, the data presented are for all of these types. 

4.  [National]  Long-stay  ("D"  type)  visas  are  for  stays  exceeding  three  months  and  are  national  visas  issued  in 

accordance with Member States' national legislation. 

5. CY: data cover the period from January to November 2011. 
6. IE: data include 60 092 entry visas and 40 281 re-entry visas. Re-entry visa are issued to nationals of visa required 
countries who are legally present in IE and wish to leave temporarily (e.g. for holidays, business) and re-enter IE. 

7. BE, DE, FR, IT, LV, PT, RO, SK, SE: Data cover the whole of 2011. 
8. BG, RO: Do not (yet) issue Schengen visas; theirs are national short-term visas. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
TABLE 4: TRAINING OF BORDER GUARDS ON ASYLUM, IN 2011 

Member 
State 

Total 
number 
of border 
guards 

Border 
guards 
who 
received 
training 

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 

NO 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

16 780 

NA 

NA 

NA 

2 755 

3 560 

NA 

3 300 

NA 

NA 

NA 

15 220 

700 

NA 

2 285 

940 

1 920 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

95 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

65 

45 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

20 

NA 

61 

845 

135 

NA 

0 

NA 

Notes: 
1. Unless indicated to the contrary below, data are provisional for the first nine months of 2011 and rounded to the nearest five and as 

provided by the respective EMN NCP (see below also). 

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
3.  FI:  training  is  composed  of:  Basic  courses  (two,  Border  Guard  Basic  Course  classes  17  and 18),  a total  of  98  students;  Master 
course: 17 students; Officer training: Bachelor’s degree: 15 officers; Master’s degree: 5 officers. NB: Asylum training has been 
included in the curriculum for basic and further training for border guards, enabling all border guards to be trained in this topic. 
4. HU: no aggregated data on training available for 2011. 71 persons graduated at the Police Academy in 2011; 400 persons in the 
framework of the vocational training project funded by External Border Fund. In addition, there were the students graduating at 
police secondary school. 

5. PL: data corresponds to the total number of the Border Guard officers trained on asylum. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
6. UK: the UK is not a full participant in Frontex, it sends fewer Officers to this activity and thus fewer to the associated mid-level 
courses.  One  officer  completed  the  Frontex  mid-level  officer  course  in  2011;  all  frontline  immigration  officers  receive  human 
rights training at national level. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
TABLE  5:  THIRD-COUNTRY  NATIONALS  REFUSED  ENTRY,  APPREHENDED,  ORDERED  TO 
LEAVE AND RETURNED, IN 2011101 

a) Refusals of Entry, 2011 

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 

2 730 
2 810 
360 
115 
3 365 
2 205 
2 545 
11 160 
227 655 
11 090 
8 635 
575 
1 230 
2 215 
NA 
11 790 
80 
3 500 
445 
20 225 
1 795 
3 620 
7 970 
595 
1 420 
155 
14 720 

Refused at the 
land border 
Not Applicable 
2 310 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
560 
475 
10 470 
219 465 
2 125 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
910 
2 100 
Not Applicable 
11 460 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
145 
19 270 
Not Applicable 
2 965 
7 605 
590 
1 185 
Not Applicable 
1 480 

Refused at the sea 
border 

Refused at the air border 

35 
140 
Not Applicable 
NA 
25 
1 625 
130 
225 
250 
970 
4 345 
15 
40 
35 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
0 
75 
Not Applicable 
85 
5 
80 
5 
Not Applicable 
20 
NA 
2 395 

2 695 
360 
360 
115 
3 340 
25 
1 940 
460 
7 945 
7 990 
4 295 
560 
275 
80 
NA 
330 
80 
3 425 
305 
870 
1 785 
580 
360 
5 
215 
155 
10 840 

Notes: 
1. Unless indicated to the contrary below also, data are rounded to the nearest five and as provided by Eurostat (April 

2012) for the entire year 2011.  

2. "NA" means data are 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. 

101  More  details  on  irregular  migration  are  given  in  Frontex's  FRAN  Quarterly  Reports,  see,  for  example, 

http://www.frontex.europa.eu/situation_at_the_external_border/art28.html.  

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) Apprehensions and Returns, 2011 

Member 
State 

Third-
country 
nationals 
apprehended 

Third-
country 
nationals 
ordered to 
leave 

Third-country 
nationals 
returned 
following an 
order to leave 

Third-country 
nationals returned 
to a third country 
following an order 
to leave 

Forced 
Returns 

Voluntary 
Returns 

Of those returned 
voluntarily, the 
number returned 
via an Assisted 
Voluntary Return 
Programme 

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 

NO 

13 550 

1 355 

3 085 

400 

NA 

1 355 

2 520 

2 170 

5 915 

665 

530 

455 

56 345 

17 550 

14 075 

1 020 

2 470 

88 840 

68 825 

57 975 

29 505 

8 230 

130 

1 895 

NA 

3 810 

1 730 

6 145 

20 080 

6 875 

9 230 

3 365 

4 350 

1 145 

3 305 

20 765 

54 175 

NA 

480 

1 805 

0 

73 220 

83 440 

29 505 

NA 

1 060 

1 765 

NA 

6 935 

1 730 

29 500 

8 520 

7 865 

8 570 

3 095 

4 410 

580 

4 685 

17 600 

54 175 

2 170 

415 

755 

10 585 

23 350 

20 425 

6 180 

4 605 

1 055 

1 655 

NA 

4 610 

160 

9 475 

5 225 

7 050 

1 245 

2 875 

1 745 

445 

3 235 

13 470 

49 080 

455 

5 700 

2 150 

3 765 

3 255 

335 

530 

485 

14 120 

355 

755 

NA 

330 

1 215 

NA 

85 

195 

10 585 

11 535 

20 325 

13 360 

NA 

12 990 

6 180 

12 180 

NA 

0 

1 645 

NA 

4 180 

160 

NA 

3 765 

6 920 

1 090 

2 875 

1 170 

435 

2 490 

9 845 

40 485 

485 

3 500 

50 

110 

25 

890 

NA 

NA 

2 190 

1 605 

690 

410 

NA 

390 

2 210 

2 495 

NA 

3 330 

NA 

225 

45 

NA 

130 

360 

3 290 

NA 

2 775 

245 

795 

1 055 

1 165 

525 

410 

NA 

NA 

3 040 

5 435 

585 

130 

NA 

95 

305 

9 740 

NA 

NA 

NA 

255 

0 

NA 

10 

300 

1 440 

6 770 

NA 

130 

0 

75 

30 

100 

350 

NA 

NA 

195 

1 165 

555 

NA 

NA 

95 

305 

1 415 

NA 

1 570 

Notes: 
1. Unless indicated to the contrary below also, data are rounded to the nearest five and as provided by Eurostat (April 
2012) for the entire year 2011, except when indicated in italics, in which case they are provisional for the first nine 
months  of  2011  (or  other  reference  period  as  stated  in  the  footnotes  below)  and  provided  by  the  respective  EMN 
NCP (see below also).  

2. Data for the last three columns are not recorded via Regulation 862/2007 and are as provided by the respective EMN 
NCP (see below also). In principle, the 4th and 5th columns should sum up to be the same as the 3rd column, although, 
for various reasons, including as a result of the rounding, this is not the case for all Member States. 

3. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
4. BE, LV, PT: data are for the whole of 2011. 
5. CY, CZ: data cover the period from January to November 2011. 
6. EL: For Voluntary Return, data cover the period from January to October 2011. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
7.  EE:  Returned  as part  of  forced return  measures:  data  cover  the  period  from  January  to  November  2011;  Returned 

voluntarily: data cover the period from January to June 2011. 

8.  FI:  Returned  as  part  of  forced  return  measures:  data  cover  the  period  from  January  to  December  2011;  Returned 

voluntarily: data cover the period from January to December 2011. 

9.  IT:  Returned  as  part  of  forced  return  measures:  data  cover  the  period  from  January  to  June  2011;  Returned 

voluntarily: data cover the period from January to August 2011. 

10. LV: data are provisional for the whole of 2011. 
11. SE: Voluntary returns means persons who have received support for re-establishment in the country of origin. Data 
on  forced  returns,  voluntary  returns  and  persons  returned  via  an  Assisted  Voluntary  Return  Programme  cover  the 
whole of 2011. 

12. PL indicates the following breakdown for Assisted Voluntary Return Programme: 15 persons (AVR programme of 
the Office for Foreigners,) and 1 150 persons (AVR program of IOM and the Office for Foreigner and the Border 
Guard). 

13. ES: Assisted Voluntary Return Programme data cover until 7th December 2011. A breakdown was also provided: 
20 - Social Care Return Programme; 95 - Productive Return Programme; 4 755 - Advance Cumulative Payment of 
Unemployment Benefit Programme. 

14. HU indicates the following breakdown for forced return measures: 65 (by air); 90 (part of air); 740 (by land). 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE 6: NUMBER OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS REGULARISED, IN 2011 

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 

NO 

Total 

9 300 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

780 

NA 

7 205 

22 500 

50 

NA 

40 

0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

6 835 

NA 

NA 

0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Notes: 
1.  Unless  indicated  to  the  contrary  below,  data  are  provisional  for  the  first  nine  months  of  2011  and  rounded  to  the 

nearest five and as provided by the respective EMN NCP (see below also). 

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published, which may, in some cases, be owing to the 

Member State not having a regularisation programme in 2011. 

3. BE: Annual data from (January to December 2011) 
4. FR, PT: data are for whole of 2011 and for FR correspond to "admission exceptionnelle au séjour" coprising of 3 010 

regularised for economic reason and 4 195 for personal and family bounds. 

5. EL: data given on the basis of article 44, par. 2 of law 3386/2005 as amended by law 3907/2011 (i.e. granting of 

residence permits for exceptional reasons) 

6. IT: Provisional data as of June 2011. Following their September 2009 regularisation programme and up to the end of 

2011, a total of 235 090 regularisations were made out of 295 130 applications submitted.  

7. UK provided 2010 data: 1 785  
8. LU indicates that no third-country nationals was regularised, based on Article 89, but that two third-country nationals 

were issued an authorisation to stay for ‘private reasons,’ based on humanitarian grounds.  

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
9. CY refers to the approximate number of detainees released under conditions in 2011. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
TABLE 7: DATA ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING, IN 2011 

Member 
State 

Third-country nationals 
receiving a residence permit as 
victim of human trafficking 

Arrested traffickers 

Convicted traffickers 

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 

NO 

50 

NA 

NA 

NA 

40 

0 

NA 

60 

NA 

NA 

665 

30 

0 

0 

NA 

0 

0 

245 

NA 

5 

15 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0 

40 

NA 

50 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

490 

NA 

850 

205 

4 880 

480 

35 

35 

30 

NA 

NA 

5 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

30 

105 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

55 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0 

0 

10 

5 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

5 

5 

NA 

30 (since 2003) 

Notes: 
1. Unless indicated to the contrary below, data are provisional for the first nine months of 2011 and rounded to the nearest five and as 

provided by the respective EMN NCP (see below also). 

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
3. BE: Data on victims refer to number of third-country nationals who proved to be victim after introducing a complaint according to 

the procedures described in law (January - December 2011). 

4. EE: Data on arrested traffickers refer to cases of THB related crimes in pre-trial procedure. 
5. IT: Data on arrested traffickers cover the whole of 2011. 
6. CY: Data cover the period from 1 January to 21 December 2011. 
7. FR, LV, PT: data cover the whole of 2011. 
8. SK: Data on victims refer to victims of human trafficking identified by the IOM from January 2011 to October 2011. 
9. SE: Third-country nationals receiving a residence permit as victim of human trafficking includes both victims and witnesses and 

could also include victims of other types of crime. Arrested traffickers includes also suspected traffickers. 
10. UK: 26 suspects of trafficking were arrested in Romania since 2008 by Joint Investigation Team UK – RO. 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
 
11.  NO:  In  addition  to  the  52  persons  counted  as  victims  in  the  table,  4  persons  were  granted  a  permit  as  witnesses  in  cases 
concerning human trafficking. NO does not collect statistics on traffickers arrested or involved in trafficking cases but highlights 
that in 2010, 40 new cases of trafficking were investigated. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
TABLE 8: ASYLUM APPLICANTS AND FIRST INSTANCE DECISIONS BY OUTCOME, IN 2011 

Member 
State 

Asylum 
Applicants 
(incl. New) 

Total 
Decisions 

of which 
Total 
Positive 

incl. Geneva 
convention 

incl. Subsidiary 
protection 

incl. 
Humanitarian 
reasons 

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 
(EU-27) 

NO 

31 915 
(25 360) 
890 
(705) 
750 
(485) 
3 945 
(3 945) 
53 255 
(45 695) 
65 
(65) 
1 290 
(1 280) 
9 310 
(NA) 
3 420 
(2 970) 
57 335 
(52 140) 
34 115 
(34 115) 
1 770 
(NA) 
340 
(335) 
525 
(405) 
2 150 
(1 915) 
1 690 
(NA) 
1 890 
(1 865) 
14 600 
(11 565) 
14 420 
(NA) 
6 900 
(4 985) 
275 
(275) 
1 720 
(1 695) 
360 
(305) 
490 
(320) 
2 915 
(NA) 
29 670 
(29 645) 
26 430 
(25 435) 
302 455 
(NA) 
8 995 
(NA) 

19 825 

5 075 

3 810 

1 265 

605 

685 

3 570 

40 295 

65 

1 365 

8 670 

3 395 

42 190 

24 150 

2 630 

90 

305 

1 015 

895 

1 605 

15 790 

13 245 

3 215 

100 

1 075 

215 

215 

2 595 

26 720 

22 835 

190 

320 

1 315 

9 675 

15 

75 

180 

990 

4 580 

7 155 

70 

20 

25 

45 

155 

885 

6 830 

4 085 

475 

50 

75 

20 

115 

1 065 

8 805 

7 190 

10 

105 

735 

7 100 

10 

60 

45 

335 

3 340 

1 805 

55 

5 

5 

40 

45 

70 

710 

2 480 

155 

20 

70 

15 

5 

160 

2 335 

5 480 

180 

200 

385 

665 

5 

15 

85 

630 

1 240 

2 265 

0 

15 

15 

5 

100 

690 

4 065 

1 605 

155 

30 

10 

5 

80 

715 

5 390 

1 590 

237 365 

59 465 

28 995 

21 400 

9 545 

4 015 

2 810 

765 

- 

- 

10 

190 

1 910 

5 

- 

45 

20 

- 

3 085 

15 

- 

- 

- 

10 

125 

2 050 

- 

170 

- 

0 

- 

35 

190 

1 075 

120 

9 065 

435 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
Notes: 
1.  Data  are  rounded  to  the  nearest  five  and  as  provided  by  Eurostat  for  the  entire  year  2011  (see  also  News  Release 
46/2012  of  23  March  2012),  except  when  indicated  in  italics,  in  which  case  they  are  updates  provided  by  the 
respective EMN NCP.  

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
3.  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 2011. 

4. "-" means that Humanitarian reasons are not applicable in BE, BG, IE, FR, LV, LT, LU, AT, PT and SI. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
TABLE 9: THE NUMBER OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS RELOCATED AND RESETTLED, IN 
2011 

Member 
State 

TCNs 
Relocated 
to 
Member 
State 

TCNs 
Resettled 
to 
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 

NO 

0 

NA 

NA 

0 

150 

NA 

10 

0 

NA 

NA 

0 

NA 

NA 

0 

0 

0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0 

NA 

0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0 

25 

NA 

0 

515 

145 

0 

45 

0 

NA 

130 

220 

NA 

NA 

0 

0 

0 

NA 

540 

NA 

NA 

30 

216 

0 

0 

585 

1 620 

455 

1 340 

Notes: 
1. Unless indicated to the contrary below also, data are rounded to the nearest five and as provided by Eurostat (May 
2012) for the entire year 2011, except when indicated in italics, in which case they are provisional for the first nine 
months of 2011 and provided by the respective EMN NCP (see below also).  

2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
3. DK: There is no reallocation scheme to DK. DK has pledged to receive on an ad hoc basis up to 10 persons from 
Malta in 2011 on permits according to the Danish resettlement. No permits were issued in 2011 but 7 were issued by 
6 March 2012. 

4. DE, IT: data cover the whole of 2011.  

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 
 
TABLE 10: UNACCOMPANIED MINORS, IN 2011 

Member 
State 

Unaccompanied 
minors 
(Total) 

Unaccompanied 
minors not 
applying for 
asylum 

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 

NO 

3 850

25

NA

NA

2 125

NA

NA

NA

2 700

NA

8 575

NA

0

10

20

70

NA

NA

NA

45

NA

NA

60

170

150

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 750

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

150

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 040 

25 

10 

270 

2 125 

0 

25 

60 

NA 

595 

825 

15 

0 

10 

20 

60 

25 

485 

1 005 

NA 

5 

55 

60 

20 

150 

2 655 

1 275 

720 

Notes: 
1. Unless indicated to the contrary below also, data are rounded to the nearest five and as provided by Eurostat (May 2012) for the 
entire year 2011 for asylum applicants who declare themselves to be an unaccompanied minor, except when indicated in italics, in 
which case they are provisional for the first nine months of 2011 and provided by the respective EMN NCP (see below also).  
2. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published, whereas "Not Applicable" means that it is not possible to 

record this figure. 

3.  BE:  Data  on unaccompanied minors  are  registered  by  Guardianship  Service  (including  minor  asylum  applicants)  and  cover  the 
whole  of  2011.  This  is  not  necessarily  equal  to  the  whole  stock  of  unaccompanied  minors  residing  in  Belgium.  Data  on 
unaccompanied  minor  asylum  applicants  refers  to  the  number  of  unaccompanied  minors  who  declared  themselves  as  being  a 
minor and covers the period from January to December 2011. 

4. AT, PT: Data cover the whole of 2011. 
5. NO: Data cover the period from January to October 2011. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
VIII.  ABBREVIATIONS USED 

ABC System   
ACT 
ADA 
API 
AVR 
BBAP PFP 
BIO 
BMP Project 
BSTC   
CDE 
CEOP   
CGI 
CIRAM 
CIREFI 

CTA 
DFID   
DGDC  
DSR 
EASO   
ECOWAS 
eGate   
EIF 
EMN NCP 
ENARO  
ERF  
ERPUM  
EURASIL 
EUREMA 
EUROSUR 
FOO 
FRAN   
FRONTEX 

GASIM 
GDISC  
MTM i-MAP   
IBIS 
ICMC   
ICMPD  
ICONet 

ICPN   
iFADO 
IFAD   
IGC  
ILOs 

Automated Border Crossing System (UK) 
Authority of Working Conditions (PT) 
Austrian Development Agency (AT) 
Advanced Passenger Information (CZ) 
Assisted Voluntary Return 
Border Police Service and Aliens Police Service (SK) 
Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries (BE) 
“Building of Migration Partnership” Project 
Border Security Training Centre (NL) 
Centre for Development of Enterprise (BE) 
Child Exploitation and Online Protection (UK) 
Common Ground Initiative  
Common Integrated Risk Analysis Model (PL) 
Centre  for  Information,  Discussion  and  Exchange  on  the  Crossing  of 
Frontiers and Immigration 
Common Travel Area 
Department for International development (UK) 
Directorate General for Development Cooperation  
Daily Statistics Reports (SK) 
European Asylum Support Office 
Economic Community Of West African States 
Automated border control system ‘Easy GO’ (CZ) 
European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals 
European Migration Network National Contact Point 
European Network of Asylum Reception Organisations 
European Return Fund 
European Returns Platform for Unaccompanied Minors 
European Union Network for Asylum Practitioners 
EU Relocation Malta 
European External Border Surveillance System 
Frontex Operational Office 
Frontex Risk Analysis Network  
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the  
External Borders of the Member States of the European Union 
Joint Centre for Illegal Migration Analysis and Policy (DE) 
General Directors’ Immigration Services Conference 
Interactive Map on Migration 
Irish Border Information System (IE) 
International Catholic Migration Commission 
International Centre for Migration Policy Development 
Web-based  Information  and  Coordination  Network  for  Member  States’ 
Migration Management Services 
International Child Protection Network 
EU False and Authentic Documents online tool 
International Fund for Agricultural Development 
Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees  
Immigration Liaison Officers 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IMDi 
IOM  
JUPO   
KIM 
MAC    
MELITA 
MIDWEB 
MIM 
MSR 
NAATP  
NAPTIP 
NCIS   
NDFU  
NFI 
NIRVA 
NSHF   
OECD   
PBS  
PRADO 
PRIO   
RAPID 
RDW   
RESTART II    
RPPs 
RT 
SAT 
SCIBM Project 

SEF 
SIS 
SOCA  
TAIEX 
TCNs   
UNHCR  
ONODC 
UDI 
UNDP  
UNFPA 
UNIFEM 
VAC 
VARRE 
VGM   
VREN  

Directorate of Integration and Diversity (NO) 
International Organization for Migration 
Finnish Ontology for Public Administration Services (FI) 
Contact Committee for Immigrants and the Authorities (NO) 
Migration Advisory Committee (UK) 
Maltese project within Frontex to assist in repatriation initiatives (MT) 
Migration for Development in the Western Balkans   
Mutual Information Mechanism 
Monthly Statistics Reports (SK) 
Romanian National Agency against Trafficking in Persons  
Nigerian National Agency for Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons 
National Crime Investigation Service (NO) 
National Document Fraud Unit (UK) 
Netherlands Forensic Institute (NL) 
Italian Networking for the Assisted Voluntary Return (IT) 
Nordic Cooperation in Migration and Asylum 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
Points Based System (UK) 
Public Register of Authentic Documents Online 
Norwegian Peace Research Institute (NO) 
Automatic Recognition System for Passengers Identified by Documents (PT) 
Government Road Transport Agency (NL) 
IOM Assisted Voluntary Return project in Malta  
Regional Protection Programmes 
Registered Travellers 
Swift Action Teams (i.e. pilot project proposed by NL) 
Support  to  Integrated  Border  Management  System  in  the  South  Caucasus 
(LV) 
Borders and Migration Service (PT) 
Schengen Information System 
Serious Organised Crime Agency (UK) 
Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 
Third-Country Nationals 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 
NO’s Directorate of Immigration (NO) 
United Nations Development Programme 
United Nations Population Fund 
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women 
Canadian Visa Application Centres 
Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration in Estonia (EE) 
Innovation of Border Management (NL) 
Voluntary Return European Network 

EN 

90 

   EN