COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 4th Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2012)
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU statistics, immigration, right of asylum

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.6.2013  
SWD(2013) 210 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 

 4th Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2012) 

{COM(2013) 422 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 

 4th Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2012) 

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 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5 

MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK 2014-2020: ASYLUM AND 
MIGRATION FUND............................................................................................................. 5 

LEGAL MIGRATION AND MOBILITY ............................................................................ 7 

Promoting legal migration channels through better information for migrants ...................... 8 

Economic migration............................................................................................................. 10 

3.2.1.  Satisfying labour market needs  and skills recognition ....................................................... 10 

3.2.2.  Highly qualified workers ..................................................................................................... 12 

3.2.3.  Cooperation with partner /third countries for economic migration ..................................... 13 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

Students and Researchers..................................................................................................... 14 

Family Reunification ........................................................................................................... 15 

Integration............................................................................................................................ 17 

3.5.1.  Promoting integration through participation: socio-economic contribution of migrants .... 19 

3.5.2.  Promoting integration through participation: rights and obligations – achieving equal 

treatment and belonging....................................................................................................... 21 

3.5.3.  Promoting action at local level ............................................................................................ 23 

3.5.4. 

Involvement of countries of origin ...................................................................................... 24 

3.5.5.  Cooperation, consultation and coordination of stakeholders............................................... 25 

3.6. 

Managing Migration and Mobility ...................................................................................... 27 

3.6.1.  Visa Policy........................................................................................................................... 27 

3.6.2.  Schengen Governance.......................................................................................................... 31 

4. 

4.1. 

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM .......................................... 33 

Common European Asylum System.................................................................................... 34 

4.1.1. 

Intra-EU solidarity including Relocation............................................................................. 37 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
  
4.1.2.  Cooperation with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO)....................................... 39 

4.1.3.  Support to national asylum systems: Greece ....................................................................... 40 

4.1.4.  Support to national asylum systems: Conflict in Syria........................................................ 41 

4.1.5.  Relocation ............................................................................................................................ 42 

4.1.6.  Enhancing the external dimension including Resettlement ................................................. 42 

5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

UNACCOMPANIED MINORS AND OTHER VULNERABLE GROUPS ..................... 45 

ACTIONS ADDRESSING TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS.................................. 48 

Measures to identify, protect and assist victims of trafficking ............................................ 50 

Measures to prevent trafficking in human beings, and to increase the prosecution of 
traffickers ............................................................................................................................. 52 

Coordination and cooperation among key actors ................................................................ 53 

EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF EU MIGRATION POLICY ............................................. 55 

The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM) ............................................... 55 

Immigration Liaison Officers .............................................................................................. 55 

Mainstreaming of migration in development policies ......................................................... 58 

Migrants' Remittances.......................................................................................................... 59 

7.5.  Working with diasporas ....................................................................................................... 60 

7.6. 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

Efforts to mitigate ‘brain drain’ ........................................................................................... 61 

IRREGULAR MIGRATION............................................................................................... 62 

Employer Sanctions ............................................................................................................. 63 

Strategic Priority I : Strengthening cooperation with third countries of transit and origin on 
migration management ........................................................................................................ 63 

8.2.1.  Ensure implementation of all EU readmission agreements to their full effect .................... 63 

8.2.2.  Enhance the capacity of countries of origin and transit to manage mixed migration flows 66 

8.2.3.  Prevention of irregular migration from (a) the Southern Mediterranean countries ............. 66 

8.2.4.  Prevention of irregular migration from (b) the Eastern Partners ......................................... 67 

8.2.5.  Prevention of irregular migration from (c) the Western Balkans ........................................ 67 

8.2.6.  Prevention of irregular migration from (d) the Western Mediterranean and the African 

Atlantic coast ....................................................................................................................... 68 

8.3. 

Strategic Priority II: Enhanced border management at the external borders ....................... 69 

8.3.1.  Preventing and combating irregular immigration by ensuring strong and efficient border 

control agreements with third countries............................................................................... 69 

8.3.2.  Border control including Frontex operations....................................................................... 70 

8.4. 

Strategic Priority III : Preventing irregular migration via the Greek-Turkish Border......... 75 

8.4.1.  Ensuring effective border controls are in place at the Greek-Turkish border ..................... 75 

8.4.2.  Combating irregular immigration transiting Turkey to EU ................................................. 75 

8.5. 

Strategic Priority IV: Better tackling of abuse of legal migration channels ........................ 76 

EN 

3 

   EN 

8.5.1.  Prevent an increase in unfounded asylum applications as a direct consequence of 

introducing visa free regimes in third countries and decrease the number of overstayers in 
the Schengen area ................................................................................................................ 76 

8.5.2.  Combating and preventing irregular migration caused by visa liberalisation ..................... 76 

8.6. 

8.6.1. 

Strategic Priority V: Safeguarding and protecting free movement by prevention of abuse by 
third-country nationals......................................................................................................... 77 

Improve the understanding of abuse of free movement rights by third country nationals and 
organised crime aiming at facilitating irregular immigration.............................................. 77 

8.6.2.  Prevent the fraudulent acquisition and use of free movement rights by third-country 

nationals ............................................................................................................................... 78 

8.7. 

Strategic Priority VI: Enhancing migration management, including cooperation on return 
practices ............................................................................................................................... 78 

8.7.1.  Ensuring that all Member States have efficient migration management systems in place in 

order to be prepared for fluctuating migration pressures..................................................... 79 

8.7.2.  Maximising the potential of a common EU approach in the field of return, both voluntary 

and forced in compliance with existing EU acquis.............................................................. 79 

9. 

9.1. 

9.2. 

10. 

11. 

PROVISION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT POLICY 
DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................ 83 

Exchange of information at EU level .................................................................................. 83 

Exchange of information at regional and national levels .................................................... 84 

STATISTICAL ANNEX ..................................................................................................... 86 

ABBREVIATIONS USED................................................................................................ 100 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  paper  provides  a  factual  overview  of  the  main  developments  in  migration  and 
international  protection  during  2012  at  both  EU  and  national  level.  It  complements  the 
Communication from the Commission1. The main reporting period is from 1 January 2012 to 
31 December 2012.  

Following an introduction to the development of a 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,  International 
Protection  and  Asylum,  Unaccompanied  Minors,  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human 
Beings, the External Dimension of EU Migration Policy and Irregular Migration.  A detailed 
Statistical  Annex  (Chapter  10)  provides  data  on  migration  in  2012  from  the  European 
Migration Network National Contact Points as well as from Eurostat, where data available.  

The Commission shall, on the basis of article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) 377/2004, as amended 
by  Regulation  (EU)  No  493/2011  on  the  creation  of  an  Immigration  Liaison  Officers 
Network, report an annual factual summary, and where appropriate recommendations, to the 
European Parliament on the development of immigration liaison officers network. This report 
is included in section 7.2. 

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  

2. 

MULTIANNUAL  FINANCIAL  FRAMEWORK  2014-2020:  ASYLUM  AND  MIGRATION 
FUND

5 

The  Commission  adopted  the  package  of  proposals  for  the  next  multiannual  financial 
framework  (MFF)  2014-2020  in  the  area  of  Home  Affairs  on  15  November  2011.  This 
package covers 4 legislative proposals which together provide for the creation of an Asylum 
and  Migration  Fund  (AMF)  and  an  Internal  Security  Fund  (ISF),  supported  by  a  common 
regulatory framework (general provisions or 'Horizontal Instrument').  

These  proposals  were  accompanied  by  a  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee of the Regions 'Building an open and secure Europe: the Home Affairs Budget for 
2014-2020'.6 

1 
2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

COM(2013) 423 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  2012 
and/or because such developments were not reported by the EMN NCP(s). 
This report includes information in national activities from all EU Member States apart from Denmark. 
Denmark, Ireland and the UK are not bound by most of the acquis referred to in this report. IE and UK 
are part of the EMN, and have submitted reports. DK is not formally part of the EMN. 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 
COM(2011) 749 final 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Negotiations  on  the  proposals  started  in  2012  under  the  Danish  Presidency  and  continued 
under the Cypriot Presidency. In the European Parliament, the Committee on Civil Liberties, 
Justice  and  Home  Affairs  (LIBE)  is  responsible  for  the  MFF  Home  Affairs  package.  The 
negotiations  between  the  Council,  Parliament  and  the  Commission  (trilogues)  started  early 
2013.  

Based  on  the  principles  of  solidarity  and  responsibility  sharing,  the  Asylum  and  Migration 
Fund  is  proposed  to  not  be  a  simple  merger  of  the  three  existing  Funds  –  the  European 
Refugee  Fund,  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals  and  the 
European  Return  Fund  but  a  more  comprehensive  instrument  to  support  the  effective  and 
integrated management of migration flows in the European Union. 

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  to  support  actions  implemented  in  third  countries  necessary  for  the 
implementation  of  EU  internal  policy  priorities  on  migration  and  asylum.  These  initiatives 
will  mainly  serve  the  EU's  own  interest  and  will  be  coherent  with  EU  external  cooperation 
priorities  and  strategies  towards  the  third  countries  concerned.  It  would  for  example  be 
possible to support the cooperation with third countries on the implementation of readmission 
agreements, non-development oriented activities under mobility partnerships and resettlement 
activities  under  Regional  Protection  Programmes.  The  proposed  Fund  also  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 EUs economic growth strategy 
and  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 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.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

3. 

LEGAL MIGRATION AND MOBILITY 

Table 1 in the Statistical Annex gives a provisional overview of the residence permits issued 
in 2012 by reason (family, education, remunerated activities and other). Of the Member States 
providing  such  statistics,  most  residence  permits were issued by Italy (202 269) and France 
(193 799). Member States which issued permits mainly for family reasons were Greece (71% 
of  all  permits),  Portugal  (49%),  Italy  (49%)  and  Sweden  (48%)The  highest  proportions  of 
permits  issued  for  the  purpose  of  education  were  by  Germany  (40%),  Finland  (32%)  and 
Hungary (31%). Those who issued permits mostly for the purpose of remunerated activities 
were Lithuania (71%), Cyprus(66%) and Slovenia (58%). The highest share of permits issued 
for ‘other reasons’ were by Poland (39%) and Bulgaria (38%). The overall position across the 
Member States and Norway are shown in Figures 1a and 1b below. 

Figure 1a: Total first residence permits 2012  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
130000

110000

90000

70000

50000

30000

10000

-10000

IT 246 740

FR 193 799

Total First
Residence Permits
issued

Family reasons

Education reasons

Remunerated
activities

Other reasons

IT

FR SE PT PL HU FI

SI DE EL

CY BG LV SK

LU LT

EE NO

Figure 1b: First residence permits, by reason in 2012 
Source: EMN APR 2012 National Reports  
Notes: (a) means that statistics do not cover the full year (DE: 1st January – 30th June 2012; FR: 1st January to 
30th September 2012; PT 1st January to 27th November 2012; FI: 1st January to 31st December 2012 but statistics 
provisional. For some Member States, statistics were not available for the full year at the time of publication 
(see Table 1 in Chapter 10 - Statistical Annex) 

The year 2012 saw significant developments in the field of completing and further improving 
and  implementing  the  EU  legislative  framework  regulating  legal  migration  by  third-country 
nationals to the European Union. Transposition of Directives like the "Blue Card" Directive 
on  highly  skilled  workers  and  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive  adopted  in  2009,  and  the 
2011  "Single  Permit"  Directive  progressed.  Negotiations  continued  on  the  Intracorporate 
transfer Directive and the Seasonal workers Directive. The Commission prepared a proposal 
for a recast of the Directives on Students and an Researchers. These developments completes 
the  legal  acquis  covering  key  types  of  third-country  migrants,  by  facilitating  access  to  the 
European labour market and at the same time ensuring third-country workers have equivalent 
rights. Such measures prevent exploitation of certain groups of third-country workers, and at 
the  same  time  contribute  to  achieving  economic  growth  objectives  by  helping  to  fill  skills-
gaps  and  counteract  demographic  trends  towards  an  ageing  of  the  population.  Promotion  of 
legal migration channels also entails informing migrants, and potential migrants, of the legal 
channels of migration.  

3.1. 

Promoting legal migration channels through better information for migrants 

At EU level :  

One example of a key information tool to promote legal immigration is the 'EU Immigration 
Portal'7.  In  2012  the  Spanish  and  Arabic  language  versions  were  developed  of  the  'EU 
Immigration Portal', initially launched in November 2011 in English and French. The Spanish 

7 

http://ec.europa.eu/immigration  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
language  version  was  subsequently  launched  in  January  2013.  The  'EU  Immigration  Portal' 
provides  hands-on  information  for  migrants  interested  in  moving  to  or  within  the  EU. 
Migrants  and  potential  migrants  can  find  more  than  600  pages  of  text  with  specific 
information about migration procedures in all 27 Member States, plus links to their national 
immigration  websites  and  a  contact  directory  of  governmental  and  non-governmental 
organisations  which  can  help  them.  In  2012  there  were  62  259  unique  visitors  for  the  EU 
Immigration Portal were, with traffic gradually increasing to about 7 000 unique visitors per 
month  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  year.  The  'national  content'  is  provided  by  the  National 
Contact Points of the European Migration Network (EMN) for update the sections on national 
legislation. Member States welcomed the Portal and some of them took it as a reference in the 
revamping of their own official immigration websites. 

At  national  level,  Member  States  attach  high  importance  to  providing  information  to  third 
country nationals on the routes and conditions of legal migration. This is demonstrated by the 
fact  that  all8  Member  States  and  Norway  provide  information  on  legal  migration  channels, 
generally  through  online  instruments  as  well  as  information  campaigns  or  projects.  Many 
Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SE, 
UK)  and  Norway  undertook  efforts  to  improve  this  information  in  2012.  Multilingual 
websites and more general information campaigns and projects were the most commonly-used 
instruments.  Whilst  all  Member  States  and  Norway  have  at  least  one  regularly  updated 
website or portal in place with the latest information available to (potential) migrants, some 
have websites targeting specific groups, such as (qualified or highly qualified) professionals 
(AT, BE, DE, FR), students (BE, FR, IT, LT, SE) and investors (IE, PT).  

In  addition  to  online  facilities,  information  campaigns,  materials,  projects  and  programmes 
were  launched  by  nine  Member  States  (BE,  CZ,  EL,  FI,  IE,  IT,  LT,  PL,  SE,  SK,  UK)  plus 
Norway,  with  a  view  to  improve  the  provision  of  information  on  legal  migration  channels. 
Examples of such measures include introduction packs (BE, CZ, IE), television programmes 
(SK,  continued  from  2011)  and  brochures  to  inform  employers  (PL).  These  measures,  and 
especially the online materials, have the advantage also of targeting third-country nationals at 
pre-departure  stage.  Italy  has  for  example,  reported  launching  specific  pre-departure 
orientation  programmes,  targeting  Moroccan  nationals.  The  United  Kingdom  introduced  a 
range  of  new  measures  to  communicate  changes  in  its  national  immigration  policies,  via 
relevant websites, news-letters, leaflets partner forums etc, both nationally and with partners 
overseas. Greece implemented pre-departure information campaigns in Moldova and Georgia 
(in the framework of EIF). 

in  Countries  of  Origin  (IT),  a  specific  project 

Other  measures  to  facilitate  information  provision  include  the  establishment  of  Local 
Coordination  Offices 
improve 
communication and services to third-country nationals to promote legal labour migration (SE) 
and a “contact point system for employers” whereby employers are assigned a contact person 
to  deal  with  any  queries  they  may  have  in  relation  to  legal  migration  channels  for  third-
country  nationals  (NO).  Greece  gradually  established  a  number  of  “one  stop  –  shop” 
authorities better managing legal migration in implementing relevant legislation. 

to 

8 

This report includes contributions from 26 EMN NCPs (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, IE, IT, 
FR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, SI, UK) and NO received up to and including 
30th April 2013. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Economic migration 

3.2. 
At  EU  level:    The  employment  package,9  adopted  in  April  2012,  provides  a  medium-term 
agenda for EU and Member States action to support a job-rich recovery and reach Europe's 
2020 goals for smart, sustainable and inclusive jobs and growth. It states that, in the longer 
term, and especially in view of the EU's demographic development, economic immigration by 
third country nationals is a key consideration for the EU labour market. 

With  the  proposal  of  a  Directive  on  Intra-corporate  transfers  in  2010,  the  Commission  took 
initiative to facilitate the temporary transfer of foreign employees of multinational companies 
to a branch of the company on EU territory, so called intra-corporate transfers.10 Until now, 
the fragmented  approach has  a heavy impact on the attractiveness  of such  transfers into the 
EU  and  often  leads  international  staff  to  turn  down  their  EU  assignments.  The  proposed 
Directive  is  expected  bring  substantial  benefits  to  the  EU  in  terms  of  innovation,  enhanced 
competitiveness and increased investment flows. In 2012 negotiations continued between the 
co-legislators on the proposed Directive for intra-corporate transferees.  

Negotiations also continued between the co-legislators on the proposed Directive for Seasonal 
workers11.  Following  the  adoption  of  the  "Single  permit"  Directive  in  201112,  its 
implementation started by some Member States started notifying the transposing acts in 2012.  

3.2.1. 

Satisfying labour market needs 13 and skills recognition 

At EU level: In December 2012, the Commission launched the EU Skills Panorama, a website 
presenting  quantitative  and  qualitative  information  on  short-  and  medium-term  skills  needs, 
skills supply and skills mismatches. There are around 2 million job vacancies across the EU 
despite  high  levels  of  unemployment.  The  EU  Skills  Panorama  shows  the  top  bottleneck 
occupations  to  be  in  the  fields  of  Health,  Information  Communication  Technologies, 
Engineering, Sales and Finance.14 

At  national  level,  methods  and  tools  to  analyse  labour  market  needs  and  shortages  are 
considered to be helpful for both Member States that are facing high unemployment rates as 
well as Member States that (foresee to) have (sectorial) labour shortages (AT, BE, BG, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, ES, IE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT,  PL, RO, SI, SK, FI), for example, the use of annual 
analysis  on  labour  market  trends,  shortages  and  demand  (EE,  EL,  IE,  IT,  PL,  FI),  via  the 
Public Employment Services (ES, NL, SI, SK), lists of occupations experiencing ‘bottlenecks’ 
(AT, BE, ES, LT), research (RO, UK) and mechanisms for forecasting (IT, LV, FI). In 2012, 
Czech Republic and Germany initiated new projects on labour market forecasting; Germany 
established  an  employment  monitoring  service  for  analysis  of  current  and  long-term  labour 
market  needs  and  expects  to  issue  its  first  labour  market  prognosis  in  2013;  and  Poland 
identified new plans for the monitoring of labour migration. Malta has strengthened links with 
private employment agencies, social partners and other organisations to better understand the 
foreign direct investment patterns and the types of employment this may generate in the short 
and medium terms. In the Netherlands the Public Employment Service tests each individual 
application  for  an  employment  permit  against  the  availability  of  manpower  in  the 
Netherlands/the EU.  

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

COM(2012) 173 final "Towards a job-rich recovery" 
COM(2010) 378 final 
COM(2010) 379 final 
Directive 2011/98/EU of 13 December 2011 
See also EMN Study ‘Satisfying Labour Demand through Migration’ for further information. 
http://euskillspanorama.ec.europa.eu/docs/EVVR2012Factsheets/08-Bottleneck.pdf 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Thirteen Member States (AT, CY, CZ, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, SE, UK) amended or 
introduced changes in their approach to legal migration. These changes appear to suggest two 
parallel trends, with some introducing more restrictive labour market policies towards labour 
migrants (e.g. CY), whilst in others there is an emphasis on attracting (high-level) skills e.g. 
AT, FR, LV, SE, UK (see also Section 3.2.3 below).  In France, regional lists of occupational 
shortages  applicable  to  third-country  nationals  (30  professions  including  six  on  a  national 
level,  in  certain  sectors  such  as  audit  and  accounting,  IT,  construction  and  public  works, 
electricity  and  electronics  sectors)  were  established  under  the  Decree  of  18  January  2008. 
Finland identified shortages in nursing staff, Ireland identified medical staff, Latvia reported 
on staff in international shipment and Estonia foresees labour shortages in the coming decade 
in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, construction, education, and transportation and 
storage. In Malta, in sectors such as construction, hospitality and caring, skills shortages have 
been identified. In general it seems that some Member States with more open labour market 
migration policies have targeted (highly) qualified workers, investors or entrepreneurs.  

Conversely, Sweden does not focus on particular skills or qualification levels, and rather than 
operating  “selectively”,  the  system  is  demand-driven,  according  to  the  individual  needs  of 
employers  who  decide  themselves  whether  they  have  a  shortage  and  need  to  recruit  from 
outside  the  EU  or  not.  This  approach  applies  to  unskilled,  skilled  and  highly  qualified 
workers. Spain, which considers a non-EU labour-force important for keeping up with global 
competition  and  economic  growth,  focused  on  the  development  of  training  and  integration 
programs for immigrants, amongst other priorities in its Annual Plan for Labour Policy 2012. 

With regard to improved labour matching, the Public Employment Service in Austria assesses 
since 2012 the migration background of registered unemployed/job-seekers in order to ensure 
“targeted services” (e.g. German courses, basic skills acquisition) for third-country nationals. 
Austria  has  also  implemented  a  project  “Mentoring  for  Migrants”  where  tutors  support 
qualified migrants to enter the labour market. In Poland an online portal has been launched to 
provide entrepreneurs with information on, for example, relevant regulations. 

Sweden  intends  to  launch  labour  matching  programmes  in  2013.  In  relation  to  the  growth 
agenda,  Sweden  plans  to  introduce  labour  market  matching  for  third-country  nationals  and 
employment  schemes  to  encourage  employers  to  hire  more  third-country  nationals. 
Apprenticeships  and  training  ‘on  the  job’  are  also  planned  for  low  skilled  third-country 
nationals,  as  well  as  funding  to  increase  efforts  for  generating  growth  among  third-country 
national  entrepreneurs.  Norway  plans  to  launch  a  programme  aiming  to  increase  labour 
market participation of third-country nationals, and particularly of women, and an Action Plan 
in  2013  on  how  to  better  use  the  skills  of  third-country  nationals.  In  Malta,  third  country 
nationals who may have initially arrived in Malta in an irregular manner, and obtain a legal 
status,  can  participate  in  training  programs  and  employers  of  such  migrants  may  seek 
reimbursement  for  any  training  costs  incurred.  In  Italy,  41.3  %  of  non-national  workers 
employed  are  over-educated  in  relation  to  the  duties  they  perform;  as  a  result,  the  public 
debate has mainly focused on issues of brain waste. 

Several Member States (AT, BE, DE, EE, IE, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK, SE, UK) and Norway 
undertook  actions  related  to  skills  recognition  in  order  to  address  labour  market  needs  and 
with the aim  in some Member States to attract (highly) qualified  workers.  Changes  in  2012 
included  simplifying  and  shortening  recognition  procedures  (AT,  BE,  LT),  facilitating 
validation procedures and increasing information provision (AT), the extension of the Act on 
the recognition of qualifications, to include (amongst others) long-term residents, refugees or 
those  under  subsidiary  protection  (SI)  and  better  cooperation  between  service  providers  to 
facilitate  procedures  (BE).  In  Germany,  following  amendments  to  the  Recognition  Act, 
vocational qualifications acquired abroad can now be recognised  as equivalent to a German 

EN 

11 

   EN 

qualification, and over 500 occupations will no longer require candidates to be nationals and 
in Malta a legal notice for the validation of informal and non-formal learning came into force, 
allowing  third  country  nationals  to  have  their  skills  and  competences  validated  against  the 
national occupational standards already developed. 

In  terms  of  future  plans  on  skills  recognition,  Norway  expects  to  complete  its  database  of 
approved  higher  education  programmes  in  2013  which  should  ensure  faster  and  improved 
processing  of  applications  for  recognition  and  Slovak  Republic  also  expects  to  introduce 
legislative  changes  that  simplify  recognition  procedures.  Spain  continued  to  implement  its 
procedure of skills-recognition for third-country nationals whereby the third-country national 
can obtain official accreditation relative to their work experience, which will count towards a 
professional or training certificate.  

3.2.2.  Highly qualified workers 

At EU level: In the course of 2012 most Member States transposed the Directive 2009/50/EC 
on highly qualified workers, the so called "Blue Card" Directive. Infringement procedures for 
non-communication  of  national  measures  were  therefore  closed,  except  for  Lithuania  and 
Sweden.  The  Commission  started  its  assessment  of  the  conformity  of  the  transposition  in 
2012.  Following  this  detailed  evaluation  of  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  into  national 
legislation,  the  Commission  may  launch  infringement  procedures,  should  shortcomings  be 
identified. 

Preparations started in 2012 for a Commission report on the implementation of the Blue Card 
Directive due out in 2014. This report will be based on the evaluation of the transposition into 
national legislation by the Member States and on the first statistics on the volumes of third-
country  nationals  who  have  been  granted  an  EU  Blue  Card  which  are  expected  to  become 
available in the course of 2013. 

At national level : Attracting highly qualified workers, as well as investors and entrepreneurs, 
gained increasing importance. Most Member States introduced legislative changes to facilitate 
or simplify the entry of qualified or highly qualified workers, for the implementation of the 
Blue  Card  Directive  as  well  as  to  cope  with  labour  shortages  (in  certain  sectors).    Several 
Member  States  (AT,  BE,  CY,  DE,  IT,  PL,  PT,  UK)  implemented  specific  measures  to 
facilitate  entry  of  highly  qualified  workers.  Incentive  mechanisms  for  attracting  highly 
qualified  workers  included:  the  5-point  programme  on  skills  recognition  of  third-country 
graduates with a view to facilitating labour market access (AT), shortened period for granting 
residence permit for the purpose of family reunification (EL), shortened period for granting a 
national long-term residence permit (DE) and agreements of Memorandums of Understanding 
between  government  and  employer  associations  to  facilitate  the  entry  of  highly  qualified 
third-country  workers  (IT).  Estonia  organised  consultations  with  social  partners  in  order  to 
improve  legislation  and  smoothen  procedures  for  attracting  highly-qualified  workers.  In 
United  Kingdom,  the  skills  threshold  for  skilled  workers  was  increased  to  graduate  level 
(National Qualifications Framework (NQF) 6) in most cases, to improve selectivity, while the 
resident  labour  market  test  was  relaxed  for  jobs  paying  £70  000(€81  000)  or  above,  or 
requiring PhD-level skills. Austria has granted skilled workers access to designated shortage 
occupations  (some  26).  The  main  occupational  fields  covered  are  construction,  wood 
production, agriculture and horticulture, forestry, automotive and machinery, electro-technics, 
electronics and telecommunications, as well as information technology and health / medicine. 
The skilled workers can apply for residence permits introduced in 2011 (the so called “Red-
White-Red Card” and “Red-White-Red Card plus”) that allow third-country national workers 
entry and access to the labour market, based on a defined points-based system. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Attracting  investors  (HU,  IE,  LV,  PL,  PT,  SE,  UK)  and/or  entrepreneurs  (IE,  FR,  LV,  PL, 
UK) is on the political agenda in several Member States. Measures to attract investors include 
granting  a  residence  permit  for  those  that  make  an  exceptional  economic  contribution  (FR, 
LV,  PT),  fast-track  procedures  for  granting  a  long-term  residence  permit  (HU),  accelerated 
procedures for  intra-corporate  transfers  of third-country  national  investors  (CZ)  and a third-
country national investor programme offering entrepreneurs and investors rights to reside in 
the Member State in return for an investment for the purpose of “saving or creating jobs” (IE). 
Specific  measures  for  attracting  entrepreneurs  included  targeted  information  provision  to 
immigration  route  for  Graduate 
third-country  national  entrepreneurs  (PL),  a  new 
Entrepreneurs,  who  have  been  recognised  by  their  higher  education  institutions  (HEI)  as 
having  exceptional  business  skills  or  ideas  (UK)  and  plans  to  allocate  funding  for  targeted 
efforts for generating growth among entrepreneurs with a migration background in 2013 (SE). 

With  regard  to  actions  planned  in  2013,  United  Kingdom  plans  to  extend  the  Graduate 
Entrepreneur route for 2013 to enable up to 1 000 MBA graduates of UK Higher Education 
Institutes (HEIs) to stay on in the United Kingdom and will also establish a scheme to enable 
the  ‘brightest  and  best’  graduates  of  overseas  business  schools  to  enter  as  Graduate 
Entrepreneurs.  Czech  Republic  aims  to  attract  highly-education  third-country  nationals  and 
therefore plans to produce a list of occupations for highly educated third-country employees. 
Spain  initiated  research  into  possible  legislative  reforms  to  facilitate  access  to  the  labour 
market for highly skilled workers and began work on measures to boost business through use 
of migrant labour. 

3.2.3.  Cooperation with partner /third countries for economic migration  

At EU level: The issue of legal migration and mobility, including labour migration, continued 
to be an integral part of the EU's cooperation with third countries and a key area of the EU's 
external migration policy in 2012, as defined through the Global Approach to Migration and 
Mobility (GAMM). Its policy priority of "better organising legal migration and fostering well-
managed  mobility"  is  one  of  the  four  priority  areas  of  the  GAMM.  According  to  the 
Commission Communication on the GAMM of 18 November 201115, European policy on the 
organisation  and  facilitation  of  legal  migration  and  mobility  is  based  on  the  premise  of 
offering employers wider opportunities to find the best individuals for vacancies on the global 
labour market. It equally seeks  to offer new European employment possibilities for talented 
people from around the globe, fully respecting Member States’ competence to manage their 
labour markets (See also chapter 7.1). 

At national level, several Member States (BE, BG, CZ, EL, FR, NL, PL, PT, SE) reported on 
their  continued  participation  in  the  EU  Mobility  Partnerships  including  those  with  Georgia 
(BE, BG, CZ, FR, PL, SE), Republic of Moldova (BG, CZ, FR, PL, PT, RO, SE), Armenia 
(BE, BG, CZ, FR, PL), Tunisia (PL, SE), Azerbaijan (BG, CZ) and Cape Verde (FR, NL, PT). 
BE, ES, IT and PT expect to participate in the EU Mobility Partnership with Morocco which 
is planned to be concluded in 2013.  

Other Member States (EL, ES, HU, IT, NL, PL, SI, SK, SE) concluded, ratified or reviewed 
bilateral  agreements  with  third-countries  in  2012,  including  Ukraine  (PL),  India  (SE),  New 
Zealand (ES, HU, SK), Canada (ES), Bosnia and Herzegovina (SI) and Azerbaijan (NL). Italy 
signed agreements with Egypt, Albania, Moldova, and Sri Lanka and concluded agreements 
with  Bangladesh,  Philippines,  Ghana,  Morocco,  Tunisia  and  Peru.  The  concluded  bilateral 
agreements  mostly  aimed  to  strengthen  cooperation  in  labour  migration  management  with 

15 

COM(2011)743 final of 18.11.2011 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
countries of origin that generate the largest inflows of third-country nationals (IT), developing 
a  working  holiday  scheme  for  youth  (HU,  SK),  set  general  principles  of  employment  for 
third-country nationals (SI) and reach agreements on pensions and accident insurance (DE). 

In  terms  of  planned  bilateral  agreements,  Bulgaria  has  opened  negotiations  with  Moldova, 
Armenia,  and  Ukraine  for  labour  migration  agreements,  the  first  two  in  the  framework  of 
Mobility Partnerships. Spain began to negotiate possible agreements with Japan and Australia. 
Italy expects to conclude agreements with India, China, Ecuador, Ukraine and Russia in the 
near future and Germany plans on starting negotiations on social insurance agreements with 
the  Philippines  in  March  2013  with  the  main  purpose  to  agree  on  pensions  and  accident 
insurance thereby avoiding “double insurance”. Luxembourg plans to conclude an agreement 
on  circular  migration  with  Cape  Verde  and  Hungary  will  ratify  a  working  holiday  scheme 
with the Republic of Korea in 2013.  

3.3. 

Students and Researchers 

At EU level: In 2012 the Commission prepared a proposal on the on the conditions of entry 
and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, 
remunerated  and  unremunerated  training,  voluntary  service  and  au  pairing,  which  was 
subsequently  adopted  in  March  201316.  The  initiative  is  based  on  the  findings  of  the  2011 
Commission  implementation  reports  on  Directive  2004/114/EC  on  the  conditions  for 
admission  of  third  country  nationals  for  the  purpose  of  studies,  pupil  exchange, 
unremunerated training or voluntary service ("the Students Directive") and Directive 2005/71 
on  a  specific  procedure  for  admitting  third  country  nationals  for  the  purposes  of  scientific 
research  ("the  Researchers  Directive").  These  reports  showed  a  number  of  weaknesses  of 
these Directives. The Commission's work programme for 2012 therefore included a revision 
of  both  Directives  which  aims  at  remedying  the  weaknesses  identified  and  merge  the  two 
existing Directives into a single legislative instrument. The proposed new Directive is a recast 
of  these  two  previous  Directives,  and  foresees  several  improvements.  These  concern,  in 
particular,  the  introduction  of  clearer  admission  conditions  which  better  link  obtaining  a 
residence permit and a visa, and to which groups they apply to. This would avoid situations in 
which people fulfil the conditions for a permit, but not the conditions for a visa, and therefore 
cannot enter into the Member States concerned.  

Increasing coherence of EU migration rules with EU mobility programmes such as Erasmus 
Mundus  and  Marie  Curie  Fellowships  will  aim  at  avoiding  situations  in  which  people  fulfil 
the conditions of EU funding programmes, and have succeeded in obtaining a scholarship or a 
fellowship, but cannot take this up, as there is a problem with the admission conditions. 

Another major improvement refers to the introduction of procedural guarantees, mainly in the 
form of time limits for decisions on applications which are aimed at facilitating third-country 
nationals' applications.  

The proposal gives students more opportunities to work during their studies so that they can 
support  themselves  adequately.  It  also  provides  for  both  researchers  and  students  (after 
graduation  or  after  their  research  contract  comes  to  an  end)  the  possibility  to  remain  under 
certain conditions on the EU territory to identify job opportunities. This would not amount to 
an  automatic  right  to  work,  but  to  offering  a  possibility  to  identify  job  opportunities.  The 
granting of a work permit would remain a national responsibility. 

16 

COM(2013) 151 final of 25.3.2013. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Other  improvements  refer  to  facilitating  intra-EU  mobility  by  allowing  students  and 
researchers' intra-EU mobility on the basis of the initial authorization for a given period.  

The proposed Directive also aims at a better protection of vulnerable groups by providing for 
several  safeguards  or  addressing  certain  rights  of  equal  treatment  with  nationals,  along  the 
lines of the provisions of the Single Permit Directive (2011/98/EU). 

At national level, several Member States (AT, BG, DE, FR, IE, IT, LT, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK) 
undertook  new  measures  to  further  facilitate  the  reception  of  students  and  researchers  and 
their movement within the EU. Three Member States (PL, SK, SE) made legislative changes 
or  implemented  a  national  strategy  to  facilitate  mobility  of  students  (PT).  Other  measures 
implemented in 2012 include simplified and faster procedures to enable individuals to transfer 
from a student permit to a work permit (FR), extension of the period to search for adequate 
employment  after  graduation  (DE),  scholarship  programmes  for  students  (AT,  IT),  entry 
quotas  (IT),  issuance  of  temporary  residence  permits  to  students  and  researchers  (PL), 
simplified  admission  process  for  international  students  (SE),  funding  of  high-qualified  non-
EEA  students  (UK)  and  facilitated  access  for 
third-country  nationals  by  granting 
“International Student Status” (PT). Bulgaria has introduced provisions to prolong residence 
permits for the families of researchers from third countries, in line with that of the researcher. 
Moreover, Estonia organised consultations with social partners in order to improve legislation 
and smoothen procedures for students and researchers. The Slovak Republic aims to facilitate 
access for students and researchers by the exemption of payment of an administrative fee for 
issuance of a Schengen visa and a shortened decision-making period for temporary residence 
permit.  

Ireland  announced  a  “student  probationary  extension”  for  those  students  who  had  been 
continuously resident since before 1st January 2005. The new arrangements will allow eligible 
students  to  continue  to  remain  there  for  (up  to)  an  additional  two  years.  Greece  and  United 
Kingdom  reported  that  the  presence  of  international  students  leads  to  economic  advantages 
for  educational  institutions  and  the  national  economy,  and  the  United  Kingdom  announced 
that from April 2013 all international PhD students who have completed their studies in the 
United Kingdom will be able to remain in the Member State for an additional 12 months to 
find skilled work or establish themselves as entrepreneurs. 

With regard to researchers, two Member States (DE, UK) introduced measures, that included 
an accelerated visa procedure for this group (and their spouse) who have unrestricted access 
to the labour market (DE) and relaxation of the resident labour market test and exemptions for 
those in specified PhD level occupations from minimum salary requirements at the point of 
settlement  (UK).  Spain  launched  measures  introduced  through  legislation  of  2011,  such  as 
work and residence permits for researchers conducting research projects under signed hosting 
agreements  with  research  organizations.  Lithuania  made  legislative  amendments  in  order  to 
facilitate  the  entry  and  residence  conditions  for  both  researchers  and  students.  In  Italy  the 
Ministry for Foreign Affairs is  financing bilateral scientific projects in order to increase the 
mobility  of  researchers  from  third  countries.  Lastly,  Luxembourg  increased  the  government 
budget  on  research,  development  and  innovation  and  plans  to  implement  a  number  of 
measures related to the recruitment, training, skills and careers prospects of researchers.  

3.4. 

Family Reunification 

At EU level: In 2012 a public consultation took place on family reunification, following the 
2011  Green  Paper  on  Family  Reunification,17  which  was  based  on  the  findings  of  the  2008 

17 

COM(2011) 735 final 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implementation report18 on Directive 2003/86/EC19. The 2012 consultation took the form of 
written contributions and a public hearing held on 31 May-1 June 2012 within the framework 
of  the  European  Integration  Forum20.  This  public  consultation  yielded  120  contributions, 
including  from  24  Member  States,  international  organisations,  social  partners,  NGOs  and 
individuals. The overall conclusion from the public consultation was that the Directive should 
not be re-opened, but that the Commission should ensure the full implementation of existing 
rules,  open  infringement  procedures  where  necessary  and  produce  guidelines.  An  overall 
summary of the stakeholder response to the Green paper on the right to family reunification of 
third-country  nationals  was  published  by  the  Commission  on  11  May  201221.  As  a  further 
follow-up  step  to  the  public  consultation  the  Commission  also  convened  an  expert  group  in 
September 2012, which brought together experts from the Member States to discuss the issues 
under the Directive that seem to be of concern for all. 

As  a  follow-up,  the  Commission  is  preparing  guidelines  on  efficient,  transparent  and  clear 
implementation  of  family  reunification  rules  at  EU 
identified 
implementation issues and providing practical guidance. This process, which also takes into 
account complaints received by the Commission and ECJ judgments,22 will address the need 
to guarantee the fundamental right to family life while ensuring that this right is genuinely and 
coherently  applied  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Directive,  as  well  as  supporting  Member 
States to tackle misuse.  

level  by  clarifying 

The Commission also issued a European Migration Network report on "Misuse of the Right to 
Family Reunification – Marriages of convenience and false parenthood declarations23. 

At national level, several Member States (BE, BG, IT, LT, NL, PT, SK, SE, UK) and Norway 
introduced  changes  to  existing  policies  and  legislation  regulating  family  reunification.  Five 
Member States (BE, LT, NL, SK, UK) made legislative amendments to set a renewed legal 
framework  for  family  reunification  (NL,  UK)  and  tackling  marriages  of  convenience  (BE).  
Non-legislative  measures  introduced  in  Norway  included  opening  for  more  discretionary 
exceptions  to  the  income  requirements  for  certain  groups.  Portugal  has  introduced  greater 
flexibility  in  its  procedures  for  assessing  proof  of  subsistence  for  the  purpose  of  family 
reunification in light of the economic downturn. 

Two  Member  States  (LV,  SE)  introduced  specific  measures  for  the  integration  of  third-
country national family members. Latvia launched integration projects for vulnerable groups 
of third-country nationals such as women with small children, elderly people and the Swedish 
government  proposed  to  invest  over  4,6  million  EUR  in  civic  orientation  to  third-country 
nationals  immigrating  for  the  purpose  of  international  protection  and  family  reunification. 
Spain  also  focused  measures  on  strengthening  the  integration  of  those  migrants  already 
resident in Spain through family reunification.   

In terms of future measures, Belgium plans to develop an Action Plan to tackle the issue of 
marriages  of  convenience  and  the  United  Kingdom  will  introduce  in  2013  requirements  for 
third-country national applicants for settlement to pass the “Life in the UK” test and present 
an  English  language  qualification  (at  B1  level  of  the  Common  European  Framework  of 
Reference  for  Languages)  unless  they  are  exempt.  Finland  has  examined  the  possibility  of 
extending the requirement for sufficient resources as well as introducing an accommodation 

18 
19 

20 
21 
22 
23 

COM(2008) 610 final 
Council  Directive  2003/86/EC  in  the  right  to  family  reunification,  OJ  L251,  3.10.2003,  p.12.  This 
Directive applies to third-country nationals and their family members.  
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/policy/legal.cfm 
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/static_38_49794115.pdf 
C-504/03 Parliament v. Council; C-578/08 Chakroun. 
http://emn.europa.eu 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
requirement.  Ireland  aims  to  examine  all  options  for  developing  a  comprehensive  policy 
approach towards family reunification and settlement. Bulgaria plans to introduce measures to 
prolong residence permits for certain family members following termination of marriage and 
in the event of emergency circumstances. 

3.5. 

Integration 

Figure 2: Total unemployment rates and unemployment rates of third country nationals 
Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, (see Table 2 in Statistical Annex). 

Table 2 in the Statistical Annex gives an l overview of one of the key indicators of integration 
of third country nationals the unemployment rate of third-country nationals, compared to total 
unemployment in the respective (Member) State. Across the EU-27, the unemployment rate 
for third country nationals was some 21.3% in 2012 compared with a total unemployment rate 
of 10.6%. The highest unemployment rates for third-country nationals were reported by Spain 
(38.6%)  and  Greece  (35.9%),  compared  with  national  averages  of  25.2%  and  24.5 
respectively, followed by Belgium (30.7%, compared with a total rate of 7.6%) and Sweden 
(30.6%, compared with total unemployment rate of 8.1%).  

For the EU as a whole, the gap between  total unemployment rates and unemployment rates of 
third-country nationals was some 10.7 percentage points, although individual Member States 
showed  considerable  variations.  The  gap  was  greatest  in  Belgium  (23.1  percentage  points) 
and Sweden (22.5 percentage points), and lowest in Ireland and United Kingdom (2.6 and 3.3 
percentage  points  respectively).  The  differences  between  the  total  unemployment  rates  and 
the unemployment rates of third-country nationals are shown in Figure 2b below. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2b:  %  point  difference  between  total  unemployment  rates  and  unemployment  rates  of  third 
country nationals per Member State 
Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, 4th Quarter 2012 (see Table 2 in the Statistical Annex). 

At  EU  level:  Despite  the  constructive  legislative  progress  facilitating  legal  migration,  there 
are serious challenges facing  third-country nationals in terms of integration, not the least on 
the labour market. The unemployment rates for third-country nationals which is much higher 
compared  to  the  national  averages,  are  important  indicators.  Further  efforts  to  increase 
integration are therefore needed.  

EU legislation on equal treatment prohibits discrimination based, inter alia, on racial or ethnic 
origin and on religion as enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights24. This 
protection is provided in the area of employment, but on the basis of racial or ethnic origin, it 
covers  also  other  areas  such  as  education,  healthcare  and  housing.  Prohibition  of 
discrimination  protects  everyone  in  the  EU,  including  third-country  nationals25.  In  2013  the 
Commission will report on the implementation of the two anti-discrimination directives in the 
Member States. For this purpose, the Commission in 2012 asked the Member States to report 
to the Commission how, among other issues, their national legislation provides for protection 
from discrimination to all, including third-country nationals.  

24 

25 

Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and 
occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p.16) and Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle 
of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p.22). 
However,  it  does  not  cover  differences  of  treatment  based  on  nationality  and  is  without  prejudice  to 
provisions and conditions relating to the entry into an residence of third-country nationals and stateless 
persons on the territory of Member States and to any treatment which arises from the legal status of the 
third-country nationals and stateless persons concerned. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  Commission  provides  a  framework  for  dialogue  and  knowledge  exchange  between 
stakeholders  at  different  levels  including  through  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of 
Third-Country Nationals (EIF)26. 

In  2012,  the  Commission  continued  to  implement  the  priorities  as  set  out  in  the  European 
Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals adopted in July 201127 and the Council 
Conclusions  adopted  by  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  in  December  2011.28  Efforts 
continue  to  coordinate  and  monitor  policy  developments  at  EU  level,  in  finalising  the  draft 
European  modules  on  migrant  integration  to  support  integration  in  the  Member  States  and 
further  developing  common  European  indicators  for  monitoring  of  results  of  integration 
policies.  Furthermore,  the  issue  of  succesful  integration  of  migrants  in  host  societies  –  in 
particular into the labour market – is part of the EU’s cooperation with third countries in line 
with the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility29 (GAMM). In dialogues with different 
partners,  the  Commission  continues  to  explore  the  role  of  diaspora  communities  and 
transnational networks in this context, e.g. in improving the preparation of migrants for their 
residence in the Member States. 
In 2012, the Commission also continued to develop the European Web Site on Integration30. 
Key  developments  include  the  release  of  Special  Features  to  put  news  on  integration  in  a 
wider  and  deeper  perspective  by  linking  it  with  the  other  content  on  the  website  and 
Integration Dossiers that identify emerging policy or practice trends. In 2012 the website had 
some 2000 unique visitors per week.  

3.5.1.  Promoting  integration  through  participation:  socio-economic  contribution  of 

migrants 

At  EU  level:  The  economic  downturn  in  recent  years  has  had  severe  implications  for  the 
European  economies  and  labour  markets,  including  a  significant  decline  in  the  net  annual 
migrant  inflows  mainly  due  to  the  declining  number  of  economic  migrants  –  but  also  to 
increasing return migration from the Member States most affected by the crisis (for instance  
Spain).  Nevertheless,  net  migration  has  remained  positive  in  most  Member  States  and  the 
overall population of immigrants continued to grow, though at a slower pace. 

Against this background and in view of the specific role played by migration in reaching the 
employment  goals  of  the  EU  2020  strategy,  the  8th  meeting  of  the  European  Integration 
Forum on 16-17 October 2012 focused on the contribution of migrants to economic growth in 
the EU31.  

At  national  level,  a  majority  of  Member  States  (AT,  BE,  DE,  EE,  EL,  FI,  FR,  HU,  IT,  LT, 
LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK) and Norway reported developments in efforts 
to promote integration through enhancing the socio-economic contribution of migrants. This 
included  legislative  changes  (PL,  LV,  NL,  SE,  NO),  the  introduction  of  new  policy 
documents (PL) or updates thereof (NL) and consultation mechanisms (RO).  

26 

27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Council Decision 2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of 
third-country  nationals  for  the  period  2007  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows (OJ L 168, 28.6.2007, pp. 18-36). 
COM(2011) 455 final 
3135th Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels, 13 and 14 December 2011 
COM(2011) 743 final 
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/ 
Summary report available at http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/static_38_483263222.pdf 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  importance  of  language  training  in  relation  to  effective  integration  of  third-country 
nationals, is evidenced by the high number of Member States and Norway reporting new or 
on-going  provision  to  improve  access  to  language  training  (AT,  BE,  CZ,  DE,  EE,  EL,  FR, 
HU, IT, LV, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK), using both national funding and funding 
from the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EIF), the European 
Refugee Fund (ERF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). Member States aimed to increase 
accessibility  by  ensuring  the  wide  availability  of  facilities  for  language  training  through 
decentralised access (IT, LV, PT, UK), including via language portals (LV) and community-
based English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) projects (UK). In Malta, training to 
teachers on the teaching of languages to third-country nationals was organised by the Ministry 
of Education. In some Member States, the requirements for language proficiency from third-
country nationals increased; in Poland, for example, the draft Act on Foreigners of 18 October 
2012,  stipulates  that  applicants  from  third  countries  for  a  permanent  residence  permit  will 
have  to  first  prove  competence  in  the  Polish  language,  a  measure  to  further  facilitate  their 
integration. In Estonia, language classes in preparation for citizenship tests are offered free of 
charge. 

Several (Member) States undertook measures to improve access to social and health services 
for  third-country  nationals,  and  new  developments  were  reported  (EL,  IT,  FR,  LV,  RO  and 
NO).  In  Latvia,  a  draft  proposal  for  amendments  to  legislation  for  unemployed  people  and 
jobseekers aims to establish greater equality for third-country nationals who legally reside and 
work in the Member State with nationals if they become unemployed or are looking for a job, 
ensuring access rights to state support measures; and in France, an inter-ministerial working 
group  on  access  to  social  rights  for  migrants  was  established.  In  Italy  and  Romania,  new 
measures were introduced to gauge uptake of social and health services, in Italy, in particular, 
in  light  of  the  take  up  of  such  provision  by  migrants  who  entered  as  a  consequence  of  the 
political  situation  in  North  Africa.  In  Norway,  a  White  Paper  on  Integration  announced  a 
national strategy to target the specific health challenges of the immigrant population, planned 
for 2013. In Greece two programs of intercultural mediation in the main public hospitals were 
conducted within the framework of EIF, and  in Portugal, the second generation of the Pilot 
Project for Intercultural Mediation in Public Services was launched. 

Other  specific  integration  initiatives  recently  introduced  include  measures  to  enhance  the 
attainment of migrant children in the education system (BE, PT), new support measures and 
civic integration schemes to improve understanding of the host culture (CZ, LU, MT, NL, SI, 
UK)  and  widening  the  timeframe  within  which  arriving  family  members  may  access 
integration support (SE). In Sweden and Norway, changes in family benefits were introduced 
which effectively lower the age of a child for whom benefits can be claimed to encourage the 
labour market integration of parents, and encourage enrolment of children in kindergarten, to 
facilitate  the  integration  of  immigrant  children  into  the  community  and  their  acquisition  of 
Norwegian.  In  Portugal,  the  Choices  Programme  aims  to  enhance  the  social  inclusion  of 
children and young people from the most vulnerable socio-economic contexts, including the 
descendants of migrants and ethnic minorities. 

Member  States  also  demonstrated  how  various  measures  can  work  together  to  promote 
effective  socio-economic  integration.  In  Germany,  for  example,  the  EIF  annual  programme 
was expanded and new aspects added to provide a ‘joined-up’ approach to measures for pre-
integration,  training,  enhancing  participation  in  society  and  promoting  openness  within 
society  towards  other  cultures,  as  well  as  tools  for  monitoring  and  evaluation.  Similar  four-
stage ‘integration pathways’ were prepared (Wallonia) and continued  (Flanders) in Belgium 
consisting  of  personalised  assistance,  language  training,  citizenship  and  social  and 

EN 

20 

   EN 

professional orientation. Latvia and Portugal established national centres to support migrants 
and assist integration, facilitating access to a range of services in a single office.  

In  Greece,  information  and  awareness-raising  actions  took  place,  aimed  at  eliminating 
negative stereotypes, and strengthening interaction between migrants and citizens, as well as 
showing migrants’ positive impact on Greek society, including a series of projects promoting 
integration through art (photos, painting, theatre etc.) undertaken in the framework of the EIF. 

For  particularly  vulnerable  groups,  language  courses  in  Estonia  and  Hungary  targeted  the 
most vulnerable third-country nationals, including those with disabilities (EE). In France, new 
initiatives  were  launched  under  the  EIF  to  facilitate  access  to  public  services  for  older 
migrants.  In  Greece,  a  guide  was  developed  for  disabled  persons  of  migrant  origin  which 
consists  of  a  bilingual  information  guide  setting  out  rights  and  available  support  and  in 
Romania,  a  programme  was  implemented  to  assist  vulnerable  people  including  those  with 
special needs to access appropriate medical and psychological care. Italy adopted a National 
Strategy for the Inclusion of the Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities, as a consequence of 
implementing  COM(2011)  173  (final)32.Portugal  introduced  measures  to  simplify  the 
requirements for granting autonomous residence permits to family members of third-country 
national  victims  of  domestic  violence  and  Spain  continued  to  implement  programmes 
targeting victims of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation aimed 
at  improving  employability  and  social  inclusion  and  providing  access  to  education  amongst 
other areas. 

In terms of future measures, Sweden will make significant investments over four years (2013-
2016)  to  improve  educational  performance  (including  language  skills)  of  both  children  and 
adult  third-country  nationals.  Quality  will  be  improved  by  making  language  courses  more 
flexible  and  targeted  towards  individual  needs.  In  Slovenia,  a  Regulation  on  assistance 
programmes for the integration of third-country nationals was adopted, with new provisions 
for  Slovenian  language  and  society  training,  entering  into  force  on  1st  January  2013.  The 
United Kingdom continues to require those seeking to enter to work, study or marry to have 
an  appropriate  knowledge  of  the  English  language  before  entry.  Those  seeking  to  live 
permanently, or take up citizenship, are generally required to demonstrate their knowledge of 
the  English  language  and  life  in  United  Kingdom  and  from  October  2013,  applicants  for 
permanent  residence  will  be  required  to  demonstrate  that  they  meet  this  requirement  by 
passing  the  ‘Life  in  the  UK  test’  and  obtain  an  English  language  qualification  at  B1  on  the 
Common  European  Framework  of  Reference  of  Languages.  These  measures  aim  to  ensure 
that  applicants  have  the  necessary  knowledge  and  understanding  to  integrate  with  wider 
society from the outset. 

3.5.2.  Promoting  integration  through  participation:  rights  and  obligations  –  achieving 

equal treatment and belonging 

At  EU  level  :  Following  the  Eurostat  pilot  study  on  'Indicators  of  Immigrant  Integration' 
published  in  June  201133  the  Commission  launched  a  project  in  2012  aimed  at  further 
exploring the role of indicators for integration policy at EU level. In this framework, a number 
of  independent  scientists,  civil  society  and  policy-makers,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  EU 
National Contact Points on Integration, looked at different options for monitoring the degree 

32 
33

EN 

COM(2011) 173 (final): the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020:  

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_social_policy_equality/migrant

_integration/indicators 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
of  migrants'  integration  (outcomes  of  policies),  including  through  a  thorough  process  of 
comparative data collection and analysis.  

On  19-20  April  2012,  the  Danish  Presidency  organised  a  conference  on  “Enhancing 
democratic values, promoting social cohesion, and furthering intercultural dialogue: Sharing 
of  best  European  practices”,  in  Vejle  (DK),  to  discuss  how  to  move  forward  with  the  draft 
European Modules on Migrant Integration. As a follow-up, the Danish Presidency proposed 
possible steps to further progress and fully transform the draft European Modules on Migrant 
Integration  into  a  flexible  and  relevant  toolbox  with  the  finalization  of  the  modules  into  a 
user-friendly version as a first important step. In 2012 the Commission prepared the work to 
finalize the modules into a publication.  

On  27  November  2012,  the  Education,  Youth  and  Culture  Council  adopted  conclusions 
identifying  the  priorities  needed  to  address  the  participation  and  social  inclusion  of  young 
people with emphasis on those with a migrant background.34 

At national level, (Member) States undertook specific measures to promote the integration of 
migrants  through  their  active  participation  in  the  democratic  process,  with  several  specific 
examples  of  migrant  involvement  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  integration  policies 
(BE, CZ, EE, FI, IE and NO). In Estonia, for example, national minorities took an active part 
in  the  elaboration  of  Ida-Virumaa  County  development  plan,  which  emphasised  integration 
and the situation of migrants. New measures include improving the participation of migrants 
in advisory boards at local level (BE) and consultative forums (FI, HU, IE, SK), to stimulate 
their  involvement  in  policy-making  at  various  levels,  and  one-day  “welcome  courses”  for 
newly arrived immigrants, setting out their rights and responsibilities designed and delivered 
in the main by migrants, working also with an NGO (CZ). (Member) States reported on their 
work with migrants’ associations to improve migrants’ participation (DE) specifically in the 
democratic process (PT,  NO).  In  Germany, migrants'  organisations act as dialogue partners, 
helping  to  shape  social  integration  approaches,  and  receive  support  from  the  Federal 
Government; in Norway, national funding has increased in order to widen participation.  

In  Italy,  the  national  equality  body  against  discrimination  (UNAR)  proposed  to  the 
government to grant third-country nationals the right to work in public administration bodies 
under the same conditions as EU citizens. Bulgaria and Estonia also reported on initiatives to 
support  the  development  of  equal  treatment  for  migrants.  In  Estonia  for  example,  this 
consisted  of  awareness-raising  with  employers,  a  survey  of  perceptions  on  equal  treatment, 
translation  of  relevant  materials  and  training  to  national  culture  organisations  with  migrant 
backgrounds. 

Specific  actions  were  also  undertaken  to  encourage  migrant  take  up  of  voting  rights.  These 
consisted of awareness-raising campaigns to encourage migrants to register on the voters' lists 
and to exercise their right to vote on the occasion of recent elections (BE, FI, LU, PT, UK and 
NO).  Infrastructural  developments  in  this  area  include  the  designation  of  an  Electoral  Roll 
Supporting  Office  to  support  the  electoral  enrolment  of  migrants,  in  cooperation  with  local 
Parish  Councils  (PT),  and  improvements  to  information  provision  on  the  rights  and 
responsibilities  of  migrants  within  the  democratic  process,  in  the  form  of  new  guidance 
documents (UK). In Italy, where under current legislation third-country nationals do not have 
the right to vote, even at the administrative level, a number of initiatives were encouraged at 
the  local  level  to  promote  the  representation  of  foreign  citizens.  A  proposal  for  a  popular 
initiative law, entitled “Policies on political and administrative participation and on the right 
to vote free from discriminations based on citizenship or nationality”, was filed, which aims 
to extend the right to vote in administrative elections to migrants who have been legally living 

34 

OJ C 393, 19.12.2012 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
in  Italy  for  at  least  5  years.  In  Greece  projects  promoting  the  participation  of  migrants  in 
associations  were  developed  and  in  Spain,  a  call  for  proposals  was  launched  aimed  at 
developing such projects.   

3.5.3.  Promoting action at local level 

At  EU  level:  As  stated  in  the  European  Agenda  for  the  Integration  of  Third-Country 
Nationals35,  prompting  integration  at  local  level  is  a  key  to  achieve  durable  and  effective 
solutions to the challenges of this policy field. Taking into account the wide diversity of the 
different  national  contexts,  local  and  regional  authorities  as  well  as  civil  society  and  the 
scientific community are essential partners for the Commission in developing the right tools 
to advance knowledge on the specific issues at stake and supporting successful policy action.  

On 20 November 2012, the Cyprus Presidency organised a conference in Nicosia (CY) on the 
role  of  local  and  regional  authorities  and  communities  in  shaping  and  implementing 
integration policies36.  
The  exchange  of  information  on  good  practices  via  the  European  Web  Site  on  Integration37 
continued  in  2012.  By  the  end  of  the  year,  112  practices  had  been  uploaded  on  the  website 
meaning that there were a total of 718 examples of good practices, most of these undertaken 
at  the  local  and  regional  level.  To  give  further  visibility  to  the  important  work  and  role  of 
local  and  regional  authorities  and  to  further  increase  the  exchange  of  knowledge  between 
these actors, the Commission initiated the development of an interactive map (to be launched 
on  the  website  in  2013)  that  will  show  the  work  being  carried  out  at  the  local  and  regional 
level in a user-friendly way. 
In  the  2012  call  for  proposal  2012-2013  under  the  European  Integration  Fund38  community 
actions  programme  was  launched.  Specific  priority  to  local  action  to  enhance  migrants' 
economic, social, cultural and political participation was given as well as to cooperation with 
countries  of  origin  in  fostering  integration.  In  2012  the  Commission  selected  9  proposals 
based on the work programme of 201139.  

To further increase the exchange of innovative local and regional methodologies and practices 
of integration, the Commission also began preparing the launch of two pilot studies on cities 
and  regions  that  have  particularly  interesting  experiences  in  this  field.  The  studies  will  be 
funded  by  the  2012-13  Work  Programme  for  the  European  Integration  Fund  Community 
Actions. 

At national level, the critical importance of promoting action at the local level was reflected in 
new initiatives in (Member) States with the active involvement of local authorities to address 
specific integration challenges and to improve multi-level cooperation between the different 
levels of governance (AT, EL, IT, MT, NL, PT, SE, SK, NO). 

To  promote  action  at  local  level  among  the  various  organisations,  several  (Member)  States 
reported  on  new  infrastructure:  a  cooperation  platform  was  established  by  Netherlands  to 

35 
36 
37 
38 

39 

COM(2011) 455 final 
http://www.cy2012.eu/en/events/expert-meeting-on-integration 
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/migration-asylum-borders/integration-
fund/index_en.htm  
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-
affairs/financing/fundings/pdf/integration/eifca2011callforproposalslistofproposalsselectedforfunding_e
n.pdf 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
support the ‘Common Integration Agenda’ (GIA) which in 2012 focussed on enhancing local 
and  national  diversity  policy  through  information  exchange  and  harmonisation;  in  Portugal, 
new  partnerships  between  local  authorities  and  local  support  centres  for  the  integration  of 
migrants were established; and in Slovak Republic, there were new projects to promote social 
and  cultural  orientation  bringing  together  representatives  from  local  government,  towns  and 
municipalities and representatives of state and public administrations. Portugal also completed 
a national study Diagnosis of Immigrant Population in Portugal: Challenges and Potentials, 
that aimed to contribute to a better understanding of migrant communities living in different 
municipalities, to support integration interventions and reduce special inequalities. In Sweden, 
performance-related funding to stimulate the work of municipalities in urban areas that face 
problems of extensive exclusion was introduced to improve employment rates, school results 
and a  reduction  of dependency on  social  welfare. In Norway, new collaborative agreements 
on integration were established with two municipalities, which will eventually be rolled out to 
include  15  municipalities  in  Western  Norway.  Italy  carried  out  a  consultation  process 
involving  relevant  stakeholders  working  to  improve  integration  at  local  level  to  identify 
strategic  priorities  in  the  planning  framework  for  EU  funding.  In  Greece,  two  projects  to 
enhance migrants’ participation in migrants’ integration councils, which have been set up in 
each municipality, were implemented. Spain continued to provide European Integration Fund 
co-financing  local  authorities  to  implement  integration  projects;  in  2012,  Spain  focused  on 
projects  that  encourage  migrant  participation  in  local  organisations,  that  promote  the  use  of 
common space and that implement social interventions in neighbourhoods with high rates of 
xenophobia.  In  February  2012,  United  Kingdom  published  its  strategy  on  ‘Creating  the 
Conditions for Integration’ that sets out its approach to creating an integrated society. 

Member States reported a range of local integration initiatives, operating both in rural areas 
(AT), as well as residential areas of growing cities (FI). The focus of such initiatives varied, 
for  example,  supporting  migrants  during  the  transition  between  school,  training  and  work 
(DE);  providing  extra-curricular  activities  for  children  and  young  people  within  localities 
where there are large numbers of third-country nationals, to enable integration with their EU 
peers  (MT);  and  addressing  equality  (IE)  and  discrimination  (SE)  issues.  Methods  included 
using  the  resources  of  municipal  education  and  cultural  institutions,  for  example,  libraries, 
museums,  cultural  centres  (LV);  and  arranging  the  hosting  of  migrant  families  by  national 
families  and  establishing  ‘family  pairs’  (PT).  Action  at  local  level  also  included  awareness-
raising  initiatives  (BG,  EL);  the  introduction  of  a  newspaper  disseminating  practical 
information for the integration of third-country nationals (LV), the manual ‘Living Together 
Joins/Merges  Differences:  integration  in  (fast-track)  transition’  (NL)  and  guides  to  newly 
arrived  immigrants  to  facilitate  their  integration  by  offering  social  networking  and  giving 
advice  on  practical  issues  (SE).  Intercultural  training  of  local  government  staff,  police  and 
civil  servants  working  directly  with  migrants  took  place  in  Greece,  as  well  as  actions  to 
provide  technical  support  to  Councils  of  Migrants  Integration  within  the  country’s 
Municipalities,  including  training  of  stakeholders,  the  facilitation  of  networking  and  the 
exchange of best practices among the members of the network. 

3.5.4. 

Involvement of countries of origin 

At EU level: The role of countries of origin is an important element in EU integration policies 
and cooperation with countries of origin is one issue addressed in the European Agenda for 
Integration.  

Cooperation  with  source  countries  was  among  the  priorities  of  the  2011,  as  well  as  2012-
2013, calls for proposal under European Integration Fund Community Actions programme.  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
At national level, Member States have worked with countries of origin of migrants to play a 
role in their integration before departure, during stay in the EU, and on return. Recognising 
that early integration measures can be effective in facilitating integration on arrival, a number 
of new measures were introduced (AT, BG, CZ, IT, LV, NO).  

New pre-departure measures include language training (AT); the provision of information on 
entry and residence conditions via diplomatic and consular representations abroad as well as 
on the home pages of relevant national Ministries (AT, LV); plus specific packages of support 
for labour migrants (IT). In Austria, a learning platform has been launched in five languages 
offering  pre-departure  German  courses  at  all  levels,  as  well  as  literacy  courses  to  assist 
migrants  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Austrian  Settlement  and  Residence  Act  which 
requires  third-country  nationals  to  demonstrate  German  language  skills  to  level  A1  of  the 
Common  European  Framework  when  applying  for  certain  residence  titles.  Special  projects 
have been established by Italy in those countries where bilateral agreements have been signed 
and  in  Hungary,  a  new  project  was  launched  that  aims  to  create  an  Information  Point  in 
Subotica,  Serbia,  in  order  to  support  the  pre-accession  integration  programs  and  provide 
trainings for third-country nationals from the Western Balkan states.  

Initiatives  directly  involving  third  countries  aimed  at  improving  integration  of  third  country 
nationals  during  stay  include  pre-departure  linguistic  and  civic  education  training  to  family 
members of resident workers from third countries (IT) and supported actions to facilitate the 
role of third country community organisations in the provision of services to migrants (PL), 
for example, language courses, career counselling, assistance in finding accommodation. 

For migrants from third countries aiming to return to their country of origin, a number of new 
initiatives and collaborations with third countries were reported to facilitate this (see Section 
II, Priority VI for details of voluntary return programmes).  

3.5.5.  Cooperation, consultation and coordination of stakeholders 

At  EU  level:  The  EU  group  of  National  Contact  Points  on  Integration  (NCPI)  allows  for  a 
regular  exchange  of  information  on  the  implementation  and  evaluation  of  Member  States 
integration  policies,  including  through  their  use  of  EU  funds.  The  NCPI  met  three  times  in 
2012 (9 February, 5 June and 15 October). On those occasions, an exchange of information on 
legislative  and  policy  developments  in  the  field  of  immigration  and  integration  took  place. 
Coordination  and  monitoring  of  policy  initiatives  in  the  field  of  integration  was  also 
reinforced  by  in  depth  debates  on  specific  initiatives,  regularly  held  during  these  NCPI 
meetings. 

The European Integration Forum met twice in 2012. The 7th Forum took place on 31 May-1 
June as a public hearing on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in 
the EU (see above, 1.4) and the 8th Forum took place on 16-17 October and focused on the 
contribution of migrants to economic growth in the EU (see above 1.5.1).  

The  Commission  closely  followed  the  preparation  of  the  draft  report  of  the  European 
Parliament on the "Integration of migrants, its effects on the labour market and the external 
dimension of social security coordination"40, subsequently adopted in March 201341. 

Recognising the importance of evidence-based policy making in the area of immigration and 
integration, the Commission reinforced its links with independent research. In this framework, 
on  25-26  June  2012,  the  Commission  initiated  a  formal  collaboration  with  the  Migration 

40 
41 

2012/2131 INI 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-92 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Policy Centre at the European University Institute, which conducts policy relevant research on 
global migration issues. 

to  facilitate 

the  socio-political 

integration  of  migrants.  In  Belgium, 

At national level, several Member States (AT, BE, EE, ES, HU, IE, NL, RO, SK) reported on 
the  activities  of  national  mechanisms  set  up  to  improve  the  cooperation,  consultation  and 
coordination  of  stakeholders.  In  Austria,  for  example,  the  Integration  Advisory  Committee 
met  twice  in  2012,  to  facilitate  exchanges  of  information  between  the  Federal  Government, 
the  Federal  States,  the  Association  of  Towns  and  Municipalities,  the  social  partners,  the 
Federation of Austrian Industries, and relevant NGOs. Specifically, the Integration Advisory 
Committee has been involved in developing innovative measures such as the “Red-White-Red 
Primer” 
the 
Interdepartmental  Commission  on  Integration  Policy  prepared  an  "Integrated  Action  Plan” 
coordinating  inputs  from  across  a  wide  stakeholder  group,  which  was  approved  by 
government in 2012. In Ireland, the Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration (OPMI) 
coordinated  activities  amongst  officials 
from  statutory  bodies,  embassy  officials, 
representatives of NGO and civil society groups, researchers, as well as visiting experts and 
academics from different countries on integration issues. The Romanian authorities developed 
a new consultation mechanism between the responsible authorities, civil society and migrant 
communities and in Slovakia, the Inter-ministerial Commission for Migration and Integration 
of  Foreigners  (MEKOMIC),  which  brings  together  experts  representing  all  key  central  state 
administration  bodies,  relevant  state  authorities  and  institutions,  as  well  as,  on  an  ad-hoc 
basis,  international  and  non-governmental  organisation  active  in  the  field  of  integration, 
continued in its work. Other stakeholders including representatives from migrant communities 
actively participated in meetings of the Forum for Integration. In addition to existing national 
mechanisms  set  up  in  previous  years,  in  2012,  at  regional  level  Spain  implemented  various 
“integrated action plans” in various municipalities of Catalonia where there are large numbers 
of immigrants. The aim of the action plans is to integrate migrants, preventing conflicts and 
ensuring  interaction  between  residents  of  different  cultures.In  relation  to  European  level 
mechanisms,  several  Member  States  reported  on  their  activities  in  the  framework  of  the 
European Integration Forum and actions by the National Contact Points on Integration. These 
included  contributions  to  the  European  Web  Site  on  Integration  (AT,  BE,  EE,  LV),  and 
attending meetings of the European Integration Forum (AT, BE, CZ, EE, EL, IE, IT, LV, NL, 
PL, SE, SK).  

Other  measures  included  for  example,:  conferences  such  as  the  Expert  Conference  on 
immigrant integration within the framework of the EU Presidency (CY) and a series of expert 
meetings  and  round-table  discussions  with  stakeholders  to  identify  problems  and  problem-
solving  approaches  in  specific  integration  issues  (NL),  In  Hungary,  the  Budapest  Migration 
Round-table  was  established  as  a  network  of  stakeholders  to  empower  relevant  NGOs  and 
create  more  inclusive  approaches  for  migrant  inhabitants  of  Budapest.  Other  measures 
included engagement in other relevant EU and international activities, such as the network of 
experts established by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (LV) and the UNHCR Project 
Integration  Evaluation  Tool  in  Central  Europe  promoting  the  integration  of  third  country 
nationals  under  international  protection  (SK),  and  the  publication  of  a  new  integration 
monitoring  study  ‘Measuring  and  monitoring  immigrant  integration  in  Europe’  (NL)  In 
Estonia,  a  trilingual  website  platform  focussing  on  the  national  integration  strategy  was 
launched, providing information to all stakeholders, as well as the general public 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
3.6.  Managing Migration and Mobility 

Figure 3: Total visas issued in 2012 showing breakdown (where relevant) between Schengen and National 
visas (21 Member States and Norway) 
Source: EMN APR 2012 National Reports. For some Member States, statistics were not available for the full 
year at the time of publication (see Table 3 in the Statistical Annex) 

Table 3a and b in the Statistical Annex gives a provisional overview of the number of visas 
issued,  by  type.  The  four  Member  States  issuing  the  highest  number  of  visas  in  total  are 
United  Kingdom  (2  229  357),  Italy  (1  870  382),  France  (1  771  290)  and  Germany  (1  523 
743). France, Germany and Finland ranked as the Member States issuing most Schengen visas 
(over  90%).  In  comparison,  Poland  issued  a  large  number  and  share  of  national  visas  (277 
073), representing over 20%).  

3.6.1.  Visa Policy 
At  EU  level:  Negotiations  continued  in  2012  on  amendments42  to  Council  Regulation 
539/200143 proposed by the Commission in order to make a number of technical amendments, 
introduce  a  new  visa  suspension  mechanism  and  revise  the  existing  reciprocity  mechanism. 
The co-legislators found agreement on most of the issues under discussion, but disagreement 
over  the  revised  reciprocity  mechanism  prevented  the  amendments  from  being  formally 
adopted  by  the  end  of  2012.  Whatever  its  final  form,  the  revised  reciprocity  mechanism  is 
expected to be more efficient and to put more pressure on third countries not respecting the 
principle  of  reciprocity.  The  suspension  mechanism  will  provide  a  last  resort  measure  in 
situations  where  the  visa-free  regime  with  a  given  third  country  has  led  to  sudden  and 
substantial  increases  of  irregular  migrants  or  unfounded  asylum  applications  from  that  third 
country,  by  allowing  a  quick  re-imposition  of  the  visa  obligation  on  nationals  of  the 
concerned third country, on a temporary basis. 

42 
43 

COM (2011) 290 of 24 May 2011 
OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p.1. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the 
third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and 
those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
On 7 November 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal amending the visa lists of Council 
Regulation  539/200144.  The  Commission  proposed  to  move  to  the  visa  free  list  16  small 
Caribbean  and  Pacific  island  nations.  Exempting  the  citizens  of  these  islands  from  the 
Schengen  visa  requirement  will  not  only  promote  their  mobility  but  will  also  provide  them 
with the chance to take advantage of opportunities  that  may  arise  from  business  exchanges, 
the development of partnerships in many fields and people to people contacts.  

In  line  with  the  GAMM,  visa  liberalisation  dialogues  continued  with  Russia,  Ukraine  and 
Moldova in 2012 while new dialogues were launched with Kosovo*45 and Georgia, aiming at 
reaching in due course visa free travel for citizens of both sides. It is an influential instrument 
for  a  forward-looking  policy  on  mobility  and  represents  a  step  further  towards  closer 
cooperation and integration between the EU and partner countries. 

The  Commission  continued  its  efforts,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States 
concerned,  in  order  to  achieve  full  mutual  visa free  travel  for  all  EU  citizens  with  the  third 
countries which are exempt from the visa requirement by the EU. On 26 November 2012, the 
Commission adopted its seventh report about breaches of the principle of visa reciprocity by 
third  countries46.  Full  reciprocal  visa-free  travel  for  all  EU  Member  States  was  established 
with  Brazil.  Japanese  authorities  further  extended  the  temporary  visa  waiver  granted  for 
Romanian  citizens.  Regretfully,  there  are  still  two  important  cases  of  "non-reciprocity"  that 
remain:  the  United  States  of  America  still  maintains  a  visa  requirement  for  citizens  of 
Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Romania  and  Poland;  Canada  also  imposes  a  visa  requirement  for  the 
Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania.  
In  anticipation  of  the  Visa  Code  revision47,  the  Commission  presented  a  Communication  to 
the  Council  and  European  Parliament  on  ‘the  implementation  and  development  of  the 
common  visa  policy  to  spur  growth’48  and  a  Report  ‘on  the  functioning  of  Local  Schengen 
Cooperation during the first two years of implementation of the Visa Code’.49 

The  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)  successfully  started  operations  in  two  new  regions:  the 
Near  East  (Israel,  Jordan,  the  Lebanon  and  Syria),  on  10  May  2012,  and  the  Gulf  region 
(Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates 
and  Yemen),  on  2  October  2012.  On  visa  facilitation  agreements,  the  Commission  opened 
negotiations  with  Armenia  and  Azerbaijan  in  February  and  March  respectively.  The 
agreement with Armenia was signed in December and by that time substantial progress was 
achieved  with  Azerbaijan.  The  agreement  with  Cape  Verde  was  signed  in  October  and  the 
amended  agreements  with  Moldova  and  Ukraine  were  signed  in  June  and  July  respectively. 
By  the  end  of  2012  there  remained  one  open  issue  in  the  negotiations  on  the  amended 
agreement with the Russian Federation.  

As  regards  Member  States'  presence/representation  arrangements  for  the  purpose  of 
processing  short  stay  visa  applications,  consular  coverage  has  increased  in  2012:  Schengen 
visa  applications  can  be  lodged  in  an  increasing  number  of  locations  mainly  via  external 
service providers and secondly via "traditional" representation arrangements. More than 130 
new representation arrangements can be reported; France is still in the lead when it comes to 
representation  of  other  Member  States.  The  use  of  external  service  providers  is  also  getting 

44 
45 

46 
47 
48 
49 

COM(2012) 650 final of 7.11.2012 
This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and 
the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence. 
COM (2012) 681 final of 26.11.2012 
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009. OJ L243, 15.9.2009, p.1. 
COM (2012) 649 final of 7.11.2012 
COM (2012) 648 final of 7.11.2012 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
more  and  more  widespread:  Member  States  launched  cooperation  with  external  service 
providers in more than 100 locations, mainly in Turkey, India and Russia.  
Furthermore, in 2012, three Commission Implementing Decisions50 on the harmonisation of 
supporting documents were adopted covering the following locations: Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, 
Nigeria, Chile, United Kingdom and Egypt.  

After  the  adoption  of  Decision  No  1105/2011/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council of 25 October 201151 on the list of travel documents which entitle the holder to cross 
the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa and on setting up a mechanism 
for  establishing  this  list,  the  Travel  Document  Committee  was  established  and  took  up  its 
work  to  update  the  existing  list  of  travel  documents.  Four  meeting  were  held  in  2012.  In 
addition  a  Travel  Document  Expert  Group  was  created  and  examined  travel  documents  as 
requested by Member States. 

At national level, Member States reported a range of updates in relation to the implementation 
of  the  Visa  Code  (BG,  CZ,  DE,  IT,  LV,  LT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK,  and  SE).  In  Lithuania,  an 
amendment  to  the  Law  on  the  Legal  Status  of  Aliens,  was  passed  which  harmonises  the 
provisions  of  this  Law  with  the  Visa  Code52.  In  Bulgaria,  the  implementation  of  a  visa-free 
regime  for  holders  of  a  valid  Schengen  visa,  valid  long-stay  visas  and  residence  permits 
issued  by  Member  States  which  fully  apply  the  Schengen  acquis,  plus  Switzerland  and 
Liechtenstein  came  into  force.  Romania  has  further  modified  its  national  legal  framework 
(Government  Emergency  Ordinance  no.  194/2002)  to  bring  the  national  legal  framework 
more fully in line with EU provisions in relation to visas. 

Member  States  have  reported  positively  on  their  experiences  of  rolling  out  the  Visa 
Information System (VIS) in North Africa following its launch in 2011, and in 2012, in the 
Middle East (BG, EL, ES, HU, LU, NL, NO). Whilst successfully implemented, Finland has 
reported that only approximately 1% of visa applications in Finnish Missions are issued with 
VIS, due to the very high numbers of visa applications in the Russian Federation. Spain also 
reported successful operation of the VIS, but expressed concerns over the quality of biometric 
and  alphanumeric  data  entered  by  consular  authorities.  In  Italy,  as  a  consequence  of  the 
national  “spending  review”  a  restructuring  of  the  Italian  consular  network  is  being 
implemented, which has resulted in the closure of several consulates. However, a new online 
platform for managing visa requests was also implemented during the period. Latvia applies 
the VIS in the first two regions of the VIS roll-out, involving  diplomatic missions in Egypt 
and Israel.  Estonia use VIS in all national missions. 

In relation to the processing of biometric data, several Member States (BG, DE, EE, HU, IE, 
IT, LT, LV,PT and RO) reported recent developments. Germany, for example, aims to further 
expand the collection of biometric data in its visa procedure, and has carried out verification 
of visa holders' fingerprints as part of the standard check at some border crossing points since 
the  end  of  2011.  In  Latvia,  work  has  been  undertaken  to  improve  the  functionality  of  the 
national  VIS  (NVIS),  including  the  improvement  of  the  operation  of  the  NVIS  integrated 
biometrics equipment and in Lithuania, the legal amendments referred to above stipulate that 
biometric data are to be routinely obtained from third country nationals when national visas 
are  issued.  In  Portugal,  equipment  for  checking  fingerprints  (instruments  and  software)  has 
been installed in Lisbon Airport and will be extended to all border posts. Ireland continued to 

50 
51 
52 

C(2012)5310 final, C(2012)4426 final ,C(2012)1152 final 
OJ L 287, 4.11.2011, p.9. 
Regulation No 810/2009 established the Community Code on Visas. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
operate biometric data collection (‘e-Visa’) as part of the visa application process in Nigeria, 
and  has  indicated  its  intention  to  expand  this  collection  system  to  include  other  countries, 
notably Pakistan. Whilst Romania does not yet issue biometric visas, this approach has been 
successfully  tested  at  the  Cahul  Consulate  General  in  the  Republic  of  Moldova  for  the 
purpose  of  issuing  biometric  visas,  and  at  neighbouring  border  crossing  points,  for  the 
purpose of verification. 

A number of Member States (BG, CZ, ES, IE, HU, IT, LU, LV, PL, PT, SK, and SE) reported 
new  cooperation  initiatives.  Bulgaria  has  developed  further  dialogue  on  migration  and 
mobility  with  Turkey  and  the  Western  Balkans,  to  enhance  economic,  cultural,  commercial 
and academic relations between the two countries. In this connection, the Government of the 
Republic  of  Bulgaria  approved  Decision  №  76  and  the  Decision  №  48  of  27  January  2012, 
which  granted  visa-free  access  for  certain  categories  of  Turkish  citizens  plus  holders  of 
diplomatic  and  official  passports.  Ireland  introduced  new  measures  to  enable  the  cross-
checking of visa application data with the immigration fingerprint database in the UK.  

With  regard  to  consular  activities,  new  cooperation  arrangements  have  been  established 
between EU Member States for representation in third countries: some examples are given in 
the table  below: 

Member State 
Belgium 

Member State represented  Countries of representation 
the 
Czech Republic 
of 

Estonia 

Czech Republic 

Slovak Republic 

Finland 
Latvia 
Netherlands 
Portugal 

Spain 
Sweden 

Estonia 
Sweden 
Estonia 
Sweden 
Greece 
Portugal 
Latvia 

Norway 

Estonia 

Burundi,  Rwanda  and 
Democratic  Republic 
Congo 
Nigeria  and  the  Democratic 
Republic of Congo 

Philippines, Ghana, 
Mongolia, Pakistan and 
Algeria, plus Kenya (through 
a reciprocal arrangement) 
Bulgaria 
Astana (Kazakhstan) 
Oman, Aruba and Curacao. 
Cape Verde 
Kenya and Australia 
Israel (for a 3 month period) 
Dhaka 
and 
Lusaka  (Zambia).  There  is 
also  an  existing  agreement 
between  Sweden  and  Latvia 
in Georgia. 
The Philippines 

(Bangladesh) 

Table II : New cooperation  arrangements for consular arrangements. Source EMN. 

Lithuania increased its diplomatic representation in 17 third countries and signed agreements 
to  represent  another  Member  State  in  a  third  country  with  six  EU  Member  States.  Hungary 
signed  visa  representation  agreements  with  the  Netherlands,  Germany,  Denmark,  Finland, 
Slovenia, Austria, Austria, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Netherlands, Belgium, plus a number 
of  non-EU  Member  States,  Poland  has  signed  visa  representation  agreements  with  Estonia, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden and Netherlands and has initiated talks on representation 
with other Schengen Area countries which remain on-going. Italy has a new agreement on the 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
reciprocal representation for the issuing of Schengen visas (with Estonia in Kosovo) and other 
pre-existing cooperation frameworks. Spain is no longer represented by Germany in Lilongwe 
(Malawi)  nor  by  the  Netherlands  in  Asmara  (Eritrea)  and  is  negotiating  with  other  Member 
States to represent them in these cities. Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland have reported 
that they are now working with outsourcing organisations in some third countries. Greece, for 
example,  has  established  visa  centres  in  collaboration  with  external  providers  in  Russia, 
China,  India,  Kazakhstan,  Sri  Lanka,  Nepal,  Turkey,  and  new  centres  to  be  established  in 
other  geographical  areas  are  in  progress,  whereas  in  Lithuania,  these  were  in  Russian 
Federation and Ukraine, in Hungary, India, and in Poland, Kaliningrad Oblast and Ukraine. 

3.6.2. 

Schengen Governance 

At EU level : In September 2011, the European Commission had proposed to strengthen the 
EU's  area  without  internal  borders  by  enhancing  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  of  the 
application of the Schengen rules (COM (2011)559. In addition a mechanism was set out for 
the reintroduction of internal border controls as a last resort (COM (2011)560). The proposed 
mechanism  will  not  make  it  any  easier  to  reintroduce  internal  border  controls,  but  rather,  it 
will  ensure  that  a  coordinated  EU  response  is  available  to  protect  the  functioning  and  the 
integrity  of  the  Schengen  Area  as  a  common  good  shared  by  400  million  people.  It  would 
only  apply  in  exceptional  circumstances.  These  proposals  were  intensively  examined  and 
discussed by the European Parliament and the Council in 2012. Negotiations will continue in 
2013. 

At the same time, the Commission announced its intention to present a biannual overview on 
the  functioning  of  Schengen,  providing  the  basis  for  a  regular  debate  in  the  European 
Parliament  and  in  the  Council.  The  first  report  (COM  (2012)  230)  covered  the  period  1 
November 2011 - 30 April 2012 and was adopted on 16 May, discussed by the JHA Council 
on 7 June and by the European Parliament on 4 July 2012. The second report (COM (2012) 
686), covering 1 May – 31 October 2012, was adopted on 23 November, debated by the JHA 
Council 6-7 December and by the European Parliament on 18 December 2012.  

In  its  4.5.2011  Communication  on  Migration  (COM(2011)  248),  the  Commission  had 
committed itself to issue guidelines to ensure a coherent implementation and interpretation of 
rules governing the Schengen area. Two areas were identified in which such guidelines could 
have an added value: issuing of temporary residence permits and travel documents to non-EU 
citizens and police measures in the internal border zones. In 2012, after consultations with the 
Member  States,  guidelines  in  these  two  areas  were  developed  and  annexed  to  the  first 
biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, COM (2012) 230. 

Schengen  enlargement:  As  regards  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. 

At national level, (Member) States reported a range of recent developments. Latvia developed 
a list of documents necessary for the receipt of Schengen Visas within the framework of local 
Schengen  cooperation  in  accordance  with  Article  48  of  the  Visa  Code,  aimed  at  reducing 
irregular  visa  applications  and  facilitating  the  processing  of  regular  applications  in  the 
Schengen  area.  Norway  reported  recent  developments  in  its  national  administrative  and 
operational  structure  and  procedures,  in  particularly,  progress  in  developing  a  National 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Coordination  Centre  (NCC),  to  assist  in  preparations  for  the  implementation  of  EUROSUR 
from 2013.  

Italy and Slovenia undertook actions to review and appraise aspects of Schengen governance. 
Slovenia  began  an  evaluation  of  the  Schengen  system,  focussing  initially  on  air  and  sea 
borders and an evaluation of performance at the external land border is planned for 2013.  

In Spain, a week-long suspension of the internal Schengen border took place at the time of the 
meeting of the Central European Bank in Barcelona (in early May). During this week , Spain 
controlled the entry of 669,385 persons and rejected 68 entries for reasons of national security 
or lack of documentation. Poland, also temporarily reinstated border controls at the sections of 
the border with Germany, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Lithuania at the time of the 
organisation  of  the  European  football  championship  finals  (EURO  2012)  by  Poland  and 
Ukraine in June 2012. A further development in the field of Schengen governance in Poland 
was  the  preparation  of  an  Agreement  between  the  Governments  of  Poland  and  Russian 
Federation on the rules of local border traffic, which entered into force on 27th July 2012. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

4. 

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM 

 Figure 4a: Asylum applications in EU-27, January 2011 – December 2012 

Source: Eurostat Data in focus 05/2013 

Figure 4b : Total first instance decisions on asylum applications and total positive decisions in 
first instance 2012  Source : Eurostat  

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  4  and  5  in  the  annex,  provide  an  overview  of  Asylum  Applicants  and  First  Instance 
Decisions  by  Member  State  in  2012.53  In  2012,  there  were  331  975  asylum  applicants54,  a 
nearly 10 % increase from 2011, and as for the previous year it is estimated that around 90% 
of  these  were  new  applicants  and  around  10%  were  repeat  applicants.  The  main  country  of 
citizenship of the applicants remained Afghanistan (26 250 or 8% of the total), and in 2012 
the second coutnry became Syria (23 0510 or 7%) and there after the Russian Federation (23 
360 or 7%), Pakistan (6%) and Serbia (6%). Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom 
and Belgium register  70% of  all  applicants. with the highest  number registered in  Germany 
(77 500, or 23%), followed by France (60 600, or 18%), Sweden (43 900, or 13%), the United 
Kingdom  (28  200,  or  8%)  and  Belgium  (28  1000,  or  8  %).  When  compared  with  the 
population of each Member State, the highest rates of applicants registered were recorded in 
Malta  (4  980  applicants  per  million  inhabitants),  Sweden  (4  625),  Luxembourg  (3  905), 
Belgium (2 535) and Austria (2 065) 
A  total  of  268  495    first  instance  decisions  were  made,55  of  which  71  580  were  positive 
decisions (some 26,7 %). Of these 37 245 (14%) were granted refugee status, 27 920 (10%) 
subsidiary protection and 6 415 (2%) authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons. 196 920 
were rejections (73% of decisions). 

4.1. 

Common European Asylum System 

At EU level, the goal of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament had been 
to  complete  the  package  of  instruments  of  the  second  phase  of  the  Common  European 
Asylum  System  (CEAS)  by  the  end  of  2012.  This  ambition  came  close  to  being  achieved 
during 2012. In this context, the Commission emphasizes that the completion of the second 
phase of CEAS does not end with a political agreement on the new legislation, but also entails 
its actual adoption and future implementation, as informed by the developing case law of the 
CJEU in relation to the Qualification Directive56. 

53 
54 
55 

56 

As published by Eurostat (see also News Release48/2013 of 22 March 2013) 
Eurostat. The EU-27 total excludes the NL. 
It  should  be  noted  that  first  instance  decisions  made  in  2011  may  refer  to  applications  registered  in 
previous years. 

In joined cases C-71/11 and C-99/11 (Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y and Z) (5.9.2012)  the CJEU 
clarified the meaning of the concept of persecution for reasons of religion set out in Articles 9 and 10 of 
the Directive. Not all the limitations to the freedom of religion in the country of origin can be the basis 
for the recognition of refugee status, but only those serious acts which constitute a severe violation of 
basic human rights, interfere with a person’s freedom to privately practice or to live that faith publicly, 
and if upon return to the country of origin, engaging in religious practices which will expose him/her to 
a real risk of persecution. 

In case C-277/11 (M. M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland) (22.11.2012) the 
CJEU decided that the requirement that a Member State cooperate with an applicant for asylum, stated 
in  Article  4(1),  does  not  oblige  the  authority  to  inform  the  applicant  that  it  intends  to  reject  his 
application  for  subsidiary  protection  status  lodged  after  the  initial  refusal  of  refugee  status  and  notify 
him of the arguments on which it intends to base its rejection, so as to enable him to make known his 
views in that regard before adopting its decision. However, in the case of a system with two separate, 
consecutive procedures, the right to be heard of the applicant must be ensured before the adoption of 
any decision that does not grant the protection requested.  

In  case  C-364/11  (El  Kott  and  Others  v  Bevándorlási  és  Állampolgársági  Hivatal)(19.12.2012)  the 
CJEU interpreted Article 12(1)(a) and decided that the cessation of protection or assistance from organs 
or  agencies  of  the  United  Nations  other  than  the  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees  (HCR)  ‘for  any 
reason’  includes  the  situation  in  which  a  person  who,  after  actually  availing  himself/herself  of  such 
protection  or  assistance,  ceases  to  receive  it  for  a  reason  beyond  his/her  control  and  independent  of 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
Political  agreement  was  reached  on  27th  June  2012  concerning  the  Reception  Conditions 
Directive  57  and  endorsed  at  the  JHA  Council  on  25  October  2012.  The  Recast  of  the 
Directive  further  harmonises  the  Union's  rules  to  ensure  that  there  are  appropriate  material 
reception conditions for asylum seekers across the EU. For the first time in an EU instrument, 
detailed rules have been adopted on the issue of detention of asylum seekers (informed by the 
developing case law of the European courts) aimed at ensuring that such detention can only 
exceptionally  be  resorted  to,  and  that  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  concerned  persons  are 
fully respected. 

The amended Directive will help to ensure that the most vulnerable are adequately protected. 
It clarifies the obligation to conduct an individual assessment in order to identify the special 
reception  needs  of  vulnerable  persons;  it  provides  particular  attention  to  unaccompanied 
minors  and  victims  of  torture  and  ensures  that  vulnerable  asylum  seekers  can  also  access 
psychological support. Finally, it includes rules on the qualifications of the representatives for 
unaccompanied minors. 

The amended Reception Conditions Directive addresses the obligation to guarantee dignified 
living  conditions  for  asylum  seekers  as  well  as  the  need  to  counteract  abusive  asylum 
applications. The Directive includes certain tools to be used against such abuses such as the 
possibility to withdraw or reduce material support. 

After  years  of  difficult  negotiations,  agreement  was  finally  reached  at  the  end  of  2012  as 
concerns the recast Dublin Regulation58. The new Regulation will increase the efficiency of 
the system and will ensure higher standards of protection. An early warning, preparedness and 
crisis  management  mechanism  is  foreseen,  geared  to  addressing  the  root  causes  of 
dysfunctions in national asylum systems or problems stemming from particular pressures. It 
provides  clear  reference  to  solidarity  with  MSs  under  pressure  and  an  obligation  to  comply 
with fundamental rights.  

The  new  Regulation  introduces  a  series  of  provisions  on  the  protection  of  applicants 
fundamental and procedural rights, such as a compulsory  personal interview, guarantees for 
minors (including a detailed description of the factors that should lay at the basis of assessing 
a  child's  best  interests)  and  extended  possibilities  of  reunifying  them  with  relatives. 
Applicants will be guaranteed the right to appeal against a transfer decision. The Regulation 
also now provides for the possibility for appeals to be suspensive, together with the guarantee 
of the right for a person to remain on the territory pending the decision of a court or on the 
suspensive effect. Legal assistance is to be provided free of charge upon request. 

There  is  a  single  ground  for  detention,  namely where  there  is  a  risk  of  absconding,  and  the 
scope  for  detention  is  strictly  limited.  It  introduces  the  possibility  for  asylum  seekers  that 
could in some cases be considered irregular migrants and returned under the Return Directive 
to be treated under the Dublin procedure, thus giving these persons more protection than the 
Return Directive. More legal clarity of procedures between Member States is foreseen - e.g. 
exhaustive  and  clearer  deadlines.  The  entire  Dublin  procedure  cannot  last  longer  than  11 
months for "take charge" cases, or 9 months for "take back" cases (except for in cases where 
the person absconds or where the person is imprisoned).  

his/her volition. Where this condition is satisfied, the fact that that person is ipso facto ‘entitled to the 
benefits  of  [the]  directive’  means  that  that  person  must  automatically  be  granted  refugee  status, 
provided always that he is not caught by Article 12(1)(b) or (2) and (3) of the directive. 

57 
58 

Recast of Directive 2003/9/EC 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003.  OJ  L50,  25.2.2003,  p1.  Commissions  proposal  for  recast  
COM(2008)820. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
The agreement on the Dublin Regulation incorporates the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
the EU in case NS v UK (case C-411/10), by introducing the provision according to which an 
asylum seeker cannot be sent to a Member State where there is a serious risk of violation of 
his/her fundamental rights, but instead another Member State  is to assume  responsibility on 
the basis of the Dublin criteria, within the shortest delay, in order not to jeopardize the quick 
access to procedure. A number of other judgements in 2012 of the Court of Justice of the EU 
further clarified the interpretation of the Dublin regulation59.  
The Commission put forward a revised proposal to recast the EURODAC Regulation60 on 30 
May 2012. This proposal was essentially a merger of the 2010 proposal on the asylum-related 
elements  with  the  2009  proposal  to  allow  law  enforcement  access  to  EURODAC  under 
certain  limited  circumstances  for  the  purpose  of  preventing,  detecting  and  investigating 
serious  crimes  and  terrorism.  By  the  end  of  2012,  both  co-legislators  had  proposed 
amendments  to  the  text,  but  there  was  broad  agreement  on  the  principle  of  allowing  law 
enforcement access. Negotiations also continued on a revised Asylum Procedures Directive61 
will lead to fairer, quicker and better quality asylum decisions that fully respect fundamental 
rights.  The  special  needs  of  vulnerable  people  will  be  better  taken  into  account  and  in 
particular there will be greater protection of unaccompanied minors and victims of torture. 

 Political agreement was reached in March 2013 on the final two pieces of legislation forming 
the  CEAS  -  the  recast  of  two  instruments,  the  Asylum  Procedures  Directive62  and  the 
EURODAC Regulation, on a biometric database for the comparison of fingerprints63. 

The  Commission  is  furthermore  conducting  a  study  on  fingerprint  recognition  of  children 
below the age of 12 years. The major source of information within this study has been a set of 
children fingerprints provided by courtesy of the Portuguese Immigration Service (SEF). The 
aim  is  to  scientifically  identify  if  there  is  an  age  limit  for  collecting  fingerprint  and  what  is 
this limit. The final report will be issued in the second part of 2013.  

At  national  level,  Member  States  remained  committed  to  establishing  a  Common  European 
Asylum System. Some Member States (BE, ES, LU, NL) referred to legislative developments 
in  relation  to  the  transposition  of  EU  legislative  instruments,  in  particular,  the  recast 

59 

60 
61 

62 
63 

In case C-620/10 (Kastrati v Sweden) (3.5.2012), the CJEU stated that the withdrawal of an application 
for asylum which occurs before the Member State responsible for examining that application and has 
agreed to take charge of the applicant, has the effect that that regulation can no longer be applicable.  

In case C-179/11 (CIMADE & GISTI v France)(27.5.2012)  the CJEU decided that a Member State in 
receipt of an application for asylum is obliged to grant the minimum conditions for reception of asylum 
seekers laid down in the Reception Conditions Directive even to an asylum seeker in respect of whom it 
decides, under the Dublin Regulation, to call upon another Member State to take charge of or take back 
that applicant. Such an obligation only ceases when the applicant is actually transferred.  

In case C-245/11 (K v Austria)(6.11.2012) the CJEU decided that in a situation of dependence which 
can fall under Article 15(2) and where the persons concerned are present in the territory of a Member 
State other than the one responsible in the light of the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation, 
that  Member  State  is,  on  condition  that  the  family  ties  existed  in  the  country  of  origin,  ‘normally’ 
obliged to keep those persons together. This obligation must be understood as meaning that a Member 
State may derogate from it only if justified because an exceptional situation has arisen.  

Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000. OJ L316, 15.12.2000, p.1 
Directive  2005/85/EC  on  minimum  standards  on  procedures  in  Member  States  for  granting  and 
withdrawing refugee status. OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13. 
Inter-institutional reference COD(2009)0165 
Inter-institutional reference COD(2008)0242. The next EURODAC Annual Report will be published in 
the latter half of 2013. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
Qualification  Directive64  as  well  as  the  Long-Term  Residents’  Directive65.  Bulgaria 
established  an  expert  working  group  within  the  State  Agency  for  Refugees  to  support  the 
implementation  of  the  necessary  legal  amendments  resulting  from  the  transposition.  Others 
(CY,  CZ,  EE,  EL,  HU,  IT,  PL,  SK)  and  Norway  reported  on  policy  developments  for  the 
implementation  of  measures  linked  to  the  requirements  of  the  Common  European  Asylum 
System,  including  projects  undertaken  with  other  Member  States  under  the  ERF.  Spain 
reported on its Refugee and Asylum Office (OAR)’s participation in meetings of the Working 
Group  Asylum  regarding  negotiations  on  the  reform  of  the  European  Asylum  System.In 
relation  to  reception,  Slovak  Republic  implemented  a  project  aiming  to  increase  the  overall 
quality of reception conditions for applicants residing in collective centres, whilst Italy aimed 
to  increase  reception  assistance  to  applicants  in  addition  to  providing  support  for  socio-
economic integration with a view to facilitate access to the labour market.  Cyprus, following 
the  crisis  in  North-Africa,  increased  its  reception  capacity  by  utilising  hotels  as  reception 
centres.  In  Estonia,  a  capacity  building  project  for  stakeholders  in  the  asylum  process  took 
place,  funded  by  ERF,  which  aimed  to  support  the  Estonian  reception  system,  starting  with 
asylum procedures through to decisions on international protection, and included participants 
from the Police and Border Guard Board.  

In relation to the special needs of vulnerable persons, Italy and Norway implemented a project 
which aimed to improve reception conditions for vulnerable persons and Norway developed 
guidelines  for  the  treatment  of  vulnerable  applicants  for  international  protection.  Poland 
participated in a project which aimed to enhance identification of persons with special needs.  

On  procedures,  Italy  implemented  a  project  aimed  at  automatisation  of  all  applications  for 
international protection. Poland has taken measures in preparation for an ERF funded project 
to  be  implemented  in  2013  concerning  the  method  of  language  analysis.  With  regard  to 
qualification  criteria,  Norway  developed  guidelines  which  include  a  non-exhaustive  list  of 
elements that could amount to persecution on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.  

Finally, the Czech Republic reported on their contribution to the development of the CEAS by 
the provision of training, having provided several EAC trainings to more than 60 officials and 
having  delivered  a  training  of  EAC  modules  in  the  Slovak  Republic,  whilst  Hungary 
emphasized  its  efforts  undertaken  in  relation  to  country  of  origin  information,  by  having 
implemented a project on quality development of COI. 

4.1.1. 

Intra-EU solidarity including Relocation 

At EU level: Following the adoption of the Commission Communication on enhanced intra-
EU solidarity in the field of asylum in December 2011, 2012 was a year of intense debate on 
the  subject  on  the  EU  level.  The  Commission  organised  an  expert  meeting  to  discuss  the 
implementation  of  solidarity  on  22  February  2013.  The  discussions  confirmed  that  there  is 
still  considerable  scope  for  closer  practical  cooperation  between  national  authorities.  For 
example,  despite  the  widely  recognised  high  quality  of  the  European  Asylum  Curriculum 
(EAC), only a handful of Member States reported that they use it extensively for the training 
of  their  asylum  staff.  Member  States'  representatives  recognised  the  importance  for  mutual 
trust  of  coherent  transposition  of  the  new  asylum  laws.  Practical  measures  to  support  close 
collaboration  on  this  issue  were  discussed.  In  addition,  several  Member  States'  experts 
expressed readiness for a higher level of openness of national asylum procedures to EU-level 
scrutiny.  

64 
65 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:337:0009:0026:EN:PDF  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:132:0001:0004:EN:PDF  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  for  solidarity  actions  to  address  pressure  due  to  external  events,  two  challenges  were 
pointed  out.  First,  coordination  responsibilities  for  solidarity  actions  on  a  European  level, 
including  with  actions  beyond  the  asylum  field,  need  to  be  more  clearly  defined,  so  as  to 
ensure their effective implementation and to maximise the participation and full engagement 
of Member States. Second, in asylum crisis situations, national contingency planning remains 
the  primary  tool,  but  this  could  possibly  be  coordinated  at  EU  level  and  supplemented  by 
solidarity tools, including assistance from EASO. As regards the handling of asylum claims, 
for  example,  a  study  on  joint  processing  of  asylum  applications  put  forward  some  ideas  on 
how the EASO could help prevent or reduce a backlog of asylum cases. 

The Commission intends to take forward the main conclusions of the meeting by focusing in 
2013 on enhancing mutual trust through coherent implementation of EU law, improving EU-
level coordination and further reflecting on emergency assistance.  

In the implementation of this strategy, developments on the EU level have been encouraging. 
Significant progress has been made towards the adoption of CEAS-2 instruments, which will 
lead to a more level playing field between Member States.  

In addition to refugees from Syria, the asylum system was affected throughout the year by a 
large  number  of  mostly  unfounded  applications  by  citizens  of  Western  Balkans  countries 
following  visa  liberalisation.  The  common  nature  of  the  challenge  was  an  opportunity  for 
practical  cooperation  and  solidarity  between  Member  States.  However  this  opportunity  was 
only  partially  used.  For  example,  Belgium  developed  a  number  of  tools  that  were  used  to 
rapidly reject the  most obviously unfounded applications where the claims followed  a well-
established pattern.  Other Member States were made aware of those tools as early as January 
2012  in  an  IGC  workshop,  but  no  sharing  followed.  A  further  presentation  was  made  at 
GDISC  in  June,  again  with  little  follow-up.  It  is  necessary  to  ensure  better  follow-up  in 
practice of discussions on a senior or political level.  

On the other hand, there were also effective examples of solidarity in practice. In particular, in 
January  2012,  Luxemburg  requested  the  deployment  of  EASO  Asylum  Support  Teams  in 
order  to  help  in  training  of  newly  recruited  staff.  This  second  deployment  of  EASO  teams 
took place rapidly and provided tangible and useful help.  

Unexpected or acute situations are when solidarity comes to the fore. But the Union’s ability 
to  assist  rapidly  and  effectively  in  case  of  need  depends  on  well-functioning  channels  of 
cooperation established outside of crisis situations. On the EU level, experiences such as the 
“Syria  network”  and  new  developments,  in  particular  the  operating  arrangements  between 
Frontex and EASO signed in September, are a good basis for future coordinated activity. On 
the ground, however, there is a pressing need to continue reinforcing everyday collaboration 
and  ensure  full  follow-up  of  political  commitments.  The  EU  framework,  notably  EASO-led 
projects  such  as  the  European  Asylum  Curriculum  and  the  Country  of  Origin  activities  of 
EASO should be used to the full.  

At national level: As regards support to national asylum systems, many Member States (BE, 
CY, CZ, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK, UK) and Norway took part in initiatives to support those faced 
with specific and disproportionate pressures on their national asylum system (see also Section 
3.2.1 above). 

EN 

38 

   EN 

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

At  EU  level  :  Together  with  the  handover  of  projects  and  responsibilities,  the  relationship 
with EASO has grown stronger in strategic areas of cooperation, in particular as regards the 
assistance provided to  the Greek authorities in the  context of the Action Plan  for Migration 
and Asylum, the establishment of an alert system in line with Article 33 of the revised Dublin 
Regulation,  as  well  as  on  the  coherent  implementation  of  the  Common  European  Asylum 
System  by  way  of  improving  the  quality  of  the  asylum  procedures  and  the  alignment  of 
Country  of  Origin  Information.  EASO  has  drafted  a  report  on  the  EUREMA  project 
(relocation from Malta) that was submitted to the European Commission in June 2012, whilst 
the  development  of  External  Dimension  activities  had  to  be  de-prioritized  due  to  resource 
constraints of the agency. 

The expectation in 2013 is to further develop these areas of cooperation in view of supporting, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  practical  cooperation,  the  implementation  of  the  new  Common 
European  Asylum  System.  Furthermore  the  European  Commission  will  conduct  a  first 
evaluation of the EASO, in line with its Communication on Solidarity, and will work with the 
agency in order to fully adopt the measures foreseen in the Joint Statement on Decentralized 
EU  Agencies  that  was  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Commission  and 
the Council. 

4.1.2.1.  Participation in EASO activities 

At  national  level,  almost  all  Member  States  have  participated  in  EASO  activities  (AT,  BE, 
CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR,  IE, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK) 
plus  Norway.  All  associated  countries  have  also  been  invited  to  the  meetings  of  the 
Management Board starting in September 2012; theyare currently negotiating an Association 
Agreement with EASO, and have also already contributed to several EASO activities. Croatia 
has been invited to the meetings of the EASO Management Board in view of the accession to 
the European Union. 

With  regard  to  secondment  of  staff,  Member  States  and  Norway  reported  on  contributing 
experts  to  the  Asylum  Intervention  Pool  (AT,  BE,  CZ,  PL,  PT,  SE,  SK,  UK),  the  EAC 
Trainers  Pool  (AT,  BE,  CZ,  MT,  PL,  UK)  as  well  as  the  Interpreters  Pool.  Nine  Member 
States (AT, BE, CY, DE, FI, PT, SE, SK, UK) and Norway noted that their national experts 
had  been  deployed  in  Asylum  Support  Teams  to  provide  assistance  in  Greece  and 
Luxembourg..  Sweden  has  also  contributed  to  the  evaluation  of  the  Asylum  Support  Teams 
deployed  to  Greece.  Belgium  and  Ireland  reported  that  within  the  context  of  EAC,  their 
national experts had provided training courses in Malta. Other Member States (BE, CZ, NL) 
further  reported  on  having  seconded  national  experts  to  temporarily  work  for  the  agency  in 
Malta.  

With regard to participation in meetings, most Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, 
EL,  ES,  FR,  IE,  LV,  MT,  NL,  PL,  RO,  SE,  SI,  SK,  UK)  reported  on  having  actively 
contributed to EASO Management Board Meetings, NCP Meetings as well as several expert 
meetings  on,  amongst  others,  COI,  EAC,  and  age  assessment.  France,  Malta,  Poland,  and 
Sweden also noted to have taken part in the Consultative Forum.  

Some Member States (BE, BG, CY, IT, SE) referred to having contributed to the EASO early-
warning  and  preparedness  system  by  supplying  data  on  trends  and  analysis  with  regard  to 
applications  for  international  protection;  and  to  participating  in  the  Working  Group  on  the 
Portal of country of origin information (ES). 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
4.1.2.2.  Provision of support by EASO to the Member States 

At  national  level,  Asylum  Support  Teams  were  deployed  to  Greece  and  Luxembourg. 
Technical assistance in Greece consisted of support in building the Greek asylum system, in 
particular,  the  establishment  of  the  First  Reception  Service,  of  the  Asylum  Service,  of  the 
Appeals  Authority  and  for  the  improvement  of  reception  conditions  in  line  with  the  Action 
Plan on Migration and Asylum. In Luxembourg, support  involved trainings to support staff in 
processing the high numbers of applications received for international protection. 

Moreover, several Member States (CZ, FI, EE, ES, FR, IE, MT, PL, SE) reported benefitting 
from  EAC  trainings  organised  and  coordinated  by  EASO.  France  and  Ireland  have  each 
incorporated  EASO  training  materials  into  the  training  modules,  respectively  within  the 
French  Office  for  Protection  of  Refugees  and  Stateless  Persons  (OFPRA)  and  the  Irish 
Immigration  Authority  (INIS).  In  Italy,  a  special  support  plan  is  being  defined  by  IT  and 
EASO in order to improve asylum procedures in Italy and maximise response capacities for 
dealing with unexpected mixed migration flows.  

4.1.3. 

Support to national asylum systems: Greece  

At EU level : The national Action Plan on the asylum reform and migration management is 
the  current  point  of  reference  at  EU  level  for  addressing  migration  and  asylum  pressures  in 
Greece. It has been only partially implemented and recently revised to reflect the current state 
of affairs as well as to include concrete objectives and deliverables. There are however still 
gaps  which  the  Commission  will  address  with  the  Greek  authorities  in  order  to  establish 
priorities and facilitate the swift implementation of the envisaged actions.  

The General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (SOLID Funds) is 
the main source of funding to co-finance activities in policy areas concerned. In that context, 
the relevant Funds could cover a part of needs identified in the Action Plan. However, since 
the Funds are largely implemented in a shared management, it is up to the Greek authorities to 
decide on priorities within the limits of available resources allocated to Greece per Fund and 
according to their respective areas of eligibility.  

For  the  period  of  2011-2013,  Greece  was  allocated  with  the  amount  of  EUR  97,9M  for  the 
Return Fund, EUR 129,7M for the External Borders Fund and EUR 19,95M for the European 
Refugee Fund (including EUR 7.7M of emergency funding) and some of these resources still 
can  be  used  still  in  2013  or  even  in  2014.  To  be  noted  that  the  ERF  allocation  for  2013  is 
limited and amounts only to EUR3,2 M. The Greek allocations under the Return Fund and the 
External Borders Fund for 2013 are respectively EUR 35,3 M and EUR 44M.  

In  addition,  the  possibility  to  cover  some  other  needs,  in  particular  as  regards  some 
infrastructure  projects,  could  be  explored  within  the  Greek  programmes  under  the  EU 
Structural Funds. Again, it is up to the Greek authorities to explore these possibilities through 
the Greek national frameworks and to trigger necessary requests under the Structural Funds. 
The  Commission  (DG  HOME+TFGR)  stands  ready  to  assist  Greece  in  this  process.  
However,  given  the  size  of  the  Greek  funding  needs,  it  is  clear  that  that  financial  support 
additional  to  the  EU  funding  (SOLID  funds,  Structural  funds)  will  have  to  be  additional 
funding will be required from other sources. 

Greece  has  shown  real  political  will  to  re-construct  its  asylum  and  migration  policies.  In 
support of its efforts Greece has benefited from the following elements: 

•  Deployments of EASO Asylum Support Teams took place with the purpose of building the 
capacity of the new Asylum Service and the First Reception Service, as well as to provide 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
accurate  statistics  on  migration  and  asylum.  Also,  in  October  2012,  in  close  cooperation 
with the Commission (DG HOME & TFGR), EASO has deployed 3 experts in support of 
the  implementation  of  the  three  relevant  SOLID  Funds  in  Greece;  namely  ERF,  RF  and 
EBF.  Finally,  in  order  to  further  reduce  the  backlog  at  second  instance  a  project 
implemented is currently being implemented by UNHCR under financial support by EASO 
for the first phase. 

•  Under the European Refugee Fund, an additional M 3.75 € emergency support was granted 
to  Greece  for  2011  (measures  implemented  up  to  the  end  of  August  2012)  and  2012 
(currently being implemented and expected to finish by the end of May 2013 at the latest). 
These  measures  include,  inter  alia,  the  provision  of  training  to  police  officers  and  other 
staff  involved  in  the  asylum  procedure,  support  for  registration,  case-management  and 
reception  strategy,  interpretation  services  as  well  as  support  related  to  Country  of  Origin 
information  analysis.  Moreover,  the  Commission  has  triggered  additional  funding 
mechanisms  (grant  of  M  2.1  €  under  the  2012  ERF  Community  Actions)  in  order  to 
provide support to Greek authorities in establishing, in particular, a fully operational New 
Asylum Service and Appeals Authority with the full involvement of UNHCR. 

4.1.4. 

Support to national asylum systems: Conflict in Syria   

At EU level : The migratory consequences of the events in Syria could become an important 
test for the EU’s asylum system. The vast majority of the almost 600,000 refugees from Syria 
in 2012 fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq66, and only approximately 23,51067 Syrians 
requested asylum in the EU in 2012. Of those, most applied in Germany and Sweden (34% of 
total  each),  with  other  Member  States  only  marginally  affected.  The  requests  were  made 
chiefly by persons already present on the territory or by Syrians arriving directly by air to the 
Member  States  concerned.  The  numbers  were  not  high  enough  to  destabilise  the  asylum 
systems, especially since positive decisions could be made rapidly, in particular in Germany. 
However,  given  the  unpredictable  developments,  there  has  been  an  obvious  need  for 
preparedness and contingency planning, in a spirit of EU solidarity.  

For the first time in this kind of situation, tangible contingency planning took place on the EU 
level. Starting in August 2012, the Commission set up a network including the relevant Union 
agencies  which  held  regular  information  exchanges  in  order  to  coordinate  action.  This 
mechanism  of  coordination  between  the  European  Commission  and  EU  Agencies  will 
represent  a  blueprint  to  ensure  a  better  monitoring  of  the  situation  at  the  borders  and  in  the 
asylum  systems  which  would  allow  the  Commission  to  activate  instruments  in  a  timely 
manner, and will support its role as envisaged in Art 33 Dublin. As soon as it became clear 
that  the  number  of  asylum  applications  from  Syria  would  increase,  EASO  called  expert 
workshops  on  country-of-origin  information.  Two  of  those  took  place  in  2012  (July  and 
August). The workshops showed that such activities could have an added value when Member 
States engage on a practical level. However, the August workshop was attended by political 
staff of Member States rather than asylum practitioners, which undermined its effectiveness. 
The  policies  with  regards  to  Syrian  refugees  continue  to  differ  substantially  across  Europe, 
and a next workshop is planned for February 2013.   

66 
67 

Source: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php, as of 31.1.2012 
Eurostat, 22 March 2013. No data available for NL. See Table 4 and 5 in the Statistical annex.  

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4.1.5.  Relocation 

At  EU  level:  A  first  EU  Relocation  from  Malta  (EUREMA)  project  had  relocated  227 
beneficiaries of international protection from Malta in 2010-11. The EUREMA II project was 
launched  in  2012.  97  places  were  initially  pledged  under  this  project  plus  a  further  265 
bilateral  pledges  outside  the  project.  Over  the  course  of  2012,  105  persons  were  relocated 
either through EUREMA II or the accompanying bilateral arrangements.  

The EUREMA II project has been extended until the end of 2013. However there continue to 
be  difficulties  in  relocating  beneficiaries  based  in  Malta  to  certain  participating  Member 
States.  According  to  EASO's  report  and  to  information  supplied  to  the  Commission  by 
UNHCR,  IOM  and  the  Maltese  Government,  the  reasons  for  this  vary  from  the  sometimes 
restrictive  criteria  applied  by  Member  States  for  selecting  beneficiaries  for  relocation,  to 
perceptions by beneficiaries that family reunification and integration prospects in the Member 
State offering to relocate them could cause them difficulties.  

At  national  level,  some  Member  States  also  reported  on  relocation  of  beneficiaries  of 
international  protection:  In  2011,  seven  Member  States  (BG,  HU,  LT,  PL,  RO,  SK)  had 
pledged to relocate beneficiaries of international protection from Malta through the EUREMA 
II project. During 2012, Lithuania relocated four beneficiaries and Portugal six beneficiaries 
from  Malta.  Poland  planned  to  relocate  50  beneficiaries  from  Malta;  and  this  procedure 
remains in place. Other Member States (DK, ES, IE, NL) made pledges to Malta on a bilateral 
basis.  Following  such  bilateral  pledges,  Ireland  relocated  ten  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection.  Norway  resettled  31  beneficiaries  following  a  request  from  the  EU  to  relocate 
refugees as a result of the Libyan crisis (see also Table 7 in the Statistical Annex). 

4.1.6.  Enhancing the external dimension including Resettlement 

4.1.6.1.  Cooperation with third countries 

EU  Level:  In  May  2012,  the  Council  Conclusions  on  the  GAMM  confirmed  international 
protection  and  the  external  dimension  of  asylum  as  one  of  the  four  priority  areas  of  the 
GAMM. Efforts to strengthen asylum systems and national asylum legislation and to ensure 
compliance  with  international  standards  continues  to  be  incorporated  in  actions  and 
cooperation frameworks with third countries.  

The Interior Ministers have called upon the Commission to respond to the on-going crisis in 
Syria  and  the  refugee  situation  in  the  neighbouring  countries  through  setting  up  a  Regional 
Development and Protection Programme in the Middle East.  

The EU as a whole is leading the international humanitarian response to the Syria crisis. The 
EU's and Member States' efforts have concentrated, for the time being, mainly on securing the 
most  basic  needs  of  the  refugees,  such  as  shelter  and  accommodation,  and  other  daily 
necessities,  as  well  as  emergency  health  care,  psycho-social  assistance,  basic  forms  of 
education and vocational training and social support through financial aid. The Commission is 
also  financing  actions  aimed  at  enabling  effective  international  protection  to  be  provided  in 
the countries neighbouring Syria. The Commission provides financial support to UNHCR in 
its efforts to enable refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq to be properly registered and thus 
gain  access  to  protection.  Ensuring  access  to  protection  also  includes  assisting  the  local 
authorities  with  the  provision  of  transport  from  border  crossing  points,  providing  the 
necessary  equipment  and  supplies,  as  well  as,  wherever  necessary,  providing  training  and 
familiarising non-governmental organisations, officials, and other stakeholders with the basic 
principles of international protection.   

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
At  national  level,  several  Member  States  (BE,  CZ,  DE,  HU,  PL,  SE,  UK)  cooperated  with 
third countries with a view to strengthening their asylum systems. For example, Germany and 
Sweden  have  -  in  close  cooperation  with  EASO  and  UNHCR  -  sought  to  develop  the 
European  Asylum  Curriculum  (EAC)  tool  in  Eastern  Partnership  countries.  Similarly, 
Belgium  also  assisted  the  asylum  authority  in  Burundi  by  the  provision  of  training  on  the 
basis  of  the  EAC  learning  method,  whilst  the  United  Kingdom  has  shared  best  practice  on 
asylum  processes  with  Australia  and  Turkey,  including  the  hosting  of  an  EU-funded  study 
visit  for  a  Turkish  delegation  to  witness  UK  operations.  Furthermore,  Sweden  and  Poland 
administered  a  twinning  project  to  improve  the  management  of  migration  and  asylum  in 
Armenia. Germany provided assistance to Turkey and the Republic of Moldova in the context 
of  TAIEX  (Technical  Assistance  and  Information  Exchange  instrument)  activities  and 
Hungary exchanged experiences on capacity building with the National Police of Serbia.    

4.1.6.2.  Resettlement 

Table 7 provides statistics on third-country nationals resettled to Member States and Norway. 
In 2012, third-country nationals were primarily resettled to SE (1 680), NO (1 23168), UK (1 
040),  FI  (730)  and  DE  (305).  The  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Ireland,  Spain,  France, 
Lithuania and Portugal also reported resettling people from third countries in 201269. 

At  EU  level:  2012  saw  the  creation  of  the  Joint  EU  Resettlement  Programme  under  the 
European  Refugee  Fund.  For  the  first  time,  the  Member  States  agreed  on  a  list  of  specific 
common  EU  resettlement  priorities  for  2013.  It  is  a  strong  political  signal  of  unity  and 
solidarity with the international community and refugees in need of a durable solution and an 
expression  of  the  importance  that  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  attach  to  directing  the 
Union's  resettlement  efforts  towards  protracted  situations  that  need  special  attention  and 
increased efforts.  

Under  the  Joint  EU  Resettlement  Programme  the  Member  States  can  pledge  to  resettle  a 
number of refugees and receive a fixed amount for each resettled refugees on the basis of a 
list  of  priorities.  In  order  to  encourage  more  Member  States  to  engage  in  resettlement 
activities,  additional  financial  support  is  provided  to  those  Member  States  that  decide  to 
resettle  refugees  for  the  first  time.  Under  this  scheme,  the  participating  Member  States 
pledged in 2012 to resettle 3.962 refugees in 2013. This is a considerable increase compared 
with 2012 when 3.083 resettlement places were pledged.  

At national level: Several Member States (CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, NL, PT, SE, SK70, UK) 
plus  Norway  resettled  refugees  from  different  regions  of  the  world,  mainly  in  cooperation 
with UNHCR. Some of the resettled refugees came from North Africa, including refugees that 
have fled the crisis in Tunisia (DE, PT, SE), and Egypt (IE,  PT). Other Member States and 
Norway resettled refugees from Republic of Kenya (NL, SE), Eritrea and Ethiopia (ES, FR, 
IE, PT, UK), Liberia (IE), Somalia (ES, FR, PT, UK), Sudan (ES, NL, PT, SE), Djibouti (SE), 
Democratic Republic of Congo (FR, IE, PT, UK) plus Congolese refugees from Rwanda (FI), 
as well as refugees from Afghanistan (FR, PT), Afghan nationals from Iran (FI, SE), Iraq (FR, 

68 
69 
70 

This figure includes 31 third-country nationals relocated from Malta 
Relocation data by EMN, resettlement data by Eurostat. 
In  the  case of Slovak  Republic,  this  concerned  a  temporary  resettlement  (humanitarian  transfer) for  a 
maximum 6 month period after resettlement to the final destination. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
UK), Palestine (FR), Iraqi nationals from Turkey (DE, FI) and Ukraine (HU), Iranian Kurdish 
from  Iraq  (IE),  Colombian  nationals  from  Ecuador  (NL,  SE),  Burmese  refugees  from 
Malaysia  (CZ),  Iraqi  and  Iran  nationals  from  Lebanon  (NL)  and  Myanmar  refugees  from 
Thailand  (FI,  NL).  Spain  implemented  an  integration  programme  for  the  eighty  refugees  it 
resettled  and  shared  its  experience  of  resettlement  at  two  separate  seminars  organised  by 
EASO  and  as  part  of  the  Trans-national  Observatory  for  Refugees’  Resettlement  in  Europe 
(TORRE) project.71  

Some  Member  States  have  set  a  quota  with  respect  to  the  number  of  persons  accepted  for 
resettlement. The size of the annual quota varies, from for example 500 in the Netherlands to 
1200 in Norway and 1900 in Sweden. Several Member States reported on other resettlement-
related activities, for example, the undertaking of resettlement missions (NL, SE), as well as 
conducting  cultural  orientation  programs  (SE).  Italy  has  participated  in  “Linking  in  EU 
Resettlement”,  an  ERF  funded  project  aimed  at  strengthening  the  collaboration  among 
Member States and the sharing of good practices. Bulgaria adopted a government decision in 
2012 to resettle refugees and has set a pilot resettlement quota of some 20 refugees. 

71 

http://www.resettlement-observatory.eu/ 

EN 

44 

   EN 

                                                 
5. 

UNACCOMPANIED MINORS AND OTHER VULNERABLE GROUPS 

Figure 5: Unaccompanied minors 2012 (23 Member States and Norway) 

Source: EMN APR 2012 National Reports(a) IT: statistics for UAMs applying for asylum and those not applying 
for  asylum  are  based  on  different  measures  and  not  comparable  therefore  no  total  supplied;  FR: partial  data 
supplied. For some Member States, statistics were not available for the full year at the time of publication (see 
Table 8 in the Statistical Annex). 

Table  8  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 2012. On the basis of these provisional data, Italy (970 
asylum applicants, 7 575 non-asylum applicants), Sweden (3 580 asylum applicants), Spain (2 
319  asylum  applicants,  15  non-asylum  applicants  and  Belgium  (1  530  asylum  applicants;  1 
104 non-asylum applicants) received the highest numbers overall.  

At EU level : The arrival of unaccompanied minors is a permanent feature of migration and 
the  issue  continues  to  be  high  on  the  EU's  agenda  in  the  context  of  the  Action  Plan  on 
Unaccompanied Minors(2010-2014)72, providing a common approach to key challenges such 
as  data  collection,  family  tracing  of  unaccompanied  children  and  cooperation  with  third 
countries. The situation of children is of particular concern and in its 24th article, the Charter 
of  fundamental  rights  guarantees  that  in  all  actions  relating  to  children,  whether  taken  by 
public  authorities  or  private  institutions,  the  child’s  best  interests  must  be  a  primary 
consideration. 2012 witnessed a considerable increase in the number of minors applying for 
international protection in the EU. The reasons behind the arrival of unaccompanied children 

72 

COM(2010) 213 final 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
continue to be diverse and inter-related, and significant numbers of unaccompanied minors do 
not apply for asylum.73. 

The mid-term Report on the implementation of this Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors 
was  adopted  on  28  September  201274,  accompanied  by  a  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document75,  providing  a  detailed  description  of  actions  taken  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Action Plan by national administrations, EU agencies and Commission Services and various 
other stakeholders, including civil society. 

In  the  framework  of  the  Action  Plan,  the  Commission  created  an  Expert  group  on 
unaccompanied  minors  in  the  migratory  process  in  2011.  The  reports  of  the  expert  group 
meetings  held  in  2011,  on  guardianship  and  on  family  tracing  in  March  2012,  were  made 
publicly available (Registry of Expert Groups)76. 

Integrating  specific  needs  of  (unaccompanied)  minors  and  recognising  their  vulnerable 
position  in  asylum  situations  in  an  adequate  manner  remained  one  of  the  most  important 
points  for  the  Commission  during  negotiations  of  the  remaining  parts  of  the  Common 
European Asylum System instruments in 2012. The new Asylum Directives (see section 4.1) 
will  provide  for  more  favourable  provisions  on  reception  and  care  of  this  sensitive  migrant 
category.  

EASO hosted four expert meetings in 2012 on age assessment with a view to issuing guidance 
on the topic. EASO, in  cooperation  with the Commission,  also proceeded  with preparations 
for a similar initiative on family tracing in 2013, which would eventually result in guidelines 
on family tracing.  

A  Danish  Presidency  conference  entitled  “Unaccompanied  Minors  Arriving  in  Europe  – 
Recent Developments and Practical Tools” took place in June2012. At national level, several 
Member  States  (BE,  CY,  HU,  PL,  SI,  NO)  reported  on  legislative  developments,  providing 
greater  assistance  and  protection  to  unaccompanied  minors  (UAMs).  For  example,  Belgium 
developed a new Protocol Agreement which foresees a better monitoring system and further 
also  includes  guidelines  for  identification  and  age  assessment.  Other  Member  States 
introduced new provisions relating to age determination (SI), legal representatives (CY), and 
guardianship (PL and NO).  

With regard to future legislative developments, Finland is currently reviewing its legislation 
on detention, including detention of minors, as well as developing alternatives for detention 
and Hungary reported that an age assessment protocol is currently under preparation.  

Several  Member  States  (CZ,  IT,  NL,  UK)  referred  to  policy  developments.  The  Czech 
Republic applies a new concept of protection and care for unaccompanied minors, which sets 
out new rules for dealing with, and outlines the system of care and integration for, this group 
in the Member State. In Italy, the National Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors, adopted in 
October  2012,  foresees  for  the  development  of  an  online  information  system  in  order  to 
enhance accessibility of relevant information to stakeholders involved in providing assistance 
to  UAMs.  The  United  Kingdom  adopted  a  new  strategy  on  missing  children  (and  adults) 
which enables local authorities to put better arrangements in place to prevent children going 
missing.   

73 
74 
75 
76

COM(2012) 554 final 
COM(2012) 554 final 
SWD(2012)281 final 

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=

2402&Lang=EN 

EN 

46 

   EN 

                                                 
 
Furthermore, several Member States (AT, BE, ES, FI, IT, MT, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK, NO) 
were  involved  in  projects  concerning  UAMs.  For  example,  Austria,  in  cooperation  with 
UNHCR,  implemented  a  quality  assurance  project  aiming  at  assisting  authorities  in 
processing  asylum  procedures  from  unaccompanied  minors.  Belgium,  in  cooperation  with 
IOM,  implemented  a  pilot  project  on  enhanced  reintegration  assistance  for  unaccompanied 
minors  voluntarily  returning  to  Morocco  (in  cooperation  with  IOM)  and  Guinea  (Caritas). 
Italy has funded some 440 grant projects aimed at integrating UAMs into national society and 
where possible, the labour market. Greece has referred to a range of activities to support its 
work in age determination and the legal processes for unaccompanied minors. Spain, which 
experiences  notable  inflows  of  UAMs  at  its  borders  of  Ceuta  and  Melilla,  allocated  3.1 
million euro to the authorities in these municipalities for assistance to UAMs. In the context 
of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Unaccompanied  Minors,  Sweden,  Netherlands,  United  Kingdom 
and Norway continued to implement an EU-funded project which aims for the establishment 
of a European platform for unaccompanied minors that enables safe return to their countries 
of  origin.  Bulgaria  and  Greece  have  referred  to  their  participation  in  EASO  expert  working 
meetings on unaccompanied minors. On developments in relation to other vulnerable groups, 
some Member States (BE, IE, IT) referred to legislative and policy developments. Belgium, 
for  example,  signed  the  Convention  on  preventing  and  combating  violence  against  women 
and  domestic  violence  (Istanbul  Convention),  and  in  Ireland,  the  Irish  Naturalisation  and 
Immigration  Service  (INIS)  published  guidelines  for  applying  for  an  independent  status  for 
legally-resident third country national victims of domestic abuse whose immigration status is 
derived and/or dependent on that of the perpetrator of domestic violence. In Slovak Republic, 
the  government  supported  a  range  of  initiatives  to  raise  awareness  about  migration  and 
asylum  and  in  particular,  with  regard  to  work  with  vulnerable  groups,  mainly  via  projects 
financed from EU funds 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
6. 

ACTIONS ADDRESSING TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS 

Table  9  provides  key  statistics  on  trafficking  in  human  beings  provided  by  the  EMN.  Only 
fifteen  Member  States  have  been  able  to  provide  this  data.  The  highest  numbers  of  third-
country  nationals  receiving  a  residence  permit  as  victims  of  human  trafficking  in  human 
beings  were  reported  by  Italy  (392)  and  United  Kingdom  (200),  Belgium  (35)  and  Norway 
(33).  Other  Member  States  reported  issuing  very  low  numbers  of  such  permits;  in  all  other 
cases  where  information  was  available,  this  was  fewer  than  25.  With  regards  to  arrested 
traffickers  twelve  Member  States  provided  data.  France  reported  the  highest  number,  3  620 
from  1  January  to  30  September  2012.  Data  on  convicted  traffickers  is  available  for  nine 
Member States only. The highest numbers of convictions are reported by Romania (427) and 
Greece (49). 

At  EU  level  :  It  is  recalled  that  trafficking  in  human  beings  is  specifically  prohibited  under 
article  5  of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights.  During  the  reporting  period  key  and 
dynamic developments were noted for consolidating the EU legal and policy framework for 
addressing  trafficking  in  human  beings.  In  June  2012,  the  Commission  launched  the 
integrated  "EU  Strategy  towards  the  Eradication  of  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  2012-
2016"77,  which  puts  victims  at  its  heart.  The  EU  Strategy  supports  and  complements  the 
implementation of EU legislation on trafficking (Directive 2011/36/EU), which needed to be 
transposition  into  national  legislation  by  April  201378,  and  as  such  forms  the  new  and 
integrated  guiding  framework.  It  aspires  to  be  concrete  and  practical,  and  drawing  on  input 
from a wide range of stakeholders – it identifies the following five priorities:  

1.  Strengthening  the  identification,  protection  and  assistance  to  victims,  with  special 
emphasis on children; 

2. Stepping up the prevention of the crime, including by reducing demand; 

3. Increasing prosecution and convictions of traffickers; 

4.  Enhancing  the  coordination  and  coherence  within  the  EU,  with  international 
organisations, and with third countries, and 

5. Increasing knowledge of, and effective response to, emerging trends in trafficking 
in human beings. 

The  measures  included  in  the  EU  Strategy  are  the  result  of  extensive  consultations  with 
experts,  governments,  civil  society  and  international  organisations,  social  partners  and 
academics.  They  reflect  their  main  concerns,  as  well  as  the  views  of  victims,  and  will 
complement existing efforts. The overall responsibility for monitoring the implementation of 
the EU Strategy lies with the Commission and more specifically the Office of the EU Anti-
Trafficking Coordinator.  

The EU Strategy has received positive feedback from diverse stakeholders. In October 2012, 
the  Council  adopted  Conclusions  on  the  new  EU  Strategy  welcoming  the  latter  and 
reaffirming  the  political  will  and  readiness  of  Member  States  to  operationalise  their  policy 

77 
78 

COM(2012) 286 final 
Directive  2011/36/EU  on  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its 
victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. OJ 15.04.2011, L 101. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
commitments. The European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions have welcomed the Communication.  

Additionally,  the  European  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the  Cyprus  Presidency  of  the 
Council of the European Union organised a high level conference to mark the Sixth EU Anti-
Trafficking Day in Brussels on 18 October 201279. The conference 'Working together towards 
the eradication of trafficking in human beings: The Way Forward' focused on the EU Strategy 
and served as a forum for exchange of views among representatives from EU Member States, 
academia  and  civil  society  on  shaping  future  actions  to  strengthen  cooperation,  victim 
protection  and  assistance,  prevention  and  prosecution  in  the  field  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings. 

Of particular interest to the external dimension of trafficking in human beings and migration, 
is the adoption of the second and final report on the implementation of the Action-Oriented 
Paper  (AOP)  on  strengthening  the  EU  external  dimension  on  action  against  trafficking  in 
human  beings;  Towards  Global  EU  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings"80.  The 
second  report  acknowledges  that  concerted  effort  should  be  paid  for  implementing  the  EU 
Strategy as the new guiding framework also for the external dimension and underlines that the 
EU  Strategy  foresees  increased  cooperation  with  third  countries  of  origin,  transit  and 
destination on addressing trafficking in human beings, an approach in line with the Council 
Conclusions on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility.81 In this respect, trafficking 
in  human  beings  is  a  permanent  topic  in  all  migration  and  mobility  dialogues  conducted 
between the EU and its partners, both at regional and bilateral level  as well as in in Mobility 
Partnerships concluded by the EU with third countries. 

This  second  report,  in  conjunction  with  the  EU  Strategy,  adopted  a  list  of  countries  and 
regions for further strengthening and streamlining cooperation and partnership for addressing 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  based  on  the  available  statistics,  as  well  as  within  the 
geographical  and  operational  priorities  identified  in  the  GAMM82.  The  said  list  of  priority 
countries and regions will be updated at regular intervals. 

Additionally, the European Commission continues to provide funding for projects addressing 
the  external  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  continues  to  cooperate  with 
international and regional organizations in this respect.   

79 
80 

81 
82 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?id=45a556ea-85af-45ad-a814-689a4e72709e 
Adopted  by  the  Council  on  30  November  2009  (6865/10  CRIMORG  38  JAIEX  22  RELEX163  JAI 
168). See : http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st13/st13661-re03.en12.pdf 
9417/12 ASIM 50 RELEX 396 DEVGEN 116. 

Specific  countries  in  alphabetical  order:  Albania,  Brazil,  China,  Dominican  Republic,  Morocco, 
Nigeria, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam; (sources of most identified traffickers and 
victims in the EU); 

Priority  regions  shall  include:  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  from  the  Western  Balkans, 
countries  covered  by  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy,  both  Eastern  Partnership  and  Southern 
Mediterranean  countries.  Cooperation  with  these  regions  on  trafficking  in  human  beings  has  already 
been established and regularly monitored. In particular, trafficking in human beings is being addressed 
specifically  under  negotiation  Chapter  24  of  the  EU  acquis,  as  well  and  in  the  context  of  the  visa 
liberalisation dialogues with Western Balkans Countries and Turkey(not yet started); 

Other  regions  and  countries  of  particular  importance  for  cooperation  on  trafficking  in  human  beings 
based on the statistical data and information referred above: the CELAC countries (Community of Latin 
America  and  Caribean  States)  (in  particular  Paraguay  and  Colombia),  the  Silk  Route  region  (in 
particular  India),  South  East  Asian  countries  (in  particular  Thailand,  Laos,  Cambodia  and  the 
Philippines) and Western Africa (in particular Sierra Leone). 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
The EU Anti-Trafficking Website was further developed, and regularly updated in 2012 with 
information provided to contribute to great transparency and openness. The website aspires at 
beings  a  one-stop-shop  for  any  interested  party  in  the  EU  legal  and  policy  framework, 
containing  additionally  national  information  pages,  as  well  as  a  data  base  of  all  EC  funded 
projects.  

Finally,  the  Office  of  the  EU  Anti-Trafficking  Coordinator  has  throughout  2012  maintained 
an  open  channel  of  communication  with  EMN,  and  committed  in  providing  any  possible 
assistance and support.  

Based on the commitment of all relevant actors, focus is now placed on implementation of the 
relevant legal and policy framework until 2016. 

6.1.  Measures to identify, protect and assist victims of trafficking 

At national level, following the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU in 2011,all Member States 
(AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR,IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, 
UK)  and  Norway  reported  that  they  had  introduced  new  measures  to  identify,  protect  and 
assist  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  in  2012.  These  have  focussed  in  particular  on 
actions to build capacity to identify and address the issues, and to raise awareness. 

In relation to legislative changes, in Cyprus, the Amending Law against Trafficking in Human 
Beings  came  into  force  in  March  2012,  and  in  Estonia,  trafficking  in  human  beings  was 
criminalized  as  a  separate provision  in  the  Penal  Code.  In  Hungary,  the  criminal  offence  of 
human  trafficking  was  harmonized  with  the  requirements  of  Directive  2011/36/EU,  and 
Hungary  has  taken  steps  to  adopt  new  Victim  Support  legislation  in  line  with  the  Directive 
which will provide the legislative basis for the National Referral Mechanism. In Netherlands, 
new  measures  were  introduced  to  tackle  trafficking  in  human  beings  more  forcefully,  with 
new  policy  approaches  and  increased  penalties  for  perpetrators  of  trafficking  elaborated  in 
Chapter B9/12 of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines.  

Two Member States, Austria and Czech Republic launched new national Action Plans for the 
period  2012-2014/5.  In  Austria,  the  new  Action  Plan  includes  measures  on  national 
coordination, prevention, protection of victims, prosecution and international cooperation, and 
Czech Republic has adopted an "holistic and multidisciplinary approach" to tackle trafficking 
in  human  beings,  involving  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders.  Ireland  and  Norway  undertook  a 
review of their national Action Plan; Ireland will launch a new Action Plan in 2013.In Spain, 
the  Framework  Protocol  ‘Marco’  (introduced  October  2011)  was  implemented,  aimed  at 
increasing cooperation between different national actors in order to identify, protect and assist 
victims.  The  Spanish  Government  Delegation  against  Gender  Violence  meets  at  least  once 
every six months to assess the effectiveness of the protocol. 

A  number  of  Member  States  (BE,  CY,  FI,  IE,  MT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  SK,  UK)  described 
developments  to  build  capacity  and  raise  awareness  of  the  issue  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings.  New  training  initiatives  introduced  included  training  on  identification  of  victims  of 
trafficking in human beings (BE, MT), for staff in reception centres for asylum seekers with a 
special  focus  on  minor  victims  (BE);  for  the  referral  of  victims  (MT);  for  liaison  officers 
provided  by  the  Police  (FI);  for  social  welfare  officers,  focussing  on  providing  support  to 
victims to alleviate trauma and behavioural problems (CY); and for consular staff (ES). Spain 
notes that the training, alongside implementation of measures to detect fraud through the VIS 
in  consular  posts  in  North  Africa  has  resulted  in  increased  detection  of  potential  victims  of 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
trafficking.  In  Ireland,  training  updates  were  delivered  to  Legal  Aid  Board  staff  providing 
legal aid and advice to potential and suspected victims of trafficking in human beings (IE), for 
the  police  services  (CY,  FI)  via  the  national  academy  (CY).  Malta  prepared  draft  National 
Human  Trafficking  Indicators  which  were  submitted  to  the  Monitoring  Committee  for 
approval following the necessary consultations.  

New  training  and  guidance  materials  were  also  introduced  to  assist  in  the  fight  against 
trafficking  in  human  beings  (BE,  BG,  CY,  IE,  UK).  These  included  a  brochure  for  staff  in 
relevant ministerial departments (Justice, Health, Migration) as well as the Interdepartmental 
Unit  for  the  Coordination  of  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  (BE);  common 
guidelines  and  procedures  for  identifying  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  (in 
collaboration  with  other  Member  States),  a  manual  based  on  international  good  practice  to 
help police officers to identify victims, developed by the anti-trafficking office of the police 
(CY); and an operational guide to assist police officers to understand the differences between 
trafficking  in  human  beings  and  smuggling  (CY).  In  Ireland,  Anti-Human  Trafficking 
Guidelines have been made available to all frontline staff, setting out a definition of human 
trafficking,  indicators  of  human  trafficking  and  what  to  do  in  the  event  of  concerns.  Two 
further  specialised  Guides  were  also  developed  in  the  reference  period,  the  Guide  to  the 
Procedures  in  Place  for  Supporting  and  Protecting  Victims  of  Human  Trafficking  and 
Services for Victims of Child Trafficking, available also via an on-line portal. Estonia updated 
its  guidelines  on  the  referral  and  support  of  victims.  Awareness  raising  products  developed 
included a multilingual leaflet and website for trafficked persons to inform trafficked persons 
about their rights as victims at an early stage (NL); a website with information on the various 
aspects  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  including  how  to  identify  trafficking  and  protect 
victims (PT); and an International Film Festival on Human Trafficking within the framework 
of the 6th European Anti-Trafficking Day (PL), to provide information and raise awareness of 
the  issues  of  potential  victims  and  witnesses,  as  well  as  decision-makers  and  professionals 
dealing  with  victims  and  perpetrators.  In  Italy,  an  anti-trafficking  telephone  number  was 
activated, free of charge to users. Greece also introduced a human trafficking resource line, as 
part of a package of awareness-raising activities.  

Member  States  launched  new  projects  in  2012  to  assist  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in 
human  beings.  These  included  projects  to  assist  in  the  voluntary  return  and  reintegration  of 
minors  and  young  adults  with  emphasis  on  the  prevention  of  (re-)  trafficking  (AT),  and  to 
work  with  neighbouring  countries  to  prevent  and  combat  all  forms  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings (AT); a project to review the problems and potential deficiencies in national legislation 
concerning assistance to victims of trafficking in human beings, and to recommend proposals 
for  change  (FI);  and  a  scoping  review  on  the  practical  care  arrangements  for  trafficked 
children (UK), aimed at identifying good practice and areas for improvement.   

In  terms  of  future  activities,  Austria,  for  example,  plans  to  implement  concrete  operational 
actions in cooperation with the ‘Forum Salzburg’ partners and the Western Balkan countries 
which are representing countries of departure for traffickers and smugglers of human beings. 
Belgium will further extend its suite of guidance materials, to include the development of a 
brochure  to  inform  guardians  of  UAMs  on  the  problem  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  and 
Czech  Republic  will  evaluate  its  projects  and  programmes  of  support  and  protection  to 
victims of trafficking in human beings under its new Action Plan.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
6.2.  Measures  to  prevent  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  to  increase  the 

prosecution of traffickers 

At national level, the majority of Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, FR, HU, IE, 
IT,  LT,  LV,  MT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK,  SI,  SE,  UK)  and  Norway  introduced  in  2012  new 
measures to enhance the prevention of trafficking in human beings.  

Legislative changes were reported in several Member States to introduce measures to prevent 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  within  the  framework  of  the  transposition  of  Directive 
2011/36/EU. Lithuania, for example, also ratified the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on 
Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, and approved a new National Crime Prevention 
and  Control  Programme  2013-2015,  which  has  as  one  of  its  priority  areas  of  activity, 
prevention and control of trafficking in human beings. In Romania, the substantial elements of 
the Directive led to the development of a new National Strategy against Trafficking in Human 
Beings 2012-2016, developed within the framework of a wide consultation process, involving 
all relevant central authorities and civil society organizations. The strategy was approved by 
Government in December 2012. Many (Member) States (AT, PT, SI, UK, NO) have referred 
also to actions to prevent trafficking in human beings in their national Action Plans. In Malta 
a new Prostitution and Trafficking in Human Beings Unit was set up within the Police Vice 
Squad, which had intensified efforts in this sphere and has resulted in increasing numbers of 
inspections  at  premises  potentially  vulnerable  to  human  trafficking.  Although  this  has  not 
always led to the prosecution of human trafficking cases, it has contributed to the detection 
and prosecution of other offences. 

An important tool in preventing trafficking in human beings has been raising awareness of the 
issues, and (Member) States have introduced a range of new activities (AT, BE, BG, CY, EE, 
HU, LU, LV, NL, RO, SI, SK, UK). These include public awareness-raising actions amongst 
national audiences, including young people (BG, EL, HU, RO), other vulnerable groups (RO), 
exhibitions (AT, SK), national public events on human trafficking (AT,  CY, SK), including 
on  the  occasion  of  the  EU-Anti-Trafficking  Day  on  18th  October  2012  (AT,  IE)  and 
information  seminars  (CY,  IE,  LV,  SE,  SK),  for  example  targeting  teachers  (CY)  and 
stakeholder  groups  (IE,  SE).  In  relation  to  printed  media,  information  booklets,  leaflets  and 
brochures  (BE,  CY,  EL,  IE,  LV,  NL,  SK)  and  newsletters  (IE)  have  been  developed. 
Educational films (NL, SK) targeting young people and raising awareness about risks (NL); 
broadcast  media  (SK);  and  the  dissemination  of  information  via  websites  (FI,  IE,  SI)  have 
also been undertaken. Greece has specifically target young people through awareness-raising 
in schools, universities, sports centres and other public places; in Hungary, through the Sziget 
Fesztivál,  a  major  cultural  event  in  Europe  for  young  people.  Sweden  launched  an 
international  Action  Day  in  order  to  prevent  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  mapped  the 
structure of Nigerian networks involved in this criminality. 

As well as general campaigns, some Member States have introduced more targeted measures 
in relation to human trafficking for labour exploitation, for example by selecting ‘high risk’ 
occupational groups (AT, BE, BG, RO, SI, SK), and applicants for work visas in embassies 
(BE). Hungary plans a new awareness raising campaign targeting males between the ages of 
25  and  40  who  may  be  at  risk  of  becoming  victims  of  human  trafficking  for  labour 
exploitation. In Bulgaria, one initiative has been to facilitate private-public partnerships and to 
involve businesses and employers as key actors in the reduction of human trafficking, both for 
the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation. 

Many  Member  States  also  undertook  training  initiatives  to  assist  in  the  prevention  of 
trafficking in human beings, for example, with specific target groups: prosecutors and judges 
(BG, CZ, ES, IE, SK), staff in consular offices (CZ, ES, SK), the police (BG, EL, ES, FI,  IE, 

EN 

52 

   EN 

SK), immigration and liaison officers (FI), ethnic and minorities liaison officers (IE); social 
workers (BG) border guards (PL, SK) and public sector stakeholders (BG, IE), using a ‘train 
the  trainer’  model  developed  with  the  IOM  (IE).  Bulgaria  has  also  undertaken  specific 
training  with  recruitment  agencies,  working  with  labour  offices.  Czech  Republic  introduced 
training  which  targets  specific  prevention  issues,  including  Nigerian  organised  crime  with  a 
focus on trafficking in human beings and labour exploitation. 

Information sharing and capacity building activities have been implemented with the aim of 
increasing  prosecution  rates.  In  Cyprus,  seminars  were  held  for  judges  emphasising  the 
importance of expert witnesses during court procedures, and a similar seminar was delivered 
to the Counsels of the Republic. In Latvia, a seminar focusing on investigation of the cases of 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  prosecution  and  conviction  of  criminals  has  been  developed 
within  the  framework  of  regional  cooperation  with  the  Nordic  countries,  Baltic  States  and 
Russian  Federation.  Training  of  law  enforcement  authorities  was  organised  also  at 
international  level  in  Czech  Republic  and  Ireland,  and  an  e-learning  product  on  human 
trafficking  for  prosecutors  has  been  planned  by  the  United  Kingdom  for  implementation  in 
2013.  Two  Member  States  have  set  up  new  contact  points  within  their  law  enforcement 
agencies  to  ultimately  increase  prosecution  rates.  In  Portugal,  this  has  been  to  facilitate 
information  exchange,  and  in  the  United  Kingdom,  to  establish  a  police  network  of  single 
points of contact in each police force so that all forces have one identified officer responsible 
for  issues  relating  to  human  trafficking.  In  Bulgaria,  eight  local  committees  for  combatting 
trafficking in human beings were established in areas of greatest risk. 

6.3. 

Coordination and cooperation among key actors 

At national level, AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, ES, FI, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, 
SK,  UK,  NO  all  undertook  specific  actions  to  enhance  the  coordination  and  cooperation 
amongst key actors to address trafficking in human beings, in recognition of the multifaceted 
nature of the issue and its impact within a wide range of state and non-state organisations.  

In relation to the sharing knowledge and better understanding trends, several Member States 
have  reported  on  new  or  on-going  actions.  Many  have  established  interdepartmental  co-
ordinations  units  (BE,  CY,  CZ,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LV,  NL,  PL,  PT,  UK,  NO)  which  are  taking 
responsibility for co-ordinating actions, generally within the framework of an action plan. A 
new  Stakeholders’  Taskforce  was  established  in  Malta  which  enhances  coordination  and 
cooperation among key actors, including the Police, Ministry of Home Affairs and NGOs. In 
Cyprus,  the  Amending  Law  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (March  2012)  has  made 
specific provision to increase the cooperation between government organisations and NGOs, 
and to allows experts and other bodies to participate in such a co-ordinating group, along with 
provisions  for  training  and  support.  Italy’s  Inter-ministerial  Commission  for  the  support  of 
victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  chaired  by  the  Department  for  Equal  Opportunities, 
adopted new guidelines for the introduction of a national and transnational referral system. In 
Norway,  the  national  co-ordination  Unit  from  2011  has  a  permanent  mandate  and  aims  to 
development  research-based  knowledge  about  trafficking  (and  in  particular  about  child 
victims  of  trafficking).  In  United  Kingdom,  a  new  Joint  Strategic  Group  (JSG)  with  NGO 
partners  is  being  set  up  to  take  forward  actions  identified  in  the  first  report  of  the  Inter-
Departmental  Ministerial  Group  (IDMG)  on  human  trafficking  to  help  to  assess  trends  in 
trafficking, improve coordination of anti-trafficking activities and to improve knowledge and 
awareness of the police and other front-line professionals. A further mechanism has been the 
introduction  of  threat  reduction  boards  to  tackle  serious  and  organised  crime,  including 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
trafficking in human beings, with the purposes of identifying and monitoring key threats and 
co-ordinating the operational threat reductive activity across partner agencies..  

As  an  international  issue,  many  Member  States  (AT,  BE,  CZ,  DE,  FR,  IE,  PT,  UK)  are 
undertaking cooperation actions, including with third countries where victims of trafficking in 
human  beings  and  their  traffickers  may  originate  or  transit.  Such  third  countries  include 
Ukraine (CZ), Argentina, Ecuador, Columbia, Kosovo, Tadzhikistan, and Turkmenistan (LV). 
Cyprus, Netherlands and Poland are undertaking a joint project 'Putting Rantsev into Practice: 
strengthening multidisciplinary operational cooperation to fight trafficking in human beings' 
following  the  ECHR  ruling83,  and  the  three  Member  States  will  also  organise  an  EU 
Conference on the multidisciplinary approach to trafficking in human beings in 2013.  

A  number  of  joint  projects  have  also  been  established  bringing  together  several  Member 
States  with  third  countries.  Examples  include  the  nine  Baltic  Sea  Region  countries  of  the 
ADSTRINGO  project  established  to  addresses  trafficking  for  labour  exploitation  (led  by 
Lithuania). Other projects to address trafficking in human beings also operate in the region, 
bringing together the Nordic and Baltic countries also with the Russian Federation. The joint 
project  “Enhancing  Multi-stakeholder  Cooperation  to  Combat  Human  Trafficking  in 
Countries  of  Origin  and  Countries  of  Destination”  has  been  implemented  in  2012,  uniting 
Austria, Belgium, France, and United Kingdom with Switzerland, and Nigeria (as a country of 
origin)  co-ordinated  by  IOM.  The  Community  of  Portuguese  Language  Speaking  Countries 
has established a new ‘Working Committee Against Human Traffic’ which will take charge of 
collecting  information  on  the  measures  in  force  at  the  national  level,  in  order  to  assess 
legislation  needs  and  propose  a  joint  strategy  and  action  plan  to  fight  trafficking  in  human 
beings, which will be approved in 2013. Belgium, France Hungary, Italy and United Kingdom 
are collaborating in an EIF funded EU initiative to share information and support research on 
how the internet and social networks are (mis)used to attract victims.  

83 

Summary Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Application no. 25965/04   

EN 

54 

   EN 

                                                 
7. 

7.1. 

EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF EU MIGRATION POLICY 
The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility84 

At  EU  level:  Migration  and  asylum  policy  continue  to  be  a  central  priority  in  the  EU's 
external relations.  The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM)85, which is the 
overarching strategic framework of the EU external migration and asylum policy, provides for 
a strengthened and comprehensive EU dialogue and cooperation with countries of origin and 
transit on all four operational priorities of the GAMM, i.e.  

i) better organising legal migration and fostering well-managed mobility;  

ii) preventing and combating illegal migration and eradicating trafficking in human 
beings;  

iii) maximising the development impact of migration and mobility;  

iv)  promoting  international  protection  and  enhancing  the  external  dimension  of 
asylum.  

‘The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (the GAMM) has been further implemented, 
consolidated and its extended geographically in 2012. 

In addition to the existing Mobility Partnerships with the Republic of Moldova, Cape Verde, 
Georgia and Armenia, negotiations with Morocco and Tunisia on new Mobility Partnerships, 
including  facilitation  of  mobility  and  better  managed  legal  migration,  have  been  conducted. 
EU has also initiated exploratory talks with Azerbaijan on a Mobility Partnership.  

Furthermore,  a  structured  dialogue  on  migration,  mobility  and  security  has  been  launched 
with  Jordan,  which  possibly  can  also  lead  to  establishing  a  Mobility  Partnership.  Similar 
dialogues  will  follow  with  other  countries  in  the  Southern  Mediterranean  region,  when  the 
political situation so permits. Another framework of cooperation, the 'Common Agendas for 
Migration  and  Mobility'  are  being  considered  with  other  priority  countries,  outside  the  EU 
neighbourhood. 

EU  has  been  continuously  engaged  in  a  number  of  regional  and  sub-regional  dialogue  and 
cooperation processes in 2012, covering all mutually relevant issues and themes in the area of 
migration and mobility. In alignment with the GAMM Council Conclusions of 29 May 2012 
priority  is  given  to  the  Africa-EU  Partnership  on  Migration,  Mobility  and  Employment  and 
the  Rabat  Process  in  the  South,  to  the  Prague  Process  and  the  Eastern  Partnership  panel  on 
Migration  and  Asylum  in  the  East,  as  well  as  to  the  EU-LAC  Migration  Dialogue  and  the 
dialogue  with  the  countries  along  the  "Silk-route"  within  the  framework  of  the  Budapest 
Process.  

Preparations  also  begun  on  the  first  biennial  report  on  the  implementation  of  GAMM, 
foreseen to be published in June 2013, which will take stock of progress made and contribute 
to the further strengthening of the implementation of GAMM. 

Immigration Liaison Officers 

7.2. 
At EU level : The amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 377/200486 on the creation of 
an immigration liaison officers (ILO) network was adopted on 5 April 2011 (Regulation (EU) 

84 
85 
86

COM(2011) 743 final of 18.11.2011 
COM(2011) 743 final of 18.11.2011 
OJ L 64, 2.3.2004, p. 1 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
No 493/201187). This amendment facilitates the integration of Frontex into the ILO networks. 
Reporting  from  Member  States'  immigration  liaison  officers  to  Frontex  takes  place  through 
Member  States'  central  offices.  In  2012,  cooperation  between  the  Agency  and  ILO's  posted 
abroad  has  been  further  developed.  Frontex  was  invited  to  ILO  meetings  organized  by 
Member States in different third countries, such as Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. In turn, ILOs 
posted in the Western Balkans, 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. 

The  Frontex  Agency  furthermore  attended  the  annual  Dead  Sea  Conference  in  Amman, 
Jordan. The Conference brought together liaison officers posted in the region by EU Member 
States  and  other  countries  concerned  by  irregular  immigration.  It  focused  on  exchange  of 
experiences  between  them,  in  connection  with  curbing  irregular  immigration  and  detecting 
false documents.  

In  accordance  with  Article  6(3)  of  the  Regulation(EC)  No  377/2004,  the  Commission  has 
assessed the Member States' reports on the activities of ILO networks presented in the course 
of 2012 and produced this summary  88. Two reports were presented by Hungary and Poland, 
holding the Presidencies of the Council in 2011. Hungary has submitted reports on the ILO 
networks functioning in Egypt and Turkey, whereas Poland on the one in Ukraine. 

According  to  the  Commission's  assessment  of  developments  at  national  level,  8  Member 
States  (AT,  FR,  DE,  HU,  CZ,  IT,  ES  and  UK)  have  had  ILO's  in  Egypt  in  the  reporting 
period.  Some  of  them  have  formed  also  part  of  a  local  coordination  network  called  Cairo 
Immigration Liaison Team in which other, non-EU countries (CAN, RSA, USA) participate 
too. It appears that cooperation in the framework of the latter was more intense. 13 Member 
States  posted  ILO's  in  Turkey  (AT,  BE,  BG,  DK  –  representing  all  Nordic  States-  DE,  FR, 
EL, ES, HU, IT, NL, SE, UK). 

In both third countries, cooperation took place through a wide variety of activities. Meetings 
of  ILO's  were  held  regularly  with  participation  and/or  assistance  of  Frontex  and  the  EU 
Delegations.  The  meetings  were  often  followed  up  by  separate  meetings  with  the  host 
countries' authorities. Exchange of information and practical experiences related to irregular 
immigration among ILO's seems to be a standard practice. One of the key roles of ILO's is to 
contribute to the prevention of irregular immigration. In that context, joint specialized training 
on  document  fraud  and  other  information  sessions  were  organised,  involving  often  the 
consular  staff  of  Member  States,  representatives  of  the  relevant  local/national  authorities  of 
the host states, as well as of carriers. ILO's have actively participated also in similar  events 
organized by the host country, sharing their expertise and raising awareness with regard to EU 
and Member States' policies on migration. 

Both country reports appreciated the cooperation with ILO's posted in the given third country 
by  other,  non-EU  countries.  They  also  emphasized  the  need  to  pursue  cooperation  with  the 
competent  authorities  in  the  host  country  and  confirmed  that  acting  as  a  network  with 
coordinated approach, ILO's could be more effective (whilst not questioning the need and the 
usefulness of bilateral interactions by any Member State's ILO.) 

87

88 

OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p.13. 
The completed report shall be treated as “RESTREINT UE” document and the relevant provisions of 
the Council Decision of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council’s security regulations shall be observed.  
(cf. Commission Decision of 29/IX/2005 C(2005) 1508 final) 

EN 

56 

   EN 

                                                 
 
According to the report prepared by the Polish Presidency, 11 Member States (AT, CZ, DE, 
EL,  HU,  LV,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK,  SE)  have  had  ILO's  in  Ukraine.  Cooperation  among  them 
appeared  to  be  less  developed  as  only  regular  (quarterly)  meetings  and  exchange  of 
information and practical experiences were mentioned. Representatives of the host country's 
authorities, the EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM) and of the 
International Organization for Migration (IOM) were also participating in the meetings . 

No  other  cooperation  (i.e.  joint  training,  common  approach  with  regard  to  collecting  and 
reporting strategically relevant information, coordinating position vis-à-vis carriers, setting up 
contacts with similar networks in the host and in the neighboring countries) was pursued. 

Art.  4(1)  of  the  ILO  Regulation  stipulates  that  within  the  framework  of  the  network,  ILO's 
shall  contribute  to  the  report  on  their  common  activities,  however  only  3(including  the 
Presidency's own) did so of the 11 ILO's posted in Ukraine. 

Although  these  reports  reflect  different  degree  of  cooperation  among  ILO's  in  the  host 
countries  concerned,  they  all  provided  fairly  detailed  information  on  the  situation  in  those 
countries in matters relating to irregular immigration. 

Having assessed carefully the above mentioned reports and taking into account the provisions 
of  the  ILO  Regulation,  as  well  as  the  feedback  received  from  Frontex,  there  is  scope  for 
Member States to enhance practical/operational cooperation among their ILO's posted in the 
same  host  third  country  involving  the  local  EU  Delegations  and  Frontex.  The  information 
gathered by the ILO's should feed into the Agency's risk analyses. ILOs' expertise should be 
better used for coordinating initiatives aimed at capacity building of or developing operational 
cooperation with the host countries' authorities being offered and financed by Member States 
or the European Union. 

The possibility and added value of a regional approach, implying closer cooperation between 
the ILO networks established in neighboring third countries, should be carefully assessed. 

Synergies  between  the  EU  ILO  networks  and  cooperation  with  liaison  officers  of  non-EU 
countries  posted  in  the  same  host  country/region  are  needed,  whilst  ensuring  the  proper 
implementation of the ILO Regulation. 

The possibility of joint deployment of ILO's who look for the interest of more Member States, 
should  be  better  explored  and  used.  Such  joint  deployment  has  been  identified  as  specific 
priority  and  could  benefit  from  EU  support  under  the  relevant  existing  or  future  financial 
instruments. 

The Danish and Cypriot Presidencies of 2012 are due to report on the ILO networks in Turkey 
and Albania respectively, but their reports are not yet available. 

As  regards  future  reports  to  be  done  by  the  forthcoming  EU  Presidencies,  the  Commission 
reiterates that according to the amended provisions of Art. 6(1) of the ILO Regulation, such 
reports shall be drawn up on the activities of immigration liaison officers networks in specific 
regions  and/or  countries  of  particular  interest  to  the  European  Union,  as  well  as  on  the 
situation in those regions and/or countries, in matters relating to irregular immigration, taking 
into  consideration  all  the  relevant  aspects,  including  human  rights.  The  selection  shall  be 
based  on  objective  migratory  indicators,  such  as  statistics  on  irregular  immigration,  risk 
analyses  and  other  relevant  information/reports  prepared  by  Frontex  and  by  the  European 
Asylum  Support  Office,  and  shall  take  into  consideration  the  overall  EU  external  relations 
policy. The completed report shall be submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and 
the Commission. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
7.3.  Mainstreaming of migration in development policies 

At  EU  level,  the  European  Commission  continued  providing  significant  support  to  third 
countries for strengthening all aspects of migration governance under both its geographic and 
thematic  external  cooperation  instruments.  Under  the  EU's  Thematic  Programme  for 
Migration  and  Asylum,  the  2011-2012  call  for  proposals  was  finalised,  resulting  in  the 
selection of 49 new projects for a total value of EUR 74 million. Though the projects covered 
all areas of migration governance, in terms of thematic priorities, initiatives to foster the link 
between  migration  and  development  received  the  highest  attention  by  the  stakeholders. 
Geographically,  the  EU  Neighbourhood,  Sub-Saharan  Africa  and  Middle  East  regions 
received priority. 

The Commission undertook further efforts to strengthen the mainstreaming of migration into 
development policies in other sectors. For example, a 3.3 million EUR project with the OECD 
was  launched  to  develop  evidence-based  knowledge  on  the  interrelations  between  public 
policies, migration and development and to provide targeted assistance to a number of partner 
countries with mainstreaming migration into their development policies. 

At national level, several Member States (BE, CZ, DE, EL, IE, IT, LU, LV, PL, RO, SI, SK 
and SE) and Norway reported on efforts to effectively mainstream migration in development 
policies.  

Specific  actions  included  research  (BE,  DE,  IE),  for  example,  in  Germany,  focusing  on 
business  responsibility  and  migration,  migration  and  rural  development,  and  successful 
business models by migrants, and participation in international and high-level conferences on 
migration and development (BE, DE, EL, AT, SE, NO). In Belgium, for example, the Belgian 
Development  Cooperation  organised  a  high-level  national  conference  entitled  “Policy 
Coherence  for  Development”  which  focused  on  the  interdependence  of  development  and 
other  sectorial  policies  including  migration.  Most  Member  States  participated  in  the  Global 
Forum on Migration and Development. 

BE,  IE,  IT,  LV  and  SK  reported  on  efforts  to  strengthen  national  inter-institutional 
cooperation and enhance institutional capacity in the field of migration and development. In 
Belgium,  for  example,  draft  legislation  on  development  cooperation,  which  incorporates 
reinforcing policy coherence for development, was approved by the House of Representatives 
in December 2012, and in the Slovak Republic, in the framework of the mid-term strategy of 
Official  Development  Aid  2009–13,  the  National  Programme  2012  has  placed  a  focus  on 
project proposals will take into consideration the commitment to increase coherence between 
migration  and  development  policies.  This  topic  is  one  of  the  cross-sectional  priorities 
considered in the selection of all development cooperation projects by the government.  

Several Member States (CZ, DE, IT, PL, SI) also reported on their participation in a range of 
solidarity  projects,  including  those  combining  capacity  building  and  policy  making  aspects 
(CZ),  for  example,  a  pilot  project  “Migration  and  development”  within  the  EC  targeted 
Initiative  on  implementation  of  the  Prague  Process  Action  Plan,  which  deals  with  issues  of 
circular  migration;  economic  development  and  the  role  of  diasporas,  in  countries  such  as 
Kosovo  and  Serbia  (DE);a  project  creating  social  and  economic  alternatives  to  the  irregular 
migration of minors from North Africa (IT) and a development programme initiated in 2012 
aiming  to  improve  the  living  conditions  and  in  turn,  minimise  the  massive  influx  of 
international protection seekers southern Serbia (LU). In some situations, Member States have 
worked  together,  for  example,  the  project  “Supporting  the  State  Migration  Service  for 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Strengthening of Migration Management in Armenia” is a twinning project implemented by 
Sweden and Poland.  

7.4.  Migrants' Remittances  

At EU level:  Remittances remain a significant source of private income to many families in 
third countries and in 2011 they amounted to €28.5 billion, a 3% increase from 2010.89 Whilst 
the  Commission  and  Member  States  have  undertaken  a  number  of  remittance  related 
initiatives over recent years and improvements have been made, a recent Commission-funded 
study90 found that a significant amount of work remains to be done if the commitments made 
by the EU over the last five years remittances are to be met. 

At national level, a number of Member States (CY, CZ, DE, ES, IT, LU, NL, SE, UK) and 
Norway  reported  on  measures  with  respect  to  remittances.  These  ranged  from  price 
comparison online portals for remittances (DE, IT, NL) and Norway; research; legislative and 
policy  measures  as  well  as  involvement  in  project  initiatives  and  technical  cooperation 
activities. Spain reported on its participation in the sub-group on remittances of the G20. 

In DE, IT, NL and NO online portals for price comparisons of remittances are seen to lead to 
rising  competition  among  providers  for  remittances,  and  hence  to  faster,  cheaper  and  safer 
services.  In  Germany,  the  remittances  price  comparison  website  www.geldtransfair.de  is 
being  updated  in  order  to  heighten  transparency  on  the  market  for  remittances.  In  Italy,  the 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  provides  an  online  service  to  compare  the  cost  of  sending 
remittances  (www.manda  isoldiacasa.it).  Netherlands  has  also  taken  actions  to  improve  the 
transparency  of  the  Dutch  market  for  remittances,  in  particular  by  supporting  the  web-site 
www.geldnaarhuis.nl.  

In  terms  of  research  activities,  in  Czech  Republic,  the  first  outcomes  of  academic  research 
into  the  remittances  of  Ukrainian  immigrants  were  made  public;  in  Germany,  the  FReDI 
Handbook  (Financial  Literacy  for  Remittances  and  Diaspora  Investment  –  a  Handbook  on 
Methods  for  Project  Design)  has  been  developed  in  cooperation  with  the  “European 
Microfinance Platform” NGO; and in Sweden, a study has been conducted to understand how 
migrants contribute to the development in their countries of origin.  

In relation to legislative measures and policy commitments, Italy adopted Law 44/2012 which 
abolished taxation on the financial transfers made to non-EU countries by foreigners with no 
national insurance (NI) or National Institute for Social Pensions (INPS) number. The Ministry 
of Interior in the Czech Republic has launched interagency discussion in order to formulate 
future  policy  solutions  in  how  to  make  services  related  to  remittances  transfers  more 
transparent and the environment more competitive. In Norway, regulations for the operation 
of money transfer agencies have been liberalised, which has led to a proliferation of agencies 
established in Oslo, offering migrants’ significantly more choice. 

A  number  of  other  initiatives  were  reported,  including  a  technical  cooperation  to  increase 
financial  literacy  in  Uzbekistan  for  remittance  recipients  in  Germany.  Luxembourg  has 
supported  a  project  focusing  on  mobilizing  migrants’  savings  in  order  to  finance  micro 
financial institutions in Cape Verde. United Kingdom has participated in the Technology and 
Business  Innovation  Programme  initiative  with  CGAP,  an  independent  policy  and  research 
centre  dedicated  to  advancing  financial  access  for  the  world's  poor  on  the  Technology  and 

89 
90 

Source: Eurostat Press Release 176/2012 of 11 December 2012. 
EU Remittances for Developing Countries, Remaining Barriers, Challenges and Recommendations 
available from  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/migration-
asylum/documents/eu_remittances_for_developing_countries_final_19-11-2012.pdf.  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Business  Innovation  Programme  in  partnership  (with  the  Bill  &  Melinda  Gates  Foundation 
and  the  Master  Card  Foundation).  The  purpose  of  this  initiative  is  to  explore  the  use  of 
branchless  banking  in  order  to  improve  the  speed  and  security  of  international  remittance 
transfers and reduce their costs through the application of new technologies. 

7.5.  Working with diasporas 

At EU level, EU Thematic Programme for Migration and Asylum is supporting the setting up 
of  the  “European-wide  African  Diaspora  Platform”  with  the  aim  of  promoting  the 
contribution  of  the  African  diaspora  as  key  actor  for  development  (implemented  by  the 
African Policy Diaspora Centre in the Netherlands). 

At national level, with regard to EU development initiatives, the Netherlands has reported on 
the involvement of diaspora groups in the Joint Africa-EU Strategic Partnership. The Dutch 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  approved  a  project  proposal  from  the  African  Diaspora  Policy 
Centre  (ADPC)  aimed  at  capacity-building  of  newly-formed  diaspora-oriented  ministries  in 
Africa.  

Several  Member  States  (BE,  EE,  EL,  IT,  SK,  SE,  UK)  and  Norway  reported  on  specific 
activities in the form of project initiations or financial support for diaspora groups to enhance 
development  in  their  country  of  origin  as  well  as  cooperation  and  dialogue  with  diaspora 
organisations, in a range of countries.  

Belgium, for example, signed a Memorandum of Understanding to contribute funds to a two-
year  pilot  project  (MEDMA  2)  “Mobilisation  of  Moroccans  residing  in  Belgium  for  the 
Development of Morocco”, which aims to provide potential investors with technical, financial 
and  administrative  information  to  access  existing  mechanisms  to  facilitate  their  investment 
and contribute to the socio-economic development of Morocco. Belgium and Italy continue to 
support  the  Migration  for  Development  in  Africa  (MIDA);  Italy  will  support  the  MIDA 
programme  targeting  Sub-Saharan  African  diaspora  groups  living  in  Italy,  and  has  actively 
involved diaspora groups in the planning of interventions and investments in their countries of 
origin.  Italy  has  also  launched  a  ‘diaspora  bonds’  initiative,  whereby  bonds  are  issued  by 
countries  of  origin  for  migrants  living  abroad  to  finance  national  development  projects.  In 
Sweden, a project was initiated to facilitate the involvement of the organised Somali diaspora 
in  the  development  cooperation  with  Somalia,  and  The  Norwegian  Development  Agency 
(NORAD)  has  sought  to  integrate  the  work  of  diaspora  groups  with  the  work  of  traditional 
development  organisations  and  in  2012  has  prioritised  projects  which  partner  with  diaspora 
organisations. 

In relation to capacity building of diaspora organisations, Belgium supports two health-related 
programmes  from  migrant  associations  working  with  the  diaspora  community  of  the 
Democratic  Republic  of  Congo.  In  2012,  Estonia  provided  financial  support  to  different 
project activities of national minorities’ associations.  Greece has implemented two actions to 
support  diaspora  organisation.  In  addition,  Immigrant  Integration  Councils  (SEM),  which 
include representatives of immigrant organisations, were set up in the municipalities that had 
not yet formed these bodies (EL). In Germany, a new programme has been initiated whereby 
migrants can apply for advisory support and funding for specific project ideas, and Germany 
also  promotes  migrants’  private  economic  commitment  in  their  countries  of  origin  with  the 
programme “Migrants as entrepreneurs”. In the United Kingdom, a new government funded 
initiative  has  been  dedicated  to  enhancing  the  contribution  of  diaspora  groups  to  Africa’s 
development and fostering greater dialogue and engagement between UK-based Africans and 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
policy  makers.  Two  existing  programmes  have  continued  to  provide  funding  for  diaspora 
organisations during 2012. 

With  regard  to  cooperation  and  dialogue  with  diaspora  organisations,  representatives  of  the 
Ministry of Interior in Czech Republic and the Vietnamese diaspora met several times in 2012 
to discuss direct support of the 2nd generation of Vietnamese in the Czech Republic, and in the 
Slovak Republic, cooperation with migrants’ communities and civic associations takes place 
through  a  formal  mechanism  of  the  Inter-Ministerial  Commission  for  Migration  and 
Integration of Foreigners.  

In  relation  to  engaging  national  diaspora,  EL  and  LT  reported  on  on-going  activities  to 
establish relations with nationals living abroad. In Greece, the draft law on the "Organization 
of World Council of Hellenes Abroad" (SAE) came to public consultation, which defines the 
future  role  for  the  organisation.  Furthermore,  a  working  group  in  the  Minister  of  Interior  is 
drafting  a  law  on  vote  rights  of  expatriates.  A  conference  “Moving  Forward”  was  also 
organised  which  focused  on  national  diaspora’s  contribution  to  overcome  the  current  crisis. 
Lithuania adopted the implementation plan of the “Global Lithuania” strategy which proposes 
concrete measure for engaging Lithuanians living abroad to participate in state life. 

7.6. 

Efforts to mitigate ‘brain drain’ 

At national level, many Member States (BE, DE, ES, IE, IT, LU, SI, SK, SE, UK) reported on 
on-going  actions  to  prevent  brain  drain  from  countries  of  origin.  These  included  projects  to 
encourage  diasporas  to  make  use  of  their  qualifications  and  skills  to  mainstream 
=development of their countries of origin (BE, LU, SI); a project for returning professionals 
offering advice on return and career planning (DE); setting up an online platform to facilitate 
the  mutual  exchange  of  researchers  (IT)  and  proposals  for  legislative  changes  to  facilitate 
circular migration (SE). 

Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom focused efforts on preventing brain drain specifically 
in the health sector. Ireland has cooperated with the Global Health Workforce Alliance, which 
was  instrumental  in  adopting  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  International  Recruitment  of  Health 
Workers. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation in Spain  held meetings  with the 
Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality and the regional governments to implement 
an  ethical  recruitment  strategy  in  the  healthcare  sector,  especially  with  regard  to  the 
recruitment of health workers from Latin America and Eastern Europe. Spain also signed up 
to  all  provisions  of  the  Code  of  Practice  on  international  recruitment  of  health  personnel 
approved  by  the  World  Health  Assembly.  The  UK  formalised  a  Code  of  Practice  for  the 
International Recruitment of Healthcare Professionals which is concerned with the protection 
of  developing  countries  and  seeks  to  prevent  active  recruitment  from  developing  countries 
unless there is an explicit bilateral agreement to support recruitment activities.  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
8. 

IRREGULAR MIGRATION 

Table 6a and 6 b provide an overview of the indicators used to measure irregular migration, 
namely refusals of entry, apprehensions and returns. On refusals, Spain was by far the largest 
with 199 830 followed by PL (29 705).  

Figure 6a: Third-country nationals refused entry at external borders (2012) – source: Eurostat 

Most apprehensions occurred in Greece (72 420), followed by Germany (64 815), Spain (52 
485), France (49 760) and the United Kingdom (49 315), whilst for returns to a third country 
these were mainly from the United Kingdom (49 515), France (22 760), Spain (18 865) and 
Greece (16 650). 

Figure 6a: Third-country nationals refused entry at external borders (2012) – source: Eurostat 

This  Section  reports  activities  in  the  Member  States  that  have  contributed  to  combating 
irregular migration, both in relation to changes in labour market policy and the six Strategic 
Priority Areas outlined in the Strategic Response to EU Action on Migratory Pressures91. 

91 

8714/1/12 REV 1 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st08/st08714-re01.en12.pdf  

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.1. 

Employer Sanctions 

At  EU  level,  The  deadline  for  transposition  of  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive 
2009/52/EC92 by Member States into national legislation was 20 July 2011, and by April 2013 
only  Belgium  and  Sweden  had  not  yet  notified  complete  transposition.  Commission  has 
launched infringement procedures for non-communication.  

A  study  was  launched  in  2012  to  assess  the  conformity  of  the  transposition  into  Member 
States' national  legislation. In a next phase the Commission will do a  detailed evaluation of 
the transposition of the Directive into national legislation based and, if necessary, launch EU 
pilots and infringement procedures. 

The  Employer  Sanction  Directive  also  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  effective  and 
adequate  inspections  are  carried  out  on  their  territory  to  control  employment  of  illegally 
staying third-country nationals. Such inspections shall be based primarily on a risk assessment 
to  be  drawn  up  by  the  competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States.  Member  States  are 
required to communicate to the Commission the inspections, both in absolute numbers and as 
a percentage of the employers for each sector, carried out in the previous year as well as their 
results. The Commission invites Member States concerned to submit such reports, to enable 
the Commission to reflect these in the implementation report due in 2014. 

At  national  level,  a  number  of  Member  states  reported  changes  in  their  legislation,  policies 
and  practices  to  implement  measures  against  employers  of  illegally  staying  third  country 
nationals in the framework of the transposition of Directive 2009/52/EC93.  

In Italy, Decree n. 109/2012 introduced more severe sanctions against employers giving work 
to foreign citizens who do not hold regular permits to stay, and in Poland, the Act (Dz. U. of 
2012, item 769) on the effects of employing illegally staying migrants introduced new tasks 
for  both  labour  inspectors  (i.e.  controls  on  employer  obligations  and  prosecution  for 
infringements)  and  the  Chief  Labour  Inspectorate  (reporting  obligations).  To  support  this 
process, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy developed information material (including 
leaflets and brochures) for employers, which was directly related to the entry into force of the 
new Act. In Greece by Law 4052 / 2012 adopted a series of measures and sanctions against 
employers of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of the country. These can 
be: a) fines b) exclusion from public benefits or aid and EU funds c) temporary or permanent 
revocation of business licenses or of specific parts of the production process and d) criminal 
penalties  depending  on  the  severity  of  each  case.  The  Labour  Inspectorate  of  Ministry  of 
Labour, Social Security and Welfare, in collaboration with other agencies such as the Police, 
is the competent authority for implementation of this law. 

8.2. 

Strategic  Priority  I  :  Strengthening  cooperation  with  third  countries  of  transit 
and origin on migration management94 

8.2.1.  Ensure implementation of all EU readmission agreements to their full effect 

At  EU  level:  Efforts  continued  to  put  into  practice  the  recommendations  made  in  the 
Commission's  evaluation  of  the  EU  Readmission  Agreements95  taking  account  also  of  the 

92 
93

94 

OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p.31.  
Directive 2009/52/EC provides for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of  
illegally staying third-country nationals 
This section is structured according to the strategic priorities of the "Road map on EU Action on 
Migratory Pressures – A Strategic Response" adopted by the Council on 28.4.2012, Council document 
8714/1/12 REV 1. See: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st08/st08714-re01.en12.pdf. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Council  Conclusions  of  9-10  June  2011  on  European  Union  strategy  on  readmission,  in 
particular to strengthen guarantees  of fundamental rights  protection in newly negotiated EU 
readmission agreements with third countries, and to introduce a pilot project in selected third 
countries  introducing  a  post-return  monitoring  mechanism,  preparations  for  which  are  at  an 
advanced stage.  

Efforts also continued with regard to monitoring of the implementation of 13 EU Readmission 
Agreements in force in regular contacts with the Member States and through the organisation 
of  various  Joint  Readmission  Committees  with  the  third  countries  in  question.  Particular 
efforts  were  devoted  to  the  agreements  with  third  countries  from  which  irregular  migration 
flows to the EU are strong e.g. Pakistan. 

Readmission  negotiations  were  finalised  at  the  level  of  negotiators  with  the  initialling  of 
Readmission Agreements with Cape Verde in April 2012, with Turkey in June 2012 and with 
Armenia in October 2012. Negotiations with Azerbaijan have progressed at a steady pace. 

While  completing  outstanding  negotiating  directives  received  from  the  Council,  the 
Commission  has  insisted  that  exploration  of  possibilities  for  new  negotiating  directives 
concentrates  on  countries  of  origin  of  irregular  migration  and  takes  account  of  broader  EU 
relations including consideration of available incentives, in line with the the abovementioned 
Commission Communication and Council Conclusions.  

The Commission contributed to the adoption of a set of Recommendations by expert meetings 
covering  inter  alia  readmission  aiming  at  enhancing  the  implementation  of  the  relevant 
provisions  of  Article  13  (Migration)  of  the  Cotonou  agreement,  endorsed  at  the  ACP 
Ministerial Meeting in Vanuatu in June 2012.  

At national level, in 2012, several Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, EL, FI, FR, 
HU,  LT,  LU,  LV,  NL,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI)  and  NO  applied  implementing  protocols  concluded 
under  the  EU  readmission  agreements  with  third  countries.  Belgium,  Netherlands  and 
Luxembourg operate within the framework of the Benelux when negotiating those protocols. 
This year, the Benelux countries focused mainly on the implementation of protocols linked to 
the  readmission  agreements  with  the  Western  Balkan  countries.  Romania  reported  that  the 
implementation of the readmission agreement with Serbia resulted in a decrease in the number 
of  irregular  border  crossing  and  asylum  applications  across  its  border  with  Serbia.  Ireland 
began the process of opting into some of the 13 EU readmission agreements during 2012, in 
particular  those  with:  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Georgia,  Macao,  former  Yugoslav 
Republic  of  Macedonia,  Republic  of  Moldova,  Montenegro,  Pakistan,  Russian  Federation, 
Serbia and Sri Lanka. 

During 2012, the negotiation and use of implementing protocols under the EU readmission 
agreements, Member States reported the following progress  : 

Albania 

Bosnia and 
Herzegovina   

•  Bulgaria signed an implementing protocol  
•  implementing protocol signed also by the Czech Republic  
•  Austria signed a readmission agreement which also entered into 

force 

•  implementing protocol concluded with Hungary 
•  with France, the Benelux, Latvia,  Lithuania and Spain – progress 

aiming to sign the implementing protocol   

•  implementing protocol signed by the Czech Republic  

95 

COM(2011)76 final 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Cape Verde 

•  Bulgaria and Benelux announced plans to engage into the 

former Yugoslav 
Republic of 
Macedonia 
Georgia  

negotiations on implementing protocol once the EU readmission 
agreement enters into force 

•  implementing protocols with Bulgaria entered into force 
•  negotiations of implementing protocols with Latvia and Lithuania 
•  implementing protocols were concluded with Benelux 
•  implementing protocol with Bulgaria entered into force 
•  negotiations for implementing protocols with Benelux, the Czech 

Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Portugal 

•  implementing protocols with Estonia and Hungary entered into 

force 

Republic of Moldova 

•  negotiations of implementing protocols  with Benelux, and 

Portugal 

Montenegro 

•  implementing protocols signed with the Benelux 
•  implementing protocols with  the Czech Republic and  Germany, 

Pakistan :  

•  Bulgaria announced plans to engage into the negotiations  on 

entered into force 

implementing protocol, 

•  Austria  and Greece  have also proposed such negotiations to 

Pakistan  

•  Bulgaria concluded implementing protocols  
•  implementing protocols concluded by Belgium, the Czech 

Republic, Lithuania, Sweden and Slovenia 

•  technical negotiations of an implementing protocol progressed by 
Portugal and the ratification procedure necessary for entry into 
force of an implementation protocol was followed by Finland96  
•  Latvia very successfully implemented the implementing protocol 
with Russia, also by organizing regular meetings and discussing 
important issues. 

•  implementing protocol signed with Poland  
•  implementing protocol with Romania entered into force  
•  implementing protocol signed with the Czech Republic  

inegotiations carried out for implementing protocols with  the 
Benelux, Latvia and Portugal.  

•  Bulgaria announced plans to engage into the negotiations on 
implementing protocol once the Agreement enters into force 

•  negotiations for implementing protocols  with Benelux and Poland

The Russian 
Federation,  

Serbia 

Turkey  

Ukraine  

Table II: Progress readmission agreements with third-countries in 2012. Source:  EMN 

As  regards  bilateral  cooperation  between  individual  Member  States  and  third  countires, 
Finland focused on improving the efficiency of police operations related to the enforcement of 
removal decisions of Ethiopian citizens.. Slovak Republic hosted several meetings of border 
attorneys  within  the  framework  of  different  bilateral  readmission  agreements.  Italy  re-
launched  its  bilateral  cooperation  with  Algeria,  Egypt,  Libya  and  Tunisia  which  was 
interrupted  during  the  political  crisis  in  the  Southern  Mediterranean.    Lithuania  engaged  in 
negotiations  on  an  agreement  with  Thailand.  The  agreement  between  Austria  and  Nigeria 

96 

Cooperation protocol ratified early 2013 by Finland.  

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
entered  into  force.  Benelux  engaged  in  negotiations  on  an  agreement  with  Kazakhstan.  The 
agreement between the Czech Republic and Kosovo entered into force while Estonia engaged 
in negotiations on a similar agreement with Kosovo.  

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

flows 

At  national  level,  Italy  initiated  bilateral  dialogue  with  representatives  of  the  Tunisian  and 
Libyan  governments  to  discuss  how  to  strengthen  the  level  of  cooperation  achieved  on 
immigration issues, both in relation to mixed (regular and irregular) migration flows. 

Member States also implemented actions to support asylum and migration systems in a wide 
range of countries of first asylum: Turkey (AT, UK, NO), Burundi (BE), Nigeria (IE), Kenya 
(UK),  Libya  (IT),  Tunisia  (IT),  Ghana  (NL),  Moldova  (NL,  SK),  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina 
(NL),  Azerbaijan  (LV,  NL,  RO)  and  East  Timor  (PT).  The  support  comprised  financial 
assistance, training/capacity-building and information exchange. In  response  to the  outflows 
of  refugees  from  Syria  to  neighbouring  countries  in  2012,  Austria  donated  €2.93  million  to 
Turkey  to  support  refugee  camps  at  the  Turkish-Syrian  border  and  United  Kingdom  and 
Norway  jointly  funded  the  IOM  to  implement  an  Assisted  Voluntary  Return  project  in 
Turkey.  Hungary  participates  in  a  twinning  project  with  Kosovo  to  manage  return  and 
reintegration. 

Several  Member  States  (BE,  IE,  IT,  NL,  PT,  RO  and  SK)  provided  experts  to  train  asylum 
and migration authorities in third-countries. Training was provided to protection officers and 
asylum judges in Burundi (BE) and migration authority staff in a range of countries (IE, IT, 
NL, PT, RO, SK), including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia (RO), Nigeria (IE) 
and  East-Timor  (PT).  Others  implemented  actions  within  the  framework  of  EU  level 
cooperation, such as TAIEX (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange) and MIEUX 
(Migration EU Expertise) (NL, PT, RO).  

8.2.3.  Prevention of irregular migration from (a) the Southern Mediterranean countries 

At  national  level  Portugal  and  United  Kingdom  undertook  significant  activities  aimed  at 
preventing  irregular  migration  flows  focusing  on  the  Southern  Mediterranean  countries. 
Portugal  provided  training  to  MEDA97  partners  (Algeria,  Egypt,  Israel,  Jordan,  Lebanon, 
Morocco,  Palestinian  Authorities  and  Tunisia),  as  well  on  border  control  themes,  including 
irregular  migration,  document  security  and  biometrics  (Libya  and  Syria).  United  Kingdom 
supported  Greece  by  funding  an  AVR  programme  for  irregular  migrants  implemented  by 
IOM.  In  October,  United  Kingdom  further  agreed  to  fund  the  provision  of  an  intelligence-
gathering  tool  at  the  Greece  Turkey  land  border  and  to  provide  assistance  to  Greece  in 
screening potential asylum seekers and identifying victims of trafficking.  

Italy’s strategy in North Africa was twofold: (i) to train migration authorities (in Algeria) to 
improve their capacity to manage mixed migration flows; and (ii) to inform potential migrants 
(in  Egypt)  about  legal  migration  routes  and  on  the  risks  and  living  conditions  of 
unaccompanied  minors  during  migration.  In  addition,  Czech  Republic  and  Finland  amongst 
others reported on their deployment of national experts to participate in European joint actions 
at the Mediterranean borders. Malta has stepped up its patrol regime, and undertaken actions 
to improve cooperation between the Armed Forces of Malta (AFM) and the Maltese Police. 
Malta has also embarked on a programme of engagement in Libya which has seen the Armed 

97 

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2009/1264_docs_en.htm  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Forces  provide  training  to  their  Libyan  counterparts  in  areas  such  as  Maritime  Law,  Search 
and Rescue, and Law Enforcement. This training has been delivered both by means of Mobile 
Training Teams deployed to Libya, during ship visits to the port of Tripoli and at the AFM’s 
Maritime  Safety  and  Security  Training  Centre  (MSSTC)  in  Malta.  Malta  is  also  strongly 
supporting  engagement  efforts  at  EU-Level  by  contributing  experts  to  the  process  leading  to  the 
launch of a full Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) Mission in Libya. Spain implemented 
joint patrols with Morocco and cooperated with coast guards in Algeria. 

8.2.4.  Prevention of irregular migration from (b) the Eastern Partners  

At  national  level,  several  Member  States  (BE,  EE,  FR,  FI,  HU,  IT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK) 
implemented  targeted  actions  on  prevention  of  irregular  migration  from  the  Eastern 
Partnership  countries.  Belgium  and  Italy  focused  on  informing  third-country  nationals  from 
these  countries  of  the  dangers  of  migrating  through  smugglers/fraudulent  networks.  Slovak 
Republic  and  Moldovan  authorities  planned  joint  actions  to  combat  organised  crime 
connected with smuggling and irregular migration. Romania delivered an initiative to counter 
document  fraud  working  through  consular  staff in Moldova.  Hungary, Portugal and Finland 
specifically mentioned that they make use of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) in Moldova 
(HU),  Belorussia  and  Ukraine  (FI)  and  Russia  and  Ukraine  (PT)  for  preventing  irregular 
migration.  Estonia  concluded  bilateral  agreements  with  Border  Guard  Authorities  of  the 
Eastern  Partners  Russian  Federation,  Georgia,  Moldova,  Ukraine,  Azerbaijan  and  Belarus, 
particularly  in  relation  to  sharing  of  information  and  intelligence  to  combat  irregular 
migration  and  cross-border  crime.  France  focused  on  combating  irregular  immigration 
networks through training missions in Bulgaria, Albania and Belorussia; combating document 
fraud,  in  particular  in  Romania  and  in  Azerbaijan;  promoting  the  European  project  SCIBM 
(South  Caucasus  Integrated  Border  Management)  with  missions  organised  in  Armenia, 
Georgia and Azerbaijan.  

8.2.5.  Prevention of irregular migration from (c) the Western Balkans 

At national level, six Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, HU, IT, RO, SI, SK), five of which 
(AT,  BG,  CZ,  IT,  RO)  are  situated  close  to  the  Western  Balkans,  took  measures  to  prevent 
irregular  migration  from  the  region.  Following  an  increased  in  the  trafficking  of  stolen 
vehicles from Czech Republic through the Hungarian-Serbian land border, Czech Republic – 
in response to a Frontex request - deployed two experts for stolen vehicles at the Slovenian-
Croatian border.  As part of a defined “5-point  package  of  measures”, Hungary  and  Austria, 
with  Serbia,  set  up  joint  investigation  teams  that  detained  more  than  500  irregular  migrants 
and some 21 smugglers between January and March 2012. Slovak Republic cooperates with 
Austria,  Czech  Republic  and  Hungary,  in  the  field  of  irregular  migration  via  the  ‘Balkan’ 
route, through a number of projects and meetings. Romania assisted in the reinforcement of 
the  asylum  centre  in  Timisoara  on  the  Romanian/  Serbian  border  in  response  to  the  high 
number  of  applications  submitted  by  migrants  who  illegally  cross  the  border  and  apply  for 
asylum. 
In the framework of the Salzburg Forum (SF)98, Ministers of the SF countries (AT, BG, CZ, 
Croatia, HU, PL, RO, SI, SK), the Western Balkan countries and Moldova agreed to set up a 
regional contact list of all relevant authorities, in order to improve practical cooperation and 
exchange  of  information  to  prevent  and  combat  irregular  immigration.  Austria  also  hosted 

98 

The  Salzburg  Forum  (SF)  is  a  Central  European  security  partnership  which  aims  to  coordinating  collaboration 
within  the  EU,  intensifying  regional  cooperation  and  to  enhance  cooperation  with  the  Western  Balkan  countries. 
Member  States  include  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Hungary,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovak  Republic 
and Slovenia. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
inter-ministerial meetings on human smuggling and irregular migration, one in the context of 
the SF security partnership to agree upon the strategic operational framework for July 2012 to 
December  2013,  and  two    with  Hungary  and  Serbia  to  draw  conclusions  on  the  measures 
implemented under  the “5-point package of measures” as defined in 2011. Bulgaria hosted a 
workshop attended by representatives of the Border Police at the international airports of the 
Member States of the Regional Initiative “Migration, Asylum, Refugees” (MARRI), including 
Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Croatia,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia, 
Serbia  and  Montenegro,  plus  representatives  from  Frontex  and  the  Swiss  Federal  Office  for 
Migration and Police Cooperation Convention for Southeast Europe. Bulgaria, Romania and 
Moldova  were  included  as  members  of  the  Association  of  the  Police  Chiefs  of  South  East 
Europe (SEPCA). The seminar took place within the project “Joint comprehensive approach 
in the development of cooperation between MARRI and SEPCA”, and aimed to improve the 
capacity of national authorities responsible for border management, in particular in the field 
of  air  borders,  within  the  wider  project  aim  to  achieve  better  regional  cooperation  and 
improve the mechanisms for information sharing among border police at the international air 
checkpoints  of  the  Member  States  of  MARRI  and  SEPCA,  to  combat  irregular  migration, 
criminality and terrorism. 

Italy  trained  Albanian  migration  authorities  with  a  view  to  preventing  irregular  migration 
flows (see above) and have used visa liberalization strategically to encourage legal as opposed 
to  irregular  migration.  Belgium  implemented  awareness-raising  campaigns  in  Armenia  with 
regard to the risks and consequences of irregular immigration. Slovenia is actively involved in 
Western Balkan Risk Analysis Network under the auspices of Frontex.  

8.2.6.  Prevention  of  irregular  migration  from  (d)  the  Western  Mediterranean  and  the 

African Atlantic coast 

At national level,  Member States used multiple tools to prevent irregular migration from this 
region  including  information  campaigns  (BE,  FR,  IT),  capacity-building  (IT,  PT),  technical 
support and installation of equipment (PT) and readmission agreements (AT).  

Belgium launched information campaigns in Guinea and Morocco with a focus on return in 
the former and on reintegration support for sub-Saharan migrants who returned voluntarily in 
the  latter,  and  in  Cameroon,  with  a  focus  on  tackling  inflows  of  bogus  asylum  seekers  and 
abuse of the student route into Europe. France provided training sessions focusing on irregular 
migration  networks  and  document  fraud  to  the  countries  of  the  Western  Mediterranean: 
countries of  the African Atlantic Coast were offered repeated training sessions in document 
fraud  (a  project  aimed  at  bolstering  civil  aviation  security  in  Africa  (ASACA))  and  in 
combating  illegal  immigration  at  the  airports  Portugal  set  up  technical  equipment  for 
improving  border-control  (e.g.  pre-boarding  screening,  training  on  fraud  and  security)  in 
Bissau  and  in  S.  Tome  and  Príncipe  Airports.  Within  the  framework  of  MIEUX,  PT 
implemented  capacity-building  missions  in  the  Ivory  Coast.  PT  also  made  use  of  ILOs 
deployed  in  Angola,  Senegal,  Cape-Verde  and  Guinea-Bissau  in  2012.  In  Austria,  a 
readmission  agreement  with  Nigeria  entered  into  force  and  another  readmission  agreement 
was  negotiated  with  Gambia;  both  concerned  information  exchange,  technical  cooperation, 
establishing  identity,  and  the  terms  and  conditions  of  return.  Spain  set  up  a  project  to 
implement  training  of  border  and  coast  guards  in  surveillance,  provision  of  surveillance 
equipment,  and  support  through  joint  patrols  to  five  countries  of  the  West  Sahel  region 
(Gambia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali and Niger). 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
8.3. 

Strategic Priority II: Enhanced border management at the external borders 

At EU level : After several years of practical application, the need for a number of practical 
and technical amendments to the Schengen Borders Code (SBC) had emerged. On 10 March 
2011,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  COM  2011(118)  containing  several  technical 
changes to the SBC. A first reading agreement was reached at trilogue level on 4 December 
2012.  The  agreed  text  contains  amendments  that  improve  clarity  of  the  existing  text  of  the 
SBC as well as amendments responding to practical problems that have arisen. Travellers and 
competent  authorities  will  clearly  benefit  from  its  adoption,  in  particular  from  a  simplified 
and harmonised new calculation method for short-term stays. The amendment also contains a 
clear legal frame for shared border crossing points at which Member State border guards and 
third-country  border  guards  carry  out  entry  and  exit  checks  one  after  another  in  accordance 
with  their  own  legislation  and  pursuant  to  a  bilateral  agreement.  Even  though  the  proposal 
was not linked to the "Schengen package", formal adoption of the proposal is currently still 
blocked by EP, following the EPs 14 June 2012 decision to block co-operation with Council 
on 5 JHA files (related to debate on the "Schengen package").  

8.3.1.  Preventing  and  combating  irregular  immigration  by  ensuring  strong  and  efficient 

border control agreements with third countries 

At  national  level,  in  order  to  prevent  and  combat  irregular  migration,  various  agreements 
between Member State border guards and those of third-countries were signed. For example, 
Belgium  and  Slovak  Republic  adopted  /  developed  Action  Plans  with  Serbia  and  Ukraine 
respectively.  Specifically,  border  guard  cooperation  agreements  were  planned  between 
Portugal  and  Moldova,  and  Portugal  and  Russian  Federation;  signed  between  Latvia  and 
Belarus,  Armenia,  Tadzhikistan,  Ukraine,  and  Uzbekistan;  and  entered  into  force  between 
Lithuania  and  the  Russian  Federation  on  the  activities  of  State  Border  Representatives. 
Norway’s  agreement  on  local  border  traffic  with  the  Russian  Federation  entered  into  force. 
Portugal  also  signed  agreements  with  Cape-Verde  and  Brazil,  and  made  plans  to  sign 
agreements with Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe, aimed at 
providing technical support to improve the efficiency of border-control systems in the third-
countries  involved.  Italy  has  signed  specific  agreements  on  police  cooperation  with 
approximately forty countries, mainly from the African continent. Spain renews its agreement 
with  Mauritania  regarding  training,  equipment  and  capacity-building  on  an  annual  basis. 
Bulgaria and Serbia through an agreement in December 2012 has opened and operationalized 
a  Joint  Bulgarian-Serbian  contact  center  for  police  and  customs  cooperation.  Romania  also 
established an agreement with Moldova to implement a common contact centre. 

In  Estonia,  bilateral  Cooperation  Agreements  were  signed  with  six  third  countries,  Russian 
Federation,  Georgia,  Belarus,  Moldova,  Azerbaijan  and  Ukraine,  plus  one  trilateral 
Cooperation Protocol amongst the border guard institutions of Estonia, Finland and Russian 
Federation.  All  the  agreements  regulate  operational  information  exchange  on  both  irregular 
migration and cross-border crime, and create a basis for good practice visits and the exchange 
of  experts.  Hungary  also  concluded  a  bilateral  Cooperation  Agreement  with  Ukraine  on 
border  control,  which  has  entered  into  force  in  July  2012;  a  further  such  agreement  with 
Serbia on border control, will enter into force in January 2013. 

Austria hosted the 10th Central Asia Border  Security Initiative (CABSI) Conference,  which 
focused on strengthened cooperation in border management measures in Central Asian States. 
Participants included Ministers of the Interior from the EU, Central Asia, and Afghanistan as 
well as international partners, such as USA and Russian Federation. Chief border attorneys in 
Slovak Republic held meetings with equivalents in Ukraine, in order to continue cooperation 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
and  coordination  of  joint  efforts  in  ensuring  security  at  the  Slovak-Ukrainian  state  borders. 
Italy also held meetings with officials from Tunisia and with Libya (as mentioned above) to 
talk about a range of migration issues including border control. In Netherlands, the migration 
authorities  (IND)  and  ILOs  provided  training  courses  in  third  countries  as  part  of  the  EU 
MIEUX framework in Ghana, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Azerbaijan, and Romania.  

Future activities include the development of a trilateral Agreement on establishing a contact 
centre for police and customs cooperation between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, and for joint 
border  patrols  on  the  Bulgarian-Turkish  border  that  will  update  a  pre-existing  agreement 
between Bulgaria and Turkey, signed in 1967. 

8.3.2.  Border control including Frontex operations 
At  EU  level,  a  revision  of  the  Frontex  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  No  1168/2011)  99  was 
adopted on 22.11.2011, and the revised Regulation entered into force in December 2011.  The 
Frontex  agency  is  now  better  prepared  to  face  the  challenges  at  the  external  borders  of  the 
Union  together  with  Member  States.  Frontex  may  for  instance  acquire  or  lease  its  own 
technical  equipment  such  as  vessels  or  helicopters  for  the  coordination  of  border  control 
activities.  Frontex  will  also  be  deploying  European  Border  Guard  Teams.  These  teams  will 
consist  of  national  border  guards  assigned  or  seconded  by  Member  States.  Frontex  will  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 has been 
created  within  the  Agency  (the  Fundamental  Rights  Officer  took  up  her  duties  on  16 
December  2012)  to  assist  in  matters  having  implications  for  fundamental  rights  and  a 
Consultative  Forum  on  Fundamental  Rights  has  been  set  up  with  an  inaugural  meeting  in 
October 2012 with the participation of relevant international organisations and NGOs. 

The first Frontex specialised branch entitled "Frontex Operational Office" became operational 
on 1 October 2010 as a pilot project. The main tasks of the Frontex Operational Office (FOO) 
are: Contribution to the preparation and evaluation of the Joint Operations being launched in 
the Eastern Mediterranean region; Coordination activities in the implementation of those Joint 
Operations; Providing information for the situational awareness in the region and reporting on 
events  related  to  the  Joint  Operations;  Gathering  and  assessing  information  and  intelligence 
for  risk  analysis  purposes.  It  should  fulfil  its  tasks  within  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  region 
(Italy, Malta, Greece and Cyprus). This pilot project has been extended until the end of 2013. 

On 13 December 2011, Regulation (EU) No 1342/2011 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council,  amending  the  Local  Border  Traffic  Regulation  (EC)  No  1931/2006  as  regards  the 
inclusion  of  the  Kaliningrad  oblast  and  certain  Polish  administrative  districts  in  the  eligible 
border area had been 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 bilateral agreement between 
Poland and Russia which makes this local border regime operational entered into force in July 
2012. 

99 

Regulation (EU) No 1168/2011 of 22 November 2011 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
8.3.2.1.  a) New border control developments 

At EU level : The Commission Communication 'Smart Borders – options and the way ahead' 
(COM(2011)680) set out the main options for moving forward in this area. Preparatory work 
continued during 2012 including consultation with stakeholders on key points such the use of 
biometrics and access for law enforcement purposes in the Entry/Exit system. On that basis, 
the Commission on 28th February 2013 adopted "the Smart Border package", consisting of an 
Entry/Exit system100  and of a Registered Traveller Programme101.  

In  close  coordination  with  Frontex  and  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  continued  to 
develop  the  European  Border  Surveillance  System  (EUROSUR),  which  shall  become 
operational as of 1 October 2013.  

On  12.12.2011,  the  Commission  had  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  the 
European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) (COM(2011) 873) which will streamline 
cooperation and enable systematic information exchange between Member States as well as 
with the Frontex agency on border surveillance. In 2012 this proposal was been examined by 
the European Parliament and the Council following the ordinary legislative procedure and is 
expected to be adopted in the first half of 2013. 

18  Member  States  located  at  the  eastern  and  southern  external  borders  had,  by  the  end  of 
2012, established their national coordination centres for border surveillance and Frontex has 
connected these centres to the EUROSUR communication network on a pilot basis.  

At national level, several Member States (BE, EL, FI, IT, LV, MT, RO, SI, UK) purchased or 
installed new technological equipment for border controls in 2012.  

Belgium,  Latvia  Finland  and  Malta  installed  new  equipment  in  the  framework  of 
implementing  the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS),  for  example,  fingerprints  readers.  Border 
guards  in  Lithuania  and  Slovak  Republic  developed  surveillance  equipment:  Lithuania 
purchased 16 sets of portable sensors to be deployed at green borders and updated integrated 
sea border surveillance system; Slovak Republic modernised its surveillance equipment at the 
border  with  Ukraine.  Greece  invested  significantly  in  new  equipment  for  use  in  passport 
control,  surveillance  and  communications,  as  did  Spain  using  money  from  the  External 
Borders Fund. Bulgaria implemented additional border control practices for the extraction and 
comparison of biometric data to verify the authenticity of visas issued to persons crossing the 
border control points. 

Bulgaria,  Netherlands  and  Norway  initiated  the  implementation  of  the  European  External 
Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR),  and Romania and Slovak Republic continued their 
piloting  and  testing  of  the  operation  of  the  system.  Bulgaria  commissioned  a  National 
Communications System and radiation portal monitors were implemented at Sofia Airport to 
detect and prevent illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials and two mobile 
detection  systems  designed  for  the  needs  of  the  maritime  border.  For  combating  illegal 
migration through border checkpoints, Bulgaria has already installed mobile x-ray scanners to 
detect hidden persons. 

Hungary  procured  80  desktop  and  64  mobile  document  and  fingerprint  readers,  plus  three 
specially equipped mobile controlling vehicles to support border control. The installation of 
eight  mast-mounted  thermal  camera  systems  was  carried  out,  with  EUROSUR.  Portugal 
began  planning  for  the  roll  out  of  EUROSUR  which  will  enter  into  service  in  2013.  While 

100 
101 

COM(2013) 95 
COM(2013)97 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
United Kingdom will not implement EUROSUR, since it is not part of the Schengen Area, it 
will  be  able  to  enter  into  bilateral  or  multilateral  agreements  with  neighbouring  Member 
States  for  the  purposes  of  exchange  of  information  and  cooperation  through  the  relevant 
EUROSUR designated National Co-ordination Centres in each Member State.  

Sweden carried out an ex-ante evaluation of the consequences of joining EUROSUR to guide 
the  government’s  decision-making.  Latvia  established  a  National  Coordination  Centre 
responsible for implementing EUROSUR in the Member State. Estonia’s border surveillance 
system  is  under  constant  development  taking  into  account  the  situational  picture,  new 
technologies and resources available. Since 2010 the border sections at greatest risk have been 
strengthened  by  23  new  mobile  surveillance  complexes.  This  will  continue  in  2013,  with 
additional strengthening of the Estonian-Russian border through the acquisition of additional 
mobile complexes (representing an investment of some 400 000 euros).  

Hungary further developed its professional systems supporting the implementation of SIS II 
and  data  transfer  routs  were  established  at  16  border  crossing  points  to  support  the 
implementation of both SIS and VIS. Germany completed data migrations regarding “wanted 
persons” and “stolen property” categories in SIS II. In France, protocols were introduced to 
ensure border police customs officials’ compliance with Schengen. Netherlands continued to 
develop  processes  to  make  the  EU  VIS  information  available  for  criminal  investigation 
purposes.  Malta  has  installed  both  hardware  and  software  in  preparation  for  the 
implementation of SIS II, which will ‘go live’ in 2013.  

Following  the  launch  of  the  operations  centre  of  land  borders  in  Greece  in  2011,  this  was 
strengthened in 2012 and serves as the international coordination centre of the Joint Operation 
POSEIDON. Further local operational centres were established in 2012.  

8.3.2.2.  b) Coordination of different types of border checks 

At national level, Poland and United Kingdom hosted major sporting events which attracted 
large  numbers  of  EU  and  non-EU  visitors  to  the  country  and  through  the  borders.  Both 
Member States appointed specific teams to coordinate the management of the borders (e.g. to 
plan  and  organise  the  border  controls).  Poland  established  "EURO  lanes",  "green  corridors" 
and  "green  borders"  for  persons  having  "nothing  to  declare",  and  seconded  guard  officers 
from training centres to border posts to increase staffing levels. United Kingdom established a 
dedicated  Border  Force  Olympic  Command  capability  for  the  period  of  the  Olympic  and 
Paralympics Games. In excess of 3 500 trained staff were deployed at 89 national geographic 
locations  and  Juxtaposed  Controls,  together  with  five  Immigration  Group  Hubs.  The  co-
location  of  key  stakeholders  and  sources  of  information  at  a  single  facility  ensured  the 
security of the border with minimum disruption to arriving and departing passengers. 

In Italy and Latvia (as mentioned above) National Coordination Centres were opened; in Italy 
the Centre will coordinate border police activities involved in fighting irregular migration and 
managing information on irregular migration activities by sea. 

Several Member States (AT, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HU, LV, NL, PT) and Norway either 
updated,  implemented  or  made  plans  to  develop  automated  border  control  (ABC)  for  EU  / 
EEA / Swiss nationals. In Netherlands, passengers were surveyed on their experience of the 
self-service passport control gates and nearly 90% claim they will use the gates again in the 
future.  Norway  developed  the  national  infrastructure  to  allow  for  ABC  gates  to  be 
implemented  at  some  external  borders.  In  Latvia,  the  possible  introduction  of  ABC  gates  is 
under discussion with support from Frontex Task Forces. Estonia and Hungary both plan to 
introduce ABC gates at their airports in 2013; in Spain the ABC system is under development 
as part of a wider project on integrated “Smart Borders”.  

EN 

72 

   EN 

United Kingdom is conducting a joint pilot programme with the United States to open the US 
Trusted Traveller programme, Global Entry, to a limited number of UK passport holders. The 
pilot  programme  commenced  in  May  2011  with  UK  participants  now  successfully  enrolled 
and  using  the  Global  Entry  system  to  expedite  their  clearance  upon  arrival  in  the  US.  This 
programme will be evaluated during 2013 in order to inform a decision on whether to transfer 
the  pilot  into  a  permanent  arrangement.  Slovenia  is  planning  the  introduction  of  “one-stop 
border checks” at the common border with Croatia.  

8.3.2.3.  c) Control of the external land, sea and air borders 

At  EU  level  :  The  rules  governing  sea  border  operations  coordinated  by  Frontex  are 
established  in  Council  Decision  2010/252/EU  which  includes  also  a  set  of  guidelines  on 
search  and  rescue  situations  which  arise  within  the  context  of  these  border  surveillance 
operations. This decision was adopted on 26 April 2010 as an implementing measure. Soon 
after  its  adoption,  the  European  Parliament  brought  an  action  before  the  Court  of  Justice  of 
the European Union against the Council requesting the annulment of the decision on the basis 
that it exceeded the implementing powers conferred on the Commission by virtue of Article 
12(5) of the Schengen Borders Code.  

The decision was subsequently annulled by the Court in Case C-355/10 on 5 September 2012. 
The Court considered that in the context of the EU’s institutional system provisions relating to 
interception measures, rescue and disembarkation are essential elements to external maritime 
surveillance and should be adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and 
not  as  an  implementing  measure.  Nevertheless,  the  Court  recognised  the  importance  of  this 
decision  to  the  external  maritime  borders  of  Member  States  and  it  decided  to  maintain  its 
effects until it is replaced by new rules. In line with this judgment, the Commission intends to 
present a new legislative proposal in 2013 to replace this decision. 

At national level, Member States undertook a variety of activities to improve the effectiveness 
of  controls  at  external  borders,  including  reviewing  and  evaluating  current  performance, 
strengthening resourcing, training staff, and introducing national action plans.  

In order to improve its border control performance, Austria initiated some activities including 
the development of a national plan for Integrated Border Management (IBM), revision of the 
national  legal  framework  for  border  control,  and  commissioning  evaluations  of  staffing  and 
technical equipment and on the optimisation of risk assessment. In Finland the Border Guard 
Department of the Ministry of the Interior assessed the effects of growing border traffic and 
recommended  the  up-skilling  of  human  resources  as  well  as  the  introduction  of  a  new 
checking process and equipment (such as mobile devices). Italy increased its resources at the 
border  in  2012  and  United  Kingdom  launched  the  ‘UK  Border  Force’  (UKBF),  under  the 
operational  command  of  its  Home  Office,  which  included  establishing  a  new  Operating 
Mandate,  full  checks  on  passengers,  an  increased  frontline  workforce  and  launching  Phase 
One  of  the  National  Operations  and  Command  Centre  (NOCC)  programme.  Border  Guard 
personnel  from  Belgium  participated  in  staff  exchanges  /  knowledge  transfer  with  third 
countries:  ILO  missions  were  sent  to  Bangkok  and  Rwanda  and  Bulgaria,  Ukraine  and 
Norway sent "second line inspectors" to work at Brussels airport.  

A number of Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, IE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, 
SK)  reported  on  specific  professional  and  language  training  given  to  border  personnel  in 
2012, including training given by Frontex (BE, BG, IE, RO, SK). In Ireland, a pilot project to 
“civilianise” certain port of entry functions at Dublin Airport continued in 2012, with training 
provided. Previously, all such functions were undertaken by Immigration Officers as members 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
of An Garda Síochána (Irish Police). As of year-end, proposals were being finalised to extend 
this new model of border control to all of Dublin Airport and possibly to other ports of entry.  

Amongst other training events during the year, Latvia’s State Border Guard also participated 
in  the  international  training  “TRIANGLE”,  enhancing  information  exchange  among  border 
protection institutions of Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia (at a regional level) to combat 
irregular  migration  and  other  cross-border  crimes,  and  the  sea  operation  “Operation  Baltic 
Tracking”.  The  United  Kingdom  Embassy  in  Athens  hosted  a  joint  Turkey/Greece  border 
police forgery training programme given by RALON Athens and MDO Ankara in Athens in 
January 2013. 

8.3.2.4.  d) Support with regard to border control (e) Strengthening of security and preventing 

irregular migration at the external border  

At EU level: As regards Training of Border Guards, 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. This programme will be further developed during the year 2013. There were 
10  Teachers’  Mobility  Exercises  organized  within  the  Common  Core  Curriculum  project  in 
2012 with the total number of 25 participants.  

In  the  framework  of  the  implementation  of  the  new  Regulation  Frontex  is  increasing  the 
efforts  to  guarantee  that  all  guest  officers  part  of  the  European  Border  Guard  Teams  have 
received  the  appropriate  training  to  fulfil  their  duties.    Regular  trainings  are  organised  by 
Frontex for the members of the European Border Guard Teams thereby contributing 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:  In  relation  to  border  controls,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Bulgaria,  Greece 
and Italy reported that they had received support from Frontex (and other (Member) States) in 
2012.  Cyprus  and  Czech  Republic  received  support  from  Frontex  Focal  Points  at  the  Air 
Border, Bulgaria at the land border and Greece at the air and land borders; Spain also received 
Focal Point support. Frontex Focal Points are permanent platforms that provide professional 
assistance,  exchange  experience  and  on-site  training.102  Italy  benefited  from  joint  maritime 
patrols (HERMES) to control irregular immigration from Tunisia and Libya. Joint operations 
in  Greece  in  2012  included  the  launching  of  POSEIDON  land  and  marine  operations  in 
specific  areas  of  Greece,  notably  involving  the  deployment  of  officers  and  equipment  from 
across  the  Member  States.  Spain  also  hosted  three  Frontex  operations:  MINERVA,  HERA 
and INDALO. 

In addition almost all Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, LT, 
LV,  MT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SE,  SI,  SK,  FI,  UK)  and  Norway  participated  in  Frontex 
operations  during  the  year.  Estonia  for  example,  has  contributed  a  number  of  experts  on 
screening,  border  surveillance  and  surveillance  equipment,  as  well  as  first  and  second  line 
officers  and  advanced  level  document  officers.  Latvia  provided  support  at  the  land  border 
with  Serbia  and  Hungary.  To  strengthen  security,  Czech  Republic  now  fully  operates  an 

102 

http://www.frontex.europa.eu/operations/archive-of-accomplished-operations/41  

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                 
automated  Advanced  Passenger  Information  (API)  system  “OBZOR”.    Additional  airlines 
agreed  to  participate  in  Austria’s  pilot  API  scheme.  In  Ireland,  a  trial  API  system  was 
established. In Netherlands, a legislative bill which would extend the number of API data sets 
to be collected was drafted (this is expected to enter into force in January 2013). API systems 
are also under development in Slovenia and Sweden.  In Finland, a pilot project on automated 
exit  checks  for  third-country  nationals  was  launched  and  piloted  on  Japanese  citizens  with 
biometric  passports.  Bulgaria  established  a  working  group  to  prepare  a  national  interface 
providing advanced passenger information (API) from air carriers.  

8.4. 

Strategic  Priority  III  :  Preventing  irregular  migration  via  the  Greek-Turkish 
Border 

8.4.1.  Ensuring effective border controls are in place at the Greek-Turkish border 

At national level:  In relation to specific actions to prevent irregular migration via the Greek-
Turkish border, most Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LV, MT, 
NL,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SE,  SI,  SK,  UK)  and  Norway  participated  in  Frontex  operations  Attica 
and/or  Poseidon  in  2012.  The  type  of  assistance  provided  varied  from  secondment  of 
personnel,  for  example,  civil  servants  (AT,  NL),  technical  experts  (BE,  BG,  ES,  FR,  LV, 
UK), screening experts (ES, SE, SI), police officers and/or border guards (CZ, ES, FI, HU, IT, 
LV, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK, NO); vehicles (AT, EE, HU, LV, NL, PT, SI, SK); dogs 
(ES); and technical equipment, such as thermal imaging cameras (BG, HU, NL, PT, SI).  

An artificial barrier (fence) some 12km in length has been constructed at the border between 
Greece  and  Turkey,  which  is  now  nearing  completion  and  will  be  operationalized  in  2013. 
The aim of the barrier is to contribute to the fight against irregular migration. 

8.4.2.  Combating irregular immigration transiting Turkey to EU  

At national level, Greece intensified its cooperation with the Turkish competent authorities at 
the  border  at  Evros,  and  Greek  police  are  planning  to  organise  training  for  Turkish  police 
officers on nationality identification to improve identification and facilitate the return process. 
Bulgaria is also planning further collaboration between its own police and customs officials 
and those in Turkey and also Greece. The first phase of an integrated system for monitoring 
the  Bulgarian-Turkish  border  in  the  section  between  Kapitan  Andreevo  to  Lesovo  (58  km) 
was implemented by Bulgaria, which guarantees effective border surveillance in those areas 
experiencing the strongest migration pressure. 

Within  the  framework  of  the  Technical  Assistance  and  Information  Exchange  Office 
(TAIEX),  Poland  organised  study  visits  to  Poland  for  Turkish  Coast  Guard  and  Police. 
Similarly,  Slovenia  hosted  a  study  visit  for  representatives  from  the  Turkish  Ministry  of 
Interior on mixed, joint, and synchronised patrols at land borders. Lithuania sent an expert to 
participate in the "Focal points" operations in Turkey, checking the documents of the persons 
crossing the border in the first line of control.  

United Kingdom provided training on professional standards for staff at the Turkish removals 
centres, including in Edirne (on the Greek border) and on forged document training project to 
border gate officers in Turkey, which will continue into 2013. The aim of the latter project is 
to  reduce  chances  of  irregular  migrants  using  forged  documents  to  arrive  and  leave  from 
Turkey.  United  Kingdom  also  provided  translator  guidance  for  Turkish  National  Police 
Officers  dealing  with  alleged  Burmese  nationals  in  order  to  help  them  identify  true 
nationalities.  United  Kingdom  and  Norway  also  co-financed  an  IOM  project  to  support 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
voluntary  return  (see  Section  I.3  above)  -  from  April  to  the  end  of  2012  it  delivered  450 
voluntary departures. 

8.5. 

Strategic Priority IV: Better tackling of abuse of legal migration channels 

8.5.1.  Prevent  an  increase  in  unfounded  asylum  applications  as  a  direct  consequence  of 
introducing  visa  free  regimes  in  third  countries  and  decrease  the  number  of 
overstayers in the Schengen area 

At national level, several Member States (BE, ES, SE, SI, UK) monitor the effects of visa free 
regimes – in Belgium and Slovenia this is focussed specifically on data (e.g. first and multiple 
asylum requests) of Balkan country nationals. In 2012, Hungary introduced thorough border 
checks on citizens from visa free countries.  

Sweden  reported  increases  in  the  influx  of  asylum  applicants  from  Albania,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina  and  Serbia.  United  Kingdom  has  experienced  an  increase  in  the  numbers  of 
arrivals  who  attempt  to  abuse  immigration  controls,  by  presenting  counterfeit  or  stolen  EU 
issued documents (most notably ID cards), seemingly by individuals or as part of organised 
gangs. European documentation is attractive to third country nationals seeking illegal entry to 
the  EU,  and  in  response,  Member  States  have  called  for  an  agreed  action  to  address  the 
physical security of these documents and the security of their issuance procedures. Action on 
document abuse can further strengthen a combined EU response to abuse of legal routes. In 
relation  to  the  impacts  of  Western  Balkans  visa  liberalisation,  the  UK  Border  Force  has 
continued  to  work  closely  with  EU  partners  (France  and  Belgium)  deploying  the  latest 
detection technology to detect those seeking to evade border checks in ports in Belgium and 
juxtaposed  ports  in  Northern  France  en  route  to  the  United  Kingdom.  In  Italy  there  has  not 
been  an  increase  in  requests  for  international  protection  by  nationals  of  countries  that  have 
signed agreements with the EU to facilitate the issuance of visas. 

8.5.2.  Combating and preventing irregular migration caused by visa liberalisation 

At national level,  In order to ensure the swift return of persons from visa-free third countries 
abusing legal migration channels, Belgium added the Balkans to the list of “safe countries of 
origin”  unlikely  to  produce  refugees  and  opened  up  new  bus  routes  between  Brussels  and 
Balkan countries to accelerate returns to the region. Hungary’s readmission agreements have 
been  effective  in  implementing  the  readmission  of  people  from  visa-free  third  countries.  In 
Netherlands,  since  2004,  the  programme  ‘Return  and  Reintegration  Regulation’  has  offered 
financial contribution to support permanent return and reintegration. To limit the numbers of 
migrants entering solely to benefit from this regulation, all persons who do not require a visa 
to enter the Netherlands are now no longer eligible for financial contributions or assistance in 
kind upon return. A further measure was taken in 2012 to also exclude citizens of the Russian 
Federation making a claim under the Dublin Regulation from the regulation. Similar measures 
were  applied  in  2010  and  2011  to  exclude  citizens  from  Belarus,  Georgia  and  the  former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 

United  Kingdom  and  Norway  made  use  of  accelerated  procedures  to  process  asylum 
applications  of  nationals  from  certain  countries  or  regions  within  countries  identified  as 
presenting  no  real  risk  of  persecution  to  persons  entitled  to  reside  there.  In  2012,  Belgium 
organised information campaigns in cooperation with the authorities of countries of origin in 
order  to  dissuade  people  from  making  unfounded  asylum  claims  in  the  Member  State.  
Sweden reported that the introduction and use of re-entry bans following implementation of 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
the  EU  Return  Directive,  has  resulted  in  many  applicants  deciding  to  withdraw  their 
applications and return home voluntarily. 

8.6. 

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

8.6.1. 

Improve  the  understanding  of  abuse  of  free  movement  rights  by  third  country 
nationals and organised crime aiming at facilitating irregular immigration 

At national level, , the majority of Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, FI, HU, IE, IT, PL, 
PT,  SK,  UK)  implemented  activities  to  gather,  analyse  and  share  information  on  fraud  and 
abuse of free movement notably by means of family reunification (BE, ES, NL, PT); irregular 
migration (CZ, IT, LV, NL), organised crime (LV), social security (ES) and the establishment 
or purchase of fictitious enterprises to gain entry (LT).  

Several  Member  States  (CZ,  HU,  SK,  UK)  reported  on  cooperation  activities  to  share  and 
exchange information. The Czech Republic, for example, has established bilateral agreements 
on  police  information  exchange  with  Slovak  Republic,  Germany  and  also  in  2012,  with 
Poland. Czech Republic and Slovak Republic have created a joint investigation team between 
their respective Public Prosecutors Offices. Experts in Hungary have cooperated with experts 
from United Kingdom in exchanging information on revealing and tackling abuses connected 
to free movement. Ireland and United Kingdom collaborate by sharing of data related to both 
visa and (failed) asylum seeker data. Portugal and Spain have exchanged information through 
various joint cooperation centres located along the Portugal / Spain border.  

Member States (BE, CY, CZ, RO, SK ) have reported on their participation in Frontex Risk 
Analysis  Networks  in  relation  to  information  sharing  activities  on  the  abuse  of  freedom  of 
movement,  particularly through the sharing of Daily  and  Monthly  Statistics  Reports  (DSR  / 
MSR).  

In  the  specific  context  of  tackling  marriages  of  convenience  involving  third-country  family 
members  of  EU  citizens,  in  the  course  of  2012,  Member  States  continued  to  exchange  the 
information at their disposal about trends and emerging trends of abuse and good practices for 
their detection in the context of the expert group on free movement (FREEMO Expert Group).  
The list of national contact points established in the context of the FREEMO expert group was 
updated  and  extended  to  cover  both  operational  and  policy  contact  points.  This  list  enables 
national  authorities  to  exchange  bilaterally  information  at  operational  level  on  individual 
cases. 

Member States have also reported fruitful cooperation with EUROPOL (IE, LV, PL, PT, SK), 
both  in  general,  and  in  relation  to  specific  issues,  for  example,  organised  crime  groups  that 
have abused the freedom of free movement with an aim to increase irregular migration (LV). 
The Netherlands has seconded a staff officer to Europol’s headquarters on a permanent basis 
to  support  its  actions  to  address  facilitated  irregular  immigration  through  abuse  by  third-
country nationals of EU rules on free movement. Portugal has highlighted formal actions of 
cooperation through the setting up of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which involved France 
and  the  United  Kingdom  for  purposes  of  investigation  of  a  transnational  network  of 
organizers  of  marriages  of  convenience.  The  Netherlands  also  carried  out  a  successful  JIT 
operation in cooperation with Europol and the United Kingdom. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
8.6.2.  Prevent the fraudulent acquisition and use of free movement rights by third-country 

nationals 

At national level, many Member States (BE, CY, EE, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PT, SI, SK, UK) 
and  Norway  reported  new  measures  to  implement  enhanced  security  standards  for  EU 
documentation  on  legal  stay.  Latvia  and  Lithuania  transposed  the  provisions  of  Regulation 
No.  444/2009  on  standards  for  security  features  and  biometrics  in  passports  and  travel 
documents issued by Member States. A new criminal offence “Abuse by establishing family 
relationship” was introduced into the Criminal Code of Hungary (Act C of 2012) which will 
enter  into  force  on  1st  July  2013,  whereby  anyone  above  the  age  of  eighteen,  who,  for 
financial  gain,  establishes  a  family  relationship  or  provides  an  official  paternity  statement 
explicitly  for  acquiring  residence  status,  will  be  subject  to  penalties  of  two  years’ 
imprisonment.  United  Kingdom  considered  policy  proposals  and  possible  legislation  to 
implement  enhanced  security  standards  for  EU  documentation  on  legal  stay  and  to  enhance 
the security of issuance processes; its National Document Fraud Unit assessed other Member 
States’ residence permits to help inform the debate on their acceptability. Norway introduced 
new standardised  Schengen  residence cards containing biometric data in May, replacing the 
previous system of stickers in passports. 

Some Member states have introduced new  approaches to improve their monitoring tools. In 
Poland, for example, ‘alerts’ have been introduced, these are short notices prepared by experts 
and specialists that present individual cases of document falsification, including photographs 
and short descriptions of features that distinguish falsified from model documents. In Czech 
Republic  and  Portugal,  new  training  for  staff  has  been  introduced  in  the  detection  of  false 
documentation  and  the  promotion  of  document  security.  In  Portugal,  this  has  focused  on  e-
documents,  including  the  Residence  Card  for  EU  citizens  [permanent],  EU  Residence  Card 
for family members, and Diplomatic Identification Card. Bulgaria is centralising its activities 
for  combating  document  fraud  by  establishing  a  National  Centre  for  combating  counterfeit 
and forged documents – specialised equipment was purchased in 2012.  

8.7. 

Strategic Priority VI: Enhancing migration management, including cooperation 
on return practices 

Table  6a  in  the  Statistical  Annex  provides  a  provisional  overview  of  the  number  of  third-
country  nationals  ordered  to  leave  and  returned.  The  highest  number  of  forced  return 
measures were implemented by Spain (15 117), Greece (11 586),  and France(10 305). The 
numbers of third-country nationals returned through an assisted voluntary return programme 
were highest in Germany (7 636), Greece (6 324), Belgium (4 164)) and France  (3 250). 

At EU level : Cooperation in the field of return of irregularly staying third-country nationals 
has  intensified  in  the  course  of  2012.  The  role  of  Frontex  has  been  strengthened  and  was 
supported  with  sufficient  allocations  under  the  annual  budget  of  the  Agency.  The  latter  has 
amounted to MEUR 9.993 (including the amount allocated in the context of the reinforcement 
of the Agency's budget triggered by the heavy migratory pressure in the Mediterranean.) This 
amount  has  enabled  Frontex  to  assist  Member  States  implementing  necessary  measures, 
including joint return operations, in accordance with the applicable Union law on return. 

Frontex  co-ordinated  in  2012  in  total  39  joint  return  flights  with  a  total  number  of  2110 
returnees. Twenty Member States (AT, BE, BG,  DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, 
NL, PL, RO,  SE, UK) and two Schengen associated countries (CH, NO) participated in these 
flights.  Countries  of  return  were  Armenia,  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Georgia,  Ghana,  Gambia, 
Kosovo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Serbia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Out of the 39 joint operations, in 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
18 at least one of the participating Member States provided for monitoring in accordance with 
their national legislation. 38 joint return operations were co-financed by Frontex. 

To  encourage  voluntary  return,  Member  States  were  encouraged  to  make  use  of  the  means 
provided by the European Return Fund103 and to provide for innovative measures encouraging 
voluntary return. Those measures are eligible for co-funding of up to 75% under priority 3 of 
the Strategic Guidelines for the European Return Fund. Voluntary departure appears to have 
become the preferred option of return, in line with the Return Directive. This is also reflected 
in the way how the Member States programme the EU assistance available from the Return 
Fund. Under the national Annual Programmes, more than half of the total funds programmed 
(excluding technical assistance) one or another way related to voluntary return. The ratio of 
voluntary return (as opposed to forced return) of all effective returns carried out in 2011 was 
41,5 %. Similar figures are expected for 2012. 

8.7.1.  Ensuring  that  all  Member  States  have  efficient  migration  management  systems  in 

place in order to be prepared for fluctuating migration pressures 

At national level, Italy and Latvia introduced strategies at governmental level for coping with 
sudden migration flows. In Italy, this followed from the movement of over 62 000 people in 
2011, and some 12 500 other migrants in 2012 (to 28th November 2012), from North Africa 
following  the  political  crisis.  A  technical  inter-ministerial  working  group  was  established 
within  the  Ministry  of  Interior  to  improve  the  governance  of  these  exceptional  migration 
flows,  and  approved  a  package  of  measures  designed  to  address  the  emergency  by  31 
December 2012.  

In  the  United  Kingdom  this  was  specifically  in  relation  to  the  conflict in  Syria:  exceptional 
arrangements were introduced for Syrian nationals already in the United Kingdom to enable 
them to extend their visa or switch into a different visa category; however, no provisions were 
introduced for Syrians who were outside of the United Kingdom. These arrangements are due 
to be reviewed in March 2013. Building on its crisis management strategy launched in 2011, 
Bulgaria  carried  out  the  preparation  of  temporary  accommodation  for  migrants  at  the 
Bulgarian-Turkish border.  

Hungary and Serbia adopted an Action Plan on cooperation for combating irregular migration 
at  the  Hungarian-Serbian  border  for  2012.  Moreover,  in  Hungary,  the  relevant  authorities 
started  a  common  operation  called  NIMROD  in  2012  to  address  the  increased  migration 
flows. In Luxembourg, to tackle the constant flow of migrants since the end of 2010, mainly 
from  Serbia,  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  and 
Kosovo, the workforce of the Refugee and Return Agencies of the Directorate of Immigration 
was increased on 2012, and temporary agents were taken on and trained by EASO in order to 
guarantee the effective processing of international protection files. 

8.7.2.  Maximising  the  potential  of  a  common  EU  approach  in  the  field  of  return,  both 

voluntary and forced in compliance with existing EU acquis 

At  EU  level:  Common  return  standards.  The  deadline  for  the  implementation  of  the  Return 
Directive (2008/115/EC) expired on 24 December 2010. By the end of 2012, all States bound 
by this Directive except Iceland had notified full transposition to the Commission.  

103 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/migration-asylum-borders/return-
fund/index_en.htm  

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
A  study  was  carried  out  in  2011-2012  in  order  to  evaluate  the  correct  transposition  of  the 
Return Directive into national legislation. Based on the findings of this study, the Commission 
has  launched  in  summer  2012  an  organised  programme  of  work  on  the  transposition  of  the 
Return Directive, in the course of which the Commission is confronting Member States with 
the  findings  of  the  transposition  study  and  discusses/verifies  in  technical  bilateral  contacts 
both the merits of the identified shortcomings as well as possible solutions. As a result of this 
process  Member  States  are  requested  to  correct  all  identified  non-conformities  within  a 
concrete  timeframe.  By  the  end  of  2012,  the  Commission  had  sent  its  reassessment  of  the 
national  reports  (with  a  number  of  additional  questions  and  requests  for  clarification)  to  17 
Member States. Based on this reassessment, bilateral meetings with Member States took place 
in  Brussels.  The  experience  with  these  bilateral  meetings  was  very  positive:  on  most  open 
issues  solutions  could  be  found,  either  by  providing  supplementary  clarification  or  by 
envisaging changes to national legislation.  

The  Commission  is  aware  that  Member  State  are  frequently  confronted  with  significant 
numbers of third country nationals who cannot be returned in practice, albeit a return decision 
has been taken. The Commission has carried out in 2012 a comparative study on the situation 
and treatment of this category of "non-removable returnees". The results of this study, which 
were presented in January 2013 show that a number of Member States foresee channels and 
conditions  through  which  persons  with  a  postponed  return/removal  order  may  enter  a 
regularisation procedure, provided they fulfil certain conditions, such as a minimum length of 
stay,  co-operation  and  absence  of  public  order  concerns.  A  study  assessing  the  practical 
impact of the Return Directive in Member States was launched in autumn 2012 – it will serve 
as input for the upcoming first Return Directive application report due for December 2013. 

In 2012 the CJEU delivered one judgement on the Return Directive in case C-430/11 (Sagor) 
in which it further clarified the extent to which national law provisions criminalising irregular 
stay  are  compatible  with  the  Return  Directive,  basing  itself  on  the  case  law  already 
established in cases C 61-11 (El Dridi) and C 329-11 (Achoughbabian).  

At national level, Member States cooperated in a number of ways to develop a common EU 
approach for swift, sustainable and effective return.  Czech Republic held meetings with the 
Polish Border Guard to share best practice on so-called "Annex 39" voluntary returns (these 
are  specific  types  of  return  by  land)  with  the  Polish  Border  Guard.  Portugal,  Slovenia  and 
Sweden  reported  that  they  had  participated  in  forums  to  exchange  good  practice  on  return. 
The  Contact  Committee  of  the  Return  Directive,  attended  by  PT  amongst  other  Member 
States  represents  a  forum  for  discussion  and  benchmarking  on  return  practice,  with  the 
ultimate  goal  of  harmonising  the  interpretation  and  application  of  EU  legislation  on  return. 
UK  reported  that  ‘debrief  sessions’  after  joint  operations  provided  opportunities  to  consider 
feedback and discuss best practice for future operations. 

Member  States  strengthened  cooperation  on  return  at  different  levels.  At  national  level, 
relevant ministries and implementing organisations (e.g. IOM) in Latvia, national ministries, 
regional  authorities,  aviation  authorities  and  the  Council  for  Refugees,  amongst  others  also 
met to organise practice on return. Czech Republic established the “Return Centre” in 2012 as 
a common platform for strategic management of voluntary returns, as well as implementation 
and  coordination  of  voluntary  return  process  activities  like  the  return  counselling, 
dissemination  of  information  on  voluntary  return  programme  and  the  organizing  and 
performance  of  voluntary  returns.  The  Return  Centre  will  act  as  a  coordination  hub  for  all 
governmental  agencies  (e.g.  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Directorate  of  Alien  Police  Service 
(DAPS) and the Asylum Facility Administration) involved in return and will be administered 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
by  IOM.  In  Italy,  a  network  of  public  and  private  organisations  (RIRVA),  was  launched  in 
order to test, in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior, the functioning and strengthening of 
the national referral system connected to AVR, also in line with recently approved guidelines 
for the implementation of voluntary and assisted return programmes. 

Austria,  Finland,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  and  Slovak  Republic  plus  10  other  Member  States 
participated  in  the  “Voluntary  Return  European  Network”  (VREN)  which  is  funded  by  the 
Return  Fund.  Lithuania  participated  in  trainings  return  operations  organised  by  Frontex  in 
Malta and Netherlands. Belgium, Netherlands and Romania participated in EURINT project, 
which  has  the  aim  of  improving  the  process  of  identification  and  establishing  nationality  in 
return. In October, Netherlands and Belgium presented a joint proposal to the GDISC Return 
Conference in Budapest, and separately to Frontex, to start a follow-up project on the basis of 
the  EURINT  experiences,  in  which  more  countries  participate  in  a  network.  Netherlands, 
Sweden,  United  Kingdom  and  Norway  also  participated  in  the  ERPUM  project  which  is 
aimed at ensuring adequate reception for unaccompanied minors returned to Afghanistan and 
Iraq. Belgium, Germany, France and Sweden continued to participate in the Netherlands-led 
European  Reintegration  Instrument  (ERI),  financed  by  the  EU  Return  Fund,  to  facilitate 
permanent reintegration after independent or forced return.  

Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  France,  Greece,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Spain, 
United Kingdom and Norway amongst others participated in Frontex Joint Return Operations. 
Spain reports that its participation in Frontex and other joint return operations has increased in 
recent years. France, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland United Kingdom and Norway participated in 
joint return operations that were not led by Frontex. Two officials of the Latvian State Border 
Guard participated as observers in the joint return operation to Kosovo with an aim to obtain 
experience and best practice in forced return, escorting and handing over of returnees to the 
representatives of competent institutions after arriving at the country of return. 

Many  (Member)  States  continued  implementing  existing  Assisted  Voluntary  Return  (AVR) 
programmes. For example, in Austria, the IOM implemented seven country-specific AVR and 
Reintegration (AVRR) programmes (five of which were with Return Fund co-financing); the 
AVRR  programme  in  Moldova  had  an  emphasis  on  the  prevention  of  (re-)  trafficking  of 
minors  and  youth.  In  Finland  the  “Developing  Assisted  Voluntary  Return  Programme  in 
Finland”  (DAVRiF)  project  which  aims  to  develop  systematic  and  equal  assisted  voluntary 
return  services  and  practices  and  will  continue  in  2013  within  the  framework  of  the 
“Voluntary  Return  and  Return  Assistance  from  Finland”  project  to  ensure  the  continuity  of 
voluntary return activities.   

The  State  Border  Guard  in  Latvia  signed  cooperation  agreements  with  IOM  on  the 
implementation of voluntary return projects, and in Slovak Republic, such projects have been 
implemented  each  year  with  IOM  under  a  cooperation  agreement  signed  in  1996.  Austria 
cooperated with Belgium, France and the Netherlands to implement a project (MAGNET) on 
Job  Placement  Assistance  for  third-country  nationals  returning  voluntarily  to  the  Kurdistan 
Region  of  Iraq.  Portugal  added  value  to  its  AVR  processes  by  developing  various  practical 
guides for returnees, including a brochure on how to set up small businesses in the country of 
return, and also provided information to those returning to Brazil on partnerships set up by the 
IOM in to facilitate business development there. Estonia carried out a project on raising the 
competence of officials involved in return procedures of third country nationals, focusing on 
cultural  differences,  psychological  behaviour  and  best  practices  in  return.  The  project 
included training and learning based on best practices from other Member States, as well as 
two study-visits to Hungary and Austria. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

The  cooperation  on  return  of  migrants  in  Estonia,  Latvia  and  Lithuania  to  support 
effectiveness of Return Operations by land was further developed in 2012 by the creation of 
the Operational Information Exchange Network on Voluntary Return amongst the migration 
and Border Guard authorities of the three countries. The network ensures the fast exchange of 
information on return operations by land in the Baltic region. 

EN 

82 

   EN 

9. 

PROVISION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

9.1. 

Exchange of information at EU level 

At EU level : In August a report on the development of the European Migration Network was 
adopted104.  Four  years  after  its  formal  creation,  the  report  takes  stock  of  the  progress  made 
and considers how the network should evolve, including in the context of the next multiannual 
financial  framework  beyond  2013.  EMN  outputs  in  2012  include  national  annual  policy 
reports  on  immigration  and  asylum,  which  contributed  to  the  Commission’s  Third  Annual 
Report  on  Immigration  and  Asylum,  as  well  as  studies  on  a  range  of  topics,  including 
Irregular Migration, Visa Policy, Immigration of International Students, Misuse of the right to 
family reunification and Identity determination in asylum and return procedures. A study on 
intra-EU  mobility  is  also  being  prepared  in  the  framework  of  the  EMN  Work  Programme 
2012  To  facilitate  the  exchanges  and  support  policy  a  glossary  of  relevant  terminology 
"Asylum  and  Migration    Glossary  2.0  –  A  tool  for  better  comparability  produced  by  the 
EMN"  was  issued  in  2012  in  English,  French,  German,  Italian,  Portuguese  and  Spanish 
language versions. An Arabic language version was also being prepared.  

As  set  out  in  section  3.1  above,  the  Commission  continued  the  development  of  the  'EU 
Immigration Portal' in 2012,105  with a Spanish language version launched early January 2013, 
and an Arabic language version in development.  

In June 2012, the European Commission initiated a formal collaboration with the Migration 
Policy Centre at the European University Institute, which conducts policy relevant research on 
global migration issues. 

At national level : Essentially all Member States (AT, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, IE, IT, LU, 
LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK) and Norway reported on actions to provide and 
exchange  information  to  support  policy  development  at  EU  level.  Many  Member  States 
referred  to  the  European  Migration  Network  as  a  method  of  sharing  and  dissemination 
information. CZ, IT, LT and SI emphasised the added-value of the EMN Ad-Hoc Queries as a 
way of obtaining information in a relatively short period. Several Member States also reported 
their  use  of  other  EU  entities,  platforms  and  networks,  such  as  Frontex  Risk  Analysis  
Network  (FRAN)  (CZ,  IE,  SK),  General  Directors'  Immigration  Services  Conference 
(GDISC) (CZ, ES, IE, SK, UK, NO), International Centre for Migration Policy Development 
(ICMPD) (CZ, EE), ICG (CZ, NO), Eurostat (CZ, ES, IE), NCPIs (EL, IT, FI, UK, SK) and 
the  Voluntary  Return  European  Network  (VREN)  (LT,  SK).  Greece,  Netherlands  and 
Portugal highlighted the importance of the MIM in their work.  

Other  mechanisms  highlighted  as  effective  for  information  exchange  to  assist  in  policy 
development,  included  the  European  Integration  Forum  (FI),  in  particular,  the  technical 
seminars related to the development of EU indicators as well as expert conferences; the work 
of  expert  groups  (ES,  NL),  for  example,  on  family  reunification.  Several  Member  States 
highlighted  the  importance  of  their  participation  in  EASO  meetings  (EL,  LT,  PL,  SK). 
Norway  highlighted  its  participation  in  the  European  Platform  of  Reception  Agencies 
(EPRA), a network for sharing and exchanging information about state practice in the field of 
reception centres.  

In  Greece,  two  actions  were  implemented  under  the  Integration  Fund  that  promotes  the 
exchange of information at European level in 2012: 1) creating a network  of  cooperation at 

104 
105 

COM(2012)427 final of 1.8.2010, accompanied by SWD(2012)240 final. 
http://ec.europa.eu/immigration 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
local  level  between  EU  Member  States  and  2)  creating  a  collaborative  network  of 
representatives of migrant associations at European level. 

Bulgaria was active in promoting the Working Group for the Black Sea Region and hosted a 
meeting  to  exchange  information  about  both  legal  and  irregular  migration  in  the  region, 
inviting for the first time, delegates from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan to attend. 

All  Member  States  except  for  France,  Greece  and  Ireland,  participated  in  operation  Balder 
which surveyed migratory flows in the EU/Schengen area. 

9.2. 

Exchange of information at regional and national levels  

At national level: A number of Member States (CZ, EE, EL, FI, FR, IT, LT, LV, LU, NL, PL, 
RO, SE, SK, UK) and Norway have referred to the importance of information exchanges, at 
regional level, bilaterally with other Member States, and at the national level.  

With  regard  to  regional  cooperation,  Member  States  have  utilised  existing  channels  of 
cooperation  including  the  Nordic  Joint  Advisory  Group  on  Refugee  Policy  (NSHF)  which 
addresses  issues  common  to  all  Nordic  Countries  (FI),  the  network  of  contact  points 
addressing  issues  of  transit  irregular  migration  established  under  the  Salzburg  Forum  (CZ, 
HU),  the  Development  of  Operational  Cooperation  for  Return  in  the  Baltic  States  (EE)  and 
the  Baltic  Sea  Region  Border  Control  Cooperation  (SE).  Romania  has  reported  on  its 
cooperation  with  countries  in  the  Black  Sea  Region  via  the  Black  Sea  Cooperation  Forum, 
which  addressing  operational  cases,  exchanges  data  and  information,  and  supports  common 
and  concrete  actions  on  preventing  and  countering  cross  border  crime  in  the  Black  Sea 
Region). 

After taking over the presidency of the Salzburg Forum on 1 July 2012, Hungary has set up a 
regional  contact  list  among  the  relevant  authorities,  in  order  to  improve  the  practical 
cooperation and exchange of information to prevent and combat illegal migration. In Poland, 
the  Polish  Border  Guard  undertook  cooperation  activities  with  Ukraine,  Belarus,  Russia, 
Czech  Republic,  Slovakia  and  Lithuania  within  the  framework  of  the  Border  Delegate 
System,  which  is  an  important  channel  of  the  exchange  of  information  between  border 
services  of  neighbouring  countries.  Member  States  have  also  referred  to  regional 
collaborations  facilitated  by  IOM,  for  example,  IOM’s  Special  Coordination  Office  for  the 
Mediterranean (IT) and regional conferences, for example, to discuss issues such as voluntary 
return and ensuring transit across the territory of states in the Schengen Area (EE, LT, PL). 

In  relation  to  information  exchange  on  a  bilateral  basis,  Ireland  reported  that  sharing 
immigration data with the UK continued and cooperation with the UK on initiatives such as a 
Common  Travel  Area  visa  will  be  prioritised  in  2013.  Italy  reported  on  bilateral  high-level 
meetings  on  migration  issues  with  Finland  and  Malta.  Estonia  has  reported  on  a  number  of 
bilateral  and  multilateral  cooperation  initiatives  with  other  Baltic  Member  States  involving 
third  countries  (Russia,  Belarus,  Ukraine,  Moldova)  in  the  area  of  border  surveillance.  All 
Member  States  and  Norway  have  engaged  in  information  exchange  and  dissemination  with 
national  stakeholders  through  their  EMN  NCP  national  networks  and  disseminated 
(translated)  studies  and  other  information  through  their  national  websites  and  through 
publications,  such  as  national  newsletters  and  the  EMN  Bulletin.  Some  examples  included 
events to facilitate the exchange of information and good practices amongst relevant actors, to 
address  issues  such  as  the  implementation  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  (FR), 
and on topics addressed through EMN studies, for example, international students (AT, EE, 
IT,  SE,  SK,  UK)  and  training  for  migration  services  on  marriages  of  convenience  (LT). 
Greece published a call for proposals for actions related to the training of the parties involved 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
in the Immigrant Integration Councils. United Kingdom continued its support for the Strategic 
Migration  Partnership,  a  network  of  12  regions  across  the  United  Kingdom  which  looks  at 
specific migration-related issues that might directly affect the regions. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

10. 

STATISTICAL ANNEX 

This  Annex  contains  data,  primarily  as  provided  by  the  Commission's  Eurostat  and  in 
accordance with the Regulation (EC) 862/2007. Due attention must be paid to the notes given 
for each Table. In some cases, where Eurostat data were not available for the year 2012 and, 
the  data  were  provided  by  the  European  Migration  Network  (EMN)  from  their  respective 
national agencies.  

Table 1 First residence permits, by reason, 2012, provisional data 

Total 

Family 
reasons 

Education 
reasons 

Remunerated 
activities 

Other 
reasons 

NA 
1 394 
NA 
 - 
 4 216 
424 
NA 
802 
NA 
 57 289 
30 631 
  864 
  528 
  296 
  388 
 5 536 
NA 
NA 
NA 
2 519 
7 500 
NA 
 1 067 
617 
 5 519 
7 092 
 NA 
4 529 

NA 
2 311 
NA 
 - 
 2 216 
1140 
NA 
7 400 
NA 
 82 155 
119 745 
  314 
  2 025 
  888 
 1 018 
 2 246 
NA 
NA 
NA 
2 933 
13 446 
NA 
 3 759 
 1 223 
 5 788 
41 156 
 NA 
10 839 

NA 
6 467 
NA 
 - 
10 544 
2487 
NA 
10 447 
NA 
193 799 
 246 740 
 6 928 
 4 579 
 4 338 
 4 359 
 18 112 
NA 
NA 
NA 
20 218 
27 467 
NA 
 11 690 
 4 506 
 17 157 
85 589 
NA 
28 037 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE(a) 
EE 
IE 
EL  
ES 
FR  
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK  
FI (a) 
SE 
UK 
NO 
Source  :  European  Migration  Network  National  Contact  Points.,  Eurostat  for  FR  and  NO.    NB.  Fully 
comparable data for 2012 for all countries will become available from Eurostat in July 2013. 
Notes: 
1. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
2. "-" means no report received from EMN NCP 
3. (a) means data does not cover the full year. The following periods are covered in the respective countries: 

NA 
2 429 
NA 
 - 
 1 269 
315 
NA 
1 356 
NA 
 38 215 
 29 662 
 1 150 
  1429 
  63 
2 323 
 3 954 
NA 
NA 
NA 
7 943 
909 
NA 
  92 
 752 
  788 
17 405 
NA 
5 042 

NA 
333 
NA 
 - 
 2 843 
680 
NA 
889 
NA 
16 140 
66 742 
 4 600 
  597 
 3 091 
661 
 6 376 
NA 
NA 
NA 
6 823 
5 612 
NA 
 6 772 
 1 914 
 5 062 
19 936 
NA 
7 627 

DE: 1st January to 30th June 2012 
FI: January to December 2012 but figures are provisional 
PT: 1st January to 27th November 2012 

4. LV: statistics in this table are provisional. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 2 Unemployment rate of third-country nationals, compared to  total 

unemployment rate by Member State, Annual rate,  2012 

Member State 

Total 
unemployment 
rate 

Third country 
nationals' 
unemployment 
rate 

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 
EU-27 
Source : Eurostat. Labour Force Survey. 2012.  
Notes: 
1. :" : " Data not published due to lack of reliability because of  small sample size. 

30.7
:
5.1(b) 
18.7
12.9
18.6
17.6
35.3
38.6
24.9
14.5
8.0
22.9
:
15.1
:
:
15.0
10.7
:
39.0
:
15.7 (b)
:
21.8
30.6
11.3
21.3

7.6 
12.4 
7.0 (a) 
7.7 
5.6 
10.4 
15.0 
24.5 
25.2 
9.9 
10.8 
12.1 
15.2 
13.5 
5.2 
11.0 
6.5 
5.3 
4.4 
10.2 (a) 
16.4 
7.3 
9.0 
14.0 (a) 
7.8 
8.1 
8.0 
10.6 

2. (a) Break in time series 

3. (b) Low reliability 

4.  For  Norway,  data  to  August  2012  was  Total  unemployment  rate  :  2.0%,  Unemployment 
rate third country nationals : 9.7%. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

Table 3a Number of visas issued, by type 2012 

Total visa 

Schengen visa 

National visa 

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 

226.929 
818 775 
NA 
 - 
1 523 743 
119 702 
 132 425 
1 020 895 
NA 
1 771 290 
1 870 382 
(4a) 
NA 
 188 083 
302 900 
 18 104 
 309 156 
 NA 
 354 094 
NA 
1 344 112  
 152 295 
159 866 
 1 259 
 75 836 
1 376 425 
 220 165 
2 229 357 
(5a) 
118 572 

202.865 
0 
NA 
 - 
1 386 946 
118 911 
Not applicable 
1 009 961 
NA 
1 641 995 

1 634 656 
NA 
 178 668 
299 160 
 11 833 
 303 185 
NA 
 328 559 
NA 
1 067 039  
 136 842 
NA 
 1 259 
 74 661 
1 376 425 
 191 236 

24.064 
818 775 
NA 
 - 
 136 797 
791 
 132 425 
10 934 
NA 
129 295 

198 104 
NA 
 9 416 
3 740 
 6 271 
 5 971 
NA 
 25 535 
NA 
277 073  
 15 453 
159 866 

 1 175 
NA 
 3 537 

NA 
158 

NA 
118 414 

UK 
NO 
Source : EMN 
Notes: 
1.  "NA"  means  statistics  were  ‘not  available’  at  the  time  this  report  was 
published. 
2. "" means no report received from NCP 
•  DE : January to September 2012 
•  EL: until 18 December 2012 
• 
•  NL:  only  2  out  of  3  authorities  responsible.  Data  for  Seaport  police 

IE: comprising 88 345 entry and 44 080 re-entry visas. 

missing 

•  PT: provisional data 
•  FR: statistics from January until 30 September 2012  

4. IT(a) includes 37 622 limited territorial validity visas 
5. UK(a): statistics include dependents, visitors and those in transit 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
  
 
Table 3b Schengen C visas applied for at Schengen consulates around the world in 2011 
and 2012 

AT 
BE 
CH 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
IS 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
SE 
SI 
SK 
Total 
Schengen 

2011 

2012 

283,540 
242,857  
428,189  
581,931 
1,707,197 
94,310 
144,567 
768,246 
1,518,641 
1,259,643 
2,130,471 
288,415 
636 
1,516,237 
345,765 
9,051 
163,309 
33,858 
428,206 
151,071 
912,988 
142,754 
220,567 
39,735 
71,313 

304,798 
233,490 
464,512 
603,484 
1,844,704  
100,402  
75,360  
1,001,341  
1,836,868  
1,392,048  
2,321,534  
322,646  
1,088  
1,706,536  
416,851  
10,555  
182,496  
53,777  
440,056  
130,933  
1,091,395  
148,489  
215,763  
42,127  
75,720  

13,483,497  

15,116,973

Source: DG HOME compilation of MS data 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
Guinea  
Stateless  
Belarus  
Afghanista
n  
Afghanista
n  
Armenia  
Dem. Rep. 
of the 
Congo   
Georgia  
Algeria  
Sri Lanka  

Table 4 Asylum applicants in 2012 

2012 

Applicants 
Per 
millio
n inh. 
660*   Afghanistan  26 250  8  

First group 

# 

% 

EU 
27  
BE 
BG 
CZ  
DK 

331 
975*  
28 105   2 535   Afghanistan  
1 385  
740  
6 045  

Syria  
190  
70  
Ukraine  
1 085   Somalia  

3 290  
450  
175  
910  

Iraq  

12   Russia  
32  
24   Syria  
15   Syria  

2 655  
325  
70  
875  

9  
23  
9  
15  

Citizenships of main groups of asylum applicants** 

Second 
group 

# 

% 

Third 
group 

# 

%

Syria  

23 510   7  

Russia  

23 360  7 

DE  

77 540   945  

Serbia  

12 810  17   Syria  

7 930  

10  

EE  
IE 

75  
955  

55  
210  

Georgia  
Nigeria  

35  
160  

45   Russia  
17   Pakistan  

10  
105 

10  
11 

EL 
ES 
FR 

9 575  
2 565  
60 560   925  

850  
55  

Pakistan  
Syria  
Russia  

2 340  
255  
5 930  

24   Bangladesh  
10   Nigeria  
10   Dem. Rep. of 

1 005  
205  
5 500  

11  
8  
9  

the Congo  

IT 

15 715   260  

Pakistan  

2 365  

15   Nigeria  

1 515  

10  

34   Vietnam  
51   Dem. Rep. of 

200  
25  

12  
12  

1 365  

Afghanista
n  
Bangladesh  190  
Syria  

20  

CY 
LV 

LT  
LU 

HU  
MT  
NL  
AT  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SI  
SK  
FI  

1 635  
205  

1 895   Syria  
100  

Georgia  

645  
2 050  

215  
3 905   Serbia  

Georgia  

Afghanistan  

215  
4 980   Somalia  
:  
:  

2 155  
2 080  
:  
17 425   2 065   Afghanistan  
10 750   280  
295  
2 510  
305  
730  
3 095  

Russia  
Guinea  
Algeria  
Afghanistan  
Somalia  
Iraq  

30  
120  
150  
135  
575  

565  
105  

310  
385  

880  
1 250  
:  
4 015  
6 085  
65  
600  
65  
225  
830  

the Congo  

48   Afghanistan  
19   Albania  

100  
305  

41   Pakistan  
60   Eritrea  
:  
:  
23   Russia  
57   Georgia  
22   Nigeria  
24   Morocco  
21   Syria  
31   Afghanistan  
27   Russia  

325  
435  
:  
3 110  
3 235  
30  
355  
30  
90  
225  

SE  

43 865   4 625   Syria  

7 920  

18   Somalia  

5 695  

UK 
IC  

28 175   445  
330  
105  

Pakistan  
Nigeria  

4 880  
15  

17  
14  

Iran  
Iran  

3 250  
15  

NO  

9 685  

1 940   Somalia  

2 180  

23   Eritrea  

1 185  

28 445   3 575   Eritrea  

CH  
Source : Eurostat. Newsrelease 48/2013 – 22 March 2013 
Notes :  

4 410  

16   Nigeria  

2 745  

Russia  

15  
21  
:  
18  
30  
10  
14  
11  
12  
7  

15  
15   Montenegr
o  
Kosovo 
Syria  
:  
Pakistan  
Armenia  
Syria  
Pakistan  
Turkey  
Georgia  
Afghanista
n  
Afghanista
n  
Sri Lanka  
Afghanista
n  
Afghanista
n  
Tunisia  

12  
13  

13  

10  

12  

2 190  
155  
55  
565  

8 
11
7 
9 

7 840  

10

5  
60 

895  
200  
3 825  

95  
290  

225  
150  
:  
1 825  
415  
20  
335  
25  
55  
210  

6 
6

9 
8 
6 

9 

12
9 

15
14

10
7 
: 
10
4 
7 
13
9 
8 
7 

4 760  

11

2 160  
10  

8 
7 

985  

10

2 240  

8 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
 
* Eurostat estimate including the Netherlands  
** EU27 top three citizenships excluding data for the Netherlands  

EN 

91 

   EN 

Table 5 Asylum Applicants - First Instance Decisions by Outcome, in 2012 

Total 
decisions 

Positive 
decisions 

Refugee 
status 

Of which : 

Subsidiary 
protection 

Humanitarian 
reasons 

Rejections 

71 580  
5 555  
170  
175  
1 695  
17 140  
20  
95  
95  
525  
8 655  
8 260  
105  
25  
55  
40  
350  
1 435  
:  
4 455  
475  
100  
230  
35  
190  
1 555  
12 400  
7 735  
10  
4 600  
4 280  

268 495  
24 525  
640  
720  
3 715  
58 645  
65  
935  
11 195  
2 600  
59 800  
22 160 
1 335  
145  
390  
1 650  
1 100  
1 590  
:  
15 895  
2 435  
230  
1 625  
220  
440  
3 090  
31 520  
21 845  
50  
7 160  
16 650  

37 245 
EU27*  
3 985  
BE 
20  
BG  
50  
CZ  
1 035  
DK 
8 765  
GE  
10  
EE 
65  
IE 
30  
EL 
230  
ES 
7 120  
FR  
1 915 
IT 
80  
CY  
5  
LV  
15  
LT  
35  
LU  
70  
HU  
35  
MT  
:  
NL 
2 680  
AT  
85  
PL 
15  
PT 
145  
RO 
20  
SI 
10  
SK 
545  
FI 
3 745  
SE 
6 535  
UK  
5  
IC 
3 675  
NO 
2 455  
CH  
Source : Eurostat. Newsrelease 48/2013 – 22 March 2013 
Notes :  
* Eurostat estimate including the Netherlands  
** EU27 top three citizenships excluding data for the Netherlands  
: Data not available 

27 920  
1 565  
150  
125  
545  
6 975  
5  
25  
45  
285  
1 535  
4 410  
10  
20  
40  
5  
240  
1 235  
:  
1 775  
140  
85  
85  
15  
100  
775  
7 595  
130  
**  
1 185  
505  

6 415  
-  
-  
5  
120  
1 400  
10  
-  
20  
10  
-  
1 935  
15  
-  
-  
-  
40  
160  
:  
-  
250  
-  
0  
-  
80  
240  
1 060  
1 070  
**  
280  
1 315  

196 920  
18 970  
470  
545  
2 020  
41 510  
45  
840  
11 095  
2 070  
51 145  
13 900  
1 230  
120  
335  
1 610  
750  
155  
:  
11 440  
1 960  
130  
1 390  
185  
250  
1 535  
19 120  
14 110  
40  
5 430  
12 370  

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 6a Third-country nationals ordered to leave and returned 

Eurostat data 

EMN data 

Returned 
voluntarily 

TCN-s 
ordered to 
leave 

5470 
76 
NA 
 - 
13 995 
87 
449 
10 531 
NA 
 3 250 
1 424  
 1 135 
 2 019 
 1 000 
NA 
NA 
 39 
NA 
NA 
6 147 
  870 
2 186 

 51 220 
 2 050 
 2 375 
NA 
 20 000 
  580 
 2 065 
 84 705 
 60 880 
 77 600 
 29 345 
NA 
 2 070 
 1 910 
 1 945 
 7 450 
 2 255 
NA 
 8 160 
 7 995 
 8 565 
 3 015 
 2 055 
  490 
 4 300 
 19 905 
 49 315 
NA 

TCN-s 
returned 
following an 
order to leave 
 7 840 
  835 
  430 
NA 
 13 855 
  480 
  745 
 16 650 
 18 865 
 22 760 
 7 365 
NA 
 2 065 
 1 825 
 1 010 
 5 440 
  570 
NA 
 4 695 
 6 845 
 1 330 
 2 890 
 1 090 
  320 
 3 070 
 16 140 
 49 515 
NA 

Returned as 
part of forced 
return 
measures 
2151 
837(a) 
NA 
 - 
12 069 
116 
302 (5a) 
11 586 
15 117 
 10 305 
5 943 
 3 192 
  51 
  160 
NA 
 1 011 
266 
NA 
NA 
512  
 1 234 
703 
  80 
 273 
NA 
2 893 
30 302 
 1 397 

Among those returned 
voluntarily, returned through 
an Assisted Voluntary Return 
Programme 
4508 
51 
NA 
 - 
7 636 
29 
359  
6 324 
2 930 
 3 250 
  0 
  49 
  89 
  50 
NA 
  393 
 39 
NA 
NA 
  764 
  562 
113 

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 
Notes: 
1. "NA" means statistics were not available at the time this report was published. 
2. "-" means no report received from NCP 
3. Eurostat and NCP data have a different methodology behind. Therefore, these data should be analysed separate. Eurostat data ar
available online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database 
4. Eurostat data cover January-December 2012 excepting LU (LU data cover March- 
5. EMN NCP Data cover: 

  72 
NA 
12 988 
15 692  
NA 

  54 
NA 
 614 
3 519 
 1 750 

•  BE: January-December 2012  
•  DE: Total number of deportations and removals within the meaning of the national Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz) 
•  EE: 1st January 2012 to 30th November 2012 
•  HU: 1st January 2012 to 31st October 2012 
•  LT: 1st January 2012 to 30th September 2012 
•  PT: 1st January 2012 to 30th November 2012 
•  FR and IT: 1st January 2012 to 30th September 2012 

6a  BG:  statistics  include  103  persons  from  Syria  who  were  returned  by  their  own  wish  to  a  safe  third  country  rather  than  the
country of origin, following UNHCR recommendations 
7. a. Refers to deportation orders effected. B. Refers to IOM returns only.. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
 
Table  6b  Third-country  nationals  refused  at  external  borders  and  Third  country 
nationals found to be illegally present 2012  

TCNs refused 
at external 
borders 

TCNs found to 
be illegally 
present 

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 
Source: Eurostat 

2 390 
3 070 
190 
95 
3 820 
1 915 
2 205 
9 415 
199 830 
11 310 
7 350 
545 
1 820 
2 215 
5 
9 240 
200 
2 560 
245 
29 705 
1 240 
3 340 
7 665 
595 
1 640 
155 
13 300 
NA 

15 085 
2 050 
3 315 
630 
64 815 
905 
2 035 
72 420 
52 485 
49 760 
29 345 
7 840 
205 
2 080 
350 
NA 
2 255 
NA 
23 135 
8 140 
9 110 
2 145 
1 555 
1 395 
3 620 
23 205 
49 315 
NA 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 7 The number of third-country nationals relocated and resettled 2012 

TCNs 
relocated* 

TCNs 
resettled** 

  0 
NA 
NA 
 - 
0 
0 
  10 
0 
0 
NA 
  0 
  0 
  0 
  4 
  0 
  0 
NA 
NA 
0 
0 
  6 (a) 
NA 
NA 
  0 
NA 
  0 
NA 
  31 

0 
0 
25 
470 
305 
0 
50 
0 
80 
100 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
NA 
0 
0 
15 
0 
0 
0 
730 
1 680 
1 040 
1 231(a) 

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 
Source :  
* EMN 
** Eurostat (except NO) 
Notes: 
1. "NA" means statistics were not available at the time this report was published. 
2. "-" means no report received from NCP 
3. (a) PT: subsidiary protection 
4. (a) NO: includes 31 persons relocated from Malta 
5. PL: 50 relocations were planned in 2012, however the first third country nationals 
were not relocated until January 2013 (6 persons) 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 Unaccompanied minors 2012 

Unaccompanied 
minor asylum 
applicants* 

Unaccompanied 
minors not 
applying for 
asylum 
1.104 
0 
NA 
- 
NA 
11 
68 
NA 
2 319 
NA 
7 575 
NA 
NA 
56 
NA 
NA 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
11 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 

Unaccompanied 
minors 
(total or not 
specified) 
2 081 
    64 
NA 
- 
1 790 
13 
NA 
1 953 
NA 
NA 
NA* 
 20 
  1 
59 
16 
94 
86 
NA 
1 631 
 244 
    8 
NA 
 30 
146 
155 
3 578 
1 168 
986 

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 
Source :  
Data on unaccompanied minors total and not applying for asylum :  EMN 
*Data on Unaccompanied minor asylum applicant for 2012: Eurostat (except for MT) (NB.Rounded to nearest 5) 
Notes: 
1. "NA" means data are not available at the time this report was published. 
2. "-" means no report received from NCP 
3. Data cover: 

1 530 
60 
5 
355 
2 095 
0 
25 
75 
15 
490 
970 
25 
0 
5 
15 
185 
86 
NA 
 1 375 
245 
10 
135 
50 
30 
165 
3 580 
1 170 
105 

•  EE: 11 unaccompanied minors are allegedly minors, corresponding expertise is in progress  
•  DE : January to October 2012 
•  EL: Total is from 1st January 2012 until 31st May 2012; Unaccompanied minors applying for asylum:  1st 

January 2012 to 31st October 2012 
•  FR: 1st January to 30th September 2012 
•  HU: 1st January to 31st October 2012 
• 

IT*:  the  figure  for  unaccompanied  minors  not  applying  for  asylum  refers  to  the  stocks;  the  figure  for 
unaccompanied  minors  applying  for  international  protection  refers  to  flow  data  regarding  applications 
received  during  the  course  of  the  year.  They  derive  from  different  administrative  sources  and  are  not 
comparable. 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
4. On unaccompanied minors not applying for asylum 

• 

 BE: Note: This concerns the number of apprehensions of UAMs. It is possible that the same person was   
apprehended several times using a different identity. 
IE: 1st January to 30th November 2012. 

• 
IT: 1st January to 30th September 20125. On unaccompanied minor asylum applicant: 
BE*: 1530 persons applied for asylum during 2012 and declared themselves as an unaccompanied minor. After 
age testing, the number decreased to 977 
• 

IE: 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2012 

EN 

97 

   EN 

Table 9 Data on trafficking in human beings 

Arrested 
traffickers 

Convicted 
traffickers 

NA 
112 
NA 
- 
NA 
NA 
NA 
49 
NA 
NA 
0 
NA 
18 
NA 
2 
NA 
1 (a) 
NA 
NA 
1 
NA 
427 
NA 
7 (b) 
5 
5 
NA 
NA 

NA 
101 
NA 
- 
NA 
NA 
NA 
171 
160 
3 620 
380 
NA 
17 
NA 
4 
NA 
2 
NA 
NA 
23 
NA 
NA 
NA 
16 
12 
16 
NA 
NA 

TCNs receiving a 
residence permit 
as victims of 
human trafficking 
35 
1 
NA 
- 
NA 
NA 
NA 
7 
NA 
25 
392 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
0 
NA 
NA 
16 
NA 
0 
2 
NA 
NA 
25 
200 
33 

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 
Notes: 
1. "NA" means statistics were not available at the time this report was published. 
2. "-" means no report received from NCP 
3. Data cover: 
BE: January to December 2012 
ES – First semester only 
IE: statistics only available between 2009 and 2012: these include 21 reflection periods / temporary residence 
permits issued; 11 convicted traffickers.  Statistics for arrested traffickers are not available 
IT: 392 (humanitarian reasons Art. 18 D.L. 286/98) + 74 (exploitation in the workplace Art. 18 D.L. 286/98) 
PL: data until April 
FR and UK: data available from 1st January 2012 30th September 2012 
SE 1st January to 30th September 2012. 
UK This encompasses refugee leave, humanitarian protection, and discretionary leave due to personal 
circumstances or co-operation with police investigations. 
4. (a) MT: sentence subject to appeal 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
4. (b) SK: 7 cases remain pending 

EN 

99 

   EN 

11. 

ABBREVIATIONS USED 

ABC System   
ACP 
ACT 
ADA 
AFM    
API 
AVR 
AVRR  
BBAP PFP 
BIO 
BMP Project 
BSTC   
CABSI  
CCV 
CDE 
CEAS   
CEOP   
CGAP  
CGI 
CIA  
CIRAM 
CIREFI 

CTA 
DAPS   
DFID   
DGDC  
DSR 
EAC 
EASO   
ECHR  
ECOWAS 
eGate   
EIF 
EMN 
EMN NCP 
ENARO  
ERF  
ERPUM  
ESF 
EURASIL 
EUREMA 
EUROSUR 
FOO 
FRA 
FRAN   
FREEMO 

Automated Border Crossing System (UK) 
Africa, the Caribean and the Pacific 
Authority of Working Conditions (PT) 
Austrian Development Agency (AT) 
Armed Forces of Malta (MT) 
Advanced Passenger Information (CZ) 
Assisted Voluntary Return 
Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration 
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) 
Central Asia Border Security Initiative  
Common Visa Centre 
Centre for Development of Enterprise (BE) 
Common European Asylum System  
Child Exploitation and Online Protection (UK) 
Independent policy and research centre  
Common Ground Initiative  
Common Integration Agenda 
Common Integrated Risk Analysis Model (PL) 
Centre  for  Information,  Discussion  and  Exchange  on  the  Crossing  of 
Frontiers and Immigration 
Common Travel Area 
Ministry of the Interior, Directorate of Alien Police Service (CZ) 
Department for International development (UK) 
Directorate General for Development Cooperation  
Daily Statistics Reports (SK) 
European Asylum Curriculum 
European Asylum Support Office 
European Court of Human Rights 
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 
European Migration Network National Contact Point 
European Network of Asylum Reception Organisations 
European Refugee Fund  or European Retrun Fund 
European Returns Platform for Unaccompanied Minors 
European Social Fund 
European Union Network for Asylum Practitioners 
EU Relocation Malta 
European External Border Surveillance System 
Frontex Operational Office 
The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights 
Frontex Risk Analysis Network  
Family reunification and on the free movement of persons 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FRONTEX 

GASIM 
GDISC  
IBIS 
IBM  
ICMC   
ICMPD  
ICONet 

ICPN   
iFADO 
IFAD   
IGC  
ILOs 
IMDi 
IND 
INIS 
INPS 
IOM  
JIT 
JSG 
JUPO   
KIM 
MAC    
MELITA 
MIDA  
MIDWEB 
MIEUX 
MIM 
MSR 
MTM i-MAP   
MTV 
NAATP  
NAPTIP 
NCC  
NCIS   
NDFU  
NFI 
NIRVA 
NQF 
NSHF   
NVIS   
OECD   
OPMI   
PBS  
PNR 
PRADO 
PRIO   
RAPID 

 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 
Irish Border Information System (IE) 
Integrated Border Management (AT) 
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 
Directorate of Integration and Diversity (NO) 
Migration Authority (NL) 
The Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service 
National Institute for Social Pensions (IT) 
International Organization for Migration 
Joint Investigation Team (Frontex) 
NGO Joint Strategic Group (UK) 
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 Africa  
Migration for Development in the Western Balkans   
Migration EU Expertise  
Mutual Information Mechanism 
Monthly Statistics Reports (SK) 
Interactive Map on Migration 
Mobile Security Monitoring  
Romanian National Agency against Trafficking in Persons  
Nigerian National Agency for Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons 
National Coordination Centre (NO) 
National Crime Investigation Service (NO) 
National Document Fraud Unit (UK) 
Netherlands Forensic Institute (NL) 
Italian Networking for the Assisted Voluntary Return (IT) 
National Qualifications Framework 
Nordic Cooperation in Migration and Asylum 
National Visa Systems  
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration (IE) 
Points Based System (UK) 
Passengers Name Record  
Public Register of Authentic Documents Online 
Norwegian Peace Research Institute (NO) 
Automatic Recognition System for Passengers Identified by Documents 
(PT) 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RDW   
RF 
RESTART II    
RPPs 
RT 
SAT 
SCIBM Project 

SEF 
SIS 
SOCA  
TAIEX 
TCNs   
UNHCR  
ONODC 
UAM   
UDI 
UNDP  
UNFPA 
UNIFEM 

UKBF  
VAC 
VARRE 
VGM   
VREN  

Government Road Transport Agency (NL) 
European Return Fund 
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 
Unaccompanied minor 
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 
UK Border Force  
Canadian Visa Application Centres 
Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration in Estonia (EE) 
Innovation of Border Management (NL) 
Voluntary Return European Network 

EN 

102 

   EN