COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 5th Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2013)
Date: 2014-05-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU statistics, European Union Agency for Asylum, European cooperation, equal treatment, external border of the EU, return migration, right of asylum, trafficking in human beings













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0165 - EN











|



52014SC0165

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 5th Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum (2013) /* SWD/2014/0165 final */









Contents
1............ INTRODUCTION.. 6
2............ INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM... 7
2.1......... Common European Asylum
System.. 7
2.1.1...... The Qualification Directive. 10
2.1.2...... The Reception Conditions
Directive. 11
2.1.3...... The Asylum Procedures
Directive. 11
2.1.4...... The Dublin Regulation. 12
2.1.5...... The Eurodac Regulation. 13
2.1.6...... Institutional and
legislative changes. 14
2.1.7...... Jurisprudence. 15
2.1.8...... Efficiency and quality of
asylum procedures. 18
2.1.9...... Challenges in the asylum
field. 19
2.2......... Emergency funding after
"Lampedusa" and other emergency measures funded in 2013. 20
2.3......... Cooperation with the
European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 21
2.3.1...... Participation in EASO
activities and provision of support by EASO to the Member States. 22
2.4......... Intra-EU solidarity
including relocation. 22
2.4.1...... Support to national asylum
systems including relocation. 22
2.4.2...... Joint/supported processing
of asylum applications. 23
2.5......... Enhancing the external
dimension including resettlement 24
2.5.1...... Cooperation with third
countries including resettlement 24
3............ IRREGULAR MIGRATION
AND RETURN.. 27
3.1......... Priority I:
Strengthening cooperation with third countries of transit and origin on migration
management & Priority VII: Preventing illegal immigration from and via the
Southern Mediterranean countries  28
3.1.1...... Prevent and combat
irregular immigration by ensuring smooth and orderly return of irregular
migrants between states; ensure implementation of all EU readmission agreements
to their full effect 28
3.1.2...... Enhance the capacity of
countries of origin and transit to manage mixed migration flows. 30
3.1.3...... Prevention of irregular
migration from the Southern Mediterranean countries; the Western Mediterranean
and the African Atlantic coast 31
3.1.4...... Prevention of irregular
migration from the Eastern Partners; address migratory pressures via the 'Silk
Routes', including prevention of irregular migration and combating trafficking
in human beings  33
3.1.5...... Prevention of irregular
migration from the Western Balkans. 34
3.2......... Priority II: Enhanced
border management at the external borders. 36
3.2.1...... Border control measures:
technology, equipment and infrastructure, including systems linked to EU
instruments and actions to coordinate different types of border checks. 36
3.2.2...... Border control measures:
(other) activities to improve the effectiveness of controls at external borders
(e.g. training and policy) 37
3.2.3...... Border control measures:
support to Member States experiencing disproportionate pressures at the border
(including participation in FRONTEX operations) 38
3.2.4...... Preventing and combating
irregular immigration by ensuring strong and efficient border control
agreements with third countries. 38
3.3......... Priority III: Preventing
irregular migration from Turkey. 39
3.3.1...... Ensure effective border
controls at the Greek-Turkish border and combat irregular immigration
transiting Turkey to enter the EU.. 39
3.4......... Priority IV: Better
tackling of abuse of legal migration channels. 41
3.4.1...... Prevent an increase in
unfounded asylum applications as a direct consequence of introducing a visa
free regime for a third country; combat and prevent irregular migration caused
by visa liberalisation  41
3.4.2...... Combat and prevent
irregular migration through misuse of family reunification. 43
3.4.3...... Combat and prevent
irregular migration through misuse of student migration. 44
3.5......... Priority V: Safeguarding
and protecting free movement by prevention of abuse by third-country nationals  44
3.5.1...... Improve the understanding
of abuse of free movement rights by third country nationals and organised crime
aimed at facilitating irregular immigration; and prevent the fraudulent
acquisition and use of free movement rights by third-country nationals. 44
3.6......... Priority VI: Enhancing
migration management including cooperation on return practices. 46
3.6.1...... Ensure that all Member
States have efficient migration management systems in place in order to be
prepared for fluctuating migration pressures. 46
3.6.2...... Maximise the potential of a
common EU approach in the field of return, both voluntary and forced in
compliance with existing EU acquis. 47
3.7......... Other measures to combat
irregular migration. 54
3.7.1...... Developing a network of
immigration liaison officers. 54
3.7.2...... Monitor and identify
migration routes. 56
3.7.3...... Identify and curb irregular
migration routes inside the Schengen Area through improved cooperation and
information exchange; improve the situational picture of migration pressures by
taking into account modi operandi used for secondary movements within the EU.. 56
3.7.4...... Sanctions and measures
against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. 56
3.8......... The fight against
facilitation of irregular migration (‘smuggling’) 57
3.8.1...... National actions and
international cooperation against smuggling. 58
3.8.2...... Activities to monitor
smuggling. 59
4............ UNACCOMPANIED MINORS
AND OTHER VULNERABLE GROUPS. 60
4.1......... Unaccompanied minors. 60
4.2......... Other vulnerable groups. 62
5............ ACTIONS ADDRESSING
TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS. 64
5.1......... Implementation of the EU
Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings:  Identifying,
protecting and assisting victims of trafficking. 64
5.1.1...... Improving the
identification of and provision of information to victims. 64
5.1.2...... Protection of Child Victims
of Trafficking. 66
5.2......... Implementation of the EU
Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings:  Enhanced
coordination and cooperation among key actors and policy coherence. 68
5.2.1...... Coordination and
cooperation among key actors. 68
5.2.2...... Coordinating EU External
Policy Activities. 70
5.3......... Implementation of the EU
Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings: Increased
knowledge of and effective response to emerging concerns related to all forms
of trafficking in human beings. 70
5.3.1...... Developing an EU-wide
system for data collection. 70
6............ Legal Migration and
Mobility. 72
6.1......... Promoting legal routes
to Europe – developing and implementing EU legislation. 73
6.1.1...... Highly qualified workers -
implementation of the EU Blue Card Directive. 74
6.1.2...... Intra-Corporate Transferees
(ICTs) 76
6.1.3...... Seasonal workers. 77
6.1.4...... Students and researchers. 77
6.1.5...... The "Single
Permit" Directive, simplified procedure and equal rights extended to a
wider group  79
6.1.6...... Family Reunification. 80
6.2......... Economic migration and
trade related mobility. 82
6.2.1...... Satisfying labour market
needs. 82
6.2.2...... Skills Recognition and
labour matching. 84
6.2.3...... Developing migrants'
entrepreneurship and trade related mobility. 85
6.2.4...... Cooperation with partner /
third countries for economic migration. 85
6.2.5...... Efforts to mitigate ‘brain
drain’ 87
6.2.6...... Efforts to avoid ‘social
dumping’ 87
6.2.7...... Promoting legal migration
channels. 89
6.3......... Integration. 90
6.3.1...... A European agenda for the
integration of third-country nationals. 91
6.3.2...... Promoting integration
through participation: rights and obligations, achieving equal treatment and
belonging  93
6.3.3...... Non-discrimination and equal
treatment 94
6.3.4...... Cooperation, consultation
and coordination of stakeholders and promoting action at local level 95
6.3.5...... Involvement of countries of
origin. 96
6.4......... Managing Migration and
Mobility. 98
6.4.1...... Visa Policy. 98
6.4.2...... Schengen Governance. 99
6.4.3...... Smart Border Package. 100
7............ MAXIMISING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF MIGRATION AND MOBILITY.. 102
7.1......... Progress towards
ensuring effective policy coherence and mainstreaming of migration in
development policies. 102
7.2......... Migrants’ Remittances. 104
7.3......... Working with Diasporas. 105
8............ PROVISION AND
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT POLICY DEVELOPMENT  107
8.1......... Exchange of Information
within the European Migration Network. 107
8.2......... Exchange of Information
and Communication. 107
9............ STATISTICAL ANNEX.. 110
10.......... ABBREVIATIONS USED.. 138
1.           INTRODUCTION
This paper, which
accompanies the Communication from the Commission on the 5th Annual
Report on Immigration and Asylum (2013)[1],
provides a factual overview of the main developments in the area of migration
and international protection over the year 2013, at both EU and national level.
It covers the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013.
The paper is structured
according to the following main sections: International Protection and Asylum,
Irregular Migration and Return, Unaccompanied Minors and other vulnerable
groups, Trafficking in Human Beings, Legal Migration and Mobility, and
Development and Migration. A Statistical Annex (Chapter 9) provides 2013 data
on migration from Eurostat, and the European Migration Network National Contact
Points.
Information regarding
developments at EU level were provided essentially by the Commission,
whereas developments at national level[2]  refer to the contributions provided by the National Contact Points
of the European Migration Network (EMN NCPs), including Norway[3], as part of its Annual Policy Report activity[4]. 
2.           INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION INCLUDING ASYLUM
2.1.        Common
European Asylum System
Figure
1: Asylum applications in EU-28, January 2012 – December 2013
Source: Eurostat (migr_asyapp)
Figure
2: Total first instance decisions on asylum applications and total positive
decisions in first instance, 2013
Source: Eurostat (migr_asydec)
Tables 1 and 2
in the Annex, provide an overview of asylum applicants and first instance
decisions by Member State and Norway in 2013. 
During
2013, there were 434 160 asylum applicants, representing an increase of
nearly 30 % since 2012 (336 015 asylum applicants)[5] (see
Figure 1). The main countries of citizenship of the applicants were Syria (50 470) representing 12% of total EU-28 applicants, Russian Federation (41 270 or 10%) and Afghanistan (26 290 or 6%). Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Italy registered nearly 70% of all applicants, with the highest number registered in Germany (126 705, or 29% of the total) and followed by France (64 760, or 14%), Sweden (54 270, or 12%), the United Kingdom (29 875, or 6%) and Italy (27 930, or 6 %). When compared with the population of each
 Member State, the highest rates of applicants registered were recorded in Cyprus (5 330 applicants per million inhabitants), Luxembourg (32 070), Malta (2 245) and Romania (1 905). 
A
total of 326 310 first instance decisions were made in 2013 (see Figure
2), of which 11 730 were positive decisions (some 35%). Of these 49 510 (15%)
applicants were granted refugee status, 45 540 (14%) subsidiary protection and
17 685 (5%) authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons. There were 213 580
rejections (65% of decisions) overall.
At EU level: 2013
was an important year in terms of the advancement of the Common European Asylum
System. The co-legislators finalised negotiations on the recast Dublin and Eurodac Regulations and on the recast Reception Conditions and the Asylum
Procedures Directives. Consequently the full package of asylum instruments was
adopted on 26 June 2013[6].
The CEAS will provide better access to the asylum procedure for those who seek
protection; will lead to fairer, quicker and better quality asylum decisions;
and will provide dignified and decent conditions both for those who apply for
asylum and those who are granted international protection within the EU.
An emphasis on
uniform implementation follows from the adoption of the new asylum instruments
and will be the focus of Member States' efforts over the next few years.
Contact Committees were held on each instrument in 2013 in order to discuss the
provisions in detail with the aim of ensuring correct transposition of the new
texts and harmonisation of asylum practices. The goal of the CEAS is that an
asylum application in one Member State should follow a similar process and lead
to a similar outcome as in any other Member State, and that a similar treatment
is afforded to them during the examination of their asylum application.
Following conclusion of the negotiation of new legislation in 2013, the
Commission stepped up its regular contact with Member States to monitor their
application of EU asylum law. 
At
national level: Before looking at the implementation of
the EU asylum acquis, this report addresses some horizontal developments
in Member States, related to the CEAS.
Eight
Member States (BE, BG, EL, IT, LU, NL, SE, UK) adopted policies to enhance the
situation of vulnerable groups within the asylum procedure (see also section
4.2). In the area of legislation, a political agreement entered into effect in
the Netherlands, granting, under specific conditions, residence permits to
unaccompanied minors (initially for a period of one year, but eventually
leading to a permit for an indefinite period of time). In the United Kingdom, the policy on granting limited leave to unaccompanied asylum seeking
children was incorporated into the Immigration Rules. Meanwhile several Member
States drafted action plans or guidelines on how to deal with vulnerable
groups. Belgium updated its National Action Plan 2010-2014 on domestic
violence, which also includes information on how to better deal with vulnerable
groups in asylum procedures and Sweden adopted new operational guidelines for
age assessments of unaccompanied minors. In Spain, subsidiary provisions to the
Asylum Law in relation to vulnerable groups were drafted and their adoption is
currently under internal consultation. Bulgaria designated a special area for
unaccompanied minors in one of its reception centres and Italy raised the budget for the National Fund for the Reception of Unaccompanied Minors to
EUR 20 million. 
Training
also remained an important area of national activity in implementing the CEAS,
with at least eleven
Member States (BE, EE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LV, LU, MT, SE, SI) participating in training courses in 2013. Hungary trained staff in
preparing the implementation of the recast Dublin Regulation. Staff in Estonia participated in training on processing asylum claims while Italy trained officials involved
in complex rescue operations at sea, such as the Finance Police (Guardia di
Finanza) and the navy. Sweden expanded the induction programme of the Swedish Migration
Board for new recruits, started a new course and trained a number of
LGBT-specialists to assess LGBT claims by asylum applicants. Spain also provided training to staff from the Spanish Office for Asylum and Refugees on
LGBT claims and training on the international protection procedure to staff in
the Aliens Offices. A Belgian expert
coordinated the update of the EASO Interviewing Children Module. Staff members
in Belgium and Luxembourg participated in EASO training, respectively on the
issues of age assessment and family tracing (BE) and interviewing vulnerable
persons (LU).
Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Italy and Sweden amended policies on Country of Origin Information (COI). Belgium aims to harmonise the drafting of COI products, enhance efficiency of the
department and publish (in the near future) some COI products on the website of
the office of the CGRS (Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless
Persons)[7].
Meanwhile, Hungary improved COI-related output through regular reports,
conferences and training. Sweden launched a legal country database within the
COI Unit, gave priority to LGBT issues within the country information products,
and started an internet service “Focus Countries” which includes key country
and legal information on the nine most frequent countries of origin of asylum
seekers. In Italy, national experts collaborated in developing definitions and
implementing methodologies for quality control, while authorities responsible
for asylum applications increased usage of the EU COI Portal. Finally, Luxembourg confirmed the production of 18 reports in 2013 by Country of Origin Unit of the
Asylum Unit. Croatia gained access to Austrian database on countries of origin.
Several
Member States (BE, CY, HU, IE, SK) amended legislation in the area of appeal or
judicial review. Belgium amended several elements of the appeal procedure
before the Council for Aliens Law Litigation, including procedural changes and
some provisions to tackle improper use of the right of access to justice. Croatia provided training to
administrative courts judges dealing with asylum cases, including updates and
information on the activities within the framework of EASO and other issues
related to the asylum procedure. The Refugee Law amended in Cyprus now grants the right of appeal to beneficiaries of international protection applying
for family reunification. New legislation in Hungary reconfirmed that
asylum-seekers enjoy the right to stay on the territory during the course of
the whole asylum procedure. For rejected applicants in Ireland it is now possible to appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in case of negative
decisions made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The Slovak Republic laid down the provision that since January 2013 only lawyers or the Legal Aid
Centre may represent an asylum in appeal procedures.
2.1.1.     The
Qualification Directive
At EU level: The
Qualification Directive[8]
was the first of the recast asylum instruments to be adopted in December 2011.
It specifies the grounds for granting international protection. Its provisions
also foresee a series of rights.
The minimum
standards in the previous Directive[9]
were to a certain extent vague, which maintained divergences in national asylum
legislation and practices. The chances of a person to be granted international
protection could vary tremendously depending on the Member State processing the asylum application. 
The new
Qualification Directive will contribute to improve the quality of the
decision-making and ensure that people fleeing persecution, wars and torture
are treated fairly, in a uniform manner. It clarifies the grounds for granting
international protection and will lead to more robust determinations. It
significantly upgrades the rights granted to beneficiaries of subsidiary
protection. It will also ensure a better taking into account of the best
interests of the child and of gender-related aspects and it will improve the
access of beneficiaries of international protection to rights and integration
measures. The new Directive becomes applicable from 22 December 2013. 
Finally, based
on the extension of the scope of the Long Term Residents Directive[10]
applicable as of 20 May 2013, beneficiaries of international protection have
become entitled to the status of long term residents and to intra-EU mobility
under certain conditions, in particular after five years of legal and
continuous residence in the Member State that granted the protection.
At
national level: A number of Member States (BE, CY, EL,
IT, NL, LV, SE) changed policies or practices on
first instance procedures. Belgium amended its Immigration Law, including
changes to implement provisions of the recast EU Qualification Directive and
the current Asylum Procedures Directive by clarifying certain concepts and
introducing the concept of ‘first country of asylum’. This makes it possible to
reject an asylum application if the asylum seeker already enjoys refugee status
in another Member State, or sufficient protection in a third country.
Legislation was also amended in Cyprus where the access procedure was changed
to allow applicants and their legal representatives’ access to the interview
transcript before proceeding with an appeal procedure. Greece implemented the Qualifications Directive through the adoption of a presidential
degree concerning mainly legal aid to asylum applicants. Latvia implemented several procedural changes, such as deadlines, clarification of the
procedure for submission of repeated applications, while specifying the
conditions for the application of judicial proceedings. Sweden did not amend procedures but continued its increased use of video interviews to
improve flexibility and cost-efficiency. Finally, Belgium, Luxembourg,  France and Slovak Republic updated their list of safe countries.
2.1.2.     The
Reception Conditions Directive
At EU level: The
recast Reception Conditions Directive[11]
met with political agreement between the co-legislators in 2012 and was adopted
in June 2013 together with the remaining recast asylum instruments. It deals
with access to reception conditions for asylum seekers while they wait for the
examination of their claim. It ensures that applicants have access to housing,
food, health care and employment, as well as medical and psychological care.
Under the
previous Directive,[12]
diverging practices among Member States sometimes led to an inadequate level of
material reception conditions for asylum seekers. The new Directive aims to
ensure better as well as more harmonised standards of reception conditions
throughout the Union. These include, for the first time, detailed common rules
on the issue of detention of asylum seekers, ensuring that their fundamental
rights are fully respected. The new Directive becomes fully applicable from 21
July 2015. 
At
national level: In the area of reception facilities, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Poland amended the capacity of accommodation. In Belgium, the agency responsible for the reception of asylum seekers (Fedasil) was able to
decrease reception capacity, focus more on quality and install a buffer
capacity if the need arises to deal with sudden increases of asylum-seekers. Bulgaria increased reception capacity with 3 000 places and Poland opened a new reception centre
administrated by external institutions. Through its adoption of the Integrated
Action Plan for
management of a potential mass influx of asylum seekers / illegal immigrants, in
the case of massive influx of asylum applicants, Romania will now be able to
increase its reception capacity up to 2 500 places. Greece established a new
reception centre in Evros as well as two mobile reception units in Chios and Samos. Due to the dramatic increase of the number of asylum-seekers, Hungary established
new reception facilities, one reception centre in Vámosszabadi (operating since
August 2013) and a temporary one in Nagyfa (operating between May-October
2013). After the Lampedusa tragedy in October 2013 (see also section 2.2), Italy set up a fund to deal with the exceptional influx of asylum-seekers, which should
also meet the potential increased future needs in the area of reception.
Reception legislation was amended in Hungary and Lithuania. Hungary created a new detention regime, while as of 1st July 2013 a person
seeking recognition is entitled to work within the reception centre within nine
months of the submission of the application for recognition, and beyond that
according to the general rules applicable to foreigners. Lithuania amended legislation regarding grounds for detention of asylum seekers. Austria and the Slovak Republic worked on the quality of the accommodation centres and reception
facilities. Austria started a new working group on common quality criteria for
reception facilities.
2.1.3.     The
Asylum Procedures Directive
At EU level: The
Asylum Procedures Directive[13]
sets out rules on the whole process of claiming asylum, including on: how to
apply, how the application will be examined, what help the asylum seeker will
be given, how to appeal, what can be done if the applicant absconds, or how to
deal with repeated applications.
The previous
Directive[14]
was the lowest common denominator between Member States at the time. The rules
were often too vague and derogations allowed Member States to go below basic
agreed standards. 
The new Asylum
Procedures Directive is much more precise. It creates a coherent system, which
ensures that asylum decisions are made more efficiently and more fairly and
that all Member States examine applications with a common high quality
standard. 
The new
Directive includes clearer rules on how to apply for asylum. Procedures will be
both faster and more efficient such that normally an asylum procedure will not
take longer than six months.
Anyone in need
of special support - for example because of their age, disability, illness,
sexual orientation, or traumatic experiences - will receive adequate
assistance, including sufficient time, to explain their claim. Clear cases that
are unlikely to be well-founded can be dealt with in special procedures
('accelerated' and/or 'border' procedures). Rules on appeals in front of courts
are much clearer than previously and provide for an effective protection of the
applicants' rights. Member States will also become better equipped to deal with
abusive claims, in particular with subsequent applications made by the same
person. 
The new
Directive becomes applicable from 21 July 2015, with the exception of the
provisions regarding the duration of the asylum procedure which will become
applicable as of 21 July 2018.
At
national level: Bulgaria and Hungary introduced new practices to enhance applicants’ access to the asylum procedure for
applicants by improving access to information. In the Netherlands a new Application Centre for the registration of applications for international
protection was opened at Schiphol Airport. The general asylum procedure for
aliens at Schiphol AC has changed and applicants filing a claim at the airport
are now entitled to six days preparation prior to submitting the application as
is the case at other Application Centres. Greece has established four new
regional asylum offices (Attica, North Evros, South Evros and Lesvos), while
the opening of other four is planned in 2014.
Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovak Republic amended policies relating to access to legal counselling and
interpretation. A new free legal assistance service in Hungary started its work in all reception centres, while the Office of Immigration and Nationality
extended cooperation with other organizations (e.g. Hungarian Helsinki
Committee) that provide free legal assistance for asylum-seekers. In a similar
vein, Poland launched a working group on providing free legal aid from 2015.  Italy launched projects for legal counselling and interpretation. 
2.1.4.     The Dublin Regulation
At EU level: The
Dublin Regulation[15]
determines that the responsibility for examining claim lies primarily with the Member State which played the greatest part in the applicant's entry or residence in the
EU. The criteria for establishing responsibility run, in hierarchical order,
from family considerations, to recent possession of visa or residence permit in
a Member State, to whether the applicant has entered EU irregularly, or regularly.
Experience of
the previous Regulation[16]
has however shown the need to better address situations of particular pressure
on Member States' reception capacities and asylum systems. The revised
Regulation contains sound procedures for the protection of asylum applicants
and improves the system’s efficiency. 
New provisions
include: an early warning, preparedness and crisis management mechanism; a
series of provisions on protection of applicants, such as compulsory personal
interview, guarantees for minors; the possibility for appeals to suspend the
execution of the transfer for the period when the appeal is judged; an
obligation to ensure legal assistance free of charge upon request; a single
ground for detention in case of risk of absconding; strict limitations of the
duration of detention; an obligation to guarantee right to appeal against
transfer decision; more legal clarity of procedures between Member States -
e.g. exhaustive and clearer deadlines. The entire "Dublin procedure"
cannot last longer than 11 months to take charge of a person, or 9 months to
take him/her back (except for absconding or where the person is imprisoned).
The new Regulation became applicable in 1 January 2014. 
A revision of
the Dublin Implementing Regulation was adopted in early 2014 to assist national
authorities in the implementation of the new instrument.[17] In
2013 the CJEU also issued significant judgments on the Dublin Regulation.[18] The
Implementing Regulation covers various issues relevant for the application of
the Dublin Regulation, such as uniform conditions for the consultation and
exchange of information on minors and dependent persons, including standard
forms on the exchange of information between Member States on these issues;
uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take charge and take
back requests, as well as the exchange of information regarding Dublin
transfers, including on a person's health; two lists of relevant elements of
proof and circumstantial evidence; a common format for a laissez passer; a
common leaflet on the Dublin and Eurodac regulations, as well as a specific
leaflet for unaccompanied minors; the set-up of secure electronic transmission
channels for the transmission of requests.
At national
level:
 Croatia began to implement the Dublin Regulation on 1st July 2013, receiving
some 372 applications over the year from other (Member) States, predominantly Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria and Switzerland. Hungary experienced an augmented
caseload resulting from the Dublin procedure (by 465% compared to 2012)  due
to increased requests from the other Member States and Spain also experienced
an increased number of requests within the Dublin procedure (a 20% raise as
compared to 2013). Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
declared that they would no longer send back unaccompanied minors (UAMs) if
there are no family members residing in another (Member) State in keeping with
the ECJ ruling on UAMs of June 2013 (Case C‑648/11).As a
result these Member States will consider substantive claims for asylum from
UAMs even if they have previously applied for asylum in another Member State. 
2.1.5.     The Eurodac Regulation
At EU level: The
Eurodac Regulation[19]
establishes an EU asylum fingerprint database. When someone applies for asylum,
no matter where they are in the EU, their fingerprints are transmitted to the
Eurodac central system. Eurodac has been operating since 2003 and has proved a
very successful IT tool. 
Some updates
were however required, in particular to reduce the delay of transmission by
some Member States. The new Regulation therefore sets time limits for
fingerprint data to be transmitted and ensures full compatibility with the
latest asylum legislation and better addresses data protection requirements.
Until now, the
Eurodac database could only be used for asylum purposes. The new Regulation now
allows national law enforcement forces and Europol to compare fingerprints
linked to criminal investigations with those contained in Eurodac. This will
take place under strictly controlled circumstances and only for the purpose of
the prevention, detection and investigation of serious crimes and terrorism. 
Eurodac has been
operated by the Commission since 2003. In June 2013, the operational management
of Eurodac was transferred to the EU-LISA.[20]

2.1.6.     Institutional
and legislative changes
At
national level: Austria established new institutions, which would
take over responsibility for processing asylum applications and appeals. The United Kingdom established new immigration rules allowing a stateless person to apply for
Leave to Remain though the Home Office but separately form the Asylum system.
In Belgium, Finland and Ireland there were shifts in the governmental
departments responsible for the assessing new facts and circumstances presented
by applicants for international protection during subsequent applications (BE),
legal aid and cost compensation (FI) and the granting subsidiary protection
(IE). In Greece the new Asylum Service, the first four new regional asylum
offices and the new First Reception Service became operational. In response to
a sudden influx of applicants for international protection, Italy set up seven temporary territorial commissions (regional offices) to process
decisions on applications. The United Kingdom restructured its processes for
case management meaning that a single case worker would no longer be
responsible for a single case, but rather that management of the case would be
passed down through different expert teams throughout the life of the case via
clear and effective handovers. Croatia continued to further strengthen its own
asylum capacities increasing the number of employees in the competent office.
Legislative
changes in the asylum field took place in 21 Member State (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ,
DE, EE, IE, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK). Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovak Republic made changes to transpose the EU Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU. In
  Italy, amendments to legislation in this area also introduced a regulation
relevant to international and subsidiary protection status holders’ access to
public employment. These citizens (as well as third-country family members of
EU citizens and third-country nations with residency permission in the EC over
a long period of time) can be employed by public authorities on an equal
footing with EU citizens. Eight Member States (CZ, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO)
changed national legislation to transpose Directive 2011/51/EU amending Council
Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international
protection.  Croatia transposed five Directives through several
amendments to the Asylum Act which entered into force on 10 December 2013[21].
In 2013, Ireland signed the EU Subsidiary Protection Regulation, which came into force in the same
year and gives applicants the opportunity of appeal. This national legislation
makes it possible for applicants to be interviewed as part of the first
instance investigation of their application and gives them the opportunity of
an appeal. Cyprus amended the national Refugee Law Regulations for Reception
Conditions regarding financial and other aid to those seeking international
protection. Germany amended national legislation to ensure temporary legal
protection against transfer decisions. Estonia amended national laws in the
area of the protection of the rights of unaccompanied minors, as well as in the
field of reception and detention. Luxembourg also amended national legislation
on international protection. Latvia made changes to the Asylum law regarding
reception and detention. The United Kingdom introduced provisions to allow a
stateless person to apply for leave to remain on that basis. The new policy and
procedure is primarily intended for those who do not qualify for refugee status
or subsidiary protection. Two Member States drafted national action plans: Bulgaria drafted an action plan for dealing with increased migratory pressures. France adopted an Action Plan to reform the French Office for the Protection of Refugees
and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) aiming at improving its working method.
2.1.7.     Jurisprudence
At EU level: On 6
June 2013, the CJEU issued a judgment in Case C‑648/11, MA, BT, DA v Secretary
of State for the Home Department a request for a preliminary ruling
concerning the interpretation of Article 6 of the Council Regulation (EC) No
343/2003.[22]
The CJEU confirmed that where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his
family legally present in the territory of a Member State has lodged asylum
applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in which that
minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be
designated the ‘Member State responsible’.
On 7 November
2013, the CJEU issued a judgment in Case C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12, X, Y,
Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel concerning persecution based on
sexual orientation.  The CJEU confirmed that a person's sexual orientation is a
characteristic so fundamental to his or her identity that he or she should not
be forced to renounce it. In that connection, the Court recognises that the
existence of criminal laws specifically targeting homosexuals supports a
finding that those persons form a separate group which is perceived by the
surrounding society as being different. The CJEU further confirmed that not all
violations of the fundamental rights of an applicant amount to persecution
within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, but only those which are
sufficiently serious. This is not the case of the mere existence of laws
criminalising homosexual acts. However, the enforcement of such laws, in
particular where the penalty attached is a term of imprisonment, may constitute
an act of persecution. Finally, the CJEU ruled that it is not reasonable to
expect that in order to avoid persecution an asylum seeker should conceal his
homosexuality in his country of origin or exercise restraint in expressing it.
On 14 November
2013 the CJEU issued a judgment in Case C‑4/11, in the proceedings Bundesrepublik
Deutschland v Kaveh Puid, concerning the interpretation of Article 3(2) of
the Dublin Regulation and more precisely whether the duty of the Member States
to exercise their right under the first sentence of Article 3(2) results in an
enforceable personal right on the part of the asylum seeker to force a Member
State to assume responsibility.
The Grand
Chamber ruled that where the Member States cannot be unaware that systemic
deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of
asylum seekers in the Member State initially identified as responsible in
accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC)
No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for
determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application
lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national provide
substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker concerned would face a
real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the
meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify, the Member State
which is determining the Member State responsible is required not to transfer
the asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible and,
subject to the exercise of the right itself to examine the application, to
continue to examine the criteria set out in that chapter, in order to establish
whether another Member State can be identified as responsible in accordance
with one of those criteria or, if it cannot, under Article 13 of the
Regulation. Conversely, in such a situation, a finding that it is impossible to
transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as
responsible does not in itself mean that the Member State which is determining
the Member State responsible is required itself, under Article 3(2) of
Regulation No 343/2003, to examine the application for asylum.
On 10 December
2013 the CJEU issued the judgment in Case C‑394/12, a request for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings  Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt
concerning the interpretation of Articles 10, 16, 18 and 19 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 343/2003. The Grand Chamber ruled that Article 19(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in
circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant
for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in Article 10(1) of that
regulation – namely, as the Member State of the first entry of the applicant
for asylum into the European Union – the only way in which the applicant for
asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading
systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the
reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide
substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a
real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning
of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
At
national level: In Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom a number of cases provided for new jurisprudence in the area of asylum. In Croatia administrative courts delivered 68 judgements on the decisions of rejections: 66 of
them confirmed the first instance decision, while, in one case the proceedings
were suspended and in one case the first instance decision was annulled.
In Belgium, jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court confirms the introduction of the concept
of safe country of origin in Belgian legislation[23]. The
Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) of the Czech Republic confirmed that asylum
seekers may send written evidence to the administrative body in their language
of preference and the administrative body has the obligation to translate it in
Czech or the language of the administrative procedure. In another ruling, the SAC
confirmed that an asylum seeker may leave the territory of the Czech Republic for a short term, which is contrary to Asylum act. The implications of both
rulings could be far-reaching and result in the amendment of relevant
legislation.
Regarding
procedural rights for asylum seekers there were developments in France, Germany and Slovak Republic. In France, a legal notice states that if an asylum seeker does
not respect the regulatory time limit to send a request to the responsible
authority, it does not prevent the submission of another request, which could
be subject to an accelerated procedure. In Germany, the Federal Administrative
  Court held that an asylum procedure may be terminated if the asylum-seeker
manipulates his or her fingertips and thus avoids having fingerprints taken.
Consequently, it establishes the precedent of the obligation to cooperate.
The
Supreme Court in Slovak Republic ruled that applicants are not required to
prove persecution by manner other than by their own credible statement. It is
up to the administrative authority, when in doubt over the credibility of the
applicant´s statement, to find evidence demonstrating that the applicant´s
statement is not truthful.[24]
In
the area of return, a court in Finland ruled that if a person cannot be
returned through forced return, a temporary residence permit is to be issued,
regardless of the fact if it would probably have been possible for the person
in question to return voluntarily. This ruling guides the Finnish Immigration
Service towards the principle that if there is a technical obstacle for
returning an asylum seeker to his/her home country, a temporary residence
permit, as defined in Section 51 of the Finnish Aliens Act, can be issued
regardless of the fact that there is no enforceable return decision.
Both
in Ireland and the Netherlands there were court rulings relating to the issue
of grounds for refusal. In Ireland, a Supreme Court ruling denied the Minister
the possibility to rely on the fact of a marriage being religious as a ground
for refusal. Also in Ireland, a High Court ruling stated that proxy marriages
which were valid according to the law of the locality in which it took place
would be recognised as valid in Irish law. In case the Minister is presented
with such a case, he or she will have to consider the applicant’s assertion
that a marriage has taken place and assess its credibility, based on all
circumstances.
In
relation to the application of the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) to
asylum seekers claiming persecution on grounds of their sexual orientation in
the Netherlands, the Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that while
homosexuals should be considered as a specific social group as intended in the
Convention on Refugees and Article 10, paragraph 1d of the Directive,  the
single penalization of homosexual acts can be deemed an act of persecution in
the sense of the Directive unless a prison sentence given in a law stating that
homosexual acts are penalised is actually adhered to. Nonetheless, the Court
also ruled that upon assessing an application for asylum, the authorities
cannot expect that asylum seekers keep their sexual orientation a secret in
their country of origin or practice it with reticence so as to avoid
persecution. 
2.1.8.     Efficiency
and quality of asylum procedures
At
national level: Thirteen Member States (BE, BG, DE, CY, EE, EL,
FI, HR, IT, LU, PL, SE, UK) undertook measures in 2013 to safeguard or improve
efficiency of their of asylum procedures.
Bulgaria, Cyprus and Luxembourg reduced processing times of applications. Luxembourg created a separate unit
for the Western Balkans within the Refugee Department. Applications have been
in majority resulted in an accelerated procedure. Because of increased
migratory pressures, Cyprus formalised the procedures for asylum applications
and integrated it under ERF national co-financing actions to increase the
processing speed. Greece improved the efficiency and quality of services
following the introduction of four new regional asylum offices and increasing
the service of interpreting and guidance to applicants. Romania continued to implement, on permanent bases, the system for ensuring the management
of asylum procedures quality, according with the Cooperation Agreement with
UNHCR.  
Germany, Italy and Sweden improved their efficiency in the area of IT and digital government. Italy continued a project started in 2012 on the digitalisation of international protection
applications and status recognition. Germany made improvements to IT systems
and the management of process flows. Sweden digitalised parts of the
application process. In other areas, Estonia outsourced the accommodation of
asylum applicants, which should lead to efficiency gains. Sweden introduced a special procedure for applications from Syria, started case segmentation and
provided accommodation for applicants subject to accelerated procedures in
facilities near transport hubs. Croatia, with a view to improving work and
achieving better results in general, relocated all Asylum Section staff from
the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior to the Asylum Seekers
Reception Centre.
Thirteen
Member States (BE, CY, DE, EE, FI, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, PL, SE, UK) introduced measures related to the quality of the national asylum system. Belgium, Latvia, Fran ce, Poland the United Kingdom improved the quality of the national asylum
system through the improvement of internal procedures and working methods.
Belgium set up a ‘Quality project’ to achieve better quality asylum decisions
and harmonise working methods, while it includes quality indicators, setting up
of a quality unit and methods of quality management. Spain signed a new
cooperation agreement with the United National High Commission for Refugees
(UNHCR), aimed to guarantee the UNHCR’s participation in the procedure and
including a financial grant to fulfil its role within the procedure. Two
Member states (LT and LV) implemented projects with UNHCR with the aim of
improving the quality of first instance asylum procedures. Poland implemented a large set of measures to enhance both efficiency and quality by
reducing workload, introducing monitoring indicators and participation in UNHCR
and EASO projects. The United Kingdom introduced a strengthened audit framework
and enhanced internal quality assessment standards. In France, an agreement was signed between the OFPRA’s Director General and the UNHCR Representative in
  France establishing quality controls and an evaluation grid with criteria on
the interview, investigation and decision. The objective is to envisage useful
measures for the improvement of the quality of the decisions taken. In other
areas, Luxembourg improved the quality of reception of applications and
communications by moving to new facilities, while it also intensified
cooperation with other Member States, in particular Austria and the Netherlands. Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Poland and Sweden carried out training activities to
improve the knowledge and competence of staff. 
Five
Member States (BE, FI, IT, LV, SE) demonstrate evidence of the effectiveness of
the above-mentioned measures. In Finland, improvements led to quicker
investigation and removal procedures, enhanced cost-efficiency and acceleration
of the placement of asylum seekers that received a residence permit. Italy partially overcame delays in examining asylum applications. Sweden reached better end-to-end processing times for applications subjected to accelerated
procedures. Latvia trained 25 providers of legal assistance and 10
representatives of the State Border Guard
2.1.9.     Challenges
in the asylum field
At
national level: In 2013, at least seventeen Member States
experienced challenges in the asylum field (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU,
IE, IT, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE).
The
challenge most frequently identified relates to increased migratory flows and
high numbers of asylum applications (AT, BG, CY, DE, ES, FR, HU, IT, RO, SE).
Member States are dealing with these pressures on the asylum system in a
variety of ways. Because of the increase in applications, Cyprus is facing the additional challenge of managing costs. Cyprus and Sweden seek to address the issue by having additional costs covered under the ERF. Malta experienced its second
highest number of annual arrivals of irregular migrants by boat during the past
decade, all of whom then proceeded to apply for international protection. Malta sought, and received, funding under the European Refugee Fund Emergency Assistance to
cover some of the costs related to accommodation and asylum–processing. As higher number of refugees arriving in Italy, the country also struggled to avoid the violation of non-refoulement at
borders or at sea. To deal with higher numbers of asylum seekers, Hungary and Italy developed plans to increase reception capacity, which in the case of Hungary is funded through the ERF emergency assistance. To tackle the increase in
applications from the Western Balkans recorded in some regions of the country, Belgium, France and Sweden visited this region to assess the reasons for the increase. When Germany
faces challenges in over- or understaffing levels, it makes use of staff
temporarily posted in other sections of the Federal Office for Migration and
Refugees (e.g. in the integration section) who are still trained to process the
claims.
Other
challenges experienced by Member States not directly relating to increases in
asylum applications include the length of proceedings, either relating to
administrative procedures of international protection (CZ) or high numbers of
pending appeal cases (IE, PT). To tackle this issue, the Czech Republic proposed changes in human resource management, while Ireland plans to revise national
legislation in the area. Portugal conducted meetings with judicial authorities
with a view to reducing delays in appeal. Malta reduced the backlog in appeal cases by creating three further chambers (in addition
to the previous two) within the Refugee Appeals Board, as well as by increasing
the number of lawyers providing legal aid to appellants. Germany sought to address the
issue of applicants who have previously registered in the asylum systems of
other (Member) States manipulating their fingertips to prevent a successful
EURODAC matching by introducing new procedures; applicants who do not provide
useable prints will be requested to re-take their fingerprints in compliance
with their obligation to cooperate and if this attempt fails again the case
will terminated. In a similar vein, the Netherlands faced challenges in
establishing the authenticity of claims of religious conversion as a reason for
asylum applications and was criticised for its procedures by external advocacy
groups; it sought to address this challenge by involving relevant religious
interest groups in the asylum interviews so that the assessment is transparent.
Finally, Sweden faced the difficulty of providing enough housing in
municipalities for asylum applicants granted residency. The Ombudsman’s Office
of Latvia investigated ways to improve access to social assistance and social
services for persons with subsidiary protection status by conducting a study on
the topic and subsequent discussions with representatives of relevant
ministries, local authorities and service providers.
Eight
Member States (CZ, DE, EE, FI, HU, IE, IT, NL) faced at least some criticism
for the challenges described above. The Czech Republic and Germany were
criticised  by the NGOs, the ombudsman and the Supreme Administrative Court
(CZ), the general public (DE) for the length of proceedings and Ireland faced
criticism in the media over the quality and appropriateness of its direct
provision reception centres in consideration of the time some applicants spend
there. Other points of criticism not indicated above were the detention of
unaccompanied minors seeking international protection (FI), the overcrowding of
open reception centres (HU) and the cost of dealing with the influx from
migrants from North Africa (IT). For Estonia, the isolated location of the
accommodation centre was criticized, a situation in the process of being
rectified in 2014.
2.2.        Emergency
funding after "Lampedusa" and other emergency measures funded in 2013
At EU level: The
Commission paid particular attention to Italy following the tragedy of
Lampedusa in order to support the authorities in managing their migratory flows
and step up their capacity to monitor the central Mediterranean route with a
view to improve border surveillance and save lives. To this end, Frontex
operations have been strengthened with an additional budget of EUR 7.9 million
while Italy received emergency allocations under the European Refugee Fund,
European Borders Fund and the Return Fund for a total of EUR 23 million. This
was aided by the implementation of a Special Support Plan by EASO aimed at
strengthening the Italian asylum system by providing training, Country of Origin
Information and support in order to improve the management of the reception
system.
In addition,
emergency measures were funded in 2013 under the European Refugee Fund (ERF)
for a total amount of EUR 36.34 million to respond promptly to the consequences
from the Syrian crisis, of which EUR 28.34 million were made available from
October 2013. Nine Member States benefitted of the ERF emergency measures:
Hungary
received EUR 1.17 million to reinforce its accommodation and administrative
capacity, to meet the challenges caused by the unprecedented increase in the
number of asylum seekers during the summer of 2013.
Italy
received EUR 12 million to strengthen the reception capacity through new
facilities, increase service supply in the already existing centres, and
reinforce the asylum procedure.
France
received EUR 1.6 million to increase emergency reception capacity for asylum
seekers in 2 particular regions (720 extra places). 
Malta
received EUR 3.7 million to improve the accommodation conditions in open
reception centres, the renovation and provision of supplies for closed
reception centres, and to reinforce the capacity of the Refugee Commissioner's
office in dealing with the asylum claims. 
Germany,
which was faced with the sudden arrival of a large number of asylum seekers (+
68% during the first two quarters of 2013 compared to the same period in 2012),
received EUR 4 million to cover additional reception and accommodation for
asylum seekers, including coverage of basic needs and supplies.
The Netherlands
received EUR 1.12 million for opening one additional reception centre to enable
600 asylum seekers to be properly housed and catered for.
Greece
received EUR 4 million to, inter alia, provide for the basic needs of people
that may be in need of international protection and medical screening.
Cyprus
received EUR 3.1 million to increase open accommodation capacities, together
with provision of medical support and screening, as well as to prepare for a
situation of mass influx from Syria.
Bulgaria
received EUR 5.65 million to enhance its accommodation and administrative
capacity, transportation/transfers, legal assistance and translation. Bulgaria plans to increase emergency accommodation capacities by up to 5 000 places.
Additionally,
emergency support was allocated to Greece and Bulgaria under the External
Borders Fund Community Actions:
Greece
received almost EUR 2 million under the External Borders Fund for a project to
support the First Reception Mobile Units operation for the first reception
procedures in areas that are under pressure by high migration flows. 
Bulgaria was
provided EUR
2.4 million under the External Borders Fund for reinforcing capacities of
the Bulgarian Border Police to identify and register new arrivals (within mixed
flows), improving accommodation capacities of the centres managed by the Border
Police, supporting costs of internal transportation of migrants, maintenance of
border control and surveillance technical equipment.
2.3.        Cooperation
with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO)
At EU level: The
European Asylum Support Office[25],
that became operational in June 2011, continued to be built up in 2013,
reaching a total of 71 staff and an allocation of EUR 11.9 million. The agency
has contributed significantly to the further development of practical
cooperation projects. In the field of training, 2 111 officials have been
trained in the modules included in the EASO Training Curriculum in 2013. EASO
also stepped up its activities in order to enhance the quality of the asylum
procedure focusing on access to protection, personal interview, evidence
assessment, and family tracing. As regards Country of Origin Information (COI),
it published a report on the Western Balkans[26]
and held several workshops on Syria, Russia and other key countries of origin
of asylum applicants. In the field of COI, the agency also developed a new
so-called "network approach" strategy, establishing networks of
experts from Member States in constant contact with key countries of origin of
asylum seekers, in order to share information and harmonise decisions at EU
level. In parallel, EASO developed its capacity to provide up-to-date
information on the main indicators in the field of asylum, including: new
applications, backlog of pending cases, and other qualitative analyses, thereby
contributing to the wider effort of implementing the provisions of Article 33
of the recast Dublin Regulation which establishes a permanent early warning and
preparedness mechanism to prevent crisis in the field of asylum to happen. 
While developing
these practical cooperation activities, the agency has continued its
operational activities in Member States by providing assistance to Greece, in line with the wider Action Plan on Migration and Asylum, as well as by activating a
special support plan for Italy and for Bulgaria due to the difficulties these
two countries were facing in managing their asylum applications. 
EASO also
published its second "Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the Union"[27] which
provides factual information on the state of play of the implementation of the
Common European Asylum System and an analysis of asylum flows towards the
European Union. 
The agency also
developed some initial actions in the field of relocation, resettlement and the
external dimension of the CEAS which will be developed further in 2014.
During 2013, the
European Commission carried out a first evaluation of the impact of EASO on the
implementation of the Common European Asylum System as foreseen in the
Communication on Intra EU Solidarity.[28]
2.3.1.     Participation in EASO activities and provision of support
by EASO to the Member States
At
national level: In 2013, 28 (Member) States apart from participated
in EASO activities. Activities ranged from the provision of experts and staff
for Asylum Support Teams (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EL, FI, FR, IE, MT, NL,
PL, RO, SE, SK, UK, NO), participation in training courses (BG, CY, EL, ES, HR,
LU,
MT, PL, PT,
SE, SI, SK, UK), practical cooperation, group meetings, workshops and seminars
(BE, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK, UK) and
institutional development and developing training modules (BE, CY, EL, ES, FR,
IE, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK). At the end of 2013 an association agreement
between Norway and EASO was initialled, and signings are expected in early 2014.
  Norway provided experts to EASO in 2013.
Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom received support from EASO. This support concerned technical assistance (BG, EL),
training and workshops (BG, EL, FI, FR, IT, HU, NL, PL, UK), emergency exercises (HU, RO) and special support plans (IT). UNHCR relocated 410 refugees in Romania to other countries.
The EASO
Training Curriculum was also used as a basis for training third country
national authorities within the EU-funded UNHCR project ‘Asylum Systems
Quality Initiative in Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus’. The
project was jointly implemented in 2013 by Germany, Poland, Romania and Sweden with a view to improving the quality of decision-making in this region. In the
first phase of the project, current asylum practices in the beneficiary
countries were mapped and in the second phase quality control mechanisms will
be established, staff will be trained, and country of origin information and
translate selected modules of the EASO Training Curriculum will be translated
into Russian.
2.4.        Intra-EU
solidarity including relocation
2.4.1.     Support
to national asylum systems including relocation[29]
At EU
level:
692 persons (either beneficiaries of international protection or, in a few
cases, asylum seekers) have been relocated from Malta since 2005. Following on
from the EUREMA I pilot project, a second project took place from 2011-2013. Ninety-seven
places were pledged for relocation through this project, but only 14 persons
were relocated. During the same period, 264 persons were relocated through
bilateral agreements outside the EUREMA project. Some of the reasons for the
limited success of the EUREMA II project include the fact that most
participants were "new" Member States that were for the first time
embarking on resettlement / relocation activities and had only small
non-European communities already established; or they had some limiting criteria
as to whom to relocate (e.g. families rather than single men).
Following on
from a discussion at the October 2012 JHA Council, the Commission announced
that an annual Relocation Forum would be held to discuss relocation issues. The
first one took place on 25 September 2013. The Forum was an opportunity for
Member States to discuss with the Commission both their needs for relocation
and their intentions as regards future relocation activities. Under the new
Asylum and Migration Fund, there will no longer be a project-based approach,
but instead the financing for relocation will be mainstreamed into Member
States' national programmes. In addition, a EUR 6 000 lump-sum per person
relocated is given to the Member State. 
The
Commission will evaluate the EUREMA projects and the bilateral relocation
efforts in 2014. 
At
national level: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Portugal, Sweden, Slovak Republic and Norway provided support to other (Member)
States experiencing specific and disproportionate pressures on their national
asylum systems.
A
number of Member States provided material and logistic support to Bulgaria (AT, BE, CZ, DK, HU, SK), Greece (AT, BE, UK) and Italy (BE). Denmark is in close contact
with the Bulgarian authorities in order to support them with their asylum
system. Sweden sent several asylum experts to Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Romania; and Norway provided EEA grants to Greece. The Czech Republic assisted the Asylum Intervention Teams managed by EASO in both Greece and Italy. Portugal deployed several experts to provide assistance to Greece and Bulgaria.
Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Slovak Republic continued to participate in EUREMA
II to
support Malta with the relocation of beneficiaries of protection. Ireland relocated ten people for permanent resettlement on a bilateral basis. Poland accepted seven persons under EUREMA II and saw six persons arrive in January 2013. Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovak Republic offered relocation to Malta but noted that no suitable candidates
were found. The four persons (citizens of Eritrea) relocated by Lithuania arrived in December 2012. Portugal also relocated 4 citizens of Sudanese
nationality from Malta in 2012. Persons relocated
under the EUREMA II project were assisted to integrate in the respective Member
States throughout 2013.
2.4.2.     Joint/supported
processing of asylum applications
At EU
level:
In
2013, the Commission undertook a study on the feasibility, and on the legal and
practical implications, of establishing a mechanism for the joint processing of
asylum applications on the territory of the EU.[30] The
purpose of the study was to provide a basis for discussion and informed
decisions about the possible development of such a solidarity mechanism that
would help Member States cope with some of the challenges they face in asylum
matters.
The
study indicated that the mechanism for joint processing would be employed in a
situation where a Member State's asylum system is struggling to cope with the
inflow of asylum seekers. In such a scenario, "joint processing
teams" would be set up on an ad hoc basis, consisting of officials from
the existing EASO Asylum Intervention Pool, who will support the State in
crisis either on the ground or by means of remote working. Participation in the
EASO Asylum Intervention Pool is mandatory, but participation in support
processing missions is voluntary, as is the request for support from the Member State in crisis.
The
supporting officials can make recommendations on the basis of the EU acquis
but the final decision is made by the Member State responsible for the
application (as defined by the Dublin Regulation), which would also be
responsible for any ensuing appeal cases, as well as for returns and removal
operations. This mechanism would be financed through funding of EASO and
support from the Asylum, Migration and Immigration Fund (AMIF).
The
start of a first pilot project of supported processing was included in the
recommendations of the Task Force Mediterranean (TFM), and will be started by EASO
in 2014.
2.5.        Enhancing the external
dimension including resettlement
2.5.1.     Cooperation
with third countries including resettlement[31]
At EU
level:
The EU has pursued policy dialogues and cooperation with third countries and
regions in line with the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM), the
overarching framework of the EU external migration and asylum policy, and
thereby contributing to institutional and legislative reforms and capacity
building in partner countries. The policy dialogues have been matched by
financial and operational support in the area of international protection and
asylum. Through the Commission’s development cooperation instruments more than
15 new projects in 20 partner countries have been launched in 2012-2013, for an
amount of more than EUR 25 million.
In
addition to work on existing Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs),[32] and
following a call from the Justice and Home Affairs Council in 2012,[33] the
Commission is responding to the on-going conflict in Syria and the refugee
situation in neighbouring countries by setting up during 2014 a Regional
(Development) and Protection Programme in the Middle East, complementary to the
immediate humanitarian assistance already being provided.
Apart
from wider humanitarian efforts in the region, the Commission is
also providing financial support to the UNHCR to support efforts enabling
refugees in countries neighbouring Syria to be properly registered and thus
gain access to protection. The support 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.
Solidarity
is also being shown with the countries neighbouring Syria that are hosting
almost all of the more than two million refugees who have fled Syria since 2011. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called for the
international community at large to offer some 12 000 places for the
resettlement and humanitarian admission of Syrians in 2013, only to increase
this call to some 30 000 by the end of 2014. Several Member States (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) responded to this call by offering more than 13 100 places. The
European Commission continues to support this call for resettlement and
humanitarian admission. The European Union also became member of the Core Group
on the Resettlement of Refugees from Syria.
The
resettlement of refugees from outside the EU continues to be a key act of
solidarity between the EU and its Member States with third countries that are
hosting large refugee populations. The Commission's goal is to ensure that more
refugees are resettled each year by more Member States, while respecting the
voluntary nature of resettlement. In reaching agreement on the Joint EU
Resettlement Programme[34]
under the European Refugee Fund in March 2012, Member States agreed, for the
first time, on specific common EU resettlement priorities for 2013[35]. This
gives a strong political signal of unity and solidarity with the international
community and refugees in need of a sustainable solution and is 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. The outlines of the Union Resettlement Programme from 2014
onwards are under negotiation as part of the new Asylum, Migration and
Integration Fund.
Under the 2013
call for proposals on Resettlement (Preparatory Action), which supports the
exchange of best practices and knowledge transfer on resettlement between
targeted municipalities and local authorities in Member States, only one
project was financed (EUR 0.5 million): SHARE II - Building a European
Resettlement Network for Cities and Regions, whose project coordinator is the
International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) - Europe. SHARE II follows
up on the SHARE Project' implemented during 2012-2013 by ICMC Europe in
partnership with Sheffield, UNHCR, EUROCITIES and others in 13 countries. The
main objective of the SHARE projects is to build toward a network of cities and
regions in Europe committed to receiving resettled refugees, ensuring a
significant number of places and good quality reception and integration
structures and practice’. SHARE II reaches out to actors in all EU Member
States through activities involving Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
In 2013, three
projects selected under the 2012 call on Preparatory Action on emergency
resettlement were implemented, i.e. to enable the resettlement of refugees
during emergency situations. UNHCR received EUR 1.5 million to renovate and
upgrade the UNHCR Emergency Transit Facility in Romania and Slovakia, to
support its staff capacity for urgent resettlement in headquarters and in
Brussels, to support the existing European Resettlement Network in particular
with regard to emergency resettlement activities and to support the development
of an info campaign presenting the emergency resettlement itinerary of a few
individuals. Ireland (Department of Justice and Equality) got a grant of EUR
415 156,56 to resettle 30 persons from Syria and finally Austria, after an
application submitted in October 2013, was awarded a grant of EUR 1 million to
resettle 250 Syrian refugees from neighbouring countries. Both projects include
pre-departure medical examinations and cultural orientation, the transfer of
the refugees to the resettling country, reception and orientation of the
resettled refugees and integration of refugees in the local community.
At national
level:
Thirteen (Member) States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DK, FR, HU, IE, NL, SE, SK, UK, NO) cooperated with third countries to enhance the external dimension of
international protection. This includes support to Armenia for Armenian-Syrian
refugees (AT), institutional development of the asylum system to Burundi (BE),
training to Burundi and Kyrgyzstan (BE), organising international workshops on
resettlement (BG), the implementation of the Regional Development and Protection
Program for Refugees and Host Communities in the Middle East (CZ), coordination,
co-funding and co-implementation of the Regional (Development) and Protection
Programme set up in the Middle East (DK, NL, UK),  security cooperation
with Hong Kong (FR), support to development of the asylum and migration
capacities of Serbia (HU), and readmission
and return (NO). Furthermore, this support includes cooperation under the
framework of the Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration and Asylum (FR, PL,
SE), migration management in Armenia (SE) and training under the European
Asylum Curriculum for Eastern Partnership countries, together with Germany
(SE).
Twelve
(Member) States took part in resettlement activities (BE, FI, FR, HU, IE, NL,
PL, PT, SE, SK, UK, NO). In at least ten (Member) States (DE, DK, FR, HU, NL,
PT, SE, SK, UK, NO) the activity concerned the resettlement of refugees placed
under the protection of the Office of the UNHCR in third countries. Romania took the decision to resettle 40 Iraqis refugees from Turkey. The Czech Republic and Spain postponed the implementation of the resettlement quota to 2014.
DE
has adopted a humanitarian admission programme at federal level for the
admission of 10 000 Syrians in 2013-204, in particular those in special
need of protection, in this way providing a substantial part of all
resettlement or humanitarian admission places for Syrians in the EU for
2013-2014.
3.           IRREGULAR
MIGRATION AND RETURN
This chapter
includes activities at the EU level and in the Member States that have
contributed to combating irregular migration, and focuses primarily on the
Strategic Priority Areas outlined in the Strategic Response to EU Action on
Migratory Pressures[36].
Figure 3: Third-country nationals
refused at external borders and Third-country nationals found to be illegally
present 2013
Source: Eurostat, [migr_eirfs] 
Notes: 
Third-country nationals refused at external borders: statistics not published
for EL and NO due to lack of reliability because of small sample size.
Third-country nationals found to be illegally present: statistics not published
for EL, NL and NO due to lack of reliability because of small sample size.
Table 7 in the
Statistic Annex shows the number of third-country
nationals refused at the external borders and
those found to be illegally present in 2013. Statistics for refusals at
the external border are available for 26 Member States and for those found to
be illegally present, for 25 Member States. 
The
highest numbers of refusals at the border were reported by Spain (192 775); Poland (40 386); United Kingdom (13 435); France (11 745) and Hungary (11 055). The number of refusals reported by Spain represented a figure
significantly higher than the reported numbers by all other Member States
combined. Poland also reported a relatively high number of refusals (40 385)
when compared with other Member States. The lowest numbers of refusals at the
external borders were reported by Luxembourg (0); Denmark (140); Sweden (180); Malta (300) and Czech Republic (310). Statistics for all Member States (where
available) are shown above in Figure 3.
The
highest numbers of those found to be illegally present were reported by Germany (86 305); United Kingdom (57 195); France (48 965); Spain (46 195); and Austria (25 960). The lowest numbers of refusals at the external borders
were reported by Latvia (175); Luxembourg (260); Denmark (395); Estonia (910) and Slovak Republic (1 025).
In 16 out of the
25 Member States for which statistics were available for comparison, the number
of third-country nationals found to be illegally present exceeded the number of
those refused at the external border. The differences were most marked in Germany (82 460);
 United Kingdom (43 760); France (37 220); Austria (25 600) and Sweden (24 220).  Conversely, in 10 Member States, refusals of third country nationals
at the border (far) exceeded those found to be illegally present.  These
differences were most marked in Spain (146 580); and Poland (31 105). 
3.1.        Priority
I: Strengthening cooperation with third countries
of transit and origin on migration management & Priority VII: Preventing
illegal immigration from and via the Southern Mediterranean countries
3.1.1.     Prevent
and combat irregular immigration by ensuring smooth and orderly return of
irregular migrants between states; ensure implementation of all EU readmission
agreements to their full effect
At EU level: EU
readmission policy remains an important priority, with the emphasis being
placed on implementing those EU Readmission Agreements already in force, and
completing outstanding mandates. 
It is expected
that the Mobility Partnership established with Morocco on 7 June will lead to a
re-launching of negotiations on a Readmission Agreement in due course. The
first meeting on the implementation of the Mobility Partnership took place on
24-25 September in Rabat. Negotiations on a Mobility Partnership with Tunisia will include a commitment to concluding a Readmission Agreement.  Partnership
negotiations with Egypt are foreseen once conditions allow. Elements on
readmission are included in the EU-India Common Agenda on Migration and
Mobility, in discussion since April. Efforts are being made to rekindle
readmission negotiations with China following new proposals from the Commission
and the EEAS. A Readmission Agreement was signed with Armenia on 19 April and the Readmission Agreement with Azerbaijan was initialled in July with
Commission proposals for its signature and conclusion submitted on 29 October.
The Mobility Partnership with Azerbaijan was signed on 5 December. The
Readmission Agreement with Cape Verde was signed on 18 April, and a further
Readmission Agreement with Turkey was signed on 16 December. Following
indications from the side of Belarus, the Commission started preparations for
launching readmission negotiations with this country, acting on the last of the
negotiating directives for the countries of the Eastern Partnership. 
Over the course
of 2013, the EU institutions and agencies have continued to apply pressure on
certain third countries to fully implement EU Readmission Agreements. In the
case of Pakistan, the first readmission applications were examined under the
Agreement, and were approved following successful efforts by the Commission and
the Delegation of the EU to Pakistan. Joint return flights were organised by
FRONTEX in April. A Joint Readmission Committee (JRC) meeting took place in Islamabad on 7 July, and the next one is scheduled to take place in Brussels, with the
date still to be confirmed. Regular JRCs have been promoted with cooperating
third countries, including the first JRC with Sri Lanka, which took place in Colombo on 18 February, and the sixth and fourth JRC meetings, respectively, with the Republic of Moldova[37]
on 12 June and Georgia on 26 February in Brussels. The issue of irregular
migration, including readmission, is regularly addressed in each of the seven
regional dialogues and three bilateral dialogues under GAMM, with the aim of
asserting pressure through diplomatic channels to encourage relevant third
countries to cooperate further on readmission.
With regard to
ensuring the effective implementation of Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement,
to follow on from the expert recommendations on readmission endorsed by EU and
ACP Ministers in April 2012, the EU has proposed the organisation of a regional
seminar on readmission to provide for expert exchanges on specific issues. This
proposal was accepted by the ACP States and the seminar is likely to focus on
the West African region and take place in the second quarter of 2014. 
At national
level:
During 2013, protocols to support the implementation of EU readmission
agreements entered into force in at least eight Member States (CZ, DE, EE, EL,
HR, PL, SK, UK). A
further four Member States (EL, FR, HR, NL) signed and/or ratified such
protocols with third countries or started negotiations (LV). Ireland completed the necessary parliamentary procedures to opt-in to eleven EU readmission
agreements, which is now undergoing the requisite procedure at EU level before
taking effect. No new developments were reported in relation to EU readmission
agreements in Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Lithuania and Sweden during the reference
period. 
The Czech Republic,  Belgium, The Netherlands and Poland together
with IOM supported the authorities in Georgia to develop software for
submitting readmission applications through the Internet. EU readmission
agreements are supplemented by a joint declaration between the European
Commission and the respective partner government encouraging the latter to
enter into a similar agreement also with Norway (and Iceland). Readmission
agreements with Norway have been concluded on this basis with a number of
countries, e.g. Montenegro, FYROM and Serbia. Norway is currently either in
contact with or planning to contact all remaining third-countries which have an
EU readmission agreement in place; however, no new agreements were concluded in
2013. 
No new
developments took place in relation to the implementation of the EU readmission
agreements with Hong Kong (2003) and Macao (2004). It should be noted that
no progress has been made with
third countries belonging to the Mediterranean area due
to the political instability in
these countries. Indeed, many
Member States have bilateral readmission agreements in place with third
countries and for this reason have not developed implementing protocols with
these countries.
Table 2.1:
Implementing protocols under EU Readmission Agreements 
   ||     Negotiation planned || In negotiation || Approved &awaiting third country’s signature || Signed || Ratified || Entered into force 
 Albania || EL || PT ||   || BG ||   || HR 
 Bosnia Herzegovina ||   || LV || DE, EL, SK || BE, FR, NL, LU ||   || CZ, HR, HU, 
 FYROM ||   || LV || SK || BE, LU, NL ||   || HR 
 Georgia || DE || ES, LV, PT || CZ, SK || BE, LU, NL ||   || EE 
 Hong Kong ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Kosovo[38] ||   ||   ||   || HR ||   || EE 
 Macao ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Moldova ||   || EL, PT ||   || BE, ES, LU, NL ||   ||   
 Montenegro ||   || LV ||   || EE || BE, LU || DE, HR, SK 
 Pakistan ||   || HU, LV, PL ||   ||   ||   || UK 
 Russia ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || PL, PT 
 Serbia ||   || LV, PT || ES || BE, EL, BG, LU, NL ||   || CZ, HR, RO 
 Sri Lanka || NL || UK ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Ukraine ||   || BE, LV, LU, NL, PT || EE || CZ ||   ||   
3.1.2.     Enhance
the capacity of countries of origin and transit to manage mixed migration flows 
At EU level: In
order to allow persons requiring international protection to access it as soon
as possible after initial displacement and as close as possible to their region
of origin, Regional Protection Programmes are used to build third countries'
capacity in the field of international protection. The Commission is working
for the Regional Protection and Development Programme in the Middle Eastern
countries to be operational early 2014, in order to respond effectively to the
Syrian crisis, and the situation of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries.
This complements the significant support already provided to Syrian refugees
under EU development and humanitarian funding.  
To avert
secondary movements, it is also necessary to improve refugees' access to the
means for self-reliance in third countries of first asylum. In February, the
Commission organised a one month Mission of Member State experts to Moldova in the framework of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan. The mission concluded that
  Moldova's asylum, border and migration management frameworks are in line with
EU practices and have been well-implemented. 
Strengthening
the capacity of third countries to better tackle the challenges of mixed
migratory flows is a key element of the existing Mobility Partnerships with
Moldova, Cape Verde, Georgia and Armenia, as well as the Mobility Partnership
signed with Morocco in June. The Commission, EASO, FRONTEX and Europol continue
to work to identify new actions and initiatives aimed at strengthening third
countries' capacities. 
At national
level: Several
(Member) States (BE, CZ, FI, HU, IT, NL, PL, RO, SK, UK, NO) implemented
actions to support third countries of first asylum with the means to guarantee
refugee protection and to better manage mixed migration flows. In some cases
this assistance was provided within the framework of EU programmes, such as
Regional Protection Programmes[39]
(CZ, DK, NL, UK), Mobility Partnerships (BE, DK, NL, PL, RO, SK) and the Prague
Process (BE, PL).
In the case of four
(Member) States (CZ, HU, UK, NO), actions were implemented to support third
countries experiencing high influxes of asylum seekers and refugees from Syria.  The  Czech Republic and Hungary sent aid to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, and Norway also financed a project to support the Turkish Government. The Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom provided funding towards the
Regional Development Protection Programme set up in 2013 to support refugees
and host communities in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.[40]
The programme is coordinated by Denmark and aims to improve the communities’
capacity for integration of refugees by developing social infrastructure
(energy supply, healthcare services, education) and creating greater
possibilities for the refugees to contribute economically to their host society
(e.g. vocational training and skills development, creating better employment
opportunities, and supporting micro-enterprise finance). Within the framework
of EU Mobility Partnerships, Belgium and Poland provided support to Armenia and Georgia on voluntary return and reintegration, Czech Republic helped Georgia with voluntary return and reintegration, and the Slovak Republic helped to establish a
permanent independent and institutionalised training mechanism to build
capacity for analysing data on migration in Moldova and Georgia. The Slovak Republic also aims to lead future projects in Azerbaijan. In a report on Italy’s participation in the EU, Italy’s Council of Ministers
expressed their hope for continued negotiations with Morocco and Tunisia on Mobility and Security Partnerships and similar initiatives with other Southern
 Mediterranean countries to bring about shared migration flow management. Under
the Prague Process, Belgium and Hungary participated in the pilot project ‘Quality
and training in the asylum processes’ and hosted a study visit for Kyrgyzstan’s and Belarus’ asylum and migration authority, respectively.
Belgium, Finland and Poland bilaterally supported third countries to build capacity to manage mixed migration
flows. Finland’s Immigration service (FIS) similarly set up learning exchange
visits with asylum authorities in Iraq, and visited the USA, China and Korea to present on good practices there. The Finnish Immigration Service (FIS) also
investigated the opportunity of establishing a shared EU facility centre in Ethiopia for management of migration flows. Similarly, Poland and Sweden implemented a twinning project Support the State Migration Service for
Strengthening of Migration Management in Armenia. Belgium
provided support to the Burundi National Office for the Protection of Refugees
and Stateless Persons (ONPRA) to assist in the development of the organisation
and to provide training to their staff based around the EASO Asylum Curriculum.
3.1.3.     Prevention of irregular
migration from the Southern Mediterranean countries; the Western Mediterranean
and the African Atlantic coast 
At EU level:
Member State-Third Country regional networks of cooperation in the Mediterranean, such as the European Commission-funded 'Seahorse Mediterranean Network'
should continue in the framework of EUROSUR. Two workshops have taken place
within the framework of FRONTEX'S AFIC (Africa-FRONTEX Intelligence Community)
project in May and September, with a conference and the release of the second
Joint Annual Report in November. The project included Morocco, Western Sahara, DR Congo and Cameroon. FRONTEX also recently invited selected third
countries to take part in a European Patrol Network (EPN) meeting to become
familiar with FRONTEX-coordinated maritime activities. 
Europol is in
the process of negotiating a Strategic Agreement with Morocco, through which it will be able to be more active in information sharing (no personal
data).
In order to
strengthen its operational cooperation with the competent border control
authorities in the Southern Mediterranean countries, FRONTEX supports Member
States taking part in its joint operations to integrate third country observers
or nominate suitable contact points for dealing with urgent matters regarding
the operation. FRONTEX also supports the EU-funded EuroMed Migration III
project.  FRONTEX delivered a presentation to the 4th Irregular
EuroMed Migration Training session in September and EuroMed Migration raises
awareness of FRONTEX's role in the third countries concerned. The Commission
will also fund a project to support the practical cooperation of FRONTEX and
EASO with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan. With a view to maintaining and
developing the current effective handling of the migration situation in this
region, FRONTEX continues to facilitate Member State coordination in European
Patrol Network (EPN) areas and support several joint operations in the
Mediterranean and North Africa: Joint Operations EPN- Indalo and EPN- Minerva
in the Western Mediterranean, and Joint Operation EPN-Hera located off the
North African coast. FRONTEX also supports national efforts of the Southern Mediterranean countries, by facilitating initiatives such as the EPN Common
Patrols as a part of EUROSUR. 
At
national level: The prevention
of irregular migration from the southern Mediterranean region remained a
strategic priority for Italy, as outlined in the 2013 report of the Council of
Ministers on Italy’s participation in the EU. Other Member States (DE, FR, HU,
IT, PL) also sought to prevent irregular migration from this region (especially
from Tunisia and Morocco) by building the capacity of border authorities in the
respective countries through provision of equipment e.g. patrol boats (DE, IT),
training (HU, PL) and secondment of experts (FR). Hungary hosted and Poland participated in peer-to-peer meetings of border guards as part of the EU-funded
EUROMED Migration III project.[41]
 Italy also targeted a training and information campaign at public
administrators and third sector actors in Morocco, with a view to increasing
understanding and awareness of Italian migration rules. Austria and Bulgaria fostered dialogue with officials in Morocco and Algeria on readmission matters.
This was especially important for Bulgaria, since in 2013 Algeria and Morocco were amongst the top five source countries of irregular migration to Bulgaria. Malta and Libya have convened the Joint Working Group on Security and Illegal Migration, with the aim of
enhancing cooperation and sharing information in addressing illegal migration
across the central Mediterranean. The Maltese and Libyan sides agreed on
cooperation in this sphere. Furthermore, the Maltese side offered training to the
Libyan side in relation to border control and police issues, which offer
was accepted by the Libyan side. In Spain, the project “Seahorse
Mediterranean Network”, approved by the European Commission, was presented
within Guardia Civil Headquarters in Madrid, and will be developed over the
next three years in collaboration with Spain (Guardia Civil), Italy (Ministry of Interior), France (PAF), Malta (Armed Forces), Portugal (GNR), Cyprus (Police), Greece (Coast Guard) and Libya (Coast Guard). Thus, Member States and Libya will join forces in an agreement to curb irregular immigration between Mediterranean
countries. The “Seahorse Mediterranean Network” project is an extension of EU
cooperation projects implemented since 2006 between Spain and African countries
on the Atlantic coast: The “Seahorse Atlantic” programme made it possible to
diminish migratory pressures via sea from Africa to Europe.  A further project,
the “West Sahel Project”, co-financed by the EU and Spain and implemented by
Guardia Civil was set up in 2011 and was completed during the reference year.
The project involved the following countries: Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal, as associated countries and principal beneficiaries of the action.
To prevent
irregular migration from the African Atlantic coast, Belgium and Italy carried out information campaigns in Senegal on legal migration channels and the
risks of migrating irregularly. Belgium also carried out such actions in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the framework of the Dakar Strategy, [42] the
 Netherlands participated in meetings to discuss border management with actors
from North, Central and West Africa.
3.1.4.     Prevention of irregular migration from the Eastern
Partners; address migratory pressures via the 'Silk Routes', including
prevention of irregular migration and combating trafficking in human beings
At EU level: The
fight against irregular migration is an integral part of the Mobility
Partnerships, which are important instruments in terms of cooperation with the
Eastern Partnership countries. For example, the EU-funded project 'Targeted
Initiative for Armenia' aimed at strengthening Armenia's migration management
capacities, focuses on return and reintegration activities. In February, there
were joint workshops held under the Legal Migration Pilot and Migration and
Development Pilot Projects of the EU-funded Prague Process Targeted Initiative.
The workshop that took place in Tbilisi on 9 October for the Migration and
Development Pilot Project focused on policies of circular migration. The first
meeting of the Prague Process National Contact Points was held on 10-11 October
in Tbilisi and focussed on fostering cooperation on labour migration among the
Prague Process States. 
Several actions
were taken in 2013 to enhance cooperation and coordination with the Eastern
Partners in the prevention of, and the fight against, irregular migration,
organised crime, trafficking in human beings, money laundering and terrorism. A
workshop on the illegal immigration Pilot Project held in Warsaw on 11-12 March
focussed on readmission and return and was followed up by a practical study
visit in June. The Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration and Asylum held in Georgia on 20-21 March focussed on practical aspects of readmission, return and
reintegration. A workshop on the victims of trafficking in human beings was
held in Warsaw on 21-22 May. Cooperation has been reinforced through on-going
visa liberalisation dialogues with Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. Additionally, the visa dialogues with these three countries encourage the
legislative and operational approximation towards European best-practices.
Europol has
signed a Strategic Agreement with Moldova, a Moldovan liaison officer has been
posted in the Hague since July and Europol entered the final phase of starting
negotiations with Moldova for concluding an operational agreement in 2014. Georgia is in the process of being included in the list of third countries with which
Europol can conclude agreements.
The Ministerial
Conference of 19 April in Istanbul, concluded with the approval of a
Declaration establishing a "Silk Routes' Partnership for Migration",
redirected the focus of the Budapest Process towards the migration originating
from and taking place within the Silk Routes' countries, such as Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Commission and several Member States have taken various initiatives to implement the Declaration and develop cooperation with
those countries. Since June 2013, three scoping missions have taken place to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan with a two day workshop taking place in Brussels on 17-18 July with
the Commission and the UK, Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland in attendance. Clear progress was achieved in terms of multilateral
agreement in respect of Afghanistan and a range of country-specific activities.
An expert meeting took place in Islamabad on 28-29 October and work is underway
with Pakistani senior officials to undertake a training needs assessment on
migration. Basic training on migration issues covering a broad range of actors
working in the area of migration in Afghanistan is scheduled for December 2014.
The Commission has launched a EUR 2.6 million projects to support the
implementation of the Silk Routes Partnership in 2014-2015, with additional
co-funding from EU MS and Turkey. 
The issue of
trafficking in human beings is systematically included in all bilateral and
regional policy dialogues within the framework of the GAMM. 
At national
level:
 Belgium continued with information campaigns targeting North Caucasus and Armenia and Germany made plans to launch an information campaign in Chechnya targeting 20-30 year
olds. Two EU projects: ‘Support Reintegration of Georgian Returning Migrants
and the Implementation of EU-Georgia Readmission Agreement’ (implemented
by Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland,
Romania and Sweden in conjunction with IOM)[43]
and the ICMPD project ‘Fostering Cooperation in the Area of Migration with
and in the Silk Routes Region’[44]
ended in 2013. Both projects aimed to foster dialogue and cooperation, and in
the case of the ICMPD project to develop understanding of migration from this
region. The results of both projects have yet to be disseminated. 
Member States
delivered training to border authorities and provided equipment to support
border management in the Eastern Partnership countries of Moldova (DE, PL, SE) and the Ukraine (PL, SE). In the case of Poland, Romania and Sweden, the training was given within the framework of the ‘European Commission Training
and Consulting Mission for Moldova and Ukraine’ (EUBAM). Action agreements
on combating cross-border crime were signed between Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia and joint operations subsequently carried out. A similar
action plan signed between Lithuania and Belarus led to the dismantling of a
transnational criminal group in the reporting period. Austria and the Czech Republic signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding cooperation on border
control and Austria and Hungary continued to carry out joint border patrols.
Romania participated
to a project led by the Hungarian Ministry of Interior in collaboration with
the ICMPD aiming at strengthening the cooperation with countries of origin and transit
in the fight against irregular migration.  
3.1.5.     Prevention of irregular
migration from the Western Balkans 
At EU level: In
order to prevent irregular migration via the Western Balkans, FRONTEX provides
analytical and operational support for the establishment of Coordination points
at the Hungarian-Serbian border. There are currently Coordination Points
established in Albania (Murriqan) and FYROM (Tabanovce), with the further
development of the network to other Western Balkan countries foreseen. FRONTEX
published its Western Balkan Annual Risk Analysis[45] in
May, providing analytical inputs to operational activities in the region.
FRONTEX implemented Joint Operation Neptune in June-July 2013. The RABIT (Rapid
Border Intervention Team) exercise carried out on the Hungarian-Serbian border
in July to test the RABIT mechanism and to contribute to overall border control
measures, filled the gap between the two phases of the Joint Operation. The
annual activity Joint Operation Focal Points 2013 Land is on-going in the
Western-Balkan region, with the operation being extended to Croatian border
crossing points from 1 July onwards. The FRONTEX conference on the Western
Balkans held in Vienna on 13-14 November provided a forum for the relevant
actors involved in activities being implemented in the Western Balkans to
identify possible needs and support in order to contribute to effective border
management. It is foreseen that similar conferences will be held once or twice
a year. On 16 January 2014, Serbia signed an operational agreement with
Europol, enabling it to exchange operational intelligence data with Europol
members and to fully engage in the operational work of Europol.
IPA (Instruments
for Pre-Accession) projects to further develop border, migration, asylum and
visa systems have been programmed, and the Commission is in the process of
designing, for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, new IPA projects
focusing on the rule of law with a regional focus. 
Within the
framework of developing cooperation to combat criminal organisations dealing
with the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings, the current
Joint Investigation Teams to fight Trafficking in Human Beings (JIT THB)
project concluded with a final Ministerial Conference in Slovenia in May. The
aim of the project was to enhance cooperation within the Southeast European Law
Enforcement Community and facilitate the use of Joint Investigation teams
(JITs) as an effective tool to fight trafficking in human beings. A new project
on JITs was recently funded under ISEC. 
There has been
further enhancement of inter-agency cooperation, notably between FRONTEX, EASO
and Europol, to address cross border crimes related to irregular migration and
to contribute to assisting asylum capacity in Western Balkan countries.
Interagency cooperation is a part of each Operational Plan, with detailed roles
and/or the contribution of the relevant agencies foreseen in each particular
joint operation before implementation of the activities.  The Europol Focal Point
Checkpoint project on Facilitated Illegal Immigration Affecting Austria and Hungary continues to be productive, with the last common action resulting in over 100
arrests. 
At national
level:
Member States undertook various measures to prevent irregular migration from
the Western Balkans. The concerned Member States stepped up operational
co-operation with the visa exempt countries in the region. Some (DE, FI, PL,
SE) provided training to border guards in the region and/or sought to monitor
and analyse data on irregular migration to improve understanding (CZ, HU, SK). Sweden deployed border guards as part of the EU’s external action mission EULEX in Kosovo[46] and liaison
officers to Pristina and Belgrade within the framework of the Nordic Liaison
Officer’s cooperation. Belgium organised meetings with
Serbian and Kosovo authorities to discuss the prevention of irregular migration
and the return of their irregular migrants. In the framework
of the Salzburg Forum (SF)[47],
the SF countries (AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU, PL, RO, SI, SK) further
intensified cooperation with the Western Balkan countries. Romania
deployed experts in FYROM, Hungary and Croatia, and hosted jointly with Hungary the Rapid Exercise REX 2013.
3.2.        Priority II: Enhanced
border management at the external borders
3.2.1.     Border
control measures: technology, equipment and infrastructure, including systems
linked to EU instruments and actions to coordinate different types of border
checks
At EU level: The
Regulation establishing the European Border Surveillance System[48]
entered into force on 2 December 2013[49],
making EUROSUR operational for the 19 Schengen Member States at the southern
and eastern external borders. The remaining 11 Schengen countries will join
EUROSUR on 1 December 2014[50].
EUROSUR is a multipurpose system to detect and prevent cross-border crime, such
as drug trafficking, as well as to contribute to saving migrants' lives at the
external borders of the Schengen area. It provides a common mechanism for
near-real time information exchange and interagency cooperation in the field of
border surveillance.
External
Borders Funds has been providing the financial support to the Member States to
increase their capabilities to deal with migration flows, manage the EU's
external borders and security, and improve the infrastructure and equipment for
effective control and surveillance of the Union's external borders. For
example, in 2013 number of EU financed projects have supported several Member
States for the provision and/or upgrade of technical equipment linked to border
surveillance and sharing of information through the EUROSUR network, which
became operational as of 2 December 2013. 
The
second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) entered successfully
into operation on 9 April 2013. The migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II was carried
out at central as well as at national level without encountering any major
problems. The central SIS II and the communication infrastructure were handed
over to the European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT
systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (EU-LISA) on 9 May 2013.
In comparison with its predecessor, SIS II contains new data categories
for objects, such as industrial equipment, aircraft, boats, outboard boat
engines, containers and securities. It also provides for new functionalities
which help to identify a person or an object by adding fingerprints and photographs;
it allows the linking of alerts in case of an operational need; it
requires to upload the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to an alert for arrest
which produces the same legal effect as the transmission of EAWs between
judiciaries as well as it strengthens the rights of data subjects by higher
data quality and increased transparency.
FRONTEX
has supported Member States to make full use of passenger data, in accordance
with Directive 2004/82/EC, to improve border controls and combat illegal
immigration. This has been achieved through actively supporting Member States
in rolling out their Advanced Passenger Information (API) systems and
establishing best practice guidelines for the harmonization and use of API in
border control. The Commission presented the results of the external evaluation
of Directive 2004/82/EC to the Frontiers Working Party in April. FRONTEX is
leading an initiative to develop a passenger intelligence model that Member
States could use to screen persons of interest, which could achieve more
effective and efficient border control whilst also improving passenger
experience. 
At
national level:  To date 24 Member States operate the
SIS II as do four associated countries (Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus and Croatia are still in the legal
and technical preparatory phase of their integration. Eleven (Member) States
(AT, DK, EE, HU, LT, LV, LU, MT, PL, SI, NO) completed accession to the second
phase Schengen Information System (SIS II) in 2013. SIS II plays an important
role in refusing the entry of third country nationals to the Schengen area
(altogether 34 020 persons were refused to enter the Schengen area on the basis
of an SIS II alert) and 8 499 persons were arrested. For example, the Federal
Ministry of Interior of Austria reported in 2013 that, since establishing the
SIS, it has identified and extradited to Schengen States 2 666 wanted
individuals through the SIS, and has received a further 2 482 individuals who
were arrested and extradited to Austria. Only Belgium reported further roll-out
of the VIS and Luxembourg reported on plans to purchase and install equipment
to implement VIS amongst the judicial police and at its international airport
although no date has yet been set for the installation. In the context of the
development of Romanian Integrated System for Border Security, the structures
of the Romanian Border Police (at the land, air and sea border) were equipped
with new technical means necessary for control and surveillance activities.
As
mentioned above, EUROSUR became operational in 19 Schengen Member States located
at the southern and eastern external borders in December 2013 and preparations
for making it operational in the remaining 11 Schengen countries are under way.
 Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and Norway all extended their surveillance systems at their external
borders. In the context of EUROSUR, several Member States were
granted funds for exchanging the situational picture of their neighbouring
external border sections with each other in near-real time. 
3.2.2.     Border control measures: (other) activities to improve
the effectiveness of controls at external borders (e.g. training and policy)
At EU
level: The
European Patrol Network (EPN) meetings provide a forum for practitioners to
openly discuss questions related to the maritime domain and to look for
possible common solutions. The EPN involves partner authorities from Member
States, EU institutions and agencies (Europol, EMSA, EFCA, JRC, ESA and FRA),
international associations (UNDOC, Interpol), other entities (CeCLAD) and third
country partner organisations, such as the US Coast Guard, the Australian
Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Canadian Border Services
Agency.
At
national level: Several Member States (AT, BE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI) reported on training they provided to border guards and other
relevant actors in 2013 to improve the effectiveness of border controls. The Czech Republic established a committee in the Alien Police Service to review and update
training courses to its staff. In Romania, more than 5 000 border police
officers were trained, 196 taking part in courses organized by Frontex. At
least four Member States (CZ, EL, HU, UK) also increased the number of staff
deployed at their borders and the Federal Ministry of the Interior in Austria carried out an audit of its staffing (and equipment) needs. Belgium introduced different measures to encourage border guards to maintain skills and
learning: it created a pool of trainers in the field of border checks,
developed an online information platform allowing border guards access to the
most up-to-date information on risks, and encouraged staff to make use of
FRONTEX’s eLearning and distance-learning modules. 
Four
Member States (AT, DK, HU, SE) established new policies related to border control
in 2013. Austria started to develop a national plan for integrated border
management; the Danish National Police launched the process of
implementing a new national strategy for border management; the
Hungarian police adopted a new Border Management Strategy; and the Central
Border Management Division at the National Police Board in Sweden began to
develop a national strategy which aims to harmonise border checks carried out
by the Swedish Police and Coast Guard.
In
cooperation with the company Eurostar, Belgium introduced new measures at the
rail crossing between Belgium, France and the United Kingdom to close the
so-called ‘Lille loophole’ by which third-country nationals had been able to
bypass the external border controls between Belgium and the United Kingdom by
buying a ticket to France, but staying on the journey to the United Kingdom. In
the Eurostar railway terminal in Brussels, an Intra-Schengen terminal was
created for the passengers from Brussels to Lille or Calais and profiling of
passengers was increased. 
Portugal
adopted a new version of the “RAPID” system proving with equipment to reading
of identification cards, which entered into force after the opening of a new
space in Lisbon's Airport, on July 2013. Romania lunched the process of adopting
a new Strategy for Integrated Border Management. The Romanian Border Police
(RBP) was involved in several initiatives to grant support to third countries
which are carrying out a reform, reorganization and development process in the
field of border security. 
3.2.3.     Border control measures: support to Member States
experiencing disproportionate pressures at the border (including participation
in FRONTEX operations)
At EU
level:
As the migratory pressure remained high on the EU's external borders in the
course of 2013, FRONTEX continued supporting and coordinating the operational
response of Member States, notably through joint operations at the most
affected land borders as well as along the main maritime migratory routes,
always with particular emphasis on promoting best practices of border
management and full respect of fundamental rights.
Joint maritime
operations have been implemented covering the main migration routes at the EU's
external borders. Inter-agency cooperation, initially established in the
context of joint maritime operation EPN- Indalo, has been extended to all
maritime operations, in line with the EUROSUR Regulation.
FRONTEX
invited EASO to participate in the REX exercise organised in June-July at the
Hungarian-Serbian and Romanian-Serbian borders, for possible testing of their
Emergency Response Mechanisms.
At
national level: Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Greece, Portugal,
Romania and Spain received support from Member States cooperating through
FRONTEX to help them with disproportionate pressures at the border. Various
FRONTEX operations (Aeneas, Poseidon, Attica and joint operations at air, sea
and land borders) targeted Bulgaria and Greece in 2013. In addition all Member States and Norway participated in FRONTEX border operations during the year. Ireland only participated in FRONTEX joint return operations.
3.2.4.     Preventing and combating irregular immigration by
ensuring strong and efficient border control agreements with third countries 
At EU level: A
list of initiatives for the implementation of the May 2012 Memorandum of
Understanding signed between Turkey and FRONTEX was discussed and the FRONTEX
Executive Director visited Turkey in May 2013.
Cooperation on
combating illegal immigration and criminal organisations dealing with the
smuggling of migrants and trafficking of human beings was on-going with key
third counties of origin and transit throughout the period. 
There has been
cooperation with Moldova and Ukraine in the framework of the EU Border
Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM), for example through the
Joint Border Control Operation Ovidius and Project Coordination Points 2013.
At
national level: To improve cooperation regarding controls at
borders shared with third countries, a number of Member States (BG, EE, ES, HR,
HU, IT, LV, LT, PL, PT, SK) set up agreements outlining protocols for
collaboration. In particular, this concerned protocols for exchanging
information between Estonia and the Russian Federation and between Spain and Algeria, joint patrols between Croatia and Serbia, between Hungary and Serbia, between Poland and the Ukraine, between Spain and Mauritania, Senegal and Morocco, between the  Slovak Republic and the Ukraine and between Romania and the Ukraine. Bulgaria signed an agreement on a Common Contact Centre for police and customs
cooperation with Turkey.
Latvia
entered into a cooperation agreement on border control with the Republic of Armenia and is planning to enter into with the Republics of Belarus, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with the Russian Federation and with the Ukraine. Between May and July
Lithuania implemented an action plan on reinforced control of the state border
with the Republic of Belarus during which period an enhanced period of controls
was introduced at the frontier districts of these countries. Portugal carried out border cooperation and training actions in several Portuguese-speaking
African Countries.
Romania
continued its cooperation with the countries from the Black Sea region by
participating to a maritime exercise in the Bulgarian territorial waters with
the participation of naval mobility means of the Black Sea coastal countries;
and signed a protocol with the Serbian Ministry of Interior on the
establishment and functioning of Common Contact Point at Romanian - Serbian
border.
3.3.        Priority
III: Preventing irregular migration from Turkey
3.3.1.     Ensure
effective border controls at the Greek-Turkish border and combat irregular
immigration transiting Turkey to enter the EU
At EU level: The
Greek-Turkish land border has been the most critical point of entry of
irregular migrants into the EU up to 2012. Significant actions have been taken
by the Greek authorities to reinforce the control of such border section. In
particular since the launch of the Shield operation on 2 August 2012, Greece has registered a dramatic decrease of irregular crossings at that land border. Such
decrease in the number of apprehensions of irregular migrants was stabilised
during 2013.
The situation of
overall border control in Greece is being monitored also by the Commission
within the framework of the Greek Action Plan on Asylum and Migration. 
A visit by
experts in the framework of the Schengen evaluation was carried out in October
2013, in order to assess the progress being achieved in fulfilling the
recommendations of the Action Plan "Greece-Schengen", following the
original Schengen evaluation carried out in 2010. The visit concluded that the
border control had considerably improved since the time of the first visits, in
particular at the Greek-Turkish land border. 
Due to the shift
in migratory flows from the Greek-Turkish land border to the maritime borders
and the impact of the Syrian crisis, the Joint Operation Poseidon Sea continued throughout year 2013 and it will continue also in 2014. 
If the border
control of the Greek-Turkish land border was stabilised in 2013, the migratory
pressure shifted to the Bulgarian-Turkish land border, which recorded a
significant increase in the number of irregular migrants and required the
reinforcement of the Joint Operation Poseidon Land in that border section. 
Operational
activities at the Bulgarian-Turkish land border were reinforced from July 2013
onwards due to increases in migratory flows. These operations focused primarily
on the deployment of seconded experts, for example interpreters and debriefers.
An International Coordination Centre has also operated out of Sofia since 6
November under the framework of the Joint Operation Poseidon Land 2013, foreseen
to continue until March 2014. 
FRONTEX continues
to support the deployment of interpreters and debriefers from Member
States under the Poseidon Regional Programme. FRONTEX has also organised
workshops and training sessions for Greek and Bulgarian officers to build
capacity in debriefing activities. 
Project Attica,
foreseen to run until the end of March 2014, started permanent deployments of
screening experts and interpreters to Samos and Lesvos in March. 
Within the
framework of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between FRONTEX and Turkey in May 2012, the Turkish authorities attended a workshop on information exchange.
The first instance of planned regular information exchange took place in August
2013. Migration from Turkey and changes in migratory routes are being monitored
continuously by FRONTEX, and Joint Operation Poseidon Land 2013 is modified
accordingly. 
The workshop on
information exchange with Turkish border authorities, and the exchange of
information that took place between FRONTEX and Turkey in August, have been
positive steps towards the enhancement of the situational awareness of
irregular migration via Turkey. FRONTEX has also been taking part in the
regional ILO meetings in Turkey since 2012, which contribute to building and
updating the situational picture on smuggling of migrants and trafficking of
human beings in Turkey. FRONTEX also undertook a number of actions to
strengthen its risk analysis cooperation with Turkey. The agency managed and
implemented a risk analysis workshop with all relevant border control
authorities, and a Turkish delegation participated in a follow-up workshop on
practical information exchange held in Warsaw. Discussions are well-advanced
for the establishment of a risk analysis network with Turkey, including an information exchange platform with a number of strategic indicators to
facilitate joint analytical work. 
The Commission
continued to co-finance IPA projects that contribute, directly and indirectly,
to combating irregular migration in Turkey. IPA assistance and dialogue with
the Commission contributed to the preparation of the Law on International
Protection and Foreigners adopted by the Turkish Parliament in April. This Law
completely modifies and reforms the management of asylum and migration in Turkey by approximating it to the EU's system. The dialogue on visa liberalisation with Turkey, based on the 2012 Roadmap towards a visa-free regime, was initiated in parallel
with the signature of the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement on 16 December.
Several meetings have taken place at various levels between the Commission and
the Turkish authorities to explain the contents of the Roadmap and to describe
how the dialogue on visa liberalisation should function. In order to establish
a trilateral common contact centre for cooperation between the relevant authorities
of Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey, IPA is ready to co-finance a project aimed at
supporting Turkey's participation. External Border Funds should be mobilised to
facilitate the participation of the two Member States in the same project. 
In order to develop
cooperation at the appropriate levels to combat organised crime facilitating
the smuggling of migrants and the trafficking of human beings, two of the eight
priorities for the EU Policy Cycle for Organised and Serious International
Crime for 2014-2017 are illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. 
In 2013, Turkey participated in two international operations supported by Checkpoint, with information
exchange taking place via Germany. In order to develop cooperation between
Europol and the Turkish police, a workshop was held in January to discuss
possible ways of reaching an operational agreement; the workshop covered issues
such as data protection and confidentiality. 
Work is on-going
on the cooperation with Turkey within JHA areas, with a view to implementing
escorted transit and assisted voluntary return projects via Turkey. 
At national
level:
In 2013, many Member States continued to participate in FRONTEX operations
targeting the Greek-Turkish border. Such operations included Attica (DK, LV, MT,
NL, PL, RO, SK) Poseidon (BE, DK, EE, FI, HU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI,
SK, UK) and Evros (NL, SE and other Member States). The FRONTEX Agency assessed
these activities as having an impact on reducing irregular migration. At its
border with Turkey, Bulgaria deployed an additional 1,572 police officers and
141 patrol off-road vehicles. A few Member States (FI, UK) also provided Turkey with support on its borders bilaterally. For example, the Finnish Border
Guard has sought to create bilateral operative cooperation with the key border
management authorities, especially Turkey’s national police, coast guard and
customs and the Netherlands and the UK participated in a twinning project with Turkey to improve the third country’s intelligence and analysis capacity. Until 2013, both Belgium and Finland seconded experts to Greece and Turkey respectively to help authorities in these
countries with their border management. The United Kingdom also worked closely
with the Greek authorities to assist their integration into and cooperation
with the International Liaison Officer network, to exchange information, to
provide training on forgery detection and to enable study visits of the Greek
authorities to the United Kingdom.
3.4.        Priority
IV: Better tackling of abuse of legal migration channels
3.4.1.     Prevent
an increase in unfounded asylum applications as a direct consequence of
introducing a visa free regime for a third country; combat and prevent
irregular migration caused by visa liberalisation
At EU level: As
far as visa liberalisation dialogues with Ukraine and Moldova are concerned, an update to FRONTEX's risk analysis was prepared in July 2013, with
a view to assessing the expected impact of visa liberalisation on migration. 
In the framework
of continued monitoring of the effects of current visa free regimes, the
Commission established in January 2011 the Post-Visa Liberalisation Monitoring
Mechanism for the visa exempt Western Balkan countries. It allows for an
assessment of a consistent implementation of the reforms launched under the
visa liberalisation roadmap. The mechanism covers the areas of: border
management, document security, combating organised crime and corruption,
fundamental rights, as well as the effective implementation of readmission agreements.
The monitoring acts as an alert and prevention mechanism against abuse of the
visa free regime. FRONTEX continues to support the Commission in this task by
providing monthly reports. The overview of the development of the post-visa
liberalisation monitoring is presented regularly by the Commission in its
reports. The fourth was presented in November 2013.[51]  
EASO has
submitted a comparative analysis of the flow of Western Balkan asylum seekers. 
The Commission
proposal to amend Visa Regulation (EC) No 539/2001[52] and
establish a suspension mechanism for the visa waiver in the event of a sudden
and considerable abuse of asylum procedures or an increase in the number of
irregular migrants, was adopted by the European Parliament in September. 
The results of
the Slovenian questionnaire to analyse the 'state of play' on the use of
accelerated procedures and swift returns in the case of manifestly unfounded
claims that abuse visa liberalisation were presented to SCIFA in January. 
Visa dialogues
continue with Kosovo, Russia and Turkey, and Visa Liberalisation Action Plans
are on-going with Georgia and Ukraine. Moldova completed successfully its Visa
Liberalisation Action Plan and the Commission made a proposal for visa-free
travel for holders of biometric passports in November. The Council is involved
on a case-by-case basis and all visa liberalisation processes are dependent on
progress being made in the third countries concerned. 
At
national level: Belgium volunteers within the Strategic Committee
on Immigration, Frontier and Asylum (SCIFA) of the Council of the EU to monitor
effects of visa free regimes and towards the end of November 2012 consulted
Member States (via questionnaire) to identify best practices for decreasing the
number of unfounded asylum applications from visa-free Western Balkan
countries.[53]
The consultation suggested that information campaigns targeting the Western
Balkans have been successful in reducing the inflow of asylum seekers with
unfounded applications from this region.[54] Indeed, the
number of asylum applicants and irregular migrants arriving in Belgium from the Western Balkans has been decreasing since 2011. Sweden also notes a slight
decrease in asylum seekers from the Western Balkans overall, although there was
an increase in numbers from Kosovo; in 2013, Sweden reported that the vast
majority of total asylum applications from citizens of Western Balkan countries
in 2013 (4 300) were unfounded. Denmark and Germany also saw a high number of
unfounded applications from citizens of these countries at the end of 2012 /
beginning of 2013. 
To
further combat unfounded asylum applications from these countries in 2013, the
Belgian Immigration Office shared its monthly monitoring data with the third
countries concerned and organised meetings with their diplomatic staff; it also
participated in a seminar in Serbia regarding strategic analysis and inflows of
asylum seekers to the EU. The Danish
National Police also increased cooperation with Serbian authorities to make
information on the Danish asylum system more accessible to the Serbian public
and to charter flights in order to expedite the return of unfounded asylum
applicants. Belgium
undertook measures to ensure the accelerated and swift return of persons from
visa-free third countries making unfounded asylum applications, or otherwise
abusing legal migration channels. Its Immigration Office negotiated the
conclusion of collaboration agreements with the Albanian low-cost flight
company Belle Air in order to organise cost-efficient return operations;
however, the company ceased operations in November 2013, and therefore the
collaboration ceased. In addition to cooperating with national authorities, Denmark introduced fast-track procedures for applicants with manifestly unfounded claims
and sought to reduce
the possible ‘pull factors’ of this irregular migration by stopping subsistence
cash payments for their accommodation, providing them instead with material
support (e.g. catered accommodation). The introduction of these measures
resulted in a significant decrease in the number of such unfounded asylum
applications. To
address misuse of visa liberalisation from the Western Balkans, the Swedish
Migration Board increased and improved cooperation and exchange of information
with Swedish Embassies in the Western Balkan countries.
Slovenia took
part in a Ministerial meeting of the Brdo process[55] where
interior ministers and state secretaries of the Brdo Process member
states agreed that increasing mixed migration flows should not be addressed
through a suspension of visa liberalisation. Instead, the group agreed to
establish a platform for the exchange of information, data and practices in
cooperation with regional international organisations, in order to ensure
better management of mixed flows.
3.4.2.     Combat and prevent irregular migration through misuse of
family reunification
At EU level: In follow-up to the 2011 Green Paper on the right to family
reunification[56],
the Commission has prepared guidelines to provide guidance to Member States on
how to better apply Directive 2003/86/EC. The aim of the guidelines is (1) to
clarify the issues identified in the implementation report and during the
public consultation following the Green Paper, (2) to ensure a transparent and
clear understanding of family reunification rules and common standards at EU
level, and (3) to contribute to the coherent application of these rules across
Member States. The guidelines intend to balance the right to family
reunification, stemming from the fundamental right to family life, with a need
to ensure that this right is genuinely applied according to the rules of the
Directive, and support Member States to fight possible misuse. The guidelines were
adopted as a Commission Communication in April 2014[57].
At
national level: At least eight Member States (BE, EE, ES, FI, HU, LV, PT, SK) identified cases of misuse of family reunification in 2013. Typical forms of
misuse included false declarations of parenthood (BE, ES, HU), suspected legal
cohabitations of convenience (BE) and suspected marriages of convenience (BE,
ES, FI, LV, SK). This included 250 cases of misuse in Finland, fewer than 10 cases in Latvia, and 9 cases in the Slovak Republic. Estonia identified a total of 41 cases of suspected misuse overall.
To
combat misuse, Belgium and Ireland respectively introduced and drafted new
legislation. The Belgian legislation introduced new powers to registrars and
greater deterrents such as fines, prison sentences and entry-bans for persons
found to be misusing family reunification. The Irish legislation also grants
new powers to registrars to investigate suspected cases of false marriage, to
refuse to issue a registration form and a duty to notify immigration
authorities. The Belgian government is committed to intensifying the fight against
misuse of family reunification, as outlined in the November 2013 policy paper
of the Secretary of State for Migration and Asylum Policy. Measures include: an
information campaign aimed at vulnerable women at risk of being targeted for
false marriages to legitimise stay for a third-country national; further
examination of the existence of false declarations of parenthood; establishment
of a working group to look into the possibility of introducing new measures in
this area; and plans to establish a national database for registering
information on suspected and proven marriages / legal cohabitations of
convenience, to enable municipalities to register evidence or suspicion of
misuse, and thus to better detect persons ‘shopping’ for marriages or legal
cohabitations of convenience. The Aliens Police of the Netherlands also plan to improve prevention and detection of marriages / relationships of
convenience more effectively in 2014. 
Italy reports that the fact
that Italian citizenship is only granted after two years of cohabitation deters
third country nationals from misusing the system of family reunification.
Member States can also better combat misuse of family reunification through
intra-EU cooperation. In 2013, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom established a new joint investigation team to investigate cases of misuse
involving EU citizens. At the September 2013 meeting of the Expert Group on the
right to free movement of persons (FREEMO), the United Kingdom agreed to lead
the drafting committee for an operational handbook on the identification and
detection of marriages of convenience together with Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands. Finland and Belgium also participate in the drafting of this handbook.
In the framework of the EU policy cycle on combating organised crime, the
Netherlands was action leader in the Operational Action on Marriages of
Convenience in the EMPACT (European Multidisci­plinary Platform against
Criminal Threats) project Facilitated Illegal Immigration, alongside other
participating Member States (IT, BG, CY, UK, PL, SI), Europol, Eurojust and
FRONTEX. Romania launched
a consultation between competent authorities to clarify some aspects of family
reunification applications (predominantly from Syria) where possible misuse is
indicates e.g. if required documents are not provided.  
3.4.3.     Combat and prevent irregular migration through misuse of
student migration
At
national level: Five Member States (FI, HU, LV, PL, SK) identified
cases of misuse of student migration in 2013, although the numbers were small
(e.g. 10- 15 in Latvia during the reference period). Such cases involved the
submission of falsified or false documents in the application (FI, PL),
students failing to register at the university after a residence permit had been
granted to them (HU, PL), students seeking to engage in economic activities
following the registration procedure (HU), and applicants demonstrating no or
poor language skills in the national language of the recipient country during
consular interviews (HU). 
Three
Member States (NL, RO, UK) introduced new legislation (or strengthened existing
provisions) aimed at combating misuse. The Netherlands introduced compulsory
monitoring of foreign students’ progress at university based on a common set of
standards and Denmark began to monitor the number of hours which individuals on
student residence permits work. Romania established new procedures regarding
the enrolling mechanism of third country nationals. In the United Kingdom, the
government reformed the Tier 4 student route to attract and retain the
‘brightest and the best’ students, whilst also reducing the risk of misuse.
Whilst no new measures were introduced in Finland, misuse of student migration
has been found to be particularly common among certain nationalities, including
students from Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Finland has
thus adopted a policy of carefully scrutinising residence permit applications
from students from these countries. 
New
measures implemented must ensure a balance between reducing the risk of misuse
against facilitating student access to EU Member States. Evaluation of the
impact of the measures is anticipated to take place in the future in the Czech
Republic. In the United Kingdom, there has been public debate on the student
visitor route, which allows people to visit the country for up to 6 months to
undertake a short course of study (as opposed to enrolling for a long-term
course of study). Recent Home Office research has investigated who is using
this growing short-term study route and whether they are using it as intended,
however, it found that there was no evidence to suggest misuse of this
migration route.
3.5.        Priority V: Safeguarding
and protecting free movement by prevention of abuse by third-country nationals
3.5.1.     Improve
the understanding of abuse of free movement rights by third country nationals
and organised crime aimed at facilitating irregular immigration; and prevent
the fraudulent acquisition and use of free movement rights by third-country
nationals
At EU level: A
number of actions are taking place with the aim of gathering, analysing and
sharing data on fraud and abuse of free movement rights at the EU level and to
share intelligence and best practices for prevention between Member States. 
In terms of
addressing abuse of free movement rights, the Commission has agreed to consider
holding a joint Family Reunification/ Free Movement expert group meeting to
better link the work being carried out by different Commission services on this
issue. 
As regards
organised crime related to the facilitation of illegal immigration, a thematic
discussion on document fraud, informed by a paper presented by Austria, was
held in April 2013 with the participation of FRONTEX, Europol and Member
States. During this discussion, it was also agreed by Member States that there
should be greater cooperation and collaboration between FRONTEX and Europol on
the issues of abuse of free movement rights and tackling the trafficking of
human beings and organised crime aimed at the facilitation of illegal
immigration. 
In terms of
gathering and analysing data on the facilitation of suspected marriages of
convenience and EU documentation fraud by organised criminal groups, there has
been an initial discussion conducted with Europol on the type of data and the
level of its usefulness. Europol completed a report on marriages of
convenience, providing examples and recommendations for more accurate
assessment of this increasing threat. Europol Checkpoint Target Group SNOW is
dedicated to exchanging and analysing information on Organised Crime Groups
facilitating marriages of convenience whilst Europol Checkpoint Target Group
RAIN is specifically dedicated to exchange and analysis on information related
to large-scale travel document production and supports several on-going
investigations focusing on print shops in EU Member States. Initial discussions
have been held with Europol on the establishment of a Europol Platform for
Experts.
FRONTEX
continues to manage the European Document Fraud Risk Analysis Network
(EDF-FRAN), in which Europol also takes part. This has allowed more data to be
gathered on document fraud, resulting in improved analysis. Analytical findings
from this network are incorporated into more general FRONTEX analyses like the
FRAN Quarterlies and the Annual Risk Analysis. In addition, the FRONTEX Annual
Risk Analysis 2013 on Document Fraud was released in May. FRONTEX invited
Member States to contribute to a feasibility study on extending the scope of
the EDF data exchange, with the results presented in the EDF network meeting in
October. On marriages of convenience, FRONTEX participates in the Operational
Action Plan Illegal Immigration in cases where there is suspicion of a marriage
of convenience with organised crime involvement. 
Criteria and
best practices related to the detection of marriages of convenience are being
explored and work is on-going on a draft handbook to provide practical support
for operational authorities and clarity on the EU legal framework on this
issue. 
With a view to
implementing enhanced security standards for EU documentation for legal stay,
discussions have been initiated within the Article 6 Committee on new technical
specifications for visa and residence permits for third country nationals. Some
initiatives are featured in the False Documents Working Group's programme of
work such as initiatives on secure issuing processes on the basis of improved
source documents. Member States are progressing with the implementation of the
Single Points of Contact, which enable Member States to exchange certificates
to access fingerprints on chips in documents from issuing countries in
accordance with Commission Decision C(2011) 5478. Member States have
to use the Biometric Residence Permit in card format since May 2011. Work is
on-going on improvements to the security design of the Uniform Format Visa and
Residence Permit. The Presidency launched a questionnaire on 'exchange of
information on EU family members residence cards to which 23 Member States replied.
A summary and analysis of the replies has been established, and was presented
on 16 December. 
At national
level:
At least seven Member States (BE, DE, IT, MT, NL, PT, RO) improved the security
standards of EU documentation on legal stay (residence cards etc.). Germany
continued to investigate possibilities to improve machine based verification of
physical document security features. Portugal will finalize in 2014 the
introduction of a new card for permanent residence to EU citizens and an
electronic residence card for their family members which includes biometrics. 
To better detect
false documents, the State Border Guard in Latvia intensified its actions to
detect false documents in 2013 through in-depth document verification
procedures, greater information dissemination within the Guard, and improved
registration of sample forgeries so that future ones can be more quickly
detected. Norway started discussions on whether legislative changes or other
measures should be introduced to prevent identity fraud. The Slovak Republic
set up a database outlining the format of different international police
records, in order to facilitate access to these documents and enable the Slovak
authorities to better verify these documents to improve the detection of forged
and counterfeited documents. In Bulgaria, the national centre on combating
false and forged documents was opened. In Slovenia document scanners at border
crossing points have been developed in order to enhance scanning quality and
response times, allowing an increase detection of document abuses.
More
information on recent developments regarding the application of free movement
rights by third country nationals is provided in the 2013 EMN Focussed Study on
Intra-EU Mobility of third-country nationals[58].
3.6.        Priority VI: Enhancing migration management including
cooperation on return practices
3.6.1.     Ensure
that all Member States have efficient migration management systems in place in
order to be prepared for fluctuating migration pressures
At EU level: In
order to ensure that adequate statistical data and analysis is in place,
dialogue has begun between EASO and Eurostat on the availability of asylum
statistics collected by Eurostat under Article 4 of the Migration Statistics
Regulation. FRONTEX has also initiated discussions with Member States on the
gathering of data related to passenger flow. Passenger flow data collected for
the purpose of regional analysis on the Western Balkans and the Eastern land
border has already improved FRONTEX's analysis. Furthermore, the European
Migration Network Bulletin provides an overview of the latest published
Eurostat statistics and serves to provide statistics and analysis on topics of
relevance to policy makers. 
FRONTEX
continues to manage a project on the structured exchange of information and
statistics on intra-Schengen detections of secondary movements of irregular
migrants, managed within the framework of the Risk Analysis Tactical meetings. 
EASO has taken
significant steps towards collecting non-validated data for the purposes of the
Early Warning and Preparedness System, to prevent the sole use of Eurostat as
its data source. The system will be further developed in the coming months to
support the implementation of Article 33 of the Dublin Regulation. EASO, in
cooperation with the Commission (DG HOME, Eurostat) and FRONTEX, has also
designed a table of proposed asylum indicators which would provide a
comprehensive overview of the functioning of the Common European Asylum System.
EASO's Group for the Provision of Asylum Statistics, comprised of Member States
experts nominated to be the responsible persons for asylum data collection and
statistics, met in April and November. 
There is
continued close monitoring of migration movements from Syria on the part of the
Commission, EASO, IOM and UNHCR, including through the monthly BorderNet
conferences set up by the Commission with the participation of FRONTEX, Europol
and EASO. EASO organised a Practical Cooperation meeting on Syria on 18-19
March, and made a statistical analysis of the flow. This analysis will be
included in the EASO Annual Report covering 2013, due mid-2014. 
EURINT Phase 2,
designed to increase structural cooperation between EU Member States and third
countries to increase commitment in terms of re-documentation and return, was
kicked-off with a conference in The Hague on 17 September where country lists
were established.  
FRONTEX, through
capacity building, knowledge-sharing and coordination, continues to support
Member States in the field of joint return operations and more effective use of
detention capacities, in the framework of Project Attica and other initiatives.

At
national level: In 2013, a number of Member States introduced
measures to improve their capacity to cope with sudden and fluctuating
migration pressures. Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Poland,
Romania, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and Sweden prepared operational
protocols to be followed in case of sudden or mass influxes of migrants /
international protection applicants. 
In
the case of Bulgaria, the protocol was developed in response to the major
influx and ensuing accommodation shortage and emergency situation. In
expectation of a ‘knock-on’ effect from this major influx in Bulgaria into
Romania, the Romanian authorities developed an Integrated Action Plan (see
section 2.1.2). Hungary also experienced large influxes of Asian and African
migrants at the border with Serbia, with almost 90% of these, seeking asylum.
Hungary responded by increasing the number of police forces deployed along the
external border and seeking support from Austria with its border interventions.
As the migratory influxes arriving in Italy from North Africa decreased in
volume as compared to previous year, Italy began to encourage applicants to
leave reception facilities and where possible to return to their country of
origin, whilst guaranteeing reception for vulnerable persons. Sweden also
received high numbers of applicants for international protection. In 2013, the
Swedish Government increased the resources of the Migration Board in order to
expand its asylum units and to arrange temporary accommodation for the
applicants. In the long term, the Migration Board seeks to mitigate pressure
from mass influxes by increasing the competence of its staff in processing
applications and by continuously improving the IT system. 
In
response to large numbers of refugees resulting from the ongoing conflict in
Syria, the United Kingdom continued to implement exceptional arrangements for
Syrian nationals who are currently in the UK on visas for a further year. These
arrangements enable Syrian nationals to extend their visa or switch into a
different visa category without returning to Syria. Bulgaria highlighted the
value of FRONTEX joint operations as another mechanism for mitigating the
impact of sudden influxes.
3.6.2.     Maximise the potential of a common EU approach in the
field of return, both voluntary and forced in compliance with existing EU
acquis
Statistics on the numbers of third
country nationals ordered to leave in 2013 are available for 27 Member
States and are shown in Table 5 of the Statistics Annex. The highest numbers of
third country nationals ordered to leave were reported by France (84 890);
United Kingdom (57 195); Belgium (47 465); Spain (32 915) and
Netherlands (32 435) and together these Member States accounted for 70% of
the overall total for all Member States where statistics were provided. Three
Member States (France, United Kingdom, and Belgium) accounted for 52% of this
overall total. Statistics for all Member States are shown in Figure 4a below:
Figure 4a: Third-country nationals
ordered to leave in 2013
Source: Eurostat 
Notes: Statistics not published for EL and NO due to lack of
reliability because of small sample size.
Statistics on the numbers of third
country nationals returned following an order to leave in 2013 are
available for 25 Member States and are also shown in Table 5 of the Statistics
Annex. The highest numbers of third country nationals returned under these circumstances
were reported by United Kingdom (55 100); France (20 140);
Spain (17 285); Sweden (14 315) and Poland (8 465). Together
these Member States accounted for 71% of the overall total for all Member
States where statistics were provided. Three Member States (United Kingdom,
France, and Spain) accounted for almost 60% of this overall total.  Statistics
for all Member States are shown in Figure 4b below:
Figure 4b: Third-country nationals
returned following an order to leave in 2013. 
Source:
Eurostat
Notes: Statistics not published for DE, EL, NL and NO due to lack of reliability
because of small sample size.
Table 6 in the
statistics annex sets out the numbers of third country nationals returned as
part of forced return measures, those returned voluntarily, and of those who
were returned voluntarily, the numbers returned under assisted voluntary return
measures. 
Statistics are
available in 23 Member States and Norway on the numbers of third country
nationals returned under forced return measures. The highest numbers for
2013 were reported in Spain (17 286); Germany (10 198);
United Kingdom (9 963); Italy (4 742); and Norway (5 965). The
countries to which irregular migrants are returned show considerable diversity
according to (Member) State. For the countries returning the highest numbers of
third country nationals under forced return arrangements, these were: Morocco, Algeria, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador (Spain); and
Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Albania and Bangladesh (United Kingdom).  Data was
not available for Germany, Hungary and Italy. The countries of return most
frequently reported by (Member) States for forced return (where data was
available) were Russia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Serbia and Ukraine.
Ten
Member States (CZ, DK, EE, LV, LU, MT, AT, SK, FI, SE) and Norway were able to
provide forced return statistics by gender. In all cases, the number of males
returned was greater than the number of females. The highest proportions of
males returned under forced return were reported in Malta[59]
(100%); Czech Republic (92%); Latvia (91%); Austria (88%) and Estonia (86%).
The countries with the highest proportion of females returned were Luxembourg
and Finland (31% respectively); Sweden (28%); and Denmark (27%). 
Five
Member States (DK, EE, SK, FI, SE) and Norway reported that minors had been
returned under forced return measures. The numbers were highest in Norway
(455); Denmark (430); and Finland (82). Minors represented 26% of all persons
returned under forced return in Denmark, 8% in Estonia and Norway, 5% in
Finland and 2% or less in Slovak Republic and Sweden. 
Statistics for all
(Member) States (where available) for Third-country nationals returned
as part of forced return measures in 2013 are shown in Figure 5a below.
Figure
5a: Third-country nationals returned as part of forced return measures
 
Source: European Migration Network
National Contact Points
Notes:
Statistics not currently available in Ireland, Netherlands
and Poland
For
Cyprus*, this number also includes a number of TCNs (647) who were illegal in
the country and requested to leave Cyprus. The Cyprus Aliens Law defines
voluntary return as “complying with the obligation to return within the time
frame set in the Decision to return”. Due to the fact that there are no data as
to how many of the persons who requested to leave, actually did that within the
set time frame, there can be no actual statistical data on voluntary returns,
as defined in the National Legislation.
Statistics are available in 18 Member
States on the numbers of third country nationals returned under voluntary
return measures (please see Figure 5b below). Of these, the countries
returning the highest numbers of people through voluntary return were United
Kingdom (32,310); Sweden (10 611); Belgium (4 290); Austria (3 095)
and Latvia (2 047). The countries where Member States returned people most
often in 2013 were Serbia, Kosovo, Russian Federation and Ukraine. 
Figure 5b: Third-country nationals
returned under voluntary return measures
Source: European Migration Network National
Contact Points
Notes:
Statistics not currently available in Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania,
The Netherlands, Poland and  Spain.
Five Member States provided
information about the proportion of men and women returned under voluntary
measures (DK, LU, AT, FI, SE). In all countries except Luxembourg, more men
were returned in 2013 than women. Only three countries provided statistics on
minors returned under voluntary return programmes. These were Sweden (183,
accounting for 1.7% of all voluntary returns); Finland (76, accounting for 5%
of all voluntary returns) and Denmark (40, accounting for 12.9% of all
voluntary returns).
At EU level: Considerable progress has been made in 2013 in further harmonising
the legal framework and the practical procedures for the conduct of return
measures in Member States across the Union, notably with the implementation of
the Return Directive[60].
The Directive’s aim is to ensure that the return of third-country nationals,
who have no legal grounds to stay lawfully in the EU, is carried out
effectively through fair and transparent procedures in full respect of the
fundamental rights and dignity of the persons concerned. In 2013 the Commission
continued the evaluation of the correct application of the Return Directive. By
the end of 2013 a significant number of Member States have already amended
their national legislation to close existing gaps or to remedy shortcomings
identified by Commission services. Other Member States started legislative
procedures to do so. 
Based inter alia on the
experiences made during the evaluation of the application of the Return
Directive, the Commission adopted Communication on the EU Return Policy[61]. The
Communication reports on the development of the EU return policy over the last
years analyses its impact and presents some forward-looking ideas on future
developments. It complies with the Commission’s obligation to submit a report
to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Return
Directive, and responds as well to the political commitment made by the
Commission at the time of adoption of the amended FRONTEX Regulation in 2011 to
report on the monitoring of return operations coordinated by FRONTEX.
Voluntary return or
departure remains the preferred option to carry out returns, although in some
cases forced returns may be necessary. To better harmonise and improve their
cooperation in the field of voluntary returns Member States should make use of
the possibilities that will be offered in the future by the European Migration
Network (EMN) where voluntary return will be a self-standing part of the
system.
In
order to support the efforts made by the Member States to improve the
management of return, following in 2013 eight projects were financed by the
Commission under the European Return Fund Community Actions, with focus on
preventive and reintegration measures accompanying the return and exchange of
experts to share knowledge, experience and best practices. 
In the field of
operational cooperation between Member States, joint return flights coordinated
and financed by FRONTEX were increasingly used. From 2006 until December 2013,
FRONTEX coordinated 209 Joint Return Operations (JROs) returning 10 855
persons. In 2013 FRONTEX continued to provide a standardized training for
return officers focussing on safeguarding fundamental rights and dignity of
returnees during forced return operations. 
A FRONTEX Code of
Conduct (CoC) for JROs, paying attention to effective forced return monitoring
procedures, respect of fundamental rights and the dignity of the returnees
during the return operations was adopted on 7 October 2013. The monitor (an
independent outside observer) will obtain in advance all necessary information
and will be involved into the return process from the pre-return phase
(internal briefings) until the post return phase (debriefing). The monitor will
have access to all information and physical access to any place he wishes. The
observations/reports of the monitor will be included into the reporting on the
JRO. 
An EU financed project
run by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)
seeking to further harmonise the different approaches taken by Member States in
the field of monitoring was launched in 2013. It seeks to develop common rules,
and objective and transparent criteria for monitoring, as well as to provide a
pool of independent monitors to Member States which may also be used in the
context of JROs. 
In 2012, the office of
an independent FRONTEX Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) was created and on 17
December 2012 the first FRO was appointed. The role of the FRO is to monitor,
assess and make recommendations on the protection and guarantees of fundamental
rights during FRONTEX operations and activities, including JROs. The FRO has
access to all information concerning respect for fundamental rights as regards
all the activities of FRONTEX. In 2013 the FRO managed to implement the
necessary structures and to sharpen its' role and perception as an important
independent body within the FRONTEX structures.
In 2013 the Court of
Justice of the European Union issued three preliminary rulings on return
related issues. The May 2013 judgment in case C 534-11 (Arslan) dealt with the
relation between return related detention (under Directive 2008/115/EC) and
Asylum related detention (under Directive 2003/9) in a situation where a
third-country national is detained under the Return Directive and submits an
application for asylum with the objective of postponing return. The judgment
confirms that asylum-related detention and return-related detention are covered
by two different legal regimes with respective legal safeguards adapted to the
specific situation of asylum seekers and returnees. The Court made clear that
the existence of these two differing regimes does not imply an obligation on
the Member State to automatically release detained returnees once they make an
asylum application. The judgement expressly confirms that detention may be
continued – provided Member States take without delay a decision under national
law to continue detention in compliance with the asylum acquis.
The judgement of
19.9.2013, in case C-297/12 (Filev/Osmani) relates to the validity of
"historic" entry bans issued before the entry into force of the
return directive as well as rules on the length of entry bans. In this
judgement the ECJ: 
- Confirmed that
Article 11(2) precludes a provision of national law which makes the limitation
of the length of an entry ban subject to making an application seeking to
obtain the benefit of such a limit.
- Clarified that an
entry ban which was handed down more than five years before the date of the
entry into force of the national legislation implementing that directive
("historic entry bans") cannot develop further effects, unless the
person constitutes a serious threat to public order, public security or
national security.
- Precludes Member
States from excluding under Article 2(2)(b) of that directive persons which
during the date on which that directive should have been implemented and the
date on which it was implemented, benefited from more favourable direct effect
of the Directive.
The judgement of
10.9.2013 in case C- 383/13 PPU (G and R), confirmed that the rights of the
defence are to be respected when deciding on the extension of detention. It
clarified that not every irregularity in the observation of the rights of the
defence brings about the annulment of the decision. Such effect would only take
place if the national court considers that the infringement at issue actually
would have led to a different outcome.
At
national level: All Member States implemented measures to support a
common EU approach in the field of return, whether through cooperation and
exchange of information (at both national and EU level), through increased
monitoring of return, and through increased coordination of efforts to return
third-country nationals whether forced or through voluntary return.
Member
States exchanged information at the EU level on good practices on return
through the European Initiative on Integrated Return Management (EURINT)
network which in 2013 was led by the Netherlands (with the support of a
seconded Belgian immigration officer). In 2013, Bulgaria stepped up the
participation in joint flights organised by other Member States and co-financed
by FRONTEX Agency and European Return Fund. Bulgaria mainly returned citizens
of Nigeria, Pakistan, Iraq and Ecuador through joint flights with Poland and
Sweden. Bulgaria also cooperated with France in 2013 on a joint European Return
Fund project to exchange of experience to improve the administrative
cooperation in the field of return. Croatia started sharing practices on return
through EMN and participating in Contact Committee Return Directive. Romania
participated into 3 joint flights organized by Austria and Spain and returned
citizens in Nigeria and Pakistan. The Belgian Federal Agency for the Reception
of Asylum Seekers (Fedasil) set up a network for intergovernmental cooperation
in 2013: the Common Support Initiative (CSI) aims to increase the sharing of
information between administrations responsible for voluntary return, to
strengthen the effective management of return and reintegration programmes in
countries of origin and to support operational cooperation between the countries
in this field and Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden
continued to participate in the European Reintegration Initiative (ERI) to
support reintegration in seven return countries: the Russian Federation,
Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria and Morocco. IOM in Rome (IT)
, Vilnius (LT) and Riga (LV) were active in holding meetings with relevant
national and international actors (e.g. members of embassies) with the
objective of sharing best practices, statistical data and relevant available
information. Other EU level vehicles for the sharing of best practices on
return are the Working group on Admission, Control and Enforcement (ACE) the
IGC (Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees) and the
European Voluntary Return Network (VREN).
Many
Member States (e.g. BE, CY, EE, EL, FI, HR, IT, PL, PT, SI) continued to develop
cooperation between national NGOs, international organisations and state actors
involved in return. The Swedish National Bureau of Investigation opened an
Embassy Liaison Section to serve as a national contact point for foreign
embassies in Sweden as well as for police authorities when they need to contact
an embassy. Belgium’s competent authority for the reception of asylum seekers
and voluntary return (Fedasil) carries out training sessions on return for
social workers in reception facilities. Latvia, Poland, and Portugal
collaborated with IOM, organising a seminar for the employees of the Office of
Citizenship and Migration Affairs and the State Border Guard regarding the
implementation of the voluntary assisted return programmes (LV) and developing
a web-based application to improve the referral system to improve timeliness
and efficiency (PT). 
Developments
at national level demonstrated an increased focus on voluntary return in
some Member States. Hungary’s use of forced removal dropped by nearly 60%,
and funding for IOM’s AVR initiative was increased; this has significantly
contributed to enhance the safe return of those whose asylum application has
been refused. Estonia and Finland drafted legislation to facilitate voluntary
return (EE) and to further develop the system of voluntary return
(FI) and
Croatia introduced included encouraging voluntary return of as one of the
objectives of its migration policy 2013 – 2015. Voluntary return remained a key
priority of the Bulgaria’s National Strategy on Migration, Asylum and
Integration that runs until 2020 and in 2013 Bulgaria returned 149 third
country nationals through its assisted voluntary return programme. IOM
representatives implementing the programme are stationed in the Bulgarian
reception facilities so they can provide information and advice to returnees as
needed. Lithuania introduced legal provisions on the application of assisted
voluntary return for vulnerable irregular migrants. In the Slovak Republic, IOM
Bratislava began to record short videos of clients successfully reintegrating
into their countries of return. IOM also disseminated information on the AVR
programme to representatives of the Aliens Police Department, to improve their
understanding of the programme. The Fedasil in Belgium introduced a measure to
better assess whether persons applying for assisted voluntary return from
Brazil have sufficient financial means to pay for the return themselves and
whether they have the intention to return or not, since it became clear that
nationals from this country had been misusing the scheme. In 2014, Portugal
will disseminate new visibility material in order to increase and improve the
Voluntary Return programme, working with IOM, and a new campaign will be
launched. The
Danish project for prepared return of vulnerable migrants, such as
unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking was extended to the end
of December 2014 and the reintegration period was extended from 3 to 6 months,
raising the monthly support from USD 150 to USD 200 and doubling the amount for
migrants who support minors. In Romania assisted voluntary
repatriation was implemented under within the framework of Return Fund project
“Effective voluntary return and integration in the country of origin”. During
2013, a total number of 206 immigrants benefited from the project. Even so, the
number registered a drop by 33.76% comparing to 2012.
Eight
Member States (BE, BG, ES, FI, LV, MT, PT, SK) increased efforts to monitor
return, including forced return accordance with Article 8 (6) of the Return
Directive. The Latvian Ombudsman’s Office developed a report on forced
return monitoring for the period from July 2011 to March 2013 and will continue
to do so 2013 – 2015 as part of a project funded by the European Return Fund.
Similarly, Bulgaria implemented an RF project to establish a mechanism for
monitoring forced returns from Bulgaria. Amendments to the Finnish Aliens Act on
establishing an effective monitoring system is currently under discussion.
Legislation will enter into force on 1 January 2014. Portugal will develop
further activities in cooperation with IOM in Lisbon with the purpose of
improving pre and post-boarding assistance mechanisms. The Slovak Republic will
introduce provisions on the monitoring of forced return decisions through an
amendment of the Act on Residence of Aliens with proposed date of effect from 1
January 2014. In Belgium, the Sensitisation, Follow-up & Return mechanism,
which monitors data on return in Belgium, continued to monitor the voluntary
return of irregular migrants receiving a return order. Third-country nationals
can register their departure for this purpose with the Federal Police or border
guards at border crossing points (BCPs), at the Belgian embassy in their
country of return or by sending a copy to the Immigration Office. The
underlying objective of this is to avoid the unnecessary issuance of re-entry
bans. So far over a thousand independent returnees have been counted in 2013.
The Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security of Malta participated in
the ICMPD FReM (Forced Return Monitoring) Project which aims to create a
European pool of Forced Return Monitors, available to the countries in need of
implementing a system for monitoring whether human rights standards and legal
obligations are met during return.
Three
Member States (AT, BE, EL) saw developments in relation to the detention of
migrants awaiting return. Austria established and equipped a new detention
centre in the municipality of Vordernberg in the State of Styria which will
become operational in early 2014. By contrast, Belgium extended the capacity of
its so-called ‘housing units’ established as alternatives to detention for
families without legal stay. The Immigration Office now rents 23 houses, with a
total capacity for about 120 persons. Greece established five ‘pre-removal
centres’ during 2013 and three more are expected to be operational during 2014.

Assisted
voluntary return with special focus on sustainability and successful
reintegration whilst being fully aware of possible pull effects of such
measures are an increasingly important part of the return policy in Germany. To
maximize the positive effects Germany increasingly cooperates with other MS
like France with which concrete collaboration has already been started on the
project Return Assistance in Armenia - Cooperation OFII-BAMF (RACOB). 
Spain has established a framework applicable to the programs
financed by the Ministry of Employment and Social Security (MEYSS) for the
sustainable voluntary return. Special focus is laid on the situation of
vulnerable persons and the cooperation with countries of origin, other MS. 
3.7.        Other measures to combat irregular migration
3.7.1.     Developing
a network of immigration liaison officers
At EU level:  In
order to disrupt the increasing number of organised crime groups operating in
source and transit countries to facilitate irregular immigration to the EU,
'Illegal Immigration' has been included as one of the EU Crime Priorities under
the EU Policy Cycle for organised and serious international crime 2014-2017.[62]  
The Operational
Action Plan for 'Illegal Immigration' in 2014 (launched on 4 February)
includes, among other activities, the establishment in Libya and Turkey of
networks of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs), deployed or seconded to
embassies, solely dedicated to gaining intelligence on irregular immigration.
The aim of these dedicated networks is help establish a better operational
picture of the situation in neighbouring countries of transit. The network in
Libya will be established as soon as the security situation allows. 
Following on
from the amendment to the ILO Regulation[63],
work is also underway to improve the functioning of networks of ILOs, with
on-going discussion between Member States and FRONTEX to improve the
coordination and cooperation, particularly in terms of data sharing, between
ILOs posted in third countries. 
In
line with Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison
officers network, a number of projects were financed through the External
Borders Fund Community Actions to establish or further develop ILO activities
and networks in third countries, thereby contributing to the prevention and
combating of irregular immigration, the return of irregular immigrants and the
management of legal migration to the European Union. Immigration Liaison
Officers supported through EU funding were deployed in several regions,
including Africa and Eastern countries neighbouring the EU, and they all work
on behalf of at least two Member States. 
At
national level: Several Member States (AT, EE, FI, IT, LV, LT, PT,
RO[64], SI,
UK) expanded their networks of immigration liaison officers (ILOs). Three
others (FI, HR, SK) deployed police liaison officers with the aim of monitoring
and analysing immigration flows. The Latvian State Border Guard’s liaison
officer cooperated with 33 state liaison officers accredited in Moscow.
Portugal has initiated a new phase of deployment of ILOs in Brazil, Cape Verde,
Senegal, Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Russia. Posted next to Portugal’s consulates
in those countries, ILOs collect relevant information in close coordination
with their counterparts in other Member States and perform a rigorous
examination of visa applications submitted. Several Member States reduced costs
and increased the collective impact of the ILO by setting up joint ILO missions
to Thailand (involving Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic and Slovakia);
Ukraine and Moldova (involving Lithuania, Estonia and Finland); and Moscow
(involving Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia). 
As
described in the French National Report, ILOs play a “fundamental role in the
collection, the understanding and the transmission of information” and in
promoting international cooperation on migration. Through the secondment of
liaison officers, amongst other measures, Italian authorities have promoted a
form of permanent dialogue, especially with countries of the southern
Mediterranean, which is important for their ability to prevent irregular
migration flows from these countries. Portugal underlined that ILOs’ work has
been efficient in detecting illegal practices and has played an important role
as contact points to the local authorities. Information exchanged between ILOs
enables Member States to better predict and better control irregular
immigration flows towards Europe. Austria and the United Kingdom newly deployed
ILOs to Pakistan. The UK also newly deployed ILOs to Nepal and Albania. The ILO
in Kathmandu (Nepal) trained airline authorities and as a result the UK saw a
reduction the number of inadequately documented arrivals (IDAs) originating
from Nepal. 
3.7.2.      Monitor and identify migration routes
At
national level: A few Member States introduced changes to their
systems of National Liaison Officers (NLOs) in 2013. The Czech Republic
introduced new measures to develop its network of NLOs. Sweden set up a new
unit for migration intelligence within the Swedish Migration Board. Several
Member States (EL, ES, FR, HU, HR, LV, LT, PL, PT, SE, SK) reported on the
continued importance of the work of their NLOs in gathering data on irregular
migration that can be subsequently used for more accurate responses and resource
allocation. In 2013, Latvia reported that its NLOs specifically played an
important role in identifying 90 visas that stated potentially fraudulent
information on the purpose of entry. Through a joint operation, the Latvian
border guards, together with Russian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Polish border
guards identified a route for the irregular migration of Vietnamese people.
Others reported that data collected by NLOs is used as evidence in procedures
against irregular migrants. Another key activity of NLOs is risk analysis. Risk
analyses performed by the Latvian State Border Guard showed that transit roads
are elements of increased illegal immigration risk routes. For this reason, it
is useful that the Latvian NLO shares risk analysis information with Estonia
and Lithuania. In the Netherlands, a new process has been started to better
identify migration routes within the EU, so-called ‘secondary movements.’
3.7.3.     Identify and curb
irregular migration routes inside the Schengen Area through improved cooperation
and information exchange; improve the situational picture of migration
pressures by taking into account modi operandi used for secondary movements
within the EU
At EU level: The
second expert meeting on intra-Schengen flows took place in April 2013. In
December, the FRONTEX Risk Analysis Network agreed on indicators of these
movements to be regularly collected as of January 2014. The knowledge gathered
through the regular data collection and the analytical follow up should feed
into the assessment of the functioning of the Schengen area and to the
strategic level discussion on possible measures aimed at countering
unauthorised secondary movements of third country nationals within the European
Union. 
Within the
European Document Fraud Risk Analysis Network (EDF-FRAN), the scope of
information exchange has been extended to cover document fraud taking place as
part of secondary movements across air borders. This should improve the
situational picture of migratory pressures by taking into account the modi
operandi used for secondary movements within the EU.
3.7.4.     Sanctions and measures against employers of illegally
staying third-country nationals
At EU level: In 2013 work progressed on the assessment
of the implementation of the Employers Sanctions Directive [65], in
view of a publication of the Commission's first report on the implementation of
the Directive [66].
The report concludes that all [67] Member States bound by the Directive
prohibit the employment of irregular migrants, and punish their employers through
financial and criminal sanctions. Even if a number of
Member States have made those sanctions tougher, for example by raising the
amount of fines or the severity of criminal sanctions, the
level of the sanctions varies, however, considerably between Member States.
Not all Member
States have yet implemented the protective elements in favour of the irregular
migrants in a satisfactory manner. There is still room for improvement in all
areas offering protection to irregular migrants, be it the right to introduce a
claim against an employer, effective mechanisms to do so, or a provision as
basic as the systematic and objective information on rights.
Inspections are the
backbone to enforce the prohibition of illegal employment and to inform the
irregular migrants about their rights. However, many Member States failed to
submit the requested report on inspections in July, necessitating the opening
of pre-infringement procedures, after which the requested reports were
submitted. The fact that these reports are often not complete and not easily
comparable renders a meaningful EU-wide synthesis of inspections and their
results difficult. The information collected so far Member States suggests that
there are big gaps in enforcement efforts between Member States. 
Member States
are obliged to report on inspections each year before 1 July, and the
Commission will therefore continue to monitor closely the measures taken by
Members States in this area and will pursue its bilateral exchanges with each
Member States to ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions
are applied across the EU and that mechanism to facilitate the enforcement of
the rights of the irregular migrants are in place. An effective enforcement of
the Directive shall constitute an incentive for the employers to use the legal
channel to recruit third countries national for the benefits of the migrants,
the employers and the Member State.
At
national level: To deter employers from employing illegally
staying third-country nationals, the Netherlands and Slovak Republic raised
fines for illegal employment. The Home Office in the United Kingdom conducted a
public consultation on their employer sanction ‘civil penalty’ scheme, which
has led the authority to propose an increase in the maximum civil penalty for
2014. Sweden and the United Kingdom also sought to reduce the administrative
burden placed on employers who employ third-country nationals (thus enabling
the employers to better comply with migration and labour rules): the Swedish
Tax Agency launched a standard form for employers to notify the authority and
the United Kingdom’s Home Office published guidance to employers on how to
check third country nationals’ right to work. 
As a
result of changes to the national definition of ‘illegal work’ following
transposition of EU Directive 2009/52/EC (Employer Sanctions), the Czech
Republic saw an increase in penalties to employers who allowed illegal work. In
the United Kingdom, as a result of increased operational enforcement of the
rules against illegal working, more than double the number of penalty notices
were served on employers from April to August 2013 (1 436) as compared to the
same period in 2012 (669). By contrast, Italy reports that the labour crisis
has contributed a reduction in the number of irregularly staying migrants
employed in the Member State. Estonia also reports a reduction in incidences
from 71 irregular migrants detected in work in 2012 to 41 in 2013.
3.8.        The
fight against facilitation of irregular migration (‘smuggling’)
At EU level: New
actions to combat and prevent smuggling in human beings were developed within
the framework of the Task Force Mediterranean. At the end of 2013, the
Commission launched a study to gather updated and complete information on the
transposition of the EU acquis in this field, including Directive
2002/90/EC and Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA. 
A major
operation against a smuggling criminal network was finalised in January 2013,
thanks to the coordination provided by Europol. The operation Fimathu,
initiated in September 2011 by Austria and Hungary as a joint response to the
significant increase in illegal immigration in their jurisdictions, involved
more than 1 200 law enforcement officers from 14 European countries[68],
EULEX (European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo) and Europol, and was one
of the largest international actions against people smugglers in Europe.
Irregular migrants were recruited in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and
Turkey by a major international people smuggling criminal network. The migrants
were often smuggled in inhumane and dangerous conditions in very small, hidden
compartments of buses or trucks, by freight trains or boats. In some cases
falsified travel documents were used, as well as marriages of convenience to regularise
their status in the EU. The operation, coordinated via the International
Coordination Centre set up at Europol and staffed with senior investigators
from participating countries, brought about the arrest of 103 suspects across
Europe. The operation was facilitated by Europol and its network, which
provided tailored, also on-the-spot support, including financial, technical and
expert support. 
3.8.1.     National
actions and international cooperation against smuggling  
At national
level:
Austria, Finland, Italy and Portugal each created new investigative bodies
tasked with investigating smuggling and irregular migration. While in Austria
the two investigation teams exclusively comprise police officers, the 25
Finnish investigative teams consist of police, border officers and customs
officers and the Italian task force comprises representatives of various
ministries (Interior, Foreign Affairs, Integration, Infrastructure and
Transport, Defence, European Affairs). Portugal established joint teams with other
law enforcement authorities that performed joint operations and regular
meetings.
Estonia
planned changes to the Tourism Act, which will create a database of
accommodation establishments in 2014 to facilitate the identification of
third-country nationals for whom the criteria for entering, staying or living
in the country may suggest a risk of smuggling.
In
order to dismantle smuggling networks, a number of Member States (AT, BG, CZ,
DE, FI, FR, SI, UK) participated in Europol operations in 2013, such as the
“Fake” operation, which involved Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, France and
United Kingdom and which led to the dismantling of a criminal organisation
specialised in the counterfeiting of documents and human smuggling and to five
suspects being apprehended and further evidence seized.[69]
France’s Border Police contributed to the elaboration of FRONTEX’s guide for
European border guards to help them identify potential victims of networks
smuggling people across borders.
Within the
context of its upcoming presidency, Italy held a meeting of the Fifth High
Level Group with France on cross-border cooperation between two States’ police
forces to combat organised crime and illegal migration. It also hosted meetings
attended by the chiefs of Police of Latvia and Luxembourg. It also led a
dialogue with Mediterranean Member States (Spain, Malta, Cyprus) on the issues
of migration emergency and combating irregular migration. At international
level, Latvia set up cooperation frameworks with authorities of the Russian
Federation and the Republic of Belarus on smuggling and Malta signed a
Memorandum of Understanding on Migration Matters with Burkina Faso to
strengthen cooperation on return, readmission and reintegration. During 2013
Malta also concluded the ICMPD Strengthening Malta’s long-term Return
Management Capacities (MAREMCA 2) project which aimed to build Malta’s
cooperation with countries of origin on migration issues and reinforce its
return management capacities in order to better manage the return operations of
irregular migrants. Intelligence
gathered as well as operational activities developed by the Joint Investigation
Teams (for example, those kept by the National Police on African territory)
have the objective of finding out and neutralizing the complete structure of
the smuggling organisation.
3.8.2.     Activities
to monitor smuggling
At
national level: Many Member States exchanged information on
smuggling in the EU through participation in the FRONTEX Risk Analysis Network
(FRAN) and in specific FRONTEX operations, such as Perkūnas (“Thunder”)
which was led by Lithuania with the support of 23 other Member States with the
aim of establishing a link between irregular crossings at external borders of
the EU and secondary migration in the EU Member States and Schengen Associated
Countries. The French Unit for the Operational Coordination of Measures to
Combat the Trafficking and Exploitation of Migrants (UCOLTEM) created a
European community of specialised experts from Spain, United Kingdom, Bulgaria,
Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden and the two agencies FRONTEX and Europol, to
analyse information and intelligence that can lead to the dismantling of
irregular immigration networks. On the basis of the border cooperation
agreement between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia, a multilateral
joint operation was carried out which led to the identification of facilitators
of smuggling.
Most
Member States had national authorities collecting data information on smuggling
in 2013. This activity was usually undertaken by the (federal) criminal police
authority (e.g. AT, SE) or the border guard / alien police (e.g. CZ, LV) and
involves the exchange of information with other Member States and third
countries. A few Member States (EE, FR, HU, SI) however reported challenges in
collecting the data. For instance, Estonia reported that data with neighbouring
third countries can sometimes be incompatible due to differences in the two
information management systems. Similarly, France describes inconsistencies in
the way that Member States report data on smuggling to the FRONTEX Analysis
Network (FRAN) either categorising data incorrectly or in reporting different
figures from NLOs. Croatia, Estonia and Hungary each reported that challenges
to data collection on smuggling could be mitigated through increased
cooperation between the national authorities, e.g. through continued use of
Joint Investigation Teams (Croatia) and expert pooling (Hungary). Slovenia
noted that facilitated illegal migration tends to be under-reported and facilitators
remain undetected due to their clandestine operations. The Police in Norway
established a new analytical framework for intelligence and threat and risk
assessment through consultation with other relevant authorities and public and
private partners.
4.           UNACCOMPANIED
MINORS AND OTHER VULNERABLE GROUPS
4.1.        Unaccompanied
minors
Table 10 in the
Statistical Annex gives an overview of the provisional number of unaccompanied
minors including, where possible, a distinction between those who did and those
who did not apply for asylum in 2013. On the basis of these provisional data,
the following countries received the highest numbers overall: Italy (807 asylum
applicants, 8 461 non-asylum applicants), Sweden (3 850 asylum
applicants) and Germany (2 485 asylum applicants). Figure 6 below provides
an overview of number of recognised unaccompanied minors applying for asylum in
2013.
Figure 6. Unaccompanied minors
applying for asylum, 2013
Source:
Eurostat, [migr_asyunaa] 
At EU level: Unaccompanied
minors continued to receive much attention in 2013. In September 2013 the
European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the situation of unaccompanied
children in the EU, calling upon the Commission and Member States to increase
efforts for the protection of such a vulnerable group. The Parliament puts
particular emphasis on the need to reinforce cooperation with countries of
origin and transit, and to increase the funding of actions aimed at better
protecting unaccompanied minors. The Resolution also mentioned the importance
of integrating the child in the host country, according to a life project drawn
up for and with the minor, with full respect of his/her ethnic, religious,
cultural and linguistic background.  
EASO continued
its work on age assessment, family tracing and countries of origin, thanks to a
great involvement of national authorities and non-governmental organisations. A
publication providing practical support to Member States in the field of age
assessment was finalised early 2014[70].
While the aim of this publication is to address age assessment in the specific
field of asylum, it may also serve as a useful reference in other areas where
age assessment is key.
A session of the
8th Forum on the Rights of the Child was dedicated to the subject of
children on the move. The Forum, which took place in Brussels on 16-17 December
2013, gathering representatives from the European Institutions, EU Member
States, Ombudspersons for children, international organisations and NGOs,
discussed the role of integrated child protection systems. 
A second call
for proposal for pilot projects on unaccompanied minors was launched in 2013,
with a total budget of EUR 1 million. The first selected project focuses on the
Best Interest Concept (BIC) and Best Interest Determination (BID) as described
in the most important international documents, and aims at transposing those
concepts to the needs of national policy makers and practitioners who are
dealing with unaccompanied minors' cases in national context. The second
project selected for financing aims to draft a best practice guide on durable
solutions. It foresees drafting national reports from the participating
countries with extensive interviews of practitioners and unaccompanied minors
to be also included in the best practice guide.
In
addition, a project funded by European Return Fund emergency assistance started
in January 2013 aims to improve the ability of the Greek Government to assist
unaccompanied minors returning from the country to their respective countries
of origin and their reintegration. EU financed pilot project leaded by Swedish
Migration Board (ERPUM II), involving partners from SW, NL, UK and NO, aimed at
development of alternative methods together with third countries for
facilitating family reunification, re-integration and return of UAM to their
country of origin.
At
national level: Developments in policy and / or practice in
relation to unaccompanied minors (UAMs) took place in 17 Member States (AT, BE,
BG, ES, HR, CY, EE, EL, FR, HU, IT, NL, RO, SE, UK) and Norway, including the
adoption of new policies in Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France and
Italy. 
To
improve access to rights for unaccompanied minors, new legislation in Norway
strengthened the legal position of unaccompanied minors by clarifying the tasks
of their representatives and ensuring a more consistent practice in
recruitment, training, and supervision. In a similar vein, the new Integration
Policy of the Slovak Republic, which is still in preparation, is to include a
chapter on UAMs specifying measures such as developing a new guidance for
determining the child's best interests or identification of the causes of
absconding. In Finland, a legislative project is under way to exclude detention
as a possibility for unaccompanied minors seeking international protection.
Germany is planning to introduce new provisions and practice in relation to
representatives to support minors in exercising their rights. Lithuania is
preparing guidelines on provision of services for UAMs who do not lodge applications
for asylum. Romania implemented a project “Information of unaccompanied minors
on their rights” in partnership with IOM (with technical support of Austria,
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Poland) and co-financed by European
Commission. One of the results of the project was a documentary – “My Name Is”
– which presents the rights of the unaccompanied minors and also the risks of
leaving their countries of origin.
In
response to increasing numbers of UAMs arriving in Sweden, the Swedish
Migration Board was granted extended possibilities to assign UAMs seeking
asylum to municipalities, and new measures are being taken to further enhance
the rights of the child in the Swedish Aliens Act. In the United Kingdom, a
policy on granting limited leave to UAMs applying for international protection
has been incorporated into the immigration rules. In Spain an Action Protocol
on unaccompanied minors will soon be approved with a view to coordinating the
work of institutions responsible for detecting, assisting and monitoring
numbers of unaccompanied minors in Spain, through a Registry of unaccompanied
minor coordinated by the State General Prosecutor. In Greece, a Minister’s
Decision was issued to establish systems for age determination at reception
centres; six reception facilities, which will give priority to Unaccompanied
Minors, are currently under construction. In Lithuania, a protocol on age
determination is being drawn up. In Luxembourg, the age assessment practice has
been contested by the Court of Appeal and a reform of the practice is foreseen
for 2014. In the Netherlands, new policy measures
have been introduced with a view to limiting the period of uncertainty of stay
of unaccompanied minors. If their asylum requests are rejected, they
will be supported in their efforts to return to their country of origin for a
period of maximum three years. If they do not succeed in returning, and they
cannot be considered responsible for this, they will be granted a residence
permit. In Norway the Directorate of Immigration initiated a research and
development programme to develop improved methods for medical age assessment,
involving researchers from Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom.
The changes
in policy described above were the result in many Member States of the significant
increases in the numbers of UAMs arriving on the territory, which have in turn
driven the need for clarity about how to treat minors in various administrative
processes, and how to ensure that the rights of the child are respected
consistently and comprehensively in practice. Member States have also focused
on combating trafficking of minors (see also Section 5). Weaknesses in existing
practices also lay behind some of the changes – as with detention in the case
of Finland, and age assessments in the case of Luxembourg. The cost of services
provided to UAMs has also been debated in France, and resulted in the
publication of a ministerial circular.
4.2.        Other vulnerable groups
At EU level: On
26 June 2013, the Commission adopted a Communication presenting its second
assessment of Member States' implementation of National Roma Integration
Strategies.[71]
The Communication focused on structural pre-conditions that are important for a
successful implementation of the strategies: working with local and regional
authorities and civil society; allocating proportionate financial resources;
monitoring and enabling policy adjustment; fighting discrimination
convincingly; and establishing national contact points for Roma integration. The
report showed that while some progress has been made, the improvement on the
ground remains too slow. In order to provide specific guidance to help Member
States strengthen the
effectiveness of their measures to achieve Roma integration and accelerate
their efforts, the Council adopted, on 9 December 2013, a
Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States[72]. It
recommends that Member States take targeted action to bridge the gaps between
the Roma and the rest of the population. It reinforces the EU Framework for
national Roma integration strategies agreed by all Member States in 2011 by
setting the conditions for an effective inclusion of Roma and focusses on
access to education, employment, healthcare and housing. 
A significant
number of Roma living in the Member States are legally staying third-country
nationals, who face the same challenges as migrants coming from outside the EU.
They must enjoy the same rights as those granted to other non-EU migrants.
At
national level: In EU Directives, e.g. the Recast Qualification
Directive (2011/95/EU), the Return Directive (2008/115/EC) and the Reception
Conditions and Procedures Directives, vulnerable persons include minors,
unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single
parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture,
rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence. 
A
focus on these groups of persons has been introduced or strengthened via the
transposition of EU law in Croatia, Cyprus and Luxembourg. Germany is currently
evaluating whether changes in provisions on the treatment of vulnerable groups
will be needed in view of the upcoming transposition of the EU Reception
Conditions and Procedures Directives. In Estonia, changes to the Victims
Support Act and related acts introduced a general obligation to take into
account the special needs of all vulnerable groups (including unaccompanied
minors). Lithuania introduced a possibility for assisted voluntary return migrants
irregularly entering and/or staying in Lithuania who are also vulnerable
persons Overall, twelve Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, EE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU,
PT, SE) introduced new measures during the reference year in relation to
vulnerable groups.
In
Finland, an action plan being drafted as part of a future migration strategy
will seek to improve identification of persons in vulnerable positions Other
Member States (CY, PT) report ongoing projects with the aim of improving
conditions and ensuring the rights of vulnerable persons – primarily in
relation to trafficking, asylum or return procedures. In Portugal, a project
was developed that organised dissemination of information directed at women of
foreign nationality, particularly minors, on the prohibition of female genital
mutilation. 
In
some Member States, specific measures have taken place to ensure that
authorities are sensitive to the specific needs and vulnerabilities of
particular groups, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
groups and women victims of violence. In Sweden, the Migration Board, among
other measures taken, has appointed LGBT-specialists that have to be consulted
in all decisions regarding LGBT-related asylum claims. This measure followed
the Government’s instruction to develop and report methods and tools for a
systematic follow-up of law application quality at the Board and to report on
how the Board ensures a uniform application of the law in cases where sexual
orientation or gender identity are referred as grounds for asylum. In Belgium,
a new action plan includes a focus on forms of violence, particularly affecting
women and LGBT migrants and asylum seekers, with training of staff in reception
centres foreseen. As for legislation, a draft bill amending the Refugee Law in
Cyprus clarifies which groups are considered to be a particular vulnerable
group, by stating that the aspects related to gender and gender identity shall
be taken into account. Such measures have been timely in view of 7 November
2013 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that people
fleeing their country with a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of
their sexual orientation may qualify for asylum in the European Union.
In
France, a multi-disciplinary working group of the OFPRA was established to deal
with, among other issues, the situation of vulnerable groups. One of the
projects for which the group is responsible includes training of staff in
sensitivity towards vulnerable persons, among them victims of trafficking and
persons with disabilities
In
Italy, renewed attention has been paid to the inclusion of Roma, Sinti and
traveller groups.
5.           ACTIONS ADDRESSING TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS
5.1.        Implementation of the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of
Trafficking in Human Beings:  Identifying, protecting and assisting victims of
trafficking
The latest available
statistics on the numbers of presumed and identified victims of trafficking in
human beings from across the EU Member States and Norway are shown in Table 11
of the Statistics Annex. The numbers of reflection periods and residence
permits granted to such victims are set out in Tables 12 and 13, whilst Table 14
provides the latest available statistics on the numbers of traffickers in human
beings arrested and convicted in 2013. 
5.1.1.     Improving the identification of and provision of information to
victims
At
EU level:  The deadline for transposing Directive 2011/36/EU[73] setting out the legal framework
governing the EU anti-trafficking policy, expired on 6 April 2013. The EU
Directive on trafficking in human beings can make a real difference on the
lives of the victims and to prevent others from falling victims. Twenty Member
States had notified full transposition at the end of 2013. The
Commission will analyse the information received
and take all measures to ensure correct application of EU law, including by
launching infringement procedures where necessary
Infringement cases are open against Cyprus, Spain, Italy and
Luxembourg for not communicating the transposition of the Directive, to
ensure full compliance with their obligations under EU legislation on
trafficking in human beings.
The
Commission carried out a study in 2013 gathering updated information on the
transposition and practical application of Directive 2004/81/EC[74] on
the residence permit for victims of trafficking in human beings or who have
been subject to smuggling. The results of the study will feed into the
publication of a Commission report on the application of this Directive in the
first half of 2014.
Additionally,
following a victims centered approach, the Commission
presented a publication in April 2013 on the "EU rights of victims of
trafficking in human beings", available in all official EU languages from
EU Anti-Trafficking website.[75]
The overview aims to enable access to and realisation of rights for victims, by
providing clear and user-friendly information on the EU rights of victims of
trafficking in human beings, which range from (emergency) assistance and health
care to labour rights, rights regarding access to justice and to a lawyer,
residence, as well as possibilities of claiming compensation. The overview will
further help authorities to deliver the assistance and protection that victims
need and deserve. In June 2013 the Justice and Home affairs Council adopted
conclusions that Member States will develop similar overview(s) at national
level in 2014.[76]
In order to
ensure better coordination and increase coherence in identification of victims
of trafficking, as well as bearing in mind the projects funded by the
Commission, the Commission published a Reference document on the Guidelines for
the identification of victims of trafficking in human beings especially for
border guards and consular services[77].
The document provides for a list of indicative guidelines, refers to the
existing handbooks and manuals and lists the projects on the identification of
victims, in particular those targeting consular services and border guards and
thus encourage their systematic use by the respective officials. 
The Lithuanian
EU Presidency and the Commission co-organised a conference on the occasion of
the 7th EU Anti-Trafficking Day, on 18 October 2013 in Vilnius,
Lithuania[78].
The purpose of the conference was to explore the links between the Internet and
trafficking and how cyberspace could be used for prevention and not recruitment
for trafficking in human beings. Three workshops were organised addressing
online awareness raising, online investigations and online recruitment and
facilitation.
At
national level: The deadline for transposition of Directive
2011/36/EU was 6 April 2013. Cyprus, Luxembourg and Italy did not transpose the
Directive in 2013, but all drafted bills to do so. In many Member States (e.g.
AT, BG, SK) transposition of the Directive meant that the definition of
trafficking was widened to include victims of forced labour, forced begging
and/or the removal of organs as per Article 1 of the Directive. Luxembourg’s
draft legislation provides that potential victims will no longer be obliged to
file a written complaint in order to be identified as a victim if there is
sufficient evidence otherwise available. Malta’s Second National Action Plan
against Human Trafficking, which was launched in January, translates the
objectives of the EU Strategy into national measures.
To
facilitate detection of potential victims, lists of indicators of victimisation
were developed in Hungary (as part of new legislation implementing Directive
2011/36/EU) and in Poland. Belgium also made plans to update the
list of indicators currently outlined in the Circular relating to investigation
and prosecution of acts of trafficking. A dedicated anti-trafficking working
group in Finland proposed that the national anti-trafficking coordinator
develop standard national indicators for use by both the authorities
responsible for identification and by NGOs. Guidelines on identification of
victims were developed for health workers in the Netherlands and for staff in
reception centres, and are being planned for all relevant actors in Italy and
Latvia. Lithuania also plans to update its guidelines. As part of the
ISEC-funded project ‘Development of Common Guidelines and Procedures of
Victims of Trafficking’, which ended in 2013 and which involved France,
Bulgaria, Spain, Greece, the Netherlands and Romania, common guidelines and
procedures on identification of victims were developed. The guidelines were
tested during a 4-month pilot phase in Spain before final endorsement and
publication in seven other EU languages. France and Sweden provided specific
guidance (and Poland made plans to do the same) on the identification of
victims to actors responsible for processing applications for international
protection. Spain adopted a National Police Plan against trafficking in
human beings for sexual exploitation with a view to reinforcing prevention
and enhancing detection of trafficking in human beings and to intensifyingthe
investigation of criminal organisations. The Plan sets out measures to improve
analysis of data on trafficking to better identify and provide support to
groups at risk of being trafficked, and will involve coordination at national
and international levels.
Bulgaria
and United Kingdom set up new law enforcement task forces to proactively
investigate possible cases of trafficking. The Irish Police also established
trafficking in human beings as one of its operational priorities with increased
priority given to the prevention and detection of human trafficking in their
Annual Policing Plan. Identification can be facilitated through dedicated
National Referral Mechanisms (NRM). In 2013, Croatia newly established an NRM
and Cyprus upgraded its NRM. Netherlands will soon establish an NRM assuming a
multi-disciplinary approach. In Portugal, during 2013, an Anti-Trafficking
Special Unit was established with the purpose of improving the coordination
between relevant actors. Romania provided expertise for the Croatian
authorities to improve the identification and protection of victims of
trafficking, with a focus on sexual exploitation and forced labor[79]. 
Many
(Member) States (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, IE, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE,
SK, UK, NO) also carried out awareness raising activities and trained relevant
stakeholders to improve their capacity to identify victims. In Estonia, these
trainings were specifically to bring relevant actors up to speed on changes
introduced through the national law transposing the Directive. In the Czech
Republic, Latvia, Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom, specific training
curricula were developed for border guards (CZ, LV, SK), labour inspectors (CZ)
and the police (UK); in the case of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic
this was based on the FRONTEX manual[80].
Lithuania developed an awareness raising video for victims of trafficking for
labour purposes. The Czech Republic also developed awareness raising videos in
the framework of a competition titled “Think up, Warn and Win” run in
cooperation with a private transport company, as well as upon demand by the NGO
La Strada.  More than 26 600 police officers
and other relevant staff completed the police e-learning package on human
trafficking in the United Kingdom. Following the activities of the Romanian
competent authorities the number of victims of trafficking decreased in 2013. 
In order to facilitate self-reporting, Member States improved access to
information and assistance for victims: Germany and Latvia set up hotlines for
victims to self-report, although the German hotline is specifically for women
who are victims of (all forms of) violence (including trafficking); Finland
updated a website targeting vulnerable asylum applicants with information for
those applicants who are potential victims of trafficking; and Poland launched
a website on trafficking primarily for professionals, but also providing
relevant information for victims. The Polish website is visited on
average by 9 500 visitors a month. Austria made plans to adapt the EU brochure
on Rights of Victims of Trafficking for dissemination in the Member State in
2014, Malta developed a booklet on victims rights and available services, and
in Denmark, the national Centre against Human Trafficking
expanded the team implementing its outreach service, developed written material
for victims of trafficking on their rights, and is in the process of
strengthening cooperation with personnel in prisons. A
transnational project focusing on preventing trafficking for labour exploitation
took place among Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary and FYROM, with an awareness raising campaign launched as well as a  Transnational
study on the characteristics of policies in the field of trafficking in human
beings for labour exploitation - 2009-2011”. 
5.1.2.     Protection of Child Victims of Trafficking[81]
At EU level: The
2011/36/EU directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings
and protecting its victims and the 2012 “EU strategy towards the eradication of
trafficking in human beings 2012-2016” seek to promote victims’ rights and
safeguard their protection while ensuring to them appropriate support and
access to justice. The directive acknowledges the particular vulnerability of
child victims of human trafficking. It includes special provisions to address
their needs and to safeguard their rights as children and as victims. The best
interest of the child is a primary consideration in all actions concerning the
child. In 2013, the European Commission and the Fundamental Rights Agency
started working on a best practice model for guardianship for children deprived
of parental care – with a particular focus on child victims of trafficking,
with the intention to support Member States authorities and practitioners
working in the field. The publication, which will be finalised in 2014,
includes an overview of the existing national guardianship models.
At
national level: Developments regarding the protection of child
victims of trafficking took place in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Cyprus, Germany,
Finland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden,
United Kingdom and Norway. 
Several
Member States introduced greater safeguards for children who are presumed
victims of trafficking. Latvia, Luxembourg and the Slovak Republic reported
that these provisions were the result of transposing Directive 2011/36/EU; in
Italy they reflected Italy’s recent implementation of the Council of Europe
2007 Convention on the Protection of Children against Exploitation and Sexual
Abuse. These concern for example provisions on the situations in which minors
may be interrogated. Germany and Latvia also introduced new laws (not linked to
the Directive) to strengthen the rights of child victims in judicial
proceedings. In the case of Germany, the legislation specifically concerns
victims of sexual abuse and makes it easier for such child victims to provide
testimony in court via video-link rather than physical attendance at the court,
preventing multiple examinations of vulnerable victims as witnesses and
granting further procedural rights to persons who were minors at the time an
offence was committed, but who have reached the age of consent once the
proceedings begin. Legislative amendments in United Kingdom set out measures to
be taken by the police to safeguard the best interests of child victims in
human trafficking investigations and the Slovak Republic introduced new legal
provisions to ensure that child victims of trafficking engaged in prostitution
will now be regarded as victims of trafficking rather than charged with
prostitution. 
Also
to support the best interested of child victims of trafficking, Cyprus
introduced individual care plans for child victims, which will be developed in
conjunction with the child and relevant service provider including NGOs and
state actors. Ireland is in the process of establishing a Child and Family
Agency which will look after all services to children and families, including
those who are victims of trafficking. The United Kingdom published practical
guidance through the Department of Education on trafficking as well as guidance
for first child responders. Greece initiated a programme to upgrade two
national centres (hostels) for women and children who are victims of
trafficking and family violence and also began to implement a two-year EU
funded programme (“VICTOR”) on comprehensive support to child
victims of trafficking involving the support of the South - Eastern Europe
Centre for Missing and Exploited Children.
To
support actors coming into contact with potential child victims of trafficking,
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland and Norway drafted leaflets,
brochures, manuals or guidelines specifying practices regarding child victims
of trafficking. This was foreseen for the coming year in Latvia and Poland.
Looking ahead, Sweden updated its action plan against exploitation of children,
to be presented in 2014; the Irish Health Service (HSE) and the Human
Trafficking Investigation and Coordination Unit (HTICU) in Ireland started developing
a protocol for treating unaccompanied minors who arrive at ports of entry
(primarily Dublin Airport) and in Norway, the Directorate of Police supported
the development and implementation of cooperation mechanisms at reception
centres for response in cases when UAMs abscond. In Romania, two initiatives to
counter child begging took place:  the project “Where starts begging, ends
childhood” involving 600 children (aged between 8
and 12) and 110 representatives of the local communities and authorities, and
the information campaign" Contribute through information A.Z.I. (Today)!".
Belgium,
Italy and the Netherlands commissioned studies on child victims of trafficking.
In Belgium and Italy, this concerned an evaluation of the protection offered to
minor victims, which resulted in a series of recommendations to improve the
identification of minor victims to be implemented in 2014. In the Netherlands,
the study focused on identifying the scale of UAMs who might be victims of
trafficking and it set forth recommendations to strengthen cooperation between
partners to ensure protection. A government working group in Germany
investigated how cooperation could be improved between the police, the Youth
Welfare Offices, expert counselling agencies and other institutions,
authorities and specialists. 
The
Danish Centre against Human Trafficking started a Nordic Network against Child
Trafficking with members from Sweden, Norway and Finland and hosted the first
meeting in 2013. Meetings will be held on a yearly basis. 
5.2.        Implementation of the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of
Trafficking in Human Beings:  Enhanced coordination and cooperation among key
actors and policy coherence
5.2.1.     Coordination and cooperation among key actors
At EU level: During
2013, the Commission further implemented the EU Strategy towards the
Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings. More specifically, in May 2013, the
Commission launched the EU Civil Society Platform against Trafficking in Human
Beings, which brings together more than hundred representatives from
different NGOs from across of the EU. The second meeting was also open to NGOs
from neighbouring priority third countries (Albania, Morocco, Turkey and
Ukraine). The
EU Civil Society Platform against trafficking in human beings is a forum for
civil society organisations to engage at the EU level, exchange experiences and
enhance coordination and cooperation amongst key actors.
The EU also
financed project led by IOM seeks to enhanced cooperation between the Members
Sates and aims to provide flexible and tailored assistance to victims of
trafficking for returning and to resettle in their home countries and become
once again active members of their communities. The project seeks to establish
a common and integrated reintegration assistance delivery mechanism for victims
of trafficking ensuring the sustainability of the return and thus preventing
re-trafficking.
In 2013, the
Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities Theme of the Seventh Framework Programme
for Research and Development opened a topic on “Addressing demand in
anti-trafficking efforts and policies”. One research project is currently being
funded under this topic: DemandAT[82].

At
national level: In many Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL,
FI, HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK) measures have been
initiated or strengthened to enhance coordination and cooperation among key
actors and to ensure a comprehensive approach.
At
national level such coordination has involved inter-Ministerial working groups
or committees (IT, LV, LT, LU, PL, SK) with NGOs included as members in the
Czech Republic, Latvia, Luxembourg and the Slovak Republic. Finland has also
proposed greater multi-sectorial cooperation as well as the establishment of a
national secretariat to support a national coordination network with public
authorities as well as NGOs and social partners. Improved coordination with
CSOs is also a focus of developments in Hungary, as it is with the national
referral mechanism which is being set up in the Netherlands. In Sweden, the
government extended the commission to the County Administrative Board in
Stockholm to foster, at a national level, coordination and cooperation among
actors. Austria and France each established new working groups on trafficking:
in Austria, the working group on Trafficking for the Purpose of Labour
Exploitation was established within the national Task Force Human Trafficking
with NGOs and Social Partners participating in the group; and in France the
inter-ministerial mission for the protection of women against violence and the
fight against trafficking in human beings (MIPROF) will act as national
coordinator for anti-trafficking policy and practice in the Member State from
now onwards. In the United Kingdom, the new National Crime Agency will now be
responsible for strengthening the capability of law enforcement, sharing
intelligence on trafficking and coordinating activity to disrupt traffickers.
Portugal set up two new coordination networks; the first - the Support and
Protection Network for Victims of Trafficking (RAPVT) – brings together
government and NGOs to both provide assistance to victims and to investigate
crime; the second - the Regional Network for Assistance and Protection for
Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings – was established in the Central region
to reinforce the national structure for supporting and protecting victims of
trafficking in human beings. In Romania, several projects took place with the
aim of creating sustainable partnerships between
prosecutors, police and civil society in the prevention and fight against
trafficking.
EU
Member States cooperate in relation to trafficking in human beings through the
informal EU Network of National Rapporteurs or Equivalent Mechanisms on
Trafficking in Human Beings[83].
Greece appointed a National Rapporteur on Trafficking within the Minister of
Foreign Affairs; the office will make use of international databases and the
national system of identification and referral of victims of human trafficking
for its data collection. In addition, Member States also cooperate in the
framework of for example the Council of the Baltic Sea States and, the network
of National Coordinators for combating trafficking in South Eastern Europe and
the Council of Europe. Bilaterally, Hungary and Romania have cooperated with
each other within the framework of the project ‘Integrated approach for
Prevention of Labour exploitation in origin and destination countries’; a
regional seminar was held in March 2013 to improve inter-institutional
cooperation and increase capacity amongst labour inspectors, judges,
prosecutors, police officers, social workers, and NGOs. Upon an initiative of
the Netherlands, a Benelux-cooperation concerning trafficking in human beings
has been proposed in the framework of the Benelux Common Action Plan ‘Senningen
2013-2016’.  An EU conference[84]
on the multidisciplinary approach to trafficking in human beings was organised
by Cyprus, the Netherlands and Poland. In 2013, the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania hosted an international conference on issues of prevention of human
trafficking for forced labour and labour exploitation devoted to the EU
Anti-Trafficking Day. The Conference ‘Putting Rantsev into Practice’, involving
representatives of prosecution services, the police, border guards, labour
inspectors and labour detectives, immigration officials and municipalities. The
conference “Discovering Trafficking for the Purpose of Forced Labour and Labour
exploitation” took place in Prague; where project outcomes including case law
analyses from 9 EU Member States in the area of labour exploitation have been
presented. Cooperation and exchange among
the Member States is further facilitated by the CEPOL Exchange Programme in the
field of combating trafficking where responsible public and private sector
entities exchange experience. CEPOL courses on victim identification, awareness
raising, protection of victims and the investigation of human trafficking have
also brought together representatives from different Member States.
5.2.2.     Coordinating EU External Policy
Activities
At EU level: On
the external dimension, the Commission and European External
Action Service continued working towards implementation of the
Action Oriented Paper's (AOP) second implementation report, which identified a
list of priority countries and regions, for further strengthening and
streamlining cooperation for addressing trafficking in human beings. Both are
working on
an inventory to map current instruments as well as funded projects which
involve the participation of the EU and/or EU Member States in the area of
trafficking in human beings in priority third countries and regions. 
At
national level: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and United Kingdom have
reported new or planned cooperation activities with source countries. The
measures may focus exclusively on trafficking or be part of a broader effort to
combat organised crime and irregular migration. The collaborations include
bordering third countries such as Belarus, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and
Western Balkans, and also Georgia, China, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam and
Nigeria. In addition, trafficking in human beings from Romania and Hungary has
been the focus of collaboration between Member States. Portugal’s focus is
mainly on irregular migration and fight against smuggling and trafficking in
human beings from Brazil. The cooperation has included seminars, joint
investigations and police cooperation, exchange of information, improvement of
partnership, common prevention activities, increasing disruption and
deterrence, awareness raising/training, and funding of shelters. Romania
has provided expertise, training and guidance to Croatia, Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova,
Montenegro, Turkey and Serbia, using instruments such as TAIEX and cooperation
in the context of European or international projects.
5.3.        Implementation of the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of
Trafficking in Human Beings: Increased knowledge of and effective response to
emerging concerns related to all forms of trafficking in human beings
5.3.1.     Developing an EU-wide system for data collection
At EU
level:
In
April 2013, the Commission published the first statistical data report on
trafficking in human beings at EU level, for the years 2008-2010[85]. The
data was collected through the National Statistical Offices of the EU Member
States from different authorities working in the field of trafficking in human
beings, including civil society organisations. 23 632 people
were reported as identified or presumed victims of trafficking in the EU over
the 2008-2010 period. In the countries reporting data for 2008-2010, the number
of victims of trafficking increased by 18% from 2008 to 2010, but convictions
decreased by 13% over the same period. The majority of victims are female (80%,
68% women and 12% girls), while male victims account for 20% (17%
men and 3% boys). The majority of the identified and presumed victims over the
three reference years are trafficked for sexual exploitation (62%), with
women and girls as the overwhelming majority of victims (96 % in 2010). Trafficking for forced labour (25%) comes second, the
vast majority of its victims being men and boys (77 % in 2010), and trafficking in other forms such as trafficking for the
removal of organs, for criminal activities or for selling of children follow
with much smaller percentages (14%). More than half of the victims (61%) come
from countries within the EU, most frequently Romania and Bulgaria, with
Nigeria and China as the most common countries of origin outside the EU. The
quality of statistical data provided increased annually, although it should be
interpreted with caution, taking into consideration that these reported figures
only represent a small visible percentage of the phenomenon (the tip of the
iceberg). A second report is underway and will be published in the course of
2014. 
At
national level: Challenges to the collection of data concerning
trafficking are well-reported[86]
and felt throughout all Member States. Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and United Kingdom all report ongoing challenges to
data collection in 2013. Some specific challenges reported include the fact
that it is difficult to capture the number of people victims who cross borders
enjoying free movement within the EU (LU), a lack of standardised or systematic
data collection data (BE, DE, FR, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, UK). 
In the United
Kingdom, a group was established to review issues of data collection and
sharing. In consultation with law enforcement agencies, local authorities and
civil society groups, the group reviewed of the level and type of data required
and to improve knowledge and understanding has proposed to implement a
consistent set of data questions which will be collated by the sectors on a
regular basis. Similarly, in Finland problems with inconsistencies in data
collection have been mitigated through use of the guidelines of the National
Police Board. Lithuania enhanced inter-institutional coordination in order to
improve data collection and exchange of information. The Danish Centre against
Human Trafficking will introduce a comprehensive data collection system in
2014. In Portugal, all data on trafficking in human beings is reported to the
Observatory on Trafficking in Human Beings; challenges faced in registering the
start of reflection periods were addressed through the circulation of a single
harmonised registration guide and regular meetings among involved stakeholders
has improved the collection of such information. The Anti-Trafficking
Monitoring Committee in Malta is currently working on the creation of a common
tool for data collection and reporting based upon standardised national
indicators. In Romania, the data collection in
this field via the Integrated System to Monitor and Assess Trafficking in
Persons has been improved.
The Eurostat report
on trafficking in human beings[87]
published in 2013 recognised that victims of trafficking are not only detected
by state authorities, but also NGOs. As some victims who decide not to make
contact with state authorities may contact NGOs, the data collected by the
latter is supplementary to that collected by the state and is key to a more
accurate understanding of the scale and scope of the problem in the EU. Some
Member States recognised in 2013 the need to develop a system for collecting a
holistic set of data on trafficking in human beings at national level. For
example, Finland, Ireland and the Slovak Republic all encouraged the
participation of civil society organisations in the data collection. In
Ireland, all leading anti-trafficking NGOs provide depersonalised data for
inclusion in the Anti-Human Trafficking Group (AHTU)’s annual report.
Relatedly, Belgium made plans to distinguish data on victims in reflection
periods and beyond, allowing a better insight into reasons or circumstances in
which victims drop out during the reflection period. 
6.           Legal Migration and Mobility 
Table
15 in the Statistical Annex gives a provisional overview of the
residence permits issued in 2013 by reason (family, education, remunerated
activities and other reasons). Of the Member States providing such statistics,
most residence permits were issued by the United Kingdom (631 940) and
Italy (244 688). Member States which issued permits mainly for family
reasons were Croatia (65% of all permits); Luxembourg (51%) and Estonia (48%).
The highest proportions of permits issued for the purpose of education were by
Denmark (36%), Hungary (35%) and Romania (33%). Those who issued permits mostly
for the purpose of remunerated activities were Slovenia (38%), Slovak Republic
(36%) and Italy (33%).  The highest share of permits issued for ‘other reasons’
were by Bulgaria (45%) and Sweden (43 %). The overall position across the
Member States and Norway are shown in Figures 7 and 8, 9, 10, 11 below.
Figure 7: Total first residence permits
issued in 2013
Source: European Migration Network National Contact
Points (EMN APR2013, Annex2)
Notes: Statistics are not currently available in BE, CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, NL,
AT, PL,UK
Figure
8: First residence permits issued 2013, by reason 
Figure
8a: Family reasons                                           
Figure 8b: Education reasons
Figure
8c: Remunerated activities                              
Figure 8d: Other reasons
Source: European Migration
Network National Contact Points (EMN APR2013, Annex2).
Notes:
Statistics are not currently available in AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, IE. NL, PL, UK 
6.1.        Promoting
legal routes to Europe – developing and implementing EU legislation
At EU level: After more than 3 years of negotiations, the
co-legislators reached agreement on a Directive on Seasonal Employment. Once
implemented, the Directive will allow employers to draw on a pool of seasonal
workers in a responsible manner. Negotiations continued on the proposal of a Directive
on Intra-Corporate Transfers, dating from 2010. The co-legislators reached
common ground on a range of issues and have explored innovative solutions to
the very specific issues facing this category of workers. In March 2013 the Commission furthermore issued a new
proposal for a recast Directive on Students, Researchers, Au-pairs,
un-remunerated trainees. 
The monitoring
of the implementation of existing legislation continued, such as the
legislation on Long Term residents Directive, the new "Single Permit"
Directive and the Family Reunification Directive. For the latter consultations
took place in 2013 for the preparation of Guidelines on the implementation of
the Family Reunification Directive, to help ensure a coherent and robust
implementation across the EU. 
6.1.1.     Highly
qualified workers - implementation of the EU Blue Card Directive
At EU level: The
Commission's first report on Member States' implementation of the Blue Card
Directive was adopted first semester 2014[88].
The report concludes that all Member States have now transposed the Directive
and that all participating Member States are now in the position of delivering
Blue Cards to third-country national applicants. 
Twenty Member States
were late in bringing the Directive into force by 19 June 2011. In five Member
States the scheme was brought into force by the end of 2011. In the first half
of 2012, nine more Member States brought the necessary legislation into force,
while in 4 Member States it took until the second half of 2012 and in 2 Member
States even until 2013. In Croatia, the necessary legislation entered into
force timely on 1 July 2013.
Currently, the first
available statistics are those for 2012 for 22 Member States. These show that 3 664
Blue Cards were granted in 2012 of which 2 584 were granted in Germany. Also, 146
Blue Cards were renewed and 1 withdrawn. Together with the Blue Card holders 1 107
family members were admitted and 108 residence cards for family members were
renewed. 
The top 10 countries of
origin were India (699), China (including Hong Kong) (324), United States
(313), Russia (271), Ukraine (149), Turkey (112), Egypt (105), Mexico (105),
Syria (104), and Japan (93). The top 5 destination countries in 2012 were
Germany (2 584), Spain (461), Luxembourg (183), France (126) and Austria (124).
As a result of the late
transposition in most Member States the Blue Card scheme was only in force for
a short time in 2012 in many Member States, often only a few months, if at all.
In addition, it could be expected that it takes some time before potential
applicants find their way to this new scheme. Consequently, based on the
currently available statistics, it is not yet possible to draw conclusions on
the effectiveness of the Blue Card scheme in attracting highly qualified third
country nationals to the EU. 
The Commission is
continuing the assessment of Member States' implementation and is clarifying
questions as well as potential cases of non-conformity with Member States prior
to launching possible EU Pilots.
In October an EMN study
entitled "Attracting Highly-qualified and Qualified Third-country
Nationals" was issued, addressing the role of the EU Blue Card and the Researchers
Directive, as well as issues such as brain drain and circular migration[89]. 
At
national level: Many (Member) States invested efforts to attract
highly qualified migrants as part of the global competition for talent (AT, BG,
CZ, DK, EE, ES, HR, FI, IE, LU, LT, MT, NL, SE, SK, UK).  Steps were undertaken
to facilitate or simplify access to the labour market for highly qualified
migrants by reducing administrative burden (AT, CZ, EE, ES, IE, IT, LT, LU,
SI), implementing the EU Blue Card Directive (EL, HU, LT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK);
initiating projects aiming to educate employers on the EU Blue Card provisions
(BG and LT); simplifying entry of family members of highly qualified migrants
(EE, ES, LT) and organising conferences (AT, CZ, SK). Ireland and United
Kingdom are not taking part in the adoption of the EU
Blue Card Directive and are not bound by or subject to its application, also
undertook measures to expand their existing migration routes
for highly qualified migrants. 
Austria,
Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain all facilitated
highly qualified migrants’ entry and stay by undertaking actions to reduce
administrative burdens. In Austria, pursuant to changes in legislation all
groups of highly
qualified workers are able to file applications for the “Red-White-Red Card” [90] also
at Austrian representations abroad or through the prospective employer in
Austria. [91]
In Estonia and Lithuania, amendments were adopted to the Aliens Act introducing
a separate category of highly qualified workers (classified as top
specialists). The amendments also provided highly qualified workers,
international students and researchers with the possibility to apply for a
residence permit while already in Estonia, a right also extended to their
family members. Italy has developed memorandums of understanding with employer
associations with regard to the employment of highly qualified workers. In
Ireland, a number of changes were made to the employment permits regime for
highly qualified workers, including the opening of Green Card occupations to
all sectors; an increase in the level of information and declaration rather
than provision of documents to simplify application process and a reduction in
advertising requirements prior to offering employment to third-country
nationals. In the Netherlands, with the Modern Migration Policy Act taking
effect in 2013, companies which were covenant holders as part of the Highly
Skilled Migrants Scheme became recognised sponsors under certain conditions.
Companies can apply to become a recognised sponsor.
A
number of Member States (BG, HU, LT, PL, SE, SK)
introduced provisions in their national legislation pursuant to the EU Blue
Card Directive (2009/50/EC). Some Member States transposed or
amended provisions on minimum wages and salary thresholds for highly qualified
workers (LU, LT PL, SE). In Bulgaria, several projects aiming to
educate employers in major cities on the EU Blue card Directive and
its transposition into Bulgarian legislation were implemented.  In
Lithuania, according to data of the Lithuanian Labour Exchange, not all
employers are aware of the new procedure in force in respect to highly
qualified workers and in this respect, measures are planned to disseminate
information to employers.
With
regard to expanded existing migration routes for highly qualified migrants,
Ireland opened
its Green Card [92]
occupations to all sectors and the United Kingdom expanded the Exceptional
Talent route with new provisions for artists of exceptional talent.
With
regard to planned measures, in Finland actions were planned to ensure
effectiveness and flexibility of the permit system for highly qualified
workers. Migration of skilled labour will be promoted by developing forecasts
of labour needs and resources for targeted recruitment abroad. Similarly, Italy
is also planning to develop further its visa policy as a strategic level to
attract talent. In Denmark, the introduction of a simplified and more efficient
procedure for obtaining residence and work permits was considered. 
Attracting
investors and/or entrepreneurs also remained on the political agenda in several
Member States (CZ, EL, ES, IT, LT, UK). In the Czech Republic a project called
“Welcome Package for investors” was launched in July 2013 aiming to facilitate
the procedure for entry and employment of third-country nationals (managers,
key specialists, statutory bodies), in conjunction with an investment in the
Czech Republic. Lithuania prepared amendments facilitating admission and stay
for aliens who made a substantial investment in Lithuania.  Greece
adopted provisions on the right of ten year residence in the country to TCNs,
who are the legal representatives of strategic investments agencies or five
years residence in the country for TCNs, who already possess or plan to invest
in real estate in the country. The United Kingdom expanded the
“Graduate Entrepreneur” route adopted by the Government and in Italy a policy
plan “Destination Italy” was adopted by the Government to attract foreign
investment and promote competitiveness of Italian companies, with special
attention paid to addressing to human capital and the capacity to attract
talent and highly qualified workers.
6.1.2.     Intra-Corporate Transferees (ICTs) 
At EU level: Negotiations[93] on
the proposal
for a Directive on Intra-corporate transferees continued throughout 2013 and
resulted in a political agreement early in 2014. Once adopted, the new
Directive will
provide for
a workable system for intra-EU mobility — which is of particular importance to
this category of employees — and the rights and working conditions of
intra-corporate transferees.
At national
level:
Some Member States reported on actions with regard to measures to facilitate
access to intra-corporate transferees. These actions included legislative measures
(ES, HR, LT and UK) and projects aimed at accelerating the
procedure for intra-corporate transfers of foreign investors’ employees (CZ,
PL). Whilst a relatively small number of Member States undertook developments
in this area during the reference period, seven Member States reported that
they were planning to implement new measures in the future (EE, FR, IT, LV, NL,
SK). 
With regard to regulatory measures,
under the Protocol on the Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the Marrakesh
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, Croatia introduced
measures allowing third-country nationals transferred as part of internal staff
relocation inside companies to be issued a residence and work permit outside
the annual quota. Under deregulation measures, and in response to business
representatives, in United Kingdom, the English language requirements for
intra-corporate transferees extending their stay beyond three years were
removed.
In
Czech Republic and Poland, projects were initiated aiming
at accelerating
the procedure for intra-corporate transfers of foreign investors’ employees. In
the Czech Republic, the project “Fast Track“ aimed to streamline the procedure
of entry and employment of third country nationals under intra-corporate
transfers (posting of employees - managers, key specialists),
thus providing the Czech Republic with enough skilled workforce to maintain and
increase its competitiveness. In Poland, the National Labour Inspectorate
participated in an international project “The posting of workers: Development
of cooperation between the bodies of public authorities and social partners”
which was implemented between July 2012 and June 2013 under the coordination of
the French National Institute for Labour, Employment and Vocational Training
(INTEFP). The aim of the project was to develop cooperation tools between
public authorities and social partners of the EU Member States to increase the
effectiveness of protection of workers posted to temporary performance of work
abroad in two sectors, construction and agriculture. In December 2013, the
National Labour Inspectorate launched a new project, similar to the previous
one, entitled “The posting of workers. Learning through Action”.
Several
Member States (EE, EL, FR, IT, LV, NL, SK) reported on planned measures,
anticipating the adoption of the Intra-Corporate Transferees Directive, and
undertaking measures at national level in this respect. In Italy, for example,
this entry channel attracted special attention from institutions striving to
guarantee efficient entry procedures for intra-corporate transferees, also
considering the upcoming labour demands of the Expo 2015.[94]
Latvia is planning to analyse the national framework for intra-corporate
transferees as part of the development of “Immigration Concept” strategy.
6.1.3.     Seasonal workers
At EU level: 2013 was a year of intensive negotiations on a new Directive
on seasonal employment, with political agreement between co-legislators
reached in November after three and a half years of negotiations[95].
The Directive was adopted in February 2014. This is the first directive
addressing circular migration, meaning migrants coming to the EU for short
periods and going back to a third country after the end of the contract. This
is also the first legal migration directive mainly addressed to low-skilled
migrants. Once implemented into national law, by August 2016 at the latest,
seasonal workers will enjoy equal treatment with nationals of the host Member
State in terms of employment and working conditions. Member States will have to
check their access to appropriate accommodation. More controls will reduce the
risk of irregular employment and exploitation in a particularly vulnerable
group.
At national level: Some Member States reported on actions with regard to measures to
facilitate access to seasonal workers. Predominantly, Member States were
awaiting the adoption of the Seasonal Workers Directive to undertake measures
at national level in this respect. (DE, EE, EL, IE, FR, LV, NL, SK) 
Italy reported on measures with regard to
quotas for seasonal workers. In Italy, the annual quota was set at 30
000 seasonal workers from third countries which are signatories of cooperation
agreements. 
Italy and Poland reported on regulatory
measures to facilitate access to seasonal workers. In Italy, a circular was
adopted regulating to the possibility of converting residence permits for
seasonal work into subordinate employment. In Netherlands, some provisions of
the Modern Migration Policy Act 2013 concern seasonal workers. In particular,
employers have to become legal sponsors of seasonal workers by submitting an
application to the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) which entails employers have more responsibilities with regard to administration
and information requirements. Poland reported that
Armenian nationals are entitled to work in Poland on simplified principles,
under the conditions of the EU Mobility Partnership agreed with Armenia. As of
2014, Armenians are able to work in Poland for six months during any subsequent
12 month period without the need to apply for a work permit. These conditions
are already permitted to the citizens of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and
Moldova.
6.1.4.     Students
and researchers
At EU
level:
A
new proposal[96]
for a recast of the legislation on the rules for 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 adopted by the
Commission in March 2013, has been discussed extensively with Member States (at
Working Group level) and the European Parliament. The EP adopted its first
reading position which takes a very favourable stance on the proposal. The
Council is yet to adopt its position. Compared to the currently-existing rules
the proposal contains clearer admission conditions and procedural guarantees,
an increased coherence with EU mobility programmes, and gives students more
opportunities to seek work during and after their studies. It also aims to
provide better protection and to address certain rights of equal treatment with
nationals.
At
national level: Over half of all Member States, plus Norway,
implemented new measures to further facilitate the entry, stay and conditions
of students and researchers (AT, BE, DK, EE, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LU, LT,
MT, NL, PL, SK, UK, NO). These changes included the implementation of national
strategies to attract international students and facilitate mobility (BE, FI,
LV); legislative measures to facilitate the reception of students (BE, EE, IT,
UK); implementation of grants and funding opportunities for international
students (BE, IE, LT and MT); provision of information and information
campaigns to international students (AT, IT, LT, PL); measures to facilitate
access to labour market of international students after graduation (EE, IE, IT,
LT, SE, SK, UK); bilateral agreements (LV, PL)  and a consular mission (LV).  
With
regard to the implementation of national strategies to attract international students,
Finland set out in the government’s Structural Policy Programme the important
role of such students to strengthen conditions for economic growth. The
Programme states that prerequisites will be improved for international students
to remain in Finland after gaining a qualification, providing an extension of
the duration of a study permit granted after graduation as well as through the
provision of teaching in Finland’s national languages. In Latvia, the National
Development Plan 2014-2020 adopted measures to support the ‘export’ of higher
education and the
Declaration of intended activities of the Cabinet of Ministers includes a
target set for the number of international students, to reach 10% of the total
number of students by 1st September 2014. 
Legislative
measures were adopted to further facilitate the reception of students
(EE, IT, NL, UK) In Estonia, the Aliens Act was amended with the aim to
simplify the entry of highly-skilled specialists and international students. 
International students will be allowed to work without a separate work permit
and can stay in Estonia up to six months after finishing their studies. In the
Netherlands, pursuant to the Modern Migration Policy Act, educational
institutions have legally become sponsors of international students.
With
regard to grants and funding opportunities, Ireland launched
international scholarships to strengthen links with emerging markets such as
China, India and Brazil. In Lithuania, grants were allocated to international
students for Lithuanian (Baltic) studies as well as to support postgraduate
studies in Lithuania of citizens from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan and Ukraine. In Malta, a number of targeted government schemes are
designed to provide financial support to students. 
Several
Member States introduced measures to facilitate access to labour market of
international students after graduation (BE, EE, IE, IT, SE, SK, UK) In
some Member States national legislation was introduce or amended to allow
international students to stay for a certain period of time in order to look
for employment after finishing their studies. (EE, IE, SK). This period
amounted to six months in Estonia, 30 days in Slovak Republic, one year in
Italy and twelve months of those at level 8 or above and six months for those
with level 7 of the National Framework of Qualifications in Ireland. In
Belgium, pursuant to legislative amendments in 2013, students who studied in
other Member States and seek to do a traineeship in Belgium are exempted from the
need for a labour permit. The United Kingdom introduced a new provision to
allow up to 2 000 international MBA graduates and elite global graduate
entrepreneurs to switch into the Tier 1 graduate entrepreneur route and
international students completing a doctorate to remain in for 12 months to
look for skilled work or set up as an entrepreneur.  In Lithuania a draft law
proposed to extend the possibility for international students for another six
months after completing their studies. Similarly, in Sweden, proposals for
legislative changes are under review including a proposal for international
students to be allowed to stay in Sweden for a period of time after finishing
their studies to seek work. On 12 December 2013, Polish Parliament
adopted a new Act on Foreigners, entering into force on 1 May 2014, and extending
residence permits for the students for a 1 year period in order to seek
employment after the graduation.
Dissemination
of information and information campaigns were initiated
in Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Poland. In Austria, two information
brochures targeting international students were published.[97] The
“Study in Italy” web-site provides information to assist enrolment of
international students. In Belgium, in addition to the expansion of the website
of the Federation Wallonia-Brussels[98],
targeted leaflets for Chinese, Brazilian, and Japanese students were produced.
Latvia
and Poland concluded or were in the process of concluding bilateral
agreements concerning cooperation in education and science. Latvia signed
agreements with Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and India and was in the process of
concluding agreements with Armenia, Georgia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka.
Poland signed a bilateral agreement concerning a programme of cooperation with
Mongolia and was in the process of concluding 13 bilateral agreements in the
domain of science and higher education. 
In
Latvia, to facilitate admission of foreign students from third countries, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs organised a consular mission to India to
interview students for visa applications.
With
regard to researchers, several Member States undertook new measures to
further facilitate the reception of researchers (AT, EE, HR, IT, LT, LV, NL).
In Austria, following legislative amendments, under certain conditions
university assistants can apply for the “Red-White-Red Card” as highly
qualified workers, which allows them to stay for a longer period and to pursue
employment outside the scientific sector. In Estonia, pursuant to legislative
amendments to the Aliens, third-country nationals working as teachers,
lecturers or researchers are not required to submit documents certifying their
qualification in the area of specialisation when applying for a residence
permit. Italy,
after having simplified the entry of researchers (who are not subject to
quotas), has financed several mobility projects for researchers through
bilateral scientific protocols.  Latvia
has recognised that there is an ongoing issue of the ageing of its scientific
staff, which is forecast to cause staff shortages by 2020, and has been the
driver to attract scientists from third countries. Lithuania prepared
amendments to further facilitate the entry and stay conditions for researchers
and teachers by issuing a temporary residence permit valid for a longer period
and simplifying reunification with family members. Provisions to facilitate
family reunifications were implemented also in Estonia. 
6.1.5.     The
"Single Permit" Directive, simplified procedure and equal rights
extended to a wider group
At EU level:
Directive 2011/98/EU on a single application procedure for a single permit
for third country nationals and equal rights to third country workers[99],
had to be transposed by 25.12.2013. By end 2013, eight Member States had
completely transposed the Directive, and 6 had partially transposed. Early 2014
the Commission initiated infringement procedures for Member States who had not
notified any legislation. A conformity assessment of the Directive is foreseen
to start in the first half of 2014.
In addition to
simplifying the procedure to one application only for both work and residence,
which shall not be included in one single permit, the Directive also specifies
that equal treatment compared no nationals shall be granted to all third country
workers, including those being granted national work permits. This will further
extend the rights to equal working conditions, such as pay and dismissal, and
it will ensure equal access to all branches of social security. This will help
prevent social dumping and exploitation of third-country workers in the EU.
At national
level:  
As
a result of the transposition of the Single Permit Directive (2011/98/EU), a
number of Member States have now introduced a single application procedure to
simplify access and reduce administrative burden for economic migrants (for
example, AT, BG,
DE,
EE, HU, LU, PL, SI, SK). Germany adopted amendments to the Law on the
Improvement of the Rights of Beneficiaries of International Protection and
Foreign Workers in August 2013, effectively transposing the Directive.
Luxembourg transposed the Directive in June 2013, but since national
legislation had already introduced the single permit for salaried workers, only
slight further modifications were made. These included the reduction of the
deadline for processing an application to 4 months and the requirement that the
applicant’s authorisation to work should appear on all the residence permits
issued to third country nationals, regardless of their category. Czech Republic
and Poland reported that the provisions transposing Directive 2011/98/EU will
enter into force as of 2014.  Pursuant to the amended provisions, migrant
workers will be covered by the legislation concerning some branches of social
security, including unemployment benefits, family benefits and social pensions.
Slovenia introduced the “all in one place" administrative principle which
unifies administrative procedures into one office and allows third-country
nationals to receive, at the same time and in a single document, a work and a
residence permit when they apply for working reasons. The “all in one place”
administrative principle was further introduced by Austria, where the amended
provisions, as laid down in the Settlement and Residence Act, entered into
force as of 1 January 2014. In the Slovak
Republic, the amended Act on Residence of Aliens pursuant to Directive
2011/98/EU will enter into force as of 1 January 2014. In Poland the "Single
Permit" Directive was implemented by new Act of 12 December 2013 on Foreigners.
The
Act will enter into force on 1 May 2014, except for provisions with regard to the Act of 12 October 1990 on
the Border Guard, which entered into force on 30 December 2013. Romania has notified partial transposition of
Directive 2011/98/EU taking into account that the purpose of the directive was
already accomplished by the existing legislation and the provisions fully
transposing Directive 2011/98/EU will enter into force as of 2014.
6.1.6.     Family Reunification
At EU level: In follow-up to the 2011 Green Paper on the
right to family reunification[100],
the Commission has prepared guidelines to provide guidance to Member States on
how to better apply Directive 2003/86/EC. The aim of the guidelines is (1) to
clarify the issues identified in the implementation report and during the
public consultation following the Green Paper, (2) to ensure a transparent and
clear understanding of family reunification rules and common standards at EU
level, and (3) to contribute to the coherent application of these rules across
Member States. The guidelines intend to balance the right to family
reunification, stemming from the fundamental right to family life, with a need
to ensure that this right is genuinely applied according to the rules of the
Directive, and support Member States to fight possible misuse. The guidelines were
adopted as a Commission Communication in April 2014.[101]
At
national level: Changes in policy or legislation regulating family
reunification have occurred in 10 Member States (BE, DE, DK, EL, IT, LV, LT,
LU, NL, SE, SI, SK, UK) and Norway. In the majority of cases (DE, DK, IT, LV,
LT, NL, SE, SI, SK) changes did not consist of significant revisions to
existing legislation or policy, but represented amendments to existing laws
with the aim of extending the category of individuals as beneficiaries of
family reunification or introducing more favourable provisions. Other Member
States strengthened rules to fight misuse of the right to family
reunification (BE, UK, NO). Requirements on integration vary across
Member States, for example, Germany applies a pre-entry language test to
spouses, while Italy does not make family members’ capacity to integrate or
their linguistic knowledge a requirement.
The
grounds for introducing more favourable provisions resulted from the need to
modify certain rules to extend the right to family reunification (LV, SI) and
ending potential discrimination (BE), to eradicate loopholes and/or to simplify
national legislation (DE, NL and IT). In some cases, change was driven by a national
case law finding aspects of a rule discriminatory and / or prejudicial to the
right to family life (BE, IT) or in response to new EU jurisprudence (LV, LT).
In Sweden, Slovenia, Slovak Republic and also in Italy new provisions were
introduced, aimed at improving the rights and promoting integration of family
members of third-country nationals, while in the United Kingdom and Norway the
rules were strengthened and checks improved to prevent misuse of the right to
family reunification. These changes
suggest that the trend in the majority of (Member) States has been towards
reinforcing the application of the right to family reunification by means of
specific amendments, and to prevent misuse of the legislation as an irregular
migration channel.
Looking
at specific cases, Belgium planned to introduce minor changes to its
legislation following a ruling given by the Constitutional Court that annulled
some provisions concerning family reunification of EU/Belgian citizens. Changes
include, inter alia, an exception to the age requirement of 21 years
applying to both
EU
citizens and their partners, and an exception to the income requirement applying
to
Belgian citizens to be joined by their minor children. A new law introduced in
Germany allows minors (under 18) under shared parental custody to be reunited
with a parent in Germany when one parent still resides in the country of
origin, providing the reunification is agreed by both parties or decided by the
competent authority. In Greece, in relation to new provisions on the issuance
of the residence permit for legal representatives of investment agencies and
real estate investors, family members may accompany them on a personal
residence permit expiring on the same date as their sponsor’s. Italy introduced
a law which includes the category of civil partners of EU citizens within the
category of family member of EU citizens, providing that the relationship is
documented and stable. Furthermore, the Italian Constitutional Court delivered
a judgement that extends protection from return to third-country nationals who,
despite having not exercised their right to family reunification, have lived in
Italy with their families and therefore hold strong family links in Italy. 
Luxembourg
introduced a specific residence permit for “private reasons” which allows,
under specific conditions, the reunification of family members of third-country
nationals who have obtained a work permit under new rules introduced following
the transposition of the Single Permit Directive. Under its rules on
international protection, Slovenia plans to adopt in 2014 several measures to
facilitate family reunification, among these, the possibility to lodge a
residence permit application for family members within 90 days of being granted
a status.
Denmark has adopted an exception to the revocation
of residence permits issued under family reunification to a third-country
national spouse in cases where the cohabitation ended as consequence of
domestic abuse. This change aimed to avoid third-country nationals feeling
obliged to stay with a violent spouse/partner due to fear of losing his/her
residence permit.
6.2.        Economic
migration and trade related mobility
At EU level: The
European Union has been facing for some time now significant challenges related
to the lack of growth, gaining access to needed skills, the deepening of labour
market shortages in certain areas, as well as the impact of an ageing
population on productivity and competitiveness. Several initiatives in 2013
looked at the contribution of migrants to economic growth, and put forward
evidence confirming the benefit of a well-managed migration[102].
The European
Migration Network (EMN) published two studies in relation to economic
migration. The EMN study on "Intra-EU mobility of third country nationals",
including intra-EU mobile third country workers was published in July and
analysed the implementation of intra-EU mobility under EU law and identified a
number of practical obstacles. The EMN study "Attracting Highly Qualified
and Qualified Third-Country Nationals to the EU", published 25 October,
gave an overview of selected Member States' policies in this field. It also
showed the impact of EU acquis, in particular in Member States which
previously did not have policies or measures specifically aimed at attracting
(highly) qualified third-country nationals. In December EMN also launched a new
study on "Business-related immigration to the EU: Attracting immigrant
investors and entrepreneurs and facilitating trade-related mobility".
The Commission
joined forces with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) in two consecutive projects. The first project on "Matching
Economic Migration with Labour Market Needs" had as an aim to identify
policies and practices required to ensure that migration can effectively
respond to labour market needs over the short-to-medium term (2020 horizon). It
produced a series of studies aimed at analysing the challenges related to an
efficient matching of immigrant skills to labour market needs, as well as
policy recommendations. The second project,[103]
which will run in 2014 and 2015, aims to assess to which extent the EU, as a
destination region for labour migrants from outside the Union, can compete on
the global labour market for skills, and to which extent EU policy instruments
have helped to foster EU attractiveness. On 11 December
2013, the Commission published a call for proposals containing a research topic
on “The European growth agenda (EURO-2-2014)”, with a specific research
dimension on Migration, prosperity and growth. The call is part of Societal
Challenge 6 – Europe in a changing world – Inclusive, Innovative and Reflective
Societies of Horizon 2020, the new Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation.
6.2.1.     Satisfying labour market needs
At national
level:
Seventeen (Member) States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, HU, GR, IE, IT, LT, NL, MT,
PL, PT, UK and NO) amended or introduced changes in their approach to labour
migration, and several trends can be identified in national labour migration
policies in 2013. Most notably, (Member) States have adopted managed labour
market policies to address skill shortages (CZ, DE, EE, LU); to strengthen the
knowledge economy by attracting highly qualified migrants (CZ, EE, ES, IT, LU,
NL, PT); to increase labour market participation and tackle high unemployment
rate of resident third-country nationals (IT and NO); to regulate labour market
access by adopting or amending quotas (HR, IT); to control access to the labour
market in order to address mis-use (SE and NO) and to regularise status for
individuals residing without authorisation (IT,LU). Efforts were also invested
in simplifying access to the labour market and reducing administrative burdens.
(CZ, DE, EE, LT, LU, NL, PL). In Italy and Norway, high unemployment rates of
resident third-country nationals when compared with the national population
necessitated the adoption of strategies to increase the labour market
participation of migrants. In Italy, it was estimated that over 350 000
third-country nationals were seeking employment. A package of measures was
adopted to promote employment, improve the functioning of the labour market and
support vulnerable groups.  Conversely, other (Member) States, such as
Lithuania, experienced labour shortages in particular sectors and issued more
work permits to third-country nationals in 2013 as a result of the recovering
economy and an increasing number of vacancies. 
With regard to
addressing skill shortages, some (Member) States have undertaken labour market
analyses and adopted lists of shortage occupations (AT, DE, IE, IT, LT, MT, PL,
UK). In Germany, a white list of occupations is compiled on the basis of the
Federal Employment Agency's established semi-annual analysis for professions
characterised by skills shortages. Occupations which featured in the white list
included health care and general caring; mechatronics and electrical
engineering and occupations in facility management. In Lithuania, the
occupation lists included professions mainly in the field of transport (international
freight drivers). In Ireland, a bi-annual review of the lists of shortage
occupations included highly skilled occupations, such as those in the ICT
sector. 
In
Belgium, institutional changes are introduced, shifting the regulatory
competence for work permits from federal to regional level, a move which aims
at providing the regions with the necessary powers to fully integrate labour
market policy at that level. Many (Member) States invested efforts to attract
highly qualified migrants as part of the global competition for talent (CZ, DK,
EE, ES, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT). Steps were taken to facilitate or simplify
access to the labour market for highly qualified migrants by reducing
administrative burdens (CZ, EE, ES, IT, LU, PT), introducing a single residence
and work permit (CZ, ES, SI); and simplifying entry of family members of highly
qualified migrants (EE, ES, LT). Poland added Armenian nationals to the list of
third-country nationals (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Moldova) who are
entitled to work in Poland on simplified principles. 
Others undertook
measures to facilitate and simplify access to labour markets (AT, CZ, FR, HU,
NL, PL, RO). In Austria, a combined residence and work permit was created for
the holders of the “settlement permit” and the “residence permit – artist”. In
France, the requirements of the labour market test were liberalised to
facilitate employment of third-country nationals and in the Netherlands, the
Modern Migration Policy Act became effective in June 2013, which simplified and
accelerated procedures for obtaining residence permits, whilst maintaining the
restrictive policy regarding lower skilled labour migration. In Romania a guide
for third country nationals who intend to establish or already are in Romania
for work purposes was revised and updated.
With regard to
regulating access to the labour market, several Member States reported on
introducing or updating their annual quotas (HR, IT, UK). In Italy, the annual
immigration quotas were set at 17 850, shared across various categories, but
with the majority reserved for the conversion into permits for autonomous
and/or subordinate labour of other types of permits. Other categories include
pre-departure training programs, autonomous workers, seasonal workers and for
vocational training purposes. 
In 2013, Sweden
reviewed the possibility of introducing stricter control measures with the aim
to address misuses by employers and to prevent exploitation of migrant workers.
Lithuania considered introducing stricter requirements for issuing temporary
residence permit to third-country nationals in engaging in lawful activities in
order to prevent establishment of fictitious enterprises with an aim of
obtaining a temporary residence permit and moving freely within the Schengen
area.
In Luxembourg, a
regularisation measure “Single Regularisation Process” was implemented in the
beginning of 2013. The regularisation targeted third-country nationals residing
without authorisation in Luxembourg to apply for a residence permit as salaried
workers. Regularisation was granted to 512 third-country nationals in terms of
obtaining a temporary residence permit. 
6.2.2.     Skills
Recognition and labour matching
At national
level:
Many (Member) States undertook actions to improve skills recognition, such as
facilitating and enhancing validation procedures (AT, BE, ES, FI, LU, SK, NO),
shortening the recognition procedure (AT, BG, PT), increasing information
provision (AT, CZ, DE, PT, SE) and changing the institutional framework (PL,
SE). The main driver for the introduction of new measures has been recognition
of employers’ lack of knowledge with regard to the comparability of foreign
educational qualifications and work experience. 
With regard to
facilitating and enhancing validation procedures, several (Member) States
further developed procedures and frameworks for skills recognition. In Austria,
a 5-point programme introduced in 2012 to facilitate skills recognition of
university graduates from third countries showed positive results in terms of
increased efficiency and turnaround of assessed qualifications. In Finland, a
new competence-based framework for recognition is planned which will include
existing competencies, language skills and vocational skills of migrants.
Portugal has implemented a specific measure envisaging at improving recognition
of skills by simplifying the administrative procedures, providing information
to the public and a database containing all equivalences of higher education
diplomas recognized by Portuguese universities.
Actions to
increase information provision included updating information on web-sites (BE,
PL, SE), establishing regional contact points to provide counselling (AT),
developing communication strategies for target groups (BE) as well as
cooperating with other Member States and exchange of information within the
ENIC/NARIC networks (BE, BG, PL, SK). In Sweden, a new agency, the “University
and Higher Education Council” began operations at the start of the reference
year, with the aim to facilitate more coherent validation and to help skilled
migrant job seekers to find employment in their respective professional fields.

With regard to
improved labour matching, (Member) States introduced a number of new activities
(AT, CZ, DE, FI, HU, IT, LU, PL, PT, SE and NO). Most notably, specialised
platforms and databases were developed in Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden. A
centralised database which includes information from all Labour Offices in the
Czech Republic is available in English and Ukrainian. In Germany, the
web-portal “Make it in Germany” provides information on the living and working
conditions in Germany as well as the conditions for legal entry and employment.
Portugal created a database of information on migrants with higher-level
qualifications that can be cross-checked against information held on labour
market needs and training opportunities. Other activities included a project to
create an interactive mobile application on the living situation and employment
of migrants (CZ). In Norway, the project “New Chance” helped migrants who have
been out of the labour market over long periods of time and economically
inactive migrant women to improve their skills and find employment. An economic
analysis of participants in the programme showed that overall it contributed to
increased employment of the target groups as well as increasing the labour
market participation of their children, facilitated the transition to other
projects or education, and helped to increase community understanding. In
Poland, a new monitoring system for skills shortages and redundancy of the
local labour market aiming at better identification of the labour market demand
was in the process of development in 2013.
6.2.3.     Developing migrants' entrepreneurship and trade related mobility
At EU
level:
The EU has publicly recognized the key contribution that migrant entrepreneurs
can make to sustainable growth and employment, and has suggested possible
initiatives to be taken both at EU and national level in the Entrepreneurship
2020 Action Plan[104],
adopted in January 2013. The Action Plan is a blueprint for decisive action to
unleash Europe's entrepreneurial potential, to remove existing obstacles and to
revolutionise the culture of entrepreneurship in Europe. Furthermore, the
European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals[105]
stresses the important role of migrants as entrepreneurs and states that
"their creativity and innovation capacity should also be reinforced".
Immigrants
can significantly contribute to the entrepreneurial development of a country.
52% of start-ups created in Silicon Valley between 1995 and 2005 were initiated
by migrants. According to the OECD, migrants are more entrepreneurial than
natives and a foreign-born self-employed person who owns a small or medium firm
creates between 1.4 and 2.1 additional jobs[106].
Migrants represent an important pool of potential entrepreneurs in Europe.
However, today European migrant businesses are mainly micro-businesses with no
or very few employees.
Further,
joint discussions between trade and home affairs experts on movement of natural
persons supplying services (so called "mode 4") were organised in December
2013, which aimed at identifying how to better apply various policy tools to
enhance the use of the provisions on mobility of highly qualified professionals
in the EU free trade agreements. 
At
national level: Attracting investors and/or entrepreneurs also
remained on the political agenda in several Member States (CZ, EL, ES, IT, UK).
In the Czech Republic a project called “Welcome Package for investors” was
launched in July aiming to facilitate the procedure for entry and employment of
third-country nationals, in conjunction with an investment in the Czech
Republic. Greece
adopted provisions on the right of ten year residence in the country to TCNs,
who are the legal representatives of strategic investments agencies or five
years residence in the country for TCNs, who already possess or plan to invest
in real estate in the country. The United Kingdom expanded the “Graduate
Entrepreneur” route adopted by the Government and in Italy a policy plan
“Destination Italy” was adopted by the Government to attract foreign investment
and promote competitiveness of Italian companies, with special attention paid
to addressing to human capital and the capacity to attract talent and highly
qualified workers.
In
October 2013 the Netherlands introduced a new admission scheme for investors
from third countries who want to invest at least EUR 1.250.000 in a company in
the Netherlands, with the overall aim of increasing employment and/or
innovation.
6.2.4.     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, 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. Furthermore, in the Communication on
Maximising the Development impact of Migration of 21 May 2013, the Commission
commits itself to, inter alia, strengthen migration governance and
cooperation in and between developing countries, in particular at regional
level, to improve development outcomes for countries of origin, transit and
destination. In this context, the Commission will support capacity building in
all relevant areas, including by sharing its expertise on protecting migrants’
human rights, integration, labour migration systems, tackling human smuggling
and trafficking, etc.
At national
level:
Several Member States reported specifically on their continued participation in
the EU Mobility Partnerships including those in the East and South of Europe:
Moldova (RO, SE), Georgia (BE, CZ, DK, NL, SE), Armenia (BE, CZ, NL, PL),
Azerbaijan (CZ, LT); and Africa: Morocco (DE, ES, IT, NL, PT, SE, UK) and Cape
Verde (LU, NL, PT). Luxembourg and the Netherlands specifically reported on
participating in the joint European project “Capacity Building of Cape Verde in
managing migration”. Sweden and United Kingdom reported on their work in the
framework of the planned Mobility Partnership with Tunisia. 
With regard to
bilateral agreements, several Member States reported on activities establishing
or strengthening links with third countries for the purpose of promoting
working holiday schemes (WHS) (ES, HU, PL, SE, SK), legal labour migration (IT,
LU, PT, RO), establishing social insurance arrangements (BG, PL,
SK) and to addressing issues of legal and irregular migration with specific
countries / regions (UK). Hungary reported on bilateral contracts with third
countries concerning legal migration through WHSs[107],
completing a contract with Republic of Korea in 2013 and negotiating WHS
agreements with, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile and Japan. In 2013, Poland
signed a WHS agreement with New Zealand. 
Italy signed
agreements on the regularisation and management of labour migration with Egypt,
Albania, Moldova, Morocco and Sri Lanka, and, finalised agreements with six
other countries: Bangladesh, the Philippines, Ghana, Tunisia and Peru.
Agreements are also being negotiated with India, China, Ecuador, Ukraine and
Russia. In addition, Italy launched a bi-annual project to facilitate the
effective management of circular migration between Mauritius and Italy. This
initiative, which was launched in January 2013 and will be completed by
December 2014, includes informative activities and training provision to
Mauritian administrative agencies as well as pre-departure training of workers[108].
Luxembourg is in the process of negotiating a bilateral agreement with Cape
Verde on the joint management of migration flows and supportive development.
Poland concluded a bilateral social insurance agreement with Moldova[109]. The
agreement provides for summing up insurance periods completed in both Poland
and Moldova when calculating the amount of retirement or pension benefits and
the payment of such benefits when living in any of the states concerned.
Portugal (in partnership with the Centre for Migration Policy Development -
ICMPD) concluded a project in 2013 which provided training and analytical
skills for managing the curriculum and legal framework regarding migration from
Moldova and Georgia. In addition,
cooperation on issues related to labour migration is under negotiation with
India. During 2013 Romania initiated negotiations with Israel regarding the
conclusion of a bilateral agreement in the area of labour force mobility, and
established the implementation of the Agreement with
Israel in the field of social security.
6.2.5.     Efforts to mitigate ‘brain
drain’
At EU level: The
Commission analysed the implementation of the EU Blue Card in 2013[110],
including the provisions foreseen therein on ethical recruitment from
third-countries in sectors suffering from a lack of personnel, by protecting
human resources in developing countries. One finding was that few Member States
had transposed this safeguard into national legislation. The EMN study on
"Attracting Highly-qualified and Qualified third –country nationals"[111]
found that most
of the Member States do not address the issues of brain drain and brain
circulation in their national policies to attract (highly) qualified
third-country nationals. The focus of their policies is to find the most
qualified and to encourage their long-term settlement. In Member States where
the issue of brain drain is specifically addressed, this is done through
national legislation and/or bilateral agreements. The issue of brain
circulation is addressed mainly through projects implemented jointly in the
Member State and in a third country. 
At national
level:
Ongoing measures to mitigate brain drain were reported in five Member States
(BG, CZ, DE, IT and UK). Specific measures were reported by Germany, Italy and
United Kingdom with regard to the healthcare sector. Italy continued to promote
an approach that is based on safeguarding health and reinforcing public health
systems in developing countries. In Germany, an Employment Ordinance imposed a
ban on the private placement and recruitment of health personnel from 57
countries suffering from skills shortages in this sector according to the WHO
Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel.
United Kingdom is committed to an ethical approach to recruiting healthcare
professionals, which is formalised in the Code of Practice for the
International Recruitment of Healthcare Professionals.
In Bulgaria,
Germany and Italy efforts were also made to encourage circular migration to
address labour shortages in key sectors through the implementation of specific
projects and programmes. In Bulgaria, efforts were made to encourage employers
to apply ethical recruitment approaches when targeting economic sectors in
countries of origin that might be at risk of skills shortages in order to avoid
creating workforce deficits in these countries.
Germany promoted
the transfer of knowledge and the fight against brain drain from developing
countries under the programme “Returning skilled labour”. The programme
includes personal counselling on return and career planning, assisting in
finding a job and providing financial subsidies. In the Czech Republic, the
Central European project “Regions benefiting from returning migrants” (Re-Turn)
was implemented to create framework conditions for retaining human capital and
to counter brain drain. The project aims to bring the topic of return migration
on the political agenda, providing an account of the extent of return
migration, competences and needs of returning migrants as well as concrete
measures to promote remigration as a source to foster knowledge development. 
The online platform innovitalia.net was set up in
Italy to facilitate a two-way exchange between national and international
researchers, to maximise the benefits of international contact for mutual gain.
6.2.6.     Efforts to avoid ‘social dumping’
At EU
level:
In 2013 the so called "Single Permit Directive" (2011/98/EU) became
operational. It is intended to bridge a "rights
gap" regarding third-country workers as opposed to own nationals, granting
them employment-related rights (e.g. working conditions including pay, access
to vocational training and core social security benefit) comparable to own
nationals. The Directive recognizes that third-country workers contribute to
the European economy through their work and tax payments. It can also help
reduce unfair competition emanating from this rights gap, thus serving as a
safeguard for EU citizens by protecting them from cheap labour and migrants
from exploitation. In addition granting a common set of rights in Community law
would create a level playing field within the EU for all third-country
nationals legally working, irrespective of the Member State in which they stay.
The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation of this Directive, as
well as other Directives providing equivalent rights such as the EU Blue Card
Directive (2009/50/EC) and the Long-term residents Directive (2003/109/EC), as
amended.  The correct implementation of the Employers Sanctions Directive
(2009/52/EC) is also a key priority to address the issue of exploitation of
irregularly staying migrants.
At national
level:
Several (Member) States reported that they had adopted measures to prevent or
address social dumping. Specific actions included (proposed) changes in
legislation on equal treatment (AT, CZ, IE, UK ); information provision to
third-country nationals (AT, FI); enhanced inspection measures (CY, CZ, HU, LT,
NL, PL, PT, SK and NO); measures for setting the terms of employment and  the
amount of minimum wage  (CY, CZ, DK, FI, LT, PL) and imposing sanctions on
employers (CZ, DK, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, MT, SK).
With regard to
changes in legislation, AT, BE, LU and SK reported on changes in national
regulation pursuant to the transposition of the Employer Sanctions Directive
(2009/52/EC). In Ireland, legislation has been proposed that will introduce new
safeguards for migrant workers to avoid labour exploitation. 
Actions on
information provision included a leaflet to irregular migrants informing them
about their labour rights and claim possibilities under labour law that have
been developed in languages of main countries of origin (AT), and an
information dissemination campaign in countries of origin about employment
legislation and employment terms (FI).
With regard to
inspection measures, some (Member) States reported on enhanced inspection
measures and greater role for Labour inspectorates (CY, CZ, HU, LT, NL, PT, SK,
NO) For example, in Cyprus, a new procedure was established for the examination
of complaints regarding violation of terms of employment and exploitation, so
that inspections are carried out to safeguard the enforcement of Equality Law.
In Norway, the competencies and resources of Labour Inspectorates were
increased in 2013 in order to ensure compliance with legislation. In Lithuania,
the territorial divisions of the State Labour Inspectorate were
engaged in scheduled activities in the area of prevention of illegal work,
especially in businesses were third country nationals are employed.
Also to offset
the risks of social dumping, measures for setting the terms of employment and
the minimum wages were adopted in Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Poland and Norway. In Cyprus, the terms of employment of foreign
workers in the areas of farming, agriculture, industry and commerce were
outlined in collective agreements to safeguard equal treatment between all
workers in Cyprus. In Luxembourg, the trial period of the so called ‘Social
Badge’ was launched in October 2013. The Social Badge, which aims to fight
social dumping, requires employers to register employees under the Inspectorate of Labour and Mines. The employee will obtain the badge
which includes the name of the employee and a bar code, which can be scanned by
the inspectors to obtain all employees’ necessary information. The official use
of the badge is expected at the beginning of 2014. The Netherlands
an action plan was developed and regulations have been tightened with extra
enforcement deployed against bogus employment and self-employment in the
construction industry. In Norway, trade unions have been given the right to
bring actions in matters of illegal hiring in accordance with the Temporary and
Agency Work Directive.
6.2.7.     Promoting
legal migration channels
At EU level: In
November 2011, the Commission launched the EU Immigration Portal, a website
intended for non-EU citizens who wish to migrate to the European Union[112]. The
Portal contains up-to-date and practical information on EU and national
immigration procedures and policies. It explains how to enter EU borders
legally and describes the risks related to irregular migration, such as
trafficking and smuggling. Workers, researchers, students and those looking to
join their families already in the EU can find information adapted to their
needs. Users can also find straightforward information about their rights and
whether they need a visa to come to the EU. It also contains links and contact
details of relevant national authorities responsible for immigration, as well
as a contact directory of governmental and non-governmental organisations for
migrants. Already available in English and French, the Portal was in 2013 made
available in Spanish and Arabic, in order to make the information available to
a greater number of users. The Portuguese version was also developed and
launched March 2014. The Portal is consulted by an increasing number of
visitors: in 2013, 128 558 unique visitors were counted. 
Through the 2013
call for proposals for the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities Theme of the
Seventh Framework Programme for Research, the Commission is funding two
projects[113]
on circular and temporary migration,  and in particular on the individual
drivers and on the impact of policies in shaping these types of migration.
At
the national level: Fourteen (Member) States (BE, BG, CZ,
EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE) introduced new measures to promote
legal channels of migration for third-country nationals. Member States’
interventions were driven by the aim of improving channels of communication about
legal entry and stay and promoting safe alternatives, thus reducing the risks
of trafficking in human beings, smuggling and other irregular migration
channels. Such actions also aim to tackle misconceptions that can lead
third-country nationals to make choices resulting in irregularity, and in many
cases, recognised that potential migrants often receive information from social
networks rather than through official channels.
Promotion
of legal channels has been through public awareness campaigns, the maintaining
of up-to-date websites, tailored projects and through bilateral agreements.
Campaigning and websites were the two most frequently used measures implemented
by the (Member) States to provide third-country nationals with access to both
pre-and post-departure information and are generally managed by public
authorities (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DK, ES, HU, IT, LV, LT, NL, PL, PT, SK, NO).
Information campaigns were commonly delivered using a range of written materials,
videos, media communication and telephone lines and web-sites (CZ, EL, IT, PL,
SE) or by organising ad hoc fairs, events and seminars with public
authorities and stakeholders (CZ, EE, EL, LV, NO). Bulgaria implemented several
new projects, funded by the European Integration Fund, setting up information
points in many of the bigger cities in the country, as well as mobile
consultation units for accessing remote areas. Greece organised an information
conference addressed to all stakeholders on the new legal framework for
strategic investments in the country.
Some
Member States were also active in delivering pre-departure measures. Italy, for
example, established four independent offices in third countries in Egypt,
Albania, Moldova and Sri Lanka with the aim of disseminating information and
job vacancy lists to third-country nationals. Moreover, two projects were
implemented to inform and guide potential migrants coming to Italy for family
reunification purposes before departure, in cooperation with local authorities
in Morocco and Senegal. Slovak Republic also put in place a plan to create
information
and
consultation centres directly in countries of origin. Portugal has initiated a
new phase of deployment of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILO), who will,
amongst other duties, provide information on legal migration. 
Consistent
with the goals of raising awareness amongst potential migrants on the risk of
irregular migration, and of increasing regular flows, Member States have also
reported efforts to find out more about the motives and driving forces of migrants
(SE), developing better relations with countries of origin increasing the
number of bilateral agreements (FR) and also registered the increase of
migration flow with appropriate visas (PT). Within the project “Strengthening
the capacity of Republic of Moldova for the management of labour and circular
migration within the Mobility Partnership EU-Moldova” the Guide for Foreign
Workers in Romania was updated.
6.3.        Integration[114]
Table
18 in the Statistical Annex gives an 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-28, the unemployment rate for third country nationals was 22 % in
2013 compared with a total unemployment rate of 11%. 
The
highest unemployment rates for third-country nationals were reported by Spain
(40.5%) and Greece (39.2%), compared with national averages of 26.5% and 27.5%
respectively. Gender disaggregated statistics provides that unemployment of
third-country national females was the highest in Slovenia at 45.6% (compared
to 11% average female unemployment) and Greece at 41.5% (compared to 31.5 %
average female unemployment). 
Figure 9: Unemployment
rate of third-country nationals and total unemployment rate by Member State
Source:
Eurostat. Labour Force Survey, annual data 
6.3.1.     A European agenda for the
integration of third-country nationals
At EU level: Migrants' integration is subject to
regular dialogue, exchange of knowledge and good practices between the
Commission and Member States, local and regional authorities, civil society and
other stakeholders at different levels. Integration is promoted through
different means, including with the support of the European Fund for the
Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EIF).
Overall, in 2013 the
priorities set out in the 2011 European Agenda for the Integration of
Third-Country Nationals[115]
and the Council Conclusions adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in
December 2011[116]
continued to guide the Commission's action in this field. The European
Parliament also adopted its Resolution on the integration of migrants, its
effects on the labour market and the external dimension of social security
coordination[117].

Three meetings of the
National Contact Points on Integration (NCPI) were held, in February, June and
November respectively. Themes discussed varied, including integration
indicators, refugee integration, language training, active citizenship, and
many more. The NCPI also contributed to the reflection on developments of
integration priorities in the context of developing the future strategic
guidelines in the area of Home Affairs, following the end of the Stockholm
Programme, as well as to the reform of the EU funds in the area of asylum,
migration and integration. 
A pilot project on EU
indicators on migrant integration, which was coordinated by the Commission with
the participation of national governments, statistical experts, academics,
international organisations and civil society, was finalised in 2013. The final
report presented in July 2013 discusses the characteristics, limits and
added-value of the current indicators, addressing issues linked to data quality
and availability as well as the use of indicators in policy contexts[118]. It
confirms the relevance of the identified indicators and suggests possible new
ones.
The Commission
published the final European modules on migrant integration developed with
experts from all over the EU[119].
The aim of the modules is to provide a common reference framework regarding
integration, to help increase the quality of policies and practices on the
ground across the EU in three areas: introductory and language courses; a
strong commitment by the host society; and the active participation of
immigrants in all aspects of collective life.
In 2013, the
Commission organised, in cooperation with the European Economic and Social
Committee, two meetings of the European Integration Forum. The June meeting
addressed the 'Integration of Migrant Youth in European Society' and the
November meeting discussed 'Participation of migrants in the democratic process
– Towards a more inclusive citizenship'.[120]
The Committee of the Regions, together with a selected number of local and
regional practitioners were invited to attend the Forum meetings, as part of
the efforts to reinforce the involvement of local and regional authorities in
policy developments on integration. 
The Commission
also continued to develop the European Web Site on Integration (EWSI),[121]
strengthening in particular the local and regional dimension of integration
through the collaboration with the Committee of the Regions in the creation of
an interactive map of local and regional integration practices[122].
Other key developments included the release of Special Features on migrant
political participation and on language courses, and Integration Dossiers on
recognition of qualifications and on the role of employers in integration. The website increased its number of visits by
38% in 2013 and reached more than 100 000 visits by 59 000 unique users. 
At national
level:
In 2013, 21 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT,
LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, UK) and Norway reported the adoption of new
measures to facilitate integration of migrants through socio-economic
participation. The majority of (Member) States focused on enhancing language
skills of migrants and their educational attainment, especially of those newly
arrived, less advantaged or starting first school grades. Some Member States
planned or already implemented an enhanced language training offer as part of
their integration programmes (AT, BE, CY, DE, EE, FI, IT, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI,
SK, UK). Italy and Latvia created dedicated websites, portals and archives for
language learning. In particular, Estonia appointed new teachers in educational
institutions and introduced additional free-language courses to third-country
nationals with low economic status. Greece implemented actions on language and
IT training, proficiency examination and electronic language tools (such as an
e-dictionary). Portugal started in 2013 the 5th  generation of the
program ‘Programa Escolhas’ tailored to vulnerable children and young
people, including migrants, from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, with
the purpose of ensuring access to educational opportunities, strengthening
social inclusion and increasing employability and empowerment.
A
finding emerging from the drivers of those measures is that the improvement of
educational attainment is closely linked with labour market integration of
migrants. Several Member States introduced or augmented combined actions to
improve educational attainment, (AT, BG, EE, FI, HU,
IT, LU, NL, PL, SK, SE). Some of them focused on vocational training and
counselling (AT, BG, EE, FI, PL). Austria, for example, sent “integration
ambassadors” to inform young students on topics related to education and labour
market and offered modular vocational training sessions for third-country
nationals. Other Member States implemented interventions for migrant pupils and
students to facilitate their orientation in the educational system (HU, IT,
SE). For instance, Sweden aims to provide more time for contacts between
teachers and students and to improve the provision of information on the free
choice of schools.
New
measures to improve access to basic services for migrants were introduced in
many (Member) States (AT, BG, CY, DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, IT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL,
SE, UK). These measures typically involved the support of service providers in
the sectors of health-care and social services at national and local levels. 
In Finland a study focused on the health, job skills and need for services
among immigrants of Russian, Kurdish and Somali origin and the results will be
used for promoting further measures targeting these ethnic minorities. Austria
will implement new actions under a new memorandum of understanding between the
State Secretariat for Integration and the Association of Social Security
Institutions; these include the appointment of an integration coordinator and
the exchange of information on the situation of migrants’ health. Malta has
implemented trainings, in collaboration with the IOM, which have shown that
many third country nationals are not well-informed about which institution or
office to contact, depending on their needs. Spain introduced new actions in
neighbourhoods with high immigrant population, focusing particularly on access
to basic services; non-discrimination; participation and civic education. Other
new measures aimed at increasing the socio-economic participation of migrants,
including individualised projects based on identified needs in the framework of
rights and obligations (BE, HU, LU, NL, PL); integration of refugees in
municipalities (BG, DK, FI); and promoting social engagement of migrants also
through associations of third country nationals (IT, EE). 
According
to the information provided, the common driver of these measures clearly
emerged as the necessity of improving migrants’ language skills and other
competences of migrants to facilitate their socio-economic participation into
the society. Many (Member) States attempted to address identified challenges
that risk jeopardizing migrants’ integration. Among these are: the gap in access
to services between third-country nationals and nationals (AT); difficulties encountered by third country nationals in
accessing services, such as linguistic barriers (MT); higher
unemployment and lower level of educational achievements among some migrant
children or children with a migration background (FI, SE); difficulties in encouraging reciprocal integration efforts between migrants and
citizens (SK);
coordination
and harmonisation of integration activities (BE, DK); and weaknesses
in the current integration models (IT). The most important goals identified for
new integration measures are increasing social, economic and cultural
participation of immigrants; reducing the information gap in migrant
communities on health and other services; improving pupils’/students’ skills
and access to education; and accelerating entry into the labour market. 
Five Member
States (DK, EE, FI, IT, PT) reported on the evaluated impacts of their
integration measures. In particular, cooperation and joint activities had been
shown to enhance integration in society and to promote positive outcomes both
for migrants and non-migrants (EE). The acquisition of education and
professional skills increases immigrants’ inclusion in society and employment
opportunities (FI). Italy reported the emergence of a specific “national model”
of integration that identifies better social and occupational integration
conditions in local contexts characterised by low “social complexity”. The
results of Portugal’s integration project ‘Programa Escolhas’ confirm
its positive impact, ensuring positive school results to 86.7% of participants
(see above). Spain
strengthened of actions for integration carried out in neighbourhoods with
large immigrant populations, by developing programs of integral intervention in
Reception; Education; Health; Social Services and Integration; Conviviality;
Equality of Treatment and Fight against Discrimination; Infancy, Youth and
Families; Gender and Participation and Civic Education.
In
Denmark the Government’s Task Force on Integration published its findings and
recommendations on how to improve integration and citizenship in Denmark with
good examples, methods and best practices. A high number of Member States
reported positively on the support of EU funding to enhance integration
measures, notably through the European Integration Fund (IEF) (AT, BE, BG, CZ,
EE, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK).
6.3.2.     Promoting
integration through participation: rights and obligations, achieving equal treatment
and belonging
At
national level: Promotion of integration through participation was
the focus of new measures in fourteen Member States (AT, BE, CZ, DK, EE, EL,
FI, HU, IT, LV, LU, MT, PL, SE, SK) and Norway. Improving rights and
obligations, equal treatment and increasing the sense of belonging to society
to avoid exclusion were the main objectives of such measures. Measures that
increased migrants’ involvement in political life and their democratic
participation concerned active citizenship (AT, CY, EE, FI), representation of
migrants in elective bodies (IT, LU), and the promotion of participation of
migrant voters to elections (DK, NO). Spain signed
reciprocity agreements on participation in the local elections with 12
countries whereby citizens of these countries will be able to
exercise the right to vote in the terms established
in the referred agreements. 
Participation
of migrants in the process of developing integration policy was noted in some
Member States, especially in coordination with stakeholders, such as NGOs and
national bodies (CZ, HU, IE, LU), and through increasing migrant representation
within organisations/forums or other representative bodies (EE, IT, PL, SK). In
Estonia, for example, debates involving forums (ad-hoc consultation platforms)
were held in 2013 as a part of the new integration strategy. Greece established
legal and administrative aid offices, and developed electronic and printed
information material to inform third-country nationals of their legal rights
and obligations. However, following a decision of the Greek Council of State,
the participation of third-country nationals in local elections is no longer
allowed. Latvia has encouraged NGOs that represent the interests of
third-country nationals to contribute to the work of its newly set up Advisory
Council for the Integration of Third Country Nationals. The elections of the
representatives for the Chamber of Employees in Luxembourg, held in November,
were opened also to third-country nationals. Similarly, Italy completed the
process of development and mapping of representative bodies in which migrants
take part: these include Regional and Local Councils, supplementary
Councillors, Territorial Immigration Councils. Austria and Sweden reduced the
requirements necessary to become citizens, and increased public awareness on
attainment of citizenship (e.g. through ceremonies).
Recurrent
drivers of such measures have been the need to improve migrants’ sense of
belonging to a community and to address gaps in social and civic involvement of
migrants in society. Low participation rates of migrants in society has emerged
as a finding from numerous sociological studies (EE) and inspired the adoption
of a bottom-up principle in policy development (SK). In some cases migrants have
been found to be underrepresented in specific economic sectors, such as
public-employment (FI), as a consequence of lack of equal opportunities for
minorities (FI). 
6.3.3.     Non-discrimination
and equal treatment
At EU level :
Legislation in
the field of equal opportunities, of relevance for many third-country
nationals since they address discrimination on grounds of, inter alia,
ethnic origin, religion and belief. An implementation report[123] was
adopted early 2014 on the application of the Directives on equal treatment in
the employment and occupation[124]
and on equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,[125]
accompanied by a handbook[126]
entitled "How to Present a Discrimination Claim: Handbook on seeking
remedies under the EU Non-discrimination Directives".
At
national level: New developments in the implementation of
non-discrimination policy were reported in fifteen Member States (BE, DK, EE,
EL, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, PL, SI, UK). Changes mostly related to
the adoption of new guidelines/charters and the implementation of public
campaigns focusing on anti-discrimination, equality, and the promotion of
diversity.  
Many
Member States have harnessed the mass media to disseminate messages to wide
audiences and the use of media channels and websites in this context has been
widely reported. Legislative amendments and court rulings contributed to
enhance legal protection and participation of migrants to activities that have
been the reserve of nationals (IT, PL). In
Belgium, Ireland and Spain institutional changes occurred in bodies involved in
non-discrimination policy. Spain, for example, established new prosecutors
specialised in prosecuting hate crimes, and changes were made to the Criminal
Statistics System in line with international requirements for the collection
and publication of statistics on racist incidents. Some projects focused on
improving intercultural dialogue, promoting ethnic diversity and cooperation
between cultures (EL, ES, LV, LT, MT, SI) and others to increase knowledge and respect
of other cultures in all fields, e.g. arts, history, customs and food (LT). The
core of the “Good Relations” joint project[127]
implemented in cooperation among three Member States (FI, SE, UK) was directed
at preventing and combating hate crimes and discrimination. The United Kingdom
jointly funds True Vision to provide an anonymous alternative channel for
reporting all forms of hatred. In Spain, a project on “Managing Diversity in Small and Medium enterprises”
was started.
The
objectives of these measures are in general to improve in the implementation of
non-discrimination policy and law and to eliminate obstacles to integration of
migrants. The resulting benefits to migrants highlighted by Member States
include, in particular: the decrease of discrimination and hate-crimes (IT, LU,
PL, SK); benefits in terms of more open and receptive attitudes of the host
society towards migrants (EE, EL, FI, LV, SI); increases in migrant employment
levels (FI); and the dissemination of more precise and objective information on
diversity that has improved the motivation of migrants to integrate (HU).
6.3.4.     Cooperation,
consultation and coordination of stakeholders and promoting action at local
level
At EU
level:
The Commission developed a map of good practices in the area of integration at
local and regional level, which is available on the European Website on
Integration (EWSI). Some of the practices have been identified via a study
carried out by the Committee of the Regions in 2012, titled "Study on
Practices of Integration of Third-Country Nationals at Local and Regional Level
in the European Union"[128].
All practices on the map have a clear link with the local or regional authority
to which they are attached. Practices included are a maximum of five years old,
and the EWSI Editorial Team regularly reviews them to ensure that the map
displays the most recent good practices.
At
national level: In many (Member) States activities on the
integration of migrants with the active involvement of local authorities and/or
civil society were planned or introduced. There were further improvements in
multi-lateral national cooperation between different levels of governance in
thirteen (Member) States (BE, CY, EE, EL, IT,
LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SK, NO). These were realized through the adoption of
structural reforms (BE), the introduction of collaborative projects (LT, LU,
PT, NO) and of mechanisms ensuring the consultation of key-players and their
cooperation to fulfil respective missions (CY, EE, EL, IT, LV, NL, PL, SK).
Tools such as institutional agreements, workshops, meetings and memoranda
proved to be useful to improve the dialogue among different authorities (BE,
CY, HU, IT, LV, NL, PL). Several member States highlighted the important role
of local authorities in implementing integration policies and addressing
integration challenges in disadvantaged and rural areas (AT, CY, CZ, FI, NO).
In Poland, the municipality of Lublin is the first municipality working to
develop a local strategy for integration and participating in developing the
integration strategy at national level.
In
sixteen Member States (AT, BG, BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT,
SE, SI) developments took place to improve the coordination among different
actors, authorities and civil society involved in integration. These measures
included support to stakeholders in planning strategies and measures for
integration. In particular, cooperation-agreements (DK, FI, PT, SE),
consultations (CY, EE, IT), and working groups (BG, DE) allowed stakeholders to
make a contribution and to identify their intervention priorities. Such
approaches can help to inform the implementation of such policies by regional
and local authorities, municipalities and private partners working on the
ground to ensure the needs of all are understood. Belgium established working
practices to ensure that groups in charge of coordinating and implementing
national policy on integration were open to the participation of the civil
society (social partners, academic and nongovernmental organizations, local
authorities) and very often in close cooperation with international organisations.
Italy increased the role of Territorial Councils for Integration. Recently,
Denmark launched a new strategy seeking to improve local level integration by
establishing formalised corporation between local municipalities and civil
society organisations. In Latvia projects involved training for representatives
of the state and municipal authorities and non-governmental organisations
working with third-country nationals. Germany appointed a working group charged
with looking at how to improve the reception culture in national enterprises,
administrations and in society as a whole, which included efforts to improve
stakeholder networking to optimize integration efforts. Portugal
started in 2013 the 5th generation of the program ‘Programa
Escolhas’, based on agreements with local consortium' funds
involving civil society organisations and local authorities in residential
areas where descendants of immigrants and ethnic minorities reside.
New
mechanisms for information exchange among institutions, such as inter-institutional
websites and specific centres, were introduced in three Member States (BE, IT,
FI, SI). For example, Slovenia inaugurated a website the purpose of which is to
become a key source of information for third-country nationals and a contact
point for other organisations, institutions and individuals wishing to exchange
information on integration. Projects, working groups and seminars for
coordination of national administration and practices with structures at the
European level were developed by 6 other Member States (BG, CY, FR, HU, PL,
SK). All the (Member) States regularly provide updates and exchange information
within the National Contact Points on Integration and the European Integration
Forum.
6.3.5.     Involvement of countries of origin
At EU level: Through a call for proposal under the European Integration Fund[129], the
Commission has co-financed a new IOM project “HEADSTART:
Fostering Integration before Departure"[130].
The project aims to
consolidate the lessons learnt from existing pre-departure integration support
practices, and to explore ways to create stronger links between pre-departure
and post-arrival immigrant integration services. Within 18 months, the project
will combine review and analysis of existing pre-departure integration support,
with the development of new practical tools, and networking and partnership
building among the policymakers and practitioners in the countries of origin,
and with their counterparts in countries of destination. A handbook for Migrant
Resource Centres as a specific vehicle of pre-departure information and
training provision will be developed and will include recommendations on
standard operating procedures, design, institutional set-up, training,
competences, data collection and evaluation. 
At
national level: Several Member States (AT, CY, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IT,
LV, LU, PL, PT, SE, UK) implemented initiatives to support integration
involving countries of origin, at different stages  and a further Member State,
Estonia, will consider the introduction of such measures in the next EU funding
period.  
Pre-departure
measures were introduced by 8 Member States (AT, CY, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IT, SE)
and aimed to inform potential migrants about the opportunities and challenges
presented by migration, thereby initiating integration processes at the
earliest possible stage. 
Cyprus,
Hungary Italy and Sweden have all implemented actions to inform third country
nationals before departure, identifying also specific target groups (e.g.,
highly skilled workers for Hungary). France and Germany developed pre-departure
plans to guide potential migrants, especially for
cases of family reunification, in their countries of origin. The pre-departure
plans seeks to prepare the integration pathway of migrants and include:
language tests, evaluation of knowledge of economic,
social and cultural aspects of the host country, support in establishing
contacts in the town where they will live and eventually training. Italy
introduced pre-departure training aiming to further facilitate migration inflows,
especially of highly qualified workers and to promote the immigrant’s role as
bridge to the country of origin. Romania in cooperation with IOM evaluated the
mechanism of reintegration in the country of origin of the voluntary
repatriated migrants – Morocco, Tunisia and the Philippines. Following the
evaluations a brochure on the best practices on reintegration in the countries
of origin was published.
Measures
to involve countries of origin are also implemented at different stages of
integration: during stay (AT, EE); on return (LU, PL), and others (BG, EE, PT,
SK). These measures are conceived to ensure that each migrant is from the very
beginning part of a structured integration process as well as to facilitate the
exchange of knowledge on integration policies between the countries of origin
and destination. Reasons driving these initiatives are the necessity to
exchange information with countries of origin to improve integration process
from the beginning (AT, FR, PT, SE) and to tackle criticism of integration
policy identified in some countries (HU). 
Within
the framework of the ERIS project (Development of Joint Principles, Procedures
and Standards on Integration Policies between the Russian Federation and
European Partners), Austria and Czech Republic introduced further developments
to their integration measures. The objective of the ERIS project is to
establish and maintain cooperation between migration and integration
authorities in countries of origin and destination, and to jointly develop principles,
procedures and standards on integration policies. Latvia concluded bilateral
cooperation agreements with third-countries in order to facilitate and improve
the cooperation between the countries and businesses. Estonia has an extensive
network of diaspora organisations (so called "national culture societies
and associations") that receive regular financial support.
6.4.        Managing
Migration and Mobility
Tables
17 and 18 in the Statistical Annex give a provisional overview of the number of
visas issued, by type. The four Member States issuing the highest number of
visas in total in 2013 were United Kingdom (2,497,165); Italy (2,134,049);
France (1,990,565) and Finland (1,552,887). Italy, Spain and Finland ranked as
the Member States issuing most Schengen visas. In comparison, Poland issued a
large number and share of national visas (291,663). 
Figure 10: Total visas issued in 2013
showing breakdown (where relevant) between Schengen and National visas   
Source:
European Migration Network National Contact Points (EMN APR2013, Annex2) for
National visas and DG HOME compilation of MS data for Schengen visas
Notes:
Statistics for national visas are currently not available in DK, DE, IE, EL,
FR, NL, SI
6.4.1.     Visa
Policy
At EU level: In
2013 agreement was found between the co-legislators on a revised reciprocity
mechanism and the new visa suspension mechanism included in the Commission
proposal[131]
amending Council Regulation (EC) 539/2001[132]
which entered into force in January 2014.  
In early 2014
agreement between co-legislators was also reached on the Commission proposal
amending the visa lists of Council Regulation (EC) 539/2001. The amendment,
which provides for the transfer to the visa free list of 16 small Caribbean and
Pacific island nations, as well as the United Arab Emirates, Peru and Columbia,
is likely to enter into force in June 2014. The Commission proposal amending
Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 with a view to transferring the Republic of Moldova
to the visa free list[133]
was approved by co-legislators early April 2014 and will enter into force at
the end of the same month. 
Revised visa
facilitation agreements (VFA) with Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova entered
into force in July 2013. VFAs with Armenia and Cape Verde were concluded, and
the one with Armenia entered into force on 1 January 2014. A VFA with
Azerbaijan was signed in November and for Morocco negotiating directives were
adopted by the Council in December.
On
1 April 2014 the Commission adopted a report on the implementation
of the Visa Code and a proposal for a revision to ensure that EU visa policy
contributes to fostering economic growth and cultural exchanges by facilitating
travel of legitimate travellers, such as business people, tourists, students
and young people, while continuing to ensure a high level of security for the
EU[134].
The roll-out of
the Visa Information System (VIS) continued in 2013 to include eight additional
regions (West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, South
America, Central Asia, South East Asia and the occupied Palestinian territory).
The Joint
Research Centre (JRC) concluded a study[135]
on the feasibility of including children aged between 6 and 12 years to the
fingerprint verification required by current VIS Regulation. The results from
the study, presented to the EP in March 2013, provide evidence that processing
fingerprints below 12 years old could be considered, provided that appropriate
best practice guidelines for enrolling fingerprints of good quality would be
developed. The JRC continues addressing the quality challenge of fingerprints
and is further developing its research investigation on other group of
population such as elderly beyond 65 years.
At
national level: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Slovenia
and Sweden undertook developments in relation to the implementation of the Visa
Code (Regulation 810/2009). Romania initiated the legislative procedures for
taking on certain provisions of Visa Code in the national legislation, in a
manner consistent with the full application of the Schengen acquis. Trainings
have been organised by Italy, Latvia and Slovenia, while Italy has also adopted
specific procedures to speed up the issuing of visas for an upcoming major
international event taking place on its territory. 
Other
developments include a national Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(AFIS) database developed by Belgium, while Lithuania signed agreements with
external service providers (ESPs) for 28 visa centres in Russia and Ukraine. 
6.4.2.      Schengen
Governance
At EU level: The
fourth report was adopted on 28 November 2013.[136] Just
like the previous reports, it includes information on the situational picture
(encompassing the external border, secondary migratory flows, Schengen
evaluation mechanism, EUROSUR and rules on Frontex sea border operations),
information on the application of the Schengen acquis (including, inter
alia, occurrences of reintroduced control at internal borders and pending
infringement cases) as well as related issues such as the use of the Schengen
Information System, the Visa Information System, visa policy and readmission
agreements. The biannual reports cover the development over the six months
following the previous report, whereby this fourth report stretches from 1 May
to 31 October 2013.
The Commission's
next report, which will cover the period 1 November 2013 – 30 April 2014, will
be adopted in May 2014 and discussed in JHA Council/Mixed Committee in June
2014.
After long and
complex negotiations, Regulation (EU) No. 1053/2013 establishing an evaluation
and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis[137] 
was adopted on 7 October 2013.  It entered into force on 27 November 2013;
however, it will start applying only one year later, on 27 November 2014. The
Commission is currently taking all necessary steps to prepare a smooth
implementation of the new evaluation mechanism. The new mechanism will allow to
efficiently monitor the situation and to provide for the necessary support and
to remedy weaknesses in order to maintain the mutual trust within the Schengen
area. Regulation 1051/2013 amending Regulation 562/2006[138]
provides for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at
the internal borders for exceptional circumstances where the Schengen
evaluation mechanism identified persistent serious deficiencies at the external
borders.
At
national level: Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Norway introduced new
measures to support Schengen governance during the reporting period.
Legislation
was amended in six Member States (AT, IT, CZ, NL, SK). For Italy and the
Netherlands this included amendments to the rules for the temporary
reintroduction of internal border controls in extraordinary cases, in
accordance with the Schengen Borders Code. In the Czech Republic legislation
was amended because of relevant rulings of the European Court of Justice and
practical experience with the implementation of the Schengen acquis, in
Italy because of increased migration flows and in both Latvia and Slovak
Republic because of existing or amended EU legislation.
Latvia
and Poland signed bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation regarding
the facilitation of travel for border residents (LV) and local border traffic
(PL). Croatia and Slovenia are cooperating in the development of the One Stop
Control programme, which aims to ensure the smooth flow of passenger traffic at
the respective border crossing points. By contrast, Poland also reintroduced
temporary border checks at internal borders. In Poland this was done in order
to improve security during a UN forum on climate policy in November 2013.
Finally, Austria extended the authority of border control by amending the
Border Control Act.
6.4.3.     Smart
Border Package
At EU
level:
Facilitating
border crossing of third country nationals to enter the EU is another way to
make the EU a more attractive destination. On 28 February 2013, the Commission
adopted the "smart border package", consisting of proposals for an
"Entry-Exit System (EES)"[139],
a "Registered Traveller Programme (RTP)"[140] and
subsequent amendments of the Schengen Borders Code, to speed-up, facilitate and
reinforce border check procedures for foreigners travelling to the EU. The
first examination of the text of both the EES and RTP proposal in the Council was
completed by February 2014. The European Parliament has expressed its
preliminary views as well. In order to reach, in full transparency, a technical
solution that meets best the shared objectives in terms of technical
feasibility, operational soundness, cost-efficiency and data protection, the
Commission has suggested a way forward consisting of a proof of concept that
would further analyse certain underlying technical elements of the proposals. The
first phase of the proof of concept, i.e. a technical study was launched in March
2014, in parallel to continuing negotiations on non-technical aspects of the
package. The European project FastPass[141]
(funded under Framework Programme 7) has started to develop a harmonised Automated
Border Control (ABC) concept suitable for land, sea and air borders, and in
line with the “smart border package”. The project will have a major focus on
appropriate risk analysis guidelines and certification aspects.
At
national level: In keeping with the implementation of
the EU smart borders package,[142]
Member States set up new (AT, BE, DE, EE, EL, FR, HU, IE, NO) or extended
existing (ES, NL) automated border controls (ABC). The Netherlands extended its
Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) to travellers from Canada and South Korea,
amongst other countries and the United Kingdom launched its own domestic
Registered Traveller Scheme for certain non-EEA national passengers. Germany
extended its RTP to travellers from the United States, and is planning to soon
provide this functionality within the framework of the German automated border
control system easyPASS. The ABC system in Hungary is expected to be further
developed into an RTP in the coming years and France also plans to set up RTPs.
The Research and Development Unit of FRONTEX (RDU) plays a role in supporting
Member States to assess the feasibility of implementing ABC gates in the EU.
For example, in 2013, the RDU supported Denmark with such assessments. At EU
level, it also organised an event attended by national border guard officers to
assess the performance of existing automated document inspection systems under
different configurations, in order to understand their strengths and discuss
possible areas for improvement based on the obtained results and needs of end
users.[143]
7.           MAXIMISING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF MIGRATION AND MOBILITY
7.1.        Progress
towards ensuring effective policy coherence and mainstreaming of migration in
development policies
At EU
level:
The European Commission Communication of May 2013 on ‘Maximising the
Development Impact of Migration’ included strong commitments on the
mainstreaming of migration into EU development cooperation, to be implemented
in line with the GAMM and the EU development policy, the Agenda for Change. It
also underlined the need for a strengthened evidence base on the
development-migration nexus in order to ensure that the links between migration
and key development sectors such as employment, human rights and education are
fully understood.
A
migration chapter was included in the 2013 Report on Policy Coherence and
Development (PCD)[144],
which noted steps taken to incorporate migration into a wide-ranging number of
policies that effect migration and brings together examples of the EU's work in
this area. A number of issues were highlighted as priority topics for the
future work to ensure PCD in the area of migration, including:
•        
Offering more migration and mobility options for
nationals of developing countries seeking legal employment in the EU, and
further integrating development concerns into migration and mobility policies;
•        
Continuing negotiation and implementation of GAMM
instruments, in particular MPs and CAMMs; 
•        
Continuing implementation of 'traditional'
priorities of the GAMM Migration and Development agenda. In particular,
stepping up efforts to lower the costs of remittance transfers from the EU;
•         
Develop further data and concrete policy
guidelines on how to promote the development impacts of migration;
•        
Further promote migration
mainstreaming and the use of Extended Migration Profiles  in EU partner
countries;
•        
Strengthening measures at
Member State level to ensure that the use of conditionality in migration
dialogues does not negatively impact on overall EU and Member State development
cooperation.
The
April 2013 Commission Staff Working Document on Climate Change, Environmental
Degradation and Migration[145]
included considerations on how to increase coherence to build a
more coordinated response to migration in the context of environmental change,
notably by better targeting disaster risk reduction and adaptation support to
reducing displacement. The SWD also recommended that measures to promote the positive
impact of migration as an adaptation strategy be integrated into the GAMM
migration and development pillar and EU development cooperation priorities on
both climate change adaptation and migration.
Migration
continued to be a very prominent issue in the global agenda in 2013. The second
High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, organised by
the UN General Assembly, took place on 3-4 October 2013 in New York. The
meeting renewed and strengthened the international political commitment to the
issue of international migration and development. The outcome declaration
demonstrated that that the international community is capable of reaching
political agreement on migration and development issues, including on the need
for integrating migration into the post-2015 development agenda, and provides
testimony to the positive progress made in recent years in this field. The EU
took a very active role both in the preparation and during the meetings and the
final declaration reflects many of the EU main concerns[146]. 
At
national level: More than half of all Member States (AT, BE, CZ,
DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, PL, SE, SK) reported on further
efforts to effectively mainstream migration in development policies.
These
efforts include participation in the international dialogues such as the UN
High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development (AT, BE, EL, ES,
HU, MT, SK) and the Global Forum on Migration and Development - GFMD (BE, EL,
FI, HU, MT, SE, SK) as well as the organisation of national follow-up events
(AT). As a country holding the Chairmanship of GFMD in the period January 2013
to June 2014, Sweden is exploring how migration can be integrated in the
Post-2015 UN Development Agenda as a contributor to sustainable human
development. 
Member
States reported on international cooperation and/or coordination initiatives
(AT, DE). For example, the Austrian Development Agency supported the
transnational Initiative for Migration and Development (CoMiDe) which aims to
enhance coherent migration and development policies in four European countries
(AT, IT, SI and SK) by initiating cooperation between NGOs, migrant
organisations and migrant communities.  Another example of cooperation effort
is the institutional counselling on how to utilize the potential of
migration for a sustained development that Germany provides within the scope of
the EU Mobility Partnerships. 
In
Finland, Poland and Slovak Republic, the migration and development policies
were integrated into strategic policy documents; in Belgium, policy coherence
and synergies between migration and development were integrated into legislation[147] as
well as in Italy into a draft law on development cooperation. In the Czech
Republic, the areas of security and migration were included in the first
Multilateral Development Cooperation Strategy 2013-2017.
Belgium,
France, Ireland and Netherlands reported on efforts to strengthen national
inter-institutional cooperation and enhance institutional capacity in the field
of migration and development. For example, in Belgium, efforts where channelled
through the national coordination mechanism ‘CoorAM’ which regularly brought
together migration and development stakeholders to coordinate issues, such as
effective mechanisms for involving diaspora in development policies and
pathways to address legal economic migration taking into account the risk of
brain drain. 
Migration issues
are integrated in bilateral cooperation programmes and specific development
projects in many Member States (BE, CZ, DE, FI, FR, HU, LU, NL, PL, SK).
Development projects and programmes focused on a number of cross-cutting issues
in developing countries, including supporting investment and development
initiatives of migrants (BE, FR); private business development and innovation
in Tunisia (DE); assistance to Armenian authorities to strengthen impact of
economic migration (DE); addressing  migrant labour challenges in Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan (FI); support to solidarity initiatives for development in
Senegal (FR); improving living conditions in southern Serbia (LU);
strengthening migration management and facilitating repatriation in Ghana and
Bangladesh (NL); security sector and public administration reform in Tunisia
(SK); strengthening
the legal framework and institutional capacity of the Bureau of Migration and
Asylum for better governance of migration and asylum system in the Republic of
Moldova (RO).
7.2.        Migrants’ Remittances
At EU
level:
Remittances remained a significant source of private income to many families in
third countries. The World Bank estimates that remittances to developing
countries reached USD 401 billion in 2012, an increase of 5.3% over the
previous year. In 2012, migrant remittance outflows from EU Member States to
non-EU countries accounted for approximately EUR 28 billion. Over the last four
years, the level of remittances has been stable at around EUR 28 billion.
Despite a number of remittance related initiatives over recent years,
significant work remains to be done if the commitments made by the EU to reduce
the transaction costs for remittances are to be met.
The
Council Conclusions of 12 December 2013 on Financing Poverty Eradication reaffirmed
the need to ensure faster, easier and cheaper remittance transfer, recalling
the G8 and G20 goal of reducing the average cost of transferring remittances
from 10% to 5% by 2014. The Commission organised an expert meeting on reducing
the cost of remittances at EU level in November 2013 paved the way for the
formation of an informal online remittance working group comprised of a wide
variety of interested actors, including European Institutions, EU Member States,
and think tanks. Building on the seminar, the working group facilitates
knowledge sharing to further reduce the cost of remittances. The EU is also
funding a number of projects on remittances, including two initiatives that are
aiming to enhance competition in the African remittance market through enabling
African post offices to offer modern financial services and increasing their
rural reach.
At
national level: A number of (Member) States (AT, CZ, FR, HU, IE,
IT, LU, NL, PL, SE, UK and NO) reported on new or updated measures with respect
to migrants’ remittances. 
Predominantly,
actions have included research activities, studies and the dissemination of
information (AT, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, PL, SE). In the Czech Republic, a
follow-up research project was conducted by the Ministry of Finance as part of
a World Bank mission of experts to study the remittances market in Czech
Republic. The Italian Ministry of Interior has established a National
Observatory on Financial Inclusion of Migrants. In
the Netherlands, research by De Nederlandse Bank (DNB) investigated the most
common channels used by migrants to send remittances. Sweden financially
contributed to the World Bank’s Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and
Development (KNOMAD), which has remittances as one of its main focus areas. In
Spain, El Banco de España (Bank of Spain) developed research studies on
remittances.
France,
Germany, Hungary, Italy and Norway all reported on their on-going initiatives
to foster competition among remittance providers and reduce costs of remittance
transfers. In
Italy, a Strategic Plan “Italian Development Cooperation in the three-year
period 2013-2015” was adopted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which renewed
the government’s commitment for the next three years in the effort to reduce
the cost of remittances. In Norway, regulations for the operation of money
transfer agencies have been liberalized, and this has continued to encourage
the growth in the number of agencies offering services to migrants, resulting in
increasing choice.
In
2013, efforts to facilitate safer and faster remittances were undertaken in
France, Germany and Ireland. In Germany, the remittance price comparison
website http://www.geldtransfair.de was
updated according to the World Bank's standards for remittance portals. 
Improving
the financial literacy of senders and recipients of remittances has been
another area of focus in Germany and Hungary. In Germany, as part of a new
initiative to improve financial literacy in Uzbekistan, the recipients of
remittances were given access to formal financial services (in particular
savings accounts). The initiative trained more than 4 500 recipients of
remittances and about 15% of them opened savings accounts. Actions
to facilitate micro-financing were carried out by Germany and Luxembourg. In
Luxembourg, a development project on microfinance in Cape Verde focuses on
mobilising migrants’ savings in order to finance micro financial institutions
in Cape Verde.
Most (Member
States) also organised and participated in a number of Conferences and Seminars
to share information about remittances and their role in development. For
example, Italy participated in the “Remittances, Migration and Development”
Conference held in Bangkok in May 2013. In August 2013, Sweden arranged a
seminar on remittances, aiming to assemble stakeholders to exchange knowledge
on the situation on remittances sent from Sweden.
7.3.        Working
with Diasporas
At
national level: Half of all Member States plus Norway
supported actions related to working with diasporas (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE,
FI, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, SE, UK, NO).  These actions included
cooperation and dialogue with diaspora organisations (AT, IE and PL);
empowerment and capacity building activities (BE, CZ, DE, DK, FI, IT, NL, LU
and UK);
information
and awareness raising events (AT, SE) and research and studies (IT).
Austria
and Ireland invested efforts in cooperation and dialogue with diaspora
organisations. In Austria, a dialogue and culture programme organized by the
Pan-African Forum in Austria for Culture and Development Policy (PANAFA) took
place in Vienna. Ireland hosted a meeting with diaspora groups as part of the
review of the White Paper on Irish Aid. The knowledge and experience which
migrant diaspora have of their country of origin was seen as a resource that
can contribute to the Irish Aid policy. 
Eight
Member States reported on empowerment and capacity building activities to
enhance development in their countries of origin (BE, DE, DK, FI, IT, NL, LU
and UK). Belgium
supported the launching of the MEDMA 2[148]
project which focuses on empowering migrant enterprises with sustainable
socio-economic impact in Morocco, as well as programmes for
the African Diaspora in Belgium active in the health sector in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (RDC). Denmark supported a “Fund for Diaspora involvement in
rehabilitation and development of former home countries”. The Fund aims,
through innovative forms of inclusion and participation, to strengthen the role
of the Afghan and Somali diaspora in Denmark. Germany funded projects proposed
by migrant organisations that contribute to the local economic development in
countries of origin, and also supported migrants’ private business activities in
their countries of origin under the programme “Migrants as entrepreneurs”.
Finland funded projects of diaspora-based civil society organisations amounting
at EUR 3.2 million. Through the project “Institutionalizing
Health Care Improvement through Temporary Returns of Somali Health
Professionals Residing in Finland", Finnish-Somali health
professionals have worked in gap-filling and capacity-building tasks in various
regions of Somalia. Preliminary review findings indicated that the on-the-job
training and systematic training of students has improved individual
capacities. In Italy, planned initiatives under the “Migration for Development
in Africa” programme (MIDA) will focus on the rural sector (small scale
production and basic supply chains) as well as health and medical assistance in
maternal and infant care clinics.  The Netherlands reported an active
participation within the framework of the EU Africa Partnership on Migration,
Mobility and Employment (MME). The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs also supported
initiatives aimed at strengthening Diaspora Ministries in 12 African countries.
Luxembourg participated in the project “Strengthening the Capacity of Cape
Verde to manage labour and return migration” via economic integration. In the
United Kingdom, the Common Ground Initiative aimed to increase funding to small
and diaspora organisations to create sustainable change to some of the most
disadvantaged communities in Africa. 
With
regard to information and awareness raising events, the Austrian Development
Agency funded NGO initiatives, which aimed at raising awareness about the
reasons and consequences of international migration and development among the
Austrian public. As the Global Forum for Migration and Development (GFMD)
Chair, Sweden initiated a roundtable on Facilitating positive development
impacts of diaspora engagement in skills transfers, investments and trade
between countries of residence and origin. The expected outcome of the
action is a list of possible measures to facilitate diaspora investments and
trade, targeting countries of residence, countries of origin and public-private
partnerships respectively. A further roundtable is focusing on Empowering
migrants, their households and communities for improved protection of rights
and social development outcomes. Discussions will seek to identify model
legal frameworks for ensuring rights and measures that empower migrants in
order to minimize the human and social costs and improve access to safe, legal
and protected migration opportunities.
With
regard to research and studies, the study “The Moroccan community in Italy: A
bridge across the Mediterranean” (IT) was published in 2013. 
8.           PROVISION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT POLICY DEVELOPMENT
8.1.        Exchange
of Information within the European Migration Network
At EU level: The
European Migration Network (EMN), established in 2008 by the Council Decision
2008/381/EC, increased its role by providing up-to-date, objective, reliable
and comparable information on migration and asylum with a view to supporting to
evidence-based policymaking in the European Union in these areas. In 2013, a
total of EUR 6,5 million  was allocated for the EMN activities, of which EUR
5,6 million  were foreseen for the support (action grants) of Member States through
their National Contact Points and EUR 0,8 million were allocated for
procurement contracts regarding the EMN website and a service provider who
assists the Commission in the organisation of the work of the network.
The EMN produces
Reports, Studies, Ad-Hoc Queries, EMN Informs, Country Fact Sheets, Glossary
& thesaurus and the EMN Bulletin, which analyse and synthesise in a
comparative manner the information collected at national level on asylum and
migration and thereby help improve its comparability at EU level. All EMN
outputs are available online[149].
Recent examples in 2013 are the EMN studies on Immigration of International
Students to the EU and Family Reunification, which constituted important inputs
to the discussion on the Commission Action Plan on the proposal on students and
researchers and in the context of the Green Paper on Family Reunification. All
were widely disseminated at the time of the adoption by the Commission of its
initiatives. The study on Intra-EU Mobility and the one on attracting
highly-qualified third-country nationals also provided an important
contribution to the on-going reflections on the future developments of EU
migration policy.
Furthermore, the
EMN annual conferences fed into the stimulating debate on topical and priority
issues in the areas of migration and asylum. The national Annual Policy Reports
produced by the EMN gave up to date information on significant and relevant
policy developments and is an important contribution to the Commission’s Annual
Report on Immigration and Asylum.
At
national level: All Member States and Norway provided and
exchanged information to support policy development at EU level through the
European Migration Network (EMN), both through EU level meetings and workshops
and also at the National level through events and opportunities for national
information exchange via the EMN National networks (see also below). 
Other
mechanism for exchange of information at EU level were used by some Member
States
and
Norway: FREEMO (e.g. BE, NL, RO) the FRONTEX Risk Analysis Network (e.g. CZ,
PL, RO, SK); EASO (e.g. BG, DK, MT, PL, SI, SK, UK) and the GDISC - General
Director for Immigration Services’ Conference (e.g. SE) and the Strategic
Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (e.g. BE, IE).Looking at
specific new actions undertaken in the reference year, Germany will host the
fourth “EUROMED III” training on migration and development in March 2014 in
Frankfurt.
8.2.        Exchange
of Information and Communication
At EU level: A proactive and effective communication strategy regarding migration
issues is considered to be key in reaching out to target groups, and help both
EU and non-EU citizens in understanding the challenges and benefits of an
immigration policies. As part of its communication activities, the Commission
produces videos, brochures and factsheets, as well as posters and info graphics
on different migration-related topics. In 2013, the Commission also organised
the multimedia competition "Migrants in Europe", with over 750 art/journalism/design
schools from all 28 Member States participating and submitting audio-visual
pieces of work on the contribution of migrants to the European society[150]. A
series of videos describing different home affairs policies were produced,
including on topics such as economic migration, integration, asylum, the
Schengen area and trafficking in human beings[151].
Euronews programmes were dedicated to the Common European Asylum System[152], as
well as to the relationship between the EU and Morocco in the field of
migration[153].
On EU Open Door Day
2013, a special screening of the Serbian movie "Sestre" describing
the tragedy of two sisters victims of trafficking, was organised. On EU
Anti-trafficking Day, the movie "Not my Life" by Robert Bilheimer was
presented in Brussels.
The Spanish, Arabic and
Portuguese versions of the EU Immigration Portal were launched in 2013 and
early 2014. The Portal provides up-to-date and user-friendly information on EU
and national immigration policies and laws, and is intended for third country
nationals wishing to migrate to the European Union[154]. It
explains how to enter EU borders legally and describes the risks related to
irregular migration, such as trafficking and smuggling. Workers, researchers,
students and those looking to join their families already in the EU can find
information adapted to their needs. Users can also find straightforward
information about their rights and whether they need a visa to come to the EU.
It also contains links and contact details of relevant national authorities responsible
for immigration, as well as a contact directory of governmental and
non-governmental organisations for migrants.
At
national and regional level: Seven Member States (BE, BG, CY, CZ,
DK, FI, SI) introduced new or additional measures to provide and exchange
information to support policy development within the “regions” of Europe.
Belgium enhanced the exchange of information within the Benelux working groups
on visa and readmission. In particular, Bulgaria has developed the Silk Road
partnership initiative and contributed to the Black Sea Region Group for
cooperation and development, and also considered inter-institutional and
bilateral cooperation initiatives in the field of migration policy with the
countries of the Caucasian region and Central Asia. Czech Republic and Poland
were particularly active in the exchange of information within the Visegrad
Group, consisting of four Central European Member States (CZ, HU, PL, SK) and
the Salzburg Forum countries (AT, BG, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SK, SI, plus
Croatia (observer status)). Finland undertook the presidency of the
Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) on 1 July 2013 and hosted the annual
meeting of Nordic integration specialists/officers in September 2013. Cyprus,
Germany and Slovenia undertook new actions to develop or extend their networks
to exchange information with other Member States. Cyprus launched a call for
proposals with the aim of establishing a multilateral network on return
policies that will involve Member States as well as third countries. Germany
organised the 4th edition of the “Nuremberg Conference on Asylum and Residence
Law” in cooperation with the German EMN NCP and discussed the findings with
participants from France, Italy, Poland and United Kingdom. Moreover, the
German EMN NCP in cooperation with the Research Group of the Federal Office for
Migration and Refugees conducted a meeting regarding “Migration of skilled
workers from Asia to Germany and Europe” which discussed the challenges and
experiences of the migration of skilled workers as well as the attitudes of the
countries of origin. In September the “G6” group of the
Ministers of the Interior of Spain, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy and
Poland met in Rome in order to discuss migration in the Mediterranean area. Slovenia has established information exchange
mechanisms through its police cooperation centres, one with Italy, Austria and
the other with Hungary, Croatia, and Austria. Additionally, several Member
States (e.g. Poland and Finland) participated in informal meetings of the
ministries of interior of the Schengen Area with external land borders. The aim
of those gatherings is to focus on the problem of land borders and the
provision of public order and internal security, in particular in the context
of the EU’s visa dialogue with the states neighbouring the EU in the east. The Nordic countries (DK, FI, NO, SE) continued their
long-standing cooperation on the regulation of immigration and related
statistics. The statistics cooperation also involves the Baltic countries (EE,
LT, LV) and Poland. 
Four
Member States undertook specific initiatives at national level to develop
information exchange and improve the role of national stakeholders on asylum
and migration (FR, IT, SE, UK). France launched two important debates, the
first on student and professional immigration; and the second on the national
asylum system. This latter led to a national consultation to feed into the
reform of the asylum system in France. Italy implemented several different
projects with the involvement of diaspora groups and with the broad involvement
of the third sector. Furthermore, Italy has started the implementation of the
Guidelines and Strategic Planning on development cooperation for the period
2013-2015 which has renewed its Government’s commitment for the next three
years in the effort to reduce the cost of remittances. The majority of Member
States hosted national events through their EMN national networks, focusing on
topics such as international students, attracting highly qualified and qualified
migrant workers, reception conditions for asylum seekers, and the Common
European Asylum System, in response to the recast Directives. 
***********************
9.           STATISTICAL
ANNEX
This Annex contains
data, primarily as provided by the Commission's Eurostat, in accordance with
the Regulation (EC) 862/2007 and as available on 9 April 2014. Due attention
must be paid to the notes given for each table. Where Eurostat data were not
available for the year 2013, the data were provided by the European Migration
Network (EMN) from their respective national agencies as of 8 May 2014. Data
regarding the EU Blue Card and the Employer Sanctions are not included in this
Statistical Annex, as they can be found in the implementation reports on the
application of, respectively, Directive 2009/50/EC[155] and
Directive 2009/52/EC[156].

1.1.                
International protection including
asylum 
Table 1: Asylum applicants in 2013
   || Applicants || Citizenships of main groups of asylum applicants 
   # || Per million inh. ||   First group ||   # ||   % ||   Second group ||   # ||   % ||   Third group ||   # ||   % 
 EU28 || 434 160 || 860 || Syria || 50 470 || 12 || Russia || 41 270 || 10 || Afghanistan || 26 290 || 6 
 BE || 21 030 || 1 885 || Russia || 2 150 || 10 || Afghanistan || 1 675 || 8 || Guinea || 1 610 || 8 
 BG || 7 145 || 980 || Syria || 4 510 || 63 || Stateless || 565 || 8 || Algeria || 435 || 6 
 CZ || 695 || 65 || Ukraine || 145 || 21 || Syria || 70 || 10 || Russia || 50 || 7 
 DK || 7 170 || 1 280 || Syria || 1 685 || 23 || Russia || 965 || 13 || Somalia || 920 || 13 
 DE || 126 705 || 1 575 || Serbia || 18 000 || 14 || Russia || 15 475 || 12 || Syria || 12 855 || 10 
 EE || 95 || 70 || Vietnam || 25 || 27 || Syria || 15 || 18 || Russia || 15 || 15 
 IE || 920 || 200 || Nigeria || 130 || 14 || Pakistan || 95 || 10 || Zimbabwe || 70 || 8 
 EL || 8 225 || 745 || Pakistan || 1 360 || 17 || Afghanistan || 1 225 || 15 || Bangladesh || 730 || 9 
 ES || 4 485 || 95 || Mali || 1 470 || 33 || Syria || 725 || 16 || Algeria || 350 || 8 
 FR || 64 760 || 985 || Kosovo* || 5 505 || 8 || Democratic Republic. of the Congo || 5 325 || 8 || Albania || 5 045 || 8 
 HR || 1 075 || 250 || Syria || 195 || 18 || Afghanistan || 185 || 17 || Somalia || 135 || 13 
 IT || 27 930 || 470 || Nigeria || 3 580 || 13 || Pakistan || 3 310 || 12 || Somalia || 2 885 || 10 
 CY || 1 255 || 1 450 || Syria || 570 || 45 || Egypt || 145 || 12 || Bangladesh || 105 || 8 
 LV || 195 || 95 || Georgia || 145 || 76 || Syria || 15 || 8 || Russia || 5 || 3 
 LT || 400 || 135 || Georgia || 120 || 30 || Afghanistan || 85 || 22 || Russia || 75 || 19 
 LU || 1 070 || 1 990 || Kosovo* || 160 || 15 || Bosnia and Herzegovina || 145 || 14 || Montenegro || 115 || 11 
 HU || 18 895 || 1 905 || Kosovo* || 6 210 || 33 || Pakistan || 3 080 || 16 || Afghanistan || 2 330 || 12 
 MT || 2 245 || 5 330 || Somalia || 1 015 || 45 || Eritrea || 475 || 21 || Syria || 250 || 11 
 NL || 17 160 || 1 025 || Somalia || 3 270 || 19 || Syria || 2 705 || 16 || Iraq || 1 420 || 8 
 AT || 17 500 || 2 070 || Russia || 2 850 || 16 || Afghanistan || 2 590 || 15 || Syria || 2 005 || 11 
 PL || 15 150 || 395 || Russia || 12 760 || 84 || Georgia || 1 235 || 8 || Syria || 255 || 2 
 PT || 500 || 50 || Syria || 145 || 29 || Guinea || 80 || 16 || Nigeria || 35 || 7 
 RO || 1 495 || 75 || Syria || 1 010 || 68 || Iraq || 45 || 3 || Pakistan || 40 || 3 
 SI || 270 || 130 || Syria || 60 || 23 || Kosovo* || 35 || 13 || Algeria || 20 || 8 
 SK || 440 || 80 || Afghanistan || 110 || 25 || Somalia || 55 || 13 || Georgia || 35 || 8 
 FI || 3 210 || 590 || Iraq || 820 || 25 || Russia || 245 || 8 || Somalia || 215 || 7 
 SE || 54,270 || 5 680 || Syria || 16,540 || 30 || Stateless || 6,885 || 13 || Eritrea || 4,880 || 9 
 UK || 29,875 || 465 || Pakistan || 4,645 || 16 || Iran || 3,055 || 10 || Sri Lanka || 2,280 || 8 
 NO || 11,930 || 2 360 || Eritrea || 3,250 || 27 || Somalia || 1,695 || 14 || Syria || 865 || 7 
Source: Eurostat, News release 46/2014: Asylum
in the EU-28 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-24032014-AP/EN/3-24032014-AP-EN.PDF

Notes: Data are rounded to the nearest 5 *Kosovo
under UN Security Council Resolution 1244 
Table 2: First instance
decisions on asylum applications, 2013
   ||   ||   || Of which: ||   
 Total decisions || Positive decisions || Refugee status || Subsidiary protection || Humanitarian reasons || Rejections 
 EU28 || 326,310 || 112,730 || 49,510 || 45,540 || 17,685 || 213,580 
 BE || 19,805 || 6,280 || 3,910 || 2,370 || - || 13,525 
 BG || 2,810 || 2,460 || 180 || 2,280 || - || 355 
 CZ || 900 || 345 || 90 || 240 || 15 || 555 
 DK || 6,965 || 2,810 || 1,600 || 1,130 || 80 || 4,155 
 DE || 76,165 || 20,125 || 10,910 || 7,005 || 2,205 || 56,040 
 EE || 55 || 10 || 5 || 0 || - || 45 
 IE || 840 || 150 || 130 || 20 || - || 690 
 EL || 13,080 || 500 || 255 || 175 || 70 || 12,580 
 ES || 2,365 || 535 || 205 || 325 || 5 || 1,835 
 FR || 61,455 || 10,470 || 8,925 || 1,545 || - || 50,985 
 HR || 185 || 25 || 5 || 15 || - || 165 
 IT || 25,245 || 16,185 || 3,110 || 5,550 || 7,525 || 9,060 
 CY || 800 || 165 || 35 || 125 || 10 || 635 
 LV || 95 || 25 || 5 || 20 || - || 65 
 LT || 175 || 55 || 15 || 40 || - || 120 
 LU || 1,245 || 130 || 110 || 25 || - || 1,115 
 HU || 4,540 || 360 || 175 || 185 || 5 || 4,180 
 MT || 1,905 || 1,605 || 45 || 1,445 || 115 || 300 
 NL || 15,590 || 9,545 || 1,235 || 3,460 || 4,850 || 6,045 
 AT || 16,610 || 4,920 || 3,160 || 1,760 || - || 11,690 
 PL || 2,820 || 745 || 210 || 145 || 390 || 2,075 
 PT || 305 || 135 || 20 || 115 || - || 170 
 RO || 1,435 || 915 || 385 || 530 || 5 || 515 
 SI || 195 || 35 || 25 || 15 || - || 160 
 SK || 190 || 70 || 5 || 30 || 35 || 125 
 FI || 3,185 || 1,620 || 540 || 785 || 295 || 1,565 
 SE || 45,005 || 24,015 || 6,750 || 16,145 || 1,120 || 20,990 
 UK || 22,340 || 8,505 || 7,475 || 70 || 960 || 13,840 
 NO || 11,785 || 5,770 || 4,490 || 995 || 280 || 6,015 
Source: Eurostat,
News release 46/2014: Asylum in the EU-28, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-24032014-AP/EN/3-24032014-AP-EN.PDF

Notes:
Data are rounded to the nearest 5
"-" means not applicable
Table 3: Relocation
of third-country nationals, 2013
   || Number of relocated third-country nationals 
   || Total || Female || Male || Minor || Top 3 countries 
 BG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 CZ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 DE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 IE || 10 || 8 || 2 || n/a || Somalia 10 
 IT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 CY || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 NL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 AT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 PL || 6 || 0 || 6 || n/a || Somalia 5; Eritrea 1 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 SK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 SE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 UK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 NO || 5 || 5 || 0 || n/a || Somalia 5 
Source: European Migration Network
National Contact Points
Statistics Analysis: Summary
Relocation is defined as “the transfer of persons
having a status, defined by the Geneva
Convention or subsidiary protection within the meaning of
Directive 2011/95/EU, from the Member State which granted them international
protection to another Member State where they will be granted
similar protection and of persons having applied for international protection
from the Member State which is responsible for examining their application to
another Member State where their applications for international protection will
be examined” – source: EMN Glossary 2.0 (updated)
Notes: 
NB: The table includes statistics only for
those Member States, which provided statistics on relocation.  
"n/a" means that data is not available or
not applicable as some countries do not participate in intra-EU solidarity
relocation
Table
4: Resettlement of third country nationals, 2013
   || Number of resettled third country nationals 
   || Total || Female || Male || Countries form which TCNs were resettled 
 EU28 || 4,825 || 2,420 || 2,410 || n/a 
 BE || 100 || n/a || n/a || Burundians from Tanzania: 31 Congolese from Tanzania and Burundi:11 Congolese from Zambia: 2 Congolese from Burundi: 52 Liberians from Gambia: 2 Afghan from Russia: 1 Iranian from Georgia: 1 
 BG || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 CZ || 1 || 0 || 1 || Sri Lanka from UAR: 1 
 DK || 515 || 265 || 250 || n/a 
 DE || 293 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 EE || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 IE || 76 || 34 || 42 || From Syria: 35 From Tanzania: 24 From Kenya: 10 From Egypt: 7 
 EL || 0 || 0 || 0 ||  n/a 
 ES || 0 || 0 || 0 ||  n/a 
 FR || 97 || n/a || n/a || From Afghanistan 27 From Ethiopia 24 From Soudan 8 From Pakistan 6  
 HR || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 IT || 0 || 0 || 0 ||  n/a 
 CY || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 HU || 0 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 MT || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 NL || 310 || 155 || 160 ||  n/a 
 PT || 6 || 0 || 6 || From Egypt: 1 From Ethiopia: 3 From Turkey: 2 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 SI || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 SK || 5 || 0 || 5 || From Cuba 5 
 FI || 674 || 326 || 348 || From Afghanistan:  254 From Myanmar:  105 From Iran: 86 
 SE || 1,820 || 890 || 935 || From Iran, Kenya, Sudan, Ecuador, Egypt, Uganda and other countries 
 UK || 965 || 525 || 440 || n/a 
 NO || 950 || 570 || 380 || From  Iran: 190 From  Uganda: 190 From Turkey: 165 From Kenya: 165 From Ecuador: 75 
Source: European
Migration Network National Contact Points for BE, DE, FI, IE and for statistics
on countries from which TCNs were resettled. Eurostat statistics for the rest
of the countries presented in the table
Statistics
Analysis: Summary
Resettlement is defined in the EMN Glossary 2.0
(updated to reflect the new EU asylum acquis) as “In the EU context, the
transfer, on a request from the UNHCR and based on their need for international
protection, of a third-country
national or stateless
person, from a third country
to a Member State, where they are permitted to reside with one of the following
statuses:

(i) refugee status
within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, or (ii) a status
which offers the same rights and benefits under national and EU law as refugee
status. In a global context, the transfer of a refugee from the country in
which they have sought refuge to another State that has agreed to admit them.
The refugee
will usually be granted asylum
or some other form of long-term
resident rights and, in many cases, will have the opportunity to
become a naturalized citizen. For this reason, resettlement is a durable
solution as well as a tool for the protection
of refugees. It is also a practical example of international burden- and
responsibility sharing.”
Notes: 
NB: The table includes statistics only for
those Member States, which provided statistics on resettlement. 
"n/a"
means that data is not available or
not applicable as some countries do not participate in resettlement
1.2.                
Irregular migration,
including return and smuggling 
Table 5: Third-country nationals
ordered to leave and returned following an order to leave, 2013
   || TCNs ordered to leave || TCNs returned following an order to leave 
   || 2013 || 2013 
 EU total || 361,695 || 163,370 
 BE || 47,465 || 7,170 
 BG || 5,260 || 1,100 
 CZ || 2,405 || 330 
 DK || 3,110 || 2,070 
 DE || 25,380 || 16,510 
 EE || 600 || 575 
 IE || 2,145 || 635 
 EL || : || : 
 ES || 32,915 || 17,285 
 FR || 84,890 || 20,140 
 HR || 4,355 || 2,530 
 IT || 23,945 || 5,860 
 CY || 4,130 || 4,025 
 LV || 2,080 || 2,070 
 LT || 1,770 || 1,665 
 LU || 1,015 || 605 
 HU || 5,940 || 4,395 
 MT || 2,435 || 460 
 NL || 32,435 || 8,010 
 AT || 10,085 || 6,790 
 PL || 9,215 || 8,465 
 PT || 5,450 || 1,135 
 RO || 2,245 || 2,235 
 SI || 1,040 || 885 
 SK || 545 || 375 
 FI || 4,330 || 3,155 
 SE || 14,695 || 14,315 
 UK || 57,195 || 55,100 
Source: Eurostat [migr_eiord] and
[migr_eirtn]
Notes:":" Statistics not
published due to lack of reliability because of small sample
Table 6: Third-country nationals returned (by nationality (top 5)
and gender), 2013
   || Returned as part of forced return measures || Returned voluntarily || Among TCNs returned voluntarily, the number of TCNs  returned as part of an assisted return programme 
   || Total || Female || Male || Minor || Top 5 countries || Total || Female || Male || Minor || Top 5 countries || Total || Female || Male || Minor || Top 5 countries 
 BE || 2,868 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Albania 480 Morocco 398 Kosovo 180 Brazil 159 Serbia 148 || 4,290 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Russia 633 Ukraine 465 Brazil 338 Serbia 268 Kosovo 240 || 4,110 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Russia 630 Ukraine 465 Brazil 330 Kosovo 209 Irak 196 
 BG || 876 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Iraq 170 Algeria 162 Syria 97 Morocco 58 Nigeria 38 || 224 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Iraq 63 Morocco 30  Algeria 29 Syria 21 Afghanistan 11 || 149 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Iraq 62 Morocco 30 Algeria 27 Afghanistan 8 Tunisia 6 
 CZ || 195 || 15 || 180 || 0 || Ukraine 86 Vietnam 53 Belarus 7 Moldova, Russia and Serbia  6 || 109 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 174 || 140 || 30 || 4 || Vietnam 47 Ukraine 23 Mongolia 20 Uzbekistan 17 Kirgizstan and Moldova 8 
 DK || 1,670 || 330 || 910 || 430 || Serbia 715 Afghanistan 110 Kosovo 80 || 310 || 50 || 230 || 40 || Afghanistan 75 Serbia 10 Kosovo 0 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 DE || 10,198 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 10,375 || 5,985 || 4,390 || 4,139 || n/a 
 EEa || 214 || 28 || 169 || 17 || Vietnam 76 Russia 52 Georgia 13 Ukraine 12 Pakistan 7 || 105 || 22 || 28 || 55 || Russia 79 Ukraine 8 || 17 || 5 || 12 || 0 || Georgia 5 Ukraine and Russia 3 Iran 2 
 IE || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 340 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Brazil 106 China 46 Mauritius 42 Moldova 40 Georgia and Malawi 10 
 EL || 18,653 || 1,138 || 17,515 || n/a || Albania 6,967 Pakistan 4,833 Bangladesh 1,364 Afghanistan 737 Georgia 497 ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a 
 ES || 17,286 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Morocco 7,631 Algeria 898 Colombia 717 Bolivia 529 Ecuador 490 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 2,767 || 1,382 || 1,285 || 980 || Bolivia 583 Ecuador 399 Brazil 307 Argentina 271 Chile 216 
 FR ||  11,415 ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   3,329 ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a || 3,329 ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a ||   n/a 
 HR || 494 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Bosnia Herz. 190 Serbia 94 Albania 79 Kosovo 60 Turkey 44 || 850 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Bosnia Herz. 526 Serbia 100 Kosovo 42 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 31 Albania 27 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 IT || 4,742 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 1,146 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 1,040 || 364 || 676 || n/a || n/a 
 CYb || 4,027 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Vietnam 610 Sri Lanka 571 Bangladesh 493 Philippines 472 India 426 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 LV || 33 || 3 || 30 || n/a || Russia 10 Georgia 6 Turkey 3 Ukraine 1 || 2,047 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Russia 906 Ukraine 282 Belarus 247 Uzbekistan 108 Georgia 104 || 82 || 8 || 74 || 2 || Georgia 62 Russia 6 Ukraine 4 
 LT || 279 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Georgia 173 Vietnam 37 Russia 26 Belarus 15 Armenia and Kyrgyzstan 6 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 43 || 4 || 35 || 4 || Russia 9 Georgia 7 Belarus 6 Kyrgyzstan 5 Azerbaijan 4 
 LU || 84 || 26 || 58 || n/a || Kosovo 22 Albania 13 Bosnia-Herzegovina 13 Kosovo 13 Montenegro 13 Morocco 5 || 595 || 249 || 346 || n/a || Bosnia-Herzegovina 165 Serbia 151 Montenegro 88 Kosovo 83 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 35 || 116 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Kosovo 78 Brazil 9 Turkey 4 Azerbaijan 3 Cameroon 3 Iran 3 Morocco 3 
 HU || 4,067 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 353 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Kosovo: 296 Mongolia: 21 Albania: 11 
 MT || 3 || 0 || 3 || 0 || Nigeria 2 Ghana 1 || 70 || 10 || 58 || 2 || Libya 24 Serbia 10 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 AT || 512 || 60 || 452 || n/a || Serbia 98 Kosovo 85 Nigeria 49 Pakistan 31 Turkey 30 || 3,095 || 808 || 2,287 || n/a || Russia 633 Kosovo 593 Serbia 399 China 177 Former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia 163 || 2,601 || 731 || 1,870 || n/a || Russia 617 Kosovo 466 Serbia 302 China 159 Former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia 135 
 PL || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 45 || 16 || 13 || 16 || Russia 43 Syria 2 Palestine 1 
 PT || 420 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Brazil 142 Ukraine 45 Cape Verde 44 Angola and Guinea-Bissau 36 || 715 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Brazil 592 Cape Verde 25 Ukraine 23 Angola 15 || 672 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Brazil 575 Ukraine 20 Cape Verde 19 Angola 15 
 RO || 305 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 1,929 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 SI || 41 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Bosnia-Herzegovina 8 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 3 || 67 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Bosnia-Herzegovina 15 Serbia 9 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 4 || 20 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Serbia 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 
 SK || 325 || 55 || 263 || 7 || Ukraine 160 Moldova 43 Georgia 39 Afghanistan 22 Russia 9 || 64 || 10 || 54 || 0 || Ukraine 20 Vietnam 8 China 6 Moldova 6 India 5 || 50 || 4 || 46 || 0 || Vietnam 8 Ukraine 7 China 6 Moldova 6 India 5 
 FI || 1,672 || 491 || 1,099 || 82 || Russia 943 Kosovo 54 Nigeria 52 || 1,474 || 512 || 886 || 76 || Russia 905 Nigeria 39 Kosovo  28 || 264 || 52 || 168 || 44 || Russia 33 Kosovo 21 Nigeria 7 
 SE || 3,400 || 944 || 2,432 || 24 || Serbia 280 Iraq 218 Afghanistan 212 Kosovo 204 Albania 178 || 10,611 || 3,863 || 6,565 || 183 || Serbia 1966 Syria 824 Kosovo 706 Albania 587 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 493 || 433 || 127 || 306 || n/a || Iraq 179 Afghanistan 88 Russia 45 Stateless 29 Somalia 21 
 UK || 9,963 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Pakistan 1,876 India 1,363 Nigeira 742 Albania 664 Bangladesh 611 || 32,310 || n/a || n/a || n/a || India 7,504 Pakistan 3,918 China 3,447 Nigeria 2,062 Bangladesh 1,548 || 4,264 || n/a || n/a || n/a || Pakistan 851 Bangladesh 457 India 437 China 428 Nigeria 228 
 NO || 5,965 || 905 || 5,060 || 455 || Nigeria 665 Afghanistan 605 Romania 495 Albania 285 Russia 280 || 1,889 || 576 || 1,313 || 460 || Russia 341 Iraq 308 Afghanistan 156 Kosovo 145 Bangladesh 95 || 1,885 || 365 || 1,060 || 460 || Russia 340 Iraq 290 Afghanistan 155 Kosovo 155 Bangladesh 100 
Source: European Migration Network
National Contact Points
Statistics Analysis: Summary
Notes:
NB: The table includes statistics only for
those Member States, which provided statistics on smugglers arrested and convicted.
"n/a" means that data is not
available
a: Statistics for Estonia  does
not include return based orders to leave issued at the border 
b: The Cyprus Aliens Law
defines voluntary return as “complying with the obligation to return within the
time frame set in the Decision to return”. Due to the fact that there are no
data as to how many of the persons who requested to leave, actually did that
within the set time frame, there can be no actual statistical data on voluntary
returns, as defined in the National Legislation.  
   || TCNs refused at external borders || TCNs found to be illegally present 
 BE || 1,535 || 15,075 
 BG || 2,550 || 5,260 
 CZ || 310 || 3,695 
 DK || 140 || 395 
 DE || 3,845 || 86,305 
 EE || 1,400 || 910 
 IE || 1,935 || 1,465 
 EL || : || : 
 ES || 192,775 || 46,195 
 FR || 11,745 || 48,965 
 HR || 10,015 || 4,150 
 IT || 7,370 || 23,945 
 CY || 430 || 7,015 
 LV || 2,050 || 175 
 LT || 2,865 || 1,910 
 LU || 0 || 260 
 HU || 11,055 || 8,255 
 MT || 300 || 2,435 
 NL || 1,990 || : 
 AT || 360 || 25,960 
 PL || 40,385 || 9,280 
 PT || 810 || 5,155 
 RO || 3,410 || 2,400 
 SI || 4,780 || 1,040 
 SK || 435 || 1,025 
 FI || 1,735 || 3,365 
 SE || 180 || 24,400 
 UK || 13,435 || 57,195 
Table 7: Third-country nationals refused at
external borders and Third-country nationals found to be illegally present,
2013
Source:
Eurostat [migr_eirfs] and [migr_eipre]
Notes:
“:”
means not available 
Table
8: Third country nationals identified as smuggled persons, 2013
     || Number of third country nationals identified as smuggled persons 
 Total || Female || Male 
 BE || 13 || n/a || n/a 
 BG || 522 || 108 || 414 
 CZ || 580 || n/a || n/a 
 ES || 452 || n/a || n/a 
 HR || 875 || n/a || n/a 
 IT || 556 || 371 || 185 
 CY || 251 || n/a || n/a 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 
 LT || 64 || n/a || n/a 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 
 MT || 2,008 || 319 || 1,689 
 PL || 373 || 165 || 208 
 PT || 12 || n/a || n/a 
 SI || 33 || 1 || 32 
 SK || 938 || n/a || n/a 
 FI || 380 || 109 || 271 
 SE || 300 || n/a || n/a 
Source: European Migration Network
National Contact Points
Statistics Analysis: Summary
Smuggling is defined in the EMN Glossary
2.0 as “the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a
financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry
of a person into a Member State of which the person is not a national or a
permanent resident.”
Notes:
NB: The table includes statistics only for
Member States, which provided statistics on third country nationals identified
as smuggled persons.
"n/a" means that data is not
available 
Among the Member states which
have chosen to extend the scope of Directive 2004/81/EC to victims of
smuggling, the following have provided statistics: BE granted a total number of
13 residence permits to smuggled persons, the CZ granted 1 residence permit and
PT granted 15 residence permits respectively.
Table
9: Number of smugglers arrested as suspects and smugglers convicted 2013
   || Arrested / otherwise involved in a criminal proceeding || Convicted 
 BG || 294 || 132 
 CZ || 138 || 120 
 EE || 11 || 16 
 EL || 843 || n/a 
 ES || 746 || n/a 
 FR || 5,665a || n/a 
 HR || 116 || n/a 
 IT || 434 || n/a 
 CY || 12 || n/a 
 LV || 1 || 1 
 LT || 8 || n/a 
 LU || 0 || 0 
 MT || 2 || 0 
 PL || 26 || 100 
 SK || 91 || 22 
 FI || 72 || n/a 
 NO || 40 || 10 
Source: European Migration
Network National Contact Points
Statistics
Analysis: Summary
Notes
NB: The table includes statistics only for
those Member States, which provided statistics on smugglers arrested and
convicted.
"n/a"
means that data is not available
a: Data as available on 7 April 2014. The method of calculation applied is in
line with index 70 of the Etat
4001, a statistical tool common to the national police and gendarmerie who
identifies with a nomenclature of 107 indexes the facts found (crimes and
offences) subject to legal proceedings transmitted to Prosecution service.

1.3.                
Unaccompanied minors
and other vulnerable groups 
Table 10: Persons recognised as
unaccompanied minors 2013
   || Persons recognised as Unaccompanied minors 2013 ||
 Number of recognised unaccompanied minors not applying for asylum || Number of recognised unaccompanied minors applying for asylum ||
 Total || Female || Male ||  Total ||
 BE || 1,682 || n/a || n/a || 470 ||
 BG || n/a || n/a || n/a || 185 ||
 CZ || n/a || n/a || n/a || 0 ||
 DK || n/a || n/a || n/a || 350 ||
 DE || n/a || n/a || n/a || 2,485 ||
 EE || 2 || 0 || 2 || 5 ||
 IE || n/a || n/a || n/a || 20 ||
 EL || n/a || n/a || n/a || 325 ||
 ES || 2,165a || n/a || n/a || 10 ||
 FR || n/a || n/a || n/a || 365 ||
 HR || 302b || n/a || n/a || 55 ||
 IT || 8,461 || 553 || 7,908 || 805 ||
 CY || 57 || 23 || 34 || 55 ||
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 ||
 LT || 8 || n/a || n/a || 0 ||
 LU || n/a || n/a || n/a || 45 ||
 HU || 14 || 8 || 6 || 380 ||
 MT || n/a || n/a || n/a || 335 ||
 NL || n/a || n/a || n/a || 310 ||
 AT || n/a || n/a || n/a || 935 ||
 PL || 4 || 0 || 4 || 26c ||
 PT || n/a || n/a || n/a || 55 ||
 RO || 5 || n/a || n/a || 15 ||
 SI || n/a || n/a || n/a || 30 ||
 SK || 70 || n/a || n/a || 5 ||
 FI || n/a || n/a || n/a || 160 ||
 SE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3,850 ||
 UK || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1,175 ||
 NO || n/a || n/a || n/a || 115 ||
Source: Eurostat for number of recognised
unaccompanied minors applying for asylum [migr_asyunaa] and European Migration
Network National Contact Points for number of recognised unaccompanied minors not
applying for asylum. 
Statistics from Eurostat on number of
recognised unaccompanied minors applying for asylum not available for
Poland. Instead, source of statistics presented for Poland is European
Migration Network National Contact Point for Poland. 
Notes: 
"n/a" means that data is not
available 
a: Preliminary data
b: Statistical data on unaccompanied
minors cannot be disaggregated by those who have applied for asylum
c: Source: European Migration
Network National Contact Points
1.4.                
Actions addressing
trafficking in human beings  
Table 11: Total number of third country nationals
‘identified’ and “presumed” (shown in brackets) to be victims of trafficking in
human beings, 2013
       || Total number of TCNs ‘identified’ as (‘presumed to be’ shown in brackets) victims of trafficking in human beings in 2013 || Age || Forms of exploitation || Top 3 citizenship a 
 Over 18  years of age || Under 18  years of age || Sexual exploitation || Labour exploitation || Other forms 
 Total || F || M || Total || F || M || Total || F || M || Total || F || M || Total || F || M || Total || F || M 
   BE || 88 (94) || 29 (31) || 59 (63) || 85 (89) || 29 || 56 (61) || 3(5) || 0(3) || 3 || n/a (23) || n/a (22) || n/a (1) || n/a (58) || n/a (7) || n/a (51) || n/a (13b) || n/a (2b) || n/a (11b) || Morocco (19) China (10) Nigeria (7) 
 CZ || 0 (1) || 0 || 0 (1) || 0 (1) || 0 || 0 (1) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 (1) || 0 || 0 (1) || 0 || 0 || 0 || (Vietnam) 
 EE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 EL || 74 || 53 || 21 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 FRc || 436 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || Nigeria 133 Chine 108 
     HR || 8 || 2 || 6 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 7 || 1 || 6 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 6 || n/a || n/a || n/a || 1. Bosnia and Hercegovina 2. Romania 3. Serbia 
 CY || n/a (30) || n/a (22) || n/a (8) || 17 || 9 || 8 || n/a (30) || n/a (22) || n/a (8) || 6 (16) || 6 (16) || n/a(10) || 11 || 3 || 8 || n/a(4) || n/a (4) || n/a || n/a 
   IT || 382 || n/a || n/a || 380 || n/a || n/a || 2 || n/a || n/a || 361 || n/a || n/a || 20 || n/a || n/a || 1 || n/a || n/a || 1.Nigeria 2.Albania 3.Egypt 
 CY || n/a (30) || n/a (22) || n/a (8) || 17 || 9 || 8 || n/a (30) || n/a (22) || n/a (8) || 6 (16) || 6 (16) || n/a(10) || 11 || 3 || 8 || n/a(4*) || n/a (4*) || n/a || n/a 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
   LU || n/a || n/a || n/a || 2d (6) || n/a (6) || n/a || 0 || n/a || n/a || 2d (6) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 1. Brazil 2. Morocco 3. Cameroon 
 MT || 4 || 4 || 0 || 4 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 PL || n/a (222) || n/a (161) || n/a (61) || 42 (191) || 12 || 30 || 8 (31) || 3 || 5 || 4 (105) || 4 || n/a || 27 (53) || n/a || 27 || begging (1) || begging (1) || 0 || North Korea (26) 
 PT || (299) || n/a || n/a || (250) || n/a || n/a || 49 || n/a || n/a || 57 || n/a || n/a || 188 || n/a || begging (1) || begging (19) other (32) || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 ROe || 419 || n/a || n/a || 218 || n/a || n/a || 201 || n/a || n/a || 275 || n/a || n/a || 100 || n/a || n/a || 44 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 SI || 48 || 47 || 1 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 SK || 2 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 FI || (13) || (7) || (6) || (13) || (7) || (6) || (0) || (0) || (0) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 SE || (62f) || n/a || n/a || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 (41f) || 0 || 0 || 0 (21f) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || n/a 
 UK g || 183(518) || 153(377) || 30(141) || 142 (350) || 125 (294) || 17 (56) || 41 (168) || 28 (83) || 13 (85) || 106 (245) || 105 (236) || 1 (9) || 36 (113) || 10 (26) || 26 (87) || domestic servitude 32(92) unknown 9(86) || domestic servitude 32(80) unknown 6(35) || domestic servitude 0 (12) unknown 3(33) || Albania 47 (117) Nigeria 33(76) Vietnam 25(96) 
 NO || 215 || 175 || 40 || 190 || 160 || 30 || 25 || 15 || 10 || 170 || n/a || n/a || 45 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || Nigeria 
Source: European Migration Network
National Contact Points 
Notes:
NB: The table includes statistics only for
Member States, which provided statistics on third-country nationals identified
and presumed to be victims of trafficking.
 "n/a" means that data is not
available 
For some MS the top 3 nationalities of the
victims have not been indicated for data protection concerns. More than one
form of exploitation may be associated with each victim, therefore the
statistics presented in this section may not necessarily agree with the overall
totals entered above. 
b: aggregated form of smuggling*CY:
trafficking for the purpose of forced marriage
c: The OCRTEH (Central Directorate of the
Judicial Police (DCPJ)) only provides statistics in terms of identified victims
in court proceedings established by the police and gendarmerie for procuring
and/or trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
d: 2 victims of trafficking in human
beings have been identified, while for further 4 identification is on-going
e: The figures
refer to persons trafficked and identified during 2013, irrespective of their
citizenship
f:  figures for labour exploitation
include also presumed trafficking for other purposes; figures include EU
nationals and TCNs
g: Figures used are from the National Referral Mechanism (NRM)
data with a cut off date of 12/03/2014.  Some of the cases have yet to be
concluded by the Competent Authorities and decisions on their trafficking
status made.  The NRM is a 'living' process and data should be considered
as provisional until all cases are concluded.  Some values may differ in
future reports, or from previous reports, as additional information comes to
light throughout the duration of the cases and the records are amended
accordingly. The NRM does not have records of individuals who have chosen not
to enter the NRM process. Information on multiple forms of exploitation is not
available via the NRM; hence, the types of exploitation recorded shown in the
table should be read as “primary exploitation type”.  The age shown is the age
of the individual at the time of exploitation, not the time of referral.
Table 12: Total number of reflection
periods granted to victim of trafficking in human beings, 2013
     || According to Directive 2004/81/EC* || National provisions 
 Total || F || M || Total || F || M 
 BE || 97 || 34 || 63 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 CZ || 1 || 0 || 1 || 22 || 9 || 13 
 EE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 IE || n/a || n/a || n/a || 2 || 2 || 0 
 ES || 71 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 HR || 2 || 1 || 1 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 CY || 6 || 6 || 0 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 MT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 SK || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 FI || 3 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 NO || n/a || n/a || n/a || 30 || 25 || 5 
Source: European Migration Network National
Contact Points 
Statistics Analysis: Summary
Notes:
NB: The table includes statistics only for
Member States, which provided statistics on total number of reflection periods
granted in 2013.
"n/a"
means that data is not available
* In accordance
with Article 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the
Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European
Community, Denmark, Ireland and United Kingdom does not take part in the
adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its
application. 
Table
13: Total number of residence permits granted to victims of trafficking in
human beings, 2013
   || Total number of residence permits granted 2013 || According to Directive 2004/81/ECa || National provisions 
   || Total || F || M || Total || F || M || Total || F || M 
 BE || 88 || 29 || 59 || 86 || 28 || 58 || 2 || 1 || 1 
 BG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 CZ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0b || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 DE || 38 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 EE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 IE || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 2 || 2 || 0 
 EL || 74 || 53 || 21 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 ES || 71 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 FR || n/a || n/a || n/a || 186 || 157 || 29 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 HR || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 3 || 3 || 0 
 IT || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 382 || n/a || n/a 
 CY || n/a || n/a || n/a || 30 || 22 || 8 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 LV || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 LT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 LU || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 MT || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PL || n/a || n/a || n/a || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 
 RO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 SI || n/a || n/a || n/a || 7 || n/ac || n/ac || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 SK || 2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 0 
 FI || n/a || n/a || n/a || 13 || 7 || 6 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 SEd || 48 || 14 || 34 || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 NO || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || 35 || 25 || 10 
Source: European Migration Network National
Contact Points 
Statistics Analysis: Summary
Notes
NB: The table includes statistics only for
Member States, which provided statistics on residence permits granted to
trafficking in human beings.
"n/a"
means that data is not available 
a:  In accordance
with Article 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the
Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European
Community, Denmark, Ireland and United Kingdom does not take part in the
adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its
application. 
b: All “presumed”
victims included in the national programme during the year 2013 had a legal
residence permit
c:  According to
EUROSTAT Regulation, statistical population is too small for further disaggregation
consequently it is not allowed.  
d: Includes include
39 third-country nationals and 9 persons with unknown nationality.
Table 14: Traffickers arrested as
suspects and traffickers convicted
 Traffickers arrested as suspects and traffickers convicted 
   || Arrested / otherwise involved in a criminal proceeding || Convicted 
 BG || n/a || 106 
 CZ || 0 || 8 
 EE || 42a || 23 a 
 HR || 42 || n/a 
 CY ||  31 || 3  
 LV || 18 || 10 
 LU || 12b || n/a 
 MT || 4 || 0 
 AT || 77 || n/a 
 PL || 1 ||  24c 
 ROd || 291 || n/a 
 SI || 17 || n/a 
 SK || 6 || 4 
 FI ||  27e || 2f 
 SE || 0 || 0 
 NO || 70 || 10 
Source: European Migration Network National Contact Points 
Statistics Analysis: Summary
Notes
NB: The table includes statistics only for
Member States, which provided statistics on traffickers arrested and
traffickers convicted.
"n/a"
means that data is not available 
a: total numbers (including MS nationals
and TCNs)
b: 12 persons have been arrested, but
criminal proceedings is on-going in the case of 4 persons 
c: 23 traffickers convicted for
preparations of THB and 1 person  convicted as trafficker. Statistics include
MS nationals and TCNs
d: The statistics include MS nationals
e: source: Police 
f: Source: European Institute for Crime
Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI); Approximate
number of convictions (cases not persons) based on trafficking for forced
labour in 2013. Finnish statistics on convictions become available later in the
year (October-November), therefore no exact numbers are yet available.
1.5.                
Legal migration 
Table
15: First residence permits, by reason, 2013 (provisional
statistics)
   || First permits (all) || Family reasons || Education reasons || Remunerated activities || Other reasons 
   || Total || Female || Male || Total || Female || Male || Total || Female || Male || Total || Female || Male || Total || Female || Male 
 BG || 6,416 || 2,978 || 3,438 || 2,233 || 1,183 || 1,050 || 935 || 342 || 593 || 334 || 68 || 266 || 2,914 || 1,385 || 1,529 
 DK || 32,135 || n/a || n/a || 5,230 || n/a || n/a || 11,585 || n/a || n/a || 11,435 || n/a || n/a || 3,885 || n/a || n/a 
 EE || 2,287 || 989 || 1,298 || 1,099 || 686 || 413 || 348 || 134 || 214 || 560 || 103 || 457 || 280 || 66 || 214 
 EL || 16,194 || 9,394 || 6,800 || 9,095 || 5,746 || 3,349 || 1,075 || 613 || 462 || 1,175 || 518 || 657 || 4,849 || 2,517 || 2,332 
 FR || 206,330 || 108,649 || 97,681 || 94,457 || 54,403 || 40,054 || 62,984 || 33,601 || 29,383 || 17,813 || 5,561 || 12,252 || 13,322 || 7,204 || 6,118 
 HR || 3089 || 1676 || 1413 || 2023 || 1271 || 752 || 180 || 93 || 87 || 558 || 146 || 412 || 328 || 166 || 162 
 IT || 244,688 || 119,862 || 124,826 || 108,358 || 66,548 || 41,810 || 27,203 || 16,020 || 11,183 || 81,340 || 26,230 || 55,110 || 27,787 || 11,064 || 16,723 
 CY || 12,718 || 7,411 || 5,307 || 1,910 || 1,145 || 765 || 871 || 219 || 652 || 7,705 || 4,730 || 2,975 || 2,232 || 1,317 || 915 
 LV || 6,609 || 2,988 || 3,621 || 3,129 || 1,800 || 1,329 || 900 || 323 || 577 || 737 || 120 || 617 || 1,843 || 745 || 1,098 
 LT || 6,068 || n/a || n/a || 1,163 || n/a || n/a || 765 || n/a || n/a || 4,101 || n/a || n/a || 39 || n/a || n/a 
 LU || 4,169 || 2,131 || 2,038 || 2,153 || 1,341 || 812 || 404 || 223 || 181 || 1,272 || 409 || 863 || 340 || 158 || 182 
 HU || 24,140 || 10,435 || 13,705 || 3,395 || 2,095 || 1,300 || 8,595 || 3,675 || 4,920 || 6,910 || 1,950 || 4,960 || 5,240 || 2,715 || 2,525 
 MT || 7,517 || 3,393 || 4,124 || 1,250 || 704 || 546 || 2,463 || 1,193 || 1,270 || 1,188 || 499 || 689 || 758 || 449 || 309 
 PT || 27,456 || 14,176 || 13,280 || 12,011 || 7,002 || 5,009 || 4,732 || 2,381 || 2,351 || 6,323 || 2,404 || 3,919 || 4,390 || 2,389 || 2,001 
 RO || 11,265 || n/a || n/a || 4,161 || n/a || n/a || 3,764 || n/a || n/a || 1,550 || n/a || n/a || 1,790 || n/a || n/a 
 SI || 9,145 || 3,341 || 5,804 || 3,222 || 2,214 || 1,008 || 711 || 377 || 334 || 3,513 || 369 || 3,144 || 1,699 || 381 || 1,318 
 SK || 4,475 || 1,830 || 2,645 || 1,378 || n/a || n/a || 850 || n/a || n/a || 1,616 || n/a || n/a || 631 || n/a || n/a 
 FI || 19,514 || 9,743 || 9,771 || 8,521 || 5,069 || 3,452 || 5,421 || 2,927 || 2,494 || 4,984 || 1,405 || 3,579 || 588 || 342 || 246 
 SE || 116,640 || 53,932 || 62,780 || 28,995 || 16,142 || 12,853 || 8,503 || 4,219 || 4,284 || 28,917 || 9,949 || 18,968 || 50,225 || 23,622 || 26,603 
 NO || 33,880 || 17,105 || 16,775 || 11,910 || 7,705 || 4,205 || 6,745 || 4,320 || 2,425 || 8,330 || 2,400 || 5,930 || 6,895 || 2,680 || 4,215 
Source: European Migration Network
National Contact Points
Statistics
Analysis: Summary
Notes 
NB: The table includes statistics only for
Member States, which provided statistics 
"n/a" means that statistics
are not available as of 6th May 2014
Table 16: Number of visas issued, by
type, 2013
     || Total visa || (Schengen) short stay Visas (Total A and C visas issued, including multiple A visas, multiple-entry C visas and LTVs || National Visas (so called D visas) 
 Issued to third country nationals coming directly from a third country || Issued to third country nationals resident in another EU Member State 
 BE || 215,599 || 191,424 || 24,175* 
 BG || 9,471 ||  n/a || 9,196 || 275 
 CZ || 640,078 || 629,168 || 9,027a || 1,883a 
 DK || n/a || 92,668 || n/a || n/a 
 DE || 2,084,213 || 1,887,051 || 177,703 
 EE || 198,518 || 197,352 || 1,166* 
 IE || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 EL || n/a || 1,513,462 || 7,719 || 84 
 ES || 1,990,565 || 1,898,745 || 91,820* 
 FR || n/a || 2,308,248 || 169,643 || 4,635 
 IT || 2,134,049 || 1,964,994 || 169,055* 
 CY || 70,761 ||  n/a || 70,761 
 LV || 206,680 || 203,467 || 2,671 || 542 
 LT || 471,130 || 465,282 || 5,848* 
 LU || 12,065 || 11,138 || 819 || 108 
 HR || 104,864 || n/a || 103,874 || 990 
 HU || 353,358 || 343,765 || 9,457 || 136 
 MT || 81,450 || 71,505 || 9,945* 
 NL || n/a || 418,827 || n/a || n/a 
 AT || 320,100 || 297,365 || 21,650 || 1,085 
 PL || 1,396,935 || 1,105,272 || 290,559 || 1,104 
 PT || 147,962 || 147,305 || 657* 
 RO || 153,351 || n/a || 153,351* 
 SI || n/a || 37,080 || n/a || n/a 
 SK || 130128 || 128,945 || 1,138 || 45 
 FIb || 1,552,887 || 1,552,887 || n/a || n/a 
 SE || 171,493 || 167,504 || 3,989* 
 UKc || 2,497,165 || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 NO || 184,920 || 184,715 || 205 
Source: European Migration Network
National Contact Points for statistics on national
visas and DG Home Affairs statistics for Schengen visas, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/index_en.htm
Statistics
Analysis: Summary            
Notes:

Airport transit visas (A):
"A" visas can be issued for a single airport transit or for multiple
airport transits (Multiple A). 
Short stay visas (C): Uniform short stay
visas entitle the holder to stay in the territories of all Member States for a
period of maximum 90 days/180 days. Such visas may be issued for the purpose of
a single ("C") or multiple entries ("MEV C Visas").  A
short stay visa with limited territorial validity ("LTV") entitles
the holder to stay only in the Member State(s) for which the visa is valid.
Long-stay visas (D):
Visas for stays exceeding three months are national visas issued in accordance
with Member States' national legislation. (Source; DG Home Affairs http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/index_en.htm)

“n/a"
means that statistics are not available as of 6 May 2014                
* no
disaggregated data available for BE, EE, ES, IT, LT, MT, PT, RO and SE
a: The
figures include also visas applied for in Croatia during the year 2013.
b: Finland
does not issue D-visas     
c: Total UK
visas issued (including dependants and visitor & transit visas)         
Table 17:
Schengen C visas applied for at Schengen consulates around the world in 2012
and 2013
 Schengen C visas applied for at Schengen consulates 
   || 2012 || 2013 
  BE || 233,490 || 233,273 
 CZ || 603,484 || 649,470 
 DK || 100,402 || 105,119 
 DE || 1,844,704 || 2,062,979 
 EE || 175,360 || 201,056 
 EL || 1,001,341 || 1,531,384 
 ES || 1,836,868 || 2,080,175 
 FR || 2,321,534 || 2,551,196 
 IT || 1,706,536 || 2,036,829 
 LV || 182,496 || 205,230 
 LT || 416,851 || 471,838 
 LU || 10,555 || 11,222 
 HU || 322,646 || 356,869 
 MT || 53,777 || 79,559 
 NL || 440,056 || 458,824 
 AT || 304,798 || 313,579 
 PL || 1,091,395 || 1,126,150 
 PT || 148,489 || 159,421 
 SI || 42,127 || 38,885 
 SK || 75,720 || 131,194 
 FI || 1,392,048 || 1,569,961 
 SE || 215,763 || 200,543 
 CH || 464,512 || 475,171 
 IS || 1,088 || 2,821 
 NO || 130,933 || 197,826 
 Total Schengen || 15,116,973 || 17,204,391 
Source: DG HOME
compilation of Member States data
1.6.                
Integration 
Table 18:
Unemployment rate of third-country nationals and total unemployment rate by
Member State (age 15-64),
Annual rate, 2013
   || Total unemployment rate 2013 || TCNs' unemployment rate 2013 || Total unemployment rate 2012 || TCNs' unemployment rate 2012 
 Total || Female || Male || Total || Female || Male 
 EU-28 || 11.0 || 10.9 || 11.0 || 22.0 || 22.3 || 21.8 || 10.6 || 21.3 
 BE || 8.5 || 8.2 || 8.7 || 29.9 || 28.9 || 30.5 || 7.6 || 30.7 
 BG || 13.0 || 11.9 || 14.1 || : || : || : || 12.4 || : 
 CZ || 7.0 || 8.4 || 6.0 || 6.2 || 7.0 || 5.7 || 7.0 || 5.1 
 DK || 7.2 || 7.4 || 6.9 || 14.3 || 15.5 || 12.9 || 7.7 || 18.7 
 DE || 5.4 || 5.0 || 5.7 || 12.5 || 11.6 || 13.1 || 5.6 || 12.9 
 EE || 8.9 || 8.5 || 9.2 || 14.8 || 15.4 || 14.3 || 10.4 || 18.6 
 IE || 13.3 || 10.8 || 15.4 || 16.9 || 15.9 || 17.8 || 15.0 || 17.6 
 EL || 27.5 || 31.5 || 24.5 || 39.2 || 41.5 || 37.7 || 24.5 || 35.3 
 ES || 26.5 || 27.2 || 25.9 || 40.5 || 38.3 || 42.6 || 25.2 || 38.6 
 FR || 9.9 || 9.8 || 10.1 || 25.1 || 26.0 || 24.5 || 9.9 || 24.9 
 HR || 17.6 || 16.9 || 18.1 || : || : || : || 16.3 || : 
 IT || 12.4 || 13.2 || 11.7 || 18.1 || 19.4 || 17.2 || 10.8 || 14.5 
 CY || 16.1 || 15.3 || 16.8 || 9.6 || 7.4 || 16.2 || 12.1 || 8.0 
 LV || 12.1 || 11.4 || 12.8 || 17.7 || 15.9 || 19.1 || 15.3 || 23.1 
 LT || 12.0 || 10.6 || 13.4 || : || : || : || 13.6 || : 
 LU || 5.9 || 6.4 || 5.5 || 14.0 || 15.8 || 12.3 || 5.2 || 15.1 
 HU || 10.3 || 10.3 || 10.3 || : || : || : || 11.0 || : 
 MT || 6.6 || 6.4 || 6.7 || 8.8 || : || : || 6.5 || : 
 NL || 6.7 || 6.3 || 7.1 || 18.7 || 18.2 || 19.0 || 5.3 || 15.0 
 AT || 5.0 || 5.0 || 5.0 || 11.6 || 11.1 || 11.9 || 4.4 || 10.7 
 PL || 10.5 || 11.2 || 9.8 || : || : || : || 10.2 || : 
 PT || 17.0 || 17.0 || 17.0 || 30.6 || 28.4 || 32.6 || 16.4 || 29.0 
 RO || 7.6 || 6.9 || 8.1 || : || : || : || 7.3 || : 
 SI || 10.3 || 11.1 || 9.6 || 24.6 || 45.6 || 13.9 || 9.0 || 15.7 
 SK || 14.3 || 14.6 || 14.0 || : || : || : || 14.0 || : 
 FI || 8.3 || 7.6 || 9.0 || 20.9 || 24.3 || 18.6 || 7.8 || 21.8 
 SE || 8.2 || 8.0 || 8.4 || 29.8 || 31.2 || 28.7 || 8.1 || 30.6 
 UK || 7.7 || 7.2 || 8.1 || 11.5 || 12.2 || 10.9 || 8.0 || 11.3 
 NO || 3.5 || 3.3 || 3.7 || 12.1 || 12.7 || 11.6 || 3.2 || 11.8 
Source: Eurostat (lfsa_urgan)
Notes:":"means not available
10.         ABBREVIATIONS
USED
ABC System               Automated Border Crossing
System (UK)
ACP                            Africa, the Caribean
and the Pacific
ACT                            Authority of Working
Conditions (PT)
ADA                           Austrian Development
Agency (AT)
AFIC                           Africa-FRONTEX
Intelligence Community
AFIS                           Automated Fingerprint
Identification System
AFM                           Armed Forces of Malta
(MT)
AMIF                          Asylum, Migration,
Integration Fund
API                             Advanced Passenger
Information (CZ)
AVR                           Assisted Voluntary
Return
AVRR                         Assisted Voluntary
Return and Reintegration
BBAP PFP                  Border Police Service and
Aliens Police Service (SK)
BIO                             Belgian Investment
Company for Developing Countries (BE)
BMP Project               “Building of Migration
Partnership” Project
BSTC                          Border Security
Training Centre (NL)
CABSI                                    Central
Asia Border Security Initiative 
CCV                            Common Visa Centre
CDE                            Centre for
Development of Enterprise (BE)
CEAS                          Common European Asylum
System 
Ce-CLAD                   International Operatonal Centre for Investigation
and Coordination in the Anti-Drug Effort in the Mediterranean (French acronym -
Centre opérationnel international d'enquêtes et de coordination de lutte
anti-drogue dénommé en Méditerranée
CEOP                          Child Exploitation and
Online Protection (UK)
CGAP                         Independent policy and
research centre 
CGI                             Common Ground
Initiative 
CGRS                         Office
for the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (BE)
CIA                             Common Integration
Agenda
CIRAM                       Common Integrated Risk
Analysis Model (PL)
CIREFI                      Centre
for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and
Immigration
CJEU                          Court of Justice of
the European Union
COI                             Country
of Origin Information
CSO                            Civil
Society Organisation
CTA                            Common Travel Area
DAPS                          Ministry of the
Interior, Directorate of Alien Police Service (CZ)
DFID                          Department for
International development (UK)
DGDC                                    Directorate
General for Development Cooperation 
DSR                            Daily Statistics
Reports (SK)
EAC                            European Asylum
Curriculum
EASO                                     European
Asylum Support Office
EAW                           European Arrest
Warrant
ECHR                         European Court of Human
Rights
ECOWAS                   Economic Community Of West
African States
EDF-FRAN                European Document Fraud Risk
Analysis Network
EEAS                          European External
Action Service
EFCA                          European Fisheries
Control Agency
eGate                           Automated border
control system ‘Easy GO’ (CZ)
EIF                              European Fund for
the Integration of third-country nationals
EMN                           European Migration
Network
EMN NCP                  European Migration Network
National Contact Point 
EMPACT                    European Multidisciplinary
Platform against Criminal Threats
EMSA                         European Maritime
Safety Agency
ENARO                      European Network of
Asylum Reception Organisations
EPN                            European Patrol
Network
ERF                             European Refugee
Fund
ERPUM                      European Returns Platform
for Unaccompanied Minors
ESA                            European Space Agency
ESF                             European Social Fund
Eu-LISA                     European
Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of
freedom, security and justice.
EURASIL                   European Union Network for
Asylum Practitioners
EUREMA                   EU
Relocation Malta
EUROSUR                 European
External Border Surveillance System
FOO                            Frontex Operational
Office
FRA                            The EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights
FRAN                         Frontex Risk Analysis
Network 
FREEMO                    Family
reunification and on the free movement of persons
FRONTEX                 European
Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of
the Member States of the European Union
FYROM                      Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macdedonia
GAMM                       Global
Approach to Migration and Mobility
GASIM                       Joint Centre for Illegal
Migration Analysis and Policy (DE)
GDISC                        General Directors’
Immigration Services Conference
IBIS                            Irish Border
Information System (IE)
IBM                            Integrated Border
Management (AT)
ICMC                          International Catholic
Migration Commission
ICMPD                       International Centre for
Migration Policy Development
ICONet                       Web-based
Information and Coordination Network for Member States’ Migration Management
Services
ICPN                           International Child
Protection Network
iFADO                        EU False and Authentic
Documents online tool
IFAD                          International Fund for
Agricultural Development
IGC                             Intergovernmental
Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees 
ILOs                            Immigration Liaison
Officers
IMDi                           Directorate of
Integration and Diversity (NO)
IND                             Migration Authority
(NL)
INIS                            The Irish
Naturalisation and Immigration Service
INPS                           National Institute
for Social Pensions (IT)
IOM                            International
Organization for Migration
JHA                             Justice and Home
Affairs
JIT                               Joint
Investigation Team (Frontex)
JRC                             Joint Readmission
Committee
JRO                             Joint Return
Operations 
JSG                             NGO Joint Strategic
Group (UK)
JUPO                          Finnish Ontology for
Public Administration Services (FI)
KIM                            Contact Committee for
Immigrants and the Authorities (NO)
LGBT                          Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender
MAC                           Migration Advisory
Committee (UK)
MELITA                     Maltese project within
Frontex to assist in repatriation initiatives (MT)
MIDA                         Migration for
Development in Africa 
MIDWEB                   Migration for Development
in the Western Balkans  
MIEUX                       Migration
EU Expertise 
MIM                            Mutual
Information Mechanism
MP                              Mobility
Partnerships
MSR                            Monthly Statistics
Reports (SK)
MTM i-MAP               Interactive Map on Migration
MTV                           Mobile Security
Monitoring 
NAATP                       Romanian National Agency
against Trafficking in Persons 
NAPTIP                      Nigerian National Agency
for Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons
NCC
                           National Coordination Centre (NO)
NCIS                           National
Crime Investigation Service (NO)
NDFU                         National
Document Fraud Unit (UK)
NFI                             Netherlands Forensic
Institute (NL)
NIRVA                       Italian Networking for
the Assisted Voluntary Return (IT)
NQF                            National
Qualifications Framework
NSHF                          Nordic Cooperation in
Migration and Asylum
NVIS                          National Visa Systems 
OECD                                     Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development
OFPRA
                      Office Français de Protection des
Réfugiés et Apatrides (FR)
OPMI                          Office for the
Promotion of Migrant Integration (IE)
PBS                             Points Based System
(UK)
PNR                            Passengers Name
Record 
PRADO                      Public Register of
Authentic Documents Online
PRIO                           Norwegian Peace
Research Institute (NO)
RABIT
exercise          Rapid Border Intervention Team exercise
RAPID                        Automatic
Recognition System for Passengers Identified by Documents (PT)
RDW                           Government Road
Transport Agency (NL)                
RF                               European Return
Fund
RESTART II              IOM Assisted Voluntary
Return project in Malta 
RPPs                           Regional Protection
Programmes
RTP                             Registered Traveller
Programme
SAT                             Swift Action Teams
(i.e. pilot project proposed by NL)
SCIBM
Project           Support to Integrated Border Management System in the South
Caucasus (LV)
SCIFA                                    Strategic
Committee on Immigration, Frontier and Asylum
SEF                             Immigration and Borders
Service (PT)
SIS                              Schengen
Information System
SOCA                         Serious Organised Crime
Agency (UK)
TAIEX                                    Technical
Assistance and Information Exchange
TCNs                           Third-Country
Nationals
TFM                            Task
Force Mediterranean 
UNHCR                      United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees
UNODC                     United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime
UAM                           Unaccompanied minor
UDI                             NO’s Directorate of
Immigration (NO)
UNDP                         United Nations
Development Programme
UNFPA                       United Nations
Population Fund
UNIFEM                    United
Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
UKBF                         UK
Border Force 
VAC                           Canadian
Visa Application Centres
VARRE                      Voluntary Assisted Return
and Reintegration in Estonia (EE)
VGM                           Innovation
of Border Management (NL)
VIS                             Visa Information
System
VREN                         Voluntary Return
European Network
[1]              COM(2014)288 final of 22.05.2014
[2]              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).
[3]              This report includes information in national
activities from all EU Member States and Norway. 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. 
[4]               See http://www.emn.europa.eu
under "Annual Policy Reports" for the individual National Reports.
[5]               Statistics for 2012 excludes Croatia
[6]               More information on the Common European Asylum System
can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/index_en.htm.
A brochure explaining CEAS can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/docs/ceas-fact-sheets/ceas_factsheet_en.pdf
together with an infographic at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/multimedia/infographics

[7]               http://www.cgra.be/en/A_propos_du_CGRA/

[8]              Directive
2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on
standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons
as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees
or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the
protection granted (recast), OJ L 337 20.12.2011, p. 9
[9]               Directive 2004/83/EC
[10]             Directive 2011/51/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its
scope to beneficiaries of international protection, OJ L 132 19.5.2011, p. 1
[11]             Directive
2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying
down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection
(recast), OJ L 180 29.6.2013, p. 96
[12]             Directive 2003/9/EC
[13]             Directive
2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on
common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection
(recast), OJ L 180 29.6.2013, p. 60
[14]             Directive 2005/85/EC
[15]             Regulation EU/604/2013 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for
determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for
international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country
national or a stateless person (recast). OJ L 180 29.6.2013, p. 31
[16]             Regulation (EC) No 343/2003
[17]             OJ L 39 08.2.2014, p. 1
[18]
            See section 2.1.7
[19]             Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the
comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No
604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member
State responsible for examining an application for international protection
lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless
person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States'
law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, and
amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the
operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom,
security and justice (recast). OJ L 180 29.6.2013, p. 1
[20]             eu-LISA is the Agency established by Regulation (EU)
No1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011
establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT
systems in the area of freedom, security and justice.
[21]             1. Council Directive 2001/55/EC on minimum standards
for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced
persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in
receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof;  2. Council
Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the
reception of asylum seekers; 3. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September
2003 on the right to family reunification; 4. Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1
December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting
and withdrawing refugee status; 5. Directive 2011/95/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the
qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries
of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons
eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection
granted.
[22]             OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p.1.
[23]            A more recent judgement of the
Constitutional Court of 16 January 2014 further clarifies that also for asylum
seekers from safe countries of origin the appeal procedure should be an
effective remedy in accordance with Article 13 European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR).
[24]             According to Slovak legislation, court decisions do not
constitute a source of law. The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic publishes
its decisions of key importance in the Collection of Opinions of the Supreme
Court and Court Decisions. Such decisions only have a recommending nature for
the decision-making of courts but they are respected and accepted by
lower-instance courts when deciding on similar matters.
[25]             See http://easo.europa.eu 
[26]             http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/WB-report-final-version.pdf
[27]             http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/EASO-Annual-Report-Final.pdf
[28]             COM(2011)835
[29]             Relocation: the transfer of persons having a status,
defined by the Geneva Convention or subsidiary protection (2004/83/EC) from the
Member State which granted them international protection to another Member
States where they will be granted similar protection (see EMN Glossary V2).
[30]             http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/asylum/common-procedures/docs/jp_final_report__final_en.pdf

[31]             Resettlement: the transfer on a request from the UNHCR
and based on their need for international protection, of a third-country
national or stateless person from a third country to a Member State where they
are permitted to reside with one of the following statuses: i. refugee status
ii. a status which offers the same rights and benefits under national and EU
law as refugee status (see EMN Glossary Version 2).
[32]             Projects were on-going in Eastern Europe and the Horn
of Africa. The Commission was also very active in supporting the development of
RPPs in North Africa (included Egypt, Tunisia).
[33]             October 2012. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/133241.pdf.

[34]             Decision 281/2012/EU of 29 March 2012. http://www.resettlement.eu 
[35]             Under this scheme, the
participating Member States pledged to resettle 3 962 refugees in 2013. This is
an increase compared with 2012 when 3 083 resettlement places were pledged.
[36]             8714/1/12 REV 1 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st08/st08714-re01.en12.pdf 
[37]             Hereinafter also called Moldova.
[38]             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.
[39]             EU Regional Protection Programmes are practical
programmes focusing on return, local integration and resettlement, designed to
enhance the capacity of non-EU countries in the regions from which many
refugees originate, or through which they pass in transit - http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/external-aspects/index_en.htm

[40]             http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1253_en.htm

[41]          The EUROMED III project aims to develop co-operation between
EU Member States and member countries of the European Neighbourhood Partnership
Instrument South (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Libya [observer status],
Morocco, Palestine, Syria [suspended], and Tunisia.
[42]             http://www.icmpd.org/index.php?id=2178

[43]             For more information, see: www.informedmigration.ge
[44]             So-called ‘silk route’ countries are Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria. 
[45]             http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/WB_ARA_2013.pdf

[46]             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.
[47]             The
Salzburg Forum (SF) is a Central European security partnership which aims to
coordinating collaboration within the EU and to enhance cooperation with the
Western Balkan countries. Member States include Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia.
[48]             Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013, OJL
295,  06.11.2013, p.11
[49]             Following the formal adoption
in October 2013. 
[50]             See the infographic on Eurosur: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/docs/infographics/eurosur/eurosur_en.pdf

[51]             COM(2013) 836 final
[52]             COM(2012) 650 final
[53]             See Council document (7812/13) of March 2013. The
preliminary findings were also presented at the informal meeting on SCIFA of
January 2013.
[54]             See 3rd Biannual update of the EU Action on
Migratory Pressures - A Strategic Response (doc 14934/13), available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/oct/eu-council-migratory-pressure-strategic-response-14934-13.pdf

[55]             The Brdo Process is an established platform for
the internal affairs (illegal migration, organised crime, corruption and
terrorism) in the Western Balkans geographical region.
[56]             Green Paper on the right to family reunification of
third-country nationals living in the European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC),
COM(2011) 735 final.
[57]             COM(2014)210 final as of 3.4.2014
[58]             http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/doc_centre/immigration/docs/studies/emn-synthesis_report_intra_eu_mobility_final_july_2013.pdf

[59] In Malta, the sample size in 2013 was very small, with only 3
forced returns reported.
[60]             Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member
States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals
[61]             COM(2014) 199 final of 28.03.2014
[62]             Please see Council Conclusions from JHA Council 6-7
June 2013. Access via: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/137401.pdf

[63]             Regulation (EU) No 493/2011 OJ L 141 27.5.2011 p.13 
[64]             Romania does not deploy ILOs as such, but its home
affairs attachés also perform ILOs tasks and duties. 
[65]             Directive 2009/52/EC. OJL 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24.
[66]             COM(2014)286 final of 22.05.2014
[67]             Not applied by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Croatia's implementation after accession is still to be assessed.
[68]             Austria; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia;
Czech Republic; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Poland; Romania; Serbia; Slovakia;
Slovenia; Switzerland.
[69]             Federal Ministry of the Interior, Erfolgreiche
Beteiligung der SOKO Schlepperei Nord an Europol-Operation “Fake“, Press
Release, 23 October 2013, available at www.bmi.gv.at/cms/bk/_news/start.aspx?id=384973545055664350464D3D&page=0&view=1 (accessed on 1
November 2013).
[70]             http://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/EASO-Age-assessment-practice-in-Europe.pdf

[71]             COM(2013) 454 final
[72]             Council Recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective
Roma integration measures in the Member States, 2013/C 378/01. OJ C378, p.1.
[73]             Directive
2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011  on
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its
victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA
[74]             OJL 261, 6.8.2004, P.19.  
[75]             "EU rights victims " publication available here.
 
[76]             10966/13
[77]             http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/docs/thb-victims-identification/thb_identification_en.pdf

[78]             http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/Events/Seventh_EU_Anti_Trafficking_Day

[79]             Within the project “Enhancing
Identification of Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings” financed through
the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance.
[80]             Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/docs/thb-victims-identification/thb_identification_en.pdf

[81]             In line with Directive 2011/36/EU ‘child’ shall mean any person below 18 years of age.
[82]             Addressing demand in anti-trafficking efforts and
policies (DemandAT), http://research.icmpd.org/2491.html

[83]             http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/section.action?sectionPath=National+Rapporteurs&sectionType=MAP&page=1&resetBreadcrumb=false

[84]        ‘Putting Rantsev into Practice’ – a conference based around
the formative case law Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Application no. 25965/04
[85]             http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/download.action?nodePath=/Publications/Trafficking+in+Human+beings+-+DGHome-Eurostat_EN.pdf&fileName=Trafficking+in+Human+beings+-+DGHome-Eurostat_EN.pdf&fileType=pdf

[86]             See DG HOME / Eurostat (2013) Working Paper on
Statistics: Trafficking in Human Beings: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2013/docs/20130415_thb_stats_report_en.pdf

[87]             Ibidem,http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2013/docs/20130415_thb_stats_report_en.pdf
[88] COM(2014) 287 final of 22.05.2014
[89]             http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/attracting/emnsr_attractinghqworkers_finalversion_23oct2013_publication.pdf 
[90]             The Red-White-Red Card is issued for a period of
twelve months and entitles the holder to fixed-term settlement and employment
by a specified employer. 
[91]             The possibility to apply for the “Red-White-Red Card”
in Austria while regularly staying in the country remains unchanged.
[92]             The Green Card Employment Permit in
particular, is designed to attract highly skilled people into the labour market
with the aim of encouraging them to take up permanent residence. 
[93]             COM(2010)378.  See EP
Legislative Observatory : Inter-institutional reference 2010/0209(COD)
[94]             The Expo is a non-commercial Universal Exposition (not
a trade fair) organized by the nation which wins the candidature, with other
countries participating through the diplomatic channels of the hosting nation. http://en.expo2015.org 
[95]             Directive
2014/36/EU on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for
the purpose of employment as seasonal workers, OJ L94, 28.03.2014, p.375-390. 
[96]             COM(2013)151 final of 25.03.2013 See
EP Legislative Observatory : Inter-institutional reference 2013/0081(COD) 
[97]             Information brochures “Studying and Working in Austria”
and “ Guide to Entry and Residence Requirements for Foreign Students”
[98]             Wallonia-Brussels Campus - www.studyinbelgium.be
[99]             OJ L343, 23.12.2011, P.1.
[100]            Green Paper on the right to family reunification of
third-country nationals living in the European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC),
COM(2011) 735 final.
[101]            COM(2014) 210 of 3.4.2014.
[102]            Inter alia, a workshop organised by the European Policy
Centre on Skills mismatch and shortages in Europe: A need for increased
labour mobility? (28 February 2013),  a publication by the Centre for
European Policy Studies on Social Benefits and Migration – A contested
relationship and policy challenge in the EU - http://www.ceps.eu/book/social-benefits-and-migration-contested-relationship-and-policy-challenge-eu
;  two OECD-EC joint projects "Matching Economic Migration with Labour Market Needs" completed in 2013, and a 2 year project launched in 2013 "Review of Labour Migration Policy in Europe".
[103]            Review of Labour Migration Policy in Europe. 
[104]            COM(2012) 795 final
[105]            COM(2011) 455 final and SEC(2011) 957 final
[106]            OECD(2010),
Open for Business; Migrant Entrepreneurship in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095830-en. 
[107]            The
Working Holiday Scheme with third countries allows young people
aged between 18 and 35 years old to travel and work in each other’s territory
for a set period of time each year. 
[108]            http://www.integrazionemigranti.gov.it/Progetti-iniziative/Documents/JD%20Mauritius.pdf
[109]            Moldova has signed separate bilateral social security
agreements with Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Luxemburg, Portugal, Poland and Romania. Currently
Moldovan authorities are in process of negotiating agreements with Latvia and
Lithuania.
[110]            COM(2014)287 final of 22.05.2014
[111]            http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/attracting/emnsr_attractinghqworkers_finalversion_23oct2013_publication.pdf

[112]            http://ec.europa.eu/immigration 
[113]            The two projects funded under the 2013 call are TEMPER
(Temporary versus Permanent Migration) and EURA-NET (Transnational Migration in
Transition: Transformative Characteristics of Temporary Mobility of People).
They both started at the beginning of 2014.
[114]            Please also refer to the European Agenda for the
Integration of third-Country nationals, COM(2011)455 final. 
[115]            COM(2011) 455 final.
[116]            Council doc 18296/11.
[117]            P7_TA-PROV(2013)0092.
[118]            The final report is presented on the European Web Site
on Integration, http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/resources/detail.cfm?ID_ITEMS=37216.

[119]            http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/resources/detail.cfm?ID_ITEMS=40802 

[120]            The reports of the meetings are presented on the
European Web Site on Integration, http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/policy/legal.cfm#

[121]            http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/

[122]            http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/lra.cfm

[123]            COM(2014) 2 final and
accompanying SWD(2014) 5. 
[124]            Directive 2000/78/EC. OJL303, 2.12.2000, p.16. 
[125]            Directive 2000/43/EC. OJL180, 19.7.2000, p.22.
[126]            http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/present_a_discrimination_claim_handbook_en.pdf 
[127]            http://www.intermin.fi/en/development_projects/good_relations 
[128] http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/studies/Documents/survey_integration_3rd_country_nationals/survey_integration_3rd_country_nationals.pdf 
[129]            Call for proposals HOME/2012-2013/CFP/EIFX/CA.
[130]            The project will be implemented in partnership with the
World Association of Public Employment Services (WAPES) and authorities in
charge of integration issues in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovakia.
[131]            COM (2011)290 of 24.5. 2011
[132]            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. OJ L 81, 21.3.2001,
p.1.
[133]            COM(2013) 853 of 27.11.2013
[134]            COM(2014) 165 and COM(2014)164 of 1.4.2014. 
[135] http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/29732/1/fingerprint%20recognition%20for%20children%20final%20report%20%28pdf%29.pdf 
[136]            COM(2013) 832 final; http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/docs/fourth_biannual_report_on_the_functioning_of_the_schengen_area_en.pdf

[137]            Regulation (EU) No. 1053/2013 of
7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and
monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis
and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998
setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of
Schengen, (OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 27)
[138]            Regulation (EU) No 1051/2013 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EC No 562/2006 in
order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border
control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances (OJ L 295 of 6.11., p.
1)
[139]            COM(2013)95 of 28.2.2013 
[140]            COM(2013)97 of 28.2.2013
[141]            For more information see:  https://www.fastpass-project.eu/ 
[142]            For more information on this, see: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2013/20130228_01_en.htm

[143]            For more information, see: http://frontex.europa.eu/news/document-challenge-ii-announcement-to-industry-D2rPry.
[144]            SWD (2013) 456 of 31.10.2013
[145]            SWD (2013) 138 of 30.4.2013
[146]            The EU position ahead of the High-level Dialogue is
reflected in the "Conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of
the Member States meeting within the Council on the 2013 UN High Level Dialogue
on Migration and Development and on broadening the development-migration
nexus" (Council document 12415/13) which endorses the key messages
included in the Commission Communication “Maximising the Development Impact of
Migration – The EU contribution for the UN High-Level Dialogue and next steps
towards broadening the development-migration nexus” (COM (2013) 292 ).
[147]            The Law of 19 March 2013 relating to Development
Cooperation stipulates that, in order to ensure consistency between policies
for development, draft laws, draft royal decrees and proposed decisions, that
are submitted to the Council of Ministers, are to be examined in advance as to
their possible impact on development;
[148]            Mobilizing Moroccans residing in
Belgium for the Development of Morocco.
[149]            http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/index_en.htm

[150]            http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-945_en.htm

[151]            All video products from DG Home Affairs are available
online: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/multimedia/videos/index_en.htm#080126248ad52a04/c_

[152]            http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/multimedia/videos/index_en.htm#0801262489c0db00/c_

[153]            http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/multimedia/videos/index_en.htm#08012624899463c4/c_

[154]            http://ec.europa.eu/immigration 
[155]            COM(2014)287 final of 22.05.2014
[156]            COM(2014)286 final of 22.05.2014