Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection : a toolbox. FRA focus. 02/2015.
Date: 2015-03-31
Institutions: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Subjects: EU migration policy, aid to refugees, fundamental rights, illegal migration, international protection, legal status, legality, migration control, political asylum, political refugee, protection of freedoms, right of asylum

HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 
A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

02/2015

Legal entry channels to the 
EU for persons in need of 
international protection: a toolbox
FRA Focus

Every year, tens of thousands of people risk their lives trying to enter 
the European Union (EU) in an irregular way, and many die in the attempt. 
Increasing the availability of legal avenues to reach the EU would contribute 
to make the right to asylum set forth in Article 18 of the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights a reality for vulnerable refugees and other persons in 
need of protection who are staying in a third country, often facing risks to their 
safety. It would also help to fight smuggling in human beings. This FRA focus 
seeks to contribute towards the elaboration of such legal entry options so 
that these can constitute a viable alternative to risky irregular entry.

In its 2013 report on fundamental rights at Europe’s 
southern sea borders, the European Union Agency 
for  Fundamental  Rights  (FRA)  described  the  dis-
quieting  migration  pattern  across  the  Mediterra-
nean that each year costs thousands of lives. The 
majority of those who crossed the sea in unsea-
worthy boats in 2014 to reach the shores of south-
ern Europe were persons in need of international 
protection, including persons fleeing the civil war 
in Syria. This paper, therefore, focuses on them. 

Strengthening legal channels for refugees to reach 
safety  would  contribute  to  reducing  the  number 
of migrant lives lost at sea and the abuses perpe-
trated by the smuggling networks. This was one of 
the main conclusions of FRA’s 2014 Fundamental 
Rights Conference, which it organised together with 
the Italian Presidency of the Council of the Euro-
pean Union in Rome on 10 and 11 November 2014. 

This  FRA  focus  presents  a  toolbox  of  possible 
schemes  EU  Member  States  could  use  to  enable 
more persons in need of international protection 

to reach the European Union (EU) without resorting 
to  smugglers.  It  does  so  by  presenting  different 
refugee-related schemes – including resettlement, 
humanitarian admissions, the issuance of human-
itarian  visas  (either  under  Schengen  or  national 
law), and temporary protection – as well as reg-
ular mobility schemes, such as those available to 
family members of persons residing in the EU, stu-
dents, migrant workers and other categories of per-
sons, which could be made more accessible to ref-
ugees staying in third countries.

In sum, this paper aims to describe possible ways 
to  increase  legal  admissions  into  the  EU  of  per-
sons in need of international protection who find 
themselves in a third country. It does not deal with 
asylum seekers who appear at the border or are 
already inside the EU, and who are to be treated 
in accordance with the EU asylum acquis and in full 
respect of the principle of non-refoulement and of 
the prohibition of collective expulsion. Nor does this 
FRA focus deal with search and rescue obligations 
enshrined in international maritime law.

1

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

Largest displacement since World War II: 
risks of exploitation and abuse 

According  to  the  UN  High  Commissioner  for  Refu-
gees  (UNHCR),  the  number  of  refugees,  asylum 
seekers and internally displaced people worldwide 
has – for the first time in the post-World War II era – 
exceeded 50 million people. By the end of 2013, there 
were  51.2  million  forcibly  displaced  people  in  the 
world – six million more than in 2012.1 The countries 
from which they mainly originate are Afghanistan, Eri-
trea, Somalia, Sudan and Syria. Referring to the situa-
tion in Syria, the UNHCR spoke of ‘the worst humani-
tarian crisis of our time’, with Syrians having become 
the largest refugee population under his mandate.2 

Most displaced persons find safety in their regions 
of origin. More than 190,000 Central African refugees, 
for example, have fled to Cameroon, Chad, the Congo 
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) since 
December  2013.3  The  number  of  Syrian  refugees 
registered in Lebanon is another telling example. By 
December 2014, almost 1,150,000 Syrians had been 
registered as refugees in Lebanon, thus making up 
over a quarter of Lebanon’s population. In comparison, 
only about 100,000 Syrians applied for asylum in the 
28 EU Member States in 2014.4

Many  refugees  in  countries  of  first  asylum  are 
vulnerable  to  exploitation  and  abuse.  They  are 

frequently confined to camps where they may be 
exposed  to  various  risks  concerning  their  safety 
and health. During the rainy season in Ethiopia in 
November  2014,  for  example,  the  Lietchor  refu-
gee camp, which houses more than 47,800 refu-
gees from South Sudan, was flooded. This wors-
ened conditions in the camp, with people having 
to wade through water to cross from one dry part 
of the camp to another.5 The UNHCR reports that 
in  the  Syrian  refugee  camps  in  the  Middle  East, 
the security of refugees is at risk and their medi-
cal needs are not well covered.6 

Female-headed refugee households, single women 
and girls face a heightened risk of sexual exploita-
tion and abuse. They can be forced to provide sex-
ual favours in exchange for essential resources, as 
reported by the International Organization for Migra-
tion (IOM) concerning the situation in the camps in 
Haiti in 2013,7 or by the UNHCR concerning that of 
Syrian refugees in 2014.8 Forced early marriages and 
human trafficking are also a real risk.9 In the Zaatari 
camp in Jordan, Syrian refugees and local aid workers 
have signalled the existence of an organised trade 
in young girls. According to local sources, the rate 
for a bride ranges between 2,000 and 10,000 Jor-
danian dinars (€2,494 to €12,471),10 with another 
1,000 (€1,247) going to the broker.11 

Too few legal ways to enter the EU

The possibilities for people in need of protection 
to legally enter and stay in an EU Member State 
are very limited. For security or political reasons, 
EU Member States are often required to close down 
their diplomatic representations in war-torn coun-
tries.12 For nationals of these countries, obtaining a 
visa to enter the EU is difficult since there is a risk 
of overstay. Moreover, nationals from war-affected 
countries, such as South Sudan or Syria, often need 
to have a transit visa even when they are just pass-
ing through an EU Member State.13 For a persecuted 
person, it is often impossible to visit a consulate 
to apply for a visa because diplomatic representa-
tions are usually located in areas of capitals that are 
intensively surveilled by security forces.

Comparing the number of Schengen visas issued to 
Syrian nationals before and after the conflict illus-
trates these difficulties: the total number of visas 
issued to a foreigner for visiting the Schengen area 

granted to Syrian nationals has dropped from over 
30,000 in 2010 to almost zero in 2013 (Figure 1). 

The fact that opportunities to enter the EU lawfully 
are limited lead many people in need of protection 
to resort to smuggling networks to reach safety or 
join their families. According to preliminary figures 
provided by Frontex, in 2014 some 278,000 people 
were apprehended, intercepted or rescued when 
trying to reach the EU by crossing the border in an 
irregular manner – over twice as many as during 
the initial stages of the Arab Spring in 2011. A sig-
nificant proportion of them were smuggled.

The majority of these people came from ‘refugee-
producing’ countries, such as Syria or Eritrea, and 
arrived by crossing the Central Mediterranean by 
sea, putting their lives at great risk: the IOM esti-
mates that 3,224 people died in the Mediterranean 
in 2014.14 

2

FRA Focus 02/2015

Figure 1:   Number of Schengen visas issued to 
Syrians, trend 2010–2013

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

2010

2011

2012

2013

civil war

Source:  European Commission, DG Home, Visa statistics, 2014

Resorting to smugglers endangers the lives and phys-
ical integrity of asylum seekers and migrants. In line 
with the following testimonies from the FRA project on 
fundamental rights at Europe’s southern sea borders, 
smugglers exploit or directly expose them to risks.

‘There were people that when they saw the boat, they 
didn’t want to get in, because they were afraid, and they 
did not want to leave. The Libyans forced them to enter 
the boat, they tortured them. […the boat was] small, 
7–9 metres. But they told us that it was a large boat, 
instead it was small, it was not good. For this reason, 
some of us were afraid and they did not want to get on 
and were beaten.’

(Migrant coming from Libya, interviewed in Italy, 2010)

‘We had a rough time, I was awake for three days keeping 
an eye on the situation because we were strangers, we 
didn’t all know each other, it was a small group but there 
were sick people, some vomiting, others crying and no 
food, the food was only the captain’s […].’

(Migrant describing the journey across the Alboran sea, interviewed in Spain, 
2011)

When persons in need of international protection 
reach the borders of the EU in an irregular manner, 

they may be refused entry to the country at which 
they arrive, and instead be subjected to unlawful 
collective expulsions or pushed back in violation of 
the principle of non-refoulement.

‘Two of the soldiers got into the boat with the group of 
refugees. They then took them to the Turkish side onto a 
sandbank in the river. There they left the refugees who 
were left to swim across to Turkey. It was maybe less than 
200 m but you had to swim. [A]fter five minutes, the Greek 
police and the soldiers came back with another group of 
people, one family with four children […] from Syria and 
Iraq. […]. The water the refugees had to cross to get back 
to Turkey was not so deep, it went up to the chest of an 
adult man, but the children and the young woman could 
not swim. The refugees therefore tried to make a small 
wooden bridge with using small trees and branches, but 
that did not work. Then they made a human bridge, holding 
on to each other, and then they passed the children across 
the water, from one person to another. There was a current 
and it was difficult to help the others across the river. The 
[interviewee] does not know what would have happened 
to the other group of refugees if he and his group had not 
been there to help them across the river.’ 

(UNHCR Stockholm, extracts from the UNHCR interview notes with a Syrian 
musician apprehended a few days after having crossed into Greece, 
November 2014)

If they finally make it into the EU, some may be 
detained due to the irregular nature of their stay. 
Others may have to take up work under exploit-
ative conditions to repay the cost of smuggling.

Under Article 79 of the Treaty of the Functioning of 
the EU, the Union shall adopt measures to combat 
irregular migration and trafficking in human beings. 
The Task Force Mediterranean, which the European 
Commission established in the aftermath of the trag-
edy near Lampedusa in October 2013, identifies the 
fight against smuggling in human beings as one of 
the priority areas for action. It calls for the develop-
ment of a comprehensive EU plan to fight smuggling 
in human beings, which could include increasing the 
number of legal avenues to reach the EU safely.15 

Increasing calls for more opportunities 
to reach the EU legally

Increasingly, people are turning their attention to 
the exploration of legal ways for persons in need 
of international protection to enter the EU.

The  Task  Force  Mediterranean  recommends 
a renewed focus on resettlement and reinforced 
legal  avenues  to  reach  Europe.16  The  European 

Commission also commits to explore further pos-
sibilities for protected entry procedures, which could 
include conducting a feasibility study on joint exter-
nal processing of protection claims, without preju-
dice to the existing right of access to asylum pro-
cedures in the EU.17 

3

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

In  a  number  of  its  resolutions,  the  European 
Parliament also calls for the creation of safe routes 
into the EU.18 In its resolution of 17 December 2014 
on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need 
for a holistic EU approach to migration, the parlia-
ment considers that further avenues of legal migra-
tion should be explored as well as ‘future initiatives 
that follow good examples of resettlement, including 
the voluntary resettlement programme’ laid down 
in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No. 516/2014 estab-
lishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. 
It thus highlights that EU funding offers assistance 
to those Member States willing to implement reset-
tlement programmes.19 It also stated that ‘the EU 
should ensure safe and legal access to the EU asy-
lum system, and explore legal migration policies’ 
and asked the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice 
and Home Affairs (LIBE) to assess the various pol-
icies at stake, draw up a set of recommendations 
and report back to plenary with a ‘strategic initia-
tive report’ before the end of 2015.20 

FRA ACTIVITY

Strengthening legal channels to 
reach the EU

Strengthening  legal  channels  for  refugees  to 
reach protection and safety would contribute 
to  reducing  the  number  of  migrant  lives 
lost  at  sea  and  the  abuses  perpetrated  by 
smuggling networks. This was one of the main 
conclusions  of  the  2014  Fundamental  Rights 
Conference  organised  by  FRA  in  Rome  on  10 
and 11 November. Participants also called for 
a more innovative use of the existing EU legal 
framework  to  the  benefit  of  third-country 
nationals in need of protection. 

Source: FRA (2014), Fundamental rights and migration to 
the EU: Conference conclusions, Fundamental Rights 
Conference 2014, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/
fundamental-rights-conference-2014-fundamental-rights-
and-migration-eu-conference

civil society organisations, have made similar calls.25 
The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) 
has made legal access to the EU for people in need 
of  protection  one  of  their  priority  areas  for  con-
crete action in their campaign on Syria’s refugees.26 
The Red Cross EU Office has released two position 
papers on legal access to the EU for people in need 
of protection, the most recent one focusing on the 
Syrian refugee crisis.27 

Legal entry schemes could be used more proactively 
to better respond to the urgent needs of persons in 
need of protection. Providing more opportunities to 
access  the  EU  safely  would  have  many  benefits 
related to the fight against smuggling, the protection 
of persons in need, security and integration.

Main advantages of legal entry

Advantages

√  Better 

√ 

protection
International 
solidarity

√  Fight against 
smuggling 
and trafficking

√  Security

√  Controlled 

immigration

√  Less 

rehabilitation 
needed

√ 

Integration

Expected results
Better chances for refugees to 
access and enjoy protection.
Accepting refugees contrib-
utes to addressing humanitar-
ian crises in third countries
Reduction of the demand 
for human smuggling and of 
the risk of persons becoming 
victims of human trafficking.
Collection of biometric data 
(in the Visa Information Sys-
tem for Schengen visas) and 
searches in SIS II help iden-
tify possible security risks. 
The identity of orderly admitted 
persons is known, which fa-
cilitates return should they lose 
the right to stay in the future.
Orderly admission reduces 
the need of psychosocial 
care due to trauma experi-
enced during migration.
Lawful entry would en-
able authorities to better 
plan and implement their 
integration programmes. 
Persons in need of protec-
tion with needed skills could 
be channelled into labour 
migration schemes and their 
knowledge and skills could 
be used after arrival.

A number of challenges also exist, however, that 
need to be adequately assessed to mitigate ensu-
ing risks.

At the global level, in its Central Mediterranean Sea 
Initiative action plan, the UNHCR calls for the devel-
opment of legal alternatives to dangerous irregular 
movements, one of 12 concrete steps suggested.21

√  Filling 

skills gap

The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the 
human rights of migrants,22 the Council of Europe’s 
Commissioner  for  Human  Rights23  and  the  Coun-
cil of Europe Parliamentary Assembly,24 as well as 

4

FRA Focus 02/2015

Risks and ways to mitigate these

Risks

√  Selecting ben-

eficiaries of legal 
entry programmes 
may be difficult
√  Persons who have 
not planned to 
move to the EU 
could be encour-
aged to do so, when 
they learn about 
such possibilities 

Ways to mitigate risks
Objective and transparent 
selection criteria which 
are communicated to the 
communities concerned.
To reduce the need for 
having to leave countries 
of first asylum, protection 
must continue to be en-
hanced in these countries, 
by supporting efforts of the 
international community.

Risks
√  Smugglers and oth-

er criminals could 
misuse legal chan-
nels of migration 

√  Managing applica-
tions and organis-
ing arrivals require 
additional resources

√  Could generate a 
negative reaction 
in some sectors of 
European societies

Ways to mitigate risks

Harmonisation among 
EU Member States of condi-
tions, including those ad-
dressing security concerns, 
an applicant must fulfil. 
Savings from manag-
ing spontaneous arrivals 
could be used to man-
age orderly arrivals. 
Information campaigns 
and programmes for the 
integration of persons 
in need of protection 
in the reception socie-
ties may mitigate this.

Operationalising legal entry channels: 
a toolbox

Legal entry channels for persons in need of pro-
tection can include a number of existing practices, 
namely: 

 • resettlement;
 • humanitarian admission programmes; 
 • humanitarian visas;
 • simplifying  visa  requirements  for  certain  natio-

nalities or certain groups;

 • more generous use of family reunification rules;
 • use of existing channels for regular migration for 

the purposes of labour and study. 

Some  of  these  ways  of  safe  and  legal  access  to 
the EU focus on refugees, while others are regular 
mobility schemes that could be made more acces-
sible  to  refugees.  Figure  2  illustrates  the  various 
existing options that EU Member States may use 
to operationalise legal entry channels.

Figure 2: Toolbox with options on legal ways to access Europe

Refugee-related schemes

Regular mobility schemes

Resettlement with the UNHCR

Humanitarian admission

Visas on humanitarian grounds

Temporary protection

Family reunification

Labour mobility

Students’ mobility

Medical evacuation

Private sponsorship

5

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

One possible solution to overcome this limitation 
is to integrate private stakeholders, such as NGOs, 
religious  organisations  or  individual  persons,  in 
those  schemes,  making  them  sponsors  and  thus 
tapping  into  their  resources.  Private  sponsorship 
can  be  applied  to  both  refugee-related  schemes 
as well as regular mobility schemes. This formula 
has delivered positive results in Canada. 

Promising practice

Helping family members to come 
to Germany 

Several  federal  states  (Länder)  in  Germany 
implemented a programme to admit privately 
sponsored Syrians to live with their relatives in 
Germany. Initiated in August–September 2013, 
it allows for the admission of extended family 
members  of  persons  residing  in  Germany, 
provided  their  families  in  Germany  commit 
to covering the transport and living costs for 
their relatives for the duration of their stay in 
Germany (10,000 beneficiaries). 

Source: Bundesministerium des Innern, http://www.bmi.
bund.de/DE/Themen/Migration-Integration/Asyl-
Fluechtlingsschutz/Humanitaere-aufnahmeprogramme/
humanitaere-aufnahmeprogramme_node.html

Private sponsorships can take various forms, from 
scholarships  for  students  and  academics  to  inte-
gration  support  for  sponsored  family  members. 
The degree of private support to the programme 
can vary, depending on the circumstances. Other 
sources  are  public  support  from  governments  or 
international organisations.

Private sponsorship is a mechanism for tapping into 
additional resources which would otherwise not be 
available  to  support 
legal  entry  programmes. 
Whether  applied  to  refugee-related  or  general 
mobility schemes, it will never cover the full costs 
of a programme, as the state would still at the very 
least be required to carry out the necessary screening 
and entry formalities. Although private sponsorship 
should  not  be  used  to  shift  the  cost  of  existing  or 
planned admission and reception programmes onto 
civil society, it is nevertheless a way of multiplying 
the possibilities of legal entry where private resources 
are  available.  It  also  contributes  to  raise  public 
awareness and support.

All the existing ways to access the EU legally require 
human and economic resources to manage applica-
tions. This may be a practical obstacle to extending 
existing schemes or setting up new ones for the 
benefit of a larger number of persons. 

Promising practice

Tapping into private resources to 
resettle more persons to Canada 

the 

complements 

Canada´s  Private  Sponsorship  of  Refugees 
Programme 
national 
government-assisted 
refugee  programme. 
Sponsors  are  able  to  choose  the  refugee 
applicants  they  wish  to  sponsor.  If  a  visa 
officer  declares  the  refugee  applicant  to  be 
eligible  and  admissible  to  the  programme, 
the  sponsor  is  responsible  for  assisting  and 
financing  the  refugee’s  integration  for  one 
year  from  the  date  of  arrival  or  until  the 
refugee becomes independent. 

types 

involving 

The model is flexible to suit local constraints 
or  opportunities.  There  are  a  variety  of 
sponsorship 
different 
sponsorship  group  configurations.  The  most 
visible  are  Sponsorship  Agreement  Holders 
–  NGOs  that  have  overarching  agreements 
with the Canadian government, which enable 
their  constituent  groups  to  sponsor  refugees 
under  the  private  sponsorship  programme. 
There are also other configurations such as the 
‘Group of 5’ programme, through which five or 
more persons apply to sponsor a refugee.

Canada’s resettlement target for 2015 includes 
4,500 to 6,500 privately sponsored refugees. 
The Private Sponsorship Programme not only 
allows  for  more  refugees  to  be  resettled, 
it  also  provides  secondary  benefits  such  as 
allowing  the  public  to  become  involved  in 
assisting refugees. 

Already  in  1986,  the  People  of  Canada  were 
awarded the Nansen medal largely based on 
this initiative.

For more information, see: Guide to the Private 
Sponsorship of Refugees Programme published by 
Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Source: UNHCR Canada

6

FRA Focus 02/2015

The toolbox: refugee-related schemes

Resettlement with the UNHCR

Promising practice

According to the UNHCR, resettlement involves the 
selection and transfer of refugees from a state in 
which they have sought protection to a third state 
which has agreed to admit them – as refugees – 
with permanent residence status. The status pro-
vided ensures protection against refoulement and 
provides a resettled refugee and his/her family or 
dependants with access to rights similar to those 
enjoyed by nationals.

Resettlement  is  an  important  refugee  protec-
tion tool, which has proven itself through history. 
Between the two World Wars, resettlement was the 
principal or a partial solution in a number of refugee 
situations. Relevant examples from the Cold War 
era are the resettlement of Hungarians in the 1950s 
and of Ugandan Asians in 1972. The largest reset-
tlement operation occurred in the aftermath of the 
Indo-Chinese conflict, 700,000 Indochinese being 
resettled after 1979. In the 1990s, approximately 
21,800 Iraqis were accepted for resettlement.28 

In principle, the decision on whether to resettle, and 
how many people and from which groups, remains 
with the authorities of the receiving state. 

Resettlement programmes generally target those 
refugees facing heightened protection risks in coun-
tries of first asylum. The UNHCR is responsible for 
identifying those needing to be resettled, basing its 
selection on criteria listed in its Resettlement Hand-
book. These criteria encompass seven categories:

 • refugees with legal or physical protection needs;
 • victims of torture;
 • refugees with medical needs;
 • women and girls at risk;
 • family reunification cases;
 • children and adolescents at risk following a best 

interests determination;

 • refugees for whom no other alternative durable 

solution is availabe.29

In 2013, some 21 resettlement countries admitted 
a total of 98,400 refugees worldwide. Most refu-
gees were resettled to the United States (66,200), 
Australia (13,200) and Canada (12,200).30 In com-
parison, according to Eurostat only 4,840 refugees 
were resettled in the EU as a whole, 31 with only 
about half of the Member States having a regular 
resettlement programme in place.32

Assisting resettled refugees to 
integrate in Finland

Following an agreement with the government, 
the Finnish Red Cross organises the reception of 
refugees resettled in Finland. Finnish Red Cross 
volunteers meet the refugees at the airport or 
at  the  land  borders.  In  cooperation  with  the 
IOM  and  the  municipalities  of  resettlement, 
the Red Cross provides the reception services. 
Locally, Finnish Red Cross volunteers organise 
various activities to support the integration of 
newcomers  in  cooperation  with  other  NGOs, 
networks  and  local  authorities.  The  Finnish 
Red Cross also assists resettled refugees with 
family  reunification  processes  by  providing 
information  and  advice,  and  by  making 
practical travel arrangements once the family 
member’s residence permits have been issued. 

Source: Red Cross EU Office

The EU has put considerable efforts into developing 
a  common  approach  to  resettlement  with  the 
UNHCR.  The  EU  Resettlement  Programme  laid 
down  the  Union’s  priorities  covering  the  period 
from  2009  to  2013,33  priorities  that  were  revised 
in 2012.34 A financial tool, the Preparatory Action 
on Emergency Resettlement, allowed for the first 
wave of resettlement from Syria in 2012.35

A  new  funding  instrument  adopted  in  2014,  the 
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (Regula-
tion (EU) 516/2014), provides special financial incen-
tives  to  resettlement  programmes,  as  well  as  a 
lump sum of between € 6,000 and € 10,000 for 
every refugee who is resettled based on a UNHCR 
request. Commission Regulation (EU) 801/2014 sets 
out the implementing conditions for the allocation 
of resources for the Union Resettlement Programme 
under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.36

The Syrian refugee crisis illustrates well the scope 
of global resettlement needs. On 9 December 2014, 
the  UNHCR  held  a  pledging  conference  to  make 
130,000 places available for Syrian refugees by the 
end of 2016.37 It encouraged states to offer places 
also on top of their national resettlement quotas, to 
ensure that resettlement opportunities would con-
tinue to be available for refugees from the rest of 
the world, based on the global resettlement needs 
estimated for 2015.38 By February 2015, EU Mem-
ber States pledged to receive some 38,000 Syrian 

7

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

refugees through various schemes.39 Germany, for 
example, pledged most places – 20,000 under its 
humanitarian admission programme and 10,000 indi-
vidual  sponsorship  visas  –  followed  by  Sweden 
(2,700),  Austria  (1,500  under  the  Humanitarian 
Action Syria programme), France (1,000) and Fin-
land (850). Over one third of Member States have 
not yet made any specific pledges for Syrians.

The increased number of refugees worldwide makes 
resettlement more important than ever as a durable 
solution to refugees. The EU needs to pledge its fair 
share of resettlement places to support global efforts 
to enhance their availability. Moreover, in light of the 
principles of solidarity and responsibility-sharing, all 
EU Member States, rather than just some of them, 
should commit themselves to refugee resettlement 
according to their capacity and possibilities, thereby 
broadening the number of resettlement countries in 
the  world.  Austria  made  an  important  step  in  this 
direction when it presented its ‘Save lives’ initiative 
at the informal JHA Council in July 2014. It proposes 
an  EU-wide  resettlement  programme  whereby 
refugees  taken  in  would  be  distributed  among 
EU Member States according to pre-agreed criteria.40 
The  European  Commission  is  currently  preparing  a 
pilot project to operationalise this initiative, which 
could encompass all EU Member States.

Humanitarian admission

The term ‘humanitarian admission’ is currently used 
in different ways. Some humanitarian admission pro-
grammes are, in fact, resettlement schemes carried 
out under the auspices of the UNHCR; this concerns, 
for instance, part of the Syrian refugees who Austria 
admits under its humanitarian programme. Other 
programmes target refugees who the UNHCR has 
not individually selected. Under some humanitar-
ian admission programmes, people are granted pro-
tection status, whereas under others they receive 
a different kind of leave to stay.

For  the  purpose  of  this  FRA  focus,  ‘humanitarian 
admission’  describes  programmes  that  are  simi-
lar to resettlement, but for which refugees are not 
individually selected and submitted by the UNHCR. 
In  other  words,  it  is  used  to  describe  those  situ-
ations in which people are admitted after having 
received refugee or other protection status, making 
this scheme accessible to individuals who might not 
qualify for resettlement under the UNHCR. Depend-
ing on national legislation, those admitted may be 
provided with a time-limited or a permanent resi-
dence permit.

Humanitarian  admission  programmes  are  not 
necessarily limited to persons who qualify as ref-
ugees, but can also target other individuals, includ-
ing those who are still in their home country. In the 
early  1970s,  for  example,  Canada  accepted  peo-
ple who were at risk in Chile following the over-
throw of Salvador Allende, processing them directly 
from the country of origin.41 In principle, humani-
tarian admission programmes could also be used 
for internally displaced persons, who do not qual-
ify for resettlement under the UNHCR since they 
are still in their home country.

Although the UNHCR is not involved in interviewing 
and referring persons to humanitarian admission 
programmes, it can support setting up such pro-
grammes through a request for international soli-
darity. In response to the Syrian crisis, traditional 
resettlement schemes have been complemented by 
national humanitarian admission programmes, gen-
erally using similar criteria as the UNHCR for select-
ing beneficiaries. In February 2015, the UNHCR listed 
examples of humanitarian admission programmes, 
which  include  the  ‘Humanitarian  Action  Syria’  in 
Austria (1,500 persons), the humanitarian admis-
sion programme in Germany (20,000 persons), the 
Syrian Humanitarian Admission Programme in Ire-
land (111 persons, see promising practice on join-
ing family members in Ireland) or the Vulnerable 
Persons Relocation scheme in the United Kingdom 
(90 persons as of end 2014).42 The IOM supports 
these humanitarian admission schemes by providing 
pre-departure services such as health assessments, 
cultural orientation, and facilitated transportation.43

8

FRA Focus 02/2015

Promising practice

Joining family members in Ireland 
through humanitarian admissions 

The  Irish  Department  of  Justice  opened  from 
14  March  to  30  April  2014  a  humanitarian 
admission  programme 
to  allow  people 
affected  by  the  Syrian  conflict  to  join  close 
relatives who are lawfully residing in Ireland. 
The admission programme offered temporary 
residency  for  up  to  two  years.  Applications 
for  up  to  four  of  the  most  vulnerable  family 
members  could  be  submitted,  two  of  whom 
would be prioritised for admission in the first 
instance.  The  two-person  quota  would  be 
applied  flexibly  to  avoid  the  breaking  up  of 
family  units.  The  Irish  Department  of  Justice 
received  applications  for  308  people,  out  of 
whom  111  were  granted  permission  to  enter 
Ireland.

This programme is without prejudice to other 
avenues  entering  the  EU,  whereby  people 
fleeing  the  conflict  might  lawfully  enter  the 
state,  such  as  family  reunification  for  the 
family  members  of  refugees  and  persons 
with  subsidiary  protection,  and  the  UNHCR’s 
resettlement programme. 

Source: Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service 
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/SYRIAN%20
HUMANITARIAN%20ADMISSION%20PROGRAMME 

The  UNHCR  Core  Group  on  Resettlement  of  Syrian 
Refugees advocates for complementary solutions for 
refugees, in addition to resettlement. Humanitarian 
admission  is  one  option,  which,  if  implemented  in 
consultation  with  the  UNHCR,  can  offer  durable 
solutions to refugees and other persons in need of 
protection.

Visas on humanitarian 
grounds

The EU visas regime is a mobility scheme for short 
stay visits. It is not refugee-specific. It is, however, 
possible to issue short-term visas on humanitarian 

grounds. These visas are often referred to as human-
itarian  visas.  The  humanitarian  visa  procedures 
are different from resettlement or other forms of 
humanitarian admissions, as only an initial assess-
ment is conducted extraterritorially. The final status 
determination procedure is conducted in the coun-
try  after  arrival.  The  provision  of  a  humanitarian 
visa is commonly referred to as ‘protected entry’.44 

Promising practice

Admitting Syrians in Latin America 

According  to  the  UNHCR,  from  2013  to 
February  2015,  Brazil  provided  humanitarian 
visas  for  5,700  Syrian  refugees.  Argentina 
has  also  created  a  mechanism  to 
issue 
humanitarian visas to persons affected by the 
conflict in Syria (Programa Siria).

For the Argentinian programme, see also:  
http://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/2014/10/21/
se-aprueba-el-programa-siria-para-facilitar-el-ingreso-a-la-
republica-argentina-por-razones-humanitarias-de-
extranjeros-afectados-por-el-conflicto-armado-de-la-
republica-arabe-siria/

Source: UNHCR 

The Mediterranean Task Force set up by the Euro-
pean Commission following the Lampedusa tragedy 
proposes to explore possibilities for protected entry 
procedures. The European Commission stated in its 
March 2014 Communication that ‘Protected Entry 
Procedures  […]  could  complement  resettlement, 
starting with a coordinated approach to humani-
tarian visas and common guidelines’.45 

‘The Commission is already committed to exploring new 
avenues, in particular the possibility of developing a 
common approach to issuing humanitarian visas to allow 
those in need to come to Europe and apply for protection.’

Commissioner Avramopoulos’ speech at the European Parliament plenary 
debate on migration, 25 November 2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/
press-release_SPEECH-14-2140_en.htm

The  Visa  Code  (Regulation  (EC)  No.  810/2009) 
regulates visas for visits of up to three months in 
EU Member States that are part of the Schengen 
area; these are so called C visas. In addition, Mem-
ber States have the possibility of issuing national 
visas for long-term stay, so called D visas.

9

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

Promising practice

Issuing visas to reach France to 
apply for asylum

On a discretionary and exceptional basis, French 
diplomatic  and  consulate 
representations 
receiving  asylum  applications  abroad  (inside 
and outside the countries of origin) can issue 
visas to reach France to apply for asylum. The 
issuing  of  such  visas  is  based  on  protection 
considerations and aims to provide protection 
to people in crisis zones.

Victims  of  the  Haiti  earthquake  and  Iraqi 
Christians benefitted from these type of visas 
in  2010.  From  2012  to  January  2015,  France 
has  provided  close  to  1,400  asylum  visas  for 
Syrians, enabling them to travel to France for 
the purpose of applying for asylum, thus being 
a  leading  example  in  Europe.  These  persons 
are  usually  given  a  long-term  visa  which 
entitles  them,  contrary  to  other  asylum-
seekers, to work during the asylum procedure.

On the right to work, see: http://vosdroits.service-public.
fr/particuliers/F2741.xhtml

Source: UNHCR Paris

EU law does not provide a separate humanitarian visa 
procedure, although the Visa Code allows Member 
States  to  derogate  from  the  admissibility  require-
ments  based  on  humanitarian  grounds  or  reasons 
of national interest (Article 19 (4) of the Visa Code). 
Moreover, Article 25 (1) of the code also envisages 
the possibility of issuing a short-stay Schengen lim-
ited  territorial  validity  (LTV)  visa  on  humanitarian 
grounds, grounds of national interest, or because of 
international obligations. A visa’s duration can also 
be extended on humanitarian grounds (Article 33 (1)).

According  to  a  2014  European  Parliament  study, 
16 EU Member States have or had some scheme for 
issuing  humanitarian  visas  through  a  national  visa 
and/or a Schengen uniform visa, or a Schengen lim-
ited  territorial  validity  (LTV)  visa,  which  is  valid  in 
one  or  more  Member  States.46  Most  of  them  use 
this scheme on an exceptional basis. For instance, 
Italy used the D visa – a national permit for entry and 
stay – to manage some of the in-flow after the Arab 
Spring. EU-wide statistics on Schengen limited territo-
rial validity visas are not collected, nor are there sta-
tistics on these visas issued on humanitarian grounds. 

The Visa Code provides for a consultation mechanism 
between EU Member States. A state may request 
to be consulted when normal Schengen visas are 
issued to specific third-country nationals or specific 
categories  of  third-country  nationals  (Visa  Code, 
Article  22).  Such  a  consultation  mechanism  does 

not apply in case of LTV visas issued in urgent cases 
(Article 25 (1)). In this case, a Member State does not 
have the option of alerting the visa-issuing Member 
State on possible security threats. Further defining 
the concept of ‘humanitarian grounds’ and its usage 
within the EU legal framework would therefore not 
only make it easier for persons in need of protection 
to reach safety, but could also enhance security.

In April 2014, the European Commission proposed a 
recast  of  the  Visa  Code.47  The  proposals  include, 
among others, visa facilitation for family members 
of EU citizens. The pending revision of the Visa Code 
is an opportunity to review the appropriateness of 
developing  a  more  coordinated  approach  to  visas 
issued on humanitarian grounds.

In addition, access to consular representation can 
be  a  problem  for  persons  in  need  of  protection. 
The  European  Commission  impact  assessment 
accompanying the recast of the Visa Code acknowl-
edges the generally insufficient geographical con-
sular coverage. It therefore proposes the increased 
use of consular representation between Member 
States and the introduction of a general concept of 
‘Schengen Visa Centres’. 

impact  assessment 
The  European  Commission 
encourages funding under the Internal Security Fund 
for projects that improve geographical coverage.48 
Better outreach of visa processing would also benefit 
persons 
international  protection, 
particularly  taking  into  consideration  the  fact  that 
refugee camps are often in remote locations.

in  need  of 

Temporary protection

In  cases  where  great  numbers  of  persons  flee 
a  particular  country  in  search  of  protection,  lift-
ing visa requirements altogether could be consid-
ered. This may in principle be a way of dealing with 
exceptional situations and allow for protection on 
a temporary basis.

The Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC) 
was adopted to deal with spontaneous movements 
of large numbers of people from a particular country 
or region. Its Article 8 requires EU Member States, 
if necessary, to provide ‘persons to be admitted to 
their territory for the purposes of temporary pro-
tection with every facility for obtaining the neces-
sary visas, including transit visas’. 

There is possibly an unexplored parallel to visa facil-
itation – a relatively common tool in the EU. The EU 
has concluded visa facilitation agreements with sev-
eral  third  countries,  which  provide  for  simplified 

10

FRA Focus 02/2015

visa procedures for certain categories of persons.49 
These usually include public officials, diplomats, busi-
ness persons, artists, athletes, students, and driv-
ers and crew of travelling companies.50 Expanding 
the categories of persons on humanitarian grounds, 
by including human rights defenders for example, 
could create an option that would allow persons 
seeking international protection to travel safely and 
spend their money on ordinary travel rather than 
on paying smugglers. 

Article 2 (d) of the Temporary Protection Directive 
defines a ‘mass influx’ as the arrival in the EU of a 
large number of displaced persons who come from 
a specific country or geographical area, regardless 
of whether their arrival is spontaneous or aided, 
for example through an evacuation programme.

Article  5  of  the  Temporary  Protection  Directive 
requires  a  Council  Decision  on  a  proposal  from 
the European Commission to recognise the exist-
ence of a mass influx of displaced persons and thus 
activate the directive. Such a decision must be based 
on the scale of displacement and the advisability 
of establishing temporary protection, while taking 
into account information received from EU Member 
States, the European Commission, the UNHCR and 
other relevant international organisations.

Developed as a result of the conflict in the Western 
Balkans, the Temporary Protection Directive has not 

been used since it entered into force. The UNHCR 
suggested in 2011 that it could be considered as an 
option  to  handle  displacements  from  Libya,51  but 
the  European  Commission  found  that  the  condi-
tions  set  out  in  the  directive  (persons  are  likely 
to be in need of international protection and their 
number is sufficiently great) were not met.52 In 2013, 
the European Parliament listed the application of the 
Temporary Protection Directive among the possible 
measures to be taken to address the Syrian crisis.53 

The CJEU has noted that ‘the solidarity mechanisms 
which [… the Temporary Protection Directive] con-
tains apply only to wholly exceptional situations fall-
ing within the scope of that directive, that is to say, 
a mass influx of displaced persons’.54 In 2012, the 
European Parliament called on the European Com-
mission to consider applying this directive also in 
cases where the relevant influx constitutes a mass 
influx for at least one Member State, and not only 
an influx for the EU as a whole.55

The  European  Commission  has  not  over  the  last 
decade  considered 
the  Temporary  Protection 
Directive  as  the  right  tool  to  deal  with  refugees’ 
movements  spontaneously  reaching  the  EU.  The 
directive, if activated, also offers possibilities for legal 
entry to the EU, an element which should be taken 
into  account  when  deciding  on  its  usefulness  and 
appropriateness for a particular situation.

The toolbox: Using regular mobility 
schemes for persons in need of 
international protection

Family reunification 

The principle of unity of a refugee family was laid 
down at the international level by the UN Confer-
ence of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees 
and Stateless Persons adopting the 1951 Convention 
Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Conference 
considered the unity of the family an essential right 
of the refugee, and recommended that states take 
the necessary measures to protect the refugee’s 
family, ensuring in particular that the unity of the 
refugee’s family be maintained. 

Many persons who cross the Mediterranean under 
perilous  conditions  are  believed  to  have  family 
members in the EU. Functioning family reunifica-
tion systems, including for extended family mem-
bers, should therefore be a priority.56 The UNHCR 
calls for the facilitation of family reunification and 
for the creation of additional channels, such as a 
humanitarian visa, to assist family reunification with 
extended family and relatives.

11

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

Promising practice

Allowing relatives to join their 
family members in Australia 

The Australian government has increased the 
number  of  resettlement  places  available  for 
family members through the Special Human-
itarian  Programme  (SHP).  It  targets  relatives 
of people who entered Australia as refugees.

The  significant  increase  in  SHP  visas  enables 
more people to be reunited with their family 
in  Australia.  There  will,  however,  still  be 
many  more  applications  received  than  visas 
available, and only those applicants with close 
family links and compelling circumstances are 
likely to be successful.

The Humanitarian Programme has been set at 
13,750  places,  of  which  a  minimum  of  11,000 
are  reserved  for  people  applying  outside  of 
Australia.

For more information, see the website of the Department 
of Immigration and Border Protection of the Australian 
Government

EU law provides for the right to reunification with 
core family members, such as spouses and children. 

The  Family  Reunification  Directive  (2003/85/EC) 
regulates the right of refugees to family reunifica-
tion. Pursuant to Article 3 (2) (c), the directive does 
not apply where the sponsor has been granted sub-
sidiary protection (as opposed to refugee status). 

Chapter V of the directive creates more favourable 
conditions for refugees compared with other third-
country nationals:

 • there  is  a  more  extensive  definition  of  family 
members who can benefit from reunification;
 • children arriving independently cannot be requi-
red  to  show  that  they  meet  the  conditions  for 
integration;

 • there are more favourable provisions concerning 

unaccompanied children;

 • there  are  exemptions  to  the  necessity  of  pre-
in  certain 

senting  documentary  evidence 
circumstances;

 • if  initiated  soon  after  refugee  recognition,  reu-
nification  with  core  family  members  cannot  be 
made  dependent  on  means  and  adequate  ac-
commodation to be provided by the sponsor;
 • no period of residence in the host Member State 
by  the  sponsor  is  required  before  applying  to 
bring family members.

The Family Reunification Directive allows for vari-
ous restrictions. Building on case law by the Court 

of  Justice  of  the  EU,57  the  European  Commission 
issued  guidelines  in  2014  stressing  that  Member 
States  must  not  use  their  margin  of  manoeuvre 
in a manner that would undermine the directive’s 
objective, which is to promote family reunification. 
Furthermore,  they  should  not  weaken  the  direc-
tive’s effectiveness, and make a balanced and rea-
sonable assessment in every individual case of all 
the interests at play while having due regard to the 
best interests of the child.58

FRA  research  published  in  2011  shows  that  long 
procedures and the inability to meet certain require-
ments for family reunification prevent family mem-
bers from lawfully joining their families who are in 
the  EU.  As  a  result,  they  often  resort  to  irregular 
travel.59 According to the UNHCR, there are many 
practical obstacles in the family reunification process 
through EU Member States, which can lead to pro-
longed separation, significant procedural costs and 
no realistic possibility of success.60 A recent report 
released by the Red Cross EU Office and ECRE doc-
uments a set of practical problems that people in 
need  of  international  protection  encounter  when 
seeking to be reunited with their family members 
in the EU, such as limited access to information and 
to embassies, lengthy procedures and high costs.61 
In addition, in some EU Member States beneficiar-
ies of subsidiary protection are treated as any other 
migrant requesting family reunification, and do not 
benefit from the more favourable treatment afforded 
to refugees, thereby substantially limiting the pos-
sibility of bringing their family members.

Promising practice

Facilitating visa requirements for 
Syrians with family members in 
Switzerland

From 4 September to 29 November 2013, visa 
requirements for relatives of Syrian nationals 
living in Switzerland were temporarily eased. 
Visa facilitations were introduced for non-core 
family members of Syrians in Switzerland. The 
family  relationship  had  to  be  shown  credibly 
comprehensively,  without  however 
and 
having  to  provide  civil  registry  documents, 
due to the difficult situation in Syria. Financial 
means were not examined. 8,200 applications 
were  submitted  and  3,749  visas  were 
issued.  This  programme  was  terminated  on 
29  November  2013  on  the  basis  that  most 
of  the  legitimate  visa  applications  by  family 
members  in  an  immediate  emergency  had 
already made use of the facilitation. 

Source: ECRE, Information Note on Syrian Asylum Seekers 
and Refugees in Europe, November 2013

12

FRA Focus 02/2015

Being forced to live apart from one’s family is not 
only a hardship for the individuals affected, but also 
an obstacle to integration. Many persons who cross 
the  Mediterranean  under  perilous  conditions  are 
believed to have family members in the EU. Therefore, 
effective and functioning family reunification which 
cover,  where  necessary,  also  extended  family 
members are needed.

Labour mobility 

A person seeking protection is often at the same 
time also a worker, a researcher, an artist, an ath-
lete or an entrepreneur. However, living in a refu-
gee camp or trying to flee from a conflict makes it 
more difficult to apply for labour or related mobil-
ity schemes, due to limited access to information 
and bureaucratic requirements that are difficult for 
applicants to fulfil. 

In  light  of  their  plans  to  return  home  as  soon  as 
possible, some refugees may primarily be looking 
for  temporary  migration  opportunities.  Provided 
the option for applying for asylum remains open, 
immigration schemes could be made more acces-
sible for people in need of protection staying in a 
third country. For refugees, it is often difficult or 
impossible  to  meet  the  required  criteria  of  such 
immigration schemes. One possibility for the legal 
entry  of  refugees  is  to  strengthen  labour mobil-
ity schemes focusing on groups of people in need 
of protection. Special programmes for legal labour 
migration  set  up  with  countries  that  experience 
forced  displacement  can  in  principle  also  benefit 
persons in need of protection.

Promising practice

Enhancing development in 
Colombia through temporary and 
circular labour migration to Spain

This  IOM  programme  promotes  the  regular 
migration  of  Colombian  workers  to  Spain. 
It  is  based  on  the  Temporary  and  Circular 
Labour Migration (TCLM) plan that the Spanish 
trade  union,  Unión  de  Pagesos  (UP)  and 
the  Fundación  Agricultores  Solidarios  (FAS) 
started  nine  years  ago  to  solve  a  shortage 
of  workers  for  harvesting  fruits  in  Catalonia. 
Labour  migrants  from  Colombia  –  and  more 
recently  from  Morocco  and  Romania  –  work 
in  Spain  for  six  to  nine  months  to  meet 
temporary  demands.  Following  this  work, 
labour migrants return to their own countries, 
with  the  possibility  of  being  hired  again  for 
a  new  harvest  during  the  following  season. 
The  IOM  plans  to  expand  the  TCLM  plan  to 
include  a  much  larger  number  of  migrants 
and  increase  the  number  and  diversity  of 
employers in Spain. While not targeting them, 
the  programme  can  also  benefit  displaced 
Colombians. 

For more information, see http://www.iom.int/cms/en/
sites/iom/home/what-we-do/labour-migration/
enhancing-development-in-colombi.html

Existing  public  and  private  mobility  schemes  for 
researchers could also be used to benefit persons 
in need of protection. Their access to these schemes 
could be facilitated by making bureaucratic require-
ments more flexible. The respective schemes could 
also be modified so as to award a limited number 
of grants to persons in need of protection.

13

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

Promising practice

Gaining experience abroad through  
Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions 
(MSCA)

The  MSCA  are  fellowships  awarded  by  the 
European Commission Directorate-General for 
Research  and  Innovation  under  the  Horizon 
2020 programme. 

They  support  researchers  at  all  stages  of 
their  careers, 
irrespective  of  nationality 
(EU  and  non-EU  citizens),  working  across  all 
disciplines.  In  addition  to  generous  research 
funding  –  €6.16  billion  to  be  awarded  in 
the  period  2014-2020  –  scientists  have  the 
possibility  of  gaining  experience  abroad  and 
in the private sector, and of completing their 
training with competences or disciplines useful 
for their careers. Although this programme is 
not focused on refugees, it can contribute to 
the  enhancement  of  their  skills,  and  in  the 
longer term promote their livelihood.

For more information, see http://ec.europa.eu/research/
mariecurieactions

The same could apply to artists and athletes who 
are at the same time persons in need of protection. 

Concerning entrepreneurs’ mobility schemes, accord-
ing to the European Commission DG Enterprise and 
Industry, statistics from several Member States indi-
cate that proportionately more migrants than nation-
als start small businesses. This potential of migrants – 
but also obstacles – are highlighted in a forthcoming 
(2015) FRA report related to Article 16 of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights on freedom to conduct a busi-
ness. Bearing this in mind, policies to encourage entre-
preneurship in the EU should take into account the 
entrepreneurship potential represented by this group. 

Targeted measures could facilitate access to labour 
and similar mobility schemes for persons in need of 
protection that fulfil the required criteria to qualify 
for a regular labour migration scheme.

Students’ mobility 

Another possible safe way for people in need of 
protection  to  enter  the  EU  would  be  to  facilitate 
their access to mobility programmes for students, 
including all kinds of specific programmes, such as 
those designed for artists and athletes. 

The Erasmus Mundus programme, a cooperation and 
mobility programme in the field of higher education 
managed by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture 
Executive Agency of the EU, is one of the schemes 
persons in need of protection could benefit from. 

The  number  of  applications  received  from  Syr-
ian  citizens  illustrates  the  current  state  of  play. 
Whereas the number of Syrian applicants for Eras-
mus Mundus masters scholarships has increased 
from 40 in 2009 to 354 in 2013, it still remains rela-
tively low, as does the number of successful appli-
cations (21 applications were successful in 2013),62 
as shown in Figure 3. Although the number of suc-
cessful  applications  has  increased,  in  2013,  less 
than 1% of the students who were awarded the 
scholarship were Syrians. Further efforts to pro-
mote this programme could incentivise more appli-
cations. Making some of the bureaucratic require-
ments more flexible could also increase the number 
of applications. As suggested above for research 
mobility  programmes,  the  respective  schemes 
could also be modified so as to award some grants 
to persons in need of protection.

Figure 3:    Successful Erasmus mundus 

applications submitted by 
Syrians (persons), 2010-2013

25

20

15

10

5

0

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source:  EU Educational, Audiovisual and Cultural Executive 

Agency, 2014

Within the Erasmus Mundus programme, the Phoenix 
project is an interesting example of how coopera-
tion at the educational level could benefit refugees. 
It intends to develop a structured mobility-based 
cooperation between three Palestinian, two Leba-
nese, one Syrian and two Jordanian Higher Educa-
tion Institutions on the one side, and nine EU Higher 
Education Institutions on the other. This cooperation 
network aims to help students (whether at under-
graduate, master, PhD or post-doctoral level), aca-
demic staff, researchers and administrative staff, to 
gain experience, expertise and skills through inter-
action in an international environment.63

14

FRA Focus 02/2015

The Erasmus + programme, the new EU programme 
for education, training, youth and sport, is another 
scheme which young people in need of protection 
could benefit from. With a budget of €14.7 billion 
for the years 2014-2020, this programme aims at 
supporting national and transnational partnerships 
among Education, Training, and Youth institutions 
and organisations to foster cooperation.64

Medical evacuation 
Medical  evacuation  provides  for  the  temporary 
admission of people with urgent medical needs in 
selected cases where the required, and often spe-
cialised  and  resource-intensive,  treatment  is  not 
available in the third country. This means of legal 
entry to the EU could be more widely used. 

Promising practice

Providing scholarships to refugees

The Albert Einstein German Academic Refugee 
Initiative  Fund  (DAFI  Programme),  financed 
by  the  German  Government,  consists  of 
scholarships for refugees at the tertiary level 
in universities and polytechnic institutions. The 
aim of this programme is to provide refugees 
with  a  professional  qualification  for  future 
employment so that they can contribute to the 
reconstruction of their home country.

For more information, see  
http://www.unhcr.org/40dbee984.html

The  Swedish  Institute  has  allocated  15  study 
grants  a  year  for  full-time  Syrian  masters 
students  for  the  academic  years  2014/2015 
and 2015/2016.

For more information, see https://studyinsweden.se/
scholarship/swedish-institute-study-scholarships- 
for-syrian-students/

In February 2014, Portugal welcomed 42 Syrian 
university students from Lebanon to complete 
their  studies  under  the  Global  Platform  for 
Academic  Emergency  Assistance  to  Syrian 
Students,  created  by  former  President  Jorge 
Sampaio. These students are able to apply for 
a residency permit for one year, renewable for 
the same period of time.

For more information, see http://jorgesampaio.pt/
jorgesampaio/en/global-platform-4-syrian-students/

Inspired by existing programmes, EU Member States 
should offer more possibilities to refugees to benefit 
from student mobility schemes, also in light of the 
skills required to rebuild post-war societies.

Medical  evacuation  differs  from  resettlement  on 
medical grounds under the UNHCR auspices, which 
has been actively promoted by the UNHCR for Syrian 
refugees: 25% of those refugees are estimated to 
have serious medical conditions or disabilities that 
require follow-up care. The resettlement of refu-
gees with medical needs alleviates the hardships 
of families who struggle to cover the cost of med-
ical treatment while also having to pay for food, 
rent and education.65

Medical  evacuation  programmes  usually  provide 
a temporary right to enter and stay in a Member 
State until an injury or disease is treated and the 
person has recovered. It is a form of solidarity with 
families  who  cannot  afford  to  cover  the  cost  of 
expensive medical treatment. 

Promising practice

Offering medical treatment to injured 
persons in the Czech Republic

in 

The  Czech  authorities  evacuated  39  persons 
who  were  injured  as  a  result  of  the  violent 
clashes with the police forces in the Ukrainian 
capital 
2014.  They 
February-March 
were  brought  to  Czech  medical  facilities 
for  treatment  and  recovery.  In  the  case  of 
children,  their 
legal  representatives  were 
allowed  to  accompany  them.  The  evacuation 
was carried out as part of the Czech MEDEVAC 
Programme  targeting  persons  with  medical 
problems  in  war-ridden  countries  or  areas 
where  adequate  medical  treatment  is  not 
available.  The  programme  has  been  used 
in  the  past  to  provide  medical  treatment  to 
persons  evacuated  from  Iraq,  Kosovo  and 
Cambodia, primarily children.

Source: Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic,  
http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/program-medevac.aspx?q= 
Y2hudW09Mw%3d%3d

15

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

Conclusions

Persons  in  need  of  international  protection  who 
appear at the external border or are already inside 
the EU are to be treated in accordance with the EU 
asylum acquis and in full respect of the principle 
of non-refoulement and of the prohibition of col-
lective expulsion. 

At the same time, a more intense and creative use 
of legal entry schemes in the interest of persons in 

need of protection who find themselves in a third 
country would contribute to reducing their need to 
resort to the services of smugglers to reach safety. 
EU institutions and Member States, as well as private 
actors, have an important role to play in increas-
ing  the  possibilities  to  reach  the  EU  legally,  and 
thus contributing to reducing both the number of 
lives lost at borders and the abuses perpetrated by 
smuggling networks.

FRA opinion

Increasing legal avenues to reach the EU should be a core component of the forthcoming European Commission 
plan to fight smuggling in human beings. 

At the same time, EU Member States should offer more possibilities for persons in need of protection to 
enter the EU legally, so that these can constitute a viable alternative to risky irregular entry. Where private 
resources are available, they should be used to multiply legal entry possibilities, without however unduly 
shifting the burden of reception and integration onto civil society. When increasing legal avenues to reach 
the EU, Member States may consider using a combination of refugee-related schemes and more refugee-
friendly regular mobility schemes.

•  Each EU Member State should put in place a resettlement programme according to their capacities and 
possibilities, thereby significantly increasing the number of refugees resettled to the EU, targeting in 
particular refugees at heightened risk. 

•  While refugee resettlement should remain a core legal entry tool, EU Member States are encouraged to 
explore also other possible humanitarian admission schemes, taking inspiration from initiatives tested 
elsewhere. 

•  EU institutions and Member States should take the opportunity of the current revision of the Visa Code 
to explore the risks and benefits of establishing EU-level minimum standards for the issuance of visas 
for humanitarian purposes. In addition, the European Commission could consider a pilot project testing 
‘mobile’ Schengen Visa Centres to explore possibilities to ease access for visa applicants, since persons 
in need of international protection are often located in remote areas or otherwise face disproportionate 
difficulties in reaching diplomatic or consular representations.

•  The European Commission should give due weight to the Temporary Protection Directive’s provisions 
on simplified legal entry when deciding whether or not to propose an activation of the directive for 
a particular situation. 

•  EU Member States should overcome practical and legal obstacles preventing or significantly delaying 
reunification with family members and other close relatives of persons granted international protection 
in the EU.

•  Regular labour or other mobility schemes, including those of a temporary nature, could be made more 

accessible to refugees staying in a third country. 

•  Inspired  by  existing  programmes,  EU  Member  States  should  offer  more  possibilities  to  refugees  to 
benefit from student mobility schemes, also in light of the skills required to rebuild post-war societies.

The European Commission should support this process of strengthening legal access to the EU for persons in 
need of protection by proposing common approaches, encouraging Member States to take action and share 
promising practices, and helping to ensure sufficient solidarity funds are available for this purpose to Member 
States.

16

FRA Focus 02/2015

1  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 
(2014), War’s human cost. Global Trends 2013, Geneva, 
UNHCR.

2  Guterres, A., UNHCR (2014), Remarks on the Conference 

on the Syrian Refugee Situation, Supporting Stability in the 
Region, Berlin, 28 October 2014.

3  UNHCR (2015), 2015 UNHCR country operations profile – 

Central African Republic (online), Geneva.

4  Eurostat (2015), migr_asyappctzm, data extracted on 

29 January 2015.

5  The Guardian (2014), ‘Ethiopia’s refugee camps swell 
with South Sudanese escaping war – in pictures’, 
12 November 2014.

6  UNHCR (2014), ‘Refugee total hits 3 million as Syrians 

flee growing insecurity and worsening conditions’, Press 
release, 29 August 2014.

7 

International Organisation for Migration (IOM) (2013), 
‘US funds aid to victims of sexual violence in Haiti camps’, 
News item, 8 November 2013. 

8  UNHCR (2014), Woman alone. The fight for survival by 

Syria’s refugee women, Geneva, UNHCR.

9  United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian 

Affairs (2015), Statement by Kyung-Wha Kang, 
Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs 
and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator on behalf of 
Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and 
Emergency Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos, Security 
Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in 
Armed Conflict, New York, 30 January 2015. 

10  Exchange rate provided by XE Currency Converter as at 

24 February 2015.

11  BBC News (2014), ‘Syrian conflict: Untold misery of child 
brides’, 20 August 2014; Save the Children (2014), Too 
Young to Wed. The growing problem of child marriage 
among Syrian girls in Jordan.

12  European Commission, DG Home (2014), List of Member 
States’ consular presence, representation arrangements 
and forms of cooperation for the collection of visa 
applications, collection by Honorary Consuls or outsourcing 
of the collection of visa applications, Brussels, based on 
information communicated by the Member States to the 
Commission in accordance with Art. 53 of the Visa Code as 
of 4 December 2014.

13  European Commission, DG Home (2014), List of third 

countries whose nationals are required to be in possession 
of an airport transit visa when passing through the 
international transit area of airports situated on the 
territory of one/some Member States, Brussels.

14  For figures and details up to September 2014, see also 
International Organization for Migration (IOM), Brian, T. 
and Laczko, F. (eds.) (2014), Fatal journeys: Tracking lives 
lost during migration, Geneva, IOM.

15  European Commission (2013), Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 
on the work of the Task Force Mediterranean, COM(2013) 
869 final, Brussels, 4 December 2013, Action 3.3.

16  Ibid.

17  European Commission (2014), Implementation of 

the Communication on the Work of the Task Force 
Mediterranean, Commission Staff Working Document, 
SWD(2014) 173 final, 22 May 2014; European Commission, 
Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the work of the Task 

Force Mediterranean, Brussels, COM(2013) 869 final, 
4 December 2014.

18  European Parliament (2013), Resolution on EU and 

Member State measures to tackle the flow of refugees 
as a result of the conflict in Syria, 2013/2837(RSP), 
Brussels, 9 October 2013; and European Parliament (2014), 
Resolution on the mid-term review of the Stockholm 
Programme, 2013/2024(INI), Brussels, 2 April 2014. 

19  For more information, see: European Parliament (2014), 
Resolution of 17 December 2014 on the situation in the 
Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to 
migration, 2014/2907(RSP), Brussels.

20  European Parliament (2014), ‘Migration: MEPs call on EU 
countries to share responsibility’, Plenary session, Press 
release, 17 December 2014.

21  UNHCR (2014), Central Mediterranean Sea Initiative (CMSI) 
Action Plan, Geneva, UNHCR; see also UNHCR (2014), Legal 
avenues to safety and protection through other forms of 
admission, Geneva, UNHCR.

22  Crépeau, F., Special rapporteur on the human rights of 
migrants, United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council 
(2013), Regional study: management of the external 
borders of the European Union and its impact on the 
human rights of migrants, A/HRC/23/46, 24 April 2013. 

23  Muižnieks, N., Council of Europe Commissioner for Human 
Rights (2014), ‘Ensuring the rights of migrants in the EU: 
from vulnerability to empowerment’, Speech at the FRA 
Fundamental Rights Conference 2014 ‘Fundamental Rights 
and Migration to the EU’, Rome, 10 November 2014.

24  Council of Europe (2014), Parliamentary Assembly, 

Recommendation 2046 on the ‘left-to-die boat’: actions 
and reactions, 2014.

25  Caritas Europa (2014), Churches’ Commission for Migrants 
in Europe, Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of 
the European Community (Secretariat), Eurodiaconia, 
International Catholic Migration Commission, Jesuit 
Refugee Service Europe, Quaker Council for European 
Affairs, Recommendations for the development of safe 
and legal paths to protection in the European Union, 
Brussels, 19 November 2014.

26  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) (2014), 

‘Europe Act Now’ - Our Recommendations.

27  Red Cross EU Office (2014), Access to international 
protection in the EU for people fleeing Syria, 
REF. RCEU 10/2014 – 010, Brussels, 14 October 2014; 
and Red Cross EU Office (2013), Legal avenues to access 
international protection in the EU, REF. RCEU 02/2013 – 001, 
Brussels, 27 February 2013.

28  UNHCR (2011), Resettlement Handbook, Geneva, UNHCR, 

Chapter 2.

29  Ibid., Chapter 6.

30  UNHCR (2014), War’s Human Cost, Global Trends 2013, 

Geneva, UNHCR, p. 20.

31  Eurostat (2015), migr_asyresa, data extracted on 

30 January 2015.

32  International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) 

(2013), Welcome to Europe! - A comprehensive guide to 
resettlement, July 2013, Chapter VI.

33  European Commission (2009), Communication from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council on the Establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement 
Programme, COM(2009) 447 final, 2 September 2009.

17

Legal entry channels to the EU for persons in need of international protection: a toolbox

34  European Parliament and Council of Europe (2012), 

Decision No. 281/2012/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 29 March 2012 amending Decision 
No. 573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee 
Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General 
programme ‘Solidarity and management of migration 
flows’. 

35  European Commission (2012), Commission Decision 

concerning the adoption of the Work Programme serving 
as financing decision for 2012 for the Preparatory Action – 
Enable the resettlement of refugees during emergency 
situations to be financed under budget line 18 03 17, 
Brussels, 10 October 2012, C(2012) 7046 final.

36  European Commission (2014), Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No. 801/2014 of 24 July 2014 setting out 
the timetable and other implementing conditions related 
to the mechanism for the allocation of resources for 
the Union Resettlement Programme under the Asylum, 
Migration and Integration Fund, Brussels. 

37  UNHCR (2014), ‘UNHCR calls on international community 
to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees’, Press release, 
9 December 2014.

38  UNHCR (2015), Finding Solutions for Syrian Refugees. 
Resettlement, Humanitarian Admission, and Family 
Reunification, Factsheet, Geneva, 11 February 2015.

39  UNHCR (2015), Resettlement and Other Forms of 

Admission for Syrian Refugees, Factsheet, Geneva, 
23 February 2015. The most recent factsheets are made 
available on the UNHCR webpage.

40  European Commission (2014), 2nd Resettlement and 

Relocation Forum: ‘Solidarity in Practice’, Discussion Paper, 
Brussels, 25 November 2014.

41  European Commission (2003), Study on the feasibility 

of processing asylum claims outside the EU against the 
background of the common European asylum system 
and the goal of a common procedure, 2003, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office, p. 187.

42  UNHCR (2015), Finding Solutions for Syrian Refugees. 
Resettlement and other forms of admission of Syrian 
refugees, Factsheet, 11 February 2015. For more details 
on Ireland, see Irish Naturalisation and Immigration 
Service, ‘Syrian Humanitarian Admission Programme’ and 
‘111 Syrians admitted under sponsorship programme’. 

43  UNHCR (2014), In search of solidarity. Resettlement and 

other forms of admission for Syrian refugees, Geneva, 
UNHCR, p. 7.

44  European Commission (2003), Study on the feasibility 

of processing asylum claims outside the EU against the 
background of the common European asylum system 
and the goal of a common procedure, 2003, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

45  European Commission (2014), Communication from 

the European Commission to the European Parliament, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of Regions: An open and safe Europe: 
making it happen, COM(2014) 154 final, Brussels, p. 8.

46  Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, 

Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom either 
currently have or have had schemes for issuing national 
long-stay visas for humanitarian reasons. Finland, Italy, 
Malta and Portugal have or have had schemes for issuing 
LTV Schengen visas for humanitarian reasons, including 
protection related reasons (Italy, Malta and Portugal) and 
medical reasons (Portugal). Austria, Denmark, France, 

Poland, Spain and the Netherlands have or have had 
schemes for issuing either uniform or LTV Schengen visas 
and/or national visas for humanitarian reasons, including 
protection-related reasons, Poland for medical reasons 
and Austria and the Netherlands for family reunification 
purposes. European Parliament (2014), Directorate-
General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens’ 
rights and constitutional affairs, Humanitarian visas: option 
or obligation?, by Jensen, U. I. (2014), pp. 41 and 48–49. 

47  European Commission (2014), COM(2014) 164 final, 

Brussels, 1 April 2014.

48  European Commission (2014), Impact Assessment 

Accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the 
European parliament and of the Council on the Union 
Code on Visas (Visa Code) (recast), Brussels, 1 April 2014, 
SWD(2014) 68 final, pp. 18–20.

49  A list of visa facilitation agreements can be found on the 

European Commission’s webpage.

50  For more information, see: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/

home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/
visa-policy/index_en.htm.

51  UNHCR, ‘As the Libya Crisis continues, UNHCR calls on 
states to share the burden and uphold principles of 
rescue-at-sea’, News item, Geneva.

52  European Commission (2011), ‘The European Commission’s 

response to the migratory flows from North Africa’, 
MEMO/11/226, Press release, Brussels, 8 April 2011.

53  European Parliament (2013), Resolution of 9 October 2013 

on EU and Member States measures to tackle the 
flow of refugees as a result of the conflict in Syria, 
2013/2837(RSP).

54  Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (2011), Joint 

cases C-493/10 and C-411/10, N. S. v. Secretary of State 
for the Home Department and M. E. and Others v. Refugee 
Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality 
and Law Reform, 21 December 2011, para. 93; see also the 
Opinion of the Advocate General, 22 September 2011.

55  European Parliament (2012), Resolution of 

11 September 2012 on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the 
field of asylum (2012/2032(INI)), 11 September 2012. 

56  See also UNHCR (2014), Syrian refugees in Europe. What 

Europe can do to ensure protection and solidarity, Geneva, 
UNHCR.

57  For an overview of European law relating to the right to 
respect of family life, see Chapter 5 of FRA and European 
Court of Human Rights (2014), Handbook on European law 
relating to asylum, borders and immigration, Luxembourg, 
Publications Office.

58  European Commission (2014), Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 
on guidance for application of Directive 2003/86/EC on the 
right to family reunification, COM(2014) 210 final, Brussels, 
3 April 2014.

59  FRA (2011), Fundamental rights of migrants in an irregular 
situation in the European Union, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office, pp. 95–103.

60  UNHCR (2012), UNHCR’s Response to the European 
Commission Green Paper on the Right to Family 
Reunification of Third Country Nationals Living in the 
European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC), Geneva, UNHCR.

61  For more information, see Red Cross EU Office, (2014), 

Disrupted flight: the realities of separated refugee families 
in the EU, November 2014.

18

FRA Focus 02/2015

62  See European Union Education, Audiovisual and Culture 

64  For more information, see: http://ec.europa.eu/

Executive Agency, 2014. No application was received for 
Doctorate. 

63  For more information, see: website of the EU Education, 
Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, and the 
website of the Phoenix project.

programmes/erasmus-plus/discover/index_en.htm.

65  UNHCR (2014), Ministerial-level pledging conference: 
Resettlement and other forms of admission for Syrian 
refugees. Guidance on the pledging process, Geneva, 
UNHCR, 26 November 2014.

19

Further information:

The following FRA publications offer further information on asylum, borders and migration.

•  Fundamental rights at land borders: Findings from selected European Union border crossing points (2014), http://fra.

europa.eu/en/publication/2014/fundamental-rights-land-borders-findings-selected-european- 
union-border-crossing. 

•  Fundamental rights at airports: Border checks at five international airports in the European Union (2014),  

http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/fundamental-rights-airports-border-checks-five-international-airports-
european, and its summary (2014), http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/fundamental-rights-airports-border-
checks-five-international-airports-european-0 (available in several languages).

•  Fundamental rights at Europe’s southern sea borders (2013), http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/fundamental-

rights-europes-southern-sea-borders, and its summary (2013), http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/
fundamental-rights-europes-southern-sea-borders-summary (available in several languages).

•  EU solidarity and Frontex: fundamental rights challenges (2013), http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/eu- 

solidarity-and-frontex-fundamental-rights-challenges. 

•  FRA-ECtHR, Handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration (2013),  

http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/handbook-european-law-relating-asylum-borders-and-immigration  
(available in several languages).

For an overview of FRA activities on asylum, borders and migration, see: http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/asylum- 
migration-borders.

FRA – EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2015

Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria
Tel. +43 158030-0 – Fax +43 158030-699
fra.europa.eu – info@fra.europa.eu
facebook.com/fundamentalrights
linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency
twitter.com/EURightsAgency

P
r
i
n
t
:

I

S
B
N
9
7
8
-
9
2
-
9
2
3
9
-
8
6
7
-
5

,

d
o

i
:

.

1
0
2
8
1
1
/
9
1
6
3
8
3

,

T
K
-
0
1
-
1
5
-
1
0
1
-
E
N
-
C

P
D
F

:

I

S
B
N
9
7
8
-
9
2
-
9
2
3
9
-
8
6
8
-
2

,

d
o

i
:

.

1
0
2
8
1
1
/
7
0
6
7
3
3

,

T
K
-
0
1
-
1
5
-
1
0
1
-
E
N
N

-