COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Second Report on progress by Turkey in fulfilling the requirements of its visa liberalisation roadmap
Date: 2016-03-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Türkiye, biometrics, border control, frontier, fundamental rights, identity document, migration policy, right of asylum, trafficking in human beings

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.3.2016  SWD(2016) 97 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Second Report on progress by Turkey in fulfilling the requirements of its visa liberalisation roadmap {COM(2016) 140 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

Second Report on progress by Turkey in fulfilling the requirements of its visa 
liberalisation roadmap 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This Commission Staff Working Document (CSWD) accompanies the Commission's Second 
Report on progress by Turkey in fulfilling the requirements of its visa liberalisation roadmap 
(the  Second  Report)1  and  is  organised  in  the  same  manner  as  the  latter,  thus  addresses  the 
benchmarks block by block.  

the  visa 

While  the  Second  Report  identifies  the  areas  in  which  Turkey  has  not  yet  fulfilled  the 
requirements  of 
(the  Roadmap),  and  presents 
recommendations  on  the  measures to  be  put  in  place  in  order  to  achieve  this  objective, this 
CSWD describes the measures taken by Turkey since the adoption of the first Commission's 
Report  on  progress  by  Turkey  in  implementing  the  requirements  of  its  visa  liberalisation 
roadmap (the First Report) on 20 October 20142.  

liberalisation 

roadmap 

In addition, this CSWD also provides some background information on certain aspects of the 
visa and asylum system of Turkey, as well as on irregular migration flows reaching the EU 
from  Turkey.  This 
the 
recommendations included in the Second Report under block 2. 

to  help  better  understand  some  of 

information 

is  meant 

Finally  the  annex  to  this  CSWD  contains  statistics  and  other  information  allowing  to 
formulate  an  assessment  of  the  impact  which  the  application  of  the  visa  liberalisation  to 
Turkish citizens may produce on the migratory situation in the EU.   

 2. BLOCK 1: DOCUMENT SECURITY 

2.1. State of play in October 2014 

The First Report stated that Turkey had already achieved a good level of progress in fulfilling 
the benchmarks of the first block of the Roadmap. In particular, it noted that Turkey already 
had  a  well-functioning  civil  registry  system,  and  its  authorities  had  been  issuing  since  mid-
2010 ICAO-compliant passports including chips bearing one biometric identifier of the holder 

1    Second    report  on  Turkey's  progress  in  fulfilling  the  requirements  of  its  visa  liberalisation  roadmap 
COM(2016)140 
2  First  report  on  Turkey's  progress  in  fulfilling  the  requirements  of  the  its  visa  liberalisation  roadmap 
COM(2014) 646 final 

2 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(the digital picture), although passports of an older type, without biometric identifiers, were 
still in circulation.  

Nevertheless  the  report  noted  also  that  several  requirements  of  this  block  were  not  yet 
fulfilled  and  made  several  recommendations  on  measures  to  be  taken  by  Turkey  to  achieve 
this result.  

2.2. Main progress made since October 2014 

The  main  developments  in  fulfilling  the  requirements  under  this  block  during  the  reporting 
period took place in the last months and can be summarised as follows. 

 

 On  25  November  2015,  on  the  basis  of  an  earlier  decision  taken  by  the  Turkish 
Government  in  line  with  indications  given  by  the  International  Civil  Aviation 
Organisation (ICAO), the few passports issued before 2010 still in use, that were machine 
readable  but  did  not  include  any  biometric  features  expired  and  were  withdrawn  from 
circulation.  As  a  result,  only  electronic  passports  including  a  chip  bearing  the  serial 
number of the passport and the facial image of its holder are now in circulation in Turkey.  

  The Law on Civil Registration Services (no. 5490)  was modified with an amendment that 
entered  into  force  on  27  January  2016.  As  a  result  of  this  amendment,  all  new  identity 
cards  to  be  issued  to  Turkish  citizens  have  to  include  biometric  identifiers  and  have  a 
maximum  validity  of  10  years.  As  the  Directorate  General  of  Civil  Registration  and 
Citizenship,  waiting  for  approval  of  the  amendment,  and  in  order  to  speed  up  its 
implementation  once  adopted,  had  already  taken  the  initiative  to  prepare  2  million 
polycarbonate-based  ID  cards  ready  to  be  issued,  the  first  new  identity  cards  including 
biometric data and having a validity of 10 years will start being issued as of March 2016. 
The  distribution  of  the  new  cards  to  the  entire  Turkish  population  will  take  place 
gradually.  

  On  17  February  2016  the  Turkish  National  Police  issued  a  Circular  instructing  its  staff 
dealing with expired passports to systematically invalidate their pages and chips in order 
to avoid their possible re-use for forgeries. The Circular was elaborated in line with the 
Member States' best practices.   

In addition to that, new measures, aimed at fulfilling some of the remaining requirements of 
the roadmap under this block, are under way. In particular:  
 

a project, funded by the EU through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) 
launched  at  the  end  of  December  2015  is  expected  to  enable  Turkish  authorities  to 
produce  and  print  the  new  Turkish  passports  elaborated  in  line  with  the  EU  standards 
required by the visa liberalisation roadmap. It is not yet known, however, when the new 
passports will start being issued.   

3. BLOCK 2: MIGRATION MANAGEMENT 

3.1. State of play in October 2014 

The  First  report  recognised  that  Turkey  had  already  achieved  a  good  level  of  progress  in 
fulfilling the benchmarks of the second block of the Roadmap, notably in consideration of the 
following three main facts.  

First  of  all,  Turkey  had  adopted  in  April  2013  and,  in  April  2014  had  started  applying,  the 
new  Law  on  Foreigners  an  International  Protection  (n°  6458).  This  law  has  established  a 
national  asylum  system  inspired  by  the  EU  model  and  providing  international  protection  to 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
asylum  seekers  without  substantially  treating  in  a  different  manner  the  asylum  seekers  and 
refugees  depending  on  their  European  or  non-European  origin  (irrespective  of  the  fact  that 
Turkey decided to maintain its geographic reservation on the Geneva Convention on Refugees 
of  1951,  and  that  this  reservation  is  formally  reflected  in  the  law).  The  law  also  introduced 
safeguards for the fair treatment of both regular and irregular migrants, including also judicial 
supervision and an appeal system in removal procedures, the possibility for irregular migrants 
to return to their origin country in an assisted and voluntary manner, and basic protection for  
migrants who are victims of trafficking in human beings.  

Secondly,  Turkey  had  given  a  clear  demonstration  of  its  respect  for  the  principle  of  non-
refoulement,  by  offering  a  safe  harbour  on  its  territory  to  more  than  2.5  million  persons 
fleeing  the  conflict  in  Syria,  by  admitting  more  than  200 000  international  protection 
applicants  from  other  countries,  providing  also  to  many  of  them  (notably  to  more  than 
250 000 Syrians) full hospitality in 26 well organised refugee camps.  

Thirdly,  Turkey  had  recently  strengthened  its  visa  system,  notably  by  restricting  the 
conditions of access to the e-visa system. While initially the nationals of most of the countries 
under the visa requirement for Turkey3 had been given the possibility to obtain an e-visa upon 
simple possession of a valid passport, in the first half of 2014 this possibility was restricted – 
for  the  countries  representing  typical  sources  of  irregular  migration4  –  to  those  applicants 
holding  a  valid  residence  permit  or  visa  of  a  Schengen  or  of  an  OECD  country  in  their 
passports.  

Nevertheless the report also noted that Turkey could not yet fulfil all the benchmarks of this 
block and, accordingly, made several recommendations on measures to be taken by Turkish 
authorities to achieve this result.  

3.2. Main progress made since October 2014 

Since October 2014 Turkish authorities made substantial progress on several issues.   

First of all, of particular relevance was the further strengthening of operational capacities of 
the Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM).  

  This  new  civilian  specialised  structure,  the  creation  of  which  was  decided  in  April 
2013 by the Law on Foreigners and international protection (the Law), and which was 
assigned overall responsibility for the implementation of Turkish legislation related to 
foreigners, migrants and refugees (until then fulfilled by the Foreigners' Department of 
the  Turkish  National  Police),  has  been  growing  quickly  in  the  course  of  2014  and 
2015:  around  3 000  specialised  officers  were  recruited  and  trained,  local  branches 
were  established,  equipped  and  opened  in  all  81  provinces,  an  autonomous  and 
integrated  system  of  registration  and  monitoring  of  all  foreigners  present  in  the 
country  (Göc-net)  was  developed  and  put  into  function.  In  May  2015  the  capacity 
building  process  was  completed,  which  made  it  possible  to  the  Police  to  transfer  to 
DGMM all its remaining competences5.  

3  Information on the Turkish visa system can be found at the web-site of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/visa-information-for-foreigners.en.mfa  
The nationals of Guyana, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Bhutan, North Korea, Papua New Guinea and of all 
the  micro-states  in  the  Pacific  were  never  given  the  possibility  to  obtain  e-visas,  remained  confined  to  the 
possibility to travel towards Turkey only by obtaining a visa from a Turkish embassy 
4 This restriction applied to the nationals of all the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and some of North Africa 
(Egypt  and  Algeria)  and  of  Southern  and  Eastern  Asia  (Afghanistan,  India,  Pakistan,  Bangladesh,  Vietnam, 
China). 
5 Information on DGMM activities and Turkey's migration and international protection policies can be found at 
DGMM http://www.goc.gov.tr 

4 

 
 
                                                            
  DGMM is now effectively in charge of the management of all procedures foreseen by 
the  Law,  including  the  assessment  of  both  the  asylum  and  the  readmission  requests, 
with positive impact on the way in which these requests are being handled. 

  DGMM  has  been  increasing  its  capacity  to  collect  statistical  data  on  migration, 
including through cooperating with Frontex in the framework of the TU-RAN project.  
  DGMM,  which  in  May  2015  took  up  the  responsibility  on  the  management  of  the 
centers  where  the  migrants  arrested  due  to  their  irregular  staying  or  entry  in  the 
country  are  submitted  to  administrative  detention,  pending  the  completion  of  their 
removal  procedures  launched  and,  is  now  implementing  with  the  EU  support  an 
ambitious work programme aimed at enhancing the reception quality and the capacity 
of these centers. This is done in  order to  enhance the capacity of Turkey to  host the 
intercepted  irregular  migrants  in  a  decent  manner,  thus  addressing  the  problems  of 
overcrowding and inhuman treatment condemned in the past by the European Court of 
Human Rights. The ongoing expansion of the hosting capacities of the removal centres 
of Turkey is being promoted by DGMM also to anticipate the increased needs that it 
expects will be triggered by the forthcoming entry into force of the provisions related 
to  third  country  nationals  of  the  EU-Turkey  readmission  agreement,  and  in  order  to 
ensure the smooth application of the latter.   

A second important development was visible in the area of international protection, with the 
adoption of several legal acts.  

  The  most  important  one  was  the  regulation,  issued  on  22  October  2014,  granting 
temporary  international  protection  status  to  all  refugees  from  Syria  having  fled  into 
Turkey as a result of the situation in that country.  
 In  addition,  on  15  January  2016,  a  regulation,  giving  the  Syrians  under  temporary 
protection  the  right,  within  certain  limits  and  at  certain  conditions,  to  obtain  work 
permits allowing them to work legally in Turkey, was adopted.  

 

  Meanwhile  Turkey,  using  national  funds  and  international  aid,  puts  in  place  several 
initiatives  aimed  at  providing  assistance  to  its  refugee  population,  with  an  increased 
focused on the Syrians residing outside of the 26 refugee reception centres established 
and  run  by  the  Turkish  Government,  notably  to  address  the  immediate  needs  of  the 
most  vulnerable  among  them,  and  to  facilitate  children  access  to  schooling  (a 
possibility which however  is not yet granted to approximately a half of the latter, that 
is around to 400 000 children).  
In this context should also be noted that, since the end of 2014, all the applicants and 
beneficiaries  of  international  protection  in  Turkey  (including  Syrians  located  outside 
of the 26 refugee camps established and run by the Government, as well as the non-
Syrians)  are  given  free  access  to  health  care  in  public  health  structures,  with  the 
relevant financial costs being covered by the Turkish authorities.  

 

Thirdly,  Turkish  authorities  stepped  up  its  cooperation  on  border  management  with  their 
Greek and Bulgarian counterparts. In particular:   

  Turkish authorities started to cooperate in the implementation of an early warning and 
information  system  with  Greek  and  Bulgarian  authorities  along  their  common  land 
border  in  the  Thracian  region.  This  system  –coupled  with  the  increased  efforts  of 
border  surveillance  made  on  the  two  sides  of  the  border-  allowed  to  drastically 
reducing the possibility to cross irregularly the land border of the EU in the Thracian 
region.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 

In  addition,  in  May  2015  the  three  countries  signed  the  international  agreement 
establishing a common tripartite centre at the Capitan Andreevo border crossing point 
which, once set up, should strengthen the existing cooperation and expand it notably 
by  facilitating  the  timely  and  effective  exchange  of  police  information  in  combating 
migrant  smuggling.  On  8  January  2016  the  bill  of  ratification  of  the  agreement  was 
presented to the Turkish Parliament which adopted it in February; the agreement has 
not yet entered into force.  

 

  Turkish  authorities  have  also  agreed  to  launch  and  are  contributing  to  implement  an 
EU-funded project supporting confidence building among the border authorities of the 
three countries.  
In October 2014 and April 2015 the Turkish and Hellenic Coast Guard organised for 
the first time meetings allowing to start discussions on the possibility to improve their 
cooperation.  At  the  last  meeting  held  in  November  2015  between  the  two  Coast 
Guards  Commanders,  it  was  agreed  to  enhance  the  direct  contact  of  the  Regional 
Commanders  of  the  Turkish  and  the  Greek  Coast  Guard,  to  hold  two  technical 
meetings per year and assign an Attaché to the Greek Embassy in Ankara in February 
2016 (Turkey already assigned its Attaché in Athens in 2014). 

Several  measures  were  also  taken  to  strengthen  the  visa  and  border  management  system 
and  more  generally  to  counter  the  possibility  for  nationals  of  third  countries  to  irregularly 
enter or exit the Turkish territory.  

  As of 8 November 2014 Turkish Embassies started using visa stickers including high 

security features, instead of visa stamps.  

  As of 1 January 2015 the nationals of all 47 Sub-Saharan Africa countries – which are 
considered as potential sources of irregular migration– were deprived of the possibility 
to enter Turkish territory by obtaining a visa at the border. They may now only enter 
with  a  visa  issued  by  a  Turkish  embassy  or  with  an  e-visa.  The  latter  possibility  is 
however  restricted  to  a  category  of  passengers  fulfilling  certain  conditions,  and 
notably that are holders in their passports of a valid visa or residence permit issued by 
an OECD or a Schengen country. 

  On  24 September 2015  Turkey  submitted  to  visa  requirement  the  citizens  of  Libya, 
who until then were authorised to enter Turkey visa-free, thus aligning its visa system, 
on this point, to the Schengen visa list.  

  On 8 January 2016 Turkey decided to introduce visa obligations for Syrians entering 
the  Turkish  territory  via  a  seaport  or  an  airport  coming  from  a  third  country  (while 
maintaining  the  visa-free  regime  for  Syrians  entering  the  Turkish  territory  directly 
across the common land border, not to put an obstacle to persons fleeing the situation 
in  Syria).  The  decision  taken  on  8  January  immediately  contributed  to  reducing  the 
tendency  to  use  the  Turkish  territory  for  the  purpose  of  irregular  transit  migration 
towards the EU which had been until then quite intensive notably among the Syrians 
located in Lebanon and Jordan. While 41 781 Syrians had entered Turkey between 1 
and  7 January 2015  through  seaports  or  airports,  only  1 155  entries  were  recorded 
between 8 and 18 January after the new visa obligation had been introduced. 

  On 5 February 2016 Turkey tightened visa requirements for Iraqi citizens.  After that 
date all Iraqi citizens should apply to Turkish diplomatic missions abroad for visa to 
enter  Turkey.  Only 
Iraqi  citizens  holding  valid  Schengen/USA/UK/Ireland 
visa/residence  permits  are  allowed  to  enter  with  an  e-visa.  Nevertheless,    the  entry 
through the Habur Land Border Crossing Point is allowed only to the holders of visas 
obtained from Turkey's diplomatic missions. 

6 

 
 
 
  A  by-law  regulating  the  carriers’  obligations,  introducing  sanctions  for  carriers 
transporting  passengers  without  valid  travel  documents,  entered  into  force  on 
7 November 2015.  

 

  An  investigation  allowed  discovering  and  dismantling  a  criminal  network  operating 
around  the  Turkish  embassy  in  Kabul  which  had  managed  for  some  time  to  sell 
authentic,  or  to  produce forged,  Turkish  visas  to  many  Afghans  willing  to  abusively 
enter  into  Turkey  for  the  purpose  of  irregular  migration  into  Turkey  or,  through  the 
Turkish territory, into the EU. 
In  addition  to  that,  considerable  efforts  were  made  by  Turkish  authorities  to  better 
protect  the borders  of Turkey  from  irregular entries.  In  particular,  activities  on  ditch 
excavation, 
trellis  fence,  road  maintenance  and 
construction and modular wall construction were carried out at the borders with Syria 
and Iraq. EU-funded projects, aimed at strengthening and modernising the capacity of 
Turkish  authorities  to  control  the  borders  with  Iraq and Iran  were  also launched  and 
have started being implemented. 

lighting,  wire  entanglement, 

  An  Inter-service  Committee  to  fight  against  Irregular  Migration  was  established  in 
2015  with  the  objective  to  promote  coordination  among  the  various  departments 
involved.  

  On 4 February 2016 a specialised Unit on the Fight Against Migrant Smuggling and 

Human Trafficking was established within the Turkish National Police. 

  Between  December  2014  and  March  2015,  the  Turkish  Coast  Guard  launched  the 
operation  "Safe-Med",  allowing  to  stop  the  irregular  departures  of  migrants  and 
refugees carried out by the use of so-called "ghost ships" which had taken place since 
June  2014  originating  mostly  from  the  South-Eastern  coastal  regions  of  Turkey 
adjacent to the seaport of Mersin.  

 

  As of 14 January 2016, the Turkish Coast Guard started to be given access to the Ship 
Register System of Turkish Ministry of Transport, where information on all purchase, 
sale  and  cancellation  procedures  on  ships  taking  place  in  Turkey  is  recorded.  This 
represents  a  useful  tool  to  prevent  irregular  departures  organised  from  the  Turkish 
coast towards the EU using stolen vessels, and to investigate smugglers' networks.  
In  February  2016  Turkish  authorities  have  proposed  the  negotiation  of  readmission 
agreements  to  14  countries,  which  are  typical  source  of  irregular  migration 
(Afghanistan,  Algeria,  Bangladesh,  Cameroon,  Congo,  Eritrea,  Ghana,  Iran,  Iraq, 
Morocco, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Tunisia). The negotiations have however not 
yet started. 
In  February  2016  Turkish  authorities  have  identified  18  countries  considered  to  be 
potential source of irregular migration whose nationals should be submitted to airport 
transit visas to fly through Turkey across its international airport transit areas. These 
visas  would  be  issued  by  the  Turkish  Embassies.  However,  the  decision  to  start 
applying this new visa obligation has not yet been taken.  

 

  On  26  January  2016  the  Turkish  National  Police  has  taken  the  decision  to  establish 
separate  counters  at  45  border  crossing  points,  in  order  to  carry  out  more  accurate 
check  on  the  e-visa  holders.  These  new  counters  have  not  yet  been  established  but 
work  is  under  way.  These  counters  will  be  managed  by  staff  having  received  a 
specialised  training,  enhancing  the  capacity  to  detect  false  or  forged  OECD  or 
Schengen  visas  or  residence  permits.  More  than  600  police  officers  have  already 
received this training. 

3.3. Focus on the irregular migration flows from Turkey towards the EU 

7 

 
 
 
Irregular departures of migrants and refugees from the Turkish territory towards the EU, at the 
land  and  sea  borders,  in  the  reporting  period  have  continued  growing  in  an  exponential 
manner.  While  in  2013  and  2014  the  number  of  persons  arrived  to  the  territory  of  the  EU 
Member States directly from the Turkish territory  were  25 121 and 52 994 respectively, the 
number  in  2015  has  escalated  up  to  888 457,  which  means  a  daily  average  arrival  of  2 430 
persons6.  

These irregular arrivals take place to an overwhelming extent (in 98 % of the cases in 2015) 
through short but dangerous journeys across the sea originating on the Turkish Aegean coast 
and reaching the nearby Greek islands (Lesvos, Chios and Samos in particular). The arrivals 
are  continuing  in  2016  at  a  very  intense  rhythm.  A  slightly  diminished  intensity  is  being 
registered  since  December,  largely  linked  to  the  fact  that  in  the  winter  season  the  weather 
conditions make  the crossing by sea more dangerous, although the positive influence  of the 
preventive and repressive efforts put in place by all Turkish law enforcement agencies should 
not be disregarded.  

Journeys  across  the  sea  are  carried  out  on  dinghies,  inflatable  boats,  speed  boats  and  other 
means,  with  the  support  -and  under  the  control-  of  criminal  organisations  operating  on  
Turkish  soil,  and  which  have  connections  with  partner  gangs  located  in  the  countries  of 
origin, transit and destination.  

Of the 888 457 persons arrived to the EU from Turkey 498 040 (56%) were Syrians, 214 552 
(24%)  Afghans,  93 028  (10  %)  Iraqis,  24 291  (3%)  Pakistanis,  23 087  (3%)  Iranians,  7 419 
Moroccans (1%), 6 368 Palestinians, 4 538 Somalians, 3 689 Bangladeshis, 2 044 Lebanese, 
1 416 Algerians etc.  

The  way  in  which  these  migrants  embarked  on  and  managed  to  carry  out  their  journeys 
differs,  depending  on  the  visa  regime  applied  by  Turkey  to  their  respective  countries.  The 
persons enjoying a visa-free regime or given the possibility to easily obtaining a Turkish visa, 
enter the Turkish territory regularly, and only become irregular migrants once they irregularly 
exit the Turkish territory, trying to enter the EU.  

Turkish  authorities  have  been  struggling  to  prevent  this  phenomenon.  As  communicated  by 
Turkish  authorities  to  the  Commission,  in  2015,  Turkish  law  enforcement  agencies 
intercepted  204 200  persons  trying  to  cross  to  the  EU:  113 339  among  them  were 
apprehended at the land border, whereas 91.612 (six times more than the previous year) on the 
sea border.   

DGMM  statistics  published  on  DGMM  website  state  that  in  2015  Turkish  authorities 
apprehended  146 485  irregular  migrants  (i.e.  persons  having  irregularly  entered  or  staying 
irregularly  in  Turkey),  around  2.5  times  more  than  in  2014  (58 647)  and  that  the  main 
countries  of  origin  concerned  were  Syria  (73 422)  Afghanistan  (35 921),  Iraq  (7 247), 
Myanmar (5 464), Pakistan (3 792), Georgia (2 857), Islamic Republic of Iran (1 978), Eritrea 
(1 445), Uzbekistan (1 393), Turkmenistan (1 241) etc.  

3.4. Focus on the Turkish visa system 

In  chapter  3  related  to  block  2  of  the  Second  Report,  when  presenting  considerations  and 
recommendations  on  how  Turkish  authorities  should  consider  revising  their  visa  system, 
reference  is  made  to  (3.4.1)  the  discriminatory  visa  regime  applied  by  Turkey  to  the  EU 

6 All the figures mentioned in this paragraph are elaborations of the Commission services based on information 
provided by FRONTEX. All statistical data are indicative and subject to change.   

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
Member  States,    (3.4.2)  the  difference  between  the  visa  regimes  applied  by  the  EU  and 
Turkey  to  some  third    countries,  and  (3.4.3)  the  difference  in  the  visa  systems  applied  by 
Turkey to the countries that are the main source of irregular migration towards the EU across 
Turkey. Background information on these three points thereafter follows. 

3.4.1. Discriminatory visa regime applied to the Member States 

As  opposed  to  the  nationals  of  all  the  other  EU  Member  States  that  are  allowed  to  enter 
Turkey visa-free, the nationals of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom may enter Turkey only with a visa. 

The  nationals  of  these  Member  States  can  easily  enter  Turkey  through  obtaining  an  e-visa 
system  or  upon  arrival  at  the  border  gates  of  Turkey.  However  the  citizens  of  Cyprus  may 
only  obtain  the  e-visa  by  registering  themselves  on  the  website  established  by  the  Turkish 
Government to manage the e-visa system as nationals of the "Greek Cypriot Administration 
of Southern Cyprus", which is not the right denomination of their country as accepted by the 
United Nations. 

3.4.2.  Differences  between  the  visa  regimes  applied  by  the  EU  and  Turkey  to  third 
countries 

The countries whose nationals are required to hold a visa when entering the Member States 
and  that  have  a  visa  waiver  for  Turkey  are:  Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  Belize,  Bolivia,  Georgia, 
Iran,  Jordan,  Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyzstan,  Lebanon,  Mongolia,  Morocco,  Russian  Federation, 
Syria  (as  of  8  January  only  upon  direct  arrival  from  the  country,  across  the  land  border), 
Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. 

Although in many cases the EU and Turkey impose visa obligations to enter their territories to 
the  citizens  of  the  same  countries  (Algeria  and  Egypt,  the  countries  of  Sub-Saharan  Africa, 
and  many  countries  in  Southern  and  Eastern  Asia,  such  as  Afghanistan,  India,  Pakistan, 
Bangladesh, Vietnam, China), there is nevertheless a remarkable difference between the visa 
regime applied by Turkey and that of the EU.  

The  Turkish  system  is  laxer  because  it  offers  the  possibility  to  obtain  an  e-visa  to  those 
declaring  to  have  a  valid  residence  permit  or  the  visa  issued  by  a  Schengen  or  an  OECD7 
country, and to have a return ticket, hotel reservation, at least 50 $ per each day of intended 
stay, and that they are travelling for the purposes of tourism or business. 

While these conditions seem strict, in  fact they are not.  The effective capacity  of the e-visa 
applicant to fulfil them is not verified ex-ante through a thorough examination carried out by 
the consular staff of an Embassy, availing itself of all the time necessary for the examination 
and being entitled to request all additional documents needed. On the contrary, the e-visa is 
issued automatically by the system, on the basis of a simple declaration made on internet by 
the applicant. The only moment in which the effective capacity of the e-visa holder to fulfil 
the  conditions  can  be  verified  is  when  he/she,  upon  arrival  to  Turkey,  is  examined  by  the 
Police  officer  located  at  a  border  crossing  point.  Usually,  however,  especially  in  heavily 

7 The e-visa regime was slightly modified on 01.02.2016. While, until that date, for the citizens of the countries 
mentioned in this page, the possession of a valid visa or residence permit of  any OECD or Schengen country 
qualified  for  benefiting  of  the  possibility  to  obtain  an  e-visa  to  enter  Turkey,  as  of  that  date  this  privilege  is 
restricted only to the holders of the residence permit or visas issued from some OECD countries, notably  USA, 
United Kingdom, and Ireland in addition to those issued by Schengen countries. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
frequented border crossing points, that police officer has only a very limited time to carry out 
what are likely to be very superficial examinations.  

In  this  context,  in  order  to  mitigate  the  risks  of  the  e-visa  system,  Turkish  authorities  have 
introduced measures enhancing the controls on e-visa holders upstream, In particular, Turkish 
authorities  require  visa  holders  who  originate  from  countries  that  are  typical  sources  of 
irregular migration to travel towards Turkey with an airline company having signed a specific 
agreement (currently signed only by Turkish and Pegasus airlines, but open in principle to any 
other  company). By signing this  agreement an  airline  company accepts the responsibility to 
verify before embarking that the passenger fulfils the conditions required by Turkey to obtain 
an  e-visa,  as  well  as  to  return  him/her  back  to  the  point  of  origin  in  case  the  person  is  not 
admitted into Turkey. 

3.4.3. Visa regime applied by Turkey to countries that are the main sources of irregular 
migration for the EU via the Turkish territory  

The  countries  whose  nationals  were  registered  at  the  top  of  the  list  of  those  that  used  the 
Turkish  territory  as  a  springboard  to  irregularly  migrate  towards  the  EU  are  Syria, 
Afghanistan,  Iraq,  Iran,  Morocco  Pakistan,  Bangladesh,  Algeria,  Somalia  and  Lebanon. 
Turkey applies to the nationals of these countries very different visa regimes: 

  The nationals of Iran, Morocco and Lebanon have the right to enter Turkey visa-free. 

  Nationals  of  Afghanistan,  Pakistan,  Bangladesh,  Algeria  and  Somalia  need  a  visa 
delivered  by  the  Turkish  Embassy  to  enter  Turkey.  Nevertheless,  those  with  a  valid 
residence permit or a visa of Schengen or OECD in their passport have the possibility 
to obtain an e-visa.  

  During the reporting period the nationals of Iraq (without this possibility being limited 
to the holders of visa and residence permits of Schengen or OECD countries) had the 
right to enter Turkey through an e-visa provided that they entered through the Habur 
land border crossing point or through one of the following airports: Istanbul Atatürk, 
Sabiha  Gökçen,  Ankara  Esenboğa,  Adana  Şakirpaşa,  Gaziantep  or  Antalya.  At  other 
border  crossing  points  the  right  to  enter  with  the  e-visa  was  restricted  to  the  Iraqis 
holding a valid OECD/Schengen country8 visa or residence permit on their passport. 
As  indicated  above,  the  visa  regime  for  Iraqi  citizens  was  tightened  on  5  February 
2016.   

  During the reporting period, Syrians enjoyed visa-free entry to Turkey. As explained 
above,  on  8  January  2016,  the  visa  obligation  was  introduced  on  Syrians  entering 
Turkey through a seaport or airport coming from a third country. 

3.5 Focus on the Turkish asylum system  

The  Turkish  asylum  system  is  based  on  the  Law  on  Foreigners  and  International  Protection 
adopted in April 2013 and entered fully into force in April 2014. The Law provides for the 
following international protection statuses:  

 

refugee status (defined by article 61 of the Law, and accessible to persons subject as 
individuals to persecution as defined by the Geneva Convention on Refugees, and who 
are fleeing from events occurring in a European country),  

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
  conditional refugee status (defined by article 62 of the Law, and accessible to persons 
subject  as  individuals  to  persecution  as  defined  by  the  Geneva  Convention  on 
Refugees, and that are fleeing from events occurring in a non-European country),  
  secondary  protection  (defined  by  article  63  of  the  Law,  and  accessible  to  persons, 
whether  European  or  non-European,  not  qualifying  for  the  previous  two  forms  of 
protection, but who nevertheless may not be returned to their country of origin or of 
last transit, due to the generalised risk to be submitted to violence or mistreatment in 
those countries, or the impossibility to obtain international protection),  
temporary  protection  (defined  by  article  91  of  the  Law,  and  accessible  to  persons 
fleeing  their  country  due  to  a  situation  of  general  insecurity,  and  reaching  Turkey 
through a massive arrival) .  

 

Syrians and foreigners living in Syria who fled to Turkey as a result of the war in that country 
were  not  given  secondary  protection  on  an  individual  basis,  but  have  been  given temporary 
protection status. The specific rights attributed to this status, which are not clearly defined by 
the  Law,  have  been  stipulated  in  a  specific  regulation  issued  by  the  Government  on 
22 October 2014.  The  status  is  granted  upon  simple  verification  of  the  Syrian  origin.  As  of 
31 January 2016 Turkish authorities have registered 2 582 600 persons (mostly Syrians, but in 
a  few  cases  also  some  Palestinians  that  used  to  live  in  Syria)  as  beneficiary  of  temporary 
protection. The DGMM is in charge of the registrations.   

All the other nationalities can become beneficiaries of international protection in Turkey only 
as a result of an individual application, followed by a screening and a positive decision. The 
DGMM is in charge of the implementation of the asylum procedures.  

Turkish  authorities  have  declared  that  they  have  received,  respectively,  34 112  and  64 232 
international  protection  applications  in  2014  and  2015.  The  main  countries  of  origin  of  the 
applicants were Afghanistan (9 812 and 11 405 in 2014 and 2015 respectively), Iraq (16 147 
and 42 162), Iran (4 568 and 8 527).  

Nevertheless,  most  of  the  asylum  procedures  initiated  remained  uncompleted.  In  2014  only 
106  refugee  statuses  were  granted,  and  749  applications  were  rejected,  while  1 337  of  the 
applications  were  considered  withdrawn  due  to  the  disappearance  of  the  asylum  applicant 
(article 77 of the Law) and other reasons; the remaining 31 920 applicants did not receive any 
reply.  Similarly,  in  2015  3 356  conditional  refugee  statuses  were  granted,  8  secondary 
protections, while 751 requests were rejected and 16 059 were considered withdrawn, with the 
result  that  an  additional  group  of  44 058  of  international  protection  applications  remained 
without reply.  

The  effective  number  of  pending  and  unanswered  international  protection  applications  is 
higher  because  on  11  April  2014,  when  the  law  on  foreigners  and  international  protection 
started  to  apply,  the  UNHCR  handed  over  to  the  recently  established  DGMM  all  the 
international  protection  applications  which  its  mission  in  Turkey  had  collected  while  the 
country  did  not  have  its  own  national  asylum  system.  The  Commission  services  have  not 
received clear statistical data on how many applications were handed over (reportedly around 
100 000) and how many of those have been given by Turkish authorities a concrete follow-up 
until and how many are still pending.  

In  any  case,  based  on  information  provided  by  Turkish  authorities,  the  overall  number  of 
international  protection  applications  registered,  the  assessment  of  which  was  pending  in 
Turkey amounted on 31 January 2016 up to 140 496. 

It  is  not  clear  why,  out  of  the  international  protection  applications  registered,  only  a  small 
number is effectively completed. It is evident that Turkish authorities are confronted with an 

11 

 
 
immense  quantity  of  asylum  applications,  and  a  backlog  which  was  already  huge  at  the 
moment of the establishment of the  DGMM.  Probably, however  this situation is  not  simply 
due to the difficulty of the provincial offices of DGMM –in charge of the asylum procedures, 
and which are operational only since May 2015- to screen and study with sufficient speed the 
international protection applications received, but it may also be due to a certain hesitation of 
the DGMM's central offices –that have the power to grant or reject the international protection 
status- to actually take the decisions granting the refugee statuses.  

In  any  case  it  is  obvious  that  the  fact  that  so  many  thousands  of  persons  are  left  without  a 
clear indication about their fate hampers their capacity to normally settle down in Turkey, and 
contributes  to  pushing  them  to  searching  alternative  countries  of  asylum,  through  the 
resettlement,  for  the  happy  few  persons  and  nationalities  to  whom  this  opportunity  is 
effectively  open,  or  through  irregular  migration  channels.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Afghans  in 
Turkey  are  since  several  years  notoriously  not  given  any  longer  any  effective  possibility  of 
resettlement.   

The statistics mentioned above also draw attention to the fact that DGMM shows a tendency 
to use the secondary protection status in a very limited manner, despite the fact that so many 
international protection applicants are originating from countries and situations which should 
make them eligible to this kind of protection.   

In  that  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  fact  that  so  many  international  applications 
introduced  in  Turkey  remain  undecided  represents  a  facilitation  for  all  the  applicants  who 
were  not  effectively  in  need  of  international  protection  and,  after  an  irregular  entry  into 
Turkey  for  the  purpose  of  irregular  migration  and  their  interception  by  the  Turkish  law 
enforcement  agencies  introduced  their  asylum  claim  only  for  the  purpose  to  avoid 
administrative detention as irregular migrants and removal. For these persons, the fact that so 
many asylum procedures remain opened in Turkey for an undetermined period of time offers 
a  possibility  to  enter  the  country  irregularly  and  subsequently  to  have  the  time  to  carry  out 
secondary movements from the country towards the EU.  

Turkish  authorities,  in  line  with  article  71  of  the  Law,  try  to  prevent  this  phenomenon  and 
require any international protection applicant to reside in a specific province, and not to leave 
it  without  permission.  Systems  of  regularly  reporting  to  the  local  police  office  are  also  in 
place in view of monitoring the continuous presence of the asylum applicant. In case the latter 
for  some  times  fails  to  respect  the  reporting  system,  his/her  international  protection 
application  is  automatically  considered  withdrawn,  and  therefore  from  that  moment  the 
person, if intercepted by the Turkish authorities in any part of the country, is considered as an 
irregular  migrant,  with  the  possibility  to  examine  in  an  accelerated  manner  his/her  possible 
asylum application in case he/she reintroduces it to avoid being removed.  

Although  this  system  is  in  place,  many  manage  to  abscond.  Partly  as  a  result  of  the  long 
waiting time, as well as of the limited opportunities for self-reliance and integration offered at 
local  level,  even  many  asylum  applicants  genuinely  who  are  in  need  of  international 
protection  eventually  decide  to  leave  the  province  of  assigned  residence  and  to  search  an 
alternative place of residence within Turkey or an alternative asylum country. 

4. BLOCK 3: PUBLIC ORDER AND SECURITY 

4.1. State of play in October 2014 

12 

 
 
 
 
The  First  report  noted  that  Turkey  had  already  many  strengths  and  assets  in  the  areas 
concerned  by  the  third  block  of  the  visa  liberalisation  roadmap.  In  particular  Turkey  had 
resourceful law enforcement agencies, was party to several international conventions allowing 
for police and judicial cooperation, and was committed to implement action plans contributing 
to improve its performance in the fight against organised crime and corruption.  

Of  particular  relevance  was  also  the  fact  that,  as  a  result  of  the  new  legislation  adopted 
between  2013  and  2014  and  providing  for  more  effective  mechanism  to  combating  money 
laundering and the financing of terrorism, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) General 
Assembly had decided in October 2014 to take Turkey from the grey list of the countries not 
doing enough to prevent and cooperate against these crimes.   

indicated  by 

the  Roadmap  under 

On the other hand, the report also noted that Turkey had still a lot to do in view of entirely 
fulfilling  the  requirements  of  this  block.  In  particular  most  of  the  laws  and  international 
conventions  and  protocols 
the 
implementation of which would be very useful in view of improving the police and judicial 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and  the  EU  agencies,  had  not  yet  been  approved  or 
ratified by Turkish authorities, although preparatory work had been done at technical level in 
several  cases.  Furthermore,  Turkey  had  provided  little  information  on  how  it  was 
implementing its national plans on organised crime and corruption, and in any case appeared 
having done too little. The police and judicial cooperation offered to the Member States was 
in  general  not  satisfying  and  in  any  case  was  uneven,  with  a  clear  discrimination  towards 
Cyprus.  The  absence  of  a  national  legislation  on  personal  data  protection  prevented  the 
possibility to develop operational cooperation with Europol and Eurojust. 

this  block,  and 

4.2. Main progress made since October 2014 

In the reporting period could be registered some positive developments under this block, none 
of them of a strategic importance. In particular:  

  Following  its  ratification  on  29  September  2014,  Turkey  started  to  apply  the 
Convention of Council of Europe (CoE) on Cybercrime on 1 January 2015. Some of 
the  articles  of  the  Conventions  are  however  not  yet  adequately  transposed  in  the 
Turkish national legal framework. 

  On  19  February  2016,  were  ratified  by  Turkey  the  CoE  Convention  on  Laundering, 
Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of 
Terrorism,  the  CoE  Convention  on  Action  against  Human  Trafficking,  the  CoE 
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of 
Personal Data, and the Additional Protocol to the CoE Convention on the transfer of 
sentenced persons. . 

  A draft by-law aimed at inserting into Turkish legislation provisions on trafficking in 
human beings inspired by EU and CoE standards was prepared by Turkish authorities, 
submitted  to  the  Commission  for  comments,  and  will  soon  be  presented  to  the 
Parliament for approval.  

  DGMM, which has already established a specialised department to deal with migrants 
that are victims of trafficking in human beings, has taken several measures in view of 
further  training  its  staff  to  recognise  and  deal  with  trafficking  cases,  manages  three 
shelters  for  victims  in  Istanbul,  Ankara  and  Antalya,  is  preparing  to  open  three 
additional  shelters  with  EU  financial  support.  The  number  of  victims  identified 
remains limited however. 

  Work  was  carried  out  in  the  first  half  of  2015  by  the  Turkish  authorities  to  draft  a 
comprehensive legal act (so-called Transparency Package) aimed at giving a concrete 
follow  up  to  at  least  some  or  part  of  the  recommendations  issued  by  the  Group  of 

13 

 
 
States against Corruption (GRECO) and the studies prepared in the framework of the 
implementation  of  the  National  Programme  for  Transparency  and  the  fight  against 
Corruption. The Package was not adopted however.   

  Two  subsequent  drafts  were  presented  by  the  Government  to  the  Parliament  in 
December  2014  and  again  early  2016  to  establish  legislation  on  personal  data 
protection.  Invited  to  comment  on  these  drafts,  the  Commission  stated  that, 
regrettably, all the drafts included deficiencies making it impossible to qualify them as 
being in line with the EU ad CoE standards In particular, none of these drafts would 
have  ensured,  if  adopted,  the  application  of  rules  on  personal  data  protection  to  all 
State bodies, including law enforcement agencies, or designed the authority in charge 
of  supervising  the  implementation  of  the  law  in  such  a  manner  as  to  ensure  its 
independence.  

  More detailed information was provided to the Commission on the measures taken to 
implement  the  Action  Plan  for  Combating  against  Organised  Crime  covering  the 
period 2013-2015, enabling also to understand that, out of the 51 measures indicated 
in the Plan, 11 will be addressed by April 2016. 

  Detailed information was also provided on the measures enacted by Turkey in view of 
better  combating  drug  trafficking  as  well  as  to  promoting  demand  reduction.  These 
measures showed a strong commitment in implementing the National Strategy and the 
Action  Plans  against  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction.  In  that  context,  it  has  to  be  noted 
however that, following the Prime Ministry’s Circular of 13 November 2014, the task 
of ensuring the coordination between the Turkish institutions in the fight against drugs 
was  transferred  from  the  Turkish  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction 
(TUBIM)  to  the  Ministry  of  Health.  As  a  consequence  of  this,  the  multiannual 
National  Strategy  and  the  Action  Plans  against  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction,  the 
implementation of which was ongoing sine some years, was abolished, and replaced in 
2015  with  a  new  annual  Fight  against  Drugs  National  Strategy  and  Action  Plan 
Document. 

  The  agreement  between  Turkey  and  the  EU  on  Turkey’s  participation  in  EMCDDA 
(European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) which was signed on 30 
October 2007, was eventually ratified and notified by Turkish authorities, thus coming 
into  force  on  1  June  2014.  Turkey  has  since  then  been  participating  in  EMCDDA 
activities as a full member. 

  Progress  was  also  made  towards  strengthening  the  capacity  of  Turkey's  Financial 
Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) to discharge its duties by recruiting additional 
experts,  modernising  IT  systems,  and  providing  additional  training  to  staff.  In  this 
context,  in  March  2015  an  EU  Twinning  Project  started  aimed  at  building  the 
capacities  of  MASAK.  The  project  will  helping  MASAK  to  addressing  the  revised 
recommendations  issued  by  FATF,  and  those  listed  in  the  Commission's  report  of 
October  2014,  notably  in  view  of  conducting  a  national  risk  assessment  allowing  to 
identify threats and design ways to minimise them, assessing the effectiveness of the 
supervisory processes, and evaluating the competency of compliance officers working 
on  anti-money  laundering  and  financing  of  terrorism.  This  work  should  continue  in 
2016. 

5. BLOCK 4: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 

5.1. State of play in October 2014 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
The First Report noted that Turkey had already well implemented most of the requirements of 
the visa liberalisation roadmap under this block.  

This  said,  the  report  identified  two  main  areas  where  work  was  still  needed  in  view  of 
fulfilling  the  requirements  of  block  4:  first,  in  relation  to  the  integration  and  non-
discrimination of Turkish population of Roma and Roma-like origin; secondly, in relation to 
the legislation on terrorism and its implications for the fundamental rights of citizens.  

5.2. Main progress made since October 2014 

In the reporting period only very limited development could be registered. In particular:   

  Turkish authorities have elaborated a “National Strategy on Social Inclusion of Roma 
Citizens” for the period 2016-2021 in line with the 2011 EU Framework, which will 
be  implemented  through  two  subsequent  Action  Plans  (2016-2018  and  2019-2021) 
The Strategy however awaits approval from the Council of Ministers, while the Action 
Plans are still to be elaborated.  

  Work was done to prepare a comprehensive draft law covering not only the issues of 
anti-discrimination and equal treatment, but also necessary amendments to the Law on 
the  Human  Rights  Institution  (which  should  monitor  the  implementation  of  its 
provisions).  

  The  Reform  Action  Group  of  11  December  2015  announced  the  intention  of  the 
Government  to  prepare  a  draft  law  on  the  Establishment  of  the  Law  Enforcement 
Monitoring  Commission,  aimed  at  developing  a  complaint  system  on  the  actions  of 
the  law  enforcement  officials,  and  a  draft  was  effectively  prepared  and  submitted  to 
the  European  Commission  for  comments.  The  European  Commission  noted  that  the 
draft law did not design the Monitoring Commission in such a manner as to ensure a 
sufficient degree of independence.  

  The  draft  bill  to  ratify  Protocol  7  to  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights 
(ECHR) was submitted to Parliament on 21 December 2015 and adopted in February 
2016. It has not yet entered into force.   

6. BLOCK 5:  READMISSION OF IRREGULAR MIGRANTS   

6.1. State of play in October 2014 

The Commission's report of October 2014 welcomed the entry into force, that same month, of 
the  provisions  of  the  EU-Turkey  readmission  agreement  related  to  the  readmission  of 
nationals of the two sides. 

Nevertheless  it  also  noted  serious  shortcomings  in  the  implementation  by  Turkey  of  all  the 
requirements  of  this  block  :  in  particular,  in  2012,  Turkey  had  unilaterally  ceased  to  apply 
their readmission obligations towards Bulgaria foreseen by the border cooperation agreement 
of  1967;  Turkey  was  implementing  very  poorly  its  readmission  obligations  towards  Greece  
foreseen by their agreement for the cooperation against organised crime (with usually only a 
negligible number of Greek requests being accepted by Turkish authorities); the readmission 
of third country nationals under the EU-Turkey readmission were due to start to apply only as 
of  1  October  2017;  meanwhile  no  specific  measures  seemed  to  have  been  put  in  place  by 
Turkey  for  the  collection  of  statistics  and  the  adoption  of  internal  procedures  ensuring  the 
smoothly implementation of readmission with the EU. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
6.2. Main progress made since October 2014 

The situation under this Block has improved in the course of 2015.  

 

  First  of  all,  at  the  EU-Turkey  Summit  of  29  November  2015,  Turkish  authorities 
committed to advance to 1 June 2016 the entry into force of the provisions related to 
the readmission of third country nationals of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement.  
In  May  2015  DGMM  took  over  the  responsibility  on  the  implementation  of  the 
readmission  obligations  of  Turkey,  creating  a  dedicated  department  in  charge  of  the 
matter, which is now able to timely collect statistical data on readmission and which 
has  drafted  and  communicated  to  the  Commission  copy  of  Turkey's  internal 
readmission procedures.  

 

  Since  DGMM  effectively  took  over  responsibility  on  readmission  matters,  Turkish 
authorities have increased the number of positive replies given to Greek readmission 
requests. In 2015 the readmission of 5 148 irregular migrants was accepted by Turkish 
authorities out of the 12 149 which had been requested (42%).  
In the reporting period two meetings of the EU-Turkey Joint Readmission Committee 
took  place  in  July  2015  and  January  2016.  These  allowed  to  agree  on  the  rules  of 
procedures and to identify and discuss concrete issues with the implementation of the 
agreement.  
In this context, to improve effectiveness in the management of readmission requests, 
the  EU  side  suggested  the  development  of  an  electronic  platform.  A  study  visit  was 
made  by  Turkish  experts  on  8-10  February  2016  to  Georgia  in  order  to  observe  and 
learn from the electronic platform used in that country for the implementation of the 
readmission agreement with the EU.  

 

  At  the  bilateral  Greece-Turkey  meeting  of  21-22  December  2015,  the  two  sides 
discussed the shortcomings registered in the implementation of their bilateral protocol 
on  readmission,  and  the  Greek  side  proposed  several  measures  allowing  to  improve 
the cooperation, such as for instance the need to speed up the reply to the readmission 
requests,  to  justify  more  clearly  the  negative,  to  open  additional  seaports  for 
facilitating  the  delivery  of  the  readmitted  persons,  and  to  place  a  Turkish  liaison 
officer on the Lesvos island in order to witness the arrival to Greece of the irregular 
migrants  departed  from  Turkey,  thus  simplifying  their  rapid  readmission  by  Turkish 
authorities. Turkish authorities committed to study these proposals, but none of them 
has until now been given any practical follow up.  

7. STATISTICAL DATA REQUIRED BY THE ROADMAP 

The  Roadmap  requires  the  collection  and  monitoring  of  some  statistical  indicators.  Their 
evolution in the last years is given below. 

  The visa refusal rate for applicants from Turkey; 

The visa refusal rate in Turkey has been slightly but steadily decreasing. 

 

In 2010, 6.73  % of C-type visas requested were rejected (slightly above the average 
rate of refusal by Member State Embassies worldwide of 5.79 %). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

In  2011,  5,04   %  of    C-type  visas  requested  were  rejected  (slightly  less  than  the 
average rate of refusal by Member State Embassies worldwide of 5.5 %). 

In  2012,  4.51 %  of  C-type  visas  applied  for  were  rejected  (slightly  less  than  the 
average rate of refusal by Member State Embassies worldwide of 4,77% ). 

In 2013  4,7 % of  C-type visas applied for were rejected (slightly less than the average 
rate of refusal by Member State Embassies worldwide of 4.8 %). 

In 2014, 4.4 % of C-type visas applied for were rejected (slightly less than the average 
rate of refusal by Member State Embassies worldwide of 5,1% ). 

  The rate of refused entry into the common Schengen area for Turkish citizens; 

The number of Turkish citizens refused entry into the Schengen area (thus, including Norway, 
Switzerland,  Iceland,  and  excluding  Bulgaria,  Romania,  United  Kingdom,  Ireland,  Croatia) 
remained relatively stable, changing from 1 687 in 2011, to 1 766 in 2012, to 1 729 in 2013,  
1 629 in 2014, 1 628 in 2015 

  The number of Turkish citizens found to be  illegally entering into or staying in the 

territory of the Member States; 

The number of Turkish citizens found to be illegally entering the territory of an EU Member 
State decreased from 700 in 2011, to 416 in 2012, to 317 in 2013, 402 in 2014, and 569 in the 
first eleven months of 2015 

The number of Turkish citizens found to be illegally staying in the territory of an EU Member 
State  was  7 803  in  2011,  7 220  in  2012,  6 744  in  2013,  7 452  in  2014  and  6 390  in  the  first 
eleven months of 2015. 

  The total number of asylum applications from Turkish citizens in the EU Member 

States;   

The  number  of  asylum  applications  from  Turkish  citizens  has  been  decreasing  since  2008. 
Application numbers fell from 7 115 in 2008, to 7 030 in 2009, 6 360 in 2010, 6 505 in 2011, 
6 210 in 2012, and 5 635 in 2013, 5 175 in 2014 and 2 745 in 2015. Although the number is 
relatively  high  for  a  stable  and  democratic  country  such  as  Turkey,  the  trend  for  this 
requirement is positive. 

However,  the  proportion  of  positive  asylum  decisions  has  increased  from  11  %  in  2008  to 
27 %  in  2014,  which  implies  that  the  absolute  number  of  Turkish  nationals  eventually 
recognised as being in need of international protection did not decrease.  

  The  number  of  readmission  applications,  including  applications  of  third  country 
nationals, submitted by the Member States to Turkey and which were rejected by the 
latter; 

The number of irregular migrants returned to Turkey in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 by 
EU Member States, was, respectively, 2 643, 2 161, 1 777, 2 429  and 1 939, of whom 1 866, 
1 666 and 1 445, 1373, 1229 were Turkish nationals. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  number  of  irregular  migrants  (mostly  non-Turkish  nationals)  for  whom  the  Greek 
authorities made readmission requests in 2011, 2012,  2013, 2014, 2015 and in the first month 
of  2016  was  18 758,  20 464,  3 741,  9 691,  12 149  and  508  respectively.  The  number  of 
requests  that  the  Turkish  authorities  rejected  or  did  not  positively  reply  to  was  always 
extremely high, amounting to 17 206 (91 %) in 2011, 19 641 (96 %) in 2012, 3 079 (90 %) in 
2013,  9,221  (95%)  in  2014.  Recently  the  situation  has  started  to  improve,  and  the  number 
decreased to 4 318  (61 %) in 2015 and 95 (18%) in the first month of 2016. 

  The number of third-country nationals, arrived directly from the territory of Turkey, 
found trying to illegally cross the EU external borders or illegally staying within the 
EU 

The  number  of  third-county  nationals  arriving  directly  from  Turkish  territory  into  the  EU 
amounted to 57 077 in 2011, 37 321 in 2012, 25 121 in 2013, 52 994 in 2014 and 888 457 in 
2015.  

  The  number  of  third-country  nationals,  arrived  to  the  EU  or  trying  to  cross  the 
external borders of the EU, coming directly from the territory of Turkey, that were 
found with illegal travel documents 

The number of people (including Turkish and third-country nationals) coming directly from 
Turkish  territory  who  were  found  at  any  EU  border  crossing  point  with  illegal  documents 
amounted  to  630 in  2011, 929 in  2012, 1 696 in 2013, 1 369  in  2014,  1 029 in  2015. The 
larger part of these people had arrived from Turkey by plane. 

  The number of operations carried out by Turkish law enforcement agencies against 
criminal organisations dealing with trafficking of human beings and smuggling of 
migrants, as well as the number of apprehended traffickers and smugglers. 

Based  on  DGMM  statistics,  1 484  migrant  smugglers  were  arrested  in  2012,  1 469  in 
2013,1 506 in 2014 and 4 471 in 2015.  

The  reported  number  of  apprehended  traffickers  in  human  beings  was  13  (in  2012),  31  (in 
2013), 36 (in 2014) and 14 (in 2015). 

8. SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF PLAY IN IMPLEMENTING THE ROADMAP  

This summary provides a synthetic assessment on the extent which, in February 2016, Turkey 
fulfils each requirement set out in the visa liberalisation roadmap. 
The assessments are made by using one of the following alternative definitions: 

 
 

 

‘requirement fulfilled’; 
‘almost fulfilled’(i.e. only some limited work still needs to be done to entirely fulfil the 
requirement 
‘fulfilled  only  partially,  but  with  good  prospects  for  further  progress’,  (i.e.  much 
work still needs to be done, but the results achieved and the work done by the Turkish 
authorities are substantial, and developments so far are encouraging); 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

‘only  partially  fulfilled’  (i.e.  much  work  still  needs  to  be  done  to  fulfil    the 
requirements  of  the  benchmark,  no  particular  positive  developments  to  address them 
were observed 
‘requirement not fulfilled’.(i.e. Turkey is far from meeting this benchmark). 

The assessment is based on the developments registered in the CSWD. In all the areas where 
the Commission assesses that the requirements of a benchmark are not yet entirely fulfilled, 
the Second Report provides some recommendations on measures which, in the Commission’s 
opinion, would help to address the weaknesses identified. 

BLOCK 1: DOCUMENT SECURITY 

1.  Turkey  should  continue  issuing  machine  readable  biometric  travel  documents  in 
compliance with ICAO standards and follow ICAO recommended practice, phasing 
out of any non-ICAO compliant passports, and gradually introducing international 
passports with biometric data, including photo and fingerprints, in line with the EU 
standards, especially Council Regulation 2252/2004; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

2.  Implement appropriate administrative measures ensuring the integrity and security 
of  the  personalisation  and  distribution  and  validation  process  for  international 
passports and other breeder documents; 

Fulfilled 

3.  Establish training programmes and adopt ethical codes on anti-corruption targeting 
the  officials  of  any  public  authority  that  deals  with  visas,  breeder  documents  or 
passports; 

Fulfilled 

4.  Promptly  and  systematically  report  to  Interpol/LASP  database  on  lost  and  stolen 

passports; 

Fulfilled  

5.  Ensure a high level of security of breeder documents and ID cards and define strict 

procedures surrounding their application and issuance; 

Almost fulfilled 

6.  Regularly  exchange  passport  specimens,  visa  forms  and  information  on  false 

documents, and cooperate on document security with the EU; 

Only partially fulfilled 

7.  Adopt and implement measures ensuring the integrity and security of the civil status 
and civil registration process, including the integration and linking of the relevant 
databases  and  the  verification  of  scanned  data  against  the  civil  status  database, 
paying particular attention to the amendment of individuals’ basic personal data. 

Fulfilled 

3. BLOCK 2: MIGRATION MANAGEMENT   

3.2.1. Border management 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
8.  Carry out adequate border checks and border surveillance along all the borders of 
the country, especially along the borders with EU member states, in such a manner 
that  it  will  cause  a  significant  and  sustained  reduction  of  the  number  of  persons 
managing  to  illegally  cross  the  Turkish  borders  either  for  entering  or  for  exiting 
Turkey; 

Fulfilled only partially but certain progress was observed 

9.  Adopt  and  effectively  implement  legislation  governing  the  movement  of  persons  at 
the  external  borders,  as  well  as  legislation  on  the  organisation  of  the  border 
authorities and their functions, in accordance with the 'National Action Plan for the 
Implementation of Turkey's Integrated Border Management strategy', approved on 
by Turkish authorities on 27th March 2006, and in line with the principles and best 
practices  enshrined  in  the  EU  Schengen  Border  Code  and  the  EU  Schengen 
Catalogue; 

Fulfilled only partially but certain progress was observed 

10. Take  the  necessary  budgetary  and  other  administrative  measures  ensuring  the 
deployment  at  the  border  crossing  posts  and  along  all  the  borders  of  the  country, 
especially on the borders with the EU member states, of well-trained and qualified 
border  guards  (in  sufficient  number),  as  well  as  the  availability  of  efficient 
infrastructure,  equipment  and  IT  technology,  including   through  a  more  extensive 
use  of  surveillance  equipment,  in  particular  electronic  means,  mobile  and  fixed, 
video surveillance, infrared cameras and other sensor systems; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

11. Enhance  cooperation  and  information  exchange  between  the  staff  and  bodies  in 
charge  of  border  management,  the  custom  service  and  the  other  law  enforcement 
agencies, in view of enhancing the capacity to collect intelligence, to use human and 
technical resources efficiently, and to act in a coordinated manner;  

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress 

12. Establish training programmes and adopt ethical codes on anti-corruption targeting 
the border guards, customs and other officials involved in the border management; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

13. Implement in an effective manner the Memorandum of Understanding signed with 
FRONTEX,  including  by  developing  joint  cooperation  initiatives  and  exchanging 
data and risks analysis; 

Fulfilled 

14. Ensure that border management is carried out in accordance with the international 
refugee  law,  in  full  respect  of  the  principle  of  non-refoulement  and  effectively 
allowing  the  persons  in  need  of  international  protection  to  have  access  to  asylum 
procedures. 

Fulfilled 

15. Ensure adequate cooperation with the neighbouring EU Member States, aiming in 
particular at reinforcing the management of the borders with EU Member States. 

Fulfilled only partially but certain progress was observed 

20 

 
 
 
3.2.2. Visa policy 

16. Enhance training on document security at the consular and border staff of Turkey, 

and develop and use the Turkish Visa Information System;  

Almost fulfilled 

17. Abolish issuance of visas at the borders as an ordinary procedure for the nationals 
of  certain  non-EU  countries,  and  especially  for  countries  representing  a  high 
migratory and security risk to the EU; 

Almost fulfilled 

18. Put  in  use  the  new  Turkish  visa  stickers  with  higher  security  features,  and  stop 

using stamp visas; 

Fulfilled 

19. Introduce airport transit visas; 

Almost fulfilled 

20. Amend the rules on the basis of which Turkey allows the entry into its territory to 
the  nationals  of  the  main  countries  representing  important  sources  of  illegal 
migration  for  the  EU,  in  the  aim  of  making  the  access  more  difficult  for  those 
willing  to  enter  the  Turkish  territory  with  the  purpose  to  subsequently  attempt  to 
illegally cross the external borders of the EU; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress 

21.  Pursue  the  alignment  of  Turkish  visa  policy,  legislation  and  administrative 
capacities towards the EU acquis, notably vis-à-vis the main countries representing 
important sources of illegal migration for the EU; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

22. Allow non-discriminatory visa-free access to the Turkish territory for the citizens of 

all the EU Member States. 

Not fulfilled  

3.2.3 Carriers’ responsibility 

23. Adopt  and  effectively  implement  the  legislation  on  carriers'  responsibility  defining 

sanctions. 

Fulfilled 

3.2.4. International Protection 

24. Adopt  and  effectively  implement  legislation  and  implementing  provisions,  in 
compliance  with  the  EU  acquis  and  with  the  standards  set  by  the  Geneva 
Convention  of  1951  on  refugees  and  its  1967  Protocol,  thus  excluding  any 
geographical  limitation,  so  as  to  ensuring  the  respect  of  the  principle  of  non-
refoulement, taking into account also the European Convention on Human Rights, 
the possibility to lodge an asylum request and to obtain the refugee status protection 
or  a  subsidiary  form  of  protection  for  any  person  in  need  of  international 
protection,  and allowing the UNHCR to effectively fulfil its mandate on the Turkish 

21 

 
 
 
 
territory without restrictions; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

25. Establish  a  specialised  body  responsible  for  the  refugee  status  determination 
procedures with the possibility for an effective remedy in fact and law before a court 
or tribunal as well as for ensuring the protection and assistance of asylum seekers 
and refugees and provide that body and its staff with adequate working capacity and 
training; 

Fulfilled 

26. Provide  adequate  infrastructures  and  sufficient  human  resources  and  funds 
ensuring  a  decent  reception  and  protection  of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  asylum 
seekers and refugees; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

27. Persons  who  are  granted  a  refugee  status  should  be  given  the  possibility  to  self-
sustain, to access to public services, enjoy social rights and be put in the condition to 
integrate in Turkey. 

 Almost fulfilled  

28. Adopt and implement legislation providing for an effective migration management 
and including rules aligned with the EU and the Council of Europe standards, on 
the  entry,  exit,  short  and  long-term  stay  of  foreigners  and  the  members  of  their 
family, as well as on the reception, return and rights of the foreigners having been 
found entering or residing in Turkey illegally; 

Almost fulfilled 

29. Set up and start to apply a mechanism for the monitoring of migration flows, with 
data  both  on  regular  and  illegal  migration;  establish  bodies  responsible  for 
collection  and  analysis  of  data  on  migration  stocks  and  flows;  and  develop  a 
situational picture on illegal migration flows at national, regional and local level, as 
well  as  on  the  different  countries  of  origin  of  the  illegal  migration,  including 
implementation of risk analysis and intelligence; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

30. take measures improving the capacity to investigate cases of organised or facilitated 

illegal migration; 

Almost fulfilled 

31. Effectively  seek  to  conclude  and  implement  readmission  agreements  with  the 
countries  that  represent  sources  of  important  illegal  migration  flows  directed 
towards Turkey or the EU Member States; 

 Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

32. Ensure  sufficient  financial  and  human  resources  for  effective  migration 

management, including also adequate training programs; 

Fulfilled 

33. Ensure  effective  expulsion  of  illegally  residing  third-country  nationals  from  its 

territory; 

Almost fulfilled  

22 

 
 
34. Establish the conditions allowing a voluntary return to the third country nationals 

expelled from its country and willing to use this modality ; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

35. Provide  adequate  infrastructure  (including  detention  centres)  and  strengthen 
responsible  bodies  to  ensure  effective  expulsion  of  illegally  residing  and/or 
transiting third country nationals from the Turkish territory, while offering all the 
needed legal aid, as well as social and psychological assistance, and decent and fair 
detention conditions and removal procedures, to the returnees.  

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

4. BLOCK 3: PUBLIC ORDER AND SECURITY   

4.2.1. Preventing and fighting organised crime, terrorism and corruption 

36. Continue and complete implementation of its National Strategy and Action Plan for 
the  fight  against  organised  crime  (in  particular  cross-border  aspects)  and  ensure 
adequate human and financial resources for its implementation; 

Only partially fulfilled.  

37. Sign  and  ratify  the  Council  of  Europe's  Convention  on  Action  against  Human 
Trafficking  as  well  as  adopt  and  effectively  implement  legislation,  including 
provisions  aligned  on  the  standards  set  by  this  Convention  as  well  as  by  the  EU 
acquis related to the prevention of the trafficking in human beings, the prosecution 
of traffickers, and the protection and assistance of their victims;  

Almost fulfilled 

38. Provide adequate infrastructures and sufficient human resources and funds ensure 
the  rights  and  dignity  of  victims  of 

decent  reception  and  protection  of 
trafficking,  and supporting their social and professional reintegration;   

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

39. Ratify  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Laundering,  Search,  Seizure  and 
Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS 
198)  and  transpose  its  provisions  into  the  internal  legislation  and  adopt  and 
effectively enact legislation allowing to meet the requirements of this Convention as 
well  as  the  recommendations  of  the  Financial  Action  Task  Force  (FATF)  on 
establishing a system on the freezing of assets and a definition of the financing of 
terrorism;   

Almost fulfilled  

40) Ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and adopt legislation and 

implement measures allowing to enact this Convention; 

Almost fulfilled 

41) Continue  implementing  the  National  Strategy  and  the  Action  Plans  against  Drugs 
and Drug Addiction and develop cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre 
for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); 

Almost fulfilled 

42) Continue implementing the National Strategy and the Action Plan on Fight against 

23 

 
 
 
Corruption and the recommendations of GRECO (I, II and III. Evaluation Round). 

Only partially fulfilled 

4.2.2. Judicial cooperation 

43) Implement  and  comply  with 

international  conventions  concerning 

judicial 
cooperation  in  criminal  matters  (in  particular  the  Council  of  Europe  Conventions 
on  Extradition  (no  24  of  1957,  including  the  not  yet  implemented  Additional 
Protocols of 1975, 2010 and 2012), Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (no 30 of 
1959,  including  the  not  yet  implemented  Additional  Protocol  of  2001),  and  the 
Transfer of Sentenced Persons ( no 112 of 1983, including the not yet implemented 
Additional Protocol of 1997); 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

44) Take measures aimed at improving the efficiency of judicial cooperation in criminal 
matters of judges and prosecutors with the EU Member States and with countries in 
the region; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

45) Develop working relations with Eurojust 

Only partially fulfilled 

46) Continue  implementing  the  1980  Hague  Convention  on  civil  aspects  of  the 
international  child  abduction,  and  accede  to  the  1996  Hague  Convention  on 
Jurisdiction,  Applicable  Law,  Recognition,  Enforcement  and  Cooperation  in 
Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, as 
well  as  to  the  2007  Hague  Convention  on  the  International  Recovery  of  Child 
Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance;   

Partially fulfilled 

47) Provide  effective  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  to  all  the  EU  Member 
States,  including  in  extradition  matters  inter  alia  by  promoting  direct  contacts 
between central authorities. 

Only partially fulfilled 

4.2.3. Law enforcement cooperation 

48) Take necessary steps to ensure effective and efficient law enforcement cooperation 
among  relevant  national  agencies  -  especially  border  guards,  police,  customs 
officers,  through  full  inter-agency  collaboration  in  the  field  of  intelligence  and 
information exchange - as well as cooperation with the judicial authorities; 

Almost fulfilled 

49) Reinforce  regional  law  enforcement  services  cooperation  and  implement  bilateral 
and multilateral operational cooperation agreements, including by on time sharing 
of relevant information with competent law enforcement authorities of EU Member 
States; 

Almost fulfilled 

50) Improve  the  operational  and  special  investigative  quality  and  capacity  of  law 

24 

 
 
 
 
enforcement  services  to  more  efficiently  serious  cross-border  crime,  including 
identity and travel document fraud; 

Fulfilled 

51) Effectively  cooperate  with  OLAF  and  Europol 

in  protecting 

the  euro 

against  counterfeiting;  

Fulfilled 

52) Strengthen  the  capacities  of  the  Turkish  Financial  Crimes  Investigation  Board 
(MASAK)  and  develop  its  cooperation  with  other  Financial  Intelligence  Units 
within the EU Member States; 

Almost fulfilled. 

53) Continue implementing the Strategic Agreement with Europol; 

Almost fulfilled 

54) Agreement with Europol. 

Not fulfilled 

4.2.4 Data protection 

55) Sign,  ratify  and  implement  relevant  international  conventions,  in  particular  the 
Council  of  Europe  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Individuals  with  regard  to 
Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 1981 and its Additional Protocol no 181; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

56) Adopt and implement legislation on the protection of personal data in line with the 
EU standards, in particular as regards the independence of the authority in charge 
of ensuring the protection of personal data. 

Not fulfilled 

5. BLOCK 4: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 

5.2.1. Freedom of movement of the citizens 

57) Ensure that freedom of movement of citizens of Turkey is not subject to unjustified 
restrictions,  including  measures  of  a  discriminatory  nature,  based  on  any  ground 
such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion 
or  belief,  political  or  any  other  opinion,  membership  of  a  national  minority, 
property,  birth,  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation.  Carry  out  related  full 
investigations when needed; 

Fulfilled 

5.2.2. Conditions and procedures for the issue of  identity documents 

58) Provide information about the conditions and circumstances for the acquisition of 

Turkish citizenship 

Fulfilled 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
59) Provide information about the conditions for changing personal data; 

Fulfilled 

60) Ensure  full  and  effective  access  to  travel  and  identity  documents  for  all  citizens 
including women, children, people with disabilities, persons belonging to minorities, 
internally displaced people, and other vulnerable groups; 

Fulfilled 

61) Ensure full and effective access to identity documents for the refugees and stateless 

persons residing in Turkey. 

Fulfilled 

62) Provide accessible information on registration requirements to foreigners wishing to 
reside  in  Turkey,  and  ensure  equal  and  transparent  implementation  of  respective 
legislation. 

Fulfilled 

5.2.3. Citizens’ rights and respect for and protection of minorities   

63) Develop  and  implement  policies  addressing  effectively  Roma  social  exclusion, 
marginalisation  and  discrimination  in  access  to  education  and  health  services,  as 
well  as  its  difficulty  to  access  to  identity  cards,  housing,  employment  and 
participation in public life; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress 

64. Ratify  Additional  Protocols  Nos  4  and  7  to  the  European  Convention  on  Human 

Rights (ECHR); 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress 

65) Revise  -  in  line  with  the  ECHR  and  with  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights 
(ECtHR)  case  law,  the  EU  acquis  and  EU  Member  States  practices  -  the  legal 
framework as regards organised crime and terrorism, as well as its interpretation by 
the  courts  and  by  the  security  forces  and  the  law  enforcement  agencies,  so  as  to 
ensure  the  right  to  liberty  and  security,  the  right  to  a  fair  trial  and  freedom  of 
expression, of assembly and association in practice. 

Partially fulfilled 

6. BLOCK 5: READMISSION OF IRREGULAR MIGRANTS   

66) Fully  and  effectively  implement  the  readmission  obligations  existing  with  the 

Member States; 

Only partially fulfilled 

67) Ratify the EU-Turkey readmission agreement initialled on 21 June 2012; 

Fulfilled 

68) Fully  and  effectively  implement  the  EU-Turkey  readmission  agreement  in  all  its 
provisions,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  provide  a  solid  track  record  of  the  fact  that 
readmission procedures function properly in relation to all Member States; 

26 

 
 
 
 
Only partially fulfilled 

69) Establish  and  implement  internal  procedures  allowing  for  the  rapid  and  effective 
identification  and  return  of  Turkish  citizens,  third-country  nationals  and  stateless 
persons who do not, or no longer, fulfill the conditions for entry to, presence in, or 
residence  on  the  territories  of  one  of  the  Member  States,  and  for  the  facilitated 
transit  of  persons  to  be  returned  to  their  country  of  destination,  in  a  spirit  of 
cooperation; 

Almost fulfilled 

70)  Strengthen  the  capacity  of  the  competent  authority  to  process  readmission 
applications within the timeframe given in the readmission agreement and reduce 
the  number  of  pending  readmission  requests,  including  those  related  to  third 
country nationals; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

71)  Ensure  that  applications  for  readmission  are  processed  in  compliance  with  the 

domestic and the EU data protection requirements; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

72) Compile and share in a timely manner with the competent authorities of Member 

States and the European Commission detailed statistics on readmission; 

Fulfilled only partially but with good prospects for further progress’ 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
ASSESSMENT OF THE MIGRATORY IMPACT OF VISA LIBERALISATION 

ANNEX  

8.1. INTRODUCTION 

8.1.1. Background 

According  to  the  Visa  Liberalisation  Roadmap  (VLR)  methodology,  the  Commission 
committed  to  assess  the  possible  migratory  and  security  impacts  of  the  future  visa 
liberalisation  for  Turkish  citizens  travelling  to  the  EU,  i.e..  to  foresee  whether the  lifting  of 
visa  obligations,  by  facilitating  the  capacity  of  Turkish  citizens  to  enter  unimpeded  in  the 
Schengen  area,  would  be  likely  accompanied  by  an  increase,  respectively,  of  the  irregular 
migration and of the criminality inside of the EU. 

These  two assessments were  not  been provided on the occasion of the adoption  of the First 
Report  issued  in  October  2014,  because  at  that  moment  the  conclusion  of  the  visa 
liberalisation appeared to be still a relative remote target.  

The assessment of the possible migratory impact is provided now, in view of the acceleration 
of the visa liberalisation process welcomed at the EU-Turkey Summit of 29 November 2015.  

The assessment of the security impact will be provided on the occasion of the adoption of the 
next  report  on  Turkey's  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  of  its  visa  liberalisation  roadmap, 
which is due for autumn 2016.   

8.1.2. Methodology 

This assessment has been primarily based on inputs provided by the European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the 
European Union (FRONTEX) the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), and information 
gathered  from  EUROSTAT,  Turkish  and  Member  States'  authorities.  The  present  document 
also  relies  on  a  combination  of  other  official  and  non-official  Turkish  and  international 
sources.  

Based on these contributions, the present assessment starts by describing the main phenomena 
and  key  trends  registered  in  the  areas  of  migration  in  relation  to  Turkey;  it  concludes  with 
some reflections on the possible impact of a visa-free regime for the Schengen area, reflecting 
the situation in February 2016.. 

8.2. ASSESSMENT OF MIGRATORY IMPACTS 

8. 2.1. Regular and irregular migration: trends and possible impacts of a visa-free travel 

8. 2.1.1. General overview 

Notably  as  a  result  of  Labour  Export  Agreements  signed  by  Turkey  with  several  Member 
States between 1961 and 1967, in the sixties and seventies, Turkish citizens have emigrated in 
great  number    to  the  EU  countries  primarily  for  work  reasons  and  subsequently  for  family 
reunification targeting in particular Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sweden.  Having  successfully  settled  down  in  these  countries  and  others,  Turkish  citizens 
represent nowadays the biggest community of foreigners residing within the EU.  

Later, following the changes introduced in the admission policies of most EU countries in the 
course  of  the  seventies,  Turkish  emigration  flows  directed  towards  the  EU  countries  were 
reduced rapidly end and are currently quite limited. This declining trend was also encouraged 
by  the  fact  that,  notably  as  of  the  year  2000,  the  Turkish  economy  started  to  progressively 
grow  and  to  create  huge  number  of  job  opportunities,  which  substantially  shifted  the  still 
intact Turkish migratory potential from international towards internal targets, notably towards 
fast growing Turkish cities like Istanbul.  

The attraction exercised by the growing internal Turkish market was so strong that even some 
of  the  Turkish  migrants  living  in  the  EU  or  their  descendants  decided  to  temporarily  or 
permanently return to Turkey, or at least to engage in forms of circular migration.  

Nevertheless,  in  parallel,  an  important  flow  of  Turkish  citizens  continued  to  leave  Turkish 
territory towards -and to be admitted by- several EU countries by applying for and obtaining 
international protection.  

This phenomenon reached its peak in the eighties, with a peak in 1989 when approximately 
45 000  applicants  were  registered  (essentially  in  Germany  and  France).  This  was  clearly 
linked to the dramatic events occurring in Turkey in that decade, notably the instauration of a 
military  authoritarian  regime  in  the  country  in  1980,  using  in  a  disproportionate  manner  its 
force to quash any political and social opposition force, and to repress the autonomist requests 
of the Turkish citizens with a Kurdish background of the South-East provinces of the country, 
including  the  violent  insurrection  of  the  PKK  (the  "Partiya  Karkerên  Kurdistanê",  alias  the 
Kurdistan Workers' Party) 

started in 1984.  

hwihw

Later, the number of Turkish asylum seekers registered by the Member States continued to be 
high until it declined sharply starting as of the year 2004 when it fell to around 5 000 (versus 
23 000  registered  still  in  the  previous  year).  This  was  a  clear  result  of  the  democratisation, 
liberalisation  and  stabilisation  experienced  by  the  country  in  the  course  of  the  same  years. 
However,  despite  this  reduction  asylum  requests  from  Turkish  citizens  continue  to  be 
registered until now by the Member States.  

8.2.1.2 Regular migration facts 

The first table below from Eurostat, although incomplete due to the lack of information from 
several Member States, presents the number of Turkish citizens regularly residing within the 
EU. This table shows that Turkish citizens are essentially concentrated in Germany, although 
a considerable number is registered also in the Netherlands and Belgium. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 : Turkish citizens having a residence permit allowing to reside legally in the EU  

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

39.954 

39.564 

39.551 

40.847 

40.560 

39.228 

37.923 

2.538 

2.616 

2.686 

2.737 

3.194 

4.263 

7.229 

733 

810 

892 

967 

992 

1.054 

1.450 

28.843 

28.897 

28.972 

29.150 

29.000 

28.755 

28.851 

Germany  

1.830.095  1.789.159  1.762.822  1.731.688  1.710.882  1.663.936  1.424.294 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

989 

2.291 

14.025 

862 

2.078 

14.562 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

1.154 

1.188 

197 

: 

Netherlands 

93.746 

92.698 

108.970 

110.163 

240 

310 

332 

286 

2.195 

2.250 

: 

71 

171 

58 

232 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

1.047 

2.496 

14.981 

1.701 

90.837 

322 

78 

350 

105 

143 

1.027 

1.030 

1.078 

1.044 

2.615 

15.858 

1.731 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

2.882 

16.354 

76 

1.657 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

3.124 

17.711 

78 

1.727 

3.154 

19.951 

71 

44 

1.741 

80.054 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

88.028 

84.830 

81.934 

113.060 

113.866 

: 

: 

404 

440 

537 

431 

3.179 

7.950 

8.143 

89 

381 

87 

205 

83 

214 

96 

190 

3.182 

3.429 

3.809 

3.973 

4.159 

4.272 

4.398 

10.026 

10.218 

10.840 

11.902 

12.352 

12.517 

12.398 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

30 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

 
 
 
 
The table indicates a slight decrease of the Turkish community in the EU, but, in doing this, 
the table is however potentially misleading, because first of all it does not include statistical 
data  from  all  the  Member  States,  and  secondly  it  indicates  only  the  Turkish  citizens  having 
the  residence  permit  in  a  Member  States,  failing  to  mention  also  the  number  of  Turkish 
citizens having lost their citizenship to obtain the citizenship of a Member State.  

Information  on  the  Turkish  citizens  who  obtained  the  citizenship  of  a  Member  State  is 
provided in the table below. The table indicates that the number of naturalisations is usually 
very high with the majority of the cases being traditionally registered in Germany.   

Table 2: Citizenship of Member States granted to Turkish citizens (2008-2013) 

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

European Union  

49.954  51.829  51.117  51.115  55.868 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

3.182 

2.763 

2.760 

2.359 

2.517 

29 

3 

3 

3 

1 

: 

2 

1 

195 

4 

588 

518 

246 

235 

300 

24.449  24.647  26.220  28.125  33.266 

0 

36 

212 

24 

0 

37 

175 

28 

0 

64 

71 

22 

0 

0 

122 

178 

49 

34 

70 

29 

10.202 

9.259 

9.667 

8.277 

6.920 

0 

299 

35 

0 

0 

8 

13 

4 

2 

273 

84 

0 

0 

14 

10 

2 

: 

2 

228 

27 

0 

0 

18 

9 

13 

2 

193 

301 

0 

3 

12 

2 

5 

269 

139 

1 

1 

10 

8 

13 

Netherlands 

3.147 

4.167 

4.984 

5.029 

4.337 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

1.664 

1.242 

937 

1.178 

1.198 

36 

9 

54 

35 

17 

33 

9 

54 

3 

72 

6 

54 

: 

: 

: 

31 

46.476 

1.857 

32 

6 

166 

27.986 

0 

147 

167 

57 

5.873 

0 

342 

72 

1 

2 

4 

20 

6 

2.897 

1.106 

66 

13 

43 

 
 
 
 
Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

: 

1 

195 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

94 

132 

166 

278 

1.125 

1.200 

1.049 

1.343 

1.325 

United Kingdom 

4.639 

7.203 

4.622 

3.624 

4.724 

1 

1 

271 

1.156 

4.184 

While  the  stock  of  Turkish  citizens  legally  residing  in  the  EU  is  steadily  decreased  by  the 
naturalisations, at the same time it is continuously increased thanks to new residence permits 
issued every year.  

This  information  is  provided  by  the  table  below.  The  first  table  shows  the  overall  new 
residence permits issued to Turkish citizens in the last years. The following tables indicate the 
specific reasons for their issuance.  

The tables indicate that the number of Turkish citizens having obtained residence permits in 
the EU has remained apparently stable in the last years if considered at overall EU level and 
without distinguishing among the various kinds of residence permits, but in fact their number 
has  rather  progressively  declined  in  most  of  the  EU  Member  States,  especially  the  permits 
requested for remunerated activities. This general decline has been balanced and compensated 
only by the increase of residence permits issued in Germany for family reunification reasons 
and in Poland for education reasons.    

Table 2: All first residence permits granted to Turkish citizens (2008-2014) 

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

European Union  

61.061  58.930  55.457  52.096  59.060 

59.666 

56.252 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

3.222 

3.650 

3.730 

3.417 

2.434 

2.064 

1.953 

1.361 

1.836 

1.510 

1.335 

1.578 

1.044 

2.347 

490 

1.163 

485 

920 

610 

853 

622 

637 

724 

530 

843 

713 

658 

572 

11.718  12.072  11.722  10.663  18.865 

18.601 

18.934 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

23 

214 

256 

654 

95 

191 

275 

638 

85 

185 

234 

615 

66 

178 

151 

931 

56 

176 

123 

826 

55 

227 

159 

809 

74 

256 

167 

678 

8.093 

7.586 

6.690 

6.453 

6.685 

6.965 

6.214 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

27 

71 

3.593 

3.971 

2.881 

3.176 

2.743 

2.467 

1.976 

58 

82 

91 

52 

32 

43 

33 

121 

19 

124 

12 

131 

26 

77 

32 

 
 
 
 
Lithuania 

402 

Luxembourg 

: 

Hungary 

Malta 

1.324 

189 

235 

41 

684 

102 

41 

31 

746 

78 

48 

43 

890 

82 

42 

77 

957 

74 

43 

75 

994 

171 

78 

58 

1.002 

117 

Netherlands 

5.031 

4.567 

4.347 

3.776 

3.672 

4.480 

3.943 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

4.289 

4.639 

5.025 

4.763 

4.581 

4.036 

2.335 

897 

152 

959 

1.814 

2.484 

2.812 

4.436 

4.581 

234 

347 

376 

464 

403 

457 

4.024 

2.180 

1.062 

1.012 

1.284 

1.261 

1.129 

47 

163 

751 

83 

153 

617 

101 

175 

558 

158 

128 

609 

191 

181 

592 

84 

176 

662 

243 

208 

536 

2.428 

3.123 

3.190 

2.944 

2.819 

2.059 

2.174 

United Kingdom 

10.437 

9.451 

8.752 

7.000 

6.431 

6.696 

5.544 

Table 3: First permits granted to Turkish citizens for family reunification reason (2008-
2014) 

European Union  

29.303  28.902  27.544  24.377  29.357 

29.045 

27.340 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

: 

2.121 

2.526 

2.515 

2.328 

1.576 

1.278 

1.184 

277 

68 

396 

336 

61 

437 

476 

86 

414 

480 

80 

216 

527 

82 

193 

430 

103 

359 

530 

83 

286 

8.488 

8.841 

8.461 

7.349  12.938 

13.226 

13.635 

16 

71 

84 

16 

52 

73 

8 

41 

61 

12 

37 

71 

4 

39 

46 

7 

32 

60 

16 

31 

62 

130 

139 

152 

191 

134 

150 

141 

5.396 

4.857 

4.030 

3.944 

4.194 

4.172 

3.419 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

448 

404 

1.065 

831 

716 

2 

25 

24 

23 

0 

22 

15 

40 

0 

35 

14 

3 

14 

19 

25 

2 

4 

17 

23 

33 

12 

634 

3 

16 

13 

32 

13 

492 

10 

21 

18 

26 

 
 
 
Hungary 

Malta 

235 

31 

43 

14 

85 

18 

112 

11 

105 

10 

98 

32 

98 

15 

Netherlands 

3.404 

3.174 

2.803 

2.554 

2.540 

2.903 

2.285 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

3.572 

3.417 

3.183 

2.260 

2.324 

2.174 

1.869 

285 

13 

697 

8 

26 

294 

13 

621 

7 

16 

103 

15 

473 

7 

31 

125 

13 

489 

5 

21 

124 

12 

476 

6 

22 

86 

18 

39 

35 

510 

361 

9 

19 

13 

23 

296 

294 

275 

293 

313 

325 

309 

1.386 

1.510 

1.613 

1.544 

1.640 

1.175 

1.265 

United Kingdom 

1.806 

1.696 

1.585 

1.340 

1.259 

1.181 

1.074 

Table 4: First permits granted to Turkish citizens for education reasons (2008-2014 

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

European Union  

13.836  15.820  14.320  15.542  15.016 

15.672 

14.394 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

: 

Hungary 

Malta 

393 

427 

635 

1.087 

320 

634 

338 

296 

338 

963 

482 

306 

328 

659 

506 

331 

294 

764 

526 

215 

308 

335 

613 

232 

286 

278 

466 

181 

1.571 

1.737 

1.410 

1.456 

1.494 

1.572 

1.353 

0 

63 

132 

367 

526 

71 

54 

159 

351 

650 

74 

78 

126 

369 

901 

50 

72 

61 

605 

938 

45 

71 

46 

585 

885 

40 

109 

55 

501 

53 

109 

25 

432 

1.025 

1.012 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

2 

28 

961 

1.669 

438 

1.632 

1.541 

1.254 

1.154 

2 

29 

17 

5 

29 

16 

5 

0 

33 

13 

5 

0 

54 

8 

4 

3 

60 

14 

10 

627 

509 

565 

688 

775 

8 

4 

1 

2 

0 

1 

93 

16 

7 

767 

57 

0 

38 

37 

4 

745 

50 

34 

 
 
 
Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

540 

415 

73 

129 

161 

28 

87 

183 

525 

655 

631 

82 

210 

256 

57 

81 

190 

703 

678 

899 

624 

990 

557 

657 

712 

492 

592 

356 

701 

1.762 

2.425 

3.824 

4.154 

297 

186 

79 

99 

168 

681 

324 

186 

142 

82 

221 

512 

412 

289 

174 

118 

176 

453 

268 

416 

39 

122 

210 

395 

26 

412 

208 

140 

135 

375 

United Kingdom 

5.410 

5.548 

4.430 

3.305 

2.427 

2.209 

1.773 

Table  5:  First  permits  granted  to  Turkish  citizens  for  remunerated  activities  reasons 
(2008-2014) 

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

European Union  

10.576 

7.351 

6.479 

4.968 

4.846 

5.309 

5.036 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

56 

38 

123 

515 

3 

39 

20 

77 

461 

336 

441 

90 

127 

921 

7 

43 

26 

103 

849 

208 

400 

80 

127 

674 

8 

36 

25 

101 

675 

4 

13 

9 

6 

233 

247 

231 

178 

189 

18 

18 

87 

64 

85 

19 

92 

39 

65 

118 

120 

103 

524 

1.027 

1.024 

1.132 

3 

47 

13 

120 

381 

7 

46 

18 

85 

256 

4 

4 

11 

2 

44 

17 

17 

42 

15 

5 

57 

18 

3 

40 

13 

13 

51 

20 

6 

55 

24 

137 

370 

13 

290 

5 

20 

14 

21 

62 

74 

5 

69 

65 

87 

497 

30 

164 

0 

6 

22 

18 

61 

42 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

884 

982 

966 

298 

216 

515 

652 

397 

324 

388 

415 

35 

Lithuania 

371 

200 

Luxembourg 

: 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

397 

27 

470 

10 

83 

28 

 
 
 
Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

136 

456 

8 

102 

493 

4 

2.963 

1.155 

11 

41 

232 

135 

18 

30 

101 

473 

808 

117 

939 

14 

362 

12 

28 

76 

793 

873 

115 

496 

5 

307 

9 

19 

77 

804 

829 

117 

209 

11 

397 

9 

40 

73 

598 

775 

131 

426 

13 

262 

35 

34 

87 

386 

1.036 

110 

318 

20 

265 

21 

38 

63 

479 

828 

United Kingdom 

1.485 

8.2.1.3 International Protection facts  

The  table  below  provided  by  Eurostat  shows  the  number  of  international  protection 
applications lodged  by Turkish citizens in the Member States in  the last  years. It shows the 
continuous decline of the number of the requests, with the majority of them being introduced 
in Germany and France, followed at great distance by Italy, Austria and United Kingdom. 

Table  6:  International  protection  applications  introduced  by  Turkish  citizens  in 
Member States (2008-2015) 

GEO/TIME 

2008  2009  2010  2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

European 
Union 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

7.115  7.030  6.360  6.505 

6.210 

5.635 

5.175 

2.745 

345 

280 

305 

520 

465 

320 

10 

25 

10 

5 

5 

5 

250 

40 

65 

30 

50 

45 

30 

25 

10 

55 

15 

15 

280 

10 

10 

15 

Germany  

1.775  1.845  1.710  1.895 

1.760 

1.770 

1.805 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

0 

5 

55 

25 

0 

0 

70 

15 

0 

0 

70 

20 

0 

0 

35 

10 

5 

0 

30 

20 

0 

5 

30 

5 

0 

0 

40 

0 

2.935  2.610  1.975  2.200 

2.450 

1.930 

1.620 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

5 

500 

500 

65 

0 

80 

0 

855 

120 

0 

660 

480 

495 

25 

0 

5 

0 

35 

5 

36 

5 

410 

5 

0 

305 

0 

1.765 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

 
 
 
 
Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

5 

0 

75 

0 

115 

415 

20 

0 

80 

75 

5 

60 

260 

0 

5 

115 

0 

85 

555 

10 

0 

85 

15 

5 

0 

20 

60 

0 

105 

370 

20 

0 

70 

30 

10 

125 

270 

105 

225 

0 

20 

25 

0 

110 

415 

15 

0 

30 

50 

15 

70 

0 

10 

30 

0 

105 

275 

10 

0 

20 

25 

15 

60 

0 

5 

85 

0 

70 

300 

15 

0 

25 

10 

5 

65 

135 

150 

175 

0 

0 

10 

: 

115 

290 

0 

: 

60 

205 

0 

0 

30 

10 

: 

: 

: 

: 

0 

: 

45 

185 

70 

5 

55 

250 

: 

235 

185 

195 

210 

280 

310 

: 

The  following  tables  show  the  number  of  positive  first  instance  decisions  issued  to  Turkish 
asylum applicants as well as the overall number of decisions (both positive and negative).  .  

Table  7:  First  instance  positive  decisions  on  international  protection  applications 
introduced by Turkish citizens in Member States (2008-2015) 

GEO/TIME 
European 
Union   
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 
Germany  
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

2008  2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

675 
40 

0 
5 
130 
0 
5 

810 
85 
5 

225 
0 
0 

990 
65 
5 

10 
30 
295 
0 

180 

125 

125 

: 

: 

: 

: 

135 
0 
0 
0 
0 

235 
20 
0 
0 
0 

325 
20 
0 
0 

790 
40 
0 

155 
0 
0 
0 
0 
75 

350 
15 
0 
0 
0 

 905  945 
 95 

 75 

0 

125  
0 

240  
0 
335  

0 
0 

125 
0 
0 
15 

160  
5  
335  

0 
0 

37 

970 

145 

   : 

   : 
   : 

0 

130 

130 
0 
0 

: 
: 
   : 
: 
285   :       5 

0 

325   : 
: 
0 
: 
0 
0 

   : 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

0 
15 
105 
5 
0 

0 
10 
20 

30 

0 
10 
70 

0 

20 

25 

0 
5 
20 
70 

0 

0 
0 

20 

40 

15 
0 
20 
55 

10 
10 

45 

5  
0 
30  
35  

0 

20 
30 

35 

0 
15  
35   : 
5 
0 

20  
25  

40  

0 
: 
15   : 
: 

5 
0 

: 
   : 

0 

   : 

25  
5 

75   : 

0 

 5 

According  to  the  historical  data  available  from  Eurostat,  most  applications  from  Turkish 
citizens resulted in a negative outcome. Indeed, between 1999 and 2011, the share of positive 
decisions on Turkish applications ranged between 9 % and 18 %. However since 2012, there 
has been an increase in the share of positive decisions with rates of 21 % in 2012 and 2013 
rising to 27 % in 2014. 

Nevertheless it should be borne in mind that the recognition rate varies quite widely between 
Member  States.  The  latter  also  followed  quite  different  approaches  in  choosing  the  kind  of 
international  status  to  grant  to  Turkish  applicants,  something  which  may  also  reflect  
differences in the profile of the applicants.  

Table 8 : First instance decisions and recognition rates issued to Turkish applicants, by 
year, 1999 – 2014   

38 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.2.2 Irregular migration trends 

Table 9 : Turkish citizens found to be illegally present in the EU 

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

EU 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

13.910  11.760  10.720 

10.385 

9.290 

8.795 

8.270 

220 

285 

45 

20 

300 

335 

50 

15 

250 

280 

45 

40 

215 

180 

45 

20 

300 

190 

40 

30 

260 

160 

55 

15 

265 

215 

55 

15 

Germany  

6.675 

5.610 

5.565 

5.950 

5.400 

5.100 

4.200 

0 

5 

235 

50 

0 

15 

380 

50 

0 

10 

325 

60 

5 

5 

160 

55 

5 

5 

165 

40 

5 

10 

110 

30 

10 

5 

155 

35 

2.760 

1.465 

1.330 

1.185 

1.165 

965 

1.440 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

275 

155 

5 

45 

90 

5 

510 

595 

65 

160 

130 

0 

50 

0 

115 

20 

360 

685 

95 

15 

145 

100 

0 

15 

0 

150 

10 

335 

695 

85 

5 

: 

1.110 

1.030 

515 

135 

10 

70 

: 

35 

25 

110 

230 

60 

5 

115 

210 

80 

95 

0 

10 

0 

90 

70 

0 

10 

0 

180 

200 

5 

5 

185 

: 

: 

790 

145 

5 

375 

40 

25 

95 

115 

540 

110 

5 

240 

110 

15 

85 

80 

100 

70 

50 

5 

5 

0 

170 

15 

640 

85 

5 

55 

65 

20 

0 

10 

5 

310 

10 

400 

120 

5 

: 

275 

210 

40 

15 

100 

90 

20 

0 

95 

195 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

: 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

545 

480 

375 

415 

380 

525 

410 

39 

 
 
 
Refusal of entry 

The table below shows that over the past six years the number of refusals on entry issued to 
Turkish nationals has been declining and has reached a level of approximately 3 000, which is 
very  low  compared  to  all  other  nationalities.  The  top  two  reporting  countries  for  refusing 
entry  to  Turkish  nationals  are  Bulgaria  and  Greece,  which  share  land  and  sea  borders  with 
Turkey. Germany is the third in line, with refusals issued at its air borders.  To be noted that, 
as an average, out of 10 entries refused to Turkish citizens at the EU external borders in 2014, 
six  were  at  land  border  crossing  points  (BCPs),  three  at  air  BCPs  and  one  at  sea  BCPs.  In 
2014,  six  out  of  10  refusals  of  entry  of  Turkish  citizens  were  due  to  ‘No  valid  visa  or 
residence permit’ 

Table 10: Refusal  of entry into the EU opposed to a Turkish citizen (2008-2015) 

GEO/TIME 

2008  2009 

2010 

2011 

2012  2013 

2014 

European Union  5.850 

4.735 

4.290 

3.595  3.490 

3.290 

3.210 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

85 

205 

120 

135 

140 

1.855 

1.525 

1.500 

1.400  1.155 

20 

5 

15 

0 

30 

0 

65 

5 

20 

5 

110 

935 

15 

0 

80 

970 

35 

5 

980 

420 

445 

280 

370 

370 

295 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

45 

20 

235 

30 

285 

40 

25 

230 

25 

315 

30 

25 

205 

40 

155 

20 

30 

10 

15 

220 

355 

30 

60 

160 

175 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

275 

155 

150 

100 

10 

50 

10 

0 

20 

25 

5 

0 

25 

20 

5 

0 

10 

15 

5 

0 

90 

15 

30 

5 

0 

10 

5 

520 

25 

160 

635 

125 

15 

20 

5 

0 

15 

5 

485 

0 

125 

490 

85 

15 

10 

0 

0 

230 

260 

360 

285 

250 

260 

265 

5 

75 

150 

50 

5 

0 

0 

15 

140 

110 

145 

100 

65 

35 

30 

25 

55 

30 

20 

35 

5 

75 

15 

25 

5 

90 

15 

25 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

0 

865 

315 

0 

5 

0 

0 

725 

185 

5 

25 

5 

5 

545 

190 

0 

5 

0 

10 

200 

180 

0 

10 

0 

5 

185 

215 

0 

5 

5 

10 

190 

155 

0 

5 

0 

5 

125 

300 

0 

5 

5 

United Kingdom 

250 

290 

265 

230 

220 

235 

245 

Illegal border crossing  

The number of Turkish nationals detected for illegal border-crossings between BCPs has been 
on the decrease. Frontex Risk Analysis (FRAN) data show that the number of detections went 
down  by  half  in  six  years,  i.e.  from  749  in  2009  to  402  in  2014.  The  last  year  (2015)  is 
showing a similar trend line to the previous one. Beside the downwards trend, the figures are 
low compared with the overall number of detections at the EU’s external borders.  

The  Member  State  with  the  highest  share  of  detections  of  Turkish  nationals  is  Hungary.  A 
high percentage of these illegal border-crossing detections occurred at the Hungarian- Serbian 
land  border.  This  is  mainly  due  to  air  route  options  to  Western  Balkan  countries,  to  which 
Turkish  citizens  travel  visa-free,  and  from  where  they  subsequently  cross  the  border 
irregularly to reach Member States. 

Table 10 : Turkish citizens found illegally crossing the external borders of the EU (2011-
2015)  

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015  

(Jan-Nov) 

Hungary  

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Poland 

Italy 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Lithuania 

Romania 

98 

63 

0 

48 

3 

129 

0 

0 

0 

1 

63 

53 

0 

28 

6 

55 

7 

2 

0 

3 

Slovenia 

122 

92 

49 

57 

23 

5 

7 

11 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

22 

57 

5 

19 

8 

9 

5 

0 

0 

03 

31 

41 

112 

32 

24 

8 

5 

3 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU total 

700 

416 

317 

402 

569 

Use of fraudulent documents 

Turkish nationals are not among the top nationalities reported for document fraud detections 
by EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries. Nevertheless, data show that there 
was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  Turkish  nationals  reported  for  document  fraud  cases,  i.e. 
from 341 in 2014 to 463 in 2014.  

In 2014, the main form of violation of rules related to travel documents concerning Turkish 
nationals  registered  was  the  misuse  of  counterfeited  Turkish  passports,  followed  by  use  of 
genuine  Turkish  passports  with  a  counterfeit  bio-data  page.  These  detections  were  mainly 
made while on Turkish citizens travelling by plane to the EU from a third country. The most 
reported  last  embarkation  airports  were  Rio  de  Janeiro  and  Istanbul  Atatürk  international 
airports. This modus operandi of Turkish nationals trying to conceal their real identity could 
indicate that they attempt to circumvent national stop lists and SIS II entry bans or attempt to 
enter under different identity. 

Return 

Throughout the same period, the number of illegal stay detections was generally double the 
number of return decisions. However, the most important element is the ratio between return 
decisions  issued  and  effective  returns  made.  This  suggests  that  half  of  those  detected  for 
illegal stay leave voluntarily and/or are not issued with a return decision.  

The  norm  as  indicated  by  FRAN  data  is  that  there  are  more  return  decisions  issued  than 
effective returns made. Having said that, the ratio for Turkish nationals is almost 1:1, which 
indicates that Member States and Schengen Associated Countries successfully return almost 
all Turkish nationals who were issued with a return decision.  

Table  11  :  Turkish  citizens  having  received  an  order  to  leave  a  Member  State  (2008-
2014) 

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

European 
Union  

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

15.705  15.180  11.885  10.940  10.635  10.205 

9.830 

800 

285 

655 

335 

670 

1.145 

1.320 

1.275 

280 

180 

190 

160 

50 

45 

40 

: 

: 

: 

25 

45 

25 

80 

15 

40 

940 

215 

15 

25 

Germany  

1.350 

1.535 

1.410 

1.175 

1.000 

980 

845 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 

0 

255 

335 

0 

5 

500 

305 

0 

0 

415 

100 

5 

5 

160 

115 

5 

5 

230 

60 

5 

0 

165 

35 

10 

5 

155 

30 

5.105 

4.205 

3.640 

2.880 

2.690 

2.935 

2.680 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

115 

160 

145 

275 

115 

5 

45 

150 

5 

55 

5 

35 

0 

185 

20 

80 

35 

5 

10 

90 

45 

35 

10 

5 

30 

0 

15 

0 

: 

235 

10 

440 

215 

5 

5 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

: 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

3.845 

4.095 

2.925 

2.575 

3.100 

2.770 

3.415 

80 

65 

35 

25 

10 

25 

235 

10 

0 

65 

5 

70 

70 

50 

0 

10 

165 

15 

15 

5 

290 

245 

680 

775 

320 

50 

5 

65 

15 

90 

5 

510 

140 

5 

1.320 

1.290 

700 

575 

135 

5 

70 

35 

20 

70 

285 

300 

60 

5 

165 

240 

40 

10 

120 

245 

40 

5 

390 

110 

5 

110 

200 

345 

280 

40 

10 

90 

20 

5 

70 

170 

230 

545 

480 

375 

415 

380 

525 

410 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Table 12 : Turkish citizens having left a Member State as a result of the order to leave it 
(2008-2014) 

GEO/TIME 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

European 
Union 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech 
Republic 

8.430 

6.735 

5.380 

4.890 

3.980 

3.350 

2.790 

105 

50 

85 

70 

80 

30 

105 

50 

145 

60 

160 

45 

135 

55 

10 

10 

10 

5 

: 

0 

0 

43 

 
 
 
 
Denmark 

Germany  

25 

35 

15 

1.505 

1.040 

1.030 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

: 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

1.045 

330 

155 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

0 

0 

275 

305 

1.485 

0 

5 

375 

245 

910 

0 

0 

305 

55 

800 

60 

110 

5 

45 

80 

5 

380 

45 

0 

40 

95 

5 

45 

0 

105 

5 

935 

250 

35 

0 

30 

40 

0 

10 

0 

100 

10 

815 

305 

25 

0 

45 

775 

5 

0 

140 

25 

685 

20 

55 

35 

5 

0 

5 

395 

145 

20 

0 

45 

510 

5 

0 

145 

35 

545 

90 

20 

50 

50 

0 

0 

115 

15 

325 

135 

15 

0 

25 

395 

10 

0 

80 

20 

510 

60 

20 

30 

25 

10 

0 

170 

10 

350 

80 

15 

0 

10 

950 

5 

5 

185 

80 

705 

15 

65 

5 

5 

0 

5 

515 

265 

20 

0 

540 

120 

5 

80 

1.345 

1.200 

625 

135 

0 

20 

55 

10 

30 

40 

5 

40 

190 

175 

160 

110 

380 

325 

280 

85 

5 

50 

95 

60 

5 

45 

70 

15 

5 

45 

55 

1.215 

980 

865 

715 

640 

620 

545 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Visa issuing trends  

Turkish nationals are consistently among the top five nationalities in terms of the number of 
short-term visas issued by Schengen States. In 2014, more than 770 000 visas were issued to 
Turkish  citizens,  up  from  740 000  during  2013.  The  visa  refusal  rate  in  Turkey  was  4.4%, 
which  is  below  the  average.  The  refusal  rate  among  the  various  Schengen  countries, 
nevertheless, slightly differs, which may be linked to the difference of the profiles of the visa 
applicants, with a tendency to have lower rates in the Member States with larger communities 
of Turkish nationals residents.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  13  :  Refusal  rate  for  Schengen  short  stay  visa  applications  in  Turkey  compared 
with the worldwide average (2010-2014) 

Short-stay visas (C visa) refused 
out of all those applied for at EU 
MS consulates 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Turkey 

6,7 %  5,1% 

4,5% 

Worldwide average 

5,8 %  5,5 %  4,8% 

4,7% 

4,8% 

4,4% 

5,1% 

Table  14  :  Uniform  Schengen  Visas  issued  by  consulates  and  rates  of  visas  issued  (of 
those applied for) in Turkey, by issuing Schengen State, in 2014 

Conclusions 

There are a numbers of factors which suggest that, if and once the visa liberalisation process 
will  be  completed,  the  number  of  Turkish  trying  to  migrate  irregular  in  the  EU  would 
increase.  This  would  be  an  obvious  consequence  taking  into  consideration  the  following 
factors.  

  First  of  all,  all  visa  applicants  whose  visa  applications  are currently  refused  because 
Member  States  have  serious  doubts  about  their  intention  to  return,  and  more 
importantly  those  who  do  not  even  apply  for  a  visa  because  they  think  their 
applications  would  be  refused,  as  well  as  those  that  are  currently  entering  the 
Schengen area irregularly, would be able to enter the Schengen area without a visa in a 
legal manner and some of them will probably use this possibility to over-stay and thus 
become  an  irregular  migrant.  Due  to  the  deterrent  effect  of  the  visa  procedure, 
especially the second category could be considerable, but due to the obvious lack of 
data, there is no estimation for the volume of this group. 

  The  number  of  persons  introducing  an  unfounded  asylum  request  would  probably 
increase, due to the facility in a visa-free regime for any Turkish citizen to enter the 
territory of the EU and lodge an asylum request.  

  Once the possession of a Turkish passport will allow visa-free entry into the Schengen 
area,  furthermore,  a  substantial  increase  of  the  number  of  non-Turkish  nationals 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
(especially foreigners living in Turkey, who are many) making attempts to cross into 
the  Schengen  area  using  forged  or  fraudulent  Turkish  travel  documents  can  be 
expected.  

However, there are also a number of factors suggesting that this impact would be of a limited 
dimension.  

  First, Turkish citizens are since many years not so inclined to international migration. 
Although  the  unemployment  rate  is  slightly  above  10  %  and  many  Turkish  citizens 
have  relatives  and  friends  within  the  EU  and  some  of  them  may  be  tempted  to  join 
them with any possible mean (including irregularly), nevertheless the overall level of 
welfare in the country is no longer as low as it used to be9. 

  Secondly, for most of the Turkish citizens willing to leave their home area in search of 
an alternative work and living place, the possibility to emigrate within Turkey would 
result preferable to the possibility to emigrate abroad, as the latter usually represents a 
more difficult challenge. 

  Thirdly, Turkish citizens since many years are not so inclined to leave their country in 
search of international protection, as the country has gone through an important social, 
political and institutional progress. In the light of this progress, besides, the European 
Commission  has  decided  to  propose  in  September  2015  to  the  Council  and  the 
Parliament to adopt a directive to consider Turkey as a safe origin country10.  

  Although it is possible that the number of Turkish citizens applying for international 
protection  in  the  EU  may  increase  as  a  consequence  of  the  situation  of  tension  still 
existing in the South-East regions of the country (which unfortunately worsened again 
since  the  end  of  the  peace  process  in  June  2015)  and  by  other  factors  linked  to  the 
internal political dynamics of the country (notably the growing pressures felt since 16 
December  2013  by  judges,  prosecutors  and  journalists),  nevertheless  even  these 
factors  –unless  the  situation  will  further  deteriorate  -  are  not  deemed  to  be  able  to 
substantially  change  the  overall  trend  leading  towards  the  reduction  of  asylum 
applications introduced by Turkish citizens.  

In conclusion, the visa liberalisation process may have some migratory impact on the EU, and 
most particularly on the Member States having already a large Turkish diaspora, nevertheless 
this impact is likely to be contained.  

In any case, the impact of these factors at the point where visa liberalisation would be in place 
would  also  be  heavily  influenced  by  the  effective  implementation  of  the  EU-Turkey 
Readmission  Agreement  and  by  the  quality  of  the  cooperation  established  between  Turkish 
and Member States' law enforcement agencies in combating migrant smuggling and passport 
forgery.  

9 The gross domestic product per capita in 2014 at current prices -7 819 EUR- was higher than that of any other 
candidate country and was around the double of several of them. 
10 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an EU common list of 
safe countries of origin for the purposes of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on  common  procedures  for  granting  and  withdrawing  international  protection,  and  amending  Directive 
2013/32/EU - COM(2015) 452 of 9 September 2015. 

46