Eastern partnership risk analysis network. Quarter 2, April-June 2016.
Date: 2017-04-25
Institutions: Frontex
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU statistics, EU visa policy, European security, border control, external border of the EU, illegal migration, migration control

Q2Q1Q3Q4Eastern Partnership Risk Analysis Network Quarterly  Quarter 2 • April–June 2016Frontex  official  publications  fall  into  four  main  categories:  risk  analysis,  training, 
operations and research, each marked with a distinct graphic identifier. Risk analysis 
publications  bear  a  triangular  symbol  formed  by  an  arrow  drawing  a  triangle,  with 
a dot at the  centre. Metaphorically, the arrow represents the cyclical nature of risk 
analysis processes and its orientation towards an appropriate operational response. 
The  triangle  is  a  symbol  of  ideal  proportions  and  knowledge,  reflecting  the  pursuit 
of factual exactness, truth and exhaustive analysis. The dot at the centre represents 
the  intelligence  factor  and  the  focal  point  where  information  from  diverse  sources 
converges  to  be  processed,  systematised  and  shared  as  analytical  products.  Thus, 
Frontex risk analysis is meant to be at the centre and to form a reliable basis for its 
operational activities.

Plac Europejski 6 
00-844 Warsaw, Poland
T +48 22 205 95 00 
F +48 22 205 95 01 
frontex@frontex.europa.eu 
www.frontex.europa.eu

Warsaw, October 2016 
Risk Analysis Unit 
Frontex reference number: 18237 / 2016

OPOCE Catalogue number TT-AK-16-002-EN-N 
ISSN  2467-3684

© Frontex, 2016 
All rights reserved. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

DISCLAIMERS
This is a  Frontex staff working document. Its contents do not imply the expression 
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Frontex concerning the legal status of any 
country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers 
or boundaries. All charts included in this report are the sole property of Frontex and 
any unauthorised use is prohibited.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Eastern Partnership Risk Analysis Network Quarterly has been prepared by the Frontex 
Risk  Analysis  Unit.  During  the  course  of  developing  this  product,  many  colleagues 
at  Frontex  and  from  the  EaP-RAN  contributed  to  it  and  their  assistance  is  hereby 
acknowledged with gratitude.

Table of contents

Introduction  #3

I.  Situational overview  #4

Summary of EaP-RAN indicators  #5

Situation at the border  #6

  Border surveillance  #6

  Border checks  #8

Situation in the Eastern Partnership region   #10

Illegal stay in EaP-RAN countries   #10

II. Statistical annex  #11

w

1 of 17

EaP-RAN · Q2 2016 
 
 
List of abbreviations used

BCP  
CIS 
EaP 
EaP-RAN 
EB-RAN 
EDF 
EU  
EUR 
FRAN  
Frontex 

ICJ 
ID 
n.a. 
Q/Qtr 
RAU 
RUB 
SAC 
UNSCR 

 border-crossing point
 Community of Independent States
Eastern Partnership
Eastern Partnership Risk Analysis Network
 Eastern European Borders Risk Analysis Network (now defunct)
 European Union Document-Fraud
 European Union
 euro
Frontex Risk Analysis Network
 European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States 
of the European Union
 International Court of Justice
 identification document
 not available
 quarter of the year
 Frontex Risk Analysis Unit
Russian rouble
Schengen Associated Countries
 United Nations Security Council Resolution

2 of 17
2 of 17

FRAN · q1 2015 Introduction

As  of  January  2016,  three  new  countries 
joined the Eastern Borders Risk Analysis 
Network  (EB-RAN)  operating  under  the 
EU-funded Eastern Partnership Integrated 
Border  Management  Capacity  Building 
Project:  Armenia,  Azerbaijan  and  Geor-
gia. Upon this extension, the network has 
been renamed as the Eastern Partnership 
Risk Analysis Network (EaP-RAN).

impact  the  regional  and  common  bor-
ders while the quarterly reports are meant 
to  provide  regular  updates  and  identify 
emerging trends in order to maintain sit-
uational awareness. Both types of reports 
are aimed at offering support for strategic 
and operational decision making. 

Methodology 

Concept 

The  Eastern  Partnership  Risk  Analysis 
Network  (EaP-RAN)  performs  monthly 
exchanges of statistical data and informa-
tion on the most recent irregular migra-
tion trends. This information is compiled 
at  the  level  of  the  Frontex  Risk  Analysis 
Unit  (RAU)  and  analysed  in  cooperation 
with the regional partners on a quarterly 
and annual basis. The annual reports of-
fer a more in-depth analysis of the occur-
ring developments and phenomena which 

The Eastern Partnership Quarterly statis-
tical overview is focused on quarterly de-
velopments for the seven key indicators of 
irregular migration: (1) detections of ille-
gal border-crossing between BCPs; (2) de-
tections of illegal border-crossing at BCPs; 
(3) refusals of entry; (4) detections of ille-
gal  stay;  (5)  asylum  applications;  (6)  de-
tections of facilitators; and (7) detections 
of fraudulent documents.1

The backbone of this overview are monthly 
statistics provided within the framework 

of the EaP-RAN (Armenia, Azerbaijan2, Be-
larus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) and 
reference period statistics from common 
border  sections  of  the  neighbouring  EU 
Member States and Schengen Associated 
Countries (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Lat-
via, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary 
and  Romania).  The  data  are  processed, 
checked for errors and merged into an Ex-
cel database for further analysis.

Structure 

The general Situational overview broken 
down  by  main  areas  of  work  of  border-
control  authorities  and  police  activities 
related  to  irregular  migration.  The  cur-
rent  issue  of  the  Eastern  Partnership  Risk 
Analysis  Network  Quarterly  is  the  second 
following  the  extension  of  the  network 
with new members.

1  Please note that the analysis of this indicator 
is now limited to EaP countries only given 
that EU Member States have transitioned to 
the European Union Document-Fraud (EDF) 
reporting scheme;

2  Data for Armenia and Azerbaijan not 

available for Q2 2016 for technical reasons 

3 of 17
3 of 17

FRAN · q1 2015EaP-RAN · Q2 2016I. Situational overview

Figure 1.  Geographical scope of the Eastern Partnership Risk Analysis Network

Note on definitions: ‘common borders’ refers both to borders between EU Member States and Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine (covered by both sides) and borders of 
EU Member States/Schengen Associated Countries with the Russian Federation (covered only by the EU/Schengen Associated Country side of the border)

Finland

Niirala

Imatra

Nuijamaa

Vaalimaa

Helsinki

Tallinn

Narva

Estonia

Latvia

Terehova

Riga

Lithuania

Medininkai

Russian 
Federation

Vilnius

Norway

Storskog

Raja-Jooseppi

Russian 
Federation

Finland

Salla

Moscow

National capitals

Main BCPs

Main BCPs of the EaP-RAN countries

Eastern Partnership (EaP) borders

External borders of EaP countries

Borders covered by EU/SAC data only

Common borders

Main roads

Eastern Partnership countries

Russian 
Federation

Kuznica

Poland

Terespol

Warsaw

Dorohusk

Korczowa

Medyka

Slovakia

Minsk

BELARUS

Dolsk

Novi Yarylovych

Domanove

Pulemets

Vystupovych

Kyiv

Ubla

Sokyriany

Ukraine

Vysne Nemecke

Mohyliv Podilskyi

Kazakhstan

Tudora

Palanca

Zahony

Budapest

Hungary

Moldova

Sculeni

Albita

Chisinau

Romania

Galati

Bucharest

Bulgaria

Soﬁa

Belgrade

Serbia

Podgorica

Skopje

Tirana

Greece

Ankara

Turkey

Athens

Source: Frontex RAU Analytics Team

4 of 17

Kazbegi

Georgia

Sarpi

Tbilisi

Vale

Guguti

Sadakhlo

Armenia

Yerevan

Az.

Red Bridge

Lagodeekhi

Azerbaijan

Baku

Iran

Syria

Iraq

Featured Risk Analyses Summary of EaP-RAN indicators

Table 1.  Summary of FRAN, EaP-RAN and selected EU Member State indicators for Q2 2016

Indicator

Illegal border-crossing between BCPs

Clandestine entries

Facilitators

Illegal stay

Refusals of entry

Applications for asylum

False travel documents

Return decision issued

Effective returns

EU total

 EU Member States (eastern 
land borders only)**

% of EU total

only EaP-RAN countries*

75 044

 403

3 522

111 874

33 792

290 153

n.a.

73 037

46 365

11 348

 36

 208

12 869

15 744

21 840

n.a.

19 671***

8 263***

15.1%

8.9%

5.9%

12%

47%

8%

n.a.

27%

18%

 555

3 971

 16

6 667

12 483

 180

 125

n.a.

n.a.

*  Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

**  Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania

***  Total numbers reported in FRAN by Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania

Source: FRAN and EaP-RAN data as of 10 August 2016

5 of 17

EaP-RAN · Q2 2016Situation at the border

 Border surveillance

Illegal border-crossing

During  the  second  quarter  of  2016,  874 
persons  were  detected  for  illegal  bor-
der-crossing between BCPs by the East-
ern  Partnership  Risk  Analysis  Network 
(EaP-RAN) member countries.1  Ukraine 
reported  the  highest  number  of  detec-
tions,  followed  by  Latvia  and  Hungary. 
The  most  significant  growth  in  detec-
tions was reported by Latvia at the Lat-
vian-Russian border section.

Almost 57% detections involved regional 
nationals (citizens of EaP and CIS coun-
tries),  mostly  Ukrainians,  Russians  and 
Moldovans.  The  vast  majority  of  these 
cases (82%) were reported as being linked 

18 PVC inflatable boats detected in 
Belarus

On 5 May 2016 Belarusian border guards 
of the Gomel region, together with police 
officers and representatives of the Tax In-
spection, uncovered 18 PVC boats trans-
ported in a car by a Belarusian citizen. 

© State Border Committee of the Republic of Belarus

It  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  boats 
might have been designated for illegal 
border-crossing into the EU via border 
rivers.
Source: State Border Committee of the Republic 
of Belarus (gpk.gov.by), 6 May 2016

Figure 2.  Detections of illegal border-crossing between BCPs reported by EaP-RAN 

members at all borders show that the highest pressure in Q2 2016 was recorded 

at the Latvian-Russian border section, which showed the highest increase when 

compared with Q2 2015

Detections of illegal border-crossing between BCPs at all borders covered by the EaP-RAN in Q2 2016

Sweden

Finland

@

N.A.

Estonia
@

-31%

Latvia

@
@

61%

93%

@

Lithuania

@

-66%

Belarus

@

N.A.

-41%

6%

-13%

-33%

@

-5%

@

Moldova

@

Ukraine

@

-52%

44%

@

-88%

40%

N.A.

N.A.

@

@

Poland

@

@

Slovakia

-62%

@

Hungary

@
@
@

Russian
Federation

@

18%

Croatia

Romania

@

Serbia

Bulgaria

@

Russia
Federation

Kazakhstan

N.A.

Georgia
@

N.A.

N.A.

@
Armenia

Azerbaijan

Turkey

AZ

Iran

1  Data for Armenia and Azerbaijan not available

Source: FRAN and EaP data as of 10 August 2016  

6 of 17

Featured Risk AnalysesI. Situational overview 
either to smuggling or to other reasons 
not related to migration.

Non-regional migrants, mostly Afghans 
and Vietnamese, constituted 43% of the 
detected cases. Irregular migration was 
the main reason for crossing the border 
illegally for both nationalities.

At the common borders, detections of il-
legal border-crossing between BCPs in-
creased by almost 17% compared with the 
first  quarter  2016  and  dropped  by  46% 
in relation to the same quarter of 2015.

At  the  Eastern  Partnership  and  exter-
nal  borders1,  324  cases  of  illegal  bor-
der-crossing were detected. More than 
three-quarters of detections took place 
at Ukrainian borders, involving mostly re-
gional migrants, i.e. Ukrainians and Mol-
dovans.  Non-regional  migrants  (mostly 
citizens of Vietnam, Turkey and Iran) were 
detected in very low numbers. 

1  Data for Armenia and Azerbaijan not available

Facilitators

When  compared  with  the  first  quarter 
of  2016,  the  number  of  detected  facili-
tators  at  the  common  borders  signifi-
cantly  decreased  (from  205  in  Q1  2016 
to  45  in  Q2  2016).  The  drop  can  be  ex-
plained by the definite closure of the so-
called Arctic route.

As  regards  nationality,  the  facilitators 
were mostly citizens of the Russian Fed-
eration (of Caucasus origin), Belarus and 
Estonia.

7 of 17

EaP-RAN · Q2 2016 Border checks

Clandestine entries

In the second quarter of 2016, there were 
15 cases of clandestine entry attempts re-
ported by Romania, Poland, Georgia and 
Slovakia,  and  were  related  to  Ukraini-
ans, Russians, Moldovans and Georgians.

Refusals of entry

There were 25 604 refusals of entry re-
ported during the second quarter 2016 by 
members of the Eastern Partnership Risk 
Analysis Network. Nearly 90% of refus-
als  were  issued  at  land  borders,  mostly 
by Poland and Belarus. The top three re-
fused entry were citizens of Ukraine, the 
Russian Federation and Moldova.

At the common borders, refusals of en-
try issued by the EU Member States and 
Schengen Associated Countries increased 
by over 24% in relation to Q1 2016, and by 
41% in relation to the same period of 2015.

The vast majority were reported by Po-
land with Ukrainian and Russian citizens 
representing the top two nationalities.

Over  12  480  refusals  were  reported  by 
Eastern  Partnership  countries.  78%  and 
15%, respectively, were issued at land and 
air borders. Belarus issued the majority of 
refusals, followed by Ukraine and Georgia.

Document fraud

During the second quarter of 2016, there 
were  125  detections  of  persons  using 
fraudulent  documents  reported  by  four 
Eastern  Partnership  countries  (Belarus, 
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine). A grow-
ing number of detections was registered 
by all the reporting countries apart from 
Belarus. Most detections were made by 
Ukraine.

As regards nationalities, Ukrainians, Mol-
dovans  and  Georgians  were  the  most 
frequently  detected  among  fraudulent 
document users. 

A fantasy ‘diplomatic passport’ in hands of Russian citizen

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i

L
f
o
c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
e
h
t

f
o
e
c
i
v
r
e
S
d
r
a
u
G
r
e
d
r
o
B
e
t
a
t
S
©

In May 2016, a 50-year-old Russian 
citizen, driving a Porsche 911 Carrera, 
presented a non-existing diplomatic 
passport at the BCP Panemunė while 
travelling from the Kaliningrad Oblast 
to Lithuania. The fantasy document 
carried the name of the ‘International 
Human Rights Defence Committee 
Diplomatic Passport’ did not entitle 
him to enter the EU.
Source: State Border Guard Service of the 
Republic of Lithuania (www.pasienis.lt), 23 May 
2016

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i

L
f
o
c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
e
h
t

f
o
e
c
i
v
r
e
S
d
r
a
u
G
r
e
d
r
o
B
e
t
a
t
S
©

8 of 17

Featured Risk AnalysesI. Situational overview 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THB from Nigeria on Russian student visas

According to some Moscow-based NGOs focusing on preventing human trafficking, 
around 2 000-3 000 Nigerian girls are brought to the Russian Federation each year 
for prostitution. Criminal groups appear to be taking advantage of Russian student vi-
sas, which are not easy to obtain, as universities must provide supporting documents 
for the applications. Nigerians come to the Russian Federation officially to study and 
then disappear for years into the sex trade and the authorities are unable to track them.

Girls in Nigeria are lured by promises of a well-paid job in the Russian Federation allow-
ing them to reimburse the costs of the visa and the journey (estimated at the level of 
USD 40 000). Surprisingly, even illiterate teenagers were being trafficked to the Russian 
Federation on the basis of student visas officially to study at a university.

The Head of Mission at the Nigerian Embassy in Moscow is aware of Nigerians being 
trafficked for sex to Russia and indicated that this phenomenon has been growing, as 
it was not such a huge problem ten years ago. 

Source: www.dw.com, 21 April 2016

The vast majority of detected fraudulent 
documents were passports (90%). False 
entry/exit stamps, visas and ID cards, ac-
counted  for  6%  of  all  fraudulent  docu-
ments reported.

Similar to the previous quarter, visa abuse 
remained one of the main modi operandi 
used by non-regional migrants in an at-
tempt to enter the EU. Moreover, fraudu-
lently obtained visas are likely to be used 
by OCGs as an effective tool in their THB 
activities.  Open  sources  indicate  that  a 
growing number of Russian student visas 
are used for trafficking people from Ni-
geria to the Russian Federation (see box). 

9 of 17

EaP-RAN · Q2 2016Situation in the Eastern Partnership region 

 Illegal stay in EaP-RAN countries 

In the second quarter of 2016 there were 
over  6 660  detections  of  illegal  stay  re-
ported by Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and 
Ukraine. The top five detected nationalities 
included Russians, Ukrainians, Moldovans, 
Georgians and Azerbaijanis. Citizens of the 
Russian Federation and Azerbaijan were 
mostly detected by Ukraine, while Ukrain-
ians, Georgians and Moldovans tended to 
be reported by Belarus.

99% of detections of illegal stay were re-
ported  on  exit.  Ukrainian  borders  were 
the most affected ones, followed by Be-
larusian airports.

In the case of Belarus, Georgia, Moldova 
and Ukraine only (reporting countries in 
Q1 2016 and Q2 2016), detections of illegal 
stay in Q2 2016 show a 6% increase when 
compared with the first quarter of 2016. 
The growth was mostly related to an in-
creased  number  of  Ukrainians  and  Mol-
dovans detected for illegal stay on exit at 
Eastern Partnership land borders.

Operation ‘Frontier-2016’ ongoing in Ukraine

Following the operation ‘Frontier-2015’, which led to the detection of over 1 970 irregu-
lar migrants, the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine launched the operation ‘Fron-
tier-2016’ as of 20 April 2016. This national-scale operation includes close cooperation 
of the majority of Ukrainian ministries and departments, as well as representatives of 
law-enforcement authorities of the neighbouring countries.

The operation aims at combating irregular migration, human trafficking, illegal movement 
of excise goods and smuggling of drugs and weapons across the state border of Ukraine.

The main objectives of the operation are to perform regular checks of the most frequent 
places of stay of irregular migrants as well as comprehensive inspections of roads, airports, 
sea and river harbours and vessels to identify routes and channels of irregular migra-
tion flows across the territory of Ukraine. Moreover, the operation involves strength-
ened controls in border areas and cooperation with neighbouring EU Member States.

According to open sources, from the beginning of the operation ‘Frontier-2016’ until mid-
July, 705 persons were detected breaching the state border, over 1 600 persons abus-
ing border regime detained and 102 irregular migrants apprehended. In addition, more 
than 28 tonnes of contraband alcohol, nearly 1 million packs of cigarettes, 150 kg of am-
ber, 38 kg of drugs and 120 weapons were seized.

Source: State Border Guard Service of Ukraine

10 of 17

Featured Risk AnalysesI. Situational overviewII. Statistical annex

LEGEND

Symbols and abbreviations:  n.a.  not applicable 

: 

  data not available

Source:   EaP-RAN and FRAN data as of 10 August 2016,  

unless otherwise indicated

11 of 17

EaP-RAN · Q2 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex Table 1.  Illegal border-crossing between BCPs

Detections reported by EaP-RAN countries and neighbouring EU Member States, by purpose of illegal border-crossing and top ten nationalities

2015

2016

% change on

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

year ago

previous Qtr

per cent 
of total

2016 Q2

Purpose of Illegal Border-Crossing

Irregular migration

Other

Smuggling

Not specified

Top Ten Nationalities

Ukraine

Vietnam

Moldova

Russian Federation

Afghanistan

Sri Lanka

Belarus

Georgia

India

Bangladesh

Others

Total

 373

 235

 86

 75

 201

 100

 56

 52

 66

 3

 28

 68

 0

 5

 190

 769

 762

 322

 169

 161

 335

 283

 88

 82

 212

 12

 24

 107

 17

 12

 242

 944

 560

 133

 250

 483

 254

 107

 111

 277

 17

 38

 145

 11

 13

 431

1 414

1 887

 607

 239

 93

 166

 236

 122

 70

 61

 241

 40

 23

 25

 2

 7

 278

1 105

 377

 274

 97

 55

 246

 66

 93

 65

 99

 41

 21

 23

 16

 4

 129

 803

 400

 289

 139

 80

 277

 158

 92

 82

 59

 31

 30

 30

 21

 18

 110

 908

-48

-10

-18

-50

-17

-44

4.5

0

-72

158

25

-72

24

50

-55

-36

6.1

5.5

43

45

13

139

-1.1

26

-40

-24

43

30

31

350

-15

13

44

32

15

8.8

31

17

10

9.0

6.5

3.4

3.3

3.3

2.3

2.0

12

100

Annex Table 2.  Illegal border-crossing at BCPs

Detections reported by EaP-RAN countries and neighbouring EU Member States, by purpose of illegal border-crossing and top ten nationalities

2015

2016

% change on

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

year ago

previous Qtr

per cent 
of total

2016 Q2

Purpose of Illegal Border-Crossing

3 049

6 035

4 574

4 001

 91

 35

 1

2 948

 158

 16

 9

 7

 1

 1

 3

 2

 0

 98

 44

 1

5 893

 207

 13

 19

 6

 2

 1

 5

 2

 0

 93

 32

 0

4 423

 129

 28

 47

 6

 1

 3

 5

 2

 1

 31

 30

 54

 96

 26

 1

3 832

 141

 26

 37

 18

 2

 7

 2

 8

 0

 51

3 101

 118

 26

 14

2 992

 181

 18

 23

 3

 3

 2

 5

 2

 0

3 800

 128

 20

 10

3 706

 181

 33

 14

 3

 3

 2

 2

 2

 2

 30

 10

3 176

6 178

4 699

4 124

3 259

3 958

-37

31

-55

900

-37

-13

154

-26

-50

50

100

-60

0

n.a.

-67

-36

23

8.5

-23

-29

24

0

83

-39

0

0

0

-60

0

n.a.

-67

21

96

3.2

0.5

0.3

94

4.6

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

100

Other

Smuggling

Irregular migration

Not specified

Top Ten Nationalities

Ukraine

Moldova

Romania

Russian Federation

Belarus

Poland

Bulgaria

Not specified

Uzbekistan

United States

Others

Total

12 of 17

FRAN · q1 2015Annex Table 3.  Facilitators

Detections reported by EaP-RAN countries and neighbouring EU Member States, by place of detection and top ten nationalities

2015

2016

% change on

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

year ago

previous Qtr

per cent 
of total

2016 Q2

 50

 3

 16

 12

 2

 0

 0

 0

 0

 2

 0

 0

 21

 53

 33

 1

 14

 2

 1

 2

 0

 1

 4

 0

 0

 0

 10

 34

 59

 0

 24

 0

 0

 11

 1

 0

 8

 0

 0

 0

 15

 59

 47

 0

 12

 7

 2

 6

 2

 0

 2

 0

 0

 0

 15

 47

 205

 1

 11

 5

 0

 5

 0

 2

 0

 2

 0

 0

 181

 206

 49

 4

 22

 11

 6

 3

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 53

48

300

57

450

500

50

n.a.

100

-50

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

-90

56

-76

300

100

120

n.a.

-40

n.a.

0

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

-99

-74

92

7.5

42

21

11

5.7

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

1.9

1.9

1.9

100

Place of Detection

Land

Air

Top Ten Nationalities

Russian Federation

Belarus

Estonia

Ukraine

Slovakia

Turkey

Latvia

Poland

Finland

Ecuador

Others

Total

Annex Table 4.  Illegal stay

Detections reported by EaP-RAN countries and neighbouring EU Member States, by place of detection and top ten nationalities

2015

2016

% change on

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

year ago

previous Qtr

per cent 
of total

2016 Q2

Place of Detection

Land

Air

Sea

Between BCPs

Inland

Top Ten Nationalities

Ukraine

Russian Federation

Moldova

Georgia

Belarus

Azerbaijan

Turkey

Hungary

Romania

Poland

Others

Total

5 996

1 558

 55

 109

 37

2 135

1 962

 549

 627

 288

 286

 150

 159

 94

 132

1 373

7 755

7 426

1 640

 101

 60

 25

3 060

1 829

 775

 792

 318

 330

 153

 157

 84

 177

1 577

9 252

9 904

1 703

 101

 155

 24

4 625

2 202

 852

 743

 455

 402

 169

 154

 83

 230

9 890

1 341

 60

 57

 30

4 981

1 748

1 019

 448

 346

 466

 189

 165

 180

 168

7 160

1 267

 46

 22

 12

3 019

1 505

 840

 381

 315

 338

 281

 185

 77

 143

8 438

1 492

 76

 41

 25

4 137

1 349

1 098

 498

 341

 303

 236

 173

 157

 148

1 972

1 668

11 887

11 378

1 423

8 507

1 632

10 072

84

15

0.8

0.4

0.2

41

13

11

4.9

3.4

3.0

2.3

1.7

1.6

1.5

16

100

14

-9

-25

-32

0

35

-26

42

-37

7.2

-8.2

54

10

87

-16

3.5

8.9

18

18

65

86

108

37

-10

31

31

8.3

-10

-16

-6.5

104

3.5

15

18

13 of 17
13 of 17

FRAN · q1 2015EaP-RAN · Q2 2016Annex Table 5.  Refusals of entry

Refusals reported by EaP-RAN countries and neighbouring EU Member States, by border type and top ten nationalities

2015

2016

% change on

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

year ago

previous Qtr

per cent 
of total

2016 Q2

18 410

1 204

 811

21 952

2 190

 933

22 644

1 198

 817

20 477

1 405

1 222

16 311

1 017

 692

21 938

1 276

 729

6 095

3 832

1 521

 890

 702

1 428

 628

1 969

 353

 346

2 661

7 606

6 009

1 589

1 106

 696

1 291

 832

1 340

 464

 756

3 386

8 909

6 061

1 391

1 384

 657

 570

 753

 573

 402

 562

8 989

5 341

1 264

1 399

 707

 504

 667

 343

 406

 477

8 178

3 272

1 361

1 099

 496

 401

 367

 204

 217

 266

8 902

6 645

1 676

1 218

 594

 575

 435

 333

 296

 289

3 397

3 007

2 159

2 980

-0.1

-42

-22

17

11

5.5

10

-15

-55

-48

-75

-36

-62

-12

20 425

25 075

24 659

23 104

18 020

23 943

-4.5

34

25

5.3

8.9

103

23

11

20

43

19

63

36

8.6

38

33

92

5.3

3.0

37

28

7.0

5.1

2.5

2.4

1.8

1.4

1.2

1.2

12

100

Border Type

Land

Air

Sea

Top Ten Nationalities

Ukraine

Russian Federation

Moldova

Belarus

Lithuania

Tajikistan

Azerbaijan

Uzbekistan

Armenia

Georgia

Others

Total

Annex Table 6.  Applications for asylum

Applications for international protection reported by EaP-RAN countries and neighbouring EU Member States, by top ten nationalities

2015

2016

% change on

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

year ago

previous Qtr

per cent 
of total

2016 Q2

4 394

 760

3 027

 602

1 219

 254

 916

 361

 141

 60

14 403

1 397

9 206

2 757

3 068

 518

 698

 684

 112

 48

30 239

2 971

57 870

11 881

18 241

1 420

 658

1 485

 133

 209

9 690

2 887

7 056

 557

10 834

1 619

 481

 392

 155

 256

2 090

1 764

 912

1 566

1 543

 692

 370

 337

 152

 358

7 184

3 501

3 166

1 972

1 886

 563

 435

 353

 344

 314

28 038

8 067

12 841

4 427

3 576

2 156

39 772

40 958

137 948

38 354

13 360

21 874

-50

151

-66

-28

-39

8,7

-38

-48

207

554

-73

-47

244

98

247

26

22

-19

18

4,7

126

-12

-40

64

33

16

14

9

8.6

2.6

2

1.6

1.6

1.4

9.9

100

Top Ten Nationalities

Afghanistan

Russian Federation

Syria

Pakistan

Iraq

Iran

Ukraine

Somalia

Turkey

Tajikistan

Others

Total

14 of 17
14 of 17

FRAN · q1 2015Annex Table 7.  Document fraud

Detections reported by EaP-RAN countries, by border type, document type, top ten nationalities and top ten countries of issuance of documents

2015 Q4

2016

% change on

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

year ago

previous Qtr

per cent 
of total

2016 Q2

Border Type

Land

Air

Sea

Not specified

Document Type

Passports

ID cards

Stamps

Residence permits

Not specified

Visa

Top Ten Nationalities

Ukraine

Moldova

Cuba

Turkey

India

Nigeria

Syria

Romania

Tunisia

Georgia

Others

 31

 37

 7

 3

 61

 3

 2

 0

 9

 3

 9

 16

 0

 2

 1

 1

 10

 0

 2

 5

 32

 72

 53

 6

 0

 113

 2

 0

 0

 3

 13

 13

 60

 0

 2

 1

 0

 5

 0

 1

 1

 48

Top Ten Countries of Issuance of Documents

Ukraine

Moldova

Hungary

Cuba

India

Romania

Bulgaria

Syria

Turkey

Italy

Others

Total

 9

 11

 0

 0

 1

 2

 6

 4

 2

 0

 43

 78

 15

 54

 0

 0

 1

 4

 0

 0

 1

 2

 37

 54

 10

 6

 95

 1

 0

 1

 2

 8

 12

 25

 0

 4

 4

 0

 8

 1

 0

 6

 47

 16

 23

 2

 0

 4

 3

 2

 1

 5

 0

 54

 131

 51

 107

 31

 50

 11

 4

 81

 6

 2

 0

 5

 2

 13

 20

 0

 5

 5

 0

 4

 1

 0

 7

 41

 10

 12

 1

 0

 5

 18

 5

 3

 2

 0

 40

 96

 25

 45

 9

 0

 66

 3

 3

 0

 1

 6

 28

 19

 0

 3

 2

 0

 2

 0

 0

 0

 25

 11

 12

 16

 0

 2

 6

 0

 0

 4

 1

 27

 79

 58

 33

 12

 0

 99

 3

 1

 0

 0

 0

 39

 24

 6

 5

 4

 3

 3

 2

 2

 2

 13

 30

 23

 7

 5

 4

 4

 4

 3

 3

 3

 17

 103

56

32

12

96

2.9

1

38

23

5.8

4.9

3.9

2.9

2.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

13

29

22

6.8

4.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

17

100

-19

-38

100

n.a.

-12

50

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

200

-60

n.a.

150

300

n.a.

-40

n.a.

100

100

-73

100

-57

n.a.

n.a.

300

0

n.a.

n.a.

200

50

-69

-21

132

-27

33

n.a.

50

0

-67

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

39

26

n.a.

67

100

n.a.

50

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

-48

173

92

-56

n.a.

100

-33

n.a.

n.a.

-25

200

-37

30

15 of 17
15 of 17

FRAN · q1 2015EaP-RAN · Q2 2016Explanatory note

Detections  reported  for  Member  States 
for  indicators  Illegal  border-crossing  be-
tween  BCPs,  Illegal  border-crossing  at 
BCPs,  Refusals  of  entry  and  Document 
fraud are detections at the common land 
borders  on  entry  only.  For  Facilitators, 
detections  at  the  common  land  borders 
on entry and exit are included. For Illegal 

stay, detections at the common land bor-
ders on exit only are included. For Asylum, 
all applications (land, sea, air and inland) 
are included.

For  EaP-RAN  countries,  all  indicators  – 
save  for  Refusals  of  entry  –  include  de-
tections  (applications)  on  exit  and  entry 
at the land, sea and air borders.

Each  section  in  the  table  (Border  type, 
Place of detection, Top five border section 
and  Top  ten  nationalities)  refers  to  total 
detections reported by EaP-RAN countries 
and to land border detections reported by 
neighbouring Member States.

16 of 17
16 of 17

FRAN · q1 2015FRAN · q1 2015For Public Release

Risk Analysis Unit

Reference number: 18237 / 2016

TT-AK-16-002-EN-N  
ISSN  2467-3684

Warsaw, October 2016

Plac Europejski 6 00-844 Warsaw, PolandT +48 22 205 95 00 F +48 22 205 95 01frontex@frontex.europa.eu www.frontex.europa.eu