Migration to the EU : five persistent challenges.
Date: 2018-02-08
Institutions: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, child of migrant, cruel and degrading treatment, fundamental rights, immigration, migration, migration control, political asylum, refugee, right of asylum

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

Migration to the EU: 
five persistent challenges

February 2018

EU Member States’ legal and practical responses to migrants and refugees 
implicate several of their fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU). The EU Agency for Fundamental 
Rights (FRA) has regularly reported on these issues since September 2015. This 
report highlights key trends and persistent concerns between October 2016 and 
December 2017. It focuses on five areas: access to territory, reception conditions, 
asylum procedures, unaccompanied children and immigration detention. 

Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................2

Main findings ................................................................................................................. 4

1. Access to territory ..................................................................................................... 6

2. Reception conditions .................................................................................................... 8

3. Asylum procedures .................................................................................................. 12

4. Unaccompanied children  .......................................................................................14

5. Immigration detention .............................................................................................18

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................22

1

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

Introduction

The number of people arriving irregularly in the EU 
dropped significantly in 2017 – to some 204,300 peo-
ple, compared to over 500,000 in 2016.1 During the 
first three quarters of 2017, 164,300 first-time appli-
cants sought asylum in the EU-28 – 55 % fewer than 
did so during the first three quarters of 2016.2 At the 
same time, the number of displaced persons world-
wide remained at a record-high level of some 65 
million people.3

While fewer people arrived and applied for asylum in 
the EU overall, this was not the case in all EU Mem-
ber States. The number of asylum applications fell in 
some countries and increased in others. For example, 
in 2017, asylum applications decreased in Austria, 
Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, the 
Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.4 At the same time, 
applications  for  international  protection  increased 
in France, Greece, Italy and Spain.5 For example, in 
France, 100,412 asylum applications were lodged in 
2017, a 17 % increase compared to 2016.6 In Spain, 
during the first three quarters of 2017, the number of 
arrivals by sea and land was 90 % higher than dur-
ing the first three quarters of 2016, according to UN 
Refugee Agency UNHCR.7 More and more migrants 
arrived on small inflatable boats and more rescues 
at sea were carried out in 2017 than in 2016.8  

Meanwhile, some EU Member States stepped up their 
efforts to review pending applications. For exam-
ple, in the first six months of 2017, Germany issued 
decisions on almost 358,000 asylum applications – 
more than in all other EU Member States combined.9 

National responses to migrants and refugees impli-
cate their fundamental rights, as enshrined in the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter). The EU 
Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) promotes com-
pliance with these rights by highlighting issues of 
concern, including in its regular reports on the asy-
lum situation. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Frontex (2018), Migratory flows in 2017 – pressure eased 
on Italy and Greece; Spain saw record numbers, 5 January 
2018.
Eurostat (2017), Asylum quarterly report.
UNHCR, Figures at a Glance.
Eurostat, Asylum and first time asylum applicants by 
citizenship, age and sex Monthly data (rounded), Due to 
the limited data available for November and December 
2017, the available data for each EU Member State was 
compared with the same period in 2016 in the respective 
EU Member State (data was extracted on 17 January 2018).
Ibid.
OFPRA (2018), Les données de l’asile 2017 à l’OFPRA.
UNHCR (2017), Desperate journeys; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, December 2017.
Spain, El País (2017), La ruta española de pateras alcanza 
cifras de 2008, 14 September 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, October 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.

2

Fundamental rights at stake
National  practices  and  policies  regarding 
migrants  and  refugees  mainly  implicate  the 
following fundamental rights: 

 • human dignity (Article 1 of the EU Charter of 

Fundamental Rights)

 • prohibition  of  slavery  and  forced  labour, 
in  human  beings 

trafficking 

including 
(Article 5)

 • right  to  respect  for  private  and  family  life 

(Article 7)

 • rights of the child (Article 24)

 • right to an effective remedy (Article 47)

 • principle of non-discrimination (Article 21) 

 • right to asylum (Article 18) 

 • protection in event of removal, expulsion or 

extradition (Article 19)

FRA ACTIVITY

Eye on migration: timely updates, 
targeted thematic reports

FRA has issued regular updates on fundamental 
rights  concerns  in  selected  EU  Member  States 
since September 2015. 

The  reports  currently  focus  on  14  countries 
particularly  affected  by 
large  migration 
movements:  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Denmark, 
Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Slovakia,  Spain 
and Sweden.

The  ‘highlight’  reports  –  issued  bi-monthly  as 
of  March  2018  –  provide  concise  but  thorough 
overviews on the situation in these countries. 

FRA  has  also  published  focus  sections  on 
particular  themes.  These  looked  in  detail  at: 
the  plight  of  children;  healthcare;  trafficking 
in  human  beings;  gender-based  violence;  the 
impact of migrant arrivals on local communities; 
migrants  with  disabilities;  family  tracing  and 
family  reunification;  hate  crime;  separated 
children; torture, trauma and its possible impact 
on  drug  abuse;  and  issues  relating  to  lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 
asylum seekers. 

FRA’s ‘highlight’ reports were initially issued on 
a  weekly  basis,  and  first  covered  the  situation 
in  eight  EU  Member  States.  All  reports  can  be 
found on FRA’s website.

Introduction

In  October  2016,  FRA  published  a  report  on  Key 
migration issues: one year on from initial report-
ing. It focused on particularly persistent concerns 
in four areas: unaccompanied children, safety and 
protection  at  reception  facilities,  impact  on  local 
communities, and violence and hate speech against 
migrants.10 

One year later, the overall number of asylum seek-
ers in the EU has decreased, but several issues per-
sist – and some have even deteriorated.11 

Building on the findings of the October 2016 report, 
this report presents the most pressing fundamental 
rights concerns between October 2016 and Decem-
ber 2017. It focuses on five areas:

 • access to territory;

 • reception conditions; 

 • asylum procedures;

 • unaccompanied children;

 • immigration detention. 

The report also looks at positive developments in 
EU Member States. These are connected to both the 
lower number of new arrivals and improvements 
in asylum systems and the professional capacity 
of staff since the peak of the migration situation 
in 2015.

10 

11 

FRA, Key migration issues: one year on from initial report-
ing, October 2016.
This report is based on information from all of FRA’s regular 
overviews of migration-related fundamental rights con-
cerns from October 2016 to December 2017.

3

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

MAIN FINDINGS

Main findings

Access to territory
• Access to EU Member States’ territory has become more difficult in almost half of the EU Member 

States covered. Despite a significant drop in newly arriving asylum seekers, in most EU Member States, 
the management of external and internal borders remained in emergency mode or became stricter. 
Several EU Member States re-introduced border controls and kept them throughout 2017. 

• Police and border guards reportedly ill-treated migrants, particularly on the Western Balkan route, and 

in Spain in certain locations.

• Some persons wishing to apply for asylum were denied entry to the EU and/or returned without an 
opportunity to apply for protection; others were collectively pushed back at land or sea borders. 

Reception conditions
• The number of asylum applicants that a country received is not necessarily linked to the quality of its 
reception conditions. Despite the relatively low numbers, reception conditions in several EU Member 
States did not improve. In countries where numbers of new arrivals remained high, capacity and poor 
living conditions caused concern. 

• Inadequate reception conditions sparked many protests and other incidents. 
• Although some positive developments regarding the protection of vulnerable asylum seekers were 
reported, these were outweighed by challenges regarding their identification, accommodation, and 
provision of special care and support.

• Sexual and gender-based violence in reception centres remains an issue in some EU Member States. 
• Room for improvement in the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 

asylum seekers was observed in the majority of EU Member States. 

Asylum procedures
• Challenges regarding the identification and registration procedures persisted in some EU Member 

States; for example, required timeframes were not respected or qualified staff was lacking.

• Some EU Member States decided on applications for international protection in border or transit zones, 

leading to long waiting periods in inadequate conditions, including for vulnerable persons. 

• Issues regarding lengthy asylum procedures, too little time for decision-making, shorter deadlines for 
appeals and insufficient justifications of appeal decisions were reported in several EU Member States. 

• Due to the large backlog of asylum applications, some EU Member States accelerated the asylum 

procedure, raising concerns over the quality of interviews and decision-making. 

• Specific national guidelines for interviewing persons facing persecution based on sexual orientation or 
gender were available only in a few EU Member States, and LGBTI asylum applicants faced credibility 
doubts. 

• Legal and practical obstacles to accessing legal aid, information and interpretation existed in all 

EU Member States covered.

4

Unaccompanied children
• In most EU Member States, reception places for unaccompanied children were sufficiently available due 
to a drop in new arrivals. In a few EU Member States, the number of children decreased and the quality 
of child reception facilities improved. In many EU Member States, however, reception standards for 
children remained critical. 

• Asylum-seeking children in several EU Member States had no or limited access to education. 
• Children continued to face legal and practical obstacles to accessing asylum procedures in several EU 
Member States. In particular, problems regarding the appointment of guardians for unaccompanied 
children barely improved. 

• Age assessment methods have been heavily criticised from a fundamental rights perspective – for 

example, when children were not given the benefit of the doubt concerning their age and treated as 
adults, or because age assessment procedures consisted purely of medical examinations.

• Legal and practical barriers to family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection was a great 

concern for unaccompanied children in several EU Member States. 

Immigration detention
• Some positive developments in alternatives to detention and the provision of leisure activities to 

children were reported in some EU Member States covered. Nonetheless, in several EU Member States, 
challenges remained regarding legal assistance and information, conditions in detention facilities and 
the detention of vulnerable persons.

• In recent months, the use of immigration detention increased in certain EU Member States covered.
• Obstacles to obtaining legal aid and/or information were reported in some EU Member States.

Main findings

5

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

1. Access to territory

Over the past two years, it has become more diffi-
cult for migrants and refugees to access the terri-
tory of EU Member States in almost half of the EU 
Member States covered. This risks interfering with 
their right to asylum (Article 18 of the Charter) and 
violating the prohibition of collective expulsions and 
refoulement (Article 19). Main concerns involved 
strict border management practices that were not 
sufficiently sensitive to protection needs, ill-treat-
ment by law enforcement, as well as refusals of 
entry and summary returns.

Border management

At the end of 2017, at least for some sections of 
the Austrian, Danish, French, German and Swed-
ish borders, temporary controls within the Schen-
gen area were still in place.12 

Hungary launched a ‘border hunting programme’, 
which included the training of volunteers to become 
police officers to assist the authorities with guard-
ing the borders.13 A new ‘smart technology’ fence 
was erected at the Serbian border, capable of deliv-
ering small electric shocks to migrants and armed 
with heat sensors, cameras, and loudspeakers that 
blare warnings, in several languages, to not cross 
the border.14

In  the  Central  Mediterranean,  non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs) deploying rescue vessels faced 
pressure from authorities to abstain from providing 
assistance.15 Italy resumed cooperation with Libya 
by signing a Memorandum of Understanding with 

12 

13 

14 

15 

See European Commission, Migration and Home Affairs, Full 
list of EU Member States‘ notifications of the temporary 
reintroduction of border control at internal borders pursu-
ant to Article 25 et seq. of the Schengen Borders Code, 
4 January 2018. See also European Commission, Temporary 
Reintroduction of Border Controls. 
Hungary, National Headquarters of the Police, Decem-
ber 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016, 
December 2016, September 2017 and December 2017.
Reuters, Dunai, M. (2017), ‚Hungary builds new high-
tech border fence – with few migrants in sight‘, 2 March 
2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016 and 
April 2017.
See, for example: Redatorre Sociale (2017), Migranti, le 
ong fermano le navi: stop di Save the Children e Sea-Eye, 
13 August 2017; Internazionale (2017), Tutte le accuse 
contro l’ong Jugend Rettet, 8 August 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, September 2017.

6

the Libyan Government of National Accord.16 Pur-
suant to a request from the latter, Italy deployed 
military assets inside Libyan territorial waters.17

Ill-treatment by law 
enforcement

Police  and  border  guards  reportedly  ill-treated 
migrants, particularly on the Western Balkan route18 
and  in  Ceuta  and  Melilla,  Spain.19  Médecins  Sans 
Frontières (MSF) reported that most migrants who 
visited their mental health clinics in Serbia in the first 
half of 2017 had experienced physical violence by 
police or border authorities in Bulgaria, Croatia and 
Hungary.20 In Hungary, several reports were pub-
lished on police violence against people attempting 
to cross or having crossed the border fence.21 Police 
cameras recorded the use of severe force by Span-
ish border guards and police against people trying 
to cross the border irregularly in El Tarajal/Ceuta.22 

Refusals of entry and 
summary returns 

Persons wishing to apply for asylum were denied 
entry and/or returned without an opportunity to 

16 

17 

18 

Italy, Memorandum d’intesa sulla cooperazione nel campo 
dello sviluppo, del contrasto all’immigrazione illegale, al 
traffico di esseri umani, al contrabbando e sul rafforza-
mento della sicurezza delle frontiere tra Io Stato della Libia 
e la Repubblica Italiana, signed in Rome on 2 February 2017.  
NGOs criticised the cooperation due to a likely violation 
of fundamental rights of people on the move. Italy, ASGI 
(2017), ASGI : C’è il rischio di riaprire la stagione buia dei 
respingimenti già condannati dalla CEDU, 11 August 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, September 2017.
The terms of reference of the deployment are included in 
the decision of the Italian Council of Ministers, 28 July 2017, 
Doc. CCL, No. 2, available on the webpage of the Senate 
subsequently endorsed by the Italian Senate, Joint Reso-
lutions of the 3rd and 4th Commissions, Doc. XXIV, No. 78, 
1 August 2017 and by the Lower Chamber.
See, for example, the Border Violence Monitoring website.
Spain, Amnesty International (2016), En tierra de nadie, La 
situación de las personas refugiadas y migrantes en Ceuta 
y Melilla; FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017.
20  Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), Games of Violence: Unac-
companied children and young people repeatedly abused 
by EU Member State border authorities, 5 October 2017, pp. 
4, 5, 7 and 8.
The Independent (2017), Hungarian border guards ‘tak-
ing selfies with beaten migrants’ as crackdown against 
refugees intensifies, 4 March 2017; MigSzol; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, December 2016, January 2017, 
March 2017, April 2017, May 2017, August 2017, Novem-
ber 2017 and December 2017.
Spain, El País (2017), Video shows baton blows and kicks 
in bid to stop migrants entering Spain, 8 August 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, September 2017.

19 

22 

21 

apply for protection, or even collectively pushed 
back at land and at sea borders. For example, in 
Poland,  border  guards  at  some  border  crossing 
points continuously refused entry to persons wish-
ing to apply for international protection.23 Persons 
who managed to submit their applications some-
times had to file them 30 or more times.24 The Euro-
pean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ordered interim 
measures that asylum seekers should not be refused 
entry at the Terespol and Medyka border crossing 
points, which border guards disregarded.25 

Migrants reaching the Italian-French border were, 
according to NGO reports, either returned to Italy 
without  a  formal  decision  or  detained  in  France 
without receiving information about their rights or 
the opportunity to apply for protection.26 According 
to some sources, almost all (95 %) apprehended 
persons in the Alpes-Maritimes Department in 2016 
were returned to Italy.27 The French border police 
allegedly  allowed  entry  only  to  particularly  vul-
nerable people, since they had a higher chance of 
obtaining asylum.28 

Hungary frequently returned persons apprehended 
within eight km of the border, including vulnera-
ble people, to the Serbian side of the fence, where 
they had to wait until they could submit their asy-
lum claims in one of the two transit zones.29 Push-
backs allegedly also happened at the Greek-Turkish 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

Poland, UNHCR and NGOs, February 2017 and Novem-
ber 2017; Ombudsperson, November 2017; Human Rights 
Watch, Poland: Asylum Seekers Blocked at Border, 
1 March 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, Janu-
ary 2017, February 2017, March 2017, June 2017, July 2017, 
August 2017, November 2017 and December 2017.
Poland, NGOs, January 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
January 2017.
Poland, Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka (2017), Border 
Guard ignores ECtHR measures again, 21 July 2017; Liberties 
(2017), Watch: Poland Is Closing Its Borders to Refu-
gees, 21 August 2017; NGOs, October 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, August 2017, September 2017 and 
October 2017.
France, La ANAFÉ, La Cimade and Roya citizen, 
August 2017; La Cimade (2017), Frontière Franco-Italienne: 
des atteintes inadmissibles aux droits des personnes 
migrantes et réfugiées, 18 October 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, August 2017, November 2017 and 
December 2017.
France, NGO Forum Réfugiés-Cosi, Les obstacles à l’accès à 
la procédure d’asile dans le département des Alpes-Mari-
times pour les étrangers en provenance d’Italie, April 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, June 2017.
France, La ANAFÉ, August 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, August 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016, Novem-
ber 2016, December 2016, January 2017, March 2017 and 
December 2017.

1. Access to territory

land30  and  sea  border.31  In  the  Spanish  enclaves 
Ceuta and Melilla, immediate returns were carried 
out quickly, not allowing for identifying vulnerabil-
ities and protection needs.32 The ECtHR found that 
the return of migrants violated the prohibition of 
collective expulsions.33

FRA ACTIVITY

Avoiding violations of 
non-refoulement

FRA  published  a  report  on  the  scope  of  the 
principle  of  non-refoulement  to  encourage 
fundamental-rights  compliant  border  mana-
gement.  The  agency  also  prepared  guidance 
on  how  to  reduce  the  risk  of  refoulement 
when EU Member States work in or together 
with third countries.

For more information, see FRA (2016), Scope of the principle 
of non-refoulement in contemporary border management: 
evolving areas of law, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the 
EU (Publications Office); and FRA (2016), Guidance on how to 
reduce the risk of refoulement in external border 
management when working in or together with third 
countries, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

30  Greece, Hellenic League for Human Rights, ‘New 

refoulements of Turkish asylum seekers in Evros’ (Νέες 
επαναπροωθήσεις Τούρκων αιτούντων άσυλο στον 
Έβρο); UNHCR Greece (2017), UNHCR deeply concerned 
at reports of informal forced returns from Greece to 
Turkey, 8 June 2017; efsyn.gr, Ντοκουμέντο βίαιης 
επαναπροώθησης (‘Proof of violent refoulement’), 
23 June 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, July 2017.
Greece, NGO Watch the Med, September 2017; Watch the 
Med (2017), Greek coastguards pushed boat carrying 26 
people back to Turkey, 22 July 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, September 2017.
Spain, UNHCR, February 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, November 2016, February 2017 and March 2017, 
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), N.D. and N.T. 
v. Spain, No. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 3 October 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, November 2017.

31 

32 

33 

7

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

2. Reception conditions

EU Member States must ensure that material recep-
tion conditions provide an adequate standard of living 
for asylum seekers, which guarantees their subsis-
tence and protects their physical and mental health.34 

The  numbers  of  asylum  applicants  that  countries 
received over the past two years were not neces-
sarily linked to the quality of reception conditions 
in the countries. Key concerns included overcrowd-
ing and inadequate conditions, which triggered pro-
tests and incidents. The situation of vulnerable per-
sons as well as the level of safety and protection in 
reception centres also posed problems. 

Capacity

At the end of 2017, sufficient reception capacity was 
available in many EU Member States – for exam-
ple,  in  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Finland,  Ger-
many, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovakia.35 Bul-
garia, for example, had previously faced issues with 
overcrowding.36 

The lower number of arrivals prompted the closure 
of  reception  centres  in  some  EU  Member  States. 
Closures were reported in Denmark, Finland, Ger-
many, Hungary and Sweden.37 In Hungary, reception 
centres were closed due to the country’s extended 
border policy, pursuant to which all asylum seek-
ers – except children below 14 years of age – were 
escorted to the outer side of the border fence to 
wait for admission to the transit zones.38 

In EU Member States that faced significant numbers 
of arrivals in 2017 – France, Greece, Italy and Spain 
– reception facilities remained overcrowded.39 For 
example, the hotspots in Lesvos and Samos, Greece, 

34  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of 

35 

36 

37 

the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the 
reception of applicants for international protection (recast), 
OJ 2013 L 180, (Reception Conditions Directive), Art. 17 (2). 
Out of the EU Member States covered in this report, Den-
mark is not bound by the Reception Conditions Directive. 
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017.
For Denmark: Danish Immigration Service, September 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, September 2017; For 
Finland: FRA, Monthly migration report, September 2017 
and December 2016; For Germany: Regional authorities, 
September 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, Septem-
ber 2017; For Hungary: FRA, Monthly migration report, 
December 2016, January 2017 and April 2017; For Sweden: 
Save the Children, November 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, November 2017.

38  Hungary, Wolters Kluwer, 2017. évi XX. Törvény a 

határőrizeti területen lefolytatott eljárás szigorításával 
kapcsolatos egyes törvények módosításáról; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, April 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.

39 

8

were  hosting  almost  three  times  more  people  in 
October 2017 than there were available places.40 In 
Italy, a facility in Cona (Veneto), built for a maxi-
mum of 540 people, hosted more than 1,300 asy-
lum seekers.41 In France, the reception capacity of 
70,000 – 80,000 places remained inadequate com-
pared to some 100,000 registered asylum applicants 
in 2017.42 In Spain, overcrowding was reported in the 
reception centres in Ceuta and Melilla.43

Insufficient  reception  capacities  led  to  the  estab-
lishment  of  informal  camps  in  France,44  Greece45 
and Italy.46 Living conditions were sometimes crit-
ical,  with  limited  access  to  water,  sanitary  facili-
ties and food.47 

Inadequate conditions

In many facilities, conditions improved due to the 
drop in numbers or following repair and construc-
tion work – such as in Bulgaria, where most facili-
ties were refurbished. Nonetheless, shortcomings 
persisted.48 

Although the majority of EU Member States have 
adopted some form of written standards for recep-
tion conditions, they reported significant challenges 
in respecting these in practice.49 For instance, the 
standard of living varied significantly between dif-
ferent  Italian  reception  facilities.50  Many  asylum 
seekers lived at ‘special reception centres’ (Centri 

41 

42 

40  Greece, Joint letter of 19 organizations to Greek Prime Min-
ister concerning the conditions for asylum seekers on the 
Aegean islands, 23 October 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, October 2016, November 2016, December 2016, Jan-
uary 2017, March 2017, May 2017, June 2017, August 2017, 
September 2017, October 2017, November 2017 and 
December 2017.
Italy, La Repubblica (2017), Tra I migrant in marcia nella 
nebbia ‘Mai più a Cona, ci trattano da schiavi’, 17 Novem-
ber 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.
France, OFPRA (2018), Les données de l’asile 2017 à 
l’OFPRA; FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017; La 
Cimade, December 2017.
Spain, Público (2017), España acumula 19.000 peticiones 
de asilo sin resolver, según ACNUR, 10 January 2017; 
UNHCR, February 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
February 2017, April 2017 and May 2017. 
France, La Cimade, October 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, November 2016, April 2017, May 2017, June 2017, 
September 2017, October 2017 and December 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, June 2017. 
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016. 
FRA, Monthly migration report, July 2017.

44 

46 

47 

45 

43 

48  Bulgaria, Ombudsperson, October 2017; State Agency for 

Refugees, December 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
October 2017 and December 2017.
FRA, Current migration situation in the EU: Oversight of 
reception facilities, September 2017, p. 2.
Italy, AIDA (2016), Country Report: Italy; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, May 2017.

49 

50 

2. Reception conditions

di accoglienza straordinaria -Cas), intended for ini-
tial reception, where conditions had to satisfy only 
basic  needs.  Only  some  managed  to  get  a  place 
in municipal SPRAR facilities, where more support 
was available.51 Of the 205,000 migrants in reception 
facilities in July 2017, 158,607 were hosted by the 
Cas and 31,313 in SPRAR facilities. Places in SPRAR 
increased from about 26,000 to 35,000 in 2017.52

Ombuds institutions, NGOs and other stakeholders 
reported that reception conditions were inadequate 
in at least some facilities in France, Greece, Hun-
gary, Italy and Spain.53 For example, in the Greek 
hotspots, facilities often did not provide shelter from 
bad  weather.54  Together  with  overcrowding,  this 
exacerbated tensions and safety risks.55 In Germany, 
emergency shelters – such as former commercial 
halls – were still used as reception centres in some 
regions, despite the sharp decline in new arrivals.56

In Hungary, in the transit zones in Tompa and Röszke, 
asylum seekers – including children above the age of 
14 – are accommodated in shipping containers and 
surrounded by high razor fences, where they are 
under constant monitoring.57 The authorities grad-
ually banned access to most civil society organisa-
tions undertaking protection work.58

Issues  with  providing  support  to  asylum  seek-
ers  were  also  reported.  For  example,  in  Austria, 
the reduction of social allowances (Bedarfsorien-
tierte Mindestsicherung) for both beneficiaries of 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

Italy, Centro Astalli (2017), Rapporto annuale 2017, 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, May 2017
Italy, ANCI press release of November 2017. 
For Bulgaria: FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017; 
For France: Fédération des acteurs de la solidarité, letter 
to Emmanuel Macron, 14 November 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, December 2017; For Greece: Ombuds-
man, February 2017; Ombudsman (2017), Ombudsman’s 
Special Report on migration flows and refugee protection, 
press release, 19 June 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
February 2017 and July 2017; For Hungary: UNHCR (2017), 
UNHCR Chief visits Hungary, calls for greater access to asy-
lum, end to detention and more solidarity with refugees, 
12 September 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, Novem-
ber 2016, February 2017, May 2017, June 2017, August 2017, 
September 2017 and October 2017; For Italy: Bari (2017), 
Migranti, protesta all’hotspot di Taranto: «Sommersi dalle 
polveri dell’Ilva», 24 July 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, October 2016 and August 2017; For Spain: UNHCR, 
January 2017 and February 2017; El Mundo (2016), Acnur 
denuncia que los CETI de Melilla y Ceuta «no son aptos 
para refugiados», 26 December 2016; FRA, Monthly migra-
tion report, January 2017 and February 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016, 
February 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2016, Decem-
ber 2016, January 2017.

56  Germany, Workers‘ Welfare Organisation, October 2017; 

FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2017.

57  Hungary, Hír TV (2017), Embertelen körülmények a tran-

zitzónákban, 1 August 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
August 2017, May 2017 and June 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017, Septem-
ber 2017 and December 2017.

58 

subsidiary protection and refugees in some Länder 
was a major concern.59 In the Greek hotspots, the 
increase in arrivals presented a challenge to pro-
viding support services,60 which were handed over 
from NGOs to authorities in the summer of 2017.61 
In September, UNHCR urged authorities to improve 
reception conditions on the Eastern Aegean islands 
and to deploy more staff in the areas of health care, 
psychosocial support and the protection of unac-
companied children.62  

Protests and incidents

Overcrowding, inadequate reception conditions and 
the  closure  of  reception  centres  (and  the  subse-
quent relocation of asylum seekers) exacerbated 
tensions in several reception facilities. Incidents of 
violence were reported, among others, in Finland 
and the Netherlands.63

Protests against reception conditions took place in 
Greece,64 including a general strike in the Munici-
pality of Lesvos.65 Similarly, in Italy, several dem-
onstrations and other actions criticising reception 
conditions took place.66

59 

60 

61 

See the HELP.gv.at webpage on Foreign cizitens 
FRA, Monthly migration report, September 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, August 2017. Several NGOs 
raised concerns over it. 

62  Greece, UNHCR (2017), UNHCR urges action to ease condi-

tions on Greek islands, 8 September 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, October 2017.
For the Netherlands: FRA, Monthly migration report, 
November 2016; For Finland: FRA, Monthly migration 
report, July 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016, Novem-
ber 2016, December 2016, July 2017 and November 2017.

63 

64 

65  Greece, Municipality of Lesvos, Escalation of mobilisa-

66 

tion by the Municipality of Lesvos regarding the refugee/
migrant issue (Κλιμάκωση των κινητοποιήσεων από το 
Δήμο Λέσβου για το προσφυγικό/μεταναστευτικό), press 
release, November 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
December 2017.
Italy, Palermo Today (2017), Casteldaccia, lancio di sedie e 
divani in strada: “rivolta” dei giovani migranti 25 June 2017; 
La Repubblica (2017), Catania, protesta al Cara di Mineo: 
bloccata la strada statale, 27 June 2017; La Repubblica 
(2017), Migranti, sassi sui poliziotti al Cara di Bari: otto 
agenti feriti, arrestati tre ospiti della struttura, 26 June 2017; 
CronacaQUI (2017), Protestano i profughi ospitati nelle 
stanze dell’ex albergo: ‘Dateci cibo e vestiti’. Arrivano 
i carabinieri, 14 August 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, February 2017, July 2017, September 2017 and 
December 2017.

9

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

Vulnerable persons

To secure vulnerable persons’ rights, EU Member 
States need to identify the special reception needs 
of  applicants  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time 
after they apply for international protection.67 In the 
reception of applicants for international protection, 
EU Member States must take into account the spe-
cific situation of vulnerable persons.68 

In the past months, positive developments regard-
ing  the  identification  and  reception  of  vulnerable 
persons were reported in some EU Member States. 
In Italy, the number of potential trafficking victims 
among arrivals increased by 600% in the past three 
years.69 In response, authorities issued guidelines70 
and  organised  training71  on  identifying  trafficking 
victims among asylum seekers. 

Despite  some  positive  trends,  several  challenges 
regarding identification, special care and support, 
and  accommodation  persisted  in  some  EU  Mem-
ber  States.72  In  Germany,  no  standardised  proce-
dures for recognising specific needs of vulnerable 
asylum seekers were in place73 and safeguards for 
vulnerable persons during the registration, asylum 
and return procedures were reported to be insuffi-
cient.74 In Poland, special needs were often not rec-
ognised at an early stage and therefore not taken 
into account in the asylum procedure.75

67 

Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 22 (1).

68  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 21.
69 

70 

71 

72 

Italy, IOM, La tratta di esseri umani attraverso la rotta del 
Mediterraneo centrale: Dati, storie e informazioni raccolte 
dall’organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, August 2017.
Italy, Ministry of the Interior, Commissione nazionale per il 
diritto di asilo, 12 December 2016; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, January 2017.
Italy, Ministry of the Interior, Riconoscere le vittime di 
tratta, un seminario a Firenze, 4 April 2017; Monthly migra-
tion report, May 2017.
For Greece:, MSF (2016), Greece in 2016: Vulnerable People 
Left Behind, 24 October 2016; Human Rights Watch (2017), 
EU/Greece: Pressure to Minimize Numbers of Migrants 
Identified As ‘Vulnerable’, 1 June 2017; FRA, Monthly migra-
tion report, November 2016 and July 2017; For Finland: 
FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017; For Poland: 
UNHCR, February 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
February 2017; For Spain: UNICEF, Son niños y niñas, son 
víctimas, Situación de los menores de edad víctimas de 
trata en España, February 2017, FRA, Monthly migration 
report, March 2017; FRA, Current migration situation in the 
EU: Torture, trauma and its possible impact on drug use, 
February 2017, p. 2.

73  Germany, Caritas, August 2017 and December 2017; Jesuit 
Refugee Service and the Workers’ Welfare Association, 
October 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, Febru-
ary 2017, August 2017, October 2017 and December 2017.

74  Germany, Caritas, August 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 

75 

report, August 2017.
Poland, UNHCR, February 2017; NGOs, June 2017; RPO, 
Krajowy Mechanizm Prewencji przeprowadził wizytację 
w Strzeżonym Ośrodku dla Cudzoziemców w Kętrzynie; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017, June 2017, 
July 2017 and August 2017, 

10

Vulnerable  persons  faced  difficulties  in  accessing 
special care in some EU Member States.76 In Austria, 
interpretation services in health care and psycho-
logical treatment for traumatised persons were not 
sufficiently available.77 In Bulgaria, available psy-
chologists were insufficiently qualified.78 The lack 
of specialised staff to respond to the needs of tor-
ture survivors often led to long waiting periods.79 
In Greece, access was difficult because referrals to 
mainland facilities took a long time.80

In Finland, Germany, Italy and Spain, conditions in 
reception facilities were sometimes insufficient for 
vulnerable persons.81 In France and Italy, some preg-
nant women and children were left in the streets 
due to overcrowding.82 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

For Greece: MSF (2017), Dramatic deterioration of the 
conditions for asylum seekers in Lesvos (Δραματική 
επιδείνωση των συνθηκών για τους αιτούντες άσυλο 
στη Λέσβο), 13 July 2017; MSF (2017), We call upon you to 
take a brave, humanitarian decision: Decongest the islands, 
(Σας καλούμε να πάρετε μια γενναία, ανθρωπιστική 
απόφαση¨Αποσυμφορήστε τα νησιά), 10 October 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016, 
August 2017 and November 2017; For the Netherlands: 
FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017; For Bulgaria: 
State Agency for Refugees, October 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, October 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.
Bulgaria, State Agency for Refugees, October 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, October 2017.
FRA, Current migration situation in the EU: Torture, trauma 
and its possible impact on drug use, February 2017, p. 2.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016.
For Finland: Non-discrimination Ombudsman, Women of 
Nigerian origin in Finland who have been subjected to 
trafficking for sexual exploitation: Practice in applying the 
Aliens Act; FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017; 
For Spain: Amnesty International (2016), En tierra de nadie, 
La situación de las personas refugiadas y migrantes en 
Ceuta y Melilla, 29 November 2016; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, January 2017; For Italy: Danish Refugee Council, 
Swiss Refugee Council (2017), Is mutual trust enough? The 
situation of persons with special reception needs upon 
return to Italy, 9 February 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, March 2017; For Germany: German Caritas Asso-
ciation, December 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
December 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, April 2017; For Italy: Danish 
Refugee Council, Swiss Refugee Council (2017), Is mutual 
trust enough? The situation of persons with special recep-
tion needs upon return to Italy.

Safety and protection 

The  Reception  Conditions  Directive  (2013/33/EU) 
requires  EU  Member  States  to  take  appropriate 
measures  to  prevent  assault  and  gender-based 
violence  at  reception  facilities.83  Nevertheless,  in 
some EU Member States, sexual and gender-based 
violence remained an issue – this was reported, for 
example, in Greece84 and Italy.85 The lack of certain 
basics  at  reception  centres86  –  such  as  adequate 
lightning, sufficient police patrols87 and overcrowd-
ing88 – increased these risks. After special reception 
facilities for women and new-born children were 
closed in France, instances of sexual violence and 
exploitation reportedly increased.89 

83 

Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 18 (4).

85 

84  Greece, Diotima, Gender-based violence in the refugee 
population, (Έμφυλη βία στον προσφυγικό πληθυσμό); 
FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2017.
Italy, La Sicilia (2017), Al cara la donne terrorizzate dagli 
stupri, 26 May 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, June 
2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, April 2017.

86 

88 

87  Greece, Diotima, Gender-based violence in the refugee 
population (Έμφυλη βία στον προσφυγικό πληθυσμό); 
FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2017.
Italy, La Sicilia (2017), Al cara la donne terrorizzate dagli 
stupri, 26 May 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
June 2017.
France, Défenseur des droits (2017), Décision du Défenseur 
des droits n2017-206, 21 June 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, July 2017.

89 

2. Reception conditions

11

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

3. Asylum procedures

Over  the  past  two  years,  increasingly  restrictive 
asylum policies and practices in many EU Member 
States call into question to what extent the right to 
asylum – as enshrined in Article 18 of the EU Charter 
of Fundamental Rights and in the 1951 Convention 
relating to the Status of Refugees – is guaranteed. 
The main issues centred on identifying and regis-
tering asylum applicants, border procedures, stand-
ards and the duration of asylum procedures, as well 
as access to legal aid and information.

Identification and registration 
procedures

EU Member States must register an application for 
international protection no later than three work-
ing days after the application is made.90 However, 
this timeframe was not always respected. Issues 
regarding identification and/or registration proce-
dures were observed in some EU Member States 
(France, Greece, Italy and Spain).91 

For example, in France, difficulties with registra-
tion were continuously reported.92 In certain depart-
ments, asylum seekers had to wait more than two 
months before obtaining an appointment at the Pre-
fecture.93 Asylum seekers without a registered appli-
cation remained undocumented and did not receive 
any allowances.94 In mainland Greece, asylum seek-

91 

90  Or six days, if the application was lodged with an author-
ity which is not competent for the registration, Directive 
2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and 
withdrawing international protection, OJ L 180, (Asylum 
Procedures Directive), Art. 6 (1).
For France: France Terre d’Asile, September 2017; La 
Cimade, October 2017, November 2017 and December 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2016, May 2017, 
September 2017, October 2017, November 2017 and 
December 2017; For Greece: Aitima (2017), Asylum seek-
ers on hold, Aspects of the asylum procedure in Greece, 
April 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, December 
2016, May 2017; For Italy: Commissione Parlamentare di 
Inchiesta sul Sistema di accoglienza e di identificatzione 
ed espulsione, nonchè sulle condizioini di trattenimento 
dei migranti e sulle risorse publlihe impegnate, Relazione 
di minoranza, Doc.  XXII-bis, No. 8-bis, at 2.3, 26 October 
2016; FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016, 
January 2017 and July 2017; For Spain: Cadena SER (2017), 
Solicitantes de asilo sin techo porque el Gobierno les niega 
la ayuda, 24 August 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
September 2017.
France, France Terre d’Asile, September 2017, November 
2017 and December 2017; La Cimade, October 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, November 2016, May 2017, 
September 2017, October 2017, November 2017 and 
December 2017.
France, La Cimade, October 2017, November 2017 and 
December 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, Octo-
ber 2017, November 2017 and December 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, May 2017.

94 

92 

93 

12

ers  were  asked  to  make  Skype  appointments  to 
lodge  their  applications,95  because  submitting  an 
asylum application to the Regional Asylum Offices 
or the Asylum Units in person was almost impos-
sible. At the same time, Greek authorities applied 
a pre-registration procedure (instead of immedi-
ate full registration), which led to long delays of 
up to 10 months before individual asylum applica-
tions could be lodged.96 In Italy, procedures were 
less clear for asylum applicants who arrived outside 
the normal landing points, particularly as regards 
the provision of information on asylum.97 

Border procedures

EU Member States may decide on the admissibil-
ity of an application for international protection or 
its substance in border or transit zones, provided 
the decision is taken within a reasonable time.98 

Using such an approach, Hungary gradually limited 
admissions to the transit zones at its border with 
Serbia to an average of a handful of persons per 
day in each of the two transit zones. Many peo-
ple, including vulnerable persons, waited for their 
admission in Serbia for months – some up to a year.99 

Access to asylum was also difficult at Polish borders 
in Terespol and Medyka, where only a few persons 
per day managed to register their applications.100 
Facilities for interviewing applicants allegedly did 
not ensure privacy or confidentiality.101

Duration of asylum 
procedures

EU Member States must ensure that the examina-
tion procedure is concluded within six months after 
an application is lodged.102 

Due  to  the  large  backlog  of  asylum  applications, 
some EU Members States tried to accelerate their 

95  Greece, Greek Asylum Service, ‘What is the procedure’.
96  Greece, Aitima (2017), Asylum seekers on hold, Aspects of 
the asylum procedure in Greece, April 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, May 2017.

97  Monthly migration report, January 2017.
98  Asylum Procedures Directive, Art. 43 (1).
99 

FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2016, Decem-
ber 2016, January 2017, February 2017, March 2017, 
April 2017 and May 2017.

100  FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2016 and April 

2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017.

101 

102  Asylum Procedures Directive, Art. 31 (3).

3. Asylum procedures

Asylum seekers do not generally have the right to 
a lawyer, but must be able to communicate with 
UNHCR  or  other  organisations  that  provide  legal 
advice or other counselling.118 

Legal aid, information and interpretation were not 
accessible  in  all  EU  Member  States  covered  due 
to  legal  and  practical  obstacles.  Legal  assistance 
became less accessible for asylum seekers in Fin-
land following changes to the legal aid system in 
September 2016, which also reduced the time to 
appeal  negative  asylum  decisions  from  30  to  21 
days.119 In some parts of Germany, asylum proce-
dures for applicants from third countries regarded 
as safe countries of origin were accelerated to an 
extent  that  individual  counselling  was  often  not 
possible.120 There was a lack of provision of legal 
information to asylum seekers in Greece, in particu-
lar on the islands. Legal assistance at first instance 
examinations of asylum requests was limited and 
exclusively provided by civil society organisations.121

asylum  procedures  –  France,103  Germany,104  Hun-
gary105 and Italy106. However, this raises concerns 
regarding the quality of interviews and decision-
making.  In  Germany,107  an  internal  investigation 
revealed severe deficiencies in the asylum proce-
dure after it was accelerated.108

Issues regarding lengthy asylum procedures were 
reported in EU Member States such as Austria,109 
Finland,110 Germany,111 Greece,112 Spain113 and Swe-
den114. In France, delays remained significant; how-
ever, the examination time was reduced from eight 
months in 2015 to five months in July 2017, despite 
an increase in asylum applications in 2017.115

Access to legal aid  
and information 

EU Member States must inform asylum seekers of 
the available asylum procedure and of their rights 
and  obligations.116  In  addition,  they  must  make 
arrangements for interpretation to the extent neces-
sary to facilitate access to the asylum procedure.117 

103 

France, La Cimade, November 2017; Public Defender of 
Rights (2017), Avis du Défenseur des droits n°17-09, 25 
September 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, November 
2017.

104  FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2016.
105  Hungary, Wolters Kluwer, 2017. évi CXLIII. Törvény az egyes 
migrációs tárgyú törvények módosításáról; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, December 2017. Amendments entered 
into force in January 2018.

106  FRA, Monthly migration report, April 2017. See critique on 
the decree: ASGI (2017), Il D.L. 13/2017: le principali ragioni 
di illegittimità, 7 March 2017; ASGI (2017), Decreto Legge 
13/2017 : audizione dell’ANM alle Commissioni parlamen-
tari, 9 March 2017. 

107  FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2016.
108  Germany, Welt (2017), Untersuchung deckt erhebliche 

Mängel bei Asylverfahren auf, 31 May 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, July 2017.

109  Austria, Austrian Ombudsman Board, August 2017, Novem-
ber 2017 and December 2017; Caritas, Asylum Coordination 
Austria, December 2017; Monthly migration report, Decem-
ber 2016, August 2017, September 2017, November 2017 
and December 2017.
Finland, Parliamentary Ombudsman, November 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, November 2017.

110 

111  Germany, Deutscher Bundestag, 18. Wahlperiode (2017), 
Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der 
Abgeordneten Ulla Jelpke, Frank Tempel, Sevim Dağdelen, 
weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE. – Druck-
sache 18/13188 –, Ergänzende Informationen zur Asylstatis-
tik für das zweite Quartal 2017, 11 September 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, November 2017.

113 

112  Greece, Aitima (2017), Asylum seekers on hold, Aspects of 
the asylum procedure in Greece, April 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, December 2016 and May 2017.
Spain, CEAR, Informe 2017: Las personas refugiadas en 
España y Europa; FRA, Monthly migration report, July 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.
France, l’Opinion (2017), Pascal Brice (Ofpra): «Le droit 
d’asile doit être dissocié de la politique migratoire», 12 July 
2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016 and 
August 2017.

114 

115 

118  Asylum Procedures Directive, Art. 12(1) (c).
119 

FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2016.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016.

120 

116  Asylum Procedures Directive, Art. 12 (1) (a).
117  Asylum Procedures Directive, Art. 8 (1).

121  Greece, Aitima (2017), Asylum seekers on hold : Aspects of 

the asylum procedure in Greece, April 2017.

13

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

4. Unaccompanied children 

The best interests of the child must be a primary 
consideration in all actions affecting children, includ-
ing in asylum and migration procedures, as required 
by Article 24 (2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights and the United Nations Convention on the 
Rights of the Child.

Although the number of unaccompanied children 
declined in several EU Member States over the past 
two years, their level of protection barely improved. 
In most EU Member States, the quality of child recep-
tion facilities, appointment of guardians, access to 
the asylum procedure and obstacles related to fam-
ily reunification remained key issues. 

Reception conditions 

Asylum-seeking children should be accommodated 
in specialised facilities and foster care placements 
to guarantee the protection and care necessary for 
their wellbeing.122 They should also have access to 
education and healthcare.123 

In  most  EU  Member  States,  reception  places  for 
unaccompanied children were sufficiently available 
due to a drop in new arrivals. Several child recep-
tion facilities closed down in Austria,124 Denmark,125 
Finland,126 the Netherlands127 and Sweden.128 Chil-
dren had to move to other locations, resulting in 
a  change  of  their  known  environment,  including 
schools and guardians; interruptions in the provi-
sion of mental health care; and difficulties for their 
wellbeing and integration prospects.129 

In a few EU Member States, the number of arriving 
children decreased and the quality of child recep-
tion facilities improved. Bulgaria amended a regu-
lation on the reception of asylum seekers to allow 
for separate units for unaccompanied children.130 In 
Slovakia, where hardly any unaccompanied chil-
dren arrived, preparatory work for a new educa-
tional space for unaccompanied children started in 
the children’s home in Medzilaborce.131 

122  Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 20 and 22; 

Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 12, 18, 22, 23 and 24.

123  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 14, 17 and 19.
124 
FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017.

In many EU Member States, however, despite the 
decreasing numbers, standards of reception facilities 
for children did not improve and conditions remained 
critical. For example, in Hungary, insufficient psy-
chological and psychiatric care was provided to chil-
dren, despite their traumatic experiences. Children 
complained about violence and intolerant behav-
iour by the authorities. Instead of being placed in 
facilities with child-specific services, children over 
14 were transferred to the transit zones at the bor-
der with Serbia, where they had to stay until their 
asylum claims were processed.132 In Denmark and 
in the Netherlands, some unaccompanied children 
stayed in adult facilities. In two cases in Denmark, 
child siblings were separated and placed into dif-
ferent accommodation centres when one of them 
turned 17.133

In France, Greece, Italy and Spain, high numbers of 
unaccompanied children continued to arrive, leading 
to insufficient capacity and reception conditions. For 
example, in Italy, since 2011, there has been a six-
fold increase in annual arrivals, a gradual increase 
in the proportion of children under the age of 15, 
and a growing number of girls among unaccom-
panied children.134 

In  France,  children  had  to  stay  in  hotels  in  poor 
sanitary  conditions.  Informal  camps  –  such  as  in 
Calais – reappeared; authorities tried to carry out 
evacuation measures. Children at the camps risked 
becoming victims of crime, such as trafficking, sex-
ual assault and rape.135 Throughout 2017, between 
900 and 3,300 unaccompanied children were wait-
ing for appropriate shelter in Greece.136 Unaccompa-
nied children were often registered as adults and left 
in overcrowded and unsafe camps on the Aegean 
islands or at police stations for several weeks, with-
out specific services or protection, adequate sani-
tary conditions or basic resources.137 

132 

FRA Monthly migration report, April 2017, July 2017 and 
August 2017.

134 

133  Denmark, Red Cross and Danish Immigration Service; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, April 2017, August 2017 and 
September 2017.
Italy, Save the Children, Atlas of Unaccompanied Children 
in Italy (Atlante minori stranieri non accompagnati in Italia); 
FRA Monthly migration report, July 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, March 2017.

135 

125  Denmark, the Danish Immigration Service (Udlændingesty-

136  Greece, National Centre for Social Solidarity; FRA, Monthly 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

relsen), 21 June 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017 and April 
2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016.
FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016.
Slovakia, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family; FRA 
Monthly migration report, November 2017.

migration report, November 2016, December 2016, 
April 2017, October 2017, November 2017 and December 
2017.

137  Greece, Human Rights Watch (2017), Greece: Lone Migrant 
Children Left Unprotected, 19 July 2017; Greek Ombudsman 
(Συνήγορος του πολίτη), Unacceptable conditions for the 
detention of unaccompanied minors in Northern Greece, 
press release, 31 July 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
August 2017 and September 2017.

14

4. Unaccompanied children 

In Italy, the reception system could not accommo-
date the increasing number of arriving unaccom-
panied children; many of them – an average of 28 
daily – lived on the streets, stayed in adult facili-
ties or disappeared.138 Some 540 unaccompanied 
children  were  presumed  to  live  in  Melilla,  Spain, 
including at least 100 of whom were sleeping on 
the streets.139   

Some  unaccompanied  children  reported  ill-treat-
ment and beatings by security staff in a Centre for 
Minors in Madrid, Spain.140 92 % of the children in 
the overcrowded ‘La Purisima’ facility for boys said 
they experienced violence daily.141

Asylum-seeking children in the hotspots in Greece 
and in parts of France, Hungary and Spain had no 
or limited access to education. Only 29 % of chil-
dren in reception centres attended regular schools 
in Germany;142 in large cities, children had to wait 
for a place in regular school for up to one year.143 In 
some EU Member States, when compulsory school-
ing  ended,  some  16-  and  17-year-olds  were  not 
offered  any  education  and  faced  difficulties  get-
ting into vocational training or employment. In Ger-
many, some young refugees did not get work per-
mits even though they had already been accepted 
for apprenticeships by an employer.144 

Appointment of guardians

Unaccompanied  children  seeking  asylum  should 
swiftly be provided with an independent and qual-
ified guardian to ensure that children’s views are 
taken into consideration and that they have access 
to adequate reception, healthcare and education 
services. Guardians are also essential in safeguard-
ing children’s procedural rights. 

Compared to 2016, problems regarding the appoint-
ment  of  guardians  for  unaccompanied  children 
barely  improved.  Guardians  were  overburdened 
in several EU Member States – such as Austria145, 
Finland146, France147 and Sweden148. For example, 
in  Austria,  one  guardian  was  in  charge  of  some 
50  to  200  children.  In  addition,  in  several  cases, 

adult siblings were appointed as guardians for their 
younger siblings.149 

However, a significant change occurred in Italy: to 
overcome systemic shortcomings, a new law cre-
ated the function of volunteer guardians; the train-
ing  and  recruitment  of  such  guardians  started  at 
the end of 2017.150

FRA ACTIVITY

Reinforcing guardianship systems

The  handbook  on  guardianship  jointly  pu-
blished by FRA and the European Commission 
aims to help standardise guardianship practice. 
It  provides  guidance  and  recommendations 
to  EU  Member  States  on  strengthening  their 
guard ianship  systems,  setting  forth  the  core 
principles,  fundamental  design  and  mana-
gement of such systems. 

For more information, see FRA (2014), Guardianship for 
children deprived of parental care, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office.

In several countries, severe problems regarding the 
appointment of guardians persisted. In Greece, no 
functioning guardianship system was established 
and no progress occurred regarding adoption of the 
draft guardianship law.151 In Hungary, guardians were 
only assigned to unaccompanied children under the 
age of 14.152 In Como, northern Italy, legal counsel-
ling and a guardian were only available to unac-
companied children once they applied for asylum.153 
In Poland,154 the appointment of guardians took a 
very long time – in some cases up to nine months.155 
Access to guardians varied greatly in Sweden’s 290 
municipalities, but the lack of resources for super-
vising the guardians was an overall concern.156 

In  Germany,  NGOs,  guardians  and  employees  of 
youth services and care institutions lacked the nec-
essary psychological and legal qualifications. This 
includes knowledge about asylum law and recent 
reforms – a gap also likely to exist in other EU Mem-
ber States.157   

138 

139 

FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016.
140  FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016.
141 
FRA, Monthly migration report, May 2017.

142  Germany, Unicef (2017), Kindheit im Wartezustand; FRA, 

143 

Monthly migration report, April 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016.
144  FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2017.
145 
FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017. 

146  Finland, Ombudsperson for Children and Amnesty Inter-
national; FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016, 
November 2016 and December 2016.

147  FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016, Novem-

ber 2016 and January 2016.

148  FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.

149  FRA, Monthly migration report, August 2017. 
150 

Italy, Law No. 47, Disposizioni in materia di misure di pro-
tezione dei minori stranieri non accompagnati, 7 April 2017, 
Official Gazette No. 93, 21 April 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, August2017 and October 
2017. 
FRA, Monthly migration report, August 2017, September 
2017 and October 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, April 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, April 2017 and August 2017. 
FRA, Monthly migration report, September 2017. 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156  Sweden, Chief Guardian Committee; FRA, Monthly migra-

tion report, August 2017. 
FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017.

157 

15

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

Accessing asylum procedures

The best interests of the child must be the guid-
ing principle when unaccompanied children make 
use of their right to asylum.158 For this purpose, EU 
law provides specific safeguards, including access 
to information, legal representation, and special-
ised training for the officials working with children. 
Children continued to face legal and practical obsta-
cles to accessing asylum procedures in several EU 
Member States. 

General shortcomings in the asylum system par-
ticularly affect children. In Austria, asylum proce-
dures for unaccompanied children took more than 
a year.159 It sometimes took authorities in Germany 
several months to make decisions about unaccom-
panied  children’s  placements  into  care  and  spe-
cific benefits.160 

When authorities doubt that an applicant’s claimed 
age is correct, they can ask the applicant to undergo 
an age assessment. There are different methodol-
ogies to assess a child’s age. EASO published infor-
mation on age assessment practice in Europe, and 
highlighted key points that should be taken into con-
sideration when undertaking age assessments.161 It 
is also developing guidance for EU Member States 
on how to assess the age from a holistic and mul-
tidisciplinary approach and on the implementation 
of the principle of the best interests of the child, as 
well as an update of the information collected for 
the first edition of the publication. In practice, the 
applicant’s age may be estimated through visual 
estimation by a doctor, X-rays, medical examina-
tions (of wrists, teeth, genitals), or a combination 
of these measures. Such examinations, in particular 
of sexual maturity, can be traumatising for the child 
and impinging human dignity. Based on its research, 
FRA recommends that assessments should be mul-
tidisciplinary and not be based solely on medical 
examinations, and applicants should be given the 
benefit of the doubt.162

In parts of France163 and in Hungary,164 children were 
reportedly not given the benefit of the doubt con-
cerning their age and treated as adults. In Hungary, 
age  assessment  procedures  consisted  purely  of 

medical examinations.165 In Italy, assessments were 
made without using the multidisciplinary approach 
envisaged under national law.166 

FRA ACTIVITY

Scrutinising guardianship systems 
to improve child protection

A FRA report covers the type of guardianship 
systems  in  place  for  children  deprived  of 
parental care in the EU, the profile of appointed 
guardians, 
the  appointment  procedures, 
and  the  guardians’  tasks.  It  aims  to  help 
readers  better  understand  the  strengths  and 
weaknesses of national guardianship systems, 
and,  ultimately,  to  assist  decision-makers  in 
promoting  measures  that  effectively  protect 
all children. 

For more information, see FRA (2018), Guardianship systems 
for children deprived of parental care in the European Union 
- Summary, Luxembourg, Publications Office.

Family reunification

EU law regulates family reunification for refugees 
– but not for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection 
– in the Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/
EC).167 Legal and practical barriers to family reuni-
fication  for  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection 
were a great concern for unaccompanied children 
in several EU Member States. 

Germany and Sweden adopted temporary meas-
ures excluding beneficiaries of subsidiary protection 
from applying for family reunification for a certain 
time period.168 In Austria169 and Denmark,170 family 
reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protec-
tion was only granted after three years.

165 

Ibid.

166  FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017.
167  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the 
right to family reunification (Family Reunification Directive), 
OJ L 251.

158  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 

168  Germany, Amendments made to the German Residence 

OJ C 326, Arts. 18 and 24.

159  Austria, Asylum Coordination Austria; FRA, Monthly migra-
tion report, May 2017, August 2017 and December 2017.

160  FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016.
161 

EASO (2013), Age assessment practices in Europe, Decem-
ber 2013. 
FRA (2010), Separated, asylum-seeking children in Euro-
pean Union Member States, December 2010.
FRA, Monthly migration report, May 2017.

162 

163 

164  Hungary, Hungarian Helsinki Committee (2017), A gyerek 

az gyerek akkor is, ha menekülő, 20 November 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, December 2017.

16

Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz) (Asylpaket II in Kraft – Kürzere 
Verfahren, weniger Familiennachzug), Die Bundesregierung 
(2016), Kürzere Verfahren, weniger Familiennachzug, 
17 March 2016; Sweden, Act on temporary restrictions of 
the possibility to obtain a residence permits in Sweden (Lag 
(2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att 
få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige), 20 July 2016. For restrictions 
to family reunification introduced by EU Member States 
in 2016, see also FRA, Fundamental Rights Report 2017, 
Chapter 5.4.

169  FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2017.
170  FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.

4. Unaccompanied children 

Practical  obstacles  also  slowed  down  or  pre-
vented  family  reunification.  These  included  high 
fees (Spain171 and Poland172); restrictive deadlines 
(Austria, 173 Germany174 and Poland175); the require-
ment to provide evidence of having sufficient liv-
ing space (Germany176); closed embassies in coun-
tries such as Syria and Iraq; delays due to limited 
resources in the Immigration Service (the Nether-
lands177); and authorities’ strict approach to accept-
ing unofficial documents as evidence of family ties 
(the Netherlands178). 

Applicants in Greece – including many unaccompa-
nied children – faced significant delays in joining their 
family members in Germany.179 As of mid-August 
2017, some 4,339 applicants had been accepted by 
Germany but were not yet transferred. Over 60 % 
were children, some unaccompanied.180 

171 

173 

172 

FRA, Monthly migration report, March 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, May 2017.
FRA, Monthly migration report, March 2017.
174  FRA, Monthly migration report, August 2017.
175 
FRA, Monthly migration report, May 2017.
176  FRA, Monthly migration report, August 2017.
177 
FRA, Monthly migration report, March 2017.

178  FRA, Monthly migration report, July 2017.
179  Germany, Greece, Pro Asyl and Refugee Support Aegean 
(2017), The Dublin family reunification procedure from 
Greece to Germany, 2 August 2017. See also the leaked let-
ter by the Greek Minister of Migration Policy to the German 
Minister of Interior, Ref. No. 2789, 4 May 2017.

180  Germany, Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 18/13408, 
Response by the German authorities to the question by 
MEP Ulla Jelpke (DIE LINKE.), 22 August 2017.

17

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

5. Immigration detention

According to Article 6 of the EU Charter of Funda-
mental  Rights,  everyone  has  the  right  to  liberty 
and security of person. While EU Member States 
can  detain  asylum  seekers  and  returnees  under 
certain circumstances, they need to respect their 
fundamental rights and safeguards provided for in 
the EU asylum acquis. If this is not done, the depri-
vation of liberty becomes arbitrary. The Reception 
Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU) and the Return 
Directive (2008/115/EC) provide an exhaustive list 
of grounds based on which an individual may be 
detained.181 Detention should be a measure of last 
resort, applied after an individual assessment in each 
case.182 Asylum applicants must not be detained only 
because they are seeking international protection.183 

The lack of legal assistance and information dur-
ing detention, inadequate conditions and inhumane 
treatment, and immigration detention of vulnera-
ble persons remained key concerns.

Immigration detention:  figures and trends

In  recent  months,  the  use  of  immigration  detention 
increased in certain EU Member States covered, as reported 
in France and the Netherlands. In others (Germany, Italy 
and Spain), construction of new detention facilities are 
planned. The Spanish Ombuds institution questions the 
effectiveness of pre-removal detention, as only 29 % of 
the detainees were returned in 2016. 

In Poland, where migrants in an irregular situation who 
are  apprehended  include  a  significant  number  of  fami-
lies with children, the proportion of decisions imposing 
an alternative to detention increased from 11 % in 2014 
to over 23 % in 2017.

Sources: France, La Cimade (2017), Première version de la nou-
velle loi sur l’immigration : « liberticide et sans précédent », 28 
September 2017; La Cimade, November 2017; Mediapart (2017), 
Deux fois plus de personnes enfermées en rétention: la machine 
à expulser s’affole, 9 November 2017; The Netherlands, Minis-
try of Justice and Security (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie) 
(2017), Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen, August 2017; Spain, El 
Diario (2017), Interior anuncia la creación de tres nuevos CIE en 
Málaga, Algeciras y Madrid, 4 April 2017; Spanish Ombuds insti-
tution (Defensor del Pueblo) (2017), Mecanismo Nacional de Pre-
vención de la Tortura, Informe anual 2016, 2017; Poland, data pro-
vided to FRA by the Border Guard Headquarters (Komenda Główna 
Straży Granicznej), January 2018; FRA Monthly migration reports, 
May, June, October, November and December 2017. 

181  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 8; Directive 2008/115/
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 
December 2008 on common standards and procedures in 
Member States for returning illegally staying third-country 
nationals, OJ L 348, Art. 15.

182  Reception Conditions Directive, Recital 20, Art. 8 (2).
183  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 8 (1).

Alternatives to detention

There were some positive developments regard-
ing alternatives to detention in Bulgaria, Finland 
and Poland. In Bulgaria, legislative amendments in 
November 2017 introduced new alternatives – bail 
and the deposit of passports or travel documents – 
to pre-removal detention.184 In Finland, ‘designated 
residence’ became an alternative to detention for 
children aged 15 to 17.185 

Legal assistance 
and information

Detained asylum seekers are entitled to free legal 
assistance and representation under certain con-
ditions.186 Asylum seekers and returnees must be 
provided with information on their rights and obli-
gations.187 Obstacles to obtaining legal aid and/or 
information were reported in Bulgaria,188 Italy,189 
Poland,190 Slovakia191 and Spain.192 

The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  found  that 
Italy violated migrants’ right to liberty and security 
by not promptly informing them of the reasons for 
their detention.193 The case concerned three Tunisian 
nationals who, while trying to reach Italian shores, 
were apprehended and held in a detention centre and 
in two harboured ships for several days before being 
deported to Tunisia without being given the oppor-
tunity to apply for protection. A study by ECRE and 
other civil society organisations stated that migrants 
held in Italian hotspots did not have access to an 

184  Bulgaria, Amendments and supplements to the Ministry 
of the Interior Act (Закон за изменение и допълнение 
на Закона за Министерството на вътрешните работи), 
23 November 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, Decem-
ber 2017.
Finland, Laki ulkomaalaislain muuttamisesta; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, December 2016 and April 2017.

185 

186  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 9 (6), (7).
187  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 10 (5); Return Directive, 

Art. 16 (5).

188  FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016.
189  ECtHR, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, No. 16483/12, 15 Decem-
ber 2016; FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017 and 
December 2017.

190  Poland, UNHCR and NGOs, March 2017; FRA, Monthly 

migration report, March 2017 and May 2017.

191  Slovakia, Human Rights League, November 2017; FRA, 

Monthly migration report, November 2017.

192  Spain, NGOs, November 2016; Europa Press (2017), El juez 
emite cuatro autos para requerir al CIE de Aluche que 
cumpla la normativa en asilo, deportaciones y sanidad, 
18 July 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, Novem-
ber 2016 and August 2017.

193  ECtHR, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, No. 16483/12, 15 Decem-
ber 2016; FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017.

18

5. Immigration detention

effective remedy to challenge their deprivation of 
liberty.194  In  Poland,  courts  reviewing  appeals  by 
individuals who were detained often ignored their 
requests to be present at their appellate hearings 
on the decision to detain them, and failed to inform 
applicants about extensions of their detention.195 

Inadequate conditions  
and inhumane treatment

Asylum seekers and returnees must as a rule be 
placed in specialised detention facilities.196 Inade-
quate conditions were observed in certain deten-
tion and/or pre-removal facilities in Bulgaria,197 Den-
mark,198 France,199 Germany,200 Greece,201 Hungary,202 
Italy203 and Spain.204 

194  ECRE, Dutch Council for Refugees, Greek Council for refu-
gees et al. (2016), The implementation of the hotspots in 
Italy and Greece, 9 December 2016; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, January 2017. 
FRA, Monthly migration report, March 2017.

195 

196  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 10 (1), (2); Return Direc-

tive, Art. 16 (1).

197  Bulgaria, Bulgarian Ombudsman, September 2017, FRA, 

Monthly migration report, September 2017.

198  Denmark, Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, 
- Philip, B. and Stevns, A. (2017), ’Udlændinge- og 
udrejsecentre i Danmark’, Den danske Helsinki-Komité for 
Menskerettigheder’Udlændinge- og udrejsecentre i Dan-
mark’, Den danske Helsinki-Komité for Menskerettigheder, 
May 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2017.

199  France, NGOs, July 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, July 

2017.

200  Germany, German Lawyers Association (Deutscher 

Anwaltsverein), Stellungnahmen SN 55/17: RefE Abschie-
bungshaft/Ausreisegewahrsam in Sachsen, 1 Novem-
ber 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2017.
201  Greece, NGO Arsis, Serious concerns regarding the proce-
dure and detention conditions of unaccompanied children 
in Amygdaleza, (Σοβαρές Ανησυχίες για την διαδικασία 
αλλά και τις συνθήκες κράτησης ασυνόδευτων ανηλίκων 
στο ΠΡΟΚΕΚΑ Αμυγδαλέζας), press release, 6 July 2017; 
NGO Greek Council for Refugees, The Greek Council 
for Refugees identifies adverse detention conditions in 
Western Greece, (Το ΕΣΠ διαπιστώνει δυσμενείς συνθήκες 
κράτησης στη Δυτική Ελλάδα), press release, 31 Octo-
ber 2017; NGO Aitima, December 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, August 2017, November 2017 and 
December 2017.

202  FRA, Monthly migration report, October 2016.
203 

Italy, Garante Nazionale dei diritti delle persone detenute o 
private della libertà personale (2017), Concluso con Torino il 
monitoraggio CIE e hotspot del garante nazionale persone 
detenute o private libertà personale, 19 January 2017; 
Garante Nazionale dei diritti delle persone detenute o 
private della libertà personale (2017), Rapporto sulle visite 
nei Centri di identificazione ed espulsione e negli hotspot 
in Italia (2016/2017: primo anno di attività), 11 May 2017; 
Lasciate Cientrare (2017), Migranti, LasciateCIEntrare visita 
a sopresa il CIE di Restinco (Brindisi). Online il report, 
29 June 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, February 
2017, July 2017 and August 2017. 

204  Spain, UNHCR (2017), ACNUR desmiente informaciones 
sobre “llegadas masivas” a España, 1 August 2017; 
Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo) (2017), El Defensor 
del Pueblo inspecciona el CIE de Aluche y la sala de asilo 
del aeropuerto de Barajas, 3 August 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, January 2017, February 2017, June 2017, 
September 2017 and October 2017.

Spanish courts ordered several measures for the 
improvement of the conditions in different Aliens 
Detention Centres (CIE).205 The Court of Algericas, 
Spain, described the CIE in Algericas and buildings in 
Tarifa as looking and being organised like prisons.206 

The Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights 
deemed the conditions at the departure centre Kær-
shovedgård worse than in prison207 and the Associ-
ation of Immigration Lawyers plans to challenge the 
legality of the conditions.208 The German lawyers’ 
association raised concerns over plans to establish 
prison-like detention centres in Hesse and Saxony.209 

Conditions in the pre-removal detention facilities 
located in Western Greece were inadequate, includ-
ing – among others – serious overcrowding, a lack 
of  natural  light,  substandard  hygiene  conditions, 
and limits on time detainees can spend outdoors.210 
The Bulgarian Ombudsperson211 noted unsatisfactory 
detention conditions in the country’s two pre-re-
moval facilities. However, according to the Ministry 
of Interior, authorities were improving living con-
ditions in these facilities.212 

205  Spain, El Diario (2017), La justicia ordena a la Policía que 
tome medidas para evitar el frío en el CIE de Madrid, 25 
January 2017; El Diario (2017), Una jueza requiere 31 medi-
das „urgentes“ en los CIE de Algeciras y Tarifa, 8 May 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017 and June 
2017.

206  FRA, Monthly migration report, January 2017. Spain, 
Juzagado de instrucción No uno de Algeciras (Cádiz), 
Expediente de control de estancia en cie No 242/2016, 
12 December 2016. 

207  Denmark, Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, 
Philip, B. and Stevns, A. (2017), ’Udlændinge- og udrejse-
centre i Danmark’, Den danske Helsinki-Komité for 
Menskerettigheder, May 2017; Politiken (2017), Tidligere 
fængselsinspektør og chefanklager: Kærshovedgård er 
værre end fængsel, 29 June 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, December 2017.

208  Denmark, Foreningen af Udlændingeretadvokater, FAU 
vil have forbedret forholdene på Kærshovedgård; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, August 2017. 

209  Germany, German Lawyers Association (Deutscher 

Anwaltsverein), Stellungnahmen SN 55/17: RefE Abschie-
bungshaft/Ausreisegewahrsam in Sachsen, 1 Novem-
ber 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2017.

210  Greece, Council of Europe, Report to the Greek Govern-

ment on the visits to Greece carried out by the European 
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or 
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), September 
2017; NGO Greek Council for Refugees, The Greek Council 
for Refugees identifies adverse detention conditions in 
Western Greece (Το ΕΣΠ διαπιστώνει δυσμενείς συνθήκες 
κράτησης στη Δυτική Ελλάδα), press release, 31 October 
2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, November 2017.
211  Bulgaria, Ombudsman, September 2017; FRA, Monthly 

migration report, September 2017.

212  Bulgaria, Ministry of Interior, November 2017; FRA, Monthly 

migration report, November 2017.

19

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

Inhumane treatment by the authorities was reported 
in some detention centres in Hungary,213 Italy214and 
Spain.215 In the Nyírbátor asylum detention facility, 
Hungary, NGOs reported in 2016 that asylum seek-
ers were handcuffed and taken to medical appoint-
ments on a leash.216 Detainees in Nyírbátor reported 
humiliating treatment and occasional physical vio-
lence by armed security guards.217 In Italy, the Ordi-
nary  Court  of  Bari  (Apulia)  ordered  the  state  to 
pay € 30,000 in compensation for the inhumane 
and degrading treatment of migrants in the former 
detention centre in Bari.218 The supervisory judge 
of the CIE in Madrid, Spain, confirmed several com-
plaints about inhumane treatment, including verbal 
abuse, humiliation, harassment, gross assaults, and 
solitary confinement for minor offences. 219  

In the same EU Member States, detainees in certain 
detention centres protested against the conditions 
and lack of procedural safeguards.220

Detention of  
vulnerable persons

Under EU law, Articles 15 to 17 of the Return Direc-
tive regulate the detention of migrants in an irregu-
lar situation pending removal. Articles 8 to 11 of the 
Reception Conditions Directive govern the detention 

213  Hungary, NGOs, May 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 

214 

215 

May 2017.
Italy, Il fatto quotidiano (2017), Migranti, Stato condannato 
per il Cie Bari. “Come Auschwitz, Guantanamo e Alcatraz: 
lede l’immagine del territorio”, 11 August 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, September 2017.
Spain, El Diario (2016), El juez de control del CIE de Madrid: 
“Quienes denuncian maltrato suelen ser deportados 
rápidamente”, 23 October 2016; El País (2017), Unos 40 
internos del CIE de Aluche denuncian vivir en un “infierno”, 
6 October 2017; El Diario (2017), Un interno del CIE de 
Madrid denuncia una “agresión policial brutal” sin asistencia 
médica posterior, 9 October 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, December 2016 and November 2017.

216  Hungary, Aida (2016), Conditions in detention facilities; FRA, 

Monthly migration report, May 2017.

217  Hungary, Hungarian Helsinki Committee (2017), Jelentés 

218 

a Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, 6 March 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, May 2017. 
Italy, Il fatto quotidiano (2017), Migranti, Stato condannato 
per il Cie Bari. “Come Auschwitz, Guantanamo e Alcatraz: 
lede l’immagine del territorio”, 11 August 2017; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, September 2017.

219  Spain, El Diario (2016), El juez de control del CIE de Madrid: 
“Quienes denuncian maltrato suelen ser deportados 
rápidamente”, 23 October 2016; El País (2017), Unos 40 
internos del CIE de Aluche denuncian vivir en un “infierno”, 
6 October 2017; El Diario (2017), Un interno del CIE de 
Madrid denuncia una “agresión policial brutal” sin asistencia 
médica posterior, 9 October 2017; FRA, Monthly migration 
report, December 2016 and November 2017.

220  For Spain: FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016; 
For Hungary: FRA, Monthly migration report, April 2017; For 
Italy: NGO Borderline Sicilia, December 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, December 2017.

of applicants for international protection.221 These 
instruments  emphasise  that  children  are  to  be 
detained only as a last resort and only if less coer-
cive measures cannot be applied effectively. Such 
detention must be for the shortest period of time 
possible.222 The stringent requirements flowing from 
the Charter and from Articles 3 (prohibition of tor-
ture) and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the ECHR 
mean that deprivation of liberty will only be in line 
with EU law in exceptional cases. 

EU  Member  States  efforts  to  speed  up  asylum 
processing and make returns more effective may 
prompt an increased use of immigration detention, 
possibly also affecting children. This can entail seri-
ous risks of violating children’s right to liberty and 
security if the strict safeguards protecting children 
from arbitrary detention are disregarded. Accord-
ing to FRA research in 2016, high numbers of chil-
dren were detained in Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, 
Poland and Slovakia.223

Certain EU Member States detained children and/or 
other vulnerable persons, such as victims of traf-
ficking or violence.224 Sometimes this occurred as 
a result of deficient identification mechanisms. For 
instance, according to various sources, victims of 
violence were regularly detained in Poland due to 
inadequate identification procedures, although in 
breach of Polish law.225 In Spain, trafficking victims 
and children were often detained, especially when 
arriving by sea. In most cases, the authorities did 
not identify these migrants as vulnerable.226

Detention  of  children,  often  under  poor  condi-
tions,  was  reported  in  France,227  where  children 
were placed in pre-removal detention on a regular 
basis without individual assessments.228 

221  Article 28 of the Dublin Regulation also envisages the 

detention in the context of a transfer between Member 
States.

222  Reception Conditions Directive, Art. 11 (2); Return Directive, 

223 

Art. 17 (1).
FRA, European legal and policy framework on immigration 
detention of children (2017), p. 13.

224  For Spain: FRA, Monthly migration report, December 2016, 
April 2017 and September 2017; For Poland: FRA, Monthly 
migration report, January 2017 and December 2017; For 
Hungary: FRA, Monthly migration report, February 2017; 
For Greece: NGO Aitina, December 2017; FRA, Monthly 
migration report, December 2017.

225  Poland, UNHCR, the Ombudsperson and a number of 

NGOs, December 2017; Act on foreigners (Ustawa z dnia 12 
grudnia 2013 r. o cudzoziemcach), 12 December 2013; FRA, 
Monthly migration report, December 2017. 

226  Spain, El País (2017), ‘Esclavas’ en los CIE, 24 March 2017; 
FRA Monthly migration report, December 2016 and April 
2017.

227  France, NGOs, July 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 

July 2017.

228  France, Joint report on administrative detention centres by 

Assfam, Forum Réfugiés, France land of asylum, Cimade, 
the Order of Malta and Solidarity Mayotte (2017), Centres 
et Locaux de retention administrative (2016), June 2017; 
FRA, Monthly migration report, August 2017.

20

5. Immigration detention

As  reported  by  several  NGOs,  regional  courts  in 
Poland  tended  not  to  give  a  primary  considera-
tion to the best interests of the child when decid-
ing upon children’s placement in or prolongation 
of immigration detention.229 In Sweden, legislative 
changes extended the possibilities for detention of 
children.230 To address past shortcomings, legisla-
tive amendments in Slovakia provided for access 
to  mental  health  and  social  services  for  families 
with children and established the right of children 
to receive meals five times a day and access out-
door space three times a day.231

FRA ACTIVITY

Avoiding unlawful detention  
of children

In  a  report  on  immigration  detention  of 
children,  FRA  outlined  available  safeguards 
against  unlawful  and  arbitrary  detention  of 
children. It also identified good practices in the 
EU Member States.

For more information, see FRA (2017), European legal and 
policy framework on immigration detention of children, 
Luxembourg, Publications Office. 

229  Poland, Association of Legal Intervention, Helsinki Founda-
tion for Human Rights and the Rule of Law Institute Foun-
dation, December 2017; FRA, Monthly migration report, 
December 2017.

230  Sweden, Sveriges Riksdag, Utlänningslag (2005:716); FRA, 

231 

Monthly migration report, November 2017. 
Slovakia, Vládny návrh zákona, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa 
zákon č. 404/2011 Z. z. o pobyte cudzincov a o zmene a 
doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpi-
sov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony, FRA, 
Monthly migration report, April 2017.

21

Migration to the EU: five persistent challenges

Conclusion

Two years after FRA began regularly reporting on 
fundamental rights issues relating to migration, key 
concerns persist. This report covers the five areas 
where challenges remain across several EU Member 
States: access to territory, reception conditions, asy-
lum procedures, unaccompanied children, and immi-
gration detention. Concerted efforts by all actors at 
the European as well as national levels are neces-
sary to address remaining protection gaps. 

In addition, based on their research over the past 
two years, members of FRA’s contracted research 
network,  FRANET,  identified  up  to  three  of  the 
most  persistent  fundamental  rights  concerns  in 

their countries. These issues – outlined per Mem-
ber State in the following table – should be tackled 
through immediate action to ensure that responses 
to  asylum  seekers  and  migrants  are  in  line  with 
the  law  and  are  upheld  in  practice.  This  is  not  a 
comprehensive  list,  but  serves  to  highlight  par-
ticular  issues  that  remain  persistent  in  the  cov-
ered EU Member States. Certain issues may apply 
across  Member  States,  while  others  are  only  an 
issue  in  the  Member  State  in  question.  If  a  par-
ticular issue is not listed for an EU Member State 
in the table, this does not mean that the problem 
does not exist, but rather only that it does not rank 
among the top three issues. 

22

EU 
Member 
State

Persistent key fundamental rights concerns

•  Three-year waiting period for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection 

before being allowed to ask for family reunification.

AT

•  Overworked/overburdened guardians and resources for an unaccompanied child 
above the age of 14 being lower than for Austrian children in out-of-home care.

•  Limited availability of interpretation services in health care and insufficient 

offer for psychological treatment for traumatised persons.

•  Difficulties with the integration of persons who have been granted international protection.
•  Inadequate representation of and support for unaccompanied children (could be addressed 

BG

as a result of recent amendments to law and/or policy at the national level).

•  Insufficient use of alternatives to detention of migrants in an irregular situation in practice (could 

be addressed as a result of recent amendments to law and/or policy at the national level).

DE

DK

EL

ES

FI

FR

HU

IT

NL

PL

SE

SK

•  Restricted access to medical care for asylum seekers in reception centres and in remote areas.
•  Practical and legal barriers to family reunification.
•  No standardised procedures for the recognition of specific 

needs of vulnerable applicants for asylum.

•  Restrictions of family reunification for persons with temporary protection status. 
•  Unaccompanied children of 17 years of age are accommodated in adult centres. 
•  Inadequate conditions in certain pre-removal facilities.

•  Delays in the asylum procedure and family reunification transfers from 

Greece to other EU Member States under the Dublin Regulation.

•  Overcrowding and living conditions in the hotspots.
•  Push-backs at the Greek-Turkish border.

•  Difficulties in accessing the asylum procedure for those arriving by sea.
•  Long waiting periods at Barajas Airport’s (Madrid) asylum room.
•  Situation of unaccompanied children in Spain in general, and in particular in the 

Andalusia Autonomous Community and the autonomous city of Melilla. 

•  High occurrence of hate speech on the internet. 
•  Asylum seekers’ inadequate access to mental health care and services.
•  Restricted access to and poor quality of legal aid and other support services for asylum seekers. 

•  Significant health risks of asylum seekers in informal camps.
•  Migrants at the Italian-French border being returned to Italy 

without the opportunity to apply for protection.

•  Police harassment.

•  Activity of human smugglers.
•  Growing xenophobic attitude of local communities.
•  Deprivation of liberty in the transit zones.

•  Overcrowded and poor reception conditions.
•  Border management and fundamental rights: role of NGO rescue 

vessels, implementation of the MoU with Libya. 

•  Hate crime occurrence.

•  Doubts about credibility faced by LGBTI-refugees during their asylum procedures. 
•  Returns to Afghanistan. 
•  Difficulties in children’s amnesty procedures (so-called ‘Kinderpardon’).

•  Lack of access to the asylum procedure at Polish border crossings.
•  Detention of victims of violence.
•  Lack of systematic legal assistance to asylum seekers in detention as well as open centres. 

•  Long asylum procedures.
•  Act on temporary restrictions’ impact on the possibility to obtain a residence permit.
•  Problems related to the accuracy of age assessment methods/the burden of proof. 

•  Lack of adequate legal aid provided to migrants.
•  Quality of interpretation.
•  Detention of families with children.

Conclusion

23

Further information

After two years of reporting, FRA will continue to report on migration-related fundamental rights concerns in selected 
EU Member States. 

The drop in new arrivals has not led to a decrease in fundamental rights concerns, but identified problems appear 
to persist, often remaining the same throughout several months. FRA will therefore issue its ‘highlight’ reports on a 
bi-monthly basis as of March 2018. 

In addition, Croatia will replace Slovakia as of 2018. The number of new arrivals in Slovakia has been consistently low in 
recent months. Meanwhile, the fundamental rights situation of migrants in Croatia, particularly at the border with Serbia, 
has continuously caused concern. 

For the February 2018 Focus section on the impact of migration on local communities (update), see:  
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/current-migration-situation-local-communities-update 

For all previous monthly and weekly reports, see:  
http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/asylum-migration-borders/overviews 

Disclaimer:

These reports were commissioned under contract by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).  
The content was prepared by the Agency’s contracted research network, FRANET. The reports contain descriptive data 
that was based mainly on interviews, and do not include analysis or conclusions. They are made publicly available for 
information and transparency purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. The reports do not 
necessarily reflect FRA’s views or official position.

FRA – EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2018

Printed by the Publications Office in Luxembourg

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

P
r
i
n
t
:

I

S
B
N
9
7
8
-
9
2
-
9
4
9
1
-
9
2
3
-
6

,

d
o

i
:

.

1
0
2
8
1
1
/
1
2
2
6
6
8

,

T
K
-
0
2
-
1
8
-
0
5
5
-
E
N
-
C

P
D
F

:

I

S
B
N
9
7
8
-
9
2
-
9
4
9
1
-
9
2
2
-
9

,

d
o

i
:

.

1
0
2
8
1
1
/
4
8
3
8
8
6

,

T
K
-
0
2
-
1
8
-
0
5
5
-
E
N
N

-