Integration of third-country nationals in the EU : relevant support from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund but its impact could not yet be demonstrated. Special report 26, 2024.
Date: 2024-12-05
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, administrative formalities, foreign national, fund (EU), integration of migrants, performance audit, report, right of asylum

EN 

2024 

26 

Special report 

Integration of third-country nationals 
in the EU 
Relevant support from the Asylum, Migration  
and Integration Fund but its impact could not  
yet be demonstrated 

 
 
 
2 

Paragraph 

I-VIII 

01-21 

01-05 

06-19 

07-16 

Contents 

Executive summary 

Introduction 

Key characteristics of third-country nationals in the EU and their 
integration 

The main EU activities for integration of third-country nationals 

The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund is one of the financial 
instruments for integration 

EU policy documents on integration, and recent developments on migration 

17-19 

Responsibilities of the Commission and the member states in 
managing AMIF 

Audit scope and approach 

Observations 

Although it is clear how AMIF could be used for integration 
measures, there is a risk that its added value is limited by its 
administrative complexity 

The legislative framework provides a clear rationale for AMIF intervention 

The level of AMIF support for integration measures is low in some member 
states compared to other available funding sources 

For integration measures, there is a risk that the added value from AMIF is 
limited by the administrative complexity faced by member states 

The approaches adopted by member states reveal substantial differences 

Limited coordination between EU funds in 2014-2020  but better 
demarcation in 2021-2027 

20-21 

22-27 

28-99 

28-53 

29-31 

32-34 

35-39 

40-47 

48-53 

 
 
Integration measures were relevant but not systematically 
tailored to specific groups, while projects largely delivered on 
outputs 

The activities supported were relevant to the integration needs 

Member states’ tailoring of integration measures for specific groups varied 

Although recognition of skills and qualifications of TCNs is increasingly 
important, AMIF support is marginal in this area 

Outputs broadly achieved but limited assessments of costs 

Monitoring of national programmes for AMIF funding was 
difficult despite being part of a structured system 

The Commission reviews member state reporting within a structured 
system, but data quality remains a challenge 

Member states did not generally align their targets for participant  numbers 
and results with 2021-2027 integration budget increases 

AMIF’s contribution to integration is difficult to assess 

3 

54-77 

56-57 

58-61 

62-69 

70-77 

78-99 

79-82 

83-87 

88-99 

Conclusions and recommendations 

100-104 

Annexes 

Annex I – Results of our review of the selected projects under 
shared management from 2014-2020 

Annex II – Projects selected from 2014-2020 

Abbreviations 

Glossary 

Replies of the Commission 

Timeline 

Audit team 

 
 
 
 
4 

Executive summary 

I Integration of third-country nationals into a new country requires not only the 
migrants themselves but also the host society to play a part. Data show socio-
economic gaps between third-country nationals and EU citizens, notably with regard to 
the risk of poverty or social exclusion, or unemployment rates. One of the financial 
instruments used by the EU to support migrant integration measures is the Asylum, 
Migration and Integration Fund. The resources of this Fund allocated to integration 
measures in national programmes of the EU member states totalled approximately 
€1 billion for 2014-2020  and increased to around €1.9 billion  for 2021-2027. 

II We examined whether the Commission and the member states, within their remits, 
have made sound and effective use of this Fund for the integration of third-country 
nationals during the two programming periods (2014-2020  and 2021-2027).  We chose 
to audit the topic due to its importance in the EU, and its financial  materiality for the 
EU budget. Our report complements the ECA’s previous audits of EU migration  policy. 
We aim to provide valuable input for the Commission and the member states on 
improving the effectiveness of their implementation of integration measures funded 
by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the efficiency of projects 
supported by that funding. Moreover, our report should contribute to strengthening 
the monitoring tools. 

III Overall, we conclude that the support from the Asylum, Migration, and Integration 
Fund played a relevant role in the integration of third-country nationals in the EU but 
that its impact could not yet be demonstrated. 

IV We found that the legislative framework provided a clear rationale for Asylum, 
Migration, and Integration Fund intervention. The financing provided by the Fund was 
low in some member states compared to other available funding sources. There was a 
risk that its added value was limited by its administrative complexity in the member 
states. The member states we visited for our audit used the flexibility offered by the 
Fund to support national  integration policies in quite diverse ways. 

V We found there was limited coordination  between the Asylum, Migration and 
Integration Fund and the European Social Fund in 2014-2020.  We did not find good 
practice of these two EU funds being used in a coordinated manner in 2014-2020  to 
finance full integration pathways, such as an early integration measure funded by the 
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund being continued by the European Social Fund 

 
 
5 

in the medium term. However, we found progress in the demarcation between these 
two funds in 2021-2027. 

VI We found that the activities supported by the Asylum, Migration and Integration 
Fund were relevant to integration needs, but that member states’ tailoring of 
integration measures for specific groups varied. Recognition of skills  and qualifications 
is increasingly important for integration into the labour market. However, support 
from the Fund for this area was marginal,  although other EU funds contributed. 
Projects broadly achieved their expected outputs, but procedures in place provided 
only limited assessments of costs. 

VII We found that the Commission reviewed member state reporting within an 
existing structured system, but that data quality remained a challenge. Member states 
did not generally align  their targets for participant  numbers and results with 
2021-2027  integration budget increases. The contribution of the Asylum, Migration 
and Integration Fund to integration was difficult to assess; for instance, because 
member states did not monitor integration pathways. 

VIII The report makes four recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and 
effectiveness of future action in the area of integration. In cooperation with the 
member states, the Commission should: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

analyse how to identify the financing gaps and streamline the programming of 
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund support for the integration of third-
country nationals; 

collect, analyse and disseminate best practice on Asylum, Migration and 
Integration Fund support for integration measures; 

improve the reliability  of data and monitoring and reporting of Asylum, Migration 
and Integration Fund support for integration; 

analyse how to improve the reporting framework to enable the assessment of the 
performance of Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund support for the 
integration pathways of third-country nationals. 

 
 
6 

Introduction 

Key characteristics of third-country nationals in the EU and 
their integration 

01 In this report, we refer to third-country nationals (TCNs) as people without EU 
citizenship who are legally residing in the EU. They fall into a number of different 
categories because they have come to the EU for many reasons. Some have come 
legally in order to work, study or undertake research, or for family reunification. 
Others may have entered the EU to seek protection as applicants for international 
protection (asylum seekers) or beneficiaries of international protection (refugees). 
TCNs thus have different rights, needs and obligations as regards integration. Figure 1 
illustrates the rights and obligations  of TCNs seeking protection in the EU. 

 
 
Figure 1 – Rights and obligations of TCNs seeking protection 

Each procedure (decision on international protection and on 
long-term residence) to be concluded within 6 months from the 
application date

7 

Application registered no later than 
5 working days after it was made 

Protection granted

Applies for protection

TCN seeking 
international protection 
(Asylum)

Possibility to lodge the 
application for protection 
as soon as possible

Information and 
councelling regarding the 
submission of an 
application 

Applicant 
(Asylum seeker)

Right to remain in the 
member state pending the 
examination of the 
application

Adequate standard of living 
which guarantees 
subsistence and protects 
physical and mental health

Necessary healthcare, at 
least emergency healthcare

Freedom of movement 
within the member state, 
but it might be limited and 
subject to certain conditions

Free legal assistance and 
representation in appeals 

Member state issues 
document that certifies 
applicant status

Access to labour market after 
6 months once application is 
registered and 
administrative conditions are 
fulfilled

Access to integration 
facilities, for example 
education, employment or 
vocational training

After 5-years of 
continuous 
legal residence

Beneficiary of 
International protection
Refugee status
Subsidiary protection

Residence permit´s validity 
at least 3 years for 
beneficiaries of refugee 
status and at least 1 year for 
those with subsidiary 
protection 

Access to the necessary 
social welfare as provided to 
nationals

Access to healthcare under 
the same eligibility 
conditions as nationals

Freedom of movement 
within the member state as 
other legally residing third 
country nationals 

Information regarding rights 
and obligations relating to 
their status

Person with refugee or 
subsidiary protection status 
receives travel document

Access to employment 
under general conditions 
immediately after the 
protection granted

Access to the education 
system and vocational 
training under same 
conditions as nationals

Access to procedures for 
recognition of skills and 
qualifications

Long-term resident

Status of long-term resident 
is permanent

Social security and 
assistance as defined by the 
law

Equal treatment vis-à-vis 
national in a number of
areas: freedom of 
association, social security, 
healthcare

Freedom of movement 
within the territory of the 
member state that granted 
the EU long-term resident 
status 

Equal treatment vis-à-vis 
nationals regarding tax 
benefits

Residence permit may be 
issued in the form of a 
sticker or of a separate 
document, according to 
rules

Equal treatment vis-à-vis 
nationals regarding access to 
employment

Equal treatment vis-à-vis 
nationals regarding 
education, vocational 
training and grants

Equal treatment vis-à-vis 
nationals for recognition of 
professional diplomas, 
certificates and qualifications

EU long-term residents may 
move, under specific 
conditions, to another 
member state (e.g. to take 
up employment or to study)

Source: ECA, based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1347, Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, Council 
Directive 2003/109/EC, and Directive (EU) 2024/1346. 

 
 
 
8 

02 Data from 2023  show that after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the 
number of TCNs in the EU rose to a total of 27.3  million,  making up 6.1 % of the EU’s 
population 1. In 2023,  around 73  % of TCNs lived in just four EU member states 
(Figure 2). 

Figure 2 – Percentage of TCNs by EU country of residence 

Germany

Remaining 23 
member states

France

Italy

Spain

16 %

15 %

28 %

14 %

27 %

Source: Eurostat, 2023 data. 

03 As of 29 February 2024,  there were around 4.3 million  TCNs 2 benefiting from 
temporary protection who had fled Ukraine after the 2022  invasion. The main hosts of 

1  Source: Eurostat, 2023 data. 

2  Source: Eurostat, data from 31 March 2024, extracted on 6 May 2024. 

 
 
 
 
9 

those with this status were Germany (31 % of the total), Poland (23 %) and Czechia 
(9 %) (Figure 3). 

Figure 3 – Number of non-EU citizens who fled Ukraine with temporary 
protection status per EU member state 

104 285

60 855

33 950

44 640

76 420

70 690

36 315 

31 745

Ratio per 1 000 people

≥20.0

10.0 -<20.0

5.0 -<10

2.5 -<5.0

<2.5

Not available

4 211 495

EU total

104 285

121 440

77 645

955 520

1 301 790

364 375

118 425

4 225

73 010

34 965

63 520

8 735

23 600

164 070

49 190

27 660

203 300

60 045

9.4

Ratio to 
EU population

20 020

1 990

Non-EU citizens who fled Ukraine and were under temporary protection at the end of March 2024.

French data does not generally include minors.

EU total number of persons under temporary protection at the end of March 2024 calculated with data at the end of 
February 2024 for Romania.

Data on the number of persons under temporary protection at the end of the month in Cyprus and Iceland include 
some persons whose temporary protection status was no longer valid.

Source: Eurostat. 

 
 
 
10 

04 Integration has multiple definitions. One official (but not legally binding) EU 
definition is the following: “Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual 
accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States”3. It is a long-term 
process (or “integration pathway”4) that requires participation  not only by migrants 
but also by a host society. 

05 One policy challenge facing the EU in the field of home affairs is socio-economic 
gaps between TCNs and EU citizens 5 (paragraph 18). Figure 4 shows the percentages of 
TCNs and host-country nationals experiencing different socio-economic conditions in 
the EU. 

3  Council of the European Union, 14615/04, p. 17. 

4  Toolkit on the use of EU funds for the integration of people with a migrant background 

2021–2027 programming period, p. 19. 

5  SEC(2011) 1358, p. 13. 

 
 
 
11 

Figure 4 – Socio-economic gaps between TCNs and host-country 
nationals in the EU in 2023 

Third-country nationals

Host-country nationals

Social inclusion 
and housing

Poverty or social 
exclusion
18+ years

Overcrowded homes
18+ years

Labour
Market

Employment rates
20-64 years

Unemployment rates
20-64 years

Education

Early leavers
18-24 years

Tertiary education
30-34 years

46 %

19 %

34 %

14 %

63 %

76 %

12 %

5 %

25 %

8 %

38 %

45 %

Source: ECA, based on Eurostat data. 

 
 
 
12 

The main EU activities for integration of third-country nationals 
06 Member states are responsible for setting up their own administrative systems 
and national  rules for the integration of TCNs. It is within the member states’ remit to 
define their national strategies for the integration of TCNs. This means that EU support 
for TCN integration in member states applies to systems that may vary widely from 
one country to the next 6. 

The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund is one of the financial 
instruments for integration 

07 The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is one of the instruments 
used by the EU to support migrant integration measures (paragraph 16). The Fund has 
26 participating  member states as Denmark partly opted out from the EU’s justice and 
home affairs policy under the Edinburgh Agreement of 19927. 

AMIF in 2014-2020 

08 Two EU Regulations adopted in 2014  established AMIF for the 
2014-2020  programming period 8, setting out four specific objectives. Specific 
objective 2 was “to support legal migration to the Member States in accordance with 
their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the 
integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promote the effective 
integration of third-country nationals”9. Box 1 lists some of the main national 
integration measures 10 supported by AMIF in 2014-202011. 

6  Article 79(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

7  Funds for migrant integration in Denmark | European Website on Integration (europa.eu). 

8  Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

9  Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

10  Articles 8 to 10 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

11  Follow the Money II report, p. 37. 

 
 
 
13 

Box 1 

Main national integration activities supported by AMIF in 2014-2020 

The main measures included: 

— 

language training; 

— 

improving institutional  cooperation between relevant authorities and 
stakeholders in the member states; 

—  actions promoting civil  and social  orientation. 

09 During the 2014-2020  programming period, the total resources earmarked for 
AMIF increased by 140  % (from an initial  €3  137 million  to €7  595 million  under direct, 
indirect, and shared management) due to the increased number of TCN arrivals after 
201512. 

10 The 2014  AMIF Regulation laid  down that at least 20 % of AMIF resources were to 
be allocated to integration and legal migration measures (specific objective 2) 13. In 
AMIF national programmes for 2014-2020,  €1 022  million, or 22.3  % of the programme 
total under shared management (€4 576 million)  and thus slightly  above the minimum 
percentage, was allocated to integration and legal migration. The AMIF accounts show 
that by the end of 2022, €787  million  of those funds in national programmes for 
integration and legal migration  had been used, meaning an implementation rate of 
77 %. Figure 5 gives a breakdown of allocations and payments by AMIF specific 
objectives. Integration and legal migration (specific objective 2) is ranked second for 
allocations  but fourth for payments. 

12  Programme statement for 2023 draft budget, pp. 857-859. 

13  Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

 
 
 
Figure 5 – AMIF funding for specific objectives in national programmes, 
2014-2020 

14 

Allocations

Payments

Implementation rate

million euros

Total allocations
€4 576 million

93 %

83 %

77 %

77 %

88 %

1 462

1 283

1 022

1 012

787

842

913

850

38 %

8
3

160

122

Special 
cases

Integration/
legal migration

Return

Asylum

Technical 
assistance

Solidarity

Note: The United Kingdom is included to give an overall picture of the expenditure as the United 
Kingdom will still receive AMIF funding until the closure of the 2014-2020 programming period. 

Source: AMIF accounts 2014-2022 – data provided by the Commission. 

 
 
 
15 

AMIF in 2021-2027 

11 AMIF was re-established for 2021-2027  by Regulation (EU) 2021/1147.  AMIF also 
came under the scope of the Common Provisions Regulation 14. 

12 The 2021  AMIF Regulation laid  down how AMIF would support integration 15. The 
specific objective for integration remained in place for 2021-2027,  only with minor 
changes 16. While the integration activities  supported by AMIF for 2021-2027  were 
largely similar  to those in 2014-2020,  they were designed to focus AMIF support on 
tailor-made activities in the early stages of integration (Box 2) as well as general 
measures supporting member state capabilities in this area17. 

Box 2 

Key activities for the early stages of the integration process 

o 

o 

Pre-departure information packages and campaigns to raise awareness about 
legal migration  procedures in the EU 

Integration programmes focusing on social  and economic inclusion, 
counselling, education, language and other training, such as civic  orientation 
courses and professional guidance, as well as active participation  in, and 
acceptance by, the host society, with the involvement of relevant 
stakeholders 

13 The 2021  AMIF Regulation allocated  €9 882 million  to AMIF. This was an increase 
of 30 % on the previous programming period (€7 595 million). A total of €6 270 million 
(63.5 %) was to finance AMIF programmes in the member states 18, and the remaining 
€3 612 million  (36.5 %) was allocated to AMIF’s “thematic facility”  for emerging or 
unforeseen needs and developing EU priorities and challenges 19 (Figure 6). 

14  Regulation (EU) 2021/1060. 

15  Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

16  Ibid., Article 3(2)(b). 

17  COM(2020) 758, Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027, p. 18. 

18  Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

19  Ibid., Article 11. 

 
 
 
Figure 6 – Overview of funding from AMIF 

16 

AMIF 2014-2020
€7.6 billion

AMIF 2021-2027
€9.9 billion

Shared management
National programmes
€6.5 billion

Direct management
Thematic facility
€3.6 billion

36.5 %

63.5 %

€4.3 billion

€2.0 billion

€0.2 billion

€3.4 billion

Other objectives

Integration

Integration

Other objectives

Source: ECA based on Commission data. 

14 The 2021  AMIF Regulation stipulated that in 2024,  as part of the mid-term budget 
review, the Commission was to allocate  an additional  €1 045 million  to AMIF national 
programmes 20. 

20  Ibid., Articles 13(1)(b) and 17(1). 

 
 
 
 
17 

15 The 2021  AMIF Regulation also stated that a minimum of 15 % 21 of resources 
allocated to AMIF national programmes were to support the implementation of 
integration and legal migration  measures (specific objective 2). In fact, the allocations 
for these measures, making up 34 % of the resources in the 2021-2027  national 
programmes, are higher than the required minimum percentage. 

Other EU funds 

16 Other EU funds, such as the European Social  Fund (ESF), European Social Fund 
Plus (ESF+), European Regional Development Fund, or other programmes such as 
Erasmus+ 22, may also contribute to integrating migrants and persons with a migrant 
background. For both programming periods, the Commission published guidance in 
the form of “toolkits on the use of EU funds for the integration of people with a 
migrant background”23 to help stakeholders, describing the scope of intervention of 
these funds. For 2021-2027,  member states have programmed €1.1 billion  (total 
budget) under ESF+ for measures promoting the socio-economic integration of TCNs. 
This information is not available for 2014-2020  since the legal framework did not 
include a specific intervention field covering this target group. 

EU policy documents on integration, and recent developments on 
migration 

17 As early as 2004,  the Council stressed the strategic importance of the orderly 
integration of migrants and set out 11  common basic principles  for immigrant 
integration policy in the EU 24. In 2016,  the Commission adopted an Action plan on the 
integration of third-country nationals. This contained measures to support member 
states and other parties in their integration efforts. 

18 In 2020,  the Commission adopted a new Action plan on integration and 
inclusion (2021-2027)  with additional  action to address gaps in key areas (education, 
employment, access to health, etc.) between host-country nationals and migrants, and 
between different migrant communities. The 2021-2027  action plan covers both 
migrants and EU citizens with a migrant background. It is thus broader than the 2016 

21  Ibid., Article 16(2)(b). 

22  Higher education for migrants and refugees | European Education Area (europa.eu). 

23  Toolkit for the 2014–2020 programming period; Toolkit for the 2021–2027 programming 

period. 

24  Council of the European Union, 14615/04, p. 15. 

 
 
 
18 

action plan, which targeted only TCNs. Figure 7 shows the timeline of EU policy 
documents in the AMIF framework. 

Figure 7 – Timeline of EU policy documents in the AMIF framework 

2004

2014

2016

2020

-2021

2024

2027

2004

Common basic principles for the immigrant integration policy

2014

AMIF 2014-2020

2016

Action plan for 
the integration of 
third-country 
nationals

2020

Strategic plan 2020-2024
DG Migration 
and Home Affairs

2021

AMIF 2021-2027

Action plan on 
integration and 
inclusion 
2021-2027 

Source: ECA. 

19 The European Parliament adopted the Pact on Migration  and Asylum on 
10 April 2024.  The aim is to tackle challenges linked to migration  in the EU in a 
comprehensive manner. Some parts of the Pact, such as the Qualification  Regulation 
or the revised Reception Conditions Directive, include aspects which are relevant for 
the integration of beneficiaries of international protection. 

 
 
 
19 

Responsibilities of the Commission and the member states in 
managing AMIF 

20 AMIF is implemented mostly under shared management (between 60 to 65 % of 
total AMIF funding). The Commission evaluates and approves the national 
programmes which have been prepared and submitted by member states. National 
programmes can include people fleeing the war in Ukraine (paragraph 03) as a group 
eligible for integration measures funded by AMIF. The member states adopt all the 
legislative, statutory, and administrative provisions required to ensure that funds are 
spent properly, including the appointment of a “responsible authority” to implement 
AMIF funding. For the purposes of this report, the term “responsible authority” 
applicable  to the 2014-2020  multiannual  financial  framework (MFF) and the term 
“managing authority” applicable  to the 2021-2027  MFF are equivalent. Beneficiaries of 
AMIF support measures (associations, local authorities, public bodies, etc.) enter into 
grant award agreements with the relevant member state authority and are responsible 
for actually  applying the rules in accordance  with the terms agreed. 

21 Figure 8 illustrates  the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and member 
states in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the AMIF-funded measures on 
migrant integration. 

 
 
Figure 8 – Roles of the European Commission and member states 

20 

National 
programmes

Assesses and 
approves the 
AMIF national 
programmes

Member states take action to help 
the integration of third-country 
nationals, with the support of the 
Commission under shared 
management

Propose integration 
measures co-financed 
by AMIF in line with 
their national 
needs and policies

European 
Commission 
(DG HOME)

Proposes the EU 
regulatory framework 
for AMIF, and 
manages directly 
integration measures

Integration 
measures

Member 
states

Adopt and 
implement their
own integration 
policies

Effects of the integration 
measures are monitored 
and evaluated

Evaluates the 
effects of integration 
measures at 
EU level

Evaluate the 
effects of integration 
measures at 
national level

Monitoring 
and evaluation

Source: ECA, based on applicable EU regulations. 

 
 
 
 
 
21 

Audit scope and approach 

22 The purpose of this audit was to reply to the following overall audit question: had 
the Commission and the member states, within their remits, made sound and effective 
use of AMIF support for the integration of third-country nationals  (TCNs). In particular, 
we examined whether: 

o 

o 

o 

a clear framework was in place for using AMIF to support the integration of TCNs, 
and the added value of AMIF could be demonstrated; 

integration measures supported by AMIF were appropriately selected, and 
selected projects were adequately implemented; 

an effective system was in place for monitoring and evaluating AMIF integration 
measures. 

23 Our scope relates to integration measures for TCNs of every category and legal 
status (paragraph 01) as defined under the specific objective on legal migration  and 
integration (specific objective 2) 25 for the programming periods 2014-2020  and 
2021-2027.  This report does not cover people residing in the EU illegally. 

24 Our report complements previous ECA’s audits of EU migration policy 26. The 
European Parliament has also expressed its interest in audits in this area. We chose to 
audit the integration of TCNs supported by AMIF given the importance of the topic and 
its financial materiality  for the EU budget. We aim to provide valuable input for the 
Commission and the member states on improving the effectiveness of their 
implementation of integration measures funded by AMIF and the efficiency of projects 
supported by that funding. Moreover, our report should contribute to strengthening 
the relevant monitoring tools. 

25  Article 3(2)(b), Articles 8 to 10 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014; Annexes II and III of 

Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

26  Special report 06/2017: “EU response to the refugee crisis”, special report 24/2019: 

“Asylum, relocation and return of migrants”, special report 17/2021: “EU readmission 
cooperation with third countries” 

 
 
 
22 

25 We carried out an audit of the management systems for AMIF-funded integration 
measures for both programming periods, and reviewed 22 projects from the 
2014-2020  programming period, which were included in the AMIF accounts until 
30 June 2023  (our cut-off date). We collected audit evidence through document and 
data analysis, and from interviews with representatives of the Commission and 
national authorities responsible for designing and implementing the AMIF measures. 

26 We undertook audit visits in Germany, Spain, France, and Sweden. We took the 
financial  amounts allocated to all  member states for integration as a basis for selecting 
these member states (they represent 57 % of all AMIF allocations to specific 
objective 2 for 2021-2027).  We also took account of criteria such as geographical 
location  of member states within the EU and the number of people involved in 
integration measures. 

27 We reviewed 20 shared management projects and 2 directly managed projects. 
We selected the projects based on the type of management (direct or shared), 
materiality, types of integration measures supported, and geographical location of the 
projects. The shared management projects we selected represented €34.7 million of 
AMIF payments, or around 11 % of the total AMIF support paid out under specific 
objective 2 by the end of 2022  in the four member states we visited. 

 
 
 
 
23 

Observations 

Although it is clear how AMIF could be used for integration 
measures, there is a risk that its added value is limited by its 
administrative complexity 

28 We examined whether EU policy documents and legislation provided a clear 
rationale and strategy for AMIF intervention. In the four member states we visited, we 
analysed the level of AMIF support for integration measures compared to other 
available funding sources, as well as the added value of AMIF support. We analysed 
the approaches taken by member states in implementing AMIF, taking account of the 
different circumstances in each member state we visited. Finally, we assessed whether 
EU funds were used in a coordinated way to finance integration pathways. 

The legislative framework provides a clear rationale for AMIF 
intervention 

29 The Council, the Parliament and the Commission have adopted key documents on 
the EU’s strategy on integration 27 (paragraphs 17-18).  The two action plans on the 
integration of TCNs adopted by the Commission in 201628  and 202029  set key principles 
and priorities  for the work on integration and inclusion  at EU level. They define 
measures for the Commission and encourage member states to develop their own 
actions. The 2021-2027  national programmes we reviewed included mostly general 
references to the 2021-2027  action plan. 

30 The objective of AMIF for the integration of TCNs is clearly  set out in EU 
legislation, as are the integration activities supported by the Fund (paragraphs 08 and 
12). The inclusion of AMIF in the Common Provisions Regulation ensures the 
coordination and strategic alignment of the Fund with the other EU structural and 
investment funds. 

27  Migration and Home Affairs (europa.eu). 

28  COM(2016) 377. 

29  COM(2020) 758. 

 
 
 
24 

31 EU legislation  also clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the Commission 
and the member states in managing AMIF (paragraphs 20-21). Grant agreements 
determine the level of AMIF support by defining an amount of eligible expenditure for 
which a share comes from AMIF. Known as the EU “co-financing rate”, this share varies 
from one project to the other, but is not supposed to exceed 75 % of the eligible 
expenditure (although 90 % or 100 % are possible in certain circumstances) 30. 

The level of AMIF support for integration measures is low in some 
member states compared to other available funding sources 

32 In the four member states we visited, we analysed the level of AMIF support for 
integration in 2014-2020.  These member states did not have a consolidated overview 
of all funds (national and EU) spent on the integration of TCNs which we could use. We 
therefore asked the responsible authorities of AMIF to provide us with details of the 
funding for integration for 2014-2020  that could be directly compared to AMIF 
spending in this area. 

33 In Germany and France, we received data from the budgets of the interior 
ministries, as they were responsible for TCN integration. In Sweden, only information 
from the mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020  AMIF programme was available, and 
its scope was less clearly defined. In Spain, the national authorities did not provide us 
information that enabled us to compare AMIF financing with other funding for 
integration. 

34 Based on the data we received, in Germany, France, and Sweden, the AMIF 
support remained limited compared to other available funding sources. In France, our 
comparison of AMIF support for integration with funding made available to the 
ministry in charge of the integration policy of TCNs shows that AMIF integration 
measures amounted to a maximum of around 6 % of the other available funding in 
2014-2020.  The AMIF support in Germany and Sweden is estimated to be even lower. 

30  Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

 
 
 
25 

For integration measures, there is a risk that the added value from AMIF 
is limited by the administrative complexity faced by member states 

35 The legal framework for both 2014-2020  and 2021-2027  requires member states 
to allocate  a certain percentage of AMIF funding to integration measures (20 % and 
15 % respectively), unless they justify a lower percentage in their national 
programmes. This requirement is intended to ensure there are measures supported by 
AMIF in all  areas of migration in the member states. However, the Commission’s 2018 
interim evaluation report on AMIF during 2014-2020  indicated that the minimum 
percentages of funding per AMIF objective might need to be reconsidered 31. This was 
to avoid fragmentation of national programmes under several AMIF objectives and 
increase flexibility. 

36 AMIF has management requirements that involve a certain amount of 
administrative complexity for implementing authorities and beneficiaries, as indicated 
in the 2014-2020  AMIF interim evaluation reports for the member states we visited 32. 
The Commission’s 2018  interim evaluation report also acknowledged that “In spite of 
simplification improvements, there is little  evidence at this stage that the 
administrative burden has been significantly reduced” 33. 

37 We found that in France and in Spain, the authorities decided to check the 
financial  soundness of potential beneficiaries before selecting the projects, to make 
sure that they could handle the administrative work needed to manage the EU funds 
(paragraph 43). In Sweden and Germany, the ability to fulfil the administrative 
management requirements was also taken into account when selecting projects under 
AMIF (paragraph 42). 

38 There is, by default, a financial  added value in receiving EU support from AMIF. 
However, as indicated in paragraph 34,  in three of the member states we visited 
(Germany, France and Sweden), AMIF support for integration measures was limited 
compared to other available funding. At the same time, in these member states, both 
responsible authorities and beneficiaries had concerns about the administrative 
complexity of AMIF. Hence, we consider there is a risk that the added value from AMIF 

31  COM(2018) 464, section 5.8. 

32  Evaluation report France, p. 7; Evaluation report Germany, p. 6; Evaluation report Spain, 

p. 68; Evaluation report Sweden, p. 58. 

33  COM(2018) 464, section 3.5. 

 
 
 
26 

does not make up for its administrative complexity, i.e. programming, managing, 
checking and monitoring the integration measures funded by AMIF. 

39 The Commission also noted that “Without the AMIF, some integration activities 
are unlikely to be implemented because of the unavailability of other funding sources 
to support this area of work”34 in the 2014-2020  programming period. The Commission 
told us during discussions on our audit that the risk of budget shortfalls applied 
particularly  to projects seen as innovative. In fact, we found that project selection 
procedures generally took this feature into account, e.g. by granting additional scoring 
points to such projects. However, we did not find a standard definition either at EU or 
member state level of what would make a project “innovative”. Guidance has been 
provided on innovative approaches 35, but the legal bases explicitly indicate only that 
AMIF should finance innovative projects under direct management36. There is no such 
indication  for innovative projects under shared management. 

The approaches adopted by member states reveal substantial 
differences 

40 The use of AMIF is set out by the AMIF Regulations and member states propose 
priorities in their programmes, which are then approved by the Commission. Member 
states have the flexibility to choose how AMIF can be used to support national 
integration policies. 

41 In each of the member states we visited, we found that national laws set out the 
general principles of TCN integration policy. The principles were similar across these 
member states, and mainly aimed to promote the economic, social, cultural  and 
political  participation  of TCNs, such as through access to language courses and social 
services. We found similarities  in the role of civil  society organisations  and local  and 
regional authorities as beneficiaries of AMIF national programmes 37. 

34  Toolkit on the use of EU funds for the integration of people with a migrant background 

2021–2027 programming period, Chapter 3, p. 11. 

35  Mutual Learning conference on “Innovative approaches to integration and inclusion of 

migrants”. 

36  Recital 48 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1147, and Article 20(2)(b) of 

Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

37  Follow the Money II report, p. 22. 

 
 
 
27 

42 However, member states incorporated AMIF into national policies in different 
ways. Three of the member states we visited (France, Germany and Sweden) decided 
to prioritise  AMIF co-financing for projects deemed large enough to handle AMIF 
project management requirements. In Spain, the approach was different, with projects 
being selected that had 100  % AMIF pre-financing and were of a much smaller scale. 
The AMIF amount committed per project in 2014-2020  was around €78 000  in Spain 
versus around €700  000,  €430  000,  and €1 000 000  in France, Germany, and Sweden 
respectively. 

43 For 2021-2027,  the French and German authorities have continued to use AMIF 
to support larger-scale projects, for instance, by defining selection thresholds. In 
France, the threshold for a project to be supported by AMIF was that the project’s 
total costs should be higher than €500  000.  In Germany, the authorities have 
continued (since 2014)  applying a minimum threshold of €100  000 for co-financing 
from AMIF per year of project duration. 

44 In Spain, as the available AMIF budget was not sufficient to cover all applications 
for funds, the responsible authority reduced the funding amounts for all eligible 
applicants  proportionally, taking into account the selection score for each project. In 
Spain’s national  call for AMIF funding applications in 2019  (from which we sampled 
four projects) 38, the total amount of €26.1 million  applied for by all 142 eligible 
projects was reduced by 40 %, to €15.7  million.  This reduction in the grant allocated to 
each project also contributed to the relatively low average amount of AMIF support 
per project in Spain. However, the overall number of projects selected for AMIF 
support in Spain was high compared to the other member states we visited; at nearly 
1 000 projects for 2014-2020,  this was almost twice the number of projects selected in 
the three other member states combined. 

45 Also in Spain, judicial  proceedings about the division of institutional 
responsibilities between the federal state and the regions in 2014-2020  had declared 
the calls for funding of integration measures under AMIF in that period null and void. 
The ruling had to be taken into account when defining new activities supported by 
AMIF. This had an impact on the priorities  identified in the national AMIF programme 
for 2021-2027,  which were not permitted to impinge on the competences of the 
regions. 

38  Projects number 6 to 9 in Annex II. 

 
 
 
28 

46 We also found that the way member states had incorporated AMIF in their 
national integration policies differed substantially. In Sweden, AMIF support was 
usually excluded from nationally funded integration measures. In Germany, if a TCN 
had a legal entitlement to an integration activity  funded by national funds, this activity 
could not be co-financed by AMIF. In these two countries, core integration measures, 
such as language courses, remained exclusively financed by national funds. This was 
the case for the establishment programme in Sweden, and the programme of 
integration courses in Germany. 

47 The French authorities adopted a different approach and decided to use AMIF to 
co-finance a core integration programme called “Contrat d’intégration 
républicaine” (CIR) (Box 3). The French authorities acknowledged that one of their 
objectives was to increase the AMIF’s absorption rate (i.e. the extent to which the 
funds have been spent on eligible projects). For 2014-2020,  we estimated that the co-
financing of this programme had represented around one third of the AMIF amounts 
planned for integration in France. We found that French authorities did not plan to 
lower the share in 2021-2027. 

Box 3 

Core integration measure in France 

The “Contrat d’intégration républicaine” is a 1-year contract  between the French 
state and a TCN who has a residence permit for a shorter period than 5 years. The 
purpose is to provide language and civic  orientation courses. This contract, signed 
by an average of around 100  000 people per year during 2014-2020,  increasing to 
127 000  in 2023,  is complied with if the signatory has followed the prescribed 
training  courses “seriously and assiduously” and has not rejected the essential 
values of French society. 

Limited coordination between EU funds in 2014-2020 but better 
demarcation in 2021-2027 

48 The ESF 39 also plays a role in funding TCNs’ labour market integration and social 
inclusion. For 2014-2020,  the member states could support the integration of migrants 
under the ESF, for example, under the investment priority “Socio-economic integration 
of marginalised communities such as the Roma” or the investment priority “active 
inclusion”,  although the Fund did not have a specific objective for this area. Its 

39  Article 2(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013. 

 
 
 
29 

successor, the ESF+ 40, is an important source of financing for medium to long-term 
integration measures 41 (paragraph 16). Such measures would be expected to have a 
longer-term impact on access to inclusive, non-segregated and mainstream services in 
education, employment, housing, social care, healthcare and childcare. One of its 
specific objectives is now “promoting socio-economic integration of third-country 
nationals, including migrants”42. 

49 We assessed whether there was coordinated use of AMIF (for which only TCNs 
are eligible) and the ESF (for which both TCNs and EU citizens are eligible) and whether 
these funds could provide continuity in integration pathways but avoid overlaps in the 
support provided. This is important to ensure the consistency of the EU’s response to 
the integration of third-country nationals 43. 

50 It would be possible under the legislation to have a type of early integration 
action funded by AMIF that would be continued by the ESF in the medium term. In the 
member states we visited, we were not provided with good practice of EU funds (AMIF 
and ESF) being used in 2014-2020  in a coordinated manner to finance full integration 
pathways. In practice, where there were administrative initiatives to ensure continuity 
in integration pathways, as we found in France and Sweden, this was done through 
nationally  funded measures helping TCNs into employment. 

51 For 2021-2027,  the complementarity between AMIF and the ESF+ was better 
defined than for 2014-2020.  The AMIF measures designed in the 2021  AMIF Regulation 
are generally implemented in the early stages of integration (paragraph 12). Measures 
for TCNs with a longer-term impact tend to come under the ESF+ (paragraph 48). The 
Commission provided guidance 44 to member states to define areas of intervention for 
AMIF and the ESF+ and avoid overlaps when planning the support. For 2014-2020,  this 
guidance 45 was not produced until 2018,  thus it did not add much value to the 
planning stage for AMIF support. The Commission was also coordinating  its action 

40  EU funds for migrant integration 2021-2027, European Commission (26 June 2024). 

41  Recital 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

42  Article 4(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1057. 

43  Recital 22 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

44  Toolkit on the use of EU funds for the integration of people with a migrant background 

2021–2027 programming period, chapter 4, pp. 12-19. 

45  Toolkit on the use of EU funds for the integration of people with a migrant background, 

2014-2020. 

 
 
 
30 

between the directorates-general in charge of AMIF and other funds like the ESF/ESF+ 
and establishing mutual consultation during the programming phase of these funds. 

52 In the four member states we visited, we also analysed whether the separate 
scope of the ESF+ and AMIF was clear. In 2014-2020,  this was not specifically  defined 
in programming documents. It was often left to implementing decisions from member 
states during the programming period. There was progress in 2021-2027,  either 
because the national programmes were more precise or because national authorities 
clarified the scope at the beginning of the period. 

53 Our sample of projects confirmed that the responsible national authorities 
implemented procedures to mitigate the risk of double funding from AMIF and the ESF 
for the same costs (Annex I – criterion 2). We found an effective practice to mitigate 
the risk of double funding in Spain (Box 4). 

Box 4 

Calls for projects common to AMIF, the ESF and the state budget in 
Spain 

In Spain’s AMIF programme for 2014-2020  the calls  included projects to be 
financed either by AMIF, or the ESF, or the state budget. Entities could apply to 
receive support for projects with different types of activities financed by only one 
of the three sources of funds. This reduced the risk of double funding. The calls for 
applications  also made it obligatory  for the beneficiary to stamp the original 
documents with the identification of the project financed, the year of the call, the 
amount of the project and the reference to either AMIF or the ESF. 

Integration measures were relevant but not systematically 
tailored to specific groups, while projects largely delivered on 
outputs 

54 We assessed whether the member states made an appropriate selection of 
integration measures to be supported by AMIF. We took as a reference for relevant 
interventions the types of integration activities set out in the 2021  AMIF Regulation 46. 
We examined the extent to which member states tailored the support from AMIF to 
specific groups and covered key areas for integration. 

46  Annex VI to Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

 
 
 
31 

55 We also assessed whether the member states and the Commission ensured that 
selected projects were adequately implemented. We analysed a sample of 22 projects 
and looked at key steps in the project management cycle, such as selection of the 
project, and then the checks on implementation. 

The activities supported were relevant to the integration needs 

56 In the four member states we visited, we reviewed the integration measures 
planned for 2021-2027  programming period. We found that member states planned to 
support a wide range of activities, all of which were relevant according to the 
legislation  (Figure 9). The data also shows that the member states we visited 
prioritised one or two intervention types over others. 

 
 
32 

Figure 9 – Types of integration activities in 2021-2027 in our selected 
member states (€ million) 

(amounts in 
million euros)

Germany

Spain

France

Sweden

TOTAL 
payments 
per measure

Integration measures –
introduction, participation, 
exchanges with host society

Integration measures –
information and 
orientation, one stop shops

Integration measures 
– language training

Integration measures –
civics and other training

Development of 
integration strategies

161.0

54.4

28.8

2.0

246.2

53.7

107.4

100.7

5.6

160.0

40.0

8.0

155.4

53.7

1.1

51.0

5.2

111.0

26.8

19.4

29.5

12.0

87.7

Vulnerable persons, including 
unaccompanied minors

13.4

52.1

2.4

8.0

75.9

Operating support

50.8

3.6

19.8

74.2

Mobility schemes

26.8

14.0

22.0

Acquisition of legal 
residence

Integration measures –
basic needs

Pre-departure measures

Victims of trafficking in 
human beings

TOTAL 
payments 
per country

26.8

26.8

26.8

23.9

8.0

4.0

7.3

9.5

13.4

1.0

0.4

3.2

587.4

142.0

295.2

99.7

62.8

50.7

42.1

40.3

18.0

Source: AMIF national programmes for 2021-2027. 

57 The 22  projects we reviewed supported relevant integration activities for TCNs in 
areas such as civic  and language training, as well as social  orientation. There was also 

 
 
 
33 

support for the development of online platforms and applications (Annex II). Our 
assessment aligns with the Commission’s 2018  interim evaluation report on AMIF, 
which drew positive conclusions on the relevance of the Fund to its specific objectives. 
Box 5 provides some illustrations of relevant projects. 

Box 5 

Examples of integration projects 

In Germany, teachers learnt how to work with migrant  children who had suffered 
trauma. The aim was to improve their school results. 

In Sweden, a project developed new e-application systems for work permits, visas, 
family reunification cases, students, unaccompanied minors. 

Another project, directly managed by the Commission and co-financed at 90  % 
from AMIF (€1.6 million), developed a common framework for the integration of 
migrants and refugees in EU regions, so that regional policymakers could use 
evidence-based research to underpin policymaking on integration. The project was 
implemented by 10 beneficiaries from 6 member states. 

Member states’ tailoring of integration measures for specific groups 
varied 

58 Both AMIF Regulations called for tailored support from the Fund according to the 
needs of TCNs 47. We assessed to what extent the member states we visited had used 
AMIF to support integration measures that were designed for specific groups of TCNs. 

59 In Germany and Spain, we found such schemes for specific groups. In Germany, 
after four calls  for proposals between 2014 and 2018,  around 75 % of the budgets 
made available for integration measures were allocated to measures for specific 
groups. Examples were pre-integration measures in TCNs’ countries of origin or 
integration measures in Germany for young migrants. In Spain, there were measures 
focusing on victims of gender-based violence and human trafficking. Data provided by 
the Spanish authorities indicated that they planned to focus on vulnerable persons for 
2021-2027,  allocating  37 % of the AMIF budget to this category. 

47  Articles 9(2) and 19(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014; Annex III. 3(h) to 

Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

 
 
 
34 

60 In Sweden and France, we found this degree of tailoring more limited in 
measures during the 2014-2020  programming period. In Sweden, the target group for 
AMIF funding applications was TCNs who resided in Sweden or wished to move there. 
In France, the national programme focused on dividing the integration measures 
between two main sub-groups: the beneficiaries of international protection and other 
TCNs, mainly for reasons of administrative organisation. 

61 The 2021  AMIF Regulation set specific reporting categories for different areas of 
AMIF intervention 48, with indicative AMIF amounts at the programming stage 
(Figure 9). We consider that this legislative change has contributed to improving the 
tailoring  of integration measures in 2021-2027  compared to 2014-2020. 

Although recognition of skills and qualifications of TCNs is increasingly 
important, AMIF support is marginal in this area 
62 Since 2014,  the assessment and recognition of skills and qualifications  acquired in 
a third country, including professional experience, has been part of pre-integration 49 
or integration 50 measures eligible for AMIF support. The 2021 AMIF Regulation 
reiterated the importance of assessment and recognition of skills and qualifications, 
dedicating to this topic one of the four core performance indicators 51 for the specific 
objective on integration. The indicator  is the “Number of participants who applied for 
the recognition or assessment of qualifications or skills  acquired in a third country”. 

63 The Commission confirmed during our audit that TCNs are at risk of experiencing 
higher degrees of underemployment and mismatch between their qualifications (and 
experience) and their integration into suitable jobs in the EU labour market. 
Recognition processes may often be slow and costly, thus limiting  their effectiveness. 
Beyond the access to regulated professions through the formal recognition of 
qualifications,  the Commission considers that improvement is needed regarding clarity 
about different qualifications and how they relate to similar  qualifications  in EU 
member states. 

48  Annex VI, Table 1, section II. to Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

49  Article 8(b) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

50  Annex III 3(d) to Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

51  Ibid., Annex V. 

 
 
 
35 

64 In 2023,  the Commission recommended that the member states simplify and 
speed up the recognition of TCNs’ skills and qualifications 52.  This recommendation 
aimed to “facilitate [the] integration [of TCNs] into the labour market in line with the 
needs of the Union economy and society” and “use the potential of legal migration to 
attract skilled  third-country nationals to address labour and skills shortages”53. 

65 According to reports from both the public sector (Sweden’s supreme audit 
institution in 201554),  and the private sector (a non-profit organisation  in Spain in 
202055),  the need to have skills and qualifications  recognised in a formalised procedure 
is a major obstacle to the integration of TCNs in the labour market. 

Recognition of qualifications was excluded from AMIF funding in our selected 
member states 

66 In the member states we visited, we found national systems to recognise 
qualifications  or compare diplomas obtained in countries of origin with national 
diplomas. These systems were the responsibility of academic authorities or 
professional bodies (the latter being responsible for recognising professional 
qualifications  which give access to regulated professions or to a particular  grade or 
salary band), and therefore the member states did not consider them for AMIF 
support. 

67 Nonetheless, we did find some specific provisions favourable to TCNs in the 
member states we visited. In France, for example, the recognition procedure was 
completely free of charge for beneficiaries of international protection and temporary 
protection. TCNs represented 85 % of the 354 946  requests for diploma equivalence 
received in France between 2014 and 202356.  More than 80  % of these requests were 
accepted. In Sweden, the authorities did not charge fees for the recognition 
procedure. The only costs TCNs incurred were for the official translation of documents 
or for access to regulated professions 57. 

52  C(2023) 7700. 

53  Ibid., p. 10. 

54  2015-17 Nyanländas etablering – är statens insatser effektiva, p. 124. 

55  Estudio sobre las necesidades de la población inmigrante en España: tendencias y retos 

para la inclusión social. Informe ejecutivo, December 2020, p. 19. 

56  Data from the ENIC-NARIC centre in France. 

57  Regulated professions - Your Europe (europa.eu). 

 
 
 
36 

Member states provided marginal AMIF support for the assessment of skills 

68 In all  the member states we visited, the AMIF contribution to assessment of skills 
was marginal,  although there were other EU tools that played a role in this area. For 
example, the Technical Support Instrument provides tailor-made technical expertise to 
EU countries to carry out reforms through calls  for tenders; the multilingual  Skills 
Profile Tool for Third-Country Nationals was developed in 2017  as part of the skills 
agenda for Europe. In Spain, there were no specific measures for assessing skills in 
either AMIF funding period because this area qualified for ESF support, and because of 
the separation of institutional  responsibilities between the state and the regions. In 
Germany, the AMIF national programme for 2014-2020  did not mention the 
assessment of skills. The Commission reported to us that the ESF played an important 
role in this area, such as through the programme Integration through Qualifications. 

69 In Sweden, we identified that two projects out of 55 AMIF-funded projects 
provided support during 2014-2020  for the validation of TCNs’ professional 
experience. However, the Swedish authorities reported a lack of interest for support 
from AMIF in this area. In France, the situation was similar,  with only one project 
identified for 2021-2027  out of 28 projects so far approved. 

Outputs broadly achieved but limited assessments of costs 

70 AMIF grant award agreements lay down the terms and conditions for the 
payment of the grant. These include the submission of documents to the authorities 
confirming the implementation of the expenditure and the timetable for the project. 
We analysed how the authorities checked the eligibility of the activity, and how they 
examined the cost items. 

Projects largely achieved their expected outputs 

71 Our system audit reviewed documented procedures to check project 
implementation, including  administrative checks at the grant payment stage and at the 
end of the project, as well as on-the-spot checks for a sample of projects. 

72 National authorities were able to use the regular reporting from grant 
beneficiaries to assess whether the projects were implemented according to plan. Our 
review of the 20 selected projects under shared management (Annex I – criterion 4) 
and of the 2 directly managed projects found that the expected outputs were largely 
achieved. 

 
 
37 

Procedures to assess costs and benefits did not systematically use quantitative 
analysis or benchmarking   

73 Article 17(2)(c) of the 2014 AMIF Regulation states that expenditure must be 
“reasonable and comply with the principles of sound financial management, in 
particular value for money and cost-effectiveness”. In this section, we examine to what 
extent these conditions were met. 

74 In the member states we visited, we found procedures to ensure that only costs 
which were actually incurred were reimbursed by AMIF. Such control procedures are 
within the scope of the principles laid  down in the AMIF legislation on the eligibility  of 
expenditure 58. 

75 Moreover, the selection procedure for the AMIF projects we reviewed in our 
system audit included a cost-benefit analysis in three of the member states we visited 
(Germany, France, Sweden). We consider that, when correctly designed and 
implemented, this helps authorities to select projects according to their added value. 

76 However, we found the procedures for cost-benefit analysis in our 20 selected 
projects were almost exclusively based on qualitative information and there was 
limited quantitative analysis (Annex I – criterion 1). Moreover, the national authorities 
did not systematically use tools like benchmarks, or average cost grids to assess 
whether project costs were reasonable (Annex I – criterion 3). This was an area for 
improvement identified by French authorities for 2021-2027.  However, when projects 
were selected as being innovative, benchmarking was often not easily applicable 
because there were few similar projects. 

77 We found that in one of the two directly-managed projects, the Commission had 
successfully used benchmarking to compare the project’s administrative costs with 
those in similar  projects. Consequently, it had been able to highlight the project’s cost-
effectiveness. 

58  Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014. 

 
 
 
38 

Monitoring of national programmes for AMIF funding was 
difficult despite being part of a structured system 

78 We assessed whether the Commission and the member states had set up an 
effective system for monitoring and evaluating AMIF integration measures. Such a 
system should accurately reflect the activities undertaken and be regularly updated so 
it can provide reliable information on the effects achieved by integration measures 
supported by AMIF. The common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) for 
2014-2020  and the performance framework for 2021-2027  require AMIF programmes 
to be target driven. We examined to what extent such conditions were met. 

The Commission reviews member state reporting within a structured 
system, but data quality remains a challenge 

79 The Commission reviews the member states’ AMIF implementation reports under 
shared management within the structured reporting system of the CMEF or the 
performance framework. We found the Commission’s checklists to be based on 
plausibility  and consistency checks and to be well-structured. 

80 Article 69(4) of the Common Provisions Regulation indicates that “Member States 
shall ensure the quality, accuracy and reliability  of the monitoring system and of data 
on indicators”. Consequently, the Commission does not have to validate the data 
reported by the member states as they are responsible for data quality. 

81 The data used for the output indicators (both in 2014-2020  and 2021-2027)  and 
for the result indicators  (in 2021-2027)  come from the project reports. Therefore, any 
flaws in data quality are likely to affect the quality of performance information, which 
is based on CMEF indicators  and reported by the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council during the budgetary procedure 59 (paragraph 93). 

82 We found weaknesses in data provided by the project reports. In our review of 
the selected projects, we identified problems in the reliability of the indicators 
reported by the beneficiaries to the authorities in 11 projects. Box 6 describes 
examples of problems we encountered. 

59  Programme statement of draft budget 2023, pp. 880-881. 

 
 
 
39 

Box 6 

Examples of problems found in checks on reliability of indicators 

In Spain, the underlying data on all  integration projects showed a number of 
participants  that was twice as high as the number actually  reported to the 
Commission. We found that in one selected project out of five, people other than 
TCNs were counted in the indicators related to TCNs. 

In France, we could not reconcile a specific output indicator  that France had 
reported to the Commission (C2 – number of participants assisted by AMIF 
through integration measures) with the totals for all  indicators in the data 
provided by all AMIF-supported integration projects in France. 

Member states did not generally align their targets for participant 
numbers and results with 2021-2027 integration budget increases 

83 Targets are a quantified expression of public policy  objectives, and should also 
determine the financial resources and measures allocated to achieve them. The 
Commission scrutinises the progress made towards such targets in its review of the 
annual AMIF implementation reports submitted by member states. 

84 The amount allocated  from AMIF to specific objective 2 on integration increased 
from €911  million  in 2014-2020  (excluding the AMIF funding to the UK) to 
€1 960 million  in 2021-2027  (paragraph 15), i.e. by around 115  %. However, managing 
authorities forecast that participant  target numbers in AMIF integration measures 
across all member states would fall from 9.7 million  at the end of 2022  to 2.5 million 
by 202960,  i.e. by around 75 %. According to the authorities in the member states we 
visited, the target setting for 2029  (as the end of the period when expenditure is 
eligible for AMIF support) relied largely on extrapolations based on historical 
participant  numbers. This resulted in changes in participant  targets which did not 
correlate with budgetary increases. The diversity of the actions and the evolution of 
their intensity can also explain a decorrelation between increases in budgets and 
decreases in the target group numbers. 

85 In 15 of the 26 member states that participate in AMIF, an increase in budgets for 
integration measures between the two programming periods was accompanied by a 

60  Commission data from national AMIF programmes. 

 
 
 
40 

fall in the target number of participants. In the 8 member states where both figures 
increased, they did not do so at the same rate (Figure 10). 

Figure 10 – Change in legal migration and integration budget 
uncorrelated with change in participant targets (%) 

Variation in participant target

Variation in integration budget

Germany

Malta

Greece

Luxembourg

Hungary

Latvia

Finland

Lithuania

Poland

Croatia

France

Austria

Slovakia

Slovenia

Ireland

Spain

Czechia

Sweden

Bulgaria

Belgium

Netherlands

Estonia

Italy

Cyprus

Portugal

Romania

EU-26

-100 %

0 %

500 %

1 000 %

1 500 %

Note: Change in legal migration and integration budget compares 2021-2027 to 2014-2020. Change in 
number of participants compares the expected figure in 2029 to the actual figure at the end of 2022. 
Member states are ranked from the largest to smallest change in the legal migration and integration 
budget. In bold are the 8 member states where both figures increased. 

Source: Commission data. 

 
 
 
41 

86 If budgets rise and participant  numbers fall this might allow an increase in the 
AMIF support provided per participant. For instance, in France, the authorities 
confirmed they intended to increase the aid per participant  for the “Contrat 
d’intégration républicaine” programme and expected to gain a better integration 
result. We found that average AMIF support per participant  was expected to rise 
considerably between the two programming periods. It will increase from €92  to €789 
for the 24 member states that have 2029  targets for the indicator  “Number of 
participants  who report that the activity was helpful for their integration”. On the 
other hand, the same member states expect that, on average, fewer than 50 % of 
participants  will assess their integration activity  as helpful. One of the reasons for this 
figure, which might even be seen as conservative, is that it is difficult to contact 
participants  to measure their satisfaction once they leave a project. 

87 We did not find any analysis, either at the Commission or in the managing 
authorities we visited, showing to what extent the increases in the budget for 
integration during 2021-2027  justified the targets for participant numbers and results. 
Historical  data had already showed that these targets required justification, since there 
were significant deviations (paragraph 91). 

AMIF’s contribution to integration is difficult to assess 

88 The support study for the interim evaluation of AMIF 2014-2017  concluded that 
“In the area of short and medium-term integration, it is expected that the results will 
become more visible  over the course of the second half of the programming period. It is 
therefore recommended that progress in this area form an area of focus for the ex-post 
evaluation of AMIF”61. This evaluation from the member states and the Commission is 
expected by 31 December 2024 and 30 June 2025 respectively 62. Our observations 
below confirm the validity of this recommendation. 

Member states did not monitor integration pathways 

89 In all  member states we visited, once the TCNs leave a project funded by AMIF, 
there is no follow-up of their integration. While such a follow-up is not mandatory, it is 

61  Final Report of the Interim Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, 

p. 207. 

62  Article 1(5) of Regulation (EU) 2022/585 amending Regulation (EU) No 514/2014. 

 
 
 
42 

important to analyse the effectiveness of the intervention. The report cited above had 
already underlined that there was no consistent monitoring in the longer-term 63. 

90 Only in France did we identify a survey that was monitoring migrants’ integration 
over time (ELIPA, Box 7), although it did not specifically monitor TCNs supported by 
AMIF. 

Box 7 

Long-term monitoring of integration pathways in France 

The first ELIPA study covered 2010-2013.  In 2018,  ELIPA received a payment from 
AMIF of €1.5 million.  A new study published in January 2024 covers 2019-2022. 
The aim is to assess the migrants’ integration pathway in France for the 4 years 
after they have received their residence permits. The survey provides data on 
newcomers’ plans for migration, their progress in understanding French, their 
overall physical and mental health and their first years in France as migrants. 

Output data  on AMIF participants provides only partial information 

91 We found that monitoring was largely based on outputs, such as the number of 
participants  in integration measures funded by AMIF, or the number of integration 
projects supported by AMIF. The AMIF outputs per member state varied significantly 
as they were largely dependent on the national models chosen to implement AMIF 
(paragraphs 42-47). In France and Spain, high numbers of participants were recorded 
under AMIF measures in 2014-2020  (971 478  and 709  758 people respectively). In 
France, this was because the core integration measure (Contrat d’intégration 
républicaine) involved a large number of people (around 100 000  per year), who were 
all counted towards AMIF output. In Sweden and Germany, however, excluding such 
core measures from AMIF co-financing limited the number of participants assigned to 
AMIF during the same period (22 331  and 49 343  people respectively). In Sweden, we 
also identified large projects to equip the authorities with new electronic systems and 
upgrade their capacity.  These projects did not mention participant  numbers, but they 
still  received significant AMIF funding. Figure 11 shows the variability  of participant 
data per member state. 

63  Final Report of the Interim Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, 

p. 222. 

 
 
 
43 

Figure 11 – Variation in number of persons in integration measures 
compared with targets for 2014-2020 

Target value for 2014 – 2020

Overachieved target at end 2022

Underachieved target at end 2022

break in 
data scale

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czechia

Germany

Estonia

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Croatia

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sweden

Slovenia

Slovakia

0

1 000 000

Source: Commission data available at the end of 2022. 

71 438

26 134

95 098

181 478

119 197

49 343

4 844

709 478

16 277

971 478

444 995

5 030

4 208

20 580

2 753 570

7 835

3 999

19 066

17 435

24 363

3 722 271

131 877

28 898

22 331

408 783

67 725

 
 
 
44 

92 An analysis of the aggregation, comparison and interpretation of budget and 
output data at EU level is important and requires care, given the differences in types of 
interventions and in socio-economic conditions between the member states. In 
Poland, for instance, there were 3 722 271  people counted as being in integration 
measures at the end of 2022  for an available budget of €60.7  million 64. In Germany, 
there were 49 343  people for an available budget of €127.1  million 65. 

93 We thus found the value of the information provided by output indicators  to be 
limited. The Commission nevertheless used the “Integration of non-EU nationals – 
number of beneficiaries” as one of its key performance indicators 66, reporting simply 
that the “progress to target” was 100  % at the end of 2023. Taking the figures only 
from Poland or Italy would mean that the initial  EU target for 2014-2020  of 
2 576 062 people would have been achieved for this indicator. 

Result indicators for 2014-2020  were affected by shortcomings 

94 For 2014-2020,  most of the result indicators  focused on six socio-economic 
factors to monitor the gaps between host-country nationals in the EU and TCNs 
(paragraph 05)67, (Box 8). 

64  2014-2020 national AMIF programme, version 7.0, p. 34. 

65  2014-2020 national AMIF programme, version 9.0, p. 33. 

66  Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund - Performance - European Commission (europa.eu). 

67  Annex III 1(b) to Regulation (EU) 2017/207. 

 
 
 
45 

Box 8 

Result indicators for 2014-2020 monitoring the gaps between host-
country nationals in the EU and TCNs 

The indicators  below monitor the gap between the two populations for the 
following: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

employment rate; 

unemployment rate; 

activity rate, i.e. percentage of population in work; 

percentage of early leavers from education and training; 

percentage of 30 to 34-year-olds with tertiary educational attainment; and 

percentage of population at risk of social  poverty or social exclusion. 

95 We found that the result indicators  made it possible to record the trends in 
integration in the member states and the EU over a number of years. For instance, the 
share of early leavers from education and training  for TCNs increased between 2014 
and 2023  in Germany (from 24.2 % to 29.5 %), unlike the trend in the EU overall 
(28.5  % versus 25.3 %). 

96 However, we also found that it was not possible to accurately measure the 
specific effects of the integration measures supported by AMIF using the result 
indicators  for 2014-2020.  This was because integration trends were also influenced by 
external factors or other national measures. It was also difficult to separate out the 
effects of AMIF support because AMIF budgets were small compared to national 
integration policies (paragraph 34). 

97 Other than the outputs achieved, we also assessed whether project monitoring 
provided information about the results of AMIF-funded projects on the integration of 
TCNs. In France, we found that the responsible authority had commissioned an 
external service provider to carry out evaluation visits to at least 50  % of the project 
promoters to assess progress towards the objectives. However, our review of a sample 
of 20 projects under shared management in the member states we visited showed that 
monitoring by the authorities (Annex I – criterion 5) mainly focused on outputs, 
without clear reference to the results, which were sometimes intangible and thus 
difficult to assess. 

 
 
46 

Monitoring of results was strengthened for 2021-2027 

98 As one of the main lessons learnt during the 2014-2020  programming period, the 
Commission identified a “need to strengthen the quality of performance monitoring, 
with more regular and reliable data for the result indicators”68. 

99 For the four result indicators  applicable  to AMIF for 2021-202769,  we found some 
progress in tackling the shortcoming described in paragraph  96. Our work in the 
member states we visited revealed that these indicators were more easily linked to 
AMIF activities (Box 9) than the indicators for 2014-2020.  The new indicators were 
included in the approved national programmes at the beginning of the programming 
period and the data came from the projects supported by AMIF. This new reporting 
framework underscores the shortcomings in the reliability  of 2014-2020  project 
reporting identified in paragraph 82. 

Box 9 

Result indicators for 2021-2027 linked to AMIF activities 

—  Number of participants in language courses who have improved their 

proficiency level by at least one level 

—  Number of participants who report that the activity was helpful for their 

integration 

—  Number of participants who applied for their qualification  or skills acquired in 

a third country to be recognised or assessed 

—  Number of participants who applied for long-term residence status 

68  Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund - Performance - European Commission (europa.eu). 

69  Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 2021/1147. 

 
 
 
 
 
47 

Conclusions and recommendations 

100 Overall, we conclude that the support from the Asylum, Migration, and 
Integration Fund (AMIF) which we audited played a relevant role in the integration of 
third-country nationals  (TCNs) in the EU, but that its impact could not yet be 
demonstrated. 

101 We found that the legislative framework provided a clear rationale for AMIF 
intervention (paragraphs 29-31). The level of AMIF support for integration measures 
was low in some member states compared to other available funding sources 
(paragraphs 32-34). There is a risk that the added value from AMIF is limited by its 
administrative complexity (paragraphs 35-39).  In the member states we visited, there 
were similarities in the general principles of integration policy for TCNs and types of 
beneficiaries addressed by AMIF. At the same time, these member states used the 
flexibility offered by AMIF to support national integration policies in quite diverse ways 
(paragraphs 40-47). 

102 We found that there was limited coordination between AMIF and the European 
Social  Fund (ESF) in 2014-2020.  We did not find good practice of EU funds (AMIF and 
the ESF) being used in a coordinated manner in 2014-2020  to finance full integration 
pathways, such as an early integration measure funded by AMIF being continued by 
the ESF in the medium term. However, we found progress in the demarcation between 
these two funds in 2021-2027  (paragraphs 48-53). 

Recommendation 1 – Analyse how to identify the financing 
gaps and streamline the programming of AMIF support for the 
integration of third-country nationals 

The Commission, in cooperation with the member states, within their remits, should 
analyse how to: 

(a) 

identify financing gaps and possible synergies between funding sources available 
for the integration pathways of third-country nationals; 

(b)  streamline the programming of AMIF support for the integration of third-country 

nationals to address those gaps in a targeted way. 

Target implementation date: by end of 2026 

 
 
48 

103 We found that integration measures supported by AMIF were relevant to 
integration needs, but the measures were not systematically tailored to specific groups 
(paragraphs 56-61). Although recognition of skills  and qualifications  is increasingly 
important for labour market integration, AMIF support was marginal in this area 
(paragraphs 62-69). We found that projects largely delivered on outputs, but with 
limited assessments of costs (paragraphs 70-77). 

Recommendation 2 – Collect, analyse and disseminate best 
practice on AMIF support for integration measures 

In cooperation with the member states, the Commission should: 

(a)  collect, analyse and disseminate information both on best practice and on the 

challenges in tailoring  AMIF support for integration of relevant specific groups, as 
well as on other increasingly important topics in the field of integration; 

(b) 

identify and disseminate best practice for analysing and documenting whether 
project costs are reasonable, by checking, for example, whether costs are in line 
with relevant benchmarks or market prices. 

Target implementation date: by end of 2026 

104 The Commission reviewed member state reporting within an existing 
structured system, but that data quality remained a challenge (paragraphs 79-82). 
Member states did not generally align  their targets for participant  numbers and results 
with 2021-2027  integration budget increases (paragraphs 83-87).  AMIF’s contribution 
to integration was difficult to assess (paragraphs 88-99), and output data on AMIF 
participants  provided only partial  information (paragraphs 91-93). The result indicators 
for 2014-2020  were affected by shortcomings (paragraphs 94-97), although monitoring 
of results was strengthened for 2021-2027.  The four new result indicators  were easier 
to link to AMIF activities than the indicators for 2014-2020  (paragraphs 98-99). Lastly, 
we found that member states did not monitor integration pathways (paragraphs 89-
90). 

 
 
49 

Recommendation 3 – Improve the reliability of project data, 
and of monitoring and reporting on AMIF support for 
integration 

In cooperation with the member states, the Commission should: 

(a) 

further support member states in improving the reliability  of reported project 
data to strengthen overall performance information, e.g. by systematically 
requiring relevant external parties (such as audit authorities) to check the 
reported project output indicators and promoting data quality checks (on data 
completeness, consistency and plausibility) by external reviewers; 

(b)  disseminate examples of good practice for monitoring and evaluating AMIF 

support for integration both to and within the member states. 

Target implementation date: by end of 2026 

Recommendation 4 – Analyse how to improve the reporting 
framework to enable the assessment of the performance of 
AMIF support for integration pathways of third-country 
nationals 

The Commission should analyse how to improve the reporting framework so it can 
obtain relevant data to assess the performance of AMIF interventions on the 
integration pathways of third country nationals as part of its subsequent evaluation of 
AMIF implementation. 

Target implementation date: by end of 2026 

This report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mrs Bettina Jakobsen, Member of 
the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 22 October 2024. 

For the Court of Auditors 

Tony Murphy 
President 

 
 
 
 
 
 
50 

Annexes 

Annex I – Results of our review of the selected projects under 
shared management from 2014-2020 

Criteria used for the analysis

Number of 
projects 
tested

Results from total project sample

1.  When appraising the application, is 

there evidence that the member state 
checked in depth that the objectives set 
for the project were linked to the 
resources allocated?

2. 

Is there evidence that the member state 
has verified the absence of double 
financing by AMIF/ESF?

3. 

Is there evidence that the member state 
has monitored the reasonability of the 
costs displayed in the project including 
through average cost grids or by 
comparison to other similar projects?

4. 

Is there evidence that the member state 
supervised the implementation of the 
measures and compliance with the 
project schedule?

5. 

Is there evidence that the member state 
has monitored the quality of project 
outputs and results?

6. 

Is there evidence that the member state 
has verified the reliability of the indicators 
reported by the beneficiary?

applicable

not applicable

met

partially met

not met

26 %

74 %

100 %

5 % 65 %

30 %

75 %

15 % 10 %

35 %

65 %

39 %

22 %

39 %

19
1

19
1

20
0

20
0

20
0

20
0

18
2

Note: The criteria are numbered according to the order of the project management cycle. 

Source: ECA assessment, based on project data from national authorities. 

 
 
 
Annex II – Projects selected from 2014-2020 

Member 
state - 
European 
Commission 

Type of 
beneficiary 

Shared management 

Purpose of the project 

Association 

Association 

Germany 

Association 

Training  for migrant organisations, so that 
they can also qualify other migrant 
organisations (multiplication  effect). 

Training  teachers how to educate children 
with trauma, to improve the refugee 
children’s school results. 

Developing an online platform for 
migrants, providing information about 
everyday life in Germany (job-search etc.). 

Association 

Supporting legal migration  of labour force 
from Kosovo to Germany by easing the 
recognition of skills and qualifications. 

Local 
authority 

Association 

Association 

Association 

Spain 

Association 

#10 

Ministry 

Intercultural training  and communication 
for administrators  of a big German city to 
identify gaps in the employment of 
migrants. 

Creating spaces where the migrants can 
meet with the relevant stakeholders in the 
school system (teachers, pupils, families). 

Creating local networks with associations 
and social  agents to help migrants and 
host community live alongside each other. 

Supporting networks fighting against 
prejudices. An interdisciplinary team of 
professionals acted in situation of direct 
and indirect discrimination. 

Individual and group discussions with 
migrant women to increase their 
awareness about their own health and 
prevent gender-based violence. 

Permanent Observatory on Immigration: 
obtaining immigration  statistics  from 
public registers and publish them on the 
web, to improve knowledge of migration. 

#1 

#2 

#3 

#4 

#5 

#6 

#7 

#8 

#9 

51 

AMIF 
payment 
(euros) 

366 036 

629 764 

859 795 

159 887 

386 530 

72 568 

128 937 

143 255 

65 532 

288 657 

 
 
 
Member 
state - 
European 
Commission 

Type of 
beneficiary 

#11 

Association 

#12 

Association 

France 

#13 

State agency 

Purpose of the project 

Developing courses and materials on the 
rights of foreigners in France to increase 
the skills of social workers supporting 
TCNs. 

Integration measures for 7 000 
beneficiaries of international protection to 
facilitate  their access to employment and 
housing. 

Civic orientation courses for TCNs (CIR): 
teaching of the values and institutions of 
the French Republic, as well as informing 
on life and access to employment, to 
around 100  000  TCNs per year. 

Creating a day centre and a night shelter, 
and outreach work in the neighbourhood 
helping young migrants to access services 
for child protection and childcare. 

#14 

#15 

#16 

#17 

#18 

#19 

Sweden 

City council 

State agency 

Language training  for TCNs (CIR) with the 
aim to reach language skills  of A1 level of 
the European framework for Languages. 

Local 
authority 

Training  of newly arrived parents by 
leaders of the same culture speaking the 
same language. 

Trade 
association 

Local 
authority 

The industry’s skills validation  tool has 
been translated into 5 different languages 
to facilitate  the validation of TCNs’ skills 
and help TCNs meeting the requirements 
for various professional roles. 

An administrative board cooperated with 
around ten municipalities,  civil  society and 
the employment service to help TCNs 
integrating the labour market. 

State agency 

Four government agencies developed a 
digital  solution to simplify the process for 
TCNS who want to work in Sweden. 

52 

AMIF 
payment 
(euros) 

159  059 

1 172 907 

15 597 140 

1 837 424 

3 831 256 

185 140 

652 248 

1 041 248 

2 121 287 

 
 
 
53 

AMIF 
payment 
(euros) 

5 005 338 

34 704 008 

725 302 

Member 
state - 
European 
Commission 

Type of 
beneficiary 

#20 

State agency 

Purpose of the project 

The project modernised existing and 
developed new e-application systems for 
work permits, visas, family reunification 
cases, students, unaccompanied minors... 

TOTAL 

Direct management 

#21 

European 
Commission 

#22 

European 
Commission 

Consortium 
of 7 
associations 
from France 
and Italy 

The project aimed to develop access to 
international protection. The project 
facilitated the exchange of good practices 
and enhanced capacities of organizations 
involved. 

Consortium 
of 10 
beneficiaries 
from 
Belgium, 
France, Italy, 
Portugal, 
Spain, and 
Sweden 

The consortium built a network of regions 
from different European countries, 
developed practices to facilitate 
knowledge transfer, and developed a set 
of indicators. 

1 614 787 

Source: Project data from national authorities and the European Commission. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
54 

Abbreviations 

AMIF: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

CIR: Contrat d’intégration républicaine (French integration contract for immigrants) 

CMEF: Common monitoring and evaluation framework 

ELIPA: Enquête longitudinale sur l'intégration des primo-arrivants (Longitudinal survey 
on the integration of newly arrived immigrants) 

ESF: European Social  Fund 

ESF+: European Social  Fund Plus 

MFF: Multiannual  financial  framework 

TCN: Third-country national 

 
 
 
 
55 

Glossary 

Asylum: Protection granted by a state to people from another country who are fleeing 
persecution or serious danger. 

Commitment: Amount earmarked in the budget to finance a specific item of 
expenditure, such as a contract or grant agreement. 

Common monitoring and evaluation framework:  Rules and procedures for evaluating 
the performance of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. 

Common Provisions Regulation: Regulation setting out the rules that apply to eight EU 
funds, including the four cohesion policy funds. The current regulation covers the 
2021-2027  period. 

Integration pathway:  Coordinated action in various policy areas, taken by local, 
regional and national  authorities and funded by member states and the EU, to help 
non-EU migrants overcome barriers on the way to integration. 

Managing authority:  National, regional or local  authority (public or private) designated 
by a member state to manage an EU-funded programme. 

Multiannual financial framework:  The EU’s spending plan setting priorities  (based on 
policy objectives) and ceilings, generally for 7 years. It provides the structure within 
which annual EU budgets are set, limiting spending for each category of expenditure. 

Output indicator: Measurable variable providing information for assessing a project’s 
products or achievements. 

Performance framework: Milestones and targets defined for a set of indicators for 
each specific objective of a national programme. 

Refugee: Person benefitting from international protection, having been forced to flee 
their country because of persecution, war or violence. 

Result indicator:  Measurable variable providing information for assessing the 
immediate effects of supported projects on the targeted population. 

Supreme audit institution: Independent national body responsible for auditing public 
revenue and expenditure. 

Temporary  protection: Right to reside, work and access basic  services in an EU 
member state, granted for a limited period to displaced persons who cannot return to 
their non-EU country of origin. 

 
 
56 

Replies of the Commission 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/sr-2024-26 

Timeline 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/sr-2024-26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
57 

Audit team 

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its audits of EU policies  and 
programmes, or of management-related topics from specific budgetary areas. The ECA 
selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact  by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming 
developments and political and public interest. 

This performance audit was carried  out by Audit Chamber III – External action, security 
and justice, headed by ECA Member Bettina Jakobsen. The audit was led by ECA 
Member Viorel Ştefan, supported by Roxana Banica, Head of Private Office and 
Dan-George Danielescu, Private Office Attaché; Pietro Puricella, Principal  Manager; 
Bertrand Tanguy, Head of Task; Erik  Kotlarik, Paolo Rexha and Alexandre Si Serir, 
Auditors. Jennifer Schofield, Hakan Hellstrom, Janina Schmidt Maximo and 
Pablo Lledo Callejon provided linguistic  support. Dunja Weibel provided graphical 
support. 

Viorel Ştefan

Roxana Banica

Dan Danielescu

Pietro Puricella

Bernard Tanguy

Erik Kotlarik

Alexandre Si Serir

 
 
COPYRIGHT 

© European Union, 2024 

The reuse policy of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) is set out in ECA Decision 
No 6-2019  on the open data policy and the reuse of documents. 

Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), ECA content owned by 
the EU is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0  International 
(CC BY 4.0) licence. As a general rule, therefore, reuse is authorised provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. Those reusing ECA content 
must not distort the original  meaning or message. The ECA shall not be liable for any 
consequences of reuse. 

Additional permission must be obtained if specific content depicts identifiable private 
individuals, e.g. in pictures of ECA staff, or includes third-party works. 

Where such permission is obtained, it shall cancel and replace the above-mentioned 
general permission and shall clearly state any restrictions on use. 

To use or reproduce content that is not owned by the EU, it may be necessary to seek 
permission directly from the copyright holders. 

Figures 1, 4, 8 and 9 – Icons: these icons have been designed using resources from 
Flaticon.com. © Freepik Company S.L. All rights reserved. 

Software or documents covered by industrial property rights, such as patents, 
trademarks, registered designs, logos and names, are excluded from the ECA’s reuse 
policy. 

The European Union’s family of institutional websites, within the europa.eu domain, 
provides links to third-party sites. Since the ECA has no control  over these, you are 
encouraged to review their privacy and copyright policies. 

Use of the ECA logo  

The ECA logo must not be used without the ECA’s prior consent. 

HTML
PDF Web

 ISBN 978-92-849-3361-7
 ISBN 978-92-849-3362-4

ISSN 1977-5679 doi: 10.2865/0610832
ISSN 1977-5679 doi: 10.2865/0470040

QJ-01-24-012-EN-Q
QJ-01-24-012-EN-N

 
 
 
 
The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is one of the 
ways the EU supports migrant integration measures. Our audit 
assessed whether the use of AMIF support by the Commission 
and the member states was sound and effective. We carried out 
audit visits in Germany, Spain, France, and Sweden, and found 
that support from the Fund played a relevant role in the 
integration of third-country nationals in the EU, but that its 
impact could not yet be demonstrated. We also found there to be 
a risk that the Fund’s added value was limited by its 
administrative complexity. We make four recommendations 
aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of future 
actions in the area of migrant integration. 

ECA special report pursuant to Article 287(4), second 
subparagraph, TFEU. 

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
, rue Alcide De Gasperi 
 Luxembourg 
LUXEMBOURG 

Tel. + - 

Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/contact 
Website: eca.europa.eu 
Twitter: @EUAuditors