Draft ID: c8e3e70a-63c9-4e38-b2de-eed6a4a0ec04
Date: 14/05/2021 15:11:16

Public consultation on the EU action plan
against migrant smuggling (2021-2025)
Fields marked with * are mandatory.

Introduction
The New Pact on Migration and Asylum recognises that migrant smuggling very often involves the
organised exploitation of migrants, showing scant respect for human life in the pursuit of profit and
damaging both the humanitarian and the migration management objectives of the EU[1]. To strengthen the
prevention and fight against migrant smuggling, the New Pact announces a new EU Action Plan against
migrant smuggling for the period 2021-2025.
Through this consultation, the European Commission would like to hear your views on what new actions
could be taken at EU level to prevent and fight migrant smuggling. Your feedback will help design the
upcoming EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling for the period 2021-2025.
According to various sources, the vast majority of those migrants who arrive to the EU irregularly have
made use of illicit services of migrant smugglers during various stages of their journey. Although the
COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent measures introduced by national authorities lead to an overall
reduction of migratory flows towards the EU in 2020[2], organised criminal groups involved in migrant
smuggling have adapted their modi operandi and continued their activities[3]. Worsening economic
conditions in countries of origin and transit are likely to increase migratory movements and result in
continued high demand for migrant smuggling services to the EU, with increased high profits for the
organised criminal groups active in this area. This is often linked to other crimes, such as trafficking in
human beings. Consequently, resolute action to prevent and combat migrant smuggling is needed and
should be strengthened further.
The current EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling covered the period 2015-2020[4]. It put forward a
comprehensive and multidisciplinary EU approach that set out concrete actions to contribute to
transforming migrant smuggling into a ‘high risk, low profit’ criminal activity for migrant smugglers, while
ensuring the full respect and protection of human rights of migrants. The 2015-2020 EU Action Plan had
four priorities: (i) Improved law enforcement and judicial response; (ii) Enhanced exchange of information;
(iii) Enhanced prevention of smuggling; and (iv) Stronger cooperation with third countries. Building on
ongoing efforts at EU and national level, in December 2018, the Council approved a comprehensive and
operational set of measures with a focus on law enforcement, to step up the fight against migrant
smuggling criminal networks[5].
This Action Plan has both comprehensively delineated the area of the EU’s intervention and delivered
tangible results[6]. The results include the following non-exhaustive list of actions. With regard to the

1

enhanced police and judicial response, these results include strengthening the counter smuggling capacity
of Europol by creating the European Migrant Smuggling Centre, and increased information exchange and
operational cooperation on migrant smuggling among Member States, in particular through the European
multidisciplinary cooperation platform against criminal threats (EMPACT)[7]. One of its priorities is to disrupt
organised criminal groups which provide illegal services that facilitate irregular migration along the main
routes towards and within the EU. It particularly focused on those criminal groups whose methods
endanger people’s lives (such as using concealments in trucks and lorries, and using unseaworthy
vessels), offering services online and making use of document fraud. Single points of contact at national
level have been established to coordinate on migrant smuggling, support was provided to combatting illicit
financial flows linked to migrant smuggling, a mapping of training needs for law enforcement officers in the
area of migrant smuggling was carried out and a thematic group for public prosecutors regarding migrant
smuggling has been created at the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust).
An evaluation of EU legislation on migrant smuggling (‘the Facilitators Package’) was carried out in 2017[8].
In the context of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum the Commission issued guidance[9] stressing that
humanitarian assistance mandated by law should not be criminalised and recommended to Member States
to distinguish between activities carried out for the purpose of humanitarian assistance and activities that
aim to facilitate irregular entry or transit, in order to exclude the former from criminalisation.
With regard to improved gathering and sharing of information, the Regulation on the creation of the
European network of immigration liaison officers[10] was adopted in 2019, the Information Clearing House
[11] and the EU Internet Referral Unit[12] were set up at Europol, Europol guest officers were deployed in
Italy and Greece, the Africa-Frontex Intelligence Community was further developed, assistance was
provided to combatting document fraud and migrant smuggling data was included in the regular Eurostat
data collection.
With regard to the enhanced prevention of smuggling and assistance to vulnerable migrants, information
and awareness raising campaigns have been carried out in key non-EU countries on the risks of smuggling
and irregular migration, and a toolkit was developed for the prevention of migrant smuggling by land for the
road haulage sector.
The possibility of obtaining employment in the EU without the required legal status is one of the drivers for
irregular migration and migrant smuggling to the EU. In the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, the
Commission indicated it will start an assessment how to strengthen the effectiveness of the Employers
Sanctions Directive[13] and assessing the need for further action. The efficient implementation of the
Directive is indispensable to deter irregular migration by ensuring effective prohibition of the employment of
irregularly staying third-country nationals.
Finally, as regards stronger cooperation with third countries, the EU Action Plan supported establishing
operational cooperation against migrant smuggling with non-EU countries along the main migratory routes
towards the EU in the form of bilateral and regional cooperation frameworks to address migrant smuggling.
Furthermore, capacity building activities for police and judicial authorities in non-EU countries have been
provided by developing common operational partnerships.
[1] COM(2020)609, pp. 15-16.
[2] Reports by Europol and Frontex.
[3] Joint Analysis of Secondary Movements by EASO, Europol and Frontex, October 2020.

2

[4] COM(2015)285 (https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files
/eu_action_plan_against_migrant_smuggling_en.pdf)
[5] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15250-2018-INIT/en/pdf
[6] Together with the EU action plan against migrant smuggling (2021-2025), the Commission will present a
Staff Working Document which will include an overview of the actions carried out in the framework of the
EU action plan against migrant smuggling (2015-2020).
[7] The EU Policy Cycle / EMPACT is a four-year cycle creating a greater measure of continuity for the fight
against serious international and organised crime. The mechanism calls for effective cooperation among
law enforcement agencies, other EU agencies, EU institutions and relevant third parties.
[8] SWD(2017)117 of 22 March 2017.
[9] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020XC1001(01)
[10] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R1240
[11] The establishment of the Information clearing house (ICH) is founded in the Malta Declaration
Implementation Plan. The ICH objective is to enhance the intelligence picture on organised migrant
smuggling from source and transit countries by pooling information and developing actionable intelligence
packages to enable law enforcement authorities to take action and prevent the smuggling process to
continue into Europe.
[12] The EU Internet Referral Unit contributes to detecting and requesting removal of internet content used
by smuggling networks to attract migrants and refugees.
[13] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0052
If you wish to submit a more detailed contribution, you can upload a document (e.g. a position paper) at the
end of the questionnaire

About you
* Language of my contribution

Bulgarian
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
French
German
Greek
Hungarian
Irish
Italian

3

Latvian
Lithuanian
Maltese
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swedish
* I am giving my contribution as

Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Consumer organisation
EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
* First name

* Surname

* Email (this won't be published)

* Scope

International
4

Local
National
Regional
* Level of governance

Parliament
Authority
Agency
* Organisation name

255 character(s) maximum
Ministry of Justice and Security

* Organisation size

Micro (1 to 9 employees)
Small (10 to 49 employees)
Medium (50 to 249 employees)
Large (250 or more)
Transparency register number
255 character(s) maximum
Check if your organisation is on the transparency register. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to
influence EU decision-making.

* Country of origin
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.

Afghanistan

Djibouti

Libya

Saint Martin

Åland Islands

Dominica

Liechtenstein

Saint Pierre
and Miquelon

Albania

Dominican

Lithuania

Republic

Saint Vincent
and the
Grenadines

Algeria

Ecuador

Luxembourg

Samoa

American

Egypt

Macau

San Marino

El Salvador

Madagascar

Samoa
Andorra

5

São Tomé and
Príncipe
Angola

Equatorial

Malawi

Saudi Arabia

Guinea
Anguilla

Eritrea

Malaysia

Senegal

Antarctica

Estonia

Maldives

Serbia

Antigua and

Eswatini

Mali

Seychelles

Argentina

Ethiopia

Malta

Sierra Leone

Armenia

Falkland Islands

Marshall

Singapore

Barbuda

Islands
Aruba

Faroe Islands

Martinique

Sint Maarten

Australia

Fiji

Mauritania

Slovakia

Austria

Finland

Mauritius

Slovenia

Azerbaijan

France

Mayotte

Solomon
Islands

Bahamas

French Guiana

Mexico

Somalia

Bahrain

French

Micronesia

South Africa

Moldova

South Georgia

Polynesia
Bangladesh

French
Southern and

and the South

Antarctic Lands

Sandwich
Islands

Barbados

Gabon

Monaco

South Korea

Belarus

Georgia

Mongolia

South Sudan

Belgium

Germany

Montenegro

Spain

Belize

Ghana

Montserrat

Sri Lanka

Benin

Gibraltar

Morocco

Sudan

Bermuda

Greece

Mozambique

Suriname

Bhutan

Greenland

Myanmar

Svalbard and

/Burma

Jan Mayen

Bolivia

Grenada

Namibia

Sweden

Bonaire Saint

Guadeloupe

Nauru

Switzerland

Eustatius and
Saba

6

Bosnia and

Guam

Nepal

Syria

Botswana

Guatemala

Netherlands

Taiwan

Bouvet Island

Guernsey

New Caledonia

Tajikistan

Brazil

Guinea

New Zealand

Tanzania

British Indian

Guinea-Bissau

Nicaragua

Thailand

Guyana

Niger

The Gambia

Brunei

Haiti

Nigeria

Timor-Leste

Bulgaria

Heard Island

Niue

Togo

Herzegovina

Ocean Territory
British Virgin
Islands

and McDonald
Islands
Burkina Faso

Honduras

Norfolk Island

Tokelau

Burundi

Hong Kong

Northern

Tonga

Mariana Islands
Cambodia

Hungary

North Korea

Trinidad and
Tobago

Cameroon

Iceland

North

Tunisia

Macedonia
Canada

India

Norway

Turkey

Cape Verde

Indonesia

Oman

Turkmenistan

Cayman Islands

Iran

Pakistan

Turks and
Caicos Islands

Central African

Iraq

Palau

Tuvalu

Chad

Ireland

Palestine

Uganda

Chile

Isle of Man

Panama

Ukraine

China

Israel

Papua New

United Arab

Guinea

Emirates

Paraguay

United

Republic

Christmas

Italy

Island

Kingdom

Clipperton

Jamaica

Peru

Cocos (Keeling)

Japan

Philippines

United States

Islands

7

United States
Minor Outlying
Islands
Colombia

Jersey

Pitcairn Islands

Uruguay

Comoros

Jordan

Poland

US Virgin
Islands

Congo

Kazakhstan

Portugal

Uzbekistan

Cook Islands

Kenya

Puerto Rico

Vanuatu

Costa Rica

Kiribati

Qatar

Vatican City

Côte d’Ivoire

Kosovo

Réunion

Venezuela

Croatia

Kuwait

Romania

Vietnam

Cuba

Kyrgyzstan

Russia

Wallis and
Futuna

Curaçao

Laos

Rwanda

Western
Sahara

Cyprus

Latvia

Saint

Yemen

Barthélemy
Czechia

Lebanon

Saint Helena

Zambia

Ascension and
Tristan da
Cunha
Democratic

Lesotho

Republic of the

Saint Kitts and

Zimbabwe

Nevis

Congo
Denmark

Liberia

Saint Lucia

The Commission will publish all contributions to this public consultation. You can choose whether you
would prefer to have your details published or to remain anonymous when your contribution is published. Fo
r the purpose of transparency, the type of respondent (for example, ‘business association,
‘consumer association’, ‘EU citizen’) country of origin, organisation name and size, and its
transparency register number, are always published. Your e-mail address will never be published.
Opt in to select the privacy option that best suits you. Privacy options default based on the type of
respondent selected
* Contribution publication privacy settings
The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like
your details to be made public or to remain anonymous.

8

Anonymous
Only organisation details are published: The type of respondent that you
responded to this consultation as, the name of the organisation on whose
behalf you reply as well as its transparency number, its size, its country of
origin and your contribution will be published as received. Your name will not
be published. Please do not include any personal data in the contribution
itself if you want to remain anonymous.
Public
Organisation details and respondent details are published: The type of
respondent that you responded to this consultation as, the name of the
organisation on whose behalf you reply as well as its transparency number,
its size, its country of origin and your contribution will be published. Your
name will also be published.
I agree with the personal data protection provisions
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS
Migrant smuggling: The facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, as defined in Council
Directive 2002/90/EC[1]. This means that Member States must adopt appropriate sanctions on:
any person who intentionally assists a person who is not a national of a Member State to enter, or
transit across, the territory of a Member State in breach of the applicable laws on entry or transit of
that Member State;
any person who, for financial gain, intentionally assists a person who is not a national of a Member
State to reside in the territory of a Member State in breach of the applicable laws on residence of that
Member State.

A Member State may decide not to impose sanctions for cases where the aim is to provide humanitarian
assistance to the person concerned. In the context of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum the
Commission issued guidance[2] stressing that humanitarian assistance mandated by law should not be
criminalised and recommended to Member States to distinguish between activities carried out for the
purpose of humanitarian assistance and activities that aim to facilitate irregular entry or transit, in order to
exclude the former from criminalisation.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002L0090
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020XC1001(01)

Non-EU country: a country that is not a Member State of the European Union.
Third-country national: Any person who is not a citizen of the European Union within the meaning of
Article 20(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and who is not a person enjoying the

9

European Union right to free movement, as defined in Article 2(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (Schengen
Borders Code).
Trafficking in human beings: Trafficking in human beings is a different crime which can be interlinked
with smuggling. The main difference between migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings is that in
the former, migrants willingly engage in the irregular migration process by paying for the services of a
smuggler in order to cross an international border. In the case of trafficking, people are trafficked for
exploitation purposes, they are victims who are in need of assistance and support. Trafficking does not
necessarily involve the crossing of a border. The two phenomena are not easy to disentangle as persons
who start their journeys in a voluntary manner can also be vulnerable to networks of traffickers for labour or
sexual or other exploitation purposes.
Digital smuggling: The use, in particular by organised criminal groups, of modern information and
communication technology to facilitate migrant smuggling, including advertising, organisation, collecting
payments, etc.
Document fraud: Any travel or identity document:
1. that has been falsely made or altered in some material way by anyone other than person or agency
lawfully authorised to make or issue the travel or identity document on behalf of a State; or
2. that has been improperly issued or obtained through misrepresentation, corruption or duress or in
any other unlawful manner; or
3. that is being used by a person other than the rightful holder.
Financial investigation and asset recovery: It is an important tool to detect money laundering, terrorist
financing and other serious crimes, including migrant smuggling. It can be used against all criminal markets
and bears a proactive and preventive added value. In many cases, financial investigations are necessary to
develop evidence against sophisticated, high-level criminals with a view to dismantling transnational and
organised networks.
Joint Investigation Team: It is an international cooperation tool based on an agreement between
competent authorities – both judicial (e.g. judges, prosecutors, investigative judges) and law enforcement (e.
g. police) – of two or more States, established for a limited duration and for a specific purpose, to carry out
criminal investigations in one or more of the involved Member States and / or in third countries.
SECTION 2: ACTIONS
* Q 1. Which types of actions should be intensified in order to prevent and fight

migrant smuggling? Please indicate maximum 5 answers.
at most 5 choice(s)

Exchange of information among law enforcement authorities
Law enforcement, notably Police, cooperation
Judicial cooperation
Addressing ‘digital smuggling’ (i.e. involving the use of social networks, how
to effectively break the narrative of the smugglers and reporting or blocking
contents that promote illegal services)
10

Addressing new phenomena related to migrant smuggling (other than ‘digital
smuggling’)
Prevention of irregular migration through information and awareness raising
campaigns (i.e. targeting potential migrants in countries of origin and transit,
returnees, and diaspora in the EU on the risks of irregular migration and on
relevant alternatives, such as economic, academic or legal opportunities)
Protection of migrants’ rights
Fighting document fraud
Financial investigation and asset recovery
Cooperation with non-EU countries and international organisations
The development of targeted counter migrant smuggling partnerships
between the EU and non-EU countries, as part of broader partnerships with
key non-EU countries (e.g. capacity building of law enforcement and judicial
authorities, exchange of information, common operations and joint
investigation teams)
Establishing and further developing partnerships and cooperation with civil
society and the private sector
Supporting evidence-based research on the nature and span of organised
crime groups engaging in migrant smuggling
Q 2. Which specific initiatives—and by which actors—could be taken in relation to:

Q 2.1. Exchange of information among law enforcement authorities
2000 character(s) maximum
Improve gathering and sharing of information in particular between law enforcement and judicial
stakeholders. It is important that there is the willingness to share information that gives us an insight in the
organizations and mechanisms that are behind the MS phenomenon. In this context we have to fully
implement the relevant measures of the EU action plan of 6 December 2019 (Enhancing the response to
migrant smuggling networks: a comprehensiveand operational set of measure). In addition we could look for
better procedures that all relevant information is shared and can be used for (intern)national (joint)
investigations. A way could be that the information gathered in operations is also directly shared, preferable
via Europol network, with MS involved in that operation and to whom the information is relevant. The routing
through Europol is necessary to ensure the overview and the cross checks and analysis of relevant
information and data of migrant smuggling.
Setting up of a network of law enforcement colleagues and/ or public prosecutors (magistrate) officers can
also be an instrument to a better procedure of information sharing. And we have to explore more possibilities
to use the information which is already in the hands of Europol or EU/UN missions eg EUNAVFORMED
Operation. It is also important to realise that institutions such as Frontex and EUNAVFORMED can be in
possession of relevant information for investigations but are not able to share this with law enforcement
authorities of EU or third countries. Such institutions must, if possible, be taken into account by such a
network. In this context is desirable to develope a procedure and if necessary a legal framework with the aim
that relevant information on migrant smuggling which is gathered in EU or international operations or EU/UN

11

missions can be quicker provided to national investigation authorities so that they can make the necessary
interventions.

Q 2.2. Law enforcement, notably Police, cooperation
2000 character(s) maximum
The law enforcement cooperation could be enhanced by fully implement the EU operational action plan of 6
December 2019 (Enhancing the response to migrant smuggling networks: a comprehensive and operational
set of measures). In addition the cooperation could be enhanced by the development of a procedure and if
necessary a legal framework with the aim that relevant information on migrant smuggling which is gathered
in EU or international operations or EU/UN missions can be quicker provided to national investigation
authorities so that they can make the necessary interventions.
As stated in Q 2.1. it is important that there the willingness to share information that gives us an insight in the
organizations and mechanisms that are behind the MS phenomenon. In this context we have to look for
better procedures that all relevant information is shared and can be used for (intern)national (joint) police
cooperation and/or investigations . A way could be that the information gathered in operations is also directly
shared with MS involved in that operation and to whom the information is relevant or by setting up of joint
operational centres eg the operational in Austria.
Furtermore the operational projects of the Europol EMPACT illegal immigration is also a good example of
law enforcement cooperation.

Q 2.3. Judicial cooperation
2000 character(s) maximum
The NL is of the opinion that the judicial cooperation could be strenghten by further elaboration and/or
implementation of the recommendations in report of Eurojust of April 2018.
Also the setting of a network of prosecutors could contribute to enhance the cooperation and information
exchange.

Q 2.4. Addressing ‘digital smuggling’ (i.e. involving the use of social networks, how
to effectively break the narrative of the smugglers and reporting or blocking
contents that promote illegal services)
2000 character(s) maximum
The NL is of the opinion that social media are increasingly being used by people
smugglers to advertise their services, which require new investigative techniques. In addition, predictive
analytics can help law enforcement authorities sort through big data sets to identify potential targets for
intervention, prevent future criminal offences or investigate past crimes. The development of tools and
methods to accurately filter and identify potentially useful internet content is thus critical, as is the
establishment
of effective partnerships with internet and social media service providers. We could start a mapping exercise
on the ways in which social media are used for the purpose of migrant smuggling. The possibilities of using
counter narratives on social media e.g. pop-up windows or automatic redirection to websites about the reality
and dangers of the journey. could be explore. We could also explore possibilities of improving cooperation
on referral requests to private companies and using other technologies to hamper the work of smugglers on
social media on EU level.
At national level we already use public data on migrant activities on social media for predictive analysis on
migrant flows and consequent shift in smuggling activities in order to able to implement prevention- or
counter-measures against smuggling networks;

12

Q 2.5. Addressing new phenomena relating to migrant smuggling (other than
‘digital smuggling’)
2000 character(s) maximum
Migrant smuggling can be regarded as a business model, this requires a comprehensive approach. The NL
has developed a barrier model on migrant smuggling. This can be used also on an international level. The
roles of the different participants to build this barriers has to be assessed on an international level so
cooperation will be ameliorated in building barriers on an international level. This model provide insight into
the various means of intervention available for governments and (inter)national organisations/agency’s to
counter migrant smuggling.
We also have to look for more innovative instruments to disturb the business model of migrant smugglers
networks, such as initiatives to impose sanctions on know criminal smugglers and traffickers of migrants.
Intensified cooperation between MS and/or well functioning Identity & Screening procedures (I&R) in
countries of orgin, transit and in MS are essential to address,secundairy movements, the abuse of asylum
procedures and short legal stay in MS as a modus operandi for organized smuggling of migrants.

Q 2.6. Prevention of irregular migration and awareness raising (i.e targeting
potential migrants in countries of origin and transit, returnees, and diaspora in the
EU on the risks of irregular migration and on relevant alternatives, such as
economic, academic or legal opportunities)
2000 character(s) maximum
The NL have several awareness raising campaigns in third and transit countries. We are of the opinion that
information campaigns must be targeted at specific groups, and also should contain a balanced message
(not only negative). Effective information campaigns alone do not work. Always attach campaigns to a
broader set of measures,like development or other legal options for migration. Campaigns should have a
short time span – fast and responsive. Also possibilities to campaign through diaspora could be explore. And
it is important to measure effectiveness of campaigns, if possible.

Q 2.7. Protection of migrants’ rights
2000 character(s) maximum
The human rights of migrants are effectively protected in practice in the Netherlands, the right are well
protected in the criminal procedures. Furthermore the conditions on human rights, like the right to asylum
family live, the right to emergency healthcare are laid down in the Alien legislation (alien act/decree
/regulation).
The NL is also of the opinion that in the NL no additional and specific actions are needed to protect the rights
of migrants. At this moment there is no need to change EU legislation relating to the humanitarian clause.
Such a clause would lead to difficulties in evidence gathering. The Dutch legislation offers enough
possibilities to not sanction in cases of
humanitarian assistance (unlawfulness of the act might be excluded by acceptance of a corresponding
defence).

Q 2.8. Document fraud
2000 character(s) maximum

13

The NL is the opinion that document fraud should also be adressed effectively because migrant smugglers
are often using false or falsified documents to smuggle migrants into the EU. In the context the expertise of
documents of private stakeholders could be improved by training. Also the a specific expertise centre on
document and Identiy fraud in MS of third or transit countries could be helpfull to adress document fraud
and migrant smuggling. Furthermore the implementation of the new and recast of EU regulation (EES, EU
VIS and Interoperablity) will contribute to fight document fraud.

Q 2.9. Financial investigation and asset recovery
2000 character(s) maximum
The NL is of the opinion that financial investigations should be used pro-actively in principle in every migrant
smuggling case for the purpose of evidence gathering, mapping criminal organisations, gathering fi nancial
intelligence and identifying
criminal assets. Bridge knowledge gaps on financial schemes at national and EU level and with third
countries by including all relevant stakeholders such as relevant EU agencies, FIUs, banking and related
private entities such as an overview of the FIUs work in the field of migrant smuggling. The multidisciplinary
cooperation could be strenghted by making full use of available tools of EU agencies, in particular the
European Migrant Smuggling Centre. Furthermore raise awareness on financial aspects of migrant
smuggling, including in the framework of investigations and encourage more cooperation between FIUs and
law enforcement agencie. The sharing of information from Member States in all cross border cases to EU
agencies should be enhanced. Foster the exchange of best practice in tackling illicit financial flows from
other crime areas such as money
laundering and THB financing.
Also general provision on the freezing and confiscation of migrant smugglers's
assets is preferable. Consider in conjunction with EU-directive 2014/42 EU on
the freezing and confiscation on proceeds of crime.

Q 2.10. Cooperation with non-EU countries and international organisations
2000 character(s) maximum
Also more pro-active cooperation with third countries is needed. A liaison magistrate of Nigeria is stationed
in the NL to strengthening the cooperation to address migrant smuggling. The cooperation with third
countries and international organisation could be enhanced by mutual deployment of magistrate liaison
officers or law enforcement liaison officers in MS and third countries.
Also supporting of capacity building projects of IOM of UNODC could contribute to enhance the cooperation
with third countries.NL is financing several capacity projects in third countries to address migrant smuggling.

Q 2.11. The development of targeted counter migrant smuggling partnerships
between the EU and non-EU countries, as part of broader partnerships with key
non-EU countries (e.g. capacity building of law enforcement and judicial authorities,
exchange of information, common operations and joint investigation teams)
2000 character(s) maximum
We have to look for innovative ways to collaborate with third countries, especially with source and transit
countries. A start of could be a mapping of third countries which have ratified the UN protocol against the
smuggling of migrants and based on the mapping exercises the form of operational cooperation can be
decided. Even so, if some countries did not ratify this protocol, initiatives can be undertaken to stimulate
ratification or if needed, other possibilities of judicial cooperation instruments could be examined. Whether

14

cooperation with third countries can be established of course depends also on whether trustworthy
organisations can be found in those countries.
Also the possibilities for Frontex could explore to (further) support/adopt certain initiatives in source countries
from its mandate. As a European agency Frontex has the capacity/resources at its disposal. FX could
providing training.

Q 2.12. Establishing and further developing partnerships and cooperation with civil
society and the private sector
2000 character(s) maximum
The NL is of the opinion that the private sector also have a relevant role in preventing and combating migrant
smuggling,in cooperation with public authorities and other stakeholders. Engament with business operators
is necessary to
detect and prevent migrant smuggling, in particular in those sectors most at risk such as road transport and
shipping. Such cooperation can make a significant difference in anti-smuggling efforts.
In this context the dialogue, support and trust, as well as cooperation with the private sector to prevent
migrant smuggling should be strenghten by designated contactpoints in a MS. Further development of codes
of conduct, handbook and/or guidelines for operators in the transport sector could also be helpfull.

Q 2.13. Supporting evidence-based research on the nature and span of organised
crime groups engaging in migrant smuggling
2000 character(s) maximum
The NL is of the opinion that further research could be helpfull, especially on how migrant smuggling hubs
develop and grow, in order to allow for more effective combatting of the phenomena.

Q 3. In your opinion, are there other areas or actions that the new EU Action Plan
should examine?
2000 character(s) maximum
The NL is of the opinion that a proposal to change the legislation in terms of extending the jurisdiction for
migrant smuggling should be assess.Currently at national level a proposal to change legislation in terms of
extending the jurisdiction for migrant smuggling
is being discussed. The discussion at the EU level could feed into the discussion at national level, taking into
account of the administrative burden, success rate etc. The jurisdiction of trafficking in human beings has
been expanded as a result of the
implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU. Memorandum of explanation: “Where in
other international legal instruments, the establishment of jurisdiction for
trafficking committed outside the country could still be subject to certain
conditions, the directive obliges to establish unconditional jurisdiction over
trafficking committed by nationals (Article 10).” In this context the
possibilities for a similar procedure for migrant smuggling could be further
assess on EU level

Q 4. In your opinion, what are the key drivers for irregular migration towards the
EU?
2000 character(s) maximum

15

The increasing dysfunctioning of the CEAS is the main pull factor for irregular migration. Migrant smugglers
make effective use of the various gaps in CEAS, allowing them to make credible promises to their clients of
a succesfull migration outcome. Gaps include non- or imperfect registration because of the outdated
Eurodac system, the possibility of secondary migration from the MS of first arrival to the MS of choice, the
generous right to reception even even for safe country nationals, the many legal possibilities to lengthen
/obstruct/preclude procedures, the lack of an effective return deterrent. The push factors are more diverse,
with armed conflict, instability and economic hardship in the Middle East and North Africa as obvious drivers.
Smugglers take advantage of the large number of migrants willing to take risks in search of protection or
better life prospects, when they cannotaccess legal channels of migration. These smuggling networks are
increasingly organised and able to rapidly adjust their modus operandi to law enforcement and policy
responses, offering “services” of facilitating clandestine entry or “secondary movements” throughout the EU
and/or unauthorised stay.

SECTION 3: STAKEHOLDERS

Q 5. How important are each of these stakeholders in preventing and combating
migrant smuggling?
Not
important
at all

Not
important

Neutral

Important

Very
important

EU Member States (national
governments)
EU Member States (law enforcement
and judicial services)
Regional and local authorities of EU
Member States
National and regional authorities of
non-EU countries
International organisations
Civil society organisations at local,
national, European, or international
level
Migrants’ organisations and diaspora
EU institutions
EU Common Security and Defence
Policy missions and operations
EU agencies (Europol, Frontex,
Fundamental Rights Agency, etc.)
Private organisations
Other (If "other", please specify)

16

Other
1000 character(s) maximum

SECTION 4: OTHER

Q 6. Do you have other comments, suggestions or observations you would like to
share?
2000 character(s) maximum
Addressing migrant smuggling is like at the EU-level also a priority of the Dutch government.Smuggling
criminal networks are increasingly organised and able to rapidly adjust their modus operandi to law
enforcement and policy responses, offering “services” of facilitating clandestine entry or “secondary
movements” throughout the EU and/or unauthorised stay at great costs and associated risks. Against this
backdrop, a multidisciplinary approach, including close cooperation amongst Member States and with other
relevant stakeholders, as well as third countries, is essential to effectively implement actions to prevent and
disrupt smuggling activities and networks.
An effective returnproces is also of importance to maintain credibility of migration policy and to prevent
migrant smuggling, we should make progress on a true EU return system;

Please upload your file
Only files of the type pdf,txt,doc,docx,odt,rtf are allowed
1284709b-16e5-4ce2-b70d-3119d8164166/Dutch_barrieremodel_mensensmokkel_flyer_ENG__3___2_.pdf

Contact
Contact Form

17