Luxembourg

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2018 par le Point de contact Luxembourgeois du Réseau Européen des Migrations intitulée : « Attracting and retaining international students in the EU ». Cette étude fournit un aperçu des politiques et pratiques en vigueur au Luxembourg afin d’attirer et de retenir des étudiants internationaux. Elle se base essentiellement sur les informations recueillies jusqu’en novembre 2018 et n’englobe donc que peu d’évolutions qui ont pu se produire après cette date.

Unlike many other EU Member States, the higher education system in Luxembourg is marked by a particular characteristic, namely the fact that the University of Luxembourg is the only public university in the country. Established by law in 2003, the University of Luxembourg is therefore the main actor in the higher education system and hosts the large majority of international students in Luxembourg. In addition to the University of Luxembourg, two more types of institutions complement the higher education system in Luxembourg and are recognised by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research as higher education institutions (hereafter referred to as ‘HEIs’), namely: 1. Secondary educational institutions offering educational programmes that award an advanced technician’s certificate (‘Brevet de technicien supérieur’ – ‘BTS’); 2. Private foreign universities having infrastructures or campus in Luxembourg. In order to be able to award higher education diplomas as well as to host international students, all HEIs are mandatorily required to be approved by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, with the exception of the University of Luxembourg because it was established by law. The admission conditions for international students to study at a HEI in Luxembourg are twofold: First, the international student must apply and be accepted at an approved HEI or at the University of Luxembourg. Second, once accepted at a HEI, s/he needs to apply for a temporary authorisation of stay, and subsequently, if applicable, a Visa D (valid for 3 months), from his/her country of origin before being authorised to travel to Luxembourg and before being issued a ‘student’ residence permit (valid for minimum 1 year and renewable) in Luxembourg. To conclude, the HEIs in Luxembourg, under the overall auspice of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, as well as the immigration authorities are the main stakeholders in the context of international students studying in Luxembourg. Luxembourg transposed the Directive (EU) 2016/801 by the Law of 1 August 2018, which amended the amended ‘Immigration Law’ and entered into force on 21 September 2018. In this context, the study highlights in particular the introduction of a new residence permit for ‘private reasons’ in view of seeking employment or establishing a business in Luxembourg. This residence permit was newly introduced by the transposition of the Directive and allows international graduates to remain in the country for a maximum duration of nine months in order to find a job or establish a business in relation to their academic training. Prior to the transposition, international students were only able to change their immigration status to ‘salaried worker’ immediately after their graduation. Moreover, the transposition modified a number of legal dispositions, such as the increase of the maximum amount of hours that students are authorised to work, from 10 hours to 15 hours per week. Furthermore, Bachelor students enrolled in their first year of academic studies as well as students enrolled in a study programme awarding them a ‘BTS’ are no longer excluded from exercising a salaried activity as allowed by law. Lastly, the transposition also facilitates the intra-European mobility of international students who follow a European or multilateral programme that contains mobility measures or a convention between two or more HEIs. The attraction and retention of international students are not considered as a national political priority per se by the Luxembourgish authorities, but have to be perceived in an overall national political priority of attracting “talents” to Luxembourg, i.e. (highly) qualified persons, regardless of their nationality and in the interest of the country and its economy. The stakeholders consulted in the context of this study identified several factors that may have positive effects on the attraction and retention of international students. These include, among others: - the geographical position of Luxembourg with an important financial sector and several European institutions - the multilingual environment of the country as well as the University of Luxembourg - the HEI ranking of the University of Luxembourg - the comparatively low levels of tuition fees, particularly of the national public HEIs - the fact that the level tuition fees is the same for every student, no matter his/her nationality, with the exception of examples from private HEIs Furthermore, the consulted stakeholders identified several examples of good practices in the context of this study, such as for example: - A close and diligent collaboration between all stakeholders, in particular between the Directorate of Immigration, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research and the University of Luxembourg - Quality management of private HEI (mainly through the approval procedure) in view of the best interest of students - Affordable tuitions fees in the higher education system At the same time, the consulted stakeholders have identified several challenges, such as: - the languages of instruction (with a strong emphasis on French and German especially at the Bachelor/‘BTS’ levels) and the primary working languages (French and Luxembourgish) - socio-economic factors, particularly the high costs of living and the challenge of finding affordable housing - authenticity and veracity of transmitted diplomas in the context of a diploma recognition - a challenging procedure related to the entrance exam for international students who hold a high school diploma issued in a country that is not a signatory country of Paris/Lisbon conventions - potential misuse of the ‘student’ residence permit in view of trying to stay in the country instead of succeeding in the studies. In addition to the major legislative change introduced by the transposition of the Directive and the various factors and challenges mentioned above, the study also highlights a number of initiatives, offered in particular by the University of Luxembourg, aiming to support international students after their graduation and to encourage them to establish and/or maintain a connection to the national labour market. The study concludes with a section on bilateral and multilateral cooperation with third countries, both at the level of the Luxembourgish State as well as at the level of HEIs, particularly of the University of Luxembourg.

Applications for international protection significantly increased in Luxembourg from August 2015 onwards, the total number of applications in fact more than doubling when compared to the previous year (2.447 applicants in 2015; 1.091 in 2014). The number of applications remained high in 2016 (2.035 applications) and 2017 (2.322 applications) albeit slightly decreasing when compared to 2015. These figures are not unprecedented. The number of applications introduced in Luxembourg have fluctuated since 1999, the peaks and declines correlating with specific events. Luxembourg received 2.920 applications for international protection in 1999, an effect of the conflict in Kosovo. Later, the country saw two more peaks in applications after the turn of the century (2003 and 2004 with 1.550 and 1.577 applications respectively, 2011 and 2012 with 2.171 and 2.057 applications respectively). On the other hand, 2005 to 2010 can be characterised as a period of relative calm.The current period of higher arrivals of applicants for international protection is characterised by a change in cultural profile. Previously, most of the time, a majority of people applying for international protection in Luxembourg stemmed from European countries. The influx of applicants in 2015 and 2016 was characterised by the arrival of people stemming from Arabic-speaking countries, populations which had been relatively small in Luxembourg up to that point.While not necessarily unprecedented in magnitude,high numbers of monthly arrivals, especially in the last months of 2015, put those in charge of registering applications as well as of housing and providing social follow-up to the test and led to a number of measures being taken.Generally speaking, fromthe beginning of the increased arrivals in Luxembourg in 2015, the government adopted a relatively open and welcoming position. This position is illustrated for instance in the government’s stance in favour of a solution for the reception of applicants for international protection that is based on European solidarity and the government’s investment in relocation and resettlement.

In Luxembourg, the procedure for identity verification/establishment in the context of international protection is separated from the decision-making procedure as such. While the authority for granting international protection status lies with the Ministry in charge of Immigration (Directorate of Immigration), the Judicial Police is in charge of identity verification/establishment. For this means, the applicant will be interviewed with regard to his/her travel itinerary, including questions on border crossing and used means of transports to arrive in Luxembourg. During the last few years, the large majority of international protection applications in Luxembourg have come from persons originating from the Western Balkan countries (in 2016 they represent 35% of the applicants). Concerning these applicants, most of them (85% to 90%) have presented valid identity documents to the authorities in Luxembourg. However, with the migration crisis there is a growing number of international protection applicants coming from the Middle East and North Africa and who cannot produce valid identity documents. National authorities have always been confronted with lacking identity documents, predominantly observable among applicants from African countries. In some cases, identity documents were intentionally destroyed or withheld from the authorities in order to avoid being identified. If credible identity documents are lacking, the identification procedure can become complicated and resource consuming, and the responsible authorities, especially the Police, have a limited set of methods and means available (provided for in the Asylum Law).

While the proportion of Luxembourgish nationals among the resident working population was above 50.3% in 2015, it dropped below 50% in the first quarter of 2017. Some 44% of the working population were EU28 nationals and 6% non-EU nationals. Luxembourg’s economy is reliant on its employment of cross-border workers. In 2016, French nationals maintained and increased their proportion of over 50% of the cross-border working population, reaching 51.4% in Q1 2017, at the expense of both Belgian (24.4%) and German (24.2%) cross-border workers. They mainly work in sectors such as construction, administrative/support service, accommodation/food service, as well as in the financial/insurance sector or professional, scientific and technical activities. Between 2010 and 2017, the number of foreign salaried workers showed the greatest continuous increase in sectors such as professional, scientific and technical activities, administrative and support services, and financial and insurance services. Regarding specific permits, nationals of China (119 permits), India (70 permits) and Montenegro (40 permits) accounted for 31% of all first issues of residence permits for salaried workers. Indian nationals were the single largest nationality group receiving their first issue of EU Blue Cards, with 90 issued during 2016. This was followed by US nationals (58 permits) and Russian nationals (36 permits). After reaching a peak in 2015, the number of applications for international protection slightly decreased in 2016, from 2447 in 2015 to 2035 in 2016 (decrease of 16.8%). Even if the trend slowed down, it remains higher than the levels of 2013-2015. Syrian nationals remain the first nationality of applicants for international protection (14.3%), Iraqi nationals dropping to 4th place (7.9%) after Albanian nationals (11.2%) and Kosovars (10.2%). Luxembourg remains the Member State hosting the 4th highest number of applicants for international protection applicants in relation to the national population. The international protection recognition rate increased from 228 (200 refugee status and 28 subsidiary protection) in 2015 to 790 (764 refugee status and 26 subsidiary protection) in 2016. This represents an increase of 246.5% of positive decisions year-on-year. Luxembourg continues to demonstrate its solidarity in respect of the relocation and resettlement of international protection applicants. In 2015, Luxembourg pledged to relocate 557 individuals to Luxembourg in the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160,000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy. Within this framework, 197 refugees had been relocated by the end of 2016. From January 2017 to 18 August 2017, Luxembourg relocated 186 people. With regards to resettlement, 52 refugees were resettled from Turkey in 2016 as a result of Luxembourg’s pledge to resettle 194 refugees from Turkey in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016. 115 people were resettled between 1st January 2017 and 18th August 2017. New pieces of legislation were enacted during 2016/2017 to assist with the specific migration situation in Luxembourg. Major policy developments related to the implementation of changes to asylum legislation and procedures, education and language reform, and revised integration measures in response to changing migration profiles within Luxembourg. A focus on economic migration took place to promote economic diversification, start-ups and the repositioning of the financial centre.

Since almost 150 years, Luxembourg depends on two kinds of migration, qualified and non-qualified, in order to deal with the workforce needs of its economy. Compared to the other EU Member States, Luxembourg is the country with the largest proportion of foreigners; however, this foreign population is mainly composed of EU citizens. Due to its size and geographic position, Luxembourg was able to have access to a very particular form of economic migration: cross-border workers. Globalisation has also played a decisive role in the development of economic migration for the Luxembourgish labour market. The financial centre was obliged to become highly specialised in order to remain competitive in regards to other financial centres and to maintain its volume of business. In order to maintain its competitive advantage, Luxembourg needs highly skilled personnel, which the country has found, up until now, within the Greater Region. This reality is even more pronounced with regards to the labour market: the number of actives (salaried and non-salaried) on 31 March 2014 shows that Luxembourgish nationals represented only 31%, EU citizens 65% and third-country nationals only 4%. Cross-border workers from Belgium, France and Germany represented 42% of the workforce and the resident migrant population (EU citizens and third-country nationals) 28%. Cross-border workers, which consist of skilled and highly skilled labour are substantially attracted for two reasons: 1) more competitive salaries on the Luxemburgish labour market ; and 2) a geographical location which allows the commuting of cross-border workers. The attitude of the successive governments was to adapt immigration to the economic needs of the country. The government policy intends to focus on attracting highly added value activities focussed on new technologies (biomedicine and information as well as communication technologies – focusing on IT security), logistics and research. However, being one of the smallest countries in the European Union, Luxembourg has limited human resources to guarantee the growth not only of the financial sector but also of the new technologies sectors. The government introduced the highly qualified worker residence permit in the bill on free movement of persons and immigration approved by law of 29 August 2008 almost a year before of the enactment of the Blue Card Directive to facilitate the entry of third-country national highly qualified workers. However, this reform was isolated and incomplete and took place without making a real evaluation of the workforce demand of the different sectors of the economy. Even though until now Luxembourg has been relying on the workforce from the Greater Region, for some socio-economic and political stakeholders, highly qualified workforces began to become scarce in the Greater region. In addition to the cross-border workers, the lifting of restrictions to access all the sectors of the labour market for citizens of the new Member States (EU-8) can be considered as a mitigating factor for the need to make an evaluation of the workforce demand, because the high salaries paid in Luxembourg became a real pull factor for the highly qualified workers. As a consequence, the political authorities did not foresee a systematic plan on how to address labour shortages in specific sectors of the economy, because there has not been a significant need for doing so.

The focus of this study lies with irregular migrants who are not in contact with the authorities. Due to their irregular situation, it is difficult to provide information on the numbers of persons that are irregularly staying in Luxembourg. Several actors were able to provide some estimations on the scale of irregular migrants, but these estimations can only ever be partial. Statistics are available concerning the assisted voluntary return and reintegration from Luxembourg programme that is operated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as well as concerning the counselling services offered by different non-governmental organisations and associations. However, most of these numbers refer to migrants that are known to the authorities, mainly because they are rejected applicants for international protection.

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries and renewals) represented more than a third of all residence permits issued during the last three years. While the right to family reunification was solely provided by international law and regulated by administrative practice until 2008, the transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification led to a much more precise and detailed legal framework. A notable change in legislation has been proposed with the introduction of bill n° 6992 , namely the harmonisation of the conditions that apply to third-country national employees with those of Blue Card holders and researchers. Thus, family reunification requirements for certain categories of applicants shall be alleviated through the abrogation of the 12-month residence requirement for the sponsor. In order to apply for family reunification in Luxembourg, sponsors have to meet a number of requirements for exercising the right to family reunification, which include the provision of suitable accommodation for the size of their family; meeting health and safety standards; health insurance; as well as stable and regular resources to provide for themselves and their family members. As recommended by Directive 2003/86/EC, Luxembourg sets out more favourable conditions to beneficiaries of international protection for the exercise of their right to family reunification. Thus, they do not have to comply with the above-mentioned requirements in case they apply for family reunification within 3 months of being granted the status. Family members who have come to Luxembourg under family reunification have access to education, orientation, vocational training, lifelong learning and professional retraining once their residence permit has been issued. Family members furthermore have access to the labour market. In case the family member has resided in Luxembourg for less than one year when the application is submitted, it will be submitted to the labour market test. Family members can also, under a number of conditions, benefit from guaranteed minimum income, social aid, long-term residence status as well as citizenship. National stakeholders noted that the requirement of finding appropriate accommodation and proving stable and regular resources is one of the main challenges for sponsors. For family members as well as sponsors, having sufficient financial resources to cover the costs of family reunification can be another challenge to accessing family reunification. Family members of beneficiaries of international protection in particular face the more procedural challenge of providing proof of identity and family links, which can be difficult due to lacking documentation, differing administrative practices in the country of origin and/or the lack of cooperation of institutions. Gaining access to family reunification is also particularly difficult for beneficiaries of international protection who arrived in Luxembourg as unaccompanied minors but reached adulthood during the examination of their file, as they must provide proof of their family member’s dependency upon them. The limited number of diplomatic representations of Luxembourg abroad poses a challenge both to family members who must present themselves there, as well as for the Luxembourgish authorities who require information on certain countries. Perceived as a best practice with regard to family reunification are the information that NGOs and the lawyers in the field of migration and asylum provide to beneficiaries of international protection with regard to procedures of family reunification, thereby contributing to the beneficiary’s ability to enter an application for family reunification within the 3-month period. The practice of accepting the submission of an application of family members of beneficiaries of international protection that contains only a commencement of proof of family links and allowing for the finalisation at a later date is also perceived as a good practice, as it enables them to exercise their right to family reunification while benefitting from more favourable conditions. Furthermore, the issuance of a “laisser-passer” for beneficiaries of international protection who cannot obtain travel documents is perceived as a big step forward by national stakeholders. Lastly, Restoring Family Links, a service provided by the Luxembourgish Red Cross, is also considered a reliable tool with regard to tracing missing family members abroad.

Historically, Luxembourg has developed during the last 68 years strong links with the Western Balkan countries. In 1970, a labour agreement was signed between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia to provide for workers to come to work in Luxembourg. This bilateral agreement created a diaspora from the Western Balkans in Luxembourg. Montenegrin nationals represent the largest third-country national population while the Serbians and the Bosnians represents the 3rd and 4th largest nationality groups. There has been a significant number of naturalisations from the West Balkan countries during the last 10 years. This diaspora was a significant “pull factor” during the Yugoslav Wars (1991-1999) and the economic crisis of 2008. This study was unable to verify direct and automatic links between the entering into force of the visa liberalisation agreements with the West Balkans countries and Eastern Partnership countries and an impact for Luxembourg. The large majority of increases, independently if it is legal migration, irregular migration or international protection did not occur during the next year following the entering into force of the agreements. These increases occurred generally during the second year or later. Concerning visa liberalisation agreements with the Western Balkan countries, the first findings are a dramatic increase of international protection applicants from those countries since the agreements came into force. In the international protection field and in the framework of the return decisions, the visa liberalisation agreement had a negative impact generating stress for all the public administrations during 2011 and 2012, which have to deal with international protection and the return mechanism. During 2011, there was a significant increase of applicants from Macedonia and Serbia and in 2012 from Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This situation placed the Luxembourgish authorities under significant stress to deal with this significant inflow of applicants, whose applications were, in the large majority of cases (80%), rejected. However, this situation obliged the Luxembourgish government to take measures in order to deal in a very efficient manner with these inflows of international protection applicants as well as to overhaul the entire international protection procedure. These measures can be divided into two different: procedural measures and implementation measures. The most significant procedural measures are: a) the introduction of the fast track procedure and the implementation of the ultra-expedite procedure; b) the introduction of these countries in the list of safe countries of origin. These measures allow the authorities to deal more efficiently with the massive influx of international protection applicants coming from the region. The implementation measures are: a) No access to social aid for the applicant benefiting from a commitment to cover all expenses by a Luxembourg national, EU citizen or TCN residing in Luxembourg; b) substantial decrease in monthly cash amounts of social aid for adult individuals and households; c) Recruitment and reallocation of staff in the Directorate of Immigration and the Luxembourg Reception and Integration office; d) implementing the Assisted voluntary return Balkans (AVR Balkans) which only covers the return bus ticket; and e) strengthen cooperation with the authorities of the Western Balkan countries. During 2017, there was an increase in the number of international protection applicants from Georgia and Ukraine, even though both countries are included in the list of safe countries of origin. As Luxembourg does not have external borders with the exception of the International Airport, it is not possible to obtain pertinent information concerning the detection of irregular entries in the territory. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that some individuals from these countries have taken advantage of the visa liberalisation agreements to come to work irregularly in Luxembourg, even if it is not possible to quantify the scale of the phenomenon. The findings of this study do not show an increase in the number of applications for authorisation of stay or residence permits (remunerated and study activities), so the EU visa liberalisation agreements did not have any impact in the legal migration field. The increase of application was visible after the second year of entering into force of these agreements but the numbers were not significant in regard with number of applications made by third-country nationals during the same period. However, the short-stay visits (i.e. friends, family, tourism, etc.) seem not only to have been facilitated, but also increased. In some cases, these short-visits have also been used not only to visit family and friends but also to be familiarized with the Luxembourgish society and to explore job opportunities and look for housing. This is probably the only positive impact that the visa liberalization agreements have had. Seen that the visa liberalisation agreements only allow travelling without a visa, but they do not allow working and staying in the country, and based on the data collected there is not possible to establish a link between them and any significant impact with regard to economy and to criminality (especially related to traffic of human beings or smuggling, where the numbers are very low and not directly related in most cases to nationals concerned by this study).

The structure of the political system and the institutional context of Luxembourg were described in detail in the previous policy reports on migration and asylum. Important changes related to the national elections of 2014 can be found in the Policy Report.

The International Migration Policy And Law Analysis (IMPALA) Database is a cross-national, cross-institutional, cross-disciplinary project on comparative immigration policy. The pilot database version covers 10 years and 9 country cases including Australia, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. It covers The focus is admission policy, although the authors include also acquisition of citizenship, which is generally understood as being part of ‘immigrant policies’, namely what happens after admission. The project classifies and measures tracks of entry associated with five migration categories: economic migration, family reunification, asylum and humanitarian migration, and student migration, as well as acquisition of citizenship. It is the product of an international collaboration between researchers from George Mason University, Harvard University, London School of Economics and Political Science, Paris School of Economics, University of Amsterdam, University of Luxembourg, and University of Sydney.

Luxembourg has a long tradition in “resettling” refugees from various parts of the world, but a more structured policy has only recently been implemented. National legislation does not include any provisions relating to resettlement policy and there are no specific national programmes. The resettlements have always been implemented on an ad-hoc basis or within broader programmes set up by the European Commission and/or UNHCR. Since 2014, Luxembourg additionally applies a quota of refugees to be annually resettled (15-20 persons). The implementation and organisation of the resettlement process may vary case by case and there is no standardised procedure applicable except for regular resettlements for which the framework is to a large extent outlined in the UNHCR’s Resettlement Handbook. The selection and identification of resettled persons is coordinated by the Directorate of Immigration in close collaboration with UNHCR, who performs in principle an eligibility assessment for the refugee status, which the Luxembourgish authorities shall take over once the person arrives in Luxembourg. For each resettlement mission Luxembourg sets a general profile as well as the number of persons they intend to resettle. These criteria do basically not differ from UNHCR’s Global Resettlement Submission Criteria and thus include women, children, elderly refugees as well as refugees with disabilities and diseases, except for those suffering from pathologies for which there is no adequate treatment available in Luxembourg. Apart from the vulnerability criteria, Luxembourgish authorities also take the “integration potential” into consideration when selecting candidates eligible for resettlements. This might explain the general preference of resettling entire families rather than single persons. Resettlement implemented within the EU Turkey 1:1 scheme, based on the agreement between the EU and Turkey of 18 March 2016, is considered separately by national authorities. For UNHCR, who is not a party to this agreement, engagement in the resettlement of Syrian refugees from Turkey is considered part of its regular resettlement activities. Procedurally, UNHCR continues to receive resettlement referrals from Turkey’s Directorate General for Migration Management (DGMM) and further continues to undertake phone and face-to-face interviews with eligible candidates. However, as opposed to regular resettlement, the assessment undertaken by UNHCR is streamlined. The Luxembourgish Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) coordinates the reception and integration phase of the resettled refugees. Although policy and law are the same for both, resettled refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection, in practice the support provided may differ in an initial phase. Thus, resettled refugees are accommodated upon arrival within a common reception centre where they shall be provided with a more intense support, especially during the first weeks after their arrival in Luxembourg. Since April 2016, a newly created service of the Luxembourgish Red Cross (Lisko) has been mandated, under the overall coordination of the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region, to take charge of the social support and integration of benefeciciaries of international protection, including resettled persons. Other national NGOs and associations also provide counselling and assistance. The present report identifies several challenges faced by both, the resettled persons as well as the competent authorities. These challenges prove particular significant in the post-arrival and integration phase. While some of these challenges are common to beneficiaries of international protection in general, some others may be more specifically relevant for resettled refugees, namely the absence of a transition period, coordination with local stakeholders, as well as timely provision of information to selected candidates for resettlement.

This report explores challenges to political participation of mobile EU citizens in Luxembourg. It discusses electoral rights of non-resident citizens and non-citizen residents from the EU in European Parliament and local elections. The report also offers recommendations on how to increase political participation of mobile EU citizens in this country.

Luxembourg has been a country of immigration for more than 50 years. Located in the heart of Europe, it holds a strong attraction for EU citizens and nationals from countries all around the world, who play a central role in the national economy, making an important contribution to the population growth and the labour market. Over the course of 2015, Luxembourg’s population has continued its steady growth of approximately 13.000 people per year, increasing by 2,36%, from 562.958 on 1st January 2015 to 576.249 on 1st January 2016. Foreign citizens have continued to play an essential role in Luxembourg’s population growth, both in terms of net migration and births. The total net migration amounted to +11.159 individuals in 2015, which signifies a surplus of arrivals over departures. Foreign EU citizens accounted for 76,1%; third-country nationals represented 32,9%, while Luxembourgish nationals’ contribution was negative, at -9%. The number of births in 2015 was the highest on record, equal to that in 2013, with 6.115 births in total. Foreigners contributed a birth surplus of 2.150 to Luxembourg’s natural increase, while a birth deficit of -18 was recorded for Luxembourgish nationals. 2015 also marked a record year regarding naturalisations, with Belgians remaining the citizens that obtain citizenship most frequently, followed by the French and the Portuguese. On 1st January 2016, 46,7% of Luxembourg’s residents were foreigners. Representing 34,6% of the total foreign population, Portuguese remained the most represented nationality, followed by France (15,5%) and Italy (7,5%), while the most numerous third-country nationals were Montenegrins. Due to the war in Syria and the influx of applicants for international protection that followed, the Syrian population living in Luxembourg showed the highest proportional increase during 2015, growing by 461,5% from January 2015 to January 2016. A look at Luxembourg’s labour market also reveals the central role that foreigners play in the national economy. In the first quarter of 2016, residents of Luxembourg represented 55% of the country’s salaried workforce. Of these, 27,5% were Luxembourgish nationals, while EU nationals represented 24,2% and third-country nationals 3,3%. Cross-border workers from France, Belgium and Germany represented 45% of all salaried workers in Luxembourg. They mainly work in the manufacturing industries, construction and commerce. A majority of recruitments in the HORECA sector are of foreign residents. Third-country nationals who do not benefit from free movement must be issued with a residence permit in order to enter Luxembourg. An increase in first issues of residence permits was recorded for most categories compared to the preceding year, which had experienced a decrease in almost all categories. In 2015, residence permits were most frequently issued in the “family member”, “salaried worker” and “European Blue Card” categories. 2015 was marked by a significant increase in the number of applications for international protection, which has more than doubled when compared to 2014 (2.447 applications in 2015). While there was a strong increase at the end of 2015, the trend slowed down in 2016. Nonetheless, the number of applications for international protection remains higher than levels in 2013/2014. Most applications were from Syrians and Iraqis (27,3% and 22% respectively), who accounted for only 9% and 1% respectively in 2014. Moreover, both the rate of status recognition (refugee and subsidiary protection status) and of return decision increased. In 2015, Luxembourg pledged to relocate 557 individuals to Luxembourg in the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160.000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy. Within this framework, 114 refugees have been relocated from Greece and 20 from Italy up until mid-August 2016. Furthermore, 46 refugees were resettled from Turkey in 2015, followed by 52 further refugees as a result of Luxembourg’s pledge to resettle 194 refugees from Turkey in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016. Additionally, 44 Syrians were welcomed in 2015 following a request for assistance by German authorities. Faced with the increased inflow of applicants for international protection, an emergency reception plan was developed in 2015. The plan included the establishment of first-instance reception centres and the strengthening of the capacity in human resources of both the Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) and the Directorate of Immigration, which is under the authority of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The OLAI also strengthened the collaboration with stakeholders at inter-ministerial and local levels. A strong focus has also been put on integration, where major developments include the setting up of integration projects by the municipalities in the context of the ‘Communal Integration Plan’ project and the creation of Luxembourg’s Centre for Integration and Cohesion (LISKO), a service supporting the beneficiaries of international protection in their process of integration in Luxembourgish society. Over the course of 2015 and 2016, Luxembourg continued to transpose and implement several EU directives. The law of 18th December 2015 on the reception of applicants for international protection and temporary protection transposes Directive 2013/33/EU (re-cast reception conditions) into national law. The law of 18th December 2015 on international protection and temporary protection transposed Directive 2013/32/EU (re-cast procedure), establishing the procedures for granting and withdrawing international and subsidiary protection and the standardisation of the content of this protection. The bill implementing Directive 2013/55/EU on the recognition of professional qualifications was introduced into parliament in 2015 and the bill implementing Directive 2014/36/EU on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66/EU on intra-corporate transferees and investors’ residence permits was introduced in 2016. Regarding the transposition of the Blue Card Directive, a Government Decree was issued on 22nd May 2015 establishing the professions to which the lower salary threshold for hiring highly qualified workers applies. On the national level, a number of legislative changes address some of the challenges set by Luxembourg’s heterogeneity. The bill no. 6410 on youth, introduced into parliament on 6th February 2015, gives cross-border workers access to the care service voucher system which was previously only available to Luxembourgish residents. Bill no. 6893 on the recognition of qualifications was introduced in parliament in October 2015. At the referendum of 7th June 2015, the proposal to extend the right to vote of non-Luxembourgish residents was rejected by a large majority, who argued in favour of the acquisition of nationality as the more appropriate way to acquire the right to vote. Consequently, the government took steps towards reforming the law on nationality in order to soften the requirements for acquisition of nationality, and in this way enable the broadening of participation in elections. Bill no. 6977 on nationality was introduced in parliament on 24th March 2016. It includes the reduction of the required duration of residency from seven to five years and the reintroduction of procedure of option in cases of close links with Luxembourg. The level of fluency in Luxembourgish required has become a central focus of the debate on the bill on nationality, some fearing that linguistic requirements would become an obstacle to foreigners’ acquisition of nationality, others underlining the command of the language as a central factor in integration and thus also in the acquisition of nationality.

Section 1 offers an overview of the Luxembourg immigration legislation which provides for the possibility to switch between categories of authorisations of stay in Article 39 of the amended Law of 29 August 2008 on the Free Movement of Persons and Immigration (hereafter referred to as Law on Immigration). Third-country nationals wishing to stay in Luxembourg for more than three months are required to apply for an authorisation of stay before arriving in Luxembourg. The third-country national applying for a permit for more than three months has to submit to a medical examination before requesting the delivery of the permit. After the medical exam, a certificate is delivered detailing whether the third-country national fulfils the conditions of entry to the territory or not. This certificate has to be enclosed to the residence permit application. The third-country national must also fulfil conditions pertaining to his/her registration in the municipality of his/her future residence as well as appropriate accommodation.In regards to changes of statuses, the third-country national with an authorisation of stay for more than three months has the possibility to apply for a different permit provided s/he fulfils the conditions for the category of permit s/he is aiming to change to. The Law on Immigration sets up this principle in its Article 39 (3) and excludes from its application the following categories: students, trainees, volunteers, au pairs and pupils. The rationale behind those exceptions is that those permits are considered temporary by definition, as they are linked to an activity which is limited in time.A special provision, Article 59 of the Law on Immigration, allows young graduates after the expiry of their student permit to change into the category of salaried worker and have a first work experience in Luxembourg for the limited, non-renewable, duration of two years. After this period the third-country national has to return in his/her country of origin. This provision and its conditions were debated by stakeholders during the elaboration of the Law on Immigration, concerns surrounding the limit of two years’ work experience or the limiting condition of having a contract linked to the diploma obtained in Luxembourg were mentioned. Article 59 is however the result of a compromise between fostering a young graduate’s capabilities with a first work experience and provide for a possibility to fill the gap in the Luxembourg workforce on one hand and on the other mitigate the risk of brain drain for the third-country national’s country of origin.Other considerations to allow for switches between categories of statuses were of humanitarian nature, such as Articles 76 (family member), 89 (1) (authorisation of stay for exceptional reasons), 98 (victim of human trafficking) and 131 (2) (medical reasons) of the Law on Immigration. These articles aim to increase the autonomy and legal security of vulnerable third-country nationals. Section 2 details the different statuses taken into account for the purpose of the present study. The table under question 1 also contains categories that do not exist as such in Luxembourg legislation: the separate category of highly qualified worker was replaced by the European Blue Card with the implementation of the Law of 18 December 2011,the categories of business owner, seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferee and investor do not exist autonomously, but third-country nationals falling under these categories are nonetheless covered by other existing statuses. However, a modification of the current legal framework is under way in order to create the categories of intra-corporate transferees and seasonal workers.Therefore the relevant categories of statuses for Luxembourg at this point in time are family member, education (student), researcher, European Blue Card, salaried worker, self-employed worker, international protection applicant, victim of trafficking in human beings, private reasons, athletes, au pairs and beneficiaries of medical treatment. The authorisation of stay for exceptional reasons was included in this study even if not considered a category of stay.Section 3 delves more specifically into the subject matter of the present study and introduces more in detail the changes of statuses that are possible from within the country. The present study excluded from its scope the change into long-term resident, which is the most common change of status in Luxembourg. Several changes, while theoretically possible, are also unlikely to take place in practice as they would lead to a loss of rights for the concerned third-country national. This loss of rights applies to switches into the categories of students, pupils, volunteers, trainees, au pairs, seasonal workers, posted workers and international protection applicants. As a consequence, the main changes of statuses in practice concern the categories of Family member, salaried worker, European Blue Card, Self-employed and Private reasons.The special consideration given to third-country nationals in vulnerable situations, such as victims of trafficking in human beings or third-country nationals with an authorisation of stay for medical reasons, may obtain a permit for private reasons and, if they engage in a full-time salaried activity, may later switch to salaried worker without having to submit to the labour market test.The study also presents the different actors on a national level that might be confronted with changes of statuses as well as the different channels of communication that are available to circulate the information to third-country nationals. The concerned actors may vary from one category of permit to the next, however the Directorate of Immigration will be involved in nearly every case. The Chamber of Commerce also has a part to play in changes into self-employed workers. The main channel of communication, aside from office hours of institutions dealing with migration, is the website www.guichet.lu which centralises all the relevant information.Taking as a basis the different comments during the elaboration of the Law on Immigration as well as interviews conducted with different stakeholders for the purpose of this study, these changes of statuses are generally perceived in a positive light, with several actors, such as the Chamber of Commerce or Fondation Caritas, arguing in favour of lighter requirements to allow for such switches, especially where changes for humanitarian grounds are concerned.The topic of changes of statuses of immigration has not as of yet attracted interest in Luxembourg. There is no data or study available on the topic and it has not triggered any large debate on the national level.Nevertheless, Section 4 puts forward a number of good practices. In fact, whenever the Directorate of Immigration or another organisation providing advice on immigration, notices a possibility for a third-country national to obtain a permit that is more favourable, this will be brought to the attention of the concerned person. The Directorate of Immigration has also proven flexibility and understanding in situations including children. Alternative solutions are also provided by the Directorate of Immigration when a holder of the authorisation of stay for medical reasons falls into irregularity. A further notable good practice is the extensive support provided to third-country nationals aiming to change into self-employed worker by the Chamber of Commerce. Finally, the constant information sharing between the relevant actors consists a good practice with enormous potential as it draws the discussion into practical concerns faced with the implementation of the Law on Immigration.

Migration has always played an important role in Luxembourg’s history. In 2014 and 2015, due to the refugee crisis, migration became the focus of the economic, social and political debates, in particular during Luxembourg’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union. As a country that is a founding Member of the European Union and located at the centre of the EU, Luxembourg has a strong attraction for EU citizens and this - in turn - has a direct incidence on the demographic composition of the country and the workforce. Luxembourg’s demographic composition reflects its migratory diversity. In 2014, the net migration balance was positive having increased by 6.8% in comparison to 2013. As such, the country’s rising population numbers were mainly attributed to the immigration of individuals coming from EU Member States and other European countries. These numbers include European Union (EU), European economic area (EEA) citizens and third-country nationals from non-EU European countries. The country’s diversity is equally reflected in its labour market which heavily relies on its foreign workforce. In fact, Luxembourgish citizens represented 31% of the workforce in 2014, while EU citizens reached 65% and third-country nationals only 4%. Cross border workers also represented a very important part of the Luxembourgish workforce with 44.4 %. Due to the refugee crisis, the number of international protection applicants increased between 2013 and 2014. As a consequence, the recognition rate of the status increased as well. On the other hand, the number of returns continued to decrease. In order to respond to the crisis in an adequate manner, additional funds and staff for the Directorate of Immigration and the Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency were allocated. Given the magnitude of the migration crisis and the pressure on external border Member States, the EU Council took the decision to relocate 160.000 international protection applicants (European relocation scheme) who are currently in Greece and in Italy. In order to implement this decision, Luxembourg agreed to welcome 527 international protection applicants. The first group of 30 relocated individuals from Greece arrived in Luxembourg on 4 November 2015. During 2014, Luxembourg implemented several EU directives. Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings was implemented by the Law of 9 April 2014, which reinforced the rights of victims of trafficking in human beings by criminalising begging and the trafficking of children. Extensive work was undertaken to transpose Directives 2012/32/EU and 2012/33/EU of the Common European Asylum System. Two draft bills are currently within the last stages of the legislative procedure and their implementation is set to take place in 2015, after several amendments were brought to the draft bills at the end of September and October 2015. On the national level, recent legislative changes and reforms answer to several aims, ranging from attracting certain categories of migrants to strengthening the support provided to unaccompanied minors. The creation of a new authorisation of stay for investors and the modification of certain authorisations of stay to adapt them for business managers are currently under discussion by an inter-ministerial working group, which is preparing two draft bills on these issues.

Luxembourg is characterized by a very specific demographic situation with 47,9% of its resident population being non-Luxembourgish nationals as of 1 January 2018. This particular circumstance makes Luxembourg the EU Member State with the highest share of non-citizens residing on its territory. At the same time, around 85% of the foreign population are citizens of another EU Member State, leading to the fact that third-country nationals constitute only 7,3% of the total resident population of Luxembourg, the lowest share of foreigners coming from a third-country in the European Union. Integration is defined in national legislation as a ‘two-way process by which the foreigners shows their will to participate on a long-term basis to the host society, which, in turn, takes all the necessary measures at the social, economic, political, and cultural levels, to encourage and facilitate this approach. Integration is a task that the State, municipalities and civil society achieve together’. In addition to this legal provision, several strategic documents, most notably the multi-annual national action plan on integration 2018, or PAN integration, published in July 2018, make reference to integration and its definition. The PAN integration provides the framework for the programs and tools favouring the social cohesion of Luxembourgish and non-Luxembourgish nationals and the overall national integration policy by identifying five priority domains, one of which explicitly relates to the reinforcement of employability of non-Luxembourgish nationals. Generally speaking, employment is viewed as a core element of the overall integration process, making both the access to as well as the integration into the Luxembourgish labour market a key element in becoming a part of society. At the same time, this access to and integration into the labour market pose a challenge, particularly to third-country nationals, as the statistics show that their employment rate is lower than that of Luxembourgish nationals or citizens of another EU Member State. Third-country nationals are predominantly occupied in the accommodation and food service activities sector, followed by the administrative and support service activities sector and the wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles sector. A closer look at the evolution of the sectors employing third-country nationals over the last years, however, indicates that in particular the information and communication technologies sector, the professional, scientific and technical activities sector and the financial and insurance activities sector register the most significant growth rates, leading to a development that seem to indicate a ‘double immigration’ of (highly) skilled migrants on the one hand and less or low skilled migrants in the more traditional economic sectors on the other hand. In regard to the general integration approach as well as the labour market integration policy, this study shows that Luxembourg does have not have a specific policy/strategic document/model in place that only focusses on third-country nationals. All political documents (laws and strategic documents such as the PAN 2010-2014 and the new PAN integration of 2018) and public measures (Welcome and Integration Contract (CAI), linguistic leave, support measures provided by the National Employment Agency (ADEM), measures facilitating school integration, electoral registration campaigns, etc.) are aimed at all foreign nationals without distinguishing between EU nationals and third-country nationals. It is the Immigration Law that provides the legal framework regarding the various grounds of migration for economic purposes. Additionally, the legislator aims to be attractive for certain categories of migrants coming to Luxembourg for economic purposes in order to meet the needs of the country’s economic development (via legislative measures such as the European Blue Card, the ‘investor’ residence permit or the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde). This being said, this study will present examples of practices that have been identified as good practices in the context of the topic of labour market integration of third-country nationals, despite the fact that they, for the most part, do not fit 100% into the pre-set structure of the study template at hand. In section 2.2, three Member State measure are presented, the first of which is the linguistic leave, a specific form of additional special leave that is accessible for salaried and independent workers of all nationalities, resident or non-resident, to learn or perfect the command of the Luxembourgish language. This legislative measure was introduced by law in 2009 with the intention to facilitate the integration of the beneficiaries into society through the labour market. The second measure is the AMIF-project ‘InSitu JOBS’ by the non-governmental organisation CLAE asbl (with co-financing from the Luxembourgish State). This project, which ended in April 2018 was targeted at third-country nationals within the scope of this study as well as at beneficiaries of international protection by providing them information and counselling in the context of access and integration into the Luxembourgish labour market. The third measure was also an AMIF-project and consists of a practical guide that was developed and drafted by IMS Luxembourg, a network of Luxembourgish companies, in order to provide information on how to hire and integrate third-country nationals. As for the private sector measures in section 2.3. of this study, research of secondary resources as well as consultations with various relevant stakeholders proved to be rather difficult in terms of finding private sector initiatives that specifically target at supporting or facilitating the labour market integration of third-country nationals within the scope of this study. Two measures were selected in this context, the first consisting of a specific recruitment method (simulation-based recruitment method) by a large international company which allows them to evaluate various different profiles of people that are not necessarily detectable through the classic CV-based recruitment methods. The second measure is a business guide developed by the American Chamber of Commerce Luxembourg and aims to promote and facilitate the establishment of new business in Luxembourg by providing information on everything that entrepreneurs and international companies need to know in this context.

Recent trends in migrants' flows and stocks 2005, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

2015 could be described as historic in terms of migratory phenomena and its effects on Luxembourg society. Although population growth in the Grand Duchy continued to rise in 2015, net immigration accounts for over 80% of demographic growth. Given their prominence in the debates that took place in 2015, this report focuses on the following three issues: international protection, the referendum and more specifically voting rights for foreign residents,as well as the reform of the law on nationality.

The national report on the governance of the reception system in Luxembourg is one of the seven country reports that are produced within Work Package 3 of the H2020 project CEASEVAL. The report provides an overview of the Luxembourgish reception system. More specifically, it focuses on recent transformations that have affected the system, processes of implementation at the national and local levels, and sources of heterogeneity within the national system. It is based on document analysis as well as on 19 semi-structured interviews with a range of different stakeholders who are directly or indirectly involved in the Luxembourgish reception system. The report first provides some historical background on the reception of asylum seekers in Luxembourg by paying specific attention to the main legislative instruments that shaped the initial design of the national reception system. Then, the main revisions that affected the system in the period 2009-2018 are explored alongside their related decision-making processes. This paves the way for an overview of the formal structure of the Luxembourgish reception system. After the discussion of the formal organisation of reception policies in the country, the report moves on to explore the actual functioning of the reception system by investigating implementation practices at the national and local levels. Finally, some examples of heterogeneity in the current provision of reception are discussed, in an attempt to identify drivers of convergence and divergence in the implementation of reception policies.

Le présent rapport fait la synthèse des principaux débats et des évolutions majeures concernant les migrations et l’asile au Luxembourg en 2017. Le nombre de personnes demandant une protection internationale est resté élevé en 2017 (2 322 demandes) par rapport aux niveaux enregistrés avant la « crise migratoire » (1 091 en 2014). Toutefois, ce nombre est resté relativement stable par rapport aux deux années précédentes (2 447 en 2015 et 2 035 en 2016). Cette stabilité relative s’est également reflétée dans le débat public et politique dans le domaine des migrations et de l’asile. Depuis 2016, l’accent n’a cessé de se déplacer d’un discours « d’urgence » axé sur la mise en œuvre de mesures et de conditions d’accueil vers des discussions sur des mesures et des politiques d’intégration à plus long terme. À cet égard, le nouveau parcours d’intégration accompagné (PIA) peut être considéré comme un projet phare de l’OLAI, l’Office luxembourgeois de l’accueil et de l’intégration des étrangers. Le PIA vise à autonomiser les demandeurs et les bénéficiaires d’une protection internationale et à les soutenir dans le développement de leur projet de vie. Le parcours, obligatoire pour tous les demandeurs adultes de protection internationale, se compose d’une composante linguistique et d’une composante civique, et il est divisé en trois phases. Bien que l’augmentation des capacités d’hébergement des demandeurs de protection internationale (DPI) figure parmi les priorités des autorités nationales, le logement des DPI reste très problématique et a déclenché un débat à l’échelle nationale. Outre l’accès à la formation, les problèmes liés au logement des DPI ont été parmi les questions les plus fréquemment soulevées en 2017. La pression sur le logement des DPI et des bénéficiaires de protection internationale (BPI) est importante : le manque de logements abordables sur le marché privé, le nombre croissant de réunifications familiales et la progression du nombre de BPI et de personnes qui ont fait l’objet d’une décision de retour mais qui restent hébergées dans les structures de l’OLAI ont été identifiés comme facteurs de pression. Les difficultés liées à la construction de structures modulaires d’hébergement ont également persisté en 2017. Une certaine réticence de la population à l’égard de la construction de ces « villages conteneurs », prévue en réponse à l’afflux croissant qui a commencé en août 2015, était visible dans les recours introduits devant les tribunaux administratifs pour annuler les plans d’occupation des sols liés aux projets. Les conditions de vie au sein des structures d’accueil ont également fait l’objet de discussions. Elles portaient notamment sur l’absence d’équipement en cuisines de plusieurs lieux d’accueil, les différents systèmes d’approvisionnement en nourriture et les types de nourriture disponibles. Afin de répondre au nombre toujours important de DPI en provenance des pays des Balkans occidentaux, une procédure ultra-accélérée a été mise en place. Cette procédure a été instaurée pour diminuer les pressions sur les structures d’accueil et pour éviter de créer de faux espoirs pour les séjours de longue durée. En avril 2017, la structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg (SHUK) a été mise en place, afin d’héberger les DPI pour lesquels le Luxembourg n’est pas compétent pour examiner les demandes en vertu de l’application du règlement de Dublin. Ce nombre a fortement progressé. Le placement à la SHUK correspond à une assignation à résidence, donc à une alternative à la rétention. La structure nouvellement créée ainsi que les conditions d’affectation ont néanmoins été critiquées par la société civile. Plusieurs acteurs de la société civile ont manifesté leur opposition face à une disposition de la loi du 8 mars 2017 qui a étendu la période de rétention des adultes ou familles avec enfants de 72 heures à 7 jours afin de rendre plus efficiente l’organisation du retour. Un premier bilan du fonctionnement du Centre de rétention a été publié en 2017. Une commission chargée d’évaluer l’intérêt des mineurs non accompagnés dans le cadre d’une décision de retour a été créé fin 2017. La commission est chargée de mener à bien des évaluations individuelles concernant l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant dans le but de prendre une décision de retour ou d’accorder une autorisation de séjour. Parmi les éléments pris en considération lors de cette évaluation et dans le contexte d’une éventuelle décision de retour figurent également les informations fournies par l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM). Cette dernière a conclu un accord avec la Direction de l’immigration pour rechercher les parents de mineurs non accompagnés dans le pays d’origine. Comme les débats s’orientent lentement vers l’intégration à long terme, le Conseil de gouvernement a également approuvé l’élaboration d’un nouveau plan d’action national sur l’intégration. Le plan sera basé sur deux axes : l’accueil et le suivi des demandeurs de protection internationale et l’intégration des résidents non luxembourgeois au Luxembourg. L’Agence pour le Développement de l’Emploi (ADEM) a créé une cellule BPI au sein de son Service employeurs. Cette cellule fournit aux employeurs des renseignements sur les demandes d’emploi et les évaluations des compétences des BPI. Une nouvelle loi sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise est entrée en vigueur le 1er avril 2017. Cette loi s’inscrit dans le contexte démographique particulier du Luxembourg, caractérisé par une augmentation continue de la population totale avec, en parallèle, une diminution de la part des Luxembourgeois dans la population totale. A travers cette loi, le législateur veut favoriser l’intégration sociétale et politique des citoyens non luxembourgeois et renforcer la cohésion au sein de la communauté nationale. Les principaux changements introduits par la loi consistent en la réduction de la durée de résidence pour la naturalisation (de 7 à 5 ans), l’introduction du droit du sol de la première génération, la réinstauration de voies simplifiées d’acquisition de la nationalité luxembourgeoise par « option », ainsi que de nouveaux scénarios pour éviter les cas d’apatridie. La loi maintient les exigences linguistiques antérieures tout en procédant à quelques ajustements afin d’empêcher que les exigences linguistiques ne deviennent un obstacle insurmontable. En vue des élections communales du 8 octobre 2017, le ministère de la Famille, de l’Intégration et à la Grande Région a lancé une campagne d’information et de sensibilisation intitulée « Je peux voter » en janvier 2017. Cette campagne avait pour but d’inciter la population étrangère du Luxembourg à s’inscrire sur les listes électorales pour les élections communales. L’intention du Gouvernement de légiférer sur la dissimulation du visage était sans doute l’un des sujets les plus débattus dans le domaine lié à la vie au sein de la société au Luxembourg et l’intégration au sens large du terme, tant à la Chambre des députés que dans les médias et la sphère publique. Le projet de loi n° 7179 vise à modifier l’article 563 du Code pénal et à créer l’interdiction de dissimuler le visage dans certains espaces publics. Il définit la dissimulation du visage comme le fait de couvrir une partie ou la totalité du visage de façon à rendre l’identification de la personne impossible. Des vues opposées entre les parties prenantes – les partis politiques, les institutions publiques, la société civile ou les médias – se sont exprimées au sujet de la nécessité de légiférer en la matière et dans l’affirmative, sur les motifs et l’étendue de l’interdiction de la dissimulation du visage. Le phénomène des migrations a eu aussi comme conséquence de renforcer l’hétérogénéité de la population scolaire. Pour faire face à cette situation, les autorités scolaires ont continué à diversifier l’offre en matière d’éducation et de formation. Parmi les mesures mises en place, on peut signaler notamment l’élargissement des offres de cours d’alphabétisation et de formation de base, l’extension de l’offre au niveau des écoles internationales et européennes et la mise en place d’un programme d’éducation plurilingue au niveau de la petite enfance. Dans le domaine de l’immigration, les changements les plus importants concernent la politique d’admission de certaines catégories de ressortissants de pays tiers. À cet égard, le projet de loi n° 7188 vise principalement à transposer la Directive européenne 2016/801 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 11 mai 2016 sur les conditions d’entrée et de séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers à des fins de recherche, d’études, de formation, de volontariat, de programmes d’échanges d’élèves ou de projets éducatifs et de travail au pair. La directive vise à faire de l’Union européenne un centre mondial d’excellence en matière d’études et de formation, tout en favorisant les contacts entre les personnes et leur mobilité, deux éléments importants de la politique extérieure de l’Union européenne. Le projet de loi vise à faciliter et à simplifier les procédures de mobilité intraeuropéenne des chercheurs et des étudiants qui sont des ressortissants de pays tiers. De plus, certaines modifications comprennent des mécanismes incitatifs pour retenir les étudiants et les chercheurs. À cette fin, il propose que les étudiants et les chercheurs, une fois leurs études ou recherches terminées, puissent se voir délivrer un titre de séjour pour « raisons privées » pour une durée maximum de 9 mois en vue de trouver un emploi ou de créer une entreprise. Enfin, le projet de loi entend réglementer le regroupement familial d’un chercheur séjournant au Luxembourg dans le cadre d’une mobilité à court et à long terme. Le législateur a par ailleurs transposé la Directive 2014/36 sur les travailleurs saisonniers et la Directive 2014/66 sur le transfert temporaire intragroupe en droit national, et a adapté le dispositif de l’immigration aux besoins de l’économie en introduisant entre autres, une autorisation de séjour pour les investisseurs. L’organisation de l’admission du séjour et de la délivrance des autorisations de séjour était également un élément clé de l’Accord entre le Luxembourg et le Cap-Vert relatif à la gestion concertée des flux migratoires et au développement solidaire. L’accord approuvé par la loi du 20 juillet 2017 poursuit en outre les objectifs suivant : promouvoir la mobilité des personnes, lutter contre l’immigration irrégulière, préciser les procédures de réadmission, renforcer l’intégration légale des ressortissants concernés, ainsi que mobiliser les compétences et les ressources des migrants en faveur d’un développement solidaire.

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du Réseau européen des migrations intitulée « Retour de demandeurs de protection internationale déboutés: défis et bonnes pratiques ». L’étude se situe dans le contexte de l’accroissement récent des demandes des personnes en recherche de protection et des demandeurs de protection internationale (ci-après dpi) déboutés. Elle s’intéresse plus particulièrement aux raisons qui font que les dpi déboutés ne peuvent ou ne veulent retourner ainsi qu’aux mesures adoptées par les États Membres pour faciliter et encourager les retours.

The issue of non-return of rejected international protection applicants does not enjoy a high political profile on its own, but has been discussed as part of a global debate on asylum. Significant efforts are required when considering the wide spectrum of possible reasons of non-return, some reasons depending on the countries of destination, others on the returnee himself/herself. In this respect, reasons of non return range from the non-respect of deadlines, the issuance of travel documents, postponement of removal for external reasons to the returnee, for medical reasons, the resistance of the third-country national and the lack of diplomatic representation of Luxembourg, to name but a few. In regards to the procedure, in Luxembourg the rejection of the international protection application includes the return decision. The Minister in charge of Immigration, through the Directorate of Immigration, issues this decision. The return decision only becomes enforceable when all appeals are exhausted and the final negative decision of rejection of the competent judicial authority enters into force, as appeals have suspensive effects. This decision also sets out the timeframe during which the rejected international protection applicant has to leave the country. In case the applicant does not opt for a voluntary return, the decision will also include the country to which s/he will be sent. In general, the decision provides for a period of 30 days during which the applicant has the option to leave voluntarily and to benefit from financial support in case of assisted voluntary return through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). There are two exceptions to this rule: the applicant who is considered a threat to national security, public safety or homeland security and the applicant who has already been issued a return decision before. The declaration and documentation provided during the procedure of international protection can be used to facilitate return. Subsequent applications are possible, in particular if new evidence of facts appears resulting in an increased likelihood of the applicant to qualify for international protection. For rejected international protection applicants who did not opt for voluntary return and did not receive any postponement of removals, a certain (limited) support is available while waiting for the execution of the enforceable return decision. As such, they continue to stay in reception facilities and to receive certain social benefits unless they transgress any internal rules. If an urgent need exists, rejected applicants may be granted a humanitarian social aid. However, they are not entitled to access the labour market or to receive ‘pocket money’ or the free use of transport facilities. They benefit from an access to education and training, however this access cannot constitute a possible reason for non-return. These benefits are available to rejected applicants until the moment of their removal. In order to enforce the return decision and prevent absconding, the Minister may place the rejected international applicant in the detention centre, especially if s/he is deemed to be obstructing their own return. Other possible measures include house arrest, regular reporting surrendering her/his passport or depositing a financial guarantee of 5000€. Most of these alternatives to detention were introduced with the Law of 18 December 2015 which entered into force on 1st January 2016. As a consequence, detention remains the main measure used to enforce return decisions. A number of challenges to return and measures to curb them are detailed in this study. A part of these measures have been set up to minimize the resistance to return from the returnee. First and foremost is the advocacy of the AVRR programme and the dissemination of information relating to this programme but also the establishment of a specific return programme to West Balkan countries not subject to visa requirements. Other measures aim at facilitating the execution of forced returns, such as police escorts or the placement in the detention centre. Finally, significant efforts are directed towards increasing bilateral cooperation and a constant commitment to the conclusion of readmission agreements. No special measures were introduced after 2014 in response to the exceptional flows of international protection applicants arriving in the EU. While the Return service within the Directorate of Immigration has continued to expand its participation to European Networks and in various transnational projects in matters of return, this participation was already set into motion prior to the exceptional flows of 2014. As for effective measures curbing challenges to return, this study brings to light the AVRR programme but especially the separate return programme for returnees from West Balkan countries exempt of visa requirements. The dissemination of information on voluntary return is also considered an effective policy measure, the information being made available from the very start of the international protection application. Among the cases where return is not immediately possible, a considerable distinction has to be made in regards to the reasons for the non-return. Indeed, in cases where the delay is due to the medical condition of the returnee or to material and technical reasons that are external to the returnee, a postponement of removal will be granted. This postponement allows for the rejected applicant to remain on the territory on a temporary basis, without being authorized to reside and may be accompanied by a measure of house arrest or other. In cases of postponement for medical reasons and of subsequent renewals bringing the total length of postponement over two years, the rejected applicant may apply for a residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds of exceptional seriousness. Nevertheless, apart from this exception, no official status is granted to individuals who cannot immediately be returned. Several measures of support are available to beneficiaries of postponement to removal: they have access to accommodation in the reception centres they were housed in during their procedure, they may be attributed humanitarian aid, they continue to be affiliated at the National Health Fund, they continue to have access to education and professional training and they are allowed to work through a temporary work authorization. The temporary work authorization is only valid for a single profession and a single employer for the duration of the postponement to removal, although this is an extremely rare occurrence in practice. OLAI may allocate a humanitarian aid might be allocated if the individual was already assisted by OLAI during the procedure of her/his international protection application. All of these measures apply until the moment of return. The study also puts forth a number of best practices such as the Croix-Rouge’s involvement in police trainings, their offer of punctual support to vulnerable people through international networking or the socio-psychological support given to vulnerable people placed in the detention centre among others. A special regard has to be given to AVRR programmes and their pre-departure information and counselling, the dissemination of information and the post-arrival support and reintegration assistance. Indeed, stakeholders singled the AVRR programme out as a best practice and the Luxembourgish government has made voluntary return a policy priority for a long time. However, this increased interest in voluntary returns has to be put into perspective as research shows that sustainable success of voluntary return and reintegration measures is only achieved for a very restricted number of beneficiaries (namely for young, autonomous and dynamic returnees with sizeable social networks and who were granted substantial social capital upon return). Hence, returning women remains a sensitive issue, especially if they were fleeing abusive relationships. Another factor contributing to hardship set forth by research is the difficult reintegration of returnees that have lived outside of their country of return for a prolonged period of time and are therefore unable to rely on social networks for support or for a sense of belonging. Based on these considerations, NGOs and academia cast doubts on the ‘voluntary’ nature of these return programmes, their criticism targeting the misleading labelling of these policy measures.

The legal framework in Luxembourg does not provide a specific legal status for unaccompanied minors (hereafter UAM), which is why the large majority of them apply for international protection. This allows them to stay in the country and to benefit from social and legal assistance, as well as from accommodation. Cases of UAMs presumed or identified victims of human trafficking are rare in Luxembourg. Overall, specific legal frameworks exist according to the status of the UAM: The Law on Asylum, the Law on Immigration and the Law on victims of trafficking in human beings. This framework is completed by general provisions of the Youth Protection Law, which applies to all minors independent of their immigration or legal status. Until the influx of applicants for international protection in 2015 and 2016, the phenomenon of unaccompanied minors has been relatively small in Luxembourg. Particularly 2015 was marked by a high number of UAMs applying for international protection, with 102 introductions of applications compared to 31 applications in 2014. Since, the number of applications has stabilised over the last two years, with 51 applications in 2016 and 50 applications in 2017. In 2015, Afghanistan and Albania were the leading countries of origin of UAMs. In 2016, Afghanistan was still the leading country of origin, followed by Morocco. In 2017, the profiles of the UAMs changed again, with Albania and Morocco as leading countries of origin. In Luxembourg, UAMs are predominantly boys and a large majority is close to the age of majority, or have already reached the age of majority, when a final decision on their application for international protection is issued. However, the Directorate of Immigration reported that they were confronted with a new phenomenon in 2017, namely the arrival of very young UAMs aged between 12 and 14. Every UAM, whether s/he files an application for international protection or not, will be assigned an ad-hoc administrator as soon as possible in order to assist him/her in all legal proceedings. In addition to the designation of an ad-hoc administrator, the organisations that accommodate the UAMs applying for international protection usually request the guardianship (either institutional or personal guardianship) of the UAM who has introduced his application. Different from the ad-hoc administrator, the guardian is assisting and supporting the UAM in all daily life affairs, such as social guidance, integration, education, medical care, acquisition of language skills, leisure activities, etc. In regard to education, the overall aim in Luxembourg is to integrate migrant children, independent of their immigration status, into the general educational system as soon as possible. The latter has experienced a diversification of its offer with a number of specialised measures and services. Together with leisure and extracurricular activities, school is considered to be one of the main contributors to the overall well-being and integration of UAMs into the Luxembourgish society. There are no integration measures that specifically target UAMs. There are no specific transition measures or procedures for UAMs who are approaching their majority, neither in regard to the accommodation and guardianship arrangements, nor in the general context of integration. The organisations responsible for the accommodation and care of the UAMs provide them with a supervision and support according to their specific individual needs. This is also true for the respective legal framework of the UAM, including eventual extensions of residence permits. The return of UAMs is considered to be rare in the Luxembourgish context. As mentioned earlier, this is related to the fact that the large majority of UAMs applying for international protection are close to the age of majority or have already reached majority when a final decision on their application is issued. Furthermore, although foreseen by the Immigration Law, Luxembourg does not carry out forced returns of persons considered to be unaccompanied minors. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), responsible for (assisted) voluntary returns, reported that they have approximately one voluntary return of an UAM every two years. In 2017, following the recommendation of the evaluation of the Schengen acquis in the area of return in Luxembourg, the government adopted the creation of a new commission with the function of assessing the best interest of the child in the context of return of UAMs. This commission entered into force at the beginning of 2018 and is composed of members of the prosecution service, the National Childhood Office (ONE), the Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI), and finally the Directorate of Immigration, which is chairing the commission. In addition, the ad-hoc administrator is invited to attend the commission meeting for the minor s/he represents. Based on the elements of his/her application, an individual opinion assessing the best interest of the child, in the context of his/her return, will be given for each minor. One of the major reported challenges is the appointment of legal representatives of UAMs (ad-hoc administrator and guardian), as well as the lack of precision of the legal provisions in this context. In the context of return, the Directorate of Immigration reported that they are faced with challenges in regard to getting in contact with the respective countries of origin as well as in regard to cases of applicants not telling the truth. One of the main good practices that has been identified by a number of stakeholders are the new care and accommodation arrangements, allowing to house UAMs in specifically dedicated reception facilities with a 24/7 supervision, depending on the availability of these facilities. In the same context, it was reported that it is of great importance to provide the minors with an environment of trust and support, to listen to them and to reassure them in order to be able to understand their current situation. Particularly the approach of supporting them in elaborating a life plan or life project (“projet de vie”) is considered as being very important for the stability and general well-being as well as for the integration of the UAMs. In addition, it is also important to support them in other matters of integration, such as education, acquisition of language skills, extracurricular activities, etc. In the context of return, Directorate of Immigration reported the newly concluded agreement with IOM in order to conduct family assessments of UAMs in the countries of origin as a good practice. On the one hand, this assessment is one element that will be taken into consideration in the examination of the application of the minor. On the other hand, it helps in assessing the best interest of the child in the event of a return if the application is rejected.

Illegal employment by third country nationals is a reality in Luxembourg. However, as well as in the case of grey and informal economy, it is rather hard to grasp or quantify to which extent. Nevertheless, the problem is not as significant as the one of the posted workers which is more relevant and worrisome and needs to be situated in the context of a labour market of the Greater Region. In the past, several labour related regularisation measures have been implemented in Luxembourg in order to provide both employers and employees the possibility to regularise situations of illegal employment. The last labour related regularisation measure was implemented in early 2013 in the context of the transposition of the Employers' Sanctions Directive 2009/52 by law of 21 December 2012. During this regularisation, the Directorate of Immigration received 664 applications. These regularisations give a partial indication of the extent of the phenomenon, even though these numbers do not provide a real picture of the problem because the conditions of this regularisation were very strict and in a very short time frame (less than two months) and a certain number of irregular migrants’ workers were not willing to expose themselves by applying and preferred to remain undetected. This regularisation also provided information on the main sectors were the phenomenon is found in order of importance: HORECA, cleaning, crafts, industry and construction. The Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social and Solidary Economy at the end of the regularisation has insisted in the need to increase the number of controls to employers. The law of 21 December 2012 established administrative as well as criminal sanctions for employers who illegally employ irregularly staying third country nationals, particularly in relation to offenses to the Labour Code in aggravating circumstances. This law amended also article 89 of the Immigration Law abrogating the possibility of making labour related regularisations. The Inspectorate of Labour (‘Inspection de Travail et des Mines’, hereafter called ITM), which is in charge of labour inspections and the control of illegal employment of TCNs in Luxembourg, is currently going through a restructuring phase following the latest audit of this administration from January 2015. Particularly the current insufficient number of staff of the ITM, which is in need of a significant short term increase of staff, represents a main challenge in the field of illegal employment in Luxembourg. It is also in the context of this restructuring phase of the responsible administration that the drafting of this study presented a number of challenges, especially in relation to the operational and statistical part of the template. The information regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by both the employers and the employees in the context of an employment relationship are available on the website of the concerned authorities. Furthermore, they are disseminated by the NGOs working in the field, even though there are no specific campaigns targeted to prevent illegal employment of TCNs. The matter was raised in the context of the ‘social identification badge’, which was introduced in 2013 in order to fight against social dumping in particular in the construction sector. One national stakeholder suggested that the ‘social identification badge’ could be revised and adapted to other economic sectors in order to better monitor and prevent illegal employment. In regards to access to justice and enforcement of rights of illegally employed TCNs, Luxembourg foresees the right for illegally employed TCNs to make a claim against their employer, including in cases in which they have, or have been, returned. This claim falls under the general provisions concerning the right to bring a case before civil courts. The Labour Code establishes that the employer who has employed an irregular staying third-country national must pay to the third-country national the following amounts: 1) salaries and any other emoluments, which a similar employee would have benefited for the same employment; 2) the total amount of outstanding remuneration as well as the cost of the transfer of these amounts to the third-country national to the country to which s/he is returned; 3) the total amount of unpaid social contributions and taxes, including administrative fines, as well as, court and legal fees. In addition, the Labour Code establishes that the third-country national who has been illegally employed before the execution of any return decision has to be systematically and objectively informed by the control agents of his/her rights to recover the outstanding remunerations and back payments, as well as the right to benefit from free of charge legal aid in order to attempt a recovery action against the employer, even if the third-country national has already been returned. Labour unions can support and assist TCNs in legal proceedings related to social and labour law, provided that they have been given a mandate to do so. Eventual costs of administrative and civil proceedings can be taken in charge by the labour unions if the TCN is a member of the respective labour union. The Law does not establish fines against TCN’s who were illegally employed. The TCN may be issued a return decision and lose his/her residence rights; however, the Directorate of immigration processes these situations on a case-by-case basis and inform the persons concerned to terminate the illegal employment situation.

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin or come into contact with national authorities of their country of origin, and information on cases where international protection statuses were ceased leading to, for example, the status being ended, revoked or not renewed (as per Article 45 and 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive) and, ultimately, the permission to stay withdrawn. For the Luxembourgish case, it is firstly important to note that beneficiaries of the refugee status and of the status of subsidiary protection are not subject to the same restrictions with regard to travel to the country of origin or contact with national authorities. While refugees are in principle not permitted to travel to the country of origin, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not subject to this restriction. In this context, the phenomenon of beneficiaries of the refugee status travelling to their country of origin is currently not considered a policy priority in Luxembourg. While it does occur, there are no statistics providing information on how many refugees undertake this journey or contact the national authorities, on the reasons for travel to the country of origin, nor is there any case law on the cessation of the refugee status for reasons of travel to the country of origin. Luxembourg’s authorities are not systematically informed of such events by the authorities of other Member States. Luxembourg has no external borders with the exception of the international airport of Luxembourg, from where only an extremely limited number of flights to third countries depart. Thus, it is extremely difficult to capture the extent of the phenomenon in Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s Asylum Law establishes the re-availment of the protection of the country of origin and the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin as grounds for cessation of the refugee status. Travel to the country of origin or contact with its national authorities are not explicitly forbidden by legislation. In principle, refugees are not permitted to travel back to the country of origin. They are provided with this information on multiple occasions: for instance at the moment of the introduction of their application, as well as when they are issued the decision granting them protection. Their travel document also clearly states the restriction. There is no notification or authorisation procedure that would authorise such travel in Luxembourg. When the Directorate of Immigration has the information that a refugee travelled back to the country of origin, it will proceed to an in-depth analysis of the personal situation of the individual. Determining that this travel is proof of the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin is however considered extremely difficult, as it is nearly impossible to ascertain the reasons for which the refugee returned. Furthermore, a short stay in the country of origin is not necessarily considered like the (permanent) establishment in the country of origin or a proof thereof. This is also due to the fact that the Luxembourgish authorities cannot contact the authorities of the country of origin and have no tools to undertake an investigation there in order to verify that the refugee has re-established him/herself. The travel and the surrounding circumstances can be taken into account if the minister decides to re-examine the validity of the status, which could potentially lead to a withdrawal. The Directorate of Immigration has never considered ceasing protection because a refugee contacted the authorities of the country of origin. Proving that this contact occurred in the first place, and next, proving that it constitutes a re-availment of the protection of the country of origin, is considered nearly impossible. In addition, it is a fact that certain administrative procedures require the production of official documents and that the substitution of these documents with affidavits are in practice not always feasible. As previously mentioned, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are authorised to travel back to their country of origin and are permitted to contact the authorities of their country of origin. They are even encouraged to contact the national authorities in order to obtain a national passport. These actions can thus not lead to the cessation of the status of subsidiary protection. If the decision to cease the status is taken, the beneficiary is notified of this decision in writing. The decision can be appealed before the First instance Administrative Court. If the decision of the Court is negative, the individual can file an appeal before the Second instance Administrative Court. In principle, the decision to cease international protection carries a return decision. However, the individual can apply for another residence permit if s/he fulfils the conditions established in the Immigration Law. The same is true for family members who got a residence permit through family reunification with the concerned person: the family members will lose their right to stay unless they can gain access to another residence permit under the Immigration Law.

Mayda’s index addresses migration policies in 14 OECD countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Swizerland, United Kingdom, United States) between 1980 and 1995. Rather than addressing the overall policy situation for each year, the index focuses on changes in destination countries’ migration policies. The index increases by one if in that year the destination country’s immigration policy became less restrictive, decreases by one if it became more restrictive, and zero if there was no change Based on paper documents, the authors addressed the main characteristics of the migration policies of the destination countries in the sample and the timing (after 1980) of changes in their legislations. A dataset of destination countries’ migration policy changes, between 1980 and 1995, was constructed on the basis of the information in this appendix and used in the empirical analysis

This report is a synthesis of the main results of the H2020 project MOVE – Mapping mobility, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility in Europe. Over three years the project MOVE has provided a research-informed contribution to a systematic analysis of intra-European mobility. The project departed its work by differentiating six mobility types that have diverse institutional frameworks, age specific constraints and scopes of action. The project has thus analysed and reconstructed mobility patterns that lie across different types of mobility, which are: • student mobility for higher education, • international volunteering, • employment mobility, • mobility for vocational and educational training, • pupil’s exchange, • entrepreneurship mobility. These identified six mobility types have been investigated in the following six European countries: • Germany, • Hungary, • Luxembourg, • Norway, • Romania and • Spain.

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2017 par le Point de contact Luxembourgeois du Réseau Européen des Migrations intitulée : « Défis et pratiques dans l’établissement de l’identité des demandeurs lors des processus migratoires ». Cette étude vise à présenter un aperçu des principaux défis auxquels les autorités compétentes au Luxembourg sont confrontées lors de l’établissement et de la vérification de l’identité des ressortissants de pays-tiers dans le cadre des différentes procédures de migration (asile, retour, migration légale) ainsi que des pratiques mises en œuvre pour relever ces défis. Cette note se base essentiellement sur les informations recueillies jusqu’en juillet 2017 et n’englobe donc que peu d’évolutions qui ont pu se produire après cette date.

Luxembourg has integrated in the protection system the European legal framework on protection. However, besides the international protection (refugee status and subsidiary protection status) and the temporary protection statuses, the Luxembourgish legal system foresees two humanitarian statuses which are: a) residence permit for private reasons based on serious humanitarian grounds; b) the postponement of removal based on medical reasons. In regard to the latter, there are the following steps: 1) the postponement of removal can be granted and renewed for up to 24 months; 2) after 2 years, if the medical condition persists, an authorisation of stay for medical reasons may be granted and a residence permit for private reasons may be issued. However, it is important to stress at this point that the Luxembourgish authorities do not consider the two aforementioned residence permits issued according to articles 78 (3) and 131 (2) of the Immigration Law as “protection statuses” as such, but precisely as residence permits issued to the applicant. The granting of these two “protection statuses” are based on the discretionary power of the Minister in charge of Immigration and Asylum. The residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds (Status A of this report) allows for the Minister to grant an authorisation to stay in the country to an irregular migrant if s/he is in in need to stay based on humanitarian reasons of exceptional circumstances. There is not an exhaustive list of reasons on which the Minister can base his/her decision. However, there is an exhaustive analysis of the reasons advance by the applicant. Any third country national irregularly staying on the territory can apply for this residence permit. However, in the case of rejected asylum seekers, the application will be rejected if the applicant advances the same reasons that s/he advanced during the international protection procedure. On the contrary, the residence permit for medical reasons requires that, in the first stage, the applicant had received a return decision and an order to leave the territory. In order to obtain the residence permit, he/she has to obtain first a decision for a postponement of removal for medical reasons that has to be renewed for two years before the applicant can file the application for the residence permit based on medical reasons. This residence permit is not granted automatically and if the applicant does not file his/her application after expiration of the postponement of removal for medical reasons after two years, s/he will be precluded and the return decision will be executed, except if s/he proves that s/he cannot be returned for medical reasons. In this case, the entire procedure will have to start again.