Rights, legal status and non-discrimination

Under article 26 of the Ukrainian Constitution, foreigners and stateless persons who are staying in Ukraine on legal grounds enjoy the same rights and freedoms and have the same obligations as Ukrainian citizens, with the exception of certain cases envisaged by Ukrainian legislation. In the meantime, the scope of socio-economic rights of foreigners in the territory of Ukraine is determined by the legal status that they obtain according to the procedure established by the national legislation. In order to analyze the socio-economic rights of migrants and persons who were granted refugee status or supplementary protection in Ukraine, let us divide them into the following categories based on the Ukrainian law “On legal status of foreigners and stateless persons”and the law “On refugees and persons in need of supplementary or temporary protection”: persons temporarily staying in Ukraine; persons temporarily residing in Ukraine; persons permanentlyUnder article 26 of the Ukrainian Constitution, foreigners and stateless persons who are staying in Ukraine on legal grounds enjoy the same rights and freedoms and have the same obligations as Ukrainian citizens, with the exception of certain cases envisaged by Ukrainian legislation. In the meantime, the scope of socio-economic rights of foreigners in the territory of Ukraine is determined by the legal status that they obtain according to the procedure established by the national legislation. In order to analyze the socio-economic rights of migrants and persons who were granted refugee status or supplementary protection in Ukraine, let us divide them into the following categories based on the Ukrainian law “On legal status of foreigners and stateless persons”and the law “On refugees and persons in need of supplementary or temporary protection”: persons temporarily staying in Ukraine; persons temporarily residing in Ukraine; persons permanentlyUnder article 26 of the Ukrainian Constitution, foreigners and stateless persons who are staying in Ukraine on legal grounds enjoy the same rights and freedoms and have the same obligations as Ukrainian citizens, with the exception of certain cases envisaged by Ukrainian legislation. In the meantime, the scope of socio-economic rights of foreigners in the territory of Ukraine is determined by the legal status that they obtain according to the procedure established by the national legislation. In order to analyze the socio-economic rights of migrants and persons who were granted refugee status or supplementary protection in Ukraine, let us divide them into the following categories based on the Ukrainian law “On legal status of foreigners and stateless persons”and the law “On refugees and persons in need of supplementary or temporary protection”: persons temporarily staying in Ukraine; persons temporarily residing in Ukraine; persons permanentlyUnder article 26 of the Ukrainian Constitution, foreigners and stateless persons who are staying in Ukraine on legal grounds enjoy the same rights and freedoms and have the same obligations as Ukrainian citizens, with the exception of certain cases envisaged by Ukrainian legislation.

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.

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.

Generally, Georgian legislation differentiates between the procedures for granting asylum and that for granting refugee status. Asylum is granted by the President of Georgia in exceptional cases, whereas refugee status is a matter for the Ministry of IDPs from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees and applies to cases where a person has been persecuted unjustifiably in a foreign country. In conclusion, the Georgian asylum-related legislation covers most relevant aspects but, for example, the notion of subsidiary protection has still not been regulated. Some confusion has also been caused by the differentiation between granting asylum and refugee status. In this regard, it should be stressed that the relevant provisions on granting asylum have never been applied.

The Deterrence Index addresses the extent to which policies are a deterrence for asylum seekers. The Index seeks to quantify cumulatively the resulting mix of countries’ changing asylum rules. Five key deterrence measures have been considered from three areas: Three sets of instruments are included: (1) access control policy, which refers to the rules and procedures governing the admission of foreign nationals and its instruments include visa policy, regulations for carriers, safe third country provisions, etc. In this area, the deterrence measure refers to the introduction of so-called ‘safe third country’ provisions, which mean that persons seeking asylum in country A will be refused entry into that country, if on their way to country A, they have travelled through state B, a country which country A regards as a ‘safe country’ and in which the asylum seeker could have applied for asylum. (2) asylum determination procedures. Rules concerning determination procedures relate to entry into a country's refugee recognition system, appeal rights, and rules concerning protection that is subsidiary to the rather narrowly defined Geneva Convention criteria for full refugee status. In this area, the deterrence measure refers to rules concerning the granting of subsidiary protection status which allow asylum seekers to remain in a country of destination even though their application for full refugee status under the Geneva Convention is refused. (3) migrant integration policy. policy is concerned with rights and benefits given to asylum seekers inside a country of destination. Here measures are: freedom of movement vs. a compulsory dispersal policy; cash welfare payments vs. a system of vouchers; and third, the right to work under certain conditions vs. a general prohibition to take up employment as an asylum seeker. Policy-makers can introduce changes in the regulations in these three areas in an attempt to raise the deterrence effect of their policy, which in turn is expected to make their country less attractive to asylum seekers in relative terms. The dataset includes scores for 17 OECD countries for 1985 and 2000. To calculate the index, the researcher analysed two sets of annual yearbooks, the OECD’s ‘Trends in International Migration’ (SOPEMI) and the US Committee for Refugees’ ‘World Refugee Survey’ for the years 1985–2000. For each of the five measures, Thielemann creates a dummy variable (value 1 value whether a measure was in operation in a country). The aggregation is additive, with no weighting applied.

**Data series on decisions on asylum applications and resettlement** contain statistical information based on Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) no 862/2007 with reference to: - First instance decisions by age, sex and citizenship - Final decisions by age, sex and citizenship - Decisions withdrawing status granted at first instance by type of status withdrawn and by citizenship - Decisions withdrawing status granted as final decisions by type of status withdrawn and by citizenship - Resettled persons by age, sex and citizenship **Applications withdrawn** means applications for asylum having been withdrawn during the reference period at all instances of the administrative and/or judicial procedure (see Art.4.1(c) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 862/2007). Total number of positive decisions refers to the sum of decisions granting refugee status, subsidiary protection status, authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons (for countries where applicable) and temporary protection. Total number of decisions refers to Total number of positive decisions plus rejected applicants. **First instance decision**: decisions (positive and negative) considering applications for international protection as well as the grants of authorisations to stay for humanitarian reasons, including decisions under priority and accelerated procedures taken by administrative or judicial bodies in Member States. First instance decisions include decisions granted to persons who are a subject of the Dublin Regulation (Council Regulation 604/2013/EC). **Resettled persons**: persons who have been granted an authorisation to reside in a Member State within the framework of a national or Community resettlement scheme, where such a scheme is implemented in that Member State and relates to the Art.4.3(g) of the Regulation. Resettlement means the transfer of third country nationals or stateless persons on the basis of their need for international protection and a durable solution to a Member State, where they are permitted to reside with secure legal status. Data does not relate to resettled persons who remain in the third country waiting for a transfer to the Member States or to persons covered by future resettlement commitments. Data is presented country by country and for groups of countries: the European Union (EU28 and the European Economic Area (EEA). The following statistics are available: Table codeDescription migr_asydcfinaFinal decisions on applications by citizenship, age and sex Annual data (rounded) migr_asydcfstaFirst instance decisions on applications by citizenship, age and sex Annual aggregated data (rounded) migr_asydcfstqFirst instance decisions on applications by citizenship, age and sex Quarterly data (rounded) migr_asydctzmDecisions on asylum applications by citizenship till December 2007 Monthly data (rounded) migr_asydctzyDecisions on asylum applications by citizenship till 2007 Annual data (rounded) migr_asyresaResettled persons by age, sex and citizenship Annual data (rounded) migr_asywitfinaDecisions withdrawing status granted as final decision by type of status withdrawn Annual data (rounded) migr_asywitfstaDecisions withdrawing status granted at first instance decision by type of status withdrawn and by citizenship Annual aggregated data (rounded) migr_asywitfstqDecisions withdrawing status granted at first instance decision by type of status withdrawn and by citizenship Quarterly data (rounded)

In Luxembourgish legislation the term “international protection” includes both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Integration of beneficiaries of international protection into the Luxembourgish labour market might appear quite unproblematic at first glance. From a legal point of view, the access is indeed very much open to both beneficiaries of international protection as well as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. As from 2006 onwards, the legislator proceeded with an approximation of both statuses, providing the same rights to both types of beneficiaries of international protection. As soon as the applicants are granted international protection they are authorised to engage in employed or self-employed activities under the same conditions as Luxembourgish nationals, with the exceptionof civil servant jobs. This is also true for most of the support measures that aim to advance or enhance the access to employment, whether on the level of education, vocational training, language learning, recognition of diploma, counselling, social aid or access to housing. In each of those areas, the beneficiaries of international may in principle benefit from equivalent access as provided to other migrants, third-countrynationals or Luxembourgish nationals. Yet, the reality on the ground seldom matches the aims of the legislative framework. Effective access to the labour market remains a significant challenge for beneficiaries of international protection in order to fully integrate in Luxembourgish society. The linguistic regime as well as the high demands in terms of language requirements constitute a first major hurdle, both at the level of education/vocational training and the labour market. Rather than being able to immediately access the regular education system, respectively the labour market, refugees must first engage in a learning process sometimes coupled with administrative procedures (i.e. recognition of diplomas) that may significantly slow down the integration process. The transition period that begins once the applicant is granted international protection status appears to be particularly challenging. Indeed, several measures from which the applicants for international protection benefited during the procedure will no longer be available once they are granted the status. Thus, social aid, including housing, provided to international protection seekers will no longer be applicable to refugees. Even though national authorities have implemented several specific targeted measures in order to facilitate the transition period (i.e. progressive financial contribution to accommodation costs), it remains a phase of instability and uncertainty for the refugees and their families. This also stresses the need for employment-related support measures, which in Luxembourg are implemented in a more general integration framework. Thus, most of the support measures that exist for beneficiaries of international protection are not tailored to them in particular, but they are also open to other types of migrants or foreigners living in Luxembourg.

In Switzerland, preliminarily admitted individuals should in principle leave the country. Their departure may however not be enforced for a range of reasons. Although preliminary admission does not attribute a residence status in a legal sense, more than 20.000 persons are to remain in that condition until the moment the reasons impeding their return are no longer applicable. During this time, however, individuals are not supposed to integrate economically, socially and politically, thus have to rely on public support. Despite their dependence on social benefits, persons subject to preliminary admission are expected to rely upon such benefits as little as possible – regardless of the fact that, in principle, constitutional guarantees safeguard their access to subsistence. Access to benefits in turn, is strongly connected with language acquisition and economic participation, which are enhanced via integration measures. Against this background, thousands of persons are kept in between these two opposing objectives. In the past few years, the number of preliminary admissions has even outgrown the number of those granted asylum protection. The majority of individuals remain in that legal limbo situation for more than seven years, until eventually a right to remain may be granted by the respective canton of residence. The present study aims to elaborate options to reform the legal institution of preliminary admission in Switzerland. In particular, it looks into ways to secure compliance with international protection standards without losing sight of the possibility of return, while simultaneously taking into account the ongoing integration processes entailed by long-term stay and, deeply connected with that, pressing questions on residential security. Based on the assessment of legal frameworks addressing that issue in comparable European states, the study not only explores the question of residence status acquisition and criteria relevant to its accession, but also addresses the legal position of persons, admitted via the current framework of preliminary admission in Switzerland. Objectives The study explores the situation of persons: • Who are in need of protection according to international conventions, but were neither granted asylum nor temporary protection; • Who cannot be incited to leave the country on humanitarian grounds but at the same time cannot obtain a residence permit; • Whose return decision cannot be enforced for technical reasons which lie outside of the area of influence of the person concerned; • Whose return decision cannot be enforced for reasons lying outside the area of influence of the person concerned; • Whose return decision is already in force and whose respite for departure was postponed on multiple occasions over a longer time-span, but who were neither granted preliminary admission nor a residence status, consequently leaving them in a vulnerable position.

The present study provides a comprehensive analysis of the information and communication channels that migrants use upon their arrival in Italy, and which may help determine their secondary movements. The pages that follow present findings drawn from surveys and interviews and focus groups carried out in Italy with 686 migrants (including irregular migrants, asylum seekers, and migrants who qualified for refugee status, humanitarian protection or subsidiary protection) during the second half of 2017. These findings are followed by recommendations involving the development of more effective mechanisms for migration information dissemination and for awareness-raising campaigns for migrants within the context of the EU’s Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling.

The aim of the research is to evaluate the effectiveness of Racial Discrimination Laws from the point of view of the target group and in a gender perspective. The main hypothesis is that differences can exist between the uses made of the law by men and women. This is because they develop different representations of the legal system and experience different forms of discrimination. The second hypothesis is that intersectional experience of discrimination based on race and gender is not recognized and treated properly in legal and institutional frameworks built around single types of discrimination because discriminations are seen as one-dimensional and as affecting all people -men and women- in the same way. The evaluation will be carried out through a study of case law and filed complaints, around 200 semi-directive qualitative interviews of foreign nationals and members of ethnic minorities and 70 interviews of stakeholders ans social partners, including lawyers dealing with complaints. The goal of the project is to improve our undertanding of the phenomenon of double discrimination (race and gender) and to develop practical tools to allow administrations, NGOs and specialised bodies to better assess the effectiveness of policies and practices in the field of antidiscrimination when faced with cases of double discrimination.