| Description |
All (Member) States have historically experienced changes
in the influx of applicants for international protection and
other migrants, typically coinciding with conflicts worldwide
and changes to migratory routes into the EU. However, in
2014-2016 (Member) States experienced an unprecedented
influx of incoming applicants for international protection: the
number of applications lodged rose to 1 320 000 million in
2015 and 1 260 000 million in 2016, though the scale and
peak moments differed greatly between (Member) States. The
mass influx led to backlogs of registrations of international
protection applications, pressures on reception centres, and
other operational and organisational challenges. (Member)
States took numerous measures across different areas to
deal with this unprecedented influx.
KEY POINTS TO NOTE
The 2014-2016 influx of applicants for international
protection and other migrants had a profound
impact on the EU as a whole, but affected (Member)
States in different ways, including: in the scale of the
phenomenon, peak moments and characteristics of the
influx.
(Member) States’ authorities have responded in
different ways by taking different measures across
key areas that can be grouped into the following main
categories: border control and law enforcement, (wider)
reception services, registration and asylum procedures,
and integration measures.
n Some measures taken were similar across different
(Member) States, in particular those enhancing law
enforcement and border control and those increasing
reception places, immigration service staff and financial
resources, while other measures specifically
responded to the individual challenges faced by
a (Member) State based on its type of influx (and the
phenomenon of secondary movements),3 geographical
location and policy preferences.
n Certain measures had collateral or knock-on effects
on neighbouring countries as they (partially) diverted
the influxes to and through the EU;
n Following the general decrease in the influx of arrivals due
to national and EU-wide measures taken, (Member) States
responded by dismantling or scaling down some of
the measures taken (such as closing reception centres
or reducing reception places), reassigning staff elsewhere
and re-allocating other resources. This required a degree
of flexibility;
(Member) States also considered themselves better
prepared for future peaks and troughs in influxes
because of the experience gained during 2014-2016 and
the emergency and contingency plans put in place as a
result;
Coordination at different levels of government
improved the relevance and effectiveness of
measures:
between national, regional and local authorities; between government and relevant third parties; and between (Member) States bilaterally and
multilaterally (EU-level). Defining clear mandates and responsibilities for all stakeholders involved also improved the effectiveness
of measures; Timely sharing of strategic documentation and
communication of decisions on measures taken by
(Member) States, with the public and media, improved
transparency and understanding of the choices made
|