Research
Database

The right of every man, woman or child to have an identity is universally recognized. A person's identity does not depend on registration in a register or possession of official identification documents. This right does not even depend on the registration of a child at birth (this is a right guaranteed in international treaties and may be required by national law in order to implement other rights). In 1951, Hannah Arendt, a stateless Jewish refugee who had just arrived in the United States, called the "right to have rights". Unfortunately, today, in 2022, almost a billion people in the world do not have an identity or a legal identity. Despite numerous attempts to try to find a solution to the problem, more than 12 percent of the world population does not have a demonstrable identity, it is as if it "did not exist". Hundreds of millions of people do not know they are "someone" and cannot even prove "who" they are. It is important for refugees migrants and stateless people. A 2019 report from the Norwegian Refugee Council found that only 29 percent of Syrian displaced people surveyed had been able to obtain documents issued by the Syrian state after leaving the country. For migrants there is a serious risk to loose the "right to have rights". Adopting sub-measure 16.9 of the SDGs the signatory countries have committed themselves to “providing a legal identity for all, including birth registration” by 2030. But up to now resutls have been different.

The overall objective of the project is to prevent and address trafficking in persons (TIP) and the smuggling of migrants (SOM) by assisting selected partner countries in developing and implementing comprehensive national counter-trafficking and smuggling responses.

Trafficking in human beings is a crime against the victim’s fundamental rights. It can take several forms, such as sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery and servitude-related practices, as well as the removal of organs. This practice is prohibited under numerous EU and international instruments. Yet, persistent demand for sexual services and for low-wage workers employed in manual jobs continues to provide opportunities for traffickers to exploit human beings. This EMN study provides an overview of measures and best practices around detection, identification and protection of third-country national victims of trafficking in human beings from January 2015 to December 2020. The European study provides an answer to a number of key questions. How do EU Member States, Norway and Georgia tackle human trafficking of third-country nationals? How do countries ensure cooperation at EU and international level? What were the main challenges and good practices identified in respect of the impact of COVID-19?

The right of every man, woman or child to have an identity is universally recognized. A person's identity does not depend on registration in a register or possession of official identification documents. This right does not even depend on the registration of a child at birth (this is a right guaranteed in international treaties and may be required by national law in order to implement other rights). In 1951, Hannah Arendt, a stateless Jewish refugee who had just arrived in the United States, called the "right to have rights". Unfortunately, today, in 2022, almost a billion people in the world do not have an identity or a legal identity. Despite numerous attempts to try to find a solution to the problem, more than 12 percent of the world population does not have a demonstrable identity, it is as if it "did not exist". Hundreds of millions of people do not know they are "someone" and cannot even prove "who" they are. It is important for refugees migrants and stateless people. A 2019 report from the Norwegian Refugee Council found that only 29 percent of Syrian displaced people surveyed had been able to obtain documents issued by the Syrian state after leaving the country. For migrants there is a serious risk to loose the "right to have rights". Adopting sub-measure 16.9 of the SDGs the signatory countries have committed themselves to “providing a legal identity for all, including birth registration” by 2030. But up to now results have been different.

To offer personalized and flexible assistance for the return of the victims of trafficking in human beings from Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and UK, so they can become active members of their societies again.

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.

In de Europese Unie bestaat sinds 2004 een Advance Passenger Information (API)-richtlijn gericht op de verbetering van grenscontroles en de bestrijding van illegale immigratie. Lidstaten mogen volgens de richtlijn (2004/82 EC) bepalingen opnemen in hun nationale wetgeving die het mogelijk maken om luchtvaartmaatschappijen te verplichten om gevalideerde passagiersgegevens voorafgaand aan de vlucht door te geven aan de grensautoriteiten in de betreffende lidstaat. De richtlijn laat het echter aan de lidstaten zelf over om van deze mogelijkheid daadwerkelijk gebruik te maken. Onder andere hierdoor bestaat binnen de EU momenteel een grote variëteit wat betreft het gebruik van API-gegevens. In Nederland is de API-richtlijn in 2007 geïmplementeerd, met als algemeen beleidsdoel de verbetering van de grenscontrole en de bestrijding van illegale immigratie.Met dit onderzoek is het gebruik van API-gegevens in Nederland geëvalueerd. Het onderzoek is een vervolg op de eerste evaluatie van API in 2014. Op grond van dit eerste evaluatieonderzoek heeft de minister van Justitie en Veiligheid de Tweede Kamer toegezegd een tweede evaluatiestudie te laten uitvoeren als onder andere het systeem verder is uitontwikkeld. Voor deze tweede evaluatie zijn twee centrale onderzoeksvragen geformuleerd:Wat kan gezegd worden over het gebruik en de effectiviteit van APIgegevens ten behoeve van grenscontrole en het tegengaan van illegale immigratie en op welke wijze is gevolg gegeven aan eerdere aanbevelingen ten aanzien van API?In hoeverre kunnen recente relevante Europese ontwikkelingen gevolgen hebben voor de wijze waarop API-gegevens in Nederland gebruikt worden?