RAPORT IOM.Indd

Programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the areas of migration and asylum - AENEAS

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the EC and concerned third countries” (Grant Contract: 19.02.03/2005 103499 – 17)

Readmission and Return Experiences in the Western Balkan Region

Forum Report

November 2008 Tirana

This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 1 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme This report has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union and the project partners. It has been compiled by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) – Mission in Albania with the support of the other IOM missions in the region, on the basis of the minutes taken during the proceedings of the Regional Forum on Return and Readmission organized in Tirana on 5-6 March 2008. The opinions, information and data included therein are those expressed by the speakers and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

The Regional Forum on Return and Readmission was organized in the framework of the project “Building on Mechanisms to effectively and sustainably implement readmission agreements between Albania, the EC and concerned third countries”, under the European Commission AENEAS 2004 Community “Programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the areas of migration and asylum”. The project is co-funded by the European Union, the Hellenic Ministry of Interior as project leader, the General Secretariat of Public Order within the Hellenic Ministry of Interior, the International Organization for Migration, the Hellenic Migration Policy Institute, and the Hellenic Agency for Local Development and Local Government. These institutions do not take any responsibility for any inaccuracy of the data or information provided, for the use that may be made of the information contained therein or for any inaccuracies caused through translation.

Publisher: International Organization for Migration Address: Rruga “Brigada e Tetë”, Vila Nr. 3, Tirana, Albania Tel: +355 4 2257836/7 Fax: +355 4 2257835 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http: //www.iom.int/Albania

ISBN : 978-92-9068-465-7

All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo- copying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Hellenic Ministry of Interior.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 2 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...... 5 A. Background...... 5 B. Scope of the Regional Forum ...... 6 C. Structure of the Report...... 9

II. RETURN AND READMISSION IN THE WESTERN BALKANS: THE EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES ...... 10 A. Albania...... 10 Nikoll Ndoci, Director of Migration and Readmission Directorate, Department of Border and Migration, Albanian State Police B. Bosnia and Herzegovina...... 16 Murveta Dzaferovic, Assistant Minister for Migration, Ministry of Security C. Croatia...... 23 Lidija Pentavec, Representative of Ministry of Interior, General Police Directorate, Border Police, Department of Illegal Migration D. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ...... 26 Mijalce Gelev, Chief Inspector for Foreigners, Section for Foreigners and Readmission, Ministry of Interior E. Montenegro...... 27 Milica Kovacevic, Higher Commissioner, Police Directorate, Section of Border Police F. Serbia...... 32 Tamara Vucenovic, IOM Belgrade

III. ATTEMPTS TO ENUMERATE EXPERIENCES AND BEST PRACTICES IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE RETURN PROCESS...... 37 Ferdinand Arn, Specialist, Directorate for Returns, Belgian Immigration Service

IV. MIGRATION-RELATED DATA MANAGEMENT IN THE WESTERN BALKANS: TOWARDS SYSTEMATIC COLLECTION AND EXCHANGE AT NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS ...... 41 Marina Manke, IOM Moscow

V. WESTERN BALKANS IN SEARCH OF A VISA-FREE REGIME ...... 48 Ditmir Bushati, Director, European Movement, Albania

VI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 55

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 3 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme “Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 4 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Readmission and Return Experiences in the Western Balkan Region Forum Report

Building on mechanisms to effectively and sustainably implement readmission agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries I.I Introduction

A. Background

The fall of the Communist regimes in the Western Balkans and the regional conflicts of the 1990s were characterized by large flows of emigrants who settled in the different European countries. They were either political or economic migrants, including asylum seekers in the case of the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Large numbers of those who migrated to the EU travelled and resided there irregularly. Despite the fact that the phenomenon has diminished compared to the flows in the 1990s, irregular migration is still a concern. Yet, the EU is not the only target destination for migrants from the region. Figures presented by authorities in Western Balkan countries demonstrate that there are also cases of irregular migrants from within the region in their territories, either transiting or residing in these countries.

European countries took various steps in response to the influx of irregular migrants. In October 1999, the European Council at Tampere adopted the programme for the creation of an area of freedom and justice in the European Union, including a common policy on immigration and asylum. On 21-22 June 2002, the European Council Meeting in Seville called for an accelerated implementation of all aspects of this programme and issued a Communication on a Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents, which included an outline for a return action plan, formally adopted in November 2002. The Action Plan aimed at the creation and adoption of common standards in return and readmission procedures. Consequently, several bilateral agreements were signed between various EU countries and the countries of the region. These agreements were followed by multilateral agreements between the E.C. and the countries of the region starting with Albania in 2005.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 5 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Apart from the bilateral agreements with EU countries and/or the multilateral one with EC either concluded or in process, the Western Balkans countries have also signed agreements with each other and with some countries of origin. The latter aims to address the flows of irregular migrants identified in their own territory or those returned by EC in compliance with the third country nationals clause according to which they have accepted to readmit the alien citizens who have transited through their territory prior to migrating to any of the EU countries.

The Western Balkan countries have experienced return and readmission for as long as they have experienced irregular migration. These processes, originally case-based and less standardized, have gradually been regulated under readmission agreements and implementation protocols. Despite the fact that this is a relatively recent phenomenon, the countries of the region have dealt extensively and intensively with return and readmission.

B. Scope of the Regional Forum

The Regional Forum on Return and Readmission organized in Tirana, Albania, 5-6 March 2008, aimed at bringing together governmental representatives from the Western Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia) and experts on return and readmission issues to share experiences and information on return procedures and on the implementation of readmission agreements1 signed with the EC and concerned third countries2.

Considering that most of the countries have already concluded or are in negotiations for concluding readmission agreements with the EC, between one another and/or with third countries, the Forum served as a common platform for information exchange on irregular flows and data regarding the removal of foreign nationals. Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements between the EC and Western Balkan countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as well as the Visa Facilitation Agreement with Albania) entered into force on 1 January 2008. An overview of the visa facilitation process and its challenges as well as a presentation on data management relevant in the context of readmission and visa facilitation agreements were also provided in the framework of this Forum.

Furthermore, the Forum was envisaged as a means to examine the ways of facili- tating the provision and obtaining recognition of travel documents for the purpose of removal. In this perspective, the event was conceived as a possibility to pave the way to the further establishment of a regional mechanism for the exchange of information concerning the voluntary repatriation of third country nationals.

1 Readmission Agreement hereinafter also referred to as RA. 2 As Albania was the first country in the region to sign the EC-Albania Readmission Agreement, which came into force in May 2006, the Forum provided the opportunity inter alia for disseminating best practices and lessons learned by Albania in regard to implementation of the Agreement.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 6 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme There was considerable discussion on the signing and the implementation of readmission agreements at the regional level. The participants, in particular governmental representatives that cover migration, return and readmission issues in the region discussed and shared information on the following issues: · Implementation of the readmission agreements and next steps · National legal basis and administrative acts on irregular and regular migrants · Detention and return procedures for irregular migrants · Voluntary return · Migration-related data management in the region, focusing on return and readmission

The Regional Forum was organized by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in the framework of the project “Building on mechanisms to effectively and sustainably implement readmission agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries”, which is implemented under the European Commission AENEAS 2004 Community “Programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the areas of migration and asylum”. The project is cofunded by the European Union, the Hellenic Ministry of Interior, the General Secretariat of Public Order within the Hellenic Ministry of Interior, the International Organization for Migration, the Hellenic Migration Policy Institute and the Hellenic Agency for Local Development and Local Government.

The project is assisting the Government of Albania (GoA) to fully and successfully implement the obligations that stem from the EC-Albania Readmission Agreement, ratified by the Albanian Parliament on 1 May, 2006. In particular, it is strengthening the Albanian institutions to implement the third country clause, which entered into force on 1 May, 2008.

As reflected in the Albanian National Action Plan for implementation of the Sta- bilization and Association Agreement (SAA) concluded between Albania and the European Commission on 12 June 2006, the implementation of the Readmission Agreement is considered a priority under the SAA and hence is part of Albania’s future accession requirements into the European Union. The project also supports Albanian authorities on the issue of return migration within the context of migration management, as envisaged by the National Strategy and Action Plan on Migra- tion, approved by the GoA in May 2005.

The target groups of the project are the Albanian line Ministries for migration management, in particular the Ministry of Interior (main target group); the Ministry of Integration; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 7 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme The project not only assists Albania to fulfil the requirements of the EC/Albania Readmission Agreement but also enhances Albania’s capacity to exchange information and best practices concerning the implementation of readmission agreements with third countries, through improved knowledge and expertise of Albanian counterparts.

The project results include the establishment of necessary mechanisms for the implementation of the EC-Albanian readmission agreement and the bilateral implementing protocols, including preparation for the entry into force of the third country clause by May 2008.

The project has three main components: · Capacity building and provision of training and legal support to Albanian authorities and administration. · Cooperative approaches to information exchange between administrations in the implementation of readmission agreements and enhancement of the bilateral transnational cooperation between Albania and neighbouring countries on issues of return and readmission. · Developing mechanisms for managing the implications of return, mainly improving the reintegration of returning migrants in Albania as well as reinforcing the capacity and action of the national institutions involved in this process.

Experience has shown that the best way to implement return and readmission policies is through standardized procedures, not only within each country but at the regional level as well. The readmission agreements themselves reflect a serious attempt to simplify and standardize procedures in order to facilitate the entire return process3. Yet, further collaboration and sharing of information and experiences is crucial for the success of the return and readmission process.

In this perspective, the Regional Forum brought together representatives from Al- bania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Mace- donia, Montenegro and Serbia to share and exchange information on common issues while trying to enhance the collaboration between each other in order to effectively and sustainably implement readmission agreements.

3 The readmission agreements are combined with visa facilitation agreements to be considered not only as mechanism to facilitate the return of irregular migrants, but also to foster communication and contribute to the freedom of movement.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 8 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme C. Structure of the Report

This report is based on the materials presented in the Regional Forum. The presentations of each Western Balkan country are given in alphabetic order as they were presented during the Forum. The country experiences are followed by presentations on best practices of return in EU countries, data management in the Western Balkans and the impact of return policies as well as the agreements on the visa facilitation between the EU and these countries through the lens of the Albanian experience.

The final chapter presents the major conclusions drawn during the Forum and a set of recommendations to assist the countries of the region to better implement return and reintegration policies.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 9 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme RII. Return and Readmission in the Western Balkans: The Experience of Individual Countries

A. Albania Nikoll Ndoci, Director, Migration and Readmission Directorate, Department of Border and Migration, Albanian State Police

The change in the political system in Albania was accompanied by large flows of migration, mostly irregular. Despite the fact that several thousand people regular- ized their residence in many EU countries, others remained in an irregular situation. Consequently, there has been a continuous return to Albania of those who were found in an irregular situation. The lack of return and readmission agreements meant that each country followed its own procedures, many times not stan- dard ones. Thus, the return of Albanian nationals during the period 1991-1997 was as follows:

Through contacts between the foreign police authority and Albanian diplomatic representations. Albanian diplomatic representations informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)/ Ministry of Interior (Police authority). Verification by the Ministry of Interior of the identity of the person After verification, the Consular Department of the MFA informed the Albanian diplomatic representations. Albanian diplomatic representations issued laissez-passer to own nationals. If the Albanian national had travel documents (passport), the MFA in the destination country would inform its Embassy in the country of origin for the return of the Albanian national.

After 1997, Albania signed bilateral readmission agreements with several Euro- pean countries, and a multilateral agreement with the EC in 2005:

Date RA signed Implementation Protocol 1 Italy 1997 √ 2 Switzerland 2000 √ 3 Hungary 2001 √ 4 Belgium 2001 √ 5 Romania 2002 √ 6 Bulgaria 2002 -

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 10 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme 7 Germany 2002 √ 8 Croatia 2003 - 9 United Kingdom 2003 √ 10 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2004 √ 11 European Community 2005 Austria, Benelux (except Denmark)

The above shows that implementation protocols have also been finalized for all the agreements apart from those with Bulgaria and Croatia. The readmission agreements were signed as procedures followed previously were lengthy, complex and fraught with problems. Firstly, there was a serious lack of information exchange in the field; parties did not inform each other about their actions, and Albanian authorities were simply faced with returnees at their border points, without prior notification, leaving them unprepared to respond to the needs of such returnees. Secondly, many structures were involved in the process, making it difficult to know whom to address as the responsible agency. The readmission agreements aimed to formalize the structures involved, such as sharing official contact points, as well as to simplify the procedures by involving only the police authorities of both parties. Furthermore, agreements set definite timeframes for procedures of readmission, so that if identity could not be verified, Albania would be able to refuse admission to those not proven to be either Albanian nationals or third country nationals who used Albania as a transit country. A final advantage is that the pre- determined timeframe also encourages parties to respond efficiently and rapidly in processing cases of return and readmission.

The Readmission Agreement (RA) negotiation process with the European Com- munity was not simple. Public opinion was against it, as readmission in the eyes of the public was misunderstood to mean that Albania would take back all its migrants from the European Union. Furthermore, many experts from several institutions were involved in the negotiation process. The Albanian party was under pressure in regard to the future impact both with regard to Albanian citizens and future collaboration with the EU countries. Albania was also concerned because of its lack of proper infrastructure to implement the agreement, in particular in regard to the third country nationals and stateless persons’ clause.

The Readmission Agreement with the European Community was signed on April 14, 2005 and came into force on May 1, 2006. The EU member states gave the European Commission the mandate to negotiate and conclude the RA and required these EU member states (excluding Denmark) to make this agreement with 11 other parties (Albania, Algeria, China, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine, and the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and of Macao). The Readmission Agreement with the EU (excluding Denmark) was part

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 11 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme of the Stabilization and Association Agreement and it contributed to the signing of the visa facilitation agreement between the EU and Albania. In the RA between Albania and the European Community, both sides agreed to readmit: a. The citizens of their own country (entry into force 1 May, 2006). b. Third country nationals and stateless persons (entry into force 1 May, 2008).

However, despite the fact that the Agreement with EC has been ratified since 2006, the implementation protocols have been concluded only with Austria and the Benelux countries4.

In order to meet the criteria enlisted in the agreement, Albanian institutions have been reviewing their facilities and procedures. First of all, the General Directorate of State Police has been made responsible for the implementation of the RA. The organizational chart below shows the agencies involved in the implementation of the RA. Secondly, in order to readmit irregular migrants in accordance with international standards, there should be adequate facilities for the returnees, including separate areas for women and minors. Some of these are already under construction. Thirdly, the migrants accommodated in the centres should be provided with medical care, food and water, and a social worker should also be present during the pre-screening and other identification procedures.

4 An agreement with Slovenia is in negotiation, but has not been concluded.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 12 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme

Leader General Directorate of the State Police

DEPARTMENT of Border Police and Migration Deputy general Director

Directorate Directorate Directorate of Operational of Migration of Administration Services and Readmission Office of Risk Analysis Section of Migration Human Resource Services Section Management at Blue Border Section

Section of Return & Budget and Services Readmission Finance Office at Green Border Section

Investigation Closed Support & Judicial Reception Services Section Police Section Centre

r r r ë ë a s s r e ë Mobile team e ç ë ë n t r r o b d k a l i s r o of Border r o u i a V u D k K k K T

Police D h o r S

(Delta Force) i j G Regional Directorates of Border Police & Migration

Identification procedures at the border crossing points have also been regulated in order to be applied by the border police and migration officers. Firstly, there is an interview with the returnees, in order to find out whether they are asylum seekers, victims of trafficking or irregular migrants. The information received is immediately inserted in the database, and they are taken real time fingerprint scanning, which is connected to the central fingerprint database (to find out whether they have any criminal records or history), followed by verification of their identity through their home region police station. Once identified, people are referred accordingly.

Border police and migration officers have had continuous training in return and readmission issues, conducted by the Department of Border and Migration and the Police Academy. They have also received expertise and training from several international police missions, such as Police Assistance Mission of the Europe- an Commission in Albania (PAMECA) and the International Criminal Investiga- tive Training Assistance Program (ICITAP); and by international partners, such as IOM, UNHCR, OSCE, Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), etc.

The data collected are inserted in the Total Information Management System (TIMS), which became operational in several border crossing points in 2006 and in many others in 2007. Since TIMS has become operational, data have been collected regularly.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 13 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Reports and statistics provided by TIMS include:

· Entries of Albanian citizens; · entries of foreign citizens; · exits of Albanian citizens; · exits of foreign citizens; · returned and suspected citizens (deportees and inadmissible), by countries of return, age, gender, etc.; · information on visas issued; · persons declared wanted and persons against whom an arrest warrant is issued; · lost, stolen, invalid documents and documents forfeited at the border; · citizens returned at the border; · entry bans at the border and the reason for the ban.

Albanian nationals were returned from the following EU countries in 2007:

Albanian nationals returned from EU countries, 2007

Country No. of Albanian nationals 1. Greece5 64,060 2. Italy 1,848 3. United Kingdom 769 4. Switzerland 356 5. Croatia 319 6. Germany 269 7. France 234 8. Belgium 216 9. Slovenia 108 10. The Netherlands 64 Total 68,243

In the implementation of identification, return and readmission, the border authorities consider various documents and other evidence to confirm the citizenship of the irregular migrant. These means of evidence are listed below:

5 The figure represents the incidence of returns, including cases of persons returned more than once.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 14 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Means of evidence · Means of evidence which will be considered as proof of citizenship: 1. Travel documents (All kind of passports) 2. Identity card 3. Military book 4. Seaman’s book/document 5. Certificate of citizenship and other official documents · Prima facie evidence: 1. Copy of the documents mentioned above 2. Driving license or copy 3. Birth certificate or copy 4. Testimonies from witnesses 5. Declaration from the person 6. Hearings in the presence of diplomats of requesting country (in some cases)

During the first years of implementation of the RA, Albania encountered several difficulties. Among the most serious problems was a constant change of contact points between the responsible authorities in both EU countries and Albania. During identity verification, it was understood that there is an insufficiency of means of evidence. Consequently, there were many cases of failure by the parties involved to comply with the obligations foreseen in the RA and the implementation protocols. This was in many cases a consequence of the lack of implementation protocols with some of the countries, with which Albania had signed readmission agreements. On the other hand, though the third country nationals clause has not yet entered into force, two major difficulties have already been identified: the lack of travel documents of persons from third countries and the lack of readmission agreements with countries of origin, which leave it unclear what will happen to the third country nationals once returned to Albania.

The difficulties encountered have encouraged the Department of Border and Mi- gration to set several goals. In order to manage the cases of third country nationals, readmission agreements with countries of origin need to be negotiated and signed. The existing readmission agreements, including the one with the EC, need protocols, so as to allow for proper implementation. Furthermore, the State Police needs to enhance cooperation with police agencies of neighbouring countries, improve control of foreigners in the territory and implement legal procedures regarding the return of irregular migrants. These measures will be accompanied by the creation of new accommodation facilities in transit reception centres, as well as reception facilities in regional police directorates.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 15 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme B. The Experience of Bosnia and Herzegovina Murveta Dzaferovic, Assistant Minister for Migration, Ministry of Security

Bosnia and Herzegovina has already signed several bilateral readmission agreements mainly with countries which are targeted by their citizens, as well as transit countries or countries of origin. Agreements have already been signed with Croa- tia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Serbia and Montenegro, Austria, Benelux countries, Switzerland, Italy, Romania, Hungary, France, Slovenia, Greece, Bulgaria, Slovakia and finally the European Community (2007). Furthermore, there are nine more agreements under preparation, namely with The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, the Russian Federation, Moldova, Egypt, the Republic of Ireland, Montenegro, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. To contribute to the management of irregular migration, Bosnia and Herzegovina is planning to negotiate and ap- prove agreements with all countries of origin and transit.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has prioritized the signing of readmission agreements first with neighbouring countries, and with other countries of the region that serve both as target and transit countries for irregular migrants. Secondly, Bos- nia and Herzegovina is negotiating with countries of origin of irregular migrants who enter or stay in the country, and thirdly, with countries from which irregular migrants enter Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the negotiations have not been successful to date, as countries of origin and transit are reluctant to sign readmission agreements that might oblige them to accept back the many people who have left or transited the country. In both cases, numbers might be high because of poor border management, or because of the political, economic and social situation in destination countries. Turkey and Moldova have presented challenging cases. Readmission agreement negotiations with these two countries are still ongoing since 2005.

Readmission agreements are beneficial for both signing parties. The admission of Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens is positive because it provides a more rapid and easier return of those who reside irregularly in other countries, and it is also accompanied by activities that aim to prevent irregular migration. At the same time, readmission agreements also facilitate the whole process of returning foreign citizens who reside irregularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, reduce costs of detention and preparations for deportation, and once again serve as a prevention tool for irregular migration in the country, thus avoiding that alien citizens remain in Bosnia and Herzegovina irregularly.

Nonetheless, the implementation of the RAs has not been easy. There have been problems with both the return of foreign citizens and the admission of own nationals. The most important problems faced during the return of foreign citizens are accommodation and lengthy return procedures. Currently, there is no reception centre for irregular migrants in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which means that the

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 16 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme accommodation of these foreign citizens who will be returned to their own country or the country through which they came remains unresolved. Bosnia and Herze- govina hopes to open a temporary detention centre by mid-2008, with a capacity of 50, funded by the government, and there is a project for a permanent residence to be financed by the European Commission.

Return procedures include lengthy processes like the decision on expulsion, as well as long and complicated appeal procedures. The current law is not well drafted to meet the needs of readmission. The new Law on Movement and Stay of Aliens and Asylum has been drafted with broad assistance from IOM and EC (broadly brought into line with the EU Acquis) and is currently in the final phase of the parliamentary process.

While returning irregular third country nationals from Bosnia and Herzegovina to their own country is difficult, the readmission of own nationals is even more difficult. During the conflict and afterwards, many people left the country, often through irregular channels, so the number of those who will be returned or wish to return is high. These numbers pose challenges for admission and reintegration. There are devastating housing shortages, with currently some 45,000 people demanding housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Return will be difficult, as Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot yet provide the necessary basic living conditions for those who seek to return.

A second problem with readmission is establishing the identity of persons who are not in the Citizens Identification Protection System (CIPS) database. All citizens registered since 2001 are listed with detailed identification information in the database, but those who left earlier are not entered in the database and are thus very difficult to identify. Moreover, they do not have any documents with them, so it is difficult to determine whether they are from Bosnia and Her- zegovina or not.

The Ministry of Security is responsible for the implementation of the readmission agreements in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The following diagram shows the line of command of the responsible state agencies.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 17 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Ministry of Security, BiH MINISTER

BP BiH Deputy Minister SIPA Secretary Interpol Inspectorate SFA

Human resour. International Analytics Finances cooperation strategy Immigration Asylum

Protection Prot. Borders Coordination Civil Prot. IT Class. Info. Public Order

05/05/2008 6

Activities for the successful implementation of readmission agreements include:

• Strengthening the capacity of the Immigration Section within the Ministry of Security • Strengthening the capacity of the Service for Foreigners’ Affairs, • Finalizing activities and operationalizing a temporary Reception Centre for irregular migrants • Finalizing activities for developing a permanent Reception Centre (financed by EC) • Signing readmission agreements with countries of origin and countries from which illegal immigrants enter or stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina • Further development of the Migration Information System (MIS) • Education of human resources

Data from the Ministry of Security show that 331 irregular migrants were identified in 2006, and 539 in 2007, which means that there has been an increase of 45.5% in the latter year. Meanwhile, there were expulsion decisions for 565 people in 2006, and 822 in 2007, an increase of 62.8%.

600 900 800 500 700 400 600 500 822 300 539 400 565 200 331 300 200 100 100 0 0 2006. 2007. 2006. 2007.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 18 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Those expelled were of various nationalities, but the most frequent (over 50%) were citizens from Serbia and Montenegro (427) and Albania (163). See the table below.

Expulsion Decisions by Place of Origin

Serbia and 427 Jordan 6 Argentina 1 Montenegro Egypt 5 Eritrea 1 Albania 163 Romania 4 Gambia 1 China 62 Afghanistan 3 Lebanon 1 Turkey 32 Brazil 3 Austria 1 The Former Bulgaria 3 Slovenia 1 Yugoslav Cameroon 2 Iran 1 28 Republic of Syria 2 Germany 1 Macedonia Italy 2 The 1 Occupied Yemen 2 Netherlands Palestinian 22 Algeria 2 Australia 1 Territory Ukraine 2 Switzerland 1 Croatia 17 Belgium 2 France 1 Sri Lanka 9 India 2 Tajikistan 1 Moldova 7 South Africa 2 Total: 822

Aliens Forcibly Returned from Bosnia and Herzegovina

There were also 31 80 cases of aliens forcibly 70 returned from Bosnia 60 and Herzegovina in 50 75 2006, and 75 in 2007 40 (an increase of 141.9% 30 20 31 in a year). 10 0 2006. 2007.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 19 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Voluntary Return of Aliens from Bosnia and Herzegovina by type (AVR programme implemented by IOM)

Type Voluntary returns Referred to IOM 277 Returned 234 (84.48%) Absconded from shelter 15 Abandoned voluntary project 24 Requested asylum 4

Voluntary Return of Aliens from Bosnia and Herzegovina by country of origin (AVR programme implemented by IOM)

Country Voluntary returns Albania 155 China 1 India 2 Iran 1 Serbia 94 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 9 Turkey 15 Total 277

Expulsion Decisions Followed by Registered Exit, 2006-2007 350 In 2006 there were 95 expulsion 300 decisions followed by registered 250 200 329 exit and 329 in 2007, an increase 150

of 246.3% in a year. 100 95 50

0 2006. 2007.

Expulsion decisions followed by registered exit, by nationality, 2007

Nationality Voluntary returns Albania 158 Serbia 139 Croatia 11 Turkey 10 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 9 Bulgaria 1 Iran 1 Total 277

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 20 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Deportation of Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens to Bosnia and Herzegovina

In 2006, there were 1,350 1400 citizens of Bosnia and 1200 Herzegovina deported from 1000 other countries. In 2007, that 800 1350 1117 number dropped 17.3% on 600 400 the previous year, to 1,117. 200

0 2006. 2007.

Country from which deported B&H citizens deported, 2007 Croatia 550 Germany 165 France 86 Sweden 58 Switzerland 52 Netherlands 42 Austria 41 USA 39 Italy 31 Belgium 22 Denmark 20 Other 11 Total 1117

Returns under the Readmission Agreement with Croatia, 2006-2007

Under the RA with 450 Croatia, 363 persons 400 were returned in 350 2006, of which 189 300 250 2006 were Bosnia and 200 2007 Herzegovina citizens 150 and 174 persons were 100 50 of other citizenship. 0 In 2007, 431 persons BiH Aliens Total were returned (191 Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens, and 240 of other citizenship), being an 18.7% increase over the previous year (up 1.1% for Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens and 37.9% for others).

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 21 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Returns and readmissions, 2006-2007

Foreigners Returned Own Nationals Readmitted Country 2006 2007 % change 2006 2007 % change Croatia - - - 6 15 +150

Serbia 100 120 +20 6 1 - 83.3 Albania 31 68 +119.3 - - - The Former Yugoslav 32 25 - 21.9 1 - - Republic of Macedonia Turkey 10 19 +90.0 - - - Egypt 4 Iran - 1 - - - - Sri Lanka - 3 - - - - Others 1 - - 1 - - TOTAL 174 240 +37.9 14 16 +14.3

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 22 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme C. The Experience of Croatia Lidija Pentavec, Representative of Ministry of Interior, General Police Directorate, Border Police, Department of Illegal Migration

Croatia has already signed 24 readmission agreements with 26 countries, of which 19 are agreements with EU member states. Most importantly Croatia has signed agreements with all its neighbouring countries. The table below lists all the countries with which Croatia has signed the agreements, with their dates of signature and of entry into force.

Date of entry Country Date of Signing into force Albania 28.1.2003 15.6.2005 Austria 18.6.1997 1.11.1998 Benelux countries 11.6.1999 1.2.2005 Bosnia and Herzegovina 27.7.2000 11.5.2001 Bulgaria 4.7.2002 3.8.2003 Czech Republic 30.11.1999 1.5.2004 Estonia 22.5.2000 28.4.2001 France 27.1.1995 19.12.1995 Germany 25.4.1994 3.5.1994 Greece 27.1.1995 15.3.1996 Iceland 31.5.2001 25.4.2002 Italy 27.6.1997 1.6.1998 Latvia 21.9.1998 21.9.1998 Lithuania 28.5.1998 1.1.2001 Hungary 15.11.2001 1.2.2003 Norway 24.1.2005 1.8.2005 Poland 8.11.1994 27.5.1995 Romania 30.9.2000 6.10.2002 Slovakia 29.4.1994 11.2.1996 Slovenia 10.6.2005 1.7.2006 Serbia and Montenegro 23.4.2002 17.6.2004 Sweden 4.4.2001 6.4.2003 Switzerland 21.2.1997 1.9.1997 The Former Yugoslav Republic 17.9.2001 1.2.2003 of Macedonia

These agreements fall under the authority of both central and local Croatian state agencies. Specifically, the central implementation body is the Ministry of Interior and its Department of Illegal Migration, which is responsible for regular procedures and transit. The local implementation bodies are police administrations and police stations, which are responsible for rapid procedures; and cooperation with the authorities of signatory parties.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 23 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme To date, implementation protocols have been signed for approximately half of the readmission agreements, including with all the neighbouring countries. However, despite the fact that Croatia does not have all the protocols in place, this does not reduce the value of the agreements.

The new Law on Foreigners allows irregular migrants to stay for 180 days in Croa- tian detention centres, which gives the authorities time to verify their identity (already established in 90% of cases) and finalize all other necessary arrangements: their countries of origin are informed of their arrival, travel documents are issued, etc. The average stay of the third country nationals in a detention centre is 20 days. In the case that there is no readmission agreement, the situation is more difficult, but still the authorities have 180 days to establish their identity and to finalize all necessary procedures in order to carry out a return.

All the 24 readmission agreements currently signed and implemented include the readmission of Croatian nationals as well as third country nationals and stateless persons. Not only has Croatia regulated and simplified the procedures relating to irregular migrants, but it also guarantees special procedures for minors and other vulnerable groups, as well as for non-refoulement, and has designated the authorities responsible and competent for the implementation of the agreements, all within pre-established deadlines. Croatia has also presented provisions concerning entry into force, cessation and suspension, indemnities in cases of error, and the protection of personal data of migrants. These agreements have facilitated the exchange of information between signing parties and have resulted in improved implementation of return and readmission, as well as clarification in complex cases. At the same time there have been expert group meetings, which have also assisted in finalizing the implementation protocols. Nonetheless, further activities related to the readmission agreements are planned, in particular the harmonization of the agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with the EU model and the signing of new separate agreements with Serbia and Montenegro.

Official data show that 188 foreign citizens were returned to Montenegro in 2007, most of whom were nationals of Albania and Serbia. During the same period, no person was received from Montenegro. In the same year, 448 foreigners were returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which 144 were refused. Finally, 10 foreign nationals were returned to Hungary and 3 were received from there during 2007. Further detail is presented in the three tables below.

Republic of Croatia: Persons received and returned, by country, 2006-2007 Received in Croatia Foreigners Returned Country/Year 2006 2007 2006 2007 Slovenia 1,834 1,046 56 45 Hungary 1 3 5 10 Serbia 0 0 747 119 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 1 444 448 Montenegro 0 0 20 188 Total 1838 1050 1272 810

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 24 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Republic of Croatia: Persons received and returned, by nationality, 2006-2007 Received Returned Nationality /Year 2006 2007 2006 2007 Albania 572 277 462 162 Serbia and Montenegro 669 450 237 280 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 107 194 63 43 Turkey 146 56 69 37 B&H 114 98 264 208 Croatia 55 36 - - Other 88 26 177 80 Total 1,838 1,050 1,272 810

The following chart also presents data on persons returned and received, but for the Republic of Slovenia.

Republic of Slovenia: Persons received and returned, by country, 2006-2007 Received Returned Nationality /Year 2006 2007 2006 2007 Albania 572 277 0 0 Serbia and Montenegro 669 450 6 3 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 194 106 2 1 Turkey 146 56 3 0 B&H 114 98 4 6 Slovenia - - 24 17 Other 139 59 18 18 Total 1,834 1,046 57 45

The police officers at the border crossing points are responsible for return and readmission procedures. For return, transportation is arranged to the border crossings with police escort. To date, returns have been by forced return/deportation. In regard to the readmission procedure for acceptance of persons, the police officers screen people at the border crossing points and verify whether they are entering the country regularly or otherwise. There have been several cases of people attempting to use Croatia as a transit country to go to Italy via Istria. As most irregular migrants travel to Croatia via land, the Croatian authorities are trying to better understand irregular migration trends and map routes. Therefore, in order to prevent illegal border crossing and illegal migration, police authorities need to join forces with authorities in neighbouring countries.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 25 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme D. The Experience of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Mijalce Gelev, Chief Inspector for Foreigners, Section for Foreigners and Read- mission, Ministry of Interior

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has signed several readmission agreements, the first with Switzerland on 22 July, 1998. This was followed by agreements with Croatia, signed on 1 February, 2003, with Albania on 15 July, 2005 and with Norway on 25 September, 2006. The latest agreement signed by The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the multilateral agreement with the European Community, which entered into force on 1 January, 2008. All the agreements foresee readmission of own nationals and third country nationals, but they do not include any clause on visa facilitation.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is currently in the process of negotiation to conclude readmission agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mol- dova, Turkey and Ukraine. Many challenging issues have been faced during the negotiation process, including means of addressing the following: · Obstacles that occur in the arrangement of transfer modalities and means of transport · Proper training of the personnel involved in the readmission procedures · Financial or other problems arising during the organization of escorted returns (when needed) · Appointment of the readmission focal points · Establishment of a permanent readmission negotiation team

The experience with readmission agreements has been beneficial for many reasons. Firstly, it guarantees effective border control for the signatory states; secondly, return procedures are faster and simpler as agreements specify the type and level of evidence required for nationality to be established; thirdly, there is a high level of protection of human rights for persons who are returned under the readmission agreements; and finally, it identifies the parties responsible for cover- ing costs in specific situations.

The Government of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has named the Department for Foreigners and Readmission (formerly the Department for Foreigners) to be responsible for readmission. The country still lacks an integrated database on migration, but the Government is in the process of establishing a special governmental body that will be responsible for the management of such a database.

Despite the lack of an integrated database, certain data for 2007 are available. Under readmission agreements with some of the EU member states, 365 nationals

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 26 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme were admitted. In the same year, the Ministry of Interior managed 1,820 cases of forced return of persons who tried to cross the border irregularly. Of these, 1,706 were Albanians, 107 were Serbs, 3 were Bulgarians, 3 were Romanians and 1 was from the Dominican Republic. There were 400 cases of forced return of people with cancelled residence permits on the basis of committing criminal acts in the country; and 246 cases of voluntary return of persons whose residence permit was cancelled on the basis of committing criminal acts.

E. The Experience of Montenegro Milica Kovacevic, Higher Commissioner, Police Directorate, Sector of Border Police

Since the end of 2003, the Directorate of State Borders and Border Affairs in the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Montenegro has used the state army to strengthen state borders, which has proven to be the most efficient way of managing Montenegro’s borders in accordance with EU and Schengen standards. The Parliament of Montenegro approved the Law on the Supervision of State Borders in 2005 and the Law on Asylum in 2006. The draft Law On Foreigners is also at the final stages of the approval process.

The Government of Montenegro has approved the Strategy for Integrated Bor- der Management. When the strategy was drafted, various national and international documents and principles were consulted and reviewed, including the legislation and the experience of other countries with similar transformations, the directives of the Council of Europe on integrated border management in the Western Balkans, the criteria of the Copenhagen Document, the demands of trade, other EU standards and the recommendations from the best practices of the Schengen Catalogue.

Meanwhile, construction of the international border crossing points at Debeli Bri- jeg on the border with Croatia, and at Scepan Polje on the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina have been completed. Currently, the Bozhaj [Hani i Hotit] border crossing point is under construction and construction of the Sukobin [Mur- riqan] border crossing in the area of Ulqin is planned in collaboration with the Republic of Albania.

The total length of the border in Montenegro is 840.4 km, and there are 28 border crossing points along that line.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 27 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Montenegro’s Borders Border Land Sea Border Lake River Country Length border (territorial Border Border (km) (km) waters) (km) (km) (km) Albania 207.2 113.3 22 38.8 33.1 Croatia 41.7 19.7 22 - - Serbia 167.8 161.7 6.1 (of which with Kosovo) 75.6 72.4 - - 3.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina 254.4 204.5 - 11.7 38.2 Sea Border 93 - 93 - - Total 840.4 571.6 137 50.5 81.3

Until the new Law on Foreigners is approved, the visa regime in Montenegro is defined by a provisory decree issued in July 2006 that indicates the countries whose citizens may enter Montenegro without a visa, and those whose citizens need just an identification document. Montenegro has improved the quality of its data, which is accurate and integrated, and which has been exchanged at the regional and international level. At the same time several training events have been conducted with the border officers.

Montenegro issues various types of documents to allow foreign citizens to transit, sojourn or stay regularly.

Legal Stay of Foreign Citizens

Year Activity/Document issued 2006 2007 Residence permit – short-term (registration, mainly of tourists, up 205,991 299,653 to 30 days on ID, and 90 days on passaport) Approval of temporary residence (for 90 days and more, for those 1,462 2,044 entering for marriage or work) Issue of identification documents 64 44 Issue of travel document (Putna 9 2 Isprava or PI) Issue of transit visas 3,045 5,336 Permanent residence permits 373 436 Issue of exit stamp and visa for tourists (at the border – for persons who require a visa but in whose 191,196 156,456 countries Montenegro has no Embassy)

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 28 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Permit to Travel for Montenegrin Citizens

Year Activity/Document issued 2006 2007 Issue of a permit to travel within state borders (permit for Montenegrin citizens working or 16,321 19,690 owning property on the border area to move freely in that area)

In an attempt to find viable migration solutions, including preventing irregular migration, the Police Directorate has to date concluded 14 readmission agreements with 16 countries. Those agreements signed when Montenegro was part of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia remain in force until new agreements supersede them. As part of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, Montenegro signed readmission agreements with the following: Bulgaria (2001), Slovenia (2001), the Benelux countries (2002), Denmark (2002), Hungary (2002), Slovakia (2002), Germany (2003) and Sweden (2003). As the Republic of Montenegro, it has signed readmission agreements with Italy (2003), Austria (2004), Bosnia and Herzegovina (2004), Croatia (2004), Switzer- land (2004) and Canada (2006). Negotiations with Albania have yet to start.

The number of people readmitted in compliance with readmission agreements is as follows:

Year Number of Persons Readmitted 2001 60 2002 129 2003 44 2004 714 2005 586 2006 743 2007 283

Citizens of Montenegro returned in 2007:

Country from which No of citizens No of citizens Country returned returned returned Germany 92 Austria 7 USA 36 Hungary 5 Luxembourg 27 Slovenia 4 France 22 Belgium 4 Sweden 21 Norway 2 Switzerland 13 Denmark 2 Croatia 12 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 Italy 12 Others 16 The Netherlands 7 Total 283

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 29 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme There are no reception centres for foreigners in Montenegro, which results in a problem with the accommodation of those alien citizens who do not meet the criteria to reside in the country, but for various reasons could not be returned to their country of origin. This problem has been partially resolved through the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between IOM and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Montenegro under which IOM assisted the voluntary return of 103 foreigners during 2006, and 9 in 2007. However, the project is not ongoing, which means that the return of irregular migrants is again a matter of concern.

IOM Assisted Voluntary Returns in 2006

The Former Yugoslav Bosnia and 2006 Albania Romania Ukraine Russia Total Republic of Herzegovina Macedonia Jan. Feb. Mar. 6 4 1 11 Apr. 6 2 8 May 6 2 8 Jun. 3 2 5 Jul. 9 1 1 11 Aug. 3 1 4 Sep. 8 2 10 Oct. 26 1 27 Nov. 14 14 Dec. 4 1 5 Total 85 9 1 6 1 1 103

IOM Assisted Voluntary Returns in 2007 (January-June)

Dominican 2007 Albania Romania Ukraine Armenia Total Rep. Jan. Feb. 2 2 Mar. 2 2 Apr. 1 1 May 2 2 Jun. 2 2 Total 2 1 2 2 2 9

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 30 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme

IrregularIrregula rMigrants Migran tAssisteds Assiste byd b IOM:y IO MSource: Sou rofc ereferrals of referrals

2% 13% 3% Border police

NGOs Direct contact with IOM Podgorice

Clinical centre Podgorice

82% Source: IOM Podgorice

On September 10, 2007, the European Union and the Western Balkan countries signed a mutual agreement on readmission and visa facilitation, which entered into force on 1 January, 2008. Visa facilitation includes 18 different categories of citizens, students, scientists, businessmen, journalists and their family members, who work in the EU. On 13 November, 2007 the Parliament in Montenegro issued a Decree for the ratification of the agreement between Montenegro and EC on the readmission of people without residence permits. According to Article 20 of this agreement “The dispositions of this agreement have priority over the dispositions of bilateral readmission agreements for the return or irregular migrants that might have been signed between the member states and Montenegro”. The agreement with the EC also includes the third-country national’s clause, and the figures below show third country nationals that transited Montenegro to the EU in 2005-2006:

Third country nationals transiting Montenegro to the EU

Source location/Year 2005 2006 Albania 545 262 Serbia 233 140 The Former Yugoslav 0 8 Republic of Macedonia Total 778 410

In 2007, 819 irregular migrants transited Montenegro, with 35 arriving from Slo- venia and 784 from Croatia. Of these, 655 entered from the Republic of Albania while 165 entered from the Province of Kosovo. There were 258 minors among these.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 31 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Measures against foreigners

In 2006, the following actions were reported based on non-compliance with the law:

Irregular travel reports 585 Penal reports 116 Refused stay in Montenegro 299 Refused entry to Montenegro 1,631 Registration of irregular crossing 24 Prevention of irregular crossing 40 Identification of forged documents 70

F. The Experience of Serbia6 Tamara Vucenovic, IOM Belgrade

As a result of war and the poor economic situation, during the 1990s a large number of people from the Republic of Serbia left irregularly to reside in West- ern European states in search of a better life. Furthermore, since the democratic changes in 2000, citizens of Serbia have continued to leave the country. Almost all of the asylum applications made by Serbian asylum seekers were rejected or only temporary protection was issued. Consequently, a large number of persons have been returned to Serbia on the basis of obligations that the Republic of Serbia has undertaken through the signing of readmission agreements.

The implementation of readmission agreements (including the return of asylum seekers and their successful and sustainable reintegration into Serbian society) is one of several conditions for the Serbian authorities to begin the dialogue with the EC about the “White Schengen list”. The Republic of Serbia has already started harmonization and the necessary changes in the Ministries of Interior and of Jus- tice and areas such as the drafting and adoption of new laws regarding travel documents, asylum and the movement and stay of foreigners. Also, visa facilitation should encourage Serbia to implement relevant reforms and reinforce cooperation at regional level and with the EU in areas such as strengthening the rule of law, border management, document security, and fighting organized crime and corruption.

The Agreement on visa facilitation and readmission between the Republic of Ser- bia and the EU was signed on 18 September 2007 and entered into force on 1 January 2008. The readmission agreement sets out clear obligations and procedures for the authorities both of Serbia and of EU member states on how to return persons irregularly residing on their territories. The agreements cover not only the irregular nationals of both parties but also relevant third country nationals and

6 Representatives of the Government of Serbia could not attend the Regional Forum on Return and Readmission in Tirana. This report is therefore a summary of the current situation of return and readmission as presented by IOM Belgrade.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 32 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme stateless persons. According to estimates, the agreement will affect 50,000 to 100,000 persons, some 40,0007 of whom have already been returned.

According to this agreement, the Republic of Serbia is obliged to accept about 60,000 own citizens including those from Kosovo and Metohija. The responsible ministries support this premise but they noted that UNMiK is the only party responsible for the return of persons from Kosovo and Metohija. The Agreement does not envisage the particular procedure on return of persons from Kosovo and Metohija.

The exact number of returnees who already returned under the readmission agreement is unknown, but there is some assumption of non-government sector and as per their records this number is around 40,000 returnees. The Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia in their reports also mentioned the same figure.

The UNHCR Report on Asylum Levels and Trends in 43 Industrialized Countries indicates that in 2007, Serbia was the fourth largest source country for asylum seekers, with 15,400 persons. In order to gain a better understanding of the needs of returnees to Serbia, IOM carried out a survey in 2006 of 8,000 beneficiaries of its largest voluntary return programme, the German Government Repatriation Program (REAG/GARP). According to the IOM Survey Report, the largest group of irregular citizens from Serbia are Roma, who comprise some 65 percent of those who have returned on a voluntary basis in the past couple of years8.

On 7 February 2008, the director of the Serbian government’s EU Integration Of- fice (SEIO), Ms. Tanja Miscevic, reported that since the beginning of 2008, when the implementation of the agreement with the EU on readmission began, 52 applications for readmission had been made in Serbia, while more than 1.5 million Serbian citizens are living in EU countries irregularly. Miscevic declared that the creation of the reintegration strategy is in its final phase, but that there is no clear idea of how to assist returnees. She added that it is impossible to establish the exact number of those living irregularly in EU countries because they can only be counted after the immigration services register them9.

Miscevic mentioned that, from 2008, the country requesting the readmission will cover the cost of documents, requests and travel, but that these costs are low compared with the reintegration of returned persons. Also, from 2008 the EU return fund will be activated and will be available to the Western Balkan countries that have signed readmission agreements.

Serbia, however, is far from prepared to handle the large number of Serbian citizens who are likely to return. The Government of Serbia’s Office of Human and Minority Rights, which is the responsible authority, is understaffed, with only 10 7 Politika daily newspaper, 18 December 2006. 8 IOM Belgrade GARP Statistics 9 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Daily Survey, 8 February 2008. Available at http://www.mfa.gov.yu/ Bilteni/Engleski/b080208_e.html, accessed 18 April 2008.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 33 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme personnel. The office is funded through donations, with no money allocated in the state budget for the returnees. Although there is a readmissions office at Belgrade airport since December 2005, it is only able to provide returnees with basic information and legal consultation.

Currently, readmitted persons receive services from social service centres in their place of origin. Services such as temporary housing or job-search assistance are not being offered. NGOs have begun assistance projects in 10 centres for returnees all over Serbia, including the first pilot project in the Belgrade municipality of Palilula where a hundred returning Roma families were resettled with financial assistance from NGOs and foreign agencies10.

The Serbian authorities have recognized the value of voluntary return as a means to enhance prospects of reintegration. However, the National Employment Service does not offer professional reintegration assistance to the returnees. Other than the Fund for Social Innovation, which funded one reintegration project, the Gov- ernment has not funded any project or activity for returnees.

The aim of all projects, whether ongoing or planned, is to discourage second- ary migration. The Government of Serbia’s Office of Human Rights and Minority Rights aims first to prepare and train returnees as well as staff in the relevant institutions at the national to local levels. All projects involve different agencies such as the police, social services, school authorities, health centres, the national employment service and social security institutions so as to raise the awareness of institutions on the needs of returnees. The second phase will address sustainable reintegration and forge links between the governmental and non-governmental sectors. The third phase is to ensure funding11. Also, assistance for employment and housing of returnees is considered the most effective means to help address the complex problems related to return.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has established two new sections with the aim of increasing administrative capacities for the promotion of anti-discrimination, equality and tolerance: the Section of Gender Equality and the Section for Population Policy. The latter is in charge of general anti-discrimination matters, as well as for the promotion of access to rights for particularly vulnerable groups of the population. Also, the Section for Population Policy is responsible for monitoring the Readmission process. At the moment, this sector does not receive funds and projects for readmission. The Readmission Office statistics12 indicate that the highest percentage of returnees was from the following countries:

10 Zimonjic, V. P. September 2008. Balkans: Before EU Entry, Serbia Faces Return of Citizens. Avail- able at http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39268, accessed 5 May 2008. 11 The Chief of the Readmission Office, Mr. Panjkovic, notes Romania and Turkey as examples, as they have successfully solicited funds from France and Germany for employment projects. 12 Republic of Serbia Readmissions Office, 2006. Readmissions. Available at http://www.swedishcom- mittee.se/ppt/Readmision-FINAL.ppt. Accessed on 7 May 2008.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 34 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Country Percentage of total returnees Germany 78.50% Switzerland 8.35% Denmark 4.79 % The Netherlands 2.79%

The principal places of return were:

Destination Area Percentage of total returnees Vojvodina 36.79% Central Serbia 59.29% Kosovo and Metohija 3.95%

Of these returnees, 71% were male and 29% were female, and 26% were minors. Some 76.84% were of Roma background and 10.18 % were of Serbian background.

To be registered as a permanent resident in Serbia, it is necessary to provide a legal permanent address. Large numbers of voluntary returnees reported a lack of permanent accommodation on their return to Serbia: many lived with relatives or friends or became homeless, sleeping on park benches, in abandoned cars or moving from one friend to another. Some live in informal settlements without basic facilities, such as running water and electricity. They are therefore unable to register as permanent residents in Serbia. Furthermore, in some cases, they do not have the financial means to pay the permanent residence fees.

The impossibility of registration of permanent residence starts a chain reaction: having a permanent residence card is a condition for obtaining an ID card, without which a person cannot access social assistance, employment, medical insurance and other rights provided to the citizens of Serbia.

Furthermore, documents issued to returnees in Western European countries are not valid or understandable in Serbia. For instance, school certificates and diplomas issued by foreign schools are particularly useless because the returnees have to pay large amounts of money for their translation and validation, which most returnees are unable to afford.

Finally, children who want to continue education in Serbia find that their previous schooling abroad is not recognized. As the curricula used in Serbian schools are completely different from those of European countries, returnee children are very often placed in lower grades than they previously attended. Furthermore, some returnee children speak little or no Serbian, in which case they are often assigned to remedial classes or special schools for children with mental disabilities.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 35 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Access to free health care and social security is possible only with the possession of the national identity card, employment, or registration with the National Employ- ment Agency. The high rate of unemployment in Serbia affects the returnees as well, particularly as there are no employment programmes specifically targeting the returnees.

The Padinska Skela Reception Centre was built in 1980 and was at one time the only Reception Centre in the former Yugoslavia. After the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, the Centre covered the Union State of Serbia and Montenegro until mid-February 2006. As of this date, according to the decision of the authorities of the Republic of Serbia, this Centre hosts only irregular migrants apprehended in the Republic of Serbia. The capacity of the Centre is 137 persons, and currently accommodates an average of 30 persons per month. The Reception Centre prem- ises are in a poor state of repair and living conditions in the centre consequently are inadequate.

Finally, during 2007 the first known case of remigration due to the extremely bad living conditions was recorded when around 100 Roma persons who had returned to Serbia under the Readmission Agreement again crossed the border to the new EU member state of Romania by irregular means and asked for asylum.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 36 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme III.A Attempts to Enumerate Experiences and Best Practices in Different Stages of the Return Process

Ferdinand Arn, Specialist, Directorate for Returns, Belgian Immigration Service

The EU countries have had extensive experience with return and have applied both forced and voluntary return after people have been found residing irregularly in those countries. Attempts to regulate return have resulted in bilateral and, later, multilateral readmission agreements. To prevent and overcome some of the challenges they face in return and readmission, the Western Balkan countries can learn from the experience of the E.C.

First of all, return and readmission is dependent on the national setting: rules and regulations influence implementation, and the revisions made to align the laws of accession countries with those of the E.C make implementation difficult. Moreover, identification of irregular migrants involves a lot of time and money for the border police, and readmission is only one of the many border management tasks they perform. Authorities at Border crossing points are most of the time overwhelmed with work and under-staffed.

Furthermore, in many countries, persons deprived of their liberty, including some irregular migrants, can be escorted only by police officers. However, officers handling the cases of irregular migrants are not from police force; thus a change to the escort procedures requires a change to the laws through an Act of Parliament. In many countries the procedures to do this are long and complicated.

Although 90% percent of cases are from neighbouring countries, the data presented in the Regional Forum show that more cases of third country nationals are emerging. For example, when an Albanian is identified as irregular in Montenegro, it is not difficult to send him back to Albania (although there are cases of recurring migration, such as one person who was returned seven times in a month). The dif- ficulty comes when third country nationals from further afield do not want to return to their country and this is when the readmission agreements can be especially useful.

Another concern related to third country nationals is the lack of data on returns transiting a neighbouring country. Authorities generally have data of those whom they decide to return, but not of those who actually arrive back in their country of origin. If possible, it is better to find out their country of origin and send them di-

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 37 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme rectly there, rather than to a transit country. When authorities return someone and it is later found out that they are third country nationals, and not own nationals, the sending country needs to know the data, even when they are small, so they can manage statistics, find trends, and so on.

In other words, there is a need to add to the database the information on where the returnees are going, which is their country of origin and whether they are returned there or remain in the transit country, either because of the lack of a RA with the country of origin, or for other reasons.

It is important to adhere to procedures carefully in the return and readmission process. There are examples of Kosovars being returned to Albania as, based on language it is not easy to distinguish them. Similarly Moldovans may have been sent to Romania in error. Identity cards are very important, but in regard to proof of identity, people do not carry enough most of the time to prove their citizenship. Giving adequate prior notice to the presumed country of origin increases the chances of accurately determining the identity.

A common scenario is that authorities intercept an undocumented person from a third country, and they want to return the person. In most cases the only way to do so is by plane, so travel documents are required. It is easier at the border, because entry can be refused, but not once they are in the country. Travel documents must be obtained through the embassies, and often the country of the third country national does not have an embassy or consular office in the host country. Even if such exists in a neighbouring country, authorities need to escort the third country national there to get travel documents, but the escort has no authority in the other country, which causes a real problem.

In this case the return authorities are completely dependant on the consular service. Normally when someone loses the passport, the consul consults the necessary documents and issues an emergency passport. However, in the case of returnees the consul might be reluctant to issue a passport to a person who does not want to return. Consular protection, though not well-defined, will be given to a citizen who requests it. So, in many cases consuls will not give a laissez passer if it is against the interest of a citizen who wishes to stay in a country despite his/ her irregular situation there.

Readmission agreements are manuals that show how readmission should be carried out. There are a few variations, but the basics are the same in all cases. The authority of the sending country identifies the irregular foreigner. Then, they request the country of origin to accept readmission of their citizen. When they do, the consul is required under the agreement to issue the travel documents. In other words, the advantage of readmission agreements is that they follow pre-agreed procedures and the process is therefore more predictable.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 38 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Readmission agreements must be implemented as agreed, otherwise parties will have problems incoming all the time. The EU countries that have had readmission agreements for 30-40 years and apply them accordingly make them work very well. There are disagreements among their respective authorities, but because they communicate regularly with each other, they manage to solve them. In the case of the new agreements signed by Balkan countries, these countries have the opportunity to direct their EU counterparts and condition the implementation in a way that suits them and facilitates their proper implementation.

Balkan countries are becoming attractive to irregular migrants, which will increase the cases of deportation and require the right infrastructure to deal with the phenomenon. Some of the problems in regard to third country nationals would be:

• Third Country Nationals (TCNs) often have no identity documents and cannot travel without them. It is important to note that, while Identity Cards are useful in this regard, people generally do not carry enough ID documentation most of the time to prove their citizenship. • There are often no readmission agreements and/or implementation protocols with the countries of origin. • National settings differ considerably. • If the relevant consul fails to confirm the nationality claimed by a TCN, identification is practically impossible. • Consuls of some states sometimes refuse to issue a laissez-passer on the basis that non-voluntary return is against the interest of their citizens. • If there is no consulate in the country where the third country national is intercepted, the problem of communication and cooperation is increased and complicates proper identification and follow-up procedures. • Considerable resources of detention time and space are required if identification is delayed or impossible. • It is costly to provide translation and escort services. • The country of origin may find it difficult to fully cooperate because costs are high and state budgets of the Balkan countries are considerably lower than for the EU. • If a TCN is not identified within the legal timeframe, s/he remains in the host country and has to stay in detention centres or be released with an order to leave the country. • TCNs may not opt for voluntary return if they consider their own country’s economic situation to be as yet insufficiently stable.

When the time allocated for the identification of a person expires prior to the completion of the identification process, the irregular migrant is given an order to leave the territory. Authorities provide this document although they are aware that the irregular foreigners will probably not leave voluntarily, but the issuance of the document means that the person is breaking the law by staying in the country, and

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 39 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme the state can at any moment detain him/her and start the return process. Also, a person issued an order to leave the country cannot stay in another country. In other words, authorities make it increasingly difficult for them to stay.

The best recommendation, based on EU experience, is to encourage irregular migrants to return voluntarily. The IOM approach on Assisted Voluntary Return, that offers assistance services for return and reintegration in the migrant’s own country, has been successful. If irregular migrants see voluntary return as a viable solution, return is more likely to be permanent and repeated irregular migration diminished.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 40 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme IV.M Migration-related Data Management in the Western Balkans: Towards Systematic Collection and Exchange at National and Regional Levels

Marina Manke, IOM Moscow

Data management is a process that involves the national level and regional levels. Data on return and readmission are still to be collected, processed and exchanged as a way to fight irregular migration and protect the rights of irregular migrants. In order to understand data management, we need to include both the EU and the Western Balkan contexts. Their specific qualities and interdependence make data management important to the whole process.

Briefly, migration management data include: • Data applications in migration management • ‘Agency management’ (resources allocation and performance measurement) • Monitoring (trends, analysis, warning systems) • Policy making (setting pro-active rather than reactive priorities) • ‘Data Flow’ approach

Currently, migration data management is done by different systems and users in different countries, which renders comparison very difficult, if not impossible. The very forum we are attending demonstrates that data are collected by different sources and systems, and different authorities are responsible for return and readmission. Consequently, we need to find a regional approach to data management. In other words, there is a need for alignment of laws and regulations, regis- tries and databases, and finally migration cards and application forms, to facilitate the whole process of data management and use at the regional level.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 41 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Data for Return and Readmission

igc Number of Agreements/arrangements (May 2006) 70 In 60 preparation 60 10% Under negotiation 49 20% 47 50

37 In force 40 Signed but 60% not in force 10% 25 25 25 30 24 20 18 17 20 12 10 9

10 4 Source: 1 Intergovernmental Consultations in Europe, 0 North America and New SWI GER NET BEL AUS NOR UK SPA SWE DEN FIN EC CAN USA IRE NZL Zealand

Experience to date indicates a need for commonly understood definitions on the following issues: • Entry, stay, residence, return, re-entry, transit • Return (voluntary, forced) • Readmission • Irregular resident (entrant) • Expulsion/expulsion order • Detention/detention order • Removal/removal order • Rejection

Data for own citizens include citizenship verification and reintegration, while third country nationals should have records about their detention prior to transfer to their country of origin, their identification, and then their return. We can consider such data as ‘law enforcement statistics’, as they include: • Border statistics ((re)-entry refusals, border regime violations, forced returns) • Ministry of Interior statistics (apprehended foreigners, deportation orders issued/carried out, forced returns, absconded)

As already mentioned, for efficient return case processing, common databases are necessary, and not only within each country (unifying border statistics with Ministry of Interior statistics), but between two countries, and if possible also at the regional level. This means that readmission application design and personal data protection laws and systems should be provided, and current technology allows this. However, prior to any technical installation, such processes need special formal arrangements in the form of agreements between two or more countries.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 42 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme The EU is also concerned with the process of border management and data protection. In 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced Community policy com- petence in migration and asylum. In 2001, the Council drew its conclusions on statistics related to migration and asylum. April 2003 saw an action plan on statistics, followed by the regulation on statistics approved in June 2007. However, “in accordance with the data from the Member States there were 880 million EU27 external border crossings in 2005 and 878 million in 2006. Member States do not record such movements in a coherent manner, so the rates are based on estima- tions or samples. It is not known how many of the border crossings were made by third country nationals” (MEMO/08/85). Such conclusions led to the presentation of new tools for an integrated European Border Management Strategy on 13 March 2008, which included: • Proposals for the introduction of an entry/exit system, allowing the electronic recording of the dates of entry and exit of third country nationals into and out of the Schengen area. • Proposals to facilitate border crossing for bona fide travellers, through the introduction of automated border crossing facilities for EU citizens and certain categories of third country nationals. • Parameters for the possible introduction of an Electronic Travel Authorization System. Some of the challenges identified are: • To produce, process and disseminate statistics on migration and asylum; • to meet demand from all users for timely, valid and comparable EU statistics; • to take into account the many different data sources and definitions in place, often closely related to national policy and administrative practice; • to meet the policy needs of national governments and the European Union.

Thus, Article 285 of the Treaty establishing the European Community allows the Council to adopt measures for the production of statistics as necessary for the performance of the activities of the Community. The Treaty requires conformity to standards of: • Impartiality • Reliability • Objectivity • Scientific independence • Cost-effectiveness • Statistical confidentiality

At the time many statistical areas were backed by legislation defining the data to be collected and exchanged with EUROSTAT (e.g., content, definitions and timing), but there was no comprehensive legislative basis for migration and asylum.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 43 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme On the other hand, Council Conclusions of 28 May, 2001, regarding Common Analysis and Improved Exchange of Statistics on Asylum and Migration stated: • that there is a need for a comprehensive and coherent framework for future action on improving statistics; • that there is a need for improved exchange and analysis of statistics in the field of migration and asylum; • that EUROSTAT is the prime source of Community statistics; and • that transparency should become the main principle.

The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection, which was passed in 2007, relates to all current and planned EUROSTAT migration and asylum statistics. It states: • that harmonization and comparability for Community statistics on migration and asylum are essential for the development and the monitoring of Community legislation and policies relating to migration and asylum, and to the free movement of persons; • that the objective is to establish a common framework for the collection and compilation of Community statistics on migration and asylum.

The whole legislation will reflect the following principles: • existing definitions applied in data collection; • EU policy and legislation on migration and asylum; • UN Recommendations for Migration (and Asylum) Statistics.

It is worth mentioning here some of the most important articles of the regulation:

Article 1: Objective This Regulation establishes common rules for the collection and compilation of Community statistics on: a) immigration to and emigration from the Member State territories; b) the citizenship and country of birth of natural persons usually resident in the territory of the Member States; c) Administrative and judicial procedures and processes in the Member States relating to immigration, granting of permission to reside, citizenship, asylum and other forms of international protection and the prevention of illegal immigration.

Article 3: Statistics on international migration, usually resident population and acquisition of citizenship Article 4: Statistics on international protection (asylum) Article 5: Statistics on the prevention of illegal entry and stay Article 6: Statistics on residence permits and residence of third-country nationals Article 7: Statistics on return

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 44 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Articles 5 and 7 focus on “the prevention of illegal entry and stay and statistics on return”. More specifically:

Article 5: Statistics on “the prevention of illegal entry and stay” 1. Member States shall supply to the Commission (EUROSTAT) statistics on the numbers of: (a) third-country nationals refused entry to the Member State’s territory at the external border; (b) third-country nationals found to be illegally present in the Member State’s territory under national laws relating to immigration.

The statistics under point (a) shall be disaggregated in accordance with Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006. The statistics under point (b) shall be disaggregated by age and sex, and by citizenship of the persons concerned.

2. The statistics referred to in paragraph 1 shall relate to reference periods of one calendar year and shall be supplied to the Commission (EUROSTAT) within three months of the end of the reference year. The first reference year shall be 2008.

Article 7: Statistics on returns 1. Member States shall supply to the Commission (EUROSTAT) statistics relating to: (a) the number of third country nationals found to be illegally present in the territory of the Member State who are subject to an administrative or judicial decision or act stating or declaring that their stay is illegal and imposing an obligation to leave the territory of the Member State, disaggregated by citizenship of the persons concerned; (b) the number of third country nationals who have in fact left the territory of the Member State, following an administrative or judicial decision or act, as referred to in point (a), disaggregated by the citizenship of the persons returned.

The new regulation reflects several improvements. First of all, it clarifies requirements from national authorities. Secondly, there is a greater certainty of data supply for EU statistics. And finally, it places overall priority to the exchange of data at the regional level, improves timeliness, comparability and comprehensiveness, and finally provides parties with metadata (level and type of statistics).

At the EU level there is a need for an Action Plan for the collection and analysis of EU Statistics in the field of migration (and asylum). Such Action Plan must:

• adopt new practices, common statistical methods and new forms of cooperation;

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 45 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme • introduce activities to enhance information exchange and promote decision-making (annual meetings and ad hoc seminars); • introduce changes in the current data collection or database; • introduce the production of user-friendly statistical outputs to meet the needs of all groups of users; • must relate to the legal and political framework.

At the same time, actions of the collection and analysis must be: • transparent, confidential and sensitive; • rapid electronic dissemination of all reports; • an EU annual report on asylum and migration; • ways and means of regular consultation; • improving cooperation with other actors and providers; • modification of the collection and its definitions; • introduction of a legal entry data collection; • adapting the collection to the needs of non-governmental users.

The Western Balkan countries are also working towards improved data management. Some activities at the national level include the improvement of data sources for alien citizens, border management systems and the total population registers. In terms of readmission, there has been an increasing realization of a need to streamline, which has resulted in the installation or at least the initiation of the installation of a common system of data collection at the national level.

The lack of data currently available reflects that the countries are more interested in knowing the data on the foreigners entering, than on their own citizens leaving the country. Data and the status of the citizen leaving the country should be recorded in an integrated data management system. Data should be exchanged at the regional level, either as a shared database, or even as an exchange of data in hard copy every six months or so. Of course, this refers to sharing statistics and not personal data on regular migrants: there is no legal framework for the latter, and no international law allows it. However, some concrete information is shared with Europol, in order to serve law enforcement purposes, but the law nonetheless specifies limits and protects individuals in this regard.

There is no rapid data sharing mechanism within the EU. There is a joint EURO- STAT questionnaire that countries are asked to compile in order to produce annual migration statistics. The data are collected by ministry officials, either the Ministry of Social Affairs or the Ministry of Interior. Qualified statisticians are needed, because often the personnel who currently provide the data have diverse aims and modus operandi, which means that the data they collect and their meaning vary from one country to another.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 46 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme At the regional level, there have been some projects that have targeted the sharing and improvement of data collection systems. These include the CARDS Re- gional programme “Establishment of EU Compatible Legal, Regulatory and In- stitutional Frameworks in the Fields of Asylum, Migration and Visa matters”; the EU programme on introducing CIREFI (Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration) data in the region and the lessons from other regions, with the publication Sharing Data – Where to Start. Online techniques, for example the Data Sharing Mechanism in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (http://www.dsm-migration.net)13, are applicable and efficient.

In conclusion, data are vital for all areas of migration management and efficient data management can facilitate efficient implementation of return and readmission processes. Regional developments in the EU in the sphere of migration data are important for neighbouring countries, but further efforts are necessary in the Western Balkans, both in each country and within the region.

13 Accessed on 3 June, 2008.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 47 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme V.W Western Balkans in Search of a Visa-Free Regime

Ditmir Bushati, Director, European Movement, Albania

The fall of the Communist regimes in South Eastern Europe simply replaced the Berlin Wall with the “Schengen Wall”, and also another one parallel with the en- largement process. Europe remain a fortress, and those outside are still hoping for an invitation, which means and surveys also confirm that most citizens perceive the EU integration process as a visa waiver one. In fact, the map of 2007 shows that Western Balkans states are among the most isolated on Earth. For example, the Henley Visa Restriction Index places Albania 184th out of 192 countries. In terms of the Western Balkans, the same Index shows that:

Finnish citizens can travel to 130 countries without visa (2006) Belgians 127 Austrians 125 Hungarians 101 Romanians 73 Serbians 32 Bosnia & Herzegovina 25

The current visa regime applied in these countries has psychological effects as well as weariness from long queues, high costs, etc. Furthermore, this regime has been particularly pernicious for the social and economic development of South- Eastern Europe in the sense that it has prevented students, academics, research- ers and business persons from developing close contacts with partners in the EU countries (Opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament 4.10.2007), rather than served its original purpose, notably that of preventing local criminal networks from extending their activities outside the region.

Another issue of concern is the question of regional cooperation. From the table below on the movement of people in the South Eastern countries, we observe that neighbours entering Albania are all green, which means that they can eas- ily enter this country, while for Albanians leaving for neighbouring countries, they are (almost) all red. Such a restrictive visa regime even within the region puts a question mark against the future of the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA).

Furthermore, no visa is required for nationals of Serbia and Bosnia to Albania for tourist purposes, and there is a temporary visa abolition for Serbian nationals travelling to Croatia in regard to the intergovernmental agreement.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 48 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme The following table shows that Albania is in the worst position of all the countries of the region, while citizens of states of the region travel more freely to others in the region as a result of bilateral agreements that reflect former coexistence in the Former Yugoslavia and the dual citizenship gained also as a result of mixed marriages (e.g. a Bosnian national who holds a Croatian passport also can freely travel to European countries).

Nationals of countries: The Former Entrance Bosnia and Monte- Albania Bulgaria Croatia Yugoslav Romania Serbia to ↓ Herzegovina negro Republic of Macedonia Albania NV1 NV NV NV Border NV NV1 Bosnia and V V NV NV NV V NV Herzegovina Bulgaria V V NV V V NV V Croatia V NV NV NV NV NV NV2 Montenegro NV NV NV NV NV NV NV The Former Yugoslav NV NV NV NV NV NV NV Republic of Macedonia Romania V V NV NV V V V Serbia V NV1 NV NV NV NV V

Key: V = Visa required NV = No Visa required Border = visa issued at border NV1 = no visa required for tourists NV2 = temporary visa abolition for Serbian nationals to Croatia

Albania should cooperate with these countries in order to assure free movement for its nationals to the countries in the region in parallel with the work to get through to the Schengen Positive List. At the same time, a positive “Track record” for visa exemption in certain periods of the year for tourist purposes can be used as a solid basis for building confidence for sustainable solutions.

In order to understand why Albania is still experiencing a strict visa regime, the procedures for getting a Schengen Visa in Albania are explained below:

Step 1 – Arranging an appointment with the Embassy

Means: a) Calling the Embassy Depending on the Embassy, calls either through value added numbers (0900) telephone numbers, mobile number or landline.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 49 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme b) Being present at the Embassy: Approximate time between fixing an appointment and interview Depending on the Embassy, from 2 working days up to 4 weeks.

Step 2 – Presenting documents supporting the visa application

Basic documents required from each consulate: • application form (free of charge at the Embassies, or downloaded from the embassy webpage); • two recent passport size pictures; • valid passport; • a recent birth certificate (with photo); • a recent family certificate; • international medical insurance for the entire period of intended travel (for a multiple entry visa request, at least for the first period of intended travel); • proof of financial means: copies of the last 3 payment slips, bank statements over the last 3 months; • a statement issued by employer indicating the salary, together with a permission for leave from work; • copy of “Contract of Employment” of the applicant; • not necessary, but positive, are documents binding the applicant to Albania, such as owning a property (house, land, etc.).

There are different types of visas. Depending on the type of visa, further documents are required to fulfil the criteria for a positive consideration of the application referring to Tourist and Official visa:

Tourist visa • an invitation letter from the guarantor, legalized by the municipality in the hosting Schengen country, or • a confirmed hotel reservation (original); • confirmation of a trip booking.

Official visa • a verbal note from the competent authority; • an invitation letter from the inviting party in the hosting country, indicating the schedule and the programme of meeting.

However, not all embassies ask for the same documents. In fact: • Some of the Embassies require only the original documents; • some Embassies require the original document and a photocopy;

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 50 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme • some others require original and notarized photocopies; • some embassies require translated, notarized documents, legalized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania.

Step 3 – Processing of visa application Depending on the Embassy between 3 working days up to 3-8 weeks (information based on interviews with different applicants, official announcement at the Embassy and official Embassy websites).

Another interesting fact is that the different embassies have applied different exchange rates for the same fee of 35 EUR.

However, the costs14 for the whole visa procedure are much higher as other expenses incur, such as:

Documents provided to the Embassy: • Passport + photocopy (10 ALL); • Application form + 2 pictures (2x50=100 ALL); • Birth certificate (sealed from prefecture 100 ALL, translated and notarized (200 ALL); • Family certificate (sealed from prefecture 100 ALL), translated and notarized (200 ALL); • Copy of “Contract of Employment” (average 100 ALL), translated and notarized (average 2000 ALL); • Copy of documentary evidence that applicant owns property (house, land, etc.), translated and notarized (20+500=520 ALL); • Bank statements over the last 3 months (100 ALL); • Health insurance over the period of stay required (average 1000 ALL).

All documents should be authenticated by the Albanian MFA. Postal Service costs: 290 ALL. Each authenticated document costs: 100 ALL x 4 = 400 ALL.

Arranging an appointment: Some Embassies require applicants to call a toll line for which 1 minute costs 120 ALL. A 3-minute call = 360 ALL.

Travel costs to Embassy from outside Tirana, which costs around 400 ALL.

Getting visa: House-to-house passport delivery services in cooperation with Mon- ey Transfer Agencies. Cost of service: 300 ALL in Tirana and 500 ALL outside Tirana.

14 Costs relate to Albanian national currency: Albanian Lek (ALL)

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 51 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme Costs in total: 11280 ALL or 90-100 EUR

Despite the fact that the visa application process is long, costly and still applicants are not guaranteed that they will actually get the visa, numbers of applications are high, while approvals are on average 50% of the applications. Approximate numbers of Schengen Visa applicants during 2006 are presented below:

Schengen Embassies Schengen Visa applicants Rate (%) approval/application Greece (3 consulates) 120,000 ~ 50 % Italy (3 consulates) 100,000 ~ 60 % Germany 12,000 ~ 30 % France 7,000 ~ 60-70 % The Netherlands 4,000 ~ 50% Austria 3,000 – 4,000 Denmark 4000 ~2,800 Norway 500

The refusal rate for Albanian citizens is much higher than for other countries: • Albania 50% • Belarus 28% • Ukraine 14% • Moldova 10% • Russia 2%

The main factors that lead to refusal are: • Recognition and trustworthiness of travel documents. • Requirement for further documents. • Applicant’s track record with previous visas obtained from Schengen Embassies. • Long queue in front of some of the consulates, or late interview meeting time. • Applicant does not create a bona fide situation that she/he will return back after obtaining the visa. • Consular services enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in reviewing the visa application and making a decision without giving the reasons.

Visa facilitation will have the following impact on the above procedures: • Facilitation of visa issuance to Albanian citizens participating in formal exchange activities on a short-stay basis. (For example, state officials, business people, journalists, students, scientists, artists, etc.) • Reduction of number of documents justifying the purpose of the journey to the Schengen area:

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 52 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme . invitation from the hosting institution . letter providing position of visa applicant person, which is not that easy in Western Balkan countries • Clear deadlines for visa issuance (10 calendar days with possibility of 30 days but also of 3 days in case of emergency). • Fee remains 35 EUR; exemption from this to certain categories. • Possibility of receiving long-term multiple-entry visas based on a gradual approach. • Exemption from visa regime for diplomatic passports.

The most problematic aspects remain outside the Agreement. The Member States or EU legislation will apply their own procedures on issues such as: • Visa refusal • Recognition and trustworthiness of travel documents • Proof of sufficient financial means for the entire period of travel • Refusal of entry and expulsion measures

Visa facilitation is a follow up of readmission agreements. The Hague Programme (2004), following the Tampere Programme (1999) provides the linkage between readmission policies and Facilitation Agreements on regard to third countries. In the case of Albania, visa facilitation also is mentioned under Article 81 of the Stabilization and Association Agreement signed between the EU and Albania. In fact, the Visa Facilitation Agreement complements the E.C.-Albania Readmission Agreement, which entered into force in May 2006 (The European Commission, Progress Report on Albania 2007).

However, the visa issue is still undergoing changes that would make application more secure and efficient. Some of the identified criteria on visa issue are: • Establishment of an effective and unified visa system. • Establishment of an efficient asylum-seeking system and fight against illegal migration and penal sanctions • A proper implementation of Readmission Agreements and policies with Member States and European Communities. • Integrated border management. • Improvement of Regional cooperation and EU cooperation. • Rule of law, fight against corruption and organized crime. • High security and quality of documents including biometric data.

Positive attempts have been made by the EU. Romania in 2001 entered the EU White List but on certain conditions explained in a footnote. According to the Council Regulation of 15 March, 2001, it was agreed that “[t]he Commission shall request the country concerned to indicate which undertakings it is prepared to

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 53 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme enter into on illegal immigration and illegal residence, including the repatriation of persons from that country who are illegally resident, and report thereon to the Council”. Furthermore, “The Commission shall submit to the Council a first report, accompanied by any useful recommendations, no later than 30 June 2001.” Eventually, the Commission Report of 29 June, 2001 stated that “account of progress already achieved in terms of new legislation, improved border controls and visa issuing. Furthermore, there are potential advantages of an exemption of the visa obligation in relation to the democratization process in general. The successful continuation of the reform process in Romania depends on a new generation of responsible citizens with international experience.” The Romanian experience shows that, despite the fact that Romania was not ready for visa liberalization, they were given the opportunity to prove themselves worthy of such an agreement with the EU, which then resulted in this country’s implementation of reform and application of procedures dictated by the EU.

Having in mind the Romanian precedent, it encourages to make a concrete proposal for a genuine conditionality for the EU. Such a proposal would include: • to put all Western Balkan countries on the white list with an asterisk immediately as a political signal; • to spell out in the footnote what conditions need to be met by all with clear deadlines; • to define regular evaluation process: annual commission review according to the conditions set (separate from progress report).

This approach could help the EU itself in showing a genuine conditionality in this process and at the same time, it would increase the EU’s leverage in the Western Balkan region.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 54 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme VI.G GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Regional Forum on Return and Readmission highlighted several important issues. First of all, it underlined that the Western Balkan countries share many similar experiences in regard to return and readmission. The majority of these countries have recently signed a readmission agreement with the EC. Most of them consider these Readmission Agreements as beneficial, as opposed to the first negative reaction articulated in some countries during the negotiation phase. They consider the RAs with the EC and the bilateral implementing protocols beneficial in several aspects:

1. The RAs constitute an additional commitment toward more effective border control by the countries of the region.

2. The return procedures are laid down clearly in the RA and/or in the implementing protocols, with the respective authorities and competencies accurately stipulated, making the process more cost- and time-efficient.

3. Designation of the homologue authorities for return and readmission creates the possibility of improving and strengthening the communication and collaboration between the parties to the agreement, which is a prerequisite for effective return and readmission.

4. The RAs and the bilateral implementing protocols specify clear and transparent procedures to ensure the respect of Human Rights of the returnees. Such procedures are essential for elimination of abusive and degrading treatment of irregular migrants.

Besides similarities, the process of return and readmission slightly differs from one country to another in response to the different local settings. Thus, the Western Balkan countries are currently in different stages of implementation. Albania was the first country in the region to sign an RA with the EC and, naturally, it is expected that the implementation of the EC-Albania RA is in a more advanced phase compared to other countries15.

The implementation of the readmission agreements does not rest solely on the will of one party, but is based on the mutual recognition by both/all the contracting parties of the necessity for following the procedures stipulated in the RA or implementing protocols in practice. It is also based on the infrastructure of the returning and/or

15 At the time of the Forum, the RA for Albania was in force only for own nationals, while the third country clause entered into force on 1 May, 2008.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 55 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme readmitting party, and on the capacities of the structures involved in this process. The representatives of the Western Balkan countries present in the Regional Forum mentioned on several occasions that current return and readmission practice in the region is not as yet completely aligned with the procedures provided by the RA. The reasons, as highlighted by the participants in the forum were described as follows:

1. Readmission of own nationals

• Countries of the region have signed bilateral readmission agreements with several EU member states and more recently some have signed a multilateral agreement with the member states of the European Community. However, for some of the countries, non-adherence by member states and non-member states to the procedures stipulated in the RA, as well as a lack of bilateral implementing protocols, currently limits the usefulness of the RA.

• In some countries, the national procedures for reception of own country nationals are ad hoc and not internally harmonized. There is lack of legal provisions to specify the responsible authorities and the reception modalities.

• In the former Yugoslav republics, verification of own nationals is especially difficult as the relevant data have been largely destroyed during the recent conflicts. A considerable number of persons who fled during the conflicts and after are not registered in the new registers/data collection systems established after the resolution of the conflicts16.

• There have been several cases of readmission in error due to improper identification by the sending countries, because of lack of documents, and use of the language as a prima facie evidence of nationality.

• In most of the countries, there is a need for further training of the border police officers regarding return and readmission procedures, in particular regarding the provisions of the readmission agreements and the implementing protocols. In addition, migration entities in the region are in general understaffed.

• Facilities such as day reception centres or temporary reception centres are lacking at most border-crossing points. The lack of adequate infrastructure and funding for food in some countries results in difficulties in providing due care to the vulnerable groups, especially children and women. This is especially the case when high numbers of own nationals are returned together, which requires long hours of processing for all the returnees.

• Notification: Some of the states urged sending governments to provide adequate prior notice and identification lists in compliance with the EC RAs, particularly when returning large groups, so as to enable the receiving authorities to ensure the availability of appropriate and sufficient staff and to 16 See the presentation of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina that refers to the issue of the lack of data.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 56 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme pre-screen for criminals and to avoid admission in error. • Most of the countries lack reintegration policies. As a result, the return of own country nationals is not followed by proper reintegration support. Participants recognize that such support, and particularly assistance to find employment, would benefit the individual and the society. However, in several countries, even basic needs such as housing and social protection are not met. Additionally, recognition of diplomas obtained and school years completed in the country of destination can contribute to enhanced employment opportunities. Policy and practice to ensure adequate housing, employment and social protection are needed to avoid the re-emigration of returnees.

• Many countries lack employment programmes with the countries of destination. Considering that most irregular migrants resort to illegal channels due to lack of work opportunities in the country of origin, and that there is a need for workers in the destination countries, regular employment programmes could have a huge impact in the prevention of irregular migration, in particular the seasonal ones.

2. Return and Readmission of third country nationals

The readmission of third country nationals in certain circumstances is clearly stipulated in the readmission agreements signed by most of the Balkan countries with the EC. However, in practice it is a difficult process for several reasons:

• Western Balkan countries, as well as the EC, often have no readmission agreements and/or implementing protocols with the countries of origin of third country nationals. Most of the countries of the region highlighted the difficulties in negotiating readmission agreements with some countries of origin. Without such agreements, third country nationals (to be) readmitted might end up stranded in the country of transit, pending return to the country of origin

• Most of the third country nationals are not carrying ID and travel documents at time of interception. As a result, their nationality is supposed, based on the language spoken (i.e., on ethnicity rather than on citizenship). Participants in the Regional Forum noted that this has often resulted in misidentification, and consequently in situations of readmission in error.

• Authorities of some countries of origin do not cooperate or may be unable to confirm nationality. For example, consuls sometimes refuse to issuea laissez-passer on the basis that non-voluntary return is against the interest of their citizens. This makes the return of the third country national impossible, resulting in the third country nationals staying in the hands of the authorities of the receiving country

• Many third countries do not have voluntary return programmes. Thus, there is little incentive for many irregular third country nationals to leave voluntarily.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 57 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme • Few of the Western Balkan countries have proper reception centre for third country nationals. They are thus generally accommodated in temporary centres, which lack the appropriate accommodation and trained staff to meet the needs of the situation. In many such countries, the third country nationals are released after a certain period with an order to leave the country; however, this may result in the irregular migrant absconding.

• Lengthy appeal procedures, lack of travel documents and/or of identification, along with translation and escort services for third country nationals result in huge costs for state authorities.

• In general, the Western Balkan countries have little experience in the reception of third country nationals and thus the respective border officials need specific training to comply with the procedures specified in the RA.

• National legislation in most of the countries does not regulate clearly and comprehensively the readmission and reception of third country nationals. Most of the countries are still in the process of aligning the legislation with the EU Acquis.

Recommendations

Return and readmission is not an easy process, for either the returning or readmitting countries. As highlighted in the Forum, it involves complex diplomatic, technical, infrastructural and, more importantly, human dimensions. Thus, the EU countries, with considerable experience in this area, still face difficulties, many of which are similar to those mentioned above. The Western Balkan countries, who have only recent exposure to this process, can learn a lot from the experience, lessons learned and practice of the EU member states. In addition, considering their position, as readmitting and as returning countries, and the similarities between them, the Balkan countries can also benefit from sharing their own experiences. In this regard, Albania can be considered an example in the region, as it was the first to sign and start the implementation of the EC RA and is now in an advanced phase of implementation.

The Regional Forum referred to the best practices of the EU countries and the lessons learned from the region and emerged with the following recommendations:

 Establishment of an appropriate legal framework Return and readmission can not be effective without an appropriate legal framework. The establishment of a comprehensive and consistent legal framework is essential for the countries in the region. The legislation should clearly stipulate the internal procedures of reception, referral and treatment of the returnees, both of own and third country nationals. It should clearly highlight the procedures and

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 58 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme authorities for detention and removal of readmitted third country nationals, while respecting individual human rights and dignity. Given that most of the countries in the region look towards European accession, they should make every effort to align their legislation with EU and international standards for return and readmission, and should refer in the legislation, where relevant, to the bilateral or multilateral readmission agreements.

 Establishment of the proper reception facilities Most of the countries of the region lack the appropriate reception facilities, both for own and third country nationals. The border crossing points in most of the countries need to be redesigned and/or equipped with the relevant infrastructure needed for humane treatment of the returnees: of own nationals during the interviewing and data collection and of third country nationals during the pre- screening process. The establishment of a closed reception centre for third country nationals should be prioritized by the countries of the region. In parallel, the necessary technical and legal framework should be developed, including internal regulations for the centre, along with proper organizational structures and terms of reference for staff17.

 Prevention of irregular migration The countries of the region should lobby with the EC or/and member states with labour needs to conclude employment agreements (including seasonal ones where relevant) as an indication of the common will for fighting irregular migration.

Some countries have taken action to address the possible overstay of third country nationals by restricting issuance of visas at consular level to those from countries with a record of overstays, as indicated by risk analysis studies.

 Capacity building of the institutions that deal with readmission The authorities dealing with the return and readmission in most of the countries of the region need further guidance and training on the procedures envisaged in the readmission agreements. Trainings should be tailored to enhance and strengthen the border police officials responsible for the reception and management of the irregular migrant flows. Specific attention in the training/capacity building activities should be foreseen for the staff who will manage and run the reception centres.

 Implementation of the existing RAs and negotiations to conclude implementing protocols and RA with source countries The aim of the readmission agreements is to facilitate the process of return and readmission. Thus, the countries in the region should strictly adhere to the procedures and require contracting parties to also comply.

17 For more information on the needs and modalities for running the reception centre, see the IOM 2006 publication: The return of Irregular Migrants to Albania - An Assessment of Case Processing, Reception and Return: Needs and Modalities.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 59 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme This will make the return and readmission procedures more transparent, ensure respect for the human rights and dignity of returnees, and minimize cases of readmission in error18.

In cases where the implementing protocol is necessary, especially in regard to the multilateral agreement concluded with EC, Western Balkan countries should start negotiations on the bilateral protocols with the EU member countries as needed.

The Joint Readmission Committee established under the EC RA is the primary liaison body to facilitate negotiations and conclude the protocols. In addition, the Joint Readmission Committee could help to consolidate mechanisms for return and readmission and for proper implementation of existing agreements. Diplo- matic support from the EC may be required also in the framework of the negotiation of RAs with countries of origin, especially with countries that pose difficulties in negotiations.

In cases when the readmission agreement is impossible to negotiate, the countries of the region could foster the conclusion of MOU or other cooperation agreements, which could have a less negative perception for third countries.

 Strengthening the collaboration between the return and readmission structures Cooperation between the returning and readmission authorities is indispens- able for a timely and efficient process. Collaboration is necessary both internally, among the different structures responsible for migration management, and at regional level. As such, the Western Balkans should designate specific authorities to deal with the implementation of readmission agreements. To facilitate good communication, contacts of the respective focal points of the sending/readmitting party should be officially specified by both/all contracting parties. This will support the process of prior notification both for the return of own and for third country nationals. Regular communication is essential for solving disagreements and difficulties posed by the return and readmission process.

The countries in the region should also strengthen cooperation among each other, through establishment of a common mechanism that could facilitate the procure- ment of the relevant documents, data and information necessary for return and readmission.

 Protection of human rights and treatment with dignity Compliance with the RA and implementing protocols requires that the reception of returned and readmitted persons should be done professionally. Only a professional reception can guarantee respect of human rights and elimination of abusive treatment. Border officials should comply with the requirements to pro- 18 Prior notice allows all parties sufficient time to verify the nationality of a returnee and thus mini- mizes the risk of readmission in error.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 60 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme vide specific care for vulnerable groups. In particular, appropriate care should be provided during reception of returnees from the returning party, the interviewing process, the handover of returnees, handover of personal items, etc. Addition- ally, there is little tradition in the region of maintaining the confidentiality of personal data, and states need to ensure that data confidentiality is respected.

 Voluntary return as the preferred option The main principle that governs the return of irregular migrants is that voluntary return, as the least costly and most sustainable option, should be prioritized. EC countries have developed programmes to assist voluntary return of irregular migrants and Western Balkan countries would do well to follow suit. Donor assistance, especially in the framework of EC programmes in the area of asylum, migration and visa issues (AMV) could be helpful in this regard. The need for voluntary return is expected to become more evident with the entry into force of the third country clause, when an increase is expected in the number of irregular migrants from countries where return is difficult, due to lack of traditional collaboration or lack of readmission agreements.

 Reintegration of the returnees Return and readmission can not be sustainable if not followed by energetic reintegration measures. While not disregarding the few cases of asylum seekers in the region, it is recognized nonetheless that the majority of irregular migrants are, directly or indirectly, economic migrants. Without work and lacking basic living conditions, returnees will resort again to irregular migration, in search of work abroad. Thus, measures to fight irregular migration through return and readmission should be followed by well planned reintegration programmes tailored to the specific needs of returnees. Authorities responsible for return and readmission should have a basic understanding of social support structures and reintegration programmes and refer the returnees to those authorities that provide them.

Under these considerations, the implementation of the readmission agreements is a challenging and complex field for all countries concerned. In order to fulfil the obligations under the readmission agreements, interventions should build upon existing mechanisms for handling irregular migrants as well as for the negotiation and implementation of readmission agreements with countries of origin. In order to provide the adequate legal and institutional framework and services needed for the smooth implementation of the readmission agreement, capacities and resources have to be ensured for properly addressing the specific needs. Further assistance and guidance by the EU Member States as well as sharing experiences among administrative entities are considered highly important and were expressed throughout the forum. These measures will facilitate the process of return and reintegration and will ensure continuity and effectiveness within the Governments efforts to combat irregular migration in the wider region.

“Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, the E.C. and concerned third countries” 61 This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme “Building on Mechanisms to Effectively and Sustainably Implement Readmission Agreements between Albania, 62 the E.C. and concerned third countries” This project is co-funded by the European Union and the project partners under the AENEAS Programme