Secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU Research Report ACVZ The Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken, ACVZ) consists of ten experts. The ACVZ is an independent advisory body established by law. The Committee advises the government and the Parliament on migration issues. It examines policy and legislation and indicates possible areas of improvement. The ACVZ issues practical recommendations that are aimed at solving both existing and anticipated problems. Publication details Obermann, L., Vergeer, S., ‘Secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU: Research Report’, submitted to the Minister for Migration. An ACVZ publication, The Hague 2020 Reference: 57 – 2020, January 2020 ISBN: 978-90-8521-086-3 Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs Turfmarkt 147 2511 DP The Hague Email: [email protected] Website: www.acvz.org Tel.: +31 (0)70 3704300 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Request for advice: how do EU(+) Member States deal with secondary movements of asylum seekers? 8 1.2 What are secondary movements? 9 1.3 Research methods, scope and limitations 10 1.3.1 Research methods 10 1.3.2 Scope 11 1.3.3 Limitations 11 1.4 Guide to reading this research report 12 Chapter 2 The Dublin system 15 2.1 Dublin criteria 16 2.2 Take charge or take back requests and time limits 17 2.3 Termination of the obligations 18 2.4 Dublin IV? 19 2.4.1 Proposal by the European Commission 19 2.4.2 Opinion of the European Parliament 20 2.4.3 Division in the Council 21 Chapter 3 Extent and characteristics of secondary movements 23 3.1 Secondary movements cannot be fully quantified 24 3.2 Three forms of secondary movements 25 3.3 Significant differences in the number of asylum applications and their outcomes 27 3.3.1 Significant differences in the number of asylum applications and the profile of asylum seekers 28 3.3.2 Number of pending asylum applications continues to be higher than before 2015 31 3.3.3 Significant differences in outcomes of asylum procedures 33 3.3.4 Most third-country nationals for whom a return decision has been issued do not demonstrably leave the EU+ 36 3.4 High proportion of secondary movements in asylum applications of many Member States 37 3.4.1 Irregular crossings of external EU borders have become less decisive for asylum applications in the EU 38 3.4.2 Number of detections of irregular stay remains high despite reduction in irregular crossings of external EU borders 42 3.4.3 Eurodac hits: increasing number of asylum applications is the result of secondary movements 44 3.4.4 Dublin requests also show that an increasing number of asylum applications are due to secondary movements 61 3.5 Conclusion 78 4 Secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU: research report ACVZ – Jan. 2020 Chapter 4 Secondary movements of asylum seekers in practice 83 4.1 General insights 85 4.1.1 Limited view of the number of asylum seekers transiting through and their transit routes 85 4.1.2 Multi-faceted transit patterns 87 4.2 Types of case files in the case file review 91 4.2.1 Asylum application, no Dublin procedure initiated 91 4.2.2 Asylum application, Dublin procedure initiated, but not implemented 92 4.2.3 Dublin requests sent by the Netherlands 95 4.2.4 Dublin requests received by the Netherlands 96 4.3 Transit period, motives, family relationships 99 4.3.1 Transit period 99 4.3.2 Motives 100 4.3.3 Family and family relationships 102 4.4 Conclusion 103 4.4.1 Fragmented information about transit routes 103 4.4.2 Multi-faceted transit patterns 103 4.4.3 Circumstances at current location decisive for transit 103 4.4.4 Risk of absconding is a problem in all Member States 104 Chapter 5 Views on secondary movements 105 5.1 Different views on secondary movements and the causes thereof 106 5.2 State of play in terms of academic research 108 5.2.1 Factors that influence asylum-related migration in a general sense 108 5.2.2 Factors that influence secondary movements 110 5.2.3 Inefficient functioning of the Dublin system 113 5.3 Conclusion 115 Chapter 6 Measures against secondary movements 119 6.1 Types of measures 120 6.2 Measures at the EU level and measures taken by countries not included in this research and their effects 120 6.3 Measures in the surveyed Member States 122 6.3.1 Information campaigns focused on discouragement 123 6.3.2 Border controls and mobile surveillance of third-country nationals 123 6.3.3 Accelerated and more complete identification and registration 125 6.3.4 Quicker and more efficient asylum procedures 126 6.3.5 Curtailment of reception facilities 128 6.3.6 Introduction of restrictions relating to residence status 130 6.3.7 Measures aimed at transfer and return 133 6.4 Assumed effects of the measures 135 6.4.1 Member States: measures have a deterrent effect 135 6.4.2 Civil society organisations: measures have adverse effects 136 6.4.3 Indicative effects of the measures 137 6.5 Conclusion 138 Bibliography 141 List of respondents 148 Annex 1: request for advice 152 Annex 2: Data related to chapter 3 155 Annex 3: measures against secondary migration 169 6 Secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU: research report ACVZ – Jan. 2020 Chapter 1 Introduction This Research Report is about secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU+.1 It forms the basis for and must be read in conjunction with the accompanying Advisory Report.2 The Advisory Report contains a summary of this Research Report and the Committee’s recommendations. In this chapter, we describe what is meant by the term ‘secondary movements of asylum seekers’, the questions we will answer, where these questions arise from and the type of research we have undertaken to answer these questions. 1.1 Request for advice: how do EU(+) Member States deal with secondary movements of asylum seekers? The Minister for Migration has requested our advice regarding the secondary movements of asylum seekers. He particularly wanted to know how other EU(+) Member States deal with this and whether the Netherlands can learn anything from their approach.3 For this, we have carried out research in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. We based our research on the following research questions: 1. To what extent and in what way are EU+ Member States confronted with the secondary movements of asylum seekers? 2. How do Member State governments clarify the existence of secondary movements of asylum seekers? 3. What types of measures do the Member States take to counter the secondary movements of asylum seekers? 4. How do the Member State governments assess the effectiveness of these measures? 5. Based on the comparative research, to what extent can we derive prospects for action for the Netherlands, both at the national and European level? Since the abolition of checks on persons at the common borders of Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands in 1985, an extensive area without internal borders has gradually emerged in Europe. By now, most EU Member States as well as Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are part of the Schengen Area.4 Not just Schengen country nationals, but also migrants from third countries can benefit from the free movement of persons in the Schengen Area once they have entered the EU+. Hence, this freedom of movement facilitates secondary movements within the EU+. The creation of a European area with open borders and free movement has been an important basis for jointly addressing the issue of asylum in Europe. In 1990, in order to prevent asylum seekers from being shuttled from one Member State to another within this area of free movement and to ensure that their asylum application would be processed promptly by a single Member State, European leaders signed the Dublin Convention.5 This was not aimed at ensuring a fair allocation of responsibility for examining asylum applications. The Dublin 8 Secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU: research report ACVZ – Jan. 2020 Convention was subsequently integrated into European asylum law in 2003 by transposing it into a regulation. This Dublin Regulation (also referred to as ‘Dublin II’) was amended in 2013 and the current Dublin Regulation (hereinafter: ‘Dublin III’) is in effect since 1 January 2014.6 Therefore, the Dublin system was already in existence before the creation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which the EU had been trying to set up since the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. The aim of the CEAS is to ensure that clear, uniform, fair, humane and effective asylum procedures are followed throughout the EU. The Dublin system forms the cornerstone of the CEAS because it is the basis for ‘unambiguously’ determining which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application.7 In the context of a common asylum system based on solidarity, this is the first question to be answered when an asylum application is lodged in the EU+. In addition to the Dublin Regulation, the CEAS also includes the Qualification Directive,8 the Asylum Procedures Directive,9 the Reception Conditions Directive10 and the Eurodac Regulation.11 The increased number of asylum seekers in the EU in 2015 and the beginning of 2016 placed great pressure on the asylum systems of (some of) the Member States. This also revealed systematic shortcomings in the CEAS, including the complexity and ineffectiveness of the Dublin system.