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 1
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: iomtirana@iom.int Website: http: //www.iom.int/albania ISBN : 978-92-9068-465-7 2008, Hellenic Ministry of Interior 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, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Hellenic Ministry of Interior. 2
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 3
4
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. 5
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 agreements 1 signed with the EC and concerned third countries 2. 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 facilitating 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. 6
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 Stabilization 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 Migration, 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. 7
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 process 3. 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 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 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. 8
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. 9
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 regularized 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 standard 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 European 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 2002-10
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 predetermined 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 Community 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 11
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 countries 4. 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. 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. 12
Leader General Directorate of the State Police DEPARTMENT of Border Police and Migration Directorate of Operational Services Section of Services at Blue Border Directorate of Migration and Readmission Migration Section Office of Risk Analysis Directorate of Administration Human Resource Management Section Section of Services at Green Border Return & Readmission Section Budget and Finance Office Investigation & Judicial Police Section Closed Reception Centre Support Services Section Mobile team of Border Police (Delta Force) Shkodër Kukës Diber Korçë Gjirokaster Vlorë Durrës Tirana 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 European Commission in Albania (PAMECA) and the International Criminal Investigative 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. 13
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. Greece 5 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. 14
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 Migration 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. 15
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 Croatia, 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 approve 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, Bosnia 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 16
accommodation of these foreign citizens who will be returned to their own country or the country through which they came remains unresolved. Bosnia and Herzegovina 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 Herzegovina 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. 17
Ministry of Security, BiH MINISTER BP BiH SIPA Interpol SFA Deputy Minister Secretary Inspectorate Human resour. Finances International cooperation Analytics strategy Immigration Asylum Coordination Civil Prot. IT Protection Class. Info. Prot. Borders 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%. 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 331 539 2006. 2007. 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 565 822 2006. 2007. 18
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 Montenegro Albania 163 China 62 Turkey 32 The Former Yugoslav Republic of 28 Macedonia Occupied Palestinian 22 Territory Croatia 17 Sri Lanka 9 Moldova 7 Jordan 6 Egypt 5 Romania 4 Afghanistan 3 Brazil 3 Bulgaria 3 Cameroon 2 Syria 2 Italy 2 Yemen 2 Algeria 2 Ukraine 2 Belgium 2 India 2 South Africa 2 Argentina 1 Eritrea 1 Gambia 1 Lebanon 1 Austria 1 Slovenia 1 Iran 1 Germany 1 The 1 Netherlands Australia 1 Switzerland 1 France 1 Tajikistan 1 Total: 822 Aliens Forcibly Returned from Bosnia and Herzegovina There were also 31 cases of aliens forcibly returned from Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2006, and 75 in 2007 (an increase of 141.9% in a year). 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 31 75 2006. 2007. 19
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 In 2006 there were 95 expulsion decisions followed by registered exit and 329 in 2007, an increase of 246.3% in a year. 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 95 329 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 20
Deportation of Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens to Bosnia and Herzegovina In 2006, there were 1,350 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina deported from other countries. In 2007, that number dropped 17.3% on the previous year, to 1,117. 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 1350 1117 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 2006, of which 189 350 300 250 2006 were Bosnia and 200 2007 Herzegovina citizens 150 and 174 persons were 100 50 of other citizenship. 0 In 2007, 431 persons were returned (191 BiH Aliens Total 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). 21
Returns and readmissions, 2006-2007 Country Foreigners Returned Own Nationals Readmitted 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 Republic of Macedonia 32 25-21.9 1 - - Turkey 10 19 +90.0 - - - Egypt 4 Iran - 1 - - - - Sri Lanka - 3 - - - - Others 1 - - 1 - - TOTAL 174 240 +37.9 14 16 +14.3 22
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. Country Date of Signing Date of entry 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 of Macedonia 17.9.2001 1.2.2003 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. 23
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 Croatian 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 24
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. 25
D. The Experience of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Mijalce Gelev, Chief Inspector for Foreigners, Section for Foreigners and Readmission, 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, Moldova, 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 covering 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 26
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 Border 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 Brijeg 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 [Murriqan] 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. 27
Montenegro s Borders Country Border Length (km) Land border (km) Sea Border (territorial waters) (km) Lake Border (km) River Border (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 Activity/Document issued Year 2006 2007 Residence permit short-term (registration, mainly of tourists, up to 30 days on ID, and 90 days on 205,991 299,653 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 Isprava or PI) 9 2 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 countries Montenegro has no Embassy) 191,196 156,456 28
Permit to Travel for Montenegrin Citizens Activity/Document issued Issue of a permit to travel within state borders (permit for Montenegrin citizens working or owning property on the border area to move freely in that area) Year 2006 2007 16,321 19,690 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), Switzerland (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 29
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 2006 Albania Romania The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Ukraine Bosnia and Russia Total Herzegovina 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 Rep. Jan. Armenia Total Feb. 2 2 Mar. 2 2 Apr. 1 1 May 2 2 Jun. 2 2 Total 2 1 2 2 2 9 30
Irregular Migrants Assisted by IOM: Source of referrals 2% 13% 3% Border police NGOs Direct contact with IOM Podgorice 82% Clinical centre Podgorice 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 Republic of Macedonia 0 8 Total 778 410 In 2007, 819 irregular migrants transited Montenegro, with 35 arriving from Slovenia 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. 31
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 Serbia 6 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 Western 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 Justice 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 Serbia 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. 32
stateless persons. According to estimates, the agreement will affect 50,000 to 100,000 persons, some 40,000 7 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 years 8. On 7 February 2008, the director of the Serbian government s EU Integration Office (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 them 9. 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. 33
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 agencies 10. 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 Government has not funded any project or activity for returnees. The aim of all projects, whether ongoing or planned, is to discourage secondary 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 funding 11. 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 statistics 12 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. Available 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.swedishcommittee.se/ppt/readmision-final.ppt. Accessed on 7 May 2008. 34
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. 35
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 Employment 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 premises 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. 36
III. 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 difficulty 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- 37
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. 38
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 39
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. 40
M IV. 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, registries and databases, and finally migration cards and application forms, to facilitate the whole process of data management and use at the regional level. 41
Data for Return and Readmission igc Number of Agreements/arrangements (May 2006) 70 60 50 60 49 47 In preparation 10% Under negotiation 20% 40 30 20 10 0 37 25 25 25 24 In force 60% SWI GER NET BEL AUS NOR UK SPA SWE DEN FIN EC CAN USA IRE NZL 20 18 17 12 10 Signed but not in force 10% 9 4 1 Source: Intergovernmental Consultations in Europe, North America and New 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. 42