References of "Nienaber, Birte 50002761"
Bookmark and Share    
See detailGrenze als überwindbares Phänomen in der Raumplanung?
Nienaber, Birte UL

in Heintel, Martin; Musil, Robert; Weixlbaumer, Norbert (Eds.) Grenzen (in press)

Detailed reference viewed: 31 (3 UL)
See detailKontaktraum für die einen, Filter für die anderen
Nienaber, Birte UL

Article for general public (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 6 (0 UL)
See detailGrenzüberschreitende Berufsausbildung als Prozess grenzüberschreitenden Lernens
Funk, Ines; Nienaber, Birte UL; Dörrenbächer, H. Peter

Scientific Conference (2017, October 03)

Detailed reference viewed: 10 (0 UL)
See detailImmigration und Integration
Nienaber, Birte UL; Willems, Helmut UL

Speeches/Talks (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 6 (2 UL)
See detailMaster in Border Studies - ein Praxisbeispiel
Nienaber, Birte UL

Speeches/Talks (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 9 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailIllegal employment of Third-Country Nationals in the EU
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Petry, Ralph UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

Illegal employment by third country nationals is a reality in Luxembourg. However, as well as in the case of grey and informal economy, it is rather hard to grasp or quantify to which extent. Nevertheless ... [more ▼]

Illegal employment by third country nationals is a reality in Luxembourg. However, as well as in the case of grey and informal economy, it is rather hard to grasp or quantify to which extent. Nevertheless, the problem is not as significant as the one of the posted workers which is more relevant and worrisome and needs to be situated in the context of a labour market of the Greater Region. In the past, several labour related regularisation measures have been implemented in Luxembourg in order to provide both employers and employees the possibility to regularise situations of illegal employment. The last labour related regularisation measure was implemented in early 2013 in the context of the transposition of the Employers' Sanctions Directive 2009/52 by law of 21 December 2012. During this regularisation, the Directorate of Immigration received 664 applications. These regularisations give a partial indication of the extent of the phenomenon, even though these numbers do not provide a real picture of the problem because the conditions of this regularisation were very strict and in a very short time frame (less than two months) and a certain number of irregular migrants’ workers were not willing to expose themselves by applying and preferred to remain undetected. This regularisation also provided information on the main sectors were the phenomenon is found in order of importance: HORECA, cleaning, crafts, industry and construction. The Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social and Solidary Economy at the end of the regularisation has insisted in the need to increase the number of controls to employers. The law of 21 December 2012 established administrative as well as criminal sanctions for employers who illegally employ irregularly staying third country nationals, particularly in relation to offenses to the Labour Code in aggravating circumstances. This law amended also article 89 of the Immigration Law abrogating the possibility of making labour related regularisations. The Inspectorate of Labour (‘Inspection de Travail et des Mines’, hereafter called ITM), which is in charge of labour inspections and the control of illegal employment of TCNs in Luxembourg, is currently going through a restructuring phase following the latest audit of this administration from January 2015. Particularly the current insufficient number of staff of the ITM, which is in need of a significant short term increase of staff, represents a main challenge in the field of illegal employment in Luxembourg. It is also in the context of this restructuring phase of the responsible administration that the drafting of this study presented a number of challenges, especially in relation to the operational and statistical part of the template. The information regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by both the employers and the employees in the context of an employment relationship are available on the website of the concerned authorities. Furthermore, they are disseminated by the NGOs working in the field, even though there are no specific campaigns targeted to prevent illegal employment of TCNs. The matter was raised in the context of the ‘social identification badge’, which was introduced in 2013 in order to fight against social dumping in particular in the construction sector. One national stakeholder suggested that the ‘social identification badge’ could be revised and adapted to other economic sectors in order to better monitor and prevent illegal employment. In regards to access to justice and enforcement of rights of illegally employed TCNs, Luxembourg foresees the right for illegally employed TCNs to make a claim against their employer, including in cases in which they have, or have been, returned. This claim falls under the general provisions concerning the right to bring a case before civil courts. The Labour Code establishes that the employer who has employed an irregular staying third-country national must pay to the third-country national the following amounts: 1) salaries and any other emoluments, which a similar employee would have benefited for the same employment; 2) the total amount of outstanding remuneration as well as the cost of the transfer of these amounts to the third-country national to the country to which s/he is returned; 3) the total amount of unpaid social contributions and taxes, including administrative fines, as well as, court and legal fees. In addition, the Labour Code establishes that the third-country national who has been illegally employed before the execution of any return decision has to be systematically and objectively informed by the control agents of his/her rights to recover the outstanding remunerations and back payments, as well as the right to benefit from free of charge legal aid in order to attempt a recovery action against the employer, even if the third-country national has already been returned. Labour unions can support and assist TCNs in legal proceedings related to social and labour law, provided that they have been given a mandate to do so. Eventual costs of administrative and civil proceedings can be taken in charge by the labour unions if the TCN is a member of the respective labour union. The Law does not establish fines against TCN’s who were illegally employed. The TCN may be issued a return decision and lose his/her residence rights; however, the Directorate of immigration processes these situations on a case-by-case basis and inform the persons concerned to terminate the illegal employment situation. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 57 (2 UL)
Full Text
See detailFamily reunification of third-country nationals in the EU: national practices (country report Luxembourg)
Petry, David UL; Jacobs, Sarah UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL et al

Report (2017)

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries ... [more ▼]

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries and renewals) represented more than a third of all residence permits issued during the last three years. While the right to family reunification was solely provided by international law and regulated by administrative practice until 2008, the transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification led to a much more precise and detailed legal framework. A notable change in legislation has been proposed with the introduction of bill n° 6992 , namely the harmonisation of the conditions that apply to third-country national employees with those of Blue Card holders and researchers. Thus, family reunification requirements for certain categories of applicants shall be alleviated through the abrogation of the 12-month residence requirement for the sponsor. In order to apply for family reunification in Luxembourg, sponsors have to meet a number of requirements for exercising the right to family reunification, which include the provision of suitable accommodation for the size of their family; meeting health and safety standards; health insurance; as well as stable and regular resources to provide for themselves and their family members. As recommended by Directive 2003/86/EC, Luxembourg sets out more favourable conditions to beneficiaries of international protection for the exercise of their right to family reunification. Thus, they do not have to comply with the above-mentioned requirements in case they apply for family reunification within 3 months of being granted the status. Family members who have come to Luxembourg under family reunification have access to education, orientation, vocational training, lifelong learning and professional retraining once their residence permit has been issued. Family members furthermore have access to the labour market. In case the family member has resided in Luxembourg for less than one year when the application is submitted, it will be submitted to the labour market test. Family members can also, under a number of conditions, benefit from guaranteed minimum income, social aid, long-term residence status as well as citizenship. National stakeholders noted that the requirement of finding appropriate accommodation and proving stable and regular resources is one of the main challenges for sponsors. For family members as well as sponsors, having sufficient financial resources to cover the costs of family reunification can be another challenge to accessing family reunification. Family members of beneficiaries of international protection in particular face the more procedural challenge of providing proof of identity and family links, which can be difficult due to lacking documentation, differing administrative practices in the country of origin and/or the lack of cooperation of institutions. Gaining access to family reunification is also particularly difficult for beneficiaries of international protection who arrived in Luxembourg as unaccompanied minors but reached adulthood during the examination of their file, as they must provide proof of their family member’s dependency upon them. The limited number of diplomatic representations of Luxembourg abroad poses a challenge both to family members who must present themselves there, as well as for the Luxembourgish authorities who require information on certain countries. Perceived as a best practice with regard to family reunification are the information that NGOs and the lawyers in the field of migration and asylum provide to beneficiaries of international protection with regard to procedures of family reunification, thereby contributing to the beneficiary’s ability to enter an application for family reunification within the 3-month period. The practice of accepting the submission of an application of family members of beneficiaries of international protection that contains only a commencement of proof of family links and allowing for the finalisation at a later date is also perceived as a good practice, as it enables them to exercise their right to family reunification while benefitting from more favourable conditions. Furthermore, the issuance of a “laisser-passer” for beneficiaries of international protection who cannot obtain travel documents is perceived as a big step forward by national stakeholders. Lastly, Restoring Family Links, a service provided by the Luxembourgish Red Cross, is also considered a reliable tool with regard to tracing missing family members abroad. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 153 (19 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detail(Education for) Sustainable Development in Geography Education
Sprenger, Sandra; Nienaber, Birte UL

in Journal of Geography in Higher Education (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (0 UL)
See detailCross-border residential mobility of people working in Luxembourg: Development and impacts
Nienaber, Birte UL; Pigeron, Isabelle UL

in Boesen, Elisabeth; Schnuer, Gregor (Eds.) European Borderlands- Living with barriers and bridges (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 87 (14 UL)
Full Text
See detailResettlement and Humanitarian Admission Programmes in Europe – what works?
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Petry, David UL; Marcus, Noemie UL et al

Report (2016)

Luxembourg has a long tradition in “resettling” refugees from various parts of the world, but a more structured policy has only recently been implemented. National legislation does not include any ... [more ▼]

Luxembourg has a long tradition in “resettling” refugees from various parts of the world, but a more structured policy has only recently been implemented. National legislation does not include any provisions relating to resettlement policy and there are no specific national programmes. The resettlements have always been implemented on an ad-hoc basis or within broader programmes set up by the European Commission and/or UNHCR. Since 2014, Luxembourg additionally applies a quota of refugees to be annually resettled (15-20 persons). The implementation and organisation of the resettlement process may vary case by case and there is no standardised procedure applicable except for regular resettlements for which the framework is to a large extent outlined in the UNHCR’s Resettlement Handbook. The selection and identification of resettled persons is coordinated by the Directorate of Immigration in close collaboration with UNHCR, who performs in principle an eligibility assessment for the refugee status, which the Luxembourgish authorities shall take over once the person arrives in Luxembourg. For each resettlement mission Luxembourg sets a general profile as well as the number of persons they intend to resettle. These criteria do basically not differ from UNHCR’s Global Resettlement Submission Criteria and thus include women, children, elderly refugees as well as refugees with disabilities and diseases, except for those suffering from pathologies for which there is no adequate treatment available in Luxembourg. Apart from the vulnerability criteria, Luxembourgish authorities also take the “integration potential” into consideration when selecting candidates eligible for resettlements. This might explain the general preference of resettling entire families rather than single persons. Resettlement implemented within the EU Turkey 1:1 scheme, based on the agreement between the EU and Turkey of 18 March 2016, is considered separately by national authorities. For UNHCR, who is not a party to this agreement, engagement in the resettlement of Syrian refugees from Turkey is considered part of its regular resettlement activities. Procedurally, UNHCR continues to receive resettlement referrals from Turkey’s Directorate General for Migration Management (DGMM) and further continues to undertake phone and face-to-face interviews with eligible candidates. However, as opposed to regular resettlement, the assessment undertaken by UNHCR is streamlined. The Luxembourgish Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) coordinates the reception and integration phase of the resettled refugees. Although policy and law are the same for both, resettled refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection, in practice the support provided may differ in an initial phase. Thus, resettled refugees are accommodated upon arrival within a common reception centre where they shall be provided with a more intense support, especially during the first weeks after their arrival in Luxembourg. Since April 2016, a newly created service of the Luxembourgish Red Cross (Lisko) has been mandated, under the overall coordination of the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region, to take charge of the social support and integration of benefeciciaries of international protection, including resettled persons. Other national NGOs and associations also provide counselling and assistance. The present report identifies several challenges faced by both, the resettled persons as well as the competent authorities. These challenges prove particular significant in the post-arrival and integration phase. While some of these challenges are common to beneficiaries of international protection in general, some others may be more specifically relevant for resettled refugees, namely the absence of a transition period, coordination with local stakeholders, as well as timely provision of information to selected candidates for resettlement. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 56 (11 UL)
Full Text
See detailReturning Rejected Asylum Seekers: Challenges and good practices
Dionisio, Linda UL; Marcus, Noemie UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL et al

Report (2016)

The issue of non-return of rejected international protection applicants does not enjoy a high political profile on its own, but has been discussed as part of a global debate on asylum. Significant efforts ... [more ▼]

The issue of non-return of rejected international protection applicants does not enjoy a high political profile on its own, but has been discussed as part of a global debate on asylum. Significant efforts are required when considering the wide spectrum of possible reasons of non-return, some reasons depending on the countries of destination, others on the returnee himself/herself. In this respect, reasons of non return range from the non-respect of deadlines, the issuance of travel documents, postponement of removal for external reasons to the returnee, for medical reasons, the resistance of the third-country national and the lack of diplomatic representation of Luxembourg, to name but a few. In regards to the procedure, in Luxembourg the rejection of the international protection application includes the return decision. The Minister in charge of Immigration, through the Directorate of Immigration, issues this decision. The return decision only becomes enforceable when all appeals are exhausted and the final negative decision of rejection of the competent judicial authority enters into force, as appeals have suspensive effects. This decision also sets out the timeframe during which the rejected international protection applicant has to leave the country. In case the applicant does not opt for a voluntary return, the decision will also include the country to which s/he will be sent. In general, the decision provides for a period of 30 days during which the applicant has the option to leave voluntarily and to benefit from financial support in case of assisted voluntary return through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). There are two exceptions to this rule: the applicant who is considered a threat to national security, public safety or homeland security and the applicant who has already been issued a return decision before. The declaration and documentation provided during the procedure of international protection can be used to facilitate return. Subsequent applications are possible, in particular if new evidence of facts appears resulting in an increased likelihood of the applicant to qualify for international protection. For rejected international protection applicants who did not opt for voluntary return and did not receive any postponement of removals, a certain (limited) support is available while waiting for the execution of the enforceable return decision. As such, they continue to stay in reception facilities and to receive certain social benefits unless they transgress any internal rules. If an urgent need exists, rejected applicants may be granted a humanitarian social aid. However, they are not entitled to access the labour market or to receive ‘pocket money’ or the free use of transport facilities. They benefit from an access to education and training, however this access cannot constitute a possible reason for non-return. These benefits are available to rejected applicants until the moment of their removal. In order to enforce the return decision and prevent absconding, the Minister may place the rejected international applicant in the detention centre, especially if s/he is deemed to be obstructing their own return. Other possible measures include house arrest, regular reporting surrendering her/his passport or depositing a financial guarantee of 5000€. Most of these alternatives to detention were introduced with the Law of 18 December 2015 which entered into force on 1st January 2016. As a consequence, detention remains the main measure used to enforce return decisions. A number of challenges to return and measures to curb them are detailed in this study. A part of these measures have been set up to minimize the resistance to return from the returnee. First and foremost is the advocacy of the AVRR programme and the dissemination of information relating to this programme but also the establishment of a specific return programme to West Balkan countries not subject to visa requirements. Other measures aim at facilitating the execution of forced returns, such as police escorts or the placement in the detention centre. Finally, significant efforts are directed towards increasing bilateral cooperation and a constant commitment to the conclusion of readmission agreements. No special measures were introduced after 2014 in response to the exceptional flows of international protection applicants arriving in the EU. While the Return service within the Directorate of Immigration has continued to expand its participation to European Networks and in various transnational projects in matters of return, this participation was already set into motion prior to the exceptional flows of 2014. As for effective measures curbing challenges to return, this study brings to light the AVRR programme but especially the separate return programme for returnees from West Balkan countries exempt of visa requirements. The dissemination of information on voluntary return is also considered an effective policy measure, the information being made available from the very start of the international protection application. Among the cases where return is not immediately possible, a considerable distinction has to be made in regards to the reasons for the non-return. Indeed, in cases where the delay is due to the medical condition of the returnee or to material and technical reasons that are external to the returnee, a postponement of removal will be granted. This postponement allows for the rejected applicant to remain on the territory on a temporary basis, without being authorized to reside and may be accompanied by a measure of house arrest or other. In cases of postponement for medical reasons and of subsequent renewals bringing the total length of postponement over two years, the rejected applicant may apply for a residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds of exceptional seriousness. Nevertheless, apart from this exception, no official status is granted to individuals who cannot immediately be returned. Several measures of support are available to beneficiaries of postponement to removal: they have access to accommodation in the reception centres they were housed in during their procedure, they may be attributed humanitarian aid, they continue to be affiliated at the National Health Fund, they continue to have access to education and professional training and they are allowed to work through a temporary work authorization. The temporary work authorization is only valid for a single profession and a single employer for the duration of the postponement to removal, although this is an extremely rare occurrence in practice. OLAI may allocate a humanitarian aid might be allocated if the individual was already assisted by OLAI during the procedure of her/his international protection application. All of these measures apply until the moment of return. The study also puts forth a number of best practices such as the Croix-Rouge’s involvement in police trainings, their offer of punctual support to vulnerable people through international networking or the socio-psychological support given to vulnerable people placed in the detention centre among others. A special regard has to be given to AVRR programmes and their pre-departure information and counselling, the dissemination of information and the post-arrival support and reintegration assistance. Indeed, stakeholders singled the AVRR programme out as a best practice and the Luxembourgish government has made voluntary return a policy priority for a long time. However, this increased interest in voluntary returns has to be put into perspective as research shows that sustainable success of voluntary return and reintegration measures is only achieved for a very restricted number of beneficiaries (namely for young, autonomous and dynamic returnees with sizeable social networks and who were granted substantial social capital upon return). Hence, returning women remains a sensitive issue, especially if they were fleeing abusive relationships. Another factor contributing to hardship set forth by research is the difficult reintegration of returnees that have lived outside of their country of return for a prolonged period of time and are therefore unable to rely on social networks for support or for a sense of belonging. Based on these considerations, NGOs and academia cast doubts on the ‘voluntary’ nature of these return programmes, their criticism targeting the misleading labelling of these policy measures. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 91 (9 UL)
Full Text
See detailRapport Politique sur les Migrations et l'Asile 2015 - Luxembourg
Petry, David UL; Marcus, Noémie; Li, Lisa et al

Report (2016)

Detailed reference viewed: 47 (10 UL)
See detailRefugees in rural Europe – potentials for the local labour market?
Nienaber, Birte UL

Scientific Conference (2016, June 22)

Detailed reference viewed: 48 (7 UL)
See detailFlüchtlingskrise in Europa? – eine Einführung
Nienaber, Birte UL

Presentation (2016, April 19)

Detailed reference viewed: 102 (2 UL)
Full Text
See detailChanges in Immigration Status and Purpose of Stay
Becker, Fabienne UL; Dionisio, Linda UL; Li, Lisa UL et al

Report (2016)

Detailed reference viewed: 98 (20 UL)
Full Text
See detailIntegration of beneficiaries of international/humanitarian protection into the labour market: Policies and good practices
Petry, David UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2016)

In Luxembourgish legislation the term “international protection” includes both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Integration of beneficiaries of international protection into the ... [more ▼]

In Luxembourgish legislation the term “international protection” includes both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Integration of beneficiaries of international protection into the Luxembourgish labour market might appear quite unproblematic at first glance. From a legal point of view, the access is indeed very much open to both beneficiaries of international protection as well as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. As from 2006 onwards, the legislator proceeded with an approximation of both statuses, providing the same rights to both types of beneficiaries of international protection. As soon as the applicants are granted international protection they are authorised to engage in employed or self-employed activities under the same conditions as Luxembourgish nationals, with the exceptionof civil servant jobs. This is also true for most of the support measures that aim to advance or enhance the access to employment, whether on the level of education, vocational training, language learning, recognition of diploma, counselling, social aid or access to housing. In each of those areas, the beneficiaries of international may in principle benefit from equivalent access as provided to other migrants, third-countrynationals or Luxembourgish nationals. Yet, the reality on the ground seldom matches the aims of the legislative framework. Effective access to the labour market remains a significant challenge for beneficiaries of international protection in order to fully integrate in Luxembourgish society. The linguistic regime as well as the high demands in terms of language requirements constitute a first major hurdle, both at the level of education/vocational training and the labour market. Rather than being able to immediately access the regular education system, respectively the labour market, refugees must first engage in a learning process sometimes coupled with administrative procedures (i.e. recognition of diplomas) that may significantly slow down the integration process. The transition period that begins once the applicant is granted international protection status appears to be particularly challenging. Indeed, several measures from which the applicants for international protection benefited during the procedure will no longer be available once they are granted the status. Thus, social aid, including housing, provided to international protection seekers will no longer be applicable to refugees. Even though national authorities have implemented several specific targeted measures in order to facilitate the transition period (i.e. progressive financial contribution to accommodation costs), it remains a phase of instability and uncertainty for the refugees and their families. This also stresses the need for employment-related support measures, which in Luxembourg are implemented in a more general integration framework. Thus, most of the support measures that exist for beneficiaries of international protection are not tailored to them in particular, but they are also open to other types of migrants or foreigners living in Luxembourg. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 91 (16 UL)
See detailGroßschutzgebiete, Biodiversität und räumliche Planung. Ein Positionspapier aus der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung
Heiland, Stefan; Jedicke, Eckhardt; Job, Hubert et al

in Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung (2016), 48(9),

Detailed reference viewed: 18 (2 UL)