References of "Petry, David 50002845"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
See detailL’efficacité du retour dans les États membres de l’UE: défis et bonnes pratiques dans l’application des règles européennes en matière de retour
Petry, David UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Coda, Nicolas UL et al

Article for general public (2018)

Le retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier est l‘un des principaux piliers de la politique de l‘UE en matière de migration et d‘asile. Dans son plan d‘action sur le retour en 2015 et ... [more ▼]

Le retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier est l‘un des principaux piliers de la politique de l‘UE en matière de migration et d‘asile. Dans son plan d‘action sur le retour en 2015 et dans sa communication de 2017 relative à une politique de retour plus efficace et la recommandation qui l‘a accompagnée, la Commission a souligné la nécessité d‘une mise en œuvre plus stricte des règles européennes en la matière. Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2017 par le point de contact de l´European Migration Network au Luxembourg intitulée «L’efficacité du retour dans les Etats membres de l’UE: défis et bonnes pratiques dans l’application des règles européennes en matière de retour» ainsi que du rapport synthétique qui en résulte. L’étude se base sur les informations recueillies jusqu’au mois de juillet 2017. Cette note de synthèse vise à analyser l‘impact des règles européennes sur le retour ainsi que sur les politiques et pratiques mises en œuvre dans les différents États membres. Elle présente également la manière dont les normes et procédures européennes ont été interprétées et appliquées au niveau national et, dans la mesure du possible, leur impact sur l‘efficacité du dispositif de retour. Toutefois, une certaine prudence s’impose tant il est difficile d‘établir des liens de causalité entre des mesures politiques spécifiques et le nombre de retours mis en œuvre. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (4 UL)
Full Text
See detailAnnual report on migration and asylum (2017)
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Adao Do Carmo, Kelly UL; Petry, David UL et al

Report (2018)

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained ... [more ▼]

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained high in 2017 (2.322 applications) compared to the levels registered pre- ‘migration crisis’ (1.091 in 2014). However, the number of registrations remained relatively stable if compared to the two preceding years (2.447 in 2015 and 2.035 in 2016). This relative stability in numbers also reflected on the general public and policy debate in the field of migration and asylum. Since 2016, its focus has continuously shifted from an ‘emergency’ discourse axed on the implementation of reception measures and conditions towards discussions on longer-term integration measures and policies. In this regard, the newly introduced Guided Integration Trail (parcours d’intégration accompagné - PIA) can be considered a flagship project of OLAI, the national agency responsible for the reception and integration of foreigners. This multidisciplinary package of measures aims to empower applicants and beneficiaries of international protection and to support them in developing their life project. The trail, compulsory for all adult applicants for international protection, consists of a linguistic component and a civic component and is split into three phases. Although increasing housing capacities for the reception of applicants for international protection was high on national authorities’ agenda, housing remained a challenging aspect of the asylum system and triggered debate on a national scale. Alongside access to training, problems related to housing were among the issues most frequently raised by applicants for international protection in 2017. The lack of affordable housing on the private market, an increasing number of family reunifications as well as the increasing number of beneficiaries and persons who have been issued a return decision who remain housed in structures of OLAI were all identified as interplaying barriers for finding available accommodation for applicants for international protection. The difficulties with the construction of modular housing structures also persisted in 2017. A certain reticence of the population towards the construction of these so-called ‘container villages, planned in response to the increasing influx that started in August 2015, was visible in the appeals introduced into Luxembourg’s First Instance Administrative Courts to annul the land-use plans related to the projects. Living conditions in the various reception facilities were also one of the subjects of discussion in 2017. This included a debate on the (lack of) kitchen infrastructure in reception facilities and the varying systems for provision of food, the types of food available, as well as the availability of internet. As an answer to the resurgence of an increased influx of applicants of international protection from the Western Balkans in early 2017, a new ‘ultra-accelerated procedure’ was put in place for applicants of international protection stemming from the Western Balkans. According to the state authorities, the ultra-accelerated procedure was set up to take pressure off the reception facilities, but also as a deterrent to avoid creating false hopes for long-term stay. In April 2017, a ‘semi-open return structure’ (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg – SHUK) was put in place, from which people are transferred to states applying the Dublin regulation. Due to home custody (assignation à résidence), the SHUK is considered to be an alternative to detention by national authorities. The newly created structure as well as the related conditions for assignment, were nevertheless criticised by civil society. The outcry among civil society was equally high during and after the adoption the Law of 8 March 2017, which endorses the extension of the permitted period of detention of adults or families with children from 72 hours to 7 days, in order to improve the organisation of the return and ensures that it is carried out successfully. A commission in charge of determining the best interests of unaccompanied minors applying for international protection was decided at the end of 2017. The commission is in charge of carrying out individual assessments regarding the best interest of the child with the aim of delivering an authorisation of stay or a return decision. Among the elements taken into consideration when the best interest of the child is evaluated in the context of a potential return decision is information provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The latter made an agreement with the Directorate of Immigration in 2017 to search for the parents of UAMs in the country of origin. With the focus of debates having slowly shifted towards long-term integration issues, the Council of Government also approved the elaboration of a new multiannual national action plan on integration. The plan will be based on two axes: (1) the reception and follow-up of applicants for international protection and (2) the integration of Luxembourg’s non-Luxembourgish residents. Luxembourg’s National Employment Agency (ADEM) set up a “cellule BPI” (beneficiaries of international protection cell) in its Employer Service in early 2017. This cell provides employers with information regarding job applications and evaluations of the competences of beneficiaries of international protection. A new law on the Luxembourgish nationality entered into force on 1 April 2017. Given the particular demographic situation of Luxembourg characterised by a significant increase in the total population and a decrease in the proportion of Luxembourgers in the total population, the reform intends to promote the societal and political integration of non-Luxembourgish citizens and to strengthen cohesion within the national community. The main changes introduced by the law include a decreased length of residence requirement for naturalisation (from 7 to 5 years), the right of birthplace (jus soli) of the first generation, a simplified way of acquiring Luxembourgish nationality by ‘option’, as well as new scenarios to avoid cases of statelessness. The law maintains previous linguistic requirements but makes some adjustments in order to prevent the language condition from becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Ahead of the local elections held on 8 October 2017, the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region launched a national information and awareness-raising campaign titled “Je peux voter” (I can vote) in January 2017. This campaign aimed to motivate Luxembourg’s foreign population to register on the electoral roll for the local elections. The government’s intention to legislate face concealment was arguably one of the most debated topics in the field related to community life and integration in the broader sense, both in parliament as well as in the media and public sphere. Bill n°7179 aims to modify article 563 of the Penal Code and to create the prohibition of face concealment in certain public spaces. The bill defines face concealment as the action of covering part of or all of the face in a way of rendering the identification of the person impossible and provides a wide variety of examples, such as the wearing of a motor cycle helmet, a balaclava or a full-face veil. Opposing views among stakeholders, whether political parties, public institutions, civil society or the media, emerged with regard to the necessity to legislate in the matter and if so, on the basis of which grounds and to what extent. The phenomenon of migration has also led to a more heterogeneous population in Luxembourg’s schools. To face this situation, the education authorities continued to diversify Luxembourg’s offer in education and training, creating for instance a bigger offer for youngsters and adults who do not master any of Luxembourg’s vehicular languages, offering more alphabetisation courses or basic instruction courses. The Minister for National Education continued to develop and adapt the school offer to the increased heterogeneity by increasing the international and European school offer, introducing of a new mediation service and putting in place a plurilingual education programme. In the area of legal migration, the most significant changes concerned admission policies of specific categories of third-country nationals. In this respect, bill n°7188 mainly aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing. The directive aims to make the European Union a world centre of excellence for studies and training, while favouring contacts between people and favouring their mobility, these two being important elements of the European Union’s external policy. Bill N°7188 intends to facilitate and simplify the procedures for intra-European mobility of TCN researchers and students. Moreover, the proposed changes include incentive mechanisms to retain students and researchers. To this end, it proposes that students and researchers, once they have completed their studies/research, can be issued a residence permit for “private reasons” for a duration of 9 months at most in view of finding employment or creating a business. Finally, bill n°7188 also foresees provisions to regulate the family reunification of a researcher staying in Luxembourg in the context of short- and long-term mobility with his/her nuclear family. The legislator furthermore transposed Directive 2014/36 on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66 on temporary intragroup transfer into national law, and adapted Luxembourg’s immigration law to the needs to the economy, by introducing, amongst other things, and authorisation of stay for investors. Organising the admission of stay and the issuance of authorisations of stay was also a key component within the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidary development. Other objectives of the agreement include the promotion of the movement of people, detailing readmission procedures, fighting against irregular migration, strengthening the legal establishment and integration of the concerned nationals, as well as the mobilisation of skills and resources of migrants in favour of solidary development. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 50 (15 UL)
Full Text
See detailRapport annuel sur les migrations et l'asile (2017)
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Adao Do Carmo, Kelly UL; Petry, David UL et al

Report (2018)

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained ... [more ▼]

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained high in 2017 (2.322 applications) compared to the levels registered pre- ‘migration crisis’ (1.091 in 2014). However, the number of registrations remained relatively stable if compared to the two preceding years (2.447 in 2015 and 2.035 in 2016). This relative stability in numbers also reflected on the general public and policy debate in the field of migration and asylum. Since 2016, its focus has continuously shifted from an ‘emergency’ discourse axed on the implementation of reception measures and conditions towards discussions on longer-term integration measures and policies. In this regard, the newly introduced Guided Integration Trail (parcours d’intégration accompagné - PIA) can be considered a flagship project of OLAI, the national agency responsible for the reception and integration of foreigners. This multidisciplinary package of measures aims to empower applicants and beneficiaries of international protection and to support them in developing their life project. The trail, compulsory for all adult applicants for international protection, consists of a linguistic component and a civic component and is split into three phases. Although increasing housing capacities for the reception of applicants for international protection was high on national authorities’ agenda, housing remained a challenging aspect of the asylum system and triggered debate on a national scale. Alongside access to training, problems related to housing were among the issues most frequently raised by applicants for international protection in 2017. The lack of affordable housing on the private market, an increasing number of family reunifications as well as the increasing number of beneficiaries and persons who have been issued a return decision who remain housed in structures of OLAI were all identified as interplaying barriers for finding available accommodation for applicants for international protection. The difficulties with the construction of modular housing structures also persisted in 2017. A certain reticence of the population towards the construction of these so-called ‘container villages, planned in response to the increasing influx that started in August 2015, was visible in the appeals introduced into Luxembourg’s First Instance Administrative Courts to annul the land-use plans related to the projects. Living conditions in the various reception facilities were also one of the subjects of discussion in 2017. This included a debate on the (lack of) kitchen infrastructure in reception facilities and the varying systems for provision of food, the types of food available, as well as the availability of internet. As an answer to the resurgence of an increased influx of applicants of international protection from the Western Balkans in early 2017, a new ‘ultra-accelerated procedure’ was put in place for applicants of international protection stemming from the Western Balkans. According to the state authorities, the ultra-accelerated procedure was set up to take pressure off the reception facilities, but also as a deterrent to avoid creating false hopes for long-term stay. In April 2017, a ‘semi-open return structure’ (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg – SHUK) was put in place, from which people are transferred to states applying the Dublin regulation. Due to home custody (assignation à résidence), the SHUK is considered to be an alternative to detention by national authorities. The newly created structure as well as the related conditions for assignment, were nevertheless criticised by civil society. The outcry among civil society was equally high during and after the adoption the Law of 8 March 2017, which endorses the extension of the permitted period of detention of adults or families with children from 72 hours to 7 days, in order to improve the organisation of the return and ensures that it is carried out successfully. A commission in charge of determining the best interests of unaccompanied minors applying for international protection was decided at the end of 2017. The commission is in charge of carrying out individual assessments regarding the best interest of the child with the aim of delivering an authorisation of stay or a return decision. Among the elements taken into consideration when the best interest of the child is evaluated in the context of a potential return decision is information provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The latter made an agreement with the Directorate of Immigration in 2017 to search for the parents of UAMs in the country of origin. With the focus of debates having slowly shifted towards long-term integration issues, the Council of Government also approved the elaboration of a new multiannual national action plan on integration. The plan will be based on two axes: (1) the reception and follow-up of applicants for international protection and (2) the integration of Luxembourg’s non-Luxembourgish residents. Luxembourg’s National Employment Agency (ADEM) set up a “cellule BPI” (beneficiaries of international protection cell) in its Employer Service in early 2017. This cell provides employers with information regarding job applications and evaluations of the competences of beneficiaries of international protection. A new law on the Luxembourgish nationality entered into force on 1 April 2017. Given the particular demographic situation of Luxembourg characterised by a significant increase in the total population and a decrease in the proportion of Luxembourgers in the total population, the reform intends to promote the societal and political integration of non-Luxembourgish citizens and to strengthen cohesion within the national community. The main changes introduced by the law include a decreased length of residence requirement for naturalisation (from 7 to 5 years), the right of birthplace (jus soli) of the first generation, a simplified way of acquiring Luxembourgish nationality by ‘option’, as well as new scenarios to avoid cases of statelessness. The law maintains previous linguistic requirements but makes some adjustments in order to prevent the language condition from becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Ahead of the local elections held on 8 October 2017, the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region launched a national information and awareness-raising campaign titled “Je peux voter” (I can vote) in January 2017. This campaign aimed to motivate Luxembourg’s foreign population to register on the electoral roll for the local elections. The government’s intention to legislate face concealment was arguably one of the most debated topics in the field related to community life and integration in the broader sense, both in parliament as well as in the media and public sphere. Bill n°7179 aims to modify article 563 of the Penal Code and to create the prohibition of face concealment in certain public spaces. The bill defines face concealment as the action of covering part of or all of the face in a way of rendering the identification of the person impossible and provides a wide variety of examples, such as the wearing of a motor cycle helmet, a balaclava or a full-face veil. Opposing views among stakeholders, whether political parties, public institutions, civil society or the media, emerged with regard to the necessity to legislate in the matter and if so, on the basis of which grounds and to what extent. The phenomenon of migration has also led to a more heterogeneous population in Luxembourg’s schools. To face this situation, the education authorities continued to diversify Luxembourg’s offer in education and training, creating for instance a bigger offer for youngsters and adults who do not master any of Luxembourg’s vehicular languages, offering more alphabetisation courses or basic instruction courses. The Minister for National Education continued to develop and adapt the school offer to the increased heterogeneity by increasing the international and European school offer, introducing of a new mediation service and putting in place a plurilingual education programme. In the area of legal migration, the most significant changes concerned admission policies of specific categories of third-country nationals. In this respect, bill n°7188 mainly aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing. The directive aims to make the European Union a world centre of excellence for studies and training, while favouring contacts between people and favouring their mobility, these two being important elements of the European Union’s external policy. Bill N°7188 intends to facilitate and simplify the procedures for intra-European mobility of TCN researchers and students. Moreover, the proposed changes include incentive mechanisms to retain students and researchers. To this end, it proposes that students and researchers, once they have completed their studies/research, can be issued a residence permit for “private reasons” for a duration of 9 months at most in view of finding employment or creating a business. Finally, bill n°7188 also foresees provisions to regulate the family reunification of a researcher staying in Luxembourg in the context of short- and long-term mobility with his/her nuclear family. The legislator furthermore transposed Directive 2014/36 on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66 on temporary intragroup transfer into national law, and adapted Luxembourg’s immigration law to the needs to the economy, by introducing, amongst other things, and authorisation of stay for investors. Organising the admission of stay and the issuance of authorisations of stay was also a key component within the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidary development. Other objectives of the agreement include the promotion of the movement of people, detailing readmission procedures, fighting against irregular migration, strengthening the legal establishment and integration of the concerned nationals, as well as the mobilisation of skills and resources of migrants in favour of solidary development. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 76 (20 UL)
See detailThe effectiveness of return in EU Member States: challenges and good practices linked to EU rules and standards
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Petry, David UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

The impact of EU rules on Luxembourg’s return policies and practices is substantial. This is not least a result of the transposition of Directive 2008/115/EC on return into national law by the Law of 1 ... [more ▼]

The impact of EU rules on Luxembourg’s return policies and practices is substantial. This is not least a result of the transposition of Directive 2008/115/EC on return into national law by the Law of 1 July 2011, which was then further developed through amendments in 2014 following the conclusions of the European Commission that Luxembourg was not fully in line with the directive. With regards to the European Commission Recommendation of 7th March 2017 ‘on making returns more effective when implementing the Directive 2008/115/EC’, Luxembourg did not introduce any specific legal or policy change. Most of the referenced provisions already form part of the national legal and/or policy framework. The government’s efforts to conclude and apply readmission agreements with third-countries to better organise returns have continued throughout 2016. The Benelux Member States concluded a readmission agreement and a protocol of implementation with the Republic of Kazakhstan on 2 March 2015, which was approved by Law of 31 August 2016. As a result of the relatively high influx of asylum-seekers in 2015/2016, a backlog in the processing of applications for international protection occurred and could only be properly addressed by the Refugees and Return Department of the Directorate of Immigration through an increase and a reorganisation of its administrative staff. On the other side, the impact of the migration situation 2015/2016 did not significantly affect the functioning of the Detention Centre nor its maximum occupation limits. However, the Detention Centre took over the management of the SHUK (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence Kirchberg) a new semi-open facility established for Dublin cases (single men) with a view of transferring them to the responsible Member State. Although vulnerable groups are generally not detained in Luxembourg, the permitted period of detention of families with children was recently (March 2017) extended from 72 hours to 7 days with a view to enhancing the organisation of their return. The controversial extension through law amendment was largely criticised by civil society organisations and hence debated in parliament. The definition of guarantees to avoid the risk of absconding remains a major challenge in the field of return and (alternatives to) detention. In most cases, the applicant fails to provide evidence enabling the reversal of the legal presumption of the existence of a risk of absconding, allowing the Minister to use a detention measure instead of another less coercive measure. As long as the concerned third-country national is unable to indicate a fixed address of stay (reception facilities are not taken into account), the competent authorities cannot rule out the existence of a risk of absconding. The practical implementation of ‘home custody’ as an alternative to detention is therefore considered problematic, with most potential candidates not having a fixed address in Luxembourg. The substantial amount of the financial guarantee, 5.000€, make it also difficult to practically implement release on bail as an alternative. Although the Law foresees the possibility of combining home custody with electronic surveillance, the electronic tag has not yet been implemented. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 16 (2 UL)
Full Text
See detailLe regroupement familial des ressortissants de pays tiers en UE: pratiques nationales
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Petry, David UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL et al

Article for general public (2017)

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network intitulée «Le regroupement familial des ... [more ▼]

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network intitulée «Le regroupement familial des ressortissants de pays tiers: pratiques nationales» ainsi que du rapport de synthèse, élaboré par la Commission européenne à parti r des études nationales de 26 points de contacts nationaux du EMN (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, SK, SI, SE, UK). L’étude vise à comparer les politiques et pratiques nationales en matière de regroupement familial entre les différents États (membres). Plus précisément l’étude examine les: • critères d’admissibilité des membres de famille; • conditions pour le regroupement familial, ainsi que les mesures d’intégration avant et après l’admission; • aspects procéduraux de la demande de regroupement familial; • droits accordés aux ressortissants de pays ti ers réunis en famille dans l’Union européenne; • conditions de non-renouvellement ou de retrait du titre de séjour «membre de famille». L’étude se réfère à la situation telle qu’elle s’est présentée depuis 2011 et jusqu’à la fin de l’année 2016. Elle ne porte pas sur les ressortissants de pays tiers membres de famille d’un citoyen de l’Union ou d’un pays assimilé, tombant dans le champ d’application de la libre circulation des personnes. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 22 (1 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: 281 (49 UL)
Full Text
See detailPolicy Report on Migration and Asylum (2016)
Petry, David UL; Jacobs, Sarah UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

The present report provides an overview of the main debates and developments in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2016. The issue of migration remained on the forefront of public and ... [more ▼]

The present report provides an overview of the main debates and developments in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2016. The issue of migration remained on the forefront of public and political debate, a debate axed on both planned legislative changes as well as the concrete migratory situation in Luxembourg. Four topics dominated public and policy discussions over the course of the year: the reform on Luxembourgish nationality, economic migration, the organisation of reception, as well as support and integration measures, linked to the continued inflow of applicants for international protection (AIPs) in 2016 and steps taken to adapt formal and informal education to the increasing heterogeneity of Luxembourg’s population. The debate on international protection that arose in 2015 was carried onward in 2016, the focus shifting towards reception, support and integration measures. As the inflow of AIPs remained relatively high in 2016 with 2.043 applications, Luxembourg’s Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) warned throughout the year that the country’s structures would soon reach the limits of their capacity. Linked to the high recognition rate, the legal challenges that local residents put to the plans for the construction of new reception facilities and the difficulty of beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) in finding appropriate accommodation, the perceived dearth of housing was discussed broadly by the public, the media, as well as civil society and political actors. The continued inflow of AIPs also put a strain on the concerned administrations, both in terms of financial and human resources, leading to discussions regarding the duration of procedures and the variations of this duration. Moreover, the question of integration or support measures for beneficiaries and applicants stepped to the forefront: the changed profile of people arriving in Luxembourg posed new challenges to language learning and education for the newly arrived, and overall, emphasised the need to adapt existing and create new integration and support measures for beneficiaries and applicants. At the same time, the role of non-governmental organisations in supporting the government in the reception of applicants and in establishing new projects facilitating their integration also grew over the course of 2016, not least due to over 80 projects being granted funding by the Oeuvre Nationale de Secours Grande Duchesse Charlotte (henceforth Oeuvre). The Luxembourgish Centre for Integration and Social Cohesion (LISKO), part of the Red Cross and supported by convention to the Ministry for Family and Integration opened its doors in April 2016. The newly created centre will take care of the integration of BIPs into Luxembourg’s society, putting its emphasis on facilitating access to housing. The planned extension of the maximum period of detention for families with children and unaccompanied minors (UAMs) from 72 hours to 7 days precipitated strong reactions from civil society and the public. Luxembourg furthermore followed through on its resettlement and relocation commitments made in 2015, with 167 persons being relocated from Greece and Italy to Luxembourg and with 52 being resettled in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement over the course of 2016. The adaptation of Luxembourg’s legislation in the domain of legal migration also took shape over in 2016 and was broadly debated during the law-making process, while warranting less public attention. With the introduction of one bill, the legislator started the process of transposing Directive 2014/36/EU on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66/EU on intra-corporate transfers into national law. The same bill furthermore introduced an authorisation of stay for investors, the aspect most commented on by civil society; a mechanism for continuation of activity; detailed the conditions under which a TCN (third country national) corporate officer (mandataire social) can apply for an authorisation of stay, extended the period of validity of the "European Blue Card" residence permit from two to four years, modified dispositions regarding the change of status of students and facilitated family reunification. These developments are to be framed within a wider context of economic diversification, encouragement of entrepreneurship and the repositioning of the financial centre. The reform of the Luxembourgish nationality, another major subject of discussion, was recognised as the best way to counteract Luxembourg’s increasing democratic deficit after the electorate’s refusal to extend legislative voting rights to foreign residents, decided in the referendum of 2015. This reform further proceeded over the course of 2016, reintroduced the perennial language debate in Luxembourg, a larger debate on the role and status of the Luxembourgish language as well as its relation to integration of migrants into Luxembourgish society. In order to increase foreign residents’ participation in the upcoming municipal elections of October 2017, the government launched an awareness campaign encouraging foreign residents to register on the electoral roll, and provided support for organisations wishing to organise complementary actions. The Ministry of National Education and Youth made efforts to find responses to the growing heterogeneity of Luxembourg’s population, aiming to diversify and broaden the post-primary school offer, to develop plurilingual education in nurseries and to develop non-formal education by reforming in-kind benefits, this with the aim of promoting integration and equal opportunity. The transposition of Directive 2013/55/EU on the recognition of professional qualifications was also completed in 2016. The law further amended several national provisions, recast the legislation in the field of recognition of diplomas, combined all applicable provisions in a single legislative text and simplified the procedure for recognition. The debate regarding the return of irregular migrants circled around a number of issues in 2016: the exclusion of Kosovar nationals from the AVRRL programme, the Schengen evaluation and the aforementioned resulting changes to provisions on detention, the debate on the enforcement of the EU-Afghanistan ‘Joint way forward on migration issues’ agreement, as well as the continuation of the elaboration of readmission agreements. Luxembourg’s government took further steps in the fight against trafficking in human beings (THB) over the course of 2016. The Council of Government adopted the National Action Plan on trafficking in human beings, which focuses on the detection and protection of victims, the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators and a policy to combat trafficking. Luxembourg’s strategy on prostitution was presented, consisting of a National Action Plan on prostitution and a bill strengthening the fight against the exploitation of prostitution, procuring and THB. Additionally, the Consultative Commission on Human Rights (Commission Consultative des Droits de l’Homme – CCDH) published its first report on THB, which reviewed the years 2014-2016. In reference to migration and development, Luxembourg continued putting emphasis on vocational training and integration programmes in its indicative cooperation programmes with partner countries. Additionally, the Council of Government approved the bill on the agreement between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Republic of Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidarity-based development, facilitating the movement of persons and to encourage temporary circular professional migration between Luxembourg and Cape Verde. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 38 (3 UL)
Full Text
See detailRapport politique sur les migrations et l'asile (2016)
Petry, David UL; Jacobs, Sarah UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

Le présent rapport fait la synthèse des principaux débats et des évolutions concernant l’immigration et l’asile au Luxembourg en 2016. Au cours de cette année, quatre sujets ont dominé les discussions ... [more ▼]

Le présent rapport fait la synthèse des principaux débats et des évolutions concernant l’immigration et l’asile au Luxembourg en 2016. Au cours de cette année, quatre sujets ont dominé les discussions publiques et politiques : l’organisation de l’accueil, ainsi que les mesures de soutien et d’intégration, en lien avec l’afflux continu de demandeurs de protection internationale (DPI) en 2016, la réforme de la loi sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise, la migration économique, et les mesures prises ou envisagées pour adapter l’éducation formelle et informelle à l’hétérogénéité croissante de la population luxembourgeoise. Le débat sur la protection internationale soulevé en 2015 s’est poursuivi en 2016, en se concentrant cette fois-ci sur les mesures d’accueil, de soutien et d’intégration. L’afflux de DPI demeurant relativement élevé en 2016 avec 2 043 demandes, l’Office luxembourgeois de l’accueil et de l’intégration (OLAI) n’a cessé, tout au long de l’année, de mettre l’accent sur le fait que les structures du pays atteindraient prochainement les limites de leur capacité d’accueil. Les difficultés que rencontrent les bénéficiaires de protection internationale (BPI) pour trouver un logement approprié et la contestation tant populaire que judiciaire des résidents locaux pour contrer les projets de construction de nouveaux foyers d’accueil, ont donné lieu à des débats à grande échelle auxquels ont participé le public, les médias ainsi que la société civile et les acteurs politiques. L’afflux continu de DPI a également exercé des pressions sur les administrations concernées, aussi bien en termes de ressources financières que de ressources humaines, et ont entraîné des discussions sur la longueur des procédures et les variations de ces délais. L’accueil des DPI et l’intégration des BPI est devenu un défi important alors que le nouveau profil des personnes entrant au Luxembourg a induit de nouveaux enjeux en termes d’apprentissage de la langue et d’éducation des nouveaux arrivants et dans l’ensemble, a souligné la nécessité d’adapter les mesures de soutien existantes et d’en créer de nouvelles pour les bénéficiaires et les demandeurs. Parallèlement, le rôle des organisations non gouvernementales en matière de soutien du Gouvernement dans le cadre de l’accueil des demandeurs et de mise en place de nouveaux projets venant faciliter leur intégration, a également pris de l’ampleur en 2016, notamment du fait des plus de 80 projets financés par l’Œuvre Nationale de Secours Grande Duchesse Charlotte (ci-après l’Œuvre). De nouveaux acteurs sont apparus sur la scène publique avec l’instauration du Centre luxembourgeois pour l’intégration et la cohésion sociale (LISKO) de la Croix Rouge conventionné par le ministère de la Famille, de l’Intégration et à la Grande Région, qui a pour objet de promouvoir l’intégration des BPI au sein de la société luxembourgeoise, en privilégiant l’accès au logement. Toujours, sur le plan de la protection internationale, le Luxembourg a poursuivi les engagements pris en 2015 en matière de réinstallation et de relocalisation, 167 personnes ayant été relocalisées de Grèce et d’Italie vers le Luxembourg et 52 ayant été réinstallées dans le cadre de la Déclaration UE-Turquie en 2016. La lutte contre la traite des êtres humains (TEH) était un autre sujet de préoccupation important en 2016. Le Conseil de gouvernement a adopté le Plan d’action national sur la traite des êtres humains qui comprend des mesures relatives à la détection et la protection des victimes, la poursuite judiciaire et les sanctions imposées aux auteurs et qui vise la mise en place d’une politique active et efficace de lutte contre la traite. La stratégie du Luxembourg sur la prostitution a été présentée : elle consiste en un Plan d’action national sur la prostitution et en un projet de loi qui renforce la lutte contre l’exploitation de la prostitution, le proxénétisme et la traite des êtres humains. De plus, le rapporteur national, la Commission Consultative des Droits de l’Homme (CCDH) a publié son premier rapport sur la traite des êtres humains, qui couvre les années 2014 à 2016. L’adaptation de la législation luxembourgeoise dans le domaine de la migration légale a également pris forme en 2016, bien que suscitant moins d’intérêt et de débat public. Avec l’introduction d’un projet de loi, le législateur a lancé le processus de transposition de la Directive 2014/36/UE sur les travailleurs saisonniers et de la Directive 2014/66/UE sur les transferts temporaires intra-groupe en droit national. Ce même projet de loi a également introduit une autorisation de séjour destinée aux investisseurs et un mécanisme de continuité d’activité, a détaillé les conditions dans lesquelles un mandataire social ressortissant d’un pays tiers (RPT) pouvait demander une autorisation de séjour, a prolongé la période de validité du titre de séjour « Carte bleue européenne », a modifié les dispositions concernant le changement du statut des étudiants et a facilité le regroupement familial. Ces évolutions sont à situer dans un contexte plus large de diversification économique, d’incitation à l’entreprenariat et de repositionnement du centre financier. Dans le domaine de la migration et du développement, le Luxembourg a continué de mettre l’accent sur les formations professionnelles et les projets d’intégration dans ses programmes indicatifs de coopération avec les pays partenaires. Par ailleurs, le Conseil de gouvernement a approuvé le projet de loi sur l’accord entre le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg et la République du Cap-Vert sur la gestion concertée des flux migratoires et le développement solidaire facilitant la circulation des personnes et visant à encourager la migration professionnelle circulaire temporaire entre le Luxembourg et le CapVert. Sur le plan du retour des migrants en situation irrégulière ou sans droit de séjour il convient de mentionner l’exclusion des ressortissants du Kosovo du programme AVRRL, le processus d’évaluation Schengen et les changements qui en résultent sur les dispositions en matière de rétention : L’extension prévue de la période maximale de rétention pour les familles avec enfants et pour les mineurs non accompagnés (MNA) qui devait passer de 72 heures à 7 jours, a suscité de vives réactions de la part de la société civile. La mise en œuvre de la Déclaration UE-Afghanistan « Joint Way Forward on migration issues », ainsi que la poursuite de l’élaboration des accords de réadmission ont constitué d’autres aspects importants de la politique migratoire. Sur le plan des politiques d’intégration, le projet de réforme de la loi sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise a été considéré comme moyen important pour lutter contre le déficit démocratique croissant du Luxembourg suite au refus des électeurs d’accorder le droit de vote aux résidents étrangers pour les législatives lors du référendum de 2015. Avec ce projet de réforme a été relancé le perpétuel débat sur les langues au Luxembourg, en particulier sur le rôle et le statut de la langue luxembourgeoise et son lien avec l’intégration des migrants au sein de la société luxembourgeoise. Afin de renforcer la participation des résidents étrangers aux prochaines élections municipales du mois d’octobre 2017, le Gouvernement a lancé une campagne de sensibilisation, pour encourager les résidents étrangers à s’inscrire sur les listes électorales. Le ministère de l’Education nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse s’est efforcé de trouver des réponses à l’hétérogénéité croissante de la population luxembourgeoise, en visant à diversifier et à élargir l’offre d’enseignement, à développer l’éducation non formelle et l’éducation plurilingue dans les crèches dans le but de promouvoir l’intégration et l’égalité des chances. La transposition de la Directive 2013/55/UE sur la reconnaissance des qualifications professionnelles a également été menée à bien en 2016. La loi a modifié plusieurs dispositions nationales, et regroupé toutes les dispositions applicables en un seul texte législatif tout en simplifiant la procédure de reconnaissance. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 70 (8 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: 100 (20 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: 71 (16 UL)
Full Text
See detailDesired Mobilities
Petry, David UL; Marcus, Noémie

Article for general public (2016)

Detailed reference viewed: 17 (2 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: 123 (20 UL)
Full Text
See detailPolitiques, pratiques et données sur les mineurs non-accompagnés au Luxembourg
Li, Lisa UL; Petry, David UL

Scientific Conference (2015)

Detailed reference viewed: 62 (16 UL)
Full Text
See detailPolicy Report on Migration and Asylum 2014 - Luxembourg
Li, Lisa UL; Petry, David UL; Nienaber, Birte UL et al

Report (2015)

Detailed reference viewed: 126 (30 UL)