Grenze als überwindbares Phänomen in der Raumplanung?

in Heintel, Martin; Musil, Robert; Weixlbaumer, Norbert (Eds.) Grenzen (2018)

Grenzen sind in der Planungspraxis vielfältig vorzufinden. Vor allem nationale Grenzen definieren das Territorium, in welchen Planungsinstitutionen und -kulturen verankert sind und ihre Planungsbefugnisse ... [more ▼]

Grenzen sind in der Planungspraxis vielfältig vorzufinden. Vor allem nationale Grenzen definieren das Territorium, in welchen Planungsinstitutionen und -kulturen verankert sind und ihre Planungsbefugnisse gelten. Im Rahmen der europäischen Integration gibt es zwar verschiedene Instrumentarien einer grenzübergreifenden Raumplanung, da jedoch die Europäische Union keine Raumplanungskompetenz besitzt, sind diese stets im Kontext nationaler Raumplanungsgesetze und -kulturen zu verstehen. Der Beitrag zeigt, welche Maßnahmen die Europäische Union getroffen hat (z.B. INTERREG, Territoriale Agenda 2007 und 2020, makroregionale Strategien), um nationalen Grenzen in der Raumplanung weniger Gewicht zu geben und die territoriale Kohäsion zu fördern. Gleichzeitig zeigt sich aber auch die Definitionsmacht nationaler Grenzen in diesem Kompetenzfeld. [less ▲]

Was bedeutet jung und mobil? Ergebnisse aus dem Projekt MOVE

Article for general public (2018)

MOVE (Mapping mobility - pathways, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility in Europe) dealt with intra-European mobility (May 2015 - April 2018). The text sets out recommendations for action ... [more ▼]

MOVE (Mapping mobility - pathways, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility in Europe) dealt with intra-European mobility (May 2015 - April 2018). The text sets out recommendations for action on youth mobility. [less ▲]

Youth on the MOVE?

Conference given outside the academic context (2018)

Integration und Migration im ländlichen Raum

Conference given outside the academic context (2017)

L’IDENTIFICATION DES VICTIMES DE LA TRAITE DES ÊTRES HUMAINS LORS DES PROCÉDURES DE PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE ET DE RETOUR FORCÉ

Report (2017)

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2013 et actualisée en 2017 par le point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network sur «L’identification des ... [more ▼]

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2013 et actualisée en 2017 par le point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network sur «L’identification des victimes de la traite des êtres humains lors des procédures de protection internationale et de retour forcé». [less ▲]

Kontaktraum für die einen, Filter für die anderen

Article for general public (2017)

International Migration in Luxembourg - SOPEMI Report 2017

Report (2017)

While the proportion of Luxembourgish nationals among the resident working population was above 50.3% in 2015, it dropped below 50% in the first quarter of 2017. Some 44% of the working population were ... [more ▼]

While the proportion of Luxembourgish nationals among the resident working population was above 50.3% in 2015, it dropped below 50% in the first quarter of 2017. Some 44% of the working population were EU28 nationals and 6% non-EU nationals. Luxembourg’s economy is reliant on its employment of cross-border workers. In 2016, French nationals maintained and increased their proportion of over 50% of the cross-border working population, reaching 51.4% in Q1 2017, at the expense of both Belgian (24.4%) and German (24.2%) cross-border workers. They mainly work in sectors such as construction, administrative/support service, accommodation/food service, as well as in the financial/insurance sector or professional, scientific and technical activities. Between 2010 and 2017, the number of foreign salaried workers showed the greatest continuous increase in sectors such as professional, scientific and technical activities, administrative and support services, and financial and insurance services. Regarding specific permits, nationals of China (119 permits), India (70 permits) and Montenegro (40 permits) accounted for 31% of all first issues of residence permits for salaried workers. Indian nationals were the single largest nationality group receiving their first issue of EU Blue Cards, with 90 issued during 2016. This was followed by US nationals (58 permits) and Russian nationals (36 permits). After reaching a peak in 2015, the number of applications for international protection slightly decreased in 2016, from 2447 in 2015 to 2035 in 2016 (decrease of 16.8%). Even if the trend slowed down, it remains higher than the levels of 2013-2015. Syrian nationals remain the first nationality of applicants for international protection (14.3%), Iraqi nationals dropping to 4th place (7.9%) after Albanian nationals (11.2%) and Kosovars (10.2%). Luxembourg remains the Member State hosting the 4th highest number of applicants for international protection applicants in relation to the national population. The international protection recognition rate increased from 228 (200 refugee status and 28 subsidiary protection) in 2015 to 790 (764 refugee status and 26 subsidiary protection) in 2016. This represents an increase of 246.5% of positive decisions year-on-year. Luxembourg continues to demonstrate its solidarity in respect of the relocation and resettlement of international protection applicants. In 2015, Luxembourg pledged to relocate 557 individuals to Luxembourg in the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160,000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy. Within this framework, 197 refugees had been relocated by the end of 2016. From January 2017 to 18 August 2017, Luxembourg relocated 186 people. With regards to resettlement, 52 refugees were resettled from Turkey in 2016 as a result of Luxembourg’s pledge to resettle 194 refugees from Turkey in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016. 115 people were resettled between 1st January 2017 and 18th August 2017. New pieces of legislation were enacted during 2016/2017 to assist with the specific migration situation in Luxembourg. Major policy developments related to the implementation of changes to asylum legislation and procedures, education and language reform, and revised integration measures in response to changing migration profiles within Luxembourg. A focus on economic migration took place to promote economic diversification, start-ups and the repositioning of the financial centre. [less ▲]

Immigration und Integration

Speeches/Talks (2017)

The effectiveness of return in EU Member States: challenges and good practices linked to EU rules and standards

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 ▲]

Challenges and practices for establishing applicants’ identity in the migration process

Report (2017)

In Luxembourg, the procedure for identity verification/establishment in the context of international protection is separated from the decision-making procedure as such. While the authority for granting ... [more ▼]

In Luxembourg, the procedure for identity verification/establishment in the context of international protection is separated from the decision-making procedure as such. While the authority for granting international protection status lies with the Ministry in charge of Immigration (Directorate of Immigration), the Judicial Police is in charge of identity verification/establishment. For this means, the applicant will be interviewed with regard to his/her travel itinerary, including questions on border crossing and used means of transports to arrive in Luxembourg. During the last few years, the large majority of international protection applications in Luxembourg have come from persons originating from the Western Balkan countries (in 2016 they represent 35% of the applicants). Concerning these applicants, most of them (85% to 90%) have presented valid identity documents to the authorities in Luxembourg. However, with the migration crisis there is a growing number of international protection applicants coming from the Middle East and North Africa and who cannot produce valid identity documents. National authorities have always been confronted with lacking identity documents, predominantly observable among applicants from African countries. In some cases, identity documents were intentionally destroyed or withheld from the authorities in order to avoid being identified. If credible identity documents are lacking, the identification procedure can become complicated and resource consuming, and the responsible authorities, especially the Police, have a limited set of methods and means available (provided for in the Asylum Law). [less ▲]