References of "Sommarribas, Adolfo 50003120"
     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: 51 (6 UL)
Full Text
See detailBeneficiaries of international protection travelling to their country of origin: Challenges, Policies and Practices in the EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2018)

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin ... [more ▼]

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin or come into contact with national authorities of their country of origin, and information on cases where international protection statuses were ceased leading to, for example, the status being ended, revoked or not renewed (as per Article 45 and 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive) and, ultimately, the permission to stay withdrawn. For the Luxembourgish case, it is firstly important to note that beneficiaries of the refugee status and of the status of subsidiary protection are not subject to the same restrictions with regard to travel to the country of origin or contact with national authorities. While refugees are in principle not permitted to travel to the country of origin, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not subject to this restriction. In this context, the phenomenon of beneficiaries of the refugee status travelling to their country of origin is currently not considered a policy priority in Luxembourg. While it does occur, there are no statistics providing information on how many refugees undertake this journey or contact the national authorities, on the reasons for travel to the country of origin, nor is there any case law on the cessation of the refugee status for reasons of travel to the country of origin. Luxembourg’s authorities are not systematically informed of such events by the authorities of other Member States. Luxembourg has no external borders with the exception of the international airport of Luxembourg, from where only an extremely limited number of flights to third countries depart. Thus, it is extremely difficult to capture the extent of the phenomenon in Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s Asylum Law establishes the re-availment of the protection of the country of origin and the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin as grounds for cessation of the refugee status. Travel to the country of origin or contact with its national authorities are not explicitly forbidden by legislation. In principle, refugees are not permitted to travel back to the country of origin. They are provided with this information on multiple occasions: for instance at the moment of the introduction of their application, as well as when they are issued the decision granting them protection. Their travel document also clearly states the restriction. There is no notification or authorisation procedure that would authorise such travel in Luxembourg. When the Directorate of Immigration has the information that a refugee travelled back to the country of origin, it will proceed to an in-depth analysis of the personal situation of the individual. Determining that this travel is proof of the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin is however considered extremely difficult, as it is nearly impossible to ascertain the reasons for which the refugee returned. Furthermore, a short stay in the country of origin is not necessarily considered like the (permanent) establishment in the country of origin or a proof thereof. This is also due to the fact that the Luxembourgish authorities cannot contact the authorities of the country of origin and have no tools to undertake an investigation there in order to verify that the refugee has re-established him/herself. The travel and the surrounding circumstances can be taken into account if the minister decides to re-examine the validity of the status, which could potentially lead to a withdrawal. The Directorate of Immigration has never considered ceasing protection because a refugee contacted the authorities of the country of origin. Proving that this contact occurred in the first place, and next, proving that it constitutes a re-availment of the protection of the country of origin, is considered nearly impossible. In addition, it is a fact that certain administrative procedures require the production of official documents and that the substitution of these documents with affidavits are in practice not always feasible. As previously mentioned, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are authorised to travel back to their country of origin and are permitted to contact the authorities of their country of origin. They are even encouraged to contact the national authorities in order to obtain a national passport. These actions can thus not lead to the cessation of the status of subsidiary protection. If the decision to cease the status is taken, the beneficiary is notified of this decision in writing. The decision can be appealed before the First instance Administrative Court. If the decision of the Court is negative, the individual can file an appeal before the Second instance Administrative Court. In principle, the decision to cease international protection carries a return decision. However, the individual can apply for another residence permit if s/he fulfils the conditions established in the Immigration Law. The same is true for family members who got a residence permit through family reunification with the concerned person: the family members will lose their right to stay unless they can gain access to another residence permit under the Immigration Law. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 41 (6 UL)
Full Text
See detailLabour Market Integration of Third-Country Nationals in EU Member States
Petry, Ralph UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2018)

Luxembourg is characterized by a very specific demographic situation with 47,9% of its resident population being non-Luxembourgish nationals as of 1 January 2018. This particular circumstance makes ... [more ▼]

Luxembourg is characterized by a very specific demographic situation with 47,9% of its resident population being non-Luxembourgish nationals as of 1 January 2018. This particular circumstance makes Luxembourg the EU Member State with the highest share of non-citizens residing on its territory. At the same time, around 85% of the foreign population are citizens of another EU Member State, leading to the fact that third-country nationals constitute only 7,3% of the total resident population of Luxembourg, the lowest share of foreigners coming from a third-country in the European Union. Integration is defined in national legislation as a ‘two-way process by which the foreigners shows their will to participate on a long-term basis to the host society, which, in turn, takes all the necessary measures at the social, economic, political, and cultural levels, to encourage and facilitate this approach. Integration is a task that the State, municipalities and civil society achieve together’. In addition to this legal provision, several strategic documents, most notably the multi-annual national action plan on integration 2018, or PAN integration, published in July 2018, make reference to integration and its definition. The PAN integration provides the framework for the programs and tools favouring the social cohesion of Luxembourgish and non-Luxembourgish nationals and the overall national integration policy by identifying five priority domains, one of which explicitly relates to the reinforcement of employability of non-Luxembourgish nationals. Generally speaking, employment is viewed as a core element of the overall integration process, making both the access to as well as the integration into the Luxembourgish labour market a key element in becoming a part of society. At the same time, this access to and integration into the labour market pose a challenge, particularly to third-country nationals, as the statistics show that their employment rate is lower than that of Luxembourgish nationals or citizens of another EU Member State. Third-country nationals are predominantly occupied in the accommodation and food service activities sector, followed by the administrative and support service activities sector and the wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles sector. A closer look at the evolution of the sectors employing third-country nationals over the last years, however, indicates that in particular the information and communication technologies sector, the professional, scientific and technical activities sector and the financial and insurance activities sector register the most significant growth rates, leading to a development that seem to indicate a ‘double immigration’ of (highly) skilled migrants on the one hand and less or low skilled migrants in the more traditional economic sectors on the other hand. In regard to the general integration approach as well as the labour market integration policy, this study shows that Luxembourg does have not have a specific policy/strategic document/model in place that only focusses on third-country nationals. All political documents (laws and strategic documents such as the PAN 2010-2014 and the new PAN integration of 2018) and public measures (Welcome and Integration Contract (CAI), linguistic leave, support measures provided by the National Employment Agency (ADEM), measures facilitating school integration, electoral registration campaigns, etc.) are aimed at all foreign nationals without distinguishing between EU nationals and third-country nationals. It is the Immigration Law that provides the legal framework regarding the various grounds of migration for economic purposes. Additionally, the legislator aims to be attractive for certain categories of migrants coming to Luxembourg for economic purposes in order to meet the needs of the country’s economic development (via legislative measures such as the European Blue Card, the ‘investor’ residence permit or the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde). This being said, this study will present examples of practices that have been identified as good practices in the context of the topic of labour market integration of third-country nationals, despite the fact that they, for the most part, do not fit 100% into the pre-set structure of the study template at hand. In section 2.2, three Member State measure are presented, the first of which is the linguistic leave, a specific form of additional special leave that is accessible for salaried and independent workers of all nationalities, resident or non-resident, to learn or perfect the command of the Luxembourgish language. This legislative measure was introduced by law in 2009 with the intention to facilitate the integration of the beneficiaries into society through the labour market. The second measure is the AMIF-project ‘InSitu JOBS’ by the non-governmental organisation CLAE asbl (with co-financing from the Luxembourgish State). This project, which ended in April 2018 was targeted at third-country nationals within the scope of this study as well as at beneficiaries of international protection by providing them information and counselling in the context of access and integration into the Luxembourgish labour market. The third measure was also an AMIF-project and consists of a practical guide that was developed and drafted by IMS Luxembourg, a network of Luxembourgish companies, in order to provide information on how to hire and integrate third-country nationals. As for the private sector measures in section 2.3. of this study, research of secondary resources as well as consultations with various relevant stakeholders proved to be rather difficult in terms of finding private sector initiatives that specifically target at supporting or facilitating the labour market integration of third-country nationals within the scope of this study. Two measures were selected in this context, the first consisting of a specific recruitment method (simulation-based recruitment method) by a large international company which allows them to evaluate various different profiles of people that are not necessarily detectable through the classic CV-based recruitment methods. The second measure is a business guide developed by the American Chamber of Commerce Luxembourg and aims to promote and facilitate the establishment of new business in Luxembourg by providing information on everything that entrepreneurs and international companies need to know in this context. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 66 (9 UL)
Full Text
See detailImpact of visa liberalisation on countries of destination
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2018)

Historically, Luxembourg has developed during the last 68 years strong links with the Western Balkan countries. In 1970, a labour agreement was signed between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Former ... [more ▼]

Historically, Luxembourg has developed during the last 68 years strong links with the Western Balkan countries. In 1970, a labour agreement was signed between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia to provide for workers to come to work in Luxembourg. This bilateral agreement created a diaspora from the Western Balkans in Luxembourg. Montenegrin nationals represent the largest third-country national population while the Serbians and the Bosnians represents the 3rd and 4th largest nationality groups. There has been a significant number of naturalisations from the West Balkan countries during the last 10 years. This diaspora was a significant “pull factor” during the Yugoslav Wars (1991-1999) and the economic crisis of 2008. This study was unable to verify direct and automatic links between the entering into force of the visa liberalisation agreements with the West Balkans countries and Eastern Partnership countries and an impact for Luxembourg. The large majority of increases, independently if it is legal migration, irregular migration or international protection did not occur during the next year following the entering into force of the agreements. These increases occurred generally during the second year or later. Concerning visa liberalisation agreements with the Western Balkan countries, the first findings are a dramatic increase of international protection applicants from those countries since the agreements came into force. In the international protection field and in the framework of the return decisions, the visa liberalisation agreement had a negative impact generating stress for all the public administrations during 2011 and 2012, which have to deal with international protection and the return mechanism. During 2011, there was a significant increase of applicants from Macedonia and Serbia and in 2012 from Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This situation placed the Luxembourgish authorities under significant stress to deal with this significant inflow of applicants, whose applications were, in the large majority of cases (80%), rejected. However, this situation obliged the Luxembourgish government to take measures in order to deal in a very efficient manner with these inflows of international protection applicants as well as to overhaul the entire international protection procedure. These measures can be divided into two different: procedural measures and implementation measures. The most significant procedural measures are: a) the introduction of the fast track procedure and the implementation of the ultra-expedite procedure; b) the introduction of these countries in the list of safe countries of origin. These measures allow the authorities to deal more efficiently with the massive influx of international protection applicants coming from the region. The implementation measures are: a) No access to social aid for the applicant benefiting from a commitment to cover all expenses by a Luxembourg national, EU citizen or TCN residing in Luxembourg; b) substantial decrease in monthly cash amounts of social aid for adult individuals and households; c) Recruitment and reallocation of staff in the Directorate of Immigration and the Luxembourg Reception and Integration office; d) implementing the Assisted voluntary return Balkans (AVR Balkans) which only covers the return bus ticket; and e) strengthen cooperation with the authorities of the Western Balkan countries. During 2017, there was an increase in the number of international protection applicants from Georgia and Ukraine, even though both countries are included in the list of safe countries of origin. As Luxembourg does not have external borders with the exception of the International Airport, it is not possible to obtain pertinent information concerning the detection of irregular entries in the territory. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that some individuals from these countries have taken advantage of the visa liberalisation agreements to come to work irregularly in Luxembourg, even if it is not possible to quantify the scale of the phenomenon. The findings of this study do not show an increase in the number of applications for authorisation of stay or residence permits (remunerated and study activities), so the EU visa liberalisation agreements did not have any impact in the legal migration field. The increase of application was visible after the second year of entering into force of these agreements but the numbers were not significant in regard with number of applications made by third-country nationals during the same period. However, the short-stay visits (i.e. friends, family, tourism, etc.) seem not only to have been facilitated, but also increased. In some cases, these short-visits have also been used not only to visit family and friends but also to be familiarized with the Luxembourgish society and to explore job opportunities and look for housing. This is probably the only positive impact that the visa liberalization agreements have had. Seen that the visa liberalisation agreements only allow travelling without a visa, but they do not allow working and staying in the country, and based on the data collected there is not possible to establish a link between them and any significant impact with regard to economy and to criminality (especially related to traffic of human beings or smuggling, where the numbers are very low and not directly related in most cases to nationals concerned by this study). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 65 (8 UL)
Full Text
See detailDetecting Document Fraud
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL

Report (2018)

The high numbers and mixed flows of migrants entering the EU during the migration crisis in recent years has meant that the effective identification of third-country nationals has become a concern of ... [more ▼]

The high numbers and mixed flows of migrants entering the EU during the migration crisis in recent years has meant that the effective identification of third-country nationals has become a concern of increasing importance. One of the main issues around the use of documents to establish identity has been the risk of document fraud. This includes the production and use by third-country nationals of false documents, as well as the use of fraudulently obtained genuine documents (‘FOG’s) in procedures relating to entry and stay in Member States. The examination of documents such as passports and other travel documents are only part of identification procedures; however, given that they may contain biometric information such as facial image and iris data, the role they play in identification is significant. Where third-country nationals are unable to fulfil the criteria for legal entry using legitimate documents and channels, or seek to disguise or assume a different identity, document fraud can open alternative channels to entering Member States. In terms of understanding the scale of and trends in document fraud, according to Frontex’s Risk Analysis Report 2018, Member States reported some 6 700 third-country nationals presenting false documents at the EU / Schengen borders in 2017, and identified this as the lowest number of detections since 2013.1 The decreasing trend at the border, however, contrasts with an increase of 9% in detections within the EU/Schengen area, the second highest number of detections since 2013.2 This Inform aims to establish the current state of play in detecting document fraud perpetrated by third-country nationals intending to enter and stay in the EU Member States and Norway, including in the context of asylum procedures. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 52 (10 UL)
Full Text
See detail(Member) States' Approaches to Unaccompanied Minors Following Status Determination
Petry, Ralph UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Adao Do Carmo, Kelly UL et al

Report (2018)

The legal framework in Luxembourg does not provide a specific legal status for unaccompanied minors (hereafter UAM), which is why the large majority of them apply for international protection. This allows ... [more ▼]

The legal framework in Luxembourg does not provide a specific legal status for unaccompanied minors (hereafter UAM), which is why the large majority of them apply for international protection. This allows them to stay in the country and to benefit from social and legal assistance, as well as from accommodation. Cases of UAMs presumed or identified victims of human trafficking are rare in Luxembourg. Overall, specific legal frameworks exist according to the status of the UAM: The Law on Asylum, the Law on Immigration and the Law on victims of trafficking in human beings. This framework is completed by general provisions of the Youth Protection Law, which applies to all minors independent of their immigration or legal status. Until the influx of applicants for international protection in 2015 and 2016, the phenomenon of unaccompanied minors has been relatively small in Luxembourg. Particularly 2015 was marked by a high number of UAMs applying for international protection, with 102 introductions of applications compared to 31 applications in 2014. Since, the number of applications has stabilised over the last two years, with 51 applications in 2016 and 50 applications in 2017. In 2015, Afghanistan and Albania were the leading countries of origin of UAMs. In 2016, Afghanistan was still the leading country of origin, followed by Morocco. In 2017, the profiles of the UAMs changed again, with Albania and Morocco as leading countries of origin. In Luxembourg, UAMs are predominantly boys and a large majority is close to the age of majority, or have already reached the age of majority, when a final decision on their application for international protection is issued. However, the Directorate of Immigration reported that they were confronted with a new phenomenon in 2017, namely the arrival of very young UAMs aged between 12 and 14. Every UAM, whether s/he files an application for international protection or not, will be assigned an ad-hoc administrator as soon as possible in order to assist him/her in all legal proceedings. In addition to the designation of an ad-hoc administrator, the organisations that accommodate the UAMs applying for international protection usually request the guardianship (either institutional or personal guardianship) of the UAM who has introduced his application. Different from the ad-hoc administrator, the guardian is assisting and supporting the UAM in all daily life affairs, such as social guidance, integration, education, medical care, acquisition of language skills, leisure activities, etc. In regard to education, the overall aim in Luxembourg is to integrate migrant children, independent of their immigration status, into the general educational system as soon as possible. The latter has experienced a diversification of its offer with a number of specialised measures and services. Together with leisure and extracurricular activities, school is considered to be one of the main contributors to the overall well-being and integration of UAMs into the Luxembourgish society. There are no integration measures that specifically target UAMs. There are no specific transition measures or procedures for UAMs who are approaching their majority, neither in regard to the accommodation and guardianship arrangements, nor in the general context of integration. The organisations responsible for the accommodation and care of the UAMs provide them with a supervision and support according to their specific individual needs. This is also true for the respective legal framework of the UAM, including eventual extensions of residence permits. The return of UAMs is considered to be rare in the Luxembourgish context. As mentioned earlier, this is related to the fact that the large majority of UAMs applying for international protection are close to the age of majority or have already reached majority when a final decision on their application is issued. Furthermore, although foreseen by the Immigration Law, Luxembourg does not carry out forced returns of persons considered to be unaccompanied minors. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), responsible for (assisted) voluntary returns, reported that they have approximately one voluntary return of an UAM every two years. In 2017, following the recommendation of the evaluation of the Schengen acquis in the area of return in Luxembourg, the government adopted the creation of a new commission with the function of assessing the best interest of the child in the context of return of UAMs. This commission entered into force at the beginning of 2018 and is composed of members of the prosecution service, the National Childhood Office (ONE), the Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI), and finally the Directorate of Immigration, which is chairing the commission. In addition, the ad-hoc administrator is invited to attend the commission meeting for the minor s/he represents. Based on the elements of his/her application, an individual opinion assessing the best interest of the child, in the context of his/her return, will be given for each minor. One of the major reported challenges is the appointment of legal representatives of UAMs (ad-hoc administrator and guardian), as well as the lack of precision of the legal provisions in this context. In the context of return, the Directorate of Immigration reported that they are faced with challenges in regard to getting in contact with the respective countries of origin as well as in regard to cases of applicants not telling the truth. One of the main good practices that has been identified by a number of stakeholders are the new care and accommodation arrangements, allowing to house UAMs in specifically dedicated reception facilities with a 24/7 supervision, depending on the availability of these facilities. In the same context, it was reported that it is of great importance to provide the minors with an environment of trust and support, to listen to them and to reassure them in order to be able to understand their current situation. Particularly the approach of supporting them in elaborating a life plan or life project (“projet de vie”) is considered as being very important for the stability and general well-being as well as for the integration of the UAMs. In addition, it is also important to support them in other matters of integration, such as education, acquisition of language skills, extracurricular activities, etc. In the context of return, Directorate of Immigration reported the newly concluded agreement with IOM in order to conduct family assessments of UAMs in the countries of origin as a good practice. On the one hand, this assessment is one element that will be taken into consideration in the examination of the application of the minor. On the other hand, it helps in assessing the best interest of the child in the event of a return if the application is rejected. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 62 (8 UL)
Full Text
See detailHandling the E-Grants in the Participation Portal
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Mokhtari, Nadine UL

Conference given outside the academic context (2018)

Detailed reference viewed: 56 (11 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Temporary Reintroduction of Border Controls Inside the Schengen Area: Towards a Spatial Perspective
Evrard, Estelle UL; Nienaber, Birte UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL

in Journal of Borderlands Studies (2018)

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris (November 2015) and Brussels (March 2016), several EU Member States have decided to re-establish border controls or to build walls inside the Schengen Area ... [more ▼]

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris (November 2015) and Brussels (March 2016), several EU Member States have decided to re-establish border controls or to build walls inside the Schengen Area. Although these decisions are temporary and legally framed by the Schengen code, their extent disrupts the free movement within the Schengen Area, in particular in border areas. While lawyers and economists have analyzed the impacts of this situation, the spatial perspective has remained rather neglected. This exploratory contribution aims to address this gap in the literature by outlining the spatial significance of reintroduced controls for border areas inside the Schengen Area. This contribution firstly undertakes a literature review of the different conceptual tools at hand. These are then compared with a set of exploratory empirical materials. The article focuses more precisely on the Greater Region where France and Germany have reintroduced border controls, thus disrupting in particular daily cross-border flows with Luxembourg and Belgium. The analysis demonstrates that the border acts as a filter, disrupting cross-border flows and cooperation. Also, it sheds some light on the important role played by the ideational perception of the border for practitioners and decision-makers. This contribution concludes by suggesting several paths for a future research agenda. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 268 (31 UL)
Full Text
See detailL’IDENTIFICATION DES VICTIMES DE LA TRAITE DES ÊTRES HUMAINS LORS DES PROCÉDURES DE PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE ET DE RETOUR FORCÉ
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 87 (13 UL)
Full Text
See detailMigration internationale au Luxembourg - SOPEMI Report 2017
Tüske, Annamaria UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2017)

Suite au pic constaté en 2015, le nombre de demandes de protection internationale a légèrement diminué en 2016, passant de 2 447 en 2015 à 2 035 en 2016 (soit une baisse de 16,8 %). Malgré le ... [more ▼]

Suite au pic constaté en 2015, le nombre de demandes de protection internationale a légèrement diminué en 2016, passant de 2 447 en 2015 à 2 035 en 2016 (soit une baisse de 16,8 %). Malgré le ralentissement de la tendance, ces chiffres restent supérieurs aux niveaux de 2013-2014. Les ressortissants syriens sont toujours la première nationalité de demandeurs de protection internationale (14,3 %), les ressortissants irakiens chutent à la 4ème place (7,9 %), après les ressortissants albanais (11,2 %) et kosovars (10,2 %). Le Luxembourg continue d’occuper la 4ème place parmi les Etats membres en termes d’accueil de demandeurs de protection internationale par rapport à sa population nationale. Le taux de reconnaissance de protection internationale est passé de 228 (200 statuts de réfugiés et 28 protections subsidiaires) en 2015 à 790 (764 statuts de réfugiés et 26 protections subsidiaires) en 2016. Ces chiffres représentent une augmentation de 246,5 % des décisions positives par rapport à 2015. Le Luxembourg continue de démontrer sa solidarité à l’égard de la relocalisation et de la réinstallation des demandeurs de protection internationale. En 2015, le Luxembourg s’est engagé à relocaliser 557 personnes sur son territoire dans le cadre de la décision du Conseil européen de relocaliser 160 000 demandeurs de protection internationale depuis la Grèce et l’Italie. Dans ce contexte, 197 réfugiés ont été relocalisés fin 2016. Entre janvier 2017 et août 2017, le Luxembourg a relocalisé 186 personnes. Sur le plan de la réinstallation, 52 réfugiés ont été réinstallés depuis la Turquie en 2016, suite à l’engagement du Luxembourg de réinstaller 194 réfugiés en provenance de Turquie dans le cadre de l’accord UE-Turquie du mois de mars 2016. 115 personnes ont été réinstallées entre le 1er janvier 2017 et le 18 août 2017. De nouvelles lois sont entrées en vigueur en 2016/2017 qui concernent la situation migratoire du Luxembourg. Des évolutions politiques d’envergure ont porté sur la mise en œuvre de changements apportés à la législation et aux procédures d’asile, à l’éducation et à la réforme linguistique ainsi que sur des mesures d’intégration révisées en réponse à l’évolution des profils de migration au Luxembourg. L’accent mis sur la migration économique a permis de promouvoir la diversification économique et le repositionnement du centre financier. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 158 (16 UL)
See detailWieder-Errichtung von Grenzkontrollen in Europa? Einige Gedanken zur Großregion
Nienaber, Birte UL; Evrard, Estelle UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL

Conference given outside the academic context (2017)

Detailed reference viewed: 42 (3 UL)
Full Text
See detailInternational Migration in Luxembourg - SOPEMI Report 2017
Tüske, Annamaria UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 125 (16 UL)
Full Text
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: 42 (8 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: 66 (1 UL)
Full Text
See detailChallenges and practices for establishing applicants’ identity in the migration process
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Petry, Ralph UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 59 (16 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: 136 (12 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: 306 (49 UL)
Full Text
See detailRetour de demandeurs de protection internationale déboutés: défis et bonnes pratiques
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Dionisio, Linda UL; Marcus, Noemie 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 Réseau européen des migrations intitulée « Retour de demandeurs de protection ... [more ▼]

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du Réseau européen des migrations intitulée « Retour de demandeurs de protection internationale déboutés: défis et bonnes pratiques ». L’étude se situe dans le contexte de l’accroissement récent des demandes des personnes en recherche de protection et des demandeurs de protection internationale (ci-après dpi) déboutés. Elle s’intéresse plus particulièrement aux raisons qui font que les dpi déboutés ne peuvent ou ne veulent retourner ainsi qu’aux mesures adoptées par les États Membres pour faciliter et encourager les retours. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 51 (3 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: 124 (20 UL)